More Smutty Than You: TSR's Hall of Shame

[Darqstar]

I still stand on my previous opinion. I ran around without a top all the time when I was a 6. It wasn't scandalous or sexual. Darqstar, I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying.

Did you when you were ten?  How about eleven? Twelve? That's the age that children cover. If they were for toddlers, I wouldn't blink an eye, but children covers a whole lot of ages.  And I'm saying the difference is when and where.  If you're playing in your back yard or iin the house, or even on a beach, where such things are acceptable, fine.  But to me, preview pictures are the equivalent of Sims "advertising."  I don't think bare chested girls is wholesome innocent advertising.  Especially when the shots look posed, which those do.

These aren't real little  girls

And yet, we've smirked about adult Sims wearing provocative clothing, or clothing that showed way too much of them.  So the "It's not a real little girl" argument is useless.  If it doesn't count because they're Sims, than this entire thread is wrong. 

 

and the preview picture is meant to show what you get in game. If they had tanks in the preview picture and didn't in game, it wouldn't make sense. It's not like these are ads for real underwear, which can or can't be worn with a shirt. If the sims undies come without a shirt, show em without a shirt. I do agree that they probably could have been handled more tastefully, such as not seeing the torso at all, with just a close up of the panties.

I disagree.  They didn't show pictures of the girls wearing the panties in game play situations, they were posed pictures.  If they were really trying to show us what they looked like in the game, they should have had in game shots, of the girls doing different things, so we could see how those panties look in action. 

Do I think it's the smuttiest thing on this thread?  No. And again, I don't think the panties themselves are disgraceful in any way, although seeing that I have a friend with an authentic Hello Kitty vibrator, I don't always associate Hello Kitty with all that is holy, pure, and innocent.  Actually, Hello Kitty has been licensed out to make some pretty pervy Japanese stuff. 

However, the whole "ad" itself disturbs me. Mostly because of two poses in it, the hands on the hips and the one where the kid has one arm behind her, grasping the other.  All the rest are fine, they just look like a kid in her underwear, and your eyes are drawn to the cute panties.  But the two I mentioned above, especially the second one, draws attention to the child.   It's a cute pose for a little girl in a top and bottoms, but when it's on a topless little girl, it starts to look a bit too Lolita for my tastes. 

I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I'm saying how I, personally feel.  While it's far from the most smutty thing TSR has produced, it doesn't exactly strike me as completely pure and innocent either. 

[Nietzsche]

I think the disconnect with the underpants thing is because kids in Sims 2 are supposed to be about age 4 to 11.

Kids in Sims 2 are 6. Simple. Just like the teens are 12s. In fact, Sims 2 follows the Rule of 6. We have 0s (baby/toddler - note lack of actual age transition stamp), 6s, 12s, and then 18s, which were later moved to being 24s after Uni. After that, not much of note occurs, much like in real life, until you get to Elders at, surprise surprise, 54. In short, Sims 2 upholds the Rule of 6.

The toddlers seem a lot bigger than kids who are 0...and I think the teenagers are 12+4...

[paperbeth]

This reminds me of Sally Mann, the Apalachian photographer. She caused a lot of controversy back in the early 90's with her show "Immediate Family". It was a series of beautiful black and white photos of her three young children. The children appear nude in many of the photos, which caused the controversy, especially here in TN. People were trying to make them out to be pornographic. I think anyone who thinks they are pornographic has some serious issues. It's only porn if it turns you on. Mann's photos are capturing natural everyday moments in her childrens lives. They are so beautiful and her kids are natural born models.
I think small children should have the freedom to be nude without being seen as a sexual object. Unfortunately, there are a lot of pervs out there who ruin this concept.
I was raised in a similar setting, and we kids ran around naked all the time in the summer. It was more practical for our parents. When we got dirty from playing in the creek or the barn or something like that, our parents would just hose us off in the front yard. No one ever molested us or made us uncomfortable about it. It was just natural.
See her photos here: http://www.sallymann.org/

[neriana]

I'm sure her kids will be absolutely thrilled to be known as "those naked kids" when they grow up. I don't like it when artists or writers profit directly off their children like that; it's worse that they're naked, because that will make it even more embarrassing for them as they're older, but it would be almost as bad if they were posed as cutesy flowers or something.

[paperbeth]

I'm sure her kids will be absolutely thrilled to be known as "those naked kids" when they grow up. I don't like it when artists or writers profit directly off their children like that; it's worse that they're naked, because that will make it even more embarrassing for them as they're older, but it would be almost as bad if they were posed as cutesy flowers or something.

Her kids are grown now. I saw them on a PBS documentary. They love the photos and consider them a great gift from their mother. They seemed pretty well adjusted. All three were going to college and doing well.

I met Sally Mann when her show came to my school campus. She's one of those 'old school' hippie artists.
Also she does a lot more than just photos of her kids. That was just one series of photos that she released after she had already established herself as talented photographer.

Even still, I have to agree that the initial post that started this conversation does seem a bit creepy to me. For some reason, I don't associate 'Hello Kitty' with pure wholesomeness. I've seen some pretty racy stuff produced by that franchise. And the sim kids in that pic do seem to be posed in a weird way. I never even see my sims' kids in their undies, so I don't see the need for this item. I guess that's why it creeps me out. The thought that some perv out there might be acting out some pervy fantasy with little sim kids. ew!

I would expect different cultures to view this in different ways.

[Pescado]

The toddlers seem a lot bigger than kids who are 0...and I think the teenagers are 12+4...

Nope, the toddlers are still 0. Notice the lack of an age transition note. They are thus still 0. And the teens are obviously 12, because the kids are 6.

[Scurvy Cat]

I stopped associating Hello Kitty with wholesomeness when the Spousal Unit pointed this out to me:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Hello_Kitty_Vibrator

[Yaardarm Monkey II]

I stopped associating Hello Kitty with wholesomeness when the Spousal Unit pointed this out to me:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Hello_Kitty_Vibrator

-sprays coffee on screen-

WTF??!!   Now I have seen everything; what's next...Scooby Doo Anal beads?   

[Eskimo Pie]

 Ummmm I think I will leave hello Kitty out of me bedroom thanks

 And I know that if I do not like something I do not have to downloaded it.  I know they are "fake" people.. but even in my fake world I do not want to see anything representing a child running around half naked. The creator does not have to cater to everyone.. the point I was trying to make is that they probably did not realize that some people would be put off by the topless girls.

 I guess in my game I try to keep some kind of realism too. I a Mom of girls. They would never run around in just their undies without a top pass the age of 5 or 6. Girls even at that young age start noticing their bodies and can feel self conscience. They are fine being nude around me and each other, but not in front of their brothers or father. And my family is pretty free spirited too. Just in my own experience with gilrs...they themselves do not want to be seen half naked after a certain age.





 

[kenmtl]

paperbeth I happen to like those photos very much. They remind me a bit of Shelby Lee Adams. here. He's also gotten some flack from the locals for being exploitative. Meh, you shoot subject matter that interests you. I think you have to look at it on a case by case basis. Using those close to you is quite common with artists of all media.

I get what what neriana's saying though, it's touchy when you're using your family as subjects. There's the potential for children to grow up and be embarrassed and to feel that their privacy has been violated or that they've been exploited. It depends a lot on the dynamics of the relationships and it's the artists responsibility to do their best to be make sure that doesn't happen. I'm glad those kids appreciate having had their life chronicled. That speaks a lot to the strength of their relationship with their mother.

I think to say "profiting from" is a bit grandiose and misleading. It implies a concious exploitation and I don't think that's generally the case. I'm sure it happens but I'm also fairly certain that it's the exception and not the rule. For me exploitation would be more all those celebs who call the paparazzi to let them know where they're going to be with their children on a daily basis. Like any of those people really need more publicity.

Personally I would hate to be a member of that Wainwright clan. You can't do anything in that family and someone is going to write a song about you. However they don't seem to mind having every detail of their personal lives splashed all over the airwaves so more power to them.

[Souvenirs]

I don't understand why it's okay for sim boys to be shirtless and not girls when the bodies are exactly the same.  Yeah, they represent a large age range, but they're completely flat-chested; now we have to cover up boobs that aren't there?  I've never quite understood why I have to cover up when men with more boobage than I have are allowed to run around topless in real life either, so maybe I'm just too literal about this stuff.  I know female boobs are considered sex objects, but, in this case, there aren't any, and there are plenty of pedophiles attracted to boys too.

But I do think that taking pictures of real life naked kids and sharing them beyond a family album is inappropriate.  I would have been really upset if strangers had access to naked pictures of me, even if I was young when they were taken.  Heck, I'm happy that I wasn't a young kid during the internet age, because I'd have hated for my mother to plaster pictures of me all over the internet too.  I'm sure she thought they were adorable, but I was a funny-looking kid, and I still cringe looking at those pictures.

[Eskimo Pie]

 I never put pictures of my kids up anywheres on the net. I actually know someone who had her pictures stolen and used against her wishes. She had a hard fight because she freely put them on the net, in a public form,  with no copyright protection.

Besides I think my kids  will appreciate it... not having their whole life out there in cyber space for everyone to see.

[ChaosInAMinor]

I'm lucky all the picture taking part of my childhood happened before the internet was in every household. All my embarrassing pictures are in the family photo albums and boxes, where my mom can bust em out when I bring a boy home. That's where they belong.

[Tyrza]

I have to say it always really disturbs me when someone sees what is clearly a young child (and Sims 2 kids are clearly more like 6 than 11) and the first thing they think of is pedophilia.
I never wore undershirts as a kid, and don't know anyone who did.  It was always just panties, and then bras and panties when bras became necessary.  My seven year old is a little nudie-butt, as we call her, and while she grudgingly concedes to the "butt must be covered outside of the bedroom" rule, she's just comfortable and happy dressed in as little as possible - and she's completely innocent.  There's nothing sexual about a little kid in underpants, unless some adult with a wonky thought process puts it there.  Admittedly I guard that innocence fiercely because she is too small/too inexperienced at life/too much a little kid to do so, and I carefully control the adults allowed around her, and she's not allowed to be nudie-butt around non-family.  But that's not because of her, or because of the adults around her, it's because there do exist people who think innocent, unashamed children that are not covered from head to toe do it to titillate adults or something.
The Hello Kitty underpants are not in the least perverted, they're normal.  I've made all sorts of topless undies for the Sim girls, including MLP ones, because the undershirts look so uncomfy for me.  I'd have hated them, my daughter would fight them kicking and screaming, and I don't feel inclined to subject even pretend people to them just because someone else thinks naked=sexual.

[SoggyFox]

I agree - As a little kid, the word pedophilia wasn't even one you'd hear.  Yes, you'd be warned not to talk to strangers, but its was never just thrown around like it is now.  And honestly, I think that is not a healthy thing.

And I never wore undershirts either.  They just weren't considered 'necessary'