I know this question has been asked before but I'm curious about the responses. I used to work in a video store and a man was looking to rent a video game for his son. We informed him of the violence level being quite high and maybe inappropriate for a young kid. He stated that it was ok just as long as there was no nudity in it. I find this kind of disturbing. Is it really worse for our children to see the naked human form than it is for them to see the results of a drive-by shooting??? I don't advocate our children watching gratuitous sex, but the naked body vs. bloodshed? I'll take the nudity 100% of the time. Any thoughts on this? I'd like to also hear the opposition.
2006-11-21 06:44:32 · 12 answers · asked by Bud C 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
As a side note, I've heard several parents use this same scenario. Violent movies or games are ok but no nudity. I think maybe they are trying to make others think they are being responsible with this idea when they really shouldn't be exposing thier children to either.
2006-11-21 07:20:40 · update #1
This makes me laugh as I have spoken on it for years now. Look at American culture: violent televsion shows, but if it shows too much snogging in a program people get all upset!
2006-11-21 06:47:31 · answer #1 · answered by hopflower 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If it was JUST nudity, then it wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but the video games or movies don't show nudity in the museum or gallery sense. Nudity is usually attached to sexuality, and sometimes violence, disrespect of the opposite sex, no responsibility, etc. It is easier for people to detach themselves from violance than it is sex. Mankind is innately a sexual being, whereas we are not violent, so sexuality tends to stick in your mind more easily than violence. So, I think I'm a little easier on the violence, but again, context is important.
2006-11-21 06:57:26 · answer #2 · answered by straightup 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think any child can benefit from seeing violence on t.v. or in video games. they don't need to learn how to shoot someone.
some parents either just don't care what their children watch or play with or they just don't realize that by letting children play games with all that violence is not good for any child.
a while back in the news 2 teenage boys got the idea from playing a video game to take a gun to school and for points they went around shooting all the students and teachers.
so if i had to choose between nudity and violence, i would go with the nudity.
2006-11-21 07:00:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depending on the age of the child , I don't think kids need to see either , at too young an age . Neither is good for them , look at the results of younger kids not being watched by parents , they have no respect for themselves or any one else . They also think that people are disposable . The whole deal makes me crazy . KIDS need to be kids not small adults .
2006-11-21 06:53:20 · answer #4 · answered by Geedebb 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't find the human body offensive, but I believe it is private and sacred therefore shouldn't be simply displayed for ogling, but I abhor violence too, so I think this parent should have looked for a game that had neither. Just because one bad thing is perceived as worse than the other bad thing, doesn't make one more right than another. I think two wrongs don't make a right. There are enough good wholesome things out there that we don't need to compromise.
2006-11-21 06:49:44 · answer #5 · answered by toomeymimi 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Perversion and sick issues that stem from intercourse (that's quite censored generally in comparison to violence) is greater offensive than violence. there is an possibility you will run right into a violent scene greater beneficial than as quickly as on your life. life is only life simply by fact there's a hazard of dropping it. Sexual content fabric is inner maximum, optionally available, and has very distinctive factors that not each age could desire to be subjected to..ever. it relatively is action vs. 'action'. i don't elect my newborn to stay life thinking approximately intercourse, not that i elect them to worry for his or her life. you won't be in a position to have the two nevertheless or you do not have a movie....
2016-10-22 12:11:42 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the average American has had their values warped somehow.nudity is not basically indecent because of exposed bare skin it,s the way it,s presented and i strongly disapprove of violence for the sake of violence however in some situations violence is the only alternative unfortunately
2006-11-21 06:55:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have children these days ever heard of hide-and-go-seek? how about tag? playing house? Why do we have to sit them down in front of a TV and let them melt their brains and suppress any chance of thinking or creativity? I would rather not have either.
2006-11-21 06:51:39 · answer #8 · answered by DIRI-83 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
sounds stupid i know but bloodshed is alot easier to explain to a 13 year girl-- besides we are so unaffected by blood and gore its really no big deal anymore. Where sex still has a taboo to it.
2006-11-21 06:50:19 · answer #9 · answered by ycd71 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sex is natural; it's a part of life.
nudity is natural; go to any European city and you'll find nude statues. none of them have caused kids to go insane or whatever allegedly happens to kids "exposed" to nudity.
violence, that is physical harm for its own sake, unrelated to survival, stands in complete opposition to nature.
2006-11-21 06:50:36 · answer #10 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋