Is there actual long-term issues with teens watching movies that are rated out of their range?
something I have been thinking about lately.
like any kid being raised as the internet piracy was really taking off, I must have watched countless R-rated movies when I was still in high school.
I can see an argument being made that maybe immediately after watching the movie, it excited me too much and maybe I didn't know how to internalize a sex scene or a violent scene. as for the cursing, I didn't need movies to teach me bad words, society took care of that already.
but I have a hard time placing any issues I have now that are cause of watching movies that were not appropriate for me. I care about people, I place great significance on empathy and non-violence, I am a pacifist for goodness sake but I still enjoy a good shoot-em up movie. As for the sex scenes, honestly, the general misogyny and patriarchal nature of western society had a far greater influence on any incorrect assumptions I had made about the bedroom and porn. Imo porn is the only thing that really fucked me up, watched it too way too early and in a conservative-ish (at least with regards to sex) household so not like I could feel safe talking to an adult about it.
But I have a hard time placing any permanent harms that watching R-rated movies in my teens had on me. Then again, I was raised by pretty moral women who instilled a very active conscience in me.
which makes me think the rating system is mostly pointless and just done in response to activist conservative parents who get too worked up about that kind of thing?
Or maybe it does have a long-term effect just only with certain folks?
It seems to me that the rating system is mostly a service to parents. First, to include them in the transaction. If your 8 year old has to get your consent to watch an R rated movie about concepts they've never been exposed to, and you haven't had a chance to talk to them about, that seems like a good thing.
And to help them choose. A simple way to categorize entertainment makes sense. Even more now with little kids and tablets.
Whether the western world, and the US in particular, is overly precious about certain things like profanity and nudity is a different conversation.
Spoiler
It's mostly religion's faultAfter discovering how other countries respond to video games, the US may be prudish but at least it doesn't outright ban things.
I don't know the full story of the changes that were made to get an Australian release, but Saint's Row IV was outright banned. Some countries think drug use in games is a big no-no and not even adults can be exposed to it.
I have no problem with rating systems as long as they're used for informational purposes. I don't have a problem with age restriction associated with ratings either. But once someone is 18, restrictions are now censorship, which I am generally against.
I'd highly suggest watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It really dives deep into what could literally be described as a shadow secret society making decisions about what is and isn't acceptable in a movie... and NC-17 is essentially "good luck getting anybody to watch your movie." It's a deathknell for movie distribution and might as well be government censorship.
Spoiler: They really don't like deviations from heteronormativity.
To be fair, that film came out in 2006. Things are way, way different now.
I'd say things are a little different now, especially for movies. TV landscape has changed as @ShroudedScribe alludes to, but not movies... which are the exclusive purvue of the ratings agency. You'll notice most direct-to-streaming movies are NR, which sidesteps this process a bit.
They budged the needle, but the needle is still very much there.
You ever see an explicitly gay character in a G or PG kids movie? Like a family with 2 dads? Especially say one of the top 5 billing.
No, you don't. Because the processes talked about in that movie are still extremely relevant. It's a secret society of moral prudes who have a secret process and arbitrary rules.
Nimona, lightyear... I don't watch a lot of kid's movies but those are off the top of my head.
I think that we've come so far that most of us don't remember just how much less inclusive things were in 2006.
Just because there have been advances in some areas doesn't mean that things haven't changed woefully little in others. The ability to portray G or PG-rated queer romance does not necessarily mean the ratings system does not remain extremely biased when it comes to depictions of non-heteronormative sex, for example. Heck, it doesn't even mean we've cleared that hurdle in kids' movies -- those working on Inside Out 2 got constant notes about how they needed to make Riley seem "less gay".
Lightyear's "gay kiss" scene was also cut and censored before the "don't say gay" outrage. I'd also like to point out that 2 moms is seen a lot more frequently than 2 dads.
Like I said, the needle moved. At least gay characters can be shown now. But they'res still a hidden battle you don't see where they're still being minimized behind the scenes in editing trying to hide it as much as possible.
Oh, also: How often you see Dad acting as primary caregiver in movies when not part of a single-dad-who-needs-a-wife trope?
My understanding is this mostly due to international markets (China, Arab world, etc). I really doubt that the US MPAA is the primary reason big studios cut down queer content in their tent pole releases.
I'd like to say I despise this tendency of moral crusaders. They get overexcited because of course there's secret queer coding that means x character is totally gay, and when it doesn't happen that must mean the writers took advantage of them to whip up the audience. Like even according to their own theory, they fell for symbolism that wasn't followed through on. And from the outside, they're seeing shadow messaging that isn't there and using it against the work.
I think calling people who were disappointed with parts of the film "moral crusaders" when there were literal film executives constantly pushing those working on the film to make the characters "seem less gay" is a bit silly, and it's especially out of touch in response to the context in which I left the comment you replied to.
Personally I'm more annoyed at the idea that a date with a boy makes a girl "not canonically gay." But I haven't seen IO2 yet so I can't speak to the queer coding or the countering thereof.
Yeah, that's one of those things that's pretty absurd on its face, but it's the kind of dumb shit I expect to hear from straight people.
I'm specifically pointing to the 'many fans' and critic accusing the movie of queerbaiting, even in the face of the short released in the interim telling them the exact opposite. One might say they're out of touch.
I think it's out of touch to respond to a comment talking about how another commenter has an overly positive view of LGBT representation in movies nowadays and how Disney clearly isn't willing to feature "loud and proud" LGBT representation, in which the article I linked was simply a source citing Disney's internal pushback against a character even seeming gay, by criticizing people who were disappointed in the movie's queer representation (or lack thereof). The people you're talking about aren't here and the discussion isn't about queerbaiting.
Yes, Disney's PG-rated Strange World from 2022 has an openly gay main character. He is a teenager who has a crush on a boy, and he seeks advice from his parents on how to navigate the world of romance, so it's part of the main plot. At least in the case of this movie, Disney simply chose not to release it in regions where the queer content would have to be censored.
Of course I don't believe this to mean everything is magically fixed now -- it's very disappointing to hear that news about the making of Inside Out 2. Nor do I think the choice to hold the release from queer-unfriendly regions was a moral stand rather than a business decision. But it's still something that would never have happened 20 years ago.
Disney also barely released it. It had very little advertising with a very short campaign. If anything it is a symbol of the times we are currently living in. Queer people are tolerated by society at large but never celebrated. We get bones thrown to us sometimes but real support is fairly rare. I remember the reactions I was seeing at large were basically “it could have been good but there was something holding it back”, with the unwritten thing is that they were uncomfortable with a gay teen.
The fact of the matter is that whenever a major movie has a gay character in it we see pushback against it no matter how good the movie is. I saw more complaints about the Beauty and the Beast live action movie for the split-second kiss (literally the only clue that gay people even exist in the world of that movie) than for the mountains of other structural problems with that movie.
While I have not yet seen that movie (but it has been mentioned enough that I will one day), I think things have changed significantly in the world of visual media.
Shows on cable TV will sometimes allow swearing if their particular sponsors are fine with it. (Pretty sure this happened with AMC's airing of Breaking Bad, definitely sure it happened with Better Call Saul.)
Streaming has allowed a larger number of shows and movies to reach wider audiences. These shows are also being produced by minority voices. I would be willing to bet there's now more mainstream media inclusive of non-hetero relationships than there ever has been in the past, and by a dramatic amount.
Because TV streaming bypasses the MPAA ratings as well as broadcast TV censorship enforced by the FCC.
Compare what you still see on free broadcast channels with what you get on dedicated pay channels and streaming. The broadcast stuff is still heavily norally censored.
That might be part of the ESRB job (the reason that we have the E to Ao (the rarest rating of all time) on the cover), you know the board that self-regulates videogames, so that the government doesn't have to, you know censor it. Is this system perfect? Not really, but it is sure as hell better than some other countries systems (looking at you Australia and Germany). And it is voluntary, as in the developers have to submit their games for review, and if they want to be sold in, say Wal-Mart, then they have to submit or Wal-Mart won't sell it.
I agree with you, but some parents literally have no idea (or care) what those ratings are. And the kids have no problem of not telling them or out right lying to them about what M is or what the game is about, just so they can play the newest CoD game or to play the newest GTA game, both of which they have no business playing.
I've been hearing this in the context of games as old as GTA: San Andreas. That game released almost 20 years ago. The kids who got access to that game when they were too young are old enough to possibly have kids of their own now. So I don't think this applies as much now!
But of course, if parents make poor choices, that's on them.
I like this take, as it aligns with how we use the ratings in our house. It's mostly there as a guide, and never a fool proof replacement for actual parental vetting of content.
Case in point: I have movie night with my 13 year old every Friday, and we watch primarily PG-13 movies and have a great time. But a few weeks ago we watched "The Other Guys" and had to turn it off half way through. Based on the previews it seemed like a fine movie, and we're not shy about most topics around our house. But I was amazed that it managed to get a PG-13 rating. It made both of us kind of uncomfortable to watch.
Anyway, case above notwithstanding, ratings have been a great starting point for picking age appropriate movies. The vast majority of our movie nights have been very positive.
Your kid needs a healthy fear of dirty mike and the boys?
So I just looked up a compilation clip by searching "Dirty Mike and the Boys" thinking that maybe I missed something and the movie wasn't as raunchy as I remembered. I'm still amazed it managed to get a PG-13. Like there's an impressive amount of raunchy packed in. For comparison's sake, "There's Something About Mary" is rated R, and I think I'd consider that more tame.
I personally would have assumed that was restricted as well (although I'm guessing I've probably only ever seen an uncut version if there is one.)
The rating system is for parents of all children, not just teens. Having a standard also helps adults know what they are getting into when selecting a film, if it's G then you know it's a lighter movie than R.
Also, in general, I think movies that are scary or have gore or sex or whatever, it's not really about the long-term impact on the kid. I think it's also helpful for the short-term impact on the child. Seeing something in a PG/R film that they aren't ready for could cause distress that can be avoided. As the kid gets older they might forget about it, but as the parents that have to take care of the kid every day you'll be looking for ways to avoid what you can until they are ready.
I haven't looked for papers on the subject, which is maybe out of sorts for me. Instead I'll focus on my experience as a child advocate and mentor.
Harms to kids often depend on the individual child and the type and extent of the harm. Kids are generally pretty resilient. That said, some harms do have lasting effects that require intervention to help them manage and cope with.
With respect to media consumption, I suspect some of it depends on in what way the media isn't age appropriate. Things like monster movies, while scary for kids, are generally things they understand. Big monster eats people. There aren't any concepts being presented that the child can't process. However, media that portrays or glorifies hate, sadism, torture, inappropriate adult/minor interactions, existential dread or horrors, etc, might have some lasting effects. Even dramas like the Green Mile could contain concepts kids aren't ready for, though I can't imagine a lot of parents lining up to show their kids that film. But watership down probably caught a few unawares.
But the magnitude of the effect, their impact, I have no data to quantify. I would just counsel parents to think not about just about the content, but the themes and concepts presented and make sure they aren't inadvertently showing their kids something unexpectedly harmful. The why behind violence in a film can be more harmful to a developing mind than the violence itself.
Science Daily claims that R-rate movies are related to teens trying alcohol at a young age.
I think that is probably in reference to this study: R-rated movie viewing, growth in sensation seeking and alcohol initiation: Reciprocal and Moderation Effects.
Just FYI on that study for those who don't have access via institution- it was a telephone based interview with children (ages 10-14) where they obtained the parent's consent to screen the children. To their credit, the children answered by entering their values via touch pad which should help a little bit on the privacy end. Keep in mind it's also correlational and says nothing about cause (those who are sensation seeking may seek out R rated movies at higher incidences). In general I'd say take these findings with a healthy grain of salt.
That would be my initial guess, that it might line up with "openness to experience" of OCEAN/Big 5 traits. I remember that was the jist of the "damaged goods" hypothesis for porn actors:
A mix of negative and positive measures ripe for making whatever argument about it you want.
I like to use common sense media. While it does have a "Cristian" background, it offers both a parents and kids view on what is age appropriate. While I don't stick to as an absolute, it does offer a nice baseline
I like that it tells you about the content as well (for books and movies). There are not enough hours in the day for me to keep up with everything my daughter is reading by reading them myself, so it's a nice resource.
For books, I also rely on the Kirkus Review.
I'm actually in agreement, even though the degree of prudishness is high (my kids swear like sailors, the apple doesn't fall far from the two trees). After a bit you can figure out where your kid lies in relation to the vibe, and adjust your decisions accordingly.
Especially since PG is a very broad spectrum.
Isn't this why PG-13 was created in the first place? There originally was no rating between PG and R, and some parents complained about a gory sequence in an Indiana Jones movie, so an intermediate category was created.
Maybe it's time for another subdivision? PG-8, PG-9, PG-10?
In Denmark we have suitable for 15, 11, 7 and everyone. I don't think more levels are needed than that. I think it works reasonably well and the recommended rating is mostly focused on what could be scary or traumatic for kids. Nudity or profanity don't weigh that much.
And in the US, TV is segregated like that too.
But PG basically becomes 'anything slightly worse than G', which means it is a very wide band covering basically 4 through 12. So that does basically require when my older kid wanting to watch something, I need to research if younger can too or if I need to say no/seperate younger sibling.
I'm not sure if there's any hard studies on it. But keep in mind that as long as there's a parent (or "parent") a child can walk into an R rated movie. It's for liability first and foremost.
Now for the content: I think it vastly depends. Cursing can be crude for very young, mimicking kids, but probably isn't anything traumatizing. A bare nipple won't do much (or rather, shouldn't), but an explicit sexual act may at best lead to awkward talks and at worst lead to imitation of actions they do not understand. Body horror and thrillers can probably really spook some children.
These are only vibes, but there's varying levels of justification for each category of content.
When my three year old went to preschool the first time, we had to remind them "We don't say 'fuck' at school." Which of course then became the recurring mantra for 6 weeks.
Profanity has always been a classist thing though, moreso than any direct harm.
I'll still take it over them reciting the lyrics to Teenage Dirtbag though. We settled for Crazy Train instead.
I can imagine a bunch of children linking arms and marching down the corridor chanting this to make sure everyone doesn't forget the rule.
The same way Mortal Kombat, DOOM and Frank Zappa cause school shootings and gang violence: they don't.
The only harmful idea is that trying to control others' access to ideas is acceptable.
Just because it doesn't do the most extreme thing doesn't mean it's ideal. Context matters in how people are exposed to these things but there's certainly evidence that exposure to certain behaviors and activities for children can be developmentally harmful to them. Exposure to media is obviously different, but I wouldn't be shocked if it can cause issues for those who are less receptive to it.
I'd say it's fair to say "Mortal Combat isn't any worse than Texas Chainsaw Massacre."
But you also wouldn't be letting your little kids watch people getting slaughtered en mass, would you?
There definitely was/is a lack of parental involvement in videogames where there was for TV and music when these were first new.
There is definitely an influence, but it's foolish to say any given music/tv/video games causes anything, just it is reflective of the problems with the culture we're immersed in.
That said, the moral panic is almost always exponentially worse than any tangible evidence, if there is any evidence at all.
The razor blades in apples was a moral panic when I was a kid in the 80's. Never happened. But sales of prepackaged candies over homemade treats skyrocketted.
I can only talk about my own experience but seeing Child’s Play, Aliens, Poltergeist etc. way too young have cost me nightmares to this day and I’m in my forties now. Like really bad ones. I love horror and Aliens is my all time favourite movie but it came with a price.
This was basically my wife's entire childhood. Her parents had 0 threshold for age-appropriateness, and as such my wife has a somewhat bad filter for what is/isn't acceptable for the under-10 crowd.
Ghostbusters: Mostly OK for 5+
Tank Girl: Let's hold off on that till they're like at least 12. Just because you watched it nonstop for 4 years between 6 and 10 doesn't mean our kid should.
I saw I Spit On Your Grave, Last House On The Left, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre among other perhaps lesser known similar "video nasties" as a kid aged between 10 and 12 in the late 70s, early 80s around at a friends house where they had betamax tapes of these.
Hard to say if it affected me, I don't think so. I don't much like horror films as an adult though now, so maybe they had that effect?
I would say though that Aliens is one of my favourite films of all time. I don't class it as a horror though, more like a space action movie. Alien was the horror film.
Teenagers are often pretty numb. Teenage @lou would laugh at The Exorcist. Child @lou might acquire a lifelong recurring nightmare. Adult @lou would probably have trouble sleeping, possibly with night terrors and somnambulism.
I think it would make more sense for teenagers to be allowed to watch everything. Children and middle-aged men could use some restrictions.
When I was little I got nightmares from watching Larryboy and the Rumor Weed, as well as from the fourth Series of Unfortunate Events book. Once I was a teen I wasn't quite so sensitive.
I watched plenty of movies as a teenager without "being accompanied by a parent or a guardian".
Doesn't seem to have adversely effected me. </MartyFeldmanEyes>
I think it depends on the child's social safety net. If you grow up in a loving family with lots of support you are probably less likely to be affected by an R-rated movie, and if you do get nightmares, it's not that bad if you can rely on your parents to give you a hug an tell you everything's ok. But if your life is already fucked at that age for whatever reason, regularly watching stressful movies is probably not going to help.
I understand that parents who are unwilling or unable to support their kids properly are probably less likely to check movie ratings. But not rating movies definitely wouldn't help here.