San Andreas Rating

7-26-05

As you may or may not know, the ESRB rating of the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was recently boosted from M (mature audiences, 17+ recommended) to AO (18+ only). Now, I personally do not object to this rating, and would have no issue if it had been the game's rating since its release. However, I do have a problem with the reasons given for the rating change, and the mindset (which I believe to be a prominent one in the US) which inspired the objections to the game that resulted in the rating change.
Hidden Sex. There was "hidden sex" in GTA, so they decided to boost the rating. Okay, I can fully back objections to exploited sexuality. I think we'd all be much better off without it. Here's what gets me though: as you may have guessed from the name of the game, the player assumes the role of a criminal on a mission to raise money to free his family from prison, become the Godfather of three cities and lead the dominant gang among many different gangs. In the course of this game you kill other gang members, cops, civillians, just about anybody you can get in your sights. You can steal cars, you can blow stuff up, and you can hire prostitutes for a price, and then run them over to get your money back (the prostitution is not the "hidden sex", as it was in the game's predecessor, "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" which is rated M). Yet despite all this, the main objection to the game was the hidden sex. Why? Why does the cop killing, the gang violence, and the rampant crime take second tier to sex?
This is not an isolated example of sex being determined more objectionable than violence. The game Mercenaries, in which you play (surprise, surprise) in a war torn North Korea is rated T (13+ recommended). In this game, you can shoot people, with many, many weapons, you can hijack vehicles, you can run people over (be they friend, foe, or civilian), you can drop cruise missiles, people scream when they die. I mean, the game is praised for its realistic graphics, and its a war game. Rated T for Teen. Other games entitled "Leisure Suit Larry" and "Playboy, The Mansion" are rated M. Now, I do not have the experience with these games as I do with the others, but I doubt the bunnies beat each other to death and attack each other with grenades and air strikes.
Why, America? Why is sex more objectionable than violence. One is illegal and ends lives, the other (though, granted, exploited) is supposed to be the ultimate expression of love and is the primary mode of pro-creation. So why are we exposing our selves and our children (technically, your children, I'm only a teenager) more to the one and trying to shun the other? The MPAA will rate a movie PG-13 for violence (guns, swords, war, treachery, nothing you'd tolerate in your home) but flash a nipple in a romantic comedy and you have to show ID at the door.
People attack Bill Clinton endlessly and ruthlessly for having an affair. Nobody attacks him for anything that happened in Bosnia. George W. Bush goes to war with two countries in the space of three years (by the way, you should check out the montage of wounded children in Fahrenheit 9-11 and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from) yet despite the fact that his reasons for the War in Iraq proved non-existent, and that while he was Governor of Texas multiple innocent people were executed, and that he allowed the ban on automatic weapons to be lifted, (making the scenarios in GTA a little more realistic) people support him because of his stance on "family values" and his amendments against abortion and gay marriage (which by the way have not been mentioned since the election, don't know if you'd noticed).
As a nation we can forgive a war but not an affair? We don't mind the crime or violence witnessed by kids, but the sex is strictly taboo? What gives, America?
My best friend in high school, a great guy, very funny, has views similar to these which I argued, rather forcefully, with him on an almost regular basis. He is joining the Navy, and while the willingness to offer his life for his country is admirable to say the least, I find his jokes about "wasting camel jockeys" and taking "killing sand-n*****s 101" nauseating. He supports whole-heartedly the US military effort in Iraq and the proliferation of firearms as advocated by Charleton Heston, yet can find mere jokes and references to sex (in particular homosexuality) repulsive.
Now, I understand the intricacies of just war theory, and will be the first to admit that sexuality is incredibly exploited and under-appreciated in this society, but my issue boils down to this: I am calling into question the priorities of this nation as it seems that we hold the destruction of life more socially acceptable than that which is the act of perpetuating life.
I acknowledge, once again, that sex is exploited, and advocate that it be toned down within our culture, but while we're toning things down, shouldn't we get our priorities straight and tone down the violence first?
You can leave GTA rated AO, I don't have a problem with that. All I ask is that we be careful not to create a mentality of "Sex bad; killing good" for, as Darwin would point out, that would be self-endangering.