Ugh. It's really sad that in a world full of war, genocide, starvation, disease, natural disasters, and resource shortages, the only thing our legislators can all agree on is that video games are BAD.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
People are dumb.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
:shrug:
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
You mean they're not bad?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
Yes, they should. But why the over-the-top rhetoric about it? Why did they invite Jack Thompson, if they were interested in anything besides a big negative farce and a lot of bad press for the industry?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
This is ridiculous.
quote:Thompson highlighted alleged cases of soft ratings by the ESRB, claiming that 60% of games rated "E for Everyone" reward violent actions.
I would love to see where he got this statistic.
Like the article says- I find the ESRB ratings to be the best system out there. I'm not even conscious most of the time about the Music industry having ratings, and the the Film Industry's ratings is useful- but the difference between PG-13 and R are becoming increasingly blurred.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: "Defining this industry based on its most controversial titles would be like defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Natural Born Killers," he said, "or the music industry based on Eminem, 50 Cent, and The Dixie Chicks.
Did the 'dixie chicks' part make anyone else literally LOL?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The "Rewarding acts of violence" if we used this man's definition, would be as basic as when you jump on evil brown mushrooms in Mario Bros.
I know Hillary Clinton is a big supported of stricter ratings on Video Games.
It seems to me that rating systems could use some work, and perhaps the negativity being directed at video games is a bit exhagerated. But I see no reason to fine the ESRB for doing what movie companies get from the MPAA all the time, lower ratings by making slight adjustments.
I really do not think the ESRB is neglecting their duty, they might disagree with certain senators as to what constitutes a E rating a T rating and a M rating.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
Why? I mean, why particularly? It's a voluntary ratings system, and not legally binding in any way.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
it may not be strictly legally binding, but I've had to give my DOB to buy Diablo and other games rated M
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
In places like Hong Kong ratings seriously mean nothing. You can buy any game you want and no questions are asked.
Heck you can go down the street where they are selling porn on VCD and DVD and the guys there will turn the other way and sell it to you regardless of your age.
Sometimes I think Americans dont realize how much censors really do try to do their job.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The Thompson in question isn't Jack Thompson, according to the article you linked.
quote:Also in attendance were Harvard associate professor Kimberly Thompson, Childrens Technology Review editor Warren Buckleitner, and National Institute on Media and the Family president David Walsh, both critics of the ESRB.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Hahahahaha! Whoops. Look what happens when you assume
I'm impressed, though, that they found another Thompson whose rhetoric I couldn't distinguish from Jack's Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
That's rather the key, isn't it? For example, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was just re-rated to M from T because a third-party mod made female NPCs topless. If games are rated by what mods can do, then Neverwinter Nights, with its incredibly powerful modding and scripting tools, should clearly be rated Adults Only.
There is a sane solutoin to this problem. Much like the ESRB puts a "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" notice at the start of internet-enabled games, there should also be a "Game Experience May Change With Third-Party Modifications" notice. The developer and publisher can't be held responsible for what other people do with the modding tools they provide.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
ESRB: T for Teen.This post may not be suitable for young children. Reading experience may change in On-line perusing.
"Faceless surgeons armed with razors cut out our imagination" -- Controller, Oingo Boingo
Why don't we just give up and live in their sterile, tasteless world. We can all be perfect little heterosexual cogs in the government's grand machine with nothing better than lukewarm entertainment from the Hallmark channel to placate our minds.
Who needs free speech when it might harm children? Who needs adult entertainment if it might fall into the hands of kids? Heck, we should give a blank sheet of paper an "M" rating. Ya know, a third party mod might draw a nekkid woman on it.
Remember people, every time you think about giving the government more power, it's these ********** that you're giving the power to. They don't know a damn thing about anything but they have the power to affect every little aspect of your life. And YOU are giving it to them. You think they know about the environment? Look at what they know about something as simple as video games! You think they know about business? middle class life? The poor? Kids? Gays? God? ANYTHING? They're as dumb as dog dirt, the lot of them.
Gah! I'm all worked up now...
Pix
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That's rather the key, isn't it? For example, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was just re-rated to M from T because a third-party mod made female NPCs topless. If games are rated by what mods can do, then Neverwinter Nights, with its incredibly powerful modding and scripting tools, should clearly be rated Adults Only.
I have to chime in: My understanding is that the "topless skin" was, in fact, present on the Oblivion disc, though not used by the game in its standard form. The "patch" makes it available; it doesn't create it.
Still, as with GTA's "Hot Coffee" mod, one has to wonder if they're skirting a fine line. When significant steps have to be undertaken in order to view content more graphic than what is listed on the rating, how different is that from downloading content that uses the game's engine but graphics or sounds that weren't included with the game?
Could you reach a point where every C++ compiler comes with a warning label for what it *could* create?
That elected representatives continue to define video and computer games as a "kid's medium" shows just how far removed they are from their constituencies, and I suspect how far they often are from being actual representatives of those consituencies. It'll be interesting to see what Congress looks like in 20 years, when perhaps some of its members will actually be people who play games.
Right now, I suspect video games are merely the kind of issue they think they can flog with minimal negative impact while making them look proactive to their target block.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
The Elder Scrolls issue is a weird one. The texture with nipples was on the disc, but the only way to get to it was to hack in and alter the source code. It really could not be accessed without writing a third-party program to do it. It's not like there was an image file sitting in a directory somewhere.
How about this ... what if there were a game that did not have a nude female upper torso, but did have a nude male torso with nipples ... and then what if someone modded the game by applying the male texture to the female model? It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a close enough approximation to female anatomy to be considered nudity. Would that be considered the developer's fault, since all the art came on the disc?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just say a discussion that mirrored this on the Colbert Report the other night. There was a guy on who wrote a book about how video games and the like aren't as bad as everyone says. I think the book was called something like "Everything that's bad for you is actually good" or something like that.
His argument for video games was something along the lines of "Do you know what kids are playing these days? Sid Meier's Civilization Four, where kids spend all their free time managing, and building a civilization from the ground up." He went on from there, basically talking about how seemingly boring subject matter was the basis for the second most popular game in the country. Stephen was a little flummoxed by that, but he didn't miss much of a beat. I think the point was well earned though, other than the proven positive effect of increased hand eye coordination from games (perhaps offset by the increase in arthritis), the fact is that kids are playing amazingly mentally challenging games these days. Like the new game coming out, "Spore" I think it's called, where you have to take a microbe and turn it into an empire, or some such.
Kids are being increasingly mentally challenged at younger and younger ages. And they are demanding to be able to do so, demanding that they be able to play these games that in fact, I honestly thing, are making them more capable and smarter, if not directly, then are at least increasing their ability to use critical thinking and acquire new knowledge.
To paint the entire video game industry based on its most violent offenders is ridiculous, and I think only serves to illustrate how incredibly far removed the people attacking it are from the actual subject matter.
Congress should spend a couple days with their children playing some games. They might learn something.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: ANYTHING? They're as dumb as dog dirt, the lot of them.
Gah! I'm all worked up now...
Pix
Well obviously pix, we Americans depend on the government and society to raise our kids FOR us. Why should we take the time out to raise them with the right knowledge? Society should be safeguarded against scariness, sharpness, sourness, sweetness, violence, sexuality, homosexuality, controversy, and the bitter cold hard facts of life! After, we're so much smarter than them... we can handle these issues, and obviously they can't.
I DJed by second dance at my new teen center job a few nights ago, and the way we do parental pick-ups is to have all the kids meet at one of two exits so that we can make sure every kid (all of them in 7th grade), is picked up by an adult (either a friend's parent or a sibling or a parent). When it came time for pickups, a number of kids said their parents had told them to come out to the cars in the parking lot (even though we'd expressely said this was not going to be allowed!). Those weren't the most annoying however.
Early on in the parent pick-up process, a girl ran past my "post" at the exit toward a an adult about 10 yards away. I was about to say something to her, but saw that she was clearly headed for a family member (and stopping her would have annoyed her and the parent). I saw her reach her mom, and turned back to the rest of the kids. About a minute later, the mom came up and tapped ME on the shoulder, and asked (in an accusing voice) "Excuse me, why did you let my daughter run past you?"
Lets forget that I didn't "let" her do anything, that I couldn't have stopped her, and she didn't ask my permission to do it. Then let's also forget that I carefully watched her and made sure she was with a mom, so I DID MY JOB. Then lets also forget that even though I was doing my job correctly, it was the girl who had broken the rules and ran through the checkpoint. The mother was holding me responsible for her daughter having made my work more difficult, accusing me by connotation, of being careless. The mom asks me why I LET HER DAUGHTER do that. Gee wiz... everything your kid does has got to be my responsibility? Even when your there and I'm there, and presumably your kid has a brain in her head and is making at least some of her own decisions?
I told the mom with a pleasant smile (for I suffer fools gladly, they remind me that I am not stupid), "I watched where she was going even though she ran off without asking. :::wan smile:::"
Hi parents. Your job is this: Be a ******* parent, and please stop expecting the world to nurture and protect your kids from their (and your) stupid decisions.
That being said, I don't expect most parents are like that, but the town I live in has an overabundance of wealthy people without enough to do but harass city workers who are at the end of 10 hour shifts.... Rant finished.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
Why? I mean, why particularly? It's a voluntary ratings system, and not legally binding in any way.
It's simple consumer fraud, that's why.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
In that case I don't think it was, Dag. Perhaps in some cases, but not in a lot.
If you need to modify the game to show the disagreeable content, then the game isn't being played as advertised, is it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was referring merely to the statement Tom quoted in general. If the material wasn't "in-game" then my comment doesn't apply to that situation.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That's rather the key, isn't it? For example, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was just re-rated to M from T because a third-party mod made female NPCs topless. If games are rated by what mods can do, then Neverwinter Nights, with its incredibly powerful modding and scripting tools, should clearly be rated Adults Only.
I have to chime in: My understanding is that the "topless skin" was, in fact, present on the Oblivion disc, though not used by the game in its standard form. The "patch" makes it available; it doesn't create it.
That's certainly true. When I loot the corpses of human enemies in Oblivion they are typically stripped to their underwear when I'm finished taking their gear, and it doesn't look as though the underwear is part of the character skin. I don't really see why it should be part of the character skin, though. The only reason to do that is to make it harder for a modder to make the characters nude, but if it requires mods anyway, I'm not sure I see the problem. There'd be a line to draw, of course -- a developer could hypothetically include content with the intent that modders would use it.
Still, a "Game Experience May Change During Online Play Or With Third-Party Modifications" disclaimer at the front would make it clearer that the developer and publisher aren't responsible for what other people do with the modding tools they provide.
[Added: I'm playing the Xbox 360 version of Oblivion, which wasn't re-rated because there is no way to access the underlying skins. The skins are obviously still on the disc, so apparently the issue only arises when the skins are accessible, not when they're there but inaccessible. On the other hand, the console versions of GTA:SA were also re-rated because some people with modded consoles could access the Hot Coffee content.
Certainly Rockstar should have known better than to leave Hot Coffee on the disc, but I don't think Bethseda did anything wrong in making the underlying body textures nude. Heck, where I live, it's legal for a woman to go topless outside; it's not like they have to cover up if they happen to pass someone under 17 on the street. ]
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Still, as with GTA's "Hot Coffee" mod, one has to wonder if they're skirting a fine line. When significant steps have to be undertaken in order to view content more graphic than what is listed on the rating, how different is that from downloading content that uses the game's engine but graphics or sounds that weren't included with the game?
The example of Giants: Citizen Kabuto is also interesting. Originally one of the game's charcters, the female Sea Reaper Delphi, was topless (this was for the games European release). Before the game was released in North America, though, the developer added a bikini-type top to the character in order to keep the game at a Mature rating (for animated blood and animated violence). The underlying nude skin was still easily accessible (you just had to delete the "fix" file), no third-party mods required, and yet the game wasn't re-rated.
Aside: Giants is a good game, too. I didn't make Delphi topless when I played through it, but I could have.
It's also interesting that something like Giants, with its cartoony characters and zany presentation, is rated M for violence, right alongside a game like Condemned: Criminal Origins, which features remarkably realistic (and very disturbing) investigations of murder scenes, not to mention beating people to death with a length of steel pipe. It seems very strange to me that a game could be re-rated from T to M or M to AO because of the possibility that someone might use the game engine to look at pixellated breasts, but violence as graphic as games like Manhunt and Condemned only earns an M. It gets even stranger when you consider that M is 17+ and AO is 18+. It seems to me that the only reason for M to exist is to allow retailers to sell ultra-violent games to minors.
quote:That elected representatives continue to define video and computer games as a "kid's medium" shows just how far removed they are from their constituencies, and I suspect how far they often are from being actual representatives of those consituencies. It'll be interesting to see what Congress looks like in 20 years, when perhaps some of its members will actually be people who play games.
I agree completely. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Twinky- Its legal for people to go topless where you live? Do you live in Europe or the US or somewhere else? The only place I have ever seen people (both sexes) go topless was in Cadaques, Catalonia, which is a small port in north-west Spain. It was a beautiful day... Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ontario, Canada. You don't see it much, but it's allowed. The practical upshot, as far as I can tell, seems to be that mothers can nurse their infants more or less anywhere. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Most people don't even know that Windsor has a topless beach-no one goes topless. I guess us Canadians are just too shy (or too cold). Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Windsor has a topless beach? Where? I'm there fairly often.
Aren't women in Canada literally around to walk around topless whenever they want on streets? I thought I remember a controversy about that law awhile back. Or was it just in some major city like Montreal or Toronto?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I remember hearing about it in Toronto and Montreal, I think, but that was a while ago.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Windsor has a topless beach? Where? I'm there fairly often.
I'd say you'll be there a bit more often now, ho ho ho.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hey, if it gets my friends away from the bars, clubs, and Windsor Casino, it'll kill two birds with one stone.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote: "Defining this industry based on its most controversial titles would be like defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Natural Born Killers," he said, "or the music industry based on Eminem, 50 Cent, and The Dixie Chicks.
Did the 'dixie chicks' part make anyone else literally LOL?
Yeah...
quote: Thompson's claim that Pac-Man is indeed a violent game
What? If Pac Man is a violent game, then what's stopping them from giving games like Sonic and Mario Bros. an M rating? Why can't they focuse on something that needs to be changed? The game ratings have been fine this long, why not longer?
Like you guys said before, if you change the art to make a character or NCP go nude or topless, that's because of you. They shouldn't be able to give a higher rating for that. Not everyone mods the games. Why should a game be 'M' because someone changes it, but I don't? Not everyone will change it. The rating shouldn't go higher because of what they do.
Jeez, Why do I get involved with these? First it was age, then it was movie ratings...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hey, if it gets my friends away from the bars, clubs, and Windsor Casino, it'll kill two birds with one stone.
There are two casinos up here in Sarnia (~1-1.5 hours north of Windsor). I assume people came across the border to go to them a lot when the Canadian dollar was down in the US$0.60 range, but it's US$0.90 now. Is there less crossborder casino traffic because of that?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: There are two casinos up here in Sarnia (~1-1.5 hours north of Windsor). I assume people came across the border to go to them a lot when the Canadian dollar was down in the US$0.60 range, but it's US$0.90 now. Is there less crossborder casino traffic because of that?
I don't know about that, but the last time my wife and I were in Victoria, the change in rates was a rude awakening.
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: Jeez, Why do I get involved with these? First it was age, then it was movie ratings...
Sympathies, Jeesh. It's the sort of thing where for all the claims that they're doing things for kids, they wouldn't dream of actually looking to kids for input. And it stinks to high heaven.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hey, if it gets my friends away from the bars, clubs, and Windsor Casino, it'll kill two birds with one stone.
There are two casinos up here in Sarnia (~1-1.5 hours north of Windsor). I assume people came across the border to go to them a lot when the Canadian dollar was down in the US$0.60 range, but it's US$0.90 now. Is there less crossborder casino traffic because of that?
Not that I've seen. It's a little bit more expensive to buy a drink or what not there now, and in general the shopping scene isn't as big as it was. But the bar crawl and the casino is still buzzing all the time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
*****
Why? I mean, why particularly? It's a voluntary ratings system, and not legally binding in any way.
Weren't you just commenting on how legal doesn't necessarily mean right, Tom?
What Dag said, more or less. The public has come to rely on the ratings system in order to filter out certain things. Sneaking in work arounds so that you can publish a T-rated video game, with an M- rated cheats is dishonest.
A big part of keeping video games safe is keeping parents involved. For example: for father's day, my kids purchased Harry Potter 4. For me, ostensibly. It's ESRB rated E-10, meaning it's suitable for everyone above age ten. My oldest is almost eight-- and we screened HP4 the movie, and wouldn't let any of the kids watch the end. So, my wife and I decided to play through the game and make sure that everything was kosher for what we're comfortable letting them see/hear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sneaking in work arounds so that you can publish a T-rated video game, with an M- rated cheats is dishonest.
That's only if the ratings system isn't already a complete joke. And of course it is.
Have you seen the amount of violence it takes to get a "M" rating?
quote:A big part of keeping video games safe is keeping parents involved.
While this is a great goal, it's worth noting that moddable games guarantee that this is impossible.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Sneaking in work arounds so that you can publish a T-rated video game, with an M- rated cheats is dishonest.
********
That's only if the ratings system isn't already a complete joke. And of course it is.
Have you seen the amount of violence it takes to get a "M" rating?
We've only got two M-rated games at our home-- Fable and Prince of Persia 2. Both are rated fairly, I think.
I don't see how the rating system affects developer honesty at all, Tom. Additionally, I don't see how the ratings system is a complete joke. I've heard other folks say so, but I've never heard a rational explanation as to why they think it sux0rz.
quote:it's worth noting that moddable games guarantee that this is impossible.
I don't know about impossible. I see your point though.
Anyway, my point didn't have anything to do with what the ESRB or the industry did, but what parents do. We have Neverwinter Nights at our home; if my kids play it, I'd be pretty snoopy about what mods they download and use.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This modding issue brings to the fore the fact that the government and parents are fighting an inevitably losing battle to keep control of what children are exposed to.
Think about this: someday, maybe twenty years down the line, computers will be smart enough that anyone will be able to modify the programs they own with very simple commands. Any game could be turned into the equivalent of a Grand Theft Auto, if the user desires. Computers this smart might be programmable with ethical guidelines of some sort, but given the fact that kids are typically better with computers than their parents, I'm skeptical whether this could be effective.
Bottom line, I think there will come a time when no one will be able to control what media other people are exposed to. In some ways this will be good, and it some ways it could be very bad. Very unlike the past, anyway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Interesting observation, Scott. Because neither "Fable" nor "Prince of Persia 2" are rated "M" for violence. They're rated "M" because both games contain smidgens of sexual content.
A flash of nipple will get most games rated "M" immediately, and perhaps even "AO." If you have no nipples and no moaning sounds, you have to decapitate someone and play the xylophone on their spine to get an "M."
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Twinky- Its legal for people to go topless where you live? Do you live in Europe or the US or somewhere else?
In New York state, its legal for a woman to be topless anywhere that a man can be topless.
I think any law that says otherwise is hopelessly sexist, and downright undefendable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think there are a few separate problems here:
(1) The ESRB ratings system is flawed.
Here is the system itself, straight from the ESRB:
quote:EARLY CHILDHOOD -- Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
EVERYONE -- Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
EVERYONE 10+ -- Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
TEEN --- Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
MATURE -- Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
ADULTS ONLY -- Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
According to the ratings system, the distinguishing features between M and AO are "prolonged" intense violence and/or "graphic" sexual content "and nudity." M games can contain intense violence (but not prolonged intense violence), as well as sexual content (but not graphic sexual content, and certainly not nudity). At retail, the major difference between M games and AO games is that Wal-Mart (among other retailers) does not stock AO games. The potential market of an AO game is dramatically diminished, since to get your hands on one you have to go looking. AO games, then, are not casual buys.
Consider Resident Evil 4, which topped many reviewers' Game Of The Year lists. I own RE4 and thought it was an excellent game, one of the best I've played in terms of immersion and atmosphere. The action sequences were frequent and pulse-pounding, but I'll focus on the first major in-game example, the village of "Ganados" that the player encounters early on. (SPOILER: Ganados are not zombies, unlike the previous Resident Evil titles. Rather, they are humans possessed by a biological agent referred to as "las plagas" -- an agent for which there is a cure. Over the course of RE4, I killed more than 500 Ganados.)
Up to the village, the player only encounters Ganados in groups of 1-3, but the village is home to a couple of dozen. As the player approaches the village, the impaled corpse of a police officer comes into view, roasting over a large pyre in the middle of the village. The player can attempt to sneak through the village, but is invariably noticed by the Ganados, who attack with pitchforks, axes, their bare hands, and eventually a chainsaw. The sequence is essentially a wholesale slaughter, and lasts (depending on the player's actions) five to ten minutes, during which a shotgun becomes available to the player. Shooting Ganados in the head with the shotgun causes their heads to explode in a shower of blood and brain matter.
How Capcom or the ESRB could describe this as anything other than "prolonged intense violence" is utterly beyond my understanding, but RE4 received an M rating.
The real intent of the M rating seems to be to keep 17-year-olds from seeing in-game breasts for one more year. Until the GTA:SA "Hot Coffee" fiasco, the AO rating was essentially reserved for pornographic games. In other words, there is no video game equivalent of the movies' R rating.
(2) The ESRB ratings system is applied inconsistently.
A few years ago, Giants: Citizen Kabuto was rated M for violence, not because of how easy it was to remove Delphi's top. In contrast, recently Oblivion was rated T for much more violence (and much more intense violence), but when it was discovered that third-party mods could expose character models' underlying "nude" textures, the PC version was immediately re-rated M.
That's only one example, of course, but just perusing my own game collection (which includes RE4, Killer7, Giants, and the T-rated Xbox 360 version of Oblivion) is enough to tell me that the T/M distinction is not at all clear with respect to how much violence can be tolerated.
(3) The ESRB ratings system is often not enforced.
This is the fault of both retailers and parents. Not all parents are as diligent as Scott R and his wife -- indeed, most probably aren't. I know that I was playing games like Syndicate, Doom, and Marathon at a younger age than I should have been, but my parents weren't terribly aware of it. Heck, I remember seeing the strippers in Duke Nukem 3D at a friend's house when I was still in junior high, but that sort of thing was beyond my parents' control.
In most jurisdictions, the ESRB ratings don't carry legal weight, and until recently, there was no consistent philosophy of enforcement. With the current political climate the ESRB seems to be expressing more interest in self-policing so as to avoid government regulation in the U.S., but of course, even if they were enforced, the ratings would still be flawed and inconsistently applied. Here in Canada, a few provinces put legal weight behind the ESRB ratings, which to my mind is only a partial solution to the problem. The ratings system needs to be fixed, clarified, and applied consistently across the board (with no sex/violence double standard, please) before enforcement can proceed properly.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
They considered Pac-Man to be a violent game. Sounds more like a witch hunt to me, its something that most congressmen don't understand, so they would like to control it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Twinky: I agree with you.
quote:This modding issue brings to the fore the fact that the government and parents are fighting an inevitably losing battle to keep control of what children are exposed to.
I've got a great deal of control over what my children are exposed to. At my LEAST powerful, I'm a huge, freaking, impenetrable wall of safety. At my most powerful, I am an engine of instruction and moral and behavioral guidance.
quote:given the fact that kids are typically better with computers than their parents, I'm skeptical whether this could be effective.
Nonsense. This is true of Generation X kids and their parents, but no longer. The generation gap no longer applies to technology. Gen-X and post-gen-x kids grew up with rapid technology changes. Technological changed practically defined us, and it became part of the overarching... us-ness to adapt to it, get the best, newest, etc. I don't see that changing.
quote:Interesting observation, Scott. Because neither "Fable" nor "Prince of Persia 2" are rated "M" for violence. They're rated "M" because both games contain smidgens of sexual content.
:blush:
I actually noted that to show that we don't have a lot of M-rated games; so I really WOULDN'T know how much violence it takes to get a game an M rating. (Some of the scenes in Fable, especially the Balverine scenes and when Theresa loses her eyes would merit an M rating in my book...)
I should have made that more clear.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: engine of instruction
I had to work to parse that as anything other than "engine of destruction."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sometimes, I edit myself to be an engine of destruction of moral and behavioral guidance. Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Well the violence/sexuality "double standard" seems to exist in the movie ratings too. A fairly intense action movie can be rated PG-13 as long as there's infrequent cursing (and of a lesser degree than what could be said) and little to no sexuality.
However- a movie that focuses more on the sexuality in the movie (and no- I'm not talking Romantic Comedies, at least not most) then it will much more easily get an R rating.
I think our culture tells us that blowing up people is good, sex is bad.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Raise your hand if you were raised watching Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons?
No violence there.
No sex either. Except when Bugs is getting up in drag and kissing other guys.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Nonsense. This is true of Generation X kids and their parents, but no longer. The generation gap no longer applies to technology. Gen-X and post-gen-x kids grew up with rapid technology changes. Technological changed practically defined us, and it became part of the overarching... us-ness to adapt to it, get the best, newest, etc. I don't see that changing.
Not a bad point, though I suspect it holds true only of middle and upper class gen-Xers (now that I think about it, that's a label I've never heard applied to anyone who's not reasonably well off).
But still, there may come a point when everyone carries his computer around with him. Hell, there may come a point when we build computers into our bodies. At what point does your computer use become indistinguishable from your private mental life?
We will probably reach that point eventually, and then all efforts of this sort will fail.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We will probably reach that point eventually, and then all efforts of this sort will fail.
Not really. This presumes the desire to view or use the material.
Which is where my 'engine of instruction and moral and behavioral guidance' comes into play.
I know that I won't be able to (or will always want to) dictate to my children what to do, watch, eat, wear. That's why I TEACH them now why we do what we do. For example, we've taught the kids about dressing modestly-- Super-K (5 years old) now will not play any of the snowboarders in the Amped 2 demo we own who show their belly buttons. This was his choice, by the way; we haven't said anything except, "Oh, hey, you're right, she's not dressed modestly. She's also probably cold."
LiteBrite regularly schools me on my language (the words 'stupid' and 'dumb' are not allowed in our house).
Junebug interrupts us when M and I are having arguments to tell us to simmer down.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It sounds like your children have been taught to police themselves, and were amenable to that. You're fortunate.
Not all kids are like that.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:The real intent of the M rating seems to be to keep 17-year-olds from seeing in-game breasts for one more year. Until the GTA:SA "Hot Coffee" fiasco, the AO rating was essentially reserved for pornographic games. In other words, there is no video game equivalent of the movies' R rating.
twink, I don't understand your concern. It seems to me that the M rating is more strict than the R rating because it is tougher on nudity while functioning about the same in terms of violence. (Have you seen an R-rated zombie movie lately? Sure, video games have higher body counts, but they are also ten times longer and more repetitive than movies. That doesn't make them "more" gorey.)
Meanwhile, the AO rating is more strict than the NC-17 rating because it requires customers to be a year older to purchase less disturbing material. Honestly, the most disturbing violence I've ever seen in a game (Manhunt) is nothing compared to some of the hideous live-action movies out there that kids can watch if they want to. I've also never been aware of a game that earned an AO for violence, honestly ... which is in part because most games mitigate the violence by pitting you against enemies who are non-human, unrealistic, faceless, and/or repetitive. Compared with some horror movies that get you intensely involved with a character, and then slowly, brutally, mutilate them to death.
The intent of the M rating, obviously, is to draw a line between games that the ESRB thinks parents will be comfortable with their teenagers purchasing on their own, and games that they think parents would want to more tightly control. Judgments are made on a game-by-game basis, and it is virtually impossible, under those circumstances, to come across as completely "consistent". I mean seriously, how do you do that, without at least one M rated game ending up looking milder than some T rated game.
And since when have movie ratings been considered completely consistent with regards to the line between PG-13 and R?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There's a reason the PG-13 label was criticized, too. It's a bit of a cop-out.
Of course, I personally think all ratings systems are pretty much inherently flawed, but that's just me.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Do you have an alternative to propose?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. None at all, and let the store vendors decide whether they're going to sell a given game to a given child.
Ratings WOULD be informative, but the problem they've got is that by having ratings at all they present the impression of accuracy and some sort of legal promise of content -- something that, with moddable games and widely varying standards, is pretty much impossible to guarantee.
So I'd reassure store owners that they have the freedom to not sell a product to a minor if they don't want to. And let parents who're unhappy with the sale complain to the store, rather than the publisher.
This would not eliminate the core problem that ratings currently fail to "satisfactorily" address -- namely, that some people enjoy media other people consider inappropriate -- but it WOULD eliminate other ancillary problems. Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
I, personally, hate rating systems. They judge people by their age, not their maturity. I've seen preview for 'R' movies, some don't look that bad (as in violence and sexual content) and I'd like to see them. But they're rated 'R' I can't go to the theater to see them unless I'm with a parent, which will never happen. A few times I've watched a movie without looking at the rating. My DAD watched them with me. They were rated 'R' and were thought it was 'PG-13'! I can understand people not wanting a 3 year old watching something like 'Kill Bill', but that should be up to the parent, not the people who rate it. (The name currently escapse me) I find it annoying that movies like 'Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events' is given a higher rating for 'Thematic Elements'. I just don't like any of the rating systems. (Or anything that requires a certian age)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Raise your hand if you were raised watching Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons?
No violence there.
No sex either. Except when Bugs is getting up in drag and kissing other guys.
Remember though that the violence in Looney Toons was slightly modified by the fact that no matter how much they were hurt, they never drew blood and nobody died.
The Looney Toons were fine just seconds after being blown up with TNT, it made us think they werent hurt that bad so we could focus on how funny the violence was.
As for Bugs Bunny in Drag. Well yes he did kiss other guys while dressed in womens clothing. But I wouldnt say that was a common thing for the character. Often it was the result of the neccesity of a female character (For example when they parodied "Wagners Ride of the Valkyrie." A lack of a female Looney Toon I suppose neccesitated Bugs Bunny to take the role on himself.
I know that sounds like a silly thing but in reality if the Looney Toons reacted to the abuse they were put through realistically it really would have been a different ball game, err cartoon.
Tom and Jerry to me pushed the envelope just alittle further. Then the Simpsons came along with Itchy and Scratchy and parodied basically what taking the format to excess would do.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:None at all, and let the store vendors decide whether they're going to sell a given game to a given child.
Chaos. Who knew Tom was an anarchist?
I mean, can you imagine the HUGE corporate policy document Wal-mart would have to make to implement this? Today, they can just say, "We don't sell M-rated games to people under 17," or whatever.
In order to make this sort of thing useful, all employees would have to be familiar with all the games...
Practically, what you're suggestion does is make all games available to all people. I'm not terrified of the concept; but it doesn't make me happy.
This is kind of like sex-ed: parents aren't really doing the best job they could with teaching kids what's acceptable, proper, safe. So society has to throw the kids a few hints.
Except it's the reverse for video games: the ESRB functions to let parents know what is generally available within a child's appropriate-ness level.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In order to make this sort of thing useful, all employees would have to be familiar with all the games...
That's ALREADY true, by and large. The ratings system just obfuscates that basic truth.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, all employees SHOULD be familiar with the games they sell. Is that what you're saying?
I think this is possible in small gaming shops; part of the reason they exist is so gamers can go chat with someone who knows something about games.
But what about in Wal-Mart or Target, where there is a section where electronics are sold, but no employee that is knowlegeable about games?
I think your anarchist ideas are going to be squashed beneath the weight of capitalist America, and the need for unskilled, uninformed labor, Tom.
Additionally, I really don't trust other eight-year old's estimations on what makes for quality entertainment. By way of example, let me point out the ongoing existence of the Disney channel, and the devotion given to it by eight year old girls country wide.
EDIT: That last paragraph makes no sense. What I'm saying, I suppose, is that I trust an anonymous board of people organized under an acronym more than I trust Janie-the-check-out-girl.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
ARND, I think you somewhat missed my point. I'll try to explain.
First, I don't view the fact that M and AO are "more restrictive" than R and NC-17 as inherently positive. If I implied that, I certainly didn't intend to. As you noted, the only way in which the game ratings are "more restrictive" than the movie ratings is sexual content, and I'm not convinced that there shouldn't be in-game breasts in M-rated games.
As an aside, I'm not sure I agree that games classified as AO are necessarily "less disturbing" than movies classified NC-17, but maybe it's just that something about tentacle monster sex scenes really creeps me out.
With respect to the ESRB ratings system, I don't think there's much point to having separate M and AO ratings if the only distinctions between them are one year of elapsed time and breasts. It's obvious that essentially no games are going to get an AO rating on account of violence, given what you can find in M. My major problems with the rating system, then, are (1) the blatant double standard in the treatment of violence and sex, respectively, and (2) the failure of the ESRB to apply its own definitions in rating games. Games that would be AO if the ESRB actually rated games in accordance with its own definitions -- like RE4 and Killer7 -- all wind up with M ratings.
The AO rating should be amended to reflect how the rating is actually applied -- otherwise, what's the point of having a rating system at all? Really, what they should do is move the "intense violence" stuff into M, since that's how they actually rate the games in practice. That would make it more clear that the only thing that's going to garner you an AO is nudity. Then we can get into the question of whether any nudity should be allowed in M-rated games...
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I just played through a game called Indigo Prophecy". It's rated 'M' for- let's see here- "Blood, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs and Alcohol, Violence"
(Actually, the only drugs in the game are prescription painkillers, taken by the person prescribed to, and if you take then with alcohol you die. But I digress.)
As far as I can tell, the game got the "M" rating and the "Partial Nudity" descriptor based on that, while sex and nudity comparable to an "R" rated movie exist, the female textures have no nipples.
I'd tend to agree that the ratings system for games, while better than nothing, tends to be a bit perverse. Consider that the "T" rated Command & Conquer games allow one to roll tanks over people to kill them, or drop a nuclear weapon and cause dozens of people to burst into flames and fall down screaming. Or that many "T" rated first-person shooters are virtually identical to their "M" rated kin in body count, but the "T" games present the results of shooting someone as bloodless.
So, you can have violence or sex, as long as it's not remotely realistic. This is a service? Frankly, I think a game that presents killing as something with *consequences* ought to receive more consideration.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I just played through a game called Indigo Prophecy". It's rated 'M' for- let's see here- "Blood, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs and Alcohol, Violence"
(Actually, the only drugs in the game are prescription painkillers, taken by the person prescribed to, and if you take then with alcohol you die. But I digress.)
As far as I can tell, the game got the "M" rating and the "Partial Nudity" descriptor based on that, while sex and nudity comparable to an "R" rated movie exist, the female textures have no nipples.
I'd tend to agree that the ratings system for games, while better than nothing, tends to be a bit perverse. Consider that the "T" rated Command & Conquer games allow one to roll tanks over people to kill them, or drop a nuclear weapon and cause dozens of people to burst into flames and fall down screaming. Or that many "T" rated first-person shooters are virtually identical to their "M" rated kin in body count, but the "T" games present the results of shooting someone as bloodless.
So, you can have violence or sex, as long as it's not remotely realistic. This is a service? Frankly, I think a game that presents killing as something with *consequences* ought to receive more consideration.
By that logic a movie such as Titanic should not have been fighting for a PG13 rating in spite of showing nudity, but instead should have gotten a cool PG rating for being up and front about nudity in art. Heck to bring it to the point of craziness, if they had depicted the sex scene afterwards more graphically, it should have gotten even more reduced ratings because lets face it, the movie makers were trying to be more honest and accurate as to what a relationship between a man and a woman really is.
Censors are not trying to hide reality from children. Lets say you lived in a large metropolitan city and you found out one of your next door neighbors was a convicted murderer. That your other neighbor was an active crack dealer, and that the fire codes in your apartment was not up to snuff on regulations. Would you keep you and your family there because lets face it thats the reality some people live in?
Children are not always ready to face the harsh cold mess that reality can sometimes be. Often we try to subject them only to the positive in life rather then making them aware of the negative. There is nothing wrong with trying to carefully expose your children to a more and more mature environment. Every child is different and every parent has the right to do what they think is best for their child. There is nothing wrong with expecting movie and gaming companies to provide guidelines that parents can use to at least get an "Idea" as to what they can expect if they and their child view a particular movie.
If you were raised in a household where your parents were very controlling and made you say "pee pee" intead of "piss." well sorry, when you are 18 you can throw off those shackles and go do WHATEVER you have always wanted to do. Nobody is stopping you, except your parents maybe if you insist on living under the same roof as them.
Rating systems are not perfect, but no system ever will please everyone of that I am convinced. So use your own inteligence as to what you think is right and proper in your own life and in the lives of the children you have responsibily over.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rating systems are not perfect, but no system ever will please everyone of that I am convinced. So use your own inteligence as to what you think is right and proper in your own life and in the lives of the children you have responsibily over.
Which is an excellent argument against a rating system.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Rating systems are not perfect, but no system ever will please everyone of that I am convinced. So use your own inteligence as to what you think is right and proper in your own life and in the lives of the children you have responsibily over.
Which is an excellent argument against a rating system.
I do not think it is. Not everyone was completely happy with the constitution that became the foundation of government for this country (The US). Almost nobody has been perfectly happy with it ever since. And yet we put up with it. It still serves a useful purpose.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:My major problems with the rating system, then, are (1) the blatant double standard in the treatment of violence and sex ...
I don't think there is necessarily something wrong with having a double standard for things that are actually inherently different. Humans perceive and react to violence and sex in markedly different ways.
I've got a huge rant about this stored away in my head that I don't have time to type now [EDIT: Or maybe I do], but consider this. There is a reason why there is a huge market for hardcore sexual pornography, while there is much less of a market for "Faces of Death". The instinctive human reaction to convincing violent imagery is very different from the instinctive human reaction to convincing sexual imagery.
A shark, for example, becomes aroused and flies into a rage when he experiences violent "imagery" (in its case, the scent of blood). If sharks created art, then violent art that smelled like blood would be considered much more dangerous than sexual art, and would need to be tightly controlled to keep sharks civilized.
Humans, on the other hand, have a different reaction to violence. We get pumped with adrenaline when we see certain types of violence (and revulsion when we see others), but either way, our instincts aren't predatory. We don't develop a desire to murder and devour other people. Adrenaline just makes us want to move fast, experience thrills, and do "cool" things, from skateboarding to riding a rollercoaster to driving too fast. So for us, violent art is far less dangerous than it would be for a hypothetical society of sharks. It isn't the mere presence of violence that makes something "bad" for us, but rather the social context and presentation of that violence. Violent imagery, for normal humans, doesn't function like a drug.
Note that most people gravitate towards violence that "looks cool" — car chases with explosions, martial arts with wire work, two-fisted slow-motion gunslinging. In those cases, it's not the "killing people" aspect of the scene that makes it cool. It's the choreography, the drama, the sense of jeopardy, the overcoming of terrifying odds.
Sexual imagery, however, does have a more shark-like, drug-like effect on humans. It triggers chemical and emotional responses that cut very deeply and promote compulsive behavior. People become addicted to pornography much more easily than they become addicted to violence, or even thrills, and the wrong kind or amount of sexual experience at the wrong age can warp someone's sexual development.
Does that mean that the system should function exactly as it does now? Maybe, maybe not. My point is that violence and sex are not equivalent, and it does not make sense to enforce some kind of "equivalency" between two forms of imagery that are inherently not equivalent.
EDIT: Actually, when people truly do consider violence and sex to be equivalent, we call those people "rapists", and lock them away for a long time Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
By the way, regarding blood, I think that given the visceral reaction some humans experience at the sight of blood, it is safe to say that there is something actually different about watching a human bleed, versus watching him fall down.
Honestly, I think that decades of non-gorey violent films have established a convention in our culture.
Human falls down bleeding = dead human. Human falls down not bleeding = actor, not dead.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, I'd be very interested in what sources you are basing your comparison of sex and violence on. It doesn't sound like an accurate description based on the literature I know.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'll respond to the larger part of your post a little later, but I have a couple of quick comments. First, you only addressed one part of my post (and one part of the post before it). Do you have any issues with the stuff you didn't mention? [Added: You don't necessarily need to enumerate them, I'm just trying to establish areas of agreement.]
And, second:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: My point is that violence and sex are not equivalent, and it does not make sense to enforce some kind of "equivalency" between two forms of imagery that are inherently not equivalent.
There's no way to devise a single rating system that accounts for both without drawing at least a measure of equivalence. The only way to address your criticism (insofar as I accept it; again, more on that later) would be to have two separate scales.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, I'm not a professional in the field of psychology, so I'm basing this mostly on being a human and observing my own and other humans' behavior. However, what I'm saying seems to be pretty common-sense stuff. If you have some counterexamples to share, please do so.
My main points are:
1. Humans react in different ways to violent and sexual imagery, and it is therefore difficult (in my opinion, impossible) to establish a one-to-one equivalency between them.
2. Humans react to entertaining violent imagery (combat in The Matrix, for instance) in a very similar way to how they react to non-violent exciting scenes (like the car chase in The French Connection). This is from personal experience and observations. (I'm defining "violence" in this case as "humans intentionally hurting other humans" and not "any situation in which harm to humans might result". Leaping across a gorge, for instance, would be considered a non-violent exciting scene. As would smashing a column and causing an unoccupied building to collapse.)
3. Sexual pornography functions as an addictive substance in a way that violent imagery does not. Again, this is based on anecdotal evidence.
[ June 19, 2006, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
twink, I'm at work, so I'm having trouble responding comprehensively to everything in every post. Can we do one thing at a time for a bit?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Not a problem at all, Puppy, I was just looking for a "yes" or "no" answer with that question. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:(2) the failure of the ESRB to apply its own definitions in rating games. Games that would be AO if the ESRB actually rated games in accordance with its own definitions -- like RE4 and Killer7 -- all wind up with M ratings.
I think you may be reading the ESRB's definitions in a way other than how they intended. Certainly, it is difficult to lay down language in these definitions that is simultaneously vague enough to avoid silly exercises like counting f-words and turning blood green, while remaining specific enough that it is impossible for people to read different interpretations into it. "Obviously this violence is 'prolonged' and so it should be AO! The ESRB is inconsistent!"
quote:There's no way to devise a single rating system that accounts for both without drawing at least a measure of equivalence. The only way to address your criticism (insofar as I accept it; again, more on that later) would be to have two separate scales.
I disagree. What we need (and what the ESRB is trying to provide) is a single system that represents as accurately as possible what most American parents would be comfortable letting their children autonomously expose themselves to at different ages. If that involves different standards for sex and violence, then that's completely fair. If it involves different standards than those used in other countries, then that is also fair. Germany, for instance, is far more restrictive of violence and Nazi symbolism, while France is much less restrictive of nudity. Which accurately reflects the most common attitudes of adults in those countries.
Actually, I guess what this means is, we have two parallel arguments going. One over the effectiveness of the ESRB in presenting good guidelines for concerned parents, and another over what those concerned parents should ideally be most concerned about
I personally think there should be much less hand-wringing about quantities of violence in video games, and much more about the social context of said violence. Shooting fantasy aliens, reenacting military conflicts, and pursuing criminals should belong in a whole different category from games that cast the player as a murderer or a gangster.
But that goes to the second argument, not the first.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: EDIT: Actually, when people truly do consider violence and sex to be equivalent, we call those people "rapists", and lock them away for a long time
From what I've read on the subject, addictive personalities are compulsively attracted to violence and sex for the same reasons- they trigger reward mechanisms in the brain which are tied up with human survival instincts. The addict personality, the alchoholic, the rapist, the serial killer, feels that he or she must drink, rape, or kill in order to survive. Its very much a similar process for all of them, but with very different results. This isn't to say they are all morally equivelant, but they are all similar in some ways.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
RE: studies, Squick, I could point to that study done recently that tested gamers for violent tendencies after playing Asheron's Call 2. The conclusion of that study was that the game had no effect, despite the fact that the players killed hundreds of monsters.
My personal conclusion? They had no reaction because Asheron's Call 2 is boring. In my opinion, it isn't the violence that makes the subjects of some competing studies exhibit increased "violent" feelings and behaviors after playing games. It's the adrenaline rush.
Here's a study I'd like to see:
Four groups of subjects play four different games.
Group 1 plays Hexic. An engaging, addictive game with completely abstract imagery that cannot be construed as violent. It is slow paced and causes no adrenaline rushes that I can detect.
Group 2 plays Asheron's Call 2. An incredibly boring game that depicts a lot of violent conflicts.
Group 3 plays Burnout 4. A very exciting, fast-paced game in which no living things are depicted, and the only "violence" is committed against unoccupied vehicles.
Group 4 plays Call of Duty. A very exciting, hair-raising game that is all about shooting people.
My expected results: In the short term, Groups 1 and 2 have similar reactions, and Groups 3 and 4 have similar reactions. Violent imagery is shown to be secondary to adrenaline-fueled excitement.
I would also like to see a long-term study that examines the short- and long-term effects of both violence and antisocial themes in games. Do the standard "violent feelings/behaviors" tests after each play session to determine the short-term effects, but also have participants watch and comment on the moral messages of movies after months of playing different kinds of games, and see if their tolerance for evil, anti-social behavior is affected in the long run by violent games with different themes.
My expected results: That the short-term effects are similar, but temporary, and that the antisocial games have long-term effects on attitudes that the non-antisocial games do not, regardless of the level of violence.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Puppy- I know I'm not going to say this very well, so please bear with me. You say sex (pornography) is addictive, but violence is not. Could that just be because no one considers it to be? I know plenty of people who play hours of violent video games, and get cranky if they can't play for some reason. But their behavior, at least in my experience is just considered normal. Someone doing exactly the same thing with pornographic video games, on the other hand, would be considered addicted.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Regarding the validity of equating sex with violence (that is, my perceived double standard):
I don't think that the addictive potential of sexual media is significantly greater than the addictive potential of video games. That is, I think the chance of someone becoming addicted to a video game is roughly equivalent to the chance of someone becoming addicted to pornography, once you control for the respective market sizes. I do feel that I can speak with at least some anecdotal authority on this subject, as I am a sometime consumer of both types of media and also have direct experience with addiction... but, like you, I don't have any supporting literature on hand, so keep that in mind.
A good case study is Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball, which has no redeeming features (I should know -- I've played it, and it's a terrible volleyball sim) and is clearly designed to sell entirely on the basis of titillation. Its sales numbers were certainly respectable, and I wouldn't suggest that sex has no appeal to the mass market, but you only have to compare its sales to those of the contemporaneous iteration of the Madden NFL franchise to see that sex in video games is not nearly as alluring as, well, whatever it is that makes people play Madden.
(I'm at least partly kidding, there, because multiplayer Madden is actually pretty fun.)
Also, I don't think anyone has ever spent so long looking at porn that they didn't eat or drink and consequently died; this has definitely happened with video games. Both porn and MMORPGs have destroyed relationships and lives, and I don't think you (the royal "you") could show that porn does this to a greater extent than games when you control for market size. So insofar as addictive potential is concerned, I definitely don't accept your argument.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: ...the wrong kind or amount of sexual experience at the wrong age can warp someone's sexual development.
This is tricky. What constitutes "wrong," or "warped," with respect to sexual development? I know that I certainly have some, ah, kinks... but I'd like to think that I wasn't warped by the path my sexual development took. I get what you're saying, which is that you think the potential for harm in the context of sexual media is greater than that of violent media, but I'm not convinced by your arguments so far.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think you may be reading the ESRB's definitions in a way other than how they intended. Certainly, it is difficult to lay down language in these definitions that is simultaneously vague enough to avoid silly exercises like counting f-words and turning blood green, while remaining specific enough that it is impossible for people to read different interpretations into it.
I really have a very hard time parsing the rating descriptions in any way other than what I outlined in my big post on the first page. Given that a game has never, to my knowledge, been rated AO for "prolonged intense violence," I have to wonder exactly what constutitutes the same. If nothing else, the wording should at least reflect the practice. I don't think that the wording needs to be (or can be, as you say) "perfect," but I do think that the current state of affairs, particulary with respect to M and AO, is suboptimal.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: What we need (and what the ESRB is trying to provide) is a single system that represents as accurately as possible what most American parents would be comfortable letting their children autonomously expose themselves to at different ages.
The ratings are also used outside the U.S., which I actually think is somewhat problematic -- their application certainly does appear to be based on the values of Americans. That makes sense, of course, since the ESRB uses American reviewers to determine its ratings. I would definitely prefer it if we had our own review board here in Canada, for example, but as it is we use the ESRB ratings. In fact, as I've mentioned, in some of our provinces the ESRB ratings carry legal weight.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I personally think there should be much less hand-wringing about quantities of violence in video games, and much more about the social context of said violence. Shooting fantasy aliens, reenacting military conflicts, and pursuing criminals should belong in a whole different category from games that cast the player as a murderer or a gangster.
I'm not so much wringing my hands about the amount of violence as I am pointing out that the ESRB is not applying its own standards. I can't think of any metric by which the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings in Resident Evil 4 -- all in the name of rescuing the President's daughter, mind you -- could be considered anything but "prolonged and intense."
That said, I agree that the people doing the rating should consider context. To some extent, I think they do -- compare the T rating of the Call of Duty games with the M/AO rating of the Grand Theft Auto 3 series, for instance. I think that the violence in the CoD games is much more realistic, despite being essentially bloodless, simply because the graphics are way better. However, there's give and take here. In Condemned, for example, the player begins as a police officer pursuing a serial killer by investigating crime scenes, but the scenes and the violence in the game are both graphic and (to me, at least) highly disturbing. I downloaded the demo from the Xbox Live Arcade and could only handle about ten minutes of it, despite some 20 hours of Resident Evil 4. I feel similarly about the Silent Hill games, actually.
But yes, I agree with the gist of what you're saying there. Context is definitely a factor.
One final thing: the area about which I think there is entirely too much hand-wringing is actually sex. I don't think the PC version of Oblivion should have been re-rated to M, for example, and I don't think Giants should have had to be patched to stay at M.
Added: You know, having said all of that, I don't think we disagree about all that much in terms of substance -- you just seem to like the current wording of the ESRB ratings a bit more than I do. The balance of our disagreements seem to be comparatively minor (that is, the relative weight of sex and violence in the rating scheme).
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Puppy- I know I'm not going to say this very well, so please bear with me. You say sex (pornography) is addictive, but violence is not. Could that just be because no one considers it to be? I know plenty of people who play hours of violent video games, and get cranky if they can't play for some reason. But their behavior, at least in my experience is just considered normal. Someone doing exactly the same thing with pornographic video games, on the other hand, would be considered addicted.
I personally doubt, for reasons cited above, that it is the violent imagery that makes violent video games addictive. I don't see them to be any more addictive than non-violent games, in which case, it is the "game" part of the equation that is addictive, and not the "violent" part.
I also haven't seen any evidence that people on the whole are particularly prone to becoming addicted to violent movies the way the become addicted to sexually pornographic movies.
EDITED to make it clear that I'm talking to blackwolve.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
twink, I've got no time, but I wanted to clear up a misinterpretation. The addiction discussion has spun off in a direction I didn't intend. I wasn't trying to say that porn is bad because it is addictive, or that video games are not addictive.
I know video games are addictive. My point was that violent imagery and sexual imagery, regardless of the delivery system (ie, video games are irrelevant here) show widely varying degrees of addictiveness, which indicates to me that they are perceived differently by the human psyche.
I suspect that way more people become tense on the way home from work because they are really anxious to get on the internet and see some boobs ... while very few have the same anxiety about going home to see some blood and guts.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
All your statements about people becoming addicted to pornographic movies, Puppy, I've known plenty of people who view porn and have never personally known anyone who became addicted to it. I have certainly heard of it happening, but never to anyone I know or even know of. I don't believe porn is an inherently addictive thing.
As for violence, an ex-boyfriend of mine 5 or so years ago played Counterstrike rather extensively, in waves. He defaulted to it between other games. He always played on the side of the "good guys."
His neighbors called the police on him more than once (different neighbors each time) because they thought there was domestic violence going on, when really he was just yelling at the computer and pounding his fist on his desk, in anger at the game or frustration at someone else he was playing with. When he was playing Counterstrike instead of a non-violent game, I noticed a clear difference in his driving habits. He was much more aggressive driving, got mad at other drivers more easily (for getting "in his way" or tailgating, or just plain driving in a way he thought was stupid) and I frankly was a lot less comfortable as a passenger in his car. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a direct result of spending hours submerged in a violent game.
One example only, of course, and probably an extreme one. But since no one seems to be quoting actual studies or statistics in this thread, I think it's just as valid as your observations of human behavior. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Okay. To clarify, the argument I was trying to make is that adding sexual content to video games does not significantly enhance their addictiveness, and therefore that the furor over breasts in video games is unwarranted.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
And I guess my response would be that the addictiveness of sexual imagery is not the reason to exclude it from video games aimed at children and teenagers. I only introduced the "addictiveness" factor as evidence that sexual imagery is processed differently from violent imagery. The addictiveness alone isn't the reason to exclude it.
The potential for immature players to develop unhealthy psychological issues and attitudes through unfiltered exposure to sex is, I think, what most parents worry about.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You haven't supported your assertion that it's addictive on a wide scale, though. It's addictive because you say it is doesn't work for me, especially since this supposed pernicious addictive nature of sexual (or merely naked) imagery is not supported by the literature.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The potential for immature players to develop unhealthy psychological issues and attitudes through unfiltered exposure to sex is, I think, what most parents worry about.
The people who study this issue, such as the AMA, APA, and AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) are a deal more concerned with the violence.
A lot of the stuff we're talking about is not so much graphic depictions of sex as it is simple nudity. And, other than teenage boys finding it sexually arousing (assuming you find that objectionable), there doesn't seem to be all that much psychologically damaging about that. The bare breast doesn't have anywhere near the power the hysterical response to it seems to suggest. People exposed to nudity don't, in large part, become addicted to it.
[ June 19, 2006, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: The potential for immature players to develop unhealthy psychological issues and attitudes through unfiltered exposure to sex is, I think, what most parents worry about.
As MrSquicky says, if that's their concern, I think they should at the very least be equally concerned about violence. So as far as that goes, I think equation of the two for the purposes of constructing a rating system is entirely valid. I also think that the current rating scheme is too restrictive with respect to sex and too permissive with respect to violence. If I were to rework the rating system myself, the last few tiers would go something like:
T -- 13 and up, animated or cartoon-style "unrealistic" violence. e.g. WarCraft III. Romantic relationships can be depicted but sex can't. [Edit: Oblivion would not go here.]
M -- 16 and up, realistic (but not graphic) violence. e.g. Call of Duty. Partial nudity (that is, breasts) is allowed. The unpatched version of Giants: Citizen Kabuto would get this rating, [as would Oblivion].
AO -- 18 and up, realistic and/or graphic violence. e.g. Resident Evil 4, Killer7. Nudity is allowed roughly to the level of an R-rated movie.
X -- For lack of a better letter. Also 18 and up, but this rating would be reserved for pornographic or sickeningly violent games (Japanese hentai would belong here).
[ June 19, 2006, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Puppy- I know I'm not going to say this very well, so please bear with me. You say sex (pornography) is addictive, but violence is not. Could that just be because no one considers it to be? I know plenty of people who play hours of violent video games, and get cranky if they can't play for some reason. But their behavior, at least in my experience is just considered normal. Someone doing exactly the same thing with pornographic video games, on the other hand, would be considered addicted.
Off course that person is considered addicted. Tetris, Spider solitaire anyone?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Being addicted to Pornography is actually a considered a disease, the way being addicted to gambling or alcohol is. There aren't any support groups for people addicted to Tetris or Spider Solitare.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Being addicted to Pornography is actually a considered a disease, the way being addicted to gambling or alcohol is.
That's not necessarily true. Outside of chemical dependencies, just what constitutes "addiction" and what the ultimate focus is of addictions is still being debated. "Porn Addiction" as a thing all on it's own separated from the general class of addictions and the addictive personality is by no means universally accepted.
For that matter, while specific video games (excepting EverQuest and the like) may not have well-defined support groups or treatments aimed towards then, generalized "Video Game Addiction" does have these things.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, the problem with broad statements like the one you linked is the fact that they don't allow me to examine the methodology or the specific findings of the studies. They just assert a broad opinion that I can either accept or reject with no supporting evidence for either decision beyond inherent trust or distrust of the statement's writers. I could say, "Well, they're a lot of scientists; they MUST be right," but somehow, that would feel really irresponsible to me.
As someone who works in this field and actually creates this entertainment, I'd like to understand how these conclusions are being reached, what methods are being used, what assumptions are being made, etc.
Have any studies compared violent play assisted by video games to older forms of violent play like cops-and-robbers, wrestling, and football, to compare their effects on children's dispositions?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
And by the way, I'm not saying that media has no effect on children or adults. That would be silly. If it had no effect, it wouldn't be worth making. But I do suspect that the effects of violent video games, as opposed to other media and other forms of play, are generally overstated.
I am also generally of the opinion that sheltering children from easy targets like violence and nudity is an simple way to bypass the more difficult but more important task of actually raising them to understand violence and sex in a healthy sort of way.
By the way, Squick, in studies that try to detect the effects of exposure to media violence versus exposure to media sex, how do the people running the study detect or define "unhealthy" effects? How does one define an "unhealthy" sexual attitude or appetite these days? Versus an "unhealthy" violent behavior?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That is, I think the chance of someone becoming addicted to a video game is roughly equivalent to the chance of someone becoming addicted to pornography, once you control for the respective market sizes.
That' silly, the markets are different sizes for a reason right? You can't eliminate market size in this case, especially since the pornography market is so vastly bigger than that of video games.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
quote:Thompson highlighted alleged cases of soft ratings by the ESRB, claiming that 60% of games rated "E for Everyone" reward violent actions.
Life rewards for violent actions too. Ever hear of dog eat dog? (not a pun directed at Puppy/Rat named Dog...)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Squick, the problem with broad statements like the one you linked is the fact that they don't allow me to examine the methodology or the specific findings of the studies. They just assert a broad opinion that I can either accept or reject with no supporting evidence for either decision beyond inherent trust or distrust of the statement's writers.
I understand and empathize with your desire for more concrete information, but keep in mind that this -- asserting a broad opinion that others can either accept or reject -- is exactly what both of us have been doing in this discussion so far.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That' silly, the markets are different sizes for a reason right? You can't eliminate market size in this case, especially since the pornography market is so vastly bigger than that of video games.
How else are you going to determine addiction rates? You can't compare two numbers that weren't generated using the same basis.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you want references? Here;s the reference section from the APA resolution on it:
quote:American Psychological Association. (1993). Violence and Youth: Psychology’s response: Vol 1: Summary Report of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association, Advertising Council, & National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2002). Adults and Children Together [ACT] Against Violence Campaign. American Psychological Association Task Force on Television and Society. (1992). Report on televised violence. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, C.A. (2000). Violent video games increase aggression and violence. U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Hearing on "The Impact of Interactive Violence on Children." Tuesday, March 21, 2000. Hearing Chaired by Senator Sam Brownback, Kansas. Anderson, C.A. (2002a). FAQs on violent video games and other media violence. Small Screen, 179-180, September & October issues. Anderson, C.A., (2002b). Violent video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Chapter in S. L. Calvert, A. B. Jordan, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Children in the digital age, (pp. 101-119). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2002). The effects of media violence on society. Science, 295, 2377-2378. Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. C. (2004). Violent Video Games: Specific Effects of Violent Content on Aggressive Thoughts and Behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 199-249. Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Boland, M. (2001, December 17). Left in the dust: Oz distrib defies vidgame restriction. Variety, 385, p. 7. Booth, L. (2001, November 26). Do you enjoy showering with men and picking on sissies? Join the military. New Statesman, p. 83. Braun, C., & Giroux, J. (1989). Arcade video games: Proxemic, cognitive and content analyses. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 92-105. Brown, J.A. ( 2001).Media literacy and critical television viewing in education. In D.G. Singer & J.L. Singer (Eds.). Handbook of children and the media, (681-697) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Buchman, D.D., & Funk, J.B. (1996). Video and computer games in the '90s: Children's time commitment & game preference. Children Today, 24(1), 12-15, 31. Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-489. Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686. Bushman, B. J., & Cantor J. (2003). Media ratings for violence and sex: Implications for policymakers and parents. American Psychologist, 58(2), 130-141. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.). Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Calvert, S. L., Jordan, A. B., Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2002). Children in the digital age: Influences of electronic media on development. Westport, CT: Praeger Carll, E. K. (1999a). Effects of exposure to violence in interactive video games on children. New York State Senate Hearings, Senate Majority Task Force on Youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry Hearing on “Video Game Violence: Fun and Games or Deadly Serious?” October 6, 1999 & November 23, 1999. Hearings chaired by Senator Michael A. L. Balboni. Carll, E. K. (1999b). Violence in our lives: Impact on workplace, home, and community. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Carll, E. K. (2003). New media technologies and social change in the 21st century: Psychology’s role. Symposium, New media technologies, psychology, and social change, Carll, E. K., chair. American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Toronto, Canada. Dietz, T. L. (1998). An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles, 38, 425-442. Dill, K.E., & Dill, J.C. (2004). Video game violence exposure correlated with rape myth acceptance and attitudes towards women. Unpublished manuscript. Dill, K. E., Gentile, D. A., Richter, W. A., & Dill, J. C. (in press). Violence, sex, race and age in popular video games: A content analysis. In E. Cole and J. Henderson Daniel (Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of the media. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Donnerstein, E., & Malamuth, N. (1997). Pornography: Its consequences on the observer. In Schlesinger, L. B. and Revitch, E. (Eds.) Sexual dynamics of antisocial behavior. Pp. 30-49. Emes, C.E., Is Mr. Pac Man eating our children?. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, May 1997; 42(4):409-14. Eron, L.D., Huesmann, L.R., Lefkowitz, M.M., & Walder, L.O. (1972). Does T.V. violence cause aggression? American Psychologist, 27, 153-263. Eron, L.E., Gentry, J.H., & Shlagel, P., (Eds.). (1994). Reason to hope: A psychological perspective on violence and youth. Washington: American Psychological Association. Fisher, S. (1995). The amusement arcade as a social space for adolescents: An empirical study. Journal of Adolescence, 18(1), 71-86. FTC, (2000). Marketing violent entertainment to children: A review of self-regulation and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording, & electronic game industries. Report of the Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission. Available online: www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/. Funk, J.B., & Buchman, D.D. (1996). Playing violent video and computer games and adolescent self-concept. Journal of Communication, 46(2), 19-32. Eron, L.E., Gentry, J.H., & Shlagel, P., (Eds.). (1994). Reason to hope: A psychological perspective on violence and youth. Washington: American Psychological Association. Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5-22. Golde, J. A., Strassberg, D.S., Turner, C. M., & Lowe, K. (2000). Attitudinal effects of degrading themes and sexual explicitness in video materials, Sexual Abuse, 12, 223-231. Herbert, B. (2002, November 28). The gift of mayhem. The New York Times. p. A35. Hobbs, R. & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring the acquisition of media-literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 38,( 3), 330-355. Hortin, J.A. (1982). Innovative approaches to using media in the classroom. Educational Technology, 22(5), 18-19. Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J., Podolski, C. P. (1997). The effects of media violence on the development of antisocial behavior. In Stoff, D. M., Breiling, J., et al. (Eds.) Handbook of antisocial behavior, (pp. 181-193). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J., Podolski, C. P., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977-1992, Developmental Psychology. 39(2), 201-221. Huntemann, N. (executive producer and director). (2000). Game over: Gender, race and violence in video games. [video]. (Available from the Media Education Foundation, 26 Center Street, Northampton, MA 01060) Huston, A., Donnerstein, E., et al. (1992). Big world, small screen. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Jhally, S. (executive producer and director). (1994). The killing screens: Media and the culture of violence. [Video]. (Available from the Media Education Foundation, 26 Center Street, Northampton, MA 01060) Kirsh, S.J. (1998). Seeing the world through "Mortal Kombat" colored glasses: Violent video games and hostile attribution bias. Childhood, 5(2), 177-184. Komaya, M. (2003). Media literacy for Japanese third graders (No.132, ISSN 1346-8618, pp.45-60). Tokyo: National Institute for Educational Policy Research. Lanis, K. & Covell, K. (1995). Images of women in advertisements: Effects on attitudes related to sexual aggression, Sex Roles, 32, 639-649. Linz, D., & Donnerstein, E. (1989). The effects of counter-information on the acceptance of rape myths. In Zillman, D., & Bryant, J. (Eds.) Pornography: Research advances and policy considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 259-288. Linz, D., Wilson, B. J., & Donnerstein, E. (1992). Sexual violence in the mass media: Legal solutions, warnings, and mitigation through education. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 145-171. Knapp, D. (1996, October 16). Adolescent males blamed for violent gaming trend. Retrieved January 16, 2003 from http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/16/video.games/ Marriott, M. (2002, November 7). Game formula is adding sex to the mix. The New York Times. p. G1. Mulac, A., Jansma, L. L., & Linz, D. G. (2002). Men's behavior toward women after viewing sexually-explicit films: Degradation makes a difference. Communication Monographs, 69, 311-328. National Television Violence Study (1996). Mediascope: Studio City, CA. Phillips, C.A., Rolls, S., Rouse, A., & Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Home video game playing in school children: A study of incidence and patterns of play. Journal of Adolescence, 18(6), 687-691. Potter, W. J. (1999). On media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Reid, P., & Finchilescu, G. (1995). The disempowering effects of media violence against women on college women, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 397-411. Robinson, T.N., Wilde, M.L., Navracruz, L.C., Haydel, K.F., & Varady, A. (2001). Effects of reducing children’s television and video game use on aggressive behavior: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 155, 17-23. Rosenkoetter, L.J., Rosenkoetter, S.E., Ozretich, R.A., & Acock, A.C. (2004). Mitigating the harmful effects of violent television. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 25-47. Ryan, J., & Wentworth, W. M. (1999). Media and Society, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Singer, D.G. & Singer, J.L. (1994). Creating critical viewers; a partnership between schools and television professionals. New York: National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Denver, CO: Pacific Mountain Network. Singer, D.G. & Singer, J.L. (1998). Developing critical viewing skills and media literacy in children. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, (164-179). Singer, D.G. & Singer, J.L. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of children and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Singer, D.G & Singer, J.L. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. St. Lawrence, J. S., & Joyner, D. J. (1991). The effects of sexually violent rock music on males’ acceptance of violence against women, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 49-63. Strasburger, V. C., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). Children, adolescents, and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Surgeon General (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. (1972). Television and growing up: The impact of televised violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Thompson, K.M., & Haninger, K. (2001). Violence in E-Rated Video Games. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 591-598. Turkle, S. (2002). E-Futures and E-Personae. In Leach, N. (Ed.) Designing for a digital world. London: John Wiley & Sons. Video game industry gets an “F.” (2002, December 19). Retrieved January 16, 2003 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/19/eveningnews/main533790.shtml Walsh, D., Gentile, D. A., VanOverbeke, M., & Chasco, E. (2002, December). MediaWise video game report card. Retrieved January 15, 2003, from " target="_blank">http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2002-2.shtml[/quote] Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion already (although to be fair, I'm not sure if it was directly with you or just in a thread that you were participating in). The problem I have with what you're saying, besides it being wrong based on what I know, is not that you are not a psychology professional, but that it seems you have made absolutely no effort to gain information on this besides what seems right to you. If you're going to make a passionate defense on something, especially something that experts in the field claim has an adverse affect on children, I think it behooves you to have a more sound basis for your ideas than your own unsubstantiated theories.
This information is out there and easily obtainable through a semi-dedicated search. Maybe it's just a hangup I have from my rigorous education and the fact that, in my professional contexts, if I tried to talk authoritatively about things I didn't know anything about, I'd get my rear handed to me by people who I consider my friends, but I can't even imagine talking about this anywhere near as assertively as you have without knowing at least something of the literature.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Squick, I can't help the fact that with limited time in my life, I haven't managed to devote a college degree's worth of study to every issue I have an interest in. That's the problem with politics, too — we all need to have strong enough opinions to make decisions about things that we don't all have the time to become experts on.
However, I don't think that opinions should only be handed out to the experts, and everyone else should defer to their wisdom until they become experts themselves. That would lead to a remarkable uniformity of thought that I think would be unhealthy for our society at large. If you think that my opinion is inherently valueless because I don't have the same educational background that you do, you don't have to discuss this with me.
Personally, I see no harm in my presenting an opinion and being completely up-front about the fact that my reasoning is based mostly on personal experience. I'm not pretending to be an expert in psychology with a volume of studies supporting my position, so it should not offend you that the opinion I'm presenting varies from the studies you've read. If I were presenting myself falsely and claiming undue authority, that would be one thing. But I'm being completely forthcoming about the bases for my reasoning, which in my mind is more than enough to qualify me for participation in this discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, Maybe you could point out to me where I said you had to be an expert on this? I think there may be some difference between expecting people to know something about the things they talk about (which in this case would probably take about 7 or so hours of research and reading) rather than relying on their uniformed opinions and saying that only people who have "devote[d] a college degree's worth of study" to it should talk about it. We're not fighting an elitism/anti-elitism battle here. We're fighting an anti-ingorance/pro-ignorance one.
We've had this confusion before, so I'll make it explicit. I'm not expecting you to be an expert in this. I do think you should perhaps have made some effort to understand what the experts think and why they do so, especially in light of us having had this conversation before.
I'm nowhere near an expert in this area either. However, there's a whole continuum between completely ignorant and expert. Realizing this, I try to match the confidence that I present my opinions with where I fall on this knowledge continuum. Also, when I think something is important, especially when it's something that people who know more about disagree with my stance on, I try to learn more about it.
Did it even give you a second's pause when I presented "Hey, three organizations of experts who study this disagree with your assessment." information? For that matter, I think we both acknowledge that I know orders of magnitude more about the study of psychology, but I don't think it fazed you a bit when I said your assertion of the pernicious addictive nature of sexual imagery is not born out by the literature I'm famiiar with.
Considering I've built my nascent academic career on disputing the accepted Western view of human nature, I'm not one to say you must obey the experts without question. However, what gives me the ability and confidence to challenge the experts is that I've worked very hard gaining knowledge about what I and they are talking about. I'm not and never will say you must agree with the experts. I am, however, one to say that, if you're going to disagree with them, you should do some from an informed opinion and you probably shouldn't be making claims that are obviously false to people who actually know something about what you're talking about.
---
edit: And, again, we've had this discussion before. I mean, were you just hoping that I wouldn't show up in this one, so that you could make these claims without me calling you on them?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:were you just hoping that I wouldn't show up in this one, so that you could make these claims without me calling you on them?
This is an uncivil question.
quote:How do the people running the study detect or define "unhealthy" effects? How does one define an "unhealthy" sexual attitude or appetite these days? Versus an "unhealthy" violent behavior?
I'm much more interested in the questions Geoff asked you, Squicky.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How do the people running the study detect or define "unhealthy" effects? How does one define an "unhealthy" sexual attitude or appetite these days? Versus an "unhealthy" violent behavior?
The problems associated with violent media are detailed in the things I linked. As for exposure to nudity/sexual images, some of it is that there is little change in behavior and some of it is that the people fall into the normal distribution of social and psychosexual functioning. There are affects to some types of imagery for some populations, and they can be pretty severe, but this is not in line with what people have traditionally gotten up in arms about.
Also, so-called "porn addiction" is, like most non-chemical addictions, a pretty rare phenomenom and generally affects people who have serious underlying problems prior to the onset of the addiction.
edited pretty heavily for content clarification
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:some of it is that there is no change in behavior and some of it is that the people fall into the normal distribution of social and psychosexual functioning.
Some of what?
I don't think this response really answers Geoff's questions.
EDIT:
Your edit:
quote: There are affects to some types of imagery for some populations, and they can be pretty severe, but this is not in line with what people have traditionally gotten up in arms about.
Geoff's questions weren't directed so much at the video-game playing population, but at the people studying the players. How do they determine what is unhealthy? What's the standard for unhealthy these days?
quote: Also, so-called "porn addiction" is, like most non-chemical addictions, a pretty rare phenomenom and generally affects people who have serious underlying problems prior to the onset of the addiction.
No disagreement there. Well, not about the "serious underlying problems" part. Without evidence, I'm witholding judgement on the "pretty rare phenomenom" bit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Also, so-called "porn addiction" is, like most non-chemical addictions, a pretty rare phenomenom and generally affects people who have serious underlying problems prior to the onset of the addiction.
I completely disgree with your statement that porn addictions are a rare thing. I in point of fact think (and you might dismiss my uneducated opinion) that porn addiction is something that seizes a huge portion of the male populace in this country.
Perhaps your definition of what constitutes a "porn addiction" is different from mine. Might I request you illuminate my understanding as to what you think constitutes an addiciton, specifically in regards to pornography.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...do you want me to define defects in psychosexual functioning? Well, I gave this a quick scan and it passed my "not obivously false" test.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think what we're going to start seeing here is a diversion of terms, and a resort to semantical bulwarks:
To some people, addiction to pornography or gambling or other vice is evidenced by multiple, consistent, contacts with the offending material, even if it is not to the point of obsession or detriment.
To other people, addiction implies obsession, and only if that obsession leads to physical or social harm.
Let us remember that the words, "You are an evil, lying, conniving, stupid, SOB," is not to be uttered here.
In fact, let us avoid even the implication of such.
Thank you. In advance.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Addiction isn't a technical term, so precise defintions aren't all that easy. Studies I've seen of "porn addiction" generally treat it as a semi-involuntary compulsion that has clear, repeated negative consequences and impairs social and sexual functioning, often with an element of escalation due to desensitization.
Goodman (1990) suggests as a general criteria for addiction:
quote: * Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior. * Increasing sense of tension immediately prior to initiating the behavior. * Pleasure or relief at the time of engaging in the behavior. * At least five of the following: o Frequent preoccupation with the behavior or with activity that is preparatory to the behavior. o Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended. o Repeated efforts to reduce, control, or stop the behavior. o A great deal of time spent in activities necessary for the behavior, engaging in the behavior, or recovering from its effects. o Frequent engaging in the behavior when expected to fulfill occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations. o Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of the behavior. o Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior. o Tolerance: need to increase the intensity or frequency of the behavior in order to achieve the desired effect, or diminished effect with continued behavior of the same intensity. o Restlessness or irritability if unable to engage in the behavior. * Some symptoms of the disturbance have persisted for at least one month, or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Addiction isn't a technical term, so precise defintions aren't all that easy. Studies I've seen of "porn addiction" generally treat it as a semi-involuntary compulsion that has clear, repeated negative consequences and impairs social and sexual functioning, often with an element of escalation due to desensitization.
Goodman (1990) suggests as a general criteria for addiction:
quote: * Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior. * Increasing sense of tension immediately prior to initiating the behavior. * Pleasure or relief at the time of engaging in the behavior. * At least five of the following: o Frequent preoccupation with the behavior or with activity that is preparatory to the behavior. o Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended. o Repeated efforts to reduce, control, or stop the behavior. o A great deal of time spent in activities necessary for the behavior, engaging in the behavior, or recovering from its effects. o Frequent engaging in the behavior when expected to fulfill occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations. o Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of the behavior. o Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior. o Tolerance: need to increase the intensity or frequency of the behavior in order to achieve the desired effect, or diminished effect with continued behavior of the same intensity. o Restlessness or irritability if unable to engage in the behavior. * Some symptoms of the disturbance have persisted for at least one month, or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time.
Using that definition (thanks by the way) I am confident in saying that porn addiction is far from being a rare condition.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And, again, we've had this discussion before. I mean, were you just hoping that I wouldn't show up in this one, so that you could make these claims without me calling you on them?
Or the possibility of your "calling him on them" is something that doesn't factor heavily into his decision on what to post.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I am at least as confident (and likely better informed) in saying that it is pretty rare. The studies that I've read about it that have treated it that way have said, basically, "Hey, this is pretty rare." Would you care to provide reasons why you think it is not, BB?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: By that logic a movie such as Titanic should not have been fighting for a PG13 rating in spite of showing nudity, but instead should have gotten a cool PG rating for being up and front about nudity in art.
You will note (or maybe not) that the game in question is already rated "M". Effectively, it's not fighting for a "PG-13" rating; it's fighting for an "R" rating.
In a movie, a scene in which a character is nude can actually show the nudity or merely imply that it's there, depending on the intent of the scene, the impact it's intended to have, and, yes the rating its creators are hoping to receive.
For a game to want to display nudity but not admit that human beings have the characteristics that all human beings do is a fairly perverse case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it, too. There is no cinematic equivalent. Censor bars and cuts don't deny the existence of attributes.
quote:Heck to bring it to the point of craziness, if they had depicted the sex scene afterwards more graphically, it should have gotten even more reduced ratings because lets face it, the movie makers were trying to be more honest and accurate as to what a relationship between a man and a woman really is.
By all means bring it to the point of craziness, but don't imply that you're making my point.
Anyone who gets to a point in their lives where they're engaging in sexual activity will quickly discover, whatever media they might have ingested, that there's a bit more to the process than lying next to one another naked under bedsheets. If a "PG-13" rated movie or a "T" rated game both show that in implying sex, and an "M" rated game or an "R" rated movie implies that (gasp!) there might actually be some *movement* occurring under those sheets, they're both showing the characters having sex.
No one's getting any Masters & Johnson tips out of the process. One might feel that the latter, or the former is something one doesn't want their kids to see; thus, there's a rating system.
But I think it would be far more reasonable to be concerned with how the consequences of sex are interpreted. Is it just casual fun? Does the media recognize emotional consequences of sex? Physical consequences? Do the characters practice safe sex? Are they concerned about holding off for marriage? Pregnancy?
Again, the game in question is rated "M", the equivalent of an "R". It deserves the right to be able to engage the topic by the same means as a movie.
quote:Censors are not trying to hide reality from children. Lets say you lived in a large metropolitan city and you found out one of your next door neighbors was a convicted murderer. That your other neighbor was an active crack dealer, and that the fire codes in your apartment was not up to snuff on regulations. Would you keep you and your family there because lets face it thats the reality some people live in?
No. In as far as that rather stretched metaphor goes. But I wouldn't pretend that someone else living there didn't live that reality, and I wouldn't suggest that someone making a documentary about life in that building turn the murderer into a bully and the crack dealer into a candy salesman.
I have a choice in the media that I consume. Part of taking responsibility for that choice means not demanding everything be made safe to the lowest common denominator.
quote: Children are not always ready to face the harsh cold mess that reality can sometimes be. Often we try to subject them only to the positive in life rather then making them aware of the negative. There is nothing wrong with trying to carefully expose your children to a more and more mature environment. Every child is different and every parent has the right to do what they think is best for their child. There is nothing wrong with expecting movie and gaming companies to provide guidelines that parents can use to at least get an "Idea" as to what they can expect if they and their child view a particular movie.
Which is why I said
quote:I'd tend to agree that the ratings system for games, while better than nothing
Which doesn't mean I don't continue to find the ratings system perverse, both in what they interpret as inappopriate for adults, and in what they *do* interpret as appropriate for children.
Because, let's face it: in most places, children can very easily get into a PG-13 movie or purchase/rent a "T" rated game.
quote:If you were raised in a household where your parents were very controlling and made you say "pee pee" intead of "piss." well sorry, when you are 18 you can throw off those shackles and go do WHATEVER you have always wanted to do. Nobody is stopping you, except your parents maybe if you insist on living under the same roof as them.
Well, I wasn't, but I rather hope you're implying a hypothetical third person than actually commenting on me.
And I'm not entirely certain what the point of this paragraph is, as it seems likely that parents with that degree of need for control would pre-screen media to such a degree that there would be little need for ratings.
But arguably, the existence of a ratings system also acknowledges certain things:
* That some parents do not, in fact, take that degree of interest in the media their progeny consume;
* That there are certain common standards as to what children of certain ages can and cannot know, be exposed to, or imitate;
* That exposure to "graphic" content, whether violent, sexual, verbal, or otherwise, is likely to begin well before the age of 18. Which is not to say exposure to hard core pornography.
quote:Rating systems are not perfect, but no system ever will please everyone of that I am convinced. So use your own inteligence as to what you think is right and proper in your own life and in the lives of the children you have responsibily over.
Such has ever been my intention. But for the sake of both the increasing numbers of adult players who would like to see their media grow more sophisticated and the children who would like to participate in the format without giving themselves, and their parents, nightmares, I don't feel I can stand back and say this particular ratings system is good enough.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Perhaps this is relavent but perhaps it is not.
I think alot of the criteria such as: Recurrent failure to resist impulses... Increasing sense or tension immedieately.... Frequen preoccupation with the behavior... Frequent engaging....longer/more frequent..intended repeated efforts to reduce, control..... A great deal of time spent in activities neccasry for...recovering Frequent engaging in behavior when expected to fulfill...obligations Important social, occupational.....activities reduced.... Continuation of behavior despite knowledge of having ....a problem that is...exacerbated Tolerance.....
all are directly related to whether or not you believe pornography is a good/bad thing. For somebody who belives porn is perfectly fine for viewing I think many of these criteria are avoided to some extent. To somebody who believes it is wrong, they are much more prone to experiencing these symptoms as the drive to experience sex related pleasure comes in direct contest with their sense of self control and responsibility.
I mention this as I believe most men in the US at least believe pornography to be something that is ok to view. It is hard to study it as an addiction as people do not research it with the assumption that it ought NOT to be looked at. I find this important because I would be VERY interested in reading a study where men were required to give up pornography for an extended period of time and see what the success rate would be.
I think it would be abismally low and perhaps that is not a criterion for an addiction, but it certainly seems that a near impossible difficulty in giving something up if required to do so, to some might describe an addiction.
Note: I am not discussing the ill effects of pornography use, I am merely trying to point out why it might be hard to lable as an addiction.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:you only have to compare its sales to those of the contemporaneous iteration of the Madden NFL franchise to see that sex in video games is not nearly as alluring as, well, whatever it is that makes people play Madden.
*glares at twinky*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, The DSM and Goodman's distillation of it is very careful not to make value judgements like you are suggesting. I think you may have misunderstood the clinical definition of some of those terms.
If you want to say that addiction is people repeatedly doing things you don't want them to, then I guess you could say that porn addiction is very widespread, but such a definition is then useful only as a moral judgement, not as any sort of meaningful therapy criteria.
An addiction is something that you feel a strong compulsion to do. It is not something that you choose to do because you like doing it.
quote:I find this important because I would be VERY interested in reading a study where men were required to give up pornography for an extended period of time and see what the success rate would be.
I think it would be abismally low and perhaps that is not a criterion for an addiction, but it certainly seems that a near impossible difficulty in giving something up if required to do so, to some might describe an addiction.
The problem you have here is the word "required". Outside compulsion is a poor manipulation for something like this. You could do better with incentivizing it, but I think you'd have to come up with a pretty attractive incentive and even then is a poor fit for the requirements for an addiction.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
To "measure" addiction, I would think the person would have to want to quit and be unable to. To challenge people to quit who have no reason or desire to doesn't measure their addiction, but only their willingness to play along. By that standard I could be addicted to lemonade. I'm not sure what you'd have to offer me to get me to give it up for the whole summer. And even if I agreed to try, I doubt I would stick with it for long -- no motivation.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, upon reviewing what we've said so far, I'm actually not sure why we're having a disagreement.
I haven't made a claim that violent media has no effect on consumers. In fact, I said the opposite. So the studies indicating an effect don't really have a lot of relevance to my argument, except to back up one of its tangential points.
It also seems that the three points I brought up were not directly addressed by the studies you cited. I said, again, that:
1. It seems obvious to me that humans perceive violent and sexual imagery in fundamentally different ways, so there is little basis for enforcing an equivalency between the two.
2. From personal experience, I don't see a difference in the short-term effects of violent media versus merely exciting media, and I'm not aware of any study that examines this difference. I'd like to see one. (I later mention that I suspect that the long-term effects have more to do with the social context. How violence is portrayed, and what other influences are present in the consumer's life.)
3. From anecdotal evidence, I do think that sexual pornography is addictive, even if mildly so, or with effects that are not treated as pathological. However, I see no evidence of any kind that violent imagery is addictive to any degree at all.
I am also curious what standards and assumptions are used to measure sex-related problems and addictions, as I stated above.
Honestly, so far, I think I'm operating well within the bounds of what is reasonable, given the work on the subject that has been done so far. I AM aware of the studies that have been done, though I haven't had a chance to examine their methodologies, so I don't yet rely on them heavily to form my opinions.
From what I've seen, it seems like you are frustrated with some past conversation we've had, and are attaching those feelings to this conversation, in which we do not actually need to be in conflict.
Also, see Dagonee's post about whether or not I'm particularly concerned with whether or not you "call me on" something Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
By the way, I think the thread that you're projecting onto this one may have been one in which I defended my father's right to express an opinion at variance with what you considered to be the official, established science on the issue. You were saying that his failure to base his opinion on certain research was evidence that he was so ignorant he should be ashamed to even speak on the subject. I was saying, I believe, that you were being a jerk
So there isn't some epidemic of posts by Puppy that he has not researched sufficiently to deserve to have an opinion. Rather, you're upset at my father, and are taking it out on me. Which is incredibly silly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The thread, I'm thinking of is one where we were discussing the effect of violence and nudity in media, that had started out specifically about video games, and I laid out (and this was a while ago, so I'm not sure if it was directly to you or just to the thread in general) much of the information I did here.
Nor is this, in my experience, the only topic that you make authoritative pronouncements that you know little about. I remember you telling me directly that religions are the only groups that seriously care about marriage, for example.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, The DSM and Goodman's distillation of it is very careful not to make value judgements like you are suggesting. I think you may have misunderstood the clinical definition of some of those terms.
I was not placing a value judgement on any of those criteria. Merely stating that given a person believes pornography to be bad, he/she is more prone to exhibit some of the emotions/actions listed in your criteria. I really do not think I misunderstood the criteria.
quote: If you want to say that addiction is people repeatedly doing things you don't want them to, then I guess you could say that porn addiction is very widespread, but such a definition is then useful only as a moral judgement, not as any sort of meaningful therapy criteria.
I really was not suggesting that addiction is anyone doing anything "I" would not like them to do. I do not see where you drew this idea from. As for it being useless as a meaningful therapy criteria, well yes it is useless, but I have yet to bring up the negative effects of pornography, much less the effects of pornography addiction.
quote: An addiction is something that you feel a strong compulsion to do. It is not something that you choose to do because you like doing it.
Your wording to me is alittle foggy, but it works for me. I know of many people who would say without reservation that they feel "strong compulsion" to view pornography.
quote:I find this important because I would be VERY interested in reading a study where men were required to give up pornography for an extended period of time and see what the success rate would be.
I think it would be abismally low and perhaps that is not a criterion for an addiction, but it certainly seems that a near impossible difficulty in giving something up if required to do so, to some might describe an addiction.
The problem you have here is the word "required". Outside compulsion is a poor manipulation for something like this. You could do better with incentivizing it, but I think you'd have to come up with a pretty attractive incentive and even then is a poor fit for the requirements for an addiction. [/QB][/QUOTE]
What incentive could be devised to accurately test the hold that pornography has to me is important. But to find an incentive non religious in nature to me is quite difficult. There are numerous studies about the correlation between pornography and criminal activity. There are also numerous studies documenting sexual deviancy to pornography, even if you consider yourself a sex radical there are still sex acts that are considered unhealthy.
DKW: Comparing Porn to liking "Lemonade" to me is a bit inaccurate of a comparison. I would be willing to bet the porn industry dwarfs the lemonade industry. Lemonade drinking is also not a biological neccesity on its own. I am also willing to bet that for 99% of the people who drink lemonade and watch porn (possibly at the same time) that were they given equal incentive to give up lemonade or porn they would opt to give up lemonade.
I really think the addictiveness of pornography is revealed when one attempts to completely stop viewing it especially in an environment where it is readily available. Even for those who simply know that it has ill effects and that porn makes them miserable, quitting entirely can feal like a feat of epic proportions.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:you only have to compare its sales to those of the contemporaneous iteration of the Madden NFL franchise to see that sex in video games is not nearly as alluring as, well, whatever it is that makes people play Madden.
*glares at twinky*
JT, I'm actually interested in what you think of my hypothetical replacement ratings scheme near the bottom of page 2. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Lemonade drinking is also not a biological neccesity on its own.
Neither is porn. Drinking liquids is, and arguably so is some form of sexual expression. I could use soft drinks as an example, since they have a much larger industry and economic base behind them, but the physical addiction of the caffeine might confuse the issue.
My point is that without some consensus that porn is harmful absent addiction, the number of people that use it is no evidence of addiction. Or else every major consumer trend is an addiction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: [QB]
quote:Lemonade drinking is also not a biological neccesity on its own.
Neither is porn. Drinking liquids is, and arguably so is some form of sexual expression. I could use soft drinks as an example, since they have a much larger industry and economic base behind them, but the physical addiction of the caffeine might confuse the issue.
Sexual expression while not ESSENTIAL for happiness often is irreplaceable. There are myriad drinks that one can choose from instead of lemonade. There are not nearly as many options for those who feel the need for sexual stimulation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I think I understand what you were saying now. Correct me if I got this wrong, but you were saying that the diagnosis of addiction would rely a lot on whether the person looking at porn considered it good or bad. I think I misread you and thought that you were talking about whether the person making the diagnosis thought it was good or bad.
I can see what you mean, in that, if a person has no problem with looking at porn, then they will never try to stop. However, while ego dystonic (i.e. really disliking some aspect of yourself) reactions could meet some of these requirements, there are a couple of problems with this.
First, the accepted treatment for ego dystonic reactions, absent other impairments of functioning, is usually to treat the dystonia, rather than the disliked aspect. Though, I really don't know about looking at pornography, I know in general, the success rate and overall heath of the patient is much better in the former rather than the latter condition.
Second, I said something significant above, which was "absent other impairments". Without these impairments, you've got someone who might sort of kind of meets the requirements for addiction, but isn't really displaying classic dependecy.
One thing I'd like to throw out is that, again, while I don't know about pornography is specific, I do know that more generally sexual obsessions and other paraphilias are far more common in sexually repressive and repressed populations. So, in an odd way, for certain people, what you are saying is likely right.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:The thread, I'm thinking of is one where we were discussing the effect of violence and nudity in media, that had started out specifically about video games, and I laid out (and this was a while ago, so I'm not sure if it was directly to you or just to the thread in general) much of the information I did here.
I don't remember that thread. But judging from the fact that my opinion is not in direct, unreasonable conflict with anything you've posted so far, I don't think that you having posted this stuff in the past precludes me from legitimately expressing the position that I have.
quote:Nor is this, in my experience, the only topic that you make authoritative pronouncements that you know little about. I remember you telling me directly that religions are the only groups that seriously care about marriage, for example.
Somehow, I suspect that you're misstating my position on that subject, just slightly. Judging from the fact that that is not my opinion
What is it, though, about my statements that makes you think they are "authoritative"? I don't think I'm stating them in any particular way that makes them carry more weight than other opinions people are expressing that are precisely as rigorous and well-supported as my own. So why do my remarks, in particular, come across to you this way? Escpecially given the fact that I am completely upfront about how I am developing these opinions and where I am getting my information?
In the end, the real conflict here is prescriptive, not descriptive. We're not in conflict about whether the media statistically affects people's points of view, their decision-making, etc. We're in conflict over the best means of using voluntary ratings systems to regulate the media, and give parents tools to better evaluate and regulate what their children are experiencing. That conflict is not based on studies as much as it is based on values and strategies, and I think that in that arena, we are all qualified to engage in this discussion.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I'm actually interested in what you think of my hypothetical replacement ratings scheme near the bottom of page 2.
I'm in total agreement with you on this subject. I don't have any issue with your proposed system. However, the current system doesn't bug me nearly as much as a lot of the people in this thread, simply because it has never affected me. By the time the system was implemented, I was old enough to be clear of it. So the inconsistencies only bother me on a, 'Wow, that's dumb' level, unlike the MPAA system (because I had to suffer through it).
Anyway, I think graphic violence is far more damaging than some superfluous boobage, no matter what age the gamer is. And, as several people have pointed out, no ratings system to date sufficiently replaces parents screening what their kids see.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm glad to know you don't think I'm crazy. And I was mostly kidding about Madden. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think I would simply prefer concrete definitions of levels of violence and levels of nudity/sexual portrayal and a list as to how much of each is present (not sure how to measure "how much" at the moment) - one that would be legally answerable for consumer fraud if inaccurate.
Divide the list up by what can be accessed with and without mods.
This gives legally accountable accurate information to parents to help them decide which games are suitable.
Make systems so that new games can be locked out until approved by a parental code (making sure it's hard to crack or at least leaves fingerprints if cracked). Parents who care will be able to stop their kids from playing games with the precise attributes they find objectionable.
Each family can decide if violence or sex is acceptable.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I have doubts about the effectiveness of any system that cannot be reduced to a simple letter.
The stuff you folks are describing could be good as extra information on the back of the box. But the further we move away from a dirt-simple system that requires very little thought to drop games into broad categories, then the more customers' eyes will glaze over, and the less effective the system will become at actually making a difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you think the system actually makes a difference NOW? To whom?
I know a number of parents who buy games. I don't know one parent who seriously considers the game rating when making a purchase.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You now know ONE.
I seriously consider the game rating before purchasing. If it happens to be M, I do a LOT of research into the why of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is it research that you don't do if the rating is "T?"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'll research a T game for quality, not specifically for content. An M game gets researched for quality AND content.
I'd still purchase Oblivion, for example, despite the furor.
And honestly, I can't really call myself a gamer. Like I said, I purchase maybe one or two games a year.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I think I understand what you were saying now. Correct me if I got this wrong, but you were saying that the diagnosis of addiction would rely a lot on whether the person looking at porn considered it good or bad. I think I misread you and thought that you were talking about whether the person making the diagnosis thought it was good or bad.
I can see what you mean, in that, if a person has no problem with looking at porn, then they will never try to stop. However, while ego dystonic (i.e. really disliking some aspect of yourself) reactions could meet some of these requirements, there are a couple of problems with this.
First, the accepted treatment for ego dystonic reactions, absent other impairments of functioning, is usually to treat the dystonia, rather than the disliked aspect. Though, I really don't know about looking at pornography, I know in general, the success rate and overall heath of the patient is much better in the former rather than the latter condition.
Second, I said something significant above, which was "absent other impairments". Without these impairments, you've got someone who might sort of kind of meets the requirements for addiction, but isn't really displaying classic dependecy.
One thing I'd like to throw out is that, again, while I don't know about pornography is specific, I do know that more generally sexual obsessions and other paraphilias are far more common in sexually repressive and repressed populations. So, in an odd way, for certain people, what you are saying is likely right.
It seemed like you had mistunderstood me. I had a lengthy reply all typed up and the forums decided to mess up when I posted. Serves me right for not copying and pasting like I typically do before clicking "Add Reply."
I should like to know what your definition of "Repressed" is. For me, I can see life long vows of celibacy, or vows that extend for many years as being repressive. But I personally do not see a person who is monogamous, refrains from masturbating, and does not view porn as well within healthy parameters for having a healthy sex life.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Do you think the system actually makes a difference NOW? To whom?
As retailers learn to enforce ratings more effectively, the broad categories are restricting children's unfettered access to games intended for adults.
Do you feel that parents are ignoring the rating system and simply doing nothing to restrict their children's game access? Or do you feel that they are using other methods to determine which games are appropriate?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The discussion about porn addiction has got me wondering ... how can a psychologist divorce idealogy from the study of pathological human behavior?
Sure, there is a large amount of descriptive work that can be done without injecting any values into the system. But eventually, it seems, someone usually ends up having to make a call about which feelings and behaviors are desirable, normal, or healthy in a human being, and which are not.
How can such determinations be made without being overly dependent on the personal values of the researcher?
Guilt, for example, is an unpleasant experience that most people would prefer to avoid. When a person suffers from irrational or inappropriate guilt, it can cause unnecessary pain that can worsen severely with time. But guilt also serves a valuable function in regulating human behavior relative to other humans, and keeping our society going. When guilt is warranted, it is essential.
So how does a psychologist determine when to treat guilt as a pathology, when the appropriateness of the guilt depends on the acceptability of the behavior that causes the guilt, which is an inherently value-based judgment?
Similarly, when does any sexual behavior cross over into the realm of addiction, pathology, obsession, compulsion, etc? Rather than being something harmless that people just like to do a lot? Much of that determination seems to stem from value-based decisions about which behaviors and experiences are desirable in a human, and which are not.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Actually, don't answer that here. I'll make a new thread for it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you feel that parents are ignoring the rating system and simply doing nothing to restrict their children's game access? Or do you feel that they are using other methods to determine which games are appropriate?
Yes. Specifically, I feel those kids who'd be harmed by viewing certain media almost certainly have parents who don't care what they're buying, and those kids who'd probably be least affected have parents who're already researching what they're viewing.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
So what you're suggesting Tom, is that parents are probably much more influencial in their child's lives than a video game could be. Fascinating Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, it's kind of a fringe sentiment, but I'm crazy that way. *laugh*
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, I agree with you in broad strokes. But I do think there is a grey area between those two extremes, where a simple, clear rating system gives certain parents (who normally would be intimidated by the prospect of researching a hobby they know nothing about) the tools they need to start making useful decisions.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
In as much as the E and E10 games are probably as free of violent/sexual content as advertised, the ESRB is doing a good job.
I suspect the level of gray area in the T to AO spectrum is doing some disservices to adult gamers, children, and their parents.
And in glummer moments, I have to wonder if the screwheads aren't, almost accidentally, right: I don't really think Mortal Kombat is going to make halfway sane people attempt to pull out one another's spines, but I can't help but wonder if a steady diet of games in which the only way to overcome obstacles is violence- even if that violence is jumping on someone's head and knocking them offscreen- has some degree of psychological effect.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I suspect that a steady diet of violence in games and movies in conjunction with good parenting that provides a context and a value system alongside that violent input will have a neglible effect. In fact, video games and other media can be a useful tool in teaching children positive values and skills, even as they are vaporizing aliens
In my opinion, the real problems arise when parents refuse to parent their children, and those children form their value systems independently, basing them entirely, and at random, on input chosen from among the experiences children have access to — media, gangs, bullying, internet porn, whatever. Without a strong regulating influence to give context and meaning to a child's experiences, he is left on his own to understand the world in a childlike, impressionable way that leaves him much more open to develop in problematic directions.
I don't have a specific plan in mind at the moment, but censoring the media won't remove negative influences from the lives of at-risk children and prevent them from becoming problem members of society. Only good parenting can do that.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Something I really would like to see, again, is a study that compares the effects of violent video games to the effects of violent sports and martial arts. I suspect that the effects are similar if not much less, and that violent play has not significantly changed its role in society with the advent of computer entertainment.
In the end, though, I have reservations about any prescription for changing human behavior that treats humans like statistics. Adding and removing different inputs from human populations hoping that broad behavioral patterns will change as a result seems to deny the responsibility of each individual for his own choices. I feel like I've got more to say on this topic, but it's not fully-formed just yet ...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB,
quote:I should like to know what your definition of "Repressed" is. For me, I can see life long vows of celibacy, or vows that extend for many years as being repressive. But I personally do not see a person who is monogamous, refrains from masturbating, and does not view porn as well within healthy parameters for having a healthy sex life.
Repression, in the sense I'm using it, isn't about end behavior at all. You can't point to a behavior and say "this is repression". Rather, it's the way in which that behavior is motivated and carried out. Repression is a way of doing things that relies on strong, irrational negative emotion, generally fear, to prevent people from doing things.
For example, up until recently, it was common practice for Catholics to tell boys that masterbation would make them go blind. That's an attempt to instill repression.
Likewise, the immense outcry over Janet Jackson's bare breast and the damage it would do to children is a sign of a repressed society.
As I sort of mentiopned before, repression doesn't actually do away with the repressed drive, but rather drives it out of consciouness and often perverts it. So, for example, sexual obession and other sexual disorders have a much greater prevelance among sexually repressive populations.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Something I really would like to see, again, is a study that compares the effects of violent video games to the effects of violent sports
More than one of these studies exist.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Puppy: Well said. And in my less-glum moments, I'd heartily agree.
MrSquicky: Any links to those studies? Not a challenge, just curious.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I suspect that a steady diet of violence in games and movies in conjunction with good parenting that provides a context and a value system alongside that violent input will have a neglible effect.
I submit that if you substitute the word "sex" for the word "violence" in that sentence it would remain equally valid.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Likewise, the immense outcry over Janet Jackson's bare breast and the damage it would do to children is a sign of a repressed society.
I think people often mischaracterize the outcry. It wasn't about the exposed breast (which, if accidental, would have been forgotten within a week, except by Jay Leno), but rather about the clear, conscious attempt to put an erotic show on the national airwaves in the middle of the day, where people assume that there will be certain limits on the sexual content.
quote:I submit that if you substitute the word "sex" for the word "violence" in that sentence it would remain equally valid.
And I would submit that sexual imagery, by itself, divorced from context, has effects that violent imagery, divorced from context, does not have.
Clearly, I'm in the minority in thinking this (and I'm sure that Squick is offended that I'm even daring to suggest an opinion without forty studies and two political "consensus statements" to back it up statistically), but I suspect there is a reason why the Victoria's Secret catalog and certain issues of National Geographic were such attractions to teenage boys of an earlier generation, while issues of Boy's Life depicting hiking injuries were easy to ignore.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That something is more attractive does not necessarily mean that it's more harmful. I understand the practicality of building up bulwarks against the likelier of two evils, but those bulwarks should also reflect the seriousness of those evils.
Otherwise, we might as well launch a nationwide crusade against jaywalking.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Of course. My only point right now is that they are different, and that it is reasonable to treat them differently — not that one is horrific and the other is innocuous.
There are other factors as well, beyond the one you cited. Violent behavior, in our society, is firmly circumscribed by laws and punishments, while sexual behavior, in general, is not, unless it becomes violent. So even if the influence of sexual imagery is less potent than the influence of violent imagery (which I do not concede), it may well be that the lack of regulation of the consequences of problematic sexual attitudes and behavior makes preventative measures more important for parents to take.
Just an example. No assertions are being made that I have any studies or statistics to back up this particular example.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Puppy, a lot of what you've been saying in this thread has felt very wrong to me. Not in a way I could argue logically, just a feeling. I've been thinking about this thread a lot for the past couple of days because of that, despite a general lack of interest in most video games. Two things have been bothering me.
First, it seems to me, and this might not have been your intent, that you've tied violence in video games and "thrills" together so tightly that it would be virtually impossible for someone to prove to you that violence in video games is addictive. Instead you seem to say that if someone is addicted to violent video games, they're addicted to the video game aspect, and not the violence aspect. If you define an addiction to violent video games as an addiction to video games, then there's no way to prove to you that the violence in video games is addictive.
The second thing that's been bothering me is in this quote:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: [QUOTE] Humans, on the other hand, have a different reaction to violence. We get pumped with adrenaline when we see certain types of violence (and revulsion when we see others), but either way, our instincts aren't predatory. We don't develop a desire to murder and devour other people. Adrenaline just makes us want to move fast, experience thrills, and do "cool" things, from skateboarding to riding a rollercoaster to driving too fast. So for us, violent art is far less dangerous than it would be for a hypothetical society of sharks. It isn't the mere presence of violence that makes something "bad" for us, but rather the social context and presentation of that violence. Violent imagery, for normal humans, doesn't function like a drug.
Note that most people gravitate towards violence that "looks cool" — car chases with explosions, martial arts with wire work, two-fisted slow-motion gunslinging. In those cases, it's not the "killing people" aspect of the scene that makes it cool. It's the choreography, the drama, the sense of jeopardy, the overcoming of terrifying odds.
Sexual imagery, however, does have a more shark-like, drug-like effect on humans. It triggers chemical and emotional responses that cut very deeply and promote compulsive behavior. People become addicted to pornography much more easily than they become addicted to violence, or even thrills, and the wrong kind or amount of sexual experience at the wrong age can warp someone's sexual development.
I think this is incredibly a male reaction, and I think that's why my instincts scream at me that this is wrong. I'm a girl, I think people know that, but my sn is ambiguous, so let's just be clear. Me= female.
What you're describing here is completely the opposite for me, and for most of my female friends. I can't think of a sex scene in a movie or tv show that has ever turned me on. I can't think of one that's even inspired strong feelings in me that weren't the goal of the storyteller.
Violent scenes though, those have very strong emotional effects on me. The fight scenes you talk about that are meant to be beautiful, those can turn me on, under the right circumstances. The sex scene in one of the Matrix movies that everyone made a big deal of I thought was boring. Neo fighting at the end of the 3rd movie? That was hot.
However, for the other violent scenes, the ones meant to get your adrenaline pumping (which, in my experience are the vast majority). I'm terrified. I react so much more strongly than I ever would to a sex scene. Usually with some physical action such as jumping up and running out of the room. Then I can't sleep, for days. If it's really bad, when I finally get to sleep, I have nightmares.
Granted, it certainly isn't addicting, and my reactions aren't harming anyone, but the high tolerance our culture has for violence sure is harming me.
And I really wish that would be taken into account, not so much in video games, but certianly in movie ratings. We let kids see movies with enough violence to keep me, a 20 year old almost woman, up for a week; and yet in those same movies the slightest bit of sex would have the country in an outcry.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:... there's no way to prove to you that the violence in video games is addictive.
I can see how you got that impression, but my reasoning for believing that it is not the violence in games that causes them to be addictive goes like this:
1. Violent movies are not more addictive than non-violent movies, to my knowledge. 2. The most commonly-cited addictive video games are not violent (Tetris, Bejeweled, The Sims).
It's not that I've crafted a delicate logical mechanism that gives me an excuse to think what I want to think. I think what I do because the two items above seem to indicate it.
You're right, though, that I am focusing on male reactions to things. Partly, that's because I am male myself, and partly, that's because the largest category of violent video game players, by far, is male. Still, if the difference I'm describing is accurate for one gender, I think it is significant enough to be worth recognizing, even if (and I think you are correct) there is a very different set of common reactions to be expected from the other gender.
It actually sort of illustrates my point. Men have differing reactions to images of sex and violence. Women have a different set of differing reactions to sex and violence. And beyond those broad strokes, each individual has their own unique (and sometimes eccentric) set of different reactions.
The main point I'm trying to make is that when people try to say that sex and violence need to be treated exactly the same in ratings systems, or insinuate that someone is a hypocrite for rating a game M for nudity, and another T for violence, they are enforcing a false equivalence. I'm saying that there is nothing irrational or hypocritical in treating images of sex and violence differently. If we can establish that point, then we can debate which should be treated more severely as a separate discussion.
In short, I was giving examples to illustrate that the difference is real. If you have a different set of examples, then cool. Difference is still real.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sterling, This isn't my area of focus, so I don't have the references on hand. The list of references I gave before has several sources that treat violence in youths as a whole. If you're interested, I'd suggest giving one of more of them a read.
Geoff,
quote:I think people often mischaracterize the outcry. It wasn't about the exposed breast (which, if accidental, would have been forgotten within a week, except by Jay Leno), but rather about the clear, conscious attempt to put an erotic show on the national airwaves in the middle of the day, where people assume that there will be certain limits on the sexual content.
I think your betraying yourself here. A bare breast is not an erotic show. For that matter, commercials use sexual content to sell things like soap, yet there is little to no outcry. Also, we've been talking about a game here that features a female character with bare breasts in, from what I can tell, is a entirely non-sexual context.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As far as I know, there is very little concern about violence in video games making those games addictive or of kids getting addicted to violence. I'm not sure why you're talking about it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Columbine sort of exploded the gasket on violence in video games, and alot of "experts" were saying that video games were a big factor in encouraging those 2 boys to play out the game in real life. Even citing a mod that they were using within Doom that encouraged being efficient.
GTA 3 made lots of headlines as it rewards people with cash for delinguent behavior and that debate is still going on. I am not taking sides to the issue in this post, merely pointing out that I do think there is alot of concern regarding violence in video games.
Or were you saying there is little concern in this thread MrSquicky? If so you may disregard my post Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:but rather about the clear, conscious attempt to put an erotic show on the national airwaves in the middle of the day
Nitpick: the Superbowl starts at 6pm EST, and lasts roughly 4 hours. Which puts the halftime show on at 8pm; hardly middle of the day, even on the West Coast. It's well established that the networks and the FCC are more permissive the later it gets. Not that that really applies to the Superbowl, because of the huge national audience.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I wasn't talking about violence in media encouraging violence in general, but about the specific ideas of violent video games addicting kids into either playing violent video games or violence in general.
There is plenty of concern, but as far as I can see, very little of it has to do with "addiction".
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:A bare breast is not an erotic show.
Of course not, that was my point. A simple bare breast wouldn't have been a problem without the context.
Did you see the show? It was a woman in a leather suit singing a suggestive duet with a man who promised to "have her naked by the end of this song", then ripped a part of her clothing off. That's what made it inappropriate for the audience. The context and meaning of the performance. Not just the nipple.
Though the nipple was something that crossed a clear line, and could be criticized, while mere "adult themes" are much harder to regulate without getting ridiculous. But isn't there a line, in your mind, between a dancer and a stripper? Even if they do roughly the same moves, doesn't teasing the audience with nudity make a difference?
Do you think that future half-time shows should feature the same kind of content, and that people should learn to accept it?
quote:As far as I know, there is very little concern about violence in video games making those games addictive or of kids getting addicted to violence. I'm not sure why you're talking about it.
It stems from a misunderstanding of my position. I used the (alleged) addictiveness of sexual imagery as evidence that it is perceived differently than violent media. Someone tried to refute me by saying that violent games are addictive. I refuted them back by saying that it seems obvious that it is the "game" part of violent games that is addictive, not the "violent" part.
So I'm talking about it because someone asserted it, and I'm not as quick as some to say, "None of the experts think your concern is valid, so I'm insulted you think I should even talk to you about it." Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I wasn't talking about violence in media encouraging violence in general, but about the specific ideas of violent video games addicting kids into either playing violent video games or violence in general.
There is plenty of concern, but as far as I can see, very little of it has to do with "addiction".
I can agree with that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ARND: It stems from a misunderstanding of my position. I used the (alleged) addictiveness of sexual imagery as evidence that it is perceived differently than violent media. Someone tried to refute me by saying that violent games are addictive. I refuted them back by saying that it seems obvious that it is the "game" part of violent games that is addictive, not the "violent" part.
Similarly, as I've already said, games containing sexual imagery are not more addictive than games that do not contain such imagery. This means that your original objection to sexual imagery in games -- its purported addictiveness -- isn't relevant; games are so addictive as it is that adding violent or sexual imagery isn't going to tip the balance. Naked Tetris will never outsell Tetris.
Remove purported addiction from the equation. Is there another reason why you think sexual imagery in games should continue to be restricted as tightly as it is now?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I just want to throw out that I think we should be making the distinction between sexual imagery and non-sexual nudity. Some people might not see the difference, but I think it's an important one.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I agree. One of the reasons that I advocate loosening nudity restrictions in games is that I think breasts are really oversexualized in North American society.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
European ratings systems do make that distinction, and if you think that's a direction that America should move in, then that's a valid point — though for the ratings system to be relevant to parental concerns, you'd first have to persuade the American populace to alter their broad opinions on the matter
quote:Similarly, as I've already said, games containing sexual imagery are not more addictive than games that do not contain such imagery.
First off, for the millionth time, I wasn't trying to say that sexual imagery should be banned from games for fear that it will get little boys addicted to porn. I only brought up "porn addiction" as evidence that sexual and violent imagery function differently. Not that one is above the other. Just differently. That's it. Please, please don't make me explain this again.
quote:Is there another reason why you think sexual imagery in games should continue to be restricted as tightly as it is now?
If we're all willing to agree that the two are different and can legitimately be treated with different standards, then this part of the discussion can begin.
Here's one possible reason. The lack of legal regulation of sex in our society (beyond violent and exploitative sexual acts) means that sexual behavior is left entirely up to the desires and attitudes of the participants, as well as unenforced social mores like "Don't cheat on someone with whom you've agreed to be exclusive," and "Don't falsely insinuate that you love someone just to get them into bed."
So while violent behavior (picking fistfights, stabbing people, shoving people) gets you punished in school and tossed into jail as an adult, and even minor violent behavior is treated as being well out of bounds for any adult (ie, someone who would sleep with an underling at work would never imagine shoving an underling in the hallway), nonviolent but harmful sexual behavior often only has emotional consequences for the people involved.
If someone develops the wrong attitudes towards sex at a young age, they might cause a lot of pain to other people and to themselves later on in life, with very few major mechanisms to stop them or "punish" them.
Don't get me wrong; I don't want us to start making laws about who can sleep with whom. But I think that this situation does mean that we need to be especially careful with how young people are exposed to sex, and what they learn about it. In the end, it will be their own consciences and attitudes that determine what they are allowed to do to other people, not any outside regulating influence.
quote:I think breasts are really oversexualized in North American society.
Is it possible to oversexualize a breast? Wouldn't that be like overdeliciousizing chocolate?
Seriously, though, what would you see change, in an ideal future version of America? Female toplessness as common as male toplessness? How would a change like that come about? Would there be obstacles to things working the way you intend? What would make that version of our society better than this one?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Thank you for your response to my post. Your arguments are much clearer to me now.
Just a random, relevant anecdote, not meant to argue against anything said here. The Bible has screwed me up sexually far more than anything I read or watched as a child. At some point, I'm going to make a thread about this because it's not something that is obvious to parents to moniter. But if your 10 year old daughter is reading the New Testament on her own, it might be a good idea to explain to her that "wives obey your husbands" does not mean abusive relationships are God's Will.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, A question. I linked you to a joint statement from the AMA, APA, and AAP and a separate statement by the APA on violence in interactive media. Did you read and consider those statements? If not, I'm recommending that you should, because it likely give you a better idea of the full scope of people's objections here.
The suggested effects go far beyond merely increasing the incidence of overt physically violent behavior. I'll quote a few relevant sections:
quote:WHEREAS psychological research reveals that the electronic media play an important role in the development of attitude, emotion, social behavior and intellectual functioning of children and youth
quote:WHEREAS there appears to be evidence that exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential conflict situations
quote:WHEREAS comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal
quote:# Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior. # Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. # Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.
Even when just focusing on violence, we're not talking just about overt physical violence, such as you are saying will trigger punishment. Violence starts as a mental thing, as a way of thinking about other people. It takes many forms besides just overt physical attacks such as verbal violence, intimidation, prejudicial thought. And, instead of punishing violent thought, our society often advocates it, either directly or indirectly.
The same person wo wouldn't shove an underlying at work would still carry out all manner of violent behavior towards them. Many people here had an unpleasant time in high school because of the violence other people vistied on them, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of this was not physical. In a comparison of first world countries, America is on the extreme in many forms of violent behavior, including physical violence. This is a very real problem in our country.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I didn't read the entire statement very closely (because holy crap, do I have a lot of work to do), but I read all the parts you've quoted here. (EDIT: I mean, I remember reading them before you quoted them.)
I've been cautious because the statement does seem to go further than most other statements that I've read on the same subject in the past, even those used by anti-game-industry zealots. I've been saying that I want to look at the studies that led to these opinions because ... well, humans are complex, and a major claim like this deserves to be investigated more fully.
However, I think the reason I haven't heard a lot of this stuff before may be the fact that most of the zealots I deal with aren't trying to blame unfriendliness and meanness on games. They're trying to blame murders on games. And in that arena, I think I'm on pretty solid ground when I say that a young person who decides to kill somebody likely has a lot more going on in his life that is pushing him toward violence than his choice of art.
Jerkiness, however, might very well be another issue, which I haven't looked into, really, at all. Personally, I'm surprised by the notes about people becoming less helpful to victims. I would think that while violent movies might have that effect, because the audience is passive, violent games ought to (if anything) make people feel more competent to help out in a dire situation, and less afraid of consequences.
One of the great values I see in a lot of games is that they let a person act out the role of a hero many times, trying again each time they fail, until they achieve success. So I'm curious if that statement is a direct contradiction of my assumption, or if it was drawn from studies that were not specific to games — particularly games like Full Spectrum Warrior or GRAW, in which the player is a hero with allies to protect and keep alive.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I should mention, by the way, that I am very much in favor of game developers being conscientious about the moral messages of their games — an issue that I am more concerned about than the sheer amount violence, free of context. Since it seems impossible when using retail games to divorce the content from its context, I'm always hypersensitive to the possibility that it was a message and not an image that had an effect when a piece of media is cited as having caused a change in behavior.
Grand Theft Auto is not intended for children, for instance, and I don't think they should play it, expect under careful supervision and guidance, after they have reached an age where such guidance can make a difference. But it's not because you shoot people and hit them with cars. It's because you shoot and hit innocent people and cops without remorse or repercussions. You are a horrible sociopath, and the game makes it really fun. I think an adult can grasp the irony of the game and have a great time with it without serious side effects. But I wouldn't want it to be a part of a child's moral development at all.
Nor would I want a young person to watch Crash without parental guidance. It depicts some horrible stuff, and a person really should already have a strong moral foundation and a reason to have hope before they watch it. But it's brilliant work, and the experience of watching it has made me a better person.
This is just to be clear that I definitely think that art has an effect, and that we should be very careful with it. That isn't what I'm disputing here at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not an anti-violent video game zealot. Neither are most of the people who conduct reputable research on it. What we are are people who are concerned about the welfare of children and of society as a whole.
I don't think any of us expect the resolutions of the statements I linked (and read them when you hav etime to, you'll find that there are many more goals than merely reduction of video game violence) are going to be a magic bullet to take care of the problems of violence, but it will help.
I'm going to quote another bit that may make why I consider accurately understanding the problem so important:
quote:WHEREAS the data dealing with media literacy curricula demonstrate that when children are taught how to view television critically, there is a reduction of TV viewing in general, and a clearer understanding of the messages conveyed by the medium. Studies on media literacy demonstrate when children are taught how to view television critically, children can feel less frightened and sad after discussions about the medium, can learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and can identify less with aggressive characters on TV, and better understand commercial messages
When people understand the non-conscious effects that things have on them, many of these effect go away, and can even lead to greater strength in those areas. (This is part of what I like to call the two-door effect, which I've explained before and am willing to explain again if people are interested.)
The debate over violent video games is, in a pretty significant way, part of the scorn and prejudices that is often visited on psychology (both in society at large and here on Hatrack) in part because we actually take unconscious effects seriously - a position that is in strong conflict with the prevailing American view.
So getting that idea in the door is also part of this issue. If I could make one change to things like this, I'd make it so that instead of people saying "Someone should do a study on this." or forming their opinions just on what seems to make sense to them, that they would make a serious effort to take the few hours to see what the reputable literature has to say about things.
However, if people treat us as an extreme advocacy group working from emotion and ideology instead of a solid foundation of research, none of these things are going to happen.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I'm not an anti-violent video game zealot. Neither are most of the people who conduct reputable research on it. What we are are people who are concerned about the welfare of children and of society as a whole.
I know that. What I was trying to say was that most of the conflicts I have over this topic ARE with anti-video-game zealots, and I have become accustomed to refuting their claims, which are very different from yours.
quote:The debate over violent video games is, in a pretty significant way, part of the scorn and prejudices that is often visited on psychology (both in society at large and here on Hatrack) in part because we actually take unconscious effects seriously - a position that is in strong conflict with the prevailing American view.
I'm not sure I fully understand the background of this statement. What prevailing American view? And are you saying that the fact that there is a debate over video game violence suggests a lack of respect for your profession?
It certainly leads to an undeserved lack of respect for mine Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I should mention, by the way, that I am very much in favor of game developers being conscientious about the moral messages of their games — an issue that I am more concerned about than the sheer amount violence, free of context. Since it seems impossible when using retail games to divorce the content from its context, I'm always hypersensitive to the possibility that it was a message and not an image that had an effect when a piece of media is cited as having caused a change in behavior.
Grand Theft Auto is not intended for children, for instance, and I don't think they should play it, expect under careful supervision and guidance, after they have reached an age where such guidance can make a difference. But it's not because you shoot people and hit them with cars. It's because you shoot and hit innocent people and cops without remorse or repercussions. You are a horrible sociopath, and the game makes it really fun. I think an adult can grasp the irony of the game and have a great time with it without serious side effects. But I wouldn't want it to be a part of a child's moral development at all.
Nor would I want a young person to watch Crash without parental guidance. It depicts some horrible stuff, and a person really should already have a strong moral foundation and a reason to have hope before they watch it. But it's brilliant work, and the experience of watching it has made me a better person.
Part of the problem with this is that children are not just little adults in the way they perceive things. There is considerable evidence that they way they perceive and process violent media is significantly different from how an adult would. So, using the way you would see it as a guide for how say a 10 year old (edit: albiet, obviously, with far less development and defenses than you) would is not necessarily a good idea.
As I said, this isn't actually an area I focus on, so how, exactly the perception differs, I couldn't really tell you. I've never read a complete treatment of it.
edit: I don't think I got my point across very well. Let's try, you may think that the moral message overrides or elevates the violent actions, and for you perhaps it does, but we can't say the same is necessarily true for a child.
edit: What I was referencing above was the side of the debate that holds the strict cognativist assumption (i.e. people only do things because of conscious decisions on their part) and refuses to consider that things have effects on thinking and perception that operate below the level of consciousness. This cognativist assumption, though somewhat weakened, is a very common, and I believe the prevailing, American cultural attitude towards the psyche.
[ June 22, 2006, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
[EDIT: I just posted this and saw that Squicky had posted before me. I haven't read his post yet, but I quickly panicked and wanted to make sure that I prefaced this post with a disclaimer: This post is not a direct response to anything Squicky just said. In case he somehow finds a way to take it as an affront ]
This issue is starting to lead into my half-formed concern about treating humans like statistics. At what point is it no longer appropriate to try and control human behavioral output by regulating their input, like they are little math problems? Is there a point at which every human is accountable for his own choices, and we need to start treating them like responsible individuals, and not like functions in an equation? Reduce input X by 50% and reap a 5% decrease in antisocial behavior Y?
This particular discussion may not be the best place for this digression, but I started thinking about this the last time someone said to me, "If we criminalize abortion, then millions of women will die from back-alley procedures!"
The question is, would it be right for a policymaker making such a decision to think to himself, "I am saving these women," or "I am killing these women," when the choice to have the back-alley procedure belongs to each individual woman? Is it megalomaniacal for a leader to take credit for choices that are made by other people a few links down the causal chain from his own?
He should definitely take responsibility for the first link in the chain — the fact that for good or ill, in preventing the abortions, he puts these women into difficult situations. But after that point, doesn't the decision to resort to a life-threatening solution belong to them? Is it disrespectful to these women to act as though their choices are merely the product of a grand equation, and not actual choices made my real human beings? To act as though their decisions are foreordained and inevitable?
As parents, we sort of have to think of children this way to a degree. When they are young, they are more responsive to input from their environment, and our society does not consider them to be entirely responsible for their actions. So things like ratings systems for games are very important, as parents search for ways to regulate the input that is going into their kids.
But I get the sense that there is a line somewhere that we shouldn't cross. A line across which we start treating humans like machines whose input we should be able to regulate, and thus control the choices they make later in life.
Does that make sense? To be clear, I am not accusing anyone here of doing this, nor am I leveling some accusation at psychologists. (I don't think my post could be read that way, but I've been surprised in the past, so I want to head off any confusion.)
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Part of the problem with this is that children are not just little adults in the way they perceive things.
Exactly. Hence my comments about Grand Theft Auto. I think an adult has what it takes to understand Grand Theft Auto in context, and some older children may be able to do so, as well, with the right guidance. I don't think younger children, in general, are equipped for that.
I base this, in part, on an experience I had watching two young boys playing GTA: Vice City. To them, it wasn't a challenging driving and shooting game. It went like this:
"Kick the fat lady! Kill her! Kill her! Ha ha ha, she's bleeding!"
Totally freaked me out. From an adult, even that same exact line would have come across as them laughing at the audacity of the game in depicting such awful stuff in such a silly way. From a kid, though ... "Kill the fat lady" was the game they were playing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not exactly what I meant. I'm going to have to think a bit on how to explain it better.
quote:But I get the sense that there is a line somewhere that we shouldn't cross. A line across which we start treating humans like machines whose input we should be able to regulate, and thus control the choices they make later in life.
I feverently believe that people have the potential to make many decisions relatively free of deterministic forces. The problem is, what I see leads me to believe that realizing this potential requires a level of psychological health that is rare in our society. I'm haunted by the Milgrim experiment and the hundreds of others in the same vein.
[ June 22, 2006, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:Similarly, as I've already said, games containing sexual imagery are not more addictive than games that do not contain such imagery.
First off, for the millionth time, I wasn't trying to say that sexual imagery should be banned from games for fear that it will get little boys addicted to porn.
I didn't say that, though. Not only is that not in the excerpt you quoted, I'm pretty sure I didn't paint your argument that way anywhere.
However:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I only brought up "porn addiction" as evidence that sexual and violent imagery function differently. Not that one is above the other. Just differently. That's it. Please, please don't make me explain this again.
The argument I did make in the snippet you quoted is a natural extension of this.
If sexual imagery is generally addictive in a way that violent imagery is not, then it may also be addictive in the context of video games. Since video games containing sexual imagery are not significantly more addictive than video games not containing sexual imagery, it follows that the two should not be treated differently in the context of video game ratings solely on account of addictive potential. There may, however, be other reasons to treat them differently.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:Is there another reason why you think sexual imagery in games should continue to be restricted as tightly as it is now?
If we're all willing to agree that the two are different and can legitimately be treated with different standards, then this part of the discussion can begin.
Obviously "sex" and "violence" are not the same insofar as they are two words that mean different things. So as far as that goes, we do agree. However, sexual imagery and violent imagery are both in the "take care in how you expose children to these things" category. When I said that the ESRB has a "blatant double standard" in how it treats sex and violence respectively, that was what I was talking about. As I've said, I think the ESRB standard is too lax on violent imagery and too restrictive on sexual imagery.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Here's one possible reason. The lack of legal regulation of sex in our society (beyond violent and exploitative sexual acts) means that sexual behavior is left entirely up to the desires and attitudes of the participants, as well as unenforced social mores like "Don't cheat on someone with whom you've agreed to be exclusive," and "Don't falsely insinuate that you love someone just to get them into bed."
So while violent behavior (picking fistfights, stabbing people, shoving people) gets you punished in school and tossed into jail as an adult, and even minor violent behavior is treated as being well out of bounds for any adult (ie, someone who would sleep with an underling at work would never imagine shoving an underling in the hallway), nonviolent but harmful sexual behavior often only has emotional consequences for the people involved.
If someone develops the wrong attitudes towards sex at a young age, they might cause a lot of pain to other people and to themselves later on in life, with very few major mechanisms to stop them or "punish" them.
Don't get me wrong; I don't want us to start making laws about who can sleep with whom. But I think that this situation does mean that we need to be especially careful with how young people are exposed to sex, and what they learn about it.
This is a reasonable argument, but I think you're underestimating the extent to which sex is regulated in society. For example, the Canadian government recently tabled legislation to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 across the country. There will still be a "close in age" exemption, so a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old could have sex, but a 14-year-old and a 17-year old could not (this is legal now). However, the age of consent for anal sex under the new legislation will remain at 18. Thus, under the new scheme, heterosexual teenagers can fornicate to their hearts' delight, but homosexual teenagers (still) can't. So we do at least attempt to regulate who can sleep with whom and when. (As an aside, I agree with the age-of-consent raise; the intent of the bill is to protect teenagers from adult sexual predators.)
Also, I know you put a qualifier in "nonviolent but harmful sexual behavior often only has emotional consequences for the people involved," but I think this is contingent on what you consider "harmful sexual behaviour." Certainly in the workplace context my experience has been that sexual harrassment policies are uniformly strict, frequently going above and beyond the legal requirements. In the broader sense, though, I think we probably have significantly different definitions of what constitutes "harmful sexual behaviour," and that to some extent this influences our respective positions.
Which is fine, of course.
In any case, sex and violence do both have the potential for extremely serious consequences, even in controlled situations (e.g. a martial arts dojo), and I think that care should be taken in how children are exposed to both of them. In that sense, ours is a difference of degree rather than principle.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I think breasts are really oversexualized in North American society.
Is it possible to oversexualize a breast? Wouldn't that be like overdeliciousizing chocolate?
I don't think so, no. Breasts have a sexual/non-sexual duality to them that is usually ignored in North American society. I think this duality needs to be acknowledged -- MrSquicky's distinction between sexual and non-sexual nudity. I'm mostly talking about nursing infants, but even in other contexts an image of a bare breast doesn't have to be sexual in nature.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Seriously, though, what would you see change, in an ideal future version of America? Female toplessness as common as male toplessness?
I'll stop you right there, because the answer to that question is "no," so your subsequent line of questioning is moot.
Again, the law here in Ontario is essentially that women may go topless anywhere men may go topless. This hasn't led to rampant public nudity -- after all, going topless is physically uncomfortable for a lot of women. That's what bras are supposed to mitigate. As I said earlier, the practical upshot of the legislation has been that mothers with infants can nurse them more or less anywhere, which I can't help but see as a positive thing. We need reminders that breasts don't have to be sexual.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)