Stephen King doesn't mind violence?
April 9, 2008 12:00 PM Subscribe
Stephen King weighs in on the videogame debate.
I don't really get this issue...
You need to be 18 to buy porn.
You need to be 21 to buy alcohol.
You need to be 17 to get into R rated movies.
Why shouldn't you need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames?
posted by mildred-pitt at 12:14 PM on April 9, 2008
You need to be 18 to buy porn.
You need to be 21 to buy alcohol.
You need to be 17 to get into R rated movies.
Why shouldn't you need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames?
posted by mildred-pitt at 12:14 PM on April 9, 2008
Even if you don't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:14 PM on April 9, 2008 [7 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:14 PM on April 9, 2008 [7 favorites]
Why shouldn't you need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames?
posted by mildred-pitt at 2:14 PM on April 9 [+] [!]
Because there has never been proof that violent videogames ever caused someone go out and kill people. Not to mention that the other age limits are very arbitrary and not really based on any sort of real science.
posted by arnold at 12:18 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by mildred-pitt at 2:14 PM on April 9 [+] [!]
Because there has never been proof that violent videogames ever caused someone go out and kill people. Not to mention that the other age limits are very arbitrary and not really based on any sort of real science.
posted by arnold at 12:18 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
The moves by legislatures to ban videogames should be viewed simply as lawmakers signaling to the videogame industry that they are mature enough of an industry to spend money on lobbying and campaign contributions, like all of the other culture industries do. They don't want to ban games - too much revenue.
Hell, the government makes games, like America's Army, and was even working with id in the days of Doom II on a special version for use in soldier training.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:19 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
Hell, the government makes games, like America's Army, and was even working with id in the days of Doom II on a special version for use in soldier training.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:19 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
EW.com Recommends Upgrading Your Browser
EW.com, indeed.
Why Stephen King? They couldn't get Alice Cooper or Hitler? All are about equally likely to convince Middle America that videogames won't turn their children into atheistic school shooters.
posted by DU at 12:20 PM on April 9, 2008
EW.com, indeed.
Why Stephen King? They couldn't get Alice Cooper or Hitler? All are about equally likely to convince Middle America that videogames won't turn their children into atheistic school shooters.
posted by DU at 12:20 PM on April 9, 2008
You need to be 18 to buy porn... unless you have the Internet or cable.
You need to be 17 to get into R rated movies... unless you're accompanied by a guardian or you've got cable. (Or a locally owned video store.)
There is no evidence that violent video games have any adverse effects, and the gore and violence in most "violent" games is not nearly as graphic as in a movie. I remember in 1993 or 4 that there was a piece about violent video games on local news and they showed Zelda 2. Link was stabbing a moblin. We've come a long way since then, but even in games like GTA you'll be hard pressed to find any really graphic gore.
(Well, Doom 3 has those freaky flesh walls.)
posted by sonic meat machine at 12:21 PM on April 9, 2008
You need to be 17 to get into R rated movies... unless you're accompanied by a guardian or you've got cable. (Or a locally owned video store.)
There is no evidence that violent video games have any adverse effects, and the gore and violence in most "violent" games is not nearly as graphic as in a movie. I remember in 1993 or 4 that there was a piece about violent video games on local news and they showed Zelda 2. Link was stabbing a moblin. We've come a long way since then, but even in games like GTA you'll be hard pressed to find any really graphic gore.
(Well, Doom 3 has those freaky flesh walls.)
posted by sonic meat machine at 12:21 PM on April 9, 2008
Why shouldn't you need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames?
You do have to be a certain age. It's enforced by the publishers, just like how the movie ratings are enforced by the mpaa (not a government agency). We already have the same system the movies have. We don't need more than movies get.
posted by shmegegge at 12:21 PM on April 9, 2008
You do have to be a certain age. It's enforced by the publishers, just like how the movie ratings are enforced by the mpaa (not a government agency). We already have the same system the movies have. We don't need more than movies get.
posted by shmegegge at 12:21 PM on April 9, 2008
Why shouldn't you need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames?
Do you need to be a certain age to watch violent TV? Read violent books? See violence anywhere you want on the internet?
These things should be up to parents to manage, not the government. That includes porn and R rated movies.
posted by poppo at 12:24 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Do you need to be a certain age to watch violent TV? Read violent books? See violence anywhere you want on the internet?
These things should be up to parents to manage, not the government. That includes porn and R rated movies.
posted by poppo at 12:24 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
The vid-critics claim they exist for one reason and one reason only, so kids can experience the vicarious thrill of killing.
I always figured it was better to kill vicariously than curiously.
posted by jmd82 at 12:25 PM on April 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
I always figured it was better to kill vicariously than curiously.
posted by jmd82 at 12:25 PM on April 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
I don't generally care for Stephen King's prose, but I don't usually hate it. This, I hate. Not the message, because hell, we should be shaming parents into giving a damn about their kids, not legislating, but soft-serve Christ with rainbow sprinkles, it reads as if it were written between bong hits.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:25 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by uncleozzy at 12:25 PM on April 9, 2008
Walmart proudly stocks piles of "unrated" DVDs, "More Shocking/Gory/Rapey Than You Saw In Theatres", but refuse to stock "adult rated" games. So, there almost aren't any.
GTA's rating refers to the original version which could be hacked to reveal pixellated riskyness the developers intended to delete. They immediately released an edited version.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:26 PM on April 9, 2008
GTA's rating refers to the original version which could be hacked to reveal pixellated riskyness the developers intended to delete. They immediately released an edited version.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:26 PM on April 9, 2008
I AM STEPHEN KING AND ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY WILL NOT EDIT MY WRITINGZ!!!
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 12:27 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 12:27 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
There is no evidence that violent video games have any adverse effects, and the gore and violence in most "violent" games is not nearly as graphic as in a movie.
I'm staunchly on the pro-game side of this debate, but I have to take issue with you here. Have you ever seen the Manhunt series?
posted by danb at 12:27 PM on April 9, 2008
I'm staunchly on the pro-game side of this debate, but I have to take issue with you here. Have you ever seen the Manhunt series?
posted by danb at 12:27 PM on April 9, 2008
Sure, have you ever seen Itchy and Scratchy?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:28 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:28 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
also, while we're on the topic, let's be clear about something: hollywood, just like all other big business, pays a fuckton of money to politicians the way local businesses pay money to racketeers. They do this so that obnoxious negligent moms who think it's someone else's job to protect their kids get told to shut the fuck up by the Powers That Be.
Right now, the politicians are realizing that Video Games are poised to make Hollywood's profits looks like chump change, and they want a piece of it. The publishers and studios haven't realized this, yet, so they haven't started any serious lobbying - in other words, they haven't started paying off the politicians, yet. Shit like this is the governments way of cracking its knuckles and saying "that's a nice industry youse gots there. Be a shame if somethin'... unfortunate happened to it."
posted by shmegegge at 12:28 PM on April 9, 2008 [14 favorites]
Right now, the politicians are realizing that Video Games are poised to make Hollywood's profits looks like chump change, and they want a piece of it. The publishers and studios haven't realized this, yet, so they haven't started any serious lobbying - in other words, they haven't started paying off the politicians, yet. Shit like this is the governments way of cracking its knuckles and saying "that's a nice industry youse gots there. Be a shame if somethin'... unfortunate happened to it."
posted by shmegegge at 12:28 PM on April 9, 2008 [14 favorites]
Though you only have to be 17, or even 16 with your parent's permission, to go and kill people. Complete with the government's full faith and sanction.
posted by Mercaptan at 12:29 PM on April 9, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by Mercaptan at 12:29 PM on April 9, 2008 [4 favorites]
Never mind these games, they're just a fad, what is going to be done about this Rock and Roll? Elvis and Buddy Holly are introducing our children to Satan.
posted by Elmore at 12:30 PM on April 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by Elmore at 12:30 PM on April 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
Have you ever seen the Manhunt series?
Nothing in manhunt compares to the bathroom scene in Scarface or the last half hour of Audition or most of Irreversible.
posted by shmegegge at 12:30 PM on April 9, 2008
Nothing in manhunt compares to the bathroom scene in Scarface or the last half hour of Audition or most of Irreversible.
posted by shmegegge at 12:30 PM on April 9, 2008
Given the level of violence in most of King's books, maybe it isn't surprising that he's taking this (wait for it...) stand. Of course, written gore is one thing, but it might even be more effective than the video game version. I don't play video games myself, but I've always enjoyed King's writing, which can be almost unbearably intense. I can't see that violent games will have a negative effect on anyone other than those who are already pretty far down the path toward school shooting. In which case, not playing them pprobably wouldn't make any difference: if you're whacko, you're whacko. It's the same argument that was raised against the old EC comics, as King points out. Were they tasteless and stupid? Sure, and kids loved them. I did, and I still do. And I haven't killed anyone yet.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 12:31 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 12:31 PM on April 9, 2008
Any way to get this without a browser upgrade (I'm using seamonkey, which is pretty much the same as firefox).
posted by 445supermag at 12:34 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by 445supermag at 12:34 PM on April 9, 2008
Now if only they had slipped in a constitutional amendment about videogames!
posted by matteo at 12:34 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by matteo at 12:34 PM on April 9, 2008
Carrie White didn't have access to videogames. I'm just sayin'.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:35 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:35 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why shouldn't you need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames?
posted by mildred-pitt at 3:14 PM on April 9
You don't need to be a certain age to learn all about your country's glorious battles against the savages both foreign and domestic. You don't need to be a certain age before you learn to play cowboys and indians. You don't need to be a certain age to watch television shows in which GI Joe characters with square jaws and southern drawls shoot at bad guys with foreign accents. You don't need to be a certain age to learn that it's okay for good guys to kill bad guys.
You don't need to be a certain age to play football, or to watch it on TV. You don't need to be a certain age to watch hockey fights or boxing. When boys fight on the playground, it's "boys will be boys."
Because you don't need to be a certain age to attend a church with a life-like dead body nailed to a cross at the front of a room. You don't need to be a certain age to drink "the body and blood of Christ". You don't need to be a certain age to have your genitals mutilated by a stranger without your consent in the service of your parents' religion. You don't need to be a certain age to have schools explain to you that the Holocaust was about the Nazis killing 6 million people in ovens. You don't need to be a certain age to learn about "scalping", "suicide bombings" or to see the aftermath of murders, arsons, and war on your 6:00 news.
You do not need to be a certain age to view the circus of autopsies on any of the three CSI shows, or see murders on any of the myriad of cop dramas.
That's the tip of the iceberg of why video games shouldn't be restricted based on violence.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:38 PM on April 9, 2008 [11 favorites]
posted by mildred-pitt at 3:14 PM on April 9
You don't need to be a certain age to learn all about your country's glorious battles against the savages both foreign and domestic. You don't need to be a certain age before you learn to play cowboys and indians. You don't need to be a certain age to watch television shows in which GI Joe characters with square jaws and southern drawls shoot at bad guys with foreign accents. You don't need to be a certain age to learn that it's okay for good guys to kill bad guys.
You don't need to be a certain age to play football, or to watch it on TV. You don't need to be a certain age to watch hockey fights or boxing. When boys fight on the playground, it's "boys will be boys."
Because you don't need to be a certain age to attend a church with a life-like dead body nailed to a cross at the front of a room. You don't need to be a certain age to drink "the body and blood of Christ". You don't need to be a certain age to have your genitals mutilated by a stranger without your consent in the service of your parents' religion. You don't need to be a certain age to have schools explain to you that the Holocaust was about the Nazis killing 6 million people in ovens. You don't need to be a certain age to learn about "scalping", "suicide bombings" or to see the aftermath of murders, arsons, and war on your 6:00 news.
You do not need to be a certain age to view the circus of autopsies on any of the three CSI shows, or see murders on any of the myriad of cop dramas.
That's the tip of the iceberg of why video games shouldn't be restricted based on violence.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:38 PM on April 9, 2008 [11 favorites]
Entertainment Weekly thinks I need a "browser upgrade." Fuck you, Entertainment Weekly.
posted by gum at 12:40 PM on April 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by gum at 12:40 PM on April 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
Why shouldn't you need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames?
You do have to be a certain age. It's enforced by the publishers, just like how the movie ratings are enforced by the mpaa (not a government agency). We already have the same system the movies have. We don't need more than movies get.
Ok I see. So the issue is whether or not it's enforceable by law. That wasn't at all clear in King's article.
But I'd be pissed if some corporation sold my hypothetical kids porn or booze. And probably GTA too.
posted by mildred-pitt at 12:40 PM on April 9, 2008
You do have to be a certain age. It's enforced by the publishers, just like how the movie ratings are enforced by the mpaa (not a government agency). We already have the same system the movies have. We don't need more than movies get.
Ok I see. So the issue is whether or not it's enforceable by law. That wasn't at all clear in King's article.
But I'd be pissed if some corporation sold my hypothetical kids porn or booze. And probably GTA too.
posted by mildred-pitt at 12:40 PM on April 9, 2008
What really makes me insane is how eager politicians are to use the pop culture — not just videogames but TV, movies, even Harry Potter — as a whipping boy. It's easy for them, even sort of fun, because the pop-cult always hollers nice and loud. Also, it allows legislators to ignore the elephants in the living room.
Pretty much sums it up. Chasing folk devils is a quick and easy way for crappy politicians to look like they're doing something useful, without doing anything of the short. Anyone pushing through this sort of legislation should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.
posted by Artw at 12:41 PM on April 9, 2008
Pretty much sums it up. Chasing folk devils is a quick and easy way for crappy politicians to look like they're doing something useful, without doing anything of the short. Anyone pushing through this sort of legislation should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.
posted by Artw at 12:41 PM on April 9, 2008
The British Board of Film Classification (formerly Censorship) is also in charge of rating videogames. Recently they released a policy statement that violence in games is more acceptable than violence in films. Because games constantly require participation and cooperation from the player or the illusion of reality collapses, he is constantly reminded of the fictional nature of the work, like an actor in a play. In a movie the viewer is more likely to have his mind drift into accepting the work as reality.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:41 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:41 PM on April 9, 2008
Man, I'm sure glad Stephen King finally weighed in on the topic of videogame violence.
posted by sciurus at 12:43 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by sciurus at 12:43 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Even if you don't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
He is indeed. Stephen King and I grew up in the same tiny, awful town in Southern Maine. And it's occurred to me more than once that Stephen King has made more hundreds of times more money in his lifetime than everyone else in the town combined. Presumably more (adjusted for inflation) than every person that has ever lived in the town since it was settled 250 years ago.
If that's not iconic of The United States, nothing is.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:43 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
He is indeed. Stephen King and I grew up in the same tiny, awful town in Southern Maine. And it's occurred to me more than once that Stephen King has made more hundreds of times more money in his lifetime than everyone else in the town combined. Presumably more (adjusted for inflation) than every person that has ever lived in the town since it was settled 250 years ago.
If that's not iconic of The United States, nothing is.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:43 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
EMRJKC'94 - Of course the BBFC is also responsible for the Manhunt 2 debacle.
posted by Artw at 12:45 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by Artw at 12:45 PM on April 9, 2008
Actually the BBFC thing isn't really a policy statement, just a description of their research findings. Their policies ignore those findings entirely, as shown by the Manhunt 2 saga.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:45 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:45 PM on April 9, 2008
jinx
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:45 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:45 PM on April 9, 2008
Ha beat you to it.
The political nature of the Manhunt 2 thing is so stunningly blatant - basically they got heat for the first Manhunt, in part because of it's alleged involvement in a murder (it wasn't involved - see a patern here?) and so effectuively decided to ban the 2nd one. I'm glad they got knocked back on that but it's alarming they tried it in the first place.
posted by Artw at 12:48 PM on April 9, 2008
The political nature of the Manhunt 2 thing is so stunningly blatant - basically they got heat for the first Manhunt, in part because of it's alleged involvement in a murder (it wasn't involved - see a patern here?) and so effectuively decided to ban the 2nd one. I'm glad they got knocked back on that but it's alarming they tried it in the first place.
posted by Artw at 12:48 PM on April 9, 2008
Walmart proudly stocks piles of "unrated" DVDs, "More Shocking/Gory/Rapey Than You Saw In Theatres", but refuse to stock "adult rated" games. So, there almost aren't any.
With the exception of GTA, which was a press-fueled overreaction all around, all the games in that list are basically porn (from softcore to bizarre Japanese stuff). So the rules seem pretty similar with dvds and video games.
Even the violence-good and sex-bad rule system seems to be applied more or less the same way. Something like God of War gets rated M (movie equivalent R) and will be stocked by Walmart. Of course, this shows that the rating system works about as well as it does for movies, and doesn't need the government getting involved.
posted by Gary at 12:50 PM on April 9, 2008
With the exception of GTA, which was a press-fueled overreaction all around, all the games in that list are basically porn (from softcore to bizarre Japanese stuff). So the rules seem pretty similar with dvds and video games.
Even the violence-good and sex-bad rule system seems to be applied more or less the same way. Something like God of War gets rated M (movie equivalent R) and will be stocked by Walmart. Of course, this shows that the rating system works about as well as it does for movies, and doesn't need the government getting involved.
posted by Gary at 12:50 PM on April 9, 2008
all the games in that list are basically porn
There's an exception which I think indicates what I'm getting at: Fahrenheit. That's a highly grown up and artistic game which simply had to be censored to have the possibility of being published stateside. The publishers made the unusual decision to release the Adults-Only version for download only. Of course it's harmless compared to most R movies.
I'm certain many more smart, non-porno "Adult" games would be produced if policies were changed.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:03 PM on April 9, 2008
There's an exception which I think indicates what I'm getting at: Fahrenheit. That's a highly grown up and artistic game which simply had to be censored to have the possibility of being published stateside. The publishers made the unusual decision to release the Adults-Only version for download only. Of course it's harmless compared to most R movies.
I'm certain many more smart, non-porno "Adult" games would be produced if policies were changed.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:03 PM on April 9, 2008
I'd probably be happier if there was no one under 18 playing TF2.
posted by notmydesk at 1:05 PM on April 9, 2008 [9 favorites]
posted by notmydesk at 1:05 PM on April 9, 2008 [9 favorites]
If King really meant what he said, he'd allow Rage to be published in the states again.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:13 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:13 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
One of HB 1423's cosponsors is Rep. Christine E. Canavan, of Brockton. ''I think this legislation is a good idea,'' she told the Boston Herald. ''I don't want this constant barrage of violence on young minds and for them to think it is all right.''
Completely ignoring the fact that many night time television dramas are far more graphic and disturbing than most games on the market. Or that literature is full of graphic depictions of sex and violence and most of it is available to anyone who has a library card! Or god forbid, one of these young minds spends some time talking to a veteran of the current war, and hears first hand accounts of the kinds of scary things that actually exist in our world.
I'm so totally sick of politicians who jump on targeting pop-culture as the new evil that the children need some kind of legislated protection from. The only thing kids need are parents who pay attention to the kinds of media that their children are consuming.
There doesn't need to be a law for this. (Though to be honest, by trying to prohibit it, these politicians are actually hurting their own cause because they are making the media forbidden, and that makes it sexy.)
Hey PMRC, you stupid fuckin' assholes
The sticker on the record is what makes 'em sell gold
Ice-T knew this back in 1989.
posted by quin at 1:34 PM on April 9, 2008
Completely ignoring the fact that many night time television dramas are far more graphic and disturbing than most games on the market. Or that literature is full of graphic depictions of sex and violence and most of it is available to anyone who has a library card! Or god forbid, one of these young minds spends some time talking to a veteran of the current war, and hears first hand accounts of the kinds of scary things that actually exist in our world.
I'm so totally sick of politicians who jump on targeting pop-culture as the new evil that the children need some kind of legislated protection from. The only thing kids need are parents who pay attention to the kinds of media that their children are consuming.
There doesn't need to be a law for this. (Though to be honest, by trying to prohibit it, these politicians are actually hurting their own cause because they are making the media forbidden, and that makes it sexy.)
Hey PMRC, you stupid fuckin' assholes
The sticker on the record is what makes 'em sell gold
Ice-T knew this back in 1989.
posted by quin at 1:34 PM on April 9, 2008
You're assuming the politicians involved actually give a shit.
posted by Artw at 1:36 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by Artw at 1:36 PM on April 9, 2008
I agree with the message, but not necessarily the way it was presented. The final 'case closed' is a little too condescending for my liking.
As for games vs. Hollywood, last year video games made more money than Hollywood. Excluding DVD sales and the like, but pure butts in cinemas. There was something of a stink when Halo 3 came out because it beat the crap out of cinema releases for a good solid two weeks, eating into the male, mid-to-late teen demographic very heavily. The writer's strike has also played into the hands of videogames this year, not to mention that 2007 was a fucking excellent year for games in terms of quality/quantity.
There have been campaigns to increase awareness of the existing (completely voluntary, developer driven) ratings system in videogames. The guys at Penny Arcade did a poster campaign at some point, but the message is just not getting through. I'm not a big fan of legislation in this area, but since ratings in cinemas and videos are followed, I don't see why games aren't. And like someone pointed out before, the less teenagers I have on my digital killingfield lawn, the happier I am about pwning noobs.
It's a shame that ignorance is quite pervasive in the discussion of game ratings and violent content, but I am glad that conversation is being had about the topic. It's also funny that about 6% of videogames are rated M for Mature and it's seen as an epidemic, while the other 94% are summarily ignored by the mass media.
posted by slimepuppy at 1:36 PM on April 9, 2008
As for games vs. Hollywood, last year video games made more money than Hollywood. Excluding DVD sales and the like, but pure butts in cinemas. There was something of a stink when Halo 3 came out because it beat the crap out of cinema releases for a good solid two weeks, eating into the male, mid-to-late teen demographic very heavily. The writer's strike has also played into the hands of videogames this year, not to mention that 2007 was a fucking excellent year for games in terms of quality/quantity.
There have been campaigns to increase awareness of the existing (completely voluntary, developer driven) ratings system in videogames. The guys at Penny Arcade did a poster campaign at some point, but the message is just not getting through. I'm not a big fan of legislation in this area, but since ratings in cinemas and videos are followed, I don't see why games aren't. And like someone pointed out before, the less teenagers I have on my digital killing
It's a shame that ignorance is quite pervasive in the discussion of game ratings and violent content, but I am glad that conversation is being had about the topic. It's also funny that about 6% of videogames are rated M for Mature and it's seen as an epidemic, while the other 94% are summarily ignored by the mass media.
posted by slimepuppy at 1:36 PM on April 9, 2008
everybody getting the "Upgrade browser" idiocy: it'll load fine if you disable javascript. Whatever they're doing to check your browser depends on that.
posted by Arturus at 1:39 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by Arturus at 1:39 PM on April 9, 2008
I find this to be a frustrating topic myself. The usual suspects who claim that of course there is no direct identifiable link between media violence and actual violence will turn around and go on at length about how biases in news coverage of key issues influenced public opinion on such and such an issue. You can't really have it both ways there.
Personally, what I got from the editorial was a bit different. King wasn't saying "rah rah violence in media." Basically his point was that video-game laws are a bandaid solution to a complex problem that ignores the two big "elephants in the room" that legislators are in denial about: the poverty gap, and gun culture.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:41 PM on April 9, 2008
Personally, what I got from the editorial was a bit different. King wasn't saying "rah rah violence in media." Basically his point was that video-game laws are a bandaid solution to a complex problem that ignores the two big "elephants in the room" that legislators are in denial about: the poverty gap, and gun culture.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:41 PM on April 9, 2008
I'd probably be happier if there was no one under 18 playing TF2.
Have you ever gotten one of the 'radio trolls'? Like, they use their voice chat to play nothing but terrible songs and flash soundboards? It's really just one of the strangest things I've seen. There's plenty of opportunity for griefing people in-game (spy + sniper, amirite?). They're doing it just to make people tell them to shut up. That's better to them than even the satisfying competitive carnage of the actual game. I don't think any video game could mess someone up that much, let alone enough to do physical violence. These kids have 'daddy beats me' type problems, not 'pixel violence is fun' type problems.
posted by cowbellemoo at 1:46 PM on April 9, 2008
Have you ever gotten one of the 'radio trolls'? Like, they use their voice chat to play nothing but terrible songs and flash soundboards? It's really just one of the strangest things I've seen. There's plenty of opportunity for griefing people in-game (spy + sniper, amirite?). They're doing it just to make people tell them to shut up. That's better to them than even the satisfying competitive carnage of the actual game. I don't think any video game could mess someone up that much, let alone enough to do physical violence. These kids have 'daddy beats me' type problems, not 'pixel violence is fun' type problems.
posted by cowbellemoo at 1:46 PM on April 9, 2008
cowbellemoo, on the Xbox360 update for Call of Duty 4, they added a quick mute button. The amount I use it is absolutely appalling, so yeah, I know exactly what you mean.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:01 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by slimepuppy at 2:01 PM on April 9, 2008
Good radio communications on team games can make all the difference, upping the sense of camaraderie and allowing you to co-ordinate more efficiently. But on most public servers? Forget it.
posted by Artw at 2:08 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by Artw at 2:08 PM on April 9, 2008
I'm a PC gamer, so in-game voice capability (and associated trolling) is still fairly novel to me. :( I can't imagine what WoW would have been like with in-game voice chat. It's just such a shameless and boring way to be antisocial. It's not a game exploit, or forum baiting, or even an intellectual experiment. It's just a really depressing distillation of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
posted by cowbellemoo at 2:11 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by cowbellemoo at 2:11 PM on April 9, 2008
They've always been there, it's just that some guy typing LOL FAGZ repeatedly is easier to ignore.
posted by Artw at 2:30 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by Artw at 2:30 PM on April 9, 2008
But I'd be pissed if some corporation sold my hypothetical kids porn or booze.
Aw, your hypothetical kids are brats.
posted by grubi at 2:31 PM on April 9, 2008
Aw, your hypothetical kids are brats.
posted by grubi at 2:31 PM on April 9, 2008
Greg Nog - Everything floats down here.
posted by Artw at 2:32 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 2:32 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why does anyone over the age of 18 or living outside of Massachusetts give two shits whether they legislate a minimum age for violent games?
posted by rocket88 at 2:43 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by rocket88 at 2:43 PM on April 9, 2008
I'm certain many more smart, non-porno "Adult" games would be produced if policies were changed.
My apologies about missing Fahrenheit, but I have my doubts about this. The death of adventure games (which seem to me to be the ones hurting most from the lack of adult storylines) is more complex than the rating on the box. They don't sell, so publishers give up on them, the budgets disappear, quality goes down and the cycle repeats itself.
If people would make (and support) smart story driven games of an E/T/M-rated variety, then the ratings could be adjusted as needed to allow for more adult stories. But if people won't create/support those, then I don't blame the publishers or Walmart for not taking a chance on AO-rated story driven games.
posted by Gary at 2:46 PM on April 9, 2008
My apologies about missing Fahrenheit, but I have my doubts about this. The death of adventure games (which seem to me to be the ones hurting most from the lack of adult storylines) is more complex than the rating on the box. They don't sell, so publishers give up on them, the budgets disappear, quality goes down and the cycle repeats itself.
If people would make (and support) smart story driven games of an E/T/M-rated variety, then the ratings could be adjusted as needed to allow for more adult stories. But if people won't create/support those, then I don't blame the publishers or Walmart for not taking a chance on AO-rated story driven games.
posted by Gary at 2:46 PM on April 9, 2008
Just recently ran across this, which, if true, shows the debate is kind of moot.
posted by 517 at 2:49 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by 517 at 2:49 PM on April 9, 2008
MetaFilter: More Shocking/Gory/Rapey Than You Saw In Theatres
I'm a PC gamer, so in-game voice capability (and associated trolling) is still fairly novel to me.
Really? Vent and Teamspeak have been around for a while. Before that I think Roger Wilco was the standard. Of course PC multiplayer gaming wasn't as popular 6-7 years ago and by extension was less troll-y.
posted by ryoshu at 2:51 PM on April 9, 2008
I'm a PC gamer, so in-game voice capability (and associated trolling) is still fairly novel to me.
Really? Vent and Teamspeak have been around for a while. Before that I think Roger Wilco was the standard. Of course PC multiplayer gaming wasn't as popular 6-7 years ago and by extension was less troll-y.
posted by ryoshu at 2:51 PM on April 9, 2008
517 - but that ignores the huge rise in teen pregnancy due to Hot Coffee.
rocket88 - Because this kind of stupidity has a habit of spreading?
posted by Artw at 2:55 PM on April 9, 2008
rocket88 - Because this kind of stupidity has a habit of spreading?
posted by Artw at 2:55 PM on April 9, 2008
Eh? PC multiplayer gaming was just as trolly 6-7 years ago. Peak Counterstrike years!
posted by Artw at 2:56 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by Artw at 2:56 PM on April 9, 2008
I feel like a complete WWW rookie complaining about this, but what is the deal with EW's print layout not including the entire article? So you go to page 1, go to print layout, then you go to page 2, click print layout again, etc... It's a pretty blatant message to their readers to grab their ankles.
posted by kingbenny at 2:56 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by kingbenny at 2:56 PM on April 9, 2008
uncleozzy writes "I don't generally care for Stephen King's prose, but I don't usually hate it. This, I hate. Not the message, because hell, we should be shaming parents into giving a damn about their kids, not legislating, but soft-serve Christ with rainbow sprinkles, it reads as if it were written between bong hits."
This is just a breezy guest op-ed in Entertainment Weekly. What do you expect?
Anyway, I don't much care for King's writing anymore, although it does have a sentimental place in my heart from all of his books I read in high school (there is a particular way he has of building up tension that I could recognize as easily as Hemmingway's journalistic style), but I did like this:
"The most effective bar against what was called ''the seduction of the innocent'' when this hot-button issue centered on violent comic books 60 years ago is still parents who know and care not just about what their kids are watching and reading, but what they're doing and who they're hanging with. Parents need to have the guts to forbid material they find objectionable...and then explain why it's being forbidden. They also need to monitor their children's lives in the pop culture — which means a lot more than seeing what games they're renting down the street."
It's not unique or particularly eloquent, but I'm glad he's saying it.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:31 PM on April 9, 2008
This is just a breezy guest op-ed in Entertainment Weekly. What do you expect?
Anyway, I don't much care for King's writing anymore, although it does have a sentimental place in my heart from all of his books I read in high school (there is a particular way he has of building up tension that I could recognize as easily as Hemmingway's journalistic style), but I did like this:
"The most effective bar against what was called ''the seduction of the innocent'' when this hot-button issue centered on violent comic books 60 years ago is still parents who know and care not just about what their kids are watching and reading, but what they're doing and who they're hanging with. Parents need to have the guts to forbid material they find objectionable...and then explain why it's being forbidden. They also need to monitor their children's lives in the pop culture — which means a lot more than seeing what games they're renting down the street."
It's not unique or particularly eloquent, but I'm glad he's saying it.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:31 PM on April 9, 2008
Why does anyone over the age of 18 or living outside of Massachusetts give two shits whether they legislate a minimum age for violent games?
Dislike of politicians handwaving issues and resorting to populism?
posted by ersatz at 3:33 PM on April 9, 2008
Dislike of politicians handwaving issues and resorting to populism?
posted by ersatz at 3:33 PM on April 9, 2008
Anyone who is interested in the current Crusade Against Videogames should pick up a copy of The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America, which is about the Crusade Against Comics in the late '40s, early '50s. Reading a lot of the quotes from the crusaders of that time, it is interesting to note the parallels between then and now. Really, for a lot of the criticisms about comics, all you need to do is replace "comic" with "videogame" and you're ready for the modern day.
Hell, the cast of characters is pretty much the same. Pop psychologist talking head? Check. Politician with presidential ambitions? Check. Moralizing opinion articles from people who never actually experienced what they are decrying? Check-ola.
Going over the history teaches us three things: First, there will always be Moralizing Crusaders Who Know Best. Second, their Crusade will do nothing to stop the decline of society as they know it. Third, if you don't learn how to engage these people in a productive manner, their hysteria can set the medium in question back twenty years.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 3:36 PM on April 9, 2008 [4 favorites]
Hell, the cast of characters is pretty much the same. Pop psychologist talking head? Check. Politician with presidential ambitions? Check. Moralizing opinion articles from people who never actually experienced what they are decrying? Check-ola.
Going over the history teaches us three things: First, there will always be Moralizing Crusaders Who Know Best. Second, their Crusade will do nothing to stop the decline of society as they know it. Third, if you don't learn how to engage these people in a productive manner, their hysteria can set the medium in question back twenty years.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 3:36 PM on April 9, 2008 [4 favorites]
Wait one minute here. I thought Steven King was dead?
posted by seanyboy at 3:40 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by seanyboy at 3:40 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just picked that up, partialy on the strength of the Charles Burns cover.
(Charles Burns would sure get a banning if any concerned politicos saw his work.)
posted by Artw at 3:41 PM on April 9, 2008
(Charles Burns would sure get a banning if any concerned politicos saw his work.)
posted by Artw at 3:41 PM on April 9, 2008
I don't really get this issue...
You need to be 18 to buy porn.
You need to be 21 to buy alcohol.
You need to be 17 to get into R rated movies.
Why shouldn't you need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames?
Well one could always respond to this by not liking the other restrictions either. I'm not a fan of the R rated movies one myself, seems pretty stupid. I know that I violated that one when I was 15, and I expect 15 year olds are still continuing this proud tradition today.
I think the porn thing ultimately comes down to a yes/no debate, is porn acceptable. Since there is no way in reality to eliminate it, (sometime I think people come to the impression that they can write laws to stop anything), the No's have simply put as many restrictions down as they can. They keep real world stores in certain areas, they just try to lock it off as best they can. Which is realistic I suppose, but I know I saw porn when I was 16 (or earlier I really don't remember), and likewise, I expect 16 year olds are doing it today. I almost think this comes down to a not-in-my-backyard issue. I'm comfortable, if not overjoyed by the idea of 16 year olds viewing pornography, but I would be incredibly uncomfortable living next to a XXX bookstore, because I'm a prudish stuck up jerk. I don't think porn is good, but I cannot say "lets get rid of it" without abandoning my common sense.
Alcohol is more interesting. Unlike the rest of these, this one can form an addictive habit that can destroy your ability to be a functioning member of society. But even THIS one, I think age limits are pretty stupid. I know plenty of people who used alcohol recreationally before the age limit, and turned out fine. I am willing to bet you there are people who never touched the stuff until 21, and ended up drowning in a bottle regardless. I had alcohol before I was 21, although I don't think I've ever had enough to get drunk, even now that I've been out of college several years. I see the value in educating people about alcohol, but even if you want an age limit, 18 makes sense, 21 does not.
So the reason you shouldn't need to be a certain age to purchase violent videogames, is that it is YET ANOTHER meaningless law passed with a nod-and-wink to satisfy some shrieking political action group that is pissed off that their 30 year old children prefer videogames to gainful employment. Nobody will follow it, nothing will come of it, you cannot very effectively alter the world with this law. It irritates me because it is time that X lawmaking group could have spent trying to force international intervention in Darfur, or restricting trade to countries that have incredible and unchanged histories of human rights violations.
It just ticks me the heck off when elected officials waste my tax dollars debating this sort of trash. I really wish that every day I could sit down to a screen and two buttons, "Yes", and "No". The screen would summarize the issues that my elected officials debated that day. Then I would hit "Yes" or "No" to decide if they get paid. (I realize that these guys are paid by corporations, and the whole thing is a hollow game, and etc etc anarchy is the way etc, but you get my drift).
posted by SomeOneElse at 3:46 PM on April 9, 2008
It's easy for them, even sort of fun, because the pop-cult always hollers nice and loud.
King is brilliant.
posted by bwg at 3:58 PM on April 9, 2008
King is brilliant.
posted by bwg at 3:58 PM on April 9, 2008
If King really meant what he said, he'd allow Rage to be published in the states again.
That'd be awesome. My copy has long since disintegrated. A friend and I did a scene out of the book for a drama workshop back in high school. I was Charlie and spent most of the scene waving a gun in the audience members'/other students' faces.
Man, I miss those halcyon pre-Columbine days!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:02 PM on April 9, 2008
That'd be awesome. My copy has long since disintegrated. A friend and I did a scene out of the book for a drama workshop back in high school. I was Charlie and spent most of the scene waving a gun in the audience members'/other students' faces.
Man, I miss those halcyon pre-Columbine days!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:02 PM on April 9, 2008
You need to be 18 to buy porn.
You need to be 21 to buy alcohol.
You need to be 17 to get into R rated movies.
And those laws have been so effective. I saw my first porn before I knew what i was looking at. I was buying alcohol by age 15, and watching R-rated movies by age 11. I'm not saying these are good things, merely that kids will get their hands on things that are forbiddent o tehm, one way or the other so maybe some common-sense thinking might be in order.
posted by jonmc at 5:01 PM on April 9, 2008
You need to be 21 to buy alcohol.
You need to be 17 to get into R rated movies.
And those laws have been so effective. I saw my first porn before I knew what i was looking at. I was buying alcohol by age 15, and watching R-rated movies by age 11. I'm not saying these are good things, merely that kids will get their hands on things that are forbiddent o tehm, one way or the other so maybe some common-sense thinking might be in order.
posted by jonmc at 5:01 PM on April 9, 2008
Nor will I argue for the artistic value of stuff like God of War...
Why not? Beautiful graphics, innovative gameplay. I'd say it's artistic.
Very weak column. Agreed on written between bong hits.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:27 PM on April 9, 2008
Why not? Beautiful graphics, innovative gameplay. I'd say it's artistic.
Very weak column. Agreed on written between bong hits.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:27 PM on April 9, 2008
Have you ever gotten one of the 'radio trolls'? Like, they use their voice chat to play nothing but terrible songs and flash soundboards?
I never ever enable voice comms on public servers. I do always use it on our private MeFight Club server, though, at least for receive, but I'm afraid I might be becoming a source of grief to our gang of swell pals when I use outgoing, because lately I've taken to singing the Love Boat theme incorporating the names of the maps we're on. I don't know why I do this, and I apologize.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:56 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
I never ever enable voice comms on public servers. I do always use it on our private MeFight Club server, though, at least for receive, but I'm afraid I might be becoming a source of grief to our gang of swell pals when I use outgoing, because lately I've taken to singing the Love Boat theme incorporating the names of the maps we're on. I don't know why I do this, and I apologize.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:56 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
...I always miss the high-value targets and can never remember how to reload
Shoot. Anywhere. Except. The Screen.
This is third-class pandering text vomit; King would be ashamed of this ten minutes before writing it if he had any shame left.
But shame on any of you who considered a word this mad man wrote, all you self-professed members of the gaming community, using first-person plurals like your surname is Miyamoto. Anyone who can't remember how to reload a light gun (THAT'S RIGHT. HE'S BEEN TOLD BEFORE) clearly doesn't deserve to weigh in on discussions about what to have for dinner much less violence in video games. Stephen King is clearly a danger to society. And I sincerely fear that people who read this and nodded in agreement will be improperly influenced by society and will go on wild sprees of wanton murder and debauchery. The only hope I have is that they'll be too stupid to remember how to walk out their front doors.
posted by pokermonk at 5:58 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Shoot. Anywhere. Except. The Screen.
This is third-class pandering text vomit; King would be ashamed of this ten minutes before writing it if he had any shame left.
But shame on any of you who considered a word this mad man wrote, all you self-professed members of the gaming community, using first-person plurals like your surname is Miyamoto. Anyone who can't remember how to reload a light gun (THAT'S RIGHT. HE'S BEEN TOLD BEFORE) clearly doesn't deserve to weigh in on discussions about what to have for dinner much less violence in video games. Stephen King is clearly a danger to society. And I sincerely fear that people who read this and nodded in agreement will be improperly influenced by society and will go on wild sprees of wanton murder and debauchery. The only hope I have is that they'll be too stupid to remember how to walk out their front doors.
posted by pokermonk at 5:58 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
There are countless child psychology studies that show exposure to violent media leads to (at least) temporary increase in violent behaviors or tolerance of violent behaviors.
Let's look at this lack of evidence, shall we?
One, two, three, four, five.
posted by ervan at 6:46 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
Let's look at this lack of evidence, shall we?
One, two, three, four, five.
posted by ervan at 6:46 PM on April 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
mildred-pitt: But I'd be pissed if some corporation sold my hypothetical kids ... And probably GTA too.
Why? Why not play with them, or watch them play. And then talk with them about real-world violence. You might discover that, contrary to all the hype, your hypothetical kids are actually OK in the head and can distinguish between fantasy and reality, and between behaviours that are acceptable in said fantasy and said reality.
temporary increase in violent behaviors ... Let's look at this lack of evidence, shall we?
"Violent" free play in children does not equate with going out and actually beating the living snot out of a person. Playing Cowboys-and-Indians after watching a campy 50s Western series would be considered a "temporary increase in violent behaviour", ditto Power Rangers and exaggerated kung-fu, ditto Transformers and running around pew-pew-ing at each other. Also, Counter-evidence.
posted by CKmtl at 7:04 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why? Why not play with them, or watch them play. And then talk with them about real-world violence. You might discover that, contrary to all the hype, your hypothetical kids are actually OK in the head and can distinguish between fantasy and reality, and between behaviours that are acceptable in said fantasy and said reality.
temporary increase in violent behaviors ... Let's look at this lack of evidence, shall we?
"Violent" free play in children does not equate with going out and actually beating the living snot out of a person. Playing Cowboys-and-Indians after watching a campy 50s Western series would be considered a "temporary increase in violent behaviour", ditto Power Rangers and exaggerated kung-fu, ditto Transformers and running around pew-pew-ing at each other. Also, Counter-evidence.
posted by CKmtl at 7:04 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Oddly enough, there was a copy of Rage (Bachman Books) in my high school library along with the slightly more disturbing Apt Pupil (subtitled: Summer of Corruption) story from the Different Seasons collection.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:19 PM on April 9, 2008
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:19 PM on April 9, 2008
Why does anyone over the age of 18 or living outside of Massachusetts give two shits whether they legislate a minimum age for violent games?
Quick, everyone, on the count of three only care about things that affect you personally!
One... Two... Twoandahalf Ow! Kidding, kidding. No need to throw things... Three!
Holy shit, look at that! International news dried up due to overwhelming apathy, AskMe is broken due to 30,000+ questions every week and no answers, and MeFi has reverted to some sort of endless middleschool Twilight Zone.
posted by CKmtl at 8:34 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Quick, everyone, on the count of three only care about things that affect you personally!
One... Two... Twoandahalf Ow! Kidding, kidding. No need to throw things... Three!
Holy shit, look at that! International news dried up due to overwhelming apathy, AskMe is broken due to 30,000+ questions every week and no answers, and MeFi has reverted to some sort of endless middleschool Twilight Zone.
posted by CKmtl at 8:34 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
The password to Mike Tyson in Mike Tyson's Punchout is 007 373 5963.
posted by bauermaster at 9:00 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by bauermaster at 9:00 PM on April 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Entertainment Weekly thinks I need a "browser upgrade." Fuck you, Entertainment Weekly
I was raised and NCSA Mosaic man, and I'll die an NCSA Mosaic man.
posted by Bonzai at 10:19 PM on April 9, 2008
I was raised and NCSA Mosaic man, and I'll die an NCSA Mosaic man.
posted by Bonzai at 10:19 PM on April 9, 2008
There are countless child psychology studies that show exposure to violent media leads to (at least) temporary increase in violent behaviors or tolerance of violent behaviors.
Oh no - this could lead to youth hockey, or even lacrosse!
posted by kid ichorous at 11:05 PM on April 9, 2008
Oh no - this could lead to youth hockey, or even lacrosse!
posted by kid ichorous at 11:05 PM on April 9, 2008
If King really meant what he said, he'd allow Rage to be published in the states again.
I don't get this. How is a dislike for legislators looking for a reason to feel good about themselves by slapping a bandaid over a problem, inconsistent with an author's decision to let a lesser-known work written under a psedonym lapse from publication?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:05 AM on April 10, 2008
I don't get this. How is a dislike for legislators looking for a reason to feel good about themselves by slapping a bandaid over a problem, inconsistent with an author's decision to let a lesser-known work written under a psedonym lapse from publication?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:05 AM on April 10, 2008
It's not that he let Rage lapse, it's that he asked his publishers to take it out of print in the US (it's still in print elsewhere). For King to say, "Videogames do not cause violence in kids, but my book published in the late 70s does!" is kind of hypocritical.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:37 AM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:37 AM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's not that he let Rage lapse, it's that he asked his publishers to take it out of print in the US (it's still in print elsewhere). For King to say, "Videogames do not cause violence in kids, but my book published in the late 70s does!" is kind of hypocritical.
But he does not say this in the essay. The essay is not about whether pop culture does or does not cause violence. He's mute on this issue. The essay is about whether the state legislature should legislate videogames. It is not hypocritical for him to say, "I don't want the state legislature messing with this" and to say, "I'm no longer comfortable with this book (which actually has been connected with at least one school shooting) still in print."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:25 AM on April 10, 2008
But he does not say this in the essay. The essay is not about whether pop culture does or does not cause violence. He's mute on this issue. The essay is about whether the state legislature should legislate videogames. It is not hypocritical for him to say, "I don't want the state legislature messing with this" and to say, "I'm no longer comfortable with this book (which actually has been connected with at least one school shooting) still in print."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:25 AM on April 10, 2008
And well, to me it is hypocritical of you to say that media producers should have freedom in these issues, but that they shouldn't exercise that freedom to pull a product from a market.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:32 AM on April 10, 2008
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:32 AM on April 10, 2008
Metafilter: Written between bong hits.
posted by ObscureReferenceMan at 7:15 AM on April 10, 2008
posted by ObscureReferenceMan at 7:15 AM on April 10, 2008
Video game publishers are scary alright, but I heard about this one group that not only exposes kids to violent images, but actually teaches them how to commit them and encourages to do so! And they're coming into your child's schools to find them, and sequester them off to a distant stronghold where they're given guns and scary clothes and wild makeup, and indoctrinated to kill other human beings!
Wait, did someone already make a military parallel joke?
Seriously, the one thing I'll never forget from the DC Sniper debacle a few years back (aside from utilizing cover tactics when getting gas and an unfounded fear of white cargo vans) , was the spurious connections the media made between the then-unknown shooter and video games. "The killer is using a sniper rifle, and making precise head shots. CounterStrike, a popular computer game, encourages and rewards this sort of behavior." , "In the shooter's correspondence with the police, the shooter said 'Dear Mr. Policeman, I am God.' Such mocking correspondence often indicates a sense of invulnerability. DOOM, a popular computer game and regarded as one of the forerunners of realistic gun-related violent video games, features 'God mode', a feature in which the player literally becomes invincible." not to mention retreads of old Columbine material, the usual.
However, the moment it was revealed that he was ex-military, all discussion of psychology and nature of influence went right out the window, save for his connections with Islam.
I know it's obvious to everyone, but it was the first time that I'd fully realized the level of confirmation bias at play in the media and this country today, and it scared me about as much as getting shot at the gas station.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:47 AM on April 10, 2008
Wait, did someone already make a military parallel joke?
Seriously, the one thing I'll never forget from the DC Sniper debacle a few years back (aside from utilizing cover tactics when getting gas and an unfounded fear of white cargo vans) , was the spurious connections the media made between the then-unknown shooter and video games. "The killer is using a sniper rifle, and making precise head shots. CounterStrike, a popular computer game, encourages and rewards this sort of behavior." , "In the shooter's correspondence with the police, the shooter said 'Dear Mr. Policeman, I am God.' Such mocking correspondence often indicates a sense of invulnerability. DOOM, a popular computer game and regarded as one of the forerunners of realistic gun-related violent video games, features 'God mode', a feature in which the player literally becomes invincible." not to mention retreads of old Columbine material, the usual.
However, the moment it was revealed that he was ex-military, all discussion of psychology and nature of influence went right out the window, save for his connections with Islam.
I know it's obvious to everyone, but it was the first time that I'd fully realized the level of confirmation bias at play in the media and this country today, and it scared me about as much as getting shot at the gas station.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:47 AM on April 10, 2008
There are countless child psychology studies that show exposure to violent media leads to (at least) temporary increase in violent behaviors or tolerance of violent behaviors.
Out of curiosity, do you also link to studies demonstrating the link between domestic violence and violent behavior in discussions like this one? Or the presence of guns in the household linked to violent behavior, or participation in organized sports, household wealth, geographic location, any of the thousand other things? Have you ever even bothered linking to studies about the effects of ANY media except video games on violent behavior?
posted by shmegegge at 8:31 AM on April 10, 2008
Out of curiosity, do you also link to studies demonstrating the link between domestic violence and violent behavior in discussions like this one? Or the presence of guns in the household linked to violent behavior, or participation in organized sports, household wealth, geographic location, any of the thousand other things? Have you ever even bothered linking to studies about the effects of ANY media except video games on violent behavior?
posted by shmegegge at 8:31 AM on April 10, 2008
Well, here is one of the endless frustration about these conversations. They always swirls around the drain of a really bad question, "Do videogames cause violence?" which is one of those things that we will never get an answer to because real-life environments are chaotic messes of multivariate models in the best case. And again, just about everyone on one side of the argument are hypocrites who will wail about elections being influenced by the subtleties of network news coverage while insisting that games have no cultural impact.
Move on already. We don't need a 1:1 causal relationship in order to engage in a critique of movies, comics or television. Let's get past all the BS about causal relationships so that we can actually have a discussion about games worth reading.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:18 AM on April 10, 2008
Move on already. We don't need a 1:1 causal relationship in order to engage in a critique of movies, comics or television. Let's get past all the BS about causal relationships so that we can actually have a discussion about games worth reading.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:18 AM on April 10, 2008
While I understand that some people think gory/violent/sexist media is harmless, not everyone agrees. Shouting down the debate is not addressing the actual issue.
Like it or not, we are influenced by the messages we are bombarded with on a daily basis. There are only about a million advertising studies which delve into great detail how our opinions, belief systems, and ultimately the choices we make are subtly influenced by the messages we receive. So claiming that there is no effect at all from each additional violent/sexist imagery which is added to each kid's daily quota is blatently STUPID -- so quit insulting our intelligence by claiming shit which makes no sense.
The more astute argument says there is no direct line of proof between violent images and real world violence. Unfortunately for the yay-violence crowd, there is so much evidence to the contrary I had difficulty deciding which studies to post here:
posted by bravelittletoaster at 10:35 AM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
Like it or not, we are influenced by the messages we are bombarded with on a daily basis. There are only about a million advertising studies which delve into great detail how our opinions, belief systems, and ultimately the choices we make are subtly influenced by the messages we receive. So claiming that there is no effect at all from each additional violent/sexist imagery which is added to each kid's daily quota is blatently STUPID -- so quit insulting our intelligence by claiming shit which makes no sense.
The more astute argument says there is no direct line of proof between violent images and real world violence. Unfortunately for the yay-violence crowd, there is so much evidence to the contrary I had difficulty deciding which studies to post here:
As the myth that women enjoy rape is widely held, the argument that consumers of pornography realize that such portrayals are false, is totally unconvincing (Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980; Russell, 1975). Indeed, several studies have shown that portrayals of women enjoying rape and other kinds of sexual violence can lead to increased acceptance of rape myths in both males and females. In an experiment conducted by Neil Malamuth and James Check, for example, one group of college students saw a pornographic depiction in which a woman was portrayed as sexually aroused by sexual violence, and a second group was exposed to control materials. Subsequently, all subjects were shown a second rape portrayal. The students who had been exposed to the pornographic depiction of rape were significantly more likely than the students in the control group (1) to perceive the second rape victim as suffering less trauma; (2) to believe that she actually enjoyed it; and (3) to believe that women in general enjoy rape and forced sexual acts (Check and Malamuth, 1985, p. 419).
In Maxwell and Check's 1992 study of 247 high school students described above, they found very high rates of what they called "rape supportive beliefs", that is, acceptance of rape myths and violence against women. The boys who were the most frequent consumers of pornography and/or who reported learning a lot from it, were more accepting of rape supportive beliefs than their peers who were less frequent consumers and/or who said they had not learned as much from it.
Malamuth and Check (1981) conducted an experiment of particular interest because the movies shown were part of the regular campus film program. Students were randomly assigned to view either a feature-length film that portrayed violence against women as being justifiable and having positive consequences ("Swept Away", "The Getaway") or a film without sexual violence. The experiment showed that exposure to the sexually violent movies increased the male subjects' acceptance of interpersonal violence against women. (This outcome did not occur with the female subjects.) These effects were measured several days after the films had been seen.
Zillmann and Bryant found that the male subjects who were exposed to the massive amounts of pornography considered rape a less serious crime than they did before they were exposed to it; they thought that prison sentences for rape should be shorter; and they perceived sexual aggression and abuse as causing less suffering for the victims, even in the case of an adult male having sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl (1984, p. 132). They concluded that "heavy exposure to common non-violent pornography trivialized rape as a criminal offense" (1984, p. 117).
(5) Callous attitudes toward female sexuality. In the same experiment on massive exposure, Zillmann and Bryant also reported that, "males' sexual callousness toward women was significantly enhanced" (1984, p. 117). Male subjects, for example, became increasingly accepting of statements such as "A woman doesn't mean 'no' until she slaps you"; "A man should find them, fool them, fuck them, and forget them"; and "If they are old enough to bleed, they are old enough to butcher." However, judging by these items, it is difficult to distinguish sexual callousness from a general hostility to women.
(6) Acceptance of male dominance in intimate relationships. A marked increase in males' acceptance of male dominance in intimate relationships was yet another result of this massive exposure to pornography (Zillmann and Bryant, 1984, p. 121). The notion that women are, or ought to be, equal in intimate relationships was more likely to be abandoned by these male subjects (1984, p. 122). Finally, their support of the women's liberation movement also declined sharply (1984, p. 134).
posted by bravelittletoaster at 10:35 AM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
And well, to me it is hypocritical of you to say that media producers should have freedom in these issues, but that they shouldn't exercise that freedom to pull a product from a market.
I'm not sure I said this (or even if I'm the "you" mentioned), but then again, I'm only piggybacking on Lentrohamsanin's comment. I have a fondness for Rage based on my highschool participation I mentioned earlier in the thread and am always happy to talk about it.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:57 AM on April 10, 2008
I'm not sure I said this (or even if I'm the "you" mentioned), but then again, I'm only piggybacking on Lentrohamsanin's comment. I have a fondness for Rage based on my highschool participation I mentioned earlier in the thread and am always happy to talk about it.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:57 AM on April 10, 2008
As soon as you acknowlege that among every generation, there exists a contingent whose only joy lies in dominating others any way they can, then the questions elvolve into an entirely new direction: How did they get that way? What is the origin of their desire? Or is it a need? How do we get them to see that dominating others is not in their own best interest? Is that even possible, and if not, then what do we do with them?
posted by bravelittletoaster at 11:12 AM on April 10, 2008
posted by bravelittletoaster at 11:12 AM on April 10, 2008
The more astute argument says there is no direct line of proof between violent images and real world violence. Unfortunately for the yay-violence crowd, there is so much evidence to the contrary I had difficulty deciding which studies to post here:
The results that you chose as demonstrating a "direct line of proof between violent images and real world violence" show no such thing. No. Such. Thing.
Those studies are on peoples' attitudes and beliefs, not their actions. Show me results that show that those college students who were exposed to 'massive amounts of pornography' in the 80s overwhelmingly went on to rape women and 12-year-olds.
I'll quote from the description and abstract of one of the studies I linked to earlier:
The results that you chose as demonstrating a "direct line of proof between violent images and real world violence" show no such thing. No. Such. Thing.
Those studies are on peoples' attitudes and beliefs, not their actions. Show me results that show that those college students who were exposed to 'massive amounts of pornography' in the 80s overwhelmingly went on to rape women and 12-year-olds.
I'll quote from the description and abstract of one of the studies I linked to earlier:
The second project surveyed hundreds of students on issues such as domestic violence, past criminal behavior, aggression and gaming. The conclusion, from the study abstract:posted by CKmtl at 11:28 AM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
Results indicated that trait aggression, family violence, and male gender were predictive of violent crime, but exposure to violent games was not. Structural equation modeling suggested that family violence and innate aggression as predictors of violent crime were a better fit to the data than was exposure to video game violence. These results question the common belief that violent-video-game exposure causes violent acts.
I don't think the big debate is about graphic violence in videogames, it's about repetitive, immersive graphic violence in visual media--movies, games, tv, online video, ads ...
Show an impressionable teenager graphic violence interposed with adrenaline-rush inducing music and/or sexual objects for long enough and will he or she begin to eventually develop a biochemical penchant for violence?
I have no idea. IANAPPOH.
I am not in favor of any sort of restriction on any sort of victimless expression.
However, the rising levels of visual violence combined with the notion of possibly dangerous SSRI antidepressants does make me pause. The SSRI's supposedly take away the notion of caring at all about anything in the world, so what the fuck.
I certainly (in my home) will control my children's exposure to visual violence. We'll see how that goes.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:37 AM on April 10, 2008
Show an impressionable teenager graphic violence interposed with adrenaline-rush inducing music and/or sexual objects for long enough and will he or she begin to eventually develop a biochemical penchant for violence?
I have no idea. IANAPPOH.
I am not in favor of any sort of restriction on any sort of victimless expression.
However, the rising levels of visual violence combined with the notion of possibly dangerous SSRI antidepressants does make me pause. The SSRI's supposedly take away the notion of caring at all about anything in the world, so what the fuck.
I certainly (in my home) will control my children's exposure to visual violence. We'll see how that goes.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:37 AM on April 10, 2008
mrgrimm: The SSRI's supposedly take away the notion of caring at all about anything in the world, so what the fuck.
Not intending to open up that can of worms, but no they don't.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:04 PM on April 10, 2008
Not intending to open up that can of worms, but no they don't.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:04 PM on April 10, 2008
When The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan: Supermasochist is turned into a video game, we'll have something to talk about.
posted by my homunculus is drowning at 12:07 PM on April 10, 2008
posted by my homunculus is drowning at 12:07 PM on April 10, 2008
Purely anecdotal, but that's exactly the effect from SSRIs a freind of mine reported, and she came off of them damn quick because, hey, suicide, why not?
posted by Artw at 12:07 PM on April 10, 2008
posted by Artw at 12:07 PM on April 10, 2008
Artw: Purely anecdotal...a freind of mine reported...
"anecdotal" + "a friend of mine reported" = bullshit not worth reading (or posting).
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:14 PM on April 10, 2008
"anecdotal" + "a friend of mine reported" = bullshit not worth reading (or posting).
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:14 PM on April 10, 2008
Or to present the obvious disproof. I'm on SSRI's and I care enough about this topic to say that the anti-SSRI brigade should take the natural health/puritan/scientology spiel to another thread, on preferably another forum, so we can get back to the pointless mental masturbation regarding causal relationships.
I also go nuts over cute kittens, pina coladas, and getting caught in the rain. So there.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:25 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
I also go nuts over cute kittens, pina coladas, and getting caught in the rain. So there.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:25 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wow, it is a bit of a hot button topic isn't it?
backs away.
posted by Artw at 12:44 PM on April 10, 2008
backs away.
posted by Artw at 12:44 PM on April 10, 2008
When The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan: Supermasochist is turned into a video game, we'll have something to talk about.
GET HAMMER
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:47 PM on April 10, 2008
GET HAMMER
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:47 PM on April 10, 2008
Zillmann and Bryant found that the male subjects who were exposed to the massive amounts of pornography considered rape a less serious crime than they did before they were exposed to it; they thought that prison sentences for rape should be shorter; and they perceived sexual aggression and abuse as causing less suffering for the victims, even in the case of an adult male having sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl (1984, p. 132). They concluded that "heavy exposure to common non-violent pornography trivialized rape as a criminal offense" (1984, p. 117).
If you look up the study, female subjects responded in the same way.
Part of the taboo of rape is a legitimate taboo against force and physical assault; however, another part is merely our revulsion and moral outrage towards sex itself. Anything that demystifies sex, that pierces our notions of sex as a magical and sacred act, will make rape seem more like other physical assaults, which, while still as dangerous as the most violent rapes, are generally viewed as less traumatic and morally charged. It's fairly telling that Pakistan carried the death penalty for rape until very recently (2006), whereas (aside from some vestigial, lynch-mob era Southern laws) I can't find the same in the US. Which culture do you think is more sensitive to the rights of the victim?
posted by kid ichorous at 2:21 PM on April 10, 2008
If you look up the study, female subjects responded in the same way.
Part of the taboo of rape is a legitimate taboo against force and physical assault; however, another part is merely our revulsion and moral outrage towards sex itself. Anything that demystifies sex, that pierces our notions of sex as a magical and sacred act, will make rape seem more like other physical assaults, which, while still as dangerous as the most violent rapes, are generally viewed as less traumatic and morally charged. It's fairly telling that Pakistan carried the death penalty for rape until very recently (2006), whereas (aside from some vestigial, lynch-mob era Southern laws) I can't find the same in the US. Which culture do you think is more sensitive to the rights of the victim?
posted by kid ichorous at 2:21 PM on April 10, 2008
That is, find me a society where rape is punished in the extremes, and I suspect you'll find laws enforcing sexual taboos across the boards, proscribing erotica and pornography, punishing homosexuality, adultery, and so on.
Also, the above is not to say that rape is exactly, qualititively the same as other physical assaults. It's not. But I don't think it's "trivializing" rape, as Zillman and Bryant seem to suggest, to give one specific case a 4-10 year sentence rather than a 10-14 year one.
It's also a little strange that Zillman and Bryand seem to accuse pornography of "increasing the perceived normalcy of sexual practices that might be considered deviant by others," including oral sex, anal sex, and s&m. Is it really worthy of mention, let alone a matter of grave concern, that porn erodes our perception of normative sex? This is a bit like an outcry against the normalizing of homosexual relationships.
posted by kid ichorous at 2:39 PM on April 10, 2008
Also, the above is not to say that rape is exactly, qualititively the same as other physical assaults. It's not. But I don't think it's "trivializing" rape, as Zillman and Bryant seem to suggest, to give one specific case a 4-10 year sentence rather than a 10-14 year one.
It's also a little strange that Zillman and Bryand seem to accuse pornography of "increasing the perceived normalcy of sexual practices that might be considered deviant by others," including oral sex, anal sex, and s&m. Is it really worthy of mention, let alone a matter of grave concern, that porn erodes our perception of normative sex? This is a bit like an outcry against the normalizing of homosexual relationships.
posted by kid ichorous at 2:39 PM on April 10, 2008
Hmm, found some interesting context (pdf) for all those studies bravelittletoaster listed. I haven't read it completely yet, but this popped out at me:
Feminists' claimed that the growing availability of increasingly more violent and misogynous pornography was the direct cause of increasing numbers of increasingly violent rapes. And this, in turn, was a major inspiration to a new wave of research, mainly in the USA, seeking to demonstrate such a connection. The authors of this research - Malamuth, Donnerstein, Zillmann, Check and many others - criticised the Obscenity Commission for not taking into consideration the long-term effects of aggressive pornography. This criticism is not altogether justified, since the Commission had in fact solicited relatively long-term studies of pornography which included sadomasochistic varieties.
The Obscenity Commission mentioned is the 1970 one.
posted by CKmtl at 3:07 PM on April 10, 2008
Feminists' claimed that the growing availability of increasingly more violent and misogynous pornography was the direct cause of increasing numbers of increasingly violent rapes. And this, in turn, was a major inspiration to a new wave of research, mainly in the USA, seeking to demonstrate such a connection. The authors of this research - Malamuth, Donnerstein, Zillmann, Check and many others - criticised the Obscenity Commission for not taking into consideration the long-term effects of aggressive pornography. This criticism is not altogether justified, since the Commission had in fact solicited relatively long-term studies of pornography which included sadomasochistic varieties.
The Obscenity Commission mentioned is the 1970 one.
posted by CKmtl at 3:07 PM on April 10, 2008
In reference to dissenting commission members Keating and Rev. Morton Hill
What's a reverend doing in a commission on public health?
President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to set up a commission to study pornography. The result was the appointment by Attorney General Edwin Meese in the spring of 1985 of a panel comprised of 11 members, the majority of whom had established records as anti-pornography crusaders. [...] At the end of the workshop, the participants expressed consensus in five areas: [...] 2) "Prolonged use of pornography increases beliefs that less common sexual practices are more common"
There's shades of Zillman and Bryand again. Why does a report on public health need to comment on the erosion of social standards?
posted by kid ichorous at 3:24 PM on April 10, 2008
What's a reverend doing in a commission on public health?
President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to set up a commission to study pornography. The result was the appointment by Attorney General Edwin Meese in the spring of 1985 of a panel comprised of 11 members, the majority of whom had established records as anti-pornography crusaders. [...] At the end of the workshop, the participants expressed consensus in five areas: [...] 2) "Prolonged use of pornography increases beliefs that less common sexual practices are more common"
There's shades of Zillman and Bryand again. Why does a report on public health need to comment on the erosion of social standards?
posted by kid ichorous at 3:24 PM on April 10, 2008
*cough*
Wow. That Reagan commission was a farce. Among the 11 members were James FocusOnTheFamily Dobson and a Catholic priest who had a gay sex scandal.
posted by CKmtl at 3:40 PM on April 10, 2008
Wow. That Reagan commission was a farce. Among the 11 members were James FocusOnTheFamily Dobson and a Catholic priest who had a gay sex scandal.
posted by CKmtl at 3:40 PM on April 10, 2008
So, how does Battle Raper enter into all of this?
That's one of the first things I think about when talk turns to this subject: if some of the people who decry the sex/violence/[insert bad thing here] in North American games/movies/TV/[insert medium here], their fucking heads would explode if they saw some of the shit that Japan turns out, like Battle Raper and its even more nauseating, creepy and horripilating ilk. And because the interwebs are global and all, the kiiiids (won't someone please think of the children!) have as much access to that stuff as they do anything else.
Clearly the only solution is to bomb the crap out of Japan. Again.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:54 PM on April 10, 2008
That's one of the first things I think about when talk turns to this subject: if some of the people who decry the sex/violence/[insert bad thing here] in North American games/movies/TV/[insert medium here], their fucking heads would explode if they saw some of the shit that Japan turns out, like Battle Raper and its even more nauseating, creepy and horripilating ilk. And because the interwebs are global and all, the kiiiids (won't someone please think of the children!) have as much access to that stuff as they do anything else.
Clearly the only solution is to bomb the crap out of Japan. Again.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:54 PM on April 10, 2008
Unless I am mistaken, Kid ichorous was trying to make some version of the argument that if we just lower the taboo about sex in general, and rape in particular, it will somehow all become less traumatic for the victim.
It is assuming that the anguish which results from forced sexual activity is simply a result of poor mental conditioning. But that argument never asks: who benefits when a certain subset of the population is groomed to accept rape as normal, or why the victim should prefer to exist without bodily autonomy while the rapist alone is entitled? The argument is predicated upon the assumption that the rapee exists soley to be somebody else's fucktoy and indicates a general domination mentality.
Here's another one. :)
(7) Desensitizing males to rape. In an experiment specifically designed to study desensitization, Linz, Donnerstein, and Penrod showed ten hours of R-rated or X-rated movies over a period of five days to male subjects (Donnerstein and Linz, 1985, p. 34A). Some students saw X-rated movies depicting sexual assault; others saw X-rated movies depicting only consenting sex; and a third group saw R-rated sexually violent movies--for example, "I Spit on Your Grave," "Toolbox Murders," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." Donnerstein (1983) describes "Toolbox Murders" as follows: There is an erotic bathtub scene in which a woman massages herself. A beautiful song is played. Then a psychotic killer enters with a nail gun. The music stops. He chases the woman around the room, then shoots her through the stomach with the nail gun. She falls across a chair. The song comes back on as he puts the nail gun to her forehead and blows her brains out. According to Donnerstein, many young males become sexually aroused by this movie (1983, p. 10).
Donnerstein and Linz point out that, "It has always been suggested by critics of media violence research that only those who are already predisposed toward violence are influenced by exposure to media violence" (1985, p. 34F). These experimenters, however, actually preselected their subjects to ensure that they were not psychotic, hostile, or anxious.
Donnerstein and Linz described the impact of the R-rated movies on their subjects as follows:
Initially, after the first day of viewing, the men rated themselves as significantly above the norm for depression, anxiety, and annoyance on a mood adjective checklist. After each subsequent day of viewing, these scores dropped until, on the fourth day of viewing, the males' levels of anxiety, depression, and annoyance were indistinguishable from baseline norms (1985, p. 34F).
By the fifth day, the subjects rated the movies as less graphic and less gory and estimated fewer violent or offensive scenes than after the first day of viewing. They also rated the films as significantly less debasing and degrading to women, more humorous, and more enjoyable, and reported a greater willingness to see this type of film again (1985, p. 34F). However, their sexual arousal by this material did not decrease over this five-day period (Donnerstein, 1983, p. 10).
On the last day, the subjects went to a law school where they saw a documentary re-enactment of a real rape trial. A control group of subjects who had never seen the films also participated in this part of the experiment. Subjects who had seen the R-rated movies: (1) rated the victim as significantly more worthless, (2) rated her injury as significantly less severe, and (3) assigned greater blame to her for being raped than did the subjects who had not seen the film. In contrast, these effects were not observed for the X-rated non-violent films [7]. However, the results were much the same for the violent X-rated films, despite the fact that the R-rated material was "much more graphically violent" (Donnerstein, 1985, pp. 12-13).
http://www.dianarussell.com/pornsrole2.html
posted by bravelittletoaster at 7:52 PM on April 10, 2008
It is assuming that the anguish which results from forced sexual activity is simply a result of poor mental conditioning. But that argument never asks: who benefits when a certain subset of the population is groomed to accept rape as normal, or why the victim should prefer to exist without bodily autonomy while the rapist alone is entitled? The argument is predicated upon the assumption that the rapee exists soley to be somebody else's fucktoy and indicates a general domination mentality.
Here's another one. :)
(7) Desensitizing males to rape. In an experiment specifically designed to study desensitization, Linz, Donnerstein, and Penrod showed ten hours of R-rated or X-rated movies over a period of five days to male subjects (Donnerstein and Linz, 1985, p. 34A). Some students saw X-rated movies depicting sexual assault; others saw X-rated movies depicting only consenting sex; and a third group saw R-rated sexually violent movies--for example, "I Spit on Your Grave," "Toolbox Murders," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." Donnerstein (1983) describes "Toolbox Murders" as follows: There is an erotic bathtub scene in which a woman massages herself. A beautiful song is played. Then a psychotic killer enters with a nail gun. The music stops. He chases the woman around the room, then shoots her through the stomach with the nail gun. She falls across a chair. The song comes back on as he puts the nail gun to her forehead and blows her brains out. According to Donnerstein, many young males become sexually aroused by this movie (1983, p. 10).
Donnerstein and Linz point out that, "It has always been suggested by critics of media violence research that only those who are already predisposed toward violence are influenced by exposure to media violence" (1985, p. 34F). These experimenters, however, actually preselected their subjects to ensure that they were not psychotic, hostile, or anxious.
Donnerstein and Linz described the impact of the R-rated movies on their subjects as follows:
Initially, after the first day of viewing, the men rated themselves as significantly above the norm for depression, anxiety, and annoyance on a mood adjective checklist. After each subsequent day of viewing, these scores dropped until, on the fourth day of viewing, the males' levels of anxiety, depression, and annoyance were indistinguishable from baseline norms (1985, p. 34F).
By the fifth day, the subjects rated the movies as less graphic and less gory and estimated fewer violent or offensive scenes than after the first day of viewing. They also rated the films as significantly less debasing and degrading to women, more humorous, and more enjoyable, and reported a greater willingness to see this type of film again (1985, p. 34F). However, their sexual arousal by this material did not decrease over this five-day period (Donnerstein, 1983, p. 10).
On the last day, the subjects went to a law school where they saw a documentary re-enactment of a real rape trial. A control group of subjects who had never seen the films also participated in this part of the experiment. Subjects who had seen the R-rated movies: (1) rated the victim as significantly more worthless, (2) rated her injury as significantly less severe, and (3) assigned greater blame to her for being raped than did the subjects who had not seen the film. In contrast, these effects were not observed for the X-rated non-violent films [7]. However, the results were much the same for the violent X-rated films, despite the fact that the R-rated material was "much more graphically violent" (Donnerstein, 1985, pp. 12-13).
http://www.dianarussell.com/pornsrole2.html
posted by bravelittletoaster at 7:52 PM on April 10, 2008
You are mistaken, kid ichorous said nothing about how traumatic rape is or isn't to the victim.
He was addressing the varying degrees of sexual taboo in cultures, and the varying punishments for a convicted rapist.
And of course Diana Russell will be a veritable fountainhead of "*boo*hiss* porn is bad!". She's a central anti-porn feminist.
posted by CKmtl at 8:20 PM on April 10, 2008
He was addressing the varying degrees of sexual taboo in cultures, and the varying punishments for a convicted rapist.
And of course Diana Russell will be a veritable fountainhead of "*boo*hiss* porn is bad!". She's a central anti-porn feminist.
posted by CKmtl at 8:20 PM on April 10, 2008
Unless I am mistaken, Kid ichorous was trying to make some version of the argument that if we just lower the taboo about sex in general, and rape in particular, it will somehow all become less traumatic for the victim. But that argument never asks: who benefits when a certain subset of the population is groomed to accept rape as normal, or why the victim should prefer to exist without bodily autonomy while the rapist alone is entitled?
I didn't say that anyone should be groomed to accept rape as "normal," no more than we should be groomed to think of aggravated assault as normal. I suggested that at least one rationale for penalizing rape more than other assaults is a moral discomfort with sex itself, and offered an example (Pakistan) where excessive penalties for rape are clearly in line with institutionalized erotophobia, and are clearly not doing a damn thing for victims. Zillman and Bryant offer their own cursory explanation for why viewers - men and women - who watch sex acts subsequently give lower sentences in a theoretical rape case; I offer my own as to why cultures who mythologize sex give longer ones.
posted by kid ichorous at 8:51 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
I didn't say that anyone should be groomed to accept rape as "normal," no more than we should be groomed to think of aggravated assault as normal. I suggested that at least one rationale for penalizing rape more than other assaults is a moral discomfort with sex itself, and offered an example (Pakistan) where excessive penalties for rape are clearly in line with institutionalized erotophobia, and are clearly not doing a damn thing for victims. Zillman and Bryant offer their own cursory explanation for why viewers - men and women - who watch sex acts subsequently give lower sentences in a theoretical rape case; I offer my own as to why cultures who mythologize sex give longer ones.
posted by kid ichorous at 8:51 PM on April 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
You know, for some reason I really didn't see this twist to the conversation coming.
posted by Artw at 9:00 PM on April 10, 2008
posted by Artw at 9:00 PM on April 10, 2008
Well, on topic, there's videogame attack lawyer Jack Thompson's amazing pleading to the Florida bar from last month.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:23 PM on April 10, 2008
posted by kid ichorous at 9:23 PM on April 10, 2008
Hah, thanks for that. I keep an eye on GamePolitics' running updates of JT's adventures. Some wacky stuff in there.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:27 AM on April 11, 2008
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:27 AM on April 11, 2008
Naomi Alderman writing for the Guardian weighs in on the discussion:
If we deny children access to all computer games, we deprive them of a rich and magical experience
Thought about posting this as a front page thing, but I think there's been enough discussion about this on Metafilter for the time being.
posted by slimepuppy at 1:24 PM on April 11, 2008
If we deny children access to all computer games, we deprive them of a rich and magical experience
Thought about posting this as a front page thing, but I think there's been enough discussion about this on Metafilter for the time being.
posted by slimepuppy at 1:24 PM on April 11, 2008
Actually, "anecdotal" + "a friend of mine reported" = evidence. KJS provides an alternative data point, but there it is.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:40 PM on April 16, 2008
posted by mrgrimm at 2:40 PM on April 16, 2008
I'm sure this post would be a much better place for discussing SSRI's.
posted by Artw at 2:46 PM on April 16, 2008
posted by Artw at 2:46 PM on April 16, 2008
Since there is life in this thread yet, I thought I'd mention that as of today, The Sims has sold 100 million units. That's a lot of teens thinking that making 'woo hoo' (in-game euphemism for sex) is a perfectly normal pursuit. Hot coffee mod ain't got nothing on the Sims. Hell, The Sims effectively states that sexual preference is a case of choice as every character in the game can/will sex with members of their own gender. I'm amazed there hasn't been more outrage over it. Though Jack Thompson did try though, once (very top of the page of an interesting article about the history of the series).
I'd post all this and more on the blue, but it's very, very vaguely self-linky.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:18 PM on April 16, 2008
I'd post all this and more on the blue, but it's very, very vaguely self-linky.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:18 PM on April 16, 2008
Perhaps Jack Thompson will be going after Harvard now.
Video interview with the researchers found here.
posted by CKmtl at 9:48 AM on April 17, 2008
Video interview with the researchers found here.
posted by CKmtl at 9:48 AM on April 17, 2008
« Older You have 20 seconds to comply | Alas! regardless of their doom, the little victims... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by shmegegge at 12:04 PM on April 9, 2008