Support NeoGAF

[Cymbal Head]

This proposed law still wouldn't write dumbass parents out of the equation. When I was a kid, I never bought games myself, I told my mom what games I wanted for birthday/christmas/whatever and she was the one who went out and actually bought them. I suspect that this is still largely the case. Uninformed parents will still just buy their kids the games they want and get outraged when they see their children beating virtual hookers. What the ESRB needs to do is make a big push to actually inform parents about what the ratings mean, so that they can accurately judge what is appropriate for their kids. I realize that the information is out there, and it's not hard to get, but I still think more needs to be done. When the TV ratings system was first put into place, there were commercials specifically about the ratings and what they mean. I've never seen one like that about video games.

Movies self-regulate. Porn is regulated by laws. Which one would you rather have the games industry be compared with?

 

[AirBrian]

It is your decision, you buy the game for your kid. If the kid can buy the games himself, then the decision is out of your hands.

...until I get home and see what the kid is playing. But that's not really what my problem with this is.

I, as a taxpayer, should not be obligated to pay part of my income to the government so they can parent children.

If the ESRP took $0.50 to $1.00 from every game sold and used that income to fund a retailer fining system for underage selling of video games, then I could be OK with that. But why should the taxpayers, especially the ones who never play video games, be forced to pay part of their income to the government for this legislation?

 

[Cymbal Head]

Let's focus on the real problem: Some politicians and other misinformed people believe that video games are at the root of the evil that possessed some kid to shoot people in a police station or a school. Nobody complained when these children were decapitiating squirrels and shooting neighbor's animals with .22 rifles, but as soon as some humans are harmed, then Rockstar and GTA are the poster-child for evil. Just like idiots once accused the music industry of promoting devil worship, these same misinformed idiots are now trying to put a band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is a continued failure by many parents and guardians to be even slightly involved in their children's lives and to be capable of telling their child "No!".

QFMFT

 

[chaostrophy]

In a perfect world we would be able to determine the needs and limitations of each child individually, and set rules and regulations accordingly. Unfortuanately we don't have the money or the manpower for such an act so we have to create these broad laws based around an average and hope for the best. It isn't perfect, but then again we can't be perfect so we will have to settle.

True. I oppose the legislation but am willing to admit that if it's passed, it may end up helping some children avoid harm, and do some good in isolated cases. I just think it will do more harm then good to children as well as the game industry, so the best place to settle would be to not have the law.

Unfortunately I don't have any links to any experiments or case studies detailing the effects violent videogames, movies, or images can have on a child, and I will try and look a few up tommorow, but they have been done and the results go hand and hand with what I said earlier.

This isn't entirely true. There have been studies that showed this result, but there also some that have shown that the media in question is harmless. Media effects research is a fairly new field, and many of the studies in it have serious flaws from an experimental design standpoint. Another factor that keeps a lot of people misinformed on the issue is how the findings of these studies are filtered down from the academic journals to the mainstream media. The studies that show a link between media sex/violence and real aggression/amorality are more heavily reported than those that show that no link exists because they make up more interesting news stories to the average Joe. Also the media commonly glosses over many points of the research and the scientific method in general, such as the difference between causation and correlation.

Henry Jenkins' website is a good starting point for critical analysis of media effects research.

 

[Meier]

Spoken like a true Democrat.

I'm a Republican and have (and still) agreed with this idea for years. It needs to be done -- kids should NOT be anywhere near GTA or the clones its spawned which are typically even more violent. If the parents and retailers wont uphold the legislation, then the government stepping in isnt that bad of an idea.

If nothing else, it increases the chances of parents realizing they shouldnt be buying their young kids games of this nature and that is a good thing.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Kids mature at different rates. If mature enough, I would probably let my 15-year old play the M-rated Resident Evil 4. I might think twice however, about letting him screw hookers and kill cops and other pedestrians in a Grand Theft Auto game. But that should be MY decision as a parent, not the government's. I, as a taxpayer, should not be obligated to pay part of my income to the government so they can parent children.

Well said.

 

[kaching]

If nothing else, it increases the chances of parents realizing they shouldnt be buying their young kids games of this nature and that is a good thing.

So would education and info awareness campaigns that the IEMA has asked the government to participate in, but which they've apparently declined.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

I'm a Republican and have (and still) agreed with this idea for years. It needs to be done -- kids should NOT be anywhere near GTA or the clones its spawned which are typically even more violent. If the parents and retailers wont uphold the legislation, then the government stepping in isnt that bad of an idea.

If nothing else, it increases the chances of parents realizing they shouldnt be buying their young kids games of this nature and that is a good thing.

This is Neo-Con BS! Government involvement in the raising of our children under the guise of family values is nothing more than the present trend of stripping people's individual rights in order to assuage the anger and fear of the lemmings that follow the ruling party. You want kids to be raised without violent video games, limit the number of TV's in your house and put the console in a main living space. Put the games they play in an area that can be locked if need be. If your child ignores you telling them NOT to play violent games at home OR at a friend's house, then you have a problem YOU need to address - not the US Governement. And if you want your child to stop buying video games, then stop leaving them at the mall unattended with a wad of cash. Think about it, what is stopping a determined kid from approaching a stranger and asking them to buy a violent video game. To me, this law will encourage kids to take on even more risky behaviors (like asking strangers for favors) that may subject them to something far more damaging than pixelated characters blowing out each other's brains.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I guess these politicians have nothing better to do.

Really. After some of you are done getting worked up over someone else getting worked up, realize this. It's like pork for the legisilators; this will garner alot of anti-game votes for them, waste Congress' time better spent hammering out budget plans and Iraq, and like someone said earlier, this can't be much good for the game industry creatively or financially. Too much negativity directed at games being SO deviant they need legislation to makes it alls betters.

 

[Ghost]

This is Neo-Con BS! Government involvement in the raising of our children under the guise of family values is nothing more than the present trend of stripping people's individual rights in order to assuage the anger and fear of the lemmings that follow the ruling party. You want kids to be raised without violent video games, limit the number of TV's in your house and put the console in a main living space. Put the games they play in an area that can be locked if need be. If your child ignores you telling them NOT to play violent games at home OR at a friend's house, then you have a problem YOU need to address - not the US Governement. And if you want your child to stop buying video games, then stop leaving them at the mall unattended with a wad of cash. Think about it, what is stopping a determined kid from approaching a stranger and asking them to buy a violent video game. To me, this law will encourage kids to take on even more risky behaviors (like asking strangers for favors) that may subject them to something far more damaging than pixelated characters blowing out each other's brains.

:lol

 

[monkeyrun]

I am still not sure what this is all about .....

 

[Tony HoTT]

I oppose this simply because I enjoyed the hell out of Mortal Kombat back in 5th grade. Ideally there would be some test for the dumber and more impressionable kids to see if videogame violence effects them, but that's not the case. So now we have this age thing, which probably won't really work either because I know a lot of kids under 18 who seem more mature than some people I know that are well into their 20's.

Considering studies on media violence and its effects on people aren't even conclusive I don't even see why they are trying to legislate shit like this at this point in time.

 

[Gattsu25]

so lets let kids buy beer, cigarettes and guns! WOOHOO GO AMERICA!

Better example would have been watch Rated-R movies...since...y'know...guns, cigs, and beer can all lead to death, in one way or another

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Considering studies on media violence and its effects on people aren't even conclusive I don't even see why they are trying to legislate shit like this at this point in time.

It is an effort by some Democrats to try and pander to the people who believe that video games and the "liberals" that make and sell them are a threat to our families. A threat that is greater than the stream of violent images pumped into homes 24 hours a day via federally funded networks that can be easily rectified by shutting off the tv. The same people who believe that Janet Jackson's pastie covered nipple did more to destroy the sanctity of the family and Super Bowl sunday than the images of of beer drinkers in Bud-Light ads showing crotch-munching dogs and movie ads of vampires and other monsters beating the shit out of each other (Van Helsing).

 

[P90]

FWIW links to research on violence and videogames.



http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

http://www.mediascope.org/pubs/ibriefs/vgv.htm

http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

Please note, I am only supplying info with the above links. Do not assume I agree with everything they contain. IOW, don't flame me for what is contained in the links. Thank you.

 

[Gattsu25]

It is an effort by some Democrats to try and pander to the people who believe that video games and the liberals that make and sell them are a threat to our families. A threat that is greater than the stream of violent images pumped into homes 24 hours a day via federally funded networks that can be easily rectified by shutting off the tv. The same people who believe that Janet Jackson's pastie covered nipple did more to destroy the sanctity of the family and Super Bowl sunday than the images of beer guzzling Bud-Light ads showing crotch-munching dogs and movie ads of vampires and other monsters beating the shit out of each other (Van Helsing).

Err...I don't remember any beer-guzzling ads...I thought they couldn't show the actual drinking of alcohol on beer commercials

 

[P90]

It is an effort by some Democrats to try and pander to the people who believe that video games and the liberals that make and sell them are a threat to our families. A threat that is greater than the stream of violent images pumped into homes 24 hours a day via federally funded networks that can be easily rectified by shutting off the tv. The same people who believe that Janet Jackson's pastie covered nipple did more to destroy the sanctity of the family and Super Bowl sunday than the images of beer guzzling Bud-Light ads showing crotch-munching dogs and movie ads of vampires and other monsters beating the shit out of each other (Van Helsing).

Lieberman is not posturing here. This type of stuff is his baby. I like Lieberman on alot of issues, but I am not sure that this bill is necessary. From past histroy, Hillary is just trying to appear more centrist for 2008.

I disagree about the Janet Jackson/Super Bowl thing. That was staged and inappropriate. Slap stick comedy is slap stick comedy, so get over the crotch munching dogs. The Van Helsing ad wa probably stretching things to some degree.

 

[chaostrophy]

I oppose this simply because I enjoyed the hell out of Mortal Kombat back in 5th grade. Ideally there would be some test for the dumber and more impressionable kids to see if videogame violence effects them, but that's not the case. So now we have this age thing, which probably won't really work either because I know a lot of kids under 18 who seem more mature than some people I know that are well into their 20's.

Thank you! It seems like common sense to me that when thinking about an issue involving children, it should be somewhat informed by your own childhood, or actual children you've been in contact with somehow. Everyone here was a child at some point, and I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people here had some kind of contact with mature media as a child. It boggles my mind that so few people are actually applying that experience to the debate.

Adult society has plenty of concern for children. What it needs is more empathy with and respect for them.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Seems that they dont say the ESRB is a problem, they are saying the retailers are (which is true), and I cant honestly see any other way of getting it thru retailers heads that they have to enforce the ratings and ID minors, other than hit them where they will pay attention (the wallet).

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Lieberman is not posturing here. This type of stuff is his baby. I like Lieberman on alot of issues, but I am not sure that this bill is necessary. From past histroy, Hillary is just trying to appear more centrist for 2008.

I disagree about the Janet Jackson/Super Bowl thing. That was staged and inappropriate. Slap stick comedy is slap stick comedy, so get over the crotch munching dogs. The Van Helsing ad wa probably stretching things to some degree.

Try explaining that to a 4 year old. A nipple will get giggles. A vampire or a biting dog may bring nightmares. That is, of course, if you don't do your job as a parent and discuss those images with them.

 

[PhoenixDark]

FWIW links to research on violence and videogames.



http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

http://www.mediascope.org/pubs/ibriefs/vgv.htm

http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

Please note, I am only supplying info with the above links. Do not assume I agree with everything they contain. IOW, don't flame me for what is contained in the links. Thank you.

Would it be alright if I post my article on this subject here? I don't know GAF's rules about such things, and I'd hate to get banned again.

 

[levious]

It's amazing how much the average forum poster knows about "what's wrong with parents of today."

 

[APF]

It's amazing how much the average forum poster knows about "what's wrong with parents of today."

Some of us are parents or parent-aged BTW

 

[levious]

My status as a parent does not make me an expert on the problems or tendencies of parents in the world.

 

[UltraMarioMan]

The government should stay out of game ratings. Next thing we know the requirements for an M rated game could be what is currently T rated.

 

[C- Warrior]

It is your decision, you buy the game for your kid. If the kid can buy the games himself, then the decision is out of your hands.

No it isn't? What the fuck is the matter with you. Do you have/are you a parent who never says one word to his/her child? My god, the decesion is -NOT out of the parents hands.

Method 1:

"Timmy, if I ever see you play an M rated game, I'm grounding you for a month and taking away your video game system and T.V"

"Oh no mommy, I won't play them!"

There you go, one way a parent -naturally, in a good ol' fashion way- policed his/her children.

People argue that parents should get more actively involved in what their kids play, instead of the government stepping in and saying what is and what isn't.

You reply with "it'll help parents because kids can't get them in the first place, so there is no need for parent intervention at the household."

You keep saying that, but I promise you if teenager Timmy at the age of 15 wants to play Metal Gear Solid 4, he'll find ways to obtain that title legally or illegally. He'll ask an older sibling, an older friend, a random guy who's 17+ at the game store shopping etc.

There are too many possibilities and factors when a person buys a game, putting video games on the same level as porn--sure, helps block one of those factors, but that just means kids will look to other methods.

ONE WAY, where there is only one factor, is how and where the kid plays the game.

At home, in his room (or living room) with volume up and the visuals on.

Having parents active in what their kids play can easily take care of that 'one factor'--what else can little Timmy do now? Play it over his friends house? Well again, if parents are involved the parents of his friend will be all over it.

There are just too many ways for a kid to obtain a game, but there is only one way/place for him to play it.

 

[artful_dodger]

I see no problem with this legislation outside of the fact that it holds video games as a medium to a different legal standard than other forms of artistic expression such as books, movies and television.

 

[C- Warrior]

I see no problem with this legislation [except for the fact] that it holds video games as a medium to a different legal standard than other forms of artistic expression such as books, movies and television.

And that's a big deal, and there is always the risk of the slippery slope effect.

 

[chaostrophy]

it holds video games as a medium to a different legal standard than other forms of artistic expression such as books, movies and television.

Exactly. This legislation will make videogames more similar to guns and tobacco in the eyes of the law than they are to movies or music if it passes. It amazes me that so many gamers here seem to have no problems with that.

 

[C- Warrior]

Exactly. This legislation will make videogames more similar to guns and tobacco in the eyes of the law than they are to movies or music if it passes. It amazes me that so many gamers here seem to have no problems with that.

You know what's even more funny, there is a product label in one of those pro-hitler (white suprmacy) states (aka backwater, USA--stuff like Kentucky, South Carolina) etc. where there are actually funding little girls etc. to sing pro-white anti minority (pro Hitler) songs.

They can sell that.

They have the nazi symbol on the cover.

They have the arm motions on the back of the cover.

They speak of "spilling black blood to stain the streets red in holy war" in their albums.

But apparently Onimusha (yes Oni fuckin musha) is "oh noes, the evil!111!" moreso than that.

...funny.

 

[APF]

My status as a parent does not make me an expert on the problems or tendencies of parents in the world.

I agree, only experts on a subject have the right to express their opinions.

 

[Dalamar86]

III. Authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Investigate Misleading Ratings

Part of the genesis of this bill was the revelation that the makers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had included, through embedded code that was discovered and made accessible to the public, sexually explicit content inconsistent with the game's Mature rating. This bill requires the FTC to conduct an investigation to determine whether what happened with GTA: San Andreas is a pervasive problem. It also includes a Sense of Congress that the Commission shall take appropriate action if it determines that there is a pervasive problem.


I wouldnt object with this bill except for the fact that this pretty much says they can usurp the ESRB the moment someone messes up again. You know Clinton, as well as the FTC (Not a fan of them for a couple of reasons...), are going to call pervasive problem immediately.

 

[Excess Poo Flakes]

Levious, you do not have to be an expert to discuss how parents in general don't pay attention to what their kids are doing these days.

 

[P90]

Try explaining that to a 4 year old. A nipple will get giggles. A vampire or a biting dog may bring nightmares. That is, of course, if you don't do your job as a parent and discuss those images with them.

:lol Oh come on. Not many 4 year olds aren't up watching the Super Bowl. It is about 8-12 year olds.

The JJ thing was a staged, planned sneak attack.

Granted, I'm NOT jumping for joy about this bill, but I wonder if the ones who have the most objection to this legislation have kids. I doubt they do. The posters are probably 15-22 year olds gaming addicts upset that their fix is might get infringed upon.

 

[P90]

III. Authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Investigate Misleading Ratings

Part of the genesis of this bill was the revelation that the makers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had included, through embedded code that was discovered and made accessible to the public, sexually explicit content inconsistent with the game's Mature rating. This bill requires the FTC to conduct an investigation to determine whether what happened with GTA: San Andreas is a pervasive problem. It also includes a Sense of Congress that the Commission shall take appropriate action if it determines that there is a pervasive problem.


I wouldnt object with this bill except for the fact that this pretty much says they can usurp the ESRB the moment someone messes up again. You know Clinton, as well as the FTC (Not a fan of them for a couple of reasons...), are going to call pervasive problem immediately.

good point. Why make more rules/laws instead of enforcing or expanding existing ones.

 

[P90]

The government should stay out of game ratings. Next thing we know the requirements for an M rated game could be what is currently T rated.

THAT is what I would argue FOR, instead of this bill.

 

[CarlosX360]

You have no point to stand on, at all. This is good.

FFS. You sound as dumb as a box of rocks. What's the problem with saying minors cannot have adult games?

What? I'm dumb as rock, because YOU and everyone else don't see my point that this case will not help matters if they just limit the sales of games....

I don't think that the industry will get better because of this..

I'll tell you why, Joseph Liberman HATES violent games...So he will do everything in his power to take video games as we know it today, and dumb it down a notch or two. Clinton, I have no idea how she feels about this whole situation, because she'd just been in the case just now....When Jackson, and Liberman both have their undisputed record of disgust toward games. But I do know that it will help her image for election..

....like others said.

The point that I have in this entire thread, is that this case is useless...and I quote "I guess these politicians have nothing better to do."

 

[levious]

I agree, only experts on a subject have the right to express their opinions.

fair enough, just that people on this board seem to have a very condescending attitude towards parents in general, and that always seems to annoy me.

 

[chaostrophy]

I wonder if the ones who have the most objection to this legislation have kids. I doubt they do. The posters are probably 15-22 year olds gaming addicts upset that their fix is might get infringed upon.

For the record, I'm 26 and don't have kids of my own. But I do have godchildren and close friends with kids, so I'm not as ignorant about parental concern as some might assume me to be.

 

[P90]

For the record, I'm 26 and don't have kids of my own. But I do have godchildren and close friends with kids, so I'm not as ignorant about parental concern as some might assume me to be.

I'm sure there are exceptions, and you may be one, but not in the same country mile as having your own kids.

 

[Crowza]

Contrary to the "group think" on this website, it is NOT against the law to sell a rated "R" ticket to a 10 year old child. When I was growing up, theaters in my area never carded me. Now, every theater I've gone to the in the past eight years has carded for any Rated "R" films. The game industry is going through the same growth stage and it has gotten better.

Is having the government spent million of YOUR tax dollars to "study" the ESRB and enforce this asinine politically motivated legislation really a good freakin idea? No, it's not. Smaller government and less government intervention is the answer.

Those who would give up their freedom for security, deserve neither.

 

[terrene]

I think it's *good* as a gamer. Now the Jack Thompsons of the world will having nothing to fucking say. The responsbility of enforcing the ESRB ratings is now taken off the content creators, and mature gamers can enjoy their content in an unrestricted way. I bet games get more adult-oriented now, since the threat of lawsuits is essentially taken away completely. And I bet we see an end to the sensationalism around those stories that come out once a year about some douchebag kid who played FPS games and shot up a school.

WTF is Nintendo X so worried about? They aren't taking away your Mario Party, kiddo. STFU.

 

[Shamrock7r]

What? I'm dumb as rock, because YOU and everyone else don't see my point that this case will not help matters if they just limit the sales of games....

I don't think that the industry will get better because of this..

I'll tell you why, Joseph Liberman HATES violent games...So he will do everything in his power to take video games as we know it today, and dumb it down a notch or two. Clinton, I have no idea how she feels about this whole situation, because she'd just been in the case just now....When Jackson, and Liberman both have their undisputed record of disgust toward games. But I do know that it will help her image for election..

....like others said.

The point that I have in this entire thread, is that this case is useless...and I quote "I guess these politicians have nothing better to do."

Let me clarify my stance a little Nintendo X. I am absolutely for this bill? Nope. I believe the ESRB does a fine job of rating games. They are for the most part spot on with their rating system, and is a well enough indicator of the content of a game. The problem with them is that they simply aren't enforcing their rating system whatsoever. Kids are still able to walk into a videogame store and purchase an M rated game like it was nothing. The videogame industry has not stepped in to formulate a solution to this problem. As I said before, they are still enjoying this vast growth in the industry, and anything that would be detrmintal to that growth they want no part in, so if nothing is being done, then what? This is why the government is stepping in and if the videogame industry doesn't feel like stepping up to the plate and protecting itself then so be it.

I have never disagreed that this would be bad for the industry. It will. We will see some negative effects if this bill is passed (doubtful), but your problem is you are not weighing in the moral value of the children in question at all. Your only concern seems to be the health of the industry, rather than the health of the youth of America, and that is why your argument falls flat against others. There are plenty of reasons to be dead set against this bill, but the ones you are providing make no sense when weighed in with larger factors.

 

[P90]

Those who would give up their freedom for security, deserve neither.

No one is truly "free". Freedom is a political construct, but there are biological, social, and psychological needs and facts that dictate the need for others and the following of objective rules even when it is not in our immediate self interest.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

:lol Oh come on. Not many 4 year olds aren't up watching the Super Bowl. It is about 8-12 year olds.

The JJ thing was a staged, planned sneak attack.

Granted, I'm NOT jumping for joy about this bill, but I wonder if the ones who have the most objection to this legislation have kids. I doubt they do. The posters are probably 15-22 year olds gaming addicts upset that their fix is might get infringed upon.

I am a parent with a soon to be 4 year old who curls up on the couch next to me and watches football. She was in the room at the beginning of the JJ Super Bowl when the ads first started. She asked me for two days about Van Helsing and the dog biting the man. She never saw Janet's pastie covered nipple but she sees plenty of the Victoria's Secret commercials running on TV today and doesn't seem bothered by that at all. The point is, my wife and I decided to let her be in the room and her seeing those commercials led to us discussing those things with her. I would much rather I have choices in the matter than have things just outright banned or controlled to the level of tobacco and alcohol.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

No one is truly "free". Freedom is a political construct, but there are biological, social, and psychological needs and facts that dictate the need for others and the following of objective rules even when it is not in our immediate self interest.

Sounds a little fascist to me.

 

[P90]

I am a parent with a soon to be 4 year old who curls up on the couch next to me and watches football. She was in the room at the beginning of the JJ Super Bowl when the ads first started. She asked me for two days about Van Helsing and the dog biting the man. She never saw Janet's pastie covered nipple but she sees plenty of the Victoria's Secret commercials running on TV today and doesn't seem bothered by that at all. The point is, my wife and I decided to let her be in the room and her seeing those commercials led to us discussing those things with her. I would much rather I have choices in the matter than have things just outright banned or controlled to the level of tobacco and alcohol.

You must live on the west coast, cause on the east coast the Super Bowl is on much too late for a 4 year old. Why do you have her watching Victoria's Secret stuff? IMO, that is whacked for a 4 year old of either sex to be seeing. apparently, no pun intended, yous ee things differently.

 

[P90]

Sounds a little fascist to me.

?

How is the fact that you depend on others and appropriate rules of interaction for life on earth fascist? The only way you get away from that is being stuck on a deserted island. In my book, that ain't very free.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

who gives a damn I'm not under 17

 

[DenogginizerOS]

You must live on the west coast, cause on the east coast the Super Bowl is on much too late for a 4 year old. Why do you have her watching Victoria's Secret stuff? IMO, that is whacked for a 4 year old of either sex to be seeing. apparently, no pun intended, yous ee things differently.

The Super Bowl starts its coverage at 1PM EST, typically. The game itself usually starts at 6:15PM EST. And I don't CHOOSE for her to see those VS commercials; they just appear during "family oriented" programming like Wheel of Fortune or in the case of the catalog, it arrives in the post. But I have NO objection to the human form. It is who we are and there is nothing obscene about it. Paintings of the human body adorn many museums around the world and only the sheltered and fearful cover the eyes of their children.