1. Once again… pr0n = flawed art. This stuff is driven by money and male desires. It promotes the desires that drive human trafficking, pedo, etc. And I’m not saying nudity always = bad.

    Same thing with brutal violence. I watched the trailer for the newest Mortal Kombat and was honestly disgusted. It’s legit disturbing.

    Back in the day, I LOVED the Dead Space games. My wife and I also watched a lot of Walking Dead (until it just kept getting worse and we didn’t think it was worth it anymore). A while back, I went back and re-played some of Dead Space 2, and was like, “What the heck did I like so much about this?” It’s still a really well-made game, of course. But dude… I just couldn’t stomach the grossness and foulness. Just zero desire left in me for that.

    It’s interesting having a 3 year-old daughter, seeing what she is and isn’t disturbed by. I’ve noticed she is highly disturbed by lots of stuff we should be disturbed by but aren’t, and totally not at all disturbed by some things adults are disturbed by (like metal music, for example–she’s not at all frightened by it).

    • notleia says:

      Maybe I should introduce y’all to the “men are trash” end of the feminist pool, beyond the recycled tropes.
      Because it’s men who’ve created and sustained the sex market. China’s one-child policy has created enough of a gender imbalance that maybe, you’d think the scarcity would improve their attitudes about women, but nope, they just kidnap them from the poorer countries around them.
      That thing about the Netherlands having horrible trafficking rates despite legalizing prostitution is true, because it’s men demanding more than the market can sustain and at the same time not being willing to play by normal capitalist rules by paying more to maintain their access.
      There is no corresponding market to cater to female sexuality. Women aren’t paying big bucks or traveling to poor countries to have sex with adolescent young men. Even the men in the existing sex market are intended for male consumption.
      Why the huge disparity, if it’s merely human nature? Are men just trash that shouldn’t be in charge of anything until they can prove they aren’t derailed by a bare shoulder? (If correlation was causation, there would be enough numbers to support that.)
      (Hint: the leading theory is about the rampaging entitlement men have developed about access to women’s bodies and labor.)

      • If women had the same amount of power for millenia and it wasn’t so taboo, we probably would have more women behaving violently, getting into sex trafficking, etc… whether or not it was as common as the men and whether or not they actually did it to cater to their own sexuality.

        At least some feminists seem to like saying that it’s natural for women to be just as sexual as men and therefore shouldn’t have to be ashamed for desiring sex. And now and then there’s plenty of hints that they indeed do have similar fetishes, whether or not they do so as often or let that spill over into real life.

        It’s also very telling that in nature matriarchal systems don’t always constitute a safe or fair society. Hyenas being the prime example. I’m definitely not saying that women are bad or that men have to be in charge, but the particular feminists you’re talking about seem to act like men are the only reason we ever have certain problems.

      • It’s obvious this is a male-domination issue. I think the men responsible for this crap DO suck.

        But I’m not one of them, and I know plenty men who stand firmly outside of the camp you’re criticizing. So, no, men don’t just “suck.” I have zero desire to dominate my wife, control her, etc., I don’t watch pr0n, I don’t abuse women, and I don’t view them as objects. I firmly believe that my place in life is to serve my wife and daughter, and I live my life to those ends, however imperfectly. Those who know me and see my life day in and day out can judge whether or not my lifestyle is consistent with my words. I don’t have the objectivity necessary to see that clearly. But service is what it means to be a man. Not demanded service, but service freely offered out of actual love.

        It seems like many feminists seem really into dominating men. But it’s less of a sexual thing and more of a purely violent thing. Is that less bad? Seems to me they’re both evil. So… ok. Exchange one evil for another? How about neither? Why can’t we just affirm that both genders have good and evil woven in them, and different proclivities. That seems to be how reality works. There’s something truly different between a great man and a great woman, and I think both are beautiful.

        Also, if women have to demand that men serve them, that ruins the whole thing. Men should just serve out of their own volition.

        We don’t on our own, of course, because sin nature and all that, but again this goes back to the Gospel, which you don’t believe, but I do because it’s massively changed my life and totally turned around my desires. And every man I know and respect who truly loves their wife and serves them and treats them with dignity and respect has been similarly turned inside out by the Gospel (meaning, by the person of Christ himself actively living inside them). If there’s a man out there who abuses his wife without remorse and calls himself a Christian, he’s denied Christ and is a liar.

        Sexism is stupid. But yes. Sadly, lots of guys truly suck to a massive level.

        • notleia says:

          Between you and Travis, your Church of the Real, True Christians(tm) has maybe a couple hundred people in it.

          I mean, I can see why you’d vote the buttholes off the metaphorical island, I wish it were that simple, but there are a bunch of people in your CINO files who make much better comrades than the buttholes, but they don’t perform the right shibboleths.
          Welp, y’all picked which hills you want to die on. Authoritarians gonna authoritate.

          • Nah… there’s quite a few people in my life who are “Real, True Christians,” and they’re all quite nice people, too. Contrary to what you may think, I have Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, AOG, and Methodist friends who I would call “Real, True Christians.” Why are you so set on seeing caricatures where there’s real people right in front of you?

            I’m also not saying there’s no nice people who don’t believe the same. Stop with the straw-men arguments… it’s annoying and wastes everyone’s time.

            Am I supposed to be sorry that the only force in the universe I’ve ever found that has overcome my own evil desires (and changed them) is the Gospel? Have you found anything? And what in the world is authoritarian about believing in the Gospel? I’m legitimately curious.

            • notleia says:

              I find what you mean by “believing in the Gospel” generally correlates to a fundagelical interpretation. And a fundagelical viewpoint has a strong correlation (at least 70%) with an authoritarian view of the world. And authoritarians attract dysfunctions like flies.
              Read that thing I linked for Autumn a few posts ago, it has numbers(!) and science(!!!) about this, which is where I got that 70% number: https://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf.
              Like, he even defines his parameters for religious fundamentalists, and it works pretty well across all religions, but the one he talks about is Christianity, being that he is an American psychologist who was tenured at a Canadian university.

              TL;DR: I’m not even talking about Christianity as a personal phenomenon. I’m talking about it in its capacity as a social regular. It’s pretty crap, because the accepted rules and how they are enforced have been demonstrated to not work as described.
              And how exactly would you mandate belief? You can mandate behavior to some extent, but would mandating Bible study and corporate prayer guarantee genuine belief? Protestantism generally says no, and that paints you into a corner.

              • The only corner I’m painted into is that the Gospel changed my life. (For the record, I don’t want to mandate belief at all, and don’t believe that’s the way. The Gospel is a free gift, and in return people freely offer themselves–nothing about it works when forced, that makes it worthless.) Statistics are based on many individual realities. To say that statistics invalidate a belief when they don’t even examine if those beliefs are consistent is poor statistical analysis (the basis of Christian belief is that it’s lived out–which would preclude authoritarianism [the essence of the gospel, turn the other cheek, serve one another, don’t dominate, on and on it goes]). I find it especially ironic that you criticize me for saying belief is worthless unless it’s acted out in behavior, yet criticize Christians for being hypocritical. Which do you want? Consistency? Or hypocrisy? Do you just WANT Christians to suck so you can keep being angry at everyone with that label on their forehead? Whenever one of your arguments falls down, you whip out another one to prop up the house of cards. I don’t believe you’re honestly interested in a real conversation. Just a slug-fest to throw around your jaded viewpoint. Obviously, you’ll never convince me the Gospel ain’t real. It’s my life. And I’m sure the same is true in reverse.

              • notleia says:

                “the basis of Christian belief is that it’s lived out–which would preclude authoritarianism”

                wow, that’s almost adorable. like, I need a moment and several rewrites to get over my kneejerk condescension (and prolly still fail at it)

                Like, I can respect that as an ideal. With some asterisks. I might even like that as an ideal. Almost. But you’re getting on my nerves for much the same reason the Bernie Bros do, because you can’t just handwave away and ignore all the historical baggage that’s clogging the drain.
                I mean, it’s true that I don’t think “mere Christianity” has existed for longer than 20 seconds after it left Jesus’s mouth. I wish it did, but most attempts I’ve seen at achieving it have just dissolved in petty bitchfighting in about 10 seconds. As illustrated.

                TL;DR I’m interested more in results than in purity ponying.

              • Also: that paper isn’t examining Christians. He’s examining authoritarian followers (many of whom claim to be Christians, of course–look at Trumpnation). Example: the test of religious orthodoxy was agreeing with the Nicene Creed…. ok…? There’s a lot more to religious orthodoxy. Like, for example, that belief isn’t real unless it’s lived out (the whole book of James, Romans, on and on it goes). It makes sense why conservative beliefs on things (much of Christian conservatism is culturally motivated rather than being motivated by actual religious experience) being measured as they were in that study would then of course skew that direction. Makes total sense. To be clear, I haven’t read enough (good lord it’s massive) to argue with all the data, only that the way you want to use that data isn’t appropriate or remotely scientific.

              • notleia says:

                Somewhere in the first chapter, IIRC, Altemeyer talks about the Freudian approach to trying to understand authoritarian followers and how it might sound nice, but it’s totally untestable and is therefore functionally inapplicable. I’m more or less having the same problem with your stuff.
                It’s unfalsifiable, to use the jargon. Especially if you declare by Fiat of Brennan that this person who got caught is obviously not a “real” Christian. Well, then, how do you tell the real ones from the ones that just haven’t gotten caught yet? It’s like freakin’ Schrodinger’s Cat up in here. Playing bagpipes next to the no-true Scotsmen.
                I try to be very conscious about not doing that, because the truth is that assholes (and people doing asshole things) are everywhere. Dawkins is an asshole. Paige Patterson is an asshole. Pastor Richard who presided over my brother’s wedding and my grandma’s funeral is a “polite” asshole about gay rights but otherwise is a friendly, dutiful pastor who visits all the nursing homes regularly.

              • “It’s unfalsifiable, to use the jargon. Especially if you declare by Fiat of Brennan that this person who got caught is obviously not a “real” Christian.” – you and that guy have that exact problem when trying to define “authoritative followers” as someone who thinks homosexuality is unhealthy or morally wrong, among many of the other questions on that survey that hold the same issue. The survey was as leaky as a sinking ship, and more of a witch-hunt than anything else. I think it’s morally wrong and unhealthy but still have friends who are gay. But the claims of the survey and your opinion are unfalsifiable because by fiat of you, you have declared anyone who believes that an “authoritarian a-hole.”

                Purity ponying? I’m well aware that I’m a messed up loser–hence the Gospel. Talking about the Gospel is never petty. The only reason I engage you is because you deny that real people who really follow Jesus exist. I’ve seen Christianity lived out by many people around the world who are my friends, and who I’ve known for quite some time and seen in very difficult situations. I’m not handwaving or ignoring all the baggage of cultural Christianity, or saying it doesn’t exist. I hate it probably more than you do. But I know through personal experience that there’s a difference between fake Christian and real Christian, because I’ve lived both, and have many people in my life who actually live out Christianity. It’s always imperfectly, but it’s obvious and undeniable when you see it lived out, because it changes your core desires and perspective profoundly. May sound fairly immaterial to you, but it’s not. And it IS different from just living “a good life.” What you’ve already identified as your problem is that you don’t believe it’s real because you haven’t seen it. That’s fair. And also… I trust it’s probably true. And that’s the most troublesome part of anything you’ve said.

                As a side note: if you run out of straw-men, just get condescending and start mocking.

                Really, everything in Christianity comes down to “Do you love Jesus or not?” and if the answer to “Do you love others?” is no, that’s the answer to the first question, too. And that love has to be acted out. Like a guy who says he loves his wife but doesn’t do a single “loving” thing for her. The lifestyle will either falsify or make his claim real. Nothing “cute” or “idealistic” about that. That’s how real life works, Notleia. And this is Christianity 1.0. You think it isn’t a real thing in anyone’s life (which is a ridiculous claim, really). And you’re too far from my actual life to say whether my life bears out my belief or not. So, really, this convo is doomed to be worthless. But beyond that, you don’t want to believe in Christianity anyways, because you just don’t like Jesus at all. Do you?

              • notleia says:

                Yeah, there’s good reason to think that anti-gay peeps are authoritarian, because there’s no compelling nonsectarian reason to oppose gay rights. You oppose it because your interpretation of the Bible tells you to and your weaponized sense of disgust. What about that is not authoritarian?

              • I wouldn’t (and haven’t) opposed the legal rights of homosexuals. Nothing about my belief causes me to be authoritarian. Just because I believe it’s wrong doesn’t mean I’m violently opposed to it. That’s ridiculous. My Bible tells me it’s wrong. So, I don’t live that lifestyle. It also tells me “do not judge those outside the faith.” Therefore, I don’t expect non-Christians to think or live the same way. Why the heck should I? Politics should never be used to enforce religious belief. You’re seeing the distortion and saying, “This is the core normative behavior of Christians.” When the text itself (the source of Christianity) blatantly says it should be the opposite. The text itself (again, the source of Christian orthodox doctrine) plainly says that belief should never be enforced and must always be voluntary and lived out. You have to ignore half the new testament to be an authoritarian. It’s two beliefs diametrically opposed to each other. And yes, I’m well aware that it happens way too much, but it’s not internally consistent.

              • notleia says:

                (Aww, you and your snowflake interpretations. Still cute, and not even in a bad way. That’s my kind of happy nice time flakery.)

                But let’s dissect this. You believe it, in your own words, because your Bible tells you to. You believe this thing because ~an authoritative document~ tells you so, not because you have arrive at this conclusion yourself. In fact, it seems your own experience with gay people has taught you that they’re pretty normal, but since the Bible insists that gayness is immoral, you must also insist.

                But apparently “real” Christianity is not authoritarian although you are required to follow the rules from this collection of documents, but according to this interpretation and not that unorthodox other one.

              • notleia says:

                [Y’all, cognitive biases are WILD, arent they]

              • notleia says:

                (I feel like I should elaborate that everyone has cognitive biases. We’re human. It’s still an absolute TRIP coming across one in the wild, tho)

              • Lol… nice try, but let’s dissect this further. I believe there is a figure that actually holds authority over the universe, and he inspired a book that lets us know there is an objective truth, and who it is, and that he expressed his authority by becoming the ultimate servant to empower us to live lives defined by love (as willing servants ourselves), and not at all marked by authoritarianism. Tell me again what you don’t like about that? You’re so intellectually dishonest that it’s hard to stomach.

                One of the rules of that guys’ measure of authoritarian followers is that they violently support their dogma. I don’t know why I have to spell out such simple things over and again, but that’s the opposite of what that “authoritarian” document says is the Christian way.

              • “you are required to follow the rules from this collection of documents, but according to this interpretation and not that unorthodox other one.”

                By writing this you must mean that you are a Bible-believing Christian, and any kind of sexual sin is an abomination to the Lord deserving of his wrath. That’s my “unorthodox interpretation” of what you wrote. Anything else (especially if you insist on some other meaning) is just “authoritarian.”

                Or … maybe words actually mean things, in any language, any translation, and it’s a mark of love and respect for a person to recognize this.

                notleia, gotta say, he’s right when he says you’re being intellectually dishonest. And frankly, you’ve been reading SpecFaith (and posting so many scintillating comments) long enough to know better about why biblical Christians believe what they believe. Disregard apathy. Time to level up. Do it for your nakama.

              • notleia says:

                Bruh, I DO know why you believe the things you do. I had the T shirt. I found it unsustainable.

                Maybe I’m just explaining it horribly, but I am doing my best to lay out my logic so that you can at least understand my objections through my words and not someone else’s caricature about what liberal harridans believe.

                But he does believe in an Authority, da ne? We did not elect that authority, and he agrees with the party what says that the Bible is unchanging. By definition that leans on the authoritarian end of the scale, the same way monarchies are. But he also wants to insist that real Christianity, which must be literalist, is not authoritarian.
                Maybe he just needs to sit on that notion awhile longer to come around to it, like his now defining pr0n as faulty art instead of not actually being art, as what his argument seemed to be a few posts ago.

              • ? I didn’t change my argument. Pr0n ain’t art. What I mean is the pr0n elements are not art elements. Though pr0n and art can coexist in the same work. Hence, pr0n added into a work of art = faulty art. That’s hyper-simplistic, but essentially that’s what I meant.

                But no, according to your psychologist dude’s definition of authoritarian, it doesn’t fit at all. And that was my point from the get-go. Just because we believe there’s objective reality doesn’t mean we violently enforce the belief in that reality. Or that we even expect everyone to believe the same. If you were God you would demand all people to be non-authoritarians (like the NT does–albeit by appealing to people doing it by their own volition). If you were in control of the government, you’d want the government to authoritatively mandate bad behavior (like racism) not to happen. You want to criticize Christianity for the same things you praise in secular institutions–and actually for doing milder things than you yourself would want secular institutions to do. You may have different values than the NT gives, but that’s not what you’ve been arguing. Give me a break, Notleia. You’re not just explaining it badly, you’re not thinking it through. I’m not trying to be a jerk–I fail to think things through plenty, and probably failed to think multiple things through in this convo. But what you’ve been claiming just isn’t consistent.

              • notleia says:

                Welp. that’s a more nuanced view of pr0n than you articulated last time, so congratulations on your improved articulation.

                Let’s see if I can sum up my recurring thesis without Altemeyer complicating things. 1) You believe that proper believe brings proper behavior, right? On the very broad view, I think that’s more or less right, but there are plenty of asterisks. Altemeyer illustrated a lot of the asterisks, but if you think his science is faulty, then good news, someone else can do science about it and present evidence of other conclusions.
                2) I have this laundry list of things that I do not think are proper behavior coming from that end of the denomination scale, but rather than discuss how their beliefs influence their behavior, you just skip over that to declare it not a problem because people who believe the right things don’t do bad things. And that annoys me, because the bad things DO happen. And the bad actors also share a lot of your marker beliefs.
                3) And I find your solution lacking because how do you even mean to enforce proper belief? Policing behaviors is the norm, but I find your prescribed methods lacking. And if we try to get to the source of the problem, how would you even do that?

                But aside from that, I’m familiar with your both-siderisms and I could write a whole entire essay about my experiences with the similarities and contrasts of left wingers and right wingers, but there’s not the space here for that.

              • That summation is helpful, so thank you. Let me try to respond to them in order. And please… just try really hard to see my perspective, because it’s hard to communicate it clearly.

                1. I don’t believe that proper belief = proper behavior. It’s obvious that belief influences behavior. And belief IS an engine of Christian behavior. Yet it’s not a simple 1:1. There’s plenty jerks I know who “believe right” and it’s totally worthless to them. The thing with Christianity is that ALL over the place, the fundamental doctrine says that belief as we think of it is not even close to everything, and, in fact, that without living that belief out, your “faith” *doesn’t even exist*. “Even the devil believes” etc. So much of your criticism of what you perceive to be my viewpoint isn’t actually my viewpoint, and much of what you criticize in Christianity is really just criticizing the aberrations of Christian culture (which, I think we can agree needs to be criticized). But to say that the Christian doctrine begets authoritarianism isn’t true, because the Christian doctrine itself so frequently speaks against it in explicit terms. You have to ignore all that to arrive at “I’m a jerk.” It’s internally inconsistent.
                2. I never consciously argue that it’s not a problem. I have what is probably a nearly identical laundry list, and agree that belief is a cog in the wheel. But again, going back to #1, it’s internally inconsistent with what’s blatantly written. So, the Christian doctrine isn’t the source, but rather a vector. That make sense? It’s like how Hitler used evolution to justify exterminating Jews. Was evolution the cause? No, because evolution doesn’t say “Kill Jews.” Was it a vector? Sure. But in the case of Christianity, you actually have to go completely against its basic tenets to arrive at the behavior these people arrive at. So you cannot say under any circumstance that Christian belief = (begets, etc.) jerk authoritarians. It’s just not true. People could argue all day what the real engine is, but it ain’t the Bible. It gets used to manipulate people, but it’s not the Bible that’s pushing people to do that. Correlation does not prove causation. That’s crap science. Crap logic. I understand what your saying, and you may think this is splitting hairs, but it’s honestly just the basics of understanding how reality works. Do you abominate evolution because of Hitler? Of course not.
                3. I DON’T and can’t enforce right belief. I’ve explicitly said this multiple times in the comment section to this site, that I believe that’s the wrong way to even approach it to begin with (and this isn’t my “snowflake interpretation” but rather just blatantly what the text says over and over again). I live my life according to my belief (obviously imperfectly), and to serve my family and friends, and to share about my beliefs with everyone when the timing is appropriate, and if what I believe is real and it actually holds power in my life, it will change those around me. I raise up my daughter teaching her what I believe, but she has to make her own choices. She sees and remembers everything, so if I’m being a hypocrite, that’s laid bare to her. I think a huge problem with the Evangelical movement is that leaders feared people not believing to the point that they tried to enforce belief and behavior in non-Christians and hijack the culture. And that’s not only perverse, it’s abusive and anti-Christian. People saw the hypocrisy and abuse and said, “Screw you guys,” and left, and for good reason. It was all a charade, rather than them quietly living out and thereby making real their faith like the NT talks about. So much as it relies on you, live at peace with everyone (Mark 9:50, Romans 12:18). Live quietly, and mind your own affairs (1 Thess 4:11). Religion that’s pure and undefiled is… (James 1:27) I could point out these things for hours, it’s so obvious it’s painful. The church has its own internal set-up for dealing with issues like wrong belief and wrong behavior, etc., INSIDE THE CHURCH, but virtually no churches in the US even practice these basic things, which is a huge issue, and a blatantly obvious malpractice–hence the sheer volume of abuse issues, all that. Yet the church ignores all that and instead tries to enforce the larger culture. That’s ridiculous and messed up, and totally goes against the basic doctrines. Unless I’m brain-dead and have been reading the wrong Bible, the church was never meant to enforce things outside of the church. Which is why governments exist. It’s interesting to me that Schaeffer, who was a huge proponent of political Christianity, has a son who totally disbelieves Christianity. I know it’s not good to draw too many conclusions based off ignorance, but that seems to speak to me in a negative sense. Everything the Christian community is supposed to do MUST be filtered through a life of servitude and other-centered expressions of love. Otherwise, it’s not Christian. That’s the essence of Christianity.

              • PS: I looked back at what I said about pr0n in the previous article. It’s exactly the same. So, no, it’s not a more nuanced view. I said in just one of the many comments, “Because art and pr0n are two separate things. They can coexist, but they’re not the same.” and then later in the same comment “All I’m saying is that the presence of pr0n never adds artistic value. Anything that makes a work of pr0n artistic is not the pr0n itself.” I’m beginning to think you need to pay better attention.

  2. notleia says:

    Just in case it needs saying, this show is based on a video game. My dude hasn’t played it yet (He’s still working on the new Kingdom Hearts DLC and a Bloodborne series playthru), but according to his preferred reviewers on yootoob, it has a good story underneath the nudity and grimdark.
    (I’m not much of a gamer myself. The only one I’ve passed 20 hrs on is Stardew. I like that they added fish farming on the last update. That way I can get enough squid to make Pierre’s favorite dish, the picky snot)

    • Wait. Did they add that to the switch version?

      • notleia says:

        It was in the big 1.4 update, but I play on PC. But you’d think Switch would be a big enough platform. You get them built through Robin like the coops and barns for some reason.

        I’m working on my lady killer playthrough to see if I can get the cutscene where you date all the bachelorettes but avoid them ganging up to confront you, the one where they gossip about Marnie & Lewis. I’ve thought about doing the bachelor version, but Alex is too boring and Shane exhausts me.

  3. I haven’t seen The Witcher or Game of Thrones, but I do enjoy listening to analyzations of the characters now and then. This guy’s made some really interesting ones that avoid a lot of the graphic parts:


    With a lot of these darker and more complex stories, there can actually be a lot of learning material, which is pretty valuable. How and why does a character succeed and fail? What works and what doesn’t? How can that be applied to real life?

    Even if someone doesn’t directly follow the advice in that video, thinking about it can be useful in other ways. As the Youtuber points out, some people shut down and go quiet when they’re nervous and come off as powerless that way, but for some people it’s the opposite. If people take the time to figure out which one is true for them, they can become more self aware about how they come across to others. That can have many valuable effects in real life. Like, they might realize that they have a harder time finding jobs because they come across as nervous and unconfident about what they know during interviews. Or maybe in interpersonal situations people target them because they come off as someone that can be pushed around.

    One thing I’ll say about the video I linked is that, one reason taking so long to respond worked so well for the Witcher was because it showed how uncontrollable he was. That alone would scare those trying to get him to leave, etc. They already wanted him gone because they found him dislikeable or threatening. Those feelings only compound when he takes like 10 seconds to respond and gives the other person plenty of time to be like ‘Oh hell, I want this guy gone, but what am I going to do if he doesn’t listen? I can’t fight him and win, all I have are words and authority and maybe a few soldiers that could easily get beat up. I’m completely unprepared for what will happen if this guy doesn’t obey, and that’s scary.’ That may not be what they’re literally thinking, but that’s probably the unconscious reasoning behind the reaction incited in some people when the Witcher doesn’t do what he’s told. Or at least, that’s what it looked like in the clips the video showed.

    As far as realism in dark stories, that can get complicated. It can feel ‘real’ in the sense that it strikes upon core aspects of human nature and the viewers watching it, and it makes sense in terms of the story world and character personalities. Sometimes I have a hard time resonating with stories that don’t have that, because I’m a problem solver by nature. If there’s an issue going on around me, particularly an interpersonal one, I start paying attention to figure out the causes and effects. The thoughts and experiences of the people involved are extremely important to me in those instances. If I see someone going through something difficult, and it feels ‘real’ to me in some way or other, it either catches my fears or sympathies in a way that makes me want to figure out the problem and solve it. And I want to be able to stick myself in the character’s shoes in some way, that way I can understand their feelings and experience the story with a vibrance I wouldn’t manage otherwise. If I can’t do any of that, I have a hard time getting attached to the show and characters, so my favorite stories tend to involve a lot of danger or heartbreak.

    But that doesn’t translate into needing graphic content, or at least not of every type. If something seems thrown in there just because, it does look kind of immature and hurts the storytelling because it’s so blatantly not needed. Nudity and graphic sex scenes are probably the least necessary ‘mature’ content. Even if a character has a story arc that involves overcoming sexual abuse, that can be indicated in a lot of ways, like a conversation or snippets of flashbacks, rather than a full blown scene. That can actually be better from an artistic standpoint, and is much more respectful to the subject matter because showing the whole scene is more likely to be pr0nographic.

    All that said, I don’t want media to be made at the cost of another person’s well being. To a degree that’s one reason I prefer anime. There can be some human cost to that, but it’s far less and far easier to avoid.

What do you think?