Sex vs violence

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Sex vs violence

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

On mainstream tv, why is it okay to show violence as opposed to sex? Do you believe in making love as opposed to war? Are people just too emotional over sex?

PhilX 🇺🇸
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Passion/sex is perhaps the very nearest thing to hate, and indeed, much passion is hateful. The passion should be redirected into genuinely loving a person, for there is no affinity to be discovered between lust and genuine love, from taking what one wants of the flesh from a person, and providing them all that one can selflessly give. Mutuality here is a perfect and effortless state of genuinely romantic true love.
OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by OuterLimits »

This is especially the case in America, which was settled by puritans bent idealizing armed individualism in the new world. Violence=good. Sex=bad. It's not some kind of fundamental of human nature. Many advanced less violent nations do things the other way around. In northern Europe, sex and nudity show up everywhere and violence tends to be more edited on TV.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

I'm sorry, America has plenty of sexual exposure. We had near universal access to porn since Playboy. And Europe has more violent TV, I was a fan of the TV show Strike Back, from the U.K., they had to make one of the characters I think to justify the violence, just like they had to make the English comic book Judge Dredd take place in "New England" and then make half the comics take place in little ole Brit-Cit.

We just emphasized censorship differently, and it is going away, as our media is now more and more nudist, and some of the stuff from Europe seems to try to be more violent.

South East Asia and Oceans, never a problem marrying the two traditions. I'm not talking about modern movies like The Raid, but also older classics like "Lady Terminator" (best introduction to Feminist philosophy on YouTube, watch it now). They couldn't show nudity cause Indonesians are not into that, but they didn't hesitate to delve into sex the way only the 80s could. You wouldn't get away with some of that in America st the time.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o0IPCpG-VsQ

Think the fact America came out on top in both world wars, with positive propaganda around fighting helped. Even our comic and cartoon characters enlisted. Germany getting defeated and trying to solve things as only dim witted Germans could.... by avoiding the problem and launching a pogrom on the symbol of the problem, recreational fantasy violence, like in video games, has a big effect as you can't easily make products only for Germany but not the rest of Europe.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by Arising_uk »

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:... just like they had to make the English comic book Judge Dredd take place in "New England" and then make half the comics take place in little ole Brit-Cit. ...
What are you talking about? Dredd was in Mega City One and it was on the east coast of North America and stretched all the way to Miami. Dredd didn't have a comic book he was a series in the comic 200AD which did a few spin-offs in Brit City but in the main Dredd stayed in America. Otherwise the stories in 2000AD went all over the place.
OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by OuterLimits »

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:39 pm
American sexploitation in advertising has been on the rise since the 1960's. Sex was big in movies in the 1970s and then with the ascendancy of conservatism it declined. It's been coming back lately. Porn of course is a whole different thing.

wikipedia > censorship in Sweden
"The new board, Statens medieråd, determines age limits for films.[8] The age limits are 7, 11 or 15 years old. Generally movies where people are killed or assaulted have 15 as the age limit, and movies with acts of sex (even if not shown in detail) have 11 as the age limit. This differs significantly from the practice in the United States of rating films with sex more harshly than films with violence."
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Sex bad violence good? - In the UK the age of consent is sixteen, and was fifteen with parents consent, now too often more like twelve, only taking it that both participants are of around the same years. There is nothing in law here to inhibit such activity. Sex is promoted here, because so also is the passionate/romantic pathway through to potentially longer lasting love. I think that you`ll find that there is little clamping down on romance on your side either, the real problem existing not so much in the actual detail. This is philosophy, remember, not sociology, so one must put to one side all of the detail and make bold all embracing observations.
lesley_vos
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:49 am
Contact:

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by lesley_vos »

well, isn't love a war itself? a constant struggle of masculine vs feminine. more than that, when you're in love, you struggle with your ego, destroying it step by step and melting in your partner. you give up a battle to win a war (well, you believe so), you think on strategies to get what you want from your partner or make him (her) give you what you want... i don't want to say that love = violence, but i wouldn't present it as a good-doer only. asfar as we know, many wars began because of love and passion.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

lesley_vos wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:11 pm well, isn't love a war itself? a constant struggle of masculine vs feminine. more than that, when you're in love, you struggle with your ego, destroying it step by step and melting in your partner. you give up a battle to win a war (well, you believe so), you think on strategies to get what you want from your partner or make him (her) give you what you want... i don't want to say that love = violence, but i wouldn't present it as a good-doer only. asfar as we know, many wars began because of love and passion.
To argue that love equates to "warfare" would require one to be in a continual state of "warfare" if they choose to love. There are degrees of truth in this, as you have mentioned the necessity of "ego-destruction", however their is a creative aspect to love also that is not strictly limited to a destruction of the ego, but a building up of it through a transcendence.

When a partner is able to move past himself/herself for the sake of the other then a process of building oneself is achieve through the act of placing one ahead of oneself, as an extension of oneself. "I build myself, through building my wife" , "my wife builds herself through building me" and "we both build eachother through ourselves".

To equate "sex" as force inevitable leads to it being compared to "violence as force", however most relationships that last are built upon a form of mutuality where the obsession with "dominance" ceases.

Sex has become an act of "force" or "violence" through the massive spread of "pornography" and "romances" (as both are respective to each sex, yet are equivalent duals) in the respect that both create "unrealistic ideals" that both men and women place on eachother. When the man/woman is unable to "physicalize" these ideals a sense of tension or force inevitably results in one respect as these "ideals" require a display of force to begin with.

Take for instance men and pornography: Most of the sex acts usually breakdown to varying forms of dominance of man over women, women over man, etc.

The same occurs for romance movies/novels/etc. where the man or women is expected to surrender their dignity and sense of reason to the other partner without expecting anything in return.

Add the third variable where in both the pornography and the romances, generally speaking, no child is concieved as both partner's (with all thier "love") do not exhibit any form of trust in the other enough to raise a child together.

Without a child the sex/romance becomes a form of self-gratifying dominance where eachother partner maintains a continual back and forth polarity as to who is to remain "dominant". Children, in many respects (but not always), act as a median where the husband/wife are able to further bond and retain some level of balance.

To compare sex and violence is to inevitable equate them to destructive acts, where in reality that is a very limited picture.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:45 pm On mainstream tv, why is it okay to show violence as opposed to sex? Do you believe in making love as opposed to war? Are people just too emotional over sex?

PhilX 🇺🇸
America is rooted in Victorian Era Protestantism which largely repressed any and all forms of sexual conduct, compared to their Catholic counterparts who appear to have "mediated" it more than anything.

This "cultural memory" has reverberated through its institutions over the centuries, in many different respects (including but not limited to the Prohibition), with this repression manifesting itself through a counterbalance of the over emphasis on violence.

If you look at all forms of sexual repression, they generally cultivate in a perceived attitude of "violence" or "destructive force" as when the ability to "create" is impeded, through some form of stagnation, inevitably self-destructive tendencies result.

The emphasis on blood-lust in western culture, through films etc, can be observed as having deep cultural roots where sex was equated to "evil". This in turn causes a reevaluation of the sexes, and what it means to be a man or woman, and generally you see a stunted form of masculinity (resulting in a warped version of feminity) where men exist "as a means to an end".

This cultural warping can be traced back to the industrialization, much favored through protestant faiths, where man's value was founded not in his ability to cultivate a form of working relationship with his family (both practical and emotional, as many men literally "worked" with their families prior to industrialization through farming, trade, etc.) but rather his ability to sacrifice himself to a perpetual progress.

This repression of the sexual instinct of man, in favor of a more materialistic industrial interpretation of the human condition, in turn requires a form of "cultural bloodletting" through the propogation of "industrialized war's" as a means to give "balance" through a culturally acceptable form of ritual sacrifice.

Contrary to modern belief, violence is a sacred ritual in many cultures meant to bring balance and stability. When the ability to "create" or "bond" (with bonding being a form of "creation" as I emphasized above) is impeded, death and destruction come to restore the balance as an extension of the human condition being perceived as "mechanistic" and "worthless".
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Sex vs violence

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

You are all avoiding social philosophy entirely, in favor of sociology. The big picture cannot be discovered there.
Post Reply