Ground Zeroes Rape Apologists Baffle Me

[CloudAtlas]

As for that Paz looking young, Japan has done that for years in its rpgs. Girls look and act like they are 12 but in fact are 25 or something. This could just be a style thing or it could be a way to put young girls in sexual situation and not have your game banned. Again, this is Japan, cant judge them using our western ideals.

If a Japanese developer publishes a game in the West I judge it by western standards. But even if that was not permissible, you should know that many people in Japan too consider this lolita/borderline pedophilia stuff as problematic, so I could pass pretty much the same judgement by their standards.

That's not really 'pedophilia' though, is it? She looks (and pretends to be) 16, which is the age of consent in most countries and US States (it's 18 in California, though, where Hollywood is). Pedophilia is under 12, ie, before puberty kicks in and there's any defining sexual characteristics. The term for teenagers is either hebephilia(11-14) or ephebophilia(15-19), which isn't -that- weird, really, since that's when their bodies go through all the changes that get them ready for sex. Or to put it another way, pedophilia is listed as a disorder in the DSM, those other two are not.

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

Also, has anyone considered that all this outrage is exactly what Kojima wanted? I swear I've seen like 3 or 4 threads on just this one topic in the past few days. That's extremely effective free viral marketing.

Maybe. But since his game series is already well-known, I'd hope that he'd rather be a good writer who is able to actually tackle such difficult topics with finesse instead of having to resort to such cheap fake-controversy marketing tactics. But admittedly, I'm not interested in buying this game either way, I'm here for the controversy alone.

Anyway, I'm really not sure if such controversy is really that much of a net benefit in this day and age.

 

[Fsyco]

As for that Paz looking young, Japan has done that for years in its rpgs. Girls look and act like they are 12 but in fact are 25 or something. This could just be a style thing or it could be a way to put young girls in sexual situation and not have your game banned. Again, this is Japan, cant judge them using our western ideals.

If a Japanese developer publishes a game in the West I judge it by western standards. But even if that was not permissible, you should know that many people in Japan too consider this lolita/borderline pedophilia stuff as problematic, so I could pass pretty much the same judgement by their standards.

That's not really 'pedophilia' though, is it? She looks (and pretends to be) 16, which is the age of consent in most countries and US States (it's 18 in California, though, where Hollywood is). Pedophilia is under 12, ie, before puberty kicks in and there's any defining sexual characteristics. The term for teenagers is either hebephilia(11-14) or ephebophilia(15-19), which isn't -that- weird, really, since that's when their bodies go through all the changes that get them ready for sex. Or to put it another way, pedophilia is listed as a disorder in the DSM, those other two are not.

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

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

Also, has anyone considered that all this outrage is exactly what Kojima wanted? I swear I've seen like 3 or 4 threads on just this one topic in the past few days. That's extremely effective free viral marketing.

Maybe. But since his game series is already well-known, I'd hope that he'd rather be a good writer who is able to actually tackle such difficult topics with finesse instead of having to resort to such cheap fake-controversy marketing tactics. But admittedly, I'm not interested in buying this game either way, I'm here for the controversy alone.

Anyway, I'm really not sure if such controversy is really that much of a net benefit in this day and age.

Firstly, popularity does in no way indicate quality. 'Popular' usually means something appeals to some kind of primal, lowest-common-denominator that lots of people get behind. Flappy Bird, Lil Wayne, and Twilight were all popular.
Secondly, I think he's handled it better than people give him credit for (though not that he necessarily did it 'well'). Given the situation the characters are in, the crap that happens to them and the way they react are understandable. Trauma makes people act really freaking weird. He could have handled it better, but it's not like we're made to watch the entire thing in lovingly rendered detail. I found it to be pretty boring, honestly.
Third, of course he's going to have some kind of shock value. People talk about shock value. It both generates hype about the work and provokes discussion about the artist. Everybody is going to line up to see the super edgy rape scene that everyone else is talking about, and people will be talking about Kojima left and right(the way we are now). That and Konami is also probably banking on sales of MGS5 to keep them afloat, so they certainly would welcome any help to boost sales they can get.

 

[rbstewart7263]

I feel like the brutality inflicted on paz is whats going to push snake and his team toward the dark side so to speak. So it is indeed plot relevant. saying otherwise ignores the themes,story and tones that have been presented thus far. As far as the "finesse" of it is it not better to tackle such a thing head on rather than to dance about? I feel like django unchained did a better job of showing the brutality of slavery more than roots. I honestly think this is just a different strokes kind of thing. I highly doubt this something where everyone whose ever been raped ever is gonna unifiedly agree that its bad. Its really a matter of taste and kojimas tastes doesnt align with yours(or disagree with everyone whose ever been raped. Yes people love to imply such an argument as valid)

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I think what gets me about the offending scene is just how left-field it is for Kojima. It just feels horrendously out of character, like he's doing it as a desperate, insecure plea for attention. It just comes off as shallow and weird at best and used for tasteless shock value at worst.

 

[Nieroshai]

So then you'd know that something like the interrogation from Ground Zeroes isn't exactly breaking new ground what with Eva being Volgin's punching bag/fuck toy in MGS3?

Where was all the hullabaloo about that?

I see it's the there-was-always-sexism-in-MGS defense. Guess what? People grow up. Their outlook changes.

For instance, I found the Beauty & the Beast units ridiculous in MGS4. Here are 4 units with outrageously tragic back stories - now take some time off and sexualize them by having some sexy photo shoot, undermining whatever thematic weight you managed to garner previously.

I would rather not have such a raging horny guy who sexualizes almost all his female characters (zip up, Sniper Wolf) trying to depict sexual violence.

Now THIS is what we call an easter egg: in order to get those scenes, you have to meet some pretty specific qualifications for the scene, then you have a PHOTO SHOOT, and before you continue the butthurt, the nature of the easter egg is that these four actresses were supermodels. This shoot is you taking photos of digitized models, not fapping over PTSD-suffering soldiers.

 

[Nieroshai]

In Africa young boys are forced to rape and/or kill their family members to break them mentally so they become a child soldier. Rape, murder and other sick things become a way of life. Look up a group called the Westside Boys - some the sick stuff they forced people to do like killing pregnant woman and taken bets on the baby being male or female. I think Kojima takes alot of these types of stories and uses them to make his games. Its just that he is a shit writer that doesnt have the talent to deal with these subjects in the right way.

As for that Paz looking young, Japan has done that for years in its rpgs. Girls look and act like they are 12 but in fact are 25 or something. This could just be a style thing or it could be a way to put young girls in sexual situation and not have your game banned. Again, this is Japan, cant judge them using our western ideals.

To spring off of--and congratulate you for mentioning--the child soldier angle, it is a common MGS trope, and often portrayed (somewhat) realistically. Gray Fox, Raiden, Eva, and even--most relevantly--Chico, were all child soldiers; Eva more in a Chinese Hitler-Youth kind of way. The point with the, from what I remember, "Implied" rape, is that the villain wanted to capitalize on both Chico's anger at Paz for betraying the Team, and his secret crush on her, to break Cipher's little pet and learn his identity through interrogation. This makes sense in the plot as a whole, and sets Chico up for whatever's gonna happen to him during Snake's coma.

 

[Nieroshai]

SNIP

Rape is not some sacred ground which can't be tread upon by the media.

Yeah, but it would be nice if that ground was tread upon well. Nobody getting into a frenzy over the mere fact that rape is portrayed in a video game, they're getting upset that it was handled haphazardly.

Complaining about shitty writing is nothing new on these boards. But now that a real life issue is being discussed (instead of the value of Starchildren and the ages of dragons) suddenly it's a "nontroversy" because of those evil SJW's, right guys? Get your head out of your ass, pull your browser out of 4Chan and quit behaving like one of those angry hack Youtubers (Amazing Atheist or InternetAristocrat).

I'm all for seeing rape portrayed in a game, as I think it makes for excellent drama. But let's try a writer that isn't known for some of the wonkiest writing imaginable. Let's try someone with a little more tact.

See below as I don't wanna write it twice.

In Africa young boys are forced to rape and/or kill their family members to break them mentally so they become a child soldier. Rape, murder and other sick things become a way of life. Look up a group called the Westside Boys - some the sick stuff they forced people to do like killing pregnant woman and taken bets on the baby being male or female. I think Kojima takes alot of these types of stories and uses them to make his games. Its just that he is a shit writer that doesnt have the talent to deal with these subjects in the right way.

As for that Paz looking young, Japan has done that for years in its rpgs. Girls look and act like they are 12 but in fact are 25 or something. This could just be a style thing or it could be a way to put young girls in sexual situation and not have your game banned. Again, this is Japan, cant judge them using our western ideals.

To spring off of--and congratulate you for mentioning--the child soldier angle, it is a common MGS trope, and often portrayed (somewhat) realistically. Gray Fox, Raiden, Eva, and even--most relevantly--Chico, were all child soldiers; Eva more in a Chinese Hitler-Youth kind of way. The point with the, from what I remember, "Implied" rape, is that the villain wanted to capitalize on both Chico's anger at Paz for betraying the Team, and his secret crush on her, to break Cipher's little pet and learn his identity through interrogation. This makes sense in the plot as a whole, and sets Chico up for whatever's gonna happen to him during Snake's coma.

EDIT: What the hell happened to the coding on this page?

 

[shrekfan246]

But now that a real life issue is being discussed (instead of the value of Starchildren and the ages of dragons) suddenly it's a "nontroversy" because of those evil SJW's, right guys?

I said nothing about SJWs, but thanks for trying to push your own agenda on me.

No, I think it's a nontroversy because the gaming community has, at this point, a long history of throwing the most minor things out of proportion in the most grandiose of ways. Because it's been three years and people still can't get over the fact that Greg Tito gave Dragon Age II a 5/5 review. Because it's been two years and people still get all pissy and whiny about Mass Effect 3. Because it's been lord knows how many years and people still incite flame wars over the fact that some other people on the internet like a television show about cartoon ponies. Because people get irrationally angry about Anita Sarkeesian when she was literally not known by any more than a thousand or so people before websites like our own started latching on to her and growing more and more paranoid despite the fact that she has absolutely no weight within the gaming industry.

My opinion on this has absolutely nothing to do with social justice in any way. I'm simply sick and tired of seeing people fly off the handle about the most inconsequential things.
EDIT: And yes, I do believe that getting angry over rape in a video game is a pretty inconsequential thing, in the grand scheme of the world. It may not have been handled subtly in Ground Zeroes, but it was far more restrained than it could have been and the way people are reacting to it anyway is absolutely insane to me.

Get your head out of your ass, pull your browser out of 4Chan and quit behaving like one of those angry hack Youtubers (Amazing Atheist or InternetAristocrat).

Thanks for that, though. Reported.

EDIT: And as it happens, I don't visit 4Chan, don't watch "Amazing Atheist", and have never even heard of "InternetAristocrat".

 

[gargantual]

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

It could be worse. The Quiet outfit controversy could be reignited with the release of Phantom Pain. And with the appearance of child soldiers...

Maybe. Although Kojima has said that there is a reason for Quiet's outfit and that the detractors will feel bad about themselves once they learn what that reason is.

Whether that's true or not remains to be seen, but even in this case, it's mostly people who haven't even played the game complaining about the content. So eh.

*Rubs hands together*

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

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

Or, the people criticizing Quiet will say "that still makes no fucking sense" or "That explanation doesn't justify anything". Kojima has said crap like that in the past and it has never caused all of his critics to just shut up, many have seen his explanations, and still said "that's fucking stupid and doesn't justify anything".

I can guarantee you that no explanation for Quiet's clothing is going to completely stifle criticism, especially the meta criticism surrounding rumors like Kojima designing her outfit to make her more attractive to cosplay or sell figurines of. Because that criticism hinges on the metanarrative, so no ingame justification can ever work, because it will always be poisoned by the perception of that explanation still just being an excuse to dress up a female sniper in a bikini.

So yeah, don't save that little dance too long, because I don't think you're going to get the chance to use it very much.

Meh. That's just denial. If a person's slightly wrong they wouldn't just volunteer it. Poker faces remember, but I've got some friends that do say, if Kojima gives context like Eva, then they'll eat their words, I told them you're on. It'll be more for myself anyways.

The game industry may need more titles in the future that more systemize adult mundanity and demonstrate social responsibility, but to harp on Hideo Kojima for not being THE ONE to contribute to the paradigm shift makes me roll my eyes.

This 'art by committee' voice 'if you're not with us, you're against us or against social progress' is nauseating. If it's not ok for one gamer, they gotta impose the and its not OK for anyone who doesn't mind it either. I'm tell these guys. "I know it's controversial, I've known it for over 14 years now. enough with the 'Captain Obvious' moments." right?

then I add " look 'crusaders'. Debauchery in popular entertainment hasn't changed since the 70's. The only thing that's going to change is you. The only reason your Kojima's and Tarantino's ease up on some content is because of globalization. Outside of that, if a director's cut exists. People will still demand any suggested 'filth' in all its full context and fictional glory,. If it's in story context and there's a market for it then its as valid as any other entertainment."

Calling any dissent "denial" seems like a case of denial from your end, there very well will be people who will see Kojima's explanation and genuinely not see the justification as adequate, just as there are those that still effectively argue against similar statements in Kojima's past games.

Look, I like the Metal Gear series, but Kojima is no Tarantino, he tries to be edgy and deep, and sometimes he succeeds, but he often fails miserably as well. The "art by committee" criticism is a copout defense of any sort of criticism against how a movie or work may effectively use a scene or controversial subject. It's a false equivalency that tries to paint all criticism of tone, use, and effectiveness of a controversial subject, to attempts to censor or silence a subject. It is perfectly possible to criticize the use of Rape or the character of Quiet in Metal Gear without trying to change or influence the work as a whole, I have yet to see anyone in this thread calling for a boycott, or demanding that Kojima is obligated or required to change the content or scene within the game. Your appeal to artistic freedom is wholly unwarranted in this scenario, and trying to paint all critique and conversation as an attempt at imposition is intellectually dishonest from your end.

Your final paragraph is a nice sentiment, but wholly pointless, some people finding things attractive and entertaining no matter the context or controversy is perfectly fine, it is not, however, an effective defense against the criticism of the piece to begin with. Just because a segment of the audience will always demand more, does not protect the work from others who may find fault with that work.

In the end, your friends may have found Eva's context satisfactory, others still found that context to be a contrived or typically unsatisfactory explanation, the same thing happened with the BB corps in MGS 4, and in that case, I can tell you that the criticism against them did not continue just out of denial, you cannot justify a metanarrative critique with a simple in-universe only explanation, and then shrug off continued discussion as merely "denial".

Your original post lacked the context of you referring to your friends, in which case, feel free to gloat a little if they come back to you and say they were wrong, just don't expect whatever justification Kojima comes up with to satisfy everyone on the internet, you'll find that there will be those that will likely take apart that justification and see it as unsatisfactory, asinine, half-assed, or pandering, and it won't be denial that drives those beliefs.

Ummm..Okkaaay.

Interesting how you seem to be framing what was mainly light discussion and wagers over the story context for Quiet as me being some fish out of water in a debate over sex in MGS. I can tell you in confidence this was hardly the case. See knee jerks like this take the fun out of online discussion. You could've asked for more clarification from the start and I'd be just as happy to give it, but I'll do this one out of the gratitude of my heart eh?

I'm not saying you or any one else who is disturbed by kojima's games don't have the right to voice your distaste if that's what you're suggesting. I'm just wondering where the implied majority sentiment of kojima shouldn't be allowed near rape with a ten foot pole, or its 2014 and he should know better' is really coming from, when its an open marketplace, people are going to make what they want with only as much regard to our feelings as they want to make some money, and we're well aware his established schtick is juxtaposing extreme campiness against semi-serious backdrop for over two decades, some people in here are treating it like the first time people saw Miley at the VMA's. The tone and context of such a reaction considering his work makes little sense, considering his campiness is self-aware and in cases symbolic rather than solely caveman-fap material. That's why I say the online disgust just appears odd to me. Especially when its um fiction with little if any dangerous real world ramifications.

As far as Eva and Quiet, my friends reserved judgement because the Phantom Pain isn't out yet, and it was obvious Eva was setup as a deliberate anti bond girl, and they got it. Its that simple. I say 'denial' because arguing over context in geek media is a game in and of itself, and that's pretty much what I witnessed. So Sorry no cause for concern 'trivialization of sex objectification' going on here if thats what you were sniffing for.

and telling from these 'seemingly' contentious five paragraphs you hit me with. Don't worry I probably might not feel any sudden excitable inclinations to share much post-release discussion with ya'. You can keep that shame o'meter proper holstered and utilize it with pure bliss on other mentally screwed gamers who read too much into video game fiction when the Phantom Pain is out.

I used Kojima and Tarantino in the context of directors conceding or displaying concern about censorship of their works in other markets when they feel the end result wouldn't be a complete story without the missing bits. The same way Kojima worried about how western market would handle subject matter, Tarantino was initially resistant to editing n-words in Django till the eastern market version was coming out and he finally relented, and regardless of your opinion on whose better at what. Both are pretty kitschy storytellers, and 'remix' directors that often juxtapose tone, setting, and character as artistic license far more than their contemporaries to varying positive and negative reception.

Criticism of the 'art by commitee' sentiment is valid because while some controversy is obvious developers can't always gauge the FULL extent of what effect contentious media will have on all its consumers, or what tabooes in the gaming community are suddenly too hot to have as subject matter in a game when the shit's been in development for years prior.

What offends people can change and change often based on metrics a creator can't always prepare for, so they decide they have to break some eggs to make their omelet, then standards and practices comes in for edits Its worked this way for years. Not everyone gets this stuff made by starting out with being 'safe' in mind, and if its anyone whose handled rape very poorly in what it told the player through its own shit mechanics its Ride to Hell Retribution or should I say the 'Lawrence Taylor' simulator. If it bugs you, do what the nice little CoDBlops MP kids do, write Kojima a letter, and call it a day.

Just my thoughts. Peace.

 

[EternallyBored]

Snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[P912]

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

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

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

 

[CloudAtlas]

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

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

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

 

[Blow_Pop]

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

Wat.


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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[gargantual]

Snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fsyco]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CloudAtlas]

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

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

 

[A-D.]

Are we discussing legal age of consent here?

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

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

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

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

 

[A-D.]

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Fsyco]

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

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

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

 

[Fsyco]

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

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