Jimquisition: Rape vs. Murder

[Something Amyss]

The guy I was quoting said it comes from Christianity/Judaism. I was correcting him.

You were being needlessly pedantic, and since the source was Judaism and not Christianity in that instance, you weren't even being properly pedantic.

The point still remains that when people say "thou shalt not kill," it is almost certainly a reference to the Hebrew/Christian faith.

Please, practice pedantry properly.

 

[Treblaine]

You still haven't explained how my "mis-statement" caused anything. Before I even said that Aardvarkman had jumped in with the derailing "there is a grey area between statutory rape and rape", bringing in the issue of child-sex. Which is NOT what this discussion needs AT ALL and an entirely semantic ambiguity anyway!

Why do you refer to it as "child-sex" rather than child rape?

Semantics are rather important here, especially given that Jim offers no definition of "rape" in the video. The concept of rape is legally and culturally varied. It's pretty important to specify those terms. You seem to consider rape as only a violent act, and you earlier mentioned that in this discussion it was only considered to be the rape of adults.

My question is why you only consider rape in such narrow terms, when the reality is that it's a lot more complex. Rape isn't just people being held at knife-point and being brutalised.

Now its "people raping people" is another contrived attempt at getting child rape included (people is both adults and children) in the discussion. No. Stop it. Just please stop this. Drop this derailing tangent of trying to include the depiction of child rape in games, You have been TOLD it is a non-issue as it is totally illegal so you can't even go there.

Why would the definition of rape exclude the rape of children? You say it's a non-issue because it's illegal - but the rape of adults is also illegal. You're really not making any sense here.

"child sex" because a 17 year old girl is technically a child yet is she has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend it's a bit much to call it rape though under law it is defined as "statutory rape". Also, don't EVER think that the term "sex" automatically means consent, or that rape isn't a type of sex.

It is a FALLACY to argue from semantics. Your link between "rape" and "statutory rape" is entirely based on the semantics of the word "rape" not how 17 year old and 18 year old having sex is equivalent to - for example - a kind of rape as depicted in the rape scene in Deliverance.

Why should Jim have to give a definition of "rape"? IF you don't know what rape is then you should not be watching a video about rape. There is no ambiguity WITHOUT the "statutory-" prefix.

"you earlier mentioned that in this discussion it was only considered to be the rape of adults."

Lying will get you NOWHERE. I never said that. I explained that. I have REPEATEDLY AND EXPLICITLY stated that I never held that consideration.

"Rape isn't just people being held at knife-point and being brutalised."

I did make clear the threats may not be direct or immediate, but still the threat of force, anything that defies their ability to consent. Such as an interrogator demanding sex or else be sent out to a firing squad or be tortured later. And of course being unconscious or paralysed. Either way, I made clear that is follows the unambiguous definition of sex without or against their consent.

"Why would the definition of rape exclude the rape of children? You say it's a non-issue because it's illegal - but the rape of adults is also illegal."

Please, stop fucking me around, you know full well I meant rape involving children SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED here, not that the 'definition' of rape cannot include children as victims. You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility.

 

[Lilani]

I'm sorry... but it's completely hypocritical to demonize rape over death. I will never view rape as being more evil than death. In death, there IS nothing else, it's the ultimate end, the cardinal sin. I figured the point that would be made with this video is that they're both evil, shut your mouths, they're just fantasy. What I ended up with was an 8 minute rant of why it's better to kill someone than to rape.

Jim's point was not just that rape is inherently "worse" than murder (which, yes, is potentially debatable, though we aren't going to get into that). The thing about portraying murder is a murder victim is not going to play a game and be given violent flashbacks. But a rape victim will. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9766-The-R-Word] The only people who might be emotionally affected by the murders in games are people who have witnessed brutal murders, but as far as I know that is a significantly lower number than the number of rape victims out there.

As explained in that article I linked there, it isn't just about a horrible thing being shown. It's about the people who have suffered that trauma being reminded of that horrible event, and most often in video games that reminder was totally unnecessary. The problem with rape and murder isn't which is more awful. The problem is taking thousands of people's very personal traumas and trivializing and weaponizing them for the sake of shock and awe, and for asinine expressions. It's no less insensitive than setting off firecrackers under the seat of a soldier who's just come back from the front lines. And the biggest problem with it is that so many think that because you can't know when a victim is around, that makes it okay. The way I see it, that's even more of a reason to be very careful how games use rape, and how we talk about it in games.

Until that article, I was convinced there was a right way the new Tomb Raider game could approach the attempted rape of Lara Croft. But now, after reading that person's account and re-reading the producer's apparent reason for it, I'm not so sure anymore. Of course we'll have to wait for the game to be sure, but at this point things are not looking good.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

"child sex" because a 17 year old girl is technically a child yet is she has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend it's a bit much to call it rape though under law it is defined as "statutory rape".

I wasn't talking about statutory rape, I was talking about the depiction of very young girls being raped, as is the case with these "rape games".

Also, don't EVER think that the term "sex" automatically means consent, or that rape isn't a type of sex.

I never said that sex automatically meant consent. I also never said that rape couldn't involve sex.

It is a FALLACY to argue from semantics.

No it isn't. Semantics are integral to intelligent discussions. What's the problem with your caps-lock key?

Why should Jim have to give a definition of "rape"? IF you don't know what rape is then you should not be watching a video about rape. There is no ambiguity WITHOUT the "statutory-" prefix.

There's plenty of ambiguity abut rape, even without statutory codes. That's why these discussions are so difficult.

Lying will get you NOWHERE. I never said that. I explained that. I have REPEATEDLY AND EXPLICITLY stated that I never held that consideration.

Actually, you did. You said that Jim was only talking about rape between adults. Yet Jim never actually says that in the video. So I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Please, stop fucking me around, you know full well I meant rape involving children SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED here, not that the 'definition' of rape cannot include children as victims. You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility.

No, I do not know "full well" that is what you meant. Why is it that rape involving children should not be discussed here? You explicitly claimed that Jim was only talking about adult rape. Are you Jim's spokesperson?

I also did not know that the depiction of child rape is illegal - would you care to cite the law that states that this is so?

 

[Treblaine]

[. . .] it's rather strange that you define rape as "forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse" - there's nothing about rape that requires the victim to "engage in sexual intercourse" - it's physical violence that is forced upon them - not something that requires engagement in anything sexual.

Actually, yes, rape is all about sexual intercourse. Rape is the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. Forced sex is the tool by which the rapist asserts their dominance, which allows them to get off on imposing their will upon the victim. By definition, if there's no sex involved, it's not rape. [https://www.google.ca/search?q=definition+of+rape]

his problem is in the "engage in" part, not the sexual intercourse.

See, I don't think that's the case. Because he specifically said "it's physical violence that is forced upon them - not something that requires engagement in anything sexual." If you were correct, then the point he would have argued would have been force vs "engage in", but instead he argued sex vs. not sex.

Actually, the "engage in" bit is key to my argument. The point being that rape is a non-consensual activity, one that the victim has no choice in. They don't "engage in" sexual activity, it is forced upon them.

This brings up a higher-order problem - what is "sexual" and why is "sexual violence" different than other forms of violence? Does sex mean it involves genitals? What about breasts? People are sexually aroused by all manner of things. Some people have fetishes about shoes. Does that mean that shoes belong in a special category so they should be protected from shoe rapists?

The whole foundation of this discussion/argument lies on shaky ground when sexuality is mentioned. There are no clear definitions of sex. Our laws and our language surrounding sex are completely inadequate. One needs only to look at pornography to see that almost anything can be considered as a sexual object or subject.

Therefore, rape is very complicated. Many legal definitions of rape include acts that are considered consensual sex by the participants. Similarly, there are legal definitions of rape that exclude forced sexual violation.

In my opinion, "rape" is a type of physical assault. The fact that it's linked to "sex" is a historical artefact, because it's almost impossible to define sex. In previous historical eras, sex was much more narrowly defined. But today, sexual activity is much more widely acknowledged to encompass a huge variety of activities. For examples, in 2012, most people think that it's possible for two women to have sexual intercourse. In earlier times, that would not be considered sex because it didn't involve a penis.

Your argument is wrong from the very first line. The "engage" came from this:

"talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse."

So right from the VERY START there is absolutely no ambiguity of consent with the "force" term, with absolutely no choice at all. This is what I am talking about, you ignore EVERYTHING and focus on one word out of context and without any meaning. So transparently disingenuous.

Rape is different from other forms of violence due to the different and severe emotions from rape one that are different from other forms of assault. You have been told now.

Don't play the dunce on sexuality, it's quite clear that groping breasts and buttocks is sexual from the sexual arousal of the groper and from how the abused individual reacts to this. And no, you can't rape someone's shoe, it doesn't have ANY will or feelings of its own. The issue is not that some guy finds a shoe sexy and tries to fuck it, it is if he finds a woman arousing and forces himself on HER - a person - against her will. The issue is the victim's will.

"Therefore, rape is very complicated."

No. It is not. It's very simple: if they don't consent to sex then it is rape. Read case law on consent which is not that complicated.

"it's almost impossible to define sex."

Maximum possible physical contact seeking to elicit (but not necessarily achieving) sexual pleasure including orgasm in one or both parties. There.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The only people who might be emotionally affected by the murders in games are people who have witnessed brutal murders, but as far as I know that is a significantly lower number than the number of rape victims out there.

That's a very poor assumption. Given the number of people living today who have survived wars, I would not be surprised if they outnumbered living rape victims.

The problem is taking thousands of people's very personal traumas and trivializing and weaponizing them for the sake of shock and awe, and for asinine expressions.

Millions of people remain traumatised by World Wars 1 and 2. Plenty of people among my family and friends lost loved ones in those wars. Does that mean games depicting those wars are "asinine expressions" that take advantage of people's personal traumas?

 

[Treblaine]

"child sex" because a 17 year old girl is technically a child yet is she has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend it's a bit much to call it rape though under law it is defined as "statutory rape".

I wasn't talking about statutory rape, I was talking about the depiction of very young girls being raped, as is the case with these "rape games".

Also, don't EVER think that the term "sex" automatically means consent, or that rape isn't a type of sex.

I never said that sex automatically meant consent. I also never said that rape couldn't involve sex.

It is a FALLACY to argue from semantics.

No it isn't. Semantics are integral to intelligent discussions. What's the problem with your caps-lock key?

Why should Jim have to give a definition of "rape"? IF you don't know what rape is then you should not be watching a video about rape. There is no ambiguity WITHOUT the "statutory-" prefix.

There's plenty of ambiguity abut rape, even without statutory codes. That's why these discussions are so difficult.

Lying will get you NOWHERE. I never said that. I explained that. I have REPEATEDLY AND EXPLICITLY stated that I never held that consideration.

Actually, you did. You said that Jim was only talking about rape between adults. Yet Jim never actually says that in the video. So I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Please, stop fucking me around, you know full well I meant rape involving children SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED here, not that the 'definition' of rape cannot include children as victims. You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility.

No, I do not know "full well" that is what you meant. Why is it that rape involving children should not be discussed here? You explicitly claimed that Jim was only talking about adult rape. Are you Jim's spokesperson?

I also did not know that the depiction of child rape is illegal - would you care to cite the law that states that this is so?

Read any legal document you'll see the use of block capitals where they REALLY WANT YOU TO PAY ATTENTION. You clearly do not pay attention when you read what I have written.

Semantics are trivial. It's playing word games and doesn't get to the actual meaningful substance. Like the semantic link between "statutory rape" and "rape".

There is no ambiguity about rape. This is getting totally off topic.

"Actually, you did."

Where. You have made this allegation before and I have shot it down, and here you are making it again.

"You said that Jim was only talking about rape between adults."

And he WAS. He never mentioned any paedophilia nor the aspect of under-age victims. He only talks about scenarios with adults. I am not his spokesman... I merely watch the same video you did.

"Why is it that rape involving children should not be discussed here?"

You have got to be shitting me. When the very body of what you quote me from says "You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility." And we are talking about the DEPICTION of rape in video games. If you can't depict it, then I'm not going to discuss it. My opinion on this is final: no child porn.

You ask me to provide a source that child porn being illegal?

Hmm... no. Find it yourself.

 

[Lilani]

The only people who might be emotionally affected by the murders in games are people who have witnessed brutal murders, but as far as I know that is a significantly lower number than the number of rape victims out there.

That's a very poor assumption. Given the number of people living today who have survived wars, I would not be surprised if they outnumbered living rape victims.

The problem is taking thousands of people's very personal traumas and trivializing and weaponizing them for the sake of shock and awe, and for asinine expressions.

Millions of people remain traumatised by World Wars 1 and 2. Plenty of people among my family and friends lost loved ones in those wars. Does that mean games depicting those wars are "asinine expressions" that take advantage of people's personal traumas?

I think to a degree, yes it is monopolizing on other people's traumas. And in many cases trivializing. But, there are reasons to have wars and violence as far as narrative. It isn't just about people killing people, it's about the larger stories and dramas at play. There are lots of stories to tell and emotions and moral situations to explore. With rape, there aren't really any other emotions you can draw on. There's the insane level of evil and disregard for humanity of the rapist, and there's the utter torment of the victim. There isn't anything dramatic or subversive there. It isn't a story, it's a travesty.

It is possible to pay honor to those who participated in war with movies and games that have war. You can't really pay honor to those who were raped by making movies and games that include rape. They are similar in the areas of trauma to be sure, but war is so much more complicated. Rape is horribly simple.

 

[Samsont]

-Edit: Nevermind -

 

[Treblaine]

Jim's point was not just that rape is inherently "worse" than murder (which, yes, is potentially debatable, though we aren't going to get into that). The thing about portraying murder is a murder victim is not going to play a game and be given violent flashbacks. But a rape victim will. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9766-The-R-Word] The only people who might be emotionally affected by the murders in games are people who have witnessed brutal murders, but as far as I know that is a significantly lower number than the number of rape victims out there.

As explained in that article I linked there, it isn't just about a horrible thing being shown. It's about the people who have suffered that trauma being reminded of that horrible event, and most often in video games that reminder was totally unnecessary. The problem with rape and murder isn't which is more awful. The problem is taking thousands of people's very personal traumas and trivializing and weaponizing them for the sake of shock and awe, and for asinine expressions. It's no less insensitive than setting off firecrackers under the seat of a soldier who's just come back from the front lines. And the biggest problem with it is that so many think that because you can't know when a victim is around, that makes it okay. The way I see it, that's even more of a reason to be very careful how games use rape, and how we talk about it in games.

Until that article, I was convinced there was a right way the new Tomb Raider game could approach the attempted rape of Lara Croft. But now, after reading that person's account and re-reading the producer's apparent reason for it, I'm not so sure anymore. Of course we'll have to wait for the game to be sure, but at this point things are not looking good.

"It's no less insensitive than setting off firecrackers under the seat of a soldier who's just come back from the front lines."

Or, I don't know, making a WAR GAME. Or a War movie, or a book about war. That they might go see.

FYI, you know the things that can set off a "flashback" for traumatised veterans is something like a backfiring car or dropping something heavy that makes a loud bang, they'll dive to the ground absolutely sure in their mind an IED has just gone off or a sniper just took a shot at them and then be stuck in a fit of terror unable to come back down. Or they might not. It's totally unpredictable. Basically the response comes from how the memories are so heavily loaded that when they are recalled you can't stop, all the bad memories come flooding back to the point where it bleeds into your perception of reality. You get paranoia, the feeling you are being hunted even though you logically know you aren't.

Someone who has been raped, you can set off a trigger simply by walking behind them through a door, anything that reminds them of the attack no matter how innocent on your part can be a personal trigger. You cannot be that careful, you don't know their personal trauma that may be rape, abandonment, war trauma, terrorist attack or whatever. But even for more broader triggers, the problem is this doesn't just apply to games, it applies to book, films, TV series all cannot have any references to rape because to spite being warned, people sensitive to such things might be exposed to a trigger. And it would not just be rape it would be all extreme violence. Anything that reminds someone of something bad couldn't be depicted. This is a censorship nightmare.

 

[Lilani]

Jim's point was not just that rape is inherently "worse" than murder (which, yes, is potentially debatable, though we aren't going to get into that). The thing about portraying murder is a murder victim is not going to play a game and be given violent flashbacks. But a rape victim will. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9766-The-R-Word] The only people who might be emotionally affected by the murders in games are people who have witnessed brutal murders, but as far as I know that is a significantly lower number than the number of rape victims out there.

As explained in that article I linked there, it isn't just about a horrible thing being shown. It's about the people who have suffered that trauma being reminded of that horrible event, and most often in video games that reminder was totally unnecessary. The problem with rape and murder isn't which is more awful. The problem is taking thousands of people's very personal traumas and trivializing and weaponizing them for the sake of shock and awe, and for asinine expressions. It's no less insensitive than setting off firecrackers under the seat of a soldier who's just come back from the front lines. And the biggest problem with it is that so many think that because you can't know when a victim is around, that makes it okay. The way I see it, that's even more of a reason to be very careful how games use rape, and how we talk about it in games.

Until that article, I was convinced there was a right way the new Tomb Raider game could approach the attempted rape of Lara Croft. But now, after reading that person's account and re-reading the producer's apparent reason for it, I'm not so sure anymore. Of course we'll have to wait for the game to be sure, but at this point things are not looking good.

"It's no less insensitive than setting off firecrackers under the seat of a soldier who's just come back from the front lines."

Or, I don't know, making a WAR GAME. Or a War movie, or a book about war. That they might go see.

FYI, you know the things that can set off a "flashback" for traumatised veterans is something like a backfiring car or dropping something heavy that makes a loud bang, they'll dive to the ground absolutely sure in their mind an IED has just gone off or a sniper just took a shot at them and then be stuck in a fit of terror unable to come back down. Or they might not. It's totally unpredictable. Basically the response comes from how the memories are so heavily loaded that when they are recalled you can't stop, all the bad memories come flooding back to the point where it bleeds into your perception of reality. You get paranoia, the feeling you are being hunted even though you logically know you aren't.

Someone who has been raped, you can set off a trigger simply by walking behind them through a door, anything that reminds them of the attack no matter how innocent on your part can be a personal trigger. You cannot be that careful, you don't know their personal trauma that may be rape, abandonment, war trauma, terrorist attack or whatever. But even for more broader triggers, the problem is this doesn't just apply to games, it applies to book, films, TV series all cannot have any references to rape because to spite being warned, people sensitive to such things might be exposed to a trigger. And it would not just be rape it would be all extreme violence. Anything that reminds someone of something bad couldn't be depicted. This is a censorship nightmare.

I know all of that. I worked at Disney World, where there are fireworks every night. One of my co-workers told me a story about how one night when the fireworks started, she saw a man dive under a bench, and his family couldn't get him out until they were over. He had recently come back from overseas, and the sound of the fireworks triggered him to mentally go back there.

I'm not saying we should totally avoid it, nor did I say anything about broad triggers. I was specifically referring to using rape as a cheap plot device, or as mentioned in that R word article the way people casually talk about rape and being raped while playing games. Yes, it is impossible to avoid triggering people sometimes. And I'm pretty sure even they don't expect us to get it right all the time. The writer of that R word article didn't blame Frank Miller for his experience watching Sin City. But there are situations which are totally avoidable, and I think it's worth being more careful when we can.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I agree with Jim. Rape is very much different from murder, in that it is basically an unnecessary act. Murder can be justified in violent or perilous situations, robbery can be justified by desperation, but rape requires a certain level of dickishness to perpetrate. Rape is an act that's committed for no reason other than being an asshole. It's little wonder that having a villain or scumbag character be a rapist is literary shorthand for "this guy is irredeemably evil".

 

[Treblaine]

With rape, there aren't really any other emotions you can draw on. There's the insane level of evil and disregard for humanity of the rapist, and there's the utter torment of the victim. There isn't anything dramatic or subversive there. It isn't a story, it's a travesty.

It is possible to pay honor to those who participated in war with movies and games that have war. You can't really pay honor to those who were raped by making movies and games that include rape. They are similar in the areas of trauma to be sure, but war is so much more complicated. Rape is horribly simple.

Deliverance, Pulp Fiction, American History X, Girl with Dragon Tatoo, Boys Don't Cry. All have rape as a central and pivotal plot element in very compelling stories. You can't just cut the rape aspect out. These aren't "simple". And there is no easy way to honour soldiers in war, making a fun game out of it isn't the most effective ways.

 

[carpathic]

You know, I'd like to live in a world where stuff like Rape does not happen. I try not to read books that have it, I generally avoid any movie that might contain it and I hope it doesn't happen to anyone I know.

I am not sure what else to do about it, but I agree with Jim..."don't rape anyone, because apparently some people need reminders of this"...for some reason

Just trying to send the good thoughts out into the aether really.

 

[Lilani]

With rape, there aren't really any other emotions you can draw on. There's the insane level of evil and disregard for humanity of the rapist, and there's the utter torment of the victim. There isn't anything dramatic or subversive there. It isn't a story, it's a travesty.

It is possible to pay honor to those who participated in war with movies and games that have war. You can't really pay honor to those who were raped by making movies and games that include rape. They are similar in the areas of trauma to be sure, but war is so much more complicated. Rape is horribly simple.

Deliverance, Pulp Fiction, American History X, Girl with Dragon Tatoo, Boys Don't Cry. All have rape as a central and pivotal plot element in very compelling stories. You can't just cut the rape aspect out. These aren't "simple". And there is no easy way to honour soldiers in war, making a fun game out of it isn't the most effective ways.

Perhaps I was wrong about rape in film. But if even war is difficult to honor in games (as I said, it's possible), when why is rape any less sensitive?

 

[mike1921]

"I'm saying the distinction is as meaningless"

The distinction is one that YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP of the child aspect. Now its "people raping people" is another contrived attempt at getting child rape included (people is both adults and children) in the discussion. No. Stop it. Just please stop this. Drop this derailing tangent of trying to include the depiction of child rape in games, You have been TOLD it is a non-issue as it is totally illegal so you can't even go there.

This thread is tricky enough and you are going there, THERE of all places. Have you NO TACT AT ALL!!?!?

Yes, I repeatedly brought it up because you've been repeatedly chopping it off for no good reason. Child rape should be included, there's no reason to remove it. I am well aware I'm getting child rape included. Also, not everyone lives in the same country as you, and whether something is illegal does not bar it from the discussions of "should it be allowed?" and "is it right?" and "is it worse than murder?". I like how apparently if I'm "TOLD" something that means I'm supposed to agree with it by the way. In that case, I am telling you, I am right.

There's no reason to discuss it, but there's no reason to pull it out either, and I will not stop it. This is not a matter of tact, rape includes child rape, the video is about rape versus murder, and doesn't really specify who is being raped by age group, so child rape is included.

 

[xshadowscreamx]

such an interesting discussion, im tempted to read all comments.

 

[DiMono]

You know, between Aardvaarkman trying to pretend that assault and rape are the same thing and that sex is undefinable, SaneAmongInsane ignoring the difference in the impacts of rape and murder to the player entirely, and mike1921 trying to steer the conversation in a direction it really has no business going to, I don't know whether to be surprised or offended by how rapidly the conversation has degenerated. There is so much willful ignorance and pedantic nitpicking going on in here that it's a wonder anything constructive is being discussed at all. This community is better than that.

Rape is forced sex. You cannot have rape without sexual contact. The point for the rapist is to assert dominance, but the tool is very clearly sex, the short definition of which is penetration, one way or the other. If you try to do that and fail, it's attempted rape. If you grab a handful of something but don't penetrate, it's sexual assault. If you attack someone with no intent at sexual contact at all, it's assault. The lines here are not blurry.

I've already discussed in a post on page 1 of this thread the differences between rape and murder to the player, and I will not retread them here. If you want to see what I wrote, click the page 1 link.

If rape of a minor doesn't happen in video games, and is in fact illegal to depict, then it's not a topic worth discussing, and trying to force the conversation there is a disingenuous waste of time, especially after you have literally said "There's no reason to discuss it." Please drop it.

 

[Katya Topolkaraeva]

Just thought i'd bring this up. A character that i suspect many sympathize with who is not supposed to be the "villain" who does rape someone (at least once, but i believe more then once). - Alex in Clockwork Orange.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Good video, I didn't expect the topic to be covered so conclusively.

It's true that the act of murder and the act of rape are both things done on someone by force, against their will, but I don't consider them to be equal. I think you covered my thoughts best when you stated that in one situation one person doesn't feel the effects of the act, whereas in the other a person has to deal with it for the rest of their lives.