You Can't Be the Hero If You're the Rapist

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

LOL Nihilism, because nothing has an objective purpose and the universe just is what it is.

Erana:

Normally, I'd agree with the whole, "good and evil are constructs" but...
No.
Even in cultures where a husband is expected to kidnap and have sex with a new bride, no matter her will...
Just no.

"No." isn't an argument. In fact, by admitting you'd ordinarily agree with the above sentiments, you invalidate your post. "Good and evil are just constructs of humanity.... except in the case of rape, where they suddenly spring into actual provable existence, and if you disagree with me, you are wrong..." Uh-huh.

There is a difference between accepting other cultures and treating them with the distance one does with an animal eating its own young. We're social creatures, and we must follow social rules. Sure, good and evil is relative to the society, but whether or not you want to admit it, you're a part of this culture, and if you don't believe that rape is wrong, then you're a sick, disgusting person.
So if you want to participate in modern Western society, get with the program, or get out.

What's "this" culture? Cyberculture? Gamer culture? European culture? American culture? Australian culture? Because I dwell within a country which is part of a culture, does that mean I must think as it does? I'm not allowed to hold a different opinion? And supposedly I'm the sick one...
Rape is not any more "wrong" than murder or genocide, and if you feel the need to label me sick or disgusting, then that's a logical shortcoming of yours, not mine.

Argue well enough and long enough you can justify anything its called Sophistry it existed since classical Athens. The entire point of Plato Philosophy (one of the founder of Philosophy) on many levels was to refute the Sophistry. Generally the conclusion is that you accept a higher order of unchanging laws that create unchanging morals (god is not necessary here) or you don't and everything is in flux and context dependent. (i personally fall in the latter line of thought but respect the wish for the first conclusion)

Rape games are essentially interactive porn: that is their purpose, the intent behind their creation.

That having been said: porn is legal in the US, even the raping variety. So I fail to see us having any right to criticize the Japanese.

Also, one must wonder at the source of the uproar behind this: is it that the rapes are in the games, that they can be performed (as in, they are interactive), or that they are the goal?

In the case of the first option, I would like to remind everyone that rape has been a common factor used in both art, music, and movies for quite some time now (the latter especially so if you're a vivid watcher of Lifetime Movies like my mother is). So before you ban rape in games, you must ban it in all mediums.

With regards to the second option: I think that this isn't the real issue people draw with the game either. If rape were put into the game as a tool for pushing the storyline, or just as an extra option added to a sandbox game like GTA (as in, it would be a extra thing to do, and not the overall objective), people would get angry, but not as angry as they are now. That's just being realistic: we can't say NO USING RAPE to game developers, because that's discrimination against the medium. It's in the same school of thought as the Hide Your Children trope of game development, and I object to that. Why should we tell people that they can't use rape or child violence in games when they could be used to tell a story or make a point?

When venturing into the third option, I must say that my morals make me inclined to agree: rape as the goal of a game is disgusting. But should we generally ban rape in games just because of this? Or more importantly: why should we when rape is used in other forms of media?

I think that rape in games, for better or worse, is here to stay. All we can do is use our wallets to decide the context in which it is used.

Because you are from/in America.
America wacks off to death pornography (e.g. Fallout 3), but starts whining as soon as there is the slightest hint of a female b00b. This whole over-reaction just gets heated up when the nudity/graphic sexual acts stand in the context of violence.

If there is anything Americans should be able to grasp, it's the sexuality-plus-violence thing.

Because over-excessive use of violence in video games is often confused with maturity while it is in fact only a sure measurement of public retardation by the visual media.

To be honest, I think NOTHING should be censored in ANY medium. Just put a warning on and don't sell the game to kids and it should be alright. Covering your eyes won't make the problem go away. Rape can be a powerful tool from a storytelling perspective, and it's silly that you just can't depict something that happens every day, no matter how bad it is.

Furthermore, I personally disagree with the notion in the article that "you're always the hero". You're not. Plenty of games has you as an unlikable douche. I realize that you may refer to something more of a protagonist more than a hero in the literal sense, but then the entire arguments breaks down. Killing people just for the sake of it is possible, and indeed encouraged in several games. Many games has you killing innocent people too. Sure, it's USUALLY either in self-defense or in order to save the world, but not always. GTA gives you the option to run over and kill many a civilian quite frequently. You're not forced to do so, no, but you do have the option. Shall we have a game then, where you're not FORCED to rape people, but you do have the option to do so if you really want to? Following your line of logic, this would be perfectly legitimate, since it's the player's choice. There's no way to justify rape, but neither is there any way to justify murder of innocent people.
(In before "BUT THEY GOT IN THE WAY, THAT'S WHY I RAN THEM OVER", that has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that I can go out of my car, walk over to a random guy and kill him without any other worries on my mind. He didn't get in the way, I just wanted to kill him and did it.)

Rape is bad, but murder is worse. (At least rape victims can recover.) I think both should be allowed in the world of video games.

EDIT:
And if you wanna go all philosophical on this, I actually agree with Darth Vader here above me. There is nothing "wrong" about... well, anything, we only THINK it's wrong. Morality is a human construct, so it really is impossible to argue that something is objectively morally right or wrong.

That being said, I think it's possible to understand what is good for our society as a whole, and to make decision based on that. For example, one could argue that rape in games promotes rape in real life, and that we should avoid rape in real life because it's traumatic for the victims, hence it's counter-productive, as society's overall goal is to bring happiness to people, hence we should disallow rape in games. Not that I support such an argument, but to me it makes a lot more sense than the simple "Rape in games is bad because I think it is." or the ever popular "Rape in games is bad because it just is.")

Valentine82:
Murder victims don't suffer PTSD for the rest of their lives, Rape Victims do.

Again the claim that murder is less of a crime than rape? I might be biased on that issue in that I would never have been born if my mother would have been killed instead of raped during her childhood, but seriously...
Raping someone scars him/her forever, but at least he/she has a chance of recovery. Killing someone ends their life. No recovery. No second chance.

Hmm, I would say my gut feeling is that games like that are bad(they feel wrong). However I cannot rationally explain why rapelay is bad while GTA series is ok. I would view murder worse, or at least as bad as rape. Moreover I seem to remember that when playing a GTA game at a friends(can't remember which game think it was one of those that came between 3 and 4), one of the missions was literally to cause as much mayhem as possible(Mainly consisting of machinegunning down civilians and blowing up cars), which would indicate that the game actually encouraged the player to act like that, so the argument that in GTA its a choice may not be entirely accurate.

So as I cannot rationally explain why GTA is ok while Rapelay is bad I have to go with that both are ok. Moreover I believe that censorship of all kinds is inherently evil.

Mewick_Alex:
Defend the censorship of a game about rape all you want, but that cover potentially advertises child rape too, and theres no way in hell anyone can say THAT shouldn't be censored.

People can, and have. Whether you think they have argued their point successfully, that is certainly debatable. I happen to agree with them. I can't fathom the benefit of trying to draw a line through the grey murkiness of whether a given fictional image represents pedophilic content, especially when a child was not harmed by the creation of the image, and I haven't seen any conclusive studies indicating that the existence of the media cultivates an environment that encourages harm to children (both grounds on which I COULD see the benefit).

Valentine82:
By the way I find it interesting that almost all of the people arguing in favor of simulated rape are male. I guess men just don't have to worry about it as often.

Much as most "pro-choice" individuals would rather not be referred to as "pro-abortion", I think most of us in this thread, dare I say all of us, would classify ourselves as "anti-arbitrary-censorship", not "in favor of simulated rape", thankyouverymuch. There is a social good to discouraging people from yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater... where is the social good in censoring rape in media?

Valentine82:
LOL Nihilism, because nothing has an objective purpose and the universe just is what it is.

LOL @ "LOL" as a refutation of an established philosophical worldview. Oh, look, I can be sarcastically dismissive too!

P.S. Props to whoever raised the question of A Clockwork Orange. When I was mocking everyone earlier for the implications of their stance in other media, I couldn't think of a good example. So, how about that, everyone in favor of a ban/censorship? Are you ready to ban A Clockwork Orange, both the best selling novel and the acclaimed Stanley Kubrick film adaptation? If there were a game, with Alex as the protagonist, would we have to leave out the rape?

This whole uproar about some rapegame just shows how people live in fear these days.
"OH NOES, WHAT IF THIS GAME INSPIRES PEOPLE TO RAPE?"

If people want to rape, they rape. They do so because they don;t give a shit about the consequences.
These games are for people who have sexual fantasies about rape, but don't want to go to jail or bring trauma to their victims.

So it really doesn't matter

The phrase going round in circles comes to mind .....

6 pages of rape is wrong ... no rape is justified (how? you killed someone so I'll rape you?) .... rape and murder/manslaughter are bad as each other ... playing devils advocate ..... [insert dark distastful joke] .... and everyone is eager to show off there Freudulant analogys or that they took a psych class. (I know im adding to the mix but I just love irony that much ... I even spell perfetc wrong on purpose ^_^)

So some of you want to rape people in games, others think we should tone violence down, I think we should make manhunt 2 like it was meant to be before they waterd it so far down it would make a good childs game (I hanv't played it but I bet its that bad)

I find rape in a game to be .... unessercery, everytime a female npc appears on screen she has clothes on than homless guy with breasts bigger than her head, (how many guys out there have looked at lara croft for a little to long?) I think we have more than enough sexual content (not just in games, you cant flick a tv on without 2 people going at it and how many pages are there on the net of porn? how many dvds of porn? how many cinema films have sex in? how many girls flashing in town centres? how many revealing dresses are on sale?) these days without making a game forcing people to have sex against there will. If however you do want to have sex with pixels play leisure suit larry, how many of them are there? ... at least them pixels constent ....

I wonder if the next game japan will come up with will be selling people into sex slavery ... sex slave tycoon maybe?

Erana:

And you just posted a straw-man fallacy.
If you need to simplify my post, it goes: "Some cultures say rape is right. This culture says rape is wrong. If you want to participate in this culture, but believe that rape is right, then by this society's standards, you are not properly participating. Therefore, if you want to participate in this culture, then you need to conform to society's standards, or not participate in this society."

That is a logically sound argument. You can write a logical proof for that. Whether it is "right or wrong" is a matter of personal opinion, but it is logical.

No it isn't--you pulled the concept of "properly participating" out of thin air. You can't just make up some universal and objective scale against which to measure human behavior without justifying it somehow; what's more, this concept you've introduced out of thin air called "properly participating"?

You said "good and evil is relative to the society"; so now you've got to justify it in a way that you're not just using the term "properly participating" in place of "good" and "improperly participating" in place of evil.

I see no possible way for you to do that. All you've done is renamed "morality" as "the question of whether one is properly participating."

It's...actually very Orwellian, but most relativist moralities are.

Karv:

And if you wanna go all philosophical on this, I actually agree with Darth Vader here above me. There is nothing "wrong" about... well, anything, we only THINK it's wrong. Morality is a human construct, so it really is impossible to argue that something is objectively morally right or wrong.

If it's not objective, it's not morality. Without objectivity there is no morality, there are simply more or less humans agreeing on something.

Most people who say such things run afoul of their own arguments, like Erana does above.

Ziren:

Panzer_God:

CantFaketheFunk:

Panzer_God:

Teachingaddict:
I've said it in previous threads...

I'll never ever touch a 'rape' game, however, murder or rape, whats the difference.....both can take and ruin lives, so why a one sided view point by many.

Murder victims don't spend years trying to forget the horror that was done to them. Murder victims don't need therapy and they aren't mentally devastated.

Well... no, because they're dead.

That's the point, the murder victims don't worry about it anymore, their life is over, which sucks, but a rape victim still needs to live their life and they're all torn up inside.

So, if your suggesting that death is better than surviving a rape experience you're in favour of euthanasia for them (probably even against their will), right?
And no, that's not what you said, but it can be deducted from your statement.

Kajin:

Panzer_God:

CantFaketheFunk:

Panzer_God:

Teachingaddict:
I've said it in previous threads...

I'll never ever touch a 'rape' game, however, murder or rape, whats the difference.....both can take and ruin lives, so why a one sided view point by many.

Murder victims don't spend years trying to forget the horror that was done to them. Murder victims don't need therapy and they aren't mentally devastated.

Well... no, because they're dead.

That's the point, the murder victims don't worry about it anymore, their life is over, which sucks, but a rape victim still needs to live their life and they're all torn up inside.

If I'm truly worse off continuing my existence after I've been raped then what's to stop me from slitting my wrists in the bathtub and getting it over with? If what you're saying is indeed true, then suicide is by far the most logical course of action, is it not?

Alex_P:
I think the "What's worse: rape or murder?" debate deserves a rest, too -- it's gotten way askew of the question framed in the article.

-- Alex

I think because the "rape is worse than murder" people aren't actually arguing what they are thinking: that the question of whether rape is worse than murder isn't necessarily measured by how much *damage* rape does compared to murder, but how *evil* a rapist is compared to a murderer.

In other words, they wound up having the entire debate around one aspect of the issue when, I'm guessing, the *truly* important aspect to one side got left out, and that side got led down the garden path.

I think the 'rape is worse than murder' people are actually motivated by the thought that you've got to be a way more messed up person to rape than to murder (at least some murders), just like you've got to be way more messed up to, say, tie someone to a chair and go all _Marathon Man_ on them, torturing a tooth or two with dental tools, than to be someone who punches someone else trying to break their jaw.

In short, just because someone causes more *damage* doesn't mean they are more *twisted*, and in deciding how *evil* something is, you can't just look at the *damage* inflicted on the victim, you have to look at how *twisted* the attacker must be to do something like that. Even think of something like the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment": killing is okay, but torture is not: according to the logic of the 'murder is worse' people, that's flawed.

But the connection between rape and torture and how it's different from murder will have to wait 'till my next post ;-D

Basically: making a generic assumption on the demographic of this thread, I cant help but assume that the majority of you have an inherent bias (which is kind of a positive thing if you consider all the negative attention these games are provoking).
Most of us have experienced violence at some point, even if only to a small degree. however I find it highly unlikely that anyone posting here has ever been subjected to, or been close to someone else who has been subjected to sexual assault. If you have I can only salute your bravery posting here.

Is rape better than death? well I dunno is rape better than torture? why the hell do we need to compare an apple to an orange? To my knowledge there is not a video game based solely on the phisical torture of other people, and if there are one or two deviants out there, its hardly a booming industry.
The article states that violence in games is almost always towards some heroic goal. In a video game we are given a scenario where violence is acceptable. The problem, having had to examine a few of these rape games in the past, is that they attempt to create a situation where rape is acceptable. Hell in the end most of the physically improbable girls seem to be enjoying themselves.

This is not an acceptable alternate reality.
A rape victim goes through no less trauma than the most hardened of war veterans. In my experience it affects the victim for the rest of their lives, drastically altering their personality, their health and their overall well being. I can kind of imagine someone who's lived through being shot at some point picking up a copy of halo and shooting at some pixelated dudes for fun, cant say I imagine a rape victim picking up one of these games.

I don't believe in legal censorship, but I believe in social censorship; and quite frankly if japan decides to ban the making of these games I'm not going to have a moral dilemma over it.
omega 616 has it right on the head, there's plenty of willing pixelated girls out there. Heck take a shower comb your hair and step out of the front door you might even find a real girl who wont pepper spray you.

At least until she sees the new game you just bought home from japan.

Erana:

BGH122:

Erana:

Normally, I'd agree with the whole, "good and evil are constructs" but...
No.
Even in cultures where a husband is expected to kidnap and have sex with a new bride, no matter her will...
Just no.
There is a difference between accepting other cultures and treating them with the distance one does with an animal eating its own young. We're social creatures, and we must follow social rules. Sure, good and evil is relative to the society, but whether or not you want to admit it, you're a part of this culture, and if you don't believe that rape is wrong, then you're a sick, disgusting person.
So if you want to participate in modern Western society, get with the program, or get out.

There is no logic to be analysed in this post. It is equatable to you posting "Some cultures and people say rape is right. My culture and people say rape is wrong. Therefore rape is wrong." It's just pointless. There's no reason to post that since it isn't an argument.

`

And you just posted a straw-man fallacy.
If you need to simplify my post, it goes: "Some cultures say rape is right. This culture says rape is wrong. If you want to participate in this culture, but believe that rape is right, then by this society's standards, you are not properly participating. Therefore, if you want to participate in this culture, then you need to conform to society's standards, or not participate in this society."

That is a logically sound argument. You can write a logical proof for that. Whether it is "right or wrong" is a matter of personal opinion, but it is logical.

Okay, you've got more kick to you than I appreciated but your argument is still hideously biased. You're saying that your culture says that rape is wrong and cannot be justified, but since I proved (or believe I proved) with my Ayush the Space Cowboy example that rape can be justified then your argument becomes incredibly extremist as you have to say that there is genuinely no circumstance which would mitigate rape, which Western Civilisation would plainly disagree with.

Malygris:
Rape, on the other hand, can never be justified. There is no context that can elevate it, no noble cause served or Herculean task achieved through the commission of a brutal sexual assault. Despite what some people say, violence sometimes is the answer, but sexual violence is the sort of brutality for which there is never any reason or excuse.

That's a great point: it's impossible to think of an evil act that requires you to rape someone in order to stop them. Unless the Emergency Shutdown Button for the Doomsday Device is located in the villain's prostate, I can't imagine one.

To take it a step farther, I'd say it's like torture: a hero almost never tortures, and when he does, it's quickly completed and usually a form of 'poetic justice' for an enemy that isn't just wearing the wrong uniform, but has inflicted even more brutal and cruel treatment on innocents than the hero is inflicting on the enemy. Why? Same reasons you pointed out for rape.

(edit: didn't see this while skimming--my bad: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.116823.2203358)

I'd also add that we play games *all the time* where there's violence. And I'm talking long before the Atari: soccer, Canadian football, rugby, basketball, even ancient games like wrestling and boxing, etc. So violence+gaming isn't something that began with video games: it's *always* been a part of gaming, from the object of chess being to kill the king all the way back to when it was a couple of cavemen playing keep-away with monkey skull which...yeah. Violence has been a recreational activity since we started hunting. So we're primed to see murder differently than rape by our entire history of cultural development.

Damn, but what about things like the Rape of the Sabine Women? Oh wait, that's right: Donkey Kong carries off a girl and Mario has to go get her back. No wonder he's an Italian! :-D

Maybe if we'd evolved from like, rape beetles it would be different; however, for humans, killing has always had far more of a 'sport' aspect to it than rape.

Geoffrey42:

Mewick_Alex:
Defend the censorship of a game about rape all you want, but that cover potentially advertises child rape too, and theres no way in hell anyone can say THAT shouldn't be censored.

People can, and have.

And let's not even get into the drama over Harry Potter erotic fanfic--something written by women for other women.

What would be really interesting is to see how the feelings of people change when we go from male fantasies with disturbing content to *female* fantasies with equally disturbing content.

If all these men and these few women aghast at the content of RapeLay *really* knew what goes on in the imagination of some women out there...

...oh wait, that's right--we just had an article about women who are attracted to Pyramidhead so we do know.

Valentine82:
By the way, the game in question uses Rape as a pornographic device, and psychology of how people tend to develop sexual fetishes simply makes it a bad idea for simulated rape to be an available medium of pornography.

Anyway, want to have rape in games and argue that it's no big deal since murder is in games? I say we institute life imprisonment or the death penalty for all rapist then.

I'm not afraid of some psycho killer coming at me with laser guns and chainsaws, but I do have to worry about some misogynistic guy trying to violate me if he thinks he can get away with it, and if one ever tries I hope he can live without his testicles because I'll rip them off and dig my nails into his eye sockets :)

Thing is, the misogynistic guy you have to worry about probably *won't* have any sort of sexual fetishes. He'll probably have never encountered any sort of 'rape simulation'. Like you said here:

Valentine82:

Rape is in a different field of human experience, driven largely by lust and power (typically power over women).

Rape is about power and lust. It's not about being 'deviant' in the sense of having a sexual fetish--that has nothing to do with it.

It's not that simulated rape pushes misogyny on anyone: it's that the *lens through which men view simulated rape* stokes their misogyny. However, every deception of sex in our culture does that, because the problem isn't in the deception itself, it's in the way we've been trained by the patriarchy to see those depictions. Heck, even wedding advertisements fan those flames.

Valentine82:

Typically torture in videogames acts as an outlet for the same type of sadistic tendencies that drives one to enjoy murder in videogames.

Actually, I don't think anyone enjoys murder in videogames out of "sadistic tendencies." I think it's just that murder stands in for triumph. I mean, what does everyone go for? The headshot. What's the least sadistic way to kill someone? With one shot to the head. If it was about sadism, why would people get the most excited over the form of killing that causes the least suffering? A sniper is looking to shoot someone with such precision they're not just going to die, they die without even a muscle spasm--yet every jackass on Xbox live is named 'xxsNiperZSoluJABoy420xx' or something.

People don't kill in games because they're looking to kill--they kill because they enjoy the feeling of skill that comes from shooting targets. Heck, in some of the most popular games out there, you're killing ZOMBIES! which are simply human shaped fleshy targets! They're already dead, in fact, they're UNdead!

Valentine82:
By the way I find it interesting that almost all of the people arguing in favor of simulated rape are male. I guess men just don't have to worry about it as often.

You should check outside this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_198/5984-Love-Triangle

I mostly agree with the article.

That game should not be banned.

This article made me sign up just so I can post here.

Much of what I wanted to say is already here; I'm in this 193 comments too late. So, I'll go back to the points on which I disagree with the article. Disagreeing is much more fun anyway.

Point #1: "Rape, on the other hand, can never be justified."

I find this unlikely. Every other crime in gaming is justified by some paper-thin explanation, usually "I'm saving the world." What makes rape sacrosanct? Is it because the victims are so traumatized? The difference between rape and murder is not the magnitude of the after effects, but only on who experiences them. Rape victims hold it themselves, in murder the trauma passes to all loved ones.

A more direct proof would be a rape-justifying plotline. I'll invent one right now. Rape Cell. Your squad has captured a bunch of sexy terrorists that planted bombs in New York, Paris, London, and Tokyo. If you don't "interrogate" them hard and fast, they won't reveal the exact locations of the bombs and how to disarm them. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a saved world with zero kills, zero drops of blood spilled.

Point #2: The assumption that there is one kind of rape.

Rape, at it's most brutal, is a subset of the category Non-Consent, or nc as a label for erotic fiction. NC is a wonderful world where "no" means a phalanx of non-no things such as "maybe" or "we shouldn't do this, but you're so darned attractive." Articles like this fill me with fear that there is a movement to take NC away. For a country with free speech, America threatens a writer's ability to explore boundaries an awful lot.

Point #3: Rape games are in the same category as Halo 3.

Rape Lay is behind the 18+ line. It caters to a specific fetish and is therefore for a small number of people. It's reason d'etre is too far removed from Halo's to put them on the same playing field, say, by arguing that killing goes on in Halo so rape can happen in Rape Lay.

The article cites games that contain violent and bloody acts. Rape and Kill are King and Queen of Immoral Hill so if one is tolerated in games, why not the other? That seems to be the logic before we are shown why rape is intolerable and mass murder is. The whole time, no one seems to realize the games have vastly different purposes.

*********Other thoughts********

It is unfair to cross the 18+ line into Adult Land and start saying which practices should be censored. People can't help liking what they like. Thank the gods and the industry that for nearly any desire, there is a rich source of digital media to help fulfill that desire.

As for society, no matter what the fantasy is very few people will get off their butts and do something. Lots of people fantasize about going back to school or starting a business but hardly anyone ever does. Lots of people play Halo but few ever actually kill someone. Those that do usually have non-Halo reasons and kill with non-Halo methods. Those with the prerequisite violence in the brain to actually kill may enjoy Halo as an ideal scenario or creative consultant, but the game doesn't create urges from nothing. Rape games follow a similar pattern. Few dare to dream, but a remarkably small number will actually act. A human who gets off on rape games will seek the rape game. It is preposterous to imagine things the other way around--rape games and kill games seeking out innocent children and prothelitizing.

Ok, the article seems to think the game and other games like it are intended to be like...well like any other game. It is porn, plain and simple. Ofcourse, since raping REAL people is wrong, there is stuff like that.
(Since the inital topic had me arguing with an idiot, I likely won't linger here as much)

Reminds me of this qoute from a Something Awful review

"For example, if Kengo were in an American game, his parents might have been murdered by virgins or he only would rape virgins if they were serious criminals. Sort of like a vigilante crime deflowerer."

MaxTheReaper:
Just responding to the question in the OP: Because murder can be justified.
See also: Dexter.

Rape can never serve a good purpose.

And now to read.

EDIT: Well fuck. It looks like you pretty much agree completely.
That's actually a bit weird.
Or maybe it's just a more common viewpoint than I thought.

What sort of effed up world do you live in where you can justify murder? And you use a fictional serial killer as your case-in-point?

Okay, we know rape is bad, and can be viewed as worse than murder, and intolerable in any situation, but let's give the Devil's Advocate his say:

Devil's Advocate: You don't have to be the hero in every video game. Look at Overlord. Look at light vs dark games that give you the option of being the bad guy. Video games let us do things we wouldn't be able to do in the real world. Picture this hypothetical game: Suduce, a game that lets you play as a hero in a world that's under attacked by raunchy Succubi. In order to kill them, you must have sex with them, but they won't let you. Thus, in order to save billions of people, including women, children, sick and elderly, you must rape demons from hell.

And like previously stated, sitting around arguing over banning video games isn't stopping the actual rape that's going while people are arguing. To me, rape is a terrible, horrific thing, but that doesn't mean video games in particular can single it out as too horrific to cover.

Another point is, in all other forms of media, you sit and watch/read the rape happening (or incase of the news that it did happen) were this is diffrent is that your controlling the rape, you chose to buy the game and you chose to sit there with the sole intent to simulate rape. I think thats what makes it worse then in films and books like the clockwork orange.

WrongSprite:

MaxTheReaper:
Just responding to the question in the OP: Because murder can be justified.
See also: Dexter.

Rape can never serve a good purpose.

And now to read.

I give you GTA4. Is cutting down civilians justified? Then maybe they should both be banned.

Like someone already said, you never actually have to kill the pedestrians to advance in the game...

Also because rape is worse than murder. It's torture not only on a physical level, but on the psychological and deep emotional level as well.

Mass murders in GTA4 are mindless; bang bang and little sprites fall over, maybe some fake blood... that's it. But to actually simulate rape... you'd have to get a lot more personal.

It's just not the same...

Muphin_Mann:

What sort of effed up world do you live in where you can justify murder? And you use a fictional serial killer as your case-in-point?

Show me a police officer who does as much good in the real world as Dexter does in the fictional world.

If you looked really hard, you might find one.
I believe very firmly in "Pay Evil Unto Evil."
I linked the short version.

Again, to point out, the rape games in question being banned you have minimal interaction in terms of button presses etc, which makes things a bit different.

Furthermore, the rape games in question come from a larger subsection of eroge (the descendants of Dating Sims such as Capcom's Tokimeki Memorial Series, Sega's Sakura Taisen) where the protagonist isn't meant to necessarily embody heroic ideals (I'd be hard pressed to find anything overly heroic in the relatively tame Kanon as the game is a more personal story) so it's a fallacy to presupppose that the protagonists perform ideals to aspire to.

The Green Goblin makes a good point here, which I have to elaborate on:

"I find this unlikely. Every other crime in gaming is justified by some paper-thin explanation, usually "I'm saving the world." What makes rape sacrosanct? Is it because the victims are so traumatized? The difference between rape and murder is not the magnitude of the after effects, but only on who experiences them. Rape victims hold it themselves, in murder the trauma passes to all loved ones.

A more direct proof would be a rape-justifying plotline. I'll invent one right now. Rape Cell. Your squad has captured a bunch of sexy terrorists that planted bombs in New York, Paris, London, and Tokyo. If you don't "interrogate" them hard and fast, they won't reveal the exact locations of the bombs and how to disarm them. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a saved world with zero kills, zero drops of blood spilled. "

Essentially, it's only because we've been exposed to violence and murder as a means of conflict resolution that we think it's fine at all. Why is it somehow better to save the earth from the Combine through headshots rather than unwilling penetration? And, (if the spirit of the article is to be obeyed) would it be just as fine to rape your way to save the human race?

And finally, to nitpick, many of our Heroes DID rape and were glorified for it. Achilles abandons the invading Greek army over a captured woman. Gilgamesh was well known for deflowering married women on the first night. It's completely silly to pretend that the subjugation of women wasn't glorified in mythology.

I would like to play that holocaust tycoon, sounds like something different, I would also like a game played from the point of a terrorist...
What...? Don't look at me like that, I just like being the "bad" guy.

It's strange how humans are the only animals on earth to which rape isn't a logical means of reproduction. If anything, murder is more illogical than rape (biologically) because it hinders the progression of humanity.

That said, as with everything of this nature, it's the societal conventions which shape the perceptions. If rape was commonplace, victims wouldnt be psychologically affected because that affection would be the norm.

I have seen masterpieces in other media that glorify rape as a means to develop a narrative. I think given time, extreme acts of depravity will be used in games as it is in other medium.

However I cant really see any benefit to a game in which the entire USP is built around rape. That sounds more like a quick cash in on controversy.

This isn't anything new, ever hear of Virgin Roster? Nobody made a big deal about that, maybe because they didn't put rape in the title.

Mr.Tea:

Also because rape is worse than murder. It's torture not only on a physical level, but on the psychological and deep emotional level as well.

Mass murders in GTA4 are mindless; bang bang and little sprites fall over, maybe some fake blood... that's it. But to actually simulate rape... you'd have to get a lot more personal.

It's just not the same...

Any torturer worth his salt knows that good torture isn't just physical.

Murder could be simulated at a closer level, but I don't know that it would sell enough (smaller market for murder fetish, I imagine). Would virtual rape be better if it were lower fidelity, or more distanced from your avatar? Maybe an option in an RTS to allow your barbarian horde to rape the women-folk of the village you just conquered (with a loyalty bonus to your horde, and a submission bonus to the locals). I mean, after all, it is very small, pixelated, widespread rape, which you told "someone else" to do, instead of personal rape.

When you say "It's just not the same...", you're right, rape and murder are not universal equivalents, but what's important in this context is whether or not there are specific grounds for censoring/legislating against rape in virtual scenarios which somehow make it different from other violence in virtual scenarios and rape in other media (ignoring omega 616's argument, which I tried to undercut in advance, because if you want to apply that rubric to rape, you should be applying the same rubric to murder as well, and nobody seems to want to think about that).

thehen:
If rape was commonplace, victims wouldnt be psychologically affected because that affection would be the norm.

Not that I disagree with you entirely, but I think your premise is flawed. Our perceptions of normality are shaped by societal conventions, etc. Sure. But rape would still psychologically affect people. It would just be the norm for people to have psychological trauma from rape. This is like saying that children during the heyday of corporal punishment never suffered psychological trauma: they did, that trauma was just part of what shaped the average, expected, "well-balanced", normal person. Similar to saying that slaves didn't experience trauma when slavery was the norm; they did, it was just expected.

MaxTheReaper:
Just responding to the question in the OP: Because murder can be justified.
See also: Dexter.

Rape can never serve a good purpose.

And now to read.

EDIT: Well fuck. It looks like you pretty much agree completely.
That's actually a bit weird.
Or maybe it's just a more common viewpoint than I thought.

\

you actually used Dexter as an example? lol

scotth266:
Rape games are essentially interactive porn: that is their purpose, the intent behind their creation.

That having been said: porn is legal in the US, even the raping variety. So I fail to see us having any right to criticize the Japanese.

Not legal in the UK anymore. "Extreme" porn was banned - not sure where they draw the line, but I think its something like "If its showing a pausible situation of sexual assault, its illegal. i.e. 'rape' porn featuring obvious fake silliness like mind control machines made from a saucepan and christmas tree lights is probably legal.

thehen:
It's strange how humans are the only animals on earth to which rape isn't a logical means of reproduction. If anything, murder is more illogical than rape (biologically) because it hinders the progression of humanity.

Depends on who you're murdering.

Hoxton:

you actually used Dexter as an example? lol

As I've said earlier in this thread: I can't think of a real-life example, but if Dexter were a real person, I would support him completely.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here