Sexual content vs. violence

[bobtheenchantedone]

There's another tangent I want to go on (though this one is slightly more related than breastfeeding): what is appropriate for kids, and how that should change what is available. I recently was in a Relief Society lesson that really bugged me for several reasons, and one of them was that this comment was made: "I suddenly realized that I wouldn't want to show this to my little nephew, so why was I watching it?" The answer I wanted to give is because, gasp, different levels of mature material are appropriate for different ages. Just because a six-year-old shouldn't watch it doesn't mean it shouldn't be watched at all, and I think it can be not only difficult but damaging to try to consume only media that is appropriate for a grade school kid. I have seen at least one R-rated movie that I found appropriate for me to watch, though it was too mature for most of my younger siblings.

[Katya]

There's another tangent I want to go on (though this one is slightly more related than breastfeeding): what is appropriate for kids, and how that should change what is available. I recently was in a Relief Society lesson that really bugged me for several reasons, and one of them was that this comment was made: "I suddenly realized that I wouldn't want to show this to my little nephew, so why was I watching it?" The answer I wanted to give is because, gasp, different levels of mature material are appropriate for different ages. Just because a six-year-old shouldn't watch it doesn't mean it shouldn't be watched at all, and I think it can be not only difficult but damaging to try to consume only media that is appropriate for a grade school kid. I have seen at least one R-rated movie that I found appropriate for me to watch, though it was too mature for most of my younger siblings.

I'm Katya and I endorse this statement.

[Katya]

There are series I love (such as Mistborn) that I'm torn as to whether I actually should love them or not. Should I recommend them? Should I even read them again? Should I own them? Should I let my children read them? At what age? It's a dilemma I've been trying to figure out for the last year or two.

When I'm trying to work through these sorts of questions, I don't focus on whether or not I should love something, but instead I focus on if they were an overall positive influence on me or if I was a better person for reading them. I can tell the difference in myself when I've read something that was the mental or emotional equivalent of junk food vs. something that was thoughtful and thought-provoking, even if some aspects of it were challenging or difficult to read.

If you hear Brandon Sanderson talk about the books, he's said that some parts of them were written in response to other media (particularly The Matrix) that he felt erred on the side of glorifying violence and making its consequences minimal, so he wanted all of the violence in Mistborn to have very real consequences for the world and for the characters. I think that comes through in the books and I respect what he tried to do with them, although I also accept that not every work that I love will have the same positive influence on everyone else. (I'm trying to avoid the word "tolerance" in this paragraph, because saying that you "tolerate" something implies that it's fundamentally bad, even if it doesn't have a strong effect on you. I believe that some content can be genuinely positive for some people and genuinely negative for others.)

Also, sometimes when I get caught up on trying to find the exact right balance or best choice in this sort of dilemma, what I really need to do is work on another variable, entirely. So, maybe God doesn't care if you own or reread Mistborn; maybe either path can take you to your best destiny. (Maybe the real best option is to stop worrying about fine-tuning this decision and focus on another area of growth, entirely.)

[Genuine Article]

I think it's important to give children movies they can grow into understanding. If you only give kids what they can understand, they never develop a keen, questioning mind or analytical thinking skills. We watched a lot of the same movies as my parents growing up, and I think that was a big part of why I went on to study film. There are obviously a lot of different theories about how we as people understand and interpret film, but one is that we pick up the gist of things as the film goes along. Our minds take all the pieces of what we're seeing and try to make sense of them based on what we've already seen and whatever we might already have in our own heads.

I think that in a lot of ways, kids are their own filter/regulator - if they don't understand what's happening in a film it's because they're being presented with something new and they have nothing to compare it to. So they'll try to get the gist and piece it together as best they can and then they'll settle for what they've come up with. Then, if they see that movie again after acquiring more information, or watch something similar, they'll understand better and more pieces will fall into place. I can't tell you the number of films I saw as a child that I've gone back and watched, only to find that they have a lot of swearing, or innuendos I never caught. Those things went right over my head, to the point where they never made it into the story as I saw it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that all (good) films have layers, meaning there's no one real version of any film, so it's possible for a film with a high rating to be suitable for young children, because they may literally be watching another film.

For example, in the Wallace and Gromit movie The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, there's a part where Wallace is wearing nothing but a box that says "nuts" on it. My in-laws were watching this in the theater, and when that happened they laughed heartily at the innuendo, but so did a lot of children. They wondered why, until one kid laughed and pointed and said, "He's wearing a box!" To that kid, it was funny for an entirely different reason, and he was watching an entirely different film than they were.

I plan on showing my kids good films, be they Disney or Tarantino, and because I a) believe I have good taste, b) want my kids indoctrinated with my sense of humor at a young age, and c) believe in different levels of understanding, I'm not going to worry too much about whether or not what I watch is also appropriate for my kids.

[wired]

There's another tangent I want to go on (though this one is slightly more related than breastfeeding): what is appropriate for kids, and how that should change what is available. I recently was in a Relief Society lesson that really bugged me for several reasons, and one of them was that this comment was made: "I suddenly realized that I wouldn't want to show this to my little nephew, so why was I watching it?" The answer I wanted to give is because, gasp, different levels of mature material are appropriate for different ages. Just because a six-year-old shouldn't watch it doesn't mean it shouldn't be watched at all, and I think it can be not only difficult but damaging to try to consume only media that is appropriate for a grade school kid. I have seen at least one R-rated movie that I found appropriate for me to watch, though it was too mature for most of my younger siblings.

Also endorsed. There was an EQ instructor who threw out the question, "If you would feel uncomfortable with your children or future children watching someone, do you really think you ought to watch it?" My immediate response is it completely depends on the nature of the media. My response was that there are parts of the Old Testament that I clearly would not my children to understand (Lot is supposed to have done what? His daughters did what? What does it mean he spilled his seed? She dressed up like a what and did what so she could accomplish what exactly?) just as there is media that I think can be enlightening, intellectually encouraging, and even edifying that some children shouldn't engage in.

As for the sexual content vs. violence, I think part of it comes down to the secondary effect that it has on the viewer. For instance, watching sex generally stimulates many men in a way that draws their mind to sex. (Which isn't saying anything about women dressing immodestly or anything along those lines - that's a discussion for a different post.) Whereas I think a lot of men (myself included) don't have any more predisposition to violence after watching something violent. (The effect is obviously different in children, but we're talking adults here.) In other words, a guy might be worried about watching a sex scene because it will draw his mind to thoughts about sex while watching violence won't have any after-effect other than telling the story.

All of that being said, I don't have a problem with violence in war movies, but almost throw up just reading about movies like Saw or other "torture porn" movies. I generally avoid any movie with non-tasteful nudity in it (e.g. sex scene nudity as opposed to the nudity in The Crucible) because of the secondary-effect idea I outline.

[Dragon Lady]

I so badly wanted to turn to my brother, point my finger at him, and say, "You are the reason breasts are sexualized. You are the reason your son will grow up having no idea that breasts can be functional.

Maybe he'll go on a mission to some place where breastfeeding in public is really common and then he'll get over it.

He has a 7-year old son. And he went to Denver. And he grew up on a farm. And he watched my mom breastfeed me. Like I said, he should know better. I am 100% certain that it's just living with his wife for so long, who is very, very anti-breastfeeding. But when married for 10ish years, you start to gain the views of your spouse.

[Katya]

I so badly wanted to turn to my brother, point my finger at him, and say, "You are the reason breasts are sexualized. You are the reason your son will grow up having no idea that breasts can be functional.

Maybe he'll go on a mission to some place where breastfeeding in public is really common and then he'll get over it.

He has a 7-year old son. And he went to Denver. And he grew up on a farm. And he watched my mom breastfeed me. Like I said, he should know better. I am 100% certain that it's just living with his wife for so long, who is very, very anti-breastfeeding. But when married for 10ish years, you start to gain the views of your spouse.

Actually, I meant that maybe your nephew will serve somewhere where breastfeeding is really common. (Alas, I agree that your brother is probably a lost cause.)

[Whistler]

I... have never met anyone who is anti-breastfeeding. I am speechless.

[Marduk]

Anti-breastfeeding? Or anti-displaying it in public and discussing it openly? I don't agree with DL's sister-in-law, but it certainly isn't the first time I've heard those opinions voiced.

On (the original) topic, I've enjoyed reading what everyone has to say (also, I enjoy the fact that a conflict which I initially presented to Bob has caused her enough thought that she's opened it up to the class, but that's a different point.)

A few questions for anyone who cares to answer:

Is there a necessity in media to show healthy relationships as also sexual? Or would it be better if they were more Leave it to Beaverish?

How about violence? To what extent do we have to deal with the reality of that in the media?

I'd like to expound on a point which Katya, by way of a Mr. Sanderson, introduced. To what extent are we required to display in our media, and by conjunction deal with personally, things in the world which we would rather not deal with? Ought I to see violent portrayals of war to make less abstract its awful consequences? Ought I to see sexuality in all its forms to define my reactions to it? Is this necessary, or does it have any place?

[Fredjikrang]

Personally, I see no reason for explicit depictions of either in the media, though both, if used tastefully and for a good purpose, can be effective in presenting a good story.

Now, as I've been sitting here considering Marduk's last question I have a question of my own. Do you all see a difference between showing the reality of cruelty and its consequences and fictional/reenactments of events? For instance (and forgive me if I am invoking Godwin's law here, I feel like the example is very practical) what is the place of pictures of WWII concentration camps (both foreign and domestic)? Or Gitmo photos? Or Hiroshima?

I feel like these are things that should be public, and that should be included in education, because they are a reality that we should be trying to avoid. However, I see no need for fiction to be as explicit.

And honestly, I can't think of any good reason why people should be exposed to explicit sexual content, in the same way that I can't think of a good reason why alcohol should be (even more) widely available.

(Interesting side note: How many "violence" addicts do you think there are, compared to "sex" addicts?)

[Dragon Lady]

Anti-breastfeeding? Or anti-displaying it in public and discussing it openly? I don't agree with DL's sister-in-law, but it certainly isn't the first time I've heard those opinions voiced.

Marduk, that's an interesting question. I can't say that I can tell you exactly how she feels (to avoid starting WW3 in my family (as she puts it), we mostly steer clear of the subject. A lot of what I know for fact I've heard from my brother) but I can tell you some things. She's definitely against it in public. Even a statue of a breastfeeding mother will throw her into fits. She has told me that she does not believe that breast milk is better than formula. When my kids have trouble sleeping, her first answer is always, "You should try formula. It takes longer to digest, so they sleep longer." The thought of breastfeeding her kids is a horrible thought, because it makes her feel like a cow. I know at one point she did consider breastfeeding, but ultimately decided against it. So it must not be the most horrible thing in the world. And while she may not abhor the idea, I'm pretty certain that she would have no qualms with the entire world using formula. In fact, she could probably see many advantages to that.

[NerdGirl]

There's another tangent I want to go on (though this one is slightly more related than breastfeeding): what is appropriate for kids, and how that should change what is available. I recently was in a Relief Society lesson that really bugged me for several reasons, and one of them was that this comment was made: "I suddenly realized that I wouldn't want to show this to my little nephew, so why was I watching it?" The answer I wanted to give is because, gasp, different levels of mature material are appropriate for different ages. Just because a six-year-old shouldn't watch it doesn't mean it shouldn't be watched at all, and I think it can be not only difficult but damaging to try to consume only media that is appropriate for a grade school kid. I have seen at least one R-rated movie that I found appropriate for me to watch, though it was too mature for most of my younger siblings.

Completely agree. I certainly wouldn't want my 3 year old nephew watching my anatomy review videos, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be watching them. One time when I was living in Halifax, someone was speaking in Stake Conference (either the mission president or the temple president - can't remember which), and he told the following story. A few years ago he had been a mission president in Germany, and his teenage grandkids came to visit. He was wanting to teach them all about the German culture, and there was a really good movie he wanted them to see. His grandson asked him what it was rated, and he said that it was PG-13. His grandson then said that he wouldn't be able to watch it, because he didn't watch PG-13 rated movies. He was really surprised, and for a while he felt like maybe he was a bad person and he was watching bad movies and he should change his standards to be as "high" as his grandson's standards. But then he got over his initial reaction and realized that there was nothing wrong with him personally watching PG-13 rated movies. It wasn't that his grandson was living a "higher" standard, or that his grandson was more spiritually fragile and couldn't handle certain things, but different people are just comfortable with different things and they make their choices accordingly and that's okay. It's not even a continuum of higher law vs. lower things in most cases - people just have different needs. I really liked that story. Some things are okay for adults and not kids, and when the kids get older, they might become okay with those things - or they might not. I just think that we need to do whatever we're comfortable with, and not judge others for having different comfort levels.

But it is still really sad that our society has sexualized breasts to the point where there are people who think that breastfeeding in public (or breastfeeding at all) is inappropriate. Maybe it's just all of the pro-breastfeeding indoctrination we seem to constantly hear in medical school (backed up by a lot of very good evidence, though), but I really wish that our society would make breastfeeding as easy as possible for women. I have nothing against people who use formula because they either can't or choose not to breastfeed, but it's really a problem when women want to breastfeed but feel like they can't because there is so much social pressure on them not to.

[Defy V]

I have a question about sex being okay in movies because it's natural. Do most people really just go and lie around with random reporters (think Iron Man) or beautiful wives of other men (James Bond)? And for that matter, urination is as a natural part of life as sex is, but you don't want to watch other people doing it.

[NerdGirl]

I have a question about sex being okay in movies because it's natural. Do most people really just go and lie around with random reporters (think Iron Man) or beautiful wives of other men (James Bond)? And for that matter, urination is as a natural part of life as sex is, but you don't want to watch other people doing it.

But generally in mainstream movies you're not actually watching people have sex. It's just being suggested by a lot of kissing and then rolling around under some blankets and then it's morning and the couple sits up in bed with the man topless and the woman holding the sheets up over her chest. And I've seen urination implied in movies, too.

[Marduk]

Also, I'm pretty sure people enjoy sex a lot more than they enjoy urination. Unless you have to go really really bad.

[NerdGirl]

Also, I'm pretty sure people enjoy sex a lot more than they enjoy urination. Unless you have to go really really bad.

We had this nephrology prof the other day who told us that he's seen so many people with kidney problems who can't pee on their own that it's made him start drinking water all day long so he can pee all the time. And every time he pees, he thanks God that he still can.

[bobtheenchantedone]

She has told me that she does not believe that breast milk is better than formula. When my kids have trouble sleeping, her first answer is always, "You should try formula. It takes longer to digest, so they sleep longer."

I saw that on facebook and wanted to say something, but thought that I would probably be messing in something I should leave alone. No need for me to argue with complete strangers like that.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I have a question about sex being okay in movies because it's natural. Do most people really just go and lie around with random reporters (think Iron Man) or beautiful wives of other men (James Bond)? And for that matter, urination is as a natural part of life as sex is, but you don't want to watch other people doing it.

Ditto what NerdGirl said, first of all, and second, the sex in those cases is helping to establish a type of character. That's something I may not have made clear before - it's not just that having sex is a natural part of life, but also that sex can be necessary to the story or characters. I mean, that's half the point of James Bond! And if urination is necessary to help establish a character or tell part of the story, bring it on.

[Portia]

Many of my favorite films could all pass the Hays Production Code: Singing in the Rain, Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, Double Indemnity, Finding Nemo. Real life is hard enough: I will take an Old Hollywood veneer on it any day over gritty realism.

I think film glamorizes sex and combat in ways that do not reflect reality well. I'd argue that's the whole point of fiction, though.

[krebscout]

I love this conversation. Thanks for being smart, everybody.

As someone who watches plenty of restricted movies and mature content (and I feel that I'm one of those people for whom it adds value to my personal life and character, when I separate the wheat from the chaff), I've recently watched something that was 1) A+ fiction, 2) incredibly and skillfully told, 3) had some intense, relevant, and downright important things to say, and 4), had an unconventional sexual aspect to it (crucial to the story) that has haunted me for days. I've seen things before that I wish I had not watched, mostly because it was garbage. But I've never before had the experience of watching QUALITY media, something challenging and smart and important, that I wish I had not watched. Just because of how it's affected my thoughts and daily life. And I think this experience has helped me understand how some people can have a lower tolerance for mature content, even if they understand that it's respectable and even admirable media.

In fact, I had recommended this show to a few people of similar taste shortly after I watched it, but now, a few days later, I feel like I need to warn them. In case it affects them the same way. And Sauron, who is about to wrap up his Master's in film and media studies, neither liked the show quite as much as I did nor was affected by it the way I was. He preferred the second episode...which was also top-notch. It's a BBC tv show, in case anyone was wondering.