We do live in a pretty religious society. Yeah, that includes me. So we can't just wave off religion and ignore it. Everybody has a right to be represented in a society, including religious people.

It doesn't make much sense to ignore religious people, especially when most people claim to be religious. Love us or hate us, you have to live with us. It's a free country.

And you know what? The biggest reason for ratings in the first place is to place parents in control of their kids.

Generally it's accepted that, since parents have the life experience, that they have some control over their children. The children may whine and moan a bit, but ultimately the parent should know what's best for the child because they have the life experience. So generally, we place parents in charge of children when it comes to certain decisions.

Now, I'm not saying that this always works out the way it should in practice. But I'm not seeing much wrong with the principle.

If a parent decides they want to allow their kids to see nudity or play violent games - than the parent can certainly buy nude or violent games for their children. Games like that certainly exist, you just have to buy them from a different place. Adult bookstores or similar places might have them.

Since the OP discussed this as an "in a game" manner, I'd like to direct my post to the case of violence in Video games and nudity in Video Games. In both cases, neither is actually a problem nor do they turn people in murdering rapists wondering our towns and cities destroying lives.

The problem is that people can't accept video games as an entertainment medium on the same level as movies, music and books. In my observations in both the media and political circles video games are portrayed as something that is for children only. Adults don't play video games, only children do, and as such no adult content should ever be included in a video game. This is merely a case of an outdated understanding of the medium, and will solve itself with the slow attrition of it's critics.

Ignoring the fact that Video games have almost surpassed movies are the primary entertainment medium on the planet in terms of revenue (where do kids get so much money from?) generation, the only issue - as pointed out by CobraA1 - is that parents don't control what their children get to play, or stores aren't enforcing the ratings and selling these games to young children. As a gamer, even I have to admit that here are several games that I own that should never be played by children, and have earnt their high level ratings.

It gets worse. People can't accept that game *developers* can make something for adults. If it's a game, it's for kids *because* it's a game, in their minds a game simply can't deal properly with issues such as war simply because it's a game instead of a more "adult" form of entertainment, such as a movie or a book.

Just read some of the public reactions against Konami's Six Days in Fallujah game, the prejudice against gaming as a form of expression is simply incredible.

The "ban" of AO games is voluntary by the stores, not by law. Chances are it's due to consumer pressure.

. . . and there are some books and movies that you won't find in Wal-Mart, but rather only in adult book stores or stores that sell adult videos. I'd say this is a no different understanding of the medium than for any other medium.

For thousands of games that have been rated, only 25 have been given the AO label. You'd have to be doing something pretty extreme to get it, although there has been some controvery of them including hidden content (only available by hacking the product) in the ratings.

*uses necromancer powers*

Thanks for all the posts!

Well, we could just 'let it all hang out' for a period of years, or decades, and see what becomes of society.

A new 'Grand Experiment',  to see if no limits or censorship would really produce a change for the worse (or better).

Trouble is, it would have to work every way. It could not allow anyone (or any entity) to force their opinions on anyone else. Let the porn crowd produce and distribute as they would. Let the violence crowd do the same. Let the religious crowd, the gay crowd, the jihad crowd, the whatever crowd do whatever they feel is right... and see what happens.

All it takes is for everyone to stop fighting against anything they don't believe in, and simply let everyone 'do their own thing'.

All it would take is for parents to stop teaching their children their own values, for the religious to stop trying to convert others to their viewpoint, for the governments to stop imposing on individual rights and desires...

Fat chance, of any of that happening.

Moosetek, is that ambivalence or sarcasm that's lost on me? I can't really tell whether you're endorsing nearly unlimited public speech a-la the US, something in-the-middle like the EU laws that forbid advocating genocide or national socialism, or mabye even something more authoritarian like the Iranian or PRC censorship practices.

Oh my God !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It really surprise me when people don't realise how the world is changing, specialy their own country...

US WAS the free speech country, the country of freedom and private life... but in the last decade a lot of thing have happen... due to fear, US have give up on some of their speech freedom and private life right... this lead Europa to be more "free" that the US... in fact, the last few laws here who limit our freedom was push by the US gov...

Seem tha US citizen don't realize that piece by piece, they are rip off of some of their freedom right, right who was earn by the life of several of your forth-father...

Really a pity that a lot of US citizen don't realize that they are rip off of their main quality... the freedom...

Very related to the topic... a few conservative extremist are pushing a veto on sex in media... not very different of the prohibition periode related to alcohol...

So... as today, US and Europa are not very different... and it it continue like now, soon, America will know their own "inquisition" periode... a dark age where almost all who is pleasure will be prohibited and where freedom is only a dream...

What do you mean don't realize? Anyone with a brain has already noticed the crap, hell game stop just to trade in games invades ones on privacy and checks to see if you have a criminal record... Fear campaigns my friend one thing that has never been let go of and they are still the wave of the future.

Beg pardon, but to me there's a significant difference between legal limits on free speech and the so-called voluntary censorship that pressure groups in the US force onto media producers. The MPAA and the ESRB are completely private ratings organizations and retailers are, technically speaking, free to sell materials that are unrated or have 'undesirable' ratings.

In some senses, I can see how this might strike a European as worse than having direct government censorship--after all, there is no democratic accountability for the groups that 'set standards.' But so far as I know, in terms of legal systems, the US still has far fewer formal constraints on public speech than most or all of the developed world. Porn is an essential sector of our economy; it paid a handsome share of our initial Internet build-outs, and you can even get it on hotel cable systems these days in Salt Lake City.

In terms of politics, we're legally obliged to tolerate public speech from entities as widely varied as the Aryan Nations, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, and the Nation of Islam. Finding stuff from any of the latter three in an ordinary bookstore isn't likely, but they are all allowed to use whatever means they have available to communicate their various agendas.

Still, I have to admit you've hit a bit of a sore spot even if your rant seems weak on the specifics. I'm not that confident that Europe is heading to a stronger free-speech environment, but I know that we are suffering from a lot of fear-induced silence and part of that silence is no doubt induced by worries about what our post-9/11 'security community' might be doing with their amorphously expanded powers and incomprehensibly broadened scope of operations. On the other hand, it seems like Italy is maybe only barely ready to throw out the demi-dictator and media baron Berlusconi, the French are wallowing back towards their authoritarian roots, and the Germans still don't know what to do about the conflict between wanting a democracy and having a population that includes devout fascists. I won't even start on just how many cameras are watching everyone in London...

I simply can't understand it myself. I'd have thought that between love/nudity and hate/violence I'd much rather my children were exposed to the first instead of the second. I'm much more concerned about a computer game that would let my children go around shooting people, hacking at them and spraying blood everywhere than a game that would expose them to nudity. When I hear of the fuss made by some people over sexual content in a highly violent game, I shake my head in disbelief - do such people really think that violence is more desirable than sex?!

Either way the one thing I think is vital is having a ratings system that not only gives a suggested age, but the reasons for it. I want to know if a game is deemed suitable only for adults or for older children etc., and the reasons for this, i.e. due to violence, or nudity, or language, etc.

I don't see how violence is made comic, especially given the increasing realism in graphics (even going back say 10 years though you could have some pretty horrific violence via the graphics), and they are both detached in the same way. Obviously if you shoot someone in game it is detached from reality, just the same as if you had sex in game it would be detached with reality.

I think we've sort of drifted from the sub-topic of free speech into the (sub?) sub-topic of personal privacy, and in that case, yes, America has lost a lot of that over the past decade. I'm personally waiting to see if Obama ever puts pressure on the Legislature to repeal the Bush doctrines, particularly the Patriot Act, but I'm not holding my breath.

As for free speech, I agree partially with Swicord. Most of our censorship in the U.S. is not done by the government, but by the consent of the general populus. However, we do have public obscenity laws, which basically state that you can't sell porn out on the street. For more information, one should research the Miller Test.

Let me put it this way: how many times have you heard about somebody watching a violent action movie, then going into a killing rampage? and conversely, how many times have you heard about a couple watching a porn movie, then having sex?

Say what you will about the merits of violence and sexuality, but I believe its logical that something that doesn't readily influence people would be more acceptable than something which does, so it's clearly not as clear-cut as you imply.

Really a wrong example since "having sex" is not something bad in itself... maybe you can rewrote it like :

how many times have you heard about somebody watching a violent action movie, then going into a killing rampage? and conversely, how many times have you heard about somebody watching a porn movie, then raping somebody else?

Anyway, violence or porn in game are not guilty... normal people will not go into rape or killing rampage... but unstable people, yes...

Maybe a extreme but how many times people have be save by violence or sex in game, allowing the unstable people to release their killing/sex impulse on the game in place of the real world...

... some quote...

- Research concerning the effects of pornography is inconclusive. Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes, while others have shown no effects, or a decrease in the rates of such crimes. Moreover, all these studies focus on various correlations, but correlation does not imply causation.

- One of the most common criticisms of video games are that they allegedly increase violent tendencies among youth.However, several major studies by groups such as The Harvard Medical School Center for  Mental Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and the British Medical Journal have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity.

I dunno.

I sit here with my 13 year old daughter, watching a 'good' show (could be one of many), and suddenly there is partial nudity (or full nudity with a sheet or towel in the way) and a sex scene which really has nothing to do with the story line of the show. It is just thrown in to add some skin-n-slurp.

SGU is a very good example, because there have been so many scenes in so few episodes that are simply thrown in for the sake of showing someone having sex. I mean, really, what is the point in showing a man humping a woman who is then interrupted by a call? He could have been doing any number of things more pertinent to the storyline.

She has not watched SGU because she usually goes to bed earlier than it airs. But, I don't want her watching it, simply because I never know when a random sex event will take place. We are both enjoying V. But if it turns into a sex-fest (like several SGU episodes) I will have to start recording every episode so that I can skip her watching of those episodes. I have already done it with one episode of Flash Forward, because of the heavy lesbian activity.

Movies are one thing - there is always warning of sexual content. TV, however, should be held to a somewhat higher standard - simply because the audience is younger in general. Shows that are meant for a general audience should not have gratuitous sex scenes. And shows like SGU, Babylon 5, any Star Trek, things like Flash Forward and V, or the upcoming Prisoner are meant for all ages (I would think).

I am all for freedom of speech - for the individual. But freedom of expression must be balanced and, to a certain extent, limited in the general media. At least in my opinion.

"Let me put it this way: how many times have you heard about somebody watching a violent action movie, then going into a killing rampage? and conversely, how many times have you heard about a couple watching a porn movie, then having sex?

Say what you will about the merits of violence and sexuality, but I believe its logical that something that doesn't readily influence people would be more acceptable than something which does, so it's clearly not as clear-cut as you imply."

So you are saying that nudity and sex scenes do not influence behavior, but depicted violence does?

Personally, I have never heard of someone going on a killing rampage because they watched a violent action movie. There is always something more involved.

But your other point of people watching (hard or soft) porn and then wanting to have sex? Happens all the time. And that might be why there are so many STD's, abortions, failed marriages, single mothers and fathers...

Actually he's saying the opposite...

Ok lets compare a horror film and a romantic film, the first with strong bloody violence designed to inspire terror, the latter with romance seens featuring nudity and sex scenes (but not so graphic or frequent as to effectively be pornography). Which would I rather my child was exposed to, the one which will terrify them and leave them with nightmares, or the one which may cause arousal (depending on their age) and possibly also educate them a bit on a natural part of life? It's not a hard choice for me.

Let see :

- SGU is PG ( parental guidance ) in Canada, M ( mature ) in Australia

- V 2009 is TV 14 in USA

- Babylon 5 is PG, with some episode M and the season 5 is TV 16

- Star Trek 2009 is PG13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.

- For the original "Prisoner" from 1967, it is PG... sure that the modern version will have minimum PG

- Flash Forward : until now, have no rating

So, a lot of these show are not for your daughter, some of them need YOUR parental guidance... by the way, if you can post here, you can consult the IMDB for see the "Certification" because it seem that for a lot of series, you think wrong... the more funny is that your daughter seem enough adult for film like Star Trek 2009 who show sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content...

Media is not responsible if a lot of people don't use their PG because they are too lazy... i understand your point of view on the media but they are not responsible if you allow your daughter to see V2009 since it is TV14...

Where the media are really responsible, it is the publicity who cut film or serie on TV... a lot of these publicity show more women/men skin or in some case, similation of sex act that the film or serie itself... What about National geographic channel who show African people running naked or half naked in their village... what about reportage related to biologie and who explain reproduction... and school, early, people are teach how reproduction work...

In fact, nudity is something normal in life... sex too...

For SGU, you wrote :

what is the point in showing a man humping a woman who is then interrupted by a call? He could have been doing any number of things more pertinent to the storyline.

In fact, it is very pertinent to the storyline... people there are on the edge of death, creating a adrenaling rush... it is a fact that in case of danger, people seek confort with a partner... if you know that tomorrow, you can be dead... what will be your action for these night... a torrid night with the woman you love or a game of chess with somebody else...

In fact, film and serie are not so hot that the real life...

And that might be why there are so many STD's, abortions, failed marriages, single mothers and fathers...

The reason is education... young people like try everything who is prohibith... censure them will lead them to try it after your back... to much parent are afraid to speak about sexuality, STD, condom, etc with their own children...

Except that rape not only includes violence as well, making the comparison sightly less clear, but that rape is seldom featured in porn movies. Hell, I'd say there's more rape in drama than it is in porn. And yes, 'sex' can be bad, when one or both of its participants aren't yet ready for it, either physically or mentally.

Good point, though I'd still rather have my 5-years-old girl watch neither.

And I think I must note that, personally, I don't think *any* kind of restriction makes sense after 13-14 years of age so any reference to potential harm I make is when referring only to pre-pubescent children.

I’m sorry but no, if both parties did not think about both the good and consequences of their actions and ready to stand up and take responsibility than they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place and you reap what you so. A better comparison I would say is rape hentai, I have never heard of anyone actually raping someone after watching a rape hentai or play a rape game, same can be said about lolicon which is another issue with in itself. And if one party isn’t ready than that person needs to learn to say NO, two letters with 1 meaning.

I think a more likely cause of this is our inability to educate our children on safe sex and the meaning of marriage. Many of us place such an emphasis today on abstinence-only education that when our children rebel (and who wouldn't, considering this is something that is both 'taboo' and one of those objects of our lives that we've blown most out of scale?) they don't know or bother to do it safely.

You need both, nudity and violence.