I was beating my meat to Natalya’s (Goldeneye 64) cone-shaped tits at age 10. It may have been arguably better for me than jerking off to droves of actual tits.
Much as I’d predict support for that conclusion, I feel like there’s room to doubt the survey process used - as has often been the case for studies on gamer behavior.
Sure, it’s not a high quality study. But there is only so much effort countering this baseless fear mongering deserves. This study may already be more effort than it deserves.
The fear mongering doesn’t end. Violent movies cause violent behavior. No they don’t. Violent games cause violent behavior. No they don’t, actually research show gamers are less aggressive. Now it’s sexualized games that cause harm. And every time, they don’t even really care about the research anyway.
if someone is not able to distinguish between fiction (regardless of the medium) and reality, then the problem is much deeper than pearl-clutching religious fanatics insist on believing, and will NOT be solved by abolishing all the “bad” fiction
i would argue that religion itself plays a large part in developing these problematic attitudes from early childhood, especially towards sex
set the rules in opposition to fundamental human (i.e., mammalian) instincts
1b. punishment is unimaginable suffering for eternity
everyone lives a guilt-ridden life full of shame
leverage for control in every aspect of life (i.e., slave congregation)
???
profit. a fucking lot
side effects of psychological damage, suicide, sociopathic tendencies, etc. don’t matter in the slightest to the people collecting your tithes and controlling your behavior-- so, rather the same as social media
if someone is not able to distinguish between fiction (regardless of the medium) and reality, then the problem is much deeper than pearl-clutching religious fanatics insist on believing, and will NOT be solved by abolishing all the “bad” fiction
We’ve been trying to make this exact argument to the exact same group of people since the earliest days of D&D and I’m sure someone was having the same conversation about some other thing before that. 😠
Funny, but this just poses further questions. I.e. is it the absence of religion that causes wellbeing, or is it wellbeing that causes the absence of religion?
I was told the story by a stranger once: The reason why people cling to religion is because they are unable to live their own life, i.e. they struggle and can’t live in the moment, because it would be too depressing, so they cling to religion to seek an escape. Religion absolves them from thinking and therefore from recognizing the world around them, and so it’s an escape. So, in this view, bad times cause religion, but not the other way around. At least it’s one possible explanation. I don’t know whether it’s true.
I’m just saying, don’t confuse correlation with causality. Correlation does not imply causality in general. (though in this case it probably does)
As someone who grew up in the brainwashing, I can fucking guarantee you religion causes suffering and shame and a disconnect from the human that we all are. It is completely causational.
No, that doesn’t mean it has a 100% rate of suffering, but it’s damn close.
I think the issue is not “religion” because that’s hard to define. What do you count as a religion and what not? It’s kinda not clearly defined. I.e., you can “believe” in science, yet does the belief make it a religion?
I think what’s more the issue is the fact that people cling to nonsensical statements and are unwilling to look at things the way they are. I.e. a recurring theme of religion is that it absolves people from thinking, i.e. from making their own thoughts and relating those to reality. That is the thing that must be dealt with.
In other words, people must be taught to think and analyze the world around (and inside of) them. That is what leads to wellbeing and happyness.
Yeah. It’s always been perplexing me that people who seem mentally okay in other ways can seem to think fiction and reality are basically the same thing.
the owner class wants it that way. if you can get people to throw reason, facts, evidence, and everything else out the window in order to genuinely believe that 2+2=5, then you can tell them anything you want, and they will kill people over the matter. see: literally all of maga
Glad to see this opinion organically. I have been feeling like its moving more and more toward censure. I always thought japan pretty much had it right and then they took a step back. If its not real, its not real. I honestly don't care about any fictional stuff be it writing or painting.
Okay but what games are considered sexualised and how many people are actually playing them?
Cyberpunk certainly qualifies both. It’s got explicit sex, and it’s got a large player base. But while uncouth and perverse things happen, you can’t really be party to them. You tend to show up after. Maybe your choices might lead to some, but you’re not there for it. The only sex involving the player is generally wholesome. Except, you know, the ghost of Johnny Silverhand riding shotgun and not necessarily consenting to it (especially when you hook up with the cop).
Then there’s Skyrim. Bigger player base but no sex outside of mods. And there are plenty of mods, but if you look at the player count among people using those mods… it’s nowhere near the player count of Skyrim as a whole, or Cyberpunk, or even a lot of the other games. And from there it drops off sharply.
I’d also say the way sex is portrayed throughout Cyberpunk 2077 is important to the setting. Sex is everywhere, but none of it is particularly fulfilling. That the PC can find a healthy sexual relationship at all almost seems like a one in a million chance in Night City. Capitalism pushes forms of sexuality that can be monetized. Capitalism can get you laid, but it can’t get you happiness.
(I totally get the criticisms that the game is a mediocre experience. It is, but it’s not without value, either.)
Sexualisation is not the same as sexual content. Widowmaker in Overwatch is a sexualised character, because she is portrayed as sexually attractive, seductive and generally in such a way as to have her viewed as a sexual being. There are other characters who are not sexualised.
psypost.org
Najnowsze