(CONTINUED)

But "persistent violence" is also supposed to earn an R designation. Why don't torture and multiple murders spread throughout a movie earn a "persistent violence" designation? How violent does a movie need to be before we decide kids under 17 shouldn't see it without their parents?

If CARA members aren't being influenced by movie producers to give ratings that ensure large audiences -- 85 percent of the box office take goes to PG and PG-13 movies -- then they have an awfully warped sense of values: one that says swear words and breasts are more dangerous turf for our kids than, say, torture.

It's impossible to say for sure if this is why the floridly violent Bond movie got the PG-13 rating, while "Rushmore" was rated R. CARA membership is secret; they won't talk to the press, and their findings on movies they view are considered a confidential matter between the board and the moviemaker.

What's more, the only people who can officially be "displeased" with the ratings are the movie producers, who can appeal. We members of the public can only vent our spleen if we're among the people polled annually.

The MPAA is smugger about the results of these polls than perhaps it should be. According to its Web site, the latest poll shows that 76 percent of people with kids under 13 found the ratings to be either "fairly useful" or "very useful" in deciding which movies to see. This means 24 percent of us find the ratings to be useless, which is a big chunk when you think about the very basic information the ratings provide.

The MPAA does link to organizations that help provide additional information to help parents choose good movies (including MSN Movies' own partner in this, Common Sense Media).

But the MPAA takes pride in the fact that "there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure." Its Web site actually says this is one of the MPAA's highest "accolades." Perhaps they need a dictionary; as far as I know, there is no such thing as an award given for simply not being corrupt.

I am glad that they're not bowing to pressure. Before Jack Valenti became MPAA president and started what is today's ratings system, there was pressure to censor movies. He even tells a story of mulling the appropriateness of the word "screw" and the phrase "hump the hostess" in one movie. Screwing didn't make the cut (the lucky hostess apparently got hers, though).

So in that sense, the ratings system is a good thing. It's better to give viewers some idea of what they're in for, and to let them make the decision, rather than having a small group of people acting as the arbiters of taste.

I'd never argue that sex scenes belong in movies meant for kids for so many reasons, the least of which is that kids would find it embarrassing and gross. Nor would I argue that all movies should be kid-appropriate. Like I said, I thought "Casino Royale" was a great movie for grown-ups.

There is something warped, though, with values that make breasts and foul language into such a big deal for kids, but not the violence. Maybe this is why our soldiers thought taking pictures of leashed and hooded Iraqi prisoners was fine -- this might even make a PG-13 cut in a Bond movie.

I don't know whether it's the values of our society as a whole, or those of the members of CARA, but the paranoia about sexuality and swearing is nuts.

The people who think this way? They're the really scary boobs out there.

What do the ratings mean?
http://mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

Common Sense media provides more information for parents.
http://www.commonsensemedia.org

---

Martha Brockenbrough is author of "It Could Happen to You: Diary of a Pregnancy and Beyond." She's also founder of SPOGG, the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar. She writes a fun-with-kids column for Cranium.com, as well as an educational humor column for Encarta. Check out her Web site.

Sound off: Comment on this story | Also: Features archive