Which is worse for kids and teens: horror movies or rom-coms?

It’s a weird mix, honestly—you’ve got all this heavy stuff like blood and dragons on one hand, then you’re pivoting straight into those lighthearted rom-coms starring Hugh Grant and Meg Ryan.

Honestly, rom-coms are way more dangerous than zombie necromancy or lesbian vampires😁😁😁

driftingeagle27 said:Which poses a greater threat to kids and teens: horror movies or romantic comedies?

A dead heat.

If we’re being honest—which we should be—the real danger to society at large is the overproduction of xxx films. They feed young people, especially teenagers, completely unrealistic, warped, and above all, deviant depictions of sex.

Don't believe me?

Just think back to that recent documentary about:

Hugh Grant is definitely the bigger threat

Dammit... I just can't bring myself to call them horror movies when I absolutely love them.
We’ve watched Ralje together so many times that whenever my little guy asks, "who's the strongest person in the world?" he just shouts, "vejika jibetina"😁 😁 😁

Nancy Hernandez33 said:Dammit... I can't bring myself to call them horror movies when I actually love them.
We've watched ralje together so many times that whenever my kid asks "who's the toughest guy ever," he just answers: "vejika jibetina"😁 😁 😁

🤣 🤣 ....👍

The real danger isn't coming from movies or music; it's coming from parents who can't be bothered to give their kids even five minutes of actual attention before just tossing them in front of the TV to deal with them.

Then, of course, they turn around and blame everything else—"controversial" films, Marilyn Manson, techno music, or video games—for whatever issues pop up. I guess it’s easier than actually parenting. Heaven forbid one of them actually takes the time to explain the difference between what's happening on a screen and real life. 🙄

slylynx16 said:It's a tie.
But if we’re being honest—and we should be—the real threat to society is the flood of XXX films. They feed teenagers a totally warped, unrealistic, and frankly deviant view of sex.

Coming from someone who thinks Batman is a loser just because he's celibate.🙂

Serse_Cosmi said:Hugh Grant is definitely the bigger threat here...

Hugh Grant and Freddie Prinze junior😁

Jose Miller17 said:That’s rich coming from someone who thinks Batman is a failure just because he isn't getting laid.

You know what?

I'm officially convinced. It's not just that we aren't using the same logic or even speaking the same language—it's that we aren't even from the same planet.

I thought I was being perfectly clear.

("It was based on the idea that all a man had to do was put his penis down a woman's throat and thrust and the woman was as satisfied as the man. Well, guess what?")

As for bores of your caliber—sorry, I really don't have the time...

slylynx16 said:It's a tie.

But, if we’re being honest—and we really should be—the biggest threat to society at large is the sheer overproduction of xxx films. It floods the minds of young people, especially those hitting adolescence, with these totally distorted, unrealistic, and, above all, deviant views of sex.

What, you don't believe me?

Fine, just think back to that recent documentary about:

The real danger actually comes from the guys who have never even looked at porn... for whatever reasons or motivations... (mostly talking about men here)

slylynx16 said:You know what?
I’m officially convinced that we don't just lack a common logical framework or speak different languages—we aren't even from the same planet.

Why gotta be like that? I was actually hoping we could inhabit the same planet so we could judge photos of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie using the same logic... and then maybe move on to watching Batman adult films with subtitles for the visually impaired.😢

...and then after work we’re just sitting there watching Batman adult films with subtitles designed for people who can't focus...

Oof... 😳

Back to the topic... look, everyone agrees that, individually, we’re all responsible for how we interpret moving images. And sure, obviously, conscientious parents and a solid social circle play a huge role in clarifying the difference between reality and the world depicted on screen, etc., etc., etc. But if that were actually the complete answer to fixing all issues regarding mental conditioning, nobody would ever bother making a TV commercial. I mean, everything rests on the ability to influence someone's psyche—especially through media like film and television. Moving pictures have weight.

"Danger" might be too heavy-handed or suggestive of a threat here, but I think it’s fair to say that something happens to us after watching a horror movie or a rom-com. Everything around us—media or our immediate environment—exerts some kind of influence. But "dangerous"... in a lethal or malicious sense? No. Simply because every new paradigm in pop culture often descends into the grotesque through various other forms of media presentation. What I’m trying to get at is... society, including the younger generations... there is a shift happening in how they perceive their surroundings. Those people who constantly offer pessimistic forecasts and point out every possible danger are usually just stuck in time; their analyses boil down to knowing what society was like twenty years ago compared to what's in the news in the USA today. Consequently, the result is always disastrous for that society. Honestly, you can't help but mock those kinds of assessments.

Now, I know this post was written purely for a laugh, so I’ll offer a little comparative analysis of "danger levels" for kids:

-- Hugh Grant shaving with two girls in one movie (=) blood up to the knees caused by an STI, most likely an unlit one.
-- A romantic couple who, after a series of mishaps, falls in love five minutes before the credits roll (=) that girl with the good ass gets what's coming to her, and even kids know what a nasty period looks like.

🙂

😁

slylynx16 said:But if we’re being totally honest—and let’s be real, we should be!—the biggest threat to our entire society is really just the massive overproduction of xxx films

Wait, are we talking about those movies starring Vin Diesel?

Man, well, that explains why my actual vocabulary has basically shrunk down to just one-syllable words lately.

Ontopic:
There’s no such thing as an "dangerous" movie.

Richard Hernandez13 said:There’s no such thing as an 'dangerous' movie.

So what, a "triumph of the will"?

Richard Hernandez13 said:Is that one of those Vin Diesel movies?

Oh, you...

... haven't a clue.

"Dangerous" movies don't exist.

They certainly do.

Proof of my point—among other things—is found in the double-digit percentages of actresses who have to fake an orgasm on screen.

And that—regrettably—isn't just simple...

quietdriver3 said:A "triumph of will"?

It’s no different than—say—Fahrenheit 9/11.

It’s really just about being equal to something like "Fahrenheit 9/11".

🙄

Gerald Barrett25 said:🙄

What? Both of them are clearly designed for the mainstream masses.

It all kicks off with that word "dangerous." It’s a bit of a nonsense term when you apply it to morality rather than art, isn't it? Take triumph of the will, for example. We all know that was considered dangerous because it hit that mainstream nerve so effectively. I can't quite wrap my head around how that same logic doesn't apply to a film by Michael Moore... which is where 🙄