Let's see how many are willing to discuss this

RapeLay is a game about raping young girls. The game is old, and had a few controversies (like Amazon removing it from their listing). I read today that one of the provinces in Argentina is going to try to ban the sale of the game. Of course, the irony is that the game itself will never be distributed (legally) down here. The argument is the one you expect: the game encourages people to go out and rape girls.

In most gaming forums the discussion is similar: if you allow killing (either by necessity like in Call of Duty or any other war game, or pleasure like Grand Theft Auto or any other sandbox game), if you allow drugs (dealing like in Dope Wars, or Grand Theft Auto, or consuming like in Haze), if you allow racism or even insinuate raping (the latest case is Resident Evil 5, where a gang of black men zombies kidnap and rape a white girl), why not rape itself? Surely, someone who wants to do what the game does has serious problems that will arise not only in a game, but reading a book or watching a movie, just like those people who invoke GTA when explaining why they ran over policemen.

What about you?

Where can I get it?

pretty sick if you ask me, but nobodys going to effectively stop it. people can sneak media anywhere they want to anymore.

The discussion is not whether you can stop that or not, it is a matter of where should be the limit. Who decides that killing someone in a game is right but raping someone is wrong (besides Fox News)?

This is an extremely difficult question, with no real answer. Different people have different moralities, which is why each of the games you mention are avaialable in some places, but not others, and why there exist groups who are trying to get all of them banned.

The real question should be does this game increase the number of rapes inflicted. For myself personally, I can't see how someone would rape someone purely because they've seen a game where people can be raped. There has to be some underlying psychological condition. So I guess the question should be - will someone with such an underlying condition go on to rape someone whether or not they play this game. Can such a question be answered? Probably not.

The other issue this game seems to have brough up is freedom of expression. I've read some discussion of this game where proponents of it seem to think that freedom of expression gives them the right to do whatever they please. Obviously this is not the case. Freedom of expression does not give you the right to murder people and call it an art form. It doesn't even give you the right to say whatever you want, hence why there are libel and slander laws. So where does the boundary of freedom of expression lie? The only answer in today's societies is in the courts, and it is they, not we, who deem whether these games get played or banned.

And my own personal opinion on anyone whoever wrote the game - lock them up and let them get raped nonstop for several weeks by serial rapists, then see if they want to then write a sequel.

edit:

The closest thing I can come up with for a logical reason why games with killing should be allowed but not games with rape is that rape is a far more common crime, and that it takes more to drive someone to kill than rape. It's a fairly weak argument though.

Can't say any of those games ever really appealed to me anyway, so ...

Well, I doubt the programmers are maniacs, they just fill a gap in the market Let's put it this way: there is a regulator (ESBR, PEGI, Cero, etc) that reviews and classifies the game. In this case, Adults Only. The retailers are forbidden to sell games to the wrong audience. They don't promote AO games, so you need to know about the game and be adult to buy it. Then you, as the consumer, know that an AO game should be played by a minor.

Why we need the government (for example) needs to put itself in the middle, when there is already an organization that is in charge of determining what is right and what is not acceptable for the audience?

This is dismissing the fact that they have likely never studied the consequences of such a game in the audience, and even if they had done so, there is no way they can verify the claims (which will likely be like violence studies, that never reach a solid conclusion).

Dumb. There's no point in banning it; anyone who would conceivably be induced to rape someone by this game is going to either get the idea from books/movies instead, or learn about the game from all the publicity generated by banning it ( ) and get it illegaly.

The only logical difference I see between a rape game and a murder game is that of individual detail.

Kill one person, and it's a tragedy. Kill a million people and it's a statistic... Same thing with video games. Kill a million people in a war game, and it's just good fun. But make a murder simulator, and it becomes taboo.

But morally? I don't see how one can justify endorsing murder in a video game but not rape.

Kill one person and it is murder. Kill a million and it is conquer. History is written by the winners, ain't it?

I remember when Manhunt 2 for Wii was putting people on guard because the game uses gestures that simulate the character's actions (slitting a throat was done with a quick swing of the Wii remote). Antiviolence groups were thinking that would induce people to start doing that (or to use the game to train your slitting techniques).^[1] Did its release increase the amount of slashed people around?

Yes, by 12.35%. On an unrelated note, 73% of all statistics are made up.

@ the OP:

While I don't like the idea, I can't really bring myself to say this game is wrong when I just killed my best friend fifty times in Halo 3.

Killing a bunch of people in a game like Halo or Half Life is one thing. If you go around killing innocent women and children in a town, that's different.

I think the idea of raping a woman is much less palatable than murder because it has to do with victimizing helpless innocence. None of the other "crimes games" you mentioned do that, and I think that's why it's different.

If you take it one step further and make a game where you rape, say, 14 year old girls, then that's even worse. The victims are much more innocent and helpless.

Apparently, the younger sister in the game is very young (~10).

And yes, that is completely morally bankrupt. The problem, though, is that banning it successfully, and without ripple effects on other games, is nontrivial in the extreme.

Any killing games I've played has had people that deserved it. Why? They started it. Half-Life, Diablo, TF2, Halo, StarCraft, WarCraft, Guild Wars, Space Rangers, GalCiv, etc etc (that's an interesting one. in galciv you can get kill counts into the billions but you don't even notice--it literally is just a statistic in a column).

Individually:
Half-Life: The combine invaded the earth and are trying to pretty much destroy humanity. Hell, killing them is all I can do to save everything.
Diablo: Diablo & Bros are trying to destroy the earth. Admittedly not human, but still.
TF2: They're the other team. They should be dead?...
Halo: Campaign--trying to destroy the universe. Multiplayer--other team!
StarCraft: Trying to destroy humanity damn that happens a lot.
WarCraft: Eh I mainly play DotA more team stuff.
Guild Wars: Campaign--trying to destroy civilization. PvP--usually other team/other guild.
Space Rangers: Because I need money. They have money. If I kill them, I get money. Or they just hate my race (seriously).
GalCiv: okay I usually fail in this so it's usually in self defense.

Compare that to a rape game? What did they do to deserve rape? Unless they will rape me back just as hard, it isn't comparable to any other game I've played.

Murder is the end of life while Rape is the destruction of life. People who are raped have to go through a lot of therapy and it takes a long time (if ever) to become emotionally stable. People who are killed are dead, whatever the dead have to do becomes a religious debate, in which case a belief might determine death better than rape.

Furthermore, rape is more likely to be a morally grey area for people. It's a primal instinct to want to have sex and that impulse may drive someone to validate rape. Plus, victims of rape are more likely to sexually abuse someone themselves. Victims of murder don't really go around killing people now do they?

I can't see rape games as being a healthy outlet for sexual fantasies. Of course, that's the argument isn't it (e.g. killing games being a healty outlet). Ultimately, I really think rape is a bit too intimate of a subject to simulate vs killing (of course, it does get pretty intimate in Assassin's Creed: studying their life, watching them die, etc.).

hmm... a game to see if you can out-rape your opponent. I like it, especially if it's two chicks.

This is a question of morality... and there are as many moral systems as there are humans. There can be no rational discussion on this topic, aside from listing your own personal opinion.

Mine opinion is that this sounds like an awesome game, and it'd be nice to try it out. If we aren't allowed to play games such as this are we not allowed to fantasize about rape? What about reading fanfics about rape? In my opinion the point of games is to do things in them you'd never do in real life, but the things that your primitive human mind still wishes to do. Those include rape, murder etc etc.

You can't eliminate those urges from humans, and not everyone can bottle them up. Better act out on those urges on a bunch of polygons than a living human, in my opinion.

Upon viewing their site, I think that something is lost in the translation. It seems more like the girls are being "willfully molested" than "raped". I also think there's an added cultural thing on top of that - ever noticed that almost all Japanese pornos have the girl acting like she's really uncomfortable (a la being raped) even if she's not?

Fine. If we're gonna get all serious and shit...

News flash: Players don't view video game killing as murder!

More often than not, players kill out of necessity or survival, as a means of self-preservation. Usually, they don't play a game with the intention of maximizing cruelty, but eliminating threats.

The other half of this is that many cultures are more accepting of violence than of sexuality. Why we give preference to the act of destruction over the act of creation is anyone's guess.

So, you have a game where the player cannot rationalize their actions as self-preservation or acting for the greater good, along with the furthest extreme of a culturally taboo theme... Did they really expect anything different?

As for whether it's moral or immoral... It's neither. It's a fucking video game.

Why should the people and government of my country give a damn about what an American organization, such as the ESRB, thinks is suitable? NZ age laws are completely different from those in the USA.

I for one am quite happy with the NZ censor system. They actually seem quite a sensible bunch for a government department.

It's very hard to imagine a rape being anything else than a brutal action that never is justified. There's an innocent victim and a sick raper, who only thinks of his own pervert pleasure. It's also very easy to think of murders being everything that. In those cases there's no big difference in the two actions, wheather we're comparing computer games on one hand or real life actions on the other hand.

This isn't about sexuality, it's about rape. That isn't about "the act of creation."

Rape, typically, isn't about (sexual) pleasure; it's about power or control. Typically, it's also done by someone known (close) to the victim.

As for the topic at hand, I'm stunned that someone would even bring out such a game. Not because I think it will encourage people to actually rape women (the point of rape, again, isn't sex, and no one playing the game should be of an age where they think the sexual practice depicted in the game is normal), but be cause I think it's such extremely bad taste. Then again, that's my attitude to most pornography. I don't know how prevalent rape-related material is there. I guess it might be rather common; rape (either raping someone or being raped) is a common sexual fantasy.^[1]
So I guess one should not judge this as a video game (in which sense I find it disgusting) but as a form of interactive pornography (in which case I can't judge on it one way or the other).

Where did I call rape an act of creation?

You implied it by saying that we choose an act of destruction over an act of creation, since in the context the phrase "act of destruction" referred to violence, and the phrase "act of creation" referred to rape.

The femists have got you too, huh? Rape is about inserting a (typically) penis into an unvoluntary vagina, the reasons for which are various. Mostly about the people indulging in such acts being sexual deviants. Rape being always or typically being an expression of control is feminist propaganda stemming from the politically active batshit crazy extreme feminists like Schyman and Marklund of Sweden.

Wrong-o. Practically nonexistant in mainstream pornography.

If you look at my post, you'll see I made two initial assertions: video game violence is more often borne of survival than cruelty, and many cultures have an aversion to anything sexual.

My final argument was that a game based on rape crosses the threshold on both counts, being that it's an act of cruelty the player can't rationalize away, and a sexual one.

To think that I referred to rape as an act of creation is a failure not only of reading comprehension, but of common sense.

Everet is basically right, rape isn't always an act of sex, its can be about control and anger and a lot of other things. Basically because there is always exceptions, and I am sure people have been raped over sexual urges.

This statement alone is fine. The problem is that, in the context of the previous few posts, the idea of sexuality was linked to the idea of rape, and thus was born the misunderstanding.

So by your definition, what many priests have been accused of doing to young boys isn't rape because they lack a vagina? Or, if I was to take you outside, bend you over and shove a 5' length of 2x4 up your ass, that wouldn't be rape either?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but many male psychologists also support this view.

Try making that claim in Japan.

Yeah, I hear in Japan Dating Games (I think rape games are inclusive in that) aren't taboo but a genre.

I haven't read through the entire thread... But I just want to say that even in prison here in the states... Rapists, child molesters and even pedophiles are considered far worse than the murderers, multiple homicides, etc... In prison they are tortured by other inmates and even killed because even the other inmates despise them... Mobsters would even start rumors about inmates they wanted dead...

Oh how the village do protect there young.

I found ReyBrujo's first post pretty convincing. I don't have anything important to add to it.

I think people beat you to this idea and it amazes me
there's not a game about that. BTW I was thinking about a prison game at first

Wasn't the movie Lost in Translation the one with that scene with the prostitute...

The main difference with violence games is, I think, that the player is supposed to enjoy the act itself and fantasize about it.
Why I like violent games: take out the mark, outsmart the enemy, get the enemy (revenge maybe), visual action (Whoa his head flew off!).
I think there are some violent games that also expect the player to enjoy the act of killing itself. I don't like them. I think fighting games are becoming more about inflicting pain than all the things I mentioned I enjoy.
I don't consider inflicting pain "fun" (although I am a vengeful glutton).
I think the world would be a better place without (either of) those games. And they are, be it violence or sex, both a kind of porn. Would you want to abolish all porn? Should this game only be available as porn? Should really violent games move to a separate area/shop?
BTW I often get more frustrated with games than being an outlet.

... and they're naked, because their clothes have rotted off.

I doubt anyone who has played Grand Theft Auto hasn't killed at least one pedestrian for the fun of it.

That is hypocrisy. They think it is better to beat an old woman to death than raping. I cannot say one is better than the other (although as pointed out, you return from everything except death), but one cannot be worse than the other.

You got it all wrong. Australia and NZ got the OFLC. If that organization finds the game suitable, why would your legislators have to ban it? Wouldn't that mean games that were banned before may have been allowed by them? And wouldn't that mean many games that were allowed would have been banned? Doesn't that basically disallow your rating organization?

No, you have it wrong. Australia and NZ each have their own OFLC. And in both countries, the OFLC isn't an organization that makes suggestions, it is a government department with legal juristiction.

In Australia the OFLC quite often ban movies, because the content is unacceptable by current moral standings, and then reclassified later when opinions have changed. I went and saw "I spit on your grave" when a private cinema did a showing when it was reclassified in 2007. It has graphic rape scenes which was the reason of the banning. I went to see it with a mate who was someone scared by it when he saw it on video when he was 12.

Duh, I know OFLC is individual in both countries, they just happen to have the same name in both. In the case of OFLC, they are worse than other organizations. They ban games like Manhunt but allow games like MadWorld or Grand Theft Auto to be distributed. There is nothing worse than an organization that lacks consistency.

I wasn't suggesting you didn't know the difference, but being from Australia, I can only give my experiences here. I can't speak for it in NZ so I specified Australia.

I've never played any of the games in question, so I can't personally say whether I consider the ruling to be consistant.

The summing up of the ruling follows:

Considering that it is the only game to ever be banned in this country, I doubt it was a decision they took lightly. The reason I made my earlier comment about being happy with the NZ censorship system is that very few things have actually been banned in this country. The biggest share of criticism the OFLC gets is for being too lenient.

A
My reply was for LennyLen, not you. Sorry for the confusion Anyways, this discussion is not really about organizations, but how do you feel about a rape game, if it has room in our gaming world, and whether the consequences of playing such a game would be visible in our society in the future.

Quite a few games are banned here, we have no R rating for games, so if it cant be classified at or below M15+, its illegal. Any games that don't make that cut are often toned down, then released, or are released on appeal.

All I can say is that the killing games I play aren't about actually going out and murdering people. For me, it is just entertainment. I'm not there killing real-looking people, and I don't think of it as killing other humans, after all, it is all fake, in fake worlds/maps/etc. War-simulator games are a step up from that, but you aren't targeting an individual. Raping someone.... that is targeting somebody and spending extensive time on that one person. It also would be realistic (I mean, if it's not, what is the point in it?). That would translate more into a game where you hunt one person, plan out a murder, etc. But in most first person shooters, you aren't really doing that, you just kill or be killed, and move on.

I think this difference is what causes the controversy. Release a detailed murder, like Matthew mentioned, simulator, and you will probably get very similar responses.

Sorry, I thought that it was the organizations that you wanted to discuss.

I feel that banning should be a very last resort, and only when it can be clearly shown that the object being banned can clearly cause harm (material that teaches how to manufacture explosives in simple steps falls into this category). In the case of these games (both rape and murder), I don't believe this is the case. If it can be proven that such games cause such harm, I'd be all for banning them then.

So while I personally find the concept of such a game repugnant, I don't believe that my belief is sufficient reason for it to be banned.

I think a raping game crosses a fine line making it over the top, just like a murder simulator would. But I also feel that creating maps replicating real world locations (like schools/malls/etc) for first person shooters is also over the top as well.

I first read this post this morning and thought I had a valuable contribution to make; but after more thought I reached the conclusion that I think games like GTA are fine to play if your not a mentalist and know it's just a game, but the idea of a rape game makes me sick, and I would hate to see it released.

However, and here is the interesting part, I can't come up with a valuable argument as to why I condone mindless violence ala GTA, but not rape.

Certainly got me thinking anyway Rey!

I liked playing GTA 3: Vice City because it put me in the shoes of a mobster. I don't want to be a mobster, but it was a fun little escape. It's the same with books: we read books because it allows us to enter into a different world. Video games just take that to the next level. I'm sure there are a lot of erotic novels that put you in the shoes of a rapist, but I doubt anybody ever thought twice about those.

To me it seems like a video game like this is similar to couples who like to do "rape role playing" to mix up their sex life. I know it's not the same thing... but the desire might come from a similar place.

I think it would be hard for me to be against a game like this but be fine with a game like GTA without being a hypocrite. It seems like there are two different reasons why people like to play games: because they enjoy the challenge, and because they enjoy the fantasy. A game like StarCraft is probably more about the challenge. A game like this is probably more about the fantasy. GTA was both, at least for me. I would imagine a game like this would be mostly fantasy... unless it has some weird mini game type things in it. But I guess as long as it's just fantasy, you know... it's just fantasy.

But anyway, maybe the only reason I think this is because deep down inside I'm actually a rapist (and a mobster, and a scientist, and Solid Snake and...).

j/k

I should have been more clear... Its the prisoners who think this... And since rape and murder happens all the time in prison by people who are already demented then to them it is not hypocrisy... It's just life.

Really to me... A crime is a crime, but

just goes too far... I knew a girl who was raped as a young girl and another who was molested by a family member. It scars them for life and psychological damage is worse then death in some cases... But I would never play such a game completely based on a storyline of rape. It's disgusting. Having it as part of the storyline as in a brief moment in the game is different, but having a game based on rape is just bad taste... Whomever came up with that is just demented...

Seems to me that movies as well as games in USA get restricted ratings much easier for sex than violence. I'd guess that wars have a lot to do with acceptance of violence, but sex merely gets Mrs. Grundy upset.

Yeah, and ex-soldiers that committed suicide. We don't want to start considering the experiences of everyone, because I guess people who suffered an earthquake may not like the "disaster" button in SimCity, or people who were in a war, a game that takes that lightly, or someone who has have his family killed by drug dealers...

Think it this way: suppose a gang game has three achievements you can unlock: rape, torture, and kill, in all cases with three victims: a little girl, a woman and an ancient woman. Why would people accept the kill and the torture but not the rape? Aren't all of those crimes?

That is a good point. What actually crosses the line? A rape/torture/kill simulator? What about a game where you need to scare the hell out of people and if you give them a heart attack you win? Remember Carmageddon?

I remember Carmageddon! I played that one.

The problem with a game like RapeLay is that it exploits sexual desire of humans. Something most people have problem controlling.

You can kill someone in a game and not even think about it. But it's damn near impossible to not be aroused by sex. And the problem with that is that people become different people when aroused. They lose the ability to think rationally. Studies have shown that when people are aroused and asked questions that they'd normally say "no" to like "would you consider sex involving animals?" are actually MORE opt to say yes. (from the book Predictably Irrational)

So my only concern is whether it can (on a consistent basis) warp peoples perspectives and actions in real life.

Should it be banned? I don't really know either way. It's public impact is nil. If it becomes very popular... then it becomes a big issue with the pragmatic aspect winning over theory and principles like freedom of speech.

So yeah... I basically just spent 10 minutes cleverly writing, "I don't know."

Unless they were drafted, that's a bad analogy. Rape victims don't choose to be raped (obviously), whereas most soldiers these days volunteer, and should be fully responsible for the consequences of what happens to them.

It's obvious really: hurting someone in the course of defending yourself is acceptable, hurting someone for pleasure is not.

That's not true. They may volunteer in good faith, and then be given unjustifiable assignments.

This is particularly the case for people who join the National Guard because they are told their services will only be training one weekend a month along with one 2-week humanitarian stint (e.g., flood control) per year. Next thing they know, they are shipped out to Iraq for an undetermined amount of time only to be blown up by road side bombs.

But that example aside, what do you think about World War games that involved people who were drafted? Is it wrong to kill them in video games? Does it matter which side you are on? What if you take the Nazi Germany side?

Allright, just finished reading wikipedia entry and from what I've read I think that this game is sick. Definitely crosses some moral standards, but on the other hand, who defines them? This is upon polemic, which I don't want to go into.

One thing that caught my attention is this line from entry upon Illusion soft:

It's a game.

It's not real.

What you do outside of Real Life (TM) is none of my concern.

RapeLay wasn't an incredible game, in retrospect. The graphics were fairly decent, actually, but nothing special in light of more recent eroge. However, when it was new, that was kind of a new thing, so it still gets points for it.

The story is pretty much as shallow as you'd expect, but the same can be said for most games and it wasn't awful compared to its competitors. However, it has pretty shitty replayability; I don't remember it having more than a few endings. I can't remember if it had any alternate modes, but I think it didn't.

All in all, a 3.5/5 that could've been so much more, but it was limited by the technological standards of its times and lackluster writing.

Again... Having it as part of the storyline as in a brief moment in the game is different, but having a game based on rape is just bad taste... The graphics and technology used is irrelevant in this case... It could have been an FPS or RPG in 3D or 2D with wire mesh or horrible icons for graphics. It's the plot that sucks...

That says something about the developers and part of a culture in which it was created.

What is obvious? Violent video games don't hurt anyone, whether they are about shooting people or raping people. Besides, there are many games in which the player is encouraged to kill for reasons other than self defence. So do you think this rape game is ok or not?

The Close Range game from the other thread is a perfect example of the double standards most people have. Shooting the heads off of innocent people is funny. The Onion dare not make the same joke about raping.

1) Those people aren't innocent. They're evil. It's explained in the opening cutscene.

2) I don't like that game. It seems like violence for the sole purpose of violence. Yes, the story says you're saving your, brother, was it? But that's just an excuse to show lots of gore. I feel the same way about Gears of War, but at least that game made it clear that war is a bad thing.

Where is it explained that the people are evil? The kidnappers are evil, sure. But random people popping up in front of your face? Where does it say they are evil? No matter though, killing is killing, evil or not. Rape is rape, even if the victim is evil...

I thought all the people I was shooting at were working for the kidnappers. I guess I was wrong, now I like the game even less.

Hm, No one is making the usual argument, "If they get it out in a game they wont do it in real life." Interesting. I guess that argument is only applied when its convenient.

None of this matters. One of two things will happen: 1) Nothing intersting, or 2) Politicians will use it to advance their careers and newspaper writers will drone on about it saying nothing interesting. Then some laws pop up that are defined by "group think" and the bizarre rules that govern politics.

I don't think it's a matter of being convenient...
I thought about mentioning that kind of argument, but decided not to because I don't think it's really clear how these things work. I can imagine a person who, for whatever reason, has a strong urge to rape - when this person plays the game they can satisfy some of the urge without harming anyone. That would be good. But on the other hand I can also imagine someone tries the game because they are lonely or just curious about rape, and after playing the game many times they develop a real desire for rape, and a kind of disconnected sense of "normalness" about rape... So the first person I mentioned has been helped by the game and they are now a safer person to be around, but the second person has become more dangerous. Who knows which people are more common?

(I would guess that the most people wouldn't fit either of those personalities. They might play the game because they are bored or something, and the game probably won't have any significant effect on their life.)

I can't get close range to work. It's distressing.

Considering the game is made to mock...everything, I'm not surprised by its content in the least.

That's a good point, and I wasn't aware the case you mentioned had happened. When I said soldiers, I was thinking of people who volunteer to fight, and kill, for their country. Not people who think that they're going to get to play at soldiers (march around in pretty uniforms, fire off a few rounds down at the shooting range), without ever facing the enemy.

The NZ version of the National Guard, the Territorial Forces, are told before they even sign up that can be expected to serve overseas in warzones, and they often do. The only real difference between regular army and territorials in NZ is whether you're part time or full time. The duties are still the same. But considering that the NZ army's role is usually only ever peace keeping duties, not many of our soldiers ever see combat.

I'm of the same opinion with this as I am with RapeLay. I don't believe that there is a connection between video game violence and real life violence, so I don't think it's wrong to play these games.

But as I said earlier, that if it could be shown that these games did lead to a marked increase in the number of violent acts committed against innocent people, then that's when we need to start looking at things like bans.

I discussed this issue once with my girlfriend's mother, who works as a councillor in a juvenile sex offender facility (ironically, she's also an on-call immediate response councillor for rape victims as well). She didn't think many would get any satisfaction at all out of playing such games as most of the kids she works with need to have a victim.

Also, many rapists who rape for sexual gratification don't start out with rape, it's something they move on to. Initially they might get enough satisfaction out of spying on women, and when that stops being enough, they will often move to stalking women, and doing things like stealing their underwear. These behaviours can normalize their view of the criminal nature of what they are already doing, which makes the idea of rape more accessible. And this is when they go from being a mostly-harmless creepy guy to becoming a sexual predator.

The problem with this line is that others can tell you that if they get it out in a game, they will do it in real life. Since it is not possible to demonstrate or deny either, it is better to leave it out.

It is ironic to me that, for only this scenario, it is better to leave it out. Selective "logic".

Oh, I didn't mean you should not use it I considered using it, but I left it out since I cannot demonstrate someone would be able to contain his perversion by playing this game. Can you?

[edit]
Not laughing anymore...

http://missingchild.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/missing-child-in-tracy-california/

You could probably guess what they'll say after they release the reports...

Can't say I've ready every post in the thread, but I'm honestly surprised that there's this much of a discussion. This is a hentai game. Clearly it is not a real game, it cannot be compared to a real game (even GTA is a real game). That is like saying they should allow pornography (which may contain the bonus of having rape scenes) to be released in major theaters as a legit Hollywood movie just because Hollywood allows movies where people get murdered (and even sometimes raped).

They do, when the level of realism is high enough.

All those games are not ok.

Not ok.

It's simple: defense = good, offense = bad. Absolutely and on all levels.

Was that connected to RapeLay at all? I didn't see anything in the article.

I kill people all the time in my dreams, which are usually exceptionally vivid and nigh indistinguishable from reality (except for weirdness such as flying purple buicks, etc).

Edit:

Fuuuuuu.... forgot about the new tags.

Well, I guess my previous post didn't take, so let's get serious for a second.

Those of you who are complaining? You're all a bunch of fucking hypocrites. You're all fine with games that depict violence of all sorts, and like me, probably secure in the knowledge that the whole media hysteria over violent games is overblown and misleading. Yet, you're acting like those very media attention-hounds over a game that you probably have never even played yourself.

Shame on you.

Out here in the real world, adults are capable of telling the difference between fictional cartoon acts and real ones. Yes, adults; children are obviously not supposed to play this game in the first place. You think it's sick? Fine, that's your prerogative; but it does not give you a right to call for bans or ostracism of people with different tastes than you, nor a right to play amateur psychologist and condemn people whose sexual imagination differs from yours.

I'm not going to make this a lengthy speech about sexual preference, but suffice to say that there are plenty of people who are perfectly normal, functional people yet find a thrill in this kind of thing. And you know what? That's perfectly okay. When they fantasize about is their business alone, not for some puritan to try to force his 15th century morals on.

And you know what the best part is? Not only is RapeLay a fairly old game at this point, it's by far not the most explicit or brutal game along these lines out there.

Well I don't have problem with someone playing these games. I for one don't like the media hysteria about banning any game. I only see theme of this particular game quite sick, but it's hentai, so it could be expected. Moreso I find the theme of Manhunt sick and I have doubts about GTA series. On the other hand I quite praised Mafia.

Now you can all say that I'm being hypocritic by seeing GTA sick but praising Mafia, which also puts you in the role of a mobster. But you know what? Mafia presented it with style, it doesn't contain violence just for violence and what is more the main character in the end turned the side and was sorry for his actions. The game contained a message, something along the lines like Godfather (book and the movie) did.

So on one hand I don't like violence for violence (be it killing, hurting, raping etc.) which is example of the OP game as well as other mentioned, but I'm quite fine with violence in games, where it is somehow "justified".

I second this. I for one am fully capable of distinguishing between what is real and what is a game. Games are good for relaxation and you are able to things that aren't allowed in the real life. By my moral standards some of these games are sick and I don't play them, but each to his own. Period.

Show somebody porn and they're likely to get aroused. It doesn't satisfy, it makes them hunger.

Show somebody a game about drugs (that actually makes the player feel a bit of the sensation of the drug) and they're likely to hunger for more.

Show somebody a game about killing that glorifies the kill (watching the opponent squirm to death, player's life immediately becomes happier, etc.) without any punishment, and they're likely hunger for that as a reality.

It shouldn't be banned, but it definitely shouldn't be mainstream. It has to be under-the-table. You don't see commercials advertising erotic films on the main channels.

And, I can't say I wouldn't play it. Right now, it feels totally wrong, but if it were in front of me, I think I would be intrigued to see what it's all about. I'd like to say I'd be disgusted by it, but who knows how I'd respond. Like I said, you show somebody porn and they're likely to get aroused.

Perhaps. But anything these games do, people can do via personal fantasies and daydreams. I can imagine raping/having sex with someone, I can imagine taking drugs and I can imagine killing someone. That does not lead to me to plan on doing those things in the real life. You can't ban these games if you are not willing to ban bad thoughts.

According to the definition of hentai in Japanese you're saying it is an 'abnormal' game... Of course it is not your regular genre of games, but I don't know of any other game 'based on raping people or young girls' ..... If it were just some sexual based game it would be different. If rape were just part of the plot and not the entire subject of the game I might feel different about it, but IMO its bad taste having a game 'based on raping young girls' and it's not hypocrisy... Of course having a game simply based on random violence against people is also bad taste, but fun but when you bring children into the game in a sexual manor that changes everything... I haven't seen any young children in GTA either so

Let's be honest now, I bet 100% of people here (male, can't comment on females given I'm not one) have done far worse to a woman during masturbation than the game ever will. But, on that subject, what's the difference between having sex with olga kurylenko in a game and olga kurylenko in your head?

Aside from masturbation, there is a difference between 'sex' and 'rape' when it comes to humans... and the law...

I can't comment for anyone else, but all the women in my fantasies are willing.

[edit] Hear hear..

I once knew a women who had a rape fantasy, but she had self esteem and self image issues and thought she would have no other choice but to be raped... She told me this after........ Seriously she was fairly good looking... She's now an actress on some soap opera and I'm sure the fantasy has gone away along with those issues... I share way too much here...

Do you mean "hear, hear"?

And yeah, all my friends turned out to be good looking actresses too.

Same here.

Is there a border between fictional cartoon actors and fictional real actors?
And is there a border between this RapeLay and a game where children get raped? Is it hypocrisy to [condemn people who condemn RapeLay] and [condemn similar child rape games]?

The game is probably a piece of crap anyway.

Yes, but what if it weren't?

Who cares. I might fantasize about having sex with decapitated fetuses for all I care. There is a difference between the world of fantasy and the world of reality. Just because you happen to not fantasize about anything that wouldn't happen in real life does not mean other people can't. And, just because they do fantasize about such things, does not mean they are in any way compelled to act them out in the real world.

This isn't 1984, thoughtcrime doesn't exist. The world of fantasy is free from your petty moral qualms. I have just now fantasized pouring acid into the eyeballs of a 3 year old. I can fantasize far worse, and there is nothing anyone can or should do about it.

This game is also a fantasy, a virtual reality of sorts. A day dream. It and the reality need not, and will not intermix. If for some those do intermix, those people could do the things they do in real life even without a game.

Considering I can't see other people's thoughts, I really have no scientific evidence for the following claim: I imagine the people who fantasize about doing something are more likely (not that they will, just more likely) to do that thing than a person who doesn't fantasize about it at all. That sounds like a logical statement.

Peoples imagination should not be rejected by law.

Whatever porn people wan't to watch or play they should feel free to do so.
With the exception of porn that contains real victims who's identity is shown, I think that's the only real reason to ban anything.

I don't understand how imaginary porn can be such a problem in this day and age, I thought we where a bit more civilized and understandning.

Are you saying you would rather die than being raped? Rape is bad, but I think the majority of people would rather be raped than dead...

Well said, but since everyone thinks something is wrong should we ban everything? The most reasonable solution is to let everyone do their thing, unless it's actually hurting someone. People should be able to choose whenever to be moral or not, otherwise people are living under fake morals, and that's just silly.

Coming soon, MoralRape, brainwashes the player into becoming rapists. It tries to bring the game to a new level -- reality.

The problem is that there is no guarantee that one's imagination will not become reality.

The problem with anything imaginary is that, given large doses of it, may trick the user into trying it for real.

I totally agree about "exposure results in ideas", but I don't think that's a good enought reason to ban anything. We don't ban movies that show rape, killing, assult, goverment resitance, etc, I like to think that's beacuse we value certain freedom..

Should people not have the freedom to choose whenever or not to become murderers or rapists?

But movies are not interactive. It's not you that you rape someone when you watch a movie. It's very different when it is you who acts.

I see you've never played the game either.

We are not more civilized and understanding.

I am not interested in filth.

I have played the game, and I don't see the big deal. It's quite poorly made (as all of Illusion Soft's games)... It's just another h-game with a slight twist (not even very prominent... Almost all H-games seem to feature semi-consensual sex in some way). The only thing that makes it stand apart is that it explicitly states that it's about rape (the name). If it had the name "subway stalker" instead, it would not receive the same hysteria. It's just another crappy h-game.

And besides, there is no use trying to forbid these things - if there is a market (and there is), people will make and buy them.

Yet you seem perfectly content to pretend to know details about the game. It's not at all the way you describe it. You sound like someone claiming GTA has explicit images of mutilation and explicitly tells you to torture people.

If it wasn't clear, I have also played the game, and the above quote is entirely accurate. There is nothing that makes this game stand out from the crowd other than its name and the overblown hysteria it has garnered.

ITT: people spouting ignorant and uninformed moralfaggotry.

Based on what I have seen and read, the name doesn't accurately describe the gameplay and frankly the game doesn't look all that bad to me.

bamccaig, did you read SomethingAwful's review of it?

If there are people who fancy about killing they should go check their heads. I don't play Cod 4 because I fancy killing, but to practice my reflexes. But these types of sex games are for those who fantasize about raping girls (even children), so what can I say. Intended for sick freaks.

There is no need to alienate such people. I don't see why you won't just let people fantasise about whatever they like. Does anyone pick on you for your fantasies? Have you never fantasised about anything that is morally questionable?

Come on. Live and let live.

There are a lot of ways to practice reflexes that don't involve spraying enemy soldiers in the head.

Honestly, COD4 isn't going to make somebody want to kill people any more than RapeLay is going to make people want to rape people (and like I said, from what I've seen of the gameplay, it doesn't really scream "rape" to me, which I define as violent and forceful sexual assault).

When I play a game, the story the developers provide is usually a rough draft that I revise in my own fantasy as I play through the game. The developers may say I'm killing for sport, for example, but maybe I would instead rewrite that part of the story to rationalize that I had no choice or was doing good in some way. I would do the same thing while playing a game like this. The writers may say I'm violently raping a girl, but that wouldn't appeal to my fantasies. I would prefer something voluntary and would rewrite the story accordingly.

Or if the game was designed in such a way that there was no way around it, I just wouldn't play. Eminem once said in an interview (which I can't find online for the life of me...) that when he's watching something on TV that disgusts him he turns it off. He doesn't keep watching it. "This disgusts me, I think I'm going to watch it."^[1] The same is true of books, music, movies, and games. If somebody plays a game it's because it appeals to them on some level. The game will not create rapists. Real life does that, I'm afraid.

Well if someone would come and tell me that they fantasize about violently raping children, I'd still think he's a sicko. Maybe that's just me. But I have rights for my opinion just like everyone else.

What if it did? At least the youngest child in the game is crying...

Sure I never said that. It all depends on how the player sees the game.

I just wonder that violent porn is banned at least here (Finland). Sure this is not real, but if it were more "real", including real-life actors, how about then? Some would say that it's still all about fantasizing...

EDIT:

Oh btw, there was recently a case here that a child doctor was caught on child porn. You could say that he's just fantasizing about having sex with children, but for some reason he still lost his job...

This thread simultaneously amuses and depresses me. Good job, everyone.

But no one is doing that. No one is coming up to you and saying that they fantasise about violently raping children... yet you have still jumped on the opportunity to preemptively insult and alienate anyone who might sometimes think that way. You are entitled to your opinion. I just don't think it is constructive or nice to say the things you are saying. I have opinions as well, but I don't go around saying "such and such people are sickos". It's like saying "I hate you" to someone you have never met, just because you don't like their t-shirt.

But whatever. Say what you like. Think what you like. I'm just trying to counterbalance some of the views here so that we don't all get caught up in some kind of mob mentality.

Ehhh, child porn is real. There're real child being abused. That's the difference. It's not about what he's fantasizing about, but about real child being involved.

Anyway, I played the game some time ago, and it sucks like most Illusion games. Most hentai games have at least one rape scene (and child sex scenes too, and even a mixture of both :O), so I really don't understand why all the discussion for this specific game. You may not believed me, but I've played a good amount of hentai games and I still haven't raped anyone nor feel the need for it

One data you may be interested: a good percentage of women have fantasies about being rapped. So that means women want to get rapped in real life?

PD: is it just me, or the spellchecker is very broken?

"rapped" is a valid word!

I agree, but one should know that non-real child porn is just as illegal(at least here in sweden, how are your laws?).

Imagine that by law you are not allowed to make or own any painting that looks like it contains children(under 18) having sex with something or posing sexually.. Not only does it occur all the time in movies, but the police simply ignore to block sites such as deviantart and other well known sites for some reason. It's like they've run out real child porn so to keep their job they have to pick on other kind of porn to look like they're make progress.. but blocking well known sites(devinatart anyone?) and movies would of course enlighting more people that they aren't as free as they think they are.

Of course no one would admit this is wrong beacuse that would make them look very bad, it might not have a huge impact on our lives but I still feel violated.

Why do I need to play it in order to criticize it? I read the wikipedia article, and I was disgusted enough. A game that makes the player rape girls is filth, clearly and absolutely.

You can't compare this game with GTA. With GTA, your purpose is not to derive pleasure from other people's pain, but to exploit others for money and power. There is a huge difference.

And when the person fantasizing about these things comes and rapes your daughter, what would you say?

Perhaps we should have a license for these games. Only the mentally stable people should play them. On the other hand, why are you enjoying it? are you a sadist?

That's not what I said. Read it again.

(Spoiler: You're misrepresenting the content of the game, just like one would if one would say GTA contains scenes of wanton mutilation.)

Well, then I'll be sure to keep it away from you. Have you stopped beating your wife?

You mean pictures or drawing of childs? Here it's legal, as long as no real child has been used (as model, or for the voice, for example).

There's a courious case I found today while looking for some info: in the english version of the game Nocturnal Ilusion, the age of one of the girls was changed to be 18 (she was underage in the Japanese version it seems). My guess from this is that's this is perfectly legal in Japan. The Japanese version was censored though (like all hgames), so talk about weird laws

Oh, I don't enjory that part. I think I played 10 mins rapelay and got bored. And I don't really enjoy the rape scenes in other games, it doesn't really turn me on

Doesn't the game put you in someone's shoes that commit rapes?

Have you stopped beating your penis? obviously not...

And how do you determine if someone is mentally ill?.. please use words that actually describe what you want, in this case you mean stripping away rights that everyone have from humans that you have don't really know anything about.

I'm sorry that some people do such things, but I don't think destroying the lives of many many more people based on the assumption that they could do harm to someone is a good thing either. Bad experience of one "normal" human or the destruction of life for 2 future possible rapists?.. I don't find that decision hard.

I like to think that I would be reasonable if someone raped my future daughter or son or whatever it may be, but the truth is I would probably kick the rapers head against wall if I had a chance, I know I don't live under the fear that many people do (imaginary or not), not much happens here in sweden, but I see no reason why people could not show more sense when it comes to the functionally of our society.

Also.. just beacuse you take away things that revolves around certain things does not mean people can't gain interest anyway, actually, I'd go as far to say I'd might get worse if someone goes without the means to satisfy his/her sexual needs.

There are billions of people on this planet and they vary greatly. I imagine if you took a large enough sample and had them play a game where the objective was to rape people (whether that's the way RapeLay is setup or not), you'd have three groups of people:

• People who enjoy the game or actually find it to be a healthy way to satisfy their needs/imagination/fantasy

• People who don't enjoy the game or are repulsed by it

• People who's curiosity is peaked and tempts them to actually attempt something in real life

To be fair, this list would be the same for a shooting/killing game. For that reason alone, these raping games cannot be banned. However, for that last reason in the list (and if you don't believe that list item should exist, read the first sentence of this post), it cannot be mainstream media. Whether there's some kind of ID check or psyche test that has to be passed, there just has to be something to reduce the size of that last group.

Who wants to play my ultra-violent ultra-immoral game? I hope it doesn't cause anyone to go out and rape people. Have fun! Code is python.

import sys

while True:
    print "Do you want to rape a girl? y/n"
    answer = sys.stdin.read(1)
    if answer == 'y':
        print "You raped a girl!"
    elif answer == 'n':
        exit(0)

In the same way that they can decide if someone is fit for military duty, i.e. psychological tests.

How come banning raping games is destroying people's lives?

It depends on the killing. Killing for defense = acceptable, killing for offense = not acceptable. As I have said before, being on the offensive is what is immoral.

Still, that actually wasn't the point in this case. He was sentenced earlier with fines, but was still able to get a job as a child doctor, because the hospital thought it was not their problem. It was only after the outrage of the parents who refused to send their child to that doctor which eventually lead his sacking... And I can understand those parents, really.

That's what I mean with that it depends on how the player sees the game. So I guess it is after all a question of if it encourages seeing raping as a normal activity...

Sorry about that, somehow my brain went on to believe you wanted to prevent rape using any method.

To me, being prevented some things in life for no good reason is serious offence and I just get a bit over excited "fighting back". I just want to have as much freedom as is reasonable.

Are you allowing someone else to decide what is wrong and right? Why don't you think for yourself instead of leaving all of that to the goverment, it almost sound like you're using that as a platform for how to run your life.

I can see that you are certain that your definition of right and wrong is the "right way" and I respect that in a way, I just think it wouldn't hurt to be more open, in fact, I think it would be healthy.

You confuse freedom with promiscuity. A man's freedom ends where another man's freedom begins.

I don't insist on psychological tests or a license, that was a figure of speech. What I don't want to happen is an outbreak of rapping cases because some people "learned" through video games that it is ok to do this.

There is no guarantee that living someone to think for himself/herself will produce good results. Look what happened the last few years: we elected politicians that drove us to the edge of the cliff. Some people are not thinking rationally.

So do some people enjoy these games? i.e. do they like to rape women in their fantasies? I'd love to be more open, but I would like to hear some reasons about why should I be more open.

In your opinion. For some people, killing isn't immoral at all and to some killing in defense is immoral. Given, these groups of people are very small, it still makes my list true.

Karadoc didn't say that.

Raping my daughter would be a problem. Fantasising about rape is not.

Look, I can't say I've fantasised about raping someone, but I have fantasised about killing people - and I bet most other people here have as well. It isn't a problem. I can fantasise as much as I like and it doesn't do any harm to anyone. The reason I'm bringing this up is that it is probably something that people here can relate to.

Yes, absolutely in my opinion. We are discussing our views here, aren't we?

How can you know that?

I am in the minority then...

Is it healthy to fantasize about killing people?

Until, one day, reality and fantasy blur into one thing and you end up doing this.

I can't seem to find an official age for the younger daughter anywhere... Probably doesn't help that I don't speak Japanese. And judging that sort of thing is never easy. I can see an argument being made that she could be a teenager^[1], which is at least a gray area, although that is easily open to interpretation.

Right, axilmar, it's a constant battle to keep our fantasies out of reality... It's an accident waiting to happen. A slippery slope. A liability. Lets solve the problem by putting restrictions on what people are allowed to fantasise about, so that we can all live in peace.

Why do you feel it is a restriction? unless you enjoy it, you wouldn't feel it's restrictive.

EDIT:

I do not support any restrictions on thought. That's fascism. You can think whatever you wish. But allowing such a game to go in public...it's like society accepting rape, even if society says it's immoral to do so.

So what would you advise? Are you calling for the game to be banned? Or is it simply a moral argument you're making? If the latter, then many would agree with you that it is, at the best, morally questionable to make a game like RapeLay. If the former...well, bans aren't really practicable, especially once you get people's back up about it--there would simply be a black market for illegal hentai games, much as there is now for child porn.

I don't think allowing a game like this one suggests that society is accepting rape any more than games with theft say that society accepts theft or games with murder say that society accepts murder or games with war say that society accepts war.

One thing that works but has been largely neglected is exposure. Prohibition does not really work, unless we talk about fascism. So, what is needed here is exposure to the media. Let the media talk about it, analyze it, display it, and let the people know that this game exists. Then if public opinion is largely against it, the company that made the game will be largely stigmatized and driven out of business in the most natural manner.

You can't stick everything in the same bag. There is a reason why you are stealing and from who you are stealing or who you are killing. As I said above, defense = good, offense = bad. So, if the poverty is so great and few people are ultra rich and you steal from them in order to feed your children, that's defense. It can be accepted. If you kill an oppressive dictator, that's defense, and it is acceptable. If you steal a kid's launch money, that's offense, and it's not acceptable. If you murder someone because you wanted to steal his watch, then that's offense, and it's not acceptable.

Rape, by it's very definition, is a violation of the other people's rights. It's offensive, and therefore not acceptable. By allowing this game to exist, society winks to people that "hey, it may be officially wrong, but in reality it is not that wrong".

Another viewpoint is the victim's viewpoint. If you would have been raped, how would you feel that your pain has become the object of entertainment for some people, and most importantly, how would you feel that society largely ignores your pain and instead tries to profit from it? if not betrayed, then you would feel raped again, at least psychologically.

Is it really worthwhile for a society to ignore victims in favor of entertainment? isn't it a moral downhill that one person's pain becomes the entertainment of another person, and that is accepted by the rest of the people? isn't that a violation of human rights?

You don't take your shoes off before raping someone? How uncivilized is that?

I ripped some fur off of a cat in KQ III.

You have a very strange definition of "defense".

Anyway, if you start banning anything that seems objectionable to someone, you will rather quickly end up banning everything.

Since when stealing from the ultra rich and giving to the ultra poor (when the population is 99% ultra poor) is not fair? in such a case, it's obvious that wealth is not redistributed properly.

It's not banning anything that seems objectionable to someone. It's banning something based on the widely acceptable principle that the freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another person begins.

Do you object to that principle?

{"name":"2652587063_b43c764eea.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/9\/99353adfd38f9e1938db369d63eebf1f.jpg","w":500,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/9\/99353adfd38f9e1938db369d63eebf1f"}

It depends on if the ultra rich got to be rich by stealing from the rest of the population. Otherwise, it's just that the poor are stealing from the rich (by voting for government that works via the politics of envy).

If you say the rich got that way by paying "sweatshop wages", the poor obviously thought that was better than their alternatives, so the "sweatshop" was a good thing. Otherwise the poor wouldn't have worked in the "sweatshop".

Otherwise, I'll go on the dole right now...

[EDIT]
If you think taking peoples money and giving it to poorer people is good, let's see you send a few hundred euros or whatever to ReyBrujo right now, no excuses.
(I assume he's not starving, but in a low income country)

So how does RapeLay impinge on anyone's freedom? At all? It's a video game. No actual rape was ever involved.

What about school-shootings which seem to be getting rather common-place. Internet videos probably are a factor (lots of imitators) but where do people get an idea that they should take lots others with them? Could waving guns all day in video games be a factor?

Perhaps they've got an idea that punishing their teasers (and some random bystanders) is OK as you are going to punish yourself in the end? Anyway, the reasoning seems a bit similarly faulty as the opinion that "killing is OK in defense". No, it isn't in a large number of cases - when you are attacked with a knife, you'd aim for the foot, not for the head. It also seems that in movies people are killed in defense rather liberately.

I imagine there's several different routes to this outcome.

• Chemical imbalance causing them to be angry/depressed when they should be happy.

• Giving up on life all together, feeling their's means nothing so why should anyone else's life mean anything

• Feeling of death is greater than life, therefore they wrongfully justify killing as saving

• A flip of a quarter

Except has any of this lead to frequent school shootings before? There seems to be a cultural shift in the notions about dying and suicide among young people, and it sort of coincides with the age of violent movies, video games and internet. Doesn't all that seem to make at least some people numb when it comes to these issues, a sort of black-and-white world-view (killing in defense - OK, killing in offense - bad)?

While school shootings and mass killings are high-profile, frightening events, the truth is that they are very rare compared to anything else. To paraphrase Bruce Schneier, don't worry about things you read about in the news. Worry about the things that are so common they don't even make the news anymore. More people die in drunk driving accidents every day than in even the worst of mass killings--so let's ban alcohol, shall we? It worked so well during Prohibition.

The increased frequency has a lot to do with momentum (imho). Once these shootings got media attention and the full impact was realized, others followed.

Absolutely. But makes people sheep to the point that they are willing to follow?

The rich always steal from the rest of the population. That's a huge topic, but it is very rare for rich people to be absolutely honest in their job.

It does not work like that. The poor have no alternative because the rich decided so.

Rape does. Rapelay just opens the way.

Personally I don't see a need for such types of games to exist, unless the majority of men fantasize about raping some girl. I wonder if this is true.

Sorry, but we have violent movies, video games and the internet here, but we've never had a school shooting (At least never by a student. There was an incident where some nutter shot up a primary school, but that was in 1923, so the internet can't be blamed for that.) It's more than just that.

How? Why would it?

I'm still not sure what, exactly, you're suggesting--when I asked you said something about exposure, which I don't think would work, but just recently you also said something about banning it. If you're talking about the former, then go ahead, say what you want. This has already gone through the controversy mill (see OP) and Illusion still exists. If you're talking about the latter--by what precedent do you ban a computer game? And why would you?

By allowing men to derive pleasure from raping women. If a person gets addicted to that kind of pleasure, then he might attempt it in real life.

I suggest that either it should be banned or it should be exposed. Banning it may create a black market for it, but this means there is demand, which means that a percentage of the male population enjoys raping women. Exposing it may force the producing company to withdraw the game and perhaps make no other future attempts on such a game.

You ban a computer game if it allows people to derive pleasure from others in unacceptable ways.

My question remains: is there a market for this game? are out there people that enjoy raping women, at least virtually?

Probably. There are people out there that enjoy just about anything. Or: Why would rape be a problem, if nobody enjoyed it?

But the computer game doesn't. I repeat: There is no actual rape involved. If you're going to start banning games based on what they allow you to do in-game--why not GTA? Halo? Any of the FPSs? Are you going to make it illegal to make a game that allows you to do anything illegal in real life? For that matter, what about Mario?

I guess there are couples that role-play raping for real. Sick bastards...

You could also try replacing "raping women" with "killing people" and see what kind of difference it makes. I also guess it's more acceptable to rape the women in a hostile country after you have killed their husbands in battle...

I agree with axilmar... all video games should be banned. Nothing good can come from them; they teach you nothing, yet let you fantasize about crime and dirty pleasure.

I hear your laughs. "What about Mario?" you say. Well, I had a good friend who was a normal person. You might be able to relate with me on that. Turned out he had a disorder (I forget the name) that made him susceptible to suicidal thoughts.

It just so happened that the first time Mario fell into a hole, he got a rush from that. A week later, he was going through more Mario lives than I thought possible. It didn't matter to him how he died... a goomba attack, a koopa swooping down from the sky, or even the flame from Bowser's castle (he usually couldn't last that long) would give him pleasure.

Apparently suicidal Mario wasn't enough for him. He hadn't returned my calls for a week, so I checked up on him. I walked into his bedroom, and there he was, hanging dead from the ceiling.

I called up Jack Thompson, but Nintendo bribed the courts with free Wiis, so nothing came of it.

If all people that play this game, and I mean 100% of players, can hold themselves back from committing rape in real life, then the game should not be banned. But if there is one, and I mean 1, person that commits rape because if this game, then it should be banned.

They are not sick, because they both agreed to it.

I game that its purpose was to kill people for entertainment would be equally problematic like Rapelay.

No, it's not.

I never said that. Just like in the other thread about c++, you just popped up with a worthless comment/flamebait. Don't you have something worth commenting to say? or do you think that you hurt my feelings with that comment? The only thing you achieve is to ridicule yourself.

And the rest of your comment is of the same low quality. Don't you have anything to say about rape? doesn't it concern you that your kids might be raped some day?

Now aply that logic to everything, and tell me something that should not be banned.

That rule doesn't scale well with increasing population

Suppose someone was so repulsed by the game that they would now take action when witnessing a rape as opposed to ignoring it as they used to?

What if the game wasn't the reason they were going to commit rape, they were going to rape someone, and they happened to download the game a day before and played it. It had no bearing on their decision to commit the act. To blame this game if any player of it goes out and rapes someone is too simplistic.

So there are games that are not for entertainment? OK, perhaps there are some simulators for the military...

Monopoly's even worse...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/rowanpelling/5196174/Look-where-the-morals-of-Monopoly-have-got-us.html

The obvious solution here is get women to carry more guns.

They should also play more killing games to be ready to do it for real.

Maybe they should play rapelay themselves, so they can learn the strategies used against them.

{"name":"intruder2_s.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/0\/d0a5da07c5fae41e4cdee14182ce0baa.jpg","w":600,"h":367,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/0\/d0a5da07c5fae41e4cdee14182ce0baa"}

I've always seen american elections as one of the top ten "I'm not thinking for myself" result in the entire world, I know americans who wouldn't talk to their children or parents if they choose "the other party"!

I've been paying gurochan a visit from time to time for a few years now and I'm pretty sure I haven't raped a hermaphrodite, killed him/her, and then let someone take a crap on hir corpse while I watch and eat popcorn, wait a minute.. it just came to me, maybe people want to be treated like that? No wait, that's probably not the case...
No person who can use their brain would think people accept raping simply by playing a raping game..

We are not all perfect humans like you are, some of us have feelings for certain things, and we have accepted those feelings, you should be more open beacuse I'm sure someone you know has something he or she has a thing for which you find very disgusting, and that person would hide that fact for his/her entire life in fear that you would hate him/her, if you don't want this person to feel lonely and being loved for something he/she isn't, then yes, you should be more open.

By that logic should we also ban everyone from life since that obviously isn't 100% safe either..

Sorry about that, don't know how your name got there..

He dosen't, in the same way you don't know fantasising about rape is bad.

I'm with you 100% here. Any game that causes someone to do something bad should be banned. How can you put a price on saving one person from being raped or killed? To avoid even one bad thing from happening is priceless.

But I'm offended that you take my friend's death so lightly. If it weren't for Mario, he'd still be alive. And it doesn't stop with him, it goes on and on. For example, what about 9-year-old Damori Miles who died after imitating a video game? He tied a cape to his neck and tried to do a Jeff Hardy swan dive off the roof.

How can one person getting raped be worse than two people dieing? That's hard for me to comprehend.

Easy, it's a fate worse than death

Then kill the person who got raped. Now we have 2 dead people vs 1 dead person.

Nothing to see here...

Isn't the aim of Mario to free the princess (who is probably under-age).

Oh that puts dirty thoughts in my mind.

Think of it this way, we all have those desires hidden under the surface of our psyche. Even if we don't have them now we had them once, it's in our history: murder, theft, bribary, rape, revenge. It happens everyday and it's been happened since the beginning of time. The reason it's a big deal now is because we have a defunct society in which most of our bestial desires are stupidly suppressed. The only release we get is from watching porn, movies, and playing violent games and such...In japan the porn industry are humongous unlike anywhere else, but this is how they keep the actual crime rates low...So those games may not be so bad, what's bad is suppressing our inherent desires for killing raping or whatever. Of course there is a healthy balance in all that too, and some people find it hard to keep it under control. Let them have it !

After playing a porn game, perhaps one is sort of disarmed. After playing a non-sexual violent game, I guess the adrenaline level stays high for a longer period of time.

I'm not much of a gamer, but it seems to me that for some time after watching an action movie, the aggression level remains higher for some time. One wouldn't get that aggressive without watching that movie.

The talk of violent games freeing one from stress and aggressiveness seems rather weird. You are not saying that you are saving lives in real life by playing them?

How is it weird?

Not unless you think that without that release we'd automatically go out and murder someone.

{"name":"2009-04-24.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/e\/5e3e207b4d77c522c77cd9f093676f77.gif","w":740,"h":253,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/e\/5e3e207b4d77c522c77cd9f093676f77"}

Yep.

In relation with a previous job I've had to read on aggression management. While it didn't have anything on video games, I guess it is not a good idea to let the inmates get all excited as it's quite unlikely that it would calm them down.

The sequel:

DeadLay

First kill your victim, then have your way with her. Try not to damage her vital parts while killing, you're going to need them... Scenarios include "The Child with the Shotgun Blasted Face" and many more.

I rather think that that one would have fewer customers.

There's a fighting game (ala Street Fighter) in which after you've defeated your opponent, you can heal their wounds by molesting massaging them. No actual raping included.
Here's a link to a review:
Battle Raper 2 - review @ SomethingAwful

EDIT ---
Oh yeah, the link may not be work safe. Depends on how your supervisor reacts to ninja bottocks. No actual nudity in the main article.

The first game in the series (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/hentai-game-reviews/battle-raper-hyper.php) looks much worse...

Wow, it seems the a.cc crowd is largely not bothered with this game.

I rest my case.

About what?

Well then, I suppose we should all just nip off to prison , where we obviously belong

The poor always steal from the rest of the population. That's a huge topic, but it is very rare for poor people to be absolutely honest in their job.

It doesn't work like that. The rich have no alternative because the poor decided so.

.. Ah, to be free of the burdens of proof and clear thoughts.

I'm sorry for your loss. If we appeal the decision we could get you millions for the privilege of knowing someone who killed themselves.

Do yourself a favor and grow up...

Hmmmm, if you're allowed to make narrow-minded immature statements like "Diplomacy, machinations, politics and betrayal have no place in sci-fi," then why isn't Dustin allowed the same licence?

Furthermore, I can think of a decent justification for saying that the poor steal from the rich all the time. Not one that I really agree with, but a justification nonetheless. : Taxes. People who earn more money pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes. I'm not just saying they pay more money, but that they pay a greater proportion of their money. There are more poor people than rich people, so poor people have more voting power, and poor people vote to make sure that rich people always pay higher taxes - the money from which will go to the poor.

So there you go. --- I'm just saying that I think the 'grow up' comment was a bit out of line.