GTA Settlement

[GawainBS]

Not sure if this belonged in the non-RPG game forum or here, but since the essence is about games in society, I thought it belonged here.

GTA Class Action Settlement I found this link via an ad on Video Game Cheats - Video Game Reviews - Video Game Codes - Video Game Web Site - GameFAQs . I know, the incident on its own is quite old. This link just infuriated me once more.
People are complaining you get to see a woman's nipple in a game rated Mature, which is, IIRC, age 13-17. That's outrageous & disastrous, they say; Rockstar cheated us, they're violating our youths!
Doesn't anybody of these people feels the slightest shame for being so hypocritical? Beating people to death with a baseball bat or chopping them up with a chainsaw is perfectly agreeable for 13-17 year olds, but letting them see a nipple isn't? Only an American could think this way. No offense to the sane Americans around here.
I pray to all the gods that my children (even my daughters) get to see/touch/taste a woman's nipple before they start beating the crap out of people with golfclubs.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

This ranks right up there with the urban legend (I hope) of the woman who dried her poodle in the microwave, and then successfully sued because of the lack of a specific warning.

[DesR85]

Originally Posted by GawainBS

Doesn't anybody of these people feels the slightest shame for being so hypocritical? Beating people to death with a baseball bat or chopping them up with a chainsaw is perfectly agreeable for 13-17 year olds, but letting them see a nipple isn't? Only an American could think this way. No offense to the sane Americans around here.

To be honest, it's no different in Europe where it is okay to display sex but shun violence. In my opinion, I really think both sides are hypocritical. Both violence and sex are not good, yet they decide to choose which one is okay over the other.

[GawainBS]

Originally Posted by DesR85

To be honest, it's no different in Europe where it is okay to display sex but shun violence. In my opinion, I really think both sides are hypocritical. Both violence and sex are not good, yet they decide to choose which one is okay over the other.

Apart from the fact that sex isn't bad. Not at all. Violence is. My point is about the hypocrisy of going nuts when sex gets in the picture, which isn't harmful to anyone (unless taken to extremes, but that applies to almost everything), but nobody seems to care about the wanton violence in the game. Mind you, I'm not against violent games.

[galraen]

I'm not sure why you're so shocked GawainBS, it's the same country were a lot (but not a majority I suspect) went gaga when a publicity hunting singer exposed a nipple at the Superbowl. Also consider the countries heritage, the only early colonists they celebrate were the puritan nut jobs, they completely ignore all the earlier settlers.

Every country has its foibles, having a fixation about sex is hardly the worst of them, and being a country that was (by other countries standards) recently founded on violence, it's not surprising they have a slightly different attitude towards it. All countries were built on violence of course but for many of us a long time ago, but the attitude towards violence in Europe was pretty similar to the US not too long ago.

As for attitudes towards sex, there are many countries with far harsher attitudes than the US, just try selling that video game in Saudi Arabia! You could expect at least a public flogging!

I must say I find DesR85 equating sex and violence very disturbing though, hopefully he just expressed himself poorly, I wouldn't have expected that of him from previous posts.

[GawainBS]

Well, Galraen, I know *how* it comes, I can just hardly grasp the *why*. And yes, I hope DesRes is expressing himself poorly.

[DesR85]

Yeah, bad way of putting it. Very tiring day today. What I meant is when you take them to the extreme. I have nothing against either sex or violence in video games or other media form. What I'm really pissed at is the fact that people still want to find fault with something so obvious. If some individual let a minor watch a R-rated (or gory) movie, whose fault is it?

When will these numbskulls get a life or even a sense of responsibility? Rockstar already admitted that they forgot to remove the sex mini-game from San Andreas, decided to release a patch for removing it, pull off the earlier copies and even went to the effort of re-releasing the edited version. What more do these idiots want from Rockstar?

And to be frank, I don't know if GTA really glorifies violence (I know it's brutal, but is it really that extreme?). I find Manhunt to be much worse. Up till the point of being sadistic, in my opinion.

P.S. Sorry if I'm off-topic. Not in very good mood today.

[GawainBS]

I'm not offended by GTA at all. My mind just can't grasp the fact that people go so far as to sue Rockstar for a tit but didn't raise a voice about the game concept in and of itself. I know, GTA has been getting shafted repeatedly for its contents, but still in this case... I just can't understand it that in such a game, you actually get pissed because of some sex. Weren't there cheats in the original Tombraider to get Lara naked? I can't remember people whining about that.
It's like complaining that you could lie to your aunt in Fallout II, but finding the rest of the game entirely acceptablel. Slight Disclaimer: I think Fallout II is one of the best RPG's around, so don't get me on this.

[Claudius]

It depends on if the sex or violence is motivated by: greed, anger, or confusion.

Violence is generally bad but saving someone's life by beating up someone who is hurting them might be good (if your motive is to defend not rage).

Sex agitates a lot of people and is an addiction or simply disturbs their minds. But like any powerful feeling sex can be worked with in a skillful way as well. Again it depends what your motivation is. Is it love or are you manipulating or puffing your ego etc.

[GawainBS]

Originally Posted by Claudius

It depends on if the sex or violence is motivated by: greed, anger, or confusion.

Violence is generally bad but saving someone's life by beating up someone who is hurting them might be good (if your motive is to defend not rage).

Sex agitates a lot of people and is an addiction or simply disturbs their minds. But like any powerful feeling sex can be worked with in a skillful way as well. Again it depends what your motivation is. Is it love or are you manipulating or puffing your ego etc.

Violence can only be a means to an end, and even then: one of the last means you should turn to. It will, by its very nature, always hurt someone. It is always forced on one of the involved parties. It violates one's integrety and free will. I don't want to sound overly naieve and deny what you said about defending. But I hope you agree that should remain a last ditch option.

Sex, on the hand, can be an end onto itself. Further more, it isn't bad on itself, on the contrary. If you put it in the context of manipulating or puffing your ego, then it only goes to show those things are bad, not what you're using. You can also start taking rape in to account, but that's no longer sex, that's violence.
So here motivation doesn't really play a part. If two (or more) people agree to have sex, there's nothing wrong with it. On the contrary, it's quite fun.
Sure, some people are addicted, but games don't get bashed for depecting smoking (A lot more damaging than sex, since, for starters, you're often forcing the smoking upon others).

[Claudius]

Interesting that you mention ends and means. Ultimately we cannot control the outcome. The outcome of sex can be AIDS but that doesn't mean sex is bad.

Whether it is good or bad it depends on the intention. In other words persistant bad intentions will eventually result in harm (although sometimes uninentionally bad intentions make something good (an end) happen)

Meanwhile good intentions might not be ideal now. Imagine a soldier who sincerely believes he is helping save his countrymen. That soldier has good intentions towards people and it is a nearer step for him to say "well this war isn't worth the violence (or maybe it is?) but the point is he intends something good. Compare to the soldier who hates all muslims or christians. That soldier has to unwind a lot of dissonant emotions before they can accept a peace.

This is why intentions are important.

I have had sexual relationships where the sex wasn't all positive. Not that it was rape or something but just the codependency was accelerated by sex. You can get your expectations rapped up in someone and the spaciousness and openness can get cut off. Thats the trouble I was referring to.

Its like you are eating cookies and you think 'oh these are good I am having fun'.....it starts out innocent....then you think 'oh the cookies are gone. I have to have more cookies. I am unhappy'

Neither sex or cookies are bad in themselves. But you can get hooked by your thoughts about them. In that case you forget that your experience of sex or cookie is the space of your awareness which is enjoyable (whether the cookie is gone or not) anytime. Instead you think you need to possess the object and that the enjoyment comes from the object rather than your own nature!

[GawainBS]

So... ? You're either rephrasing what I said, or completely beside the point.

[VonDondu]

I think the argument against sexual content in games goes something like this: "Playing a character in a game who picks up a bat and bashes in someone's head will not lead a child to pick up a bat in real life and bash in someone's head. There's no need to worry about fostering an insensitivity to violence, because everyone knows that a child can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Sex, on the other hand, is different. Even a cartoon nipple will put thoughts of sex into a child's mind, and once it starts, there's no stopping it. The child will seek out pornography, stare at women in real life, and possibly become sexually active, none of which ever would have happened if the child had not seen the cartoon nipple." (*cough*, *cough*, *hack*, *cough*)

You see, it's all about real-life consequences.

[Claudius]

I don't think I'm beside the point and I was expressing myself rather than reprhasing thank you very much <--(emoticon substituting for body language that I am not upset)

[GawainBS]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

I think the argument against sexual content in games goes something like this: "Playing a character in a game who picks up a bat and bashes in someone's head will not lead a child to pick up a bat in real life and bash in someone's head. There's no need to worry about fostering an insensitivity to violence, because everyone knows that a child can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Sex, on the other hand, is different. Even a cartoon nipple will put thoughts of sex into a child's mind, and once it starts, there's no stopping it. The child will seek out pornography, stare at women in real life, and possibly become sexually active, none of which ever would have happened if the child had not seen the cartoon nipple." (*cough*, *cough*, *hack*, *cough*)

You see, it's all about real-life consequences.

The problem is, you're probably right. Chance are that was the way it went. We all know that no 13-17 year would ever even think of searching the internet for porn.

To Claudius:
The point is, that sex in itself isn't harmful. Violence is.
BTW, violence could get you AIDS as well.