You know how you can tell this is 2011, and not 2017? The word "simulated." Reuters reports:
Everyone's had a day like that - things pile up, you have to work through lunch just to get stuff out the door, and it's only when you're driving home you realize you approved, for 1,693 theaters, a trailer showing a monkey slobbering on a bottle under a sarong in an old man's lap, and that could look like . . . oh, what rating did I give that trailer? Dang.
But is it really offensive? How should we feel about these things? If you"re part of the judgment-free class of moderns who equate "sophistication" with flaccid acceptance of witless vulgarity because it, like, says something about our culture 'n' stuff, simulated monkey-sex is an easy call. Let's see what Entertainment Weekly says:
Might not. This is where we are, I guess: the question isn't whether anyone's offender by a bestiality joke, it's whether a 12-year old should see it. Anyway, if you are offended on general principle, because you do not think the culture is improved by genial acceptance of monkey-person sex for amusement purposes, you're a prude! Go back to your Norman Rockwell world, where simulated monkey sex happened all the time, but it was kept in the shadows! As one commenter puts it, right on cue:
I'm inclined to agree that violence should get a harder rating, but unless I'm wrong there's still a difference between "natural nudity" and monkey sex. Unless you're a monkey.
