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

[Amray]

Indeed. He was inspired by "The Fuher" (Hitler).

I am going to be honest though, it would not surprise me if a perversed computer fanatic produced a flash game based on his actions. From what I have heard of and read about regarding things on the internet, I would not be shocked at all if this were to happen.

(Did you notice that I said "heard of" and "read about"? It is because I am being careful with my words and am always aware not to go on such derranged things.)

[Vexx]

Gosh... where did serial rapers and mass murderers get their inspirations before the media existed? In general society, women must have been equal and well-treated people before "media" happened. Children were never abused in "pre-media" land. (rolleyes)

As we can see just by browsing daily events... women and children tend to be better treated the more technologically advanced a society is. Such a state of things, however, makes any negative treatment or information stand out more glaringly.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our guard up, but it does mean people need the skills to rationally assess levels of real threat versus the fanciful or imaginary. Joe Public in much of the tech society world is much more likely to be killed in or near a car than by a gun -- yet which causes irrational fear? That's a result of not grasping basic risk analysis. Children are much more likely to abused and killed by a family member -- but who does Joe/Jane Parent fear? The almost completely imaginary candyman in a van. Again, terrible skills at risk analysis.

If anything, the sorry excuses for news reporting that can't even seem to get basic facts straight (see above for the horrible game's actual content - still distasteful but definitely contains some consequences) simply amplify the fear factor so you'll keep watching through the commercial. Groups like Equality Now or PETA have no moral problem with misrepresenting the truth to achieve their goals - so when a spotlight hits them, they ruin their credibility for that part of the problem that may be real.

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

Just to show how tame Rapelay is :-



Here's a game titled Zetsubo (Despair) from the year 2000. The player assume the role of an excuted serial rapist who's spirit is doomed to roamed the Earth because he can't go to neither Heaven or Hell. So he decides to possess a body of a Brain Dead man and resumed his old ways to go on a Summer "Collection" Spree as you can see from the above. (Game allows imprisonment up to 32 characters.)

The moment he gets a girl, he can repeatly rape her and cause them to lose their mind before the girl dies. In the best ending, he get tire of his toy, destory all evidence by burning his lair and all his prisoners before setting on going to the next town.

In all honesty, I find this game interesting. If only there is an English version.

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Children were never abused in "pre-media" land. (rolleyes)

Really?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our guard up, but it does mean people need the skills to rationally assess levels of real threat versus the fanciful or imaginary. Joe Public in much of the tech society world is much more likely to be killed in or near a car than by a gun -- yet which causes irrational fear? That's a result of not grasping basic risk analysis. Children are much more likely to abused and killed by a family member -- but who does Joe/Jane Parent fear? The almost completely imaginary candyman in a van. Again, terrible skills at risk analysis.

Yes and no. I can do something about family members, if I think they're dangerous. I can be careful of cars. Of course, it's not foolproof. I know I tend to be imprudent in crossing the street when I'm exhausted, but I'm not completely helpless. But what the hell can I do against a gun from random mugger or psycho? What can I do against the candyman and his van?

[Kylaran]

Originally Posted by [DOT].L

I'm still pretty much left with a sense of "what the hell?" regarding this dumb thing.

I'm here with you on that point. I mean, the thing that bothers me about this whole affair is that people make arguments that I don't think have been justified by scientific fact, and there's been a failure to see games as a form of expression and communication rather than as a mere copy of what could happen in reality. There's a fear of the new technology in that its interactivity means people lose their understanding of what is real and what is not.

I honestly fail to see how the UK can allow political parties supporting a white dominated country while it bans a game that is clearly fictitious. I don't think we can prevent the next mentally unstable person from committing a violent crime by simply stopping one form of media, if it is a form of entertainment that's more interactive than what's seen in the past.

Originally Posted by Vexx

If anything, the sorry excuses for news reporting that can't even seem to get basic facts straight (see above for the horrible game's actual content - still distasteful but definitely contains some consequences) simply amplify the fear factor so you'll keep watching through the commercial. Groups like Equality Now or PETA have no moral problem with misrepresenting the truth to achieve their goals - so when a spotlight hits them, they ruin their credibility for that part of the problem that may be real.

I wholeheartedly agree. This is a logical fallacy that should be looked at rationally by other members of society, and not by propoganda spreading groups that feel a need to police the morals of the entire world.

(Sorry, I keep editing this post and adding things on :P)

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

Here's a game titled Zetsubo (Despair) from the year 2000.

If anything, I could see some aspects of the game as modelling the path of a psychotic killer, and allowing common people to do the same thing a criminal investigator would do - get into the mind of the protagonist. I think the mere fact that a market for such material existing reveals an interesting tidbit about how the society in which it's produced works.

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by Kylaran

I honestly fail to see how the UK can allow political parties supporting a white dominated country while it bans a game that is clearly fictitious. I don't think we can prevent the next mentally unstable person from committing a violent crime by simply stopping one form of media, if it is a form of entertainment that's more interactive than what's seen in the past.

But hey, rape existed in ancient times. Ancient art depicted people getting down and dirty. Now, if you remove the "stimulation", you don't necessarily stop the rapes. Just look at Afghanistan.

Gotta wonder how people learned how to rape whilst forbidden to look at girls.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yes and no. I can do something about family members, if I think they're dangerous. I can be careful of cars. Of course, it's not foolproof. I know I tend to be imprudent in crossing the street when I'm exhausted, but I'm not completely helpless. But what the hell can I do against a gun from random mugger or psycho? What can I do against the candyman and his van?

What is the *likelihood* of either? Mugging? Mostly if you're in a large urban area with poor controls. Candyman? Odds are near zero, period. 99.+% of such things are fictional portrayals on crime dramas. The "Center for Missing Children" is probably the biggest crock in existance -- nearly *all* children reported missing were taken by non-custodial relatives whom the child knows; custody disputes.

Most people don't plan for nasty natural events (more likely) either. Besides, you improve your odds against mugging or psycho by being aware of your surroundings, choosing paths less likely, having exit routes. Dedicate some small part of brain processing to "whats going on around me and whats the plan?" - not paranoia, but the sort of thing you do while rock climbing, camping, hiking that you should do *anywhere*. You train your children not to go with strangers, there are good techniques that some schools train kids with that don't create fear - just rational scenario training.

I don't plan for meteor strikes, as in personally getting hit with a rock from space - but that has a nonzero chance of happening (but very unlikely).
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ar_000809.html

[Thingle]

Crescendo, Koi Kaze and to a lesser extent, Kana: Little sister features another "disturbing" theme: Incest. However, by the way it was portrayed, it didn't turn out to be as attention-grabbing as RapeLay so the "disturbing" part of the issue is moot. Have we seen feminazis crying out loud when they see one of those three? No.

You do the same as in rapelay, screw people, even worse since the people you screw is a "sibling" rather than a stranger. The difference is, it's in 2D and there aren't as many otaku wannabees drooling over them as they do to Rapelay.

[izmosmolnar]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

For a short answer, it's the interactivity of the game than may cause problem mixed with some hypocrisy .

So, if by any chance whatever government is going to ban the games involving rape, does that mean they are going to be oblivious of the fact, that say... my (fictious) neighbour is reading books about raping, and he watches such porn DVDs in most of his own free time? Does the government think he's more harmless, than whoever sicko plays with Rapelay?

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by izmosmolnar

So, if by any chance whatever government is going to ban the games involving rape, does that mean they are going to be oblivious of the fact that say... my (fictious) neighbour is reading books about raping and he watches such porn DVDs in most of his own free time?

It's time for The Constitution Hour. A constitution a day keeps government abuse away!

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Vexx

What is the *likelihood* of either? Mugging? Mostly if you're in a large urban area with poor controls. Candyman? Odds are near zero, period. 99.+% of such things are fictional portrayals on crime dramas. The "Center for Missing Children" is probably the biggest crock in existance -- nearly *all* children reported missing were taken by non-custodial relatives whom the child knows; custody disputes.

Most people don't plan for nasty natural events (more likely) either. Besides, you improve your odds against mugging or psycho by being aware of your surroundings, choosing paths less likely, having exit routes. Dedicate some small part of brain processing to "whats going on around me and whats the plan?" - not paranoia, but the sort of thing you do while rock climbing, camping, hiking that you should do *anywhere*. You train your children not to go with strangers, there are good techniques that some schools train kids with that don't create fear - just rational scenario training.

I don't plan for meteor strikes, as in personally getting hit with a rock from space - but that has a nonzero chance of happening (but very unlikely).
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ar_000809.html

In the USA, maybe, but in France it's not "near 0".

Some 1998 stats (keep in mind that it doesn't take in account the non-reported rapes, obviously.):

- In 74% of the cases, the victim knows her/his aggressor. It can be somebody from her/his family, but also a friend, a friend of a friend, a co-workers, just somebody you know/met once etc.

There are still 26%, more than 1 case out of 4, when the aggressor wasn't somebody that the victim knows.

Quite nowhere near zero.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Make no mistake: media content can influence minds, both for the better or the worse. It would be naive to think that it doesn't have any effect. At its best, it opens our minds to new worlds and new ideas, and inspires us to be more inquisitive and reasonable about the people and cultures around us. At its worst, it inspires hatred and destructive behaviour.

I actually have to admit I'm sometimes uncomfortable with my strong anti-censorship position for exactly this reason.

And no, the lack of statistical evidence doesn't really help. Let's face it, all that proves is that there's no epidemic of media inspired rape/violence/etc., which I would have suspected to start with. But statistics don't disprove that such content may push the occasional person over the edge, and I have to admit the "even one is too many" argument is something that I find rather uncomfortable to have to brush off.

All that being said, I think people should have fictional outlets to express their darker tendencies and I consider blaming the media someone played a form of scapegoating, so this questions only give me pause. My overall opinion remains unchanged.

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

Just to show how tame Rapelay is :-

Okay, as much as I thought from the start the controversy over Rapelay was really overblown, I don't think this really helps those of us opposing a ban much.

Let's face it, the biggest problem those of us opposing a ban face right now is that this debate has been centered around Rapelay, particularly in the mainstream media. If the controversy over this game ever reaches the point where a ban on games featuring rape in some countries is a possibility, it is going to be extremely difficult for erogame players to defend their hobby because the game has so few defensible points. Granted, it's going to be hard to defend games with rape in general, but I would tend to think that a ban would be less likely if the debate were centered around something like Utawarerumono than Rapelay - precisely the reason why I've been trying to push the debate in this thread in that direction.

And yes, letting the pro-censorship side define what you're about is an extremely real threat. Remember how I keep bringing up how Air technically meets the definition of kiddy porn under Canadian law? As you may suspect, stuff like Air was never even considered in the debate - heck, the game didn't even exist then. Instead, the need for the law to cover fictional material was framed as "we need to do something to prevent pedophiles from just moving to fictional material". So fictional visual representations were added to a kiddy porn law that defined kiddy porn as anything depicting sex with a minor in a visually explicit manner, and bishoujo game fans interested in games where the characters are like 16 got screwed. Now, given the heavy handedness of the social conservative movement in Canada, I can't guarantee that defining the debate in terms of something like Air would have made a difference, but at least they wouldn't have been able to brush off any protests so lightly.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Narona

In the USA, maybe, but in France it's not "near 0".

Some 1998 stats (keep in mind that it doesn't take in account the non-reported rapes, obviously.):

- In 74% of the cases, the victim knows her/his aggressor. It can be somebody from her/his family, but also a friend, a friend of a friend, a co-workers, just somebody you know/met once etc.

There are still 26%, more than 1 case out of 4, when the aggressor wasn't somebody that the victim knows.

Quite nowhere near zero.

You've conflated rapes with child abduction. What are the stats in France for "children abducted by people they don't know"? aka "Candyman"? That is the "near zero" I'm speaking of. I wasn't speaking of rape at all in that quotation, but discussing risk assessment/analysis.

In France, what are statistics of rape probability in general, i.e. # rapes against the total female population (we'll ignore male rape)? ... or say # rapes in a particular demographic (social status, age group, etc)? Are there particular subgroups who need extra attention and/or law enforcement assistance?

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Vexx

You've conflated rapes with child abduction. What are the stats in France for "children abducted by people they don't know"? aka "Candyman"? That is the "near zero" I'm speaking of.

I didn't know that it was what Candyman means, sorry, I thought it was "a stranger".

Anyway if it can help:

Near 58% of the rapes are committed on people under 18.
Only 25% of all the rapes are committed by somebody from the family's victim. (serious question without any sarcasms: For example do the gardener or teacher count as a candyman?)

Nex week, I will try to ask to one of my teachers if there are a reliable stat for what you exactly want to know (rapes on people under 18 by a complete random person).

[Amray]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Gosh... where did serial rapers and mass murderers get their inspirations before the media existed? In general society, women must have been equal and well-treated people before "media" happened. Children were never abused in "pre-media" land. (rolleyes)

It was instinct. Instinct and human behaviour once led man to target vulnerable and weak woman and children, obviously because they could not put up any defence to stop a big man, to use them for sex and slaughtery, even money.

Sex is a part of nature. Birds do not watch television or read the newspaper, yet the male birds are always all over the female birds even if they do try and escape. Note that I am not turning this into a bird biography...it is just an example is all.

What is more is that children have always been abused. In fact, before heavy forms of media existed it was they that were abused most of all! In the victorian era children were the main targets for sex; there is even a historical book based on such events in that era. Children are the easiest targets for the obvious reasons, and it is a natural instinct for humans to lust for sex, thus this was usually the result for madmen and pedophiles to get what they wanted. What's scarey is that it was not always madmen and pedophiles that done it either, it was even sometimes your average and honest man too. Authorities were not as strong as they are now, and they could easily be bribed. Age difference was never a large factor in those times anyway.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Narona

I didn't know that it was what Candyman means, sorry, I thought it was "a stranger".

Anyway if it can help:

Near 58% of the rapes are committed on people under 18.
Only 25% of all the rapes are committed by somebody from the family's victim. (serious question without any sarcasms: For example do the gardener or teacher count as a candyman?)

Nex week, I will try to ask to one of my teachers if there are a reliable stat for what you exactly want to know (rapes on people under 18 by a complete random person).

No, the so-called "Candyman" is a complete unknown to the child and generally the family (though they can be an extended member of the local community (i.e. a person who recently moved into a town, or a person who lives on the edges of the community and has no interactions with the victim or the victim's parents)).

[Kakashi]

Aye, watch Dennis the Menace to learn how best to deal with the "Candyman"

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Just in case you missed out, today's My Paper in Singapore decides to wikify their source with a copypasta article on Rapelay. Honestly, when will it stop before the media start CHECKING their sources?

It's news! If one paper doesn't carry it, another one would. And it's established practice for newspapers the world over to use wire stories that they subscribe to, because no newspaper in the world can afford to plant a foreign bureau in every country. In this case, the story comes from Yomiuri Shimbun, one of the five national broadsheets of Japan, the largest in the country, and reputedly a centre-right newspaper. A paper doesn't grow to be the largest in a country without having at least some semblance of credibility (The New York Times or The Washington Post, anyone?) and it's also worth asking if the Shimbun's circulation reflects the views of a majority of Japanese.

Now, do idiotic, poorly informed reporters exist in that paper, or any other newspaper for that matter? Of course they do! Especially given today's economy, which hardly attracts many of the best and brightest to a news organisation. A beat reporter doesn't magically acquire his news sense overnight, you know. Getting duped by newsmakers and making factual mistakes are, unfortunately, part of his learning curve.

And, you see, an irony in the argument here amuses me. Going by the stated belief that what you see or hear in the media — be it TV, movies or games — has no measurable statistical effect on a person's behaviour then, really, does it matter what appears in the news, whether or not it's true? It wouldn't affect a reader's mind, and most definitely not his behaviour either! There is no evidence to prove it does!

Which makes me wonder, then, why anyone would bother spending money making ads, producing PBS documentaries or films about, say, conservation or all the other "good wholesome stuff". Because none of it matters — whatever you see or hear in the media will have absolutely no effect on you. It won't make you do bad, naughty things any more than it would encourage you to be more civic minded.

So, then, the outcry over "big, bad newspapers" is no less hysterical than the outcry over "obscene games", is it? What's the fuss all about? In fact, the article in my paper is soooo tame. If I wanted to sensationalise the story, I would run a full-page picture of cartoon girls in full fetish glory. I would interview the players of such games, and intentionally angle their answers to show how depraved they are. Now that would really shock and draw attention.

As it is now, it's just a single-column of grey text with no pictures, which most readers would read and shrug off and at most say, perhaps, "Those crazy Japanese". In the meantime, the more discerning readers would realise that there is a talking point here, something worth exploring further (like what we're doing in this thread). There are questions about the boundaries of morality and censorship, lying just beneath the surface, waiting to be teased out through further discussion.

If the original article hadn't turned up, then these questions may never even have been asked in the first place. So, to pose the question or not? That's one of the roles of the mass media. As for the attendant villany, veteran newsmen accept that they probably rank somewhere with lawyers as the most hated people in society. If they aren't drawing such raw emotions, then they suck as journalists, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

No guesses as to why I don't bother with the New Paper.

As someone once told me, tongue-in-cheek, The New Paper is like a mistress — everyone wants one, but no one will ever admit to having one. The anecdote applies, I suspect, to any other tabloid in the world, from Britain's The Sun to America's Fox News.

More importantly, though, it's important to be aware of your own biases. The implicit assumption you've made is that readers of tabloid news are not your intellectual equal, because *gasp* they read not to be informed but to be entertained.

O rly? So, what's necessarily wrong to want to know more about Manchester United's third straight Premier League title rather than boring "hard news" about, say, the President's parliamentary speech? Who decided which news has "more value" than the other? Who made you the final arbiter of worthwhile news?

Of course, I'm not accusing you of any of this opinions, but rather pointing out views that you may hold that you aren't even aware of, yet. People who are interested in being open-minded should also learn to be open with themselves, and acknowledge prejudices wherever they exist.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Kakashi

Aye, watch Dennis the Menace to learn how best to deal with the "Candyman"

Personally, I am reminded of the South Park episode "Child Abduction Is Not Funny" and how the parents dealt with the possibility of their children being abuducted (spoiler: they decided to send their children to live with Mongols because they feared that they would abduct their own children...but this was after they had a Chinese cook build a Great Wall around their city to keep "strangers" out ).