All Comments on 'Sex and Violence'

What a concise and adroit commentary on our current state of entertainment. Kudos to you.

That may sound a little highbrow, so let's try it this way:

Way to sell the boobs! :-)

I agree you with you as much on this essay as I did on your essay concerning sex education. What is wrong with looking at naked people? The old masters painted naked men and women in religious settings that are accepted as the great works of art that they are, but if someone of today uses nudity in a tasteful way people are scandalized and the repercussions are all over the news. Look at Janet Jackson and the whole Superbowl halftime flack just because one of her breasts accidentally popped out of her suit--over 250,000 people called and complained to the FCC about it and even the suits who run the television networks called it an all-time low for broadcast television. Come on now, there have been a lot worse things on network television than Janet's breast, but it's nudity we're talking about here and we don't want the poor American public subjected to that, now do we (I wonder if as many people would have complained if Jessica Simpson or Britney Spears accidentally revealed something, but I'm not sure I really want to get into a racial argument here)?

I happen to be a man and I have breasts, too, so what makes women so special that they aren't allowed to show theirs in public? And why is it that when a man does a full frontal nude scene in a movie it is expected that his penis will be revealed to the world but when a woman does it (unless you're Sharon Stone) everything between her legs is generally hidden behind a thick patch of hair, and no one has a word of complaint about that? Whatever happened to "whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander," and vice versa?

This country is made up of hippocrits and the biggest ones are those that fill the highest seats in Washington. Everyone has an agenda and, unfortunately, the majority of Americans have to put up with the bullyings of just a few. But, hey, that is what makes Democracy so wonderful.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I hate the current love of violent movies and avoid them like the plague. But the flash of a bare boob or bum on tv results in tons of abusive mail etc. Let's just ignore the idiots who think that sex is more dangerous to society than a bunch of foul-mouthed punks beating people up!

Great at last someone speaking sense on sex an violence, shout it out from the highest hill. Not allowing the beauty of the naked body to be seen but allowing violence and death is abhorrent. Love and sex as you say everyone does or will do many lovely times in their life, but death happens once, shouldn’t that be private.

Forcing the sight and beauty of the human body and the joy and pleasure of love underground, leads to the underground producers of so called pornography, to dish out the muck that they do, abuse by penis.

Advocating abstinence not education for the young and curious, leads to them looking for and finding some other way to satisfy that curiosity and most probably seeing some of the rubbish porn and thinking that is normal. It is no wonder that so many people are so mixed up on sexually. If main stream TV stations and film studios made films and programs portraying realistic love making between consenting adults (16 in the UK) and the human body in all its glory, rubbish porn would disappear.

Keep it up.

Lots of Love

Kathryn.

is that just once, I will read an essay of yours that isn't rambling, full of mistakes, poorly researched, whiny, pompous, and vacuous. I don't expect this to happen, but it's a dream I have.

ignore Nigel. If he'd been able to provide specific details to critique, he might have a point. But he doesn't, because he's simply trying to boost his ego by attacking one of the most popular and prolific Literotica contributers today, or for that matter in the past.

Second of all, check your inbox; we've been discussing your work, and we have an offer... ;)

ignore Nigel. If he'd been able to provide specific details to critique, he might have a point. But he doesn't, because he's simply trying to boost his ego by attacking one of the most popular and prolific Literotica contributers today, or for that matter in the past.

Second of all, check your inbox; we've been discussing your work, and we have an offer... ;)

...that pompous asses like Nigel will finally learn that they aren't forced to read a submission from an author on here. If you think someone is "rambling, full of mistakes, poorly researched, whiny, pompous, and vacuous", just don't read it. Simple as that.

However, I enjoy reading your opinions and agree whole-heartedly with you. Please continue writing, and keep up the great work!

1 - I'm not familiar with an pg-13 movies that show severed heads. There may be one, but you should have named it, so we could verify what you were talking about, and judge the context, so we could see if you were making an 'apples to apples' comparison.

2 - Horror movies are not all the rage. Horror movies have always been popular, which is why we have so many sequels to Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Nightmare on Elm St. And one thing all horror movies have in common is an 'R' rating - just like the movies that show breasts. So if horror movies and movies with nudity are both given 'R' ratings, then they are not being treated differently, are they? So I really don't see your point here.

3 - you say 'Violence is everywhere. On TV, in the movies, on the news'. This is true. But you then claim that sex ISN'T. Are you kidding??? 'Brokeback Mountain' was one of the most honored films of the year, and was hardly shy about its sexual content. Another highly rated movie of last year was 'A History of Violence', which featured one of the most explicit and erotic love scenes ever filmed between stars Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello. The most popular comedy of the year was 'the 40 Year Old Virgin' which was in-your-face with its sex. Woody Allen's 'Match Point' may have been short on nudity but it was long on explicit depictions of out-of-control lust. 'Sin City' was an extremely popular movie that showed a lot of naked body parts, as you call them. So on what, exactly, do you base your claim that there is no sex in movies? Obviously, that claim doesn't stand up to review. So let's move on to TV...

When talking about TV, you need to realize you are talking about 2 different things - cable TV and network TV. Cable TV is not controlled by the rules of the FCC, and is therefore alllowed to show whatever they want. On any given Sunday, you can see Tony Soprano shoot an enemy and 10 minutes later be mounted by his mistress. Violence and sex, together in one show. And after 'the Sopranos', maybe you can watch an episode of 'Real Sex'. Or flip over to Showtime and watch the nudity and sex on 'the L Word.' Or jump over to Cinemax and watch an old Shannon Tweed movie. So your claim is unsubstantiated as far as cable TV. So let's look at network TV.

Network TV is a slowly dying dinosaur, controlled by vague and ambiguous rules by a conservative body called the FCC. This is nothing new. You have never been able to show full nudity on network TV, nor use most four-letter words, nor show graphic violence. Notice that whenever anyone gets shot on network tv, there is never much blood, and the person usually bends over like they have a bad stomachache. Violence on network TV has always been implied rather than shown - 'Law and Order:SVU' as you mention, often has gruesome tales to tell, but they show very little of the actual crime.

While the levels of violence shown on network TV haven't changed much through the years, the levels of nudity, sex, and swearing has grown as many shows and their writers have tried to push the envelope. During the 90's and the early part of this decade, 'NYPD Blue' was almost as well known for the amount of naked derrieres it showed as it was for its great writing and acting. And there was once a love scene between Jimmy Smits and Kim Delaney that showed almost everything but penetration. So, again, your claims of 'violence ok, sex bad' just don't hold up.

4 - You claim that no one feels comfortable talking about sex, and that sex is taboo. You THEN say that all we can talk about is Paris Hilton's sex tape and Brad and Angelina having sex. Are we always talking about sex, or never talking about sex? You can't have it both ways.

5 - Speaking of 'you can't have it both ways', in your essay, 'Justice for Everyone?' you claim that as a result of the OJ simpson trial, many changes were made in the law helping abused women. In THIS essay, you claim that as soon as the OJ trial was over, no one cared anymore. Which is it? Did the case have a profound effect on the judicial system, or did people not care? (by the way, the claim that after the verdict, people stopped talking about it is preposterous. Stand-up comedians to this day are still making their livings with 'Well, I wonder how the search for the real killers is going' jokes.

You criticize and bemoan the fact that people are obsessed with reading about Jessica and Nick and Brad and Angelina. May I make an analogy here? In an email we exchanged, and in another commenter's post, it was pointed out that if I didn't like your essays, no one was forcing me to read them. The implication was also that I should stop criticizing things I don't like. Might I suggest this same advice applies to you and others who complain about our celebrity obsessed media? if you don't like all the news about Brad and Jen, no one is forcing you to read it. And, using the same logic, you might consider not writing to criticize things you don't like, since no one is forcing you to read them in the first place.

5 - Your section about the police department who 'got caught with their pants down' was interesting for one reason. I always find it amusing when people who dont believe a certain crime is that bad use the 'Don't the police have anything better to do?' argument. Let's take that apart from several angles:

A - The police are sworn to uphold ALL the laws, not just the ones they like or believe in (yes, I know that often the police DON'T uphold the law, but that's a separate subject and essay)

B - What makes you think that this police department WASN'T out catching murderers, drug dealers, etc? Not every officer was out catching hookers. IF you have any evidence that this investigation used so many resources that other criminals went free, feel free to present it.

C - No, they don't have MS-13 to go after. MS-13, unlike the Bloods and the Crips, have not spread nationwide, because for them to flourish they need areas with large Salvadoran communities (like where I live on Long Island).

There are only a handful of cities with a large enough Salvadoran population to support MS-13.

D - You claim this was a big scandal because 'the officers were getting some'. Thgis is not true and you know it. It was a scandal because the officers were breaking the law. It would have been just as big a scandal if narcotics officers got caught snorting coke on the job.

E - You then go on to explain why you believe prostitution should be legalized. That's an opinion many people share. But let me tell you about a recent case where I live. Police busted an Asian brothel. What they found was that most of the girls working there were being held as slaves. They had paid money to get smuggled into the US for a chance at the good life, only to be forced to work as prostitutes until they either got too old or died from disease. At last count, I believe the police had found over 100 women working across Long Island and New York City under these conditions. So much for prostitution being a victimless crime. Personally, I'm rather glad the police had decided to go after prostitution rings that day.

So, Goldie, those are my points in rebuttal to your essay. I hope they came out better than my original post did. If you don't mind, I will continue reading your essays, and will critique them politely and honestly. You are a very talented writer, and I enjoy your erotic stories. I just sometimes question the conclusions you make in many of your essays. But keep writing and growing.

You are absolutely right! Body parts in good shape and form should be on display to please our eyes! We do not need violence, which only destroys the perfect form of human bodies.

Keep writing, we Chinese readers are waiting for your new work!

Lao Zhang in Nanning, China

You are spot on GA. Remember when we got R certificate films, goody boobs AND bush. Then it had to get mixed up with violence, you pays your money and you get blood instead of boobs. As a recreational shooter and hunter, I'm also concerned that a glimpse of nudity also somehow had to work in a bit of derision about legitimate firearms use - perhaps implying that it always leads to crime.

Different ball-game, same tactics.

You asked, "Why does America treat sex the way it does?"

It seems to me that the old Christian negative view of sex, even in marriage, is the reason. I'm told that a thousand years [or so] ago Christians had sex with their cloths on and women never came.

Also, there is the feeling that "innocent" children need to be kept in the dark as long as possible, because sex is addictive and as soon as they start the "children" [I mean adolescents] will do it more and do more.

Christians believe that this will endanger their immortal souls. And since getting into heaven is the most important thing in life, it is better to keep your children in the dark. And the only way to do that is to keep all children that come into contact with your children in the dark. Protecting your own children can be used to justify, litterally, anything. So, censoring TvV and movies is a small thing. They just wish they could effectively ban all porn.

On the other hand, every human society I have ever heard of does sex [for love and fun as opposed to punishment] away from the sight of others. [BTW I have heard of more societies/cultures than most people.] The one exception is the swinger community, and another might be some parts of the BDSM community, but these are sub-cultures. No other social animal that I know of does this. They all have sex out infront of everyone. Perhaps this [no sex on TV, etc.] is a part of that "complex" or whatever it is.

I hope someone reads this. It is an old post.

We need to keep a clear division between religon and government. It has been said for so long the moral majority is neither moral or in majority. Elected officials have sold thier souls for votes, I've been saying this for decades! !!! What do we get more blue laws. They have used violence to distract us from the natural way of life. Taking your comments a step further, why are we not taxing churches for provideing entertainment, just like any stage play. Oh, and by the way where is all the money?

And saying shit is way more nasty than saying fuck

As John Lennon once said, "We have to hide to make love, but violence is done in broad daylight." That's what happens when the dominant religion of your society is a blood, death, and human sacrifice cult, right? With an instrument of death as its very symbol! I mean, a cross, seriously? An electric chair is more fucking humane! The practice of crucifixion is one of the most gruesome known to man.

But, anyway, spot on. I like this a lot better than some of your other work. As for the moron who thinks that one illegal Asian brothel typifies what prostitution would be like if decriminalized, just remember, dude, that was possible because it was banned, driven underground, and unregulated. Just sayin'. Make sure that they get protection, that they're all of age, and that no one is forced. Just common sense.