Brent Bozell on Nudity in Upcoming Video Games

Ant writes "Brent Bozell of TownHall.com wrote an editorial about the video game nudity trend. It covers games like 'Playboy: The Mansion' and 'Singles: Flirt Up Your Life' that are due out later this year." Ultimately, Bozell seems to distrust the ESRB, citing Eidos' decision to only sell Singles in downloadable form.

Comments

L. Brent Bozell = idiot

[Pluvius]

So he thinks that the fact that this game won't be on retail shelves is a bad thing? Would he rather the ESRB give it a T rating and allow Eidos to sell it at Walmart where any kid could get it? There should be a requirement that you know what the hell you're talking about before you become an activist for something.

Rob

Re:L. Brent Bozell = idiot

[1001011010110101]

It sounds more like he would rather forbid them of publishing that kind of game at all. I mean, not on stores, not online, what's left?

Obligatory Gamers' Refrain

[EvilSporkMan]

Video games aren't just for kids anymore! 'Nuff said.

Sensationalism!

[nick_davison]

It's digusting that game companies are using the sensationalism of sex to get people interested in their games.

Why, it's almost as bad as journalists using the sensationalism of sex to get people interested in their articles.

It's like the whole Janet Jackson superbowl thing: Any normal person saw a low res blur for a split second. The outraged moral majority had to spend hours scouring the net to download and print a good half dozen different pictures of what bothered them so much.

Ratings

[Datasage]

Other than the fact that there is not much point to the game, singles. Its nudity is very modest. really its basically the sims with an option for sex and they dont fuzz the people out when they are in bed.

Yet we give that an AO rating while games like Manhunt and GTA only get a M rating.

Its kind of a double standard, but movies are more likely to get an NC-17 rating if they have alot of sex rather than alot of violence.

Hey, that's not cool.

[QuantumG]

You, too, can be a sleazy pornographer like Hugh Hefner, who in this game's vision is about 30 years younger and resembles Superman more than the dirty old man he is.

Damn, nice unbiased article there. If Mr Bozell wasn't such an ignorant jerk he'd know that Hugh Hefner is anything but a sleazy pornographer. He not only affected the way people perceived nudity, but he also popularized a way of life that was hardly known in the fifties. Hefner showed society that it was ok to shun marriage, kids and the picket fence. That both men and women could be sexual creatures without the shackles of moral expectations such as the presumption of family. The equility of the working couple would never have been possible without Hefner.

Re:Hey, that's not cool.

[dont_think_twice]

Damn, nice unbiased article there. If Mr Bozell wasn't such an ignorant jerk he'd know that Hugh Hefner is anything but a sleazy pornographer. He not only affected the way people perceived nudity, but he also popularized a way of life that was hardly known in the fifties

Brent Bozell is an ignorant jerk, but Hugh Hefner is no saint either. The way of life that he popularized was defined by greed and selfishness. His great insight was to tie sexuality to money and power. I am all for throwing off the shackles of moral expectation, but I would rather not replace them with the shackles of greed and excessive consumption

Re:Hey, that's not cool.

[dswensen]

Sorry, Hugh Hefner is not responsible for other peoples' stupidity and ignorance. If someone is so gullible that they get plastic surgery because a "magazine made them do it," then they have some serious problems, and the problem is not the magazine. It's a fundamental lack of judgment.

Nudity?? What about violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, parents should be more concerned about the extreme helpings of violence in video games. I'm not a nut who says that it makes neglected teens go out and shoot up their schools. Those are clearly cases where the parents were not nearly involved enough in their kids' lives.

But this whole outrage about nudity is mostly ridiculous. American culture just can't let go of its Puritan roots. It's the human body, for fuck's sake, we all have one! The human body can be a very beautiful, artistic thing. Sexuality is a natural, healthy thing. It doesn't have to be lewd, crude, or demeaning, but we're so fucking afraid of the naked body that we assume kids will be scarred for life if they see one.

Yeah, go ahead and let them watch people get killed every night on TV, see all the violence in the movies, and act it out in video games. No problem, we don't need to talk to our kids and explain how it's make-believe and that real violence is very, very wrong. But by god if they see one square inch of forbidden skin, they're damned to hell!

It's like the whole Janet Jackson fiasco. What a bunch of crap. Sure, nudity can be associated with sexual harrassment situations, and that's all bad. But unlike violence, it can also be a very beautiful thing and associated with the ultimate love between two people. No, brush that under the carpet and KEEP IT AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN! Will somebody please think of THE CHILDREN!!

Insane.

Re:Coming soon from Brent Bozell!

[Goldberg's Pants]

Bozell is a media whore. If I recall, is he not the person behind the Parents Television Coalition? I remember the PTC, back when wrestling was a big thing (a few years ago) went after the then World Wrestling Federation, convincing sponsors to pull out of the show etc... The PTC were also responsible for getting wrestling linked to some cases of a child killing another with a "Wrestling move".

If I remember the story correctly, in the end, the then WWF sued, won a substantial amount of damages, and the PTC was forced to issue a public apology.

It's been a while now, but I almost certain this is the same dickhead.

This is an American liberal?

[garyok]

The most disturbing thing about the article for me was the way, right from the start, that Bozell wants parents to endorse violence, role playing as a calculating killer, or a vicious thug capable of rupturing organs with their fists in preference to playing a game that lets you hope that one day sex might be a normal part of your life. He's happy with kids putrefying in their bedrooms as long as it's only deliberate brutal murder they're planning, not getting to second base.

That's perverse.

What sort of person is happier with junior killbots than junior people?

Eidos is at fault (...?)

[The-Bus]

Blockquoth Brent (all emphasis mine):

So what will all that playing accomplish? A parent can only hope the boys will spend a large chunk of the summer role-playing as heroic knights, dashing spies or glamorous power-hitters. But video-game manufacturers wouldn't mind if our kids imagined themselves as role-playing ultra-violent killers -- and now pornographers.

A parent can only hope... A neighbor can only hope. A schoolmate can only hope. A second cousin can only hope. BUT PARENTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HOPE. Hey, guess who didn't let Mortal Kombat into my house? My parents. Did I still play it? Yeah. And I play Vice City now. And I still like violent games (and they did me a favor, MK sucks as a series). But they were *responsible* enough to make that decision, not just "hope"...

"We've been working really closely with the ESRB from day one," says the marketing director at Cyberlore, makers of the Playboy game. "Everyone knows what the limits are for violence because everyone has pushed that envelope. But no one knows where the limits are for sex and nudity." Doesn't that sum up the manufacturer mentality perfectly? We don't know where the limits are, and we won't assume any responsibility for locating them on our own. We're going as far off the deep end as they'll let us. Right and wrong are irrelevant.

This is actually a very good and valid point, closely mirroring an earlier article about the use of privacy laws in US and Canada. Basically, it's up (in this case) for the government-like manufactuer's monitoring lobby to decide what is too much and what isn't. The manufacturers are policing themselves, but the specific manufacturer is not. He's basically letting the industry decide the limits. As opposed to what Brett is suggesting where the game is censored by the U.S. government (which, IIRC, doesn't happen a whole lot).

After the ESRB gave this game an "adults only" title, Eidos decided to go around the retailers and sell the sex game starting this summer through Internet downloads for $30, as much as $20 cheaper than new video games at retailers. How many teenagers with their own computers are going to get around Mom and Dad to download that salacious content?

All the teenagers who:

• Aren't trusted by Mom and Dad (or "Dad and Dad" as Brett heinously suggests)
• Have their own credit card
• Can steal their parent's credit card and not have their parents realize what was charged

If your teenager is sneaking around you to play "homo PC smut games" as Brett would love to call them, then it's not the fact that they are playing "homo PC smut games" (after all, they are biologically ready for sex), it's the fact that they choose not to involve you as a parent in their life. And THAT'S YOUR FAULT, Mom and Dad. It's not society's fault, it's not Rockstar Game's fault, it's not Universal Studio's fault, it's not UPN's fault. Brett, however, would have you believe it is Eidos's fault.

You must have a different version

[SmallFurryCreature]

On the toilet there is censoring but not in the shower or when they are just walking around nude and certainly not when they are doing the nasty.

It is not hardcore porn but about the lvl of playboy "porn" movies.