[Discussion] *** and Violence

[Escorpiius]

Actually, I think this whole subject is in the grounds of what my teacher would call "truth".

Listen up, everybody, because this is something you don't hear every day. Truth is subjective. Something one believes to be true is based solely on something one has been taught (usually from childhood). Just because you believe something to be true, does not make it so. If you're taught something, then that means your perception is based on that.

If we're taught that *** is "evil" or "obscene" in some way, then that is what we'll believe. If we're taught that a person's nakedness is obscene, then we'll always believe it is. If we're taught that drugs or alcohol is bad, then even if we use it, we still think it to be so.

This is what this discussion boils down to: if you're taught something as a child, then you will never depart from it. If we merely re-evaluated the situation without bias, then maybe, just maybe, we could arrive at a conclusion that would be more beneficial.

Good point but here's the catch.

"If we're taught that *** is "evil" or "obscene" in some way, then that is what we'll believe."

That's exactly that! Vulgar erotic/carnal scenes are a deceitful teaching of how *** is. If it were to be allowed, it will end up corrupting people's mind.

*** shouldn't be taught as something obscene. We should take into consideration that life works upon the reproduction cycle. By such, it's something that shouldn't taught to be evil. It should be dealt with utmost precaution as it's something nearly everyone is going to be indulged someday.

That's one major demarcation from *** and violence. *** education is something that should be spread in a positive way. That's why reason, porn is shunned into public TV. It's mostly all negative.

In that logic, violence shouldn't be spread at all as there's no positive or negative terminal way to spread it in any case. So, why are media entertainment so liberal to give access to it?

Well, as you said, whatever we are taught, our perception and curiosity resolves around that. However, violence is such a case where we can't depict it's true nature. It got no real bounds. How can we choose between negative/positive violence? So, how can we teach something to someone if we don't know its real bounds?

That's why media entertainment presents violence in a non-censored way; in the hope that people form a perception about violence. What can't be taught with words, is taught with visuals. Still, it's gone to an extent that's way too liberal and that's the wrong side of the coin. Liberal to an extent of being ultra-damaging.

Sure, in a jolly good world, violence is a complete negative thing. But too many ideals and concepts and political regimes depict positive sides of it. Not everyone agrees with Gandhi's ideals, you know. On the other hand, *** is pure. *** education should be taught with equal purity and tact. However, in whichever world, porn/eroticism depicts a wrongful side that is just obscene education.

In short, we lives in a world that shunned porn since it knows its damaging potential but never shunned violence since it doesn't know the extent of damage that it may cause. This ignorance led to a complete liberation of violence on TV; a liberation that may be too late to be stop now.

I agree, swapping violence for *** is outragious indeed. Neither should be shown in my opinion, I'm just wondering why violence (which is obiously more damaging than ***) is acceptable over the other. I still do think that proper sexual education is beneficial.

Violence over someone is indeed way more damaging (it's such a small word) than *** on someone.

Yet, when depicted by entertainment medium (TV, books ect...), *** corrupts someone way more than violence if you ask me. The mind perversion with vulgar scenes is almost immediate while even it's not the same case with violent scenes. Sure, it's bad to showcase them in such a liberal way but still, it isn't an instant corrupter.

 

[Sophie Ezra]

Agreed. I was expecting more of a wallie from you, but this will do. xd Sorry, I didn't mean for that to rhyme. xd

Thank you & that is okay and there not much i can say that has not been said already thats why i said what i said.

 

[aunhyuga]

I am sorry to say that i don't agree.
I agree on the point of avatrs showing nudit but if they are not showing nipples, its ok, i mean what's the difference between nudity without nipples and with them ?
*** is something to be done at mature age or mostly after marriage that's why its not shown much , Basically *** before marriage is rape (Please don't flame me on this point,all i am saying is in Ethical,Ideal society this should be the norm) but nowadays the sense has change While violence ,Well, every kid is taught from beginning that violence is bad and when they do see it in the Movies they intimate much and also, In movies its basically shown that the bad guys start violence and then Batman or spiderman or whatever answers it , so the message is Self-Defence not violence and The violent one is shown killed,captured etc in the end discouraging violence .

 

[ANBU Kakashi23]

Okay, so what about *** and violence? What I want to know is why it's okay to show gore and mutilation on tv, but showing a woman's nipple is just too much. There has to be a real reason for this. Violence is a major problem in society, so why show so much of it all over the place? I haven't heard of *** being a problem unless it's rape, but half of the time I think rape happens because *** is shunned so much, especially with kids who grow up thinking *** is a problem for some reason.

A parent will take their little kid to see a PG-13 movie like Batman, Spiderman or even back in the day when the LotR movies came out. So violence is okay for a young child to see, but if it was a movie about *** then there's no way a parent would let them see it. I get that there needs to be something to entertain the audience, so why not swap out violence for ***, it's a lot safer since now the kids won't be thinking about killing people.

Also, on NB for example (not that I'm picking on NB, just an example), it's okay for people to have signatures and avatars ect. with girls exposing rather large portions of their breasts. It's okay as long as the nipple isn't shown, so basically a pasty will do. However, a man can be shown topless with nothing covering his nipples... did I miss something? would it be okay if someone photoshopped a man's nipples onto a woman's breasts and showed that? They'd be cover her real ones, so that should be okay, right? (I'm being sarcastic to drive my point home )

So what is it about this? Why all the wierdness? Oh, and also, it's okay to have a woman wearing panties, but if you take those off there's a problem. Newsflash, there's not that much to see, just like with nipples. I can almost understand not wanting to show a man's genitals because that's just...nasty, but there's nothing so intense about a naked woman, it's highly overrated actually.

Ultimately, why is it that someone's guts being ripped from their body while they scream in agony okay, but a nudity isn't? A person's insides are a lot more gross and revolting than a person's outsides.

i like the way you think, i honestly i cant think of one good reason why theres such rampant sexually repression in our society, while absurd amounts of violent material can be found in almost ever facet of information sharing, it feels like the people who make policy are still living with their 1950's ideals and gender roles and are trying to impress that on our generation

honestly, thats the reason why people grow up with delusional fear mongered ideas about the opposite *** because for some unknown reason society has beat it into their head that certain things about their body's are obscene and offensive and we wonder why people get screwed in the head, insecure, and have horrible self image, were taught to feel shame for things everyone has everywhere, unless theres a disease that makes your nipples fall off, i wouldnt know about that, but generally i feel like if we were less repressed with the comfort of ours and others bodies and didnt treat it as taboo the world would be a better place

 

[Shinobi Train]

I must say that I'm really enjoying everyone's opinions so far. I wish I had time to respond to some right now, but sadly I don't. U_U So I'll do it as soon as possible.

Also, keep in mind that I'm mostly trying to ask why *** is shunned and violence is glorified. Either present both equally or not at all is my opinion (basically, but that doesn't really explain my position well enough).