Violence and sex and movie ratings

[nclib]

Option 1 for me.

[David S]

I don't know that I agree with the term "more restrictive". I would just say that maybe there can be a rating system which gives some idea  of the material that is presented. Then people can decide whether they want to see it or not.

[MaC]

Violence is definitely more prevelant-though only in context.  For example, it's only males that are the targets of violence in movies.  I would say that sexuality isn't bad at all, but the puritanical nature of this country is something that makes people feel insecure about sex, and thus it isn't portrayed.

[Everett]

I don't believe that one should be more restricted than the other. I generally disagree with the notion of movie ratings. Just provide basic warnings of what potentially offensive material films may contain and leave it at that.

[KEmperor]

I support violent sex in movies.

[MaC]

I support violent sex in movies.

lame.  Sexy violence is better.

[KEmperor]

I support violent sex in movies.

lame.  Sexy violence is better.

That's just foreplay.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I don't believe that one should be more restricted than the other. I generally disagree with the notion of movie ratings. Just provide basic warnings of what potentially offensive material films may contain and leave it at that.

Exactly.

Most {Commerical} movie violence is cartoon violence anyway; so I doubt it could offend anyone who hasn't the life the most sheltered life.

[adam]

Write-In: Neither.

[David S]

I don't believe that one should be more restricted than the other. I generally disagree with the notion of movie ratings. Just provide basic warnings of what potentially offensive material films may contain and leave it at that.

Well I guess I agree with that, but I thought that's what the ratings were for.

[Citizen James]

Well, which one would traumatize your kids more - a bare breast or seeing someone shot.  Simulated sex or a simulated disembowelment?

The idea of a rating is to give parents a tool to determine if the movie is appropriate to bring their children to.  It would be nice if they provided a bit more information (like the video game ratings do) as to why the rating is what it is.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Neither

[opebo]

There should be no ratings or censorship.  That said, no sex act is as disturbing to me as violence.

[Frodo]

Violence is more disturbing by light years than any sex scene could ever be. 

[Frodo]

Violence is more disturbing by light years than any sex scene could ever be. 

---------------------------

I still haven't changed my mind.

Preferably none, but if I had to choose which I would least want my kids to see, then Option 1.  I can see more harm coming from kids who can't distinguish between the fantasy they see in a movie theater, and reality when they try to reenact them with real weapons, than if they were to see a naked woman on screen. 

[nclib]

I don't believe that one should be more restricted than the other. I generally disagree with the notion of movie ratings. Just provide basic warnings of what potentially offensive material films may contain and leave it at that.

Exactly.

Most {Commerical} movie violence is cartoon violence anyway; so I doubt it could offend anyone who hasn't the life the most sheltered life.

Even real violence is more accepted on television/movies than sex/nudity. Compare reactions to Janet Jackson's bare breast in the 2004 Super Bowl versus a brawl breaking out on live television.

[Earth]

There should be no ratings or censorship.  That said, no sex act is as disturbing to me as violence.

Opebo said it right.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The problem is that the rating system is not from the government. I find it rather amusing how so many seem to think it is.