LGBTQ and the ”Sex & Nudity” section of the “Parents Guide”

  • 3
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 months ago
If LGBTQ is going to be listed in this section, the section should be renamed “Sexuality & Nudity.” Just the fact that a movie has LGBTQ content has nothing to do with sex or nudity. If it did, then all the other movies would need to list heterosexuality whenever there was even a hint of heterosexuality – including the glimpse of a wedding ring or a man and a woman hugging.

In The Laramie Project listing, the Sex & Nudity section says, “Theme of a openly homosexual young adult.” How is that either sex or nudity? And why is such clinical terminology being used to describe a Gay man?
Photo of mtbp .

mtbp .

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Johnathan Richardson

Johnathan Richardson

  • 7 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I think they need to change the 'sex' to 'sexuality' and separate it from 'nudity'. In other words, have a 'Sexuality' section and a 'Nudity' section. This is mostly because sex and nudity are synonymous. That, and when rating it, it is hard to tell if one should rate it as having moderate because there is full frontal nudity throughout the film, but nothing in a sexual context. Or, no nudity, but a lot of sexual content.

If not, then they should use the idea of 'Sexuality & Nudity'.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1147 Posts
  • 1422 Reply Likes
In The Laramie Project listing, the Sex & Nudity section says, “Theme of a openly homosexual young adult.”
You can send a deletion request for this item via the Edit button. As you say, this shouldn't be in the parent's guide.
Photo of JD Lewis

JD Lewis

  • 9 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Not all sex & nudity is offensive, but if we see "heavy" or "severe" we can decide not to watch. Same with LGBTQ. I do not see how this harms the LGBTQ community. If they see in Parents' Guide that a show or series has LGBTQ activity, they can decide "hey, this is for me." If Parents do not want their children to see it, then we can decide "hey, let's skip this show." As of now. we have to "fly blind" and watch many shows that start out with zero LGBTQ activity, then in Episode 4 - bam, much more than mere kissing. No thank you. Now, we've wasted a lot of time, and only get more angry. Just give us the up-front facts, and let us decide beforehand. Very simple. Just asking for the same treatment as those who complained about the Sex & Nudity, Violence & Gore, Profanity, etc. Enough folks spoke up and got it added. Just asking for one more category that should not be found improper - just information. Of course, some will have to twist this into "hate" but it isn't hate at all. It's about making informed choices.
Photo of Marco

Marco

  • 1141 Posts
  • 1418 Reply Likes
The Parents Guide section is reserved for stuff that can harm and/or scare children. Seeing LGBTQ stuff does not fall into this category.
That being said, if you want to make informed choices, IMDb has keywords, detailing what a certain title is about.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16476 Posts
  • 18887 Reply Likes
I could not disagree more with that statement. It is up to  a parent to determine what "causes harm". Not my definition nor yours.
Photo of Michael Taylor

Michael Taylor

  • 10 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I'd like to see a section that covers bad music because it makes my ears bleed. Can we add that as well?
Being LGBTQ-phobic is not a reason to add a section.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16476 Posts
  • 18887 Reply Likes
No one is phobic. You have labeled anyone that disagrees with the poster as having a phobia.
Please
Photo of Michael Taylor

Michael Taylor

  • 10 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Where's the tolerance with "do not want to see them on TV". Please tell me how it's tolerant with not wanting to see them on tv. And I would also think it exhibits a phobia.  Not wanting to see snakes in a show can be due to a phobia. Not wanting to see them if it isn't a phobia, it's certainly intolerant.  Or how else would you describe it? Thank God the country isn't controlled by intolerant people, hence the USSCOTUS ruling.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16476 Posts
  • 18887 Reply Likes
I don't want to see Horror/Slasher pics.
I find them distasteful.
And what US SCOTUS ruling are your referring to.
They only have ruled on thousands of cases. Care to enlighten.
Need to poke holes. Need my fun quotient.
Hope you can provide ammo.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Please be specific. XXXXXX XXXXXX v. XXXXXXX XXXXXX or  a case number.

(Edited)
Photo of Michael Taylor

Michael Taylor

  • 10 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Obergefell v. Hodges Docket no. 14-556
can't wait.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16476 Posts
  • 18887 Reply Likes
That is a Fourteenth Amendment case that granted same sex partners legal status in cases of the rights granted to a persons of a traditional marriage to same sex marriages.

It has Zero to do with this discussion and was used by you to somehow validate your point only because it presented a false sense of the facts, based on the idea that no one would ask as I did what it meant to the topic at hand. Which it turns out is nothing.
It has nothing to do with television or movies.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16476 Posts
  • 18887 Reply Likes
Also found Justice Alito's dissenting closing statement interesting.

Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic sup-porters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims. Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today’s decision is that dissenting preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation. Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.
(Edited)
Photo of mtbp .

mtbp .

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Tossing in a comparison with Horror/Slasher films is just as irrelevant since those tags are listed elsewhere.  Unless you’re suggesting that IMDb needs to move those warnings into the Parents Guide section. Is there a level of Horror/Slasher films that you’d find acceptable to show to a child?

The original complaint was about listing a theme of ‘openly homosexual’ in the Sex & Nudity section. Homosexual means that the person is attracted to someone of the same gender.

Homosexual does not equal sex. That would mean that heterosexual would also equal sex. Most people would disagree with that statement.

Homophobia is an irrational fear or dislike of homosexuals and homosexuality.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16476 Posts
  • 18887 Reply Likes
See you agree. MTBP. Horror/Slasher films is just as irrelevant since those tags are listed elsewhere.
Same can be said about this topic.
Relevance is not for you or I to decide.
The relevance of included information is for ALL to decide.
My opinion is valid.
Your opinion is valid.
His opinion is valid.
Her opinion is valid.
They opinion is valid.
If Heterosexual is listed but LGBTQ is to be left out or removed then you have censored the database.
Equality for all is imperative.
You can't take away my right to be informed anymore than I can yours.


Photo of mtbp .

mtbp .

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Clearly, you are missing the point entirely.

A theme of ‘open homosexual’ does not belong in the Sex & Nudity section.

All of your comments have ignored the original topic.
Photo of Michael Taylor

Michael Taylor

  • 10 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
First, there are two discussions and they are overlapping, so relevance must be placed into context of both threads.
Second, this whole issue has to do with LGBTQ intolerance which comes from the other post in the statement that "we Christians...do not want to see them on TV".
So would it be ok to have a category that identifies inter-racial relationships?
There is a large # of people that do not believe in inter-racial relationships, so why shouldn't imdb create a category for that? It has nothing to do with sex, sexuality, or nudity. I'm in an inter-racial marriage that had been barred by law.

The only label we should assign to anyone is that they're a person.   ....................................PERIOD..............................................................

There are ways for those that want to avoid movies or tv that already exist. It's hiding of the agenda that I have the problem with.

Finally Ed, just because you say something doesn't make it so. I'm not sure if understand Alito's dissent, but it had to do with judicial activism versus doing something in the way the Founders intended which is through the legislative branch with the executive branch. The problem for some was that the legislative branch did make a law, but it wasn't how some activists wanted it to be so they used the court. Alito felt that the court expanded protections to a group not intended by the law that was used. There are many problems with the 14th amendment and it is used far too broadly. In case you're not aware, it was almost immediately challenged so as to not give the expanded rights to Native Americans. It took another 100 years before Native Americans would gain their full citizenship.

In any case, in light of imdb giving in on the birth name issue, which I disagree with, they'll never add something like this. Incidentally, I believe birth names should be part of the database if it's relevant. Not all actors have a birth name. Someone's actual birth is a fact, and it would just take too much to get into that whole issue. I'll give one example though which is Muhammad Ali who vehemently hated his birth name for reasons others can research, but he would easily consider it just as much deadnaming and yet his birth name is on his page.

In any case, I welcome a thoughtful rebuttal, and I'd encourage you to come up with a defense of agreeing with the statement of "do not want to see them on TV" because that statement is extremely intolerant and you agreed with it and have defended it, so now you need to support it.

Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16476 Posts
  • 18887 Reply Likes
No. Sorry. Don't need to rebut. Read my replies on other like topics. This is going to escalate into silliness and I'm done with the idiocy of these types of topics here.
Photo of JD Lewis

JD Lewis

  • 9 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
OK.. not all Christians think alike. Given. Most that I know do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours is no more valid than mine. Yes, this will only devolve into one "intolerant" side making no valid arguments and resort to name calling. How mature. No one has made a valid argument as to how this harms the LGBTQ community. It does not. Adding a section to Parents' Guide only helps everyone, and names no names. Because I do not want my children watching two guys groping or having sex, or watching two women really going at it, does not make me a bad person. I don't care what others do or what activities they watch. I just don't want to watch it, and truly believe that if I know up front that there is going to be this activity, then I will not watch it. Everyone else can do what that want. Why cannot I? And, why is asking for this being added to Parent's Guide a "bad thing?" You have no logical argument, and yet you can attack, attack, attack. This is a good example of what's wrong with America today. You want me to be tolerant, but you do not even bother being tolerant or logical. Go figure. Hypocrisy at its height.
Photo of Johnathan Richardson

Johnathan Richardson

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
For the one who said LGBT stuff can't harm or scare children. Considering that homosexuality and bisexuality are sexualities, they could harm children on a mental level. Or, at the very least confuse them, just like heterosexuality. If you want equality, then all forms of sexuality must be treated in the same manner. That, and because not everyone has the same mindset or opinions, they still need to list it, to avoid shock and disgust.
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1590 Posts
  • 2014 Reply Likes
I think you need to define ”LGBT stuff”. Especially compared to ”hetero stuff”. IMDb usually doesn’t just list ”stuff”. If you mean ”sex scenes”, then yes, they’re not aimed for children in movies or TV - whether they’re LGBT stuff or hetero stuff. Sex stuff is not for kids.

People holding hands, people kissing in a romantic way (no french kisses!), candle light dinners... those are another matter. They’re ”romantic stuff”. But not ”sex stuff”.
Photo of Johnathan Richardson

Johnathan Richardson

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I mean things that can only be included in a sexual context. People could kiss/hold hands/have dinner when they're just friends, so of course that's fine. If a film presents a romantic gesture in some sensual way, then that should be treated as if it was sexual. If that makes sense.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 16476 Posts
  • 18887 Reply Likes
Unbelievable!
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3637 Posts
  • 3513 Reply Likes
Related Conversation ? ?

Please add into Parents' Control section, the ranking of LGBTQ Activities - None, Mild, Moderate, Heavy
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/please-add-into-parents-control-section-the-ranking-of-lgbtq...

JD Lewis
Aug 27 2019
.

(Edited)