Rape games to be banned in Japan

[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.

[MissMisa]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

But so many things in the media are illegal things to do in real life, yet still exist. If people were to act them out in real life, it would all be disasterous.

In order to stop things being avaliable to children, both sex and violent products, there are ratings placed on things, or on the internet, credit cards are used. Of course, accidents happen with poor distribution or careless people, but parents have a job to monitor their children, it should not be an issue.

In the end, I'd much rather someone to walk around acting out some sick rape game than someone going around acting out the movie Saw. I think we all would. There is media out there designed to give you a rush other than sexual which is equally as bad, and as equally as inapproriate for children to view. You only dislike this one due to your own personal preference as to what you think is "going too far". Others have tried to do the same with different things already. Eminem got a serving, but served it right back, because it is innocent. People simply disliked the taste. Harmless things should not be discarded due to a single parties preference.

It's a good point, but those things are portrayed as bad in most cases. Murder in films and media usually has some dire consequences, in GTA, the police come, in Saw, (don't want to it away for people but everyone seems to have their come uppance.) It's rare that anyone actually gets away with murder and has a decent life after that in media. I've never seen these rape games so I've never encountered whether the rapist actually suffers any consquences, but as it's supposed to be a sexual thing then I doubt they are going to face any of those kind of consequences in game. As mentioned earlier.

Also, murder isn't gender or race specific, but most rapes that occur target the female demographic, which is another worry.

[FeyOberon]

Originally Posted by ozkai

Rape by mutual agreement is obviously a private matter and if the parties agree, then the sky is the limit and none of anybodies business if all are above the legal age and all consenting.

Rape by agreement of the parties is not possible. In order for an act to be rape one of the parties must not consent.

A couple playing at "rape" in their bedroom does not qualify as rape.

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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?

Perfectly. I did understand how you were using it after that last post and I wasn't trying to imply you were making it up, but it definitely seems be a discrepancy between British and American english. Over here I think it's called the "Generalized You" and what you know as the 'proverbial I' then must be what I understand to be something like a second-person 'I'. As I mentioned before, in my experience something 'proverbial' is normally understood to be related directly to a specific idiom. Such as, "If I wore that I'd stick out like the proverbial thumb" or "We're getting up the proverbial creek here guys...". Glad to have cleared that up!

Unfortunately as to whether the producer is thinking them is probably shaky ground. The cynic in me doubts whether as a money-spinner they really care or not, and don't simply possess a "lets milk it while we can" mentality. I think for practical reasons, proving that any producer (if they do) are purposefully being incisive could well be impossible, but they could simply be neglecting close scrutiny of what the affects are.

What bothers me, and perhaps this is a very western perspective, is that if these games were say, focused on the abuse of a single racial stereotype, they possibly would never have even hit the production line on grounds of racism. Why then is it acceptable for a focus on abuse of women, or at least for it to be considered in very different terms?

In continuation from that, I'm not sure I fully understand your last point, so I will simply say that the impression I have is that these games seem to be quite gendered in and of themselves, and so that, to me, makes gender issues relevant.

[Tsuwabuki]

We usually don't add proverbial in that case; we just say the proverb. "Man am I up a creek without a paddle!"

Originally Posted by Columbine

Unfortunately as to whether the producer is thinking them is probably shaky ground. The cynic in me doubts whether as a money-spinner they really care or not, and don't simply possess a "lets milk it while we can" mentality. I think for practical reasons, proving that any producer (if they do) are purposefully being incisive could well be impossible, but they could simply be neglecting close scrutiny of what the affects are.

We would still, then, need to show the producer knew, in a real way, of the effects of the games, and chose to produce them anyhow. Much as if I know someone is going to kill someone else and I do nothing, I might, if the situation is clear enough, have been guilty of neglect.

What bothers me, and perhaps this is a very western perspective, is that if these games were say, focused on the abuse of a single racial stereotype, they possibly would never have even hit the production line on grounds of racism. Why then is it acceptable for a focus on abuse of women, or at least for it to be considered in very different terms?

Unfortunately, and while I don't have link in hand, this is not the case. The stereotypes of blacks I have seen in Japan were initially very, very shocking. In anime, and in toys, and sometimes, yes, in games. I think it's decreasing, but it doesn't change what already exists. And it's not quite the same, because most people believe there is no inherent difference between races, and that rather the "racial experience" comes from contact between people of different races, and is essentially, an artificial construct. Say seriously that there is any real inherent, relevant difference between races, and you come off sounding like one of the Nazi social scientists.

Say you believe there is some inherent difference between men and women, and you get a clap on the back from both the conservative far-right who believes women to be inherently inferior, and the far-left radical women's movement that maintains women deserve their own everything, because they are inherently different (if not superior).

In continuation from that, I'm not sure I fully understand your last point, so I will simply say that the impression I have is that these games seem to be quite gendered in and of themselves, and so that, to me, makes gender issues relevant.

It would take an entire thread of its own, but I believe gender is NEVER relevant. In fact, I believe gender doesn't exist inherently. There's anatomic sex, and then there's gender identity which is developed in the same way other identity traits are, and our concept of "matching" is arbitrary and antiquated, and that the differences we see in behavior are self-created, and thus that third opinion I have is that, honestly, banning or not banning the games will have no effect whatsoever on misogyny or rape at all. It's all window dressing. It's people trying to look like they're doing something because they can't face the real issue: it is our failure to treat "boys" and "girls" equally from the moment of birth (or sometimes before, pink and blue? Really?) and to pin their eventual, unformed identity on what they have between their legs, and then our continual enforcement of it every minute of every day for the rest of their lives that causes certain individuals to believe that actions, such as rape, could ever been considered allowable. If we can teach children to move anatomic sex to the same level of importance as race, and respect each other as individuals, I do not think misogyny will continue, and the demand for rape games will either decrease, or be shown to have zero effect on the destabilised individuals who choose to rape regardless of any outside stimuli.

The problem is, we won't do it. If anything, I've seen my side lose ground on this. The fact that even public schools have been experimenting with same-sex classes, classrooms, or entire schools is the worst possible thing we could do. It's running full speed the opposite direction. We'll never make progress that way. We learned that lesson, or should have, from race: separate is NEVER equal, and it ALWAYS causes discrimination. Some segment of one of the groups will always find a way to argue that the separation represents superiority of one group over the other.

[Tenchu]

Then all this can simply be fixed by providing a warning message at the start of the game/film telling people it is not intended to be taken seriously, and is some seriously messed up shit, and whatever.

Still, I never imagined people would need to be told this stuff is wrong.

[Faggotry]

This is disgusting, immoral and wrong! how could they ban such great games?

[SaintKat]

Eh, I didn't know there's no consequences in rape games. At least in shoot em ups and such you can wind up in jail or die.

[ozkai]

Originally Posted by TheLastFortnight

In Japan this kind of hentai game is very common and cliche. Most of players are guys totally afraid to even talk to women, it isn't big deal, but since one of these games was selling outside Japan it called the attention of the media.

I think they were never meant to be sold outside Japan.

It's certainly caught the attaention here!

I don't think the word "rape" is a big thing in Japan as you say.

Japan is a very safe country.

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by ozkai

It's certainly caught the attaention here!

I don't think the word "rape" is a big thing in Japan as you say.

Japan is a very safe country.

I thought in the case of 'rape' in Japan that the support for victims was at a minimum. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but years ago, I recall reading that it's easy for guys to get off for a rape accusation if he says the victim consented to it, therefore, not making it a rape.

That aside, I'm still under the impression that these games are justifying raping an innocent victim, and doubt any normal person if in that situation begins to "enjoy it", another impression I'm getting from this genre, but, I've never seen a rape game nor have I ever played one, so my impression could be incredibly scewed here.