Did I say that violence is okay and sex isn't? I'm not entirely clear what you're trying to say here, or how it negates what I'm saying. The very line you quote was saying that sex should not be considered "fine" just because violence is, that they should both be considered negatively.

...I would agree that parents are responsible for what they allow their kids to watch or play. Ratings are there to make it easier for them to figure out what is appropriate for their kids, so it's important that ESRB ratings maintain some integrity.

Also, if I understand one of the things you're saying... Yes, parents should talk to their kids about sex, but sex as it is portrayed in (certain) movies/games, where it promotes promiscuity and warped sexual acts, is not going to compliment the lessons their parents are teaching them. Parents should still guard what their kids watch/play, even after telling them how to properly approach sexual issues. (Note that telling them what sex is and how to have sex is not exactly the same thing as telling them under what conditions it is appropriate to have sex.)

And "perfectly handling," as you put it, is pretty relative. You don't really know how a scene of "butchering" has affected your individual kid just by observing that they survived and functioned well enough to walk out of the theatre. Its effects are probably going to be a bit more abstract than that. But if the kid is told, and is mature enough to know the difference between fantasy and reality, then the effect is likely to be comparatively minimal. Think about it though, even as adults... do we know how much/what kind of an effect violent movies/games have had on us?

Just food for thought. (I watch/play them anyway. )

I thought that was how ESRB ratings worked though?  The game companies send in footage of the most graphic, suggested, and strong language parts of the game.  Because I guess it just takes one AO (or M) scene to give the game that rating, making playing it, in a way, unnecesarily.

No, you just called 17 year olds "kids", said such "kids" can't handle sex on TV, but unfortunally will have to because of the big moral decline.

First, let me make this perfectly clear: we're (or I am) talking of the difference between R and AO, not about "kids".

Secondly, Lucía is hardly porn, and Hostel most certainly is (torture) porn. There's a difference, and yes, I believe Hostel negatively affects people of all ages far more than any movie like Lucía (or Lie with me, etc) could.

I agree with a distinction between R and AO. But what I simply cannot agree is that the distinction between R and AO should be sex, plain and simple. Like in GTA. I'm fine with it being R, but once a sex comes into the picture, all of a sudden it becomes AO and must be recalled!?

@KruzeS - Who are you talking to? You seem confused. When did I even use the number "17" in any of my posts? And when, except after you addressed me with your previous post, have I even responded to you about what you were saying earlier? Pay attention.

In fact, I never used the word "TV." Not once. And I've never even seen Hostel (torture isn't my idea of entertainment) and haven't even heard of this Lucia. You're responding to the wrong guy here.

Reread my first post and extract the valid points I'm making, or ignore it if you have trouble following along. At no point was I trying to argue with you about this or anything else.

And one last time, just because you think the torture themes of Hostel are worse than the sexual themes of Lucia, doesn't give you a valid reason to say that the sexual themes of Lucia are just fine and dandy for kids of all ages. They're BOTH NOT GOOD FOR KIDS. One does not validate the other. I'm not making any policy recommendations from that statement, not trying to suggest what the ratings for either movie should or should not be, so don't try to make it seem like I am. Just get the simple point I'm making.

Seth is an accomplished, experienced writer with a solid head on his shoulders.

Alacris, NY Times don't understand the AO rating?

It don't?

Learn to speak and write with at least some understanding of the English language and maybe you would be taken more seriously.

The huge irony is that people are legally allowed to have sex before they are legally allowed to see it.

I dont really need to post much in this thread as it seems KruzeS has posted everything I had planned to say.

You know what is nasty, the legal age of consent for sex in Canada is 14. I just love the americn people in general, their views on the world are all distorted to fill some sick image they have. North american's live in some sort of bubble from the rest of the world, look at jap cartoons for one thing, compare that to anything over here and its rated R, but the US has one of the highest sex crimes rate in the world and the most crimes out of all 1st world countries. I can also turn on any news channel during the day and see graphic imagesof dead people over in Iraq and african countries. But 1 nipple slip at 9pm at night and the whole country goes mental.

To whoever you are, welcome to the forum. First, spell my name right if you going to address me about my understanding of the english language. Second, big woop I typed "don't" instead of "doesn't" my mistake (people still make those sometimes). Third, I'm not saying anything about the writer, well yeah I am, I'm saying his article MAKES SENSE! What are you his girlfriend or something? Read between the lines nobody seemed to have a problem with the title but you.

And I know what the discussion was, but don't argue with me over sub-topics in the discussion that I never even addressed. I made one claim within the realm of the current topic. Focus on that. When I "contested someone's views," it had nothing to do with the argument you're trying to make, it was just a comment on how both the word "Puritan" and the fact that violence is so widely accepted shouldn't be used to justify the idea that sex in movies is perfectly fine for kids. Did I say its worse than violence? Nope. All I said is that one does not justify the other. If anything, we should be harsher on violence in this country, not easier on sex.

Sex and violence are not positive for kids - note I didn't say that kids can't "handle" these things. But handling is a relative term. A war veteran can "handle" violent combat, but he will be negatively affected by it afterwards (an extreme example, but the parallel is pretty clear).

And the reason you can't put what I'm saying into the context of the discussion the way you're trying to is because I'm not making any concrete suggestions here in terms of what should be done. I'm speaking in terms of ideas, not recommendations. Notice that the guy I responded to never even mentioned actual letter-ratings, and neither did I (except at the end, but in another context).

Also, how does giving Manhunt 2 an M rating defeat my argument? The motion controls are THAT realistic compared to a traditional controller? Maybe I need to see some solid footage from the game first, but I'd imagine it was just as bad as other games that were rated M. I'll back off from how I feel this game should be rated until I get to see what supposedly warrants an AO rating. I don't have enough info to safely form that opinion yet.

And yes, if you go by the rules of the ESRB ratings, AO is warranted for any games with explicit sexual content. "Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." That's the very definition of the rating. Now if you're asking whether or not I personally think that 18 year olds can handle sexual content better than 17 year olds, I'd have to say: theoretically, more often than not, yes. Usually with age comes maturity, and while bad parenting and other factors can make this untrue, an 18 year old should be expected to handle this stuff better. Again, what's the difference of a year? (As I said above) you could argue that point right down to age 1; a year does make a difference, and the line has to be put somewhere.

Let me ask you; do you think a game with violence and sex is just the same as a game with only violence? I'd imagine the wider variety of negative content just might justify a worse rating; sex wouldn't necessarily have to be "worse" than violence to justify a tougher rating.

But you're right though, it is a weird cultural thing that violence is so accepted in media in the US.