I don't know anything about the actual research done on this topic but, having been exposed to both as a kid, I remember being weirded out by sex scenes (I, of course, didn't understand sex so it was like this mystery I was trying to figure out) but I remember being terrified and disturbed by violent scenes. I never got nightmares from the sex scenes. So, I'm in the sex is better than violence camp.

From what I understand, kids can sometimes misinterpret sex as a violent act depending on facial expressions and how vigorously people are going at it. So I'd be cautious there, and of course I don't think kids should be exposed to adult-geared images of sexual acts at a very young age if it can be helped (age-appropriate things like a book explaining the basics are fine, great, necessary). But I don't see any way that showing them violence could be LESS harmful. At least the sex is consentual, I'm assuming. Exposing kids to violent images can increase their fear of becoming victimized, at least according to some research I've read, and there's some evidence (not at all conclusive) that it can train kids to believe that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems. I'm most definitely not going to blame the media for every social ill, but in the meantime I'm going to keep my two-year old away from both violent and sexual images on TV as much as possible.

Maybe you can figure out what your bf's reasoning is behind this. From your description he sounds awful, but maybe he's just misinformed about sexuality and is equating what you're saying with forcing a child to watch pornography, or something equally harmful. Of course, if he just thinks violence is fantastic and sex is harmful, um, dump him.

I 100% agree that a sex scene is much less harmful than violent acts. Think about it in real life. Everyone has those stories of the one time they heard their parents or walked in on an older sibling or whatever. Yeah, the one time I heard my parents having sex totally grossed me out but the violence in my home was terrifying and has had lasting effects on me. Obviously tv will be a watered down version but when I was a kid sex scenes made me feel uncomfortable and made me giggle, violent scenes made me hide my eyes and have nightmares.

I'm curious, why does your boyfriend think that violent scenes are less harmful?

I'm started having access to R movies in the 80s, and it seemed like, at the time, all the R movies were R for violence, because sexual content landed you an NC-17 rating (Henry and June for example), which was the kiss of death, financially.

Result: the only sex in movies seemed to happen in the context of violence. Believe me, as a teenage guy, I was definitely looking for any chance to see boobs on the big screen, and I thought it seriously twisted that the only time I did was right before they got blood splashed across them.

In my opinion, the equation in our culture of nudity with sex and sex with violence is pathological.

Like Alexandra, I was exposed to both as a kid.

I was molested as a child and afterwards found myself very curious about sex, so I'd sneak out of my room at night and watch porn on Skinamax. I found I had a lot of questions that I couldn't ask my parents (because I didn't want to get in trouble), but it didn't really bother me.

My dad also let me watch really violent movies. One that sticks out for me is Rambo: First Blood. I had a few nightmares from it, and was grossed out by the blood when Rambo stitched himself back up, but I was honestly more traumatized by Skeletor in He-Man. I had nightmares about a skull coming after me from a lavapool (or the shadows of my floor at night) for YEARS.

I agree completely with you!

Sex is something every person experiences (even if only by themselves) where as violence is something that no one should ever experience.

The person I am currently dating has a child and we constantly disagree about what is appropriate and what is not. Finally, last night I got my way. It helped that I had seen the movie, but as soon as I turned away from a particularily violent scene, the child's eyes were covered. The child wanted to see and tried to peak which is when I reassured them that I wasn't looking either.

Personally, I was only allowed to watch a specific kind of violence as a child. I was made to watch Schindler's List and And The Band Played On. But I was probably the only one in University who had not see Pulp Fiction or Natural Born Killers.

I remember reading about the ratings system for movies. And I believe it was that PG movies can have violence without blood or guts, for example Batman or something similar. However, movies like Saving Private Ryan are given a higher rating for their realistic gore. It would seem to make more sense that if a child is going to be exposed to violence it be real and not some cartoon version that makes it seem fun and painless.

I neglected to mention that in Ontario, child protection services consider being exposed to domestic abuse (see wife assault) or adult conflict (ex. two unrelated people physically fighting) as child abuse. This issue can be serious enough to cause the apprehension of the child.

Needless to say exposure to pornography or being involved in sexual activities is also abuse, but that is not what we are talking about.

I think it would be great if NC-17 movies were actually extremely violent and that the more sexually explicit films were AA or R. But that is just my opinion...

I agree with an opinion already expressed, and have always espoused it about my kids. My children will see themselves naked every day. I hope, eventually, they will see other people naked and have good sexual experiences.

I hope they never have to witness violence firsthand, and sure as hell hope they are not personally involved in it.

The same applies to television.

Now, my kids love Star Wars. I try to let them watch some movies and explain the fantasy aspect of the violence. I did not let my then 8 year old see the latest Star Wars movie, since I found it way too violent, with the child killing in it, and Anakin getting dismembered and burned to a crisp. He has complained, but I told him he will wait until he is at least 12.

Hilary, that's what my cousin always argues. "They're going to see nudity every day because they have bodies."

I have no scientific evidence to back this up, but I think violence would be worse.

Then again, I was afraid of one scene in my Baby Songs video for a while, and afraid of the Pillsbury Dough Boy for years after seeing the bit in Ghostbusters with the Stay-Puffed Man, so I'm not one to talk.

OK, so it seems that most women are agreeing that sex is way less harmful than violence when it comes to real life and television exposure. (I agree!)

But why then does Kayla's boyfriend and other men I know seem to think oppositely? Why do men feel that a sex scene is more harmful to see? Is it the "sexy is dirty" idea? Or maybe they're so forced into being tough and not being scared by violence that they've convinced themselves that watching it isn't harmful? I don't know. I'm sure that there are plenty of men out there that would agree with what we've all said but why do so many seem to disagree so strongly?

I have a lot of really happy memories of watching westerns with my dad, and action movies with my guys friends, so I think there's an emotional connection there for men. It's a form of bonding. I know, personally, that I'm looking forward to introducing my daughter to Jackie Chan flicks when she's old enough. And while my wife might disagree, I kind of hope she likes John Wayne movies, too.

And violence is a part of the male world in a way it isn't for women (mostly). I won't try to justify it or explain it (unless you ask me to) but guys really like to think of themselves as warriors, and violent art is cathartic for us.

Also, many of us have been in fights, and that's pretty emotionally laden as well, with good feelings as well as bad.

Finally, many men's attitude about violence is tied in with fears of a dangerous world, and I think that some of us feel like shielding our kids from violence in movies and TV will leave them unprepared for the harshness of the world when they're out there on their own. Particularly sons.

Put that all together, and we can end up being kind of buttheads about it.

Also, we don't like to see sexy stuff when we're with our kids. It makes us feel oogy.

When I was writing a speech about the role of media in violence against women, I found a study where college age men were shown clips with varying violent or sexual content, then they filled out a questionnaire. The result of the study was that men are more likely to commit violence against women if they watch violent images than if they watch sexual images or images that combine sex and violence. I wish I could find that again. Incidentally, while VH1's "I Love the [decade]" shows used to only cover up nudity, now they also cover up gunshot wounds and other bodily harm.

I have seen a similar study, involving the effects of punching a pillow after a fight versus just chilling out. The participants were asked to fill in the blanks of several words after a period of time. Those who acted violently filled in R_pe with Rape, those who simply sat wrote Rope. The list goes on with similar results.

I definitely agree that watching media violence is more harmful to children than watching depictions of sexuality. There is a substantial body of literature linking violent media to temporary and longer-lasting negative effects, both in surveys and experiments. I'm not familiar with studies on the effects of sex in the media, so if anyone knows of any, let us know.
Personally, what it comes down to for me is that violence is something I think of as morally wrong, whereas consensual sex in which no one is hurting anyone (unless they want to be hurt) is not. I think it's a lot more harmful to send a message to children that sex is dirty and wrong and should never be talked about than to allow a child to watch a scene depicting healthy, consensual sex if it comes up.
MikeT - your explanation is interesting, and on point. That male attitude toward violence is definitely something that needs to be addressed, because it seems like it could cause a lot of harm. It helps explain why some people would think violence is less harmful, though.

Wow! Great replies, most of which seem in line with my thinking. I especially find the comment about the rape/rope study very interesting. I would love to see what the lives and backgrounds of the just sitting people who also wrote 'rape', if there were any.

The reason that my boyfriend holds his opinion that violence is less harmful is that that was how he was raised. From a young age, him and his brothers were allowed to watch violent, gory movies, but the didn't see sex scenes until they were older. His logic is that they all turned out fine, without any violent tendencies. He does admit, when questioned further on the subject, that if a child is in an environment where violence is normalized or is behaviorally inclined to be violent, watching graphic violence may not be the best idea. He also thinks that horror and violence in movies can be beneficial in a way, as in some cases, it expresses a reality. I would defininitely disallow a young child to watch Law & Order: SVU, as I do not feel that they need to know that such horrible behavior occurs in this world, but he believes that shows like that can educate kids in a way, and caution them of the dangers that exist. I must say, that is an argument that I cannot agree with, or even understand well.

Kayla, (and whoever else is interested)
I just remembered that I came across some good stats on this topic while teaching juvenile delinquency this summer. I looked up the website, which contains a joint statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and several other big name associations on the effects of watching violent media on children. Good, well-researched information for use in arguments with boyfriends and others :-)

http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_vlent.shtml

Thought of something else that might be helpful, to all who are having this argument with someone:

A lot of the time when I get into discussions with my husband about our son, they take a kind of similar form to what Kayla mentioned: "well, I did it and I turned out ok." So maybe even though we're saying "I don't think this is right for my kid," they're hearing "you were brought up wrong." This was particularly true for us with the circumcision issue- it took a lot of discussions for me to convince him that just because I didn't want to circumcise our son didn't mean I thought there was anything wrong with HIS circumcised penis. So while you may be thinking about aggregate studies showing that a majority of kids who are exposed to violence suffer negative consequences, he may be seeing it as a personal attack on him, his siblings, his parents, etc. It might be useful to address the distinction in order to make yourself heard. Good luck!

SociologicalMe-

Great link and even better perspective! I had assumed, like a couple of others, that it was some sort of social construct where boys 'must' be okay with violence, 'must' not be adverse to fighting, and so on, and I never once thought of it that way. I think that could very likely be why our debate on the subject didn't seem to get anywhere, lol.

Along the same train of thought...Whenever I bring up the point that yes, he turned out fine, but a child with a built-in behavioral tendency towards violence, bad choices, and what have you, will be affected by that sort of thing more prominently than a 'normal' child would. Perhaps he is taking what is a hypothetical conversation about a hypothetical child, and feeling personal insult over the possibility that his kid could be somehow abnormal or inclined to bad things...

I think MikeT brings up a good point when he mentions how often sex and violence seem to go together. As soon as my children are ready to ask where babies come from, I'm prepared to answer their questions until they are satisfied. I don't necessarily want to go out of my way to show them sex (and frankly, I CAN'T think of any sex scene I have ever seen on TV or in the movies that I haven't found problematic in some way...), but I think treating it as something dirty meant to be hidden is wrong and will only teach them shame about their own bodies.

But, as in pornography, sex can often be depicted violently (and I think, in a lot of the mainstream, at least, very anti-woman) and I think we need to take that into account. This even happens in horror movies and on TV, and is often really sensationalized. I don't think I would be comfortable letting my kids see anything sexually explicit until I had the chance to see it myself or could, at least, watch it with them and explain their questions.

But...as far as real life...

When I was five or so, I had the (misfortune?) to see my parents having sex. They know I saw, but they have never acknowledged it or talked about it with me, even when my mother had a very awkward "Talk" with me. I was confused and did think my dad was hurting my mom, but the shame surrounding me accidentally coming in to their room in the middle of the night taught me way more about how my parents viewed it than any discussion they ever had with me.

I am now paranoid about being caught, locking every door in the apartment that leads to my bed, and only my fiance and I live there. I'm trying to get over it, but it's hard! It's all a matter of attitude, I think.

I definitely think that consensual, loving sex is much less harmful for a child to see than violence of any kind. My problem with a child seeing sex on tv or in movies is that sex tends too often to be tied in with violence in these mediums. All in all, it's probably best for children not to be exposed to either until they're old enough to understand what's going on.