Far Cry 3 and The Rape of Jason Brody

[hazabaza1]

So you willingly remain ignorant about specific topics and still feel free to discuss them.
Fantastic work there. Great case you're making.

Of course I feel free to discuss them. Do I need to get raped to talk about rape? If that was the case, all the people who deny the existence of a rape culture would have to shut the fuck up.

So yeah, I do talk about them. It's possible to talk about things without experiencing them, just like we talk about death, murder, other cultures, history, politics, science and many more subjects. Your argument is absolutely baseless and reeks of finding ways to dismiss valid viewpoints because goodness forbid we say something bad about a videogame. We all must like and support all games ever; and if we don't, we must remain quiet and keep our opinions to ourselves.

No, you don't need to get raped to discuss rape because real life situations are vastly different from media analysis.

The main topic of discussion in this thread is about the supposed "Rape" of Jason. That much is clear. From what you're saying, when anything fictitious involves any form of sexual assault you instantly ignore it, so you're going purely by what you hear from other people talking about it. Innate bias means that you'll steer towards the negatives of the topic that people bring up and dismiss anything that disagrees with your preconceived (and, IMO, irrelevant until experienced) opinion.

I don't have a problem with criticising games for being fucking stupid in their story elements, but what I do have a problem with is speaking from ignorance and acting like you know the intricacies of what is being discussed. I've raised issue with people discussing so called sexism in The Witcher 2, and I don't even like that game, but like you, they hadn't played it and so were blindly parroting opinions they heard from people who had similar ideals.

Go and get the game and play up to that point, or watch a walkthrough or a Let's Play up to the point or something similar, then I won't have a problem with this being discussed. But until then, your opinion is pretty much invalid in this topic and you could spend your time doing something more productive.

EDIT:

snip

Oh fuck me.
Oh jesus.
People with these opinions actually exist?

Christ.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

That is a complete mistruth. An erection is not a sign of consent. An erection is nothing more than a physiological reaction. It is not an informed decision, and it doesn't even have to be caused by anything sexual.

I'm talking about erections that are caused by something sexual like seeing someone attractive dancing naked in front of you.

If I have a girlfriend, but get an erection when some hot girl starts chatting to me, that doesn't mean I'm automatically ok with cheating on her, no matter what my dick may say.

Missing the point. But I'll answer. No, it doesn't mean that you're OK with cheating on her, but if your erection is caused by being sexually attracted to that hot girl it means that you would have sex with her if circumstances were different.
I would never cheat on my girlfriend, but neither of us pretends that we aren't sexually attracted to other people. That's what makes monogamy and romantic love so great. I support monogamy and absolute loyalty in a relationship. Even though I know that most humans are not naturally monogamous. If it was something that comes naturally to everyone, romantic love wouldn't be so special.

Likewise, if I get an erection on the bus, it doesn't mean I want to fuck the bus driver.

Again, you missed my point. I'm talking about erections caused by sexual desire. If a woman ties you to a chair and arouses you by moaning and taking her clothes off, you can't deny that you want to hit that. Of course, the assumption is that she's healthy.

Actually, both genders are 'hardwired' to look for mating opportunities. The thing is, that doesn't mean anything. Evolutionary hard-wiring doesn't have anything to do with informed consent, given that it's an instinctual behaviour, not a cognitive process.

What you don't seem to understand is that "consent" is a fictional construct of law. It only exists because someone wrote down that it exists and people agreed that it's a good idea. But in reality it doesn't exist. Almost nothing in law actually exists. Morality and law is essentially just a bunch of ideas and opinions that people had agreed upon. Consent is a good idea and important for women because of the differences between male and female physiology and psychology. It isn't as important for men. Sometimes it is. For example you mentioned prostate stimulation. That's justified. But those occasions are rare. But whatever, dude. If you want to think that males and females think and behave the same, more power to you. Obviously, this new age crap has taken a toll on critical thinking. Everything is simple now and everything is black and white. And we should all walk, talk and think the same. Regardless of how fuckin' stupid most of this new age crap is.

It's not retarded or new age to ask that standards of rape definitions be held up on both sides. Mind sets like yours are the reason fewer men are willing to come out over cases of things like rape, domestic abuse or such. This idea that being a man is dependent on 'masculinity', and therefore any man who gets rapes or abuse is somehow less of a man... that's a mindset I find abhorrent, and completely out of touch with the 21st century.

It has nothing to do with masculinity. It's not about being less of a man. It's about being dishonest.

That's total shit. Do you know how easy it is to stimulate an erection in a guy just by massaging the prostate? Are you even aware of what the difference is between a cognitive reaction and a physiological one?

I am. But like I said, you completely missed my point.

Guess what? Some women experience their vagina getting wet during rape. Does that mean that they were really horny for their attacker?

Apples and contact lenses. I can't believe you can even ask such a dumb question.

People with these opinions actually exist?

How very constructive. How about you try to prove your point if you have one.

 

[Abomination]

AJ, you seem to be missing the point as well. This wasn't about some girl pulling down Jason's pants and sucking his dick. This is about a guy who was under the influence of some heavy, HEAVY drugs and woke up to some crazy girl - who was essentially a stranger - jumping his bones.

We don't even know if Jason did enjoy it as he was coming down off those drugs and she didn't exactly stay on long enough for him to form a reasonable response.

Citra: "Oh, you're awake now? I'll just hop off then."
Jason: "Huh, wuh? Huh?" *rubs eyes, blinks*

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

AJ, you seem to be missing the point as well. This wasn't about some girl pulling down Jason's pants and sucking his dick. This is about a guy who was under the influence of some heavy, HEAVY drugs and woke up to some crazy girl - who was essentially a stranger - jumping his bones.

We don't even know if Jason did enjoy it as he was coming down off those drugs and she didn't exactly stay on long enough for him to form a reasonable response.

Citra: "Oh, you're awake now? I'll just hop off then."
Jason: "Huh, wuh? Huh?" *rubs eyes, blinks*

I think it was pretty obvious that Jason didn't give a crap.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

If I have a girlfriend, yet get an erection from some other girl, that is nota sign that I am up for sex.

This is such a simple fucking concept, I cannot believe you are struggling to grasp it. Physiological response =/= intelligent response.

I understand what you're saying for fuck sake. Read the fuckin' post for once! I would do the same. I wouldn't have sex with a girl just because she gives me a boner. But I don't deny that I want to and that I would if the circumstances allowed. I can separate my mind from my dick just fine. But I'm not as dishonest as you to deny the desire to act in a different manner if I could.

AN ERECTION IS NOT CONSENT!

Jesus fucking Christ!

I will explain.
I meant that I wouldn't believe that man in a court of law if he said that he didn't give consent. Would you believe a man that a woman raped him if he had no evidence? If the only thing you know about the whole situation is that a man had sex with a woman. How would you prove that you were raped by a woman if she only used her herself to arouse you?

This is just such a double standard, it's unbelievable. You're essentially giving no reason for your argument other than "Rape is rape, except when it isn't!" Why does a physiological response in a woman make the situation different to a man? Why? Give me fucking specifics, not this vague bullshit. If a woman can experience physiological symptoms of sexual arousal, yet still refuse consent (and thereby count as being a rape victim), what makes it so different for men? What exactly? Tell me, I need to hear just justification you've got for this absolute horse-crap.

You keep making this into a black-white issue and you keep ignoring the specifics that I already talked about. The fact that you can't seem to connect the dots from my previous thoughts is your problem, not mine. I told you already when your argument makes sense. And it doesn't make sense when a man is stimulated by nothing more than the actual rapist being sexually attractive. Put yourself in the situation where the only thing that stimulates you sexually is the actual "rapist". She does nothing unnatural to you. She's not forcing you to swallow some pills, she's not touching your anus, she's touching herself. If you still can't comprehend why that kind of situation is not rape then something is wrong with you or you're simply lying for the sake of trying to win an argument.

 

[[REDACTED]]

I sense a lock on the horizon. If you'll exuse me...

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Gee, welcome to the jolly world of rape trials, where you are essentially only ever taking the word of one person against another. You think it's different for female allegations against men? Tell me, if you were a woman, how would you prove that you were raped by a man, not that you had consensual sex with him?

It is difficult, I admit. But rape trauma syndrome is very common among women. Not common at all among men. Especially in the situation that I described. It doesn't actually happen in that situation. NEVER. Guess why?
Witnesses are very important as well. Character witnesses can sometimes be crucial.

Well thank you for that. Nice to know that that 'something is wrong' with me for finding the thought of uninitiated sex with a woman a turnoff.

How is it a turnoff, if you're turned on? Jesus...

 

[Darken12]

No, you don't need to get raped to discuss rape because real life situations are vastly different from media analysis.

The main topic of discussion in this thread is about the supposed "Rape" of Jason. That much is clear. From what you're saying, when anything fictitious involves any form of sexual assault you instantly ignore it, so you're going purely by what you hear from other people talking about it. Innate bias means that you'll steer towards the negatives of the topic that people bring up and dismiss anything that disagrees with your preconceived (and, IMO, irrelevant until experienced) opinion.

I completely disagree. Experience is not a requirement to discuss a subject. If I choose to express a misinformed opinion, the risk is my own. I can be corrected, proven wrong or any other myriad consequences for posting without checking my facts. That is a risk I am willing to make, and it doesn't invalidate the act of forming an opinion based on what other people are telling me. We do that all the time, you know, it's a perfectly natural aspect of human existence, particularly when it comes to negative opinions, as preemptively forming a negative opinion on something and giving it a miss saves us from wasting our time, money and energy on something we're not going to enjoy.

I don't have a problem with criticising games for being fucking stupid in their story elements, but what I do have a problem with is speaking from ignorance and acting like you know the intricacies of what is being discussed. I've raised issue with people discussing so called sexism in The Witcher 2, and I don't even like that game, but like you, they hadn't played it and so were blindly parroting opinions they heard from people who had similar ideals.

I don't much care for games and their story elements, I consider that to be more or less subjective, but I do care quite a bit about things like sexism, rape, racism, homophobia and the like. Let me value what I want to value, and you can value what you want to value.

Go and get the game and play up to that point, or watch a walkthrough or a Let's Play up to the point or something similar, then I won't have a problem with this being discussed. But until then, your opinion is pretty much invalid in this topic and you could spend your time doing something more productive.

Why should I waste my time (and potentially my money) on something I already know I will not enjoy? And before you say "you won't know until you try", let me cut you off right there and assure you that I have never been wrong in my life on that regard. Whenever I knew I wasn't going to enjoy something, I never enjoyed it. I already know I won't enjoy Far Cry 3, so sinking hours and maybe money on something that I will not enjoy, just to please a stranger who thinks I shouldn't voice my opinion otherwise? To hell with that, I don't need your approval to voice my opinions.

If you consider them to be misinformed because you disagree with me on an intellectual level, feel free to ignore me. But what you're doing is silencing dissent and criticism, and I'm not going to be fooled into thinking otherwise.

EDIT:

*snip*

Holy fucking shit. You terrify the living hell out of me.

 

[hazabaza1]

No, you don't need to get raped to discuss rape because real life situations are vastly different from media analysis.

The main topic of discussion in this thread is about the supposed "Rape" of Jason. That much is clear. From what you're saying, when anything fictitious involves any form of sexual assault you instantly ignore it, so you're going purely by what you hear from other people talking about it. Innate bias means that you'll steer towards the negatives of the topic that people bring up and dismiss anything that disagrees with your preconceived (and, IMO, irrelevant until experienced) opinion.

I completely disagree. Experience is not a requirement to discuss a subject. If I choose to express a misinformed opinion, the risk is my own. I can be corrected, proven wrong or any other myriad consequences for posting without checking my facts. That is a risk I am willing to make, and it doesn't invalidate the act of forming an opinion based on what other people are telling me. We do that all the time, you know, it's a perfectly natural aspect of human existence, particularly when it comes to negative opinions, as preemptively forming a negative opinion on something and giving it a miss saves us from wasting our time, money and energy on something we're not going to enjoy.

I don't have a problem with criticising games for being fucking stupid in their story elements, but what I do have a problem with is speaking from ignorance and acting like you know the intricacies of what is being discussed. I've raised issue with people discussing so called sexism in The Witcher 2, and I don't even like that game, but like you, they hadn't played it and so were blindly parroting opinions they heard from people who had similar ideals.

I don't much care for games and their story elements, I consider that to be more or less subjective, but I do care quite a bit about things like sexism, rape, racism, homophobia and the like. Let me value what I want to value, and you can value what you want to value.

Go and get the game and play up to that point, or watch a walkthrough or a Let's Play up to the point or something similar, then I won't have a problem with this being discussed. But until then, your opinion is pretty much invalid in this topic and you could spend your time doing something more productive.

Why should I waste my time (and potentially my money) on something I already know I will not enjoy? And before you say "you won't know until you try", let me cut you off right there and assure you that I have never been wrong in my life on that regard. Whenever I knew I wasn't going to enjoy something, I never enjoyed it. I already know I won't enjoy Far Cry 3, so sinking hours and maybe money on something that I will not enjoy, just to please a stranger who thinks I shouldn't voice my opinion otherwise? To hell with that, I don't need your approval to voice my opinions.

If you consider them to be misinformed because you disagree with me on an intellectual level, feel free to ignore me. But what you're doing is silencing dissent and criticism, and I'm not going to be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Right.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's pretty clear that our fundamental ideas on content and when it should be discussed are close to polar opposites and I'm not in the mood for running in circles.

All I'm going to ask is not to accuse me of trying to censor what you're saying. You already know my views on discussing during moments of ignorance and one of the few things that annoy me similarly when discussing media is censorship.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I will explain.
I meant that I wouldn't believe that man in a court of law if he said that he didn't give consent. Would you believe a man that a woman raped him if he had no evidence? If the only thing you know about the whole situation is that a man had sex with a woman. How would you prove that you were raped by a woman if she only used her herself to arouse you?

Gee, welcome to the jolly world of rape trials, where you are essentially only ever taking the word of one person against another. You think it's different for female allegations against men? Tell me, if you were a woman, how would you prove that you were raped by a man, not that you had consensual sex with him?

Well, generally rape causes certain kinds of vaginal tearing. Example, having two black eyes with no swelling near the temples is actually a type of injury consistent with a broken nose received from falling on a flat surface as opposed to having been punched in the face. Different injuries for different situations.

You could always argue that it was just really rough though, I guess. Although there might still be a difference...well, I'm not an expert on vaginal injuries.

 

[Abomination]

AJ, you seem to be missing the point as well. This wasn't about some girl pulling down Jason's pants and sucking his dick. This is about a guy who was under the influence of some heavy, HEAVY drugs and woke up to some crazy girl - who was essentially a stranger - jumping his bones.

We don't even know if Jason did enjoy it as he was coming down off those drugs and she didn't exactly stay on long enough for him to form a reasonable response.

Citra: "Oh, you're awake now? I'll just hop off then."
Jason: "Huh, wuh? Huh?" *rubs eyes, blinks*

I think it was pretty obvious that Jason didn't give a crap.

Because the drugs he was on certainly would place him in what others consider a rational and stable mind.

Jason was tripping balls. He was having a fight with a giant vodoo avatar and shadow demons only moments before awaking to Citra straddling him. People don't 'snap' out of drugs that powerful with all their facalties.

 

[hazabaza1]

EDIT:

snip

Oh fuck me.
Oh jesus.
People with these opinions actually exist?

Christ.

Help me out here. I feel like I'm trying to debate someone, and they're a total, utter nutter.

Well good luck to you but I've seen some of his posts in other threads, he doesn't seem one to be shifted from his opinion, no matter how bugfuck insane it is.

 

[Darken12]

It's pretty clear that our fundamental ideas on content and when it should be discussed are close to polar opposites and I'm not in the mood for running in circles.

All I'm going to ask is not to accuse me of trying to censor what you're saying. You already know my views on discussing during moments of ignorance and one of the few things that annoy me similarly when discussing media is censorship.

Fine by me.

And you don't need to worry about accusations of censorship so long as you don't tell people to stop expressing their opinions.

 

[kyuzo3567]

All I really have to say is thank god Boudica isn't in the forums anymore or she would be having a field day with this thread...

OT: It's rape, it's wrong, doesn't matter what gender either party is, it's unwanted sexual activity with one person being of unsound mind. I have yet to play the game so this is the first I've heard of it but it does greatly annoy me that this was never mentioned and people flipped out of the Lara Croft thing.

Kind of on topic but did you know that 76% of all dating violence incidents (that aren't reciprocal) the perpetrator is the woman? And yet we don't have any men's shelters in the world (that I know of) for men wanting to escape abusive relationships

 

[Superlative]

EDIT:

snip

Oh fuck me.
Oh jesus.
People with these opinions actually exist?

Christ.

Help me out here. I feel like I'm trying to debate someone, and they're a total, utter nutter.

Well good luck to you but I've seen some of his posts in other threads, he doesn't seem one to be shifted from his opinion, no matter how bugfuck insane it is.

Yeah, this has just turned into people on the internet screaming at each other. It started off as an interesting train of discussion but it devolved into a flame war. luckily, I have hot dogs.

 

[Eggsnham]

DISCLAIMER: I'm not attempting to excuse rape in any form, nor do I think any form of rape is ever inherently excusable.

That said, I feel like a lot of people are overlooking both the context of the scene in FC3, and the fact that men tend to look at sex a lot differently than women.

In the game, you are Jason Brody, a twenty-something college athlete from California who is taken captive along with his friends and family by a group of pirates on a pacific island. You are forced into doing some of the most ridiculous things imaginable just to survive and to ensure the survival of your friends as well.

The only thing that Jason would likely be upset about in regards to Citra "raping" him, is that he wasn't awake while it was happening.

That's assuming that Citra was even having sex with him in the first place. As somebody already noted, there are a bunch of visual clues which suggest that she was just kind of grinding on top of him. That's still pretty sketchy, but it's not rape.

Of course, then there's the fact that Jason casually gets up and gives literally zero fucks (no pun intended) about the fact that Citra was sitting on top of him.

So, is it rape? Possibly, if she was actually having sex with him.

Is it worth arguing incessantly over it? Given the context; no, it isn't.