Tobi Hill-Meyer

The MPAA **Haxed u!** is a sham

Filed By Tobi Hill-Meyer | April 01, 2009 9:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment
Tags: April Fool's, MPAA, sexism

News is spreading of Sacha Baron Cohen's new film, Bruno, receiving an NC-17 rating from the MPAA for including a same-sex sex scene. While I haven't seen the **We are t3h Haxors**sex scene in particular and can't comment on it's gratuity, I can say that I've seen plenty of straight sex scenes **good 4 u, don't stop** that only got R ratings. We've known for years that queer folks are considered not "family friendly" and tend to receive harsher ratings from the MPAA. In fact, anything that strays from man-on-top-woman-not-enjoying-it model of sex gets penalized.

This isn't just about protecting the children, an NC-17 rating can do real damage to a film and prevent people of any age from being able to see it. Many theaters refuse to show them. **w3 refuse show you till demands meet** In this case, Universal has refused to release the NC-17 film and will only release it if it is recut to receive an R-rating.

**demand 1 - send pr0n**

The fascinating movie, This Film is Not Yet Rated, is the best insight into the MPAA available. The documentary's director hires a private investigation team (a mom and daughter - lesbian/queerspawn - team nonetheless) **no queer investig4tors will evar find us** to investigate the MPAA and discover who makes the rating decisions and what criteria those decisions are based on - because that information has been kept a strict secret of the MPAA.

I highly recommend the movie, but you don't need it to see the bias in the MPAA. I remember when my parents took me to see The Bird Cage, and I was quite upset that it received an 'R'. I was young enough that I wasn't usually allowed to see R-rated films, but it was clear that this film was not substantially different from all the PG-13 movies I had seen, there wasn't any nudity **pr0n must have nudity**. The only difference was that it focused on a gay night club that included drag performances. This was enough to have the movie deemed not family friendly, despite the fact that it focused on an actual family and represented some of the difficulties with homophobia that queerspawn have to deal with in defending and protecting our families.

When it comes to actual sex, there's no lack of it in our movies **u got sexay movie? share**. Even G-rated movies are often laced with sexual innuendo for parents in the hopes that the jokes will go over youngster's heads. But when that sexuality goes off the beaten path or wanders away from patriarchal norms, that's when things receive harsher ratings.

A side by side viewing of R and NC-17-rated sex scenes shows that they are much more similar than one might think. One of the main discernable standards though is that female pleasure is considered more graphic. **pr0n must be graphic** Oral sex on a man? R. Oral sex on a woman? NC-17. Man relentlessly moaning? R. Woman relentlessly moaning? NC-17. Two women having sex for male audience? R, maybe even PG-13. Two women having sex for themselves? Maybe R, maybe NC-17. The clear message **Bil, send us n4k3d pics** from the MPAA: women are supposed to have sex, but not supposed to enjoy it. And that's the most detestable message being sent to our youth.

**u will be haxed until send sexay n4k3d pics of Bil**


Recent Entries Filed under Entertainment:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Do you know how many people messaged me over this post, Tobi? *grins* My entire morning was spent with e-mails and IMs and Twitters from people who thought the site had been hacked again.

Hah, well, I was going for believable context unbelievable message. Somehow I don't think the hackers we've been dealing with talk in 7331.

I think this one was the most effective - notice how many of us were too scared to even respond for fear of being hacked in some mysterious way? Well, at least, that was my dorky response...

Seamless.

Yeah, I was noticing that. At first I thought no comments meant no love, but then I started seeing the chatter elsewher, like Bil mentions above, even including a blog post about Bilerico being hacked again. I guess it was just very convincing.

That's real power, Tobi. Just make sure you use it on the side of Good, not Evil :-)

Ah, or, what the hell, use it for Evil. More interesting, anyway.