Cpetruz1’s Weblog

Cindy Poremba focuses in on one key issue in her article: the reality of games, particularly the “forbidden” games within society. One of her most dominant frames of analysis is the frequently used excuse that some particular behavior is “just a game”. Poremba claims that we use this excuse in an attempt to rationalize behaviors we may partake in that go against the social norm-behavior that is “forbidden” within the context of reality. For example, she cites games with implicit sexual undertones, including Twister and Spin-the-bottle. With Twister, we know the actual rules of play to partake in the game: spin the dial, a certain body part lands on a certain color, and you move that body part to said color. However, these explicit rules of the game are not the only ones. While “playing”, we are able to temporarily suspend the rules of personal intimacy found in society-this is an implicit rule of the game. People in a real social setting don’t get down on their hands and knees, straddling an almost-complete stranger. However, within the context of the game, this is not only accepted, but even expected. The same holds true with a game of spin-the-bottle. Generally, promiscuity is frowned upon in society. We approve of relationships and commitment to a particular individual. However, the actual explicit rules of the game call for and individual to spin a bottle, and kiss whoever the bottle points toward. There are implicit implications to this as well: it can be viewed as a game of seduction, suspending our boundaries as far as promiscuity is concerned. Poremba also cites the arguments of Salen and Zimmerman, as well as Bogost, discussing her own theory on the “magic circle” of virtual reality. According to Poremba, this line around the “magic circle” is often blurred. We will take place in “forbidden play” within the “magic circle”, which encourages typically taboo behavior. Yet, the rules of real society tend to collide with those of “forbidden play”,  ”challenging the integrity of the boundary between two worlds”. Meanwhile, Poremba also addresses Bogost’s argument that games both draw from and rupture the rules of the actual world. He suggests that there is a gap in this boundary between worlds, allowing ideas and concepts to flow freely between the two. What Poremba implies is that, if this is the case, then there really isn’t a “magic circle”, but rather a very thin line that is constantly on the brink of being crossed. This makes me wonder: do we put ourselves in the magic circle as just an excuse to take part in behavior that we so desperately want to in reality? Or do we actually believe that what we’re doing is “just a game”, and we only are doing it for fun?