Exactly this. It's easy to differentiate between real violence and fake. Even virtual nudity is pornographic, and pornography is a very slippery slope that's very damaging to the soul.
I'm still not really understanding the basic premise that pornography (actually I think we started off on partial nudity, but I'll run with it) is somehow inherently harmful to the point where depictions thereof are undesirable but the same is apparently not true of violence. "It's easy to differentiate" one but not the other: why? I'm seriously not understanding this.
I'll repeat, just for clarity, that I don't believe that a depiction of either is a slippery slope: which is important because there are people who believe both to be the case, as well as other aspects in video-games. Another topic is already talking about the apparent evils of ouija boards, and it's fairly well-publicised that even the Harry Potter series of novels were criticised in some quarters for supposedly promoting witchcraft. I think the slippery slope is that if one thing offends someone and should be removed, then many other things offending other people have the same merit and we wouldn't be left with much.
Men are very, very visually sensitive when it comes to sex, so even drawings can be very arousing to men. Whereas, when we look at violence in a video game we don't generally go out and start punching people...
