I teach a popular culture class, and this is exactly one of my topics. There is one important part about violence that was not mentioned. The American culture typically is not into ALL types of violence. We need to see a justified violence. If you look at movie box office earnings, no senseless slasher movie is even in the top 50 money makers. Sure it is full of blood and gore, but there isn't much of a point to it. The violence that we like to see is the violence that is used to protect American values -- freedom, individuality, family, friends, God, and country. Whether it be a superhero like Spiderman or a renegade cop like Dirty Harry, Americans love a hero who uses violence to protect the greater number/good.

Hmm is it that bad in the VS?
Around here it doesn't really matter.
Sex and violence are both equall, and there seems to be almost no line that you can't cross about wether or not to show it on tv, in the theatre and even on the streets.

Then again, the Netherlands is a very 'loose' country, were rules about this kind of subjects aren't very strict. It has become so normal that people fail to see how things like this are a bad influence on people with, let's say, psychological problems.
Maybe that's why usage of drugs is legal here for example.
I do believe however that people should do whatever the hell they want, it's their life.
If they feel good about killing people in game (or abusing woman, for as much as that is possible lol), if they need to do that to feel satisfied, then so be it.

As long as stuff like that stays in a game, or in someone's imagination.
Creepy thought, but like you said... It's a scary world.

i personally find that debate the most ironic one of all time. i was allowed to see violent films before i was allowed to watch two people have sex. i can watch an illegal act, which can be much more disturbing, than a natural which most humans will end up doing in some point in there life. i wonder if we replace sex with killing and killing with sex...will watching two people have sex become more appropriate?

@sgt_crow

Ok? Do you think it will be ok if your kid was playing a game where he had to see a woman get rapped? Hell no I don't want that kind of material in the entertainment industry, kids are so easy to influence that anything they watch on TV, internet, they want to attempt it.

Back on topic:
I mean sexuality that fine; I'm all for it, but when you see films like Saw and Hostel, I think to myself: What makes people watch these films? They main answer, It sells. People want to see chunks and body parts fly all over the place, a great example is Gears of War, new IP, it sold great, what was the main selling point? The chainsaw, when people saw that, they were like "I'm getting that S***". Developers and production companies make movies and games that will sell. I mean common I don't think people will really buy a Barney or a Teletubies(spelling?) game right?

Good points all around, Ya for me on a personal level Im fine with violence I surrport sexuailty.

Just in America it seems every show I watch theres tons of violence. I think the justified violence is really the issue to. Lots of shows with the good killing the bad guys or even ones with bad guys killing other bad guys.

I just do not understand the stigma of sex I guess.Even a girl shows her breasts on tv or that incident with Janet Jackson at the superbowl people blow up and cry foul but seeing a guy get his head caved in is ok.

Guess it is a more personal issue for me. But help in my studies of being a gentical social pyschologist I can use all the feilds to correct this problem.

Also fun thing to help with. Im planning on getting a masters in pyschology and socialogy and a PHD in genetics. What is the best way to phrase this title?

To my knowledge i'll be the worlds first to combine all three fields of study. The study of groups,indivudal,and genetical levels

@ chief_527;

It doesn't matter to me as long as the game itself doesn't revolve around that, if my child would create the idea that it is alright to do that stuff in real life, only then would I take action.
Funny thing, I was playing Bioshock earlier.
My mother walks in as I'm standing behind a window seeing how a Splicer walks up to a little Sister and knocks her down, then the Big Daddy rushes in and literaly slice the Splicer open.
My mother asks me; "do you find that entertaining?" I reply; "yes, I do.
It's part of the game, mom, part of the story." "I don't understand you youth, what's entertaining in seeing that kind of explicit violence and gore? Don't you think that people will get crazy ideas out of games like that?" And I responded; "Well, that's their problem. You've got sick minded people who come up with crazy and twisted idead anyway. It's not the game's fault." And she walks away, nodding.

As long as one knows it's just a game, a story, a movie or whatever other kind of medium it get's projected on, then what's the problem?

@ Sgt_Crow

I mean, we can go about this all day. We just have different point of views. I just think that certain scenarios should not be elaborated, when a product is mainly advertised for children. Even with the "M" rating, parents are so ignorant "or" uneducated, that in order to keep their children in their rooms, they buy which ever game they want. I don't know, I'm just babbling now

Now back to her other topic
I'm a test subject?!? I feel used I don't know may be "Sophynetics" or "Physcogentic sociology" OR!!! "Socionetic Psychology"

Just have to say, I think I died laughing at the idea of "Pyschogentic sociology" I thought of being like some sort of crazed scientist using genetics to make a form of super humans then pyschology to make sure they obey oders. While using sociology to rule over the enslaved population my pyschogenetic soliders took over...mwhahaha *pets her evil pyschogenetic kitty*

Haha, now THAT'S a scary thought, they should make a game or movie about that.

Sorry that I can't go deeper into the whole pshychological thingy though, I'm just a mere Media Designer who knows English to a certain extend.

I do however find it interesting, Chiasm.
Quite facinated about the subject, especially human knowledge.

I don't really thnk it is fair to put the two VS. each other. They are two separate issues and it has seemed to me for a couple years that US media is in a conservative swing. When I watch primetime TV (and maybe it is just the shows I watch) I don't see anything but usually cutaway scenes where the network holds your hand and shows you how a person is going to be injured or killed, but not the actual act itself. The rating systems usually hold up well if they are implemented at the parental level. Pleading ignorance is not acceptable in our societies laws, and the same goes for raising your kids.
For sex, I know USAs Up All Night used to beat the nudity system by 'slips' all the time when I was growing up and there is plenty of sex. It is just that some people seem to think that because a nipple is pixelated that it isn't really there. Sex , adultery and lies pull in the biggest daytime ratings, with daily soaps, Springer-esque shows, etc...
Violence, that isn't cutaway plays a very large part (not involving cutaway scenes) on cable TV at night with risque law and crime dramas pushing the envelope. Usually showing recreations of what happened in a scientific light and/or the aftermath on basic networks.
So at that point it is personal preference if you do compare: Are the breasts of an African tribeswoman on Discovery HD more offensive to you than showing the effects of a hammer impacting a skull on CSI?
Now is where we go tit for tat. You cite extreme example of violence on TV, I cite extreme example of extreme sex. In no way am I referrng to the premium channels, though. The cable or dish network has provided people with the means to block specific channels, shows, etc...for it seems like at least 10 years now.
Either way, and it is partly because of the shows I watch (a.k.a. my viewing environment) this is why my opinion is they way it is. I think we lose light of the issues for each one when we pit them against each other instead of addressing each one individually, but I really do believe we are in a conservative media swing. As for how it affects people, you can easily conclude that 1 in a million kids will probably be affected by a graphic shooter. The proof was Columbine. Just as I'm sure you can conlude the same for 1 out of a certain number of sex offenders, where you'll hear 'I didn't even know about that until I saw this video, and I just had to try it'.
It is just a case by case basis IMO, though and only parents, friends, therapists and people close to the situation can really know for sure. That doesn't mean we have to invade someones privacy, just observe how certain things affect people. Even though sometimes there are no signs that is just a part of life. A part of the randomness that can never be truly calculated.

Good well thought of post and agurement, For me it is not so much is well what is shown more as one could say both points of what is shown more.

But what is better for humainty would you have everyone watch violence or adult flims?

The best question I can think of for this issue is.
"If you had a child would you show them a flim of two people killing a person or two people showing love for each other"

I just do not get the taboo with sex and the bodies of humans. IT is the most beautiful thing we have every child should embrace this fact. Violence on any level is ugly and should be more censored then sexuailty. Violence leads to the destruction of the human race while sexuailty leads to reproduction. And face it or not your parents had to have sex and your grandparents and there parents. If they instead your parents killed each other or your grandparents killed each other. You and I would never have been around. Sexuailty is the taboo while violence is openly talked about in media all the time,I'll much rather see a all adult flim channel for school kids to watch. Then a watch a guy burtallly masscare other people channel.

Never understood the problem with sex. I see sex as a normal physiological need. If a woman appears with her brests naked in a movie while leaving the bath or whatever I find it very, very odd the need to give it a rate higher than 12 years old or whatever.
I also strongly belive that the western culture got its higher level of prosperity thanks to acknowledging stuff like this and truly adopting a laicist society (and respecting the personal/private beliefs).
Too bad, we seem - in general - to be taking a step back.

"The best question I can think of for this issue is.
"If you had a child would you show them a flim of two people killing a person or two people showing love for each other"

This is why you shouldn't pit the two against each other. I was trying to explain that it would be at my discretion as a parent what films I would show them. Some of the animated shows I grew up watching had some amount of violence. I think the line-up went from TMNT to X-Men on Saturday and after school everyday it was Batman. I seem to have turned out fine.
As for the love shared, I'm fairly sure that when I do have children the issue will arise where a movie that seemed alright may sneak a scene in there and I'll have to deal with that.
As for your 'either or question' many others can answer that. I cannot because my approach is different. This is actually how the conservatives of our government spin it sometimes when one is brought up, they'll use the other as smoke or fodder for their own agenda.
I give each their own place and time. I know I'll be fine with them watching animated series with some violence, but I wouldn't really want them watching a George Romero flick for some years. Their are some passionate films that can help them understand how beautiful love and the human body are but they may just have to see a nipple (for example) at the expense of understanding something greater. I'm confident that when that time comes I can convey it to them properly so that that scene wasn't what they take away from the picture. But in the same light, it would be a number of years before I would want them watching some of the skin heavy 80s comedies I grew up watching.
One thing I would hope for is that they don't get desensitized too early. I had 3 brothers in a 3 story house with HBO growing up so my parents weren't always watching me and my brothers didn't care if I watch Nightmare on Elm Street with them. The movies I watched alone from 6-8 are at the top of many 'scariest films of all times list'. So I didn't even blink or notice violence when it came to watching those animated series a couple years later.
In terms of sexuality. I'm in your stream of thought. It is beautiful, and human body is a miracle that I am amazed with everyday. But it has always been my opinion that a good number of people in influential roles have their own secrets/demons about sex and it is a stigma because it isn't the scene they may see which makes them so nervous, it is remembering something they've done or what they think about immediately think about during/after the scene that does so, and with each O'Reilly and Mark Foley I think my theory gains more credibility. Basically, we are suffering because of their not socially acceptable, guilt-ridden thoughts.
But one final thing to add to that is that I believe we aren't seeing sexuality tested because it may still sell, but it doesn't really make money for these networks anymore. Sex is so easily point-and-click accessible that I think the networks don't really know or believe that they can use it anymore. Instead they use attraction to sell. We still see beautiful people on TV in all genres but the network doesn't get extra viewers or make a dime off it if a sex tape for one of them pops up and I can't really think of anything that has pushed the boundaries on network television since NYPD Blue. So I'm wondering if they just threw in the towel to the internet and started looking to try and push the envelope in other categories. I actually think when television starts to swing out of its conservatism that in a few years, networks may start using their exclusivity on the internet to try and push it. But for greed and not for the sake of art and beauty. I've kind of imagined that you'll see 'see the directors uncut version of this episode only at ___.com' tested out.

ive just been thinking about it and i just realised that its a lot easier to tell a child not to act out anything violent from a movie than to tell a child not to do various acts that 'expose' themselves without prior education. thats why i think you should wait till the child has been through sex ed, learnt all he needs to know and as questions pop up just eventually tell them a little bit more and a little bit more until eventually youll have to 'show and tell' and once again it all depends on the child, the maturity level needs to be decently high otherwise theyll tell the rest of their friends without parents knowledge and wont be able to stop giggling and making 'silly' jokes

It's garbage that a game can be released with un-needed amounts of violence, but it can't if it has sex or nudity. What's the problem with seeing somebody's natural body, is it really that terrible? If so how? I can't see it.

Well it's always been like that, since i can remember, watching Commando or Rambo was OK, but don't you dare having any doubts about sex and watching late night Cinemax! XD , i guess it is easier to explain the none existence of real violence, than the existence of none feelings in porn or something, but the perfect example, a couple of years ago i gave my 8 year old nephew DOA ultimate, and when his parents saw the bikini and you know what XD...they kind of freaked out, they did not said anything about the violence in the game though...i hear no complain over Halo either...weird hu?