News Stories

[Vexx]

In news of "imaginary fiction witch hunters", the Boston Herald is pumping a story about "child pornography" (or rather, imaginary fictional rape-sim games sold in Japan).

http://www.bostonherald.com/business...72572&srvc=rss

And once again, rather than hunt the Real Thing, they focus on fantasy targets. Yes, this stuff is trash.... but its *imaginary* trash (so why aren't they trying to stop serial killer slasher films?)

[Sazelyt]

I guess Japanese people show a lot of understanding towards such themes. Or they have already gone beyond a certain level where no return is possible. Or that just means they have accepted living in a fantasy world with no boundaries, where anything can happen.

[Vexx]

I just think the whole idea of going after imaginary *fiction* on any topic is a bad road to tread down. Thought police yadayada and no scientific basis for it. Irrationalism at its most unpleasant. The "D&D Satan-connection" moonbats of the 1980s in another guise....

And probably over half the western world has the same understanding of what is fantasy and what isn't (the article points out that Japan's "Equality Now" group is also raising a furor... but if you examine its basis, you find a bit of moonbattiness rather like PETA). But these "30%ers" for lack of a better term don't have a rational basis for their faux-righteous fury -- in fact the science leans against them. But power and importance comes with being the leader of crucifying imaginary devils. And Britain seems to be leading the way in wackjob laws lately trying to take the title from the US.

There's real crime going on out there -- and this nonsense is totally firing in the wrong direction wasting valuable energy.

[mg1942]

aw man not that again... and Herald copied it from Yomi uri newspaper.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I just think the whole idea of going after imaginary *fiction* on any topic is a bad road to tread down. Thought police yadayada and no scientific basis for it. Irrationalism at its most unpleasant. The "D&D Satan-connection" moonbats of the 1980s in another guise....

And probably over half the western world has the same understanding of what is fantasy and what isn't (the article points out that Japan's "Equality Now" group is also raising a furor... but if you examine its basis, you find a bit of moonbattiness rather like PETA). But these "30%ers" for lack of a better term don't have a rational basis for their faux-righteous fury -- in fact the science leans against them. But power and importance comes with being the leader of crucifying imaginary devils. And Britain seems to be leading the way in wackjob laws lately trying to take the title from the US.

There's real crime going on out there -- and this nonsense is totally firing in the wrong direction wasting valuable energy.

Probably, they think that it's easier to chase after imaginery stuff than to focus on dealing with real foes.

[mg1942]

I also read somewhere in some (undisclosed) blog site that the US-based feminist group EQUALITY NOW has succeeded in forcing the publisher of RapeLay into withdrawing the game from sale and the pages of most retailers.

[james0246]

^Equality Now campaigning against the game (and like minded games) doesn't really surprise me, but there is nothing they can do about the game considering that it was illegally released in America, and the original publisher broke no laws in Japan (they do seem to be petitioning the government, but since nothing conclusive has ever been established in regards to connecting violent games to real world events, I find it hard to believe that the government would attempt to outlaw the genre).

That being said, Public molestation (for women) is still a large problem in Japan, so I would hope that Equality Now, which is a good organization that has done many positive and meaningful activities across the world, would focus on the actual problem, rather than a silly game (or genre of games) that really doesn't normalize or promote the real world violence (the meer fact that the majority of the games/other fictional materials actually have the women like being raped just shows you how out of touch the games are with reality).

[Narona]

Originally Posted by james0246

^Equality Now campaigning against the game (and like minded games) doesn't really surprise me, but there is nothing they can do about the game considering that it was illegally released in America, and the original publisher broke no laws in Japan (they do seem to be petitioning the government, but since nothing conclusive has ever been established in regards to connecting violent games to real world events, I find it hard to believe that the government would attempt to outlaw the genre).

That being said, Public molestation (for women) is still a large problem in Japan, so I would hope that Equality Now, which is a good organization that has done many positive and meaningful activities across the world, would focus on the actual problem, rather than a silly game (or genre of games) that really doesn't normalize or promote the real world violence (the meer fact that the majority of the games/other fictional materials actually have the women like being raped just shows you how out of touch the games are with reality).

Have many men ever thought about what a lot of women feel to know that there are games like rape-sim on sale?

I will not argue a lot on this topic (mainly because it will get on my nerves), but most girls I know (including myself), when they are aware of it, care about the fact that such games exist, and are annoyed by it.

Something in which "you play the hero" is different from reading a book or watching a movie.

Saying that people should not care about that and focus on other RL problems is imo, not pertinent. You can focus on different things at the same time. Giving up on something doesn't mean that you will obviously get more results in the rest.

[Vexx]

I'll just repeat that outlawing drawn pictures, comics, games, or even theatre that may portray unpleasant situations (especially from the point of view of the villain who may glorify such things) is a nasty little trip to the land of thoughtcrime and censorship of any "wrongthinking" by people you may not see eye-to-eye on regarding morality (recent real examples of what thoughtcrime land can be like: flogging a girl for thinking about a guy... stoning a girl to death for the insult of being raped... )

If the protesters were more consistent (being against slasher/horror movies or going after the crime shows like CSI, Criminal Minds, and such that seem to relish portraying hideous violence against women and children) -- I might at least find them more credible even if I still disagreed with the notion of prosecuting ideas or storytelling.

(having a Minority Report moment here....)

[james0246]

(I'm sure this will be deleted or placed in another thread, but...)

The ultimate form of any prevention technique is to teach children what is right and what is wrong. So, instead of banning a specific type of video game, or a genre of negative erotic entertainment, it would be better served to have a strong sex education course for younger students, so as to limit misconceptions and to hopefully (in a non Big Brother sense) filter out negative ideas (i.e. rape, molestation, and pedophilia) before they are fully formed.

If you are really interested in the connection between video games a physical violence, I suggest you check out:

Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games, Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson.
"Video Games and Real Life Aggression", Lillian Bensely and Juliet Van Eenwyk, Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 29, 2001.
"Video Games and Health", Mark Griffiths, British Medical Journal vol. 331, 2005.

Edit: looking briefly on Google, I found this page (as well as the sources I was already referring to ), and this quote:

Other studies, however, reach the conclusion that violence in video games is not causally linked with aggressive tendencies. This was the conclusion of a 1999 study by the U.S. government, prompting Surgeon General David Satcher to say, "We clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior. But the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that’s where the science is."[19] A meta-analysis by psychologist Jonathan Freedman, who reviewed over 200 published studies and found that the "vast and overwhelming majority" did not find a causal link, also reached this conclusion.[20]. A US Secret Service study found that only 12 percent of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24 percent read violent books and 27 percent were attracted to violent films.[21] An Australian study found that only children already predisposed to violence were affected by violent games.

[Narona]

Should I repost what I erased? I thought you wanted to stop the debate.

Originally Posted by james0246

^The problem with the games, though, is that the actual molesters and rapists are not really the audience for such games. So, spending the time and resources combating such vile and disgusting games really doesn't solve the actual problem (especially considering that there is very little proof that paying such games actually encourage any socially negative behavior (i.e. there is no proof that you become a killer simply because you play a game (or read a novel) that has you kill someone, etc)), it is just time and resources that could be spent on truly meaningful activities (such as providing better security on trains, or enlarging the police force, etc). And, if you are going to split your resources, say 20/80 (or some other number that places actual cases far above imaginary cases (some may be potential, but it is unknown just how many or how few)), then the 20% spent on combating these stupid games (and other such niche negative erotic "entertainment") is really not an effective amount of time or money to try and combat anything. And, if you put more money and effort into attempting to fight the imaginary cases, then you run the risk of letting actual cases fall through the cracks. It is really a no-win situation, so, as I already stated, it is better to try and combat the real cases rather stupid games made by and for sick individuals.

To put it another way, Prohibition in America did not stop the criminal activity associated with alcohol consumption (the moral decay, etc) rather it did nothing, or at worst, encouraged criminal behavior/activity. So, attempting to outlaw such material in Japan would end up accomplishing very little, and could conceivably, in a worst case scenario, actually "force" some deviants into attempting to molest their desired targets (obviously this is an extreme scenario based on the idea that an "addicted" person would attempt to facilitate their addiction using any means necessary). (I am not trying to actually connect Prohibition and a possible ban on negative erotic materials, rather I am attempting to briefly draw a comparison between the attempt to outlaw certain deviant activities practices, and what really results from such a ban (if you would prefer, I could bring up US Sodomy laws instead).)

If many people, including people who work in the law department (at least in France. And I personally am a law student and interested in the debate), also wonder what shall be the limits in what we show to the people through fictions is because we consider that a state shall not only care about actual crimes, but also to take preventive actions to try to prevent new crimes if we can. Some people say that some preventive actions are useless, but a good amount of people think that it is better to so something rather than doing no preventive actions at all.

(Actually, in a general way about preventive actions, some of them actually do work here, like what we do to prevent car accidents. so we can't say it is, in that case, useless. So the ones in France who claim that every preventive actions are useless are wrong.)

The debate goes really far here in France, because a state has to be coherent, but currently aren't in the eyes of some people. For example, here in France, child pornography is illegal, but yet, we tolerate some other things like showing rapes in movies. You know you can find people who wants to be able to do porn movies with child, since they would do "only a fiction with no real penetration".

What most people are ok with is that there has to be a limit in what we find acceptable and unacceptable. Even in fiction. Because a democracy is not an anarchy with complete freedom. So yet, many questions are still debated.

As I see it, about that "games thing", I guess some people mistake what those who are against it are trying to do. It's not about saying that those games are bad, etc. It's about wondering if it can lead some people to become criminals. So, I guess they see it as a preventive actions. Saying that it is an useless preventive action can't be proven since games are still around in Japan. You can't say that something is useless if you haven't tried.

Now what "I" think about it is (i'm sorry if there are some fans of rapes-sim who will read me here but I won't hold back) that to produce or enjoy a rape-sim means that you are already nuts (I am a law student so I try to speak with laws and rights in mind, but sometimes I feel like saying what I deeply think: those people are completely nuts in my eyes and are worthless than dogs), and have more chance to become a criminal than the other people. A psychiatrist once explained on the french TV that many people who for example enjoy pornography someday reach a state when Pornography is not enough anymore, and so that they want more and more to try their fantasies for real. I would personally tend to think that it also could apply to somebody who enjoys rape-sims.

Originally Posted by james0246

(I'm sure this will be deleted or placed in another thread, but...)

The ultimate form of any prevention technique is to teach children what is right and what is wrong. So, instead of banning a specific type of video game, or a genre of negative erotic entertainment, it would be better served to have a strong sex education course for younger students, so as to limit misconceptions and to hopefully (in a non Big Brother sense) filter out negative ideas (i.e. rape, molestation, and pedophilia) before they are fully formed.

We do both and most people think it's good that way. We try to improve both of course. About sex education it's more complicated though because of many factors. Example : taking in account what parents think too.

About education in general, a lot of people also think that the parents has to educate their childrens properly. There are preventive actions that exist to warn the parents that they have a role to play in the education, because some of them seems to think that it's only the role of people at school (stupid isn't it?)

If you are really interested in the connection between video games a physical violence, I suggest you check out:

Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games, Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson.
"Video Games and Real Life Aggression", Lillian Bensely and Juliet Van Eenwyk, Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 29, 2001.
"Video Games and Health", Mark Griffiths, British Medical Journal vol. 331, 2005.

Edit: looking briefly on Google, I found this page (as well as the sources I was already referring to ), and this quote:

I already heard of it, but as I said to somebody else, I saw a difference in every type of games. You can't classify all of them easily without looking at a content. A game like Call of Duty can't be compared to, for example, a game in which you just simulate a rape.

So I consider that it can't be applied to compare a game like COD, to for example, a rape-sim.

[james0246]

^All of the studies I listed actually take into account sexual aggression. And, no we really do nto need to repost anything, this'll be my final post, unless there is a pre-existing thread concernign this matter that a mode will kindly put our comments in...

[Shadow Kira01]

Hatoyama wins DPJ leadership to succeed Ozawa, beating Okada

That was a quick match...

Okada lost. Hatoyama won 56.6% of the votes and has officially become the new leader of the Democratic Party of Japan. I wasn't expecting this outcome..

Now, the next general elections will be very interesting. Will the blue-blood conservative Hatoyama of the DPJ become the next prime minister of Japan or will the otaku Taro Aso continue to lead the nation? Hmm...

[monir]

Originally Posted by james0246

^All of the studies I listed actually take into account sexual aggression. And, no we really do nto need to repost anything, this'll be my final post, unless there is a pre-existing thread concernign this matter that a mode will kindly put our comments in...

The topic is interesting enough to not to let it die here considering I like the discussion you are having with Narona, so I'm trying to think of a good title for a separate thread. Any ideas?

edit: A thread is created after copying the posts starting from Vexx's.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by james0246

^All of the studies I listed actually take into account sexual aggression. And, no we really do nto need to repost anything, this'll be my final post, unless there is a pre-existing thread concernign this matter that a mode will kindly put our comments in...

There are other studies with different opinions (and some are silly I know), but my main point was to talk about this topic with laws and rights in mind, and not only about the possible bad effects on people, but also about the contents, the preventive actions and what is acceptable or not in a democracy.

I didn't say they don't. I ultimately succinctly expressed my opinion as a law student if somebody asked me to compare a game like COD to a rape-sim. COD Is not all about violence. Even in GTA, some anti-gta people forget that in GTA, you can for example be arrested by the police (I didn't play to it but I guess it's like that from what I know of it), so in this case; for example, the message is not that you can live as a criminal without being ultimately chased by the police. I repeat what i said, I still don't consider that we can "just" compare that to a pure rape-sim like one I heard about a few months ago here on AS.

[mg1942]

I heard there are 2 endings for the that game... both are not favorable to the protagonist.,

[KimmyChan]

Police break up Moscow gay march -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8053181.stm

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

I don't trust the ICJ. Considering that Russia is one of the veto wielders, taking it there would only be a disadvantage to Japan. Besides, Japan don't even have a permanent seat in the Security Council, it will end up as one of those infamous unfair rulings.

ICJ is not SecCon.

More over, why would there be a point of taking it to ICJ when it is Japanese territory to begin with. Taking it to ICJ implies that there is a debate on the issue of controversy when in fact, there is none. It also gives the wrong impression that Russia has valid claims when they don't have any.

I think the best solution for now is to try things out diplomatically which is in fact a way of ignoring the problems and stalling the time to look after other important issues at hand

.

True, we don't want to be like Malaysia and Singapore.

It is also necessary to maintain the approach of not taking back any of the islands unless all four islands are to be handed over. Otherwise, taking back any partial number of the islands may result as a permanent loss of the remaining islands.

Well... that's a point.

On the contrary, I hope the residents living over there isn't under some sort of political scrutiny over it. Considering that they have lived under Russian control for so many years, let's hope it won't deteriorate into any harsher conditions..

They are under a 12mn curfew right now as well as require police license to go into non-city/township areas.

[KimmyChan]

Manchester United Win 18th Premier League title -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/8038259.stm

[Mystique]

Oldest mum in Britain, aged 66

Now here's something to hash over. Could almost be a thread in itself but would have to see if it warrants enough interest, I guess.
Anyways, the issue at hand is:
Should IVF treatment for couples who cannot conceive naturally have an age limit by law?

According to the article, typically women over 50 are rejected treatment in the UK, given that by the time the child's 18, mother = 68.
Not to mention that if menopause has hit already, it's nature's way of telling ya 'okay, you're done with the child bearing from your own body, support children or young people in other ways'.

In this case, a 66 year old woman had the cheek (and yes, I am somewhat angry) to travel outside of the UK to get treatment where doctors aren't likely to reject her and then come back to the UK and go 'whee, I'm gonna be a mother at age 66! Age doesn't matter, I feel young and healthy.'
If i met her personally, probably the first words that'd come out of my mouth would be:
Selfish bitch...

Screw her that she's young and healthy and doesn't feel 66, she'll be bringing a child into this world with a very very high chance of having to go through the death of her mother (as far as I can tell, she's a single mum?) before they're even 15, how can she inflict that kinda experience on a child so carelessly?!

Menopause hits and our bodies can no longer produce the chemicals needed to keep us totally fit and healthy, so our health already is at risk and something we have to care for even more.
The older we get, from the wear and tear of our bodies over the decades, it won't be so mobile or agile as say when we were in her 30's or even 40's.
The energy needed to chase after a toddler, to be vigilant, to play with a kid when they're 3,4,5 is hell of a lot; she may feel 'fit' now, she isn't going to feel fitter as she continues to get older.
Not saying it can't be done, as I'm sure there are some active grandparents in their 60's looking after their young grandkids but still, they're not full time parents anymore...
The toll isn't just physical, but mental and emotional too.

It's purely a selfish, selfish desire, given her age. If she really wanted to raise a child or support young people... well I'm not sure how local governmental bodies would feel about fostering or adopting to someone aged 66, but I can't blame them for being wary.

So in that sense, if your government decided to implement a law disallowing IVF treatment to women say aged 55 or over, how’d you feel?
Well… I guess I pose this to the girls of the board on here.

And yes, I know, I know, if a person wants to be selfish and break the law, they’ll just do what this woman as done and travel abroad for it then come back to their own country. It doesn’t stop them, but I can’t help but think that she should be penalised in some way.
(Or the doctors in Ukraine should damn well be)