Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 12, 2007 5:22:02 PM

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.
February 12, 2007 5:44:47 PM

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
February 12, 2007 7:25:39 PM

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.
Related resources
February 12, 2007 7:27:28 PM

Ya.
-cm
February 12, 2007 7:47:20 PM

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.
February 12, 2007 7:49:06 PM

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.
February 12, 2007 8:03:23 PM

Quote:
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.
February 12, 2007 8:17:08 PM

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
February 12, 2007 8:25:05 PM

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.
February 12, 2007 8:41:04 PM

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.
February 12, 2007 8:47:34 PM

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.
February 12, 2007 9:03:40 PM

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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"...
February 12, 2007 9:18:17 PM

Quote:
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...
February 12, 2007 9:22:04 PM

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).
February 12, 2007 9:38:39 PM

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.
February 12, 2007 9:46:33 PM

Quote:
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.
February 12, 2007 10:20:05 PM

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


:lol:  You're an idiot. :p 

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.

Quote:
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? :wink:

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.

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

Yes:

Quote:
Could they become addicted to it?

Yes...

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

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

See. :wink:

Quote:
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.

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

:lol:  Looks like you practice what you preach. :wink:
February 12, 2007 10:24:40 PM

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.
February 12, 2007 10:25:50 PM

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

Hmmm, television? :lol: 

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

That would be a good start. :p 

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

A critic. :wink:
February 12, 2007 10:30:43 PM

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.
February 12, 2007 10:55:45 PM

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Yes:

Quote:
Could they become addicted to it?

Yes...

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

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

See. :wink:

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).

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

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

A critic.


In the sense that we are all critics.
February 13, 2007 12:13:19 AM

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.
February 13, 2007 1:10:42 AM

Quote:
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).
February 13, 2007 1:17:02 AM

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. :oops: 

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. :wink:) 

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? :wink:

6) Yup. That would be the point. :wink:
February 13, 2007 1:30:33 AM

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.
February 13, 2007 5:47:31 AM

I second all your arguments.
If you don't want to see it: don't buy it.

The US produces 200 porn movies a week, yet, it has the silliest way of dealing with sex in multimedia.

Sex is good, violence is evil.
February 13, 2007 7:46:14 AM

In my opinion while sex or nudity in video games is ok as long as it is relevant to the game (as in movies), sex or nudity just for the sake of it (just to sell a few extra copies to horny teens) could ruin a good game (duke nukeem excluded :)  ).

The real danger is that it could force companies to take drastic measures. Take a look at NWN2 for instance remove the PC clothes what do you get? Star Trek underwear!!!! :evil:  No more bare chested barbarians 8O !!! (male :)  )
February 13, 2007 8:51:11 AM

Quote:
Would sex in videogames actually make games BETTER?

Wala, hit the nail on the head. The answer there is no.
February 13, 2007 11:50:50 AM

Quote:
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.


That is merely your opinion. Sex a right that every human (and animal for that matter) has. It's your body, you do with it what you will. No person on this whole planet has any write to tell ANYONE else what they can and can't do with it.

Quote:
"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.


haha, "bad"... It's not for you to decide whether or not it's acceptable for others. if you think it's "bad" then go right ahead and be ashamed of your body and treat sex like it's the holiest of holies that can only be done for reproduction purposes. after all, that is YOUR right... YOU decide what is right for YOU and only YOU.


Quote:
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.


again, your opinion... promiscuous sex has been around since the beginning of man.. Much longer than monogamous unions (such as marriage). To you it's the holiest of holies. To others, it's just plain animalistic screwing.. that is their right.

It's funny, you keep forgetting to put, "i feel" or "i believe" or "it is my opinion that" at the beginning of your sentences. Quit trying to act like your closed minded views represent the be all end all facts of life.


Quote:
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.


Yep, some people just wanna have sex. if they meet others that just want to do that to. GOOD FOR THEM! it's none of your damn business.

Quote:
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.


whatever you think, pal. The fault in society today is people like you. "i don't like it, my religion doesn't like it, I know what's best for other people since they obviously don't know what's best for themselves!". heh.. sex in youth is between a child and his or her parental/authority figure. it is up the parental figure to decide what is right and wrong for his or her own child regarding the subject. It is not up to YOU or anyone else.

As for sex in gaming: will it make gaming better? probably not? it probably would never make it's way into the more popular titles because it's not really necessary... or is it? who knows. it's never really been explored in the mainstream-- HOWEVER, the real discussion i believe is whether or not it should be allowed. you're goddamned right it should be allowed! artists (actors, directors, game developers, painters, entertainers, etc etc etc) should not be censored.. EVER. Government, angry parents, religious authority figures, you... none of them have any right to say what a person can and cannot watch/play in their own home.



so i say to you sir: GROW UP. i do pity you.
February 13, 2007 11:53:37 AM

Alyx gives dirty looks to Gordon too much, she's so naughty!

I don't play games such as Leisure Suit Larry, Playboy, etc.

Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142
Oblivion
Far Cry
Guild Wars (Female armors are skimpy, but that's about it)
UT2004
Warcraft 3
CS

Is there a hidden cheat for sex scenes in my games, me wants! /end sarcasm.

My point being that good games (sold well or not) rarely have that much sexual content. T-bagging excluded.
February 13, 2007 12:26:07 PM

Quote:
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.


I wanna know, how many kids have played M games. (rhetorical duh, we all know that pretty much every kid in America has)... so sure, give adults adult content. But put those games outta kids reach. And even then, its gonna get to their hands one way or another. Remember that a massive part of the audience for video/computer games are Kids. Again, im okay with sexual themes, im just not okay with sex itself or eroticism in games.
February 13, 2007 12:30:25 PM

Yes. Sex is a private thing between you, the porn star you're working with, and the photographer.

Congrats on post 700, VBDude! You're my hero!
-cm
February 13, 2007 12:32:05 PM

making such a big tabu out of sex in america may actually be a breeding nest for all the sexual predators and pedophiles.

No one gives a damn thing in europe when one see topless or naked people at the beach. You guys in America go insane about this. Media always make sure that slighltly transparent tops on TV fashion shows are scrambled so not nipples can be seen. It may make children think that there is something wrong with their bodies as medias, which they are glued onto show them world different than what they see themselves.
February 13, 2007 12:40:29 PM

Yeah it is ridiculous here. Example: nipples and breasts.

In America you can show 50% of your breast (around, I'm not working on actual figures, just my own observances... :wink: ) and it's cool, hot, and sexy. This only applies to the top half or occasionally the sides or bottom of the breast. You can work on all sides of the nipple. However, if the nipple is exposed, you're dressing dirty. If more that 50% of the breast is exposed, say... you're in the Super Bowl and a gay guy tears off part of your dress and you're wearing a nipple stud but 90% of your breast is exposed, it's a terrible thing, a degredation of our fine society, and a media sensation. SO WEIRD.

<I'm not in any way implying you are Janet J, by the way>
-cm
February 13, 2007 1:56:47 PM

thats my point! I just cant get why some even on this forum accept this 15th century attitude.

Couple of topless girls in each city would ruin the US political stability. I hope the al qaeda people dont read this :) 
February 13, 2007 2:22:47 PM

Hear hear...

It's funny that violence in all the video games can make a game better, but for some reason, we don't think that sex or sexuality can. A herigage of the puritanical basis for north america I guess.

I'd love to see more sex, sexuality, nudity in video game (and media in general). I think it would do wonders to reduce the pre-occupation with it. IMHO: A bigger concern would be the marriage of sex with violence. We accept violence so readily, that it would seem quite obvious that the violence would become present in games with sexuality. This would be bad. Not inherently bad, but I believe that it would be bad for our society as a whole... or more to the point, I believe it would lead to a society that I would not approve of.
February 13, 2007 2:33:02 PM

Violence is really experienced through sight. Sex is experienced through the feeling as the ***** enters the <censoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensoredcensored>
You cant emulate that fe*ling in v*deo ga*es.
-cm
February 13, 2007 4:11:56 PM

I don't believe in censoring, rating sure, but censoring no. So here's my thoughts. If a game doesn't want to carry a 18+ rating, then buy all means dumb it down. But if a game thinks it should have that kind of content, then who the hell says it can't? Games being banned in the US is stupid, honestly, I can go to the video store and rent a porno, but I can't buy a video game that is accepted in most other countries?

On the other side, I believe that, yes, RPGs would be made more realistic with a little more adult content. I'm only 10 hours into the game, but I actually find Oblivion slightly annoying, in it's asexual nature. I just keep thinking to myself, where are all the sperm banks, because these people seem to have no interest in sex whatsoever and I honestly don't know how they procreate. I mean I'm not interested in some sexual encounter, but, I mean, if I'm some demi-god-kick-ass-savior, were are all the gold diggers? If I can buy a house, why can't I have a spouse? That would only be realistic. So would children, I have yet to see an actual family, and barely any couples. In the violence category, this world has gladiators, but in the sex catagory this game is completely asexual. I understand though, because if you want to reach the widest audience as possible, then you need the lowest rating to reach all age groups.

Enough about Oblivion. I'm just saying that in any RPG that tries to simulate some form of life, there simply should be that part of life, because it is, part of life.
February 13, 2007 4:17:58 PM

First this is not in reply to celewign, just happened to be the last to post

Anyway what i was going to say is just a simple point. everyone seems to be talking about women being naked in games there hasn't been much talk about if a game had naked guys running about. What if in Madden 09 there could be a chance of a random guy streaking across the field? I my self would find that to be freaking hilarious and wouldn't mind that.

Ive been looking at this as how it could improve a game or games in general and frankly i just dont see that much area where sex can improve a game. I will say that there could be a few games that can benefit but at large id say sex in games would be used like it has been used in every other part of society, one more gimmic to sell something.
February 13, 2007 4:21:51 PM

Quote:
That is merely your opinion. Sex a right that every human (and animal for that matter) has. It's your body, you do with it what you will. No person on this whole planet has any write to tell ANYONE else what they can and can't do with it.

The difference between us and animals is we can choose. That makes sex more meaningful than animal lust.

You're right that I don't have the right to tell people what they can and can't do, but I never did. I only said what they should and shouldn't do. :p  :lol: 

Quote:
It's not for you to decide whether or not it's acceptable for others. if you think it's "bad" then go right ahead and be ashamed of your body and treat sex like it's the holiest of holies that can only be done for reproduction purposes. after all, that is YOUR right... YOU decide what is right for YOU and only YOU.

I never said your body is bad. I said public display of sex is. If I thought my own body was bad I'd probably have a lot more scars. :wink:

I also don't believe that sex is only for reproductive purposes. We're one of the few species in the world that mates for pleasure. Honestly, as a thinking people, if it wasn't pleasurable, we'd probably never have kids. :p 

Quote:
promiscuous sex has been around since the beginning of man.. Much longer than monogamous unions (such as marriage). To you it's the holiest of holies. To others, it's just plain animalistic screwing.. that is their right.

It's funny, you keep forgetting to put, "i feel" or "i believe" or "it is my opinion that" at the beginning of your sentences. Quit trying to act like your closed minded views represent the be all end all facts of life.

And that's your opinion. :p  I believe that Adam and Eve were the first people like us on Earth. And they were married.

[rant]
Why do you keep saying "holiest of holies"? The Holy of Holies is a sacred room in the Jewish temple that only God and an appointed High Priest could enter. It has nothing to do with sex. But it does show your ignorance of the topic.

I spent a great deal of my life as an atheist with your perspective, especially during Speech and Debate. (You would have liked that class, honestly.) I also converted, served a two year mission, and teach Sunday School every week. The cherry on top of that chocolate/vanilla sundae is my ego. So you might want to avoid the subject of religion with me. :wink: I’ll try to do the same.
[/rant]

I don't put "I feel/believe" at the beginning of my sentences because you already know that. Why does that bother you?

Quote:
Yep, some people just wanna have sex. if they meet others that just want to do that to. GOOD FOR THEM! it's none of your damn business.

When it's in their homes, it isn't. When it's in my games, it is.

Quote:
whatever you think, pal. The fault in society today is people like you. "i don't like it, my religion doesn't like it, I know what's best for other people since they obviously don't know what's best for themselves!". heh.. sex in youth is between a child and his or her parental/authority figure. it is up the parental figure to decide what is right and wrong for his or her own child regarding the subject. It is not up to YOU or anyone else.

Hey, were pals! :) 

I'm not a fault in society. I only make known my beliefs so others can seriously reflect on and express their own. As you do the same, it's hypocritical critiquing on your part to say I am.

Your "sex in youth" sentence reads a little disturbingly. But you're right about a parent’s responsibility to teach their children about sex. My view is that many of them leave that too much to the outside world: teachers, peers, media, etc. That's why I don't believe many parents understand it.

Quote:
As for sex in gaming: will it make gaming better? probably not? it probably would never make it's way into the more popular titles because it's not really necessary... or is it? who knows. it's never really been explored in the mainstream-- HOWEVER, the real discussion i believe is whether or not it should be allowed. you're goddamned right it should be allowed! artists (actors, directors, game developers, painters, entertainers, etc etc etc) should not be censored.. EVER. Government, angry parents, religious authority figures, you... none of them have any right to say what a person can and cannot watch/play in their own home.

I don't believe it will make gaming better. I already addressed the rest of your concerns. Perhaps you stopped reading.

Quote:
so i say to you sir: GROW UP. i do pity you.

I did, but thanks for taking the time to pity me. :p 
February 13, 2007 5:21:16 PM

In MY hedonistic religion "the holiest of holies" is SEX!!
February 13, 2007 5:34:59 PM

Just a quick question, why is the display of sex bad? And I'm not really looking for an answer talking about morals, I am wondering how it is physically and/or mentally harmful to people who observe it. I understand (and respect) that your religion believe that it is wrong, but for the general public, that has no such religion, why is it bad?

As for the comments stating that sex would make video games worse, I personally don't think it has made movies worse. Some movies, yes, but the vast majority of them are not negatively affected by sex. I can't see Halo 3 coming out and Microsoft thinking, "hmm sex sells, lets add some" and throwing a hardcore porn scene into the game. It just wouldn't add anything and wouldn't make sense, so it wouldn't be added.
February 13, 2007 5:35:32 PM

Quote:
Anyway what i was going to say is just a simple point. everyone seems to be talking about women being naked in games there hasn't been much talk about if a game had naked guys running about. What if in Madden 09 there could be a chance of a random guy streaking across the field? I my self would find that to be freaking hilarious and wouldn't mind that.

Sounds like you're talking about nudity, not sex.

Quote:
Why do you keep saying "holiest of holies"? The Holy of Holies is a sacred room in the Jewish temple that only God and an appointed High Priest could enter. It has nothing to do with sex. But it does show your ignorance of the topic.

Don't act like you don't understand the comparison. He's not saying the room in the Jewish temple has anything to do with sex. He's saying sex is (wrongly, in his opinion) being treated in the same way as that room, as something to be feared and restricted. gormeroth, correct me if I'm wrong.

As for me, I don't know. I'd have nothing against seeing sex in games, but generally, I don't think it would add much. Most of the time, if sex is needed for part of the game's story, it could be implied rather than explicit, and the story would be none the worse.

In my mind, games are a place to do things I can't (or really, really shouldn't) do in real life: run around with a gun killing people, blow up space ships, fight monsters, etc. Sex is something I can do in real life - why do I need to do it in a game?
February 13, 2007 5:52:41 PM

Quote:
In my mind, games are a place to do things I can't (or really, really shouldn't) do in real life: run around with a gun killing people, blow up space ships, fight monsters, etc. Sex is something I can do in real life - why do I need to do it in a game?


I couldn't let this one go. Not all gamers fit the stereotype (overweight, ugly, bad social skills), but I'm sure that there are many gamers that don't have the option of having sex. For these people it is more likely that they would grab a gun and start shooting people than have sex.

Another thing, not that I or very many other people want to do this, but what about a game where you play a serial killer? It wouldn't make much sense if the serial killer didn't at least give the player the option to rape at least one of his victims. While this might be a taboo subject, there are people in society that are into that sort of thing. And realistically, murder, which is in many, many games, is worse than rape, so why is it acceptable?

Video games are about living a fantasy (from race car driver to serial killer) and people should be allowed to explore their fantasies (virtually of course) no matter how taboo or immoral they are. Society shouldn't tell individuals how to think.
February 13, 2007 6:06:28 PM

Why is astonishingly graphic and gory violence in games considered to be great entertainment - especially when we're getting closer and closer to photorealism - yet nudity and consensual sex in this form of entertainment is…is…somehow a bad thing?

I’m not taking about a freedom of speech issue; I’m asking why so many people find offense with one and no offense with the other.
February 13, 2007 6:11:09 PM

The topic only serves to illuminate how ass-backwards American sensibilities have become.

Violence in all its horrific forms is the handmaiden of video games. Violence is also a plague that threatens human existence around the globe. Surely this parallel would cause all of us video game lovers to stand up and demand a return to Pong for the good of humanity. We do no such thing however. Instead we go home and tally up headshots. Understand this deeper, though. It's not just a simple murder we're taking part in, in these games we elevate ourselves to a form of godhood by shooting, punching, and chainsawing a vast swath of inferiors, a behaviour that would be behond disturbing in most any other venue. When questioned how we can condone this galling egotistical slaughter we retort: "It's not real, stupid. It's only make-believe. One has nothing to do with the other."

Sex on the other hand gets no such rationalization. Perplexingly all sex is real sex and all the various depictions are given equal gravity. Sex can sell us most anything... except itself of course, that's wrong to us. This logic tree bears some seriously poisoned fruit for our consumption, as I will illustrate below.

The double standard should be obvious. When I blow someones head off with a shotgun and the blood fills my HDTV screen there is no crime committed and even most parents would merely shrug their shoulders should they witness the act - an act that would shatter a family for a generation should it really come to pass! If on the other hand I seduce the same person and entice them to take off their top, there are nonsensical societal lines I have crossed that are too tiresome to repeat.

We've been given leave to kill and dismember our virtual creations - our latest incarnation of make-believe - but we cannot sexually socialize with them, and I shudder to think what our collective mythologies would be like had ancient man had to daydream under similar restrictions. Our legends and literature would be brutish, scary places devoid of what makes us human.

It is important to realise that many young people see the computer generated worlds as THEIR literature of choice, their playpens of make-believe, and all we've been feeding them are games based on death and destruction. It's one-sided and thus obviously not healthy. Our video game worlds MUST have all of the variety and nuances of the real thing in order to create the balance found in the real world.

At the end of the day we seem to be limping through the real world just fine, battered by sexual imagry as we are. Our virtual worlds would do well in following what all the successful civilizations got right. Like it or not, sex is apart of healthy development - even the sleezy stuff. It's apart of the lesson plan that teaches us what is right and wrong. If you purge it from this latest medium then you will create something less than human.
February 13, 2007 6:20:36 PM

February 13, 2007 6:23:36 PM

Quote:
The topic only serves to illuminate how ass-backwards American sensibilities have become.


Wow. Quite a rant, Dyno. I agree with you on the whole double-standard. However, I'd like to point out that I argued in favor of having sexual content in games, and I'm the ass-backward American, while my fine Irish colleague Aaron argued against it.
February 13, 2007 6:31:07 PM

Quote:
The topic only serves to illuminate


Dyno: Nice to have someone write my post for me. 8) You were far more articulate then I could have been.
February 13, 2007 6:31:52 PM

Well then good Rob you might consider yourself to be a diamond in the rough because as the world sees it, and yes I'll happily speak for the world at this moment, your INSTITUTIONS are anti-sex crazy right now.

This is beyond debate.
!