hide the kiddies everyone, he's holding a CIGARETTE!

[acroyear]

get this...

ok, so I can say "damn" 5 times, have some cloud destroy a space station of several hundred people, and some electric alien come in and zap away a main character and get a G rating... (Star Trek 1)

and I can have a teenager shoot his own dog after you've spent 75 minutes getting us to love it and get a G rating... (Old Yeller)...

and I can basically have the main bad guy die by falling a hundred feet to his doom and get a G rating... (basically about 1/3rd of the disney animated films, including Rescuers 2, Tarzan, Beauty, Hunchback, ...)

...but if one person lights up who doesn't really need to smoke (by some other persons standards, of course, not their own), then i have to give it an R??????

some people have some really fucked up ideas of what they think kids should be allowed to see...that's fine, but they shouldn't be the judge of my kids. Hide their own children in a closet.

My children will know the world with my attention and my guidance, not in spite of my ignorance or negligence.

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

13 is arbitrary. If my kid isn't ready at 13, then it doesn't happen. if my kid is ready at 11, then it happens. there are some things that aren't going to happen until there's been exposure with me, or through school, and it all depends...maturity in one thing isn't maturity in all.

so yes, 13 is arbitrary. of course, so is 16 (driving), 17 (r/nc17 movies), 18 (smoking, voting, military service), and 21 (drinking)...and for that matter, 25 (cheap car insurance and ability to rent a car)...

...but those aren't decisions I'm *allowed* to make for my child anymore.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

"maturity in one thing isn't maturity in all."

Very good point.

Here's another way to look at the issue: At 16 you cannot be prevented from driving based on age. At 18, you can't be prevented from voting based on age. At 21, you can't be prevented from drinking based on age. etc.

Here's a problem with getting rid of age-based discrimination: how does the provider of a service know the parents' feelings? And can the provider of a service be held responsible for providing the service? In some areas, a bartender can be held responsible for providing alcohol to a patron who is clearly drunk. The age limits help protect kids from not getting certain rights at certain ages, and help protect service providers from liabilities.

Yes, it would be better if such things were based on maturity level, not age, but there is no consistent measure of maturity. And if it comes down to parental permissions, there are some very stringent parents who would prevent their kids from doing anything. At what point would the kids gain the ability to go against their parents wishes? Age-based "prohibitions" provide this, to some extent.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

And if it comes down to parental permissions, there are some very stringent parents who would prevent their kids from doing anything. At what point would the kids gain the ability to go against their parents wishes? Age-based "prohibitions" provide this, to some extent.

I never said I really wanted to change the system, although I'm against making it any more restrictive, and what's on a movie screen is a bit different from drinking or driving, where education in doing something is a bit more important.

as for "overly strict", that's fine for them, but i don't want them to be the ones to make the decisions for MY kids.

however, there's also the side that's the opposite of "overly strict", which are the ones who basically believe "society is right" and defer ALL decisions on this or that to "the government standards". the ultimate in sheep breeding sheep.

and its for THOSE parents who show no supervision or mentoring of their childrens experience or education at all, that the gov has to have such age-specific mandates.

warning: cheap shot follows:

and of course, there's the ones making the decisions who themselves have their own problems as parents...going straight to the top, consider the supportive Clintons and the successful and responsible Chelsea, vs. the restrictive, repressive Bush Jr. family and the trouble their daughters keep getting into...

I don't recall Clinton EVER saying or supporting any legislature that reflected a national age limit for seeing/doing/experiencing something. Bush Jr., on the other hand, would sign such legislation in a heartbeat without even thinking about it (like he "thinks" at all...)