Do you think the PG-13 rating guideline should be made more restrictive (allowing less violence and sex) than it currently is?
There is even half naked women dancing on Disney channel... Its getting out of control.
Oh Alabama sometimes you know what's up, sometimes you're just like Lenny needing a George to deal with you.
Rating won't matter I know many parents that don't care what there child sees.
I think it should be less restrictive.
You know what kills me? I may go see a horror movie, and I'll hear a kid crying! every single timeor once I heard one begging his dad to leave because he didn't like what was on the screen. why do people insist on taking their kids to horror movi
movies? and don't give that bullshit about not being able to find a sitter. If you can't. Stay home. The movie will be there for a while or will be on DVD soon or On Demand. Why piss everyone else off? kid is crying because they're scared and
you're ignoring them because you want to check your Facebook or the movie. Close your legs. Fucking assholes. I was furious. You ruined my movie. I almost think they should start carding people because of these inconsiderate idiots. But
I barely go to the movies anymore because of the crap that Hollywood is spitting out so I could give a fly's fart
carding people would be stupid. ranting makes me say stupid things
I don't know if ratings really make a difference. I'm a third grade teacher and my students routinely talk about the R-rated movies their parents let them see. Obviously, the rating didn't make a difference in those cases.
I watch some of the Movies that I watched as a kid (in the 80's) and their rating was way under-rated, but most of the things went over my head as a kid.
Would it matter? Teens will still get their hands on rated mature content and parents wouldn't give two shits. I would know. I was once a teen.
IMO I think it's to restrictive right now
Pg 13 gets naughtier as the years go on. Not against that, but it makes it hard to judge what's appropriate for my kids
I watched Terminator 2 when I was in 2nd grade, so I'm pretty sure a 13 year old can watch something like Transformers without being mentally scarred.
Btw I enjoyed T2 very much, it was a good movie :)
Must. Resist. Censorship.
It's not censorship, it's a ratings system.
We are going to raise pussies if there's no violence in media
Violence definitely! Sure, blow a guys head off is ok, but don't show that boob for too long.... Makes no sense to me.
You must be European.
Watched transformers with my nephew the other day. Did they really have to say bitch? Why must we install sexism in our youth at a young age to degrade the opposit sex?
A violent movie with bad words? Who'd a thunk
I'm for changing it to NC-5 for G, NC-10 for PG, NC-17 for PG-13, and NC-21 for R. The current NC-17 films would simply not be exhibited or distributed except to over-21 adults on a PPV subscription basis at home.
A voice of reason!
Voice of censorship.
At 18 I think it's okay for me to watch Saw, the Passion otc, the Matrix, 21 Jump street, Goon, Slap shot, etc.... And at 13 I think you can handle transformers, Harry Potter, hunger games, twilight, Star Wars, etc
Then we adjust the ratings for particular movies. I disagree about Saw - that's just sick. As are all of Rob Zombie's efforts. And at 63, I'M not even old enough to watch Scary Movie 1 or 2 or Bad Santa. Obscenity is obscenity.
Well considering that with the Internet kids and us can truly watch whatever we want online and in my opinion that kinda makes the MPAA irrelevant, have the studios just release with each film a parents guide and give it a suggested age for viewing
There are some decent people still.
Let the sex go for the rated R!
kids under 13 need more sex and violence?
It's up to the parents. This is a joke. Let the media posses children's minds.
The rating system is a joke. Ultimately it's up to the parents to do their research and know what their children are watching.
At first I picked yes, but after reading some of the comments I changed my answer to no, because a parent should be aware of the types of movies there kids watch. Also some kids are going to do what ever they want anyways.
However, some parents do depend on the rating to determine what they will watch as a family. How many parents have the time to prescreen every movie?
The sex. The crassness. The violence. The rudeness. Is over the top. We find that we are watching older movies on Netflix to get away from the crap out there now.
You must go back 50+ yrs for movies then.
Don't go back too far, you'll find an era of film which predates the censorship codes.
All I meant is it is over the top. I don't need to see the sex scene. In older movies it was a wink, a kiss, and then they shut the lights off. I love war movies. But you can capture the feeling / horror without brain matter everywhere.
There is no reason to change them. If a parent lets their 13 year old watch a movie with cursing and violence and they are appalled by it that is their problem.
Who cares. There's something called the internet that kids watch everything on
The ratings are so stupid and arbitrary that nobody pays attention to them anyway, other than the theatres that don't let teens see R-rated movies by themselves.
I've seen a couple of R's that definitely weren't R!
I don't need the Government to rate movies for me.
The MPAA is a flawed and horrible orginization and always was thus they should have no say on the ratings of movies. They don't even have actual standards on which they rate it is all unwritten and opinion based.
Doesnt matter. The MPAA is garbage.
No. I was watching R-rated movies at age 11. I couldn't care less what criteria some bureaucratic agency uses to rate movies.
Less violence, yes, but we give way too many fucks about sex.
As much as I think that neither should be restricted, I respect your comment a lot. Cheers
Why is less violence but more sex ok? It's not like sex is something that should be taken for granted. It really doesn't harm anyone when it's taken seriously
Violence is inherently harmful. Sex isn't.
I don't necessarily agree with all of that but I won't really argue it. Too much exposure to too much sex is bad though. I'm not saying we handle it the best we can but I'm saying it's not a bad thing when sex is held in a high regard
and not plastered everywhere for everyone to see
I don't understand how you get from "sex is not censored" to "sex is not valued."
Money is also pretty consistently in our faces and around us, but I don't think anyone would argue that we fail to value money highly enough.
Money and sex are incomparable. Not censoring sex more devalues it I think. It doesn't make it intimate or private.
Do you have an articulable basis for the distinction you draw or is it a gut feeling?
We obsess over sex the way we do because of people that constantly want it censored. I call this the forbidden fruit theory.. Free the nipple!!
Not really, Beth, I'm just talking about my opinion for discussion purposes. And JHawk, idk I think that we would obsess about it anyways, maybe more. I think we're wired that way
Okay. I mean, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you seemed to be purporting to refute mine, which doesn't make a lot of sense if you can't really give me a reason to change it.
I understand. I guess the issue is why sex was different in the 50s than it is now. It was probably fear. I agree that sex is beautiful but only so in the covenant of marriage. I think that in itself is beautiful and should be celebrated
Maybe the fact that our traditionally Christian values force us to hide sex from ourselves, plus the "if it feels good, stop" doctrine, combined with our modern melting pot phenomenon, creates obsession
We look at many other developed countries and they're miles ahead of us socially, etc. and they have way more openness about sexuality... We stick to our Puritan roots, plain and simple...
Christian values aren't to hide sex. The Christian representation thus far has done a poor job at actuating that
It's more about tradition I suppose. Traditionally, Christianity has a bad record with handling sexuality, and with it being such an influential religion, especially in politics, it's hard to argue..
Right, a bad job has been done, but I'm saying that being free and super open and do whatever you want, with sex, is bad
Fee and open, but responsible. As far as abortions go, even if congressional republicans do make abortions illegal, it's not gonna stop abortions; it'll just stop safe abortions..
Still think it's bad. And this has nothing to do with abortions
The only problem that people have a stink about regarding sexuality is abortion and rape. I'd be willing to bet there's more rapes per capita in countries where sexuality is traditionally suppressed..
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation is better than evidence to the contrary... It's not the best because it's too difficult a dynamic to measure, much like gun related crime in the us, compared to other countries..
Those countries that suppress sex are probably also run by people like Isis. But this really isn't a conversation about abortion. Responsible sex to me is sex in marriage
Marriage doesn't constitute responsibility. I don't think an establishment of joint taxes, and in the case of children, custody, means anything in regards to responsibility.
Plus that's a very islamophobic way of looking at it. Plenty of Christian nations in Africa have problems with rape.. Suppressed sexuality is just as much a part of Christianity as it is Islam.
Do you think a man cannot technically rape his own wife? Marriage has little effect on responsible sexual expression. If anything else, it actually limits it. Is it safe for me to assume that you're speaking of marriage in the traditional
^ Christian context, as a sacrament and sacred bond, etc etc? I would warn you, friendly of course, that religion does not define ones morals, as ones actions define them
Well, although a true Christian marriage isn't perfect, I can promise you there would be no rape. And sexual suppression isn't a part of Christianity. I could see how it could seem that way but it's not
Well, you're opinion is muddled by your bias, so sorry if I'm coming across as rude. You simply can't make a promise like that, and you can't just say Christianity doesn't suppress sexuality. It just does...
An opinion is biased by nature. You're biased too. What Christianity is supposed to be does not repress sex. It's just saved for marriage.
How am I biased? I'm not showing any favors to one or the other.. And you can't deny that there's no clear definition of what Christianity is supposed to be, as nobody practices really any religion without interpretation.
Religion can't even be followed literally because much or religious texts are written in symbolic contexts. Even of you could follow Christianity literally, nobody does. Christianity epitomizes cherry picking.
So what you're saying ultimately is that your specific and individual interpretation of Christianity is universal... Rules of marriage and sex are suppression... Exclusive to religion..
No, not at all. Listen to me instead of trying to pick apart Christianity. The Bible is enough. There is no following it perfectly because no one is perfect. There are aspects that can be done pretty close to perfect.
Opinions at biased by nature. That's your bias. And you're biased against Christianity, don't deny that. There are definitely clear rules. Just listen instead of looking for ways to bring me down.
Im not biased against Christianity any less than I am to Islam. Like I said, I show preference to no religions, I'm treating them equally, and you speak of these rules as though they're universally followed, or that they're
Mere existence is indicative of moral superiority or responsibility. I'm not trying to bring you down, I'm sorry if you feel that way. I'm pointing out that religions, especially ones like christianity and Islam, both of which
Suppress sexuality, are not adaptive ideologies. Their religious texts are not living documents that change with the times, and when large portions are written symbolically, it's hard to define what is truth.
Not to mention the very nature of what you know to be the bible. That being: parts of texts recovered a thousand years after they were written, interpreted, translated, interpreted, translated, interpreted, almost exclusively
By white European men, for a few centuries, and that's just to get to the king James bible. How many denominations of Christianity are there, with how many versions of the bible?? Everyone is gonna get a different take on
What they're supposed to believe in. Its such an unnecessary hodgepodge. You could just teach teens to be responsible. It's easier than it sounds, but it's hard to get reality into a teens head when it's being rammed with mysticism
Clear or unclear, your rules of religion, being that they're not living ideologies, do not represent the values of a modern society, and cannot meet a modern societys needs.
You're still biased against religion. Therefore I'm not the only one showing bias. Anyways, it actually is pretty clear. As for changing with the times..it's not meant to. Just like the Constitution. There are universal truths.
Christianity does not repress sexuality. That's an ignorant belief. It's also not mystic. It's actually pretty logical
I didnt claim not not be biased against religion. I pointed out that you were being biased against a religion different from your own. Its a claim of religious superiority..
The constitution may contain some basic truths, but must, in order for the nation to survive, as well as not be mocked, be a living document, as changing times lead to newer legal precedents and circumstances
Not covered in the original document, because the original document is so very limited in its applicable scope, due to changing times. We wouldn't have laws for the Internet and technology and tv etc if it weren't for changing times..
We would still have slavery and no voting for women, children working in factories etc if it weren't for changing times. Times change, we refine ourselves, improve ourselves. We adapt to changing legal needs..
If you want the constitution to not be a living document, you want to live in the stone age, much like your religion would like.
The Christian repression of sexuality is not an ignorant belief.. Not only is it compatible with the Christian church's track record, but it's a widely accepted truth.. Like I said, 'if it feels good, stop' its nothing new..
And the bible is easily far more mystical than logical. You don't wanna say something like that, because there are enough flaws, contradictions, and plain poppycock dogmas in the bible to make your head explode.
"If it feels good stop" has nothing to do with Christianity. You're lying about you're own bias. You're wrong about the bible and you're wrong about the constitution. I say there's nothing around now that the founders couldn't have imagined.
The Constitution never allowed slavery or anything to suppress women.
If it feels good, stop is a very well known casual and comical understanding of christian doctrine. And im not lying about my own bias, ive said nothing to indicate such a thing.
And I think this convo is coming to an end, because your last two posts are so unimaginably ignorant and window-lickingly stupid, that this is worse than trying to explain string theory to a piece of ham...
How are they ignorant? And it's a terrible understanding of Christian doctrine. Tell me this, do you think all Muslims are terrorists? That's the equivalency of what you're saying, in terms of sense. You'll certainly listen to and back a Muslim
that is speaking about how their religion actually is, but you won't for a Christian because you think you know but you have no idea. I'm so sick and tired of this ridiculous double standard. What did I say that was ignorant?
I started watching porn when I was 7 years old
Ya, it's called PG.
No, if it was I'd never be allowed to show another historically based movie in class again! lol, reality tends to be gritty...
Change it back to where the "F" word is not allowed. I get tired of hearing the one "F" mentioned in PG-13 movies because it is allowed.
Then don't watch those movies if you're not a fan of the language.
I think the point is he doesn't know the "f" word is going to be in the movie. how can he not watch those type of movies if he doesn't know it is going to be that kind of movie?
If you know what the movie is about, and do a bit of research it's not impossible to figure out. It's up to the parents to know what their kid is watching. Don't like it? Then watch it first to be sure it's appropriate for your kid.
that's fair, but simply saying don't watch it if you don't like the language doesn't work for me.
there have been many shows that I would have never guessed would be the type to have the f word it in, yet there it was. sometimes it just creeps in.
Shows? Pretty sure they can't say the f word on Network TV. But my larger point is it's up to you to determine whether or not something is suitable for your kid. Not the rating system.
obviously they can't say the f word on network tv but that doesnt help when I go to the theatre. yes it is up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their kids, but the rating system is supposed to give us a clear guideline.
There are several sites on line that will tell you what movies will contain by category, "man touches woman's breast in kitchen" etc. I am stunned by how many parents take their 10 year olds to R movies.
Now that I'm old enough to legally go to R-rated movies alone, I don't give a fuck. Make it more restrictive than G for all I care.
We need to leave it to the parents, not semi-independent organizations. That being said, we do have a blood fetish that needs looking at as well as the fact we are WAY TOO PRUDISH ABOUT THE HUMAN BODY.
"Ma'am we will forward your complaint MPAA, but in my opinion I don't think a penis is going to do as much damage to your son as the demon prince tearing into a guy and jumping rope with his innards in 'Sheogorath: The Movie' would."
Well considering how corrupt and self serving the MPAA is, I don't think the current rating system should be in place at all.
And for christ sake, if you're gonna bitch about what your kids are seeing, do your fucking homework beforehand.
yeah sure, let kids stay kids for as long as possible, they will get to the grown up stuff fast enough on their own
Why is that the responsibility of the rating system?
Rating are not as important as good parenting. Parents need to determine what they want their kids to see. Maybe rating not based on age but rather more clearly explaining what content is their would be better.
Have a good night Father.
It's up to parents to censor what their kids see, not Hollywood
Hollywood developed the rating system decades ago because they were afraid the government censors would crack down on them otherwise. It worked, and now the MPAA is its own industry with its own financial interest in staying alive.
Shouldn't we stop being afraid of sex? Shouldn't we stop being afraid of nudity? Isn't it about time we stop using replacement words for bad words? If we stop putting such a taboo on these things I bet there would be less crime.
If only people would really cuss instead of saying frick and darn it could solve our countries crime problems! Why didn't we think of this sooner!
you're right bmi
let me go to a playground at an elementary nude to stick it to the man!
The thing that bothers me most is language. Pg13 at one time would not allow the f bomb. Then it allowed one. Recently I have seen a couple of pg13 with 2 f words. I just don't see the purpose of bad language in most movies.
To me, it ruins the movies because it's so unnecessary.
Disagree. Ever tried watching an edited/censured TV version of a PG-13/R movie? Also, a movie portraying US soldiers in heavy combat with no cuss words? Only John Wayne would approve of that.
I said most movies. I realize it's necessary for accuracy in war/gang/etc movies, but when they say GD just because they can, I have a problem.
I don't have kids, so I really don't feel qualified to answer this one. My gut feeling is just rate the level of sex, violence, whatever in movies and let parents decide if their children are mature enough to see it or not.
Honestly, there are some levels of violence and sex I would prefer not to see, even at my advanced age. I'd just as soon be warned by a rating system, too.
13 year olds aren't 5 year olds. The ratings are fine. Maybe less violence though.
Adjusting rating systems can't replace proper parenting.
No. I believe that, many times, the rating system rates movies too unnecessarily strictly.