So the subject isn't just about the interpretation of the entertainment, but of reality as well.
I remember a few years back I mentioned the blood in Ocarina of Time, and how since blood seems to make the difference between ratings for other games, I took them not doing it for that one as a sign of inconsistency, (though in hindsight maybe it wasn't, since at the time I didn't even know why the blood made such a difference in the first place) and, IIRC, people got the impression that my complaint was about the blood itself, such as with comments like "in real life getting cut causes you to bleed; why shouldn't the same happen in-game?" Well, in real life people use swear words; should the same happen in-game? In real life, some people are attracted to the same sex; should this be portrayed in-game? It seems all kinds of taboos are forced on entertainment for which it's questionable enough that they're even taboos in real life. Ironically I didn't quite agree with the blood taboo myself; (not sure what to think of it now) so I guess a phrase I used to use a lot, "it was not my own opinion, I thought it was yours" might apply...
In hindsight, even that kind of consistency-centric approach doesn't sound all that appealing either; thinking about some of the taboos the ESRB (and other ratings boards as well) force on entertainment, I have to wonder what good superficial consistency is when it's only within society's own hypocrisy. For example, even if they were to be consistent about what exact effect the numbers of which specific swear words had on a game's ratings, they're still being selective about which words get labeled "swearing"; a label that some would suggest is arbitrary even for real life. People can say a certain game "lies" about the effects of drugs, but it's not like our society was always telling the truth about them either, so obviously there's some selectiveness there as well. You ever notice how there seems to be more controversy (and, in turn, more free advertising) around crime simulators than around war simulators? It's as if even within the violence aspect, there's a certain degree of selectiveness in terms of which violence is reacted to and how; weren't there certain war simulators like America's Army that were used to promote getting people into the army? So how can society be so sure which influences are good or bad?
Of course, it would be questionable to blame the ESRB for this too; I think it's partly that they're responding to the pressures of our society, again, in terms of the interpretation of reality. It's like when people look at the 4kids editing of anime and focus the blame on 4kids itself, even when others complain that they don't edit enough; damned if you do, damned if you don't, you can't please everyone.
So really, I think the real focus should be on how people so insist on forcing specific values on entertainment when people can't even agree on real life.
