I'm sorry, but when was Mortal Kombat a part of this discussion?
And when did I ever say that gratuitous violence was superior to over-sexualization?
It wasn't and it wasn't personal. I apologize if it came off that way.
I'm just saying that I've seen too many people hold Dead or Alive (and other games with sexy eyecandy) in contempt because of the sexiness, yet they are fine with extremely violent games such as Mortal Kombat.
In short: "Ugh, you like DoA, seriously? Because of the sexy girls, right? lol Anyway, I'm going to butcher and mutilate people in Mortal Kombat because that's more socially acceptable."
@Archaos To be fair, that's an American cultural thing. America was originally settled by Puritans, who were much more against sex than violence (I used to have a book which mentioned the first murder in the New World was someone who came over on the Mayflower taking vicious exception to another Pilgrim's face, more or less, and he continued to be a problem for the entire community, as I recall). Other countries feel differently about that.
As for the "brutality in men" thing, I think certain women (myself included) are not upset at brutality in men as long as it isn't directed at us, but outwards. Some women have no problem with a man who can be a brutal protector, yet loving towards his loved ones. That, I think, is the appeal of "Bad Boys". Bad towards others, but loving the person he is with. We don't *want* someone who will brutalize us, but someone who can and will be Brutal to protect us.
I'd like to ad though (and I am more than certain that Rhian is very aware of this, but I'd like to mention it anyway to avoid possible confusion. After all, this thread wouldn't exist if stuff like this was abundantly clear) that there is a difference between fantasizing about "brutality in men" and actually wanting something like this in real life. A smart person may like to make googly eyes at a "bad boy", but it's unlikely they would actually want to marry one, because I am going to assume that they don't make for good husbands and fathers (or upright citizens in general ...).
Thinking about being with a guy like Dorn?
Actually wanting to be with a guy like Dorn?
I totally didn't ad that last part just because I wanted to make a Simpsons reference, nope :X
Eh. There's a slight difference between the "brutal guardian, loving caretaker" and the "bad-boy", but I still basically agree with the above four posts.
Edit: Example: I'm the kind of guy who seems cheerful and friendly and pacifistic, but you hurt my woman and I'll tear you in two. Literally. I sure don't seem like a bad boy, but the "brutal guardian, loving caretaker" tag is accurate.
@Archaos To be fair, that's an American cultural thing.
At the risk of getting people offended (they would chose to be offended, though) and opening another can of worms, I'm going to say that it's not American culture, it's religion (Christianity/Islam) mostly.
If you look at ancient times, nudity and sex not only wasn't shameful and taboo, it was quite normal and it was portrayed many times. Mainly Ancient Greece.
Then came Christianity, demonized anything sexual while also supporting violence in the Bible (some verses encourage stoning etc) and then the Dark Ages which only took those ideas to the extreme. You had witch burnings and the Crusades on the hand of violence and other practices that limited or forbid anything sexual on the other.
And this is true to an extend to this day and age. You can show decapitations, mutilations and general violence and gore in video games/movies but showing a nipple or genitalia is just too much.
It should be the other way around. People should be absolutely comfortable with sexuality, sexiness, sex and nudity and violence and gore should be criticized as Adults Only.
When you can show something like Saw or other gory movies on cinemas but you cannot show porn (which is just people having sex), you know that society's priorities and moral compass are way messed up and still anachronistic.
Eh, I come from a Christian country and upbringing and people here aren't exactly known for their prudishness. Quite the opposite, actually. I remember back in confirmation classes (it's a type of class at church where 13 and 14 year old children are schooled to become full "adult" members of the evangelic church) we occasionally spoke about sex. Also, don't forget the theory that the USA is more weapon- and violence-desensitized because not too long ago there where actual laws that demanded every household to have a gun and "the man of the house" to be trained with it. A lot of other countries have/had pretty much opposite laws.
On the topic of showing porn in cinemas and the likes, I'd rather like to sit next to someone who is getting scared s***less, than next to someone who'd want to drop their pants any second and wiggle one out. Though you could argue that this too might just be due to social constructs. My personal hypothesis is, that it's due to violence being far less "personal" than sex.
Either way, sex and violence are both very real parts of human life and children (as well as adults) should be well educated on both regards.
PS: My point is, with enjoying violence in games, books, movies, etc. it's exactly the same as fantasizing about getting it on with a character you wouldn't even want to meet in real life. It's a fantasy, nothing more.
@Archaeos I am not sure where @Buttercheese is from, but France, also traditionally Christian, doesn't have as much of a problem with sex as it does with violence.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "Scratch an American and you will find a Puritan?"
The Puritan legacy was a deeply Manichean one, that is, it viewed the world as a constant struggle between Good and Evil. America was regarded as the equivalent of biblical Canaan, and the Puritan settlers were akin to the Hebrews crossing the River Jordan. And this black-and-white, us-versus-them invariably leads to violent outcomes, because if you believe yourself to be entirely good, and your enemy to be entirely evil, then any level of violence against them is justified. Your whole identity becomes centered around war and conflict, hence America's long history of military intervention throughout the world.
You see this view in the popular perception of the American War of Independence. The version in the popular conscious (and I'm certain is taught in American public schools) is that it was a struggle between the noble colonists and the evil, tyrannical empire of Great Britain (see the Mel Gibson film The Patriot) This view doesn't account for the fact that the Founding Fathers supported slavery and considered black people to be something less than human, nor does it encompass the appalling treatment of the colonists who remained loyal to Great Britain (up to 20% of population at the time), who are almost never discussed in American history (see the book Liberty's Exiles by Maya Jasanoff). These topics are scarcely mentioned because they contradict the popular black and white narrative.
In addition, American society is highly atomised; the general cultural mindset is "Sink or swim, you're on your own, don't expect anyone to help you." It's not hard to see how this ultra-individualistic mindset can lead to distrust, paranoia, and ultimately violence. One should note that countries with a strong focus on cultural harmony, such as Japan and Korea, are not plagued with the frequent mass shootings that the United States is.
In every war that has ever been fought in the history of this planet, both sides have thought themselves in the right and their opponents get vilified (if for no other reason than to keep the soldiers fighting). And invariably, when a winner is declared the victors write history books such that the victors were justified in their actions and the losers NEEDED to be taken down.
Saying Americans do that? True. Saying that we are the only ones that do that? WAY False.
The end bit about 'Sink or swim'??? Where is that coming from? And the supposition that 'cultural harmony' has anything to do with 'frequent mass shootings'? I think someone may have been teaching you from a biased view point. Personal opinion.
In the end, I think that a lot of what you are saying is subject to the same fallacies that you claim the US is guilty of, that of thinking yourself in the right and those that think differently (or are portrayed differently in the popular media) are 'The Bad guys'. We Americans are guilty of a lot, it's true. I strongly suspect that we aren't that different from everyone else in the world in that we all have flaws.
@Archaos To be fair, that's an American cultural thing.
It should be the other way around. People should be absolutely comfortable with sexuality, sexiness, sex and nudity and violence and gore should be criticized as Adults Only.
@Archaos To be fair, that's an American cultural thing.
It should be the other way around. People should be absolutely comfortable with sexuality, sexiness, sex and nudity and violence and gore should be criticized as Adults Only.
Why?
I would suppose that sex and reproduction is a natural part of the human experience while people being killed is a tad bit darker. Well. I suppose that's subjective but I personally find it to be darker.
Just to set the record straight- I am American. But I don't feel upset about sex or nudity. I do find violence to be worse, simply because there is so much of it. Especially here in the states. I'd rather see people make love than get into gun fights.
I don't know if that makes me unusual, but oh well, Why be normal?
@Archaos To be fair, that's an American cultural thing.
It should be the other way around. People should be absolutely comfortable with sexuality, sexiness, sex and nudity and violence and gore should be criticized as Adults Only.
Why?
I would suppose that sex and reproduction is a natural part of the human experience while people being killed is a tad bit darker. Well. I suppose that's subjective but I personally find it to be darker.
Pretty much what @Vallmyr said. Because something so natural, normal as nudity and sex is more of a taboo than mutilating and chunking the other person.
I'm fine with both really. I'm not trying to come off like some sort of hippie "make love not war". But, in general, if someone says that he enjoys erotic/porn movies/games will get comments such as "lol get a girlfriend, lol loser, lol seriously?", whereas if they say that they enjoy Mortal Kombat for the violence and gore everyone will be cool.
An example, the rating of the original Baldur's Gate is 12+ (as seen on my box). In BG, you can kill them, chunk them, burn them, disintegrate them, electrify them, turn them into an icicle and shatter them, petrify them etc.
But if you included an erotic or nude scene or naked paperdolls (even pixelated), without any sex, the rating would suddenly sky-rocket to 16-18+.
Same with Dragon Age Origins that had sex-scenes in underwear, Mass Effect that was suggestive (and got criticized by the mainstream media) etc.
At least the Witcher series took bold steps and display nudity. Still no full-frontal though.
In short: Nudity and sex = not socially acceptable. Violence and gore = socially acceptable.
I do wonder what a woman who, seeing the topic heading and thinking they might get some insight into whether or not they might enjoy the game, would think.
I do wonder what a woman who, seeing the topic heading and thinking they might get some insight into whether or not they might enjoy the game, would think.
I do wonder what a woman who, seeing the topic heading and thinking they might get some insight into whether or not they might enjoy the game, would think.
I do wonder what a woman who, seeing the topic heading and thinking they might get some insight into whether or not they might enjoy the game, would think.
And Edwin, who is wearing two hoods- that's not his hair, people. Thayans, because of the heat of their homeland, and their culture, shave themselves bald.
Doesn't mean it's not wrong. Edwin could be a maverick. He could see the absence of hair as weakness among his fellows and grow a full head of luxurious power mad hair to flaunt his superiority. Lord knows he likes to do that.
Though I think LadyRhian is probably right, I prefer to think of him like the picture meagloth posted. By the way, who’s artwork is that @meagloth? I love their work.
@Elrandir That is something he might do, isn’t it? The man is just to vain to go around bald like everyone else.
Comments
I'm just saying that I've seen too many people hold Dead or Alive (and other games with sexy eyecandy) in contempt because of the sexiness, yet they are fine with extremely violent games such as Mortal Kombat.
In short: "Ugh, you like DoA, seriously? Because of the sexy girls, right? lol Anyway, I'm going to butcher and mutilate people in Mortal Kombat because that's more socially acceptable."
As for the "brutality in men" thing, I think certain women (myself included) are not upset at brutality in men as long as it isn't directed at us, but outwards. Some women have no problem with a man who can be a brutal protector, yet loving towards his loved ones. That, I think, is the appeal of "Bad Boys". Bad towards others, but loving the person he is with. We don't *want* someone who will brutalize us, but someone who can and will be Brutal to protect us.
I'd like to ad though (and I am more than certain that Rhian is very aware of this, but I'd like to mention it anyway to avoid possible confusion. After all, this thread wouldn't exist if stuff like this was abundantly clear) that there is a difference between fantasizing about "brutality in men" and actually wanting something like this in real life. A smart person may like to make googly eyes at a "bad boy", but it's unlikely they would actually want to marry one, because I am going to assume that they don't make for good husbands and fathers (or upright citizens in general ...).
Thinking about being with a guy like Dorn?
Actually wanting to be with a guy like Dorn?
I totally didn't ad that last part just because I wanted to make a Simpsons reference, nope :X
Edit: Example: I'm the kind of guy who seems cheerful and friendly and pacifistic, but you hurt my woman and I'll tear you in two. Literally. I sure don't seem like a bad boy, but the "brutal guardian, loving caretaker" tag is accurate.
If you look at ancient times, nudity and sex not only wasn't shameful and taboo, it was quite normal and it was portrayed many times. Mainly Ancient Greece.
Then came Christianity, demonized anything sexual while also supporting violence in the Bible (some verses encourage stoning etc) and then the Dark Ages which only took those ideas to the extreme.
You had witch burnings and the Crusades on the hand of violence and other practices that limited or forbid anything sexual on the other.
And this is true to an extend to this day and age. You can show decapitations, mutilations and general violence and gore in video games/movies but showing a nipple or genitalia is just too much.
It should be the other way around. People should be absolutely comfortable with sexuality, sexiness, sex and nudity and violence and gore should be criticized as Adults Only.
When you can show something like Saw or other gory movies on cinemas but you cannot show porn (which is just people having sex), you know that society's priorities and moral compass are way messed up and still anachronistic.
On the topic of showing porn in cinemas and the likes, I'd rather like to sit next to someone who is getting scared s***less, than next to someone who'd want to drop their pants any second and wiggle one out. Though you could argue that this too might just be due to social constructs. My personal hypothesis is, that it's due to violence being far less "personal" than sex.
Either way, sex and violence are both very real parts of human life and children (as well as adults) should be well educated on both regards.
Also, this and that video might interest you.
PS: My point is, with enjoying violence in games, books, movies, etc. it's exactly the same as fantasizing about getting it on with a character you wouldn't even want to meet in real life. It's a fantasy, nothing more.
But yeah, I am gonna guess that this goes for most European countries.
The Puritan legacy was a deeply Manichean one, that is, it viewed the world as a constant struggle between Good and Evil. America was regarded as the equivalent of biblical Canaan, and the Puritan settlers were akin to the Hebrews crossing the River Jordan. And this black-and-white, us-versus-them invariably leads to violent outcomes, because if you believe yourself to be entirely good, and your enemy to be entirely evil, then any level of violence against them is justified. Your whole identity becomes centered around war and conflict, hence America's long history of military intervention throughout the world.
You see this view in the popular perception of the American War of Independence. The version in the popular conscious (and I'm certain is taught in American public schools) is that it was a struggle between the noble colonists and the evil, tyrannical empire of Great Britain (see the Mel Gibson film The Patriot) This view doesn't account for the fact that the Founding Fathers supported slavery and considered black people to be something less than human, nor does it encompass the appalling treatment of the colonists who remained loyal to Great Britain (up to 20% of population at the time), who are almost never discussed in American history (see the book Liberty's Exiles by Maya Jasanoff). These topics are scarcely mentioned because they contradict the popular black and white narrative.
In addition, American society is highly atomised; the general cultural mindset is "Sink or swim, you're on your own, don't expect anyone to help you." It's not hard to see how this ultra-individualistic mindset can lead to distrust, paranoia, and ultimately violence. One should note that countries with a strong focus on cultural harmony, such as Japan and Korea, are not plagued with the frequent mass shootings that the United States is.
In every war that has ever been fought in the history of this planet, both sides have thought themselves in the right and their opponents get vilified (if for no other reason than to keep the soldiers fighting). And invariably, when a winner is declared the victors write history books such that the victors were justified in their actions and the losers NEEDED to be taken down.
Saying Americans do that? True. Saying that we are the only ones that do that? WAY False.
The end bit about 'Sink or swim'??? Where is that coming from? And the supposition that 'cultural harmony' has anything to do with 'frequent mass shootings'? I think someone may have been teaching you from a biased view point. Personal opinion.
In the end, I think that a lot of what you are saying is subject to the same fallacies that you claim the US is guilty of, that of thinking yourself in the right and those that think differently (or are portrayed differently in the popular media) are 'The Bad guys'. We Americans are guilty of a lot, it's true. I strongly suspect that we aren't that different from everyone else in the world in that we all have flaws.
I don't know if that makes me unusual, but oh well, Why be normal?
Because something so natural, normal as nudity and sex is more of a taboo than mutilating and chunking the other person.
I'm fine with both really. I'm not trying to come off like some sort of hippie "make love not war".
But, in general, if someone says that he enjoys erotic/porn movies/games will get comments such as "lol get a girlfriend, lol loser, lol seriously?", whereas if they say that they enjoy Mortal Kombat for the violence and gore everyone will be cool.
An example, the rating of the original Baldur's Gate is 12+ (as seen on my box).
In BG, you can kill them, chunk them, burn them, disintegrate them, electrify them, turn them into an icicle and shatter them, petrify them etc.
But if you included an erotic or nude scene or naked paperdolls (even pixelated), without any sex, the rating would suddenly sky-rocket to 16-18+.
Same with Dragon Age Origins that had sex-scenes in underwear, Mass Effect that was suggestive (and got criticized by the mainstream media) etc.
At least the Witcher series took bold steps and display nudity. Still no full-frontal though.
In short:
Nudity and sex = not socially acceptable.
Violence and gore = socially acceptable.
@Elrandir That is something he might do, isn’t it?