Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"The Following PREVIEW Has Been Approved ONLY for age-appropriate internet users."
June 24, 2007 2:07 PM   Subscribe

Nearly all movie trailers shown in theaters, and on the web, come with a so-called green tag, saying they are approved for all audiences, or a red tag, saying they are approved for only restricted audiences. Since 2000, many theaters will not run red tag trailers; Warner Brothers will not make red tag trailers, and Universal Pictures has not ran one in theaters since "American Pie" in 1999. Wishing to show audiences more "edgy" previews, the producers are looking to the internet.

Rob Zombie’s “Halloween” remake became the first to display a new yellow tag, signaling that the movie was rated PG-13 or above, and the preview was “approved only for age-appropriate Internet users” — mandatd by the MPAA as visitors to sites either frequented mainly by grown-ups (as determined by Nielsen's Web Demographic reports) or accessible only between 9 p.m. and 4 a.m.

This August’s “Superbad” (autoplay music...) has an R-rated, red tag internet trailer, which MPAA regulations require a viewer to pass an age-verification test, in which the viewer 17 and older has to match their name, birthday and ZIP code against public government records on file." [via nytimes.com]
posted by pwb503 (67 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
It is good to see Judd Apatow is breaking the mold of producing films of nerdy, socially inept people trying to achieve popularity.
posted by geoff. at 2:16 PM on June 24, 2007


I'm way too excited for both of those movies. I know I should hate the idea of a Halloween remake, but I don't. Besides, I thought The Devil's Rejects was good exploitational fare. Zombie has a real aesthetic, unlke almost any other horror director working today.

And the R-rated Superbad Trailer just looks awesome. (I linked to it in an earlier Apatow thread)
posted by Bookhouse at 2:16 PM on June 24, 2007


I predict this will be a superstrong age-verification test, with no abuse of the system whatsoever.
posted by DenOfSizer at 2:17 PM on June 24, 2007


wow, I really want the government to be selling my name, birthday, and zip code to movie studios for the purposes of screening whether or not I'm allowed to watch a movie.

Geez, that won't lead to any problems anywhere.
posted by jenkinsEar at 2:19 PM on June 24, 2007


Wow, wtf. Wouldn't it make more sense for sites like this to include metadata so that parental filtering software can block them?

And it doesn't stop me from putting in the name and address of someone I know. What kid wouldn't know his parents birthday and name?

So idiotic. Did they even think about this for ten minutes.
posted by delmoi at 2:20 PM on June 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


(And yeah that super bad movie looks pretty funny)
posted by delmoi at 2:23 PM on June 24, 2007


And it doesn't stop me from putting in the name and address of someone I know. What kid wouldn't know his parents birthday and name?

Hey -- I just used George Bush | 07/06/1946 | 20500. It got me in!
posted by ericb at 2:26 PM on June 24, 2007 [10 favorites]


Just to be clear "W" a'int my Dad! ; )
posted by ericb at 2:28 PM on June 24, 2007


I bet he'd love Superbad, actually.
posted by Rock Steady at 2:28 PM on June 24, 2007


Richard Cheney | 08/30/1941 | 20500 also works.
posted by ericb at 2:30 PM on June 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


Or you could just watch the red-band trailer on YouTube. Pfft.
posted by xthlc at 2:34 PM on June 24, 2007


Did they even think about this for ten minutes.

I think, like so many other things in life (airport security, for instance), they aren't interested in it actually working, only in the appearance of having something that works.

The MPAA wants as many millions of teenagers as possible to see R-rated movies--more kids = more $$. They erect paper defenses to give the appearance of concern.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:35 PM on June 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


So idiotic. Did they even think about this for ten minutes.

Yes, and they thought, "Although we want to give the appearance that we are concerned about kids seeing adult content, we really don't care if they do, and in fact we'd be happy to increase our audience, so let's adopt an official-sounding but easily-circumvented age screening system and everyone will be happy."
posted by brain_drain at 2:35 PM on June 24, 2007


Damn you, LooseFilter!
posted by brain_drain at 2:35 PM on June 24, 2007


ps. Canadians GFY

thanks for the GW tip, worked for me.
posted by jeffmik at 2:38 PM on June 24, 2007


Metafilter: Shit! The cops!
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 2:38 PM on June 24, 2007


Also works for Dead Dicks -- "Richard Nixon | 01/09-1913 | 08859."
posted by ericb at 2:40 PM on June 24, 2007 [3 favorites]


I like YouTube.
posted by chunking express at 2:41 PM on June 24, 2007


Oh it was already linked. God Damn it.
posted by chunking express at 2:44 PM on June 24, 2007


I think the 'Superbad' website is getting hammered. I can't even reach it now ("Http/1.1 Service Unavailable"). I wanna try "Paris Hilton | 02/17/1981 | 90069." Gotta love the fact that West Hollywood's zipcode ends in "69."
posted by ericb at 2:46 PM on June 24, 2007


Actually it seems like they worked the age verification bit into the general theme of the movie. Kind of funny.
posted by delmoi at 2:46 PM on June 24, 2007


Can we please just force down the throats of all parents that they can't save their kids from the horrors of reality, and make them accept the fact that if they don't teach their children, experience and curiosity WILL???

Children are much more resilient than we think. They are genetically designed to survive most any kind of sensory stimulation, and are predisposed, again genetically, to LEARN.

So when you try to lie to them (even about the Easter Bunny) they will eventually learn otherwise. When you try to hide the truth from them, they will eventually reroute around your deceptions and learn the truth themselves. Either that, or because of you, they will have become less capable of functioning properly in the physical world, and their ignorance causes them to be less likely to survive long enough to grant you grandchildren!

I cite Terry Gilliam's "Tideland" as a fictional simulacrum which reinforces this concept. Your child will learn about the big bad secrets and the killer sharks in this world. Without you to guide them through this experience (rather than 'protecting' them from it), they are on their own.

There's nothing you can do to stop their education, and all postponing the inevitable is doing is annoying the rest of us.

So cut it out.

Cuz frankly I don't wanna have to care what color is on the front of a trailer. Red Green Yellow Purple - this rating system exists because of parents. I ain't one. I don't wanna be one. I want colorless, ratingsless trailers.

And by the way, QUIT FEEDING YOUR CHILDREN SUGAR! If you must feed them sugar, stop letting them out in public until they calm the heck down! THANK YOU!
posted by ZachsMind at 2:50 PM on June 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


Hmmm ... Paris' info doesn't work. She does live on King's Road, West Hollywood (in the Hollywood Hills). Maybe her new zipcode corresponds to the jail she' in! ; )
posted by ericb at 2:53 PM on June 24, 2007


So, um, having been subjected to anumber of less-than-super-tasteful trailers, what do you have to get a red rating? Or is this just a swearing-and-boobies thing?
posted by Artw at 2:54 PM on June 24, 2007


It appears to be tied to DMV records—my license has my old zip code on it, so my new address doesn't let me in.

Maybe this is why Paris Hilton's info doesn't work, ericb. Go with Bush.
posted by infinitewindow at 2:59 PM on June 24, 2007


That's one way of stopping all the foreigners and illegal immigrants from seeing the films.
posted by popcassady at 3:01 PM on June 24, 2007


It mkes sense, sort of, to stop using red tag trailers. People not willing to see a film that is not for them (general audience) should not have to sit through a trailer about that film.
posted by Postroad at 3:02 PM on June 24, 2007


They erect paper defenses to give the appearance of concern.

Hehe -- he said "erect."
posted by ericb at 3:04 PM on June 24, 2007


Hehe -- he said "erect."

I am henceforth establishing an age-verification entry system to read all of my comments, as they are more appropriate for mature audiences. You will have to answer the following questions correctly to verify that you are old enough to handle such mature content:

1. Name a primary advantage to itemizing on your federal income tax return.

2. What is "equity", in the financial sense?

3. Please name at least two of the individuals variously considered "the fifth Beatle".

Thank for your time in answering these questions. You are helping to protect our delicate, fragile youth.
posted by LooseFilter at 3:14 PM on June 24, 2007 [3 favorites]


People not willing to see a film that is not for them (general audience) should not have to sit through a trailer about that film.

Exactly. My young son doesn't like moves that are in the least bit scary. The few times we've managed to find G-rated movies in the theater, the previews themselves have still been rated PG. This just doesn't make sense.
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:23 PM on June 24, 2007


George Bush no longer works...
posted by DesbaratsDays at 3:39 PM on June 24, 2007


George bush still works, i just tried it.

It seems stupid to not have r rated trailers for r rated movies.
The people have already proven they are over 18, so why does the trailer have to wuss out?
Im not a fan of product commercials at the starts of movies, but I think it would be cool if they could be rated r too. Let the ad people go wild.
posted by Iax at 3:45 PM on June 24, 2007


huh. I guess I"m an idiot.
Never mind.
posted by DesbaratsDays at 3:47 PM on June 24, 2007


DesbaratsDays -- you're not an idiot. George Bush is.
posted by ericb at 3:51 PM on June 24, 2007


LooseFilter:
1. Allows you to deduct mortgage interest.
2. Value of an asset, minus debts associated with it.
3. George Martin, Pete Best, Stu Sutcliffe, Yoko Ono

Didn't one of the early Leisure Suit Larry games do something like this? I seem to remember having to casually ask my Dad who Spiro Agnew was.
posted by Rock Steady at 4:00 PM on June 24, 2007


1. Name a primary advantage to itemizing on your federal income tax return.

irs agents are hotter than fbi agents unless they're on the x files

2. What is "equity", in the financial sense?

it's a polite term meaning "horseshit" from the latin, equus and the last two letters from "shit"

example - "i bought two houses last year and now thanks to all interest payments on my loan and a crashing housing market, my portfolio is full of negative equity"

3. Please name at least two of the individuals variously considered "the fifth Beatle".

noel and liam gallagher
posted by pyramid termite at 4:08 PM on June 24, 2007 [3 favorites]


I seem to remember having to casually ask my Dad who Spiro Agnew was.

In addition to using a Dead Dick's name and info, Spiro's info also let's you into the 'Superbad' restricted area: Spiro Agnew | 11/9/1918 | 92270.
posted by ericb at 4:13 PM on June 24, 2007



Cuz frankly I don't wanna have to care what color is on the front of a trailer. Red Green Yellow Purple - this rating system exists because of parents. I ain't one. I don't wanna be one. I want colorless, ratingsless trailers.


I don't want my kids to see these trailers because they are negative, dull, insipid, unoriginal, unimaginative, CRAP that eat the bandwidth of things that could be far more interesting. But I guess we can't have "taste" tags for trailers.

I personally despise the movement to coat the world in nerf.

But I'm also tired of my combating the relentless brain washing by marketers spewed fourth from every media outlet imaginable 24/7. It's exhausting. This pap drives our imaginations in an ever downward spiral race to the bottom.

Look. Kids get one time around to be kids. Sure they are fairly tough. But they get once.

You try explaining to an eight year old why it's okay to be "entertained" by watching graphic simulated rape and torture (which by the way a kid can't TELL it's simulated) from the POV of the psycho but not okay to actually do it. As you explain it you realize... well... maybe it's not all that okay to even pretend some of that shit. At least maybe not in the context of some of these sexist slasher films where the central character is a male murderer of "helpless women." And in sequel after sequel. Reinforcing the same terrible stereotypes, negative emotions, and attitudes towards women. Should this be entertaining? What does that say about us?

I'd rather avoid my kid seeing a trailer and even beginning to ask me about that shit until he can get the context to where my explanation will mean something to him. No matter what his resilience may be.

As for shit like the Rob Zombie "reinvention" of Halloween? C'mon. Reinvention? What the fuck for? Yea. I'm sure he can improve on the theme. The world needs another take on naked teenage chicks getting tortured to death. A more graphic one. With better effects. We need to see more convincing pain and torture. Shit like, oh, I don't know, reality... and Abu Ghraib... isn't enough. Fuck Rob Zombie.
posted by tkchrist at 4:14 PM on June 24, 2007 [7 favorites]


I'd really like to know how it knows my first name, last name, birthday and ZIP code are 'valid' or 'invalid.'
posted by WCityMike at 5:04 PM on June 24, 2007


Rock Steady, you just ruined my age verification test! You're s'posed to put the answers on the encrypted page. (Did I forget to include that link? Also, don't know about Leisure Suit Larry--there was a gap in my home computing experience between the Vic 20 we got when I was in middle school and the desktop I bought for college, so I missed out on a few things. My parents were apparently completely unaware that technology changed in any way.)

PT: noel and liam gallagher

Now that's funny.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:04 PM on June 24, 2007


Weak! Pretty much any common name (Alice, Susan, Robert, Black, Brown) got me through, with any random birthdate, and the zipcode 90210. Although it didn't work with the more obscure zipcodes.
posted by Xere at 5:06 PM on June 24, 2007


You try explaining to an eight year old why it's okay to be "entertained" by watching graphic simulated rape and torture (which by the way a kid can't TELL it's simulated) from the POV of the psycho but not okay to actually do it.

Okay.

"Kid, some things are okay to pretend, or okay to see people pretending, but not okay to do for real. Some people like to see pretend things about hurting people because it's scary, and sometimes being scared can be fun."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:10 PM on June 24, 2007 [5 favorites]


Though I'm also tired of the torture-porn genre. Lord knows I likes me some gore, but I want my gore delivered by monsters and mutants.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:11 PM on June 24, 2007


My favourite is the restricted viewing times. Too bad when the Australian site does the same with local times.
posted by bystander at 5:24 PM on June 24, 2007


I'd really like to know how it knows my first name, last name, birthday and ZIP code are 'valid' or 'invalid.'

zabasearch

It amazes me that people do not know this kind of information is readily available.

Also, the two differences in the trailers that I noticed were there was no one drinking alcohol and the dialog was cleaner in the yellow. The footage was mostly the same.

And I had no idea a Halloween remake was coming. That is going to be awesome.
posted by Big_B at 5:25 PM on June 24, 2007


LooseFilter, I heard the DRM on the encrypted page was cracked before it was released, so I'm releasing the answers into the wild -- information wants to be free, man! I'm the DVD Jon and the Cory Doctorow of the LooseFilter Age Verification Test industry rolled into one!
posted by Rock Steady at 5:51 PM on June 24, 2007


"1. Name a primary advantage to itemizing on your federal income tax return."

mama

"2. What is "equity", in the financial sense?"

diddle doodie

"3. Please name at least two of the individuals variously considered 'the fifth Beatle'."

boyz haff a peeeenis! girlz haff vagainah!
posted by ZachsMind at 6:12 PM on June 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


"...the movement to coat the world in nerf."

This actually sounds really, really amazing, and I would be lying if I said I didn't approve. Only if it's genuine Nerf, though, none of that generic foam rubber nonsense.



R rated trailer with restricted access = GENIUS marketing. Would be really be falling all over ourselves to see a trailer if we didn't have to enter some sort of access code?
posted by louche mustachio at 7:00 PM on June 24, 2007


This actually sounds really, really amazing, and I would be lying if I said I didn't approve. Only if it's genuine Nerf, though, none of that generic foam rubber nonsense.

Imagine a world made entirely of Tonka metal and indestructible Fisher-Price plastic.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:09 PM on June 24, 2007


ONLY NERF.
posted by louche mustachio at 7:21 PM on June 24, 2007


Has anyone ever seen a red-banded trailer in a theater?
posted by mmascolino at 7:54 PM on June 24, 2007


HURF DURF NERF LUVVER
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:05 PM on June 24, 2007


Has anyone ever seen a red-banded trailer in a theater?

Occasionally at R-rated flicks.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:05 PM on June 24, 2007


tkchrist: rock on! 100% agree with your sentiments. fuck rob zombie and this sick glorification of torture, rape and murder. just watching the Ebert & Roeper review of the devil's outcasts made me sick.
posted by joeblough at 8:43 PM on June 24, 2007


"Kid, some things are okay to pretend, or okay to see people pretending, but not okay to do for real. Some people like to see pretend things about hurting people because it's scary, and sometimes being scared can be fun."

Some things? Why not everything?

And to an eight year old freaking out about seeing a screaming terrified naked girl that he isn't sure IS pretend... well good luck with that. You obviously have never had that conversation before have you?

Anyway. What was the point of your comment again?
posted by tkchrist at 9:47 PM on June 24, 2007


Some things? Why not everything?

Because some things are fine to do in real life. It's fine to pretend to eat a hamburger, and also just fine to actually eat a hamburger.

And to an eight year old freaking out about seeing a screaming terrified naked girl that he isn't sure IS pretend... well good luck with that. You obviously have never had that conversation before have you?

Nope.

On the other hand, your implicit claim that we must make sure that nobody is ever exposed to anything that a particularly sensitive eight-year-old might dislike seeing is laughable on its face.

What was the point of your comment again?

I thought you were making a crass WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?! appeal, so I tried to shoot it down as simply and directly as possible by indicating that explanations are in fact readily available.

Yes, we get that your kid freaks out when he sees ads for horror movies, so you'd prefer that they went away. Other people's kids freak out when they see clowns -- should we also do away with those? Santa routinely freaks out kids, so he's on the chopping block. And some kids are freaked out by men with big beards, so no more of that either.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:25 PM on June 24, 2007


As I said in an earlier thread this week, I had a babysitter show me Sleepaway Camp as a child, and it scared the shit out of me -- but no more than ET did. That was a scary movie.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:45 PM on June 24, 2007


...which MPAA regulations require a viewer to pass an age-verification test, in which the viewer 17 and older has to match their name, birthday and ZIP code against public government records on file.

Garsh! How far things have come. Back in My Day(TM), whenever we underagekins wanted to see an R-Rated movie, we simply bought our tickets from a confederate in the box office or got someone's mom to "vouch for us".

Nowadays when kids want to see an online trailer to an R-Rated movie, all they have to do is type "Mike Hunt", a fake birthday and a random zip code into an MPAA verification form.

They have it too easy these days, I tell ya. Too easy! Now if you'll excuse me, nurse, I'm off to the dayroom where they need a fourth for Spades.
posted by Spatch at 5:21 AM on June 25, 2007


Other people's kids freak out when they see clowns -- should we also do away with those?

Yes. Oh, please, God, yes.
posted by erniepan at 5:24 AM on June 25, 2007


“People not willing to see a film that is not for them (general audience) should not have to sit through a trailer about that film.”

Totally. Er, I mean, the same thing, except for the endless Coca-cola advertisements. I don’t want my kid exposed to Coke, McDonalds, etc. etc. I want them to develop a healthy hatred for that sort of thoughtless consumption.
Doesn’t look like any of that’s going away any time soon though. Trailers either. Shucks, I guess I’ll just have to do my job as a parent.

Seriously, is anyone running ‘Devils Reject’ trailers before the ‘G’ rated movie matinee? ‘Cos I’m no marketing genius, but seems like that’d be waste.

Instead of another rinky dink gubbermint thought control program, here’s an idea: ushers.
I’m more concerned about the crap going on in REAL LIFE affecting my kids than anything they might see incidentally on a movie screen. Why should I have to get up and shout at some dufuses (dufi?) behaving rudely to STFU and have my kid see that side of me? No one likes an angry dad. It’s worse BEING an angry dad. I’m thinking I should have more kids and bring the babies to the theaters with the really kick ass sound systems so it hurts their little ears and they SCREAM about it for two hours just for some payback because I was polite enough to hire a sitter because I respect other people’s moviewatching experiances. But nooooo, someone has to talk on their cell to “Brian” who’s “so cute” and can’t even bounce a check to pay enough attention and I have to get up in some chicks grill after 45 minutes after politely asking the staff to do something because it got no response. Not to mention the harsh language, people making out, etc. etc. Trailer? What’s on the screen I can explain, real life and the management’s indifference to what’s happening in their theaters, that is tough to explain.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:51 AM on June 25, 2007



Because some things are fine to do in real life.

Yeah. But that is not what you said. You said it's okay to PRETEND to do "some" things. So does that imply there some things that are not okay to PRETEND to do? Because that is what a kid will want to know. And maybe, just maybe, it's not okay to enjoy pretend rape and torture so so much.

Nope.

I thought so.


On the other hand, your implicit claim that we must make sure that nobody is ever exposed to anything that a particularly sensitive eight-year-old might dislike seeing is laughable on its face.


Nobody is ever exposed? I made no such claim. Implicit or otherwise. But it's nice your laughing. I like it when people laugh.
posted by tkchrist at 11:58 PM on June 25, 2007


And maybe, just maybe, it's not okay to enjoy pretend rape and torture so so much.

Thousands of people do every day. They are called fetishists. Society doesn't seem to be collapsing as a result of them.

And not to speak for ROU_Xenophobe, but I think a careful reading of his post will suggest that he (?) meant to say that some things are OK to pretend to do, but not to really do. Not that there are some things that are not OK to pretend.

If you are not saying that nobody should ever be exposed to such things, then what are you saying exactly? While nothing is perfect, I think the existing ratings systems and parental control mechanisms do a pretty good job of keeping kids eyes away from severely explicit stuff, certainly MUCH better than when I was a kid 20 years ago.
posted by Rock Steady at 4:22 AM on June 26, 2007


Rock Steady read me right.

You said it's okay to PRETEND to do "some" things. So does that imply there some things that are not okay to PRETEND to do?

No. It implies that anything is fine in pretend, but some things are not in real life.

And, yes, I'm sure you can come up with something that's so completely terrible that even pretending it, or seeing it pretended, would warp your brain more than watching Cthulhu do a striptease in the titty-bars or Rl'yeh. Horror trailers don't fit that, even if they do freak out your kid.

Nobody is ever exposed? I made no such claim. Implicit or otherwise.

You said you wanted horror trailers gone, or at the very least such was implicit in your complaint about them. How do you propose to banish them from only your wee tot's world, leaving them in the rest of ours? I mean, it's easy enough -- don't go to movies, and don't own a television -- but most people would be unwilling to deal with the consequences of doing so.

If you were just bitching about them and don't really want them gone, I'm sorry to have misread you. I don't like torture-porn movies either, so I don't go to see them.

I thought so.

Yeah, but. Having a kid doesn't make you more sensible about how the world should treat kids. If anything, my experience is that parents are less capable of dealing with these matters rationally because they spend all of their time addled by programming-hormones. "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" is a cue to turn off your neocortex.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:50 AM on June 26, 2007


“Other people's kids freak out when they see clowns -- should we also do away with those?”

Yes. Oh, please, God, yes."


Yes absolutely get rid of those kids. They're annoying the poor innocent clowns.

"Imagine a world made entirely of Tonka metal and indestructible Fisher-Price plastic."

That would be a slice of heaven right there.

...


I don't go to movie theaters anymore for a number of reasons. One of them is the annoying bunch of commercials they put up as "coming attractions" which suck. Y'know there was a time before I was born I've been led to understand when you could go to the movies, see a couple cartoons, a newsreel of current events, some short subject films AND a main feature as well as fun commercials that didn't annoy the crap out of you. Nowadays you pay to be advertised at and that's about it. Even the slide show before the show consists of nothing but inane trivia questions any four year old can answer, and ads.

One other reason why I don't go any more is because of YOUR KIDS. Whoever you are. Your kids are not adorable. They are not precious. They are not a miracle. They are noisy, rowdy, they talk during the film and spill their soda on the floor which makes it all sticky and they cry in the middle of the film just as Cage is being dissed by Moore. And I don't have a rewind button here! OR a pause button so I can stop the film and tell YOUR children to not sit in the front row and then throw up.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:19 PM on June 30, 2007


"And to an eight year old freaking out about seeing a screaming terrified naked girl that he isn't sure IS pretend... well good luck with that. You obviously have never had that conversation before have you?"

If I ever had a kid and he started crying during an R rated horror film cuz of some screaming terrified naked girl that was about to get killed by an axe-wielding maniac, I'd tell him to suck it up.

This is one of the many reasons why I don't have children.

psst! get off my lawn!
posted by ZachsMind at 5:27 PM on June 30, 2007



If you were just bitching about them and don't really want them gone, I'm sorry to have misread you.

Your all too common habit is to snark-off with a drive-by and not stick around to back it up. And you put words in peoples mouths so you take up the strawman.

You said you wanted horror trailers gone

Case and point. Where? I never said that. Can you read? I said "I don't want my kids to see them."

This time you deliberately put words in my mouth I didn't say or even imply so you could pontificate about your curmudgeonly take on children and shit. I'm getting pretty sick of you doing that kind of shit, bro. Seriously. It's an asshole thing to do.
posted by tkchrist at 10:25 PM on July 2, 2007


Thousands of people do every day. They are called fetishists. Society doesn't seem to be collapsing as a result of them.

Do you people know how to read? Or do you just feed off each others strawmen?

I said "maybe" and "so so much." It was not an absolutists decree or a call for a ban.

So. Instead of a small sub-culture of a few thousand consensual fetishists who are conscious about what they do what if it were tens of millions of people unaware of the implications? Like... I dunno... the number of people going to multiplexes to see Hostel IV. Maybe this is not such a good thing. Maybe we should be thinking more about what this stuff says about our troubling attitudes about women and violence.

Nah. Let's not think about it. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.

Thought experiment. You really think society would hum along okay if 150 million people in the US were all into hardcore BDSM? You think that would be healthy?
posted by tkchrist at 10:34 PM on July 2, 2007


« Older Boy's Hug Lands Him in Trouble At School With "No ...   |   'A Different Understanding Wit... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments