Hacker News Reader

Comment by joebadmo | Hacker News Reader

A few years ago, I was in a big box store and overheard a young (~10y/o) child and his mother picking out a new video game. The kid excitedly picked up a box and asked his mom if he could get that one. She checked out the cover, then started reading the rating.

"Rated 'mature' for sexual content? No way!"

"Aw, man! Ok, how about this one?"

"Rated 'mature' for extreme graphic violence? Well... ok."

View on HN

That's because violence is not relateable. When people see violence, they don't think, "Hey, I want to do that!" But when they see sex, they do.

Interesting theory. Alas, many cannot see the difference between sex and naked body.

When I see images of awesome looking food, I think "Hey, I want to try that!"

Same with pictures of people sky-diving, drinking, racing in fast cars, etc.

All of these things can be pretty dangerous, in fact far more dangerous than having sex. Better start the bans!

In the USA, they put disclaimers on skydiving and racing cars. Stuff like "don't try this" or "at your own risk" or "these are professionals, this is dangerous" etc. Also tobacco and alcohol companies are prohibited from advertising to minors.

Lack of video games is hardly going to prevent a kid of that certain from realizing that the opposite seems a bit different all of a sudden.

These bans are puritanical, not pragmatic.

The woman was right. Depictions of sex have huge individual and cultural repercussions. Depictions of violence have little to no effect on all but the most borderline of individuals.

Porn can really make your life worse. Violence on TV ain't going to.

This sounds more accurate to me: Depictions of sex have little to no effect on all but the most borderline of individuals. Depictions of violence have little to no effect on all but the most borderline of individuals.

This can be a lesson in learning not to trust your instincts then:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500368_162-1464262.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effects_of_pornography

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=106880

Interestingly enough maybe you should read your own links before drawing what you think are exact conclusions in your original post. From the wikipedia article:

Pornography's effects on crime and domestic violence have been inconclusive. Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes whereas others either suggest no effect, or conclude the liberalization of porn in society may be associated with decreased rape and sexual violence rates.

It loos like that, like violent video games, some people are simply predisposed to being effected from an external source. The hard thing is knowing whether the effected people would have presented the effects outside of any external influence. How's that for a lesson in learning?

I didn't say anything about crime. There are all sorts of things that make your life far worse without causing crime: fast food, credit card debt, laziness. Unsurprisingly, many of them are sexual; promiscuous sex and adultery can ruin your life and the lives of those around you even without STDs.

In a nutshell, I didn't say "porn causes sex crimes," which would have been untrue and silly. I said that sexualized media has major detrimental life effects. And the links that I provided back that up. Keep your kids away from porn. It will hurt them in the long run. Violent video games aren't going to have any effect.

Most video games, even rated 'mature' for 'strong sexual content', have nothing to do with porn. It means you might see a nipple, and there might be a few seconds of more or less implied sex at some point.

That you consider this worse than, say, playing a dude running around cutting people's heads is quite interesting. But I think it's more a cultural thing than a scientifically rational one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com