independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 19th Aug 2018 5:10am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > We accept brutality in video games, but not sexual violence. Why?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 08/10/18 7:27am

deebee

avatar

We accept brutality in video games, but not sexual violence. Why?

Interesting question posed by writer Henry Shevlin in Aeon magazine. He's not making the argument that we ought to condemn both, nor the argument that fantasy violence leads to violence in real life. He accepts that for the vast majority of us, our fascination with scenes of violence on screen remains purely voyeuristic and safely in the realm of fantasy, and that fantasy violence is, in principle, perfectly tolerable as doesn't involve harm to any real victims. Real life violence harms real people; fantasy violence doesn't.

But he simply wonders, if we accept that principle, why would we still be horrified by a game that depicted "child abuse, torture, racism and sexual violence, to name just a handful of nasty examples"? We might reply: Well, only a sicko would want to fantasize about committing those. But then why do we not find it 'sick' for someone to fantasize about ripping out an opponent's beating heart, impaling him on a spike, blowing his head off, or creating the kind of carnage that one finds in modern video games? I thought that was an intriguing one to ponder - particularly as I'm not sure I have a convincing answer.

Here's the full article, which is quite short: https://aeon.co/ideas/bru...olence-why

What say you, Org? hmmm

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 08/10/18 8:10am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

You do know videogames are not real? We all are against sexual violence. You are at your worst here Deebee. Trump is rubbing on ya. lol

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 08/10/18 8:28am

deebee

avatar

^ You're missing the point of the question, which I thought I'd qualified sufficiently in the first line of my post.

The author fully accepts (as do I) that brutal violence such as killing, maiming, etc, in video games is not real, causes harm to no victims, and is therefore perfectly acceptable. It's all fantasy - and we can enjoy, in fantasy, things that would we would straightforwardly condemn in real life.

Ok - but then he wonders: if that's the case, why would we still bristle at the idea of other forms of violence being the subject of video game fantasies? After all, we could still say - quite correctly - that those are not real, cause harm to no victims, etc. Why the difference?

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 08/10/18 8:40am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

Thoughts, ideas, dreams are not real?

God has a plan. Trust the plan.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 08/10/18 8:43am

NorthC

I guess it's because all that violence, both in games and movies, can still be seen as a battle between good and evil where the good guys beat the bad guys. This is also how the Romans saw their gladiator games: as a triumph of Roman civilization over barbarity. So it goes back a long time. You can dream about being a hero who beats his enemies, but nobody, no sane person anyway, dreams about abusing children or something like that.
For the same reason stories about the Second World War are always popular: Hitler is the ultimate symbol of evil that needs to be beaten. You can't say the same about the First World War, which is why there aren't a lot of adventure stories about that war. (Lawrence of Arabia being the exception.)
I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 08/10/18 9:33am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

There is violence in movies that make sense. Hard to do it right, like Blue Velvet.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 08/10/18 9:33am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Blue Velvet, great masterwork, Hostel 2, sick porn.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 08/10/18 9:34am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Last House on the Left, sick porn, 8mm, pretty good.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 08/10/18 9:39am

deebee

avatar

NorthC said:

I guess it's because all that violence, both in games and movies, can still be seen as a battle between good and evil where the good guys beat the bad guys. This is also how the Romans saw their gladiator games: as a triumph of Roman civilization over barbarity. So it goes back a long time. You can dream about being a hero who beats his enemies, but nobody, no sane person anyway, dreams about abusing children or something like that. For the same reason stories about the Second World War are always popular: Hitler is the ultimate symbol of evil that needs to be beaten. You can't say the same about the First World War, which is why there aren't a lot of adventure stories about that war. (Lawrence of Arabia being the exception.)

Good answer. That was more or less what I came up with too: that there's a moral dimension in there that 'justifies' the imagined violence.

Two things strike me, though: 1) Thinking about the games my nephew plays (Dark Souls and the like), I'd have to say that the moral dimension is often pretty slim. The enemy is the enemy because he's the enemy, and he's an enemy because he stands in the way of one's progress towards an arbitrary goal, not because he's committed 'evil' acts, like in WWII games. And 2) the kind of brutal violence fantasized is often over-and-above what's needed to stop the 'bad guy', and thus takes on a different moral hue (in the sense that killing a Nazi camp commandant might be acceptable, but torturing a Nazi prisoner would still be wrong).

All of which makes me wonder if the moral argument is a bit of a cover story we tell ourselves - and if that's the real difference. Perhaps we quietly enjoy the violent fantasy for its intrinsic qualities, but we like to have a moral 'excuse' for immersing ourselves in it. hmmm

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 08/10/18 11:21am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

deebee said:

NorthC said:

I guess it's because all that violence, both in games and movies, can still be seen as a battle between good and evil where the good guys beat the bad guys. This is also how the Romans saw their gladiator games: as a triumph of Roman civilization over barbarity. So it goes back a long time. You can dream about being a hero who beats his enemies, but nobody, no sane person anyway, dreams about abusing children or something like that. For the same reason stories about the Second World War are always popular: Hitler is the ultimate symbol of evil that needs to be beaten. You can't say the same about the First World War, which is why there aren't a lot of adventure stories about that war. (Lawrence of Arabia being the exception.)

Good answer. That was more or less what I came up with too: that there's a moral dimension in there that 'justifies' the imagined violence.

Two things strike me, though: 1) Thinking about the games my nephew plays (Dark Souls and the like), I'd have to say that the moral dimension is often pretty slim. The enemy is the enemy because he's the enemy, and he's an enemy because he stands in the way of one's progress towards an arbitrary goal, not because he's committed 'evil' acts, like in WWII games. And 2) the kind of brutal violence fantasized is often over-and-above what's needed to stop the 'bad guy', and thus takes on a different moral hue (in the sense that killing a Nazi camp commandant might be acceptable, but torturing a Nazi prisoner would still be wrong).

All of which makes me wonder if the moral argument is a bit of a cover story we tell ourselves - and if that's the real difference. Perhaps we quietly enjoy the violent fantasy for its intrinsic qualities, but we like to have a moral 'excuse' for immersing ourselves in it. hmmm


When video games are violent - I assume this means gunplay and explosives which kill the enemy, as it were. Doesn't this evoke a feelig of ultimate power? To take out a life... a God complex maybe?

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 08/10/18 12:39pm

maplenpg

deebee said:

Interesting question posed by writer Henry Shevlin in Aeon magazine. He's not making the argument that we ought to condemn both, nor the argument that fantasy violence leads to violence in real life. He accepts that for the vast majority of us, our fascination with scenes of violence on screen remains purely voyeuristic and safely in the realm of fantasy, and that fantasy violence is, in principle, perfectly tolerable as doesn't involve harm to any real victims. Real life violence harms real people; fantasy violence doesn't.

But he simply wonders, if we accept that principle, why would we still be horrified by a game that depicted "child abuse, torture, racism and sexual violence, to name just a handful of nasty examples"? We might reply: Well, only a sicko would want to fantasize about committing those. But then why do we not find it 'sick' for someone to fantasize about ripping out an opponent's beating heart, impaling him on a spike, blowing his head off, or creating the kind of carnage that one finds in modern video games? I thought that was an intriguing one to ponder - particularly as I'm not sure I have a convincing answer.

Here's the full article, which is quite short: https://aeon.co/ideas/bru...olence-why

What say you, Org? hmmm

It's a good question.


I do wonder if time plays a part too. From the small number of games that I am familiar with, the violent act is swift and then the game moves quickly onto the next 'victim'. There is a temporal aspect in some games, where you might have to stalk someone and there might be a lengthy build up, but the actual violent act itself is again quick then it moves forward. If we were to include rape, or torture for example, there is a lengthier period of time involved during the act itself, and within that period of time, might it not be possible that one might become detatched from the immersion in the game and the intrinsic primal instincts that may be involved, and that the player might instead realise the grim realities of the act within that time frame?

I also wonder if there is a pack mentality involved as well. Where groups of gamers take satisfaction in wiping out the enemy, egging each other on, or trying to beat each other, boasting on numbers killed etc... I do wonder if the bragging rights of the number of children you've abused, or women you've upskirted (or replace with other sexual crime), becomes void. Sort of seems a bit wrong to brag about those things.

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 08/10/18 3:51pm

deebee

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

deebee said:

Good answer. That was more or less what I came up with too: that there's a moral dimension in there that 'justifies' the imagined violence.

Two things strike me, though: 1) Thinking about the games my nephew plays (Dark Souls and the like), I'd have to say that the moral dimension is often pretty slim. The enemy is the enemy because he's the enemy, and he's an enemy because he stands in the way of one's progress towards an arbitrary goal, not because he's committed 'evil' acts, like in WWII games. And 2) the kind of brutal violence fantasized is often over-and-above what's needed to stop the 'bad guy', and thus takes on a different moral hue (in the sense that killing a Nazi camp commandant might be acceptable, but torturing a Nazi prisoner would still be wrong).

All of which makes me wonder if the moral argument is a bit of a cover story we tell ourselves - and if that's the real difference. Perhaps we quietly enjoy the violent fantasy for its intrinsic qualities, but we like to have a moral 'excuse' for immersing ourselves in it. hmmm


When video games are violent - I assume this means gunplay and explosives which kill the enemy, as it were. Doesn't this evoke a feelig of ultimate power? To take out a life... a God complex maybe?

Power certainly seems likely to be part of it, as (a fantasy about) violence is indeed (a fantasy about) having a kind of ultimate power over another. I guess there's a kind of play of power and powerlessness in video games (or movies, etc), too. One minute, I've got my back against the wall and I'm getting shot at or beaten; the next minute, I'm in control.

Thinking about it, part of the answer to the original question must be that, in these games, it's usually kill or be killed: those I'm killing would otherwise be trying to kill me - and that wouldn't be the case with sexual violence or violence to someone who poses no threat to me. (That said, I do recall, years ago, playing a game where there was a terrorist seige of an airport, in which I used to quite enjoy turning on civilians I was supposed to be rescuing and beating the crap out of them, every so often, when I got bored!) lol

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 08/10/18 4:04pm

deebee

avatar

maplenpg said:

deebee said:

Interesting question posed by writer Henry Shevlin in Aeon magazine. He's not making the argument that we ought to condemn both, nor the argument that fantasy violence leads to violence in real life. He accepts that for the vast majority of us, our fascination with scenes of violence on screen remains purely voyeuristic and safely in the realm of fantasy, and that fantasy violence is, in principle, perfectly tolerable as doesn't involve harm to any real victims. Real life violence harms real people; fantasy violence doesn't.

But he simply wonders, if we accept that principle, why would we still be horrified by a game that depicted "child abuse, torture, racism and sexual violence, to name just a handful of nasty examples"? We might reply: Well, only a sicko would want to fantasize about committing those. But then why do we not find it 'sick' for someone to fantasize about ripping out an opponent's beating heart, impaling him on a spike, blowing his head off, or creating the kind of carnage that one finds in modern video games? I thought that was an intriguing one to ponder - particularly as I'm not sure I have a convincing answer.

Here's the full article, which is quite short: https://aeon.co/ideas/bru...olence-why

What say you, Org? hmmm

It's a good question.


I do wonder if time plays a part too. From the small number of games that I am familiar with, the violent act is swift and then the game moves quickly onto the next 'victim'. There is a temporal aspect in some games, where you might have to stalk someone and there might be a lengthy build up, but the actual violent act itself is again quick then it moves forward. If we were to include rape, or torture for example, there is a lengthier period of time involved during the act itself, and within that period of time, might it not be possible that one might become detatched from the immersion in the game and the intrinsic primal instincts that may be involved, and that the player might instead realise the grim realities of the act within that time frame?

I also wonder if there is a pack mentality involved as well. Where groups of gamers take satisfaction in wiping out the enemy, egging each other on, or trying to beat each other, boasting on numbers killed etc... I do wonder if the bragging rights of the number of children you've abused, or women you've upskirted (or replace with other sexual crime), becomes void. Sort of seems a bit wrong to brag about those things.

Yes, that's true. Even the gory stuff is over pretty quickly. And it'd probably be considered beyond the pale if a game allowed you to spend a sustained period of time, say, torturing a prisoner.

I guess the response of the 'victim' is important, too. The soldier that you shoot goes "uhhhhh" and falls, or even vanishes; or, in the case of gorier games, the responses are comic-like and not realistic. If the figure on-screen made the kinds of noises and showed physical reactions like a real person being shot or impaled on a spike would, most people would likely find it too grim.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 08/11/18 1:01am

EmmaMcG

With movies, the customer is a passive bystander who is merely a witness to the story playing out on screen. Some stories feature violence, some feature scenes of rape, torture, child abuse etc. In many cases, these scenes are justified in the context of the story. Video games work off a different principle. There is no need for a video game to feature scenes of sexual violence because the kinds of stories that deal with these subjects are not the kinds of stories people are interested in experiencing when they turn on their Xbox. For example, it would be completely unnecessary to feature a scene in Tomb Raider where Lara Croft is captured by the bad guys and raped. There's no need for it. Besides, most people play games to relax and unwind. And, personally speaking, there's no better way to do that than by blowing away endless bad guys with an AK 47 or smashing my car into a crowd of people and watching the bodies go flying. These are horrible things in real life but damn entertaining to do in video games. I am not, however, interested in seeing scenes of sexual violence when I'm trying to relax after a long day.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 08/11/18 6:19am

benni

I wonder if it is because we cannot associate with the character that is fighting a war, whereas we can associate with being a child, a woman, a victim in a sense.

I know someone who is ex-military, who has seen combat, that absolutely cannot play any war games, because they trigger his PTSD. He can associate too closely with the characters in the games.

As long as we can disassociate from the character in a game, we remain emotionally detached. But if we are able to associate with that character, we become emotionally involved, and will feel the horror of what the game depicts.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 08/11/18 6:33am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

benni said:

I wonder if it is because we cannot associate with the character that is fighting a war, whereas we can associate with being a child, a woman, a victim in a sense.

I know someone who is ex-military, who has seen combat, that absolutely cannot play any war games, because they trigger his PTSD. He can associate too closely with the characters in the games.

As long as we can disassociate from the character in a game, we remain emotionally detached. But if we are able to associate with that character, we become emotionally involved, and will feel the horror of what the game depicts.

True and video games were designed by military strategists to help people disassociate and dehumanize people from violence. If you go to video game websites the adds on pages/videoos are often for join military.

God has a plan. Trust the plan.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 08/11/18 7:00am

EmmaMcG

SuperFurryAnimal said:



benni said:


I wonder if it is because we cannot associate with the character that is fighting a war, whereas we can associate with being a child, a woman, a victim in a sense.

I know someone who is ex-military, who has seen combat, that absolutely cannot play any war games, because they trigger his PTSD. He can associate too closely with the characters in the games.

As long as we can disassociate from the character in a game, we remain emotionally detached. But if we are able to associate with that character, we become emotionally involved, and will feel the horror of what the game depicts.




True and video games were designed by military strategists to help people disassociate and dehumanize people from violence. If you go to video game websites the adds on pages/videoos are often for join military.



That's bullshit. Only a small minority of video games are military based.

Plus, I've never once seen any ads for joining the military on ANY video game website ever.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 08/11/18 7:18am

benni

EmmaMcG said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

True and video games were designed by military strategists to help people disassociate and dehumanize people from violence. If you go to video game websites the adds on pages/videoos are often for join military.

That's bullshit. Only a small minority of video games are military based. Plus, I've never once seen any ads for joining the military on ANY video game website ever.


The military has used video games and do have one game that was designed as a recruiting game, "America's Army" which was released in 2002.

Here's a link that talks about it a little more:


https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/playing-war-how-the-military-uses-video-games/280486/


But I don't think they used it as a way to help people disassociate, but rather as a supplement to field training in a way.

[Edited 8/11/18 7:20am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 08/11/18 7:43am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:



benni said:


I wonder if it is because we cannot associate with the character that is fighting a war, whereas we can associate with being a child, a woman, a victim in a sense.

I know someone who is ex-military, who has seen combat, that absolutely cannot play any war games, because they trigger his PTSD. He can associate too closely with the characters in the games.

As long as we can disassociate from the character in a game, we remain emotionally detached. But if we are able to associate with that character, we become emotionally involved, and will feel the horror of what the game depicts.




True and video games were designed by military strategists to help people disassociate and dehumanize people from violence. If you go to video game websites the adds on pages/videoos are often for join military.



That's bullshit. Only a small minority of video games are military based.

Plus, I've never once seen any ads for joining the military on ANY video game website ever.


Military invention.
God has a plan. Trust the plan.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 08/11/18 7:45am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

I did research myself and frequented video game sites and started getting adds to join the Army and Marines.
God has a plan. Trust the plan.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 08/11/18 8:42am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

Article for those that want to EDUCATE themselves on Military and Video games connection.

https://taskandpurpose.com/us-militarys-close-history-video-games/

God has a plan. Trust the plan.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 08/11/18 9:31am

EmmaMcG

benni said:



EmmaMcG said:


SuperFurryAnimal said:



True and video games were designed by military strategists to help people disassociate and dehumanize people from violence. If you go to video game websites the adds on pages/videoos are often for join military.



That's bullshit. Only a small minority of video games are military based. Plus, I've never once seen any ads for joining the military on ANY video game website ever.


The military has used video games and do have one game that was designed as a recruiting game, "America's Army" which was released in 2002.

Here's a link that talks about it a little more:


https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/playing-war-how-the-military-uses-video-games/280486/


But I don't think they used it as a way to help people disassociate, but rather as a supplement to field training in a way.

[Edited 8/11/18 7:20am]



One game released 16 years ago doesn't account for a comment like "video games were designed by military strategists...". That's some prime tin foil hat bollocks. Just because his avatar is Dale Gribble doesn't mean he has to emulate him.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 08/11/18 9:33am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

STOP. Read the article and do some research. Emma.
God has a plan. Trust the plan.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 08/11/18 9:38am

EmmaMcG

SuperFurryAnimal said:

STOP. Read the article and do some research. Emma.


Sure thing, Dale. As soon as "the government" stops sending its helicopters to spy on me, I'll see if I can go to the library to do some research. That's assuming that the chemtrails don't get me before I get there. Although, I have just been playing Mario Kart with my daughter and I'm feeling like signing up to the army and killing some Muslims so perhaps the research will have to wait until tomorrow.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 08/11/18 12:48pm

benni

EmmaMcG said:

benni said:


The military has used video games and do have one game that was designed as a recruiting game, "America's Army" which was released in 2002.

Here's a link that talks about it a little more:


https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/playing-war-how-the-military-uses-video-games/280486/


But I don't think they used it as a way to help people disassociate, but rather as a supplement to field training in a way.

[Edited 8/11/18 7:20am]

One game released 16 years ago doesn't account for a comment like "video games were designed by military strategists...". That's some prime tin foil hat bollocks. Just because his avatar is Dale Gribble doesn't mean he has to emulate him.


You just blew my mind. It *HAS* been 16 years since 2002. Where in the heckles has time gone? Wow.

But, no, you're right. Video games weren't designed by military strategists, but they do utilize them in training. In fact, I would wager, that the dudes manning the drones are gamers.

According to the article that SuperF posted, they've modified games for use, and they've developed a couple of games to use for training purposes. Close Combat: First to Fight, Full Spectrum Warrior, and the one I mentioned, America's Army. BUT the games that most people play, or have heard about, were not developed by the military. In fact, I'd never heard of the other games, except America's Army (and only heard of it because my son wants to join the military and had read about it, and thus told me about it).

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 08/11/18 12:55pm

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

STOP. Read the article and do some research. Emma.


Sure thing, Dale. As soon as "the government" stops sending its helicopters to spy on me, I'll see if I can go to the library to do some research. That's assuming that the chemtrails don't get me before I get there. Although, I have just been playing Mario Kart with my daughter and I'm feeling like signing up to the army and killing some Muslims so perhaps the research will have to wait until tomorrow.


Ok EmmaMcG, have a good weekend. The helicopters circling my house stopped two years ago. For the record.
God has a plan. Trust the plan.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 08/11/18 1:06pm

EmmaMcG

SuperFurryAnimal said:

EmmaMcG said:



Sure thing, Dale. As soon as "the government" stops sending its helicopters to spy on me, I'll see if I can go to the library to do some research. That's assuming that the chemtrails don't get me before I get there. Although, I have just been playing Mario Kart with my daughter and I'm feeling like signing up to the army and killing some Muslims so perhaps the research will have to wait until tomorrow.


Ok EmmaMcG, have a good weekend. The helicopters circling my house stopped two years ago. For the record.


Only the ones you know about razz
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 08/12/18 10:54am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Chemtrails, noooooooooooooooooo

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 08/13/18 3:27pm

uPtoWnNY

EmmaMcG said:

With movies, the customer is a passive bystander who is merely a witness to the story playing out on screen. Some stories feature violence, some feature scenes of rape, torture, child abuse etc. In many cases, these scenes are justified in the context of the story. Video games work off a different principle. There is no need for a video game to feature scenes of sexual violence because the kinds of stories that deal with these subjects are not the kinds of stories people are interested in experiencing when they turn on their Xbox. For example, it would be completely unnecessary to feature a scene in Tomb Raider where Lara Croft is captured by the bad guys and raped. There's no need for it. Besides, most people play games to relax and unwind. And, personally speaking, there's no better way to do that than by blowing away endless bad guys with an AK 47 or smashing my car into a crowd of people and watching the bodies go flying. These are horrible things in real life but damn entertaining to do in video games. I am not, however, interested in seeing scenes of sexual violence when I'm trying to relax after a long day.

....and there it is.......great post, and it sums up my thoughts exactly. And I'm pretty sure it's the reason why Rockstar would never put sexual violence or the killing of children in their popular Grand Theft Auto series (they get enough heat already).

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 08/13/18 4:11pm

deebee

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

With movies, the customer is a passive bystander who is merely a witness to the story playing out on screen. Some stories feature violence, some feature scenes of rape, torture, child abuse etc. In many cases, these scenes are justified in the context of the story. Video games work off a different principle. There is no need for a video game to feature scenes of sexual violence because the kinds of stories that deal with these subjects are not the kinds of stories people are interested in experiencing when they turn on their Xbox. For example, it would be completely unnecessary to feature a scene in Tomb Raider where Lara Croft is captured by the bad guys and raped. There's no need for it. Besides, most people play games to relax and unwind. And, personally speaking, there's no better way to do that than by blowing away endless bad guys with an AK 47 or smashing my car into a crowd of people and watching the bodies go flying. These are horrible things in real life but damn entertaining to do in video games. I am not, however, interested in seeing scenes of sexual violence when I'm trying to relax after a long day.

Good points. I agree with your distinction between movies and games - although I do think we're sometimes invited to identify with violent protagonists (in Tarantino movies or gangster flicks, etc), or to enjoy something about the abasement of the person on the receiving end (such as in the Human Centipede or the Saw movies) not just observe them.

I agree with the bolded, too. I guess my question is still 'why?', though. We'd all share, I think, that revulsion at the idea of a game where one committed sexual violence. But why is smashing the car into a non-threatening crowd of people, and watching the bodies fly, not like that? (Of course, I agree that it is different; just interesting to try and really nail the reasons, I think.)

[Edited 8/13/18 16:15pm]

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > We accept brutality in video games, but not sexual violence. Why?