Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2014, 09:43:14 PM
534145 Posts in 40409 Topics by 5067 Members
Latest Member: E1673
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence? « previous next »
Poll
Question: It is more acceptable for people under the age of 17 to watch:
Nudity (including full male and female frontal nudity)
Graphic violence and gore
Neither
I don't think anyone, regardless of their age should watch this stuff!
You'd do it for Randolph Scott!

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence?  (Read 1873 times)
Jack
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1042
Posts: 9486



« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2013, 07:51:10 AM »

As far as the MPAA is concerned, I imagine that stuff is all determined by behind-the-scenes political shenanigans which I don't even care to contemplate.  I'm sure though that if you were to take a look at the children of these MPAA members who are supposedly experts on what children should and should not see, you'd probably find they have no right to feign any knowledge of the subject.
Logged

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
The Burgomaster
Aggravating People Worldwide Since 1964
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 590
Posts: 7854



« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2013, 02:41:52 PM »

As far as the MPAA is concerned, I imagine that stuff is all determined by behind-the-scenes political shenanigans which I don't even care to contemplate.  I'm sure though that if you were to take a look at the children of these MPAA members who are supposedly experts on what children should and should not see, you'd probably find they have no right to feign any knowledge of the subject.


This movie goes down that road:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/?ref_=sr_1

Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."
Zapranoth
Eye of Sauron and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 138
Posts: 1164



« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2013, 03:08:08 PM »

    Morality aside, what ever happened to decorum? There was a time when a gentleman wouldn't look at such things, because gentlemen simply didn't.

     Also, while I can understand that a male will do a Tex Avery merely because a female exposes a body part, I don't think a MAN does. If is one thing to appreciate God's creation, and totally another to act like a glandular twit.

It was probably never so to begin with.   I mean, realistically, that sounds like a good ol' days argument (back when there was less child abuse, ya know, because it wasn't reported as often...)

I don't wanna derail, in this exceptionally amicable forum, into a big throwdown about legality and porn.  You can't legislate all kinds of good behavior.   But one sermon my lead pastor did a couple of years ago, in a series about marriage, featured a young woman who worked "in the industry" for many years.   It's a talk that is very worth listening to, because it's mostly what she has to say about what the industry is all about.   At one point, my pastor asked her how many of the girls she worked with had been abused in their past, or were being still abused.   The young woman said, with more credibility than I've ever heard anyone use, "all of them, I would say."

I'll find a link if anyone is curious to see that interview.

But there is absolutely no credible argument that porn is harmless.  It is not.  "The industry" is not harmless, and the people who put money into it, who patronize it, are not innocent of perpetuating the harm that this industry does.   Nor is porn harmless to the viewer.   Many are mislead into believing otherwise. 
Logged
zelmo73
Eater of Hobbits
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 43
Posts: 447


Bad day at the construction site


« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2013, 05:09:19 PM »

    Morality aside, what ever happened to decorum? There was a time when a gentleman wouldn't look at such things, because gentlemen simply didn't.

     Also, while I can understand that a male will do a Tex Avery merely because a female exposes a body part, I don't think a MAN does. If is one thing to appreciate God's creation, and totally another to act like a glandular twit.

It was probably never so to begin with.   I mean, realistically, that sounds like a good ol' days argument (back when there was less child abuse, ya know, because it wasn't reported as often...)

I don't wanna derail, in this exceptionally amicable forum, into a big throwdown about legality and porn.  You can't legislate all kinds of good behavior.   But one sermon my lead pastor did a couple of years ago, in a series about marriage, featured a young woman who worked "in the industry" for many years.   It's a talk that is very worth listening to, because it's mostly what she has to say about what the industry is all about.   At one point, my pastor asked her how many of the girls she worked with had been abused in their past, or were being still abused.   The young woman said, with more credibility than I've ever heard anyone use, "all of them, I would say."

I'll find a link if anyone is curious to see that interview.

But there is absolutely no credible argument that porn is harmless.  It is not.  "The industry" is not harmless, and the people who put money into it, who patronize it, are not innocent of perpetuating the harm that this industry does.   Nor is porn harmless to the viewer.   Many are mislead into believing otherwise. 

All industries are harmful to a certain degree. Can you name one industry that doesn't have its cons, disadvantages, fallbacks, etc.? The movie industry, in general, has never been kind to children, with few exceptions. Same with the music industry, that treats its child prodigies like cattle; yesterday's Hannah Montana will inevitably turns into today's twerking, tongue-lashing mess of a Miley Cyrus, or a fat Britney Spears who shaves her head for attention.

I could go into the airline industry and its related cutthroat real estate tactics of "expanding" airports via eminent domain, homeowners be damned. Or the Child Protection Services industry, where the state is in the business of breaking up families "for the sake of the child", never mind the tens of thousands of dollars that the state and cooperating foster families make off of each child that is "saved"; double the money if it involves a "special needs child". Or the Big Pharmaceutical industry, or Big Oil, or Big Tobacco...nah, you guys and gals get the point.

The point being, of course, that if there is money to be made and people to be exploited, then you have yourself a market; all you need is a few business-minded and like-minded folk to make an industry out of it, and there ya go! That being said, I do not sympathize with those men and women who take part in the porn industry, because they bring that upon themselves, and they know what they are getting themselves into. And personally, I don't care how messed up that Jenna Jameson's life might have been; I'm a paying customer, now show me them ta-tas!
Logged

First rule is, 'The laws of Germany'
Second rule is, 'Be nice to mommy'
Third rule is, 'Don't talk to commies'
Fourth rule is, 'Eat kosher salamis'
------------------
The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop and says "Make me one with everything!"
El Misfit
The bullsh*t meter is up high ಠ__ಠ
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 734
Posts: 10593


Listen here you little s**t.


« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2013, 06:24:46 PM »

Depends on the subtlety of the movie, if it is subtlety, then yes, as it brings atmosphere to it. If not, then Hell no.
Logged

yeah no.
Doc Daneeka
Tako Luka tuna fever!
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 160
Posts: 1814


I want to eat a tuna!


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2013, 06:55:46 PM »

At the risk of sounding square, I can kind of understand why the US rating boards makes a bigger deal of sex than violence. Sex, while maybe not as readily imitable, is less clearly defined as "good" or "bad." It's got subtleties that many kids can't properly grasp as well as they can "the struggle between good and evil."

A kid who isn't too messed up is probably going to be able to be taught that violence for petty reasons is bad. With a raw-dog sex scene or something, if they're told not to do it, the "why not?" is gonna be a lot harder to explain. At least in most violent/sexy plots.
Logged

Get out da' waaaaaaaayyy, octopus comin' through!
Zapranoth
Eye of Sauron and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 138
Posts: 1164



« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2013, 10:22:53 PM »

Zelmo,

Welcome to the site!

 I considered PMing you, but this is something that I have heard before and I want my response to be public.

So to start I'm a foster parent, have been for more than six years.   Two, I'm a family physician as the regulars here know.  I bring that up because -- not to brag -- but it's pretty obvious that I don't need $423 per month.  Yeah.  That's what we get for taking care of an infant, 24/7.  Taking him to his specialist appointments, visitations, etc.  Going to court dates sometimes.  Visiting with social workers.  Picking up and giving him his meds.   Getting up at 4:30 to feed him!  And if you have never taken care of a kid who is withdrawing from drugs, well, let me tell you, it's bonus special fun compared to just regular healthy baby work.

So let's get this straight:   $423 per month is beneath my consideration, to be completely blunt, for the work and time that is involved for it.  You could break it down to an hourly wage of, what, sixty two cents an hour?  (Do I split that to 31 cents per hour just for myself, since my wife and I each do some of the work?)     For that sum, I and my wife go through the very real work of taking care of a kiddo who has negligent parents at the very best (it takes a hell of a lot for the state, with the VERY LOW bar it sets for parenting, to take someone's kids away.  This I know firsthand.  The bar is set VERY LOW for parents to get their kids back, and that's after considerable due process to have them taken away in the first place.)  I'll leave the medical complications and such aside.  You can fill in the blanks.  But if you get curious, do some googling of "neonatal abstinence syndrome" and "opioid withdrawal in neonates," and have a look at what babies going through that are like.

I will not dismantle your statement here about the state making money off of the foster system but suffice it to say that you are equally off base there, unless you're closer to it all than I am and know something that I've missed.   

I bridle at the lumping of the porn industry in with everything else.  That's convenient, but the airline industry serves a constructive purpose.  Yeah, it has its problems, like anything humans touch.  But it wasn't created to exploit, to degrade, to enslave.   The porn industry was, and is, for those purposes.   The apologetics of this age cry that all is good and free, but if you actually should acquaint yourself with the stories of the players involved, you'd see the truth.  If one is honest with oneself as a man one also sees that pornography is enslaving to all of us who participate.  It's hard on the pride to admit that.  That's a big stumbling block, these days, pride.  Without God's own direct help, I'd still be a slave, too. 

It is easy not to sympathize with people involved in "the industry" if you do not know their stories firsthand.   If you learn their stories firsthand, it changes your view of what is unsympathetic.   It's easy, comfortable even, to criticize from afar.   Any dads out there, reading what I'm writing now?  Any dads who have little girls?  I have two.  Each of those actresses was someone's little girl, too, equally as deserving of dignity and love as my own two girls.  The playing field is not level, the field that those girls and mine are on.   




Logged
zelmo73
Eater of Hobbits
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 43
Posts: 447


Bad day at the construction site


« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2013, 01:57:44 PM »

Zapronoth, thanks for welcoming me to the forums! We apparently will have to disagree on our viewpoints regarding industries, their base ulterior motives in capitalism, and the pros and cons of each. As a god-fearing person, I understand that it is likely in your inherent nature to only see the good in all things and people, which is why I am a bit puzzled at your condemnation of the porn industry as a whole.

The porn industry has its good aspects, aside from us as the consumer getting to watch beautiful or otherwise women get treated in whatever way that our fantasies require of them. It provides work for people starting out in the movie industry, whether that be a cameraman, audio/video specialist, Internet technician, etc. It provides work for the struggling actress who needs to make money in the business somehow. It provides the actor with a happy ending, because I'm certain that some of them do it for free. So setting your own moral prejudices aside for a moment, you can certainly then see that the porn industry in a lot of ways is just as "constructive" as the airline industry, in that both provide a service to the public. Both industries step on a lot of toes in order to get that service to the public, but that's a part of doing business in any industry, isn't it? Welcome to capitalism!

And while I'm sure that you went into the foster care industry with good intentions, you know what that road to hell is paved with, don't you? I'm sure that any religious man would know about that. In the case of foster care, for every negligent parent out there who doesn't give a rat's ass about their kid, there is another bad parent that does. Should all bad parents lose their kids just because they are bad parents? Who are we to judge, really? Listen to Jesus, Zapronoth, for He said "Judge not, lest thyself be judged as well", or something to that effect. I've seen many bad parents who should have lost their kids, but didn't. And others who didn't seem so bad lose theirs for whatever reason. That bar is not set low; in fact, anyone who had a beef with you could call CPS and report you for being a bad parent, even if you are not, just because you p**sed them off for whatever reason.

Maybe your case is different, but I've seen what I like to call "serial foster parents" who are into taking in all kinds of kids on a regular basis because while $423 a month (figurative monetary figure here) might not seem like much, multiply that times six kids and you end up with a pretty sizable figure by the end of the year.

Nice to meet you, sir! Until next time. :)
Logged

First rule is, 'The laws of Germany'
Second rule is, 'Be nice to mommy'
Third rule is, 'Don't talk to commies'
Fourth rule is, 'Eat kosher salamis'
------------------
The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop and says "Make me one with everything!"
Pages: 1 [2]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  Lower tolerance for nudity; greater tolerance for graphic violence? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.