Young Adult Novels: Violence Good, Sex Bad

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've had this issue with YA novels before, but after reading The Hunger Games, it compelled me to mention it once again. The basic question is this (and I guess it applies primarily to America): why is it okay to let our youth read books laden with violence, but any allusion to sex is a big no-no?

The Hunger Games, a book for kids, is extremely violent. The basic premis is disturbing: 24 kids, ages 12-18, are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing. Upon first hearing this description, my reaction, like many others, was, "That's a novel for kids?" It's not the first time I've noticed violence in YA novels, but The Hunger Games is by far the worst I've encountered.

So, as I read, I tried figuring out what the criteria were for what makes a YA novel appropiate for young adults. Going by what I've read, they have a simple prose style, few big or esoteric words, no cursing, and definitely no sex. Violence is not a category that is off limits, but why is sex? On one hand we have violence, prtrayals of acts that are harmful to humans, and on the other sex, the natural act we, as humans, use to express love and create life. Which one sounds worse? Now, I'm not saying our YA novels should be laden with steamy sex scenes, but why is the merest mention of sex off-limits?

Here's an example of how one book that has garnered banishment from school, a that is Sherman Alexi's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. It is about a 13 year old boy and at one point discusses (very light-heartedly) masturbatiom and at another uses a curse word to make a point. Many schools have banned this book and deemed it innapropiate. My question is simple: why that and not The Hunger Games.

Note that I'm not advocating banning any books from school (to a point, of course), just expressing confusion at the seemingly odd standards.

What do you think?

[MystyrMystyry]

I saw a great interview with Harry Shearer (unfortunately I can't find a link) who was asked why American humor is so light on irony. He thought a bit and said:

"Probably because America is the most ironic place in all history - in our reality we're confronted with it every minute. We want our humor free from it because we don't need to be reminded of it."

Ironic or not, he's basically right. Try to hide sex from the youth so they don't get corrupted, but let them buy a cheap handgun from the creep lurking at the corner store. What!?


If you really want someone to read a book the best thing is to ban it. There's no better fruit than the forbidden grapes.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not sure sex is completely absent from YA novels. Some really popular ones (not necessarily good ones) like the Gossip Girl series, Pretty Little Liars, the later Twilight book, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, Perks of Being a Wallflower and the likes all have mild sexual content. I think you're right that violence probably gets less criticism than sex though.

[Darcy88]

I don't know where it comes from, but its more acceptable to parents and to the culture overall for young people, boys especially, to be violent and to take in violence than it is for them to have sex and take in sexual content. Super-heroes are violent dudes, movie heroes are violent dudes, video game characters are uber-violent dudes, violence in itself is not bad, not immoral when its the good guy, when its us, doing the violence. For two thousand years we've lived in a Christianised culture which teaches that lust is in almost all circumstances bad. I remember the game Grand Theft Auto. I remember how the moral action groups were more disgusted at the fact that the character could have sex with prostitutes inside cars than they were that his purpose and the purpose of the game were to kill and kill and then kill some more. If I had a 14 or 15 year old son and he got into a fight I may not be happy, but I'd quickly dismiss it as boys will be boys, and if he won I'd be proud. If I found out that he was sexually active I would be very upset and concerned. We fight out in the open, on fields of battle, inside bars, in the streets. We make love usually behind closed doors, beneath covers, curtains drawn.

[mortalterror]

The thing that bothers me most about the Hunger Games isn't the violence. It's the plagiarism from Battle Royale which is a novel and movie which kicked so much ***. I don't know why Koushun Takami hasn't sued miss Collins and her publisher for every penny they have.

[Calidore]

I'm sure the religious thing has a lot to do with it, but I think there's more to it than that. Natural behavior is to avoid violence and seek out sex. I myself would be less concerned with my kid watching/reading violent works than sexual ones simply because he'd be less likely to imitate the former.

[RicMisc]

I don't really know why sex in YA novels is far less common than violence. It does have something to do with a writer's background and the country the book will be published in. For example; though sometimes sexual content is present in American YA novels it is not very common and it is usually very mild. In The Netherlands it is far more common to find sexual content in such books, in some even more explicit than you would want to be there.

This however reflects in adult literature as well because sex seams to appear a lot more in Dutch novels than it does in English or American ones. Sometimes even to the point where you are grossed out by some scenes. Jan Wolkers, one of The Netherlands most famous writers and known for his very sexual novels, bears the crown in that department in my opinion.

In one of his novels he writes about a teen boy who lives on a farm and sees one of the chickens lay an egg. Apparently he found that very arrousing and decided to try to fill the hole the egg had left in the chicken's behind. Picture that, described in a little too much detail to my taste.

Now on topic again; I also believe it has something to do with sex being a far more private thing than violence, and people tend to be uncomfortable when having to talk about sex. Although this could be viewed as a reason to write more about sex it's apparently a reason for most authors to avoid sex or otherwise limit the amount of it as much as possible.

This is a shame if you ask me because sex is a part of life and should not be viewed as something to be ashamed of and in my opinion it should be more acceptable than violence. Violence is hurtful, shallow and tends to not be the way to solve things, whereas sex is usually pleasureable and is far more interesting to me psychologically (it goes deeper).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The thought of that chicken scene made me laugh. A morbid part of me wants to read it.

I guess sex may be more prominent in YA adult novels than I originally thought, but the point I was trying to make is that a book will be banned for sex far before it's banned for violence. I would bet money, Pip, that all those books you listed have been banned in schools, and probably more than one would think reasonable.


I'm sure the religious thing has a lot to do with it, but I think there's more to it than that. Natural behavior is to avoid violence and seek out sex. I myself would be less concerned with my kid watching/reading violent works than sexual ones simply because he'd be less likely to imitate the former.
How do you know that? In my experience, a lot of parents see their kids through rose-colored glasses (i.e., "MY kid isn't like that).

I don't know where it comes from, but its more acceptable to parents and to the culture overall for young people, boys especially, to be violent and to take in violence than it is for them to have sex and take in sexual content. Super-heroes are violent dudes, movie heroes are violent dudes, video game characters are uber-violent dudes, violence in itself is not bad, not immoral when its the good guy, when its us, doing the violence. For two thousand years we've lived in a Christianised culture which teaches that lust is in almost all circumstances bad. I remember the game Grand Theft Auto. I remember how the moral action groups were more disgusted at the fact that the character could have sex with prostitutes inside cars than they were that his purpose and the purpose of the game were to kill and kill and then kill some more. If I had a 14 or 15 year old son and he got into a fight I may not be happy, but I'd quickly dismiss it as boys will be boys, and if he won I'd be proud. If I found out that he was sexually active I would be very upset and concerned. We fight out in the open, on fields of battle, inside bars, in the streets. We make love usually behind closed doors, beneath covers, curtains drawn.
Well, a boy getting into a fight contains a lot more variable than a boy having sex with his girlfriend (which could just as easily be filed under "boys-will-be-boys")--the reasons for a boy, or girl (all this goes for both sexes, really), wanting to have sex are universal. But what could the fight involve? Did your boy start it? Was he defending himself? Is he a bully? How bad did he beat the kid up--did he put him in the hospital? I don't see much wrong with a little wrestling around and even a bloodied nose, but some fights go way beyond that. If I was a father, I think I'd be about equally upset for both, especially the fighting depending on the circumstances.

And, to bring it back to the OP, I think violence in the media has made use see some violence, like boys fighting, as okay, but the problem is a lot of boys aren't going to know when the line has been crossed from boys-being-boys to brutally criminal acts, and it's not much of a surprise when we look at some of the stuff they're reading.

[KCurtis]

This is an excellent post and question. My 6th graders are reading The Hunger Games and they LOVE it. Most parents don't involve themselves in what is being read. I think the violence preferred over sex in books, at least in school, is because the adults are uncomfortable with the suggestion of sex in books, especially school administrators, and the Dept. of Education in the U.S.
One of our core 7th grade novels is Call of the Wild, by Jack London. While I love his writing, this book was not meant to be a 13 year old level book- it is very violent and upsetting for kids.
It is different when part of our curriculum has to do with historical fiction-that is valuable even though it can be violent.
I don't know how it is in other countries, but remember, in the U.S. we have the bible belt southern states, and my country is used to violence. It really disturbs me that our students, many of whom come from violent homes, see horrible things on the news, love these violent books. The core books they have to read are filled with depressing subjects, there is no variation.

[Alexander III]

If I had a 14 or 15 year old son and he got into a fight I may not be happy, but I'd quickly dismiss it as boys will be boys, and if he won I'd be proud. If I found out that he was sexually active I would be very upset and concerned. We fight out in the open, on fields of battle, inside bars, in the streets. We make love usually behind closed doors, beneath covers, curtains drawn.


This brings to light an intersting point. In a patriarcle society violence is too generic a term, or rather violence for reasons of honor and patriotism are glorified and even in some places seen as a mans duty. E.g another man acts in an unwelcome manner with a girl or a friend of yours and many men feel honorbound to defend them. Also speacking as a man, a true bond amongst men, or rather youth, is getting in a fight together with a friend against another group, there is honor in that.

Violence is tied very much to honor. So I think it is wrong to critique violence in genral, rather gratoitous violence. Because in truth violence with honor is not only seen as a possitive but also as a duty in some case. To be offended, and not retaliate is percieved as effimnate.


Sex on the other hand by a patriarcle society is not like fighting, which is between male equalls, but between man and woman, where woman can be abuzed and victimized, so sex on one hand is more dangerous from this prespective, as a man is expected out of duty to fight to defend his honor, while a woman is expected to be protected and not be able to save herself from rapy situations.

[WyattGwyon]

Christian religions have traditionally used sexual guilt to control their adherents. Why else do you think Catholic priests and nuns are required to pretend to be celibate? Because it makes them holier than thou, which adds leverage to their sadistic mind-control practices—like telling little kids that by touching their genitals they pound nails into the living flesh of Christ; and that only they, the holy eunuchs, can grant them absolution. The relative acceptance of high levels of literary violence and the intolerance of sex in the U.S., as opposed to Europe, neatly correlates with the relative influence of Christian religion in the respective societies. I don't think this is an accident.

[stlukesguild]

I've had this issue with YA novels before, but after reading The Hunger Games, it compelled me to mention it once again. The basic question is this (and I guess it applies primarily to America): why is it okay to let our youth read books laden with violence, but any allusion to sex is a big no-no?

I'm going to guess that this is an issue with American culture as a whole... and not merely with novels geared toward young adults. I suspect it hearkens back to our Puritan and fundamentalist past, but it often seems that America is a nation obsessed with religion and violence... the same volatile mix that we so deride in Muslim fundamentalists and fail to see the irony. There is a line from a Johnny Cash song: "I went walking, with a Bible and a gun." Sadly, in many ways this seems an all to apt portrait of America. As I've heard or read any number of times, one cannot portray a breast being caressed in American films without the danger of incurring the wrath of the censors and earning the dreaded NC-17 rating (or worse), yet it is all well and fine to blow up a breast in a film.

[stlukesguild]

Natural behavior is to avoid violence and seek out sex.

History doesn't seem to support this notion. Tennyson recognized that nature was "red in tooth and claw". Violence escalates when and where government control is weak... which would suggest that violence is natural... yet restrained by civilization.

I myself would be less concerned with my kid watching/reading violent works than sexual ones simply because he'd be less likely to imitate the former.

This is an intriguing idea. Those who oppose any sort of censorship upon violence in film, books, music, and video games commonly argue that such violence has absolutely no negative impact upon children... let alone adult. Is there not then a certain hypocrisy is censoring sexuality?

[Charles Darnay]

I think it is that usually the violence in such novels is far removed from reality, but sex is sex. You could have violence in a dystopian future, or violence involving magic - but it is hard to alter the reality of sex.

[Desolation]

Lenny Bruce performed an excellent sketch that addressed this issue. I don't remember the exact words, so I'm going to have to paraphrase substantially...

"The issue seems to be that profanity should not be allowed because children might emulate it. If I had kids, I'd be more concerned with them watching The King of Kings, because I don't want them to grow up and kill Jesus."
He went on to speculate and satirize what it might be like to take a group of children to a pornographic movie...
"Oh no, now the man's putting a pillow under the woman's back so that she'll be more comfortable. Look away, children, look away! Now they're hugging and looking into each other's eyes, and he's telling her that he loves her. Close your eyes kids, or else you might end up doing the same thing when you grow up."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've had this issue with YA novels before, but after reading The Hunger Games, it compelled me to mention it once again. The basic question is this (and I guess it applies primarily to America): why is it okay to let our youth read books laden with violence, but any allusion to sex is a big no-no?

I'm going to guess that this is an issue with American culture as a whole...
Oh, I think it definitely is. What I said about YA novels can really be applied to any entertainment medium.

I think it is that usually the violence in such novels is far removed from reality, but sex is sex. You could have violence in a dystopian future, or violence involving magic - but it is hard to alter the reality of sex.

I'm not sure that is the case. Even though The Hunger Games may be "far removed from society," it didn't seem to make it any less impactful when the hero shoots someone through the neck with an arrow, or when one of the other contestants beats a rival over the head with a rock, with a nice description of the thudding sound it makes. It's not like bodies were being vaporized by ray guns. It was good ol' fashioned violence.

And, even if sex is sex and we can not alter its reality, my question is, so? Case after case shows that attempting to shelter our youth keeping them ignorant of sex only leads to unsafe sex, which leads to pregnancy and STDs. I think they should be exposed to sex, in both a scientific and artistic form. I'll say it again: sex is how humans naturally express love for one another, give each other pleasure, and create life. How is that worse than violence?

And I also like StLuke's point on how the same excuse for letting children be exposed to violent material (that it doesn't not make a impressionable impact) is often not applied to sex. Why is that?

[Darcy88]

And, even if sex is sex and we can not alter its reality, my question is, so? Case after case shows that attempting to shelter our youth keeping them ignorant of sex only leads to unsafe sex, which leads to pregnancy and STDs. I think they should be exposed to sex, in both a scientific and artistic form. I'll say it again: sex is how humans naturally express love for one another, give each other pleasure, and create life. How is that worse than violence?

And I also like StLuke's point on how the same excuse for letting children be exposed to violent material (that it doesn't not make a impressionable impact) is often not applied to sex. Why is that?

I think it certainly does make an impressionable impact. The trollop Britney Spears becomes the biggest thing back in 99 and is followed by trollop after trollop, each a bigger more shameless trollop than the last, pushing immodesty to its outer limits only to be copied by every teen and pre-teen for an entire generation. Advertisers and entertainers are actually targeting the incipient sex instinct in preteens to sell more stuff. 12 year old boys now try to pressure girls their age to perform sex acts. When I was 12 I didn't even think about sex. The way young girls dress now is ridiculous, gross and ridiculous. There is sex and then there is the portrayal of sex we see in the media, a depraved and degenerated form. And I don't think kids need to be exposed to any sex at all until they are at the very earliest 13. My friends and I barely were growing up. Kids like to look like adults. My dad smoked in front of me, every movie star smoked in front of me, and so I started smoking at a very early age.

And I really believe violence too strongly impresses itself upon the imaginations of youngsters. I remember being 12 or 13 and watching Fight Club with a big group of friends and that very night we went down to the school parking lot and beat the crap out of each other, wound up with black eyes and everything. That's anecdotal but I'm pretty sure it means something. After we watched Saving Private Ryan we went out and got paintball guns and right on the beach not far from here re-enacted a pathetic version of the Normandy invasion. When JackAss came out we rolled down hills in shopping carts and lit each other on fire. Kids are impressionable I figure.

When I have kids I don't want them exposed to sex all the time like the kids are now. When they reach the age of 15 or 16 I won't care as much, but their underdeveloped executive functioning abilities will keep me, like every parent, a little on edge when they get their first girlfriends or whatever. Way too many teen pregnancies in my neck of the woods for me not to justifiably feel this fear.

/ Rant over

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I agree.

It's not that kids shouldn't be exposed to sex at all before they're 12/13 . . . it's how're the exposed to it. I believe the sooner sex education is taught, the better, especially since girls are hitting puberty at younger and younger ages. These 12 year olds are having sex, be it oral or penetrative, because they see it being done in porn, but it's gone beyond that now, as there is a lot of peer pressure on younger boys to have sex--the ideas are so interwoven into our younger generation's society, I suspect the mindsets are now simply passed down from the older kids to the younger kids, and porn has little to do with it. Many times girls in grade school will perform oral sex on their male classmates because they feel an obligation to. Sex ed could help all this greatly.

[Darcy88]

I agree.

Many times girls in grade school will perform oral sex on their male classmates because they feel an obligation to. Sex ed could help all this greatly.

That is so sad to me. In grade school we were all so pure and innocent, and I'm only 23. We looked at playboys, but it was almost like art, we never thought of actually having sex at so early an age. Heck, I remember being 13 and in bed with this older girl who wanted to have sex but I just didn't want to do it.

Ahh that makes me mad! And I've heard of this, boys in grade school pressuring girls to do that. The girls I knew in grade school were like angels, they were obsessed with horses and wore children's clothes with unicorns and stuff on them I kid you not. I see grade school girls now and they wear tight jeans and tops which reveal their stomachs. The girls now should be like the girls then. A person only gets 14 or so years of sexual innocence and then decades and decades of being sexually active. Why rush it? It is wrong, you don't need to be a puritanical prude to see that. I think the culture infected the kids and now the kids are, as you say, passing it on, from older to younger. It doesn't help that here they now put 13 year olds in the same school as grade 12 seniors, many of whom are 18 or older. Ugh, its so obvious. My grade 12 year they put grade 9s in with us and the boys in the grades above them would pressure them into having sex. Now its grade 8s, and on into the future. Grade 6 it will be the norm to have sex. In grade 6 we played magic cards and soccer while the girls played hopscotch.

[OrphanPip]

Data suggests that earlier and more comprehensive sex-ed actually promotes delayed sexual début.

I don't think exposure to sex in media contributes to younger ages having sex. It has more to do with poverty, self-esteem issues, and lack of parental attention.

[Darcy88]

Data suggests that earlier and more comprehensive sex-ed actually promotes delayed sexual début.

I don't think exposure to sex in media contributes to younger ages having sex. It has more to do with poverty, self-esteem issues, and lack of parental attention.

They gave us pretty thorough sex-ed in grade 7, when I was 12. They hit us hard with videos from the 80s and early 90s of people dying from AIDS, and I remember it made a big impact on me and has influenced my choices since, if you know what I mean. But I think media has an undeniable influence over the behaviour of children. I don't have scientific data to back it up, but from what I've seen, in my experience, it is the case. Kids actually parrot and mimic people who are famous. There was some heinously sexual and misogynistic rap song and video that came out a couple years ago and I remember hearing teachers and parents phone in by the dozens into a radio show to complain of their students and children copying the language and the acts referred to in the song.

There has been a rapid decline in standards regarding sexual content on television. When I was a kid and even a teenager you had to stay up late fridays nights to see naked women. They did not show simulated sex until after 9 or 10. Chrtistina Aguilera's video for Dirty had a disclaimer, now videos way more sexual do not. Now there is nudity on some channels in the middle of the day, simulated sex at all times. With cursing its the same. Coinciding with this you see the premature sexualization of children. I don't think its a coincidence.

[Darcy88]

I apologize if my long rants have been off-topic. I don't read young adult fiction. I read the first twilight book, that's about it. Not much frank display of sex there.

I think the double standard is really just due to the after-effects of two-thousand years of Christian moral and cultural preponderance in the west. Violence is only deemed bad in certain contexts but for centuries and centuries lust has been in almost all its forms chastised as unholy and impure.

[JuniperWoolf]

Our closest cousins are bonobos and chimps. Chimps use violence to solve their problems and bonobos use sex. Seriously, if a bunch of bonobos get stressed out, they'll stop what they're doing and start humping each other. Maybe Americans are just more chimp than bonobo.

*edit* Actually, I think we genetically are a bit closer to chimps. That's a shame, I wish our behavior more closely resembled that of bonobos. Could you imagine world leaders solving an oil dispute the bonobo way?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

They gave us pretty thorough sex-ed in grade 7, when I was 12. They hit us hard with videos from the 80s and early 90s of people dying from AIDS, and I remember it made a big impact on me and has influenced my choices since, if you know what I mean. But I think media has an undeniable influence over the behaviour of children. I don't have scientific data to back it up, but from what I've seen, in my experience, it is the case. Kids actually parrot and mimic people who are famous. There was some heinously sexual and misogynistic rap song and video that came out a couple years ago and I remember hearing teachers and parents phone in by the dozens into a radio show to complain of their students and children copying the language and the acts referred to in the song.

There has been a rapid decline in standards regarding sexual content on television. When I was a kid and even a teenager you had to stay up late fridays nights to see naked women. They did not show simulated sex until after 9 or 10. Chrtistina Aguilera's video for Dirty had a disclaimer, now videos way more sexual do not. Now there is nudity on some channels in the middle of the day, simulated sex at all times. With cursing its the same. Coinciding with this you see the premature sexualization of children. I don't think its a coincidence.
I agree. While I don't think media is as impactful as the factors Pip pointed out, I don't think it can be completely discarded. Plus, the Internet is where kids go to see sex now. That's where I went when I was in me early teens, downloading pirated hardcore videos from Limewire. It was harder to find porn like that for free back then as opposed to now, but it was still easy, which just shows how available it is today. Do parents even bother trying to block adult content from their children anymore? When I was growing up that was the big thing, but now it never seems to be mentioned.

[stlukesguild]

In a patriarcle society violence is too generic a term, or rather violence for reasons of honor and patriotism are glorified and even in some places seen as a mans duty. E.g another man acts in an unwelcome manner with a girl or a friend of yours and many men feel honorbound to defend them. Also speacking as a man, a true bond amongst men, or rather youth, is getting in a fight together with a friend against another group, there is honor in that.

Violence is tied very much to honor. So I think it is wrong to critique violence in genral, rather gratoitous violence. Because in truth violence with honor is not only seen as a possitive but also as a duty in some case. To be offended, and not retaliate is percieved as effimnate.

Alexander... it often seems that many of your concepts come from a culture that hearkens back to the older, primitive concepts of the medieval warrior code and "might makes right." While some may Romanticize the concepts of chivalry and honor, in actuality these are represents a more primitive concept of civilization akin to what we see in the American ghettos with gang justice as well as with Latin-American drug lords. I see the sort of "honor" that you speak of every day in the urban schools. The least perceived slight must be responded to with physical assault and regardless of circumstances friends or allies are expected to join in the fray. One who does not respond in the expected manner... one who stays out of trouble and studies hard is often, as you suggest, deemed as effeminate or gay. Like the medieval patriarchal societies women (especially mothers) are revered... even worshiped... and yet at the same time treated as so much property... unquestionably inferior... something to be use... and abused.

[Alexander III]

In a patriarcle society violence is too generic a term, or rather violence for reasons of honor and patriotism are glorified and even in some places seen as a mans duty. E.g another man acts in an unwelcome manner with a girl or a friend of yours and many men feel honorbound to defend them. Also speacking as a man, a true bond amongst men, or rather youth, is getting in a fight together with a friend against another group, there is honor in that.

Violence is tied very much to honor. So I think it is wrong to critique violence in genral, rather gratoitous violence. Because in truth violence with honor is not only seen as a possitive but also as a duty in some case. To be offended, and not retaliate is percieved as effimnate.

Alexander... it often seems that many of your concepts come from a culture that hearkens back to the older, primitive concepts of the medieval warrior code and "might makes right." While some may Romanticize the concepts of chivalry and honor, in actuality these are represents a more primitive concept of civilization akin to what we see in the American ghettos with gang justice as well as with Latin-American drug lords. I see the sort of "honor" that you speak of every day in the urban schools. The least perceived slight must be responded to with physical assault and regardless of circumstances friends or allies are expected to join in the fray. One who does not respond in the expected manner... one who stays out of trouble and studies hard is often, as you suggest, deemed as effeminate or gay. Like the medieval patriarchal societies women (especially mothers) are revered... even worshiped... and yet at the same time treated as so much property... unquestionably inferior... something to be use... and abused.

What you describe is true, in the gettos and certain places full of ignorance and poverty this is the culture. But that is not what I am talking about, unless you think that system honorable, which I most certanly dont.

I have never heard anyone in my life being called effeminate because he was intelligent and hard working, effeminate is an insult for one who does not take responsibility for his actions.

e.g In a club, someone pushes around a friend of yours and then when you friend says lets take this outside, he runs away and returns with a dozen other guys. This is gratituous and effeminate violence, and this is wrong.


But if I have a disagreement with a stranger and me and him go outside and fight, our friends there only to intervene if the fight gets to intense and oen of us needs protection. We fight untill both of us are satisfied, and the walk away, usualy if the other man fought bravley, with a new found respect for your oponent. If you see this as wrong, I would like to know why. To deny this aspect of our nature is to try an illude ourselves that we are not on a certain level violent, which we are, and if that need for violence is not satisfied it will be pent up, and cause psychological issues, just like a man who forgoes sex. Sex and violence are necessary for a reguklar life (more so in youth, the prime of life) - so isntead of trying to forbid it and pretend that we are not human, let us satisfy our needs in a regulated and controlled manner, hence the birth of an honorable fight, and chivalrous treatment of women.

[mortalterror]

In a patriarcle society violence is too generic a term, or rather violence for reasons of honor and patriotism are glorified and even in some places seen as a mans duty. E.g another man acts in an unwelcome manner with a girl or a friend of yours and many men feel honorbound to defend them. Also speacking as a man, a true bond amongst men, or rather youth, is getting in a fight together with a friend against another group, there is honor in that.

Violence is tied very much to honor. So I think it is wrong to critique violence in genral, rather gratoitous violence. Because in truth violence with honor is not only seen as a possitive but also as a duty in some case. To be offended, and not retaliate is percieved as effimnate.

Alexander... it often seems that many of your concepts come from a culture that hearkens back to the older, primitive concepts of the medieval warrior code and "might makes right." While some may Romanticize the concepts of chivalry and honor, in actuality these are represents a more primitive concept of civilization akin to what we see in the American ghettos with gang justice as well as with Latin-American drug lords. I see the sort of "honor" that you speak of every day in the urban schools. The least perceived slight must be responded to with physical assault and regardless of circumstances friends or allies are expected to join in the fray. One who does not respond in the expected manner... one who stays out of trouble and studies hard is often, as you suggest, deemed as effeminate or gay. Like the medieval patriarchal societies women (especially mothers) are revered... even worshiped... and yet at the same time treated as so much property... unquestionably inferior... something to be use... and abused.

His mama named him Tommy but folks just called him yellow...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEJniCCuqR4

[Darcy88]

What you describe is true, in the gettos and certain places full of ignorance and poverty this is the culture. But that is not what I am talking about, unless you think that system honorable, which I most certanly dont.

I have never heard anyone in my life being called effeminate because he was intelligent and hard working, effeminate is an insult for one who does not take responsibility for his actions.

e.g In a club, someone pushes around a friend of yours and then when you friend says lets take this outside, he runs away and returns with a dozen other guys. This is gratituous and effeminate violence, and this is wrong.


But if I have a disagreement with a stranger and me and him go outside and fight, our friends there only to intervene if the fight gets to intense and oen of us needs protection. We fight untill both of us are satisfied, and the walk away, usualy if the other man fought bravley, with a new found respect for your oponent. If you see this as wrong, I would like to know why. To deny this aspect of our nature is to try an illude ourselves that we are not on a certain level violent, which we are, and if that need for violence is not satisfied it will be pent up, and cause psychological issues, just like a man who forgoes sex. Sex and violence are necessary for a reguklar life (more so in youth, the prime of life) - so isntead of trying to forbid it and pretend that we are not human, let us satisfy our needs in a regulated and controlled manner, hence the birth of an honorable fight, and chivalrous treatment of women.

I agree with you, but where I am, a place with poor criminals out and about, your kind of attitude would get you killed fast.

[mortalterror]

I agree with you, but where I am, a place with poor criminals out and about, your kind of attitude would get you killed fast.

Yeah son! You likely to get killed walking down the streets of Vancouver if you ain't strapped!

[Darcy88]

Yeah son! You likely to get killed walking down the streets of Vancouver if you ain't strapped!

Man I ain't even in Vancouver. I'm in a waaaaay smaller town. But you go around with an attitude of pride when some crazy criminal guy pushes you and eventually you'll get killed. I've been in such circumstances before. The only way to live is to suck up your pride and be a *****. If Alexander had been in my shoes he wouldn't be here with us now.

[stlukesguild]

What is perplexing is the fact that sex and violence (or sex and death) are two of the most central themes of art. They are central to the Oresteia, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Arabian Nights, the Shanameh, the Bible, the Divine Comedy, etc... I was always struck by the difference between American writers, like Poe and Hawthorne and Bierce and Melville and European counterparts such as Flaubert, Baudelaire, Gautier, and Balzac. Yet there is an essay by R.L. Stevenson in which he complains of the censorship imposed on British and American authors... to the point that sex could not even be alluded to, nor could one even suggest an affair between an unmarried couple. Yet as a result, he argued, the French (and others) became fixated on sexuality while the British explored a far greater realm of human experiences. He continues that he could not imagine a French equivalent of Lewis Carroll.

Does it all come down to our religious backgrounds: Catholicism vs the more puritanical strains of Protestantism, American Fundamentalism, and Russian Orthodox?

[JuniperWoolf]

Man I ain't even in Vancouver. I'm in a waaaaay smaller town. But you go around with an attitude of pride when some crazy criminal guy pushes you and eventually you'll get killed. I've been in such circumstances before. The only way to live is to suck up your pride and be a *****. If Alexander had been in my shoes he wouldn't be here with us now.

Hmm, on that note: my friend Sean used to live on Jasper Ave in Edmonton, and once a crazy topless guy covered dozens of deep gashes in various stages of healing including a few fresh ones which were still bleeding quite a bit, was riding a bike down the street and waving his machete around when he saw Sean walking. The bleeding topless machete wielder then stopped his bike a foot away from Sean and hawked a loogie on him. Right. In. The face.

This is a genuine question bred of pure curiosity: Alex, what would you do?

[Alexander III]

Hmm, on that note: my friend Sean used to live on Jasper Ave in Edmonton, and once a crazy topless guy covered dozens of deep gashes in various stages of healing including a few fresh ones which were still bleeding quite a bit, was riding a bike down the street and waving his machete around when he saw Sean walking. The bleeding topless machete wielder then stopped his bike a foot away from Sean and hawked a loogie on him. Right. In. The face.

This is a genuine question bred of pure curiosity: Alex, what would you do?

I don't think much of a man who is not ready to scarifice everything for his Ideals, and I know that is 99% of everyone, and I know that in all your eyes I appear stupid and probably none of you believe me and think it but a grand act - but for me there are things more terryfying than death, and settling for a mere animal like existance is one of them. Yes it is intelligent to place survival above everything, and I suppose I would only act this way because I am very afraid of certain things and very stupid in others. But To fail with the ambitions of a deity is tolerable and inevitable, but to succede with the ambitions of an animal and not aspire to more, to value your life above anything and not have ever held a true ideal in your life, I find that type of existance terryfying.

This story from history has always validated in me that my beliefs are not vain. During the American revolution, the british kept all capture rebel soldiers in prison ships near new york. The british fighting a war which they were lossing were desperate to win the hearts of the american people. So they made every captured soldier on the prison ships an offer. All they had to do was swear loyalty to the brithish crown and they would be released. Roughly 28,000 men died aboard the prison ships, from disease and cruel treatment. Not one of them took the offer. 28,000 men chose death over having to say a few words, which in their hearts they could never bear to say. I am sure the british and the locals did not understand, the reason for such stupid behavior.

I know that my example has nothign to do with the setting you give to me, but to me that setting you gave is but a microcosm of the one above I described. Tyrany is tryany, and I could never respect a man who bows down to it for the sake of self-preservance.

I was in a situation once, while in holliday in Istanbull. There was this gypse who was yelling at what appeared to be his sister, and then he punched her, and then he began kicking her and shouting. There were a few people around and none of them did anything, they just hurried their pace and ignored this little reality. I came very close to walking away like everyone else, but at the last minute went up to him and tried to defend the girl. I was only 17 at the time and the man was far larger than me. He was enraged that I intervened and he went into a psychotic fit and he injured me pretty bad, and then he picked up the women and ran away. He broke my nose and partialy tore one of my knee ligaments. But to have done anythign else within the situation would have been as disgusting to me as if I were the one who had beat that woman. And that is how I feel about it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm always trying to decide if you're being genuine or putting on an act, Alex. I hope for the former and suspect the latter. You're stories just don't seem consistent.


Yeah son! You likely to get killed walking down the streets of Vancouver if you ain't strapped!

That made me laugh, especially as one who lives next to East St. Louis.

[Alexander III]

I'm always trying to decide if you're being genuine or putting on an act, Alex. I hope for the former and suspect the latter. You're stories just don't seem consistent.

A character and mind that is not full of contradictions is often a very limited one.

"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)."

"Wise men are not wise at all hours, and will speak five times from their taste or their humor, to once from their reason. "

And lastly my favorite from Byron

"What an antithetical mind! -- tenderness, roughness -- delicacy, coarseness -- sentiment, sensuality -- soaring and groveling, dirt and deity -- all mixed up in that one compound of inspired clay! "

[KCurtis]

Our closest cousins are bonobos and chimps. Chimps use violence to solve their problems and bonobos use sex. Seriously, if a bunch of bonobos get stressed out, they'll stop what they're doing and start humping each other. Maybe Americans are just more chimp than bonobo.

*edit* Actually, I think we genetically are a bit closer to chimps. That's a shame, I wish our behavior more closely resembled that of bonobos. Could you imagine world leaders solving an oil dispute the bonobo way?

Oh my, the images are hysterical. Do you mean world leaders bonoboing with each other? Or with their female staff, as most of the world's leaders are men. :banana:

[stlukesguild]

This story from history has always validated in me that my beliefs are not vain. During the American revolution, the british kept all capture rebel soldiers in prison ships near new york. The british fighting a war which they were lossing were desperate to win the hearts of the american people. So they made every captured soldier on the prison ships an offer. All they had to do was swear loyalty to the brithish crown and they would be released. Roughly 28,000 men died aboard the prison ships, from disease and cruel treatment. Not one of them took the offer. 28,000 men chose death over having to say a few words, which in their hearts they could never bear to say. I am sure the british and the locals did not understand, the reason for such stupid behavior.

Interesting story... but one I doubt few Americans have even heard of. Of course there is one that is more recent and perhaps closer to our hearts...

In December 1944, the German army launched the surprise attack against American forces in France and Belgium that became known as the Battle of the Bulge. At Bastogne, the 101st Airborne Division was besieged by a far larger force of Germans under the command of General Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz. The allies controlled the air-war, but a dense fog grounded all flights. The Germans, on the other hand, had amassed an sizable armor force consisting of the latest Panzers and Tiger II tanks that far outclassed any allied tanks. These German forces rapidly encircled the American forces at Batogne and on December 22, 1944, through a party consisting of a major, a lieutenant, and two enlisted men under a flag of truce, an offer was made of honorable surrender. The official response to the Germans was typed as follows:

To the German Commander.

NUTS!

The American Commander

The German emissaries, confused as to the meaning of this response asked for a translation in plain English. Colonel Harper, who had typed the note, explained that it meant "Go to hell."

The Germans should have understood... having their own similar military anecdote. Götz von Berlichingen (c. 1480 – 23 July 1562) Götz of the Iron Hand was a German Imperial Knight and mercenary. After his arm was destroyed by canon fire, he had a metal prosthetic one made. He was active in numerous campaigns during a period of 47 years (1498–1544), including the German Peasants' War, during which he sided with the rebels against the princes and church authorities of the Holy Roman Empire. He also engaged in numerous "feuds". In his autobiography he estimates that he fought 15 feuds in his own name, besides many cases where he lent assistance to friends, including feuds against the cities of Cologne, Ulm, Augsburg, the Swabian League as well as the bishop of Bamberg. During one of his "feuds" his castle was surrounded by superior military forces and he was given the offer of surrender. Götz' reply was "er kann mich im Arsche lecken" (He can lick my....). Götz' life became the stuff of legend. Goethe composed a play based on his life, and his vulgar reply to his adversary became even more legendary. During WWII the Germans fielded an armor division, the Waffen-SS 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen named after him. Tanks in this division were often festooned with abbreviations of Götz famous vulgar reply: LMA (Leck mein... or Lick/Kiss My...) The entire division became known as the LMA Division.

The French also have a variation on this theme, dating from the Napoleonic Wars. During the Battle of Waterloo, Pierre Jacques Étienne Cambronne, a General of the French Empire, commanded the last forces of the Old Guard who had held out brilliantly against vastly superior allied and British forces. Summoned to surrender by General Colville, Cambronne was reported to have replied, according to a journalist, "The Guard dies and does not surrender!" Cambronne's actual response, according to multiple other sources, was far more succinct: "Merde!" This version of the reply became famous in its own right, becoming known as le mot de Cambronne ("the word of Cambronne") and referred to as such in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. Later, his name would come to be used directly as a polite euphemism: "What a load of old Cambronne!"

[OrphanPip]

I somehow doubt the validity of at least part of the anecdote though, because 28,000 American revolutionary militia being held prisoner is quite an astounding number for the period considering that the normal size for an army fielded in that war was around 5000. The American revolutionary forces were around 80-90 thousand at their strongest after all. (It would also account for more than 50% of the American casualties for the entire revolution)

[stlukesguild]

28,000 would also be a sizable number housed within the ships of the era. Perhaps 2,800?

[Darcy88]

I don't think much of a man who is not ready to scarifice everything for his Ideals, and I know that is 99% of everyone, and I know that in all your eyes I appear stupid and probably none of you believe me and think it but a grand act - but for me there are things more terryfying than death, and settling for a mere animal like existance is one of them. Yes it is intelligent to place survival above everything, and I suppose I would only act this way because I am very afraid of certain things and very stupid in others. But To fail with the ambitions of a deity is tolerable and inevitable, but to succede with the ambitions of an animal and not aspire to more, to value your life above anything and not have ever held a true ideal in your life, I find that type of existance terryfying.


Its far more animal-like to go around like a brute throwing punches whenever your "honor" is insulted in a slight minor way. So would you have attacked the blood-covered machete-wielding madman had he spat in your face? If you would have then that's just foolish I'm sorry to say.

You have these "ideals" you call them. Have you ever had a known murderer insult your honor in a severe way? I've lived a relatively calm life, but I was put in that situation before, and I cowered. Again, it is more animal-like to act on petty emotion than it is to be the bigger man and let the other person have their pittance of triumph. You can usually size a person up and determine how dangerous they are and then act accordingly. In many cases I lose control and I act like you say you act. But when you just know that the other guy is really dangerous, potentially or known to be a killer, its plain stupidity to place "honor" above life. Spend a lot of time with criminals, real violent criminals, and you see what I mean. Sticking up for a woman being battered like you did in Istanbul is not the same as risking your life out of pride. It takes a bigger man to brush off a petty slight. If you react to every scumbag who pokes you in the chest you bring yourself down to their low level.

And to those making posts that make Vancouver sound really tame, you've clearly never heard of the Bacon Brothers or the Hells Angels. Vancouver is a safe city by big-city standards, but there is still violence. I live in a town a small fraction the size of Vancouver and in the news in recent months there have been stabbings, beatings, and even the odd murder. You can come across dangerous people everywhere.

[mortalterror]

And to those making posts that make Vancouver sound really tame, you've clearly never heard of the Bacon Brothers or the Hells Angels. Vancouver is a safe city by big-city standards, but there is still violence. I live in a town a small fraction the size of Vancouver and in the news in recent months there have been stabbings, beatings, and even the odd murder. You can come across dangerous people everywhere.

Okay, tough guy. Don't get your ascot ruffled. We're all aware of Canada's reputation for fierceness. People start throwing up the maple leaf and things do get crazy.

[Alexander III]

I somehow doubt the validity of at least part of the anecdote though, because 28,000 American revolutionary militia being held prisoner is quite an astounding number for the period considering that the normal size for an army fielded in that war was around 5000. The American revolutionary forces were around 80-90 thousand at their strongest after all. (It would also account for more than 50% of the American casualties for the entire revolution)


28,000 would also be a sizable number housed within the ships of the era. Perhaps 2,800?

The number did seem high once I tought about it and I went and checked, apparently rougly 11,000 men died on the prison ships. Considering that total American casualties were 20,000 - it makes the story all the more noble.

[Darcy88]

Okay, tough guy. Don't get your ascot ruffled. We're all aware of Canada's reputation for fierceness. People start throwing up the maple leaf and things do get crazy.

Damn straight. Our riots make those south of the border look like ballet, and we handle guns better than any other nation on the globe and that is a fact.

To attention people! Sing along now, raise your voices!

O Canada!

Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

[Alexander III]

Its far more animal-like to go around like a brute throwing punches whenever your "honor" is insulted in a slight minor way. So would you have attacked the blood-covered machete-wielding madman had he spat in your face? If you would have then that's just foolish I'm sorry to say.

You have these "ideals" you call them. Have you ever had a known murderer insult your honor in a severe way? I've lived a relatively calm life, but I was put in that situation before, and I cowered. Again, it is more animal-like to act on petty emotion than it is to be the bigger man and let the other person have their pittance of triumph. You can usually size a person up and determine how dangerous they are and then act accordingly. In many cases I lose control and I act like you say you act. But when you just know that the other guy is really dangerous, potentially or known to be a killer, its plain stupidity to place "honor" above life. Spend a lot of time with criminals, real violent criminals, and you see what I mean. Sticking up for a woman being battered like you did in Istanbul is not the same as risking your life out of pride. It takes a bigger man to brush off a petty slight. If you react to every scumbag who pokes you in the chest you bring yourself down to their low level.

And to those making posts that make Vancouver sound really tame, you've clearly never heard of the Bacon Brothers or the Hells Angels. Vancouver is a safe city by big-city standards, but there is still violence. I live in a town a small fraction the size of Vancouver and in the news in recent months there have been stabbings, beatings, and even the odd murder. You can come across dangerous people everywhere.

Thats cool too, honestly, everyman for himself, the world and history are full of multitudes of various men; each chose to do what he would with his life - I was simply speacking on behalf of myself and a few other individuals, as you yourself have done.

But one thing I feel obliged to point out is that your conception of defending honor, is a strange and base one. Defending honor does not mean retaliation, and attacking, it means standing your ground, it means getting hit, and not running away, it is about enduring what may happen, not causing pain, but surviving it, and never letting agony conquer your brow during your struggles.