Friday, July 1, 2011

Bombs not Boners

This video highlights the ridiculousness of some people in this country. Sex is demonized and yet violence is standard. It makes no sense.

Now, whether or not you agree with controlling what video games minors can by through legislation isn't really the point here. I think parents are ultimately responsible for what their children buy. I'm more bothered by the obvious double standard sexual content is subjected to by the courts.

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the two dissenters, actually commented on this himself:
"What sense does it make," he asked, "to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured, and killed — is also topless?"
It does make you wonder.


  1. Please tell me you almost peed yourself laughing, like I did, when Super Mario Boner came on the screen? HAHAHA!

    I think it IS very fucked up that they'll protect children from sex but not violence. While I agree that it is up to the parents to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their children, I feel that if the government is going to restrict anything, they need to include violence. Obviously bullying is a huge issue among kids and maybe violent video games have no bearing on that. However it does appear to me that the increase in bullying correlates with the increase in violent video games. They're really just becoming more and more violent as technology allows it to.

    BTW, LOVE Jon Stewart.

  2. Murder is illegal in, I think, 49 states. Sex is legal in all 50. Yet, we can show graphic images of murder to our 5 year olds and not raise an eyebrow, but somehow can't allow a 14 year old to see boobs.
    Our society has some seriously fucked-up sensibilities.

  3. April: Yeah, I'm hesitant to say the government should step in, but I agree that certain levels of violence are a real issue. It reminds me of the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated. Have you seen it? It talks a lot about how sex is heavily controlled by the movie rating people, but violence is given a pass. Kevin Smith talks about how his film Jersey Girl got an R rating just for talking about masturbating. He then goes on to say, “If I were to create a ratings system, I wouldn’t even put murder right at the top of the chief offenses. I would put rape right at the top of the chief offenses, and the assault against women. Because it’s so insanely overused and insulting how much it’s overused in movies as a plot device: a woman in peril. That, to me, is offensive. Yet that shit skates.” It's totally screwed up.

    Mac: hmm that's an interesting point and I never thought of it that way.


What's on your mind?