American Sex vs. Violence Hypocrisy: A Double Standard of Culture

 American Sex vs. Violence Hypocrisy: A Double Standard of Culture

There is a paradox at the heart of our popular culture here in America—one that emphasizes deep cultural contradictions regarding what we choose to censor and what we glorify. This contradiction is most theatrical when we compare how sex and violence are treated in movies, television, and other media. Why is it socially and legally acceptable for minors and other viewers to witness graphic violence enacted in front of them and not nudity or consensual sex, which are typically censored, stigmatized, or simply forbidden?

Consider the following: a film can feature someone getting shot in the head and still receive a PG-13 rating. Exploding intestines, hacked-off limbs, and bloody battles can appear on screen without rating commissions or much public outcry. But if the same movie depicted a consensual act of oral sex, or even full-frontal nudity, in a non-exploitative context, it would easily get an R or even an NC-17. In extreme cases, it might not be released, but it would have to be censored. The insertion of a bullet into a skull is okay for teenagers. A penis in a mouth is not.

This double standard is more than an oddity of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) rating system. It is an expression of a deeper cultural bias in the U.S.—a deep discomfort with the human body, sex, and intimacy, coupled with an almost callous tolerance, even enthusiasm, for violence. The implications of this paradox extend far beyond the cinema. They set our social norms, shape our laws, and influence the psychological development of children and adults.

The Rationale: Protecting Innocence?

The most common explanation of this inconsistency is that sexual content is worse for children's minds than content that deals with violence. This has been the basis for America's moral furor about protecting children from "indecency" for so long. Nudity, sensuality, and representations of love or pleasure are represented as corrupting innocence, whereas violence is defined as entertainment, heroism, or even justice.

But let's put that on. When, exactly, is anybody—kid or adult—*ready* to deal with graphic violence? A 13-year-old can lawfully view dozens of human beings being murdered in a war film or action film, replete with fake blood effects and suffering. But that same youngster cannot lawfully view two adults having sex, even in a tender, loving situation. The result is a generation more jaded to death and brutality than to affection, tenderness, or physical intimacy.

And what are the psychological consequences? Studies have again and again shown that repeated exposure to media violence can create increased aggression and desensitization in children. Conversely, studies of sex content show that, if presented healthily and respectfully, it doesn't have the same adverse effect, and can result in better knowledge of consent, relationships, and body image when handled sensitively.

Sex Brings Life, Violence Ends It

Sexually, at its core, is an affirming act of life. It is how life continues. When sex is consensual and ethical, it is an act of connection, vulnerability, trust, and pleasure. Violence is typically the opposite of these. It is disunifying, destructive, and traumatic. But in our American culture, our media—and by default, our social norms—so often romanticize violence while stigmatizing sex as if it's profane or dirty.

This turnabout in values points to what some have termed a "cult of death." Rather than celebrating life and the human body, our culture increasingly seems to value domination, aggression, and retribution. This cultural pattern does not stand alone; it is supported by centuries of puritanical religious heritage, rigid gender roles, and political motives that have shaped American attitudes since the country was founded.

A Global Outlier

The United States, on so many levels, is an exception to the Western world in these attitudes. In most of Europe, for example, nudity on TV is not something to comment on and is not handled as taboo but instead in a typical, educational situation. Advertisements or public service announcements featuring nudity or sexual references are routine in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. These nations also have far more open media rating criteria.

Most of the same nations, however, more heavily regulate portrayals of violence, particularly portrayals involving guns. In other words, they have gone out of their way to prioritize protection of citizens from brutality desensitization over protection of citizens from ordinary expressions of intimacy.

This global comparison only serves to make America's stance all the more perplexing. Why do we continue to condone violence, normalizing, but clutch our pearls when we glimpse a sex scene or a nipple?

Consequences of the Double Standard

The repercussions of this cultural disparity are not hypothetical. They are concrete, tangible in the way we interact with sex education, for instance. Large parts of America's education system continue to employ abstinence-only classes, avoiding open examination of sexual health, consent, or pleasure. Kids are seeing violent imagery on the internet, in games, and on television, often with little or no parental control.

This contradiction engenders confusion and shame regarding sexuality, while simultaneously dulling sensitivity to violence. It may go some distance towards accounting for the fact that America continues to struggle with sexual repression, sexual violence, and an obsession with guns and militarism.

Even within our justice system, this double standard persists. Sex workers are stigmatized and criminalized, but companies that celebrate violence—the production of arms and violent sport—are not only legal but idolized. A woman who breastfeeds in public can be removed from a restaurant, yet a gun show may be conducted in the same restaurant without protest.

Toward a Healthier Balance

In other words, this is not an argument that one must shove lurid sex down the throat of all media and get a healthy dose of it handed out to kids at a whim. Parental discretion and age appropriateness are needed. But today's system overwhelmingly tips toward bashing into one bad lesson: violence is acceptable and normal, and sex is dangerous and stigmatizing.

If we care about the well-being of children and the health of our communities, we must challenge our moral values. We must question ourselves as to why we glamorize death and recoil from life. And we must demand a more honest, life-enhancing response to the stories we tell, the images we present, and the ideals we hold dear.

Since such a society as one that frightens at the naked body yet not at the bullet is a society that is out of contact with what being human means.