Sex vs violence. which one is worse?

I'll take more of both please.

People have been fucking and killing each other for thousands and thousands of years. Those that get bent out of shape over these facts of the human condition being represented in any medium really have no clue. Real life and death will continue to happen all around you, no matter the content of some video games.

@DeF said:

I'm guessing most people just go "well someone thought of these >rules< and they must've had a reason and I don't feel the need to question those reasons since that might disturb my worldview".

Everyone does this, including yourself; it is part of the structure of your normative values.

Regarding the topic: I do not care for gratuitous violence or sex in my games. This is for the same reason that I don't like either in movies: a writer should be able to tell their story without relying on some base mechanic for arousing or disgusting their audience.

@bwmcmaste said:

@DeF said:

I'm guessing most people just go "well someone thought of these >rules< and they must've had a reason and I don't feel the need to question those reasons since that might disturb my worldview".

Everyone does this, including yourself; it is part of the structure of your normative values.

Regarding the topic: I do not care for gratuitous violence or sex in my games. This is for the same reason that I don't like either in movies: a writer should be able to tell their story without relying on some base mechanic for arousing or disgusting their audience.

Aren't games gratuitous as a whole anyway?

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/trylks/some-psychology-behind-achievements/30-42573/

Violence. What's bad about sex? Many US citizens are just ridiculously hypocritical about it...

I am fine with both if it is the right age group playing it only. Sex is a natural part of life, but disemboweling your opponent for fun is not... This goes for any media source in my opinion.

I am always dumbfounded how sex is taboo in games for the U.S., but depictions of genocide are fine in a kids game...

@Trylks said:

Aren't games gratuitous as a whole anyway?

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/trylks/some-psychology-behind-achievements/30-42573/

That's a great piece you have written. To answer your question: I don't believe that games are gratuitous, but I would say that games are - when reduced to their most mundane level - a form of recreation, but it could be - and often is - argued that they contribute to culture and the arts in general (an argument that I will not make in this context).

@pixieface: I only watched the trailer for the human centipede, not the sequel, but the original. That's the worst thing I've ever seen in my life, and I would not recommend even to my worst enemy to watch such a thing, I was feeling sick for two days. Insanity is one of the few things I fear, I don't mean insane people, I mean insanity, from the character, or the director. Maybe banning is too much, but there is no advisory that can warn you about that. Or maybe it's just the way I perceive that, and it isn't that bad.

@bwmcmaste said:

@Trylks said:

Aren't games gratuitous as a whole anyway?

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/trylks/some-psychology-behind-achievements/30-42573/

That's a great piece you have written. To answer your question: I don't believe that games are gratuitous, but I would say that games are - when reduced to their most mundane level - a form of recreation, but it could be - and often is - argued that they contribute to culture and the arts in general (an argument that I will not make in this context).

Either way, your point is rather weak. Anything may be considered as culture, culture is the way people express themselves, violence and sex can be part of the culture, as we see, culture in USA considers violence more suitable, at least for media, in the rest of the world that is rarely the case, except, maybe, for part of the muslim culture. Thus, speaking about culture, we should see much more sex and less violence in games than what we are seeing now. Culture is basically what we are discussing here. http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/893/tumblrlrz2q7ul091qa4e09.jpg

Art is another quite vague word, and quite useless to make a point. Like, what is art? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_maja_desnudahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_and_Actaeon_(Titian) and this could continue for ages. The art argument takes us to the freedom of the artist, and both should be allowed, violence and sex, and if one is to be forbidden, it's the harmful one, violence.

But the vaguest word is recreation. Masturbation as itself could be considered recreation, having characters in gears of war, god of war or crysis that look like the characters in onechanbara, bayonetta or tomb raider would only make those games better, from that point of view, which is not even mine, but the logical consequence of "recreation", what I think is that freedom and variety is the best. Actually, if there was an option to customize that, probably that would be the best thing to do, as some games that have the option to censor the blood. But the problem, very nicely worded by @TobbRobb is in the end that:

@TobbRobb said:

They both need to be rated, but they should be rated fairly. It seems like Explicit sex is a surefire way to go up the age ratings, while strong violence sometimes gets away with a T. I just never understood why sex is seen as more of a taboo subject hen violence, none are suitable for children, but sex surely can't be harmful for freaking teenagers? Less so than violence I believe.

PD: I was searching for a reference to the Simpsons chapter in which Marge opposes to censorship and defends art, but my ADD took me to other things, so this is the post anyway...

I never really got why people always say There's violence everywhere but no sex. Fucking all any media except video games is is sex, and the only reason it's not a large part of video games is because it doesn't make for compelling game play (unless you're into japan or anime I guess).

@Trylks said:

But the vaguest word is recreation. Masturbation as itself could be considered recreation, having characters in gears of war, god of war or crysis that look like the characters in onechanbara, bayonetta or tomb raider would only make those games better, from that point of view, which is not even mine, but the logical consequence of "recreation", what I think is that freedom and variety is the best. Actually, if there was an option to customize that, probably that would be the best thing to do, as some games that have the option to censor the blood.

I would hardly say that recreation is a "vague" term; it may be a very general word, but it is, as I said, the most mundane description of what video games are. To equivocate it with an interpretation of unrestrained license for whatever opprobrious activity possible within the realm of human conception would be rather hyperbolic. It is enough to recognize that while gaming is a medium which enjoys few constraints on what it can convey, it does not often push its own limits. I look at the disproportionate availability of "violent" titles over lurid titles as being an indication of supply and demand (i.e. Who wants to be the first company to dump a Gears of War budget into a sex simulator?).

For my own part, I could care less about what content is finding its way into the video game medium; could anyone ever produce a game which contains even a tincture of some of the execrable matter that one can access freely on the internet? Perhaps technology will catch up with some of the more perverse tastes of what I imagine to be a fringe crowd in our demographic, but I can't imagine it happening any time soon.

really? seriously?

Are you comparing the act of giving life to the act of taking it away and asking what is worse?

the world is really fucked up.

First off, I'm fine with both things being in games, secondly. How the fuck can you even compare sex to violence?

Violence is bad. Sex is not UNLESS it is used solely for the purpose of titillation at the expense of women like most games do. If it is done responsibly in most games I don't see why sex can't be part of games targeted at old teens and adults.

Sex is pretty great.

@bwmcmaste said:

I would hardly say that recreation is a "vague" term; it may be a very general word, but it is, as I said, the most mundane description of what video games are. To equivocate it with an interpretation of unrestrained license for whatever opprobrious activity possible within the realm of human conception would be rather hyperbolic. It is enough to recognize that while gaming is a medium which enjoys few constraints on what it can convey, it does not often push its own limits. I look at the disproportionate availability of "violent" titles over lurid titles as being an indication of supply and demand (i.e. Who wants to be the first company to dump a Gears of War budget into a sex simulator?).

For my own part, I could care less about what content is finding its way into the video game medium; could anyone ever produce a game which contains even a tincture of some of the execrable matter that one can access freely on the internet? Perhaps technology will catch up with some of the more perverse tastes of what I imagine to be a fringe crowd in our demographic, but I can't imagine it happening any time soon.

You are missing, maybe deliberately, the whole point here. Those games are already being produced, and those games are being misjudged. Examples:

PEGI: Strong sexual content = 18, strong action violence = 16.

ESRB: Graphic nudity = Adults only, intense violence = Teen.

Now, which one is worse? If we check the gamers' opinion then violence is worse (25.4 vs 5.1), but according to these organizations one would say that sex is worse. That's why, for instance, in Fable you can slaughter as many villages as you want, but you cannot remove your underwear. Is it offer and demand? No, there are plenty of options players would like, like changing their underwear in fable (and even choosing their pubic hairstyle) [1] but that would give the game an AO rating, and developers avoid it [2] it's not about offer and demand, there is no real freedom here, there is some criteria imposed in this content ratings that differs from the opinion of gamers about content, that is actually shaping it by making some content more easily available, by giving game creators more permissive ratings when they behave according to these crazy guidelines, which rate violence as less harmful than sex. That is, intentionally or not, a way to shape the public opinion about some topics by desensitizing or "hyper"-sensitizing this public opinion towards them, that is, if intended, social engineering, and if unintended, plainly stupid.

Sex- it's the WORST!

Hmmm, I'm gonna go with sex. Not because of some backward idea that sex is dirty, but because if you get your violence in vidja games but not your sex, you'll have to go out in the real world for that!

LOGIC.

Because religion

Don't you mean which is BETTER? Anyone? Anyone wanna high five me for my clever comment? Anyone?

@TheHT said:

Hmmm, I'm gonna go with sex. Not because of some backward idea that sex is dirty, but because if you get your violence in vidja games but not your sex, you'll have to go out in the real world for that!

LOGIC.

Logic is so fun... With that logic, games (in general) are awful, because if you get your achievements in games you may not search for them in real life.

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/trylks/some-psychology-behind-achievements/30-42573/

@buzz_killington: sorry, too late, this comes from page 4:

@BrainSpecialist said:

@Trylks: Surely you mean 'Which is better?'

;oolololololol

@Trylks said:

@TheHT said:

Hmmm, I'm gonna go with sex. Not because of some backward idea that sex is dirty, but because if you get your violence in vidja games but not your sex, you'll have to go out in the real world for that!

LOGIC.

Logic is so fun... With that logic, games (in general) are awful, because if you get your achievements in games you may not search for them in real life.

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/trylks/some-psychology-behind-achievements/30-42573/

aha, but! you won't get the achievement of sex!

LOGIC.

@TheHT: you do, even in games that are not rated AO.

http://www.giantbomb.com/achievements/the-swinger/76243/

http://www.giantbomb.com/achievements/paramour/78850/

Probably said already. Sexy violence.

@Trylks said:

@TheHT: you do, even in games that are not rated AO.

http://www.giantbomb.com/achievements/the-swinger/76243/

http://www.giantbomb.com/achievements/paramour/78850/

aha, but! those are achievements for having gotten a virtual character to the point of being about to engage in sex/having already had sex, but not actually having it! thusly, consequently, quid pro quo, the achivement of sex itself remains unachieved!

LOGIC.

@TheHT: 1.The first achievement is really about sex.

2. there are other games, where you get more graphical achievements, but I don't know if GB would like me to link to them.

3. I think you should check in a dictionary the meaning of quid pro quo.

@Trylks said:

@TheHT: 1.The first achievement is really about sex.

2. there are other games, where you get more graphical achievements, but I don't know if GB would like me to link to them.

3. I think you should check in a dictionary the meaning of quid pro quo.

aha, but!

1. about sex =/= sex itself!

2. graphical achievements that are mere depictions of sex =/= sex itself!

3. i certainly could!

quid pro quo: LOGIC.

@TheHT: a) that takes us to violence again, graphical depictions of violence are not violence, and that invalidates the first distinction you made between sex and violence.

b) considering it is impossible to put sex per se in a game, with current technology, but mere graphical representations, this should not be a problem according to your logic.

So now that you have incurred in so many contradictions, would you be able to state something (in topic) that I cannot refute with your previously expressed "logic"?

@Trylks said:

@TheHT: a) that takes us to violence again, graphical depictions of violence are not violence, and that invalidates the first distinction you made between sex and violence.

b) considering it is impossible to put sex per se in a game, with current technology, but mere graphical representations, this should not be a problem according to your logic.

So now that you have incurred in so many contradictions, would you be able to state something (in topic) that I cannot refute with your previously expressed "logic"?

aha, but!

a) that's exactly why violence in vidja games is beneficial! it's not actual violence! the entire distinction hinges on this (obviously)

b) irrelevant! the intiail query is which is worse in a vidja game! my suggestion implies an importance and advantage in managing violent impulses in a virtual space and whilst satisfying sexual impulses in an actual space!

LOGIC.

@TheHT said:

@Trylks said:

@TheHT: a) that takes us to violence again, graphical depictions of violence are not violence, and that invalidates the first distinction you made between sex and violence.

b) considering it is impossible to put sex per se in a game, with current technology, but mere graphical representations, this should not be a problem according to your logic.

So now that you have incurred in so many contradictions, would you be able to state something (in topic) that I cannot refute with your previously expressed "logic"?

aha, but!

a) that's exactly why violence in vidja games is beneficial! it's not actual violence! the entire distinction hinges on this (obviously)

b) irrelevant! the intiail query is which is worse in a vidja game! my suggestion implies an importance and advantage in managing violent impulses in a virtual space and whilst satisfying sexual impulses in an actual space!

LOGIC.

OK, I think I understand your point now, sorry for taking so long. Correct me if wrong, according to this, it would be beneficial to include in games sexual practices that are unacceptable in real life, as rape and pedophilia, to keep them away from real life, as violence. While things that are allegedly good, as sex, cooking or taking care of a farm, should be out of the games, and done in real life.

While this may be coherent from a logical point of view, while probably ignoring lots of books in psychology, I can predict you are going to have a hard time trying to argue in favor of your logical model.

If sex isn't violent, Your doing it wrong.

@Trylks said:

@TheHT said:

@Trylks said:

@TheHT: a) that takes us to violence again, graphical depictions of violence are not violence, and that invalidates the first distinction you made between sex and violence.

b) considering it is impossible to put sex per se in a game, with current technology, but mere graphical representations, this should not be a problem according to your logic.

So now that you have incurred in so many contradictions, would you be able to state something (in topic) that I cannot refute with your previously expressed "logic"?

aha, but!

a) that's exactly why violence in vidja games is beneficial! it's not actual violence! the entire distinction hinges on this (obviously)

b) irrelevant! the intiail query is which is worse in a vidja game! my suggestion implies an importance and advantage in managing violent impulses in a virtual space and whilst satisfying sexual impulses in an actual space!

LOGIC.

OK, I think I understand your point now, sorry for taking so long. Correct me if wrong, according to this, it would be beneficial to include in games sexual practices that are unacceptable in real life, as rape and pedophilia, to keep them away from real life, as violence. While things that are allegedly good, as sex, cooking or taking care of a farm, should be out of the games, and done in real life.

While this may be coherent from a logical point of view, while probably ignoring lots of books in psychology, I can predict you are going to have a hard time trying to argue in favor of your logical model.

aha! what a leap in comprehension, i find even calling it comprehension to be a misnomer! or leap for that matter! it's like rationalea to my rationalez!

LOGIC.

i say sex. i just think it's wrong for a kid to see that in a video game than violence.

@TheHT said:

aha! what a leap in comprehension, i find even calling it comprehension to be a misnomer! or leap for that matter! it's like rationalea to my rationalez!

LOGIC.

Z... so now Gokuh has a son and dies, logic.

@iam3green: That explains E, what about T, M and AO? I'll have to quote myself since I cannot find a permalink to a specific post.

@Trylks said:

You are missing, maybe deliberately, the whole point here. Those games are already being produced, and those games are being misjudged. Examples:

PEGI: Strong sexual content = 18, strong action violence = 16.

ESRB: Graphic nudity = Adults only, intense violence = Teen.

Now, which one is worse? If we check the gamers' opinion then violence is worse (25.4 vs 5.1), but according to these organizations one would say that sex is worse. That's why, for instance, in Fable you can slaughter as many villages as you want, but you cannot remove your underwear. Is it offer and demand? No, there are plenty of options players would like, like changing their underwear in fable (and even choosing their pubic hairstyle) [1] but that would give the game an AO rating, and developers avoid it [2] it's not about offer and demand, there is no real freedom here, there is some criteria imposed in this content ratings that differs from the opinion of gamers about content, that is actually shaping it by making some content more easily available, by giving game creators more permissive ratings when they behave according to these crazy guidelines, which rate violence as less harmful than sex. That is, intentionally or not, a way to shape the public opinion about some topics by desensitizing or "hyper"-sensitizing this public opinion towards them, that is, if intended, social engineering, and if unintended, plainly stupid.

@Trylks: haha now you're getting it! that'll be $95.50.

SOPHISTRY.

this should be sex vs violence, which is BEST!

Honestly, sex is OK in a game if it has RELEVANCE! I hate when games just throw that shit in the game just to have it in there and for publicity. Example: Grand Theft Auto. You have sex with a hooker to get health. That is ridiculous and totally unnecessary and lets not forget Duke Nukem which is totally about sex and naked chicks which is obviously ridiculous. If sex is in a game and makes sense to be there like imsh_pl said, it can show the relationship between two characters, then I don't have a problem with that. But if it's just thrown in your face and has no significant value to it other than it's just two people getting it on, that's pathetic. My stand on violence is that there are some people who can handle it and then there are those who decide to take it to another level and go shoot up a school or something. I think violence can be worse than sex in certain cases. I don't have a problem with violence so much as it's just a game. I would rather shoot zombies and monsters rather than people though. The airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 really gave me the chills. I watched my husband play that part and it made me sick. I don't know how anyone can play a game like THAT. Those kinds of scenes in games are just horrible. So really it depends on the game. I guess I have a problem with violence in games when it looks so realistic. I think violence can be worse when it comes to some games like Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty, but sex is worse when it's in games like Shadows of the Damned or Duke Nukem Forever. Again, it depends on the game and the person.

I hate when games just throw that shit in the game just to have it in there and for publicity. Example: Grand Theft Auto. You have sex with a hooker to get health. That is ridiculous and totally unnecessary and lets not forget Duke Nukem which is totally about sex and naked chicks which is obviously ridiculous.  

I watched my husband play that part and it made me sick. I don't know how anyone can play a game like THAT. 

In video games especially, sex/nudity is infinitely worse. Here's why:

1. First off, sex/nudity is entirely irrelevant to the base concept of video games. There is practically never a gameplay element to it (with exception of GTA 5's stripper mini-game, aka sexual harassment simulator, etc.), and certainly nothing to add to the action. You can and always will be able to find "better" sex/nudity elsewhere, so game developers should give up on it entirely and put that time and effort into enhancing the gameplay in these games, which has been suffering in many of these new releases to begin with.

2. Young kids are more ready to see violence in the media than sex. Yes, that's right! I just said I'd rather my three-year old son see someone getting their head blown off than to see two people having sex. Why? Because while neither image is necessarily good for a child to see, violence in general is a very simple lesson for kids. "You don't hit", sometimes "You don't hurt people". This is not only simple but consistent with his understanding of the world as he grows up. Telling him "Sex is bad" is not only untrue but a very literally Puritan way of addressing the topic; yet it's the only way of addressing it to a toddler who needs to somehow know what they're doing on screen he's not supposed to do.

3. There are a great many societal and legal deterrents of violence. It is almost always frowned upon if not punished in a big way. People understand (again from a very early age) that if they are violent, they almost certainly will be made to regret it. Sometimes even self-defense is punished, which is a testament of many things but one being our general intolerance of violence. Compare this to our general acceptance of sexual activity, including activity we can almost guarantee we'll regret! The media is chock-full of promotions of sexual promiscuity, or at least the promotion that it is normal, and so it is closer to being normal in the "real world" today than violence ever will be. This is why among both kids and adults, sexual misadventures are more common than acts of serious violence. Violence in the media stands to have far less influence on its viewers than sex/nudity. Because the former is consistently given less opportunity to be influential, seeming promotions of something horrible is actually better than seeming promotions of something merely bad.

Sometimes the first set of priorities is in fact the right one.

1) Real sex is great. Real violence is atrocious. Simulated sex is atrocious. Simulated violence is great.
or
2) All sex, real or simulated, is great. All violence, real or simulated, is atrocious.

I think I fall into the second category more, because I see the argument that even simulated violence has its down side. And, yeah I think all sex (by sex I mean mutually pleasurable actions of the typical sexual fashion) is great. I think

Mostly it's because people would much rather have to explain something simple and easy to their kids, like Violence, than something complicated, like love/sex/etc. There's a reason everyone dreads having 'the talk' with their kids so much, usually putting it off until the kids have already learned about it, most commonly through magazines or the internet or some other medium that they're not supposed to have access to because it's considered inappropriate for their age.

I've never ever ever ever ever understood the problem some people have with sex. It's a natural thing that, when done safely, only has health benefits. Both physical and mental. I really don't like how people talk about sex as if you're not allowed to acknowledge you enjoy it and what your preferences are.

That said, I've noticed I'm crazy liberal when it comes to sex compared to the people around me. I don't think you're a bad person for enjoying casual sex, which almost no one seems to agree with me on and I don't think it's that big of a deal if it's late at night at a deserted place and two people decide they get it on but accidentally get caught by some guy walking his dog.

I just don't get it. To me, it's very much like girls lying topless on a beach. Some people think it's really crazy, while I just think it's natural.

A,B,A,C,A,B,B

Yep. People are promiscuous 'cause the TV told 'em to be. Most humans have no innate chemical urge to have multiple sexual partners, but then they see an old episode of Sex and the City and LOOSE THEIR FUCKING MINDS. It's just science.

(your 3 year old has probably already masturbated... and it maybe wasn't influenced by "the media")

Violence. Duh.

hmm gee I wonder which is worse..

@joshwent:

"Yep. People are promiscuous 'cause the TV told 'em to be. Most humans have no innate chemical urge to have multiple sexual partners, but then they see an old episode of Sex and the City and LOOSE THEIR FUCKING MINDS. It's just science."

This is a gross oversimplification of my argument. No one's blaming everything on the media, especially not actions that wildly deviate from the norm. In fact, part of my point was that the reason why most are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior than serious violence is because it, unlike violence, is not considered a very wild deviation from the norm at all, not nearly as unacceptable in society or by the law as violence. Still, to debate as if we are impervious to outside influence (including but not limited to the media) would be a stretch.

When people ask, "So you're okay with violence in the media but not sex?", my response is always the same. I ask them if they're implying violence in the media is worse than sex in the media, and then I ask them why or why not. Ultimately, we must concede to two points I know many of you don't care to dwell on:

1. If violence in the media can influence the viewer, sex can too.

2. People are far more likely to go on a sexual misadventure than initiate violence.

So, really, the only reason for anyone to prefer sex/nudity in the media over violence is just the way it looks. Sex/nudity is more pleasant (typically) than violence, and that's the long and short of this allegedly enlightened view. People heard "I'd rather my son watch two people making love..." and immediately agreed. But this view is very telling and confirms my argument in this paragraph. "Making love" sounds better than "having sex". It's about appealing more to one of the five senses, this "enlightened" view. And it's the ones who don't want their children watching people have sex that are being irrational? Really?

"your 3 year old has probably already masturbated... and it maybe wasn't influenced by 'the media'"

Entirely irrelevant. And I have no idea why you put "the media" in quotations. "Media" is the plural form of "medium", and so television, music, video games, etc. = media.

Violence is abhorrent. Sex is life affirming.

Neither is an argument for one to not appear in media. Adults are free to consume whatever media they like.

@vic2point0: What's wrong with sexual promiscuity, as long as one is responsible and critical of their partners?

Depends on the country.

I like to see the one that I don't participate in. Make up your own mind which one that is.

@vic2point0:

1. If violence in the media can influence the viewer, sex can too.

This completely depends on specifically what you mean by "influence". Mimicking behavior that's seen in media is common, but that is very different from replicating that behavior. When I was a kid, I was really into Terminator 2. My friends and I would run around pretending we were Terminators shooting down helicopters with mini guns and other stupid shit. Not ever did we have one iota of an inkling to actually murder people with guns. It seems like you're arguing that media can influence actual behavior (like people who play violent video games becoming more violent), which has all but been scientifically proven false. It just doesn't happen in any meaningful way.

People want to keep their kids from seeing violence, not because it will turn them violent themselves, but because it will scare them. Kids seeing murders and screaming and people in pain will cry and be upset, not start replicating the behavior that caused it for no reason. But many folks still feel like kids seeing sex will replicate that behavior. And because of confusing post puritanical religion-induced cultural shame, they interpret that as a negative, even though it doesn't even happen in the first place.

2. People are far more likely to go on a sexual misadventure than initiate violence.

This is an arbitrary opinion that's just not really backed up by any data or reality. You might argue that, "People are far more likely to [want to] go on a sexual misadventure than initiate violence", but then you have to consider that the urge for sex is an innate human characteristic, whereas feelings of violence are (in general) fleeting and much less a part of our makeup. So media influence is again irrelevant.

Also, it seems unnecessary, but to repeat what others have just said (including others 2 years, 5 months ago) violence is always bad. Sex is fundamentally good, and only turned into a bad thing when ignorance or violence is added to the situation.

People heard "I'd rather my son watch two people making love..." and immediately agreed. But this view is very telling and confirms my argument in this paragraph. "Making love" sounds better than "having sex". It's about appealing more to one of the five senses, this "enlightened" view. And it's the ones who don't want their children watching people have sex that are being irrational? Really?

Okay, I'd rather my son watch two people hardcore fucking. I'd rather my son watch one girl fis**ng another girl while she li**s a guy's a****le and he puts his.... okay, you get the point? It has nothing to with "the five senses" and everything to do with rational thought. Kids watching violence makes them scared. Kids watching sex makes them (in my experience) uninterested, or at worst curious. (which is a good thing). If you want to sarcastically call that "enlightened", go for it.