Rough/Sex?

[Kanami]

Unfortunately this thread isn't about the art of mingling. But about the acceptability of sex and violence in anything from books to video games. A few of us have already discussed "objectification" of women and such in msnoodles's thread. And I'm ranting so I'll get to the point.

Which do you think is more appropriate for people who aren't of legal age, sex scenes or gory violence?

-Sexual intercourse is a natural part of living, and while I acknowledge the eroticism is extreme. Wouldn't it still be better then actively encouraging violent behavior. I don't completely support the "video game violence makes people violent" theory. But I do agree that it's a factor. I mean who doesn't want to go about beating the living daylights out of the people you don't like bad guys? You might argue that you're not stupid enough to confuse reality with fiction, but others you must admit aren't.

-Rape and Murder are often used as examples of the worst type of crime one can commit, but which would you consider worse? Finding out your best friend is a serial rapist, or finding out they enjoy killing people in their spare time?

-In video games, it's become a common spectacle for game screen to be spattered with blood, heads rolling and all the other colorful fireworks of the sort. However "Sex" is portrayed indirectly through "implications" otherwise only via the lewdly clothed slut heroine&friends.

We've got some parents complaining about violence in video games, but imagine what would happen if their was a sex scene? Enough outrage to flip the world upside down IMO.

~~~

In short, society portrays violence to be more acceptable then sex. Why is this, and do you agree with it?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Kanami

[eclipse]

You speak as if the United States is the center of the world. It's not. Go do some research regarding Manhunt's reception in other countries (or any other violent game); you'll see quite the difference.

[Zkirsche]

Which do you think is more appropriate for people who aren't of legal age, sex scenes or gory violence?

Gory Violence, as they are less likely to be affected by it. (At least, I was never affected).

Wouldn't it still be better then actively encouraging violent behavior.

Video games don't actively encourage violent behaviour. They don't tell people to go out murdering people in the streets IRL.

Finding out your best friend is a serial rapist, or finding out they enjoy killing people in their spare time?

Finding out they're a serial killer is much, much worse than finding out they're a serial rapist IMO.

In short, society portrays violence to be more acceptable then sex. Why is this, and do you agree with it?

Violence is more acceptable in a fantasy realm in a video game. Because its not real. Showing explicit sex, regardless of whether its in a video game or a computer screen, is still porn and sexually inticing for some individuals.

As an IRL example, me and all my friends play video games talk far more about the buff girl sitting in front of us in maths than we do about mindlessly killing people.

[Kanami]

You speak as if the United States is the center of the world. It's not. Go do some research regarding Manhunt's reception in other countries (or any other violent game); you'll see quite the difference.

United States? I don't actually recall (and still don't recognize) the topics relevance to the united states. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

Gory Violence, as they are less likely to be affected by it. (At least, I was never affected).

~

Video games don't actively encourage violent behaviour. They don't tell people to go out murdering people in the streets IRL.

What do you mean by affected "less?" I'm not sure I can agree with the first part since watching pornography isn't anymore likely to make someone go out and have sex, then a shooting game causing violence.

The second I admit my phrasing was poor, however it doesn't portray the act as "wrong." And "in-game" it's encouraging us to be violent, to kill enemy soldiers/monsters. Smoking is a good example here. Media didn't neccessary say, "here's a cigarette, buy it!" (excludes ads). But through movie scenes it did give off a positive image.

Finding out they're a serial killer is much, much worse than finding out they're a serial rapist IMO.

So in terms of RL society does that make violence a more heinous act? Or is murder simply pushing "violence" too far? If so, how about wheel chair bound, or permanently incapacitated?

Violence is more acceptable in a fantasy realm in a video game. Because its not real. Showing explicit sex, regardless of whether its in a video game or a computer screen, is still porn and sexually inticing for some individuals.

But violence is also arousing (not sexual) to some individuals? I know my younger sister takes awhile to come out her video games after she's done playing. That's not to say she's violent, but the language she uses after playing a game she enjoys changes, her personality becomes more social and confrontational. So it happens to both IMO.

[Anouleth]

United States? I don't actually recall (and still don't recognize) the topics relevance to the united states. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

In the US, there was a huge outcry over sex scenes in Grand Theft Auto, already a very violent game, so sex is presumably not as acceptable as violence. In other western countries, violence is not as acceptable as sex. Hence why Manhunt was banned in some of them.

[Kanami]

In the US, there was a huge outcry over sex scenes in Grand Theft Auto, already a very violent game, so sex is presumably not as acceptable as violence. In other western countries, violence is not as acceptable as sex. Hence why Manhunt was banned in some of them.

Ah, okay. Not a fan of guns or cars so GTA has never really appealed to me. Nor do I live in the US, Hence I wasn't aware of the "outcry".

To be a bitch :P

@Eclipse

"You speak as if the United States is the center of the world. It's not." I wasn't relating to the event Anouleth mentioned. And you shouldn't assume every comment made is related to your precious US. :P

While I'm off topic though, wasn't GTA released awhile ago? Live several years ago? Manhunt too seems to be a pretty old game. (6 years?) And I'm not sure why you'd immediately connect this topic with something that happened that long ago. Guess it just was big enough to cause a memorable impression :/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@Anouleth

Thanks for clearing that up.

I can't speak about all western countries but the ones I'm aware of, and have contact with (via people who I talk to online) seem to still think violence>sex. Could you point to which countries, or even which events indicate a higher level of tolerance for sex then violence?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~Manhunt~

From what I've gathered, this is only showing that extreme amounts of realistic violence is rejected by game critics/society. And it'd be on par with something like showing a brutal rape scene. It does show that violence has it's limits (in terms of acceptability) It has little relevance to the topic of sex vs violence.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Kanami

[El Rey León]

United States? I don't actually recall (and still don't recognize) the topics relevance to the united states. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

It's always been a long-standing belief that Americans find sex worse then violence in their media whereas Europeans find violence worse then sex in their media.

[Junkhead]

I think the depiction of gore is much better than letting children see sexual activity in their video games. Early development of sexual knowledge hasn't done any good, as proven by young people these days.

[The Nomadic Trooper]

I think the depiction of gore is much better than letting children see sexual activity in their video games. Early development of sexual knowledge hasn't done any good, as proven by young people these days.

You should probably do your research.

There have been numerous Psychological studies throughout the years (none made real public because it's nothing "new") but it states that it's BETTER for children to have some sexual knowledge at younger ages

When kids start asking questions about their "parts" or about sex in general it's better to answer truthfully & not use terms like "pee-pee" or "down there" as it will cause confusion later on whereas telling them "You're a boy, you have a penis" or vice-versa for girls is better for their mind

Kids that commit more sexual deeds as a teenager usually is because their questions were never adequately answered by their parents so that they fully understand not only what their answers are, but the magnitude of whatever it is they are asking about so they are forced to rely on media and their friend's knowledge, which depicts mostly everything sexual as "good" so they see no issue in it

So in reality, it's the parent's fault for not educating their children about sex that they commit sexual acts at an "inappropriate" age. (whatever age you decide to be "inappropriate")

-----

Back on topic, though

I believe that, in general, Violence is indeed more "acceptable" than sex in the United States (see above for some reasoning) because Violence is straightforward. The repercussions are straightforward and there is no good/bad line with it

It's just "bad" according to the general society.

Sex, however, has standards of when it is Ok depending on factors like age, who your having it with, the sex of that person, the race of that person in some situations, and the emotional attachment.

Since sex is a lot more complicated than violence, using it in things like Video Games like a straight-up sex scene would then require the kids who play the game to understand the reason it might be Ok in that situation

Which would then require the game makers to be responsible in their depiction of the sexual act, otherwise they will get complaints up the ass for years to come if they use it wrongly

Edited October 23, 2010 by The Nomadic Trooper

[Junkhead]

You should probably do your research.

There have been numerous Psychological studies throughout the years (none made real public because it's nothing "new") but it states that it's BETTER for children to have some sexual knowledge at younger ages.

I did consider this when I made my statement.

Kids that commit more sexual deeds as a teenager usually is because their questions were never adequately answered by their parents so that they fully understand not only what their answers are, but the magnitude of whatever it is they are asking about so they are forced to rely on media and their friend's knowledge, which depicts mostly everything sexual as "good" so they see no issue in it

So in reality, it's the parent's fault for not educating their children about sex that they commit sexual acts at an "inappropriate" age. (whatever age you decide to be "inappropriate")

I don't know if you realized, but teenagers that are sexually aware are more prone to end up being reckless because of their sexuality that drives over them. A person that doesn't know this wouldn't go out a do it out of instinct. I mean, I'm not saying kids should be as unenlightened as the example you provided me with, but just enough as to not turn out reckless. Or maybe we just have a different view on what would be considered "bad". As an old-fashioned person, I am just against sexual activity in general. =P

But I agree on your last statement.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Soul

[The Nomadic Trooper]

I don't know if you realized, but teenagers that are sexually aware are more prone to end up being reckless because of their sexuality that drives over them. A person that doesn't know this wouldn't go out a do it out of instinct. I mean, I'm not saying kids should be as unenlightened as the example you provided me with, but just enough as to not turn out reckless. Or maybe we just have a different view on what would be considered "bad". As an old-fashioned person, I am just against sexual activity in general. =P

But I agree on your last statement.

Well, that would rely on the kids & their level of responsibility, which then wouldn't matter what knowledge they had but how prone they were to try things that are either unknown to them or that they have vague ideas of.

I didn't mean to sit them down & tell them in detail the various things they can do or should do if they are in that situation to make it more enticing, but enough knowledge so that they are aware of what they might end up doing & that it isn't a simple "This is something that feels good" deal. It's definitely not something I take lightly either, even though I'm only 16 I still realize the emotion complications that can come with it, especially with this age group

Edited October 23, 2010 by The Nomadic Trooper

[Zkirsche]

What do you mean by affected "less?" I'm not sure I can agree with the first part since watching pornography isn't anymore likely to make someone go out and have sex, then a shooting game causing violence.

Sorry, bad wording on my part, but which is more disturbing to a young kid: sex or violence? With various programs with violence in it (liek power rangers and TMNT), kids are more familiar with it that sex.

The second I admit my phrasing was poor, however it doesn't portray the act as "wrong." And "in-game" it's encouraging us to be violent, to kill enemy soldiers/monsters. Smoking is a good example here. Media didn't neccessary say, "here's a cigarette, buy it!" (excludes ads). But through movie scenes it did give off a positive image.

In many popular games, such as COD:MW2 and Assasins creed, killing innocents actually IS negatively portrayed. In GTA you get punished for it/chased after, etc.

So in terms of RL society does that make violence a more heinous act? Or is murder simply pushing "violence" too far? If so, how about wheel chair bound, or permanently incapacitated?

Murder is pushing violence "too far" - there's a difference between beating someone up and killing them.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I've always thought it was a complete joke that I could watch a movie where people killed each other when I was 13, but I wasn't allowed to watch a video about two consenting adults having sex.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANYWAY, I don't mind sex or violence in fiction at all. I mean, if you're depending on it, it might say something about the game, but it's certainly not inherently wrong.

[eclipse]

To be a bitch :P

@Eclipse

"You speak as if the United States is the center of the world. It's not." I wasn't relating to the event Anouleth mentioned. And you shouldn't assume every comment made is related to your precious US. :P

Saying that violence is more acceptable than sex IS a US-type statement. . .but seeing as you come from the land of animated porn. . . :P

[Kanami]

It's always been a long-standing belief that Americans find sex worse then violence in their media whereas Europeans find violence worse then sex in their media.

Why the difference then? It's easy to just pass it off as "differences" between two regions, but it's not really something you can pass off as a culture difference.

I believe that, in general, Violence is indeed more "acceptable" than sex in the United States (see above for some reasoning) because Violence is straightforward. The repercussions are straightforward and there is no good/bad line with it

It's just "bad" according to the general society.

Sex, however, has standards of when it is Ok depending on factors like age, who your having it with, the sex of that person, the race of that person in some situations, and the emotional attachment.

Since sex is a lot more complicated than violence, using it in things like Video Games like a straight-up sex scene would then require the kids who play the game to understand the reason it might be Ok in that situation

Probably the closest thing to an answer I'll get. I hadn't considered the judgments people would make in relation to the gaming acts, not in terms of right and wrong at least anyway. It's a good answer, but it doesn't really encompass the older players then. It's not like there'll be "Elmo and sex friends" or anything like that. I'd like to think that games like GTA aren't played by 6 and eight year olds. But many games are classified these days under 15+/17+/18+ (depending on country), and if I extend the question, that doesn't answer the question for older teenagers. I'll use the US in my next question (apologies if I get any facts completely wrong).

The general age for consent in the US for sex averages around the age of 16. So in a NC-17 game, the purchaser would be able to actually commit the act, and by then they should be able to judge when and where it's right.

Sorry, bad wording on my part, but which is more disturbing to a young kid: sex or violence? With various programs with violence in it (liek power rangers and TMNT), kids are more familiar with it that sex.

Sorry, bad wording on my part, but which is more disturbing to a young kid: sex or violence? With various programs with violence in it (liek power rangers and TMNT), kids are more familiar with it that sex.

~

In many popular games, such as COD:MW2 and Assasins creed, killing innocents actually IS negatively portrayed. In GTA you get punished for it/chased after, etc.

Depends on the violence, Using the "horror" genre, I've known kids to respond greater to the possibility that a monster is out lurking outside their window. While they usually giggle, or go "Eww" at the sight of a not so graphic sex scene. I also think that there's a difference between slicing someone with a sword which somehow knocks people back and kills them without gore. In comparison to a blob spattering. In terms of mental construction: violence, sex and horror can leave a mark on a child so I don't agree with one being worse then the other in this specific example. Though I do agree we've (not sure about Europe considering the comments) become more accustomed to seeing violence then sex.

As for "Negatively portrayed" I'm not sure if that's the case either. All of us, without exception have a day or two in the year where we just feel a bit "evil." And fleeing from authorities and attacking civilians has it's appeal. I saw my sister play Oblivion(?) a few years ago, and she occassionally took delight in setting some random village NPC's on fire, or zapping them with some other magic. I haven't played GTA, but I'm under the impression that if the option is there, it appeals to the audience at times. I certainly don't think the ability to attack civilians would be cited as a "con" for the game.

Murder is pushing violence "too far" - there's a difference between beating someone up and killing them.

Realistically? Yes, I agree there's a big difference between the two. But violence (especially in video games) results in the death of the enemy. And personally (in games) I'd rather see a dead man, then a swollen faced bloody figure groaning in pain.

It's a matter of how far each goes. Using the "Titanic" sex scene, for example isn't exactly "explicit sex." And I fail to see how it's less appropriate then shooting someone and having blood spatter all over the screen and (in-game) surroundings.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Kanami

[мпд]

Games aren't reality, anyone who doesn't understand the difference between real life and some violent video game is an idiot.

[Dark Sage]

Frankly I'd rather see bare boobs than someone's head getting blown off. What's worse, giving a person nightmares or disgust for awhile or being a little aroused?

[Esau of Isaac]

It's because violence is far more acceptable than nudity in videogames. It's silly, because sexuality is generally all gravy until the moment you show the female nipple, at which point it's utterly off-limits.

It's a joke.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'd rather not watch a porno for my game. I'd also rather not have a game where you're forced to brutally kill people. Monsters, fantasy creatures, and humorous/ridiculous games I have no problems with.

EDIT: People who try to emulate a game in real life are stupid.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[BrightBow]

Any country has an entirely different opinion on what is suitable for children and teens, so I know there isn't an ultimate solution for it that's easy to find and as a result I'm not putting that much weight on my own opinion when judging the priorities of child protection in certain countries.

But I simply don't like it if it ultimately comes down to censor media intended for adults. In the United States this would be the case because publishers can't simply aim for an "AO" rating because nobody puts these games in stock. As a result they have to make their games so that teenagers can buy them, whether they think that such a young audience should play these games or not.

[Zanarkin]

Games aren't reality, anyone who doesn't understand the difference between real life and some violent video game is an idiot.

Thats not the thing though, parents feared the games might influence the child in a negative way. And in case you haven't noticed a lot of the people in this world are idiots that need to be told what's cool and what's not, because they can't think for themselves. I suppose this is where the thing about violence comes into play in making video games controversial.

[Kanami]

Games aren't reality, anyone who doesn't understand the difference between real life and some violent video game is an idiot.

You're either missing the point or referring to something different.

There's a distinct difference between being influenced by a game, and actually confusing it with reality. You're statement is true in that if "you" blur the lines between the two and try to emulate "in-game" material, externally into the real world. "Idiot" fits pretty well.

However influence doesn't necessarily mean if you play shooting games, you'll pick up a gun and start shooting people. It may however mean you'll be more desensitized to the idea of harming another. The "harm" is negative, but if you try to look at positive influences they're abundant. For example Koei's Dynasty Warriors Eww Dynasty Warriors) pulled a lot western gamers to become interested in Chinese literature. Using an example more closer to Serenes though, a lot of people here seem to think that an actual "weapon triangle" exists. Using an extreme example, I studied with a kid who's doing his second year of law at college. And according to him, he wasn't interested in Law at all until playing the Phoenix Wright games :/ I admit (and he is too) that getting into law via Phoenix Wright is a bit sad, but he's no means an idiot is he?

It's the the main point with the "violent video games create violent people" theory I'm against. It "won't" create a more violent person. But it may influence their behavior and life in a small or major aspect. I can understand why "gamers" would get all defensive in regards to this, but it's not really any different from a movie, novel, or even the people you hang out with. Using parents as an example, having a serial rapist for a father, doesn't mean the son will turn into a serial rapist, but if the son wasn't disgusted by the act it is more likely to make him follow in his fathers footsteps.

[Meteor]

Which do you think is more appropriate for people who aren't of legal age, sex scenes or gory violence?

Sex, because it isn't usually a ruthless inhuman activity. Why people have such a problem with it baffles me.