[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I'm against explicit sex scenes and nudity in film, but it seems to me (and I might be wrong/misremembering how prolifically the League condemned films, so don't quote me) that the League went too far, and hence lost all credibility, when they pretty much condemned anything that contained innuendo or *strong* violence,. Real life is gritty. To believe that entertainment won't or shouldn't reflect that to some degree, is just unrealistic.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Legion of Decency had a far more sophisticated and nuanced rating system than subsequent Industry standards, based on the following categories:

A: Morally unobjectionable

A-I: Suitable for all audiences
A-II: Suitable for adults and adolescents
A-III: Suitable for adults only
A-IV: For adults with reservations

B: Morally objectionable in part
C: Condemned by the Legion of Decency

At some point, the B and C ratings were combined into a new O rating for "morally offensive" films.

The difference between a great but disturbing film "suitable for adults" (A-III or A-IV) and a film that got an "O" for Offensive, was that the "O" film used sex and violence in a patently exploitative way, i.e. to inflame sadistic or prurient interest. A film could win approval, though, if it treated sex and violence-related themes in a way reasonably related to the honesty of the narrative, and in a non "sexploitation", non-psycho-sicko way.

It may raise a smile to see what was "banned" (awarded an "O" )40 or 50 years ago, but keep in mind that public entertainment had not turned into a total sewer at that time, and mothers and fathers were generally not willing to treat their children to sexual entertainment at a visual bordello. The League's ratings had the VERY widespread approval of Protestants, Catholics and Jews, including of course people highly aware of the sex-and-violence content to be found in both the Old and New Testaments.

Which could have been depicted with approval, of course, if handled in a non S&M, non-crotch-grabbing way.