Counter-Point: Sex is Good For the Body, But What About Games?

[robwright]

It's no longer uncommon to see sex scenes and nudity in video and computer games. But is the "adult" content a positive for games, or is it simply turning games into lowbrow entertainment and virtual porn? Editors Rob Wright and Aaron McKenna debate the issue.

 

[celewign]

Hasn't our society declined enough? Do we really need to see glistening bodies in ALL our forms of entertainment? Is it really wrong to keep some things (such as sex) sacred and hidden? Is sex something that should be broadcast through this medium, i.e: video games, most of which are violent?

I say, YES, NO, NO, and especially NO.
-cm

 

[ninjaquick]

I can see how sexual innuendos or themes might add to a plot, but explicit visualizations of it would simply ruin the whole meaning of a serious game. If it doesn't change the story then don't use it. Its not necessary.

 

[celewign]

Ya.
-cm

 

[samir_nayanajaad]

I'm with Aaron on this one.

Sure sex might be able to make a beater story or characters but its just going to end up getting a bunch of republicans panties in a bunch. Then they overreact and boom you ended up loosing ground instead of gaining ground for artistic freedom or whatever you would want to call it.

Ive seen many mainstream movies with sex in them and I can think of only one off the cuff that the sexual content made the move better and in fact would have been a detriment to the movie if it were not included, and thats American Beauty.

It would be great if movies and games could be that good all the time, but lets face it 99% of them will not turn out like that.

 

[gm0n3y]

All I have to say is that video game studios should be able to put whatever they want into a game. If they want bestiality, incest, and the like, go ahead and put it in. They won't sell very many games, but they can try if they want.

As long as the games are rated appropriately and have a list of the offensive material on the box, then why not allow it? If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT! I don't understand how people can say, 'Because I don't like something, nobody else should be allowed to view it.'

If you think that people don't want sex in video games, then the games with sex won't sell and companies won't make them. Give people what they want to see, no matter what it is. Let the consumers decide what they want, not the media or the government.

Perhaps game designers will start putting in an option to turn off the sex scenes (like turning on and off gore in some games) and then everybody will be happy. Sex for those that want to see it and none for those that don't.

 

[samir_nayanajaad]

All I have to say is that video game studios should be able to put whatever they want into a game. If they want bestiality, incest, and the like, go ahead and put it in. They won't sell very many games, but they can try if they want.

As long as the games are rated appropriately and have a list of the offensive material on the box, then why not allow it? If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT! I don't understand how people can say, 'Because I don't like something, nobody else should be allowed to view it.'

If you think that people don't want sex in video games, then the games with sex won't sell and companies won't make them. Give people what they want to see, no matter what it is. Let the consumers decide what they want, not the media or the government.

Perhaps game designers will start putting in an option to turn off the sex scenes (like turning on and off gore in some games) and then everybody will be happy. Sex for those that want to see it and none for those that don't.

Ok so we should let wal mart sell cheap crack as long as they slap a warning on it? I don't think so, even though I'm sure there are plenty of customers out there that would like to be able to go to sams club and buy a couple of kilos of crack at a time.

I make my point with a rather extreme situation but you see the problem with just letting people buy what they want. There will always be a debate on where to draw the line, maybe someday the line will move, but right now I don't think people would accept it.

 

[celewign]

A certain amount of freedom must be sacrificed to keep us from living in anarchy. Do not confuse freedom of expression with anarchy. I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "No amount of freedom of speech would excuse a person who shouted fire in a packed theater."
-cm

 

[VBDude]

I agree with celewign. Sex, especially the act, has no place in interactive fiction. Throwing in sex doesn't make games any more artful. In fact, sex ruins most forms of art; it doesn't complete them.

"Look, I'm grown up. Now I can watch people mating and it's no longer bad." You probably thought the same thing while telling dirty jokes on the play ground. So why would you think adding a few years would make it any less childish? Just because there's no one to scold you for it doesn't mean it's okay. You're an adult, grow up.

What does sex represent? When it's in the right setting, with the right people, it's the ultimate expression of love. It's a partnership, an agreement, a commitment. It's no wonder it has been historically restricted to the confines of marriage.

Conversely, in modern media, it's portrayed as the end goal in a date, a measure of success, an indulgence, or worse, an everyday part of social interaction.

Why embrace an obvious fault in society? Most adults can't handle sex properly. What makes you think it should be in a medium so accessible to youth? Despite the best efforts of the ESRB and concerned retailers, kids have stupid parents who just don't care. Let’s not add to that population.

I can't believe this is post 700.

 

[gm0n3y]

Given an adult audience, visual content in a game can not harm people. The only negative effect that can be done is if the person doesn't like the game because of the explicit content. This would be solved by rating the game and providing a description of the 'mature' content.

As for your crack comment, I do think that it should be freely sold to adults (and if Walmart wants to, they should be allowed). At least kids would have a harder time getting it and organized crime / drug lords would be hurt. But this is a completely different debate (that I don't want to get into and is irrelevant to this topic).

@ celewign

How is somebody watching people have sex in a video game going to cause anarchy? In fact how is anything in a video game going to cause anarchy? You have freedom of speech and also the right not to have to listen. Don't like the content? Don't listen/watch the content.

Why are you guys turning this into a freedom vs security discussion? Watching (virtual) people have sex has nothing to do with security or people being harmed in any way.

 

[mgc8]

If you think that people don't want sex in video games, then the games with sex won't sell and companies won't make them. Give people what they want to see, no matter what it is. Let the consumers decide what they want, not the media or the government.

A rare display of reason on an unfortunately intensely-irrational debate. Bravo!

Ok so we should let wal mart sell cheap crack as long as they slap a warning on it? I don't think so, even though I'm sure there are plenty of customers out there that would like to be able to go to sams club and buy a couple of kilos of crack at a time.

Even if you take into consideration the (preposterous) idea that you know better than those people what is good for them, how is the consumption of a potentially dangerous chemical in any ways similar to having sex in a video-game?! Would sex in video games present a danger to the people playing that game? Could they become addicted to it? Is there any risk that those people would run around trying to "practice" what is done in the game in real life? Come on, get serious!

A certain amount of freedom must be sacrificed to keep us from living in anarchy. Do not confuse freedom of expression with anarchy. I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "No amount of freedom of speech would excuse a person who shouted fire in a packed theater."

This thing has been misquoted so much that it became almost a mantra for anti-freedom-of-speech advocates. I personally find it nauseating, mostly because:

a) the actual quote is this (note the subtle differences):
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
b) It was made in regards to an anti-drafting campaign around WW1, yet somehow people force it to apply in any censorship case ad nauseam
c) Oliver Wendell Holmes's decision was overturned at a later date, and until now (fortunately) speech can only be banned "when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action".

Returning to the case in point: in what conceivable way does a game portraying sexual themes (be it "hot coffee", "virtual valerie" or any other) incite imminent lawless action? On what grounds do you decide that such type of "speech" is "dangerous" and it should be banned?!

Personally I believe prudes should just get a life. A free society has nothing to gain and everything to lose from censorship, especially when it is applied indiscriminately simply because some parts of the population would feel "offended". Grow up and get over it!

To finish I'd quote a similarly over-used line, just for the sake of balance:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Food for thought.

 

[mgc8]

As for your crack comment, I do think that it should be freely sold to adults (and if Walmart wants to, they should be allowed). At least kids would have a harder time getting it and organized crime / drug lords would be hurt. But this is a completely different debate (that I don't want to get into and is irrelevant to this topic).

Actually, "that" debate and this one actually have very much in common: they stem from the same roots. Censorship is actually nothing more than prohibition for the mind -- a bunch of people deciding what is best for the rest of the world and then imposing it by force.
It ultimately comes down to control and fear. People fear what escapes their control and consequently do everything in their power to regain it. The vilification of all the pleasures in life (be it the... drinking of coffee or engaging in sex for the fun of it) is an integral part of that goal. Just look at the results:

Conversely, in modern media, it's portrayed as the end goal in a date, a measure of success, an indulgence, or worse, an everyday part of social interaction.

Oh no, sex as an indulgence, or worse -- an everyday part of social interaction! Ohhh, the abomination!

Why are you guys turning this into a freedom vs security discussion? Watching (virtual) people have sex has nothing to do with security or people being harmed in any way.

Because the freedom of some people to watch virtual sex frightens the hell out of insecure individuals, forcing them to take action in order to restore their "security"...

 

[robwright]

Ive seen many mainstream movies with sex in them and I can think of only one off the cuff that the sexual content made the move better and in fact would have been a detriment to the movie if it were not included, and thats American Beauty.

American Beauty...mmmmm....

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. Has anyone here played Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy? I found the sex scenes to be tastefully done, well designed and pertinent to the overall story. It was a far cry from Leisure Suit Larry T&A...

 

[gm0n3y]

Because the freedom of some people to watch virtual sex frightens the hell out of insecure individuals, forcing them to take action in order to restore their "security"...

Fair enough. I meant it more in the physical sense of security, but I suppose that some people (including many American conservatives) think that sex is somehow a bad thing and should be hidden away.

To me, as I mentioned before, as long as minors are not exposed to explicit material (and even this is debatable), and the the viewers have the choice whether they wish to view it, then there really isn't any reason not to allow the "offensive" material.

Actually, "that" debate and this one actually have very much in common: they stem from the same roots. Censorship is actually nothing more than prohibition for the mind -- a bunch of people deciding what is best for the rest of the world and then imposing it by force.
It ultimately comes down to control and fear.

Again, similar to above, I was seperating the physical from the psychological. There are arguments for and against censorship in any form, but in this case, we are talking about a specific case of censorship and I'm trying to keep the discussion about that and not about censorship in general.

Given your post, I am certain that we have a similar view on the issue at hand. I certainly agree with your comments on the vilification of pleasure (personally, I try to have sex as often as possible).

 

[gm0n3y]

Why embrace an obvious fault in society? Most adults can't handle sex properly.

What makes you think that most adults can't handle sex properly? What is the proper handling of sex? Only have sex once you're married? I'm sorry, but that is just a point of view. What is "wrong" with promiscuity? You are trying to force your sexual morals on society.

Once again, if you feel that way don't play games that have sex in them (or if possible, simply skip the sex scenes).

Sex, especially the act, has no place in interactive fiction. Throwing in sex doesn't make games any more artful. In fact, sex ruins most forms of art; it doesn't complete them.

And who are you (or anybody) to say what is "artful"? Some people find playboy artful. Why couldn't Virtual Jenna be considered artful? That argument, to me, is not valid in the slightest. I may even agree with you that I wouldn't really want to play a game full of sex, but they still have the right to exist.

 

[robwright]

And who are you (or anybody) to say what is "artful"? Some people find playboy artful. Why couldn't Virtual Jenna be considered artful?

Um, I spent some time with Virtual Jenna -- purely for research purposes, of courses -- and I find it hard to believe anybody would call that game "artful." I'm not saying it will never happen, but the odds are highly unlikely.

 

[VBDude]

Oh no, sex as an indulgence, or worse -- an everyday part of social interaction! Ohhh, the abomination!

:lol: You're an idiot.

As far as government goes, I don't care if they allow sex in games; they're already done worse. My comments are only a representation of what I'd vote if it was on a ballot and why I'd do it. That's my freedom of speech acting and I won't take that from anyone, including someone I disagree with. Freedom of speech and sex in games are two different subjects.

If you think that people don't want sex in video games, then the games with sex won't sell and companies won't make them. Give people what they want to see, no matter what it is. Let the consumers decide what they want, not the media or the government.

A rare display of reason on an unfortunately intensely-irrational debate. Bravo!
Actually, what you commented on is a wholey irrational arguement. "Giving people what they want, no matter what it is," is the definition of anarchy. Remember that "incite immenent lawless action" question of yours?

As for the first and last line, no one here, besides Rob, represents the media or the government. So what were we doing? Deciding we didn't want it, as consumers. If his arguement was true, then it would support ours.

Would sex in video games present a danger to the people playing that game?

Yes:

Could they become addicted to it?

Yes...

Is there any risk that those people would run around trying to "practice" what is done in the game in real life?

I certainly agree with your comments on the vilification of pleasure (personally, I try to have sex as often as possible).

See.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Okay, so public displays of sex are "essential liberty"? :? And when did sharing my opinion give me "temporary safety"? If anything it opened up the floodgates for riotuos comments, such as your own.

People fear what escapes their control and consequently do everything in their power to regain it.

:lol: Looks like you practice what you preach.

 

[gm0n3y]

I have no doubt that few (if any) would consider Virtual Jenna artful (I've never actually seen her, but I may have to force myself for the purposes of this discussion). Then again, I haven't even played any game that I can recall having overtly sexual content. Of course, if it was well integrated into the game, I probably wouldn't remember it being there.

Actually I do remember playing one game, Porno Tetris, and it was hilarious.

 

[VBDude]

What makes you think that most adults can't handle sex properly?

Hmmm, television? :lol:

What is the proper handling of sex? Only have sex once you're married?

That would be a good start.

And who are you (or anybody) to say what is "artful"?

A critic.

 

[infornography42]

My two cents? Ban Censorship. I can think of very VERY few things that I would agree would damage society if they were not censored. Information on the construction of weapons of mass destruction for instance should be a carefully guarded secret and prevented from becoming mainstream. That is about it.

A bunch of silly ninnys running around preventing innocuous books and content from reaching store shelves is pure idiocy. As has been stated, let the consumers decide what is and what is not acceptable by what they do and do not purchase.

Of course I can understand preventing material widely considered to be offensive from being played in public, but that is not what we are talking about. We are discussing video games that will be played in the home on your computer or entertainment center, not an advertisement that would be hard to avoid.

I don't see any need to clamor for more of it, but I certainly don't see any good reason to ban it either.

 

[gm0n3y]

Freedom of speech and sex in games are two different subjects.

I disagree. Freedom of speech respects the creators' right to make sexually explicit games and the right for those games to be played by those who choose to do so.

If you think that people don't want sex in video games, then the games with sex won't sell and companies won't make them. Give people what they want to see, no matter what it is. Let the consumers decide what they want, not the media or the government.

Actually, what you commented on is a wholey irrational arguement. "Giving people what they want, no matter what it is," is the definition of anarchy.

Actually, what I said was "Give people what they want to see", and I meant that in the context of video games. If that is an anarchic (is that a word?) view of video games, then I guess I must be a video game anarchist.

Would sex in video games present a danger to the people playing that game?

Yes:

Could they become addicted to it?

Yes...

Is there any risk that those people would run around trying to "practice" what is done in the game in real life?

I certainly agree with your comments on the vilification of pleasure (personally, I try to have sex as often as possible).

See.

First of all, I meant that I try to have sex with my girlfriend of 6 years, which to me is the same as marriage. Is there something wrong with that? Good job at stringing the quotes together though (seriously).

What makes you think that most adults can't handle sex properly?

Hmmm, television?


I don't think that television is reflective of reality (ironically, especially reality television).

What is the proper handling of sex? Only have sex once you're married?

That would be a good start.


Marriage is a ridiculous institution that forces two people who want to be together forever to, well, be together forever. What is more romantic than having to sign a legal contract to ensure that you really are together forever? Are you just pragmatic and realize that maybe love isn't enough? Seriously, marriage is only useful for tax purposes.

And who are you (or anybody) to say what is "artful"?

A critic.


In the sense that we are all critics.

 

[Aaron McKenna]

I'm right, Rob's wrong. Can we go home now? No? Ok, some good points raised.

To the idea of censorship and allowing people to put whatever they want into games, I agree - let them. But Real Politik played a big part of my argument, remember - stores like Wal Mart won't stock games with sex in them, and so it becomes economically unviable to make them.

However I don't think that this is a crying shame - we're not exactly missing out on much, as just like Hollywood sex is, for the most part, at best a distraction, at worst an hilarious one.

 

[r0x0r]

stores like Wal Mart won't stock games with sex in them, and so it becomes economically unviable to make them.

That's where digital distribution comes in.

By the way, the real issue is whether sex in videogames would objectify men or women in real life (like how sex in advertising has done), not the actual sexual content. Ooh intercourse; big deal. 5 years olds can (and do) watch that on the internet at the local library, and there are literally thousands of porn games online.

I, like the vast majority of you, am bombarded with sex in advertising every single day and to tell you the truth, I couldn't care about it anymore... unless I love the person I'm with.

Tasteful sex (American Beauty)? Of course. Sex for the sake of it (Leisure Suit Larry)? Take it back. I want to enjoy sex, and I can't do that if it's marketed and packaged to sell deodorant to horny teens (Aussies will know that I'm talking about the LYNX advertisements).

 

[VBDude]

I had fun with the quotes, but in the interest of simplicity, space, and time, I'll just comment in order.

1) Figured you'd say that. I actually don't recall why I said it. So, you can ignore that point.

2) Woops! I'm sorry, I should have caught that. It changes things...a little. I still think it has anarchistic tones. (Hey, it seems they're both real words. )

3) Understood. If you're living together, some places would call that "common law" and would consider it a type of marriage, legally.

4) Agreed. That's one reason I don't watch television. However, television is reflective of the media, and it is generally created by adults for adults. If there's a problem there, then there would most likely be one in games as well.

5) I believe I have to get into religion on the subject of marriage. I believe in marriage after death, but only if it's done in the proper place, in the proper way, by the proper people. Obviously, a topic for another place and time. Kind of avoids the tax arguement though, wouldn't you say?

6) Yup. That would be the point.

 

[r0x0r]

Let me ask everyone something:

Would sex in videogames actually make games BETTER?

What are the 5 best games you have ever played? For me:

-Half-Life 2
-Super Mario World (SNES)
-Super Mario Kart (SNES and N64)
-System Shock 2
-Project Gotham Racing 2

3 of those are suitable for all ages. None of them have sex or frontal nudity.