Should the United States ban a Japanese "rape simulator" game?

Slate has a piece on this and a review:

After downloading and playing the game myself, I would have to disagree with that review—a more accurate assessment might be "hours of getting depressed about the fate of humankind." The game begins with a man standing on a subway platform, stalking a girl in a blue sundress. On the platform, you can click "prayer" to summon a wind that lifts her skirt. She blushes. Once she's on the train, the assault begins. Inside the subway car, you can use the mouse to grope your victim as you stand in a crowd of mute, translucent commuters. From here, your character corners his victim—in a station bathroom, or in a park with the help of male friends—and a series of interactive rape scenes begins.

http://www.slate.com/id/2213073

Disturbing to say the least.

As fucked up as it is, I believe the content is protected by the 1st Amendment.

But I am fine with individual businesses (especially big chains) not carrying it or distributing it.

neither is terrorist threats or bomb building instructions.

Have you read the Slate article?

therefore it shouldn't be legally sold here.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children.

The law had banned a range of techniques -- including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults -- which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

As long as no child was used/abused in the creation of the images.

:shrug:

edited to ad: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html

The foundation of our child porn laws are the basic belief that they are the fruit of a crime...a child was harmed in their creation, therefore those who view them are furthering the exploitation of that child.

Since there is no child involved in virtual child porn, there's no base crime. The USSC ruled that it's protected speech.

Disgusting, but legal.

is when the porn gets so realistic (and we know one day, it will) that it will be virtually impossible to distinguish the "actors" from real people.

How would SCOTUS interpret such a scenario? :shrug:

Ever hear of The Anarchist's Cookbook?

I've even seen a booklet that promises to teach me how to manufacture VX nerve agent. I have no desire to do so, but it's still considered free speech, even if the majority of Americans consider it reprehensible that such a book exists.

the scotus has already said that SIMULATED child porn is not illegal contraband.

that case was decided some time ago.

the case involved simulated (computer generated) children having sex. that is not unlawful child porn and has been ruled as constitutionally protected.

I find the game repugnant.

allow you to simulate hate crimes.

Because there were plenty of "haters" before video games and there aren't any more now than before.

And if my golf game is anything to go by video golf isn't much help either... not to mention if zombies do show up at my door my house lacks both ammo and health packs.

I assume your having a pull here and just joking around.

what part of that don't you understand? It's you against the military now?

would prepare me to jump hedgerows and fire a rifle???

Good lord no.

You know watching 24 has not made me a better interviewer at work either.

computer generated simulated rape is constitutionally protected.

period.

:shrug:

to quit shitting in the national nest.

Fewer customers would support it.

can hold it up and look outraged for the camera...

It's political theater nothing more.

Look if you want to criticize Grand Theft Auto 4 for because people use it to shoot hookers and beat gays with baseball bats (two of the activities that are available to the player) I sympathize.

But promoting a game no-one ever heard of and pretending it is mainstream gaming is outrageous.

"But promoting a game no-one ever heard of and pretending it is mainstream gaming is outrageous."


The mechanism of programming is consistent with gaming.

even if rape was a hate crime (by this expanded definition of "hate crime" practically all crimes are hate crimes, which defeats the purpose of hate crimes... but i digress), it's not RAPE.

it's ... wait for it... computer generated fantasy rape.

it is no more rape, then if you kill a character in warcraft, that that would be murder

So-called "hate crime" laws result in nothing more and nothing less than punishing someone for their views.

They are aberrations which violate A1, and will eventually be struck down. The sooner the better.

and i agree with you.

fwiw, i am certified to train investigators (trained by the feds) in hate crime investigations, and have been a victim of a hate crime myself.

i am still against them in principal, partly for the reasons you cite.

i don't believe an assault on me based on my ethnicity should be a more serious crime than an assault on you because the guy hitting you thought you were pickin' up his woman

the point being that not ALL speech is protected . . . when speech incites a real danger to society, or to individuals or groups, it might indeed be worthy of banning . . . this seems to have great potential for causing real harm, so maybe it should be banned . . . I'm just sayin' . . .

and they said it is (virtual kiddie porn). When speech incites action that is dangerous then it can regulated, but this game is not inciting anything more than to play the game. When someone yells fire in a crowded theater, the implication is that all people should leave immediately and thats risky. If the warning of fire is a hoax, then that is endangerment. There is no implication to go do anything from playing the game. At least not any more than any other game depicting illegal behavior (e.g., vice city).

I understand why reasonable people would want this game banned, but its the price for living in a free society.

what's next? The domestic and child abuse "game" where the player gets to shake a baby to death and crack a woman's skull open?

One is defined as a high school student and the other is her sister (the third is their mother).

and described as the 'younger' sister if im not mistaken...

there are no age of consent laws in japan tho are there? maybe thats why the game maker is able to get away with it in japan?

PERIOD when it comes to rape of a simulated computer character.

there is no VICTIM. it's not rape.

ONLY black people were killed during the game, or rabbis, or disabled people, that would create a huge uproar. But when it's women, it's suddenly all about the first amendment.

And there have been uproars. And they have been protected by the first amendment.

But I was thinking of video games that might depict hate crimes. I think there's a difference in what you're showing to what I'm thinking about -- a video game that might depict a lynching, or something, and for some reason I thought I remembered a game that did that.

I don't know any more than that, since I try to avoid shit like that, but I'm pretty sure there are "race war" simulation games where you can pretty much just butcher non-white people.

IMO it falls into the same category as this Japanese "game": disgusting, morally reprehensible, but legal.

I played one once for a review I had to write, and it was utterly reprehensible. It held no socially redeeming value whatsoever. Quite the opposite in fact. That being said, it was legal. Sick, but legal.

RE 5 is Not racist. It happens to be set in Africa - but that in itself is not racist. Previous versions (obviously there have been at least 4) have all been set in Europe or USA. Therefore all the villians\zombies were white.

It is about killing zombies for goodness sakes.

I will buy this one, but I am waiting (with great anticipation) for Dead Rising 2.

I wouldn't lump RE 5 in with overtly racist games put out by organized hate groups. It does just happen to be set in Africa. The other four weren't.

and argument why the whole notion of a "hate crime" is unconstitutional.

In any so-called hate crime, there are two components: the crime itself, and the opinion which motivated it.

That component, in every circumstance, is protected by the First Amendment.

As disgusting as these crimes are, it's not illegal to hate nor should it be.

Motivation is what separates the various degrees of murder. So if you intend to frighten or terrorize an entire group of people with your actions, I think it should be (and is) treated differently under the law than if someone directed a crime only at one person.

and that is precisely what distinguishes a "hate" crime.

It's the motivation behind the crime that's taken into account. It doesn't matter what one's personal beliefs are, if someone attacks another person because of their race or sexual identity with the intent to frighten or terrorize an entire group, it should be handled in a different way compared to a person who attacks someone else for a purely personal reason. It's very important to consider motivation in the justice system.

with the intent to frighten or terrorize an entire group? Shall we silence them too?

Can't have it both ways.

onedit: also, you're confusing motivation with circumstances. Two entirely different concepts.

You should know that the first amendment is not absolute. If your words directly cause a person or group of people to be injured, then yes, you can definitely be charged for it and is not protected speech.

You're getting into the dangerous area of interpreting offense as injury. A very slippery slope.

That could certainly cause a great many a great deal of injury. If people were in a crowded street corner and someone incited panic, they could cause people to rapidly disperse and cause some to maybe get run over by cars. And the person inciting that riot would be held responsible. That's just common sense. Speech that directly causes people to get injured is NOT protected speech. Once again, the first Amendment is far from absolute.

for a hate crime charge to be warranted? Just want to be clear.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. You were the one who brought up what should and should not be considered free speech. You didn't understand that speech that directly incites harm to others is NOT protected.

And I'm not going to play your incredibly stupid games when you're perfectly able to look up a definition for yourself.

You see very well the shortcomings of your argument. The fact is unless we can provide a legal definition of "harm" your point is worthless.

If your words incite someone to receive physical injury or harm to property then it's not protected. Are you that thick not to understand that?

because it occasionally brings out the worst in them. OTOH, it's a dirty job and someone needs to do it.

Your ad hominems betray you and just got you ignored. A little soul-searching is in order - best of luck

:hi:

Ask ridiculously stupid questions until I call you out on it and then put me on ignore. Amazing debate skills you've got there, Mr. Scherman.

Since you brought up murder - it is "mitigating circumstances", like insanity, post-partum depression, diminished capacity etc which upon which the attribution of various degrees are based.

"In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. Motive in itself is seldom an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)

"Motive in itself is seldom an element of any given crime." What's your point? What does that have to do with motive being considered in terms of hate crimes? Why shouldn't motive be determined and justice meted out accordingly in a crime that's meant to terrorize an entire group?

What if it's meant to terrorize a very small group? A family? An individual? What does "terrorize" mean? Frighten? Is it against the law to frighten someone? A lot, or a little?

When you can answer these questions, you will help me understand why we have set this absolutely awful precedent of attempting to write into law a punishment for an expression of opinion.

There is a reason that there are laws for gender and sexual orientation based discrimination. Do you know why a terrorist does the things that he or she does? It's not a way of exacting punishment on solely the individuals who are killed or maimed in their attack, the goal is to create chaos. And you should know that the groups listed in hate crimes laws are not very small groups, they're large portions of the population. If a klansman beats up a minority for no other reason than their minority status, it provides a chilling effect for all minorities in the area. And you can be damn sure it causes more harm than someone getting beat up because he slept with the guy's sister or something like that.

What about "creating chaos"? (definitions, please - the law doesn't work well without good definitions).

I would like very much to think I had a chilling effect on Republicans in the last election - I worked very hard to see that they were defeated. Republicans, unfortunately, make up a large portion of the population, so apparently you think I should be punished.

You would have written into law the perfect mechanism to promote fascism, racism, and who-knows-what-else other evils of society.

But yes, if someone is injured and that injury provides a chilling effect, then yes the punishment should be different than a crime where a chilling effect isn't noticed. And your comparison to what you did to Republicans is incredibly stupid. No, you didn't have a chilling effect on Republicans. Were they afraid to go out in public because of what you did? The nerve you have to talk about fascism appalls me because apparently you think that intimidation which would allow a free public to be pounded into submission should be perfectly acceptable in a democracy. If you had your way, the KKK would be roaming the streets with bullhorns telling minorities that they better not leave their houses if they know what's good for them. And they'd be promoting freedom doing so, wouldn't they? Because it's free speech and all, right? Absolutely pathetic.

If you're going to make "having a chilling effect" part of law, you're going to have to define it. That's the bitch and the responsibility that comes with making law. And both of us can see right away that it is impossible to do so.

That's a good part of why we have hate crime laws to begin with is because of the effect that it has on people OTHER than the direct victim of the crime. You do realize that people have ALREADY been charged with hate crimes in this country, right? Apparently you're too dense to realize that. I'm through with you.

Where as hate speech is still perfectly legal and supported by the 1st amendment.

That "additional" part is protected by A1, and unconstitutional.

It speaks to premeditation. Like first degree murder vs. manslaughter.

I (and the legal system, SC all agree with me), would not punish anyone more based upon their views. I would simply allow motive to be considered in sentencing for a crime that's NOT protected by the 1st amendment. For instance, if a white man beat up a Latino man because he slept with a friend of his, then that's not a hate crime, even if he actually harbors an intense hatred of Latinos. There is no "thought crime" here, even though you'd very much like to make that case. Hate Crime laws are perfectly constitutional and in fact exist in almost every state.

So I don't know where you got that from. That's not to say that the 1st amendment is absolute, though, because it's definitely not. And the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the penalty enhancement hate crime statutes don't conflict with free speech rights because they don't punish the person for exercising his or her free speech, rather they allow courts to consider motive during the sentencing for an act which is NOT covered by the 1st amendment.

are 100% legal.

some white supremacist groups sell them, for example.

do you understand the difference between a computer game and an actual hate crime?

Just like video games where you steal cars, slay orcs, or annihiliate entire alien civilizations.

Does that change anything?

I'm pretty sure that no actual children were raped in the production of the video game.

I thought there was a case that broadened the definition to include such depictions even if no minors were involved.

I could be wrong!

that the ruling applied to ultra-realistic depictions which could lead authorities to mistakenly think a child had been harmed.

Not clearly hand drawn anime and other cartoons, which has been upheld by the SC in previous decisions.

Back in the 1990s, I think it was, as part of the federal "Internet Decency Act" or some such. The law attempted to criminalize any and all depictions of child nudity, whether the image included actual children or not. The Supreme Court struck it down as being unconstitutionally broad; among other things, it would have classed a lot of normal baby pictures as kiddy porn and forced local courts to class parents that had such pictures as sex offenders. Latter attempts to rewrite the law never got off the ground although there was a lot of talk.

dumbass lawmakers...

I don't get it.

So does Romeo and Juliet, for that matter.

If you are talking about the Zeffirelli version.

But I get your point.

...the next morning.

It would have been considered child pornography under the strict definition given in the now defunct law.

In this game the rape actually occurs onscreen and, according to the Slate article, in graphic detail.

But according to the law the sex doesn't have to be depicted. Even implied offstage was still considered child pornography.

It was a very stupid law.

implying and actually showing are the same thing?

it was considered child porn for a while.

In the mind of the authors of the bill.

:wtf: How bout "Just like video games where you where you burn down houses with people inside, lynch people of color, or chop off dicks."

It also protect books, movies, and sock puppet plays which depict any of the above.

This is not a complicated concept.

"protected by the 1st amendment"? :crazy:

Video games depicting them, however, are not hate crimes and are protected speech.

You see, Omega, video games are fiction.

There isn't really an italian plumber named Mario who doubles in size when he eats magic mushrooms.

It's make-believe.

Beats the Taliban world where civil rights are trampled all over.

:crazy:

Video games are free speech, not hate crimes.

:shrug:

Same goes for books. Movies. Etc.

Lots of games depict murder, this one depicts rape; some white supremacists produce games depicting white people shooting non-whites.

But unless a game crosses the line from depicting fictional crimes to *very* clearly actively encouraging people to go out and commit real ones it should be protected as free speech.

Simply inuring people to crimes isn't sufficient justification for banning something.

that is more comfortable for you... The 1st admendment stays right here.

Programming people to practice hate crimes as entertainment is insane


Your limited view of the value of freedoms you claim to defend is truly retarded

Oogling some other person's "indigo" child at a tattoo parlor and then posting lurid details on the internet for other people to drool over. I mean, that's way more creepy than some otaku with a japanese porn collection.

But I'll defend a person's right to do so.

:rofl:

It would seem you live in a strictly black and white world.

Not like videotaped actual criminal activity of rape, but rape reenactment or fake-rape/rape fantasy porn legal?

I'm on a work computer so I'd rather not try looking that up right now.

but UNDERAGE rape porn is not.

two of the girls in the game are described as under age... as one is stated to be in 'high school' and the other the 'younger sister' of that very high school girl...

That's a pretty twisted "game"

sex scenes between people who were underage by two or three years, as did his novel "It".

Both sold many copies. Many big-big.

And if I recall, there was an organized effort to remove "It" from school libraries by various prudes and prigs.

Honest question, haven't read it.

...under the false pretense of a medical exam.

I guess that's sexual assault rather than rape, technically.

In for a penny in for a pound though, as far as this dicussion is concerned.

it's a Hate Crime

:hi:

It's like those stupid fucking news reports on the dangers of licking toads. 99%of teens never even thought hey lets lick a toad until the news media started to "warn" everybody.

i thought that was only in a Family Guy episode !

now if youll excuse me, i hafta go purchase my tickets to a remote rain forest for a lil frog huntin'....

lol ;)

As do teenage boys.

with the intention of 'getting you off'...
is kiddy porn.

belong in prison?????

I think you may want to revist your definitions.

People who are into that, they wouldn't know where to find it either.

And sorry but, I don't recall anyone getting raped in Animal House (although Bluto got injured for trying to peep), and in no way did Fast Times glamorize what went on with Jennifer Jason Leigh's character.

There is nothing in the world that you or anyone in the world can write to justify the marketing of a game in which forcing your sex on an unwilling partner in order to dominate them is the point of the game.

Nothing. Please, get help.

Of course, there's nothing in the world that would justifying the banning of said game either.

ban things like this they end up turning Animal House into child porn (which they did)

If it wasn't for the publicity seeking nimrods acting all shocked no-one would ever have heard of or played this game.

If you want to blame someone blame the publicity whores that are protesting.

The first amendment trumps my feeling uncomfortable and it trumps you feeling uncomfortable.

If you don't like it don't play it.

Somewhere, some asshole wants to make a buck.

Its the price we pay for freedom of expression.

... it's still a computer game, not real life. I can't see the rational justification for making it a legal issue when you can't identify an injured party. I generally don't like appeals to slippery slope arguments but this is one of the areas where it's legitimate... if we start saying it's illegal to so much as portray things we find highly morally objectionable using a bunch of computer pixels and no live people then where do we draw the censorship line?

No showing torture in movies? How is that better than rape?

There are some horrifically graphically violent graphic novels and comics... why are those allowed?

No... bad road to go down. Just keep it away from the kids as best you can and otherwise the government should keep their noses out of it.

It was an old Atari game that depicted General Custer "raping" a Native American girl. Although with the Atari graphics, the whole thing was a bit ridiculous.

To think that people actually paid money for that.

And that's a fine example.

Also: the E.T. game. And the Alpo dog food game.

Yes, I've played the E.T. game (15 minutes I'll never get back) and that Custer's Revenge game (which got old after 30 seconds), but I've never heard of an Alpo game. Details, please!

"Chase the Chuck Wagon"



http://www.videogamecritic.net/2600cc.htm

At least it was cute, and the programmers took the trouble to make it somewhat challenging. But I hadn't thought about that game since - well, since before I got married.

Suddenly I feel really old.

Pornography is created with the intention of rewarding the viewer with positive stimulus (an orgasm). It's Psychology 101 that when an act or an image gives you such a positive reeforcement, especially a very powerful one as in this case, you become more open and receptive to the act/image.

When you masturbate to images of sexual violence, even if you are capable of compartmentalizing it and not letting it affect your personal life, you are still acquiring a "taste" for violent sexual imagery, creating a very powerful physical trigger. As far as I know, there's no proof that this trigger causes people to commit crimes - but it's not comparable to the violence and torture presented in movies, which doesn't have the same conditioning effect (or if it does it's not nearly as powerful).

That having been said I don't think there's a legal reason to ban these games or censor them. Individual groups have the right to pressure stores not to carry them, but no one can tell them outright that they'll be arrested for it.

Actually I agree with you but I couldn't resist the snark.

:thumbsup:

The fact that it is a "game" means that parents will unwittingly purchase this "game" for their kids, because the kids will beg for it.

Since most parents these days have no idea what their kids are doing, the kids will play this "game" & be indoctrinated into negative & evil actions towards women. When some kid rapes someone & it comes out in court that he "played" this "game", it will be used as a defense to excuse his behavior.
The parents will say they "had no idea this 'game' involved this type of activity".

This can have NO redeeming value to society.

We have laws that keep certain pharmaceutical drugs out of the US (the abortion pill for example), so there is no reason we should allow this "game" into the US either.

What with the particular "storyline" that the game follows.

Or maybe it's healthy, I don't know - any psychologists out there?

kid situation because I'm a teacher & know how they are about these video games. I also know that what young people are exposed to is what molds their values & psyches & this influences what they become.

If this "game" were made in Iran & was a pilot game where you attacked US government landmarks & the people associated with them, you can BET this game would be "banned" from the US.

The poster who said that stores would not carry the game needs to consider that there are so many "entrepreneurs" today who will do ANYTHING for a buck, regardless of how offensive, illegal or tasteless it is.

Honestly, I could not believe, reading the article, that such a product could be legal in Japan.

I can't think of any major games purveyor that permits sale of M rated games to minors, and most are very picky about which M rated games they carry. Very few stores will even carry a game like this.

or convince their parents to buy for them. You would be amazed at what parents will do for their kids today without even investigating the products they are buying.
Most parents don't realize that the M rating on video games = X rating on movies.
Heck, parents allow their kids to watch R rated movies when they are 8-9 yrs old. As long as it's convenient for the parents & keeps the kids "out of their hair".

Mind you, not ALL parents are like this, but it's over 50% easily. So make doubly sure who your kid is spending the night with.

I used to work at a store that sold video games, including a few M rated games (none like this, GTA and stuff like that) and we would ask buyers of the M rated games if they were for them, remind them that they weren't for kids, etc as we rang them up. There was also a register prompt to check ID on those games.

And no kid is going to convince their parents (or older brother or whoever) to buy them a game about rape. First of all because they're not going to want it (previous games of this sort haven't sold well at all) and secondly because no adult will do it.

Sure, you can get the local homeless drunk guy to go buy you a sixer for a few bucks or letting him keep a can or two, but generally alcoholic bums don't loiter in front of the specialty video game shop, and you'd be nuts to hand them a $50 and expect to see them again, if they did. Assuming the store even carried the game, which most of them won't both because game stores cater to children and because these games don't sell at all well.

I don't understand why so many people are so naive about these video games. The kids DO get them. There are many unscrupulous "adults" out there.

Like I said above there was a game like this released in the early 90's for one of Sega's systems. I saw screenshots on the news- iirc the scenario was something like a home invasion robbery- which is why I remember the thing. I never saw the game, not in anybody's house, not in a store, nowhere. And I knew quite a few people who collected huge quantities of games, so if anybody were buying this thing somebody I knew would have had it.

Maybe some obscure etailers will pick it up, but you can already order games like this from Japan if so inclined. There's a very tiny market for these things.

The only crime here was the hair...

if some teenager's buying pornographic japanese imports in some clandestine black market, the kid's childlike innocence probably won't be affected by playing the game.

Really, I'm sure the cover could easily be mistaken for Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl.

Of which there's enough to fill the Library of Congress.

the X rating in cinema is equal to an AO rating in video games, and there aren't any even marketed, let alone written, in this country. It's not like Game Stop or Blockbuster will carry it, and Electronic Arts isn't gonna spend millions of dollars (or more) to make a game that can only be sold at adult book stores. The M rating on a game pretty much precludes it from having nudity. Unless, or course, you read internet message boards to find the cheat codes to reveal a nipple slip for 2 seconds. Sheesh.

These kinds of games aren't sold on shelves among stuff like Mario and Pokemon, they can only be bought in specialty shops that caters to this specific type of content.
For a parent to purchase a game like this they'd have to specifically seek out a shop that sells adult oriented Japanese import content. And if they're taking their kids to that kind of place, then, well, they have only themselves to blame.

You're not even going to find this stuff in a regular anime shop either. I've never even seen one of these games sold in a brick & mortar shop, I've only seen them on internet based shops that have 18+ splash warnings you have to click through on the front page.

If it was banned the people who want it will still get it regardless. It it isn't banned there's no serious store in the country that will carry it. No chain store would touch it, and whatever few small software stores that still exist can't risk the controversy that would come with carrying it.

is about as low as it gets.

I, ahem, have some passing familiarity with the genre. Perhaps I can offer some assistance.

Japanese pornography seems to me to be some sort of mirror-image of their society, as if they're so repressed that all their sex has to have some sort of "evil" component to it to make it truly satisfying. One of the more popular titles out there, in both games and film, is the Bible Black series, in which (presumably underaged) schoolgirls are tempted to the side of Jesus (edit: in the American versions, it's "witchcraft") through bizarre sexual rituals--and, yes, there is plenty of rape, S&M, voyeurism, and the unwilling administration of most bodily fluids. There are entire sub-genres dedicated to rape, incest, gigantism, and yes, even tentacles. Maybe especially tentacles.

The artwork and animation is also often very good, which is of course why I know such things. And I only read Playboy for the articles.

I suppose one thing the Japanese have over us is a very strong sense of what is real and what is fantasy. They seem to have no problem whatsoever with the idea that you can draw absolutely anything you want and nobody needs to be hurt by it. We, on the other hand, seem to take our pornography more seriously.

The one notable exception to that rule is penises. The Japanese government is afraid of penises, and has passed various laws preventing the accurate depiction of them in some media, like the graphic novels which are such popular subway reading in Tokyo. Oftentimes, it results in some very bizarre scenes indeed, with genital-less men waving around baseball bats or other phallic objects to get the point across.

But another way around the law is... tentacles! And the more the better, since they're totally legal. So you kids out there who think there oughta be a law about this should think about that for a minute. The cure can wind up being far more disgusting... and amusing... than the disease itself.

Raping school girls. Charming. Honestly the guys who created this game should get raped.

but id imagine all this media attention just boosted their sales very nicely...
as those sick people probably had no idea it exsisted until now...


i just went and looked it up using torrents and found it EASILY..
and it looks like the numbers are increasing with every hour...

There was also a statement of condemnation from the New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault.

Do you think it would have been better not to speak out about it?

I ask in good faith.

to be honest, i dont know why any retail store in the states would have even attempted to carry it even without a statement from anyone...


does anybody know what the japanese governments stance is on the game?

Because it's one of hundreds of such games involving pornography, underage children, giant robots, tentacles, beloved childhood cartoon characters, Benjamin Disraeli, demons, and so on.

It's an entire sub culture.

There were attempts to outlaw that sort of thing awhile back among various conservatives elements. IIRC it failed miserably. Possibly because more conservative elements are traditionally the biggest customers of porn.

would have heard of.

Have you ever seen the explicit comic books that some Japanese men read?

i mean the whole dominance of women by men in japanese society...

i mean theres no age of consent laws or anything in japan is there?

And yet they still lust after 12 year olds.

that allows female characters to torture, maim and kill virtual Japanese producers of games like the one in the OP.

In case you've been in a closet for the last forty years, rape and exploitation of women has been an essential and important part of entertainment culture for Japanese businessmen. While legally women have equality, in social terms for the Japanese business culture they are very much "things" to use. I think if I could show you some examples of animated hentae - especially "tentacle porn" - it would pop your fragile little mind.

First, even if it depicts simulated child porn, no children were harmed in its production. That is the only legitimate reason for banning child porn.

Second, even though it is a deplorable piece of filth, as I labeled it, what if it is a deplorable piece of filth that serves a socially useful purpose? What if, for example, would-be rapists used this thing to get off instead of doing the real crime? What if it actually decreased the number of child rapes? Would you still want to ban this kind of stuff?

Well, of course there is some evidence that porn reduces sex crimes, and violent porn reduces violent sex crimes.

There are a lot of people who can't differentiate fantasy from reality. The Columbine shooters were into hardcore violent computer games. Lots of other examples out there I'm sure. This game is bordering on kiddie porn if you ask me. Not to mention it depicts a hate crime. I don't know much about video games so I don't know what is acceptable but this is beyond repulsively bad taste.

The Virgina Tech shooter is a prime example of this. He refused to play videogames with other students instead he would sit alone and read books.

That's where I went so wrong--and at such an early age. I really never had a chance, once I found the addictive wiles of print.

want to ban it.... cause of the underage sex and all the murders it has inspired.

society and the individuals inability to deal with it do.


most school shootings occur when the kid is an outcast and made fun of by others at the school... its true they probably do play lots of video games, but only because its probably the only fun thing they have to do in their free time...

if anything, the people around a kid who murders people at school are probably more to blame than some video game he spent his free time enjoying(probably to forget about his horrible life).

the ONLY game ive ever seen that had the actual intent of converting killing on a game into killing in real life was that video game THE ARMY put out a while back...
here play this game about killing people in completely authentic ways that are true to life... and oh yeah, have you ever thought about a career in the armed forces?

how they were allowed to get away with making a video game is beyond me.

Yeah, people who think video games cause violence clearly have problems understanding reality.

I now think that EVERY MAN IN AMERICA MUST HAVE THIS GAME!!!! It obviously is the secret to stopping rape. Consider me pwned...

to this kind of thing. They get used to the idea and it becomes an easy jump from fantasy to reality.

Furthermore, Doom was not even very violent compared to many other newer games. Lets not fall for conservative propaganda.

with children being depicted, it should definitely be ban.


there are plenty of places people can pay money on the internet to go watch simulated rapes already... so that shouldnt be the issue.

http://www.tldm.org/news6/bundy.htm

Excerpt from Bundy interview:

What are the antecedents of the behavior that we've seen? You were raised in what you consider to be a healthy home. You were not physically, sexually or emotionally abused.

Ted: No. And that's part of the tragedy of this whole situation. I grew up in a wonderful home with two dedicated and loving parents, as one of 5 brothers and sisters. We, as children, were the focus of my parent's lives. We regularly attended church. My parents did not drink or smoke or gamble. There was no physical abuse or fighting in the home. I'm not saying it was "Leave it to Beaver", but it was a fine, solid Christian home. I hope no one will try to take the easy way out of this and accuse my family of contributing to this. I know, and I'm trying to tell you as honestly as I know how, what happened.
I grew up in a wonderful home with two dedicated and loving parents, as one of 5 brothers and sisters. . . . We regularly attended church. . . .. I'm not saying it was "Leave it to Beaver", but it was a fine, solid Christian home.
As a young boy of 12 or 13, I encountered, outside the home, in the local grocery and drug stores, softcore pornography. Young boys explore the sideways and byways of their neighborhoods, and in our neighborhood, people would dump the garbage. From time to time, we would come across books of a harder nature - more graphic. This also included detective magazines, etc., and I want to emphasize this. The most damaging kind of pornography - and I'm talking from hard, real, personal experience - is that that involves violence and sexual violence. The wedding of those two forces - as I know only too well - brings about behavior that is too terrible to describe.


I suppose to his credit, Bundy wanted people to know what he believed "created" the monster that he became.

Had not heard about this.

I don't consider an interview with a mass murderer to be the equivalent of empirical data.

Bundy also knew how to play to his audience.

It merely reinforces the sexual depravity because of the neurological effects of the hormone oxytocin released during orgasm. Jerk off to kiddie porn and you will soon want more and more kiddie porn. Same with all fetishes.

Pornography, Rape, and the Internet


Todd D. Kendall*

Clemson University

The John E. Walker Department of Economics

September, 2006



The arrival of the internet caused a large decline in both the
pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs of accessing pornography.
Using state-level panel data from 1998-2003, I find that the
arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape
incidence. However, growth in internet usage had no apparent
effect on other crimes. Moreover, when I disaggregate the rape
data by offender age, I find that the effect of the internet on rape
is concentrated among those for whom the internet-induced fall
in the non-pecuniary price of pornography was the largest –
men ages 15-19, who typically live with their parents. These
results, which suggest that pornography and rape are substitutes,
are in contrast with most previous literature. However, earlier
population-level studies do not control adequately for many
omitted variables, including the age distribution of the
population, and most laboratory studies simply do not allow for
potential substitutability between pornography and rape.

==================================================================
Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?

Gordon B. Dahl
University of Rochester - Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Stefano DellaVigna
University of California, Berkeley; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)


January 2008

NBER Working Paper No. W13718

Abstract:
Laboratory experiments in psychology find that media violence increases aggression in the short run. We analyze whether media violence affects violent crime in the field. We exploit variation in the violence of blockbuster movies from 1995 to 2004, and study the effect on same-day assaults. We find that violent crime decreases on days with larger theater audiences for violent movies. The effect is partly due to voluntary incapacitation: between 6PM and 12AM, a one million increase in the audience for violent movies reduces violent crime by 1.1 to 1.3 percent. After exposure to the movie, between 12AM and 6AM, violent crime is reduced by an even larger percent. This finding is explained by the self-selection of violent individuals into violent movie attendance, leading to a substitution away from more volatile activities. In particular, movie attendance appears to reduce alcohol consumption. Like the laboratory experiments, we find indirect evidence that movie violence increases violent crime; however, this effect is dominated by the reduction in crime induced by a substitution away from more dangerous activities. Overall, our estimates suggest that in the short-run violent movies deter almost 1,000 assaults on an average weekend. While our design does not allow us to estimate long-run effects, we find no evidence of medium-run effects up to three weeks after initial exposure.

Please, think about that for a minute.

All the websites, all the usenet, IRC groups, what have you, that get fed on this. It has to come from somewhere. It's a *business.*

Some overweight college dropout with mediocre anime copying abilities and poor programming skills.

:shrug:

It's despicable. It's disgusting. Should it be banned? As the father of a precious daughter, my immediate knee-jerk reaction would be yes, but......

I have always been a defender of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights in its entirety, so I have to pause and consider the ramifications of such a ban. If I thought the effects of such a ban would be isolated to its intended target, I'd probably be ok with it. But unintended consequences can be hard to predict, so in the end analysis I have to say no, don't ban it. I doubt many retailers would want to brave the public outrage by carrying it anyway, so letting it die a quiet death may be the best course.

because it's constitutionally protected free speech.

...support the 1st amendment and leaving the government out of such decisions - I am torn by this one.

On one hand, rape should be a capital crime - at the very least life sentences with little to no possibility of parole

On the other hand, I am not comfortable with the government getting into the censorship business...even though it already is, of course.

Either way, anyone that plays this is a disturbed and sick individual that I want nothing to do with.

WTF? Is Japanese society so misogynist that they have no problem with this game being sold? :puke:

The First Amendment isn't here just to protect the speech we think is cool. It's to protect all speech, especially offensive speech.

Parents have every right not to let their kids have this game, but an outright ban? No.

And yes, this game is damned sick.

It's hardly the first game of the sort imported to the US, and none of them sell enough copies to matter. I remember there was a big flap about one in the early 90's on- God, I'm dating myself here- either the Sega Genesis or the CD add-on for that system. They get a ton of media attention, the Tipper Gores of the world get the vapors, and then nobody buys them. Because this isn't fucking Japan.

Free speech has a price.

The creators can pay that price by being SHUNNED from all levels of society until they withdraw the product from the market and give the proceeds to a victims assistance organization.

I really think it is time to revive the art of shunning those who are bent on such clearly socially unacceptable behavior as promoting violence towards women.

When that happens you'll notice newspapers and other media outlets tend to be less critical.

The whole thing sounds disgusting. It's stuff like this that keeps me a moral objectivist.

Our consumer sensibilities know no bounds...

I imagine that before too long, we'll be playing a Holocaust games on our Console Gaming Systems (the New & Improved Opiate of the Masses-- not too many people zone out for a weekend at church anymore, but put a controller in the hands of an American male, and as the wife says, "there goes the weekend"), taking on the role of some S.S. commandant and scoring points by killing inmates in New & Improved ways. But hey... just like running over prostitutes or killing commies, it's not at all bad-- just another way to "relieve the tension after a hard day at work..." and will be righteously defended, packaged, marketed, bought and played.

It warms my heart to know that this will be justified in the deep recesses of our collective conscious, relevant to many gamers, well-grounded to the marketeers, puissant to the first amendment, and consequential in devolving us even further.

Dignity, shmignity! Honor doesn't sell t-shirts and class doesn't make for good copy. Civility sucks for games... so let us swear fealty to deviancy and depravity, all on board for the celebration of petulant perversity and reprehensible behavior-- 'cause *that* makes for a damn good game and an even better profit.

It seems to be one step historical forward and two cultural steps back when it comes to the human race... :banghead: