In discussions about this topic, in almost every place I see them, lots of people (against this censorship) are going "I don't play this kind of games" or "I don't personally care about tentacle fetish" (or whatever).

I don't get this. Let's say it openly: what's the problem with sex and nudity in games? Why is it so unacceptable -- that even people against the censorship must loudly proclaim it's not "their thing" -- but violence, guns, war, etc are not? Or not enough to pull from the stores, anyway?

What I don't care about are the finer points of whether this technically counts as "censorship", because in pratice it is. There SHOULD be a place to buy games which depict nudity and sex. The quality of those games is not and should not be the focus of conversation (e.g. "they are AI slop" or "badly made", etc), because that's NOT what bothers the people doing the censorship -- they'd also be against the best, AAA made, high quality games with sex and nudity.

Again, I ask: what is wrong with sex and nudity in games, that makes it worse than gore, violence and war? Why cannot whatever age-restriction measures taken for the purchase of violent games be also applied to sex games?

Finally: we all know they are not going to stop at this, right?

▲

zahlman 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nothing is wrong with it.

People are just accustomed to being insulted for willingly associating themselves with it, on the basis of imputed perversion, bad taste etc.

▲

johnnyanmac 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the main point is showing solidarity, even for content that does not directly benefit them. There's nothing wrong with sex and nudity, but everyone will have different personal lines in their day to day life.

>must loudly proclaim it's not "their thing" -- but violence, guns, war, etc are not?

I don't think war or violence is most people's thing to begin with.

Guns, that's definitely a thorny issue. Especially in the US. I'm personalyl fine with much stricter gun control

>we all know they are not going to stop at this, right?

indeed. It's not the first wave, it won't be the last. Gotta do the same thing either way and push back.

▲

rustystump 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It isnt sex and nudity in games but the other “content” people gloss over that is bundle in.

The other context is that global companies must cater to multiple countries cultures which conflict so they take the path of least resistance.

	▲	the_af 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		To be honest, the "other content" seems to be an excuse. I don't buy the "multiple countries' cultures" excuse because this seems to be spearheaded by conservative groups from the Christian anglosphere, the same culture that produces these same games to begin with; and also: other cultures forbid depictions of explicit violence, alcohol, women without their heads covered or publicly disagreeing with their husbands, etc. I don't see a push to ban games which depict alcohol consumption or independent women, do you? Let's call a spade a spade, and recognize this for what it is. Also: there's absolutely nothing wrong with erotica in games. Just place it behind the same safety checks as violent games. If those don't work, then they also don't work for violent games, in which case: shall we ban all games with violence?

▲

akomtu 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's because people recognise that their self-control with regard to violence is solid, they know where the line is and won't have an urge to cross it, but with sex the story is different. Making this type of content mainstream will start a wildfire in our society. I believe this is the main reason why all religions are strict about sex, while at the same time very lax about violence (holy wars, the image of warrior, etc.)

	▲	bloqs 7 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		after how many decades of freely available pornography will you accept this is just not based in reality?
	▲	justanotherjoe 7 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Prostitution was legal and regulated by the catholic church as necessary and understandable evil for centuries, until 15th century. Even Thomas Aquinas (huge stickler) agreed. And why wouldn't it be? It was what common sense would tell you. Learned christians would understand sexual sins are far from the worst ones. Also additional context, before the 12th century priests were allowed to marry and have children. It was taken away, to consolidate the church's property.