And I know that there are similar parenting styles abound, with varying variables among them. Perhaps one mom can't handle any violence but loves to cuss like a sailor. Maybe one dad prohibits anything sexual, but popping heads in Call of Duty is his favorite pastime. Variables.
But something that I've seen not only in parenting but in society as a whole is the appeal of sexuality. It's almost unavoidable. TV commercials have sexed-up models for things as simple as deodorant brands, and even Doritos ads get in on the sexwagon. Seriously! Doritos? I need sex to sell me on the snack I eat when watching reruns of the Colbert Report by myself?
But I'm not here to bash the use of sexual undertones and overtones. It's a fair marketing strategy. Even the Jonas Brothers benefit from it despite their purity rings, long as there's no statutory rape via advertisements. Rather, after analyzing the Mass Effect "sex" scandal in my last post, I wanted to ponder on something bigger:
Why is a sexy girl trying to lure me into a product any more acceptable than seeing an actual boob or two?
Seriously. To give a comparison to that M-rated, scandal-inducing Mass Effect side-boob scene, other videogames have sexed-up women in them that keep their "clothes" on the entire game, such as Soul Calibur IV. This fighting game received a "Teen" rating, meaning it's one notch less "bad" than the likes of Mass Effect and is available in this country for anyone thirteen years of age or older to purchase. This is the game with this, this, and this. This game and genre's absurd sense of what women wear while fighting was even spoofed by Rooster Teeth's Immersion series, shown here:
While clearly a sketch intended for comedy, the video does raise some valuable points on the absurdity of females in fighting games, as well as, briefly, the hypocrisy of seeing only women as overly sexualized when many male characters get the same treatment-- they just don't have boobs.
Regardless of whether or not a "naughty" spot is seen, sexual images are still tantalizing. They evoke emotions caused by hormones because we're animals. Take movies as an example. A movie like Austin Powers, with its plethora of sex jokes, innuendos and acted out-- albeit exaggerated-- sex acts receives a PG-13 rating because there isn't any actual nudity. But, does the actual image of a nude woman give any more of an effect than sounds and semi-censored images of acts we find sexually stimulating?
I found an interesting piece on what determines film ratings, and it wasn't what I expected. Here's the excerpt I want to share from it, but feel free to read the entire article; it may surprise you.
Plenty to ponder here regarding our values surrounding drugs, sex and violence. While the Titanic example is in fact one of a naked woman in a PG-13 film, I can't think of any others off hand to classify as "routinely", but maybe I should just see more movies. And the fact that topless males can get into G-rated movies brings back the idea that Rooster Teeth had brought up in the video above: why is sexualizing men not as bad as sexualizing women? And on that note, hy are we so afraid of penises, even when not in a sexual nature?Movies need contain only one of the following to be rated R.1. The f-word as a verb
If the word is used only as an expletive and three times or fewer, it will likely be granted a PG-13 rating. But even one use of the f-word as a verb, even as a participle, guarantees an R.2. Tobacco use
In 2007, the MPAA announced that parent reviewers would factor tobacco use when rating movies. Universal Studios went a step further and banned tobacco products in movies rated G, PG and PG-13.3. Hard drugs
Regardless of the rest of a movie’s content, any depiction of illegal drugs will earn a film at least a PG-13 rating; but a graphic depiction of hard drug use will typically be slapped with an R. No less than Roger Ebert has called this particular criterion “a wild overreaction.”4. Nudity
This is a tricky one: Shirtless men are allowed in G-rated films, while topless women usually earn at least a PG-13; but naked men nearly always garner an R-rating (see: Sideways), while fully naked women are routinely seen in PG-13 movies (see: Titanic, rated PG-13). And you can forget about sex. Even non-graphic depictions of love-making will render an otherwise tame movie unacceptable for 16-year-olds (see: Never Let Me Go).5. Extreme and graphic violence
A movie has to be approaching the sadistic to get an R-rating. Think torture. The Dark Knight and the three Lord of the Rings films are all very violent and rated PG-13. The uber-gory Saving Private Ryan, not to mentionPassion of the Christ, “one of the most violent movies ever made” are both rated R, despite the fact that many people well over 17 found the imagery disturbing to say the least.
I guess my point in all this is... What's the difference? Sight isn't the only sense we can use. If I hear exaggerated moaning, I get what's trying to be conveyed. If I get a joke about boobs or penetration or balls, I still get that sexuality. What's the difference between seeing a naked woman's chest and this?
Food for thought. (Get it?)
Posted by: Josh Wallace
No comments:
Post a Comment