My post at Child Caring about Hillary Swank being nude around her boyfriend’s child sparked some interesting discussions, one of which took place on Twitter. “Nudity is natural. Violence isn't," one person wrote. Others shared stories about parents who covered their kids' eyes during a brief nude scene but let the same kids watch the hours of violence that preceded the kissing.
Which got me thinking about Halloween and all of the slasher movies and tortureporn (like the Saw series) out there... how come that stuff is acceptable in the mainstream, but nudity isn’t?
The violence-is-acceptable theme isn't limited to older audiences. Hey, Disney: What’s with the whole killing-off-of-the-parents thing? (Think Nemo, Bambi, The Lion King for starters.) Tom and Jerry and Bugs Bunny cartoons -- my childhood favorites -- are so violent that I cringed when I saw them recently, and was reluctant to let my preschooler watch them.
Meanwhile, people can get arrested for indecent exposure in their own homes, and TV dramas for teens (like BBC America's series, Skins) show little nudity but deal openly and explicitly with sex.
On his blog, C.S. Daley points out: “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has a man's beating heart removed from his chest and gets a PG-13. If it had been a woman and her chest had been bared, automatic R.”
Parents of older kids, weigh in, please, here or at Child Caring: Which are you more likely to let your child watch and why: a movie that shows nudity (male or female, doesn’t matter) or one that’s explicitly violent?