Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (49613)	6/8/2002 12:04:07 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In that movie people are sliced in half. I wonder if some of the violence we see these days isn't just so over the top that the mind dismisses it. Kids aren't going to cut other kids in half, for example. Maybe it's better when it's excessive, in a way, because it's so unreal. I watched an episode of The Shield the other day in which the lead cop took off his badge and used the pin to poke a suspect in the eye to get him to talk. Now that's not all that excessive, as violence goes, but I thought it was scarier because it's something that someone might actually emulate. It was more real. I agree with you about the ubiquity of violence, but I'm not sure if the excess is all that big a problem.

To: epicure who wrote (49613)	6/8/2002 12:13:55 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The real issue ought to be (imo) the amount of violence people see- and most of that violence is in the movies, and it has gotten very very extreme. The depictions of torture and mutilation and murder in the movies are about as sick as you can get, and parents are letting their kids see this stuff. I am sure most parent don't let their kids see porn, they probably don't even let their kids have playboy, but they let them see this stuff which is far far worse. Of course the violence, and eroticized violence, to which children are exposed more important than pornography, even the sado-masochistic porn, because the violence is so widespread. And parents are so casual about it. I don't consider that because eroticized violence is worse, that porn access by children isn't important, though. I think access to internet porn by children is extremely unhealthy. I think the kinkier the porn, probably the unhealthier, though I know of no study to that effect; and I have no idea how often children will access porn at the library if that's an option. Passing around a magazine at a party sounds like an occasional event in which the arousing or disturbing nature of the material would be lessened by the hilarity of the social setting. Children sit in front of computers alone every day. I think many of the images available to them there are not good for their psycho-sexual development; but of course if the choice were of keeping away from children eroticized violence of the sort you describe or simply cute ladies in thin negligees or even couples engaging in sex, I'd protect them from the violence. These movies are like "how to's" to become a sicko- while most porn is merely sexually explicit. A sex manual is "merely sexually explicit." I disagree that the porn on the net is "merely sexually explicit" to a developing child's mind in anything like that way. I think much of it contains deep and destructive messages about important things. Intuitively, I suspect the messages are more destructive to girls, but I'm not sure why I suspect that; it could be the opposite.