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

Paradise Lost

I don't find it weird at all. Just take a look at Pulp Comics/Novels from the 20s onwards
up until about the early 60s. 95% (an exaggeration, most likely) of all the covers for all
these books had pictures of really good looking women with ample breasts, a ripped dress,
and usually in some kind of damsel-in-distress danger. You can probably bet that this was
done on purpose, not only to make people buy the books, but because the readers, esp.
males, of course, would be drawn to the women on the covers, and want to buy more.
(And on purpose, I mean that the people who were drawing them, thinking the stuff up
were most likely attracted to these unattainable female drawings/characters and therefore
figured it would also work on the general public.) I know it does for me, I love retro pulp
comic female lady peoples.


It's the same reason people like Hentai, and they aren't even 3D.

Some people are just morons, I wouldn't get carried away with it.

__________________
"Marino could do it."

waltert

I would say there's no difference between looking at a picture of well done computer animation and a picture of a female thats been airbrushed.

Bryndian_Dhai

I have two words:

Jessica Rabbit

*drools*


*grins*

Bryn

__________________
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
~Sinclair Lewis

Jaca

Hey, everybody's got their own kink. Personally I can completely understand the attraction to animated images, as I am a part of the digital age. But I've seen classic cartoons that date back at least 40 years that prove to me that it's not just my generation who digs that particular art form. I believe as time goes on, more types of erotica will be accepted as the norm.

Yeah, I've seen real women naked, and I can still find animated characters hot. As a matter of fact, I probably find some animated characters hotter than most airbrushed models, because I know the characters are meant to look the way they do from the very beginning of their creation. At least they're honest about it.

CityOfAngels

I'm one to make fun of anyone I know personally that I catch watching hentai or anything like that, but deep down inside I don't see anything wrong with it. As "cartoon porn" (what I call it when I'm making fun of said people who view it) is ink and paper, "internet porn" is simply a computer monitor.

Either way, sex with another person cannot be emulated completely, and I would much rather participate in that rather than view "real" porn actors and "cartoon" porn actors altogether.

gondath

People mostly support real sex over masturbation period, and that idea spreads the notion that real women are always superior to simulations of women. It has always been considered an accomplishment to convince someone to have sex with you. An individual has to select you for your personal traits. Even though pictures of real women are actually no different in substance than images of women who never were, the idea is that you would be reacting through attraction to a real attainable goal rather than an imaginary one. Even though porn is widely circulated and the real people are performing in it, even looking at these real images is laughed at and not considered worthwhile as a whole in society. It's all part of biology. I don't personally see any greater value in having real sex over just looking at attrative simulations of polygonal women, except that maybe it would be more fun but that's the extent of it.