Sex and Violence?

[Josh]

11/16/06:

Just an observation- I've just been appalled lately at the latest twists in our culture's preoccupation with sex and violence, namely that homicide and pedophilia seems to be all the rage right now.

It's the whole CSI spin-off phenomenon, with all the commercials trying to catch your interest with the latest grisly homicide story...

And it seems like every news story I'm hearing has something very graphic to say about pedophilia.

Hey, I'm a Forensic Files fan like a lot of you, and there is definitely something good about fighting these evils in our society through awareness and through science, but I'm just a little concerned that all of this attention might eventually numb the viewer, or perhaps even spark some depraved interest.

Above all, it bugs me to know end to think of what kind of a world my kids are going to grow up in- a world which will try very hard to rob them of innocent as early as possible.

What do y'all think?

"...but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil" Romans 16:19

[marc p]

11/17/06:

I totally agree. I had taken a hiatus from the news because it is depressing. This wasn't hard to do since I don't listen to the radio much, don't own a TV and we don't get the paper. But now I've gotten into the habit of checking a few different news websites on my breaks at work, and it does, in fact, seem that many of the stories are about depraved acts. I was really shocked that some of the news blogs actually reprinted some of the sexual chat conversations that former Sen. Mark Foley had with some minors.



I sell movies for a living, so I'm regularly exposed to (not watching, but even reading the synopsis of these movies) sick and twisted sex and violence. I won't recount any of it because that would be the exact thing we're talking about.



Several of my good friends (many of them Christians) have recently fallen in love with the movie Borat... I just don't get it. I don't get that sex jokes are funny... That racial jokes are funny... that general immorality and making fun of people is funny. It's not. Why are so many of us (and I'll admit that I have enjoyed and/or laughed at some fairly wicked things in my life) engrossed with wicked, dark and perverted things? What is it that drives us to these deviant indulgences?



Romans 16:19 is an amazing verse. Do we really get that? To be intentionally innocent about evil? Our nature longs for knowledge and experience. We are curious creatures.



We need the Spirit's guidance to help us discern what is enough information to make us aware of injustice and evil in the world so that we can combat it, without callousing our consciences and hearts to those very same things. I don't need to see graphic violence or sex to understand that these things exist in the world.



I'm with you since the birth of my son... My radar went from moderate to ultra-sensitive when he was born. I am just really aware of the wickedness and perversion around us in a way I wasn't before. I think we must pray for wisdom and discernment to navigate these times in which we live (just as everyone before and after us need(ed) the same prayer).

[Josh]

11/18/06:

Amen, Marc. I'm glad someone can relate.

We went and saw Happy Feet last night w/ Justus and I totally regretted it and kicked myself for not 'reviewing' it ahead of time.

Not to mention some scary scenes which probably aren't age-appropriate for Justus, I was just appalled by some of their choices of songs, like Prince's:



"You don't have to be rich to turn me on- I just need your body, baby-From dusk till dawn"

I mean, that's just plain hedonism. And that was just the tip of the 'iceburg' as far as sexual references go.

And I'm not against rap in general, but to be honest, I really hate the fact that Brittany Spears pop and 'gangsta rap' focused completely on partying, money, and sex outside of marriage is going to be the popular musical mainstay of my children's generation.

Then there was the whole theme of making the elders look (for the most part) like stuffy old hatemongers. Repentence got a bad rap when they told the main character to 'repent' for dancing.

Then there was the whole "I did it my way", individualistic, whatever I want to do is the right thing to do theme. It's like watching an important truth (sometimes you have to stand up to authority) get hijacked by a Hollywood agenda which never trusts authority and which sees any truth claim as 'judging' ('judging' being their narrow misunderstanding of what Jesus was actually talking about when he said 'judge not')

Finally, there was the 'humans are destroying the penguins' theme. Don't get me wrong, I believe in saving the environment, etc.. but I read an article a while back which really impressed me. The basic point was that kids don't need the burden of knowing about everything that's wrong with the world- things they can't really do much or anything about. They should be taught about problems within their grasp to solve and leave the larger 'global warming' and 'save the whales' issues for 6th grade.

This is a rant. Sorry if I seem like a crotchedy old ______________, but one's perspective on culture changes pretty dramatically when you've got young kids. I have to say, despite some great things that are out there, I'm deeply saddened by the lack of innocence in the world my kids are growing up into.

[marc p]

11/18/06:

Man, that's discouraging about Happy Feet. It seems like the MPAA (which has no legal authority, and is a volunteer group of people who formed to create a ratings system so that parents could make informed choices about the movies they let their kids watch) is degenerating right along with the general downward slide of morality. I mean, I remember the first time I went to a PG-13 movie and saw breasts. I was mortified and tantalized! If my parents knew what was in that movie I would have gotten in big trouble. I was 16. I'm pretty sure most 13-year-olds don't need to be seeing breasts.


I'm glad there ARE resources to go to. One is Kids In Mind, which gives a rating of like 1-8 for Sex, Violence, Language and maybe thematic elements? It gives a quite literal play by play of everything you'll see, and I'm not sure that is necessary. There are annoying pop-ups and you can't see any info on future releases unless you're a paid member. Another pay site is Screen It. I suppose if you're an "entertainment" driven family, it might be worth it to subscribe for a fee to a resource that might help you make wise choices, but...



I recently found a free website that is the online version of Focus On The Family's Plugged In magazine. It actually gives tastefully worded (when there is inappropriate content) reviews all within a Christian/biblical perspective. I have been really impressed so far (and I'm not always impressed with FOTF). I"m glad I found that site because I really wanted to see the new movie Babel starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, but have decided against it. I'd be curious to see if they hit on any of the nuances in Happy Feet that you (Josh) pointed out.


Anyway, for what it's worth...

Plugged In: www.pluggedinonline.com/

Kids in Mind: kids-in-mind.com/

Screen It: www.screenit.com/

[Josh]

11/18/06:

Marc,

That's funny 'cuz I just checked Plugged In last night (I'm not to high and mighty to turn to Focus on the Family in a moment of crisis).

I thought their review of Happy Feet was pretty helpful (wish I would have read it first), although a bit more favorable than my impressions, but then, a lot of how you view of movie depends on your associations, I'll freely admit.

You know, it was funny, after the movie I was talking with my parents about this and my mom was reminding me about movies she made us leave the theater on... (Space Balls and Ice Pirates, to name a few). Man, the tables have turned...



However, when I did the search on Plugged In, for some reason a review of God Shuffled His Feet by the Crash Test Dummies came up. I read that one too and thought it was really lame. They didn't see one redeeming element in the entire record... and I've used it countless times as a teaching tool (in a pretty favorable light).

They must have been unable to find some truth in the title track (which is pretty profound), gotten hung up on some vague evolution references, and have checked out by the time "How Does a Duck Know?" came on, which is the quintissential rock ballad on nature of sin.

[marc p]

11/22/06:

Right, which is why I said I'm not always so fond of Focus on the Family (or their reviews on popular entertainment). I was over at my in-law's one time reading through WORLD magazine (also a publication of FOTF), and there was a review of Million Dollar Baby and SpongeBob Squarepants. I disagreed with both of their reviews. To speculate that SpongeBob is gay is reading way too much into it (if you ask me), and then to go so far as to say you should never watch a film with a gay character is also going to far (if you ask me). If we create an "us vs. them" mentality on the issue of homosexuality, what hope of redemption do those who struggle with same-sex attraction (all the way down to full-on embracing the lifestyle) have? I feel really strongly about this. It seems often that the western church is quick to disassociate itself with anything that might be viewed as "condoning". Clearly, they haven't looked at the life of Christ (i.e. hanging out with every sort of sinner or "unclean" person). They also seemed to think that the movie Million $ Baby was promoting euthanasia (which I don't see). I think it clearly portrayed why some people might feel it is their only alternative, but it also has a pretty strong message about the resulting consequences.



Anyway, I guess using Plugged In as a resource, but not the ONLY resource would be my suggestion.

[hume]

11/18/06:

"I don't need to see graphic violence or sex to understand that these things exist in the world."


I doubt this is true. If people could truly, fully shelter their children from ANY real contact with the truth about the depravities and evils in this world, instead vaguely assuring them that "there are bad people out there" etc., I suspect kids would grow up without a strong objective sense that these things are real. A child like this would lack the capacity to protect themselves or others from the very real dangers they will sooner-or-later encounter in some form or other.

I agree, this is a tricky matter; when does learning slide over into a depraved vicarious enjoyment? Certainly a little of this stuff goes a very long way. Probably all of us can remember the first time that the reality of The Holocaust was brought home in a visceral way, like a punch in the stomach. Not until I was exposed to some of the photographs -- utterly graphic, undeniable, an absolute FACT -- did that event become fully REAL to me.

So partly it's a question of quantity -- likely we all need to see some of this at some point, but how much is too much?
Then there's the question of presentation: how many Hollywood attempts at portraying evil make the mistake of applying clever technical skills to the subject in a way that presents it as cool or exciting? (Then again, isn't that also part of understanding human evil? A Scorsese gangster film can give you a clue about why real people are attracted to participate in certain depraved lifestyles. If evil were simply and plainly awful, promising no benefits to its perpetrators, surely no one would participate in it at all.)

I'm glad that you two are so sensitive to this stuff, that's certainly a sign of good parenting. I'm just commenting that the portrayal of evil, per se, is not necessarily an illegitimate artistic aim -- it can be of real societal value.


"I don't get that sex jokes are funny... That racial jokes are funny... that general immorality and making fun of people is funny. It's not."

This is a whole 'nother topic -- what's funny, and why? I'll just say that much of humor, at least for most people, is a way to deal with unpleasant experiences. The worst things are made more bearable if we can occasionally scoff at them to demonstrate our superiority. Thus much humor focuses specifically on dark & unpleasant topics. Jokes like that are not necessarily intended for the general public, they're mostly aimed at people who have had direct contact with the subject in question. I expect cancer survivors have a special fondness for rather dark-sounding jokes about cancer, in a way that the rest of us may not fully appreciate. Again, I'm not arguing that there's no such thing as too much of this stuff, just that it's not inherently worthless.

[brian]

11/18/06:

I agree, Marc.


I think that in past generations, some crimes against children went undetected or denied because people in polite society were naive, and could not even imagine such things being real or happening in there neighborhood.


Now, it seems, the pendulum has swung so far the other way that these crimes are fodder for popular entertainment. Shows such as the CSI and "Law and Order" franchises on to the "Dateline NBC: To catch a pedophile" exploit the worst kinds of crimes to boost ratings.


I am the father of a baby girl, and find myself fearful of the world she will grow up in. How can a parent being exposed to such shows not instill fear and mistrust? And what do kids think watching these shows?


In the past, I have been very wary of censorship or restrictions on the creativity of artists. And I do believe that some legitimate works of art may have the effect ofupsetting or disturbing people. (i.e. Huckleberry Finn or any number of banned boks or movies )


I do see a difference between adults having the freedom to make a choice and buy a ticket to an R rated movie or read what they know will be a violent or explicit book, and the almost forced exposure you get to things buy turning on the television. As Josh said in the 1st post, even the trailers or previews of shows can be very explicit.


A question I ask is why are these things so popular? Is the market driving this? Does it signal changes in our culture? Should there be regulation of the images/ideas shown? ( like a return to the Production Code that Hollywood worked under up to the 1960s) Or should we work to change the culture somehow? Can there be a world in which people knew about these things, but did not seek them out for entertainment?


The second post gives some great advice. We do need spiritual guidance and discernment to navigate this world.

[hume]

11/18/06:

The key factor is just the kind of parental awareness on display in these posts. It's up to you guys to find ways to limit your kids' exposure to the worst stuff, to the extent this is possible. As much as we might complain about it or vote one way or another, ultimately we can't fully control these things (the internet, in particular, is substantially outside the legal control of the U.S.). At an early age, I don't think kids should be allowed unsupervised access to the internet or to most TV, period. (Eventually they may become more clever than you are about this, but that's certainly not going to happen in the early years.)

Were I a parent, I'd look very seriously into the available means of limiting access to both internet sites (e.g., filters) and television programs / channels in my home. At least up to a certain age, I *think* this can be done fairly effectively. Of course, at some point, kids are going to be hanging out at a friend's house and you'll tend to lose control over these factors (this is not exactly anything new -- I recall long ago catching glimpses of Playboy magazines at a friend's house; his dad was too lazy to take any steps to keep his kid from encountering such stuff, let alone showing enuf self-control to simply not purchase the mags). In short, we can worry about this material, we can complain about easy access to it; but in the end, its presence is a fact, and it seems as if parents should primarily focus on equipping kids to avoid / deal with it.

Avoidance is a good start, but kids need to know enough to protect themselves when you aren't there. For instance, it seems basic that every kid these days should be trained that, if they ever recieve an instant message / email / chat inquiry etc. from someone, regardles of how it sounds, they should NEVER give out their real name, address, or anything else personally identifying them. (Perhaps it would be wise to create for each kid an online pseudonym, try to make it into a game for them?) Kids must learn that, unfortunately, people cannot simply be trusted -- perhaps a good rule would be, if your parents don't know them, you don't know them.

To try to literally keep your kids "offline" would be both unlikely to succeed, and counterproductive in the long run -- they need to be fluent with the internet (and even with some TV) in order to function well in this society. Starving them from this stuff will simply make it all the more enticing when they hear about it from friends. Someone once said that it's "better to prepare the child for the path, than the path for the child." (Or more precisely, whether it would be better or not, it's simply NOT POSSIBLE to "prepare the path" and not the child.)

[Josh]

11/18/06:

Justus just chose HUME as his online psuedonym... you know, he's the 18th century Scottish philosopher my son's really into



Oh, and that's it, I'm changing my log-in to RICHARD SIMMONS.



Good points, btw.

[Josh]

11/19/06:

Man, it's so true that TV (and arguably, the internet) are almost like forced exposure- either at yours or someone else's house.

I definitely think there's been a cultural shift occuring and now picking up with extra speed, largely due to the entertainment and news worlds deciding that shocking sex and violence sells.



It's crazy how the news has joined the bandwagon especially-- even respectable news shows. I mean it's important to report the truth, but it's usually done in such an indulgent way that it's really just a pandering for entertainment.



It's also interesting how news got into the entertainment business, like it's expected now that we want to be entertained when we get our news....



Kinda rambling now...

[elizabeth]

11/19/06:

I also went to see Borat. I felt a huge disappointment in our culture after watching this movie. Where has our culture turned? Most people find this type of humor funny, I think, because we are very uncomfortable with things we don't know enough about. So, to make the situation more comfortable lets make fun and laugh about it. SAD.


We have come to a turning point in culture in that we have now decided that it is more important to be "free spirit" and have no consequences when we do wrong. It is more important to be "PC" rather than faithful.


With out the helping hand of the holy spirit and/or our conscious to guide us, we all would think that Borat was funny too. I was even more surprised to see Martha Stewart the queen of proper and togetherness split her time on Jay Leno with Borat??? Showing me that even Martha is willing to change to be accepted to our sleaze.


I have heard from so many people that Religion is just a way to control people. My first reaction is no, not at all. But, without our faith and a father to teach us we become deviant and lost. We are being taught, not controlled, and we are learning right from wrong. So many have no idea what is wrong.


Last thing. I recently made dinner with some friends. I found it to be very interesting that one person had commented that "wow, we are eating at the dinner table all of us together". I was blown away...you mean you don't. Half of the people that I know do not spent that quality time with there families. Even to just sit down and have a meal together. If we, as parents, do not have enough time to sit down at a table and talk with our children, during a 30min meal, then who does? Oprah who teaches that there is a "higher power"? The 6 O'Clock news with death and sleaze? Or maybe, us the parents, who are able to talk and listen to our children. Teach them, to know the right from the wrong.


As long as we continue to accept the violence and sex in our culture, it will continue to be inappropriate and in our face.

[Josh]

11/19/06:

"We have come to a turning point in culture in that we have now decided that it is more important to be "free spirit" and have no consequences when we do wrong. "

It's interesting that the American obsession with independance is now working its way out in nightmarish excess. Elevating one or two ideals at the expence of other equally important virtues always leads to trouble.

"even Martha is willing to change to be accepted to our sleaze. "

She must have picked up the habit in prison.

"We are being taught, not controlled, and we are learning right from wrong."

Great way of putting it, Elizabeth. The Father teaches us truth-- truth that is the very thing we need for our own well-being, but He refrains from forcing our hand.

[hume]

11/19/06:

Is the pope Catholic? In many respects, sex is preposterous, one of the "silliest" things humans do. Especially when you add in all the odd behavior surrounding it -- the hilarities of courtship/dating, the endless opportunities for embarrassment, faux paus, double entendre & so on -- no wonder it's been a no-brainer topic for comedians of every age, a source of humor for about as long as people have been able to laugh. Anyone who thinks sex "just isn't funny" is going uphill against every truly funny person one can call to mind.

That said ... if I understand it correctly, the Christian view of sex is all about context -- the love and family and commitment that elevate it to a sacred and symbolic status. And it's just this context that seems to be ignored more and more in our popular culture. Not coincidentally, the whole thing becomes easier to ridicule once this context is gone -- perhaps this helps to explain the general crudity of popular humor.

And it's one thing to say "sex is funny," quite another to go to the extremes on display in "lowest common denominator" movies like Barat (so I gather, haven't seen it & wasn't planning on going).


On another note -- so as not to overstate this "decline of the family," "culture going down the tubes" stuff -- a recent Time magazine analysis of demographic trends finds that,

"for all the headlines about the time crunch and the lost generation of latchkey kids, today's parents actually spend more time with their children than parents did in 1965. In the case of fathers, they spend twice as much."



(If my grandfathers are any indication, this seems quite plausible to me.)

[Josh]

11/19/06:

Yeah,

Sex is, after all, ridiculous if you think about it. It's like in the Magicians Nephew- God's first joke.

But it's the delight in sex outside of it's intended boundaries that's at issue here. One could say that to laugh at deviance is to not really appreciate the real, God-given humor of sex. It's like saying only deviance is funny, when in reality sex as it was intended by God is the real hoot, and deviance is just a sickening parody.


Of course, what's even more crazy is the way God takes His great joke about sex and then says that His relationship to the Church is like a lover's.

Kinda off subject, but this makes me think of John Donne's shocking but brilliant poem:


"Batter my heart, three-person'd God..."


Batter my heart, three-person'd God; for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn and make me new.
I, like an usurpt town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but Oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy:
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

[hume]

11/19/06:

I hear you. It sounds like there's not much disagreement among the posts here, we're just covering different ground.

Complaints about allowing "objectionable" material to appear in art bring out the would-be librarian in some of us: if you want to eradicate graphic violence and jokes about sexuality from our entertainment, you'll have to throw out half of Shakespeare for the violence and the other half for the sometimes raunchy humor. So there's a line to be walked here, is all I'm saying ...

[marc p]

12/7/06:

Man, the conversation went on without me. Sorry I was MIA. I got really busy in the last few weeks.

I agree. I don't think we're talking about different things. I re-read my original comments regarding not needing to see sex and violence to know it's real. I still stick by my original stance on that, in that I know plenty of people personally who have been affected by both sex and violence, or some combination of the two. Their stories tell me all I need to know.

I think I was specifically frustrated about aberrant/deviant sex and violence as entertainment. I do draw a distinction between entertainment and education. I think a movie like Schindler's List or Hotel Rwanda are educational, not entertaining. However, Borat or Team America don't educate me in anything my depraved nature doesn't already know. Violence and sex can be depicted without indulging (as it seems some directors do).

I do think sex can be funny. It certainly creates a lot of funny situations... whether in conversation or in actual experience. I think the heart of my question was more along the lines of "Should we be entertained by sex and violence." I think I ended up making more of a rant/statement than simply stating the questions/convictions I personally have for me.

Anyway... I realize I missed a lot and am jumping back in at the end (I mean, this conversation has already been archived!)