Yahoo Forum Archive

From the rating guidelines:

"Romance outside of Marriage: If characters are romantically involved and not married, and if this fact is known by a character not in the relationship, then the story should probably be rated at least teen. Marriage provides a social recognition of a relationship, so a person can know two characters are married without suggesting the erotic content that is inappropriate in a General-related story. If a character knows two other characters are having an affair, it implies this erotic content much more strongly. (If your story violates this rule but you feel it is truly General-rated, discuss it with your liaison.)"

Is this a new rule for 2009? Can I ask its meaning and intent?


Una

I don't know if it is new or not. I'll leave it to Marta or someone who
work on editing the guidelines to respond. But I don't think it sounds
controversial or complicated to understand. Who want would want to rate a love
affair outside of marriage as a "G" (i.e., as a story necessarily suitable
to--or even comprehensible for--very young children)? I suppose I am being
dense and missing your point?

Want you can make your question or specific?
**************Kick start your favorite grads career with mobile email for
under $50.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I just responded, but if I were to consider the paragraph, I would say it
is much too long and complicated. G is the easiest to rate!
**************Kick start your favorite grads career with mobile email for
under $50.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221971194x1201441917/aol?redir==http://www.getpeek.com/aol)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, heartofoshun@... wrote:

>
> I don't think it
> sounds controversial or complicated to understand. Who want would
> want to rate a love affair outside of marriage as a "G" (i.e., as a
> story necessarily suitable to--or even comprehensible for--very young
> children)?

I am shocked, saddened, and offended to learn that under these rules my loving relationship of sixteen years is judged unsuitable subject matter for pre-teens. Thankfully my friends with pre-school children do not hold the same opinion and seem not to struggle to explain me and my partner to their children.

If this rule is new, I cannot participate in this year's awards as they stand, and I would be grateful if this is made clear on the site. If this rule is not new and I have previously overlooked it, then with regret I shall have to return all awards I have received, and request that my name is removed from the MEFA site.


Una (Altariel)

Hi Una,

Oh, my! I had never noticed that rule before, and I believe that it is, at
best, misguided.

I can't imagine, for example, a tale of Éowyn's romantic aspirations for
Aragorn requiring a Teen rating, regardless of lack of sexual content, just
because they never married.

I suspect that this rule is the product of hashing (literally) out by a
committee, rather than a deliberate attempt to be offend those whose loving
relationships are not (or, in some cases, cannot be) within a marriage.
Having myself never married, I, too, find the rule offensive.

Whatever the origin, I am sure that it will be addressed appropriately by
the admins, now that you have raised the issue.

{{{hugs}}}
- Barbara

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Una <umm10@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> From the rating guidelines:
>
> "Romance outside of Marriage: If characters are romantically involved and
> not married, and if this fact is known by a character not in the
> relationship, then the story should probably be rated at least teen.
> Marriage provides a social recognition of a relationship, so a person can
> know two characters are married without suggesting the erotic content that
> is inappropriate in a General-related story. If a character knows two other
> characters are having an affair, it implies this erotic content much more
> strongly. (If your story violates this rule but you feel it is truly
> General-rated, discuss it with your liaison.)"
>
> Is this a new rule for 2009? Can I ask its meaning and intent?
>
> Una
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I will agree to disagree on this one. I think people should try *not*
to be offended, rather than taking offense at something that
(mis-guided - perhaps) certainly wasn't pointed at them.

IMO, Marriage is 'the standard' in most countries and cultures. It
certainly doesn't mean that there can't be stable loving relationships
outside of marriage, (I know many of this type) but I don't find it
offensive., In fact, I believe that in many states, a stable 16 year
relationship is legally considered "married" if you have gone before
the judge and have the paper or not. I only see it as a way for said
committee to try to stabilize what could potentially be a problematic
situation because I do know we've had very young readers
participating. I believe it was meant as a guideline to help
establish the 'norm' for 'G' rated readers.

Sulriel.

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Elena Tiriel <ElenaTiriel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Una,
>
> Oh, my! I had never noticed that rule before, and I believe that it is, at
> best, misguided.
>
> I can't imagine, for example, a tale of Éowyn's romantic aspirations for
> Aragorn requiring a Teen rating, regardless of lack of sexual content, just
> because they never married.
>
> I suspect that this rule is the product of hashing (literally) out by a
> committee, rather than a deliberate attempt to be offend those whose loving
> relationships are not (or, in some cases, cannot be) within a marriage.
> Having myself never married, I, too, find the rule offensive.
>
> Whatever the origin, I am sure that it will be addressed appropriately by
> the admins, now that you have raised the issue.
>
> {{{hugs}}}
> - Barbara
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Una <umm10@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> From the rating guidelines:
>>
>> "Romance outside of Marriage: If characters are romantically involved and
>> not married, and if this fact is known by a character not in the
>> relationship, then the story should probably be rated at least teen.
>> Marriage provides a social recognition of a relationship, so a person can
>> know two characters are married without suggesting the erotic content that
>> is inappropriate in a General-related story. If a character knows two other
>> characters are having an affair, it implies this erotic content much more
>> strongly. (If your story violates this rule but you feel it is truly
>> General-rated, discuss it with your liaison.)"
>>
>> Is this a new rule for 2009? Can I ask its meaning and intent?
>>
>> Una
>>
>>
>>

Well, looking at the rule and the context of the rule, it seems that the basic intent is

(a) to find a way of dealing with stories that feature what might be called "transgressive" relationships, but whose transgressiveness doesn't come from graphic depictions of erotic activity but from the interaction of individuals and social norms; more on figuring out what kind of transgression we're dealing with below;

(b) to do so with enough specificity that the rule is actually useful because enforceable, despite the caveat at the end (talk to the liaison if you think your story really doesn't deserve a Teen rating).


To me, it looks as though we're dealing with stories where everyone knows exactly what's going on between two characters who can take any kind of hint, but nothing is explicitly shown.

If this is, in fact, the case, then two things:

1) We already have a set of rules that can handle this situation. Teen ratings regarding depictions of sex, whether between married, unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual couples, say: "Romantic kissing allowed. Actual sex scenes **can be implied but not depicted.** Stories can deal with the emotional after-effects of rape but not describe an actual rape."

Coupled with the rule for "General" ratings ("No erotic content. General stories may include platonic/friendly affection, e.g. hugging, non-sexual kissing (as between parents and children), hand-holding, etc."), I think that suffices to kick implied but not depicted sexual activity up to teen, regardless of whether that activity is between married or unmarried couples, regardless of whether a third party knows about it or not.

So I don't think there needs to be a *special* rule singling out implied sexual activity between unmarried people.


2) This part "If characters are romantically involved and not married,**and if this fact is known by a character not in the relationship**, then the story should probably be rated at least teen" strangely seems to say that if an author showed the relationship through the eyes of the parties directly involved, the rule wouldn't apply and one could rate the story "General." This seems rather counterintuitive.

Which is why I read this - "If a character knows two other characters *are having an affair*" - as the decisive line.

It suggests to me that the rule concerns rating stories that show sexual relationships that transgress/*violate* a commitment already made - somebody having an affair is what's really at stake here, not simply implied sexual relationships between unmarried people (already taken care of, regardless of marital status).


If that's true, then the detour into married/unmarried is a confusion of the issue. The rule should be recast to reflect the idea that what may kick these relationships out of a General rating is the generally accepted idea that whatever kind of romantic relationship you're in, *cheating* is a serious issue that probably deserves a warning so parents can read the story first.

$.02,

Dwim

Either I guess I am misreading the guideline (reason why I said it was too
complicated). "Outside Marriage" does not mean not formally married to me
(marriage is a legal state not an emotional one), I read it as married to
one person and carrying on with another, e.g., being unfaithful, secretive,
cheating on one's significant other.
**************Stay connected and tighten your budget with a great mobile
device for under $50. Take a Peek!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221845911x1201401556/aol?redir=http://www.getpeek.com/aol)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey guys,

This rule has actually been in place since we wrote the ratings guide. I
can't remember whether that's from 2005 or 2006, but it's definitely not
something we wrote in for 2009.

As for its meaning and its intent, its talking about knowledge of a
romantic pairing. Any character could know that Eowyn and Faramir were a
couple without necessarily thinking about them in a sexual way. Small
children would. So it's a bit ridiculous to think that a story that just
mentioned a married couple would rate higher than a General rating.

On the other hand, if Eowyn and Aragorn (or Eowyn and Arwen for that
matter) were having a relationship and a third party knew about it, that
would imply (at least to me) that something sexual/erotic had happened
and that someone had either seen it or been told about it. Even if Eowyn
told Legolas that she was having an affair with the king, no details
given, the implication would be that something sexual had happened. Of
course married couples are usually just as sexual as non-married ones,
but I think in a world where marriage was as often an alliance as a
love-match, it's possible to think of marriage in a very non-erotic way.

So what this rule is getting at is, if someone knows about a
relationship like what I've described, what they have knowledge of
cannot be thought of as asexual in the same way a marriage can be
thought of as asexual. (I'm using "sexual" here very broadly, could
refer to a kiss as easily as something more intimate.) The relationship
itself is no more adult than a relationship within marriage would be;
it's the fact that it would be known about to someone else, and
interpreted as an affair by that person. (I'm using "affair" here very
broadly too, to refer to a romantic relationship not publicly recognized
- could be a one-night stand or a twenty-year relationship.)

That said - I'm not particularly tied to this rule. I'm not comfortable
changing the awards once a certain year has started, but if you or
anyone else finds this offensive or confusing we can certainly look at
removing it for next year. Would you like me to add this to my list of
things to consider changing?

Marta

Una wrote:

>
>
>
> From the rating guidelines:
>
> "Romance outside of Marriage: If characters are romantically involved
> and not married, and if this fact is known by a character not in the
> relationship, then the story should probably be rated at least teen.
> Marriage provides a social recognition of a relationship, so a person
> can know two characters are married without suggesting the erotic
> content that is inappropriate in a General-related story. If a character
> knows two other characters are having an affair, it implies this erotic
> content much more strongly. (If your story violates this rule but you
> feel it is truly General-rated, discuss it with your liaison.)"
>
> Is this a new rule for 2009? Can I ask its meaning and intent?
>
> Una
>

This rule has actually been in place since we wrote the ratings guide.


I still think it is too complicated; tries to explain something and makes
it more confusing and results in the opposite. The problem with trying to
label and define everything. I really read it as "cheating." Am misreading it
or not?

For example, I lived with my ex-husband seven years before we got married
and then after my child was born. We considered ourselves a couple and not a
scandal. A story about one of having an affair with another person, almost
certainly might be difficutl to rate G. That was my initial point. It
wasn't a moral question per se, but that children are freaked out by insecurity
and uncertainty. I personally think people should supervise their
children's reading and not depend on the MEFAs to do it for them, but people always
insist upon it.
**************Stay connected and tighten your budget with a great mobile
device for under $50. Take a Peek!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221845911x1201401556/aol?redir=http://www.getpeek.com/aol)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have to say, I agree with Dwimmerlaik. To me the term "outside of
marriage" also contains the implications of "cheating". In other words,
activity is taking place "outside" the couple who are married or otherwise
committed. However, looking it over, I can also see how it could also be
interpreted as any sexual relationship between non-married couples. It *IS*
confusing!

Also I really don't understand the whole third party bit. Cheating is
cheating. If, for the sake of argument, someone wrote a story in which
Arwen had a one-night stand with Legolas after her marriage to Aragorn, and
no one except the two of them ever knew about it, would that make it okay?
But if Beregond spied on them, and caught them at it, then it breaks the
rule? *scratches head*

I honestly had never paid attention to the ratings rules before, because
most of my stories are General, and those which are Teen are usually that
way because of violence or thematic content. But this rule is really very
confusing and does not make much sense.
It does look like perhaps the ratings rules are overdue for being looked at,
updated, and clarified-- it's a shame no one noticed this before the season
opened.

Dreamflower

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 6:00 PM, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
>
> Well, looking at the rule and the context of the rule, it seems that the
> basic intent is
>
> (a) to find a way of dealing with stories that feature what might be called
> "transgressive" relationships, but whose transgressiveness doesn't come from
> graphic depictions of erotic activity but from the interaction of
> individuals and social norms; more on figuring out what kind of
> transgression we're dealing with below;
>
> (b) to do so with enough specificity that the rule is actually useful
> because enforceable, despite the caveat at the end (talk to the liaison if
> you think your story really doesn't deserve a Teen rating).
>
> To me, it looks as though we're dealing with stories where everyone knows
> exactly what's going on between two characters who can take any kind of
> hint, but nothing is explicitly shown.
>
> If this is, in fact, the case, then two things:
>
> 1) We already have a set of rules that can handle this situation. Teen
> ratings regarding depictions of sex, whether between married, unmarried,
> heterosexual or homosexual couples, say: "Romantic kissing allowed. Actual
> sex scenes **can be implied but not depicted.** Stories can deal with the
> emotional after-effects of rape but not describe an actual rape."
>
> Coupled with the rule for "General" ratings ("No erotic content. General
> stories may include platonic/friendly affection, e.g. hugging, non-sexual
> kissing (as between parents and children), hand-holding, etc."), I think
> that suffices to kick implied but not depicted sexual activity up to teen,
> regardless of whether that activity is between married or unmarried couples,
> regardless of whether a third party knows about it or not.
>
> So I don't think there needs to be a *special* rule singling out implied
> sexual activity between unmarried people.
>
> 2) This part "If characters are romantically involved and not married,**and
> if this fact is known by a character not in the relationship**, then the
> story should probably be rated at least teen" strangely seems to say that if
> an author showed the relationship through the eyes of the parties directly
> involved, the rule wouldn't apply and one could rate the story "General."
> This seems rather counterintuitive.
>
> Which is why I read this - "If a character knows two other characters *are
> having an affair*" - as the decisive line.
>
> It suggests to me that the rule concerns rating stories that show sexual
> relationships that transgress/*violate* a commitment already made - somebody
> having an affair is what's really at stake here, not simply implied sexual
> relationships between unmarried people (already taken care of, regardless of
> marital status).
>
> If that's true, then the detour into married/unmarried is a confusion of
> the issue. The rule should be recast to reflect the idea that what may kick
> these relationships out of a General rating is the generally accepted idea
> that whatever kind of romantic relationship you're in, *cheating* is a
> serious issue that probably deserves a warning so parents can read the story
> first.
>
> $.02,
>
> Dwim
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

When I read the rule, I *did* honestly believe it was saying that any sexual
(even implied) relationship that was not between a married couple should be
assigned a higher rating. I don't normally go casting about for things to be
offended by -- life is too short for that! -- but this did seem to be
outrageous... and wholly uncharacteristic of the MEFAs.

After seeing the discussion, now I understand that another interpretation is
to raise the rating on stories about *cheating* on a committed relationship
(notice I didn't say "marriage" -- believe me, I would have been furious if
my former partner of twelve years had cheated on me, regardless of our
marital status!).

I think the rule should be rewritten for clarity, perhaps by stating
explicitly that the higher rating applies to stories where one partner in a
committed relationship cheats on their partner. And to leave out the word
"marriage", or at least only use it as one example of a committed
relationship.

And I agree that stories about cheating might be inappropriate for young
readers regardless of whether a third party witnesses the conduct or not.

Marta, I certainly understand your reluctance to change the FAQs after the
nomination season started, but I definitely think this rule is confusing and
needs to be reworded. I, personally, won't press for it to be changed
immediately, though... making sure it is on the list of things to deal with
in the post-mortem is fine with me.

Just my 2 cents....

- Barbara

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Barbara Rich <aelfwina@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I have to say, I agree with Dwimmerlaik. To me the term "outside of
> marriage" also contains the implications of "cheating". In other words,
> activity is taking place "outside" the couple who are married or otherwise
> committed. However, looking it over, I can also see how it could also be
> interpreted as any sexual relationship between non-married couples. It *IS*
> confusing!
>
> Also I really don't understand the whole third party bit. Cheating is
> cheating. If, for the sake of argument, someone wrote a story in which
> Arwen had a one-night stand with Legolas after her marriage to Aragorn, and
> no one except the two of them ever knew about it, would that make it okay?
> But if Beregond spied on them, and caught them at it, then it breaks the
> rule? *scratches head*
>
> I honestly had never paid attention to the ratings rules before, because
> most of my stories are General, and those which are Teen are usually that
> way because of violence or thematic content. But this rule is really very
> confusing and does not make much sense.
> It does look like perhaps the ratings rules are overdue for being looked
> at,
> updated, and clarified-- it's a shame no one noticed this before the season
> opened.
>
> Dreamflower
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 6:00 PM, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com<dwimmer_laik%40yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Well, looking at the rule and the context of the rule, it seems that the
> > basic intent is
> >
> > (a) to find a way of dealing with stories that feature what might be
> called
> > "transgressive" relationships, but whose transgressiveness doesn't come
> from
> > graphic depictions of erotic activity but from the interaction of
> > individuals and social norms; more on figuring out what kind of
> > transgression we're dealing with below;
> >
> > (b) to do so with enough specificity that the rule is actually useful
> > because enforceable, despite the caveat at the end (talk to the liaison
> if
> > you think your story really doesn't deserve a Teen rating).
> >
> > To me, it looks as though we're dealing with stories where everyone knows
> > exactly what's going on between two characters who can take any kind of
> > hint, but nothing is explicitly shown.
> >
> > If this is, in fact, the case, then two things:
> >
> > 1) We already have a set of rules that can handle this situation. Teen
> > ratings regarding depictions of sex, whether between married, unmarried,
> > heterosexual or homosexual couples, say: "Romantic kissing allowed.
> Actual
> > sex scenes **can be implied but not depicted.** Stories can deal with the
> > emotional after-effects of rape but not describe an actual rape."
> >
> > Coupled with the rule for "General" ratings ("No erotic content. General
> > stories may include platonic/friendly affection, e.g. hugging, non-sexual
> > kissing (as between parents and children), hand-holding, etc."), I think
> > that suffices to kick implied but not depicted sexual activity up to
> teen,
> > regardless of whether that activity is between married or unmarried
> couples,
> > regardless of whether a third party knows about it or not.
> >
> > So I don't think there needs to be a *special* rule singling out implied
> > sexual activity between unmarried people.
> >
> > 2) This part "If characters are romantically involved and not
> married,**and
> > if this fact is known by a character not in the relationship**, then the
> > story should probably be rated at least teen" strangely seems to say that
> if
> > an author showed the relationship through the eyes of the parties
> directly
> > involved, the rule wouldn't apply and one could rate the story "General."
> > This seems rather counterintuitive.
> >
> > Which is why I read this - "If a character knows two other characters
> *are
> > having an affair*" - as the decisive line.
> >
> > It suggests to me that the rule concerns rating stories that show sexual
> > relationships that transgress/*violate* a commitment already made -
> somebody
> > having an affair is what's really at stake here, not simply implied
> sexual
> > relationships between unmarried people (already taken care of, regardless
> of
> > marital status).
> >
> > If that's true, then the detour into married/unmarried is a confusion of
> > the issue. The rule should be recast to reflect the idea that what may
> kick
> > these relationships out of a General rating is the generally accepted
> idea
> > that whatever kind of romantic relationship you're in, *cheating* is a
> > serious issue that probably deserves a warning so parents can read the
> story
> > first.
> >
> > $.02,
> >
> > Dwim
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta <marta.fandom@...> wrote:

>
> Hey guys,
>
> This rule has actually been in place since we wrote the ratings guide. I
> can't remember whether that's from 2005 or 2006, but it's definitely not
> something we wrote in for 2009.

I'm going to quickly chime in as agreeing with Dreamflower and Oshun: this one needs to be revisited. I think it's early enough to do it this year (and as a new and slightly wide-eyed liaison, I'd rather have a rule I can grasp, understand, and explain without feeling the temptation to append an apologetic disclaimer), but definitely for next year. I don't remember at this point why that rule was changed, or if it was just part of a general overhaul and we simply failed to realize the implications of the changes, but at this point, I don't think it matters what the situation was three or four years ago.

> As for its meaning and its intent, its talking about knowledge of a
> romantic pairing. Any character could know that Eowyn and Faramir were a
> couple without necessarily thinking about them in a sexual way. Small
> children would. So it's a bit ridiculous to think that a story that just
> mentioned a married couple would rate higher than a General rating.
>
> On the other hand, if Eowyn and Aragorn (or Eowyn and Arwen for that
> matter)

This looks then either like a stricture on romances that either contradict/are inconsistent with a romantic relationship that Tolkien establishes (or dis-establishes, in the case of Eowyn/Aragorn), or else an attempt to define when sex is implied.

The first case I don't think is particularly problematic, and need not require a teen rating just because the pairing is not one established by Tolkien. So I don't think the rule is necessary at all to handle that kind of situation. AU categorization or other story factors would determine the rating, not the fact of a non-standard sexually-defined pairing.



The second case is going to be more problematic and extremely difficult to parse in a way that doesn't automatically seem to privilege sex within marriage over any other form of committed, fully adult romantic relationship, even if said relationship only gets a mention in passing.

I think my preference here would be to avoid trying to create a rule that tries to explain itself in terms of social norms and expectations - that's going to land everyone in a situation where the norms are heavily contested and where it will be impossible to avoid taking sides, even if only thanks to the *effect* any decision produces. That's a situation I think it best to avoid if possible.

If the problem is to try to set out an enforceable guideline for *when* one should assume sex is implied, I would suggest something like the following:

Where the story *in some way turns on the reader actively realizing, because it is important for the story, that yes, these two (or more) people had/are having sex,* then even if nothing is ever shown, that should get a teen rating, whether the romantic partners in question are married, unmarried, hetero- or homosexual.

If, on the other hand, the story can be written in such a way that a reader doesn't need to think, "These people must be having sex or why else are they even in the story?", then regardless of marital status *or* sexual orientation, the story is eligible for a general rating.


To add a bit of historical support for this solution, what I've proposed is basically a modification of the original MEFA ratings guide, which took a more general approach: there was a section on when you had to mention the romance, and I seem to recall that basically, whether the romance was het or slash, if it wasn't central the story, then even if it was pretty clearly implied that yes, they were having sex, no warning or rating change was required.

The decisive factors were story-sense and the level of graphicality, not simple presence. So if the gay couple down the street were a part of the story, and it was clear they were gay, but that was not the story's focus and nothing happened on screen, then it didn't affect the rating or require a special warning. Likewise, if the unmarried couple down the street were part of the story, it was clear that they were an unmarried couple, but nothing happened on screen, and that wasn't the focus of the story, then no warning or rating change was required.

I *think* that should answer to Una's complaint, but also give a rule that's specific enough to be enforceable, but also flexible enough not to be unduly constraining (or confusing).

Dwim