The game has no major female characters who aren't hookers.
No arguing that LSL has its place in gaming history, but it doesn't have a place in a future that is trying its hardest to remove objectification of women from society.
EDIT: The down voting button is not a disagree button. If you disagree, reply!
Huh. Larry is a loser. A sad loser who fails with women all the time. So this game has no major male character who is not displayed as a complete loser. This is sexism!
Or did you never play Larry and posted after looking at random third-party media about it?
Seriously, the game series is about the struggle of a stereotype of a "disgusting" male. And it is dark humour, sarcasm, cynism, you name it.
> a future that is trying its hardest to remove
> objectification of women from society
How about the future where women decide for themselves what to do (including providing sex for money) instead of some righteous males knowing what's the best?
Whatever happened to the awareness of the context?
Ironically some of the most common female sexual fantasies involve them being objectified one way or other—because in this case they are not responsible and have no guilt for acting contrary to the expectations of the society which wants them to be serious, shy, prudent, etc. Guess who is responsible for such expectations.
And yes, why fictional violence gets free pass, but sex is tabu (or even crime).
Imagine the outcry if instead of "shooter" S stood for "sex" in FPX games played by teens.
How come that depiction of killing other is OK, but sex, which is key to our survival is not OK?
If the op isn't, does it matter? Not actively fighting something is not the same as agreeing to it. Does the fact that the op doesn't fight for human rights in Africa make them unable to fight for anything else?
I don't think 'Fawn' (the woman whom Larry marries and who later ties him to the bed and robs him) is a hooker. I would consider her a major female character.
If LSL serves only to objectify women, then doesn't Grand Theft Auto serve only to glorify crime?
I always felt like these games were less about the women, and more about the comedy, stupidity and repulsiveness of the main character.
I'm not going to partake in the discussion about whether fictional work should or should not objectify women. I have my take on it and others theirs, and we can agree to disagree. No moral absolutes.
But to be against a work of fiction that _parodies_ negative concepts, like objectification of women, which is clearly what LSL is about if you ever played it, is not acceptable from a freedom of speech perspective. Once you start finding disagreements with parodies, you're on a slippery slope. Next thing you are disagreeing with religious or political parody. A parody is about conveying a negative concept humorously after all, if the common mindset found the concept agreeable, it wouldn't be called a parody in the first place.
This really just boils down to saying, "the society is too stupid to understand subtleties, so we better keep humor and entertainment direct and remove any irony/parody/cynical/dark humor". There are countries where this mindset is common, and censorship is what it leads to, I know this because I've been there.
Why can't something exist that deviates from what society deems as the social norm?
Do you feel that other forms of art and entertainment should also not objectify women? Do you feel porn should be banned?
I personally feel that there should be a clear line between real life and art/entertainment. While I completely agree that we should not objectify women in real life, I feel that an artist or an entertainer should have the liberties to create any imaginary world they want.
The line between media and real life is never really that wide. FWIW, I'm not sure how to feel about this - it seems juvenile and somewhat insensitive, but I have no desire to censor it.
But as a racial minority I'll say that media bleeds into real life plenty often - even in the most liberal, diverse parts of this country I'm either supposed to A) beat someone up with mad kung fu or B) be really good at math and talk nerdy. There's a compounding and cyclical effect in media portrayals of anything - it begets more skewed perceptions which begets more skewed portrayals.
Media and real life reinforce each other - fiction is not consequence-free.
It's easy to sit back and ask everyone to just take the joke in good humor - until you end up on the wrong end of it. I'm not a woman, nor a sex worker, nor someone resembling Larry, but I've seen enough of these issues to know that when complaints like these arise, there's most often a valid rhyme and reason behind it.
This was a 14-year-old. Any modern LSL game would be rated 18+. I'm not saying media influence isn't real (heck, I don't think i've ever wanted a big house until I watched Desperate Housewives), but that it can and should be managed to a degree.
That influence is only bad if he wouldn't have killed his mother if he hadn't played the game. Otherwise, it just influenced the means, which is more or less irrelevant.
Two things. You're ready to censor entertainment on a political basis. I am not. If men stopped seeing women as sexual objects, human race would die out.
Maybe it's beyond your comprehension that males do have strong sexual urges. Wheter you call it objectification, or arousal triggered by visual stimuli is semantics. In the end you're just blaming the men for being men.
Disagree... Mainly because I could easily envision a society in which this argument snowballs, careening down a slippery slope until all comedy (South park, family guy, etc) is seen as harmful to society and made illegal or highly censored.
I've never played this game, but I'm guessing it is supposed to be humorous, and I think protecting satire and supporting comedic efforts is extremely important.
Don't disagree with someone because of what the slippery slope could lead to. i386 didn't argue for making any comedy illegal. i386 simply just stated his/her reasons for not supporting LSL.
There's a reason the slippery slope argument is considered a fallacy and not something that should be taken seriously in any kind of argument.
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. I think this comment adds to the conversation quite a bit, and this is actually the conversation I was expecting to see when I came to check out the comments. It's crazy to see this so recently after Geeklist, Sqoot, etc.
I'm not able to downvote so I didn't, but what if I'm not interested in a discussion about sexism in tech again. Most certainly not one that started of on the wrong foot, as the LSL games aren't sexist, at least not against women.
So you're saying that we shouldn't have dissent about games because that stifles free speech? I think you're mixing up two mutually exclusive messages here.
No, it is OK to have dissent, but saying that " it doesn't have a place in a future that is trying its hardest to remove objectification of women from society." is very close to saying "we should forbid it" or something like that, and that crosses the line to prevent free expression.
Nobody is forcing anyone to play or buy that game. If you don't like that kind of contents, don't buy it. Leave the ones who enjoy it alone. We don't need a higher moral authority to tell everyone what's right or wrong.
I have to agree with this. A lot of people are probably remembering the game through rose coloured glasses. It was a great game when we were all kids and got excited at the prospect of seeing a nipple.
It's a little disappointing to see immature misogynistic entertainment getting so many upvotes on HN.
Seeing a nipple doesn't excite you anymore? Then you are probably dead.
I am not for misogynistic entertainment, though. But sexual attraction exists in the real world, we can not just make it go away by pretending that we don't see it.
There are many who have no problem with (sometimes) treating women as sexual objects. Such people often do have a problem with the use of language as a political weapon. See: objectification, sexist, misogyny, patriarchy, glass ceiling, etc.
In my future, sex is OK. Jokes are OK. Playfulness is OK. And hookers probably still exist, regardless of whether they should or not.
Also, I think humans are pretty much hard-wired to objectify sexual interests. And there are places and situations where it's okay to express it and act on it, and places where it is less so. But not it's some black-or-white thing where it's always bad or always good.
Is it OK in computer games? Heck yes. Should it be in all games? Probably not. Is the world going to end if it's in just one game, or a small subset? Heck no.
I like your version of the future, and would love to live in it.
However in my present, every ninety seconds, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. Tens of thousands of girls and women are trafficked for sex, and one out of 3 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime.
Our society is fucked up around sex. It's not LSL's fault, but it certainly isn't helping.
It pisses me off that someone is trying to raise 500 thousand dollars to put LSL on an iphone. Is it their right? Yes. But it pisses me off.
I'm actually a little confused. You list some very negative things, which I strongly deplore, and then you say it "isn't LSL's fault, but it certainly isn't helping". Those are, indeed, very negative things! But...
A lot of things can be described as not being at fault, but not helping reduce the number sexual assaults in America. Apple pie. The Toyota corporation. Cows. Vegetarians. The colour blue. If LSL really isn't at fault, as you say, then why is it problematic that it isn't helping? Just because it has sexual content? I don't understand. Doesn't your criticism apply to, well...almost everything in life? (But especially almost every PG or higher rates movie and a huge number of television shows? Most of which have vastly higher budgets?)
(There's also, of course, the question of whether this is even a useful avenue of attack. There is some - confusing and contradictory, admittedly - evidence that violent games reduce violent crime, and pornography reduces sexual assaults. We have a lot of experience trying to repress basic human nature, and we have very little evidence that it ever works.)
Edit @rogerbruan: I've certainly been accused of being overly literal before. :) Still...
The original comment said that LSL isn't at fault. You're saying that it is a part of problem. I'm not sure how to square those two ideas. Either LSL fosters sexism, rape culture, and sexual assaults, or it doesn't. If it does, then it's at least partly at fault for these ills, and if it's not, then it's not bad for society, right? Still, I think you're broadly right: The original commenter was trying to blame LSL, and just phrased it oddly.
You are taking this too literal. "LSL isn't helping" means that it perpetuates a view of women and dating that is bad for society. I know it is a parody, but even so, it is a small part of the larger problem we have with sexism in our society.
LSL was never the most politically correct game out there, granted.
On the other hand IIRC the game was basically about some loser who thought he was a stud but was outwitted at every turn by smarter women.
I played some of the games when I was probably a little too young but if anything they showed me that sex was something that could be laughed about and that things in the sexual marketplace were not always what they seem.
In any case it's content was pretty tame, far far more hardcore stuff is only a google search away.
"The game has no major female characters who aren't hookers."
So? It's just a game. If you don't like it, ignore it. But no, you would rather have it so nobody else can enjoy it either.
"but it doesn't have a place in a future that is trying its hardest to remove objectification of women from society."
Do you honestly think that a women that poses in Playboy doesn't want to be objectified? If you truly want society to stop objectifying women, women need to stop voluntarily putting themselves in a position to be objectified.
I have to agree with i386. There's a pretty disturbing screenshot where Larry says that "this is the hooker's seedy bedroom. The bed's a mess, so is the hooker!".
Which bit to you find disturbing? The fact that the game acknowledges the existence of hookers, the fact that the game draws attention to the fact that many hookers work out of pretty seedy bedrooms or the fact that the game draws attention that many hookers end up looking less than their best.
Would you have preferred "this is the hooker's fabulous bedroom. The bed's perfectly clean, so is the hooker!"
Oh come on, how could you ever be shocked by what is commonly known as "the oldest profession"?
I'm not saying it's a nice job, but neither it is fixing sewage pipes. You should be shocked that pimps exist, maybe, but then again their role is quite natural and I'm sure some of them are quite the professional. The massive amount of abuse surrounding the "industry" is a problem, but it's hardly the only industry where management can abuse the workforce.
While I tend to agree with your sentiment, comparing prostitution to fixing sewage pipes is not really a fair comparison. Also, the number of industries where abuse by management involves physical violence is rather limited (as far as I know). I believe I understand what you are saying, but I think these points weaken your argument.
The existence of pimps is 'natural' in a Hobbesian sort of way: they exist only in complex societies because the institutions of law are not accessible to people participating in prostitution, due to the efforts of ideologues to universally suppress the existence of things that aren't consistent with their personal sentiments.
Yes, I'm aware it's known as the "oldest profession".
Please stop saying I'm shocked. I'm not shocked, and I have never said I was shocked. The original post said I was disturbed by the comment in the screenshot, and it was mostly because of the way it described the prostitute.
Sleeping with the hooker is not framed as a funny or positive thing. The game makes it an empty and depressing act, leaving the main character feeling unfulfilled.
Also if you sleep with her without a condom you get an STD and it's Game Over, so there's even a helpful PSA included.
I think the reason you guys object is because you haven't actually played the game and are looking at it from a superficial standpoint.
You are presented with a choice of losing your virginity to the hooker, or leaving and hoping to one day find true love. If you go to the hooker, you die and it's game over because you "feel empty inside".
I have indeed played this game when I was much younger. I think I was disturbed by this part of the game even back then.
The reason I'm disturbed isn't superficial, and has nothing really to do with Larry losing his virginity. It is the terms they use to describe the prostitute.
I find it disturbing how close minded and parochial you are. I live in a liberal Western democracy. Several years ago our female Prime Minister pushed through laws completely legalizing prostitution. It's just a job; maybe not a very nice job, but a fairly high paying one. They pay tax, are protected by police, and have to follow health and safety laws. And given our generous welfare net, nobody is ever even forced into prostitution to eat.
Do you think getting a haircut at a barbershop is consensual? If so, then what's the difference?
Your idea of prostitution is filtered through the lens of your own experiences. In America and other repressed countries, it's probably a good idea to assume that prostitution is not consensual; there is indeed coercion and violence, which is absolutely inexcusable and disgusting. But America is not the world, and you need to drop the rediculous sweeping universal statements.
If a woman chooses to be a prostitute, and chooses to engage with a "John", then heck yes it's consensual. That's what that word means. And is there plenty of evidence that some women choose to be prostitutes (no gun pointed to their head, they have other employment options, etc.)? Heck yes. Not even controversial.
Are some women forced to do it? Yes, of course. So in those cases it is not consensual. If it's not consensual in one case it does not mean it's not consensual in all cases.
Even if the person is not trafficked there are consent issues around addiction: Can a person addicted to a substance make a free informed choice? Here's some research showing that many people involved in prostitution are also drug users. (While this research isn't great it also references a lot of earlier research)
Indeed there often are, and those problems desperately need to be solved. The first step in solving this problem would be to compare the situation in the US, with the situation in countries where prostitution is legal and in the open. Are things better there? If so are there lessons that can be drawn from this? Trafficking is abhorrent and must be fought at all fronts, but forcing things further and further underground is not the solution for bringing the problem to light. Make it legal, bring it out into the open and regulate it. It won't make things perfect, and I'm not so naive that I think it would completely end all trafficking, but I do believe it will make things a whole lot better.
Look, we get it, the US has an education problem, still doesn't use metric, has a high rate of incarceration that effectively enslaves cheap labour, and still can't have legal prostitution without human trafficking or drugs.
Meanwhile, in saner socialist countries prisons are for reform, prostitution is government sponsored for health reasons and subject to drug testing and checks for pimps or links to human trafficking.
Just because some countries can't do some things right doesn't mean the things they screw up are wrong.
This is one of those issues where things can get blurred, I have to confess I'm a little unclear as to your exact position as well so I'll try and be clear.
Firstly I'm pro informed consensual activity, whether or not that activity is distasteful to myself or society at large. As far as drug use and prostitution are concerned I'll go with history and note that humans will always be doing both.
Now, in response to someone raising prostitution, if consensual, being okay you responded with a link to a UN report on human trafficking and a US study on drugs and prostitution being highly correlated.
These are fair points to raise, my position would be that if various countries decriminalised drug use and prostitution then they could be regulated as many other activities and industries are which would lead to a strong reduction in health issues and unsavoury slave like conditions.
The tone of my post was to strike a response, if anything I was the one expressing an anti US (government policy) sentiment. I noted you cited a US report linking drugs and prostitution (although I note it mentioned drug use in London as well) and I reacted rather strongly to that. If you meant to imply that prostitution -> drug use + pimping then I disagree as I feel that correlation does not equal causation and personally feel that federal level policy that declares a war on drugs and regards the business of sex as immoral is more likely to be the root cause of problems.
"People trafficking is a huge business with profits for organised crime of over $30billion."
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, if we have learned anything from the War on Drugs, then the solution to this problem is probably not increased criminal penalties for prostitution.
Perhaps the solution is to educate people - both young women who are at-risk of getting caught up in human trafficking, as well as men who may be likely to pay for sex and may not be aware of the problem of human trafficking.
Ah, yes, I was suggesting that criminalising prostitution is a good idea.
In general I don't have a problem with people selling or buying sex. There are some people who need strong protections - anyone under age; anyone who's being coerced; anyone who's being trafficked. There could probably be strong laws made around those areas, with extra help and support for victims.
Then there's a bunch of public health stuff. People addicted to drugs; people with STDs; people engaging in risky ('bareback') behaviour; and so on. Education and support would be good for these. Unfortunately drug addicted sex workers are not a sympathetic vote winning crowd.
The law in the UK is a bit odd. Exchanging money for sex is okay, but you're not allowed to offer sex for money or to offer money for sex. And then there are some newer laws which are "strict liability offences" (it doesn't matter if you know or not; even if you made efforts to find out) covering women who are forced into sex working. (This covers drug addicts paying debts for drugs using sex work.)
The UK has a stricter definition of trafficked than the UN. A person can voluntarily be trafficked into the UK.
You have a funny sense of logic then. Isn't it possible to be consensual in some cases and not in others?
If I said "In some cases it is legal to download a video and in some cases it is not", would you call that "never legal to download a video"? The fact that I can't legally download a movie currently in the theater shouldn't affect me from legally downloading a video licensed under a creative commons license.
> We won't get rid of hookers until we change or get rid of capitalism
While that's true, prostitution was just fine in every other system. Maybe if we could get rid of scarcity of resources, there would be nothing to trade for sex. But that still leaves us with all kinds of psychological reasons, so maybe if we could get rid of human nature...
Here's a study where scientist introduced a group of monkeys to the concept of money, and soon after they understood it, the monkeys themselves developed prostitution:
Actually, that disproves your point, not bolsters it. Monkeys use sex extensively in their dominance hierarchy without money, too. In multiple different ways, depending on species. Money merely tweaks the details of the underlying social forces, it didn't even remotely create them.
No? Prostitution is itself purely a service; why wouldn't people trade sex for other services in a kind of barter exchange? (One might note that this kind of informal quid-pro-quo is in fact an element in many 'traditional' sexual encounters.)
No arguing that LSL has its place in gaming history, but it doesn't have a place in a future that is trying its hardest to remove objectification of women from society.
EDIT: The down voting button is not a disagree button. If you disagree, reply!