Some people seem to think that pointing fingers at Cosmo and Glamour is the perfect rebuttal; the underlying assumption seems to be "hey, women products do it too, so get off our backs already." I see several flaws with this line of reasoning.
First, this is not a gender issue. My bet is that the folks (both male & female) who are against too-much-skins-in-video-games are also opposed to the risque nature of Cosmo and Glamour.
Second, while it's not unreasonable to compare Cosmo with Playboy, the analogy between "women's magazine" and video games does not hold water. People buy Cosmo (and Playboy) to read about sex; people buy Ridge Racer, say, to play a racing game, not to think about sex. It's not the inclusion of strong sexual themes in games I object to, it's the gratuitous sex that I find questionable. For example, if I were to buy Leisure Suit Larry, I would expect to see sexual contents; but if I were to buy Ridge Racer V, I would expect to race cars, not to be accosted by some scantily-clad, computer-generated female that has no purpose in the actual game-play.
Finally, there is a question of options to be addressed. Cosmo and Playboy and magazines of their ilk are targeting a niche market; people who find these magazines insulting have lots of other magazines to choose from. This is not the case for choosing games now, and sadly, the options will probably dwindle even more in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people seem to think that pointing fingers at Cosmo and Glamour is the perfect rebuttal; the underlying assumption seems to be "hey, women products do it too, so get off our backs already." I see several flaws with this line of reasoning.
First, this is not a gender issue. My bet is that the folks (both male & female) who are against too-much-skins-in-video-games are also opposed to the risque nature of Cosmo and Glamour.
Second, while it's not unreasonable to compare Cosmo with Playboy, the analogy between "women's magazine" and video games does not hold water. People buy Cosmo (and Playboy) to read about sex; people buy Ridge Racer, say, to play a racing game, not to think about sex. It's not the inclusion of strong sexual themes in games I object to, it's the gratuitous sex that I find questionable. For example, if I were to buy Leisure Suit Larry, I would expect to see sexual contents; but if I were to buy Ridge Racer V, I would expect to race cars, not to be accosted by some scantily-clad, computer-generated female that has no purpose in the actual game-play.
Finally, there is a question of options to be addressed. Cosmo and Playboy and magazines of their ilk are targeting a niche market; people who find these magazines insulting have lots of other magazines to choose from. This is not the case for choosing games now, and sadly, the options will probably dwindle even more in the future.