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

[Beltaine]

Okay, for all of you holding rape up as some sort of untouchable awful crime that deserves mass media attention should it ever be brought into gaming consider the following: On Fallout 3 I can kill a child's parents and cannibalise them both in front of the child, yet you never hear any clamour for Fallout to be banned.

That's just incidental. The game isn't built around you killing and cannibalizing parents in front of their kids. You just choose to play out that action in the sandbox.

Now, if there was hidden code in the game that allowed you to play a sex mini-game with a kid's parents in Fallout 3, then there might be a problem with it.

 

[meisnewbie]

"The inescapable conclusion is that the more people have their fetishes and fantasies to sexually assault other human beings nurtured, the more likely people are to commit rape."

If a conclusion is inescapable, then it is also necessarily unfalsifiable, in which case I question this conclusion's basis in reality.

Especially when there is evidence much closer to the question at hand:

http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

The paper, by the way, is by no means conclusive and shouldn't be treated as such, but the point is that you CANNOT a priori assume that merely because two factors exist and lend credence to a third factor that said factor is significant (i.e. air resistance slows down moving objects, falling objects are moving objects therefore falling objects are slowed down significantly by air resistance) without consulting the data.

"Five Words. Death Penalty for all Rapist."

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/01/weekinreview/the-many-myths-about-sex-offenders.html

Furthermore, people seem to think that rape is done by strangers in a violent manner when in truth it is done, far, far more by acquaintances or in contexts that consensual sex might happen. This especially applies to underreported rape cases too.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Allow me to make my argument as clear as possible.

Humans are more prone to act out sexual fantasies than they are violent fantasies.

Why? Partly because biology places a higher imperative on reproductive behavior than violent behavior, that's what propagates the species. Studies also show that sexual fetishes get stronger the more they are indulged in most cases. Because these Rape Games are explicitly pornographic in nature, they nurture sexual fetishes involving rape and also nurture fantasies involving rape, most commonly against women.

The inescapable conclusion is that the more people have their fetishes and fantasies to sexually assault other human beings nurtured, the more likely people are to commit rape.

My understanding is that rape is widely accepted to be a crime of violence, not a crime of passion. I've got no sources to back that up, aside from some short wikipedia quotes. As an example: "Freund et al. (1983) stated that most rapists do not have a preference for rape over consensual sex." If true, that undermines most of your claim that feeding the fetish increases instance of rape. So... I don't find your conclusion inescapable, because I find both of your premises flawed/unfounded. Even if you could prove both of your premises, you've still failed to provide proof of correlation between "People are more prone to acting out sexual fantasies than violent fantasies" and "Fetishes are reinforced through repetition" to indicate that "Rape media increases the instance of rape."

By the way it still interest me that all the people in favor of simulated rape are men.

Allow me to re-iterate: myself in particular, and I presume most of the people that I'm agreeing with, are not "in favor of simulated rape", no more than you are "in favor of punishing thoughtcrime". It seems a bit like [a href=http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html]distorted active listening[/a], and it does you a disservice.

Of course, I'm going to try to kill anyone who attempts either, more girls should.

If I misunderstood you, I would think you were implying that fewer girls would be raped if they tried harder not to be raped, or if they fought back more. I know that's not what you meant, but if it were, it would be wrong, because blaming the victim helps no one, and makes victims less likely to come forward out of unfounded shame, leaving actual criminals free to harm others. But that is, quite obviously, not what you meant, right?

P.S. Please don't respond across 3 different messages, in a row. It is just bad forum etiquette.

 

[MoganFreeman]

Well, I won't claim that rape is worse than murder. But rape runs a very, very close second. It's about the worst thing you can do to a life aside from ending it.

 

[TheGreenGoblin]

My stance on the issue is that rape and murder are equally heinous. Society seems to think otherwise, most often citing that you can kill to save one's planet in a video game, but you cannot rape your way to Earth's salvation. I argue that this point is the fault of game writers and is not an aspect of immutable reality. In an earlier post I invented a game called Rape Cell where your unit must rape information out of sexy terrorists to save humanity.

I can shed some light on why rape is perceived as a higher evil than murder. Compare how often the true impact of the crime's devastating effects are put directly in the viewer's face. Video games and television protect us from the true horrors of these crimes by omitting the goriest details. This allows the romance to continue.

A murder leaves behind a mutilated body, but that's just meat. A rape leaves behind a battered body but the tortured life is still inside it. I can talk to us or worse--cannot for emotional reasons. It tugs on our empathy. And it makes a great movie on Lifetime. This aspect of rape is in our faces a lot more than the unglamorous parts of murder.

Gore and even odor (should the technology develop) might be enjoyable as realistic details, but this is about what we see and the resulting empathy creating the illusion that rape is more heinous than murder. That guy you killed didn't come out of a vacuum. He had a family. The emotional outbursts that cause the empathy that make us go "what a horrible crime" on Lifetime will come from THEM. But "they" aren't in the games. You put your bullet in the guy fighting for HIS country and you move on to the next future corpse.

I'll give you a perfect example of the imbalance in empathy reporting. In the Season 2 Battlestar Galactica episode, Pegasus, a military official attempts to rape Boomer. The scene is powerful. She is punched. She is sobbing. We hear the sobs from off-camera. Boomer was always cooperative with her captors (this isn't a Rape Cell situation). All you can feel is "no...don't do this to her...she doesn't deserve it." Just then, heroes bust in and in under 5 seconds a man with a long military career, friends, family, hopes, and dreams is suddenly erased. The camera doesn't even stay on his dead body.

Two horrible things happened in that scene. Strangely, the viewer wasn't supposed to feel one of them. "He deserved it." Well that's dangerous. How long before someone decides something you did deserves death?

 

[WrongSprite]

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

Rape can never serve a good purpose.

And now to read.

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

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

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

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

It's just not the same...

Did you actually just say that rape is worse than murder?

Bullshit.

Line up a load of rape victims, and ask them if they'd rather be dead.

 

[GothmogII]

Well, I won't claim that rape is worse than murder. But rape runs a very, very close second. It's about the worst thing you can do to a life aside from ending it.

Except having all your limbs cut off, your skin flayed daily from your body and then having yourself dipped repeatedly in a mild acid (figuratively speaking). Just saying is all...

Rape -is- a horrible thing. But saying it is the worst or even near is a stretch. Not that those who should have to suffer it don't feel that way, I feel for them truly. It's an odd thing, I personally have not been raped ever, so, as much as I can empathise, I still can never know how it feels.

And yet, going by the example up there, I can still conceive the acid as being a worse fate. At least, if I am sexually violated my form is still intact, if my body bruised or my mind damaged. Providing I'm not dead of course.

 

[Dogstile]

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

Rape can never serve a good purpose.

And now to read.

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

Technically you aren't forced to cut down civilians.

Bullseye. It's your choice if you kill any civilians, like it would be in a real city, but there aren't really any consequences. Thus why it is just a game, and does not really merge with real-life.

its someones choice to play rapegames, is it not?

anyway, why are japan banning this game when america's people are outraged, america doesn't give japan profit from rape games, so japan didn't need to try and ban it at all

"we're japan, we'll bend over, for all your needs"

You miss my point. Within the game of GTA, you choose whether or not you kill civilians, whereas this game centres solely around rape.

i get your point just fine, you still choose if you rape people or not, the difference being that if you decide not to rape someone, you save cash because you didn't buy the game

as it is, we as one group of people hold no right to say that what the other people do is wrong, unless it affects us, this doesn't, so therefore the censorship is wrong

What on earth are you talking about? 'If you decide not to rape someone, you save cash because you didn't buy the game'? What?

Of course we have a right to say what other people do is wrong when it doesn't affect us. A man murders a family that you don't belong to or have any emotional ties to, just because he wanted to. Is this wrong? Of course it is. I'm not going to go into the censorship because I'm not talking about that.

"What on earth are you talking about? 'If you decide not to rape someone, you save cash because you didn't buy the game'? What?" seriously, your typing like your enraged, calm down

i'm saying that this game, is someones choice to play it, yes sure, by your views its wrong, but its not to them, and thats the point. these games were fine before they hit amazon, and now all of a sudden its system has changed because of that.

and i cannot believe your comparing differences on views between a rape game with different views on murder, thats a whole different ball game. i'm talking about censorship views, not murder views.

any other questions about how i think, go for it, i don't have one coherent lines of thoughts sometimes

 

[junkmanuk]

Line up a load of rape victims, and ask them if they'd rather be dead.

Depending on the amount of trauma and regularity you may find some say yes.

The clincher for me is that if they allowed the release of Manhunt then then should allow the release of this. I don't like the idea of either of those games, and I especially think the age restrictions should be honoured for them because your social attitudes are being shaped during your teens and these are bad stimuli.

Point being - who has the right to decide whether a rape game is more or less appropriate for adults than a game with gratuitous violence?

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

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

Rape can never serve a good purpose.

And now to read.

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

Technically you aren't forced to cut down civilians.

Bullseye. It's your choice if you kill any civilians, like it would be in a real city, but there aren't really any consequences. Thus why it is just a game, and does not really merge with real-life.

its someones choice to play rapegames, is it not?

anyway, why are japan banning this game when america's people are outraged, america doesn't give japan profit from rape games, so japan didn't need to try and ban it at all

"we're japan, we'll bend over, for all your needs"

You miss my point. Within the game of GTA, you choose whether or not you kill civilians, whereas this game centres solely around rape.

i get your point just fine, you still choose if you rape people or not, the difference being that if you decide not to rape someone, you save cash because you didn't buy the game

as it is, we as one group of people hold no right to say that what the other people do is wrong, unless it affects us, this doesn't, so therefore the censorship is wrong

What on earth are you talking about? 'If you decide not to rape someone, you save cash because you didn't buy the game'? What?

Of course we have a right to say what other people do is wrong when it doesn't affect us. A man murders a family that you don't belong to or have any emotional ties to, just because he wanted to. Is this wrong? Of course it is. I'm not going to go into the censorship because I'm not talking about that.

"What on earth are you talking about? 'If you decide not to rape someone, you save cash because you didn't buy the game'? What?" seriously, your typing like your enraged, calm down

i'm saying that this game, is someones choice to play it, yes sure, by your views its wrong, but its not to them, and thats the point. these games were fine before they hit amazon, and now all of a sudden its system has changed because of that.

and i cannot believe your comparing differences on views between a rape game with different views on murder, thats a whole different ball game. i'm talking about censorship views, not murder views.

any other questions about how i think, go for it, i don't have one coherent lines of thoughts sometimes

I'd rather just give up, nothing's getting through and I've already explained that censorship has nothing to do with my original point.

 

[Geoffrey42]

I'd rather just give up, nothing's getting through and I've already explained that censorship has nothing to do with my original point.

So let's just get back to your original point:

You miss my point. Within the game of GTA, you choose whether or not you kill civilians, whereas this game centres solely around rape.

How does the placement of the choice (prior to purchase as opposed to during play) have an impact on the acceptability/okay-ness of that content? If I made a game like GTA, and provided the ability to do exactly what is done in Rapelay, but in the end it only represented 10% of the content of the game, and doing so was not required to progress... how is that different? You're just making the choice whether or not to engage in the content after purchase of the game, instead of before purchase of the game.

 

[SultanP]

The whole debate is completely rediculous. So what if the game is about rape? Nobody was raped to produce the game. There have been several movies that contained rape scenes, and they have not been banned, some of them have been praised for showing how horrible rape can be, and for bringing up such a sensitive subject. With that in mind, it's bullshit to make such a big deal out of this game.

I played the game in question, and It did not glorify rape. The person that the player play as is clearly a sick individual, and rape is displayed as horrible and awful. So why care? If anyone actually get off while playing the game, good for them, they found somewhere to get some stimulus for their rape fantasies without hurting anyone.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

I'd rather just give up, nothing's getting through and I've already explained that censorship has nothing to do with my original point.

So let's just get back to your original point:

You miss my point. Within the game of GTA, you choose whether or not you kill civilians, whereas this game centres solely around rape.

How does the placement of the choice (prior to purchase as opposed to during play) have an impact on the acceptability/okay-ness of that content? If I made a game like GTA, and provided the ability to do exactly what is done in Rapelay, but in the end it only represented 10% of the content of the game, and doing so was not required to progress... how is that different? You're just making the choice whether or not to engage in the content after purchase of the game, instead of before purchase of the game.

Let's? You weren't even part of the original discussion so, that's a pretty misguided use of the word. We weren't talking about the okay-ness of the content. Before you try and tell somebody they're wrong, make sure you understand the context.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

I'd rather just give up, nothing's getting through and I've already explained that censorship has nothing to do with my original point.

So let's just get back to your original point:

You miss my point. Within the game of GTA, you choose whether or not you kill civilians, whereas this game centres solely around rape.

How does the placement of the choice (prior to purchase as opposed to during play) have an impact on the acceptability/okay-ness of that content? If I made a game like GTA, and provided the ability to do exactly what is done in Rapelay, but in the end it only represented 10% of the content of the game, and doing so was not required to progress... how is that different? You're just making the choice whether or not to engage in the content after purchase of the game, instead of before purchase of the game.

Let's? You weren't even part of the original discussion so, that's a pretty misguided use of the word. We weren't talking about the okay-ness of the content. Before you try and tell somebody they're wrong, make sure you understand the context.

Just because someone wasn't commenting, that doesn't mean they weren't reading--you don't know that G42 wasn't a part of the original discussion in the form of being a reader. I know recently on these forums it seems people can't have a thought without running to hit the reply button to spill out whatever happens to be on their mind, but, some people still do read along for a while, watching how the conversation is going before interjecting.

So, what exactly is the context G42 misunderstood?

The discussion I was referring to was between me and another poster, so no, he wasn't part of the original discussion. Although, you're part about the replying thing, I'll certainly give you that. Sorry, I understand I'm appearing quite a dick at the moment. I'm tired. Even though that's the worst excuse ever devised.

Ahh my memory escapes me but it started originally when somebody said something about how 'this game isn't any worse than GTA in which you murder civilians' or something, to which I think Max replied that GTA can be played perfectly reasonably without actually having to murder innocent people. I agreed to this and pointed out that in GTA the choice is always present to kill people but isn't actively encouraged, whereas this game's sole intention is for you to rape women, and is not an implicit choice of gameplay like GTA's civilian thing. The other guy, dogstile, then chipped in to say that 'its someones choice to play rape games, is it not?'. I think you'll see what I mean when I pointed out to him that this is not the same kind of choice I'm talking about.
Anyway this is getting tangental; basically, that is the context in which my discussion originally took part. phew.

 

[Charli]

Even Hitler was a hero to 'somebody', at some point.

Thats pretty much it from me.

The concept of a hero is pretty subjective to most people when you get down to it, so it's hard to really define it. This topic is also pretty redundant, but hell I've posted in it.

Serial rapist could be a hero to some fucked up person, couldn't he?

But yeah to most people I'd imagine not, but the sentence 'you can't be the hero if you're the rapist' isn't entirely correct, 'you can't be an upstanding morally respected member of society if you're the rapist'? Oh absolutely.

 

[Geoffrey42]

I apologize if I was stepping into a private conversation, I must have gotten lost on my way to a forum. Funny things, you know.

Because murder can be justified.

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

Technically you aren't forced to cut down civilians.

Bullseye. It's your choice if you kill any civilians, like it would be in a real city, but there aren't really any consequences. Thus why it is just a game, and does not really merge with real-life.

I simply don't see the distinction you were making, and asked a clarifying question, though it seems I was offbase? I'll stick to just GTA this time.

Why does it matter that the choice to murder innocent civilians in GTA is within the game, compared to a game which is simply dedicated, from launch to end-screen, with killing civilians (to use cliff m85's terminology "a game in which you are forced to kill civilians")? How is that distinction useful? The choice of whether or not to engage in the virtual killing of innocent civilians seems to me to be a similar one, nigh the same, just that it occurs at a different stage of the process.

 

[Lukirre]

I honestly don't see this as a threat to anything.

I can guarantee you that rape games already exist, just not on such a large scale.
I can also guarantee you that people would just watch rape-filled hentai porn if they didn't play those games.

If someone has a problem with explicit games, there's no way that said person is going to look at something like Grand Theft Auto and say "Well, atleast there's no rape." And yet, GTA is still around.

EDIT:

I would also support Dexter, whole heartedly.
I would rather a murder be murdered with sufficient evidence against him than allow him to live in a Canadian prison for 25 years.
Everyone knows that if you're going to prison, you want to go to a Canadian prison.
Since I live in Canada and all.