Inappropriate movies at sleepovers

[Curiousitykillsthecat]

I can't decide if I'm being ridiculous or not. DS12 has been invited to a Halloween sleepover. I was delighted as doesn't get many invites. But the other kids are planning the movies they will watch and they are all 18+ including things like the SAW movies, etc. Hosting mum is pretty relaxed about it. But I don't think it's appropriate. My DS doesn't want to watch really scary films but does want to go to the party. I'm sad to say he can't go but I also don't feel it's right to be watching those movies at 12. Aibu to say DS can't go?

@valeyard14 I am very sorry. I thought you were the original poster of the evil dead at 9 post. I got confused because of the quoted posts. Apologies.

Huh? If you want to watch Saw with your 12 year old then go ahead. If you want to invite other peoples 12 year old kids round to watch Saw then expect some push back.

They simply don't have to come. In munsnet terms it's an invitation not a summons.

OK. Not sure why you'd try and make a 12 year olds sleepover some sort of test of endurance and put parents in an awkward position, but I guess your ds might momentarily feel as if he was quite hard.

I’d be led by your son and what he wants to do - different kids are different.

I watched loads of 18-rated horror films and 12/13 - Silence of the Lambs, the Shining etc. None of them particularly frightened me and I have to be honest and say that it would have been socially isolating for me to be the only child refusing to watch.

However I have never been scared by either supernatural or horror type films. I found and still find ET a much more upsetting watch (in my mid 40s) than the most gory horror film you could inflict on me. Or Schindler’s List, to give another very different example.

As a parent I’ve always tried to judge what’s appropriate on knowing my own children and how they respond to stuff rather than having blanket rules like ‘it’s an 18 so no’. And I agree with PP who said it’s completely not comparable to parents allowing drugs and alcohol. My parents were super strict about both of those things whilst being happy to let me watch much more adult films/read adult books. I think because they knew I was quite a mature child.

But I also agree with previous posters who said that if you’re not okay with it, pretend you are fine and your son can be ‘sick’ at the last minute. It will do him no favours at secondary school to get the reputation for being the only one whose mum wouldn’t let him watch. You may wish the world wasn’t like that but it is.

Sorry! I thought we were maybe talking past each other! Sorry for any confusion :)

I agree to an extent. But SAW is in a way more brutal than Silence of the lambs. It's explotative and nasty in a way that Silence of the lambs isn't. SOTL is shocking and so is the Shining, but there's a different mood to it.

I think the Final Destination movies are quite good gateway horror.

There is "over 18" and then there are movies like Saw... It would be no based on that movie more than anything else

SOTL is shocking and so is the Shining, but there's a different mood to it.
I think the Final Destination movies are quite good gateway horror.

Tone and mood are so important - we recently watched Sleepy Hollow, which has tons of graphic shots of heads being cut off, but weirdly has a light, silly tone. Compare that to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which has little real graphic gore, but has such a horrific mood that it feels more violent than it is. Jaws is also really intense despite having a 'family' certificate.

Final Destination is a good call - as a my-first-horror-film I would opt for Tremors, though.

To be fair, I haven’t seen Saw, so it may be I’d feel differently about that one. But generally, I find OTT horror/torture/gore much less upsetting than milder things that are more relatable/closer to my life. Eg things about family illness, bereavement or lost love.

Amazed at how many people think it’s ridiculous to have qualms about showing 12 year olds a graphic film about sadistic murders. Let alone other people’s 12 year olds. Interesting that some of those parents have different boundaries around sexual content, I assume though that based on their own logic they’d have to be cool if their kid was shown Deep Throat at someone else’s sleepover.

Of course children push boundaries, but we’re supposed to nevertheless give them boundaries to push against. Watching a psychological thriller rated 15 is boundary pushing enough for 12 year olds, what’s the need to actively encourage them to go straight to the most gory violent films with the highest rating? If the ‘limit’ set by parents is fucking Saw then to push boundaries the kids are going to have to find something worse than that on their phones, and end up traumatised by a friend showing them real beheadings or disturbing porn.

Saw is about extremely sadistic torture plus the victims families being forced to watch their loved ones being tormented and killed. Do you REALLY think that is just campy fun the kids will get a few laughs out of?

FFS.

No I don’t, and I didn’t say otherwise. I said I have never seen it so may feel differently if I had.

I could possibly see something like The Sixth Sense or The Others as scary Halloween fare for kids, at a stretch.

No freaking way do young boys need exposure to misogynistic torture porn gore-fests. That would be a dealbreaker for me.

Saying "let the child take the lead on what they are comfortable with.." is absurd.

I say this as one who, in my adult life, enjoys horror films and has even taken university classes about horror.

I'm in my 40s now but used to go to these sort of sleepovers. Our parents didn't care what we watched back then.- presumeably they provided the videos! I hated it. Dreaded the films. Pretended I liked them. Still don't like horror films to this day. Wish someone had spoken up for us as children.

Absolutely no way I would let a 12 year old watch 18s. Sometimes maybe 15s depending on the reason for the age.

Common sense media is a very good website that rates shows movies and books. People give their own reviews and it gives a breakdown of the issues people have and reasons for the rating. I said yes to a 15 movie recently for my 11 yr old based on these reviews, I would have said no otherwise. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/

It isn't torture porn. The camera pans away from the gruesome images. I have watched the full collection many times. I like the adrenaline rush the rules and the way it's individuals who deserve it get nasty ends.

Torture porn is not available in mainstream and calling a perfectly normal horror it is insulting to your and my intelligence.

Commonsense parenting has it at 15's. I strongly suspect a lot are commenting without seeing it.

She is going all the way to America for a sleepover? That is crazy!

I defy anyone to read this and conclude that Saw is not torture porn, and that it IS suitable for young boys. "Glorified snuff film" is how one reviewer put it.

screenrant.com/saw-horror-franchise-deaths-painful-nicest/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20painful,tube%20before%20time%20runs%20out.

ew.com/movies/2020/01/28/history-of-torture-porn-saw-hostel-human-centipede/

screenqueens.wordpress.com/2021/05/19/the-saw-franchise-is-more-than-just-torture-porn/

Before we rush to judge the parents, is OP certain they’re relaxed about this? The hosting boy and friends will be excited and could quite simply chatting shit. Alternatively they could be planning to watch it whilst the parents are asleep. This has happened to me once when DC has had a friend over for a sleepover

May I suggest you use a more balanced and less scaremongering site. Commonsense parenting.com!

At least one is wrote by someone who have obviously only seen the trailers🤣.

And your statement is inaccurate and demeaning to those impacted by torture porn. A studio made professional mainstream horror which ironically has a moral compass message is not torture porn. Stop exaggerating.

"Glorified snuff film" is how one reviewer put it.

That reviewer is talking out of their backside. It's not a good film by any means, but it's so over-the-top as to be totally cartoonish. It isn't anywhere near as disturbing as less gory films like Wolf Creek or Eden Lake, but does have some basic amusement value. How it became so popular as to get 10 sequels God knows.

Whilst I understand that all kids mature at different rates and your son may think horrors are funny, saw films, hostel films etc focus on sadistic torture and if he found that funny I would be deeply concerned.

Children, especially as young as 12 or even 15, do not have the cognitive ability to appropriately process and understand such graphic imagery.

My very first sleepover when I was 13, we watched the Candyman! I think I am still traumatised by it to this day but I would t change it for the world! We all went through it together!

Why wouldn’t any parent want their 12 year old to watch a woman be forced cut open her drugged boyfriend to rifle through his intestines with a timed bear trap on her head? That sounds like a normal and healthy part of psychological development for a preteen.

I think there’s a mismatch between the research and what people think the research is on the effects of this stuff on kids (and adults…). If you go to google scholar and put ‘media violence effects on children’ in the search you’ll see there’s actually a fairly strong consensus that this kind of content makes children anxious, less likely to help or empathise with people, and more aggressive. Which, to be honest, seems kind of obvious to me, why would practising turning off your natural reaction to seeing people tortured not lead to your natural reaction to violence and suffering being affected?