Game ads: sexualisation of children?

Remove all ads!

Here is the link:

link

Won't be quoting it because I don't want to turn attention to any specific parts more than to others and get them re-quoted ad infinitum. Basically, what do you think? Is it good they pulled it? Is it right to sexualise children? Does freedom of speech protect that or not really? Or maybe it's generally a broken concept on all levels? I'll conveniently sit aside for the current moment and listen to what opinions pop up in the thread...

Edit: Thanks, Tal. Myself, I couldn't get it to work as a linked word because it always put a space between = and http.

[ November 25, 2006, 16:11: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

It's a computer generated image, nothing more. It's not real.

On top of that, it had no REAL sexual content. I don't personally think it should've been pulled.

 

Nothing sexual here?

 

I think that is a valid justification... at least they weren't 'degradiing' women (if some thought that) by making it seem like a sex commercial. However, the real issue is that of the child image, which I think they should not have done. Had it been an older woman (at least visibly past the age of consent), there shouldn't have been a problem, right? So I think they should be made to stop running the commercial (which the court ruled in favor of, right?), and they should just redo it with an older looking woman.

 

Sounds like those Calvin Klein ads all over again.

I'm a firm lover of free speech, but things change when one starts marketing a product - the speech itself is free, but the underlying motive of the speaker's is money.

There's a reason advertising is, in the popular vernacular, now called "pimpin' the product".

And apart from sexualizing an apparent pre-adolescent entity (I.E. using the fabricated image - that is reasonably percieved to be under the legally-agreed age whereupon a person can be assumed to be mature enough to form their own opinions about sexuality - in a sexually provocative manner), there's also the target market and sending a sexually provocative message to those mid-pubescent boys. (you're trying to tell me the ad was directed at middle-aged women? )

I'll confess to having a rather strong fixation for pornography. Mea culpa; I'm a perv of the worst kind.

But even I find setting a child or a person below the accepted age of majority IN a sexual situation distasteful and just plain WRONG. At first I was curious to see the offending ad to make my own decision, but after reading the article, I've lost all interest in it.

(it's only another boring 'fight' game, anyway )

 

@jaded empath:

You're reading way too much into it. It's clearly meant to be a humorous advertisement - and of course it's directed to young males. It's a Tekken game.

And I do believe them when they say all characters are intended to be adults. Especially seeing how violent the game undoubtedly is.

And now all this makes me want to go dig up my PlayStation for a game of Tekken 2...

 

Ugh, so Tekken are ripping off DOA now?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Rikku said to be only 16 years old in Final Fantasy X and wore a rather skimpy outfit?

Fact is there is obvious 'sexual' connotations yet there is no actual pornographic content AND it's a computer generated image so there's no real way to say it's a girl under the age of consent since if you had a pornographic actor who LOOKED 16 but WAS 18 there'd be no problem.

 

I think Rikku is 18. Or maybe that is in X-2. In anycase, because you don't actually see anything, its not illegal.

 

I think it stretches the rules. The sexual content was not explicit so morally I have no problem with it, but I'm highly unimpressed by the common acronym "Sex sells" so I'm opposed to any advertisement that tries to follow it. Why involve sex in an advert for something that has no sexual content?

These kind of things just remind me of annoying internet popups

 

Thank you; I'd set off trying to speak more along those lines, but the fact that I have a 13-y.o. stepdaughter kinda colors my thinking (call it 'protective paranoia', I guess )

Here's a question: anyone wanna start a pool on how long before we see a curvaceous, scantily-clad woman lounging on one of those motorized scooters for the eldery and infirm?

The thought that most of Madison Avenue (et al.) would be willing to stick their grandmothers in spandex if they thought it would sell more Fooframs or whatever, makes me want to rewrite Henry VI, part 2 to read:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the admen."

 

come on. its a fun joke where the girls tempt by sex. then procede to kick your ass. man talk about overreacting.

I really cant see the harm in such a joke. As far as i can see the current big thing is bashing sex atm, voilence have gotten the greeencard, but god forbid young people being introduced to sex.

 

Dead or Alive Volleyball had Ayane in it, a character who is 16, or so it says in her bio.

DoA can do it and nobody minds, Tekken do it and it's wrong and horrible, huh?

 

I see a classic overreaction by people who are afraid of sex or think it is dirty. It was obviously a joke, yes a titilating joke, but still a joke. Advertising is geared towards its targets. Were they planning on showing that commercial during "cartoon hour" after school? I doubt it. It was written for the late night audience that would appreciate it.

I see nothing wrong with it.

 

thats not actually true (though the followingf is probably irrelevent to this situation), using technology today it is possible to make a woman look younger then she really is, and it can be argued that the firm that produced such images of child sexual material have done nothing wrong... but if it can be proven that viewing such fancified images led to a person carrying out a crime inspired by such an image (for example a girl seen being tied and raped appears to be 14 but infact is aged 18), if it could be proven that the crime cas inspired and caused by auch an image then it is quite possible that charges could br brought against the producer of said image.

 

What do you mean?

Not a rhetorical question; it's unclear to me whether you're talking about the characters in the game (who aren't children) or the target audience (debatable) or something else.

 

Since there is no pornographic content such as nudity they haven't done anything wrong, there is no argument. As for the viewing such fancified images situation I dare say that is the most slippery slope one could go down for setting legal precedent. There is no way the advertisement is suggesting anyone go rape their local 18 year old girl who looks underage but if the company could be liable then the person who actually raped somebody would lose some of that liability and then you'd have a corporation suffering a criminal lawsuit and a rapist walking free - hardly the justice system anyone wants.

They are computer generated images. No child was subjected to sexual acts in the making of the images. There are no pornographic images displayed. There isn't even any mention of sexual acts taking place, it is, in fact, an assuption that has been made. Sexy, provoking women aren't okay yet beating the exact same woman to near death is?

Don't have sex! But beat the living sh*t out of the person nearest to you!

 

didn't you know that abomination? its totally okay to show voilence as long as you dont swear or imply sex.
swearing and knowledge about sex is what corrupts the society...
because normal teens dont know anything about sex

 

@Abomination: There's more to nudity than sex and there's more to sex than nudity. In fact, you don't even have to disrobe to copulate - it's just preference. Similarly, you don't have to have sex if you disrobe - might as well be for washing, tanning, plucking fleas out or whatever. The statement that lack of nudity means they have done no wrong is fiction.

Additionally, "girl on girl action" is quite advanced language, I would say. It's not, "Hi, guys, wanna see some action? *wink* *right hook*" It's an allusion to a homoerotic act between minors. That's advanced stuff.

Lastly, why do you assume that whoever has a problem with sexaulised game ads or content has no problem with all the violence? Personally, I don't think it's that great when you see the girl in her skimpy outfit lying in the sand with red streams of blood all over her in addition to a ton of bruises. Teenagers are the last group of people to benefit from such exposure, let alone interactive participation in it.

@Abomination, Shoshino: There's more to minimal age of actors in sexual scenes than just the idea that someone could be inspired to commit a crime. For example, film ratings such as 13+ or 15+ or 17+ are based on other concepts than crime prevention. Do we really want to introduce children to sex far before their bodies, let alone minds are ready for it?

@AMaster: Both and more. Targetting kids with sexualised ads and making those with children - real or engineered - are basically two facets of the same problem: seeing children as sex objects.

@jaded empath: Indeed. I think the omnipresent sex in advertisements contributes to general promiscuity and creates more demand for sex in advertisements, which is then supplied and further increases the demand and so on and so forth. As a result, people get the idea that sex is a merchandise.

 

Maybe game developers created images of female characters like Japanese women. They always seem very young and beautiful to me.

IMHO violence seems more dangerous than sex for kids. In Turkey, last week a kid shot his uncle's son with his father's rifle after playing Counter Strike. I saw lots of my friends trying to do moves of characters in Street Fighter and Mortal Combat to each other when I was a kid. Errm... I should admit I did this once too about 15 years ago. My trousers were teared (between my legs) when I was trying to kick one of my friends like Ken does in SF II. (we weren't hitting each other really though, just showing those moves)