Won't Someone Think of the Children?

Won't Someone Think of the Children?

"On the surface, videogames seem so easy: So easy to stereotype as an anti-social subculture, so easy to peg as a worthless pursuit, so easy to fit into the large scheme of 'corruption.' But the medium Americans thought they knew is changing, pulling the rug out from under assumption." Bonnie Ruberg looks at the maturation of the gaming industry.


Teens will always, and I do mean always, find a way to get get their hands on porn. The only law that will stop this is one that involves the euthanization of all children when they hit thirteen, Holocaust-style.

I always found it amusing that as a culture the Western world worships violence but is against sex, and when I mean against its just when someone throws them a few microphones to babble into.

I'm not sure what this article wanted to convey. The article talked about videogame sex (not) corrupting the children because of the proliferation of porn on the internet, and then nullifies the entire first page by saying the gaming demographic is older in the second page? The article then ends with 'no amount of legislation can ever stop the appeal of games', which left me incredibly confused. Are we talking about the survival of the game industry or videogame sex here?

The article also seems to assume that the government isn't actually doing anything about porn on the internet. One only needs to Google it to see that internet porn is, in fact, being dealt with on a daily basis. The article seems to have fallen into the mistake of 'if I can't see it, it doesn't exist'. Just because Jack Thompson is on front page news doesn't mean the entire police force is incompetent.

Also, of another note: It is unfair to compare internet pornography with videogame sex. These are two completely different (physical) entities, and law enforcement for either takes a whole different realm. Games are easy to target because they are physically available; there are video game stores; there are easy ways to track purchases. The Internet, on the other hand, is wide and sprawling, rife with changeable IP address and no known physical location. Arguing why Internet pornography still exists while railing over the injustice of videogame legislation is like comparing a potato to a turkey.

I find it a little confusing that the article seems to lump all children into a single category: all children watch porn. Using this as a basis, the article seems to say that it's okay for children to play games with sex in it (simply because they've already seen it, or it's readily available to them), hence legislating videogames is nonsense and a waste of time. The flaw is obvious: there are children who play games and do not watch porn.

The article then does a 180 and argues that people who play video games, in fact, are older (I take the 'study' with a grain of salt - there are no sources, no list of demographics surveyed, the amount of people surveyed, the locations surveyed... surveys are hardly 'facts', unless they actually surveyed the entire gaming population in the world) and are entitled to do whatever the hell they want. This in turn, goes under the assumption that adults are less prone to 'influences' than the average teenager.

This brings me to my next point: What annoys me is that the oft-touted argument of kids being unable to distinguish 'fantasy and reality' is absolute nonsense. Take the Da Vinci code, for example, or even the movie National Treasure. There were adults who geuninely believed that Mary was the wife of Jesus after reading the book, and there were people who thought there was really something behind the Declaration of Independence (so much so that the US Archives had to correct that knowledge). Or, to take an even more controversial example: religion. Whether the Book of Revelations is fantasy or reality is even argued within the religion itself. Adults are no more susceptible to 'influences' than the youth. Simply because we perceive we can distinguish something clearly in a certain genre doesn't mean we're more enlightened or smarter than others.

I came away reading this article with very little understanding of what the writer was trying to get it. Was the writer against videogame legislation because of adult entitlement, or children already watching porn, or sex being a social norm that should no longer be taboo to 5 year olds? Was she even talking about the children in the first place, and if not, why the title? I feel like I've stepped into Huxley's Brave New World here, where children have a go at it with one another while the adults become mindless consumer zombies under the World State. Call me old fashioned, but 5 year olds having sex is something that I don't want to see in the near future.


Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here