Looks like politicians around the world are all the same: they turn silly things into a worlwide matter.
I grow up watching action movies, reading comics and in most of them there were violence and all those 'bad' things. Every now and them I read things like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4682533.stm) and I wonder: is there nothing REALLY important to do???!!!??? There are people starving, dying, killing, and a long etc., but this woman tells me that is very important that pornography can't be in a game. The game is for 18+ years old people, so what's the problem?
In a letter to the FTC, Senator Clinton cited a study by the National Institute on Media and the Family that found 50% of boys between seven and 14 years old could buy mature rated games. So that is the manufacter's fault?
"There is no doubting the fact that the widespread availability of sexually explicit and graphically violent video games makes the challenge of parenting much harder," said the senator in her missive to the FTC. So, still is the manufacter's fault???
Day after day I see kids within worst enviroment, I see kids that don't play games but they are smoking cannabis at my window, there are kids killing another kids just because they are form a rival band and they can't afford a game where to learn that, I see little girls doing what I didn't until I was 19, and they haven't played San Andreas...
Instead of making so much noise about a game or about a breast why don't they try to 'fix' education? Why don't they waste their time in some constructive work?

(I didn't knew where to put this, so sorry if is in the wrong place)

[ September 19, 2005, 16:40: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

It's just another witch hunt... there's exponentially more mature/adult material on TV and in cinemas. And it's all free and easily accessible to most children (at least on TV). But computer games are an easy target because they don't have their own strong lobbies to grease politicians into leaving them alone, so every schmuck with a suit and some time on their hands can start an easy crusade against them.

Racking up points with cheap shots at computer and console games is a popular pastime of many political figures in the US because there are always people who agree that games are the ones responsible for corrupting their children, not their own poor parenting. Shifting the blame to a third party is always a crowd-pleaser, especially when it comes to issues with children. Everyone is to blame there but the parents.

Then you get cases like the confused grandma who buys an M rated game for her grandson and then goes on a crusade and sues the makers of GTA: San Andreas for the corrupting influence of the game on the 14 year old. Who would never have legally got his hands on the game unless an adult bought it for him.

The two-faced morality of American puritanism gets me every time too... all the shooting and killing and violence in GTA is not an issue, but the hidden sex subgame which looks like a joke is reason enough to get the game banned and launch a nation-wide campaign against computer games. You'd think that some people in the US are still living in the 1950's, seriously...

(Btw, I'm not saying that Rockstar didn't make a mistake by leaving that content in, even though it was hidden - and making it worse by lying about it. But still, the whole thing is so overblown it's unbelievable.)

I think the issues of porn and violence in gaming are just as important to other governments as well. It's hardly a "US" thing.

UK gov't concerns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4087079.stm)

You're missing the point. I never said it was exclusively a US thing, it's only that most of the Western game makers are based in the US or Canada, and most susceptible to political threats. Politicians there don't need evidence that games are harmful in any way; they can just keep parroting that they are and convince many people in the process. Case in point, see Hillary's statements above and compare them to the BBC article. The two-faced morality of puritanism bit is exclusively American though, but not even remotely limited to games only, so we can leave that for another thread...

Yes, it is here too, there is the 'worried mothers association' around here that is complaining since GTA: San Andreas came out, they tried to ban it from shops.
Politics are babling all day long about the changes that have to be on tv shows, ads, etc, in favor of the kids but the laws that they made are triky: is cheaper to brake the law than lose some advertisers. So still there are politics babling and 'worried mothers' after this kind of games.

EDIT:
(yeah, remember Janet Jackson breast)

I know that most of the gaming companies are in the US. I don't believe, however, that the "puritanism" as you term it, exists only in the US. The 1950's existed for everyone...I'm sure there are parochial attitudes worldwide.

As far as government concern -- I also saw some links about EU concern for porn in any format, whether in games or not. Politicians parrot what their constinuents are resonating, you're right about that. But neither is it an easy position for them to take, with the gaming industry positioned as it is, commanding the generation of significant dollars in our economy.

Pu·ri·tan·ism
n.

1. The practices and doctrines of the Puritans.
2. Scrupulous moral rigor, especially hostility to social pleasures and indulgences: “Puritanism is the source of our greatest hypocrisies and most crippling illusions” (Molly Haskell).

#2 is a good illustration of what I'm talking about. I don't know if puritanism has survived outside the US anywhere, but it's certainly not pervading any other nation that I know of as much as the US.

Btw, there is no porn in regular games. If there is, they're rated AO, Adults Only. The problem discussed here is specific to one game which had sexual content left in the game files, which were manipulated by a modder later and released as a mod that unlocked it. But this game was rated M (17+ only) to begin with. The problem is that people are compaining that it's not suitable for 14 year olds or younger kids despite the game clearly being labelled 17+ only and having an infamous reputation for excessive violence.

Yes, I know what the facts of the news brief are. I was responding to the additional information that was shared on your view of "puritanism" and the containment of this very human universal attitude to only those humans that live within the US borders, simply because the word was coined there. But we're off topic and I think debating it further would clearly be pointless.

It's true politician these day claimed all video games are the source of evil. No seriously it's just plain dumb. Video game is just as rock 'n roll was in the 60s (or so I'm being told by older people).

Let's look at the fact

The majority of gamers are between 18 and 30, and the average is 29.

It's an industry worth sereval millions dollar (if not more) and AFAIK government doesn't really control them, and don't make money out of them.

The governements can't (thus far...) use it as a mean of propaganda (Like TV and some movies)

Some game are really well thought out and very well written, (there's still some bad one though). Hell when I first play BG2 4-5 years ago, I recall my english written skills has improved due to the fact that I played this game. Some game have good historical value too. So some game, can be educational. I don't recall seeing a real educational tv show in the past year.

So basicly it's better to let kids watch about all war danger and anti-terrorism on CNN and South Park on tv, than learning about romans in Rome: Total War.

Christian puritanism may have a strong hold on the US (and to a much lesser degree Canada) but excessive moral rigour is hardly a purely Western failing or a Christian one by a long shot -- IIRC, most Muslim countries ban all sorts of things that Western countries allow in regular retail shops. In addition, for all it's many foul-ups, the principle in the U.S. of a free press is not present in MANY other countries, where government censorship of newspapers and television is common practice.

All that said, when it comes to this particular game, I'm with Tal in that it's a lot easier to blame the "media" bugaboo than to admit that you have failed utterly to bring your kids up with a scrap of morality or decency. Granny should be buying her grandkids material that she at least knows something about, or talking to a salesperson who can tell her exactly what sort of material is in the game she's buying for Junior.

Not having lived in other countries, only visited a few, I can't make judgements except what I see in the news.

I do think that we in the USA have a split-personality (so-to-speak). On the one hand we push Freedom but on the other we want the government to protect us from all sorts of things.

I also agree with Tal. Parents are responsible for their children. If they can't be bothered to take an interest in what their children are doing they shouldn't be suprised at improper behaviour.

Yeah, kids won't ever be brought up right if the parents don't give a damn. Unless kids are taken from parents, which we don't want on a massive scale.

I believe that censoring sucks, but I also believe that there's no need to allow businesses to fatten up on people's low urges and play with fire in order to fill their wallets.

Content ratings should be strictly observed and strictly enforced. It should be illegal to sell something with a high rating to a person below that age. But the rating should be on the box, first of all.

As for USA, that's where both the greatest puritanism and the greatest libertinism dwell. I suppose this is because of the clash between the hardcore Protestant ethics (the historical puritans) and the strong belief in freedom.

As for the sex scene in GTA San Andreas, if I were in the position to ban the game from being sold to minors under 18, I would do so. I'm fed up with all the lousiness around and I'm starting to feel more and more like cleaning up a bit.

This doesn't mean kids shouldn't know how biology works or how a man or a woman looks, but biology classes and art museums are for that. Not some lousy banging in a game. Not like many of those kids wouldn't make GTA characters blush, with what they do at parties with a sufficient load of booze and weed, anyway. :rolleyes: But for decency's sake...

As for the sex scene in GTA San Andreas, if I were in the position to ban the game from being sold to minors under 18, I would do so. I'm fed up with all the lousiness around and I'm starting to feel more and more like cleaning up a bit.
I'm with you on this one. I think the stores ought to respectn the rating on the label, and that custommer be fully aware of what exactly they buy. Such product can exist, thinking it we can make it disapear is an utopia, however selling mature game only to people who has the right age to can make a huge difference, or so I think.

LKD, just in case I wasn't clear, I was only talking about Western countries. If you go searching outside of that frame, you will, of course, find dozens of cases of much harsher extremism. But I was only talking about countries sharing approximately the same level of cultural, societal, religious and technological advancement.

The problem in the US is not so much with puritanism itself (which you can get in similar doses in some other European countries), but that it is selective. Here I mainly mean the attitude to guns and violence commited with firearms. For example, no one will protest if you get a dozen people blown to bits in a T rated game, but heaven forbid that the players should see any sort of even partial nudity or sex acts, even when totally in context... that causes a national outrage like in the case of GTA (or Janet Jackson...). Keep in mind that the politicians in the US didn't start a nation-wide crusade against GTA and games in general until they discovered that it's possible to mod a sex game into it.

So, basically, as long as it was only blowing people's heads off and running over people with cars and stealing people's cars and property it was acceptable. But now that there's the dreaded SEX in... burn the games at the stake! Our children are getting corrupted by the vile sexual influence in games! I think there's something seriously wrong with that line of thinking.

This inconsistent attitude to guns and nudity/sex is what bothers me the most. One is fine, because, well, everyone owns guns anyway and people got shot all the time (?), but the other isn't - why? Are nudity and sex less natural and more dangerous than guns and firearm violence? Obviously in the minds of some people, they are.

People tend to regard pretended violence as nothing really serious and a way of unloading tension, taking it off without yelling at live people etc. With sexual content... well, it's already sexual. There isn't really much of pretending in that sphere. Normal people should be able to watch a sex scene in a movie without getting off on it and treating it as the main attraction, but just how many normal people do we have? Violent content is some form of make-believe violence, game, play. Sexual content is already get off material.

If we go further into a religious or conservative mind, sexual misconduct doesn't have to be targeted at anyone specific - it's seeking and getting the specific sensations which is the factor. With violence, the chief problem is harming your neighbour -- obviously unachievable on a fictional character.

I don't fully agree, although I do see sense in that. If you ask me, "gangsta" games can be fun but there's always the question why people want to play such games at all and if children should. It would be a tad bit restrictive to block all illegal activities from games as potential player choices. It's just... well, there's a difference between having fun watching movies or playing games and regretting you can't be a mafia goon in real life. Fun is fun but it's a different matter when the escapism goes too far and people use virtual reality to get rid of moral restraints, benefit/harm calculation etc etc. It can affect susceptible people and children's minds aren't fully formed, nor is their willpower at its peek. Again, parents' job to draw some limits and watch carefully.

Back to the sex scene, though, if I came across something like that in a game, I would take it as a joke. Or put it down realism (mimesis, you know ;) ). Heck, I played both Fallouts. But there's still some difference between realism, even somewhat jestful realism, and flashing kids with lewd content in order to make the game more popular or whatever else. And we all know that 18+ games are practically being tailored for 18- people. :rolleyes:

In short, I guess, I'll have to reiterate the thought that devs, publishers and retailers should stick to the rating norms by the book. No monkey business. And yeah, crack down on dumb violence in teen games along with the gratuitous sex in one swoop.

Another example of hypocrisy is sticking too closely to arbitrary and unimaginative definitions of what makes nudity, what makes sexual content etc etc. By some definitions, it would be improper to show a sweater-clad girl with perky nipples because of the cold, but coin-sized bikini cups and hair-thin thongs are okay. :rolleyes: Come on, that's just plain dumb.

Next, not all nudity is sexual content and not all sexual content is nude. My father was an artist and I had a great interest in art history back in the day (I can almost see a nude Venus statue from where I'm writing :p ), not to mention my little pen drawing hobby, so I can tell you that a whole gallery of simply nude silhouttes won't get anywhere as lewd as a single person you can find walking down the street if you look around, given what people wear nowadays. You just know the difference between art and porn, same as everyone knows (or should know) the difference between undressing in a doctor's office and having shanky photos taken. Getting mad at all forms and kinds of nudity is not quite wise and doesn't solve anything. You know, perhaps if young guys went to museums and saw what a woman looks like, they wouldn't download so much porn.

[ September 18, 2005, 15:29: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I wish someone could explain to me what the whole *issue* is. I've been playing violent computer games since early childhood and I don't consider myself a violent person.
I played Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards while I was so young I didn't even get any of the sexual jokes (or anything else off it, for that matter :p ) and I played many fantasy games as I grew up.

Still, I have never tried to cast a spell, nor (intended to) commit a violent or sexual crime.

I think the entire impressionability of kids is overinflated. Even when I refused to go to sleep with the lights off, I perfectly well knew the differences between games and real life, and that the things I did in games I should and/or could not do in rl.

To stick to the original topic, I agree whole-heartedly. Violence and pornography in video games shouldn't be an issue, and definitely not a major one. Let people have their fun, it's not *real*. Let politicians and such concern themselves with problems that *are* real, please.

Can anyone give me some sort of statistic that shows that there is a credible relation between computer games and violent/sexual crimes?

... Hmm. I had a point somewhere too, but never mind that :xx:
:borg:

Well it seems that violence does indeed matter as much as the sex issue to some people. And it appears BOTH issues matter to Hillary (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=240603&&)

And more violent concerns in California (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/09/news_6132907.html)

and in Illinois (http://news.com.com/Illinois+seeks+to+restrict+violent+games/2100-1043_3-5593248.html)

As if the legislation will stop kids from playing them -- never has and never will. You can't legislate family or personal values.

[ September 18, 2005, 20:06: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

US Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/offage.htm)

Now, I'm noone to proclaim the truth of the gospel that is PCGamer, but in a recent editorial, Game-Revoultion.com's Duke Ferris stated that "There is no epidemic of youth violence in America."

Indeed, the exact opposite is true - violent crime is actually at its lowest rates ever in American History - now, I don't want to make sweeping overgeneralizations, but it could possibly be true that this could be an international truth as well. (But i've no data to back this up.) If you look at the charts provided in the link above, it's pretty obvious that our media and politicians are picking on pretty much a very select few horrible instances and blowing them up to be much more widespread than they really are.

The truth is (apparently), that "kids who play videogames" are arguably "the most non-violent kids in the history of American justice statistics."

But hey, who needs facts, anyways?

I agree with that -- but I don't think the gaming sex issue is any more of an important trigger to these politicians than the violence issue. For those folks who want to spend their time lobbying for this, I think they see it as a package.

Yes I remember reading Duke's editorial here is the link (http://gr.bolt.com/articles/violence/violence.htm) Now this might not be the absolute true, but still it has it's value I think.

Well, what can one expect - since most of the voters don't play games, it's little harm to try to abuse the old generation gap a little. Mom and Dad don't like how their kid plays games, and probably feel a little powerless to influence him or her anymore - sure, it's the games' fault. Not TV, not music (bigger amount of money there, of course), and certainly not the parents' fault. And here comes, in this case, Mrs. Clinton as a concerned mother and an upright politician. Sheesh. Is she so bent on appealing to teh "moral" crowd she'd do something like that? Apparently yes.

Sure, violence matters to Hillary too (an obvious bonus to score points on in the case), but games as violent as GTA have been on the market for years. A score of previous GTA games, for example. But no one has launched a public crusade (except a few ignorant nutters) until the dreaded San Andreas sex mod... And all of a sudden Hillary has overwhelming support from concerned American parents. :rolleyes:

So the companies that make the game openly tell people that their product is not suitable for anyone under the age of 18, and they get blasted because some kids get to play it? Where are their parents? Until parents start paying attention to these things, and look at what their children are asking about, this is going to happen. This doesn't fall on the manufacturers, but those who buy the games and let children play or watch it being played. If I know that my place will be overrun with children or teenagers, I put away all the M rated titles I own, and all the R rated movies that I own. The Game companies have come as far as they are willing to come. It's time for Society to accept them.

Also, Someone said that video games couldn't be used as propaganda? I beg to differ. I believe that the US army was using the game America's army as either a recruitment tool or a training tool. I believe that some other uses could be thought of, it just takes some creativity...

People tend to regard pretended violence as nothing really serious and a way of unloading tension, taking it off without yelling at live people etc. With sexual content... well, it's already sexual. Chev,

While I agree with most of what you're saying, I don't really agree with where you're going here. The sexual content is no more real than the violent content. You could even say the same thing with regard to the violent content, i.e., that it's already violent.

@all - It would be great if retailers would enforce mature rated games to audiences of the correct age. However, I would like to think that many of the under-aged users of this material had the game purchased for them. How many 12 and 13 year olds (or younger in some instances) have jobs and can afford to buy these games for themselves? Once you consider older teens who are 16 or 17, it is possible since they can drive that they have part-time jobs, but I think the real problem here is two-fold: 1.) Many retailers are willing to sell their mature content games to people under-age, but just as importantly 2.) Many parents and grandparents purchase these games for their children/grandchildren, and in such a case, the retailer is under no obligation not to sell their product. It can clearly be argued that there aren't too many grandmothers playing GTA, and so it is likely that any senior citizens purchasing the game is doing so for a child, but the fact remains that the retailer didn't do anything wrong by selling the game, as the purchaser was over 18.

Aldeth, surprising as this may be, I do get your point. The problem is more in putting my point across. To me, violence in movies is overdone. In many cases, they have a good reason for putting it there and, well, I do like action movies, myself. Indiana Jones style more than a classic butchery, but still. Thing is... when you have a gunnery scene, the guy who falls isn't dead and the guy who pulls the trigger isn't a ruthless killer. The blood is ketchup. But when you have two actors who make out or have sex, it's no computer engineering. They are making out or they are having sex. Movie is the reason, not personal pleasure, but they are still having sex or making out.

So if we consider just the message, then yes, I agree with you, sexual content is just as bad as violent content. But when we consider all contributing factors, then I have to say that sexual content is much worse overall.

On a personal level, if I were married and my wife played in violent scene -- killing or getting killed, I would leave it on her conscience and I wouldn't really mind. But if my wife played in a making out or sex scene (as in, actually doing it, not the countless ways of faking it), I would be in the court on the same day. Similarly, if you grabbed a camera to shot an amateur movie and told me to put up a make believe swordfight, I wouldn't mind. Not even if you brought a barrel of ketchup along. ;) But if you brought along a woman and told me to start getting mushy, I would feel awkward and would refuse to do anything non-verbal because I simply couldn't do that.

There were several interesting articles about this in the Economist a month or so ago. It basically said that the backlash against video games by the older generations (who have never played them) is no different than other conflicts throughout time when entertainments enjoyed by the younger generations are viewed with opposition by the older generations who don't understand/ have never enjoyed them.

Ah. It was in the Aug. 4th edition. Unfortunately, the articles are "premium" content on the Economist's web site, so those of you without a subscription wouldn't be able to read them if I posted a link...

[ September 19, 2005, 18:07: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

I pretty much agree. I remember an especially dreadful episode from Quincy where he told the stunned tv audience that evil punk music drives youths raving mad and makes them kill each other (in this case with a screwdriver) and the like. Well: What the hell does he know?

And anyway, with today's annoyingly hypertolerant parents around, one of the few ways left to shock them is probably to play Doom 4, eat little kittens alive, become a practicing satanist or join Al Quaeda.

Parents, get more repressive - less tolerance, more action. That allows your kids to piss you off with harmless stuff, like dying their hair green and pierce their nostrils with steel bolts or staying out till 22:00 at night :1eye:

From what I've seen, laxness doesn't bring about much good result. Some kind of upbringing that stresses responsibility and independence is good, but not the "unstressful upbringing", "stressless ubpringing" or however "bezstresowe wychowanie" translates into English.

I suppose saying what's right and wrong instead of "tolerating differences" is more important than punishment. It worked better on me when I was a child.

So if we consider just the message, then yes, I agree with you, sexual content is just as bad as violent content. But when we consider all contributing factors, then I have to say that sexual content is much worse overall. Ah, but now you have changed the context from video games to movies. In this I can agree with you. Showing people in intimate scenes in movies is very much people actually making out or having sex. (Although I would like to think a lot of the "sex scenes" in movies that the actor and actress aren't actually having sex. Rarely do you see full frontal nudity in a movie, and often times they are only shown from the waist up. So yeah, you see bare breasts, but they very well could be wearing underwear, and we'd never know.)

The point being here, in movies, yes, there is a difference between a sex scene and a violent scene in that in the former, there is actually intimate contact between the actor and actress, while in the latter it's all faked. The actor or actress doesn't actually get killed, but the actor and actress are actually making out (I wonder what you think about James Bond movies - i.e., not over the top with gratuitous violence, but always a sex scene.)

On the other hand, in the realm of video games, it's ALL faked in the sense that we have computer pixels, not real actors and actresses. Not only are no real people getting killed, there are no real people having sex either. It seems that in a video games, since it's all fake, the moral dilemna should be removed.

In other news, the FBI is creating a porn squad :rolleyes:

from the WP article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html)

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III. [...] The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."
I feel relieved knowing that the government is watching out for us :D

@Aldeth: Yeah, there is a difference between movies and games. You are right on that. I'm still not sure if sexual content is only as bad as violent content. Perhaps it is, perhaps not. Perhaps it's just I dislike immorality more than I do violence.

If actors are involved, I think nudity is less of an issue than non-nude making out, unless the actors have a relationship. I probably don't have to say that nude pics would still make me go to the court on the same day. ;)

I think nudity is less of an issue than non-nude making out, unless the actors have a relationship. Really? I find this so odd. Nudity of any kind would automatically get you slapped with an "R" rating in the U.S. (R = Restricted meaning no one under 17 permitted entrance without an adult), whereas kissing (providing it isn't accompanied by nudity, cursing, etc.) would not. I've seen many movies where there is kissing (and I'm talking romantic kissing not a peck on the cheek or anything like that) that was rated "PG". (PG = Parental Guidance suggested - but not required).

While this is definitely not an issue for me as my wife is by no means an actress, I would personally have less of a problem of her kissing someone in a movie, than appearing nude in a movie, or a photograph. It would appear you hold the opposite opinion.

Is this just a European thing, or simply a personal opinion? Generally speaking, it appears to me that nudity is not nearly as big of a deal in most of Europe as it is in the U.S., especially in regards to female breasts. On the other hand, you're from Poland, which I would not group together in my "most of Europe" comment, and I would suspect that nudity there is treated much the same way as it is in the U.S.

I guess my main thing is this - while a nude scene does not necessarily involve any personal touching (despite the fact that in film it almost always does), it seems to me that displaying one's naked body is far more personal than romantically kissing someone.

While this is definitely not an issue for me as my wife is by no means an actress, I would personally have less of a problem of her kissing someone in a movie, than appearing nude in a movie, or a photograph. It would appear you hold the opposite opinion.Indeed I do. Of course, a sex scene would be more of a problem, even an implied one. But a generic nudity scene (they only really do that to show off the actresses but it pretends to have an artistic/realistic purpose) wouldn't. It doesn't include contact, while making out does. A casual kissing scene... well, with a relative, I wouldn't mind, with a friend perhaps I wouldn't. But a making out scene would get me to go to the court, really. Not like a nude one wouldn't but still.

It's not like I treat nudity as less of an issue than you do. I just treat making out as more of an issue than you do. Making out is also more personal to me than showing the body. Normal kiss not necessarily, but making out yes. I generally don't understand how people can kiss strangers on the mouth.

But if you're a stranger to the people involved, then yeah, a romantic kiss is less of an issue than nudity.

As much as I love violent computer games (D&D), I must point out one fact with regard to sex and violence on television.

I remember as a young child I asked my father if things were really all in black and white wayyyyy back then.

This shows two things: The first is that I was not a terribly bright child, and the second is that young children see television as a literal mirror image of the real world.