sexuality in movies: not concidered a bad thing anymore?

[Tenshi no Ai]

Yes, this is a bit of a "what is the world coming to??" rant... I'm actually wondering if there's anyone out there, from any other country even, that has had the same problem here, or even just thoughts on it or whatever.

Well, as you know, Canada is pretty much like America when it comes to norms and things like that, but it has been several years since Canada swithed off the movie/VHS/DVD rating system, and made their own. Instead of G, PG, PG-13, and R, we have G, PG, 14A (as in "adult"), and 18A with the occasional R for "really" bad movies. And it's also been known for a while that when a movie is R over in America, it usually becomes 14A here, when it's PG-13 there it's PG here, PG there and G here. This type of leniency's been going on for a number of years already, but it seems to be getting worse... It seems that nowadays, movies with high ratings MUST contain a horrible number of scenes with violence/gore in it, to be rated so high, and even if it does contain some sexual and even nudity in it, doesn't require a high rating :/

Now, I see that DVDs have actually been either lying, or don't even count nudity/sexuality as being something bad in movies now :/ I mean, already Borat here is PG-14 and has a LOAD of that stuff in it. But with DVDs I've rented, they don't even include it in the suggestive content listings in some anymore... Rented Final Destination 3 sometime last year and even checked the back to see what sort of questionable stuff it contains (while bearing a rating of 14A). "Course language... violence & gore". And well, my friend and I were sort of surprised to see quite a bit of nudity in there >_< Dukes of Hazard was said to be PG and have hardly anything bad in it, when there was nudity and stuff in it (although I'm thinking with that, that the "unrated" disk was put into a "rated" rental case). My last example, is Snakes on a Plane. Already knew off CAA that there was some bad stuff in it, but what did the Blockbuster box say? "Course language and violence" and of course, was rated 14A. >_<... It's werid because it seems like it's only movies and DVDs that are doing this: games and TV shows still have decent warnings, but still.

It's stuff like this, that's almost wanting me to read online reviews before I see ANYTHING. Well, anime's a little different, but depending on the title it's no surprise, usually. I guess I'm just mad that the DVDs don't even SAY that there's stuff like that even in there... As if sexuality, nudity, and so on, isn't even concidered something objectional anymore... I mean, I DO realize that cultural norms vary from country to country on issues such as this, which is why the ratings of movies vary greatly. But even though we once shared America's rating system and still in a sense do, I just don't get it... Well, I guess that's the world for ya, I guess :/ I mean, I guess music videos etc. aren't getting any cleaner and as my friend quoth: "Watch in the generation of when we have kids: they'll be surprised that there was a time when there WASN'T nudity in the media". You know, I wouldn't be surprised if that became a reality...

*rant end*...

[Puguni]

Maybe you should look up the ratings that the U.S. has put on the movies instead of relying on a ratings system that you already show is unreliable. And if it comes down to it, then yes, go to a site for reviews. I'm sure there are Christian sites that review these movies.

But I hear you. Rest assured there are always people bothered by the sexuality, just not the money makers.

[dyzzispell]

Maybe you should look up the ratings that the U.S. has put on the movies instead of relying on a ratings system that you already show is unreliable.

Hey, you know, that isn't a bad idea. Wish I'd thought of it. XD

You can try this: http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRatings.asp

I used to use it a lot, but yes, as far as I know, here in the US they still put nudity down as objectionable content. I really hate that PG-13 movies have nudity now without a second thought. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my teenager watching a movie with nudity in it. (If I had kids, anyway.) For that matter, I don't want to see it myself. I think more things should get the NC-17 rating, but nothing does because that rating is still somewhat taboo, and dooms a movie to failure (which in my opinion deserves it if it's that raunchy).

But yes, that bothers me too. I'm surprised it's gotten that "accepted" by society, but then again, should I really be THAT surprised? I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the US does the same... so sad...

[Radical Dreamer]

Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. Here, we still have ratings that warn about "partial nudity", "brief nudity", or "nudity" in general (other labels too, though I forget them). There's also ratings that say things like "some sensual content", or "a scene of sexuality" or even "graphic sexual content". Ratings like that are usually pretty accurate here, which I appreciate. I suggest doing what Dyzzispell suggested: use America's ratings to judge what movies you should see, rather than Canada's. But yeah, I can definitely see your frustration, and I can say that I've been in relatively similar situations. I often feel like ratings in general are getting more lenient in some movies.

[Tenshi no Ai]

Heh, yeah guess I should really start looking at the "original" ratings^^ It's also amusing that Canada technically has 2 rating systems, since Quebec does their own thing, but I can't remember if they rate higher or lower than us... I think it's like a "PG-15" or something...

By no means am I surprised by all these "suttle" changes either, but it is annoying that some people... I guess they don't think people care/worry about that sort of content anymore :/ My assumption is that maybe they think that stuff like violence is more something that should be mentioned, and "worse". Personally (even though I'm not a gore-fest-type person) I'd rather see violence in shows that any of that other bad stuff :/ Actually even the OVERLOAD of swearing annoys me too >_< Some movies is so bad that I think "sheesh! People in real life aren't usually this bad!" But yeah...

[Eaglestrike]

Heh, yeah guess I should really start looking at the "original" ratings^^ It's also amusing that Canada technically has 2 rating systems, since Quebec does their own thing, but I can't remember if they rate higher or lower than us... I think it's like a "PG-15" or something...

By no means am I surprised by all these "suttle" changes either, but it is annoying that some people... I guess they don't think people care/worry about that sort of content anymore :/ My assumption is that maybe they think that stuff like violence is more something that should be mentioned, and "worse". Personally (even though I'm not a gore-fest-type person) I'd rather see violence in shows that any of that other bad stuff :/ Actually even the OVERLOAD of swearing annoys me too >_< Some movies is so bad that I think "sheesh! People in real life aren't usually this bad!" But yeah...

You haven't met the right(edit: wrong) people. My father would rarely curse at home, but at work (he's a construction worker) he curses *constantly*. And in my public high school I heard plenty of cursing, I even did in middle school.

On topic, I'm mostly desensitized to all of this. Anyone 13+ at a public school are already going to have access to most, if not all, topics in these movies aside from violence and gore aspects. My main problem with movies are the ones that have really low ratings for kids and aren't exactly clean. Example would be Princess Diaries, rated G I believe, but they had a bit of cursing and girls dancing around in schoolgirl outfits, like Spears. Don't ask me why I was there, or why I was there with two of my straight male friends at the age of 17, but I honestly walked out of that movie because it made me angry that was acceptable for a G. In regards to PG-13 and above content I don't much care, I wasn't really in that bad of crowds and I already knew all about cursing and heard about sex constantly in middle school. (Note: I wasn't a Christian back then)

[Evangeline-San]

The world is constantly getting more and more depraved everyday.
People see things in movies and it doesn't even effect them. whereas I'd probably walk out fuming about the fact that it was only rated PG. lol
Honestly, you can't trust the rating system anymore. That's what it's come down to, really.

[K. Ayato]

The website pluggedinonline.com sometimes does a good job in alerting moviegoers about sexual and nudity content. One thing I find annoying, however, is how they (in just my opinion) make a big deal about the wardrobe for the female characters, or a shot showing a bit more leg is labeled under nudity. Sometimes it's obvious that the ladies in a few scenes are wearing somewhat less-than-modest outfits, but I've seen some films where what the girls wore was not a focal point.

[Mr. Rogers]

I never pay any attention to the ratings - they're usually wrong.

[K. Ayato]

Can't argue with that either. But still, I find it better to read up on a movie's review (regardless of how it's done) than to go in there blindly, not knowing what to expect--and possibly getting shocked by what you see.

[Mr. Rogers]

Can't argue with that either. But still, I find it better to read up on a jovie's review (regardless of how it's done) than to go in there blindly, not knowing what to expect--and possibly getting shocked by what you see.

Well, I read the reviews and stuff to see what's in it, but, I never rely completely on the ratings.

[Scarecrow]

The best place for ratings and finding what EXACTLY is in the movie, IMO, is http://www.kidsinmind.com They do not give any kind of review as to avoid spoilers and explain EVERYTHING that ANYONE might concider objectional. They do have their own ratign system for language, sex, and violence and usually mild violence gets about a 6 or 7 while at the same time nudity/sex may get a 6 or 7 (stuff I would concider more like 8 or 9... and I dont think I've found many movies with 10 in the sex/nudity however there are plent I find with 10 violence). I just throw out their little scale thing and just read what exactly is in and make up my own mind about it.

[Tenshi no Ai]

With the reviews in mind, there's almost a bit of a boundary with that. I mean, sometimes I'll be in a movie rental and find something that sticks out and think "oh that looks good" and rent it unplanned. Like, just sort of nice and convenient if they could only tell you on the box what's up with the show. I sort of miss my old movie rental place, Rogers (Canadian only, I believe). The boxes would not only saw if there was language etc in it, but names exactly what happened like "violence: someone gets shot, language: 35 words" etc. Although it was semi-spoilerish with saying exactly what happens (like say, violence-wise) it sure gave a good view of what was to come. Just you know, nice to spontaneously rent something, especially if only AFTER the fact you look online and go "I just wasted $___" on this??"

[K. Ayato]

That's why I read reviews first. If after reading them, I'm still interested in the movie, chances are I'll go see it or wait 'til it's released and then rent it. However, if a movie review makes me cringe, I say "Forget it!" and wait for next week's batch of reviews.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

The Aussie rating system is very good. There are a couple movies that slip through with a lower rating then they should, but they are in the minority.

[Tommy]

I never pay any attention to the ratings - they're usually wrong.

As far as the US goes, I completely disagree with that statement.

I think movie ratings here are well suited as oposed to video game ratings.

[K. Ayato]

It really boils down to where you get your reviews from.

[Doubleshadow]

It's cyclic. If you look at movies the were made before the censorship crackdown in the 1950's its very surprising what they would make. For example, Marlena Dietrich dressing as a man and kissing other women on the lips in one movie I saw (early black and white). But don't forget, we're in a fallen world and things evil beyond comprehension has always occurred. This downward trend is no shock to me, and probably at some point there will be a backlash against it. Thus the cycle begins anew.

[Myoti]

I have to mostly agree with Tom; the ratings for movies seem to usually be pretty fitting these days. Of course, there was that big deal over "Facing the Giants" getting a PG rating awhile back (don't know much about that incident, since I haven't seen the movie).

It is odd to see how much disregard they have for such content at times, though. Truthfully, I don't personally regard movies much by their rating now as I do the actual content, i.e., "The Last Samurai" was R, and violence-wise that's well deserved. However, there was practically nothing else wrong with it (aside from some cursing, though, like others here, I pretty much here that everyday at school now, so I pretty much shrug it off).

[Reba]

I never pay any attention to the ratings - they're usually wrong.

Yeah they are alot, Personally I really don't want to see that stuff in movies,Specaily since the poeple are usaully not even married! I think they should not show that at all in movies,The Lord speaks against Adultry and Lust,That will make you Lust probably so yeah..All of that is really bad,I read what is says below the rating and if it has anything bad in it,I wont rent or buy it.

[Tommy]

Yeah they are alot

Give five recent examples, please.

Personally I really don't want to see that stuff in movies,Specaily since the poeple are usaully not even married!

I don't think as far as viewing it goes, it really matters if they're married or not. In a movie, if they show it happen, it's just as bad if they were or weren't married.

[rocklobster]

I don't know if you folks realize this, but ratings are often negotiatied.

[MorwenLaicoriel]

As far as the US goes, I completely disagree with that statement.

I think movie ratings here are well suited as oposed to video game ratings.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. More often than not, video games get HIGHER what they deserve, not lower. (Case in point: Super Smash Bros Melee. Barely a PG rating, but it got a T for Teen. This was before the "E10+" rating was invented). Even some (SOME) M games have violence that's almost of a PG-13 level.

Movies, on the other hand, tend to sneak in things under the radar. Like, you can now see an F-bomb in a PG-13 movie (For example, Bruce Almighty). Or the violence in some G-rated cartoons (Lion King--which I love, by the way, but it's pretty graphic/scary at parts). Movie ratings are much worse than video games. The ERSB does a really good job of labeling games appropriately (with only two mistep--Oblivion's re-rating is stupid, the game doesn't have any nudity in it, dispite what the box says, and while GTA was bad, the game was ALREADY rated M--the developers just should've done a better job of taking that code out. Their fault, not the ESRB's fault), but I don't take the MPAA's ratings at face value.

[Nate]

The ERSB does a really good job of labeling games appropriately (with only two mistep--Oblivion's re-rating is stupid, the game doesn't have any nudity in it, dispite what the box says, and while GTA was bad, the game was ALREADY rated M--the developers just should've done a better job of taking that code out. Their fault, not the ESRB's fault), but I don't take the MPAA's ratings at face value.

Congress would disagree with your statement about the ESRB doing a good job. Actually, the ESRB has come under fire because of the accusation that they rate games improperly. Games such as Harvester, Soldier of Fortune and Manhunt have shown gruesome violence, yet only got the M rating, which is supposed to be the entertainment software equivalent of the R rating. Many critics have claimed that these games deserve the AO rating, which would be equivalent to an NC-17 rating. Movies have gotten NC-17 ratings purely for violence, yet the ESRB refuses to give games an AO rating unless it has sexual content.

Oblivion's re-rating, as discussed on CAA, was more than likely because of the nude patch, which is ridiculous...a game shouldn't be re-rated based on user created content. However, those who HAVE played Oblivion have admitted that the game was underrated because of the violence level.

GTA was a mess, mostly because Rockstar was irresponsible and tried to claim it wasn't their fault, even though it clearly was. Seriously...how gullible do you think people are when you claim that a disc-based game is modified?

[MorwenLaicoriel]

Frankly, I don't much care for what Congress thinks. Most of the members who have brought it up are, I think, just trying to get votes by building people's histeria and trying to convince them that there's a "serious problem" that needs "fixing" or "Your eight year olds will turn into cold blooded killers!" (This sounds like I'm exaggerating--but I'm using this example because a policiain in the recent election here used an add showing 6-10 year old kids holding boxes of GTA while promising to "save your families from violent video games")

GTA, for example, was blown out of proportion. Was the content that Rockstar failed to take out of the game horrible? It certainly was. But the content that Rockstar ALREADY had in the game was horrible. If parents were only disturbed by that one mini-game, but didn't mind their children playing the game with the rest of the violent and sexual content in it, there's a problem. That game was already not for children. Any adult who gave a child that game is irresponsible.

Oblivion is borderline, I think--I think the reason it managed to get a T rating is because the blood (from what I can remember) is hardly there. I agree that the violence does send it into M territory--if only because it's possible to harm innocent victims as well as criminals.

Yes, there are some M rated games that deserve an AO, but how often do you REALLY hear about movies getting an NC-17 only for violence? Video games are in the same boat movies are--if they get rated that, they aren't given wide releases (most major retail chains refuse to carry AO games). A problem, yes, but a problem the MPAA also has. You can't use that example to say movie ratings are better, because the same example applies to them.

[Nate]

Oh, I didn't mean to say that movie ratings were good and game ratings were bad. XD;; Sorry if it came off that way. What I was trying to say is that both sides are flawed, but in my opinion, the game industry ratings are more flawed than the movie ratings, and here's why:

For a movie, it's simple. The MPAA watches the movie and judges the content. Their judgements are not perfect, but they at least know all the content in the movie. If the system fails, it fails in one step, and by the opinion of the MPAA.

For a game, it's harder. The ESRB can't possibly play every part of every game that comes out, so what happens is this. The makers of the game are supposed to take a video of the most offensive content and show it to the ESRB, who then makes a decision on the rating. See the problem? The system can fail at two steps instead of just one, and it has. Rockstar didn't show the most offensive content (the Hot Coffee mod), and that's why that was such a big deal. They were irresponsible in their representation. For Oblivion it was a bit different, it was a failure on the part of the judges.

Movie ratings do fail, but in my opinion they fail less often than games, because there is only one step to fail at, whereas there is two in gaming. I'm reminded of Mega Man 7 for the SNES; in Shade Man's stage Bass teleports in and says the d-word. Yet the game was rated E. Probably the ESRB said, "It's a Mega Man game, it can't possibly have any offensive content." So the system lends itself to irresponsibility more than the movie system.

If parents were only disturbed by that one mini-game, but didn't mind their children playing the game with the rest of the violent and sexual content in it, there's a problem.

For some reason violence tends to be glossed over in society today. Violence is seen as "not a big deal" whereas nudity and sex are. Even in this thread, if you read back some posts. I include myself in that statement, but I mean, even look at the entertainment board here. We have people that watch Saw, which is a horribly violent movie, but most people don't bat an eye (or just say "This isn't my kind of movie"), yet if someone were to post a thread about a movie with tons of sex, I'd bet a lot of people here would go, "You shouldn't watch that."

I'm not really defending or attacking anyone here. I just think it's interesting to note. So the Hot Coffee mod in GTA was a big deal because of the mentality that violence is okay but sex is not. Should it be that way? Probably not. But that's the reality of the situation.

Any adult who gave a child that game is irresponsible.

Agreed, but if you look at it in terms of movie ratings, it makes more sense. An M-rated game (which most GTA games are) is the equivalent of an R-rated movie. Read the fine print for an R-rated movie and it says "No one under 17 admitted without parent or guardian." I would bring up a point here concerning a certain movie, but I know that could spark a lot of debate, so I'll go with a better one. Schindler's List. That was an R-rated movie, yet lots of kids went to go see it.

It's not a perfect analogy, I admit, given that Schindler's List was in no way promoting or glorifying violence (quite the opposite, really). Still, it's an R-rated movie, which makes it acceptable for 12, 13 year olds to see if they have a legal adult present.

Given that, an M-rated game is much the same, and while I do not support parents buying it for their children, when you look at it like a movie rating it makes sense, they have given their permission for their child to view/play said item.

[Reba]

Give five recent examples, please.



I don't think as far as viewing it goes, it really matters if they're married or not. In a movie, if they show it happen, it's just as bad if they were or weren't married.

I don't watch Movies that often Tom I am usaully working,


You also must take this into consideration,They probably arent really married in Ral life,They really shoulden't show that kind of "Stuff" In movies.

[Tenshi no Ai]

For some reason violence tends to be glossed over in society today. Violence is seen as "not a big deal" whereas nudity and sex are. Even in this thread, if you read back some posts. I include myself in that statement, but I mean, even look at the entertainment board here. We have people that watch Saw, which is a horribly violent movie, but most people don't bat an eye (or just say "This isn't my kind of movie"), yet if someone were to post a thread about a movie with tons of sex, I'd bet a lot of people here would go, "You shouldn't watch that."

I have a couple thoughts on this...

First off, as far as Canadian ratings go, the more violence something has, the higher the rating goes up, usually despite sexual content and bad language. Oh, and thinking now with the comment of bad words being inserted into PG-13 movies, try PG ones! Just saw Employee of the Month and it's PG (Canadian) and whoa! They said just about everything on there! Austin Powers here is even PG and has... well, self-explanitory :/ stuff in it.

My opinion on violence, is that it really isn't that bad as to watching sexual content. Since you used CAA as an example, I'm not surprised with everyone's Christian morals (not to say people can't handle watching violent things though). But, despite what the media says, I think that violence can't really be too bad too watch, unless your tempted to go out and do what they did :/ I mean, guess it can be the same idea as if one were to watch a show with occult stuff in it. Although people's ideas vary alot on it, unless they are to go out and practice that magic and all, you know? But with sexual stuff in a movie, it's a little different. Especially because it's the one thing that can be the easiest to help a person stumble, and in many cases, alot of that stuff shouldn't even be viewed by anyone, really. Although once again, ideas on that (being such a wide-subject, from minor crude content to other things) can be viewed differently from person to person.

A bit of a ramble there (couldn't really find the proper wording^^), but do you know what I mean?

[Nate]

Yeah, I know what you mean. XD And I admit you do have a point, but, well...for the sake of gaining more opinions on this subject, I'll delve a little deeper.

You're right in that violence in movies, for the most part, doesn't cause people to sin as much as nudity might. Still, what situations require movies to have a lot of violence? Well, there's zombie flicks. Those are usually pretty violent. I guess I can't say too much about those.

But what about realistic movies? Lots of violence, blood...comes from people murdering, or harming others. Now, it may not cause us to go out and want to kill someone. But when I watch, say, The Punisher (great film by the way, the newer one, not the Dolph Lundgren one XD), the storyline is that this guy is going out to seek revenge on the people that killed his entire family. So he goes out and kills 'em right back. Usually in not so pleasant methods.

Is this really so much more acceptable than a sex scene? I'm accepting this sinful act as entertainment; should I? What if I watch a sex scene and the woman is really ugly, so I have no lustful thoughts at all? Or what if it's a full frontal scene of some dude? I certainly wouldn't have any lustful thoughts over that. Is it okay then?

Do you see what I'm getting at? As I said, I watch a lot of violent movies and I'm okay with it, but my point is, should I really be okay with it? Is it really not as bad as sex/nudity, even if I don't sin? That's kind of what I'm getting at.

[Radical Dreamer]

Just saw Employee of the Month and it's PG (Canadian) and whoa! They said just about everything on there! Austin Powers here is even PG and has... well, self-explanitory :/ stuff in it.

Whoa, that is pretty messed up. Here, PG movies can be considered "child safe", for the most part (though more for children that are somewhat older). And regarding PG-13 films with language in them, I've noticed quite a few PG-13 movies these days that drop the "F-bomb" (Bruce Almighty, Anchorman, etc.). I used to think that word automatically constituted an R rating, but I guess it depends on the number of times they say it, now. :/

Do you see what I'm getting at? As I said, I watch a lot of violent movies and I'm okay with it, but my point is, should I really be okay with it? Is it really not as bad as sex/nudity, even if I don't sin? That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I'm pretty much the same way with my movies--I can handle violence to a certain degree, but sexual content usually means I'm hitting the skip-scene button on the DVD remote. XD I think the main reason as to why most people in our culture think this way is because sexual content is still pretty taboo, while violence is seen as more...I dunno, culturally acceptable, I guess. I mean, you've got little kids growing up on TMNT and Power Rangers, which are both violent shows. But, in any normal household, you'd practically never find a parent allowing their 5-year old to watch a movie with high sexual content. Not that the acceptability of violence is a particularly good thing, but I can't really give a full explanation of why that is, other than that it's just a cultural thing. XD