 |
Lonelygirl15
Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tannhaus
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ziola wrote: | Unfortunately, sometimes these forays off topic also get slightly "off-color" and inappropriate and since we are constantly being reminded that there are younger children coming here and that this is a PG/PG-13 they try to keep things moderately clean(ish  ). |
See....this is what confuses me. First, the MPAA explanation of PG:
This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.
and then the MPAA explanation of PG13:
PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents, particularly when deciding which movies are not suitable for younger children. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children. A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year-olds and younger to attend. If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.
PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children and moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can make. Its purpose is to give pre-screened informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.
Now, in both of these instances, these are things you would not want kids to see without supervision, according to the MPAA. So, it's not like something you'd read aloud in church (Well, you might in mine if you so desired...but that's a different story).
But, let's be realistic and look at the lonelygirl videos. We've got the use of epogen for someone who doesn't have a prescription and probably doesn't need it. Even though that is not a normal illicit drug, it could be considered drug use. It might get an R rating.
Next, we have instances of people killing each other. We have an order hunting down people, kidnapping them, killing them, loading the bodies into the trunk...this is all pretty violent stuff.
So, it's ok to be violent and spend your time obsessing over who is killing who...but then it's wrong to talk about sex? Talk about hunting someone down, setting their building on fire and killing them....but for god's sake, don't talk about having sex with your girlfriend over the nice bonfire!
I'm not complaining...I'm just saying it's pretty twisted that somehow violence, abuse and grief is more approved for children than sex, love and enjoyment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spaciegirlreturn
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2767
Location: Jupiter
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a difference between fictional (not to mention un-graphic) "violent" events occuring and unfolding in an entertainment series and sharing real-life, personal, explicit sexual "stories" with a group of people that most likely includes minors. For one thing...and I would think this is a pretty major thing, there is no "fourth wall". I'm sure sex will eventually be addressed in this series, but the way it will be done will probably be similar to the way violence is being alluded to/ portrayed/ included.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spaciegirlreturn wrote: | | There's a difference between fictional (not to mention un-graphic) "violent" events occuring and unfolding in an entertainment series and sharing real-life, personal, explicit sexual "stories" with a group of people that most likely includes minors. For one thing...and I would think this is a pretty major thing, there is no "fourth wall". I'm sure sex will eventually be addressed in this series, but the way it will be done will probably be similar to the way violence is being alluded to/ portrayed/ included. |
Well, if you're talking about the porn thread that was locked (or maybe you aren't...but I'll use it as an example)...no one really got graphic in it. There was talk of sexual acts, but nothing terribly descriptive. There were no "point by point plays". The conversation stayed at what I'd consider a reasonable level...especially for a post that has porn in the title. A key part of the "PG" and "PG13" ratings IS parental guidance. I'm sure no parent would be confused as to whether they would or not want their kids reading a thread if it has porn in the title.
I really think it was no more descriptive than the descriptions of violence in the series. In both it was a "these things happened but we're not going to show you" deal.
I just find it really disheartening that violence is seen as more acceptable to show young people. A lot of people wouldn't think twice about buying their kids toy guns, but they'd freak if they found out the doll they bought was anatomically correct. That's just a really screwed up society.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spaciegirlreturn
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2767
Location: Jupiter
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the general public's standards are something that needs to be taken into account when posting because this is a public forum. And, the nature of this series attracts kids so I think kids should be able to come in the forum and not be exposed to certain things....plus, like I said the "fourth wall" thing is a big deal when it comes to "exposure". That's just my opinion. So far, the violence in the series hasn't been over the top..according to me. It would be hard to be a parent and monitor this kind of thing. And the porn thread was a bad idea, in general as far as I'm concerned.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Taig
Enthusiastic Fan
Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 373
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tannhuas and Spaciegirl you might fall out of your chairs but I have the feeling you are not too far apart on this issue. In fact you may be right in line. An I think - that is I think - I am with you both on this.
I 'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong.
Here are my thoughts on it..and hopefully they still "Thread the Needle"
It absolutely boggles the mind to ponder why the MPAA feels that exposing young people to incredible violence is better or safer than exposing them to sex and harsh language.
I'll make no pretense to call sex in the movies "lovemaking", "tender acts" or anything like that.
Still, it would seem that it's ok to rip someones insides out and spread them across the summer cabin but don't dare get caught f*cking.
(Incidentally, I REALLY wanted to use the whole word just to make the point but thought it might stir up so much dust it would actually divert people from the point. So we end up with a ridiculous litttle piece of self-censorship substituting a * for the letter "u")
It seems to be the rule of any good slasher that any one who takes their bra off, is a sure candidate for the long knife.
Frankly I would rather my kids saw a naked attached breast, nipple and all, than a dismembered one. No matter what their age.
Now we come to the art of film making and story telling. Any shlub can make a porn or slasher film. It just aint that hard. It is art when you can relate the acts of sex and violence for the sake of the story without just throwing flesh and blood on the screen.
and from there we bounce to Ziola's comment:
| Quote: | | Unfortunately, sometimes these forays off topic also get slightly "off-color" and inappropriate and since we are constantly being reminded that there are younger children coming here and that this is a PG/PG-13 they try to keep things moderately clean(ish ). |
I think Ziola you are a parent. I am. That said...
I'm sorry, but watching out for the kiddies in an internet forum is not my (our?) job. No offense but a little self-discipline and concern for others is the best I can offer. I think it is as it is with anything else they are/can be exposed to...It is the parents resposibility to monitor their childrens activities, protect them and try to expplain why there are so many crazies out there.
Finally, Beckers, you dear sweet sensitive girl...
| Beckers wrote: | I would just like to say that I think BK is doing a great job as moderator and I feels his explainations, on the most part, are pretty clear.
Plus I find he is usually the first one to take care of any major problems. |
It seems you always have a kind word or a soft voice when a thread becomes volatile. Be cool, don't worry. If anyones feelings get hurt in here it's because they aren't tryng hard enough to persue a higher level of debate or they just don't get it.
This has nothing to do with BK, or any other moderator in particular. It does however, have something to do with "taking care if any major problems". The cruxt of the conversation is "what constitutes a major problem?
Allow me to leave with a New Years wish for you all:
'Go mbeire muid beo ar an am seo arís.
(May we be alive at this time next year.)
and In the New Year, may your right hand always be stretched out in friendship but never in want.
Slainte! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spaciegirlreturn
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2767
Location: Jupiter
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the smileys are the rules, encoded graphically.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Broken Kid
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 5276
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spaciegirlreturn wrote: | | I think the smileys are the rules, encoded graphically. |
_________________
President of the Owen Fan Club |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Taig wrote: | It absolutely boggles the mind to ponder why the MPAA feels that exposing young people to incredible violence is better or safer than exposing them to sex and harsh language.
I'll make no pretense to call sex in the movies "lovemaking", "tender acts" or anything like that.
Frankly I would rather my kids saw a naked attached breast, nipple and all, than a dismembered one. No matter what their age. |
Totally and thoroughly agreed. I think you got the point I was making...as a matter of fact, I tried to include "sex, love and enjoyment" to sort of include all reasons people might be naked and penetrating...it could be love...it could be simply because you enjoy it...
The point to me about sex isn't that sex is love. Sex is NOT love. Sex is an act. You do sex...you feel love. One isn't required for the other.
But, at least in my little world, sex is nothing to be ashamed of. Nudity is nothing to be ashamed of. Just because some Christians way back when decided that the bodies should be covered up and sex should be hidden doesn't necessarily make it so. The nude body and sex are just about as natural as you can get. They're nothing to be ashamed of. There's nothing inherently taboo about it.
I personally don't see any reason why kids should not be exposed to sex..except from a legal standpoint. I think the fact we've made the human body and the sexual act so taboo is part of the reason for many problems (in society and the individual) that we have today.
As far as little kids seeing sex or nudity....well, they're not sexual beings. They attach no particular importance to their sexual organs. Pornography might raise questions for a child, but they're not going to become aroused or anything. Most likely, they'd just be confused as to what the hell's going on...or think that one person is hurting the other...which brings us up to the big point:
Society..or at least our society...thinks it's ok to show kids adults hurting each other. Kids get to see adults fighting and killing each other. But, they don't get to see adults enjoying each other. It's one sided: death...harm...pain....but not tenderness..pleasure...beauty.
I think that's incredibly sick and twisted. Violence is more socially acceptable than sex. We're taught to be ashamed of our bodies...ashamed of the function of our bodies...but that, at least on some level, resorting to violence is acceptable.
I personally have, at least to a large extent I'd hope, destroyed that taboo in my own psyche. I talk about sex without thinking "oh, I'm saying something taboo". It's natural...and it's only artificial conventions that make it something else. Yes, it offends some people. While I'm sorry that they're offended, I don't apologize for not oppressing myself in a way that would make my actions implausible. I think it's better for the person and for society in general if we destroy the sexual taboos and just accept it as natural and normal.
I know...I'm going off topic a bit and into a rant....sorry. But, the thing is...it's not just the MPAA. The MPAA is merely taking the actions they think are acceptable to society as a whole. The MPAA, in this instance, is merely a mirror of the society that it attempts to cater to.
Our society has classes on martial arts, boxing, and all sorts of violent/martial activities. But, when is the last time you saw a sign advertising "Sex classes" in your town? Why? Hitting someone is acceptable. Having sex with them is shameful.
Then there is the fact that somehow "PG"..parental guidance...means something should be safe for kids. Ummm...why is "parental" in the phrase at all if it should be safe without a parent deciding? If you go up to a parent and say "Your child is doing this and I don't think they should" then the parent will yell "Don't tell me how to raise MY kid!" yet, they expect you to raise their kid. They expect society to cater to their children. The content shouldn't be viewed by kids? Fine...don't let YOUR kids view it. But, other parents may not agree. Plus, adults might want to view the content.
I'm not saying that this forum should somehow rise above this. I'm saying the fact this is even an issue at all is what is screwed up. No one is saying "HEY! Tachyon is talking about killing Gemma! OpAphid killed Bree's dad! What the hell?! I don't want my kids seeing violence!" No...instead, the uproar is "What's with this talk about sex?! What is with this profanity?! I don't want my kid seeing this! Johnny....go watch that nice movie about the mob bumping that drug dealer off instead..."
It's TOTALLY screwed. It's unhealthy to the extreme....and hence, why we have the societal problems we do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spaciegirlreturn
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2767
Location: Jupiter
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't make the rules, but there are rules. My point is, there are taboos and they aren't going to just vanish. And while you may believe in everything you just said, everyone else doesn't and shouldn't have to.
Even saying that sex is not love and is an act...implying that the act is not neccessarily connected to love is not something everyone would agree on and is a highly personal matter for people. Just saying. You may be right according to the dictionary..or a biology book, but that is not how everyone defines such things. And you may think that is illogical or just wrong, but you can't tell other people how to think.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spaciegirlreturn wrote: | I don't make the rules, but there are rules. My point is, there are taboos and they aren't going to just vanish. And while you may believe in everything you just said, everyone else doesn't and shouldn't have to.
*snip*
And you may think that is illogical or just wrong, but you can't tell other people how to think. |
Actually you can. It's people's right to believe what they wish, but if a person sees something harmful or immoral going on, it's his right to speak up against it and conduct his life in a way that he considers more proper. For instance, environmentalism, racism, women's suffrage, etc.
There are norms, yes. But, that doesn't mean they don't change or can't be changed. Look how women were viewed 50 years ago. Was that the norm? Yes. Was it how people thought? Yes. Was it harmful? Yes. So people spoke up and changed things. They're still changing.
It's like a quote from Gandhi:
| Quote: | | You should be the change that you want to see in the world. |
or one from Margaret Mead:
| Quote: | | Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
If people just accept something wrong as the norm, they do a benefit to no one. No, I can't make people agree, but I can live my life and profess my beliefs...confront them with it, and give them a chance to think about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spaciegirlreturn
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2767
Location: Jupiter
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I guess you can, technically, tell people how to think...but you'd look like a di*k doing so. I think we both know that I was not suggesting that simply becuase something is a "norm", it should/has to remain that way.
There are obviously certain things that are facts..but when you start talking about things like ethics, morals, religion, child rearing, love..etc. people's "definitions" and ideas about stuff vary. Of course people should express their opinions and discuss ideas with others..and even make suggestions when appropriate, but it's my personal opinion that no one should be so self-righteous that they think their beliefs are the right beliefs. They may be right for you but not everyone.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spaciegirlreturn wrote: | | There are obviously certain things that are facts..but when you start talking about things like ethics, morals, religion, child rearing, love..etc. people's "definitions" and ideas about stuff vary. Of course people should express their opinions and discuss ideas with others..and even make suggestions when appropriate, but it's my personal opinion that no one should be so self-righteous that they think their beliefs are the right beliefs. They may be right for you but not everyone. |
Ok...so you're basically showing your support for me?
As far as "right" beliefs, there are some things that could be considered right...you shouldn't own other people...you shouldn't discriminate...etc. because these things cause harm. The same with certain taboos because they cause psychological harm. So, we can agree that if something causes harm to people, it's a generally bad thing?
But, it seems that you're agreeing with me that it's the individual's right to speak out in other cases as well, have his opinion heard, and let people decide....but that individual has a right to live according to his own beliefs...as long as he's not harming others.
So thanks for agreeing with me, I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spaciegirlreturn
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2767
Location: Jupiter
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think some types of discrimination (all different kinds of it- not just racial) are natural so arguments in favor of it could be made.
I think you said a mouthful with "considered right". I'm not sure if I can honestly agree that things that harm people are wrong..it depends on a lot of factors....like fate could be a factor....or even faith...humilty..divine intervention..a lot of things. Personally, there are things that I definitely consider right and those I consider wrong but not everyone would agree with me. And yes, I know that is a pain in the ass answer, but it's true.
I loosely agree.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luv2Skydive
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 2766
Location: Dropzone
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tannhaus wrote: | So, we can agree that if something causes harm to people, it's a generally bad thing?
|
REAL harm or perceived harm? If someone says they are harmed by something, does that make it so, or is that their point of view, and if my point of view is that it doesn't cause harm, who's right? 
_________________
LG15 needs more COWBELL!
http://www.youtube.com/luv2skydive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spaciegirlreturn
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2767
Location: Jupiter
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luv2Skydive wrote: | | REAL harm or perceived harm? If someone says they are harmed by something, does that make it so, or is that their point of view, and if my point of view is that it doesn't cause harm, who's right? |
yeah...there's another problem.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
