War Porn

[David Morris]

Have been keeping an eye on the Pacifism thread in the theology section, but feel that this topic is not really "theological" in nature.

Newsweek ran an interesting article this week on the topic of "war porn." War porn really consists of the gruesome images that are created by war...whether it is something as "soft" as a bomb blowing up a car, or as "hard" as a sniper killing someone with a headshot.

There are two views to war porn.

1. Some people are stimulated by viewing these pictures and videos, similar to someone who may view sexual pornography.
2. War porn will help us to realize the true cost of war (lives...many times innocent ones). By viewing these pictures and videos, it will cause us to only want peace, and all wars will end.

My question: Do you believe that it would work, or like other things in life, would we soon forget about it? How far is to far in displaying what actually happens in war? Would you let a 14 year old view this?

[Billie Goodson]

Have been keeping an eye on the Pacifism thread in the theology section, but feel that this topic is not really "theological" in nature.

Newsweek ran an interesting article this week on the topic of "war porn." War porn really consists of the gruesome images that are created by war...whether it is something as "soft" as a bomb blowing up a car, or as "hard" as a sniper killing someone with a headshot.

There are two views to war porn.

1. Some people are stimulated by viewing these pictures and videos, similar to someone who may view sexual pornography.
2. War porn will help us to realize the true cost of war (lives...many times innocent ones). By viewing these pictures and videos, it will cause us to only want peace, and all wars will end.

My question: Do you believe that it would work, or like other things in life, would we soon forget about it? How far is to far in displaying what actually happens in war? Would you let a 14 year old view this?

Sexual porn dehumanizes not only the victim but also the viewer. I think that war porn will do the same. I know people who still get squeamish over seeing the clip where Joe Theismann's leg was snapped, yet they can look at images of war and not be moved. That seems odd, but I think it is a product of dehumanizing the people we view. Just like porn, the viewer builds a callous and even images of greater intensity become needed to satiate the desire. I don't see how war porn will do any differently. When we view it, we don't see humans but "targets" or even "rag heads". That seems sad to reduce people to that level.

I once heard a man give a testimony of his lifetime of porn addiction. Then one day his daughter came home from a date in tears. Her date had taken advantage of a situation and violated her in an action ending just short of "full rape". The man was stunned and cried out to God why this had happened to his daughter. He testified to hearing a still, quiet voice that said, "You have been doing that to my daughters for years". We could analyze whether God would say something like that or not. Not really that important. What is important is that this man realized the depravity within which he lived. Will we hear the same story someday about war porn?

[Jim Chabot]

I'm thinking that there is also a third view. The images help us to never forget, it is said that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Images of Nazi atrocities keep the world on guard. Images of the twin towers cause us to remember why we are engaged against radical islam. I watched the tape of Daniel Pearl's execution, I will never forget that we are engaged against evil. At the same time, our youth should be protected against this sort of trauma. I have heard from time to time that certain books of the Bible, such as Ezekiel were not permitted to be read by those under 30, I'm thinking that 30 is a good minimum age for images such as these.

Taken to excess, graphic images are dehumanizing, they are not conducive to good mental health.

[David Graham]

Personally I can't watch a highly graphic visual image of violance, not because I'm squemish (I can watch images of medical procedures without any problem whatsoever) but because I tend to feel the pain of the person being afflicted. However, this is not the case with many who watch such things, they say things such as "It's only a drama", and therefore feel nothing for the victim. Maybe they can distinguish between fiction and fact, but I can't help but feel that constant exposure to such ficticious images must "harden" the person just a little.

And of course there are those psychopathic personalities who would delight in such images.

I think that movie makers should be more realistic when it comes to making violent drama. If they are going to show the horrific violent images than they should also show the actors reacting in more realistic ways, for in real life after most people witness such things they are never the same afterwards and often suffer from post traumatic stress. Too often however, movie makers show these "Rambo" type characters just moving on with their lives as if nothing has happened.... and for most people that is definately a false image.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dale Cozby]

I believe it would result in a desensitization of people even further. Perhaps even further angering people to want even more violence.
Seeing too much of it will only cheapen the value of life, not enhance it.
If you want to raise the disgust level of people then focus not on the violence, but on what is lost by it. Stories showing the effect of the loss on families, on communities and the emotional, spiritual, and even the financial destruction wrought by war.

[Billy Cox]

By viewing these pictures and videos, it will cause us to only want peace, and all wars will end.

My question: Do you believe that it would work, or like other things in life, would we soon forget about it? How far is to far in displaying what actually happens in war? Would you let a 14 year old view this?

How about a little historical perspective... For nearly all of human history, images of death, war, and carnage were all too familiar to adults and children alike. That's far more real than anything we see in perhaps a lifetime, yet it seems not to have made a dent on the human impulse to wage war.

So in short, I don't have any reason to believe that exposure to the horror of war would lessen our appetite for murder.

[Susan Unger]

I tend to feel the pain of the person being afflicted

Oh, me too!

I can't help but feel that constant exposure to such ficticious images must "harden" the person just a little.

My other reason for not watching.

And of course there are those psychopathic personalities who would delight in such images.

I think of this when I watch Criminal Minds.

[Jim Severns]

I’ll confess that I had not encountered this term before. After reading the article and getting a better grasp of the subject I have my doubts about putting a positive spin on graphic raw footage. I was pretty young (maybe 4th or 5th grade) the first time I saw footage of bulldozers shoving bodies into trenches in liberated Nazi concentration camps. I also remember vividly the image of a burned and naked little Vietnamese girl. Those images have stayed with me for over 40 years. But these weren’t presented in the same context as what is being described here.

So this leads me to a question. During WWII the War Department produced many films for public consumption to keep the folks back at home fired up about the war effort thousands of miles away in Europe and the Pacific. Some of these bordered on propaganda but they had the desired effect. So where’s the modern day equivalent? We get news reports from Afghanistan and Iraq but not much. Where’s the modern day version of raising the flag at Iwo Jima? Where are the videos that show the good guys achieving victory over the enemy? I wonder if the military did a better job of promoting itself as victorious in combat it might somehow diminish the market for “war porn”.

[Scott Moseley]

Ok i haven't heard of this term before either and it is catchy.... I wonder if the Video games like Call of Duty , Counter STrike, et. al. might actually pander more to the "War Pornaholic" . I have, for lack of a better word "enjoyed" , war zone photography as the stills and film allow me to contemplate the enormity that the pain and hell that war delivers. For me its anything but dehumanizing. War images bring home not only the brutality and depravity of the human condition, but also sheer strength, bravery and determination people bestow in the will to survive in service to others.

One image courtesy of Eddie Adams was the notorious "Saigon Execution" . I remember staring at that photo trying to figure out the emotions of the moment. IT was very human and very powerful. In my opinion there was nothing dehumanizing about it... in fact it and other photo journalistic images help us feel the human pain and emotions of war.

Now what about those video games? My son loves them and I hv to restrict his time on them (loves Call of Duty). I am very tempted to pull the plug on all War shoot em games.

[Steven Burton]

I had a youth pastor tell me one time that due to him hunting he has become hard of heart when it comes to taking the life of an animal. Where he was once a little nervous about it he has become desensitized to it. I seem to find it interesting that in the military they seem to dehumanize the other side. I have seen it countless times in interviews on the history channel. I know for me I like to play the so called "war pornaholic" games, but I still have a hard time even thinking about taking another person life even in self defense. I am wondering how much is up the viewers and how much is getting use to the idea of seeing it because of repeat views of the pictures.

[Susan Unger]

Rereading this thread I realized I should up date my info - I am no longer watching Criminal minds. I love the profiling but can't take the violence anymore. In fact, I can't abide alot of crime dramas anymore.

[Gina Stevenson]

Rereading this thread I realized I should up date my info - I am no longer watching Criminal minds. I love the profiling but can't take the violence anymore. In fact, I can't abide alot of crime dramas anymore.

Most of my life I've avoided those crime programs; don't need nightmare material placed into my mind. However, it's odd to me that lately I can sometimes watch something called Bones. I think it has to do with the characterization ... one of the gals is a rather unusual character/personality, so the program has now & then intrigued me, tho' I'd guess I end up watching it only about once/month, if that. But it is something I'd normally switch off very quickly!

[Susan Unger]

Most of my life I've avoided those crime programs; don't need nightmare material placed into my mind. However, it's odd to me that lately I can sometimes watch something called Bones. I think it has to do with the characterization ... one of the gals is a rather unusual character/personality, so the program has now & then intrigued me, tho' I'd guess I end up watching it only about once/month, if that. But it is something I'd normally switch off very quickly!

I can't always watch them at night either. I have taped them and then watched them in the morning. But lately I am finding that I am not even interested in doing that. I've watched Bones before. She makes gore sound so academic

[Gina Stevenson]

Yeah, maybe that's it, Susan. It doesn't seem as melodramatic as some such programs.

And the interaction ... the sparring those two do ... funny sometimes.

[Katelynn Scott]

I think there is something of a difference between the "victim" and the "aggressor" here too. I know that soldiers end up carrying huge burdens from their time in wars. However, if the picture, for example, was of two soldiers shooting at each other - would we feel the same as if it were a soldier shooting at a civilian or child? Do we assume that people who willingly join the military of their country do not experience the same violation as every day people whose countries are invaded or war torn? In my opinion, "war porn" can be either, but the images of innocent people dying affect me more than images of injured soldiers. I hope that doesn't sound as awful as I'm afraid it might. Again, both are sad consequences of sin in the world, but one seems more senseless than another.

As another twist, when I was required to teach about the Holocaust in my former school district, we were specifically asked not to show pictures of dead Holocaust victims. The philosophy was that by showing their death, you were only remembering their death and suffering. However, showing pictures of living people honored their life. I liked this idea and found it much less traumatic for my students. I still had to discuss the number of Jewish people killed throughout WWII, but by not showing glorified images of piles of dead bodies, I was not glorifying the perpetrators.

[Steven Burton]

I actually sat through a video in my world civilizations class that was taken by the soldiers who freed those in concentration camps. And I will tell you no matter what they try to say nothing really captures what the real event was like than actually seeing it for the real reality of what it was. I never felt like I really understood what happened I was given all the statistics in the world put until I saw the actual footage, it makes you pretty much shut up and not want to say anything for the rest of the day, to see what man is capable of doing to each other just by the authority effects. Submission to authority. I would say my view doesn't differ with soldier of innocent. Most men and women probably don't join to fight but want to serve. I have a hard time separating a soldier from an innocent, because that could as well have been me as much as my friend.

[John Kennedy]

I can remember my senior year in high school being shown a rather long documentary film about the Holocaust (no wonder the Jews refer to it as the Shoah - that's easier to spell). Much of the footage was taken from films done (with almost stereotypical Teutonic thoroughness) by the Nazis themselves.

It was graphic to a detail still remembered today. It probably wouldn't have that effect today - you're looking at a half-century plus of desensitization by gratuitous film/video violence.

[Billy Cox]

As another twist, when I was required to teach about the Holocaust in my former school district, we were specifically asked not to show pictures of dead Holocaust victims. The philosophy was that by showing their death, you were only remembering their death and suffering. However, showing pictures of living people honored their life. I liked this idea and found it much less traumatic for my students. I still had to discuss the number of Jewish people killed throughout WWII, but by not showing glorified images of piles of dead bodies, I was not glorifying the perpetrators.

I'm not sure how showing visceral images of war atrocities 'glorifies' anyone. I can see how avoiding pictures and opting for a sterile/mathematical description of the Holocaust could put us in league with Holocaust deniers.

[Jim Chabot]

I can remember my senior year in high school being shown a rather long documentary film about the Holocaust (no wonder the Jews refer to it as the Shoah - that's easier to spell). Much of the footage was taken from films done (with almost stereotypical Teutonic thoroughness) by the Nazis themselves.

It was graphic to a detail still remembered today. It probably wouldn't have that effect today - you're looking at a half-century plus of desensitization by gratuitous film/video violence.

I think that the effect would be profound today. There is something about watching something that actually is reality. We can no longer imagine that it wasn't all that bad, when we see actual footage of an atrocity. I forced myself to watch the Daniel Pearl execution. As much as I thought I understood the viciousness of radical islam, watching that video clip brought home a reality that I will never forget. These sort of films heighten my sensitivity to violence, it is one thing to hear of how someone has been killed, it is quite another to actually see the pain and suffering.

It isn't the same as watching the blood and gore portrayed on tv. I watch a bunch of the crime mystery shows, I generally don't pay a whole lot of attention to the gory beginning sections where the victim is killed, I'm interested in how these things can be solved. But let's be honest, there isn't anything scary or desensitizing, it's all fake just like Road Runner and the horrid "B" grade japanese movies we used to watch as kids.

[Katelynn Scott]

I think I should have clarified something in my original post about teaching the Holocaust. I teach middle school (ages 11-13). The kids are still pretty young and that is their first exposure to the history of WWII and the Holocaust. In our school district, they covered it in greater depth again in 10th grade and it was at that point that students watched more of the actual documentaries and first person accounts. It was NOT by any means swept under the rug or denied. We had a very large Jewish population within the school district and many vocal individuals advocating for Holocaust education. I was simply commenting on the age at which children are exposed to things. I think protecting your children from certain information is appropriate until a certain age (notice there are no specifics in that sentence because each person will feel that the appropriate age comes at a different time). This does not make me the same as someone who denies it ever happened.

I can still remember seeing those images for the first time as well and had a similar response - you don't want to talk for the rest of the day. I had lots of questions about how such an atrocious thing could be possible. Do I think that's a great way to start an 11 year old's day? Probably not.

[Billy Cox]

I think I should have clarified something in my original post about teaching the Holocaust. I teach middle school (ages 11-13). The kids are still pretty young and that is their first exposure to the history of WWII and the Holocaust. In our school district, they covered it in greater depth again in 10th grade and it was at that point that students watched more of the actual documentaries and first person accounts. It was NOT by any means swept under the rug or denied. We had a very large Jewish population within the school district and many vocal individuals advocating for Holocaust education. I was simply commenting on the age at which children are exposed to things. I think protecting your children from certain information is appropriate until a certain age (notice there are no specifics in that sentence because each person will feel that the appropriate age comes at a different time). This does not make me the same as someone who denies it ever happened.

I can still remember seeing those images for the first time as well and had a similar response - you don't want to talk for the rest of the day. I had lots of questions about how such an atrocious thing could be possible. Do I think that's a great way to start an 11 year old's day? Probably not.

That's all fine as long as we realize that protecting children from violence and images of graphic violence is a relatively new thing. It's yet to be seen whether our obsessive protection of children is doing more harm than good.

[Katelynn Scott]

Protecting children is not a new thing. Even mothers in third world countries, when faced with famine and impossible odds will try to make sure their children have food first. Generations and generations ago, children were certainly exposed to hard work and the realities of life. I don't believe there has been a time when children were unnecessarily exposed to gratuitous violence just because. Parenting takes different forms for every generation. 100 years ago, there weren't images being broadcast worldwide of every war happening in various nations. During the middle ages, if someone rode up to your house on a horse and killed your dad with a sword, you might have seen it happen. You probably didn't, however, see looping images of people jumping out of burning sky scrapers, hours of footage of terrorist bombings and atomic explosions. Now that we have this technology (both for war and for communication), perhaps the methods of parenting need to shift as well.

As a middle school teacher, I definitely see these "helicopter parents" who intervene probably too much and don't give their children the chance to grow and mature and explore the world around them. I don't think that the majority, however, are "obsessive." Most of the parents I deal with seem to use common sense and the bulk of my kids seems to be turning out just fine.

[Jim Chabot]

Protecting children is not a new thing. Even mothers in third world countries, when faced with famine and impossible odds will try to make sure their children have food first. Generations and generations ago, children were certainly exposed to hard work and the realities of life. I don't believe there has been a time when children were unnecessarily exposed to gratuitous violence just because. Parenting takes different forms for every generation. 100 years ago, there weren't images being broadcast worldwide of every war happening in various nations. During the middle ages, if someone rode up to your house on a horse and killed your dad with a sword, you might have seen it happen. You probably didn't, however, see looping images of people jumping out of burning sky scrapers, hours of footage of terrorist bombings and atomic explosions. Now that we have this technology (both for war and for communication), perhaps the methods of parenting need to shift as well.

As a middle school teacher, I definitely see these "helicopter parents" who intervene probably too much and don't give their children the chance to grow and mature and explore the world around them. I don't think that the majority, however, are "obsessive." Most of the parents I deal with seem to use common sense and the bulk of my kids seems to be turning out just fine.

I'm with you on this one. Shielding children from graphic images is absolutely the right thing to do. I can't put my eyes on a cite right now, but I do remember talk of OT Israel protecting their young from difficult things. I remember reading somewhere that some of the prophetic books such as Ezekiel were off limits until the age of 30, also one had to be 30 to be active in the priesthood. So I think that there is precedence for protecting the young against that which would traumatize them.

Once one became a Priest, things changed, the difficult things became mandatory. One of these things was the animal sacrifice. The Priest was required to hold his hand on the animals head to feel the life go out from it. I have read a few Jewish authors who explained that the reasoning for this was to build sensitivity. I think that this flies in the face of those who would say that such things harden people. I do know for myself when I view horrible acts that have really happened, I become more sensitive not less. Then again, maybe I'm all wet on this, I'll admit that I am shooting from the hip, I don't have the time to look this up. So FWIW, yada, yada, yada.......................

[Billy Cox]

Protecting children is not a new thing. Even mothers in third world countries, when faced with famine and impossible odds will try to make sure their children have food first.

I'm simply suggesting that children's historical exposure to violent images is not as unusual as your post seems to suggest. I daresay that blurry news images of 9/11 or pictures of destroyed buildings or mushroom clouds are meaningless compared with watching a public execution or lynching (common in the early 20th century) or seeing a farm animal slaughtered (present day).

Also, I wonder if you know a lot of kids whose visual diet consists of CNN and other news programming.

[Katelynn Scott]

Their visual diet consists of worse - Call of Duty (video game) anyone?

[Billy Cox]

Their visual diet consists of worse - Call of Duty (video game) anyone?

The most realistic simulated violence - whether in video games or movies - has far less impact than real-life violence. I would even say that kids today are exposed to less violence due to the fact that violence-based parenting (spanking/flogging) is less accepted than it was a generation ago. I daresay that being whipped with a coat hanger wounds a child's psyche so profoundly as to make Call of Duty look like childs-play.

[Steven Burton]

I will agree with Billy here and from my understanding the only study that is used when talking about is bobo doll. Also I would like to point out that most of those games have a rating system in which the company set the standards and hopes the parents actually look at them. Which still leads the adult in charge of the playing of them unless they are at a friends house. The rating for the call of duty games are M (mature 17+). I have been carded before and I am 26 . So there are standards and precautions taken to inform the parents but it leaves that up to the parents to make the judgment call. I would also say Call of Duty is not a very good comparison for war porn. There are much more graphic in nature games out there that can get you into more of a war like situation.

[Gina Stevenson]

Talking about pictures from war, one of the ads on a TV program seen recently was about how people could order "pictures never seen before!" that were supposed to be from cameras the soldiers carried with them, along w/their gun, in WWII, and snapped while fighting was going on. Bad enough when it's re-enacted in movies.