How young is too young for an R-rated movie?

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

My wife and I are currently in debate about my suggestion of taking my 11-year-old son to see Wanted.

She, and just about everyone she knows, says that he is much too young for an R-rated movie.

Yet, when I look back at my childhood, I know that I saw my first R-rated flick with my dad at age 10, when he took me and my siblings to see Animal House. A year later, he bought me a ticket so that I could see Excalibur by myself. After that, he bought many tickets for me and my brother to see various R-rated flicks by ourselves, to the point that they would just sell us the tickets without my dad there. And the fact is that some of the most gruesome things I saw were in PG-rated movies (this was pre-PG-13, a ratings joke IMHO) - the mirror scene in Poltergeist, the melting face in Raiders, etc.
Somehow I turned out uncorrupted. Hell, people even find themselves shocked if I, at age 40, ever let a swear word slip

In addition, my son has been playing M-rated video games for a while, including Halo, Gears of War and most of the Tom Clancy games. I still draw the line at GTA style games, but so far, he doesn't appear to have been been affected (he will still give me and my wife a hard time if a four-letter word should slip, for ex.).

So my question is: Should there be a hard and fast rule about the age at which one introduces their children to R-rated material, as my wife thinks, or should it just be dependent on the child? I don't agree with bringing a 3-year-old into Saving Private Ryan, mind you, but 11 seems like a good introductory point for R-material.

Your thoughts???

P.S. One side note: I do find that I have sadly fallen in to the hypocritical area where I have a higher tolerance for him seeing violent material than sexual material, though I would guess the violent material would be more likely to have an impact. Don't know why...maybe something in the water.

[JPRaup]

I think that's a bit too young for such a violent movie like that. It really depends on the film, I probably would wait til my son or daughter is 14/15 to show them the heavier R-rated films.

[mcfly]

I think it depends on the content of the film and why it obtained an R-rating.

In your situation alone there's no way in hell I'd take an 11-year old to see Wanted.

[Ms. M]

I saw my first R-rated movie in theaters at the age of 11: Aliens in 1986. I loved it and was always grateful to my parents for letting me see it. Wanted probably isn't any less violent or graphic than that movie.

It probably depends on the kid. Some enjoy doses of adult material from a fairly early age while others are highly sensitive to intense scenes.

[KillerCannibal]

You draw the line at GTA games but you'd consider taking your kid to a film along similar lines? That should answer your question right there. I haven't heard much about how hardcore Wanted is, but my guess would be too hardcore for an 11 year old. Kids sneaking in is one thing, but I wouldn't take my 11 year old (if I had one) to a film like that.

[berserker37]

Don't take him to see "Wanted". Unless you want to be the COOLEST DAD EVER!!!!

Actually, I think it depends on the kid and the movie. Not sure how graphic "Wanted" is (sex/nudity or violence-wise), try to find out and decide accordingly. I assume that you would be going with him if you let him see it?

[JPRaup]

Wanted is extremely violent. The only sex that I can remember is Jolies fine ass.

[TomOpus]

Wanted is extremely violent. The only sex that I can remember is Jolies fine ass.You forgot those scenes of his friend banging his g/f?

But, when I saw it, I saw at least 2 different sets of parents with VERY young kids... I'd say 6ish. I thought that was too young for this movie.

[Groucho]

There are a plethora of other choices out right now that are not only more appropriate, but they are better flicks too: Wall-E, Iron Man, Sex in the City, Incredible Hulk, Hellboy 2, etc.

[maxfisher]

Wanted sounds like it'd be a bit much, but it probably depends somewhat on your kid too. My first r-rated movies were when I was 12, when a friend's parents' rented Terminator, Nightmare on Elm St. and Pumpkinhead for us for an all-nighter.

[Shannon Nutt]

When does your son get to start to watch porn and drink Jack Daniels? 13 or 14?

[fumanstan]

All I know is that Brack was some super kid and could have watched this when he was 5.

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

When does your son get to start to watch porn and drink Jack Daniels? 13 or 14?

Shhhhh....you'll spoil the surprise of his 12th birthday party! :)

I've heard that Wanted is rather violent. I guess it comes down to the type of violence. Is it graphic in a somber, matter of fact way or is it cartoony violence? There is a world of difference between the violence of let's say a Road Warrior and that of Saving Private Ryan.

Also I realize that there are ""better" movies out there. But he's not big on superhero flicks or animated films. That leaves his current selection of movies somewhat limited to a series of lame comedies (The Love Guru, Get Smart and Zohan) and Wanted.

[arminius]

I took my 5 year old son and 12 year old daughter to see Starship Troopers. They both loved it. I think it depends on the parents and their estimation of their children.

Oh and I do not understand the nudity thing. Violence is one thing but almost everybody is naked under their clothes and to act like seeing a naked body is a traumatic event for a kid is idiotic. Thats why you see them running around naked as toddlers. They're ok with it.

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

BTW, need to correct myself. Just realized that I was 13 when I saw Excalibur.

Doesn't change my introduction to R films but it does change when I was allowed to go to see them by myself.

[Hulkabrgr]

My parents took me to see Stripes when I was five. I didn't pay any attention to the language or nudity in it. Then again, my parents wouldn't have taken me to a violent R rated action picture at that age.

[Artman]

I don't have a family but personally if our options where going to see Wanted... I'd opt to just do something else.

My parents rented Glory when I was 11 I think... of course there's a world of difference watching that movie at home vs going to see a movie like Wanted in theaters.

What kind of violence do you think is better to see? I'm a little different in that I think the more serious, realistic violence is better to see than cartoony violence that is meant to be "funny."

[Artman]

Oh and I do not understand the nudity thing. Violence is one thing but almost everybody is naked under their clothes and to act like seeing a naked body is a traumatic event for a kid is idiotic. Thats why you see them running around naked as toddlers. They're ok with it.

Nudity's one thing, but if it is two actors simulating sex that's a little different imo.

[Trevor]

16 and 364 days

[DRG]

It's all about context, even within the parameters of violence/sex/etc. Frankly I'd be more worried about a kid seeing a hard drug use scene than any about of violence or sex.

[mike7162]

I personally think 11 might be a little young for such a film, but these days, I'm sure the film isn't much worse than most video games. My uncle took my brother and I to see The Godfather when I was 10 (yes, I'm that old), and I must have seen every violent kung fu film made before I was teenager. I also saw Coffy with my parents at a drive-in when I was 11 - my mother dutifully ordered us to close our eyes during nude scenes (movies seemed to telegraph nudity a lot better back then), but apparently had no problem with us seeing a shotgun decapitation.

[Larry C.]

Well I watch R rated movies at a very young. I remember being 10 and having my stepfather take me to see the original Nightmare on Elm Street. I'm pretty liberal on what I will let them watch. I don't mind the language, as much as sex scenes. I have an 12 and 10 year. They are real good about closing their eyes when I tell them too. LOL

[devilshalo]

You forgot those scenes of his friend banging his g/f?
Fully clothed. I've seen this in Rescue Me.

The up close, slow motion exit and entry wounds tho are a different matter.

[Dean Kousoulas]

I saw plenty of R rated flicks when I was a kid, Godfather III, Robocop 1 & 2, Speed and Terminator 2 jump into mind...and I turned out ok, I think ;)

[RichC2]

R-ratings are so incredibly varied on content that it is a tough call.

Go read http://www.kids-in-mind.com/ for indepth assessments of movies, they contain spoilers but it is a fairly solid rating system.

For Wanted:

The violence is for the most part, quick and to the point (bullets exploding out of foreheads), and the one really graphic sex scene is only a few seconds long (and can be seen in the Russian trailer for the movie, you see a man's bare ass screwing a woman on an Ikea table). There is a lot of foul language/f-bombs. That said, with all that, I still didn't find much of it particularly objectionable since it is essentially a live action cartoon (It's obvious in how fake the things happening on screen are, and it's fun to watch, it doesn't try to pull a United 93 and create a sense of heightened realism).

[esc24]

I'm amazed by how old everyone thinks a kid should be to see an R rated movie. I know i've been watching R rated movies regularly since I was 6, and remember everyone else my age watching the same movies. Also i know the few kids that were in my class back then that were prevented from seeing any non G rated movies are the kids that turned out the worst. Now, i dont keep in touch with many of those kids now but i've heard some pretty messed up stories about lots of the weird sheltered kids turning out pretty messed up. You can't shelter your kid, you'll regret it later. Anyone saying that a kid should be over 10 must be older and coming from a different generation. I know nowadays most kids are watching this stuff and unless you want your son to be the weird sheltered kid that ends up being some crazy drug addict i'd say let him see it.

[Green Smurf]

I saw "the Gate" when I was 8, but that was because I watched it after everyone went to bed. Scared the crap out of me for a month.

I would say 13-14 would be the age I would take a kid to an R rated movie

[FunkDaddy J]

My dad took me to see Alien on opening day in 1979, when I was 11, and to this day, he's my hero.

Then again, I've got an 8-year-old daughter, and I find myself being very protective of what she watches. She's barely in the PG zone, fer chrissakes.

I know, double standard. But she's mine. And I'll still be her hero. Just some other way.

[DonnachaOne]

16 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes

[The Bus]

I saw Glory when I was 10.

It all depends on context. I haven't seen Wanted but I imagine it is comic-book type violence. That, to me, is better than realistic violence (say, Pulp Fiction). Realistic horror movies (Last House on the Left) are also worse than monster horror movies (Cloverfield).

Same thing with sex too. Is it two people in love? Is it a rape scene? Is it mysoginistic?

I haven't seen Wanted but to me it sounds like maybe it's OK because it's outlandish but if you're concerned, I would watch it with your wife ahead of time and then make a decision.

Or, take him to Wall-E, which is almost guaranteed to be the better movie.

[Mittman]

Lethal Weapon 3 was the first R-rated flick my parents took me to see. I think I was 7 or 8 -- not sure what month the movie came out. It was partially due to me wanting to see the flick & them not being able to find a sitter. I remember my older cousin (about 2 years older than me) got to go see Total Recall with my Uncle. I tried using that for years on my Dad to get him to take me to T2 or other R-rated movies. I guess he finally caved in with Lethal Weapon.

I was a pretty mature kid for my age. My folks always took me out to dinner in fairly classy restaurants and always made me order for myself from when I was about 5 years old or so. Little things like that just always made people think I was more "grown up" than most kids my age.

On the way to the movie I remember my Dad telling me that if he ever heard me swear or say anything vulgar that I heard from the movie -- he'd make sure I never see another again. After he realized my brain wasn't warped, he began to loosen up. By age 10, I was pretty much allowed to see whatever I wanted. I can only think of a few movies in that timespan of when I was between 7-13 that I was denied to go see something. My mother was always the one to deny this, and it was always the more sexual R-rated flicks. I remember not being able to see Private Parts and a handful of other Basic Instinct-esque softcore crapfests like Color of Night. In retrospect, she didn't seem to mind me seeing Disclosure, and that came out when I was 10 I think.

Anyway, my point is that I think it all depends on the child: their maturity, behavior, and grasp on reality. I think it's a personal judgement call every parent has to make, and I don't fault anyone for taking a side on either end of the spectrum. Though I would imagine that when I have kids, I'd probably me more open to taking my kids to see something R-rated before a lot of other parents would. I turned out fine, and it only strengthened my love for film.

[Artman]

I'm amazed by how old everyone thinks a kid should be to see an R rated movie.

I'm personally amazed how young some are saying...(and I'm only 28) but then again I'm religious, so for me, it's a question of moral and spiritual discernment.

To quote Dr. Malcolm: "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

[Michael Corvin]

I saw Glory when I was 10.

It all depends on context. I haven't seen Wanted but I imagine it is comic-book type violence. That, to me, is better than realistic violence (say, Pulp Fiction). Realistic horror movies (Last House on the Left) are also worse than monster horror movies (Cloverfield).

Same thing with sex too. Is it two people in love? Is it a rape scene? Is it mysoginistic?

I haven't seen Wanted but to me it sounds like maybe it's OK because it's outlandish but if you're concerned, I would watch it with your wife ahead of time and then make a decision.

Or, take him to Wall-E, which is almost guaranteed to be the better movie.

:lol: If you haven't seen it, it's probably best not to comment. Is it over the top? Hell yes. Is it done in a comic book way? Not really. Sure they curve bullets, but that doesn't change the fact that you see them exploding out of peoples foreheads in slow motion with blood flying in every direction. It can be pretty gory. Then there's a knife fight scene with plenty 'o blood. It's a violent movie people. I don't think it is suited for an eleven year old at all.


I don't agree with bringing a 3-year-old into Saving Private Ryan, mind you, but 11 seems like a good introductory point for R-material.

I'm glad the MPAA is serving their purpose. Take the dude getting shot through the skull on the beach in SPR. Now put the movie in full color, add a bucket more blood and shoot it in slow mo. Then show it again in reverse slo-mo. Bingo! You have Wanted.

[dadaluholla]

Somehow things must have been different when I was growing up in the 80's. I can remember seeing tons of R rated movies. I was born in 77, and the first that comes to mind, is probably Nightmare on Elm Street which would have been when I was about 7. Then you have all the Friday the 13th films, Texas Chainsaw Massacres, Hellraiser, Predator, Robocop, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, etc....

Nudity was always off limits though, so by the time I was 11, I had probably witnessed more decapitations than I had love scenes.

Just take the kid to see Wanted.

[Draven]

I saw Robocop in the theater which came out in 1987, so I must have been about 11. Saw plenty of other stuff on cable over the years. Never had any problems with violence, always understood it wasn't real, and had good parents. And my dad was a minister and my mom was a teacher at the time.

Point being, use your best judgment.

[Larry C.]

I saw Glory



Same thing with sex too. Is it two people in love? Is it a rape scene? Is it mysoginistic?

Wall-E, which is almost guaranteed to be the better movie.

Ooops someone found my porn.

My parents took me to go see Tarzan the Ape Man. I was 7. Yea that one, with Bo Derek. Boobies galore. I love my parents!

[Solid Snake PAC]

Well I saw Robocop on TV in 1989, and I was 3 yrs. old. Now I didn't know what the hell was happening when all this blood was going on. But I do know that seeing a Cop who was Robotic was cool. I never ever knew it's rating, my cousins who were girls were amazed by the film they were 8 and 11 yrs. old. We saw it in there room, after that I loved the character. My mom never understood my infatuation with it, and of course the famously known crappy cartoon came out and I bought the toys, never seeing the cartoon. That was the only R film I ever saw besides T2 and Enter the Dragon, was Dragon R-rated? I never was fascinated with seeing the R flicks they weren't my thing. I don't think till I saw clips for the Matrix was I even interested in R films. I had never thought of the rating system before. Now I see pretty evenly on all ratings. I think I see a lot of art films that are R, so I can't really say I go for R but I'm a film major and a cinephile so it kinda obligates me to see Film X regardless of a rating especially if I want to see it. I must say though, since The Matrix big R-rated films that everybody wants to see are common now. At least in my generation, I'd say. Maybe it's just because I never payed attention to it and people want to see R cuz it's what the big kids want to see, I dunno.

[DthRdrX]

Yep, I saw Robocop when I was 8-9 as well. If you can sit through that you can watch just about any other film.

[Solid Snake PAC]

Yeah, that's pretty true with Robocop. I don't think I'd introduce my child to an R film though. Now if I slowly fed the kid with grimmer material overtime I think maybe 12 is ok. It's all up the parent's education of reality to the kid. I mean, I would think I would show my kid films like Spider-Man at a young age. But I really hate having kids at R films in theaters. I think if I'm going to introduce a R film it'll be at home where I can properly watch over them. I think that's what my dad kinda did. I saw Batman and JP in theaters that's cool, no worries. Anything like Arnold films or Stallone it'd be at home. You know know....I think slowly feeding them different material at an appropriate range for the rating is good. I mean, I'd hope my kid liked Batman or Enter The Dragon around the same age I did. And you give them some domestic as they get older, later going foreign cuz the world has a diffrent reaction to certain things. The French are ok with sex, Hong Kong is ok with any forms of violence, UK is good with some grit violence, America I think is too prude at times. This is just me going into what may be a rant, I could be wrong...

[d2cheer]

I would watch it with your wife ahead of time and then make a decision.


or

Point being, use your best judgment.

Those are the best pieces of advice here...

[paaron46]

The problem is how arbitrary the American rating system actually is. I tend to judge this kind of stuff from the British rating system, which is far more coherent. The reason why it’s more coherent, is because they have a rating between the “PG-13” and “R.” The have “12,” “15,” and “18.”

So take for example a movie like Gladiator or Braveheart are “15.” These movies are violent, but it’s the context of the violence. Wanted is rated “18” which means there’s a lot more hardcore violence in it. The British are also harder on violence than they are on sex/nudity (which is how it should be, but we’re backwards because the MPAA is afraid of skin).

So, in conclusion if a film was rated “18” in Britain, I wouldn’t even think of taking my 11 year-old to see it. If it were rated “15” then I would think about it, but I’d still have to see it myself and judge what is good for my child.

I think that 11 is a little too young to see Wanted right now.

For British movie ratings visit http://www.bbfc.co.uk/general/index.php

[mdc3000]

I think it varies based on the kid and based on each individual movie...also, seeing an R rated movie on video is a totally different thing than being in a theatre IMO.

It's up to you but I'd say you should check out the movie yourself and see if it's right for your 11 year old...if it were me (and I've seen Wanted) I would wait until they were at least 13 for this one...

[mhg83]

My first R-rated movie i saw with my dad and grandfather was Terminator 2. I think i was 8 or 9 years old. That was one of my favorite movie theater experiences. I would say it all depends on the content of the film. T2 was very tame and Today it would be a pg-13 rated movie.

I recently saw Harold and Kumar escape from guantanamo bay. I was shocked to see a father bring his son and daughter to the movie. They looked around 7 or 8 years! Totally not appropriate for that age.

[droidguy1119]

Depends on the kid, depends on the movie. I'd say probably at 11 kids could see some rather tame R-rated movies, like The Matrix, which barely has any on-screen violence, sex or language (the sequels are slightly harsher IMO, but not by much). I don't think I'd show an R-rated film to anyone younger than 11 though, that's my cut-off age.

I on the other hand lived a very sheltered life. I don't think I saw my first entire R-rated movie until I was like 16 or 17. I remember the first one I rented was Gladiator, but I didn't watch all of it. It might have been Legend of Drunken Master, which is also pretty tame.

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for the diversity of opinion. Gives a bit to chew over.

I think I'm going to take the Bus' advice and see the movie before taking him. I think he's old enough to see some R movies. It just might not be this one.

Regardless, I think we'll start at home with some of my 80's favorites (Die Hard, Road Warrior, Caddyshack, Lethal Weapon) and work my way from there. I doubt he's ready for the The Thing, but maybe that one later.

[Patman]

What's the rush? Let children be children for as long as they can before exposing them to adult themes and activities (violence, sex, drugs, profanity, etc). They have the rest of their lives to be adults.

I would also introduce the notion of having them articulate what they are processing when they see violent or sexually titillating films if they are younger than 17. Actually talk to them afterwards about the film's content.

Personally, age 13 would be the starting point to consider accompanying my child to a R-rated film (and I would also see it first before being an accomplice in exposing my child to whatever inadvertent extreme footage the R-rated film had to offer their viewers).

[EdTheRipper]

Somehow things must have been different when I was growing up in the 80's. I can remember seeing tons of R rated movies. I was born in 77, and the first that comes to mind, is probably Nightmare on Elm Street which would have been when I was about 7. Then you have all the Friday the 13th films, Texas Chainsaw Massacres, Hellraiser, Predator, Robocop, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, etc....

Nudity was always off limits though, so by the time I was 11, I had probably witnessed more decapitations than I had love scenes.

Just take the kid to see Wanted.

I'm the same way. Also born in 77. I remember seeing all the horror flicks of the day at a pretty young age. I also saw stuff like Bachelor Party, Eddie Murphy: Delirious etc probably before my 10th birthday. I turned out fine.

It's really all about the maturity of the child. I was able to handle the violence/profanity/sex stuff at a young age without being negatively impacted by it. Some can't. Using your own best judgment based on your child is your best bet.

I've got a 5 (soon-to-be) 6 year old son. 9 times out of 10, he's not even interested in the movies I watch. He'd rather watch Noggin in the bedroom anyway.

[Arpeggi]

What's the rush? Let children be children for as long as they can before exposing them to adult themes and activities (violence, sex, drugs, profanity, etc). They have the rest of their lives to be adults.

I would also introduce the notion of having them articulate what they are processing when they see violent or sexually titillating films if they are younger than 17. Actually talk to them afterwards about the film's content.

Personally, age 13 would be the starting point to consider accompanying my child to a R-rated film (and I would also see it first before being an accomplice in exposing my child to whatever inadvertent extreme footage the R-rated film had to offer their viewers).

I give this post 4 stars or a grade of A.

[Chad]

I'm amazed by how old everyone thinks a kid should be to see an R rated movie. I know i've been watching R rated movies regularly since I was 6, and remember everyone else my age watching the same movies. Also i know the few kids that were in my class back then that were prevented from seeing any non G rated movies are the kids that turned out the worst. Now, i dont keep in touch with many of those kids now but i've heard some pretty messed up stories about lots of the weird sheltered kids turning out pretty messed up. You can't shelter your kid, you'll regret it later. Anyone saying that a kid should be over 10 must be older and coming from a different generation. I know nowadays most kids are watching this stuff and unless you want your son to be the weird sheltered kid that ends up being some crazy drug addict i'd say let him see it.

Yeah, it was around the same age for me. It amuses me to no end how it's almost taboo these days for kids to see R-rated films when practically all of us did back in the day and we all turned out perfectly fine, didn't we? Hail Satan. I'm honestly truly astounded at just how pussified today's parents are and what a Disneyesque-type environment they raise their kids in. And it's those type of kids that are going to be eaten alive once they enter "the real world".

Then again, you have to take into consideration that kids today are far more annoying than ever and have the attention span of a gnat. It's not at all uncommon for a small child to have his/her own cell phone, handheld video game or CB radio at any given time...and they often use them! Let's face it - in the end it all comes down to the annoyance factor so, that being said, it would probably be in the best interest of everyone that ALL children under the age of 18 are banned from any theater establishment regardless of the rating.

[DVD-ho78(DTS)]

My friend lets his kids watch R movies at any age. I went to watch Saw II at his house and his 3 yr old sat next to me so I said hold up **** is here next to me and he said he's already watched it. If I had kids I wouldn't even think of showing Saw II to my 3 yr old but he does have 18 and 15 yr olds that seem normal and are well mannered.

[Michael Corvin]

Yeah, it was around the same age for me. It amuses me to no end how it's almost taboo these days for kids to see R-rated films when practically all of us did back in the day and we all turned out perfectly fine, didn't we? Hail Satan. I'm honestly truly astounded at just how pussified today's parents are and what a Disneyesque-type environment they raise their kids in. And it's those type of kids that are going to be eaten alive once they enter "the real world".

-ohbfrank- Don't fall off that horse you are on, you might break a leg with how high you are. You are leaving out one major factor, R rated movies from 20 years ago are quite tame by comparison these days. With PG-13 the defacto standard these days, when a director makes an R rated film they tend to push the envelope as far as they can. Take Die Hard, which was mentioned above, the violence is PG-13 by todays standards. I wouldn't think twice about showing my kid Die Hard at around 12-13, but Wanted? No way.

Another big difference is special effects, CGI, love it or hate it, has made things a lot more realistic than rubber and prosthetic effects with fake blood from when we were kids. I just watched the Thing the other night and the gore is almost laughable by today's standards.

Sex seems to be a wash now and then. Language has gotten rougher but I don't consider that a huge issue.

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

Patman-

You see...that's one of the larger issues at hand: how long can one shelter their children from these things in an information heavy world? The way I see it...I accompany him as he's introduced to these things or he finds it by accident or on purpose on YouTube or at a friend's house or surfing the cable dial. The fact is that we typically don't decide when they stop being children...they do.

The hope is that by making it us that introduces him to these things, we do open a door for dialogue. For example, the importance of context in these things. One of the problems with a post-modern world is that we are introduced to so much wihtout any sense of meaning. I can let my son find someone's edited collection of Sweeney Todd throat slicings set to some techno soundtrack on Youtube, so that it's just nothing more than violence without purpose, or introduce him to the film myself and discuss it afterwards so that he understands that it's more than just violence. I personally feel better about the latter.

Thing is that I don't feel a need to be a cool dad. I also know that its grown to a point that it's becoming futile and possibly dangerous trying to shelter my son. I rarely have ever used bad language or played profanity laced material around him, but that doesn't stop what he hears on the school bus every day. A week of Sex Ed in 5th grade already has him thinking he's some kind of sex expert. I found out recently that he saw a Chucky film at a friend's house.

Locking him away from all of these things isn't the answer and, frankly, isn't realistic. If I shelter entirely, he will be driven to finding this stuff (and perhaps the worst stuff first) on his own. He hasn't been scarred by what he's been exposed to so far. It appears he just wants to continue making those small steps out of childhood. I think my wife is both scared and sad of him wanting to take those steps. Hence, her reluctance to let him be exposed to this stuff. My hope is that if we allow him take some of those steps, he won't feel the urgency to jump so far ahead on others.

My parents trusted me to handle these things maturely and I'd like to believe I did. Why shouldn't I offer my son that same trust? Wanted may not be the best place to start but waiting indefinitely doesn't seem to be the answer either.

JMHO,

TAPN

[Patman]

If you're deadset on being the person to expose your child at the age of 11 to:

combative violence, gunshot wounds, explosions featuring bodily harm, dismemberments.

simulated intercourse, oral sex, deep tongue kissing, etc.

all sorts of curse words and epithets, racist humor, religious slights

drug use and its effects.

then go with your first course of action: show him rated R fare on DVDs at home, which allows you to control what gets shown to your child, as you can skip through some rough parts, or stop the DVD altogether if it's just too much for the child.

Otherwise, be vigilant and see the new rated R films before taking your child to see it, lest you get really surprised by the content because it's impossible to unsee stuff that could be troubling for your child, or bring up issues they just aren't truly psychologically able to handle at that age.

While it's true that you can't shield your child from seeing rated R material given the current climate of easy access to the internet, you also don't need to push them to grow up so fast that it eases your parenting parameters. You're still in charge when your child is 11 years old, act accordingly.

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

Just so you realize, with the possible exception of oral sex, all of those elements can be found in PG-13 movies, if not primetime TV. I wouldn't be surprised if he's seen half of it on Family Guy!

But you're right. The point is to be in charge of the limits as much as possible while allowing him to explore and find what he is comfortable with. It's not like I'm going to put on a Saw marathon for him. But action films and some less risque R-rated comedies should appease him without offending him. The good thing about my son is that he will let you know when something is not agreeable with him.

Wanted is probably just not the right starting point.

Finally, I think kids can handle much more psychologically than adults give them credit for. They grow up on fairy tales, many with somewhat gruesome or morose plot turns. Kids literature (esp. the works of Roald Dahl) features kids and adults going through all sorts of hellish experiences. We laugh that Violet Beauregarde gets blown up like a blueberry, but what kid hasn't pictured the dejuicing in their imaginations??

But then again, its JMHO.

[Brack]

^^^ I agree. seriously, he's talking about HIS kid, no one else's. all kids are different. some can watch a horror film at a very young age, and others can't. there's a reason why kids can see R-rated films.

[droidguy1119]

As I did when LFoDH came out, I disagree that Die Hard is a PG-13 level of violence. He chokes a guy, gets shot in the arm, has a particularly brutal fistfight with another, hangs somebody, blows the dude on the table apart (particularly gory), heads get shot onto windows, and he yanks glass out of his feet, among other moments of bloodiness. Aside from that there's also toplessness and constant foul language.

[Brack]

I still think R-rated action movies in the 80s were far more violent than R-rated films today. horror movies have gotten worse though.

[Matthew Chmiel]

I still think R-rated action movies in the 80s were far more violent than R-rated films today. horror movies have gotten worse though.
I completely agree with you. I watched the first sequel to Lone Wolf and Cub this morning and for an action film from the early 70s, the first five minutes consist of a guy getting his head nearly split into two from a sword impact and multiple individuals getting dismembered.

[Gunde]

Take Die Hard, which was mentioned above, the violence is PG-13 by todays standards. I wouldn't think twice about showing my kid Die Hard at around 12-13, but Wanted? No way.
I think you have forgotten how violent Die Hard is. There's brain splattered on a window, there's a guys knees shot to a violent mess in closeup. It's more violent than Wanted because none of it is exaggerated or seems cartoonish. IMO it's way more brutal and raw than Wanted, way more

And when it comes to sex in movies most kids don't care. Except that maybe it's embarrassing to watch with mom and dad...


Another big difference is special effects, CGI, love it or hate it, has made things a lot more realistic than rubber and prosthetic effects with fake blood from when we were kids. I just watched the Thing the other night and the gore is almost laughable by today's standards.
Really? I feel the exact opposite. CGI blood and violence looks cartoonish.


I still think R-rated action movies in the 80s were far more violent than R-rated films today.
Absolutely. Besides Rambo there's NO contest


Anyway, OP you seem like a cool and levelheaded guy. I think you can trust yourself to make the right decision.

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

I still think R-rated action movies in the 80s were far more violent than R-rated films today. horror movies have gotten worse though.

Hell, I think Quint being bitten by the shark in Jaws and then spitting up blood was pretty damn nasty and that was PG.

[Artman]

I think the difference between old and new films is intensity. The audio is louder, for the most part films look more realistic... most of us have HD home theater setups now... when I grew up we had a little 19" tv... so it would seem it would have more of an impact for kids today - theaters much more so.

I don't know about you, but I remember exactly what I saw when I was a kid....as someone mentioned above you cannot forget what you've seen, especially at a young impressionable age - the first porno (bikini beach 3!), the first R-film, etc.. you might not be able to shelter your kids from everything, but you don't have to make it easier for them at home imo.

[tasha99]

For the most part, I try not to push growing up too fast. I have a 10 year old, and I still veto some PG-13 movies, especially in the theater. But not too much --basically I think kids self-censor. My son isn't interested in anything that's too scary or has pretty much any sex in it, so he never asks to see those kinds of movies. Violence does bother him (we had to turn off Pirates of the Caribbean 2 just 5 minutes in because he thought it was too disturbing), just not as much. If he really wanted to see something, I'd probably let him, but only at home where it's easy to turn the tv off.

[creekdipper]

Really enjoyed this thread due to the varied opinions. Fascinating discussion IMHO, with some pretty thoughtful posts for the most part.

Before offering my opinion, I would like to address several posts that indicated that "you can't shelter your kids" and that, if you try, you kids will turn out "weird" (I believe "crazy drug addicts" was the term preferred by one) and the the world will "eat them alive". That is just a HUGE load of bovine fecal matter. Kind of like saying that you're going to take your kids to KKK meetings to expose them to racism so they wont' explode when they first encounter it (or begin snorting coke).

Don't know if the posters themselves were high on crack or just trying to inject their brand of levity, but just in case anyone took them seriously, I'd like to offer a different view since I have a slightly unique perspective.

For over thirty years I taught public school...encountering thousands of kids aged 11-16. At church I've taught Sunday School to public school kids (like me & my brother), Christian school kids, and home-schooled kids.

Knowing that you can't generalize (although others with whom I disagree have tried on this issue), I'd have to say that the Christan- and home-schooled kids were the most mature and most able to handle "the outside world". That includes kids who have gone on to major state universities and who have traveled (on their own at ages under 20) overseas...backpacking, etc. My observations indicate that the LEAST-equipped kids for the 'real world' are the kids who had the most indulgent parents who allowed them the most 'freedom'. Those tended to be the kids who had trouble with self-control issues, substance abuse, job-related problems, self-discipline problems regarding schoolwork, trouble with peers, etc. I saw the same thing in college...the ones who were the 'most free' tended to be the ones who came sobbing drunk spilling their guts (sometimes literally) to the "sheltered" kids when they needed help solving their dating problems, etc.

On the other hand, nearly all of the home-schooled kids I know seem far more mature, able to converse with their age peers AND adults easily. They know quite a bit about pop culture (especially movies), are computer-literate, and spend quite a bit of time in service to the community. Believe me, serving meals at the Salvation Army gives kids all the exposure to the "real world" that they need. Some have gone into the military, where they are sure to encounter the 'real world'. If you really want to expose your kids to the ugliest and most brutal realities of the world, why not take them down to the recruiting station as soon as they are old enough? Anyway, nearly all of these kids have gone on to have stable marriages, good jobs, well-behaved kids, etc. Again, not saying that one HAS to be "sheltered" in order to have those things...just saying that I have found the "Sheltered Kid Gone Wild" to be an untrue stereotype; in fact, the opposite is the norm.

The key in most cases seems to be the parents themselves. If the parents go too far to either extreme, the kids seem more likely to be affected. Still, I'd prefer the 'sheltered' extreme (unless the kids are locked in a closet all day) to the 'permissive' extreme (kids imbibing at age four). I mean, unless one lives a survivalist existence or is a Branch Davidian, the kids are going to be exposed to topics such as drugs, profanity, sex, & violence in magazines, television, billboards, etc. Heck, I was exposed to sex in Russ Manning's Tarzan strips & comic books, music, literature, and other media besides movies. That didn't mean that I had to see "I Am Curious, Yellow" to know about anatomy or find out about how the mechanisms work.

I'm not sure how exposing your kids to profanity, graphic violence, uncommitted premarital sex (usually shown without physical or psychological consequences), and senseless brutality will "prepare" your kids for "the real world". I mean, unless you live in a combat zone where bullets through your bedroom windows at night, women are raped on the sidewalk outside, junkies provide an obstacle on your front steps, etc., where do you think your kids are going to encounter these things? And...if you do live in such a place...I don't think they need the "entertainment" to educate them. I would bet that kids in those enviroments would welcome some "Disney-fied" fantasy world as an excape from reality.

I believe that studies have shown that it's much harder to get shocking images out of our brains than simply hearing or reading about the same things. I distinctly remember being trouble by some brutal images from movies as a kid (and the first R-rated movie I saw was Woodstock...and that was a first-run showing). According to my teachers, SAT scores, IQ tests, class ranking (in a graduating class of over 500), class loads, etc., I was a reasonably intelligent person. I was also exposed to the 'real world' through public school classes & sports, playing in a garage band (for money) at age 12, working by age 14, etc. Yet I am thankful that I was able to grow up in an era in which I could see a more idealized version of childhood/teen years showing how things COULD be (kids could be mischievous, adventurous, and even amorous without being disrespectful, rebellious, and a blight upon the community). I would have died of embarrassment at watching sex scenes with my mom present...and it would spoiled any "fun" or titillation. In fact, I would have thought my parents sadistic if they took me to such a movie.

We got plenty of "the real world" through newscasts surrounding the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK (and the 'real-time' shooting of Oswald), footage of the Watts riots, nightly Vietnam War coverage, civil rights protesters being beaten, etc. Even on our limited television options, we were exposed to adult themes in films such as The Defiant Ones & To Kill a Mockingbird (racism), Anatomy of a Murder (rape), Come Back, Little Sheba (domestic violence), and many others.

On the other hand, I did see many PG-rated movies which offered extreme violence (Sergio Leone's Eastwood trilogy), nudity (Red Sky At Morning), etc., and I can't say that it scarred me for life.

Oddly enough...when I showed the film "Anne Frank: the Whole Story" to classes at school (the version shown on broadcast TV, of all things), I usually 'censored' the only nudity (a couple of seconds of an overweight, middle-age woman...Anne's mother), but showed it to an "advanced" class. Guess who complained? A girl who revelled in being 'the rebellious one'...whose favorite bands were Skipknot, My Chemical Romance, etc. So much for being "sheltered".

My advice would be to let kids be kids. If you see a worthwhile R-rated movie (such as Glory) and can't find an 'edited version' (one doesn't necessarily have to see cannonball decapitations, explicityly-shown amputations, etc. to get the full impact), you can determine whether your kid is mature enough to handle the themes & images. However, I think showing such images to the typical preteen is pretty close to child abuse. They have plenty of time to "discover" these images later when they have matured...if they still want to. Meanwhile, there are plenty of alternatives. If you want to introduce "real-world" themes (again, don't see what exploding cars, drunken orgies, etc. have to do with the "real world" in which MOST people live), there are plenty of older movies...which have great writing, acting, and carry an emotional wallop...which are not filled with expletives, nudity, graphic violence, etc.

As for the idea that, if you don't show it to them, they'll search it out for themselves...that's hogwash. My parents were smart enough to shelter me from MOST bad influences (I still got quite enough, thank you...and can't say that I ever missed most of those wonderful 'rites of passage' such as drunkenly puking on my date) until I was old enough to understand the 'real' consequences...something I probably couldn't have done when I was younger. Since studies have shown that most kids actually CRAVE structure and discipline from their parents, I firmly believe that the 'sheltered' kids will consider themselves among the most fortunate...and will thank you as a parent for caring enough about their psyches to protect them when they were at an impressionable age.

And...for religiously-inclined parents...I think the biggest challenge is to try to find movies that actually do reflect a real world in which millions attend church, pray daily, read the holy writings or their religion, etc.

To me, the truly "sheltered" kids are the ones who never get to see the philanthropic & benevolent effects of religion upon the lives of worshippers and their communities since evidently Hollywood doesn't think such people exist. I worked with people from a wide variety of experiences & religious backgrounds...atheists, Jews, Protestants, agnostics, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans...you name it (well, no Satanists that I was aware of). Yet I RARELY heard profanity, graphic sexual jokes, and other things which are almost obligatory for Hollywood characters. I would pose this question: which really is the "real world"? Hollywood's version...or Main Street's version?

[Falc04]

I can never understand why parents would want to rush their kids towards adulthood. Let them enjoy the few years they have being a kid. Once they hit 16, they'll have a loooonnnnggg time to enjoy being an adult.

[Brack]

what does watching R-rated movies have anything to do with being an adult? I know it sounds like a stupid question, but I still get excited over kids movies. how do you explain that one?

[Michael Corvin]

Before offering my opinion, I would like to address several posts that indicated that "you can't shelter your kids" and that, if you try, you kids will turn out "weird" (I believe "crazy drug addicts" was the term preferred by one) and the the world will "eat them alive". That is just a HUGE load of bovine fecal matter. Kind of like saying that you're going to take your kids to KKK meetings to expose them to racism so they wont' explode when they first encounter it (or begin snorting coke).

Excellent post CD. I shrugged off those posts you are referring to but kudos to you for addressing them in a well thought out manner.

[Brack]

Excellent post CD. I shrugged off those posts you are referring to but kudos to you for addressing them in a well thought out manner.

yep, and the other side shrugs of the "you can't unsee what you've seen" as if a kid is going to be scarred for life or something. give me a break.

[darqleo]

Although it wasn't R rated, my mother took me to see JAWS when I was 4 years old, and that was pretty traumatizing, even though she covered my eyes on a couple of scenes, but I don't think it affected my life over all (besides my love for movies). Every kid goes through nightmares when you are little anyway, mind just happened to be about a giant shark that could get you in the pool or even if you touched the carpet with your feet late at night.

But my mother consciously took me and my brother to our first R-rated movie, BEVERLY HILLS COP, when I was 11 and he was 10, which by that time we already knew and learned about boobs and cuss words, from kids at school and also sneaky movie watching at our friends house/late night cable, so it wasn't a major deal to us.

[Grubert]

Hah. I took my then 5-year-old to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. "Rated PG for quirky situations, action and mild language." That's as harmless as Shrek, right? Wrong! He was terrified of the squirrels attacking the girl! Children are really unpredictable.

Right now I even hesitate to take him to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... (he's seen Indy 1 and 3 -covering his eyes on the villain gruesome deaths-).

Me, I went see Jaws when I was ten. Maybe that's why I'm not a religious person anymore... ;)

[Michael Corvin]

yep, and the other side shrugs of the "you can't unsee what you've seen" as if a kid is going to be scarred for life or something. give me a break.

Oh come on, not that I agree with that line, but at least it makes more sense than some lame generalization that among someone's limited group of friends that those that were 'sheltered' turned out worse than those that had free reign as a child. That's laughable at best. I can generalize as well... of my experience and the friends/family that I grew up with, things turned out more like what CD described. The unstable ones are the ones that had free reign as a kid, not the sheltered ones. We could do that all day and get nowhere. At least CD is in a position to witness probably hundreds of children and see them grow and now they turn out.

I would hazard a guess that a majority of those in the 'let em watch whatever' don't yet have kids and are just tossing in their two cents on the matter. Sure, every child is different and can handle different things, but to even be commenting on the matter when one doesn't have kids is worthless. That person has exactly one frame of reference, their own childhood which was many years ago, and can't speak of hypothetical situations until they have a kid of their own. Does that include you?

[dadaluholla]

Sure, every child is different and can handle different things, but to even be commenting on the matter when one doesn't have kids is worthless.

I was wondering when that timeless gem was going to be brought out.
-ptth-

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

CD-

Interesting post and it does contain many insightful ideas.

However, I would to address a few things:

1. It is impossible to compare growing up in the 1960's to growing up in the 2000's. It was much easier to shelter a child then because there wasn't as intense a media saturation. You grew up at the beginning of the post-modern era. But kids today grow up knee-deep in the simulacra. The image bank is much larger now and much, more easier to access. If you wanted to see a movie, you either saw it in a theatre or in an edited TV version. For kids today, they can find this stuff in everything from the internet to cable TV to home video to ipods and cell phones. And there is also a great divide in the nature of the content. There is a great difference between searching out shots of women in underwear in a Sears catalog than unwillingly being barraged by much racier images in Victoria's Secret catalogs and commercials. Once a child has an e-mail address, they start being introduced to spam for male enhancers and solicitations from strange women inviting them to visit their websites with just a click of a mouse. I doubt your 60's pen-pals sent you the same messages.

2. You may have gotten plenty of the "real world" through your TV news but it always, always contextualized. My concern is more with my child being introduced to a lot of this stuff without context. He is more likely to become desensitized to images of violence with no pretext or after effect. And that is what he is most likely to be hit with these days over the internet.

3. Christian and home-schooled children, it should be noted, typically grow up in households with larger incomes and there is always a parent present. Most families, however, have two parents that work. It is much harder to control what you're kids are exposed to when someone else is keeping an eye on them (be it a sibling, day care provider, teacher, bus driver, etc.). I can tell you that some of the most foul language my son has heard has taken place on the school bus, and that is in elementary school. And just for counter-point, I have found that home-school kids typically have a very difficult time conversing with peers, as they have very little exposure to them. They typically are only comfortable conversing with adults.

4. Visiting soup kitchens may give them exposure to the "real world" but its a remote world they don't live in and leave as soon as they are doing serving food. The constant "real world" of children is the world of their peers, who introduce them to many of these things and build their interest in exposure to these things. Entirely sheltering your kids often leads to them being ostracized which leaves much bigger scars than any movie possibly could.

5. Morality and religion are not the same. In my life, I have never found religion to be a deciding factor on how good or bad a person is. My children grow up in a heavily moral but largely areligious household. My 11-year-old still thinks that "shut up" is bad language, even after what he has heard on the bus. He treats everyone with respect. He has a great work ethic. No movie will turn him into a deviant. Don't get me wrong. Religion can be a very powerful force for good. It just doesn't corner the market on good deed-doers.

6. It's not the content of the films pushing the children towards adulthood. It's the freedom to start exploring those things that they are curious about. The steps to adulthood take place when you start making decisions for yourself instead of someone making them for you. He wants to start seeing some comedies that are R-rated and some R-rated action films. He has no interest in sexual material or gross horror films. And I have to admit that he is right that funny PG comedies are few and far between and that its hard finding decent PG or PG-13 action films that don't involve superheroes (a pet peeve of his).

7. I have introduced my children to many older movies but they don't have much interest in them. The are removed from the world and time they live in, and strike them, for lack of a better term, as quaint. Some things have clicked but they have been few and far between.

Again, I think you make some very valid points. But, as you said, you can't make generalizations. The sheltered world you are putting on a pedestal is not a realistic choice for most. For those of us living in the less idealized world, the parenting decisions typically lie in a much grayer area, which has to be considered for each individual child. And as the world has grown in complexiy, so have the decisions.

The funny thing is that most of the stuff we are debating now will probably be the fodder of typical prime-time TV once our children have children of their own.

-TAPN

[gmanca]

A pretty interesting thread considering all the replies which show vastly different opinions on simple things like whether Die Hard was too violent. And for me, it's bit of a coincidence in that a few months ago I was talking about this with my sister and mother.

Born in 1985, I saw Nightmare on Elm Street 3 at about age 4? Either that or The Blob '88 was my first R rated movie. I remember seeing the rest of Pet Sematary at the theaters after I saw Ernest goes to Jail, which was in '89. For me, I grew up on movies, period. So much so that I would actually look at the TV Guide at age 3 and look for a movie to watch; no joke.

Because I had siblings that were all at least 11 years my senior, I watched what they watched. But I also wanted to watched Disney films/ G rated films because I enjoyed them, although not so much today because of the overboard in musical numbers, but I digress. In fact, two of my favorite films at 5 years old were Cinderella and Little Shop of Horrors '87.

When Star Trek VI came out, I asked my parents to take me; same thing with the Lawnmower Man. I remember watching the VHS version of Scarface at age 9 and it became my favorite film; not because of the violence or the subject of drugs, but because it had a compelling story, solid direction, and good music. So whenever TNT had their Scarface repeat blocks from 6pm until 1am, I would watch it. Yet for some odd reason, I didn't grow up to be a rapper! :)

I don't know if my situation was unique, but I thank my parents/siblings for letting me watch these films because I got a head's up on becoming mature in my actions, thoughts, and taste. I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke, never done drugs... basically, you would think I was from a sheltered family, but I was never wanting to do those things because I knew what they would lead to. I was a great student in school, taking AP exams without taking the classes and passing the tests, winning a Governor's Award, etc. Thanks to my parents instilling great work habit and ethic, I was able to achieve and grow to be successful.

Basically, I feel that either extreme is just lazy parenting, plain and simple. If you let your kids watch/listen to adult subject matter and don't provide them context, you are just asking for trouble. You'll be raising children without restraint and thinking that no action has unintended consequences. Raising them to accept that violence is a suitable answer for situations. And yet they wonder why "their baby was taken from them" when the child was lost years earlier.

And on the other hand, if you decide that you would like to shelter your child until they're 15 from adult material, I think you are raising children ignorant of what dangers there are in the world. They don't really understand why 3 people were killed in hail of gang fire, just that they were and it's wrong. But that type of mentality leads to generalization of people and cultures without sympathetic rationals to their behavior.

[Michael Corvin]

And on the other hand, if you decide that you would like to shelter your child until they're 15 from adult material, I think you are raising children ignorant of what dangers there are in the world.

So seeing Wanted at 11 is going to teach a child about what dangers in the real world? Curved bullets? Magical looms? rotfl

I didn't see an R rated film until I was 16 (White Men Can't Jump) and I turned out like what you posted. I don't smoke, drink, do drugs either. I was a great student and have a great work ethic. It's just another generalization anyone can make.

[gmanca]

So seeing Wanted at 11 is going to teach a child about what dangers in the real world? Curved bullets? Magical looms? rotfl

Sorry, I didn't mean for my statement to come across as simplistic and applying to only R-rated films and not to all adult material.


I didn't see an R rated film until I was 16 (White Men Can't Jump) and I turned out like what you posted. I don't smoke, drink, do drugs either. I was a great student and have a great work ethic. It's just another generalization anyone can make.

I'm not sure that I follow with what you are going for here; I thought your experience was "supposed" to happen if certain inappropriate material was restricted? Or am I misunderstanding what the correct cause and effect would be?

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

So seeing Wanted at 11 is going to teach a child about what dangers in the real world? Curved bullets? Magical looms? rotfl

I didn't see an R rated film until I was 16 (White Men Can't Jump) and I turned out like what you posted. I don't smoke, drink, do drugs either. I was a great student and have a great work ethic. It's just another generalization anyone can make.

Wanted is just a single movie in a world of R-rated features. Mind you...it is the one I put up for consideration as an example, but the original question was geared to the larger spectrum of R-rated material. The resistance I've found from my wife and her friends is to the whole spectrum.

I guess my question to you is this: my son meets the same profile as you and me (good student, good work ethic, polite, etc.).
Do you really think a couple of movies are all of the sudden going to turn him a Bad Boys wannabee (the Sean Penn flick, not the Michael Bay one)? I feel like we're stuck in the comic book argument of the 50's.

[chris_sc77]

I'd let my kids see Wanted if they were 8 or older.
know I saw Speed when I was 7 or 8 in theaters. True Lies I saw in theaters soon after. I loved these movies so much and am so glad I was able to see them. My love of R-rated moves continues to this day.

[bub2000]

I saw Robocop when I was 8 or 9. My dad had to argue with the theater guy to let me in. (this was in Peru. Can't remember how films are rated there) Though my dad did cover my eyes in the nasty body melty scene at the end. Still, I got nightmares for a day or so.
We tried to see TimeCop when it came out, here in Canada, but they wouldn't let us in. I think R in Canada is about the same as NC17.

I don't think my sister saw an R rated movie until she was 15, if not later.

[Michael Corvin]

Wanted is just a single movie in a world of R-rated features. Mind you...it is the one I put up for consideration as an example, but the original question was geared to the larger spectrum of R-rated material. The resistance I've found from my wife and her friends is to the whole spectrum.

I guess my question to you is this: my son meets the same profile as you and me (good student, good work ethic, polite, etc.).
Do you really think a couple of movies are all of the sudden going to turn him a Bad Boys wannabee (the Sean Penn flick, not the Michael Bay one)? I feel like we're stuck in the comic book argument of the 50's.

Of course not. I'd work my way up to Wanted though. What's the rush on showing him R-rated films?

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

Of course not. I'd work my way up to Wanted though. What's the rush on showing him R-rated films?

There are films he has seen previews to that he wants to see. And as I mentioned before, he likes action and comedy, and the pickings are slim under the R rating for anything decent. Personally, I just don't see the problem in him seeing Vacation or Lethal Weapon or Caddyshack or even Die Hard.

Let's put it this way. Tonight an episode of NCIS came on at 8 on USA and within the first three minutes, a bullet entered the back of a woman's head and exited out the front with a spray of blood. And this is a show that runs on primetime normally within the family hours. Is there anything that much worse violence-wise in most R-rated action films?

Yes, Wanted probably should be worked up to. But its not a matter of being in a rush. It's trying to determine if he's ready to take that step that he feels he is ready to take.

[Patman]

Again, why not go see Wanted first (sans child), and see if it's suitable for your child. Stop guessing.

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

Again, why not go see Wanted first (sans child), and see if it's suitable for your child. Stop guessing.

Talked it over with my wife and we compromised. Wanted will go on hold, but in the meanwhile we are going to let him see a series of R-rated films that meet our joint approval in our home (including the aforementioned titles). If he handles them well and maturely, then we will consider taking him to the theatre to see something else. And when Wanted shows up on video, then we will make that call.

He's a bit disappointed but still excited about seeing Die Hard.

[comanche_doyle]

what about the new Rambo for a kid that is only 3 weeks old? Its not like he'll remember it anyway.

[Rypro 525]

Talked it over with my wife and we compromised. Wanted will go on hold, but in the meanwhile we are going to let him see a series of R-rated films that meet our joint approval in our home (including the aforementioned titles). If he handles them well and maturely, then we will consider taking him to the theatre to see something else. And when Wanted shows up on video, then we will make that call.

He's a bit disappointed but still excited about seeing Die Hard.
But Die Hard has naked people in it (for about 2 seconds though)

[Michael Corvin]

Talked it over with my wife and we compromised. Wanted will go on hold, but in the meanwhile we are going to let him see a series of R-rated films that meet our joint approval in our home (including the aforementioned titles). If he handles them well and maturely, then we will consider taking him to the theatre to see something else. And when Wanted shows up on video, then we will make that call.

He's a bit disappointed but still excited about seeing Die Hard.

Keep us updated then. I'm curious. As for Die Hard, I forgot about the kneecap scene which is probably the worst, IMO, but the rest doesn't seem too awful to me, besides the language. BTW, what's the punishment the first time you hear your kid say Yippee Kiyay Mother Fucker!

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

Keep us updated then. I'm curious. As for Die Hard, I forgot about the kneecap scene which is probably the worst, IMO, but the rest doesn't seem too awful to me, besides the language. BTW, what's the punishment the first time you hear your kid say Yippee Kiyay Mother Fucker!

Will do.

Most likely punishment will be making him sleep in the air vent for the night or I'll take away his shoes for the day. :)

Rypro - As for the two seconds of nudity, I think he already saw something like that in one of the two Airplane movies or in Clash of the Titans, so it will probably go by largely unnoticed.

[PopcornTreeCt]

You should kinda make it a celebration. I think everyone remembers their first R rated film at the theatre. Make it something like...um...something that's not Wanted.

[SterlingBen]

Way too many over protective people on the board.

The girl with the most over protective parents in my class ended up getting addicted to meth, becoming homeless and is now in jail, all this before 23 (I am not joking).

My best memory with my father was seeing T2 in the theater when I was 7.

[Gunde]

But Die Hard has naked people in it (for about 2 seconds though)
So?

[BeanDip]

A topic I have not seen in the thread... how well does your kid behave and react?

I have been to too many R movies that I was appalled at some of the ages of kids that were there. They either don't understand what is going on and constantly ask their parents what is happening or they are scared out of their wits but their crappy parents don't want to leave so their gibbering ruins the movie for everyone within earshot.


I agree with the people who say watch it first with your wife then decide.

Or wait until it comes out on DVD.

[Artman]

Do you really think a couple of movies are all of the sudden going to turn him a Bad Boys wannabee (the Sean Penn flick, not the Michael Bay one)? .

I don't think anyone is concerned about their kids seeing something and physically copying it... but we're talking about what is mentally healthy for a child (and adults for that matter) and what you want him to be thinking about long after the movie's over.

It sounds to me your thought process is that the kid's gonna see it/do it/hear it anyways so your....preparing him somehow? How exactly will that work....are their other ways to do this instead of sitting him in front of a movie? And will you approach other issues in life the same way? (buy him his first pack of cigarettes, case of beer, etc)

You mentioned CSI... is the tv always on or something? Is there a rule nowadays that we're supposed to have cable and kids are supposed to have tv's and computers in their bedroom? It seems to me there are some (imo) pretty easy steps that can be taken as far as media in the home is concerned. I don't know your situation and I don't want to offend...that's just how I'd approach it.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

i remember seeing Boogie Nights with my dad when i was like 14.

[Zen Peckinpah]

I saw Con Air and Face/Off in theaters when I was 9 in the summer of '97. And it was every bit as marvelous as it should be. The next summer I saw There's Something About Mary...took a few months to understand the hair gel scene :lol:

I saw the first three Lethal Weapons and Beverly Hills Cops at 10, The Last Boy Scout, T2, and Die Hard at 11, Goodfellas, The Godfather movies, and all of Tarantino's films save Jackie Brown at 13. I watched True Romance and Reservoir Dogs first, actually.

Also, I never watched many movies with a lot of sex until one weekend in February '03 when I saw The People vs. Larry Flynt and Boogie Nights in a span of 48 hours.

[tasha99]

I just saw Wanted. It was a great movie, but I'm glad I went without my 10-year-old. Imo, it's completely inappropriate for anyone still in elementary school. I would consider taking a teenager (14/15 or older, depending on the kid) I know my son would have freaked out at the use of rats as weapons. He's pretty sensitive to animal cruelty.

[Rypro 525]

First R rated movie for me was Terminator 2 at 8. first r in a theater was i think Eraser at 12, good times. I remeber seeing Something about mary in theaters with my dad and younger brother, and my mom wondering how he'd explain the hair gel scene.

[Brack]

Oh come on, not that I agree with that line, but at least it makes more sense than some lame generalization that among someone's limited group of friends that those that were 'sheltered' turned out worse than those that had free reign as a child. That's laughable at best. I can generalize as well... of my experience and the friends/family that I grew up with, things turned out more like what CD described. The unstable ones are the ones that had free reign as a kid, not the sheltered ones. We could do that all day and get nowhere. At least CD is in a position to witness probably hundreds of children and see them grow and now they turn out.

I would hazard a guess that a majority of those in the 'let em watch whatever' don't yet have kids and are just tossing in their two cents on the matter. Sure, every child is different and can handle different things, but to even be commenting on the matter when one doesn't have kids is worthless. That person has exactly one frame of reference, their own childhood which was many years ago, and can't speak of hypothetical situations until they have a kid of their own. Does that include you?

um, my parents cared about what I watched plenty, but they cared more about how I was doing in school, who my friends were, and what I felt about things. you know, things parents should do. whether or not I watched "inappropriate" material is irrelevant to my upbringing. I know what's right and wrong. sure I've made some mistakes in life, but in no way did they arise from "inappropriate" movie watching.

again, what does being a parent have anything to do with my recollection of my childhood? are you assuming it's somehow incorrect to do this? because frankly that's the biggest load of crap if I've ever seen. a nice cop-out so you can "win" this debate.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

I guess I've seen R rated movies earlier because we had HBO growing up. I think Child's Play may have been the very first one I saw but it was on TV. Either that or Aliens.

[Gilgamesh1082]

I was born in 82, and I could see basically any PG13 movie or under I wanted from the time I was born. Saw my first R flick at home, with my folks when I was 10 or 11 and it was Total Recall. Sat down, watched it, and was told only to cover my eyes when the three tits came up. I remember being so excited to finally see a R rated movie and was left feeling kind of let down after the fact. The only real difference in something like Total Recall and say Jaws is the profanity and the one 3 second clip of 3 boobs. I didn't see what the big deal was after that and my parents had no issue with me watching R rated flicks after that. So long as they had seen them first.

After Total Recall, it was on to Speed, Nightmare on Elm Street, T2, the Godfather trilogy (which I watched with my mom, god bless her), Apocalypse Now, etc. And I turned out all right. Had extremely good grades, loved to read, and to this day have a wonderful work ethic. It scares me how much pussification the country has towards kids' viewing habits these days.

I have a niece and nephew who are 9 (close to 10 now) and 6 and I can't show them the original Transformers cartoon without them getting terrified of everything in it. I'm talking full on fetal position, begging me to turn it off, I'm scared kind of crying. All because my sister and brother in law have sheltered the hell out of them. In the past year, they've gotten a tiny bit better about it and actually want to see some of the super hero movies out. But they can't even watch Grease because of the one kissing scene in it. I wanted to take them to see Iron Man because they both wanted to see it and I wasn't allowed to take them. Not because of the single usage of the word shit in it, but because Iron Man fought someone at the end of it and it showed a tiny bit of blood. I shit you not. I told them that they had seen worse on the school yard if someone fell and skinned their knee up and was told I wasn't taking them to see it. My little nephew loves Star Wars, but has yet to see any of them in their entirety. He still has no idea that Obi-Wan cuts a guy's arm off in A New Hope, doesn't have clue one that over half of Red Squadron died in the initial run on the Death Star, and definitely doesn't know about Obi-Wan slicing and dicing Anakin up in Episode 3. But he does know, thanks to me, that Luke Skywalker killed well over a million construction workers, diplomats, and other assorted personnel when he blew up the Death Star. He is no longer allowed to watch that particular scene after he told his parents that. And I love these two to death, but the minute they get to middle school, they're going to be eaten alive.

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

I don't think anyone is concerned about their kids seeing something and physically copying it... but we're talking about what is mentally healthy for a child (and adults for that matter) and what you want him to be thinking about long after the movie's over.

It sounds to me your thought process is that the kid's gonna see it/do it/hear it anyways so your....preparing him somehow? How exactly will that work....are their other ways to do this instead of sitting him in front of a movie? And will you approach other issues in life the same way? (buy him his first pack of cigarettes, case of beer, etc)

You mentioned CSI... is the tv always on or something? Is there a rule nowadays that we're supposed to have cable and kids are supposed to have tv's and computers in their bedroom? It seems to me there are some (imo) pretty easy steps that can be taken as far as media in the home is concerned. I don't know your situation and I don't want to offend...that's just how I'd approach it.

I'm not preparing him for the dangers of the world by letting him watch R-rated movies. I have basically already said so. Preparing him for adulthood occurs as we let up on the reins some...as he learns to take over in some of the decision process. Preparing him for adulthood is in teaching him how to decide wisely and responsibly. The question I've had, and that was the catalyst for this thread, was when to start letting the reins up and how much.

The fact is that my son is already on his way to being well-prepared. He doesn't swear, thinks cigarettes are disgusting, has never committed a violent act, etc. Kids tend to repeat the actions of the their parents moreso than anything they see on TV or in films. If their parents drink or smoke a lot, then the kids are more likely to do so. If the parents swear a lot, then the kids tend to. Given that me and his mom don't smoke, drink, or swear (actively), and since he knows cigarettes and alcohol largely contributed to the death of his grandfather, he has little tolerance for such things. Our greatest worry with him right now is in dealing with motivational issues tied largely to depression (hereditary).

As for TV and internet in the bedroom, yes, he has both. And he has parental controls set on both. Believe it or not, the computer/ internet is actually a really good tool for learning, and even the school systems play up on that, with websites devoted to learning games, book lists, homework help, etc. He currently is learning to play electric guitar via his PC.

But even with the controls set here, it doesn't mean they are set elsewhere. He can still be exposed to things at friend's houses, on the radio, at school, the school and public libraries, conversing with peers, riding the bus, on advertisements pasted all over town, on his cell phone, etc. The reference to NCIS was just meant to highlight the ease with which the kids can be exposed to this stuff. Hell, the word "dork" is used about 40,000 times a day on Nick and eventually he'll learn what the word actually means, if he hasn't already. Again, sheltering your children today just isn't as easy as it was even 20-30 years ago.

Finally, when you get a chance, can you please point to the psych research that shows how Caddyshack and Die Hard are scarring to a child's mental health? The things that still haunt me from my childhood are episodes of the Twilight Zone (a show even then 15-20 years old). No movie ever left a mark on me as shattering as "Time Enough at Last" or "To Serve Man," and that was without a drop of blood, a flash of skin or a single bad word.

[creekdipper]

Way too many over protective people on the board.

The girl with the most over protective parents in my class ended up getting addicted to meth, becoming homeless and is now in jail, all this before 23 (I am not joking).

My best memory with my father was seeing T2 in the theater when I was 7.


Have to disagree about the overprotective comment.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mention what caused the girl to go off the deep end. If her parents never let her do ANYTHING (go out with friends, talk on the phone, see any movies), that might be an argument for her being more rebellious than most. Still, there's no way of knowing whether she would have turned out exactly the same (or worse...maybe dead) had her parents allowed her to do exactly what she wanted. Obviously, I don't know the person in question, but it is possible that the parents were "overprotective" precisely because the girl had already displayed tendencies at home that showed she was likely to be engage in risk-taking, attention-seeking behavior. I've seen some pretty strong-willed kids who needed a firm hand to keep them from terrorizing society.

I could see your anecdote & rattle off a list of classmates like that who turned out DOA, in the local psch pavilion, pregnant, brains fried, in rehab, in jail, etc.)...and all of them were the ones who got to do EXACTLY what they wanted (we used to envy them until we saw them looking middle-aged when they were in their mid- to late-twenties. On the other hand, I could top that list with a list of 'protected' kids who were never arrested, never in the FYI police report in the paper, never flunked out of school, never fired from work, never exhibited any substance abuse, never divorced, etc.

I think that the personality of the individual has more to do with their abstaining or experimenting that either the indulgence or protection of the parents. Young people who have a strong moral compass and confidence in that morality are better equipped to resist the temptation to go along with the crowd to gain the approval of their peers. In my experience, younger kids are more likely to give in to peer pressure to do certain things. Movies that carry an amoral (or immoral) message which contradict the moral codes imparted by parents just send mixed messages at an impressionable age. To me, that is the biggest danger of allowing young kids to see disturbing images. Of course, there's also the nightmares that sometimes result (as even some of those who are in favor of allowing kids to see R-rated films attest to having experienced after seeing some violent movies).

Anyway, if we're generalizing, I feel very confident (from personal experience of working with thousands of kids) in saying that the kids who were the "least" protected were far more likely to have problems both when they were younger and as they got older (even some who matured and overcame their troubled teen years had a hard time living down their reputations & convincing those who knew them in their 'wild years' that they could handle responsibilities at work).

It's sort of like the "preacher's kids" myth (that "PK"'s all turn out to be the wildest kids). I've seen that happen (because the parents were too wimpy to discipline their kids), but the more common thing I've seen is kids who managed to be both very popular among their peers and very responsible young adults who walked the straight and narrow path.

I would also mention that I've heard the testimony of some formerly 'free-spirited" friends who say that the first thing that happened to them when they got clean or sober was that their old friends immediately dropped them & wanted nothing more to do with them...which doesn't say much for the loyalty for the self-indulgent, "under-protected" young people.

[creekdipper]

Just wanted to add that this is a really good thread with a lot of good discussion going on with even the disagreements being expressed respectfully & thoughtfully.

AllPurposeNothing, MichaelCorvin, gmanca, & many others have provided some lively, well-written material. This is what I like best about internet forums.

My only problem is that my computer is taking long naps, evidently, and hiding huge blocks of posts (not just in this thread). For instance, when I logged on a little while ago just to catch up, my computer skipped around 20 posts (I could see the most recent on page 4, but there were a bunch of really good ones missing). The only way I could finally get to see them was to find a reference to a post somewhere in the missing batch & click on that username & find their previous posts. Only then was I able to read the entire give & take. Unfortunately, when I go back (or forward), the computer defaults to the previous setting & the posts aren't viewable (or quotable) unless I do the above method.

Just wanted to express appreciation for the thoughts. Haven't been ignoring the discussion intentionally & it still seems to have a little more life in it.

At least this gives me the incentive to finally hook up my new computer we just bought.

**Edit**At least the 'puter isn't playing favorites. It wouldn't even let me see this post until I searched my own name for posts. I'm thinking "Death to the hard drive!" (probably a phrase I heard in a violent movie at a young age -wink-)

[toddly6666]

Although I saw R-rated flicks my whole life (the R-rated ones were mainly the foreign films), I think Robocop was my first real violent film I saw in the theaters at age 11....remember, they made Robocop toys/action figures for kids at that time!

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

Just wanted to add that this is a really good thread with a lot of good discussion going on with even the disagreements being expressed respectfully & thoughtfully.

AllPurposeNothing, MichaelCorvin, gmanca, & many others have provided some lively, well-written material. This is what I like best about internet forums.



Agreed.

A couple of points about your last post (sorry for the lack of quotes but it's a lot to cover):

First, and most importantly, R-rated does not equal immoral. Four letter words, though often not appropriate, hardly classify as immoral. Nudity is not immoral. Violence occurs in movies that is not immoral. In fact, many r-rated flicks have absolutely nothing to do with morality. Period. I wish that equation would stop being applied.

A child with a strong moral compass will not receive "mixed signals" from a movie. They will know the difference between right and wrong. So why can't they go to R-rated movies?

How does one classify a "disturbing image"? The most disturbing image I have ever seen in is in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. In fact, almost all of the most disturbing images I have ever seen are in art museums or churches. Should we keep kids out of both of those as well?

Kids running wild without any limits and allowed to do anything they want are most likely being neglected or have been shipwrecked on an island. But this argument here isn't between Lord of the Flies and the Von Trapp Family Singers. It has been about consciously making the determination of when it is okay to start exposing your children to certain things. Ultimately, it is an argument between being protective and over-protective.

People who are strung out or constantly drunk aren't necessarily looking for real friends. They tend to prefer the company of those sharing their misery, not standing above it. They are sharing a drink they call loneliness but its better than drinking alone.

"I think that the personality of the individual has more to do with their abstaining or experimenting that either the indulgence or protection of the parents."
I entirely agree with this comment.
However, it contradicts the three paragraphs you wrote below it.

[SterlingBen]

Have to disagree about the overprotective comment.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mention what caused the girl to go off the deep end. If her parents never let her do ANYTHING (go out with friends, talk on the phone, see any movies), that might be an argument for her being more rebellious than most. Still, there's no way of knowing whether she would have turned out exactly the same (or worse...maybe dead) had her parents allowed her to do exactly what she wanted. Obviously, I don't know the person in question, but it is possible that the parents were "overprotective" precisely because the girl had already displayed tendencies at home that showed she was likely to be engage in risk-taking, attention-seeking behavior.
Thats exactly it actually. She was a close friend of mine and it was quite obvious that her rebellious behavior was a result of her parent's overprotectiveness. It was quite sad actually. Sad that is in retrospect, I grew to hate her at the time.

[climbingupwalls]

My friend lets his kids watch R movies at any age. I went to watch Saw II at his house and his 3 yr old sat next to me so I said hold up **** is here next to me and he said he's already watched it. If I had kids I wouldn't even think of showing Saw II to my 3 yr old but he does have 18 and 15 yr olds that seem normal and are well mannered.

Was this at a trailer park by any chance? Was the chip bowl resting on the 3-year-old's head?

[Kocheese99]

My wife and i had our first son two months ago and my brother and i had this same discussion. We agreed that alot of the 70's and 80's flicks would probably be allowable in the 8-11 age range depending on the maturity level of the child. Does that mean i'm gonna throw TCM on for him, hell no. But Jaws, Aliens, Conan, and others easily fall into this catagory. A Clockwork Orange does not, high school age at the minimum for that one.

As for the Theater experience that will be completely different. Movies today are far more violent and filled with sex. It will definately fall into a movie by movie basis. I do remember going to see Invasion USA with my dad and brother. I was 3 and my brother was 7 and i remember the scene with a rocket launcher and a x-mas tree that caused my brother to start crying and causing us to leave the theater. I must have been too young to realize what happened, but my brother could.

Overall, i would just stick to R rated movies at home. The pause button will be your friend plus you won't bother anyone else if the kid can't handle it.