Comments on: Laughing at In-Game Sex

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:42:23 +0000

Sex is almost never funny to the folks doing it.

I would disagree; I think sometimes the people having the sex are the only ones with a sense of humor/perspective. Porn stars, for example, don’t take sex as seriously as the people who get off watching them. I suppose though that’s the difference between the performance of sex, or just sex - whereas normally it’s hard to draw the line.

By: Abbie Normal

Abbie Normal — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:23:53 +0000

In “Stranger in a Strange Land,” the hero, Valentine Michael Smith (who was raised on Mars), doesn’t understand humor. He finally has an epiphany while watching monkeys beat the crap out of each other at the zoo. He collapses on the floor laughing, and his friend, not understanding — because it’s not really *funny* funny; more cruel and slice-of-life — asks why he’s laughing.

“I’m laughing because it’s impossible to cry all the time,” he replies. [I’m paraphrasing here].

What is funny — and interestingly, what is erotic or sexy — all depends on which side of the camera you’re on. If you’re getting cream pie on your face, it probably ain’t funny to you, but it may be to the folks on the other side of the camera. On the other hand, if you’re getting hair pie on your face (please excuse… I couldn’t help the pun), it may seem incredibly erotic to you… but very funny to somebody on the other side of the lens.

Sex is almost never funny to the folks doing it. Do dogs think it’s funny when they hump your leg? No. But we sometimes do. Do people with weird (by Brady Bunch standard) kinks think that what they do is funny? No. But it’s not just a sex thing. The “invisible lens” changes everything, and observing something vs. doing it is the difference, especially when it comes to humor and sex, two of the most charged areas of our lives.

Now… if you can have a good sense of humor about your own sex life, and realize that, no… your gonads are not the center of the universe, well that can lead to a sex life of much more fun, frivolity and creativity. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you still look (to other people) like a shaved gibbon having a seizure when you orgasm. Just remember… so do they ; )

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:56:53 +0000

Hmmm, but what exactly does weight mean? Is weight narrative meaning? Is weight the power to arouse?

By: Patrick Dugan

Patrick Dugan — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:54:51 +0000

The uncanny valley problem exists with dramatic virtual characters as well. Micheal Mateas put it to me (paraphrasing) as a gap between the resolution of the body and the resolution of the virtual mind. I said, “well, why don’t we just whip up a virtual mind then?” He laughed, “its not that simple.”

This post flashes to my mind images of that Jenna Jameson sex game, which looked not only absurd, but not really hot at all. Constrast to Indigo Prophcey, which featured a similarly hyperrealistic rendering of a sex scene that was, at best, softcore (there was even a lack of nipple on the woman, which was kinda pathetic in my book). IndigoProphecy’s sex scene was at least beleavable as a plot point, and though I wasn’t exactly emotionally invested, it made a representative impression, probably because of the way the rendering was handled.

Bottom line: you gotta have virtual characters who feel something for each other in order for virtual sex to have weight.

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:52:09 +0000

See, q, you say something I don’t understand, and I look it up like a good blogger. What an interesting concept (and, I assume, researched phenomenon) though - things close and far we can empathize with, but somewhere in between make us uncomfortable because they reflect the performance which is ourselves. In this case, far is symbolic sex, close is pornography and in between… well, somewhat realistic in-game sex. Just restating your point, q, and slowly understanding :-).

By: MDÂ²

MDÂ² — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:23:15 +0000

Interesting way of putting things, even though I never really new what to do with the whole uncanny valley theory, so I’m a bit at loss here.
Mmmmmmmhhh… :?

By: qDot

qDot — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:58:14 +0000

Just goes to show, the uncanny valley doesn’t just exist in looks alone.

By: MDÂ²

MDÂ² — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:33:29 +0000

Humor at its best is a way to uncover a masked truth in a way that will allow to both take conscience of that truth and evacuate the pression of the realisation via laughter.
I think most people who laugh when confronted with such a mecanic depiction of sexuality do so because it makes them realise that, without emotional investment, without self-inforcement of social codes, you might as well describe sex a the act of rubbing two pieces of meat together till they start oozing.
It’s not so much that it makes us absurd as it strips down our whole existence of everything that makes it significant, reavealing the whole absurdity at its core. Given that we generally need sense to act, or at least, and more importantly, to get volition of action, it can prove very depressing to see things in this light.
Thus laughter.