The PG 13 Discussion

[Brista]

Does anyone think it odd that video games have such lax enforcement? Sure it says Mature on the box or something but I've never seen, neither in Britain nor abroad when I've travelled, any attempts by shops to stop children buying games

The only one I can think of that had any problems is Lula, Sexy Empire which I read that a handful of shops stopped stocking after they realised it was about playing a porn queen and that an underlying aim of the game, admittedly a comic one, was to reveal as much bare flesh as you possibly could. And that only happened after it had been out for a year

Nor do a lot of parents seem bothered about what their kids play. "It's just a game, right?"

I don't particularly like censorship but I do find it odd that we have one standard for film and another for games which are nowadays really quite similar to films

Maybe the powers that be still think it's all Pac-Man and Galaxian

[pakman]

I don't really find it odd at all. Movies are more publicized than video games are. The ESRB ratings are usually on the back of the box or in the lower corner, not really where you can see them, unless you look.

My parents are bothered that I play games, they say I spend too much time with them. I have learned to limit myself to the time I spend playing games, but not talking about them :), I always have time to talk about them :P. Also, I think most parents buy their kids games to keep them from whining, for placation. As longas they're sitting blowing people up on the tv,they're not out eating dirt and lighting G.I. Joes on fire or blowing them up with fireworks.

Maybe the powers that be still think it's all Pac-Man and Galaxian

I don't believe that is true. My parents know the games that I play (DX, HL, CS, Morrowind, etc). They know what they consist of, and they also know that I have control over what I do and how I react to games.

[Doc]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/fword1.html

WARNING!! The above link is both offensive and funny, and from a court case. It is FULL of F bombs, bad Latin, archiac poems, dictionary entries, and lots of legal mumbo jumbo. It is also the most funny &%#*ing thing I have read in a long time. &%#* YEAH!

So, if I drop an F Bomb as edjoomacated Latin, does that make it ok? Would that make it G? I mean, if they can say the N Word in a G rated film for "historical use" does that make saying an F Bomb as classical Latin ok? I mean, it's the same context is it not? I mean, if that THAT N Word is ok, why not the F Bomb? &%#* this stupid double standard bovine feces. It's not profanity you silly &%#*tard, it's Latin!!

Don't get me started on video games, which I love to play, but have a great deal to say. That's a different can of worms, and worthy of it's own discussion.

[pakman]

No it's not ok. You're still saying the same thing, just differently. There are plenty of things that I can say in a different languange that will bypass the swear filters on this board, but won't because I am still saying it. The N-word should not be used at all in a G-reated film, but are we talking Discovery Channel, TLC, and History Channel G-rated? If possible, it must be avoided like the plague, only in certain circumstances do they drop the N-word, say, when quoting someone or studying the etymology. The N-word is always a loaded question as I see it.

So can it be used in historical context, yes, but in extremely limited situations.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sudden death, violence, rape, animals fornicating, and killing your own food were all parts of human daily life throughout most of history. It is only recently that being exposed to those things as a child is unusual. And it is only recently that that exposure is expected to lead to the need for therapy.

Having evolved in the milieu we did, perhaps the *excessive* protection we give children nowadays is bad in the long run. It protects them from some evil, yes, but it might also weaken their ability to handle reality when it does smack them in the face. Much like preventing childhood diseases as a child can have negative impact on the immune system of the adult. The ability to know evil and survive it may be our mental "immune" system.

A few things along those lines: I am reading Norse and German folk tales at the present. These are the oral tradition that was used to amuse and teach children of those regions until (comparatively) recently. Rape, death and mayhem are primary plot elements. Perhaps this caused a few nightmares, but perhaps it also prepared those children for the realities they will have to face.

Second item, I suspect (but have no data to back it up) that children who've been raised on a farm, or at least who had experience hunting, have less trouble in combat and are less prone to "combat fatigue" than those raised in sheltered suburban neighborhoods. Those raised (and allowed to roam) in inner cities probably come close to the rural kids.

Like many things (e.g., walking, talking), the ability to handle the harshness of reality might need to learned over a period at a *certain* time in our lives. If we don't have the preparation so that we are "immunized" against life, then an event that should just sadden us might destroy us.

Sometimes the best long range protection is not to protect. Thus, parents now are intentionally exposing their children to minor childhood diseases to give them the immunity that will stand them well throughout life.

Of course, it is not a one sided course of action. Somewhere between totally "protecting" a child and totally exposing him/her to the ugliness of life is the (IMO) appropriate course. I simply present this argument because I feel that many, if not most, parents err on the side of over-protection which may just be why we have a nation on anti-depressants with weekly therapy sessions.

If the "common wisdom" is indeed wise, why are we so f'ed up?

--Pete

[BigGrim]

Once again, I have to ask...what double standard?

The word has a profane use and is being used in a profane context in this court case. There are several words that can have offensive meanings if used in different contexts. A four letter name that is the first name of Batman's first Robin, a four letter synonym for a rooster, the five letter term for a female dog, and even the five letter word for what Tinkerbell is can be used as an insult in the proper context. Hey, even the name "Tinkerbell" has been used as an insult before. Should we eliminate those words altogether from all 'G' rated films?

Seriously, people invent new offensive meanings to words or alter them. The stem for that cursed 'N' word is the latin "Niger" for black.

I agree with Pakman here in that any word used in an offensive manner must be navigated carefully, especially in a "G" rated film. Doc, you even answer yourself by saying the N-Word is used for historical use and comparing it to saying the F-Bomb in classical Latin. It is not the same context. At least, not how you present it. You give no reason for saying the F-Bomb in classical Latin except to avoid the censors, if it was used to explain the etymology then perhaps that would be comparable, but not just simply saying the word by itself.

The N-Word is being used for historical accuracy on a period piece like Roots, likely you wouldn't see a movie set in the modern era or any decade recently where the word was used and still be rated "G". The offensive use of the "F-Bomb" is fairly recent, and it may become a historical word in the future, but not right now. Likewise, comparing the F-Bomb to the N-Word isn't easy because of the weight behind each word and the measure of offensiveness each is capable of. I'd say the N-Word has more going for it historically, because of the weight it carries, and it is a far more significant part of American history and culture. Swear words come and go with passing generations, but the N-Word has always been there.

-Grim-

[Doc]

Pete, you bring up good points. Really good points.

But where is the line drawn between healthy exposure and unhealthy abuse? Sure, I can gut and butcher animals, stand in ankle deep puddles of blood and guts, and not think twice about it. I live on a farm right now. However, does everybody need to be exposed to this?

I do not think total protection is the right thing either. I believe everything in small doses at the right time, delivered with a measure of wisdom. What this means in the most boiled down terms, is actual parenting, with out depending on mechanical devices to babysit the kids. I for one, would NEVER wish my childhood on any child, immunization theory or not. Sure, it toughened me up, got me ready for life, but I also have PTSD, and a backbreaking load of emotional baggage. Sure, if I had a boy, I might take him deer hunting, or something like that, but not before he was ready, and not if he did not want to go. People like my wife for example, who have actually thrown up on the kitchen floor when I was chopping apart a half a cow carcass simply do not deal well with some of the harsh realities of life. And if they can live, thrive, and survive with out it, why bother exposing them at all? I shoo my wife out of the house now most times when I am about to butcher something that got delivered or whatever.

Now, to adress another issue, the Rated G Question, there are quite a few movies with G ratings or G type ratings that have had questionable content. Fantasia for one. Roots has a general rating, meant for all ages, but has graphic depictions of flogging, men in white hoods running around raising hell, the N Word, and all matter of questionable stuff. I love the movie... Don't get me wrong. But no way in hell would I let a kid watch it. Sounder, IIRC, also used the N word on several occasions, if I am thinking of the right movie, and the N Word usage was based on "historical accuracy" so it was deemed OK and not offensive. Back in the 60s or 70s Disnee made a Tom Sawyer Huck Finn movie that used the N Word. It was being used in coloquial historical sense so it was targeted to small children. It was also true to form from the book. For the life of me, I can't think of the name of this one, but it's about a group of kids in the 60s, during the civil rights movement. It's a story about a black boy and a white boy being friends. It's a true story, based on a book. It hit theaters, but flew under the rader and was barely noticed. It was rated G, but, IIRC, had over 40 uses of the N Word, all said out of quoting the historical time period. Now, this might be fine to teach kids, but not ALL kids. I for one would not let a little kid, as the G rating might imply, to go see something like this. No way. Nor would I let my wife see it, as merely hearing the N Word causes her to nearly burst into tears. Hearing it two or three times would cause another Niagra Falls Incident, much like the last time Roots came on the Hallmark Channel. She sat and cried and snotted all over my shoulder for a whole hour or more, unable to understand how folk can be so cruel. (Of course, in all fairness, my wife has the mind of a small child, it is her best quality. Her childlike innocence I value more then life it self) I have to know what's in a movie before I can watch it with her.

Long live Larry the Cucumber and Bob the Tomato, in whom there is no fault :D

[WarBlade]

Second item, I suspect (but have no data to back it up) that children who've been raised on a farm, or at least who had experience hunting, have less trouble in combat and are less prone to "combat fatigue" than those raised in sheltered suburban neighborhoods.  Those raised (and allowed to roam) in inner cities probably come close to the rural kids.

That reminded me of something. When I was little my mother insisted I got exposed to spiders. "See how they spin a web to catch flies?" "Look at how they crawl upside down and slid down this skinny thread they make?"

etc.

Apparently her father had done the same for her and it was actually years before I ever encountered situations where I learned that there were people who'd go leaping up onto chairs at the mere mention of such things as spiders or mice. Conversely I know three boys living down the road from me who's mother has instilled such wonderous knowledge as, "A slug! Kill it! I hate slugs!"

:blink:

Some time about year ago I was down there and found smashed up remnants of snails smeared around various parts of a concret path and driveway. The kids aren't afraid of snails and slugs . . . they just hate them, because they've been taught to.

Back to my mum.

For all her father ever taught her about how harmless spiders are (we only have one species here that could be considered even remotely dangerous and that's a recent import), he left out a lot when it comes to animals and bugs.

Example:

Let me introduce people to a picture of my left hand.



You've probably noticed the insect in that picture even before the fact there's a hand under it. This is a weta. Not a very big one either. Just a six legged bug, too heavy to hop anywhere and won't bite.

A couple of months after this picture was taken, I was handling one and showing it to my mother.
Mum: Is that safe?
WarBlade: Uh, yeah.
Mum: But they bite!
WarBlade: No Mum. They don't bite.
Mum: But I heard they do.
WarBlade: They don't.

Anyway there I was trying to teach my mother, who quite happily picks up spiders (with commentry like, "there you go little spidder") and helps them outside, about wetas, when the little bastard decided scampering up my arm and into my hair would be a good plan. Now feeling the tickle behind the right ear and stuffing fingers up to stop it crawling any further is one thing, but actually parting hair to disentangle the little blighter without pulling it apart is damn near impossible to do just on tactile sensation alone.

WarBlade: Ah Mum. Can you grab it please?
Mum: No!
WarBlade: Heehee it tickles. Mum! Just pick it up! It's completely harmless!
Mum: Oaaawww. Eeeeeeeaaaarrr. Okaaaay. Euuuuu. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Wrinkled noses, various noises of displeasure etc.

She had the weta back out in under five seconds (once she finally moved) and didn't seem to distressed about it crawling around on her hand, but even still, a lifetime of disinformation added to something she percieves as "ugly" had her putting it into a tree branch where she could peer at it closely without actually touching it.

Some people are so irrational sometimes. :huh:

[Occhidiangela]

I have been trying to indoctrinate her into the "either take a good look at it or just squash it" approach.

1. Take a look, it is a living thing.
or
2. It is a bug, squash it

What is insane is getting all flighty over a bug. A 150 pound bull mastif coming at you with attitude, OK, go crazy, but a bloody moth? Gaaah!

[Roland]

Ghostiger has enough to eat already.

[Roland]

I just watched a part of a movie (while waiting for a newer, more interesting movie to come on) that was rated PG. It was about 2:45 in the afternoon. The film was from 1979. And it showed a striptease, including full bare breasts. Now, I'm not one to take offense to much of anything, but a PG-rated film with that? I, for one, was rather offended.

But, then, I never take stock in ratings of any kind. They're all horse #$%& anyway. :P Oh, excuse me, manure. ;) And on THAT note, I saw Back to the Future today, and the other day, and also BttF 2 the same day I saw 1, a couple weeks ago. :)

I'll stick to Ice Age for now, methinks. :D

[Mavfin]

I would agree that many kids are over-protected. I grew up on a farm, and grew animals, and some of them didn't make it on the truck. Some died, some were killed because they weren't good enough to go on the truck, and never would be, and some, we kept for a while, fed special, and ate. And that was life.

Therapy may be needed in some cases, but probably not nearly as many as is happening. I've been taught that life isn't fair. That's just the way it is. You have to do the best you can with what you have. It seems a lot of kids aren't being taught that. Well, don't get me off on that tangent. I work in a school and see kids do things that don't make sense every day. I don't understand where it comes from. And I do remember being a kid.....

[Roland]

We stopped children, even when their parents were standing right behind them, all the time. We'd look at the parents and say, flat out, "There's questionable content in there." "Such as?" "Such as this, that, and the other thing." "Really? They put that in video games? Son, I think you should pick something else." I don't work there anymore (haven't for years), but they still do it. And they'll even recommend something that might be more appropriate, as well as ask for ID if they have even the slightest questioning of whether the person is old enough to be buying a "Mature", or sometimes even "Teen" rated game. Put bluntly, if you're in HS or below, you won't be getting GTA3 without an ID, or a lot of facial hair. ;)

I'm sure some places aren't like that, but most of the places I've been in (working and otherwise) have been, and are still like that. And, it IS improving. As video games push the envelope more and more, retailers ARE taking it upon themselves to enforce the ratings more, even if sometimes they are off-kilter. Even a little "Just so you know..." can go a LONG way.

[Roland]

I don't mind looking at bugs, but I HATE getting touched by them. It's not so much a fear (although no less irrational) as it is an utter disgust with that "crawling" feeling. I don't mind snakes a bit. My Papou (grandfather) has a whole snake pit at his cabin in Maine, and I've got pictures of me proudly holding a snake in each hand, while standing in front of the pit. Freaked my mother, of course, but she saw no harm in it - so long as I stayed away from her while I was holding them. ;) But bugs? Eh... I do NOT like them. Then again, most of the crawlers around here DO like to bite (earwigs, for example), so it's not much of a surprise.

I have a love / hate relationship with spiders. I hate them around me, but I love them as a creature. I get conditioned plenty, though, because my room (and my whole house, particularly my basement) is full of them. I even saw a grasshopper last night, on my cieling, and watched as the spider walked towards it (I would say unknowingly, or uncaringly, since they only eat other spiders, not general insects). Mr. Hopper is still up on my cieling, as I just confirmed, and I'm sure Mr. Spider is somewhere nearby. I suppose I should get rid of them both, but so far they've left me alone. My will dominates over the horrendous thought of them crawling over me in the middle of the night. But, then, I'm paranoid about that as a general rule, since it used to happen ALL THE TIME with ants. So, however irrational, my distaste for general insectry is not out of the blue.

Don't mind looking at bugs, but hate the feel of them. Such is me. :)

Edit:
Mr. Hopper is now outside, despite resisting getting out of the cozy little paper cup (even after I stabbed through it with a knife to push him out). I finally just flipped him out with the tip of my knife when he got close enough. Everytime I got light near enough him to see him, he'd move to the bottom of the cup, out of my reach. :P

[Roland]

What if it's a Moose Fly? Or better yet, a Lunar Moth? ;)

'Bout the only thing I really run from is bees. Everything else, I just try to avoid whenever possible. ;) Although moths, and particularly butterflies, have never bothered me. I always found them cute. And especially fun to flick off the window screen in the middle of the night! *POING!* :D Ah, good memories.

[Occhidiangela]

It has been said that you should kill something daily, no matter how small, just to stay proficient. (Ya never know when you'll need that skill in a survival situation.) A fly, a mosquito, or a spider, always in abundant supply down here in South Texas, fills the bill nicely. Squishing the insect also precludes having to swerve up onto sidewalks to hit a cat to meet the daily carnage quota.

[kandrathe]

:) I took that class twice. Actually, my freshman year I took a class to fulfill my sociology requirement called "Human Sexuality", then in my sophomore year I wanted to take a studio arts class, but it had prerequisite a class called "Art and Society". The most interesting course I took, IMO, requiring no viewing of pornography was a philosophy course on "Aesthetics" where we actually were able to debate the artistic contribution of DuChamps "Urinal".

In the art of Film, it is still a very subjective to determine whether the display of naked humans and their actions is motivated as a contribution to art or mere titillation (pornography). I think the more famous actors also use that notion as a filter when determining what roles to accept. But, films like Moulan Rouge or Striptease seem almost aimed at dancing on that fine line. Then again, I respect artists like Pedro Almodovar, who always seems to reflect the reality of the characters situation, as in the film "Tie me up, Tie me down!" (Victoria Abril, Antonio Banderas). In that film, only the opening bath tub scene seemed gratuitious, not that I would complain.

I grew up on a farm, so animal coupling was a nearly daily occurance throughout my childhood. But, human coupling was not discussed too much at all. That class I took as a freshman, and my lab work with Vanessa, more than filled in any knowledge gaps I may have had at age 18.

[pakman]

I already filled my quota for today. On the way to work, I ran over a squirrel. I've tried hitting birds with the car, but that's pretty hard. I have kicked a pigeon before (flying rats) on the sidewalks of Chicago. They weren't too happy <_<.

[pakman]

I thought striptease was a porn film with a bad story, like most pronographic films. I think that most films with nudity can do without it. Jerry Maguire didn't need it, Enemy at the Gates didn't need it, and moany others that I have seen didn't need it. "Art" and pornography as you say, now walk an extremely thin line. Many times the distinction is the "intent" of the "art." The intent is hard to define, it is determined on a personal basis.

[Roland]

And even more to pakman's comments. But hey, we don't value our own lives. Why would we value something we consider to be "lesser"?