Rape fantasy video game controversy

[Mogura]

Shit like this should have never made the light of day. But you'd be surprised how common it is in Japan...

The game begins with a teenage girl on a subway platform. She notices you are looking at her and asks, "Can I help you with something?"

That is when you, the player, can choose your method of assault.

With the click of your mouse, you can grope her and lift her skirt. Then you can follow her aboard the train, assaulting her sister and her mother.

As you continue to play, "friends" join in and in a series of graphic, interactive scenes, you can corner the women, rape them again and again.

The game allows you to even impregnate a girl and urge her to have an abortion...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[dungeonguy88]

Mmmm, it is a bit much...Kind of the video game equivalent of a snuff film...I suppose I don't care, as long as no one is hurt as a result.

[Yhor]

I'm totally against censorship, normally, but I think this goes way past the line.

[Mogura]

Mmmm, it is a bit much...Kind of the video game equivalent of a snuff film...I suppose I don't care, as long as no one is hurt as a result.Women being sexually assaulted on crowded trains in Japan is a daily occurrence. Of course, you cannot blame one video game for such outrageous behavior, but still it doesn't help...

[Amphorian]

Actually I've heard of those games many years ago. (Visits anime/manga websites and forums) It appears common place among certain groups, especially in countries like Japan and Korea.

Mind you though, America sells violent games, such as the Kenndy assassianation and other historical violent events, where you're the bad guy not the good one.

I'm not shocked to say in the least, but I surely don't approve. It teaches no good, making twisted mindsets and personalities a dominant character to play in video or PC games.

[dungeonguy88]

Precisely why I placed such a caveat on my statement; should it, or anything else, inspire such behavior then I believe those that produced it take responsibility. I do consider rape, to be perhaps the ugliest of crimes that we could commit against one another, and I do have a strong respect for women, and would rise to ones defense if needed. I suppose, more than anything I agree with you Mogura, on all counts; much of our media seems to run the risk of inspiring such behavior, though I am too strongly against censorship...It's an issue that I can't find a solution, easily, that serves all of my beliefs well. I suppose, all I can say, is that I would hope people would prove to be of better character as time wears on.

[Warrior]

I'm not sure which is worse - the game or my lack of surprise that someone would create something like that.

[Malkavia]

I'm not sure which is worse - the game or my lack of surprise that someone would create something like that.

The lack of surprise. It help creates apathy to this sort of stuff.

[dungeonguy88]

The lack of surprise. It help creates apathy to this sort of stuff.

Interestingly, I posted a thought that ran along a similar vein to this, in regard to politics.

[Goat]

People actually play games like this?! Yuck. That article made my skin crawl.

I think I'll stick to saving the princess.

[dungeonguy88]

Some people though do have an appreciation for this particular....creative work, and are responsible and sensible enough to separate it's subject material from real life.

[blueback]

I've always wondered when we'd settle the debate over this. Does the ability to engage in an accurate simulation of a crime decrease the number of and or severity of actual crimes, or does it increase them? I'm inclined to think it decreases them, but I don't have any hard data. Basically, even if it has no effect on crime, it seems like it would still be a net positive. For someone to engage in a simulation requires stimulating the economy; someone has to invent them, and program the, and support them, etc. It's a bit creepy thinking about someone feeding their kids with the money they earned by animating a rape, but I suppose the point is that his kids got fed.

[Mogura]

Is it conceivable that someone in that line of work would have a girlfriend, let alone kids?

A: So, Hiroshi, what do you do for a living?
B: I do coding for rape simulation software. It's a pretty challenging job. This week I worked out a subroutine to tweak the semen trajectories to make the face paint finale seem more realistic--just like the real thing! Do you want to see? Yuko...? Where did you go?

[Lonpone]

Adults have and indulge in rape fantasies. Video games are a story telling vehicle, just like novels, only American society tends to associate games with children and stoners, which somehow makes it more offensive than watching a hard-core porno that depicts the same. CNN obviously has nothing better to report on, especially since this game isn't even the slightest bit new and they want to stir the pot.

[Seriously]

It just makes me sad. I really don't know what else to say.

[Valiyn]

Censorship is a bad thing, I don't care what kind of heinous rape 'speech' is being said or expressed.

A few things to point out. 1)The game was released in 2006, not recently. It was never released outside japan and because of the EOCS (similar to our ESRB) it has not been available for purchase for long. 2) It, like other adult games, are not being sold to anyone but adults. The US has our share of sex games too and how often do you run into them out of the blue? exactly. 3) Illusion Soft specializes in sex games, it's what the company is known for. This is hardly their first so stop acting surprised. We have rape-centered novels, videos, flash games, etc. Porn will always be applied to any sort of communication medium there is. The internet is a good example of this. EDIT: 4) The game apparently was popular enough for an non-interactive expansion.

So long as there is communication and free speech, there will be porn and all the subfetishes that go along with it that you don't like. Censorship is never the answer.

[stasis]

Dear morality police,
Rape fantasies are reportedly (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) not uncommon. This is a videogame. There's no victim here.

[Seriously]

For the record I'm not for censorship of this type of thing. I prefer to have it out in the open where I can see the type of people I'm dealing with rather than it being hidden. Same with hate speech. Better to know exactly who the dumbass is rather than wasting time guessing. And while I understand "fantasy" I don't get the need to act on it in this way. It just seems...dunno like I said..sad.

I suppose after having spend 4 hours this Saturday in a class designed help women protect themselves from being raped I'm a bit sensitive when it comes to this subject. So I'll remove myself from the discussion. ;)

[runoverazebra]

Mmmm, it is a bit much...Kind of the video game equivalent of a snuff film...I suppose I don't care, as long as no one is hurt as a result.

It happens commonly enough that many subways/trains in Japan have cars for women only, especially during rush hour. When I was in Japan, I was traveling on a train that didn't have a women only section, and a couple of men thought it was acceptable to grab my ass.

Things like this video game make me sad for the world.

[Samoan Corleone]

It's simply porn through another medium; it's a simulation. Maybe getting off on this type of thing means you're depraved, maybe it's normal, but there's no real victim here, as stasis pointed out.

[stasis]

And while I understand "fantasy" I don't get the need to act on it in this way.
Is watching Star Wars really so mystifying? What about reading a crime novel?

This is no different than the Mortal Kombat controversy from the mid 90s. Oh my god, blood in a videogame, turning the kids into murderers. The slope is so slippery, everybody's gonna die.

[Seriously]

I don't read crime novels. IMO it just gives people who already have sick minds ideas on how to act on them. And I'm not into gore personally.

Not sure how you equate Star Wars with rape fantasy. Care to expound?

lol so much for me staying out of the discussion. :p

[Anhedonic Lake]

Fact one: Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world,including rape.
Fact two: People in the West have been "raping prostitutes,killing them and taking back their cash in the Western GTA games for nearly a decade now.
Fact three: I and many others here have "killed and mutilated" many people in regular video games. If we're comparing rape and murder I regard rape as the lesser of two evils.

[stasis]

IMO it just gives people who already have sick minds ideas on how to act on them.
Knowledge is not evil. The problem is not ideas.


Not sure how you equate Star Wars with rape fantasy. Care to expound?
It's fantasy. There's lots of violence. Watching Star Wars is the same kind of "acting" on a fantasy as is playing a porn game like this one, which is to say, not at all.

[Seriously]

Knowledge is not evil. The problem is not ideas.

I'll have to disagree. Knowledge in the wrong hands can lead to evil. IMO.

It's fantasy. There's lots of violence. Watching Star Wars is the same kind of "acting" on a fantasy as is playing a porn game like this one, which is to say, not at all.

I see a difference. What are the odds someone is going to have the opportunity to join the Alliance and fight the forces of good and evil vs assaulting a women you see in a dark alley one night?

[SelfMadeBum]

A large percentage of video games are about murdering people, i.e fragging. They simulate various ways of ending a person's life. People are also killed every day.

I don't see how this is any worse.

[Seriously]

A large percentage of video games are about murdering people, i.e fragging. They simulate various ways of ending a person's life. People are also killed every day.

I don't see how this is any worse.

I'm wondering after reading a few comments why this strikes me as worse. I'm thinking it's because it's a gender thing maybe? When they murder people it tends to be indiscriminate but this is violence from men toward women specifically.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I'll have to disagree. Knowledge in the wrong hands can lead to evil. IMO.

The only alternative is censorship. But these disturbed people will always find a justification/inspiration to commit their bad deeds;whether it's Taxi Driver or the Bible-and first half of the Bible contains more rape and violence then you'll find in any video game.

[stasis]

I'll have to disagree. Knowledge in the wrong hands can lead to evil. IMO.
Ignorance is far more dangerous than knowledge can ever be. In all cases, the "wrong hands" are wrong because of psychology or politics or culture; this is motive, not knowledge. Experience and real world conditioning, not ideas in themselves. Attacking knowledge not only fails to address the problem, presuming there is a problem, but it erodes an understanding of what the problem might be in the first place. There are very few exceptions, none of which are mundane like this one.


I see a difference. What are the odds someone is going to have the opportunity to join the Alliance and fight the forces of good and evil vs assaulting a women you see in a dark alley one night?
What are the odds they're going to beat one of their friends to death with a wooden "light saber"? What are the odds they're going to blow something up, like the Death Star? The point is twofold: a) engaging in fantasy is not actualizing that fantasy, b) common fantasies obviously do not commonly escalate. The problem is not the thought, not the videogame, not the band, not the tshirt.

[Seriously]

Ignorance is far more dangerous than knowledge can ever be. In all cases, the "wrong hands" are wrong because of psychology or politics or culture; this is motive, not knowledge. Experience and real world conditioning, not ideas in themselves. Attacking knowledge not only fails to address the problem, presuming there is a problem, but it erodes an understanding of what the problem might be in the first place. There are very few exceptions, none of which are mundane like this one.



What are they odds they're going to beat one of their friends to death with a wooden "light saber"? What are the odds they're going to blow something up, like the Death Star? The point is twofold: a) engaging in fantasy is not actualizing that fantasy, b) common fantasies obviously do not commonly escalate. The problem is not the thought, not the videogame, not the band, not the tshirt.

Oh I agree that ignorance is much worse than knowledge. I thought I was clear about that in previous posts but that doesn't change the fact that knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands. I personally don't see the need to write or read a novel about how to dismember a body and I think it's possible it might give some people the push to act on a thought they might not have....but if someone feels the need to read or write about it it's not my job to stop them. Don't get it personally, think it's kind of irresponsible and stupid but that's just me. Fortunately free speech also gives me the right so say that. :p

hhhmmm kind of like guns don't kill people, people kill people? Of course some might say guns tend to facilitate matters....as do video games perhaps?

[stasis]

I think it's possible it might give some people the push to act on a thought they might not have...
By "some" you mean "a fucked up ultra-minority of people who were already fucked up beforehand and whose prior fucking up is the problem, not the media in question", right?


hhhmmm kind of like guns don't keep people, people kill people? Of course some might say guns tend to facilitate matters....as do video games perhaps?
Guns are designed to destroy, which makes it relatively easy to destroy things with them. To contrast, books generally aren't. A videogame is not a rape kit.

[Seriously]

By "some" you mean "a fucked up ultra-minority of people who were already fucked up beforehand and whose prior fucking up is the problem, not the media in question", right?

I agree with this except for maybe the ultra-minority part. But I'm willing to blame the fact that there seems to be more on global media.

Guns are designed to destroy, which makes it relatively easy to destroy things with them. To contrast, books generally aren't. A videogame is not a rape kit.

Well my key word there was meant to be facilitate. I get there is a difference between guns and video games. :p But does playing a video game where you rape women over and over and over and well you get the idea...make it easier for that scenario to happen? I don't know but I do wonder. And it does make me uneasy. I'm not going to lie and say it doesn't. Again doesn't mean I don't think you have the right to pay the game, doesn't mean I don't think someone doesn't have the right to make the game. I am just exercising my right to feel uneasy about it and most likely about someone who would enjoy playing it.

[ZincLysine]

Saw this report yesterday myself. Personally I think that there's a bit too much freedom in sexual expression in societies now. This is just another example.

I don't think the conent is as much the issue as compared to its (positive) portrayal.

[Synchronicity]

Well my key word there was meant to be facilitate. I get there is a difference between guns and video games. :p But does paying a video game where you rape women over and over and over and well you get the idea...make it easier for that scenario to happen? I don't know but I do wonder. And it does make me uneasy. I'm not going to lie and say it doesn't. Again doesn't mean I don't think you have the right to pay the game, doesn't mean I don't think someone doesn't have the right to make the game. I am just exercising my right to feel uneasy about it and most likely about someone who would enjoy playing it.

It's an age-old question. Does giving a (potential) rapist a game about rape make them more or less likely to carry it over to real life? Is it an outlet or a gateway drug? Honestly, I think you can make the case either way, and the answer may well differ between individuals.

[stasis]

and the answer may well differ between individuals.
It does. We can observe that most people who have fantasy x do not escalate into the corresponding behavior y. We can also observe that people exhibiting behavior y needn't have any exposure to paraphernalia x, as in the example of all rapists who lived prior to the advent of the printing press. In all likelihood rapists-to-be will gravitate to rape paraphernalia in greater proportion than people disinclined to the actual act of rape, but this is to be distinguished from rape fantasy producing rapists or the material appealing predominantly to rapists, and certainly from the idea that the material somehow facilitates the act of rape as if it were part of a rapist's physical toolbox alongside his duct tape, knife, and vial of gamma hydroxybutyrate.

The most reasonable conclusion seems to be that rapists-to-be being rapists-to-be is problematic. Which we observe to've had little or nothing to do with the existence of games like this one. So it should be the individual in question, his or her psychology and physiology and subculture that are at issue. Not 'is there a game with rape in it', but 'what is the context applied to the game by the player'. I think what we'll tend to find is a type of person including those with difficulty separating fantasy from reality, those with poor impulse control, and probably those with some sort of cognitive disadvantage.

Condemning the game as unaesthetic is all well and good. Maintaining a cultural narrative that distinguishes fantasy from reality through discussion is also healthy. Crusading against the evil of the game is bullocks.

[daydreamer]

So it should be the individual in question, his or her psychology and physiology and subculture, that are at issue. Not 'is there a game with rape in it', but 'what is the context applied to the game by the player'.

the context is one of getting some pleasure by engaging in an activity of rape.

(it is not real rape, but it is a real activity of rape, not a fantasy. a fantasy is created by the fantasizer.)

[stasis]

the context is one of getting some pleasure by engaging in an activity of rape.
The context is fantasy vs realty. Thought vs action. One of what is ethical and what isn't; what victimizes people and what doesn't, and what the significance of these things are to the player. A rapist is going to approach something like this differently than a non-rapist. A skinhead watching Romper Stomper is contextualizing the film differently than the audience at large.

[daydreamer]

A rapist is going to approach something like this differently than a non-rapist.

psychologically, maybe. i would think that each individual is going to approach something like this differently; it's not a one or the other type of thing. what is real is that each individual is deriving some pleasure over engaging in an activity of rape, no matter what the person is thinking.

[stasis]

I wonder what the incidence of actors who play villains in Hollywood going on to the Dark Side of the Force IRL is. It's probably pretty goddamn low because most actors, much like most people, can distinguish fantasy from reality to the extent necessary to traverse these subjects. They're really saying these evil things on camera though. Christoph Waltz said a bunch of nasty stuff about Jews in the film Inglourious Basterds. He really tried to look like a Nazi. Dressed up and everything. If he's a method actor, he probably tried to empathize with his character as well.

Shall we suspect him? Ban such roles?

The argument only seems credible because it's a popular one. It's really not.

[Syntax]

A video game like this is an anachronism; it's hitting a major nerve within a society where rapists are currently considered worse than murderers. It's playing upon largely irrational fears brought on by the media, namely the "fact" that it's not safe to walk down the street anymore for fear of sexual assault.

[daydreamer]

I wonder what the incidence of actors who play villains in Hollywood going on to the Dark Side of the Force IRL is. It's probably pretty goddamn low because most actors, much like most people, can distinguish fantasy from reality the extent necessary to traverse these subjects. They're really saying these evil things on camera though. Christoph Waltz said a bunch of nasty stuff about Jews in the film Inglourious Basterds. He really tried to look like a Nazi. Dressed up and everything. If he's a method actor, he probably tried to empathize with his character as well.

Shall we suspect him? Ban such roles?

The argument only seems credible because it's a popular one. It's really not.

are you asking me? my answer is no. but i think it is healthy to recognize that things are not black and white, either or. people are sick. we're all sick... it's just a matter of degrees. some video games, some movies, for example, allow us a safe way to explore those dark sides. it doesn't mean it's not real though, and i think it is dangerous to assume that there isn't some meaning, some relevance to our choices.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 10:02 AM ----------

A video game like this is an anachronism; it's hitting a major nerve within a society where rapists are currently considered worse than murderers. It's playing upon largely irrational fears brought on by the media, namely the "fact" that it's not safe to walk down the street anymore for fear of sexual assault.

my fears of walking unaccompanied do not come from the media

[El Cas]

This game falls into the same category that Manhunt, GTA, Carmaggedon, Mortal Kombat did when they hit the streets. People have always and will always find a way to release their most inner desires and technology is helping to do it in a "safe" way.
But in the end, each and evey person will have to determine what is right and wrong in their eyes.

[stasis]

are you asking me? my answer is no. but i think it is healthy to recognize that things are not black and white, either or. people are sick. we're all sick... it's just a matter of degrees. some video games, some movies, for example, allow us a safe way to explore those dark sides. it doesn't mean it's not real though, and i think it is dangerous to assume that there isn't some meaning, some relevance to our choices.
Sick. Dark. I don't think there's anything sick or dark about sexuality in general. The thing is, fantasies about all sorts of stuff are actually common. It's part of normal sexual ideation. And who knows why any given person would play a game like this. It isn't necessarily because they want to pretend to be a rapist; it might be voyeuristic, it might be taboo-fetishist, it might have to do with the animation in this particular title, or the voice-over acting doing it for them, et cetera. And there might be no particular reason - the game might be as effective as any other porn game. And then you have the people who'll go on to be rapists comprising the minority. So, as for the game itself? Not quite so significant or telling or ominous.

[Syntax]

my fears of walking unaccompanied do not come from the media

It's the accompaniment you should be afraid of, though. You're far more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know than a complete stranger. The media plays upon that irrational fear by emphasizing the "dark alley" scenario.

[daydreamer]

Sick. Dark. I don't think there's anything sick or dark about sexuality in general. The thing is, fantasies about all sorts of stuff are actually common. It's part of normal sexual ideation. And who knows why any given person would play a game like this. It isn't necessarily because they want to pretend to be a rapist; it might be voyeuristic, it might be taboo-fetishist, it might have to do with the animation in this particular title, or the voice-over acting doing it for them, et cetera. And there might be no particular reason - the game might be as effective as any other porn game. And then you have the people who'll go on to be rapists comprising the minority. So, as for the game itself? Not quite so significant or telling or ominous.

not saying that sexuality is sick or dark, per se. i am saying that rape is sick and dark. there is a distinct difference.

can rape be a sexual fantasy? sure. but rape can also be a rape fantasy. or a rape ideation. those have nothing to do with sexuality.

not saying that the game is telling. i am saying that our actions and reasons for doing things can be telling. and they can be ominous, for us, or for those we encounter and possibly "act" upon. do i second guess becoming closer friends with a grown man who, on an ongoing basis, thinks it is hilarious to kill hookers in gta, choosing that game over other shoot 'em up type of games specifically for the thrill of killing hookers? yeah, i do. it's a red flag. it's meaningful to me. do i think he will do it in real life? this particular guy i'm thinking of, probably not, no i can't see it. it is one piece of information taken in a greater context about this person... but it is meaningful, and sick and dark. just not the sick and dark i'm into, it's beyond my comfort level.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 10:19 AM ----------

It's the accompaniment you should be afraid of, though. You're far more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know than a complete stranger. The media plays upon that irrational fear by emphasizing the "dark alley" scenario.

depends on the neighborhood. depends on the neighbors. i think it is hard for you to actually give me meaningful advice based on statistics of a country that varies by an incredible amount; you do not know my situation, but i do. i think i am in a better position to judge it, thank you.

[Zombicide]

Haven't played it, I believe it could only generally have the opposite effect on its demographic since they have to seek it out and already be into rape in order to be the game's demographic, and I despise and am not into rape ... yet, but with any luck it'll warp my mind making me rape Taina Bien Aime like she claims it will since she is inadvertently the one who alerted me to the existence of the game and encouraged me to acquire it by saying it should be illegal, seems that might be what her real plan was. I give a big thanks to Taina Bien Aime for promoting this game that I would not have even known about or considered worth playing even had I known about it had it not been for her statist bitchery where she acts as though she or the state has a right to impose "law" upon others and that the game is extreme, it's like "What? It's so gratuitous that you consider it something to outlaw, well, now I have absolutely got to see what all the rage is about". It looks incredibly lame and I'm sure to lose interest quickly but now that I have it (thanks to Taina's intriguing me), I think I'll play it right now.

[daydreamer]

Well my key word there was meant to be facilitate. I get there is a difference between guns and video games. :p But does playing a video game where you rape women over and over and over and well you get the idea...make it easier for that scenario to happen? I don't know but I do wonder. And it does make me uneasy. I'm not going to lie and say it doesn't. Again doesn't mean I don't think you have the right to pay the game, doesn't mean I don't think someone doesn't have the right to make the game. I am just exercising my right to feel uneasy about it and most likely about someone who would enjoy playing it.

seriously, you have a really good point. i'll add, i think it is possible that the availability of rape and violence video games, books, movies, etc., desensitizes a certain percent of the population, to such subjects. i think we see a hint of this desensitivity - insensitivity in this thread: that presumably law abiding, non-violent acting people, think it is ok to scare a large portion of the population by supporting their being the objects of violent fantasies, in the name of freedom of speech or what have you.

somehow it is no longer ok to scare certain minorities; i look forward to the day when, as a population of individuals (not a government/"society") it is much less acceptable, than accepted to scare a majority of women, or any group, based on gender. ironically, i think the availability of such items is also the key to developing this greater awareness, sensitivity - if people who feel uneasy about it continue to speak about how they feel and make decisions based on those feelings. (omg yes feelings !)

[stasis]

people who feel uneasy about it continue to speak about how they feel and make decisions based on those feelings.
So long as they limit the scope of those decisions to themselves.

[runoverazebra]

It's an age-old question. Does giving a (potential) rapist a game about rape make them more or less likely to carry it over to real life? Is it an outlet or a gateway drug? Honestly, I think you can make the case either way, and the answer may well differ between individuals.

If it does vary between individuals, isn't it better to not have it available at all? I suppose that answer would vary from individual to individual as well. Someone that's never been raped or is in the position to do the raping would probably think it's not a big deal. Someone that has been raped would say that it's worth it for a video game not to exist if it keeps even one person from experiencing that kind of trauma.

[stasis]

If it does vary between individuals, isn't it better to not have it available at all?
Lowest common denominator thinking. Some people are allergic to nuts, therefore it's better to ban all nuts. Some people can't handle alcohol, therefore it's better to ban all alcohol. Society becomes a malfunctional daycare. This doesn't work.

[Synchronicity]

I have to agree with stasis. Video games may be a causal factor in some cases, but they're not the real problem.

[Syntax]

seriously, you have a really good point. i'll add, i think it is possible that the availability of rape and violence video games, books, movies, etc., desensitizes a certain percent of the population, to such subjects. i think we see a hint of this desensitivity - insensitivity in this thread: that presumably law abiding, non-violent acting people, think it is ok to scare a large portion of the population by supporting their being the objects of violent fantasies, in the name of freedom of speech or what have you.

somehow it is no longer ok to scare certain minorities; i look forward to the day when, as a population of individuals (not a government/"society") it is much less acceptable, than accepted to scare a majority of women, or any group, based on gender. ironically, i think the availability of such items is also the key to developing this greater awareness, sensitivity - if people who feel uneasy about it continue to speak about how they feel and make decisions based on those feelings. (omg yes feelings !)

I don't think it is the intent of law abiding, non-violent acting people to scare anyone. At least, that's certainly not what I was going for. I hate to showcase this particular facet of my sexual tastes, but I know for a fact that there are plenty of women who also enjoy the BDSM/control/bondage subculture and its associated fantasies.

The important thing to remember is that some people ONLY like this when it's fantasy--AND they know the difference. I like James Bond movies, but I not about to pick up a gun and start offing russian henchmen. Likewise, if I should happen to meet a girl who wants me to use fuzzy handcuffs on her, I'd be happy to oblige. For a non-sociopath there's no problem. For an actual rapist? Frankly the thought of one of them playing this game gives me the creeps and makes me uneasy also.

[Wapiti]

Lowest common denominator thinking. Some people are allergic to nuts, therefore it's better to ban all nuts. Some people can't handle alcohol, therefore it's better to ban all alcohol. Society becomes a malfunctional daycare. This doesn't work.

Throw guns in that mix too.

[runoverazebra]

Lowest common denominator thinking. Some people are allergic to nuts, therefore it's better to ban all nuts. Some people can't handle alcohol, therefore it's better to ban all alcohol. Society becomes a malfunctional daycare. This doesn't work.

We're not talking about a nut allergy here. We're talking about a traumatizing experience that sticks with a person forever after it happens, something that sometimes ruins peoples' lives. Imagine that there's some video game that simulates some guy sticking his penis up your ass. Some deranged guy plays the game and decides it would be fun to do that to you. He does. As a result, you get HPV. Eventually your HPV turns into anal cancer. This event that didn't last very long has long lasting ramifications to your life. Sure, the guy was deranged in the first place, but the video game pushed him over the edge. Isn't it better that it didn't exist in the first place?

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 02:26 PM ----------

I have to agree with stasis. Video games may be a causal factor in some cases, but they're not the real problem.

All I'm saying is that the 'some cases' make it worth it for it not to exist, even if they aren't the real problem.

[Anhedonic Lake]

If it does vary between individuals, isn't it better to not have it available at all? I suppose that answer would vary from individual to individual as well. Someone that's never been raped or is in the position to do the raping would probably think it's not a big deal. Someone that has been raped would say that it's worth it for a video game not to exist if it keeps even one person from experiencing that kind of trauma.

Look at the society where the game orginates,Japan, and compare the crime levels to the U.S.A. Then have a look at the video game scene in general. You'll find that the most viscerally violent games are developed in the U.S.A.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Japanese murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000 people; West German has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the U.S. 8.7 per 100,000 people

Japan is a group orientated society,children are taught respect from a young age. U.S. is an individualist orientated society,children are taught "me" "me" "me" values from a young age.

[cannotseethe]

Personally I think that there's a bit too much freedom in sexual expression in societies now.

Too much freedom for what? Your comfort level? I wonder whether Margaret Atwood's "Rape Fantasies" deserves a similar reaction.

I like Jon Stewart's take on the connection between violent music and acts of violence: Julie Andrews sang Climb Every Mountain but I don't go hiking every weekend.

One reason this is funny, and the reason people don't make the connection between songs like that and the putatively consequent acts is that, unlike violence, there's nothing psychologically charged about hiking. So it goes a little like this: thinking about rape makes me uneasy. This game represents rape. Therefore the game makes me uneasy. Kill it! Kill it! And then a pile of confabulations, including a supposed connection between media representation and actions, to justify what amounts to a visceral response.

Unfortunately, one thereby misses an opportunity to dialog about a tricky topic in a safe way. Too much freedom in sexual expression, indeed.

[boldbidder]

I'm an avid gamer and generally defend all content in a game, no matter what. However, I can't see any redeeming qualities in such a game. Even games like Splatterhouse which basically had you running around and 'snuffing' people never took itself seriously and was all very tongue in cheek. But this wants very much to be a rape simulation, gang rape even worse. Disgusting shite.

I dated a girl once upon a time who confessed to me that her ultimate fantasy was to be 'raped'. When I told her that was something that I could never do under any circumstances, even under the guise of 'roleplaying', the relationship died a quick death thereafter.

I just fail to grasp how such a thing could be exciting to 'pretend' to do in real life or to 'virtually' do in a videogame.

[runoverazebra]

Look at the society where the game orginates,Japan, and compare the crime levels to the U.S.A. Then have a look at the video game scene in general. You'll find that the most viscerally violent games are developed in the U.S.A.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Japanese murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000 people; West German has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the U.S. 8.7 per 100,000 people

I'm not defending Western video games. I'm just saying that I think in this case, preventing even one person from experiencing that kind of trauma is reason enough for the particular video game in question not to exist.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I'm an avid gamer and generally defend all content in a game, no matter what. However, I can't see any redeeming qualities in such a game. Even games like Splatterhouse which basically had you running around and 'snuffing' people never took itself seriously and was all very tongue in cheek. But this wants very much to be a rape simulation, gang rape even worse. Disgusting shite.

I dated a girl once upon a time who confessed to me that her ultimate fantasy was to be 'raped'. When I told her that was something that I could never do under any circumstances, even under the guise of 'roleplaying', the relationship died a quick death thereafter.

I just fail to grasp how such a thing could be exciting to 'pretend' to do in real life or to 'virtually' do in a videogame.

So you think it's ok to be excited by blowing someones brains out in Spatter house/COD but being turned on by rape simulation is not o.k.? Do you think rape is worse than murder?

[runoverazebra]

So you think it's ok to be excited by blowing someones brains out in Spatter house/COD but being turned on by rape simulation is not o.k.? Do you think rape is worse than murder?

I've obviously never been murdered, but I have been raped. I think rape is really the worst thing you can do to a person. If given the choice between being raped and being murdered, I would choose murder every time. I know a few other women that have been raped, and they all think it's the most evil thing you can do to another human being.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I'm not defending Western video games. I'm just saying that I think in this case, preventing even one person from experiencing that kind of trauma is reason enough for the particular video game in question not to exist.

As I said in an earlier post,it's nothing to do with the "art" in question. Nut jobs will find anything to inspire their immorality,whether it's Catcher in the Rye,Taxi Driver,the Bible or the Koran. Banning Art won't solve the issue.

[runoverazebra]

As I said in an earlier post,it's nothing to do with the "art" in question. Nut jobs will find anything to inspire their immorality,whether it's Catcher in the Rye,Taxi Driver,the Bible or the Koran. Banning Art won't solve the issue.

You really think that a rape video game is art?

[boldbidder]

So you think it's ok to be excited by blowing someones brains out in Spatter house/COD but being turned on by rape simulation is not o.k.? Do you think rape is worse than murder?

Intrinsically no, but Splatterhouse or even COD are not simulations. COD takes a lot of flak for moving units, but it is NOT a simulation. You want a honest to goodness war simulation play the original Ghost Recon or Operation Flashpoint. Both of the aforementioned games involve killing, but its not in the over the top manner as 'shooters' like COD, HALO, etc... Also, any of those previously mentioned have very well constructed fictional narratives which frame the content of the game. Now granted I haven't played said rape simulator (nor would ever want to), but I have a hard time imagining a convincing narrative being constructed in which the rape makes sense within the context of the game.

Now if they got uber-creative and did something where it was a cat and mouse police/bad guy story that forced the player to switch perspectives throughout play and one of said perspective shifts involved playing the psycho rapist then maybe just maybe I'd grant a modicum of acceptance to such a piece. But a game constructed on the premise of simulating gang rape is not cool in anyway shape or form.

[Anhedonic Lake]

You really think that a rape video game is art?

No,which is why I put it in quotations.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 10:53 AM ----------



Now if they got uber-creative and did something where it was a cat and mouse police/bad guy story that forced the player to switch perspectives throughout play and one of said perspective shifts involved playing the psycho rapist then maybe just maybe I'd grant a modicum of acceptance to such a piece. But a game constructed on the premise of simulating gang rape is not cool in anyway shape or form.

Modern warfare looks pretty realistic to me. They have created such games already,the Man hunt and G.T.A. games.



What I find interesting about all this is how such games are not uncommon in Japan yet they have such a low crime rate. Clearly,in this case at least, such games do not influence people to commit rape.

Now the US on the other hand produces no such games,yet it produces violent games by the truck load and it has a high rate of violence.
The conclusion I draw from this is the we in the west may have a lot to learn from Japanese social structure.

[boldbidder]

I take that back, rape is intrinsically far more evil/sinister/wrong than killing. Killing can be justified under some circumstances, I fail to fathom a situation where rape is justifiable (excepting for revenge against a pedophile).

[shytiger]

From what I read about this game (or one of them if there's another one involving the subway), they are not exactly "rape" games. They are more like male fantasies of forceful seduction. Despite the initial set up, they bear little resemblance to how stranger rape actually occurs. They often portray the woman as secretly desiring it or enjoying it and actively participating. It would be better if they were more realistic since rape is a horrific act and should be presented as it actually is.

[Mullanaphy]

I don't know how much the US should learn from the Japanese social structure, while crime rise is in their favor other factors not so much. E.g. their birth rate and dating scene is somewhat suspect.

Anyways, I put rape and murder on the same tier. Killing depends. While I'm totally against playing games revolving around rape I'm not for censoring them either. Believe that games are an extension to ones own ills not the creator of them. Some people it might bolster new quarks yet for the most part those people would probably already have a warped line between fantasy and reality.

If games molded our personalities, I should be out there car jacking someone right now... yet I have zero urge to do that in reality.

[daydreamer]

So long as they limit the scope of those decisions to themselves.

i don't know what that means. can you give me an example?

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 12:19 PM ----------

I don't think it is the intent of law abiding, non-violent acting people to scare anyone. At least, that's certainly not what I was going for. I hate to showcase this particular facet of my sexual tastes, but I know for a fact that there are plenty of women who also enjoy the BDSM/control/bondage subculture and its associated fantasies.

The important thing to remember is that some people ONLY like this when it's fantasy--AND they know the difference. I like James Bond movies, but I not about to pick up a gun and start offing russian henchmen. Likewise, if I should happen to meet a girl who wants me to use fuzzy handcuffs on her, I'd be happy to oblige. For a non-sociopath there's no problem. For an actual rapist? Frankly the thought of one of them playing this game gives me the creeps and makes me uneasy also.

no, i don't think it is their intent. but some do demonstrate outspoken acceptance of scaring people in the face of, or rather than, being sensitive to the same, that's what i'm saying. i think it's good to be honest about that, as Seriously has done, regardless of their original intent; the effect is at least as important as the original intent is.

i'm not judging your sexual tastes or activities.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 12:24 PM ----------

Look at the society where the game orginates,Japan, and compare the crime levels to the U.S.A. Then have a look at the video game scene in general. You'll find that the most viscerally violent games are developed in the U.S.A.


violence isn't the issue, as far as i'm concerned. neither is the legality/censorship of the game. insensitivity to women/women's perceptions - women's experiences, are the issue.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 12:26 PM ----------

From what I read about this game (or one of them if there's another one involving the subway), they are not exactly "rape" games. They are more like male fantasies of forceful seduction. Despite the initial set up, they bear little resemblance to how stranger rape actually occurs. They often portray the woman as secretly desiring it or enjoying it and actively participating.

having watched a fair amount of anime i can believe this. i haven't seen the game or games like it. there may be something lost in the translation.

but it is interesting to examine the idea in an american context.

[Cygnus]

Games have evolved just like any art form and used to explore and express our darkest nature. It has been done in visual art, literature, movies, music, so now it is games. I think the real question is more harm done by expressing the horrific in these forms or repressing the expression and pretending this horrific side of human nature does not exist?

[Anhedonic Lake]

violence isn't the issue, as far as i'm concerned. neither is the legality/censorship of the game. insensitivity to women/women's perceptions - women's experiences, are the issue.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 12:26 PM ----------



having watched a fair amount of anime i can believe this. i haven't seen the game or games like it. there may be something lost in the translation.

but it is interesting to examine the idea in an american context.

I'm not saying you are,but be careful not to confuse anime with hentai (animated porn),which is surprisingly common. For me,the real issue is'nt violence or sensitivity,it's how rape incidences can be reduced,which I'm sure we can all agree is the prime issue.
I think focusing on media such as this is a mistake,as I believe the causal factors lie else where on the sociological map. I think examining Japanese society is a good step,not saying they have a perfect society by any means,but the fact is they are one of the least censored nations on Earth,yet have the lowest crime rates. I want to know why that is and what positive aspects of their social structure can be incorporated into our own.

[daydreamer]

I'm not saying you are,but be careful not to confuse anime with hentai (animated porn),which is surprisingly common. For me,the real issue is'nt violence or sensitivity,it's how rape incidences can be reduced,which I'm sure we can all agree is the prime issue.


i think that's a noble issue, but i don't believe video game violence or rape incites real violence or real rape; so i'm not going to take any sides on any degrees recommending a happy medium there.

hentai? no i haven't seen any. i have seen lots of anime with english dubbing that make casual references to rape as if it's commission is a joke, or something funny, and that was the basis for my singular insight. i refuse to believe that Japanese culture really does find actual rape cases funny; something must be lost in the translation.


I think focusing on media such as this is a mistake,as I believe the causal factors lie else where on the sociological map. I think examining Japanese society is a good step,not saying they have a perfect society by any means,but the fact is they are one of the least censored nations on Earth,yet have the lowest crime rates. I want to know why that is and what positive aspects of their social structure can be incorporated into our own.

not saying you are, but i think it is a mistake to make the correlation between censorship and a high or low crime rate; videogames and movies are no more the cause of violence, than they are the cause of non-violence.

[Weber]

I've obviously never been murdered, but I have been raped. I think rape is really the worst thing you can do to a person. If given the choice between being raped and being murdered, I would choose murder every time.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but logically what you're saying is that you'd rather be dead than alive right now.

As for the suggestion that this game should be banned if it prevents just one incident of rape, I wonder what actually causes more crime in the long run: excessive authoritarian thought control/censorship or allowing entertainment and arts like this?

[ZincLysine]

Too much freedom for what? Your comfort level? I wonder whether Margaret Atwood's "Rape Fantasies" deserves a similar reaction.

I like Jon Stewart's take on the connection between violent music and acts of violence: Julie Andrews sang Climb Every Mountain but I don't go hiking every weekend.

One reason this is funny, and the reason people don't make the connection between songs like that and the putatively consequent acts is that, unlike violence, there's nothing psychologically charged about hiking. So it goes a little like this: thinking about rape makes me uneasy. This game represents rape. Therefore the game makes me uneasy. Kill it! Kill it! And then a pile of confabulations, including a supposed connection between media representation and actions, to justify what amounts to a visceral response.

Unfortunately, one thereby misses an opportunity to dialog about a tricky topic in a safe way. Too much freedom in sexual expression, indeed.

I went on to talk about portrayal fella. The line of "sexual freedom" on its own would be subjective. I don't mind people talking about rape. I knew what rape and things like child abuse were at a young age. However, they weren't portrayed as being a winning experience.

[Seriously]

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but logically what you're saying is that you'd rather be dead than alive right now.

As for the suggestion that this game should be banned if it prevents just one incident of rape, I wonder what actually causes more crime in the long run: excessive authoritarian thought control/censorship or allowing entertainment and arts like this?

Arts? Really? A rape video game is art? Wow. The mind boggles.

Let's take you and rape you and then you can decide if you want to be alive or not. Until that happens you really don't know how someone actually feels logically or not.

[daydreamer]

Arts? Really? A rape video game is art? Wow. The mind boggles.



maybe to some rape is just performance art?

[Weber]

Arts? Really? A rape video game is art? Wow. The mind boggles.

Let's take you and rape you and then you can decide if you want to be alive or not. Until that happens you really don't know how someone actually feels logically or not.

Arguably it is art, just like a movie could be called art. Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I happen to disagree that rape is a worse crime than murder, and I was not actually telling anyone how they feel, I was merely stating the consequences of what was said.

[Cygnus]

Arts? Really? A rape video game is art? Wow. The mind boggles.

Let's take you and rape you and then you can decide if you want to be alive or not. Until that happens you really don't know how someone actually feels logically or not.


I think you jumped on that a bit literally, you know what was meant; the poster believes that censorship is more harmful overall.

[oldspice]

To me this kind of thing is wrong, but should not be shoot down. it reminds me of the time I went to an art museum and saw a blank canvas hanging on the wall and i thought to myself "why in hell is this on the wall this isn't art" but then the guy next to me said that it was wonderful in a sense
but in the end i guess what I'm trying to say is,
to each his own.

and no i don't support rape in fact i think victims should be able to taser the offender until the victim is satisfied

[Seriously]

Arguably it is art, just like a movie could be called art. Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I happen to disagree that rape is a worse crime than murder, and I was not actually telling anyone how they feel, I was merely stating the consequences of what was said.

It's entertainment. Art is a stretch. But if you want to call simulated rape "art" then by all means....:rolleyes:

And I'm saying you have no idea how a rape victim feels so you don't know if they would prefer to be dead or not. I'm pretty sure she was aware of what she said Captain Obvious.

[runoverazebra]

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but logically what you're saying is that you'd rather be dead than alive right now.

No, I'm saying that I would rather be dead than raped. That is not the same thing. You can say it's all semantics, but there's a big difference between being alive and being raped.

As for the suggestion that this game should be banned if it prevents just one incident of rape, I wonder what actually causes more crime in the long run: excessive authoritarian thought control/censorship or allowing entertainment and arts like this?

I wonder what causes people to think that rape video games are art. Obviously, we are both going to have to keep wondering. Of course, I don't consider not having video games depicting rape as an exciting/socially acceptable/fun even censorship. I consider it common sense.

Arguably it is art, just like a movie could be called art. Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I happen to disagree that rape is a worse crime than murder, and I was not actually telling anyone how they feel, I was merely stating the consequences of what was said.

"I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but logically what you're saying is that you'd rather be dead than alive right now," actually is telling me how I feel. Until you've been raped, you'll never understand the distinction, and you'll never fully understand if rape is worse than murder.

[Seriously]

I think you jumped on that a bit literally, you know what was meant; the poster believes that censorship is more harmful overall.

Then maybe that is what he should have said.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Arguably it is art, just like a movie could be called art. Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I happen to disagree that rape is a worse crime than murder, and I was not actually telling anyone how they feel, I was merely stating the consequences of what was said.

Some people do commit suicide after being raped. The only way I believe murder to be a worse crime is that it does'nt allow a person the chance to heal or the choice to live.
Technically anything someone creates is art,but the word art is associated more commonly with all that is positive and has instrinsic value. I don't know what it's like to be raped. I think this is an interesting and important discussion,but it's also an understandably sensitive subject matter.

[Weber]

"I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but logically what you're saying is that you'd rather be dead than alive right now," actually is telling me how I feel.

Not really, I'll repeat myself: the only thing I did was point out the inevitable conclusion. You said 2+2, I told you that the answer is 4.


Then maybe that is what he should have said.

I did say that, in my semi-rhetorical question, but either you missed it or chose to ignore it.

[runoverazebra]

Some people do commit suicide after being raped. The only way I believe murder to be a worse crime is that it does'nt allow a person the chance to heal or the choice to live.
Technically anything someone creates is art,but the word art is associated more commonly with all that is positive and has instrinsic value. I don't know what it's like to be raped. I think this is an interesting and important discussion,but it's also an understandably sensitive subject matter.

Murder doesn't allow the chance to heal, but it never forces a woman to tell her husband/boyfriend/partner that some other man violated her and was inside her. It doesn't cause the victim to become pregnant or give them an STD. It doesn't give them HPV that leads to cervical cancer, forcing the victim to have a hysterectomy before she can have children. In that way, murder is a kindness. The victim doesn't have the chance to heal, but the victim doesn't have to suffer, quite possibly for the rest of her life.

I can't make you understand what it's like to be raped; this is the best I can do: imagine that you're at a party. You're hanging out with some of your male friends. You leave, and one of your friends comes with you. You're walking along, and all of a sudden your male friend overpowers you. He anally rapes you. You have someone inside your body that you don't want there. If you're lucky, you aren't physically harmed anymore than the rape, but that would be the exception.

The issue that I have with the video game is that it depicts that rape is okay. Some twisted individual decides that means that rape is actually okay and then rapes women because of it. Or some irresponsible parent has the game, and a child gets a hold of it. The child is learning that rape is not only acceptable, it's fun.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 05:37 PM ----------

Not really, I'll repeat myself: the only thing I did was point out the inevitable conclusion. You said 2+2, I told you that the answer is 4.


No, you interpreted what I said as 2+2, and told me that the answer was 4. What I said was 2+2 doesn't always equal four. I acknowledge that it's a fine distinction, but the distinction is there.

[plotthickens]

Not my scene. My scene is (definetly) not anyone else's.

Consenting real adults doing what they want to do. Allllllrighty then.

(interesting thread, BTW, the line between 'icky' and 'illegal' is all over the place.)

[Cygnus]

I do not think humanity in general displays enough self accountability, awareness and sensitivity towards others, and wisdom to show restraint to allow making these kinds of games as a good idea. I do know part of this particular game issue is Japanese culture and the equal rights of women there as well as their cultural attitude towards sex.

[runoverazebra]

I do not think humanity in general displays enough self accountability, awareness and sensitivity towards others, and wisdom to show restraint to allow making these kinds of games as a good idea.

This is what I have been trying to say, but have not been able to articulate in this way because of my emotion in this situation.

[Anhedonic Lake]

If people want to ban media due to sensitivity and possible negative influence then I suggest we start with the Bible and the Koran. Because unlike video games,where there is no evidence to support the theory it influences people to rape and murder,there is evidence which links the Bible and the Koran to mass murder,teaches that gays are abominations,and kids are often forced to read and revere every word as divine and lets not forget,the phrophet Mohammed would be considered a paedophile by our modern standards.

[Cygnus]

If people want to ban media due to sensitivity and possible negative influence then I suggest we start with the Bible and the Koran. Because unlike video games,where there is no evidence to support the theory it influences people to rape and murder,there is evidence which links the Bible and the Koran to mass murder,teaches that gays are abominations,and kids are often forced to read and revere every word as divine and lets not forget,the phrophet Mohammed would be considered a paedophile by our modern standards.

Well, we were not around for the start of that, but we are around for the start of this. Having been a long time gamer and around when people thought playing Dungeons and Dragons was a form a devil worship and having to defend my position from all fronts; I still cannot find a good reasoning promote this kind of game.

BDSM is also a form of dark sexual fantasy, but the defining hallmark of the "community" it is done with mutual consent...rape by definition is without consent. Considering there are more cases of rape in the U.S. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. compared to number or murders To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , that people are more apt to commit sexual crimes than murder. Perhaps it is easier for them to rationalize or blur their own lines of reality.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Well, we were not around for the start of that, but we are around for the start of this. Having been a long time gamer and around when people thought playing Dungeons and Dragons was a form a devil worship and having to defend my position from all fronts; I still cannot find a good reasoning promote this kind of game.

Promoting and tolerating something are not the same thing. I would'nt like to look at this sort of game,I'd imagine I'd feel quite disconcerted if I did,but I hate censorship. If the evidence indicated that such material is a causal factor behind rape then I'm all for banning it(though I'd be concerned that moral panic would dictate genuine art and milder forms of entertainment would be banned by the moral cops in a slippery slope affect),but it does'nt.
Fact is this sort of thing is pretty common in Japan and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. So examining other causal factors to prevent rape seems like a more logical thing to do. I'd rather have no answer for now but be looking in the right direction than have the wrong answer just to feel safe.

Lisa:Dad,what's that?
Homer: It's a bear stone,it keeps bears away.
Lisa:How does it keep bears away?
Homer: Well I don't see any bear around,do you?

[Zsych]

I don't think this kind of game is more dangerous than someone playing Fallout and killing shit tons of people, or playing Grand Theft Auto, where you steal and kill countless people.

I wouldn't be too surprised if something like this could be used as therapy for people who have desires in that direction, since they could potentially exercise their desires in fantasy.

... that's my opinion with regard to violent games anyway. You get to destroy stuff, and it also gets separated from reality somewhat in your mind.

[Cygnus]

Promoting and tolerating something are not the same thing. I would'nt like to look at this sort of game,I'd imagine I'd feel quite disconcerted if I did,but I hate censorship. If the evidence indicated that such material is a causal factor behind rape then I'm all for banning it(though I'd be concerned that moral panic would dictate genuine art and milder forms of entertainment would be banned by the moral cops in a slippery slope affect),but it does'nt.
Fact is this sort of thing is pretty common in Japan and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. So examining other causal factors to prevent rape seems like a more logical thing to do. I'd rather have no answer for now but be looking in the right direction than have the wrong answer just to feel safe.

Lisa:Dad,what's that?
Homer: It's a bear stone,it keeps bears away.
Lisa:How does it keep bears away?
Homer: Well I don't see any bear around,do you?

The trick with crime is that it is recognized as unacceptable and is reported. Japanese culture does not view rape as universally unacceptable and women do not enjoy close to equal rights as men.

I think the evidence supports that people are more clearly able understand killing is wrong and more easily able to keep it in the realm of fantasy, as for rape and other forms of sexual abuse, not so much. Or they think they can get away with it..or that they are not really hurting anyone, who knows. Next it will be a game where you can play as a child pornographer...again..not exactly the type of game I think should be being made.

[Mogura]

Fact one: Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world,including rape.Are the statistics you are quoting based on reported crimes or convictions? Many reported sexual offenses go unprosecuted due to police incompetence or prevailing attitude that it's "not a real crime". And sadly, many sexual offenses go unreported because women feel powerless to do anything...

[Zsych]

So lets assume that their law enforcement is as good as in the US (probably better - since they seem to be better at most things), the implies that there are fewer cases to begin with, since even in the US, many things must go unreported (and many people are no doubt wrongfully prosecuted also)

[Mogura]

So lets assume that their law enforcement is as good as in the US (probably better - since they seem to be better at most things), the implies that there are fewer cases to begin with, since even in the US, many things must go unreported (and many people are no doubt wrongfully prosecuted also)A more accurate assumption would be to assume that their law enforcement is as good as in the US--in the 1950's... Somewhere in Alabama...

[Cygnus]

So lets assume that their law enforcement is as good as in the US (probably better - since they seem to be better at most things), the implies that there are fewer cases to begin with, since even in the US, many things must go unreported (and many people are no doubt wrongfully prosecuted also)


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the evidence is clear Japanese culture has not traditionally seen rape as a crime.

[Zsych]

Yup, it does seem like they care less about rape there.

I still expect that their law enforcement is generally better than here. There seem to be different laws and different social expectations though.

I'm reminded of Samurai era Japan... aside from the arranged marriages, men and their wives may have had sex, but they typically didn't even sleep in the same room. Different social norms. There seem to be more than a few married couples in Japan today who don't have sex at all. Which makes me think that sex may be viewed differently there.

[Cygnus]

Yup, it does seem like they care less about rape there.

I still expect that their law enforcement is generally better than here. There seem to be different laws and different social expectations though.

I'm reminded of Samurai era Japan... aside from the arranged marriages, men and their wives may have had sex, but they typically didn't even sleep in the same room. Different social norms. There seem to be more than a few married couples in Japan today who don't have sex at all. Which makes me think that sex may be viewed differently there.

Sex is viewed differently, I think I stated that prior as well. Rape laws seem directly proportional the equal rights, even in Western cultures, it was not really until Women's Suffrage and the battle to bring the genders closer to having equal rights that rape and others sexual abuses began to see serious legislation and enforcement. Go watch some older John Wayne movies where he publicly puts his woman in place with a spanking. Many references in our and other Western cultures, that to deal with a problematic woman was to "give her a good lay".

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rara avis]

I don't think a game like this is going to turn a video gamer into a rapist. No more than war games will turn them into a killer. I think that when you see a correlation, you will find someone who was severely broken before they ever picked up the control pad. Or watched the movie, or read the manifesto.

Personally, I find the game creepy and appalling. I won't buy it, I wouldn't want it in my house. I'd think twice about spending time with someone if I found it in their personal library.

But I think you must be allowed to make whatever video game you like. People will vote for it or not with their dollars. Or yen. I think it's dangerous when people believe, for whatever righteous reason, that they should be allowed to dictate what other people can produce or create.

Thought and energy would be better spent on the more difficult, less simple and tangible issue of changing rl cultural currents and prosecuting and persecuting the holy fuck out of people who actually do inflict themselves on others. Bans on games, or books or movies or whatever, are red herring shaped bandaids.

Philip Pullman on censorship. Beautifully succinct. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Cygnus]

Parents censor their children from day one. The catch with freedom of expression and speech is using it sensibly and responsibly. We now have government programs used to combat telemarketers...and the people endorse it and desire the government step in and stop these companies..odd behavior from a supposedly capitalist and free speech state. Another interesting development are home owner associations, not censorship, but enforcing a standard to a housing development. You would think you bought your home you can do as you wish, problem is..you are part of a neighborhood and your conduct and home appearance reflects on those around you..again...some personal freedom is forfeit to keep a neighborhood at a certain standard. Do not misunderstand, I am not advocating censorship on a whole, just recognizing there is a balance between freedom and restraint, and not everyone displays sound judgment. Games are a bit different in context than books, or art, or movies in that they are interactive and designed to be...fun, and they intent to make money off of it.

just for the record there is already censorship in place...

"Japanese Law: The actual amount of depictions of sexual activity in "hentai" manga or anime may vary. Article 175 of the Japanese Penal Code forbids publishing of "morally damaging" material, which is currently interpreted to include exposed genitals, so you usually find mosaic blurs or solid bars over the genitals in hentai images. Prior to 1994 this censorship law was also interpreted to include displaying pubic hair, a rule circumvented by simply drawing characters with no pubic hair. This has become very prevalent, even with the advent of a more relaxed interpretation."

edit:

I do think it is interesting how most people go to extremes in views. Moderate views never seem to be popular..it has to be all or nothing...always find that...interesting.

[thod]

It's just not offensive enough. How about a new game "Catholic Priest" where the objective is to rape choirboys up the ass on the altar. "Animal Farm" where the objective is to have sex with as many species as possible. "Graveyard Shift" where the idea is to dig up bodies and have sex with them, or parts.

There is a quest here. To make the most disgustingly objectionable game possible. Achieving this would be bring greatness since nobody would ever be able to make one more perfect. I am sure there would be a market for simulated hells. Instead of "God games", a well established theme, lets have some devil games. The idea is to find the most creative way to torment the victims.

A drawing of a penis entering a drawing of a virgina is what we have here. No more than the sort of things schoolboys snigger at. Not even real genitalia.

[blueback]

By "some" you mean "a fucked up ultra-minority of people who were already fucked up beforehand and whose prior fucking up is the problem, not the media in question", right?...A videogame is not a rape kit.

Exactly. People don't do things just because they have tools. If they did, everyone would always take out the garbage simply because a garbage bag was available. Tools make things easier, they are sometimes even necessary, but they are never sufficient.

Lowest common denominator thinking. Some people are allergic to nuts, therefore it's better to ban all nuts. Some people can't handle alcohol, therefore it's better to ban all alcohol. Society becomes a malfunctional daycare. This doesn't work.

Exactly. The appropriate reaction is to ensure that people are provided with a warning regarding the potential danger. A person who is well aware of their peanut allergy, or of someone else's, can still eat something that will activate their allergy simply because they didn't know it had peanuts associated with it. In the same way, people should be informed of how much alcohol is in whatever they're drinking/eating. People shouldn't be allowed to own a gun until they pass a gun safety class. People shouldn't be allowed to drive a semi on the freeway until they pass a semi-driving-on-the-freeway certification course. These responses to danger should be in proportion to the combination of risk and danger.

Far more women's lives will be ruined by car accidents than by rape, but no one on this board has expressed an uneasy feeling about racing simulations that encourage people who already like to drive fast to drive faster. These simulations even depict car crashes, even into other occupied cars, as something fun (slow-mo crashes!), and something temporary as the car immediately appears back on the road again with no damage. The effect of rage might be the worst in the world, but the actual risk must reduce our response. I'm not just saying that about rape; the principle is applied in all facets of civilization from the beginning to today, and everyone reading this applies the exact same principle in their day-to-day life.

...it goes a little like this: thinking about rape makes me uneasy. This game represents rape. Therefore the game makes me uneasy. Kill it! Kill it!

Precisely. No one's ever shown a causal link between simulating something and an increased desire to do the same thing in real life. There have been causal links demonstrated between things like listening to fast music and driving faster, and simulating a skill and being ABLE to perform it better, and group pressure and an increasing motivation to do something one didn't have a motivation to do before. But they're not the same thing.

Unfortunately, one thereby misses an opportunity to dialog about a tricky topic in a safe way. Too much freedom in sexual expression, indeed.

I agree that it's a problem, but I don't think it's one that will ever be solved. It seems unrealistic to think that people will ever be able, as a large group, to set their emotions aside long enough to talk about emotionally charged topics.

I just fail to grasp how such a thing could be exciting to 'pretend' to do in real life or to 'virtually' do in a videogame.

I fail to grasp how baseball could be exciting in real life or in a videogame. Seriously, I don't get it. But other people do.

I'm not defending Western video games. I'm just saying that I think in this case, preventing even one person from experiencing that kind of trauma is reason enough for the particular video game in question not to exist.

Okay. That seems like a discussion worth having. All I need to see is some evidence that the existence of the videogame causes one rape. I suppose the testimony of a rapist that they never would have raped if they hadn't played the videogame would be enough.

If given the choice between being raped and being murdered, I would choose murder every time.

But you obviously wouldn't chose suicide over rape. So, you think rape is worse than murder, but suicide is worse than rape. I can understand that. I suppose; without having been raped myself, that is.

However, I can't help but think that life is more important than quality of life. If it wasn't, far more people would be dead. The fact that people keep on living through intense pain, yourself included, is solid evidence that they don't actually think the pain is worse than death.

You really think that a rape video game is art?

Absolutely. And here's why.

I define art as the thing/act of putting into the world that which one thinks should be in it, and war as the thing/act of removing from the world that which one thinks should not be in it.

I think this definition is pretty consistent, because the whole history of art is a string of WTF moments when people disagree over what should be. The problem with arguing about what should be, is that no one can be more right than anyone else. Sticking a crucifix into urine is art if the artist thinks it should be created. That's all it takes. Of course, it could easily be war if an observer thinks it should be destroyed. That's all it takes.

The creators and users of the rape-game obviously think it should exist, you obviously think it shouldn't. They call it art, you call it war. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

From what I read about this game (or one of them if there's another one involving the subway), they are not exactly "rape" games. They are more like male fantasies of forceful seduction. Despite the initial set up, they bear little resemblance to how stranger rape actually occurs. They often portray the woman as secretly desiring it or enjoying it and actively participating. It would be better if they were more realistic since rape is a horrific act and should be presented as it actually is.

I'm not an expert on Japanese culture, but I think your description is spot on. There is an awful thick vein of "women secretly want far more sex than they will admit" running through all of the Japanese culture I've seen. I think the key point is that the sex is almost always portrayed as consentual, where the initial force is mere foreplay, and everyone involved actually enjoys themselves. I always figured it was some sort of reaction to Japan's stifling formality and politeness; the idea that just below the surface everyone wants to break the rules and get dirty, and it would all happen if someone just pushed things far enough. Kind of like America's reaction to an association between black culture and being low-class manifesting as fantasies of everyone adopting black culture and everyone being happier for it.

I wonder what actually causes more crime in the long run: excessive authoritarian thought control/censorship or allowing entertainment and arts like this?

That's a good question. I'm leaning towards the former, but I don't think anyone's ever demonstrated a strong connection.

I think people, for the most part, are born with predispositions to like certain things. I'm sure there's wiggle room, but I don't think it's significant.

Let's take you and rape you and then you can decide if you want to be alive or not. Until that happens you really don't know how someone actually feels logically or not.

I suppose no one should ever say anything about a situation they haven't personally participated in, right? I mean, I've never been in a war, so that obviously totally disqualifies me from entering any discussion on the subject of war, right? I've never lived in a city, so I should never talk about cities, right?

No, I'm saying that I would rather be dead than raped. That is not the same thing. You can say it's all semantics, but there's a big difference between being alive and being raped.

I don't want you to think I'm being deliberately hurtful, cuz I'm not.

That being said, logically, you are talking about two different kinds of charts. Alive and dead are on a continuum because they are mutually exclusive. You can't be both alive and dead at the same time, although you might be able to be somewhere in between. Alive and raped, on the other hand, are not mutually exclusive. You can be both alive and raped at the same time.

I don't consider not having video games depicting rape as an exciting/socially acceptable/fun even censorship. I consider it common sense.

I'm sure a majority of people would agree with you. However, there was a time when the majority of people considered it common sense that the black man was inferior to the white man and needed to be taken care of. So, a majority of people thinking something is common sense in no way guarantees they won't change their minds in the future.

Until you've been raped...you'll never fully understand if rape is worse than murder.

Technically, until you've been murdered, you'll never understand if rape is worse than murder.

...murder is a kindness. The victim doesn't have the chance to heal, but the victim doesn't have to suffer, quite possibly for the rest of her life.

The problem I see with that point of view is that there is death, and then there is everything else. You could have inserted nearly any accident or crime in place of "rape" and your idea wouldn't have changed in the slightest. But death changes everything. Thus, death is worse than everything else. Plenty of people have had horrible things happen to them and then have gone on to live wonderful lives (no, I'm not going to back that up).

My impression of reactions to sexual assault is that the worst ones come from people who think it is somehow their fault. A person who loses their legs in a bridge collapse can get over it and live their life because it was just something horrible that happened. A person who gets raped and blames theirself won't be able to live their life because it wasn't just something that happened, it was something they did to themselves. But my impression of the people who engage in sexual assault is that they don't have any particular interest in their victims. It's not a sexual motivation, it's got nothing to do with them personally, it's just something they want to do. Thus, making the act akin to a natural accident, like getting caught in a flash flood. Logically. But I do recognize the difficulty of overriding emotions with logic.

The issue that I have with the video game is that it depicts that rape is okay. Some twisted individual decides that means that rape is actually okay and then rapes women because of it. Or some irresponsible parent has the game, and a child gets a hold of it. The child is learning that rape is not only acceptable, it's fun.

No one ever LEARNS that something is fun. They can be exposed to something, and can recognize that it's fun, but whether or not something is fun has nothing to do with what someone is taught.

It wouldn't matter how many baseball videogames I played, I'd never start to think it was fun. What might matter would be something associated with the game that I thought was fun, like playing it with friends, but anything is fun with friends, because it is the friends that are fun.

Have you actually played the videogame? If not, how do you know what it depicts as okay?

We now have government programs used to combat telemarketers...and the people endorse it and desire the government step in and stop these companies..odd behavior from a supposedly capitalist and free speech state.

The regulation isn't their speech, but their abuse of channels of communication that they aren't paying for. The problem with telemarketers is that they spam their message as widely as possible and start to interfere with the goals of the people who paid for the channels of communication they are utilizing. It's no different from laws limiting noise, or traffic congestion, or billboards, etc. It is not a free speech issue, it is a tragedy of the commons issue.

Another interesting development are home owner associations, not censorship, but enforcing a standard to a housing development. You would think you bought your home you can do as you wish, problem is..you are part of a neighborhood and your conduct and home appearance reflects on those around you..again...some personal freedom is forfeit to keep a neighborhood at a certain standard.

Yup. And people are made aware of home owner association rules before they buy a house under its jurisdiction. There's nothing underhanded about that. The houses and neighborhoods in which people are all subject to rules like that are often more desirable precisely because those who move in can be assured they won't have a neighbor doing "as they wish" right next door.

I do think it is interesting how most people go to extremes in views. Moderate views never seem to be popular..it has to be all or nothing...always find that...interesting.
It's not that. It's that the people with extreme views are much more motivated to talk about their views. No one shouts "I KIND OF LIKE PIE, BUT CAKE IS GOOD TOO" from the rooftops. By way of an example, 60% of the population of American doesn't vote in national elections. Most of those aren't registered as Democrats or Republicans, if they are labeled it's as independents. You don't hear from them, because they don't feel motivated to talk.

[Beulah]

I've always wondered when we'd settle the debate over this. Does the ability to engage in an accurate simulation of a crime decrease the number of and or severity of actual crimes, or does it increase them? I'm inclined to think it decreases them, but I don't have any hard data. .

In my work with sex offenders it was generally though better notto do chemical castration with drugs like androcur as it tends to increase fantasy life - which leads to acting out the sex assault fantasy. Maybe not with a hard "member" but other tools are used.
Sexual deviance is often addictive, engaging in fantasy only strengthens the obsession and can cause more polished scenarios and naturally more desire to actually experience them.

My experience as a psych nurse strongly suggests to me these games would increase the chance that someone who previously held their deviant urges in check would become more likely to act on them. Firstly, it normalises to them such fantasies, second as per above it gives practice and obviously positive reinforcement.

Taking it to the next step for people of means to own comps (1st worlders) is most likely to occur by purchase of an air ticket to the Phillipines or such other places where you can buy woman or victims for non consented sex. These games are not benign - they would exacerbate odds of noxious behaviour manifesting in a % of the population.

[Seriously]

I suppose no one should ever say anything about a situation they haven't personally participated in, right? I mean, I've never been in a war, so that obviously totally disqualifies me from entering any discussion on the subject of war, right? I've never lived in a city, so I should never talk about cities, right?

You can have an opinion but when someone who has actually been in that situation makes a statement about how it made them feel I'm going to take their word over yours as they have, you know, actual experience to back it up.

But I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. Petty.

[stasis]

That's the neat thing about rational analysis - you don't have to take anybody's word for anything. The nuts and bolts of the position are laid bare, so personal experience is irrelevant or circumstantial at best and the appeal to authority is usually fallacious. Argument along the lines of "you have to be raped to know" is garbage when we're talking about morality, ethics, or law.

Also, sexual deviance? Hah. Sexual disorder, sure.

[Seriously]

Lets break it down shall we?

ROZ makes a comment about her actual rape expereince and how it made her feel.

Captain Obvious corrects her statement

I say he can't know how she felt as he hadn't actually had the experience.

Then I'm told that I'm denying every one every where an opinion if they haven't experienced something.

So tell me again where I'm wrong in my post?

[stasis]

ROZ makes a comment about her actual rape expereince and how it made her feel.
It looked to me like runoverazebra was characterizing rape as worse than murder in the context of the moral seriousness of the crime, following the mode of discussion in this thread. So then Weber contested that moral characterization by pointing out an inconsistency in the argument. Her response was that she's an authority and can't be contested. Blueback is contesting that in turn.

And anecdote doesn't really back anything up anyway. It colors or provides exception.

[Seriously]

I read it as she felt in the context of her experience that for her rape was worse than murder. This was then contested. I protested someone contesting another person's experience.

Anecdotal experience can't be factored out completely. Not in the real world anyway.

[Weber]

I believe "Captain Obvious" would be me rather than blueback, but I really can't be bothered to repeat myself for the second time. You can misrepresent what I said all you want, I just hope and trust that other people reading the thread will realise what was actually stated instead of launching vicious personal attacks based on obvious emotional/personal investment.

[Seriously]

lol @ vicious personal attacks. If there had been anything in my post outside of one tiny jab it would have been deleted by the mods. So climb off the cross dude.

I'm good with everything I've written thus far, but nice try on deflection. ;)

[stasis]

I read it as she felt in the context of her experience that for her rape was worse than murder.
Yeah. It appears to me that she's conflating what she feels with the moral question at hand, as if her feelings were authoritative on the matter.


I protested someone contesting another person's experience.
You shouldn't protest someone contesting the conclusions another person draws from their experience though. To co-opt blueback's race example, a person might have had a terrible experience with blacks but we can certainly contest their "blacks are worse than whites" conclusion if they draw one. And if they then say, "no, you need to live my life to know", we can roll our eyes. Especially if they've never had an experience with whites.

[Seriously]

Yeah. It appears to me that she's conflating what she feels with the moral question at hand, as if her feelings were authoritative on the matter.

I can see initially where it may have come across that way but I believe she clarified in later posts.

You shouldn't protest someone contesting the conclusions another person draws from their experience though. To co-opt blueback's race example, a person might have had a terrible experience with blacks but we can certainly contest their "blacks are worse than whites" conclusion if they draw one. And if they then say, "no, you need to live my life to know", we can roll our eyes. Especially if they've never had an experience with whites.

I see your point but don't feel that is what was done here. She didn't project her conclusion onto anyone else ie the rapist she simply stated how it made her feel personally. You can't tell someone how they should feel especially if you have never experienced what they did.

[Weber]

lol @ vicious personal attacks. If there had been anything in my post outside of one tiny jab it would have been deleted by the mods. So climb off the cross dude.

I'm good with everything I've written thus far, but nice try on deflection. ;)

Oh you're right, I probably didn't phrase that correctly. It's more of a case of extreme logical fallacies. As stasis correctly points out, you're elevating personal anecdote above everything else. Additionally, you have still yet to explain how exactly I "told anyone how they feel", so I again have to wonder if you've actually read what was written.

[Yhor]

It's also likely that none of us have experienced murder, so drawing the same conclusions, it would be difficult for anyone to say that <insert atrocity> is worse than murder, because they wouldn't understand with a lack of experiencing murder.

I'm not playing down the impact or the severity of rape or murder, I'm actually quite divided on how I feel about both of them because of the debates within this thread. I had placed a greater impact (deemed it worse) from rape than murder, simply because the victim lives with it for the rest of their lives. Now, I'm not as certain, but I still think they are relatively similar in impact, on both the victim and their loved ones/future loved ones.

[Seriously]

I'm going to go ahead and let this go. Consider yourself the winners. ;) There are actual people involved and I believe that continuing on with this is counterproductive to their needs.

[stasis]

There are actual people involved
Including the people who play porn games and, far more significantly, anyone else who has any kind of hobby or interest or quirk or thought that another person might find offensive or unpleasant or corrupting or frightening or ominous or abnormal. Which might just be most people.

[bucolic_]

I'm curious about this, what is it that sets apart a rape fantasy from a murderous-rampage fantasy like grand theft auto? I doubt a thread about GTA would have garnered this sort of response.

[Cygnus]

Blueback, my examples served to show we want and place restrictions on things. You are simply providing what you view as reasoning for the restrictions, the points still stands that when we feel it is in the better overall interest for ourselves and others, we place limits on our freedoms.

There is really no sense in de-personalizing the personal. This debate can go back to the scope that ethics and morals (which are restrictions on behavior) are not required. I do not mind upsetting people and rocking the boat, but I do feel it has to be tempered. Does the full scope of human depravity need to packaged as a "fun" game and sold to make money?

[daydreamer]

It looked to me like runoverazebra was characterizing rape as worse than murder in the context of the moral seriousness of the crime, following the mode of discussion in this thread. So then Weber contested that moral characterization by pointing out an inconsistency in the argument. Her response was that she's an authority and can't be contested. Blueback is contesting that in turn.

And anecdote doesn't really back anything up anyway. It colors or provides exception.

it looked to me that ROZ was stating that in her experience, she'd rather have died that to have gone through what she did. that's not a moral statement. that's a statement of experience.

if we are to examine the morality of the situation, what moral cause would one defend when fighting to keep games like this accessible, and to whom/on what level to keep them accessible, or even to make them?

anecdotal evidence does has relevance. a large part of the population is threatened by the activities portrayed, as fun, in the game. many people who themselves are not threatened appear to be defending the rights of a minority that so far is fictional - no one on this thread admits to liking the game, playing such games on a regular basis, or attests to how "fun" they are - in the face of those who are here and have more than demonstrated justified fears. that's pretty insensitive.

if the game were about lynching blacks, we would not be having this discussion. the game would be illegal. let me point out there are less blacks, than women, in this nation. in my mind that further justifies the concerns of the population - but for some, incredibly, what only seems to matter is whether the object of hate-themed media is a minority or not.

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 01:46 PM ----------


You shouldn't protest someone contesting the conclusions another person draws from their experience though.

why not? whatever they contested may or may not hold water. the race example seems, black and white, whereas this is obviously not the case with what happened here. besides.

it seems your arguments are:

defending something someone else says based on conclusions from experience is not valid.

attacking human moral applications as applied to humans is not valid.

attacking someone's contesting another person's conclusions of their own experience is not valid.

that pretty well does leave any rape victim silenced, and undefendable.


so, to recap: the pleasurable experiences one gets while playing a rape game are defendable. agreeing with the human moral applications as applied to humans is valid, as is agreeing with someone else's contesting of another person's conclusions of their experience. at least in this context?

[Yhor]

I think the comparisons that Daydreamer makes regarding minority support is absolutely true. Because women as a gender are not a minority, this 'media' type is accepted (not to say supported). If this were a minority being portrayed in this 'media' type (video game), there would likely be massive opposition and controversial reactions to it's creation.

Say for instance, if someone were to make a tv network named WET (white entertainment television), as an alternative to BET (black entertainment television), there would likely be a huge opposition to it, press called and protests galore. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is a website that puts examples of directly alternate views, side by side with actual BET programs/news, in a satirical article announcing the 'new network'. Imagine for a second if it were not satire, it would create a mess from both black communities and from a majority of the white community. It would almost certainly not be allowed to air, at least not in the US.

So because rape is usually (almost always) associated with a majority (women), it is less controversial and accepted as free speech. I'm no fan of censorship, but to allow something to be created and sold, because it is not directed towards a minority, and to disallow something because it is directed at a minority, seems hypocritical (almost criminally so). Rape is an extremely violent and demoralizing attack, some equate it to, and some even say it is worse than, murder. I don't think it is an accurate depiction of where a society places it's values, if it is not censored equally to those in it's competitor's related spectrum of 'products'. It's hard to know where to draw the line, but a line can't be drawn with disappearing ink when a "majority" direction crosses it, but be perfectly visible when it's instead directed at a minority.

[Mogura]

I am starting to see the other side of the coin. I would be very much interested in purchasing and playing a violent, horrendous and bloody video game where I can cruise around town decapitating rapists, sexual deviants and child molesters. Bonus points for improperly socialized geeks and compulsive masturbators with mother issues...

[Amphorian]

@roz: I too have been sexually abused. By someone I know. Someone I know very well. My father. However, I can't accept that my experience should dictate censorship of almost any game, even one as violent, and horribly wrong as this. I'm in agreement with stasis.

And yes, I have nitemares and wake me up in a panic; I have problems with sexual thoughts at times; and have anger issues because of the abuse I've been through. I hate to know this about myself, but if I didn't go through what I did, I wouldn't be the person I am today. I hate knowing that. I hate knowing I know more, and that I'm a better, stronger person because of the abuse I've been through. It's twisted as fuck, and no I don't support abusing people to make them stronger but it's true in my case, that I became more objective and critical minded coming out of the situation.

@Lake: I can't readily accept that Japan's society is better off then the United States. Mainly because you only gave one statistic. Japan's suicidal rate is far higher the U.S. I suspect this is so because of the teachings in Japan's culture. Namely to suck bad things that happen to you up and to obey authority to a T. Asian societies are far more stricter in their teachings then America; however, despite some pros (like obeying laws better), there is cons to such a social structure.

@roz, Seriously, daydreamer, and a few others: And yes, the game is an art form. Art isn't defined as something that is beautiful, or something that makes you personally happy. Art is simply the viewpoints, expessions of the artist and what they see in the world around them. Artists use different medias to express themselves, and believe me not all art is accepted as art to everyone, despite it being so in the sense of the word's definition to the art community. Like the chocolate Jesus having to be taken down at a museum last year (or the year before) because of such a high protest, mainly from conservatives.

@daydreamer and Yhor: I find that the censorship laws of games contradict our freedom of speech. -points to the Westbro Baptist Chruch from Kansas- They are allowed to demonstrate hate speech and protest in certain areas in real life. Such isn't a virtual game, it's real and it's allowed. Mind you they have to pay for the mental and emotional damage they've done to families of soliders and gays they've picketed, but they're still allowed to speak their views. I'm pretty sure where protests, how far away, etc. a protest can be from certain events will change, but that doesn't change the fact they have a website, stand on corners and go on marches with their hate speech. Heck, even the KKK is allowed their marches still.

No, I do not like what they do. No, I do not wish hate speech upon anyone. No, I don't promote them because I tolerate their hate. No, I would never play such vile games that have been and will be produced because I adhere to as least censorship as possible. Yes, I fully support taking appropiate action if the situation gets out of hand. But if they have to give up something that is offensive to me through censorship then they have the right to request whatever is offensive to them that I do be censored as well. And I will not go that route.

@Original topic: I fully support a minimal censorship of the freedom of speech and expression of individuals. For if I didn't I'd be on a slippery slope considering I'm a miniority in certain views (like homosexuality and atheism). I fully support having laws in place to deter inappropiate behavior such a murder, rape, domestic violence, stealing, etc. and having appropiate punishments for them (I swear druggies shouldn't have longer sentences then rapists). I also fully support education that exposes all viewpoints as much as possible in a nonbiased way as possible. Coupled with critical thinking, understanding how certain behavior effects others and why certain behavior is accepted over others I believe the crimal rate of the U.S. would naturally go down. Not to mention make parenting class mandatory. Not in the sense of telling the parents how to parent, but giving them resources they didn't know they had, ways of dealing with the situation, etc. then letting them decided what is best for their family after they've been exposed to more methods of parenting.

Critical thinking, moderation, understanding and freedom of speech/expression is key to a better society. Not throwing the issue under the rug and hiding it away. The more people teach open minded but critical thinking views, role model such views by applying them to their lives (instead of saying, "Do as I say not as I do") should naturally deter people from such extreme games to begin with or at least keep them in control of their mindsets. Explain fanstasy verse reality. Explain that if one if getting to involved and gaining a different mindset because of such games or exposure to such views one should get help, not act upon it. Seriously, I don't go out and kill people because I play violent video games. It doesn't make me demented or sick for playing them either (in my opinion).

The only, they one and only censorship I support is that of hurting children. Like child porn. Namely because children can't defend themselves against such abuse. They haven't developed their critical thinking skills yet, how to verbally defend themselves or get the appropiate authority if the situation gets out of hand for the most part. Adults on the other hand should be mature enough to critically think about the situation, how the games that are extreme effect society and know how to handle themselves when confronted with such views.

[stasis]

in the face of those who are here and have more than demonstrated justified fears. that's pretty insensitive.
I think it's kind of ridiculous to expect the whole world to live in the prison of anyone's own personal fears. Nothing is taking place in anybody's face. People can pick and choose what they read, what they play, what they listen to.


if the game were about lynching blacks, we would not be having this discussion. the game would be illegal.
No it wouldn't. Not in the US anyway.




Say for instance, if someone were to make a tv network named WET (white entertainment television), as an alternative to BET (black entertainment television), there would likely be a huge opposition to it, press called and protests galore.
This is because just about every other channel is already white entertainment television in the sense that BET is black entertainment television. An analogy would be a gay entertainment television channel vs a heterosexual entertainment channel, whereas normal programming is already laden with heterosexual themes. There's no need of the WET because the mainstream already caters to it; setting it up therefore functions as an attack instead of the satisfying of something that's being left out, and that is why you'd see the protests. Although I don't like the idea of racially-oriented television channels at all, the concept at play with BET has a lot to do with role models and peers who "look like" the viewers and so forth.

[Still Standing]

Adults have and indulge in rape fantasies. Video games are a story telling vehicle, just like novels, only American society tends to associate games with children and stoners, which somehow makes it more offensive than watching a hard-core porno that depicts the same. CNN obviously has nothing better to report on, especially since this game isn't even the slightest bit new and they want to stir the pot.

Well, since I enjoy stirring the pot myself, I just gotta chime in here. Why is it okay to satisfy your death fantasies (i.e. killing people) in video games but not your rape fantasies? Both are destructive to other people - one results in terminal, physical death and the other results in emotional/spiritual death. To me, both are equally illegal and immoral when acted out, so both types of videos should be viewed and treated in the same way.

[Cygnus]

Amphorian, the catch is society says when you are not considered a child anymore...Critical thinking is not necessarily related to age, more your aptitude and personality..the skill set you are hoping humanity has "Critical thinking, moderation, understanding" has been amply demonstrated throughout history that most people do not have an abundance of and today is no different....Your ideas look great on paper, but if the reality close to it..we would not be having this discussion in the first place.

Ironically, I full endorse exploring the darker nature of the human condition, but it is a personal journey and one you must be ready for. The information is out there..in the shadows and should remain there..away from the unwary and available for the explorer. People do not have quite the iron grip of control of themselves as you would like to believe..they have trouble even holding themselves accountable...

[Zombicide]

if the game were about lynching blacks, we would not be having this discussion. the game would be illegal. let me point out there are less blacks, than women, in this nation. in my mind that further justifies the concerns of the population - but for some, incredibly, what only seems to matter is whether the object of hate-themed media is a minority or not.

Behold, you're full of shit!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry, mam :(

[Still Standing]

The most reasonable conclusion seems to be that rapists-to-be being rapists-to-be is problematic. Which we observe to've had little or nothing to do with the existence of games like this one. So it should be the individual in question, his or her psychology and physiology and subculture that are at issue.

Right. Also, violent/morbid videogames do not justify and legitimize the use of violence and the practice of gruesome/gory pleasures in real life. Ditto for rape fantasy games.

[Cygnus]

Well, since I enjoy stirring the pot myself, I just gotta chime in here. Why is it okay to satisfy your death fantasies (i.e. killing people) in video games but not your rape fantasies? Both are destructive to other people - one results in terminal, physical death and the other results in emotional/spiritual death. To me, both are equally illegal and immoral when acted out, so both types of videos should be viewed and treated in the same way.

Because it is an insensitive handling of content that hits closer to home for many. Most people engage in sex throughout their lives and many have been exposed to sexual abuse.

[Still Standing]

From what I read about this game (or one of them if there's another one involving the subway), they are not exactly "rape" games. They are more like male fantasies of forceful seduction. Despite the initial set up, they bear little resemblance to how stranger rape actually occurs. They often portray the woman as secretly desiring it or enjoying it and actively participating. It would be better if they were more realistic since rape is a horrific act and should be presented as it actually is.

I think that could be a problem because it confirms/validates a potential rapist's belief that women actually enjoy being raped.

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 08:51 PM ----------

Because it is an insensitive handling of content that hits closer to home for many. Most people engage in sex throughout their lives and many have been exposed to sexual abuse.

Right. While people who have been killed don't give a damn that there are violent and gory videogames out there. (It usually bothers the dead person's family and friends however if they were a victim of gratuitous violence.)

[stasis]

It is not enough that we be civil to one another in public and other designated areas like the workplace. No! More than this, we must destroy the evil thoughts wherever they exist! What we need is a great cleansing of all the brains of the earth in the name of sensitivity, such that no part of it could ever perturb anybody else.

So if you love children and babies and women and rabbits and nature, like any true human would, you'll take up this cause. You must agree!

[Cygnus]

It is not enough that we be civil to one another in public and other designated areas like the workplace. No! More than this, we must destroy the evil thoughts wherever they exist! What we need is a great cleansing of all the brains of the earth in the name of sensitivity, such that no part of it could ever perturb anybody else.

So if you love children and babies and women and rabbits and nature, like any true human would, you'll take up this cause. You must agree!

Or the other extreme..great anarchy and for all those that loves freedom you can fuck over each other whenever you please.

[stasis]

Moral fascism is what we have when people aren't allowed to think what they want and read what they want in private because some other people feel negatively about those thoughts and that information. When there's no victim to an act, the call for sensitivity is nothing more than a flashy banner excusing the arbitrary foisting of self upon other.

Ironic during an uproar about rape to say the least.

[Cygnus]

What we have is people trying to make money and capitalizing on conditions inextricably woven into the fabric of human nature, sex and violence. Ironic you trying to depict this as some great moral stand, when we sit on a board that we are free to discuss ideas..with rules and limitations and moderation...

[daydreamer]

Behold, you're full of shit!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


i don't see any blacks being lynched ?

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 06:23 PM ----------

I am starting to see the other side of the coin. I would be very much interested in purchasing and playing a violent, horrendous and bloody video game where I can cruise around town decapitating rapists, sexual deviants and child molesters. Bonus points for improperly socialized geeks and compulsive masturbators with mother issues...

don't forget castration.

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 06:31 PM ----------

I think it's kind of ridiculous to expect the whole world to live in the prison of anyone's own personal fears. Nothing is taking place in anybody's face. People can pick and choose what they read, what they play, what they listen to.


your statements present only the extremes; i'm proposing neither. i am suggesting that there is nothing wrong with, and everything right with, showing, and even promoting the cause of sensitivity. you seem unable to see that your statements show sensitivity to the would-be users of such games without sensitivity towards the subjects of the intended harm/offense.


No it wouldn't. Not in the US anyway.


assuming you're correct, would you be surprised at the outrage that would inevitably ensue? or would you think that blacks were being ridiculous to expect the whole world to live in the prison of their fears?

[stasis]

What we have is people trying to make money and capitalizing on conditions
Evil upon evil upon evil upon evil brewing in bile in the blackest of hells. Mammon arises! Moneychanging! that prideful art of grand Lucifer Himself, wreathed in flame. Avert thine eyes, O traveler, lest ye be damned in eternity a visage of superheated salt-pillar!


inextricably woven into the fabric of human nature
Knitting sucks.


Ironic you trying to depict this as some great moral stand, when we sit on a board that we are free to discuss ideas..with rules and limitations and moderation...
Hardly. I think civilization is a good thing. Rules of engagement fit the public square, a forum, much like rules of interpersonal conduct in the workplace or university campus. I mentioned that earlier. But this does not extend to the interiors of people's houses, further to the information contents of their purchases, and most certainly not into their private thoughts. And nor should it. I must report finding no ethical license whatsoever for such rapist excursions of whimsy.



assuming you're correct, would you be surprised at the outrage that would inevitably ensue? or would you think that blacks were being ridiculous to expect the whole world to live in the prison of their fears?
I wouldn't be surprised. What I'd call ridiculous is the touting of fear as currency on the way down the slippery slope without a snow sled. Games or books or music quite simply do not encompass the social phenomena they often describe. They are not themselves the genesis of the problem, and nor are the gaggle of people who read about or witness reproductions of these things likely by number to be anything but unremarkable. The problem lies in those who actually commit the violations, the rapes and murders and predatory social initiatives. These are set apart; a subset of those who are interested, and most likely inclined as such by far broader cultural, psychological, and physiological issues.

It is not reasonable to expect license to regulate the private thoughts of the public at large to resonance with one's own feelings. More poignantly, it is not sane to take up righteous indignation over the fact that the content of all thought is not uniform. That connoisseur of tacky porn-game imports emblazoned with moon speak is committing all kinds of thoughtcrime. What a thoughtcriminal.

[Amphorian]

Amphorian, the catch is society says when you are not considered a child anymore...Critical thinking is not necessarily related to age, more your aptitude and personality..the skill set you are hoping humanity has "Critical thinking, moderation, understanding" has been amply demonstrated throughout history that most people do not have an abundance of and today is no different....Your ideas look great on paper, but if the reality close to it..we would not be having this discussion in the first place.

Ironically, I full endorse exploring the darker nature of the human condition, but it is a personal journey and one you must be ready for. The information is out there..in the shadows and should remain there..away from the unwary and available for the explorer. People do not have quite the iron grip of control of themselves as you would like to believe..they have trouble even holding themselves accountable...

Actually, I am aware of what you're talking about. I was literally discussing such with my sister on the walk we went on a few minutes ago from this reply. I'm fully aware that many adults are "children" in the mental sense, and lack critical thinking skills for their age. I believe this stems from our past, where people were taught to be obedient children as adults and not free thinkers. However, in light of it all the movement from obedient children to free thinking adults is on the rise, and I believe will continue to do so. I have faith in humanity on that reguard. Mind you it'll be a slow process.

On the information part. I think such information should be readily available and made known that it exists, not kept hidden. An example: On another forum I've frequented for many years censorship of the word "pedophile" (and some other words) happened because another company wouldn't do business with them if they didn't censor the speech on the forums. However, in the extended discussion part of that forum based website, topics about pedophila existed in order to educate people about the topic. Especially on the fact being a pedophile doesn't equate to one becoming or being a child molestor. Not all pedophiles accept those thoughts nor act upon them. Many have to learn how to handle such thoughts and deal with them because they aren't going go away despite them wanting them to. The forums members in the end gained their free speech back after making their case.

The same goes with violent video games that involve murder. Should we do away with all of them because they might influence individuals to start running over people with cars? Shooting others? etc.? There has been debates about such, and so far there is no supporting evidence that exposure to said video games make people go out and kill others. Might make them gain some apathy, mainly if imagery is involved (this happened to the Romans as well with their galidator and battle ship arena battles), but I highly doubt it's going influence people to go do evil acts upon another.

Also does playing such games make a person demented? I'd say no. I'm not demented because I play violent video games. I'm not demented because I have fleeting thoughts that I view as twisted and sick. No, I'm human. All humans have these thoughts. Thoughts do not equate to action. Thoughts do not dictate who you are or your beliefs. Beliefs are your beliefs; your actions are your actions; your feelings are your feelings; your ideas are your ideas; and even though your thoughts are your thoughts doesn't mean they dictate the other areas of your life/mind. Seriously, don't you have such thoughts? Do you act upon them? Do you agree with them as they pass through your mind or are you appalled that you have such thoughts to begin with? But they're still there aren't they? So if they're there are they your beliefs? Actions?

I'm not going hide in shame about my thoughts. They are just that, thoughts. Just as feelings can be fleeting and mean nothing to my overall belief system, the same goes for thoughts.

Are BSDM people twisted? Furries? People that like hentai or non living characters? If they are, they are just twisted as the rest of us. It's the fact some hide it better then others. We homo sapiens are creatures of nature. We homo sapiens because of our thinking skills have created ethical systems to encourage a better living environment. However, I see no law in nature that ethics are better then a free for all. I personally adhere to ethics because I want a better living condition for myself and others. Well the fact is 1) Everyone's morals are subjective 2) Some people really don't give a shit. We have to live in such a world. Frankly, I'm not going impose my morals on others if I don't have to while supporting those needed (e.g. types of protection, such a physical protective laws) in order for society to progress.

I'd also like to point out about the "sweeping the issue on the rug" business doesn't go over so well. Let's take sexual education vs. absentience and cultural moderation of alcohol vs. "Do as I say, not as I do" culture involving alcohol.

The societies that teach sexual education to the full intent have lower abortion and pregnecy rates then one that don't. Instead of sweeping the issue of teenagers having sex under the rug, they realize they can't control people in educational societies. So instead they equip the young people with ways to handle the situation. They teach critical thinking skills and how to be an adult in the situation. Absentience only education avoids the problem on the other hand. And because the teenagers aren't taught how to protect themselves, about STDs, condoms, etc. and yet they still go out, experiment and have sex. This problems arise in such a society such as high abortion rates and underage pregnecies.

Same goes with the alcohol situation. Instead of being taught about moderation of alcohol, and viewing it as a social drink that shouldn't be abused, some socieities push it under the rug hoping if the young people don't "know" they won't drink.

So no, I don't think we should sweep these issues under the rug. Not knowing causes more problems then being educated about the issue. And I believe censorship does the same thing. It's just avoiding the problem, shielding eyes and then when they are finally exposed to it have no way of dealing with it because they weren't taught how to.

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 09:48 PM ----------


don't forget castration.

If Mogura and you are in support of such a game, it would make you no better then those that want a rape game. My sister brought up something on our walk. She was talking about Criminal Minds and the quote at the end. Basically the story was about two brothers going about hunting people. That's all they were taught from their twisted uncle, and never had any other social contact. They thought hunting people as normal. In the end one got shot, and the other stabbed by the girl they were currently hunting. However, it was one of the agents that realized something: We're they really better then those guys?

See the young men were bad guys hunting good innocent people right? Well the agents were good guys hunting the bad guys, and sometimes killing them.

But in the end is good guys hunting bad guys any better morally? Perhaps for society and the greater good sure. But on a personal level? Is it? Aren't the good guys imposing their morals standards on another? Then at times even killing? And don't you support them only because you agree with them? But what if the bad guys were imposing their moral standards on you? Is it worse? Some actions I think definitly yes, but the premises of it all?

Each are doing the same thing, imposing themselves upon another because they believe they are better or superior someone compared to the other.

I don't believe I'm better at the base. I have the same human thoughts and deposition, the difference is in what I choose to do and how to behave. But if I can stop myself from imposing any moral standard as much as possible on another, I will go that route. Obviously I agree with imposing some limitations for the greater good but that's it. I can go no further, for I am no better then they in the end. No matter how much I improve my personality and personal development either. For they I'm pretty sure, can find something I believe in to be offensive to them.

[Mogura]

If Mogura and you are in support of such a game, it would make you no better then those that want a rape game....I was being sarcastic. Of course, I wouldn't purchase or play such a game...

[Amphorian]

I was being sarcastic...

Sorry then I apologize, but sarcasm doesn't readily translate well over the internet. But I think in reply to the sarcasm I did make a point. Because I'm pretty sure there is people out there, because of the hurt they've been in have anger against such people (emotions are justifiable, just like twisted thoughts are as I pointed out above). Perhaps in the end even want to act out upon their anger (which isn't justifiable). That anger can lower a person to the level of action that was first set against them to begin with and I think it's a valid point to address.

[unabridgedone]

I'm currently taking a seminar course concerning the topic of children, adolescents, and media violence. Today we discussed this topic at length.

It is interesting to think about cultural taboos. While the US considers sexual deviancy taboo and tends to accept violence, countries like Japan find violence more taboo and sexuality more acceptable.

Even so, a game that allows the gamer to gang rape a girl, her sister, and her mother on a subway is disturbing to me as an individual. On the game discussed on CNN yesterday, the gamer could even get the victim pregnant and practice persuasion skills by convincing the female character to get an abortion.

This seems to take entertainment to the extreme, especially since women are the usual victims. I know that the market for these games would be a factor in this tendency, but for some reason I can't help but associate these games with misogyny and I worry for any person who is still in the process of developing a sexual identity who encounters such games and, by extension, may come to form a social script or schema that such behaviors are normal or acceptable.

[daydreamer]

I wouldn't be surprised. What I'd call ridiculous is the touting of fear as currency on the way down the slippery slope without a snow sled.


that's a bit vague; would you think their fears justified, would you be sympathetic to their feelings, or would you think them ridiculous? would you try to decide which of their fears were justified, and which were more important/place value judgments on/prioritize their fearful opinions?


Games or books or music quite simply do not encompass the social phenomena they often describe. They are not themselves the genesis of the problem, and nor are the gaggle of people who read about or witness reproductions of these things likely by number to be anything but unremarkable.


i don't disagree. but i did find the comments from the nurse who has worked with rapists interesting. in your opinion do Beulah's comments fall within the realm of providing evidence for the morality police/currency of fear?


The problem lies in those who actually commit the violations, the rapes and murders and predatory social initiatives. These are set apart; a subset of those who are interested, and most likely inclined as such by far broader cultural, psychological, and physiological issues.


i don't disagree that they are a problem. but they are not the only problem. i do wonder what broad cultural issues you could be referring to though: could you give me an example?


It is not reasonable to expect license to regulate the private thoughts of the public at large to resonance with one's own feelings.


is it unreasonable to expect sensitivity? from one's peers, for instance.


More poignantly, it is not sane to take up righteous indignation over the fact that the content of all thought is not uniform.


it is not insane to share one's experiences, one's evaluation of such experiences, and to propose ideas based on one's conclusions. righteous indignation is in the eye of the beholder. i was shocked to find out in the course of reading this thread how the actual crime of rape is handled in Japan. are the victims of rape in such a situation not supposed to rock the boat, not be indignant? at what point, or how even, does actual rape in such a society become a crime, if the experiences of the victim are irrelevant? does sensitivity to the plight of women have no bearing in changing attitudes towards rape? is it just coincidence that rape is a crime in the first place? is the current Japanese culture more righteous in its attitude towards rape now, since they don't uniformly declare it criminal?

by policing what is acceptable for women to say, or not say, regarding an issue very directly concerning them, you are putting yourself in the righteous catbird seat. why try to censor their thoughts, their beliefs, their comments, why insist on calling it not sane? it seems you are a little indignant that someone does not think the same way you do...

it seems to me you have an issue with admitting the legitimacy of many of the women's comments here, simply because you disagree with what you think must be their conclusions. for me personally, i don't advocate making the game illegal. but i do find insensitivity to those affected by the subject matter appalling, even for NT's. attacking the legitimacy of their comments is absurd; trying to put their comments into perspective is not.


That connoisseur of tacky porn-game imports emblazoned with moon speak is committing all kinds of thoughtcrime. What a thoughtcriminal.

i have no idea what you're saying here. if this is a reference it's lost on me; if it was meant for me to understand, i don't. can you rephrase or explain?

stasis, i am impressed that you're able to defend the right of the game to exist in so many posts without admitting your personal opinions of the game. it smacks of being a different kind of morality/social police. how do you personally feel about the game?

what the game means to and for actual rapists, which represents a small but topically significant population, and what another population's fearful reaction to the subject matter means are uncomfortable areas for some to discuss directly, so it seems, much easier to dismiss their relevance categorically. but those are important considerations with regard to the implementation of any regulations, including accompanying legal warnings and appropriate sale of such materials. it is much easier to frame inquiries about such material into yes-or-no questions, should-or-shouldn'ts, whether-or-not's, and try to dismantle common sense one rationalism at a time; but what is the relevance of doing that?

it is also much easier to talk about those vague regular people in the middle who at once may enjoy the game, but who also would never commit the crime, and take up their cause to the exclusion of all other considerations. yet real-world mechanics are rarely that simple; although we're individuals we are all in this together; we influence each other, and we have to live with each other. i don't see how sensitivity to each other's concerns can be a bad thing.

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 08:52 PM ----------


If Mogura and you are in support of such a game, it would make you no better then those that want a rape game.

Each are doing the same thing, imposing themselves upon another because they believe they are better or superior someone compared to the other.

I don't believe I'm better at the base. I have the same human thoughts and deposition, the difference is in what I choose to do and how to behave. But if I can stop myself from imposing any moral standard as much as possible on another, I will go that route. Obviously I agree with imposing some limitations for the greater good but that's it. I can go no further, for I am no better then they in the end. No matter how much I improve my personality and personal development either. For they I'm pretty sure, can find something I believe in to be offensive to them.

i was jumping on Mogura's sarcasm bandwagon.

i don't believe i'm better than everyone else either. i do not believe i have the same thoughts and disposition though, but i do believe my thoughts are just as valid as anyone else's. am i as offended by the idea of a Lorena Bobbitt game as i am by this rape game? no, i'll admit it, i'm less sensitive to that idea personally. that doesn't mean i would dismiss the legitimacy of someone else, presumably a man or boy, being upset by the idea. i'd listen to what they had to say and consider their concerns, rather than covering my ears and going on with indistinct references meaning to appeal to a vaguely first-amendment, americanish type of morality.

[Cygnus]

Evil upon evil upon evil upon evil brewing in bile in the blackest of hells. Mammon arises! Moneychanging! that prideful art of grand Lucifer Himself, wreathed in flame. Avert thine eyes, O traveler, lest ye be damned in eternity a visage of superheated salt-pillar!



Knitting sucks.



Hardly. I think civilization is a good thing. Rules of engagement fit the public square, a forum, much like rules of interpersonal conduct in the workplace or university campus. I mentioned that earlier. But this does not extend to the interiors of people's houses, further to the information contents of their purchases, and most certainly not into their private thoughts. And nor should it. I must report finding no ethical license whatsoever for such rapist excursions of whimsy.




I wouldn't be surprised. What I'd call ridiculous is the touting of fear as currency on the way down the slippery slope without a snow sled. Games or books or music quite simply do not encompass the social phenomena they often describe. They are not themselves the genesis of the problem, and nor are the gaggle of people who read about or witness reproductions of these things likely by number to be anything but unremarkable. The problem lies in those who actually commit the violations, the rapes and murders and predatory social initiatives. These are set apart; a subset of those who are interested, and most likely inclined as such by far broader cultural, psychological, and physiological issues.

It is not reasonable to expect license to regulate the private thoughts of the public at large to resonance with one's own feelings. More poignantly, it is not sane to take up righteous indignation over the fact that the content of all thought is not uniform. That connoisseur of tacky porn-game imports emblazoned with moon speak is committing all kinds of thoughtcrime. What a thoughtcriminal.

The thought is not the issue, it is the act of creation and distribution. It is not longer a private matter then, it is encroaching on the rules of social conduct. There is nothing saying this remains private. Let's make Rape Online, so it is a internet, multi-player and international experience. There would also be a need for advertising for it, it would be hypocrytical to prohibit business people from advertising their products and services when and how they chose. It is very naive to believe you have 100% control over what you are exposed to.

This is a lot more convoluted than you are envisioning. Interesting you would try to color is as righteous indignation, rather than knowing the monster it can become from being a monster myself.

[BlackOp]

Wait...can I be an angry midget in this game...pulling up dresses of girlies on the subway? In 3d and hi-def? My fantasy has come true....life is grand.

[Cygnus]

Nice BlackOp. The odd things is, these type of computer games have been with us for a lot longer then the mainstream public realizes. It is only because media attention that it is getting public recognition. Low key and underground...I have no trouble with, it stays private and individual choice then...when it becomes mainstream, it has the propensity for exploding into a giant cluster fuck.

[Amphorian]

i was jumping on Mogura's sarcasm bandwagon.

i don't believe i'm better than everyone else either. i do not believe i have the same thoughts and disposition though, but i do believe my thoughts are just as valid as anyone else's. am i as offended by the idea of a Lorena Bobbitt game as i am by this rape game? no, i'll admit it, i'm less sensitive to that idea personally. that doesn't mean i would dismiss the legitimacy of someone else, presumably a man or boy, being upset by the idea. i'd listen to what they had to say and consider their concerns, rather than covering my ears and going on with indistinct references meaning to appeal to a vaguely first-amendment, americanish type of morality.

I believe with the injection of personal experience and emotional appeal, discussions and finalizing a solution to the problem can be hindered. However, I'm not saying to reject, dismiss nor view personal experiences and emotional pain as inferior either. They have their place, but they also can shift the situation and blind our reasoning.

I'm not sure if you read such or not, but I already stated I have been sexually abused by my father in my second post in this thread. So why, why would I personally cover my ears to your concerns? When in fact I know first hand how it feels to be in such a situation? Do you not think I have those concerns as well? Guess what? I do. unabridgedone communicated my concerns very throughly a few posts ago, and I got an emotional jolt from that post. Heck, I couldn't even do a report on a story for English class because of the content (the girl was going into shock over the guy that was going take her away and rape her, and if she didn't he'd hurt her family). I cried after reading it, and relived those moment of shock from my own situation.

The point is, I stand back when I deal with these debates for a reason. My personal experience and emotional response could over color a logical view point. Namely the fact of imposing my morals upon others. You're advocating for imposing censorship on the premises of your moral standards. You're wanting to denying an adult the right to their own freedom of privacy and freedom of expression. And wanting to deny an artist's expression. Yet, they on the other hand are not trying to impose the game on you. They are not forcing you to play it, nor are these game makers and players saying you can't create types of games that you'd want to play. Why? Why is there a double standard here?

There is no victim in these games. No real person is getting hurt. Games don't teach people how to behave, other humans teach people how to behave. A parent's (or some role model a child looks up to) guidence or lack thereof is going have a greater impact on how a person begins to view the world. I don't believe killing is right, but I enjoy games that have killing it. So why do I have this seemly paradox about myself? Because my parents taught me that killing was wrong and why.

You say that you'd listen to the other concerns of other people for other games, such as dealing with Lorena Bobbitt, but what about violence without any sexual connection? There are people out there 100% against to killing in video games, just like you are 100% opposed to this game. Now the question is, do you believe their concerns are valid? Why aren't you there with them trying to get violent video games off the shelves and out of the hands of young people that are so readily influenced? I mean, those people concerns are just as valid as yours and have the same reason behind them yes?

Is it the different moral standard? That violent video games aren't that wrong to you so they're okay to be on the shelves despite quite a few people finding them highly offensive? So the only reason censorship should be accepted is on the basis of how offensive it is now yes? If you play video games how many have you played with violence in them? Are you fine with the violence in them and fine with them being sold in great masses?

I don't find violent games offensive, and I do find rape games offensive; however, my concerns are just as valid as those that oppose violent games. Therefore, I have no say actually considering my concerns are on the same level as someone else's despite me being in disagreement with them. So I can't inject my personal offensive or concerns into this debate without being a hypocrite on my part.

So, since there is no victim, no one being hurt, no evidence that such games create monsters and rapists and my concerns are on the same level as people that oppose violent video games despite me playing such games I personally believe that freedom of speech and expression win out.

---------- Post added 04-02-2010 at 12:39 AM ----------

Nice BlackOp. The odd things is, these type of computer games have been with us for a lot longer then the mainstream public realizes. It is only because media attention that it is getting public recognition. Low key and underground...I have no trouble with, it stays private and individual choice then...when it becomes mainstream, it has the propensity for exploding into a giant cluster fuck.

I do agree that such games have been around for some time and underground; however, I disagree with such content not being mainstream. I don't mean in the "gaming" sense either. Much of such content (such a rape and murder) has been mainstream since humans could write and communicate through different means. Romance novels, holy books (like the Bible), movies, plays (even ones back in the day like Opedius which delt with incest), short stories, music, visual arts, etc. all have tapped into realm of the twisted mind. It's quite wide spread throughout the different mediums.

Considering such content is readily available everywhere, I fail to see where this "exploding into a giant cluster fuck" has happened. On the contrary, I'm pretty sure there already is a giant cluster fuck of wrongs against each other as individuals, and then such happenings were recorded because of the events. Art forms and communication are expressing what is already happening on a mass scale, not influencing such to happen.

[Cygnus]

Because Amphorian games have reached a level to where you actually interact with other people. Gaming online where players can rape each other does not seems like the best direction to head and indeed has "cluster fuck" potential all over it. Cyberpunk is one of my favorite genre's of fiction and it constantly deals and explores technology being used on the "low" end and not for the noblest of purposes. It is inevitable that any act that humanity can envision will be virtualized and sold or traded to be indulged in. I am saying there is no need to rip open Pandora's Box and dump it all around, let the Box lid slip open slowly on it's own. Hopefully then we will be ready to handle it, otherwise, we're fucked :)

[Amphorian]

I don't understand what you're getting at. Verbal communcation and communication through the arts is human interaction. You mean stimulated interaction or physical interaction? If so I'd point to plays, literal roleplaying, and movies/videos.

Are you afraid of such merging into the 3D realm when the technology becomes available (which it appears to be doing rapidily)? If so, I'd be more concerned with stuff that is already going on such as physical roleplaying.

[Cygnus]

Let me try a different context. You are not going to leave a loaded gun laying around and easily accessable, you are going to take the bullets out and lock it up out of easy reach. Knowledge and experience is no different, you have to be ready to handle it responsibly. It is not fear, it is simply what I consider a likely outcome. People cannot even control themselves and not try to text and drive at the same time and laws have to be passed to ensure people are paying attention to driving their car....my faith in the masses to responsibly handle things is rather low.

[daydreamer]

Amphorian, i don't think you've read or understood what i've said. these statements by you are false in that they do not respresent my objective:


You're advocating for imposing censorship on the premises of your moral standards. You're wanting to denying an adult the right to their own freedom of privacy and freedom of expression. And wanting to deny an artist's expression.

There are people out there 100% against to killing in video games, just like you are 100% opposed to this game.


I believe with the injection of personal experience and emotional appeal, discussions and finalizing a solution to the problem can be hindered. However, I'm not saying to reject, dismiss nor view personal experiences and emotional pain as inferior either. They have their place, but they also can shift the situation and blind our reasoning.


why do we award people compensation pain and suffering in court? because pain and suffering are irrelevant?


I'm not sure if you read such or not, but I already stated I have been sexually abused by my father in my second post in this thread.


no Amphorian, i did not know that or read that. i'm very sorry to hear that.


So why, why would I personally cover my ears to your concerns? When in fact I know first hand how it feels to be in such a situation? Do you not think I have those concerns as well? Guess what? I do.


i wouldnt think that you would ignore my concerns. why would anyone? regardless if they had direct experience or not? that has been my point all along.

Amphorian i apologize if it seemed i was saying that i thought you were being insensitive or not listening to others concerns. i looked back at my post and the order of my thoughts there is deceiving; i can see how it looked exactly like my intent was to question you directly on that point. but it wasnt. i was referring to the ongoing point i have been trying to make with stasis, but i was not careful to point that out, while in the middle of a reply to you.


unabridgedone communicated my concerns very throughly a few posts ago, and I got an emotional jolt from that post. Heck, I couldn't even do a report on a story for English class because of the content (the girl was going into shock over the guy that was going take her away and rape her, and if she didn't he'd hurt her family). I cried after reading it, and relived those moment of shock from my own situation.


i think your experience is all the more reason for others to show a general sensitivity. that is what i have been saying all along. i'm really sorry to hear that you lived through such a nightmare and that you continue to be affected by it (who wouldn't?). i can't imagine having to deal with something like that.


The point is, I stand back when I deal with these debates for a reason. My personal experience and emotional response could over color a logical view point. Namely the fact of imposing my morals upon others.


do what you think is right.


Yet, they on the other hand are not trying to impose the game on you. They are not forcing you to play it, nor are these game makers and players saying you can't create types of games that you'd want to play. Why? Why is there a double standard here?


the double standard here eludes me, i have already stated that i'm not arguing for censorship.


There is no victim in these games. No real person is getting hurt.


i disagree with this. as in our english class example, real people can be hurt inadvertently by the subject matter alone. there is nothing wrong with admitting it, or with sharing it.


Games don't teach people how to behave, other humans teach people how to behave. A parent's (or some role model a child looks up to) guidence or lack thereof is going have a greater impact on how a person begins to view the world. I don't believe killing is right, but I enjoy games that have killing it. So why do I have this seemly paradox about myself? Because my parents taught me that killing was wrong and why.


funny, my parents never taught me that killing or raping people was wrong. i don't enjoy games that do either. i have no explanation for this paradox.

I'll answer your questions:


You say that you'd listen to the other concerns of other people for other games, such as dealing with Lorena Bobbitt, but what about violence without any sexual connection?


what about them. would i listen to people's concerns about violence in games. yes.


Now the question is, do you believe their concerns are valid?


yes.


Why aren't you there with them trying to get violent video games off the shelves and out of the hands of young people that are so readily influenced?


video games are rated for violence and appropriateness for children. i haven't found the rating system to err on the side of allowing extremely violent games to be in the hands of children, quite the opposite.


I mean, those people concerns are just as valid as yours and have the same reason behind them yes?


yes, with regard to validity, as i stated in my last reply to you, i think my thoughts on the matter are just as valid as anyone's. therefore, anyone's thoughts are just as valid as mine. as far as sharing the same reasons? there is no context for me to make that assumption. first of all, i have no reasons of my own that i have promoted or defended in favor of censoring any video game at all. so that's a no there.


Is it the different moral standard? That violent video games aren't that wrong to you so they're okay to be on the shelves despite quite a few people finding them highly offensive?


no, it's not a moral standard at all. i make no claim as to the morality behind any video game or its existence. also i have made no claims regarding just how right or wrong i believe the Japanese video game in question is.


So the only reason censorship should be accepted is on the basis of how offensive it is now yes?


no, i never said that, and i don't think that.


If you play video games how many have you played with violence in them?


when arcade games were introduced i played space invaders, pacman, tempest and gorf. i'm not sure pacman or tempest would qualify as violent; space invaders and gorf have sci-fi alien violence. i had an atari and i'd play pong and a game where the object was to catch bombs that a "bad guy" was dropping over a wall with increasing speed, with buckets of water to put out the fuses. online, i've played toon town, which is a farce upon cartoon violence, it's pretty funny, you should check it out. i have many apps for my droid phone including my favorite pente and some word game i can't think of the name of as well as several geometric shape type games, none of them violent. i have a playstation! 2 and the only game i own is "we love katamari" although i have enjoyed watching my husband play lego star wars. i try to watch him play ratchet and clank but i get seasick. so, if you consider space invaders, gorf, toon town or lego star wars violent then i have played 4 violent games. katamari is my all-time favorite.


Are you fine with the violence in them and fine with them being sold in great masses?


yes i'm completely fine with the violence in the games and i think they are appropriate to general audiences: rated G. i think one of the lego star wars that i bought my nephew for his DS was rated teen; it is less violent than the movies and his parents let him play it at age 11 rather than waiting until he was 12.


I don't find violent games offensive, and I do find rape games offensive; however, my concerns are just as valid as those that oppose violent games. Therefore, I have no say actually considering my concerns are on the same level as someone else's despite me being in disagreement with them. So I can't inject my personal offensive or concerns into this debate without being a hypocrite on my part.


your belief is fine; i do not share it.


So, since there is no victim, no one being hurt, no evidence that such games create monsters and rapists and my concerns are on the same level as people that oppose violent video games despite me playing such games I personally believe that freedom of speech and expression win out.


except that you deny yourself freedom of speech on this matter, because you are afraid someone might call you a hypocrite. i'm not afraid to explore whether or not i'm a hypocrite. it seems you are trying to differentiate yourself from me in that i might be a hypocrite; are you sure that you don't think you're better than me? or that your non-hypocritical standard is more valid than mine?

[stasis]

that's a bit vague; would you think their fears justified, would you be sympathetic to their feelings, or would you think them ridiculous? would you try to decide which of their fears were justified, and which were more important/place value judgments on/prioritize their fearful opinions?
I don't think fear is a sound basis for ethical decisionmaking at all. I'm not sympathetic to moralists who operate in that way, no. I find the method to be incredibly destructive, having directly resulted when successfully politicized in some of the longest-running and thereby most egregious crimes against humanity (the War on Drugs is a contemporary example). It's insidious because this fear is cloaked in the righteousness of the moral narrative. This kind of candy-coated shitpill is the means by which witch trials were able to rise to hysteria and kill so many people.


in your opinion do Beulah's comments fall within the realm of providing evidence for the morality police/currency of fear?
Not at all. Beulah reports drawing from a sample of criminals. I take issue with that entire post because it appears to ignore the distinction between disordered sexuality and healthy sexuality in favor of the much more broad "sexual deviance", thereby implying for this thread that there's no real distinction between anybody who'd play a game like this one and the pedophile in prison for an actual act of rape.


i do wonder what broad cultural issues you could be referring to though: could you give me an example?
Most elective crimes apparently have some kind of cultural component to them. So first you start with the differing rates of a particular crime between two otherwise similar countries and work backwards from there along cultural lines. Thereby you can isolate sub-cultural discrepancies and check these for correlation with rates of the crime you're analyzing. When a correlation is found, scrutinize the particular set further and that's where examples of this sort will be situated. Too technical for this thread. Too much work.


is it unreasonable to expect sensitivity? from one's peers, for instance.
It certainly can be. The management of an adult's emotions is largely their own responsibility. I find emotional labor of this kind a courtesy paid, not an entitlement to be demanded. Where it's really out of place, unreasonable and absurd in my view, is when the person expecting sensitivity isn't even involved. When they want groups of people associating amongst themselves to be sensitive to their feelings about something which does not actually involve them. This rape game is full of cartoons; the cries of sensitivity, sensitivity appear to be emanating predominantly from people who've elected to emotionally involve themselves. They are minding other people's business. In doing so, it isn't reasonable for them to expect anything other than the right to speak.


it is not insane to share one's experiences, one's evaluation of such experiences, and to propose ideas based on one's conclusions. righteous indignation is in the eye of the beholder.
It is insane to react to an inalienable fact (such as the existence of differing thought itself) with righteous indignation, as if the fact were not inalienable. Somebody is always going to have a thought or opinion that someone else finds traumatic to contemplate. One person's delight is therefore another person's irritant. To fail to accept this is the stuff of delusion. Policies or norms arising from delusion are delusional. Delusional norms tend to dysfunction, destroy.


it seems to me you have an issue with admitting the legitimacy of many of the women's comments here, simply because you disagree with what you think must be their conclusions. for me personally, i don't advocate making the game illegal. but i do find insensitivity to those affected by the subject matter appalling, even for NT's. attacking the legitimacy of their comments is absurd; trying to put their comments into perspective is not.
I don't think there's anything legitimate about it. Rape is a serious crime. The word "rape" is not the crime itself. When we start talking about a videogame we aren't talking about the act of rape, we're talking about the word. Since there is no rape taking place here, I'd call the dismay misplaced. Conflating the two is sloppy thinking. Heedlessness. Why respect that?


stasis, i am impressed that you're able to defend the right of the game to exist in so many posts without admitting your personal opinions of the game. it smacks of being a different kind of morality/social police. how do you personally feel about the game?
I don't feel one way or another about the game. It looks like an otaku (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) thing to me.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I don't feel one way or another about the game. It looks like an otaku (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) thing to me.

Famous otaku
The former Prime Minister of Japan, Taro Aso[10] and Shoko Nakagawa are otaku.

Amazing. This is just begging for a South park satire.

[WoodElf4U]

Hopefully I can add insight into this specific situation, as someone who has been a gamer most of his life, and I also promote freedom of speech. Yet I disagree with virtual rape, I'll explain.

With video game violence, some target (robot, alien, human, zombie, etc.) is being killed, but other than some pixels moving on a screen, there is no affect on reality. You can call this entertainment, art, or anything else. It is virtual.

If a person carries that experience with them, depending on their actions, it raises the question of what is right and wrong. If someone decides to go on a shooting spree, how much is a video game to blame? Usually we find they are mentally unstable and would find some reason (UFOs, government conspiracies, fox news) to kill people.

The same could be said for sexual crime, however I believe there is a tendency with sexual behavior to escalate, from lesser activities to more extreme. So what could be virtual today may turn reality tomorrow... but lets say that's never the case. Because of my next point.

Hate Speech. I believe in freedom of speech, but when it comes to the promotion of violence against any group, in this case women, I think any person trying to defend it with freedom of speech is a moron (no offense to all those who already have in this thread). So perhaps this is a case of the sexual oddity in japan, public sex and rape. But promoting behavior if it already exists or not, should not be allowed.

[Beulah]

It's insidious because this fear is cloaked in the righteousness of the moral narrative. This kind of candy-coated shitpill is the means by which witch trials were able to rise to hysteria and burn so many people to ashes.

Not at all. Beulah reports drawing from a sample of criminals. I take issue with that entire post because it appears to ignore the distinction between disordered sexuality and healthy sexuality in favor of the much more broad "sexual deviance", thereby implying for this thread that there's no real distinction between anybody who'd play a game like this one and the pedophile in prison for an actual act of rape.

The management of an adult's emotions is largely their own responsibility....

It is insane to react to an inalienable fact (such as the existence of differing thought itself) with righteous indignation, as if the fact were not inalienable. Somebody is always going to have a thought or opinion that someone else finds traumatic to contemplate. One person's delight is therefore another person's irritant. To fail to accept this is the stuff of delusion.

I don't think there's anything legitimate about it. Rape is a serious crime. The word "rape" is not the crime itself. When we start talking about a videogame we aren't talking about the act of rape, we're talking about the word. Since there is no rape taking place here, I'd call the dismay misplaced. Conflating the two is sloppy thinking.

Idealistic failure to conceive of the nature of the activity. The fantasy does become real in many minds, it feeds and develops an interest in illegal and yes destructive activities. The players are not already in jail (where such games are forbidden) so they have access to a large victim pool once interest in trying out the real thing is stimulated enough. Often even children in their own house. A proportion of these games played is not victimless, as the game is extended into real life. The games are carefully tailored to reinforce just the sorts of thoughts and cognitive frameworks therapists work wit rapists to undo.

If millions are playing there will be hundreds or thousands who among them are incited or provoked to try it out in reality - there are therefore end game victims who would not have been created if some gamers had not had game exposure. One victim is enough to justify depriving the majority who do not ever take it onto the streets and aren't deviate forsaking their game imo. If they aren't deviate, finding something else to do with time for the greater good would be no problem, and would actually be the natural choice. As they would be aware that while they and 1000 others may ever feel a need to act out such fantasies due to game inspiration, some will - which can come back and effect even their family members as victims.

The connection to hardcore porn like these games, and deviants acting out deviancy is well established. No they wouldn't have anyway - many valiantly fight and contain urges and normalising such urges obviously undermines this.

How idealistic to say the management of an adults emotions is their own responsibility. Many adults don't manage well, media also sets out to take over control by marketing ideas etc. Tomake money these games market the idea of rape as a valid thing to try out just for the experience or entertainment. It is for money - not to defend freedom of thought or speech.

Earlier generations did not fight for freedom from oppressive regimes so degenerate off spring could do this sort of gaming. I think if they could have foreseen this patheticness they'd have saved themselves a lot of bother and just handed the keys over to Hitler.

The distinction between playing these games and actually raping is marginal. The person behind the screen is vicariously experiencing and honing the predator instinct.

Yes deviancy is all through narrative including the bible. But societies normally produce narratives tha don't glorify it and that invite you to relate to the more socialised, heroic and noble traits. Using narratives in twisted ways is normally done to corrupt people and had that effect. It shouldn't be encouraged.

Your analogy in comparing such ideas to the hysteria raising seen in witch hunts is not apt.
Witches were herbal do gooders taking valued clientele off the male dominant meat cleaver wielding surgeon profession, who did not deserve hate campaigns.

Deviate porn merchants are a social malaise who're indirectly productive of some true evils, because they don't think beyond the dollar. Society requires caution and regulation (as with alcohol) to protect the innocent from porns worst fallout. To imagine that is not so and that anarchy and freedom of choice should rule in this area just belies quite a greenhorn view of matters.

Do not cigarettes have wanings re health risks? At the least vile games should warn that use may lead vulnerable individuals (nd there are a lot out there) to criminal offending. Sex offenders will often say they did not understand where all the porn was leading their nose. It is a pity they could not feel free to seek help before raping and killing little girls - because the liberal message out there was that it was all good to indulge in deviate "art" / "games" etc.

You speak of candy coated shitpills - the idea this stuff is harmless and freedom of speech/activity is the ultimate consideration in this subject area is exactly that. A view that does not incorporate all the realities, implications and important interests. This is not just a matter that should remain between consenting adults and their game dealers.

It's a bit like the murderabilia trade - the implications go far and wide. With murderabilia murderers sell items to people who could not indulge their collector urge unless murders first happened. With rape porn the product glorifies crimes that are endemic and stimulates more. The social benefit in entertainment value is outweighed by certain damages somewhere to someone. Just because you may not know who they are or where or the gamer who takes it to the next level, makes you no less responsible for supporting the rape game industry.

Such games are hate games that incite hate acts and have no place anymore than a black lynching game imo. I'm sure most supportive posters woud feel differently if our society was more matriarchal and the games we now debated primarily depicted males being brutally raped.

AND I SEE WOODELF SAID IT MORE SUCCINCTLY:)

[blueback]

You can have an opinion but when someone who has actually been in that situation makes a statement about how it made them feel I'm going to take their word over yours as they have, you know, actual experience to back it up.

But I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. Petty.

You tried to shut Weber's additions down cold by claiming he didn't have any basis for making a conclusion, because he hadn't personally been raped. However, Weber merely pointed out that a person who says "I would rather be murdered than raped", and was raped, is saying they'd rather be dead than alive. That is a perfectly sound conclusion based only on the words that were put on the screen. No personal experience of any kind is required to reach that interpretation.

You didn't express a tendency to take the word of a victim over an observer, you told Weber he didn't have any basis for his contribution. I disagreed with what you said. As the discussion went back and forth you gradually moved away from your original statement and towards something more sensible. Maybe that wasn't you changing your mind, but rather you improving your explanations, I dunno.

What I do know is that no one made me promise to respect people's feelings when I joined this board. In fact, it was made pretty clear before I joined, and has been reinforced numerous times since, that compared to the average this board is a bad place to expect people to compromise their analysis based on your distress. The couple times where I pointed out that I wasn't trying to be hurtful are the most I'll do. I'm not responsible for anyone else's feelings. So, whether or not you thought my point was "petty" is irrelevant. It is accurate.

I read it as she felt in the context of her experience that for her rape was worse than murder. This was then contested. I protested someone contesting another person's experience.

Then you read her wrong. She never claimed to have been murdered, so she couldn't possibly have been actually comparing rape to murder. Her comparison MUST have been philosophical, and philosophy is open to everyone's input. As I pointed out, she may very well have thought, and still think, that murder is better than rape. But, since she's been raped and is still alive, she must also think that suicide is worse than rape. So, it is logical to conclude that she doesn't actually think life isn't worth living. Which I agree with, although I have admitted that I've never been raped.

I don't expect anyone to delve into a topic that is painful for them, but she brings up an interesting philosophical point. If a person believes that murder is better than rape, does that mean that they would tell rape victims they wish they had been murdered instead?

I'm not playing down the impact or the severity of rape or murder...I still think they are relatively similar in impact, on both the victim and their loved ones/future loved ones.

Relatively similar? Like, in the sense that someone can be relatively alive? How do look at death, and at any amount of suffering, and conclude that they have a similar impact? I suppose I'd like to limit this question to just impact on the victim.

Blueback, my examples served to show we want and place restrictions on things.

Okay. I thought you were arguing the other side.

Does the full scope of human depravity need to packaged as a "fun" game and sold to make money?

I think a lot of people are going too far when they assume that anything sold as a game is automatically fun. Monopoly is a game, and it's not fun. IMHO. The reason you aren't surrounded by rape games is that the vast majority of people would not consider them fun. In fact, I'm not convinced the game that sparked this thread is actually a rape game, since I've never seen it or even read an impartial description of it, and I'm confident that an actual, honest-to-goodness rape simulation wouldn't be appealing to anyone but a rapist. My guess is that the game features the standard hentai storyline of a girl who likes her sex with a little bit of force and the standard porn storyline of a girl who likes her sex with a whole lot of extraneous genitalia thrown in.

Some people in this thread have taken the word of a single article and extrapolated it into a solid conclusion that the game is a covert recruitment tool for Cobra's rape army. Join the rape army and you can have THIS much fun! See, you thought rape was disgusting, but now that we've tricked you into enjoying it you won't be able to stop yourself. You'll be a raping machine in no time!

I don't think it makes any sense to say that anyone could transition from the standard revulsion to rape into an insatiable rape addict. Especially just by playing a videogame.

Ironically, I full endorse exploring the darker nature of the human condition, but it is a personal journey and one you must be ready for. The information is out there..in the shadows and should remain there..away from the unwary and available for the explorer. People do not have quite the iron grip of control of themselves as you would like to believe..they have trouble even holding themselves accountable...

So, are you suggesting that even adults should be protected from themselves? Like, people should be prevented from having certain thoughts because every now and then a random tiny percentage will want to hurt other people.

I suppose I can see your point. It seems plausible that carefully controlling what thoughts people have access to would reduce the creativity people could put into harming each other, which would probably reduce the overall harm inflicted. Creativity is a force multiplier. But I don't think it would be possible to allow creativity in good areas while preventing it in bad areas. I think we have to take them both as a package deal. And, personally, I wouldn't give up the former to do away with the latter.

[Beulah]

and I'm confident that an actual, honest-to-goodness rape simulation wouldn't be appealing to anyone but a rapist. My guess is that the game features the standard hentai storyline of a girl who likes her sex with a little bit of force .

You're not understanding that many rapists lack social perception and realistic appraisals. They will imagine even as someone screams no with revulsion at them that the girl is appreciative of their attentions. Most rapists aren't the sadistic subtype (they're just dumb insensitive dreamers) so aren't all that thrilled at the screaming and fighting - they imagined they'd get acceptance initially or even after a small obligatory dose of she doth protest too much. So games that depict secretly willing victims etc would fully gel with the majority of them.

[Cygnus]

All I have to say is wow, stasis. To not even recognize that thought can become action is absurd. Not all thought will lead to action, but all action starts with thought. It is not dismay misplaced, it is call hitting a nerve...courtesy of captain obvious. I suppose I was raised and developed differently that if you do not have good reason, then it is best to back off if you hit a nerve, or work to find a compromise.

[stasis]

Idealistic failure to conceive of the nature of the activity. The fantasy does become real in many minds, it feeds and develops an interest in illegal and yes immoral activities.
It is no surprise that the psychology of a criminal like Ted Bundy follows a criminal trajectory. This tells us nothing about everyone else. Is it not a fact that not everyone who plays a videogame degrades into a rapist or murderer? Is it not a fact that most people who indulge immoral thoughts do not manifest criminal behavior? It seems to me that the problem must therefore arise from the cognition of the emerging rapist, not from the fantasy or the game.



If millions are playing there will be hundreds or thousands who among them are incited or provoked to try it out in reality - thee are end game victims who would nothave been created if some gamers had not had game exposure. One victim is enough to justify depriving the majority who do not ever take it onto the streets and aren't deviate forsaking their game.
An epileptic does not have a seizure because a sound in the environment is loud, he has a seizure in reaction to the sound because he's an epileptic. The sound is accessory to his problem, which is epilepsy. Is one seizure also enough to justify the banning of car horns or speaking above conversational volume when greeting a friend across the room? Without treating the causes of epilepsy, seizures will persist. Without treating the causes of criminality, rapes will persist. Such a ban may be equaled in its uselessness only by its injustice.



Yes deviancy is all through narrative including the bible. But societies normally produce narratives tha don't glorify it and that invite you to relate to the more socialised, heroic and noble traits. Using narratives in twisted ways is normally done to corrupt people and had that effect. It shouldn't be encouraged.
It is not useful to frame this issue in terms of deviance. What we need to distinguish is disordered sexuality from healthy sexuality, where disorder includes behavior actually harming the self and/or others that cannot be abandoned despite efforts to do so, and healthy sexuality includes everything else. Sexual deviance relies upon relation to sexual norms and sexual norms are not what we're looking at here.



Sex offenders will often say they did not understand where all the porn was leading their nose.
Yes, statements like "the porn made me do it" are exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone with impulse issues and difficulty separating fantasy from reality. It's not really their fault, not something wrong with their brains and their formative experiences, it was really the pornography ruining their innocence and making them rape. Almost as if they had no control. Almost as if the fantasy couldn't be contained there. What these people seem to have is a context problem, moreso than a porno problem.



You speak of candy coated shitpills - the idea this stuff is harmless and freedom of speech/activity is the ultimate consideration in this subject area is exactly that. A view that does not incorporate all the realities, implications and important interests. This is not just a matter that should remain between consenting adults and their game dealers.
I'm not interested in touting freedom of speech and activity above all else. What I'm doing is opposing fear-based moral fascism. This comprises two simple points: a) it is an injustice to criminalize the victimless interests of law-abiding, sociable people based upon an emotional concern like fear; b) there is only so far one can take censorship, and it isn't possible to take it into the mind without using a knife. We have to live with the knowledge that other people have some unpleasant or even dangerous thoughts and also that some of our thoughts may be unpleasant or threatening in the eyes of other people. The sky does not fall as a result.

[blueback]

The games are carefully tailored to reinforce just the sorts of thoughts and cognitive frameworks therapists work wit rapists to undo.

So, you are basing this conclusion on some kind of evidence, right? You are accusing everyone involved with the creation and distribution of this game of inciting people to commit a crime. That requires a higher standard of evidence than "I work with bad people, so I know."

...there are therefore end game victims who would not have been created if some gamers had not had game exposure.

Prove it.

One victim is enough to justify depriving the majority...

So one rape produces enough suffering to outweigh the enjoyment that millions of people produced playing a game. Sure, why not. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that the game produced a rapist/victim that would never have existed without the game.

If they aren't deviate, finding something else to do with time for the greater good would be no problem, and would actually be the natural choice.

So, people who play the game but don't rape anyone are still deviant? That's like saying people who own golf clubs but never play are still golfers. You're saying that if a happily married couple plays out a rape fantasy they are as bad as actual rapists.

Or, to put it into terms you might understand more viscerally, what you are saying is that your boss can pay you by letting you look at a picture of money, because it is the same as actual money.

How idealistic to say the management of an adults emotions is their own responsibility. Many adults don't manage well, media also sets out to take over control by marketing ideas etc. Tomake money these games market the idea of rape as a valid thing to try out just for the experience or entertainment. It is for money - not to defend freedom of thought or speech.

Ah, no. The game is marketed as a game. If the game was marketed as an actual rape training aid, like one of the instructional videos you can order out of marital arts magazines that promise to make you good at fighting, then you'd be on to something and I'm sure the article would have reported something that interesting. The only way you are expressing a legitimate concern is if the game can turn a person with no interest in rape into an actual rapist.

Earlier generations did not fight for freedom from oppressive regimes so degenerate off spring could do this sort of gaming. I think if they could have foreseen this patheticness they'd have saved themselves a lot of bother and just handed the keys over to Hitler.

I should have had my Internet Discussion Forum Bingo card ready. Damn, I'll have to catch Hitler the next time he's brought up.

Did you seriously just cite the entire greatest generation in a discussion of a videogame? Yes, rape is bad. But a simulation of rape, especially when it's portrayed as consentual, is not the same thing. I don't know what the actual content of the game is, and I suspect you don't either (you would have mentioned it), but my educated guess is that it's nothing out of the ordinary in terms of Japanese porn.

Wait, the WWII reference actually kind of makes sense since this game came from Japan. It's revenge for the bombs! They're planning on making copies available on torrent sites so that otaku fanboys download it, get hooked, and then gradually convert their friends, who will convert more friends, like the pod people if the pod people were into rape.

The distinction between playing these games and actually raping is marginal. The person behind the screen is vicariously experiencing and honing the predator instinct.

Marginal, huh? Rape = predator instinct, huh? Vicarious is the same as actual, huh? I disagree.

Using narratives in twisted ways is normally done to corrupt people and had that effect. It shouldn't be encouraged.

Feel free to provide the ultimate, enduring, perfect definition of "twisted" that you are basing your opinions on. Obviously it must be better than everyone else's since it is unquestionable.

Deviate porn merchants are a social malaise who're indirectly productive of some true evils, because they don't think beyond the dollar. Society requires caution and regulation (as with alcohol) to protect the innocent from porns worst fallout. To imagine that is not so and that anarchy and freedom of choice should rule in this area just belies quite a greenhorn view of matters.

You're absolutely right. Anyone who argues that a videogame should be protected from the digital equivalent of book-burners obviously only thinks that because they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. How could I have been so stupid. Thank you, deviancy guru, for shining your perfect light upon me!

Do not cigarettes have wanings re health risks? At the least vile games should warn that use may lead vulnerable individuals (nd there are a lot out there) to criminal offending.

Wait, what? So you think alcohol should include a warning to anyone who might beat their wife when they get drunk? Like, specifically it should say "If you think you might beat your wife, don't drink this." Games should say "If you think you might like to rape someone, don't play this game." Who is going to self-identify as a potential rapist?

Sex offenders will often say they did not understand where all the porn was leading their nose. It is a pity they could not feel free to seek help before raping and killing little girls - because the liberal message out there was that it was all good to indulge in deviate "art" / "games" etc.

Well the liberals do all agree that their primary goal is to usher in an era of destruction and depravity that will make Sodom look like a sleeping pile of baby bunnies.

Oh, wait, no one thinks that.

I'm not going to speak for all "liberals". What I think is that people have a right to individual liberty. That means no one can tell anyone else what to do as long as no one is getting hurt. So, if a person plays rape games, that is acceptable. If a person rapes, that is unacceptable. It's just like gambling is okay, but gambling addiction is not. Shooting at clay pigeons is okay, but shooting at pedestrians is not. Talking about cheating is okay, but actually cheating is not.

There is a huge difference between a person who doesn't commit a crime and a person who does. It's like the line from Fast and Furious: "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning." It doesn't matter if someone comes to within an inch of committing a crime, not committing a crime is not committing a crime.

Crime /= a lack of crime

It's a bit like the murderabilia trade - the implications go far and wide. With murderabilia murderers sell items to people who could not indulge their collector urge unless murders first happened. With rape porn the product glorifies crimes that are endemic and stimulates more. The social benefit in entertainment value is outweighed by certain damages somewhere to someone. Just because you may not know who they are or where or the gamer who takes it to the next level, makes you no less responsible for supporting the rape game industry.

Just to be difficult I put "rape game industry" into Google Trends and it's not something that exists. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think you're going way too far. Do you have any sources other than yourself to back up this conclusion you keep pushing that playing a rape game produces rapists?

I'm sure most supportive posters woud feel differently if our society was more matriarchal and the games we now debated primarily depicted males being brutally raped.

Why? There are just as many males as females. Is same-sex crime different from cross-sex crime?

[Cygnus]

Great, so someone has to become a victim first before it is a problem. I'd buy the concept of "victimless interests" if it was contained to the individuals, problem is this shit gets around..people like to share. This is Japanese game we are talking about, this shit doesn't even stay contained in your own country anymore. So the victims would be those exposed to this content. Censorship with a knife, no..censorship saying this activity is a crime here and saying it is not ok to make and sell games about it here.

Second Life as been dealing with adult content issues and resulted in them making tighter restrictions so other players were not exposed to unwanted adult content.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Beulah]

It is no surprise that the psychology of a criminal like Ted Bundy follows a criminal trajectory....It seems to me that the problem must therefore arise from the cognition of the emerging rapist, not from the fantasy or the game.

An epileptic does not have a seizure because a sound in the environment is loud, he has a seizure in reaction to the sound because he's an epileptic. The sound is accessory to his problem, which is epilepsy. Is one seizure also enough to justify the banning of car horns or speaking above conversational volume when greeting a friend across the room? Without treating the causes of epilepsy, seizures will persist. Without treating the causes of criminality, rapes will persist.

Yes, statements like "the porn made me do it" are exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone with impulse issues and difficulty separating fantasy from reality. be unpleasant or threatening in the eyes of other people. The sky does not fall as a result.

You have completely missed my point. Just because some will commit offences without being gamers does not mean others would not have avoided this trajectory had they not played rape games.

Many if not all sex abuse treatment programs are based on good evidence showing that environmental control and cues are important to aiding or alternately undermining the deviants ability to stay within the law. Yes the porn can make such people do it. It's no different to dragging an abstinent alcoholic on a pub crawl and holding a beer to their lips over and over.

The porn is not accessory to the problem as with an epileptics flashing lights. It is the main alterable cause/trigger of a flare up, given that the basic constitution of a sex abuser is on the whole untreatable. Control not cure is the aim. The treatment is therefore to promote insight to triggers and avoid triggers. I worked in a program that wired the penis up then tested out what turned them on for help identifying triggers as clients often barely recognise them themselves.

The triggers are the closest thing to a cause that can be modified. Now... given that many people are not diagnosed as sex abusers or are "latent" ie have not offended and may yet or may never (all things remaining equal) but are predisposed to be offenders without knowing it, then putting a clear trigger out on the market is rather lacking social responsibility.

I'm quite sure home lighting manufacturers avoid in product development creating products likely to trigger epileptics, seems sensible for game makers to take equivalent precautions re potential adverse impacts on social behaviour of games that model behaviour and just may "light a fire" in someone. I know of gangs that did run rape training sessions (part of getting patches) - I guess this could make giving initial instruction to recruits in overcoming hesitancy and social conditioning less taxing on old fat gang dudes...

[Beulah]

Dated but a good summary - rape games must come under porn umbrella, other studies show its violent porn that triggers vulnerable men.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Specific factors influencing sexual assault include pornography, androgenic hormones, sexual anomalies and the brain, stimulus control of sexual arousal, social and cultural factors, and cognition. Treatment issues focus on the modification of sexual preferences, antiandrogen and hormonal treatment, enhancement of social skills, modification of cognitive distortions, relapse prevention, and comprehensive cognitive-behavioral treatment

[stasis]

You have completely missed my point.
Your statements to the effect of "one victim is enough to justify" banning by law the interests of "millions of people" who have not and will not commit such crimes betrays the political fixation upon pornography implicit in the fascist morality of your argument. Do you have any idea how many people die in car crashes per year? A common number cited for the United States alone is around 40,000 fatalities (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). If by your moral calculus one death is sufficient to ban all cars, several tens of thousands of deaths should be enough to justify banning everything with wheels, right? If one in two-million odds is your threshold for the moral imperative of this scenario, we can even conclude that peanuts (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) are sufficiently dangerous and should be banned across the board, vile little triggers of social malaise that they are.

You keep talking about "deviants", which is not useful here. "Deviant" pornography does not create rapists. Rapists display disordered sexuality, which seems like it must arise from cognition because most people do not react to "deviant" media by murdering the neighbors and eating their household pets. This is informed and then triggered by a wide variety of things, including:

Specific factors influencing sexual assault include pornography, androgenic hormones, sexual anomalies and the brain, stimulus control of sexual arousal, social and cultural factors, and cognition.

I haven't missed your point. It's just that your point is a terribly wacky one in my opinion.

[Beulah]

Missed it again. Where did I use the word ban. See you are assuming based on expectations of your own. I said precautions are mandated. Just as with car travel. A death caused by a drunk driver is sufficient to ban drunk driving. Anyway reactionary laws aren't fascist so much as American - with your Megan laws, Kim laws, Mandys laws etc. It's just going to take for a sex killer to say he was playing the Jap rape game and you'll surely have a (insert wholesome victims name) law made against such games.

People are not participating and role playing media crime reports. Theres a big difference - role playing directly impresses upon your cognition. If you have ever done acting you'll be familiar with the expression "in character".

Deviant porn can create rape incidents ='s creates rapists. Precipitates, triggers, pushes over the edge, provokes, incites, stimulates, catalyses, exacerbates, stirs, titilates, tempts, pumps up, excites, inspires, suggests, recommends etc etc

Lets put it this way - is it a game you'd like your teenagers to play (not on a video screen) in the playground stopping short of penetration? If not why not? If its not ok to play at stalking then holding down ready to rape someone in real life why is it above board on a screen?

[stasis]

Missed it again. Where did I use the word ban. See you are assuming based on expectations of your own. I said precautions are mandated
You said (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

"One victim is enough to justify depriving the majority who do not ever take it onto the streets and aren't deviate forsaking their game imo. If they aren't deviate, finding something else to do with time for the greater good would be no problem, and would actually be the natural choice."

Emphasis mine. Sounds like a ban to me. But maybe by depriving them of this thing they'll subsequently forsake for the greater good, you really meant something else that makes the position seem far less unethical.

[Beulah]

It may justify banning it - imo it would be fair as nothing of real value to the view of any non pathetic person is lost in order to protect something of high value - safety of innocents, doesn't mean I'd do a ban. Still it'd be interesting just to see what righteous whining poor me expressions emit from the rape game enjoyers. Silence I'd imagine.

Regulation of the potentially toxic game is the better option. Since it's likely to excite you I might suggest mandatory GPS to be placed on all players so cops can keep tabs.

[cannotseethe]

It may justify banning it - imo it would be fair as nothing of real value to the view of any non pathetic person is lost in order to protect something of high value - safety of innocents

I think it's fair to ban something when I decree that those who desire it are pathetic. Instead of owning the absurdity of this belief and honestly arguing for a ban on this basis, I'll concoct an emotionally-charged danger to innocents and via this sleight of hand convince others that the ban is justifiable without having to defend my essentially fascist position.


Regulation of the potentially toxic game is the better option.

Where said toxicity is arising entirely in the minds of people who find the game unpleasant to contemplate, the suggestion here being that when enough people find something unpleasant it should be regulated even if there's no reasonable basis on which to ground a belief that the thing is dangerous.

[Beulah]

Doh! I said imo it could be a balanced decision (this all depends on the value you attach to deviate porn access versus enhanced rape stats) but that I probably would not do it... as I'm more libertarian as a type preferring only to troubleshoot areas of need for intervention.

Nothing wrong with regulating it if there are risks - I don't think the risks to a subgroup can be seriously in doubt if one reviews the literature. Morals really aren't a consideration in it for me - people can do what they like so long as it doesn't harm others. Certain things though do - normalising rape unquestionably, snuff movies...

And the warning I'd recommend would not say (as suggested above) "if you think you may be a rapist don't play this", but it should be more resonant since many don't self identify as rapists yet. I'd prefer "use of this product can lead to increased fantasies and in some individuals it may lead to criminal offending". And then to prevent ill impact on people who are not fully developed I might consider a ban on use by youth.

[cannotseethe]

It may justify banning it - imo it would be fair
Doh! I said imo it could be a balanced decision

Fair and balanced(TM), like Fox news?


Nothing wrong with regulating it if there are risks - I don't think the risks to a subgroup can be seriously in doubt if one reviews the literature.

You are suggesting there is convincing body of literature linking the consumption of media representations of rape with the actual act of rape by that consumer? Let's see it.


"use of this product can lead to increased fantasies and in some individuals it may lead to criminal offending".

And you advocate putting the same warning label on cucumbers, honey dew melons, lunch meat, plastic wrap, diapers, ...?


And then to prevent ill impact on people who are not fully developed I might consider a ban on use by youth.

Which will be accompanied by a ban on the use of youth by the military, no doubt.

[Beulah]

I think the reason you guys are defending positions so determinedly, if not due to love of debate may be an unrecognised bias in you. I'm guessing as Americans you've been conditioned to believe that what media you're subjected to has no effect on your self determination. This is a necessary belief to feel individual integrity and to protect industry when one of your main States has movies and violent tv as a main earner. However, if it were true that media had no effect on peoples behaviour your DEA would not fund certain memes to promote the war on drugs and tv programs and news items full of supportive propaganda for the drug war.

The lit is there - treatment centers must act on the best evidence or practitioners can face disciplinary action. Too lazy to go through the research but look up relapse prevention for sex offenders etc. I cited one govt review up above, noting the role of porn, & see no need to overdo it.

Warnings and education re significant hazards, that may not be obvious to consumers are standard, once producer protestations are overcome, so I can't fathom your objection to this.

[cannotseethe]

I'm guessing as Americans you've been conditioned to believe that what media you're subjected to has no effect on your self determination.

The issue is not whether media influences people, but how. You seem not to see the reasonableness of objecting to claims of a straight-line connection between consuming violent media and the commission of acts of violence. This connection has not been established, so hanging regulations or outright bans on it is absurd, as evidenced by the self righteous hand-wringing about innocents that so often accompanies such proposals.


The lit is there

Where? You mean to say there are case studies of a healthy person playing a video game depicting rape, and then, for no other reason but that, committing rape?

[Beulah]

That's not what I said - I never said it was linear at all nor that I was speaking of healthy persons - the population is not all healthy. It's a turbulent relationship, complicated by several factors. It need no be linear for there to be risks, nor for it to be wise to somehow mitigate those risks.

I do not know about published case studies of the type you seek - though such scenarios likely feature in Police and psych reports of specific indivs - but there is certainly a body of psychodynamic theory upon which modern day clinical practice is based, which assumes a non linear relationship. Simply put (as I've oft stated above) that vulnerable punters can be triggered to offend amongst a range of potential triggers by the viewing of material that brings offending to mind.

Remain puzzled as to why you seem to think any connection is far fetched. From my training and work experience in forensic psychiatric areas it does not raise any alarm bells. I'm sure I could be called before a professional board if I advised a rapist that playing rape games on computers would not be psychologically compromising.

Shall we say - "contributory factor"

[Amphorian]

It appears there was some misunderstanding between us in the beginning. I leave it as recognizing that and just addressing this.

except that you deny yourself freedom of speech on this matter, because you are afraid someone might call you a hypocrite. i'm not afraid to explore whether or not i'm a hypocrite. it seems you are trying to differentiate yourself from me in that i might be a hypocrite; are you sure that you don't think you're better than me? or that your non-hypocritical standard is more valid than mine?

No I'm not denying myself freedom of speech. A person asking for censorship is utilizing free speech when their asking for censorship. Not going with their demands isn't impeding upon their freedom of speech though. Denying freedom of speech or expression is censorship. Censorship is of certain words, ideas, books, art, etc. No one is censoring anyone's concerns. No one is saying you can't speak your concerns. People are debating your concerns, but that's it, and such isn't denying your freedom of speech nor mine.

I'll say it. I am a hypocrite in some parts of my life. I'm not perfect; I'm not a saint. However, I value freedom of speech and expression at the top of my list for a reason. I firmly believe that almost no censorship (expect for certain censorship I supported in my second post) is better for society on the basis that the more you know, the better off you'll be. The more information and ideas a person is exposed to usually helps them to begin critically thinking because they never thought of such ideas before. I do know that such doesn't work on everyone; however, the lack of effect on such people is linked to their childhood environments, how they were taught and how they delt with such teachings (e.g. accepting close minded teaching).

I'd advise not to turn this debate into something personal. Actually that is what I've been trying to avoid, and that's what I was reply to you about in my last reply to you. I explained why taking the debate to a person level does color and blind the debators. It also begins leading people of track and into flame wars. So no, I was not trying to differentiate from you in the reguard of moral superiority, call you a hypocrite nor believe I am better then you. How could I? I already stated I am no better then anyone else, and the only person I deemed would be a hypocrite would be me if I supported censorship. I was stating my reason why for myself I don't support this censorship, not attacking you. The only reason I mentioned moral standards was to shed light on how I view the situation (since they are subjective), and to explain to you that reasoning. Do we have an understanding?

[cannotseethe]

That's not what I said - I never said it was linear at all nor that I was speaking of healthy persons - the population is not all healthy.

So, we must ban things because of the existence of unhealthy people? What if some of those people are triggered to rape upon seeing images of cantaloupe?


Simply put (as I've oft stated above) that vulnerable punters can be triggered to offend amongst a range of potential triggers by the viewing of material that brings offending to mind.

Let's see the evidence.


Shall we say - "contributory factor"

If a rapist just so happened to eat a hamburger prior to committing a rape, do we regulate hamburgers as well? You do realize that establishing that a rapist played a video game depicting rape prior to committing rape gives you exactly zero evidence that such video games trigger the behavior, right?

[blueback]

I understand this position:
1) no one should want to play a game that involves rape
2) no one who is predisposed to rape should be allowed to play a game that involves rape
3) therefore, games that involve rape should be illegal

However, while I understand that position, I disagree with it.

I am much more reluctant than many people seem to be to force my morality onto other people through legislation. I prefer a system where people are legally required to undergo responsibility training than one in which people are legally required to look but not touch, and sometimes not even look.

Based on a cursory review of the literature I'm beginning to wonder if the preponderance of rapes don't happen in prison and in wartime. I don't think banning a videogame is going to stop the Serbs.

That being said, I think it does make sense to legislate that people who have committed sexual assault be prevented from consuming media that pictures sexual assault outside of a counseling program. That group HAS self-identified as having criminal predispositions to precisely the sort of the a ban is intended to lessen the manifestation of. But that's no different from preventing criminals from buying firearms, since they have already proven that they are exactly the people who shouldn't have them. Additionally, I don't have a problem with the law stating that anyone under a certain age can't consume sexual assault media unless their parents show it to them. Just like kids can drink alcohol if their parents are present and approve.

Is that enough? Or does anyone really think it is appropriate to expand the ban to law-abiding adults?

[Yhor]

If a rapist just so happened to eat a hamburger prior to committing a rape, do we regulate hamburgers as well? You do realize that establishing that a rapist played a video game depicting rape prior to committing rape gives you exactly zero evidence that such video games trigger the behavior, right?

I can see it now. There'd be fattys lined up on the Washington mall with picket signs and ketchup bottles. American's would have to deal with the possibility of rape if hamburgers were at stake, 2/3 of the population would revolt.

[AnnoyingPony]

You know, even though I think rape is one of the most heinous crimes on this planet, I'm actually okay with this game. I don't condone it at all, but games like this are common in Japan and it's not hard to find pornographic video games for American consoles if you look hard enough. It's not like little kids are going to add this to their game collection anytime soon, that's what game ratings are for.

[Cygnus]

So let take this concept of "victimless interests" to a different level. Different cultures and countries have different ages of consent. So for the sake of argument country X considers age 14 legal. So someone wants to make a bit of money by filming and distributing 14 year old people having sex. In the U.S. the age of consent varies, but is universally agreed upon that 14 is still considered a minor. So by the standards of country X and people purchasing the videos it falls under "victimless interests". Let's even take is a step further and turn it into a game..complete with live action interaction maybe like Star Trek Borg (cute game by the way). To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So your stance is no matter the content, it is all fair game? People have no right in saying they do not want certain content readily available for all?

The strange thing about sexual arousal is people do not have complete control over it. People can find they are actually appalled by what excites them sexually. I'm going to have to side with WoodElf4U in that the sexual beast tends to look for its next fix and always on the prowl for something stronger. I think people have every right to say they do not want this type of material readily available for all. When your thoughts and feelings manifest into an action or a form that others sense, it is then subject to interpretation and judgment and action from others.

The other unfortunate fact in dealing with issues that you cannot always deal with the source of the problem, it is either unknown or out of reach...you are only left with dealing with the symptoms.

[Tito]

I'm not sure which is worse - the game or my lack of surprise that someone would create something like that.
None of the above, the worst culprits are the people that actually play the game.

[Firebrand]

Well, I can never see myself playing something like this, but I fully defend the developer's right to create and sell it.

I think an important question here is what is more intrinsically bad about this? The fact that it is being made at all or the fact that it was made due to having an audience that would actually buy it?

A lot of people found the art piece Pisschrist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)offensive. Yet, it still has the right to exist whether or not people are comfortable with it. A similar situation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) happened with the game Columbine Massacre RPG (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). A quote from that article :
videogames are not just divergent means of entertaining yourself, but can be works of art that explore uncomfortable topics. That particular game was supposed to be in a game festival, but due to it's controversial overall theme, it was forcefully expelled. In response to that, many game developers also pulled their games out, whether or not they agreed with the topic portrayed in the game. The creator of the popular game Braid said this The game lacks compassion, and I find the Artist’s Statement disingenuous. But despite this, the game does have redeeming value. It does provoke important thoughts, and it does push the boundaries of what games are about. It is composed with more of an eye toward art than most games. (Source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)).

The scary thing about forms of art such as this (and, yes, I do call this art as it is a form of expression despite having negative connotations if done in reality and in somewhat bad taste) is that this only indicates that people have these desires to begin with. This game has only put that out in the open.

Nothing about this removes in any way self-responsibility that each individual has. Bottom line : fucked up people are going to do fucked up things, regardless of whether games like this exist or not.

[gecko]

I think to disregard the cultural influence on the creation of this game is a mistake.

[JTG]

Women being sexually assaulted on crowded trains in Japan is a daily occurrence. Of course, you cannot blame one video game for such outrageous behavior, but still it doesn't help...

None of the above, the worst culprits are the people that actually play the game.

I think to disregard the cultural influence on the creation of this game is a mistake.

Gecko beat me to it! It isn't the game that influences culture. It's culture influencing the game. You never see things like that in the US, because (a) actual occurrence is pretty rare and (b) our puritanical society would censor it to hell and back.

I don't think the game is a problem. It may even be a "healthy" alternative to going out for a ride and rape session on a train. Who knows? The real problem is a society that turns the other cheek on issues like rape. As much as i love Japanese culture, there are still some big problems.

[Beulah]

OK to clarify as I seem to have been misunderstood. "Artistic merit" is I believe a faux PR spin defense, put out by manufacturers of games that role model and normalise antisocial behaviour. I do not believe the game sellers genuinely subscribe to the artistic merit excuse, but rather that this is just a cover story to parry criticism and buy support from a segment of the population sympathetic to art or extreme freedom of expression, so as they can continue to peddle fo profit a product with out social merit - whilst looking like they have higher ideals. To my mind this makes those who profit off such things either amoral or immoral and I would therefore consider them as bad people.

[Firebrand]

That's not what art means in this context. Art means it makes you feel something. It impacts you in some way, even if that way is disgust.

[Cygnus]

Gecko beat me to it! It isn't the game that influences culture. It's culture influencing the game. You never see things like that in the US, because (a) actual occurrence is pretty rare and (b) our puritanical society would censor it to hell and back.

I don't think the game is a problem. It may even be a "healthy" alternative to going out for a ride and rape session on a train. Who knows? The real problem is a society that turns the other cheek on issues like rape. As much as i love Japanese culture, there are still some big problems.


You likely did not read some of the prior material. I have a post a few pages back that clarifies this is not a "safe alternative" it is in fact a symptom that Japanese culture does not view rape as a big deal and women there do not enjoy equal rights.

"(Reuters) - A man molests a young woman sitting next to him on a Japanese train, drags her to a restroom and rapes her while she sobs. Some 40 fellow passengers fail to intervene."

But aside from the arguments presented. Rape is certainly is in books and movies in the U.S. it is not off limits, the catch with gaming is that it is interactive and player controlled, all other forms are simply you being the observer. There is no evidence to support gaming action and action one takes in the world. I do know sexual drive is a very powerful force. Where the lines of killing are more clear between right and wrong, they are blurry when seeking sexual thrills...people always looking for their next fix and something stronger.

[DewFuel]

Nothing new here. I remember seeing ROMs for these kinds of games for the Sega Genesis years and years ago. Now that gaming is more mainstream, people are getting their panties in a bunch for this kind of content.

[Beulah]

Exactly - the interactivity and inability to prevent even juvenile use is where it differs from other dodgy materials.

Again I dispute the art descriptor. Art is usually produced with intent to create art and by artists. These games are created for entertainment and profit not to enter in film contests or literature ones or to put in exhibitions etc. Anything can be called art, but in reality it isn't. To be art it should strike us as novel, harmonious or at least stirring and productive of fresh views or insights.

Disgust or alternately lust does not qualify. You can get that by looking at a dog poo or a cute movie star, but neither is art. What possible way does interactively raping create a transporting or aesthetic experience for one to write reviews or home about? No buy.

[Wry Satyr]

This seems to take entertainment to the extreme, especially since women are the usual victims. I know that the market for these games would be a factor in this tendency, but for some reason I can't help but associate these games with misogyny and I worry for any person who is still in the process of developing a sexual identity who encounters such games and, by extension, may come to form a social script or schema that such behaviors are normal or acceptable.

You're absolutely correct that these games glorify mysogyny and try to pass this beahvior off as noraml or acceptable. I find it reprehensible that our society allows such attrocities to occur both in the real world and in gaming. What is really disturbing is that you know there are parents out there who either buy these games for their kids or at the very least don't intervene to actively redirect their kids to more acceptable social outlets.

[Mullanaphy]

Exactly - the interactivity and inability to prevent even juvenile use is where it differs from other dodgy materials.

Again I dispute the art descriptor. Art is usually produced with intent to create art and by artists. These games are created for entertainment and profit not to enter in film contests or literature ones or to put in exhibitions etc. Anything can be called art, but in reality it isn't. To be art it should strike us as novel, harmonious or at least stirring and productive of fresh views or insights.

Disgust or alternately lust does not qualify. You can get that by looking at a dog poo or a cute movie star, but neither is art. What possible way does interactively raping create a transporting or aesthetic experience for one to write reviews or home about? No buy.
Both of your final examples can be considered art if they were setup deliberately by an artist. Say the artist hold the dog towards the canvas and it was their reaction to the current conversations in art.

What you consider art and what someone else might consider art are two completely different things. And as long as the art doesn't infringe on another persons rights what exactly is the issue?

What you think art "should" be is not what art is. You don't like this 'genre' we get it, I don't like abstract\modern art yet it is still art. Art is more reactionary than it is molding.

I personally don't like this piece of work or pieces like it so it's something that I'll continue to avoid. However a lot of my code that has been artistically done would probably be avoided by others as well. That's how it goes.

[cannotseethe]

Art is usually produced with intent to create art and by artists.

No, that's Art(TM), and it hides in museums away from sight so as not to offend; or, it adorns commercial products. Art, as in art art, is in your face and meant to disturb or evoke, independently of whether that disturbance is positive or negative.


To be art it should strike us as novel, harmonious or at least stirring and productive of fresh views or insights.

Games about rape certainly evoke fresh views and insights on the issue of rape. The novel/harmonious bits are backwards looking; a good fraction of modern artworks have neither quality.

[Beulah]

Its too general to call a video game "art" is what I'm saying. By your definition that if it evokes fresh views tis maybe art this rape porn, everything under the sun is potentially art. I don't think so, I think sometimes a videogame is just a video game. Art whether in or out of a gallery would attract few admirers who agree it is art (something above the normal view/vision/sound etc). I have serious reservations you'd find any serious sane commentators among well regarded critics, professing belief this kind of media is artistic. Don't know this as I'm not an art expert - hey have we got any art historians to comment? I'd even hazard a guess those of a more refined and arty sensitivity would avoid such displays, seeing them as arts antithesis or black hole - bar creepy artists like Roman Polanski or the big H

Mullanarphy - sure it's subjective but there has to be some discernment, some line that is drawn by common consensus to say - yes its art or no way that is art.

I'm still waiting to hear from someone with serious at credentials say the rape porn likely makes the grade, checks the boxes etc to be classed as "art". Still waiting...

[blueback]

I have serious reservations you'd find any serious sane commentators among well regarded critics, professing belief this kind of media is artistic. Don't know this as I'm not an art expert - hey have we got any art historians to comment? I'd even hazard a guess those of a more refined and arty sensitivity would avoid such displays, seeing them as arts antithesis or black hole - bar creepy artists like Roman Polanski or the big H

So something is not art unless people you approve of declare it art. That's pretty much the EXACT definition of a person who doesn't understand what art is.

Mullanarphy - sure it's subjective but there has to be some discernment, some line that is drawn by common consensus to say - yes its art or no way that is art.

Oh yeah? First, why does there have to be. Second, why don't you go ahead and draw that line? I challenge you to come up with a line in the sand, on one side is art and on the other side is not-art, and I want you to make the line not arbitrary.

I'm still waiting to hear from someone with serious at credentials say the rape porn likely makes the grade, checks the boxes etc to be classed as "art". Still waiting...

Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus, Flemish Baroque, oil on canvas, 1618, by Peter Paul Rubens
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Rape of the Sabine Women, French Baroque, oil on canvas, 1636-37, by Nicholas Poussin
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Painted in 1559 - 1562 for Phillip II, King of Spain, this grand painting portrays the abduction of Europa by a determined Jupiter, disguised as a bull. Europa is a reclining nude both submissive and resistant, appearing both abandoned with desire and frightened, beneath a calm blue sky with threatening storms. The putti, or Cupids, in the sky and atop the dolphin are mesmerized watching the tension between the lovers, while the nymphs, vague on the distant shore, watch and wave helplessly. Both her generous, billowing flesh and Jupiter's tail seem to quiver with excitement at the pending sexual act.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There ya go. Are you sure these masterpieces wouldn't be interactive if the people who created them had had computers? BTW, I'm not in any way claiming that the videogame(s) in question are artistic masterpieces, but that is mostly because I haven't seen them so I can't say what their individual artistic merit is. My point is merely to try to convince you that your "art is what I say it is" philosophy is devoid of merit.

[Undead Bonzi]

Just to add to Bluebacks point...how about real 3D representations of rape more realistic than any pixelated computer game.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gianlorenzo Bernini’s sculpture “Pluto and Proserpina” (Hades and Persephone). [1622]

Just think of all the women who were raped after some perv saw this not-art.

[Cygnus]

There is plenty of imagery and art that depict black slavery and abuse, but a game intent on making money by graphically representing abusing black people as slaves is probably not a stellar choice...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is a difference between artistic expression to evoke emotion and simply someone profiting financially from humanity's carnal nature.

Let's try to not deal in absolutes and exercise judgments instead. Absolute freedom is no less dangerous than absolute lack of freedom...Typical in these clashes...compromise is required..making it a moderate mixture of freedom and restriction.

Slavery and womens' equal rights have been issues that have been addressed and serious changes towards equality only happening relatively recently in human history and only in some cultures. When a code of generally accepted ethics is governing most peoples' actions instead of laws and fear of consequences, then it is ready for more freedom. The sames tools used to oppress a populace can also be the same tools to promote common welfare and equitable treatment, it is all in the intent and execution and who gets to judge.

[Beulah]

OK after brief research I have terminology. your highly inclusive definition of art is Dadaist and is twentieth century argument. I doubt most people are Dadaists likely as Dadaism is too indiscriminate to accomodate most humans art taste. Myself and many others will not be putting dog poop onthe coffee table to admire anytime soon. Just saying anything can be art if someone likes it doesn't make it so. Thats like saying anyone can be the Queen of England if they just say they are. The dadaists may have been on a psychotic trip.

I find this pre 20th C definition of art more reasonable;

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"ART lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others""

AESTHETICS - BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY DEALING WITH SENSORI-EMOTIONAL BEAUTY AND GOOD TASTE
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Don't know why you are trying to personalise it and paint it as me trying to impose an authoritative opinion on you or others. No - I'm saying there are others more qualified than me and probably you to judge whether there has been sufficient use of
"skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others..."

I would ascribe to the view that yes there is some standard of appeal to be met before a thing can rightfully lay claim to being art. As to be art it should be shared and make an GOOD TASTE sensori-emotional impression perhaps the best Judges of whether it is art are those with whom it's shared or about eg do black slaves see value in the painting about them too?

So ask the rape players and real victims - is it art - does it evoke leaving you awestruck, transfixed, changed etc - or is it just a utility, a game that passes time but leaves no major impression or marvelling at its aesthetic value. Good taste more likely art - bad T... just dross.

I'd take a statistical approach. If only one or two in a few thousand say it's art then they are likely wrong or kooky in their subjective judgement. If significant numbers agree something has artistic merit then it's likely art. On most items I think there'd be broad agreement with just a fewfalling in gray areas.

Again we're not talking about paintings or sculpture but gaming. I don't see at the Louvre people having heavy interaction with paintings - kissing the Mona Lisa or finding a hole in it to forcefully get their jollies in etc. Trying to correlate comp gaming with art is like trying to correlate playing Rugby with it just because the grass is a pretty green. Tenuous.

I think it is eminently more likely that those engaged in rape games are not undergoing the same sorts of reponses as people do by looking at the above pictures or by considering the back stories ie thinking about myth and the human condition and issues.
I think they are more being drawn to viscerally experience gratification of base impulses like raping, rather than to consider the social implications of these sorts of behaviours or to have beautiful mind expanding revelations.

To seek to describe something most would consider ugly that was created with the easily apparent goal of profit as quite probably artistic is kind of disingenious and clutching at straws. If everything is art then nothing is truly art the term becomes meaningless - and just a way to say everything is acceptable and has aesthetic value on some level. I intuit that it does not - Alzheimers disease isn't art, going to Africa to observe children starving is not aesthetically pleasing to the normal psychology, though it may move you etc etc.

[Undead Bonzi]

Wikki To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Factors involved in aesthetic judgment
Judgments of aesthetic value seem often to involve many other kinds of issues as well. Responses such as disgust show that sensory detection is linked in instinctual ways to facial expressions, and even behaviors like the gag reflex. Yet disgust can often be a learned or cultural issue too; as Darwin pointed out, seeing a stripe of soup in a man's beard is disgusting even though neither soup nor beards are themselves disgusting. Aesthetic judgments may be linked to emotions or, like emotions, partially embodied in our physical reactions. Seeing a sublime view of a landscape may give us a reaction of awe, which might manifest physically as an increased heart rate or widened eyes. These unconscious reactions may even be partly constitutive of what makes our judgment a judgment that the landscape is sublime.

Likewise, aesthetic judgments may be culturally conditioned to some extent. Victorians in Britain often saw African sculpture as ugly, but just a few decades later, Edwardian audiences saw the same sculptures as being beautiful. The Abuse of Beauty, Evaluations of beauty may well be linked to desirability, perhaps even to sexual desirability. Thus, judgments of aesthetic value can become linked to judgments of economic, political, or moral value. We might judge a Lamborghini to be beautiful partly because it is desirable as a status symbol, or we might judge it to be repulsive partly because it signifies for us over-consumption and offends our political or moral values."

[daydreamer]

It appears there was some misunderstanding between us in the beginning. I leave it as recognizing that and just addressing this.



No I'm not denying myself freedom of speech. A person asking for censorship is utilizing free speech when their asking for censorship. Not going with their demands isn't impeding upon their freedom of speech though. Denying freedom of speech or expression is censorship. Censorship is of certain words, ideas, books, art, etc. No one is censoring anyone's concerns. No one is saying you can't speak your concerns. People are debating your concerns, but that's it, and such isn't denying your freedom of speech nor mine.

I'll say it. I am a hypocrite in some parts of my life. I'm not perfect; I'm not a saint. However, I value freedom of speech and expression at the top of my list for a reason. I firmly believe that almost no censorship (expect for certain censorship I supported in my second post) is better for society on the basis that the more you know, the better off you'll be. The more information and ideas a person is exposed to usually helps them to begin critically thinking because they never thought of such ideas before. I do know that such doesn't work on everyone; however, the lack of effect on such people is linked to their childhood environments, how they were taught and how they delt with such teachings (e.g. accepting close minded teaching).

I'd advise not to turn this debate into something personal. Actually that is what I've been trying to avoid, and that's what I was reply to you about in my last reply to you. I explained why taking the debate to a person level does color and blind the debators. It also begins leading people of track and into flame wars. So no, I was not trying to differentiate from you in the reguard of moral superiority, call you a hypocrite nor believe I am better then you. How could I? I already stated I am no better then anyone else, and the only person I deemed would be a hypocrite would be me if I supported censorship. I was stating my reason why for myself I don't support this censorship, not attacking you. The only reason I mentioned moral standards was to shed light on how I view the situation (since they are subjective), and to explain to you that reasoning. Do we have an understanding?

i do not know what you mean, so apparently we do not have an understanding.

i have yet to interpret anything you said as personal, as in, meant as a personal insult. yes i am analyzing your position based on what i see as possible or apparent inconsistencies in what you have already said, and what you continue to say in your conversation with me. nothing is meant as a personal insult.

it seems to me that you and i are working from different contexts. we interpret the same sentences differently. you see my analysis of your sentences as a possible accusation on your character; i'm merely pointing out a possible inconsistency and giving you the chance to bring what i see as two things in opposition, together. do i really think you think you are better than me, or more righteous than me? irrelevant. maybe you do maybe you don't. even if you did, so what? it's not germane to me. some people think they are better than me, and some people are right ! none of it bothers me, and i don't think it is right, or wrong, or worth arguing about.

i tend to pick arguments with people that i think i have a basic understanding of their context, and they mine. i don't have that with you. i don't see us getting anywhere on that anytime soon.

[Amphorian]

@Beulah: Aesthetic judgement in the artistic community differs from what people on a common basis use the word aesthetic for. Just like theory in scientific theory differs from the common usage of theory.

Aesthetic judgement deals with multiple aspects of the piece of artwork. The foundation of art itself: elements of art and principles of design. Physiological and sociological meanings and representations. The overall expression and message the artist is trying to convey. And the reaction of the community and individuals via sensory perception.

Mind you the meanings, representations, message and perceptions don't have to be "joyful", "beautiful" or "appealling" in the sense of an individual liking the piece of work.

Art only needs to be the interpretation and capturing of the world around you through some form of medium and technique. (This is a broad definition and gets narrower when going into the different genres of art: Music, writing, visual arts, performing arts, commerical arts, etc.).

We can't disreguard certain artpieces on the basis of "subjective taste". That'd be folly considering everyone feels in someway different about each and every form of art and work of art on an individual level. There has to be some difinition to cover art without taking into account every individual's aesthetic judgement least there be no definition for art at all.

[Mullanaphy]

Also the other aspect of art is that it is ever changing and it is a reactionary to it's surroundings. With each new generation will be new mediums to portray. The best intro to art was from one of my art teachers, who was an abstract painter. The two main ideas he conveyed was that all art is a reactionary and also the art world is about finding the conversation you are looking for. E.g. he was into abstract so that is what he did, I find abstract to be sub par yet I still was able to appreciate his talents. I'm more in lines with the impressionists as well as cartooning, he wasn't into cartooning yet he appreciated my talents. Art isn't supposed to be either beautiful or ugly, it is supposed to be whatever the artist is\artists are trying to portray.

This seems to be a debate that happens with all new media. When movies were first coming out people had the same concerns out them. People still do, now it's video games that are in the spotlight, despite no correlations being found. Unless you are one to think that Jeffrey Dahmer was a necrofiliac rapist because he viewed gay porn and not because he was out of his mind.

P.S. One benefit out of this, look we are now on page 8 talking about rape and from the looks of it everyone is adamantly against it.

[swanhonk]

I got my husband to acquire this game and play it (I would've myself but he's the gamer, not me) to see what the fuss was about. Gotta say it made me uneasy watching the various scenarios and I had to tell my husband to stop after about 5 minutes of it. I wasn't exactly offended by it, just found it really awkward to witness. I can't imagine this appealing to anyone but the virginal passive geekboy type. It's sort of sad to think of the probably lonely guys who play this. I think it's a benign medium for whomever wants to indulge in these fantasies. I mean they're going to fantasize anyway. Banning anything without any direct evidence or correlation of it causing criminal behavior in real life would be like thought crime. Needless to say, I'm extremely anti-censorship.

[Cygnus]

Let's try a different perspective. Cigarette smoking was heavily promoted at one time in society. Companies had no regulation and had free reign to do as they pleased. To gain competitive advantage and to promote a perpetual need for their product, companies used aggressive advertising and additional addictive chemicals. Eventually, people judged cigarette smoking was not in the best interest of people as a whole and many steps were taken by governments around the world alter public behavior and opinion. I do not agree with all of these measures and many are more extreme in the opposite direction, however, I do understand the intent and understand a pendulum swings wide and extreme at the beginning, and slowly the swings are less radical in time until it eventually rests at the balanced center.

One measure I do agree with that was put in place was censorship on cigarette advertising. Restrictions on where, when, and how cigarette smoking was advertised and how it is portrayed. People may not want to believe the effect of advertising on themselves, but the continued aggressive use of advertising by for profit companies validates its effectiveness. Consideration in presentation is important. Consideration in how rape is presented is important. Censorship is a tool, it can be judiciously used to be helpful and perverted to be harmful; it is just a tool and not inherently evil.

I will throw out a wild speculation and say that most people will come to know someone directly in their lives that has been raped. So while this is the case, more care and consideration is needed in when, where, and how rape is presented. Eventually in time when behavior is altered enough to where it is a terrible thing "that seems to happen to someone else" then it has reached a point of being more self regulated and much less direct intervention is required.

[Firebrand]

@Beulah You don't seem to understand the various of layers of how a video game constitutes art. Regardless of the actual end-result's merits, there will always be in games : 3D Models, textures, 3D engine, code, a game design, sound, music. These things don't come together "by magic". It takes an orchestrated plan to bring these things together. That end-result, whether it's good or not, is an art-form as there is no exact science to how these various aspects are merged. They created something playable that has an outward expression. That... is art. Just because you don't like it does not make it not art. The end-result is it is something that was created through a creative process with a specific goal in mind of how it should be experienced (game design) by the consumer of it (viewer).

[Mogura]

Video games are applied art, but not pure art. They can incorporate elements of pure art, and the coding techniques used could be considered artful mastery, but video games in themselves are not pure art...

[daydreamer]

Video games are applied art, but not pure art. They can incorporate elements of pure art, and the coding techniques used could be considered artful mastery, but video games in themselves are not pure art...



I'll agree. Certainly no one would confuse it with fine art.

[Firebrand]

I would use the term Interactive Art.

[drydenxenvik]

I heard some rapists have eaten chicken before doing their dastardly deeds. We all know food affects everyone's physiology, and just look at what it made these rapists do! Clearly, all chicken must be banned from everyone for the greater good.

The Chicken might try and disguise itself as art, but don't be fooled!

An example of what Chicken "art" might look like. Know what to look out for, and protect your children and political talking points!!!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.