quote: Also, so-called "porn addiction" is, like most non-chemical addictions, a pretty rare phenomenom and generally affects people who have serious underlying problems prior to the onset of the addiction.
I completely disgree with your statement that porn addictions are a rare thing. I in point of fact think (and you might dismiss my uneducated opinion) that porn addiction is something that seizes a huge portion of the male populace in this country.
Perhaps your definition of what constitutes a "porn addiction" is different from mine. Might I request you illuminate my understanding as to what you think constitutes an addiciton, specifically in regards to pornography.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Err...do you want me to define defects in psychosexual functioning? Well, I gave this a quick scan and it passed my "not obivously false" test.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what we're going to start seeing here is a diversion of terms, and a resort to semantical bulwarks:
To some people, addiction to pornography or gambling or other vice is evidenced by multiple, consistent, contacts with the offending material, even if it is not to the point of obsession or detriment.
To other people, addiction implies obsession, and only if that obsession leads to physical or social harm.
Let us remember that the words, "You are an evil, lying, conniving, stupid, SOB," is not to be uttered here.
In fact, let us avoid even the implication of such.
Thank you. In advance.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Addiction isn't a technical term, so precise defintions aren't all that easy. Studies I've seen of "porn addiction" generally treat it as a semi-involuntary compulsion that has clear, repeated negative consequences and impairs social and sexual functioning, often with an element of escalation due to desensitization.
Goodman (1990) suggests as a general criteria for addiction:
quote: * Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior. * Increasing sense of tension immediately prior to initiating the behavior. * Pleasure or relief at the time of engaging in the behavior. * At least five of the following: o Frequent preoccupation with the behavior or with activity that is preparatory to the behavior. o Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended. o Repeated efforts to reduce, control, or stop the behavior. o A great deal of time spent in activities necessary for the behavior, engaging in the behavior, or recovering from its effects. o Frequent engaging in the behavior when expected to fulfill occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations. o Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of the behavior. o Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior. o Tolerance: need to increase the intensity or frequency of the behavior in order to achieve the desired effect, or diminished effect with continued behavior of the same intensity. o Restlessness or irritability if unable to engage in the behavior. * Some symptoms of the disturbance have persisted for at least one month, or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Addiction isn't a technical term, so precise defintions aren't all that easy. Studies I've seen of "porn addiction" generally treat it as a semi-involuntary compulsion that has clear, repeated negative consequences and impairs social and sexual functioning, often with an element of escalation due to desensitization.
Goodman (1990) suggests as a general criteria for addiction:
quote: * Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior. * Increasing sense of tension immediately prior to initiating the behavior. * Pleasure or relief at the time of engaging in the behavior. * At least five of the following: o Frequent preoccupation with the behavior or with activity that is preparatory to the behavior. o Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended. o Repeated efforts to reduce, control, or stop the behavior. o A great deal of time spent in activities necessary for the behavior, engaging in the behavior, or recovering from its effects. o Frequent engaging in the behavior when expected to fulfill occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations. o Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of the behavior. o Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior. o Tolerance: need to increase the intensity or frequency of the behavior in order to achieve the desired effect, or diminished effect with continued behavior of the same intensity. o Restlessness or irritability if unable to engage in the behavior. * Some symptoms of the disturbance have persisted for at least one month, or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time.
Using that definition (thanks by the way) I am confident in saying that porn addiction is far from being a rare condition.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, again, we've had this discussion before. I mean, were you just hoping that I wouldn't show up in this one, so that you could make these claims without me calling you on them?
Or the possibility of your "calling him on them" is something that doesn't factor heavily into his decision on what to post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am at least as confident (and likely better informed) in saying that it is pretty rare. The studies that I've read about it that have treated it that way have said, basically, "Hey, this is pretty rare." Would you care to provide reasons why you think it is not, BB?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: By that logic a movie such as Titanic should not have been fighting for a PG13 rating in spite of showing nudity, but instead should have gotten a cool PG rating for being up and front about nudity in art.
You will note (or maybe not) that the game in question is already rated "M". Effectively, it's not fighting for a "PG-13" rating; it's fighting for an "R" rating.
In a movie, a scene in which a character is nude can actually show the nudity or merely imply that it's there, depending on the intent of the scene, the impact it's intended to have, and, yes the rating its creators are hoping to receive.
For a game to want to display nudity but not admit that human beings have the characteristics that all human beings do is a fairly perverse case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it, too. There is no cinematic equivalent. Censor bars and cuts don't deny the existence of attributes.
quote:Heck to bring it to the point of craziness, if they had depicted the sex scene afterwards more graphically, it should have gotten even more reduced ratings because lets face it, the movie makers were trying to be more honest and accurate as to what a relationship between a man and a woman really is.
By all means bring it to the point of craziness, but don't imply that you're making my point.
Anyone who gets to a point in their lives where they're engaging in sexual activity will quickly discover, whatever media they might have ingested, that there's a bit more to the process than lying next to one another naked under bedsheets. If a "PG-13" rated movie or a "T" rated game both show that in implying sex, and an "M" rated game or an "R" rated movie implies that (gasp!) there might actually be some *movement* occurring under those sheets, they're both showing the characters having sex.
No one's getting any Masters & Johnson tips out of the process. One might feel that the latter, or the former is something one doesn't want their kids to see; thus, there's a rating system.
But I think it would be far more reasonable to be concerned with how the consequences of sex are interpreted. Is it just casual fun? Does the media recognize emotional consequences of sex? Physical consequences? Do the characters practice safe sex? Are they concerned about holding off for marriage? Pregnancy?
Again, the game in question is rated "M", the equivalent of an "R". It deserves the right to be able to engage the topic by the same means as a movie.
quote:Censors are not trying to hide reality from children. Lets say you lived in a large metropolitan city and you found out one of your next door neighbors was a convicted murderer. That your other neighbor was an active crack dealer, and that the fire codes in your apartment was not up to snuff on regulations. Would you keep you and your family there because lets face it thats the reality some people live in?
No. In as far as that rather stretched metaphor goes. But I wouldn't pretend that someone else living there didn't live that reality, and I wouldn't suggest that someone making a documentary about life in that building turn the murderer into a bully and the crack dealer into a candy salesman.
I have a choice in the media that I consume. Part of taking responsibility for that choice means not demanding everything be made safe to the lowest common denominator.
quote: Children are not always ready to face the harsh cold mess that reality can sometimes be. Often we try to subject them only to the positive in life rather then making them aware of the negative. There is nothing wrong with trying to carefully expose your children to a more and more mature environment. Every child is different and every parent has the right to do what they think is best for their child. There is nothing wrong with expecting movie and gaming companies to provide guidelines that parents can use to at least get an "Idea" as to what they can expect if they and their child view a particular movie.
Which is why I said
quote:I'd tend to agree that the ratings system for games, while better than nothing
Which doesn't mean I don't continue to find the ratings system perverse, both in what they interpret as inappopriate for adults, and in what they *do* interpret as appropriate for children.
Because, let's face it: in most places, children can very easily get into a PG-13 movie or purchase/rent a "T" rated game.
quote:If you were raised in a household where your parents were very controlling and made you say "pee pee" intead of "piss." well sorry, when you are 18 you can throw off those shackles and go do WHATEVER you have always wanted to do. Nobody is stopping you, except your parents maybe if you insist on living under the same roof as them.
Well, I wasn't, but I rather hope you're implying a hypothetical third person than actually commenting on me.
And I'm not entirely certain what the point of this paragraph is, as it seems likely that parents with that degree of need for control would pre-screen media to such a degree that there would be little need for ratings.
But arguably, the existence of a ratings system also acknowledges certain things:
* That some parents do not, in fact, take that degree of interest in the media their progeny consume;
* That there are certain common standards as to what children of certain ages can and cannot know, be exposed to, or imitate;
* That exposure to "graphic" content, whether violent, sexual, verbal, or otherwise, is likely to begin well before the age of 18. Which is not to say exposure to hard core pornography.
quote:Rating systems are not perfect, but no system ever will please everyone of that I am convinced. So use your own inteligence as to what you think is right and proper in your own life and in the lives of the children you have responsibily over.
Such has ever been my intention. But for the sake of both the increasing numbers of adult players who would like to see their media grow more sophisticated and the children who would like to participate in the format without giving themselves, and their parents, nightmares, I don't feel I can stand back and say this particular ratings system is good enough.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps this is relavent but perhaps it is not.
I think alot of the criteria such as: Recurrent failure to resist impulses... Increasing sense or tension immedieately.... Frequen preoccupation with the behavior... Frequent engaging....longer/more frequent..intended repeated efforts to reduce, control..... A great deal of time spent in activities neccasry for...recovering Frequent engaging in behavior when expected to fulfill...obligations Important social, occupational.....activities reduced.... Continuation of behavior despite knowledge of having ....a problem that is...exacerbated Tolerance.....
all are directly related to whether or not you believe pornography is a good/bad thing. For somebody who belives porn is perfectly fine for viewing I think many of these criteria are avoided to some extent. To somebody who believes it is wrong, they are much more prone to experiencing these symptoms as the drive to experience sex related pleasure comes in direct contest with their sense of self control and responsibility.
I mention this as I believe most men in the US at least believe pornography to be something that is ok to view. It is hard to study it as an addiction as people do not research it with the assumption that it ought NOT to be looked at. I find this important because I would be VERY interested in reading a study where men were required to give up pornography for an extended period of time and see what the success rate would be.
I think it would be abismally low and perhaps that is not a criterion for an addiction, but it certainly seems that a near impossible difficulty in giving something up if required to do so, to some might describe an addiction.
Note: I am not discussing the ill effects of pornography use, I am merely trying to point out why it might be hard to lable as an addiction.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:you only have to compare its sales to those of the contemporaneous iteration of the Madden NFL franchise to see that sex in video games is not nearly as alluring as, well, whatever it is that makes people play Madden.
posted
BB, The DSM and Goodman's distillation of it is very careful not to make value judgements like you are suggesting. I think you may have misunderstood the clinical definition of some of those terms.
If you want to say that addiction is people repeatedly doing things you don't want them to, then I guess you could say that porn addiction is very widespread, but such a definition is then useful only as a moral judgement, not as any sort of meaningful therapy criteria.
An addiction is something that you feel a strong compulsion to do. It is not something that you choose to do because you like doing it.
quote:I find this important because I would be VERY interested in reading a study where men were required to give up pornography for an extended period of time and see what the success rate would be.
I think it would be abismally low and perhaps that is not a criterion for an addiction, but it certainly seems that a near impossible difficulty in giving something up if required to do so, to some might describe an addiction.
The problem you have here is the word "required". Outside compulsion is a poor manipulation for something like this. You could do better with incentivizing it, but I think you'd have to come up with a pretty attractive incentive and even then is a poor fit for the requirements for an addiction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To "measure" addiction, I would think the person would have to want to quit and be unable to. To challenge people to quit who have no reason or desire to doesn't measure their addiction, but only their willingness to play along. By that standard I could be addicted to lemonade. I'm not sure what you'd have to offer me to get me to give it up for the whole summer. And even if I agreed to try, I doubt I would stick with it for long -- no motivation.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, upon reviewing what we've said so far, I'm actually not sure why we're having a disagreement.
I haven't made a claim that violent media has no effect on consumers. In fact, I said the opposite. So the studies indicating an effect don't really have a lot of relevance to my argument, except to back up one of its tangential points.
It also seems that the three points I brought up were not directly addressed by the studies you cited. I said, again, that:
1. It seems obvious to me that humans perceive violent and sexual imagery in fundamentally different ways, so there is little basis for enforcing an equivalency between the two.
2. From personal experience, I don't see a difference in the short-term effects of violent media versus merely exciting media, and I'm not aware of any study that examines this difference. I'd like to see one. (I later mention that I suspect that the long-term effects have more to do with the social context. How violence is portrayed, and what other influences are present in the consumer's life.)
3. From anecdotal evidence, I do think that sexual pornography is addictive, even if mildly so, or with effects that are not treated as pathological. However, I see no evidence of any kind that violent imagery is addictive to any degree at all.
I am also curious what standards and assumptions are used to measure sex-related problems and addictions, as I stated above.
Honestly, so far, I think I'm operating well within the bounds of what is reasonable, given the work on the subject that has been done so far. I AM aware of the studies that have been done, though I haven't had a chance to examine their methodologies, so I don't yet rely on them heavily to form my opinions.
From what I've seen, it seems like you are frustrated with some past conversation we've had, and are attaching those feelings to this conversation, in which we do not actually need to be in conflict.
Also, see Dagonee's post about whether or not I'm particularly concerned with whether or not you "call me on" something Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I think the thread that you're projecting onto this one may have been one in which I defended my father's right to express an opinion at variance with what you considered to be the official, established science on the issue. You were saying that his failure to base his opinion on certain research was evidence that he was so ignorant he should be ashamed to even speak on the subject. I was saying, I believe, that you were being a jerk
So there isn't some epidemic of posts by Puppy that he has not researched sufficiently to deserve to have an opinion. Rather, you're upset at my father, and are taking it out on me. Which is incredibly silly.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thread, I'm thinking of is one where we were discussing the effect of violence and nudity in media, that had started out specifically about video games, and I laid out (and this was a while ago, so I'm not sure if it was directly to you or just to the thread in general) much of the information I did here.
Nor is this, in my experience, the only topic that you make authoritative pronouncements that you know little about. I remember you telling me directly that religions are the only groups that seriously care about marriage, for example.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, The DSM and Goodman's distillation of it is very careful not to make value judgements like you are suggesting. I think you may have misunderstood the clinical definition of some of those terms.
I was not placing a value judgement on any of those criteria. Merely stating that given a person believes pornography to be bad, he/she is more prone to exhibit some of the emotions/actions listed in your criteria. I really do not think I misunderstood the criteria.
quote: If you want to say that addiction is people repeatedly doing things you don't want them to, then I guess you could say that porn addiction is very widespread, but such a definition is then useful only as a moral judgement, not as any sort of meaningful therapy criteria.
I really was not suggesting that addiction is anyone doing anything "I" would not like them to do. I do not see where you drew this idea from. As for it being useless as a meaningful therapy criteria, well yes it is useless, but I have yet to bring up the negative effects of pornography, much less the effects of pornography addiction.
quote: An addiction is something that you feel a strong compulsion to do. It is not something that you choose to do because you like doing it.
Your wording to me is alittle foggy, but it works for me. I know of many people who would say without reservation that they feel "strong compulsion" to view pornography.
quote:I find this important because I would be VERY interested in reading a study where men were required to give up pornography for an extended period of time and see what the success rate would be.
I think it would be abismally low and perhaps that is not a criterion for an addiction, but it certainly seems that a near impossible difficulty in giving something up if required to do so, to some might describe an addiction.
The problem you have here is the word "required". Outside compulsion is a poor manipulation for something like this. You could do better with incentivizing it, but I think you'd have to come up with a pretty attractive incentive and even then is a poor fit for the requirements for an addiction. [/QB][/QUOTE]
What incentive could be devised to accurately test the hold that pornography has to me is important. But to find an incentive non religious in nature to me is quite difficult. There are numerous studies about the correlation between pornography and criminal activity. There are also numerous studies documenting sexual deviancy to pornography, even if you consider yourself a sex radical there are still sex acts that are considered unhealthy.
DKW: Comparing Porn to liking "Lemonade" to me is a bit inaccurate of a comparison. I would be willing to bet the porn industry dwarfs the lemonade industry. Lemonade drinking is also not a biological neccesity on its own. I am also willing to bet that for 99% of the people who drink lemonade and watch porn (possibly at the same time) that were they given equal incentive to give up lemonade or porn they would opt to give up lemonade.
I really think the addictiveness of pornography is revealed when one attempts to completely stop viewing it especially in an environment where it is readily available. Even for those who simply know that it has ill effects and that porn makes them miserable, quitting entirely can feal like a feat of epic proportions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:you only have to compare its sales to those of the contemporaneous iteration of the Madden NFL franchise to see that sex in video games is not nearly as alluring as, well, whatever it is that makes people play Madden.
*glares at twinky*
JT, I'm actually interested in what you think of my hypothetical replacement ratings scheme near the bottom of page 2. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lemonade drinking is also not a biological neccesity on its own.
Neither is porn. Drinking liquids is, and arguably so is some form of sexual expression. I could use soft drinks as an example, since they have a much larger industry and economic base behind them, but the physical addiction of the caffeine might confuse the issue.
My point is that without some consensus that porn is harmful absent addiction, the number of people that use it is no evidence of addiction. Or else every major consumer trend is an addiction.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lemonade drinking is also not a biological neccesity on its own.
Neither is porn. Drinking liquids is, and arguably so is some form of sexual expression. I could use soft drinks as an example, since they have a much larger industry and economic base behind them, but the physical addiction of the caffeine might confuse the issue.
Sexual expression while not ESSENTIAL for happiness often is irreplaceable. There are myriad drinks that one can choose from instead of lemonade. There are not nearly as many options for those who feel the need for sexual stimulation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I think I understand what you were saying now. Correct me if I got this wrong, but you were saying that the diagnosis of addiction would rely a lot on whether the person looking at porn considered it good or bad. I think I misread you and thought that you were talking about whether the person making the diagnosis thought it was good or bad.
I can see what you mean, in that, if a person has no problem with looking at porn, then they will never try to stop. However, while ego dystonic (i.e. really disliking some aspect of yourself) reactions could meet some of these requirements, there are a couple of problems with this.
First, the accepted treatment for ego dystonic reactions, absent other impairments of functioning, is usually to treat the dystonia, rather than the disliked aspect. Though, I really don't know about looking at pornography, I know in general, the success rate and overall heath of the patient is much better in the former rather than the latter condition.
Second, I said something significant above, which was "absent other impairments". Without these impairments, you've got someone who might sort of kind of meets the requirements for addiction, but isn't really displaying classic dependecy.
One thing I'd like to throw out is that, again, while I don't know about pornography is specific, I do know that more generally sexual obsessions and other paraphilias are far more common in sexually repressive and repressed populations. So, in an odd way, for certain people, what you are saying is likely right.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thread, I'm thinking of is one where we were discussing the effect of violence and nudity in media, that had started out specifically about video games, and I laid out (and this was a while ago, so I'm not sure if it was directly to you or just to the thread in general) much of the information I did here.
I don't remember that thread. But judging from the fact that my opinion is not in direct, unreasonable conflict with anything you've posted so far, I don't think that you having posted this stuff in the past precludes me from legitimately expressing the position that I have.
quote:Nor is this, in my experience, the only topic that you make authoritative pronouncements that you know little about. I remember you telling me directly that religions are the only groups that seriously care about marriage, for example.
Somehow, I suspect that you're misstating my position on that subject, just slightly. Judging from the fact that that is not my opinion
What is it, though, about my statements that makes you think they are "authoritative"? I don't think I'm stating them in any particular way that makes them carry more weight than other opinions people are expressing that are precisely as rigorous and well-supported as my own. So why do my remarks, in particular, come across to you this way? Escpecially given the fact that I am completely upfront about how I am developing these opinions and where I am getting my information?
In the end, the real conflict here is prescriptive, not descriptive. We're not in conflict about whether the media statistically affects people's points of view, their decision-making, etc. We're in conflict over the best means of using voluntary ratings systems to regulate the media, and give parents tools to better evaluate and regulate what their children are experiencing. That conflict is not based on studies as much as it is based on values and strategies, and I think that in that arena, we are all qualified to engage in this discussion.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm actually interested in what you think of my hypothetical replacement ratings scheme near the bottom of page 2.
I'm in total agreement with you on this subject. I don't have any issue with your proposed system. However, the current system doesn't bug me nearly as much as a lot of the people in this thread, simply because it has never affected me. By the time the system was implemented, I was old enough to be clear of it. So the inconsistencies only bother me on a, 'Wow, that's dumb' level, unlike the MPAA system (because I had to suffer through it).
Anyway, I think graphic violence is far more damaging than some superfluous boobage, no matter what age the gamer is. And, as several people have pointed out, no ratings system to date sufficiently replaces parents screening what their kids see.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I would simply prefer concrete definitions of levels of violence and levels of nudity/sexual portrayal and a list as to how much of each is present (not sure how to measure "how much" at the moment) - one that would be legally answerable for consumer fraud if inaccurate.
Divide the list up by what can be accessed with and without mods.
This gives legally accountable accurate information to parents to help them decide which games are suitable.
Make systems so that new games can be locked out until approved by a parental code (making sure it's hard to crack or at least leaves fingerprints if cracked). Parents who care will be able to stop their kids from playing games with the precise attributes they find objectionable.
Each family can decide if violence or sex is acceptable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have doubts about the effectiveness of any system that cannot be reduced to a simple letter.
The stuff you folks are describing could be good as extra information on the back of the box. But the further we move away from a dirt-simple system that requires very little thought to drop games into broad categories, then the more customers' eyes will glaze over, and the less effective the system will become at actually making a difference.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think the system actually makes a difference NOW? To whom?
I know a number of parents who buy games. I don't know one parent who seriously considers the game rating when making a purchase.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I seriously consider the game rating before purchasing. If it happens to be M, I do a LOT of research into the why of it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll research a T game for quality, not specifically for content. An M game gets researched for quality AND content.
I'd still purchase Oblivion, for example, despite the furor.
And honestly, I can't really call myself a gamer. Like I said, I purchase maybe one or two games a year.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I think I understand what you were saying now. Correct me if I got this wrong, but you were saying that the diagnosis of addiction would rely a lot on whether the person looking at porn considered it good or bad. I think I misread you and thought that you were talking about whether the person making the diagnosis thought it was good or bad.
I can see what you mean, in that, if a person has no problem with looking at porn, then they will never try to stop. However, while ego dystonic (i.e. really disliking some aspect of yourself) reactions could meet some of these requirements, there are a couple of problems with this.
First, the accepted treatment for ego dystonic reactions, absent other impairments of functioning, is usually to treat the dystonia, rather than the disliked aspect. Though, I really don't know about looking at pornography, I know in general, the success rate and overall heath of the patient is much better in the former rather than the latter condition.
Second, I said something significant above, which was "absent other impairments". Without these impairments, you've got someone who might sort of kind of meets the requirements for addiction, but isn't really displaying classic dependecy.
One thing I'd like to throw out is that, again, while I don't know about pornography is specific, I do know that more generally sexual obsessions and other paraphilias are far more common in sexually repressive and repressed populations. So, in an odd way, for certain people, what you are saying is likely right.
It seemed like you had mistunderstood me. I had a lengthy reply all typed up and the forums decided to mess up when I posted. Serves me right for not copying and pasting like I typically do before clicking "Add Reply."
I should like to know what your definition of "Repressed" is. For me, I can see life long vows of celibacy, or vows that extend for many years as being repressive. But I personally do not see a person who is monogamous, refrains from masturbating, and does not view porn as well within healthy parameters for having a healthy sex life.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think the system actually makes a difference NOW? To whom?
As retailers learn to enforce ratings more effectively, the broad categories are restricting children's unfettered access to games intended for adults.
Do you feel that parents are ignoring the rating system and simply doing nothing to restrict their children's game access? Or do you feel that they are using other methods to determine which games are appropriate?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The discussion about porn addiction has got me wondering ... how can a psychologist divorce idealogy from the study of pathological human behavior?
Sure, there is a large amount of descriptive work that can be done without injecting any values into the system. But eventually, it seems, someone usually ends up having to make a call about which feelings and behaviors are desirable, normal, or healthy in a human being, and which are not.
How can such determinations be made without being overly dependent on the personal values of the researcher?
Guilt, for example, is an unpleasant experience that most people would prefer to avoid. When a person suffers from irrational or inappropriate guilt, it can cause unnecessary pain that can worsen severely with time. But guilt also serves a valuable function in regulating human behavior relative to other humans, and keeping our society going. When guilt is warranted, it is essential.
So how does a psychologist determine when to treat guilt as a pathology, when the appropriateness of the guilt depends on the acceptability of the behavior that causes the guilt, which is an inherently value-based judgment?
Similarly, when does any sexual behavior cross over into the realm of addiction, pathology, obsession, compulsion, etc? Rather than being something harmless that people just like to do a lot? Much of that determination seems to stem from value-based decisions about which behaviors and experiences are desirable in a human, and which are not.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you feel that parents are ignoring the rating system and simply doing nothing to restrict their children's game access? Or do you feel that they are using other methods to determine which games are appropriate?
Yes. Specifically, I feel those kids who'd be harmed by viewing certain media almost certainly have parents who don't care what they're buying, and those kids who'd probably be least affected have parents who're already researching what they're viewing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what you're suggesting Tom, is that parents are probably much more influencial in their child's lives than a video game could be. Fascinating Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I agree with you in broad strokes. But I do think there is a grey area between those two extremes, where a simple, clear rating system gives certain parents (who normally would be intimidated by the prospect of researching a hobby they know nothing about) the tools they need to start making useful decisions.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In as much as the E and E10 games are probably as free of violent/sexual content as advertised, the ESRB is doing a good job.
I suspect the level of gray area in the T to AO spectrum is doing some disservices to adult gamers, children, and their parents.
And in glummer moments, I have to wonder if the screwheads aren't, almost accidentally, right: I don't really think Mortal Kombat is going to make halfway sane people attempt to pull out one another's spines, but I can't help but wonder if a steady diet of games in which the only way to overcome obstacles is violence- even if that violence is jumping on someone's head and knocking them offscreen- has some degree of psychological effect.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that a steady diet of violence in games and movies in conjunction with good parenting that provides a context and a value system alongside that violent input will have a neglible effect. In fact, video games and other media can be a useful tool in teaching children positive values and skills, even as they are vaporizing aliens
In my opinion, the real problems arise when parents refuse to parent their children, and those children form their value systems independently, basing them entirely, and at random, on input chosen from among the experiences children have access to — media, gangs, bullying, internet porn, whatever. Without a strong regulating influence to give context and meaning to a child's experiences, he is left on his own to understand the world in a childlike, impressionable way that leaves him much more open to develop in problematic directions.
I don't have a specific plan in mind at the moment, but censoring the media won't remove negative influences from the lives of at-risk children and prevent them from becoming problem members of society. Only good parenting can do that.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I really would like to see, again, is a study that compares the effects of violent video games to the effects of violent sports and martial arts. I suspect that the effects are similar if not much less, and that violent play has not significantly changed its role in society with the advent of computer entertainment.
In the end, though, I have reservations about any prescription for changing human behavior that treats humans like statistics. Adding and removing different inputs from human populations hoping that broad behavioral patterns will change as a result seems to deny the responsibility of each individual for his own choices. I feel like I've got more to say on this topic, but it's not fully-formed just yet ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should like to know what your definition of "Repressed" is. For me, I can see life long vows of celibacy, or vows that extend for many years as being repressive. But I personally do not see a person who is monogamous, refrains from masturbating, and does not view porn as well within healthy parameters for having a healthy sex life.
Repression, in the sense I'm using it, isn't about end behavior at all. You can't point to a behavior and say "this is repression". Rather, it's the way in which that behavior is motivated and carried out. Repression is a way of doing things that relies on strong, irrational negative emotion, generally fear, to prevent people from doing things.
For example, up until recently, it was common practice for Catholics to tell boys that masterbation would make them go blind. That's an attempt to instill repression.
Likewise, the immense outcry over Janet Jackson's bare breast and the damage it would do to children is a sign of a repressed society.
As I sort of mentiopned before, repression doesn't actually do away with the repressed drive, but rather drives it out of consciouness and often perverts it. So, for example, sexual obession and other sexual disorders have a much greater prevelance among sexually repressive populations.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that a steady diet of violence in games and movies in conjunction with good parenting that provides a context and a value system alongside that violent input will have a neglible effect.
I submit that if you substitute the word "sex" for the word "violence" in that sentence it would remain equally valid.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Likewise, the immense outcry over Janet Jackson's bare breast and the damage it would do to children is a sign of a repressed society.
I think people often mischaracterize the outcry. It wasn't about the exposed breast (which, if accidental, would have been forgotten within a week, except by Jay Leno), but rather about the clear, conscious attempt to put an erotic show on the national airwaves in the middle of the day, where people assume that there will be certain limits on the sexual content.
quote:I submit that if you substitute the word "sex" for the word "violence" in that sentence it would remain equally valid.
And I would submit that sexual imagery, by itself, divorced from context, has effects that violent imagery, divorced from context, does not have.
Clearly, I'm in the minority in thinking this (and I'm sure that Squick is offended that I'm even daring to suggest an opinion without forty studies and two political "consensus statements" to back it up statistically), but I suspect there is a reason why the Victoria's Secret catalog and certain issues of National Geographic were such attractions to teenage boys of an earlier generation, while issues of Boy's Life depicting hiking injuries were easy to ignore.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That something is more attractive does not necessarily mean that it's more harmful. I understand the practicality of building up bulwarks against the likelier of two evils, but those bulwarks should also reflect the seriousness of those evils.
Otherwise, we might as well launch a nationwide crusade against jaywalking.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. My only point right now is that they are different, and that it is reasonable to treat them differently — not that one is horrific and the other is innocuous.
There are other factors as well, beyond the one you cited. Violent behavior, in our society, is firmly circumscribed by laws and punishments, while sexual behavior, in general, is not, unless it becomes violent. So even if the influence of sexual imagery is less potent than the influence of violent imagery (which I do not concede), it may well be that the lack of regulation of the consequences of problematic sexual attitudes and behavior makes preventative measures more important for parents to take.
Just an example. No assertions are being made that I have any studies or statistics to back up this particular example.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, a lot of what you've been saying in this thread has felt very wrong to me. Not in a way I could argue logically, just a feeling. I've been thinking about this thread a lot for the past couple of days because of that, despite a general lack of interest in most video games. Two things have been bothering me.
First, it seems to me, and this might not have been your intent, that you've tied violence in video games and "thrills" together so tightly that it would be virtually impossible for someone to prove to you that violence in video games is addictive. Instead you seem to say that if someone is addicted to violent video games, they're addicted to the video game aspect, and not the violence aspect. If you define an addiction to violent video games as an addiction to video games, then there's no way to prove to you that the violence in video games is addictive.
The second thing that's been bothering me is in this quote:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: [QUOTE] Humans, on the other hand, have a different reaction to violence. We get pumped with adrenaline when we see certain types of violence (and revulsion when we see others), but either way, our instincts aren't predatory. We don't develop a desire to murder and devour other people. Adrenaline just makes us want to move fast, experience thrills, and do "cool" things, from skateboarding to riding a rollercoaster to driving too fast. So for us, violent art is far less dangerous than it would be for a hypothetical society of sharks. It isn't the mere presence of violence that makes something "bad" for us, but rather the social context and presentation of that violence. Violent imagery, for normal humans, doesn't function like a drug.
Note that most people gravitate towards violence that "looks cool" — car chases with explosions, martial arts with wire work, two-fisted slow-motion gunslinging. In those cases, it's not the "killing people" aspect of the scene that makes it cool. It's the choreography, the drama, the sense of jeopardy, the overcoming of terrifying odds.
Sexual imagery, however, does have a more shark-like, drug-like effect on humans. It triggers chemical and emotional responses that cut very deeply and promote compulsive behavior. People become addicted to pornography much more easily than they become addicted to violence, or even thrills, and the wrong kind or amount of sexual experience at the wrong age can warp someone's sexual development.
I think this is incredibly a male reaction, and I think that's why my instincts scream at me that this is wrong. I'm a girl, I think people know that, but my sn is ambiguous, so let's just be clear. Me= female.
What you're describing here is completely the opposite for me, and for most of my female friends. I can't think of a sex scene in a movie or tv show that has ever turned me on. I can't think of one that's even inspired strong feelings in me that weren't the goal of the storyteller.
Violent scenes though, those have very strong emotional effects on me. The fight scenes you talk about that are meant to be beautiful, those can turn me on, under the right circumstances. The sex scene in one of the Matrix movies that everyone made a big deal of I thought was boring. Neo fighting at the end of the 3rd movie? That was hot.
However, for the other violent scenes, the ones meant to get your adrenaline pumping (which, in my experience are the vast majority). I'm terrified. I react so much more strongly than I ever would to a sex scene. Usually with some physical action such as jumping up and running out of the room. Then I can't sleep, for days. If it's really bad, when I finally get to sleep, I have nightmares.
Granted, it certainly isn't addicting, and my reactions aren't harming anyone, but the high tolerance our culture has for violence sure is harming me.
And I really wish that would be taken into account, not so much in video games, but certianly in movie ratings. We let kids see movies with enough violence to keep me, a 20 year old almost woman, up for a week; and yet in those same movies the slightest bit of sex would have the country in an outcry.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:... there's no way to prove to you that the violence in video games is addictive.
I can see how you got that impression, but my reasoning for believing that it is not the violence in games that causes them to be addictive goes like this:
1. Violent movies are not more addictive than non-violent movies, to my knowledge. 2. The most commonly-cited addictive video games are not violent (Tetris, Bejeweled, The Sims).
It's not that I've crafted a delicate logical mechanism that gives me an excuse to think what I want to think. I think what I do because the two items above seem to indicate it.
You're right, though, that I am focusing on male reactions to things. Partly, that's because I am male myself, and partly, that's because the largest category of violent video game players, by far, is male. Still, if the difference I'm describing is accurate for one gender, I think it is significant enough to be worth recognizing, even if (and I think you are correct) there is a very different set of common reactions to be expected from the other gender.
It actually sort of illustrates my point. Men have differing reactions to images of sex and violence. Women have a different set of differing reactions to sex and violence. And beyond those broad strokes, each individual has their own unique (and sometimes eccentric) set of different reactions.
The main point I'm trying to make is that when people try to say that sex and violence need to be treated exactly the same in ratings systems, or insinuate that someone is a hypocrite for rating a game M for nudity, and another T for violence, they are enforcing a false equivalence. I'm saying that there is nothing irrational or hypocritical in treating images of sex and violence differently. If we can establish that point, then we can debate which should be treated more severely as a separate discussion.
In short, I was giving examples to illustrate that the difference is real. If you have a different set of examples, then cool. Difference is still real.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, This isn't my area of focus, so I don't have the references on hand. The list of references I gave before has several sources that treat violence in youths as a whole. If you're interested, I'd suggest giving one of more of them a read.
Geoff,
quote:I think people often mischaracterize the outcry. It wasn't about the exposed breast (which, if accidental, would have been forgotten within a week, except by Jay Leno), but rather about the clear, conscious attempt to put an erotic show on the national airwaves in the middle of the day, where people assume that there will be certain limits on the sexual content.
I think your betraying yourself here. A bare breast is not an erotic show. For that matter, commercials use sexual content to sell things like soap, yet there is little to no outcry. Also, we've been talking about a game here that features a female character with bare breasts in, from what I can tell, is a entirely non-sexual context.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
that were they given equal incentive to give up lemonade or porn they would opt to give up lemonade.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
