NY Times don't understand the AO rating.

[PlagueOfLocust]

Maybe this escapes you, but a range consists of more than one number; 17 is not a range, 1 - 17 is. Now, it's easy to say "what's the difference between 18 and 17 years old when it comes to not being able to handle sex/violence? Why can 18 year olds handle what 17 year olds can't? It's just a year difference." Good point. So then what's the difference between 17 and 16? 16 and 15? 2 and 1?

And I know what the discussion was, but don't argue with me over sub-topics in the discussion that I never even addressed. I made one claim within the realm of the current topic. Focus on that. When I "contested someone's views," it had nothing to do with the argument you're trying to make, it was just a comment on how both the word "Puritan" and the fact that violence is so widely accepted shouldn't be used to justify the idea that sex in movies is perfectly fine for kids. Did I say its worse than violence? Nope. All I said is that one does not justify the other. If anything, we should be harsher on violence in this country, not easier on sex.

Sex and violence are not positive for kids - note I didn't say that kids can't "handle" these things. But handling is a relative term. A war veteran can "handle" violent combat, but he will be negatively affected by it afterwards (an extreme example, but the parallel is pretty clear).

And the reason you can't put what I'm saying into the context of the discussion the way you're trying to is because I'm not making any concrete suggestions here in terms of what should be done. I'm speaking in terms of ideas, not recommendations. Notice that the guy I responded to never even mentioned actual letter-ratings, and neither did I (except at the end, but in another context).

Also, how does giving Manhunt 2 an M rating defeat my argument? The motion controls are THAT realistic compared to a traditional controller? Maybe I need to see some solid footage from the game first, but I'd imagine it was just as bad as other games that were rated M. I'll back off from how I feel this game should be rated until I get to see what supposedly warrants an AO rating. I don't have enough info to safely form that opinion yet.

And yes, if you go by the rules of the ESRB ratings, AO is warranted for any games with explicit sexual content. "Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." That's the very definition of the rating. Now if you're asking whether or not I personally think that 18 year olds can handle sexual content better than 17 year olds, I'd have to say: theoretically, more often than not, yes. Usually with age comes maturity, and while bad parenting and other factors can make this untrue, an 18 year old should be expected to handle this stuff better. Again, what's the difference of a year? (As I said above) you could argue that point right down to age 1; a year does make a difference, and the line has to be put somewhere.

Let me ask you; do you think a game with violence and sex is just the same as a game with only violence? I'd imagine the wider variety of negative content just might justify a worse rating; sex wouldn't necessarily have to be "worse" than violence to justify a tougher rating.

But you're right though, it is a weird cultural thing that violence is so accepted in media in the US.