[rimantas]

I still cannot wrap my head around this. My brain just switches off when I try to think how did we come to this when nudity (and of course sex) is taboo, but killing people is OK. The fact that I don't even see any discussions about this baffles me even more.

[spacemanaki]

There is discussion about it, among both the gaming and film industries. See my sibling comment to yours and the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" which is from 2005 IIRC. They delve into it quite deeply, even looking at why some sex scenes are given the deadly NC-17 (spoiler: the MPAA doesn't like gay sex and sex where the woman is enjoying it) and comparing the kinds of violence in films that are rated differently.

I remember one especially biting criticism from a comedian or filmmaker who basically argued that we have it backwards with the ratings for violent films, and instead should rate certain war movies so that younger people actually CAN see them, and rate other, "fantasy" violence higher so only adults who can discern the difference can see them.

I think the example was "Saving Private Ryan" which is rated R, but in this new scheme would be PG-13, because it depicts war realistically. The James Bond movies, which are PG-13 because they have no gore, should be rated R, because the violence in them is depicted unrealistically: with no consequences, with effortless skill on the part of the killer, and with clear cut "good and evil" roles. I'm sure I'm butchering this argument, but I found it to be an extremely compelling one, if a bit too optimistic that this would ever change.

In games, see the recent article on Jonathan Blow that was posted to HN, called "The Most Dangerous Gamer". There's definitely a related discussion among certain game makers about violence in games.

[vacri]

The first scene in Saving Private Ryan was realistic. Everything after it was very unrealistic, with experienced German troops running into gunfire in the open like lemmings. I remember one veteran who was angry because it insulted both armies - it made the Germans look incompetant when they weren't, which in turn trivialised the incredible effort it took to defeat them.

[spacemanaki]

Actually, I have to admit that I haven't seen that film and know little about it. I tried to dig up the exact quote from "This Film Is Not yet Rated" but couldn't find it, so I may have misremembered it.

But the underlying point still stands, even if that film is not a great example. Depictions of war should probably be treated be differently than the kind of over-the-top violence in most action movies that I can only describe as fantasy. Yet the ratings board seems not to take that into account, and just counts splatters of blood in a way that's taken out of context.

[jasomill]

You're probably thinking about George Carlin, see, e.g.,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNLOXJw0aUU

[batista]

Anthropologically speaking, it makes much sense: killing people is sometimes needed to ensure the survival of the community. Raunchy sex is not.

Mere reproduction-level sex can ensure the survival of a community just fine. Plus, sex can quickly get communities into trouble (rivalries, mainly, also people becoming absent-minded etc).