Ground Zeroes Rape Apologists Baffle Me

[P912]

Seriously, is this really going to be the next big nontroversy the gaming community latches on to? Murder is a pretty damn sensitive topic too, and yet people never seem to have a problem with the mass murdering that almost every game has you do throughout its running time.

Yeah except there are no murder victims walking around. And the act of killing someone is justified in certain circumstances e.g. self defence. Rape is such a tramautizing and inexcusable crime that it should only be treated with restraint and care. For example, it shouldn't be a random event that's irrelevant to the plot like I dunno maybe an Easter Egg or extra audio log, to pick two crazy examples. It also shouldn't include creepy implications, like the victim subsequently falling in love with her would be rapist.

In a world where a disturbing amount of rapes go unreported, and victims both feel ashamed and are shamed by elements of their community and the media, Kojima has made himself part of the problem in an attempt to shock the player in such a cheap way.

 

[CloudAtlas]

No, you're right, I was just using the term losely. But whatever you want to call it, if you're a grown man and are into teenage girls, I think you have some issues. And if your game pander to such preferences, I won't be buying it.
And yes if you want your game to be taken seriously then you shouldn't pander to such preferences. Sexualized underage girls, that a big red flag for your story being bad in my book.

I suppose I can understand that. Morality is heavily linked to disgust, so even if there's no rational reason to find liking teenage girls wrong, the fact that it squicks you out makes you think it's wrong. Not really sure how that inherently translates to bad writing, though, unless it's just a thing that you don't like and can't get over.

Wait... you see no problem with someone being into teenage girls, that is, underage girls? You know, statutory rape laws are there for a reason. Would there be no "rational reason" to find being into children, sexually, for you as well?

 

[Blow_Pop]

And you can't tell me there's no weird sexual undertone to the whole extended operation, with the camera lovingly gazing on her stitches being opened

Wat.


I know some people are into hardcore stuff, but what? How the living hell is that scene sexual? It was sick and hard to watch.



Also, after reading the comments, the OP doesn't know what s/he's talking about. Pretty sure they have zero idea of the context (WAR FUCKING SUCKS).

You should meet some of the people I know.......Who WOULD find that scene sexual......*shudders*


To the OP: You're doing a lot of talking but at best your opinion seems a bit half formed. I know, basically what I've read in the thread. And you can't claim that someone isn't going to go back to their abuser(no matter in what way they were abused). Been there. Done that. I was with a guy off and on for 5 years. He wound up raping me, physically abusing me, emotionally abusing me, and mentally abusing me when he wasn't manipulating me. Out of those 5 years off and on, we were probably "together" for a total of 2 1/2 - 3 years. We kept breaking up and I kept going back. So, if you've never been in a situation like that, you can't say what people will and won't do. Yes, some people will. Yes, some people won't. No one will act the same way everytime to the same situation.

GZ isn't trying to be a Cage movie, though. It's trying to do a 'realistic' depiction of rape, showing a victim immediately going back to having sex with her underage assailant.

That isn't entirely implausible. Rape is a horribly traumatic experience and causes psychological damage. It's entirely possible that someone could develop feelings for her assailant. Hell, look at many women's romance novels. A ton of them show that exact effect. Some guy wants a woman so badly he cannot contain himself... rapes her... and they fall in love and live happily ever after. It wouldn't sell so well to women if many didn't have similar fantasies.

Not condoning rape... want to make that clear. I think it's an abhorrent act and the punishment should be castration. Just stating the results cause cause any number of psychological reactions in the victim.

I slightly disagree with you on this point. About women having that fantasy. Sure, yeah, some do have rape fantasies. But it's more we're socialised to believe that it is normal. Look at romance type movies. Don't just look at the books. The movies normalise guys being assholes and abusing a woman in some way and her being able to redeem him and fall in love and live happily ever after. Hell, Disney even does shit like that. So we basically teach our children that it is a "normal" thing to happen(Disney doesn't explicitly do the rape scenario but they do do the damsel in distress trope which is also frequently used in romance movies and books and in the movies and books usually leads to implied rape or actual rape. Or manipulation. Or abuse of some sort).

I find the oh-she-looks-underage-but-she's-totally-older explanation incredibly convenient.

This line is nonsense. There are plenty of real life women in their 20's and 30's that still have the height and physique of a girl in her mid-teens. They're just petite. This covers a very large portion of the Japanese population. The school uniform is essentially just cosplay.

I have to agree with this. Hell, up until I turned 27 and started cutting my hair I looked like I was still a teenager and would get into arguments with bartenders and bouncers as to if my ID was actually me or real or fake(which since it is issued by the state I hope to hell it's real otherwise the state and I are gonna have some words). Hell, I've gotten into that argument with police officers before. I *FINALLY* look somewhere around my age (and I'm gonna be 30 next year) and I can't tell you how great it is to NOT be asked if I'm in middle school or high school and have people not believe me when I tell them neither and that I'm older than that.


Edit: I'd also like to see media in general(games, books, movies, tv, etc) stop using rape tropes and feeling like they have to have it for it to be good. Or at least a fucking warning that the media form in question has it. For some of us it can be a *HUGE* trigger and me personally, if I'm not expecting it and it happens I go catatonic for anywhere between 30 mins to 2 hours with flashbacks. It's NOT fun. AND if it's going to be used, it should be done well which, unfortunately, a lot of media does not do.

 

[gargantual]

Snip

Did you forget the original post I responded to? it was literally this:

I can't wait to go. "OHH! IN YO FACE MOTHAFUCKAS! IN YO FAAACE!" When the truth hits em and they go 'oh. I see.'

and then do a dance in front of all the naysayers like " It Hurts doesn't it? It hurts. Truth buuurrnns doesn't it?"

There it is, with no context you seem to have been proclaiming that you would be gloating to any dissenters as soon as Kojima's justifications became clear. I responded by saying that Just because Kojima says that the detractors would be silenced once he explained Quiet's character, doesn't actually mean that everyone is going to collectively go "oh. I see." once that justification becomes clear.

You are the one that responded with the lines about "art by committee" and proclaiming that people were in denial. The clarification that you were talking about your friends or a specific scenario or subset of critics was nowhere in your original post. You are also the one that seems to be inserting arguments that I never made. I honestly don't give two shits about the rape controversy, and while I think the design for Quiet looks kind of stupid, I'm not exactly that invested in defending or attacking it because it seems to be Kojima's standard level of tonal schizophrenia when it comes to trying to blend his story and character themes together.

I suppose now that you've mostly backed off the original point and seem to be painting it as mostly just joking hyperbole that you didn't actually mean and don't seem to be attempting to really defend, it kind of makes my original response moot.

I am not going to respond to any of the other points because the whole things seems to be getting a little off topic, Kojima's subjective similarities and differences to Tarantino notwithstanding.

You do seem to have gotten a little defensive though, for which I apologize, I don't mean to come off as overly aggressive, I was merely making a point that just because Kojima says that Quiet's detractors will be ashamed once we learn more about her character, doesn't actually make that inevitably true, and proclaiming gloating rights and dancing little jigs is perhaps a bit premature.

I suppose we can at least agree that Ride to Hell handled sex and female characters in an almost uniformly worse way than any Metal Gear game. That doesn't really get much attention though because honestly, who the hell would be masochistic enough to actually play that game long enough to see how the game treats its controversial subjects.

Well you know the context now so no longer an issue right?

I'm just speaking from my experiences of MGS fans who I've personally encountered once again saying they were denying kojima would have any context for what he was including, against clear previous evidence from other games. If the original point was vague enough to prompt concerned inquiry, then *shrug* sorry but once again 'no real fires here.

If I was calling out the entire game community on an issue, well then I'd preface it as such. No part of me would 'expect' everyone to share the same opinion about game content, thats ridiculous and thats why titles have limited market demographics. We all have our biases with mature entertainment. Theres no such thing as trying to convert people regarding it 'theres only establishing that we're not alien or psycho for having a not so condemning perspective of the games content.'

Its fine for Kojima to suggest gamers might be ashamed of making mountains out of molehills. Think about the context of how he's saying that. He's not a forum regular like us. He's been revered despite the type of games he makes, a sign that people understood what he was trying to createm and then to see moral panics because he admitted there was cosplay and toy-selling incentives for his campy character, to him it might seem like its out of nowhere or game magazine click bait. Dave Ellis from 343 was pretentious for shaming Kojima about Quiet on twitter, when Ellis further defined Cortana's nudity in Halo 4. Same way the puppeteer dev's got annoyed about folks asking why he didn't make his lead a girl, saying that Japan is really not up in arms about gender politics like people are here. or Kamitame with his oddly mega-boobed sorceress was annoyed kotaku's shaming of his art which was just as much click bait as it might have been the journalist's genuine disgust

Take the title of this thread. Its a broad brush that's kinda implying that anyone whose not as appalled at how Kojima handled Paz is 'disturbing' themselves or maybe naive about the seriousness of actual rape. Now how well do we all truly know each other to confidently make that assessment of gamers real-world inhibitions. It sounds like a premature litmus test to me.

 

[Fsyco]

No, you're right, I was just using the term losely. But whatever you want to call it, if you're a grown man and are into teenage girls, I think you have some issues. And if your game pander to such preferences, I won't be buying it.
And yes if you want your game to be taken seriously then you shouldn't pander to such preferences. Sexualized underage girls, that a big red flag for your story being bad in my book.

I suppose I can understand that. Morality is heavily linked to disgust, so even if there's no rational reason to find liking teenage girls wrong, the fact that it squicks you out makes you think it's wrong. Not really sure how that inherently translates to bad writing, though, unless it's just a thing that you don't like and can't get over.

Wait... you see no problem with someone being into teenage girls, that is, underage girls? You know, statutory rape laws are there for a reason. Would there be no "rational reason" to find being into children, sexually, for you as well?

What part of this aren't you getting? Teenagers (boys AND girls) are going through puberty, where their bodies are super hormonal and they're going through the changes to get ready to reproduce. Unlike young children, they have decently defined sexual characteristics. Evolutionary, there's really not too much wrong with that, since they're fertile and are more or less 'equipped' to go about having sex. Little kids don't have that; sex with them is like eating candy with no flavoring. There's no point unless your brain is hardwired differently to like it.

Also, 'underage' is kind of subjective. Most people mean 'under 18', but again, the actual AoC in most places is 16 (including both most US States and most parts of Japan), and really, that's still kind of an arbitrary limit. Becoming 18 or 16 doesn't magically make you into a responsible adult, and some people are still developing even into their 20s. There isn't really a magic age anybody can agree on when somebody becomes an 'adult', but the general consensus is at least 12.

 

[CloudAtlas]

What part of this aren't you getting? Teenagers (boys AND girls) are going through puberty, where their bodies are super hormonal and they're going through the changes to get ready to reproduce. Unlike young children, they have decently defined sexual characteristics. Evolutionary, there's really not too much wrong with that, since they're fertile and are more or less 'equipped' to go about having sex. Little kids don't have that; sex with them is like eating candy with no flavoring. There's no point unless your brain is hardwired differently to like it.

It's not so much about physical maturity, the mere ability to have sex, but about emotional maturity. That's the main reason for statutory rape laws. To prevent minors from being emotionally exploited. So if someone is into 14-year-olds or so... yea... I do have to wonder about his reasons for that.

 

[A-D.]

Are we discussing legal age of consent here?

Where do you base this legal age of consent on? The country you currently live in, obviously. Are you implying that this age of consent, this legality of it is uniformly the same across every single nation or even civilization? As far as i recall this, the legal age of consent, in Spain is 13. The legal age of consent in germany is 14, although there is a age-difference maximum of about 4 years i believe, so the maximum age difference could be 14 with an 18 year old as it applies to the law.

Consider the "legal" age of consent in saudi arabia? There is none, except you must be married, so whatever marrying age is, is also the same as the legal age of consent. The US has no uniform legal age either, it ranges from 16 to 18 depending on the state you are in. There are even two countries, Angola where the age of consent is 12, and Bolivia which is Puberty. So..legally speaking, this varies greatly.

So by the lowest implimentation, Chico was actually of legal age to consent to sex, although the rape was still implied because..well he was essentially forced to do so. But that does not mean he couldnt have legally had sexual relations with someone at that age depending on where he was at the time. Hence if he was a spanish citizen, he was entirely within the law to have sex.

So it is rape, because of being forced into sexual acts, but this has very little to do with the legal age of consent, i.e. whether Chico and Paz could have had sex outside of being forced to have it. Because the law gets a little..fuzzy there. And just by the way, legal age of consent in Japan? 13.

 

[A-D.]

You make a good point, I have to admit.
I feel 18 is by far the correct age of consent, but who knows if part of that comes from cultural background?
As someone who works with students of all ages, though, it baffles me about how someone can perceive a 13 years old as sexually mature. Apparently Japan and other countries make the age of consent into the age people start to be interested in sex, while my country and others make the age of consent into the age people are psychologically mature to know sexuality enough to be in charge of it.
I can't help but feel my country does it better then.


Still, is this topic about age of consent? Because we're talking of a fictional work. If in real life I would harshly condemn any adult having sex with an underage girl even if she's actually consenting, in fiction I don't have any problem with it. So I don't really see what's the big fuss about. If I make the script for a comic about two lesbians, it doesn't mean I am lesbian. Same as: if I make a story about a killer, it doesn't mean I want to kill people.

I was merely pointing out that while rape did happen, the latter part of the tape you find, the Chico Tape 4, where they could have had sex it could be consentual because legally it might actually be. However psychological maturity has nothing to do with your age. Example, under the german law, you can be held accountable for breaking laws once you are 14. This includes theft, breaking and entering, physical assault, sexual assault and even murder. While the punishments for these crimes, if guilty of them, is not as severe as for adults, there are still consequences and depending on the severity, you might get out of "juvenile detention" only to go right to prison, not pass go and dont collect 200$.

Im not sure how it is in Japan, Spain or even Bolivia and Angola, legally speaking, but im guessing they also have statutory rape laws, hence there must be a age difference of no greater than X years as it is in germany at least. The problem with consent is really whether you even know what you consent to, i learned about reproduction in animals and humans in 6th grade, we had sex-ed in 8th grade. Basicly, i knew how "Babies are made" at age 11 and got the whole education about safe sex and everything two years after, although i knew what a "condom" is before that already.

So psychologically mature, or rather being knowledgable about sex and consequences of sex has nothing to do with age, but rather with being educated about it. If you know how to use a condom and why you need to use it, then you can have sex honestly because you are informed enough to make the decision. Plus, some kids aint gonna wait till they are adults anyway, so if you educate them early on, at least you prevent them getting nasty STD's or making kids while they are utterly unable to support a child, let alone themselves just yet.

 

[Fsyco]

What part of this aren't you getting? Teenagers (boys AND girls) are going through puberty, where their bodies are super hormonal and they're going through the changes to get ready to reproduce. Unlike young children, they have decently defined sexual characteristics. Evolutionary, there's really not too much wrong with that, since they're fertile and are more or less 'equipped' to go about having sex. Little kids don't have that; sex with them is like eating candy with no flavoring. There's no point unless your brain is hardwired differently to like it.

It's not so much about physical maturity, the mere ability to have sex, but about emotional maturity. That's the main reason for statutory rape laws. To prevent minors from being emotionally exploited. So if someone is into 14-year-olds or so... yea... I do have to wonder about his reasons for that.

Well his or her 'reason' is just that it's what they like. People don't choose what they find attractive; it's mostly hardwired into the brain, with societal and cultural norms dictating the rest. It's not an active choice, the same way nobody chooses to have any other particular fetish. Now, granted, that doesn't excuse any extreme behavior (ie, rape), but the mere act of wanting in and of itself isn't inherently evil.

 

[Fsyco]

Also "Rap Apologist" is fast becoming the new social justice warrior word for "Person that disagrees with me".

I'm real sorry yo, but ain't my fault if haters be hatin' on the rap game. Ratchet, purple drank, booty, trap, young money etc.
You have a point, though. Not surprising, really, since it's an inflammatory term that immediately puts the accused person in the wrong. Then you get bogged down in trying to explain yourself.
Also, I'll bet within a week or two the whole thing will die down and nobody will remember it except to occasionally bring it up in other discussions when the next big sexy controversy hits.

 

[anthony87]

"Rap Apologist"

C'mon now man. You may not be a fan of the genre but you can't deny the influence its had. ^_^

 

[gargantual]

"Rap Apologist"

C'mon now man. You may not be a fan of the genre but you can't deny the influence its had. ^_^

Hah! I see what you did there. Didn't know these SJW's were into Jay-Z. XD

There's probably a few Kanye acolytes in their ranks tho. No negative correlations implied of course.

 

[josemlopes]

"Rap Apologist"

C'mon now man. You may not be a fan of the genre but you can't deny the influence its had. ^_^

I'm getting so sick of being accused of being a rapper

I got to say, in a thread full of hate and shit, the missing of one letter changed the tone to something a lot better.






Unless someone here likes rap, that filthy scum.

 

[sageoftruth]

But this is a man whose lofty writing ambitions walk hand in hand with irritable bowel syndrome, or an antagonist who is controlled telepathically by his own implanted arm which harbours the soul of a dead cloned warrior.

If you're going to complain about someone's writing, you should at least know what you're talking about.

Ocelot hypnotized himself into believing that he was Liquid. This was to fool the Patriot AI. Because if Ocelot went rogue, then he would be an unknown element and the Patriots would throw everything they had at Ocelot to destroy him. But if Liquid turned against them, then they would follow the same pattern as last time (sending Solid Snake and attempting to use FOXDIE to resolve the problem), which made them predictable. It also allowed Ocelot to access parts of the Patriot's system that he wouldn't have otherwise been able to, since the AI was convinced that he was actually Liquid.

Irritable Bowel Syndrome has a very prominent role in the series, and it's not for poops and giggles (heh), it's the main reason why Johnny was never afflicted by the Sons of the Patriots program -- stretching as far back as the first MGS1, where, maybe, it was used as a gag, but really, it has a reason for being there.

As far as the Liquid Ocelot thing, well, Kopikatsu said it best.

I had always assumed Kojima just had a fetish for the thing, which certainly upped the creep factor while playing the game.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

People who make weirdly unnecessary rants whacking at strawmen all while completely misunderstanding or misappropriating the actual events of the game they're talking about baffle me.

Seriously, is this really going to be the next big nontroversy the gaming community latches on to? Murder is a pretty damn sensitive topic too, and yet people never seem to have a problem with the mass murdering that almost every game has you do throughout its running time.

I think it's up to each game to find the appropriate tone and story to fit such mass murdering. I don't mind shooting goons in a noir plot like Max Payne's, because it's noir. I don't mind shooting soldiers in CoD, because that's what war is about. I don't mind killing everything in God of War, because you're the God of War. I don't mind killing people in Borderlands, because it's a funny game with over-the-top character designs and death animations and freaky dialogue framed by a Russian madman's tall tale that goes on and off into tangents.

In Metal Gear's case, it's this purportedly serious tale of courage and patriotism and sacrifice and Skeletor and vaginal bomb devices that simply repels me.