Sex in games is bad, age of consent and what?

Remove all ads!

I who am not even religious have this to say: Nothing can ever justify sexual violence.

If a soldier does it, it's first and foremost an act of hatred and/or vengeance, probably misdirected too, and it takes an extremely low person to do that. It can't be justified. Killing can be excused if it's self defense, but rape can't be self defense.

If sexual violence is directed at a person interrogated, it's the same as torture, and that can't be justified either.

Even if one believes the captive in question is a terrorist or has info on terrorists, even if one thinks the end justifies the means and that there is no other way, even if one can in their own mind devoid the captive of any human value, there is still a practical reason not to commit torture. Information gained through such means is unreliable. People will say anything to stop the torture. Through extreme abuse a person can be made to believe something that isn't true, at least temporarily. People can be made to confess things they didn't commit.

 

Soldiers, police forces and security guards are trained in obedience.

Not in moral thinking, ethics, or in individual thinking for that matter.

A soldier is concerned in winning the war. A police is concerned, well to serve and protect...but first and foremost in upholding the law. A security guard is concerned in protecting a property.

It is thought, that in none of these professions it is at all necessary to question the reasons for the actions performed. In fact in most cases it is thought that it is better if no 'why' -questions are asked at all while the task is still in process.

What goes beyond the necessary information in achieving the given task is of no concern. That is to say: what is not explicitly denied by the superior, is allowed for the time being.

For a soldier ends do justify the means. The goal is given, and it is not to be questioned. The goal is to win the war, all means necessary.

This does not mean that I'd think a moral soldier is a paradox. It's more like a game of chance than a result of training. Then again it could be argued that there is no training or education which would make a moral or a good person, or that no profession requires a person to have highly ethical way of thinking. This might be true.

It's just that the goals or ends in war, or in business for that matter, are arguably not for the better of all things. The sole purpose of these professions might very well be the well being of extremely few. This is very hard to justify morally.

Should sex be allowed in computer games? Business is business? Thou shalt not stand in the way of profit? Or is it more a question of taste? It seems that at least some religious fundamentalists do not take lightly anything that offends their refined tastes.

The real question with ethics and moral is, quoting Bentham here, "can it suffer"? So the questions with sex in computer games and other media are "Who suffers from it" and "Does it cause anguish for anyone" and these questions can be answered by science to some extent.

No action that causes suffering is to be taken lightly, in fact it should not be allowed at all. If the display of sexuality in computer games does cause suffering, and to a large extent; to many people, then it should not be allowed.

[ November 20, 2005, 18:52: Message edited by: Ichor ]

 

Here's a perspective that I'm not sure has been brought up here. I would hope that the vast majority of Americans are disgusted by the rape and abuse in Iraq. Perhaps they are thinking that such a free and liberal attitude towards sex (as exemplified in some video games) is a symptom of what is causing the abuse. In other words, some may be saying "what is it about our society that is causing some of these soldiers to behave so disgustingly?" Their answer (in part) seems to be pornography. I agree with them to a point -- the objectification of women and the portrayal of sex as an activity completely disassociated from concepts of responsibility, morality, and even love is not something that contrubutes positively to a society.

 

Possibly, but that doesn't answer the main problem: sex in computer games doesn't hold a candle to what every child can freely see on TV. I would say that this would likely hold for violence as well, at least to the degree that animated violence is not nearly as realistic - and often as brutal - as that seen on TV. I have seen quite a few movies in which protagonist - the supposed "good guy" - tortures his/her enemies for information or just revenge. I don't think I've seen that in a lot of games, you know. In fact, while it has been an option in several cRPGs I have recently played, it was very clearly shown as the evil path.
On top of that, why would sex be the main determinant for the spread of violence, even sexual? People, I would think sex is generally a pleasant experience for most of us, and while the spread of erotic content or even plain porn can be damaging to some aspects of morality, blaming it for spread of violent abuse doesn't make much sense. If you really insist on blaming something, blame the culture of violence. However, the one thing I would blame is fear. Put someone in a situation where their life is in serious danger and give them a carte blanche, that is a recipe for seeing some unpleasant things. It's not surprising that a soldier who for years has seen that everyone would want to kill him would commit a massacre. I have read the account of My Lai troops... Well, a few of them admit that they didn't think they'd make it out alive anyway. These people were scared, for crying out loud, scared enough to consider anything if it improves their odds. Of course, they were embittered too, and that played a role. But the most important thing, I would say, is that they were afraid for their lives and they knew (or thought) that no one would care for what happens to the enemy. Vietnamese, Iraqi...
That doesn't apply directly to the people in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and elsewhere. However, while they are not in any danger themselves, there is a culture of fear nowadays in many countries. We are raised hearing about killings, wars, terrorist attacks, but also more trivial things like poverty and unemployment. Can anyone here claim he or she feels really safe? I can't, and I'm supposedly living in a very safe country. If you are afraid, you seek security, and the clearest way to security is power. And if torturing someone can do one thing for you, it can make you feel powerful.

Sheesh, I should sign up for a psychology course next semester

 

@The Shaman: What you say about My Lai troops does explain the violence but it doesn't explain the sex in it. I don't believe in the "rape isn't sex" crap and I doubt even people who spread that slogan fully believe in it. Rape is always or almost always at least partly about getting laid. Or about getting off on violence.

You are right about evil paths being marked in games but you're talking from the perspective of a roleplayer. This isn't so clear from the point of view of an RTS player (recall just the movies and cutscenes from Warcraft III), let alone the FPS (first person shooter) genre.

However, my point in this thread wasn't so much about the harmfulness of violent or sexual content in games as about the hypocrisy of frowning on such content while having a high ratio of torturers, rapists and other psychos amongst the crusaders of the holy war on terror.

I'm not sure if I can agree with your view on sex and porn, but I do get what you mean and there is a lot of healthy common sense in it. I would just like to point out that associating sex with pleasure is not enough because then pleasure is put ahead, made autonomous and becomes a main driving imperative of its own. That leads to suffering. For that reason, sex shouldn't be divorced from responsibility. From the proper context. And the default context is, after all, a family. Not some college fun or a night away or a bachelor's party. Porn is one of the main factors in divorcing pleasure from its wider context, seeking it for its own sake and forgetting responsibility. Also, no matter how we look at it, we can't go around one basic thing: someone who gets off on violent and possibly (or pretended) non-consensual sex gets off on violent and possibly (or pretended) non-consensual sex. Providing such a person with relevant pornographic material is like putting longs in a fire. But let's stick to the hypocrisy I mentioned, the problem of where such attitudes as from Abu Ghraib or Vietnam (I mean sexual violence, not just violence and not just having consensual sex with natives in exchange for nylon stockings or some such) begin and how they are able to grow in a civilised society. Unless, of course, you have a different interpretation of the problem, which I sense you might.

 

@Chev:
You are right, of course, that pornography does lead to the decoupling of sex and the social responsibilities that normally go with it. I would not argue that it is healthy for society and, past a certain degree, for the family. However, my point is that it is hypocritical to give so much attention to sex when we are bombarded with violence and fear on a daily basis from every media - and, unfortunately, not all of it is the "imagined" violence movies present. "Reality" shows, anyone?
Rape or, to classify it in today's euphemistic terms, "sexual abuse" is what often happens when violence meets the sex drive. For good and bad, the latter is quite widely present, and warfare is no exception. Perhaps even more than anywhere else, it offers a scenario in which a) many normal social taboos are invalidated (particularly the one on violence) and b) it puts one's life on serious risk, so that moral principles and considerations about the future are sidelined (religious feeling and beliefs about an afterlife may counteract this, but religious feeling and warfare are another dangerous mix altogether). I suppose we could say that as civilized as we claim to be, when it comes to a war we aren't that much better than people thousands of years ago. That is why we had all those conventions and agreements - they were, in a way, an attempt to intervene in the chaotic and violent nature of war. However, the war on terror provided justification to dismiss all those ideas, and several senior executives have practically said they don't believe in the Geneva convention, etc. While it has been a tradition for the US to vie for a free hand in its foreign and military affairs, it's not typical to say something like that; human rights used to be an implicit principle in official speech. I don't know to what degree it was this official position that caused the abuses, but I suppose it either caused or developed alongside a culture of... maybe not invulnerability, but at least lack of concern about the detainee. To quote a line from one of my favourite serials, "Evildoers have no rights." Only in real life it gets a bit messy if you try to live to it.
And as for games, I mentioned cRPGs as by definition they are the ones that give the player a conscious choice. In, say, Doom the question "Do I shoot that freak or try to explain to it to leave me alone" is kinda pointless.

 

The worst thing about the sexual violence is the failure of government in punishing these vile bastards. If you give someone 1 year in military prison, you are more or less supporting rape.

Please remember that supporting troops does not mean letting them get away with rape, especially when it involves children.

In regards to GTA vice city, I was surprised at the attitude people had to the 'hidden' sex scenes. Do you not gun down innocent poeple and bring prostitutes into your car for sex? I guess violence is okay for peoples kids, but sex is so wrong?

Oh I get it, as long as you don't get to see any nudity, its okay

 

I wouldn't let my kids play a game with so much graphic violence, either.

Perhaps some people in the States feel that trying to regulate television violence is a lost cause, but because video games are relatively new, they think they can have an influence there.

I don't necessarily buy that, mind you, as sick, sexual violence in video games is not really new -- I remember in the 80s there was an uproar about one game that had the main character raping nuns.

 

There was also an atari game called 'Custer's Revenge' where you can rape a Native American girl. It was banned her, but I really don't think anyone would purchase such a game anyway.

 

It's just a morality issue, that's all.

Somehow people have understood that Sex Is Bad, and that Violence Is Acceptable. Especially when violence is done by a government, or when the violence is embedded in the system.

Violence is just perceived as an appropriate measure to answer to conflicts of almost any magnitude, a way to make wrongs right, whereas sex is a religious matter or a highly intimate and personal matter.

Violence is just plain everyday violence, it happens to everybody. Sex is something glorified, priviledge of the few and the chosen beautiful people -the holy imperative to breed.

Show a severed head and a movie gets a lower pg-rating than another movie with nudity. What's wrong with this picture? Why is sex a stronger signal to noise than violence when a media is concerned? Just whining here; the whole thing's so infuriatingly frustrating.

 

There's nothing wrong with nudity per se. The problem is with the way it's intended and received. A partially nude bathroom scene is not out of place in some kinds of films and neither is a bedroom sex scene sometimes, but it is truly necessary? What kind of effect is the producer trying to achieve? Why does the actor or actress agree to strip naked? These are the real concerns.

Next, you can't deny that rape is a deeper violation than beating up. Let's not place violence and sexual violence on the same level for an equal comparison. The comparison isn't exual because sexual violence already includes violence with also the sexual flavour added. To some extent, I can understand that someone's self-control may fail and he will lash out. That he won't be as kind as supposed to be. But taking sex by force is something different, something more. Sex with violence is more than just violence and more than just porn.

 

Yes, well for me one of the most titillating scenes in recent cinematography was in Shakespeare in Love, when an elbow lenght glove slided slightly revealing a bit of Gwyneth Paltrow's arm. And i have no glove/arm fetish for that matter, or a fetish of any kind.

Personally I dislike pornography because it's so mindbogglingly stupid. Of course there might be exceptions which I wouldn't be aware, since I don't watch the stuff (perused, with large amounts of contempt). But intellectual pornogrhaphy even only as a concept? Hardly possible. Even Anais Nin's or Henry Millers books are simply revolting. Yes they might move some muscle, but they're still a dog-returning-to-his-vomit kind of sickening contents.

As to what's porns relation to rapes in a society, there have been studies, in which the level of aggression against women has been higher after watching violence against women. On this subject, see www.mediascope.org/pubs/ibriefs/vwm.htm

There are also some other sources of info, but that might give some picture of what's going on.
If what we view from the screen of a computer or tv affects us in some manner which is not beneficial to us, or our societies, then there should be long consideration on should this kind of material be allowed in the media.