For the second week in a row, I'm going to address a topic from my first post, mainly sexuality in our country. I'll get around to the actual meat of the issue later on, but for now, let me talk about how our country views it.
Let's start out by looking at how movies deal with it. Here are the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, the group of people who rate movies) ratings for two movies, namely Avatar and Love and Other Drugs (which I admit I've never seen, but researched for this post). Avatar received a PG-13 rating for " intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking", while the other receives an R rating for "strong sexual content, nudity, pervasive language, and some drug material."
Similar rulings exist in video games, as reactions to the ban of a California law banning the sale of any violent games to minors. This country has the attitude of the 17th century when it comes to nudity, but men ripping each other's faces off is okay to show to children.
I think the world needs to chill when it comes to nudity. People freaked out to a huge extent when one of Janet Jackson's breast was shown blurry on a small TV, but were okay with watching people get shot in movies like Inception.
To throw in a disclaimer, this isn't a four-year-old's fit when he can't watch a PG-13 movie. I, very recently, complained to my friend about Jennifer's Body, for being little more than an excuse for Megan Fox to take off her clothes. I support movies and video games, but can't support the ratings association that holds attitudes that might have been okay when arranged marriages were.
The ratings boards are trying to hold on to a little piece of yesterday in a world that is revolutionizing very fast. THe problem is, its not even a good part of yesterday. Hold on to like, Pulp Fiction, or something.
Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett
As usual you bring up a great point and strong support for your case. However, I think this article failed to outline the possible results and/or consequences from more lenient ratings. One of the most obvious (at least to myself) results of letting younger age groups watch sexual content, is the over sexualizing over our youth. Already today we see five year olds in pageants wearing clothes that is "suggestive" at the least, and with this, we might begin to teach kids how to put a condom on in fifth grade. I know, you are going to continue to argue this by pointing out that that same younger age group sees a lot of violence on TV and sexual content cannot possibly hurt them more then that. However, although that point is hard to dispute, I don't believe being more lenient on the ratings for sexual content is something that will be beneficial to society.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main reasons kids start engaging in sexual behavior at young ages is because we don't teach them enough about it. It is glorified in TV shows and movies, and they are eager to join the crowd and do it. I once watched a documentary which detailed the accounts of kids and Switzerland about sex. To them, it was just another part of life because they are taught about the good and the bad parts of it early on. Teaching fifth graders how to put a condom on isn't what I'm suggesting. But if these children know about these things earlier on, they might not need to know that because they can make their own choices. And as to the over-sexualization of our youth ( which I hope to address soon), it isn't the kids who pick out those clothes and tell themselves to girate like that.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I have to begin by complimenting your impressive style that is capable of silencing many arguments. However, I must begin with a clarification point. You state in the very first sentence that the reason kids engage in sexual behavior at younger ages is because they aren't taught enough about it. Yet, the amount of time spent in school discussing the subject of sex in the U.S. is much greater than in Europe. Perhaps it needs to be added that "we don't teach them enough about it through sources other than school." That being stated, I (personally) am against the whole prospect of teaching young age groups information that they can neither fully comprehend nor use properly. There is a reason why kindergartens don't teach Algebra. In the first case, a six year old can barely utilize simple logic and therefore the information would be disregarded. Plus, even when they begin using logic, all the educating about Algebra will be forgotten and in a need to be reinforced. As in Harry Potter's defense against the dark arts class (in the fifth book), what is the point of reading a boring book on how to cast spells without ever casting them. A young 10 year old has no need of knowing or learning about sex, unless of course it is expected that upon learning the new knowledge he will go out and use it in the field. In a second case that relates, there is a reason why you can't receive a license till your 18. Maybe a person feels as if they are ready to drive at fifteen, and perhaps they even know how. Still the experience which they lack, coupled with their unstable age, doesn't justify letting them drive. This all ties back to rating films with sexual content higher to prevent younger audiences from witnessing what they have no need (nor want)* of seeing. In the end, it is better to be safe then sorry.
ReplyDelete(I decided not to reiterate your point on oversexualization. as you say you will address this later.)
Sorry about the delay, but I'm going to break down your response and address it piece by piece.
ReplyDelete"the amount of time spent in school discussing the subject of sex in the U.S. is much greater than in Europe"
Perhaps I should have made this a little clearer. I want better education on sex at younger ages, not just more of the hogwash we have now. Nowadays, kids are getting a mixed message about sex. Mass media is all for it, and characters in TV shows and movies frequently engage in it because they have nothing better to do. On the other hand, the school system focuses on things like STIs and how sex is terrible (not said, but it doesn't really need to be). Kids don't know which is right, and with the tool known as the Internet, can find graphic and disgusting things with a click of a button. They need to be prepared for our world, the real world, not one where sex is only in the bedroom. In our world, it is EVERYWHERE.
"Harry Potter"
kudos, bro. But I will add that Harry and his friends had the wrong idea about that class. If Voldy wasn't active, the theory would have been enough. But Harry, impatient and easily bored, needed the flashy bang-bang.
"A young 10 year old has no need of knowing or learning about sex, unless of course it is expected that upon learning the new knowledge he will go out and use it in the field."
A kid doesn't NEED to know how to stop-drop-and-roll until he's on fire. A person doesn't need to know how to swim until they are drowning. A kid doesn't need to know about sex until he's having it? Hogwash!
"This all ties back to rating films with sexual content higher to prevent younger audiences from witnessing what they have no need (nor want)* of seeing. In the end, it is better to be safe then sorry."
See article #1, about how kids are treated too delicately and withheld from privy information based on how many times the sun has gone down since they flew out of....the birthing bed.
Well that was just a bunch pf hogwash.
ReplyDelete