Thursday, December 06, 2007
Sex and Violence
Like most parents, we struggle with what we allow our kids to watch. We're not prudes, we're not bible-thumping nervous nellies, but still and all you have to draw the line somewhere and it's tough to know where that line should be. Hollywood isn't much help, but neither are the sometimes hypocritical morals of our society.
We've got three boys ranging from seven to 13 years. As brothers, they are (despite the shouting matches and occasional sucker punches) the best of buddies and generally like to watch things together. Trying to find shows that are suitable for a seven-to-13 age range is quite taxing, I can tell you.
Naturally, with boys, we watch a lot of action/adventure, both at the movies and on TV. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Smallville, etc. But, when it comes to violence, Hollywood seems to be pushing the envelope further and further in less and less appropriate places.
In one episode of Smallville, a villain is shown ripping the heart out of an innocent person (Correction: he ripped the heart out of a lawyer, but you get my point.) I don't care what the context is; I just don't think kids should watch someone getting his heart ripped out. You can put as many "may contain scenes of violence" warnings as you like at the start of the show, but, when it's a show about Superman, the producers really should be more sensitive to the fact that kids are watching it.
Nonetheless, we continue to allow our boys to watch any number of more or less violent shows. Sometimes, we even turn a deaf ear to shows that have a moderate level of foul language, especially since that has become increasingly common on network television.
But, like most parents, the one thing we absolutely won't let the boys watch is any show that contains nudity. Specifically, female nudity. At the first sign of bare boobs, the TV goes off. No arguments.
Over time, this rule has really started to bother me. I mean, geez, we're letting our kids watch a guy get his heart ripped out but not letting them see a naked woman? How does that compute? Of course, I wouldn't want my kids watching porn or anything ("No, no, that's Daddy's special private drawer, son"), but if it's just plain ol' nudity, isn't that better than exposing them to graphic violence?
There are any number of examples of movies that Mrs. Mentok and I think our kids should see, but we've held off because of some mild nudity. For example, da missus and I adore Love Actually.
I know, I know, there are many of you who hate that movie, call it all sorts of bad names and sneer long sneers at it. But those of you who think that way are full of shit, and I have the movie buff credentials to say so with some authority. It's a great movie. Mrs. M and I watch it every year at Christmas; to us, even after a zillion viewings, the jokes are still as funny and the sad scenes still as compelling as the first time we watched it.
The thing that I appreciate about it is that the vignettes show so many aspects of the human experience of love. Yes, there are parts of it that are typical Harlequin Romance fluff. But there are many other parts that show the unglamorous aspects of love - the pain it can inflict, the terrible compromises it can demand, the unusual forms it can take.
The values that movie conveys are very positive and I can't think of a better movie to show the kids at Christmas. But.... but it has that one plot-line, the one about the shy, awkward body doubles, that has a lot of nudity in it. And so our kids have never seen this movie we love and, frankly, that tears me up.
One of these years, maybe this year, we will show it to them. We'll just scene-select past the naughty bits.
Still, this doesn't address the underlying issue. Why is our society (North American society, anyway) so deathly terrified of boobs?
Not even the boobs. Network television is fine with women in skimpy, skimpy bikinis, sudsy bubble-baths, sheer lingerie, all sorts of situations that expose the majority of a woman's breasts. No, the ultimate target of censorship is the nipple. Ooh, the terrible, terrible nipple. The demon female nipple. One glance at it will turn you into a pervert for life. Boob flesh - OK. Buttocks (especially male) - OK. Male nipples - OK.
But not the female nipple. Never never the female nipple.
Why is it exactly that we view female nipples as being more shockingly corrupting to children than almost anything else in the world?
Theories? Comments?
posted by Mentok @ 9:41 a.m.,
6 Comments:
-
At 4:08 p.m.,
Rick said...
-
Mentok, you have hit on one of the things that I have found perplexing about our (Hollywood/American) society since I first heard R.E.M. sing "Lenny Bruce was not afraid". I think we'd be a lot better off if every gun or act of violence was *replaced* with a naked boob. This would basically make The Terminator into a porno - an intriguing idea.
On a related note, I started watching Kill Bill, Vol. 1, the other night. I got about 30 minutes into it and thought "why am I wasting my time, waiting for Quintin Tarrantino to somehow shock me with blood and violence." I sent it back. What's the point of watching? To desensitize myself even further?
That doesn't mean I'd prefer to watch Love Actually, however. Hugh Grant and all that. I did like how interconnected the plots were in the end.
Hmm. Maybe tonight I'll pop in The Matrix, just for laughs... -
At 4:47 p.m.,
Mentok said...
-
Ha, ha, that's a funny idea replacing guns with boobs.
I'm not sure you'd call it porn though. They used to make a distinction between porn movies and "nudie movies", the latter covering all those corny old British "Confessions of a..." (window-washer, taxidriver, etc.)
With respect, you may have sold Kill Bill short. There was more to it than the violence. It's quite an epic tale ... almost Homeresque (Greek, not Simpson).
... And the Matrix, well, the Matrix is one of the classic works of modern religious philosophy, doncha know. ;-) -
At 7:41 a.m.,
Rick said...
-
Actually, the Matrix really is one of my favorites, precisely because it presents a self-contained religious philosophy. Although, I have to admit I was hooked after the opening sequence, and not in a wistful, philosophic way... :)
-
At 5:14 p.m.,
mjrc said...
-
i've been thinking about this a little. i've always tried to shield the children from unnecessary violence and sex in the movies, and maybe it's because i'm a woman, but the sex stuff bothers me even more than the violence. here's why.
i figure that they will figure out pretty easily that the violence is completely and utterly fantastical, glorified and (hopefully) not something they'd ever want to be on the receiving end of. but the sexual images are more damaging because they could get it in their heads that that's what women (and men) actually look like, and then they'll have unrealistic expectations when it comes to their own bodies and others' and it will interfere with their own experiences. the shoot 'em up stuff they know is fake--the boobies, not so much.
oldest used to always say i was overprotective--for example, because i wouldn't let them watch south park when "all their friends" were doing it. now that she's older, however, she told me that she completely understands why i didn't want her watching it when she was 10 or 11.
i tried not to gloat. : ) -
At 10:25 p.m.,
Mentok said...
-
You raise a valid point about unrealistic body images, and it is one that affects men almost as much as women. In my case, maintaining my six-pack abs of steel takes a lot of time that I'm sure could be better spent elsewhere ;-)
However, as important as this point is, it begs a couple additional questions. First, is it nudity per se that contributes to unrealistic body images? Or is that mostly a function of the type of people that are cast, clothed or not?
For example, I recently saw a magazine cover (Cosmo?) featuring Kelly Ripa in a bikini. While she was legally clothed, she nonetheless exuded horribly unrealistic body type (which is to say she was incredibly hot! ;-)
The second question begged by your point: does this mean you wouldn't find it offensive if the nude image featured a fat, ugly person?
As for South Park (or, for that matter, Family Guy), I completely agree. The type of humour on those shows, while very funny, is on a whole different level of offensiveness that would most certainly be destructive to a child's moral development. Bravo for sticking to your guns. I know way too many parents who are too lazy crack the whip on their kids viewing habits.
p.s. I don't really have six-pack abs, unless you count the six-pack on the inside. -
At 7:40 a.m.,
Rick said...
-
mjrc, you raise a valid concern about the effect of images on children. Which is worse? Violence or unrealistic body types?
I would cast my vote, today, with violence. We already are bombarded with unrealistic body types, and you're totally right to be concerned about that. In my book, if we had to reduce one or the other, though, I would go with violence. I would argue (based on no knowledge of actual research on this topic what-so-ever) that young children especially mimic behaviors they see on TV, and don't learn to distinguish between what's real and what's fantasy....
I was about to argue that violent behavior seems likely to affect more people than the effects of watching hot people on TV (i.e. anorexia, bulemia - I'm probably getting these wrong but you get the idea), but I don't know if that's really true.
I guess my general sentiment, though, remains that there's nothing wrong with the human body (hot or not), where there's a lot wrong with violent behavior.
(South Park, albeit a riot - did you see the one where Tom Cruise locked himself in the closet? - is clearly an adult show. I totally agree with your call on that one.)
