I suspect the dialog about content in games is simply less mature than the dialog about content in other art forms such as novels or movies or music. Because games (and movies and novels and music) as packaged and marketed are mostly commercial art, I think the general population of non-Insert Credit forum participants doesn’t see a game and perceive it as art at all, but as a product. Some products have content warnings (movie ratings, explicit lyrics warnings on albums) whereas others (novels) generally don’t at all.
I’m not saying this is right or wrong, I’m saying that as a culture, we haven’t gotten to the point where a game has an assumption of value as art that a movie does. I think that is one of the reasons why there is a certain category of parent that wouldn’t let little Jimmy and Sally see an R-rated movie, but still isn’t sophisticated enough to pass on Call of Duty for their 11 year old. The same category of person would often agree that books shouldn’t be banned, but maybe wouldn’t let Jimmy and Sally read the latest sexy New York Times best seller.
We all love to argue and debate games on Insert Credit. The primary reason we’re all here is that we understand that games have inherent value as a creative work (even if its exploitative in some aspect). So I think that we all have a certain level of sophistication as games consumers that others may not. Much like I will never be as sophisticated a consumer of Comics as say Alex is.
If there’s a content bait-and-switch situation, that’s one thing. If games developers and directors are being provocateurs that’s another. Ultimately, not all art is made for you as an individual. That insight takes a certain amount of maturity to realize and we as a culture of games-touchers are probably not there yet.