Who in their right mind would want to stop us seeing horror in all of its multicoloured glory?

>>1
Doesn't make them perverts.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of "Pervert"

I don't know if "pervert" is the exact right word, but it's in the right region. Censors all seem to see only the worst in everything and get aroused (not always sexually, sometimes arousal just means physiological changes that aren't about boning) by anything and thus think that "lesser" humans will be even more aroused! Of course, they're "greater" humans who will not be affected by the films and are capable of understanding what those "lesser" people will do.

It's kind of like that weird finding that homophobic men got harder when they saw gay sex clips. They assured researchers that they were not aroused, but Mr. Penis disagreed. I feel censors fall into the same category: dicks, I mean, aroused by forbidden stuff and assume that they're not.

That doesn't surprise me at all. And I bet the same thing would happen if they repeated the experiment with child pornography. There are some sexual proclivities that (unlike homosexuality) society should not tolerate, but some people are nevertheless very overly "phobic" about them. You have to wonder why.

I remember one time the Brit censors cut footage of a naked baby out of a movie! You kind of have to be a "pervert" for it to even occur to you that a frickin' baby is going to be sexually arousing to anyone,

I remember one time the Brit censors cut footage of a naked baby out of a movie!

Taking bullshit again! nothing like that every happened!

Funnily enough, they think we're the perverts. Silly people. When will they ever learn that censorship does more bad than good to their own cause.

Maybe not "perverts" per se, but if you go to websites like Movietriggers.com and capalert there are a lot of cases of the reviewers going off on complete tangents that you'd have to be pretty messed up to read into the films.

What I don't understand is why the ratings people/censors aren't all out killing and raping people...I mean they see much more stuff than everyone else...

The definition of perversion changes constantly. Acts considered perverse by some sociaeties are acceptable by othrs, and of course it changes as times change as well.

Most of us living in today's world in the US and similar societies would not really think of acts that do no harm to individuals as being perverse, although there are some who would considser it so on a personal level. For example, the ladyfrriend mentioned here that did not want sex in what she considered an improper way. Well, she thinks the boyfriend is perverse, and that's by her personal definition, and she has the right to not have to carry on so.

However, the actions that do cause harm to others physically and/or emotionally often are considered perverse, or at the least criminal, and the root causes of such behavior is what creates many well-intentioned censors who are not perverts.

I don't go along with the idea that film/TV/music lyric (and so on) censors must be perverts due to their desire to censor. There's much to be said about impressionable minds, commonly underage youth (but not always), becoming inured to violence and torment if it's witnessed on a regular basis, and it's then thought to be normal type of behavior. This is with what most censors are concerned. Certainly there are some censors that do so mostly from personal ideation having to do with their own subconscious desires to view censored materials.

Sadly, the biggest forms of witnessed violence and torment are in the young person's own home and this is where the inured mind is usually created. Then the hidden forays of sneaking into the movie theater and looking at explicit magazines can tend to assist in this sort of development, which is what many censors think they are preventing by censoring. Often they aren't but it's not a perversion to do so in most cases, I believe.

The trouble is there's zero evidence that exposure to media has any lasting effect. Once children are old enough to tell the difference between real and make-believe, make-believe violence doesn't really cause any long-term effects. Censors like to block imitative behaviors (that is, stuff that a kid or moron could imitate) like violence, smoking, drug use, etc., but censors seem to live in a world that's slightly wacky when it comes to sex. Seeing bare breasts or buttocks is not something that's going to turn a youngster into a sex maniac (they have hormones for that) and so clipping that out of media is a little questionable to begin with.

Really, most censors work on a combination of what offends them personally and what they imagine would offend a reactionary parent. In both cases, it's not really based on anything more that a subjective feeling that something is "wrong" somehow.