I don't think either is particularly acceptable for a 12-year-old, but if I had to choose one over the other, I'd definitely choose the violence. Violence is often relevant in good movies and most kids ages 12-18 know how to punch or what guns do. Overly gory movies maybe not so much, but movies like typical action movies(like i, robot or terminator or something) I think wouldn't be too bad.

Unlike violence, most sex scenes do not advance plot much, and are most often irrelevant to the storyline. While it's pretty much garunteed by the time someone reaches the age of 18 they will have seen the private area of the opposite gender either in graphic images or in person nowadays, If I had to choose whether my kids watched a sex movie or a violent movie, I would definitely choose the violent movie.

eh Im not sure, but I wouldnt let no 12 year old go see a movie with sex in it.

Originally Posted by ~~LOOOOOOONGCAT~~

Personally I think that sex in the films is far more inappropriate than violence. Most movies now are violence heavy, even the movies aimed at younger audiences, ie. Transformers. It's been slowly built up to a point where we as viewers have been desensitized to violence. I woulds like to say that there is a distinction between a "violent" movie (StarTrek) and a "Gare fest" (Chainsaw Massacre) and while I do think that violence has its place in cinematics I don't appreciate a gore fest.
Where as sex in the movies seems more like a porn, I don't want to see any of that (and I'm 21). the occation boob shot is fine, but full frontal nudity and sex scenes are a no go. If I wanted to watch porn, and I don't, I would rent porn not a typical blockbuster movie. so please save your tits for titty films, not something I'm going to watch with my family.

Nudity is a part of life, and a woman's breasts does not necessitate sex.

One of my favorite movies is "The Magdalene Sisters". It is based on a true story about "laundry houses" in Ireland and how horribly they treated the women. One of the things the main characters went through was that the nuns would line them up after their showers and and mock their bodies until the girls broke down and cried. It is a very sad par to of the movie, and it does show women completely nude. However, there is no sex involved. There isn't even romance. Why is this so horrible? It's the way you and me and the entire world is in our most natural, raw state. It is the way we are born.

Another good example of nudity which is not sexual is in "War and Remembrance", which is a TV series adaptation of a book about WWII and the Holocaust. In it, it portrays the "showers" Nazis would put the Jews in when they gassed them. They did not gas them with clothes on, and the series did not show it like that. They were nude, this is possibly the least sexual scene in TV...ever.

If two characters are making out and have their hands in one another's clothing and are in their underwear, you know, they're participating in heavy petting, then it is far, far more sexual than either of the two scenes described above. However, the scene with heavy petting in it can gone on prime time television, and the two above mentioned scenes cannot. Why is this?

Our society has a phobia of nudity which seriously needs to stop. Why do we shield the eyes of children from a bare breast, but we let them watch people with machine guns and scenes with heavy petting? This makes no sense.

Well, I don't see anything wrong with nudity in a movie. I don't like it, but I wouldn't say it's as bad as sex in a movie. To me, nudity in a movie does not equal sex. It's mostly movies in which sex is the plot that I don't understand the low ratings they were given.

I just recently saw the movie Sideways, in which there are actual graphic-looking sex scenes (even though only peoples butts are shown), but there's one weird sex scene in which a man is having sex with his wife and saying "you're such a whore" the whole time. Although, granted, the movie does show birth control (condoms, to be specific), which, to me, is a plus. And it also showed that having sex with someone and leading them on just for the sake of having sex is a bad idea, which I also liked. So even though there was sex in that movie that didn't need to be there, there were some good things they did with that.

So you think that allowing young kids to watch murder and violence and death and destruction is better than letting them watch love and good? Because thats what sex is, is it not? It's the ultimate form of love. So by not allowing kids to watch a movie because there is sex in it but letting them watch violence and killing and murder you are setting in their mind that killing is ok and love is bad. Think about it. Thats what we are doing. Why does our society so frown upon love but completely except murder?? It's not right at all!!! We are totally backwards!!! We are encouraging violence in our children instead of encouraging love!!! It's just not right. Think about it!

Why do you think sex is worse than violence? Unless we're talking snuff or rape, it really doesn't hurt anyone. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Doodler

Because thats what sex is, is it not? It's the ultimate form of love.

No, it's the ultimate form of reproduction ;)

I had to laugh, Tutela :)! What you say is so true. I'd wager to say that most of the time, sex has nothing at all to do with "love", at least, not love in the sense that I understand it. Lust, yes, but not real, honest to goodness, soulmate type love.

But that doesn't mean it's not fun, eh? ;p

Originally Posted by Clockwork Lime

But that doesn't mean it's not fun, eh? ;p

This.

Oh, it can be lots of fun!

Originally Posted by Infinitys Echo

I'd wager to say that most of the time, sex has nothing at all to do with "love", at least, not love in the sense that I understand it.

I think that the "most of the time" part is overly cynical. A lot of sex is had for casual reasons, some for the "wrong reasons" but a whole lot is also had out of love and caring.

Originally Posted by Kinmotsu

I think that the "most of the time" part is overly cynical. A lot of sex is had for casual reasons, some for the "wrong reasons" but a whole lot is also had out of love and caring.

~~~shrugs~~~I don't think it's overly cynical at all. I'm 44 years old. Obviously I've had quite a few relationships that would include sex. My biggest, with my husband, I was very much, extremely, truly in love with him til the very day he died. In our fifteen years together, not much of the sex was about an expression of love despite my very intense feelings of love towards him. It was about many different things, many involving various caring feelings, but an actual "I'm going to have sex with you right now because I love you so much and to show you how much I love you"? Nope. I call it being realistic.

In times past I would have outright said that sex was worse, but I can't say that now.

The longer I live the more I see how full of faults the American opinion on sexuality is. So many people look at anything sexual as inappropriate and disgusting. Well, ya might as well hate your body and your mind, being that both are very sexual in nature from birth. As I've heard in the European context many times: the body is a beautiful thing. I agree that sex in movies isn't going to harm a person's psyche as much as violence.

Sex is natural. Violence isn't.

Everyone on this living Earth is going to have to face up to sex at one point in their life time. Violence, however, need never exist, and teaching the youth of the world that violence is alright is a hideous malfunction of belief. Does not the world want to move towards a more peaceful place? How does said world do so if they are always bombarded with the system of ideals that says violence isn't bad, and can indeed be good so long as it is committed for the correct reasons?

So, in the short of it...sex isn't as bad as violence. I don't get much out of seeing a person's brains blown across a room.

I DO think, however, that twelve is a little young. I would probably have to start an argument of definition here to come to the conclusion of what types of sexuality should be presented to a twelve year old. I wouldn't be presenting a full-on porno to a pre-teen, but kissing, a little nudity, and an introduction the nature of sexuality in films at that point in time definitely shouldn't be as frowned upon as a horror flick depicting the disembowelment, and brutal murders of a hundred people.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

Sex is natural. Violence isn't.

I will agree with 50% of the statement above.
For the half that I do not agree with, I will just ask a question.

Do you believe the act of killing is not natural?

Europe has totally different views of sex. They don't have the hang ups that many Americans have who are taught many things are taboo when they are growing up. I don't have a problem with both of them. In the end it comes down to the person's up bringing and society as to how it's dealt with. It's entertainment and thus should be treated only as such.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Do you believe the act of killing is not natural?

I don't think it's natural. I don't think people are just born filled with hatred and violent feelings toward one another. Kids get violent ideas from things like the violent movies filled with hate and murder they're being exposed to.

@Elysium Fate: Awesome post. There are some really great points in there. :D

Originally Posted by Doodler

I don't think it's natural. I don't think people are just born filled with hatred and violent feelings toward one another. Kids get violent ideas from things like the violent movies filled with hate and murder they're being exposed to.

I did not limit my question to humans. I simply asked whether or not the act of killing is natural or not. Please do not use a red herring to argue with me.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

I will agree with 50% of the statement above.
For the half that I do not agree with, I will just ask a question.

Do you believe the act of killing is not natural?

I'm going to have to say that I don't believe killing is natural anymore. I say this because of the fact that, most of the time, a person kills out of jealousy, hatred, or fear. None of these three things are ingrained at birth.

A baby is not born afraid of spiders or snakes. A baby is not born being jealous of the 2000$ Versace dress that Gwen Stefani wore to Paris fashion week last Spring. A baby is not born knowing that he should hate a man for the color of his skin. A baby is also not born knowing that it can kill an animal for food. Violence is taught, and through the teaching of violence comes the knowledge of killing. Thus, not natural.

(After having read your comment to Doodler) I do think that violence is natural to other animals (such as lions who are natural carnivores and kill through instinct) but I do not think it is natural for humans.

Not all killing is violence-driven or particularly violent, however. Accidental killings, for instance, require no malicious intent at all. Killing in self-defense is also not violent, but rather a reflex, and oftentimes is also accidental.

I would also like to know what you mean by "anymore". Does that suggest that, in the past, it was natural? If so, why do you disagree with what biology tells us about characteristics that no longer serve us (namely, that they don't just disappear because of disuse)? And when exactly did it go from natural to unnatural? And does it apply to humans in general, or is it just the ones who happen to live in areas of the world where killing is not necessary to survive?

@Philomel: Yes, accidental killings require no violent intent, but they are also not driven by the psyche. Accidental killings will always happen unless all the people in the world suddenly find themselves living in indestructible bubbles.

I don't know so much that killing in self-defense is a reflex. I think that, if a proper survey were conducted, there are quite a few people that would rather be killed than kill themselves.

I'm glad you picked up on my "anymore." I do believe that (if one takes a evolutionary view towards life rather than a biblical one) there was a point in time, ending when humans began to build up cities and feel more safe in their homes, that killing was a natural, inborn, instinct. I think that, after humans began feeling safer, that instinct eventually devolved and ceased to exist at birth. The killing instinct is obviously taught pretty quickly in this day and age but I'd say the teachings are just reminiscent of a time when a person knew, from birth, that it was kill or be killed.

There are parts of the world that are closer to the "violence is natural" idea, but I think that none are at the point where a one year old would see a threat and know that the best option for its survival is to kill it. (Who knows, though, there might be some ancient civilization of Neanderthals left somewhere that still has those instincts ;))

I disagree with what biology tells us because of my time in psychology classes that pounded into my head the theory that human instincts are basically non-existent except for those of love, food, safety/shelter, and water.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

I disagree with what biology tells us because of my time in psychology classes that pounded into my head the theory that human instincts are basically non-existent except for those of love, food, safety/shelter, and water.

You disagree with proven science over what a psychologist theorizes on how the human brain works? I, myself, prefer facts over theories.

As far as your last sentence:

Love is a social construct, and is not instinctual. I, personally, believe that love began as a combination and/or exchange of possessiveness and/or protectiveness. However, no one loves by instinct.

Food, water, and shelter are not instincts either but necessities that all animals need to survive. Food, shelter, and water can be obtained by gaining territory. Organisms fight over disputes of territory. Violence is natural in all living organisms. Weeds kill flowers(another type of weed) to gain territory. Lions kill other lions to gain territory. Homo sapiens kill homo sapiens to gain territory.

I am also curious as when violence converted from natural to unnatural in your opinion.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

You disagree with proven science over what a psychologist theorizes on how the human brain works? I, myself, prefer facts over theories.

I do take theories seriously. Sure, a great deal of the world is based on facts but the world also needs theories to move forward.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Love is a social construct, and is not instinctual. I, personally, believe that love began as a combination and/or exchange of possessiveness and/or protectiveness. However, no one loves by instinct.

Love is instinctual. There have been many studies done on human babies and babies of other species that have proven that a child will die without affection. A human child who is not shown love within the first few days of its life will refuse to eat when presented milk and starve to death because of the loneliness it feels.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Food, water, and shelter are not instincts either but necessities that all animals need to survive. Food, shelter, and water can be obtained by gaining territory. Organisms fight over disputes of territory. Violence is natural in all living organisms. Weeds kill flowers(another type of weed) to gain territory. Lions kill other lions to gain territory. Humans kill humans to gain territory.

Having been so roused by this topic I took the time to look into what exactly the world defines as instinct and found that instinct can also be defined as a repeated behavior.

In the case of humans I will say that violence becomes instinct after repeated behavior but is not inborn. Humans want territory (it comes with wanting shelter), naturally, but the first thing that goes through their mind, the first time that they want territory, is not, "I shall kill this thing so that I may have its territory," it is, "I like this land, now how do I get it?" Violence is a secondary thought and violence becomes instinctual only after many repeated instances.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

I am also curious as when violence converted from natural to unnatural in your opinion.

In my opinion, this happened about 45-50,000 years ago during the time of Neanderthals. Neanderthals were thought to be scavengers, and didn't originally kill for food. They learned to kill from watching other animals and then taught their offspring to do the same. They had big enough brains to reason they were taking an animal's life and that the meat from the animal could sustain them. Instinct was becoming less necessary at that point.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

I do take theories seriously. Sure, a great deal of the world is based on facts but the world also needs theories to move forward.

Yes, however the theory must have evidence to back it up. This is why most theories usually have science backing them up even if they cannot be proven completely true. What you are suggesting goes directly against what has already been proven.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

Love is instinctual. There have been many studies done on human babies and babies of other species that have proven that a child will die without affection. A human child who is not shown love within the first few days of its life will refuse to eat when presented milk and starve to death because of the loneliness it feels.

Define love for me.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

Having been so roused by this topic I took the time to look into what exactly the world defines as instinct and found that instinct can also be defined as a repeated behavior.

I am not finding your definition of instinct. Please provide your source.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

in⋅stinct
1  /ˈɪnstɪŋkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-stingkt] Show IPA
Use instinct in a Sentence
See web results for instinct
See images of instinct
–noun
1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

In the case of humans I will say that violence becomes instinct after repeated behavior but is not inborn. Humans want territory (it comes with wanting shelter), naturally, but the first thing that goes through their mind, the first time that they want territory, is not, "I shall kill this thing so that I may have its territory," it is, "I like this land, now how do I get it?" Violence is a secondary thought and violence becomes instinctual only after many repeated instances.

They go hand in hand. Cause and effect. Land exists, only way to get land is to get rid of current resident. Would you consider rape as a violent act?

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

In my opinion, this happened about 45-50,000 years ago during the time of Neanderthals. Neanderthals were thought to be scavengers, and didn't originally kill for food. They learned to and taught their offspring. They had big enough brains to reason they were taking an animal's life and that the meat from the animal could sustain them. Instinct was becoming less necessary at that point

Your use of neanderthal excludes anything classified as homo sapien I would presume? Also, I beg to differ, but homo sapiens cannot exist on fruit and vegetables alone unless they have been properly educated on how to accomplish it. Furthermore, these scavengers would not have had access to all the fruits/vegetables that we have now and would not be able to sustain their bodies for a very long time at all. This is assuming that they were completely herbivorous in the first place of course. They probably realized this and said, hey, let's look for a new source of food or we will end up dying out like our other previous species. Thus hunting began. For every theoretical matriarchal society you list, I can name more than ten patriarchal societies to match. The reason why I say theoretical is because a true matriarchal society does not exist in theory, though there are those that have indeed come quite close. Most of the ones that have come close though, are completely inferior in this world and living on the streets striving to survive in a world they refused to adapt to. Also, would it not stand to reason that since animals hunted each other for food, that homo sapiens learned from this behavior and adapted it into their lifestyle to continue to survive?

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Define love for me.

(In my opinion) Any type of affection shown to another organism.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

I am not finding your definition of instinct. Please provide your source.

Originally Posted by http://www.answers.com

The term "instincts" has had a long and varied use in psychology. In the 1870s, Wilhelm Wundt established the first psychology laboratory. At that time, psychology was primarily a branch of philosophy, but behavior became increasingly examined within the framework of the scientific method. While use of the scientific method led to increasingly rigorous definition of terms, by the close of the 19th century most repeated behavior was considered instinctual. In a survey of the literature at that time, one researcher chronicled 4000 human instincts, meaning someone applied the label to any behavior that was repetitive. As research became more rigorous and terms better defined, instinct as an explanation for human behavior became less common. In a conference in 1960, chaired by Frank Beach, a pioneer in comparative psychology and attended by luminaries in the field, the term was restricted in its application. During the 60's and 70's, textbooks still contained some discussion of instincts in reference to human behavior. By the year 2000, a survey of the 12 best selling textbooks in Introductory Psychology revealed only one reference to instincts, and that was in regard to Sigmund Freud's referral to the "id" instincts.

Any repeated behavior can be called "instinctual," as can any behavior for which there is a strong innate component. However, to distinguish behavior beyond the control of the organism from behavior that has a repetitive component we can turn to the book "Instinct" (1961) stemming from the 1960 conference. A number of criteria were established which distinguishes instinctual from other kinds of behavior. To be considered instinctual a behavior must a) be automatic, b) be irresistible, c) occur at some point in development, d) be triggered by some event in the environment, e) occur in every member of the species, f) be unmodifiable, and g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training (although the organism may profit from experience and to that degree the behavior is modifiable). The absence of one or more of these criteria indicates that the behavior is not fully instinctual. Instincts do exist in insects and animals as can be seen in behaviors that cannot be changed by learning. Psychologists do recognize that humans do have biological predispositions or behaviors that are easy to learn due to biological wiring, for example walking and talking.

If these criteria are used in a rigorous scientific manner, application of the term "instinct" cannot be used in reference to human behavior. When terms, such as mothering, territoriality, eating, mating, and so on, are used to denote human behavior they are seen to not meet the criteria listed above. In comparison to animal behavior such as hibernation, migration, nest building, mating and so on that are clearly instinctual, no human behavior meets the necessary criteria. And even in regard to animals, in many cases if the correct learning is stopped from occurring these instinctual behaviors disappear, suggesting that they are potent, but limited, biological predispostions. In the final analysis, under this definition, there are no human instincts.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

They go hand in hand. Cause and effect. Land exists, only way to get land is to get rid of current resident. Would you consider rape as a violent act?

Yes, I consider rape a violent act, but I'm not seeing how that has anything to do with instinct.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Your use of neanderthal excludes anything classified as homo sapien I would presume? Also, I beg to differ, but homo sapiens cannot exist on fruit and vegetables alone unless they have been properly educated on how to accomplish it. Furthermore, these scavengers would not have had access to all the fruits/vegetables that we have now and would not be able to sustain their bodies for a very long time at all. This is assuming that they were completely herbivorous in the first place of course. They probably realized this and said, hey, let's look for a new source of food or we will end up dying out like our other previous species. Thus hunting began. For every theoretical matriarchal society you list, I can name more than ten patriarchal societies to match. The reason why I say theoretical is because a true matriarchal society does not exist in theory, though there are those that have indeed come quite close. Most of the ones that have come close though, are completely inferior in this world and living on the streets striving to survive in a world they refused to adapt to. Also, would it not stand to reason that since animals hunted each other for food, that homo sapiens learned from this behavior and adapted it into their lifestyle to continue to survive?

On the note of Neanderthals, I was alluding to the fact that the early homo sapiens would scavenge leftover meat from the kills of predators to supplement their herbivorous diets BEFORE they learned to hunt by watching said predators. Never did I say that they were vegetarians.