I don't have kids, but I do live in Las Vegas, which seems to be the epicenter of billboard protest. (Lots of ads for escort services, strip clubs, or even regular clubs that feature very scantily clad women and girl-on-girl scenarios).

I think it's important that we do make the distinction between billboards objectifying and sexualizing women and billboards that objectify, sexualize, and demonstrate extreme violence towards women.

While one bothers me, I don't feel that I necessarily have the right to tell the company not to show that image - but I do feel I have the right with these posters. Why?

Perhaps because it's easier to explain and understand why ads use sex rather than why ads use violence? How do you explain to a seven year old about rape and torture? (I have heard nothing about rape in the movie, but I feel like it 's fair to say that it will have some kind of a role in a movie.)

I'm curious to see what parents say to their children as well...

It's not just the sexism, but the violent sexism that gets to me. But after I stopped vomiting, maybe I would say, "Those ads are for a movie that is very violent. Because violence is wrong, when you make a violent movies it gets a lot of attention. Everyone knows that hurting someone like that is bad, which is why it's so upsetting. Your dad and I think it's wrong to make movies like that, so we don't go see them so the people who make them don't get our money." And then I might engage in a bit of guerilla grafitti-ing; if any billboard ever deserved spraypaint, those do. Maybe stickers with "Violence against women is wrong, and this poster is sick." to plaster on them, and give my child some also.

It isn't easy. You have to walk a line between being open and honest and protecting them from nightmares. You have to balance getting the right message across without overwhelming them. You have to pitch the discussion so that it is age appropriate.

Mostly I used these situations as an opportunity to open a dialog on respect, on how the media manipulates your thoughts or on sex. You can't enough opportunities to discuss sex with kids because they are exposed to so much incorrect and misleading information. I worked hard to paint a picture of honest, caring, respectful sex vs. predatory, disrespectful, gratuitous sex. But not until they were in Jr. High. When they were little kids I might say something like, "that poster is trying to put bad thoughts in your head - just ignore it". That might seem like white washing but little kids can only comprehend so much.

So that's not much of an answer but really, comments isn't a big enough forum to do that question justice. I will say that both of my girls read Feministing regularly and my son is a genuinely caring, nice guy so it pays to share your belief system with your kids early and often.

The sexism is horrifying, yes, and in a better world children shouldn't have to wonder why these things are plastered over huge billboards as advertising for "entertainment".

But I would be honest with the children. Yes, that woman is being tortured. No, it's not real, it's a movie. No, it isn't a good movie.

This can lead into a discussion of the actual issue at hand- cruelty towards women and how some lesser-evolved members of our society find it an acceptable form of entertainment- and put good morals in their head, rather than teaching them to lie (which children can detect easily by 6 or so) about unpleasant topics.

The sexism is horrifying, yes, and in a better world children shouldn't have to wonder why these things are plastered over huge billboards as advertising for "entertainment".

But I would be honest with the children. Yes, that woman is being tortured. No, it's not real, it's a movie. No, it isn't a good movie.

This can lead into a discussion of the actual issue at hand- cruelty towards women and how some lesser-evolved members of our society find it an acceptable form of entertainment- and put good morals in their head, rather than teaching them to lie (which children can detect easily by 6 or so) about unpleasant topics.

dare I say whorishly

UM...?

But yeah, I think gender-heavy cleaning product commercials are much worse.

Billboards are a nuisance, period, no matter what they say. That said, I highly doubt kids are going to retain any permanent damage from this campaign...I mean geez, I vividly remember the end of "The Possession of Joel Delaney" (as well as many other golden 70s-era films) when I was a young kid, and I turned out fine. :)

(Proposed answer to my preschooler):
"Son, that's a movie about someone beating up girls. Some people hate girls and want to beat them up, which is wrong."

Kids can only handle relatively simple concepts, but I don't see that we have so soften notions of good and evil just because they can't take in the complexity of the cultural messages.

I was with my god-daughter (13) and god-son (15) when we saw one of these ads. They were very upset and my god-daughter asked what the woman did wrong. I didn't know exactly what to say, but my god-son said in his generally angst/angry voice "She didn't do anything wrong. Nobody does something wrong to get treated like that." (Which isn't proper English, but made the point in any event.)

I was so proud of him I wanted to give him a hug...but I curbed the impulse.

BTW - My feelings about Tipper Gore changed dramatically when my son was a pre-teen and wanted to buy really groteque and misogynistic rap. I was really glad to have that parental warning sticker on the CD case to help me figure out what I did and didn't have to insist on listening to and discussing with him. I wonder what parents are doing today with downloadable music?

Captivity? More like Craptivity! Haha!

Anyway, I don't have kids, so maybe I can't empathize with parents whose children ask questions about stuff they might be to young to know about. But I never really understood why parents struggle to answer such questions. I like it when kids try to answer their own questions. I think I would have asked the kids what they thought the poster meant and probably whether they liked what they saw.

It's unfortunate that the torture of a pretty woman isn't as repulisve as the torture of any other kind of person. Isn't there a guy in that movie who gets tortured too? Where's he in all of these ads?

I think its great that they did revise the first poster, however the new one isn't any better. Did anyone see that movie Wolf Creek? That was a capture, torture, kill movie that I saw expecting your typical slasher film. It ended up having a particularly uncomfortable scene of a guy torturing a half naked woman in a garage surrounded by hung body parts of other women. The scene had an eliment of rape to it as well! shocking I thought. The scene was so bad I actually couldn't watch past it since the movie hadn't been on long and god knows what was going to happen next.

The thing is, when I was a kid watch horror movies behind my parents back, there was no eliment of rape. It was the evil man killing teenagers while they were camping, or invincible characters like Freddie. I can't remember seeing this terrifying psychology in any of those R rated movies I saw when I was a kid (late 80's early 90's)

If I, a 24 year old gal, feel uncomfortable watching something like this, what does that say exactly?

I must also say that I can't remember ever seeing a theatrical poster or billboard that made me feel confused or scared as a child. And I'm not that old. It seems like the last few years, the horror movies have been taking a real bad road. Cant they just tell some more ghost stories and leave the torture scenes out?

I just want to note that while the horrible, in-your-face, misogynistic violence is a new element, sexist ads and commercials have been around for as long as advertising itself. I think that it's very important for parents to break down what's happening in them, in an age-appropriate way, for their kids. My feminism was formed by my mother, and one of the things she did regularly was to sit with me while the television was on and explain the sexism in the commercials. It was often pretty basic stuff ("Look how the commercials for Star Wars figures only show boys playing with them! The people who make those ads think that only boys like Star Wars. But you like to play with Star Wars figures and you're not a boy." "Yeah, Mom! That's sexist.") but it was stuff I could handle and understand, and it made me suspicious of advertisements in a feminist way at a very young age.

As to kids answering their own questions--yes and no. Often kids are asking questions because they don't understand what's happening; they don't have the experience or cognitive tools to make sense of things, and they need a reliable, sympathetic adult to help provide those things. I think especially when what they're asking about is frightening and nightmarish, it behooves the adults in whose care they are to provide solid reassurance and answers.

21stCenturyMom, I may be wrong but I believe if kids are legally downloading music then places like the AppleStore have warnings on the music. When you buy an album or mp3 off the applestore, you get a little icon of the cover art that has the "explicit content" warning on it.

Parents who let their children illegally download music deserve what they get as far as I'm concerned.

My best friend's sister likes to take her son along when her boyfriend takes her to Hooters. Although the attire and atmosphere of Hooters is nothing that you wouldn't see on the street, I almost blew a fuse when this four year old boy looked at my chest, and said, "hooters". Later, when we asked him where he would like to go to eat, he requested "Hooters".

Despite Hooters being mostly a puff area for sexuality, I think there's something to be said about exposing children to that atmosphere. Obviously, they aren't old enough to take it the right way (as if there is a 'right way'), and it teaches boys at an unbelievable early age to treat women as objects.

How did I explain my bosom to the little boy when he pointed at them?

"Yes, sometimes people call them Hooters, but a girl's breasts are her business until she gives you permission. The girls at Hooters want you to look at their bodies, and that's why they work there, but not all girls are like that. If you were a grown-up boy, and you pointed at my chest like that, I would slap the shit out of you."

And he got the point, even at four years old.

My best friend's sister likes to take her son along when her boyfriend takes her to Hooters. Although the attire and atmosphere of Hooters is nothing that you wouldn't see on the street, I almost blew a fuse when this four year old boy looked at my chest, and said, "hooters". Later, when we asked him where he would like to go to eat, he requested "Hooters".

Despite Hooters being mostly a puff area for sexuality, I think there's something to be said about exposing children to that atmosphere. Obviously, they aren't old enough to take it the right way (as if there is a 'right way'), and it teaches boys at an unbelievable early age to treat women as objects.

How did I explain my bosom to the little boy when he pointed at them?

"Yes, sometimes people call them Hooters, but a girl's breasts are her business until she gives you permission. The girls at Hooters want you to look at their bodies, and that's why they work there, but not all girls are like that. If you were a grown-up boy, and you pointed at my chest like that, I would slap the shit out of you."

And he got the point, even at four years old.

I think it's more than just the pull between free speech and censorship. It's the pull between mother's young self and old self. The young me remembers opposing censorship of 2 Live Crew, and being outraged that a moralist was attempting to regulate music. And I remember how angry I was when the WB refused to air a controversial episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the wake of the Columbine tragedy. The young me rails against such exercises of censorship.

But my parent self has a different take on things. I have a problem with the Captivity promos, but also rap music. Yes the rap music I held sacred when faced with assault by Tipper Gore. I hate the idea of my boys being exposed to the mysogyny that is pervasive in hip hop.

For me it wasn't that I didn't want my son to listen to the music (or my daughters). It was that I didn't want them to listen to it without a filter - the filter I provided by discussing the lyrics and what they mean and what the implications are and how demeaning and/or violent they are.

As for downloading - the big problem is that many parents let their kids have computers in their bedrooms and they give them credit cards or they have gift certificates to iTunes. You can't provide feedback if you don't know what is going on. Same thing with respect to TV. If your kid goes into his or her bedroom, shuts the door and turns on the TV you have no opportunity to discuss sexist advertising.

Hmm. I guess times change, is all. When I was young, there was only one television in the house, and it was in the living room, and same with the computer and the stereo. So part of the issue seems to be the proliferation of consumer goods.

I find the subtext of this discussion (the "I don't wanna be like Tipper Gore but I don't want my children exposed" thing) telling. I understand that this is a difficult issue, and that parents might not like having to explain things like this to their children. I get that our society has quite a few offensive elements that can force parents to have uncomfortable discussions before they're ready. I even understand that many of these elements are symptomatic of larger social problems. Thing is, I don't care.

We aren't talking about damage to children here. Seeing a billboard occupies 30 seconds of a child's life and good parents provide all the necessary context. Several commenters had positively wonderful responses to the ad in questions. Thats the job of the parent, to explain the world and raise their child. I also call bullshit on the "I don't want my kid listening to offensive band A" argument. Again, parents have the ability to prevent their children from listening to music they deem inappropriate and, when their children inevitably find a way around them, parents provide the context and morality. 60 minutes of Snoop Dogg isn't brilliant enough to undo a decade of inculcation.

The Tipper Gore factor isn't about making the world safer or better for children, its about parents trying to make their lives easier. Its about creating the illusion of security at the expense of liberty. Those commenters who have voiced their desire to see limits, to see culture cracked down upon, there is a more timely comparison for you: the neocons. What you're discussing, on a fundamental level, is limiting the constitutional rights of adults so as to shelter your children and make your life less difficult.

I know, its not an affirming message, but garbage like this needs to be dragged out into the cold light of day. You aren't willing to give up Habeus Corpus in the name of security, you aren't willing to give up freedom of choice and personal sovereignty in the name of someone else's God, why on earth would you be willing to give up freedom of expression in the name of personal comfort?

My kids are only 1 and 3, so my experience with filtering content is limited. They're exposed to what I let them be exposed to, period. And that aint much.

I have discussed with veteran parents how to control online activities. I'm concerned about offensive music, but even things like child predators and chatrooms and online porn. It's all very daunting to me, cause it's the wild west out there. One thing everyone tells me is to keep the puter in a common area. But then I think, if I were a teen, I'd want privacy. And I don't want to be overly neurotic and intrusive. I dunno.

I do think the Captivity ads were grotesque, and they were apparently an attempt to generate controversy around a terrible movie, and I can't imagine trying to explain that to my kids.

But I think Jill Soloway (and Joss Whedon, who should know from censorship) went too far in mounting a campaign to get the MPAA to withhold a rating, which essentially meant making it impossible to release the film, instead of just letting it quietly fail. Basically, buzz is buzz, and it gave the movie a cachet that another shitty torture porn movie never would have gotten otherwise -- it's "Captivity, the controversial film," not "Captivity, just like all those other movies". And it STILL wound up not making very much money.

In my household, snark is the go-to for handling any uncomfortable situation. I'd probably say 'wow, there's your quality bit of film-making right there'. To which my daughter would snort in agreement and roll her eyes, and my 7 y/o son would say something like 'but that's a pretty girl'. And I'd say 'who deserves a lot better than being in that POS movie. There are better ways to see pretty girls'.

William,

in response to you, I agree somewhat, however, I do think a lot of hip-hop music thats popular is actually just women hating rethoric in the guise of personal expression. You can't sing about slappin certain racial groups, so why is it okay to sing about "slappin yo bitch up" ? something I never got...

however that being said, there is tons of good hip hop out there and loads of other genres spoiled by some bad apple group/bands.

A few years ago, I reached the height of my annoyance at the open display of violent porn in the convenience stores in my neighbourhood. It happened when I saw a little girl tug on her mother's arm and asking what a gang bang slut was. This was part of the title of the video sitting at her eye level with a nauseating piture on the cover. I brought this up to the store manager to find out if he thought this was appropriate. He brushed me off while a few men in line behind me taunted me. My husband and I researched the bylaws in our area for displaying this sort of material. The only thing the convenience store did illegally was openly displaying the imagery, there were no laws against the display of this type of language. We contacted our local reps to see if any action could be made but conveniently they could never be reached by phone (we did receive a lovely form letter in the mail...I guess that was supposed to be helpful). We did not feel that a local convenience store was an appropriate place for this (personally I don't think there are any appropriate places for violent porn but that's just my opinion). We also contacted our local police and they have been doing a great job since then at enforcing the bylaws. The convenience store that started this mission for us has since moved the material to a less open area of the store. When I followed up with the store manager he told me that his business had increased and parents had been thanking him.

I don't have children, so I could only imagine how you would begin to explain this sort of thing to them. I hope that if I do decide to have children one day I can have an age appropriate dialogue with them about being a critical viewer when these situations arise. It saddens me that this type of discussion probably needs to take place at younger and younger ages.

It is also upsetting that the women in sexual imagery seem to be getting younger and younger. Children need a time to be children.

On the posting about Hooters....we unfortunately just got on in my city. I hate that I have seen little boys with Hooters T-shirts. I wonder if any discussion went into those purchases?

"God, why on earth would you be willing to give up freedom of expression in the name of personal comfort?"

Strawman argument, for sure. Nobody is giving up freedom of expression. The Tipper Gore warnings are just that - they are an indication of the type of content. The content is still there.

Do you have kids, William?

I also would like to point out what I found sickening about one movie review for this flick:

"... the victims draw strength from each other and fall in love."

Ah, isn't that sweet? What is this supposed to be, a date movie? Barf. Violence for the guys, a love story for the gals?

Disgusting...

frog queen, the rape element of these movies has been around for quite some time; the specific genre of these films is exploitation. They were especially big in the 70s with movies like Last House on the Left, I Spit on Your Grave and House on the Edge of the Park. Rape and torture have always been the centerpieces of these movies.

As for how to explain it to children, my feeling is matter-of-factly stating that it's hurting women and that it's wrong would be best. Get your children to internalize the assumption that this is wrong and unacceptable and let their outrage grow from that, rather than simply changing the subject, or trying to pass on your own outrage.

I don't have children though, so take that into account.

I see a big difference between being against shit like Captivity and being against what Tipper Gore was against. She got up on her high horse after hearing one of her kids listening to Prince's song Darling Nikki, which granted, is quite sexually explicit, but it's not about beating women up or anything -- in fact, I think what Tipper objected to most was the part about Nikki masturbating. BIG difference between being against songs about masturbation and movies that glorify violence against women.

The fact that masturbation and sexualized torture get lumped into the same bin of being forbidden and worthy of censorship is just another indication of the completely twisted way our society looks at sex-- there's very little distinction made between pleasure and pain, and it's all dirty and bad no matter what. To me, the crucial distinction is when somebody's being hurt or encouraged to hurt themselves. Parental advisories should be based on HOW sex is being portrayed, not WHETHER it's being portrayed.

William, I strongly agree that parents need to do their job and teach children HOW to think and criticize and question on their own, so they can do the figuring out for themselves. HOWEVER. I think there is something to be said about freedom of speech (which, if you understand where that comes from, was designed so that people didn't get punished as criminals by the government for things they said - specifically, AGAINST the government) versus hate speech, verbal abuse, and threats. There IS a line in freedom of speech - it wasn't designed so people could go around saying things that hurt and invoke fear into other people. Nothing is black and white, including "freedom of speech".

And, I am a critical-thinking adult human being who is also hurt from these images and language, deeply. I have felt pretty messed up for weeks after seeing scenes from movies that I wish I hadn't, usually scenes of deep violence against a human being. I don't personally want those scenes on a billboard - in a movie at least, I can choose not to watch horror movies anymore because of my reactions to them, but it's REALLY DIFFICULT to escape seeing billboards when you have to drive on the highway on a daily basis to get to and from work. I do not think this is acceptable or appropriate in any way. Violent themes in general, I believe, should only be available in a way that you can choose to see it or not, instead of it being thrust in your face. I don't even have kids, and I feel this way myself - I can't imagine how I would feel if it was my job to protect and teach a child.

My mom did a great job of teaching my sister and I to think for ourselves, but it doesn't mean that while you can view it and know its social implications that you aren't at the same time deeply affected by it. Big difference.

My feminism was formed by my mother, and one of the things she did regularly was to sit with me while the television was on and explain the sexism in the commercials. It was often pretty basic stuff ("Look how the commercials for Star Wars figures only show boys playing with them! The people who make those ads think that only boys like Star Wars. But you like to play with Star Wars figures and you're not a boy." "Yeah, Mom! That's sexist.")
Posted by: EG

Your mom rocks. And I am stealing that idea.

My mom totally rocks! And she would be thrilled for you to use her idea.

If kids are noticing what's around them and beginning to ask questions, they deserve honest answers. My 8 year old son asked what rape was after watching a TV show. I explained that it was when a man or a woman forced another person to have sex. I told him that it was violent and wrong, and that it was a way to hurt another person. There's no need to give details that will disturb him. He seemed satisfied, and when he figures out that there's more to learn, I hope he comes to me for his information. The way I see it, if I want him to be open and honest with me, especially as he gets older, I should do the same for him.

I always try to be honest and tell my 4 year old what I think; and I just wanted to say to William, yes, that IS my job as the parent, but it really sucks that my kid is bombarded ALL THE FUCKING TIME by violent and hateful images anytime we venture out into public (which we do all the time, living in a city, taking the bus, etc). I haven't thought too much about wanting to regulate crap like the rape/torturre porn advertising, but what I do think is that there needs to be systemic change on a cultural level because this crap is just symptomatic of a pretty disturbing trend in pop culture, which indicates something pretty disturbing aobut our culture.

and I often wonder, if the message my kid gets from me and the other adults in her life is contradicted NONSTOP by advertising, pop culture and media, the behavior of many of her peers and of the government of her country, what's going to win out, ultimately? Is me being on top of shit enough to have my kid internalize my values over the vaues of the broader society??

"We aren't talking about damage to children here. Seeing a billboard occupies 30 seconds of a child's life and good parents provide all the necessary context."

Well, we wouldn't be talking about damage to children if the fact was that this sort of thing were rare. If the media didn't frequently market sexual violence toward women as hot, and if real sexual violence and torture were infrequent in our society, then no, William, we certainly wouldn't be worried about repeatedly teaching our children that it's okay to have fun watching women be raped and tortured.

Whether or not you believe in censorship, you have to clue in to the ultimate issue here, which is that there's a big problem with a culture that thinks this stuff is sexy.

I always try to be honest and tell my 4 year old what I think; and I just wanted to say to William, yes, that IS my job as the parent, but it really sucks that my kid is bombarded ALL THE FUCKING TIME by violent and hateful images anytime we venture out into public (which we do all the time, living in a city, taking the bus, etc). I haven't thought too much about wanting to regulate crap like the rape/torturre porn advertising, but what I do think is that there needs to be systemic change on a cultural level because this crap is just symptomatic of a pretty disturbing trend in pop culture, which indicates something pretty disturbing aobut our culture.

and I often wonder, if the message my kid gets from me and the other adults in her life is contradicted NONSTOP by advertising, pop culture and media, the behavior of many of her peers and of the government of her country, what's going to win out, ultimately? Is me being on top of shit enough to have my kid internalize my values over the vaues of the broader society??

I don't have children, but I have a sister who's 11 years old. Over the weekend we were watching television and she asked me why all the Axe and Tag body spray/deodorant commercials show women charging after men and ripping their clothes off. I told her that most men are very nervous around pretty girls and might say silly or stupid things, so the people who make those products want boys to believe that if they wear these products that girls will like them without the boys having to say anything. She made a face and said "but I'd only like a boy if he talked to me, and I wouldn't care if he said something silly, I'd just laugh and keep talking to him"

Now, that is the truth, a lot of boys around middle or high school age ARE uncomfortable talking to girls and want a magic fix like Tag or Axe claim to be. I'd rather tell her that then "some men only think women are good for sex and those are the kind of men who make these ads, and it's wrong" because I don't want to make her scared or paranoid of men at her age. She'll learn that soon enough.

I think it's something each family has to discuss in their own way and in line with the child's own experiences. My sister asked her question because she knows girls don't behave that way. My brother wears Axe and he certainly isn't attacked by large groups of bikini clad women everytime he leaves the house, and she knows that.

"We aren't talking about damage to children here. Seeing a billboard occupies 30 seconds of a child's life and good parents provide all the necessary context."

Well, we wouldn't be talking about damage to children if the fact was that this sort of thing were rare. If the media didn't frequently market sexual violence toward women as hot, and if real sexual violence and torture were infrequent in our society, then no, William, we certainly wouldn't be worried about repeatedly teaching our children that it's okay to have fun watching women be raped and tortured.

Whether or not you believe in censorship, you have to clue in to the ultimate issue here, which is that there's a big problem with a culture that thinks this stuff is sexy.

Not a parent, but I have little siblings who are in elementary school.

Even though her first explanation made me laugh, her feelings of ambiguity over opposing these ads struck a much more serious chord with me. I have no children or plans to have them, but I can see the desire to keep these images away from kids.

It's not just a third-wave feminist thing; it's also a conservative thing. My family does NOT approve of violence and really works to keep the kids away from violent movies and TV. The kids aren't allowed video games for this reason.

I'm all for free speech, but, really, the commercialisation of violence is beyond sickening.

In my opinion, movies that glorify/pornify violence against women should not be allowed to have billboards in public spaces where children can see them. Unfortunately, the MAA ratings system is a joke, so there's no good way to define which ads are okay and which aren't.

I'm thinking we wouldn't have as much crap like this if "we" encouraged independent thought. Perhaps musicals? That was my start in music.

When I listened to musicals, I heard some pretty misogynistic stuff, but I knew it was in the context of that person's character-- not a way to live. It'd be the same as if I heard a lot of rap today.

I never understood the train of thought, "I heard this song about a guy being a pimp-- cool. I want to be like that!"

Conversely, I don't get the "these girls are dancing on stripper poles in bikinis, I must do the same!"

Not that I'm being anti-stripper, but just because I see a person do it, doesn't make me want to do it.

And I understand what you guys (collectively) mean. Kids shouldn't be exposed to that. No on should be. Especially on a billboard.

I don't know. If anyone can explain to me about "peer pressure", I'd love to know. It doesn't affect me much. I'm too stubborn. :D

Hmm... I saw the tralier for this, and was disgusted. It is sickening, and on the trailer, it shows the woman out at a club with a martini, then getting drunk and shoved into a car. The old, 'women can't go out without being raped' and digusting torture scenes, all in one neat package! When my brothers saw this, I told them, "This is a movie, and a bad one at that. No one deserves to be treated like that. And the people that wrote about it a very awful people. Women are humans, not torture toys." They got it, and I do things like that whenever we're in the car, and I see a sexist or just horrifying ad. What happened to psychological horror movies? Those scare the fuck out of me, but violence and gore just disgust.

It depends on the age of the child. If my 9 year old daughter or 11 year old son asked me, I would explain that it's a lousy horror movie about a woman being kidnapped and tortured, and they're using ads where she's sexy to make people interested in the movie, but it's kind of sick because that makes it looks like torturing people is sexy. However, if my three year old asked, I'd just tell him "She got taken by bad guys and she's sad. Now she has to get away! She's gonna escape from those bad guys!" because the take home message I want *him* to internalize is that people don't have`to be victims if someone hurts them -- they can run away. (Especially women, since there are so many images in the media of women passively waiting to be rescued.) He won't understand "some people like to make stories about women getting hurt, and that's bad" -- he just needs to know enough to empathize with the victim and feel reassured that she will escape.

"Nothing is black and white, including "freedom of speech"."???

Chell_belle, Hitler, and George Bush, couldn't have put it any better!

Basically, because YOU have a problem with cultural products that YOU feel are violent and/or misogynist, you want to decide if other people can see or hear it.

That is a grossly undemocratic argument - and basically boils down to you wanting to cram your morality down the throat of others.

Here's a better idea - if YOU don't like a form of entertainment because of it's content - DON'T BUY IT!!

They were especially big in the 70s with movies like Last House on the Left

Wow...that's quite a reference. it's a great film for when you want to go to a very dark place (and Craven's most effective, I think).

I had a babysitter who would make me read her dad's Hustler (and other porn) mags when I was about 7 (around '79 or '80). I remember lots of hair and mustaches, but the dirty stuff was pretty hilarious to me. I can honestly say the only way it affected me was how I developed a taste for men in touch with their feminine side, ones who were as far from the hyper masculine 70s look (27-going-on-45, with tan craggy faces...thank goodness for Duran Duran!). A few years later, I would ridicule my cousin for affixing a Tom Selleck poster on her bedroom wall, since his look reminded me of the guys in the porn I'd seen earlier. To this day, this has basically stuck.

As far as Star Wars and other gender sterotypes in commercials, I seem to recall noticing, but never paying attention. I dedicated equal time to action figures, dolls, books, dirt, etc. and never gave it a second thought. In fact, I only became aware of this in school one day (other than church) when a teacher asked for a boy to volunteer to help her with a/v equipment. Even in the 3rd grade I still raised my hand and asked, "why not a girl?"

Don't have kids, might never have 'em, but I do know that people sometimes don't give them enough credit in that they can often sort it out on their own.

Uh, Gregory, a fascist wouldn't simply be protesting having violent images in public spaces where they can upset children; they would be saying that nobody should be allowed to purchase offensive movies or watch them in the theaters. A fascist would also say that anyone who makes movies of which they disapprove should be exiled or executed.

You're not going to earn any points by Godwining the thread, okay?

Its exactly scenarios like this that get me thinking about the concept of citizen censorship. Do we, as citizens, have the right to deny disturbing messages from ever being broadcast? Of course not. I believe in that to what many people would call gross extremes. But do we, as citizens, have the right to remove messages we don't like from public view, by, say, turning books around at the supermarket or tearing down flyers advertising things you don't like? And if we do have the right, is it conscionable for us to do these things as people who believe passionately in freedom of speech?

I'm inclined to say that the rules change when we're talking about commercial speech, but is that really true? And what if the speech isn't commercial, but its from some nonprofit org with scads of cash to spend spreading their message? When I'm an individual going up against a noise machine, I don't feel the slightest guilt ripping down posters and throwing away ads. It appeals to my sense of fair play. I've often thought about organizing groups of people to do things like that, but once you're a group, the ethics become unclear. How do you grow an organization that's only ethical when its small?

The freedom of speech discussion kills me.

So we're all on the same page, I'm looking at you, Gregory, here's the first amendment.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What a private citizen wants banned from the public eye is not an issue of the first amendment. It's about the GOVERNMENT banning free speech. What we're talking about is censorship.

The act of censoring something isn't inherently wrong, in as much as I censor myself any time I refrain from saying something because it would be rude or inappropriate. Censorship is bad when an organization/group/regime is in power and declares that forms of expression are banned from public discourse, particularly when punishment is enacted for breaking that ban. It is not institutionalized censorship to put forth a form of expression to the general public, such as a billboard, and for the general public to respond they don't want it there. No one's banning all advertising for the film. No one is preventing the film from being made, no one preventing the film from being released.

Had people been successful in getting the MPAA to pull it's rating, the film could still be released. It could even be released in theaters. Many theaters would choose not to show it, but the film is not being banned from public view. Some small theaters would probably show it, and it is free to be put out on DVD. Freedom of expression is not based on being able to maximize your profit.

Censorship is a gray area, one person's pornography is another's fine art print. The argument of "Just don't buy it." breaks down when you talk about billboards because they exist in a public space that is often difficult, if not impossible, for people to avoid. As a horror fan, I can forever avoid giving a penny to After Dark Films for producing that monstrosity, but I'm still forced to encounter the disturbing image every day if I live in the billboard's neighborhood. That's completely different than if it was even in an enclosed commercial place like a movie theater. I could avoid that theater all together if I felt strongly enough and the theater could change their advertising policies if they lost enough business. However, when it's intruding on a public space, the only recourse is to fight for it's removal. Also, for the record, no one MADE the company remove the Captivity posters, the company did it voluntarily. In my mind that's exactly the way things ought to work. Certainly it was done as a publicity stunt, and I would have preferred for a company to never present such an offensive ad campaign, but hopefully people will learn. The movie flopped and a lot of people harbor bad feelings toward the film and the company that they previously did not. As it's not profitable in the end, other companies will be less likely to try something similar.

Sorry, Roni, pressuring a corporation/library/bookstore/manga publisher to pull something is still censorship, even if government isn't involved.
As for talking with kids, my mother was always going through the underlying messages in various TV shows to provoke me to think and I hated it. It was annoying distraction when I just wanted to watch and enjoy myself, and it certainly didn't bring on any sort of enlightenment.
And mimo92, thank you for pointing out there are other forms of music than rap that contain objectionable lyrics--I can think of several country songs that glorify drinking, cheating and violence to women. Kenny Rogers' "Tomb of the Unknown Love," for example, is a glowingly romantic description of murdering a cheating girlfriend; the fact he doesn't call her a cheatin' ho' doesn't make it any better.

There seems to be a bit of "can't see the forest for the trees" going on here, especially in the post that mentioned Tipper's objections to prince. A lot of people here seem to think there is a difference between sexually explicit content and sexually violent content, and there certainly is, but that isn't really whats being discussed here. I agree that sexually violent content is a problem and that responsible consumers shouldn't patronize it. What I don't like is people saying that some content ought not to be allowed. Sure, sexually violent content offends me while sexually explicit content does not, but you have to consider the implications. Not everyone agrees with where the line should be drawn, what is and is not acceptable. On a fundamental level saying something ought not to be allowed in the public square is saying something out not to be allowed in the public square. The power required to support that assertion is the same regardless of what content is being targeted.

Put another way: arguing that the government should prevent the worst of the Captivity posters from being on a bus because it hurts you deeply or you don't want to explain it to your kid is identical to arguing that the government should be able to prevent a Harry Potter ad because it promotes witchcraft and a Christian parent doesn't want to explain that to their kid. The request is the same, the desire is the same, the power necessary is the same. I just don't feel comfortable going down that road.

Now people acting on their own to bring about change, thats a horse of an entirely different color. People like Joss should be commended for their actions. Boycotts, letter-writing campaigns, protests, all of these things are wonderful. Just not government coercion.

Bringing up Tipper Gore is bringing up government coercion. She was not someone who just wanted warnings for parents. Her organization lobbied for ratings first, then warnings when they were pushed back.

Finally, no, I don't have kids and if that makes someone disregard my argument, thats tough. I've chosen not to have children for reasons that are my own. You've made a different choice. Thats fine. What is not fine is the implication that I should step out of a political discussion because I have made a different choice, especially when then end result of that discussion might be me losing constitutional rights. I will give up neither my liberty nor my voice just because you want your children to live in a padded world.

Sorry, Roni, pressuring a corporation/library/bookstore/manga publisher to pull something is still censorship, even if government isn't involved.

So if you pressure a corporation or a person to pull a sexist, degrading ad, it's censorship?

Shadow32: no thanks for the snarky apology, but as to whether it's censorship really depends on who's doing the censoring. If it's say the ownwer, CEO or town council or so forth blocking the such materials, yes it censorship. However, if it's private citizens that have no controlling power of the production of said material, it's feedback. The removal is because isn't it's banned, they're voluntarily complying.

You can try and argue any and all negative feedback is censorship, but that's pretty weak.

Re: censorship.

Here is the dictionary definition of "censor:"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor

Censorship: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship

Notice that the underlying theme between all of those words is the OFFICIAL capacity of the restraint. A censor is an official; to censor means to forbid the public distribution of [which implies some legal action]; and three of the four definitions of "censorship" relate to an official capacity.

What I don't like is people saying that some content ought not to be allowed.

No. We're saying that content like this should not be UNAVOIDABLE. It shouldn't be EVERYWHERE to the extent that parents CANNOT PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM IT, no matter where they go. And frankly, as a rape survivor, if I'd been driving down the road and seen something like that, I probably would have had a panic attack and driven off the road. It must be nice to be you and not have to worry about real things like that.

arguing that the government should prevent the worst of the Captivity posters from being on a bus because it hurts you deeply or you don't want to explain it to your kid is identical to arguing that the government should be able to prevent a Harry Potter ad because it promotes witchcraft and a Christian parent doesn't want to explain that to their kid.

You are one fucked-up cookie, William. You've just said that Wicca is just as bad as ("identical to") torturing and raping people. (Though I don't doubt that to someone like you, rape is probably so unimportant and harmless that it's just like Wicca.) There are no laws outlawing Wicca, but there ARE laws outlawing rape and torture, because rape and torture harm people in a way that is quantifiable and easy to recognize. The same simply can't be said of Wicca, no matter how much a tiny minority of ignorant Christians would argue that it is. And if you do think Wicca is as bad as rape and torture, please provide me with articles from peer-reviewd medical journals to back up your claim, because we all know that there are a whole shitload confirming the harm caused by rape and torture.

Ponies and Rainbows: First and foremost, I'd ask you not to make assumptions about me, not to be snide and condescending, and not to have the audacity to make accusations about how I perceive rape based upon your limited ability to read. I know, I'm a man, I've got strong feelings that oppose yours, and I can come off as an asshole, but that doesn't mean I "don't have to worry about things like that" and it sure as hell doesn't mean I think rape is harmless. I think it is incredibly arrogant for you to assume something like that. Men can be raped too, I'm living fucking proof of that, so be a little bit more careful in the future before you act like a jackass. As a rape survivor, when I've seen those ads I've had trouble too. I've lived with his long enough that I know I can't really predict what will be a trigger for me, and god knows theres no way I could ever really avoid having to face it.

On to bizarre assumption/accusation II: Wicca. You're intentionally misreading my post. First and foremost, Harry Potter doesn't represent Wicca, it doesn't really represent any western ceremonial tradition, its a flight of fancy, fantasy set in the modern world. Harry potter and Wicca are two different things, you brought up Wicca.

Now, if I had said "how can you have a problem with rape in the media when theres so much witchcraft?" you might have a point. But that isn't what I said. What I said, what you quoted, was my equating the end result of a request for something to be removed from the public square. My point was that the kind of power that is required to take something truly terrible out of the public square is the same kind of power that can be wantonly abused.

Perhaps a clearer example is more necessary? In the early 90s congress gave the President (then Bill Clinton) the power to keep troops deployed without a declaration of war. The reasoning at the time was that it would make police and humanitarian actions, like ending the genocide in the Balkans, easier. Before that time, if a president deployed troops without a declaration of war, he needed to go back to congress on a regular basis and ask permission to keep the troops there, it was a pain in the ass, and it made helping with UN peacekeeping difficult because the winds of politics could mean the troops would be pulled out at a moment's notice. Under Clinton, this power was used as intended, it was used responsibly, and it did some real good in the world. Fast Forward the better part of a decade and you have the same power being used by Bush the Lesser to wage a loosing war so that his friends back home can get fat off no-bid contracts. Same power, different people wielding it.

The point I was making was that the power to remove things from the public square was neutral. The danger of lobbying for such a power is that it won't always be in your hands. Eventually it won't be well-educated feminists deciding what is so offensive that it should be avoidable or that parents shouldn't have to explain it to their kids. Eventually it'll be people who operate under the that Harry Potter promotes Satanism. Eventually it'll be extended to ads for condoms, or family planning, or the HPV vaccine. The argument I was making was that once you set up a precedent for offended parties to have things removed, other offended parties will start to use it.

I'm probably a day late to the party here, but what the hell.

I think a lot of people are missing the big picture here. You're missing the forest for the trees. The issue as I see it, is a matter of freedom of choice, not necessarily freedom of expression. There is a difference between a book or movie or TV show and a billboard. I can choose to change the channel on a TV show or commercial that offend me. I can choose not to see a movie (for example, I'm choosing not to watch Captivity). I can choose not to read a book. I can't choose not to see a billboard. Rape victims have said it reminded them of their experience being violated. It gave one person who saw it nightmares for a few days. It's like having your mind raped. You are having an image you don't want implanted in your mind without your consent and you can't avoid it. If it's on your way to work or if it's near your child's school, you kind of can't avoid it. There's no chance for the person to exercise their choice to not view the image and have it implanted in their minds.

To me, that negates the freedom of speech issue. There are already limits to the first amendment and have been for years. For example, you're allowed to believe in polygamy or human sacrifice as religious tenets. You are not, however, allowed to PRACTICE them in this country. There is not an limitless freedom of expression in this country. With ever other right, we operate under the theory of Robbespierre in this country ("The law of all is liberty, which ends where the liberty of others begins."). In practice, we should make the distinction between your right to express something and my right not to have nightmares induced by a billboard. The line in the sand should not be on the side of limitless free expression. They have every right in the world to make this movie and I am totally on their side on that one because I have every right in the world not to see it, which is a right I plan to exercise. However, when they created the billboard, they removed the right of the people who see it not to have those images put into their minds. They had the choice taken from them. There's no way to avoid seeing them, and therefore, they DID violate the rights of the people who saw them.

In my honest opinion, this is not censorship because the billboards were violating the rights of everyone in the cities they were located in. That is a big difference from the Tipper Gore "I don't think other people should listen to this music" crusade. It's not about what other people are doing for themselves, it's about what is being done to you.

I believe Rob Zombie said it best when he was asked about the horror movies that have been released in the last couple years. He dismissively called them "horror porn".

I wrote an article about "torture porn", which is what those kinds of movies are called. I included the same dirt on "Captivity". I am a big fan of horror movies, and I refuse to watch torture porn. It's not entertainment. It's abasement and torture of women. Men get tortured and killed in those kinds of movies, but most often it is a woman, a woman who is often the leading woman in the movie. She usually is killed in the end. The endless crop of torture porn out doesn't interest me. I wish more good horror movies would come out because I'm interested in seeing them. Instead, all I see are the "Saw" movies, "Touristas", "Rest Stop", and similar movies. They do not interest me in the least, and I can say that because I've seen some of them before coming to my conclusion.

I wrote an article about "torture porn", which is what those kinds of movies are called. I included the same dirt on "Captivity". I am a big fan of horror movies, and I refuse to watch torture porn. It's not entertainment. It's abasement and torture of women. Men get tortured and killed in those kinds of movies, but most often it is a woman, a woman who is often the leading woman in the movie. She usually is killed in the end. The endless crop of torture porn out doesn't interest me. I wish more good horror movies would come out because I'm interested in seeing them. Instead, all I see are the "Saw" movies, "Touristas", "Rest Stop", and similar movies. They do not interest me in the least, and I can say that because I've seen some of them before coming to my conclusion.

I wrote an article about "torture porn", which is what those kinds of movies are called. I included the same dirt on "Captivity". I am a big fan of horror movies, and I refuse to watch torture porn. It's not entertainment. It's abasement and torture of women. Men get tortured and killed in those kinds of movies, but most often it is a woman, a woman who is often the leading woman in the movie. She usually is killed in the end. The endless crop of torture porn out doesn't interest me. I wish more good horror movies would come out because I'm interested in seeing them. Instead, all I see are the "Saw" movies, "Touristas", "Rest Stop", and similar movies. They do not interest me in the least, and I can say that because I've seen some of them before coming to my conclusion.

I wrote an article about "torture porn", and I included the same dirt on "Captivity". I am a big fan of horror movies, and I refuse to watch torture porn. It's not entertainment. It's abasement and torture of women. Men get tortured and killed in those kinds of movies, but most often it is a woman, a woman who is often the leading woman in the movie. She usually is killed in the end. The endless crop of torture porn out doesn't interest me. I wish more good horror movies would come out because I'm interested in seeing them. Instead, all I see are the "Saw" movies, "Touristas", "Rest Stop", and similar movies. They do not interest me in the least, and I can say that because I've seen some of them before coming to my conclusion.

Skittles: While I'm sympathetic to your argument, it runs counter to constitutional precedent. In Cohen v. California the exact same argument you're making was raised regarding someone wearing a jacket with the word "fuck" written on the back. The state's argument was that such a word was offensive and ought not to be allowed in the public square where children or people with strict morals might be subjected to it. The court found in favor of Cohen, going so far as to say that as long as someone could avoid the speech in question (examples used in the ruling included averting one's eyes or not leaving home) the state had no business getting involved.

I don't like the captivity billboards, though I think they are far from the most offensive ads I've seen (we'd have to go to the Hitman "beautifully executed" ads for that.) So I look away. I understand that its unpleasant to have to do that, but if we began taking everything out of the public square that someone raised an objection to we'd be left with nothing.

It bothers me deeply that corporate "speech" is considered by our court system to be equivalent to an individual's speech. In this case, it seems to be allowed more freedom--a friend of mine just got back from whatever the Housing Board is really called, where she had to go to get permission to fix her deck. They had a backlog, and so she had to sit through this interminable situation wherein an old man wanted to install an antenna on his roof, but his neighbors objected on the grounds that it would be an "eyesore." The solution? The Board decided that he could put in the antenna as long as he decorated it to make it look like a tree. (Yeah, I'm not sure what that means either).

Are there any instances of corporate building being regulated like this? Because these billboards were certainly eyesores.

"Put another way: arguing that the government should prevent the worst of the Captivity posters from being on a bus because it hurts you deeply or you don't want to explain it to your kid is identical to arguing that the government should be able to prevent a Harry Potter ad because it promotes witchcraft and a Christian parent doesn't want to explain that to their kid. The request is the same, the desire is the same, the power necessary is the same."

William, could you quote me the post in this thread where someone requested government intervention? Also, are you equating a harmless children's book with a misogynistic torture /capitivity horror film? Gosh, I hope not.

William: That case doesn't take into account the specific issue with billboards, though. I can avert my eyes from a shirt while walking around (and I frequently do) or while sitting on a bus. But if I am driving down the interstate, I cannot necessarily look in the other direction because I need to be watching where I'm going. I can't just not look at the side of a bus while I'm at an intersection because I need to look both ways to see if everyone is stopping before I make a turn. Avoiding viewing these ads could, quite possibly, result in death or serious injury for myself and those around me.

BethanS: Sigh. It bothers me deeply that you're the second person to have taken what I've said and twisted it into that. No, I'm not equating a harmless children's book with the vile ads were talking about. What I am saying is that once the precedent is set to remove an ad one person finds offensive from the public square, others will use it to remove what they find offensive. To you and I Harry Potter is a harmless children's book series, but to a fairly large group of people its a manual on witchcraft. Sure, those people are idiots, but the last six and a half years should have taught you that idiots often find their way into positions of power. My point was that power has a tendency to have unintended consequences, and you can never be sure just who will wield it to what end in the future.

As for people calling for government intervention. The post directly above yours bemoans the fact that corporate speech is treated on the same or on a higher level than individual speech, and the court system is specifically mentioned. That sounds like a call for government intervention. The Original post invoked Tipper Gore, a pretty clear nod to government intervention. Skittles talked about things "[negating] the freedom of speech issue," which sounds like a plea for government intervention. Others have spoken about "hate speech." Further there seems to be the feeling that some things simply shouldn't be allowed in the public square. Its pretty clear that neither the producers of these films nor the companies that own the billboards care if people are offended. Is this just kevetching? If so we're just giving the damn thing more publicity than it deserves. If not, then who, exactly, are we asking to listen?

Skittles: You know, thats a very good point. I'll admit I don't really have an answer for it.