[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by Columbine

Vis 'proverbial', to me this word does not mean what you think it means. "Proverbial" means "relating to a word/phrase/situation directly referred to in a proverb or idiom". That's why your use of it confused me. As far as my experience goes, "the proverbial I' or "the proverbial you' makes almost zero sense. There isn't an obvious idiom to relate 'I' or 'you' to. That's why I asked if you perhaps meant it ironically, but in retrospect, perhaps you mean 'metaphor' or 'representative'.

I most certainly did not make it up, and it does mean metaphor or representative, however, it is very much in use in my experience. My only guess is that this may represent a difference in American vs. UK English. I am an American, and one who holds a degree in English, and is pursuing a post-graduate degree in Philosophy. In my experiences, Proverbial You (or the admittedly rarer, Proverbial I) is used as so:

"Now, if you wanted to go to the ATM at 3AM, but your bank does not allow this, the next best thing for you to do would be to go ahead and just pay the fee at another bank."

In this case, I might be talking specifically to you, but more than likely, since this is a hypothetical situation, I mean that any person could be denoted by "you." We use such expressions in daily life all the time, and plenty of times in articles or scholarly journals. This is, in America, at least, called Proverbial You. If I were to speak about what "I" could or should do, but could be replaced by anyone else, then I am speaking of Proverbial I. Since I was speaking not about me personally, but me as member of the public, and therefore could be replaced by any member of the public, not just myself specifically, I was using Proverbial I. Does this make sense?

A fair point, but not one I entirely agree with. There is much mixed research into such correlations, and depending on the study the results seem to go either way. Still, the fact that the population is a vulnerable one, is a culture that possibly would appeal to rapists makes it worth paying attention and giving some risk assessment. I'm not exactly saying the games necessarily make non-rapists into rapists. Look at it the other way around, maybe the rapists or those individuals who would rape (even if they knew it was wrong but just didn't care) would be led to play the games. In which case, the producer should be thinking, "should I really be catering for this? Is this encouraging? Does it send a message to rapists that what they do is, on some level, accepted by society regardless of what the law says. Could it be viewed a subtle flag of support? how does my fanbase operate? Is there a chance the fans who are mere fetishists could be incited by more dangerous fans into committing crime?"

These are all concerns I would expect the producer to already be thinking as responsible member of society. The question is, should he or she be held responsible for actions that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have occurred because of the games. This is where an incitement charge would need to be considered. Are these games the same, and is the producer knowingly allowing them to be the same, as a terrorist, dictator, or hate group leader convincing a mob to act else they would not otherwise act? If incitement, knowingly, can be proven, then forget the banning of the games: convict the producer as an accessory to rape.

Hmmm, ok, I think I see where you're coming from. I didn't use 'pederast' as pedophile seemed to be a better umbrella term, but it's true that the one term denotes an actual act and the other a mental condition. I can also appreciate what you mean about correlations between desire and act, however I was simply trying to back up the point I made that there are more male sex offenders than female sex offenders and in general the same trend is evident for child sex abuse cases.

And I am just saying we need to break it down into even further categories.

In one of the only opinions I will venture, which might make you understand why I am not as easy to push to one side or the other is my take that gender is not the relevant issue at hand: in essence, I think trying to label statistics of any sort, ever, organised by gender is misleading. This is highly controversial, and I realise most of the world cannot seem to see this as I do. Of course, I maintain this a vicious circle. Believing gender is relevant leads to believing gender is relevant.