It depends on society's definition of appropriateness. For example, in your society would it be "appropriate" for you to go out right now and defecate in public in a hygienic manner? Or have sex in public? Or walk up to a store employee and expose your genitals?
Do you think it's "inappropriate" ? Can you define and spell out the bad consequences of doing so? Any research into that? Is it just because it can cause social embarrassment? Is it exclusively American?
But that is not my point. What I am arguing is that using the catch-all label of "inappropriate" seems like an American phenomenon. I don't notice people talking like this in other cultures -- but maybe that's just my own ignorance.
Anyone who has had young children will tell you that they can definitely get very freaked out by violent or "scary" movies and most parents do not want to expose their young children to explicit sexual content either.
I have no problem with mandatory labeling of violent or sexual content in movies or music. It helps me make decisions and it doesn't deprive adult consumers of anything.
Not really true -- it affects funding and distribution of cultural artefacts, and this becomes very evident if you go to a modern cinema complex. It can be a very alienating experience if you are not a child or a parent.
I understand that rating helps you make choices, but it is not for the people who like these restrictions to decide if the burden they are placing on everyone else is justifiable or not.
Living in SoCal, everyone has an opinion on Hollywood, and the consensus I've heard is that they are targeting the 8-13 segment really hard, and a G rating is a negative signal to tweeners.
Can you elaborate?
Yes, there are allergens but there are other things that people just want to avoid due to personal preference.
Proper labeling can be helpful in lots of areas.
Take swears for instance. Until they know better, there's more risk of them using swears at the wrong time.
The concept of appropriate is locally culturally bound. I suggest to people pondering the matter to read anthropology texts. They are extremely illuminating and suggest that it's better to exercise a certain cultural relativism.
I overall agree with your sentiment on Puritanism. But let's not go to the other extreme.
Please read again. The second paragraph is precisely where I say that I have no problem believing that there might be ill effects. Our intuitions, however, are no replacement for scientific rigour. The history of science if full of cases where common sense turned out to be wrong.
More importantly: I am not proposing that a child should be subjected to "nonstop violent porn". That sound like a terrible idea and it is a straw man. Like most things in life, this is not a binary choice. It's not like we have to choose between puritanism and nonstop violence and porn. What I am saying is this: is catching a glimpse of violence or sex so damaging that our entire culture should be subjected to severe restrictions? Or is it something best left for parents to decide? Maybe some parents are more worried than others, and maybe it doesn't make sense to burden everyone with a certain standard -- unless it is supported by rigorous scientific research.
They are not just out of the blue intuitions though, they are based on millennia of observations.
Empiricism is not just found in scientific labs.
I am no expert in the history of social norms, but I don't think it's clear at all the protecting children from witnessing violence and sex is a human universal. I know of several cultures (e.g. Roman Empire) where it was normal to let children witness public executions or violent fights. Again -- I am not arguing that this is good, I am arguing that one should not make laws based on vague intuitions.
Most people didn't make laws and force social norms either though. The "educated" classes that did had theater and other kinds of public shows (music, etc) since at least the time of Ancient Greece, and those did have certain codes about what is to be said and what shouldn't be said.
They also had special "adult" shows.
None of these cultural norms are that new either. Even back in ancient Greece and Rome there were rules about what constitutes public or on stage obscenity.
You can argue that the internet solves this, but it's not really the case: for example consider the current YouTube "demonetization crisis" or the arbitrary rules imposed in walled gardens such as app stores. The bigger danger -- and there are many examples of this -- is that "think of the children" can be used by politicians to advance more nefarious censorship agendas. For example, trying to rate content that presents non-conventional ideas.
I always had a problem with this (very American, in my view) concept of "appropriate". What does it mean exactly? It seems to be hiding stuff that is either ill-defined or unlikely to withstand deep scrutiny.
I have no problem believing that depictions of sex and violence might be bad for young children in some way, but I would argue that there is a burden on people who claim this to spell out out the bad consequences could be.
Is it that it affects children psychologically? If that is the claim, in what way? And is there any research that shows this to be the case?
Or is it that they could say something that would create social embarrassment for the parents? If that is the case, one has to ask: does it make sense to place such a burden on free culture for this rather minor reason? And doesn't it just perpetuate useless social norms?
In the end, I suspect this is (at least partially) good old-fashioned puritanism. I am willing to accept that I am wrong, but I think I am right in reacting with scepticism towards vague moral proclamations such as "it is inappropriate!"