Alright, this one will be Adults Only. That’s what happens when you have to bring up things like Mortal Kombat in polite company.

Sometimes you’re just stressed. You see a guy, you see a gal, they look good, better than you’ll ever look. And well… your hands are screaming at you. You need to relieve some tension. So you do what comes naturally: you grab some head.

Now, now. You might have read that wrong. By “some”, I mean the singular unknown form. By “head”, I mean the one on top of the torso. So yeah, you grab some head, from some guy.

And you rip it off. You rip it right off their body. And you don’t even rip it clean off; the spine is still attached.

Ladies and gentlemen… today we’re talking about Mortal Kombat.

Now, the debate going on with violent video games has lasted for quite a while. The instant an actor allowed his likeness to rip out the heart of the likeness of another actor, all while being broadcast in the public space of the arcade, that debate was lit. Those ESRB ratings we have today? Those were MADE by Mortal Kombat. Back then, Nintendo ruled everything with their strict censorship codes, and if they said no, no was all you got. It took Sega to break Nintendo’s monopoly; not just with their own console and mascot, but a port of Mortal Kombat that let you use all the gore.

Genesis Does What Nintendon’t, after all.

And to an extent, I see how this subversion can be helpful. The game being in the arcade was a way to lay the discussion bare to the whole of the public. Bypassing Nintendo’s strict censor codes opened the discussion to mature games, and not just the M For Mature.

But what has happened lately? What have recent news stories been about?

-Violence against those supporting fascist governments

-Violence against those protesting fascist governments

-Controversies over TV shows supporting violence against those who they perceive as supporting fascist governments

-People celebrating the destruction of historic property

-The Sentinels of Silicon Valley banning those who reveal the people celebrating the destruction of historic property

And with every Mortal Kombat game becoming subsequently more violent than the last, ever since the 9^th game, to the point where when the tenth game came out, I wasn’t even sure I wanted to buy it… the discussion on violent video games is more important than… well, ever, really.

Of course, MK11 is even more horrific with regards to its violence, but that’s not the reason I’m not sure I want to buy it. And it’s not even because of NetherRealm’s business practices with Injustice 2 and Mortal Kombat X.

In order to get at the heart of the other debate, we need to look elsewhere.

On ESPN’s Street Fighter V tournaments, certain costumes used by the female character are banned for being too sexual in nature. Dead or Alive 6 recently released to massive controversy. And… Mortal Kombat 11 does not allow people to dress female characters with certain outfits, specifically any ones that are revealing too much.

My question is, if we can have this discussion on violence in video games, why can’t we have a discussion on sexuality in video games?

And I mean that literally; why are we not allowed to talk about this? Numerous videos complaining about the issue were taken down manually by Warner Bros. I was watching one such video, and when I needed to refresh the page, it flat-out disappeared. Later it was revealed the claim was filed manually. They went out of their way to censor discussion of the issue. It’s like we’re not allowed to talk about it like adults.

Now, in a discussion on the issue, the head character designer for Mortal Kombat 11 wrote, on the nature of this topic:

“Our design is just getting more mature and respectful. You’re not going to wear a bikini to a fight. You’re not going to be showing so much skin. I think it’s just what the game is about: You’re going in to fight for your life, and you’re not going to be wearing such scantily clad items.”

Let’s seriously examine that.

Certain fighters are naturally going to prefer some outfits over others. Outfits that suit a character can give an indication as to who that character is. As iconic as Guile’s look from the 90’s is, I prefer his modern military fatigues and combat gear over his older look. And it makes sense for the character; when fighting the forces of Shadaloo, Guile needs to be well-protected against any weapons, while bringing some of his own. And I think Chief Thunder’s new outfit in Killer Instinct, specifically the one which was supervised by an actual Native American tribe, is very well-designed, and is quite thematically appropriate, while still making him look like a powerful fighter. Those are good design elements, that’s how it should be.

At the same time, however, a low amount of clothing does not necessarily mean the character is not suitable for combat, specifically, certain kinds of combat. Zangief, for instance, is a wrestler. He only wears a speedo, some boots, and a pair of gauntlets. And that makes sense; he’s showing off, showing how powerful he is. He’s supposed to be eye candy for the audience; he makes the males aspire to his muscles, he makes the ladies admire his muscles. Those are all thematic decisions in his character design that represent his personality, and his persona in the ring.

And Urien usually prefers to fight in little more than a thong. But that’s more a demonstration of his power; his bare skin is being attacked by fire, sharp claws, and weaponry. Yet he shrugs all of it off like he was wearing armor. That’s an effective demonstration of his combat ability. And it’s not like he wears that thong all the time; he usually prefers to wear professional business suits when he’s on the job. He burns them off before a serious fight only to regenerate them when the fight is over. That shows his professionalism, that he doesn’t want his fancy suit to get scratched.

Both of these characters have low amounts of clothing in their primary outfits, and both of them say something about their characters. They say how confident they are, how powerful they are; they fit well with their personas.

But there’s two other important things about these characters.

The mentioned costumes are allowed to be played on ESPN.

And both of those characters are male.

Why is it that the female characters are the only ones given such scrutiny? Indeed, even MK11’s males bare most if not all, while the females do not.

Now, often times a counter-argument is that the characters are being forced to wear the outfits in question by their masters, whether it be their in-universe ones or their developers. I don’t want to bring up the same old Slave Leia argument I’ve made before, so I won’t.

Instead, I will say… do you think a cheerful and energetic girl like Rainbow Mika would dislike having to wear the outfit? What’s to say she didn’t make the choice on her own? Heck, she probably did; she’d be wearing that ring outfit to show off to the audience, to make the women aspire to her body, and the men admire hers. That’s not someone who’d hate a skimpy outfit!

And I’m sure people will use the argument that the character designers, even if female, (and MK11’s isn’t) were essentially forced to design the outfits in such a sexual way. But the designer of Zero Suit Samus’ alt outfits voiced no such complaints. And that’s not a polite Japanese thing, especially in this era; that is a conscious choice, that’s consent.

But let’s say the tournament rules ban female outfits. Let’s say the character is enslaved into wearing that outfit. Let’s say the female designer hates everything she does so much, but can’t say no. Let’s assume all that is the case, and it’s a case you can indeed make.

In this case…

Why are you not letting us the audience make the choice on whether we want to wear it?

Did you really need to take away certain character’s classic costumes? Did you really need to lobby the companies in charge to delete all criticism, manually no less? Did you really need to lobby Sony to internally regulate these decisions, to the point where your entire region determines what you can and can’t see?

And don’t think this is a strict left vs. right, feminist vs. MRA debate, either. Liana Kerzner, a feminist and one who holds views that could be considered left-wing, criticized the decisions made by MK11, saying that keeping the women covered up reinforces 1950’s gender roles, something the older games did not. She even called the decision “benevolent sexism”. And considering this is a female journalist criticizing a male character designer’s choices… I’m inclined to think she’s got good points.

When Mortal Kombat was released, it broke the standards of the strict censorship board Nintendo held on the world of gaming. Now, Mortal Kombat 11 is heavily advertised by Sony, creators of a console that enforces a strict censorship board. In a sense, Mortal Kombat changed from rebelling against the system… to becoming the system.

A little while ago, I mentioned I was considering my purchase of MKX, but inevitably came to the decision of “yes”. The violence eventually stopped affecting me after I saw it enough times. I began to see it as… normal.

Is this what we want people to think is normal? How far can you push the limits on what’s acceptable in games before it becomes acceptable in real life? Warner Bros. performed a Fatality on dissenters, who’s to say they don’t want to encourage violence as the answer to any question they find “icky?”

After all, this is a franchise where the best way to humiliate a defeated opponent… is a display of Friendship.