MPAA: Why Sex Is Worse Than Violence

I totally agree with the premise of this discussion, violence is just as "bad" for a child's growth as graphic sex in films.

Why should we subject our young to acts of violence and think it's ok? Often, sex scenes in films portray love and affection, two things which are much greater for us as a society and yet we hide them from children, they're taboo. Pathetic.

In my opinion, the nature of the sex scene should be more important than the fact that it's sex. Two people expressing love and passion is not a bad thing. Someone cutting of another person's head IS a bad thing and yet they're rated in the opposite manner where violence is accepted and sex is not.

We're creating a false idea that love and passion should not be shared, but violence and hatred should be spread. I am whole-heartedly disgusted by this fact.

P.S. I lived in France for 8 years, I think I'm much more open because of that.
 
Last edited:
Zensteve said:
Does it, though?

What does R tell me?
Click to expand...

Well in Australia our R is the equivalent to your NC-17.

Our equivalent to R is MA15+.

Anyway apart from saying that it would be a bad idea to show a 9 year old, in Australia at least it also has briefly next to the rating why it is rated that, so there's: low level violence, violence, moderate violence, realistic violence, high level violence, action violence, graphic violence, battle scenes, sexual references, nudity, sex scenes, explicit sex scenes, low level coarse language, coarse language, supernatural themes, adult themes, some scenes may scare young children (this is usually only on our 'G'), themes, mild themes, drug references, drug use, threatening scenes.

Each of these helps us make a better judgement of how bad it is. If it's a MA15+ and you're worried about a 14 year old watching it, the guide might say infrequent coarse language and battle violence which you're happy with but it may say sex scenes and high level violence which you're not happy with.

Does America have such a guide?
 
As a conscientious parent, I appreciate a heads-up before I spend my money to pre-view a show that my children want to see. I have in the past, trusted the MPAA to let me know whether the content was appropriate for my family, but have been sorry afterward. I want to know in advance what's in a movie so I can make a decision that will hopefully guide my kids until they are old enough to make decisions on their own, a more precise standard for ratings film and video would be welcomed by me. I don't care what "you" watch, I just want to make sure I can trust a PG-13, PG, or G rating will stand for the same thing every time so I can not waste my time with material not suitable for myself or my family. Consistent ratings would be very nice, regardless of what some clowns in a room think is morally right. That's my choice and yours, but if we are warned about the content, it helps us make informed decisions.
 
What does R tell me?
Click to expand...

Just spent a little time looking at internet trailers approved by the MPAA. I see either "Approved for all audiences" or "Approved for Appropriate audiences".

In our country, the trailers have the rating given (or if they don't have a rating yet, that they're unrated) and with those ratings, what caused the movie to get that rating. Eg Course Language, Mild Sex scenes, Violence, Realistic violence etc. I just assumed it was used by the MPAA and adopted here.

So I guess you're right, the answer to you is, nothing really where you are apart there is something in it that makes it suited for R audiences.

Is it like this in cinemas too?

Edit: Seems Mile beat me to it ;)

Well in Australia our R is the equivalent to your NC-17. Our equivalent to R is MA15+.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we still have R, it's just rather hard to get that rating.
 
Last edited:
I have in the past, trusted the MPAA to let me know whether the content was appropriate for my family, but have been sorry afterward.
Click to expand...

Ratings will evolve over time. As more and more of the general public become less sensitized, ratings get less and less strict. What is a PG-13 now may qualify as a PG in a decade. I don't know if this is what I'd consider smart, but take a look at the movie Hitchcock and you can see what the censors were like back then compared to now.
 
MetalRenard said:
P.S. I lived in France for 8 years, I think I'm much more open because of that.
Click to expand...

France is very borderline. There was some ads in the subway that shocked me. France's use of the feminine attributes just to sell stuff is at its peak. Calling it "open" is very misleading.


This is not about teaching stuff to kids. It's not what cinema is there for.

Both violence and sex should be for adults only (adult as in puberty).

And it's not about matching reality. It's about being decent. Sex is intimate. You don't fuck in the street, you don't fuck in front of people and you don't make a video of you fucking to show it to the planet.

Violence is completely different as intimacy doesn't factor in (except for obvious law problems you might encounter).
 
Sweetie said:
I'm pretty sure we still have R, it's just rather hard to get that rating.
Click to expand...

No we do, I just said it kind of wrong.

American R = Austraian MA15+
Australian R = American NC-17

Or thereabouts.

We have E, G. Advisory: PG, M. Legal ratings: MA15+, R18+ and X18+. 'X': This classification is a special and legally restricted category which contains only sexually explicit content. That is, material which shows actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity between consenting adults.

X18+ films are only available for sale or hire in the ACT and the NT, just two out of the eight states/territories of Australia

MA15+ can have under 15s if accompanied by a legal guardian. R and X cannot be purchased and or seen legally by an under 18 year old. It is illegal to buy or show an R or X rated film or game to an under 18 year old.


I also discovered that books/magazines have ratings, but they are only used when the material is potentially controversial and usually in mens magazines
 
TheArtist said:
... It's about being decent. Sex is intimate. You don't fuck in the street, you don't fuck in front of people and you don't make a video of you fucking to show it to the planet.

Violence is completely different as intimacy doesn't factor in (except for obvious law problems you might encounter).
Click to expand...

This is obviously a culture thing. I don't look at sex as indecent. I DO look at violence as the most indecent thing anyone can do to another person. The fact that violence happens in the street more often than sex is a pitiful excuse to say it should be more acceptable in cinema.
 
LasVegasIRA said:
This is obviously a culture thing. I don't look at sex as indecent. I DO look at violence as the most indecent thing anyone can do to another person. The fact that violence happens in the street more often than sex is a pitiful excuse to say it should be more acceptable in cinema.
Click to expand...

It must be. Because I mostly agree with TheArtist
 
First - I agree with Zen Steve on this one.
And i think the US is ridiculously prudish about sex.

Second - my feature (Surviving Family) does not have an MPAA rating, but I've had some interesting regional experiences that echo what the article says.

2 of my recent festivals rate movies for the use of their LOCAL audience.
SF has no nudity, but does have 7 f bombs (I finally counted recently). And one dead body.

In Oklahoma, it was rated R.
in Wisconsin, it was rated PG-13.

I personally would see it as a PG-13, based on my views.
But I thought it WAS appropriate to rate it R for a more conservative audience.
 
MileCreations said:
American R = Austraian MA15+
Australian R = American NC-17
Click to expand...

Canada is similar, our R is 18+ only also. 18A requires under 18 to be accompanied by an adult, and there's a 14A, also requiring adult accompaniment.

I try hard to manage what my children see, but I also just make sure they live in an environment where they understand the whole "it's a move" aspect of it all; I won't be able to stop them from watching things I would rather they didn't see. But, I'm shocked as hell with some of the movies their friends get to watch...

CraigL
 
I find it a really strange argument to say that sex is only appropriate in private, therefore, it is a more mature subject matter.

Since when is violence appropriate in public or private? Violence is bad in all arenas.
 
I'm surprised the MPAA and a lot of parents are taboo on sex. I was at the library looking at movies to get, and saw a mother looking at movies for her daughter (who looked around 9) to get, and we made chit chat as we both picked up the same movie. She asked me if I saw any good movies for her and her daughter to watch. I recommended one but told her there was some sexual subject matter. I can't remember the title off my the top of my head, or what movie, but it was a comedy. The mom said she didn't want her getting anything with sex in. So the mom let her get The Cell (2000). I told her The Cell was much more violent for her daughter's age but she said that was okay.

Now The Cell might not have much sex in, but it's sure some moments of gory violence! I saw that at 16 and was disturbed, more than I would have been compared to say, American Pie, at that age.

So I don't get why sex is so taboo, when teens are having it all the time, and it's the norm. Violence is not the norm and is considered a felony in many cases, where as sex is not a crime.

So shouldn't the felonious behavior in real life, be considered taboo in the movies more? Apparently not.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me like those arguing for the article here, seem to be taking it out of the context of cinema...?

EDIT: Just realised I loaded a page on my phone from last night, so I didn't realise there was three pages worth of posts! Seem's like most people disagree woth thw decisions of the cencors.
 
Last edited:
mad_hatter said:
Just realised I loaded a page on my phone from last night, so I didn't realise there was three pages worth of posts!
Click to expand...

You can adjust your settings in Control Panel to have more posts show up on a page. I'm still on Page 1. ;)


Seem's like most people disagree woth thw decisions of the cencors.
Click to expand...

The "censors" are addressing many of the issues brought up by the popular doc-film This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's definitely an interesting issue, and I'm not sure I'd even refer to it as censorship - I think it's important for people to know the contents are, in pretty much any product... but the system in place doesn't deliver that.



TheArtist said:
This is not about teaching stuff to kids. It's not what cinema is there for.
Click to expand...

What should we do with "films with a message", then? What about films with an opinion? What is the role of cinema?


sweetie said:
looking at internet trailers approved by the MPAA. I see either "Approved for all audiences" or "Approved for Appropriate audiences".

In our country, the trailers have the rating given (or if they don't have a rating yet, that they're unrated)
Click to expand...

Here's a wiki-link that covers most of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system

Even violent/sex films can have G-rated trailers. They can also end up with an R-rated trailer, but those are not supposed to be shown before a lessor-rated main feature.

Sometimes movie posters will have a brief explanation, but it's not required... and they tend to downplay (imo).
___________

America is a hugley divergent crowd, from all corners, and no single letter is going to cover what is appropriate to any one region... as mlesemann has attested to, with her own non-MPAA ratings experiences.

I think this quote from the article is fairly telling:

whenever a parent calls to complain, she asks which part of the country they are from and overwhelmingly found that the South complains most about language, the Midwest about sexuality and the coasts are especially up in arms about violence.
Click to expand...

Let me elaborate and clarify in greater detail by saying: J
 
LasVegasIRA said:
Not to mention that sex between two consenting adults doesn't hurt people
Click to expand...
Obviously you're doing it wrong! :lol:

Most of the ratings industries are really biased towards something. The ESRB (games ratings industry) is also biased for parents, but interestingly ratings are given based on descriptions from the software companies. The games are not generally played.

I have seen the unrated version which caused Natural Born Killers to initially get a NC-17 rating due to a section so violent that wasn't even shown... it was just implied. I believe an interview with Woody Harrelson revealed they cut that scene from the theaters because it was too horrific even though it wasn't graphic.
 
I see some people state that sex is a private matter, most people like to keep private (me too), so therefor it shouldn't be public on the screen (I disagree with this reasoning).
So, what about all those movies about secret agents that nobody ever sees and don't want to be seen in public, but do show on the screen? :-p
What about people telling lies? Nobody wants theirs to be in public, but on screen people often lie. ;-)

Sex and violence are both part of life.
But somehow apperently a lot of people are more comfortable with on screen violence...
It's is even glorified...
At the same time a nipple seems to cause heartattacks and angry statements about morality...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top