Nope. All I got was you said parents don't pay much attention. That's on the parent, not the content creator. The film has innuendo, not sex.

...in your opinion. I can only think of one joke offhand, but I thought it was funny.

But that's not the movie Marvel wanted to make, or they wouldn't have hired James Gunn in the first place.

..in your opinion. I feel there's room for all types of comic book movies, even in the MCU.

Are you absolutely sure that was always true for the comic book version?

So you admit you're a bad parent, since you apparently know better.

..in your opinion.

So you're perfectly fine with your kids seeing violence intended for older audiences, but get queasy when there's a sexual innuendo joke. Is that the gist?

It really isn't. There's nothing in any Deadpool comic that I ever read that was anything like the sexual content of the film.

Yeah, that's about it - because kids typically don't emulate action scenes that are obviously outrageously fake, but they do get real curious about sex. I was trying to get laid at 11 because of some of the movies I saw.

With teen pregnancy and teen STD's as rampant as they are I would think some people would want to back off from that content in movies that appeal to kids and young teens.

Now, it's not my problem anymore, because my kid is 18, but I don't put myself above parents of kids that are 10 or 12. I can empathize with their situation. I've been there. A lot of parents don't want sexual jokes or comments in movies that would otherwise be appropriate for their kids.

Holy shit, I forgot about Frank's makeup in that episode.

That's how things roll in the US, no problem having your kid watch a guy horribly killed in a movie, but god forbid they see a bare boob. Very skewed sense of priorities.

Again, that is issues with parenting, not content creators.

It sounds more like some deep rooted psychological issues on B5Erik's part that he's projecting onto other kids.

I know you're not a doctor, and you don't play one on TV, and I'm also pretty sure you didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'm confident you've got some qualifications to back up that kind of diagnosis, right?

Next we'll be hearing that women can't carry around 40 pound backpacks!

So content creators have no responsibility?

I seem to recall that cigarettes aren't for kids, but the manufacturer of Camels created a cartoon character to appeal to kids (Joe Camel). That was found to be a problem for them, legally.

Comic Book Superhero movies are marketed to kids. Guardians included. So if a studio wants to be clear that a certain movie isn't for kids they do have some responsibility to either make sure it gets that R rating or to NOT market it to kids in any way. Otherwise they DO have some responsibility to make sure the movie isn't inappropriate for the 10 year olds that will inevitably be in the audience in large numbers.

Again, what's wrong with NOT having sexual comments or jokes in non R Rated superhero movies?

I'm sure that joke about the interior of the Milano looking like a Jackson Pollack painting was responsible for scores - SCORES I tell ya! - of underage STD fueled sex and teen pregnancy. Why, if Marvel hadn't let Gunn corrupt them with his deviant sexuality, we might have gotten wholesome figures like Pip the Troll in the film, and Gamora could've looked more accurate to her comic appearance when it was acceptable for nine year old's to read without adult supervision.

(potentially NSFW: )

Gamora didn't look like that before comics were rated...

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't see the point of gratuitous sexual comments and jokes in movies where they just seem shoehorned in to be, "Edgy."

And parents teach their kids that smoking is bad for your healthy. Just as they should teach them about sex and not hide from it.

You keep mentioning ages under 13. The films are rated appropriately at PG 13. If you think 13 year olds aren’t making sex jokes than you’re sadly mistaken. If someone under 13 goes to see it that is at the parents discretion. The warning is there, if they don’t want to use it then that’s their call.

About as many qualifications as you do for determining what's the appropriate content for a PG-13 film.
They do. It's called rating the film PG-13, which should warn parents that it may contain some content not appropriate for minors under the age of 13.
Nothing, but conversely there's nothing wrong with a PG-13 movie having sexual comments or jokes. If you want stuff that's purely sexless, go to the PG or G rated films (and even PG stuff sometimes has sexual innuendo).

No, she looked like this:


https://hobbylark.com/fandoms/Gamora-Costume-History

The look ultimaton posted is actually before Marvel started their own ratings system. As the above article notes "The fabric was just wide enough to pass the Comic Code Authority censors."

The big part of Vol 2 is Peter finding out his mom had sex with an alien. Should that not be there because of the kiddies?

Peter's dad banged a lot of women, like at least one per planet. There's a giant pile of child skulls showing he's killed a lot of kids too, but B5Erik is concerned only about sex.

What a motherfucker Ego is.

And now we have come full circle.

I take my 9 year old daughter to many PG-13 movies. Stuff like the Jackson Pollack joke flies right over her head. When she's old enough to understand, she will look at these movies in a new light, just as I do with stuff I saw when I was a kid.

Yeah, the Jackson Pollack joke was carefully crafted so only people of a certain age would get it. At the least, they have to know who Jackson Pollack is.

I had no problems letting my 5 year old watch GotG.
Hell she even went to theaters with me to see Deadpool 2.

Guess I'm a bad parent according to B5Erik

No. It’s everyone else’s responsibility for what your child sees.

If you take a 5 year old to an R rated movie there's an issue there with the parent, not anyone else.

But when studios market movies to kids that have inappropriate content for that age group there's a problem there, too.