Why do people compare sex and violence?

[Revi]

This is something that's been bugging me a while, and came up again in the manga thread. When you talk about media, people very often compare the two. "If they won't show boobs, why are they showing murder?"

What is it about violence and sex that people feel is comparable?

The reason why people treat them as equal is obvious; they're both subjects to media restriction and all debate surrounding that.

But beyond that, what it is? Why do people feel murder and sex should be considered equally harmful, or equally harmless?

The biological basis is different. The societal impact is different. The motivation is difference. The way we think of it is different. The drive/urges are different. The way serve to harm or benefit is different. If it wasn't for the media debate, I can't really think of any reason people would treat them as equal.

Anyone have an answer to this? Seems so "common sense" to most people, but I'm not getting it. Hoping someone has a take on it that I've missed.

[Templar 331]

No idea. You'd think that making life would be good and taking it away would be bad but somehow they are equal.

[I Push Buttons]

Because the only sex and violence people want in their children's minds are the copious amounts of it found in the bible, nothing else.

[Strangebrew]

It get's compared because it shows the hypocrisy, sex is natural, it's normal, yet it is taboo filled and people act like being open around sex is going to ruin the society.

Violence on the other hand, is a disgusting act and in many cases an act out of hatred and evil, yet it get's glorified and used for entertainment.


I'm against banning any of the two in media, but when people glorify and praise violence, while stomping down on sex related content, it truly is hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Sesshomaru]

[...]
But beyond that, what it is? Why do people feel murder and sex should be considered equally harmful, or equally harmless?
[...]

Because CSI.
Sorry, had to say it.

To stay on topic to avoid infr---- (Nobody saw a thing)
For me, it seems more like rooted into the instincts of animals, which includes us.
We've seen several documentaries which shows the alpha male having a harem, shagging the females and defeat any other wishing to take his role as alpha male. Human nature can be easily compared to that.

For instance, we have the usual "bad boy"-archetype and "gentleman"-archetype, latter most commonly referred to as "the friendzone." By being nice, you are a rather comfortable companion rather than a object of lust. I mean, you don't see many people trying to get a number from Alan Davies, while 50Cent, Mr. Quarter and 1Dollar can just whim out their hand and they get their mate for the evening.

But that's my view on it. I'm more of a "gentleman".... Okay, not even that archetype, but you get the point. I've never had ladies or guys around my finger and I most likely never will. I'd just be comfortable enough with a partner I'd love to spend time with, exploring our minds and see the world burn together.

Although 50Cent and the Dollars don't really beat other people, the image they've set can be compared to a picture of violence, especially related to drugs, which has been confirmed time after time.

[Revi]

It get's compared because it shows the hypocrisy, sex is natural, it's normal, yet it is taboo filled and people act like being open around sex is going to ruin the society.

Violence on the other hand, is a disgusting act and in many cases an act out of hatred and evil, yet it get's glorified and used for entertainment.


I'm against banning any of the two in media, but when people glorify and praise violence, while stomping down on sex related content, it truly is hypocrisy at it's finest.

But since they function so differently, why is it hypocritical to treat them differently?

[Deleted]

have you ever had rough sex?

[Malachi256]

They're apples and oranges and a favorite of logically challenged internet posters.

Xekus is a good example. "Sex is natural, it's normal" is such a gross over-simplification it's not even funny. Context is what matters with sex - if we all went around having sex with random people in public, you better believe that society is going down the tubes.

"Violence is a disgusting act" is also a gross over-simplification. The violence against the south in the civil war or against the axis powers in WWII was not disgusting. It was an awful but necessary act of righteousness and sacrifice.

[Boogums]

This is something that's been bugging me a while, and came up again in the manga thread. When you talk about media, people very often compare the two. "If they won't show boobs, why are they showing murder?"

What is it about violence and sex that people feel is comparable?

The reason why people treat them as equal is obvious; they're both subjects to media restriction and all debate surrounding that.

But beyond that, what it is? Why do people feel murder and sex should be considered equally harmful, or equally harmless?

The biological basis is different. The societal impact is different. The motivation is difference. The way we think of it is different. The drive/urges are different. The way serve to harm or benefit is different. If it wasn't for the media debate, I can't really think of any reason people would treat them as equal.

Anyone have an answer to this? Seems so "common sense" to most people, but I'm not getting it. Hoping someone has a take on it that I've missed.

They're not comparing sex and violence, they're comparing why sex and violence aren't generally allowed in media.

[Revi]

They're not comparing sex and violence, they're comparing why sex and violence aren't generally allowed in media.

What's the distinction there? If I say they should show sex because they show violence, or that if they ban sex they should ban violence, aren't I equating them? If I'm not, how does my statement make any sense?

[rayvio]

probably because they're the only things that most people would agree should have some kind of censorship. it's a poor reason to use for comparison, but it's far from the only poorly paired popular comparison (damn you, thesaurus! why must you disappoint with no decent synonym for comparison that fits the alliteration?)

[I Push Buttons]

What's the distinction there? If I say they should show sex because they show violence, or that if they ban sex they should ban violence, aren't I equating them? If I'm not, how does my statement make any sense?

I think the argument has been if you allow one then why not allow the other or vice versa if you ban one why not ban both since both are deemed provocative.

There was a time when both were unacceptable, but violence slowly crept in.

I would assume the reasoning violence is more or less ok today is that the violence is entirely fake... Fake bullets, fake blood, fake gore, etc... But on the other end, while the sex is fake, the nudity is real. The problem with nudity is based in our puritan roots.

[Deleted]

One word: adrenaline.

But really, sex and violence are two of the most common acts in nature. Our bodies are attuned to enjoy both.

The animal kingdom is pretty much all killing, cannibalism and non-consensual sex.

That's why we have civilisation. You can't build a stable, productive society on behaviour like that.

Still, lots of fun.

[Independent voter]

Everyone has sex. Very few people take an axe to someone and hack them to death, so violence is more of a fiction or fantasy.

[Strangebrew]

Xekus is a good example. "Sex is natural, it's normal" is such a gross over-simplification it's not even funny. Context is what matters with sex - if we all went around having sex with random people in public, you better believe that society is going down the tubes.

This isn't even remotely close to what i am saying, it isn't over-simplification, and we are talking about in media here.
Give me one good reason why showing sex on TV, or fucking hell, breast feeding for that matter is bad?

"Violence is a disgusting act" is also a gross over-simplification. The violence against the south in the civil war or against the axis powers in WWII was not disgusting. It was an awful but necessary act of righteousness and sacrifice

Violence on the other hand, is a disgusting act and in many cases an act out of hatred and evil, yet it get's glorified and used for entertainment.

I would appreciate it if you read through my post properly before you started with your "LEL LOGICALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE LOL XD" nonsense.

[Boogums]

What's the distinction there? If I say they should show sex because they show violence, or that if they ban sex they should ban violence, aren't I equating them? If I'm not, how does my statement make any sense?

They say "both are inappropriate and/or obscene and/or vulgar and shouldn't be on TV/in movies" and then others go "how is this person getting decapitated any less vulgar than two people having sex."

They're comparing the adjectives they use to describe each.

[Malachi256]

This isn't even remotely close to what i am saying, it isn't over-simplification, and we are talking about in media here.
Give me one good reason why showing sex on TV, or fucking hell, breast feeding for that matter is bad?

Showing little kids various sex acts on TV is guaranteed to warp their minds. You may think that's not a big deal, but a huge portion of society disagrees with you. Sex is something that virtually everyone will have at some point in their life, and it is heavily influenced by what they're exposed to when they're growing up. So it's very reasonable for concerned parents to not want their kids exposed to Hollywood's idea of "normal and healthy" sex.

"Violence on the other hand, is a disgusting act and in many cases an act out of hatred and evil, yet it get's glorified and used for entertainment." I would appreciate it if you read through my post properly before you started with your "LEL LOGICALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE LOL XD" nonsense.

You should work on your writing, then. "Violence on the other hand, is in many cases a disgusting act and one done out of hatred and evil, yet it get's glorified and used for entertainment." I guess that's what you meant?

Anyway, violence is very different from sex for the simple reason that while sex is something that people can expect to take part in in a typical healthy life, violence is not. You prepare for violence, especially if you're a male - kids instinctually prepare for violence from a very young age (in the form of play). And as others have said, the violence seen in media is quite easily recognized as fake, and so it's really more a form of play, whereas the sex in media is not quite so easily disconnected. This is why actual violent media that shows real people getting really hurt is in a whole different category, universe even, from the Marvel stuff that people like yourself whine about.

[derpkitteh]

people aren't comparing sex and violence, they're pointing out that sex is harmless and an ok thing, but violence, which is destructive to society, is allowed on a massive scale while sex is shown as something bad and to be hidden.

[THE Bigzoman]

But since they function so differently, why is it hypocritical to treat them differently?

They aren't


Urges to fuck and urges to violently act aren't mutually exclusive. More often than not, people commit both through impulse.

[spanishninja]

It get's compared because it shows the hypocrisy, sex is natural, it's normal, yet it is taboo filled and people act like being open around sex is going to ruin the society.

Violence on the other hand, is a disgusting act and in many cases an act out of hatred and evil, yet it get's glorified and used for entertainment.


I'm against banning any of the two in media, but when people glorify and praise violence, while stomping down on sex related content, it truly is hypocrisy at it's finest.

violence is every bit as normal in nature as sex is.