Porn vs Action Movies

[Unveiled Artist]

This dawned on me, weirdly enough for me to talk about here, while watching a rated Rish romance movie, that we see porn more harsh than we see action movies.

Why is that?

I don't believe in any sort of killing whatsoever. I love action movies, drama, etc; and, I am getting out of that not because they are actors portraying fake scenes, but the context is one person killed another and this is why.

In romance movies (the Rish and over), I know I said porn-that's just an attention grabber-, we don't think that. Maybe we think "that's a beautiful scene" or maybe those who do like porn naturally think "this feels nice."

In general, not religious view, why is killing scene less drastic or more morally accepted by society and media than porn (intense sexual scenes not the extent of action)?​

Take a gay romance movie. The two guys don't even have to touch each other yet before the movie is considered less moral by society than terminator getting ready to shoot up a bunch of police officers even though the officers didn't know the nature of why the terminator was there and even more so there was a kid with him.

Outside of religious reasons, why is there an extreme difference between the two?

What about the male and female body and actions between the two make it less moral than killing and violence between two people?​

You have movies like Hider in the House-very very good movie-about a man who was rapped by his father...and the story goes on...

Yet, you have movies like Brokeback Mountain (good characterization but plot is, well, eh) where the characters had such good body expressions (all of them) that it was hard not to see why they wouldn't get an Oscar (which they did).

If you guys have seen it, you understand why I compare it to action movies. To those who haven't and you are comfortable with seeing R rated gay movies, it's a good one and it's not focused on sex-no matter what people believe all gay movies are focused on.

Anyway,

Why are action movies that have killing in it more morally acceptable than romance or sexual oriented scenes in movies that are not in and of itself socially immoral?

What about the interaction between two nude people make one movie social immoral while someone who killed fifty people and raped a young girl better to watch?​

--

If you want to answer from a religious perspective not above please why do you as a religious person watch action movies but specific intimacy movies you will not watch not because of the plot but because of a scene or two involved in the movie?​

 

[Maponos]

I think it's part of cultural conditioning and the deeply emotional aspect that sex has.

In Western Civilization, sex has been considered a mostly private act (exceptions occur, of course), especially in the recent past that was probably more conservative in regards to sex.

So, when we see something that has been ingrained in our minds that is a deeply private act, we would react harshly to seeing it displayed so blatantly.

 

[Godobeyer]

I have a question about porn movies or sciences.

In general , does parent could watch these stuff with their children?

 

[suncowiam]

It's a cultural thing.

Europeans are more accepting of sex but more sensitive of violence while it's the opposite in the US.

And no, parents dont watch porn with their children.

They watch porn with Palmela and Handerson.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it's part of cultural conditioning and the deeply emotional aspect that sex has.

In Western Civilization, sex has been considered a mostly private act (exceptions occur, of course), especially in the recent past that was probably more conservative in regards to sex.

So, when we see something that has been ingrained in our minds that is a deeply private act, we would react harshly to seeing it displayed so blatantly.

True. I mean, I can't think of a way two nude people can be immoral (like killing, raping, etc) unless they did something more than natural intimacy regardless the movie plot.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's a cultural thing.

Europeans are more accepting of sex but more sensitive of violence while it's the opposite in the US.

And no, parents dont watch porn with their children.

They watch porn with Palmela and Handerson.

I learned something new. I know many Americans are influenced by religious thought; so, that influences our sensitivity to sex. While violence, people justified violence by religious means in our history and some still do.....

Since it's the opposite, how do Europeans explain the difference? (If I had the choice between the two, though, I'd agree with the Europeans since sex in and of itself-excluding the motive behind it- doesn't cause crimes).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have a question about porn movies or sciences.

In general , does parent could watch these stuff with their children?

If it were social acceptable just as watching murder movies, what would be the difference if children did?

Another question, if the non-porn but intimacy movie is not promoting inappropriate behavior then what immoral lesson is that child learning compared to seeing someone get shot because they didn't put their hands up like the police said?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Other than it being cultural, is their a logical reason violence is preferred over sex?

 

[Spideymon77]

Other than it being cultural, is their a logical reason violence is preferred over sex?

I don't think there is a logical reason.

 

[columbus]

Other than it being cultural, is their a logical reason violence is preferred over sex?

I'm pretty old. I remember media from the 60s. There was essentially no sex or violence. A married couple might kiss. The "forces of law and order" might have to dispatch lethal justice, but it was sanitized. Sex and violence just weren't available to anyone under 21.
Over time though, violence became rampant. Things got sexier, but not to the same degree. I have never understood why a pair of breasts or a penis is such a big deal, but senseless and bloody death are not. You can portray blowing a guys head off in graphic detail, but if his dick shows that requires FCC action.
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Tom

 

[Father Heathen]

I think the difference is that porn's specific purpose is to sexually arouse the viewer whereas action movies are general entertainment/amusement.

 

[columbus]

I think the difference is that porn's specific purpose is to sexually arouse the viewer whereas action movies are general entertainment/amusement.

Maybe the difference is that "porn" is easy to define, even when the definition is really poor.

Violence just sort of creeps up. If one show portrayed a murder, another just shows a slightly more graphic one, and so on.
By defining porn as anything showing what an ordinary bathing suit covers, no matter how non-sexual, it's easy to slap a rating on the show.

So nudity, no matter how unarousing, can get a rating.
I dunno. I don't get it. Who could possibly think that Danny DeVito skinny dipping or Oprah Winfrey changing into a fabulous gown were "arousing"?
Tom

 

[Sunstone]

I recall reading some years ago of a study that concluded cultures tend to be either averse to sex or averse to violence in their media. Those that were averse to sex. were relatively tolerant of violence. And those that were averse to violence were relatively tolerant of sex.

 

[Godobeyer]

If it were social acceptable just as watching murder movies, what would be the difference if children did?

Another question, if the non-porn but intimacy movie is not promoting inappropriate behavior then what immoral lesson is that child learning compared to seeing someone get shot because they didn't put their hands up like the police said?

Sorry for my bad English level.

I meant by childern , over 18 years old

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think the difference is that porn's specific purpose is to sexually arouse the viewer whereas action movies are general entertainment/amusement.

True. You can argue that because we have action movies, that can influence watches to commit serious crimes they see on the movies. While whatever you do behind doors with a porn movie wont get you arrested but watching an influential violent movie without the discipline to say "hey, I may get in trouble if I do that" can of course lead someone to jail pretty quickly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think that movies have actually gotten less graphically violent than they were decades ago. The '70s and '80s seemed to be when the goriest and most graphic movies came out. But I'm mostly thinking of horror movies. I don't think action movies are all that graphically violent.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry for my bad English level.

I meant by childern , over 18 years old

No biggie. I don't know many parents that would. My mother once bought a movie we thought was about a priest's life, drama, things like that. Kind of like Stigmata or just a regular movie. My younger sister was upstairs.

So we are both watching this movie (I'm over 18) and a gay intimacy scene purposely portrayed as lust given the plot of the story, good scene but inappropriate. The same time, my sister came down the stairs, and you should have saw my mother fly off the couch and almost knock the t.v. over trying to cut if off.

I read a book called Schindler's List. A fictional book based on a true story of a German solider plagued in mind about the holocaust and his role as an officer etc. I love reading and the book was written so well, I had dreams about the death of all of the victims for a good couple of weeks thereafter finishing it. I watched the movie and never watched movies like that unless I had the guts to.

My mother and I can sit and watch move like this and to me that's worse than any sexual scene I have seen in all my so far adult life.

Yet, there's no 18 and older legal (just technical) prevention from a child watching the holocaust movie. Yet, if that child 18-21 say watched porn, the tables turn.

I always wondered about that. I mean, I'm sure that children won't turn into serial killers. I do find it more moral to not take a life than where a person decides to touch himself.

Disturbing, I know. However, I can't figure the logistics behind it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think that movies have actually gotten less graphically violent than they were decades ago. The '70s and '80s seemed to be when the goriest and most graphic movies came out. But I'm mostly thinking of horror movies. I don't think action movies are all that graphically violent.

Probably because everything is by computers these days. No one makes real customs at Halloween anymore, type of thing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Probably because everything is by computers these days. No one makes real customs at Halloween anymore, type of thing.

That's definitely a part of it. Almost everything is CG now and not physical effects. The goriest shows I know of are shows like the Walking Dead and the CSI type shows, such as Bones, that show forensic pathology examinations and such. I haven't seen a new movie that was stomach-churningly violent in a long time. Not a mainstream Hollywood one, anyway.

 

[Father Heathen]

True. You can argue that because we have action movies, that can influence watches to commit serious crimes they see on the movies. While whatever you do behind doors with a porn movie wont get you arrested but watching an influential violent movie without the discipline to say "hey, I may get in trouble if I do that" can of course lead someone to jail pretty quickly.

If entertainment media had that amount of influence upon our behavior, city sewer lines would be clogged with the bodies of drowned children who ventured down to stomp on turtles and collect coins.