I figured it has been too long since there was a real, proper, anti-US thread. You know, gurth and all. Rough and tough. But we all have fun, so eh, let's do it.

What's up with US censorship lately? What's "acceptable" and what's not? There seems to be so many contradictions in opinion - public and official.
What do I mean? Well mainly (and YES! I get to take a crack at religion here too.. this thread has it all kids) The Passion of the Thingy Majigy thing.
Now, I don't understand all too well the censorship rating system in the US, but it would appear that the Passion of the Christ has a censorship level that allows even children to watch it. To watch scenes of violence that would rival.. Reservoir Dogs, mayhaps, hell, bloodier than the original Texas Chainsaw Masacre. And yet there's films like The Dreamers, whose theme is sex between three people - and it gets an NC-17 rating, which I guess prohibits anyone under the age of 17 watching it (and if it doesn't mean that, disregard this entire thread and refrain from making me look stupid).

What the fuck?

Three kids in a bath tub getting all kinds of nekkid Vs man being nailed to a cross and executed. Which movie are kids allow to see? Well your first impression - in a sane world - would be "neither, you crack head". But newp. They can watch the horrendously violent one.
Meh. How fooked up is that?

So why? Is it "getting away with it" under the guise of religion? Is the US *gasp* allowing christian morals to dominate its society? That's all good and well (well no, it's not), but contradiction of this kind is too funny to watch without laughing.

"hey kids, watch this man get nailed to a cross! Oh, oh, titty on TV... TURN AWAY! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!"

Please, contribute to this [hopefully] inevitable flame fest.

[This Anti-US-Take-A-Pop-At-Any-Chance thread was brought to you by Hustler, wanking material for 28 years.]

Sadly enough Halo this is not a good topic to stir the ire of the American patriotism that truely is the A-ro boards. I agree with you. This whole hoopla about censorship and indecency is way out of control.

Yes, lets hand out Playboy and Hustler to the kiddies! Call it sex ed.

"The Passion" is rated R. You have to be 17 unless there is an adult present. Kiddos can't go see it on their own.

NC 17 is worse than R, I guess, and I think that means, you have to be 17 at least, to see it.

In a world with bloody games as past times (Ie wolfenstein, EQ, and the list goes on and on) and dvd's such as "Saving Private Ryan" readily available in our homes, I think our children have become more desensitized to gore.

I do not really want my children to watch threesomes, blatant sex acts and the like, and begin to think that THIS is normal behavior. Most of what you see in the movies IS NOT, when it comes to sex. The images are so damn distorted, it is sickening.

On the other hand, if they see a titty here or an ass there, who cares?

Heres a shocker...im going to bet MOST Americans are gonna agree with you on this one Halo. Censorship here is starting to get out of control. They have nailed a few Radio DJ's here for having lude shows and what screwed is Stern and Bubba were rated #1 and #2. Bubba got nailed with the biggest fine so far. Some doctor heard is 17 year old daughter listening to the show and was shocked so for 3 friggen years he taped each and everyone of those shows and sent the tapes into the FCC. I bet if that doctor spent as much time with his daughter as he did trying to nail Bubbas ass to the wall MAYBE his daughter wouldn't have been listening to Bubba's show in the first place

You don't like whats on the radio change the channel....you don't want your kids to see graphically violent scenes on TV....don't let them, YOU are the parent and YOU let them either watch it or don't.

' do not really want my children to watch threesomes, blatant sex acts and the like, and begin to think that THIS is normal behavior.'

- Hmm, is that how backwards it's become?
"sex acts" and "threesomes" and the like are, surely, the normality here, as opposed to extremely and sickening violence?
You'd rather brand sex as the deviance here, over bloody and graphic execution? Yegods. I'd rather my child (my conjured up child, who would be named Fred) sit through hard core porn, witnessing normal acts of human nature, than to see a man tortured and executed, nailed to a cross.
Surely you would too?

'They have nailed a few Radio DJ's here for having lude shows and what screwed is Stern and Bubba were rated #1 and #2'

- Aye I heard about that. Didn't they fire a DJ for saying the "F" word? When at the same time Howard Stern was talking about anal sex that morning?
Very.. contradictory. It's odd.

I'm no master of politics and I don't really know/care about a lot of the things going on in my country. Then again, I'm still in highschool. However, as of late a lot of the things we've been so quick to change seem stupid to me. Aren't there more important things our government should be worrying about than who says what on the radio? I think that sometimes people just argue or protest things just for the sake of doing so. I mean, if you think that something might disgust you, then don't listen or watch that thing. But don't go and listen or watch it 24/7 and note the vulgar things that are said and THEN complain about it. Just turn it off. It seems that people are like "Well I've been told about what Howard Stern talks about on the radio, maybe I'll listen a bit and if it's vulgar then I'll petition it" or something like that. I don't know =/




Maylen Bojangles

I don't see hardcore porn in any way as 'normal'.

I will just agree to disagree with you on this one, Halo.

Porn is in no way shape or form of normal. It's a distortion of what a relationship is between two(in porns case MANY) loving people. heh.

I guess for me it's choosing the lesser of two evils.
Sex is something we all will and should go through. Executing someone...not so much.

I'd rather influence my son to take part in a threesome with some gorgeous page three girls, than to beat someone in to a bloody pulp.

But aye, I guess we agree to disagree (I'M RIGHT! YOU'RE WRONG! DIE YANKY SCUM!)
Anywho :P

'It's a distortion of what a relationship is between two(in porns case MANY) loving people. heh. '

- Well in my experience (sadly, not literal), porn isn't about "relationships", it's about lust and extreme sexual behaviour. Sometimes it's a distortion, sometimes not. But can we say it has more of a negative effect on a person than grotesque violence?
Personally, I don't think so.

I'd rather be exposed to Janet Jackson's titties than to Bush's Private Execution Video Series Season Four (I'm not making that up!).

Personally, I think censorship has gotten quite contradictory as of late. Use to be if it were a cartoon (Saturday morning, NOT Midnight Saturday night :lol ) You didn't have to worry what was on it really. That's not the case anymore.

The whole thing with The Passion or whatever... I'd rather not see blood and gore and what not... why in the world would I allow my kids to? On the other hand, I don't wanna watch mass orgies either... and you can bet my kids will have to sneak outta my house to see anything like that... well, if they want to live... :rollin

I'm sure I can find Bambi or some Disney movie on instead. :D

Well, as a couple of others have said, I actually agree with most of what you've said. Censorship is a) going way overboard and b) completely inconsistent in definitions of 'standards'.

I used to listen to Bubba in the morning. It was the only halfway entertaining thing on for my hour drive to work. Now it just sucks.

I'd rather be exposed to Janet Jackson's titties than to Bush's Private Execution Video Series Season Four
I dunno.. that was a pretty nasty looking tit... tough call.

Wanna know how I feel about censorship in this country? Watch South Park the movie. There's a few key lines in there that are great relating to this topic. And its a funny movie anyway. :)

I think it's silly to regard consensual sex between adults as in any way worse then torture or murder.

However, I don't think that agelimit ratings is censorship. If they try to forbid adultrated books & websites from being published, then it's censorship. Ratings should not be enforced. But to have age ratings on movies, books, computergames, and so on, I think it's a good idea. Parents who allow their children to consume it can still do so, while those who want to protect their children from it can use the ratings for guideance and backup.

What rating a movie get coudl never be worse then annoying. Ashcroft's babbling about "cleaning" the Internet on the other hand, npw that's dangerous. We need free speach, and we need it to be free from loopholes to shut down opinions and subcultures that the authorities doesn't like.

In any case, In spite of bad presidents like Mitterand, Bush and Berlusconi, I don't think that we the west have much to worry about when it comes to censorship and other opression. Yes, I personally think that the presidents of France, USA and Italy are very unsuitable for their position. Feel free to disagree. Or agree. But no matter how much you dislike one of these guys, you can't reasonably claim that he will crown himself a new Ceasar and do away with democracy. Or anything of the sort. I'm more worried about Russia. They came a long way on the road to freedom, but they seem to be heading back to tyrrany now. We'll see in four years or so. :\

'But no matter how much you dislike one of these guys, you can't reasonably claim that he will crown himself a new Ceasar and do away with democracy.'

- Hmm I dunno.
Blair's got some shifty looking eyes.
He's the type that seems to suggest "watch out - You're In My World Now!"
So if I don't respond for a week or two, it's because Blair's announced himself as Ruler of the Commonwealth and I'm in some slave cavern being sold to Brazil for prostitue duties.

Well it should really be up to he parents. My six year old daughter is not allowed to watch Sponge Bob. that shit is just dumb and kinda creepy really. NO power rangers bullshit and no pokemon and it's million spin offs. We also do not let her watch things with lots of "kissy bits". We make her turn her head. She then makes me turn my head so that neither of us get to see it...LOL As for violence she does not watch anything with major over the top gore..like say Blade or Blade II among many others. The Sci Fi channel is pretty much on here 90% of the time here. She is free to watch anything on there with us. The other 10% is Fox News when I'm home. She asks questions and I answer the best I can to make sure she understands whats going on in terms she can grasp. She has a very good understanding that the movies and shows we watch are not real and only make believe to scare people. Thus she has never had a single nightmare or worries. She also does not run around the house beating the hell out of her dolls and her cat so what she sees is not affecting her because we explain it's not real. Hell, she even understands the WWE is not real and is only like a traveling circus and they "play fight". I don't need a Gov't agency like the FCC to do that. So yes I agree that this whole new flap about indecency (thanks Janet) is going a bit nuts. Just my personal side on how we deal with "questionable material" around our little family.

This latest round of "censoship" is just fall out from the superbowl. Essentially this is a great big experiment in free speech.

Our Constitution says congress shall pass no law...sometimes people forget that.

Give it some time (and after the novemeber elections) and our return to Las Vegas morals will be complete.

Halo's got a point. (Did I really just say that?:p ). Its messed up that they will show massive acts of violence on tv and that Lifetime has rapes in almost every movie it shows,yet they go into massive hemorage if a nipple gets shown.
They had an autopsy on the discovery channel the other night, They showed the mans guts and skull and all that kind of stuff., but squigglied out his privates. Not that I wanted to see it, but it just seemed massively screwed up that they don't care if kids see this mans guts ripped out but make sure they don't see his wang.Wich do they think would hurt a kid more to see?

Howard was yanked by Clear Channel. The CEO and the Bush's go way back. Clear channel owns 1300 or so radio stations and yanked Howard off 6. The 6 happen to be in Swing states where the election could go either way, including Florida. He was yanked with no charge by the FCC, who has as one of its officials Colon Powells Son.

He is still on Viacom's Infinity stations and the FCC is debating if they should fine him right now or wait til after the election.

Now lets throw another wrench into this. The US will use computer voting machines this federal election in some areas. Machines built by a partisan, out spoken Bush supporter. Election officials and concerned parties are not given access to the computers code as it is "proprietary" so no one can investigate if they will be legitimate or immune from tampering from either side.

Looks like the stars are all lining up for Holy Roller W. to get back in.

Looks like the stars are all lining up for Holy Roller W. to get back in.

Bush also owns stock in Alcoa, a leading aluminum producer. With the tin foil hat brigade gaining in such numbers, he's set to make another fortune.

well according to the old people that run the united states sex is worst then violence.

reasons why america is fucked right now:
young people dont vote nearly as much
the baby boom generation still holds the majority of the say gen X was much smaller like 1/5 the size or something
gen Y is allmost as large as the baby boomers but less then 1/2 of them are voting age.


people complain 10x more then they compliment.

I pretty much agree with ya Halo. As other's have said, many in the US agree with ya.

The whole "indecency" thing is apalling to me.

But, The Passion is indeed rated R. It isn't a kidies movie at all. It's not too gory(relative to other movies), it just seems to have strong violent imagery. I thought Saving private ryan for example, was much more "violent" then it, and would definetly let kids see Passion before that. And would let them see Eyes Wide Shut before either of them, an NC-17 movie(though they'd get bored 10 min in,that crazy kubrick).

Religious and conservative values are still in control, so they get to do stupid shit.

The real issue to me is the (notvery)superbowl "incident".

The fact that everyone is pissed as hell at seeing a normal part of the human body on tv, and yet is totally ignoring the fact that a man ripped the clothes off a woman in a not-so-nice manner, just gives me headaches. Why oh why are people so stupid? *bangs head on wall*

Just like chewie, it doesn't make sense.

Look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!

I figured it has been too long since there was a real, proper, anti-US thread


At the very least you are gaining points by coming clean and being honest about your feelings toward the US instead of hiding behind "oh I have all sorts of american friends, i just dislike their government!".

As for Blair, I can understand your resentment. Strong leaders such as Blair(and I'm sure it applies not just to him but to most of the older generation in your country, born/raised before the widespread eunuchization that seems to have overtaken it in the past few generations) have to conflict with the flowery lovey-dovey world you place yourselves in to avoid reality.

By the way, the differences between "NC-17" and "R" so some of you can better understand what you are talking about:

www.filmratings.com/questions.htm (http://www.filmratings.com/questions.htm)

It's easier to explain and for a kid to understand why Violence is bad rather than to explain sex to them. That might be why movie ratings are the way they are.

'As for Blair, I can understand your resentment. Strong leaders such as Blair(and I'm sure it applies not just to him but to most of the older generation in your country, born/raised before the widespread eunuchization that seems to have overtaken it in the past few generations) have to conflict with the flowery lovey-dovey world you place yourselves in to avoid reality.'

- Hey Crist0!
Fuck off.

'It's easier to explain and for a kid to understand why Violence is bad rather than to explain sex to them. That might be why movie ratings are the way they are. '

- So "Hey kids, this is sex, a natural thing we all go through" is harder than "this is a man torturing and executing another man.. yeah funny isn't it?"
Surely it would make sense to make sure both were inaccessible to kids?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> So "Hey kids, this is sex, a natural thing we all go through" is harder than "this is a man torturing and executing another man.. yeah funny isn't it?"<hr></blockquote>

Or perhaps, "Hey kids, this is sex, now this isn't the right kind of sex. You see Timmy fucking Tammy who's also sucking on Johnny's cock? Well now, that's just not right. But if you take Johnny out of the picture, it's still not okay because last week Tammy fucked Pual, Greg, Mark, Sally and Pam. It's actually like this, when a man loves a woman, well...not necessarily loves. Just attracted to, or really really drunk...." is harder then "This is one man hurting another, something you must never do unless your very life is in danger."

...oh my where do I start.

This is an issue that has pissing me off for quite a while.

First on the general concensus of American Culture. A child seeing a boob, or two people making love is far worse than seeing some one tortured and killed. Show a guy killing another, graphically you get a PG-13 rating, show a man making love to a women and show her breasts or even hint that the guy has a penis...get an R rating...pathetic.

Then you get to the ratings themselves....if you do finally show enough graphic violence to warrant an R rating...don't worry all you idiot parents, you can still bring 3 year old little johnny and scar his little mind.

My wife an I no longer go to any film rated PG-13 or higher, the site of complete morons bringing their small children to intense, violent films ruins any enjoyment the film itself might provide.

American culture is very screwed up right now...I know the understatement of the year award. :D

R, PG-13, and NC-17 are film ratings, not censorship.

Bingo!

And to those that think its normal behavior for threesomes and hard core porn you really need to wake up. Id love to see the day when you have a little child whether it be boy or girl you go right ahead and break out the porn and show it to them all you want. I'll stick to the good,the bad, and the ugly for my Sunday entertianment.

<edit> Akipt is my hero I love this one:

Looks like the stars are all lining up for Holy Roller W. to get back in.

Bush also owns stock in Alcoa, a leading aluminum producer. With the tin foil hat brigade gaining in such numbers, he's set to make another fortune.

Ibudin

"R, PG-13, and NC-17 are film ratings, not censorship."

Actually they are a form of censorship if you are banning certain segments of the population for attending, i.e. really just NC-17, not allowing anyone under 17 from attending.

My problem with the "rating" system is it's bias that sex is bad (and no, I'm not talking about orgies or threesomes, I'm talking about simply even showing a naked body...even non-sexually) and violence ain't so bad.

IMO, PG-13 should mean, no one under 13 admitted and R should mean no one under 17 admitted....adult in accompaniment or not.

'And to those that think its normal behavior for threesomes and hard core porn you really need to wake up. '

- The point is, it's the lesser of two evils.
You seem to be sidestepping the point - per usual - as to what it's all about.
Giving the violence an "A-OK" and then condemning sex.

It makes as much sense as all those WoMD [five points for slipping that in please Bob].

Yet you are comparing apples and oranges.
Showing a boob and a crucifixion aren't at the same level in sex and violence.
I'll be with Zehn on this one, it's easier to explain why the Christ is up His cross and why killing people is bad than why Terry is having her partner spanking her ass while calling her "exotic" names.

and no, I'm not talking about orgies or threesomes, I'm talking about simply even showing a naked body...even non-sexually


If they just showed a naked body it wouldn't be NC-17. It takes a good deal of graphic sexual content(also note that it takes a good deal of graphic violence - yes, violence alone can get it) to get that rating.

Remember that link I posted so people like you could better understand why movies get the rating they do?

Glad I could strike a nerve there Halo. Don't trust anyone over 30 man!

'Yet you are comparing apples and oranges.'

- Well no, aparantly I'm not when people here seem to believe extreme sexual conduct is far worse than anything violence aparantly has to offer.

'Showing a boob and a crucifixion aren't at the same level in sex and violence.'

- Well choose something that you would think lives up to torture and execution in terms of sexual conduct and then we'll compare.
Can't?
That's my point! extreme violence is FAR worse than extreme sex.

What would a child be traumatised by more? Heads being chopped off or a woman taking it in all holes (Zehn's mum - I had too)?

I don't know Halo but as far as public TV is concerned its all at the same level. Do you see people's heads getting splattered by a bullet or someone getting a hummer? Nope you see it from behind or after it happened and what's left over. Even playing field when it comes to that on public televison..there isn't any more violence then sexual content.

Now onto the theaters. I don't really even pay attention to the rating of movies anymore because it's been about oh 15 or so years I needed to care. However they all seem to be on the same field as sexual to violence content. I don't see them excepting an explicitly violent movie over one with explicit sexual content.

Point me to one that is rate PG that is extremely violent and one that shows a breast that's rated R.

On to Radio shows. We used to have a radio show that had a person by the name Mancow on it. For the first month was pretty funny stuff..mostly tried to imitate Stern and his antics..mostly all sexual conversations to open talk about drugs, hookers, strippers whatever. After about a month of that it became old news to me and after about a year it became old news to the area because they basically booted his ass of the air here. Censorship? more like people didn't like him.


Ibudin

"If they just showed a naked body it wouldn't be NC-17. It takes a good deal of graphic sexual content(also note that it takes a good deal of graphic violence - yes, violence alone can get it) to get that rating."

Wasn't talking about NC-17 Crist0...show tit get an 'R'. The US movie rating system is fucked up.

Okay, couple things. Boy do lists give me wood.

1) The rating system does not say that nudity is 'worse then' violence. They're saying it's just not appropriate.

2) It's -far- easier to be watching two guys beating the shit out of eachother and you tell your kid, "Hey...don't ever do that or I'll beat the shit out of you."

3) Movies are stories. Good stories are about conflicts. Only psychology majors and the swiss enjoy reading stories lacking conflict. And what's the easiest, flashiest way to show conflict between two people/groups/whathaveyou? That's right kids, violence! You aren't going to be blowing up any planes when little miss can't-fucking-act challenges the system! (Go go Mona Lisa Smile!)

Sexually explicit imagry rarely, if ever, advances the storyline. I mean honestly, did we really need to see Mr. Reeves ass to know he was thinking about another woman when fucking his wife in Devil's Advocet?

Halle Berry had to show her producer her rack (and much more) to get a part in Swordfish, did we really need to see it? Nudity in films now is just either an attempt to generate more media about it or for titilation.

4) Violence is an act that the majority of the population would rather watch then indulge in. Sex on the other hand is an activity that a majority of the population would rather indulge in then watch.

Ultimately though, the rating system doesn't work. There are too many avenues to go through to get ahold of this stuff anyways. It falls to the parents to instill in their children the values they want them to have. Unfortunately parents these days are less willing to take that responsibility seriously.

Again, you're merely giving reasons as to why violence is MORE appropriate (though they are hurrendously shit, to put it blunt), instead of justifying the fact that kids are even ALLOWED to see someone being tortured and executed in, what I'm told are, brutal and gruesome scenes.

As I tried to say in my original post - is it in the name of religion? Is that the guise it's using to "get away with it"?

Mayhaps it really is just because society is so accustomed to it. Like Cara said earlier - violence is in everything now. But hell, isn't sex as well?
You can be watching day time TV and a couple can come on shagging the shit out of eachother, and it turns out to be a car insurance advert.

"Look at this man's penis - Vodophone: Better mobile phones for everyone."

"Unfortunately parents these days are less willing to take that responsibility seriously. "

....and therein lies the crux of the problem. We need to start requiring lisences to have kids. :D

Halo, now you're just being a cunt.

Now?
Hm. I like to think I've never stopped being one :P

G'night.

Damn, you got me on that one. 8(

I can conter your argument with one movie line: Tombraider.

They are like pg-13 pornos. I was suprised how much they showed and kept the rating. All of the sexual content is there, and the scenes stop -just- short of actually showing anything...much like pg-13 movies involving violence usually stop short of being graphic.

Yes, they are violent, when but they show a someone getting shot for instance, they show little detail. Now in a rated "R" movie, they show the gore(and the sex). In an NC-17 version, they show the gore(and sexual content) gratuitously.

It really isn't too hard to grasp if you have any sense at all(which of course explains Halo's problems with it).

I guess I still can't get over the fact that you think hard core porn is normal, Halo. ;) Do others from your country feel the same way about it as you do? If so, I guess it is just a culture thing and I can't fault you on that. Maybe I am just getting old fashioned.

Both sex and violence are overdone in our media. I think one isn't better or worse than the other, they are both just 'there'. It makes being a parent much harder than anything I have ever done or ever will do.

I will continue to censor my children's exposure in both areas, because they are just that -- my children. I don't need someone else to do it for me, but then I consider myself a responsible parent, something that seems to be getting more and more rare.

Violence is, sadly, a part of every day life. Just tell that girl that came into my office today with a black eye because her boyfriend hit her,that it isn't natural. It is, after all, what her dad did to her mom, why shouldn't it be done to her?

I guess I am not sure what it is you are trying to get at. The act of sex is in itself, and between two consenting adults is fine. Likewise, understanding that there is violence in our culture, and that it is wise to be careful is also fine.

I don't think either is appropriate to shove down kids' throats. *shrug*

The passion is based on a part of history... nekkid pics is just a whole different story.

Tin foil hat wearers were also called conspiracy theorists and anti American for claiming there were in fact no WMD.

The greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Even playing field when it comes to that on public televison..there isn't any more violence then sexual content.

...hahahahahahahahaha

Do you even watch tv?

I'm not talking HBO, I mean basic cable. The farthest sex you'll usually see is severe making out and groping and whatnot, sometimes with clothes off but no dirty bits being shown. But I've seen a shot of a sadism victim, bound naked(but no naughty bits) after having their arm cut off(still bleeding). Yet on MTV's Real World they can't shown any "thrusting",under the sheets. On ER they can show all sorts of blood, and cutting people open, but they've blurred out tits.

I think Halo's point is that detailed violence isn't nearly as much of a problem as detailed sex. The rules and general moral opinion on sex are much tighter then violence.

If you have no problem with that, then there's nothing I can really say. It'ss dumbfounding to me

How exactly do you equate a dramatized surgery as violence Wilten? Do they actually show the gore when people have accidents or do they just show enough to give a general idea?

And sexuality is being censored even though you see full nudity(although not full frontal) on basic tv?

You do realize, when they show violent movies on those same channels, they edit them for it...right? Have you seen the hack job they do on say full metal jacket before they put it on one of those channels?

I know you're not going to sit here there and tell me they didn't edit it out to reduce the violent content in -exactly- the same way they edit full frontal or graphic sex content..are you?

In my last post, I was talking entirely about television shows, not movies being edited for television standards.

Yes, they edit movies, but it is inconsistant, and the movies were made for different standards, so it doesn't really matter. Even a severely edited edited version of Platoon is much,much worse then full nudity or basic sexual stuff, but the former is the one allowed on tv.

I just can't believe that you'd think children being exposed to violence is better than sex.
Who gives a shit if their son participated in a threesome? I'd give a shit if he beat someone up with a glass bottle.
See the difference?

Violence bad. Sex good.
Fire bad. Tree pretty.

Cara, I wasn't suggesting hardcore porn is normal in that it's an activity we all participate in during our lives, but I mean the act of sex is a normal thing, whereas the act of violence is surely something we do not want to encourage to be normal.
Who gives a shit which is easier to explain away to their children. That's pretty much the poorest excuse ever.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not encouraging extreme sex in movies. My point is if one isn't being censored, why censor the other? The supposed lesser of two evils?

I'd rather my child (my conjured up child, who would be named Fred) sit through hard core porn, witnessing normal acts of human nature

That is what you said, honey.

I think they are both wrong - extreme sex and extreme violence. Our children should be exposed to neither since both are wrong interpretations of a real world.

'I'd rather'

- Perhaps I should have emphasised that part. I'd RATHER they were exposed to hard core porn than extreme violence.
But as I said in my previous post - neither is, obviously, the better choice.
So why allow one and not the other? Makes no sense. Which is exactly what this thread is about: contradiction.

Oh I get it now..Football on sunday = Violence BAAAD
Halo getting a strap on shoved in his ass = Hardcore Porn GOOOOD.


Different strokes for different folks.


On an after thought though I think Halo is so bent on this because the kid can't get laid in a woman's prison if he tried...sad really.


Ibudin

'Halo getting a strap on shoved in his ass = Hardcore Porn GOOOOD.'

- I actually said you can't do that anymore to me.
Strap-ons I'll take, but when you wanna stick a champagne bottle up there, I draw the line honey.

'On an after thought though I think Halo is so bent on this because the kid can't get laid in a woman's prison if he tried...sad really.'

- Yes. I'll leave the fat, hairy tom-boys to you, mate. We all know how many sugars you like in your tea.

Oh, oh, I'm having fun! Let's ignore the contracictions in our society and resort to gay jokes! HAHAHA! Wheeee!

Let's ignore the contracictions in our society

Your far from being in my society mate, redcoat, what ever you resort to calling yourselfs across the pond these days.


Ibudin

Redcoat?
There's a line to hurting somebodies feelings, you merciless Yank.
Way below the belt.

Come on Halo, the contradiction of a violent movie rated "kids AND their parents" compared to a sexual one rated "no kids at all" (yeah I just read what were ratings :o )? Hair splitting a bit?

tisk tisk, editing your posts wilten.

Give me an example of a television show with graphical violence, then I can give you an example of a television show with graphic sexual content.

Then maybe you can tell me why you think graphic sex is ok but the violence needs to go, then go a step further and let us know who you are to decide that.

Yeah, I edited it a bit(adding another paragraph) after since there had been no replies, to make my point clearer. So what?

The sex I see on tv is not graphic at all. Since as I said, ya don't see the details. I don't think graphic sex nor graphic violence are "ok". I just think they should be on even ground.

I really would like to know of a show that has as much sex as a show such as "The Shield" has violence. Maybe I've missed it.

I guess what I need to know, is what do you call graphic sex? That must be where we differ. To me, it doesn't begin to get graphic until you actually start seeing, ya know, something. And that something is what is rarely allowed. If you think different, then there's not much more to discuss.

Oh, and a new episode of the shield tonight. woohoo!

What do you consider graphic violence?

While I consider the shield to be a violent show(and rated for mature adults btw..television ratings should probably come into this if you really want to discuss the topic), I don't consider it graphically violent.

It contains as much violence as other shows contain sexual content. For example, that tyra banks model show had an orgy on it. They didn't show everything in graphic detail, but then the shield doesn't either.