Westworld (2016)

[Keit]

Keit, I would appreciate if you provide some examples where I was inappropriate or went against basic courtesy rules in your opinion.

Sure. The following quote from this thread, for example.

Beau, you may want to look at what program is at work that makes you defend "a fellow moderator" against what you seem to perceive as an "attack". How important is objective perception to you?

Apparently you don't see any problem with the way you expressed yourself above. But the way you did it is akin to a guest coming to someone else's house and not taking their shoes off, for example (can be anything else for that matter). And after one of the hosts asks the guest to remove their shoes, instead of simply doing it, the guest starts pointing out that they should clean their dishes first, or dust their shelves, etc.

Doesn't look like a very polite or courteous thing to do, right? Not in real life or online. These are basic and unspoken host-guest rules that most people follow in an instinctual way. It is possible that for some reason you perceive this place as different. Perhaps you think that since this forum is "Work" oriented, it means that it gives you some kind of right to "provide moderators and admins with a feedback you perceive as objective" and in the way you see fit? If so, it appears that not only you lack understanding of what this forum is all about, but you also lack basic "emotional intelligence" or situational awareness that should help you with knowing when and how to communicate with others.

I don't think that presenting a somewhat different view sometimes means that I am "standing on the shore". You are right in that this is not my "main" ship, but I find this place very helpful as well in many ways.

In what way exactly do you find this place helpful?

 

[Siberia]

Unfortunately, due to a lot of work in the recent months, I don't have time to watch films. But if I had time, I'd rather watch this new film by Oliver Stone, for one example. It's a pity that it goes largely unnoticed, while Westworld-like films go viral.

 

[axj]

axj, the problem is that there is a pattern with you that you argue, accuse and nitpick - just as an example, I remember this exchange between us from years ago. My impression was that you 'need to be right', which is a program that hinders true learning. It seems you are on a kind of vendetta against what you perceive to be 'group think', which also doesn't help your progress.

I think everyone has the "need to be right" program to some degree and I've acknowledged it both in the thread you linked and in the Trump thread that I am aware of it and try not to indulge in it.

Also, consider this: if you had shown through your actions over the years that you are a helpful and compassionate member here, ready to admit your own faults and programs (or at least considering that you may have been wrong), maybe others would take your opinions more seriously, like in the Trump thread.

You make a lot of assumptions, eg. that I do not admit my faults or programs, and that this is the reason some people disagreed with me in the Trump thread. In fact, that discussion in the Trump thread was quite helpful for everyone invloved, in my opinion, since the consensus on Trump began to change during and after that discussion.

In that I acknowledged that people have different views

So, if you acknowledge that, can you see how your whole "hearsay is incorrect" argument in this case makes very little sense, then?

I agree with what luc wrote above. You come across as wanting to argue your point, rather than starting a discussion out of curiosity to learn something. Again, you may not see it that way, which is why I asked whether you've read Strangers to Ourselves, as you would then at least understand that how other people see us is often more accurate than how we see ourselves. I hope you can see that we're all trying to help here.

And I hope you see that I was trying to help as well, even if in that particular case it may not have been necessary. In that particular case, people who watched the show (DBZ and me) agreed that the sex scenes were not "extremely graphic" but subtle. That is first hand knowledge instead of hearsay based on sensationalist headlines or a somewhat misleading trailer. And as I said, I should have worded it differently, as it was really just a minor comment/observation to begin with.

I understand that in any lengthy discussion it is easy to miss what was said at various points. I did not say that I disagree that it is a bad idea for people with porn issues to watch this show. I pointed out that giving advice based on hearsay is not a good idea and that this is just a minor thing that may be good to look at to make sure it is not a pattern. That's it.

This is obviously a narrative, because you are professing false concern over a comment that Niall made. Why is it false concern? Because you are exaggerating it to the point of it being 'dangerous' and projecting on to Niall some kind of pattern of behavior that cannot be normally construed from what he posted.

I gave feedback to Niall with the intent was to increase objectivity. I wasn't exaggerating anything, since I already said almost from the start that this was meant as a minor comment to look at a potential pattern of believing unreliable hearsay. People who watched the show shared that they disagreed with the content of that hearsay. And yes, for people doing the Work, believing hearsay can be dangerous, if it is pattern. That's why I suggested to look at whether it is one.

I don't think that being honest and objective about potential programs is nitpicking, Joe. I brought up the Trump discussion only because a similar program could be seen there in several people.

Well, you started this 'argument' by not being objective or honest about what your real gripe is. You seem to have this 'hair trigger' for anything you construe as not exactly and factually correct. In doing so your ignore the context and nuance of what was said in favor of focusing on the literal and specific meaning of what someone said. That's the definition of being obtuse, and it gets you into arguments that quickly descend into nitpicking and futile argumentation that go nowhere. So maybe you could try being honest rather than covert, from the get go, about what is really bothering you.

Maybe you should start a new topic, clearly and honestly outlining the personal offense your took over the Trump thread, how you were right all along and no one recognized that you were right, neither at the time nor since, and how you have been carrying that grievance for weeks now and how it has been influencing they way you respond to posts on this forum (Niall's comment being a case in point). You could also explain how it has led you to question the validity of the information on this forum in general, and in particular the views of moderators, and how that has led you to question whether or not 'group think' is going on, and whether or not some members have an 'authoritarian mindset' where other members blindly follow the views of moderators.

After doing all that, apart from it being an exercise in honesty with yourself and other members, you might realize that you have a 'problem' with authority, which might have roots in your past experiences, and that a person who has a problem with authority often has a history of being an authoritarian follower themselves or were hurt as a result of placing their faith in an authority that then 'betrayed' them in some way.

You might then also come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with such a situation is not to go around pointing out (or nitpicking) the 'flaws' in the views of the 'authorities' and warning people about the 'dangers' of 'blindly adopting' the views of said 'authorities' and reminding everyone of when you were right and everyone else was wrong, but to recognize that you have a particular issue or 'program' in this area and to make efforts to heal your past wounds and to understand and find a way to accept that life is a lot more nuanced and complicated than you would like it to be.

You make a lot of assumptions, Joe, and present them as "facts". No, I did not "carry personal offense and grievance over the Trump thread for weeks", nor do I question the validity of information on this forum in general. Do you see how you go down the road of extreme views and accusations?

At the same time, we are all doing the Work and even the group consensus is just a working hypothesis and not the ultimate truth. Acknowleding that, I do not see anything wrong in sharing new data and a different viewpoint from time to time. That includes pointing out potential programs I see. I mentioned the Trump thread and anart only as data to show that I have a history of seeing things that are only later acknowledged by the group, after being initially met with intense scepticism.

I do have some "authority issues" and I've been aware of it and working through that for quite a while now. Again, this is something that most of us have to one degree or another. You assume that indulging in that "authority issue" is the real reason behind my sharing here and I disagree. It certainly plays into some responses, but my main intent is to increase objectivity in my own and other people's perception here.

Keit, I would appreciate if you provide some examples where I was inappropriate or went against basic courtesy rules in your opinion.

Sure. The following quote from this thread, for example.

Beau, you may want to look at what program is at work that makes you defend "a fellow moderator" against what you seem to perceive as an "attack". How important is objective perception to you?

Apparently you don't see any problem with the way you expressed yourself above. But the way you did it is akin to a guest coming to someone else's house and not taking their shoes off, for example (can be anything else for that matter). And after one of the hosts asks the guest to remove their shoes, instead of simply doing it, the guest starts pointing out that they should clean their dishes first, or dust their shelves, etc.

Doesn't look like a very polite or courteous thing to do, right? Not in real life or online. These are basic and unspoken host-guest rules that most people follow in an instinctual way. It is possible that for some reason you perceive this place as different. Perhaps you think that since this forum is "Work" oriented, it means that it gives you some kind of right to "provide moderators and admins with a feedback you perceive as objective" and in the way you see fit? If so, it appears that not only you lack understanding of what this forum is all about, but you also lack basic "emotional intelligence" or situational awareness that should help you with knowing when and how to communicate with others.

The way I see this place (and this may be incorrect) is that it is not "just another forum", but a place where we strive for truth and objectivity, no matter how difficult or uncomfortable this may be. Everyone can provide feedback and share what they perceive. If it is true or objective, then it will stand on its own, no matter who it comes from. Do you disagree with that?

Your "guest" analogy coming to someone's house for the first time is not really accurate either, since I have been here for many years. I actually used to be on the mailing list that existed before the forum. So it's more accurate to say that we have all been living in this house for a long time together now, so that pointing out "unclean dishes" to the hosts can be seen as acceptable (or not).

I do see that my words may have been too direct or may even be seen as disrespectful in a few instances. I apologize for that.

In what way exactly do you find this place helpful?

In my main spiritual group (also based on Gurdjieff/Castaneda teachings and a channeling source) we focus only on the Work on ourselves and do not analyze world events. This is what I find most helpful here, eg. the findings on ponerology and psychopaths. I also share where it seems appropriate and sometimes I am wrong or do it in a not quite appropriate way. This is something that I will continue looking into.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I've seen a few episodes, interesting concept. I think the sex scenes are there for 2 reasons. First because it's HBO and sex sells, and that's why they are so graphic. Second, they do show how psychopaths behave when they can get away with it - they love complete and total domination, to use others as tools of self-gratification. It shows a contrast between what a psychopath does in a fantasy world vs what normal people choose to do.

Having said that, I think the sex and violence warning is absolutely fair, buyer beware. I don't see why such a simple warning sparked such a long discussion - I'm pretty sure the exactly same warning was given for countless movies and shows here, no big deal, but this one just so happened to not sit well, and that in and of itself suggests a need for reflection. There is definitely some kind of identification going on.

Also Axj, would you mind sharing more about this spiritual group you just mentioned? Got a link?

 

[Divide by Zero]

I think AXJ and I might have something in common here after seeing the Trump thing.

AXJ just seems more upset about it, where I realized that I can still have my differing opinions and move on.

When it came to Trump, I too did not think he was the next Hitler. I didn't have any facts, just a gut feeling about it. Of course there were plenty of arguments for that in many places, including here.
Same thing happened with the election of 2004, big push to go out and vote bush out because he is evil. I found it a waste of time and energy, not that I don't waste energy myself, but feeling "out of the group's opinion" was a bit hard to reconcile. He got re elected, and what we found is the next guy, Obama was Bush 2.

Now with Westworld, we have some interesting conversation and then comments about how it's just other Hollywood junk. And yes, some if it is just flashy garbage, but there are gems in the rough.
Woodsman, you echoed my view on these shows and similar first impressions that I had of those shows too.

The hardest thing to do is be in the work, trust the group, but also not "blend into the group" and forget who you are. I think on a macro scale, that in itself is sort of a scratch test. You can be a part of the group and act like everything is great and perfect, only to despise it secretly like Anart did- which would be splitting. Or you can be a "trouble maker" and always argue here.
It seems the most logical and fair one would be to know that yes, we can disagree but it has to be done on a more respectful level. There was also a sott radio show about ranting which helped me get over the disappointment in heroes, in that case Putin which Joe later helped me see was not specifically him but the fairy tale of a hero.

Here we're 3d STS beings learning "simple and karmic lessons". We aren't 4d yet, so yes, there will be differing opinions. But what matters is to know how far to take it and to see here that it is not our character which is attacked, but the ideas are. And another big lesson of the work, identification.

I remember a Marine vet who I worked with in a construction crew once asked me a question to test who I was. It was quite interesting to see the psychology in it!
Vet: Do you believe in Jesus?
Me: I don't know, I'm not a practicing Christian.
V: Are you saying you think he is a fake, our lord and savior?!?!!!! (his tone went up, I was a bit nervous from that)
Me: No
V: What kind of person doesn't believe in Jesus and his good words/works as we all do in this crew?
Me: I just don't know and I can't go by the words in the books alone.
V: Who do you believe in then, Allah the enemy out there now??
Me: No, just because I don't believe in Jesus doesn't mean I'm an enemy, I'm my own self.
V: (starts laughing) You did well kid, you stood your ground.
Me: But I didn't have any belief, what do you mean?
V: You didn't cave in to my belief just because I was convinced and you didn't attack my belief either. That takes guts and in the Marines they said those guys were the ones to follow when the S hits the fan.

So, it's ok to disagree, but respectfully and that in itself takes a lot of work!

 

[axj]

Also Axj, would you mind sharing more about this spiritual group you just mentioned? Got a link?

Well, it's a pretty small group now consisting of two guides and about 10 people, most of whom have been in that group for almost 15 years now. It's interesting that both places have a high quality channeling, lately we have been getting most of the feedback and guided meditations from that channeling source. We are also all across the world and have a sort of forum, plus a conference call every couple of weeks to share, get feedback and do group meditations. I think the most important thing regarding groups is finding one that really resonates on a deep level and then sticking with it. I'd rather not post a link on the freely accessible part of the forum since I'd like to preserve my anonymity.

 

[Phill4]

You make a lot of assumptions, eg. that I do not admit my faults or programs, and that this is the reason some people disagreed with me in the Trump thread. In fact, that discussion in the Trump thread was quite helpful for everyone invloved, in my opinion, since the consensus on Trump began to change during and after that discussion.

Axj, being aware of programs means just that, how to work through programs is another whole other thing, being aware of a program doesn't mean we are not acting under its influence All the time.

And again with the what amount of sex is safe, within the context, quiet frankly it is far from being an objective or more objective statement, BECAUSE , as i explained above we are talking about the dangerous part of porn and "subtle" sexual suggestions as adding to the desensitizing aspect of the sexual systems and psychological systems connected to sex.
To give a few examples
(people who find pleasure on suffering, there is a description for it,)
(People who "don't feel anything" in sex, desensitization, there is a description for it)
(People with ED, there is a description for that as well etc etc etc)

When you put is as not much or subtle, is not an objective analizys to its core, merely how you perceive it, and this being an assumption is based on your description of "subtle".
And the opinion is perfectly valid as we all have natural biases, but there needs to be carefull analizys because to put is simple, others may be more sensitive us, even if we don't perceive it as such.

By your description if you were to compare a child who has no context of life to you already build perception and judgement subject to the construction of your personality, it is far from objectivity because you are not describing the systems of sexual mechanisms in the psyche to bring the considerations subtle/acute into the argument.


Another thing about what you call the concensus, it is important again that you have all the considerations there can posibly be before narrowing all members opinions by regarding them as following the herd, so to speak, i ask you to truly look at this assumption objectively,
Are all members one brained in reality? No
Are all members feeling the same thing about one thing? No
Are members who disagree with you truly against your opinion because they are to confortable woth their opinion? No
Do all members agree all the tim? No
Are there not minor, subtle or covert disagrements when people speak? No
All these being Facts.

You can come up with the rest of the questions, and feelings aside, really, at the end of this questioning you will find that to truly look at people objectively or things objectively you need an individual analizys, not generalizing.

Think about trump carefully, and im saying taking into account my interactions with illegal mexicans, had this timeline been slightly different would trump had not becomed a fascist had the situation been slightly different? Had the pieces not been in place do his narcissitic nature not , under different circumstances not lead him into temptation? I mean does he not have all the signs and personality traits?

To this point we have to keep our eyes WIDE OPEN to what is happening, since things are changing at such fast rate, it is about where and how we invest our energy to influence events as a group and idividually.

 

[Joe]

I gave feedback to Niall with the intent was to increase objectivity. I wasn't exaggerating anything, since I already said almost from the start that this was meant as a minor comment to look at a potential pattern of believing unreliable hearsay.

Well, as I already said, there is no reason for you or anyone else to suggest that Niall might have a "pattern of believing unreliable hearsay" simply because he said "I heard that the show has explicit sexual scenes". People say things like "I heard...." all the time and I doubt anyone immediately sees that as "dangerous" for the person. That seems to be a narrative that you made up after the fact in an effort to 'be right'. That's just my take on it though.

You make a lot of assumptions, Joe, and present them as "facts". No, I did not "carry personal offense and grievance over the Trump thread for weeks", nor do I question the validity of information on this forum in general. Do you see how you go down the road of extreme views and accusations?

Maybe you should read what I wrote again. All of it is prefaced with "you might". That's worded as a suggestion, so calling it "extreme" or an "accusation" is overstating it, which you also did with your suggestion that Niall was "in danger". You seem to take a lot of feedback here as an accusation against you. That's pretty normal, but something that we are duty bound to point out to members. It also tends to make a person miss the crux of the topic being discussed.

 

[Chu]

In my main spiritual group (also based on Gurdjieff/Castaneda teachings and a channeling source) we focus only on the Work on ourselves and do not analyze world events. This is what I find most helpful here, eg. the findings on ponerology and psychopaths. I also share where it seems appropriate and sometimes I am wrong or do it in a not quite appropriate way. This is something that I will continue looking into.

Excellent. So here's a solution: you participate on SOTT, posting comments there, and you only read this forum. After all, you say you already have the Work aspect covered in your main spiritual group. You obviously don't like our methods, so no point in trying to fit in.

Well, it's a pretty small group now consisting of two guides and about 10 people, most of whom have been in that group for almost 15 years now. It's interesting that both places have a high quality channeling, lately we have been getting most of the feedback and guided meditations from that channeling source. We are also all across the world and have a sort of forum, plus a conference call every couple of weeks to share, get feedback and do group meditations. I think the most important thing regarding groups is finding one that really resonates on a deep level and then sticking with it.

Yes, and you seem to have found yours, so there is no need to try to preach to us. You can take what you value from here, as you explained, and just leave the rest alone.

Your "guest" analogy coming to someone's house for the first time is not really accurate either, since I have been here for many years. I actually used to be on the mailing list that existed before the forum. So it's more accurate to say that we have all been living in this house for a long time together now, so that pointing out "unclean dishes" to the hosts can be seen as acceptable (or not).

Nope. You are still considered a guest. The fact that you describe your presence as you did above shows that you are quite unfamiliar with our methods, actually. Some "guests" remain "guests" no matter how long they've been around, simply because they have different ideas/values, and they are not considered part of the "household". That's normal. It actually sounds quite presumptuous of you to pretend you know how this house runs, by the way.

 

[Deleted member 11729]

okay , after skimming through this conversation, I think I would like to skip also on this show too, as someone point out, there is no time for entertaining content that might just look like to give answers around serious issues ...

it is much productive to re read G. and others as much time as possible, than to waist time on HBO productions, that probably from the very start has no mind opening intentions, but contrary, probably producers are driven by profit and than maybe authors might have some different intentions undercover, and can hope to push them unnoticed. But it is a huuuugee system, and how is it possible that enlightening message will come though HBO? hm unlikely ... you have to be super smart to do that ... as they are major part of matrix framework, and their ignorance and self importance is far bigger than anything that can truly help people ... usually they work behind the curtain to help people to get addictive to the show, and probably sublimely there is content that guide to other addictions ... so also to be clear I am not referring this to any HBO show in particular, but knowing some producers from there and some commissioners from documentary departments, who seams to be open minded, but on every serious topic if conversation arise with objective arguments, they all of a sudden just play ignorance ... so in general I just don't buy what they sell ... if I watch it, it is more for technical super high quality production, that really gets people hypnotise to be able to see the reality of lies behind it ... and most of the people I know, who watch the HBO shows, are always primarily so amazed with production levels, what is on the other side a cheep trick to sell them the matrix .. and get millions eyes on screen, what they than transmute to money for them self ...

but, what I am concerned is that many youngsters from 16 - 25 watching that, and actually I got captivated to check on Forum your thoughts on show, after I got recommendation from one of my students around 23, and than my daughter, 19, told me how she got strange feeling about what is really going on in the world after watching that .. we don't talk at home about Work and G. and STO STS and human been machine and etc, but they can see I am researching that topics through my professional work too, and that can make them even more confused ... and now I am concern that maybe I need to watch that in order to know how HBO present that topics, and what kind of influence that can do on a young person who still has no idea about the reality of the world like we do ... and who probably is not even ready for that yet?

On the other side my student get conclusions from shows like that, how today many young people already know everything ... uhm ... I felt that as a very dangerous trick played on their minds, as I know how blind I was just a year ago ... and how confident I was how I know everything ...

What do you think on that? How we shall approach that? ... Are we on a way obliged to follow what is going on at that pool, in order to be able to serve better development of our own kids and students and our own approach to that when they come up with those topics they see in the show?


thank you ...

 

[axj]

Excellent. So here's a solution: you participate on SOTT, posting comments there, and you only read this forum. After all, you say you already have the Work aspect covered in your main spiritual group. You obviously don't like our methods, so no point in trying to fit in.

Yes, I have the Work aspect covered, which is why I participate in discussing world events for the most part and only sometimes share my experience in the Work related threads. I think both myself and others benefit from these exchanges, so I see no reason for any kind of "solution". If I didn't like your methods, I wouldn't be coming here for all these years.

Well, it's a pretty small group now consisting of two guides and about 10 people, most of whom have been in that group for almost 15 years now. It's interesting that both places have a high quality channeling, lately we have been getting most of the feedback and guided meditations from that channeling source. We are also all across the world and have a sort of forum, plus a conference call every couple of weeks to share, get feedback and do group meditations. I think the most important thing regarding groups is finding one that really resonates on a deep level and then sticking with it.

Yes, and you seem to have found yours, so there is no need to try to preach to us. You can take what you value from here, as you explained, and just leave the rest alone.

Where exactly did I preach to you? Sharing my observations, new data or a different viewpoint is not preaching. Or did it become preaching when I pointed out something "uncomfortable" to one of the moderators? If that is the case, as Keit already hinted at, then I will refrain from doing that.

Your "guest" analogy coming to someone's house for the first time is not really accurate either, since I have been here for many years. I actually used to be on the mailing list that existed before the forum. So it's more accurate to say that we have all been living in this house for a long time together now, so that pointing out "unclean dishes" to the hosts can be seen as acceptable (or not).

Nope. You are still considered a guest.

Of course. That is why I was talking about hosts and guests and descriving myself as one.

The fact that you describe your presence as you did above shows that you are quite unfamiliar with our methods, actually. Some "guests" remain "guests" no matter how long they've been around, simply because they have different ideas/values, and they are not considered part of the "household". That's normal. It actually sounds quite presumptuous of you to pretend you know how this house runs, by the way.

I have been a guest on here since around 2000, so I do have quite a good idea of how this place works. And as I said, I do not see myself as more than a guest, even though I have been here for a long time.

 

[Woodsman]

Just an odd parallel which struck me...

In the Westworld story. a "Host" refers to one of the Neo-esque manufactured slave/humans trying to reach consciousness and escape their artificial, violent world.

The "Guests" are from the outside.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Yes Woodsman,
I see the hosts becoming self aware similar to our struggle to awaken from sleep. The guests run the show which could be the psychopaths and the authoritarian followers who follow them.

Despite the guests being more aware of reality they seem to choose to forget a higher purpose of life and existence beyond their own needs and wants, which is why they come to Westworld.

What makes me wonder is who exactly is Arnold who is said to be one of the original creators. If he himself was AI, a special prototype with less limits as the typical host, he could be like Neo. Neo, despite being born in the matrix had some of the abilities outside of the system.

 

[redwraith33]

IMO, the sex scenes in this show are quite infrequent and tame as far as HBO goes and when there is one, it is quick. Most of the nudity is non-sexual in nature, usually when the "robots" are offline or in maintenance mode.
Violence, on the other hand is numerous, so if blood makes you queasy, stay away.
The main takeaway that I have of this show is that it is an analog of what many here at this site perceive as our existence here on Earth. A population (the robots) who are viewed as mere cattle and playthings, beings to be manipulated for the whims and entertainment of a class of beings who are a bit more aware than us (the visitors or guests who visit the park). The people who run the park, could be viewed as the "handlers" of the robots, so that they mostly stay in line for the convenience of the guests. It's a 4D STS Vs. 3D STS battle and what's being chronicled is the efforts of the oppressed population to "awaken" and realize the true nature of their reality.
The creators of the show may be trying to inject some religiosity into it, as well. Ford and Arnold, both creators of Westworld: which one is God and which one is Satan? I guess we'll find out.

 

[ska]

I have watched a few episodes , as my partner follows it.

HBO have clearly thrown big bucks at it, is well filmed and uses evocative sound tracks and good looking actors to win the viewer over. They are good at what they do.

The sex may not be frequent, but what I have seen has been graphic, and some of the violence , especially against women in my view is horrific.
I saw one scene where a male actor, punched a female actor full in the face twice, and then repeated the scene a second time. She later violently attacked him too

In my view, it is a 'cop out' to say it's OK 'cos they are just robots, and the scenses are just fantasy, because actually...they are not robots they are actors, and they are human, and sadly that level of violence exists in real life.

The images still occur on the screen, they are extremely unpleasant, and could certainly be harmful to some individuals that see it, and worse still, if they are not expecting it.

I fully believe a warning is completely justified, and actually as one who is aware of the violence and the graphic sex scenes I now feel obliged to tell people who mention they intend to watch it.

The question for me is , having seen it myself, as a responsible adult, would you want my 16 year old, or my 18 year old or my elderly parents to see those scenes?

And the answer is no, of course not.

I would not tell my partner what she should or should not watch on telly, but, if it is on the TV and I am reading or on my lap top or something, I now leave the room, make a cup of tea, or look away from those scenes as I simply don't want to see them.

Good for any one that warns someone else...hearsay or not.