(Originally a comment on Jim Sterling's blog entry Child murder suddenly a bad thing, claims Bethesda.)

I find I can only approach this in relation to sexism, because it's [not] funny that killing a prostitute is a *feature* of GTA -- GameTrailers once ended one of their trailers to GTA IV with a shot to the head.

Generally, the real-world idea of excessive cruelty in a wartime scenario is the killing/abuse of women* and children. The reason why children aren't even given their realistic proportion as participants of violent conflicts is because ideally we want to eliminate that aspect of reality, period, and removing it from a virtual form is just a natural step.

Obviously, the inclusion of women in the aforementioned notion is essentially chivalric, and chivalry is arguably rooted in sexism, but the double-standard remains. Women are abused and murdered often because they are women, and children because they are children. But it is because of this extra potential for cruelty (and for their traditional position as innocent bystanders) that an extra level of respect is reserved for them in these situations.

What I'm arguing here is probably unclear, probably because my feelings are ambiguous even to myself. Even as a feminist, I don't think that sexism will ever be completely eradicated; I think it's too fundamental of a psychological and philosophical tension. The issue, though, is the degree to which we can reduce sexism's influence on the social existence of women in a civilized culture, that is, so it doesn't affect their lives and well-being. The problem is that, in reality, it does. The conundrum for an 'artist', though, is to what extent they will balance their portrayal of reality with their responsibility to their society (or, if you please, to themselves) to eliminate its woes. It may be that women are abused much more terribly in war, but is it necessary for artistic recreation to fully portray this? And if exposure is in fact a subtle form of psychological reinforcement (aka, 'This is how reality is, so I should accept it.') does a reduction actually have an alternatively positive effect on its society by lessening that reinforcement.

What it comes down to is: I'd be appalled if rape was an option in a video game, as I am just as outraged with its inclusion (and particularly the manner of its inclusion) in film and literature -- regardless of the fact that these are mere depictions of already real perceptions and occurrences. It's a phenomena that should be wiped off the face of the universe, including any glorification of it in art, and any positive mention of it in speech. You may have the right to portray it, or the freedom of how to say it, because of an inalienable civil liberty. But it doesn't stop the existential liberty that makes possible the ability of another to justly tear off your limbs.

I would have to suppose that others feel the same way about the murder/abuse of children.

(Another note, briefly: I didn't bring into my comment any mention of childhood as a modern invention -- which it very much is. But even if we reduce its defense as a defense of a mere social convention, I don't think this would threaten very much the direction I took. I guess I'd reply that the reason childhood was invented and is acknowledged as essential today is because of an expectation that it become reality, and that it is. Childhood is no less legitimate because it may have existed vaguely 200 years ago.)