Lesbian romances may break PG-13 standard for the simple reason that while children below 13 know of man-woman relationships, they do not know of the same gender relationships. I imagine that goes differently in different countries, but, speaking for myself, I did not know of same gender relationships until the age of 14, and I would prefer not to allow 13- children under my care to play games with homosexual elements, simply because they do not yet know of such things.
Three[EDIT](Well, it was when I started ;/ ){/EDIT] questions on this:
1) How old are you now?
2)
a) Was your upbringing typical of that of children in your culture/country at the time, and
b) How does it compare to the typical upbringing of children now?
3)
a) How much media coverage did the social and legal issues surrounding homosexuality get at the time, and
b) How much do they get now, in your culture/country?
4) What country? (For basis of comparison). I do see the "Moscow, Russia" in your location field; but you living there now doesn't necessarily mean you grew up there.
In the United States, the controversy over gay marriage alone gets so much media coverage that it is almost incredible, solely on those grounds, that a 13 year old today would not have heard of the concept of same-sex relationships. Given the public ranting and raving about the "evil" of homosexuality from various Tinfoil Hat right-wing groups, the somewhat more diplomatic but nevertheless vocal disapproval of many churches, the attempts by more moderate and liberal groups to educate young audiences about tolerance and diversity, and the routine and virtually ubiquitous use of "gay" as a generic pejorative slang adjective ("Dude, you're gay!" "Detention?! That's gay!" Think "cool" but with an opposite connotation) by schoolchildren of every age on and off the playground (it is absurd to postulate that, upon hearing it constantly, the vast majority, or any majority, of 13-and-under year olds might not think to ask their peers or parents what the word was supposed to mean), the chances of a normal American child (as opposed to one adamantly homeschooled and restricted to the home and a carefully screened group of playmates, or perhaps raised under a rock in a more literal fashion) not being familiar with the concept of same-sex relationships in this day and age are in the "snowball's chance in hell" range. The claim that children under 13 should not be exposed to concepts which they are assumed to be unfamiliar with, but of which, demonstrably, virtually none of them are ignorant, is at best fallacious. However, children 13 and under are likely to find it extremely patronizing as well--gods know I did.
Anyway, assuming that their parents do in fact care about content and ratings, what would children 13 and under be doing playing a game labeled "[T]een" in the first place? And if they're not, or shouldn't be, isn't this kind of a moot point?
In this case, Azzathoth presumed to imagine my thoughts on the matter and to put words in my mouth, which is, I believe, unacceptable. Otherwise I would not have responded.
This would be a valid complaint and I would offer an apology were it not for the unambiguously qualified nature of "I imagine" and similar statements. As such, it is a statement of a fact that I know to be true: namely, that I tentatively regard this explanation as most probable based on observation and pattern-recognition. There is nothing presumptuous about this. Unless you in fact contend that formulating tentative explanations for the causes of observed phenomena based on past experience and pattern recognition is unreasonable (and are prepared to act accordingly from this point hence), your complaint is groundless.
Also, I would contend that my inference was a valid one, at least in part. You claim that you oppose exposing children under 13 to depictions of same-sex relationships...
for the simple reason that while children below 13 know of man-woman relationships, they do not know of the same gender relationships
. Let us assume that this is true. There are a great many other things which many 13 year olds do not know about: (algebra comes to mind, along with concepts of biology and chemistry, and history, and political philosophies, and...). Would you contend that they should not be exposed to these things as well (note: by "exposed" I mean in any way; hence arguments that children at this age are not ready to be systematically taught these subjects, while they may or may not have merit, miss the point)? If not (and I infer that you do not, since an array of other evidence makes the opposite position absurd in practice), why? What is the relevant difference between depictions of same-sex relationships and many of the other things children at that age are not familiar with? I'll wait for your answer before finalizing any judgements, but at the risk of further accusations of presumptuousness, I suspect you've already answered this question:
I feel uncomfortable around lesbian romances
While there is, perhaps, not a perfect one-to-one correspondence between the position described in this statement and the concept of a subject being "controversial," there is nevertheless a clear logical connection between the two. My inference stands.
[EDIT]However:
And I stated that I believe it goes differently in different countries/etc, and presented my own example. I fail to see how it can be viewed as a general statement, or enforcing my beliefs on others.
I agree, sort of. While his/her (masculinish-by-western-conventions, feminine portrait... *blinkblinks*) argument evaluates as false, in that it is based on premises which are factually untrue, this is indeed an expression of an opinion. so far, Kulyok's statements on this point qualify as neither coercion nor badgering, and hence do not qualify as an attempt to force his/her beliefs on others (Sir K, after all, may or may not have specifically asked for input *ain't gonna scroll through all that again to verify* as well as offering answers to questions, this is hardly at the level of pressuring him to make the mod one way or another). Dissent is not inherently coercive or hostile, no matter what certain confused muppets might say about it. I think the interpretation of the comment as being intended as a general statement is valid (in the sense of following logically from what was known at the time), since Kulyok's initial statement on the issue did not include the "in my country" qualifier, but s/he has since clarified adequately, I think...
Bloody hell, this is starting to look like one of Kat's debate pieces x.x
Edited by Azzathoth, 18 December 2005 - 04:16 AM.
This topic is locked
