<p>I’m with JHS, the movie rating system is so inconsistent that I don’t have a hard and fast rule. By the time they were in middle school I did very little censoring of either their reading or movie watching. They didn’t see a great many R movies, but they certainly saw some, especially the older ones. I didn’t drop off kids at the movieplex till they were 15 or so. Frankly, I don’t think my just turned 16 year old would be harmed by most movies.</p>
<p>I am particular about movies: R and, on occasion PG-13, since I sometimes disagree with the PG-13 rating. If I haven’t seen the movie myself, then I look fairly closely at the various movie reviews. For the record, my kids seldom watch tv either, mainly because everyone is busy and only has time for limited viewing. Specific programs pretty much have to be worked into the schedule and the tv is turned off in the interim.</p>
<p>Good movies deemed too old at a particular age are always available later to be watched on dvd.</p>
<p>I think that time spent watching tv and movies should be entertaining, but also fall within our particular family values - and so much on screen just doesn’t. </p>
<p>I realize that the above sounds conservative and I guess in some ways I am - but probably not as much as this sounds. But I mean really, I can’t remember the last movie that portrayed high school students accurately - or at least bearing a resemblance to ones I know. The older the child gets the more he/she is capable of coming to that assessment himself. Until then, I think the parent has the responsibility to monitor viewing. I personally have never been anxious to raise a worldly beyond his years child. Hard enough to raise children without having a 10-year-old believe hs revolves around sex, drugs, and alcohol and is controlled by students rather than a handful of inept adults. (Sorry - thinking of the last movie I saw with a hs setting.)</p>
<p>There is obvious discrimination between major studio movies and indie movies as regards ratings. There are indie movies with R ratings where I scratch my head to wonder why every 15-year-old in the country shouldn’t see it, and PG-13 movies so offensive that I wouldn’t mind seeing them banned completely. Part of it is the bizarre double standard between violence and sex. Horrendous violence gets a PG-13 rating. A glimpse of a woman’s chest, or a couple of Anglo-Saxon words, and the movie gets an R. agreed
I would rather my kids see a well done thought provoking movie that is R or unrated than a stupid overly commercial one that is PG</p>
<p>I always felt that you have to know your own kids and do what you can to role model the values that are important to you in raising them, despite what might be available at a friend’s house. In general, I do wonder about the backlash attitude of many of my peers, the obvious push against their own restrictions in growing up, and what exactly is gained when kids are pushed beyond what’s developmentally appropriate. However, the ratings have always been inconsistent -a G or PG rating has often been considered to be the kiss of death in terms of marketing for a film, so none of this was ever completely cut in stone for us, either. S’s camp used to send home a letter for the much older campers - they would occasionally show a film that with an R rating to the very oldest group, with permission of the parents - but only movies that had been previewed.</p>
<p>I don’t worry overmuch about them seeing a movie that got an R rating for nudity or swearing. I don’t think simple nudity is “obscene,” and my kids learned long ago what words are considered offensive to say in our household. </p>
<p>When they were younger I didn’t want them to see R movies with graphic blood & gore, or too-explicit sex (although I was more concerned about violent sexual content, such as rape, or sick/unhealthy/abusive relationships than scenes of happy consensual sex). My mind was boggled by a friend who let her son watch the “Chuckie” slasher movies when he was about 5 but wouldn’t dream of letting him watch “Titanic” because it had a sex scene.</p>
<p>To me, a movie like “Saw” is far more pornographic than a movie with a sex scene.</p>
<p>“Schindler’s List” or “Burnt by the Sun” - yes. Fellini, Kieslowski or Tarkovsky (sp?) - yes. Gross-out, violent comedies or scary movies full of pointless cursing, sex and ripped-off heads - no. My buck will never support that kind of pseudo-art.</p>
<p>“Actually, that brings to mind a question for the stricter parents: Do you limit or monitor what your children read? Why or why not?”</p>
<p>Yes, I do. My son is a very advanced reader – he’s been reading difficult adult literature since childhood and a great deal of it in middle school. If he hears something is a famous piece of literature, he wants to read it. So, of course, when he found out about Lolita, he wanted to read it. The answer was, and still is, no. He is capable of reading anything but that does not mean he is emotionally or developmentally ready to read everything. Just like with movies, there are some books that are too graphic or disturbing for a pre-teen or child. I made him wait for a couple of years from the time he first wanted to read Catcher in the Rye. He also had some big yearning a while back to read a book he’d heard about. I perused it at Borders and was disturbed by graphic contents of child abuse that I thought could give a kid (and a lot of adults) nightmares. The answer was no. It’s my job to protect him. I’m loosening up now as he’s going to be entering high school but I do keep an eye on it.</p>
<p>I monitored reading material also. Had to, really, because I had a child that could read anything she laid hands on by the time she was six. She started reading at 2 1/2. Could she have read Catcher in the Rye in first grade? Sure. Appropriate? Nope. I figured that Catcher in the Rye would still be around when she was older - and it is. I knew she would get to it eventually. I figured that if she skipped books like Little House on the Prairie when she was the age to enjoy them, well, that would be a shame. I doubt that she would have read Laura Ingalls Wilder at age 18 with the same enjoyment that she did at age 7. Put another way: CITR waited for her, but Little House wouldn’t have.</p>
<p>I remember holding her back with Gone with the Wind also. I believe she finally read it around age 13 and loved it. Again I think that at age six she could have read it, but not been able to approach it with any depth of understanding regarding the time and motivations of the characters. She was six and thought like a six year old; her level of reading did not change the fact that she was still a little girl.</p>
<p>I think ratings may make it too easy for us to avoid the harder questions of the values that are being imparted by the entertainment. Just as an example, I had no trouble letting my young teen see “Once.” While it has some profanity, I thought the values of the movie were positive (especially the surprising ending). On the otherhand, I strongly discourage my kids from watching “The Simpsons,” because I think it’s unhealthy to get too much cynicism at a young age.</p>
<p>Why is Catcher in the Rye considered so scandalous anyway? I was very disappointed when I finally got around to reading it in my early teens…the way that it topped the “most censored” lists, I thought there was going to be something really disturbing in the book!</p>
<p>As far as movies go…it depended on the movie, not the movie’s rating, when I was young. The first R-rated movies that I saw (at age 11, wasn’t interested before that) were Rain Man and Good Will Hunting. To this day, I think it is ridiculous that the former has an R rating, and that this will cause some parents to not allow their kids to see it.</p>
<p>Once I was in high school or so, my parents pretty much trusted my judgment. Had my judgment not been pretty much in line with their judgment, they might not have done so. 
With books, they paid some amount of attention to what I was reading in elementary school, but very rarely objected to anything I chose (the only case I can remember is not being allowed to read A Time To Kill until I was 10 or 11). Some books, they were fine with me reading as long as they could discuss them with me.</p>
<p>Yes I let my daughter watch R-rated movies before she turned 17, and to see PG-13 movies before she was 13. I know enough about the rating system to know that it’s MY judgment that counts, not an outside board. The rating system makes no sense, its values and standards are different than mine, so I did my own research to determine which PG-13 and R movies my kid could see. </p>
<p>One of my friends had a blanket rule that her kids couldn’t see PG-13 until they were 13. It caused tremendous tension in her house, since her kids couldn’t spend time with their friends. I recently reminded her of it, and she rolled her eyes and admitted she was much too strict, that she now realizes that in the grand scheme of things, she focused on something much too trivial that caused so much turmoil.</p>
<p>Once kids start hanging out with friends, you lose control. With movies on cable and DVDs, your rule gets thrown out the window when they are at a friend’s house with less strict parents. I’ve known plenty of kids who lie to their parents about what they’ve done at a friend’s house because of the movie rating rule. In the case of my friend, the lying started with PG-13 movies, and now encompasses a lot more. </p>
<p>All this said, I cannot believe it when parents bring their 5 year olds to very violent movies (like The Dark Knight).</p>
<p>The kids see all kinds of movies on TV as we have cable. My daughter’s not interested in R at 12 but I’m sure my son (15) watches the violent flix at times. I was very careful with them when they were younger, but have gotten admittedly lax as they’ve gotten older.I guess its one of those “choose your battles” and this is at the bottom of my list.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that I equate having a different set of rules from a friend’s family - whatever the particulars - gives the child an excuse to lie. </p>
<p>Forget movies for a minute: my close friend didn’t believe in seatbelts - and yes, we are talking even preschoolers. My children knew that when they rode in her car, they needed to use seatbelts, regardless of her family rules and the fact that her children weren’t restrained, and they understood my reasons. In my car, her children understood that the car did not start until the seat belts were on. I respected her right to drive as she choose - although I strongly didn’t agree - just as she respected the rules in my family. </p>
<p>My kids learned early that different family have different rules. In most cases, it balances out somewhere, somehow. </p>
<p>Back to movies: yes, stricter. But my kids really did not protest (depending on the child, the age, and the movie) and overall treated it as one of those funny quirks of mom’s. </p>
<p>I view lying as saying more about the person who lies than it does about any rule. Always going to have rules you don’t like - home, school, work, marriage, LIFE. I’ve told my kids that as adults they will decide that some of the family rules are not ones that they will continue. Certainly some of my mother’s rules are not relevant to me within my own family. I have the right as an adult to throw the rule I didn’t like out the window - I didn’t have that right as a teen. My children have also heard me laugh about the rules that I thought I’d toss that I now enforce. OMG - who would have thought that my mom could have been right about so much? </p>
<p>Anyway, once upon a time, it was my parent’s turn to make the rules, now it is mine. One day it will be my kids - and I sincerely hope that as parents they expect their children to abide by family rules, whatever they may be. And yes, the rules can be different than mine.</p>
<p>This reminds me of my own upbringing where my parents were so strict about everything, including movies. They wouldn’t even let me see “The THree Faces of Eve”. I snuck out at 13 to go see “Bonnie and Clyde” and regretted it bigtime. Remember that final scene like it was yesterday, and it was forty years ago. Talk about violence!</p>
<p>popcornboy, I’ve seen red-bannered trailers. They seem to be more for sex than for violence, though maybe that’s a reflection on the films we prefer. And speaking of trailers, I really resent when trailers for R-rated films are shown during PG and even PG-13 films, especially films that are considered family friendly.</p>
<p>I know this is off topic, but can anyone tell me how to post a NEW thread? I am stumped!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, her friends and their parents were not very considerate.</p>
<p>This reminds me of a sleep-over birthday party my D attended at age 11. The parents rented “The Ring” (PG-13) for the girls to watch. My D had no interest in it and spent most of the duration in another room. The other girls, thinking it was all in good fun, dragged her out to watch part of it. She did not get over the horror of that movie for weeks.</p>
<p>Huh. This thread is interesting. My parents let me start watching movies before I was the “rating age.” I’d guess I was around 9 or 10 when I saw my first PG-13 movie, and by highschool R did not matter. </p>
<p>However, at least earliest, these were movies we watched together as a family. That meant that we inherently didn’t get any slasher-type horror films, or anything TOO violent, because my mom doesn’t like that. It also meant not large amounts of explicit sex until I was much older, just because it was (and still sometimes is) awkward to watch with my parents. It also meant we were watching plain watching GOOD, though provoking, well acted films. It definitely helped to develop my taste in sophisticated films (and I’m now a film major, so I feel like that worked out 
). By the time they let me go to whatever movies I wanted in theater, I wasn’t choosing the ones that are explicit for the sake of it. </p>
<p>They weren’t very strict with TV either once I got older—I started watching Alias and 24 (both fairly violent) in 9th grade with my dad. The only thing I remember not being allowed to watch was Six Feet Under, because of how much explicit sex there was; again, my mother just wasn’t ready to watch that WITH me.</p>
<p>But different strokes for different folks, right? IIRC, my parents always made sure I got age appropriate films when friends were over, at least until we were all old enough (16) that nobodies parents cared anymore.</p>
<p>Bay:That’s terrible! Horror movies were actually something my parents were lesws willing to let me see when I was younger, because my mother had a simiular experiance. I was freaked out by the ring this year (as a sophmore in college), I can’t imagine seeing it at 11!</p>
<p>"I don’t worry overmuch about them seeing a movie that got an R rating for nudity or swearing. I don’t think simple nudity is “obscene,” and my kids learned long ago what words are considered offensive to say in our household.</p>
<p>When they were younger I didn’t want them to see R movies with graphic blood & gore, or too-explicit sex (although I was more concerned about violent sexual content, such as rape, or sick/unhealthy/abusive relationships than scenes of happy consensual sex). My mind was boggled by a friend who let her son watch the “Chuckie” slasher movies when he was about 5 but wouldn’t dream of letting him watch “Titanic” because it had a sex scene.</p>
<p>To me, a movie like “Saw” is far more pornographic than a movie with a sex scene."</p>
<p>lunitari</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more. I was hoping that someone would post an alternate viewpoint.</p>
<p>I have always had a problem with and have been truly distressed by the double standard that seems to exist. On the whole, in America (as opposed to Western Europe for example) we are so obsessed with nudity in general or in the context of a healthy loving relationship yet we seem to have much less of a problem with violence. I can’t tell you how many parents we know that have no problem letting their kids see the most violent of films but freak out if there is nudity or even the implication of sexual content in a movie. </p>
<p>Video games have gotten violent beyond belief and it really makes me wonder if these games have given rise to the increased number violent crimes and use of guns among our youth. To me it seems that for many the addiction to video games has created a level of desensitization about violence, murder and death that is killing many innocent people. When the game ends you get up and go about your way, no harm, no foul. In real life, you pull the trigger and someone gets seriously injured or dies. The fantasy world of the games is being blurred in the reality of everyday life.</p>
<p>Seeing casual nudity in the proper context of a story in a film does not bother me. Gratuitous nudity and sex are not what I am addressing here because low budget films have used that type of sexual content as a hook forever and that isn’t going to change. </p>
<p>I think that we as parents would do far more good if we could exert our influence and power to get truly violent films (and video games) placed in a new rating system that precludes anyone under 18 from seeing them or buying them. Treat them like XXX films. I am not naive enough to believe that this will completely prevent these products from getting into the hands of those under 18 but it may slow the pipeline down.</p>
<p>I was never afraid that seeing a nude body would pervert my children; I was however very concerned that seeing blood, gore and violence as extreme as it is in some newer movies and video games could cause them some type of emotional harm.</p>
<p>just my $0.02</p>
<p>I think the reason that parrents are so uptight about sexual content is because sex is something that just simply can’t be understood until one reaches a certain level of maturity. Every child feels anger and frustration, so things such as violence can be more easily understood for most children. I know that when I was younger I always felt awkward when somethintg alluding to sex popped up on some sit-com or something. Violence never bothered me. </p>
<p>I understand, however, that people know that their children will be sexually active one day, while they hope that they’ll never be violent serial killers. But kids aren’t dumb. Unless they suffer from some sort of mental disorder, kids know from a very early age that violence is not acceptable. They get it. Violent scenes may be terrible but they are a lot less confusing to a kid than a sexual scene (I’m not talking about a woman flashing her chest). </p>
<p>On the otherhand, once kids get to a certain age (late middle school/high school) things like sex are no longer going to be a mystery and many kids at this age are even having sex (this isn’t a bad thing as long as they’re educated, which usually happens in late elementary school and early middle school, not to mention it’s natural). At this point you can’t hide too much from them, and when you do try to hide things from them it makes the siutuation more awkward and then they’re going to be less open and honest with you.</p>