NY Times don't understand the AO rating.

[BenKenobi88]

stof said:

BenKenobi88 said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

KruzeS said:
I still don't understand a society where anything to do with sex is rated as worse than violence. I mean, Lucia y el Sexo has to get cut to get an R... but Saw and Hostel, that's fine!

They did get cuts. Yet what was left is still more explicit than sex in R movies. The reason is actually money. You can get porn on the web, so it doesn't matter if a film gets a higher rating for sex. Yet movies are still the best place to get gore, and teenagers are a vital audience for such films. So those films are allowed to get away with more.

That's so messed up, but it makes sense.

 

It is a compelling argument. But the U.S.'s screwed up attitude towards sex goes far beyond just games and movies. Take the Superbowl scandal. Millions happily watch two scantilly clad people singing about how they want to get eachother naked and fuck like rabbits, but the moment a human nipple exposed for 3/16ths of a second, and the pitchfork bearing masses take to the streets over the unholy smut that our innocent children have been subjected to.

 

Then again it was Janet Jackson's nipple...

errggghh