3 ms·

Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. That's our societal values and pretty much ev

Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. That's our societal values and pretty much everyone agrees with age restrictions in theaters, nobody is protesting in the streets to remove them. Where the hell do you live?

omginternets 10y ago
>we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. Please stop focusing on admittance to theaters. It's not the point. The point is that young children are disproportionately exposed to violence relative to nudity. Your point about theaters is taken, but again, it's an auxiliary point. I've seen plenty of violent movies in school for instnace, but never any nudity. Never. We had parents complain over a sex scene in Romeo and Juliet (not the Di Caprio one, one from the 60s) that amounted to people moving under some sheets. The fact that theaters are required by law to enforce age restrictions has nothing to do with the general pattern of preferring that our children see stabbing over tits. And as others have pointed out, the difference between PG-13 and R ratings is one of sex and nudity, not violence! This was in Delaware, but it's a pretty standard attitude across most of the US. Compare this to most of Western Europe and the difference is stark.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. You are confusing "violent movies" with "R-rated movies". The we don't admit children to R-rated movies, but we do admit them to PG-13 movies (which have as much violence, but less sex) illustrates, rather than rebuts, the greater tolerance for violence than sex.
- Thlom 10y ago
  Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, is rated R for sexual content. I have seen the movie twice, but the only "sexual content" I can remember is a short humorous flash of a couple having sex. For comparison, the movie is rated between 7 and 15 years in the rest of the world. There is no violence in the movie. It's basically a very sweet and innocent movie, rated R in the US.

omginternets 10y ago

>we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. Please stop focusing on admittance to theaters. It's not the point. The point is that young children are disproportionately exposed to violence relative to nudity. Your point about theaters is taken, but again, it's an auxiliary point. I've seen plenty of violent movies in school for instnace, but never any nudity. Never. We had parents complain over a sex scene in Romeo and Juliet (not the Di Caprio one, one from the 60s) that amounted to people moving under some sheets. The fact that theaters are required by law to enforce age restrictions has nothing to do with the general pattern of preferring that our children see stabbing over tits. And as others have pointed out, the difference between PG-13 and R ratings is one of sex and nudity, not violence! This was in Delaware, but it's a pretty standard attitude across most of the US. Compare this to most of Western Europe and the difference is stark.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. You are confusing "violent movies" with "R-rated movies". The we don't admit children to R-rated movies, but we do admit them to PG-13 movies (which have as much violence, but less sex) illustrates, rather than rebuts, the greater tolerance for violence than sex.

Thlom 10y ago
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, is rated R for sexual content. I have seen the movie twice, but the only "sexual content" I can remember is a short humorous flash of a couple having sex. For comparison, the movie is rated between 7 and 15 years in the rest of the world. There is no violence in the movie. It's basically a very sweet and innocent movie, rated R in the US.