I'm reading an article talking about why a new edition of The diary of Anne Frank has been pulled from the reading curriculum of a Culpepper County school. They bring up Frank talking about her vagina and sex as the reasons why a parent didn't want their child to study this book. I give the school some credit in just pulling this edition from the study curriculum and not from the system entirely. It is still available to find in the library, which is better than what I normally read in censorship issues.
A disclaimer before I go off the topic of the story, I've never read it, I don't want to. The Holocaust was a depressing era of the collective human history, just like slavery is, specific to me, America slavery of Africans, and the Soviet Union. I respect what the book is and why it was written, maybe one day I will read it, until then I speak on behalf of text I have never first hand experienced.
That said, going off my sex education classes, male genitalia was described in use and anatomically shown by the time I was in eighth grade. I knew the basics of how things worked and that was all described in a scientific and very 70s fashion, because for some reason, newer educational films haven't been made. That said, I don't understand why or how the book in 'too sexual' for an eighth grade class. They've have sex-ed since 5th grade, many have older siblings who have told them things, and most have probably seen porn by that age, or mainstream movies which sometimes have explicit-ish amounts of sex in them. How is real account of someone experiencing what all other girls are going through too graphic for their children? The way I see it, it shows the readers that they are not the only ones to ask certain questions. They may share the same criticisms of their genitalia as some kid who lived 60 years before them, before their parents even. How is something that wasn't written to necessarily to be sexually arousing a negative? It was just her thoughts and her experiences with her body. Everybody questions their body at some point, explores and finally puts a mirror between their legs to see what things look like. If not everybody, than some, probably many, but the point I'm trying to make is teenagers are trying to understand what is going on. To see someone else try similar things, or their thoughts on the same things is not a negative. It's not salacious, it just is, they are the facts of her life for the world to read.
I think that what this parent was doing was a disservice to their child, the blog (second link below) sounds like it was a son who apparently was disgusted by reading a description of a vagina, or a description of mestruation. Which ever. By not reading the book, or having an honest, real life experience with it the smoke and mirrors are still there. In reading someone going through the thoughts of learning their body it is more useful than watching 30 and 40 year old videos about hip kids like them going to class with a hard one, or getting a period, or the other joys of puberty. That kid will have less of an understanding about sex because the technical lexicon used to educate is annoying to dig through. The more relaxed vocabulary that Frank used in the book is probably more akin to what someone between the ages of 12 and 14 would more likely use, time and slang aside.
Along with that, I think that the mystification of sex is a disservice to maturing teenagers everywhere. It is such a taboo that parents give cutesy names to sexual organs, which in turn makes explaining the science behind it more awkward. Calling it a 'pee-pee' is stupid, a penis or vagina is not pee. Twat, cunt, dick, prick, pee-pee, so forth and so on are not useful, they're not correct terms for things. They're stupid euphemisms that parents hide behind when they're too afraid of breaking their child's fragile mind to give things real names. The less special you make something the less a kid will notice. I've seen it first hand, I used the word 'frig' in front of my sister. She didn't notice until my brother told me not to say it, then she noticed the word she didn't know and assumed it was something naughty. That's not how it goes, if it's something common and every day than your kid will hopefully act less stupid about when they're older.
After using proper names for things, parents need to get used to trying to answer the 'hard' questions. The child favorite, 'how are babies made' or 'where did I come from' are not that hard to answer. "When a man and a woman have sex, there is the possibility that a baby will be made, and grow inside the woman's body for nine months, until it is pushed out. Sex is when the penis enters the vagina, it is the primary reason for having each, to make more babies and people." It's simple, not really arousing explains it. Details provided as questions are asked. It makes more sense than the stork bullshit, and the 'love makes a baby' is a lie that shouldn't be perpetuated. To make it more compassionate, you could say love and caring is involved, but what I said up there is a template, it's simple and described in a way how a baby is born.
By giving a child the truth, they learn they can trust you better. What the parents gets out of telling the kids the truth, simple or complex language aside, they are helping their kids understand things. Many children crave knowledge, the answer to the whys and hows of their life. Giving them a real answer is much more beneficial because it is a safe environment to learn something. You are giving them the tools to learn things the right way. I was more bothered when my mother didn't give me a real explanation to things then when she gave it to me straight. I may not have liked the answer, but her honest was nice. I knew I could trust her that much more than hearing one thing and being taught another.
Our society makes sex out to be such a secret, an exclusive club that most adults experience that people have issues talking about it. Let your kid know that masturbation is all right, just to clean up afterward. Explain to them why they shouldn't have sex too early, let them ask you questions. Sex shouldn't be a secret. It is natural, most living creatures experience it to some degree so lying about it doesn't make much sense. It's not inherently dangerous, but not respecting what has the potential to come from sexual intercourse is.
Jasmine P.
Important Links:
Article - Blog Response
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
January 29, 2010
January 7, 2010
Why
Fuck the MPAA
I have said time and time again that I don't like the MPAA. I like the idea of it, but it's practice is so fucked up it's not doing much real good. It's a pack of people who are trying ot police other people's families, to police other people. Why? I think that just listing what's in a movie should be fine and not the soul crushing rating of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17, I don't remember if X is still being used.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically through the MPAA and internationally through the MPA. Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined.
Founded in 1922 as the trade association of the American film industry, the MPAA has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of an ever changing and expanding industry. The initial task assigned to the association was to stem criticism of American movies, which were then silent, and to restore a more favorable public image for the motion picture business. Today the association continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced and distributed by the industry, fights copyright theft around the world, and provides leadership in meeting new and emerging industry challenges.
And it's parent company, the MPA
Our member companies' films are shown in theaters in more than 100 countries around the world and on television in more than 120 countries. The U.S. film industry provides the majority of home entertainment products seen in millions of homes throughout the world. This complex audiovisual industry is represented globally by the Motion Picture Association.
The MPA was formed in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II to reestablish American films in the world market, and to respond to the rising tide of protectionism resulting in barriers aimed at restricting the importation of American films.
"Today the [MPAA] continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced." Really? I hear time and time again about directors damn near whoring themselves to get a lower rating because they don't believe their film is all that bad. If not for the fact that I have and have seen 'This Film is Not Yet Rated' a documentary from 2006 that discusses how the MPAA works with directors and filmmakers, I'd wonder what the criteria were for hiring someone to the ratings board. The film described it to a minor extent, but the information about some of the members of that years MPAA board intrigued me the most. Not everyone had children, or if they did their children were grown adults.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
Fuck the MPAA
I have said time and time again that I don't like the MPAA. I like the idea of it, but it's practice is so fucked up it's not doing much real good. It's a pack of people who are trying ot police other people's families, to police other people. Why? I think that just listing what's in a movie should be fine and not the soul crushing rating of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17, I don't remember if X is still being used.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically through the MPAA and internationally through the MPA. Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined.
Founded in 1922 as the trade association of the American film industry, the MPAA has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of an ever changing and expanding industry. The initial task assigned to the association was to stem criticism of American movies, which were then silent, and to restore a more favorable public image for the motion picture business. Today the association continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced and distributed by the industry, fights copyright theft around the world, and provides leadership in meeting new and emerging industry challenges.
And it's parent company, the MPA
Our member companies' films are shown in theaters in more than 100 countries around the world and on television in more than 120 countries. The U.S. film industry provides the majority of home entertainment products seen in millions of homes throughout the world. This complex audiovisual industry is represented globally by the Motion Picture Association.
The MPA was formed in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II to reestablish American films in the world market, and to respond to the rising tide of protectionism resulting in barriers aimed at restricting the importation of American films.
"Today the [MPAA] continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced." Really? I hear time and time again about directors damn near whoring themselves to get a lower rating because they don't believe their film is all that bad. If not for the fact that I have and have seen 'This Film is Not Yet Rated' a documentary from 2006 that discusses how the MPAA works with directors and filmmakers, I'd wonder what the criteria were for hiring someone to the ratings board. The film described it to a minor extent, but the information about some of the members of that years MPAA board intrigued me the most. Not everyone had children, or if they did their children were grown adults.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
