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.
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.