HumanDichotomy
Member
Anyone who uses youtube often enough will know that if you select a clip which contains content considered inappropriate for those under a certain age, a page asking you to confirm your birthdate will appear before you're allowed to watch the clip.
So anyway, I was watching the film 'Elizabeth' in parts. The opening scene is of people being burned alive at the stake, screaming. The film also includes several people being stabbed, an execution, a person being bashed to death, bodies strewn on a battlefield, shots of severed heads on stakes and a man being tortured by burning.
All these are things which I would consider highly inappropriate for anyone under a certain age to view. Yet the only section of the whole movie which was flagged was one which contained a very short scene of two people having sex. You couldn't see much, most of it was in darkness, all that was visible was one of the woman's nipples and also the man's bottom.
Now, imo, that's ridiculous. Why are those other, far more graphic and violent things not deemed equally, if not more, inappropriate than a sex scene in which almost nothing is seen?
It's the same in the media. I was reading an article which made a big fuss of the fact that the PM said 'fuck' a few times in a meeting, in front of three women (shock horror!) and wouldn't apologise, yet almost nothing is made of the fact that almost everyday, on the news, there are reports of people being murdered, killed in war, dying in car accidents etc.
Of course, I think that kids, and other people who might be offended or whatever should be protected from bad language and/or sexual content, if it is excessive. However, what I object to is the fact that violence just doesn't seem to be on the same level.
What do people think about this, and other choices made about media content?
So anyway, I was watching the film 'Elizabeth' in parts. The opening scene is of people being burned alive at the stake, screaming. The film also includes several people being stabbed, an execution, a person being bashed to death, bodies strewn on a battlefield, shots of severed heads on stakes and a man being tortured by burning.
All these are things which I would consider highly inappropriate for anyone under a certain age to view. Yet the only section of the whole movie which was flagged was one which contained a very short scene of two people having sex. You couldn't see much, most of it was in darkness, all that was visible was one of the woman's nipples and also the man's bottom.
Now, imo, that's ridiculous. Why are those other, far more graphic and violent things not deemed equally, if not more, inappropriate than a sex scene in which almost nothing is seen?
It's the same in the media. I was reading an article which made a big fuss of the fact that the PM said 'fuck' a few times in a meeting, in front of three women (shock horror!) and wouldn't apologise, yet almost nothing is made of the fact that almost everyday, on the news, there are reports of people being murdered, killed in war, dying in car accidents etc.
Of course, I think that kids, and other people who might be offended or whatever should be protected from bad language and/or sexual content, if it is excessive. However, what I object to is the fact that violence just doesn't seem to be on the same level.
What do people think about this, and other choices made about media content?