Should e-Books be Rated (like movies and video games)?

[griffonwing]

Take "Young Adult" fictions, for example.

You hear the Twilight was a good series of books. Your daughter enjoyed them. So, as a present, you go to the store and get her some other Young Adult vampire fiction, only, unbeknownst to you, this Young Adult book is filled with sex scenes. You had no way of knowing, unless you'd read it.

I think, in many circumstances, such as 'inapproriate' or 'abnormal' content, it should be stated. Perhaps on the back. "This book contains graphic depictions of sexual encounters and abusive or harsh language."

Now, should this warning be on an adult Harlequinn book? Of course not, it's expected. Should it be on an Anne Rice novel? Only if there was a LACK of sex.

[Danny Fekete]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

I think, in many circumstances, such as 'inapproriate' or 'abnormal' content, it should be stated. Perhaps on the back. "This book contains graphic depictions of sexual encounters and abusive or harsh language."

Appropriate for whom and abnormal with relation to what? What sort of benchmark would be used to even start justifying these sorts of labels and categories? What is the perfectly appropriate, normal book, and where may I avoid it?

[griffonwing]

The 'norm' for most sensible parents would be to refrain from heavily induced sex and sexual situation in a young adult book. The same for heavy drug use.

Now, adult books, no. Books that are geared to a particular 'adult' audience (harlequinn, sex stories, etc..), No. I do not personally feel that these require any ratings or warnings. You look at the cover, you KNOW someone is going to get some action. You know dope, drugs, etc are part of the story. You pick up the book expecting, if not anticipating, this event(s).

However, if I purchased a book that was geared to the younger crowd (jr high age) and found out that the book I had purchased had gratuitous sex and drug use, then yes, the publisher would definitely be getting a call from me or my lawyer.

[rixte]

If parents are concerned, they have the ability to read the book themselves (or even just skim it) or do a little research before buying the book.

[griffonwing]

I will grant you that, but I still cannot fathom a publisher who would see R or X-rated material and market it to the under-aged youth.

Danny, You ask what benchmark to use? What about the same benchmark we use for movies? Language, Sexual situations, Drug use? This amounts to PG-13.

More language, more explicit sexual scenes, heavy drug use? This is R, and definately should NOT be allowed to market to the youth under "Young Adult".

[Moejoe]

It's simple. If you can read it you're old enough.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It's simple. If you can read it you're old enough.

This is the reason for the decline or morality.

I knew my alphabet by sight and name at 2 yr old, and could read by 3. Are you saying that as a 5-year old, I should have been allowed to read pornography and sex stories?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

This is the reason for the decline or morality.

I knew my alphabet by sight and name at 2 yr old, and could read by 3. Are you saying that as a 5-year old, I should have been allowed to read pornography and sex stories?

Yes. Whether you understood what you read or not is wholly a different matter and would have to factor in your upbringing, the level of involvement of your parents and many other influences that cannot be determined by an arbitrary board of censors. It's highly unlikely that a pre-pubescent human would have any interest or understanding of pornography in any case (dependent on hormone levels) so in this case the argument is mute.

As you may be able to tell, I find censorship ludicrous and anti knowledge.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Yes. Whether you understood what you read or not is wholly a different matter and would have to factor in your upbringing, the level of involvement of your parents and many other influences that cannot be determined by an arbitrary board of censors. It's highly unlikely that a pre-pubescent human would have any interest or understanding of pornography in any case (dependent on hormone levels) so in this case the argument is mute.

As you may be able to tell, I find censorship ludicrous and anti knowledge.

I'm not saying censorship. This has nothing to do with censorship.

The information should be there so that you CAN make a decision on whether or not your kids read the book.

Just by the book saying "This book contains scenes of extreme sexual situation, language, and heavy drug use", it in no way takes or removes anything from the book. The book is still just as it was published. It's just gives those who MIGHT read the book the ability to make a better judgement, especially when it comes to your children.

If you had to read every book to make sure it was OK for your child, that would be a bit ludicrous. However, just a simple 'info label' would go a long way to having a greater respect for the publishers who have respect for you as a parent.

Again, I am sorely opposed to censorship. I will watch the Directors Cut of any movie above the theatrical release. I also much prefer Widescreen, because Fullscreen removes so much from the movie.

So no, I'm not against censorship in the least, but I would like to see something in place to help parents make better decisions for their own personal family. If you see nothing wrong with your 13 year old daughter reading Beauty's release by Anne Rice, then fine, but I'd like to have some warning as to what the book holds before I give it to my daughter to read.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

I'm not saying censorship. This has nothing to do with censorship.

The information should be there so that you CAN make a decision on whether or not your kids read the book.

Just by the book saying "This book contains scenes of extreme sexual situation, language, and heavy drug use", it in no way takes or removes anything from the book. The book is still just as it was published. It's just gives those who MIGHT read the book the ability to make a better judgement, especially when it comes to your children.

If you had to read every book to make sure it was OK for your child, that would be a bit ludicrous. However, just a simple 'info label' would go a long way to having a greater respect for the publishers who have respect for you as a parent.

Again, I am sorely opposed to censorship. I will watch the Directors Cut of any movie above the theatrical release. I also much prefer Widescreen, because Fullscreen removes so much from the movie.

So no, I'm not against censorship in the least, but I would like to see something in place to help parents make better decisions for their own personal family. If you see nothing wrong with your 13 year old daughter reading Beauty's release by Anne Rice, then fine, but I'd like to have some warning as to what the book holds before I give it to my daughter to read.

What your proposing is 'back-door censorship' where somebody or some board, usually of a ridiculously prudish nature, gives a coded message to other prudes as to the content of the book. It's a sneaky "WARNING: EXPLICIT LYRICS" and should appall any free thinking individual. If we had your system in place then a book like Steinbeck's the Grapes of Wrath would come with this message on the reverse:

Contains scenes of violence, nudity, and some foul language.

Are you advocating a world where a few prudes and their misguided attempts to shield 'children' from 'bad things' would put nasty little coded warnings on the books of every other person? Besides all that, whatever your concerns or worries, if you have a thirteen year old, they'll be reading whatever they like whenever they like and there's little you can do to stop them. What you can do is 'discuss' with them what they like and why, maybe treat them with some respect and not be so afraid at some 'sex' in a book.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What your proposing is 'back-door censorship' where somebody or some board, usually of a ridiculously prudish nature, gives a coded message to other prudes as to the content of the book. It's a sneaky "WARNING: EXPLICIT LYRICS" and should appall any free thinking individual. If we had your system in place then a book like Steinbeck's the Grapes of Wrath would come with this message on the reverse:

Contains scenes of violence, nudity, and some foul language.

Are you advocating a world where a few prudes and their misguided attempts to shield 'children' from 'bad things' would put nasty little coded warnings on the books of every other person? Besides all that, whatever your concerns or worries, if you have a thirteen year old, they'll be reading whatever they like whenever they like and there's little you can do to stop them. What you can do is 'discuss' with them what they like and why, maybe treat them with some respect and not be so afraid at some 'sex' in a book.

If you're asking "Would I like to see a time where decency and respect and morality began to rise again? Damn straight.

As for the the last comment, about the discussions. Yes. I do plan on discussing the tenants of my belief, as well as "the birds and the bees" speech. However, this has nothing at all to do with 'being afraid of some sex in a book" (and I actually resent this implication), however I also firmly believe that kids should not grow up when they are 13-14 years old.

This is why we have teenage pregnancy. This is why we have teenage drug use. Kids grow up WAY too fast nowadays, they do not have time to be kids. They get thrown into sex temptations too young, and they are not wise enough to understand how to deal with it. Allowing free reign on a child is the worst thing you can do, and a faster way to destroy them.

What is the adage? "Spare the rod, spoil the child"? Have you seen children who run rampant in the stores and their mother is in another isle, and does not care? This same 'careless' attitude I equate with letting a child read whatever she wants when her experiences, growth and wisdom are not at a level to handle it.

That's like letting a 1o-year old shoot a 12-guage. Sure, he may know all the safety regulations, seen all the hunting videos, know how to call the ducks, what to wear, how to do, but he pulls the trigger and he will get thrown back on his ass and possibly break an arm or worse. He is not physically ready.

Wise enough does not mean smart enough. Wisdom comes with age, with experiences, not by reading about sex in a book. Also, reading induces thinking, and when a child thinks about something, they will want to do it.

You say that if a child wants to read something, they will. However, if you allow that child to read it, you are saying to the child "I am letting you read this because I feel you are old enough to", and when they read it, they will also assume they are old enough to act it out. You are telling them that they can have sex at their age.

If that is your belief, then fine. But it is not mine. And I would like to be able to have the opportunity to glance at the back of the book, see the info box, and put the book back on the shelf.

[Danny Fekete]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What your proposing is 'back-door censorship' where somebody or some board, usually of a ridiculously prudish nature, gives a coded message to other prudes as to the content of the book. It's a sneaky "WARNING: EXPLICIT LYRICS" and should appall any free thinking individual. If we had your system in place then a book like Steinbeck's the Grapes of Wrath would come with this message on the reverse:

Contains scenes of violence, nudity, and some foul language.

Are you advocating a world where a few prudes and their misguided attempts to shield 'children' from 'bad things' would put nasty little coded warnings on the books of every other person? Besides all that, whatever your concerns or worries, if you have a thirteen year old, they'll be reading whatever they like whenever they like and there's little you can do to stop them. What you can do is 'discuss' with them what they like and why, maybe treat them with some respect and not be so afraid at some 'sex' in a book.

I tend to agree almost exactly with what you're saying, Moejoe, but I worry that your polemical approach might get in the way of your argument. Here's what I'm getting from your position: as a guardian and guide for one's children and their reading habits, there's a tradeoff between your convenience and efficiency in filtering (or curating) documents on the one hand, and your ability to control the moral system with which that filtering process occurs on the other. Moejoe, it sounds like you (as I do) loathe the thought of anyone prescribing your morals (and by extension) your children's morals for you. Consequently, you're likely either to trust your children's own developing morality---possibly as an extension of other shaping forces you've engineered in their environment---and let them read whatever they want. Griffonwing, you seem to find your morality closer in step with that advocated by the ethical boards you invoke, and as a result, stand to benefit from that infrastructure, leveraging it to do your book selection (and moral engineering) for you and your children.

So long as these prospective ethical boards don't exert any pressure beyond providing you with information that you can choose to act on or not, is there any reason to be prescriptive about their existence? Moejoe and I, and our respective children, can ignore them the way we probably already ignore their equivalents on films and music albums. We probably feel badly for Griffonwing's children, but whether or not that's our business is another argument.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

The 'norm' for most sensible parents would be to refrain from heavily induced sex and sexual situation in a young adult book. The same for heavy drug use.

"Drug use" varies widely by culture. Do you mean that any book in which a family sits down to dinner with wine every night, should get a warning for drug use?

Now, adult books, no. Books that are geared to a particular 'adult' audience (harlequinn, sex stories, etc..), No. I do not personally feel that these require any ratings or warnings.

I take it you don't read many Harlequins.

I started reading them at the age of 9. The ones I read--Harlequin Romance, Harlequin Presents--were pretty much tame romances: boy meets girl; girl hates boy; boy & girl are forced into prolonged contact with each other; boy & girl fall in love & live happily ever after yay.

The ones I read today--Harlequin Blaze, Spice, Silhouettes--I would not hand off to my 13-year-old daughter, who has no interest in such subjects. Some romance novels are stories of emotion and love; some are tales of eroticism, and those could be labeled as such. (I'd certainly rather know before reading; I'm long past any interest in 300 pages of banter leading up to a single kiss.)

You look at the cover, you KNOW someone is going to get some action. You know dope, drugs, etc are part of the story. You pick up the book expecting, if not anticipating, this event(s).

Judging books by their covers, eh?
Some ebooks don't have covers. (I don't count the "Published by Fictionwise" splash page.)

However, if I purchased a book that was geared to the younger crowd (jr high age) and found out that the book I had purchased had gratuitous sex and drug use, then yes, the publisher would definitely be getting a call from me or my lawyer.

Hm. Before, you mentioned sex & drugs. Now it's gratuitous sex and drugs? Who decides if sex is gratuitous? (I suspect your judgment would not agree with mine, on that.) Or if drug use is necessary for the plot? (And that's before we decide which drugs are acceptable in the story... anything legal in the setting of the story? Anything legal today?)

The problem with content ratings isn't that they're a bad idea, it's that there really isn't any agreement on what "should" get a rating. We can probably all agree that books with seventy-page explicitly-detailed sex scenes should indicate that to the reader. We have more dissension on books that aren't obviously catering to a particular "kink" in the readers... how about pop supermarket books like the Flowers In The Attic series, which had incest, child abuse and murder? How about Stephen King novels that have horrific themes? How about action thrillers with lots of explosions and bodies that fall like rain?

The issue isn't with rating books... it's with who gets to assign the ratings. It comes down to "what total stranger gets to decide what warnings--or prohibitions--to inflict on my children?"

I steer my kids at books I think are good for them; I discourage (but don't forbid) them from books I don't think are useful for them. I might like help with figuring out which books I'd like to suggest for them--but I don't trust most people who want to "protect the children;" I find they generally have values that don't match mine.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by Danny Fekete

Griffonwing, you seem to find your morality closer in step with that advocated by the ethical boards you invoke, and as a result, stand to benefit from that infrastructure, leveraging it to do your book selection (and moral engineering) for you and your children.

No, I would not trust the current ethical boards, the same that I do not trust the public school system with the 'truth' they teach.

I am not advocating a rating of any kind. When I mentioned the movies, I was referring to the subtopics of the rating itself (This film includes blah blah blah).

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

"Drug use" varies widely by culture. Do you mean that any book in which a family sits down to dinner with wine every night, should get a warning for drug use?

I take it you don't read many Harlequins.

I started reading them at the age of 9. The ones I read--Harlequin Romance, Harlequin Presents--were pretty much tame romances: boy meets girl; girl hates boy; boy & girl are forced into prolonged contact with each other; boy & girl fall in love & live happily ever after yay.

The ones I read today--Harlequin Blaze, Spice, Silhouettes--I would not hand off to my 13-year-old daughter, who has no interest in such subjects. Some romance novels are stories of emotion and love; some are tales of eroticism, and those could be labeled as such. (I'd certainly rather know before reading; I'm long past any interest in 300 pages of banter leading up to a single kiss.)

I have read 2 Harlequinns. They must have been mixed in with some of my books when My mother handed me a box from my youth. After reading everything else, those were the only ones left. They were pretty racy, even as a 25 year old at the time. So in the hands of a 13-year old? No way.

As for younger adult Harlequinns, of those I am unfamiliar with.

Hm. Before, you mentioned sex & drugs. Now it's gratuitous sex and drugs? Who decides if sex is gratuitous? (I suspect your judgment would not agree with mine, on that.) Or if drug use is necessary for the plot? (And that's before we decide which drugs are acceptable in the story... anything legal in the setting of the story? Anything legal today?)

The problem with content ratings isn't that they're a bad idea, it's that there really isn't any agreement on what "should" get a rating. We can probably all agree that books with seventy-page explicitly-detailed sex scenes should indicate that to the reader. We have more dissension on books that aren't obviously catering to a particular "kink" in the readers... how about pop supermarket books like the Flowers In The Attic series, which had incest, child abuse and murder? How about Stephen King novels that have horrific themes? How about action thrillers with lots of explosions and bodies that fall like rain?

The issue isn't with rating books... it's with who gets to assign the ratings. It comes down to "what total stranger gets to decide what warnings--or prohibitions--to inflict on my children?"

I steer my kids at books I think are good for them; I discourage (but don't forbid) them from books I don't think are useful for them. I might like help with figuring out which books I'd like to suggest for them--but I don't trust most people who want to "protect the children;" I find they generally have values that don't match mine.

Again, i never stipulated any sort of ratings from any ratings board. I do apologize if it came across that way. I was only interested in a small box on the back of the book. One the back of the book, where you read a small blurb of what the book is about, at the bottom, perhaps there is a box stating whether or not sex, drug use, or language is included.

As for drug use, I mean LSD, pot, cocaine, heroin, etc. not cigarettes, pipes, beer or wine or any alcohol. I know those are still drugs, but it should have been apparent.

By gratuitious sex, I mean very prolific in the book. Not just a one or two time occurrence.

I'd like to know if there is sex, and if so, is it prolific, does it encompass the story? What about the drug use? Cocaine, Heroin? If any of these feature heavy in the book, then frankly, it should not be directed at children.

As for other books, such as Grapes of Wrath, for example, which was mentioned earlier. Yes, this is read in many english lit classes, however, the book itself is not geared as a novel for young adults. They can read it, sure, but it's not marketed towards the YA sect.

No, I do not condone the ratings (this book is rated G or YA, or what have you).

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

If you're asking "Would I like to see a time where decency and respect and morality began to rise again? Damn straight.

Ridiculous. Our age is far more 'decent' than any that has come before, and especially in the western world. Slavery abolished, women's rights, civil rights, excellent advances in science and medicine.

As for the the last comment, about the discussions. Yes. I do plan on discussing the tenants of my belief, as well as "the birds and the bees" speech. However, this has nothing at all to do with 'being afraid of some sex in a book" (and I actually resent this implication), however I also firmly believe that kids should not grow up when they are 13-14 years old.


This is why we have teenage pregnancy. This is why we have teenage drug use. Kids grow up WAY too fast nowadays, they do not have time to be kids. They get thrown into sex temptations too young, and they are not wise enough to understand how to deal with it. Allowing free reign on a child is the worst thing you can do, and a faster way to destroy them.

What you believe and what actually happens in the real world are seperate entities. Puberty and the ability to procreate actually lead to procreation, biological fact of life. Education in safe, and lets not forget enjoyable sex helps along way to negate teenage pregnancy, along with STD's. Openness and the stripping of religious dogma also go a long way to producing children who turn into thoughtful, fun-loving adults. All of this has a lot to do with openness from an early age, from the transferrence of knowledge without silly boundaries, such as your earlier proposed 'coded message' of warning on the back of books. In countries where this openness, religious-free sex and drug education is practised we have less teenage pregnancy and less drug abuse overall. Holland is a shining example of freedom + information = healthy people.

What is the adage? "Spare the rod, spoil the child"? Have you seen children who run rampant in the stores and their mother is in another isle, and does not care? This same 'careless' attitude I equate with letting a child read whatever she wants when her experiences, growth and wisdom are not at a level to handle it.

Biblical quotes mean very little to me, as do the religions they are attached to. Racist, homophobic, sexist tomes that advocate all kinds of nonsense, very little of which should be taken seriously by any modern person. I've seen plenty of children running free in supermarkets, seen it happen in churches when I was a kid too. I don't see what his has to do with back-door censorship, only that you've taken the argument to some new level where neglecting a child equates to not having a silly warning on the back of a book.

That's like letting a 1o-year old shoot a 12-guage. Sure, he may know all the safety regulations, seen all the hunting videos, know how to call the ducks, what to wear, how to do, but he pulls the trigger and he will get thrown back on his ass and possibly break an arm or worse. He is not physically ready.

Wise enough does not mean smart enough. Wisdom comes with age, with experiences, not by reading about sex in a book. Also, reading induces thinking, and when a child thinks about something, they will want to do it.

No idea how you got onto shotguns, maybe its related to your branching the argument out into the neglect of children. Couple of things; I'm English and European, guns to me (as to many of us) are stupid things that we have no need for, with training or without. Also you're making my argument for me. Being physically ready isn't enough, you're correct, the mental capacity to deal with sex comes with practice, with experience, with knowledge, and none of that comes from a book. It comes from experience. A hell of a lot of it. It took me five years of 'stupid' sex before I was ever in a 'proper' relationship, all of it safe mind you, although my Catholic school wouldn't have wanted it to be that way.

You say that if a child wants to read something, they will. However, if you allow that child to read it, you are saying to the child "I am letting you read this because I feel you are old enough to", and when they read it, they will also assume they are old enough to act it out. You are telling them that they can have sex at their age.

Very silly, and not at all the reality of the world. Once a child reaches puberty and wants to have sex, there's very little you can do, bar physical restraint, to stop them. It's a natural biological urge. Your consent means nothing to that teenager, they are their own person and will make decisions accordingly, with, or without you. No, you don't have to 'let go' completely, but you have to also understand that holding them too close might cause exactly the opposite of the reaction you desire. Sheltering a child from 'sex' is as pointless as telling them there are no oceans. Soon enough they're going to discover that ocean for themselves.

If that is your belief, then fine. But it is not mine. And I would like to be able to have the opportunity to glance at the back of the book, see the info box, and put the book back on the shelf.

This is the most specious reasoning out of all you've argued. Do you honestly think that you will be the arbiter of your children's reading decisions when they can get a library card and read whatever they like? I don't know what's more disheartening; that you believe you can somehow keep the material away from your child, or that you think keeping it away will somehow be positive. All the while, we, adults and children alike, would have to put up with your silly warnings on the backs of our books.