Jimquisition: Rape vs. Murder

[medv4380]

You covered the topic very well. I was hesitant to even watch given the title.

In terms of Rape in Games I think it boils down to context. I think the titles that where mentioned that the player participated in the Rape should only have AO ratings, and should be rejected by the community as they have been.

AO should be reserved for porn, you can have rape in a game or a movie and have it not be porn.

No AO is intended to be the Movie equivalent of NC-17 which because it's normally a death sentence for a movie results in it being cut down to an R rating, and as the MPAA states

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean "obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children

M is the equivalent of an R rating and means that if an adult thinks your mature enough for it they can let you watch.

Porn is basically Triple X which isn't even a valid MPAA rating.

 

[TazTheTerrible]

Due to my workload I don't get around to playing that many games anymore, but to toss just one example in here about actual murder: Just Cause 2.

In Just Cause 2 I have fairly often run over, shot or otherwise killed innocent civilians. Rico's response? Making a quip about it ("crazy damn pedestrians!" while flooring a sports car across a crowded sidewalk is a memorable one).

Even when it concerns enemy combatants, the game encourages not just removing them as obstacles, but killing them in fun and interesting ways. Because it amuses you.

Just stop and think about that for a second.

And in this game, these actions aren't penalized, no one ever mentions me being a bit too trigger happy or that time I crashed a passenger jet (presumably loaded with civilians since I snagged it in take-off) into an oil-rig. If anything, that's your objective: cause as much chaos as possible and make this island hell on earth where anyone could at any time be killed by gangs, the military or the mad god of death and destruction that is Rico Rodriguez.

Now, do I have a problem with this? Nah. It's a great big fun game that doesn't take itself too seriously, and I'm quite capable of separating the game's fiction from reality.

But when you get right down to it, as a concept, it is downright sick if you tried to seriously draw a parallel to the real world from that game. There's no denying that this game trivializes, even glorifies casual murder. That's not too problematic under the assumption that the player can clearly distinguish fiction and reality. If anything, I'd be more worried if we only had games with "justified" killing. It would create an atmosphere of "killing is ALWAYS justified because that's all I ever play". I think it's probably not a bad thing to have the occasional completely over the top, crossing the line sort of Rico Rodriguez type to remind us that it IS fiction we're playing.

Now, personally I think adults should be trusted to not turn into psychotic murderers from playing games like this, so I don't mind them existing and even enjoy them myself on occasion (I like black humor for one). But if you ascribe at all to the notion that trivializing serious crimes is a bad thing and they should never happen as something the player can do and revel in, then either you are calling for games like this to be right out as well, or you're being hypocritical, or you haven't thought your argument all the way through.

 

[medv4380]

You covered the topic very well. I was hesitant to even watch given the title.

In terms of Rape in Games I think it boils down to context. I think the titles that where mentioned that the player participated in the Rape should only have AO ratings, and should be rejected by the community as they have been.

AO should be reserved for porn, you can have rape in a game or a movie and have it not be porn.

No AO is intended to be the Movie equivalent of NC-17 which because it's normally a death sentence for a movie results in it being cut down to an R rating, and as the MPAA states

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean "obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children

M is the equivalent of an R rating and means that if an adult thinks your mature enough for it they can let you watch.

You should be quoting the ESRB not the MPAA. But there are movies with rapists in them that don't get NC-17 rating.

How about Manhunt 2 having an AO rating. Rape is Strong Sexual Content therefore it should be an AO rating.

and to rub some salt in your wounds

Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

If you cant see how you edit a rape scene so you actually don't show what's going on there really is no helping you.

 

[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.



Also, Treblaine.See, here's the thing man.

I said this DISCUSSION was CONCERNING rape between adults, not the issue of whether an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is rape or not.

The discussion was concerning rape, period. Also, there are three people you rape in rapelay, one is 10 to my knowledge. Also, statuatory rape is totally irrelevent here.

And this is the biggest, stupidest miss-wording I have ever seen

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

The word adult only exists as a way to exclude children and was entirely irrelevant unless you're saying that the rape of a child doesn't count (whether it's by an adult or another child, a 17 year old raping an 18 year old would also be excluded but yea). The "forcing" part already excludes statutory rape, the "forcing " part removes all grey area. No, he's talking about people forcing other people to have sex, the "adult" part just excludes a whole bunch of instances and I have no reason to think Jim was excluding them

Sorry, Rapelay is banned from sale in my country so I have never played it, all I know is it is about the players forcibly raping women, I didn't know one of the victims was only... jesus, you're saying she is only 10 years old. But from all I can glean short of playing the game, the game is not a case of a man grooming a little girl to persuade and manipulate her to do something sexual, not like that book/film Lolita. It's unambiguously rape, forcing sex on them, and a whole lot WORSE than something already very wrong as the victim is so very young.

That was my point, that the discussion of grooming/manipulating children into sex is not the issue and how that is different if the girl is 10 years old or 17 years old (and also how close in age the other person in the relationship is). The issue is about using violence to force sex onto ANYONE in video games.

He brought up the very off topic issue of statutory rape purely on a matter pedantic semantic quibbling on how the term "statutory rape" somehow makes "rape" a grey area. When it so obviously does NOT.

No. Statutory rape *CAN* be a grey area for older teenagers either side of age-of-consent but that is NOT THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION. And it is disingenuous to bring that up in the context of rape being unambiguously a bad thing to do. He exploits the unintended confusion between "rape" and "statutory rape" where you don't want to trivialise either but the scenarios and severity are all so extremely different.

I really do not appreciate how Aardvaarkman has tried to hijack this discussion into the irrelevant ambiguities of age of consent with older teenagers in close-age parity in a discussion about the fictional depiction of unambiguously forced rape. It is just so transparently disingenuous and trollish of Aardvaarkman.

 

[medv4380]

You covered the topic very well. I was hesitant to even watch given the title.

In terms of Rape in Games I think it boils down to context. I think the titles that where mentioned that the player participated in the Rape should only have AO ratings, and should be rejected by the community as they have been.

AO should be reserved for porn, you can have rape in a game or a movie and have it not be porn.

No AO is intended to be the Movie equivalent of NC-17 which because it's normally a death sentence for a movie results in it being cut down to an R rating, and as the MPAA states

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean "obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children

M is the equivalent of an R rating and means that if an adult thinks your mature enough for it they can let you watch.

You should be quoting the ESRB not the MPAA. But there are movies with rapists in them that don't get NC-17 rating.

How about Manhunt 2 having an AO rating. Rape is Strong Sexual Content therefore it should be an AO rating.

and to rub some salt in your wounds

Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

If you cant see how you edit a rape scene so you actually don't show what's going on there really is no helping you.

Gta has strong sexual content and it'd be easy to edit the pick up hooker scene to be rape. Just force her into the car, play the car rocking animation and add screams.

GTA was AO because of Hot Coffee, and became M because of Cold Coffee. Or did you miss out on Hot Coffee?

 

[Treblaine]

But do you actually "murder" in video games?

Is rape worse than killing your opponent in combat? Murder is UNJUSTIFIED killing.

Have you played Fable, Hitman, Fallout 3, The Elder Scrolls or Prototype? Those games definitely involve murder in them.

Well "justification" doesn't necessarily mean "with approval of the local authorities". Justification means for the purpose of some sense of justice, that may be AGAINST the local authority. Like how often Agent 47 assassinates Drug Lords or corrupt politicians, their authority would of course say that they shouldn't be killed, but the protagonist does have some form of justification.

Under Pakistan law I'm quite sure the killing of Usama Bin Laden is murder, but does that mean it was "unjustified" to raid his compound using extreme lethal force? I don't want to get into a debate about that, but my point is to illustrate how it being murder on the local law books is not that simple for a complete outsider like in a game world with outside players, critics and commentators looking in.

As to open world games where you could conceivably kill anyone, well you are not SUPPOSED to kill the unarmed peaceful civilians. When you are caught doing this you are usually punished by the game mechanics, I really tried hard to avoid killing any civilians in Red Dead Redemption as it really cut down your reputation meter that it was beneficial to have high and very slow to build up but fell quickly. Plus you got hounded by the law for killing civilians. Sure, the bounty was not huge to pay off, and this was probably the game giving you the benefit of the doubt that it might have been an accident.

The only civilian I killed in RDR was in an intense running shoot-out I was being pursued, turning around I shot the first guy on horseback that came over the ridge. Turns out it was someone who had nothing to do with the fight but his friend saw me shoot him down and I had no option to say "No, whoa! I didn't mean that, it was an accident!" especially as the other bandits were still attacking. So with my well known face this guy rode off an reported me for murdering his friend. Good thing it didn't take this as a hanging offence and I just had to pay some blood money as presumably my reputation was enough to insist it was an accident, though really it was the game giving me the benefit of the doubt.

As to the games lock on mechanics even allowing you to lock on to non-combatants this could just be the game being unbiased, the lock on system is there to simulate how the character you play is a better shot than you could possibly be with a thumbstick and makes no judgement call on the validity of the target. For example, when I accidentally killed that innocent man in RDR I just saw a guy on horseback and assumed he was one of the bandits, I locked on the same way John Marston's aiming instincts would to aim. It was entirely down to me - the player - to decide if I was aiming at the right person and I made a huge mistake.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

snip

Now try explaining how being part of the dark brotherhood in TES:Oblivion is not murder. Especially considering what you have to do [http://www.wikihow.com/Join-the-Dark-Brotherhood-in-Oblivion] to get Lucien to visit you.

Also, try to justify how a person gets Skorms bow [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtQOgpi5VMU] in Fable.

 

[Treblaine]

Gta has strong sexual content and it'd be easy to edit the pick up hooker scene to be rape. Just force her into the car, play the car rocking animation and add screams.

But there isn't any animation for forcing someone into a car, and if there was you are still rearranging elements. Once you are adding in animations then you are talking about a completely different game. It's like splicing in the rape scene from Deliverance into and episode of Sex and the City.

The hot coffee mod did nothing but unlock something, it didn't add nor re-arrange anything. It is like a Easter egg on a DVD movie but you have to access it via a small hack.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Now try explaining how being part of the dark brotherhood in TES:Oblivion is not murder. Especially considering what you have to do [http://www.wikihow.com/Join-the-Dark-Brotherhood-in-Oblivion] to get Lucien to visit you.

Also, try to justify how a person gets Skorms bow [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtQOgpi5VMU] in Fable.

Ooooh- kay... I was not aware of that. I almost never play evil alignment in games, I'm too worried it will somehow come back to punish me for it.

Now those examples are very clearly. Yet bringing a kidnapped person to be tortured to death for personal gain is accepted... yet rape is still unaccepted in games.

Hmm, you've made a rather good case of demolishing Jim's argument. As I believe almost all the RPGs have a good or bad alignment and the bad are all doing awful awful unjustifiable things. The Wiki guide prefaces it with "Remember, it's just a game" exactly what defenders of Rapelay and Battle Raper say.

 

[medv4380]

You covered the topic very well. I was hesitant to even watch given the title.

In terms of Rape in Games I think it boils down to context. I think the titles that where mentioned that the player participated in the Rape should only have AO ratings, and should be rejected by the community as they have been.

AO should be reserved for porn, you can have rape in a game or a movie and have it not be porn.

No AO is intended to be the Movie equivalent of NC-17 which because it's normally a death sentence for a movie results in it being cut down to an R rating, and as the MPAA states

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean "obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children

M is the equivalent of an R rating and means that if an adult thinks your mature enough for it they can let you watch.

You should be quoting the ESRB not the MPAA. But there are movies with rapists in them that don't get NC-17 rating.

How about Manhunt 2 having an AO rating. Rape is Strong Sexual Content therefore it should be an AO rating.

and to rub some salt in your wounds

Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

If you cant see how you edit a rape scene so you actually don't show what's going on there really is no helping you.

Gta has strong sexual content and it'd be easy to edit the pick up hooker scene to be rape. Just force her into the car, play the car rocking animation and add screams.

GTA was AO because of Hot Coffee, and became M because of Cold Coffee. Or did you miss out on Hot Coffee?

Cold coffee gta still had prostitutes and offscreen sex.

And clockwork orange had a graphic rape scene (see it sometime), still an R rating.

Again their is no helping you if you don't understand how editing is done so you can see it.

As for Clockwork Orange it was before NC-17 existed and was originally rated X. Your R version is edited down.

 

[Treblaine]

Due to my workload I don't get around to playing that many games anymore, but to toss just one example in here about actual murder: Just Cause 2.

In Just Cause 2 I have fairly often run over, shot or otherwise killed innocent civilians. Rico's response? Making a quip about it ("crazy damn pedestrians!" while flooring a sports car across a crowded sidewalk is a memorable one).

Even when it concerns enemy combatants, the game encourages not just removing them as obstacles, but killing them in fun and interesting ways. Because it amuses you.

Just stop and think about that for a second.

And in this game, these actions aren't penalized, no one ever mentions me being a bit too trigger happy or that time I crashed a passenger jet (presumably loaded with civilians since I snagged it in take-off) into an oil-rig. If anything, that's your objective: cause as much chaos as possible and make this island hell on earth where anyone could at any time be killed by gangs, the military or the mad god of death and destruction that is Rico Rodriguez.

Now, do I have a problem with this? Nah. It's a great big fun game that doesn't take itself too seriously, and I'm quite capable of separating the game's fiction from reality.

But when you get right down to it, as a concept, it is downright sick if you tried to seriously draw a parallel to the real world from that game. There's no denying that this game trivializes, even glorifies casual murder. That's not too problematic under the assumption that the player can clearly distinguish fiction and reality. If anything, I'd be more worried if we only had games with "justified" killing. It would create an atmosphere of "killing is ALWAYS justified because that's all I ever play". I think it's probably not a bad thing to have the occasional completely over the top, crossing the line sort of Rico Rodriguez type to remind us that it IS fiction we're playing.

Now, personally I think adults should be trusted to not turn into psychotic murderers from playing games like this, so I don't mind them existing and even enjoy them myself on occasion (I like black humor for one). But if you ascribe at all to the notion that trivializing serious crimes is a bad thing and they should never happen as something the player can do and revel in, then either you are calling for games like this to be right out as well, or you're being hypocritical, or you haven't thought your argument all the way through.

Yeah, the ability to hijack a passenger jet and crash it into building is really too much like the very real horror of the September 11th terrorist attacks, yet this we allows the same engineered carnage because no one is actually getting hurt, it's all just a game. And considering Just Cause 2 wasn't treated any different from Call of Duty as was enjoyed by the same people in the same way, it suggests even the soldier hero worship in video games is not so noble, but a means to an end of wanton death and destruction.

I really don't like to hear this as it totally contradicts Jim's "justified violence" argument to distinguish existing video game violence from those Japanese rape-games. That I argued FOR for the past 5 pages.

The guys at penny arcade seem to be much more in tune with how "wrong" the violence is in video games:

They aren't trivialising rape saying it is equivalent to the violence in video games, they are emphasising how awful these violent video games really are and it's only due to the player being of the perspective of the protagonist doing the killing that the awfulness of this isn't immediately apparent. The perspective shift to a reasoning self-aware soldier changes that.

The question then is... if we can deal with doing this very wrong thing of all the unjustified killing in video games, could we not also deal with rape being an element in games?

Maybe two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe yes, it is bad that video games allow and even endorse such unjustified violence and murder but that is no reason for the industry to start allowing rape as well. But the point is we established that as bad as the violence is in video games it is not directly a problem, bar other personal problems (Norway killer is responsible, not video games), should not the same apply to rape in games?

Isn't it that by admitting that you can't have rape in games, you're admitting that what you do in games changes you as a person... so too all unjustified or immoral things in games should not be allowed. We might be giving ammunition to the censors.

 

[mike1921]

[. . .] 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.



Also, Treblaine.See, here's the thing man.

I said this DISCUSSION was CONCERNING rape between adults, not the issue of whether an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is rape or not.

The discussion was concerning rape, period. Also, there are three people you rape in rapelay, one is 10 to my knowledge. Also, statuatory rape is totally irrelevent here.

And this is the biggest, stupidest miss-wording I have ever seen

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

The word adult only exists as a way to exclude children and was entirely irrelevant unless you're saying that the rape of a child doesn't count (whether it's by an adult or another child, a 17 year old raping an 18 year old would also be excluded but yea). The "forcing" part already excludes statutory rape, the "forcing " part removes all grey area. No, he's talking about people forcing other people to have sex, the "adult" part just excludes a whole bunch of instances and I have no reason to think Jim was excluding them

Sorry, Rapelay is banned from sale in my country so I have never played it, all I know is it is about the players forcibly raping women, I didn't know one of the victims was only... jesus, you're saying she is only 10 years old. But from all I can glean short of playing the game, the game is not a case of a man grooming a little girl to persuade and manipulate her to do something sexual, not like that book/film Lolita. It's unambiguously rape, forcing sex on them, and a whole lot WORSE than something already very wrong as the victim is so very young.

She might've been 12, not absolutely positive, but yea, little girl.

No. Statutory rape *CAN* be a grey area for older teenagers either side of age-of-consent but that is NOT THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION. And it is disingenuous to bring that up in the context of rape being unambiguously a bad thing to do. He exploits the unintended confusion between "rape" and "statutory rape" where you don't want to trivialise either but the scenarios and severity are all so extremely different.

Yes but that's not forced, the "forced" part of your statement already excludes statutory rape, making the part where you're saying "adult" question as that distinction is unnecessary. You are already removing the grey area by saying

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

so the choice of words that

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

is very weird

I really do not appreciate how Aardvaarkman has tried to hijack this discussion into the irrelevant ambiguities of age of consent with older teenagers in close-age parity in a discussion about the fictional depiction of unambiguously forced rape. It is just so transparently disingenuous and trollish of Aardvaarkman.

You sorta brought it upon yourself with that remarkably poor wording choice. Like I still can't get why you wrote it like that.

 

[medv4380]

You covered the topic very well. I was hesitant to even watch given the title.

In terms of Rape in Games I think it boils down to context. I think the titles that where mentioned that the player participated in the Rape should only have AO ratings, and should be rejected by the community as they have been.

AO should be reserved for porn, you can have rape in a game or a movie and have it not be porn.

No AO is intended to be the Movie equivalent of NC-17 which because it's normally a death sentence for a movie results in it being cut down to an R rating, and as the MPAA states

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean "obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children

M is the equivalent of an R rating and means that if an adult thinks your mature enough for it they can let you watch.

You should be quoting the ESRB not the MPAA. But there are movies with rapists in them that don't get NC-17 rating.

How about Manhunt 2 having an AO rating. Rape is Strong Sexual Content therefore it should be an AO rating.

and to rub some salt in your wounds

Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

If you cant see how you edit a rape scene so you actually don't show what's going on there really is no helping you.

Gta has strong sexual content and it'd be easy to edit the pick up hooker scene to be rape. Just force her into the car, play the car rocking animation and add screams.

GTA was AO because of Hot Coffee, and became M because of Cold Coffee. Or did you miss out on Hot Coffee?

Cold coffee gta still had prostitutes and offscreen sex.

And clockwork orange had a graphic rape scene (see it sometime), still an R rating.

Again their is no helping you if you don't understand how editing is done so you can see it.

As for Clockwork Orange it was before NC-17 existed and was originally rated X. Your R version is edited down.

Cut the condescending crap. They can cut away when they show rape, so it'll probably still get an m.

If they cut away properly the "rape" only occurs in your mind because you never see it happen, and for all you know it didn't.

As for Condescension, how about you go and watch the 1966 Hawaii. It was originally marketed as X for sexual content. Currently it's not rated. Put simply, everyone who went to see it for the sex was greatly disappointed.

 

[theultimateend]

But do you actually "murder" in video games?

Is rape worse than killing your opponent in combat? Murder is UNJUSTIFIED killing.

Have you played Fable, Hitman, Fallout 3, The Elder Scrolls or Prototype? Those games definitely involve murder in them.

Also the idea of "just" killing is pretty damn naive. It requires some incredible hyperbole.

"What if he ate 12 children alive." Well yes I could see how you'd want to stop them.

Otherwise the vast majority of all killings in the world at any period of time are unjust and not even close to anything otherwise.

If I had to choose between being murdered or being raped, I'd choose to be raped.

It would be terrible but I'd still be alive and frankly my life is more important than just about anything sexual or emotional. Because nothingness is the most horrifying thing and it alone has spawned religions across the entire planet.

I'm not entirely sure how something that has been essential in creating something as prolific as faith is held to a lower tier than anything else.

But either way this is not an option anyone should ever be forced to make.

How about folks just stop raping and killing and also stop mixing up pixels with actual living organisms.

If you fuck your toaster or shoot your sofa you aren't a rapist nor a killer. We need to stop equating toasters and sofa's with people.

I don't care if that Sofa looks a whole lot like a person and even has an AI, its still a damn sofa.

 

[Treblaine]

No. Statutory rape *CAN* be a grey area for older teenagers either side of age-of-consent but that is NOT THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION. And it is disingenuous to bring that up in the context of rape being unambiguously a bad thing to do. He exploits the unintended confusion between "rape" and "statutory rape" where you don't want to trivialise either but the scenarios and severity are all so extremely different.

Yes but that's not forced, the "forced" part of your statement already excludes statutory rape, making the part where you're saying "adult" question as that distinction is unnecessary. You are already removing the grey area by saying

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

so the choice of words that

By rape, it's clear Jim (and I) were talking about adults forcing other adults to engage in sexual intercourse. There is no grey area between that rape and sex.

is very weird

I really do not appreciate how Aardvaarkman has tried to hijack this discussion into the irrelevant ambiguities of age of consent with older teenagers in close-age parity in a discussion about the fictional depiction of unambiguously forced rape. It is just so transparently disingenuous and trollish of Aardvaarkman.

You sorta brought it upon yourself with that remarkably poor wording choice. Like I still can't get why you wrote it like that.

It's obvious what I meant, but if you quote mine me to take spurious interpretations regardless of context then of course it is going to appear like I'm saying something "weird". There is no way, no way AT ALL you can reasonably and honestly infer I mean the horrific crime of rape can only committed against adults, how monumentally disingenuous and convoluted of BOTH of you. Only by deliberately discarding all inference and using the most narrow semantic interpretation of a sentence could you do that.

Neither Jim nor I was not defining "rape" but specifying the point of discussion. You know that. Don't pretend you don't.

Aardvaarkman repeatedly ignored the "forced" part and went of on a tangent of equivalence with statutory rape for no reason other than pedantic exploitation of semantics. THAT is weird.

I didn't want to talk about children as there are so few children in video games anyway, virtually none as protagonists for any significant portion of games time, and I didn't want to get into the issue of depiction of violence against children in video games. The issue of whether you should be able to kill children in video games is still not sorted with most going for indestructible children or other such contrivances as implausibly an entire country without any trace of children anywhere (Just Cause 2).

Plus rape or sex involving children wanders into the area of child pornography laws, there is just no reason to go there. Jim and I are talking about video games depicting rape involving adults as it is actually LEGAL to depict that. Bring children and sex together in and suddenly you've got the FBI, Interpol and all that bullshit. For the love of Jebus, I'm not saying the horrific crime of rape couldn't be perpetrated against a child, I'm just saying the depiction of it in video games in just plain NOT up for discussion here! I have made that clear from the very start.

Get that. Is that clear? Child Pornography laws are EXTREMELY strict and unforgiving, even with depiction very crude CGI sex or a simple drawing. It's just NOT part of the discussion.

CATEGORICALLY you CANNOT have graphic pedophilic rape in a video game as it would be banned as child pornography and the producers face some sort of prosecution. So there is no point in going there and that law is not changing any time soon and I don't see the point in arguing it.

Case closed. This has gone way WAY off topic to spite me repeatedly telling both of you to get back on topic and not go to this area.