I've seen a lot of talking on the forums about the restriction of objectionable content in games across different cultures, specifically around the time Manhunt 2 got AO (I know, proves I've been neglecting this blog, huh?). A lot of people have drudged up the differences in cultures between the US and Europe in these topics, taking note of how the US seems to giggle at violence and cry foul at any sexuality in the material. A point often made about this obviously observable phenomenon is the seeming silliness of the States for making a big deal about sex, which certain european citizens view as much less of a deal than brutally killing people. Basically, because the US condones violence in media while screaming about sex in same, people say the US is dumb.

Makes sense, right? Right?

Unfortunately this argument suffers from a common failing: Letting good sense take you to an obvious conclusion before the brain kicks in.

First, let's think about why people would view this content as objectionable in the first place. If a man kills another man in a fake enviornment on a screen, and it has no effect on the thoughts or intentions of anyone around, is it a problem? No. Likewise with a sexual act performed in some sort of media: if the "objectionable content" inspires no intent in anyone viewing it, where's the objection? Nowhere. And that's the reason some things in the media are controversial and unacceptable: They have a possiblity of inspiring imitation, particularly among young, impressionable children. Monkey see, monkey do, if you will.

Let's consider something else, a hypothetical experiment: A movie has both a brutal killing and a sex act contained, and a young woman watches it. She dearly likes the movie and this moves her to act. Now, there are two paths this influence could take: she could go and murder someone, or she could engage in sex. Because, despite being rather impressionable, she is otherwise a well-adjusted human being, it is HIGHLY doubtful that she would even consider taking a human life, and therefore she would take the alternative, which sadly may have potentially life-wrecking consequences.

Now, it's true that even most children aren't nearly that open to suggestion, but please recall that modern culture inundates them in smut practically to their eyebrows. MTV screams it at them. Magazines and products holler it. Television and Movies glamorize irresponsible sexuality. Violence is there, too, but it's doubtful that that will be acted upon in imitation.

To illustrate my argument, I call upon the mighty power of statistics.

There were only 9.0 Homocides per every 100,000 people ages 14-17 in the US in 2002, according to the US Department of Justice.

On the other hand, there were 7539.8 pregancies for 100,000 teenage women aged 15-19, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

I think this data speaks for itself. If a youth is going to react to a piece of media, they're much more likely to go out and have irresponsible sex than kill someone. Irresponsible sex can have terrible consequences, as well: it can destroy a girl's health, have potentially deadly complications, or result in her needing to drop out of school. In addition, teenage pregnancies have a higher rate of birth defects. These pregnancies also lead to Abortions 25% of the time, and regardless of your stance on their morality, abortions are often painful and unhealthy procedures that can leave lasting guilt and emotional scars.

So, this brings me to my point: glamorized sexuality in media, like games, is a greater threat to society than glamorized violence because it has a much higher chance of leading to imitation.

While no one in their right mind will tell you that the results of irresponsible sex are worse than the results of murder, the fact remains that irresponsible sex is still a great harm to youth's lives, and there is nothing silly about being up in arms about throwing it happily into the hands of impressionable teens.