Random thought of the moment: Sex, violence, and videogaming

So, I spent most of today playing War Thunder and as I was taking a break in a hot bath something occurred to me. It's extremely simple to find other people to go to simulated war against, but extremely difficult to find people to have simulated sex with. Is there a truth about humanity in there somwhere?

The reason I bring these two activities up is that breeding and competing are two of the most basic activities that humans (and most other social species) participate in. A major part of our day is spent directly or indirectly either trying to find / keep happy / support a sex partner or else competing whether it be work, school, games, whatever. Sex and competition are two of the most basic human experiences, and ones that nearly everyone shares.

That being said, it's not surprising that competitive, violent games are extremely popular online*. They allow us to compete against others to the (simulated) death in ways that won't get us arrested. In some forms they also feed into the group identity need which all people have.

So why is the corollary for sex not true? Why is it that you can find thousands of people to fight simulated battles with online in a matter of seconds, but finding some for simulated sex is extremely difficult. For that matter, even finding someone to have an actual conversation with online is more difficult that finding a fight. Is killing somehow more impersonal and therefore more desirable?

Part of this of course is that most of the people involved in online gaming are male while there are women on the internet (or so I'm told ) they aren't commonly found in games. I know that communities such as second life and the sims exist where some of this goes on, but it's nowhere as prevalent as games such as WoW, WoT, CoD, EtC. Perhaps it does and I'm just hanging out in the wrong parts of the web.

So, what are your thoughts? Does it mean anything that online simulations of killing are more common than online simulations of sex? Does it say something about people that this should be so, or is it just the way things are?

* Pet peeve. Why the hell doesn't my browser think "online" is a word??? It's not two words, it's not hyphenated, it's ONE WORD!

 

I think the harsh reality is that it's more acceptable to have sexual relations with someone in real life than it is to kill someone.

Not necessarily easier, but definitely more likely!

 

I think the main problem is if you get a little too sexy, a typical response isn't to virtual high five someone and crack on with the session, whooping and chatting on team speak. More likely; rub one out, feel uncomfortable, have a shower, try not to look your neighbours in the eye too much when doing the groceries run as "they know everything you do because the Truman show," & continue with whatever else makes you happy in your spare time. Dare I say it, some of us might even exercise our passions with a real life, bona fide partner.



Edit: lol. He said boner

 

I've often wondered why depictions of violence are culturally more acceptable than depictions of sex. I suspect it is because sex is intimate and hence makes one feel vulnerable, whereas violence is distancing and makes one feel superior. Interestingly, cultures* most comfortable with sex seem less violent and more violent cultures seem less comfortable with sex. In fact, if I have to postulate a common factor, I'd say that emotionally more mature cultures are comfortable with sex and disapprove of violence, whereas emotionally immature cultures largely disapprove of sex and glorify violence.

"The penis is bad; the gun is good" --Zardoz

I think that it has something to do with psychological maturity and gender roles. Children have no interest in sex; they think of it as something weird and yucky that adults get up to. They often divide themselves into boys and girls as soon as they become aware of their gender and societal gender roles (although this is less likely to happen in cultures which do not have strongly proscribed gender roles and differences). Girls are socialised to be carers, whereas boys are socialised to be fighters, warriors. It is not until puberty --sex-- brings them back together that they start learning to be lovers, partners, adults.

My impression is that entire cultures can get arrested in their psychological development and maturity. People may go through the motions of adulthood and its roles and repertoires, but they are not truly adults; they are acting out children's idea of adults. It's playing house, playing doctor; while the boys still play warriors and the girls still play princesses. Sex, if not seen as a yucky but necessary aspect to procreation embarrassedly hidden from public view, may be fun in a game playing kind of way, but only as long as the boys stay in control. Because sexual intimacy makes the boys feel vulnerable in front of the girls; it reveals that they have weaknesses after all and that girls have a power of their own. So sexuality may get repressed as something shameful and dangerous: in boys it is sublimated into aggression; in girls it is subjugated to their reproductive role.

Emancipated cultures are those that are successfully negotiating the process of cultural puberty into adulthood. Women discover their sexual power and learn how to wield it appropriately; men learn to own their emotional vulnerability and express it appropriately. Sex and intimacy are learned to be fun and natural and enriching partner relationships, not something to be embarrassed about or suppressed or wielded as a weapon of control.

* On a more individual level you can substitute 'cultures' with 'persons'

 

There's also quite a bit of law prohibiting all sorts of sexual behaviour through the internet.

 

Americans are up tight about sex. Americans have the biggest game distribution networks. That's about the height of it.

Having said that someone made occulus rift porn. But I believe that was made by a spanish company. Surely the use of regular porn / webcams can be considered simulated sex.

 

Societies are built on warfare and monogamy.

 

Many primitive societies are, but certainly not all of them. Check out the Mosuo or Na tribe in Yunnan, China.

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific. States are fairly dependent on military might for their formation and security, and on anti-promiscuity values for stability.

You don't get many video games coming out of primitive societies, so far as I'm aware.

I would also posit that guns have a longer-lasting influence on matters than sex does. Sure, people can use sex to exploit certain situations, but guns can achieve a lot more.

 

Try telling that to the number of guys I know looking after unexpected womb presents.

 

I would say that they depend on such for control. States need military might to back up their hierarchy but need to control reproduction to consolidate and maintain it. There is a Dutch proverb: "The king says to the church: I'll keep them poor and you keep them dumb". The church teaches respect for hierarchy (as above, so below) and tells people to go forth and procreate (but crucially, not to enjoy the act because then it becomes about intimacy, not procreation; about fun, not duty).

In many cultures marriage is only to consolidate wealth and sex is only to produce heirs to inherit that wealth. That is the agenda of the haves. What the have-nots do is less important, as long as they continue producing subjects to rule over. But you don't want them to enjoy sex because you don't want them to have a good time together and build intimacy; you don't want them to start caring about fun and each other more than they do about duty or their ruler or God.

Depends on what you call a primitive society.

I would disagree. If you control sex, you control relationships, and thus you control people. See Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. If you do it right, you barely need the guns.

 

But in a population of millions you can't control sex. But guns still get things done.

 

First off, I think violent video games are an extension of what we already do. We have violent(ish) sports; football, American football, rugby, lacrosse, hockey. They are a way to compete, to see who is the best, to go to war without the intent of actually hurting anyone, and at the end we have a victor and we shake hands and go home and do it again next week.

Video games are like this. My brother and I even had long discussions about how the first Halo game (on PC) gave you the same feeling as playing Madden 2000. Halo was a football game, but instead of a ball you had guns and vehicles. I'd argue that most competitive FPS games have mechanics much closer to sports than any sort of real violence, and the feelings we get from them are similar as well. Nobody finishes a bout of TF2, Call of Duty, or CS:GO and gets PTSD later.

For instance, when you play violent games, you don't have anyone complaining, "This isn't like real violence. What's the point? You don't feel any of the same satisfaction from this as when you actually slit a man's throat!" But if there were lots of sex simulators where you didn't actually get yourself off, then we'd all be saying, "What's the point? I can't get off to this!" The purpose of violent video games isn't a replacement for real violence, but the purpose of simulated sex is to replace actual sex, or at least be a supplement to it.

This makes sex games (and their intended function) fundamentally different, so our analysis of them should be different as well. One, we live in a predominantly monogamous society. For the most part, we are expected to have a relationship with one person. Unlike violent video games (which don't have the same emotional impact of real violence), simulated sex is meant to give you the same (or similar) feelings as actual sex. Violent video games replace sports, not violence. Sex games replace, sex itself. In the culture we live in, many people would view this as some form of cheating on their partner. I can go shoot all my friends in the face and nobody cares, but my wife would care a lot if I had dirty chats with old high-school friends or . . . had devices for stimulating each other through the web. I wouldn't be surprised if a court said that it was grounds for an at-fault divorce.

I'll just add that I don't think there are many people who can get themselves off with their keyboard and mouse alone. So at some point you are no longer having a simulation with the computer, but rather just having a ****. Maybe this is a challenge for the I/O crowd, but then we get into cultural expectations again. Most people keep their porn lives fairly private (you share youtube videos with friends when they come over, not porntube videos). I don't think most people would be inclined to keep their USB Fleshlight next to their computer, even if it's what they did most on their computer.

TLDR
- Computer violence isn't the same as real violence. It's more like sports than war.
- Computer sex is very similar to real sex, or at least functions as a replacement for it. This is fundamentally different.
- The cultures that are producing video games are mostly monogamist, so there aren't going to be a lot of games that would promote promiscuity/cheating.
- Most people keep their sex lives private, especially their solo work, so adding more toys/evidence to the mix is going to shrink the market even more (single, unashamed people).

 

Man... What an EPIC post... not something you would expect to find in a tech forum... Kudos. You really should start your own blog or something...

 

ORLY? Check out countries with strong religious cultural influences. Ireland, the Middle East, Africa. Guns can't be everywhere shooting everybody. But God, as they say, is everywhere and sees everything*.

I'll get back to d_stilgar's post when I have more time. Work now.

*Mainly by working through your fellow community members, who aim to outcompete you in righteousness and piousness. Love thy neighbours, for they are the ones that ratteth you out...

 

I agree with you so far: sports are a sanctioned, sanitised and symbolic version of competitive violence. For a given value of sanitised and symbolic, of course: think of boxing, which involves the purposeful inflicting of real physical injury, or ice hockey, where broken bones and teeth are pretty much accepted part of the game. Medieval jousting was a sport in which people could get killed. Ancient Aztecs had a form of football in which the losers were beheaded. Those guys played for keeps.

Video games depicting violence are not an approximation of sports. They are sports. They serve the same purpose of sanitised, symbolic competitive violence.

I think that here you confuse the sexual act with sexual titillation. Violent sports are --whether in participation or as spectacle-- sanctioned, sanitised symbolic substitutes for acts of real competitive aggression. Similarly sexual imagery, performances and games (whether in movies, strip clubs or on the PC screen) are similarly meant to sexually titillate, not to provide the actual sexual act: they are a sanctioned, sanitised symbolic substitute for when the real deal is unavailable.

Nope, you're conflating things now. Violent video games substitute for real violence, just like sports do. They are a form of sport; they are competitive violent games like violent sports are competitive violent games. Sex games provide an outlet for sexual feelings in the same way that violent games provide an outlet for violent feelings. Both are sanctioned sanitised symbolic substitutes for the real thing.

Just as their partners would be concerned if they heard gamers whispered sweet nothings in some virtual sexual partner's ear, they might be rattled to hear some of the violent trash talk gamers shout at their opponent online (especially when they're female; it is well known that it has driven many female gamers away from on-line games)... all of a sudden it's not just fun and games anymore. But sex, as I said before, is intimate; violence is distancing. So people may accept violent banter with others in their partner, but flirting with others is seen as infidelity.

As I said: sex is intimate and vulnerable, so many people wish to keep it private. In our culture there is also an element of shame and embarrassment --it is seen as a weakness, 'dirty', a sin even. Aggression is distancing and makes one appear powerful. In our culture we glorify it. So we'll hide the sex toys, but mount our gun over the fireplace.

Of course some people resolve their fear of intimacy by turning sex it into an act of violence and aggression; make it a form of subjugation and control. It removes the intimacy and vulnerability by distancing and depersonalisation.

 

The issue with your argument is that neither sports nor video games conjure feelings anything close to the same thing as real violence or war. You can argue that they serve as a symbolic stand-in, but most people don't watch rugby or hockey for a blood-lust.

Professional fighting leagues have rules to restrict actions that would actually be deadly or permanently harmful. Professional fighting leagues aren't nearly as popular as football (whatever version). This doesn't mean that they aren't relevant, but I think their lack of universal appeal has something to do with their nature of being more genuinely violent. It's a turn off for many who are happy to watch a game of Football, Rugby or Basketball.

But a sex game is meant to conjure the same feelings as sex, or at least as porn . . . which is usually accompanied by some version of sex.

So I do still think that their purposes are fundamentally different. Violent games don't conjure up the same feelings as real violence, but a sex game (by its purpose) is supposed to conjure the same feelings of actual sex (again, similar to porn).

There are games, like Telltale's Walking Dead games, that do bring up real emotions tied to issues of violence and morality, which can be uncomfortable. Hatred is a revenge fantasy game, and many people are looking at it with disgust, because it's not what they want from their games.

And yes, it's easy to find lots of examples of people being jerks and misogynists in online gaming. There is a toxicity in the culture, but it's not a reflection of the games themselves. I play on plenty of TF2 and CS:GO servers where one guy will show up and start to do that sort of thing and other people will jump on them, call them out, tell them to apologize or get kicked.

Some violent games may attract those people to them, but that doesn't mean they are the cause of the sexism or other hate speech.

So I'll stick with my argument that the intentions of FPS games and sex games are fundamentally different, so the mechanics as metaphor comparisons shouldn't be made in the same way for the genres.

More later if needed (possible edits). Time to catch the train.

 

I would disagree (and so would anyone who has been involved or caught up in a fight on a UK football pitch). Competitive contact sports, like violent movies or video games are designed to produce a cathartic release of feelings of competitive aggression. It's why people take part in them or watch them.

I think you are speculating here. The popularity of contact sports has to do with their culture, not their violent content.

It is meant to provide a cathartic release for sexual feelings.

No. You are suggesting that feelings of violence are on some sort of sliding scale, with various complex nuances and qualities, while feelings of sex are simply on/off. That is pertinently untrue. We have antagonism, belligerence, hostility, outright aggression and violence: we have name calling, beating someone in a game, an all out bar fight and full-on murder. Similarly we have flirting, sexual titillation, heavy petting and full-on sex. A sex game like lap dancing is not meant to conjure up the experience of actual sex. Neither is porn.

I think where you get confused is that you compare violent fantasy with real sex. Porn, sex games etc. are not about real sex. They are about sexual fantasy, just like violent films and video games are not about real aggression such as you find in real war or in real crime, but about violent fantasy. Fantasy is stylistic, idealised, sanitised; choreographed like a John Woo movie. Reality is... well, a lot different. For both violence and sex.

That has nothing to do with your argument; you're basically saying that stories can engage us emotionally. Of course they can --that's part of their whole purpose.

That is not my point (and a whole other debate). Violent games attract people who occasionally like to cathartically release feelings of violence in a fantasy context. That's all of us. They also attract people who really like violence a lot and kind of have an unsteady grip on the difference between fantasy and reality. They are the ranting gamers that we all end up backing away from. But the point is: violent games offer a cathartic release for violent feelings through fantasy.

Similarly sexual theatre and games can attract people with an unsteady grip on the difference between fantasy and reality. They mix the two up and cross boundaries and cause problems. But sex games offer a cathartic release for sexual feelings through fantasy.

I disagree. In my opinion your point is not made.

 

Again, all of your arguments stem from the basis that video games, sports, etc. are creating the same feelings as violence, which I argue they aren't. From that base (which we are both arguing as a given, not from any real evidence) I am correct. From your argument base (that they all release violent feelings on some scale), you are correct. I just disagree with the premise.

I look at sports as having metaphors with war, but not being intended as being a cathartic release of the same feelings. In fact, I think the popularity of spectator sports, ballet (and other dance), opera, theater, the visual arts, etc. stems from an admiration of the virtuoso performance. There's little argument that there is a genius loci of a sporting event, live concert, etc., but you're not going to convince me that it's violence. Not for the majority of sports, not for violent video games. I watch TF2 to admire the virtuoso performance of great players. I play TF2 to try and have those moments myself. It's the pursuit of flow, not the cathartic release of violent feelings.

I took a class in fencing in college. It was fun. It was sport. And it's just about as close as you can get to exactly enacting physical violence. One time in class we were playing a pirate type game where you could board other people's ships and get in fights. I lunged at a girl in the class, and my foil didn't bend like it was supposed to. Usually it bends out of the way, but this full force lunge hit her square in the chest, the foil stayed perfectly straight, and she was pushed back by the tip of my foil. I felt awful. She cried and sat at the side of the gym the rest of class. If this were some violence fantasy then I wouldn't feel bad about it. The more violence I could get away with by the rules of the sport, the happier I should be. But no. That's not what sports are for, or what they do, and it's not what video games do either.

And no, I don't treat sex like it's on or off. I'm just making note that in the culture we live in, and in the cultures where most games are made, that talking dirty to an old friend (when you are in a relationship) would be wildly inappropriate. So the market is incredibly small for these games.

And again, from the premise that sports and games aren't for cathartic release of violence I'm saying that both sports and video games help us release other satisfying feelings. The mechanics of FPS games bring the same feelings as sports, or sport video games, or as other games (which aren't inherently violent).

However, I'd argue that sex games, and their mechanics bring about only sexual feelings (on whatever spectrum you'd like). Show me a sex-game or a game with "sex mechanics" (whatever that means) that brings about feelings of something other than a sexual nature.

I can think of plenty of sports where your argument of "sports are for cathartic release of violent feelings" holds no water; Bowling, Curling, Bocce. I can think of plenty of games where this is also true. Portal and Counter Strike have very similar mechanics. Most people would argue that playing both gives them similar feelings of satisfaction (that have nothing to do with violence). Its the mechanics of how the game is played, and the mastery of it, that brings people that satisfying feeling.

And not that I'm an expert in this, but I don't think there are any sex games that are for anything more than making people aroused to one level or another.

Take 007 Goldeneye and put it in paintball mode. The game is just as fun. Take a cheesy porn and put everyone's clothes back on, remove the thrusting, and all we have is bad acting and a pizza delivery.

So an analysis of "why are violent games easy to find, sexy games hard" has as much to do with the feeling you are supposed to have when playing the game as the visuals. FPS games can give you lots of feelings, including a cathartic release of violent feelings, but are whole even if they don't give that. Sex games could give you lots of feelings, but aren't going to be sex games unless they give you some level of arousal.

So while I don't disagree with anyone's analysis, I just think they are coming from an incomplete premise. They ask only what about society causes these games to exist, not how the mechanics of the games themselves shape the experience.

 

Now you're changing your premise. We were talking about violent sports and violent video games, not sports and video games in general.

When someone engages in a violent contact sport or indeed violent video games, they do not complain that it doesn't feel like killing someone for real. Similarly when people watch porn or engage in sex games, they do not complain that it doesn't feel like having sex with someone for real. In both cases there is a recognition of safe cathartic release of feelings in the context of a sanitised fantasy. Violent games are meant to stay games. Rape fantasies are meant to stay fantasies. When you are suddenly confronted with the realities that the game alludes to --like your experience in fencing, or where a sex game crosses the boundary and goes too far-- then it isn't fun any more.

And that there is an admiration of skill in acts of aggression like combat is well-known; the ancient Greeks considered combat an art, and so did the ancient Chinese and Japanese. Similarly there can be an admiration of physical beauty and artistic skill in sexual material; erotic art is still art. In fact film, dance, fashion, story telling frequently plays with that fine line between artistic expression and sexual titillation.

If you think that it is hard to find sex games or spectacle, you are not looking. Many video games have sexualised imagery of women in them. Game of Thrones has both depictions of violence and sex in abundance. The recent Invictus (by Paco Robane) commercial has the whole shebang: competitive sport, violence and a nice lacing of sex. There is sexual titillation everywhere, in advertising, in film, in gaming, in fashion. But again: our society is not comfortable with intimacy, so sex is distanced, depersonalised, and we engage in some elaborate hide-and-seek with sexuality best reflected in how we treat a woman's breasts: there but not there, put on. display yet not looked at (openly), revealed yet covered up, following an elaborate set of bizarre societal rules.

The reason you don't find as many sex games as violent games is simple: our society is much more comfortable with violence than with intimacy. So sex is kind of kept hidden from public view or turned into another aggressive competitive act.