Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Prostitutes Call for a Ban on GTA

Posted by Zonk on Wed Feb 15, 2006 03:45 PM
from the encouraging-better-customers dept.
d writes "Gamespot has an article about an association of prostitutes protesting the GTA games. Apparently, the sex workers of the Sex Workers Outreach Project aren't too happy about their ingame counterparts being treated violently in the GTA games. They note that the games are a bad influence on children, and might encourage rape and violent behavior towards prostitutes in real life."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Take Two Shareholders to sue over Hot Coffee 85 comments
casualsax3 writes "Take Two, the publisher of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, is facing more legal action over the game. Separately, two law firms have filed class-action lawsuits on behalf of shareholders who they say lost money due to the controversy about the game. This comes right on the heels of news that the Sex Workers Outreach Program is calling for a boycott of the game."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Dog Chapman (942321) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:46PM (#14726943) Homepage

    Fuck them!
    • by JoeLinux (20366) <joelinux@gmail.BALDWINcom minus author> on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:27PM (#14727372) Homepage
      Naww....you might catch something...
      • Re:Prostitutes? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dashing Leech (688077) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @05:24PM (#14727887)
        "Prostitutes are already dead inside."

        Joke aside, not all prostitutes or prostitution environments are the same. GTA tends to portray the cliche streetwalker/drug addict/forced-into-by-pimp hookers. Brothels, escorts, call-girls, strippers, and porn actresses (including the amateur/web stuff) have different environments [findarticles.com] from this.

        I'm surprised nobody has made the argument that the violence against hookers (the streetwalking/drug addict/pimp kind) in GTA might actually educate youngsters that hooking (SW/DA/pimp kind) can be dangerous and undesirable [prostitutionresearch.com], as opposed to "Pretty Woman" and similar portrayals which may cause more women to get into prostitution [prostitutionresearch.com].

        Of course for that to happen it would have to be little girls that play GTA, which is the main demographic to play it, right? Guys? Hello? Why are you all looking at me funny?

        • Re:Prostitutes? (Score:5, Informative)

          by chris_eineke (634570) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @06:11PM (#14728315) Homepage Journal
          Of course for that to happen it would have to be little girls that play GTA, which is the main demographic to play it, right?
          Believe or not, my 12-year-old sister enjoys GTA:SA. She drives around in cars and on motorcycles and when she is up for a challenge she clubs a hooker to death.

          Yes, I - too - think that's scary.
          • Re:Prostitutes? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by smvp6459 (896580) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @06:35PM (#14728488)
            I would like to comment that there are "Pimp" missions in GTA: San Andreas where you come to the aid of your "ladies" and protect them from violent johns. Maybe this will teach our children that those who abuse prostitutes may themselves end up beaten/dead. Seems like a good counter balance to potential malfeasance. Plus some of the prostitutes carry knives and guns...another good lesson for our children.
      • Re:Prostitutes? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mjuarez (12463) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @06:03PM (#14728241) Homepage
        P.S. Maybe people would be nicer to prostitutes if they were FREE

        That totally cracked me up. But seriously, people have got to lighten up. This is a GAME! Are SWAT unions protesting because they're the main target in CounterStrike? Is Germany demanding that the US stop selling Battlefield 2, because it depicts violence directed to German citizens? I would guess the answers would be "no", and "no".

        Not to say that these games will ruffle some feathers (I read recently about some indians threatening to sue a game company because of its 1800's shooter), but they're not supposed to be representations of real life. Anyone stupid enough, or sick enough, to believe that and later try to do it in real life, ought to be locked up anyway.

        Marcos
        • by Y0tsuya (659802) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @06:37PM (#14728504)
          These lame protests will be nothing compare to the fallout from my upcoming game: Imam Turkey Shoot.
            • Re:Prostitutes? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by flyingsquid (813711) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @10:29PM (#14729755)
              Does it have a cartoon of Mohammed in it?

              They should make a fighting game where all the characters are religious figures. So you can be Jesus and beat the crap out of Mohammed, or vice versa. Other characters would include Satan, Buddha, Mary, an Orthodox rabbi, Vishnu, God, Santa, the Easter Bunny and Cthulhu. You wouldn't even have to make a profit off the game to get filthy rich- you'd just invest in defense contractors and then when screenshots of Mohammed and Satan tag-teaming the Easter Bunny and Buddha start circulating around the world, World War III starts and your defense stocks go through the roof.

                  • Re:Prostitutes? (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by ultranova (717540) on Thursday February 16 2006, @05:21AM (#14731181)

                    Hitler (even though he had some pseudo-christian views) and Gengis Khan aren't widely considered to be religious figures.

                    Hitler represents the ultimate in human evil in popular culture (dunno if he really was, the competition is though for that position), just like the devil represents the ultimate in supernatural evil. As such Hitler definitely has religious significance. He's a kind of anti-saint, and has been nominated as a possible candidate for being the Beast of Revelation.

                    Point is, Hitler's become legendary. In reality, of course, he was just an evil and likely insane human who gained power and not "evil given human form" or something like that, but the man has long since been eclipsed by the legend.

                    Hitler was, for all intents and purposes, worshipped in Nazi Germany. Even now, long dead, he casts a shadow over modern-day Germany - and the whole word, really; it was largely the result of his actions that Europe lost the leadership of world to the US and that the state of Israel was born (which is one of the major reasons for conflicts between muslims and West). Moreover, the words "Hitler" and "Nazi" have the same echo as the words "Satan" and "demon", and the swastica evokes the same response as the pentagram.

                    Based on this, I have to consider Hitler a religious figure. Hitler and the Nazis have long since ceased having their most importance as real historical figures, and become symbols of evil instead.

        • Re:Prostitutes? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by binarybum (468664) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @07:42PM (#14728922) Homepage
          right on. and let's not forget that GTA didn't start this - it can all be traced back to the ninja turtle arcade game where you have a chance to whack that whore on the skateboard.
      • by vsprintf (579676) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @06:32PM (#14728460)

        Won't someone please think of the prostitutes!

        And, according to the blurb, won't someone please think of all those children who are allowed to play MATURE-ONLY games being taught to . . . disrespect prostitutes . . . whoa, that's kinky in some weird sense. So, we could conclude that the widespread use of GTA by minors is actually a planned conspiracy by the morally righteous to stop prostitution, while their (Thompson) tools decry the situation. And finally, the difference between good and evil is obvious to all.

        (Well, it's not all that obvious to me, but Beyond Good & Evil was a really good game. :)

  • by suso (153703) * on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:46PM (#14726945) Homepage Journal
    I would think that this kind of reasoning would justify murderers to call for a ban on CBS (Crime Broadcasting Station).
      • Dangerous argument (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jd (1658) <imipak@y3.14ahoo.com minus pi> on Wednesday February 15 2006, @07:18PM (#14728776) Homepage Journal
        The same applies to murder. It's just usually* called "justifiable homicide" or "capital punishment". ("Reasonable force" is one thing, but Virginia permits shooting someone in the back if they once posed a threat in the past and I think Texas now allows you to kill someone if there's any chance they could pose a threat in the future.)


        *This depends on the country and the context. Somalia has no Government to speak of and therefore nobody to define such terms. With assassination considered a legitimate tool in the war on terror, the boundaries are getting fuzzy even when stable political systems exist.


        Yes, this is relevant, as we are looking here at whether something is considered by a given country to be a serious crime or even a crime at all. If there are countries where prostitution is a serious crime and murder is acceptable, then do you look at their standards for so judging, or go by your own?


        I'm not condoning or condemning anything here, I'm merely pointing out that it's never been clear-cut. What is "serious" is simply too subjective and varies far too much between individuals, never mind countries.


        As far as sex workers are concerned, my only personal opinion is that there exists no way of identifying and assisting abuse victims who drift into the trade, those abused within it, modern slaves, anyone acting under duress for any other reason, etc. Nor is any serious effort made to deal with those involved in abuse, slavery, etc.


        Changing laws that are highly emotionally charged is difficult and likely to be infrequent. So it is vitally important that if/when they are changed, they are changed in a way that provides the greatest benefit for the longest time. I am not convinced that lobbyists are the best ones to explain benefits and I'm not convinced that anyone else has identified the risks - present or future.


        The status quo sucks (bad choice of words for this topic, but who cares?) but every alternative I've ever heard seems infinitely worse and far more prone to bring about the very problems that are supposed to be being cured, especially as the real problems seem to be largely being ignored.


        Deal with the serious stuff first and then worry about the details. Otherwise it is just vote-trawling and people-pleasing.

  • by sexyrexy (793497) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:47PM (#14726950)
    Sex workers definitely aren't a bad potential influence on children.

    Oh, wait.
    • by interiot (50685) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:00PM (#14727080) Homepage
      Umm, which is worse for kids, sex (consensual, mutually beneficial) or violence (beating/stabbing/shooting)? Okay, the sex is hinted at in the game, not real, though the real-world sex workers are real. And the violence is simulated, so it's not apples-to-apples.

      But still, if it comes down to consensual sex versus beating/killing people, I'd think that the sex would be less harmful to children.

      • by chrismcdirty (677039) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:04PM (#14727110) Homepage
        Maybe in more civilized countries, but not in the USA. Here, we take pride in glamorizing violence as it contributes nothing at all to society, while degrading the reason that we are all here. After all, it's yucky. And nobody should ever think of it. EVER.
          • by chrismcdirty (677039) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:56PM (#14727642) Homepage
            But look at TV. You can see extreme acts of violence and gore (watch CSI, if only for gore), but most acts of sex are completely removed. Even on CSI, they always have the naughty parts on corpses covered. When I first watched the pilot for Firefly, I was amazed that they had a pseudo-sex-scene. Most likely because in the 23 years I've watched TV, I've never seen anything like that on a network station.
      • by Ironsides (739422) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:19PM (#14727277) Homepage Journal
        sex (consensual, mutually beneficial) or violence (beating/stabbing/shooting)

        I'm guessing you've never heard of this sport called 'boxing' where two fully grown men attempt to beat the shit out of each other for money.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:47PM (#14726958) Homepage Journal
    So I've got a star on me and I'm just waiting for the heat to melt off me so I pull up alongside this "sex worker." She hops in and I am in serious need after that last shoot out. Do I do anything violent to her? No, I go out to a remote area of the park and when the car starts rocking, I exchange cash for life. Not a bad deal, people exchange money for their health at hospitals everyday.

    So now we're done ... what to do? I kind of have two choices:
    A. Kill her and take my monies back.
    B. Keep her around in the car to do more money exchange.

    The way I see it, the game is encouraging me not to harm her because if I do, I'm going to get my monies back but I have to drive all the way back into town and I do not want the po-po on me right now.

    Btw, I learned all this like five years ago from this game. Where was this "sex workers group" when the game came out? They're a bit late to stop it from being released.

    I like how from TFA:
    Though the organization admits to being "adamantly opposed to any and all forms of censorship,"
    So let me get this straight ... mammary glands and naked women shouldn't be censored (sales are up for the sex workers!) but violence should be (worker lifespan is down)?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:03PM (#14727105)
      ...mammary glands and naked women shouldn't be censored but violence should be?

      That sounds like the difference between European and American censorship. If think we (the EU) have it right on this one. In my ideal world we're all exposed to sex, rather than violence :-)
  • by luder (923306) * <slashdot @ l bras.net> on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:49PM (#14726970)
    "They note that the games are a bad influence on children"
    And from the article:
    "SWOP is calling "on all parents and all gamers to boycott Grand Theft Auto.""
    GTA is rated Mature +17, how are children supposed to be able to play the game? Yell at the parents who let them play violent games...
      • by jotok (728554) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @05:29PM (#14727923)
        Those who have no clue about the subject claim something is horrible and/or should be banned because of their flawed ideas about it.

        Isn't it a bunch of prostitutes doing the protests? Don't you think they would have some experience with exploitation and violence?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:50PM (#14726984)
    So we're getting calls to ban a form of entertainment... from the purveyors of a widely banned form of entertainment.

    Something about glass houses comes to mind here.
  • by merreborn (853723) * on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:50PM (#14726986) Homepage Journal
    There's at least as much cop killing in GTA as there is ho slaughtering.
    • by biocute (936687) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:17PM (#14727246) Homepage
      I think that's because cops in the game can fight back, and sometimes they win. If they don't win, they send out FBI, or even military to eventually kill the player.

      What can prostitutes in the game do besides maybe running away from the player? GTA should include prostitutes hitting the player violently with their handbags, or kicking the player in the nuts.
  • by szembek (948327) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:53PM (#14727017) Homepage
    I think they're looking at this all wrong. In GTA a prostitute makes your health improve, while in real life I would say your chances of getting syphilis are much higher than of that bullet wound in your leg healing after a visit with a hooker. With this logic they should look forward to increased business!
  • by Godai (104143) * on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:53PM (#14727019) Homepage
    ...drug dealers, car thieves & other criminals are suing Hollywood because they claim movies encourage people to dress up like spiders and beat them up.

    In related news, the Plate Glass Association of America (PGAA) is contemplating class action suits of their own, citing numerous examples of films, games & other media where violence is perpetrated on -- or more commonly through -- their members.

  • Disclaimer: I am a Christian. However, Jack Thompson is of the notorious southern-baptist style bible-thumping crowd. This places him on the same side as prostitutes. I can't WAIT for someone to point this out to him.

    We should have a slogan:

    "Jack Thompson: Working with the street-walkers to keep your kids safe"
    "No-body has their pulse on the average American cum-catcher like Jack"
  • by TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @03:58PM (#14727067)
    Whore: "I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

    Attorney: "Are you a prostitute?"

    Whore: "Yes, I am" ...

    CNN's Anderson Cooper: "And in today's news, the 1000th prostitute was thrown in jail for admitting they were in the illegal sex trade. Thousands more are lining up around the block to give their testimony to the supreme court...."
  • by bigdavex (155746) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:06PM (#14727135)
    They aren't calling for a ban. They think the game is a bad thing and want to discourage parents from allowing their children to play.

    Ban means "to prohibit especially by legal means" (Merriam-Webster [m-w.com]).

    They're exercising a free speech right, not trying to infringe on others'.
  • by Jamil Karim (931849) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:06PM (#14727138)
    On the Sex Workers Outreach Project [swop-usa.org] homepage, I clicked on "Calendar", but all I got was a list of upcoming events... =(
  • by rAiNsT0rm (877553) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:20PM (#14727286) Homepage
    This one makes the most sense. I've heard my share of B.S. "videogames made me do it" stories over the years, but this one has the most legitimate basis of them all. It stands to reason that some frat boy who is majorly into his GTA, either tries to treat a prostitute or a dancer in a similar manner because it is seen and portrayed as a given that you smack a ho. It really does promote the behavior and I could see the point.

    I know it all seems silly, prostitutes complaining and drawing parallels from a video game to real violence. But in reality prostitues are pretty much an accepted thing in America (even though many would have you believe otherwise) and after reading a book a while back about the Mustang Ranch in Vegas, I have a whole new outlook on them and their trade. The knee jerk reaction is to laugh it off, but I truly believe this compalint is the most valid yet.
  • by hal2814 (725639) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:34PM (#14727433)
    Prostitutes and religious zealots are both against the GTA series. What stange bedfellows...
    • by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 15 2006, @05:43PM (#14728057) Homepage Journal
      I'm just waiting for a group of drug dealers to protest GTA.

      Yes, we have everyone from all walks of life protesting GTA. All the good & bad people(depending on your perspective) are putting aside their differences to stop GTA. GTA is helping unite the world. Pimps will stop slapping their hoes, drug dealers will stop killing deadbeat buyers and Hatians will stop, um, whatever Hatians do for a moment to protest a freakin' video game.

      Before GTA, wow, we were so blind to the social problems in the world. We only needed a video game to finally reflect it!

  • by east coast (590680) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @06:13PM (#14728332)
    The heroin lobby is calling for a boycott of the latest SWAT video game claiming that it gives them a bad name and portrays them as little more than common thugs who exploit the addicted.
  • Own Goal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sesshomaru (173381) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @07:14PM (#14728751) Journal
    To use a term from football or soccer as we call it in the states, this is an "own goal." To quote SWOP:

    Since the video game Grand Theft Auto accrues points to players for the depiction of the rape and murder of prostitutes, SWOP-USA calls on all parents and all gamers to boycott Grand Theft Auto.
    Now, I've only played Vice City but it seems to me that this does not resemble, at all, what happens in that game. If you want a health boost, you drive slowly around street walkers until one gets into your car. Then you drive to a secluded spot, and your health increases as your money goes down. Now, you can murder anyone, as far as I can tell, in Vice City. I can remember chaisawing cops and random people in a mall one night when I was bored. But rape? That doesn't happen, and most of the time randomly murdering anyone, including prostitutes, is a bad idea.

    The reason why so many people have a problem with GTA is because it treats sex with prostitutes as both no big deal and as generally beneficial. Which would tend to make people see it as something that shouldn't be illegal. Hence lies (about rape) and exaggerations (you get points for killing prostitutes, while killing a prostitute in GTA may be beneficial it also carries in game risks which may make it detrimental).

    But the goal of NIMF isn't, for example, to make prostitutes the one class of person in the game who are invulnerable, it is to remove them from the game completely. Removing the ability to portray prostitutes in a game removes the ability to portray them positively.

    This is actually very sad, because I imagine the guys at Rockstar North are in favor of decriminalization and also against the murder or maltreatment of prostitutes, so their opinion would be inline with SWOP-USA. (I come to this conclusion from the political content of the game, the hypocracy of right wing congressman Shrub and his mistress porn star Candy Suxxx for example.)

    • Re:Joke? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CowsAnonymous (697884) on Wednesday February 15 2006, @04:56PM (#14727646)
      > Is this a joke? Sex Workers Outreach Project?!?

      No, it's not. And if you read their website, you'd see why it's not. For one thing, they have a goal for the decriminaliztion for the consensual sex industry, among other things (such as laws to help protect prostitutes). What more they outline their motives in a clear way, showing that through reform prostitutes can be helped rather than left to fend for themselves.

      It's an intersting debate for where to draw the line between what laws are considered ethical. It's common for playing video games to be ethical, although sometimes they're content is not, but in the end they're legal. Murder is considered unethical, so it's illegal. Prostitiution is a strange one: prostitutes give their consent, so realistically they are not being harmed since they have the option of avoiding the situation if proper precautions are taken. Someone might argue that by consenting they are harming themselves, which is another matter all together, but you can say the same for tobacco.

      Their members have a different set of morals, and believe that their freedoms as citizens are being restricted by the morals of others. You don't have to agree with them, but at least they're being logical about it.

      Although I do see the humor in the irony in trying to get parents who probably view them as the lowest human lifeform to join their cause against the game. That's just silly.