Syd, you are criticising SCDawg for only stating his personal opinion of the laws, yet you keep stating the pornography is harmful for children. AFAIK there are no studies that have concluded the pornography is harmful to children unless there are mitigating factors such as prior sexual abuse. A few years ago in the UK, the BBFC (UK film ratings body) was challenged over refusing to allow classification of hardcore porn. The BBFC lost, but decided to not accept the ruling and took the case to a judicial review. Having very little else to use to defend their ban they tried employing the classic “won’t somebody think of the children” argument. It failed utterly as they could not find any evidence that backed up their stance that porn was harmful to children. Now if a body which was being pressured by the government to retain the ban could not find any evidence to present to both their own appeal body and the courts, would you please explain what evidence you have that makes you so certain that it is harmful. Or is it that you are just stating your own opinion as fact?
[This message has been edited by dco_chris (edited 08-17-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Nobody is forcing interpretation. You are free to interpret anything however you like. You just aren't free to expose minors to something that is deemed harmful to them. You are mixing the right to freedom of thought, with an assumed right to act on that thought.
[This message has been edited by Syd (edited 08-16-2004).]
Quit assuming the conclusion. We're debating whether or not it's harmful, not whether or not we're going to expose them to it even if it IS.
... besides which, as guardians, people ARE in fact allowed to expose minors to things arguably deemed harmful. R movies, for instance, cannot be gone to by unescorted children. These sorts of restrictions have always been circumventable by the parents.
quote:Originally posted by Nandemonai: Quit assuming the conclusion. We're debating whether or not it's harmful, not whether or not we're going to expose them to it even if it IS.
... besides which, as guardians, people ARE in fact allowed to expose minors to things arguably deemed harmful. R movies, for instance, cannot be gone to by unescorted children. These sorts of restrictions have always been circumventable by the parents.
The larger issue I think is, should at least some of them be in place at all, and to be frank I think most of them should not, as you have yet to show me evidence that it is harmful and as dco_chris has mentioned through the BBFC investigation, there is no evidence to prove it is harmful to expose them I believe we must take the other track and assume it is harmful not to expose children based on the mountain of evidence to show how unprepared most teenagers are for the responsibility factor and how children who are taught nothing know nothing.
Or at the very least make these things freely out in not willingly expose them, so they can see it as we sit ready to answer any questions they might have regarding what they see and helping to correct any misconceptions they might have about what they are seeing.
R-Movies and such are different to insofar as with these games a kid could play by themselves, (or have someone quietly in the background) and yes solo exploration is one of the greatest forms of exploration Then when they are done they can ask "mommy or daddy" a question about what they have seen whereas you don't think parents would be frowned at and movie theaters would do all they could to get you as a parent to see "Bunnies Picnic in Candyland" instead of some R-rated film that might have sex and violence with your child?
Social constraints which are frankly in place because so few have challenged them seriously, go a lot further then these laws.
Someone tell me why everyone is talking about children? Why not about teenagers, who are certain to be ready to understand sex and its consequences.
In Belgium, my country, many schools teach 11-year-old children/teenagers about sex for the first time on an evening through a qualified person. Next it gets treated in classes for some time. The years after that, occasionally a teacher will pull the subject up and ask if anyone still has any questions on it, and if they want to discuss it.
This makes me certain that certain bishoujo games and porn are not harmful to them at all.
By the way, why is it always about the XBox? It’s the least popular console with the worst games. Ugh.
quote:Originally posted by Benoit: Someone tell me why everyone is talking about children? Why not about teenagers, who are certain to be ready to understand sex and its consequences.
Because technically teenagers (under age of majority) are still children.
[This message has been edited by dco_chris (edited 08-17-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Benoit: Someone tell me why everyone is talking about children? Why not about teenagers, who are certain to be ready to understand sex and its consequences.
It is in part what was said, and another reason is teenagers are likely to have already seen some of these "items" that fall under the ideas of sex. We should still teach and still make it open to them, but at the same time anyone that thinks perhaps a majority of teenagers have not been exposed to some aspect of sex by about age 15 or 16 is slightly naive.
I shall try to be brief for the sake of the reader, but unfortunately the original post was quite long.
quote:Originally posted by Syd: And “race card”? I could have used half a dozen different examples that all point to the same message. Rather than sidestep the point on a technicality, you might have wanted to actually think about it.
For the benefit of those who may not be familiar, playing the race card, i.e. invoking images of slavery and racism, has special significance to Americans. It attempts to evoke feelings of condemnation and guilt for the purpose of swaying the audience. It’s a cheap rhetorical device.
A strawman argument is not just a technicality. It is a well known logical fallacy. The idea is to set up a weaker argument than your opponent then proceed to knock it down, thereby “proving” that the opponent’s claims are empty. Such tactics only cloud the issue and don’t further the debate.
quote:Your premise is they’re getting it anyways, so make it legal. So if children are smuggling guns in to school despite laws against it, we should just say “Oh well” and legalize children having guns?
And your premise is that laws are necessary to protect people from harming themselves. You cite examples where laws are necessary to protect others from being harmed and attempt to equate the two situations. It’s an argument used all the time by those who advocate laws against victimless crimes, and it’s just as misguided here.
Individuals, or in the case of those who are too young their parents, are responsible for their behavior. It’s wrong for the state to intervene in matters involving personal choice, no matter what how noble the intentions. People must be free to act on what they perceive are their own best interests as long as they harm no one else.
Most of Syd’s objections emphasize the idea that b-games have the potential to harm children. Without trying to prove or disprove that claim, let’s try to clarify exactly what we mean by children. The word itself is laden with emotional overtones, conjuring up images of innocent toddlers frolicking in a playground. But is this the actual group “at risk”?
I propose dividing children under 18 into three age groups. Consider the youngest group first - let’s say those who are under age 12. Their interest in sex is limited to an initial curiousity and perhaps a desire to sample the “forbidden fruit”. They’d rather play games other than those involving that “boy-girl stuff”. Moreover, their access to such material is limited to whatever they find in dad’s or big brother’s private collection. They don’t have the wherewithal to buy $50 computer games. They probably don’t even own their own computers or have free access to someone else’s. They are “protected” by lack of means and interest.
The next group, which I’ll arbitrarily define as 12-14 year-olds, may have both the interest and possibly the funds. Their biggest obstacle is physical access. B-games must be ordered online, mainly by credit card. Mail order items are usually seen first by the head of the household. Parents are likely to screen any unknown packages delivered to the door, or at least they should. If a game is marked “mature content, ages 15+” that’s something parents can consider in terms of suitability. Of course, if they neglect to supervise the actions of their children, anything is possible. Johnny may even be hiding a loaded pistol in his underwear drawer.
The 15-17 year-old bracket is the most problematic. These pre-adults are the ones we’re talking about in terms of age restrictions. Currently, their only legal option is to acquire restricted items with the help of a willing adult or to lie and steal to obtain them. I believe most choose the latter course. They learn how to download or get them secretly. Either practice is demonstrably harmful in terms of the child’s ethical development and moral welfare later in life.
If however, the sale of games were not restricted to 18+ - and I’m referring to those with consensual content - 15-17 year-olds wouldn’t have to cheat to get them. B-games could be bought and paid for along with other software and DVDs. If a credit card were used with parental approval, it would at least afford the opportunity for communication. Parents could then offer their views concerning sexuality and the difference between fantasy and reality.
If such openness doesn’t exist, age restrictions have little meaning. Adolescents will find ways of obtaining prohibited items they want, whether it’s b-games or the hardest of the hardcore pornography, and develop methods for hiding their actions from those who would object. By the time kids reach this age, they are no longer “kids”. They won’t let a little thing like an “adults only” label get in their way. If parents haven’t taught them the about the consequences of their behavior by that age, children will discover it on their own.
quote:It’s truly been fun debating this issue, but I think I can safely say it’s been hammered in to the ground. If you still disagree with me (your choice), nothing I can say will change your minds.
I think you’ve been debating the question of whether games with sexual content are harmful to children. That isn’t why I started the topic. Rather it was to ascertain how members felt about the efficacy and benefits of age restrictions. If you want to start a discussion about the dangers of exposure to pornography, feel free to start a topic and I’ll be happy to offer my thoughts. I can see it’s a hot issue for you, and frankly I’m surprised you enjoy playing games you consider so potentially harmful to younger people.
quote:And since I disagree with the funadmental principles of the arguments used, no variation or elaboration of them is apt to change my mind.
The reason for discussing issues is to hear what others have to think and possibly reform our own opinions. I try to keep an open mind and hear both sides of an argument, but if yours is already closed, then you’re right no variation or elaboration of them is apt to change my mind. Sorry, I don’t mean to sound vicious, Syd , but you seem to come here with your own agenda.
[This message has been edited by perigee (edited 08-17-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Benoit: Thank you, perigee. My problem with the word "children" was indeed that it was too broad.
It always will be though, because if you could live to 125 and your parents older you would still be their "baby" and their "child", so yeah the word is too board and that might be major part of this problem. There are general ways to define it but so much wiggle room. Do you think this is part of the problem with removing age restrictions?
Before leaving this topic, here’s my idea for a way to improve the current age restriction system. I realize we’re not living in a free world, but I’d like to break the 18+ barrier and replace it with a sliding scale like that used in the anime industry.
quote:TRSI’s anime rating system
ALL Generally acceptable for children. No Nudity. Possible mild violence.
12+, 13+ May contain violence, brief nudity, and/or mild language. May suggest sexual situations, but no situations are shown. Parental discretion advised.
15+,16+,17+ Strong violence and strong language. Prevalent Nudity may be contained within the picture. Mild sexual situations may be shown.
18+ Extreme violence, Explicit Nudity, and/or Extreme Language may be contained in the picture. May contain sexually explicit material. Absolutely not for anyone under 18 years of age.
Currently, all b-games are lumped in the 18+ category. I’d implement an anime-like system for games.
quote:Bishoujo game rating system
12-14+ No explicit nudity or sexual situations, but may contain suggestive illustrations or situations. Parental discretion advised. [examples: Hirameki titles]
15-17+ Prevalent nudity may be contained within the game. Consensual sexual situations may be shown. No nonconsensual or extreme acts. [examples: Kana, Crescendo, Private Nurse]
18+ Extreme violence, Explicit Nudity, and/or Extreme Language may be contained in the game. May contain sexually explicit material of any nature. [examples: Gibo, Slave Pageant, Tsuki]
Note that the game rating system parallels the anime system quite closely. Many games are no “worse” in content than the corresponding anime. The only difference is that they are illegal. Reclassification would make it possible for people to legally acquire the best examples of b-games at an earlier age and help to legitimize the genre in the minds of those who now consider it “just pornography”. That might go a long way toward improving the market and remove the obstacle of being advertised for “adults only”. The sale of games classified as 18+ could still be restricted to adults in order to appease those who want censorship, but select games would be available for sale to those who might otherwise decide to download them.
What do you think?
[This message has been edited by perigee (edited 08-22-2004).]
quote:orignally posted by perigee Note that the game rating system parallels the anime system quite closely. Many games are no "worse" in content than the corresponding anime. The only difference is that they are illegal. Reclassification would make it possible for people to legally acquire the best examples of b-games at an earlier age and help to legitimize the genre in the minds of those who now consider it "just pornography". That might go a long way toward improving the market and remove the obstacle of being advertised for "adults only". The sale of games classified as 18+ could still be restricted to adults in order to appease those who want censorship, but select games would be available for sale to those who might otherwise decide to download them.
I like that reclassification, and it makes a lot of sense since they are already using something just like it for anime. Especially since, and I agree with you here, it is no "worse" then what is in anime and perhaps in some ways the games are less suggestive since they don't have the motion and the chance for the "bounces" that can take place in anime which is now about 15+ in ranking.
I don’t believe that minors should be shielded from depictions of nudity and sex to some extent, but at the same time it depends on the level of these minors to grasp the nature of the depictions and also distinguish between fantasy and reality.
I feel this way about real pornography as well… it is the nature of pornography and not the human body itself that I would be worried of minors being exposed to. I know that when I was 13 and first found out about sex, I was WAY confused (THAT goes WHERE? o_o OMGGG! LOL) and if I had seen any hardcore pornography, it would have given me a VERY warped perception of what sex was. I know that if I ever get married and end up having kids, the sex that you see in most hardcore pornography and some of the more ecchi hentai games out there is NOT the sort of thing that I would want them to be exposed to at an early age.
I think that games including your innocent depictions of nudity shouldn’t have a restriction. Games including depictions of nudity and sex should probably be limited to 13 and older. The more hardcore games should be limited to 17+. This is the way that most anime gets labeled and I think that it is a universal way of ranking videogames too.
What is wrong with porn? Porn is sex and sex is good as long as all participants are agreeing. I don’t think putting an age restriction on any game is a good idea, better you just put on warning lable and a tag that ascertains the recommended age. Parents should be more aware fo what their kids are doing and buying, there is no need for the companies to try and govern the kids, better they leave that to the kids parents.
Defecation is natural. Would you support graphic pictures/movies of defecation being shown to your children on T.V./in movies? Perhaps a children's show dedicated to the wonders of scat and watersports.
Yes, there are worse things in life than Poop and pee. Sheltering people have in my experience always doen more harm than good, children should be exposed to the facts of life at an early age, children aren't just children they are tiny adults and should treat them like it, not behave in a condenscending and degrading way towards them.
quote:Sex is a massive responsibility, one which pornography fails to carry the gravity of. It shows sex as always being fun and happy and cheerful, and doesn't show any of the potential harms:
- Emotional pain and consequences - Unwanted pregnancy/abortion/giving up child - Sexually transmitted diseases
More important than their failure to show the consequences is the way in which sex is displayed.
Wrong! Sex isn't a repsonsibility it comes with responsibilities. Instead of trying to shelter the young from such things as sex tehy should be educated so that they do the right thing when opportunity arises. The Condom is your friend!
He is a superhero yah know =^^=
quote:Pornography pushes that line, and arguably crosses it. [SNIP] It glorifies sex, and glosses over the consequences. It can be aruged to encourage promiscuity. In short, it's something only suitable for someone who can clearly distinguish the blatant fabrication from reality.
And what is wrong with that? Porn isn't there to educxate you, it si there to entertain you. Education should be done by the the child's legal guardians and the child's teachers. Spend time with your children and teach them what is right or wrong; it's the only way you will ever learn anything.
quote:Nobody is forcing interpretation. You are free to interpret anything however you like. You just aren't free to expose minors to something that is deemed harmful to them.
Good thing then that I don't deem sex a harmfull thing isn't it?
quote:Actually, defecation just might be allowed, since it can't really be argued to be harmful - just obscene.
Obscene? Poop? No, that is your opinion.
quote:I'm sorry, but that's purely semantics. Children are mentally and emotionally immature (aside from obviously physically), which is why they are treated differently than adults.
Heh, no children are treated differently because this is the way our society and culture approaching the matter, not because it is right. Children need to be taugh, growing up is a time of learning and understanding. If you treat a child like an adult giving it responsibility towards itself and towards others, making it liable for it's own actions it will be able to learn from its own misstakes and grow into a 'proper' human being.
quote:They are incapable of understanding certain concepts, such as the true reprecussions of sex. A game or movie which misrepresents sex being shown to minors runs the very real risk of being taken at face value, or at a value other than truth.[QUOTE]
Untrue, me myself I understood things perfectly even at the tender age of seven and even though I might have been an exception I doubt it. The faulty lies with teh parents, if a kid cannot understand something it is because they have had a bad teacher.
[QUOTE]Now let's say you are in the same plane, and I ask you to jump with a parachute. Are you at all more likely to jump now?
Realize now then that the parachute is, in fact, faulty. Not real. Doesn't work.
Partial knowledge and understanding is dangerous because we don't realize it's partial, and thereby flawed. We think we understand, so we act like we do. Just as the parachute gives the illusion that they are safe, even though the parachute doesn't actually work; they don't know that, they don't understand it, so jumping seems safe.
There wouldn't be a problem at all if you gave them a working parachute, that said and done being a grownup isn't a guarantee that you will land safely on the ground no matter what precautions you take and no matter how knowledgeable or experienced you are.
quote:Children can understand the consequences of anti-social behaviour. Not the same with sex.
Again if this is the case it is because there is a lack of education. The sex-ed in school sucked and if this is any indication other parents probably suck at explaining sex to their kids. Being told that we shouldn't throw rocks at other people and that itis wrong to steal is something most of us have hammered into us since we are old enough to walk, if not an understanding of the actual act it at least has given us a concept of the possible consequences of such actions. This is why we can understand the consequences, not because they are that much easier to understand but becasue we have been taught about them.
quote:It harms children. That's just as bad (in my book) as any violent crime. I'm not condemning adult games by the way, as you infer. I'm condemning exposing children to something that they cannot understand, and can lead to a great deal of pain and harm.
This is your belief, there isn't anything thatsupports your assumption quite the contrary actually. Telletubbies, now there is something that harms children! It is pointless, it serves no other purpose than to capture toddlers interest with pretty colors and repetative tunes. Better leave your kids watching a washing machine wash your clothes and get them away from the TV ^_-
quote:I've never played either of those games, so I won't attempt to answer the question related to them.
However, it's not the sex that is the problem. It's taking reality, twisting and misrepresenting it, and then handing it to someone who can't tell the reality from the fantasy. That's the danger.
You say you haven't played these games yet you still claim that they twist reality.. without having played them? You pass judgement on games you have no experience of?
quote:That's dangerous.
Yes that is dangerous of you..
quote:Children are mentally and emotionally immature. It is impossible to make them understand the values you hope to impose on them.
Only if you are mentally and emotionally immature yourself, in which case you shouldn't really have gotten kids in the first place.
quote:This isn't a matter of just "teaching" them. There are some concepts children are simply too mentally and emotionally immature to understand. You may as well attempt to teach a 5 year old calculus. It's simply above their head.
Which shows how little you know, children age 0-11 have the easiest time learning and understanding, children in Japan learning calculus at the age of six. When you grow older your hormones kick in and the part of the brain that has an easy time learning starts becoming stagnant.
Stagnant something this duscussion was even before it begun and it wasn't even the topic the discussion addressed.
What an interesting topic. You can say what you think. However the real reason we have censorship is quite simply put, political. Unfortunately it is nothing more than a tool used by governments to swing popular votes or image to a party or person. It is unfortunate that a minority group can change so much the way we live. Although I think the restriction of “sex” related interactive entertainment could be an interesting vote.
Personally I think there should be a rating or warning system. Having it enforced I have both mind sets. Topics like this really depends on the individual “child”. Also it depends what they are taught. I raised my four younger sisters, the oldest is five years younger and the youngest is ten years younger. (Both my folks work late so I do most of the cooking and clean at night. ) I didn’t restrict their choice of viewing material and they did ask me to rent videos that are 18+. I usually get what they ask only if it didn’t bother me. (ie I wasn’t do anything important at the time.) I usually give comments about what they watch, but never say no to anything. Actually some of things they watch quite shock me. Well, they all turn out ok, I think… But that doesn’t mean that this would work across the board. I personally think the family environment is probably key more than anything else.
