...this makes me wish I drank Pepsi, so I could boycott it. Unfortunately, a bit pointless when I don't.
Sex has always seemed to get a higher rating than violence in movies. But you'd think there'd be a difference between movies, where it's all faked, and real life, with actual people being harmed.
I mean: Fictional people don't something that doesn't harm anyone Vs Real people being killed.
If they wanted their work to remain on LJ they should be drawing Snape cutting Harry's head off with a knife.
No. Really. before I read the rest of this I assumed you meant the way that rating systems in movies work. Like violence is fine but sexuality always gets you an NC-17.
But I think we both know that stands. Fifteen year old harry could watch someone killed in front of him and get a PG-13 but if he sees ron's cock in a shower scene he won't be able to go to his own movie..
Not surprising in the least. C'mon! Violence and murder are revered pasttimes and have unlimited entertainment value for many of the planet's male population. But buttsecks engenders some sort of primal terror, which they, in turn, inculcate the females around them--those females wouldn't want to be without their precious male attention and protection, now would they?
No genitals? Nothing that looked like 17-year-old genitals? No problem. LJ celebrates freedom of speech, as long as that speech doesn't include 17-year-old genitals.
Beheadings, as long as they are related to the head that's attached to a neck, are fine.
Because what's *most* important in life is to keep 17-year-olds from noticing that they have genitals. Or, if they have noticed, to keep them from noticing that other people might have them too.
Keep 'em hyped on that Diet Pepsi Max; they'll be bouncing off the walls and unable to concentrate on naughty bits.
It thankfully wasn't Pepsi but I shouldn't have been drinking anything while I read that comment. *is still laughing* You're a genious.
(And hey, at least that got me of the "Tell me you're joking. Please tell me you're joking." track for a moment. They just can't be serious. Last time I checked, genitals haven't beheaded someone yet. *is speechless*)
17-year-olds don't pay any attention to their genitals, or to anyone else's, silly. They're much too focused on using their wands to achieve dominance over other people's wands. *rolls eyes* Genitals have NOTHING to do with it. Really.
Comments 10
Sex has always seemed to get a higher rating than violence in movies. But you'd think there'd be a difference between movies, where it's all faked, and real life, with actual people being harmed.
I mean:
Fictional people don't something that doesn't harm anyone Vs Real people being killed.
Wtf?
Reply
No. Really. before I read the rest of this I assumed you meant the way that rating systems in movies work. Like violence is fine but sexuality always gets you an NC-17.
But I think we both know that stands. Fifteen year old harry could watch someone killed in front of him and get a PG-13 but if he sees ron's cock in a shower scene he won't be able to go to his own movie..
Reply
Reply
Reply
Beheadings, as long as they are related to the head that's attached to a neck, are fine.
Because what's *most* important in life is to keep 17-year-olds from noticing that they have genitals. Or, if they have noticed, to keep them from noticing that other people might have them too.
Keep 'em hyped on that Diet Pepsi Max; they'll be bouncing off the walls and unable to concentrate on naughty bits.
Reply
(And hey, at least that got me of the "Tell me you're joking. Please tell me you're joking." track for a moment. They just can't be serious. Last time I checked, genitals haven't beheaded someone yet. *is speechless*)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment