Moral inconsistency

Here we have a game full of violence, mayhem, and vulgarities. In Grand Theft Auto IV, the main character Nico, fresh off the boat, encounters his brother who immediately begins to talk about women and their "big american titties." In the next few missions that take place, Nico will ruff up an immigrant store keeper, steal cars, and murder. Meanwhile, the player has full reign to run over pedestrians and kill whoever gets in their way. The game is not made by Disney.

And as the game continues, the bodies will pile up, a parking garage worth of cars will be stolen, drugs will be smuggled, and every obscenity known to a fifteen year old will be shouted. Yet, none of these things will get a rise out of the moralist gamer. Only when Nico slaps a girl does a fervor erupt.

Why is that? The same gamers who have no qualms with wanton destruction will even complain and claim the alternative game Saints Row 2 is a better game because there is more mayhem. Why do those gamers have their only issue be slapping a young woman who is trying to cause the car their character is driving to crash?

Examining another issue in the game, players are free to visit strip clubs and visit prostitutes in the street. While in the strip clubs, the most revealing underwear covers the stripper as she dances erotically for the game's character. If multiple dances are requested, the player is "rewarded" with a second stripper who dances with her female companion. On the streets, a player is able to solicit hookers with a honk of the horn, find an alley, and engage in three separate levels of intercourse, shown without any pixelation or obstruction.

Once again, gamers did not argue over the graphic and sophomoric sexualization of women in the game. It is only that slap that garners universal disdain. So the wise adage of the strip club, "you can look but you better not touch," holds firm. No complaints are made over the nudity, since the scapegoat of "you'd expect nudity in a strip club" stifles any critic. However, one shot, one scene in the downloadable content for the game caused a frenzy of disgust with gamers.

The inclusion of a digital penis sent a shock wave across gaming websites and communities. Many thought the inclusion was completely unnecessary, despite the fact that the scene is mere seconds and takes place in a full body massage parlor. The game, which features and promotes vehicular manslaughter, murder, random sex with paid women, and copious amounts of near female nudity, is at worst tolerable and still critically celebrated.

But, examine the context of the male nudity. Rather than have its inclusion be for the sake of only creating controversy, the scene has importance. The nude character is a senator, a man of great power and comfort with his power. His later existence in the game is the catalyst for the climax of the game's central narrative. Upon first meeting him, the senator is in a massage parlor getting rubbed down by a female employee. The player, as portrayed by a member in a biker gang, is visibly disturbed by the open nudity of the senator. Rather than have the character be the only one uncomfortable, since as a member of the biker gang he is probably homophobic, the game designers chose to show the same nudity that is causing distress to the character to the player, and it is fair to say that the vast majority of males who play video games, particularly the Grand Theft Auto series, have at least homophobic tendencies.

Anyone who has played a game on the online Xbox service has undoubtably encountered some sort of homophobia. Young teenagers shout at other players "faggot" and racial slurs. Those that do not will use terms like "that's gay" in a derogatory fashion that casts dispersion on homosexuals, even if the intent is not purposeful - a term considered "subtle racism" in some contexts. Even Microsoft in their moderating of the online community will ban anything they consider to be sexual, however the case can and has been made that they target same sex material more than heterosexual content, despite any interpretation to the "offensive" material. A player will be banned if their gamertag or biography makes mention of their homosexual status, but a gamertag that is heterosexual will not. Various websites have chronicled this in greater depth, despite Microsoft's claims to the otherwise. And little to no action is ever taken to those that shout homophobic epitaphs in games with other players.

So, where is the rallying cry from those moralist gamers who cry foul at a slap for the constant sexualization of women in the very same game or the homophobia that is rampant within the industry? The problem is that those same gamers must first admit their own prejudices before the support the injustice against others in the community. If the male nudity causes discomfort for the player, the player must fess up to the true reason of why it bothers. If the male nudity is excessive, and the female nudity is not, despite being in the game far less, then the player must admit to the prejudicial bias. If the player claims to be a champion of women in their games and decries a small act of violence to them, then the player must continue their crusade against the sexualization of women. Moreover, these gamers must break their paternalistic view of women and their mentality to protect them from any and all physical violence; the same can be said to the championing of butch, independent women that represent only an early view of feminism and not the post-feminist (or womanist) world in which we live in today. However, none of this will happen until gamers, and the country, grow up. Until then, homophobia will be the norm in online game sessions and gamers will continue to draw and salivate over busty cartoon depictions of women.