The PG 13 Discussion

[Doc]

What constitutes PG 13?

This strikes me as a really good question.

In a recent PG 13 flick I watched, there was 2 bare jiggling breasts. Mind you, this was a movie about natives, the jiggling jumbos in question were not sexually oriented, they were on a very well endowed native woman whose dress code seemingly lacked any concept of "no shoes, no shirt, no service."

In another movie, 3 uses of the F Bomb.

In another, several listings of God who's last name was incorrectly spelled "Damnit"

So far, I think using the expletive for feces is outlawed in PG 13 flicks, I guess saying $#%@ is wrong. Quoting George Carlin, saying shoot aint no better, you can't kid me, shoot is $#%@ with two o's.

On the Discovery channel, on a show rated for teens (PG 13? I dunno) there was a graphic display of bear pornagraphy. Shown, on a show for teenagers, was a bear's errect penis, mounting, insertion, and a great deal of growling, grunting, and other sexual noises. Softcore porn, AKA, PG 13 porn, clearly states that insertion can not be shown, but bare (bear) bottoms and brief flashes of grindage are ok. Hardcore Porn, AKA NC 17 or Rated R involve full frontal nudity, insertion, and prolonged displays of sexual intercourse. Also of note, a similar seen was shown in the movie "The Bear" which, if I recall correctly, was rated G. Discovery Channel and Animal Planet both are violators of the worst sort. Recently I have seen mind warping images of rhino porn, bear porn, tiger porn, bird porn, and even the mind blowing elephant porn. Also of note on these channels, graphic violence. Why, just the other night I saw a lion casually flip out what appeared to be a liver from a carcass. My Gosh, what are we teaching our kids with these graphic displays? Such a callous display of violence, and a total disreguard for life.

So, why do we even have such a rating in the first place if we our selves keep violating it?

So, what's your two cents?

[Guest]

The rule is 2 F-bombs are allowed a PG-13 movie. Someone could have broke it and put in 3 but thats an exception.


Bears? Who gives an F-bomb what they show bears doing. If you get off on that your way past worrying about bad language.

[Doc]

BTW, I should note, for those that lack IQ to recognise it, my post was filled with sarcasm and dark humour. But it has a point.

[WarLocke]

"It"? Heh.

You could look at movie ratings as a barometer of society at the time. A typical PG-13 movie now would have probably been an R in the 80s.

Or maybe that's just my cynicism and lack of faith in the human race showing.

Why can't any good movies get made anymore? We need another Undercover Blues or Who's Harry Crumb? (or heck, any John Candy movie - honorable mention to Uncle Buck), dammit.

[Bloodstar6078]

G= General audiences.
PG= Parental guardian
PG-13= If under 13 must have a parent.
R= All under 17 are restricted.


NC-17= hmm... idk :P

[Zarathustra]

*ahem* Okay... it's the Discovery Channel...

Granted, you said much of it was sarcasm... but what point are you trying to make with that paragraph? *scratches head*

[Count Duckula]

Speaking of Doc...

Rented coach buses often have little TVs built into them so that people can be entertained on long trips. My theater group rented such a bus when we went to Regionals to perform "Adaptation" by Elaine May. One of the movies we all agreed on was Back to the Future, as we were limited to G and PG movies only. (American Pie was everyone's first choice, go figure. :P)

The movie got pulled about ~30 minutes into it due to profanity. (God's name in vain, various words for feces, etc.)

Please note that this was a group of ~20 high schoolers, with a frequently drunken drama coach, on a 5-hour bus trip to perform a controversial play that bashed, among other things, women, races, and religion. And a PG movie gets pulled because Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox said too many naughty words.

(Surprisingly enough, American Pie got shown at the cast party following the state competition. More adults around, high schoolers with beer, and a movie playing that should have been rated NC-HB for "if you are a human being, do NOT watch this movie.")

EDIT: I think this comes from the North Korea thread where someone showed off their Americentricism by rattling off the Motion Picture Association of America's movie rating system. I think a better title of this thread would be, what constitutes "just enough" so that a movie or computer game or whatever is socially acceptable for 13-16 year olds?

[WarLocke]

Michael J. Fox
Christopher Lloyd
a DeLorean
Time Travel
Son's mother falls for him
Son plays rock music at parent's Prom
Bully's father gets feces dumped on him
Timestream revised so Son gets the girl and a big honkin Jeep

Bluh? What's not to love?

Does not compute

I think your theater group needs therapy. :P

[WarBlade]

Unrestricted
G suitable for general audience
PG parental guidance recommended for younger viewers
M suitable for mature audiences 16 years of age and over.

Restricted
18 restricted to persons 18 years and over
16 restricted to persons 16 years and over
R specified restrictions.

Some examples:
The Matrix = M (Medium Violence)
Blade = R18 (Graphic Violence)
Attack of the Clones = M (Adult Themes)

[BigGrim]

Alright, I'm irked. The forums lost my first post...It was a fairly comprehensive argument too.

PG stands for Parental Guidance, right?

I stand by the fact that any movie labeled with rating "PG" has material that can potentially be offensive to any number of groups out there, which is why it isn't approved for general "G" audiences. I feel that it is the parent's responsibility to research the movies their children want to watch and find out what about them can be "offensive" in their opinion. Then they can make educated judgments on whether the child should watch the movie, and if so, prepare themselves to explain these "offensive" concepts to their children according to the dogma they wish to instill upon them.

After all, there are different levels of tolerence with different groups of people. Some cultures expose their children to both nudity, alcohol, and sex at a much earlier age, and those cultures have been around longer than American culture has. It's all a matter of persective. Some groups may not find blasphemous talk about God offensive, and thus have no need to explain it to their children save to be respectful and not say it in front of the religious.

As for the Discovery Channel material, I really don't see what the problem is. I see nothing about a total disregard for life when a lion casually flips out a liver to devour. I mean, this is daily life for them. They must eat prey animals to survive, and they don't have the hands to gently scoop out the liver and lay it down. Animals have greater concerns than morality, especially since moral quantifiers are something that seem to be exclusive to human mentality. Do you see dogs ashamed about having sex in public? It's entirely natural to them because it serves the purposes of nature. Primates, dolphins, and humans are the animals most likely to have sex for pleasure and not procreation, so there's nothing offensive to me about their acts at all. They're just trying to procreate.

It's nature at work, and to me it's information that my child can ingest. Children are innately curious about things, and if they want to know about the birds and the bees, then why not let bears and lions do it? It doesn't show anything morally objectionable about the deed unless you find the deed itself reprehensible, or you think anything but missionary position is a sin. If my child was interested in nature or the historical details of the bloody Normandy Invasion, I'd encourage such investigative thought and nourish it. That's the kind of mental exploration I would encourage in all people, to ask the questions and seek the answers. If they're watching the Discovery channel instead of MTV, I'm a very happy father indeed.

But ultimately, that's because that's how I choose to guide them as a parent. Parental guidance. I know what they're watching and I find nothing objectionable about it. I take an active role in their lives. To me, PG 13 means that there must be something in this movie that would require some explanation about morality or other philosophical concepts, especially since before their teenage years children have problems with complex abstract thought.

-Grim-

[Doc]

My point?

A movie can get blackballed for showing somebody's pecker, but it's perfectly ok to show an 18 inch bear penis on tv. Human? Bear? Who cares? Well, I do. It's a double standard. Heck, if you want to get down to brass tacks, there are plenty of times they even show human genitalia on The Learning Channel, The History Channel, and The Discovery channel, and most of these shows are rated for teens. Has anybody ever seen The History of Sex? Or the XY factor? There was actually a slow motion sequence of a human male penis becoming errect. And the show was clearly rated for teens. However, if they put this in a movie for the theatre, it would have been labeled as NC 17, which is stupid. NC 17, no children under 17. And yet, it takes an 18 year old to get into a rated R movie. Which is by no means as bad as an NC 17 flick.

That's what I have a problem with, the Double Standard.

Let's take for example, the N word. An expletive for black folks. Now, if you sit down and watch a movie for kids that has "historical accuracies" using the N word is just fine and the movie can even get a G rating, and, indeed, there has been a few movies that have done this. However, use the N word in a somewhat more menacing fashion, and BAM, instant rated R rating. Quite frankly, I honestly DON'T want to hear the word at all, historical or otherwise, and would be a happy man not ever hearing it ever again. I grew up being called a "prairie N word" and have developed a real fanatical hatred of the word. I damn sure don't want folk calling me, or anybody else for that matter, this name, historical or not. And as for it being ok in a historical sense, NO. It's not. My cousin's stepson got backhanded for saying the N word. He learned it watching Roots of all things, and being the tender age he was, figured that black folks should be called that.

The rating system should be one flat universal rating system. All men are created equal, well, the rating system should be the same. Nobody should be let off the hook. If a movie is going to have the N word, for what ever reason, or a dancing penis, there should be some sort of warning. Or bare jiggling breasts. Or anything else for that matter. As it currently is, the PG 13 rating means SQUAT.

As for standards changing with the times, yes, yes they do. Take for example, Old Yeller. As it stands right now, Old Yeller would now get a rated R rating for graphic cruelty and violent acts to animals. There is no way in hell that it could be pawned off as family friendly entertainment now. In some ways, it's gotten worse with the times. The Blue Lagoon would now get an NC 17 rating, and would be blackballed by way to many theatres, it would end up flopping based on rating alone.

As a parent, which I am not, but I do have a Goddaughter now for which is changing my life in ways I can not possibly understand, would you want your kids seeing graphic sexual acts on TV, human, bear, elephant, or otherwise? If you were sitting on the couch with your 12 to 14 year old son or daughter, could you honestly say you were comfortable with the zoomed in image of hot and heavy sex, no matter the species? Would you want them seeing that? If so, that's fine. If not, then you must agree, the current rating system is flawed.

I do not agree with censorship of any form, however I am a big fan of some sort of warning system. Instead of just saying Warning, the following film may include some graphic content, give a brief blurb about what sort of content you might be seeing. Giant bear penises, the N word, profanity, sexual grunting, or sex with assorted fruit pies, in this particular case, apple. Mmm warm apple pie. Or somebody sticking a flute up their vagina. Whatever. I think if we spent a bit more time working on an educated warning system, we could make better choices on what we, our children, and our society watches.

Edit I really feel I should explain the bear sex bit. I personally have no problem. However, my wife who tends to be easily embarassed, nearly fainted when she saw it. No warning, no prOn grOOve music or anything, just slam bam thank you ma'am bear sex. See, it's all about a warning system. Personally, I nearly shot boiling hot coffee right out my schnozz because I started laughing so hard, not at the bear nookie, but at my wife's reaction. I seared my sinuses with steam, and all because I never saw it coming. For the rest of the day I had to suffer from questions like "how does a bear stuff a ding dong that big into the girl bear and not hurt her?" Or "Do you think bears have the Big-O?" Or my personal favourite, delivered as I was eating oatmeal, and it caused me to choke, "Geeze, how deep is a girl bear's bottom anyways?"

[Count Duckula]

Heck, if you want to get down to brass tacks, there are plenty of times they even show human genitalia on The Learning Channel, The History Channel, and The Discovery channel, and most of these shows are rated for teens.

That's because it's in the name of science, not entertainment.

Hollins can have a film class about pornography and censorship, where all they do is watch pr0n all semester, because it's in the name of art, not entertainment.

Nature programs can show the gory details of lion kills because it's in the name of biology, not entertainment. (Unless you're rooting for one side. As much as I like the kitties, I always cheer on the Impala or Thompson's Gazelle.)

However, if American Pie mentions or even shows the so-called down-n-dirty with an apple pie, that's purely for entertainment. (Although who'd be entertained by THAT is the bigger mystery here.)

Did my parents do it right? I remember watching R-rated films as a 13-year-old kid, because at least Mom watched them before I did as a pre-screener. (I knew the Seven Dirty Words you can't say on TV before I knew how to pronounce them correctly. ;)) I was shown the universe, told why things were the way they were, and reasons behind them. And, as I got a bit older, I learned that there are no truly "bad" things, only bad applications of them.

There's only one person in the universe I can say the dreaded n-word to, and that's only because he still calls me the "dyke kike." Neither of us mind, but we'd have a hard time explaining ourselves to outsiders. Some jokes just gotta stay inside.

[BigGrim]

Double Standard?

I believe Count Duckula had this right. Educational material is different from entertainment material. The fallacy here, Doc, is that you're comparing educational cable television material versus entertaining movie theatre material. I've yet to see a purely historical or natural documentary be shown on the big screen with any sort of rating being applied to it, and no one will likely put one in the theatres because there's no profit to it.

For comparitive purposes, we'll discuss libraries and bookstores. Bookstores sell both books on human sexuality and adult magazine. The adult magazines are usually placed on the highest racks covered in plastic to prevent opening and in direct line of sight with the cashiers, whereas the books on human sexuality are often placed in the distance in the non-fiction section right where some child can go and pick it up. Why not insist that those copies of the Kama Sutra be placed behind the counter as well? Or, why not insist on a rating system at the local library so that books on the Vietnam War with graphic photography require a parent present with the child to check out the book, or even take them off the shelf?

Ignorance fuels hate and fear, and knowledge tends to disempower concepts that inflict psychological pain. I recommend the following book, censored for those with sensitive eyes: N*gg*r: The Strange Case of a Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy. It was featured on an episode of Boston Public, and is required reading for some sociological courses at UC Berkeley. Let's say a teenager, a freshman in high school, was curious about the "N-word" and why it held such a position in our society. Would it be right to restrict a book that held pertinent educational information from them simply because they were 14 or 15?

I'm sorry, but I'd be outraged as a historian if the "N-word" was kept from a documentary on the Civil Rights movement. That's keeping relevant information out of our history.

Finally...

All men are created equal, well, the rating system should be the same.

It would require a totally different thread, but I'm sure a lot of men will tell you that on many levels, men are not created equal...therefore, logically, the rating system should not be the same. Humans are created with genetic imperfections, cultural influences based on race and gender, social standing based on birth, and so on and so forth. From conception till you are born there are things that are already working in your favor and those that are working against you.

-Grim-

[gekko]

Let's take for example, the N word [...] Quite frankly, I honestly DON'T want to hear the word at all, historical or otherwise, and would be a happy man not ever hearing it ever again [...] And as for it being ok in a historical sense, NO. It's not [...] The rating system should be one flat universal rating system.

The N word is a whole nother can of worms here, and quite a bit more of a touchy subject than sex on TV. However, in both cases, it cannot be simply a flat universal system. Why not?

Consider "Huckleberry Finn." This book contains the N word, and not just in an educational way -- the book is for entertainment as well as education, after all. However, the book does not support the use of the word, nor does it glamorize or support it. Quite the contrary, the book does an excellent job of critisizing racism.

Simply put, just because a book/movie/argument contains the N word does not imply that said book/movie/argument is racist. The context must be considered, as well. And the same goes for sex on TV or in movies.

Does this mean some unfair ratings and judgements will occur? Probably. However, it sure beats simply saying "this is not allowed in any case."

Another problem with the "flat universal" rating system is the lack of a magical age where children become adults. Legally, we can say once you hit a certain age, you are an adult. But what about the teenage years? Maturity levels differ greatly among teenagers of the same age (same goes for any age group, not only teens, of course). What does this have to do with the flat rating system? A grey area helps to diminish this problem by "fuzzing over" the limits placed on teenagers.

gekko

[Nystul]

That's pretty rough. I was allowed to watch Back to the Future during class time as an elementary student (5th grade, I think). It was probably the TV edit, but I don't recall there being all that much difference.

On the original subject, I think the rating system is usually pretty fair. Sometimes one that should be R slips in at PG-13 and occasionally PG are a bit raunchy and tasteless, so it's not perfect. As someone else said, if it's not G (or PG for teens), parents should either prescreen or talk to other parents about the movie before letting their kids see it. The thing that I find aggravating is how many good movies could have been G or PG but end up being potentially unsuitable for children because of something completely gratuitous and unnecessary, to the extent that the only G movies are movies targetted specifically at young children. Titanic may be the ultimate example of this... people actually started a business to edit the nude scene and the car scene out of the video tape for parents who wanted it to be a family movie.

[TaMeOlta]

:lol: I don't think it can be considered porn for the animals - for them , or for us , the act "should " be considered natural , it just happened to be "caught on tape " by a human . Now if they added animal noises , really bad elevator music , extended animal foreplay .... :blink:

[pakman]

Movie ratings are a poor way of recommending what movies to see. The real job lies with the parents. There are some things that children should not see. But I knew kids in 5th and 6th grade that were talking about violent movies. Personally, I was never allowed to go see R movies until I was 17. It was taboo for me, so once in a while I rented them. But I never rented movies like Strip Tease, I usually got a movie like Schindler's List, movies that had a point and was deeper than what was in it.

I find nudity in movies, usually, unnecessary. Take, for example, Enemy at the Gates. That scene among all those other people was completely uncalled for, it added nothing to the plot. But in Schindler's List, nudity was part of the concentration camps. But at one point in every teenage boys life, he goes over to the local adult shop, or has a friend with pornographic material does see those kinds of movies. Unless you're a paladin, I believe this hold true for a lot of people.

I do think we need more movies like A Beautiful Mind. Barely any violence, and the violence that was in there was in his head. All the recent movies that have come out in the past couple years (XXX, Bad Boys, etc.) are nothing but violence and explosions.

[Doc]

Well, not so much restrictions, but, as I stated, better warning systems. I have no problem reading Huck Fin. However, I might want to wait till "I" feel that my Goddaughter is mature enough before I would read it to her. I know in advance what words are in there.

However, there are many movies I don't know in advance. And for me, that's not a problem. But for others, it can be. I went out and watched movies like "Faces of Death" and the like and was just fine while other folks were busy puking into their popcorn buckets. (I went to see what all the fuss was about)

Frankly, and this is going to be rated R topic wise I think, I have seen things far worse then they show in movies and I am really jaded. I grew up as a boy in dime a dance whorehouses, sawdust on the floor honkytonks, brothels, and gambling dens. My mum was a working girl in those places. I don't remember just how old I was, but I watched a man get murdered. Somebody took a broken bottle and slit his throat. He gurgled a bit, flopped around, and died in the gravel parking lot. They covered the huge puddle of blood with sawdust and it was business as usual. I saw a man get his guts slit open, and how he tried to keep his own intestines inside of him, scooping and clutching at his own guts. As I got older it got no better. I remember vividly riots in my life time, people being mauled and tore apart by dogs. I remember a terrible day where Klan members showed up to a peaceful protest, and one Klansman firing into the crowd with a shotgun. I saw a little girl get cut in half that day from that shot. So really, not much of what I see on movies or tv bothers me. I have seen things I would rather forget, but can't, and have gone numb instead. Does this mean everybody should be like me? No. I think folks would be a lot happier with out knowing some things, or at least not knowing them before they are ready.

However, it bothers me that some folk see things before they are ready. I for one, want my Goddaughter watching Veggie Tales for as long as possible. There is plenty of time to grow up later and learn about things like the N word or other horrible facts of life, but, damnit, I want her to hold on to her innocence for as long as possible and not have her mind polluted by all the terrible realities of life until she really actually needs to learn it. I don't want something slipping under the radar either. Like I said, a warning system would be great.

We must also take into consideration maturity levels. I know a few kids that I know could watch Schindler's List and probably be ok. However, most kids should NEVER see that. I personally know a guy that took his son to see Saving Private Ryan. 13 year old son, accompanied by an adult, to see THAT. Kid's a little older now, and his therapy is coming along nicely. The night terrors have eased off a bit, but panic attacks are still frequent. Poor kid has to take vallium now to make it through the day. He had seen plenty of other adult films, heck, he had seen all of the Friday the Thirteenth films by the time he was 12 and it never ever bothered him, quality times spent with dad, and his dad did not realize just how BAD SPR would be. Once again, a warning system would have saved a lot of grief. A historically accurate showing of the the war indeed. Is it ok to show this to kids for historical accuracy? To learn about American sacrifice? Not my place to say. I know I would not. Even a mature kid. SPR scored a 2 out of 10 on my squirm o meter, mostly because it made me think how painful it is to be shot. Made me recall painful memories of BEING shot, which are by no means, pleasant. Other then that, seen worse.

Is that what we want? A nation of super jaded numb on the inside folk like me? That's where we are headed, and that bothers me for reasons I can not explain. It eats at me. Some folk, well, some folk should be spared from this. Like em or not, rating systems are there to do this, but they are flawed and really, there should be a better way.

[smegged]

In Australia I believe that we have a pretty good system.

G - General Exhibition
PG - Parental Guidance recommended
M - reccomended for audiences 15 years and older
MA - restricted to audiences 15 years and older
R - restricted to audiences 18 and older
X - banned from all states in Australia (you can only get it from the ACT or the Northern Territory)
unrated - restricted from sale in Australia (reserved for films with hardcore rape scenes pretty much)

Each rating of PG and over has subratings telling the parents why it has been rated so.

eg. Violence, Sex scenes/references, Nudity, Drug use, Adult themes, course Language, Horror

humourously enough Big Brother Up Late was rated MA (vsndah), when most of the time the house members were sleeping :lol:

[pakman]

Honestly, if we talk about being jaded, we will eventually have to bring video games into the discussion. I agree with you that there is a maturity level of appropriate viewing. I can usually tell if a movie is going to be graphic. SPR was one of them, but I saw it when I was 15, I think. It was a great movie. I saw Gladiator...that was a great movie too, graphic, but good. I like Veggie Tales too, Larry the Cucumber is my favorite :). I remeber seeing Aliens, I couldn't sleep for weeks. I just couldn't get the image of the half droid leaking milk and the alien ripping someone's face off with the inner mouth thing. I still cannot watch those films. I laughed at Starship Troopers. I will not go see Freddie vs. Jason.

Sometimes I think that people forget that war movies have gore and that it is more realistic than what they think.

I think that video games play a role in being jaded. I was playing DoD last semester, and saw a grenade kill a guy. The guy went flying against against the wall and the helmet went the other way. If I start having flashbacks from playing a video game, I think I'm gonna stop, that's a bit too realistic.