Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Mother Jones)   The MPAA doesn't want you to see Evan Rachel Wood receiving oral sex in her upcoming movie and she's having a hard time swallowing that   (motherjones.com) divider line 73
    More: Obvious, Evan Rachel Wood, MPAA, wood, American cinema, Shia Labeouf, Ryan Gosling, female sexuality  
•       •       •

7585 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Dec 2013 at 12:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 12:24:24 PM  
That's not what the article says. At. All.
 
2013-12-05 12:32:13 PM  

Calmamity: That's not what the article says. At. All.


I think subby got this movie and "Nymphomaniac" confused. That one does have a BJ in it, and it's shown in the red-band trailer.

/Never heard of this movie
 
2013-12-05 01:01:41 PM  
strike that, reverse it.
 
2013-12-05 01:04:45 PM  
But it's not in the same Brown Bunny way is it?  Because THAT would be worth seeing.
 
2013-12-05 01:06:14 PM  
Good lord, submitter, you're not very experienced in matters of sex, are you?
 
2013-12-05 01:06:33 PM  

Calmamity: That's not what the article says. At. All.


rogue49: strike that, reverse it.


Subby's inarticulate point was that this quote:

It's hard for me to believe that had the roles been reversed [fellatio instead of cunnilingus] it still would have been cut

is complete bullshiat.

Also, haven't we debunked this one yet --

The scene where the two main characters make "love" was altered because someone felt that seeing a man give a woman oral sex made people "uncomfortable," but the scenes in which people are murdered by having their heads blown off remained intact and unaltered.

The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.
 
2013-12-05 01:07:31 PM  

slayer199: But it's not in the same Brown Bunny way is it?  Because THAT would be worth seeing.


Brown Bunny wasn't rated by the MPAA.  There's no way that scene would have been allowed in an R rated movie.
 
2013-12-05 01:09:22 PM  

meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.


How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?
 
2013-12-05 01:09:26 PM  
Mmmmmm Wood giving out wood
 
2013-12-05 01:13:46 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-05 01:14:26 PM  

scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?


Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.
 
2013-12-05 01:14:43 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-05 01:16:00 PM  
The MPAA doesn't want to see this guy come for visit:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-05 01:17:33 PM  
Subby, reading comprehension fail?
 
2013-12-05 01:17:42 PM  

meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.


Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.
 
2013-12-05 01:19:33 PM  

meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.


You don't need to be 17 to see NC-17 films either. Just most theaters won't show them.
 
2013-12-05 01:19:58 PM  

scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.

Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.


The point, though, of the R-rating is that it contains potentially objectionable content but not content harmful to minors.
 
2013-12-05 01:23:13 PM  
Maybe it's because no one wants to see Shia LeBeef in a sex scene
 
2013-12-05 01:23:56 PM  

meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.


There are plenty of movies rated NC-17 just due to violence.
 
2013-12-05 01:25:20 PM  
She would rather have them rate it NC-17?
 
2013-12-05 01:25:34 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-05 01:26:23 PM  

meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.

Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.

The point, though, of the R-rating is that it contains potentially objectionable content but not content harmful to minors.


Harmful content? What would that be, exactly?
 
2013-12-05 01:28:44 PM  
After reading her response, I have to say my opinion of her jumped about 750 points.

Good on her. She's right.
 
2013-12-05 01:28:53 PM  

KingKauff: Maybe it's because no one wants to see Shia LeBeef in a sex scene


That's where I lost interest in the outrage.
 
2013-12-05 01:29:18 PM  
userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2013-12-05 01:31:17 PM  

meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.

Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.

The point, though, of the R-rating is that it contains potentially objectionable content but not content harmful to minors.


So regular sex scenes and violence are ok. But a scene where the woman is on the receiving end of oral is not?
 
2013-12-05 01:32:04 PM  
An indie-action movie?  Those don't jibe well.
/and throw in some cunnilingus? why not.
 
2013-12-05 01:33:39 PM  

chitownmike: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.

Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.

The point, though, of the R-rating is that it contains potentially objectionable content but not content harmful to minors.

Harmful content? What would that be, exactly?


Exposure to pornography and graphic sexual content increases the incidences of earlier sexual activity among teens and increases risky sexual behavior among teens.
 
2013-12-05 01:34:55 PM  

meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.


You do in some places. In South Carolina, the passed a law that no one under 17 can be admitted to an R-rated movie. Period.
 
2013-12-05 01:35:53 PM  
I guess they never saw Shampoo.
 
2013-12-05 01:37:08 PM  

scottydoesntknow: "Nymphomaniac"


Now that is a movie I'm looking forward to seeing. It was also funny to hear of the "Frozen" attendees who got to see the red band trailer for it.
 
2013-12-05 01:37:20 PM  

meanmutton: chitownmike: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.

Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.

The point, though, of the R-rating is that it contains potentially objectionable content but not content harmful to minors.

Harmful content? What would that be, exactly?

Exposure to pornography and graphic sexual content increases the incidences of earlier sexual activity among teens and increases risky sexual behavior among teens.


Nope. If you look at European countries, you will see that isn't true at all. The issues in the US have more to do with our inability to be open and honest about sex. Causing shame and providing only vague and misleading info is what causes those statistics.
 
2013-12-05 01:43:41 PM  

meanmutton: Exposure to pornography and graphic sexual content increases the incidences of earlier sexual activity among teens and increases risky sexual behavior among teens.


[citation needed]

Also, for anyone who thinks that the MPAA is logical and consistent when it comes to assigning movie ratings, I heartily recommend watching the documentary  This Film Is Not Yet Rated.
 
2013-12-05 01:45:44 PM  

adamgreeney: meanmutton: chitownmike: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.

Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.

The point, though, of the R-rating is that it contains potentially objectionable content but not content harmful to minors.

Harmful content? What would that be, exactly?

Exposure to pornography and graphic sexual content increases the incidences of earlier sexual activity among teens and increases risky sexual behavior among teens.

Nope. If you look at European countries, you will see that isn't true at all. The issues in the US have more to do with our inability to be open and honest about sex. Causing shame and providing only vague and misleading info is what causes those statistics.


I don't know what "look at European countries" mean (are there European countries where they show pornography to children?) but scientific studies show over and over that children who are exposed to sex and pornography at younger ages are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and are more likely to engage in sexual behavior at a younger age.
 
2013-12-05 01:46:10 PM  
Drive a six-inch spike into a woman: R
Drive a six-inch penis into a woman: X
Drive a six-inch spike through a board with your penis: Deborah Foreman

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-05 01:48:05 PM  

meanmutton: chitownmike: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.

Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.

The point, though, of the R-rating is that it contains potentially objectionable content but not content harmful to minors.

Harmful content? What would that be, exactly?

Exposure to pornography and graphic sexual content increases the incidences of earlier sexual activity among teens and increases risky sexual behavior among teens.


That's only true if the kids are much younger than 17. One could convincingly argue that there's nothing wrong with letting 15- or 16-year-olds watch sex scenes from movies because half of them are already having sex, and the other half are talking about having sex. Think back to when you were 15. Did you NOT know what fellatio and cunnilingus were? It's not like we're hiding immoral things from children. We're hiding what's become standard sexual practices from people who are quite possibly already engaging in those practices. I'm all for preventing 14-year-olds from watching sex scenes, but I wouldn't have much of a problem with kids even a year older.

And I think it's pretty obvious that the MPAA has a problem with gay sex, and it has a major problem with lesbian sex. I know I'm not the only one who watched This Film Is Not Yet Rated.
 
2013-12-05 01:51:02 PM  

meanmutton: I don't know what "look at European countries" mean (are there European countries where they show pornography to children?) but scientific studies show over and over that children who are exposed to sex and pornography at younger ages are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and are more likely to engage in sexual behavior at a younger age.


How young are you thinking? You didn't answer my question about whether or not 17-year-olds are considered too young.
 
2013-12-05 01:51:26 PM  
Won't somebody please think of the children?
 
2013-12-05 01:59:01 PM  

meanmutton: adamgreeney: meanmutton: chitownmike: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: scottydoesntknow: meanmutton: The reason this occurs is because exposure to pornography and sex in movies at a younger age increases incidences of early and risky sexual activity whereas exposure to violence in movies doesn't lead to increased acts of violence.

How would that apply to an R-rated movie though? Or are 17-year-olds still considered "younger age"?

Maybe you're confusing R-rated and NC-17 rated movies?  You don't have to be 17 to see an R-rated movie.

Correct, but you must have a parent or guardian over 17 to see an R-rated movie. If your parents (or guardians) want to bring you to that then that's on the parents.

The point, though, of the R-rating is that it contains potentially objectionable content but not content harmful to minors.

Harmful content? What would that be, exactly?

Exposure to pornography and graphic sexual content increases the incidences of earlier sexual activity among teens and increases risky sexual behavior among teens.

Nope. If you look at European countries, you will see that isn't true at all. The issues in the US have more to do with our inability to be open and honest about sex. Causing shame and providing only vague and misleading info is what causes those statistics.

I don't know what "look at European countries" mean (are there European countries where they show pornography to children?) but scientific studies show over and over that children who are exposed to sex and pornography at younger ages are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and are more likely to engage in sexual behavior at a younger age.


what age do you consider "children" to be?
 
2013-12-05 02:08:08 PM  

meanmutton: I don't know what "look at European countries" mean (are there European countries where they show pornography to children?) but scientific studies show over and over that children who are exposed to sex and pornography at younger ages are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and are more likely to engage in sexual behavior at a younger age.


To what confidence level? How big are the error bars? If you're going to spout something completely inane, go all the way and make up numbers to go with it!
 
2013-12-05 02:11:17 PM  
Maybe the motion picture industry should take a page from the gaming industry's book and start to product downloadable content (DLC) for movies.  Ms. Wood could film her x-rated scene separately and movie tickets could include a URL and access key that allows one digital download of the content.  And if the male lead had a problem with that, I'm sure you could find one or two farkers willing to be his tongue-double.

Also, the abbreviation of downloadable content kinda looks like an emoji of Stewie Griffon peering over a ledge when you put it in parentheses:  (DLC)
 
2013-12-05 02:11:33 PM  

spcMike: Won't somebody please think of the children?


Why don't you have a seat over there...

Oh, wait, that's not what you meant, was it?

/My bad
 
2013-12-05 02:20:45 PM  

Wellon Dowd: Drive a six-inch spike into a woman: R
Drive a six-inch penis into a woman: X
Drive a six-inch spike through a board with your penis: Deborah Foreman

[i.imgur.com image 628x268]


Love you.
 
2013-12-05 02:36:46 PM  
This isn't a feminist issue.  The issue here is not that anybody wants to shame women.  Its that sex is shamed at all in any form.  While blowing people up and chopping off their heads is still OK.
 
2013-12-05 02:58:03 PM  
I think we really need to see the scene in question to accurately judge this...  just crop out Shia and let us examine the footage please
 
2013-12-05 03:03:02 PM  
Is this a repeat from Brown Bunny?
 
2013-12-05 03:06:01 PM  

monoski: Is this a repeat from Brown Bunny?


Wasn't the issue with Brown Bunny the fact that it was an actual BJ filmed? It's not acting if you're actually doing it.
 
2013-12-05 03:10:18 PM  
Can the MPAA just slap an NC-17 on anything starring Shia Labeouf?

Yeah, still angry about Crystal Skull.
 
2013-12-05 03:10:44 PM  
Well we can tell who hasn;t read the article, can't we?

THis includes Subby and Modmitter.

Impressive amounts of derp.
 
2013-12-05 03:12:02 PM  

meanmutton: adamgreeney: .

Nope. If you look at European countries, you will see that isn't true at all. The issues in the US have more to do with our inability to be open and honest about sex. Causing shame and providing only vague and misleading info is what causes those statistics.

I don't know what "look at European countries" mean (are there European countries where they show pornography to children?) but scientific studies show over and over that children who are exposed to sex and pornography at younger ages are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and are more likely to engage in sexual behavior at a younger age.


He's talking about sexual culture, not kids watching porn.  In America there is a strong puritanical drive to avoid any honest and open discussion about sexuality, while in Europe(and I'm quite happy to say Canada), it barely exists.  They have in depth sex education in schools, not abstinence only bullshiat.  They teach their children about responsible sex and being comfortable with your sexuality, not "Don't do it, it's bad for you".  The hilarious part of it is that all it has done is lead a weird obsession with sex in the USA.  I read an interview with Monica Bellucci once where she commented on how much daytime tv and talk shows in America were dedicated to talking about sex like it was the most important thing in the world.  She just couldn't wrap her head around it.  I'm paraphrasing a bit but she said something along the lines of "Everything is sex, sex, sex over here.  We just don't Have that in Europe."
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report