Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: TV and sex and violence
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/28/2002 7:34:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cmkerin@... writes:
Americans do indeed have a problem with sex, but they don't have a problem
with paying to watch it on TV, the Internet, or magazines. The sex industry
brings in more money each year than Hollywood. Americans are into sex. The
problem is why they are into it that way?
Violence is a fairly simple matter: It doesn't take much to destroy a Van
Gogh (if you can get in the vicinity of one), but it takes a hell of a lot to
create something of that level. Violence is easy, if you will. Many of us
identify with it for that reason -- we'd love to bust up a restaurant, drive
a car off a bridge, knock some heads together (if only life were like a Daffy
Duck cartoon!). Indeed, simple violence has the appearance of power,
effectiveness, accomplishment, and we like -- and identify with -- those
things.
Sex, on the other hand, is a purely creative act. The trouble is, being
creative is difficult work. Moreover, sex inherently exposes almost every
weakness we have. We are at our most vulnerable during sex, and we hate that!
We crave power, not weakness.
This has something to do with our being uncomfortable with it on the screen.
(I'm talking about love scenes, not soft or hard porn, and there is a
difference. Modesty is no vice, and we are all better off with creative love
scenes.) Males are the ones who have the most problem with sex.
It's probably males that have the most trouble with *romantic* love scenes,
too. And this is because romance is creative and difficult work, and because
men don't like the thought of having competition -- even on the screen.
I guarantee that the more graphic the sex becomes on TV or movies, the less
romance we will have in our lives, and the harder it will be to return. We
would do well to head in the other direction toward having more romance in
movies, than trying to "open our lives up" to being able to "handle" more
graphic sex.
Making it clear to our children that creating is indeed difficult work (and
that destruction is fairly easy), and modeling creative concepts like romance
and affection, may go a long way in establishing foundations for them which
may help them avoid the crud. It may even give us a new breed of filmmakers
who know the difference between real food and candy.
Sincerely,
Bob Sale
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cmkerin@... writes:
> I think the reason manyI don't think I've posted here yet, but I'd like to comment on this.
> here in the US don't have a problem with violence but do with sex is very
> connected of our culture
Americans do indeed have a problem with sex, but they don't have a problem
with paying to watch it on TV, the Internet, or magazines. The sex industry
brings in more money each year than Hollywood. Americans are into sex. The
problem is why they are into it that way?
Violence is a fairly simple matter: It doesn't take much to destroy a Van
Gogh (if you can get in the vicinity of one), but it takes a hell of a lot to
create something of that level. Violence is easy, if you will. Many of us
identify with it for that reason -- we'd love to bust up a restaurant, drive
a car off a bridge, knock some heads together (if only life were like a Daffy
Duck cartoon!). Indeed, simple violence has the appearance of power,
effectiveness, accomplishment, and we like -- and identify with -- those
things.
Sex, on the other hand, is a purely creative act. The trouble is, being
creative is difficult work. Moreover, sex inherently exposes almost every
weakness we have. We are at our most vulnerable during sex, and we hate that!
We crave power, not weakness.
This has something to do with our being uncomfortable with it on the screen.
(I'm talking about love scenes, not soft or hard porn, and there is a
difference. Modesty is no vice, and we are all better off with creative love
scenes.) Males are the ones who have the most problem with sex.
It's probably males that have the most trouble with *romantic* love scenes,
too. And this is because romance is creative and difficult work, and because
men don't like the thought of having competition -- even on the screen.
I guarantee that the more graphic the sex becomes on TV or movies, the less
romance we will have in our lives, and the harder it will be to return. We
would do well to head in the other direction toward having more romance in
movies, than trying to "open our lives up" to being able to "handle" more
graphic sex.
Making it clear to our children that creating is indeed difficult work (and
that destruction is fairly easy), and modeling creative concepts like romance
and affection, may go a long way in establishing foundations for them which
may help them avoid the crud. It may even give us a new breed of filmmakers
who know the difference between real food and candy.
Sincerely,
Bob Sale
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/28/02 9:41:07 AM, rsale515@... writes:
<< Americans do indeed have a problem with sex, but they don't have a problem
with paying to watch it on TV, the Internet, or magazines. The sex industry
brings in more money each year than Hollywood. Americans are into sex >>
And maybe because if they had to wait until they were 18 or 21 to buy girlie
magazines, they don't want anyone else seeing stuff before they're grown.
Because it's limited the limitation is enforced most strongly by those who
resented waiting.
<<We are at our most vulnerable during sex, and we hate that!
We crave power, not weakness. >>
REALLY good point I had never thought of.
<<Males are the ones who have the most problem with sex.>>
That would fit my theory above about having been made to wait, maybe.
Sandra
<< Americans do indeed have a problem with sex, but they don't have a problem
with paying to watch it on TV, the Internet, or magazines. The sex industry
brings in more money each year than Hollywood. Americans are into sex >>
And maybe because if they had to wait until they were 18 or 21 to buy girlie
magazines, they don't want anyone else seeing stuff before they're grown.
Because it's limited the limitation is enforced most strongly by those who
resented waiting.
<<We are at our most vulnerable during sex, and we hate that!
We crave power, not weakness. >>
REALLY good point I had never thought of.
<<Males are the ones who have the most problem with sex.>>
That would fit my theory above about having been made to wait, maybe.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/28/02 10:41:07 AM Central Daylight Time, rsale515@...
writes:
what I want for my children not just in movies or in sexual issues, but in
everyday life. I want my kids to know the difference between real food and
candy!
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> Making it clear to our children that creating is indeed difficult work (andWhile I liked your entire post, I liked this last analogy the most. This is
> that destruction is fairly easy), and modeling creative concepts like
> romance
> and affection, may go a long way in establishing foundations for them which
> may help them avoid the crud. It may even give us a new breed of filmmakers
> who know the difference between real food and candy.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bob Sale
what I want for my children not just in movies or in sexual issues, but in
everyday life. I want my kids to know the difference between real food and
candy!
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/28/2002 9:35:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
of the more vocal legislators who dwell on "morals," often tend to be the
greatest offenders in private. It wouldn't surprise me that there's a hidden
agenda behind specific legislation.
Anyway, a point I kind of wanted to make (but it didn't really have to do
with sex scenes in the average R or PG-13 movie) is that pornography is as
easy for us as violence is. That is, typically it is romance and courting
that gets one into bed. (Not that sex is the be-all and end-all of a
relationship, but it is indeed the consummation.) The hard work of sexual
relationships is about saying and doing the right thing, and being the right
person. All that, mixed with a little wisdom and providence, and one may end
up with the perfect mate.
But with pornography, all the difficult work is done for you: passion gets
turned on at the flip of a switch, and after that, who cares about anything
else (especially the future), except where the closest bed is.
It's the same with much movie violence. Busting furniture or throwing pencils
and books may be the easiest way to react to something. To step back, wait,
analyze, and gather some peace, is hard work, almost as much as romance.
I'm obviously stretching, and my reasoning doesn't stand, for if it does, I
may be making a case for pornography (something I hope isn't the case). But
if viewing violent movies is simply an outlet for our repressed violent
natures -- a violence we dare not attempt ourselves, does that in the same
way make the viewing of pornography an outlet for a sexuality we dare not
attempt as well? I need to think about this.
The Bruce Willis type movies are a hoot, and I'm not sure they should be seen
as anything more than that. But I often wonder if America's passion for
murder and horror is the result of Americans being deeply angry; and if the
consuming of massive quantities of porn is the result of confusion or
ignorance about what it is to be human and sexual.
Enough for now.
Bob Sale
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> And maybe because if they had to wait until they were 18 or 21 to buy girlieYou make a good libertarian point here. Moreover, we're all aware that some
> magazines, they don't want anyone else seeing stuff before they're grown.
> Because it's limited the limitation is enforced most strongly by those who
> resented waiting.
of the more vocal legislators who dwell on "morals," often tend to be the
greatest offenders in private. It wouldn't surprise me that there's a hidden
agenda behind specific legislation.
Anyway, a point I kind of wanted to make (but it didn't really have to do
with sex scenes in the average R or PG-13 movie) is that pornography is as
easy for us as violence is. That is, typically it is romance and courting
that gets one into bed. (Not that sex is the be-all and end-all of a
relationship, but it is indeed the consummation.) The hard work of sexual
relationships is about saying and doing the right thing, and being the right
person. All that, mixed with a little wisdom and providence, and one may end
up with the perfect mate.
But with pornography, all the difficult work is done for you: passion gets
turned on at the flip of a switch, and after that, who cares about anything
else (especially the future), except where the closest bed is.
It's the same with much movie violence. Busting furniture or throwing pencils
and books may be the easiest way to react to something. To step back, wait,
analyze, and gather some peace, is hard work, almost as much as romance.
I'm obviously stretching, and my reasoning doesn't stand, for if it does, I
may be making a case for pornography (something I hope isn't the case). But
if viewing violent movies is simply an outlet for our repressed violent
natures -- a violence we dare not attempt ourselves, does that in the same
way make the viewing of pornography an outlet for a sexuality we dare not
attempt as well? I need to think about this.
The Bruce Willis type movies are a hoot, and I'm not sure they should be seen
as anything more than that. But I often wonder if America's passion for
murder and horror is the result of Americans being deeply angry; and if the
consuming of massive quantities of porn is the result of confusion or
ignorance about what it is to be human and sexual.
Enough for now.
Bob Sale
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Cmkerin
Dear Bob,
My point in that original post was that there does not appear to be a limit
for us in general on violence in movies. There is a taboo and limit to how
much sex is appropriate and so influences our culture and society in how we
think about each. I'm not condoning either one but it does seem unbalanced
and I think this unbalance might be one reason why ppl have a problem with
sex in movies and not violence. I wonder if I tell my kids they can watch
violent movies but not graphic sex just what am I telling them?
If one thinks that graphic sex in movies is bad and will influence
negatively than the same holds true for violence in movies.
Yes, pornography is the extreme but why is that not ok when all violence and
blood and gore is? If it wasn't such a big deal the industry probably
wouldn't make more money than Hollywood. One of the reasons IMO that
Hollywood doesn't have graphic sex is only because society isn't ready to
except it like they are violence. Personally I think it's only years away.
Just think of Britney Spears and the kids newest idols.
Joyce
-----Original Message-----
From: rsale515@... [mailto:rsale515@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 4:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: TV and sex and violence
In a message dated 5/28/2002 9:35:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
of the more vocal legislators who dwell on "morals," often tend to be the
greatest offenders in private. It wouldn't surprise me that there's a hidden
agenda behind specific legislation.
Anyway, a point I kind of wanted to make (but it didn't really have to do
with sex scenes in the average R or PG-13 movie) is that pornography is as
easy for us as violence is. That is, typically it is romance and courting
that gets one into bed. (Not that sex is the be-all and end-all of a
relationship, but it is indeed the consummation.) The hard work of sexual
relationships is about saying and doing the right thing, and being the right
person. All that, mixed with a little wisdom and providence, and one may end
up with the perfect mate.
But with pornography, all the difficult work is done for you: passion gets
turned on at the flip of a switch, and after that, who cares about anything
else (especially the future), except where the closest bed is.
It's the same with much movie violence. Busting furniture or throwing
pencils
and books may be the easiest way to react to something. To step back, wait,
analyze, and gather some peace, is hard work, almost as much as romance.
I'm obviously stretching, and my reasoning doesn't stand, for if it does, I
may be making a case for pornography (something I hope isn't the case). But
if viewing violent movies is simply an outlet for our repressed violent
natures -- a violence we dare not attempt ourselves, does that in the same
way make the viewing of pornography an outlet for a sexuality we dare not
attempt as well? I need to think about this.
The Bruce Willis type movies are a hoot, and I'm not sure they should be
seen
as anything more than that. But I often wonder if America's passion for
murder and horror is the result of Americans being deeply angry; and if the
consuming of massive quantities of porn is the result of confusion or
ignorance about what it is to be human and sexual.
Enough for now.
Bob Sale
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
My point in that original post was that there does not appear to be a limit
for us in general on violence in movies. There is a taboo and limit to how
much sex is appropriate and so influences our culture and society in how we
think about each. I'm not condoning either one but it does seem unbalanced
and I think this unbalance might be one reason why ppl have a problem with
sex in movies and not violence. I wonder if I tell my kids they can watch
violent movies but not graphic sex just what am I telling them?
If one thinks that graphic sex in movies is bad and will influence
negatively than the same holds true for violence in movies.
Yes, pornography is the extreme but why is that not ok when all violence and
blood and gore is? If it wasn't such a big deal the industry probably
wouldn't make more money than Hollywood. One of the reasons IMO that
Hollywood doesn't have graphic sex is only because society isn't ready to
except it like they are violence. Personally I think it's only years away.
Just think of Britney Spears and the kids newest idols.
Joyce
-----Original Message-----
From: rsale515@... [mailto:rsale515@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 4:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: TV and sex and violence
In a message dated 5/28/2002 9:35:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
> And maybe because if they had to wait until they were 18 or 21 to buygirlie
> magazines, they don't want anyone else seeing stuff before they're grown.You make a good libertarian point here. Moreover, we're all aware that some
> Because it's limited the limitation is enforced most strongly by those who
> resented waiting.
of the more vocal legislators who dwell on "morals," often tend to be the
greatest offenders in private. It wouldn't surprise me that there's a hidden
agenda behind specific legislation.
Anyway, a point I kind of wanted to make (but it didn't really have to do
with sex scenes in the average R or PG-13 movie) is that pornography is as
easy for us as violence is. That is, typically it is romance and courting
that gets one into bed. (Not that sex is the be-all and end-all of a
relationship, but it is indeed the consummation.) The hard work of sexual
relationships is about saying and doing the right thing, and being the right
person. All that, mixed with a little wisdom and providence, and one may end
up with the perfect mate.
But with pornography, all the difficult work is done for you: passion gets
turned on at the flip of a switch, and after that, who cares about anything
else (especially the future), except where the closest bed is.
It's the same with much movie violence. Busting furniture or throwing
pencils
and books may be the easiest way to react to something. To step back, wait,
analyze, and gather some peace, is hard work, almost as much as romance.
I'm obviously stretching, and my reasoning doesn't stand, for if it does, I
may be making a case for pornography (something I hope isn't the case). But
if viewing violent movies is simply an outlet for our repressed violent
natures -- a violence we dare not attempt ourselves, does that in the same
way make the viewing of pornography an outlet for a sexuality we dare not
attempt as well? I need to think about this.
The Bruce Willis type movies are a hoot, and I'm not sure they should be
seen
as anything more than that. But I often wonder if America's passion for
murder and horror is the result of Americans being deeply angry; and if the
consuming of massive quantities of porn is the result of confusion or
ignorance about what it is to be human and sexual.
Enough for now.
Bob Sale
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/28/2002 3:49:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cmkerin@... writes:
I agree wholeheartedly. I hope I didn't sound as if I was defending
gratuitous violence in movies. Actually, I usually only see the ones that I'm
told are "must sees." But I don't think I would be less a person had I missed
them.
I can intellectualize the justification of violence in movies as much as the
next guy (as I did with Saving Private Ryan), but here is where I find
literature far more effective than movies in getting the point across.
That said, I confess that there are moments in movies where the violence is
brilliant and lasts a lifetime. For instance, during Schindler's List (I
don't mean to dwell on Spielburg) there was a scene in which a Nazi guard
starts shooting Jews at random from up top his outlook. It blew my mind. I
felt the same about the violence in The Deer Hunter. There are a ton of
movies one could list, I suppose.
Yet having also said that, I find myself horrified with what I daily see on
CNN or FoxNews, and I wonder why anyone would want to see more violent
entertainment on top of all that reality?!
Sincerely,
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cmkerin@... writes:
> If one thinks that graphic sex in movies is bad and will influenceJoyce,
> negatively than the same holds true for violence in movies.
I agree wholeheartedly. I hope I didn't sound as if I was defending
gratuitous violence in movies. Actually, I usually only see the ones that I'm
told are "must sees." But I don't think I would be less a person had I missed
them.
I can intellectualize the justification of violence in movies as much as the
next guy (as I did with Saving Private Ryan), but here is where I find
literature far more effective than movies in getting the point across.
That said, I confess that there are moments in movies where the violence is
brilliant and lasts a lifetime. For instance, during Schindler's List (I
don't mean to dwell on Spielburg) there was a scene in which a Nazi guard
starts shooting Jews at random from up top his outlook. It blew my mind. I
felt the same about the violence in The Deer Hunter. There are a ton of
movies one could list, I suppose.
Yet having also said that, I find myself horrified with what I daily see on
CNN or FoxNews, and I wonder why anyone would want to see more violent
entertainment on top of all that reality?!
Sincerely,
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]