101 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahisgewaya]

soteria wrote...

Don't forget, the US also gave the world Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, so that's something.

ANd on behalf of all Americans, I apologize for this.

[Ahisgewaya]

Dansayshi wrote...

Yano I keep hearing Gaga is a man, so I just dont know what to think lol.

It's highly debatable actually and most of us still aren't sure what to think....

[Sylixe]

After looking at that game "Manhunt" on You Tube and seeing the comments about how "cool" the game is. I have officially lost all hope in humanity EVER figuring out how to live together in a civilised manner.

[soteria]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

soteria wrote...

Don't forget, the US also gave the world Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, so that's something.

If I beg, will you please take Lady GaGa back?
Please?

Only if you take Tom Cruise!

More American greatness:  Jaws, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Battlefield Earth.  C'mon, people, how can you talk bad about the nation that has made such contributions to world culture!

[Jah77]

soteria wrote...
 The argument is that it's hypocritical to be ok with graphic violence but not sex. I disagree; I don't think it's really the same. Although both the act of sex and the act of violence may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances, one is inherently private, and the other is not.

What does that have to do with the morality of those acts, or the effects they would have on the viewer? In any case, I thought the issue here was the fictional portrayal of those acts in video games or movies. Since it's fiction, nobody's privacy is being violated.

Sex is a natural, healthy part of normal human life. Beating up or killing people is not. That's the important difference.

soteria wrote...
For example, I wouldn't have a problem with someone posting a video of my fighting, or, heaven forbid, killing someone on the internet, provided there was just cause.

Define "just cause".

soteria wrote...
I *would* have a problem with someone putting a video of me having sex with someone on the internet, no matter who it was.

Even if they had just cause?

soteria wrote...
For that reason, I think it's borderline dishonest to accuse people of being hypocritical for censoring sex but not violence.

Both violence and sex can be shocking or emotionally traumatizing to some people, which is why some degree of censorship is appropriate for both. The real hypocrisy, however, is the implication that sex or sexuality is as "sinful" or condemnable - if not more so - than violence, which appears to be the most common line of reasoning for the moralists who start waving banhammers the moment they see a flash of bare skin.

[soteria]

What does that have to do with the morality of those acts, or the effects they would have on the viewer? In any case, I thought the issue here was the fictional portrayal of those acts in video games or movies. Since it's fiction, nobody's privacy is being violated.



Sex is a natural, healthy part of normal human life. Beating up or killing people is not. That's the important difference.

It has nothing to do with the morality of the acts, and that's the point. The argument that they're fictional so it doesn't matter is poorly conceived. By the same logic people should be accepting of any violent or disgusting act, provided it involves fictional characters. After all, no one is hurt by the fictional actions of fictional characters, amiright?



As a side note, if you think violence isn't natural, you should watch the discovery channel sometime... it's even a health part of the ecosystem.

Define "just cause".

No. Define it for yourself. If you personally can't conceive of a time when killing someone would be justified, then I'm not going to get into a sidebar argument about it.

Even if they had just cause?

My statement presupposes that there is no just cause for violating someone's privacy in that way. Maybe this is your attempt at sarcastically disagreeing, but you'll have to be more clear if that's the case.

Both violence and sex can be shocking or emotionally traumatizing to some people, which is why some degree of censorship is appropriate for both. The real hypocrisy, however, is the implication that sex or sexuality is as "sinful" or condemnable - if not more so - than violence, which appears to be the most common line of reasoning for the moralists who start waving banhammers the moment they see a flash of bare skin.

/shrug. I agree with the first sentence. As for the second, if you want to have an argument with those people, go ahead. I personally believe both sex and violence can be wrong or right, depending on the circumstances. The morality of the act portratyed in either case doesn't really play a part in whether or not I personally think either should be censored. It goes back to your first sentence--either one can traumatize or shock some people.

[Knal1991]

soteria wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

soteria wrote...

Don't forget, the US also gave the world Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, so that's something.

If I beg, will you please take Lady GaGa back?
Please?

Only if you take Tom Cruise!

More American greatness:  Jaws, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Battlefield Earth.  C'mon, people, how can you talk bad about the nation that has made such contributions to world culture!

they mostly stole world culture, >_>

[Jah77]

soteria wrote...
It has nothing to do with the morality of the acts, and that's the point.

So the morality of the acts is not important, but their privacy is? Why?

soteria wrote...
As a side note, if you think violence isn't natural, you should watch the discovery channel sometime... it's even a health part of the ecosystem.

It would be natural if we were still living in a jungle, climbing up trees and eating bananas. In a civilized society it isn't, which is why there are laws against it.

soteria wrote...

Define "just cause".

No. Define it for yourself. If you personally can't conceive of a time when killing someone would be justified, then I'm not going to get into a sidebar argument about it.

Ok, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought "just cause" was a reference to the act of putting a video of your violent acts on the Internet, since you were arguing that that would be ok, while a video of you having sex would not.

Just cause or lack thereof for the killing itself is irrelevant, because you just said that you don't think the morality of the act plays a part in whether it should be censored or not.

soteria wrote...
My statement presupposes that there is no just cause for violating someone's privacy in that way. Maybe this is your attempt at sarcastically disagreeing, but you'll have to be more clear if that's the case.

There is no just cause for violating someone's privacy, but there can be a just cause for killing someone? Sorry, I don't agree.

soteria wrote...
 I personally believe both sex and violence can be wrong or right, depending on the circumstances.

I would say that violence in general is wrong, and (consensual) sex in general is not. There are exceptions to both, of course, but I don't think they are directly comparable in that regard.

soteria wrote...
The morality of the act portratyed in either case doesn't really play a part in whether or not I personally think either should be censored.

To me, the purpose of censorship is to protect those who might be emotionally traumatized by what they see - children, for example - and in this regard, I believe the morality of the act does make a difference. Or are you arguing that a scene of consensual sex between two consenting adults and a scene of rape or child abuse should be treated the same way? If not, why not, if morality is not an issue?

[G-four]

I find Americans funny they just cannot handle a nipple. You can watch life shootings on TV but a nipple will cause a nation wide outrage. People that think that sex can be shocking or emotionally traumatizing need to have their heads checked.

[soteria]

So the morality of the acts is not important, but their privacy is? Why?

I think all this quoting is starting to get confusing. What I was saying in my first paragraph is that I take issue with being told I'm a hypocrite if I personally have no problem with watching violence but am not comfortable watching sex. My response to that claim is that sex and violence are different kinds of actions--one is private and the other is not.



Not that anyone has been pointing fingers at people so much as society. I don't claim to speak for society or conservatives or anyone but myself. My goal was to give perspective on why some people are comfortable watching violent acts but not sexual ones.

Just cause or lack thereof for the killing itself is irrelevant, because you just said that you don't think the morality of the act plays a part in whether it should be censored or not.

I only added "just cause" as an afterthought to stop someone from accusing me of saying I think indiscriminate violence is acceptable.

There is no just cause for violating someone's privacy, but there can be a just cause for killing someone? Sorry, I don't agree.

Let me repeat what I said, with the part you missed bolded: My statement presupposes that there is no just cause for violating someone's privacy in that way. Specifically, putting a video of people having sex out there for the public to see without their consent. I personally can't conceive of a good reason to violate someone's privacy like that, ever. Can you? Courtroom proceedings isn't exactly the general public and goes against the sense of what I was saying.

I would say that violence in general is wrong, and (consensual) sex in general is not. There are exceptions to both, of course, but I don't think they are directly comparable in that regard.

Circumstances and degrees aside, I think we're generally in agreement here. I'm really not looking to get into an argument about the justified use of lethal force or the ethics of extramarital sex, so...

To me, the purpose of censorship is to protect those who might be emotionally traumatized by what they see - children, for example - and in this regard, I believe the morality of the act does make a difference. Or are you arguing that a scene of consensual sex between two consenting adults and a scene of rape or child abuse should be treated the same way? If not, why not, if morality is not an issue?

This is really beyond the scope of what I was trying to say, but I'll give my thoughts. When we get into the question of whether or not children should see a particular scene, I'd say that comes down to parenting. Ultimately, the ratings system is there to give people an idea of what sort of questionable content is in the film. Parents should know what sort of scenes their children can handle, and screen movies appropriately. The rating system should help them with that.



As for the question of consensual sex vs child abuse/rape, that strikes me as akin to saying, "You're against tightened gun control? So you think it's acceptable to own an RPG?" It sounds like one of those logical fallacies some of us learned about in school. Morality is not the issue: as I said before, I agree that censors/ratings should be there to protect people from emotional shock and trauma. That is, the rating should be based on what sort of emotional damage an act could cause, not whether it is right or wrong. Who gives a rating agency the right to determine good and evil anyway? That's not their job.



After all, look at the range of beliefs we could find on this board for these issues, from all consensual sex is ok to only sex between married couples and everything in between. Same thing for violence--rabid pacifists and rabid warmongers and every shade of gray between the two. We obviously can't come to a consensus on what is morally right, so how is some agency going to say, "This act is morally wrong, therefore it will be censored/rated NC-17." Again that's not their job.

[Janni-in-VA]

Just as a side note, apparently many of you are too young to remember a certain cartoon movie called "Fritz, the Cat." It was a send up of the American movie ratings system in that it was deliberately written and illustrated in such a way as to garner an X rating. It even used anthropomorphic animals as characters, not a human to be seen anywhere. I'm not even sure such a movie could be done again, but it did make the point that what was being rated was the action itself, not whether or not it was realistic (live movie, human actors).



And isn't that what we see with the game rating system? It's the action that's being rated, not whether or not it's real. Personally, I do think my fellow country persons have some interesting hangups about sex and nudity, but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable watching a sex scene in mixed company. I'm also not likely to be found on a nude beach, as that would fall under the category of "don't scare the horses."

[Schurge]

Knal1991 wrote...

soteria wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

soteria wrote...

Don't forget, the US also gave the world Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, so that's something.

If I beg, will you please take Lady GaGa back?
Please?

Only if you take Tom Cruise!

More American greatness:  Jaws, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Battlefield Earth.  C'mon, people, how can you talk bad about the nation that has made such contributions to world culture!

they mostly stole world culture, >_>

ROFL!! No... people brought it over here!!

Go read about Imperialist France and Britian by the way...

Modifié par Schurge, 26 février 2010 - 05:24 .

[Games4ever]

Edit

Modifié par Games4ever, 26 février 2010 - 05:17 .

[Games4ever]

Nudity/sex It's the most natural aspect of any living thing on the planet..

someone please tell bioware and some others who are afraid to show that in their games..

or you could start making games that fit the american audiences without nudity/sex and make the same game for european with the nudity and sex :-)

because it must be a bit embarrassing to be able to show blood gore, flying limbs, violence in games but not show the most natural in life: nudity/sex :-)

right now I play Heavy Rain,the best game ever! not because they show sex and nudity but because they are not afraid to show anything, that's what you like when you are an adult :-)

games are not just for kids anymore

Modifié par Games4ever, 26 février 2010 - 05:15 .

[Schurge]

EDIT: Bad idea.

Modifié par Schurge, 26 février 2010 - 05:16 .

[Loerwyn]

Games have never been "just for kids".

General Custer's Revenge, anyone?

[Jah77]

soteria wrote...
I think all this quoting is starting to get confusing. What I was saying in my first paragraph is that I take issue with being told I'm a hypocrite if I personally have no problem with watching violence but am not comfortable watching sex.

Fair enough, but the point is, you're an adult and you can choose what you want to watch. If sex makes you uncomfortable, don't watch movies or play games that have it. It's not hypocrisy to say you have no problem with watching violence but feel uncomfortable about sex; the hypocrisy begins if you argue that nobody else should be allowed to watch sex because you don't like it, which is basically what the Puritan censorship is about. And just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of that, and I believe the original hypocrisy argument was directed at the censors and/or various pressure groups who attempt to influence them.

soteria wrote...
Let me repeat what I said, with the part you missed bolded: My statement presupposes that there is no just cause for violating someone's privacy in that way. Specifically, putting a video of people having sex out there for the public to see without their consent. I personally can't conceive of a good reason to violate someone's privacy like that, ever. Can you? Courtroom proceedings isn't exactly the general public and goes against the sense of what I was saying.

Maybe not, but I think it's a bit of an apples vs. oranges comparison, since I don't consider that kind of violation of privacy to be anywhere near as serious as killing someone. For the topic of censorship in fiction, the issue is largely irrelevant, however.

soteria wrote...
This is really beyond the scope of what I was trying to say, but I'll give my thoughts. When we get into the question of whether or not children should see a particular scene, I'd say that comes down to parenting. Ultimately, the ratings system is there to give people an idea of what sort of questionable content is in the film. Parents should know what sort of scenes their children can handle, and screen movies appropriately. The rating system should help them with that.

I agree. Unfortunately, not all parents are that responsible.

soteria wrote...
Morality is not the issue: as I said before, I agree that censors/ratings should be there to protect people from emotional shock and trauma. That is, the rating should be based on what sort of emotional damage an act could cause, not whether it is right or wrong.

Thing is, I don't think you can fully separate one from the other. I think there is a fair bit of correlation.

soteria wrote...
After all, look at the range of beliefs we could find on this board for these issues, from all consensual sex is ok to only sex between married couples and everything in between. Same thing for violence--rabid pacifists and rabid warmongers and every shade of gray between the two. We obviously can't come to a consensus on what is morally right, so
how is some agency going to say, "This act is morally wrong, therefore
it will be censored/rated NC-17." Again that's not their job.

It's obviously impossible to please everyone, which means that unless you're going with a policy of "anything goes" where nothing is prohibited or taboo, you'll have to apply some fairly broadly accepted standard, and as far as morality goes, there are certain societal standards - reflected in legislation, for example - so I don't think morality is a purely subjective matter. Whether something is emotionally traumatizing or not is ultimately entirely subjective, so I don't think the "traumatizing potential" alone can be used as a basis for determining what should or shouldn't be censored. Since I believe the two issues are related, I think both aspects should be taken into consideration.

[7th_Phoenix]

 Partial nudity means you get a tasteful sneak peak of what is to come but not the whole cake. (i.e. side boobs, half a butt cheek -- remember the love scene that a certain reporter freaked out over on a certain news station and made an unnecessary big deal about?)
I could care less about any sort of nudity -- it just has to be appropriate. Like say, by myself in a dark lonely room late at night with a single light on... Sort of reminds me of the day I was born... I was covered in nasty goo and what was that... naked. [sighs...]
Partial nudity, sex, intimacy, sexuality, and orientation... sometimes people just need to get over it. Especially gullible parents/guardians who can't think for themselves and don't know the difference between reality and video games. Video games simply depict (or attempt to depict) real life situations, not create them!

[aries1001]

As for the partial nudity in DA: Origins, I do think it parly stems from the romances in which the people of pixels wear underwearm, the brood mother as well as the desire demons. Regarding the on-going debate, let me again point you the fact that most northern Europeans seem to be worried about violence in games, while most southern Europeans seem to be worried about sexual content in the game. As for women showing breasts during summer, irl, coming from Denmark were women did this during the 1970's and the 1980's, I can only attest to that this really helped us to see the naked breast as something natural and beautiful and nothing to be gawking at. And our society still stands - so much so young women now don't feel the need lie without any cover during the summer.
It means that something is left to the imagination - as it does in DA: Origins.

As for censorship in games, I do think that only the German USK-rating board for games have ever changed a game (and of course the UK game ratings board cut the children out from Fallout 2, I think?). When the USK changes (or censors) a game, the blood will usually be green (I think?) instead of red, also the USK will change or remove some symbols related to a very grim and dark past of German history. [Return to Castle Wolfenstein is an example of this]. Anyway, the PEGI ratings for DA: Origins states 18+ for violence. Nudity, partial or otherwise, seems not to rating applied to DA: Origins by PEGI standards. This seems to be so, since the partial nudity 1) can be avoided and is part of the story.

Anyway, if people want to look at nude things, women or men, there are plenty of sides where they may go to see these things. The only thing I find a bit funny in DA: Origins and perhaps also a bit odd is that Morrigan suddenly wears underwear in the romance scenes. The animation in the romance scenes also seems a bit akward and not quite right to me, but that's perhaps more of tech question, I think?

Modifié par aries1001, 26 février 2010 - 07:08 .

[soteria]

I've said my piece, but I'll add this:



In the US, games are absolutely perceived as primarily kids' entertainment, and it's been that way since the original NES came out. Heck, even the Atari was mainly aimed at kids. The perception that video games are mainly for children is why they can't get away with nudity but movies can.

[Ensgnblack]

before this gets locked, I want to declare my shock at soteria for putting star wars and battlefield earth next to each other.



carry on.

[Knal1991]

Schurge wrote...

Knal1991 wrote...

soteria wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

soteria wrote...

Don't forget, the US also gave the world Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, so that's something.

If I beg, will you please take Lady GaGa back?
Please?

Only if you take Tom Cruise!

More American greatness:  Jaws, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Battlefield Earth.  C'mon, people, how can you talk bad about the nation that has made such contributions to world culture!

they mostly stole world culture, >_>

ROFL!! No... people brought it over here!!

Go read about Imperialist France and Britian by the way...

I know... I know... it just sounded more interesting

(actually, nobody brought it there, they more took it with them, then butchered the natives,then ate them and acted like it was turkey and then they gave Bush junior nuclear toys,)

god bless america >_>

Modifié par Knal1991, 28 février 2010 - 12:40 .

[Masticetobbacco]

oh sure, lets censor our children from how to reproduce. Lets just not continue the human race at all.

[Red Frostraven]

soteria wrote...
If you think violence isn't natural, you should watch the discovery channel sometime... it's even a health part of the ecosystem.

soteria wrote...
I think all this quoting is starting to get confusing. What I was
saying in my first paragraph is that I take issue with being told I'm a
hypocrite if I personally have no problem with watching violence but am
not comfortable watching sex. My response to that claim is that sex and
violence are different kinds of actions--one is private and the other
is not.

WHY is sex a private act, and who forced it to be private, exactly?
... I can turn on the news any day and see people get shot. I can't do the same and see people have sex.
and I do watch the discovery channel.
There, I see animals have sex, and animals killing eachother.

"Killing eachother" only applies to unsocial carnivores, and humans are NOT unsocial carnivores: We are SOCIAL omnivores: For social creatures, sex is MORE natural than murder.

Knowing history, it's only the last 200-300 years sex and nudity has been prohibited, and before the second world war, ****** were a-ok on the beaches everywhere.
200 years ago, noone wore underwear under their dresses or pants; Panties started as a fashion that's now LEGALLY enforced upon the public.
300 years ago, you could walk naked in nature.
100 years ago, you could bathe in the nude.
...

What WE do to our own bodies should be up to us. Dressing in clothes, or not, is something WE do to OUR bodies.
I find the fact that we are forced to dress before we go outside quite freaking scary.
(Before anyone rants about scaring children, children will be scared of people dressed in all black with a black mask: People fear the unknown. If nudity is allowed, it's not unknown. If a child saw a person in a black costume, a conservative parent would rage against that person for scaring her child. A non-conservative or liberal would explain the child that the guy isn't dangerous. A naturalist (but not naturist or nudist) would explain that exact same thing if their child saw a nude person.
There's absolutely NO reasearch what so ever that indicates that nudity is harmful to children or the public. On the CONTRARY: Because people don't know how their bodies are supposed to look like, people grow more insecure because they cannot compare their bodies to other people's bodies -- and all nude models are handpicked, and contribute to making people even more insecure, leading to today's situation where people FEAR public nudity.)

Modifié par Red Frostraven, 28 février 2010 - 01:36 .

[Kevin Lynch]

As usual, this discussion has moved further away from being on a DA:O topic (partial nudity and how it applies to DA:O) and more into generalities. Bring it back to DA:O specifically or it'll have to be locked up.