If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ScienceDaily)   Study: R-rated movies make teens drink, smoke.   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 97
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

3381 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Feb 2002 at 3:10 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-02-19 03:13:21 AM
poop
 
2002-02-19 03:13:38 AM
hehehe, i posted "poop"
 
2002-02-19 03:13:56 AM
alright. i'll go to sleep. sheesh.
 
2002-02-19 03:14:52 AM
hello?
 
2002-02-19 03:15:47 AM
yeah, we teenagers got it tough when they think seeing R-rated movies make us want to drink and smoke when most of us already do.
 
2002-02-19 03:16:10 AM
It's not the R-rated movies damn it!It the German schlisse movies that'll lead to smoking.
 
2002-02-19 03:16:15 AM
ok, here's a good one:

R rated movies and pg 13 movies both show drinking and smoking... why does the restriction of one matter over the other? wouldn't restricting R-rated movies just make people less likely to murder babies or something?
 
2002-02-19 03:17:08 AM
I think you can kill babies in PG-13 films, you just can't have sex with a consenting adult.
 
2002-02-19 03:17:08 AM
Movies don't make teens smoke and drink. Product placements do.
 
2002-02-19 03:17:09 AM
feeling strangely compelled to post more frequently than anyone else. sorry if i'm bothering ya.
 
2002-02-19 03:18:19 AM
good point foodbunny. And you CAN have sex, you just can't show it, so basically we end up with a generation of teens who have sex by walking off-screen.
 
2002-02-19 03:19:25 AM
the webcams from this town must be incredibly boring. i imagine there aren't ANY underaged camgirls nekkid over there.
 
2002-02-19 03:19:49 AM
You have a low account # Xenkylm. Never apologize. :p
 
2002-02-19 03:20:48 AM
"so basically we end up with a generation of teens who have sex by walking off-screen"

PG-13 sex happens when you stop kissing and turn off the lights.
 
2002-02-19 03:27:43 AM
Ratings mean nothing. I saw more blood and beheadings in LoTR (Pg-13) than in "The Patriot" (R). "My Best Friend's Wedding" used the F-word as a verb and got away with a PG-13 by begging and pleading (that is usually grounds for an instant R, check the MPAA website). It is all BS, pure and simple.
 
2002-02-19 03:30:16 AM
The MPAA is a joke...kinda like the RIAA
 
2002-02-19 03:32:31 AM
and the ESRB.
 
2002-02-19 03:34:44 AM
in other news, speaknng french makes poele want to surenreder
 
2002-02-19 03:35:46 AM
TLA = Three Letter Acronym. God, that cracks me up.
 
2002-02-19 03:35:51 AM
Somewhere on their site they list all the rules for different ratings... like 20 pages long, tiny print. Like they ever FOLLOW the things.
 
2002-02-19 03:37:46 AM
This is idiotic. In fact, it sounds just like the kind of study they warn you about in first year psychology.

Correlations between variables can never prove causal efficacy. They can hint at it, sure, but no more, especially in the social sciences. I mean, the fact that tons of people who smoked seemed to be getting lung cancer proved the impetus for those who then did empirical research into smoking and, lo and behold, they determined a direct causal link between the two, based on the hypothesis formed by the correlation. The problem is that no decent empirical study offers anything more than a guess of a link between intake of 'violent' culture and social maladjustment. In fact, really, such an experiment is nigh on impossible. Take the example the article mentions: given that kids who have a total restriction on viewing R-rated movies seem to drink and smoke less, can we postulate a connection between the two? Of course not. What other variables are involved to be accounted for? Parents who prevent their kids from viewing any sort of R-rated programming are probably more likely to have religious or strict parents and that, in turn, would probably effect their kids behavior. Studies like this don't account for such things. They merely assume a relation between variables that, at best, MIGHT exist.

Imagine if I said that people who eat meat had a 85% of developing cancer. That might seem like quite the impressive correlation... until I mention the fact that my sample group was from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Why, obviously it's the meat, right? Point is, in formulating correlations until you account for _all_ variables, (a task nigh on impossible for social scientists) you have an incomplete and weak study. If this article is accurate (which, given the popular science press, i'm prepared to give the study the benefit of the doubt) then the study is, well, useless.
 
2002-02-19 03:43:22 AM
Working in the movie theatre biz for about 7 years now I have noticed a few things:

1. R rated movies make 14-17 year old kids have sex in the back row of kiddie films. You gotta do something while you wait for the ushers to go away.

2. PG-13 movies can have nudity if it is presented in an artistic manner. Also, it can only be breats or the quick shot of a male bottom.

3. Most of the time death can occur is it is fantasy based. Anything that appears to be of a human form being killed gets an R.

4. Drinking ,when in a film, is either implied OR has already happened. There really is no visual presentation of alcohol consumption.

5. Smoking. If it is cigs then it tends to be ok as long as they don't do it too much in the film. Smoking pot is almost always reserved for R rated films.

6. I spend way too much time analyzing films at my theatre.
 
2002-02-19 03:44:17 AM
this article and all the R rated movies I've seen make me want to kill journalists. used to be an honorable profession. now it's the easiest goddamn major in college. and STILL they feel the need to dumb their stories down further.

death is too good for them. send them to england to be eaten by the sheep.
 
2002-02-19 03:46:51 AM
Marlas_Cancer:

I think most of those are actual rules followed by the ratings board. In fact, number 3 on your list reminds me of "Star Trek VI." The opening scene featured a bunch of Klingons getting killed in zero-g. Blood droplets floating everywhere. The blood was red. The MPAA threw a hissy fit and said that it was getting an R based on that one scene. They went back, changed the blood to purplish pink so it wasn't human, MPAA slaps a PG-13 on it. So silly.
 
2002-02-19 03:48:25 AM
Somewhere on their site they list all the rules for different ratings... like 20 pages long, tiny print. Like they ever FOLLOW the things.

As long as the goverment doesn't require the studios to adbide by the rules they won't. To a degree they do but it is so vague as to what fits into what catagory these days.

Remember when McCain and his droogies tried to drag the studios in about the content of films? Things ,for a brief few months, got calm and have steadidly gotten back to to the old norm. Infact, I'd say we've gotten a bit worse. Look at all fo the war films that have been or will be released within the next several months.
 
2002-02-19 03:49:00 AM
The RIAA throws a hissy fit, parents and grandparents the world wide tell their children 'No loading down that MP3 with Nappy!'
 
2002-02-19 03:50:37 AM
Oh yeah...

/me remembers the hissy fit about ST III.


/me also wonders why Luke getting his hand cut off never caused that big of a stir.
 
2002-02-19 03:51:54 AM
no blood
 
2002-02-19 03:52:29 AM
This group, which includes researchers from Dartmouth's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, will continue their adolescent smoking studies with an additional $3.6 million grant from the National Cancer Institute.

There's the entire point of this study.

Kids whose parents are so strict as to restrict viewing R-rated movies obviously have a whole heap of coercive influence upon their child's behaviour - the kids are scared that their parents might find out (about any number of things). I would not rely on these kids to tell the truth (about smoking, or how many R-rated movies they have seen).

The number of kids who hadn't seen such movies was also very low (16%). Take away the percentage of those kids who also smoked/drank (the implication is there that such a region existed) despite never watching R-rated movies... I wonder just what the end result numbers were? (3.6 mill?)
 
2002-02-19 03:55:04 AM

omfg -- yeah that's it... the only reason why kids start to smoke and drink is because of movies... Idiots! I'm sure the next rational step is to put these kids on happy pills!


"These will curve your spine... taint your soul... and prevent your nation from winning the war..." -- George Carlin

 
2002-02-19 03:55:38 AM
It's true, it's true
 
2002-02-19 03:57:51 AM
actually, I never had a drink or a smoke until 5 minutes after I saw my first R-rated movie. I really had no choice.

I suspect the International Communist Conspiracy!!!
 
2002-02-19 03:58:26 AM
Ambulatory - I agree with you, and your eloquent presentation. In the proverbial nutshell, kids (among anybody else) are only influenced by the TV they watch to a minor degree. Telling parents and children that "this will make you do this, even if you don't want to" is like telling them that children are a bunch of mindless robots, and must be programmed and optimized meticulously before being allowed to venture into the world of reality. If the lesser freedoms of the "real, adult, (facade)" world are to be censored from teens and younger children, what happens when you suddenly thrust them into the thick of it, without warning? It almost reminds me of the scene from A Clockwork Orange, where the guy is forced to sit in the theater, viewing the films... Uh, you know what I mean. This is social Darwinism, people. There is no way to stop kids from doing what they want, without sacrificing any taste for reality that will certainly bring them up to be real humans, rather than sociopathic worker bees. Even if it is healthier for them to abstain from life's vices, I don't see people coming up with safe AND fun drugs to replace the acid, pot and coke of our past generations...
 
2002-02-19 03:59:56 AM
R-rated movies dont make me want to smoke, anti-smoking commercials and stupid studies like this one make me want to smoke. A whole pack of unfiltered Chesterfields, one right after the other, until either I pass out or die.

Too bad I quit smoking tho. =(
 
2002-02-19 04:03:39 AM
Exactly ambulatory. Correlation does not equal causation.

This is junk science anyway. Did they stop to think that maybe the decrease in drug use had something to do with the parents getting involved in what the kids are watching and doing? Oh no, can't tell parents to actually get involved. It's easier to just blame R movies.

Typical journalism. Spreading pseudoscience and telling stupid people what they want to hear.
 
2002-02-19 04:04:33 AM
The only thing to say I have is this:

Was there alcohol, sex, smoking, drug use, or violence before film?

You betcha.

Interestingly, this article makes me want a beer, but since I'm at work, I'll go outside and have a smoke.
 
2002-02-19 04:11:48 AM
Notice they said it was only R-rated movies?

Time to screen that Jenna Jameson film-fest for your Cub Scout troop.
 
2002-02-19 04:14:19 AM
Monkey see, Monkey do.
And I'm just talking about kids trying to emulate gangbangers/thugs/Rap artists/etc..

Of course kids are gonna to try an imitate the image of cool(whatever that is at the moment).
 
2002-02-19 04:14:24 AM
Marlas: I worked in the movie theatre biz for a couple of years, and one of the biggest peeves I have from that experience is truly the apathetic behavior parents have about R-rated films. While I agree the study is generally a crock of bull, I can relate many times of when I was basically just disgusted by parents while working the box office. I have had parents lie, to my face, and tell me they were going to watch the movie with the kids, only to sit there and watch them try to refund their ticket after getting the kids inside. There was one time from the summer of 2000, when we had "Hollow Man," that just sickened me, because I had a father planning on taking his about 6-year-old son into it, and when I warned him about the movie (comparing it to "Boogie Nights," in terms of how much stuff it had in it that might be a little damaging to a kid that age, only to have him tell me that his son had already seen it. I can cite many more examples if you'd like. While that point applies more to younger kids (for reference, I generally wasn't allowed to watch R-rated films until just after I turned 16), another pet peeve is the farking arrogant attitude we get from teenagers about 14-16, who for some reason think they're above the ratings system (flawed as it is) and deserve to be able to watch whatever movie they'd like. I worked at one of the more hard-nosed theatres in the area about this, and it pissed my general manager off so much he was close to writing an open letter to the local newspaper about these two points. The "law" that we followed was that someone under 17 was only allowed to watch an R-rated film if they were accompanied by their parent(s), though we usually allowed it if they had a relative over 21/25 with them, and occasionally with someone else's parents (ie if they were in a group). That doesn't, however, mean that if one person in the group is 17, he or she can buy tickets for all of his or her friends. Now, is that so hard to follow? I'm sorry, I'm generally a pretty liberal guy, but after having people lie to me time after time again (I even had one girl turn to your boyfriend while standing in the very front of my line, after I refused to sell them tix to an R-rated film, and tell him not to worry, they could just sneak in), I'm going to side with the "conservative" people on this one. It's saddening to see what lengths people will go to just to see "American Pie 2," or something similar, it really is.

(/endrant)
 
2002-02-19 04:17:01 AM
and since that was slightly off-topic (it's lost in there, but I agree the study was out there and ambulatory's point is right on):

(/end"mytwocents"-stylethreadjacking)
 
2002-02-19 04:18:58 AM
Did anyone see the magazine article about Faith Hill's kids a while back? Her five year old daughter's favorite movie is "Moulin Rouge" and she got into her mother's wardrobe and came out prancing around the house wearing a "lace t-back and a water bra with lace boots." Girl must be just like her mama.
 
2002-02-19 04:20:14 AM
Night all, I'll check on this when I get up in about seven hours.
 
2002-02-19 04:56:47 AM
Shouldn't this have the "Cool" tag?

Seriously though, has anyone developed a system that systematically kills teenagers as soon as they celebrate their 13th birthday? If not, why not?
 
2002-02-19 05:15:34 AM
whats a water bra, sorry i am from the midwest, not the left coast.
 
2002-02-19 05:23:55 AM
I think it's the other way round. C'mon, you telling me that most of the R rated movies Hollywood puts out are watchable without some kinda buzz, be it from nicotine alcohol, weed or what have you? I don't buy it. If movies cause drug use, why does my greatgrandpappy have all those stories bout how drunk he used to get after stealin from the stills back in Georgia? People is people. The times change and we don't. Bloody incompetent researchers.
 
2002-02-19 05:49:28 AM
where can i sign up??
 
2002-02-19 06:31:56 AM
So, how come every time I watch Bambi I want a six-pack of cheap beer?
 
2002-02-19 06:42:32 AM
fine i will make up my own definition of "water-bra", it's prolly better than the real definition anyway.
 
2002-02-19 07:30:05 AM
Marlas cancer, this dosent sound right by your rules,
and ill give an example, im not arguing with you im just wondering WTF.....


Red blood ALWAYS gets you the PG-13, but when the color is changed to green or purple or whatever the gore is considered "worse" and gets an R rating.
I remeber this from when they interviewed the guy who made the trauma films, he had to make green slime and guts and stuff because thats the only way he could get an R rating. Even if it WAS just back then, thats around the time STIII was made (I think), so even if it dosent apply now, didnt it apply back when it came out? Freaky shiat.
 
2002-02-19 07:32:57 AM
The cure for preventing smoking and drinking: STOP RAISING DUMBASS KIDS!
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report