censorship priorities: sex vs. violence

[Kemal]

Dawn of the Dead was on cable the other day, and they seem to have left most of the gore in it. You see heads being blown off, zombies feasting on flesh, etc. But when you get to the one part where two people are doing the nasty in the mall, they blur it out. So let me get this straight: brutality, cannibalism and extreme violence are fine, but the sight of bare boobies will scar you for life? Really. Someone's got their priorities messed up. Not that I think violence will necessarily traumatize you, but it seems that serious violence would be more harmful to a sensitive person than sex.

On an unrelated note, I have noticed that Dawn of the Dead is sometimes incorrectly referred to on the board as a movie. Movies are works of fiction; Dawn of the Dead and other works like it are documentaries and public service announcements, created to inform the public of what to do in the event of a zombie outbreak. This unfortunate misconception needs to be corrected.

[Despare]

It's easier to explain violence and zombies and exploding heads than it is sex. Sex is real, zombies aren't. People like things easy.

[newb]

Of course boobies are more offensive than violence. Hell......take this site for instance....I can post this pic.



but if I try to show this one uncensored.......


I will get a warning.


RUN..........ITS A NIPPLE

[newb]

Originally Posted by Despare

It's easier to explain violence and zombies and exploding heads than it is sex. Sex is real, zombies aren't. People like things easy.

ZOMBIES AREN'T REAL?!?!?!?!?!?:confused:

[Despare]

Originally Posted by newb

ZOMBIES AREN'T REAL?!?!?!?!?!?:confused:

Not sense the war of 1823 which has been pretty much erased from history. The war lasted two and half years and resulted in the complete extinction of zombies. If they had been later in recognizing the threat we may be hiding from flesh-eaters at this very moment but there is a small group of people who really believe that humans were in the wrong...

[PR3SSUR3]

If they're painted though, they're allowed - I checked.

[paws the great]

Originally Posted by newb

Of course boobies are more offensive than violence. Hell......take this site for instance....I can post this pic.



but if I try to show this one uncensored.......


I will get a warning.


RUN..........ITS A NIPPLE

Matilda May=YUMMY!:D

[Demonique]

Noticed the same type of thing on cable tv myself and it bugs the hell out of me. A certain cable channel will play the most violent horror and mob movies with nary a scene cut out. But the dialogue makes me crazy with either bleeeps or cheap fill ins for all the nasty words. So apparently you can cut people up in a shower with a chainsaw, tear off heads, disembowle people but it's very bad to swear at them.:confused:

[hellfire1]

it's my theory that they leave in all the violence to use as an eventual scapegoat if ever some kid decides to go on a murdering spree. they take out the boobs cause well... how could you put the blame on a movie where all you see is (sometimes) gratuitous sex ? quite the opposite... the system doesn't want us to wank off, therefore releasing all the tension, and not having any murderous desires!

wait... did that come out right ? it sounded so much better in my head.

[_____V_____]

For the simple reason that they dont want you holding your wank in one hand and a .45 Magnum in the other.

Seriously though, I have never understood the censorship laws. Nudity which is actually needed by a movie goes through the cuts, but mindless violence which is totally unnecessary isnt. The censor board members are a bunch of stupid jokers, IMO.