May contain adult scenes....

[Lush]

Sex, however, should have more meaning and depth to it- meaning and depth that children simply can not comprehend until they mature.

I think it can dependson the kid. There's that vast space between toddlerhood and being 18. A 7-year-old is not the same as a 14-year-old. Plus, kids develop differently in general. I think in most cases, a parent should be the judge.

I personally don't think that sex is more inherently meaningful, though it can certainly be as dangerous as anything violent (due to STD's, etc.). My kid brother is 13, I think he's old enough to see, say, some scene in "Revolutionary Road" without it being damaging or horrifying or confusing, and yet there are issues with that. On the other hand, horrific scenes of violence in "Saving Private Ryan" were somehow deemed a-OK, even though he, like me, practically went into a stupor when he watched Adam Goldberg's character get stabbed to death the first time he saw it.

I guess it also depends on the scene, for me. Like, I get disturbed when I think about him watching something sadistic or creepy, much less so if he sees Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet totally clothed and on the kitchen counter.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Lush

I think it can dependson the kid. There's that vast space between toddlerhood and being 18. A 7-year-old is not the same as a 14-year-old. Plus, kids develop differently in general. I think in most cases, a parent should be the judge.

I personally don't think that sex is more inherently meaningful, though it can certainly be as dangerous as anything violent (due to STD's, etc.). My kid brother is 13, I think he's old enough to see, say, some scene in "Revolutionary Road" without it being damaging or horrifying or confusing, and yet there are issues with that. On the other hand, horrific scenes of violence in "Saving Private Ryan" were somehow deemed a-OK, even though he, like me, practically went into a stupor when he watched Adam Goldberg's character get stabbed to death the first time he saw it.

I guess it also depends on the scene, for me. Like, I get disturbed when I think about him watching something sadistic or creepy, much less so if he sees Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet totally clothed and on the kitchen counter.

I still disagree to an extent. Now that I'm 40, I realize that when I was 18 I knew only two things about life, and one of them was jack.

Even at 18, those who know what love really is are so few as to be practically negligible. And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

In any event, I still say that violence and sex are apples and oranges.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

Less harm than violence whether justified or not. And loving, committed sexual content less harmful still. More embarrassing to explain but very young children are probably just going to say eww!

I was amazed at how many very young children were taken to see the LOTR films in the cinema. Personally I though it was irresponsible but I wasn't going to be the one coping with the nightmares.

Yes care should be taken about what children are exposed to especially in films/ on tv - books are to an extent "safer" because a child is less likely to have the capacity to read something that is much too old for it. The decision on what should not be based on parental prudishness - kids who live in the country are going to work it out soon enough - even if you throw the TV away. Eventually they will work out that those bullocks are not playing piggy back.

Noone is going to suggest swapping the telly tubbies for Antichrist but it seems bizarre to me that very mild sex scenes or nudity even in a non sexual context is seen as more damaging than violence. A lot of violence and sex in films is gratuitous and forgets that what is suggested is often more scary or erotic than that which is shown but if they are "apples and oranges" then the violence is worse. If you take a film such as Peter Weir's Witness where scenes of sex and violence are used in a way that is essential to the plot, is it really the tender. beautifully and discreetly shot love scenes that are going to be hard to explain and potentially damaging, or the murder and shoot out?

[Lush]

And we see what widespread sex without love (or at least real commitment) does for society- both now and in times past.

As someone who's done it enough times without any love whatsoever, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you there. I'd like to teach my brother (and any future children) that it's certainly a good thing to be in love, but that it doesn't always happen that way and that there isn't anything inherently wrong about that, as long as you're not being a total idiot. Such is life. In fact, sometimes love hurts us way more than any casual relationship. So better get into it with eyes wide open.

On the other hand, as someone who's also experienced very serious violence, I think that it was way more damaging than any casual fling. That's why I find violence in movies - while stylistically gorgeous at times - a way more complicated issue than sex, for a kid in particular. Not that I think they mindlessly replicate that stuff either.

I think that something like smoking, on the other hand, while harmful to the body, is much more of a conscious issue, you know? It's not nearly as primal as any of this other stuff (am not saying that sex and violence are totally primal, of course). That's why I don't fret if my brother watches a scene with smoking. I fret way more when it's one of his friends smoking on the balcony and encouraging him to join in.

[Andsigil]

Mith and Lush,

I haven't been comparing the damage of sex and the damage of violence with each other. That is your own construct.

My original intent was to point out that violence is easier to explain to the young than sex. I've been involved in occupations based on force and violence for a long part of my life, and I also find that, outside of purely malevolent circles, violence can be somewhat self-policing because, on a personal level, it hurts and it's scary. Bedding someone is much easier because it involves physical pleasure.

In any event, while violence is prevalent in the media, sex is positively ubiquitous. One doesn't have to focus on love scenes in films, tasteful or not, with things like MTV being broadcasted 24/7.

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

[Lush]

Mm. Bedding. Have always liked that expression.

My original intent was to point out that violence is easier to explain to the young than sex.

I've had the opposite experience, I must say.