It didn't take 30 seconds to find something that validates that the real impact of porn is damaging to people.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23930556/The-Effects-of-Pornography-on-Individuals-Marriage-Family-and-Community

My point was about "crude sexual content," not just nudity in games. I could not connect the two right now and I'm sure that literature would not validate any notion of the kind. However, I think that the existance of the material in a game that *I* would play could possibly lead me toward that path. And I think that I'm not alone. So I'll not buy. And I will hope that my dollar speaks.

SON OF A FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU----

Whenever i hear "objectifying women", i think of "objectifying men". For example in video games, soldiers are just units that get killed, ran over by tanks, eaten by sandworms, they're just cannon fodder.

And no, women are not "treated that way" in Poland. Whatever it means.

is this not the same argument used by people who are against violence in video games?
And your son probably shouldn't be playing a game with gratuitous violence or be watching someone play them either.
so, you are suggesting censoring art.
And reductio ad absurdum

If you can't handle a titty, don't buy it.

Move on.

Here's the thing. A bruise or an injury from a fight is something that will heal. Something like a pregnancy or an STD among other things is something that can effect you for the rest of your life, which is why sex is supposedly such a sensitive thing here, and violence not so much since its pretty much accepted that its something you may have to deal with eventually. Being slowly desensitized by various things is one factor, just not the only one.

Now that's not to say that I hate sex. I personally think sex is a great thing. I just think its abused beyond belief, and I still believe in waiting for sex until marriage and all that jazz.

When things like sex are used to sell a product, I'm not going to believe that the girls are really that dumb to think its an art form, or can really play dumb about it, cus really its not. They know full well what they're getting into when posing for a centerfold of a magazine like Playboy or something, they know the crowd they're going to attract and who the target audience is, and its about making money.

I like the idea of a calendar for The Witcher 2's release, I just heavily disagree with the content of it and how its trying to be sold. Its just stupid to me, and what's worse is that they're not the only ones to try this tactic, pro sports teams over here in the US, lets take my Kansas City Chiefs for example, do calendar things with their cheerleaders. Except instead of it being in good taste, its a swimsuit calendar instead, cus they're only thinking about one thing, to make money.

Believe it or not, for a few years I read and looked through some of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit magazines that came with the Sports Illustrated subscription my mom bought me (things they do once a year). I ended up throwing them all away once I was done reading them, there's really no point to them unless you're a teenager that can't get his hands on anything else if you get what I'm sayin.

IDK, this just seems like a bogus move on the part of CDP. I have no problem with nudity, I have no problem with sex, I have no problem with a calendar. But when those are combined, I know what they're after, and I know in what context that is. They're just after people's money.

We all remember when Fox News made much ado about nothing with Mass Effect, when in fact there was a good reason for the sex scene in the game that they were raving mad about. Its generally the context of such content that effects how I feel about it, and not just the content itself in plain black and white.

You didn't happen to notice that this was put out by a group of Catholics? And that the paper it references is from the Family Research Council?

This (FRC) is the same hate group that's been bashing homosexuality for quite a while now. That's not to say that it's automatically a bad study, but I'd be surprised if they bothered to get the facts right.

Could be. Anyhow, i see it as oversensitivity of our age, and i don't see it ending good.


Anyhow, in Poland, at least, we see that Playboy thing as part of a marketing thing, for a game, and nobody sees it as a picture, of what we think of women. Sorry to disappoint.
It's a bunch of polygons. It's like a photoshopped girl advertising the effects of a wonder creme in a women magazine. It's an add, not an essay on sexual abuse.

This, definitely this.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but around here women are downright aggressive. And it's really bad because rather than actually just doing something about it they do pretty much everything else making me feel extremely uncomfortable. And that's assuming that they know better than to touch without asking.

The whole notion of feminism in modern America is just more or less complete bullshit. It basically amounts to, lets take advantage of men by pretending to be stupid and misquote research for our own ends.

Yes there is a difference, and neither the playboy photo shown on the original link nor the calendar, nor anything usually in Playboy for that matter is "pornographic" (is has been years since I last bought a Playboy so maybe it has change), erotic yes, pornographic no

I doubt that there are many "young males", old enough to play Witcher, that are unable to have all the boobs they ever want online for much cheaper than the Witcher price.

My appoligies. I just quickly looked for something with a PhD attached to show how quickly you can find something that indicates that crude sexual content is not healthy to view.

Hey, why the renderism? It could be vector, not pixels. =P

... women? :D

After the hentai boom started in Japan, violent sexual crimes decreased dramatically, while non-violent sexual crimes increased dramatically. YMMV on whether this is good or bad.