Quote:
Originally Posted by Andsigil
And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.
|
Less harm than violence whether justified or not. And loving, committed sexual content less harmful still. More embarrassing to explain but very young children are probably just going to say eww!
I was amazed at how many very young children were taken to see the LOTR films in the cinema. Personally I though it was irresponsible but I wasn't going to be the one coping with the nightmares
.
Yes care should be taken about what children are exposed to especially in films/ on tv - books are to an extent "safer" because a child is less likely to have the capacity to read something that is much too old for it. The decision on what should not be based on parental prudishness - kids who live in the country are going to work it out soon enough - even if you throw the TV away. Eventually they will work out that those bullocks are not playing piggy back.
Noone is going to suggest swapping the telly tubbies for Antichrist but it seems bizarre to me that very mild sex scenes or nudity even in a non sexual context is seen as more damaging than violence. A lot of violence and sex in films is gratuitous and forgets that what is suggested is often more scary or erotic than that which is shown but if they are "apples and oranges" then the violence is worse. If you take a film such as Peter Weir's Witness where scenes of sex and violence are used in a way that is essential to the plot, is it really the tender. beautifully and discreetly shot love scenes that are going to be hard to explain and potentially damaging, or the murder and shoot out?