# (SPITTAKE) \*That\* was rated G??? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 2, 2015, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778 "2015-08-02T04:22:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/61 "2015-08-05T03:27:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Although it is, basically, an animated movie about talking rabbits (and in my opinion a very good one), it contains much traumatizing material for young children - depictions (very graphic and surreal) of rabbit genocide by poisoin gas, much very realistic violence and gory death (in one case, screaming rabbits are torn apart by a dog on-screen),\*\* strongly implied organized rabbit-on-rabbit rape\*\*\*, etc. In one scene, one of the hero rabbits fights with a villian rabbit, and is covered in wounds - while bloody froth drips from his mouth. This, after the villian rabbit has torn the throat out of another one of the heros … > > Makes some profanity and nudity appear positively uplifting. 😃 The movie even has profanity - but in rabbit language! \ ***emphasis mine** I absolutely loved _Watership Down_ since I first saw it on HBO in the early 80s (I was in my late teens). It didn’t get much of a release in the US so I’d never heard of it. I went out and bought & read the book soon after seeing it. Yeah, I definitely caught Gen Woundwort’s comment to Bigwig about,\* “If you want a doe, you’ll have your choice…”_, to mean, well, what it meant. But I didn’t find it disturbing. In fact, I felt it was a nod to the idea that the movie/novel had the rabbits being sentient and having language & some culture, but they weren’t anthropomorphic, like Mickey Mouse. They didn’t wear clothes, they didn’t use tools etc. They were still animals, and that comment fit in with that. The novel even had the bucks mention such horrific things as distressed does killing and eating their litters_!\* To me it’s what made Adams’ novel (and the film) a significant cut above most young adult fare. Just like the rabbit language profanity. I thought it was absolutely awesome, after reading the book, knowing that near the end of their battle when Woundwort offers to let Bigwig surrender, and he replies to Woundwort, _“Harahka! Sir!”_, he was essentially saying, _“EAT SHIT!”_. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/62 "2015-08-05T13:53:14Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > \ ***emphasis mine** > > I absolutely loved _Watership Down_ since I first saw it on HBO in the early 80s (I was in my late teens). It didn’t get much of a release in the US so I’d never heard of it. I went out and bought & read the book soon after seeing it. > > Yeah, I definitely caught Gen Woundwort’s comment to Bigwig about,\* “If you want a doe, you’ll have your choice…”_, to mean, well, what it meant. But I didn’t find it disturbing. In fact, I felt it was a nod to the idea that the movie/novel had the rabbits being sentient and having language & some culture, but they weren’t anthropomorphic, like Mickey Mouse. They didn’t wear clothes, they didn’t use tools etc. They were still animals, and that comment fit in with that. The novel even had the bucks mention such horrific things as distressed does killing and eating their litters_!\* To me it’s what made Adams’ novel (and the film) a significant cut above most young adult fare. > > Just like the rabbit language profanity. I thought it was absolutely awesome, after reading the book, knowing that near the end of their battle when Woundwort offers to let Bigwig surrender, and he replies to Woundwort, _“Harahka! Sir!”_, he was essentially saying, _“EAT SHIT!”_. 😃 The book and movie were both awesome. 🆒 Just not, exactly, for very young children - more as you say young adults. The way it was advertised, in some places, tended to emphasize the “cute movie about bunnies for kiddies” vibe; combine that with a family-friendly rating … [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/426927239651090150/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/426927239651090150/) The phrase in the book at least (been a while since I saw the movie) was “Silflay hraka, u embleer rah!” - meaning, “eat shit, you stinking chief!” ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/63 "2015-08-05T23:36:44Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Planet of the Apes was rated G even though there was rear male nudity and iirc Andromeda Strain has full frontal (in reflection). Historically male nudity hasn’t been considered as big a deal in the US as female nudity. Fifty years ago male nudity, at least from the read (& often _underage_), wasn’t uncommon in magazines like Life. ---
**Author:** ![candide](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/46a35a/32.png) [@candide](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candide)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/64 "2015-08-06T01:02:16Z")
I have always said the original version of “The Italian Job” (1969) is one of the most sexual G movies. Michael Caine’s character, I’m certain, influenced Austin Powers’ creation by Mike Myers 30 years later. And while he doesn’t come right out and say, “Are you randy? Let’s shag, baby!” the implication is there. And there are a lot of women wearing skimpy clothing worthy of Pussy Galore. And IIRC, Benny Hill’s character was in prison or the cuckoo’s nest (can’t remember which) because he was a pervert. Although they get him out to do the job, he doesn’t make it to the end due to uncontrollable attraction to the ample bottoms of senior Italian nonnas. Who doesn’t love British humor? I love it and the movie is a hoot. Far better than the Wahlberg corruption. And it was rated G. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/65 "2015-08-06T15:42:13Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > they wear/display a guy nailed to a couple of pieces of wood. Those “pieces of wood” are called a cross. > [@](#): > > There was also that recent encounter I had with a Catholic priest who kept going on and on about how wonderful it was he ate the flesh and drank the blood of Christ every day. Weird. I am friends with a couple of priests and they have never mentioned this. > [@](#): > > (Not to mention the irony that it wasn’t that long ago that some of his group was accusing the group my family came from of being cannibals). Is that the same group as your Christian aunt? > [@](#): > > There’s also the issue that far too many Christians take their religion as the default and just assume you’re one of them, and sometime don’t seem to grok that I’m _not_, and _never have been_ a Christian 70% of americans identify as Christian so it kind of is the default. > **[Chapter 1: The Changing Religious Composition of the U.S.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/chapter-1-the-changing-religious-composition-of-the-u-s/)** > > Christians remain by far the largest religious group in the United States, but the Christian share of the population has declined markedly. In the past > [@](#): > > (You weren’t baptized? Not ever? Are you sure? Maybe you don’t remember… Your parents are nice people, I 'm sure they had it done. Um… nope, pretty sure it never happened.) Weird, never in my entire life has a Christian inquired to my baptismal state. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/66 "2015-08-09T19:10:38Z")
> [@j666](#): > > Which Catholic groups recently accused any group of cannibalism? I don’t remember that one at all. It used to be a notion among a sub-set of Christians that Jewish matzo for Passover contained the blood of Christian babies, or some variant of that. It’s called [“blood libel”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel) and has been used to justify violence against Jews. Not entirely limited to Christians, and also accusations of ritual murder, poisoning wells, but for purposes of this anecdote it’s the whole blood-drinking thing that was macabre. Scroll down the link - instances of such have occurred even into the 21st Century in some places. Thus, the irony of the gentleman in question celebrating eating flesh and drinking blood on a daily basis to someone whose ancestors have been persecuted for the same for quite a few centuries by his ancestors. Yeah, it really creeped me the F out. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/67 "2015-08-09T19:24:36Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Those “pieces of wood” are called a cross. Yes, I understand that. Do you not understand that a cross is also two pieces of wood? Do you not understand that I am trying to convey how it looks from _outside Christianity?_. > [@](#): > > Weird. I am friends with a couple of priests and they have never mentioned this. I did not say ALL priests, I did not say “Drunky Smurfs priest friends”, I said a priest. Singular. An individual I recently encountered. Not the group comprised of all Catholic priests everywhere in all of time and space. > [@](#): > > Is that the same group as your Christian aunt? My mother’s side of the family is Catholic. My father’s side of the family is Jewish. There, is that _really_ so hard to understand? Mixed marriages of that sort have been legal for some considerable time in the US, you know? > [@](#): > > 70% of americans identify as Christian so it kind of is the default. And 30% of us are not - which is a non-trivial portion of the population. > [@](#): > > Weird, never in my entire life has a Christian inquired to my baptismal state. Well, in my lifetime it has come up several times. In one case, it wasn’t by a Christian so it’s not like “assuming white American is a Christian” is a mistake limited to Christians. You’re correct, though, it IS weird. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/68 "2015-08-09T20:49:40Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > It used to be a notion among a sub-set of Christians that Jewish matzo for Passover contained the blood of Christian babies, or some variant of that. It’s called [“blood libel”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel) … > Scroll down the link - instances of such have occurred even into the 21st Century in some places. > > Thus, the irony of the gentleman in question celebrating eating flesh and drinking blood on a daily basis to someone whose ancestors have been persecuted for the same for quite a few centuries by his ancestors. Yeah, it really creeped me the F out. I am quite familiar with “blood libel”; it is very similar to accusations made about Catholics by some groups in the past, specifically that the communion host or wine was made with the blood of sacrificed babies. The only section in your link that suggests Catholics have recently accused Jews of the practice seems to refer to one study, but I can’t be certain, as two of the links are unavailable. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778/69 "2015-08-09T20:54:19Z")
Depends on how you define “recent”, I guess - from a historical perspective I’d say “within the past 100 years” would qualify. Pretty rare these days, but not outside of my parents’ memory. And given that Catholics have also been accused of the same, you’d think the priests would be told to go easy on the symbolic cannibalism thing around outsiders but if so it didn’t take in that guy’s case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spittake-that-was-rated-g/726778.md?page=3)