Julian Sanchez | October 7, 2004
Apparently the Land Down Under isn't taking visitors from the Land of the Lounge Lizards: Australia's refusing importation of Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude, the latest installment in the classic game series about a clueless-but-affable schmuck looking to score. The reason given is the game's sexual content, which is odd, because unless they've departed dramatically from the level of previous games, it's no more risqé than what you'd expect to find on, say, late night Cinemax. And, oh yeah, it's all CGI. Since I'm pretty sure Aussies haven't embargoed Jenna Jameson yet, that's a weird double standard. Can censors there possibly still, at this late date, be operating under the illusion that computer games are exclusively for (or, at any rate, should always be appropriate for) children?
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Oops. Didn't read Julian's last sentence. Presto chango! My last post never happened ...
Julian, your post was kind of provocative until you threw in
that horrid combination of English words: for children.
Why should John Howard's government be any less prone to normative
conservatism than its mentor government in the U.S.?
These days, if you want to be a big-budget western democracy like
the good ol' USofA, then a high-tolerance for moral despotism is a
given. I prefer indie democracies like New Zealand, where economic
vitality and quality of life are far more central to public
discourse than CGI tits in a stupid computer game.
More importantly, do they erally think they'll be able to keep it out? (see story above this one)
actually, from what i've read it is certainly a lot more risque than the earlier games.
If you loved those '80s Sierra games -- Leisure Suit Larry,
King's Quest, Police Quest, etc. -- the Brothers Chap recently put
out this incredible homage:
http://www.homestarrunner.com/disk4of12.html
It's called "Peasant's Quest," and it's a real game. I think it
goes to 150 points.
Cue discussion of CG porn v. "live-action" porn.
Does a ban on perverse and exploitive content still hold when it's
only perverse, not exploitive?
Specifically: is it still "kiddy porn" if no actual kids were
involved?
I like how Andrew managed to make it America's fault that
Australia is too uptight to import a Leisure Suit Larry game. Are
Canadian Customs officials our fault too?
is it still "kiddy porn" if no actual kids were
involved?
It's not considered "kiddy porn", no, but it is generally
considered obscene, and therefore illegal, in most areas. So the
real kids/fake kids distinction doesn't prevent the producer from
doing jail time, it just affects how much jail time he does.
Smells like puppet sex. Guess the pohmmies will just have to download it off a P2P network. Since it's illegal, there won't be any copyright to worry about.
I'll try to remember this the next time someone tries to tell me
how uniquely puritanical Americans are. Australians seem to
particularly like doing this.
jc
You won't make any friends calling Australians "pohmmies"(sic).
I'll try to remember this the next time someone tries to
tell me how uniquely puritanical Americans are. Australians seem to
particularly like doing this.
The whole Anglosphere has a puritan streak, really. It just
manifests in different ways.
The USA's laws regarding prostitution are stricter than those of
Australia or the UK. On the other hand, our laws regarding porn
seem to be a lot more relaxed than those of Australia, the UK, or
Canada.
I don't know about New Zealand -- all I know about Kiwi sexual
habits, I learned from Australians telling sheep jokes.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245