The movie "Animal House" premiered in 1978 and a year or so later was on TV. The TV showing was preceded by this caution: "The following program is intended for mature audiences only" (this was before the TV ratings system, boys and girls, so we had no alphabetic clue if we were being protected from violence, or sexual content or badly-overdubbed forbidden words). Now, I had seen Animal House in the theater and, the way I remembered it, it appealed more to immature audiences: those of us who could watch a man imitate a zit by spitting mashed potatoes on a prissy sorority girl and understand the humor in that.The network people who attached the "mature audience" warning to the movie were using definition 8 of "mature": "composed of adults, considered as being less susceptible to (less able to be affected emotionally by) explicit sexual content, violence, or obscene language, as of a film or stage performance." By that definition, mature people would not laugh at a horse being shot to death in a college dean's office. I, however, thought it was hilarious (even though I was technically a 20-something-year-old adult).
So what did they really mean? They meant the movie was intended for sophmoric, crude, puerile people over 18, because we want to hide those traits fom those under 18, in whom we might still be able to repress them by means of forced church atendance, restrictive, modest, "appropriate" clothing and personal hygiene classes in public schools. Our hope was that by keeping young people from movies like "Animal House" we could raise a generation of adults who could hear the word "penis" and not giggle. Judging by movies today, our efforts weren't worth shit (**immature crowd reacts wildly to last word**).
Over at Humor Blogs, my blog is shown with a haloed smiley face, meaning "This site generally does not contain 'mature' content". Mature is appropriately in quotation marks because they just mean there are no boobies or bloody bodies or bad words. They don't mean that mature discussions of politics and language faux pas appeal to the same mature audience as "American Pie", "Jackass" or "Porky's". I think they mean my posts are not "3. fully developed" or "5. completed, perfected." I contend that my writing is mature in that it has "6.little or no potential for further growth."
"mature content" = "a ten ton rectum"




WXYZ-TV's Peggy Agar shouted a question to the Democratic presidential candidate during his appearance at a Chrysler LLC plant in this auto-making suburb of Detroit.
On MSNBC’s home page, there is a link to s story titled, “Oprah’s most annoying friends.” (I read only the headline, not the story, so no hyperlink here). Clearly Oprah has so many annoying friends that we cannot list them all, we can fit in only the 5-star irritants in her circle of pals. There is undoubtedly an institute somewhere compiling a book about Oprah’s aggravating hangers-on (like the American Film Institute compiles the “100 top movies of all time”) based on rating by experts on celebrity annoyance. For entertainment news to drag out Oprah as a featured topic, there must be a shortage of young starlets vomiting while getting into a limo or flashing their hootchies while getting out. Oprah is old news. In fact, the negative aspect of this article indicates an Oprah backlash (which has probably been going on for sometime but has escaped my notice). Of course, one can’t attack Oprah directly and just say she is annoying. One implies it by linking her to annoying people. It is the same as the way one indirectly labels Barack Obama as an angry, scary, black person by pointing out his ties to the reverend Wright, the way one labels Hillary Clinton as a sleazy womanizer by pointing out her association with Bill Clinton or one can identify John McCain as a deceased white dude by his association with Ronald Reagan.
For some time Republicans have been calling out Democrats as “liberals” like Salem religious zealots branding people as witches. Republicans have successfully imbued the word “liberal” with the meaning of: evil, wretched Democrat who stoops to repairing the world and tolerating diversity. So what label can a Democrat apply to another Democrat to mark that person with the sign of the beast so ye shall know him? That word is “elitist”. Elitists are those demons who suffer from education and are often afflicted with advanced degrees and, worse, money: they know “stuff” and they profit from that.
Today I saw this sentence in a headline link to a crime story: "One day, she was unresponsive to her boyfriend’s text messages, which was then followed by a grueling discovery." She was found in the middle of her apartment living room, so the discovery was more