NationStates Jolt Archive

A thread in moderation sparked a bit of debate about what is and what is not PG-13. The definition of PG-13 and the creation of it mostly deals with violence and foul language, so it brings up what about sexuality counts as PG-13.

I personally think that it's limited to pervasive sexuality or graphic sexuality, but I searched the MPAA site to find out more. Here is a list of movies that have gotten the rating.

http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/search/index.htm

Some movies of note are Memoirs of a Geisha, Aeon Flux and Rent. All of these deal with either controversial issues or quite of bit of either blatant or implied sexuality.

What do people think? What do you think of when you hear the term PG-13?

No, this is not specifically about the site rule of PG-13 content. I'm talking about the rating itself.

Two guys kissing...with tongues...to me does not exceed PG-13 ratings.

Anything beyond that...even dry humping...well, I suppose it depends on the context, but I figure that going beyond even extremely heaving kissing, is a bit beyond PG-13. Implied sexuality is fine as long as it mostly stays implied. The swearing should be minimal and the violence fairly non-graphic.

Two guys kissing...with tongues...to me does not exceed PG-13 ratings.

Anything beyond that...even dry humping...well, I suppose it depends on the context, but I figure that going beyond even extremely heaving kissing, is a bit beyond PG-13. Implied sexuality is fine as long as it mostly stays implied. The swearing should be minimal and the violence fairly non-graphic.

I'd say that I'd be comfortable with just about anything that would acceptable on prime-time TV, though even that seems to be getting a little racy.

Side-note: I find it amazing that we make a huge deal out of seeing a nipple but can basically show teenagers having sex with their clothes on. Which is more dangerous, promoting teenage sex or *gasp* letting them see the nude form? (feel free to extend the conversation to what should and should not be acceptable for teenagers to view and for public prime-time television)

We should just get rid of the age limits. If a 2 year-old wants to go see porn, I say "Why not?" After all, we're all gonna have to learn about it sooner or later...

I'd say that I'd be comfortable with just about anything that would acceptable on prime-time TV, though even that seems to be getting a little racy.

Side-note: I find it amazing that we make a huge deal out of seeing a nipple but can basically show teenagers having sex with their clothes on. Which is more dangerous, promoting teenage sex or *gasp* letting them see the nude form?

The rating system is kind of stupid anyway...you need to judge the movie yourself on a case by case basis to determine if it's appropriate for you...or your kids. There have even been G-rated movies that I thought were a bit too scary for my girls...and ones rated PG-13 that I felt were FINE for toddlers.

We should just get rid of the age limits. If a 2 year-old wants to go see porn, I say "Why not?" After all, we're all gonna have to learn about it sooner or later...
Sure. The caveat being that your 2 year old has to get a job to earn the rental fees.

Sure. The caveat being that your 2 year old has to get a job to earn the rental fees.

Yeah, basically. :p

Like most people, I believe censorship is wrong. Nothing should be censored and there should no rating system.

The rating system is stupid in many areas (most of which are to do with the higher ratings, so I won't mention them here).

Language should NOT be much of an issue. Honestly, do the censors believe that 12 year olds go around at school saying "Oh blow!" or even "Poot!"?

The rating system is stupid in many areas (most of which are to do with the higher ratings, so I won't mention them here).

Language should NOT be much of an issue. Honestly, do the censors believe that 12 year olds go around at school saying "Oh blow!" or even "Poot!"?Ah, but there is a difference between an exclamation, and a suggestion. Just think of the various uses of the f word. Some are sexual in nature, and some are not. The context of the use makes a big difference.

Like most people, I believe censorship is wrong. Nothing should be censored and there should no rating system. I don't think most people DO believe that...else there would be a big push to repeal the rating system.

I'd like to see it as a GUIDE. I'd be pretty choked if I had to accompany my kid to a movie I was fine with them seeing without me.

I suppose anything that was shown on NYPD Blue would be PG-13 and anything beyond it is an R rating.

I suppose anything that was shown on NYPD Blue would be PG-13 and anything beyond it is an R rating.
I don't know about these ratings...I mean...prime time tv, Jocabia, you said you'd be fine with that but hell, I can't even watch some scenes from CSI, and I certainly don't want my kids seeing them. I don't care what the show is rated, viewer discretion advised and all that...even if they said it was hunky dory I'd avoid letting my kids watch people get their throats slashed, or their guts pulled out by a coroner.

we dont have PG-13 here in AU. we have:
G
PG
M 15+ (recomended)
MA 15+ (restricted, unless with an adult)
R 18+
RC (refused classification)

I don't know about these ratings...I mean...prime time tv, Jocabia, you said you'd be fine with that but hell, I can't even watch some scenes from CSI, and I certainly don't want my kids seeing them. I don't care what the show is rated, viewer discretion advised and all that...even if they said it was hunky dory I'd avoid letting my kids watch people get their throats slashed, or their guts pulled out by a coroner.

CSI isn't for the weak of stomach! :D I don't know how old your kids are but I don't think many movies would deal with autopsies and if they did they wouldn't go into the detail that CSI does as the autopsy scenes are part of the show. I can certainly understand not letting them see that though.

CSI isn't for the weak of stomach! :D I don't know how old your kids are but I don't think many movies would deal with autopsies and if they did they wouldn't go into the detail that CSI does as the autopsy scenes are part of the show. I can certainly understand not letting them see that though.
It's the only part about the show I don't like...when they get too graphic. I often hold the remote over my face because I don't want to see it:) But I love the show anyway!

well, here is something dodgy for ya:
when it was released in 1995, the australian ratings board rated Seven as R 18+. fast forward to last year, and this year, Saw and Saw II, both of which to me seem way worse than Seven both got the MA 15+ rating. i will admit, 10 years ago they didnt have the MA rating, but still, if this is to go by, Seven would really be M 15+.... go figure

Like most people, I believe censorship is wrong. Nothing should be censored and there should no rating system.

The rating system is not censorship. The majority of people realize that experience is necessary in order to make good decisions. The rating system allows parents to look at the rating system (if done well) and are able to adequately decide if their child is mature enough to drink in the movie and process it. If properly employed, this saves parents from having to watch every show and every movie before their children do. Of course, I would still encourage parents to watch these shows with their children in order to help them process the information offered in a show.

I don't know about these ratings...I mean...prime time tv, Jocabia, you said you'd be fine with that but hell, I can't even watch some scenes from CSI, and I certainly don't want my kids seeing them. I don't care what the show is rated, viewer discretion advised and all that...even if they said it was hunky dory I'd avoid letting my kids watch people get their throats slashed, or their guts pulled out by a coroner.

Yeah, that's a good point. However, your children are a lot younger than 13. I would let my child watch ER or CSI. I don't mind shows that deal with subjects in a responsible manner (although, I don't think CSI handles things as maturely as they should). I do take issue with the fact that shows that act like all teenagers drink and have sex (I did neither until I was seventeen and then only drinking), and yet somehow I'm supposed to freak out that a nipple pops out on live TV. Hell, the song was more sexual than the millisecond exposure of a boob that nobody would have noticed if prudes hadn't made such a big deal about it.

Seriously, what's more dangerous a show that glamorizes teen drug use and sex or seeing a boob or a man's genitals? It's annoying. Parents act like it's nudity that is causing the massive increase in sexuality in their children. I simply don't agree. I think it's the lack of responsible parenting. Hell, if we made nudity commonplace nobody'd even be curious about seeing their first breast or penis or whatever. We encourage children to desperately trying to see what Mary Jane's got under her shirt by telling them that it's something that's so overwhelming erotic that they aren't old enough to handle it. Then we show them shows that suggest every other teenager is doing it.

It was bad enough when I was a teenager and thought everyone else was (when in actuality very few were) when television acted like all kids where angels. Now, I see children who aren't even teenagers yet thinking they're behind the curve because they aren't sleeping around. My nephew got offered his first bj when he was 11.

Am I saying that censoring television is the answer. No. Not really. But I do think that we need to discourage the glamorization of things that have the potential to destroy our children. Yes, destroy. My cousin has a much harder life because she became a drug addict at fourteen and had a baby at sixteen. Are her parents to blame? YES. But as a society what do we expect when we have tons of shows and movies glamorizing the activities?

What's really funny is that if you look at different movies from different time periods, the qualifications for what makes a movie PG-13 or R changes dramatically. For example-in the early 80's, swearing wasn't as harshly regulated. You would have to say one of the two biggies (fuck or ****) for it to bump up a rating. There were even a few movies with brief nudity that only got a PG-13, whereas today, any nipple= R.
It all depends on who controls the FCC, if there were any high profile censorship issues (wardrobe malfunction), radio censorship (Howard Stern/Lex&Terry/Bubba the Love Sponge) and if the religious right has anything else on their plate at the moment to bitch about.

What's really funny is that if you look at different movies from different time periods, the qualifications for what makes a movie PG-13 or R changes dramatically. For example-in the early 80's, swearing wasn't as harshly regulated. You would have to say one of the two biggies (fuck or ****) for it to bump up a rating. There were even a few movies with brief nudity that only got a PG-13, whereas today, any nipple= R.
It all depends on who controls the FCC, if there were any high profile censorship issues (wardrobe malfunction), radio censorship (Howard Stern/Lex&Terry/Bubba the Love Sponge) and if the religious right has anything else on their plate at the moment to bitch about.
wow, that seems to be the oppsite of what way we are going, going by the example i gave before

Like most people, I believe censorship is wrong. Nothing should be censored and there should no rating system.
The rating system is not censorship. The majority of people realize that experience is necessary in order to make good decisions. The rating system allows parents to look at the rating system (if done well) and are able to adequately decide if their child is mature enough to drink in the movie and process it. If properly employed, this saves parents from having to watch every show and every movie before their children do. Of course, I would still encourage parents to watch these shows with their children in order to help them process the information offered in a show.

Amen. We had this discussion on an PBEM RPG I do and it was amazing what some of them thought PG-13 was. Rating systems are tools and nothing more. Rating something is not censorship. I thikn some stricter guidelines might need to be put into place to make the system less open to individual belief. Like say that brief nudity is any one instance of less than 3 seconds. Include Full Frontal Nudity, Upper Body Nudity, Implied Nudity and other things. Basically a rating with basis similar to the ones on games and music albums. With the movies all we ever see is "G", "R", or whatever. It doesn't really say why. Yeah just leave the video comercials or previews at the theater as a letter (it goes too fast to really read more then that) but all printed material can have it.

Nudity: Men can be naked from behind for any amount of time. Attractive women can be shown from behind for any time less than one second. Old or ugly woman can do whatever the fuck they want, besides showing their genitals (in PG, too). The ratings are about sex and violence, not general bad taste.

At least that's what I've seen. But I don't watch too many movies. And the whole thing's very inconsistent.

I thikn some stricter guidelines might need to be put into place to make the system less open to individual belief. Like say that brief nudity is any one instance of less than 3 seconds. Include Full Frontal Nudity, Upper Body Nudity, Implied Nudity and other things. Basically a rating with basis similar to the ones on games and music albums. With the movies all we ever see is "G", "R", or whatever. It doesn't really say why.

Well for many this isn't even enough. You have dumbshits like Hilary Clinton and Jack Thompson attacking the video game industry and ESRB even though they specifically spell out, on the back of each game, what is included in the game itself.

It's irresponsible parenting...a mother cannot buy her young child an M rated game or an R rated movie and then get up in arms when she witnesses the content of the media she bought.

Amen. We had this discussion on an PBEM RPG I do and it was amazing what some of them thought PG-13 was. Rating systems are tools and nothing more. Rating something is not censorship. I thikn some stricter guidelines might need to be put into place to make the system less open to individual belief. Like say that brief nudity is any one instance of less than 3 seconds. Include Full Frontal Nudity, Upper Body Nudity, Implied Nudity and other things. Basically a rating with basis similar to the ones on games and music albums. With the movies all we ever see is "G", "R", or whatever. It doesn't really say why. Yeah just leave the video comercials or previews at the theater as a letter (it goes too fast to really read more then that) but all printed material can have it.

I think the MPAA or the video game rating group (forgot the name) should refer people to their websites where a detailed explanation can be found. Even on their site the explanation is limited and one must search out the movies in order to get a grasp on what the rating means.