Rape Games: Not Exactly Games

[Ultrajoe]

The game in itself poses absolutely no threat to society in general.

That's fine, just tell that to a woman who has been raped. Just, for the sake of fairness, go to her and tell her that these games are fine because, in the end, the rapist dies. That certainly helps the victims, and certainly excuses thousands of gamers jerking off to the act that has scarred her. Sure, she'll never get over the event and she could use your support, but it's good for her to know that at least she has you fighting for free speach concerning the violation she endured.

That was sarcasm. The fact that we can trivialize the act and try to tack a 'happy' ending onto it is even worse, in my eyes. This should not, and cannot, be made a novelty.

 

[Zer_]

The game in itself poses absolutely no threat to society in general.

That's fine, just tell that to a woman who has been raped. Just, for the sake of fairness, go to her and tell her that these games are fine because, in the end, the rapist dies. That certainly helps the victims, and certainly excuses thousands of gamers jerking off to the act that has scarred her. Sure, she'll never get over the event and she could use your support, but it's good for her to know that at least she has you fighting for free speach concerning the violation she endured.

That was sarcasm. The fact that we can trivialize the act and try to tack a 'happy' ending onto it is even worse, in my eyes. This should not, and cannot, be made a novelty.

I'd hate to say it but someone who has been raped would obviously have a very biased opinion towards games like RapeLay. It's obvious that they would frown upon it. Many Vietnam war veterans frown upon movies like Full Metal Jacket. It's nothing new or special.

Free speech can only exist if one accepts that they will be offended by some of the things they see or hear. The only reason there's so much controversy over this is because video games are a relatively new entertainment medium. I'm sounding cold and heartless by saying this but it's just a reality. Given the fact that the these games are most definitely a niche most rape victims will never have to come into contact with the game. Of course my previous statement is blown out of the water when you have people giving these games more attention then they really deserve.

For the sake of fairness I won't ask a rape victim what they think of rape games and give them my opinion. They do not want to hear it. If we were talking about the subject in a classroom and someone spoke out on how they find the discussion offensive then I'd suggest that person leave. If I was playing a rape game and my hypothetical girlfriend was to tell me they don't like me playing such games because they've fallen victim to such a crime I'd be courteous and say "Sure thing, if you feel strongly about the subject then I won't play games based on it or bring the subject up." I know and understand that rape is a traumatizing experience but I honestly wouldn't prevent others from experiencing a fantasy weather it be through role play or in a game. That's their business.

 

[Seldon2639]

There's a great Neil Gaiman blog post about this kind of thing:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

Fundamentally, the question is whether we prohibit behavior because the behavior itself is harmful, or because the behavior is disturbing. Masturbating to a rape fantasy isn't in and of itself harmful (and no study I've ever seen, nor I believe has ever been done, has shown a causal relationship between extreme pornography and violent acts). I have all the sympathy in the world for rape victims, but in a free society we can't ban something just because we find it disturbing.

If the issue is that a rape victim would take offense at the game, I promise you there exist other forms of media wherein rape is depicted in the same way: as a target of sexual fantasy. You're conflating a game depicting rape with the specific violation of an actual woman, and that's not a fair assessment. You wrote that gamers are "jerking off to the act that scarred [the victim]" but that's patently untrue. They're not jerking off to anything which harmed her, they're jerking off to a simulation depicting a non-existent woman being hurt. Do you believe this game will encourage rape? If you do, I'd ask you to provide actual evidence that it increases the rate of rape. Do you believe this game would some how be played on a computer wherein a woman who was raped would be forced to watch? If so... Wow, just wow. Otherwise all we're talking about is:

Do we ban something because the mere existence of it is distasteful? You equate it to a game being about violence directed at a specific group, but those games exist. Even ignoring Custer's Revenge, you have Grand Theft Auto wherein you kill hookers, you have any number of FPSes in which you kill people or aliens. Boondock Saints shows two brothers killing a bunch of mobsters, did that encourage copycats? Hell, many movies even depict rape, does that somehow traumatize victims? If it does, how does that become the problem of the writer, producer, or distributor?

The irony of this issue (in my mind) is that most people would never have heard of this game were it not for whinging, shrill, drum-beating of those who wanted this game banned. I'd wager that prior to this kind of media attention, hardly anyone (much less many rape victims) would have heard of this. If exposure to the existence of this game is the inherent harm, you've done more to traumatize rape victims than the publishers have (since the game can't now reach a large audience).

If you do a quick google search, I'll bet you dimes to dollars that you can find a huge amount of simulated rape. How does the predilection of one person affect anyone else unless someone is actively being harmed? I don't know any rape victims at the moment (that I know of), but if you want to find me one I'll be happy to explain that the principles of free speech can't be trumped merely by someone's feelings being hurt unless it causes actual, substantive, harm.

 

[Alex_P]

Men who rape other men are not straight, they may be bisexual, but they are not straight.

Rape isn't about sexuality, it's about power. Men who rape other men in prison do it not out of attraction but out of a desire to advance up the pecking order. It's an expression of dominance, which is why it's such an unforgivable thing to do to a person.

"If it is your wife or girlfriend, every time you have sex, the rapist is in bed with you, it may only be for a second or two but he is their." I do not understand that, you need to explain that to me.

Rape victims do not 'get over' their experience. It haunts them, taints every subsequent sexual encounter, it means that no matter how far she's come she can't shake the effect it has on her. So whenever you make love to that woman, the rapist is in the bed there, somewhere, even for an instant.

I'd be a bit warier about ideas like "rape is about power" and "rape taints your sexuality for life". They're better than the usual stereotypes, but I think there's still a whiff of over-generalization there. To whit:

Power and sex are not easily separated. Some rapes occur in a context where the rapist does not interpret the abusive sexual act as rape (particularly when there is a sexual relationship already going on).

People react to life experiences, especially traumatic ones, differently. It would be pretty ludicrous to say that rape doesn't affect you, but it's not always going to be affecting you most in the bedroom.

-- Alex

 

[bodyklok]

--Your wife or girlfriend
--Your daughter
--Your mother
--Your grandmother
--Your sister
--Your friend

Pick one.

I must be a rape magnet.

Fuck. I laughed a little at that one, sorry.

 

[crypt-creature]

I'd hate to say it but someone who has been raped would obviously have a very biased opinion towards games like RapeLay. It's obvious that they would frown upon it. Many Vietnam war veterans frown upon movies like Full Metal Jacket. It's nothing new or special.

Free speech can only exist if one accepts that they will be offended by some of the things they see or hear. The only reason there's so much controversy over this is because video games are a relatively new entertainment medium. I'm sounding cold and heartless by saying this but it's just a reality. Given the fact that the these games are most definitely a niche most rape victims will never have to come into contact with the game. Of course my previous statement is blown out of the water when you have people giving these games more attention then they really deserve.

The problem with a veteran and a rape victim, anyone who signs up for the army knows there is a chance that they are going to be put into a fight and kill someone. Sometimes, see it done in very gruesome ways. It's a given, and they know the risks when enlisting for a military force. From the vets I've talked to, the video games aren't their favorite but also don't come close to what disgusting acts actually happened in the field.
No one signs up to be raped, and no victim really plans on something like that happening to them.

Killing a person virtually can be toned down. Rape, by its very nature, really can't be if they still want to call it rape.

 

[Ultrajoe]

People react to life experiences, especially traumatic ones, differently. It would be pretty ludicrous to say that rape doesn't affect you, but it's not always going to be affecting you most in the bedroom.

-- Alex

Fair call, I must admit my comments were more in bias towards violent rape than 'incidental' versions. Note disdainful quotation marks.

Gotta say, impressed by the level of dickery this thread managed to avoid, kudos to the lot of you.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I have all the sympathy in the world for rape victims, but in a free society we can't ban something just because we find it disturbing.

-snip-

I'm not saying there aren't arguments to be made against banning these games, legitimate ones. I just want you to make them to her.

 

[Seldon2639]

I'm not saying there aren't arguments to be made against banning these games, legitimate ones. I just want you to make them to her.

Like I said, I don't know any rape victims personally, and I would never play a game like that, but I also graduated with a public policy degree. Personal stories are fine for the dinner table, but we can't make policy decisions based on individuals. In a free society, sometimes you have to defend the indefensible. Unless someone's getting directly hurt, I don't have any more right to regulate some other dude's wank material than he has right to regulate mine.

If someone raped my girlfriend, I'd have the sincere desire to murder him in the most gruesome ways imaginable, but that event still wouldn't make me arbiter of who gets to masturbate to what.

 

[Seldon2639]

Killing a person virtually can be toned down. Rape, by its very nature, really can't be if they still want to call it rape.

I'm a little confused by that statement. Do you mean that we can make violence less impactful by representing it as having fewer consequences and less violence than it actually would have in real life? Maybe make death faster, or have less blood (or comically more blood)? I would ask, though, whether it's made less impactful merely by not being real. No movie shows an accurate death, true, but couldn't part of it simply be that an unreal environment will always be more toned down than if something happened in real life?

And even if a game displayed violence in a completely accurate way, that still doesn't address how there's some inherent harm in it. Do we ban games like GTA4 because someone who was the victim of a drive-by shooting might be "traumatized" by the existence of a game wherein you shoot people? They didn't expect to get shot, so it's close to rape in that sense. Why not apply the same schema of "how do you explain why this game should exist?" to that scenario?

 

[DirkGently]

they where baned, its over.

I love how they banned a game that was never going to imported to America anyway. Thats congress, spending your tax dollars. Or your parents. I don't buy into that one-in-four bollocks. What's their definition of sexual assault? Where are they getting their numbers? I don't believe statistics.

As for the whole game thing, why not? I mean, games are games. Games help people get rid of their stress and agression, not go and act it out.

 

[Ultrajoe]

In a free society, sometimes you have to defend the indefensible. Unless someone's getting directly hurt, I don't have any more right to regulate some other dude's wank material than he has right to regulate mine.

While slightly off point, i'd argue that trivializing the act of rape is most certainly hurting rape victims.

 

[Zer_]

In a free society, sometimes you have to defend the indefensible. Unless someone's getting directly hurt, I don't have any more right to regulate some other dude's wank material than he has right to regulate mine.

While slightly off point, i'd argue that trivializing the act of rape is most certainly hurting rape victims.

With that logic then war movies trivialize the loss of life, Postal 2 trivializes mass murder. Oh... wait, doesn't quite work that way.

 

[Archeopterix]

I'd hate to say it but someone who has been raped would obviously have a very biased opinion towards games like RapeLay. It's obvious that they would frown upon it. Many Vietnam war veterans frown upon movies like Full Metal Jacket. It's nothing new or special.

Free speech can only exist if one accepts that they will be offended by some of the things they see or hear. The only reason there's so much controversy over this is because video games are a relatively new entertainment medium. I'm sounding cold and heartless by saying this but it's just a reality. Given the fact that the these games are most definitely a niche most rape victims will never have to come into contact with the game. Of course my previous statement is blown out of the water when you have people giving these games more attention then they really deserve.

The problem with a veteran and a rape victim, anyone who signs up for the army knows there is a chance that they are going to be put into a fight and kill someone. Sometimes, see it done in very gruesome ways. It's a given, and they know the risks when enlisting for a military force. From the vets I've talked to, the video games aren't their favorite but also don't come close to what disgusting acts actually happened in the field.
No one signs up to be raped, and no victim really plans on something like that happening to them.

Killing a person virtually can be toned down. Rape, by its very nature, really can't be if they still want to call it rape.

Veterans aren't negatively stigmatized or have their character and integrity judged and scrutinized to see "if they deserved it" the way rape victims are either. Most rapes don't get reported because of the "secondary harassment" by the police and the law system and even family, friends, and aquaintences of the victim. It's the only crime where the victim is blamed, and has an 80% attempted suicide rate after. (Stats from 2006)

 

[Alex_P]

With that logic then war movies trivialize the loss of life, Postal 2 trivializes mass murder. Oh... wait, doesn't quite work that way.

They do. Ultimately it's just a question of whether they're a symptom or a cause.

The answer is that they're both, really. They're not the origin of the dumb, bad, destructive ideas, but they do propagate them further.

Rape-game creators getting together to say "Let's stop making this crap" (if they're sincere about it) is really the best resolution here. It's more of an honest improvement than trying to paper over the problem with the law would be.

-- Alex

 

[crypt-creature]

Killing a person virtually can be toned down. Rape, by its very nature, really can't be if they still want to call it rape.

I'm a little confused by that statement. Do you mean that we can make violence less impactful by representing it as having fewer consequences and less violence than it actually would have in real life? Maybe make death faster, or have less blood (or comically more blood)? I would ask, though, whether it's made less impactful merely by not being real. No movie shows an accurate death, true, but couldn't part of it simply be that an unreal environment will always be more toned down than if something happened in real life?

And even if a game displayed violence in a completely accurate way, that still doesn't address how there's some inherent harm in it. Do we ban games like GTA4 because someone who was the victim of a drive-by shooting might be "traumatized" by the existence of a game wherein you shoot people? They didn't expect to get shot, so it's close to rape in that sense. Why not apply the same schema of "how do you explain why this game should exist?" to that scenario?

Basically, yes. I mean, most deaths in a video game just aren't that graphic. Blood splurts out in some way and that's about it, it's not terribly graphic. Even if I play a game where I'm cutting a guy in half, I don't see intestines spilling out and hear him screaming in agony. The more graphic a game is in killing a virtually 'living' being, and I'm talking about fps here, it's either just not going to be produced or it's more likely to be banned before it's released. Killing a person can be made less graphically, if they choose it.

Sorry, I wasn't really trying to address the 'inherent' harm of these types of games. Not that I said what I was trying to address anyway, but it's more a visual manifestation of any reasons why a person, or people, would be against the types of games based on an experience or the nature of the game itself (if that makes no sense I apologize).
Though I wonder if people care less, or don't care at all, about shooting in video games is because every society has been exposed to it so much. I mean by their own wars, and that all schools teach about wars and the deaths that they create? Or that war is unavoidable? Video games depict an act of violence, but it isn't terribly graphic. Maybe the odd corpse will be made to look disgusting.

 

[Seldon2639]

In a free society, sometimes you have to defend the indefensible. Unless someone's getting directly hurt, I don't have any more right to regulate some other dude's wank material than he has right to regulate mine.

While slightly off point, I'd argue that trivializing the act of rape is most certainly hurting rape victims.

That becomes a difficult line to draw, though. Do the "Condemned" games trivialize assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated assault? If they do, does that hurt people who have been victims of those crimes? Beyond that, it's back to my original point: were it not for the coat-holding media and all of the whining about the game, hardly anyone would know about it.