iOS game lets you beat your boyfriend

[Frankster]

It's not about sexism; it's that it glorifies domestic violence, and that's fucking disgusting.

I mean, maybe it was made by someone who gets a kick out of being slapped around, and who couldn't give less of a damn for the usual BDSM watchphrase. That doesn't mean it isn't still creepy.

Aye domestic violence is horrible, won't disagree with you on that. But is anyone really gonna look at this game and think of replicating any of this behavior in real life? Maybe i give people too much credit, but to me this clearly a fantastical scenario divorced from reality designed to appeal to a certain group of people's fantasies.

Also i think this is made less for people who enjoyed being kicked around but for domms but thats just my theory there (seems theres emphasis on controlling the boyfriend and "punishing" him, which sounds very femdomish and kinda stuff a dominatrix would say whereas if this was for sub i think the emphasis would be more on "being punished/controlled" as opposed to dishing it out.)

About not respecting the BDSM watchword, unless this was a game striving for BDSM authenticity that would be a valid point (such games do exist), but this clearly isn't one of them, hence why she is chocking the guy as he is driving.
Goddamn internet, im becoming a professor on deviancy :/

 

[The White Hunter]

Make him marry you? =P

Oh god thats just too far. I mean I can take a frying pan to the head and barely respond but marriage burns just thinking about it.

OT: Stupid app is stupid.

Captcha: trolololol

...

if only...

 

[Darken12]

I agree with you to an extent. When I looked at the article, my first reaction was "Da Faq?" followed by "Why does this even exist?" I understand that it's cartoony and the like, but depicting any domestic violence as funny or a good thing is just tasteless, no matter who is on the receiving end of it. Personally, I think it should be banned, but that's just my opinion.

I'm with Jim Sterling on this one. Art should never, ever be censored, and if we want videogames to be considered art forms, we cannot afford to succumb to censorship. One of the most despicable movies I've ever seen was A Serbian Film, and despite how much it absolutely disgusted me (and I didn't even see the actual film, I saw a review of it), I would fight against it being banned.

Just because something shocks me, offends me or disgusts me to my very core doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. How can I expect tolerance for myself when I'm not willing to extend that to others? And how can I fight against the media blaming videogames every time some madman snaps and kills somebody when I speak in favour of censoring videogames?

Verbal condemnation, disavowal and stern reproach are fine. Claiming for censorship isn't.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I agree, I thought you were saying it's ridiculous to think that such double standards exist at all (i.e. there'd be more controversy if the genders were reversed).

Naturally there is a double standard, and it creates deeply unfortunate situations for men who are victims of domestic abuse, but the double standard doesn't exist because of malevolence. On the mean, men are much taller and heavier than women, and hit much harder. If my girlfriend decided to raise her hands to me, she could bruise me good, or perhaps even inflict serious damage with a lucky punch. If I raised my hands to her I could kill her. Even a little bit of extra height and weight can be devastating in a physical contest. They have weight classes in boxing for a reason.

For the sake of an analogy, I schooled with a guy who was a golden gloves boxer. There were different rules for him when it came to fighting than everyone else. He was expected to turn the other cheek, to not engage, even if someone was aggressively coming at him. If he did decide to fight (and he did), he was immediately in trouble with the police. Why? He could disassemble your jaw in about 5 seconds. People who are bigger and stronger, or who have training, are expected to show more restraint. They don't get a cookie for it, or a pat on the back. It's just expected of them, in the same way people in positions of power are expected not to abuse it.

For my own part, I've dealt with abusive women, but the vast majority of my uncomfortable physical situations have been at the hands of abusive or violent men. Bullies, drunks, assholes. Hell, just a couple of months ago a drunk guy tried to pick a fight with me on the way to work. I'm almost 40 years old, for fuck's sake, I have no time for that shit. When I declined, he called me a pussy and hurled a bottle at me, thankfully missing. My anecdotal experiences don't ultimately amount to a hill of beans, but testosterone is not a calming factor and it has been my experience that guys, again...on the average...are more prone to aggression and violence than their female counterparts (and more dangerous when they are). Given that we HAVE this stereotype/double standard, it seems pretty obvious the world's anecdotal experience runs along similar lines. Our soldiers, our athletes, our criminals...are primarily men for a reason that goes beyond sociological bias.

None of this is meant to denigrate or undermine what guys who experience physical abuse at the hands of their female partners go through. In some ways it's worse for them, because there's often no community to console them or offer them support, and it can be difficult to even get taken seriously. There absolutely is a double standard when it comes to the presumption that men are violent and dangerous. The reason we have that double standard is a preponderance of violent and dangerous men. If we want to deal with that perception, we should start by looking hard at our own gender and why uncorked violence is one of the most popular expressions of masculinity, rather than feeling put upon by frightened women. If I was 5'4 and 115 pounds soaking wet I'd be scared of me, too.

But I digress. I am rambling.

 

[Nexxis]

I agree with you to an extent. When I looked at the article, my first reaction was "Da Faq?" followed by "Why does this even exist?" I understand that it's cartoony and the like, but depicting any domestic violence as funny or a good thing is just tasteless, no matter who is on the receiving end of it. Personally, I think it should be banned, but that's just my opinion.

I'm with Jim Sterling on this one. Art should never, ever be censored, and if we want videogames to be considered art forms, we cannot afford to succumb to censorship. One of the most despicable movies I've ever seen was A Serbian Film, and despite how much it absolutely disgusted me (and I didn't even see the actual film, I saw a review of it), I would fight against it being banned.

Just because something shocks me, offends me or disgusts me to my very core doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. How can I expect tolerance for myself when I'm not willing to extend that to others? And how can I fight against the media blaming videogames every time some madman snaps and kills somebody when I speak in favour of censoring videogames?

Verbal condemnation, disavowal and stern reproach are fine. Claiming for censorship isn't.

Eh. It's just my opinion and I stand by it, artistic vision or not.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

I'm waiting to see if the people that enjoyed that disgusting "beat up Anita Sarkeesian" (who I like and is pretty and what she was doing was totally cool, although we've just sorta forgotten about her) take this as an opportunity for more "women are evil/fake/stupid/whores" nastiness. I hope they don't but... I shudder to think.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I'm waiting to see if the people that enjoyed that disgusting "beat up Anita Sarkeesian" (who I like and is pretty and what she was doing was totally cool, although we've just sorta forgotten about her) take this as an opportunity for more "women are evil/fake/stupid/whores" nastiness. I hope they don't but... I shudder to think.

There were probably a lot of people who used the Anita Sarkeesian abuse game as a front to call all men sexist/violent/perverted/misogynistic pigs. The big fact is that radical people on both sides use stupid shit like this to further their cause, whilst they ignore the massive amount of good both sides do.

OT: This game is just terrible. It just reeks of sexism, and it promotes physical abuse towards a boyfriend to get them to do your bidding. I could talk about how there's the big double-standard of who's hitting who, but in my eyes if anyone uses physical abuse in a relationship for ANY reason other than self-defense (I am perfectly fine with a man hitting a woman if the woman's attacking him, and vice-versa) then it's just terrible and promoting it is a shitty move.

[EDITED LARGE CHUNK OUT DUE TO NOT REALLY WANTING IT IN THERE!]

 

[Frission]

What the f...?

How in the...

I'm.. I'm speechless.

If you're in a relationship, then abuse is not okay either way.

It's a simple as that.

 

[DoPo]

I'm with Jim Sterling on this one. Art should never, ever be censored, and if we want videogames to be considered art forms, we cannot afford to succumb to censorship.

Well, doesn't that depend if the work in question is art? Maybe I have to play this one first but it doesn't seem like one to me. Also, Apple's iTunes, their rules. If I don't want some (say) lewd picture in my gallery I don't think you can demand I have it there anyway.

 

[Epona]

This reminds me of a show a few years ago. I think it was called "What Would you do?" or something like that. They had a scenario where a man was hitting his spouse in public to see how people reacted. The public almost immediately took notice and put a stop to it. Then they reversed the roles where the woman was beating the man and not only was it tolerated, one woman was actually enjoying it. It took quite a while for a random woman to stop the beating.

Yes, violence against men is OK.

Here's that video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks&list=FL6bT_VXeMBK_kJu44A2WFRQ&index=7

 

[Darken12]

Eh. It's just my opinion and I stand by it, artistic vision or not.

It has nothing to do with "artistic vision" and everything to do with the legitimacy of the medium in the eyes of society. Though I respect your views and wouldn't try to change them, I would merely formally oppose them.

I'm with Jim Sterling on this one. Art should never, ever be censored, and if we want videogames to be considered art forms, we cannot afford to succumb to censorship.

Well, doesn't that depend if the work in question is art? Maybe I have to play this one first but it doesn't seem like one to me. Also, Apple's iTunes, their rules. If I don't want some (say) lewd picture in my gallery I don't think you can demand I have it there anyway.

Art is a label given unto products by the aristocracy. Declaring what is and isn't art has always been, by its very nature, a privilege of the privileged, and therefore there can never be a formal definition (or else the aristocracy would lose the privilege of declaring what is and isn't art). Since we are working under the assumption that anything could be art if it sufficiently pleases the aristocracy, we have to work under the assumption that all forms of videogames could be art and are therefore invalid targets for censorship.

I wasn't arguing about Apple's iTunes. Obviously, it will be removed from the app list if it is in violation of the rules, I do not contest that; I was arguing against a broader form of banning/censorship (which is what I think Nexxis was arguing for).

 

[Epona]

I just find this funny.

I know, I know, if it was a woman on the receiving end this game would be hurled into the fiery pits of hell, good for the goose, good for the gander, equality, blah-de-blah... I get it.

But it still makes me laugh.

Are you sexist or do you approve of DV against women too?

 

[DoPo]

Art is a label given unto products by the aristocracy. Declaring what is and isn't art has always been, by its very nature, a privilege of the privileged, and therefore there can never be a formal definition (or else the aristocracy would lose the privilege of declaring what is and isn't art). Since we are working under the assumption that anything could be art if it sufficiently pleases the aristocracy, we have to work under the assumption that all forms of videogames could be art and are therefore invalid targets for censorship.

I don't think all games should enjoy this protection simply for being part of the medium. I have no problem with that rape simulation game being censored or the one where you prostitute lolis. And that extends to other medums as well - I don't think it's exclusive to video games - works, I think, can and should be based on individual merit - slapping the art label on them for automatic protection against censorship just seems dumb.

 

[Epona]

As a gay man i am almost glad that if me and my partner get in a fist fight we are both going to be weight equally in a court of law as apposed to a straight couple where the lady has the advantage. but then again she didn't have the advantage in the fistfight. I don't know how to feel about this; it all honestly seems like a mean spirited joke. Hear it from someone who enjoyed super princess peach I know that sexist jokes can be funny and even fun in a video-game.

Men often refuse to hit the woman while the woman beats him. Men are also afraid to call the police as laws like VAWA make it likely that HE will go to jail, get the restraining order and lose his kids in the divorce.

http://www.destructoid.com/ios-game-lets-you-beat-your-boyfriend-until-he-s-perfect-243517.phtml

As someone who was a victim stuff like this, I'm a bit saddened. Saddened that women beating men is considered cartoonish and that if it was a man beating a woman, the press would be all over it like flies on shit.

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

First, I am terribly sorry you had to go through something like that. No one, regardless of gender should be abused by their partner. It does seem like a double standard. That is a no win situation for the male. He does nothing, he gets his arse kicked and probably is derided for being weak, allowing a woman to beat him up etc, but if he defends himself, he is seen as a woman beating arse-hole, even though he was attacked first and just defending himself.

...and don't forget how prison rape against males is considered acceptable and even humorous depending on the context. Think of how many tv shows and movies have cops threatening men with prison rape. I can't even begin to count the number of times I have seen that. Now, try to imagine cops threatening a women with any type of rape? Double standards are awesome.

 

[Epona]

As a gay man i am almost glad that if me and my partner get in a fist fight we are both going to be weight equally in a court of law as apposed to a straight couple where the lady has the advantage. but then again she didn't have the advantage in the fistfight. I don't know how to feel about this; it all honestly seems like a mean spirited joke. Hear it from someone who enjoyed super princess peach I know that sexist jokes can be funny and even fun in a video-game.

Men often refuse to hit the woman while the woman beats him. Men are also afraid to call the police as laws like VAWA make it likely that HE will go to jail, get the restraining order and lose his kids in the divorce.

What part of VAWA? Not that it matters since the law's expired.

The part that trains police officers to arrest the biggest person in the dispute (most of the time it is the man). It does matter, the training the police received under VAWA will not be forgotten for years to come.

Interesting article:

Into the bargain, VAWA encourages states to adopt policies that not only trample the due process rights of the accused, but tend to make the danger of violence in the home worse, not better. VAWA funds police training that promotes mandatory arrest policies. Under those, it is usually the man who is arrested, often absent probable cause. Once arrested, he?s removed from his home and family, arrested and ordered by a court to stay away from his partner, his children, his home and his belongings.

http://womenagainstvawa.org/death-of-vawa-provides-rare-opportunity-for-real-reform/

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I'm not going to lie and say that I'm personally offended by this game. But yeah It's stupid and were it the reverse scenario feminists would treat it like the most offensive thing in the world so I mean... society, fuck that noise right?

 

[Hagi]

Mostly pretty reasonable stuff.

With a few exceptions here and there.

Way to cut out any context, dude. If I'm not getting my conversations mixed up, she had already made threatening comments and lewd photoshops of him. I'm not saying that totally justifies what he said, but it's obvious who you're trying to paint as a villain.

Dude... no amount of context will ever make that statement anywhere near "pretty reasonable".

But hey, if you think rape is ever reasonable then I guess we're pretty much done here. Not really much to say to that...

Do I need to repeat myself? Where did I say rape is reasonable? I said his videos in relation to feminism are mostly pretty reasonable, getting too sure he was right that girl was faking and saying some horrible shit doesn't instantly invalidate my agreement with anything else he says, if you reflexively disagree like that grow the hell up.

And I said not everything he says is reasonable, giving an example... To which you reply that it's completely ripped out of context and apparently partly justifiable?

Again, no amount of context will make what he said acceptable in any way, shape or form. Not everything the guy says is pretty reasonable. Simple as that.

Again... I did not say that. I said I disagreed with his statements in that post. That doesn't mean you weren't quote-mining in the worst way. I never said everything he says is reasonable, I specifcally used the term "mostly." You then fish out the worst thing you can find him say totally out of context to make it seem like he's this horrible person who attacked a poor girl unprovoked. It doesn't really matter, dude, you can dislike The Amazing Atheist if you want. I don't want to start a flame war over YouTube content providers.

Of course I was quote-mining in the worst way. That should be obvious...

The fast still stand that he said those words. The fact still stands that no amount of context excuses those words. The fact still stands that you were and are providing justification (It's irrelevant if the girl said horrible things) for those words.

He said those things, accept it and stop trying to make it seem like it was some sort of honest mistake anyone could make.

 

[Darken12]

I don't think all games should enjoy this protection simply for being part of the medium. I have no problem with that rape simulation game being censored or the one where you prostitute lolis. And that extends to other medums as well - I don't think it's exclusive to video games - works, I think, can and should be based on individual merit - slapping the art label on them for automatic protection against censorship just seems dumb.

Fifty Shades of Gray is a book where you are encouraged to romanticise being in an abusive relationship (and, arguably, to romanticise rape and sexual abuse). That is the book equivalent of a Stockholm/Battered Woman Syndrome simulator (or, if you're a male, the equivalent of a rape and abuse simulator). It has also sold a truly ludicrous amount of copies.

Movies and TV shows portray characters doing highly illegal (sexual) things, such as statutory rape, actual rape, sexual abuse and the like. The line between "for a narrative/dramatic purpose" and "for masturbatory purposes" is completely arbitrary. Any sufficiently intelligent/non-lazy writer will wrap any controversial masturbatory material with the veneer of narrative drama to avoid censorship, and viewers will keep on masturbating to that, no matter how illegal or reproachable.

Censorship is never the answer, criticism (and verbal condemnation) is. Censorship gives an authority the power to control. I trust I don't need to explain why this is bad. We, as adults, need to make our own moral decisions. We cannot give an authority the power to make them for us. If we find something objectionable, we need to publicly articulate why and then abstain from purchase, that's all. If we have a problem with the fact that there is a sector of the population that makes such purchases, then we need to work on educating the population to explain why we believe this is harmful to society while ultimately respecting their free will to make their own choices.