LAST MINUTE SUPER DUPER ETHICAL QUESTION TIME!!!: is it possible that, due to murder being the #1 taboo for society, that the use of it is less harmful in media? For the most part, the taking of another person's life is, at least in our country, not commonplace. In 2010, there were 468 000 recorded homocides worldwide, with 257 of them occuring in Australia. Most people will neither have the inclination, opportunity, or mental/physical means to actually do it; a lot of every day deaths are due to accidental means, not planned homocides.
In 2010, 14.7% of the population (aged 14 and above) had used illicit drugs in the previous 12 months. In fact "Around 8% of people in Australia aged 1685 years have had a drug use disorder (including harmful use/abuse and/or dependence) in their lifetime." The accessibility and less stigma associated with drug use could potentially make it a far more destructive and influential than killing in a game.
When it comes to sexual assault, the Bureau of Statistic found that "During the 12 months prior to interview in 201112, an estimated 51,200 (0.3%) Australians aged 18 years and over were a victim of sexual assault." The unfortunate thing about sexual assault is that, it is believed that only 34% of sexual assault are reported to police.
So, what's potentially more dangerous to have portrayed in a game? Do those stats mean anything? Do the relative ease and less chance of recrimination surrounding drugs and sexual assault make them more influential when portrayed incorrectly in games? Or does it not matter at all? Wrong is wrong and none of them should be featured in games?
Fuck, that was long than I expected. Sorry.