Why don't censors like sex?

Gluk Schmuck · #1 03-08-2002, 10:10 PM

With my Violence topic I got to thinking about how the censors are evil, fnebbed-up people. Why do censors adore violence but lothe sex?

Sex (consentual): It is pleaseurable and can be benefical to the species. Sets a good (usually) example.
Violence: It is very unpleasant and can be detrimental to the species. It sets a bad example.

If we think about this in boolean terms, sex is good and violence is bad.

munchman · #2 03-08-2002, 10:23 PM

they are all, thinks................................um dont wont to get in trouble well i think you know what i meen

Danny · #3 03-08-2002, 10:37 PM

I think what Tom meant was: Why do the censors get into trouble for letting Sex through, but not for Violence?

Sl'askia · #4 03-08-2002, 10:40 PM

Good question...*scratches head* Must be due to paranoid parents...wait..that doesn't make sense either...*scratches head some more*

Joe the Intern · #5 03-08-2002, 11:44 PM

Most censors are conservatives. Conservatives think sex is evil. If that's the case, I'M ONE HELL OF A LIBERAL!

Sydney · #6 03-09-2002, 12:09 AM

I agree with Joe. Conservative republicans are all-for violence and bloodshed, but when it comes to nature's natural methods of reproduction, they're up in arms.

Statikk HDM · #7 03-09-2002, 12:19 AM

well, i think Jane fonda summed up the sex censorship credo pretty nicely. "If a boy and a girl go into the woods with a picnic basket and a blanket the movie is G. If the couple has a picnic in the woods and goes under the blanket afterwards the movie is PG13. If the couple just goes into the woods and has a picnic anyway, the movie is R" Well, I fail to see why you would want to see all of that in a movie. If you wanted the hanky panky, you rent a porno or go to one of those "adult movie" parlars, surf the internet, read a dirty mag,etc. See, now this way it doesn't have to be rammed down people's throats and you can still have your jollies and get your rocks off if you so wish, to use the vernacular

Danny · #8 03-09-2002, 12:39 AM

:

Originally posted by Statikk HDM
well, i think Jane fonda summed up the sex censorship credo pretty nicely. "If a boy and a girl go into the woods with a picnic basket and a blanket the movie is G. If the couple has a picnic in the woods and goes under the blanket afterwards the movie is PG13. If the couple just goes into the woods and has a picnic anyway, the movie is R" Well, I fail to see why you would want to see all of that in a movie.(1) If you wanted the hanky panky, you rent a porno or go to one of those "adult movie" parlars, surf the internet, read a dirty mag,etc.(2) See, now this way it doesn't have to be rammed down people's throats(3) and you can still have your jollies and get your rocks off if you so wish, to use the vernacular(4)

1. The point here is that why should Violence be allowed through the censors if Sex isn't?

2. Ah yes, of course, those well-renowned works of literature and film-making...

3. Nobody's trying to ram it down anyone's throats. And why should Violence be rammed down our throats in the way it is?

4. Well, if you think that kind of thing is erotic, that's your own decision...

Statikk HDM · #9 03-09-2002, 01:19 AM

Well, give em some fine literature, movies, etc. And see if you can't rent or read them. Maybe it doesn't belong on Fox Family, but that doesn't mean it is not available!