I’m currently enjoying a series on Netflix called “Love, Death and Robots“. It’s entirely weird at times and I love that. It fits me. (And hooray, there are new episodes in a new season!)
A few days ago I saw an episode called “Shape Shifters”. The rating for this episode:
Yes, it had some scary stuff in it (spider) and there was fighting, killing and shooting (fighting hand), but I guess the 16 year age limit (probably American, I’m not sure if this applies to the Netherlands) was because of the ‘sexual content’ warning (four feet, I guess you know it).
Now ‘Love, Death and Robots’ had a few episodes with definite sexual content, and for those I understand the warning. For ‘Shape shifters’ however, I was surprised about this warning after watching the episode.
I know the reason they put this thing there, but it is highly ‘overrated’ to label what I saw as sexual content.
Spoiler alert here, so if you don’t want to see what this is about, do not continue.
Hooray and congrats for being brave. 😉
The scene with the ‘sexual content’ is a clip of about 30 seconds, maybe 40, of a naked man running. It’s dark / night, so you can’t actually see anything save his buttocks. There is a spot in that scene where you can see him frontal (about a second long) and still you need to freeze-frame through it if you want to get a glimpse of what might be a penis.
I understand that Netflix is bound by law to protect people from not seeing what they are against, but I think that this one was entirely blown out of proportion.
6 thoughts on “The sexual content warning on TV”
Not being a Netflix customer, I haven’t seen either of the shows that you are commenting on. I’m in the US, and I abhor the crazy rules that the puritans left us with, but I do realize that most of my countrymen (and women) either disagree, agree or are ambivalent. We’ve lived with this for a loooong time, and are slowly, painfully trying to loosed the strings that bind us. AARP, TNS and others are trying also, . . . Calm cool comments and “soft footsteps” may help get us somewhere. Thanks for Hanging in with us.
It’s all we can do. Small steps indeed.
Instead of calling it a sexual content warning, they should call it a sexual hysteria warning.
This is So on point!
It’s got to the point (again…) that almost anything that shows a square centimeter of skin is considered “nudity” and of course all “nudity” is explicitly sexual content.
It’s little different to where I grew up in the 1970s, where a girl wearing sandals or flipflops would be called a whore or slut because you could see her toes (yes, that happened to a girl in my class at primary school, her parents saw business in their shop decrease a lot for several months, because you can’t shop with people who turn their daughter into a whore, can you?).
Welcome to the neo-puritanical era.
The government’s standards would not allow The David (a work of art that Catholic nuns view routinely) to be shown on TV. They have to move on with the times.