Censorship

There is freedom of speech...but a radio station is a privately owned business allowed to make it's own choices on what it does and does not allow on the air. If you told them they weren't allowed to blank it out, then THAT would be a lack of freedom of speech, IMO. Anyway, I'm of mixed feelings there...because I don't like the idea of some little kid flipping through the radio dial and coming across an unedited Jay-Z song, or something like that.

Well, what is wrong with sex TWT? I just can't believe that you would rather watch someone be shot in the head than see breasts in a movie. Sex is healthy, and 100% natural. I'm not sure if you're acknowledging this fact. (and about violence, I'm referring to the kind in action movies like Die Hard and Air Force One, where people are shot in the head and big things explode).

I think sex belongs in movies of a certain nature. For example, a sex scene in Air Force One would not only be silly and laughable, it would also make the audience uneasy - where did this come from? But sex scenes in movies in which sex is a necessary, and on occasion an unavoidable part of the story, are just fine. I guess I'm not really saying sex shouldn't be to some degree taboo, but when violence is championed (by the ratings board and others) instead, something is very wrong. Movies can get PG-13 ratings when buildings blow up in them, but if there's a breast or a sex scene, the movie gets a restricted rating.
Apparently it's okay for teenagers to see human suffering be demystified before their eyes, and not okay for them to see a perfectly healthy and beautiful thing.

Teenagers are going to have sex whether they see it in movies or not. That's undeniable, I'm sorry. And in movies that do have sketchy sexual practices, I highly doubt that the general population of teenagers would be willing enough to try them. Your entire argument is seeping with conservative idealism (let's not make this a political thing, though). PEOPLE HAVE SEX. TEENAGERS HAVE SEX.

(I'm not shouting, just emphasizing)

__________________
**** the Lakers!

He pulled out his veg-a-matic and talked some Chinese wok salesman into giving him a free wok and wound up cooking diner for eight?

He puled out his sausage, talked some unsuspecting girl into holding it for him and wound up in prison?

He pulled out his copy of TWT's Republican Guide to Movies, talked some fat cat into giving him $100 million and wound up making a movie about George Bush Jr's life?

What did he pull out? I want to know!!

What's wrong with sex? Sometimes nothing...and sometimes, lots of things. Premarital sex is probably a bad idea...one night stands are probably a bad idea...and stupid teenagers who have a lot to learn having sex is probably a bad idea, too. So let's not assume that all sex is nice and healthy and natural and good. There are good times for it, and bad times. One of those bad times is, for almost everyone, when you're younger. If you're under 17, you're probably going to be encouraged by things like that...

...but, as I mentioned in several posts already in this thread, people are obviously more likely to imitate sexual behavior than they are murder in an action movie. It's just easier to do so, basically...and it's not against the law.

Sex is natural...we are built for it. I sure hope you're not saying that sex is perfectly okay all the time, though...because it's not. It has it's place, like everything else, and I have no problem with younger teenagers being told they can't see it.

But it's not always beautiful. How many sex scenes in movies do you know of that are beautiful? You and I both know many of them are not beautiful, they are ugly, and just there to get someone excited. Now, I'm a teenage guy, and I find that appealing...it's the way I'm built...but I won't let that cloud my judgement, which says, very clearly, that it's gratuitous in most cases.

I think they most definitely would. Even if they wouldn't it's even LESS likely that they'll imitate murderers and such. It seems pretty obvious that they're more likely to imitate deviant sexual behavior, than they are the violence in an action movie. And by the way, I never said violence in a movie was perfectly acceptable either...I think it depends, but if I had to pick one for my kids to see, I'd choose violence.

Yeah, people have sex...but most don't do it on camera, and most shouldn't have it before they're 17. Keep in mind that a 17 year old guy can go see Striptease anytime he wants. A 13 year old can see Kate Winslet's breasts if he wants. There's an awful lot of sexual content already.

Idealism? C'mon. Liberalism is all about hopeless idealism. Conservatism is realism. Liberals say teens are going to have sex anyway, so why not give them condoms, and teach them how to use them? Why not let them watch sex on screen? Well here's the reality of it: if you're arguing that violence is a problem, then you can't deny that sex is, because people will become desensitized to BOTH if seen in that form. It works both ways.

Maybe you have this picture of a conservative in your mind, that says that we believe no teens ever have to have sex, if we just censor these things. Well, erase that picture from your mind, because no one is saying that, and I don't think anyone here will, either. Here's the truth: if kids are raised properly, this won't be an issue, but just because they are not raised with the maturity to wait, it doesn't mean we should throw in the towel, saying "oh well, they're gonna do it anyway." Bull! They're gonna make bad, irresponsible decisions, so we just accept it? Hey, my kids are gonna lie to me someday...NO doubt about that...but do I accept it? Why should I accept it?

The fact of the matter is that as much as you'd like to think teens are going to do whatever they want anyway, it simply isn't true. Yes, plenty that have sex will do so regardless, but is that really an argument for sex on screen? It encourages it...it's that simple. I don't think 17 is an unreasonable age at all. And besides, you can't see too much in terms of REALLY blunt violence in PG-13 movies. Braveheart was rated "R" for a reason.

Yeah, teens will have sex. Always. That doesn't mean we should encourage it...the least we can do is try to keep it to a minimum...just because there will always be those who do it, it doesn't mean we should encourage it, or give into it as a complete inevitabiliy...that'll only make it more common.

Chris, WHY do you think that having sex before 17 is so terrible? Even if they regret it later, teenagers have to make decisions for themselves sometimes. You said yourself that teenagers' bodies are built for it, and that's their mindset. Even if teens make poor decisions at the time, it's a part of growing up. People can make mistakes, but people can also have healthy relationships that involve sex before they're 17 as well.

Showing sex in movies isn't encouraging anything, it's just showing sex. It has to do with the mindset of that teenager, how he/she was raised, and ultimately what kind of person they are. You can show people whatever you want, how they react should be based on these factors.

Giving out condoms and having a proper sex education curriculum aren't encouraging sex, they're teaching about it. What it sounds like you're saying is that sex before marriage is an unnatural, unhealthy thing, and that we should teach abstinence instead. If this isn't idealism, I don't know what is.

[quote]Originally posted by TWTCommish

The fact of the matter is that as much as you'd like to think teens are going to do whatever they want anyway, it simply isn't true.

That most deffinetely is true! Think of it logicaly. Lets say someone hears about something or knows about something and wants to do it, they do it. Then lets say someone tells them not to do it, if that discouraged them then they won't go do it because they don't want to do it anymore. If someone discourages it and they still want to do it, then they will. If they want to do it, then they will go do it. If they don't want to go do it, then they won't go do it.

Humans are animals. They need to reproduce. One of the main ways the body encourages this act is because it rewards the body with pleasure. Females become fertile after the first menstration, which is around 11-13 years old. Males become fertile around the same age. Way back in the day, humans were getting busy at this age. Why not get busy at this age now? Because its seen as wrong. But is it wrong? It's natural. It being wrong is just a simple opinion. But why is it wrong Chris? Is it the act? Is it because of the age? Is it because of the consequences. It's got to happen at some point. To say doing it before age 17 or before marriage is just strange to me. Marriage is just a concept, sex is not. Marriage is something man created, it is an idea, whereas sex is natural. So being oposed to premarital sex is purely an idealogoy.

Are you oposed because people could get STDs? If so, then should you say people under 17 shouldnt be allowed to swim because they could drown, or that they should ride in cars because they could crash? It's the same thing basically. Having sex is a risk, it always is. Even if your married, it is still a risk. It's a risk people are willing to take.

Are you oposed to it because people could end up pregnant? Again, its just another risk. It's not like their bodies can't handle it. Giving birth at age 14 and giving birth at age 30 have the same outcome. If they can't support the child, adoption is always an option.

Now I don't like the idea of having sex at a young age, but thats just because of my personality. I don't like it when I hear a friend of mine just lost her virginity because then I feel like I'm missing out on something. It's not that I am oposed to the act itself, I'm just oposed to the idea that my friends are having sex with people other than me! lol.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

I didn't say it was so terrible...but let's be honest: in most cases, it's a bad choice. And yes, sometimes they do have to make decisions for themselves: but what has that got to do with anything? Making decisions for themselves, even if necessary, doesn't mean we must APPROVE of those decisions.

Now, understand that I am religious, and as such, I think sex before marriage is basically always a bad idea. However, setting my Faith aside, I think it's still a bad idea, with SOME exceptions...but I think you and I both know those exceptions are rare. Usually it's an impulsive thing done out of hormones, and not out of thought, or love. It's lust.

You said yourself that seeing violence "demystifies" human suffering...so why doesn't it work both ways? Doesn't sex on screen demystify sexual promiscuity?

And yes, maturity is what it's ALL about. You said, as I quoted above, that I myself said that their bodies are basically ready...and you're right! But that doesn't mean their minds are. I have a theory, which I've shared before here, that if a child is raised properly, they'll be ready to become an adult just as puberty is ending...ready to work for a living, and raise to get married, have sex, and raise a family. However, today's society has decided that you're not an adult until you're 18/21...long after most people have become physically mature. IMO, physical maturity and mental maturity should, if nurtured properly, evolve at the same rate, and complete their cycle at the same time. It all comes back to lack of adequate parenting in today's country.

So yeah, I see sex in movies, and I'm not going to be effected by it...but we both know a lot of people will. A lot of people are raised in such a way that they are very sensitive to suggestions like that. We just disagree on how to go about it, I suppose. But yes, in a world where almost all children were well-raised by their parents, we wouldn't have to worry about most people being exposed to this.

Why is abstinence idealism? Idealism would be assuming that everyone will become abstinent...but saying that teaching abstinence will HELP is perfectly realistic. There's a subtle, yet crucial, difference between the two.

Teaching about it? When you put a condom on a banana, you're practially simulating it. I have no doubt that many take this, conciously or otherwise, as a sense of authoratative approval of teenage sex...after all, they're showing you how to do it in full view of everyone! Obviously they don't mind.

Teaching sex, in THAT way, is definitely encouraging it. Who's more likely to have sex...a person who's a bit nervous about it, and doesn't know what to expect, or a person who knows what to expect, and knows how to have sex well?

Now, let me take this time to point out that I am ALL FOR making kids comfortable with sex...just not comfortable with sex at their age. I'm comfortable with it...my dad and I have talked openly about it several times, and I no longer shy away from it. In this household, we teach young children about sex very early, because they ought to know. They ought to get used to the concept, and be ready for it...but that's a very different thing from pretending it's okay for naive people acting on their impulses to have sex, and perhaps even produce a pregnancy. I will surely be teaching my kids about sex early and often...I just won't be encouraging it at such an age. When with a spouse, sex is amazingly beautiful...I believe it is a gift from God, to us. It's the ultimate expression of love, which is why it's a shame to see it tainted by people engaging in it for lust alone. That isn't love...and we want our children to see it as an act of love.

Like I said, though, if children were raised properly, they could get married younger, and relieve those sexual tensions. That's why we have these problems: we have people ready to have sex, who are mentally irresponsible in many ways. They need to get rid of all that sexual frustration, and today's society doesn't approve of them getting married to do so properly, because they're just not ready, mentally. It's a shame.

Ironically, that ties into the condoms: yes, I'll bet it cuts down on teen pregnancy in some ways...but in others, it might increase it, simply because more people will have sex in the first place. I DO, indeed, see the argument for it as a logical one...just not one I think makes sense in the end. I think right is right, and that showing kids these things only encourages more people to have sex at that age. Like I said, just because we can't stop them all, it doesn't mean we should start encouraging them. Just because some will be doing it no matter what, it doesn't mean we should pretend that it's all okay, and that it's inevitable that ALL people will.

Wha? You're telling me that people always do what they want? Yeah, right. We all hold back on certain urges because we know it's a bad idea. Teenagers will do what they want quite often, but sometimes what they WANT is to stay out of trouble.

I believe Marriage is mentioned in The Bible...I believe it is a concept from God. A formal unity. And yeah, people were getting busy at this age, but as I mentioned to Steve in the post before this one, kids are not ready in the same way. Kids can't work or marry normally at 16-17 like they used to be able to. So yeah, sex at this age is natural, assuming we didn't have the problems we do with parenting today.

Why is it wrong? Well, again, I'll set my Faith aside and act out of secularism: it's wrong because it's almost always a bad idea. How can it be good to do something that could potentially result in another human life if you're basing it on impulses and lust? Sex is about love, not lust. Or rather, it should be about love, and I see no goodness in encouraging kids to think of it in any other way.

Yeah, but adoption is only necessary -- it is not optimal. It's almost cruel to do that to a child...but it's better than the alternative (death).

Yeah, STDs. I didn't even think of them, quite frankly, but that's another reason against it. No, 17 year olds should not be told not to swim, but 5 year olds shouldn't be allowed to do so on their own. It's not as if 17 is the universal number for all. Certain things are too risky at certain ages. I wouldn't let a 3 year old swim, and I wouldn't let a 16 year old have impulsive sex. And besides, I think we both know the overwhelming majority of STDs are transmitted outside of marriage.

Ironically, I can relate. I think about it sometimes...technically, I could probably go out and have sex if I made up my mind to do so. People years younger than me have, and from what I understand, 17 is pretty near the average age for a person's first time these days...but I don't care about it enough to change my principles. I may feel like I'm missing out, but it's an investment. I'm investing myself in my wife, whoever she may be. When I do have sex with my wife, I won't have anyone else to size her up against...no jealously or comparisons. I think that will make it all worth while.

BTW, I'm enjoying this discussion. It's remained very down-to-earth, well spoken, and respectful. I'm learning a lot more about the "opposition," so to speak, then I do in such discussions.

[quote]Originally posted by TWTCommish

Wha? You're telling me that people always do what they want? Yeah, right. We all hold back on certain urges because we know it's a bad idea. Teenagers will do what they want quite often, but sometimes what they WANT is to stay out of trouble.

If they WANT to stay our of trouble, then their doing what they WANT aren't they??

See thats just the thing though, sex is not about love. Sex is about making babies! It's about reproduction. Its just that modern society(in America at least) has tried to make it about love. Its just more preferable today that you have sex with someone you love.

I'm noticing some main points where we disagree, and its causing conflict. Your looking at a religious point of view(most of the time) and I'm looking for a non-religious point of view. That was inevitable. But I also noticed something else. I tend to think of sex more as a physical act and you a mental one. I believe their are emotions behind sex, but I don't believe that the only emotion behind it should be love. If that makes me a bad person because I will have premarital sex, then so be it.

When I ask friends of mine why they had sex at such a young age, they say because "they were in love". Actually, come to think of it, everyone I know who has, says that. Now I personaly think that love at my age isn't true love, but I've seen it at my age. Now a majority of those cases who said out of love, weren't in true love(in my opinion). But because they thought they were in love, does it make it a wrong or a bad thing?

I don't really know where I'm going with what I'm saying because its hard to express how I truly feel about sex, but I'll sum it up. I think their are two kinds of sex. Sex and making love. You have sex with a person to release pent up sexual tension, and you make love to a person you love. Now I've done neither, but I don't plan on waiting till I'm in love. I do plan on waiting till I have strong enough emotions to do so. I've had the oppurtunity before, but the other party involved(lol that makes it not even sound like sex) just wanted to do it for fun, and I don't like using people. I can't really explain it in typing, its easier orally, so I'll try and stay back from this debate because it's basically comparing opinions and I've done this a million times before. I will chime in when I feel necessary though.

First off, I think the bible is a mess of contradictory ideas. I'd like to know what you think about evolution, Chris, or for that matter the Crusades. Let's not forget that the bible was rewritten by King James, and in a much more conservative day and age. In the middle ages before the Reformation, many Popes were corrupt and sexually active, even polygamous, yet they still were looked to as serious religious leaders.

I find it hard to believe that God supports something that, by all accounts except for the most conservative of Christians', is against human nature. I mean, I don't think I'm going to hell if I eat meat on a friday (even though I don't eat meat. ). I just can't agree with that. It's the same principle.

I think sex can be about love, or it can be about lust, or any other emotion under the sun. What's morally right is another matter. I agree with Hemingway, who said that if you feel bad after you do it, it's a sin, and if you feel good after, it isn't. But I'm in no position to judge anybody, I just feel that sex as a subject SHOULDN'T be taboo because it's basic human nature, as Peter said. Marriage is about emotions. Sex can be, but isn't always. It's just a physical act that humans engage in for pleasure. Why is sex pleasurable if we're not supposed to engage in it?

Oh yeah, about radios censoring things, I don't have a problem with it. Late night radio shows frequently have cursing on them, and some hip hop stations have mix shows where the swear words aren't bleeped out. Radio stations in the states are allowed to say curse words, they just don't because of liability causes, etc.

How circular! Hehe. Yeah, I guess my point there is that we should encourage them to stay away from that. Obviously it's their choice, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to push them away from wanting to do it.

I guess that's where we differ. While I can look at things from a secular viewpoint at things, I cannot in this specific case, because I have no doubt that love does exist, and that sex is the ultimate expression of it. Now, I don't believe, however, that everyone is meant to get married, or that everyone is meant to fall in love. I don't believe in a soulmate for everyone...I really don't. I also don't believe you have to be "in love" to get married...I think you need to admire and respect each other, and see a mutual benefit involved as well. A comfort from each other. You don't need to be gaga over the other person.

Anyway, even if you're of the viewpoint that sex is about hormones, and not love, I still don't see much value in encouraging teens to have sex. Honestly, how often is it a good thing?

And yeah, I think sex is a VERY mental thing. I'll bet a lot of people are very conflicted in their mind over when to have sex and with whom. And yes, you're right, there's nothing wrong with the physical aspect to it. I plan on marrying someone very pretty, if I can help it. I'm obviously not so naive as to assume that it's all about the mind...but, in a perfect world, the mind would play a larger role when deciding when to have sex. So, I say, even if we can't have that all the time, let's strive to get people to think with their heads, and not with their hormones. I'm not saying it's a huge deal, and I'm not saying premarital sex sends you hell, or makes you a bad person, but I do think it's a bad thing in and of itself. I think it taints future relationships for some.

Well, first off, I want to say that I highly agree: 99% of the time, a teen who says they are in love is probably full of it. Love takes time, and is a very serious thing. Do I believe it's possible for a young person to be in love? Absolutely...but it's not likely, especially among today's crowd. I think it just sounds a million times better to say "I was in love" than "I was aroused."

Well, I agree with your first sentiment: there are two forms of it...I just happen to disagree with one of them. That is not to say no good comes of premarital sex...but then again, good has come out of the WTC attack. Good comes out of bad all the time, but it doesn't mean the bad was a good idea.

See, this all stems from the notion that you have to be in love to have sex or get married. Quite frankly, I think that if you believe you can truly be happy with someone for the rest of your life, even if you don't get all lightheaded around them, there's nothing wrong with getting married. I think the bizarre notion that you have to be in love to get married only contributes to premarital sex. They end up with your mindset: I'm not gonna fall in love anytime soon, if at all, so I'm sure as hell not gonna wait around for that.

No offense Steve, but those arguments are remarkably flawed. For one, a corrupt Pope or a bunch of wackos running around during the Crusades has nothing to do with what Christianity teaches. They say they did it in the Name of God, but The Bible teaches no such thing. Do you realize that I could go kill someone, and do it in your name? Would it be fair to blame YOU for that?

The Bible is infallible. The Bible is an incredible guide on life, and, religion aside, quite a literary marvel. Yes, we do not have the exact text, but obviously The Bible is one of the most studied pieces of historical text in existence, and as such, we've got a lot of it nailed down. Every level of scholar has looked at this thing.

Anyway, just wanted to debunk the illogical (sorry for the bluntness there) argument that Christianty is somehow at fault for what some of it's followers have done. Should I blame you for what a secular person like Stalin in?

And no, I do not believe in evolution. I think we know jack crap about this world right now, but we act like we have it all figured out. It's a hallmark of mankind: the earth is flat, we know it is...the earth is the center of the universe, bacteria can spontaneously generate, etc. We're constantly discovering things that debunk the old crap we used to believe in. We probably believe many things now that will seem crazy 200 years down the line...it'll always be that way.

You're right, God doesn't support it. I find it hard to believe as well. I don't know what you mean about meat on a Friday...are you referring to Judaism? I'd like to point out now, regardless of that, that I'm not some televangelist declaring that premarital sex or lying will send you to hell. Those guys are extremists. I lie sometimes...and many Christians have had premarital sex. You don't go to hell for your sins, you go to hell for failing to repent of your sins before God, and admit your faults.

I'll answer your last question first: because you ARE supposed to engage in it. I never said sex was bad. I said it was good...very good...but that doesn't mean it's universally good in every situation. And yes, it should not be taboo...as I said in my last post (I guess you don't like reading long posts, eh? hehe), parents should be open with their kids about it, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to engage in it. That's another matter.

Anyway, Hemingway's sentiment is interesting, but faulty...because it basically dispells any kind of absolute right and wrong, and only accepts that of a relative moral law...which I don't believe in. IMO, some things are wrong, bottom line, regardless of what the whole of society thinks of them.

Well, when I was a teenager (for example--the age of MOFO's Unholy Triumvirate ) I considered sex--a different entity from love. It was something that we, as human beings, become interested in as (some of us) become more mature. It's part of the natural process of growing up. We are tuned to reproduce, to survive, to become immortal (in a sense) by producing more little OGs, little Sunfrogs and little TWTs.

Love--to me--doesn't happen to everybody. To me that's kismet or fate. As a quasi-scientist--maybe "a chemical reaction?" Nothing to do with morality and even less with religion. I'd like to believe there's "a lid for every pot" but that's another thread.

I consider Sexual manipulation to be a bigger threat. It is more commonplace in films--perhaps even more so than the portrayal of sex with love. I think what's more harmful than the sex act itself (on celluloid) is that some films show that you can be "successful" by manipulating others.

BTW: Not that I'm advocating censoring such films--its just that I don't consider the sex act on film to exert much of an influence on young people.



[Edited by Wart on 09-29-2001]

__________________
Blonde Klingons: Because it was a good day to dye!

Didn't feel like starting a new thread, so I decided to just post it here:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-12-03

I think its a very good comic, and basically sums out something that many people don't even realize.

Well, obviously anyone who lets a video game effect them to the point at which it induces a murderous rampage had problems before they got into the habit of fragging...so yes, the parents are to blame quite often. However, we KNOW a lot of kids aren't raised right, and WILL NOT be raised right, so I do think it's also important to keep an eye on things. I'm not defending the parents (although some kids are just bad...clearly today's parenting in the US, on average, is crizzap)...they have their share of blame (though not in all situations)...however, whether they've screwed up or not, we know some of them surely will, so I don't think it's a good idea to let just anyone play these games.

From what I've read, though, the game ratings haven't done much. Seems as if most people will still sell MK3 to any 10 year old who wants it and has the cash on hand...which is a problem, IMO.

Well the parents that always question their children's behavior are usually the ones that don't care about what their kid is doing until it's too late.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Censorship is a much more varied, complex and contentious area than some people believe. It can range from making a few edits so something fits into a certain certificate or banning a film outright.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

Agreed. You can take it even further, to self-censorship, where someone doesn't do something because they think/know it won't make the cut.

Good point.