Should Film & TV carry consent warnings too?
Language, Violence, Drug Use, Nudity... but should viewers be alerted to non-consensual acts on screen?
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Should film and television shows give a classifcation alert around non-consensual romantic and sexual acts?
That’s the push by advocacy group Content Labs, the Courier Mail reports.
It wants a new (C) Lack of Consent to alert viewers to scenes where consent has not been given from intimacy, to kisses, to sexual acts.
“Free and voluntary consent to sexual activity should look and sound like an ‘enthusiastic yes’, not just the absence of a ‘no.’ It has to be verbal, although non-verbal signals like enthusiastic body language can support it,” their website states.
“Non-consensual acts are in some of our favourite films and shows, in moments that are meant to be funny, romantic or charming. They’re often easy to miss. But what we watch has an impact. That’s why we classify things like ‘violence’ and ‘coarse language.’ And that’s why we must also classify lack of consent.”
The group isn’t looking to remove scenes or make warnings retrospective.
But a Classifications Board spokesperson told the Courier Mail any changes to the classifiable elements would require a change to legislation.
“The Classification Board determines Consumer Advice which describes the highest content material in the film,” they said.
“At present, the Classification Board would generally identify non-consensual sex in a film with consumer advice which included ‘sexual violence’.”
12 Responses
No, as pointed out there is already a sexual violence category. The Courier Mail is just trying to cause trouble.
Unlike the other classifications, this is actually adding an editorial note to the material.
This is the sort of thing dreamt up by people who spend too much time in universities deconstructing everything to the point they can’t understand art of context. Where they don’t understand other people have that ability.
Films and TV can have consent, even if it isn’t telegraphed to the significant level and the viewer can understand that.
The fact this is about going forward gives the aim away. It is about trying to create the rules for what is depicted in art going forth. It’s actually a little puritanical. Let’s keep teaching consent in classrooms and the homes, instead of guidelines for what is appropriate art.
Well said. You’ve expressed one of my other major gripes with this proposal, as this sort of consumer advice would essentially be making a political/ideological statement regarding its content.
And if this sort of nonsense goes unchallenged, even more nonsensical propositions will surely follow. And so long as we’re questioning the moral character of a work, perhaps we ought to also provide consumer advice for blasphemy, fornication, infidelity, slander, gluttony etc. for those who hold values that condemn such vices (not that I am suggesting that we should, as the classification system ought to take as neutral an ideological stance as possible).
Somebody raised with decent values would already innately understand consent, just as a decent person doesn’t need “How Not To Murder People” lessons to innately know that murder is wrong. The fact that so many can’t seem to get the moral basics right these days is the real concern here.
A very interesting point. It might need some kind of re-classifications, making people more aware of Consent issues… of which media has probably birth’ed a few negative behaviours with it past portrayals of ‘sexy non-consent’ etc. in sex scenes. I suppose ultimately it depends whether all non-concentual situations are classed as strongly as sexual violence.
ah no thanks….I suggest if you like a show – buy it on DVD now before more censorship and over the top restrictions come into place
It’s not censorship proposed but consumer advice. But I don’t see this one getting up despite a lot of press coverage today.
I agree with Bad Hank (nice name) that broadcast movies and TV shows do already have adequate viewer rating warnings with descriptions of the content, so there should be no confusion for prospective viewers. Having a ‘C’ rating is purely political, and in my opinion done mainly to appease the Hollywood activists who are already far too influential in what type of stories, themes and content viewers are currently watching.
We are becoming so prudish, conservative and ridiculous that we are expected to ask consent to give a quick kiss on the cheek or drop the f bomb because someone gets offended (this happened recently in an episode of Aftertaste with Easton) what happened to spontaneity, mystery and surprise regarding sex, swearing and the like yet we are becoming more technically advanced. Having to keep ourselves in check all the time is just adding more stress. What next we won’t be in a relationship but instead a situationship really how much down the rabbit hole are we expected to go. If people don’t like it then simply tune out but give humanity a break. Also how about we get over the reality genre and go back to descent Australian drama, mystery and comedy instead of fighting over what colour a wall should be painted or using plain salt or sea salt not to mention wannabes looking for their 15 minutes of fame finding love who are never heard from again. Give the viewers a break.
Maybe a Trigger Warning (TW) would be more appropriate?
“Sexual themes” already covers this in more problematic situations, and “sexual violence” is self-explanatory. Changes to consumer advice/legislation is not needed.
Victims in cop shows didn’t consent to being murdered. Should a “consent” descriptor apply there too? What about spontaneous moments like when Chas Licciardello lunged at Rove back in the day? An episode of Futurama depicted three men being sentenced to death by rape with a PG rating and “adult themes” wasn’t even mentioned, let alone being given a higher classification (or outright banned).
Will old Bugs Bunny cartoons be rated PG or M now for all of the times he kissed Elmer Fudd without express verbal consent? Fiction often depicts inappropriate and unusual behaviour for humourous and/or dramatic effect. How often do people behave the way in film/TV the way that a normal person would in reality? Are people nowadays so incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality?
Sounds like Sexual themes covers it.
It’s an interesting one. Depending on the program and the story it might be trying to tell, a classification like this would potentially give away a direction a particular story may take.