101: Will Bobba for Furni
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Sociolotron is a fascinating concept. A part of the appeal of a game is the opportunity to be the bad guy for a change. Who wouldn't want to give it a try, if there were no consequences whatsoever? So take this, and put it in a multiplayer environment. Give it a heaping dose of sex. What have you got now? How does it make you feel? How would it make other people feel? How would people respond? What makes it different?
The rest of the article, I felt, was needlessly sensationalist. As for in-game solicitation taking a turn for the horrific, what distinguishes it from the use of (for example) newspaper personal ads for the same, or even leading to the same sort of crime? As for in-MUD rape, I don't know much of how a voodoo doll worked, but surely, if the text on the screen upsets you, you can disconnect? It seems to me like making a big deal out of something that's only superficially the same as rape, which cheapens the gravity of the crime.
The rest of the article, I felt, was needlessly sensationalist. As for in-game solicitation taking a turn for the horrific, what distinguishes it from the use of (for example) newspaper personal ads for the same, or even leading to the same sort of crime? As for in-MUD rape, I don't know much of how a voodoo doll worked, but surely, if the text on the screen upsets you, you can disconnect? It seems to me like making a big deal out of something that's only superficially the same as rape, which cheapens the gravity of the crime.
Bill,
As for whether or not logging out of the game would have saved the user legba from abuse, it would have allowed her to withdraw from the experience, but would not have removed her character from the scenes described. Nor, as I said in the article, would it have prevented it from happening in the first place, or saved her from the embarrassment of knowing her friends and fellow citizens had witnessed her violation. I can't personally imagine what she must have felt afterwards, but I do not doubt it was real.
Make light of this scenario if you will, but I think in this forum, of all places, we can agree that "it's just a game" doesn't cut it. People take their game lives as seriously (if not more) as their out-of-game lives, and although Bungle's assault was not physical, it was still, to those involved, a violation. Mincing over the definition of rape in this case is akin to suggesting the victim may have been partially to blame.
As for the suggestion that the rest of the article was intentionally sensationalized, well, obviously I disagree. The episodes described are extreme and disturbing, but aside from, perhaps, the awesomely titillating art, I don't think we've crossed any lines in presenting them. I've suggested conclusions one can draw from the trends described, but ultimately you're free to make up your own mind. If you think in-game sexualization, and the complete lack of barriers between the places where adults congregate to do their adult things and the places where children congregate to do their children things isn't a problem, then you've nothing to worry about. I, however, think the storm is brewing on this front, and we've only just begun to see what can happen when adults and children mix in online worlds.
I don't, however, think closing down or banning places like Sociolotron is an answer. People will do what people will do, and they will make an outlet for their desires if there isn't one already. I also think these places do a great job of keeping kids out of their worlds. I applaud them for it. Where I think we fall down, however, is in keeping the undesirables out of the places, like Habbo, where children congregate, and to echo Ms. Braithwaite, I don't think technology is the whole answer.
We would not allow children to play unsupervised in a metro area playground. We should not let them do so online. There is no difference, for all practical purposes. We've seen a generation of children grow up in America with televisions as babysitters and now these children are adults with children of their own. It's understandable that they assume the internet is just as safe an attention-keeper for their children, but it is not. It's far, far more dangerous.
I should also add here that it took me a lot longer to finish this story than it usually does. Mainly because of the Sociolotron bit, and how disturbing I found it to be. I had to step away from the work a few times simply because thinking about it hurt my fragile, little mind. I wanted to show the lengths some folks will go to get their virtual thrills online, and what shape that can take when pushed to an extreme, but I really wasn't prepared for some of the stuff I found when researching this story. If there is a hint of sensationalism present in the finished product, it may have more to do with my own raw reaction to the material seeping through than any intentional gerrymandering of the story.
As for whether or not logging out of the game would have saved the user legba from abuse, it would have allowed her to withdraw from the experience, but would not have removed her character from the scenes described. Nor, as I said in the article, would it have prevented it from happening in the first place, or saved her from the embarrassment of knowing her friends and fellow citizens had witnessed her violation. I can't personally imagine what she must have felt afterwards, but I do not doubt it was real.
Make light of this scenario if you will, but I think in this forum, of all places, we can agree that "it's just a game" doesn't cut it. People take their game lives as seriously (if not more) as their out-of-game lives, and although Bungle's assault was not physical, it was still, to those involved, a violation. Mincing over the definition of rape in this case is akin to suggesting the victim may have been partially to blame.
As for the suggestion that the rest of the article was intentionally sensationalized, well, obviously I disagree. The episodes described are extreme and disturbing, but aside from, perhaps, the awesomely titillating art, I don't think we've crossed any lines in presenting them. I've suggested conclusions one can draw from the trends described, but ultimately you're free to make up your own mind. If you think in-game sexualization, and the complete lack of barriers between the places where adults congregate to do their adult things and the places where children congregate to do their children things isn't a problem, then you've nothing to worry about. I, however, think the storm is brewing on this front, and we've only just begun to see what can happen when adults and children mix in online worlds.
I don't, however, think closing down or banning places like Sociolotron is an answer. People will do what people will do, and they will make an outlet for their desires if there isn't one already. I also think these places do a great job of keeping kids out of their worlds. I applaud them for it. Where I think we fall down, however, is in keeping the undesirables out of the places, like Habbo, where children congregate, and to echo Ms. Braithwaite, I don't think technology is the whole answer.
We would not allow children to play unsupervised in a metro area playground. We should not let them do so online. There is no difference, for all practical purposes. We've seen a generation of children grow up in America with televisions as babysitters and now these children are adults with children of their own. It's understandable that they assume the internet is just as safe an attention-keeper for their children, but it is not. It's far, far more dangerous.
I should also add here that it took me a lot longer to finish this story than it usually does. Mainly because of the Sociolotron bit, and how disturbing I found it to be. I had to step away from the work a few times simply because thinking about it hurt my fragile, little mind. I wanted to show the lengths some folks will go to get their virtual thrills online, and what shape that can take when pushed to an extreme, but I really wasn't prepared for some of the stuff I found when researching this story. If there is a hint of sensationalism present in the finished product, it may have more to do with my own raw reaction to the material seeping through than any intentional gerrymandering of the story.
I by no means intended to suggest that the experience was "just a game," merely that, at least in my mind, a significant component of the crime called "rape" is that it is inescapable, which is never the case in a virtual setting. My point is diminished by the knowledge that an avatar controlled by a voodoo doll remained in the game even if the owner is not connected, which is of course the reason I asked. However, and I recognize that this is a cruel viewpoint, in this case, the suffering of debilitating emotional damage in response to a situation that can be trivially backed out of at any time initially struck me as some combination of pettiness and an inability to separate reality from fiction.
Upon reconsideration of the issue, while not more inclined to treat this issue with anything near the same gravity as physical rape (which I interpreted to be the author's intention - which is why I considered it sensationalist), I am left with more sympathy for the victim (here meaning the player, not the avatar). Never having been in such a situation myself, I am ill-equipped to anticipate what it is about rape that makes it so profoundly traumatic. Perhaps it is that it would be attempted at all. Perhaps it is the aura of dread and gravity that surrounds it in most societies, the sense that, unlike most other crimes, the entire concept is completely profane, that to trivialize it is, itself, practically criminal. I don't know. Presumably she does.
What I do know is that the only thing distinguishing this from the other uses of the "voodoo doll" to cause other avatars to do other compromising things is the fact that the description of the actions that the avatar performed were a description of rape (I assume, here, that the MUD in which this took place was one in which such actions were constrained to IRC-style emotes: no different from chat, aside from appearing narrated rather than spoken). The conclusion to draws from this (along with what Cheeze was saying) is that sexual overtones can completely change the way a situation is interpreted, even at the expense of perspective. What a fucking revelation that is, right? What we learn from the article is that real sex, or the prospect/threat thereof, doesn't have to be involved for this to still hold true.
Frankly, all of this worries me. Combined with the (justified - don't nobody take this the wrong way) it could set a bad precedent. It raises questions like: is participating in a virtual world an example of free expression, or is it more like living in the real world? Is describing a murder in a certain way simply talking, or is committing virtual murder, or an entirely different classification of behavior? If I send a message to a game server, is it different than sending that same message to a chat server? (I think the way I phrase the questions gives away my opinion on the subject) These are the questions that games are raising now, whose answers will change the face of the world - the real one just as much as all the virtual ones - in our lifetimes. We can't afford to answer them poorly.
Upon reconsideration of the issue, while not more inclined to treat this issue with anything near the same gravity as physical rape (which I interpreted to be the author's intention - which is why I considered it sensationalist), I am left with more sympathy for the victim (here meaning the player, not the avatar). Never having been in such a situation myself, I am ill-equipped to anticipate what it is about rape that makes it so profoundly traumatic. Perhaps it is that it would be attempted at all. Perhaps it is the aura of dread and gravity that surrounds it in most societies, the sense that, unlike most other crimes, the entire concept is completely profane, that to trivialize it is, itself, practically criminal. I don't know. Presumably she does.
What I do know is that the only thing distinguishing this from the other uses of the "voodoo doll" to cause other avatars to do other compromising things is the fact that the description of the actions that the avatar performed were a description of rape (I assume, here, that the MUD in which this took place was one in which such actions were constrained to IRC-style emotes: no different from chat, aside from appearing narrated rather than spoken). The conclusion to draws from this (along with what Cheeze was saying) is that sexual overtones can completely change the way a situation is interpreted, even at the expense of perspective. What a fucking revelation that is, right? What we learn from the article is that real sex, or the prospect/threat thereof, doesn't have to be involved for this to still hold true.
Frankly, all of this worries me. Combined with the (justified - don't nobody take this the wrong way) it could set a bad precedent. It raises questions like: is participating in a virtual world an example of free expression, or is it more like living in the real world? Is describing a murder in a certain way simply talking, or is committing virtual murder, or an entirely different classification of behavior? If I send a message to a game server, is it different than sending that same message to a chat server? (I think the way I phrase the questions gives away my opinion on the subject) These are the questions that games are raising now, whose answers will change the face of the world - the real one just as much as all the virtual ones - in our lifetimes. We can't afford to answer them poorly.
I think it is quite interesting to think in hypotheticals and discuss the differences and similaries between in game and physical rape, but juxtaposing an online rape victim with a physical, real-life rape victim is sick.
Speaking of theories is one thing, but using specific instaces with actual people, there is no comparison. Not one to be easily offended, I am actually a little offended here.
I understand the possible psychological stresses online assaults can have. I'm not ignorant when it comes to the fagility of the human mind. I won't discredit the damage that can be caused by in-game actions; however, it is more like harrassment than rape.
Speaking of theories is one thing, but using specific instaces with actual people, there is no comparison. Not one to be easily offended, I am actually a little offended here.
I understand the possible psychological stresses online assaults can have. I'm not ignorant when it comes to the fagility of the human mind. I won't discredit the damage that can be caused by in-game actions; however, it is more like harrassment than rape.
Harassment! Thank you, Blaxton, that would have been a good concept for me to have remembered. We already have a separate description, with a well-established precedent, for what was going on here - harassment.
In a virtual world, you can disconnect at any time, for any reason, and with no inconvenience - you're not even barred from any other virtual worlds during that time. If a person is doing something that is seriously traumatic to you, you don't have to take it. And if they keep doing it, either there'll be some more productive way to seek redress or you've chosen the wrong world to be in.
Bungle is obviously the bad guy here, but I can't help but wonder why legba did not employ this option in the entire course of the incident, if it bothered her that much.
It has nothing to do with whether it's wrong, really. Say you're sitting at home and some guy with a gun jumps through your window and points a gun at your head and tells you to get down on the floor for an hour and tell him where you keep the valuables or he'll fucking kill you, but you can with a thought make him go away completely and leave you alone, and if you don't, he'll rob you blind and maybe kill you anyway. Obviously, the gunman is in the wrong, but if you just laid there and let him do that, rather than employ that ability you have, I'd certainly have to wonder why.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
In a virtual world, you can disconnect at any time, for any reason, and with no inconvenience - you're not even barred from any other virtual worlds during that time. If a person is doing something that is seriously traumatic to you, you don't have to take it. And if they keep doing it, either there'll be some more productive way to seek redress or you've chosen the wrong world to be in.
Bungle is obviously the bad guy here, but I can't help but wonder why legba did not employ this option in the entire course of the incident, if it bothered her that much.
Sorry Russ, but this reads like hyperbole to me.
in places like Habbo and Audition, we're allowing the sociopaths into the preschool. This year's political circus may be centered on the role of videogames in violent crimes, but even if every school shooter in the United States had played videogames to prepare for his rampage, chances are on that very same day more children, exponentially more, were playing doctor online. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily the problem - it's who they're playing with we should be concerned about
I'm surprised you didn't scream "Why won't someone think of the children!" at the end of it with a picture of Helen Lovejoy...
I suggest you read Gearoid Reidy's peace and get back to me, because all I see is you contributing to the absurd Moral Panic about video games and the internet.
in places like Habbo and Audition, we're allowing the sociopaths into the preschool. This year's political circus may be centered on the role of videogames in violent crimes, but even if every school shooter in the United States had played videogames to prepare for his rampage, chances are on that very same day more children, exponentially more, were playing doctor online. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily the problem - it's who they're playing with we should be concerned about
I'm surprised you didn't scream "Why won't someone think of the children!" at the end of it with a picture of Helen Lovejoy...
I suggest you read Gearoid Reidy's peace and get back to me, because all I see is you contributing to the absurd Moral Panic about video games and the internet.
The only issue with "Think of the children" is it's normally calling out for anyone else but the parents or the children to "fix" the children. I don't think Russ is leaning that way, I think he's suggesting that parents need to do what parents have always needed to do; Pay attention to their children, and what their children do. It's not a hard thing to do in my mind. I have heard of exceptions where this wasn't the issue, parents who had tried everything they could think of and still had a problem child. But in these instances we still need to remember blame goes to the individual perpetrating an act - not the society in which the act occurred.
As to rape. I don't agree that any rape - virtual or real can be qualified to some number, or value. I don't see any point to arguing that choices or decisions that lead up to it are going to make her somehow at fault. It's true that had she not checked the "can be raped" box she wouldn't have been. But that box isn't quite the same as "rape me please" which is what some would equate it to. Just the same, wearing skimpy clothes out and walking down a bad part of a big city isn't a great way to spend your night if you're not interested in an encounter. But I won't argue that you weren't raped if you are in that situation. I'll just argue you're stupid for putting yourself into a situation like that. The same applies here. I don't think legba is at fault, just stupid. If you have protections available, and you choose not to use them, you don't become at fault, just foolish.
As to rape. I don't agree that any rape - virtual or real can be qualified to some number, or value. I don't see any point to arguing that choices or decisions that lead up to it are going to make her somehow at fault. It's true that had she not checked the "can be raped" box she wouldn't have been. But that box isn't quite the same as "rape me please" which is what some would equate it to. Just the same, wearing skimpy clothes out and walking down a bad part of a big city isn't a great way to spend your night if you're not interested in an encounter. But I won't argue that you weren't raped if you are in that situation. I'll just argue you're stupid for putting yourself into a situation like that. The same applies here. I don't think legba is at fault, just stupid. If you have protections available, and you choose not to use them, you don't become at fault, just foolish.
Nice discussion guys. Thanks for keeping it civil and productive. And thanks for the awesome perspectives. Y'all are a credit to the species.
As far as the harassment versus rape debate, I believe in most cases in my article I deferred to the usage espoused by sources I quoted, and will stand by their descriptions of the events they were involved with. Beyond that, I have nothing more to say about that particular angle, as my own experience with both harassment and rape is limited mainly to second hand accounts, and I wouldn't presume to judge.
As far as hyperbole goes, well ... give me a break. You've got a point, FunkyJ, in that the passage you quoted was a bit colorful, but that's kind of what they pay me for. I appreciate that you may disagree with my description of allowing children to rub elbows with the likes of folks who log in to Sociolotron to enjoy a spot of virtual rape, or visit Audition to troll for underage girls looking to score some in-game loot in exchange for a little pants dancing as "allowing the sociopaths into the preschool" but this is why we have debates, to clarify opinions. And if my colorful language made you think about the issue a little bit, then my job here is done.
Tom and Cheeze have the right of it though. I'm not advocating a witch hunt. I think the adult content providers do a great job of restricting access to their wares. The problem is in the assumption that children are safe anywhere without supervision. I know parents and teachers are busy, busy people, but a PC with an internet connection is not a babysitter, and as hard as the kid portals try to keep it clean and safe, they can't, nor should they be expected to, protect everyone else's children.
If it sounds like I'm saying "think about the children" then perhaps I am. But not in the way you suggest. Do you have children? If yes, then think about them. Often. If no, then what do you care anyway? Be a good person, go about your business and try not to break any traffic laws.
As far as the harassment versus rape debate, I believe in most cases in my article I deferred to the usage espoused by sources I quoted, and will stand by their descriptions of the events they were involved with. Beyond that, I have nothing more to say about that particular angle, as my own experience with both harassment and rape is limited mainly to second hand accounts, and I wouldn't presume to judge.
As far as hyperbole goes, well ... give me a break. You've got a point, FunkyJ, in that the passage you quoted was a bit colorful, but that's kind of what they pay me for. I appreciate that you may disagree with my description of allowing children to rub elbows with the likes of folks who log in to Sociolotron to enjoy a spot of virtual rape, or visit Audition to troll for underage girls looking to score some in-game loot in exchange for a little pants dancing as "allowing the sociopaths into the preschool" but this is why we have debates, to clarify opinions. And if my colorful language made you think about the issue a little bit, then my job here is done.
Tom and Cheeze have the right of it though. I'm not advocating a witch hunt. I think the adult content providers do a great job of restricting access to their wares. The problem is in the assumption that children are safe anywhere without supervision. I know parents and teachers are busy, busy people, but a PC with an internet connection is not a babysitter, and as hard as the kid portals try to keep it clean and safe, they can't, nor should they be expected to, protect everyone else's children.
If it sounds like I'm saying "think about the children" then perhaps I am. But not in the way you suggest. Do you have children? If yes, then think about them. Often. If no, then what do you care anyway? Be a good person, go about your business and try not to break any traffic laws.
Is it real sex? No. Is it possible to use virtual sex as a way to connect emotionally with someone? Sure. That's why you read about spouses who "cheat" by having cybersex. It has nothing to do with the physicality, but the emotional side of anything intimate; there's a choice made by both parties to assign meaning to the act, be it hunting in an MMO or bumping virtual uglies in an IM client. Without assigning meaning, though, it's just a bunch of text. In the real world, however, there's also that physical element that factors in. Even without emotional meaning, there's still a lot of things going on mentally with sex that don't really factor in with the online stuff: STDs, pregnancy, pain/pleasure, privacy, security.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Which is why virtual "rape" really can't be associated with real-world rape. If the virtual stuff is all emotional, no one who's emotionally stable will allow a "rapist" that level of intimacy. The "victim" dictates the experience as much as the aggressor in the case of online stuff: just close the damn game or call a GM.
You sure? I mean, aside from the statutory crap (which I'll admit is both confusing and, as someone who lives in a college town, terrifying) rape's pretty well defined:CP said:
unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent -- compare SEXUAL ASSAULT,
: illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority
I don't think it's so easy to separate a virtual assault from a "real" assault. I agree that the physicality of the act introduces a number of variables, but it's possible to be - and feel - violated online. Just as possible as it is to feel anything else about what happens online.
It's not really surprising to me that the story of legba has taken point on discussion of my article. Dibbell''s depiction of the even has been one of the most-quoted articles about virtual life since he wrote it, in the early nineties.
And I won't say we're off point either, because I do think, as Cheeze suggested, the issue at stake here is if it is possible to break those barriers between real and virtual, if it is possible to love receive stimulation online, to fulfill those Maslow desires, and to have them fulfilled through you, against your will, by someone else, then we really need to think more seriously about what happens in virtual worlds, and how acts stemming fro them are handled. In courts, living rooms or elsewhere.
It's not really surprising to me that the story of legba has taken point on discussion of my article. Dibbell''s depiction of the even has been one of the most-quoted articles about virtual life since he wrote it, in the early nineties.
And I won't say we're off point either, because I do think, as Cheeze suggested, the issue at stake here is if it is possible to break those barriers between real and virtual, if it is possible to love receive stimulation online, to fulfill those Maslow desires, and to have them fulfilled through you, against your will, by someone else, then we really need to think more seriously about what happens in virtual worlds, and how acts stemming fro them are handled. In courts, living rooms or elsewhere.
It's heteronormative because that's the sex the majority of the population - and rapists - have. And just because penetration isn't involved doesn't mean you're free from STDs, but that's another discussion.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
In regard to privacy and security, I'm speaking more about showing someone what you look like naked, and then letting them touch your no-no places. That's a large step for a lot of the populace and part of what makes real-life sex so intimate.
If people had a magic button they could push to instantly distance themselves from an attacker whenever they wanted, would rape occur? Outside of instances where the victim was unconscious or whatever (which can't really happen in games - you can always hit the "X"), I think not.CP said:
I think you're misreading the "usually"'s in there. What it's saying is it's unlawful sexual activity - like burning a swastika on someone's ass - but a rapist usually has penetration/intercourse on the mind.CP said:I would say...those definitions only prove my point better than I ever could
Men "usually" can't be raped? It's "usually" intercourse? So one guy going to town on another guy with a plunger isn't "usually" rape because the victim is male, and even if the victim was female, that's "usually" not rape anyway? However clear that may be, I think that's a pretty unenlightened definition of rape, don't you?
(edited out a misreading on my part here)
I'm...just not impressed by a definition of rape that doesn't capture something like Schillinger branding a Swastika into into Beecher's ass in the show _OZ_; are you? Why are we so obsessed with penetration--and even moreso, intercourse--as such an important part of why these crimes are evil? Why isn't the focus on what the victim feels--or how about what the attacker *wants* the victim to feel--instead of the mechanical aspects of the crime?
