Part of society’s implicit notion that LGBTQ is inherently sexual in a way that heterosexuality (or being cis) isn’t. Telling kids that some kids have A mommy and a daddy is fine, two daddies is a kink that shouldn’t be mentioned. Ok well it’s either all inherently sexual or none of it is.
Exactly!
Deviance from the norm must be exaggerated in order to be rejected, otherwise it might be mistaken for appealing by the population.
Well said.
This problem comes from gay men too. I have read a couple of times how gay men dont "announce" that they are gay, because whatever happenea in their bedroom is their business, as if being gay meant only getting dick in the bed. That's a mentality that is taught in our world.
The MPAA needs to go anyway.
Movie ratings are based off antiquated bullshit.
A system that discloses what's in the movie would be better. You see an R-rated movie and that doesn't really tell you anything about it. Is it R-rated because you see boobs one too many times? Or because someone says "Fuck" a few more times than is 'acceptable'? Or is it because two men kiss? Or is it because 3/4 of the movie is graphic torture?
If there were (for example) icons for each category of "objectionable" thing, that were color coded green / yellow / red based on how many instances of that there are / how severe it is, it would let parents make actual informed decisions about what they want their kids watching (and additionally, let adults make informed decisions about what they want to watch).
If they exposed the specific reasons for each rating, that would expose how arbitrary it all is.
At a point, it is going to be arbitrary regardless.
How long do they pan over the boob? Do you see nipple? Is man chest worse? Is military violence different from gang violence? Are drugs used or glorified?
Every question you'd ask in regards to rating a new film is entirely subjective, depending on what you view as acceptable.
Are drugs used or glorified?
Honestly this is a big one that isn't brought up enough. There's a huge difference between the drug use in, say, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Requiem for a Dream.
They do that for TV shows and I think it works out pretty well. Knowing that it's TV-MA because of language vs. TV-MA because of nudity or TV-MA because of violence is a big game changer for many parents.
Even switching to the same rating system as US TV would be a big step up.
PEGI already seems to do the system with showing what content there is
We have something like that in the Netherlands. It’s called “Kijkwijzer” (loosely translated as viewing guide) and has icons for sexual content, violence, drug/alcohol use, scary content, bullying/intimidation, etc. and age advisories.
Abolish ratings boards
I think there is a reasonable argument for "appropriate for young children," "appropriate for older children" and "appropriate for adults" as ratings. They don't have to be adhered to strictly or anything, but having had a young child, knowing if a film is G or PG can make a difference, not to mention PG or R.
Films should be thought provoking at times. "Whats that daddy/mommy?" Should often be a question asked after the movie ends. But it's gotta be in doses, you can't show a 6y/o kid all of the reasons a film is rated R all at once and expect them to process it enough to ask questions
It's all well and good until the rating board is populated with pearl-clutching prudes who think that LGBT is inherently adult content.
I'm not saying it's a perfect solution and I agree with you, I'm just saying we need a way for parents to know if their 6-year-old is going to be seeing people fucking and chopping each other's heads off before showing them to the movie.
they mention a long track record of harsher treatment of queer content but I wish they linked to that data or mentioned a couple comparisons for context.
A quick search finds this ... which states
The MPAA argues the constituency for its ratings system is parents in traditional families who may find queer themes inappropriate for their children. Paradoxically, a number of organizations serving adolescents identifying as LGBTQ or as questioning their sexualities have created lists of recommended films, many of whose MPAA ratings make them virtually off-limits to teens unless their parents approve.
edit to add link
If someone has institutional access to the research article linked pls share the info!
Yeah, the MPAA is a bunch of fundies.
Is there not a rigid criteria for this sort of thing?
There's guidelines, and according to the text above, the first movie followed them.
But someone has to apply the guidelines, and also what's fine or not changes over time. Something being rated R is ultimately an opinion.
It'd be cool if there were actual standards, or at least an appeals process so a movie isn't limited to just the first review if they feel it's not accurate.
according to the text above, the first movie followed them.
It sounds like there's a lot of gray area in there. That's where discrimination lives.
Films can be resubmitted, the South Park movie was submitted 6 times before the rating was dropped from NC-17 to R.
Oh, cool. Good to know.
There's a whole film about how arbitrary the MPAA rulings are called This Film Is Not Yet Rated, check it out
Ya, theyll get more views! I cant even count how many times ive seen Blue Is The Warmest Color.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.