Hillary Clinton Plans Family Entertainment Protection Act

Remove all ads!

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Senator for New York and former US President Bill Clinton's wife, has confirmed her plans to introduce the Family Entertainment Protection Act serving to prevent minors' easy access to computer games containing sexually charged or violent material. Here's a snip:

According to an official statement from Senator Hillary Clinton's office, the Democratic Senator for New York will team with Senator Joe Lieberman to introduce the Family Entertainment Protection Act into U.S. Congress when it reconvenes in two weeks.

Senator Clinton was originally motivated to take action on this issue when it was revealed in July that Rockstar Games had embedded what the statement describes as "illicit sexual content" in the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and this new bill, while preserving the existing ESRB ratings, intends to make it illegal to sell games to minors in contravention of the current guidelines.

“I have developed legislation that will empower parents by making sure their kids can’t walk into a store and buy a video game that has graphic, violent and pornographic content,” said Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton acknowledges that video games are fun and entertaining and does not support any limitations on the production or sale of games to adults. “This is about protecting children,” she commented.

I'd rather learn more before voicing an opinion but I see no valid reason why minors should be sold exceedingly violent or sexually charged games, what good could be achieved by that.

Read the whole thing at Gamasutra.

 

The problem is, who does the judging? Where do you draw the line? The game that comes to mind when reading about ratings is Shadow Hearts: Covenant. It has a rating of 16+ according to the european standards (can't remember their name). It does so, because one of the "warning" icons about content says it has sexually explicit material or references to it. The only scene in the entire game I've seen that could only remotely warrant this was one of the female antagonists waking up in the bed in the bedroom of a male antagonist. There was no nudity, she was covered, didn't even see her get dressed. This apparently warrants the game to get a label of 16+, while you can see almost no (tv-)action flick on tele without a sexscene, and those are never rated 16+, except in the case of extreme violence.

I agree that a rating system is a good thing, and restricting sales on age is good too, but there should be consistency, because right now, to me, it just feels as another part of the anti-gaming crusade.

 

What you mention about Shadow Hearts: Covenant has sexual significance. There is more to sexual content than just nudity or one-on-one action. It's pretty obvious she isn't there because the bed is comfy, right? Another argument is that you weren't able to tell if she was wearing anything and yet you assumed she was naked and not, for instance, wearing a gown. You can argue that sex is a normal part of life, but the abstract knowledge that people have sex is different from telling stories of the characters' sex life. All such bits in games serve to sell the game better. They are "features", not unavoidable elements of the story. Of course, what you say about action flicks over there means that TV isn't rated strictly enough and there's no consistency, though.

 

IMHO: But surely we're looking at the problem the wrong way round, it's all very well saying that we're doing this to protect the child when really we're protecting our own sensibilities. Perhaps we should be looking at removing the need for sex as a selling point IF it is being used and not just perceived to be that way, and the only way to do that is through education and knowledge, the appeal of this would be softened possibly largely removed if sex was perceived as something normal rather than this distorted view that it is dirty and not normal.

It should always be remembered that sex is a prime directive of the human animal and trying to subvert, suppress or otherwise ignore this is not only dangerous but as a survival instinct suicidal. By education and de-stigmatising sex we make it easier to spot deviancy, by passing more and more laws we make it harder to spot those we wish to stop.

As an example the UK has a sex education program and yet we have one of the highest incidents of teenage pregnancies in the world, this is because the education is woeful and the teachers incapable of teaching it properly as a subject because "well it's sex ain't it, I don't want to talk about it".

Unless we are going to cocoon people until they are ready i.e. no literature, no music, no internet, no television, etc etc, they are going to experiment try these things, BUT if we educate reponsibly and sensibly without prejudices there would be less need to try and hide things.

Just my opinion of course, instead of constantly trying to hold back the flood, why don't we look at what's causing the flood and turn it off ?

 

DarkStrider, sex is normal and is not distorted or dirty on itself. But people's sex lives are a different story and having a "rich/varied sexlife" is not normal in the same sense as going to the shop, calling a plumber or having a family dinner.

Secondly, sex is not a need in the same sense as breathing, eating, drinking or removing waste. There are no ill consequences of not having sex, let alone comparable to not eating (30 days if you're tough), not drinking (3 days if you're tough) or not breathing (2 minutes if you're tough, 20 on a champion level).

Thirdly, the biological drive is not to have sex but to reproduce. Reproducing is not a side effect of having sex, which is a prime drive of itself. Wrong. It's sex which is an additional pleasure and incentive accompanying reproduction. This doesn't mean that sex is only for having babies, but let's keep our facts straight.

Additionally, while it would be a good thing to remove some bad ideas about sex (that sex is bad, that it's necessary evil, that it's only for babies, that husbands have the right to demand it at any time, that you need to have a swarm of children to be a moral person, that sex shouldn't be talked about etc etc), destigmatising shouldn't be understood as removing all decorum. Sexual ill conduct should never be destigmatised and placed on par with an ordered one. It must always be understood that pregnancy is a natural consequence, abortion is not the same as removing a mark that makes you ugly and that having sex is not a higher form of kissing or handshake. This is also why I would be careful about what you might be naming prejudices and would like you to elaborate a bit, if you please.

Excellent idea. If people realised... It's surely better finally to deal with the demand rather than supply, as it has been suggested here. There is a reason why people want to sell sex but it comes from the fact that people want to buy it. Of course, you can't buy what isn't for sale, so we can't blame it all on the demand, but removing the demand would necessarily lead to removing the supply.

 

Chev I'm tired and in need of my pit but I will respond and point out how you'vbe taken me out of context and point out where you're wrong imo. Til then ciao.

 

Take care.

 

Indeed, chev, you got me right on the no-consistency part. I also agree with you on the not strict enough of television. But, I somehow don't think we're seeing things the same way when it comes to rating.

The assumption about no dress was easy, she was holding the blanket in front of her while sitting in the bed, and still then, there was less nudity than with any female actor going to some reward show.

The implication she slept with the other character is, I agree, a REFERENCE at sex, not an actual depicturation of it. As such, my point was that it is stupid to make the game 16+ for that sole reason. Besides, parents sleep together too (admittedly not always naked ). I am convinced it is that "sheltering" attitude that is what leads to teen pregnancies and stuff. Believe it or not, but kids know much more about the subject than their parents are willing to admit. That is why most sexual education programs fail, since they usually take on the same point of view of the parents (whether this is due to the parents or the gap between kids and adults is another discussion). The problem is the 10-feet pole attitude towards sex. Hence, for teens, their most reliable source about the subject is friends (other teens) and experimentation, since everybody else who could inform them avoids the subject as if it was the plague.

 

Well, the problem is that while shutting up about sex may lead to sex ed from friends and experimentation, taking sex too casually may lead to teenagers developing wrong ideas, as well. Sex can be something normal mum and dad do and sex can be something normal people do when they want some fun (or feel some hormones). I think the game you mention suggests the latter. I know it isn't easy. After all, at the age of sixteen, a female would already have delivered a child a couple of centuries ago and even some males would probably already be married. But still... And I'm not trying to say a single scene would influence the individual teenager so much; I'm taking it as a precedent, as an example of something bigger. Automatically presuming that teenagers will be faced with many different scenes of that kind and that intensity.

 

Then educate them to take those scenes in context don't outlaw them, you make more of an isssue of them by trying to hide them than if you make them ordinary so their impact is removed.

 

Removing impact from sex scenes removes impact removes impact from sex, making it ordinary. Teenagers seeing sex with random people as something ordinary is not what we want to achieve. I agree that sex is an ordinary way of reproducing, an ordinary part of family life and so on, but it's not an ordinary pastime like playing chess or watching TV with someone.

 

Now you're talking very narrow, and about a level higher than what we were (imo) discussing. But, seeing your reaction on the scene I mentioned only strengthens me in my disbelief in correct ratings. Like I said, the game didn't deserve such a high-age rating. The reason it got it is because of what happened in this discussion. People that rate the games are only presented with a select few "scenes" (if even that much) out of the game. Based on that, they need to judge, without any other setting or background or whatever. This automatically leads to much harsher judgings than if they had actually played the game. This is how it happens, at least according to the site of the european rating, which I checked to see what those funny icons were on the box that made the game 16+.

This is not only an issue in games, and not even only related to sex. I have seen movies that were 16+ of which the only reason I could find why they would be restricted would be that they were judged too "difficult" for youngers. On the other hand I've seen unrestricted movies that I would have judged 16+, if only because of the extreme gore/violence in them.

As long as the judging system doesn't change/improve, I think you could use the ratings when in doubt, but never rely on them to be completely accurate.