TIGblogs - modern mystique

I felt I’d dive right into a topic that’s becoming become less forbidden and pushed on people of increasingly younger ages. Sex is visible in almost all streams of the media, in the seductively toned advertisements that line highways, overpower magazine pages, and consume television commercials. Not only is sex infesting adverts from the inside out; movies have become less cautious as to who its viewers may be. The MPAA (

Motion Picture Association of America) currently rates many movies conveniently at PG-13, not because the material contained within them are deemed acceptable for teens 13 and upwards to view, but because this is the generation that makes movie theatres, corporations, etc. the most profit, whereas placing these movies rightfully at an “R” rating would produce far less revenue. So morality is sacrificed for profit in other words. Now, rating a movie “R” obviously does not shield it from the eyes of those under the age of 17, when accompanied with someone over the age of 17, they’re allowed to view the movie in theatres. Yet according to MPAA’s definition of a PG-13 movie and the movies being rated as such there is a slight difference.

“A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.”

Oddly, no members of the MPAA are known by the general public and multiple attempts/investigations have been made in order to retrieve this information to determine who exactly is deciding and representing what the “majority of American parents” think is appropriate. The MPAAs wording of this definition leaves a very liberal gap as to what can allowedly be rated PG-13. Obviously since rating a movie as PG-13 brings more profit, it is found that currently many movies are being rated as such, even though many parents may believe differently. Obviously the MPAA rates movies that would sharply contradict their stated definition, but finagle a great deal of movies into theatres and sales as PG-13. Much blame can be placed on the MPAA, but parents must also realize that responsibility needs to be involved in determining what movies are appropriate even if ratings are misleading. So as movie corporations make more revenue by disregarding the slightly more mature material being released to young teens these generations are becoming adjusted to the mentality that the content of these films are acceptable to regenerate in daily life. This is not to say that there are many other influences, this is but a piece to the current statistics of a sharp up rise in teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, violence, etc. But it’s not to also say that this is not a portion of the problem and debates have recently arisen as to what’s to be done. It’s an issue that is less grounded on certain sides of the political spectrum and more relatable to where people stand on morality or lack thereof and its respective effects on trends in teen life. Sex is of course a much needed part of education, but when it’s pressed on teens that are particularly impressionable at the ages of 12-17, there is a great deal of confusion as to what’s acceptable and eventually many teens begin to believe that the stories they view on television and in movies are acceptable. Parenting is at part to blame, but these industries must also be held partially accountable.

I personally am against censorship and feel that the answer does not lie in that course of action. Instead I feel that a much more strict rating system be used in order to ensure that the material in movies are entirely suitable for the age group attending those movies. A movie should not be chopped apart in order to become an “R” rated movie, but simply be rated NC-17, and the same goes for PG-13. The difficultly comes in the fact that this control is not in the people’s hands but instead on a committee of people whose salaries more or less depend on revenues obtained from the movies they rate. The studios under the MPAA are Disney, Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures, 20^thCentury Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. It has formed a monopoly over American media and determines much of the content watched for certain age groups. They’ve been under investigation for their policies on rating as well as its actual members. The MPAA has also been criticized for being more contented with violence than with sexuality. It should also be noted that there is obviously more bias towards homosexual content than heterosexual. The MPAA also routinely censors movies in order to reduce an NC-17 to R rating or an R to a PG-13 rating. Censorship should not occur in order to drive profits upwards.

Returning to advertising, there is a movement currently underway in order to portray more average people in advertising. Sex in advertising is everywhere, whether it’s outright or completely subliminal. Sultry models, shirtless men, exposed cleavage, skimpily dressed women; passionate embraces, etc. are just a few of advertising company’s ploys in order to gain attention to their product. This not only gains the attention wanted but also begins to redefine the “average” person and consistently makes people, particularly teens rethink their bodies, style, and sometimes personality. This influence that’s arising from advertising is showing growing trends in anorexia and other eating disorders and again a more careless look at sex in general. Although this is much more subliminal than the obvious content of movies and can’t exactly be cured by a more stringent rating system, there are alternatives to what is currently being fed to the public. The styles presented by companies must be represented by models that portray an air of responsibility, contrasted with current models whose lives are frequently plagued by drug use, eating disorders and partying. But again, it must also be partly a parent’s responsibility to explain that realistically the models in the pictures aren’t completely representative of the general population and that there is no need to strive in order to reach the look portrayed since it is usually obtained through irresponsible habits and sometimes disorders. A bigger emphasis needs to be put on individualistic beauty in order to encourage teens to be themselves instead of following all the trends depicted in various advertising outlets.

I feel that although these advertising campaigns do indeed rely on people following trends and purchasing a product simply because of the attractive model using it, that there is a degree of ignorance involved in purchasing a product through this influence. It truly isn’t that difficult to see through these ad campaigns and view the motives behind them. Granted children and teens might not make this connection as easily as adults, but when adults are able to be misled by these adverts as easily as teens then it’s obvious that the minds of the general public can be easily manipulated into certain views of products and trends. (I’ll discuss other uses of this influence in later entries.)

It’s slightly pathetic that someone can believe that they can replicate a model if they purchase the jeans they’re wearing or buy the car they’re driving. Advertising companies are making profit from the general public’s ignorance. Not only are these submissively sexual advertisements influencing purchases but they are also influencing a degree of less cautious sensuality in teens that is leading 16 year olds attempting to imitate a 21 year old model. The question remains, is this an act of ignorance on the part of parents or can it all be blamed solely on increasingly sensual advertising?

Tagged: advertising, anorexia, censorship, eating disorders, Hollywood studios, individual beauty, media, model, monopoly, MPAA, parenting, rating system, sensuality, sex, subliminal, teenage pregnancy, teenage sexuality, violence