Parents who take young children to R-rated movies: WTF?!?

[Shine]

Last night MrShine and I went to see the new R-rated Jim Carrey movie, "The Number 23". It was OK, but filled with lots of blood, violence and cursing.

A family came in and sat right behind us with a little boy, probably about 4 yrs old. I was shocked and made a loud comment expressing my surprise, but I didn't feel comfortable enough to actually confront them about it.

It's sensitive because they were a Hispanic family and perhaps there's a different cultural relationship to violent images that I want to respect. Also, some Hispanic families simply can't afford paying for childcare, so they bring the little ones along to adult activities. All the same, though, it's hard to understand how ANYbody could make it OK in their minds to expose a child to graphic violence like that. I just don't get it, personally. Am I missing something here? :shrug:

Today I followed up and complained to the theatre management who basically was on my side and yet they chalked it up to the "parental perogative" and said there was nothing else they could do about it, since the kid was accompanied by an adult.

It's sad and I feel angry to see parents making decisions like that. A kid that age has NO ability to filter the ugly images and comprehend what they're seeing. They're just like sponges and I'm sure seeing all the blood and gore last night must have been traumatic, on some level. :(

[BlooInBloo]

1. There should be a law prohibiting parents from doing anything you disapprove of.

[Lex]

11. Missed the point

AGAIN.

[BlooInBloo]

14. No I didn't.

[Lex]

16. Did the OP suggest such a law? Of course not.

nt

[BlooInBloo]

19. Duh. I did.

[Lex]

22. Exactly. Which is where you missed the point.

nt

[BlooInBloo]

32. No I didn't.

[Blashyrkh]

12. My thoughts exactly.

[Lex]

21. Welcome to DU, Blashyrkh.

nt

[Shine]

34. LOL! It would be hard to enforce since we're all so different

and esp b/c there are so many different opinions about what "good parenting" looks like.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Really?

[Shine]

44. Don't you think it would be completely unrealistic to enforce a law??

:shrug: I mean, c'mon....how could you even begin to do that?

Are you just being silly?

[BlooInBloo]

45. Hm. I never thought of that.

[WinkyDink]

43. How's that extrapolatin' thing working for ya?

[BlooInBloo]

49. Better than expected - thanks!

[soothsayer]

112. lol! I totally agree with you. what happened to myob

[Xenotime]

121. or are offended by..

[Fierce]

2. I hate that shit too.

It makes me sad.

[alarimer]

3. It's defintely not okay to do that

I don't know what goes through these people's minds.

[quinnox]

4. I don't understand it

I go to a lot of horror movies, hard core ones with blood galore, and I see the parents bringing their little kids? They are idiotic!! They don't care or are just too stupid I guess.

By the way, I saw the number 23 too, and same thing, little kids in the movie! (a side note - hated the movie, but thats neither here nor there)

the worst is when they bring the babies and they cry throughout the whole movie.

[Shine]

23. I agree with you about the movie. I thought it was ridiculous.

but the hubby liked it, go figure. :crazy:

[MountainLaurel]

41. Went to Pan's Labryinth yesterday

A really dark, horrifically violent movie without a happy ending, and someone brought a kid who was about 8 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if the kid didn't end up with screaming nightmares about torture after that one.

:wow:

[Shine]

48. That one's rated R, too.

I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard it's incredibly violent and disturbing. :thumbsdown: to those parents who brought the 8 yr old. What the hell are these people thinking?!? It's mystifying...

[BreweryYardRat]

78. No, The Descent was horrifically violent.

Pan's Labyrinth was nothing in comparison. But to anyone who hasn't seen The Descent, Pan's Labyrinth was pretty heavy on the violence. Problem was, they billed it as a fantasy movie, so a lot of idiots brought their kids, just like you saw.

No one in the theater I went to was stupid enough to bring a kid to The Descent, but I'll bet there were plenty of other tots traumatized by that movie.

[MountainLaurel]

117. Thanks for the warning.

I think you're axactly right about it being billed as a fantasy. But any parent worth their salt should research a film first before exposing their kid to it.

[senseandsensibility]

5. I agree

Some parents do not seem to realize the effect of graphic violence on children. It is more common than some people realize. As for being part of the Hispanic culture, I don't think so. I'm sure many whites do the same thing. I think it's more of an issue of less education, less maturity, less experience as a parent, or other factors. As a teacher, I see poor parenting all the time. Parents are no more perfect than anyone else. Unfortunately, it's the children that pay the price.

[Shine]

50. You're absolutely right. It's the kids who are the victims here.

it's so sad. :(

[BeFrank]

6. That is ridiculous. A young child cannot filter that kind of violence

and should not be exposed to it until he/she is old enough to understand what they are seeing.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. It is pretty much none of your business.

The movies are clearly labelled and it is a parental decision about what they choose to let their kids see. Most likely they just couldn't find a baby sitter. If the child was creating a disturbance you might have a point, but it seems that was not the case.

[Shine]

18. You're absolutely right.....but at the same time, it "takes a village" to raise a child

it's a hard call because they have the right to raise their kid however they want....but that same kid is gonna grow up and effect the rest of the world.

We're all in this together, in other words.

And it's sad to see bad parenting because the ripples of their decisions influence the bigger picture down the road.

I'm sure you're right about the sitter, but they still should've known better, imo. Sigh...

[progdonkey]

70. I think you did the right thing with just going to the theater management...

Let them be the ones who decide exactly what policies they want to have. It's perfectly appropriate for them to make someone feel unwelcome in their theater (provided, of course, it's not based on race, etc.), but it's inappropriate for one patron to make another feel unwelcome in a theater, when the management doesn't have a problem with the latter patron.

I remember one time when I was around twelve, living in Singapore, I went to see "the Firm," and while I was sitting in the theater before the movie eating popcorn, I accidentally lost my grip on the bag and spilled some popcorn at my feet. I gathered the popcorn into a little pile with my feet (to make it easier to step over and easier for the cleaning crew afterwards) and forgot about it. This middle-aged guy sat one seat down from me with two other women, and he pointed out the popcorn and said (in a very sleazy sounding French accent, no less), "Aren't you going to clean that up?" I said, "I don't have any place to put it; besides the cleaning crews will get it afterwards." For some reason, the sight of this popcorn really agitated the guy, and he started getting angry at me, saying I was just like Michael Fay, the kid who had been caned for throwing eggs and spraying graffiti on cars. He got up and said, "I'm getting the management." He brought a manager, who took a look at the "mess," and just said (with the look of "just do it to shut this guy up, please") for me to push everything down below the seat in front of me, which I had no problem doing--the only reason I didn't do that in the first place was because I thought that would be less convenient for the cleaners!

Anyway, the guy sat down, still agitated, but he seemed to feel victorious that he got his way.

I mention this just to point out that, if he actually had a problem, his first move should've been to talk with the management, to see if it concerned them, and if it didn't, he should've just let the matter drop. It was not his place to demand I do anything, and doing so only met with resistance from me, as I was not going to follow anyone's orders but the management's, as it was their theater, and not his.

The one exception to this, I would say, is if someone's talking through the movie, as they are being an intentional nuisance to everyone else in theater. If the person is just engaging in behavior that displeases you but isn't an active disruption (such as bringing their four-year-old to a violent movie), you should be dealing only with the management. If they have a problem with it, it's their theater, and their decision on what to do.

[Shine]

73. Thanks, but ultimately, the management couldn't do much about it, either.

even though he was in total agreement with me.

The law is the law: if the under-age kid has an adult with them, they can see an R-rated movie.

Oh well.

[progdonkey]

86. ratings aren't laws, though...

Ratings are just advisories for parents. Maybe some municipalities will have some extra fines for local theaters that allow children to see R-rated movies without a parent, for instance, but there are no penalties in the rating system itself, as far as I know.

So it's not a matter of "the management's hands are tied," but rather that they don't want to kick out paying customers who aren't actively disrupting a movie. If one theater decides that rated R actually means "no kids under 10, even with a parent," they'll lose money to competing theaters who don't have any extra policies past the basic ratings and they'll likely lose distributors, since distributors will want to send their movies to theaters where as many people as possible will be able to see them.

If it really matters to you, I suppose you could start a local petition drive to show the management that they'd stand to lose more money from a boycott due to their allowing 4-year-olds into R-rated movies (even with parents) than from just adhering to the rating system and leaving the decisions up to parents.

[Shine]

88. Yeah, you're right. I'm sure it's about the money, bottom line.

the manager, to his credit though, made a point of telling me how carefully they track and turn away underage minors who are trying to get into an R-rated film without an adult.

He did specifically ask me if the kid had been making any noise, which he hadn't been. I told the manager I thought the reason he was so quiet was probably because he was shocked into silence, from what he was seeing. :eyes:

A petition is a good idea, but on the other hand, it's a slippery slope.

Where do we draw the line at saying how a parent should be able to raise their own child? It reminds me, in a way, of the whole spanking debate. It's tricky.

Ultimately, the best we can do is continue to raise our own kids as best we can, right? :hi:

[progdonkey]

100. and the time to go through the whole petition thing could be put to better use...

I mean, at least the parents were both there and with the kid, right? If they couldn't afford a babysitter, wouldn't it have been much worse if they'd just left the kid at home and went to the theater themselves? (In fact, I wonder if there were any other people in the theater with you who fit that description, but since you could have no idea one way or the other, you only noticed the people who brought their kid along. ;-) )

There are so many other things to really get worked up about. When you're in the theater at the moment, it's fine to get a bit disturbed or annoyed at something, but that kid's only being exposed to an hour and a half of violence, whereas there are certainly plenty of kids who aren't at an R-rated movie with their parents because the dad is just drunk at home and the kids are sitting in their room, miserable. Which is more deserving of a petition drive to get it stopped, etc?

I personally just think that parent's should be held responsible for the actions of their children. That way, you're not calling someone a bad parent based on predictions, but on fact. If this kid does get negatively affected by seeing violent movies, and he becomes a juvenile offender, the parents will (or should) eventually called to answer for it. If the kid grows up perfectly fine and it's clear this really had no effect on him, then that just means that the parents really weren't being negligent in taking him to see a violent movie, or that there's at least no reason to get worked up about the fact that they did.

All in all, it's good that you're concerned, since it would be so much worse if you didn't care. :-)

[Shine]

101. Point taken. We have to choose our battles carefully.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, progdonkey.

[Vidar]

108. I agree. This hardly constitutes abuse.

[Madspirit]

125. a & b

a.) I am of the village concept.
b.) Child abuse is everyone's business.

Lee

[Warren Stupidity]

133. It is not child abuse.

Your claim to have a right to interfere in the parenting of someone else's child here by invoking the immunity card of 'child abuse' is both dishonest and dangerous.

I could claim, for example, that your not taking your kids to church is 'child abuse'. I've decided that your feeding your kids macburgers twice a week is clearly abuse and needs to be put to a stop. Do you see where this idiocy leads?

Child abuse is and ought to be limited to real and tangeably acts of abuse: beating your child, having sex with a child, not you don't approve of the movie the child is watching. Are there limits? Yes indeed there are, and they are clearly defined. You can't take kids into X rated movies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I posted about parents who bring their kids everywhere

in strollers and was nearly executed for complaining about that.

When my kids were little, we didn't take them to adult events. I guess that is no longer the norm.

[Beelzebud]

9. It's none of your business. R rated means minors can't see it without a parent.

[Shine]

25. Technically, you're right....but the effects of their decisions effect us ALL

see my post upthread (#18?)

[Blashyrkh]

91. Are you seriously suggesting that this child is somehow now "damaged" for having seen the movie?

He's 4. He probably spent the entire movie sleeping.

I don't understand the outrage at a family taking their child to see an R-rated movie, but how many families will leave their kids to sit and watch the news? I've seen mutilated, dismembered bodies on the news. Real humans. Not movie stuff. What's the difference?

[redwitch]

94. No difference really as far as the child is concerned.

Parents are supposed to protect their children. I think letting 4 year old children watch war news or violent scary movies is just wrong. A friend of mine owns a drive-in. This non-parenting makes him crazy.

[Shine]

98. It's not my place to say whether he was "damaged" or not from seeing one movie

The images were graphic and violent, even for an adult, frankly.

I'm simply saying that young children who are regularly exposed to violence and images like that can become immune and numbed by it....which I would argue is not healthy for our society.

What makes it heartbreaking is that it's the PARENTS who are supposed to be protecting the kids from this sort of thing happening.

And, btw, the kid was NOT sleeping. At one point, I looked back at him and his eyes were as big as saucers, as he stared at the screen. He was taking it all in, believe me. It wasn't pretty.

And I agree with you about your point with the news. It's the same thing, in my book. It's all about the parents and what they're choosing for their kids.

[Blashyrkh]

103. RE: The sleeping

I wasn't intimating that he was, just suggesting that a 4 year might be more inclined to sleep than watch the movie.

I think people need a healthy respect for violence. Being under-exposed is potentially a bad as being over-exposed. I'm not against protecting children from witnessing violence per se because (like drugs and alocohol) I'd rather have the parents present to put the images into a context. By automatically saying "You can't watch this beacuse it's violent", there's the potential to build a fascination or obsession.

How would you feel about the parents if they sat down 20 minutes once they got home, and talked about the film with their child?

At any rate, I think the fact that the age of the is throwing the scent. Firstly, how much is the kid actually taking in? Can you talk to him about it? And will your explanation actually mean anything? At 4 years old, I think it's a tough call to make.

[brettdale]

10. Perhaps a law change

Here in New Zealand if a movie is R rated, either R13, R15, R16, or R18 it means no one is allowed in under that age, even if they are with their parents.

[brettdale]

13. Then again

On tv here, movies play uncensored on network tv.

[Puregonzo1188]

64. Although I agree four years old may be a little young for an r-rated movie

I don't think laws to enforce movie ratings are a good idea at all. I really don't think there is a one size fits all age for a certain film and it's a decision better left to parents.

In all honesty, how many people never saw a PG-13 film until they were 13 or an r-rated film until they were 17?

[Solon]

95. In the United States, there is no law...

Those laws were struck down as unconstitutional 30 years ago. Movie theaters themselves are supposed to enforce the ratings, those that don't may find they can't buy or show the latest blockbuster at their movie theater, which affects ticket sales. The only things, in this country, that are legally restricted by age are controlled substances, like Cigarettes and Alcohol, and Porn.

[angstlessk]

15. Maybe they could afford either a baby sitter OR a movie and

they chose the movie cause if they chose the babysitter they would have nowhere to go? :shrug:

[Shine]

27. Maybe. Who knows what the hell was going on in their minds?

the bottom line, though, imo, is they should have known better than to take a toddler to a movie like that.

There are plenty of other movies out there which would've been more appropriate, if they really had to take him along.

Sigh...oh well.

[angstlessk]

31. I have never even heard of that movie, but you are correct

they could have chosen a movie both the parents AND the child could enjoy..not sure whats out there, but I am sure there is something the kid could enjoy?

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Maybe they can just stay home?

We didn't have much of a social life when our kids were little and we survived.

Guess what? Kids grow up and you get to go out then. Parenting involves making sacrifices.

[angstlessk]

47. WOW you are rabid...just stay home for 15 years if you are poor

and cannot afford a babysitter...if there is not a release of tension I think the child might suffer more than just an occasional movie that is unplesant!

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. I didn't stay home for 15 years

My kids were old enough for us to go out without a sitter long before that. See we were such good parents that they were very responsible kids :)

You apparently missed my point. Parenting is the most important job any of us will ever have. And it involves sacrifices, regardless of whether the parents are rich or poor.

[angstlessk]

65. It matters not if your child is responsible.,.it depends on the LAW

the age at which you can leave a child home alone varies from state to state and does not depend on the maturity of the kids...but only on the laws of the state.

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. It's 7 in Missouri

I should say it was 7 when my kids were little. That's a far cry from 15.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. Or, maybe you could stay home.

You seem to be the one with the problem.

[Beaverhausen]

17. I saw lots of young kids at "Borat" too

I think it's wrong for parents to bring young kids to R-rated films but, what can you do? Maybe the theatres should make a minimum age for R-rated films?

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. There are theaters here that never allow kids

Regardless of what movie is showing.

[Hunky Dunky]

20. Unfortunately there is no Common Sense Test

that you must pass before you have kids.

[Shine]

28. Very true, Hunky Dunky.

it's sad, isn't it? :shrug:

[demrabble]

24. YOU Raise YOUR Kids

You can raise your kids.

Please let others raise their own kids.

You really have no idea of how the parents of that four-year-old child might have spoken to THEIR child about the images in the film.

They did nothing wrong.

[SayWhatYo]

37. Oh please...

If someone is taking their four year old kid to see such movies, then they deserve to be called idiots. I disagree with some on this thread though, there shouldn't be any laws against it. However, if I owned a theater, I would not allow for such things. I would also hope that there would be laws to protect theaters that enforce such rules.

[Shine]

42. When I called the theatre manager today he was totally in agreement

with me, but he said his hands were tied b/c the law clearly states if the minor is under 17 and accompanied by an adult, they can enter.

He told me a story of how he had one time said something to a mother who was bringing in her 10 and 12 yr old daugters to see a re-run of "Last Tango in Paris" (!!) and she had totally gone off on him, saying she would be the judge of what was appropriate or not for her kids, NOT him.

She's right, of course, it's totally her perogative as a parent to choose, but it's sad to see them make choices which ultimately damage the child.

They're the real victims here. :(

[Shine]

39. You're right, I don't know what they might've said to their kid

maybe something like this: "Don't worry honey, it's just a movie. All that blood and gore isn't real."

But do you really think a 4 yr old is going to be able to make that distinction? :shrug: I don't.

Given that the parents had a choice to expose their child to the images or not, I personally think they made a bad choice and I feel sorry for the little boy, who is really the one who suffers in this case.

It makes me sad, that's all I'm saying. :(

[orleans]

106. you're right. taking a child to see a violent r rated film is completely

inappropriate.

these people on this thread--the ones telling you it is none of your business--drives me crazy.

to begin with--some parents are simply lazy, some are stupid, some are indifferent or insensitive.

some parents rape their children. is that none of our business also?

what a crock of shit.

a friend of mine once confronted a woman in a store who she saw slapping her own child. my friend didn't believe it was none of her business. she inserted herself into the situation and informed this mother that if she slapped the kid again my friend would be calling the police and reporting her for child abuse.

wikipedia defines child abuse as "the physical or psychological maltreatment of a child, often synonymous with the term child maltreatment or the term child abuse and neglect. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse

exposing a child to violent images should be considered "psychological maltreatment".

and don't let the cultural aspect sway your gut reaction.

it doesn't matter what culture someone is from when it comes to abusing children. regardless of their cultural background, it is against the law to physically or mentally abuse a child in this country.

next time i would crank it up a notch--if the manager of the theater won't ask these people to leave with their young child i would call the police and tell them you want to make a report based on the psychological mistreatment of a child.

you could also consider this type of circumstance a form of neglect--insofar as the welfare of the child is being neglected.

(and anyone making excuses that the parents couldn't find a babysitter--well then why the hell didn't they go and see a more appropriate movie since they were with a young child? why did they have to go see a movie at all? it's all bullshit. the parents were assholes exposing their child to this. their judgment was up their butts and someone should call them on it so they don't put their kid through this again.)

[Shine]

115. Thanks for your thoughtful post, orleans.

sounds like we're definitely on the same page.

[orleans]

126. i think so too (that we're on the same page) n/t

[LostInAnomie]

26. It's the parents' choice.

It would just be nice if they would choose a little more wisely.

[TahitiNut]

29. Public display of poor parenting. They should rent the movie and let the kid watch at home.

:evilgrin:

[Annces]

30. I agree, children are sponges

That is sad to hear about.

[La Coliniere]

33. Many irresponsible parents in this here country.

I often notice parents bringing children to movies that are totally unsuitable for them. I always want to make some kind of comment, but I don't. Not my kids. It is disturbing nonetheless. And those CRYING babies are always disturbing. Geesh!

[VWolf]

36. Off topic - I also saw The Number 23 the other day

The next morning, my 6yo daughter asked me, "Daddy, is 16 plus 16 equal to 23 ... I mean, 32?"

Creepy!

And no, I would never, ever take her to that movie at this age.

[GeorgeGist]

40. Unlike 'Adults' ...

"... I'm sure seeing all the blood and gore last night must have been traumatic, on some level. "

[Shine]

51. Yeah, really.

:)

[sandnsea]

46. Why bring ethnicity into it at all?

What makes the cultural heritage of the family in question "sensitive"? Frankly, the fact that you brought up this family's ethnicity says more about you than it does about them.

Did it occur to you they thought the movie was a Jim Carrey comedy?? Is that what would have occurred to you if the family had been white?

[Beelzebud]

53. Great point. WTF is up with that?

I suppose it was just Mexicans that took their children to see Passion of the Christ....

[BlooInBloo]

54. It takes 10 "atta-boys" to make up for one "aw, shit".

[Shine]

62. No, I would've had the same reaction if the family was white.

I only brought up the ethnicity b/c I was wondering if perhaps the cultural difference and viewpoints they had of violence influenced their decision to expose their child to those images...and also if perhaps they simply couldn't afford a sitter. That's all there is to it. No offense was meant.

I still stand by my reaction, though. I think they made a poor parenting choice and the kid is the one who suffers, imo.

[sandnsea]

74. All white folks can afford sitters???

I'll leave it at that. I don't think you're a bad person or even a racist. I do think you have some underlying preudices that you haven't taken a hard look at.

I babysat for my kids last night because they couldn't afford a babysitter. That isn't unique to minorities.

[Shine]

76. No, no, that's not what I'm saying at all.

there are plenty of poor white people too, obviously, who can't afford a sitter. Hell, I can relate. LOL.

Again, I only brought up their ethnicity b/c I was truly wondering if the money had been an option and if they had a different cultural viewpoint on children's exposure to violence...cuz I just didn't get why parents would make that choice for their kid. That's all there was to it.

That was nice of you to babysit your grandkids. My mom helps us out a lot, too. It makes a huge difference and I'm sure they really appreciate you for it.

[Marie26]

138. Not to nitpick,

but the underlying assumption seems to be that Hispanic families are more tolerant of violence. And that might be an assumption you'd want to examine. I've never noticed that Hispanic parents are more likely to show violence to young children, if anything, parents are often even more protective. Just saying...

[Starbucks Anarchist]

77. She said nothing of the sort.

:eyes:

[Dora]

122. Affordability is not race related.

Interesting discussion here. I also had to cock an eyebrow at your choice to point out the family's ethnicity.


We're white, and money's tight. No sitter for us tonight.

[progdonkey]

75. I read it in the context of "devil's advocate"...

That is, "Well, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not willfully doing something they know to be hazardous to their child. Since they're Latino, maybe violent movies are less of a concern to Latinos."

Rather than, "Ah, typical Latinos. Such awful parents."

Kind of like if you meet someone, and he greets your girlfriend by patting her on the butt. If he's from Tibet or something (just randomly exotic), you might first want to ask yourself, "Is that just how they greet each other in Tibet?" before assuming that he's just a perv copping a feel.

[Shine]

79. Exactly right, progdonkey. Thanks for getting it.

:hi:

[MissB]

55. It does suck.

Dh and I went to see each of the Lord of the Ring movies in the last few years as they were showing at the theater. At each one, we'd see 3 to 6 year old kids. I realize that some parents simply can't afford the babysitting fees, but it would be far wiser to wait for it to come out on video than expose the kid to such graphic violence.

Some parents make really bad decisions - and the kids pay for it.

[seabeyond]

56. i was very particular what my children watched. my brother was not.

i see the difference in the children. the way they both see the world and walk in this world. i do too think it is sad a parent allows young children to watch these shows. there were times i would ask brother and sister in law if the kids should be around to watch some of the movies. they made the decision to allow it. that is the end. their choice. they are dealing with the repercussions today that i am not dealing with now that our kids are older. but it is not all on the movies. parents that allow the young child to watch these movies generally are allowing a lot of other stuff, or making other not such positive choices in parenting too.

ultimately, it is their choices in raising child. exactly like i insist, demand that i make the choices in parenting my kids.

[BlooInBloo]

61. Well there you go. Two anecdotal data points are obviously enough to form a judgement....

... After all, it's not there are a jillion other variables involved or anything.

[redwitch]

97. You seem to be very judgemental yourself.

I base that on more than a couple of posts.

[Shine]

71. Yes, we must teach the children well....

and the ripples will go out....

sadly, it's the same for when the children are NOT taught well, too.

We're all in this together, but we can only do what we can do, esp. when it comes to our own kids.

[Jamastiene]

57. Well, I wonder if anyone lets their children watch the nightly

news. That's the most gory thing on television or in film. Nothing Hollywood can produce can come close to the gore of this war or the reality of the violence that afflicts the human species perpetrated by the human species on the human species.

[Forkboy]

58. My dad took me to R rated movies and I turned out fine.

:freak:

[Connie_Corleone]

59. My mother took me to rated R movies too.

I think she did it because she couldn't find a babysitter, so I ended up going with her and her date. I remember there were quite a few kids in the theater when we went to see Penitentiary.

Somehow, I grew up just fine. I'm a movie buff now. Oh wait. I love horror movies! Maybe there is something wrong with me. :hide:

[MsKandice01]

67. I could have written your post myself...

With one difference. I know there's definitely something wrong with me...but it's not related to the movies I saw at that age. :rofl:

[Matariki]

60. wow. you come off like a busy-body church lady - loud, disapproving comments and all.

[Shine]

66. That is not my intention. I was simply expressing my sadness, for the kid's sake.

It just makes me sad to see kids exposed to graphic violence at such a young age, due to the parents.

What a world, eh? :shrug:

[MurrayDelph]

63. I am a retired schoolteacher

I see dozens of examples of what I would consider "bad parenting" every day. Do you know what I do about it?
Nothing, and hope for the best.
Do you know what I can do about it?
Nothing, and hope for the best.
Do you know what I SHOULD do about it?

NOTHING, AND HOPE FOR THE BEST!

For the record, over the years I have seen examples of people whom I thought were excellent parents, whose
kids still turn out rotten!

Life's a crap-shoot.

Take care of the kids you can, and hope for the best.

[Shine]

68. Yes, I know you are right. I was just expressing my sadnes and anger.

sometimes we need to do that....in the face of "doing nothing".

I will always have hope for the future.

I truly believe raising my two kids to be loving, conscious, contributing members of society is the greatest gift I can give the planet.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

69. I had a funny experience that's the flipside to this:

A few years ago, I saw "The Cooler" (William H. Macy, Alec Baldwin) in theaters. Seated next to me was a 40ish woman and her mother, who must have been in her 60s or 70s.

The movie was quite violent and profane, and I didn't notice a visible reaction from them because of that, but what happened next was hilarious.

There was a scene where Macy and Maria Bello had just had sex. The camera panned down their (obviously) naked bodies, and even though they had their genitalia covered (to avoid an NC-17 rating), I heard the two women next to me yell, "Eww!"

I almost wanted to say to the mother, "Lady, how do you think your daughter got here?"

:rofl:

[Shine]

72. That's funny.

I saw that movie, too. It was a good one.

:hi:

[FormerDittoHead]

81. But my boys LOVED Jim Carey in "Ace Ventura" and "The Mask" movies...

I guess it's the price we pay when stars of kid movies start making R rated ones.

What's next? The Olson Twins in porn? But Mommy! I LOVE them!

When I was growing up (like 13), my father took me to see some R rated movies, but I should say, the ONLY thing there was was language and a couple of FLASHES of nudity (which always seemed to be thrown in, like Dirty Harry).

Remember how "scandalous" Basic Instinct was?

Well, go to your local Blockbuster. R rated movies ain't what they used to be people.

Hell, check out the (very good) Casino Royale, which was rated PG. They have a torture scene in there which will knock you out of your chair!

[Shine]

90. Well THIS particular R-rated movie was pretty graphically violent

especially for a 4 yr old. There was a LOT of blood and gore, not to mention cursing and sex scenes. That's a lot to take in for a little one.

Plus, I think there's a big difference between taking a 4 yr old to an R move vs taking a 13 yr old. The younger ones just can't understand what they're seeing, although they're effected by it.

But, I get your point about the Jim Carrey factor. Our 13 yr old son is totally into him and wanted to see the movie cuz it had him in it. We told him he couldn't see it, since it was rated R. End of story. :D I laughed at your line about the Olsen Twins in porn. heh. That's a scary thought.

I saw Casino Royale, too. I'm pretty sure it's PG-13, actually. Yes, the torture scene is very intense.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. I suspect it's more a situation of parents *really* wanting to see

the movie, and not having sitters.

No excuse.

I have regularly brought kids to pg-13 movies. I don't mind nudity, I don't mind language, I don't mind a few sexual situations. I mind violence, and we don't see those. But it's possible people have shaken their heads at me, too.

All the same, I sort of cringe when I see little ones in a movie that's just not appropriate for them.

Much as I adored the LOTR movies, for instance, and much as I would have hated to miss them in the theater, there's no way I would have taken a younger child to see them. My younger one stayed home. But in front of me were two little ones -- maybe 4 and 5. Nightmares for weeks, I guarantee you.

[frankenforpres]

84. i saw kids younger than 10..

at THE DEPARTED. terrible parents

[FormerDittoHead]

85. ...got that beat. Less than 10 year old at PULP FICTION. n/t

[Shine]

92. How 'bout this one: I saw a 4 or 5 yr old at "Gladiator"!!!!

:wtf:

That's just unbelievable. Why would they do such a thing?? :shrug:

[tammywammy]

141. I saw about 5 or 6 children when I saw "Scarface"

Talk about inappropriate. There were 2 or 3 four to five year olds, an infant, two 7 or 8 year olds and at least one 3 year old.

It was one of the worst movie experiences I have ever had. It was during the re-release of it, because "Scarface" was coming out on DVD. The infant and at least one or two of the other children constantly screamed and cried every time the machine guns started going off, which is what every 5 or 10 minutes. It was horrible.

I regret not speaking up to management during the movie, because the crying was really taking away from it.

I just don't understand why a parent would think it's okay to exposes such young children to such a violent movie. :shrug:

[Contrary1]

87. Too bad this country is so lawsuit happy.

The obvious solution would be a childcare center at the theater itself.
Unfortunately, insurance for such a venture would be astronomical.

[Shine]

93. Yup, it would never happen.

interesting idea, though.

[earth mom]

89. I SO hear you! Some parents have absolutely NO common sense!

How about this one? 8 year olds girls have a slumber party and watch American Pie 2?!

Like :wtf: Seriously.

[Shine]

96. OMG!

If my 10 yr old dtr went to a sleepover party and I found out they were gonna watch that movie, I'd bring her home early.

Of course, I'd be even more pissed off if they saw it and I wasn't told about it until AFTER they'd seen it.

I'd have a few choice words for the parents, that's for sure.

Luckily, most of the parents in my circle of friends would NEVER in their right minds consider something like that.

It's sad what some parents choose to be OK for their kids. It's just heartbreaking. :(

[Ms. Toad]

99. Slightly OT - a site to help parents decide

If you want help to decide what is appropriate for your kids to see check out kids-in-mind.com. It is a lot more helpful than the formal rating system.

It gives a fairly detailed description of incidents of sex/nudity, blood and gore, and profanity and an objective numerical rating for each. It's sure made our move screening lives much easier, since the rule for our teenage-but-not-yet-17 daughter before finding the site was that one or both parents had to see the movie first if it as R rated.

[Radio_Lady]

102. As a film reviewer, I can't tell you how many parents bring their kids to FREE previews,

and the management can do nothing about it.

There were even children at the screening of "Pan's Labyrinth" when we went to Las Vegas.

WTF?

[Edweird]

104. meh.. when I was just a little weird, my parents took me with them

to the drive in. Plenty were R rated. So what? It's the parents decision anyway, not yours or mine to make.

[DefenseLawyer]

105. We need to have Child Protective Services there

at the theater and if someone brings his kid to a movie that they deem inappropriate they can just snatch up the kid, have a quick hearing in the lobby and terminate parental rights on the spot. If the movie is only kinda bad, they can at least move the kids into a better movie, give the parents a lecture about their taste in cinema and maybe tazer them just for good measure.

[WorldResident]

107. Yay for big brother telling us how to parent our children!!!

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[GreenZoneLT]

109. Screw the kid

My problem is not that it's hurting the kid (it's just a movie, and they're not saturated by them like TV), it's that little kids can't sit still and be quiet for a movie. There ought to be "no kid" showings (along with "no conversations, no cell phones") for people who are interested in watching the movie. Same goes for expensive restaurants. Take your unruly youngun to Denny's or Shoney's, and let people enjoy their food.

[Shine]

116. Well, for what it's worth, this kid was quiet the whole time.

probably because he was shocked into silence from what he was seeing. :eyes: And no, as another poster suggested, he was NOT sleeping. At one point, I looked back at him and his eyes were glued to the screen, as big as saucers. He was taking it all in like a sponge, believe me. It wasn't pretty and I was disturbed by that. Plus it made me sad.

As I'm mentioned before, I don't believe a 4 yr old boy has the capacity to comprehend all the graphic violence of blood and gore, even if it's on a screen.

[Marie26]

140. Just imagine how much they see on TV

There was a study that actually calculated how many murders a child will see by age 18, and it was a stunning figure. Googling - "An average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders on TV by age 18." America is awash in violence - even if children aren't at R-rated movies, they still see way too much violence everywhere else.

[Shine]

142. Yeah, I know....it's pretty sad, huh?

:(

[XanaDUer]

110. Friday night we went to see Zodiac

About 15 minutes into it (after a graphic murder scene), a bloodcurdling scream occurs. The whole theatre jumped.

A lady was taking her small child out of the theatre. The kid was screaming like s/he (could not clearly see the gender of the child) was being murdered.

Things that make you go, hmmmmmmm.

Yeah, I guess that parent has the "right" to bring their small child to see a movie like Zodiac. Still seems kind of dumb to me, though.

[AtomicKitten]

111. Other than the usual admonition for bad parenting

with regard to not being discerning about their kids' exposure to particularly violent/horror films, I in particular object to parents who bring their kids and allow them to run and up down the aisles and scream and chatter through the entire movie. Some theater managers are sympathetic enough to refund ticket money, but are unwilling to regulate the situation. It's one of the big reasons I really don't like going out to see a movie.

[soothsayer]

113. Feh, when I was a kid movies weren't even rated. What of nude

art? gonna keep them kids out of museums too?

[Warren Stupidity]

114. Actually they were censored instead. See the Hays Code.

The movie rating system came in to replace the code in 67. Before that movies were not rated but their content was strictly controlled.

"The Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA), which later became the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), adopted the code in 1930, began effectively enforcing it in 1934, and abandoned it in 1967 in favor of the subsequent MPAA film rating system. The Production Code spelled out what was and was not considered morally acceptable in the production of motion pictures for a public audience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_Code

Read the list of prohibited content. My concern of course is that more than half the folks who posted here would read that list and go 'yeah, let's bring that back'. The church lady* tendency in our party is very strong. (And of course at least as strong on the other side with those Republiks too.)

*No offense to church ladies who are strong civil libertarians intended.

[sniffa]

118. those Lazy hispanics

how dare they!?

[WI_DEM]

119. Just a thought, but maybe the parents misunderstood and thought that since it was Jim Carrey it

would not be a violent film but relatively harmless "toilet" humor.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

120. That really bothers me, too.

I have seen some very young children at viewings of R rated films that were completely inappropriate for someone of their age. I don't think that every R rated film is wrong for a younger child to see -- I think they would find some of them just boring. I'm talking about the ones that are graphically violent or sexual. I don't understand parents who would do something like that.

Too poor for a babysitter? Bullshit. If you are going to movies at $9 a pop plus concessions, you are in a position to afford a sitter for a few hours. Really "too poor" and hitting the dollar movies? You can't tell me there aren't neighbors/family/friends who wouldn't watch your kids. Sorry, but been there done that -- know how it works from first hand experience. It's really about people who are too lazy or too ignorant to make the right judgements for their young children, plain and simple.

As for the people who poo-poo and say images won't really bother or influence young children, ask just about anyone what they remember about watching "Bambi" for the first time when they were tots and how it impacted them. Images -- especially strong ones that are confusing to young minds -- have a great deal of power. After all, why else do we go to the movies if not to be moved by the film experience???

[walldude]

123. I have a nephew, he's 13 and loves horror movies

His mom (my brother-in-law's ex) will let him see them as long as there is no sex or nudity. Go figure. I also didn't understand people taking their kids to see The Passion, but again that's just me, those church goin folks obviously know more than me. Go in groups and stand in line to see Jesus brutally tortured, but boycott Happy Feet. Murder, death and torture good, Penguins and an environmental message bad. The really stupid part of all this is you can't go to a theater without tripping over 3 kids movies. It's not like there is a shortage or anything.

[DainBramaged]

124. I took my daughter to the South Park Movie when she was 12

And we had a great time. She's turned out to be quite a stable and intelligent woman. I took her to quite a few R rated movies before she was 18. So maybe the ratings system needs to be revised so that violent R rated movies do not allow children admitted until they are 18, parent or no parent.

And then there is the dilemma of the under-aged getting into R rated movies without parents. I went to see the Astronaut Farmer yesterday, filled with families with kids because of the 16 movies in the theater, 12 were R rated. And kids were getting into the Hannibal movie without parents (I personally witnessed a group of kids get tickets).

[bleedingheart]

127. What is worse is that young children in Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria see real violence

As a parent, I don't take my kids to R movies and I don't let them watch a movie unless I have seen it first...unless it is a G cartoon.

I understand your concern but unless you want to risk a confrontation with those parents...you just have to let people make their own choices.

[Megahurtz]

128. Probably the Only Thing that would Really

bother me is to have a frickin' 4 year old sitting behind me when I'm trying to watch a movie.
That must've been pleasant.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. As long as the kid wasn't disruptive, it's none of your business.

There didn't even use to be a rating system.

Some how we managed.

[qanda]

131. Honestly, I don't know why people are jumping on your case

You are exactly right! I wonder if people would feel the same way about parents taking their 4-year-old into an adult bookstore or to a club. I've been to a number of movies where the presence of young children seemed inappropriate and not having a babysitter isn't a very good excuse. When I first had children I missed a lot of movies (even ones for children) because my kids were too young and I didn't want the experience for others to be disturbed by my kids. Now that they're a little older, I can take them to see a variety of films, but I still don't take my 10 and 8 year old to R-rated movies and any parent that does is being neglectful.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. "an adult bookstore "?

Nice try. The movie was not X rated it was R rated. Better analogy would be Barnes and Nobles or Borders. There is plenty of material in both of those stores that is definitely R rated by MPAA standards: sex drugs foul language nudity violence the works.

The OP posted soliciting opinions and got them. That is not jumping all over his or her case, it is providing the feedback asked for.

You won't take your kids to R rated movies? I find that tantamount to child abuse. I have no particular evidence as to why this is true, it is just a belief I strongly hold. Shame on you for abusing your kids this way. Or perhaps it is just not any of my business what movies you choose to let your kids see.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. Why?

Maybe it's got to do with sticking one's nose in other people's business, and general prudery?

[dysfunctional press]

132. there were so many little kids at South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut when i saw it-

that it actually made me uncomfortable to be there.

[MedleyMisty]

136. My parents took me to Platoon when I was five

I'm fine. And we also watched Roots before my father died, so I would have been no older than six.

In fact, I credit my early exposure to the suffering of others (the winter I was nine my mother and I read all the Holocaust books in the local library - including survivor accounts of breaking the necks of the kids who survived the gassing because it was an easier death than suffocating in the mass grave) as one of the causes of my belief in peace and equality and nonviolence and my ability to empathize with the pain of other people.

But then I don't know anything about that movie. It probably isn't presented in the same way as Platoon or Roots.

[Marie26]

137. Want a date, can't pay for child care. nt

[Ahpook]

139. But it's ok for you?

Children are more resourceful than you give them credit. Plus, what do you want.. more restrictions?

Americans are getting silly.

Mind your own business. It makes life easier

Not to say i would take a child to a slasher flick or what have you. Just relax:)

[Shine]

143. This film had throat slashing scenes in it, with lots and lots of blood

not appropriate for a 4 yr old boy, imo. That's all I'm saying. I agree kids are incredibly resourceful and wiser than we think, but all the same...imo, a kid that age can't fully comprehend the violent images he's seeing.

I get the point about not wanting to make more restrictions. It's a hard call. On one hand, parents have the right to raise their kids however they want, but at the same time when you see a kid in a situation that can be traumatic for them, ie. being exposed to blood and gore on a giant screen, or being slapped in public at the store....what can you really do??? :shrug: Not much. On the other hand, I would argue the violence our children are exposed to effects our society, down the road, by the types of adults they grow up to be. It's not so much that they become violent themselves, although that's certainly possible, it's just about the general numbness and emotional disconnection from it that comes into play and ripples out in other ways.

As a parent myself, I'm just expressing my sadness that young children are exposed to that kind of violence on the big screen. Hell, TV is bad enough!

I suppose all we can do is focus on our own kids, ultimately.

[Warren Stupidity]

145. Hansel and Gretel. nt.

[Marrah_G]

144. Sadly this is just another part of the culture of "me"

It's parents that are unwilling to put their desires aside. I am sure the children would rather see a kids movie. There is no good reason a parent cannot wait until a movie comes out on video and watch it after the kids go to bed if they can't find a sitter. Unfortunately our culture has become one of "I must have what I want, RIGHT NOW".

Let kids be kids! Take them to see kids movies, take them to kids restraunts instead of dragging them along to adult venues where they cannot behave like kids.

I say all this as a single mother of 3 teenagers who still has never taken them to see anything R rated, and believe it or not we still have a fun going to the movies and usually top it off with ice cream at Friendly's where they can giggle and talk a little loud without disturbing everyone else.

Once you have kids it it no longer about "me", the day they are born it becomes all about "them". If that is a foriegn concept to someone then they should rethink becoming a parent.