Charas-Project

Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: lilsniffs3 on May 28, 2009, 07:27:21 PM

Title: Frowned upon.
Post by: lilsniffs3 on May 28, 2009, 07:27:21 PM
So, I was talking to my friend today. Soon, a classmate's little brother comes and shows his PSP.

Nothing too bad, right? 7 year old and a PSP. RIGHT? Wrong.[spoiler]On it was porn. Which I frown upon. Especially when 7 year olds look at it.[/spoiler]

Think about it, I'm in grammar school for friggin sake.

Did anything happen similar to this when you were about my age? Something that you/someone else frowned upon? 
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Bluhman on May 28, 2009, 07:30:57 PM
In 7th grade, I was rooming with some folks while taking a big field trip to Washington D.C. They began watching this special documentary on the sensation of orgasms and sex and all that. It was a bit early for me; the three other guys were like 'hell yeah', but I was neutral on it... Still, we were about 13ish or so when we all saw that.

7-year-olds with porn? I guess it could happen. He must have some very liberal parents, or very dull parents.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: ThexXtremeXx on May 28, 2009, 09:51:46 PM
woah, thats a wee bit too young...

9 years when i saw my first naked body.

it was a charset.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Uberpwn_w00t on May 28, 2009, 10:05:55 PM
Porn isn't bad. 7 year olds with porn is debatable.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Prpl_Mage on May 28, 2009, 10:13:30 PM
It all depends on what kind of porn.
Some naked ladies: not really such a big deal if he stumbled across it.
People having sex. Might want to discuss what the kid is doing with his portable console.
Hardcore: Take the thing away and give him the good ol' Gameboy colour.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: ThexXtremeXx on May 28, 2009, 10:32:15 PM
Hardcore: Take the thing away and give him the good ol' Gameboy colour.

\o/
 |
/\

Raise your hands in the air, cause i agree.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: fruckert on May 28, 2009, 10:33:56 PM
That's just wrong
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on May 28, 2009, 10:52:28 PM
Wow, really? Kids these days, huh? Sometimes I think what the next sociological era will be...
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: lilsniffs3 on May 29, 2009, 01:02:28 AM
It all depends on what kind of porn.
Some naked ladies: not really such a big deal if he stumbled across it.
People having sex. Might want to discuss what the kid is doing with his portable console.
Hardcore: Take the thing away and give him the good ol' Gameboy colour.

It's people having sex.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: ThexXtremeXx on May 29, 2009, 01:24:52 AM
holie shoit!
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Darkfox on May 29, 2009, 02:12:38 AM
It's people having sex.

Confiscate.

I frown upon this deeply. My frown is so low, it has broken through earth's first and second layers.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: ThexXtremeXx on May 29, 2009, 02:15:41 AM
holie shoit!
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: _JeT_ on May 29, 2009, 02:26:46 AM
7 years old, and already into porn? Geez, wouldn't be surprised if he did pot either. Seems like kids are just getting into such things so early nowadays. I blame... er... a lot of people.

holie shoit!

Okay.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on May 29, 2009, 02:50:47 AM
Although advanced technologically, people are becoming more primitive. I predict some societies may eventually decay into anarchy.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Uberpwn_w00t on May 29, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
But anarchy is a good thing! If done right.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: fruckert on May 29, 2009, 03:07:25 AM
Which is nigh impossible, given the very nature of anarchy and the fact that trying to control it would be hypocritical therefore making it not anarchy for it instead being controlled chaos, which cannot exist due to the very nature of chaos
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Darkfox on May 29, 2009, 03:22:09 AM
In other words it's Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)?
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on May 29, 2009, 03:46:23 AM
LIKE THIS?

<img src="http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/ff/B_manifesto.jpg/746px-B_manifesto.jpg">
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Apex on May 29, 2009, 04:30:59 AM
.
Some naked ladies: not really such a big deal if he stumbled across it.

I stumble across naked women on my PSP all the time by accident. O.o
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Darkfox on May 29, 2009, 05:06:33 AM
LIKE THIS?

<img src="http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/ff/B_manifesto.jpg/746px-B_manifesto.jpg">

4chan drains braincells, FACT. It is the unholy origin of much of the internet idiocy. The number of 4chaniots is continually on the rise too.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: HobomasterXXX on May 29, 2009, 06:00:31 AM
4chan drains braincells, FACT. It is the unholy origin of much of the internet idiocy. The number of 4chaniots is continually on the rise too.
4chan is fine if you avoid /b/. Avoid it like the plauge. /v/ and /k/ are still awesome.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Legacy of Elecrusher on May 29, 2009, 03:31:52 PM
/v/ and /k/ are still awesome.

So true. (http://zip.4chan.org/k/src/1243610274191.jpg)
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: SaiKar on May 29, 2009, 05:54:24 PM
Oh come on. That V for Vendetta thing is pretty clever.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Grandy on May 29, 2009, 06:15:55 PM
/b/ is pretty good if you manage to search it throughly.


 Wearing some heavy gear to prevent contamination.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Red Giant on May 29, 2009, 06:44:20 PM
Meh. It's just some sexing.

Personally I find society backwards when it comes to censorship. Why is it so wrong for a kid to watch some smexy times, which is not only completely natural but necessary for the survival of the species, but he can play shooty murder death and NOONE BATS A DAMN EYE LID.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on May 29, 2009, 06:53:48 PM
You guys (not Red) are serious? I... I'm almost at a loss for words. You know what my friends and I had when we were seven? Hand-me-down Playboys. This made long bus rides on the way to school interesting.

BECAUSE WE WERE NORMAL. Go take some normal pills, you scaredy-fags.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Prpl_Mage on May 29, 2009, 07:00:53 PM
I accept playboys it's a part of the world. But not live pr0n on your portable console. 7 or nine.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Grandy on May 29, 2009, 07:03:37 PM
Oh, I see porn ever since I have internet. Or even before that.

Of course, at the time it was just like "WOAH SO THIS IS WHAT IT'S LIKE" with no desire at all.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Bluhman on May 29, 2009, 07:49:14 PM
You guys (not Red) are serious? I... I'm almost at a loss for words. You know what my friends and I had when we were seven? Hand-me-down Playboys. This made long bus rides on the way to school interesting.

BECAUSE WE WERE NORMAL. Go take some normal pills, you scaredy-fags.

This really is honestly how I see it. Of course, I frown upon it, but it simply can't be stopped.

Oh, and I have to agree with sentiments from Red Giant. The documentary 'This Movie is Not Yet Rated' brought up some similar points about how violence and sex are comparatively censored in America... Which is just silly.

How so? Here's an example:

God of War - Giant flying blades of death, decapatations, disembowelments, including getting impaled by a column, bare breasts, implied sexual scenes and actions... Rating? : Mature.

Grand Theft Auto: San andreas, unmodified - Shootings and violence, some headsplosions, running over and crime, and a lot less gore than God of War. But instead has a secret, nigh inaccessable sex minigame hidden in it. Rating? : Adult Only.

Yeah, that's a bit of an infamous example, but there's certainly others. I remember one movie example in the documentary where Scary Movie, where death ripped the breast implant of a woman right out, was rated a lower restriction level than a movie that depicted a girl masturbating (With clothes on).
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Prpl_Mage on May 29, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
Well, the reason why GTA is rated higher than God of war is probably because GTA shows "the real world".
God of war on the other hand makes you play as the roman war god, it's fiction.

Kids will probably get more ideas from having missions like "Go shoot that bitch and get my stash" or "Man, that ***hole is in our territory! Let's roll guys" rather than "Defeat these misshapen monsters and get me my artifact" and "The evil armies of the gods are invading our city! You must use your full force to beat them!"

Also, it's easier to get a gun than getting a pair of swords connected to a long chain.

And about the scary movie thing. Breasts are more accepted than female masturbation. It's pretty obvious. We've all seen breasts in movies and games, even on the beach. But you don't see girls masturbate in movies unless it's a porno or something. I can't remember seeing it at least.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Bluhman on May 29, 2009, 08:26:26 PM
Well, still, there's Porno games rated AO. And games that detail real-life situations with violence (like any other GTA title) that's rated M. That, and GTA:SA was rated AO simply because of that minigame after Jack Thompson threw hissy fits over it or whatever. Before that, it was also M.

But still, it seems unlikely to change that much. We seem to grow up recognizing violence a lot more in media than sexual themes, which is why it seems more natural.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on May 29, 2009, 11:58:50 PM
4chan drains braincells, FACT. It is the unholy origin of much of the internet idiocy. The number of 4chaniots is continually on the rise too.

What the hell are 4chaniots? You can mean one of 2 things, 4channers; any 4chan users, or newfags, which are 4chan's n00bs.

--

I agree that the principles of censorship these days are strange.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on May 30, 2009, 07:05:12 AM
I can understand GTA getting a higher rating than God of War. You're not getting a more violent world, no, but the acts are much more impressionable and able to be reenacted. This, coupled with all the freedom to do any of the obscene, violent, offensive, and otherwise socially unacceptable acts at nearly any time as often as you want with little-to-no penalty (well, unless a cop is around), and that some of it is even required makes it a lot more offending than a game that has the violence depicted in written word taught in school. Sure, it's still graphic, extreme, whatever, but it's also something that is considered more socially acceptable, and because it's simply a much less reenactable concept.

Also, it got that AO rating because of the graphic depictions of sex. Sure, clothing was still present, but you don't need to have bare flesh to get the idea of what nasty acts they're trying to perform. As far as I know, GoW has partial (breasts only) nudity, and implied sex. This is the difference between the two examples. Nudity isn't as big an issue as something that comes off a bit more like pornography.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Bluhman on May 30, 2009, 08:48:34 PM
Ripping monster heads off is not the same thing as shooting random people on the street.

Ok, ok, apparently, GOW is not the best example. Here, let me try this again:

GTA - Vice City - Shooting people on the streets, crashing cars, bloodying people with your fists, doing headshots with sniper rifles, not one real mention or incedent of sexual intercourse really mentioned as far as I can recall. Rating? - M.

GTA - San Andreas - Same deal, except with a secret sex minigame that can only be accessed with hacking. Rating? - AO.

Playboy the Mansion: Private Party (I'm just choosing something else completely random here.) - No violence to speak of, but plenty of sexual content and such. Rating? - AO.

As you can see, whether it's about beating up people or monsters is completely irrelevant to what the rating is. The M game has a contemporary setting, and plenty of violence, and is still rated M, ONLY because of omitted sexual content.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: ThexXtremeXx on May 30, 2009, 08:54:40 PM
lol @ post apacolyptic tokyo ad
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on May 30, 2009, 11:02:37 PM
Ok, ok, apparently, GOW is not the best example. Here, let me try this again:

GTA - Vice City - Shooting people on the streets, crashing cars, bloodying people with your fists, doing headshots with sniper rifles, implied hardcore sex and partial nudity. Rating? - M.

GTA - San Andreas - Same deal, except with a secret sex minigame that can only be accessed with hacking. Rating? - AO.

Playboy the Mansion: Private Party (I'm just choosing something else completely random here.) - No violence to speak of, but plenty of sexual content and such. Rating? - M/AO (varies by version available).

As you can see, whether it's about beating up people or monsters is completely relevant to what the rating is. The M game has a contemporary setting, and plenty of violence, and is still rated M, ONLY because of omitted sexual content.

~ Fixed.
It's a very well known fact that graphic sex is less socially acceptable than violence. The NEWS shows violence. This is not a surprise or a secret.

Also, SA was re-rated M after R* released a version with the files related to the content removed. Once again, it's the graphic sex that isn't accepted by society (for whatever reason). Bottom line will always be that society sees graphic depictions of sex to be more offensive than violence (especially since violence rarely goes to extremes with gore. It's not impossible for a game to get an AO rating because of gore. Manhunt 2 was extremely close to getting the rating, and it wasn't even all that much worse than GTA. It was all about the context and the portrayal of the violence that almost did it in).
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Darkfox on May 30, 2009, 11:47:07 PM
Most of (if not all) the released PS2 Atlus Megaten titles (Including P3 and P4) got M ratings and don't contain all that much graphic content.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Bluhman on May 30, 2009, 11:49:39 PM
...Once again, it's the graphic sex that isn't accepted by society (for whatever reason). Bottom line will always be that society sees graphic depictions of sex to be more offensive than violence (especially since violence rarely goes to extremes with gore.)

This here is exactly my point. Why is this exactly? We're not entirely sure.

Yeah. Anyway, that's enough from me.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: fruckert on May 30, 2009, 11:58:04 PM
I think ESRB is stupid
Like they changed the rating of Oblivion because of hidden files that an angry fan unlocked through a hack
And they also changed that rating because, basically "Uh...we noticed there is a lot more blood, so we're bumping it up to an M"
Ugh...
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: HobomasterXXX on May 31, 2009, 12:09:25 AM
Most of (if not all) the released PS2 Atlus Megaten titles (Including P3 and P4) got M ratings and don't contain all that much graphic content.
Any games with hemaphrodites deserve any rating they get >_>
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on May 31, 2009, 02:42:58 AM
This here is exactly my point. Why is this exactly? We're not entirely sure.

Yeah. Anyway, that's enough from me.
We're sure. The violence is brutal, extreme, and vulgar as hell. Have you played the games? They're basically interactive snuff films.

I think ESRB is stupid
Like they changed the rating of Oblivion because of hidden files that an angry fan unlocked through a hack
And they also changed that rating because, basically "Uh...we noticed there is a lot more blood, so we're bumping it up to an M"
Ugh...
While it's true that the ESRB can be retarded (what ratings board isn't these days?), the part about hidden files is total bunk. It was actually people taking the male torso skin and applying it to the female models. Because the shadowing and detail is done by the light mapping in the game, it looks pretty natural as a topless female. Not hidden files, swapped files. Although they do seem to be in the right about the violence aspect, the circumstances that were involved in the change were bullshit.


Gosh, I'm just a well of information on this topic. Keep this thing going, fellas!
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on May 31, 2009, 10:08:55 PM
I don't think impressions should matter on ratings. Sure, it helps them kids not get into crime, but I don't think that should matter because ratings aren't supposed to impose opinions/hypotheses on parents. It's supposed to give them the raw information to make their decisions.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: A Forgotten Legend on June 01, 2009, 12:51:40 AM
I didn't even know what sex was until 7th grade.

And now, there are girls at the middle school in my area, worried their pregnant, and that there were rumors of an STD going around down there. o.o

(Middle school is 6th-8th in my area, about ages 9-14)
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Uberpwn_w00t on June 01, 2009, 01:28:11 AM
SEVENTH GRADE?

Christ, mate!
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Bluhman on June 01, 2009, 03:35:59 AM
And now, there are girls at the middle school in my area, worried their pregnant, and that there were rumors of an STD going around down there. o.o

(Middle school is 6th-8th in my area, about ages 9-14)

I swear, the same thing is happening here in NY. Maybe.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on June 01, 2009, 04:02:36 AM
I didn't even know what sex was until 7th grade.
My God. How old are kids in seventh grade? Twelve? Yeah, I was, like, five when I figured it out. Sure, I was a little fuzzy on all the specifics up until about seventh grade, but I knew enough that, if I had to, I could fake my way through a good sexing.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Red Giant on June 01, 2009, 02:53:52 PM
You know a topic is going right when we're postulating the practicality of five year olds having sex.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: ThexXtremeXx on June 01, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
lol
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on June 01, 2009, 08:05:29 PM
You know a topic is going right when we're postulating the practicality of five year olds having sex.
...Isn't every topic I participate in headed in this direction, though?
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Grandy on June 01, 2009, 09:03:47 PM
Which further proves my theory that Archem is in fact a paedophile ghost. Like Casper.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on June 01, 2009, 10:52:50 PM
is children have an sex does an pedophile?? ???
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on June 01, 2009, 11:38:23 PM
...Huh?
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Valiere on June 02, 2009, 01:11:00 AM
You know a topic is going right when we're postulating the practicality of five year olds having sex.

Not just any five-year-olds, five-year-old Archems.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on June 02, 2009, 01:17:49 AM
Not just any five-year-olds, five-year-old Archems.

That suddenly makes it make a whole lot more sense.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Darkfox on June 02, 2009, 01:24:53 AM
Dear diary, I died a bit more inside today.





XD Not seriously, but I do find it disturbing about kids.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on June 02, 2009, 03:59:47 AM
I do find it disturbing about kids.
"It"? And by "it", do you mean five-year old Archems?







Because I find five-year old mes about children to be quite disturbing, too.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Darkfox on June 02, 2009, 04:31:48 AM
Five-year-old Archems is quite disturbing, almost as disturbing as 80-year-old Archems.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on June 02, 2009, 04:33:05 AM
Or eighty five-year olds with Archem.

I mean me.





I'm like the pedobear of Charas.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on June 02, 2009, 04:51:10 AM
There must now be a Pedoghost. I'll get to work in Photoshop.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Felix-0 on June 02, 2009, 01:17:52 PM
no don't do it! WTFBOOM!!!! (nuclear explosion)
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: ThexXtremeXx on June 02, 2009, 07:04:52 PM
tee-he.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: fruckert on June 02, 2009, 11:12:19 PM
*awaits the Pedoghost*
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on June 03, 2009, 05:20:41 AM
WORK FASTER!


Or I'll come find you.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Felix-0 on June 03, 2009, 12:25:24 PM
O_0'' Time for another rip in the space time continuum, how many is that now, 7...8.....12....17...yea 17 rifts in the space time continuum from this website alone. :3
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: DedlellyDeth on June 03, 2009, 06:53:36 PM
<img src="http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/227/archem.png">

Sorry, I forgot.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Felix-0 on June 03, 2009, 07:33:06 PM
yea....a sin was just committed
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on June 04, 2009, 08:35:26 PM
I'm sorry...
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: ThexXtremeXx on June 04, 2009, 10:53:36 PM
you better be.

:-|
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Archem on June 05, 2009, 03:33:01 AM
I'm sorry again.


I'm about to be sorry once (or twice) more here in an hour or two.
Title: Re: Frowned upon.
Post by: Cerebus on June 05, 2009, 03:47:58 AM
I will post so you won't be double-posting the next time you will be sorry.