Children (13 and under) should be banned from seeing PG13 and R Rated movies

The only factor used in defining entrance to certain movies is age. Not height, IQ, Stamina, number of moveis of the same they have seen before, just age. The reason it is age is because that is the closest quality of people that can be easily observed to compare to their maturity. If you have a low age, your maturity is assumed to be low as well, higher age thus would mean a higher maturity. The problem with this is that age is does not always accurately measure someones maturity. For example, girls mature faster than guys do as they grow up. A guy of one age will not be as mature as a girl of the same age, yet movie theaters still deny access to people if they are too young even though girls and guys have very different maturity levels at the same age. With this being said if movies deny people entrance to movies because they are not mature enough to see them, then why dont girls have a lower age limit to see movies? They are on average more mature so thus they should be given a lower age limit to see movies then guys because they are more mature. 2) There are many different criteria that qualifies why a movie is rated PG-13 or R. PG-13 = Contain mild swear words brief smoking, crude or suggestive humor, Short and infrequent horror moments and/or mild violence. No drug use is acceptable in this category. Topless men may be present but topless women are not usually acceptable. A few racial insults may also be heard. R = These films may contain mild or implied sex scenes or prolonged nudity Strong violence often with blood and gore, Strong horror scenes and explicit/illegal/prolonged drug use. Strong drug use Strong and excessive use of profanity Now many films that are classified under either of these categories usually qualify in at least half of these qualifications, however there are some films that are only classified as such for one qualification only. For example: Rise of the Planet of the Apes had no swear words, no smoking, no crude or suggestive humor, no horror moments, no racial insults, and no naked guys or girls. The only reason this film was classified as PG-13 is because of mild violence, and in the film no one dies or gets mortally wounded at all. Surely someone 13 years of age or younger could be able to tolerate say, an ape throwing a sewer drain cover at a cop car, and not be scarred for life. There are also many films that have also been classified as either when it could be argued that they shouldnt have. The Kings Speech for example was a rather clean film (clean of porn, drugs, racial slurs, etc. ) yet the reason why this Best Picture Winner was rated R was because of a few seconds of swearing that the King himself underwent as part of his therapy. Now compare that to The Exorcist, a movie that was rated R for numerous instances of pure horror, a great deal of swearing, both racial and otherwise, very suggestive actions (shoving a wooden crucifix in her vagina), etc. How can both of these films be classified under the same Movie category? Ill end here for now and reinforce my reasons 1) Age is not a perfect measure of maturity since people of the same age can vary greatly on their maturity 2) The movie ranking system is too general and some movies in the category are far less harmful too viewers than other movies. This is why I think that children should not be banned from seeing PG-13 and R rated movies