Gena Davis institute on Gender in media tries to link violent games to mass shootings and police violence

[Dwarvenhobble]

I never search with hashtags and I'm 0/400. Even tried adding "woke" and "broke" in and still nothing. Did find 2 people complaining about hypothetical internet puritans, but they didn't link anything either. I do have a few morons blocked, but if that's all it takes to cut out literally all of this argument, then it's nothing.

Well I don't know, all I do know is I saw some of them up to it. Who knows maybe they are people you have blocked or have blocked you due to some blockbot thing or maybe they were getting called out and decided to delete their tweets.

A) Banned AAA games is news to me
B) Unwitting child pornography is still child pornography
C) Or they wanted to be able to put the game on GameStop's shelves instead of holding them behind the counter. Actual real world thing I ran into

Neptunia ReVerse Western Box Art Censored to Comply With Retail

Idea Factory International has announced they've censored the western box art for Neptunia ReVerse. The box art has been "adjusted for retail", noticeably covering up the exposed breasts of the…

nichegamer.com

D) And? A platform isn't required to house a game, welcome to capitalism
No idea what you're talking about

A) Not banned but made to change. It's more smaller games that catch enough attention ending up banned or censored.
B) Again still missing the point to focus on the issue as to why the game was pulled not the fact of the attitude and culture of the era that made said game seem fine to me. Also it's not like companies seem to have and issue with underage character stuff as the fact Life is Strange 2 existing with the content it has shows (For those who don't know the game has underage romance / sexual content)
C) Which again somewhat suggests there has been a cultural shift considering box arts of the past were seen as fine. (See some of the American Pie DVD special edition boxes)
D) No it's not, though it does show part of the issue that many platforms seem every against them (particularly mobile oddly enough)

I'm still batting zero and I've been actively searching

As I said before there could be a number of reasons for it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I also said sexualized villainesses, as in female villains who don't act seductive but are still sexualized in design. It isn't like she's a monster for most of the game.

So she's sexualised because she's curvy and wears a dress? Is that all it takes now?

Her characterization in MK 11 certainly is.

Yes which shows a bit of the change in direction at least costume wise. I dunno if they suddenly made her make more sexual comments or something?

You're acting like it was some major success in the first place. It was a critical punching bag which, unlike the Twilight movies, couldn't justify its existence by pulling in large amounts of cash. If the only reason the first movie barely avoided being a flop was due to being released on Valentine's Day, that should tell you how much appeal it actually had.

The first film made half a Billion in revenue for an R rated film. That's huge
The second made $381 Million in revenue
The Third made $371 Million in revenue

It may have been a critical punching bag but for comparison critically acclaimed winner of 6 Oscars Mad Max Fury Road only brought in $375 Million in revenue.

Yeah, stuff which focuses less on using her for T and A and more on actually showing that she can act.

Yes so she wasn't just sex sells and is trying to prove she can act too. So she's not purely hired on sex appeal

Which also happened to feature a cast full of attractive people in swim wear. And it still flopped, despite having Dwayne Johnson in it.

Again because it was marketed mostly as a sort of comedy detective buddy cop thing.

In other words, its completely superfluous. Thanks for proving my point.

Except it can help sell a film if people also hear the film is good.

Did you actually watch this video? It isn't just about sex and nudity being toned down. Hell, most of it is talking about lack of violence and swearing or how R-rated movies are viewed as too risky.

Did you watch it? It actually has a whole bit about what used to be in PG films and PG-13.

The ratings board took notice and films that would have previously been given a PG-13 were slapped with an NC-17 or R

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Why're you so laser-focused on the fact that I posted some optional outfits? Is something automatically non-sexualised if it's optional? How does that work?

But that aside, let's look at her main outfit, then;

View attachment 4577


So, we've got... a wildly impractical short skirt, huge pumps & leather straps, and she's wearing a choker with a leash-ring on it. Oh yeah, very practical!

How does it work to say a game is problematic and or exclusionary because you have to option to buy additional outfits that you don't like?

It's like arguing Overwatch is problematic and exclusionary due to the summer event skins only even more silly because the Overwatch Skins can in theory all be unlocked in game and don't have to be bought separately.

Also she's a personal assistant to Helena who is a former Opera singer so yeh no real surprise her assistant would be somewhat eccentric especially as one of the people organising basically an illegal fight street fighting tournament.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Why do I need to "base it on" a real-world counterpart? Why is that necessary?

Let's apply your logic elsewhere. I also dislike the handling of the ships in Star Fox Zero. Hell, most people didn't like that. But.... interplanetary fighter ships don't exist IRL, so I have nothing to compare it to! So, going by your rationale, I cannot criticise the handling, because I don't have a... real world counterpart to compare it to?!

See what complete drivel that requirement is?

Well you'd be comparing it to other games with fighter craft in them or the idea in your mind of how the handling should be.

This is such a bollocks argument, I'm stunned even you can't see it.

Funnily enough, the presentation of a character is something that is shared across both games.

Ah yes Bowser and Mario are really good friends with no conflict between them as they happily play Tennis and golf together........

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yep, I hope that in future, designers opt to make less sexualised designs for female characters in general. I hope criticism plays some part in convincing them of this.

Huh! No force involved, no banning, no nothing-- just criticism, of the same kind that has existed since the advent of art.

Why do you hope that?
Just personal taste or more to it than that?
Also time and time again when it's been shown people won't comply often restrictions and banning etc come in or just fearmongering about government restrictions having to come in to try and get industries to jump before they're pushed.
There's plenty of historical precedence for this happening.

Prove it. You've made the ridiculous connection between something I said and something I didn't.

Show how they're connected. Show how criticising an artist's decision to make a character a certain way implies that the artist doesn't want to do it in the first place.

No the idea was companies taking action to influence artistic direction more. Which yeh does imply the company getting involved to mandate certain approaches or looks etc changing from what the artist may have wanted.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well I don't know, all I do know is I saw some of them up to it. Who knows maybe they are people you have blocked or have blocked you due to some blockbot thing or maybe they were getting called out and decided to delete their tweets.

No block bot, less than 150 blocked accounts, vast majority of which are weird conservatives and/or spam bots. Maybe you can provide one?

A) Not banned but made to change. It's more smaller games that catch enough attention ending up banned or censored.
B) Again still missing the point to focus on the issue as to why the game was pulled not the fact of the attitude and culture of the era that made said game seem fine to me. Also it's not like companies seem to have and issue with underage character stuff as the fact Life is Strange 2 existing with the content it has shows (For those who don't know the game has underage romance / sexual content)

Is there any contextual difference? Probably is. Life is Strange 2 doesn't sell itself on how sexy it is.

Like, if BMX XXX and The Guy Game weren't shit and/or actively illegal, there'd probably be more games like that. That said, BMX XXX was also censored on the PS2 and Dave Mirra successfully sued to get his name removed from it.
"The attitude of the time" was "oh shit, we made a shit BMX game, how can we boost its publicity? I know, Sex Sells!" Kinda worked, people talked about it. Mostly about how shit it was.
"Sex Sells" was never as true as ad executives thought it was

C) Which again somewhat suggests there has been a cultural shift considering box arts of the past were seen as fine. (See some of the American Pie DVD special edition boxes)
D) No it's not, though it does show part of the issue that many platforms seem every against them (particularly mobile oddly enough)

Yes, every platform seems to be against them, including the ones where they're sold freely on, like Walmart, Nintendo, itch.io, etc

But yes: I will grant you that people were more permissive of sex comedies about high school children 20 years ago. Not selling me on why that was a good thing

As I said before there could be a number of reasons for it.

95% chance they don't exist and if the do they'll have less than 10 likes between them, prove me wrong.

 

[Cicada 5]

So she's sexualised because she's curvy and wears a dress? Is that all it takes now?

This coming from the guy who thinks the MK 11 designs weren't sexy because most of them weren't showing skin.

Yes which shows a bit of the change in direction at least costume wise. I dunno if they suddenly made her make more sexual comments or something?

I suggest looking up her intro dialogues on Youtube. Also, another commenter here posted images of her costume a few pages back which you can see for yourself.

The first film made half a Billion in revenue for an R rated film. That's huge
The second made $381 Million in revenue
The Third made $371 Million in revenue

It may have been a critical punching bag but for comparison critically acclaimed winner of 6 Oscars Mad Max Fury Road only brought in $375 Million in revenue.

Last I checked, 375 million is still more than 371 million. You're pulling some gold-worthy mental gymnastics to make these films seem more successful than they were. How you think this movie was a hit in any sense is a total mystery.

Yes so she wasn't just sex sells and is trying to prove she can act too. So she's not purely hired on sex appeal

Have you been paying attention to a thing I've said? My point was that she started getting roles that showed her acting skills because coasting by on her looks wasn't doing her any good. Not that I totally blame her for how they initially chose to market her.

Again because it was marketed mostly as a sort of comedy detective buddy cop thing.

By your own standards, this shouldn't have mattered if they had good acting and writing.

Except it can help sell a film if people also hear the film is good.

If the film is good it won't need it. I don't know about you, but most people I know who watch movies they enjoy don't site the sex scenes as a reason nor do they bemoan lack of them in movies they hate. This is nothing but projection on your part.

Did you watch it? It actually has a whole bit about what used to be in PG films and PG-13.

Yeah, and most of it has nothing to do with how much sex and nudity is featured.

For God's sakes, one of the reasons it gives for how much R-rated movies have gone down is that kid characters aren't allowed to use racial slurs anymore.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No block bot, less than 150 blocked accounts, vast majority of which are weird conservatives and/or spam bots. Maybe you can provide one?

I mean them using one and you ending up on a list it uses.

Is there any contextual difference? Probably is. Life is Strange 2 doesn't sell itself on how sexy it is.

Still content that's there and at least with the guy game they have the argument they didn't know and she lied about her age in LIS2 it tells you the characters age.

Like, if BMX XXX and The Guy Game weren't shit and/or actively illegal, there'd probably be more games like that. That said, BMX XXX was also censored on the PS2 and Dave Mirra successfully sued to get his name removed from it.
"The attitude of the time" was "oh shit, we made a shit BMX game, how can we boost its publicity? I know, Sex Sells!" Kinda worked, people talked about it. Mostly about how shit it was.
"Sex Sells" was never as true as ad executives thought it was
Yes, every platform seems to be against them, including the ones where they're sold freely on, like Walmart, Nintendo, itch.io, etc

Funny because I'm pretty sure I said the media also has to be decent too you can sell on sex alone.

But yes: I will grant you that people were more permissive of sex comedies about high school children 20 years ago. Not selling me on why that was a good thing

You know it wasn't that long ago they did another American Pie film this time with the genders flipped right?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

This coming from the guy who thinks the MK 11 designs weren't sexy because most of them weren't showing skin.

Sexy and sexualised are different things.

Last I checked, 375 million is still more than 371 million. You're pulling some gold-worthy mental gymnastics to make these films seem more successful than they were. How you think this movie was a hit in any sense is a total mystery.

Dude Mad Max Fury Road which is considered a hit pulled in less than 2 of the 3 and I highly doubt Mad Max Fury Road worked out cheaper to make than any of the Fifty Shades films.

Have you been paying attention to a thing I've said? My point was that she started getting roles that showed her acting skills because coasting by on her looks wasn't doing her any good. Not that I totally blame her for how they initially chose to market her.

I dunno she was getting plenty of role offers but likely knew it couldn't go on forever and she needed to show there were other reasons to hire her before the next generation starts competing for the kind of roles she was getting.

By your own standards, this shouldn't have mattered if they had good acting and writing.

Which while Dwayne Johnson seems like a solid enough actor in it as do the others I heard it wasn't that well written. Also again it was marketed as a buddy cop comedy thing which is a bit of a more niche area of appeal.

If the film is good it won't need it. I don't know about you, but most people I know who watch movies they enjoy don't cite the sex scenes as a reason nor do they bemoan lack of them in movies they hate. This is nothing but projection on your part.

Didn't critics point out Total Recall's remake was toned down when that came round?

Also part of Cabin in the Woods was kind of a commentary on audiences of horror films wanting or expecting certain things including sex.

Yeah, and most of it has nothing to do with how much sex and nudity is featured.

For God's sakes, one of the reasons it gives for how much R-rated movies have gone down is that kid characters aren't allowed to use racial slurs anymore.

that's a smaller part than even on about the sex and nudity lol

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean them using one and you ending up on a list it uses.

Lmao, that account is protected, the only people who can see their tweets are people who follow them. Could be literally any random tweet and I'd have no idea what it is. Do you follow them?
But okay, maybe, if I trust you, you have one random Spaniard with less than 1000 followers. Not exactly a movement. And I searched their @: the responses are also in the "barely any interaction" section. Not even going Spanish viral getting dunked on.
EDIT: Lmao, they unprotected their account and the post that you've decided means "people are cheering for censorship" is somebody laughing at Gamers™️ for thinking Bayonetta's new costume design is censorship. Holy hell, could you be less of a stereotype?

Still content that's there and at least with the guy game they have the argument they didn't know and she lied about her age in LIS2 it tells you the characters age.

Funny because I'm pretty sure I said the media also has to be decent too you can sell on sex alone.

Exactly: sex doesn't actually sell. Those 5/10 anime games getting shellacked are getting mocked because they're 5/10 anime schlock running on sexy children and barely anything else.
Man, "Still content that's there" like there hasn't been sex games since the fucking Atari, if not before. Lot of those were cheap marketing stunts relying on shock too

You know it wasn't that long ago they did another American Pie film this time with the genders flipped right?

And it was straight to DVD and flopped, like most ~10 year old reboots nobody asked for do.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

So I watched Beetlejuice again for the first time in a while the other night, and imagine my surprise when I saw Geena Davis' name show up in the credits. And I must say, I now get what everyone was talking about, I mean look at her!



Obviously she is coming to ruin all games with a face like that.

 

[Silvanus]

How does it work to say a game is problematic and or exclusionary because you have to option to buy additional outfits that you don't like?

Both words that I've never used in this thread, but OK.

It's like arguing Overwatch is problematic and exclusionary due to the summer event skins only even more silly because the Overwatch Skins can in theory all be unlocked in game and don't have to be bought separately.

Also she's a personal assistant to Helena who is a former Opera singer so yeh no real surprise her assistant would be somewhat eccentric especially as one of the people organising basically an illegal fight street fighting tournament.

Why does the method of unlocking the highly sexualised outfits make them somehow not sexualised?

Well you'd be comparing it to other games with fighter craft in them or the idea in your mind of how the handling should be.

...Neither of which require real world counterparts.

Are you ready to stop harping on about that now?

Ah yes Bowser and Mario are really good friends with no conflict between them as they happily play Tennis and golf together........

Non-sequitur.

 

[Silvanus]

Why do you hope that?
Just personal taste or more to it than that?

Partly it's personal taste. Partly it's an artistic consideration, because if games/films/books constantly depict the same stuff, then there's less variety, creativity, and innovation. And partly it's because depictions in art have an impact on societal expectations. If kids grow up only ever seeing women as homemakers, then they'll internalise the idea that girls should grow up to be homemakers.

Also time and time again when it's been shown people won't comply often restrictions and banning etc come in or just fearmongering about government restrictions having to come in to try and get industries to jump before they're pushed.
There's plenty of historical precedence for this happening.

So, what, then? We're never supposed to criticise stuff we don't like, because if we do, then the government might hypothetically come in in future and regulate it?

Every argument you've given here applies to criticism of any kind. What you're laying out is a blueprint for never being able to say what we like/dislike about products.

No the idea was companies taking action to influence artistic direction more. Which yeh does imply the company getting involved to mandate certain approaches or looks etc changing from what the artist may have wanted.

Criticism doesn't make the company get involved in the creative process. Criticism is just feedback. It shows how things have been received.

If the company then decides to get its grubby hands on the creative process, that's not the fault of the public for giving feedback. It's the fault of the company for doing it.

The right to give feedback is part of the artistic process. It has been since the advent of art. And feedback is supposed to be valuable to artists, producers & marketers alike, because they're all involved in the process of making something to sell. They should want to know how it's received. That's why artists and producers encourage feedback.

And this may shock you, but games companies are already knee-deep in the creative process. For all we know, they're the ones demanding the female characters show more skin, because they think it sells well.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So I watched Beetlejuice again for the first time in a while the other night, and imagine my surprise when I saw Geena Davis' name show up in the credits. And I must say, I now get what everyone was talking about, I mean look at her!

View attachment 4580

Obviously she is coming to ruin all games with a face like that.

Ah yes because clearly there no reason to call out an organisation pushing falsehoods pretending to be academically legit while the thing in question cites a number of papers that have actually been withdrawn by publications for falsified results. Funny how many of them were all by the same author / research group too.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Lmao, that account is protected, the only people who can see their tweets are people who follow them. Could be literally any random tweet and I'd have no idea what it is. Do you follow them?
But okay, maybe, if I trust you, you have one random Spaniard with less than 1000 followers. Not exactly a movement. And I searched their @: the responses are also in the "barely any interaction" section. Not even going Spanish viral getting dunked on.
EDIT: Lmao, they unprotected their account and the post that you've decided means "people are cheering for censorship" is somebody laughing at Gamers™️ for thinking Bayonetta's new costume design is censorship. Holy hell, could you be less of a stereotype?

And could you or they. gotta chase that clout and dunk on "The Gamers™" though. even thought at this point the Gamers are the reason for Gatcha Mobile games but also refuse to play mobile games and acknowledge them as legitimate games.........

Exactly: sex doesn't actually sell. Those 5/10 anime games getting shellacked are getting mocked because they're 5/10 anime schlock running on sexy children and barely anything else.
Man, "Still content that's there" like there hasn't been sex games since the fucking Atari, if not before. Lot of those were cheap marketing stunts relying on shock too

It can actually add to a decent enough game though and help it sell.

And it was straight to DVD and flopped, like most ~10 year old reboots nobody asked for do.

Yeh and?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Both words that I've never used in this thread, but OK.

Are we playing the "I didn't use those words but please ignore how I'm happily siding with the claims to the report which does say that in more elaborate language" card?

Why does the method of unlocking the highly sexualised outfits make them somehow not sexualised?

Why do you have a problem with them?

...Neither of which require real world counterparts.

Are you ready to stop harping on about that now?

Ok so you're not basing your judgement on real life so are you willing to admit you're basing your judgement base on an idea you have in your head about it?

Non-sequitur.

No proving why your argument was rather silly that the Dead or Alive Extreme Beach volleyball series should be seen as fully reflective of the fighting game series.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Partly it's personal taste. Partly it's an artistic consideration, because if games/films/books constantly depict the same stuff, then there's less variety, creativity, and innovation. And partly it's because depictions in art have an impact on societal expectations. If kids grow up only ever seeing women as homemakers, then they'll internalise the idea that girls should grow up to be homemakers.

So you're worried about the harm to the children sexy women in games rated 15 or 18 in some cases will do?
You should have stopped at the variety argument, at least that had a decent leg to stand on and didn't help damn you case lol

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So, what, then? We're never supposed to criticise stuff we don't like, because if we do, then the government might hypothetically come in in future and regulate it?

Every argument you've given here applies to criticism of any kind. What you're laying out is a blueprint for never being able to say what we like/dislike about products.

I dunno maybe actually criticise it without having to pull the society harm argument to try and justify your personal issues or objection with said content? But then as you likely well know "I don't like this" doesn't hold up well as an argument and can be quite well countered with "Then maybe you're not the target audience?"

Criticism doesn't make the company get involved in the creative process. Criticism is just feedback. It shows how things have been received.

If the company then decides to get its grubby hands on the creative process, that's not the fault of the public for giving feedback. It's the fault of the company for doing it.

The right to give feedback is part of the artistic process. It has been since the advent of art. And feedback is supposed to be valuable to artists, producers & marketers alike, because they're all involved in the process of making something to sell. They should want to know how it's received. That's why artists and producers encourage feedback.

And this may shock you, but games companies are already knee-deep in the creative process. For all we know, they're the ones demanding the female characters show more skin, because they think it sells well.

I dunno presenting the stuff as actively harmful or dare I say "Spiritual Opium" can tend to get companies to get a bit concerned about the thing and wanting to act due to the perception of harm being done if enough people are heard repeating the lie that they believe it to be true.

Feedback for artists doesn't really help them if you (to borrow a term from Liana K) invoke the werewolf cookbook. The werewolf cookbook goes as such
"This is a cookbook, I like Werewolves, this cookbook doesn't contain any werewolves thus it's bad". Basically asking for the product to be something it is not or as I'd frame it wanting all games to be Burger King so you can always "Have it your way" rather than examining what was being done with the game seemingly and trying to understand what the artist was going for and as either Oscar Wilde or Charles Dickens said in their essays on the nature of criticism, review it based on how well you believe it achieved it's goals but on how it didn't deliver something it was never presented as delivering.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So she's sexualised because she's curvy and wears a dress? Is that all it takes now?

Yeah.

I mean, ask real women who are "curvy" how they feel about wearing dresses, especially dresses with low necklines, and whether they feel "sexualized".

But this is a great example of why "sexualized" doesn't mean bad, it means sexualized. I think the general consensus is that Lady Dimitrescu is pretty awesome, because she represents a kind of sexualization we don't often get.. and one which people were apparently thirsty for. It seems like Capcom themselves were not expecting the reaction that character would get at all, and to me that says everything. Like, you designed a really tall woman with a super dominant personality and you didn't think people would get horny for it?

And it's also accessible to a lot of people who are put off by the usual forms of sexualization we get in the games industry. Queer people loved it, not always on a sexual level but also because she's a queer coded villain who is awesome. It gave men a little opportunity to acknowledge submissive fantasies publicly without ridicule, which is still pretty rare. Even the fact that she is tall and sexy is kind of nice, because generally women who are tall are treated very badly about it.

Because, and I can't stress this enough. Sexualization isn't bad. The constant, non stop, endless sexualization of one very specific set of very boring fantasies that are largely inaccessible to a lot of people (and kind of futile even for the people who do buy into them) is bad.

I mean Megan Fox has done some other stuff recently.

Yeah... recently.

What happened to Megan Fox is disgusting though.

Megan Fox starred in one of my favourite films of all time, Jennifer's Body. It's a cute, funny film, and one of the few films I've ever seen which actually manages to recreate a distinctively bisexual coming of age experience. The writer and director were both women, and they were clearly writing this story for young women (and also, queers of all genders) who can see themselves in these kinds of experiences.

And it bombed. It absolutely bombed, and it destroyed one of Megan Fox' few chances to break out of the weird rut she was in after the transformer's franchise and be recognized as a serious talent. Sadly though, despite the fact that she is a serious talent, she is also why the film bombed, because the production company inexplicably marketed the film at teenage boys on the basis that Megan Fox was in it.

But that was Megan Fox's life at that time. She appeared in Transformers (TFW you realise her character is called Mikaela Banes and throw up in your mouth a little) Michael Bay shot her fixing a car, and her life was ruined because after that noone could take her seriously. She came out as bisexual at a time when that was still actually a big deal, only to be immediately patronized and have her lived experience invalidated. She criticized the way she was being treated, and was accused of being unprofessional and "crazy". She tried to do something different, and the production company decided they were making softcore porn because she was in it.

It's great to see her doing more stuff now, but she lost at least a decade of her career because noone could look past the fact that she was sexy, and I suspect the only reason she's able to do stuff now is because she's old enough that basic straight men have moved on to the next 18-21 year old they want to bang. Gross.

Ah yes because clearly there no reason to call out an organisation pushing falsehoods pretending to be academically legit while the thing in question cites a number of papers that have actually been withdrawn by publications for falsified results. Funny how many of them were all by the same author / research group too.

What are your feelings on Christina Hoff Sommers again?

 

[Silvanus]

Are we playing the "I didn't use those words but please ignore how I'm happily siding with the claims to the report which does say that in more elaborate language" card?

I'd just prefer if you didn't put words in my mouth. Engage with what I'm actually arguing rather than making it up for me.

Why do you have a problem with them?

I find hyper-sexualisation offputting in general. That feeling isn't limited to mainline games or non-DLC, and I don't see why it would be.

Ok so you're not basing your judgement on real life so are you willing to admit you're basing your judgement base on an idea you have in your head about it?

Sure, yes. But the "idea in my head" isn't any more specific than "generally quite practical outfits, or generally equal outfits for men and women".

So you're worried about the harm to the children sexy women in games rated 15 or 18 in some cases will do?
You should have stopped at the variety argument, at least that had a decent leg to stand on and didn't help damn you case lol

It's not "harm to children". You're rewriting my argument for your own convenience. Again.

If people are portrayed in a certain way over and over and over again, people-- kids, teenagers, and even adults-- will start to associate those depictions with those people. This isn't controversial stuff; it's basic, established psychology.