Not sure if this has been discussed before

[Belle5]

Just back from a 16 day trip with my kids. We flew back late last night. I encountered a problem with others watching movies on laptops within full view of my kids. We are careful to guard against movies with sex-scenes/nudity. There was a young man sitting near us watching a movie that was making me cringe. The screen was in few view of my younger sons. We did some seat rearranging and used our bodies to block the views as best we could (DH and me).

Is there no protection against this sort of thing? I seriously thought that if this is going to be what we have to put up with I don't want to fly with my kids.

Are there any rules about this?

 

[jaminmd]

I would have politely asked him to consider adjusting his laptop or changing his movie. Sometimes people don't think.

Had he responded rudely, I'd have asked the flight attendant to intervene if it was that offensive.

 

[bavaria]

There are often sex scenes or nudity in the films shown on the larger displays as well as the personal displays. And even in Canada there is sex or nudity on television during the 'prime time' hours, let alone what is shown on television in Europe. I believe that this is a uniquely American view point at the risk of being slammed for saying so. (The debate arises sometimes on Flyertalk and it is quite interesting to see the viewpoints based on nationality)

That is the risk you run travelling with other people. If it was porn, then I could see asking an FA. Otherwise, a polite request may have been okay. If you were offended I would question how much you could really see on my screen and how long the scene would last, and may turn it if possible. But if it was the airline's movie on their personal viewing system, I don't know if I would stop watching the movie entirely.

But the flipside is the many parents who refuse to use headphones for their children and are content to permit other passengers to be disturbed by the noise during a flight.

Who has more rights - you being offended by me watching something like for instance The Thomas Crown Affair, or me being annoyed by 4 hours of Elmo?


Edited to add: I am a pacifist and don't like violence in films. Even CSI Miami turns me off. But the violence is quite often brutal on the overhead screen. I choose to close my eyes or watch something less violent on my personal device.

 

[ADisneyQueen]

I think I would have said something to the flight attendent too. I wouldn't want my kids exposed to that either. I'm sure they wouldn't allow him to sit and read a Playboy mag, so what is the difference? I would think you would not be allowed to do this.

 

[crashbb]

No, there are no rules about what someone is watching on their personal laptop (provided they aren't viewing something illegal).

To be honest, I've never sat such that I was forced to watch someone else's laptop - looking at someone's laptop generally involved doing so deliberately.

 

[bavaria]

I mentioned the particular movie above because of an 'incident' on a train going from Germany to Belgium recently.

A middle-aged American couple was seated across the aisle from me in First; I was on the side with only one seat. They knew that I spoke English because I helped them with wi-fi after sitting listening to them try and figure it out for 15 minutes.

They spent the entire train trip loudly having a conversation in English peppered with vulgar language - very vulgar language.

Yet they turned and asked me to turn off my movie (Thomas Crown Affair) during a very short sex scene. My screen was already turned towards me, but they could apparently see the reflection in the window. By the time they finished whinging the scene was over.

I was offended by their endless use of inappropriate language, but I didn't say anything. My offense was my issue, not theirs. I chose to use headphones to turn them off; they could have chosen to look away from the window reflection or close their eyes.

 

[goofy4tink]

I can't imagine how anyone could be watching a movie, on a lap-top, in full view of your kids. Maybe if there were three of you in one row and two in the other row, with the 'movie watcher' in the third seat. Otherwise, I just don't see how it would be in full view.
If the movie watcher was across the aisle, then I guess the boys may have been able to see the screen. But I can't imagine it was that great a view. Unless the movie being watched was pornographic, I don't think it's all that big a deal. You can't expect the majority of people to change their behaviour to match yours, or your wishes..unless it is something illegal. They are perfectly within their rights to watch a PG-13 movie, and those movies have more than a little nudity/sex scenes in them. You don't have to get an R rated film to see that.

So....while I'm sorry you felt distressed by your kids seeing some bits of a movie that someone else was watching, there isn't much you can do about it. If it was that late at night, maybe the kids could have fallen asleep or read a book?

Perhaps your issue was while you were still at the gate area. I have seen lots of others watching movies and such then as well. If that was the case, I guess seat moving would be the only option. But again, if the movie wasn't pornographic, there's not much anyone can do.

 

[Brian Noble]

I believe that this is a uniquely American view point

There is some truth to this---however there are some other countries that would be even more conservative with regard to sexuality than we. That said, presumably this is a flight between two US cities, on a US-flagged carrier, where the cultural norms of other countries are less relevant than they might otherwise be.

Of course, there is a broad spectrum of what is and is not acceptable even here---it's entirely possible that I have conversations with my kids about sexuality that many others in the states would not want their kids to overhear. (In fact, I'm quite certain of it.) I think moving kids out of aisle/away from obvious views is about the best you can do---a polite request is also okay, but I personally probably would just make do.

I've never sat such that I was forced to watch someone else's laptop - looking at someone's laptop generally involved doing so deliberately.

This might be over-simplifying things. I think we've all been on a plane, perhaps after we've exhausted our reading material, when our eye naturally wanders from time to time to the movies that those near us are watching. It's not a moral failing so much as your brain saying, "oh, look! Moving pictures!"

 

[bavaria]

There is some truth to this---however there are some other countries that would be even more conservative with regard to sexuality than we. That said, presumably this is a flight between two US cities, on a US-flagged carrier, where the cultural norms of other countries are less relevant than they might otherwise be.

We don't even know what offended the OP - there are many ranges of sex and nudity. I have American (adult) colleagues who were offended by frontal nudity in a non-sexual context that they have seen on television in Canada.

The reality is that we all have our own boundaries, but we cannot expect everyone to share the same ones. Only when something moves into the realm of generally accepted offense in a truly public realm should we expect 'someone' to intervene. Nudity or sex on a personal viewer doesn't fall into that category as one can choose to look away. Porn would fall into the offsense category, I think. And the airlines in America do show films with violence, sex, and nudity so they don't apparently have an issue with it.

 

[crashbb]

This might be over-simplifying things. I think we've all been on a plane, perhaps after we've exhausted our reading material, when our eye naturally wanders from time to time to the movies that those near us are watching. It's not a moral failing so much as your brain saying, "oh, look! Moving pictures!"

Fair enough. Perhaps what I should have said was - "I have never been in a situation where I am forced to watch someone's laptop. I have always been able to easily avoid watching something I didn't want to watch - wandering eyes not withstanding."

 

[bavaria]

Here is the May movie list for UA

http://www.united.com/movie/monthdisplay/0,6753,5,00.html

These are shown on the overhead screen. Several note 'view discretion advised'. I have not seen any of these films but I imagine that several contain some nudity, or sex, or violence, or pithy language.

Here is the personal player list

http://www.united.com/movie/listingpage/0,6752,11_5,00.html

More than one is rated R.

Most films are unedited; customer discretion is
advised

 

[Brian Noble]

Movies shown on "common" screens on domestic flights here in the US (when you can still find them) are very often edited for content down to something that would probably correspond loosely to the US PG rating. Movies on personal players are generally unedited, but the viewing angle on those is usually so poor that you'd have to lean into your companion's seat to see it properly.

Only when something moves into the realm of generally accepted offense in a truly public realm should we expect 'someone' to intervene.

Oh, I agree entirely. But, you cannot use the standards of Canada or the EU to argue what should or should not be generally accepted in the States. Sorry, but not even a bribe of good chocolate will let you get away with that one! For example, I would expect that most local jurisdictions in the US would consider images of a topless woman to be generally unnacceptable in a truly public place, whereas this would not be the case in many other Western countries. In the context of someone with a laptop or personal video player, there is a bit more latitude that you'd expect, but only a bit.

Edited to add: For evidence, you only need consider Janet Jackson's 2004 wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl.

Amusingly, today's NYTimes has an article on Air New Zealand's "Nothing To Hide" branding campaign---where a commercial and the in flight safety video were both shot with actors wearing nothing but body paint and a few carefully placed props. Not even the maverick airline that is Southwest would attempt that in the states (though I found the ad and safety video to be quite innocuous.)

 

[bavaria]

Oh, I agree entirely. But, you cannot use the standards of Canada or the EU to argue what should or should not be generally accepted in the States. Sorry, but not even a bribe of good chocolate will let you get away with that one! For example, I would expect that most local jurisdictions in the US would consider images of a topless woman to be generally unnacceptable in a truly public place, whereas this would not be the case in many other Western countries. In the context of someone with a laptop or personal video player, there is a bit more latitude that you'd expect, but only a bit.

But again, we don't know WHAT offended the OP. The amount of violence shown in America can be offensive to other countries.

I was actually thinking of two other advertising campaigns which I think are more titillating than anything I have seen in a Playboy (which by the way is often viewed on American carriers, in my experience - FAs don't want confrontation and will pick their battles wisely)

One is the French Orangina campaign, which is plastered over metro stations, magazines, store fronts, etc. The other is a German condom campaign.

While they may make use of animals and fruit, I can assure you that those offended by nudity or sexual poses may want to avoid those countries entirely!

 

[Brian Noble]

I recall the Orangina campaign. Is the other one the balloon animals? That one was cute.

I have no opinion on the OP's specific situation, because I don't know what exactly was cringe-worthy. I'm just calling you on using CAN and EU standards as the basis of your argument in this case. In short, this time, it really is all about you.

Edited to add: I just re-watched the Orangina ad. I've seen worse on MTV in the states.

 

[bavaria]

And perhaps in a moment of irony (since this is all about me ) on LH in C class long haul they most often switch on classic Mickey Maus cartoons during second meal service - no idea why, but I find it amusing to see all these serious business men in suits enjoying a Disney cartoon for a change in place of sex or nudity!

 

[Brian Noble]

I don't suppose you've ever seen the video taken of some DLP characters backstage doing rather naughty things...combine your sex and your Mickey all in the same clip!

 

[bavaria]

Seen it....

SHH, Mom's going to come over in a minute and shut this down if we go any further!!

 

[Lewisc]

You might have politely asked if the passenger could slightly change the angle of his laptop. That might have been enough to obscure your kids view. You didn't mention the movie. You really don't have the right to object to any mainstream movie, even if it's R rated.

Maybe the poster with the issue with the Thomas Crown Affair should have removed the movie and replaced it with a movie from her porn collection.

I guess I can sort of understand an issue a parent with sheltered child might have but there isn't any excuse for an adult not just looking the other way. I don't like looking at some of the violence in the movies kids watch but I wouldn't think of asking a passenger to stop watching Saw (whatever number). I'd just continue reading my SkyMall magazine, wondering if anyone ever buys any of the junk.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

American - born and raised here in the US: I think the sheltering and hiding is half the problem of the culture in the United States. Hiding things just increases curiousity. Granted, watching a pornographic movie in front of a 7 year old is wrong, but watching a PG-13 movie should be of no concern.

Here's an example, lets say I watch National Lampoon's Vacation or National Lampoon's European Vacation on the plane. It's overall a funny, lighthearted movie, but there are scenes in both that have a "sexual" tone to them. Should I be prohibited from watching them?

Additionally, in NY, it's perfectly legal for women to go topless at public beaches and trust me, when the law was enacted it generated a lot of concern, but it rarely comes up as conversation now.

 

[goofy4tink]

Seen it....

SHH, Mom's going to come over in a minute and shut this down if we go any further!!

American - born and raised here in the US: I think the sheltering and hiding is half the problem of the culture in the United States. Hiding things just increases curiousity. Granted, watching a pornographic movie in front of a 7 year old is wrong, but watching a PG-13 movie should be of no concern.

Here's an example, lets say I watch National Lampoon's Vacation or National Lampoon's European Vacation on the plane. It's overall a funny, lighthearted movie, but there are scenes in both that have a "sexual" tone to them. Should I be prohibited from watching them?

Additionally, in NY, it's perfectly legal for women to go topless at public beaches and trust me, when the law was enacted it generated a lot of concern, but it rarely comes up as conversation now.

Hmmmm, way back when my ds was about 10 or so, we would always find the Caddyshack video tape at the exact same spot..no matter where we stopped it. It was where Lacy Underalls was in her, ah, lacy underalls!!! Seems my ds had a real soft spot for that particular scene!!!