Sex in games

[icycalm]

Here is a thread on Select Button that is worth reading:

http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopic.php?t=15190

It is quite long (and still quite active), but definitely worth the effort it requires to go through it. Naturally, there's lots of stupidity, prejudice and generally illogical reasoning in there, and none of them is capable of assembling all the facts and using them so as to arrive at the correct conclusions, but I figure some people here might wish it give it a try.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9iBY_fjRPDg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

The thread starts becoming interesting on the third page, with the following post:

Well, why does one play an eroge? Don't tell me it's because you really find the whole subject that compelling, or I'm going to call you a wanker and a pseudo-intellectual. Or at least a wanker, because that is all these games are about — and I have nothing at all against masturbation or sexuality in general, but when one turns to the retarded fantasies presented by games like these, I dunno... I just find it incredibly distasteful and a little pathetic? I would have thought these forums would be the last place the eroge genre would be met with any sort of glorification, or anything less than pure ridicule (aside from a few people I have always pretty much ignored (I mean we have Rya.Reisender saying here "it's because real girls suck" and it's just being left alone)). I mean, I know, some guys are just too busy playing videogames and watching anime to ever get some real pussy (let's be blunt), but I don't want to hear about how you wish you could use BOTH hands to jerk it while manipulating Fake Anime Girl (possibly your little sister) into blowing you or even just holding your hand or something.

I mean, what the fuck? How sad are we?

Sexual content in games is one thing, but when it becomes your tool for actual masturbation, physical, psychological, or emotional, fucking keep it to yourself. Wow.

http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopi ... 636#448636

[JoshF]

Maybe we could expand the discussion to all forms of pornography in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKhgbVoZnk

Someone watched Saw I bet.

[Macaw]

Damn I love Quake 4.

[taub]

Maybe we could expand the discussion to all forms of pornography in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKhgbVoZnk

Someone watched Saw I bet.

"Torture porn term=insulting and ignorant"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450278/boa ... /118896284

[JoshF]

Simulated torture is simply wanking for the reptilian brain. Guilt-free snuff. Not high art we're dealing with folks. If you like it that's cool.

[taub]

I don't know if you watched Saw or Hostel, but they really aren't simply showing 90 minutes of people getting violated, although that's what the marketing wants you to believe. When you've seen the trailer of Hostel, you've already seen the worst stuff, the rest of the movie is comparable to "8mm". And Saw I guess you could compare to Se7en. Why weren't 8mm and Se7en called torture porn?

[Macaw]

That scene in Quake 4 is one of the most exciting moments in any FPS, especially after all the build up (its about half way in). A perfect example of using the first person perspective to create excitement, reinforced even more so by the fact you know you are helpless and cant do anything.

The fact again is that its exciting because of the perspective. A similar scene in a 3rd person game would have had zero of the impact.

The game isn't just having violence for the sake of it, its putting you in that situation to get a reaction from you, and its awesome.

[icycalm]

You are the first person I've come across who understands this. That is indeed the advantage of the first person perspective. I call it "le mise-en-jeux", lol. In this respect it is superior to all other perspectives.

[JoshF]

I don't know if you watched Saw or Hostel, but they really aren't simply showing 90 minutes of people getting violated, although that's what the marketing wants you to believe.

You're getting off topic, I think. This topic wasn't meant to be a rebuke/defense of the Saw series!

Anyway, come on dude. Next you'll tell me you watch regular porn for the plot, not it's main focus. I mean, why aren't you watching Citizen Kane or some shit if that were the case? Not as thought-provoking?

Why weren't 8mm and Se7en called torture porn?

Haven't seen them. Maybe there was a thought behind the violence and not just various sight gags for goths (lol, j/k). It's the reason movies like Blue Velvet, Full Metal Jacket, or even Video Drome aren't called that, although it's also because really gruesome, prolonged, and detailed depictions of torture only recently became good commerce. That's why the critics picked up on it and decided to call an apple an apple.

Point is: seven minute cutscene of a person getting pierced and amputated = porn

Not judging it, but it is what it is so why not call it what it is?

[icycalm]

Personally, I think it's awesome.

So, okay, here's the conclusion to be drawn from the SB discussion.

Gamers are more likely to look down on sexporn games than violenceporn games, because, in our societies, satisfying the sexual drive is legal while satisfying the violence drive is illegal. So simulating the satisfaction of the sexual drive is seen as pathetic (because, if you were a real man, you'd be able to satisfy this drive in real life), while no one looks on the simulation of the violence drive as pathetic, because the thought that that drive even exists or should be satisfied doesn't even cross their tiny brains. They've been so thoroughly brainwashed by education, religion, morality, etc. to regard violence as Bad, that they don't even realize that the countless hours they spent with violent games are merely the manifestation of the simulated satisfaction of that drive.

Now good luck trying to get anyone to understand this.

[Bradford]

You and your logic, Icy... and right out in the open on the internet, no less, where impressionable minds might see it!

Seriously, though,

Pornography, n. 1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. 2. The presentation or production of this material. 3. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the … pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein, New York Times Book Review (On the Web) May 2, 1982).

Etymology: French pornographie, from pornographe, pornographer, from Late Greek pornographos, writing about prostitutes.

Am. Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000).

Although I lack the benefit of reading the SB thread (the link seems to be broken), I can't follow antitype's reasoning in the quoted post. Is he asserting that a pornographic videogame is pathetic, while 'regular' pornography is perfectly respectable? What it the basis for that distinction? I hope it's not that fantasies of impromptu liasons with plumbers and pizza-delivery men are more grounded in reality than multi-tentacled demons.

If what makes a paricular work (of whatever medium) pornographic is that its "primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal," then there is no difference between pornographic works of any medium, and antitype's criticism arises out of the subject matter. His distinctions then flow from value judgments about their subject matter, which are inherently arbitrary. Frathouse gangbang is sublime but "Fake Anime Girl" is distasteful? Girls Gone Wild is exquisitely delightful, but naked demon-girls is pathetic?

Call this the obligatory moral-equivalency argument if you will, but I don't see how you can draw a distinction without referencing external factors, such as exploitation of women, which would obviously weigh on the side of the games and anime as being less sad and pathethic (for what that's worth). Therefore, the only conclusion I can reach is that either all pornography is pathetic, or none of it is, unless you can assign greater or lesser values to the specific fantasies embodied in the particular work of pornography, which I don't think you can do in a non-arbitrary way.

Of course, I'll have you know that I, like my comrade antitype, only get off to fine works of English literature and classical music.

[icycalm]

You and your logic, Icy... and right out in the open on the internet, no less, where impressionable minds might see it!

Yes, this is one point that frustrated me for a while. But I came to the conclusion that it makes no difference whether this stuff is out in the open or not, since hardly one in a million people is capable of understanding it. You could shout it in their faces and it still wouldn't make a difference.

As for impressionable minds: it is harmless -- all they can do is be impressed. Hardly one in a million among them is capable of putting these impressions into practice -- for everyone else there's videogames.

Re: the definition of pornography:

3. Lurid or sensational material

So you can have "sensationalism" of a sexual nature and sensationalism of a violent nature -- though if you examine the matter closely, you see that in the end they are one and the same thing. Note the word "sensationalism", which in philosophy is another term for "phenomenalism":

phenomenalism |fəˈnämənəlˌizəm|
noun Philosophy
the doctrine that human knowledge is confined to or founded on the realities or appearances presented to the senses.

Although I lack the benefit of reading the SB thread (the link seems to be broken)

The site is offline right now. Server issues (we use the same provider). Check back later: it's worth it. The questions you pose in the rest of the post are answered there.

See, it's not that antitype was wrong. He was right -- his mistake however was not applying the same logic to all kinds of games.

[icycalm]

Put more simply: a soldier who has seen real combat (where killing is legal) would look on people who play violent games with as much contempt as antitype -- who has had real sex -- looks on people who play games with sexual content.

[JoshF]

Did... did Bradford just win?

Therefore, the only conclusion I can reach is that either all pornography is pathetic, or none of it is, unless you can assign greater or lesser values to the specific fantasies embodied in the particular work of pornography, which I don't think you can do in a non-arbitrary way.

I would say any act intended to humiliate the partner (eating shit?) is a little more deviant than simple penetration, but maybe that's just me moralizing. Stuff like that definitely isn't instinctual, that's for sure. If you're talking about cartoons eating shit in a video game though, I have no idea how to deal with that without sounding arbitrary. Somehow, Icy will manage to find a relevant Nietzsche quote to answer this. :lol:

[Jedah]

While the whole discussion is very logical, it really makes me wonder what kind of violent acts could really be sensational, if witnessed live, without any cinematography and extra effects etc. Has anyone of you experienced real live violence to make the comparison? I admit that Gears of War violence is VERY satisfying, while cinematic violence makes me throw up some times...

[JoshF]

Depends on the brain. Like I said most people who want violence don't want the guilt from enjoying something non-simulated, but some like it so much simulation isn't enough and they can't wait for happenstance (go-getters, lol).

it really makes me wonder what kind of violent acts could really be sensational, if witnessed live, without any cinematography and extra effects etc.

I remember a show called Real TV where they showed home video footage of people on the brink of death, but they survive so it's okay to enjoy it. I saw one of my friends had Aryton Senna's fatal crash saved in his youtube favorites!

[Bradford]

Depends on the brain. Like I said most people who want violence don't want the guilt from enjoying something non-simulated, but some like it so much simulation isn't enough and they can't wait for happenstance (go-getters, lol).

Therefore, tough guys who pick fights in bars are really just masturbating.

Awesome.

[icycalm]

Did... did Bradford just win?

Depends on how you look at it. The point is not so much to arrive at the correct conclusion -- since people can get there by mistake too, in the same way as in a mathematical problem, for example -- the point is to get there by small steps, each of which should be correct, and demonstrably so. So the closest Bradford came to the heart of the matter is this:

Therefore, the only conclusion I can reach is that either all pornography is pathetic, or none of it is

But this is not exactly a conclusion, now is it? Still, it is much nearer the truth than anyone on SB managed to get. Replace "pornography" with "simulation" and cut out the "either" and the part after the comma, and you have the correct conclusion.

I would say any act intended to humiliate the partner (eating shit?) is a little more deviant than simple penetration, but maybe that's just me moralizing.

It's just you moralizing. You can see this by considering that the partners themselves often crave for such "deviant" acts. Humiliation is a relative quality. It all depends on the culture you grew up in; the system of values you subscribe to. It's essentially dependent on your habits. What a Viking considered humiliation a Christian would consider exaltation.

If you're talking about cartoons eating shit in a video game though, I have no idea how to deal with that without sounding arbitrary. Somehow, Icy will manage to find a relevant Nietzsche quote to answer this. :lol:

lol, yeah. But as far as simulation goes, Nietzsche did not have much to say on the subject, because mankind's powers of simulation were in an embryonic stage at that time. Baudrillard was the first to analyze it, and even he didn't manage to get very far. So, after a certain point, we are on our own. (Exciting, huh?)

While the whole discussion is very logical, it really makes me wonder what kind of violent acts could really be sensational, if witnessed live, without any cinematography and extra effects etc.

All of it would be. There's nothing more sensational than the sensationalism of real life. Which is why it has such a strong effect on people (war veterans going nuts, etc.)

Has anyone of you experienced real live violence to make the comparison?

I have taken part in several kickboxing fights. I have also been involved in streetfights where people got their noses broken, blood everywhere, etc. There's nothing quite like it. The closest I have seen the feeling captured on film is Fight Club.

Therefore, tough guys who pick fights in bars are really just masturbating.

Bad analogy. Guys who pick fights in real life are like guys who have sex with girls in real life. If you want to take it further, tough guys who pick fights in real life with people they can easily beat are like guys who pick up ugly girls in real life because they are easy. Etc. etc.

[icycalm]

And the violence equivalent of masturbation would be hitting a punching bag, for example: An activity that does not involve a real opponent, and therefore carries no risks or difficulties. Same as masturbation.

[icycalm]

raphael had posted something, which I was planning on responding to, but he deleted it. Just sayin', for those who might have seen his post and assumed that it was I who did it.

Also! I remembered a relevant quote for Josh. It's from Baudrillard's America:

Everything is destined to reappear as simulation. Landscapes as photography, women as the sexual scenario, thoughts as writing, terrorism as fashion and the media, events as television. Things seem only to exist by virtue of this strange destiny. You wonder whether the world itself isn't just here to serve as advertising copy in some other world.

http://books.google.com/books?id=73CCg_I_rKsC&pg=PA32

[raphael]

raphael had posted something, which I was planning on responding to, but he deleted it. Just sayin', for those who might have seen his post and assumed that it was I who did it.

Reading it a few hours later, I thought I wrote useless stuff. As nobody had responded yet, I deleted it.

I have a copy, I can put it back if you want to respond.

[icycalm]

Sure, go ahead. I did have something to say in response that's worth saying.

[raphael]

Here it was (just added a few precisions here and there, but didn't change the idea):

I was very much surprised by the content of your first post. It really wasn't what I was expecting. A good read on the linked thread though, even while sometimes boring. And if I didn't really see the point, at least Antitype, for the best, was really trying something,

But with your second answer you made perfect sense to me.

I always thought videogames where masturbation, actually.

Now is masturbation bad ? I don't know. It may be pathetic, but after all, mankind is so pathetic already that it hardly makes a difference.

About picking up fights and such, that's a pretty disturbing idea. Then again, I think I perfectly know what you mean (still have very clear memories of my twenties, when streets were not exactly safe at 2 o'clock in the morning, and reflexes and outcome would change a lot depending on alcohol level in my veins). But has I finally gave up on motorcycling for much faster (and incidentally safer) Wipeout and much more extreme (and incidentally slower ExtremeCarving snowboard), I now tend to avoid fights ... mainly because I am afraid of people carrying guns. I hope I can do something of some worth with my life, and then it would be stupid to loose it too soon.

You think I am being pretentious ? Well, throw me the first stone... and let's see how you do in a fight. :lol:

[icycalm]

Although most people the world over say they prefer non-violence, ordinary people can get sucked into organised violence with relative ease, Mr Slim notes. Psychological studies, such as the one Stanley Milgram carried out at Yale University and published in 1974, have repeatedly shown that, given certain conditions, 80% of most populations will either collude or directly take part in acts of violence. Only 10% will refuse outright, while another 10% will actively resist.

Some of the conditions that turn people into killers are well known: extreme coercion, obedience to authority, dehumanisation of the enemy, social bonding, hatred, indoctrination, revenge, survival. Alcohol, drugs, rituals, warpaint, even dark glasses can also help produce an “altered state” conducive to violence. Bloodletting can itself be intoxicating, even erotic. Mr Slim cites American soldiers in Vietnam saying that killing was like “getting screwed for the first time”, producing “an ache as profound as the ache of an orgasm”.

http://www.economist.com/books/displays ... d=10683820

[icycalm]

I really love it when I think something through myself, and later on discover that some great philosopher of the past would have agreed with my conclusions:


Speaking of death makes us laugh in a strained and obscene manner. Speaking of sex no longer provokes the same reaction: sex is legal, only death is pornographic.

Jean Baudrillard. Symbolic Exchange and Death. New York: Sage, 1993:184.


It's like getting full marks from the most demanding teachers ever, lol.