The ratings folks have been hard on nudity ever since the 1930s. There might have been more of it in the 1970s, but I don't think it was any easier to get it there without the ratings clobbering it. Violence, on the other hand, gratuitous and bloody, fills the screen with barely a blink from the censors.

They're afraid of making suggestions to kids. If they see sex they might want to do it. We know that this is true, right? No teens having sex because the movies won't show it to them.

I see flawed logic in creating a binary of sex vs violence in film, and I'm not suggesting that they are the only things that need consideration in ratings. If the idea is not to offend some and make suggestions to other with graphic sex scenes, why doesn't the thinking go that way with movie violence? I don't think the interest in sex and the interest in violence come from the same parts of the brain or the same socialization practices, but the tiny brains who see sex as naughty and suggestible ought to jump to the conclusion that violence can be viewed in the same way. They'd be placing restrictions on it for the wrong reason, perhaps, but they'd at least acknowledge that graphic, in your face film violence isn't good for anyone in most instances.

Personally, I wish they'd set up an "insipid" meter. That would blow a lot of films out of the water.

SRS