Culture War: Blurring of Sex and Violence on "Family" based entertainment

[Shortline Bus 1,121]

With the Chick a Fill-A controvesy on gay rights highlighting the ongoing culture war that been ocuring in America for last 10-15 years now i created this thread not to focus on the gay rights but a culture war as a whole in this country. Instead this is about a topic on blurring on sex and violence in so called tv shows, films and songs.

 

Especially on what show on tv/movies, and music that being on radio, online and shown on music videos. What led me to create this thread was i just read online in NY Daily News that Actress Nicole Kidman (hope you not eating at moment lol ) starring in a new movie this fall dealing with a sexual fetish. Kidman's character in a so called "love scene" piees on her lover played by Zac Efron in the film the "Paperboy."

 

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1127730

 

 

In other words, the blurring of sex and violence in tv shows and music? This is not meant to sound That I have become someone from the "Bible Belt" lol protesting when someone mentions "masturbation" LoL. However working last few years as a Teaching staff in a school it does impact our teen kids but even now i am getting concerned. Off limits topics for general tv audiences such as fetishes and group sex now mentioned in mainstream entertainment and songs.

Also related to music, is it a problem to you about how popular international known pop stars such as Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Rihanna, MIA,Nicki Minaj and older performences pop stars such as Madonna, Britney Spears and others mixing it songs with strong sexual innudendos? We already know the blurring of sex and violence has a huge controversy in Hip-Hop/Rap and Heavy Metal Rock songs.

Not to mention on a hugely popular reality shows such as 'Jersey Show" and the "Kardashians" reguarly mentioning Three way/Group Sex and related topics reguarly.

 

Also violence as well as we seen in the recent and tragic Dark Knight shootings. Is Hollywood/Entertainment companies only intrestred in making money? How we prevent censorship without having a 10 year old kid watch a soft porn movie? (this is what this new Kidman film seems to be about)

 

Reactions guys?

[Snowblock 3,488]

You want to see how things are these days? Just take a look at the show Family Feud. It has Family right in the name, yet not a game goes by where one of the top answers is "prostitute" "dong" or "masturbate". Quite a stretch from the Richard Dawson days, and yet the host acts like he's just as outraged as the audience.....

 

Anyway, I'm confused. Is Paperboy supposed to be a kid's film? It sounds like it was made for adults.....

[Phantom909 289]

Excellent point. the bottom line is this, as long as WE support them by seeing those movies, watching those shows and buying those CD`s it wont end.There are no repercussions against people like chris brown, robert downey,jr, charlie sheen, kanye west and the rest of their ilk.And what happened to all those politicians and community leaders who were gonna crack down on all this, oh wait I forgot, they get millions in donations from these lowlifes so nothing is done.

 

joe

[Shortline Bus 1,121]

You want to see how things are these days? Just take a look at the show Family Feud. It has Family right in the name, yet not a game goes by where one of the top answers is "prostitute" "dong" or "masturbate". Quite a stretch from the Richard Dawson days, and yet the host acts like he's just as outraged as the audience.....

 

Anyway, I'm confused. Is Paperboy supposed to be a kid's film? It sounds like it was made for adults.....

 

 

Here a clip. The rating will probably be a "R" rated film. As a whole the Movie rating system is now is a joke. Kidman may be an attarctive looking woman but i lost some respect for her taking the $$$. It not like she an unknown actress needing that first break of media attention. I know she has been 'topless' aka bare breasted before in films but so has many well known ladies in the biz as well. And show an urine scene for a mass appeal movie audience? You would think it would be limited to the soft porn flicks shown on Showtime or HBO overnights. There has to be a line drawn somewhow.

 

Not that i endorse the porn industry but the line between a soft/hard core sex flick and "R" or even "NC-17" is becoming ever so close.

 

[checkmatechamp13 2,269]

As the saying goes, it's better to be pissed off than pissed on.

 

In any case, as long as people keep buying tickets to see these movies, they'll keep making more. If people were really that outraged, they'd "vote with their feet".

[GojiMet86 4,694]

This is a random list of things I feel:

 

- America might be turning to Europe with all these nudies, and frankly, I don't see this as mature stuff. I just think people want to see hot action.

- Kids today like this stuff. When I went to high school, not a day went by without kids talking about sex, or even some teachers joking about it. And in junior high, I did see a 7th grader with...ahem...a adult toy.

- As for Hollywood trying to make money? Well, of course, but I don't think it's just that. It's this overall philosophy or sentiment that people can do anything they want, that there shouldn't be any oppression or limits against "expressions of freedom", which today just happens to include a high level of sexual activity. In other words, that sex is okay even if you're young, and that anything or anyone telling you that you shouldn't be doing it are automatically full of crap.

[Shortline Bus 1,121]

This is a random list of things I feel:

 

- America might be turning to Europe with all these nudies, and frankly, I don't see this as mature stuff. I just think people want to see hot action.

- Kids today like this stuff. When I went to high school, not a day went by without kids talking about sex, or even some teachers joking about it. And in junior high, I did see a 7th grader with...ahem...a adult toy.

- As for Hollywood trying to make money? Well, of course, but I don't think it's just that. It's this overall philosophy or sentiment that people can do anything they want, that there shouldn't be any oppression or limits against "expressions of freedom", which today just happens to include a high level of sexual activity. In other words, that sex is okay even if you're young, and that anything or anyone telling you that you shouldn't be doing it are automatically full of crap.

 

 

Very true. In sense i been constant in for instance if people want to make a career doing porn(dont come crying for risk of STD's) let them do so. And if adults (ages 18 and over) want to buy sex movies of any kind provided the performers are all ages 18 and over go ahead. At least I been constant in my views of separting the Hardcore or even soft porn from mainstream films, radio and tv shows. If you enjoy porn or hardcore violence it so much, you as the customer should pay for it IMO. Thus that why in America we have Showtime and HBO for soft porn usually after 11pm. Or the Playboy channel and other "adult" sites to see more hard core . Or should it on Free tv or basic cable late at night between hours of 1130pm-5am only. Why be like Europe as not every viewer enjoys porn or hardcore violence?

 

My point is there should be a LINE between general movies and adult films with strong sexual or violent contact. Problem is many of same the adults especially the younger ones between ages 18-35 are hyprocrities. In one way many of them will they are against these mainstream films going in this cutting ("fetish")edge direction in sex. At same time they probably be the first in line to see it.

 

Thus no wonder why our teens start to get involved in sex at much earlier ages (not since the middle ages has an world power society seen so many young girls get pregant)and schools suffer. Not to mention the hundred of millions worldwide in sales of child porn which is gross. My comments is about protecting the children under age 18 and not about censorship.

 

It's all about money now in Hollywood and no longer also about some basic morals which is sad.

[JubaionBx12+SBS 417]

All it comes down to is the general notion that sex and violence are cultural taboos. As far as i'm concerned progress can't be made with that notion. People will have sex, it's essential to reproduction and a biological urge for anyone past puberty. Violence is another thing that is a part of life as sad as it is. There have been many deadly wars over the course of history and violent acts committed by serial killers and other psychos. Where was the violence taboo then? I have no problem with anything that is a part of life being used in the entertainment world.

[realizm 4,456]

When it comes down to the issue of glorifying sex and violence, the war on drugs etc, it's all about nationalistic propaganda and so-called popular culture in many cases, rather then simply moral issues in itself.

 

Say for example many movies that use violence to protray a nationalistic theme. Historically many movies protrayed the bad guy as the evil communist or the Islam jihad extremist. The reason that they use violent depictions is not necessarily in itself to bring to light the violent reality of life in itself but IMHO, it's to foster a jaded nationalistic spirit to any culture or nation that opposes the western view of domestic and world affairs. Which again IMHO is hypocritical considering the problems we are having on home soil.

 

They use violence to protray nationalistic themes in other nations across the world. That causes me to have a critical view of *why* violence is protrayed in many forms of entertainment, which includes video games, and the *theme* it protrays, not simply in itself the fact that it protrays graphic images of violence.

 

Same thing on sex. I really don't care about the fact in itself that porn exists or that sexual themes is more prevalent in the mainstream media. Men and women across the country and world are going to have sex, because it's normal. It's a natural fundamental part of our experience that makes us human. The only things that irks me about it is the stereotypical/racial/cultural themes it protrays on some occasions. (and I'll leave it at that.)

 

Furthermore minors who are exposed to graphic material I believe really are at particular risk of being influenced into making bad desicions. The fact is that they are too young to make mature desisions in life. They can be very impressionable on certain viewpoints. What do I mean? Teen pregnancy is all too prevalent in today's society. There are reasons for that and it doesnt come down to only lack of parental guidance or peer pressure.

 

So to get back to my point: I think that it's not in itself the issue of hardcore violence or uncensored sex. Violence is part if the real world whether we like it or not. Sex is a positive part of the human experience which is natural and fun (in fact it's as important to our health as the need to eat and breathe.) What I'm talking about is actually the messages that is protrayed behind it.

[Shortline Bus 1,121]

Interesting takes JW and realizm. With that said, what you guys feel about in a major mainstream hollywood film an international actress in an upcoming pieeing in middle of "love" scene? In other words bringing fetishes to mainstream films even if this is a "R" or "NC17" film?

[B35 via Church 9,406]

You're gonna start seeing more of this, as the quality of tv shows/movies/ etc. declines...... It's a last ditch effort to get people watching/listening to those forms of entertainment......

 

Sex sells, and violence aint too far behind.......

 

 

You want to see how things are these days? Just take a look at the show Family Feud. It has Family right in the name, yet not a game goes by where one of the top answers is "prostitute" "dong" or "masturbate". Quite a stretch from the Richard Dawson days, and yet the host acts like he's just as outraged as the audience....

Good example.

 

Ever since Simp Harvey took over as host, that game show has been an absolute joke..... they have contestants say crass answers on purpose for shock value..... that used to be one of my favorite game shows growing up too....

 

I'll go one further & say that game show is catered to daytime television.... I say that b/c daytime TV is catered to women.... What I can't stand when it comes to television is the marketing & intertwining of family programming & shows catered to women - as if to say shows for women = family programming.....

 

.... and Harvey's fanbase are what... .You guessed it.... Female.

Sometimes it feels like Family Feud is a soap opera in game show form; the "object of affection" so to speak is Simp Harvey himself !

Edited August 5, 2012 by B35 via Church

[CenSin 3,248]

In my short opinion, the entertainment value has derived all too much from sex and violence. If anyone has seen the Honeymooners… that show shows effort and creative thinking behind it.

Edited August 5, 2012 by CenSin

[realizm 4,456]

From looking at the trailer I don't feel it's a big deal at all. Generally the media in this aspect reflects the fact that more people are exploratory and adventurous in bed today then say three decades ago. As long as the sexual fetish in question is not something morbid, causes physical or emotional injury, or promotes unsafe sexual practices (STDS) I see nothing wrong with it.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Realizm 2012

[Shortline Bus 1,121]

From looking at the trailer I don't feel it's a big deal at all. Generally the media in this aspect reflects the fact that more people are exploratory and adventurous in bed today then say three decades ago. As long as the sexual fetish in question is not something morbid, causes physical or emotional injury, or promotes unsafe sexual practices (STDS) I see nothing wrong with it.

 

 

Realizm one of the reasons i created this thread is because of the buzz this film the "Paper Boy" will get opening on Oct. 5. I am sure most of you know, Oct. 5 is in middle of the otherwise slower Fall film season. Films relseased between Labor Day and mid nov. is smack of the middle of the bigger money making summer and Thanksgiving/X-Mas-New Years Holiday season.

 

If it getting this much attention 2 months before it's release imgaine in the days leading up to. I am sure Bill O' Riley to ABC 'The View" will all have a lengthy chat and segment about it. My concern is undeage teens getting exposed to it.

[realizm 4,456]

What I meant by saying "It's not a big deal" is in the sense that sex is not as much by a longshot the taboo it used to be. It simply shows the fact that people are more open about which reflects in the movie with Nicole Kidman. Which I'm pretty sure is going to be a hit. I personally don't see anything wrong with the content of the movie.

 

Lol, can I add the fact that I think she's hot?

 

On your concerns on underage viewers being exposed to it I am concerned about it too, as I stated previously. My reasons for it is because teens are not as mature and can make the wrong desicions in the areas of sex and intimacy. They are too young and impressionable. If anything the fact that there is a high prevalence of teen pregnancy, resulting from wrong desisions made because of lack of education on the issues of safe sex practices (i.e using condoms for protection) and the need for understanding the importance of having children at the right time and circumstances as there is a very heavy responsibility involved.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Realizm 2012

[error46146 1,007]

This goes both ways, yes you can blame the media however the media is simply just catering to you.. this is what people want, this is what people will get..

[Shortline Bus 1,121]

What I meant by saying "It's not a big deal" is in the sense that sex is not as much by a longshot the taboo it used to be. It simply shows the fact that people are more open about which reflects in the movie with Nicole Kidman. Which I'm pretty sure is going to be a hit. I personally don't see anything wrong with the content of the movie.

 

Lol, can I add the fact that I think she's hot?

 

On your concerns on underage viewers being exposed to it I am concerned about it too, as I stated previously. My reasons for it is because teens are not as mature and can make the wrong desicions in the areas of sex and intimacy. They are too young and impressionable. If anything the fact that there is a high prevalence of teen pregnancy, resulting from wrong desisions made because of lack of education on the issues of safe sex practices (i.e using condoms for protection) and the need for understanding the importance of having children at the right time and circumstances as there is a very heavy responsibility involved.

 

 

Fetishes is one of the last taboos in mainstream movies dealing with sex. Pardon my french but the last one ( I am sure it will be in a major film very soon)is the so called F---K or "Creampies" scenes aka actually showing semen in sex scenes in mainstream films. About 10-15 years ago in the late 1990's/early 2000's the taboo was Gay men and Lesiban/Bi-Sexual Woman kissing on major over the air tv show and mainstream films. We sense gone to the next level since lol.

 

With that said, realizm we tend agree on this one. It's not the adults i am worried with this Kidman film soon being released. It's our kids (I mean teens in America of all backgrounds) who will think it's cool. Hell Snooki in "Jersey Shore" reguarly mentions she "Bi-Sexual" on that show. My concern is exposing kids who not ready emotionally for sex i.e including becoming a teen parent with these big stars being in it.

[lilbluefoxie 820]

hollywood is running out of ideas, anyone can get entertainment on the internet in a variety of forms and styles, and the sex card is the last thing hollywood has to try to get people to go to their overpriced movies

[B35 via Church 9,406]

hollywood is running out of ideas, anyone can get entertainment on the internet in a variety of forms and styles, and the sex card is the last thing hollywood has to try to get people to go to their overpriced movies

 

 

Hollywood is resorting to the (so called) sex card due to the fact that they're running out of ideas.... The two go hand-in-hand.....

 

Getting other forms of entertainment off the internet is a separate issue......

[Astoria Line 1,064]

I am not a big movie watcher at all, but I feel like these types of movies like "Paperboy" are going to be continuously coming out as long as they are "acceptable" in society.....

 

I agree with the statement that Hollywood is using the sex card, I see that often....

 

Basically using sex to lure people to watch movies IMO is very sad, I don't like that at all..

 

When it comes to whether kids being exposed to these types of videos/movies, depending on their age it would be up to their parents, as for the teens, well it is harder to control, more of these movies are rated R and all but teens find ways around it, whether having an older friend or a relative taking them or buying a ticket for another movie and sneaking into the theater of the R-rated movie... Not to mention that these types of movies are EVERYWHERE... I barely see commercials for kids/teen oriented movies...

 

The thing is, that teens may find it okay to see this types of movies, as society has made it "okay" to see these types of movies.. Sexual types of movies are not uncommon at all, and mostly if they see a lot of peeps watching it or something, they will think it is okay.. This is also the reason why many teens can be violent or sexual, in HS most teens are sexual or always talking about it or some could be aggressive or violent, movies and media do have an impact on the behaviour of a person!

 

As a teen myself, sexual type movies like "Paperboy" come off as boring to me (I am not a movie fan anyway, but if something catches my eye I will watch it) seems dull, and IMO its rather a shame that most movies have a theme like it... Makes me not wanna watch movies even more...

 

If something isn't done about these movies, its gonna remain hard to keep teens/children from being exposed to these behaviours that you adults wouldn't want them to be exposed too...

[Joel Up Front 792]

Getting other forms of entertainment from the Internet is what Hollywood is bribing the government to try and stop... guy gets 50 years for streaming one thing while another raped a woman and then murdered her, only gets 20...

[yardlet6 31]

The seventies were the benchmark for sex and violence in movies. They had themes that aren't done today. Porn was becoming mainstream. Subjects not shown were being seen. Even kids weren't left out. Remember Pretty Baby with a naked 11 year old Brooke Sheilds or this movie which was so constversial it was banned in one the the countries it was made in.:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076749/

[Shortline Bus 1,121]

The seventies were the benchmark for sex and violence in movies. They had themes that aren't done today. Porn was becoming mainstream. Subjects not shown were being seen. Even kids weren't left out. Remember Pretty Baby with a naked 11 year old Brooke Sheilds or this movie which was so constversial it was banned in one the the countries it was made in.:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076749/

 

 

True. Not to mention "Midnight Cowboy" being in today's movie rating being the only NC-17 film to win Oscar for best film.

The 1970's and early 80's was the Golden era for sex and violence being accepted permanetly for 1st time in Hollywood.

With that said there was still a so called wall between "Adult" including Porn films and the mainstream film industry. Problem is that with this new Nicole Kidman film the Line is becoming close, soon we in American entertainment will be like Europe. In America we have until now a good system in which if an Adult Viewer wanted to see soft (i.e those seen on Showtime or HBO overnights)or hardcore porn they pay extra for it. That reason for this thread.

[Shortline Bus 1,121]

Already that Nicole Kidman starred film in which a sexual fetish is performed in a "mainstream' film, the whole issue of what to do with the NC-17/movie ratings system is in play! Interesting article in LA Times 8/19/12 editions.

 

"In the late '80s a thunderbolt of inspiration struck Jack Valenti, longtime chief of the Motion Picture Assn. of America: What if his organization got rid of the X rating, besmirched by years of misappropriation by hard-core exploitation films, and replaced it with a new marker that was both trademarked and respectable?

 

Thus was born the NC-17. Formally instituted in 1990, the restrictive rating aimed to signal moviegoers that a film included adult-oriented — but not necessarily pornographic — content and made those movies off-limits to anyone under 18.

 

Valenti had high hopes that the NC-17 — he called it "unstigmatized" — would usher in an era of mainstream acceptance for films with serious adult themes. But after some initial acceptance by directors, distributors, exhibitors and audiences, the rating fell deeply out of favor with filmmakers and moviegoers alike.

 

 

Now, even as basic cable is constantly pushing into ever-more steamy and violent territory and a wide variety of pornography is easily available on the Web, movie theaters are practically devoid of formally adults-only films. The number of movies released with the NC-17 rating has plummeted; those that do go out with that stamp do little business at the box office.

 

The reasons are clear: Some theater chains, including Cinemark, the nation's third-largest circuit, won't play them. A number of media outlets, particularly newspapers and television stations in more conservative states, won't accept advertising for them. Wal-Mart and other retailers won't sell copies on DVD.

 

Now at 22 years old — the same age as the X was when it was retired — the NC-17 is seen inside Hollywood and beyond as ineffective and broken. But no one can agree on how to fix it.

 

"There's no question there's a stigma," said Joan Graves, the head of the MPAA's ratings board. "If you have any ideas on how to break it, I'd love to hear them," she said, giving a small, not-entirely-happy laugh.

 

At issue is more than just what grade an industry trade group should assign to a particular movie, and more than questions of revenue and profit. At its core, the debate over NC-17 is a matter of what material society considers mainstream, who gets to make those determinations and what standards they use in doing so.

 

http://www.latimes.c...,0,193007.story

[CenSin 3,248]

Already that Nicole Kidman starred film in which a sexual fetish is performed in a "mainstream' film, the whole issue of what to do with the NC-17/movie ratings system is in play! Interesting article in LA Times 8/19/12 editions.

 

"In the late '80s a thunderbolt of inspiration struck Jack Valenti, longtime chief of the Motion Picture Assn. of America: What if his organization got rid of the X rating, besmirched by years of misappropriation by hard-core exploitation films, and replaced it with a new marker that was both trademarked and respectable?

 

Thus was born the NC-17. Formally instituted in 1990, the restrictive rating aimed to signal moviegoers that a film included adult-oriented — but not necessarily pornographic — content and made those movies off-limits to anyone under 18.

 

Valenti had high hopes that the NC-17 — he called it "unstigmatized" — would usher in an era of mainstream acceptance for films with serious adult themes. But after some initial acceptance by directors, distributors, exhibitors and audiences, the rating fell deeply out of favor with filmmakers and moviegoers alike.

 

 

Now, even as basic cable is constantly pushing into ever-more steamy and violent territory and a wide variety of pornography is easily available on the Web, movie theaters are practically devoid of formally adults-only films. The number of movies released with the NC-17 rating has plummeted; those that do go out with that stamp do little business at the box office.

 

The reasons are clear: Some theater chains, including Cinemark, the nation's third-largest circuit, won't play them. A number of media outlets, particularly newspapers and television stations in more conservative states, won't accept advertising for them. Wal-Mart and other retailers won't sell copies on DVD.

 

Now at 22 years old — the same age as the X was when it was retired — the NC-17 is seen inside Hollywood and beyond as ineffective and broken. But no one can agree on how to fix it.

 

"There's no question there's a stigma," said Joan Graves, the head of the MPAA's ratings board. "If you have any ideas on how to break it, I'd love to hear them," she said, giving a small, not-entirely-happy laugh.

 

At issue is more than just what grade an industry trade group should assign to a particular movie, and more than questions of revenue and profit. At its core, the debate over NC-17 is a matter of what material society considers mainstream, who gets to make those determinations and what standards they use in doing so.

 

http://www.latimes.c...,0,193007.story

 

Those ratings alone force otherwise good parts of the movie to be discarded to get a rating like PG-13.