Jimquisition: Rape vs. Murder

[macfluffers]

I also think a game where you play as a Murderer where you stalk and kill a helpless victim should also be rejected by the gaming community. I have no interest in playing as Jack the Ripper.

Really? That's interesting. My gut response to this issue is that the opposite would be the case--that a serial killer game wouldn't be as poorly received as rape games tend to be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought that was the case.

Either way, I think the main issue with this topic is that true murder is rarely something that actually is in games. Most killing is justified, and usually when you can murder, it's usually optional. Unless murder--true, real, and unjustified--were actually a thing in games, it would be hard to compare it and rape. It's easy to say "everyone dies, so killing is less of a problem" when it's all soldiers and evil mooks facing death.

In that same vein, yeah, everyone dies, but not everyone gets eviscerated and bleeds out over the course of a half-hour. Some of the deaths that occur in video games are pretty damn horrific. Had the violence been real, some cases would be significantly more traumatic than rape, both physiologically and psychologically, if the victim survives. Of course, that brings up the obvious fact that nobody survives death, but for that reason I think that comparing rape to torture and extreme battery may be more appropriate, which aren't as poorly received as rape.

Sorry if this has been brought up, but I don't feel like reading through 400 posts to find out.

PS - I find it interesting that (as far as I know) there has been absolutely no outcry over Monster Girl Quest: Lose and the girls rape you. Nobody seems to take issue when it's a male victim.

 

[Treblaine]

The other thing that you didn't touch on is that in a video game, killing someone is generally very fast. You shoot them in the head, and down they go. You cut off their limbs, down they go. You fight with someone, maybe tussle with them, snap their neck and down they go. You do it quickly, and then it's over. Rape is a prolonged event. Murder in video games can be easily discarded as irrelevant because it's done and over with very quickly, but rape is something you'd have to stay focused on and actively continue to do. I'll be honest, if I was playing a game that required me to rape someone in order to progress the plot, I'd snap the disc in half and throw it out. Not only is it something I'm not prepared to do, but I don't want anyone else to have to do it either.

Same thing in multiplayer games. If I'm playing Diablo and someone kills me, I restart in town and carry on. I entered the game knowing that I might get killed, and it happened, and yes it kind of sucks but in the end it's not really that bad. If I'm playing a game and another character actually rapes me, it means the other player has to actively continue doing things to me, and I have to sit there and watch it happen, or else try to resist. Again, being killed is pretty much the way of things and it's fast, but being raped is almost exactly the opposite of that.

The irony, of course, is that the word rape has been firmly ensconced in the gamer vernacular for quite some time. Offensive or not, it's there, and odds are it always will be. And that only makes the conversation all the more confusing and awkward.

So mass murder is better than rape simply because it's quicker?

I think his point is that death in real life is severe because it is permanent. Life is ended permanently.

But in a video game there is barely even a pause. You go back to your save point almost as if it never happened. Though your avatar ostensibly "died" when they collapsed in a pile of blood and a screen says "you died" yet you are suddenly back at your save point. You are immortal, all players are, "death" is meaningless by the effective time travelling mechanic of the save system or ability to any time start a new game.

But watching your character that you invested in and identify with get raped. You can't just rewind the clock to undo that. It'll always have happened. Just like when watching Pulp Fiction, there is a flash back to Marcellus Wallace to before he got raped... but even though the film effectively rewound the clock, the character was still left with that.

So mass murder in a video game is nothing but a numbers game. No real lives are being ended.

 

[DiMono]

The other thing that you didn't touch on is that in a video game, killing someone is generally very fast. You shoot them in the head, and down they go. You cut off their limbs, down they go. You fight with someone, maybe tussle with them, snap their neck and down they go. You do it quickly, and then it's over. Rape is a prolonged event. Murder in video games can be easily discarded as irrelevant because it's done and over with very quickly, but rape is something you'd have to stay focused on and actively continue to do. I'll be honest, if I was playing a game that required me to rape someone in order to progress the plot, I'd snap the disc in half and throw it out. Not only is it something I'm not prepared to do, but I don't want anyone else to have to do it either.

Same thing in multiplayer games. If I'm playing Diablo and someone kills me, I restart in town and carry on. I entered the game knowing that I might get killed, and it happened, and yes it kind of sucks but in the end it's not really that bad. If I'm playing a game and another character actually rapes me, it means the other player has to actively continue doing things to me, and I have to sit there and watch it happen, or else try to resist. Again, being killed is pretty much the way of things and it's fast, but being raped is almost exactly the opposite of that.

The irony, of course, is that the word rape has been firmly ensconced in the gamer vernacular for quite some time. Offensive or not, it's there, and odds are it always will be. And that only makes the conversation all the more confusing and awkward.

So mass murder is better than rape simply because it's quicker?

In the context of video games, yes.

 

[DiMono]

[. . .] 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]

 

[Strazdas]

I can see your point but i disagree with it. Then again, your of American origins, where cutting a person to peace's and eating is is rated bellow showing a nipple. Where a TV series villian asking "have you ever been raped" gets show cancelled and so on.
Rape can be impersonal. Raped person lives, and thus is less damaged than one that is murdered. 90% of thep sychological trauma are caused by people interaction after the rape act, not during. just like everything we blow it out of proportion. it is just another bad thing, like beating somone up or killing, its not exceptional, the only reason we make it exceptional is because WE make it so. its because human brains fails to see logic.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

"Jim defined rape as being between two adults"

He never did. He NEVER said that a man couldn't rape a child. It merely wasn't bought up as it wasn't relevant to the discussion. The rapelay game in question the age was too ambiguous, and could easily be over age of consent. The controversy over that game was not that they might be under age but that it was undoubtedly forced sex.

Don't play semantic games with me on 17 + 19 year old having sex as being "rape" and therefore equivalent to all the most horrible sexual violence and manipulation. That is not the issue here and you are going WAY off topic.

The point is it is very ambiguous when is far enough into puberty. 16 years old is usually enough but SOMETIMES it is not. The law overestimates to er on the side of caution but just because there is a gradual change between a girl being 10 years old and 17 yeas old, that doesn't mean there isn't any distinction. That's the "shades of grey" fallacy at work.

"You directly stated that Jim was defining rape as only something between two adults."

That is a lie. Why should I have to defend something I never said?

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.

(PS: it should be painfully obvious that if raping a woman is wrong it is obviously wrong to rape a little girl. WHY OH WHY would you need that spelled out?!?!?)

""Engaging in sexual intercourse" implies a voluntary interaction"

More nonsense. Especially considering I PREFACED IT WITH THE TERM "FORCED" there is no way you can confer willingness. If you don't know what "sexual intercourse" is then look it up. Sexual intercourse is erect penis into vagina or other body orifice. There. Explicit detail. Are you happy now?

Again, you clearly didn't think about your definition as it STILL makes no distinction between punching someone in the face and forced unwilling coitus. Do you know what coitus is? Look it up.

Don't argue such facile semantics when you KNOW there is no confusion. Use of the term "Engage" in this context CLEARLY AND TOTALLY WITHOUT AMBIGUITY does not IN ANY WAY insinuate willingness, consent or complicity. Especially in the context of "forced".

 

[Treblaine]

I can see your point but i disagree with it. Then again, your of American origins, where cutting a person to peace's and eating is is rated bellow showing a nipple.

You may not have Noticed, but Jim Sterling is English. He relatively recently moved to the United States... but sentiments are similar in England/United Kingdom though a stronger bias against both sex and violence.

 

[medv4380]

I also think a game where you play as a Murderer where you stalk and kill a helpless victim should also be rejected by the gaming community. I have no interest in playing as Jack the Ripper.

Really? That's interesting. My gut response to this issue is that the opposite would be the case--that a serial killer game wouldn't be as poorly received as rape games tend to be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought that was the case.

When I think of serial killers I think of Jack the Ripper and the BTK killer. If you ever read the police reports of what they did its horrific, and to play as a character doing those things would be deeply disturbing to me. If someone ever did that kind of a game I think they would make it more like an assassination game, and just skip what they actually did do. A game where I'm hunting a serial killer I think I could enjoy, or a game where I play as a victim in a survival horror fashion could be interesting a la the Zodiac Killer.

I agree that Murder is for the most part not in video games. Up until you hit the Grand Theft Auto series, or sand box games that allow the player to kill everyone or almost everyone Immortal Children in Skyrim and Immortal Quest Givers. Murder is certainly there, but the degree is usually in question. None of them to my knowledge have ever hit BTK serial killer level.

I was trying, but didn't directly, to make a point in my prior post. In society we actually do view Rape as worse than Murder, but due to how things work out we cant actually prosecute Rape on the same level as Murder because their is hope that the victim can survive Rape, and we want to discourage rapist from murdering their victim. Which is why you see society go a bit crazy when a Rapist/Sex offender is released, but a murderer who's paid for their crime and didn't get the death penalty isn't as despised (depending on the context of course).

 

[Treblaine]

In that same vein, yeah, everyone dies, but not everyone gets eviscerated and bleeds out over the course of a half-hour. Some of the deaths that occur in video games are pretty damn horrific. Had the violence been real, some cases would be significantly more traumatic than rape, both physiologically and psychologically, if the victim survives. Of course, that brings up the obvious fact that nobody survives death, but for that reason I think that comparing rape to torture and extreme battery may be more appropriate, which aren't as poorly received as rape.

Yeah, that's kind of a hole in Jim's argument as it trivialises death more that normal sane people actually would.

See, if a baby dies from leukaemia, it is absolutely no comfort AT ALL that the baby was doomed to eventually die anyway. Because they were supposed to die almost a century later after leading a full, happy and constructive life and dying peacefully in old age once frankly fed up with being old and the realisation that with finite resources that their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren need a place on this planet. Not die in their first few years of life.

No one ever gave the serial killer Harold Shipman a free pass because he mainly poisoned older people and pensioners, even though they were going to die. Life is precious, even in old age just because life may not be prolonged doesn't mean it is somehow better to hasten it.

No. Killing people is still really really bad. Anyone. It's a tragedy when people die in war, as remembrance services for the war dead make clear.

I think there is another more "mechanical" reason that rape is not in video games:

Look the most basic video game, Asteroids. You have polygons and you shoot pixels at other polygons. The Shapes are of course spaceship and the pixels are rockets, this is violence and it makes for a compelling and challenging game of shooting at people in form a competition. From Doom through to Quake to Call of Duty and Team Fortress 2, you set the precedent of shooting pixels at people and them shooting pixels at you in part of the competitive nature.

Rape is essentially hugely mismatched wrestling. Mismatched from the start destroys any competitive element and video games have never been good wrestling simulators. Far better at jumping and shooting simulators, direct polygon interaction falls apart. Replay isn't really a "game" as far as I can tell, it's a choose your own adventure story with live 3D animation. It's just ridiculous to have a scenario of two sides mutually trying to rape each other as if they both wanted to have sex with each other... then they would.

 

[macfluffers]

When I think of serial killers I think of Jack the Ripper and the BTK killer. If you ever read the police reports of what they did its horrific, and to play as a character doing those things would be deeply disturbing to me. If someone ever did that kind of a game I think they would make it more like an assassination game, and just skip what they actually did do. A game where I'm hunting a serial killer I think I could enjoy, or a game where I play as a victim in a survival horror fashion could be interesting a la the Zodiac Killer.

Playing as a killer-hunter or a would-be victim would be interesting, but I really do mean playing as a sadist or psychopath.

Imagine a stealth game in which the player is a slasher film villain sneakily picking off teenage campers. I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds like fun to me, and I swear that I'm not homicidal.

Even without the serial killer aspect, a game about murder would still be interesting to me. A game about the mafia for example--destroying businesses who don't pay their protection money, human trafficking, threatening the families of rivals, and murdering prosecutors and judges. Such a game would be "edgy", but would it receive the same negative response that rape games do?

Look the most basic video game, Asteroids. You have polygons and you shoot pixels at other polygons. The Shapes are of course spaceship and the pixels are rockets, this is violence and it makes for a compelling and challenging game of shooting at people in form a competition. From Doom through to Quake to Call of Duty and Team Fortress 2, you set the precedent of shooting pixels at people and them shooting pixels at you in part of the competitive nature.

Rape is essentially hugely mismatched wrestling. Mismatched from the start destroys any competitive element and video games have never been good wrestling simulators. Far better at jumping and shooting simulators, direct polygon interaction falls apart. Replay isn't really a "game" as far as I can tell, it's a choose your own adventure story with live 3D animation. It's just ridiculous to have a scenario of two sides mutually trying to rape each other as if they both wanted to have sex with each other... then they would.

This is a good analysis of the situation. I guess the ultimate reason rape in media is received so poorly is that killing in games tend to be a sort of competition, while from the start, rape can only have one "winner" and "loser", if you'll pardon the terms.

That said, I like to think about Monster Girl Quest in this context, as well as other games were rape is the "penalty" for losing fights. Obviously, it's not really a penalty for the player (especially for MCG because the protagonist is a guy), but in these games, rapes can be prevented by winning fights, a more normal brand of violence. I don't know if I'm bringing up these examples for or against the depiction of rape in games, but it comes to mind.

 

[Amaror]

It depends, in many jurisdictions rape isn't something a woman can do without an instrument (because rape requires one to penetrate), and a woman forcing a man into sexual activity through force, the threat of force, or while unconscious, intoxicated, or otherwise unable to consent isn't counted as rape (it isn't by the FBI/CDC statistics, for example; with the CDC using "made to penetrate" to cover that case).

Then in my opinion this kind of jurisdiction is incredibly stupid.
Rape is forcing someone to sex, if the victim is the one penetrating, or the one being penetrated is not important.
It works this way in my country (Germany) and i think that's the way it should work.
It seems really really offinsive towards male rape victims to say "Well, technically you haven't been raped."

 

[gunslinger_king]

Amazingly eloquent and almost absurdly observant. This articulates pretty much the intangible wrongness of rape in the 'is it worse than killing in pop culture' debate.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

After thinking about this a bit more I just wanted to chip in another two pence.
Looking at the comments I couldn't help noticing a lot of people using words like 'monster' and 'evil', this is a mode of thinking that is incredibly dangers not just for rape issues but for any kind of behaviour detrimental to others.
I think we can all agree that monsters don't exist and I for one don't believe in either good nor evil, there are just people, sometimes they will do constructive things and sometimes they will do destructive things. The collective thinking that individuals where monsters or evil is what led us down the dark road of the witch hunts, it's what leads certain demographics to view others as unclean or inferior, or even some kind of threat.

I'm in no way suggesting that the actions of certain individuals (lets call them wankers) are in some way not as bad as they've been made out, but calling someone a monster dehumanises them and makes it less and less clear that if we slip up we could be just like them.

I hear this kind of thinking allot when people discus the media, the way that it 'manipulates the masses, but I'm aware of it so there is no chance of me ever being manipulated by it'.
The idea that some people just aren't right in the head and that's why they do these thing and I don't.
I'm rambling so I'll just say that we can all 'fall from grace' but that dosen't make use monsters, it means that the bullied hasn't realised when they have become the bully.

[Edit]: I just wanted to add that for those of you who are just insulting '5ilver', he wins by default because you have resorted to insults.
It dosen't sound like he is trying to be offensive, it sounds like he is making a point (if a little clumsy) about the double standard that if one negative thing isn't allowed then all should be regardless of severity.
Seriously guys, just shouting someone down because they don't agree with you is't helpful.

 

[LordFisheh]

It's much easier to make killing unserious or even slapstick than it is a form of torture.

 

[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

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

 

[Rtoip]

On the note completely unrelated to the whole which is worse discussion (I think debating something like this is stupid by the way):
Anyone knows what the game at around 3:20 is, also is it available on PC (suppose not, but asking can't hurt) ??

P.S. I just got an idea for a no right answer episode. (it's a joke by the way)

 

[Anaphyis]

The collective thinking that individuals where monsters or evil is what led us down the dark road of the witch hunts, it's what leads certain demographics to view others as unclean or inferior, or even some kind of threat.

No, what lead us to things like witch hunts are stereotypes used to oppress entire groups of people, not individuals and certainly not individuals who committed a crime.

I'm in no way suggesting that the actions of certain individuals (lets call them wankers) are in some way not as bad as they've been made out, but calling someone a monster dehumanises them and makes it less and less clear that if we slip up we could be just like them.

Wankers? "Oh, you raped and killed that girl? Gosh John, you're such a bloody wanker." Are you serious? You slip up and kill someone by mistake, you slip up and support a dictator or a demagogue, you don't slip up and rape someone. You have to be inhuman scum already to get to that point.

[Edit]: I just wanted to add that for those of you who are just insulting '5ilver', he wins by default because you have resorted to insults.
It dosen't sound like he is trying to be offensive, it sounds like he is making a point (if a little clumsy) about the double standard that if one negative thing isn't allowed then all should be regardless of severity.

Which is a completely moronic point to begin with. There is a reason we don't have the death penalty for parking violations. Comparing rape to a paper cut isn't a little clumsy, it's offensively retarded and he deserves to be shot down for that. He already lost, mainly the genetic lottery.

 

[jmarquiso]

this reminds of the book by michael crichton. he wrote a story about a woman molesting a man she was crazy about. even when the man refused her, she still sexually harassed him.
if i remember correctly, it was based on a true story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_%28novel%29

You remember incorrectly. A primary portion of this novel uses a VR-style database which is in development. Disclosure is more about the tech industry than science fiction, sure, but it's not based on anything true.

Not to say that he doesn't do research for his novels, which he does.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

The collective thinking that individuals where monsters or evil is what led us down the dark road of the witch hunts, it's what leads certain demographics to view others as unclean or inferior, or even some kind of threat.

No, what lead us to things like witch hunts are stereotypes used to oppress entire groups of people, not individuals and certainly not individuals who committed a crime.

People accused of being witches weren't part of a particular demographic (besides female of-course).

I'm in no way suggesting that the actions of certain individuals (lets call them wankers) are in some way not as bad as they've been made out, but calling someone a monster dehumanises them and makes it less and less clear that if we slip up we could be just like them.

Wankers? "Oh, you raped and killed that girl? Gosh John, you're such a bloody wanker." Are you serious? You slip up and kill someone by mistake, you slip up and support a dictator or a demagogue, you don't slip up and rape someone. You have to be inhuman scum already to get to that point.[/quote]
I use the term wanker to describe all the scum of the earth, like I said I am not trying to trivialise its just how I speak.

[Edit]: I just wanted to add that for those of you who are just insulting '5ilver', he wins by default because you have resorted to insults.
It dosen't sound like he is trying to be offensive, it sounds like he is making a point (if a little clumsy) about the double standard that if one negative thing isn't allowed then all should be regardless of severity.

Which is a completely moronic point to begin with. There is a reason we don't have the death penalty for parking violations. Comparing rape to a paper cut isn't a little clumsy, it's offensively retarded and he deserves to be shot down for that. He already lost, mainly the genetic lottery.[/quote]
Well I don't think it's moronic and that it's something that should be taken into consideration more when thinking about the artistic future of games as whole.

Side note: this thread has been expectationally level headed considering the sensitive subject matter so I am not going to derail it or degrade it with a shouting match. If you want to have a discussion I'm up for that but I'm not going to respond to hostility.