So it seems Hotline Miami 2 has rape in it...

[Mr F.]

Bullshit. No, seriously, bullshit.

Find the study. Seriously, Find it. Don't say "Someone else will have to find the link for me because I am lazy", find it.

Sorry for my laziness. I found a link in my previous post, just a few posts above yours. But here's some more details that I've just found:

Spoiler: Click for details of the experiment, from healthfully.org

Simon Baron-Cohen and his associates at the University of Cambridge took a different but equally creative approach to addressing the influence of nature versus nurture regarding sex differences. Many researchers have described disparities in how "people-centered" male and female infants are. For example, Baron-Cohen and his student Svetlana Lutchmaya found that one-year-old girls spend more time looking at their mothers than boys of the same age do. And when these babies are presented with a choice of films to watch, the girls look longer at a film of a face, whereas boys lean toward a film featuring cars.

Of course, these preferences might be attributable to differences in the way adults handle or play with boys and girls. To eliminate this possibility, Baron-Cohen and his students went a step further. They took their video camera to a maternity ward to examine the preferences of babies that were only one day old. The infants saw either the friendly face of a live female student or a mobile that matched the color, size and shape of the student's face and included a scrambled mix of her facial features. To avoid any bias, the experimenters were unaware of each baby's sex during testing. When they watched the tapes, they found that the girls spent more time looking at the student, whereas the boys spent more time looking at the mechanical object. This difference in social interest was evident on day one of life--implying again that we come out of the womb with some cognitive sex differences built in.

Meh, 5+ years old and I would still go from my own learning on the matter and the course I am currently on. I find it hard to believe (Yes, I am just adding in the fact that I am incredulous as a result of my own studies) that there is any noticable difference and that young boys are more naturally inclined towards mechanical objects. Then again, I find the entire field of Evolutionary Psychology to be infuriating, there are plenty of scurrilous claims made by that particular field.

And I understand more can be found in The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, OUP 2007, Chapter 16

I'm making no claim to be an expert (my wife has the training in psychology, not I). I'm only presenting it as a possibility.

Just means more needs to be done, also bullshit. Numbers plox.

Forgive me, but that sounds like an unfounded axiom. No matter how much action is taken (short of direct coercion and quotas), there might not ever be any significant change in the numbers, if indeed there are biological trends at work here. But even then, you would insist more and yet more would need to be done?

I used to believe in a solely constructed gender too, at least with regards to behaviour like occupational choices, but my wife's work and this documentary convinced me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

Not got the time to watch a documentary right now, I am preparing to go out for an evening. Also, apologies for my somewhat late response, term has ended and I have spent much time rather drunk (I am amazed that my original post was so coherent) or preparing to get rather drunk. Still, I am firmly in the camp of believing totally and utterly in constructed gender, outside of the study you posted (And the claims that from day one males are more interested in mechanical objects than humanoid faces. Or mechanical looking human faces. Bleh, it goes against what I was taught when I did behavioural psychology or developmental psychology.). If I get the time I will certainly watch said documentary, and go through the study you posted with a fine tooth comb, although it is no longer my field (I shifted from Psychology to Sociology.)

Sorry for jumping in on your discussion. I just saw your above pseudoscience quote and needed to step in. Well, wanted to. Its been a lazy day of being in bed so I though I would do something partially productive. Sorry, it is simply wrong to state that kids "As young as one day old" already choose gendered toy's.

No problem at all ^_^ Hopefully I've shed a little more light on what I was referring to.

Please understand, that I am completely for equal opportunities for everyone, and I do not think we are there yet. But that is not say that when we do have equal opportunities that we will necessarily have equal numbers of men and women doing the same thing. And that this is not a problem, as long as everyone had the opportunity and chose freely.

Well, on that we are agreed. However, I would state that thanks to what I believe (Gonna put that right there, I am not claiming this to be fact, more claiming that I am more inclined to believe Butler, Vygotsky and others on this particular matter), we will not achieve equality until the numbers are equal. Within our lifetimes we will see the effects of the Swedish social experiment in raising children in a gender neutral environment, I personally believe that this will cause far more equality.

In sum, most of what I say comes from studying Developmental and Behavioural Psychology a while back. However, some of it comes from one of my ex's, god rest her soul, who hated being one of a tiny minority doing Engineering at Oxford. She was not less skilled, I do not believe she was abnormal for her love of engineering and building robots, but she was seen aa freak as a result of her gender. I also have quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from my gender neutral sibling (Referred to as either James or Hannah interchangably, I wish the English had more gender neutral terms, I hate saying "Sibling" or "They") and their struggles with being treated as an equal.

Gender is societal. Sex is biological. Gender is learned. Gender is a combination of Repetition, Citation and Representation (Butler). Like any form of identity, it is built up over time. To badly paraphrase, "Identity is revealed to us as something to be invented rather than discovered" (Bauman). The difference between the biological sexes will have no effect on the toys that a child will choose at a very young age, an experiment to try and prove this would be inherently unethical (EDIT: Sorry, I did not explain that. I could, if I wanted to, it would just take ages and I need a coffee first. Might need to bounce things off me mate doing PPE or just find the notes I made a year or two ago).

Sorry, but i have to disagree. Yes, gender is societal by definition, but as almost always when discussing nurture and nature (or society and biology) you can't talk about one without the other, as human behavior is (most times) a complex interaction of both. I think most people would agree that society is based on biology and in turn interacts with it. As there are clear biological differences between males and females even at a young age it is possible that there are differences in e.g. attention for certain visual stimuli (e.g. toys) which in turn lead to different behavior which in turn lead to differences in a society. Not that i would claim that it is like this, i'm just saying you can't just disconnect gender and sex.

Unless you believe like Judith Butler that Sex is purely biological and gender is purely societal, yes it is based upon physical appearance and characteristics but much like race, the physical appearance causes these characteristics to be attributed. Sorry for saying it, but go read some Butler and you might end up understanding this view slightly better.

I also don't understand why experiments to test this hypothesis would be unethical - or do you mean like "raising some newborn in a (theoretical) gender-free environment to exclude gender as confounding variable"? That would of course be deeply unethical.

This one would take a lot of time. However, the only way to test this hypothesis properly would be to deny care or choice to a child to some degree. I really dont have the time to make this statement properly and I am sorry for putting it in, ethics is a hard subject to grasp. From reading the bit of the study that was posted, I have to a degree changed my mind, I still believe it is an incredibly difficult subject of study from an ethical point of view. Most studies on children are incredibly difficult from an ethical point of view, it is one of the reasons why they are so hard to do. In the past nobody batted an eyelid to a child being given a phobia of white fluffy things, these days that sort of study would be blocked immediately.

In short, its incredibly hard to study children from a psychological point of view without ethical implications. I would question the study on multiple levels, from the Hawthorne Effect (The act of being studied causes people to react in certain ways, not necessarily an ethical question but an important one.) onward.

You say from as early as "Day One", strange that at a time in which children have no concept of permanence (Several years of Psych, because I could), that they have the ability to recognise what is and is not a male or female choice!

You seem to have it backwards here: No one is claiming that newborn choose certain stimuli because they "identify" them as typical male or female. The argument is that for biological reasons male and female even at young ages find different
stimuli interesting which are therefore become defined in society as male or female (again, i don't really believe in this theory).

Well, object permanence among other things. Children naturally prefer to look at shapes with humanoid features, I question the whole mechanical bias due to the fact that with no understanding of what mechanical is I find it hard to accept the study. See, its a very interesting question and I intend to read up on it some more before making hard claims. To put it briefly, as above, I am inclined to disbelieve the results of the study thanks to my own studies.

And remember, that Psychology (Which is what you are referring to there) is out of date within 20 years, if you are being generous.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that psychology as a science will lose it importance in the next 20 years? Or that psychology is behind 20 years (in what? in relation to whom?)? Or something else entirely?

Psychology is a rather young science and it moves incredibly quickly. Things that are seen to be certain fall out of certainty with amazing speed. That is the point I was trying to make. Psychology has yet to have true points of reference, theories which are accepted as fact. Just look over the DSM and how much it changes from year to year, what is included, excluded, included again and excluded again. Look at how things are treated (Although that is more psychiatry.) What I mean to say is within this particular field referencing studies that are over 20 years old is very difficult for they will be rife with ethical implications and experimenter bias. Look over the Stanford Prison Experiment, there is not a chance in hell that could be carried out in the modern day, look over the Milgram experiment and you get more of the same. Very few believe in the teachings of Freud, infact claiming what he stated to be fact would get you laughed out of most lectures.

That is what I was trying to indicate. Unlike other sciences, it is very difficult to reference older theories and experiments because the field moves so very fast. Go back 200 years in Physics and you will find some theories which still hold water, go back 150 years in Psychology (Roughly, its been a while) and you end up with the Introspective Perspective which gave us absolutely nothing of note, bar the realisation that in order to study Psychology you need to use empirical evidence.

I hope that explains things, sorry for this post being so long (And yet so brief) I have to continue suiting up.

EDIT: Needed to say this.

I cant imagine someone who had a family member murdered will ALWAYS be traumatized by the mention of any sort of death or killing.

I can't speak for all circumstances but I've yet to meet a parent who's lost a child to violent crime who doesn't experience this.

To rape victims (And white knights/bleeping heart) your (Editorial you) PTSD will never be as special to them as theirs.

I saw this before and I think I need to respond.

Honestly, it is not that "Our" PTSD is more important. People like myself (Survivors) and people who are referred to as white knights (Such a broad term. I guess I will use "Socially Enlightened Men" as a deliberate attack on your statement, but not you.) make up a surprisingly large amount of the population. See, that's the problem here.

Walk down a street and its rather unlikely that you will end up bumping into a victim of torture. I, personally, have met two people who have been victims of a full on beating. Oh, wait, three. Although the third one was also raped after the beating, so I do not know which category they fit into. In my entire life I have never met a victim of torture, I believe my mother met one or two when she was in the British Council, but I have never, personally, met a victim of torture.

I would find it hard to count the amount of victims of rape I have met. Genuinely. Right now, with a new group of friends that I have only known for a year, I know of two others like myself. Expand it to "Old friends and acquaintances" and that number explodes. Despite knowing a lot of serving soldiers, I have three friends who are currently on tour in Afghanistan, I know one soldier who has occasional flashbacks.

Do you see the point I am trying to make here?

Its not that torture is not as bad as rape. Far from it, there are plenty of tortures which I will accept can be worse than rape (Although its prevalent use within torture must be mentioned). I am not saying that a soldier with PTSD does not have it as bad as a rape survivor.

I am saying that right now you probably know a few rape survivors. I am saying that at some point in your life it is almost certain that you will be friends with a rape survivor. So whilst "Our" PTSD (My own issue with a milder dose of PTSD does not come from the incident, comes from something else I regularly fight against, using the universal terms because you did.) is not special, it is simply more frequently triggered because there are far more of them.

Its not about what is more "Special" it is not about "Censorship", it is not about limiting artistic freedom. But if you create something, it is open to criticism. And if you include something that effects so many negatively on a daily basis, you better do it tastefully, you better be prepared for a shitstorm (That has not occurred, for the record) because we, the survivors and the friends of survivors, are a very vocal minority. We are not special. PTSD as a result of rape is not worse then PTSD as a result of anything else. But it is prevalent.

Good day to you, Sers.

 

[D-Class 198482]

Honestly I'm just kicking the hornets nest.

MAKE IT BUN DEM


You know I just watched Spoilsbury Toast Boy -2 so I doubt I'll be very perterbed

 

[Beat14]

Why should you be concerned? For example, in Mortal Kombat 2011 you see a heart ripped out, a body torn in pieces or in half, hands ripped off, a head crushed etc.

What's so bad about rape and sex? Do you really think that after watching rape and excessive violence videos at the same time or simultaneously a subject will want to rape somebody more than to kill (in the way dumb populists define a possibility of an event X and how it counteracts with the possibility of Y)?

Oh I don't know. Imo when you love some one you naturally want to have sex with them, I am talking about partners here. So you want to love, but every time you get near to that you remember that horrific moment where you get raped. Are you so out of it socially you don't understand that. Functioning with love as a rape victim must be incredibly hard.

Now if you asexual or have become socially numb then yeah, you narrow minded view point and how you got to it makes more sense.

Oh btw love it a strong emotion.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

So let me ask the all important question, does that fact that it's retro graphics make it more palatable? After all Tomb Raider couldn't even have an enemy "Aggressively Stalk" it's female protagonist with out the whole internet blowing up.

I think most of the reaction was owed due to the fact it was Lara Croft, of all people, the one-time Strong Female Protagonist. But that more or less blew over when people actually played the game. Maybe the same thing happens here. I saw the preview and it does look like rape... the same way it looked like rape in the Lara Croft previews. Never judge a game from its trailer, right?

 

[JazzJack2]

Its not about what is more "Special" it is not about "Censorship", it is not about limiting artistic freedom. But if you create something, it is open to criticism.

Saying something is 'offensive' is not a valid criticism of art and if highlighting something as potentially offensive isn't an attempt to open it up for censorship then what is it trying to do? Saying this is 'insensitive' to rape victims provides no actual insight into something as a work of art but instead demeans it's value as art and only considers how it is placed in society ( which is the basis for all calls of censorship. )

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Why should you be concerned? For example, in Mortal Kombat 2011 you see a heart ripped out, a body torn in pieces or in half, hands ripped off, a head crushed etc.

What's so bad about rape and sex? Do you really think that after watching rape and excessive violence videos at the same time or simultaneously a subject will want to rape somebody more than to kill (in the way dumb populists define a possibility of an event X and how it counteracts with the possibility of Y)?

The fundamental reason is that violence is easily wrangled into a system for a game and, perhaps most importantly, most people would probably agree that violence is, from time to time, an appropriate response to a given situation. By contrast, rape is not readily translated into a game mechanic and relatively few would agree that there any situations where rape is appropriate.

 

[Dense_Electric]

If a player controlling a terrorist gunning down innocent civilians in an airport is acceptable, then I see no reason a player controlling a rapist raping an innocent person is unacceptable.

 

[Loreley]

Everyone going on about ~art~ and ~expression~ here is really being a bit silly; if you put that sort of thing in your trailer (excepting a game that would make dealing with the victims feelings or revenge or something the main plot, which would be quite a different matter), you're not going for the tasteful or the artistic approach. You're using rape as a shock element, rather like a five year old throwing out the latest swear word he has learned at his grandma (and like that five year old, you should probably be ignored). That's not art, that's publicity, because people are not yet as desensitised to rape in video games as they are to violence. That said, until the game is out its hard to actually say what is happening (someone on a different page said it actually happens in the context of an in-game movie) and in case it has to be said, of course that is not ground for censorship. If we'd censor everything that depicted serious issues in a completely idiotic way, we'd have to censor a lot of crap.

My two cents on the notes why portraying rape is more shocking than "traditional" violence: Rape is like a very slow, mentally destructive act of torture that leaves the victim very powerless in the most intimate ways. It also happens solely to women - not in the real world, but in most portrayals in any medium. Given how, let's say problematic the depiction of women in video games still tends to be on a large scale, this is why adding rape to the mix probably is going to cause some knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Dense_Electric]

It also happens solely to women - not in the real world, but in most portrayals in any medium.

Certainly not true. Far Cry 3 featured two rapes (one implied, one experienced by the player), both against men. I don't recall it being implied that the pirates raped either of the two female members of Jason Brody's group.

 

[minimacker]

While it's uncomfortable, it really only goes over the line if it's your own character doing it. You, the player. Which people think it might just be. That's pretty fucked up.

 

[NearLifeExperience]

We should get a game where the sole purpose is RAPE. I've HAD IT with people being totally okay with games that simulate nothing less than mass murders, killing hordes of enemies without even batting an eyelash, and then when it's about inconsensual sex, people cry their eyes out like big babbies. Seriously, what is the deal with that?

 

[oreso]

Everyone going on about ~art~ and ~expression~ here is really being a bit silly; if you put that sort of thing in your trailer... you're not going for the tasteful or the artistic approach. You're using rape as a shock element... That's not art, that's publicity

(Emphasis mine)

While I completely agree with everything else you post, I just want to draw attention to this.

Sometimes art isn't tasteful, and sometimes it uses shock elements, even cheap ones, to make a point.

Hotline Miami 1 was very deliberately as trashy and shocking as it possibly could be, while its storyline was basically a deconstruction of the tired old justifications for mass murder that feature in games. If you wanted to engage with it as art, then it made you think about what you were doing, since there seems to be a whole other world and a whole lot of madness just under the surface of the game's frame.

Contrasting our desensitisation there with other horrific crimes seems like another effective way to bring the message home. How many dead Russians is the sexual torture of an American woman worth?

And it's all a movie. Because don't worry! Nothing is real here. Framed narratives are often used when we want draw attention to the unreality of the current media. It's traumatic fiction within a fiction... and that's somehow better than just traumatic fiction?

In the world of the movie in the game, the rape is real. In the world of the game, the rape is acted.

But in the real world, the rape is a button press, regardless of whether it's a movie or not. It's pixels. An animation. A crude scripted sequence. We're just ascribing these extra values to it because -this- crime matters so much, when we didn't even think twice about the unreal mass murder.

 

[Loreley]

It also happens solely to women - not in the real world, but in most portrayals in any medium.

Certainly not true. Far Cry 3 featured two rapes (one implied, one experienced by the player), both against men. I don't recall it being implied that the pirates raped either of the two female members of Jason Brody's group.

Actually, that's true, I had forgotten that. I still think male characters do not face the threat of rape on such a broadband level as many female characters. Even though usually the game does not go through with it, showing sexual aggression towards women is basically a stock element of many "edgy" villains as well as an element used to make "dark and gritty" worlds more realistic. And while it might be something that would indeed happen, I often find it very tiresome, because a horrific act of sadistic violence is made out to be set dressing, never to be adressed or explored.

Also, the on-screen rape in Far Cry 3 is done by a woman, which does NOT make it less terrible or less of a crime, but I remember seeing Dudebro Comments on the act ("hurpadurp I wouldn't mind being given a potion by her") which would not have happened if it was male on female or male on male. Maybe because women are not seen as so much of a sexual threat? I don't know. Would the reaction have been different if she wasn't conventionally attractive? The lack of reaction over this vs. Lara Croft is certainly very interesting to discuss. But I would see that as more the exception to the rule - I cannot think of even implied rape of a male character in any other video game, though I haven't played everything, of course, and please correct me if I'm wrong -, albeit a very interesting one.

Everyone going on about ~art~ and ~expression~ here is really being a bit silly; if you put that sort of thing in your trailer... you're not going for the tasteful or the artistic approach. You're using rape as a shock element... That's not art, that's publicity

(Emphasis mine)

While I completely agree with everything else you post, I just want to draw attention to this.

Sometimes art isn't tasteful, and sometimes it uses shock elements, even cheap ones, to make a point.
[snip for post length]

This is also an interesting point. I admit I haven't played the first one, so I didn't know to what extent it was parodying or questioning beyond what I saw in the video. As I said, the scene ultimately must be judged in its context, but I still find putting it in the trailer shocking in a way that is very much cheap publicity (any news etc.) and didn't really feel like they were trying to comment on anything for now; the actual game might be very different, as you said. Maybe because I'm a superhero comic reader that sort of thing just makes me go "eh", too - in superhero (DC/Marvel) comics, rape being the shocking new thing is pretty much an old hat already. So I wasn't really actually shocked by this or Lara or any game that features violent dismemberment and other acts of psychotic violence, if I'm completely honest. I've just seen it all too often in another medium that went from "for kids" to "ready to tackle serious issues" and by now I find it a touch annoying whenever the next developer/artist/writer comes around the corner waving the rape flag for attention. If it is implemented in the game as you say, I would actually think about checking it out because judging our responses to and viewpoints on video game violence within a game is a cool idea.

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

Why should you be concerned? For example, in Mortal Kombat 2011 you see a heart ripped out, a body torn in pieces or in half, hands ripped off, a head crushed etc.

What's so bad about rape and sex? Do you really think that after watching rape and excessive violence videos at the same time or simultaneously a subject will want to rape somebody more than to kill (in the way dumb populists define a possibility of an event X and how it counteracts with the possibility of Y)?

Honestly I'm just kicking the hornets nest.

But to be honest, I could see someone being inspired by Hotline Miami in a "Natural Born Killers" "Taxi Driver" kind of way. And I say that with Hotline being my favourite game.

That's the same argument people who believe shooter games are combat simulators use.

I am of the belief that violent games can generate aggressive behavior, but I don't think that games have that much influence on the player to make them act out violently.

 

[oreso]

Thank you again for your thoughtful posts.

Actually, that's true, I had forgotten that. I still think male characters do not face the threat of rape on such a broadband level as many female characters. Even though usually the game does not go through with it, showing sexual aggression towards women is basically a stock element of many "edgy" villains as well as an element used to make "dark and gritty" worlds more realistic. And while it might be something that would indeed happen, I often find it very tiresome, because a horrific act of sadistic violence is made out to be set dressing, never to be adressed or explored.

Sadistic violence -is- set dressing for many genres, unfortunately or not. If your hero is a mass killer, you have to show that the bad guy is at least capable of genocide or sexual violence.

But saying that, there is a couple of factors here:

• 
  * Almost any 'close-in' violence towards women is interpreted as sexual violence, even when the same violence against a man is assumed to be devoid of sexual content. The Tomb Raider 'controversy' is an example, compare to the many deaths male characters experience.
  * The amount of sexual content in games is ridiculously tiny, especially sexually violence. Even in the number of games with characters with genders, and the small subsection of those games with female characters, the small section of THOSE where the female characters are involved with violence, only a small section of THAT is it sexual. Even when girlfriends are captured by villains, they receive at most a single punch or slap, as per more light-hearted or pulpy genre tropes.
  * About the only genre that escapes this is fighting games, I think. Broad rosters usually include many female characters, and all are understandably equal in the pummelling they receive, and the violence is rarely regarded as sexual... unless one of the players trash talks apparently

But I would see that as more the exception to the rule - I cannot think of even implied rape of a male character in any other video game, though I haven't played everything, of course, and please correct me if I'm wrong -, albeit a very interesting one.

A friend of mine once described Catwoman's role in Batman Arkham City as "A predator breaks into a facility full of brutalised people with mental health problems in order to assault, molest and steal from them". ^_^ It's okey if she chokes them with her thighs, or snogs them before kicking them in the head. Sexual violence perpetrated by women gets a pass.

Indeed, one of her frenemies, Poison Ivy, drugs men into being her slaves and stores them in cocoons until she wants to use them. If you reverse the genders, I doubt this would be fine.

But yeah, as with above, sexual violence of any kind is incredibly rare, so I don't think there are many examples.

 

[doodles]

I just had to post this. I was originally going to post something quite unfriendly but I told my friend and he laughed and that fixed my mood.

I always find the outrage from women and sexual violence in media odd. I also find the general public's' acceptance of general violence even odder.

See I could go into examples of violence during my childhood but I dont know. Maybe it's because Im a male. I "got over it".

Im also a 11c1p, who has been shot, shot at, and seen his friends being shot. Ugh. I really want to compare my experiences in the military with that other posters rape experience but in reality does it matter? Both are equally horrible. I dont understand why one atrocious act need to be worse than the other.

now to the meat and grits

I have numerous friends, fellow infantrymen who take anti-psychotics behaviour changing drugs who cant even watch tv and you -exhale- people complain about a bloody game?

Im rare amongst my friends. I play violent games. I love the fear it evokes in me. I sit in arma shaking and sweating my ass off. My good friend cant even hear a loud noise without freaking out. My other friend cant have kids because they would make too much noise, he even sleeps over at my place some nights because he says something spooked him and he is afraid he will hurt his wife.

How many things you think they can do without being bombarded with violence? How many games can they play?
People dont know how good they got it. and I forgot my point. Time for my pills

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Why should you be concerned? For example, in Mortal Kombat 2011 you see a heart ripped out, a body torn in pieces or in half, hands ripped off, a head crushed etc.

What's so bad about rape and sex? Do you really think that after watching rape and excessive violence videos at the same time or simultaneously a subject will want to rape somebody more than to kill (in the way dumb populists define a possibility of an event X and how it counteracts with the possibility of Y)?

Honestly I'm just kicking the hornets nest.

But to be honest, I could see someone being inspired by Hotline Miami in a "Natural Born Killers" "Taxi Driver" kind of way. And I say that with Hotline being my favourite game.

That's the same argument people who believe shooter games are combat simulators use.

I am of the belief that violent games can generate aggressive behavior, but I don't think that games have that much influence on the player to make them act out violently.

No, your right. It's not going to make someone do something.

But if your already heading down that path, you're going to attracted to media that glamorizes violence.

 

[Marik2]

We should get a game where the sole purpose is RAPE. I've HAD IT with people being totally okay with games that simulate nothing less than mass murders, killing hordes of enemies without even batting an eyelash, and then when it's about inconsensual sex, people cry their eyes out like big babbies. Seriously, what is the deal with that?

lol pretty sure there are some japanese games that are nothing but rape

 

[Clowndoe]

Great. Fantastic. I'm glad. As long as there's context, obviously. TV, movies and books have rape, but it's not as much of a big deal there because people have accepted (mostly) over the years that sometimes these things are needed in said mediums because, as something real, rape can be a tool to tell a good story as a plot device or as a way of showing what a character is like. What I saw there is totally fine, if the fat guy is made out to be a total asshole (even if it's the player character), and we use that scene to establish that, or if it's a cutscene that gives more story for the girl, etc, because it might be important to the story.