Posted by Glen at inktomi1-oxf.server.ntl.com on July 18, 2001 at 16:24:51:
In Reply to: It's more complex than that. (spoilers i suppose) posted by Isis on July 18, 2001 at 16:02:10:
: Actually, male rape isn't shown that often. And for some reason, anything with a sexual element is more strictly censored if the subject is male than if they're female. For example full-frontal male nudity will garner a tougher rating than full-frontal female nudity.
: Sexual content is also more strictly regulated than violence. It's a very complicated process, there are certain categories that are given as explanations for the ratings and there's no consistent application, really; each movie is judged individually but community standards do have an effect. With sexual violence they often don't know what to do.
: Also they usually can't even just say here's the exact section of the movie we have a problem with, cut it out and we'll give you an R. Often the whole context of the movie changes the rating and not just a specific scene. There's no guarantee that changing a certain thing will get you a better rating, you have to re-cut the movie, re-submit it and wait for them to rate it again. It's laborious.
: It seems that I know more about this than I should. Only Bryan could say and maybe he can't for legal purposes, who knows.
: -- i
:
: : ...whatever they request or something? hmm it's just male rape for fucks sake. clown or no clown. nothing new. weird.
: : Glen
...female?? That's reallllly fucking sexist... or something. That's just plain wrong. Although in England I remember the film Virtual Sexuality (it was shite, so probabley didn't get released in the US) having a scene full of naked young men then after a couple of seconds of seeing their cocks X's appeared on screen to cover their cocks up (probabley to keep the rating down so the film would appeal more to a teen audience) but it looked really fucking dumb. Censorship beffles me sometimes. By all means have it, but use it properly.
Christ...
Glen