The Parental Advisory Explicit Content (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=6911) thread got me thinking about the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) ratings on movies. What do you all think about the way sex and violence are treated in determining ratings, in determining whether or not a movie is "appropriate" for minors. I'm mainly talking about the upper ratings of PG-13, R, and NC-17.

Violence in media is everywhere (okay, so is sex, but I'll get to that). It's in our cartoons, our news programs, our music, our TV shows, and definitely our movies. Let's face it, it sells. I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be there in any form; rather I want to compare how it's treated to how sex in movies is treated.

In the way of ratings, mild sex is comparative to very explicit violence. While it is technically possible for a movie to receive an NC-17 rating for violence, it's almost unheard of anymore. However, like I said, even mild sex is enough to at least get an R rating, while mild violence will likely only receive a PG-13 (sometimes even PG) rating. In many European countries, sex and violence are rated seperately. In the US, however, they are combined. So here are my questions to debate:

If you have children (or even if you don't), would you find a movie that is explicit in sex more inappropriate than violence? Would you allow a greater extent of one more than the other to be in a movie you'd allow a minor to see (or if you ARE a minor, that you'd GO see)? Do you think the American rating system is fair (or if you're not American, talk about the system used where you live)? Which do you think more people find offensive and why? Which do YOU find more offensive and why? By offensive, I don't necessarily mean you have very strong objections to it. Rather, I mean that, if you HAD to choose, which would you rather not have in a movie.

If you have children (or even if you don't), would you find a movie that is explicit in sex more inappropriate than violence?
Well, I don't have children, nor am I a minor, however, I think that to properly compare the two topics you have to have a definition of the degree of explicit. Some people's opinions vary on what constitues "explicit" behavior. I'll just assume that the two are equal to me though, for the sake of argument. Personally, I would find a movie with more explicit sexual content more inappropriate than a movie with explicit violence. I think that sexual actvity is offensive when done in a public setting. In fact, Public Displays of Affection disgust me. Really, I don't care what you do in the privacy of wherever, but there's no need to show that sort of thing in public. As for showing violence in public, sad as it is, it's the only logical place for it. You can't really be violent towards yourself. You can abuse yourself, but it doesn't really count as violence.
Would you allow a greater extent of one more than the other to be in a movie you'd allow a minor to see (or if you ARE a minor, that you'd GO see)?
Well, since once again, I'm not a minor, I'll have to say that some children are more capable of being responsible when it comes to violent/sexual scenes in movies. Every person's maturity level is unique, therefore, I think that it's up to the child's parent to decide if it is or is not appropriate for this child to see whatever movie. It's a form of personal responsibility on the part of the parent to try to assure the child the best life he or she can get.
Which do you think more people find offensive and why? Which do YOU find more offensive and why?
Well, as for what I find more offensive, I think I answered that in the first part of the post. I guess I don't see the difference in the questions. As for what I think others find offensive, I think that most people find violence more offensive. No one likes the idea of harming another person, and this caters more toward the violent side than to the sexual side. Most people enjoy sex, after all.

To be completely honest... Kids these days and parents they dont have the relationships that used to be. Kids walk all over the parents. I do believe it should be the parents desicion to an extent but these movies that no one under 17 can be permittied only with a parent FORGET THAT... They shouldnt be allowed. Kids these days are so impressionable.. EX Grand Theft Auto.. some kids thought it would be kool to go out and shoot people from their car WHAT MORON says to them selves hey i think this would be kool. I think that the public should be more stricter Kids are way to impressionable and some parents arent responsible!!

The actions or behavior of a small subset of indivduals concerning movies or video games isn't a very good reason to forbid people from making their own decisions. Like it or not, personal responsiblity is alive and well in this world, and therefore, if you do something stupid, there are consequences. So those kids saw a violent game, which by the way, should have been prevented by the parents, but I guess they decided against it, and acted upon it. You are right, they are morons, but they are morons that should be on their way to jail. Restriciting video games and movies more will not help anything, other than to get the parents to buy them for the kids after the kids nag incessantly to get what they want. Parental relationships aren't as good as they used to be? Damn right they aren't. I feared my parents, and it kept me from doing anything outlandish. Most parents are putty in the hands of their children, which isn't because they are apathetic, it's because modern culture makes them afraid to discipline them properly. Modern society has a very broad definition of child abuse, and it scares the parents to think about losing their children, so they are hesitant to discipline them. As for kids being impressionable, it's because they have weak, spineless parents to look up to, that aren't willing to stand for anything that is meaningful. No convictions or morals means that anything goes.

Does anyone know of any studies done that show whether or not kids tend to be more influenced by violence or sex in the media? Or for that matter, how impressionable kids are to violence or sex in the media? I mean, I know it exists to a degree, but whether or not it's to a significant degree is what is relevent (I'm thinking like studies where over 25% of the kids actually became more violent or more sexually active after viewings). I know at least some studies have to been done, especially for violence in the media.

Another thing is how it's stated that if these "impressionable or problematic" kids were exposed to even more explicit content, that it'd cause them to begin mimicing. Now, I'm not asserting this to be false by any means. But I do want to ask though is this: that this behavior then would have to be evident beforehand, therefore constituting that the 'root cause' of them being more violent or sexually active is social or personal, rather than cultural? And that all these movies and games, etc., just happen to perpetuate these already existent behaviors, so that the real problem is stemming these social or personal causes, rather than cultural ones that affect people in a whole range of ways. And if the percentage of people affected by this stuff in an adverse way is not significant enough, then we shouldn't be as alarmed as a lot of posters of these subjects seem to be?

P.S.: EX Grand Theft Auto.. some kids thought it would be kool to go out and shoot people from their car WHAT MORON says to them selves hey i think this would be kool.

You know, stuff you may overhear of this nature might be just kids joking around. I know me and most of my friends make jokes or might be amused by the explicit content that we see, but we keep it at that: jokes and entertainment, and would never consider the actual events that occur in real life that are simulated in the content lightheartedly. But if you listened in on a random part of our conservations, you might not get that view. Then again, you were right on in saying that maturity is very much an attribute unique to the individual.

You know, stuff you may overhear of this nature might be just kids joking around. I know me and most of my friends make jokes or might be amused by the explicit content that we see, but we keep it at that: jokes and entertainment, and would never consider the actual events that occur in real life that are simulated in the content lightheartedly. But if you listened in on a random part of our conservations, you might not get that view.

Shit yeah, if you listened to our vets talk in the back where the public can't hear them, you'd think they were animal-hating quacks! But when we clip a quick and make a dog bleed during a nail trim and a doctor walks past and says "Looks serious. Gonna have to amputate," or when one holds up a spleen during surgery and asks "Now where does THIS go?" they don't actually MEAN it. They are just joking around because it's easier than being sad and/or worried all the time. It relieves stress, but it's not real.



As for the debate, I'm not really offended by either, but I find it strange that people accept violence more readily than sex, when violence is the one that is actually wrong. I guess I'd just like the ratings to reflect what's actually in the movie, maybe more like on TV where they have the little codes after the rating.

The classic debate here is one of correlation and causation--whether the violence and sex increases the individuals violence and promiscuity--and the greater question of where are that kid's parents and what were they thinking? Or, more precisely, do the ratings even matter?

I remember seeing Jurassic Park when I was 13 and being in the movie theater within the first few weeks with parents who had brought their four year olds. The movie was clearly rated PG-13, people were talking about how it wasn't a kids movie all over the news, Spielberg wasn't even letting his kids (the eldest of whom was 9, IIRC) see the movie, and there they were lined up to take their kids to see the dinosaurs.

When columbine happened everything from movies to videogames to roleplaying was blamed, but the bigger question was how the fuck could the parents not have noticed.

Sigh, just a rant, now back on topic.

In the United States Culture (not bringing in the foreign attitudes towards this) sex is viewed as much worse than violence because of our countries puritanical and repressed notions about sex. Children seeing material that is sexually explicit in some way, shape, or form raises questions in that many parents do not feel ready to answer "just yet."

What this leads to is a culture with a dualistic and very, very unhealthy attitude towards sex and the human body. It leads to parents sitting their kids down to have a talk about sex and finding out they are two years too late, and it leads to information not being discussed in mature and sane manner when it is appropriate to do so, but instead putting it off until it really is too late.

Personally, and I strongly emphasize this, I would rather children see sex--anything from casual nudity (especially casual nudity--we are way to repressed about the human body) to good healthy fucking--than see anything with an equivalent degree of violence.

Personally, and I strongly emphasize this, I would rather children see sex--anything from casual nudity (especially casual nudity--we are way to repressed about the human body) to good healthy fucking--than see anything with an equivalent degree of violence.

I never have understood that. Parents are more concerned when a movie has BOOBS (*gasp!*) or some other form of nudity in it than when a movie is about people blowing the s*** out of each other.

I said this in a previous debate... It's a screwed up world we're in where a movie can get a certificate for release if it shows someone having their breasts cut off, but not if it shows them being sucked and fondled. Go figure.

My view is very much in line with Llywelyns. I think it's a responsible enough approach to have a PG system - let the parents decide, they're grown- up, right? (unfortunately, wrong, more often than not). It's up to parents and teachers and, as it goes, any adult involved in the growth and development of children to teach them responsibility, sense and (wherever possible) wisdom. If you think your 10 year old is mature enough to go see Jurassic Park without having nightmares (or squealing all the way through it and fucking it up for the real people that actually paid to see the movie ;) ) then by all means take them. The trick is knowing when your kid is ready for what. If they aren't ready to handle TV or the cinema, don't give them access to it yet. Go to the park... feed the ducks... go on a picnic... go ice skating! Skateboarding! The possibilities are endless. Switch off the Electric Babysitter and be a fucking parent.

Unfortunately, there are far too many lazy people having kids these days... Parents not taking an active part in their children's lives is (IMHO) the number one contributor to kids going off the rails, be it violence, drugs, underage sex, crime, you name it.

It's all too easy to lay blame for terrible behaviour at the door of a movie studio or a rock band, but I'm afraid the harsh truth is this - Quentin Tarantino never forced your 14 year old to cut anyone's ear off. Marylin Manson isn't responsible for your youngest son taking smack, and Judas Priest sure as fuck never told anyone to commit suicide.

But those are easier conclusions to draw and galvanise pathetic social pressure groups like "Semi-Educated Conservative Mothers Against Everything We Don't Understand And Are Too Fucking Lazy to Research", giving them a simple target to aim at. Well, it's easier than accepting the truth about why your daughter's in rehab.

Conclusion - Movies, TV, Music, Video games... they are not responsible for any of the shit that happens in the world today. Rather, the reverse is true. Art mirrors life, not vice versa. On the other hand, telling your kid that sex is awful, dirty and sinful and should never even be thought about, tsk tsk, how could you? Well, that's just making a future sex offender.

OK, probably not the most popular views on the planet... but I just call it like I see it. :p

Llywelyn:
The classic debate here is one of correlation and causation--whether the violence and sex increases the individuals violence and promiscuity--and the greater question of where are that kid's parents and what were they thinking? Or, more precisely, do the ratings even matter?

Exactly why I wanted to see if anyone had read any studies. I see alarmists all the time warning about how a significant portion of kids will be warped if they see these images, yet never show any studies that if in fact the child mimics the content produced by the culture (which the one study I remember reading reporting that many are not), that it is the content in itself that is causing them to do this, rather than a behavior learned at home or at school or what have you. I hear a lot of screaming, but not a lot of evidence.

Personally, and I strongly emphasize this, I would rather children see sex--anything from casual nudity (especially casual nudity--we are way to repressed about the human body) to good healthy fucking--than see anything with an equivalent degree of violence.

Agreed. I would go as far as banning the public nudity statutes if I were a governer (it would be a state matter), although I would still ban public sex from everywhere except brothels and similar institutions (because sometimes, I actually really don't want to see ugly people having sex ;)).

It's not even so far as "sex" vs. violence; It's just nudity. I remember in Junior High, we watched a movie in one of my classes. During the first 5 minutes, a man was gruesomely murdered, and the teacher was okay with letting us all watch that, but then there was a shot of Kelly McGillis getting out of bed and looking over a balcony. She had no shirt on, but they barely even showed her nipples or anything, and the teacher completely freaked out, ran to stand in front of the screen and fast forward it to some more violence. :rolleyes: That's just fucked up and stupid.

You can probably tell from the suicidegirls thread and my various rants about society's screwed up priorities which I would rather have my children see.

I havent read all this,
but i just have one thing to say

I'm a minor yes, but I dont think it matters, the kids will learn about it soonn enough right? with my family (single mother, only child) we were always open, well i just knew these things (sex and violence) because that was happening around me, i couldnt help but see and know... i was more mature, i knew more, i was just grown up at 6 ya know? but im glad now, i dont think we should hide this from our kids, sure seeing violence at age 2 isnt smart because they'll probablly end up hitting someone else because they think its ok, i just hope any person lucky enough to be a parent is smart enough to realise that. So to me, I think that the rating doesnt matter, we'll know sooner or later right??

Yes, kids will learn about both, but I didn't make this topic to really talk about what parents should and shouldn't let their kids see. I think that's up to each parent. Mine were pretty conservative. The first PG-13 movie I saw was Dirty Dancing (not in the theatre) when I was about 12 or so, and probably what made it rated PG-13 (the talk of abortion) I didn't even get! I didn't understand that part in the least. The first R movie I saw was Pulp Fiction, which I saw at 16 without parental permission because the people at the theatre (you know, the one where I worked?) didn't card me. I realize a lot of parents let their kids see similarly-rated movies at younger ages. That's up to the parents to decide.

I tried to keep my opinion out of the first post in this topic, but I don't think I did a great job of it. I'm sure it's obvious, but I don't really like violence. I never have. Too much of it makes me very uncomfortable. And it bothers me that it's so much more "acceptable" than sex, something that is natural. I don't like the views that this country has towards sex, especially when compared to how it views violence.

Because I already mentioned them, I'll continue to use my parents as an example. I recently went to see Love Actually, a wonderful movie IMO. It was one of those movies that just made me feel good about life in general. In it there is some nudity/sex, but no violence (go figure, it was made in the UK and not the US). I was telling my mother about it, and she was asking me why it was rated R. I told her, and she was very nearly horrified. Oh no, it shows breasts! This from a woman who owns the movie Saving Private Ryan, one of THE most violent movies I think I've ever seen. Yes, it's about war, but there were parts where I closed my eyes (I went to see it in the theatre).

I remember watching a made-for-TV version of Crime and Punishment and feeling uncomfortable. A classic, yes, but even the amount of violence they were able to show on TV was too much for me. And it's not the blood or anything. I can watch those surgery shows and be just fine. When I had my C-section, I was upset that they wouldn't let me watch it.

I just think the view on sex in this country is... well, to quote Angelique "fucked up and stupid". We glorify violence yet teach our children that sex is dirty, wrong, something to be ashamed of. I think we've got that a little backwards.

I have so much more to say, but this is getting so long... maybe later :)

I think it´s okay if kids watch sex as long as they have been explained about it properly.But I don´t think little kids should watch violence,I´m sure it makes people more agressive.The other day my brother went to see "The Last Samurai" and he hasn´t stopped playing with his plastic sword since that.Sometimes he threatens me with it,I know he´s playing,but it´s not nice.That´s what kids learn

I think it´s okay if kids watch sex as long as they have been explained about it properly.But I don´t think little kids should watch violence,I´m sure it makes people more agressive.The other day my brother went to see "The Last Samurai" and he hasn´t stopped playing with his plastic sword since that.Sometimes he threatens me with it,I know he´s playing,but it´s not nice.That´s what kids learn

Okay... either your brother is well under the age for seeing an R rated movie, or he just really likes kiddy toys.
;)

I think the whole thing is pretty stupid.. I've seen great movies with minor nudity that were R, but people get their heads blown off in PG-13.

What I wish is that the ratings were standard... it's annoying going to a PG-13 movie, not expecting to see something that gruesome or hear something that vulgar and they do.... I think ANY F-words should get an automatic R, simply because I'm fucking sick of that word. :P

Since you people hate violence in movies, do you think that Star Wars should be rated R? Should Shrek be rated R because he used wrestling moves that could seriously injure or kill a normal person? Should we ban Looney Toons? What type of violence is enough of a justification for an R rating? Our movies used to not be very gory. Look at John Wayne movies. But then everyone complained that movies like the John Wayne movies glorified violence because they didnt show the consequences. Now movies are showing the consequences of violence and everyone is complaining about that there is too much gore. Well, make up your minds.

I think it´s okay if kids watch sex as long as they have been explained about it properly.But I don´t think little kids should watch violence,I´m sure it makes people more agressive.The other day my brother went to see "The Last Samurai" and he hasn´t stopped playing with his plastic sword since that.Sometimes he threatens me with it,I know he´s playing,but it´s not nice.That´s what kids learn

Im going to assume that since your brother is playing with plastic swords, he is probably of the younger age. In that case, why did he see a R-rated movie? Furthermore, whats wrong with sword play? That is a normal part of being a boy. I sword-fought with my brother all the time. It wasnt because I was imitating any movie that I had seen, it was because it was fun. Even if a child doesnt know what a sword is, boys are still going to rough-house. Hell, Im 18 and I still rough-house with my brothers on occasion, and it isnt because I just saw a movie where people run around blowing eachother's head off. Rough-housing in a normal part of boys playing, especially younger boys.

BTW, there are reasons Saving Private Ryan is so gory.

1- it is the truth. That is what it was really like. Why else do you think everyone who has ever gone to war has come back different? That is why the treatment of Vietnam veterans when they returned home curdles my blood.

2- it is showing that there really isnt any glory to war. As a WWI veteran wrote, "war is hell". I for one am glad that SPR was made the way it was. I think that it is a valuable lesson for those who have not gone to war themselves. It really shows that there is no glory in violence.

I think violence in movies can serve to teach a lesson if used properly. What lesson does sex in movies teach? Ok, lets screw someone that we know for 30 minutes. If it was supposed to be educational, where are the discussions or usage of condoms? Sex in movies is almost always carefree. The world doesnt work like that.

I think violence in movies can serve to teach a lesson if used properly. What lesson does sex in movies teach? Ok, lets screw someone that we know for 30 minutes. If it was supposed to be educational, where are the discussions or usage of condoms? Sex in movies is almost always carefree. The world doesnt work like that.

First off...when i was seven, my mom had me and my brother watch these cartoons. One was called "What's happening to me" and the other was "where did I come from". "What's happening to me" is about puberty and is recommended for kids 10+ and Where did I come from is about where babies come from (the truth) and is meant for like 7+. My mom had no qualms about showing us things about sex when we were young...she also had no qualms about telling us "If someone touches you like on the video and you feel uncomfortable, then you tell me." My mom allowed us to watch movies with sex and nudity (not porn, but stuff where people are actually heavy petting and whatnot). SHE EXPLAINED TO US WHAT SEX WAS AND WAS NOT when we were 7. We knew about sex. However, my mom would not allow us to watch movies that were extremely violent. Once, I wanted to watch Deadly Friend (which has a scene where a woman gets her head knocked off with a basketball), my mom shut that movie off so quick.

sex, something that is natural
Sex and nudity are natural...especially the kind of sex and nudity they show in most R-rated films. I'm not talking softcore or hard core porn, but love scenes like from Dirty Dancing (I can't really think of any others at the moment but you get the idea). Sex in movies can serve to teach a lesson too....like:
1. that you should only have sex with someone you love (Dirty Dancing - remember the sister and how she wanted to have sex with Rob and Baby tried to talk her out of it)
2. monogamy (Nine Months - they were monogamous)
3. unprotected sex leads to pregnancy (Dirty Dancing, Save the Last Dance - the guys sister had a baby)

True, you can learn similar lessons about violence from Saving Private Ryan

1- it is the truth. That is what it was really like. Why else do you think everyone who has ever gone to war has come back different? That is why the treatment of Vietnam veterans when they returned home curdles my blood.

2- it is showing that there really isnt any glory to war. As a WWI veteran wrote, "war is hell". I for one am glad that SPR was made the way it was. I think that it is a valuable lesson for those who have not gone to war themselves. It really shows that there is no glory in violence.

But what valuable lessons are you learning from True Lies, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (a horrible movie with absolutely no point and no real plot to begin with), The Shaft Movies (the old movies, where he is beatin pimps and hos...not to get them off the street, but to take their money)??

yes, there are movies on both sides of this coin that have no point in their sexual or violent content, but i would rather have my kids watch the sex rather than the violence (and non violent sex, not something like Poison Ivy or Fatal Attraction or some shit like that).

Since you people hate violence in movies, do you think that Star Wars should be rated R? Should Shrek be rated R because he used wrestling moves that could seriously injure or kill a normal person? Should we ban Looney Toons? What type of violence is enough of a justification for an R rating? Our movies used to not be very gory. Look at John Wayne movies. But then everyone complained that movies like the John Wayne movies glorified violence because they didnt show the consequences. Now movies are showing the consequences of violence and everyone is complaining about that there is too much gore. Well, make up your minds.

Its one thing to have movies and shows so far outside the realm of realty that if a kid where to try them, he would fail (like dropping an anvil on his little sister) and another to show a kid something like Training Day. Its also the parents responsibility to let their kids know...hey...this is a cartoon, its not real. I watched Looney toons, and I wanted to blast myself off in a rocket like Wiley Coyote....did I. No, cause I was taught that CARTOONS AREN'T REAL. When you don't teach your kids this...then they fucking set thier houses on fire (like the Bevis and Butt Head kids). Showing kids sex does not promote arson. I think its great to show the consequences, but do 11 year olds need to know the consequences of Will Smith busting up a group of KKK members?

You can list movies where violence was inappropriate, I can list movies where sex was inappropriate.


Its one thing to have movies and shows so far outside the realm of realty that if a kid where to try them, he would fail (like dropping an anvil on his little sister) and another to show a kid something like Training Day. Its also the parents responsibility to let their kids know...hey...this is a cartoon, its not real. I watched Looney toons, and I wanted to blast myself off in a rocket like Wiley Coyote....did I. No, cause I was taught that CARTOONS AREN'T REAL. When you don't teach your kids this...then they fucking set thier houses on fire (like the Bevis and Butt Head kids). Showing kids sex does not promote arson. I think its great to show the consequences, but do 11 year olds need to know the consequences of Will Smith busting up a group of KKK members?

Training day was rated R. Why is a kid watching a rated R movie? And btw, it was Denzel Washington. ;)

As to cartoon violence, hitting people over the head with a hammer is pretty easy and children have done because of those cartoons. Do you disagree with the violence in Starwars?

Showing kids sex does not promote arson. Of course it doesnt. Just like showing kids arson does not promote sex. Showing arson promotes arson, showing kids sex promotes sex. Im glad you had a responsible mother. Most kids do not. What would you rather, a 3rd grader wielding a plastic light-saber or having sex?

Since you people hate violence in movies, do you think that Star Wars should be rated R? Should Shrek be rated R because he used wrestling moves that could seriously injure or kill a normal person? Should we ban Looney Toons? What type of violence is enough of a justification for an R rating? Our movies used to not be very gory. Look at John Wayne movies. But then everyone complained that movies like the John Wayne movies glorified violence because they didnt show the consequences. Now movies are showing the consequences of violence and everyone is complaining about that there is too much gore. Well, make up your minds.

It's your last statement in that paragraph that I want to emphasize: the gore. I'm definitely not saying that there should never be ANY violence of ANY kind in movies. I'm not even saying there shouldn't be particularly graphic stuff. It's the level and the amount that matters. Simply showing two people fighting is pretty tame. Simply showing someone getting hurt to the point that they say, "Ow, ow, ow," is pretty tame. Even dying can be tame when it's more alluded to than actually shown. There are different levels. What I'm trying to say is that there should be equal consideration for sex/nudity in movies. I think showing a breast or butt is fairly tame, moreso than showing two people having sex (not talking porn of any kind here, but fully-nude sex scenes). Similarly, I think showing two people fighting (like many of the "violent" scenes in Star Wars) is tame compared to showing body parts exploding. People can see that there are varying degrees of violence, but many don't see the same about sex; they see it ALL as graphic and deserving of the highest rating, no matter how tame it might be.

BTW, there are reasons Saving Private Ryan is so gory.

1- it is the truth. That is what it was really like. Why else do you think everyone who has ever gone to war has come back different? That is why the treatment of Vietnam veterans when they returned home curdles my blood.

2- it is showing that there really isnt any glory to war. As a WWI veteran wrote, "war is hell". I for one am glad that SPR was made the way it was. I think that it is a valuable lesson for those who have not gone to war themselves. It really shows that there is no glory in violence.

I'm certainly not saying there wasn't a reason for it. I personally do not like terribly violent movies, so it was too much for me. The reason I brought it up, though, was to show how one particular person (my mother) viewed it as compared to rather mild nudity. Again, I'm not trying to attack or defend either one individually but rather trying to show how they compare when it comes to movie ratings and how those ratings seem very skewed to me in favor of violence and against sex.

I think violence in movies can serve to teach a lesson if used properly. What lesson does sex in movies teach? Ok, lets screw someone that we know for 30 minutes. If it was supposed to be educational, where are the discussions or usage of condoms? Sex in movies is almost always carefree. The world doesnt work like that.

I think you're showing a very common stereotype towards sex with that comment. To me, that statement says that you don't think showing sex in a movie has any redeeming value, that sex can only really be used to shock people, that it's unnecessary to any plotline. Sex can be used to show many different things, TEACH many different things. It can show the love and committment between two people, it can portray the way that one person can have power over another, it can teach us that there can be good things in even the worst of situations, it can warn us against the dangers that come when it happens in the wrong situations.

On that note, I could just as easily say that it is VIOLENCE that is almost always carefree in movies. It is rare that we see the remorse someone might feel about killing or hurting someone. Instead, it's more often portrayed as something that is exciting and without consequence, even in gory, realistic movies.

What would you rather, a 3rd grader wielding a plastic light-saber or having sex?

Those are two opposite ends of the spectrum, again showing that stereotype that sex is always extreme, but violence has varying degrees. I think a more valid question would have been, "What would you rather, a 3rd grader wielding a plastic light-saber or kissing/hugging another 3rd grader?"

"What would you rather, a 3rd grader wielding a plastic light-saber or kissing/hugging another 3rd grader?"

I think it'd be funny for a 3rd grader to be having sex... sorry.. that was wrong, just amusing.

Anyways, the comparision MQ made was unfair because playing with toys and sex are nowhere near the same thing. (sometime people have sex with toys, but that's not the point) Ahem... yeah.

Sariala said it one way, the other could be
"What would you rather, a 3rd grader with a real & loaded gun or a 3rd grader having sex (assuming it's with another 3rd grader)?"

NOW we're comparing two similar things. Personally, I'd opt for the latter, since a kid that young can't impregnate or get pregnant, and STD's are gonna be way less common. A loaded gun is way more dangerous.

It's your last statement in that paragraph that I want to emphasize: the gore. I'm definitely not saying that there should never be ANY violence of ANY kind in movies. I'm not even saying there shouldn't be particularly graphic stuff. It's the level and the amount that matters. Simply showing two people fighting is pretty tame. Simply showing someone getting hurt to the point that they say, "Ow, ow, ow," is pretty tame. Even dying can be tame when it's more alluded to than actually shown. There are different levels. What I'm trying to say is that there should be equal consideration for sex/nudity in movies. I think showing a breast or butt is fairly tame, moreso than showing two people having sex (not talking porn of any kind here, but fully-nude sex scenes). Similarly, I think showing two people fighting (like many of the "violent" scenes in Star Wars) is tame compared to showing body parts exploding. People can see that there are varying degrees of violence, but many don't see the same about sex; they see it ALL as graphic and deserving of the highest rating, no matter how tame it might be.

Im not sure how many PG-13 movies show body parts exploding.

I'm certainly not saying there wasn't a reason for it. I personally do not like terribly violent movies, so it was too much for me. The reason I brought it up, though, was to show how one particular person (my mother) viewed it as compared to rather mild nudity.

Some people do not like violent movies, others do not like nudity in movies. *shrug*


I think you're showing a very common stereotype towards sex with that comment. To me, that statement says that you don't think showing sex in a movie has any redeeming value, that sex can only really be used to shock people, that it's unnecessary to any plotline. Sex can be used to show many different things, TEACH many different things. It can show the love and committment between two people, it can portray the way that one person can have power over another, it can teach us that there can be good things in even the worst of situations, it can warn us against the dangers that come when it happens in the wrong situations.

I did not say that sex did not have redeeming value to a plot line. What Im saying is that sex, just like violence, is cheapened in almost all movies. Many movies view sex as something casual. Romantic movies do not always do this, but there is only one romantic movie that I know of that did not end in the couple having sex.

On that note, I could just as easily say that it is VIOLENCE that is almost always carefree in movies. It is rare that we see the remorse someone might feel about killing or hurting someone. Instead, it's more often portrayed as something that is exciting and without consequence, even in gory, realistic movies.

You are making a common stereotype yourself.

Those are two opposite ends of the spectrum, again showing that stereotype that sex is always extreme, but violence has varying degrees. I think a more valid question would have been, "What would you rather, a 3rd grader wielding a plastic light-saber or kissing/hugging another 3rd grader?"

I have no problem with kissing in movies. Your example is off-balance. G-movies show kissing. As far as I know, movie review criteria says nothing about hugging someone. Star Wars shows someone being cut in half. I do believe there is grading criteria for that.

IS: I made the point about the lightsaber because someone had said that she was disconcerting because a child was running around with it. My question was, which would be more disconcerting - running around with plastic swords or mimicking the sexual content they see? To draw the gun analogy implies that the child can get the gun. The child doesnt need to get anything to have sex.

Since you people hate violence in movies, do you think that Star Wars should be rated R?
I've never said I disapprove of violence in movies, I just think there shouldn't be such a double standard.

focussing solely on Violence for a minute - What did you all think of Reservoir Dogs?

I don't know about the US, but over here there was a massive outcry about this movie - it was meant to be the most horrible thing anybody could possibly have been subjected to; nothing more than a depraved orgy of senseless bloodletting and pointless violence. I don't know if the outspoken critics of that film had actually seen it at that point, but it wasn't the film I saw...

The movie starts (after the title sequence... ignoring the whole coffe shop bit) with Tim Roth squirming about in the back of a car... he's been shot in the guts. It takes him the rest of the film to die and he's in agony for the entire time (except where he's passed out). Later on in the moview (flashback) you see him being shot. A lady who's car he's trying to steal pops off her little Ladies .22 pistol (just makes a small hole ;) ). The noise isn't a big, Hollywood explosion. just a rather pathetic *crack*... which is apparently what a .22 sounds like. Roth takes hours and hours to die... which is apparently what happens when someone is shot in the stomach.

My point is - if anything, Reservoir Dogs was a fabulous advert AGAINST violence - there was no real violence displayed, yet the film made damn sure you understood the consequences of it! None of your Disney violence (which is probably worse if you're talking about the effects of it on impressionable youngsters) where the Good Guys™ hose off a cloud of bullets and knock down their opponents - no guts, no screaming, it's just like a computer game.

Final point about this film... There was much play made of the infamous "Earectomy" with the razor blade. What did you all think of that when you saw it? That's right. You DIDN'T see it - it's never actually shown. But the amount of complaints and outrage that one scene (that wasn't) generated simply beggared belief.

Sorry, I don't know how much this added to the debate, but I felt like a rant. :)

Im not sure how many PG-13 movies show body parts exploding.

Probably just as many as show fully-nude sex scenes. Those were the two things I was comparing.

Some people do not like violent movies, others do not like nudity in movies. *shrug*

Of course. But speaking as someone who doesn't particularly enjoy violence, I don't think mild[/I/ violence should get a high rating. It seems to me that most people who don't like sex think mild nudity [I]should.


I did not say that sex did not have redeeming value to a plot line. What Im saying is that sex, just like violence, is cheapened in almost all movies. Many movies view sex as something casual. Romantic movies do not always do this, but there is only one romantic movie that I know of that did not end in the couple having sex.

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I agree that it is usually cheapened, and I think that's another portrayal of that stereotype towards sex. And speaking of stereotypes...

You are making a common stereotype yourself.

That's EXACTLY what I was trying to do. Notice I said, "I could just as easily say..."

I have no problem with kissing in movies. Your example is off-balance. G-movies show kissing. As far as I know, movie review criteria says nothing about hugging someone. Star Wars shows someone being cut in half. I do believe there is grading criteria for that.

I don't think it's off balance. I think both things are what the average 3rd grader would take away from seeing either a violent scene or one with nudity. Of course, I'm basing this assumption on how things were when I was in or around the 3rd grade, so it may be a little dated :)

As for Head's comment, I haven't seen Resevoir Dogs, probably BECAUSE of the bad press surrounding it. I'd heard it was terribly violent, so I figured it was something I'd rather not see.

The recent debate over Janet Jackson during the halftime incident at the superbowl epitomizes the sick nature of our societies repression.

American Football is an inherently violent sport. The commercials played throughout the the game had varying degrees of violence, yet what makes news is that a nipple slipped through, with talk of fines and pointing fingers. Oh the horror.

American Football is an inherently violent sport. The commercials played throughout the the game had varying degrees of violence, yet what makes news is that a nipple slipped through, with talk of fines and pointing fingers. Oh the horror.

Let's ignore the broken bones or the guys who limp of the field with assistance from two coaches because his knee is torn and he's going to have months of therapy before he can walk again...

There are guys who have broken their necks and been paralyzed because of football.
I'm curious. The player who died on the field many years ago... was that game aired?

I mean, it doesn't get much more violent than a real person dying. People were shocked, stunned, but accepting of it though, because they knew it was a risk. Like going to a Nascar race... (I'm not even going to talk about Dale Ernhardt's death being shown on TV. over. and over.) So yeah, I think Lly is right when he says how messed up we are for fussing over an entertainer doing what she's doing for the past decade or so.

I've never said I disapprove of violence in movies, I just think there shouldn't be such a double standard.

The ultimate question is what constitutes severity? What type of violence is too violent? Which type of sex is too sexual? What amount of violence is equal to what amount of sex?

To Head: Resovoir Dogs was rated R.

The commercials played throughout the the game had varying degrees of violence

The commercials also displayed varying degrees of sex. What is the difference?

American Football is an inherently violent sport.

So is skateboarding.

Let's ignore the broken bones or the guys who limp of the field with assistance from two coaches because his knee is torn and he's going to have months of therapy before he can walk again...

There are guys who have broken their necks and been paralyzed because of football.

Indeed, football is a dangerous sport where one can get injuries. So is snowboarding, skateboarding, skiing, la crosse, football (soccer), etc.

Look at figure skating. How safe can it be having your self twirled about at 20 mph with your head inches from rock hard ice? There have been severe injuries in that sport. Should the olympics carry a rating for the possible violence in it?

I mean, it doesn't get much more violent than a real person dying. People were shocked, stunned, but accepting of it though, because they knew it was a risk. Like going to a Nascar race... (I'm not even going to talk about Dale Ernhardt's death being shown on TV. over. and over.) So yeah, I think Lly is right when he says how messed up we are for fussing over an entertainer doing what she's doing for the past decade or so.

You are describing the sensationalist news media. That is a whole different debate entirely.

To Head: Resovoir Dogs was rated R.

Yeah I know... and as we all know, people below the age of 18 NEVER get to see R rated films, so forget I said anything. :p

The rating of the movie wasn't important - it was peoples reaction to it! The UK certification was delayed by about a month because the BBFC were trying to come to terms with the public outcry about this monstrous piece of senselessly violent trash! Outcry from people who had (in the main) never seen the damned thing.

Thing is, nobody seemed to bother too much about 'Man Bites Dog' - and there's a depressing, pointless piece of rubbish if ever there was one. I won't go into detail, but it's just a series of random acts of violence strung together. I think you'd have to be damaged goods to actually enjoy it... but then I've seen it and I feel qualified to make that judgement.

Point I'm making is this - there are still shockingly few people who are willing to step outside of their comfort zones when it comes to movies/music/computer games. We seem happy as a society to cling to some pretty Victorian style values about what is acceptable and what isn't, rather than actually making our own minds up. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on something until you've seen it or heard it etc... but it galls me how many opinions are formed with no real basis in fact.

Sariala - you said you don't like violence in movies so you never saw Reservoir Dogs. Fair enough... there isn't much actual violence in it, but as I said before it does (graphically) portray the effects of violence, so you probably did the right thing in giving it a miss. :)

Sariala - you said you don't like violence in movies so you never saw Reservoir Dogs. Fair enough... there isn't much actual violence in it, but as I said before it does (graphically) portray the effects of violence, so you probably did the right thing in giving it a miss. :)

Actually, I think saying I didn't see it because I'd heard it was too violent isn't QUITE true. Reservoir Dogs (hey, I spelled it right this time) came out in 1992. I turned 14 that year, so there would have been NO way my parents would have let me see such a movie even if I HAD wanted to.

Im going to assume that since your brother is playing with plastic swords, he is probably of the younger age. In that case, why did he see a R-rated movie? Furthermore, whats wrong with sword play? That is a normal part of being a boy. I sword-fought with my brother all the time. It wasnt because I was imitating any movie that I had seen, it was because it was fun. Even if a child doesnt know what a sword is, boys are still going to rough-house. Hell, Im 18 and I still rough-house with my brothers on occasion, and it isnt because I just saw a movie where people run around blowing eachother's head off. Rough-housing in a normal part of boys playing, especially younger boys.



I can guess it´s normal for boys to play with swords,but I don´t like the fact that my brother enjoys playing with his plastic weapons pretending he kills me,because now it´s only a game,but who knows how it might end in the future.

Violence:Rome::Sexual Innuendo:United States

Violence (gladiatorical combat) controlled the Roman mob. Sexual Innuendo controls the U.S. mob.

I would like to bring up an interesting example of our societies double standard wrt to sex and violence.

The movie "The Dreamers" vs. "Passion of The Christ"

The Dreamers is not a violent film, but it does show some sexual content (including sex in keeping with their plot and both male and female nudity). It is rated NC-17. The Passion has no real sexual content to speak of, but one hour (of a two hour movie!) is taken up by a torture scene yet it only earned a rating of R.

Personally, I think a violent movie should receive a higher rating than one with mild sexual content. Sex is a part of life, violence we could all do without. Perhaps casual sex isn't the best thing you can do, but it sure beats getting into fights and other violent acts.

Although exactly what is considered "mild" sexual content, and what is considered "mild violence", that's a hard thing to determine. It's based more on opinions than anything else. One person may find sexual content more explicit than violence, and another person may think the opposite. And on top of that, some people may find certain sexual acts more explicit than others, and certain violent acts more explicit than others. My mom finds movies where they show 2 people tonguing, as in making out with their tongues, really explicit, yet that's no where close to actual sex. And most people would find killing someone in a movie way less explicit than someone wounded and in pain. But in reality, what's worse? Maybe I'll sound like a hypocrite, seeing as how I just said that violence should receive a higher rating than sex, but I think all this rating stuff is BS.