Short version: Violence bad, but probably not as bad as advertised. Boobies probably harmless. Society should recalibrate what is "child-suitable", worrying more about the former and less about the latter.

1) At least in the article, they don't show causation, only correlation. One could argue that children who are predisposed to violence are more attracted to violent media. That theory would also predict a link between exposure to media and propensity for violence, but would imply a very different course of action-- you would continue to produce violent media and keep an eye out for people who seem especially drawn to it. Viokent media would be like a future-murderer-detector.

1B) If your child is watching more than 3 hours of TV a day (average, per the article), there's probably some other problems at work there. One could also argue that children who are bored enough to be watching tons of TV will eventually turn to more "extreme" TV just out of boredom, or that children who are watching television unsupervised are more likely to end up watching ultra-violent shows. In either of those cases, the causative link is parental neglect causing violent behavior.

2) It continually boggles me that (at least in the US), you can show reasonably graphic violence on prime time network television, but none of the following:

- A topless woman.
- A person of either gender naked from the waist down, not doing anything sexual.
- Two men kissing. (For whatever reason, two women kissing is controversial but happens.)
- Several profane words.
- Several non-profane words, notably "vagina". Oprah is apparently reduced to saying "Va-jay-jay". This non-word makes the lady of the house get murderous.
- Someone giving the middle finger. (Is this still blurred out?)

I'm not sure what the fundies see as a "worst case scenario" if children saw all of the above. You could say the nudity taboo is to discourage promiscuity, but you can show barely-dressed maximum-attractiveness people going at it under a strategically-placed blanket scrap, but you can't show a shlumpy naked person sitting on their couch doing nothing.

3) If forced to guess, I'd probably guess that there's some (lesser) causation between violent media and propensity for violence, particularly in young children. I've been an advocate for a while of CF including an "18 and older" disclaimer under the skull, even given the difficulty of establishing identity of the Internet. (At the very least, it would be very easy for a parent to determine if the game was recommended.) (I also admit that I thought of doing it as more of a marketing device to adults, though I really don't think CF is a good game for minors for several reasons.)

4) In general, I'm in favor of the current voluntary rating systems, but the actual ratings choices tend to boggle me. Again, shooting and stabbing people probably gets you a middling rating, but boobies puts you straight to AO and off the shelves of most retailers. I'd be fine with highly violent video games moving towards "You must be 18 to purchase.", and letting parents make the decision from there, even though most parents are bad parents.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com