Do you think the PG 13+ film rating should read "Suitable for normal 13 year olds, may offend some over 30's"

Question

In this day and age, there is a consensus about what material is suitable for what age group.

It allows film censors to determine what is appropriate for which audience.

It allows educators to select content for their students in topics as diverse as sexual health and classic literature.

I have noticed that there is a tendency for certain people to condemn posts with any reference to sexuality simply because they are about sexuality, and not because they are legally unsuitable for their audience.

To cater for such delicate constitutions, would the film industry, and other like institutions benefit from amending their rating descriptions, for example to

Suitable for normal 13 year olds, may offend some over 30's?

Great call @ the Mrs, In stuff like films, its about the entry barrier - people offended by a theme steer clear, anyone old enough - take your choice.

I wonder GS if what you describe is just a form of bullying. Threating to report and cause a question to be deleted, initiating email exchanges and causing content to be removed in this manner on the basis of your OWN interpretation of whether it objectifies - to me - is bullying and censorious.

Answer 1

Sex is a major part of relationships, something most of us enjoy and think about very often. Our sexuality reflects our being, moods, values etc...I'm not sure why we're not allowed to talk about it. Not even my parents forbid me from discussing it when I was 13.

This is not directed to any individuals. I wouldn't do that. But please folks, sex talk is just like any other talk. If anything, we should discuss it more because it seems to be such a hush hush subject, yet of great importance.

Answer 2

Upon further thought, it was my deduction that my question regarding Playgirl really probably wasn't suitable for viewing by the younger folk. Also, though I am no prude, my question was a bit hypocritical in that I am someone who does not feel it's right to objectify men or women. But what I will stand behind is the fact that there really are discrepancies that exist between how men and women are sexually exploited. And I will say that I believe America really is a sexually-repressed country. And, I'm not sure that this is a good thing.

EDIT: Just for clarification's sake, I did initiate the email exchanges, and it really was my own decision to delete the question. No one bullied me into it. Gnu has always treated me with respect, even when he's been disappointed in my point of view on certain things. We don't disagree often, but when we do, I think we both tend to give each other the respect to listen to what the other has to say.

I never meant to offend anyone here.

Answer 3

What if it offended a 19 year old or a 26 year old. Anyone is potentially offended by anything at any age. There really is no predictor. Ultimately parents are in control of what their children watch and those over 18 are assumed old enough to make their own decisions. It is not up to the film industry to cover their own asss from everyone and anyone who is offended by whatever it may be.

Frankly I would be find with a A, B, C, D, etc. rating, or a rating much like on TV where letters like L and V are used to stand for shows containing foul language or violence.

Answer 4

Actually, I was not offended by the explicitness of the question. I was offended by,
1. The inappropriateness to this section, wherein the objectification of women is rightly condemned.
2. The hypocrisy of encouraging the objectification of men by people who oppose the objectification of women.

I discussed it with the original poster and she and I actually agree. She deleted her question and I had one question deleted and deleted the other myself after our exchange.

But go ahead, portray this as solely an issue of prudery. I am sure you feel oh so sophisticated for that.

EDIT

By the way, I am quite certain that I could discuss sexual material that would make YOU blush. But I know that there is a time and a place for such things and an appropriate context.

EDIT

I didn't report it nor did I even THREATEN to report it. I ASKED if a similar question WOULD be deleted. And she initiated the private exchange, not me.

So, you've gone from calling me a prude to calling me a bully. Nice try.

EDIT

And let me add to what Tera just posted that I think the issue she intended to bring up is a legitimate one and would be pertinent here. My qualms were more about style than substance.

EDIT

Object, we all know you're a racist, so don't even try it, you opportunist.

EDIT

many people have seen you address me as "boy", compare me to OJ Simpson, "joke" about dressing as a KKK member for Halloween, and bring up my race at arbitrary moments, do I really need to dig up the links?

EDIT

I'll keep it simple for you. You can deny that you've said all those things and then everyone here will know that you're a liar as well, or you can admit to them, in which case I don't need to dig up the links.

Answer 5

Jeepers crap, it's like walking in a minefield -- where's Heather Mills?

KIDDING ALL!!!

I was just gonna laugh a little bit and say something like "Oh, how true."

You guys and gals or however you wish to be addressed, have a great night!

I have a feeling that I've been witness to a private conversation -- is the Mob coming after me (lol)?

Answer 6

Wait!

"It allows film censors to determine what is appropriate for which audience." you say.

If I'm not mistaken, this is self-regulation (done within the industry itself); there haven't been actual censor boards in existence for many decades now.

As in any self-regulated industry there is a good deal of inconsistency and confusion. Would you trust the beef industry to regulate itself? Not a very good idea - which is why government is always involved.

The philosophy that "life is like a box of chocolates..." is ok in terms of the mainstream film industry. There aren't enough food inspectors as it is so let's save those tax dollars for something important...

edit:
GS, it's true that you have an established pattern of making accusations against people in the absence of evidence. You are obviously not the only one guilty of this. It's a disturbing thing to see on any and every level - brrrr...

edit:
The nutjob is calling me a racist again. And again, I will ask for evidence. And AGAIN - predictably - he won't have any.

You people are Nazi's!

edit:
Yes, evidence is required at all times. This seems to be an 'American thing' - if you can't think of anything concrete you just cry 'racism'. No evidence required. The Nazi's used to engage in similar propaganda attacks against Jews, labour leaders, artists, intellectuals, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehova's Witnesses... The Nazi's didn't require evidence of any wrongdoing either. Unfortunately, so too did the general population. People tend to believe authority figures - carte blanche. Maybe it's just easier for people to disengage? Lack of critical thinking skills is a problem now as it was then. It's a human problem.

Answer 7

PG and PG-13 means a dud movie

If it ain't rated R, it aint' worth seeing!

Under the new standards isn't BAMBI rated PG 13!

I mean Bambi's mother gets killed in a fire.

That's gotta be PG-13

Answer 8

This isn't about the movies?

I never know what's going on.

Nobody reads Playgirl.

Answer 9

Awww, please don't be mean. I know who you're talking about and although I disagree with him I love him. He's awesome. :(