Amazon sells another video game where you "play" sexual abuser

[ccharles000]

While we haven't been the biggest fans of Amazon as of late and their history of selling a rape simulation game (which they did end up banning), it looks like another game involving violence against women seems to have"slipped" past their radar. "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love" is a game that allows the user to experience,

"...a terrifyingly vivid exploration of Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological condition in which a captive falls in love with her kidnapper. And you play the part of the kidnapper. With a limited number of options, you must figure out how to make her fall in love with you."

This includes using poison gas on the victim, sexually assaulting her and using psychological abuse against her in efforts to make her "love" you. Unbelievable.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/015717.html

[YOY]

1. And the amount of gamers who will actually play it?

Not significant. Freaks to begin with and not 12 year olds.

[iamthebandfanman]

14. you mean before or after people make a big deal outa it

and get it press time so everyone in the world knows about it and where to go it ?

[YOY]

206. Before or after the freakout...it doesn't matter. Besides, It won't be easy to get....

...and most gamers don't flock towards shitty games.

Sold in specialty boutiques, online, or downloadable after credit card payment. Not at gamestop or Toys R Us. It won't be advertised in any gaming magazine and unless mentioned in passing as the sickest (no really sickest in a non-humours way) on any video game channels (Spike or G4).

It's a PC game most likely as the platforms would never give a license to this. Marketed to and by adult freaks.

Publicity or not it won't be easy to get...and I highly doubt it will sell like Halo 3, freakout or not.

There was a big freakout about the "Left Behind" game...Fundies made a game about their stupid Rapture fantasy...it has been panned as one of the worst of all time. Didn't sell worth shit save to freaky fundy parents who actually think their child's behavior can be affected by video games.

[Occulus]

218. Nobody on this thread read the product description, Yoy.

Check this out:

"All you need is a regular DVD player and a remote control"

This isn't a "game". It's one of those interactive DVDs with multiple video tracks that lets you access different scenes based on what button you push on your remote.

This isn't a "game" as I (and probably you yourself) define the term.

Not that that makes it right, by any stretch, but it's reaching quite far to call this a "game" in the sense that we know "games".

[YOY]

220. Even I did. I assumed it to be like those awful hentai games with specific kinks...

Nope...not a game by my definition...more like a "video" game in the sense of "Scene It" is a game that is on video format.

Of course there is a Hentai game called "Rape Battler" or some such...pretty creepy shit in and of itself but like the DVD it's to a totally niche market.

[Occulus]

223. I hope to never actually see any hentai.

Given I'm now 34, I'm somewhat surprised to have avoided it for as long a time as I have.

Tentacle sex does nothing for me, you see.

[YOY]

248. All that I have seen has been purely accidental and never for more than a second.

Advertisements at the sides of some sites or "crude humor" sites.

Just like you it not only does nothing for me but kind of grosses me out.

[Mythsaje]

2. Oh, Jesus Christ.

I guess there's a niche market for just about anything you can think of, but I can't see any reason to pander to this sort of thing. While I don't think playing a fantasy RPG game's going to make me grab up a sword and hacking my way through the people at the mall, I have to say that this sort of thing feeds into a completely different mind-set and just might INDEED induce people already tending that direction to turn "fantasy" into reality.

Really, really bad idea.

[redqueen]

3. There are some sick, sick people out there.

[MineralMan]

4. Sounds like a training game for future

sociopaths. Feh!

[YOY]

6. You assume children are the target market?

I assure you that anyone playing it will have "issues" to begin with.

PC Games are seldom marketed to and played by minors. That's the realm of platforms.

THere are a number of adult DUers who kill shit on a constant basis in video game land that like myself, wouldn't hurt a fly.

This game sounds like niche marketing to freaks. I prefer stomping the shit out of Roman Legions with my mighty Germanic Hordes...

[Politicalboi]

194. I also enjoy first person shoot

Like Counter-Strike and Call of Duty, but I would never shoot anyone. But this game is sick indeed.

[YOY]

207. Niche marketing to freaks.

But most folks here who don't know jack about video games think 12 year olds will be playing it on their Wii after they purchase it from the local gamestop.

Even if it were...this (below) was available in all those stores...did it sell like hotcakes? No...you see it was a shitty game...about the rapture. (The fundie rapture not the Bioshock one...that one kicked ass.)

[Kurska]

5. Lets play devil's advocate

What makes rape any worse a subject for videogames then murder? Why is it okay to have drug trafficing in games, but not rape. You get more time in prison for murder then for rape.

Or for that matter, why is it okay for some mediums to tackle the issue of rape and not others? Why is it okay for a movie to tackle rape, but not video games?

[redqueen]

9. Are there games where you plot and carry out the murder

of people with whom you're intimately involved?

[Kurska]

28. IF you mean kill your wife/girlfriend yes, and if you mean have sex with and then kill yes

Fable allowed you to take a wife, have children with her and then randomly murder her one day if you felt like it. Dead space required you to murder your girlfriend to finish the game.

The hitman series required you to plan out and execute the murder of many people, though I don't belive you ever had sex with one.

All these are main stream, widely accepted and popular.

[redqueen]

30. Gross.

Just gross.

[Kurska]

36. I have a freind that tried to elimnate every NPC in a game called Elderscrolls 3: morrowind

I don't think he is liable to try and kill every other human being on the planet soon though, it's just giving you a world where you can play around consequence free and do it without causing anybody else pain.

[redqueen]

40. Once again I must point out...

that IMO there is a difference between killing random characters in a game, and killing a character which represents a person with whom you're intimately involved. One is just whatever... one is fucking sick and reprehensible.

Again, IMO.

[Mari333]

43. I wish Kurska would answer my questions. nt

[Kurska]

44. I did and yes I would support it.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

[Mari333]

47. would you draw the line at the sexual abuse of small children in games? nt

[Kurska]

216. Don't know why you keep asking the same question twicwe, refer to my other post.

[Occulus]

221. Actually, Fable is more of a "sandbox" game.

You *can* do so, but you aren't required to.

The girlfriend in Dead Space was SPOILERED, HiGHLIGHT TO READ:

Dead from the beginning. You never kill her, but another "trusted" crew member named Kendra uses her video messages sent to you during the disaster, which she intercepted, by cleverly editing them to make it look like your girl is still alive, in order to get you to do what she wants you to do. When you finally find out... well, as a gamer, I wanted to eat Kendra's soul.

I don't know much about Hitman, though.

In Oblivion you have the option of becoming a vampire, killing off an entire dinner party, and a bunch of other sandboxy-type things.

You can throw whole handfuls of worshipers off a cliff in Black & White 2.

Then there's The Sims. Don't get me started on forcing people to piss and shit themselves because they're stuck behind some chairs in a corner of the room for a month.

[Mari333]

33. would you support a game made that was called Fantasy Castration

where women castrated men? I assume you would support it, since it is just a game.

[Kurska]

41. Yes I would. I see no reason why It's any of my business what other people play.

You're absolutely right, it's not real and if I don't want to involve it in my life I have every right to. A man who kills another man in a video game is no more a murder then Arnold Schwarzenegger is.

[Mari333]

45. I meant women doing it. castrating men in a video game. nt

[Kurska]

50. Yes, it protected by the bloody first amendment.

It is FREE SPEECH, you can make a game with ANY CONTENT YOU WANT. No matter how much I dislike the subject, it's NOT MY BUSINESS.

[Mari333]

54. geez just asking. how about sexual abuse of small children in a game?

I am just playing devils advocate.

[L0oniX]

209. Sounds like the game our military is already playing.

[Kurska]

215. Freedom of speech is NON NEGOTIABLE, what don't you get about that?

It is not a hard concept, you can create any fiction you want with any content you want so long as it is not real.

[hfojvt]

226. that you don't understand how insane that is

to be so absolutist, even about free speech. There are all kinds of limits on free speech currently. There's the 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' limit which was used to put Debs in prison in the 1910s, there are laws against false advertising, there's perjury, libel and slander, etc.

It is true that some of those don't block speech, they merely punish people for certain types of speech. The point being that an American already can NOT say or write anything they want declare 'free speech' and thus be free from any legal consequences.

[Kurska]

230. You're not allowed to say anything you want factually, but you are fictionally.

You can't say "I want to kill the president", but you are allowed to say "I want to kill the president" Said John.

The clear and present danger argument doesn't apply to fiction.

I probably wasn't clear enough, though if you read my entire post you'd see that the non negotiable part referred only to fiction.

I personally don't like libel or slander laws to be honest... you end up in situations where a magazine can print something, be sued for it and later have it come out that what they said was true in the first place.

[hfojvt]

234. oh there have been limits on fiction as well

the Oxford Companion to Scotus says "Yet there is little doubt that the judicial role encompasses the need to continue to engage in balancing."

Then it follows with "First Amendment Tests" and the third example is the theory of Alexander Meiklejohn.

"To Meiklejohn 'public' speech comprises any expression concerning public policy and/or public officials and is entitled to absolute protection in the interests of a self-governing, free, democratic society, based on the First Amendment and the Privileges and immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment...'Private' speech, on the other hand, pertains to speech that concerns only private individuals in their personal, private concerns, and it can accordingly be regulated or restricted ..." pp 348-49

They mention Justice Black as an 'absolutist' on the Supreme Court, but not all are absolutists.

It says under "Obscenity and Pornography" - "Though the Supreme Court has ratified the imposition of liberal principles in cases involving political or religious speech, it has allowed some measures of community control by holding that the First Amendment does NOT protect all forms of expression."

"In the seminal 1942 case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, the court established the rationale that distinguishes protected and unprotected speech."

You may be an absolutist on this, but that's not a traditional reading of US law.

[Kurska]

250. I'm aware the supreme court hasn't always jumped to the aid of "Obscene material"

But as of now Pornography is perfectly legal and as Pornography is a impossibility to define (The very definition of pornography is based on the intent of the creator), I see no reason why such material would be any less defensible then any other form of art.

Pornography that is entirely fictional is even more legal.

Let me be frank, If I don't want politicians defining what is "acceptable speech", I want unelected for life justices doing it even less.

I may not be in the reading of law via the tradition of the american justice system, but when I read the first amendment I read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech", I see no clause exempting speech that is "Digusting or sick".

If believing that people have the right to express whatever ideas the want, in whatever ways they want (atleast in a fictional manner) makes me absolutist, I'll just have to live with being a absolutist.

[Seldona]

278. Unfortunately they did rule on this.

snip

Personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In writing for the Court in the case of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." However, it is not unconstitutional for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), further upheld these rights by invalidating the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that, because the act "prohibited child pornography that does not depict an actual child..." it was overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I recalled the ruling because I read about it here, and it was just so repulsive. It may have changed since I last read about it which was probably right around the date of the Wiki entry, or I could completely be misinterpreting this with my layman's reading of case law, but according to the second paragraph it looks the same as when I first heard it. As long as the media doesn't present an actual child it would be 'legally' acceptable.

It is morally reprehensible, but a lot of free speech is. I hate to stand up for anyone's right to make such utterly sick shit, but unfortunately at this time I believe the courts have ruled the only avenue for our discontent and revulsion is to take our money elsewhere from any place that would sell such sick garbage.

*Bold added.

[LanternWaste]

181. However, it is the business of cultural mores...

However, it is the business of cultural mores. I see no one attempting to ban the game though legal means, merely using our voices... our own speech to either shame or denigrate the company to the point of pulling it off the shelves.

That too is part and parcel of free speech.

[Gwendolyn]

282. If the dvd was part of an installation at an uber-hip gallery, people would say it was brilliant.

They would say the artists were genius in asking the question of female-male roles in such an innovative way.

It's all in the presentation and perception isn't it. Nobody here has even read up on what it's about, all are merely having another circle jerk over the usual tripe spewed out by the hagulas over at feministing.

[Clintonista2]

251. Don't forget GTA

You can kill the prostitutes that you've had sex with.

[Kurska]

254. Yeah but mention GTA and most people find their knees jerked right over their heads n/t

[morgan2]

12. yes.. its a simple question

would you rather be raped or murdered? Obviously raped...
Do people not play out rape fantasies with their partners? of course people do..
There is a big difference between simulated rape and real rape. People need to get over themselves.

[Mari333]

18. rape is a life sentence for many people

and many of them would have preferred to have been murdered, believe me.

[omega minimo]

75. this level of ignorance is staggering.

[Mari333]

17. you think drug trafficking is worse then rape?

[Kurska]

48. I think they are both bad and liable to ruin someone's life.

But yes rape is worse then drug trafficking, murder may or may not be worse then rape, but thats not a matter for me to decide.

[armyowalgreens]

225. I think it's stupid to compare the two.

By shear number of people who are negatively affected, drug trafficking is far worse than rape. But then again, we don't just judge crimes based on people affected.

But I'm a utilitarian. I personally think that, based on utilitarian principal, drug trafficking is a far worse act than rape.

[Mari333]

19. yes lets play devils advocate

I assume you would support a video game, then, where a woman slowly cuts off the penis and testicles of a man. with a dull knife. yes, or no? i mean, its just a game.

[Forkboy]

31. You're confusing support for the game with support for free speech.

And trying to mix the two to minimize the people defending the right to make and play the game, not the game itself.

As for the hypothetical game you mention, let them make it. It's just a game, as you say. :shrug:

[Mari333]

32. I am not against making the games

Im just asking the poster who says rape fantasies are okay, if castration of men fantasies are also okay to him. so far he hasnt answered. if he supports one, he should support the other.

[Forkboy]

56. Ok, thanks.

I'll answer that though, if I may.

I don't think either are ok, but I wouldn't stop someone from fantasizing about them either, and don't see how we could anyways. The thoughts in someone's head don't hurt anyone unless, or until, they are acted upon.

Thank you for explaining your point to me. I'm a little slow. :)

[omega minimo]

81. The thoughts in people's heads in misogynistic/bigoted culture do hurt people, every day

Giving people ever and ever more heinous, dehumanizing "fantasies" they would never have imagined themselves and further endorsing those behaviors and attitudes by glamorizing and "playing" them..............


creates a toxic, heinous, dehumanizing environment, inside and outside people's heads.

:puke:

[Forkboy]

145. So what's the answer? How do we prempt thought itself?

I don't disagree with what you're saying (except for the part about them never imagining it themselves. You underestimate evil's creativity.), I just don't see what the answer is short of the outright banning of everything considered disgusting, and is that the path we want to go down? Will you be the one deciding what's acceptable, will it be me, will it be a Republican fundie president somewhere down the line? What if one of the things considered disgusting is speaking out about a game like this?

The upside to free speech is that we can say anything we want. The downside to free speech is that we can say anything we want. It's an ugly balance in situations like this, but which side do you want to come down on? Banning it or saving free speech? Both can be potentially dangerous, but if realized one is far more dangerous than the other.

[omega minimo]

149. "Is that the path we want to go down?"

You have hit it on the head. I agree we don't have definitive answers and I don't think an outright "either/or" response is the thing.

We are going down a path. Where do want it to lead? What world do want to create and live in?

Images are powerful. They influence ideas, attitudes and behavior.

Many things in our culture are already controlled, stigmatized, preempted, that we may not even realize. Some by law, some by societal pressure.

The imagery that we're talking about is completely misogynistic in a misogynistic culture, glamorizing and perpetuating the status quo. Those who are affected by that (who realize that they are, many in this thread don't get the concept) have a right to object to media influences that cause them harm.

If we recognize this and have a society that works for the common good, the answers come from there. Who knows, could even reduce interest in hateful violent sociopathic "entertainment."

:thumbsup:

[Kurska]

229. Quit trying to be the world's thought police.

I don't care if it fiction "harms society" some people think depictions of homosexuals or women in power "Harms society" and it's not your bloody business to determine what fiction "Harms society".

Your only right to object to this is to not to take part in it or any extension of that you can dream up, you do not have a right to try and ban it.

[omega minimo]

235. No one cares if you don't care. Misogyny kills. Your willful ignorance is dangerous & irresponsible

Other people have to live in the world that chickenshit creates.

[Kurska]

252. Men AND women have rights that can't just be curtailed because you thinks it's a quick social fix.

People have just as much a right to intake fiction that is misogynist as they do literature that is feminist. I'd very much consider myself a feminist, atleast in the fact I literally see no difference between the abilities of man and women (Well atleast outside of the sexual organs).

There is a difference between me and you though, you think you are qualified to tell people what they are allowed to think and produce and I know neither of us are.

[omega minimo]

263. "People have just as much a right to intake fiction that is misogynist as they do literature that"

People have just as much a right to intake fiction that is misogynist as they do literature that is feminist."


"There is a difference between me and you though, you think you are qualified to tell people what they are allowed to think and produce and I know neither of us are."

Actually, the difference between me and you is I know neither of us are "qualified to tell people what they are alllowed to think and produce," yet I am able to give people (even you) the credibility to consider the implications and results of what they think and produce. Are you?

No. You're not, or you would have no problem with my comments.

As long as it fits into a percieved format of status quo and what's acceptable, then anyone who suggests people think for themselves is a target for you bullshit.


MISSED!!!!!!!!!!

[Kurska]

268. Sexism is evil, but you aren't going to beat it by becoming the world's moral police.

Essentially, you don't fight evil with evil and censorship is always evil.

If you want to try to tell people "Hey playing a rape sim game is probably a bad idea" more power to you, but when you start saying people aren't allowed to play it you've crossed the line.

[omega minimo]

273. Well I never said that and the sexist apologists ARE perpetuating the "evil"

:freak:

"when you start saying people aren't allowed to play it you've crossed the line" NEVER SAID!!!!!

[Kurska]

275. What is your meaning then?

1. Do you think this game should be legal?
2. Do you think amazon should sell it?
3. Do you believe it should be illegal for anymore such games to be produced?

What are you trying to say here? What do you want done?

[Forkboy]

277. She refuses to answer these questions because she can't.

If you persist in asking, she'll accuse you of baiting her, of being unable to grasp her point, probably call you a dickhead at one point like she did to me, etc.

Might as well start engaging the intelligent people here, because you're talking to a void.

[omega minimo]

284. Try asking questions first, instead of projections and insults. I don't answer on demand after that

although some here still don't get the concept.

[omega minimo]

276. oh ooops, can't see your bullshit any more!!

:thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

80. Since enablers of this misogynistic toxic "game" know that never in a million years will the table

be turned, it's easy to make this lame justification.

It is the historic and current FACT of misogynistic culture that enables this to be seen as valid "speech" and "entertainment."

We set standards in society for many things. Only b/c this is perpetrated on women is it considered "no big deal."

The arguments that video gaming doesn't influence attitudes and actual behavior (please read twice for comprehension) is bogus also.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. I'd like to hear your answer for those questions.

[omega minimo]

82. No you wouldn't. Neither would the poster who's playing BS by pretending not to have answers to that

Anyone that ignorant needs to educate themselves. Get a grip on something besides the joystick.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. I wouldn't?

I'm pretty sure I would.

[redqueen]

87. No, you're only interested in playing games.

If she were to answer, you'd pretend you didn't get it and say something stupid to try to get her to respond again. It's kinda transparent.

Downthread you make a stupid comment about simulated puppies... (hopefully) pretending that you've completely forgotten about the element of intimate involvement. If you're not pretending then sorry for discounting the possibility that you really just do not get it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Why won't you answer the question?

You just keep dodging it.

I think you're afraid to answer honestly.

[omega minimo]

96. Nice try. Why won't you take a hint.

[redqueen]

98. I have in a roundabout way... let me put it blunly for you:

"What makes rape any worse a subject for videogames then murder? Why is it okay to have drug trafficing in games, but not rape. You get more time in prison for murder then for rape. "

I don't mind "rape" in games. What I mind is the idea that a game would allow a player to *simulate the act of rape*.



"Or for that matter, why is it okay for some mediums to tackle the issue of rape and not others? Why is it okay for a movie to tackle rape, but not video games?"

Video games like this aren't "tackling" rape... you're not witnessing a rape, and going out to chase down the perpetrator... you're *committing rape*.


That you and so many others are working so hard to avoid recognizing such a glaring distinction is ... weird.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. So then you'd also be against a video game where you play a murderer?

[redqueen]

103. Depends on the type of murder.

Are you murdering a character you're intimately involved with? If so, then yeah, I'd be outragey over it.

I've said this already, btw.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. No, you wouldn't.

That's the point.

[omega minimo]

107. I know he is but what are you?

:crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. Oh, that's right. You're the one with the psychic powers.

I notice that it's taking a long time for people to answer these questions. It's really telling.

[omega minimo]

113. you can badger people but you can't make them talk to you. in fact, it's less likely!!

:think: your reputation precedes you. :thumbsdown:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. Badger people? All you've done is badgered people.

All you've done in this thread is call names and avoid any conversation. Not that I was expecting any different.

[omega minimo]

123. Every time you badger, it is you who avoid conversation. Don't be surprised.

:wow:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

156. Yet I'm particpating in the question, while you're avoiding it.

Once again.

[omega minimo]

237. Look. Your reputation precedes you. You don't want discussion. I already answered. Your bait sucks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5743986&mesg_id=5744797


Goodbye Pron

[redqueen]

120. I wouldn't? Be against a game with murder?

As I tried to explain, not all murder is equal. Ditto for rape.

I really want to believe you're *pretending* not to grasp these subtleties.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

157. No.

There are plenty of games with murder out there, intimate and not, yet you haven't gotten all worked out of shape before, because that would be silly.

[redqueen]

162. No, it's cause I didn't know about it.

Any game where you murder someone who in the game is 'close' to you as a character, I'm going to find sick and offensive. That's just an abhorrent concept IMO.

I'm sure you think it's silly... but so what? I'm sure there's lots of things I think or do that you'd find equally silly. And vice versa. Life goes on...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

165. Riiiiight.

"Any game where you murder someone who in the game is 'close' to you as a character, I'm going to find sick and offensive."

Considering the issue of "intimacy" was just a red herring you came up with because you figured there weren't such games, I'd like to hear you explain why it's so important.

[redqueen]

168. What? It's not a red herring,

I wish you'd disabuse yourself of your notion that you are omniscient. You're really not. Really.

As for why it's important? Because it crosses a line, IMO. Murdering random characters who aren't directly related in what should be a close emotional relationship IMO is just fundamentally different than murdering wives, girlfriends, children, etc. Yes, it's just a game, but the concept behind it is the problem for me. I don't know how I can put it any plainer.

[PassingFair]

239. Rape is a specific hate crime against women.

Hate crimes are rightfully
singled out as particularly
heinous crimes.

[EndersDame]

272. Men get raped too and are often silent or stigmatized or laughed at if they come forward

[PassingFair]

280. Unless you are already in prison, a man's chances of getting raped...

are nowhere NEAR a woman's chance.

91% of the victims are female.

No. Where. Near.

[EndersDame]

291. I think that the number of men that get raped is alot higher

alot of men are victims of sexual abuse are silent out of shame

[omega minimo]

106. Like I said, that level of ignorance is staggering. They do need some education and

with two brain cells to clack together, could do it themselves.

More fun to be a moron.

The CSI franchise can take a lot of credit for miseducating people, featuring sexually abused, dismembered women face down in the muck every week, blurring that rape/murder "question." The question though is pathetically ignorant, willfully ignorant. Like "no big deal."

You nailed the second question.

[redqueen]

116. CSI? Hell, how about ads for blue jeans?

It must be so nice to be the predator instead of the prey.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

117. You're complaining about video games, network TV shows, and blue jean commercials.

Just stop and think about that for a minute.

[redqueen]

121. I didn't say anything about network TV shows. Please do try harder.

Stop and think about what?

The fact that I don't take sexualized violence lightly?





Okay, I've thought about it. Happy now?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

158. CSI is a network television show.

"Stop and think about what?"

The fact that you're complaining about video games, network TV, and blue jean commercials, while complaining about pearl clutchers being mocked.

[redqueen]

163. Yes... OM mentioned that, not me.

Like I said, do try harder. You have a lot of posts in this thread, so at least put more into the appearance of giving a shit.

As for pearl clutchers being mocked... again... in your opinion, this is no different than people complaining about Harry Potter books.

IMO that's only because you have no concept of what it's like to feel like prey. I think if men were so routinely and ubiquitously beaten and murdered by their lovers, they'd be a wee bit more sensitive to such imagery, and the way it's become so accepted and commonplace.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

167. OM brought it up, you agreed with him, brought up blue jean commercials.

Now OM's upset about Burger King commercials., of all laughable things.

"IMO that's only because you have no concept of what it's like to feel like prey. I think if men were so routinely and ubiquitously beaten and murdered by their lovers, they'd be a wee bit more sensitive to such imagery, and the way it's become so accepted and commonplace."

First off, this is neither "accepted" and commonplace, it's a niche porno market for pathetic otakus and collectors of weird Japanaphenalia. Second, it's got nothing to do with feeling like prey, since the game doesn't prey on anything but electrons and free time.

[redqueen]

170. I brought up another example.

That is different than saying, "yes, I agree with everything you just said"... that is just bringing up another example.

I've never seen the show, but I have heard the same thing from others... and besides what difference does it make? You've already made your mind up that sexualized violence against women isn't commonplace. I'm well aware that you're among the least likely people on this board to ever change your mind about anything (consdering how very very right you always are)... so what's the point?

As for feeling like prey, and the relation to electrons... sorry, but reinforcing the concept of preying on others is offensive to me and others. I'm sorry you don't see it as offensive... but that's your personal character flaw to deal with (IMO). Good luck with that.

[omega minimo]

128. You don't understand how the imagery works, do you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

160. No, I do.

I also know how prudery works.

[omega minimo]

172. Yes, you don't

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

176. I understand your argument, I just disagree with it.

It's a load of crap.

[omega minimo]

125. Malevolent predator burger ads.

[LanternWaste]

189. RQ is correct...

RQ is correct. You are not interested out of sincere curiosity-- you are in fact, merely playing games. Regardless of none-too-subtly and martyred objections otherwise. That is an honest answer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

192. That was my mistake.

I was under the impression I was replying to OM.

I still don't think it was honset answer though.

[LanternWaste]

195. I'm sure you don't...

"I was under the impression I was replying to OM."
When the times comes you're looking for answers only from specific posters, try the PM utility. otherwise, don't feign indignant surprise when others answer too.


"I still don't think it was honset answer though...."
I'm sure you don't. Just as many people here are denied inferring any sincerity on your part based on your vast history of previous posts...

...and that was another honest answer.

ed: sp

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

196. Lul, wut?

""I was under the impression I was replying to OM."

When the times comes you're looking for answers only from specific posters, try the PM utility. otherwise, don't feign indignant surprise when others answer too."

In that case, is this response directed at me, or everybody?

:rofl:


"I still don't think it was honset answer though...."
I'm sure you don't. Just as many people here may infer any sincerity on your part based on your vast history of previous posts...

...and that was another honest answer. "

Great. I'd hoped that by now my sincere opinion of pearl clutching prigs was established.

[omega minimo]

95. Yeah, my reply was along those lines................... playing games.........

and was not posted for the reason you nailed :toast: that IS his game and here it's being played in yet another rape thread.

[LanternWaste]

177. hich mainstream movies glorify...

I'll avoid your first position out of civility, dignity and politeness. As to your second position, which mainstream movies glorify rape, makes a successful rape the agenda of the move, places the audience in the perspective of the rapist, yet denies us ethical constructions?

[redqueen]

188. I'm so glad you joined the thread.

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

193. The Clockwork Orange.

[LanternWaste]

197. satirizing political and social extremes. In other words, a moral construct.

Sorry, wrong-- and still playing games, we see.

A dystopian film (try the novel someday) satirizing political and social extremes. In other words, a moral construct.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

198. To some. It's entirely subjective.

You see what you want to see, others find it fap material. Such is life.

"Sorry, wrong-- and still playing games, we see."

Well we're both guilty of that, you, for example, have just dodged both questions like the others.

[LanternWaste]

200. The author's preface quite aptly illustrates

"You see what you want to see, others find it fap material. Such is life."

Try reading the book. The author's preface quite aptly illustrates his purpose in writing the book. Unless of course, you think the author's opinion of his own moral construct is simply another opinion.

(I never deny playing games... how about a nice game of chess?)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

201. Uh, yeah.

"Try reading the book. The author's preface quite aptly illustrates his purpose in writing the book. Unless of course, you think the author's opinion of his own moral construct is simply another opinion."

Yes, the author's opinion of his own moral construct IS simply another opinion.

Secondly, we were talking about movie.

Third, we were talking about acceptable movies with rape scenes, of which Clockwork Orange is one that applies, so answer the question.

Fourth, if the programmer of the game was of the opinion that the rape, gassing, and beating of the victim, with subsequent Stockholm Syndrome towards you, the abuser, was some sort of cynical, sarcastic allegory, say political for example, when that make the game "acceptable." Because it's got artistic merit. Because the author, excuse me the programmer, says so.

[LanternWaste]

202. I look forward to this thread in the morning...

I look forward to this thread in the morning... until then, adieu, brave Yorik.

[Forkboy]

199. This isn't a mainstream game by any stretch though, and would never be sold in any chain store.

Nor do I suspect that any indy game store (the very few that still exist) would risk the loss of business carrying such a game would very likely cause. Comparing it to a mainstream movie is like comparing a bazooka to a water pistol. It will have far smaller audience than the The Guinea Pig series of movies from Japan, for instance (one of which is a fake snuff film that's so realistic Charlie Sheen reported it to the FBI, and it's supposedly not the worst in the series). This is a more apt comparison, as they aren't even known by 99% of the most hardcore horror fans (despite being available in the U.S.). Nor will this game reach or probably even be known about by the vast majority of gamers. And the vast majority of the ones it does somehow reach won't be interested in playing, and will probably be as disturbed by it as anyone else. This simply isn't even close to mainstream stuff we're talking about here.

[YOY]

213. Oh Forkboy...you do kick ass.

And saying the same things I say upstream...from actual experience as you do.

[Bonobo]

7. Reminds me of that nasty book, "The Collector" by John Fowles!

We shouldn't let people read that either!

Call Amazon right fucking now!!!

[Kurska]

10. GG Allin has a song called " I'm a rapist"

And they sell GG Allin CDs, the villians!

http://www.amazon.com/Carnival-Excess-GG-Allin/dp/B000SLNT8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1243625961&sr=8-1

[nomorenomore08]

13. Actually it's called "I'm A Rapest." I'm not kidding, that's how he spelled it.

Along with a track called "Anti-Social Masterbator." :eyes:

[redqueen]

20. Oh, the stupidity.

[nomorenomore08]

39. No argument from me. The guy didn't have two brain cells to rub together.

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I've left my pearls at the cleaners, what should I clutch as a substitute?

[ismnotwasm]

11. You really want me to tell you?

Pearls at the cleaners. Nice

[shadowknows69]

15. WTF, who is financing the production and distribution of this evil?

[L0oniX]

210. Here's a list...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/L0oniX/7

[lonestarnot]

249. welp, but of course, grand ol pervs

[Mari333]

16. asking a question of some posters on here

answer it, please
what if there were a video game available where you could catch and lynch black people, after torturing them by tying them to the back of a truck and dragging them. just curious as to your answer, would you be for the game because of free speech or against it..
anyone?

[Forkboy]

I'd be for their right to make the game.

I'd be against the idiots that buy it or distribute it, and would speak out about both. I wouldn't stop them from buying it, just as I wouldn't stop someone from buying The Turner Diaries. Repellent concepts and ideas are still protected by free speech.

If people are against the companies right to make such a game, where do they draw the line at what level of violence is acceptable in video games (or movies, or books)? And who will be making those decisions on what we can play, watch, or read? Someone like Ashcroft would reduce us to the Bible and "Let The Eagles Soar". :)

[redqueen]

23. The problem is when people compare speaking out to 'clutching pearls'.

The right to speak out against sick shit like this goes hand in hand with their right to make it.

[Mari333]

24. good point. yep.nt

[Forkboy]

What's the alternative?

[redqueen]

27. The alternative to what?

To comparing speaking out to clutching pearls?

[Forkboy]

46. Sorry

Should have explained better.

What's the alternative to speaking out against the game (or whatever)? The clutching pearls comment is actually irrelevant to whether the game is protected or not. If you disagree with that poster, counter it with your own protected free speech.

Thomas Harris created Hannibal (The Cannibal) Lector, a truly evil character who viciously kills and then eats parts of his victims. If someone reads Silence of the Lambs and decides to kill and eat someone, should we punish the killer, the author, or both?

Even the ugliest of ideas are protected, as they should be. If someone acts on those ideas than the law can step in and punish the ones committing the actual crime. We can't stop ideas, and trying to do so will open a Pandora's Box that would be disastrous. We can speak out about it, we can pressure the makers, distributors and retailers. We can't ban it, and that seems to be the direction some are leaning. Where does it stop, and whose ides get shut down next? Would you want Bush and his cronies deciding what you can play or read and watch?

[redqueen]

51. Oh no, I'm not for censorship...

so I'm still not sure what you're asking here... I'm for calling out this nastiness and that's it.

[Forkboy]

57. Nope, you got it. That's what I was pretty much asking in my own meandering way.

:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Sure, you also have the right to speak out.

And you have the right to be outraged that your local school library is teaching witchcraft by lending Harry Potter novels.

It's still knee jerk pearl clutching.

[redqueen]

38. In your opinion.

In my opinion it's not all equal. In my opinion Harry Potter is not nearly as horrible / disgusting / sick as this, and therefore speaking out against it doesn't deserve to be mocked.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. And in the opinion of different sort of pearl clutchers HP it's even more disgusting.

"therefore speaking out against it doesn't deserve to be mocked."

Ah, but I've got a right to mock these pearl clutches, and IMO, an obligation.

For two reasons:

There are thousands of these games out there, and there's nothing special about this one. This reaction is entirely knee jerk because this one, for whatever reason has come to the attention of the pearl clutchers.

and more importantly... it's not really the content of the thing which is causing all the poutrage, but the medium.

[redqueen]

55. No, not in my case... it's the content.

As I've tried to point out repeatedly... IMO there is a difference between things with portray rape, and things which allow you to simulate the act.

As for the reason for the kneejerking, can't speak for others but for me it's most likely due to having been raped... might make one overly sensitive.

Anyway... mock all you like. It's a free country.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. You just admitted downthread it was the medium.

One more reason to mock.

[redqueen]

60. No, you misread / failed to comprehend.

Mock mock a mock.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. I'm sorry, I was too busy thinking of the children.

[redqueen]

63. LOL... let me explain it to you.

Let's say there were rapes in a video game, occuring between other, non playing characters. Would I get all outragey about that? No!

Therefore, it is *not* the medium.

Does that help? Let me know. I'm all about charity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. How about books in first person narrative?

Now do you see how stupid this is?

[redqueen]

66. Still not the same. It is not simulation.

Sorry, but just because you don't understand something, that does not make it 'stupid'.

I know that's hard for you to grok, being so self-righteously convinced of your own uber-rightness and all...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. Hey, I'm not the one splitting hairs.

The difference between video game "simulation" and first person narrative in a book is trivial.

You're just reinforcing that the medium is the issue.

[redqueen]

74. Really?

So reading a book about flying a plane is equivalent to using a flight simulator?

I did not know that!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. Pretty much.

What's the big philosophical difference?

Oh, hey, did you hear they have video games now that simulate flying planes into buildings? They're selling them on Amazon. Something must be done.

[redqueen]

78. LOL

Yeah, cause that's a very personal and intimate relationship... a person and a building.

You're either intentionally missing the point or incapable of grasping it.

Either way, have fun. I've had enough. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. But there are people in the building.

Simulated people. With simulated homes, and children, and puppies.

[Control-Z]

247. You just can't stay off of rape threads, can you?

I find it hard to believe that you are still allowed to post on this board. You're a very creepy guy.

[omega minimo]

257. Indeed.

[omega minimo]

91. "Repellent concepts and ideas are still protected by free speech."

The cozy logic of those who are not affected by those "repallant concepts and ideas."

The awful imagery of African Americans that was used in advertising and products not that long ago has been disappeared from sight and awareness.

How a lynching or rape "game" can be justified requires a monumental disconnect from the human lives that are affected.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. So are you saying that free speech does not protect repugnant concepts and ideas?

[Forkboy]

147. Yes, they are.

The cozy logic of those who are not affected by those "repallant concepts and ideas."

My old girlfriend was raped, my mother's sister was kidnapped then raped then murdered. The cozy logic of the self-righteous.

I'll think I'll pass on future conversations with you.

[omega minimo]

240. Wow. Free speech is more sacred to you than the damage to those women's lives?

I know that's not what you meant. But your way of working this out and finding fault and making me and my perspective the PROBLEM?!! :wow:

That is beyond twisted, Forkboy.

I give you more credit than just having your ego bruised and lashing out, but maybe that's a more sensible answer (smarting at the phrase "The cozy logic of those who are not affected by those "repellant concepts and ideas"') than whatever convoluted way you got from:

"My old girlfriend was raped, my mother's sister was kidnapped then raped then murdered.... I'll think I'll pass on future conversations with you."

That's insane.

BTW I did not say "cozy logic of the self righteous." That's on you. Is that how you feel, like this happened to you and acknowledging it (or not) and commenting (or not) on the misogynistic imagery that contributed (or not -- in this culture it's arguable it did) to those crimes against women you know, is "self righteous"? Does that make sense? Do you look at imagery and objectification of women as relevant to second class status and violent crime victims? Are you made to feel guilty or "self righteous" for even bringing it up?

You have been affected by the effects of that imagery and second class status. " It's not "cozy logic" for you. I apologize for pushing those buttons. Who knew that someone with that direct experience would be the free speech advocate for what -- in a very real and lived sense -- amounts to hate speech. I am not accusing you of anything. I am saying you have shown me a new perspective here. There are so many willfully ignorant about these issues, present as usual on this thread, that it seems overwhlemingly that people are just disconnected from other people's experience.

I also see that this could have offended you: "How a lynching or rape "game" can be justified requires a monumental disconnect from the human lives that are affected."

You have shown that's not the case.

You know very well how much I value posts by you. Are you willing to think this through and consider who you are designnating as the enemy here (or not)?

If you have been affected by crime, by the culture immersed in those "repellent concepts and ideas" and still champion free speech rights to that degree, I respect that. I would not question your perspective.

If you deny me, though, my free speech rights, to object to completely insane and crazymaking imagery that has a direct impact on the whole culture, enables the power structure that keeps us all on our knees and specifically makes targets of the feminine and females, including those that you may know, YOU are the one who is out of line.


Peace.

[Forkboy]

245. You just blew any chance for peace with your first line.

Nice of you to lead with that and then say, "I know that's not what you meant." So why ask it if you know?

Yes, when you toss out bullshit like this, "The cozy logic of those who are not affected by those "repellant concepts and ideas", and then I tell you I have been touched by it, yes, it smarts alright. That you can't even grasp why is pathetic. Or as you would say, "that's insane."

BTW I did not say "cozy logic of the self righteous."

Yes, no kidding. It was a sarcastic reply to your self-righteous (not to mention wrong) statement, "The cozy logic of those who are not affected by those "repellant concepts and ideas". We can now add sarcasm to irony and the 1st Admendment to things you don't get.

Is that how you feel, like this happened to you and acknowledging it (or not) and commenting (or not) on the misogynistic imagery that contributed (or not -- in this culture it's arguable it did) to those crimes against women you know, is "self righteous".

Again, you try to distort what people say, a common trend with you, and not only in this thread. What's self righteous isn't your stand for women's rights, but your vapid assumption and implication that anyone who doesn't see it your way has never been touched by the tragedy of crimes against women. Clear enough for you?

If you deny me, though, my free speech rights, to object to completely insane and crazymaking imagery that has a direct impact on the whole culture, enables the power structure that keeps us all on our knees and specifically makes targets of the feminine and females, including those that you may know, YOU are the one who is out of line.

What the Hell do you think all the people you've been arguing with have been trying to make you realize? We've been arguing for THE EXACT SAME THING you want in this quote. The right to free speech. Without it you may just end up wearing burkhas under a Fundie nutjob who gets elected. We've just had one, want to gamble on another without the protections of free speech to speak up for women's rights when they start to dismantle the hard won gains women have struggled so hard to get? If you follow the logic you've been after all day you wouldn't even be able to say what you have on DU. There wouldn't BE a DU.

You've been nice to me in the past so I've refrained from jumping into other conversations to debate you. I think you start from a good point sometimes, but as soon as a person disagrees you lose any semblance of a coherent argument. I never see you answer any hard questions, I never see you provide any facts, I never see you back up your own accusations, and you never see how blatantly empty and shallow many of your arguments become.

And lamest of all, you somehow managed to take a post where someone tells you that their old girlfriend was raped, and that their mother's sister was kidnapped, raped and murdered, and still not get how self righteous you're being in this thread, and damn near every other one I see you in outside of the Lounge.

Peace? Don't hold your breath.

[omega minimo]

255. OK

"Nice of you to lead with that and then say, "I know that's not what you meant." So why ask it if you know? "

Because you totally came off that way and I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt.

"That you can't even grasp why is pathetic."

I did grasp it and when you calm down and reread you will see that.

"Yes, no kidding. It was a sarcastic reply to your self-righteous (not to mention wrong) statement, "The cozy logic of those who are not affected by those "repellant concepts and ideas". We can now add sarcasm to irony and the 1st Admendment to things you don't get"

My post adresses this. It's your pain and resistance that's preventing you from seeing that. The compassion is there. I apologize if it didn't come through. What are you so bent on being hateful?

"Again, you try to distort what people say, a common trend with you, and not only in this thread. What's self righteous isn't your stand for women's rights, but your vapid assumption and implication that anyone who doesn't see it your way has never been touched by the tragedy of crimes against women. Clear enough for you?"

No it's a valid question and a lesson from your willingness to open up (thank you) that part of male resistance to discussion (DU a prime example) is an indoctrinated fear or shame about thinking -- let alone talking -- about it.

"I never see you answer any hard questions, I never see you provide any facts, I never see you back up your own accusations, and you never see how blatantly empty and shallow many of your arguments become."

Yes, when the bullying starts, the discussion ends, so those who bully, demanding a certain reply to meet their bully demands, will be left twisting in their own ill wind and provide examples of what your are saying.

If there is an opportunity to go beyond that, for example in this exchange with you, I welcome and embrace it and will take it as far as it can go. The bully shit I will nip in the belligerent bud. Sorry.

"And lamest of all, you somehow managed to take a post where someone tells you that their old girlfriend was raped, and that their mother's sister was kidnapped, raped and murdered, and still not get how self righteous you're being in this thread, and damn near every other one I see you in outside of the Lounge."

I accept your POV and your pain, and I invite you to reconsider and reread what I posted, until the intent and meaning are more clear to you. (or not)

Peace.

[Forkboy]

256. It's like talking to mayonaisse.

[Kurska]

258. Some people think the world would be easier if they were the only one with a voice

It's a simple as that.

Not him/her, not jesus, not the supreme court, nor are politicians qualified to tell people what is acceptable for public consumption.

[omega minimo]

259. bullshit. is anything you've said in this thread been substantive or just reactionary bullshit?

[Kurska]

260. Reactionary? You're the one jerking their knee and yelling "Ban everything I define as Misogynist"

Everyone deserves a voice, not just the people you like, yes that includes people who think men are better then women (No matter how stupid that idea is).

[omega minimo]

264. thank you for such a classic totally missing the point post

[Kurska]

269. What excatly is it you want from me here? n/t

[Name removed]

267. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonobo]

22. It depends.

But in general, I would have to say yes.

Since repressing things and ideas only makes them come back stronger (albeit in hidden ways), I would say it should be free speech.

Then let them take the inevitable shit storm that would, or should, arrive.

[omega minimo]

88. Not producing dehumanizing crap is not "repressing things"

[Feron]

26. IIRC there are games like that available.

And yes, they should remain legal. Banning something simply because it is offensive is the quickest way to make it popular.

Anyhow free speech was not made for the polite discourse that we all agree upon. When a government starts censoring opinions, it never stops. Nor does it make the unpopular opinions go away, it's just that you'll go to jail for expressing them.

[shadowknows69]

29. I suppose someone has the right to make such trash. Free speech protects jerks too.

But we as consumers also have the right of free speech via our wallets and hopefully of a nationwide boycott of any company involved in its production.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. I'd be for it on the basis of free speech.

And there are many examples of racism in video games.

If a book depicted a rape, would you be in favor of Amazon not selling that book, based on rape being bad?

[redqueen]

42. Do you really not see a difference

between books / songs / stories *about* rape... and games which let you simulate *committing* rape?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. No, there is none.

Some dumbasses have it in their heads that video games are for children and if children play the video game they'll do the things that are in the video game.

But they've always been full of shit.

[EndersDame]

129. The first ammendment is sacred in my book

Like the ACLU I will defend everyones right to free speech . Even racists and every other scum of the earths.

[redqueen]

136. Exactly... the right to call them scum is equally sacred. (nt)

[EndersDame]

140. as well as various other nasty names

[redqueen]

143. As many as could possibly apply.

:)

[YOY]

204. Actually the skinsheads made a game about shooting minorities.

That doesn't mean everyone played it. I think it was a mod for the original Doom or Doom 2...really crappy made...by skinheads.
You see...it's a game made by skinheads...about shooting minorities.

[Occulus]

211. Follow-up....

What if there were a game that had a bunch of little girls with slugs in their stomachs who wandered around the game maps, each with a giant syringe that they used to suck the blood out of dead bodies so they could drink it to feed the slug inside them?

And what if you could kill them for extra money?

Oh, wait. That's called "Bioshock".

[YOY]

214. You forgot to mention the Ayn Rand Libertarian world gone mad overtone...

That'll really confuse them.

But we'll go there...WITH MISTER BUBBLES!!!

[Occulus]

219. Tonight we shall dine on HAM AND JAMMIES! n/t

[YOY]

222. Chocolate's better than grapes!! Chocolate's better than grapes!!

RIP HIM INTO LITTLE PIECES MISTER BUBBLES!!!

[Occulus]

224. I'm SLIPPING!

Kill him! KILL HIM!

*AWWWWOOOOOO*

*THUDTHUDTHUDTHUDTHUD*

[Echo In Light]

21. Sad. Puke

[BolivarianHero]

25. This is extremely disgusting, but consider...

Japan allows all games with the hentai, interactive novel, and dating simulation genres that even the most libertine of sensibilities would consider to be filth here. In spite of this, the rate of violent and sex crimes in Japan is extremely low. So I think the far-right pseudo-Buddhist Mafioso cultists of the Shin Komeito Party should gear down.

[Cheap_Trick]

37. It will soon be repackaged with a new title: "Rush Limbaugh's Dating Game"

and changed to feature underage Dominican boys.

edit: spelling

[backtoblue]

53. Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad idiots make up this shit...

Who the hell would actually want to play that game unless they have some morbid fantasy to begin with? Fucking sickening on every single fucking level.....


I'm recommending because this is OUTRAGEOUS. FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS AND SEXIST AND EVIL...:rant:

(sorry for f bombs, but it's sickens me)

[Mari333]

59. true, its free speech ( as long as its depicting adults)

but the people who would play these games are scum that was sucked off a pile of feces that has been sitting in a landfill in the hot sun, replete with maggots.

[backtoblue]

61. I think there should be a "terror" list of people who would play this game.

Evil bastards.

[Mari333]

65. I wonder if free speech covers video games that show sexual abuse and rape of children?

I havent heard any posters comment on that yet.

[redqueen]

67. That's a line they're apparently all afraid to cross.

Which is odd, considering how very very right they are.

[Mari333]

69. yes, I like playing devils advocate but for some reason

they wont answer that one. odd aint it.

[Forkboy]

86. Not really. I answered.

[Forkboy]

84. Not me, so please don't play the mocking game you're upset about with someone else.

The answer is that virtual imagery of pedophilia is allowed in the United States and falls under Free Speech protection, the real thing is not. It's illegal in some other countries (Germany and Australia I believe both have laws about virtual imagery involving sex with minors).

[redqueen]

85. What?

I was responding to Mari... not you.

Whatever the reason her question was ignored so long... I think it is telling.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. " Whatever the reason her question was ignored so long... I think it is telling"

She asked the same person (who has apparently left) the same question twice, and when opened the question to the floor a few minutes later, got a response in four minutes.

What I'd like to know is, what do you think the criminal punishment should be for a person playing this or similar games?

[redqueen]

93. You are so weird.

Punishment? When did I say anything about punishment?

As for her asking one person... notice that you have no trouble jumping in wherever and whenever you like... so why not there? Why wait till she "opens the question to the floor"? *roffle*

To the floor... like it's a meeting and not a discussion board... you really are a piece of work.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. So then we're agreed.

You, Redqueen, are of the opinion that the making and distribution of a video game depicting the rape of children is protected by the first amendment.

"Why wait till she "opens the question to the floor"?"

Because she was responding to Kurska directly.

Why pretend people were avoiding the question when you got a response within minutes, and then keep pretending the question wasn't answered?

Furthermore, why pretend that the question wasn't answered, when you yourself are of the opinion that video games where you rape little kids is protected speech, but did not answer the question?

[redqueen]

110. She didn't intially ask about what's covered by free speech laws.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. Uh, yeah, she did.

Actually, she started off with the old strawman about Kurska "supporting" the game rather than supporting the right to make the game.

[redqueen]

127. Yes, the strawman... not a question about legality.

Thanks for admitting you noticed.

[Forkboy]

133. You were mocking people for not answering the question, regardless of who your response is to.

It may have been to Mari, but it was about others in this thread. Upthread you're upset about the mocking "clutching pearls" post, but now you mock others. "Which is odd, considering how very very right they are."

Whatever the reason her question was ignored so long... I think it is telling.

Of what? That people decided to have dinner, play a CD, read other threads, pick up their kids? First it was telling that it wasn't answered, and now it's telling that it took so long? You're showing a preconceived idea about these people who "are very, very right" with no actual facts behind it, just assumptions. :shrug:

I understand why this is an emotional issue for you, but that's all the more reason free speech has to be fiercely protected. Decisions based on emotion are rarely the best ones. Look at how fear was used to start a war in Iraq, or how anger is manipulated by various groups like the KKK, etc. We all have these emotions, and they're understandable, but when it comes to laws we have to place reason over them.

[redqueen]

138. No... not have dinner, or play a CD.

There were posts made elsewhere in the thread, while those were left unanswered.

And like I said... I'm all for free speech. And my right to call people who enjoy this kind of shit lowlife scum is just as sacred as their right to make or play such a disgusting, indefensible 'game'.

[Forkboy]

151. And your last line is pretty much what everyone is saying.

There were posts made elsewhere in the thread, while those were left unanswered.

Maybe they didn't know the law. I'm hoping there aren't many pedophiles on DU, so I would think that people with no interest in such games would have no reason to know the law about virtual child abuse and pornography.

And for the record, I really was playing a CD while reading the lyrics on another web page. That's why it occurred to me as an example.

[redqueen]

155. Aw FB... I really wasn't talking about you.

Like you implied in your first response... that was aimed more at the professional shit-stirrer... but that's not to say that I don't like him or have any personal issue with him... I agree with him often... just obviously not about this. :)

As for pedophiles on DU... I'm not so much worried about that as I am concerned that it seems so easy for so many to defend the right of game makers to make this... and sickos to play it... but such reticence to express negative opinions about the game. The responses seemed to be slanted heavily toward defending the game... and I dunno... is it wrong that I expect it to be roundly slammed? I don't think so. Maybe I'm way off base.

[Forkboy]

161. I think everyone here is disgusted by the game itself.

If not they should kill themselves and take one for the team. :)

Don't mistake defense of free speech for acceptance of the game.

Ok, I'm going back to some music for a bit. It was a really cool CD, but I didn't finish it because of this thread...I need to hear more badly. :)

:hug:

[redqueen]

164. LOL... agreed on the suicide...

I think a lot of the rancor here would be avoided if such disgust was made as plain as the support for the right to make / play the game.

Enjoy the musics. :hug:

(Now I have the Giraffes in my head again...)

[Mari333]

97. thats what I thought. thanks for answering. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Yes, it does.

Like the play Romeo and Juliet, the film Taxi Driver, or the book Lolita, the first amendment allows for fictious depictions of sex crimes against children.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about free speech.

[Mari333]

71. okay, then I have one answer. nt

[omega minimo]

118. What's hard to understand is people using "free speech" as excuse to profit from scumbag products

that ultimately harm individuals and society, which does have standards for media and behavior.

Having free speech doesn't mean having to be a scumbag or project scumbag behavior on others.

[Kurska]

227. "You don't need to protect speech that is popular, but speech that is entirely unpopular"

To butcher a quote.

[Juche]

100. Yup

http://g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/37242/Virtual-Child-Porn-Law-Overturned.html

If you are truly eager to stop abuse of children, the website www.childmolestationprevention.org has a plan that they feel is scientifically valid that will help cut the risk of child abuse (involving real children).

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/prevention_plan.html

One real child's feelings are worth more than 1,000 digital ones.

Sexual abuse is a massive public health problem, causing massive psychological harm to the individuals and to society at large since so many victims end up having trouble with drugs, alcohol, relationships, bullying, violence, aggression, mental illness, etc.

[EOTE]

144. The USSC decided this very issue not too long ago.

And determined that yes, it is covered by free speech. What exactly are you trying to prove?

[Kurska]

228. You're probably not around anymore, but yes it does.

Unless you amend the bill of rights to say "except for videogames that show sexual abuse and the rape of children" then it's covered.

I'm sorry, it's not real, thus it's not a real crime no matter how bad it is.

[Juche]

108. Japan has tons of porn

No connection between that and sex crimes.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

DISCUSSION

Within Japan itself, the dramatic increase in available pornography and sexually explicit materials is apparent to even a casual observer. This is concomitant with a general liberalization of restrictions on other sexual outlets as well. Also readily apparent from the information presented is that, over this period of change, sex crimes in every category, from rape to public indecency, sexual offenses from both ends of the criminal spectrum, significantly decreased in incidence.

Most significantly, despite the wide increase in availability of pornography to children, not only was there a decrease in sex crimes with juveniles as victims but the number of juvenile offenders also decreased significantly.

These findings are similar to, but are even more striking than, those reported with the rise of sexually explicit materials in Denmark, Sweden and West Germany. The findings from Europe were, in turn, more dramatic than those reported for the United States. Kutchinsky (1991) studied the situation in Denmark, Sweden, West Germany and the U.S.A. following the legalization or liberalization of the appropriate pornography laws in those countries. The first three countries mentioned, decriminalized the production and distribution of sexually explicit materials in 1969, 1970, and 1973 respectively. In the U.S.A. there was no widespread decriminalization or legalization but, as in Japan, interpretations of the laws seemed to change and prosecution against SEM decreased markedly. Concomitantly, the availability of pornography increased commensurably. Kutchinsky studied the course of sex crimes for the 20 year period 1964 to 1984. Thus his period of study overlaps with the first half of ours.

Kutchinsky found (1991) that in Denmark and Sweden adult rapes increased only modestly and in West Germany not at all. In all three countries, nonviolent sex crimes decreased. The slight increase in Denmark and Sweden, was thought by some most probably due to increased reporting as a result of greater and increasing awareness among women and police of the rape problem (Kutchinsky, 1985b, pp. 323). In Japan too, over the two decades reviewed in the present study, there was also most probably an increasing likelihood of reporting which makes the decrease in sex crimes seen in Japan even more impressive.

Similar to our findings, in Denmark and West Germany the most dramatic categories of sex crime to show a decrease were rapes and other sex crimes against and by juveniles. Between 1972 and 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11 percent; during the same period the total number of all crimes reported increased by 50 percent. Sex offenses against minors (those under 14 years of age) had a similarly slight decrease of about 10 percent during this period. For those victims under six years of age, however, the numbers decreased from 1,421 cases in 1972 to 579 in 1980, a decrease of more than 50 percent (Kutchinsky, 1985b; pp. 319).

Other researchers have found similarly. In Denmark homosexual child molestation decreased more than 50 percent from 74 cases in 1966 to 20 cases in 1969 (Ben-Veniste, 1971; pp. 254). These decreases in sex crimes involving children are particularly noteworthy since in Japan, as in Denmark, for the time under review, there were no laws against the personal non-commercial possession or use of depictions of children involved in sexual activities; so-called "childporn" (Kutchinsky, 1985a; pp. 5). Considering the seriousness in how sex crimes against children are viewed in both cultures, this drop in cases reported represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed rather than a reduced readiness to report such offenses.

Correlated with an increase in pornography we found a decrease in gang rapes in Japan. Again, similar findings had been reported elsewhere. In West Germany, from 1971 to 1987 group rape rates decreased 59% from 577 to 239 cases. In contrast with these findings in Germany where rape by strangers decreased 33% from 2,453 to 1,655 cases (Kutchinsky, 1991 pp. 57), in Japan the number of rapes committed by individuals known to the victim, decreased and rape by strangers increased. Since rapes by strangers or groups are more likely to be reported than date or marital rapes, again there is little doubt these findings in Japan represent real differences. It is also noted that the Japanese police focused more heavily on the control of rape by strangers than on date rape or rape by a known assailant.





Even if porn did lead to sex crimes (which is up for grabs. Some studies find no connection, some find a positive, some a negative correlation), whether we should ban and control it or not is another issue.

[EndersDame]

126. No creepy peervs have a right to free speech and privacy

If you did that then what is to stop the government of making a list of teens who play grand theft auto or people who read the communist manifesto. Slippery slope.

[Odin2005]

68. WTF? That is sick beyond words!

:puke:

[Juche]

89. It is fundamentally just a video game

Why not focus on protecting the 500,000,000-ish real rape and sexual abuse victims on this planet rather than the digital ones?

Does anyone have hard, concrete, reliable, consistent evidence that games like this increase the likelihood of rape?

And why not ban violent movies?

[omega minimo]

101. Why don't the standards that apply to other media apply to video games?

Can you show that this sort of insanity DOESN'T influence ideas and behavior?

The military knows it does -- they train with it, they count on it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. What standard applies to other media, but not video games?

[omega minimo]

109. take a hint

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. My hint is telling me you're just making things up.

There is nothing that you can do in video games that you can't do in any other media.

[omega minimo]

122. Wrong

[Juche]

119. I can show you studies

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

Possible negative correlation between pornography access and sex crimes.



Again, this knee jerk 'violent porn leads to sex crimes so lets control the media' reaction bothers me for several reasons.

1. We are letting our emotions take over and cloud our judgement
2. The correlation between porn and what people do in real life is confusing. It may actually be that access to porn cuts people's risk of sex crimes
3. Even if access to porn did lead to sex crimes, whether we should ban it is something different. Access to condoms could increase sex crimes for all we know. So could letting women and men work in the same workplace. Saudi Arabia controls all 3. But they still likely have a high level of sex crimes.

[omega minimo]

130. the thread is on video games simulating rape and you're bringing in porn

"Again, this knee jerk 'porn leads to sex crimes so lets control the media' reaction bothers me for several reasons. "


Nobody said this so who's being the knee jerk? :spray:

[Juche]

132. People are talking about banning this porn DVD

And the implication is because they find it disgusting and/or fear it will lead to real life sex crimes.

[redqueen]

131. FWIW... I never said or implied it caused crimes.

My issue is that I think we have the right to call it sick, and shame individuals who enjoy it.

That's it.

[Mari333]

134. youbetcha...nt

[Juche]

135. Well, carry on

[omega minimo]

141. your reasoning in previous post sounds like

someone trying too hard to miss the point.

The materials and simulated experiences influence people's thoughts and behavior. Undeniable.

This changes behavior in society and society itself. Undeniable.

Throwing up your knee jerk strawman of "A leads to B" isn't valid. You'd like to argue that unless someone watched a video and immediately committed an identical crime, there was no connection.

That just ain't how reality works.

[Juche]

146. Are you sure you know how reality works

Assuming that because people are influenced by games leads to behavior in society is not proven. Like I said, the jury is out on the role these things play in society. And even if it could be proven beyond a doubt that they play a negative role, there are likely dozens of factors that play positive and negative roles and where do you draw the line?

[omega minimo]

148. Yes

[omega minimo]

137. and acknowledge that it does influence attitudes and behavior that harms people

[redqueen]

139. I think it's a little early to expect so much.

We have millennia of conditioning to overcome.

Baby steps.

[omega minimo]

142. We have 30 years of Reaganist Dittohead brainwashing to overcome.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

159. Except Omega Minimo has, and you just agreed with him/her.

How many times can you contradict yourself in one thread?

[redqueen]

166. Where?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. Posts #137 and #139.

[redqueen]

174. You twisted "harms people" into "crimes"?

:rofl:

Man, you really work hard at seeing what you want to, don't you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

179. "influences attitudes and behaviour that causes harm to people"

Subtext: it turns people into crazy raping misogynists. That's been OM's whole schtick this entire thread.

And it was the basis for your argument about "simulation" vs. first person narrative.

[omega minimo]

182. Bullshit. I said what I said. That's YOUR subtext, not mine. Thinking in black and white

simplistic terms, maybe another result of games, who knows.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

185. I wish you were capable...

of realizing just how deeply ironic that post is.

[Forkboy]

238. OM also misses the irony in having a Jello Biafra quote as a sigline...

..and not understanding the concept of the 1st Amendment.

In 1986 Biafra was arrested for "distributing harmful matter to minors" for including the picture "Penis Landscape" by world famous artist H.R. Geiger in the Dead Kennedys album Frankenchrist. Jello argued it fell under the protection of the 1st Admendment, and the case was eventually dismissed after a hung jury (no pun intended).

If Jello were dead he'd be rolling in his grave. Because he's still kicking, I bet he'd just get a good laugh at the irony.

[omega minimo]

241. Jello is a feminist and you don't know who or what you are talking about;

:thumbsdown:

Your little "ironic" wankerings. Please read the post above and decide how much you want to fuck me over.

[Forkboy]

246. What parts of Jello's career would you like to discuss?

The DK days? The bands he's played with since, like Nomeansno, Steel Pole Bathtub, D.O.A., the Melvins, Ministry? His newest music project? Or perhaps his run for mayor of San Francisco? Maybe you'd like to go over the topics he discusses on his numerous spoken words albums. I have them handy if you need to brush up. We could also talk about some of the movies he's been in. Wasn't Terminal City Richochet and Tapeheads awesome?!?!

Do you think I chose the name Forkboy accidentally? :think:

If you'd like to pursue this further just let me now. Speak up, as it were. Exercise that free speech! I'd be very happy to oblige you further.

Your little "ironic" wankerings

Your little inability to grasp the 1st Amendment.

Please read the post above and decide how much you want to fuck me over.

I did, it sucked for the most part. I give it a D-.

[Name removed]

253. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

243. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

186. Uh, no... again, you are failing to comprehend.

Perhaps you should put more energy into trying to understand what others are saying, as opposed to declaring that you know better than they do what they're saying. It's called "intentional dialogue"... you might consider looking into it. (Unless your only purpose is to stir the pot... then carry on, well done... all that jazz.)

It doesn't turn people into blah blah blah... it desensitizes. And that, my friend, is a fact.

I don't consider it to be a mark of progress that people are less sensitive to images of sexualized violence these days. I think that's a move in the wrong direction.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

190. No, I read it loud and clear.

The thoughts in people's heads in misogynistic/bigoted culture do hurt people, every...Giving people ever and ever more heinous, dehumanizing "fantasies" they would never have imagined themselves and further endorsing those behaviors and attitudes by glamorizing and "playing" them..............


creates a toxic, heinous, dehumanizing environment, inside and outside people's heads."

[redqueen]

191. Where'd you pull that post from?

I didn't respond to it... so your assertion that I believe that games like this cause crimes is still as baseless as it ever was.

Anyway... gotta run. Thanks for the discussion, pointless as it seemed most of the time, it was interesting. Peace. :hi:

[omega minimo]

242. Cobbled together from his "Willful Ignorance" file

maybe some common sense will rub off.........

[omega minimo]

180. like you said, "it's a little early to expect so much"

I know they type with one hand, do they only read with one eye?


"Man, you really work hard at seeing what you want to, don't you?" YES. YES HE DOES. AND HE WILL REMIND YOU OF HIS MISINTERPRETATIONS AND PROJECT THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN. AS TRUTH. :crazy:

[omega minimo]

173. Don't be twisting other's words again.

[Lorien]

244. I take it that you've never been raped or sexually abused

if you think that turning such things into "entertainment" to be enjoyed is peachy, then do you also endorse a Gitmo game where players waterboard, sodomize and murder prisoners? How about a child porn game? I believe that crap like this makes real violence more acceptable to those who are easily led. And considering how many Freepers there are in America a LOT of people are easily lead.

[JonLP24]

150. Wow what a hot topic

I wouldn't play that game but I've played the grand theft auto franchise. I only play basketball or football video games but when it comes to sandbox style games GTA is my favorite. It is driving, third person shooting, action-adventure type of game. My favorite part about it is it's like an open world. You can go anywhere at any time freely unlike most games that make you do the next mission and you are very limited into where you can go. Not to mention the satire of Fox News(Weazel News called in the game) is hilarous.

[omega minimo]

152. Can the player change the POV and be, say

female?

[JonLP24]

153. No not the main character

In grand theft auto: San Andreas whenever you unlocked a girlfriend a 2nd player can choose that character in multi-player action. In GTA:4 multi-player is only available online so I have no idea if female characters are available.

[omega minimo]

171. "unlocked a girlfriend"?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

175. Unlocked: granted the ability to access something in software.

For example: a donation to DU will unlock access to the group forums.

If not for the fact that you're posting on an internet message board, I'd question whether or not you've ever used a computer or other electronic device.

[omega minimo]

184. Master Bait

[JonLP24]

178. What I meant was unlocked meaning able to use in multi-player function

The first girlfriend is avaliable after rescuing in an apartment complex you set on fire. From there you go to her house and you see like two shirts floating in front of her lawn meaning you need a 2nd controller and two people can play. Another way to 'unlock' is find the girlfriends in various locations. To improve how she likes you is take her out to eat, dance, etc.

[omega minimo]

183. "The first girlfriend is avaliable after rescuing in an apartment complex you set on fire."

[JonLP24]

187. Not sure what you're leading to

That paticular mission is there is gangsters trying to kill you and set the place on fire to flush them out. After you complete that section there is a woman on the 2nd floor yelling 'help'. So you go in there with a fire extenguisher and put out fires on your way up and lead her out the front door. From there you're able to take her out on dates or use her in multi-player gameplay.

[omega minimo]

233. Is it a BIG fire extinguisher?

"So you go in there with a fire extenguisher and put out fires on your way up and lead her out the front door. From there you're able to take her out on dates or use her in multi-player gameplay."

Just these themes are bad enough. No issues with objectification of women, eh?

Pathetic.

[Occulus]

217. You really *don't* know anything about video games, do you?

I was reading your posts on this thread with a somewhat open mind, but if you don't know what unlocking is relative to video games, I have to assume you haven't played one in years, if ever.

[omega minimo]

232. someone says "unlocked a girlfriend" & people still claim games don't influence thoughts & behavior?

:crazy:

[smalll]

266. You've destroyed the opposition (quite humorously may I add) just by QUOTING THEIR OWN WORDS

back to them. "unlocking a girlfriend" LOL! And it just kept getting worse!

(Sane human beings: How does that work?)

"The first girlfriend is avaliable after rescuing her in an apartment complex you set on fire."

(Sane human being follow-up: Huh?)

"there is a woman on the 2nd floor yelling 'help'. So you go in there with a fire extenguisher and put out fires on your way up and lead her out the front door. From there you're able to take her out on dates..."

:rofl: :scared: :rofl: :scared: :rofl:

[Occulus]

279. Hmmm. No, the only things you and OM have done is to prove

that you don't have any real experience with gaming, period.

In the first place: this.... thing, in the OP? It's not a game. It's like that board game "Scene It": all you need to have is a regular DVD player with a remote. You select the scenes using the DVD remote; you don't use a PC, PS3, XBOX 360, or anything similar.

It's not a game. It's called an "interactive DVD". There's a vast gulf of difference between that and what modern gamers refer to as a "game".

Secondly, "unlocking" anything at all refers to accomplishing a specific task, in any game, which enables access to other features not available prior to taking that action. In the case of GTA, "unlocking a girlfriend" refers to being able to interact with specific characters that were previously unavailable. Since that's a mouthful to spit out every time it happens, developers, reviewers, and gamers alike refer to it as "unlocking".

Both of you will hate, hate, hate "Bayonetta":


"You want to touch me?...... come on!"





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NwQiEPGv9k

"Bayonetta" is an upcoming game from Sega and Platinum Games. In this game, you play the role of a witch named, of all things, er, Bayonetta. Bayonetta will feature over-the-top fighting action, including moves never seen before in a game of its genre.

Bayonetta's clothing is her hair... and her weaponry. Her hair is magically-possessed, and with it, she can summon a giant hair fist, whips, and even a giant hair dragon. Oh, and because her hair is her clothing is her weaponry, Bayonetta has to get naked every time she uses a special move.

Bayonetta's character is... different. looking like a cross between a smart-as-a-whip librarian with a dominatrix fetish, and wearing guns on her stiletto heels (yes, she has twice as many guns as she has hands), Bayonetta's ass-kicking strong-woman attitude, wisecracking wit, and seductive come-hither attitude is sure to offend the more prudish types. Don't let her fool you: this is one witch you don't want to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e33BVUEv67s

Bayonetta is scheduled for release in the US in the fall of 2009 for the PS3 and XBOX 360.

[redqueen]

288. Is "Scene It" a game? Yes? Well then... it's a game.

The platform hardly matters. Geez... talk about splitting hairs.


As for 'unlocking'... yeah, so they're not familiar with gaming terminology... so what.

As for "bayonetta" :eyes: ... OMG! A scantily clad uber-sexy female game character! Stop the presses! :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

154. You're free to program such a game if you like.

Free speech and all.

[KoKo]

203. Why not have this legal? After all Perversion is what makes "Markets!"

In a "Free Market Capitalist System" the "Consumers" should decide what is marketable and NOT EDIT CONTENT!

Your post is offensive! Are you trying to shut out Free Expression? Why shouldn't "Free Sexuality" be a RIGHT of ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS?

Haven't we seen enough REPRESSION of our SEXUALITY since America was founded? WHA...??? You are calling for MORE REPRESSION? :shrug:

[YOY]

205. It won't sell like hotcakes. Most consumers will remain delightfully ignorant about its existance.

And those that do know of it won't play it.

It's a nich market product...made for freaks by freaks.

[nomorenomore08]

212. I think it's more the juxtaposition of sex and violence, combined with the interactive aspect, that

bothers people. Normally I'd be the first to criticize those who wring their hands over sexual content in games/movies/books/music, but it isn't just "sexual content" that's at issue here. And as a horror movie fan, I know plenty about the juxtaposition of sex with graphic violence, but that still doesn't freak me out as much as a game where the player is actively involved in rape and torture.

And for the record, I'm not particularly concerned as to whether or not Amazon continues to sell this product, but it's certainly not something I'd ever play, and anyone who would actually play and enjoy it would make me wonder to say the least...

[Control-Z]

261. I would be frightened

by anyone who would actually play this game and enjoy it.

[omega minimo]

285. It's also frightening that people want to pretend that there are no

social consequences of it.

The black and white thinkers want to entirely overlook that. How is that even possible. Oh -- I know -- NOT thinking, not being honest, not being educated on media or gender issues.

[KoKo]

283. Thanks for your reasoned post on this...

it's a concern.

[omega minimo]

286. Well put.

It seems odd that it has to be spelled out but you did a great job. Thank you. I just ignored the "prudery" and "pearl clutching" jibes.

But if people don't understand already the concepts and concerns you spelled out, they aren't thinking honestly -- or at all -- about the issue.

[L0oniX]

208. I'm all for games that are about killing but this sex abuse game goes too far.

:sarcasm:

[adamuu]

231. just pixels. n/t

[omega minimo]

236. Just synapses.

[smalll]

262. Point 1) Free speech is free speech, we're not out to ban this. Point 2) "Gamers" are scum.

Point 3) Society has every right, nay, every duty, to SHAME the "gamers" who sit around virtually raping, beheading, disemboweling or otherwise violating humanity -- even if only virtually from the comfort and the safety of their cheeto-stained behemoth-indented sofas.

I will defend to the death your right to be sick, as well as MY right to rag on you for your evil, stunted personalities and hopefully kindle enough well-deserved EMBARASSMENT so that some of you might snap out of it and grow up and so that future generations will realize how "uncool" all this distasteful nastiness is.

I'm Just Sayin' :shrug:

[omega minimo]

265. "future generations" born of families who have been irreparably harmed/obliterated by this shit

[Kurska]

270. No one has the right to protect someone from "harm" if they don't want to be protected.

[omega minimo]

271. you have absolutely no clue what misogyny is,

[Kurska]

274. Enlighten me, I was under the assumption it was sexist feelings towards women.

[Gwendolyn]

281. It's not a game. It's an interactive DVD.

And I find their premise interesting. It looks to be far more of a weird performance art thing than anything else, starring one of the inventors, Yota (the "victim") Or perhaps you could call it porn.

I like the questions they're asking about the nature of love, the role of submissiveness and dominance in relationships, what constitutes seduction.

In a short interview, the authors/inventors/artists say this:

“Hollywood has shown us its version of love – cute, pleasant, and nauseatingly fake. This simulation shows a different view. Psychologists call it Stockholm ‘Syndrome’, as if it is a disease. I think many people will recognize that true love is a lot closer to ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ than to the candy coated B.S. you find in most romance movies and TV shows.”

<...>

“Before feminists attack ‘Stockholm’, I’d suggest that they take a look at the romance novels that are popular with women today. You don’t see a lot of ‘Ross and Rachel’ type romances. You see kidnapping, captivity, force. Great erotic writers recognize that ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is a much more legitimate form of love than what Hollywood wants to shove down our throats. This simulation helps people explore that.”

It was the first thing I thought. What about all the bodice rippers women lap up like chocolate covered sundaes on a Friday night. They're filled with "bad boys" and cretinous rapists/seducers. Women love that s**t. Where does this need to be captured come from? At least they're asking the question.

Yota is pretty hawt. I wonder if her sig other is featured. Perhaps she and her sig other are expressing the essence of their own relationship. This dvd will appeal to a niche market, and Amazon has already banned it. Twas just a question of time.

http://www.rmdglobal.net/stockholm/

[redqueen]

287. LOL... what a steaming load of unadulterated bullshit.

This sick freak is projecting their (IMO, sick) perception of love onto everyone else? I guess if it makes them sleep better at night... have at it.

Let's hear from the romance authors / readers on DU... are these books full of rapes and kidnappings?

What a sad, tragic example... that person really needs some serious help.

[Gwendolyn]

289. Yeah, actually, romance novels are often about women being plied to a man's sexual will.

Lots of romance novels are filled with plotlines about women who are "taken" by pirates, or seduced by the bad boy polo player or what have you. And it's a million dollar industry that's often been dubbed "women's porn." The first "romance" novel I ever read at the age of 12 was a stolen copy of Forever Amber, today considered a classic, although written in the middle of the last century. It's about a girl who is raped and spends the rest of her life chasing after her "rapist," her "true love." Anne Rice has written novels of erotica that comes close to Marquis de Sade stuff. Margaret Atwood wrote an interesting short story entitled "Rape Fantasies." What is it that makes women crave that? I do find that a much more interesting question than the usual horseshit spewed by what's basically the republican (family values) faction of the women's movement. Maybe if women adjusted their own thinking, men would follow. Or maybe some people just like their sex the way they like it.

[redqueen]

290. "Lots"? Vague... doubt it's the majority.

Also, big, huge, glaring difference between "taken" and seduced.

As for what makes women crave it... not all women do. I'd say it's the minority, and in my case it was due to abuse that I hadn't dealt with. Can't speak for others, but I hear that's pretty common.

Yeah, I know romance novels have hot steamy parts for enjoyment as porn, but that has nothing to do with this idea that all or even a good percentage of women 'crave' that.

[Gwendolyn]

292. Not vague at all. Fantasies of that nature are quite common.

Just took a cursory glance but here's some info for you. There's reams of it out there though.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_43/ai_n17094104/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.11

Does anyone want to be forced to have sex with a filthy, fetid-pitted Somalian pirate? No. But apparently lots of women enjoy THINKING about a gorgeous specimen with washboard abs in knee-high pirate boots running off with them. So do some men. While romance novel plots have gradually moved to encompass more of a variety, the boilerplate has always been: Nice girl with staid boyfriend falls for bad boy (fill-in type) who seduces/rapes her against her better judgement. Lots of "no, no" then succumbing. As the story unfolds, he proceeds to psychologically abuse her until the climax, when it's shown that he's actually a hero in disguise, while the staid boyfriend turns out to be a schmuck. Of course, the bad boy has been vanquished by the good girl, and they live happily ever after begetting lots of kids. Some are much more graphic and express different levels of the girl being "taken." Same difference though as far as the fantasy. And the tumult and psychological abuse always ends up morphing into "true love."

As I said earlier, Anne Rice has written several erotic novels of a graphic nature depicting scenes of hard-core sadomasochism. She obviously spent months, perhaps years, dreaming this stuff up. Is she, and others like her, sick? There's obviously a market for it, and it ain't only men buying this stuff. They watch porn on their puters.

And as I said earlier as well, I believe this dvd venture is more a kind of performance art than what others have purported. The author has published a book of poetry detailing his jaded experiences as a polygamist and underground pornographer. Their website provides links to all the blogs that have threads as fierce as this one, so they obviously don't care about selling product. It's about making a statement.

[redqueen]

293. You can dress this up however you like...

this 'game' is sick and reprehensible. That's my opinion.

I also think anyone who considers Stockholm Syndrome to be more like real love than Hollywood love stories is sick. Again, just MHO.