Why do some think violence is more accepted than sex in western media?

[CSTowle]

Forget "More..."

Rape is violence.

End of the story.

I believe the Captain meant "rape is considered to be more violent than murder" or at least more extreme/disgusting, less understandable (we've probably all had fleeting fantasies about hurting or murdering someone, if not serious, where hopefully very few of us have even in passing fantasized about raping another person).

As far as the topic, feel like deja vu and that I've answered a similar thread but as I recall the consensus was America's puritanism/religiousness but I'd also add there's a perception that violence and solving problems through violence is a good and strong and macho thing. "Getting things done". Men are portrayed as at their best when engaging in it, for a cause of course (usually a loved one/prop, but military service works as well), and the enemies as ultimately weak and less good at violence or only good against weaker foes.

Sex, on the other hand, makes us vulnerable. You're subject to attraction, rejection, betrayal, and just general vulnerability from being in a position in which two people (or more) have hopefully an equal say in the proceedings. There are emotions, and lack of control, and the perception that women are in the driver's seat. For an entertainment industry catering to a culture largely crafted by and for men this is less desirable than showing macho "action" in the form of violence. That you don't have to think about, or have anxiety over. It's pure, and right, and manly (not my perception, but the traditional one). Outside of gratuitous nudity for the pleasure of the viewer where the women are objects to be gazed at sex is complicated.

[Mister Mets]

It's an interesting question.

One factor is that violence is considered to be more of a fantasy than sex. A standard teenager is much more likely to get an STD or an unwanted pregnancy than to kill someone.

[Totoro Man]

I guess for me personally, the emphasis on violence over sex is a thing for certain. Sex is seen as worse for some reason. But I think it should be the opposite, because sex is natural and violence really is not. Not in the way that it gets shown, anyhow.

Take the second GotG movie, where Yondu, Groot and Rocket casually murder well over a hundred people to the tune of "Come a Little Bit Closer." And the murders were done for the sake of humor, for the most part, ending with the killing of Taserface just as someone makes fun of his name. Maybe its a Gunn thing as much as a society thing because I had the same kinds of thoughts about the "humourous violence" in Suicide Squad 2.

Violence in media does have rules, for instance it is distinguished from gore. So its ok to have tons of people get shot, get whacked with hammers, etc. as long as you don't show blood. See - your typical Disney movie. Somewhere along the way it became ok to show mass murder but if you show the consequences of it then its rating time.

Sex has more rules in place, obviously. It didn't used to, you could easily see lots of sex in PG movies back in the day. Not now, though.

sex and violence are both "natural".

just the other day I saw a seagull break another seagull's wing and mortally wound it in the neck for trespassing. animals rape each other all the time. as in every day.

saying something is "natural" doesn't really mean that something is "acceptable".

I think part of the issue is the legacy of the Puritans on sex. but part of it could be that people want to consider sex as something different and special - so, there is more concern in how it gets presented (for good or for bad).

do we really want to see the sort of fan-service rape scenes that took place every dozen issues in "Lone Wolf and Cub" manga becoming mainstream television fare? is that what we want to see depicted on mainstream television at 6 PM? pretty sure we don't.

I don't think that means that the US is somehow opposed to sex or prudish. we wouldn't be having a huge debate over access to abortion if we didn't consider sex to be a primary form of recreation and entertainment.

however, in the US there is this tendency to keep sexual entertainment distinct from mainstream entertainment. this could be practical just as much as it is "puritanical".

to reframe the question, if you were walking down the street to buy groceries, would you want to see two people having sex on a park bench? if you were taking your children (or your parents) along with you would that change your attitude about it?

maybe the answer is to become even more puritanical and start eliminating violence from mainstream entertainment as well? ;-)

I would wager that part of the reason we see less sex in mainstream films is because the industry has a long nasty reputation for exploiting people.... and having sex scenes just opens up a lot of opportunities for that to happen again. in twenty years, when the cultures shifts in another direction, we'll probably see more sex in mainstream entertainment again.

it's easy to blame the Puritans... but, the fact is, that a lot of the prevailing political attitudes in the United States were taken directly from the Puritans:

how many people here have actually bothered to read anything that the Puritans wrote? it wasn't some monolithic block of people that always agreed with each other. A Puritan from New England and one from Scotland would have some pretty serious differences of opinion on some important issues. John Milton, Oliver Cromwell, Anne Bradstreet, Roger Williams, John Winthrop, and Jonathon Edwards could all be classified as Puritans.

look at John Winthrop in 1630:
'We must delight in each other, make other's conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body. '

how about Roger Williams:
The greatest crime is not developing your potential. When you do what you do best, you are helping not only yourself, but the world.

All civil states, with their officers of justice, in their respective constitutions and administrations, are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian, state and worship.

The natives are very exact and punctual in the bounds of their lands, belonging to this or that prince or people, even to a river, brook, &c. And I have known them make bargain and sale amongst themselves for a small piece or quantity of ground; notwithstanding a sinful opinion amongst many, that christians have right to heathen's lands.

these sound like they could have been written by somebody in the US this very morning.

I read a book by Nils Christie (A Suitable Amount of Crime) where he was saying that people in Soviet Union were laboring under a puritanical code of ethics devoted to work... and this is part of why there has been a huge increase in illegal activities and gangs in post-Communist Russia. but there were no Puritans in the Soviet Union! it was predominantly Orthodox. in fact, during the time period Christie is attempting to address, the Soviet Union was pretty eager to eliminate the influence of religion altogether. but Christie, as a self-respecting Scandanavian utopian socialist can't condemn "socialist emulation"... so, he creates an imaginary Soviet puritanical tradition to blame instead.

[mathew101281]

Violence by its nature is a public act. While sex is a private affair. So depictions of sex is not so much about comparing it to violence on a wrong or right level, as it is taking something out of its correct setting. At least that is how it was explained to me.

[Alan2099]

It's not just in media where is more accepted.

If I punch somebody in a KFC, I'm going to be asked to leave. The cops might be called if it's really bad.
If I walk into a KFC, drop my pants and start getting it on with somebody there, you're going to be hearing about that on the news for quite a while.


Likewise, if I get into a fight with a friend, it's easier for him to forgive me.
If I sleep with his girlfriend, not so much.

[Zelena]

It's not just in media where is more accepted.

If I punch somebody in a KFC, I'm going to be asked to leave. The cops might be called if it's really bad.
If I walk into a KFC, drop my pants and start getting it on with somebody there, you're going to be hearing about that on the news for quite a while.


Likewise, if I get into a fight with a friend, it's easier for him to forgive me.
If I sleep with his girlfriend, not so much.

I suppose the guy you punch in a KFC isn’t a five-year-old child and has roughly the same age and strength as yourself. You want us to picture a sort of… viril exchange like in a western movie with a rousing background music. It is at least the image conveyed by the media.

In a book I read, there’s a difference between aggression and violence, the former between similar strength opponents and the latter, not.

Like matthew101281 said, as expressions of aggression are public, so there are usually ruled by a moral code… not always followed.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

I'd say Z, that we're still not comfortable with sex at all. It's a bubble effect. We tend to surround ourselves with likeminded people and read and watch only the things we enjoy and agree with, so we're always surprised when our views are challenged. It's like casual sex. People like casual sex. There's a sizeable number of women and men who enjoy consequence free hooking up. So it's shocking to learn that there are also a sizeable amount of people who HATE the existence of casual sex so much that they want contraception banned so that people can't do it without a massive risk of pregnancy. It might even become a legal issue with the frickin' supreme court.

America is stupid. Decades of cuts to public education and addiction to social media have borne their rotten fruit.

[Scott Taylor]

sex and violence are both "natural".

just the other day I saw a seagull break another seagull's wing and mortally wound it in the neck for trespassing. animals rape each other all the time. as in every day.

saying something is "natural" doesn't really mean that something is "acceptable".

I think part of the issue is the legacy of the Puritans on sex. but part of it could be that people want to consider sex as something different and special - so, there is more concern in how it gets presented (for good or for bad).

do we really want to see the sort of fan-service rape scenes that took place every dozen issues in "Lone Wolf and Cub" manga becoming mainstream television fare? is that what we want to see depicted on mainstream television at 6 PM? pretty sure we don't.

I don't think that means that the US is somehow opposed to sex or prudish. we wouldn't be having a huge debate over access to abortion if we didn't consider sex to be a primary form of recreation and entertainment.

however, in the US there is this tendency to keep sexual entertainment distinct from mainstream entertainment. this could be practical just as much as it is "puritanical".

to reframe the question, if you were walking down the street to buy groceries, would you want to see two people having sex on a park bench? if you were taking your children (or your parents) along with you would that change your attitude about it?

maybe the answer is to become even more puritanical and start eliminating violence from mainstream entertainment as well? ;-)

I would wager that part of the reason we see less sex in mainstream films is because the industry has a long nasty reputation for exploiting people.... and having sex scenes just opens up a lot of opportunities for that to happen again. in twenty years, when the cultures shifts in another direction, we'll probably see more sex in mainstream entertainment again.

it's easy to blame the Puritans... but, the fact is, that a lot of the prevailing political attitudes in the United States were taken directly from the Puritans:

how many people here have actually bothered to read anything that the Puritans wrote? it wasn't some monolithic block of people that always agreed with each other. A Puritan from New England and one from Scotland would have some pretty serious differences of opinion on some important issues. John Milton, Oliver Cromwell, Anne Bradstreet, Roger Williams, John Winthrop, and Jonathon Edwards could all be classified as Puritans.

look at John Winthrop in 1630:
'We must delight in each other, make other's conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body. '

how about Roger Williams:
The greatest crime is not developing your potential. When you do what you do best, you are helping not only yourself, but the world.

All civil states, with their officers of justice, in their respective constitutions and administrations, are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian, state and worship.

The natives are very exact and punctual in the bounds of their lands, belonging to this or that prince or people, even to a river, brook, &c. And I have known them make bargain and sale amongst themselves for a small piece or quantity of ground; notwithstanding a sinful opinion amongst many, that christians have right to heathen's lands.

these sound like they could have been written by somebody in the US this very morning.

I read a book by Nils Christie (A Suitable Amount of Crime) where he was saying that people in Soviet Union were laboring under a puritanical code of ethics devoted to work... and this is part of why there has been a huge increase in illegal activities and gangs in post-Communist Russia. but there were no Puritans in the Soviet Union! it was predominantly Orthodox. in fact, during the time period Christie is attempting to address, the Soviet Union was pretty eager to eliminate the influence of religion altogether. but Christie, as a self-respecting Scandanavian utopian socialist can't condemn "socialist emulation"... so, he creates an imaginary Soviet puritanical tradition to blame instead.

Lets not mix animals and humans. That gull was defending its territory, which is a natural act. You imply that human beings are subject to the same drives and needs as a seagull, and that is grade A BS. We are higher beings, have free will and are capable of abstract thoughts such as ethics and morality. Violence is not needed for the enlightened, which we should all be at this point. A gull just does what it does, there is no applicable ethic because they are not moral beings.

Animal rape? Yah, I don't think that's anything but an argumentative statement based on nothing.

[CSTowle]

Lets not mix animals and humans. That gull was defending its territory, which is a natural act. You imply that human beings are subject to the same drives and needs as a seagull, and that is grade A BS. We are higher beings, have free will and are capable of abstract thoughts such as ethics and morality. Violence is not needed for the enlightened, which we should all be at this point. A gull just does what it does, there is no applicable ethic because they are not moral beings.

Animal rape? Yah, I don't think that's anything but an argumentative statement based on nothing.

We are animals, and we're a lot more "what we do" than we like to give ourselves credit for. We've developed a society since our days of strictly subsistence living and this has allowed more specialized work than hunting/gathering, which gives us the time and comfort to contemplate our existence and the world around us.

We also have the natural advantages of communication by speech to express complex ideas, and a higher capacity for intelligence than other animals (the reason our lack of claws/fangs/wings/poison/venom/etc. didn't result in an early disappearance from the fossil record, yet) which lends itself to communicating and developing those ideas over time.

Having opposable thumbs allowed us to develop writing tools to record those ideas to share with future generations (those who chose oral traditions have largely seen their cultures and ideas disappear or live on in diminished form). One of those ideas: as George Carlin said, the self-interest of "sanctity of life". Meaning, I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me.

Like most morals they either make (or made, when they were written as in religious rules) sense for self preservation or preservation of the tribe, "don't do this" (it's dangerous), "don't f##k that" (keep that for pumping out the next generation of soldiers and worshippers), "don't talk about X" (some ideas are offensive, can lead to violence or rebellion). There are also special flavors of nonsense depending on their origin and the fashions of the time (no mixing two kinds of cloth, men can't wear skirts, etc.). But at the end of the day it's all made up and largely either agreed upon or absorbed without thinking. Like other animals teaching their young to wash food, or drop nuts in the road to be run over and the meaty bits exposed. Morals are just our long-developed (and at times outdated/flawed) attempts at the same thing.

It's what raccoons or octopi would do if they could. They just lack our naturally selected advantages, and have others. It obviously doesn't eliminate or even largely reduce rape, or violence, or bad decision making. They're guide rails. And if things go bad we're not very far from that seagull. Most of our individual "moral compass"es could be guessed at by studying what area of the world we were brought up in, what religion (if any) we were indoctrinated in at a young age, what race or gender we are, and a handful of other factors.

Given infinite information we could probably map out how each individual came to hold whatever moral outlook they have on just about every issue beyond "I don't want to be hurt, so don't hurt me and I won't hurt you" (that's the no-brainer, though many do ignore it because they can). It's not because we're special luminous beings crafted from stardust, it's because we absorb what's around us unless we have a reason to question it. Even then, people usually just pick a well-worn new moral lane and go that way.

[OopsIdiditagain]

Puritanism and people being desensitized to violence. The media likes making violence seen as exceptable in certain circumstances. Being passive or peaceful gets implied as weak.

[Totoro Man]

Lets not mix animals and humans. That gull was defending its territory, which is a natural act. You imply that human beings are subject to the same drives and needs as a seagull, and that is grade A BS. We are higher beings, have free will and are capable of abstract thoughts such as ethics and morality. Violence is not needed for the enlightened, which we should all be at this point. A gull just does what it does, there is no applicable ethic because they are not moral beings.

Animal rape? Yah, I don't think that's anything but an argumentative statement based on nothing.

https://nypost.com/2013/10/29/the-cu...orld-are-evil/

ducks. when three male ducks all try to copulate with one hapless female duck at the same time. happens pretty much every day. some female ducks can actually control whether or not they are impregnated.

you've never seen a dog mount another as a form of dominance behavior? how does that NOT constitute rape? otters have been documented gang-raping baby seals to death.

there have been studies that even insects will mount other insects to prove dominance as a way of avoiding otherwise mortal combat.
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-beetle...r-fighter.html

[since I'm being irrational, and basing my opinions on nothing, I believe that sexual activity among humans is negotiated privilege that requires consent between two adults. and that this privilege can be revoked or withheld at any time and for any reason. of course, obviously not all sexual behavior is based on that. but that is the ideal that I think humans should live according to... based on my fairly strict religious upbringing and perhaps odd personal philosophical convictions]

so, I gotta ask: are humans actually 'higher beings'? that's an assertion that requires at least some sort of explanation or proof. WHY are we higher beings? because we have reason, social groups, and generally defy the natural order of things by creating cities and complex sets of rules to govern our behavior? because religions have told us that it is true?

I just don't see it the same way. "enlightened" beings still need to eat food, drink water, have shelter, go to the bathroom, reproduce. they're still going to fight over access, and control of, limited resources. (that could be food, mates, shelter, water, etc.)

is the Russian invasion of Ukraine to get access to oil pipelines and year-round ports really that much different from birds fighting over territory? the fight is about access to territory and limited resources.

many people have argued that animals actually DO have a set of morals. there's been a long-standing movement to study animal ethics over the last century that implies that humans are not THAT much different from other animals. those fact that those seagulls were fighting at all implies that they have a basic concept of 'property rights' over territory and food. cats and dogs, by the fact that they can understand the concept of pointing, have at least a provisional "theory of mind" that suggests that they understand other animals are thinking about something. when a clan of monkeys perform vengeance killings on over a hundred dogs puppies in Indian villages after a dog kills one of their babies... doesn't that seem to imply that animals DO have some sort of ethical reasoning ability? they actively hunted down dogs and killed them. this wasn't just a matter of defending territory.

so, it's natural for one animal to kill another animal while defending territory. but, somehow, it's not natural for human beings to kill each other over territorial disputes.

violence is natural. predators kill every day and nobody thinks twice about it. they've shown that wild cats, dolphins, and wolves regularly kill for their amusement.

I just don't see humans being THAT different from animals. not based on the behaviors we've repeatedly seen throughout history and daily life.

when people say "Sex is natural" and violence is NOT NATURAL they're making an appeal to a philosophical position that not everybody accepts. the fact that you conceded that the seagull was protecting its territory is recognizing that violence IS natural.

you're whole argument is predicated on the idea that human beings are supposed to operate in a different way when compared to the rest of the natural world: people are SUPPOSED to be better than other animals. now, if you've got some religious views that inform this idea... fine. I can respect that. I was raised in a religious home, and know lots of religious people.

now, back to the original post:
I see people trot out this question every couple of years... why are Americans so stupid about sex? this is probably the 7th or 8th time I've seen somebody complain about this on CBR. the number is even higher if I count other forums that I visit.

it generally seems obtuse and dishonest.

then, of course, the declaration is made that it's because of the Puritans... as if there weren't also a host of other possible reasons.

it seems to imply that societies don't do anything about the general desire to have sex. there are literally entire industries designed to help people 'scratch that itch'.
seriously, if people want to go watch porn they can do that. the US has the largest porn industry in the world. now, if these people want to go have sex with a prostitute, they can do that too... with the inevitable legal risk and potential dangers.

what do these people REALLY want? do they want to legalize prostitution and have unions for sex workers? do they want sex to be a mainstream form of entertainment that isn't restricted in terms of general access?

most people don't know a damned thing about the Puritans and what they stood for. it's like the entire world settled for H. L. Mencken's snarky put downs as the final word on the matter... as if Mencken himself were somehow altogether above reproach and question.

[godisawesome]

I would also agree that Puritanism is the wrong phrase… but that’s because I think the dichotomy and particular type of prudishness seen in American owes more to the Victorian era than the mores of the Puritans.

The Puritans were viciously “puritanical” and self-righteous… but had a much more earthy and realistic view of sexuality than we expect. Something like a third of their marriages were “shotgun weddings” and their type of private-life-meddling wasn’t about hiding sexuality away in their regulation of it - they once punished a man for not sleeping with his wife for a year. It was still an invasive and controlling view of sexuality, but it wasn’t “scared” of it the way we perceive modern American media. They were just as blunt about it as they were with violence.

The dichotomy is more Victorian in how concerned it is with public perception, an idealized version of “innocence” that often mixes it up with ignorance and suppression… and in how it’s matched by a certain “perverted” hypocrisy under the surface in people’s private lives, and doesn’t have the same approach to violence. The Victorian era idealized “heroic violence” after-all.

Maybe the reason the US didn’t break from it the way England did was because we didn’t experience WW1 as the utter deconstruction of those ideals about violence, which reinforced the double standard.

[Starter Set]

You imply that human beings are subject to the same drives and needs as a seagull, and that is grade A BS

Eat, reproduce, survive. Sounds pretty much the same to me.

Oh sure we do have big brain. But in the end? Food, sex and to end the day still alive.

The whole "enlighted beings" bullshit made me laugh though, thanks for that.

[Zelena]

Eat, reproduce, survive. Sounds pretty much the same to me.

Oh sure we do have big brain. But in the end? Food, sex and to end the day still alive.

It’s a bit more complicated than that: Putin didn’t invade Ukraine because he was driven by the same impulses as a seagull. It’s not a matter of being more evoluted or more clever. Can an animal be a victim of delusions of grandeur, paranoia, deadly ideology? And even if it could be the same case, consequences would be limited.

[Scott Taylor]

Eat, reproduce, survive. Sounds pretty much the same to me.

Oh sure we do have big brain. But in the end? Food, sex and to end the day still alive.

The whole "enlighted beings" bullshit made me laugh though, thanks for that.

This is such a weird conversation. Too much anthropomorphizing of non-humans. I'm out.