Safe sex UCONN video game up for bids
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Sep 25th 2006 at 8:00AM }
The University of Connecticut has opened up bidding for developers to produce a Safer Sex Video Game. Although there was a mandatory pre-proposal teleconference to begin the process last week, we're talking about academia here, so everything is negotiable. To start, there is a 43-page document to download, which includes all the requirements for the project and qualifications for bidding.
Safe sex games are nothing new, especially as educators look for other outlets to communicate sexual education messages in countries with strict sex education policies, like the U.S.'s "abstinence only" programs.
The Europeans have taken a far more in-your-face approach to getting out safe sex messages with advertisements -- like the one seen above (minus our puritanical black bars) -- and games like Iffy Stiffy, Scratch My Box and Catch the Sperm.
[Additional info from IGDA Sex SIG]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jinkin @ Sep 25th 2006 8:14AM
Must... ...take... ...fencing lessons...
djork @ Sep 25th 2006 8:32AM
When will people stop being such unbelievable sluts, grow up, and be responsible? Why must things like "safe sex games" be comissioned in the first place? College students are in a sad, sad state. I know lots of guys will jump to the defence of college age kids everywhere by saying "they're just experiencing life!" But really, guys are horny bastards and girls are being taken advantage of left and right. The girls don't even realize the value of what they're trading for a few hours (if that) of shallow drunken attention.
How is this game supposed to make ANYBODY'S life any better? Seriously? A safe sex game will not make a lick of a difference in these kids' lives. It's not about AIDS, or herpes, or whatever bug-o-the-month is going around the dorms... it's about the fact that their emotional lives and self respect are being torn asunder while sexuality is being cheapened and perverted more and more.
Academia really doesn't get it, do they?
Nigeria @ Sep 25th 2006 8:36AM
Mustn't...take...hockey lessons
Bob422 @ Sep 25th 2006 8:51AM
djork: Why does sex education = college in your book? I've never seen anything sex education related on my campus that I can remember. Most of that stuff goes into High Schools where a lot of people are completely ignorant and uninformed about sex.
FLASH @ Sep 25th 2006 8:53AM
What does hockey and sword fighting have to do with sex? This is a bad place to advertise any to do with sex, since no one here will ever have it.
SoonerBill @ Sep 25th 2006 8:53AM
It still amazes me the irony that we can see a looped image of Gears of War showing a head being splattered, with gore o'plenty (in slo-mo no less), but God forbid we show a butt crack or a nipple!
Show me someone without a butt crack or nipple and THEN i'll be amazed.
Jeez, our values are screwed up.
OK i'm finished with my "Stating the obvious moment of the day".
SoonerBill @ Sep 25th 2006 8:54AM
That being said.....I REALLY would like to play Gears of War NOW.
Marty @ Sep 25th 2006 8:56AM
Is a safe sex videogame lie Custer's Revenge. You have to avoid getting shot by arrows while trying to have sex with everything in site?
Michael @ Sep 25th 2006 9:03AM
---
What does hockey and sword fighting have to do with sex? This is a bad place to advertise any to do with sex, since no one here will ever have it.
---
No, it's that you would never do those activities without some sort of protection because it's too dangerous. It's an analogy that you should never have sex without protection either because it's too dangerous. They're equating physical harm with the harm that may come to you from unprotected sex.
Don Jose @ Sep 25th 2006 9:11AM
Djork,
President Bush just created a new cabinet position:
SECRETARY OF DENIAL
you should submit your resume, ASAP.
mocax @ Sep 25th 2006 9:15AM
The ads' messages are too profound for my primitive intellect.
but I've got this to say....
PHOTOSHOP!!!
32_Footsteps @ Sep 25th 2006 9:17AM
I'd have to say that sex in general is underrepresented in video games. Sex is a major part of the human condition. In fact, it's directly responsible for ensuring that the species continues beyond a given generation. Moreover, it creates a level of tension that results in good stories. So let video games get it on.
However, with that said, I don't think creating a safe sex video game is going to help at all. Not because I have any problems with teaching kids about condoms, Norplant, IUDs, sponges, and so on. No, my problem simply is that people would rather chew tinfoil than play such games. People only play educational games under two circumstances. One, they're stuck in school and it's the only game they're allowed to play. Two, the educational portion is subtle and the education is almost subliminal.
The former is why I have memories at all about Number Muncher. The latter is why I've put so much effort into Oregon Trail and Civilization. So unless people are going to force kids to only play the Safe Sex game, or we get the sex equivalent of Civ, nobody is going to pay attention to it.
Grums @ Sep 25th 2006 9:17AM
Having sex with a prostitute without a condom in one of the Leisure Suit Larry games (can't remember which game) back in the early 90s did a lot to teach me about safe sex.
_habit_ @ Sep 25th 2006 9:27AM
I can see the side of ones butt, and the side of the others breast.
PREPARE FOR BANNINATION FROM THE INTERNET JOYSTIQ!!!
*Pulls out mighty sword of b7*
alex @ Sep 25th 2006 9:26AM
man i have to get out of this chair and take some classes at uconn in half an hour
i don't want joystiq to remind me of this
christopher7xii @ Sep 25th 2006 9:32AM
"It still amazes me the irony that we can see a looped image of Gears of War showing a head being splattered, with gore o'plenty (in slo-mo no less), but God forbid we show a butt crack or a nipple!"
Well, take two things to mind.
1) America was founded by religious freaks. (hence sex = bad)
2) America flourished due to countless wars and acts of physical aggression. Hence, our "hero" appeal of killing the villian as ruthlessly as possible.
----------
"hen will people stop being such unbelievable sluts, grow up, and be responsible? Why must things like "safe sex games" be comissioned in the first place? College students are in a sad, sad state."
You obviously are fully matured with no siblings in middle school or up. The cool thing to do with your boyfriend 6th til 9th grade is to let him finger you and you give him a blow job. A fairly large portion of girls are into this during middle school, if not the majority. Elementary, french kissing and making out (sucking necks/ears/fondling) occurs in third and fourth grade. I shit you not. So if you think safe sex messages only apply to college students, you are very very out of the loop my friend. It's a strange, sad world where nobody has fun being a kid, everyone is in a rush to grow up these days.
nootau @ Sep 25th 2006 9:38AM
Yeah, Sex experimentation happens pretty young. Which is not a NEW thing...
christopher7xii @ Sep 25th 2006 9:57AM
Personally I thought experimentation means doing it playfully. Giving every boyfriend you for for two weeks from 7th grade onwards a blow job goes a little beyond experimentation in my book. At that point you know what you're doing.
erica. @ Sep 25th 2006 10:30AM
iffy stiffy...hahahaha
Ross Miller @ Sep 25th 2006 10:52AM
" ... or we get the sex equivalent of Civ, nobody is going to pay attention to it." -- 32_Footsteps
Mmm ... Sid Meier's Sexualization IV: WhoreLords Expansion Package ... mmm.
Jonn @ Sep 25th 2006 10:55AM
@13
Religion =/= Christianity =/= sex is bad. That's what's called a "straw man".
_habit_ @ Sep 25th 2006 11:00AM
@16,
What am I missing out on being homeschooled? :P
It seems I'm the only 14 year-old in America who wishes to wait until marriage to have sex (In case you're wondering, my AIM icon does say "I love Jesus", with Jesus in the festive colors of the American flag), and want the same true for my wife (Hey, I don't want used goods :P).
epobirs @ Sep 25th 2006 11:10AM
I thought World of Warcraft had this covered already. That game has done far more to prevent sex, unprotected or otherwise, than any intentionally instructive game could ever hope to match.
32_Footsteps @ Sep 25th 2006 11:17AM
You know, Ross' comment reminds me, we've seen precious little discussion of prostitution in the Civ games. It is literally one of the oldest professions (though most evidence shows that midwifery actually predates it). It was considered an important part of several civilizations. And just imagine how devestating it could be in the earlier parts of Civ to get your opponent's army (or navy... those dirty, dirty sailors) completely infected with syphilis (let's not pretend that nobody ever tried that).
Admittedly, the games never went into too much detail at exactly what kind of entertainment the entertainers you designate actually do. But even still, just imagine what opens up when you start throwing sex in there.
djork @ Sep 25th 2006 11:26AM
For the record: I LOVE SEX
...
with my wife. You know what that means for me? 100% worry-free. If only people would grasp that simple concept and keep their freaking pants on.
Phillip @ Sep 25th 2006 11:29AM
My kudos to djork. :)
OtakuCODE @ Sep 25th 2006 12:32PM
Sex is a bodily function, and our society is really screwed up with respect to it. Once you reach puberty you have to have sexual outlet. Period. You cannot wait until you are 18. You cannot wait until you are married. If you neglect or are made to neglect your sexual development, your body will force the issue. For boys, this is a wet dream. It's like crapping the bed because you've decided that using the toilet is "dirty". It's a sad, pathetic event that shows a kids development is being dealt with improperly.
Safe sex is an important issue, but waiting until after kids have been sexually capable, and possibly active, for several years is a stupid idea. The education needs to be given BEFORE it is needed. This also has the benefit of letting kids know, when they start to develop sexual urges, that they're not a freak and everything happening to them is normal.
For those that believe in waiting until marriage to have sex, that is fine. That is a personal choice, and you certainly have the right to wait. But any movement you make to "reduce temptation" or any forcing of your viewpoint on others is inexcusable. Your views on sexuality are very anti-human and would lead to the destruction of the human race itself if we were in a precarious population situation. As it is, we have the technology and capability to make sex safe and nearly consequence-free.
The issue of emotional relationships, of love and courtship, is complex and should also be taught to kids. Sex doesn't have to mean love. Monogamy is not something trite, it is a vow and a commitment. The bad bit of adultery is not the sex, it's the deception and breaking of the vow.
False_Dreams_912 @ Sep 25th 2006 11:56AM
While Djork is exclusively mentioning college students, I believe you can take the comment and apply across the board: K-12, College, etc...
While sex is an extremely, extremely, (insert extremely into an infinite loop here), fun activity, it does come with some responsibility. Long gone are the seemingly less treacherous days of the 60's - 70's. Today's society is a cesspool. I believe you can compare sex to cigarettes. People have been smoking tobacco for ages, believing that it was a completely harmless activity. We all know that to be false now. However, people still smoke. I'm not saying that people should not have sex, but I am saying that, much like smoking, people know that it is potentially harmful and continue to do it. At least with smoking you can see and smell the second hand smoke.
While a safe sex video game will most likely fail to even make a dent on unprotected sex, at least there is an effort of some sort. Something is better than nothing.
pbob @ Sep 25th 2006 11:56AM
The uncensored fencing picture is at http://lovelife.ch/stopaids.php
Click 'Campaign' on the flash thingy.
PS, you're not missing much
Corey @ Sep 25th 2006 12:09PM
Uhh....this is SCREAMING for a Jack Thompson sound bite!!! LOL!
Angelo @ Sep 25th 2006 12:12PM
The target audience is people between the ages of 18 and 26.
- I am 18 years old.
- I have been playing video games since I was 2 years old.
- I am currently a student at UConn, Storrs.
- And I think this is a waste of money.
If I am a target for this project, then it looks like UConn is looking in the wrong direction. I do not know anyone that would be interested in playing an educational sex video game.
Damn credibility-whores.
32_Footsteps @ Sep 25th 2006 12:28PM
False_Dreams, it's quite patently false that sex is more dangerous now than it was 30 years ago, or further back.
Quite simply, it's astounding how far we've come in being able to treat veneral diseases. The clap used to be just as dangerous as we consider AIDS now. There was always something that would kill us. It's just a different something. Unfortunately, I do believe that should we finally cure AIDS, something else will be found. Biology has its downsides.
Anyhow, I think the better technique is to merely make sex part of a game, and show real consequences for screwing around. Just imagine if you had a chance to catch herpes from a hooker in GTA. You know people would be much more careful where they get their action, and it would lead to interesting choices (maybe you could prevent the chance of infection with a condom, but you'd get less health back, trying to deal with having regular treatments, etc.).
It would work, but it would require a company be ready to treat sex the way it can be in the real world. The question is, is there any company with the guts to actually make this game?
socrates @ Sep 25th 2006 12:42PM
Djork is right! I love sex with his wife too.
Come on, this is stupid. Dumb people might run into problems with sex, but they are easily avoidable. Being legally recognized by the government doesn't change anything - lots of unmarried folks are monogamous, lots of married folks are not. It isn't a solution to this problem.
Much more importantly, it is actively dangerous, in a high school/college setting, to suggest that as the only alternative. The vast majority of the students aren't going to get married at such a young age - and that's certainly a good thing - so they should probably be taught how to have sex in a safe fashion. No downside to that.
Pince @ Sep 25th 2006 12:43PM
Safe sex: good idea
Safe sex game: Complete waste of resources. I think the biggest problem here is that the people who motivated the creation of this game are operating under the very common (and very wrong) assumption that children are naive and that they will take any piece of information or advice thrown atthem as long as it comes from a medium that they like or respect (their favorite music, TV shows, or video games).
To a degree, this may be true, but, also, most kids are more savvy in this respect than they are given credit for. Kids can tell when a video game or otherwise generally enjoable thing has an ulterior motive, and, no matter what the motive is, many times kids will avoid it simply because of the fact that it is trying to teach them something. Kids also hate it when members of the adult world attempt to infiltrate their mediums of choice with a motive like this.
I am merely saying that kids will obviously see that it is a hokey educational game that is trying to be "cool" and they will scoff at it immediately. Even if the game were good in some way, it would be killed by the usual backlash people show towards something that is trying so desperately to be "cool". It works this way in all advertizing; people embrace a product, the product's marketers and creators of the image try too hard to make it part of their culture, the people notice the blatantly obvious market strategies and resent the feeling of manipulation, so they shun the product. The difference here is that kids know this trick already; people have tried to play it on them before with other "educational" games, music, other stupid crap that they show you in sex ed classes, etc., and they are not stupid.
No kid is going to react to this like "Wow, lol, I sure do looove video games. I better play this one too. I hope it doesnt try to teach me anything, lol."
Well...maybe the dumb ones.
Even so, that brings up the whole other problem that, when it comes to the choice of having sex (safely or...otherwise), are kids going to make the safest decisions even armed with correct information? Sometimes yes, but still, very often, no.
Lone Starr @ Sep 25th 2006 12:59PM
@ OtakuCODE,
"But any movement you make to 'reduce temptation' or any forcing of your viewpoint on others is inexcusable. Your views on sexuality are very anti-human and would lead to the destruction of the human race itself if we were in a precarious population situation."
Slippery Slope argument = Logical Fallacy FTL. Good day sir. :)
Dan777UK @ Sep 25th 2006 1:01PM
I hope that all those dumb kids who have unprotected sex DO catch AIDS and die. that way their stupidity will be filtered out of the gene pool. Natural selection is a good thing, and I for one want stupid people to die.
OtakuCODE @ Sep 25th 2006 1:10PM
Lone Starr: Where do you see a slippery slope argument? I did not argue that their views are going to lead to the end of the human race (which wouldn't be slippery slope anyways). I specifically said that if we were in such a position, it would eliminate us. I did not suggest that their views would grow and push us into such a situation. I don't think you quite comprehended what I wrote, or you don't understand what a slippery slope logical fallacy is.
Matthew @ Sep 25th 2006 9:52PM
@29
Okay, here you go:
JACK THOMPSON: "Blah blah blah I hate everything. Leisure Suit Larry kills blah blah blah. I hate sex."
Wedge @ Sep 25th 2006 1:36PM
Mmmm... Civilization
Pink Peace Pleasure Palace:
Keeps one citizen in every city happy. Made obsolete by the HIV Project.
The HIV Project:
A deadly virus spread by sex. Allows creation of Rabid Rapist Monkey units.
Rabid Rapist Monkey:
If this unit reaches another country's city, it will infect the cities populous with HIV. That city will no longer increase in population, and will lose one citizen every five turns.
The Condom:
A means of allowing sex while preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease. Allows building of a Sex Shop in a city.
Sex Shop:
A distribution center for goods to promote safer and more enjoyable sexual practicies. That city gains one happy citizen and grows at 2/3 normal speed. Any city infected with AIDs will be cured, and otherwise immune.
The3rdNuisance @ Sep 25th 2006 2:57PM
Can I get an STD from my hand?
Lone Starr @ Sep 25th 2006 3:29PM
@ OtakuCODE
"Lone Starr: Where do you see a slippery slope argument? I did not argue that their views are going to lead to the end of the human race (which wouldn't be slippery slope anyways). I specifically said that if we were in such a position, it would eliminate us. I did not suggest that their views would grow and push us into such a situation. I don't think you quite comprehended what I wrote, or you don't understand what a slippery slope logical fallacy is."
Basically, the slippery slope argument is made by the
association of the two sentences. If that's not what you meant, the ambiguity of those sentences would be an amphiboly, a verbal fallacy. The allegation that I don't comprehend what a slippery slope fallacy is would be an ad hominem logical fallacy. And last, but certainly not least, in your latest post you reminded me of other fallacies I overlooked in your original post -- the either-or fallacy and the subverted support fallacy. Good day sir.
Pince @ Sep 25th 2006 4:32PM
Formal logic FTW.
That is all.
Pince @ Sep 25th 2006 4:42PM
But, for the record, Lone Starr, your accusations fallacy, though incredibly diverse, are very very weakly supported. The slippery slope is the closest to being an actual fallacy, but I am hoping that the ad hominem argument and the amphiboly were just you trying to be witty. Sad it would be to find fallacy in everything. (
Pince @ Sep 25th 2006 4:43PM
@43 your last two sentences were amphiboly
Lone Starr @ Sep 25th 2006 4:54PM
@ Pince,
lol. i thought they were supported quite strongly. :P
otakucode @ Sep 25th 2006 6:42PM
Lone Starr: No, saying you don't understand the concept of a slippery slope argument would not be an ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem is an attack on the speakers credibility, not an assertion that the speaker is speaking incorrectly out of misunderstanding. My sentences were not in any way ambiguous. I specifically stated, with no equivocation, "If we were in the situation". That leaves no room for doubt that I am not suggesting we ARE in such a situation, nor does it suggest the idea that I believe their ideas will lead to such a state.
I did not commit an either-or fallacy because I did not present my view as the sole alternative to the one I was arguing against. In mentioning subverted support, are you referring to the hypothetical that I presented when I said "If we were in a situation"? If so, that is not a subverted support fallacy. If I claimed we WERE in such a situation, that would be a subverted support fallacy since such a situation does not exist.
Feel free to pick it apart some more, I'll admit if you find a fallacy, I have no objections to being corrected or having flaws in my arguments presented, they only help to learn, but please stop simply trying to find fallacies where there are none.
Lone Starr @ Sep 25th 2006 8:53PM
@ otakucode,
I still stand by every fallacy I named. Since I don't have too much time to do this any more tonight, I will continue this tomorrow if you or I care. But I do want to address your arguments, so I'll only address one for now. lol.
"Ad hominem is an attack on the speakers credibility, not an assertion that the speaker is speaking incorrectly out of misunderstanding."
By making the assertion that I speak out of misunderstanding, your argument fundamentally makes me (not my argument) the focus. In other words, your argument addresses my shortcomings, not the shortcomings of my argument. Technically, this is an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Joon @ Sep 27th 2006 12:51AM
"But really, guys are horny bastards and girls are being taken advantage of left and right. The girls don't even realize the value of what they're trading for a few hours (if that) of shallow drunken attention."
Do you live in the 1950s or have you just not been around any college people? All the dudes are horny and taking advantage of the poor hapless girls? Sure, there's some of that. To demonize the men yet leave out the fact that a lot of women act the same way is ridiculous though.