Pin-Up of the East

[ywhtptgtfo]

>And what's with feminism being bad? You don't want women voting or something?



I don't oppose sexual equality, but I have a feeling that (some forms of) feminism, nowadays, is slowly heading towards a matriarchial direction. Look at ecofeminism, for example.

[Ethric]

First, obviously Ethric you are not arguing from a moral standpoint...

That'd be the day

You are operating under the assumption that advertisers are trying to (or should try to) convey information about the game.

Yup, I am, that is my assumption. Advertisements that wants to make you buy something based on something completely different from the actual product, say by showing you some random halfnaked female, are clearly aimed at the low-IQ crowd, so I disdain them Because I do know that there is no correlation between the dame and the product. One does not come with the other.

I want to know what is the difference between sex and violence.

Someone needs a straightjacket

[Bandobras Took]

@B.Took

I can remember being sexually abused as a child long before anybody tried to attack me with a battle axe. The latter, to date, has yet to happen.

That's not a fair comparison. When was the last time you were seduced by a dark elf witch? My guess is that that, to date, has yet to happen.

It's a totally fair comparison. A complete sexual act was performed upon me when I was young. A complete killing has yet to occur.

And - doesn't your religion treat life as sacred? So I assume that you disapprove of any act of violence in media, including non-lethal forms, as well as fantasy depictions of violence.

No -- I disapprove of graphic violence and gore just as I disapprove of explicit sexual content. I disapprove of endorsing murder as thoroughly as I disapprove of endorsing promiscuity. When Heroes 5 starts having limbs flying off and entrails being visibly ripped out, perhaps it'll compare with showing off a woman's breasts for the purpose of sexual arousal.

The Bible does not say sex is wrong. Sex is God's idea and is meant to be enjoyed within the marriage relationship.

And that's precisely why exposing a woman's breasts on the cover of a magazine or within a video game is wrong. Sex is ordained of God and meant to be treated sacredly.

Read the Song of Solomon and you will find some very explicit sexual references there. So you need to tear that book out of the Bible I guess if you don't want your kids to be exposed to anything sexual.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/song/1/1a

Beat you to it by over 150 years.

[Corribus]

@Ethric

Yup, I am, that is my assumption. Advertisements that wants to make you buy something based on something completely different from the actual product, say by showing you some random halfnaked female, are clearly aimed at the low-IQ crowd, so I disdain them Because I do know that there is no correlation between the dame and the product. One does not come with the other.

Hey, I think here we can agree, at least partially. If you're dumb enough to buy a game because there's a half naked female on the ad, well I'm sorry for you. Same goes for people who buy beer because they think it will make them popular, because that's what the ads say. All I'm sayin' is that sexual images DO cause you to stop and look at the ad - even those of us with high IQs ( ). Emotional response (kewl!, eww I so disapprove, heathens!, what do they think I am stupid?) comes later. But it's that subconscious (hey look, breast! woohoo!) adolescent male response that they are banking on to put the brand in your head. I'm not saying its the most sophisticated marketing technique on the planet. I'm just saying, for a computer gaming magazine geared towards adolescent males, it is a full-proof strategy to get your brand name out there.

Corribus wrote:
I want to know what is the difference between sex and violence.

Someone needs a straightjacket

You got me there...

@Bandobras Took

It's a totally fair comparison. A complete sexual act was performed upon me when I was young. A complete killing has yet to occur.

It's not. What does that have to do with anything, especially computerized witches showing a little bit of leg in a TBS game? I was in a fight when I was a kid, so that means all physical violence should be eliminated from mainstream media?

No -- I disapprove of graphic violence and gore just as I disapprove of explicit sexual content.

I hardly think the sexual content in HoMMV is explicit.

When Heroes 5 starts having limbs flying off and entrails being visibly ripped out, perhaps it'll compare with showing off a woman's breasts for the purpose of sexual arousal.

And see, that's my whole point: how does showing off a woman's breasts equal limbs flying off and entrails ripped out? Our violence threshhold is so high, in comparison to sexual material.

And that's precisely why exposing a woman's breasts on the cover of a magazine or within a video game is wrong. Sex is ordained of God and meant to be treated sacredly.

How did breasts become synonymous with sexual intercourse? How do you feel about renaissance paintings showing naked women? Oh right, that's art. What about a movie that shows a sex scene with some breasts that's done in an artistic way?

[Jolly Joker]

No -- I disapprove of graphic violence and gore just as I disapprove of explicit sexual content. I disapprove of endorsing murder as thoroughly as I disapprove of endorsing promiscuity. When Heroes 5 starts having limbs flying off and entrails being visibly ripped out, perhaps it'll compare with showing off a woman's breasts for the purpose of sexual arousal.

This must be one of the sickest statements I've ever read.
Get yourself a therapy - and get it fast.

[Corribus]

To be fair, Ethric's statement about electrocuting fuzzy little animals on TV was much sicker.

[Ethric]

No, I just implied that it was rather dreadful, I didn't compare it to any degree of sexual arousal. That would have been a fair bit sicker.

[Moragauth]

My answer is simple - don't like the ****ing product, DON'T BUY IT! Stop whinging about how so "immoral", "dishonourable" or "unethical" advertising is according to YOUR standards (ie not mine, not anyone else's who buys the product). As for God, please do realise not everyone believes in this fantastic creature. If God hates breasts so much he shouldn't have created them to tempt his silly followers!



Every time you sell your services to someone, whether it's to get a job (ie your labour) or sell a product you made, you try and convince the other to buy it, appealing to whatever desires there are. To me there is absolutely nothing unethical about this, unless we assume most adults are helpless morons, in which case I say they deserve to be exploited.



"This must be one of the sickest statements I've ever read.

Get yourself a therapy - and get it fast."



Shows the mentality of these guys. Showing a little flesh is nearly as immoral as tearing it to shreds! That must make the Furies doubly immoral! :O
Edited on Fri, Jun 08 2007, 16:31 by Moragauth

[ThunderTitan]

Every time you sell your services to someone, whether it's to get a job (ie your labour) or sell a product you made, you try and convince the other to buy it, appealing to whatever desires there are.

What if you convince them with sexual favors?

My answer is simple - don't like the ****ing product, DON'T BUY IT!

What does liking the product have to do with how it's advertised?!




And why is it that you believe a deity wouldn't want to test it's creations by seeing who can resist temptation?! What's the point of having a hell if there's no way to get there?

[Moragauth]

"What if you convince them with sexual favors?"



The same.



"What does liking the product have to do with how it's advertised?!"



The semi-nude/nude units in the game are a part of it, not just how it is advertised - something which seems to upset some people here. And my point stands - if you dislike how the game is advertised, simply don't buy it.



"And why is it that you believe a deity wouldn't want to test it's creations by seeing who can resist temptation?! What's the point of having a hell if there's no way to get there?"



I wouldn't believe in a creature that is supposedly omni-benevolent but at the same time allowed for the existence of Hell to begin with. What is the point of omniscience if you need to test something btw?
Edited on Fri, Jun 08 2007, 16:56 by Moragauth

[Corribus]

"What's the point of having a hell if there's no way to get there?"

Philosophical question of the day, courtesy of ThunderTitan!

[Bandobras Took]

@Bandobras Took

It's a totally fair comparison. A complete sexual act was performed upon me when I was young. A complete killing has yet to occur.

It's not. What does that have to do with anything, especially computerized witches showing a little bit of leg in a TBS game? I was in a fight when I was a kid, so that means all physical violence should be eliminated from mainstream media?

It was brought about by images meant to sexually arouse. Which I thought was the whole point of this topic. Perhaps I was mistaken.

When Heroes 5 starts having limbs flying off and entrails being visibly ripped out, perhaps it'll compare with showing off a woman's breasts for the purpose of sexual arousal.

And see, that's my whole point: how does showing off a woman's breasts equal limbs flying off and entrails ripped out? Our violence threshhold is so high, in comparison to sexual material.

The question is one of both degree and purpose. They're showing off the breasts in order to arouse people (in case you missed that part). We need an example of explicit violence meant to incite people to killing.

And that's precisely why exposing a woman's breasts on the cover of a magazine or within a video game is wrong. Sex is ordained of God and meant to be treated sacredly.

How did breasts become synonymous with sexual intercourse? How do you feel about renaissance paintings showing naked women? Oh right, that's art.

You know, if you wanted to argue like an intelligent person, you'd wait for me to answer a question you ask instead of assuming you already know the answer. I disapprove of renaissance art on precisely those grounds. Likewise Michelangelo's David, though that one deals with male anatomy.

What about a movie that shows a sex scene with some breasts that's done in an artistic way?

Likewise.

Shows the mentality of these guys. Showing a little flesh is nearly as immoral as tearing it to shreds!

For God's sake, Chris! The whole world is watching. We can't let him die in front of a live audience!

He was born in front of a live audience.

Treating the manner in which life comes into this world lightly and commercially is just as hideous as treating lightly and commercially the manner in which life leaves this world.

This must be one of the sickest statements I've ever read.
Get yourself a therapy - and get it fast.

Impressive, instead of responding to my argument, you've resorted to invective. I suppose that's the last refuge.

I'm out of here.

[Avalon-Eternal]

I'm all with Bandorbras Took on this one. Personally I remember the good ol' days when Heroes was clean. Sure the Naga art, but that wasn't in the game was it? Nope.



Also if anyone actually finds anything in H5 appealing or arousing, then they need to seriously get some control. Strength. What ever happened to that?

[Moragauth]

In order to be consistent, why don't you Christian dudes start protesting the use of magic in HoMM? It's the devil's work! :-O

[Jolly Joker]

Some people here are definitely sick.
Let's first try not to forget that it's a MAGAZINE that features this really nice looking female of some fantasy race on its cover, so it's something the MAGAZINE does to sell some more copies of it. When ToE is published no one will even remember that title because it will take some time.

Now let's compare two graphic images. The first shows a scantily clad female member of some, well, semi-human race in some non-descript, not really provoking manner.
The second shows a battle scene where some armoured monster is ripping into the bowels of a human swordman with entrails gliding out of his gaping wound, blood gushing.
I'd say, the first image is pleasing to look at. It's a picture of beauty - the female body is generally viewed as something which is round, soft, nice pleasing and beautiful - and not because it's a sex object or whatever. It's aestethically pleasing.
The second is abhorrent and UGLY. It's NOT nice to look at because it's destructive and brutal. It could be that semi-naked female body which was ripped into pieces.
And you don't see a difference?

[ywhtptgtfo]

>Some people here are definitely sick.



Sick or indifferent?

[ywhtptgtfo]

>In order to be consistent, why don't you Christian dudes start >protesting the use of magic in HoMM? It's the devil's work! :-O



Also:

1) Must play Haven only

2) Killing priests, paladins, and angels are INACCEPTABLE

3) Undead, demons, fallen angels, magicians, and magical units are strictly forbidden from the army

[Cleanpea]

Bandobras Took said:

"The question is one of both degree and purpose. They're showing off the breasts in order to arouse people (in case you missed that part). We need an example of explicit violence meant to incite people to killing."



Who ever said being aroused is bad - OK, I understand nudity and/or sex can be provoking to some, but the act of being aroused, is that also a bad thing??



The whole point is that advertising affects our desires subconciously. The moral difference in killing/having sex is not a valid comparison NO MATTER how you put it. Being exposed to pictures is NO excuse for violence. Or do you think so?



"We need an example of explicit violence meant to incite people to killing," you said. What?

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

The Bible does not say sex is wrong. Sex is God's idea and is meant to be enjoyed within the marriage relationship.

And that's precisely why exposing a woman's breasts on the cover of a magazine or within a video game is wrong. Sex is ordained of God and meant to be treated sacredly.

Read the Song of Solomon and you will find some very explicit sexual references there. So you need to tear that book out of the Bible I guess if you don't want your kids to be exposed to anything sexual.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/song/1/1a

Beat you to it by over 150 years.

Adam and Eve were naked (and not ashamed) in the Garden of Eden until they developed a complex about it after their fall into sin.

My friend, do you think that first centry Christians in Rome never saw breasts? What about all those pagan temples they had to pass by every day? What about all the nude art? What about the Olympics where contestants usually performed nude (to avoid the hinderance of clothes.)

What about breast feeding in public. Is that sin?

I am not advocating that folks run around naked. What I'm saying is that everyone is a part of the world and will be exposed to all kinds of things. Your small childeren won't even think anything about seeing a mother breast feeding in public unless you make a big deal out of it.

I can understand the desire to protect one's children.

But know that your kids are going to be exposed to sexual images regardless of if you buy a game that is promoted with a little breast (and I doubt that it will be that way in the game) or not. Your biggest part in protecting them is talking to them and teaching them the things you believe. If you believe strongly that what you saw is bad for your kids then don't buy the game at all or don't buy it until a mod comes out that covers up all of each unit's skin.

We could have all the female units wear long dresses that drag the dirt when they move I guess. And since it is possible for looks to be very provocative we need the units to wear dark shades and veils as well. But a mysterious veiled woman can still be quite sensual so maybe we should just do away with all humanoid creatures while we are at it.

GOW

[Corribus]

It was brought about by images meant to sexually arouse. Which I thought was the whole point of this topic. Perhaps I was mistaken.

You thought wrong. The point of the ad was not to arouse. The point of the ad is to capture your attention. The point of having scantily clad witches in the game is not to arouse. It's a decision to make the game appeal to a certain demographic, or, if you prefer, it's an artistic decision. Probably a little of both. And, I don't see what the whole stigma is that you have with arousal anyway. If it was for sexual arousal, YOU wouldn't be here. Nor would any of us.

The question is one of both degree and purpose. They're showing off the breasts in order to arouse people (in case you missed that part). We need an example of explicit violence meant to incite people to killing.

First, even if that were true, which I'm not convinced it is, so what? Is sexual arousal a bad thing? Our biochemistry is designed for it to happen.

Second, in response to your second question... huh? So arousing someone is the sexual equivalent to inciting them to murder? That's a warped perspective of sex, my friend. *Maybe* I could grant you that the sexual equivalent to murder is rape. It's certainly not arousing someone with pornography, let alone concept art from a computer game showing the hint of a breast. If that were the case, 99% of males would be going to hell.

I disapprove of renaissance art on precisely those grounds. Likewise Michelangelo's David, though that one deals with male anatomy.

You've got to be kidding me. Those works of art are gorgeous and are designed to capture the beauty of the human body. The body isn't something to be ashamed of. For someone who likes to say a lot about the "glory of God", you certainly have a lot of loathing for His best (alleged) creation.

We could have all the female units wear long dresses that drag the dirt when they move I guess. And since it is possible for looks to be very provocative we need the units to wear dark shades and veils as well. But a mysterious veiled woman can still be quite sensual so maybe we should just do away with all humanoid creatures while we are at it.

Yup, the only way to be safe is to play the old ASCII games. Oh, but that won't work either. @ sort of looks like an exposed nipple...