This is topic A Question about Graphic Violence in Computer Games vs Graphic Violence in Movies in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
This is a spinoff of T_Smith's thread about (in part) the computer game The Punisher, which he describes as being incredibly graphically violent, complete with table saws and wood chippers for feeding your enemies through. One of the things that he said he specifically enjoyed about the game was the explicit gore (although this wasn't the only element of the game that appealed).
Knowing that Nathan is LDS, I got to thinking about the LDS tendency to frown on viewing R rated movies, which led me to post the following in that thread:
quote: I asked this over on Sakeriver, but I may as well bring it up here too. I know that while watching R rated movies isn't strictly against the LDS faith, it is frowned upon by a pretty large number of Mormons. I'd always assumed that this was due to both the sex and the violence in R rated movies, but I realize that I may be mistaken in that. Assuming that I'm not, though, I'm curious--do you watch R movies? If you don't, how do you reconcile your enjoyment of, say, running a guy through a table saw in a computer game with your refusal to watch the same thing being done on the big screen?
If I'm wrong in my assumptions about the reason many LDS avoid R rated movies, I'd love to know the true reason--I'm a big fan of replacing assumption with solid fact whenever possible.
Nate requested that a new thread be created for the discussion of this, as he wants to keep his thread on target. Good luck with that--I'm not sure it's possible to prevent a thread from derailing without killing it in the process, but I'm willing to move the discussion to a new thread, in any case.
[ January 26, 2005, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As I understand it, many Mormons take a somewhat self-serving approach towards avoiding sexual content while drowning in violent content. The logic is that they would never personally want to send someone through a woodchipper, so a game which permits them to enjoy that sensation is not actually a temptation -- while they could imagine sleeping with, say, Kirsten Dunst without marrying her, so a game that portrayed Kirsten Dunst in compromising, pre-marital situations might well tempt them to sin.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I personally eschew most R rated movies, even if it is "just for violence". And violence is listed in the new guidelines (for church members) that don't specify R rating but tell people to be selective in what they view.
I mentioned not too long ago that violence is the cause named in the Bible for the great flood. Many forms of idol worship involved violence. I don't know, maybe we should get rid of Halo. It seems to be really addictive, and I don't think its for a reason other than the violence.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
o_O
Good thing we have Halo 2 then. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
The phrase "it is only rated R for violence" can frequently be heard in conversations before and after Sunday School. But murder is a worse sin than adultery.
What about Erin Brokovich, where the rating is mainly for crimes against fashion?
P.S. My mom once justified her small collection of R rated movies as all being movies that are too non-conformist to be shown to minors. Enemy of the State, The Matrix, Conspiracy Theory. She also thought Sleeping with the enemy told an important story. And she took her teen daughters to Thelma and Louise. But then she repented and gave all her R rated videos to me.
Other R rated movies that I thought were important: Men of Honor. Um, thats about it.
Mom did get The Passion, which I still haven't watched.
[ January 26, 2005, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Maybe it has to do with actual temptation.
Is it more likely that a movie will tempt sin through sex or violence? Is a person more likely to have sex or kill someone?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think that is what Tom said.
We did go through a phase right after we got married that we would watch R rated movies, since we could now... well anyway, I think we quit after a while. I forget why.
The "guidelines" (For the Strength of Youth booklet)
quote: Whatever you read, listen to, or look at has an effect on you. Therefore, choose only entertainment and media that uplift you. Good entertainment will help you to have good thoughts and make righteous choices. It will allow you to enjoy yourself without losing the Spirit of the Lord.
While much entertainment is good, some of it can lead you away from righteous living. Offensive material is often found in web sites, concerts, movies, music, videocassettes, DVDs, books, magazines, pictures, and other media. Satan uses such entertainment to deceive you by making what is wrong and evil look normal and exciting. It can mislead you into thinking that everyone is doing things that are wrong.
Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable.
emphasis added.
Huh, I never noticed that before.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
The main reason R rated movies are ill advised is the idea that it makes the spirit go away. Speaking of the Passion, my Bishop went to go see that, and that was a pretty gorey movie in and of itself. However, it was something to focus on the spirit. So for me, it's essentially just a personal choice, though I do try to stay away from heavy sexual movies mainly because of my comfort zone. I'm more comfortable watching violence than I am sexual situations, and whether that proves Tom statement or not, I don't know.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Explains why I made a bad Mormon, certainly.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
So are you not again?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"However, it was something to focus on the spirit."
I'm not sure why a slasher movie starring Jesus is more focused on the spirit than, say, Nightmare on Elm Street. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't know what I am and my journey continues.
I do know that I can't follow those guidelines, because...it takes enjoyment out of my life, when I'd have to do away with anything that could portray immorality. I mean...I can't seem to explain it correctl.
I guess it comes down to me hating to be restricted in ways that seem overly heavy handed.
[ January 26, 2005, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Because of the meaning of the slashing, I would imagine, Tom.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
That is a thread of inquiry we went down long ago.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
My thoughts exactly, Amka.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The moral meaning behind the sex and violence in a film or a game is my primary determining factor in whether or not I consider the content "good" or "bad".
In Halo, for instance, you are playing a noble, self-sacrificing soldier who takes responsibility for the lives of hundreds — millions — of his fellow humans by protecting them from a genocidal alien crusade.
In Halo 2, you also take the role of one of these aliens — but again, you are a noble alien soldier who starts out with humble faith in his cause, then learns that his own leaders are exploiting and destroying his people, and fights back against them.
In multiplayer Halo, the violence is mitigated by the fact that the setting involves completely painless, reversible death — the violence is only the medium for a test of skill with few ill consequences, much like a football game.
Given that context, I have zero problem with Halo.
Also, games which give you the freedom to choose good or evil behaviors are fine with me. At that point, the game is only a depiction of life, and the responsibility to make moral choices still rests on the player. It also can provide an opportunity to see and feel the role and definition of evil — a perfectly healthy and necessary pursuit — within a fictional context.
Games that require you to do obnoxious evil things, however, such as a Grand Theft Auto game, in which you play a gangster, and your entire career is built on crime and murder ... those games make me stop and think. The good ones I still check out, and explore for an understanding of their mechanics (I am a professional, after all), but the stories I cannot truly enjoy for long. I think that reaction is a good measure of whether a game meets my moral standard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It also can provide an opportunity to see and feel the role and definition of evil — a perfectly healthy and necessary pursuit — within a fictional context."
Do you feel that it would be necessary to see and feel various sex roles and their definition, Geoff, if a game made explicit sex one of its options?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
mack, that was a tricky way to get me to go post at madowl :smirk:.
I guess there is the Word of Wisdom approach. There are some definite "shall nots" like the coffee, tobacco, alcohol. And there are the "shalls" like lots of veggies and whole grain and little meat, that most people know about but don't beat themselves up over.
So I guess nudity is more the "shall not" and the virtuous, lovely, of good report and praiseworthy is the "shall".
Anyway, I don't want to make your life harder, Mack, I was just trying to satisfy Noemon's curiosity.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't stand looking at violence in movies. It sort of hurts to watch... I'd much rather see sex than violence. Yet, oddly I like the nauseatingly violent graphic novels Kabuki and Sandman... Makes no sense.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, I think that sex presents a bit of a unique situation. It's hard to draw a one-to-one equivalence between violence and sex for a couple of related reasons.
First of all, if the typical human being felt the same way about violence that he does about sex (ie, a consistent desire to achieve the ultimate expression of the act, mitigated only by periodic releases or strong, conscious self-control, accompanied by a near-obsessive attraction to images of potential subjects for the act, or of the act itself) then we would all be classified as serial killers.
Second, the fact that our absorption of sexual imagery is such a key part of our sexual identity and development, particularly among adolescent males, makes it important for a person to exercise some degree of control over what images he chooses to pursue and incorporate into his own sexuality. This is because most people are expected, at some point in their lives, to enjoy sex (as is not the case with violence), and pursue it actively with another person within some kind of committed relationship, and these relationships are some of the few occasions that human beings have to inflict the most emotional harm on one another if they are so inclined.
If you accept these basic premises (that sex is a subject with which humans have a much stronger obsession with than violence, that sexual images form a major part of our sexual development, and that humans are reasonably expected to flee from violence but embrace sex during the normal course of their lives, and enter a situation in which their own sexual development affects the emotional well-being of another person), then it's easy to see why I come to the conclusion that the two are not equivalent when determining how they should be treated in media.
[ January 26, 2005, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: First of all, if the typical human being felt the same way about violence that he does about sex (ie, a consistent desire to achieve the ultimate expression of the act, mitigated only by periodic releases or strong, conscious self-control, accompanied by a near-obsessive attraction to images of potential subjects for the act, or of the act itself) then we would all be classified as serial killers.
I know at least one person that does feel this way about violence. But I also admit that he is very unique.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
When someone feels about violence the way normal people feel about sex, we believe there is something abnormal or wrong with that person. And I think we're right. If a violent video game affects you the same way pornography affects a typical horny person, then seek help.
For most people, a violent video game is quite similar to playing baseball, or shooting skeet. It's a test of dexterity and skill conducted by performing violent acts on inanimate objects. The point where it becomes questionable is in the story context of the violence, not in the depiction of violent imagery itself.
[ January 26, 2005, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I participate in a sport that involves swords and stabbing your opponent.
I think I see this point, that you see it as a sport, and not "stabbing" anyone. I couldn't imagine stabbing anyone IRL, even out of fear or anger. When I fence, I don't see it as stabbing, I see it as my sport, where I'm trying to outmanuver and out strategy you so I win.
Videogames, in Geoff's reasoning, work the same way. Makes sense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And I think we're right. If a violent video game affects you the same way pornography affects a typical horny person, then seek help."
Isn't this precisely because sexual sins are immeasurably less important than violent sins? In other words, we don't particularly care as a society if someone's tempted to masturbate regularly, but we do care if they're tempted to kill their neighbors.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The google ads are a constant source of entertainment for me - now they're for a woodworking catalog and wood chipper. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Power tool specialists, now.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Tom: I think it's because if you kill someone you take away thier choices about life, however if you masturbate it isn't removing someones existance. Murder directly removes someones choices; whereas masturbation can only indirectly cause problems in relationships.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Tom, I think from your last statement, you're definitely having trouble establishing equivalencies
Sins relating to sex may not end lives, but they can have a similar destructive effect on emotions. Rape, adultery, child molestation, family abandonment, illegitimacy, teen pregnancy — all of these consequences are closer to the "murder" end of the scale than occasional masturbation.
Either way, when we are dealing with the question of depicting sex or violence in art, the relative severity of comparable sexual or violent acts is not the only factor that should we should weigh in our decisions. In fact, it is only worth considering after we determine the relative psychological effects of sex and violence in media. We have to ask the question, "Do depictions of violence have the same effect on the observer that depictions of sex have? If not, what are the differences?" Only after you have established that the two are both equally dangerous in that regard is there a reason to start doing cost-risk analyses of the results of such depictions.
Let's imagine a hypothetical society made up of sentient sharks. Unlike humans, sharks have a reaction to depictions of violence that is comparable to — and possibly more intense than — human reactions to depictions of sex. Specifically, when a shark smells blood in the water and sees thrashing legs, it enters a frenzy of bloodlust, a thrill of desire, and feels compelled to attack.
In a society of sharks, media forms that involved blood smells and thrashing legs would naturally appear as what we might call pornography. A sentient shark who eats processed fish sticks in his home might find his meal more enjoyable if he popped in a tape of "Bleeding Humans Gone Wild" right before dinner and worked himself into a frenzy.
But if taken too far, that kind of artificial overstimulation could become addictive. It could dull a shark's instincts, make him an ineffective hunter because normal prey no longer excites him. It could cause some sharks to hunt inappropriate prey for the thrill, abandon proper nutrition, even victimize other sharks.
The analogy can't be extended forever, but you catch my point. For sharks, violent porn would be a major concern, because it sets off some deep, hard-wired instincts that involve strong emotions and psychological urges which, if abused carelessly, could lead to serious problems.
Humans have no analogous lust instinct when it comes to violence. Humans often must actively overcome their instinct to run from danger in order to fight. In other situations, humans driven by anger or greed may commit violent acts, but in those cases, it is the inciting emotion — the anger or the greed — which inspires their action. Not some instinctive, otherwise unmotivated, shark-like lust for blood. Typical humans simply don't get "turned on" by violence the way sharks do. Those few of us that do are usually damaged in some way, or otherwise depart from normal, instinctive human psychology to do so.
Our only human instinct that is analogous to a shark's bloodlust (in that it is caused by sensory input, alters our frame of mind, fills us with desire, and demands satisfaction) is our desire to mate.
Because of this, I consider sexual imagery to be a more serious issue for humans than violent imagery. Because violent imagery is not tied into the same kind of lust instinct that sexual imagery is, we are much better equipped to look at violence in its context, and appreciate its meaning within the bounds of a story. We can enjoy violence as a part of fiction and drama and high adventure, and keep it restricted to the realm of fantasy. We can base competitive challenges on violence, and think of it solely as a test of skill, and not as a simulation of murder.
It takes a lot more maturity and detachment to do the same thing with sexual imagery. It can be done, especially if the sex is depicted tastefully and deliberately to keep the focus on the story or the context or the meaning, and not just on "Hey look, BREASTS! Wow, I'm getting so turned on!" But particularly with adolescents, this can be very hard to achieve. So we are more careful with the way sex is depicted, because we know our own psychology — what excites our particular human lusts, and what does not.
[ January 27, 2005, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
ArnDog, that was quite an analogy.
Although, to many, if a sex scene in a movie arouses lust, that's not really a bad thing, even if it causes the viewer to want to masturbate. I think that many people would view it as fairly inconsequential. When someone is aroused, they're not in the same position to hurt anybody as a shark in a frenzy would be. The same sort of self-control is involved stopping somebody from going out and committing sexual crimes that is involved when somebody's really mad and wants so badly to go out and punch somebody.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
The relative harm of various sexual acts hasn't entered my argument yet, entirely because I want to show that this false equivalence to violence that people keep bringing up doesn't actually hold water before I move on to anything else.
I note that you cited an example of an angry man who just wants to punch someone. In cases like that, is the man in question feeling this rage because he saw an image of a man punching another man, and it excited an involuntary instinct for bloodlust, free of context or meaning? Or is he feeling this rage because of something else that angered him, unrelated to any depiction of violence?
I submit that a frustratingly difficult puzzle game is much more likely to incite players to violence than a boringly easy game filled with murder, blood, and guts, because the former inspires anger (one of the actual causes of human violence) while the latter doesn't really inspire anything at all.
Once we have established that images of sex and violence are not equivalent in their effects on the human psyche, then we can address the potential consequences of inundating a human society with sexual imagery. Though I'll say this — I am less concerned that it will lead to rape or other violent crimes, and much less concerned that it will lead to [gasp] masturbation, and more concerned that it will, if unchecked, promote unhealthy attitudes toward sex and relationships that will contribute to broken homes, illegitimate children, widespread abortion, sexually active young teenagers, etc. It is general, subtle social ills that concern me — not a sexual version of that fantasy image promoted by video game opponents, of a player setting down his controller and picking up a gun because his game magically inspired him to commit a crime.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote:I want to show that this false equivalence to violence that people keep bringing up doesn't actually hold water before I move on to anything else.
I don't see why killing has to be the necessary result of viewing violence any more than rape is the necessary result of violence. People get off on cutting themselves. They may smack their spouse or kids around just a bit. And those kids may harbor a desperate wish to kill the abusive parents over the years.
But to confess my own sins, I struggle with compulsive spending and indebtedness, which the church also directly counsels against. That may seem irrelevant, but the love of money is apparently the root of all evil. As we were discussing a week or two ago, evil may not even exist. Since money doesn't really exist, to love it may actually be creating the perfect environment for evil. It is investing your soul into a void.
P.S. I also thing debt demonstrates the way sins really affect us. You start out thinking this indulgence is giving you greater freedom, but with the $#!t hits the fan, you find you're actually in bondage.
[ January 27, 2005, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It’s funny Geoff, because I see the relative harms of sex and violence in exactly the opposite way.
quote: of a player setting down his controller and picking up a gun because his game magically inspired him to commit a crime
I’m not at all worried about such an event. What does worry me about violence in movies and video games is much more subtle. What if they encourage people to be more likely to look to violence as a solution to problems? What if even “good guy” games that let the user play a hero make the player more likely to think of heroes as people with guns and less likely to see people who excel at mediation and diplomacy as heroic?
What if they encourage, not crime, but just a generally more hostile attitude toward others? Making someone more likely to cut another person off in traffic, or less likely to smile at a stranger?
Sexual arousal is not a bad thing. In fact, it’s a very good thing. And (contrary to what teenage boys have tried to claim for hundreds of years) unfulfilled arousal causes no permanent harm. Hostility is not a good thing. While I’m not a fan of gratuitous sex scenes, I don’t have a problem with scenes that are integral to the story just because they’re arousing. I’d much rather see people stimulated by affection than by hostility.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I guess what occurs to me at this point is that Tom doesn't struggle with violent or sexual imaginings to the degree that others do. (I haven't been able to get Kirsten Dunst off my mind )
Not everyone is an alcoholic. Some can imbibe in a controlled and sane way. Some can't. I guess I'd say I have trouble with sex and violence. Geoff apparently only has a problem with sex. Tom has a problem with neither. There is a funny old saying that the church is a hospital for sinners and not a museum of saints.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
dkw said it much better than I could have.
(In an affectionate but non-stimulating way. )
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Check out the June 2003 Ensign for an article called "It's Only Violence". I subscribe to the ideas therein.
[ January 27, 2005, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Hmm...I try not to watch R-rated movies, for either sex or violence, but I admit I do sometimes. Violence isn't a problem because I hate it anyway - I can't and don't watch it. I don't like seeing it, and I don't like how it makes me feel.
Language is another thing that I just hate hearing. I turned off Donnie Darko 20 minutes into it because the marginally entertaining storyline wasn't worth the crap I was being forced to endure to get to it.
Sex falls into the category of things I think I should turn away from, not that I necessarily want to.
However, Taal says none of the above bother him, and I believe him.
[ January 27, 2005, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
KQ-- I don't see that article in the July 2003 or 2004 Ensign. . .
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Scott, it's from June 2003.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ooops...
I wrote July for June. Sorry.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Um. . . what exactly were the studies defining as 'violent' that 60% of the programs viewed contained it? Pratfalls?
:shrug:
Methodology aside-- after all, anyone can debate a study-- the point that I take away from this is that watching gratuitous or trivialized violence, either in a video game or on the silver screen, drives away the Spirit.
I agree.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I’m not at all worried about such an event. What does worry me about violence in movies and video games is much more subtle. What if they encourage people to be more likely to look to violence as a solution to problems?
There is another issue at play here, too. If, for some reason, a person does develop an unhealthy attitude toward violence, there is a safety net to catch him. It's called the police. Most people rein in their unhealthy violent tendencies because acting them out is against the law.
We don't have laws or police to govern any but the most extreme violent or exploitative sexual behaviors. And we shouldn't, there is a lot that should be left up to the individual or to the unenforced culture that an individual subscribes to. But that means that, especially as we strip away from our culture every sexual more and standard for fear of making anyone feel marinalized, once someone does develop an unhealthy attitude toward sexuality, there is very little available to help them recognize their problems and correct them.
In any case, I think I've established pretty well the fact that whatever psychological impact you think violent images might have on humans (and I reserve the right to disagree with you here), the impact of sexual imagery will be much stronger because of the way our brains are wired to interpret sexual images.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don’t actually think you’ve established it at all. You’ve thrown out a lot of unsupported hypotheses. Do you have any proof that any of it is more than "hey this sounds logical to me"?
I also don’t think that we stop unhealthy attitudes toward violence until they also reach “extreme or exploitative” levels. There is a lot of what I consider undesirably hostile behavior that isn’t crime.
I think that the objections to both violence and sex come down to what memes we choose to promote. I find the promotion of the idea that violence is heroic much more disturbing than the promotion of the idea that sex is fun. You obviously disagree.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Humans react strongly to sexual imagery because of a very simple stimulus-response system in the brain. We see an image, and it triggers a physical response that involves a desire for release. We achieve release, and it causes a euphoria. We enjoy the euphoria and seek out more imagery to start the cycle over again.
Or, minus the release, we might simply enjoy the thrill of that unfulfilled desire and the hormones pumping through our system, in very much the way we might enjoy a drug.
What similar effect does violence have on a human? Well, I've established that blood, killing, and murder don't invoke a hunter's bloodlust response like that we see in sharks. So what is it that we're enjoying?
When humans face danger, instead of being filled with hunger or desire, we are filled with a thrill of fear, energy, and a desire to MOVE. We call it an adrenaline rush, and it is what allowed our ancestors to perform beyond their normal abilities when fleeing a predator or defending their young. The payoff for this isn't anything like sexual release, but is rather the thrill of relief at having survived, and having overcome a threat that could have killed you.
There are two kinds of violent imagery that a human can experience, with different reactions — static violence and kinetic violence. (I coined these terms in college while I was studying and writing about the effects of film violence, but it applies equally well to all media.)
Static violence involves images of sadism, flayed bodies, blood spatters, spasming corpses ... the stuff that would turn on a shark. This kind of imagery fills humans with revulsion, though sometimes we conquer that revulsion with a desire to appear brave, or with a curious fascination with the macabre. Humans who have a shark-like desire to kill might get some strange satisfaction from these images, but most humans react with fear, disgust, or with a defense mechanism against fear and disgust.
Kinetic violence is what you see in The Matrix, and in most video games. Instead of depending on images of gore and death, it depends mostly on suspense and danger. There are humans in jeopardy who MIGHT be killed, and they have to fight to survive. Again and again, the characters are threatened with violence, and either respond with violence, barely survive by hiding, or dramatically escape, all of which evoke instinctive reactions based on our ancestors' survivial strategy.
But the reaction that this kind of violence causes in humans is not a desire to kill or hurt things. It doesn't make us angry or hostile. Instead, what it causes is an adrenaline rush. A human emerging from an action movie or a thrilling video gaming experience isn't angry or lusting for blood. He is exhausted, spent, or (just as often) itching for some excitement. He is likely to drive fast, jump around with nervous energy, and run around screaming. But the only way he's going to hurt someone is by accident.
Sometimes I think that people who oppose violent imagery in movies and games may be missing some key element of human psychology. Or perhaps they have simply never watched an action movie or played a video game, to be so oblivious to the actual impact of such media on a human being.
Now, back to static violence. There are some games that use static violence in disturbing ways, Manhunt and Resident Evil most prominently among them. While Resident Evil uses it mostly to intensify the adrenaline rush by evoking the natural human fear of death (which is quite justifiable in my opinion), Manhunt really does revel in the art of murder. These games have earned their M ratings, and they should be enforced.
Halo is entirely about kinetic violence, and from this perspective, I can't see any reason to oppose it. It is about the thrill of danger, not the lust to kill, and has a completely different psychological impact from Manhunt.
[ January 27, 2005, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Geoff- so you don't get a smirkly little grin when one of the little badger aliens takes off with a plasma bomb stuck to his back?
"Noble little badger. Go in peace."
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I don’t actually think you’ve established it at all. You’ve thrown out a lot of unsupported hypotheses. Do you have any proof that any of it is more than "hey this sounds logical to me"?
I was using arguments that seemed logical to me, yes. And it is scientifically sound to assert that humans do not share a shark's instinctive bloodlust. I mean, we just don't.
I'm not sure what else you want me to do. I'm not a research scientist. I can't go out and conduct a study for you. All I can do is appeal to logic, just as you do. Do my assertions need to fit a higher standard than yours?
quote:I find the promotion of the idea that violence is heroic much more disturbing than the promotion of the idea that sex is fun. You obviously disagree.
I disagree with your mischaracterization of the issue, yes. "Violence is heroic" is not a true statement at all, in my view, any more than "Sex is fun" is actually a true statement in yours. Obviously, many instances of sex are not fun for all parties involved, and I have already listed several such examples. Similarly, many instances of violence in the real world have little to do with heroism.
What I disagree with is your lumping of all violence into a single category, and attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Violence has meaning and context, just the way sex does. You wouldn't appreciate it if I rejected all images of sex because I found Hentai tentacle-rape fantasies disturbing, would you? Similarly, I think it is silly to reject all images of violence just because there are disturbing ones out there.
So I'm not saying that violence, by its nature, is heroic. That would be a ridiculous statement. I AM saying, though, that not all images of violence are unhealthy, that many are actually good for people to watch and learn from, and that many can be used for harmless thrill and excitement without engendering violent tendencies in the consumer.
[ January 27, 2005, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Heh heh, Scott reminded me of another good use of violence — comedy Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So the distinction between violence as sin and sex as sin is the presence of endorphins?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I thought sin was anything that's against the will of God.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott reminded me of another good use of violence-- comedy
The question is-- why do you find violence funny?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: There is another issue at play here, too. If, for some reason, a person does develop an unhealthy attitude toward violence, there is a safety net to catch him. It's called the police.
From the perspective of the individual, I wouldn't call it a safety net. Quite the opposite, in fact.
quote: Most people rein in their unhealthy violent tendencies because acting them out is against the law.
I think that's true for some people, but I think a lot of them rein them in because they know they're wrong.
quote: We don't have laws or police to govern any but the most extreme violent or exploitative sexual behaviors.
Depending on locale, we have laws that govern an extremely large variety of sexual behaviors, from what people can wear, to who they can sleep with, to whom they can live with, to whom they can marry.
quote: And we shouldn't, there is a lot that should be left up to the individual or to the unenforced culture that an individual subscribes to. But that means that, especially as we strip away from our culture every sexual more and standard for fear of making anyone feel marinalized, once someone does develop an unhealthy attitude toward sexuality, there is very little available to help them recognize their problems and correct them.
Our 'culture' as represented by the moral elites in power and the laws they pass and how they enforce them is not trending away from 'stripping away every sexual more and standard'. In case you don't keep up with current events, it's quite the opposite. Even the great unwashed are behaving in a way that you would call more moral.
Your belief that 'we strip away from our culture every sexual more and standard for fear of making anyone feel marinalized' is without support, as far as I know.
As to when 'someone does develop an unhealthy attitude toward sexuality, there is very little available to help them recognize their problems and correct them.', this is incorrect. There are any number of Christian/Muslim/Secular sources and people out there that would be more than happy to help with any mental problems someone might have regarding their sexuality. Do a google for 'porn recovery' some time and you'll see what I mean.
[ January 27, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Do my assertions need to fit a higher standard than yours?
Nope. But they also don’t get any higher credibility than mine. Equal playing field here, I don’t find your explanation convincing, and thus I disagree that you’ve “established pretty well” that the impact of sexual imagery and violent imagery is categorically different.
quote:
"Violence is heroic" is not a true statement at all, in my view, any more than "Sex is fun" is actually a true statement in yours.
In my view, “sex is fun” is a true statement. If I’d said, “all sex is fun” or “every possible expression of sex is healthy,” or “everyone should go out and have as much sex as they possibly can” those would not have been true statements. And fun is, of course, a subjective category. But, in general, I think most people agree that sex is pretty fun, so I have no qualms about asserting it.
quote: What I disagree with is your lumping of all violence into a single category, and attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Ah, but I’m not throwing anything out. I go to see movies and plays with both violence and sex in them and, depending on the context, I think both can have redeeming social value. What I disagree with is the idea that sex is somehow such an all-powerful trigger that seeing something sexually arousing is dangerous to a person’s chastity.
[ January 27, 2005, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:What does worry me about violence in movies and video games is much more subtle. What if they encourage people to be more likely to look to violence as a solution to problems? What if even “good guy” games that let the user play a hero make the player more likely to think of heroes as people with guns and less likely to see people who excel at mediation and diplomacy as heroic?
I think that games and other entertainment can reinforce these ideas, but really I think that the fact that some violent figures are portrayed as heroic in games is really more a symptom than a cause. Our culture--and the cultures that we grew out of--have always glorified righteous violence. Consider some familiar heroic figures: a WWII veteran (at least, this is how they are usually portrayed in current media), a Knight of the Round Table, Achilles. All of these are figures of violence. It's not a new thing.
Of course, this doesn't speak to whether or not violence should be portrayed as heroic, just that it always has been.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, I wasn't addressing the issue of sin at all in the latest round of essays.
Scott, most comedy is based on pain of one kind or another.
Storm ...
quote:From the perspective of the individual, I wouldn't call it a safety net. Quite the opposite, in fact.
...
I think that's true for some people, but I think a lot of them rein them in because they know they're wrong.
I think you're missing my point. We have social constraints, some of them very powerful (the law, the police) and others based on culture or personal morality, which hedge against violent acts, while sex is much less restrained in Western society, both by law and (more recently) by culture and personal morality. Sexual imagery has more freedom to alter human behavior because human behavior is less constrained by other factors.
quote:Depending on locale, we have laws that govern an extremely large variety of sexual behaviors, from what people can wear, to who they can sleep with, to whom they can live with, to whom they can marry.
I submit that public control of sexual behavior is in the decline in our society, while public control of violent behavior is remaining constant or climbing. Sure, there are reactions to this, some of them very public and threatening to proponents of the decline, but a rough comparison of modern sexual attitudes compared with those of twenty or thirty years ago reveals a trend much more pronounced than, say, global warming over the same time period
I am not even attempting to argue about whether this decline is "good" or "bad". All I'm saying is, the list of things for which a personal receives public censure is shrinking.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
dkw ...
quote:In my view, “sex is fun” is a true statement. If I’d said, “all sex is fun” or “every possible expression of sex is healthy,” or “everyone should go out and have as much sex as they possibly can” those would not have been true statements.
You know, those extended quotes are exactly how I wrote my original post, and then I edited it because I thought you'd get the point without picking me apart for my word choice
The point WAS that the fun of sex and the heroism of violence are both dependent on context. We more often use the word "sex" to refer to the healthy, consensual act, so it is easy to say "Sex is fun!" and not give any negative connotations, despite the fact that throughout time, there has been a lot of horrific and non-fun sex. Basically, it's a tautological statement. You feel free to say "Sex is fun!" because you largely define the word "sex" to include only the fun versions.
With the word "violence" we have no such connotative shorthand, so I can't say "Violence is fun!" or "Violence is heroic!" without someone bringing up a million counterexamples. However, just as sex in the right context is fun, so also is violence fun or heroic or healthy to experience within certain contexts.
quote:Ah, but I’m not throwing anything out. I go to see movies and plays with both violence and sex in them and, depending on the context, I think both can have redeeming social value. What I disagree with is the idea that sex is somehow such an all-powerful trigger that seeing something sexually arousing is dangerous to a person’s chastity.
I'm beginning to think that everyone is just reading into my essays what they expect to hear from a Mormon I'm not trying to argue whether or not sexual imagery leads to sin. I only used the word "sin" in my initial essay because it was the word Tom was already using. That post would have meant the exact same thing without the word, and the later posts have nothing to do with the subject.
My point is that we all observe the way that sexual imagery affects the human psyche, leading to an altered state of mind, feelings of desire, and somewhat "imitative" behavior, if you can call it that. Some people try to make the analogy that therefore, violent imagery also leads to "imitative" behavior, based on the same principle. My point is that the two function in completely different ways in the human psyche, and that the analogy is deeply flawed. Violent imagery does not cause a lust reaction in normal humans, and therefore, its effects must be studied as a distinct phenomenon from those of sexual imagery. I then went on to suggest what I thought those effects were.
At no point have I tried to make this about whether or not sexual pornography is bad. We've had that argument before, and I'm bored by it. I'm much more interested in quashing the endless accusations, based on faulty premises, which are made against the game industry, saying that we cause violence in children, when in my view, this could not be further from the truth.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't think these games "cause" anything. (Except maybe ADD and obesity when overused, but that's the parents' fault.) However, I don't think violence in games is healthy or wholesome, and I think it's an expression of an unhealthy society and "the world". As the LDS card was played in this subject, I think we should note that while individuals who are LDS have differing opinions of this, just as they do of R-rated movies, our prophets have specifically asked us to limit our exposure to such explicit media as much as possible. I don't think the medium makes a difference.
[ January 27, 2005, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote: "Do my assertions need to fit a higher standard than yours?"
Nope. But they also don’t get any higher credibility than mine. Equal playing field here, I don’t find your explanation convincing, and thus I disagree that you’ve “established pretty well” that the impact of sexual imagery and violent imagery is categorically different.
I guess I was just frustrated that your response seemed to be "Well, you haven't proven it to me yet, so I don't believe you, and I think THIS ..." without much of an actual attempt to refute my argument. I mean, if you want to argue past me, that's fine, you can do that without posting [that last comment was in jest, I'm not actually suggesting that you should stop]
I mean, I never said sexual arousal is a bad thing. It would be a bad thing if something similar to sexual arousal happened in response to violent imagery, and encouraged violent behavior, but it doesn't. So when you responded with your "sexual arousal isn't a bad thing" post, I felt like you had completely missed the point of my argument, or were refusing to refute it. So I made my claim of having "established" something to point out to you what I thought the main, unaddressed point of my argument was
Anyway, so, in that post, you said that you found the promotion of the idea of violent heroism disturbing. I'm curious, where do you expect us to get our soldiers, our police, our secret service, if we never promote the meme that valor through risking one's life in a violent situation is something to be admired?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I don't think the medium makes a difference.
I agree My opinions about violent games are identical to my opinions about violent films.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
You keep using phrases like "I think we all agree" and "we've established".
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think I usually say that when either (1) I'm really saying something that I think is common knowledge, like "Sharks have blood lust," or (2) someone hasn't refuted a point I've made, and I want to use that point to bolster another.
If you disagree with something I think I've "established", feel free to say so. I don't mean to sound imperious or anything ...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you for your reply, Geoff.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote:Well, I've established that blood, killing, and murder don't invoke a hunter's bloodlust response like that we see in sharks.
quote: Static violence involves images of sadism, flayed bodies, blood spatters, spasming corpses ... the stuff that would turn on a shark. This kind of imagery fills humans with revulsion, though sometimes we conquer that revulsion with a desire to appear brave, or with a curious fascination with the macabre. Humans who have a shark-like desire to kill might get some strange satisfaction from these images, but most humans react with fear, disgust, or with a defense mechanism against fear and disgust.
The market for what you call "static violence" seems to be large enough that you can't simply label everyone who enjoys it abnormal.
Not having played Punisher, I can't say for sure, but it seems using powertools on your opponents seems to be crossing the line into "static violence". So are your terms dependent on the idea that it takes some cognitive function to appreciate the danger in "active violence"? Whereas "static violence" is viscerally horrifying on the limbic level?
I think the concern I have with immersing oneself in violence is the desensitization that occurs. If something is supposedly frightening on a limbic level, but one gets exposed to it repeatedly, the brain does upregulate. This is good. I'm glad I don't spaz every month the way I first did when I started bleeding regularly. But I don't want to learn to accept the image of someone using a drill on someone's head.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...What exactly are we trying to figure out here, whether graphic depictions of violence are benign? I can't really see how they can be. I don't think that the images CAUSE violent behavior, but they do send various messages to the viewer: - glorifying it. - desensitizing - encouraging unrealistic expectations (good guys shoot straight, bad guys can't hit anything; you can "die" multiple times; etc.) - violence this way equals glory. Violence this other way equals ignominy. - enemies are meant to be killed - it's best to shoot first in many situations
I mean, really, the list could go on and on. And we could argue a long time about whether those messages actually "get through" and at what age kids (or adults) can be expected to sort out the fantasy from the reality; game from truth, etc.
It is an interesting question about "where do we get our soldiers..."
Hmm...I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped training their kids that these things are noble. I mean are they noble? Is it noble to go off and fight and kill another human because your government tells you that the person is bad? I mean, the average soldier has no direct experience with a person from the enemy camp.
The noble warrior meme has quite a few hangers on in terms of memes. The demonize the enemy meme. The dehumanize the enemy meme. The invincibility meme. The safety of the folks back home meme. and on and on.
When we deconstruct that rather complex emotion, it often doesn't make sense -- at least not to me. Where's the true logic of nobility in fighting Iraqis or Vietnamese communists. In retrospect, our government has come to terms with the Vietnamese communists... Couldn't they have done that before all the death and destruction?
Or is it that we are destined to always square off and fight the other tribe first and then merge or befriend, or at least tolerate?
Is there really a trigger inside humans that puts us into fighting mode so readily?
Compared to all that, I think sex and sexual imagery are relatively simple.
I also think that part of growing up is learning to control ones urges when expressing them would be inappropriate. Sex or violence, or just about any other behavior, occurs in a context. Just as violence might actually be an appropriate response in some situations, sex is also appropriate in some situations. And in other situations these things are inappropriate and not welcomed by society. Whether we're talking actual crime or just misbehavior.
I can see how in some cultures sexual sins are considered the worst possible. I can see how in other cultures, the violent behaviors would be most abhorred.
I don't think it's worth while trying to pin a "this one's worse" label anywhere in this.
The question is, seems to me, whether graphic depictions encourage inappropriate action on the part of the viewer. To a very large extent, the answer is going to depend on your culture's definitions of what is and is not appropriate.
Edit to add: Example: If self-gratification is, for one culture, a grave and horrible sin, then certainly anything that arouses sexual feelings and causes pleasurable sensations in the genitalia is going to be a BIG problem. Another culture that has, one may venture to say, a more naturalistic view of sexual feelings, a stray erection here or there is no cause for panic. And when little Johnny starts spending to much time in the bathroom, the parents are just going to see it as his passing into adolesence and take it as a clue to start being more explicit in their ongoing discussions of proper sexual behavior, how to treat a girl and oneself with respect, how not to end up in a difficult situation, etc.
For a child of that first couple, I can see how a stray breast is going to be a serious issue and one that might send parent and child both into some major angst. The child of the second couple might fantasy about it and act in ways he'd probably not want to discuss in an open forum...but so what? It's not like his parents aren't aware of it, and watching and coaching, encouraging etc.
Kids have to integrate into the culture they are going to be a part of as adults. If that culture includes repressing sexual urges, they have to learn that. If that culture channels sexual urges into safe and naturalistic paths, the kids have to learn that. Nobody wants to raise their kids to be considered sexual deviants in their own culture.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
By the way, Geoff...quit maligning sharks.
Sharks are a perfectly fine group of species. I'm not really sure what you're trying convey with this "blood lust" stuff, but a shark is just a shark. Popular misconceptions and hollywood stereotypes aren't really good a good basis for analogies to human behavioral triggers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Geoff, I realized how prententious my last statement was-- honestly, I smirk too when the little badgers sqeak and squawk and run around flailing their arms.
quote:Scott, most comedy is based on pain of one kind or another.
There is a big difference between violence and tragedy, though. And I don't really find slapstick all that funny.
The more I think about this topic, the more uncomfortable I am with my current attitude toward violence.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Sorry.