Recall the fictitious game I introduced in Chapter 7 – Crazy for Suburbia – in which white, heterosexual married couples are forced by an intruder (the gamer's character) to perform sexual acts on each other and are then killed. This example could not be said to have incorrigible social meaning for reasons discussed in that chapter, and if it is judged to be worthy of moral prohibition because of its significant social expression (see Ch. 6), then we are left to ponder why the fictitious game S.H. (involving random murders) escapes this, or certainly would escape this if currently available games with similar content are anything to go by. A question yet to be considered is why anyone would want to play a game like Crazy for Suburbia.

Earlier (in Ch. 6) I noted how Nys (2010) argues that part of the fun of violent games stems from the knowledge that what one is doing is wrong (i.e. such games enable us to enact what would otherwise be prohibited). I assume that the “violating-taboos-equals-fun” factor is therefore part of the motivation for playing these games. In addition, I noted how Jansz (2005) argues that violent games provide an arena for psychological exploration; a place where one can engage in STAs free from the moral condemnation (and perhaps even legal constraint) typically associated with POTAs.