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 don't think it's right to watch a horror film in front of a child.

However I don't think it's wrong to watch it infront of an under say 18 month old, unless they can see any horrible imagery as naturally the words/topic would be lost on them and wouldn't be remembered.

I also don't think it's wrong to watch it with a 15ish old teenager or above if you think they would be able to handle the context of the film.

But otherwise I think it really, really weird. I have gone to friends houses when I was younger and their older siblings or parents would watch a horror film whilst we were in the room and some of it was really, really horrible.

Luckily I quite like horror now but at the time was pretty wimpy with most things, so unsurprisingly that made me upset sometimes.

I love some horror things and listen to them whilst my daughter who is 9 months old is in the room as long as it's not outwardly loud and frightening, but wouldn't dream of it if she was a few years older.

GimmeDaBoobehz you could put the same argument across for watching porn too, which I think brings this thread right back to topic. Is sex worse than extreme horror? Neither is acceptable in my opinion.

Fear is a natural evolutionary instinct, essential for survival. For those of you saying horror doesn't affect you or your children, I'd have to ask why that is? How much horror did you have to watch in order to desensitise to this level?

Jaws was X when released, really? I thought the rating had been increased as I went to see it in the cinema when it came out when I was 5 or 6 yrs old. We got it for Christmas and I'm still deciding whether my 8 and a half yr old is still too young.

Mea culpa, you're right. It was an A rating (over 5 but not recommended for under 14's) not an X. Sorry 'bout that!

I agree both are damaging to you at a young age.
In fact at any age they can both leave you mentally scarred.

Gimme , a child can see clearly across a room at 6 weeks old. an under 18month could very easily be traumatized by a very graphic film.

my mum (15 in 1975) said jaws was a 15 when released?

Either Venables or Thompson or both were exposed to violent videos. Perhaps if they hadn't been, James Bulger would still be alive.

Exposure to violence eventually desensitises so that it no longer shocks, and can even become 'normal'.

So, no, I didn't, and wouldn't.

Well I must have been a very big 5 yr old then or they didn't enforce the rules.

Just googled and it looks like it was PG on release.

Jaws was released in 1975, the PG cert didn't exist till 1982. Link here:en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_film_certificates

Looking at this I'd say the modern equivalent to the A rating would be today's 12A.

Watching horrors or playing violent video games does not make people de-sensitised.

Why James gets brought into these threads I don't know. Those kids were sick, they would have done it anyway.

Don't blame something many people watch and play for something 2 people did.

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?

'Hip Hip Hora!'

But I got it wrong, it was an 11 cert here and an 18 in the UK.

With regards to watching public executions in ye olde days, I read that it wasn't for entertainment that people went but for self preservation. In those times failure to attend would be noted and seen as an indication of sympathising with the person being executed. So people went to avoid the finger of suspicion. Don't know how true that is though.

Why James gets brought into these threads I don't know. Those kids were sick, they would have done it anyway.

This came up on another thread. They weren't 'sick' or 'evil'. Watching the films that they did (Child's Play, evidently) certainly contributed to their actions (I think they copied some of what they saw) but by all accounts they had awful home lives and terrible upbringings. That is what set them off to doing what they did.

I would never in a million years excuse what they did, but can people please remember that despite their horrendous actions they were children themselves. My own DS will be 9 next week, just a year younger than those boys were when they carried out their crime, and it is very, very young - I doubt very much they completely understood what 'death' actually means. Children generally have woolly idea of death and dying and how this means the end of someone's life. My Grandad died when I was 9 - I didn't understand what it meant at all.

The James Bulger case was, and still is, very emotive and I totally understand why people get so angry about it. I used to be the same. I can't say I would ever forgive those boys if it were my child they killed, but I would certainly try to have some empathy for them and their utterly shit lives - they had no chance, absolutely none.

And I know that many other people go through shit childhoods and come out the other side, but most people either find their own strength or find someone else to support them - these boys had neither.