'Rape simulator' game goes viral amid calls for censorship
It's undoubtedly an obnoxious game but it is a good illustration of how censorship can backfire
"Attempts to ban a deplorable "rape simulator" video game have only caused it to spread virally across the internet, leading to calls for sites hosting the game to be blocked by internet censors.
In the game players earn points for acts of sexual violence, including following girls on commuter trains, raping virgins and their mothers, and then forcing them to have abortions.
US online retailers Amazon and eBay in February last year took RapeLay off their websites, but the game's Yokohama-based maker Illusion brushed off the protests, saying the game was made for the domestic market and abided by laws in Japan.
But attempts by women's rights groups such as Equality Now to ban the game have only created a black market for it online, with dozens of websites offering it as a free download.
Source
30 comments:
Would they rather the players acted out the game in real life?
We live in a society where people of all ages are encouraged to sit for hours in front of a TV, on a phone, strapped to an iPod, or in front computer screen mostly taking in information and constant stimulus. Parents use them as baby sitters, teachers use them because teachers can't teach anymore, and prisons use them to keep criminals peaceful. There is little push to get kids and adults alike to engage in activities that actually foster mental creativity and physical exertion.
Is it so hard to understand why people resort to this kind of cathartic release?
Your lame attempt at justification for this outrage is pathetic. If you have young daughters, hopefully they will become the first victims of this "cathartic release".
Why is it that when an author writes a disgusting book we call that free speech yet when a web developer or video game designer creates a really filthy application with virtual characters lots of people want to ban it?
It's free speech! It's virtual characters! Nobody's getting hurt! Games are just like books, they are make believe.
If you don't believe me, then go ahead and ban Lolita which deals with a man falling in love with his girlfriend's daughter and eventually having sex with her. That's a book that later became a movie. Funny how that sort of filth is called "art" and protected by free speech while a computer game isn't.
"If you have young daughters, hopefully they will become the first victims of this "cathartic release"
---How so? Where's the connection of playing a game and committing a crime?
--How so? Where's the connection of playing a game and committing a crime?
Practice for the REAL thing, dimwit.
Pilots practice in simulators before they fly an actual plane.
If you demand that this kind of game be banned, you must demand even more vigorously that all killing games be banned, from war simulators to Tom Clancy games. The logic, of course, is that they normalize or otherwise make more acceptable the acts they depict.
If this is true, then you must demand that violent movies, like "The Rock," "The Usual Suspects," and "300" be banned too.
And you must also demand the banning of murder mysteries, any novel with violence therein, and any history book that talks about the use of firearms in the American Revolution.
Don't hold rape to a different standard. Yes, it's an abhorrent act. No, you don't get to ban it just because you don't like that someone else might get off on it.
-R.
I think it boils down to this question:
Does there ever come a point where it becomes unethical (illegal/wrong/whatever) to engage in immoral (illegal/unethical/whatever) activities in any environment (virtual or otherwise) where no one in reality is actually negatively affected (except possibly the participant?)
What if it is proven that engaging in these kinds of virtual activities makes a person more likely to commit a crime? What if the opposite effect is found?
We're told we can't smoke, eat fatty foods, use salt, and a host of other "pleasures". How is this any different?
Anonymous said...
Your lame attempt at justification for this outrage is pathetic. If you have young daughters, hopefully they will become the first victims of this "cathartic release".
1:57 AM
---------------------------------
No what is lame and pathetic is you condemn Anon 12:28 for trying to justify rape in a game and then wish it upon his daughters in real life.
Y'all missed the point of this being posted here. Yes, the game is unmitigaited crap, but it is not even close to the worst of it's breed avalible on the Japaneese domestic market. Can you name any of the other ones?
No?
Hmmm...wonder if that has to do with the fact they we're never subject to international outrage and sales bans and news stories. They just keep laboring on in their perverse obscurity, bothering nobody save the poor, life deprived basement dwellers that buy such rubbish. The "banned" game though is now avalible online, worldwide, and free.
Yep, that's how censorship and prohibitation work...
"Practice for the REAL thing, dimwit. "
---I have practiced murder thousands of times in video games, yet I've never killed anybody in real life, I haven't even had a fist fight since I was 13.
I have also read books about drug dealing, money laundering, hardcore horror, etc, yet I've never done any of those things.
I've never even gotten a ticket for speeding, so your premise that if you play a game about rape you are going to become a rapist is erroneous.
Tell me, did Jeffrey Dahmer played any video games that dealt with killing men, raping them and cutting their bodies into little pieces?
Virtual reality is not reality. When I go to the gun range is totally different than when I shoot guns in the video games. Real guns are loud, they sometimes hurt your hands and you get callouses, hitting the target is harder, reloading takes more time, sometimes you even sweat or can't hit your target at certain distances.
So this idea that a rape game is gonna teach you how to rape is ludicrous. My military games didn't teach me how to be a soldier, in fact, no matter how many Tom Clancy games you play, you're not going to know how to lockpick a door, disable a security camera, use a flashbang grenade, use a non-lethal maneuver or any of the things you do in the video games.
Games are easy, they have no consequences, that's why they're so appealing. In fact, I admit that sometimes gamers are lazy, after all, why do they play virtual basketball instead of real basketball? Why do they make their Sims character exercize when they might never do it themselves in real life? Why don't they join the military?
Simple, because virtual choices are easier than real choices.
Real life is hard, and people play video games to escape reality, to experience something different, to live a fantasy. What's so harmful about that?
Bobby said;
"It's free speech! It's virtual characters! Nobody's getting hurt! Games are just like books, they are make believe."
Bobby, your stupidity grows brighter with each passing day.
WOW....THREAD RAGE IS ALIVE AND WELL!
"Bobby, your stupidity grows brighter with each passing day."
---Funny how I'm often accused of being a liberal when you're the one who often engages in character assassination, just like the liberals do.
I guess you're not for free speech when it offends you. We're so different, I defend free speech in any circumstance, I may hate the speaker, hate what the speaker is saying, but I will fight for his right to say whatever he wants. And yes, video games, books, porn, they're all free speech.
And I'm not the only one on this thread that seems to think so, unlike you, there are plenty of patriotic Americans who are willing to stand for freedom even when they find it vile. Why? Because that's the difference between living in a free country vs. Nazi Germany. In Nazi Germany Hitler's brownshirts used to burn books they found immoral, and right now you're trying to burn computer game developers just because you find their development offensive.
Here's a quote for you:
" “Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.”
Adolf Hitler
Well, sometimes I like seeing the sky green, the fields blue, and the people playing the virtual games they wish. Unlike you, I don't need a Hitler to tell me what I can do because I'm a FREE MAN who likes to make choices myself. I will never play that rape game because it doesn't appeal to me, but if the government can ban one offensive game, they can ban other games and pretty soon they're banning everything under the sun. Is that what you want? Then fine, join a fascist group.
Bobby said "... I've never even gotten a ticket for speeding, so your premise that if you play a game about rape you are going to become a rapist is erroneous."
You may want to look in the mirror. Your premise that because the trait doesn't apply to you, it therefore doesn't apply to anyone in the group is equally erroneous.
And your Jeffrey Dahmer logic is laughable. If A then C, doesn't imply that if B then C can't be valid.
Leroy Jenkins - Your argument that we should censor something because of how some unstable person might react is ludicrous. It infuriates me. It makes me want to kill kittens and eat puppies. It makes me want to starve old people and torture young children. And when I start doing these things, society will have to blame YOU, because you made such an asinine argument! Never mind I went off my meds, and am generally unstable to begin with! Never mind I am completely out of touch with reality and have no concept of right or wrong. No, it's all Letroy's Fault! His argument sent me over the edge! It should have been censored! He should have been stopped! It's all HIS fault that I couldn't handle his opinion!
Booby, there ya go again. When all else fails, start quoting Hitler. So predictable...
There are several things to consider here. First, the game is vile, but as no real people are harmed, it is not pornographic and the government has not business trying to censor it. Individuals, whether the common person, groups, retailers, etc, have the right to say that the game is vile and that a store should not carry it, sell it or promote it.
Bobby's stance is, as usual, inconsistent and self-serving. He claims that he is for "free speech," but in a recent thread he wanted to shut down exercising free speech by having a religious meeting in the privacy of their home. Bobby is a free speech advocate as long as he agrees with the speech.
The other thing to remember is that Bobby, when he can find a job, works in the advertising business. That means his chosen line of work is getting people to change their actions based upon graphics and words. He then says that games such as RapeLay cannot influence people by the same graphics and words.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
"You may want to look in the mirror. Your premise that because the trait doesn't apply to you, it therefore doesn't apply to anyone in the group is equally erroneous."
---So if a person has some criminal trait, are you saying the video game, movie or book is going to bring it out?
Remember the Columbine killers? They played Doom and Quake, a game that is popular with MILLIONS of people who don't commit school shootings. So why blame the game?
Evil doesn't come from games, guns or books, it comes from people.
"Booby, there ya go again. When all else fails, start quoting Hitler. So predictable..."
---He's a great example, but let me give you a larger list of evil people who never played video games: Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Pinochet, Franco, William Ayres, The Marquis de Sade, Jack the Ripper, Nero and Caligula. All of these men did really evil stuff and none of them can blame the culture around them for what they did.
Playing a virtual rape game is not the same as being a rapist.
Bobby = Pretzel Logic.
---So if a person has some criminal trait, are you saying the video game, movie or book is going to bring it out?
I just want to make sure I have this straight. You claim that the book or video game cannot bring out criminal traits, and then cite Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as someone who played the game and committed mass murder.
You do realize that you just destroyed your own point, don't you?
By the way, are you saying that The Turner Diaries had nothing to do with Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing?
Penn and Teller did a show (I don't know if the name of the show will make it past internet censors) on video game violence. They showed that just because a person plays a video game, that doesn't mean they want to do the same things in real life.
With a name like Leroy Jenkins, I wouldn't be talking in favor of video game sensorship.
If we want to censor programs because of a persons possible response to the program, we should just lock everyone in padded cells and be done with it. I get closer to becoming violent watching CSPAN than I do playing video games. Why worry about cartoon characters in their underwear when I can watch Baywatch, or many other shows with real women in bikinis?
If you don't like a game, don't buy it, if you don't want your kids to play a game, don't allow it in your home, and talk to them about why it is inappropriate. What happened to personal responsibility? No game, show, or book has ever caused me to do anything-I am in control of myself, I do not give control to computers, books, or video, and I definitely don't want government to try to control me.
"You do realize that you just destroyed your own point, don't you?"
---No, because I've played the same games the Columbine killers played and I've yet to kill anybody. My point is that the Columbine killers would have done what they did with or without video games.
"By the way, are you saying that The Turner Diaries had nothing to do with Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing?"
---Thousands of people have read that book yet only a few have been inspired by it in their quest to commit violence, what does that tell you? Timothy is responsible for his own actions, he cannot blame them on a book. By the same token, when some nut bombs an abortion clinic I don't blame his actions on the bible, even if he uses the bible to justify his actions.
"That means his chosen line of work is getting people to change their actions based upon graphics and words. He then says that games such as RapeLay cannot influence people by the same graphics and words.
The hypocrisy is astounding."
---Does RapeLay have a call to action like "now that you've raped virtual women, try the real thing today!"? No, they have no such call to action, and even with a call to action people still do what they already want to do. Get it? You can't sell ice to an eskimo but if you target your ad to a man in the desert dying of thirst, that customer already wants your product and becomes an easier sale. So while my job is to write ad copy, the marketing and media people figure out who's needs to see my work and they make sure I'm preaching to the choir rather than to a bunch of infidels.
My point is that the Columbine killers would have done what they did with or without video games.
And your proof of that is what? You are trying to make a blanket statement to cover all people yet your own example refutes your point.
---Thousands of people have read that book yet only a few have been inspired by it in their quest to commit violence, what does that tell you?
It tells me that in some cases, the Turner Diaries inspires and influences people to violence. McVeigh said that he was inspired by the Turner Diaries to blow up the Murrow Building. He didn't blame the book for his actions, but admitted he was influenced by the book.
No, they have no such call to action, and even with a call to action people still do what they already want to do.
Then your ads, no matter what you want to believe, don't affect anyone. Yet you later claim that they do.
they make sure I'm preaching to the choir rather than to a bunch of infidels.
You must really think that people are stupid if you want to put this kind of garbage out there. Are you really trying to say that you don't influence people to buy a product they have never tried before? Are you really trying to say that you don't want to increase market share?
---Does RapeLay have a call to action like "now that you've raped virtual women, try the real thing today!"
So your position is that the VW ads where the people punch each other every time they see a VW has nothing to do with influencing a person so buy a VW, but is all about hitting people? The Captain Morgan ads where "there is a little pirate in all of us" is about standing on one leg and not about drinking Captain Morgan rum?
Your premise that a direct "call to action" must be present to influence someone is contradicted by your own profession.
Your stance on this, like so many other things, is hypocritical.
I wonder if some of the women in the game are armed and will pull out a gun and blow away the attempted rapist in the act, or if they're all disarmed, weak, and easy targets. The former would be much more realistic, with the real-life elements of risk. But since it's a fantasy game, it's probably the latter. Real-life risks is another factor that prevents people from trying criminal acts for real.
As for advertising, the real goal is to make potential customers already inclined to buy similar products to the one being advertised aware that the advertised product exists as well, and may well satisfy their desires better than competing products. Advertising wine to a teetotaler isn't going to make him start drinking, but advertising a particular wine to a wine afficionado may get him to try the particular wine advertised.
"And your proof of that is what?"
---My proof is that when Cain killed Abel it wasn't because he played Quake.
"It tells me that in some cases, the Turner Diaries inspires and influences people to violence. McVeigh said that he was inspired by the Turner Diaries to blow up the Murrow Building. He didn't blame the book for his actions, but admitted he was influenced by the book."
---So what do you want then, you want to ban The Turner Diaries to prevent future McVeighs from being influenced by such books?
"Then your ads, no matter what you want to believe, don't affect anyone. Yet you later claim that they do."
---Advertising is a crapshoot, it's not scientific, you try a marketing approach and maybe it works and maybe it doesn't work. Sometimes boring advertising sells better, other times creative advertising does better, and sometimes the product is so bad that people will not buy it no matter how much you advertise. Either way, persuasion is not as easy as people think.
"You must really think that people are stupid if you want to put this kind of garbage out there. Are you really trying to say that you don't influence people to buy a product they have never tried before? Are you really trying to say that you don't want to increase market share?"
---I don't think people are stupid, quite the opposite, people are extremely smart, incredibly cynical, and advertising doesn't fool them the way it used to fool them. Of course I want to increase market share, but it doesn't depend on me, it depends on how the consumer receives my message.
"So your position is that the VW ads where the people punch each other every time they see a VW has nothing to do with influencing a person so buy a VW, but is all about hitting people?"
---No, the VW ads are simply funny commercials that make many people smile, feel good about the brand, and perhaps consider buying a VW.
"Your premise that a direct "call to action" must be present to influence someone is contradicted by your own profession."
---You're focusing on creative advertisements that don't use a call to action. Most advertising has a call to action "Call in the next 30 minutes and you'll get an additional 20% off." Or you get a direct mail from Harrah's telling you that you have 30 days to go to the casino if you want to get a coupon for $50.
Tell me, do you like Burger King advertising? I read the franchisees have been complaining because the ads are very creative but are not jumping up sales. Remember wake up with the King? Plenty of people where freaked out by that ad.
Besides, the rape game isn't selling real rape, they're not encouraging people to rape real human beings. That would be like an online casino telling you to go to Vegas and play offline, why the hell would they want that?
---My proof is that when Cain killed Abel it wasn't because he played Quake.
I'll just take that to mean that you have absolutely no proof of your assertion.
---So what do you want then, you want to ban The Turner Diaries to prevent future McVeighs from being influenced by such books?
How about just an acknowledgment that your assertion was wrong?
Either way, persuasion is not as easy as people think.
But you now admit that persuasion is possible. That is a not what you said or claimed earlier.
---I don't think people are stupid, quite the opposite, people are extremely smart,
Good. because it is clear that the garbage you are putting forth in this discussion is seen as such by those same smart people.
it depends on how the consumer receives my message.
Yet your responsibility it to influence as many people to receive that message in a positive connective way.
---No, the VW ads are simply funny commercials that make many people smile, feel good about the brand, and perhaps consider buying a VW.
Exactly. So your earlier statement that the game couldn't influence anyone because there was no direct "call to action" is not true.
---You're focusing on creative advertisements that don't use a call to action. Most advertising has a call to action
No, I am simply pointing out that your statement that since RealLay had no "call to action" and therefore could not influence anyone is not true or accurate.
You are the supposed "expert" in this field and yet you either weren't aware of this or deliberately lied.
Which is it?
Besides, the rape game isn't selling real rape, they're not encouraging people to rape real human beings.
Here we go again. The VW ads are not selling cars. You admitted that and yet you said that the ads could and do influence people to do something associated in the ads.
That would be like an online casino telling you to go to Vegas and play offline, why the hell would they want that?
Are you really that stupid? Why do you postulate hypothetical situations that are not allowed by law?
The bottom line is that you originally claimed that the game couldn't influence people. We have clearly established that it can.
All your obfuscating, lying and hypotheticals won't change that.
My proof is that when Cain killed Abel it wasn't because he played Quake.
Proof based on a book of fairy tales?
"How about just an acknowledgment that your assertion was wrong?"
---Just because sick people get inspired by artworks doesn't mean my assertion is wrong. Otherwise you're like the person who blames the rape victim for wearing a miniskirt and thus exciting the rapist.
"But you now admit that persuasion is possible. That is a not what you said or claimed earlier."
---Well yes, it is possible in some cases. However, a game provides entertainment only when you play the game. Playing an army game is fun, joining the military and having to wake up at 5am in the morning and march 4 miles is not necessarily fun. Virtual rape is fun for sick people, trying to rape people in real life may demand wasting hours looking for a victim, finding a dark alley, forcing yourself into an apartment, risking jail and risking being anally raped in prison if you're convicted. So, if a game offers you immediate gratification without getting hurt, without risking jail, without destroying your life, why would you want to try the real think unless you're sick?
"Good. because it is clear that the garbage you are putting forth in this discussion is seen as such by those same smart people."
---Robert disagrees with you: "Advertising wine to a teetotaler isn't going to make him start drinking, but advertising a particular wine to a wine afficionado may get him to try the particular wine advertised."
That's the truth, Viagra doesn't advertise to young people who don't need it, they advertise to older men who might need it. Thus, we advertise to people who are very likely to want our product. In other words, we preach to the converted for the most part.
"Yet your responsibility it to influence as many people to receive that message in a positive connective way."
---Not really, my responsibility is to write copy. Account people and the client give me direction and they will buy the work if they like it. After the work is released I never get to see the sales figures, only account people get that information.
"Exactly. So your earlier statement that the game couldn't influence anyone because there was no direct "call to action" is not true."
---Maybe I shouldn't have said "anyone," but unless this game creates thousands of new rapists I think my argument still stands.
"Here we go again. The VW ads are not selling cars. You admitted that and yet you said that the ads could and do influence people to do something associated in the ads."
---What are you talking about? The VW ads are selling cars, they're just doing a "soft sell." If the rape game is selling anything it's virtual rape, this isn't a youtube website where you film yourself committing rape and then post it online.
"Are you really that stupid? Why do you postulate hypothetical situations that are not allowed by law?"
---Online casinos do exist, your argument is that the virtual environment encourages you to do stuff in real life. My argument is that it doesn't. What you do online stays online, in fact, some people are completely different online, they develop avatars and personalities completely different from their real lives.
"The bottom line is that you originally claimed that the game couldn't influence people. We have clearly established that it can."
---So what you're saying is that anything that influence anyone in a negative way has to be removed from society, right? That means no alcohol, no tobacco, no casinos, no legal prostitution where it's allowed, no pornography, no fatty foods, no Jerry Springer... What you seem to want is some kind of Mr. Rogers Walt Disney family-friendly world.
How 'bout some personal responsibility? How 'bout punishing real rapists instead of worrying about virtual ones? How about building more prisons, using the death penalty more often, giving sex offenders castration? Of course, those things are hard to do, which is why some people would rather worry about a virtual rape game. How silly, instead of dealing with real problems we're focusing on virtual ones.
---Just because sick people get inspired by artworks doesn't mean my assertion is wrong.
In that your assertion was people don't get inspired or influenced by such works, you are most certainly wrong.
---Well yes, it is possible in some cases.
Flip, meet flop.
---Not really, my responsibility is to write copy.
So you write copy that doesn't present the product in a positive light or in a connective way?
---Maybe I shouldn't have said "anyone," but unless this game creates thousands of new rapists I think my argument still stands.
Amazing. Even though you flip flop all over the place and admit that your argument was wrong, you still want to cling to it.
---What are you talking about? The VW ads are selling cars, they're just doing a "soft sell."
Perhaps you forgot that you admitted that there was no "call to action" in the ads?
---Online casinos do exist,
Yes they do. That has nothing to do with your hypothetical situation.
---So what you're saying is that anything that influence anyone in a negative way has to be removed from society, right?
Let me repeat what I said: The bottom line is that you originally claimed that the game couldn't influence people. We have clearly established that it can.
Now, do you see anything in there about removing something from society?
How 'bout some personal responsibility?
What a joke. This from a guy who won;'t own up to the lies he makes, won't own up to being wrong, won't own up to being addicted to sex, porn and prostitutes.
How about you take a little personal responsibility in your life?
How about you stop running around trying to convince people that you are a champion of free speech while wanting to shut down speech you disagree with?
If you want to claim that others should have personal responsibility in their lives, try having it in yours.
hahaha the game is a little lame, but I can't stop playing and laugh a little at all the knee-jerk reactions from people here. We either have the right to express ourselves or we don't and so long as no one gets hurt while partaking in this activity, everyone who doesn't like it should treat it like something on television or radio they find distasteful, ignore it. I really hate the prissy-pants police who feel anything they don't like should be banned. I think you people should be banned from life.
Post a Comment