Jimquisition: Sexual Failing

[Tiamat666]

I'm waiting for someone to post a list of that "high class pornography" Jim mentions towards the end.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Until model animators can make two people kiss without you being able to see the clipping, sex scenes will never be mature or tasteful.

 

[wulf3n]

For one thing people do get affected by violence in video games. They're in an extreme minority but they're there:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-steals-truck-kidnaps-woman-reenacting-grand-theft-auto-article-1.1466867
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/2504016/Thailand-bans-Grand-Theft-Auto-after-copycat-murder.html

When considering sexist content, there are far more people who are neutral to sexist ideals than there are people neutral to violent criminal acts, and the neutral people are far more likely to be swayed by the arguments that media intentionally or unintentionally makes which is why sexist content is more influential than content that is more obviously wrong.

I don't question that there are people predisposed certain behaviours, and these people will likely be encouraged by certain games. The argument here is whether certain game issues/tropes are more influential than others.

The argument "There are more sexist people than criminally violent so the former is more influential" is invalid. Influence is not measured by the size of the audience, but rather it's effectiveness in forming or altering someones opinion, to which I have seen no evidence that one [violence or sexism] is worse than another.

Ultimately the argument boils down to "Something I dislike is influential and dangerous, Something I like is harmless"

 

[Baresark]

I kind of take issue with this. For some people in a given situation: Sex is an end game to doing all the right things in an evening. It's not immature, it's just something that happens. Sex is, in many ways, an end game in real life. It's the farthest a romantic relationship can go until there is moving in and marriage and buying a house together. In some cases (such as with the "no sex before marriage" crowd), it is the endgame. And unless you are going to "Gamify" having kids and supporting a family, it will always be the "immature" thing that is poorly represented in this video. I'm not saying it's all classy and all fairy tale romance, but that isn't realistic at all. In many cases, in real life, sex is just sex.

Unless you are arguing for sex only in the presence of love. Philosophically, I can't possibly disagree. Realistically, that is a bit naive. I guess I'm wondering where is the laid down expectation to what constitutes "mature" sex and relationships in a game. You can't argue that it's wrong and immature when there is no alternative expressed. I have to say that the Bioware sex and relationship "minigame" is some of the most mature handling of the subject I have seen. It is something that is required to work on at length in the game. You always have to go back between missions and constantly work on that relationship in order for the scene itself to take place. And, it's also quite possible to fail the courting minigame by making the wrong decisions in conversation. I also wonder what is the expectation for the relationship in the game. The relationship cannot change the outcome of the game because the outcome is universally bigger than one person and their own interrelations with other characters. In other words, the romantic relationship does not have a bearing on defeating the villain.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

This is an incredibly capitalist/mercantile view of romance that basically suggests that one didn't receive payment for services rendered: I did X, she did not do Y, therefore, I was cheated.

Shouldn't that be: "I did XY and she did not do XX," y'know, with chromosomes and all?

 

[Ishigami]

But in 2, it's just something that's done. It's not for completing a quest, or picking the "right" options to get an NPC to like you enough. You go to a prostitute, pay her, and have sex. I think at one point Triss, Geralts significant other, wants to have sex and you do (Or don't) with her, but it's not for completing a quest or giving her gifts. She just wants to.

They don't make a big deal about the sex. It just is what it is.

There is a mini game where you set the bribe to sleep with a prostitute.
A Succubus is literally rewarding Gerald with sex when you solve her problem.
The sex with other side characters, aka everyone besides Triss, is also achieved by choosing the ?right? dialog options.

Come the fuck on: Witcher is just like any other video game in this regard.
It is more casual about and that?s about it.

Jim leaves not much space for ?mature? sex in video games as Legion pointed out:

Judging from what you say, I cannot think of a scenario where sex could be shown in a game that you'd consider to be mature. Especially as you mention it not affecting the story as a reason for it being pointless.

But tbh I don?t have a problem with that. I don?t really see how it could work otherwise.

 

[cyvaris]

So Jim......about that porn....

 

[PunkRex]

Jim, if you're ever in a porn, make sure you keep your hat, tie and those glasses on.

OT: Sex is kind of complicated as everyone has a slightly different oppinion of it. I have no problem with games like Dead or Alive because, as Jim mentioned, they're basically just porn. Actual in story sex like that in Mass Effect is werid as almost every character seems to hold the same idea of what it it, something you do once to commemorate an occasion, EXCUSE ME BIOWARE BUT I DON'T BELIEVE ME AND TALI HAVE BEEN TOGETHER FOR 40 YEARS IN A BORING MARRIAGE DOING THE NASTY ONLY ON OUR BIRTHDAY!... still, I will admit, when Liara called me out for my cheating in the second game I did have a good chuckle at how bad I genuinely felt.

 

[Olas]

It's funny how one's definition of "mature" tends to change when you get older. When I was a kid mature pretty much meant anything my parents didn't want me to see. As a teenager it largely meant anything gritty and cynical, then eventually came to mean things that were serious and introspective. But now I'm starting to think the entire concept is just an inflated term people use to elevate certain stories or works of art above others. Why is maturity something to strive for? And isn't the desire to seem mature itself a mark of childishness? That reminds me of a CS Lewis quote.

Spoiler

?Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.?

-C.S. Lewis

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Without meaning to be too disruptive/divisive that's not what the friend zone is.

The friend zone is not when a guy feels entitled to sex because he's a 'nice guy', it's when he wants more than friendship and for one reason or another the girl sees him only as a friend.

In other words, exactly how Jim described it.

 

[wulf3n]

There's this webseries called "Folding Ideas" that kind of touches upon this point; the difference between "influencing and reinforcing", which he sees media has the power to do the latter rather than the former.

http://youtu.be/TAx6KqKQYNs?t=7m47s



For this particular scenerio, the idea is that people out there believe the "kindness = obligation to fuck me" idea, so the media sells them back the "kindness = obligation to fuck me" idea in order to lure them in as something them can relate to, and that reinforces their "kindness = obligation to fuck me" idea. They see a reflection of their ideas bounced back at you, therefore they believe it to be more true and acceptable to think/act that way. And they're just going to be that much more belligerent if anyone tries to challenge it. Blazing Saddles became the big deal it was not just because it was a funny movie, but because it was a biting satire that challenged the way racial relationships were in this country during the '70s, which stymied people the wrong way and got people a-talkin.

Like, you aren't hypnotized to run out and commit violence if you watch a lot of violent movies or play violent video games, but you might become more tolerant about toward the idea of violence and maybe feel that it's a more acceptable course of action than it really should be. Especially if it's shown consequence/repercussion free.

Just check out his whole series in general if you're into Jim's stuff; he brings up some thought-provoking talking points. Here was the prequel video to the one linked above: http://chezapocalypse.com/episodes/s2e14-shes-out-of-control/

I don't disagree with that.

What I disagree with is that one [Sexism] is a problem while another [violence] isn't. Or at least one has more power to reinforce than another.

Also, one thing I've yet to see regarding the Sexist games reinforce the Sexism within the gaming culture issue is any actual correlation. By which I mean is there a link between the sexist members of the gaming community and sexist games?

 

[CBanana]

I don't question that there are people predisposed certain behaviours, and these people will likely be encouraged by certain games.

Thanks for agreeing with me. That was the brunt of my argument.

The argument "There are more sexist people than criminally violent so the former is more influential" is invalid. Influence is not measured by the size of the audience, but rather it's effectiveness in forming or altering someones opinion, to which I have seen no evidence that one [violence or sexism] is worse than another.

Ultimately the argument boils down to "Something I dislike is influential and dangerous, Something I like is harmless"

It's can be mathematically modeled.

We have an argument that y people are predisposed to and we have a an argument that y+1 people are predisposed. To see if the amount of people predisposed to the argument is a factor, we'll make the amount of per person influence equal x which is some positive number.

The influence of the first argument is:
x * y = xy

The influence of the second argument is.
x * (y + 1) = xy + x

So in this case, the second argument affects the population x amount more showing that the second argument has more influence because more of the population is affected. If we assumed that the two arguments had different and unknown per person influences (where both influences were still positive numbers), it would still be more likely that the second argument is more effective as graphing f(x)= xy will show a lower line thatn f(x)= xy + x on any graph where x is a positive number and y is before graphing assigned a positive whole number.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

It's also creepy escapism that can lead to some pretty squicky shit if that road is traveled too far.

Why the double standard? If we attack Fox news for assuming GTA turns people into killers, then we shouldn't assume sexual minigames are anything else than harmless escapism.

False dichotomy.

Fox News saying that games turn people into killers is not equivalent to saying that the content of videogames can, at times, be "squicky" - or creepy, or whatever adjective you want to apply.

There's a vast difference between saying "this is breeding a new generation of murderers" and "there might be some social/cultural issues here that could be discussed."

 

[wulf3n]

It's simple mathematical model really.

We have an argument that y people are predisposed to and we have a an argument that y+1 people are predisposed. To see if the amount of people predisposed to the argument is a factor, we'll make the amount of per person influence equal x which is some positive number.

The influence of the first argument is:
x * y = xy

The influence of the second argument is.
x * (y + 1) = xy + x

So in this case, the second argument affects the population x amount more showing that the second argument has more influence because more of the population is affected. If we assumed that the two arguments had different and unknown per person influences (where both influences were still positive numbers), it would still be more likely that the second argument is more effective as graphing f(x)= xy will show a lower line thatn f(x)= xy + x on any graph where x is a positive number and y is before graphing assigned a positive whole number.

What I'm arguing here is the value of X not the value of Y and the idea that X(sexism) > X(violence)

Of course Y is going to play a factor in the end result of "Influenced People" provided the influence is > 0

Although come to think of it, I've previously just taken it on face value that Y(sexists) > Y(violent) but what evidence is there to back that up?

 

[Evil Smurf]

Jim should direct a porn film, I am am convinced of this.

Call me.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I'm waiting for someone to post a list of that "high class pornography" Jim mentions towards the end.

I could give you a list of names to look up, it would just be against the terms of service to post porn.

 

[1337mokro]

Well do defend David Cagé, he is French. He is obligated on pain of death to insert a sex scene into anything he makes by his countries constitution.

You cannot watch a single French movie or even read a French book without at some point stumbling on a sex scene. I was watching a movie about a child being bullied and struggling in school and they still ended up with a sex scene somehow. Heck you could watch a legal drama and at some point the judge is being bent over the bench by the court stenographer.

So in David Cagé's case it's nothing but culture