Czernobog

I found something a while back, and after doing a bit of looking around I've come across a rather interesting phenomenon, and I'd like a bit of feedback on it.
Some of you may know that in the October issue of Playboy magazine, there is going to be a small series featuring girls from a couple of video games. The most notable one (as far as I can tell) is BloodRayne, the title character in the upcoming BloodRayne 2. So basically what we have here are naked/half naked pictures of various game girls. Having played the first game, I was somewhat interested and decided to see if I could track down the picture on the web. What I ended up finding where about 30 sites discussing it. Most conversations sounded like this:

Person1: Hey, did you know BloodRayne is gonna be in Playboy? That's hot!
Person2: Isn't she a video game chick?
Person3: Yea. Why are you so excited about a bunch of polygons? You'd have to be 13 to be attracted to that sort of crap. Loser.
Person2:Ha ha.

So what we have here are a bunch of people looking down on a bunch of other people for an attraction to a character in a video game. Am I the only one who finds that a bit odd? I mean, she has all the right parts (apparantly), so why would a physical attraction make someone a loser? What's the difference between attraction to a real naked woman you'll never see in real life, and attraction to a naked woman who doesn't exist?

This phenomenon didn't appear 50 years ago, now did it? Because Mrs. Pack-Man bears no resemblance whatsoever to an actual woman. With graphic technology sailing ever-foreward, digitally rendered women are looking more and more similar to thier real-world counterparts. The line between fantasy and reality begins to blur, as more and more interactivity comes into play. We can now talk to characters on the TV screen or monitor, and have them talk back. They can move on thier own (to a certain extent). With coming advances in Artificial Intelligence and graphical technology, how can we tell the difference between a person "out here" and a person "in there"? One is a series of atoms and molocules and amino acids etc, and one is a series of ones and zeros and triangles. Even as I type this, someone may be developing a program that allows a computer generated character to simulate a varried array of emotions. If the computer actually "feels" these emotions or not is irrelevant: it is the first step on the path.

So what happens when 10, 20, 100 years down the line there comes a time when computers can "love" thier users, and vice versa? I know this is starting to get a little off the original topic, but it bears some thought. With the gamut of "strange" sexual fetishes found on the planet, why would it be so far fetched for a person to be attracted to a digital character? Some peoples immediate reaction after reading this is going to be: "But the character isn't real!" To quote from a favorite movie of mine, "How do you define 'real'?" There are going to be some people with the automatic reaction that I mentioned a couple paragraphs above: getting aroused by a video game character makes someone a loser, or at least means they need to get out more and see a real woman. I'll concede the point that they may need to get out more, but that's not the current discussion. As for the idea that all people who think game characters are hot have never seen a real woman before, that I'll contest. I've "gotten out", had sex, seen real naked women, and I'll admit to an attraction to some game characters.

Then you could look at it this way: what if it's just another version of an erotic painting? Granted, as stated previously there's more room for advancement, but you get the picture. Anyway, I think I've rambled on for long enough, so now I'll stop and see what all you fine people think. Feedback is very appruciated.

__________________
Embrace the flame