twitter facebook stumble upon rss

Baby Starves While Parents Raise Virtual Child

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This

A Korean couple was so addicted to raising their "virtual child" in a Second Life-style game, they reportedly let their real baby starve to death.

woman playing with computer

Huffington Post reports that Kim Yoo-chul, 41, and Choi Mi-sun, 25, spent up to 12 hours a day at Internet cafes, leaving their 3-month-old baby home alone. Police say the couple "seemed to have lost their will to live a normal life because they didn't have jobs and gave birth to a premature baby." They raised their 'avatar baby' through their profiles on the Second Life-style game called PRIUS -- while their real daughter was given just one bottle of milk a day. The couple reportedly named their virtual child -- yet never named their real baby, who died of prolonged malnutrition. Online games such as PRIUS are widely popular in Korea.

CNN reports that Professor Kwak Dae-kyung of Seoul's Dongguk University says the couple "appeared to have lost track of reality. Online-game addiction can blur the line between reality and the virtual world. It seems that taking care of their online-game character erased any sense of guilt they may have had for neglecting their [actual] daughter."

In related news, a 28-year-old man recently died after playing his favorite game for 50 hours nonstop without eating or drinking.


next: Lawyers: Animals Should Be Able to Sue
32 comments so far | Post a comment now
James LeVox March 5, 2010, 5:11 PM

They are a straight couple. It’s typical and to be expected. The have the RIGHT to do crap like that but gay people are seen to be “harmful” to children. I’d say statistics would be incorrect.

Anonymous March 5, 2010, 10:07 PM

It’s typical for a straight couple to starve their children? Moron.

Anonymous March 6, 2010, 7:02 AM

No, your the moron. She was being sarcastic.

James LeVox March 6, 2010, 7:26 AM

I am neither a moron, being sarcastic, OR a “she”. I find it amusing that gays who offer a nurturing and loving home to abandoned children are refused adoption based on sexual orientation while straights are allowed to bring children into the world and then treat them in this manner. It’s disgusting. And no… Straight couples don’t starve their children, they beat them, neglect them, and often teach them the same pattern of cruelty. Who’s the moron now?

Non March 6, 2010, 8:21 AM

Hey, “not-moron” James LeVox: You can’t use “neither” when you’re listing more than two things (like being a moron, sarcastic or a woman), and IF you are using neither, it would be “nor”, not “or”. And that’s just me being a grammar Nazi. More importantly, I DO think you’re a moron, or at least ignorant if you honestly believe such a gross over-generalization like “Straight couples…beat [their children], neglect them and often teach them the same pattern of cruelty.” What on earth does being straight have to do with that???

Matt March 6, 2010, 2:35 PM

You’re all morons. There’s no research to support either side. It’s sad that this even happened at all.

James LeVox March 6, 2010, 4:10 PM

Non… You might want to go back and repeat English class. It is proper to use neither when referring to ANY number of objects having different qualities. Obviously, you were occupied with picking your nose and eating it when it came up. Step up to me when you are properly prepared and not until then. Ummkay? I am most certain that you do not hold a candle to me.

James LeVox March 6, 2010, 4:14 PM

Non… I could easily “nazi red ink” YOUR post by indicating that you had forgotten the “,” after “ignorant”. So… Take your little neglected grammar book and stick it!

James LeVox March 6, 2010, 4:18 PM

Non… AND after “gross”. Should I continue to proof read your garbage? I barely made it past the first TWO sentences. If you would like, I’ll gladly send you a box of condoms so you don’t breed and pass on your stupidity.

Non March 6, 2010, 7:01 PM

Oh, James. I suppose I could see where one might have used quotes for my use of the word ignorant if one disagreed with my opinion, but gross needs no such quotes. There happens to be more than one meaning for that particular word and I can tell you I didn’t mean, “repulsive.” Make sure you’re taking offense to the correct things and not imagined ones.

James LeVox March 6, 2010, 8:12 PM

Non… You failed! Had nothing to do with the “meaning” of the word. You might read up on “sentence structure”. You seem to be grasping when covering up your ignorance, little lezbo. If you have a personal grudge with me, I suggest you beat up on your girlfriend as usual. You’re no match for me and I assure you, that I have little interest in you as a person either. You are free to rant all you like. We all know your truth. Good luck with that!

James LeVox March 6, 2010, 9:05 PM

Non… And feel free to continue ranting. It will be ignored like a crying child. I am not one of those gays that care to adopt one of your unwanted. I see them as nothing more than “discharge” and I have NO use for either cow “OR” milk. Crawl back under your rock.

Nicole March 6, 2010, 9:29 PM

Okay, why are the two of you arguing over grammar when it has nothing to do with the story? I understand what James is saying about how many of these stories that we read about depicts straight people who do very bad things to their children. However, gay people have the toughest time adopting a child when they really do want to raise that child in a loving home. However, I also agree that it is a bit biased to say that in a way that seems to assume all straight couples do this to their children. I feel that all people have the same right to raise children and all people can be entitled to lose that right when they abuse it by abusing or neglecting their children. Internet and gaming addiction is a serious problem, however it is not the game’s fault; it is the parents’. Anyway, let’s please get back on subject. This is a terrible tragedy…let’s not dishonor the child by bickering like school yard children.

James LeVox March 6, 2010, 9:44 PM

mercaties March 7, 2010, 4:09 PM

My question would be why is a gay man on a website called MOMLOGIC?

James LeVox March 7, 2010, 9:43 PM

My question would be… Why is it any of YOUR business WHO is on here? You are here to LEAVE A COMMENT. Not CRITIQUE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON HERE. Get off me before I hurt your feelings.

chrissie March 8, 2010, 5:14 AM

Sorry James, but I agree with Mercaties.
First off, you’re not woman and you certainly are not a mom so go away and find a site that is better for you. This site is called “MomLogic” for a reason…it’s for moms!

Anonymous March 8, 2010, 7:41 AM

What is wrong with you people! You are pathetic my 8 year old is more mature than you. Growup!

Anonymous March 8, 2010, 7:44 AM

Oops! I meant grow up! I better correct that before I get attacked as well.

just saying March 8, 2010, 8:15 AM

Instead of focusing on the story, folks are focusing on grammar. Unreal! I suppose maturity knows no sexual orientation.

James, I do get your point. I’m all for a loving, stable home for a child regardless of the sexual orientation of the parent(s).

As for James being on momlogic as a man, WHO CARES! The website if open to all. People need to get a grip!


Leave a reply:



(not displayed)

     




Avoid clicking "Post" more than once
Back to top >>
advertisement