Jimquisition: Rape vs. Murder

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT
 

Treblaine:

mike1921:

No, it's common sense that drawn anything is legitimate, regardless of what it is. Mods be damned (although I don't see mods dropping the ban hammer over opinions of fictional children), there is no justifiable reason to think drawn anything (that isn't meant to look like any specific person) should be illegal, regardless of your country's imbecilic laws. Finally one aspect where I could look at the UK and say "my country isn't that bad"

If a legitimate game like GTA had you rape an adult that'd be horrible and distasteful and stupid of rockstar, if it had you rape a child that'd be horrible and distasteful and stupid of of rockstar. If a game that exists solely as a rape simulator had you rape an adult that'd be perfectly fine because it's just porn (which should be exempt from the "horrible, stupid, distasteful" classifications in most respects. Obviously actual harm caused is not exempt.) to begin with and no one was actually harmed, if a game that exists solely as a rape simulator had you rape a child that'd be perfectly fine because it's just porn, no one actually harmed.

"your country's imbecilic laws" are YOUR LAWS as well! I live in the UK like you, and I'll tell you that such depictions are illegal.

I live in the US, and if we have the same laws than our laws are imbecilic too.

The one thing I don't like about this is how he speaks about death as though he knows what it entails. I'm not ascribing to any one religion right now but even if you don't you still have no fucking CLUE just how it is to die!

Furthermore, what we DO know of death is that it's an END. You lose ALL your potential when you die, you can do things no more. People can recover from rape, they can move on to lead wonderful productive and HAPPY lives. If you die, you die, you don't ever have a CHANCE of recovering from death.

By saying that rape victims are more worse off than murder victims you promote their euthanasia so as to put them out of their misery, which I am sure was not the intent of the video but is still flat out retarded.

okay part of this doesnt make sense. he says that he knows there are cases of men getting raped but also says that rape isnt something women can physically do. is he implying that the only rape that happens to men, is homosexual rape?

Great until he brought up examples of rape for characterization of a bad character. Take that, put it in game and give the rapist whether it be player or not their just deserts. If its 100% not ok in games ever then video games limit themselves to not exploring taboo subjects that movies and books do quite often but with justification towards the one doing the action. Having Clockwork Orange that's all I need to say even though Jim already had it in here.

So, don't rape and don't be immature or completely retarded about the subject of rape and its fine in any media.

Thank god Jim got this right- when I read the little bit at the bottom of the video asking if condemnig rape while condoning murder wasn't a bit hypocritical I was a bit worried, before I watched the video and he bluntly said no it wasn't.

Ironically though, Battle Raper 2 was actually ludicrously mislabeled- the game has NO rape in it, none at all. OK, maybe a bit of skeevyness where you massage girls' unconscious and half-naked bodies to heal them after they lose a fight, but ALL the actual sex in the game is consensual. Seriously! The Something Awful review of the game actually complained that the name was inaccurate! It was the ORIGINAL game that actually had rape in it.

Treblaine:

Katya Topolkaraeva:

As an example of where rape would, in my opinion, be totally appropriate: take Kratos in God Of War III. We can probably mostly agree that he is a total complete asshole. He goes about dispensing with other gods for no good reason... mostly slowly by bashing their heads into the ground until they are mush. He kills random town people for no reason at all (and by he, i of course mean you, as a player). He grabs a random princess who is begging for mercy and handcuffs her to the cog wheel thingie so that her body is smashed to bits and blocks open the door for him to progress (cuz he can't use any other bit of furniture apparently) And he comes upon Aphrodite (after brutally killing pretty much all of her family) and what do they do? They have sex. Personally i was really hoping in some weird boss battle with Aphrodite that centered around/resulted in raping her. It would have been awesome and fitting with the character and the general progression in the game. I was disappointed it did not happen. (p.s. i am a girl)

Why is is almost every person here assumes rape in video games would be the playable protagonist being the rapist? Why is there that assumption, is it a prejudice of why people think rape would be wanted... the idea that rape would only be wanted to surreptitiously fulfil the player's sadistic sex fantasy?

What if Kratos got raped? Could you deal with that?

I by no means assume the rape in question would have to be done by the playable character, i just spoke about that part in particular because it seems like that is more controversial (having the rape done by not the playable character is no different then having any character do it in a book or movie or show so i don't even see it as the issue we are discussing as much). I think it's the controlling the character and making them rape someone that's more the issue that upsets people. Kratos getting raped? yup, got no problem with it at all, <<<[SPOILER]>>> I was thrilled to see him kill himself at the end <<<< END OF SPOILER>>>>
The thing is him getting raped would not have worked plot wise very well in any convincing way. However him raping someone would totally make sense and would have made for another interesting boss battle. But, yah, if it was presented in a logical way and worked i'd have no problem with the character i am playing getting raped. Was kinda hoping they'd do it with Lara Croft in the new game. Would have made for a more interesting story in my opinion.

Arcane Azmadi:
Thank god Jim got this right- when I read the little bit at the bottom of the video asking if condemnig rape while condoning murder wasn't a bit hypocritical I was a bit worried, before I watched the video and he bluntly said no it wasn't.

Thank god he got it right? So, you totally fail to mention why it is not hypocritical. You just say that it is so. OOOk then.
I am disappointed Jim got this wrong, condemning rape while condoning murder is completely hypocritical and is total bullshit which panders to those too swept up in the currently fashionable taboo to use logic and common sense.

Aaaaaaaaaaand here's another thing. Because, frankly i am getting real annoyed that this even needs to be discussed. As someone stated previously, people generally think consensual acting out of rape fantasy (like in bdsm communities) is ok. People think literature (both sleazy, dramatic, serious, fantasy, exc) with rape in it is ok. People generally think movies with rape in it is ok. BUT holy crap video games with rape... NO, THAT'S JUST WRONG! Seriously guys? WHY is it wrong. Why is it wrong for video games (another entertainment type) to feature rape when basically every single other entertainment media can do so freely. I mean do you people even realize how completely stupid it is that this even needs to be discussed. That a trailer from the new Tomb Raider which features an attempted rape scene (which from what i can tell is far from skeezy in nature) gets so much criticism.
"And oh no, you can't have rape because someone may get off on it blah blah" Hay, guess what? Rape is not nice, neither is murder or torture... but guess what else; people (and yes, PLENTY of women, as well as men) have rape fantasies and that's ok. And it's ok for there to be some video games to pander to that just as there are TONS of books and movies that pander to it. Put a damn disclaimer on the damn product and those who don't like it can bloody well not part take.

And here's another thing. I feel like there's this thing in the minds of the masses where the gaming public feels like they have some right to "control" games. Like the video games comming out better be pandering to everyone. This is def not the case with movies and books where there are plenty of indi, and not so indi movies/books/music, that pander to taboo or questionable subjects or do things that most people would not like. Now perhaps this is because video games were at the same place as movies were in the 50s where technology was such that you basically needed a lot of money and mass support to make anything remotely descent looking (remember how movies went threw this same bull back in the day? If not watch Movie Bob's history of movies mini episodes in the Big Picture). But guess what? Games are now getting to the point where, yes, smaller indi studios can make graphically decent quality games, and so it is more likely that theyd be more willing to appeal to knitch groups (like say people who want to play out rape fantasies in a video game). AND THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS! It means video games are progressing to a wider more rounded media where not every game has to be a guaranteed sell out blockbuster hit. YOU don't own all games. YOU don't have to like all games. YOU do not have to want to play all games. It's OK if there are games which would make you sick. Your games probably make your grandma sick. And in condemning rape in games you are no different from those people in government you don't like and laugh at who say "oooh nooo. can't have violence or shooting in a video game, it is twisted and evil... exc"

and on a related note: People have been getting so wound up about the whole "oh no, Lara Croft almost gets raped" nonsense that i think the potential symbolism here is totally missed. Think of it this way. Lara Croft is getting (supposedly) a reboot here, her proportions as being adjusted as well as the premise and gameplay. So look upon the sexual assault in the actual game as symbolic of the "sexual assault" Lara has been getting from fan boys in their minds since she first came out and put women with big tits into video games. She fights back in the game as the producers of the game are fighting back to bring the franchise back to the dignity of a good game with good gameplay (or so we hope). See how that's clever? GOOD.

That's silly... Not that I agree with raping someone in a video game. But that killing someone in a game is always fast. You can spend 5 minutes killing someone in a game in eve if your trying to kill a mothership or Titan you can spend 30 minutes killing it if not longer, and you going to be fighting every step of the way.

Its not impersonal and its a BIG f***ing deal. that titan could be the average players entire income over a 20 year period. obv its not usually individual player who buy build titan's / super carriers its an alliances of 100's or 1000's of people. but its no throw away thing.

But there is an intent if you have even built the Super Carrier, Titan or any other combat ship to kill people. so there is a sort of justification there.

But I think if its not the player doing the rape and its a nemesis and you want to do it as part of the story to create hatred for the evil guy then yeah go on right ahead. But the story line better be f***ing awesome to use such a touchy subject for your story.

PS: some stupid idiot got so mad when some people blew up hit titan that he said he was going to sue them for the isk to plex value of the loss... obv that never happens because as with all games they say in the agreement that all items purchased though the eve store are property of CCP. Not only to stop nuts suing other people but nuts suing them for there losses if they want to ban them or W.E. btw the price was $10,000 USD. EPIC TEARS!!!

JoaoJatoba:

Elithraradril:
@Comrade_Beric, I think that's the point: either we all acknowledge that games are just virtual representation of one's fantasies, or most of us should be put in chains as dangerous lunatics with tendency to kill innocent virtual people. If we consider something to be "too evil" to be put on screen, than we're questioning the basic line of defense for violent games - "it's just a game". It's up to developers if they want to create such games, but saying they are "too evil to exist" we just admit that games can be threat for the people in "real world" and I think we all know where it goes from there...

That's why I don't find any difference between a rape game and a sex role-play or hardcore S&M. Why can you say that between sane adults that trust each other a rape simulation isn't immoral and a rape game is?

Nevertheless, I consider some limitations may take place like no child rape game, or no glorification of the act. Games are a mass media, and as such it has a great reach.

Wait, so fake children getting fake raped is taboo but you defend the depiction of rape in general within games on the basis that it's fantasy? Why does the "it's fantasy" argument suddenly fall flat when it's an act you deem too personally offensive? It's either all fantasy and thus has no overall effect, or it's not and should be regulated. You're making an argument exactly like those who say that murder is okay but rape is not, or that killing is okay but murder is not, etc. You either recognize the right of society to arbitrarily ban people's fantasies or you don't. You can't recognize the right of society to ban only fantasies held by other people.

Comrade_Beric:

JoaoJatoba:

Elithraradril:
@Comrade_Beric, I think that's the point: either we all acknowledge that games are just virtual representation of one's fantasies, or most of us should be put in chains as dangerous lunatics with tendency to kill innocent virtual people. If we consider something to be "too evil" to be put on screen, than we're questioning the basic line of defense for violent games - "it's just a game". It's up to developers if they want to create such games, but saying they are "too evil to exist" we just admit that games can be threat for the people in "real world" and I think we all know where it goes from there...

That's why I don't find any difference between a rape game and a sex role-play or hardcore S&M. Why can you say that between sane adults that trust each other a rape simulation isn't immoral and a rape game is?

Nevertheless, I consider some limitations may take place like no child rape game, or no glorification of the act. Games are a mass media, and as such it has a great reach.

Wait, so fake children getting fake raped is taboo but you defend the depiction of rape in general within games on the basis that it's fantasy? Why does the "it's fantasy" argument suddenly fall flat when it's an act you deem too personally offensive? It's either all fantasy and thus has no overall effect, or it's not and should be regulated. You're making an argument exactly like those who say that murder is okay but rape is not, or that killing is okay but murder is not, etc. You either recognize the right of society to arbitrarily ban people's fantasies or you don't. You can't recognize the right of society to ban only fantasies held by other people.

Fair enough. Freedom of speech finds its limitation only on the harming of others. I give you child rape game in exchange of a limitation of display for sale.

And, this is not about people's fantasies, but the expression of these fantasies. You may express yourself as you like, but I am not oblige to listen. So you can make whatever game rape you like, as long it is virtual, but you may not display it wherever you like.

How about that then?

JoaoJatoba:

Comrade_Beric:

JoaoJatoba:

That's why I don't find any difference between a rape game and a sex role-play or hardcore S&M. Why can you say that between sane adults that trust each other a rape simulation isn't immoral and a rape game is?

Nevertheless, I consider some limitations may take place like no child rape game, or no glorification of the act. Games are a mass media, and as such it has a great reach.

Wait, so fake children getting fake raped is taboo but you defend the depiction of rape in general within games on the basis that it's fantasy? Why does the "it's fantasy" argument suddenly fall flat when it's an act you deem too personally offensive? It's either all fantasy and thus has no overall effect, or it's not and should be regulated. You're making an argument exactly like those who say that murder is okay but rape is not, or that killing is okay but murder is not, etc. You either recognize the right of society to arbitrarily ban people's fantasies or you don't. You can't recognize the right of society to ban only fantasies held by other people.

Fair enough. Freedom of speech finds its limitation only on the harming of others. I give you child rape game in exchange of a limitation of display for sale.

And, this is not about people's fantasies, but the expression of these fantasies. You may express yourself as you like, but I am not oblige to listen. So you can make whatever game rape you like, as long it is virtual, but you may not display it wherever you like.

How about that then?

In my revision post, I did say that the solution has to be clear markings and warnings on things that may be offensive to people rather than banning them. It only makes sense that the product cannot, therefore, have an outward appearance or advertisement that may offend before someone has a chance to notice the warning and look away. So, fair enough. The product has to be clearly marked so people know what it is, but it can't go so far as to visually depict such acts on its displays or anything since that would effectively negate the work of trying to put a warning label on it.

captcha: love me

Dear Jim. As your primary justification for rape being worse than murder would appear to be that the victim has to continue living with the emotional pain of the rape, would you consider a rape-murder more socially acceptable than straight rape?

I saw the title and was wholly skeptical of your approach.
But now that I've seen it I am definitely going to quote the hell out of everything you've mentioned and may even show people your video.

Really good explanation.

[Bookmarked]

Not sure where I stand. I mean, on the one hand, rape is obviously very bad, but on the other, I am opposed to censorship (and firmly believe that video games should be able to cover any topic movies and literature can). Thus, this presents the interesting and somewhat difficult problem of defend the right of "rape games" and games that feature rape as a story device to exist without defending the game itself.

Andy Chalk did an article here a while back that's a good start, but I think it needs more substance. Not quite sure what to add though.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/the-needles/7388-Lets-Not-Ban-RapeLay

He brings up some good points, but again, it's a very fine line between defending something's right to exist and defending the thing itself.

unFunkiest:
Dear Jim. As your primary justification for rape being worse than murder would appear to be that the victim has to continue living with the emotional pain of the rape, would you consider a rape-murder more socially acceptable than straight rape?

Whether or not he would consider it more socially acceptable, the issue is whether his own reasoning, followed to its logical end, would reach that conclusion, and the answer seems a pretty clear "yes" to me; Just one of many proofs along the "more rape victims recover than murder victims" motif, although I confess I like your form the best.

First off, good video Jim. It may not mean much but I also agree with many off your points. Moving on now. Fellow Escapists, I have a couple of questions. First, would you be okay with a game that had extended killing/murder scenes? People have justified killing in games with the reason that its impersonal but what if it was made personal? If you had to make the conscious decision to continue killing someone in the game?

I also saw many people saying that rape is worse than death because of the prolonged suffering of the victim. My last question is how many of you would really prefer death over being raped? An end to the only state of being you've ever known or a physical/mental violation that you can possibly overcome and continue with your life?

Treblaine:

Alexnader:

Vamast:
snip

Yeah in terms of how reprehensible it is I'd agree in saying rape and torture can be on the same par. It's about power imbalance, there is a victim who is often permanently scarred mentally and physically and to be reminded of such treatment could well be just as horrifying as being reminded of rape.

I wonder what is the purpose of focusing on the power imbalance. Surely shooting someone in the face is also a power imbalance. Suplexing a player into a concrete floor is about power, dominating your opponent. And doing such things are also would be painful, extremely painful in terms of things like burning someone with a flamethrower. So many games have down right torturous death.

If power, domination and pain are the problems with rape then those are also the problem with violence in games, including justified homicide such as self defence or in war.

The point is that rape doesn't serve a purpose, shooting and killing someone stops them hurting you or others, which is the reason to justify such violence in the first place. You can't rape in self-defence. Rape gives selfish sexual satisfaction at the direct expense of their suffering and humiliation.

Well with regards to the power imbalance, it's one method of analysing the concept of rape. http://www.brissc.org.au/resources/for/for_12.html

That imbalance can also be one of the reasons for PTSD and other longer term negative effects on the victim. Additionally how torturous the experience was could also amplify the long term effects of rape/torture.

Something I've often heard in these discussions and was indeed brought up by Jim was that once you're dead, it's over, while the victim of torture or rape relives that experience regularly. With this in mind domination and power imbalance are very relevant to the discussion.

Furthermore the article I linked seems to infer that rape can and often has a purpose beyond selfish sexual satisfaction and that purpose is often linked with systematic oppression or the assertion of superiority. It seems unlikely to me, for example, that the Syrian black forces who murdered and raped women and children were not doing it out of selfish desire. Their actions were designed to oppress the populace and the rebellion and thus to protect their government. It's raping in self-defense on a nation-wide level.

Just to state my perspective on the issue, I feel rape and torture are still less horrible than the act of pre-meditated murder for selfish means. They may well provoke a stronger emotional response and thus they may well be more horrifying, however from a rational perspective there can be nothing worse than the willful denial of another person's right to life. (This is not the same as abortion because a collection of unconscious cells are not a person).

I feel that both you and Jim have taken far too narrow a view of rape and murder, viewing rape as something that is solely a mechanism for the rapist to get off and seeing murder only in terms of the video game context of war or self-defence. Murder can easily sink to far blacker depths.

Y'know, something has been bugging me about the Jimquisition and I think I've got it figured out:

All he's been doing now is putting on a long video of him talking over repeating clips of video games and then bookends that with him just talking. When he had really picked up around here, he was using that formula, but he had also put in some random shots of him doing something in the middle.

Now, I'll be the fifth to say that his old skits were childish and pretty silly, but they are (kind-of) what brought him here to the Escapist. Methinks he needs to bring something like that back, inserted into the middle of his video to break up the talky talky. Maybe a bit more mature... like that thing he did for the SOPA episode. That was funny.

---

Edit: Oh, the OP... yeah, Rape is bad, don't rape. I don't see how watching rape is really that entertaining either. I guess you might try to make the same argument of "Oh, how could you enjoy watching someone getting murdered in one of the most awesome ways ever in James Bond"... but... it doesn't really seem to apply.

It must be a human nature thing: I think most of us have fantasized about killing... even if it's that damnable yap-dog next door. But it's harder for most of us to fantasize about raping because it's an angry, drawn-out, act that can't be described as cathartic. Maybe at the end of the day... we... seriously guys, I wanna drop-kick that yap-dog into traffic.

Wow, I never really watch Sterling's videos and now I am reminded why:

You state RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING that you have no idea what you're talking about, so that makes everything you're going to say already moot!

Pretty much everything you state falls short; this video is nothing but obvious or half-backed arguments.

I am going to bring up just one even though I could (and really want to) bring up every single one and state how you are missing the point.
-> We teach women tips on how "not to be raped" because we TEACH preventative measures. Evil actions themselves, such as murder or rape, are already woven into society's learning when you grow up; ie It's really fucking obvious that you shouldn't perform these evil acts! You don't see adds and billboards saying "Men shouldn't rape" for the same fucking reason you don't see billboards stating you shouldn't stab your neighbor in the neck or fucking skin his cat alive!

It's half baked arguments like the that which REALLY made your video hard to watch (and frankly, very unprofessional).

Also, (and I feel compelled to bring THIS up) You completely ignore male rape in prison (which is a very real possibility if you go to prison) when you talk about how it's not a male fear to be raped. Yea, women have to worry MORE because it's more common AND that it happens in public places BUT outright stating that men don't have to worry is outright WRONG and pretty much every male rape victim by another man would like to have a word with you.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Alexnader:

Well with regards to the power imbalance, it's one method of analysing the concept of rape. http://www.brissc.org.au/resources/for/for_12.html

That imbalance can also be one of the reasons for PTSD and other longer term negative effects on the victim. Additionally how torturous the experience was could also amplify the long term effects of rape/torture.

Something I've often heard in these discussions and was indeed brought up by Jim was that once you're dead, it's over, while the victim of torture or rape relives that experience regularly. With this in mind domination and power imbalance are very relevant to the discussion.

Furthermore the article I linked seems to infer that rape can and often has a purpose beyond selfish sexual satisfaction and that purpose is often linked with systematic oppression or the assertion of superiority. It seems unlikely to me, for example, that the Syrian black forces who murdered and raped women and children were not doing it out of selfish desire. Their actions were designed to oppress the populace and the rebellion and thus to protect their government. It's raping in self-defense on a nation-wide level.

Just to state my perspective on the issue, I feel rape and torture are still less horrible than the act of pre-meditated murder for selfish means. They may well provoke a stronger emotional response and thus they may well be more horrifying, however from a rational perspective there can be nothing worse than the willful denial of another person's right to life. (This is not the same as abortion because a collection of unconscious cells are not a person).

I feel that both you and Jim have taken far too narrow a view of rape and murder, viewing rape as something that is solely a mechanism for the rapist to get off and seeing murder only in terms of the video game context of war or self-defence. Murder can easily sink to far blacker depths.

That link introduces some interesting ideas, but there is a bit too much speculation. Like how it says women and children are raped more often because they are less powerful. Could not simply be that rapist are more sexually attracted to women and children because they tend to have less body hair and generally less masculinised features. And other things, like suggesting rape is learned... Rather that everyone learns not to inflict wanton harm on other people, so they learn not to rape from that. When babies and toddler play they hurt each other till they learn not to be mean.

I don't think it healthy to focus too much on the power aspect of rape as the worst part, as it kind of says any power imbalance is as bad as rape. Like being arrested by the police, to spite having every good reason to to arrest you they take a huge position of dominance: handcuffing you (possibly after already forcing you to the ground), and bodily searching you, ordering you around, taking away all your possessions, then effectively kidnapping you. But this isn't anything like rape, this is necessary for enforcing the law and preventing you from harming the officer while conducting the arrest.

Put it this way, if someone puts a knife to me and threatens me with rape or death, I do NOT want to die, and the huge majority of people attacked by rapists who threaten to kill them, they are forced to make the same choice.

The systematic oppression is in a system that ALLOWS rape. So the individual rapist scum have the same motivation, but for example a prison warden will allow rapes to happen as in some sense they think it makes their job easier. I think the Syrian oppression forces were raping for selfish desire, I think they definitely got something out of it, I have no doubt they liked it. But it was the commanders, the system, that merely allowed it. To put it crudly, you can't just tell a guy to get an erection. But what a commander can say is "you can do WHATEVER you like to this woman". But the design was in the system, not the individual rapists' motivation.

"It's raping in self-defense on a nation-wide level."

No. Self defence is justified, and this isn't.

I do not want to get into (and I don't think jim wanted to get into either) the broad er definitions of rape like coercion or age of consent or informed consent. I think it was purely unambiguously forceful sex.

lord.jeff:
I'm okay with rape being evil but games have gone further then just stopping rape but stopping sex from being in games all together remember the first Mass Effect controversy and hot coffee from San Andreas, we haven't just labeled rape as taboo, we've labeled almost any actual sex as taboo and that's the real problem to me.

That's a wider, societal bias that's not just restricted to gaming. Take movies, for example, where pretty violent films like The Dark Knight get a PG-13 rating, or a ridiculously lenient R-rating - meaning that anybody, of any age, could potentially see a film like 300 or Cabin in the Woods with an accompanying adult (I'm not saying young kids should be allowed into an R-rated movie, but that's another debate for another time) - but Ang Lee shows one woman having an orgasm and his movie gets slapped with an NC-17 purely because of its "extreme sexual content".

My theory, for what it's worth (being "F-all"), is that this bias really just comes down to our (predominantly upper-middle-class) society's ability to distance itself from violence as an act outside of the norm - an act of fantasy even - that we, for the majority, have no personal connection to. Sex is the polar opposite of that, it is a personal experience that everybody here will go through at some point in their lives. Sometimes for kicks, sometimes for love, and sometimes for more than even that. That's possibly why there's such a desire from the MPAA, or the ESRB, or all of mass media's 'powers that be' to avoid any discussion of sex in games, films, TV shows, plays, etc.

I don't know, that's just my cod-psychology theory, I guess. Take it or leave it.

Katya Topolkaraeva:

Arcane Azmadi:
Thank god Jim got this right- when I read the little bit at the bottom of the video asking if condemnig rape while condoning murder wasn't a bit hypocritical I was a bit worried, before I watched the video and he bluntly said no it wasn't.

Thank god he got it right? So, you totally fail to mention why it is not hypocritical. You just say that it is so. OOOk then.
I am disappointed Jim got this wrong, condemning rape while condoning murder is completely hypocritical and is total bullshit which panders to those too swept up in the currently fashionable taboo to use logic and common sense.

Katya Topolkaraeva:
Aaaaaaaaaaand here's another thing. Because, frankly i am getting real annoyed that this even needs to be discussed. As someone stated previously, people generally think consensual acting out of rape fantasy (like in bdsm communities) is ok. People think literature (both sleazy, dramatic, serious, fantasy, exc) with rape in it is ok. People generally think movies with rape in it is ok. BUT holy crap video games with rape... NO, THAT'S JUST WRONG! Seriously guys? WHY is it wrong. Why is it wrong for video games (another entertainment type) to feature rape when basically every single other entertainment media can do so freely. I mean do you people even realize how completely stupid it is that this even needs to be discussed. That a trailer from the new Tomb Raider which features an attempted rape scene (which from what i can tell is far from skeezy in nature) gets so much criticism.
"And oh no, you can't have rape because someone may get off on it blah blah" Hay, guess what? Rape is not nice, neither is murder or torture... but guess what else; people (and yes, PLENTY of women, as well as men) have rape fantasies and that's ok. And it's ok for there to be some video games to pander to that just as there are TONS of books and movies that pander to it. Put a damn disclaimer on the damn product and those who don't like it can bloody well not part take.

Katya Topolkaraeva:
And here's another thing. I feel like there's this thing in the minds of the masses where the gaming public feels like they have some right to "control" games. Like the video games comming out better be pandering to everyone. This is def not the case with movies and books where there are plenty of indi, and not so indi movies/books/music, that pander to taboo or questionable subjects or do things that most people would not like. Now perhaps this is because video games were at the same place as movies were in the 50s where technology was such that you basically needed a lot of money and mass support to make anything remotely descent looking (remember how movies went threw this same bull back in the day? If not watch Movie Bob's history of movies mini episodes in the Big Picture). But guess what? Games are now getting to the point where, yes, smaller indi studios can make graphically decent quality games, and so it is more likely that theyd be more willing to appeal to knitch groups (like say people who want to play out rape fantasies in a video game). AND THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS! It means video games are progressing to a wider more rounded media where not every game has to be a guaranteed sell out blockbuster hit. YOU don't own all games. YOU don't have to like all games. YOU do not have to want to play all games. It's OK if there are games which would make you sick. Your games probably make your grandma sick. And in condemning rape in games you are no different from those people in government you don't like and laugh at who say "oooh nooo. can't have violence or shooting in a video game, it is twisted and evil... exc"

Katya Topolkaraeva:
and on a related note: People have been getting so wound up about the whole "oh no, Lara Croft almost gets raped" nonsense that i think the potential symbolism here is totally missed. Think of it this way. Lara Croft is getting (supposedly) a reboot here, her proportions as being adjusted as well as the premise and gameplay. So look upon the sexual assault in the actual game as symbolic of the "sexual assault" Lara has been getting from fan boys in their minds since she first came out and put women with big tits into video games. She fights back in the game as the producers of the game are fighting back to bring the franchise back to the dignity of a good game with good gameplay (or so we hope). See how that's clever? GOOD.

Hey, everything you said is awesome, but please use the edit button to add new things.

I am very glad that this episode exists. Far too many comments for me to even read.

*scratch beard, look up and to the right in contemplation*

Video games about rape? Yea no, I can't imagine there's a story I need to experience there, nor game mechanics that can only be expressed that way, nor... any other reason that we need this. I just don't.

Still, I'm a bit torn - because even something as in-poor-taste as a game about rape comes under the heading of fiction, subcategory rape fantasy, and much like any sexual or other... weird behaviour I don't see that it is any of my business what fiction people choose to read/watch/listen to/play/whatever. Frankly I'd even go so far as to say someone who plays that kind of game could well come over to my house for tea and crumpets, but not if he or she tells me about it unsolicited... much like I'm sure all the guys involved in our tabletop RPGs, Sunday dinners and whatnot watch porn that appeals to their tastes, which may be all manner of stuff I don't personally care for... but I don't really know, because they're tactful enough not to talk about it.

I guess I end up agreeing with Mr Sterling on this... I don't think it should be a crime to make such a game, buy such a game, or play such a game. I also don't think it should be a crime to decide not to distribute it for any distributor that feels inclined not to. Mostly I will be incredibly astounded if such a game is ever made that somehow proves me wrong in assuming that such a game couldn't possibly have any merit that necessitates its premise.

PS: I too would like to make the distinction between "game with rape in it" and "game about rape". Rape could have a place in a narrative, and I'm not inclined to say that a game that features it must by virtue of that fact alone be rubbish.

I like your distinction between Death and Rape, that rape is not as omnipresent, etc... but I didn't like when you said death was something we all face, there's a difference between murder by gunfire and death by old age, etc, so I don't think that connection can be made as such.

You should get some multi language subtitles for this & put them up on Youtube.

I can agree mostly with Jim, at least in the matter of video games BUT... in terms of what worse in Real Life, i still would value my life despite being raped more than being dead. I understand that being raped is something very traumatizing, but if you are dead, you are dead and i honestly cant think of anything worse.

This argument that Jim gives is not 100% correct. All murder are not equal. Somebody killing a mugger in self-defense or shoots some pore sucker in a war that would otherwise kill you is one thing. But murder has another face. Let's take Hannibal for example. I think everyone rather have their sister raped by random stranger than coming home one day and see that there sisters face is being prepared in a frying pan by a lunatic sniffing a glace of fine Chianti. And in most rpg's you can kill random npc that has done nothing to you without being able to fight back. In Fallout you can bludgeon a child to death with a sledge hammer. Who would you hate most. The guy raping you mother, or the guy gutting you child like a fish. And just for the record I fucking hate rape, have friends that has gone through that, and I would wish that by law the rapist genitals should be surgically removed with a hammer. I only say, coldblooded murder is worse.

But you don't need to kill in self defense ether.. I can sneak into somebody's house and slit a 5 years olds kids throats while there were sleeping. Is that somehow better than rape? I thing shitty comment like that comes from ignorant fools that don't value life, and have had no contact with death in real life.

00slash00:
okay part of this doesnt make sense. he says that he knows there are cases of men getting raped but also says that rape isnt something women can physically do. is he implying that the only rape that happens to men, is homosexual rape?

-- I'm quoting because I agree. Two things need pointing out:

1: There are several ways a guy can have an erection without arousal being involved

2: Arousal does not equal consent!

I find it funny that I am part of a community in which some think that rape is worse than killing.

It's certainly a hypocrisy that extends into our (and by our, I mean United States) government as someone who gets caught with some weed PROBABLY would've been better off forcing sex on someone in terms of punishment/jailtime. It's absolutely obscene that sexual assault, unless committed serially or against children, is almost always below double-digit prison sentencing. Not that it would be a GREAT deterrent (people still use drugs despite the harsher sentences), but it would speak well of our society at the very least.

I think Krahulik, unless there's more to that discussion, is starting to go a LITTLE off the deep-end too if he honestly equates rape with killing in videogames. Especially as someone whose family was threatened with both (by people who apparently have absolutely NO sense of irony) during the whole "Dickwolves" insanity.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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