How should we react to visual gameplays' featuring disturbing themes?

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

It's an entertainment, not some important vaccine or medicine so there is no real harm in banning selective titles that are deemed too provocative by the mass. Havent heard of life threatening cases when people were denied such entertainment

Scientifically, there's no real correlation between rape porn and number of rape cases however, it doesnt mean it's not a contributing factor. Unlike hard science, soft science have little means to have quantitative reproducible results. You can do case studies and surveys but there's always loophole for arguements with such results.

But for arguement that rape porn doesnt turn people to such activity the why Japan where Rape porn are top sellers in the porn industry are also very high. Why is that so? Social stress? Patriachal society? Pornography? or just more woman reporting such cases?

Unless someone could positively rule out rape porn as factor in rape crimes, it's not fair to say that rape porn have no impact on it.

As I see it, studies like that can't be perfect. Imo there's still a doubt that it could affect some people. If it was me (sorry in advance if it feels like insulting the pro-freedom), rapes are a crime so horrible that i will take this doubt in account.

But my personal opinion aside, in France on a laws point of view, we consider that we have to look at facts before anything else...

When we made laws about car accidents because of people under drugs or alcohol, there was a fact that it was the "main" cause in a lot of cases, and so the justice can work on that.

[Key Board]

I believe that just like how there is a law that separates Church and State in the USA, there should also be a law that separates the real world and fictional games.

Makers should be allowed to make a game that employs the use of fictional violence in order to proceed, be it sexual or not.

Makers should be allowed to make a game where you need to commit fictional
cruelty to animals or heck, the environment.

Makers should be allowed to make a game where you play as a terrorist who blows up tall buildings in what may seem as a fictional re-enactment to a certain RL tragedy.

Makers should be allowed to make a game where you fictionally shoot Presidents, women, children, babies, racial minorities, and other various things that the general public might consider untouchable

[Langknow]

Hey,

While we're at it , lets ban most movies and video games for the promotion of violence and degradation of women into sexual objects.

Because If I see it so many times, I think I'm just gonna start doing some kung fu moves or maybe start shooting people in real life too right!!!

You gotta be kidding me? right?

Are people that stupid ???

Apparently ...... because instead of working on the real issues, lets side debate, and talk about the possibility of something that might happen and bann everything in sight!!

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Narona

As I see it, studies like that can't be perfect. Imo there's still a doubt that it could affect some people. If it was me (sorry in advance if it feels like insulting the pro-freedom), rapes are a crime so horrible that i will take this doubt in account.

Granted that rapes are horrible, but that's not the point of contention. Don't you worry that without their porn, some people will feel so frustrated that it will push them over the edge? Neither affirmation is terribly scientific, and they lead to opposite conclusions. Why do you favor one at the exclusion of the other?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Granted that rapes are horrible, but that's not the point of contention. Don't you worry that without their porn, some people will feel so frustrated that it will push them over the edge? Neither affirmation is terribly scientific, and they lead to opposite conclusions. Why do you favor one at the exclusion of the other?

Aye, the safety-valve hypothesis has yet to be disputed (though it has also yet to be proved; whereas the "total suppression" hypothesis is already known to not actually solve anything).

The base question is "why is there a demand for these products?" followed by "is that a problem?" and "does it exaggerate or mitigate?" .... and then there's the "who watches the guardians?" issue that even Plato worried over...

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Aye, the safety-valve hypothesis has yet to be disputed (though it has also yet to be proved; whereas the "total suppression" hypothesis is already known to not actually solve anything).

Indeed when you look at the countries with more draconian laws (Islamic and Southeast Asian countries) and see the pervasive underground child slavery and sex trafficking business.

WRT objective causality:

The base question is "why is there a demand for these products?" followed by "is that a problem?" and "does it exaggerate or mitigate?"

Originally Posted by Narona

When we made laws about car accidents because of people under drugs or alcohol, there was a fact that it was the "main" cause in a lot of cases, and so the justice can work on that.

According to the logic used by the advocates for suppression and repression, Japan should be the worst place on earth by far already...

.... and then there's the "who watches the guardians?" issue that even Plato worried over...

Ideally we shouldn't get to that point IMO

[Kylaran]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

So, finally, we come to Rapeplay. Personally, I regret the proposed ban. I'm even more repulsed by the fact that someone would think of making money out of such games, and I'm creeped out that there are people who would buy and play such games. However, I am a well-adjusted adult who had the benefit of healthy upbringing. I can make such distinctions. Can I honestly say, however, that everyone has been as lucky as I? For those individuals out there who are already teethering on the brink, would material such as this eventually push them over the edge? Can I honestly say, "No", to every possibility?

Unfortunately, I can't. To this extent, therefore, I am not completely unsympathetic to the concerns of those who call for a ban.

I'm not saying I'm entirely unsympathetic - in fact, I feel the same way you do in regards to the ban. It's understandable as to the reasons why people would be interested in the ban, but I don't feel like infringing on free speech without due warrant is simply too dangerous.

In regards to your earlier thought experiment, I would personally think that the media has no need to report details that do not affect the truth of the story. While news media does contain a good amount of bias, nonetheless, I fail to see how publishing notes on building bombs will clarify or teach anything to those who are watching the news. You can communicate the same point (that a dangerous person was apprehended) without needing to explain how he had planned to commit his crime in such detail. We know someone tried to bomb something without having to know he was planning to use a home-made explosive combining chemical x with chemical y. I see where you're coming from, and I'm not refusing to acknowledge the impact of news on individuals. However, it just doesn't seem to capture the particularities of the current discussion at hand.

I also don't think that violence in film or on TV has a particular influence on our individual ability to distinguish the real and the imaginary. Even children who play with imaginary friends show an understanding of their friends as imaginary; it seems that recognition of the boundary between reality and fiction is inherent quite early on, or, possibly, at birth before our full cognitive reasoning develops. We may want more explosions, more gore, but it seems to be a natural evolution of all art forms. We are affected and impacted by certain modes of expression that may be unique or incredibly powerful (be it in magnitude or execution), and realizing that the expressive form doesn't connect to us means we lose that impact it was meant to have in the first place.

But does that mean that people can't get enough horror/guro will enjoy seeing someone they know, or even someone they don't know, die in a bloody accident right in front of their eyes? Not necessarily.

My primary issue with the whole thing is that I don't think it's possible to create a perfectly safe environment from anything - children will be kidnapped and people will raped no matter how hard we try, unless we can somehow manage to force the evil tendencies out of humanity at the biological (and, as a result, the mental) level. Thus, I honestly fail to see a necessity for the government to take such action without real scientific support because the consequences may take us in the wrong direction.

[Zu Ra]

Though I am not all that comfortable with Rape themes, games in general have never motivated crimes . Going by statics Canada should have the highest ero gamers in the world .



Source : Sankaku / UN

Rape Submission and Abuse themes are demeaning to women . But there is smut on the opposite side of the spectrum too. I have come across Shota BL Abuse / Rape games .So its not perennial battle of sexes basically I view it as battle against smut.

And yes Frotteurism is a serious problem but these games are not going to affect or create more Chikan . As Chikans existed even before gaming ...

Another Rape Graph ,

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by npcomplete

Indeed when you look at the countries with more draconian laws (Islamic and Southeast Asian countries) and see the pervasive underground child slavery and sex trafficking business.

According to the logic used by the advocates for suppression and repression, Japan should be the worst place on earth by far already...

Each country have different reason for the amount of rape cases. In unstable regions like Africa, rape is generally a byproduct of war violence which is not the case for other places like Japan and the US.

Women's right is also another issue. A women in Saudi have as much right as a barn animal compare to women in UK. Number of cases reported are heavily factor in by this whether it be legal rights or social rights.

[izmosmolnar]

Wow. According to that graph, there is like 40-45x as much rape in Canada and Australia than in Japan on average. If it's indeed genuine, I wonder how many of the rapers are playing, and how many of them was inspired by rape oriented games there...

[Zu Ra]

Originally Posted by izmosmolnar

If it's indeed genuine,

Stats are genuine as they have even indicated numbers of rapes per year .

You do have to remember Japan has a population of 127 million + and there are 2,357 rapes reported. 2357/127 million is not that big of an amount when compared to Canada (24,350 / 33 Million +) Australia (15,630 / 21 Million +)

[Kylaran]

Statistics are always subject to question though. I'm sure there are very high numbers of rapes in politically unstable areas, and there are many reasons why the statistics could be wrong (for example, women in Japan might not feel a need to report rapes for certain reasons, probably cultural).

[Zu Ra]

This isn't battle of the sexes there are rape simulators aimed at a female audience in Japan too. And lets say 20000 rapes go unreported in Japan thats still less than reported rape cases in Canada.... Canada doesn't have an ero gaming culture...

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kylaran

In regards to your earlier thought experiment.

Everything I've posted so far in this thread is a thought experiment. Iku Kasahara has been my poster girl for the past year and I still use her image as my profile picture. It shouldn't take much to see which side of the debate I personally stand.

I'm just doing what the principle of free expression demands: I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. I may not like what those who call for a ban have to say, but I'll defend their right to make and explain their demands.

I would personally think that the media has no need to report details that do not affect the truth of the story. While news media does contain a good amount of bias, nonetheless, I fail to see how publishing notes on building bombs will clarify or teach anything to those who are watching the news. You can communicate the same point (that a dangerous person was apprehended) without needing to explain how he had planned to commit his crime in such detail...it just doesn't seem to capture the particularities of the current discussion at hand.

In case you haven't noticed, circulation numbers for newspapers and viewership ratings for broadcast news are plummeting around the world.

Who cares whether the fringe "facts" are related to the "main" news? If it draws eyeballs, I'd want to publish it! The public has the right to know how the bomber was carrying out his evil deeds, so it can watch out for such suspicious activity in the future! By publishing these details, the media is performing a public service!

Besides, who made you the final arbiter of what's "relevant" news? Who watches what you watch?

Moreover, if we were going to go on this tangent -- that we shouldn't need to include more details than is necessary to convey the facts -- then, pray tell, why does a series like Utawarerumono need so much lurid AV hanky-panky, when it is apparently quite an appealing story in its own right?

If a good story and appeaing characters are all it takes to draw readers and viewers, why did this particular series choose to include such extra "content"?

I also don't think that violence in film or on TV has a particular influence on our individual ability to distinguish the real and the imaginary. Even children who play with imaginary friends show an understanding of their friends as imaginary; it seems that recognition of the boundary between reality and fiction is inherent quite early on, or, possibly, at birth before our full cognitive reasoning develops.

Like Vexx has asked, it's worth asking how we managed to distinguish fact from fiction. Is it really an in-built ability, or is it more a product of careful nurturing? Long ago, back when the first Superman movies became popular during the 1980s, we had cases of children jumping off high places with "capes" tied around their necks. Apparently, they couldn't tell fact from fiction, and realise people couldn't actually fly.

I also personally recall, back when I was kid, wondering why the actors who played stormtroopers would so willingly volunteer to die (for real) on screen. It didn't occur to me until I was older that it was just acting, not real.

So, can we confidently say that all people out there are able to distinguish fact from fiction? Again, for those who are already on the brink, is it helpful to allow them easy access to material such as rapeplay, and hence potentially push them off the edge?

Thus, I honestly fail to see a necessity for the government to take such action WITHOUT REAL SUPPORT/INFORMATION because the consequences may take us in the wrong direction.

Actually, speaking honestly in my own voice now, I have serious reservations about the supposed lack of evidence to support the "link" between violent images and crime. I worry, sometimes, that such studies might not have been asking the right questions.

If we're searching for a hard link between media content and actual behaviour, we'd never find one. Consider advertising. How many of us can actually claim to have bolted out the door immediately after learning about a bargain from an advertisement? How many of us would admit to being "taken in" by advertising claims?

But, you see, the point of modern advertising is not about making a consumer actually "do" something. Rather, it's main objective nowadays to make sure a certain brand name stays in your mind ("mindshare"), so that when the time comes for you to buy a product, you'd think about the brand and include it automatically in your buying decision process.

So, to what extent can we claim that advertising "works"? We have statistics to suggest how advertising might induce buying, but we don't have evidence to prove conclusively that it does.

In the same way, to what extent can we claim that violent games and rapeplay doesn't lead to actual crimes? We don't have evidence to prove conclusively that they do, but we do have researchers pointing out that people who had just finished playing such games do exhibit heightened levels of aggression.

What happens when such people continually expose themselves to such high levels of aggression over time? We can only speculate. But given our growing desensitivity to images of violence on TV and movie screen, I can't help but draw anecdotal links between onscreen violence and actual aggressive behaviour.

Is it really a coincidence that quite a number of the school shooters over the years had indeed been players of violent video games? Which came first: Were they already "loony" to begin with, or did such media content progressively push them over the edge, over time, thus turning them into "loonys"?

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by izmosmolnar

Wow. According to that graph, there is like 40-45x as much rape in Canada and Australia than in Japan on average. If it's indeed genuine, I wonder how many of the rapers are playing, and how many of them was inspired by rape oriented games there...

I think a more pertinent question though is why is the percentage many times lower in Japan where such hentai is prominent? (while stats can be skewed by unreported cases or other biases, I don't think it'll be skewed by orders of magnitude) This is to avoid the correlation = causation trap

In other words it's like trying to make a connection between violent games and real-life violence. You can always find people who shoot other people in real life also play violent shooters. But you still cannot conclude that violent games cause people to become violent from that correlation -- maybe they were attracted to violent games already from their behavior.

Because you can always turn it around and ask: why is this whole large population here not violent while still playing as much if not more violent games than those who commit real violent acts?

While there are important socio-economic causes for dysfunctional behavior hat can be discussed, I don't think it's relevant here because the rationale most lawmakers try to use is that "hey, this XXX material leads to bad behavior (or is bad for society), therefore we should ban it". By asking the other way, you're able to find a counter-example for that rationale

[Vexx]

@Tiny Red Leaf: heh, you were doing fine til the "school shooter + game" part.... as you say, its important what questions are being asked.

It isn't "how many shooters played games?" - its "out of the total population of game players, how many commit those violent crimes?" The percentage is almost quite tiny for the latter question. Also, Correlation doesn't equal causation as they like to say.

The rest of your post I think raises excellent questions but I agree many of the studies asked the wrong questions (or worse - had a pre-existing agenda driving them)

[Daniel E.]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

to what extent can we claim that violent games and rapeplay doesn't lead to actual crimes?

Likewise, to what extend can we claim that violent games and rapeplay doesn't prevent said crimes?

There's a chance many dudes out there are living their fantasies through these games; Take that away from them, and they could end up finding themselves another "hobby".

Again, I feel that if a person (any person) can be influenced by a violent game, that very same person could probably be influenced by pretty much anything.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Kylaran

Statistics are always subject to question though. I'm sure there are very high numbers of rapes in politically unstable areas, and there are many reasons why the statistics could be wrong (for example, women in Japan might not feel a need to report rapes for certain reasons, probably cultural).

Yet, statistics are still useful as a reference point. I'm not in the field of statistics but shouldn't we take a close look at the possible influences on the numbers before making a conclusion?

Judging by the cases reported per capita, why are liberal countries like australia and us so high on the list? Not enough porn in their diet or perhaps women are more empowered to report rape cases? What about Saudi arabia? Why so little rape cases reported? I m pretty sure the prevalance of rape porn or even porn is very low there compare to the rest of the world.

As for rape and violent games, I'm afraid what we don't see is the possible long term effects it would have on our subconcious. Will our generation who grew up on exposure to these elements become indifferent to it in real life? How many people actually felt that women wants to be raped? Will boys grow up with views of women colored/glossed over by fictional pornography?

Pornography might be restricted to adults but kids/teens will access it via various backdoor means no matter how we try to stop them. Do they have enough sensibilities to be able to separate fantasy from reality?

[Kylaran]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Besides, who made you the final arbiter of what's "relevant" news? Who watches what you watch?

You asked a question about what the news station would do, and I gave you my answer. I mean, yes, there's failing news subscriptions for newspapers around the world, and I have no qualms about a business doing business, but I gave you a simple answer to what I would've done if I had been faced with that particular decision. I mean, chances are, I would think the safety of the general public would be more important than publishing the details of how to make a homemade bomb. As for journalism in general, well, I'll leave that to you guys. Hell, I read Sankaku for a reason. Cause I'm entertained. It's biased, but I still find it a hoot everyday coming back from class.

Moreover, if we were going to go on this tangent -- that we shouldn't need to include more details than is necessary to convey the facts -- then, pray tell, why does a series like Utawarerumono need so much lurid AV hanky-panky, when it is apparently quite an appealing story in its own right?

If a good story and appeaing characters are all it takes to draw readers and viewers, why did this particular series choose to include such extra "content"?

You may be interested in reading a book by Hiroki Azuma (translated into English) entitled Otaku: Japan's Database Animals. It gives a very interesting analysis of the nature of otaku culture and works that are produced within it, and how it's a postmodern form of narrative expression different from that of those seen in the past. Specifically, there's a section describing Nakige (visual novels that make you cry) such as AIR, and I think that Utawarerumono, just like AIR, is including the sex scenes because of its narrative fashion and history, not because it's required.

I have heard others comment that many popular eroge now have stories that are worth playing without the erotic scenes, but the erotic scenes are there for "obligatory" purposes, just like the rest of the stereotypical scenes in media. It's the genre, the established tradition, and not the specific need for it.

Like Vexx has asked, it's worth asking how we managed to distinguish fact from fiction. Is it really an in-built ability, or is it more a product of careful nurturing? Long ago, back when the first Superman movies became popular during the 1980s, we had cases of children jumping off high places with "capes" tied around their necks. Apparently, they couldn't tell fact from fiction, and realise people couldn't actually fly.

I also personally recall, back when I was kid, wondering why the actors who played stormtroopers would so willingly volunteer to die (for real) on screen. It didn't occur to me until I was older that it was just acting, not real.

So, can we confidently say that all people out there are able to distinguish fact from fiction? Again, for those who are already on the brink, is it helpful to allow them easy access to material such as rapeplay, and hence potentially push them off the edge?

I have been taking this position from the get go - there's a definite need for consideration that includes a deeper analysis of the human psyche and both historical and modern society. I'm not disagreeing with you that there might be individuals who can't see the difference between fiction and reality, but, again, I must reiterate that I don't feel like protecting the populace from those individuals is worth the encroachment on the right to free speech that I, honestly, believe government action will entail.

The superman case: do children really believe they can fly? Just as a dog might seem to fear possible danger, is it real danger if it's a biological process and not related to any true cognitive and logical understanding of the self and its existence? Could it be that children are pretending and simply explaining that they really believe it, or perhaps they understand the distinction, but feel no need to actually suppress their imaginary side? If you were to show a child (we're considering toddlers here) a real human taking off and flying, my guess would be that they would stare with wide eyes at that individual (since they have an innate understanding of physical properties) because it would be utterly novel and unexpected for them.

As for your own experience: could be possible that you simply didn't have anything to compare acting with as a child? Perhaps you may have honestly thought that the people were dying as stormtroopers, but dying has certain properties that would render a previously living being similar to that of an inanimate object - and we understand inanimate objects even as children. We learn that things may die, but it's possible that as children we don't know that death can be represented symbolically (in this case, through "pretending" to be dead) portrayed in other media. It's similar to how a child may pretend they died while pretend fighting with their friends, and they'll tell their mom: "Mommy, I was dead!" Children show an inability to develop a recognition of symbolic representation until the age of 3+, closer to 4 years of age. It's not the failure to recognize reality and fiction here, it's more of a matter of understanding the nature of fiction and its underlying meaning.

Furthermore, we develop the cognitive ability to realize that certain forms of pretending (such as jumping off buildings) may seem ridiculous, and we soon find our left frontal hemisphere taking control of us. That's when a more complex ability to explain and control our more unconscious understanding manifests itself.

Actually, speaking honestly in my own voice now, I have serious reservations about the supposed lack of evidence to support the "link" between violent images and crime. I worry, sometimes, that such studies might not have been asking the right questions.

Is it really a coincidence that quite a number of the school shooters over the years had indeed been players of violent video games? Which came first: Were they already "loony" to begin with, or did such media content progressively push them over the edge, over time, thus turning them into "loonys"?

As Vexx said, the real question is not whether the coincidental increase in first person shooters and school shootings means there's a direct causal relationship, but whether the trend is an increase in the general population. I am a thorough believer that technology may change our behavior, but that process is much slower than we think. It's generational.

My gut instinct tells me that recent information and communications technology has played a massive part in exposing the problems we've had in the past, and revealing things that've been with us for quite some time. Namely, what once couldn't be expressed (aggression, for example) is now more easily expressed because of how technology has developed, how we've gained and spread knowledge, and how we've come to view our society. It's not necessarily the product of media itself.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Geta Boshi

Stats are genuine as they have even indicated numbers of rapes per year .

Stats like these are crap when there's no study to explain how thet counted/estimated the cases of rapes etc.

For example, that graph, for france, uses the number from the department of Justice i suppose (i am not even sure about that), but those numbers can't be used just like that because all the cases of rapes don't go to a court of assizes. And not all the rapes are reported.

That's why I gave number from 1999, because there's no serious National rapes study in France since the ENVEFF in 2000-2001. The real numbers are way higher.

Each country has its own laws and not all works the same way. Therefore those numbers can't be discussed seriously if they don't come from a serious national study.

You can also check the number for the USA that I gave for the 1993 year. Using the FBI number is a better source than using random number.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Granted that rapes are horrible, but that's not the point of contention. Don't you worry that without their porn, some people will feel so frustrated that it will push them over the edge? Neither affirmation is terribly scientific, and they lead to opposite conclusions. Why do you favor one at the exclusion of the other?

Are you talking to the law student or to the citizen Miss narona ? If it was the latter, I would send the addicted to porno to psychiatric hospital. (edit: since I recieved a bad rep, I said "kidding", meaning that I was not serious...)

Kidding.

Seriously, there's not a lot of cases of pornographic movies with rapes in France, and I wanted to verify something in the law texts about that, I will do it next week.