Anger Over X-Men Posters Showing Jennifer Lawrence Being Strangled

[GasaiYuno951]

It is not the exposure that is causing the problems. Children will eventually see all this crap anyway. It is the lack of parenting. It is parents, not taking the time to explain how the world is to their children. When you hide things, they eventually come out and cause an even bigger problem then if you just dealt with the problem in the first place.

this guy gets it.. Parents need to actually be parents thats all

I agree. They are telling a story. The violence is part of that story. Just because it is part of the story does not mean it is glorified in anyway. In fact, I think the heroes are the ones glorified, they save the day and all that...

with violence lol

[Deletedaccount1]

I only responded that way because if you compare the X-Men poster to the thousands of other ads out there it isn't shocking at all. I pass thousands of ads a day, people with guns shooting, scantily clad women, explosions, suggestive drug use, liquor, etc. Many of them would not qualify as "g" rated. I don't notice anyone calling for the removal of all of these ads, yet the X-men poster causes a stir?

You can't hide things from children. They are way too curious and find out plenty on their own. The best thing you can do is really to explain it to them so that they understand. "See Apocalypse- he is a bad evil man, you shouldn't treat people that way... etc). Turn it into a life lesson, be creative.

I would argue those things are for kids even if they are wide spread.

Your argument is based on the premise that:

1. Violent and sexual imagery in advertisements are accurate portrayals of reality.
2. Kids need to know things like violence and sex exist so they don't live in a false state of mind.
3. Violence and sexual imagery should be tolerated because kids will see things like this in real life anyway.

The problem with your argument here is that these things are uncommon to rare in the average person's life. Violence is relatively uncommon, it exists and you can certainly know that without seeing violent imagery being glorified. Sex isn't uncommon but most kids don't need to know about sex until a certain age and overexposure to sexual imagery can be harmful to sexual maturity anyway.

I understand your train of thought but it is built from the premise that these things have to exist the way they do right now or that there is a particular good reason for why they exist like they do right now other than the fact that people have animal like attractions to sex and violence.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not the exposure that is causing the problems. Children will eventually see all this crap anyway. It is the lack of parenting. It is parents, not taking the time to explain how the world is to their children. When you hide things, they eventually come out and cause an even bigger problem then if you just dealt with the problem in the first place.

See my post above.

- - - Updated - - -

no but turning every child into some1 such as yourself seeking to always be victimized some way shape or form is what is ruining this generation every1 is always offended over something that is pure stupidity. People need to grow up know the true difference between right and wrong and actually be a parent to their children instead of letting them do what they will and seeing what they want without the proper knowledge and guidance.

This is just ad hominem. I'm not "seeking to be victimized" and I'm not a "social justice warrior". I just don't think violent and sexual imagery is a good thing for society to encourage and defend.

[Bapestar]

I'm not going to bite off more than I can chew and start an entire debate about you or I's worldview. I will just say that I think children are overexposed to blatantly violent and sexual imagery far too often. This isn't something you really worry about until you either raise kids or be around them for extended periods of time.

This exposure has obviously bad effects in how it numbs people to violent and bad behavior. It might not blur the moral line for many people but it is strange that people want to live in a society where the worst aspects of it are glorified in entertainment.

This is actually spot on. But many people, especially gamers will deny it.

[Deletedaccount1]

Yes really. I realize that you don't know what you're talking about and are saying what a G-Rating SHOULD mean TO YOU, but I'm talking about the actual film qualification standards. I can list an endless amount of G rated movies that show non-gore male on female violence. Mulan? Toy story? Pocahontas? Fern gully sort of?

Do you know why I can do this? Because it doesn't go against the motion picture rating system.

You're 100% in the wrong here on a technical level. If your beliefs of what a G-Rated movie SHOULD be are different, then that's completely fine. But you aren't going to win an argument against how it ACTUALLY is. Sorry.

Just say, "this is how it should be in my opinion", instead of, "this is how it is", because then you won't get called objectively wrong.

You always get so upset whenever you argue with anyone, you might want to try working on that. It's not very conversational.

But since you are getting nasty now, I'm just going to ignore the fact that everything you just listed is a cartoon that probably doesn't show a woman being choked by a man and that your first example of A Bug's Life, another cartoon, was "One bug almost crushing another one".

- - - Updated - - -

This is actually spot on. But many people, especially gamers will deny it.

I've noticed this as well. Gamers particularly, pardon the pun, are very militant in their defense of graphic violence.

[Rawklobster]

Anyone remember the last time Rose McGowan was relevant in the media.....neither do I. Hmmmmm.......maybe she's using this as free publicity? Nah, no one would ever do that, right?

[Alydael]

I would argue those things are for kids even if they are wide spread.

Your argument is based on the premise that:

1. Violent and sexual imagery in advertisements are accurate portrayals of reality.
2. Kids need to know things like violence and sex exist so they don't live in a false state of mind.
3. Violence and sexual imagery should be tolerated because kids will see things like this in real life anyway.

The problem with your argument here is that these things are uncommon to rare in the average person's life. Violence is relatively uncommon, it exists and you can certainly know that without seeing violent imagery being glorified. Sex isn't uncommon but most kids don't need to know about sex until a certain age and overexposure to sexual imagery can be harmful to sexual maturity anyway.

I understand your train of thought but it is built from the premise that these things have to exist the way they do right now or that there is a particular good reason for why they exist like they do right now other than the fact that people have animal like attractions

- - - Updated - - -



See my post above.

- - - Updated - - -



This is just ad hominem. I'm not "seeking to be victimized" and I'm not a "social justice warrior". I just don't think violent and sexual imagery is a good thing for society to encourage and defend.

1) I never said that it was an accurate portrayal of reality.
2) I do agree with that one
3) I never said they "should" be tolerated. I just said that if you want to shelter the children and hide all these things from children that you would have to take away a lot more than just the X-Men poster. Taking away one poster does nothing if there are 999 similar posters out there, still on display.

Violence is rare in most people's lives thankfully. However, children will be exposed to violence through the media and they have to understand that the violence in movies, tv shows, video games, etc is not real violence. It is just pretend violence or the portrayal of violence for the purpose of telling a story- which is immensely different from real violence. Even if you take away all the violent fictional media, children will hear about violence on the news.... Should we suppress the news too?

[LiiLoSNK]

You always get so upset whenever you argue with anyone, you might want to try working on that. It's not very conversational.

But since you are getting nasty now, I'll just going to ignore the fact that everything you just listed is a cartoon that probably doesn't show a woman being choked by a man and that your first example of A Bug's Life, another cartoon, was "One bug almost crushing another one".

I'm not getting nasty. I'm just calling you wrong and listing examples of g rated movies that apparently don't count in your personal book. Hunchback of notre dam, hercules, anastasia. You think I'm being nasty because I'm calling you wrong. Which you are. I keep listing G-Rated movies that depict the light violence of the topic at hand, yet you have no legitimate rebuttal.

And these are just the movies that show man on woman violence. Most if not ALL of the top g rated movies involve violence in some way shape or form.

But hey, these are just the top G-Rated movies of all time. Your opinion of what they should be is definitely the standard.

I tried simply calling you wrong, but you pushed it with no evidence of why you weren't wrong. I provided evidence, and you continued to push it with none of your own besides your personal opinion.

People who can't accept being wrong are a dime a dozen. Don't be like that.

[Darkfie1d]

gamers will deny it.

Only this morning when I woke up I was thinking would it be possible to see stupid shit the moment I browse any website today, and lo and behold it took me literally 2 clicks to find out.

That must be the most idiotic thing I ever heard, anywhere. In the real world, real people are able to differentiate between reality and fiction. Violence in entertainment is not real, therefore enjoying a work of entertainment that has violence in it doesn't make you a violent person. Fictional violence is not real, it doesn't intensify your inner desire to do violence. The amount of nonsense people spew if surreal.

[Deletedaccount1]

1) I never said that it was an accurate portrayal of reality.
2) I do agree with that one
3) I never said they "should" be tolerated. I just said that if you want to shelter the children and hide all these things from children that you would have to take away a lot more than just the X-Men poster. Taking away one poster does nothing if there are 999 similar posters out there, still on display.

Violence is rare in most people's lives thankfully. However, children will be exposed to violence through the media and they have to understand that the violence in movies, tv shows, video games, etc is not real violence. It is just pretend violence or the portrayal of violence for the purpose of telling a story- which is immensely different from real violence. Even if you take away all the violent fictional media, children will hear about violence on the news.... Should we suppress the news too?

Well I don't think we have much to debate then because I do think that more advertisements should be less graphic.

When I'm at a mall in the U.S. with my kid to go get a Lego set or something, I don't like having to walk past Victoria's Secret with scantily clad women followed by Gamestop with a picture of someone shooting and splattering blood on my way there while my child looks at all this.

Almost all children's psychologists agree that exposing kids to violent and sexual imagery doesn't "toughen them up". It just makes them used to and more numb to seeing things that should make any normal person feel a negative response.

The news is fine because it IS real. Your fallacy here is that you imply we can't control what we see in entertainment just like we can't control what we see on the news.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not getting nasty. I'm just calling you wrong and listing examples of g rated movies that apparently don't count in your personal book. Hunchback of notre dam, hercules, anastasia. You think I'm being nasty because I'm calling you wrong. Which you are. I keep listing G-Rated movies that depict the light violence of the topic at hand, yet you have no legitimate rebuttal.

And these are just the movies that show man on woman violence. Most if not ALL of the top g rated movies involve violence in some way shape or form.

But hey, these are just the top G-Rated movies of all time. Your opinion of what they should be is definitely the standard.

I tried simply calling you wrong, but you pushed it with no evidence of why you weren't wrong. I provided evidence, and you continued to push it with none of your own besides your personal opinion.

People who can't accept being wrong are a dime a dozen. Don't be like that.

You are still wrong because you haven't shown me a G rated movie that is not a cartoon which advertises or even shows in the film itself a man strangling a woman. You seem to think that this is light violence for some reason when it isn't.

[Darkfie1d]

Mystique vs. Male throats

[GasaiYuno951]

Well I don't think we have much to debate then because I do think that more advertisements should be less graphic.

When I'm at a mall in the U.S. with my kid to go get a Lego set or something, I don't like having to walk past Victoria's Secret with scantily clad women followed by Gamestop with a picture of someone shooting and splattering blood on my way there while my child looks at all this.

Almost all children's psychologists agree that exposing kids to violent and sexual imagery doesn't "toughen them up". It just makes them used to and more numb to seeing things that should make any normal person feel a negative response.

The news is fine because it IS real. Your fallacy here is that you imply we can't control what we see in entertainment just like we can't control what we see on the news.

- - - Updated - - -



You are still wrong because you haven't shown me a G rated movie that is not a cartoon which advertises or even shows in the film itself a man strangling a woman. You seem to think that this is light violence for some reason when it isn't.

your argument is about children seeing this and getting the wrong idea.... children are more likely to watch cartoons then these movies >.>

[Alydael]

Well I don't think we have much to debate then because I do think that more advertisements should be less graphic.

When I'm at a mall in the U.S. with my kid to go get a Lego set or something, I don't like having to walk past Victoria's Secret with scantily clad women followed by Gamestop with a picture of someone shooting and splattering blood on my way there while my child looks at all this.

Almost all children psychologists agree that exposing kids to violent and sexual imagery doesn't "toughen them up". It just makes them used to and more numb to seeing things that should make any normal person feel a negative response.

The news is fine because is that real. Your fallacy here is that you imply we can't control what we see in entertainment just like we can't control what we see on the news.

I am not trying to "toughen children up." I just think they should be taught how the world really is and not have it hidden from them. Even if you took away all posters and images of violence, children would still see it somehow. One of their friends will show them or they will find an old video or poster, etc. You really can not hide these things, it has never been successful. The best you can do is to teach your children the right way so that they understand what they see, instead of hiding it from them.

Your fallacy (since you like bold) is that you believe you can control entertainment, you can't (sorry). Politicians have been trying to do it for years, with way more resources than any of us have and they haven't been successful. Any person can produce a piece of entertainment fairly cheaply, just using their computer in their house. They can print it up, or burn it to dvd or distribute it digitally, really cheap. They can make it anonymous- so you never know who did it. How are you planning to control that?

[Oftenwrongsoong]

I've now looked at this poster 15 times and I'm still confused.

I do not see a man strangling Jessica Lawrence.

I don't even see a woman, just as I don't see a man.

What am I missing?

[LiiLoSNK]

You are still wrong because you haven't shown me a G rated movie that is not a cartoon which advertises or even shows in the film itself a man strangling a woman. You seem to think that this is light violence for some reason when it isn't.

If it was hardcore violence, it couldn't legally be shown. I know the difference, unlike you.

Are you saying that no CGI is taking place in the X-Men picture? Are you saying that there's a level of violence acceptable in a cartoon that can't be shown in a non-animated film according to the rating system? Is that how you think the rating system works? If this is what you think, you're wrong 3 times in a row. You're saying that if this poster was a 100% animated shot, you'd have no problem with it? I would love to see you explain yourself here. You're grasping at straws because you can't handle being wrong on a subject you know dick about. It's truly sad at this point.

I'm using cartoon examples because they occupy over 95% of the most watched G-Rated movies. Every one of them that I've listed involves male on female violence. This is why they are valid examples. You should've just stuck to voicing your personal opinion, because you're really burying yourself at this point.

[Bapestar]

Only this morning when I woke up I was thinking would it be possible to see stupid shit the moment I browse any website today, and lo and behold it took me literally 2 clicks to find out.

That must be the most idiotic thing I ever heard, anywhere. In the real world, real people are able to differentiate between reality and fiction. Violence in entertainment is not real, therefore enjoying a work of entertainment that has violence in it doesn't make you a violent person. Fictional violence is not real, it doesn't intensify your inner desire to do violence. The amount of nonsense people spew if surreal.

Never said it does. But people becoming desensitized to graphic violence is real. Gamers will deny it because gaming is what they love. Being a gamer myself, I do love them too, but I still hold my opinion. It's all forms of media, not just video games.

[GasaiYuno951]

Well I don't think we have much to debate then because I do think that more advertisements should be less graphic.

When I'm at a mall in the U.S. with my kid to go get a Lego set or something, I don't like having to walk past Victoria's Secret with scantily clad women followed by Gamestop with a picture of someone shooting and splattering blood on my way there while my child looks at all this.

Almost all children's psychologists agree that exposing kids to violent and sexual imagery doesn't "toughen them up". It just makes them used to and more numb to seeing things that should make any normal person feel a negative response.

The news is fine because it IS real. Your fallacy here is that you imply we can't control what we see in entertainment just like we can't control what we see on the news.

- - - Updated - - -



You are still wrong because you haven't shown me a G rated movie that is not a cartoon which advertises or even shows in the film itself a man strangling a woman. You seem to think that this is light violence for some reason when it isn't.

why is looking at a woman's body suppose to give some1 a negative response... thats just ass backwards

[LiiLoSNK]

What am I missing?

A meaningless life with nothing better to cry about.

[Deleted]

Only this morning when I woke up I was thinking would it be possible to see stupid shit the moment I browse any website today, and lo and behold it took me literally 2 clicks to find out.

That must be the most idiotic thing I ever heard, anywhere. In the real world, real people are able to differentiate between reality and fiction. Violence in entertainment is not real, therefore enjoying a work of entertainment that has violence in it doesn't make you a violent person. Fictional violence is not real, it doesn't intensify your inner desire to do violence. The amount of nonsense people spew if surreal.

And you instantly proved the point they were making.

Instead of answering the argument, you jump to personal attacks and rabidly defend a notion that no-one even stated.

- - - Updated - - -

You are still wrong because you haven't shown me a G rated movie that is not a cartoon which advertises or even shows in the film itself a man strangling a woman. You seem to think that this is light violence for some reason when it isn't.

Why does it matter that it's a man strangling a woman?

Making a distinction to begin with, is to live into the sexist idea of that Women are somehow more exposed to this, or that they cannot be on the equal level of anything else being strangled.

[Zephyr Storm]

Go away PC crowd, you're wasting valuable air for the rest of us.

[Deleted]

pretty sure Ms. Lawrence feels the same way about being strangled into doing those shite movies.

I feel the same way when someone tries to make me watch a Jennifer Lawrence movie to boot. It's an endless chain of strangling.