DrBendo

I wholly disagree with just about every position you've taken. Production of media comes with no intrinsic responsibilities. There is no reasonable argument to the contrary.
 
Of course, you're suggesting something more akin to courtesy. However, I see no reason to extend courtesy in the case of Juarez. The Motorstorm delay is reasonable. The unforeseeable coincidence of the disaster in Japan provides good reason for a delay. Aside from sensitivity to a sudden misfortune, the delay is a good business strategy. Surely, they will sell more units with a delayed release.
 
The Juarez situation is entirely different. While the infrastructure in Japan is doing a remarkable job addressing the problems and will recover in the near future, the cartel violence, as well as violence in general, in Juarez is a quagmire unlikely to resolve in the foreseeable future. The authorities have done a piss-poor job for decades; corruption and incompetence at nearly every turn are largely responsible for the situation. Mexican authorities aren't giving any indication that their failures will soon cease. As such, a delay would be unwise. Are the developers to shelve the game for another thirty years in hopes that things will improve?
 
Given that a delay is inappropriate, the question becomes whether the game should be made at all. I don't see a compelling argument for making drug wars off-limits for games. If such games are made (which they inevitably will be), then why should they not take place in an appropriate setting? Clearly, the game would not be as effective were it set in Manitoba. It makes perfect sense for a game about the mafia to take place in New York or Chicago, for a game about killer gorillas to take place in Rwanda, and for a game about drug cartels to take place in Juarez. There's no appropriate setting for a crime story that does not face problems with crime. The people of Juarez face high murder rates, rampant drug smuggling, plenty of sexual assault, politicians that cannot be trusted, a police force that oscillates between impotent and criminal, and an infrastructure that is unreliable at best. A game that makes the area look dangerous is hardly worthy of their concern.
 
As for the tangent regarding breast cancer, you're quite wrong. There is nothing misogynistic in the least about the "Save the Boobies" campaign. In terms of raising awareness, the campaign is a resounding success. Sexualizing the matter not only does nothing to downplay the disease, but it is necessary to appeal to the desired demographic. You read far too much into the campaign, and your suggestion that it "erases" the women or prioritizes breasts over health is absurd. Breast cancer is a major concern for women of a certain age, but young women are not too worried about it. It is considered an older woman's danger. By taking a sexual approach, the point is made that young women should keep an eye on breast health, too. The campaign also appeals to men in a positive way. While a vast majority of men in any age range are anti-breast cancer, there aren't many ways to get young men to take a more active interest. The "If you love 'em, rub 'em" slogan, in particular, is a good idea. Most gynosexuals rather enjoy handling breasts; it's a rather common pursuit of young men. This slogan brings to mind that lumps can be noticed through groping. If men have breast cancer in mind during petting, they'll be much more likely to notice potential problems. Women, especially young women, don't do enough self-examination. Their partners are probably going to be handling their breasts much more than they, so why not make them aware that they can hit two birds with one stone? If one can add a sexual element to important safety, then everyone wins; a fun protective measure will be taken much more often than a dull, clinical one. In the last few years, as these ostensibly tacky campaigns have grown, the portion of early detections discovered by a woman's partner have increased. This isn't necessarily due to the campaigns, and there haven't been enough studies to prove causation, but early indicators are positive. Gynosexuals are already interested in breasts, so it makes perfect sense to get them interested in breast health.
 
The reason that you don't see sexualization of prostate cancer is two-fold. First, as a society, we don't really care about men's health. Women's health is a major industry as well as a common topic, but men's health takes a backseat, even among men. If you ask women what their health concerns are, many of the answers will be gender-specific; if you ask men, they'll be overwhelmingly gender-neutral. The second reason is that a prostate simply isn't sexy. These breast cancer promotions aren't so much sexualizing the issue as they are taking advantage of the existing sexual aspect. That can't be done with a prostate.
 
There are far larger problems to be addressed with breast cancer. There are countless charities for it, and a surprising number of them are utter shit. A huge amount of money donated goes to overhead, and many awareness campaigns raise money just to pay for more awareness campaigns. A lot of the charity walks spend most of what they raise to pay for permits, ribbons, and commercials. Very little money actually goes to research. Charity corruption is more prominent with breast cancer than most causes. The tacky campaigns to "save boobs" should be low-priority for complaint, as they are generally not raising money or being billed as charities; they're simply selling clothing and accessories as a business.