Do you think watching horror films infront of children is the as bad as watching explicit films? [edited by MNHQ]

[HowlingTrap]

Sorry the title is very emotive, I ran out of room to explain it properly.

its something that has always bothered, especially that its something that since i was a young child I know has gone one within society, people seeing nothing wrong in watching horror films in front of young children.
i have been around people who have almost done this infront of my children, switching on a horror film with children in the room and looked at me like I was mad when I went crazy at the thought. It's scary how prevalent it is and has been for many generations.
I actually said once "would you watch porn infront of a child' and they all replied with a chorus of 'of course not !"
Aibu to think theres not a huge amount of difference? its both 18 rated material for a reason?

I watched horrors of 18+ from about the age of 11. I've got to say I do not feel I was emotionally abused by my parents who rented these movies for me. I would also in no way liken it to allowing me to watch porn, I'm sure for the majority that analogy is vastly disproportionate to their experience.

I think it really depends on the child in question. I loved a good horror but my older brother on the other hand did not, therefore my parents wouldn't have rented a horror for him. Myself on the other hand didn't bother about any of them (apart from the Blair Witch Project as my lovely bro told me it was real footage and I believe him )

Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to police what people watch within their own home and most responsible parents would not allow their children to watch something that would upset their DC, and if it did I'm sure they would be the first to admit poor judgement in that situation.

were talking about below primary school age, not capable of dealing or choosing it and 18+ material.

not older kids. and not pg/12/15 well maybe some.

someone once tried to put an apocalypse/zombie film on in front of my 3 year old. I freaked not had any contact since , was always told I overreacted.

I was talking about primary age when mentioned my brother and his Hocus Pocus experience.

My son is 4. He would love zombie films, so far he has seen kids ones.

My son has seen 12 films too such as Spiderman and Ironman. Is that emotionally damaging?

HowlingTrap I wasn't responding to you directly, the conversation had evolved to various degrees of horror/ages etc.

I was responding to other posters...

Sorry I was making a general point ,

no SP I mean intense horror , that horror film I mentioned was an 18

I was allowed to watch films with age ratings higher than my age. We were also allowed to play games with higher ages

I posted this and you were 'alarmed'. You also said the fact I will allow my son to do this is damaging.

I didn't mention what films or age then.

someone once tried to put an apocalypse/zombie film on in front of my 3 year old. I freaked not had any contact since , was always told I overreacted

You did NOT overreact OP

No toddlers/young children shouldnt be watching intense horror. Also no child should be forced to watch anythung they dont want to.

However I think the majority of parents know their own child and are in the best position to judge if a film would be ok for their child. Especially with films like spiderman etc

The film the film I saw at 7/8 had extreme violence and gore..was pretty much a video nasty.

Have no idea what was going through the family's heads who were babysitting me.

I am probably permanently slightly scarred from it tbh.

Do you remember what it was Fanjo?

The first horror film I saw was when I was 6 on holiday in Blackpool. My parents left us in the caravan (grandparents in next one) and went to the club. It was the most terrifying film I'd ever seen. Giant radioactive mutant rabbits rampaging round the countryside, derailing trains, killing people. I had nightmares for weeks and never forgot how scary it was.

It was on again a few years ago and I decided to face my fears. Sat down to watch with a big cushion to hide behind. It was so obviously pet bunnies jumping over hornby railway tracks and was about as scary as a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Do I think my kids watching extreme violence is as bad as porn? Yes I do. It's just as damaging in my opinion and I wouldn't allow them to watch either.

My daughter watched Family Guy round her friend's house when she was 6 (the episode where Stewie the psycho baby tries to murder his Mother which ends in a bloody shoot out). I was horrified and told this Mum that this series is rated 15 for a reason, and was treated like some sort of overprotective looney, the 'wrapped in cotton wool' accusation was directed at me.

Children are not equipped to deal with extreme violence when they are at an age where they can't differentiate between reality and fantasy; the Tooth Fairy, Santa, the Easter Bunny are all real at this age remember. I believe showing children extreme violence\sexual scenes does a lot of damage and is very much abuse. Let them be children.

The ratings are there for a reason, it's not done as a guideline, it's the law. A cinema has to abide by this law and it's common sense that if a group of experts have rated a film unsuitable for children then you heed that advice.

Same goes for games (the amount of kids that have Grand Theft Auto V on their XBOX live accounts is appalling).

People used to take young kids to actual executions - they were a family day out. There is nothing new under the sun and no horror film is as bad as watching someone actually being killed - we are all pretty cossetted these days, when you think about it.

Some kids will be traumatised by Barney, some will laugh off Blair Witch. We are not all the same, so blanket statements about horror films = child abuse are just silly & blinkered.

I am pretty robust but DH cannot handle scary films at all, thus we don't watch them & the kids haven't seen any. It is possible they would find them less scary than their dad - who knows, eh?

Although different groups of experts do rate very differently. A lot is down to culture and expectations and societal norms. For example, my daughter was shown a 12 rated film in school (non UK). I was a bit at the content. So I looked up the UK rating because I couldn't understand why nobody else here was the least bit bothered by it. In the UK it was an 18 cert.

I was the youngest by quite a few years so saw quite a few movies I probably wouldn't have seen if I had been the oldest. Isn't that quite usual? I struggle with this with my own children.

Both are inappropriate for children and young people. It would be better if you all read for a bit, or enjoyed a child appropriate film.

My OH lets his young teen son watch anything he likes. So he's seen Saw, and all sorts of horror stuff, alone in his room. The kid won't fly in case the plane crashes, he wan't go in lifts, he won't do all sorts of everyday stuff and I think the 2 are related. But I hate horror so I am probably over-judging here.

Westie..it was "The Bogeyman"..I just looked and ot was indeed on the official video nasty list.

My experience has left me respectful of film certification, when I was a little older my uncle who was a teenager made me watch horror films with him, the Freddie Krueger films and Chuckie and even the film that scared me so much when I was so little, and it terrified me again. I wouldn't allow my children to watch films until they were the advised age as we all have aspergers and I believe that makes us more suggestible to the images and suggestion in horror films.

I think the US is more likely to add a high age certificate on the grounds if sexual content/swearing rather than violence

I agree Ubik1, not sure why a depiction of consensual sex is deemed worse than a torture scene for example or someone's life being taken in a violent way.

Perhaps because children will, when they're adults, have consensual sex and use swear words, so the censors try not to encourage precocious behaviour. I believe they need to give the same importance to gore and violence. Exposure to graphic images desensitises children and devalues human life. Can anyone name a hero that takes a life then is shown dealing with the regret and guilt that real people deal with, such as our brave soldiers? To kill without a second thought is the mark of a psychopath and yet these depictions are common place in every action film and horror. This is what is presented to children as the norm if you ignore a film's certification.

A poster mentioned children at public executions in the past. I suppose that parents took their children in order that they be frightened enough to avoid the same fate and be law abiding citizens. I'm not sure whether the poster was suggesting that people attened purely for entertainment purposes and so this sanctions the enjoyment of violence on film nowadays as at least that's not real? Perhaps she could clarify this?

As mentioned above, a lot of films have been reclassified, Jaws, an X on release is now a 12. There was a mention of a 12 film being shown in a school outside of the UK which is an 18 here. Can I ask which film?

I agree Ubik1, not sure why a depiction of consensual sex is deemed worse than a torture scene for example or someone's life being taken in a violent way.

Perhaps because children will, when they're adults, have consensual sex and use swear words, so the censors try not to encourage precocious behaviour. I believe they need to give the same importance to gore and violence. Exposure to graphic images desensitises children and devalues human life. Can anyone name a hero that takes a life then is shown dealing with the regret and guilt that real people deal with, such as our brave soldiers? To kill without a second thought is the mark of a psychopath and yet these depictions are common place in every action film and horror. This is what is presented to children as the norm if you ignore a film's certification.

A poster mentioned children at public executions in the past. I suppose that parents took their children in order that they be frightened enough to avoid the same fate and be law abiding citizens. I'm not sure whether the poster was suggesting that people attened purely for entertainment purposes and so this sanctions the enjoyment of violence on film nowadays as at least that's not real? Perhaps she could clarify this?

As mentioned above, a lot of films have been reclassified, Jaws, an X on release is now a 12. There was a mention of a 12 film being shown in a school outside of the UK which is an 18 here. Can I ask which film?

A poster mentioned children at public executions in the past. I suppose that parents took their children in order that they be frightened enough to avoid the same fate and be law abiding citizens.

It wasn't me who first mentioned this, but it was absolutely a day out, a grand entertainment for all the family. It was nothing to do with educating children and frightening them.

There would be people there selling food and 'souvenirs' of the execution (supposed articles from the person being executed) on sale. Very much a 'family day out'. People would stand jeering at whoever was being executed and throwing things. It wasn't seen as horrific, the way we'd see it today.

While certification may be law, I have to agree with PP's who have said that a lot of it is down to knowing your own child and what they can handle. We (me, DD, 12, and DS1, 8) watched all the Harry Potter films over Christmas. They are actually quite scary at times (the Dementors, the Death-eaters, He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named) but I knew my son would cope with them, where other children might not.

Would I let them watch Jaws, which is now a 12? No way. It still scares me now. I know someone who let their DD watch a documentary about the Titanic (which was quite graphic) and she and another friend were laughing at her DD crying at a man getting his arm trapped in a door. That friendship fizzled out pretty quickly after that.

I wasn't questioning the entertainment aspect of public executions, my question was whether or not the poster was saying this sanctions showing children horror scenes as entertainment nowadays? I was unsure of her point, although she seemed to be using the 'cotton wool' argument and suggesting kids nowadays are too cosseted.

I think people were different in the days when public executions were viewed as entertainment. I think we are more civilised these days.

There's clear evidence that children will copy film violence especially in live action featuring human actors as opposed to cartoons which do not have as much of an effect.