Jimquisition: Rape vs. Murder

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 17 NEXT
 

Negatempest:
So wait, Torture is more okay than rape?...even though both are exactly the same thing in the form of the whole "Power" argument you were making? True I would find neither rape or murder okay. Also men do not just rape because of media influence. They were either traumatized or psychologically messed up already.

The true common sense comes from playing "influential" games but knowing better than to do any of it. Though Rape is a societal issue, not a moral one. Also, murder is not always equal on both sides. Most of the time the victims never see it coming and/or are never prepared. Sure it's "quick", but the fact is that once murder does happen...that victim no longer exists in any physical form we know of. Sure "religion" is an excuse to believe there is something to look forward to, but that is just self-denial until proven of the afterlives existence...which is a pretty scary thought for some people.

"afterlife" is a very narrow way of looking at all religious perspectives, and some people's religious beliefs are genuinely rooted deeper than "self denial" (the most solid example would be through various manifestations of miraculous/spiritual experiences). I'm not trying to start a religious debate here, I'm just say that's a rather presumptuous statement you made.

axlryder:

Negatempest:
So wait, Torture is more okay than rape?...even though both are exactly the same thing in the form of the whole "Power" argument you were making? True I would find neither rape or murder okay. Also men do not just rape because of media influence. They were either traumatized or psychologically messed up already.

The true common sense comes from playing "influential" games but knowing better than to do any of it. Though Rape is a societal issue, not a moral one. Also, murder is not always equal on both sides. Most of the time the victims never see it coming and/or are never prepared. Sure it's "quick", but the fact is that once murder does happen...that victim no longer exists in any physical form we know of. Sure "religion" is an excuse to believe there is something to look forward to, but that is just self-denial until proven of the afterlives existence...which is a pretty scary thought for some people.

"afterlife" is a very narrow way of looking at all religious perspectives, and some people's religious beliefs are genuinely rooted deeper than "self denial" (the most solid example would be through various manifestations of miraculous/spiritual experiences). I'm not trying to start a religious debate here, I'm just say that's a rather presumptuous statement you made.

Oh I agree. But you already know how much more detail I would have to go to include every single point of view of what happens after death. That could be a whole blog on it's own. Point being, most of us would really like to believe there is something after death...even though there is no evidence of such a possibility. aka denial. Quite a harsh word it is. I personally have no idea what to expect because I have never seen the afterlife. So I can't say one way or another.

It's like...when we want to believe the Devil is punishing the sinners instead of celebrating with them since they are...sinners...I don't know. It's not such an easy thing to accept that maybe that serial killer, once dead, may have a parade waiting for him by the demons.

Father Time:

Don't kill dates back to Hammurabi, way before Christianity or Jesus were a thing.

Yes, and I'm sure Jim was quoting Hammurabi and not the (Hebrew, I might add) Ten Commandments.

Negatempest:

axlryder:

Negatempest:
So wait, Torture is more okay than rape?...even though both are exactly the same thing in the form of the whole "Power" argument you were making? True I would find neither rape or murder okay. Also men do not just rape because of media influence. They were either traumatized or psychologically messed up already.

The true common sense comes from playing "influential" games but knowing better than to do any of it. Though Rape is a societal issue, not a moral one. Also, murder is not always equal on both sides. Most of the time the victims never see it coming and/or are never prepared. Sure it's "quick", but the fact is that once murder does happen...that victim no longer exists in any physical form we know of. Sure "religion" is an excuse to believe there is something to look forward to, but that is just self-denial until proven of the afterlives existence...which is a pretty scary thought for some people.

"afterlife" is a very narrow way of looking at all religious perspectives, and some people's religious beliefs are genuinely rooted deeper than "self denial" (the most solid example would be through various manifestations of miraculous/spiritual experiences). I'm not trying to start a religious debate here, I'm just say that's a rather presumptuous statement you made.

Oh I agree. But you already know how much more detail I would have to go to include every single point of view of what happens after death. That could be a whole blog on it's own. Point being, most of us would really like to believe there is something after death...even though there is no evidence of such a possibility. aka denial. Quite a harsh word it is. I personally have no idea what to expect because I have never seen the afterlife. So I can't say one way or another.

It's like...when we want to believe the Devil is punishing the sinners instead of celebrating with them since they are...sinners...I don't know. It's not such an easy thing to accept that maybe that serial killer, once dead, may have a parade waiting for him by the demons.

I feel like you're assuming that evidence must be peer reviewed in order for it to be valid. I don't find that's really the case. It simply means it can't be scientifically validated. Denial (at least if you're using it in the Freudian sense) is more about refusing to accept something that is apparent. If a person sees or experiences something that might make them question the "life sucks and then you die" model of thinking, well they're really not in denial in questioning/refuting that model. Perhaps they're crazy or simply making assumptions (speculating on that would just be conjecture), but that doesn't mean they're necessarily in denial. Also, since you acknowledged you generalizing about the whole "afterlife" thing, cool I guess.

What was the game at 0:53?

Zachary Amaranth:

Father Time:

Don't kill dates back to Hammurabi, way before Christianity or Jesus were a thing.

Yes, and I'm sure Jim was quoting Hammurabi and not the (Hebrew, I might add) Ten Commandments.

The guy I was quoting said it comes from Christianity/Judaism. I was correcting him.

Thank God for Jim.

But seriously that sums up all my thoughts very neatly. I have never understood why anyone would consider murder worse than rape.

axlryder:

Negatempest:

axlryder:

"afterlife" is a very narrow way of looking at all religious perspectives, and some people's religious beliefs are genuinely rooted deeper than "self denial" (the most solid example would be through various manifestations of miraculous/spiritual experiences). I'm not trying to start a religious debate here, I'm just say that's a rather presumptuous statement you made.

Oh I agree. But you already know how much more detail I would have to go to include every single point of view of what happens after death. That could be a whole blog on it's own. Point being, most of us would really like to believe there is something after death...even though there is no evidence of such a possibility. aka denial. Quite a harsh word it is. I personally have no idea what to expect because I have never seen the afterlife. So I can't say one way or another.

It's like...when we want to believe the Devil is punishing the sinners instead of celebrating with them since they are...sinners...I don't know. It's not such an easy thing to accept that maybe that serial killer, once dead, may have a parade waiting for him by the demons.

You're assuming that evidence must be peer reviewed in order for it to be valid. That's really not the case. It simply means it can't be scientifically validated. Denial is more about refusing to accept something that is apparent. If a person sees or experiences something that might make them question the "life sucks and then you die" model of thinking, well they're really not denying anything. Again, miracles. Also, as long as you can accept that you were generalizing about the whole "afterlife" thing, whatever.

Your partly right about the denial part. When people really want to believe something happens after death, it is the denial of believing that blankness happens after death. Either could be right, but they don't want to believe that blankness is an option. Miracles.....can be left to chance. It's both lucky and a miracle that people can survive certain car crashes. ....Why are we derailing this thread XD.

Negatempest:

axlryder:

Negatempest:

Oh I agree. But you already know how much more detail I would have to go to include every single point of view of what happens after death. That could be a whole blog on it's own. Point being, most of us would really like to believe there is something after death...even though there is no evidence of such a possibility. aka denial. Quite a harsh word it is. I personally have no idea what to expect because I have never seen the afterlife. So I can't say one way or another.

It's like...when we want to believe the Devil is punishing the sinners instead of celebrating with them since they are...sinners...I don't know. It's not such an easy thing to accept that maybe that serial killer, once dead, may have a parade waiting for him by the demons.

You're assuming that evidence must be peer reviewed in order for it to be valid. That's really not the case. It simply means it can't be scientifically validated. Denial is more about refusing to accept something that is apparent. If a person sees or experiences something that might make them question the "life sucks and then you die" model of thinking, well they're really not denying anything. Again, miracles. Also, as long as you can accept that you were generalizing about the whole "afterlife" thing, whatever.

Your partly right about the denial part. When people really want to believe something happens after death, it is the denial of believing that blankness happens after death. Either could be right, but they don't want to believe that blankness is an option. Miracles.....can be left to chance. It's both lucky and a miracle that people can survive certain car crashes. ....Why are we derailing this thread XD.

Ah, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your use of denial. My bad. Though, I think it's fair to say that they may actually want to believe in the blankness option. The prospect of an afterlife isn't necessarily welcoming to everyone. Also, as to miracles, there have been reports of miracles that are far more convincing than miraculous car crash survivals...at least if you believe they happened. I've witnessed a couple myself. Though, despite that, I still tend to veer towards a nihilistic perspective lol.

but yeah, rape is bad and stuff.

axlryder:

Negatempest:

axlryder:

You're assuming that evidence must be peer reviewed in order for it to be valid. That's really not the case. It simply means it can't be scientifically validated. Denial is more about refusing to accept something that is apparent. If a person sees or experiences something that might make them question the "life sucks and then you die" model of thinking, well they're really not denying anything. Again, miracles. Also, as long as you can accept that you were generalizing about the whole "afterlife" thing, whatever.

Your partly right about the denial part. When people really want to believe something happens after death, it is the denial of believing that blankness happens after death. Either could be right, but they don't want to believe that blankness is an option. Miracles.....can be left to chance. It's both lucky and a miracle that people can survive certain car crashes. ....Why are we derailing this thread XD.

Ah, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your use of denial. My bad. Though, I think it's fair to say that they may actually want to believe in the blankness option. The prospect of an afterlife isn't necessarily welcoming to everyone. Also, as to miracles, there have been reports of miracles that are far more convincing than miraculous car crash survivals...at least if you believe they happened. I've witnessed a couple myself. Though, despite that, I still tend to veer towards a nihilistic perspective lol.

but yeah, rape is bad and stuff.

XD. Car crash just an example. To me a "miracle" is such intense luck that to believe it to be pure "chance" would seem ridiculous. Also I really don't like the word "miracle" because it usually comes in the form of believing to be favored by some form of "God". Which tends to put some people in a bit of a high XD.

p.s. Good night, going to bed.

Continue with videos like this and I'll continue to watch them.

shadowstriker86:
The sad part is, people have to be reminded not to rape. Kinda tells you somthin aboot humans doesn't it?

You mean about our tendency to ignore the obvious?

What I wonder about these games is do they depict realistic rape or "rape fantasies?" I have nothing against what people do in their own time provided they have a clear safeword but anyone who wants to play a game that simulates real rape should probably get some free medication with their pre-order.

Negatempest:

axlryder:

Negatempest:

Your partly right about the denial part. When people really want to believe something happens after death, it is the denial of believing that blankness happens after death. Either could be right, but they don't want to believe that blankness is an option. Miracles.....can be left to chance. It's both lucky and a miracle that people can survive certain car crashes. ....Why are we derailing this thread XD.

Ah, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your use of denial. My bad. Though, I think it's fair to say that they may actually want to believe in the blankness option. The prospect of an afterlife isn't necessarily welcoming to everyone. Also, as to miracles, there have been reports of miracles that are far more convincing than miraculous car crash survivals...at least if you believe they happened. I've witnessed a couple myself. Though, despite that, I still tend to veer towards a nihilistic perspective lol.

but yeah, rape is bad and stuff.

XD. Car crash just an example. To me a "miracle" is such intense luck that to believe it to be pure "chance" would seem ridiculous. Also I really don't like the word "miracle" because it usually comes in the form of believing to be favored by some form of "God". Which tends to put some people in a bit of a high XD.

p.s. Good night, going to bed.

Haha, I can empathize with that, as that particular perspective is pervasive, though I can assure you that such a view isn't exclusive.

Have a good night.

5ilver:
I disagree. If you ban rape and rape discussions and somehow remove it from life entirely, why not do the same for dentistry, dentists, everything to do with teeth? I mean, it's pretty traumatic, painful, everybody hates it... Or paper-cuts. Man, those hurt.
Death on the other hand is a final full stop, a big ending, there is nothing (as far as I know) beyond death. There are no chances to heal yourself emotionally and physically.

Tl;dr: Death-end, rape-pain, thus saying rape is NONO while death is ok is hypocrisy.

Are you suggesting that the level of emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape is on par with dental work? Because if you are, that's one of the stupidest thing I've ever heard - you clearly have absolutely no concept of the turmoil a rape victim goes through after the fact, not including the experience itself. You simply boil it down to "rape-pain", which is mind-boggingly ignorant and short-sighted.

Like some people said, I could defend a game with rape in it, aka main villain you're after is a rapist among other things, but it's hard to defend a game where main character is expected to rape and rewarded for it.
It is perfectly valid to use most dark and evil things in media as long as you don't glorify it. You can't make rape or child murder look good, that's abysmal. You can use it in your game to show that some villain is beyond redemption and deserves death, sure, just be careful.
The whole reason of controversy is past experience with games being not sensitive with sensitive subjects,

I disagree profoundly with this video. I don't disagree with any of the points that say rape is a really awful crime, but you just go ahead and trivialize murder way too much.

"It's something where the other guy can fight back." or "it can happen to anyone" or it being justified or framed in a way that shushes our conscience, ...

These things do not make it in any way ok.

The fact that our culture glorifies the erasing of a human existence makes it even worse. It is NOT a mitigating factor towards the act itself.

Then of course there's the whole "well people don't remember being dead" bit. No, they don't, but their friends and next of kin do. It's patently ridiculous to say that murder doesn't leave anyone hurt in its wake, and yet that's the message many popular media paint day in day out.

Yes, we are desensityzed towards fictive violence far more than we are towards fictive sexual content. That's a cultural phenomenon, not a moral compass. The fact that you like Hannibal despite him eating people means that you are simply more capable of ignoring the background noise of physically and psychologically mutilated people he would leave in his wake were he a real person, merely because he didn't put his dick in any of them.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to think of Lecter as a cool character, but I am saying that it is a bit hypocritical to morally judge roughly equally monstrous characters very differently based on whether or not their story contains rape, or judge a story based on an analogous judgement.

I will acknowledge that there's a difference between killing in combat (which is still not a good thing, but can be considered "less wrong") and outright murder, but there are murder games as well (where you seek out innocent, far less powerful victims who did nothing to deserve it and have no chance against you and proceed to brutalize them) and those really have no place being considered better than a rape game that progresses similarly.

Of course, no one forces you to like the creators of games like that either, but if you want to ban, censor or regulate one, you have to hold to that morality across the board. My own personal opinion is against censorship, no matter how awful the material, but I can respect other views on the matter, so long as they are self-consistent.

TazTheTerrible:

The fact that our culture glorifies the erasing of a human existence makes it even worse. It is NOT a mitigating factor towards the act itself.

I agree with this statement, and has been a problem I've had with games in general. A game where death has weight in your decision making, is a game I want to play. The Last of Us looks like that will be the kind of game it tries to be.

I don't necessarily agree with the consistency part. When it comes down to it, our culture has decided that action movies where you mow down anonymous ninja henchmen is not only okay, but exciting.

viranimus:

If you can justify murder, you can justify anything.

Im sorry I do not buy the whole noble kill theory. There is no such thing. There is never a time when it is a noble thing to take a life into your own hands and snuff it out. What there IS however are mechanisms of public absolution of that crime, when OTHERS absolve you of guilt for whatever reason. But internally that stain can never be wiped off no matter how noble your intentions may have been. It will always remain with you and in essence become a part of you.

So It bears repeating. If you can justify murder, you can justify anything, including rape.

If I could get a stadium of people to applaud you, I would. I can't believe we've reached this point where murder is ok, I am so utterly disappointed with this community right now. I hope that a lot of these responses were made by people younger then 16-18 years of age, people who don't yet have the cognitive ability to understand just how precious life is. Whats worse, people on this board are even justifying torture and sadistic murders now against rape, saying it's totally ok to be a psychopathic sadist because games put you against enemies who deserve it. We really are a charming species if this is popular opinion.

At the end of the day one thing holds true. You can still live a long, fulling and even happy life after being raped. You can't do that if your DEAD. Stealing that opportunity away from someone is by far the most evil thing another person can do. If someone told me that I had to succumb to being raping in order to live, I would certainly choose life. Most sane people would to, including many of the people who made comments here stating that rape was worse.
Kind of funny how that works.

xPixelatedx:

viranimus:

If you can justify murder, you can justify anything.

Im sorry I do not buy the whole noble kill theory. There is no such thing. There is never a time when it is a noble thing to take a life into your own hands and snuff it out. What there IS however are mechanisms of public absolution of that crime, when OTHERS absolve you of guilt for whatever reason. But internally that stain can never be wiped off no matter how noble your intentions may have been. It will always remain with you and in essence become a part of you.

So It bears repeating. If you can justify murder, you can justify anything, including rape.

If I could get a stadium of people to applaud you, I would. I can't believe we've reached this point where murder is ok, I am so utterly disappointed with this community right now. I hope that a lot of these responses were made by people younger then 16-18 years of age, people who don't yet have the cognitive ability to understand just how precious life is. Whats worse, people on this board are even justifying torture and sadistic murders now against rape, saying it's totally ok to be a psychopathic sadist because games put you against enemies who deserve it. We really are a charming species if this is popular opinion.

At the end of the day one thing holds true. You can still live a long, fulling and even happy life after being raped. You can't do that if your DEAD. Stealing that opportunity away from someone is by far the most evil thing another person can do. If someone told me that I had to succumb to being raping in order to live, I would certainly choose life. Most sane people would to, including many of the people who made comments here stating that rape was worse.
Kind of funny how that works.

I agree with the both of you.

I've got games like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series where I can murder dozens of nonhostile NPCs who do nothing but defend their homes from my attacks. Are those deaths justifiable? I've got Prototype, where I find myself regularly mowing down fleeing, terrified civilians. Are those justifiable? I've got GTA games where I can go on a killing spree, murdering dozens of innocent bystanders, then murdering the police who respond. Are those deaths justifiable?

Both murder and rape are horrible things. The latter leaves you mentally and emotionally scarred, with the possibility of recovery(however slim it may be). The former robs you of a future, with no chance of recovery. Both rob you of your self. Claiming one is worse than the other, for whatever reason, cheapens both of them and the effects they have on society.

There's a difference between killing and murder. War games like COD offer few opportunities to murder somebody but you kill a lot of people. Few games are centered around murder Manhunt being one of the few. The difference being if you kill people to get to a goal or if you murder people for the killing.

mike1921:

blackrave:
Contrary to popular belief woman can rape man
BUT
all known techniques to do so are lethal to man
So it will be less about rape and more about killing

Besides that
Yeah, don't rape, just, don't, please!

Explain? Tying him down with viagra will kill him or it won't work? Or just fucking him with a strap-on ?

Ok, I admit, maybe "all known techniques" was a bit exaggerating
I mean raping methods without chemicals involved
I'm not sure I'll be able to explain correctly, but basically it is about lacing erected dick so hard that blood flow is stopped
Then female can rape man until seizure kicks in (eventually it will happen)

But with stuff like viagra man-raping is less lethal of course

P.S.And a little strap-on action never have killed any man ;)

Jim Sterling:
Rape vs. Murder

Why is it so much better to take a life than to rape somebody in fiction? Why can videogames allow us to get away with killing thousands of our fellow humans with swords and guns, yet a game like Rapelay drowns in scorn before finding its sales restricted? Is it hypocritical for games to approve murder and shun rape?

It's a topic that comes up with some frequency, and naturally The Jimquisition has all the correct answers ... even if they're probably terribly wrong.

Watch Video

Wow Jim you really went out on a limb with this one, what a champ, It really took balls to come out and say rape is bad...was there a point to this video other than your attempt at championing yet another cause that already has better and more qualified champions?

Did I hear you say that rape is more damaging than murder? If that is the case are you saying that its more humane to euthanize a rape victim? What about the family, spouse or children of the murder victim do you care nothing for their pain?

Also you said murder can be rationalized and/or even justified through story rendering it almost moral at times...So if someone writes a plot to a rape game that makes rape justified or moral for what ever reason you can rationalize it then? It works both ways granted a justified rape has probably never happened but these are video games, I'm sure they can write a plot to do it.

I know you mean well but this video was laced with ignorance on both sides of the topic, it sounds like you care more about people knowing your stance on something than actually having an intellectual discussion about it.

EDIT: My point is that rape and murder are both wrong and by putting the "VS" between them you can make it seem like one is less wrong when they are both just wrong. If someone can rationalize murder they also have the capacity to rationalize rape and vice versa. Its a good thing video games don't cause people to do bad things in real life.

xPixelatedx:
Snip for space

I thank you for the sentiment. Perhaps my perspective is a little skewn by

viranimus:
Almost

being

viranimus:
Murdered

myself. Being inches/seconds away from death ended can have that same sort of traumatic effect of utter powerlessness, being violated, having the trauma permanently branded on your mind and forced to relive it for the remainder of your days. It has the added effect that rape does not have of regret. To almost be murdered it is like that moment is etched into time and you look at that moment of your life and realize had things been just slightly different and the attempt been sucessful how would you have felt about how you left this world. How would you feel of the things left unsaid and undone. Things you never got the chance to redeem yourself of. Those things haunt you almost as much as the actual trauma itself. The constant thought of "had I just done this differently maybe none of this would have happened" Not to diminish the pain a rape victim suffers but that is a pain they simply dont experience on the same level.

So in all fairness I must admit to being biased, but I still firmly stand behind my statement. If you can justify murder, you can justify anything in this existence.

wat about buggs bunny raping elmer fudd?

haha, isnt rape like, rape if the victim reports it? man, too much svu

I lol'd quite much at the picture of Breivik at 04:40. So true.

*is Norwegian, therefore getting the joke*

TazTheTerrible:
Of course, no one forces you to like the creators of games like that either, but if you want to ban, censor or regulate one, you have to hold to that morality across the board. My own personal opinion is against censorship, no matter how awful the material, but I can respect other views on the matter, so long as they are self-consistent.

The Slippery Slope has never been as true as it is for speech. When you censor speech of one type, it becomes much more appealing to start censoring speech of other types. More dangerously, when you censor speech, you run the risk of giving it far more power.

In danger of skirting Reducto ad Hitlerum, the best modern, real-world example is that of Germany. The what-can't-be-called-the-Nazi-party-any-longer-due-to-legal-concerns has grown in power over the last several decades, which has led to other parties embracing more nationalistic, anti-immigrant rhetoric. Hell, even on the other side of the EU, you have Greece electing fascists. Why? Because discussing *why* The War happened is either illegal at worst, or frowned upon socially at best. When the people in a society take notice of corruption in the current system, they begin to look towards those ideas that the corrupt system deems 'too dangerous,' and embrace them without regard for the consequences.

If you want a less Godwin-y example, the libel laws in the UK are a prime target. Scientists and members of the media in England are often crippled by the threat of libel suits - even when claims they've made are perfectly accurate - because their laws make no distinction between ACTUAL libel and statements of fact which happen to be unflattering. Why are they so broad? Because once 'hate speech' was censored, it became a lot easier to start censoring 'uncivil' speech.

There's no honour in only defending the rights of people with whom with agree.

Suicidejim:

DVS BSTrD:
You don't rape in self-defense.

So that's why I got kicked out of that self-defence class . . .

LOL I should walk away right now before i fuck up the good vibe in this thread.

Yabu:
I think you can explore a wide variety of themes in fiction to cater to any number of demographics.

Yeah. Just not rape enthusiasts.

Problem with all these arguments: Why don't they then apply in real life?

If the fact that sometimes killing can be justified makes any and all forms of "killing" inherently less heinous, then why is murder considered the worst offence by every criminal justice system that exist in reality? If being raped is a fate worse than being killed, then why don't we compassionately encourage rape victims to end their misery?

Rape might be the perfect way to portray someone as evil, but hardly more so than having them blow the head off some random pedestrian. Though in the peculiar environment of puritanical US culture, where violence is awesome and all sex is taboo, it might make some sort of internal sense.

"Don't rape please"
Okay, I wont Rape any pleases

I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything Jim is saying, but I still have a hard time buying into the idea that rape is objectively worse than murder. I actually wrote an post on my blog a while back about Rapelay. The main point I wanted to make was the game kind of got scapegoated to avoid facing much larger social issues.

Here's a link if you want to read it:

http://caseygoddard.blogspot.jp/2011/05/in-defense-of-indefensible.html

There's also some links at the end of the blog post to some other interesting views others have had on the game.

Didn't feel this week's episode, not only because Jim over-glorified himself taking a stance on a tired topic but got this out of it instead of developers using escalating shock values, making fairly naive assumptions on player behavior and - as a rare and woefully brief moment - using the medium correctly as a conditioning device.

Rape is made of elemental evil, Murder... is a grey area?
You may claim to be talk to god, and act the way you do, but I don't think the psychiatrists will help you either, Jim.

Is it just me, or are all the moral arguments coming from the perspective of a game where you - the player - is raping other characters. Isn't that completely different matter if your playable character is the one who would be the one that the enemies are trying to rape.

All very good points of how in most games they don't glorify or trivialise murder, but almost exclusively depict JUSTIFIED killing, justified often by tenuous means but not killing for the sake of killing. And there is no justification for rape. But killing and general use of violent force is justified in preventing injustice to yourself, or at the very least in completing an objective.

I think video games ARE ready for antagonists who rape, I think that fear of rape is a suitable motivator for the player to avoid and is an evil logic to the antagonist's motivation. See Deliverance, Pulp Fiction or the Millennium Trilogy. Video games are ready for this.

But not "battle raper" which I understand is just about the player acting out a rape fantasy, rather than them pitted AGAINST a "rape horror". Dying and capture in a video game has always lacked weight for how you are essentially invincible...

As to rape survivors, they should not play such games, not until they are ready and only if they want to or think it would help them deal with it. There are MILLIONS of soldiers who are severely traumatised by the horrors of war, they should not play violent war games as they risk disturbing flashbacks. Someone who was violently mugged and beaten into disability should not play a fighting tournament game. If we exercise self-censorship by how certain individuals might have been personally affected then we couldn't do anything. If your parents recently had a traumatic divorce, then don't go see Kramer vs Kramer as it'll be too raw.

You are very brave for making a video about this Jim.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 40657)