Rape vs Violence: A Double Standard

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
Smeatza said:
Interesting paper. I could have done with more detail.
You might find this interesting.
http://www.courseweb.uottawa.ca/PSY3171/personalwp/p6The%20Relationship%20between%20Psychopathy%20and%20Deviant.pdf
It supports what you posted but still acknowledges that rape can come from sexual deviancy.
Rapists should still be given psychotherapy. Mental illness or no, there are issues there.
I dont think a rapist needs more psychotherapie than say a bankrobber, both took something they wanted with voilance, thats pretty close regarding the mindset. Of course the rapist commited a more cruel crime, but some serial killer commited very cruel crimes too and do not get psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy is only really useful if you want to reintroduce someone into society, I for one dont think thats a good idea if that someone basically tortured a helpless human being to get what they wanted from them.

Smeatza said:
The problem that this presents is that the majority of rapists come from working class backgrounds, and don't have a high school education in the first place. So the only place left to turn is the parents, and if that's a dud.......
Could you back this up by some statistics? I would be very interested if there is actually a correlation between education and rape, or is that more of a personal assumption?
 

KungFuJazzHands

New member
Mar 31, 2013
309
0
0
omega 616 said:
Rape isn't in our nature, sure getting laid is but it's not like every man thinks about raping every woman (despite what some extremist feminist thinks)..
Windcaler said:
Frankly I think any comparison between rape and mass violence is like comparing apples and oranges. Your talking about two different crimes commited for different reasons. That said, I dont think theres any strict double standard in an objective sense but there can be in a subjective sense
Rape is just as much a part of our nature as violence is. In fact, rape at its core is about dominance and intimidation, and the act of rape itself is ultimately an act of violence. Serial rapists and sexual sadists do it for power-control (usually as a replacement for sexual activity they can't achieve under normalized conditions), and armies do it en masse for the same reason, just under different conditions.

Sex and violence are inextricably linked in our genetics and in our cultures.

...there aren't really any main stream rape movies ... hills have eyes is probably the biggest release with it in, I don't think there are many songs with rape in and there certainly isn't any rape sports.
Mainstream entertainment? Obviously not, but you don't have to dig very far to find examples of other media that concentrate heavily on rape. Gonzo porn, "rape rock", mondo cinema films, Japanese hentai, etc. It's out there, but it's not in the public eye because rape is not a socially acceptable topic like straight violence is.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Loki_The_Good said:
Gorrath said:
I want to engage you on this post because you seem to be advocating the position that, if someone finds something offensive enough, censorship is okay. I'm not sure because I don't know what you mean by 'outcry'. If someone wants to make the KKK game you suggested, then in my view they should be allowed to do this. Now if you mean we should call it out for what it is, a racist bunch of nonsense that we personally find offensive, I agree. If by outcry you mean we should attempt to censor the individual who made them game, I totally disagree.

I have no problem if someone makes a game dealing with any situation, scenario or theme; it is their right to do so, and while I'll not condone it by buying it, neither would I condemn anyone who wants to make or buy such things. Your claim that art needs to be free, only to continue by saying that it has to fit some mold of tact or care. Who gets to be the arbiter of what is tactful or careful? Does GTA treat murder with tact and care? Of course you've already said what others have, that murder and rape are different things, but there are plenty of people that would just as quickly claim that the 'tactless', 'careless' way with which murder in GTA is treated is deserving of censorship or moral outcry. Who draws the line between what is too dark? Which subjects can be treated with tactless, graceless abandon and which must have the 'appropriate' somber tones.

I say we let our wallets decide. Those who want to play rape games can play rape games, those who want violent games can play those, those who want Viva Pinata 3 can play that (I know I do). And let none of us or even most of us decide who has to treat what fantasy in what way.
I don't think it should be censored I just don't think it should be encouraged or treated as equivalent. Sorry I thought I made that point clear when I said "I'd never ban the subject entirely. Art needs to be free and there are ways of treating even the worst material and situations with respect but it has to be done carefully, tactfully, and right." However, I probably used too many contingents to really make that point. People should feel free to make anything but as consumers we have the right to be outraged at it and not buy it and even inform publishers that we will not support it. Protest it, boycott it I'll stand by all those things. That's not censorship that's expressing your voice in opposition. I'd NEVER say the government should come in and outright ban it though or that someone should worry about legal repercussions. Even negative things need to exist to some degree if only so we can be reminded why they are so bad and keep the discussion going. We shouldn't silence one side of a debate by we shouldn't feel so squeamish that we end up tacitly supporting something we believe is wrong either.
Well, that line about never banning it but expecting that it be treated with a certain tact or carelessness is what confused me. It seemed like you might have been advocating a set of standards about what an okay or not okay portrayal of rape would be. That's why I wondered who would be the arbiter of what was and was not tactful or careful.

If people want to protest and boycott, let them, and depending on the work itself, I may even join in. By and large though, I treat fiction with a scale of "I don't care" to "I like this". It is not up to me to decide what gets people off, nor would I step in and decide that someone's fantasy was "too dark" or "shouldn't be encouraged". That "shouldn't be encouraged" stuff is exactly the kind of line groups like One Million Moms uses. Even if someone made a game that was specifically designed to let people with a rape fetish get off, I would never protest or boycott it and I don't think anyone else should either. I think if it's not your bag, just don't buy it. BY protesting or boycotting (boycotting being more than just not buying it) you might succeed in having the publisher or creator never make a game like it again. You might view that as a good thing, but I would not, exactly in the same way I have no interest in Manhunt but if One Million Moms managed to protest it and any game like it into non-existence, I would not be happy about that.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
IllumInaTIma said:
Ok, I won't defend games like GTA or Carmageddon in which violence is committed just for its own sake. But, for the most game with violent content, there is usually some sort of justification for murder. It's war. They killed your dog. They are bad people, they are your enemies. In some sense you're justified in killing them. But rape... you don't rape your enemies. Rape is an act that is committed because... fuck, I don't even know. Ok, let me put it this way. You can picture a hero killing his enemies for a greater cause. But, you can not, for the love of god, picture a hero that would rape someone, even his mortal enemy. That's all I got, I suck at explaining my thoughts.
What separates torture from rape?

Both involve some form of torture against a helpless individual, both can be physically damaging, both generally ARE mentally damaging,

But only the former is A-okay from a gaming standpoint; that using physical or mental torture against an enemy is fine (or at least justifiable) if it's for the greater good, but using physical/mental *sexual* torture against a (female) enemy is, currently not ever acceptable.

Hell, even being a victim of torture is fine in a gaming narrative, but even the THREAT of ANY form of sexual assault leads to overblown hysteria by the gaming press (See: Tomb Raider 2013).

(As a sidenote, I could easily see a male enemy having his dick being cut off without a peep from the gaming press, with the same not being true for female enemies, but that's a different double-standard entirely). In Far Cry 3, for example,

One of your best friends is raped by his kidnapper, and no one says a word, other than a few people like me pointing out the ludicrous double-standard in not even allowing female rape victims to BE in video games without huge hissy-fits while male ones go unnoticed.
 

TehCookie

New member
Sep 16, 2008
3,919
0
0
demonjazz said:
TehCookie said:
War and violence is bad, but it's also something we do normally. Even little kids playfight all the time and sometimes actually fight. I don't remember any kids playing rape. You can even put a positive spin on violence and have it be about a hero fighting an army to save a princess since violence in the sake of justice is okay. It may be violent, but it's not about violence it's the means to an end. What goal would require you to rape someone?

Actually why would you want to be a rapist in your fantasy? I never play games and go "I want to kill tons of people!" Of course there are still games about you playing an evil murder, but there are also games you can be a rapist.
... I totally never play games were I say "I want to kill tons of people"*Hides all the dead people from Skyrim, that I put in humorous poses*
And there are goals that may require you to rape some one like... You must impregnate the queen of Alserdansia or else the world will fall in two days... You must impregnate somebody so that Batman is born in the future, but you have to do to somebody who is married and a very devoted wife... Your God and must rape the world to make it exist... Well none of these are good scenarios but still scenarios
Of course there's scenarios where you'd rape someone, you could also rape someone into submission or to get off. Every single one of them is terrible, there is no good scenario for rape. If you want to play a rapist there are games for that, but those games should never be acceptable.
 

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
IchiT said:
Tell me a SINGLE story where removing the rape scene would have derailed it.
Wow, that is some first post you've made here. Welcome to The Escapist.

On topic: removing the rape scene doesn't remove the implications. Movies often try to avoid certain horrifying scenes when the movie still wants to talk about the subject, but isn't a (bloody) horror movie. Actually, sometimes the scene itself isn't the most powerful thing in the movie. If the movie is really good, the consequences weigh heavier. It is not about what you have seen, but how you feel about it.

The implications in movies like Let Me In [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/] and Splice [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1017460/] are mind boggling. If you haven't seen Splice, it has a rape scene.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
TehCookie said:
If you want to play a rapist there are games for that, but those games should never be acceptable.
Why? What do you mean by acceptable? Why is it the fictitious, gruesome murder of a human being for no other reason than "It's fun" is acceptable but the fictitious rape of someone is not? Why is torturing someone acceptable, but rape is not? It is all complete fiction with no actual person being hurt. It is pixels on a screen.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
Why do you want rape in your games at all? Is what I would wonder.

Fighting enemies okay, Watching hilarious physics hitting people with cars in GTA okay.

Rape? I'm sorry but that's just a whole different level of nasty. I'm pretty sure Jimquisition went through this at some point.

The guy above makes a good point...
 

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
Labyrinth said:
Ultrajoe said:
*claps* Well said

JazzJack2 said:
I am sorry but I don't see this at all, committing rape is seen as breaking the most basic forms of human morality and empathy and when cases of rape come up in the news even the coldest, most sociopathic newspapers like the Daily Mail won't attempt to blame the victim. There is universal hatred towards rapists and rape across all the developed world and people don't take it as trivially as you might suggest.
The media is always harsh towards the rapist and lenient towards the victim. But within the victim's family circle things are different. Like I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, rape will dishonor the family in some cultures, resulting in exile or suicide. And sometimes the victim has to marry the rapist in order to restore family honor. That is just cruel.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Moonlight Butterfly said:
Why do you want rape in your games at all? Is what I would wonder.

Fighting enemies okay, Watching hilarious physics hitting people with cars in GTA okay.

Rape? I'm sorry but that's just a whole different level of nasty. I'm pretty sure Jimquisition went through this at some point.
Lets say for a second that someone wants rape in their game because they find the idea of rape sexually exciting. Someone could make the argument you just made thusly:

"Why do you want murder in your games at all? Is what I wonder. Punching enemies is okay, watching enemies get their heads stomped on in Mario Bros. is okay.

Murder? I'm sorry but that's just a whole different level of nasty."

What difference does it make why someone would want rape in a game, or murder or anything else that is 'bad'? Maybe someone wants murder in their game so they can feel like a hero. Maybe someone likes murder in their game because they get off on violence. What people get out of it is wholly personal and not, in my estimation, a good reason for censorship. If someone were to tell you "I like rape games because I find rape hot," does that mean rape shouldn't be allowed?
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,580
1
3
I always thought of rape as a method of torture, a form of control. To portray it in a game, I would assume, is to encourage a negative reaction in the event, as one would get from any act of torture performed, or to be performed, by the player.

I would not enjoy playing a game that required me to perform torture or rape, even though it is a game, and no one was really getting hurt. I'm just not interested in such 'detailed' story arcs in my games.
 

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
Chris Tian said:
I don't know if a culture that is so backwards and dark-age-y is a good example. Especially considering that most likely none of us live there. I assume that because people in those cultures tend to not have access to internet and games.

There are examples of cultures throughout history and all over the world that would challenge every moral value you can name. It would all boil down to "morals are subjective" and render any further discussion pointless.
Well, there is Japan. There are a few 'interesting' articles about it, but I dare not Google 'Japan and rape', because I still desperately trying to get the last videos I saw out of my mind. My curiosity went to far that time.

Scott Rothman said:
.............I'm not even going to touch this thread.
But you just did touch this thread, in fact, by posting here.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Darken12 said:
Above all, I believe that we should strive to discuss these issues with calm.
When there are legions of people who insist on coming in and making the Grand Canyon-esque jump from "Rape should be a theme discussed in games" to "The protagonist should be raping everyone! Woooooo!" I'm not sure how calm one can be with someone who insists on missing the point that badly. Normally I'd keep hammering this point home as people enter the thread, but Gorrath has kind of undercut me by engaging their fallacious arguments on their terms. Damn you Gorrath. *shakes fist*
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
I contest this. 1 and 2 are textbook examples of somebody interpreting desire or a proposition from a passive action (dressing), and the second literally refers to a woman's body as 'something', with no address to the individual's preference. 3, I admit, is merely a statement of possibility, but I argue its inclusion is valid because of the context; we know it's from a lad's mag. Were it revealed to be from a rapist the implications would be less benign. 4 recommends sex as a substitute for apology, 5 is blatantly entitled to someone else's body, 6 is stating that all women like dirty talk and 7 advocates rape. 8 I admit is benign, even if it indicates some troubling attitudes to women. 9 is like 3, it's valid in its context because we don't know who said it, but given it's actually from a rapist it would be interesting to note what 'willingly' entails. 10 through 13 are all talking about the desirability of a woman in a position of vulnerability (as are many others) and the last three are concerned with women being natural victims.
Can't resist, though this'll be my last post. Figured I'd break them down by quote.

'1. There's a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.'
Again, the '...' always makes a quote suspect to me, but saying that there are signs you can spot to know when a woman wants sex doesn't imply you can do it without consent. She may want sex, but not with you.

2. Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?
"if he gets something like that', in other words, no indication that you can take it without consent. This one is bad enough that I would be curious how many people got this one right.

3. A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.
Like I said, totally true statement, and I've known girls like this.

4. Mascara running down the cheeks means they've just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.
Again, the '...' makes it incredibly suspect, and again, no talking about lack of consent, though admittedly in extremely poor taste.

5. What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.
Some girls do lead guys on. So? Still no indication that it's justifying rape or a lack of a need for consent.

6. Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won't do any harm either . . . 'I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore' . . .
It says filthy talk CAN be a turn on, that's not an indication in the slightest that all women like dirty talk.

7. You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.
Ridiculous sentence with the sheer amount of '...' they had to put in, but as stated this one actually does imply rape (and is from a rapist).

8. Escorts . . . they know exactly how to turn a man on. I've given up on girlfriends. They don't know how to satisfy me, but escorts do.
As you said, benign.

9. You'll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they'll do it willingly.
Seduce does not imply lack of consent (in fact it implies the ability to get consent) and anyone who isn't a sociopath will understand what 'willingly' means, and if they don't it's doubtful that getting rid of "Zoo" magazine will make a difference there.

10. There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.
I'm gonna be honest, I have no idea what the hell this sentence is talking about, but again, nothing in it about rape or not needing consent.

11. Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they're just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they're saying, 'Hey, I've got a beautiful body, and it's yours if you want it.'
As mentioned earlier, this one does imply rape, and is said by a rapist.

12. You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick.
I'm going to assume 'smash' is some sort of slang because otherwise I'm confused about what the hell this sentence is going on about, but again, nothing here about lack of consent or rape.

13. Some women are domineering, but I think it's more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won't be domineering.
This one is very vague because people are going to have a million definitions of what "acting the man" means. Likewise, there's no mention of sex in here, so this could be talking about anything regarding relationships, something as simple as "act like a man and pick the restaurant". Also, since they said "I think" it reflects that this is only their opinion. Likewise, I've heard plenty of women say things very similar to this, ie. "a man should act like a man and take charge". I'd hardly say they were advocating for more rape.

14. I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they're just asking for it.
Again, this one does imply rape, and was said by a rapist.

15. Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim.
Again with the '...', and I'll admit this one is a little creepy, but still nothing that says or really implies "and if she says no, keep going'. Also, I've seen similar quotes in women's mags advocating tying a guys hands to the bedposts because "it's a turn on when he's helpless".

16. I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.
In this case, I think it's pretty clear that he's saying if you get a girl sufficiently hot and bothered in the bedroom then inhibitions go out the window (which, in my experience, is frequently true). He probably could have worded things a lot better, but if we have to start putting asterisks after our sentences with legalese at the bottom of the page then I give up.

And last: "Were it revealed to be from a rapist the implications would be less benign."
Well of course, you could apply that to EVERYTHING when it comes to criminals. Saying "I had sex last night!" is obviously way more benign coming from average Joe citizen than coming from a convicted rapist, just like saying "I got a new car!" is much less benign if it came from a known car thief, or someone saying "look at this diamond necklace I got!" coming from a jewel thief.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
So, tell me, how can intentionally inflicting traumatic physical, emotional, and mental harm upon another person out of sadism, be made "fun" or "engaging" without being, well, sadistic? Can't be done.
I read through everything you posted, but wanted to hone in on this bit specifically. What if you could prove that the only reason to have rape in a game is so sadists could get their rocks off, why is that a reason for censorship? I've asked this of a bunch of people in the thread, since that's what this all boils down to. We can highlight all the differences between rape and murder for fun we want, but none of that explains why one should be censored and one shouldn't. Why would you care if someone played a rape game to get off? It does not affect you in any way, shape or form.
I realize you didn't address censorship at all in your post, but I can only presume that everyone arguing why rape should be treated differently than anything else supports the idea of censoring it.

Also, this goes out to everyone who might be reading my posts. I realize that some might think I am defending this position because I've got some love of rape. I promise this is not the case. The reason I am arguing here is because I want people to reject censorship, not embrace rape.
 

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
If that's true, why do young men have trouble spotting the difference between media intended for them as sexual counsel and the defensive comments of convicted rapists? If young men didn't need to be taught specific examples to avoid committing rape, why does it still occur? Should driving education consist of a mantra that reads 'Respect other drivers and stay safe', and not a process of learning all the rules associated with safe operation of a motor vehicle? It's much more efficient. Since when is 'Practice sex ethically' not a core value we should use exactly as you say; to cover a miles-long list of different examples?
But what if it is an urge that person cannot resist? Maybe he knows it's wrong but he can't help himself.

Most people committing a crime are aware they are breaking the law. Heck, screw the law; they are breaking a social and moral code and they know it.

What is scary though is that kids might not actually know yet. They can be extremely cruel, without realizing it.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Loki_The_Good said:
Whenever people argue against protest I like to point out this flaw. You agree art should be free. However there's plenty of art made in protest of certain things. Would you be opposed to art that would encourage others not to support a certain view? Is that okay to censor? Art itself is a nebulous term. Writing by many is considered an art form, yet you feel free to argue against my view. To try and convince me to recant. Don't get me wrong I'm cool with that by by your argument you shouldn't be. However maybe protest art shouldn't exist. Except where is that line. Could you argue that video games with rape in them are at least in part fueled by a desire to protest against the taboos of society? It'd be pretty easy and even if it's not true how would you decide. So then if you think protest art should be censurable then your taking a harder line on it then I am. This is the flaw with blind adherence to defend something against any action in the name of stopping censorship. It's not unidirectional it's a dialogue and by fighting any action on one side to protect the other from censorship you ironically seek to censor the opposing side. That's why I would never say censorship should be imposed protesting is still an important and viable tool not to censor but to lend action to continue the debate.

You mention the million moms as this evil force. I disagree with them completely but think how much they've done to further the discussion of gaming. They may have been in the opposing side but they brought it to the spot light got people talking about it looking into it and making their own decisions. They forced us to defend it to create arguments for it and grow our knowledge on a variety of things to protect something we care about. I don't like the million moms and I hope they never succeed as they are pushing for true censorship. However, nothing ever grows when left to idleness and stagnation. I mean think how many great games came out in answer to the arguments that video games are only about violence. I know it sounds very progressive to say let them eat cake but it never helps anything in the end it just leads to stagnation.
Oh I'm not against protest at all, that's why the very first line I used in the paragraph said that if people want to protest and boycott, let them. What I urge against is boycotting or protesting fiction or art. I am all for boycotting consumer unfriendly products and protesting bad government or corporate policies. I actually think that protest art, like all art, should NOT be censored.

Also, I don't think One Million Moms is an evil force at all. But they do something I very much dislike by trying to have vendors, publishers and creators censor themselves because they find the material offensive. I simply disagree with the idea of censoring, boycotting or protesting anything that is fictitious, as it tends to lead to censorship, which is something I am totally against with every fiber of my being. I'm not even saying that we should try and stop people from protesting fiction, just that I think they shouldn't do it because I find the act irrational.