release the ninjas

Videogames are not just for kids. The average age of players grows older each year, as people continue to play games into their adulthood. As such, almost none of this makes a lick of legitimate sense:

Washington Times Commentary: Video game nudity trend
"Playboy: The Mansion" could be in stores before the kids crack a book again. You, too, can be a sleazy pornographer like Hugh Hefner, who in this game's vision is about 30 years younger and resembles Superman more than the dirty old man he is. The electronic "playmates" strip for you to photograph. (They're considering putting real Playboy photographs into the software, too.) Who says pornography isn't for children?
The decadent sex-game makers are frantically lobbying the industry's toothless ratings regulator, the Electronic Software Ratings Board, to go easy on handing out the "adults only" rating, which means you can't buy them at Wal-Mart and other more parent-friendly mass retailers.

Yes. Yes, that's right, you ignorant, reactionary dubya-voter. People who sell games want to move product through major retail channels. Go figure. Why are you feigning surprise? There is a broad range of ratings to apply to games, and an "M" (Mature) rating should be sufficient, provided that nothing warrants an "AO" (Adults Only) rating (a near equivalent of the MPAA's "NC-17" rating).

Waffler, decide whether or not the ESRB is "toothless" or not. Either they have the power to keep the games off the shelves of major chains, or they are powerless to affect them. Which is it? Or are you only claiming that they have no power over retail chains to determine what they'll carry, or whether or not they'll enforce the recommended age limits for each title? In that case, aren't you pursuing satisfaction in the wrong avenue? With regard to your statement about Eidos new "Singles: Flirt Up Your Life":

After the ESRB gave this game an "adults only" title, Eidos decided to go around the retailers and sell the sex game starting this summer through Internet downloads for $30, as much as $20 less than new video games at retailers.
How many teenagers with computers will get around Mom and Dad to download that salacious content? How obvious is it Eidos wants to circumnavigate parental consent, and teach the kids to lie and cheat to the smutty payoff?

How obvious is it that you are talking out of your ass? If the ESRB is so powerless, how can you posit that Eidos was forced by both them and the marketplace to go to direct download as a distribution vector? What's more, how many kids have their own credit cards to pay for a downloadable game? Are you suggesting that kids'll steal their parents' cards to do so? If so, there's more problems in that home than some nudity in a videogame.