Porn is not speech. It is not authoritarian to decide you don't want to let people sell porn on your platform. And feeding a perverse appetite doesn't protect anyone, in fact it will likely cause that appetite to grow. Do you believe that someone who plays a rape fantasy game is less likely to commit sexual assault than a person who doesn't? Maybe we should encourage people to fantasize about something other than rape and incest with the things we create and publish...
211 days ago(+4)
Disagree. By playing a rape/sexual assault fantasy game (or, in other words, fantasizing committing about rape/sexual assault), you cause the desire within yourself for rape/violent sex/sexual abuse to grow. Just like with an addiction. No one wakes up an addict. It happens like this:
- Someone has an unhealthy desire.
- They indulge it.
- The desire grows stronger.
- The way they indulged it before no longer satisfies.
- So they indulge it in a more extreme, focused way.
- Repeat.
It may be that not everyone who plays SA fantasy games like this will follow through and really do it. But do you seriously believe that someone who fantasizes about sexual assault (and is aroused by it) is less likely to actually do it than someone who doesn't???
211 days ago (+3)
What do you mean, "sexual predators will not play these games"? Why wouldn't they?
Tobacco addiction still fits my illustration. There are many pack-a-day type people. But they don't start like that. They start small and need more and more until they are pack-a-day types. Some may stop before they reach a pack a day. But they are still far closer to that than someone who never starts. And they still suffer many other negative effects from their use of tobacco that those who never started don't have. Additionally, tobacco is not fulfilling a perverted, evil desire the way sexual assault is. With sexual assault, the end result is far worse.
I'm not blaming rape or sexual assault on the video game. But first person shooters -> school shootings is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Most of them are in the context of war, which is different from school shootings. I would condemn a "School Shooting Simulator" game on similar grounds that I would condemn this game on. If a game contains purposeless, realistic violence, and the sole point of the game is to revel in that violence, I would say that raises red flags.
The idea that what you do for entertainment doesn't affect the rest of your life outside of that entertainment is just laughable. Pay attention to your own life, and you will see that it is true. Playing a game like this can contribute to the perverted desires that negatively affect everyone who has them, and can drive some to do terrible things. Meanwhile, what's the upside? It is fair for a platform to decide to remove porn (which is not speech) that negatively affects everyone and benefits no one. As someone who has use this platform for years, I support that decision 100%.
I think that the best option would be to refrain from committing sexual assault AND to refrain from fantasizing about it?
And if I were running a platform, I would be absolutely justified in removing content that promotes such things.
198 days ago(+1)
The issue with guns isn't that it's "the gun's fault" it's that it's way too easy for batshit insane people who want to commit gun violence to get their hands on a gun. Background checks for gun ownership are pretty much nonexistent.
197 days ago(+2)
Because this game glorified and romanticized the topic. It portrayed it as a good thing, a fantasy, rather than as the immoral act it is. It was made PURELY for the player's sexual gratification.
196 days ago(+2)
Turns out that changed at some point. Now blocking someone also prevents them from replying directly to one of your posts. (They can still post in a topic you started.) The error message is oblique, and I don't remember seeing this feature announced, so it can be confusing.
195 days ago(+1)
Sigh. Itch being Itch again.
And kids being kids. Plugging your ears against arguments. I can understand blocking people for various reasons. But blocking people you are having a discussion with, that is just lame and immature.
211 days ago(+3)
Do you believe that someone who plays a rape fantasy game is less likely to commit sexual assault than a person who doesn't?
I do not believe the typical person that commits sexual assault is a typical video game player to begin with. But as it is with any crime and popular hobbies you will find an overlap. But cause and effect do not even go into that overlap. Video games are no longer only for nerds.
You are engaging in the same faulty arguments that are around for decades to bash video games and the people who play them.
By playing a rape/sexual assault fantasy game (or, in other words, fantasizing committing about rape/sexual assault)
This is a fallacy.
So you accuse me of fantasizing of being a real life mass murderer when I play some first person shooter or basically any role playing game where you collect experience by killing?! Because that is what your logic boils down to. You assert that people who play such games fantasize about doing those things in real life. And from this premise you construct your argument how bad those games are. It is fallacious. Your premise is wrong.
If you want to argue soundly, try finding statistics that would link a rise in certain crimes with the popularity of certain games. But even if there is a link, the question is, what is cause and what is effect. A high unemployment rate can be cause for both - people having time to play games and people doing bad things.
Since a crime like sexual assault was done long before games and is still done in areas not known for their video game culture or freely available adult games, it is highly doubtable that there is a causal connection.
There is of course a cultural bias, but Japan is infamous for their adult games including questionable topics. And what do the statistics say about them? They have one of the lowest sa statistics worldwide. Some people even argue the opposite cause and effect and claim that this fantasy outlet reduces such crimes.
My stance is, that people can distinguish between fiction and reality. It is one of the first things we learn as infants. Pretend play. And they engage in fiction for entertainment, and not to fantasize about doing that fiction thing in real life.
211 days ago (+2)
First of all, this idea from gamers that what you do for entertainment has no effect on the rest of your life is just not true. I've heard this before, about how people bash gamers for playing violent video games, and how it is essentially bs. But it is simply incontrovertible that something you spend multiple hours doing every day affects the way you think and see the world. How could it not? A person who fantasizes about raping their stepmother, or is entertained by the idea of doing so, is absolutely feeding a desire that will grow and create destruction in their life.
I do not accuse you of "fantasizing of being a real life mass murderer" when you play FPS games. I certainly hope you don't do that. As I mentioned in another reply, FPS shooters to mass-murderer is not really an apples-to-apples comparison. A better comparison would be a game where players perpetrate a school shooting or something like that. I would say a game that is based around purposeless, realistic violence, where the point is to just revel in the act of inflicting harm on other people is bad. A platform like this, would be justified in removing such a game. It is for similar reasons that I feel they were justified in removing this one.
I'm really not interested in playing the statistics game. The lack of some "statistic" linking a game where you sexually assault your stepmom to real-life sexual assaults really doesn't prove anything. You can find a statistic to support almost any claim in the world if you look hard enough, even nonsensical ones. There are many other factors that contribute to SA that could easily conceal the effect of one video game. But that does not mean the effect is not there.
By playing a game where you do something like this, you subconsciously normalize such things in your mind, and in a way, glorify them. And I cannot condone normalizing or glorifying sexual assault.
In your last paragraph, you said that people engage in fiction for entertainment. The fiction we are talking about here is sexually assaulting your stepmom. If anyone finds that entertaining, I would say that is pretty messed up and that they should stop entertaining themselves in that way.
Summary
What you do for entertainment has an effect on the way you look at the world. That includes video games. A video game where you commit SA is included in that. The effect such a game has is bad, as it leads to the normalization and glorification of SA. If SA is normalized and glorified in someone's mind, they are more likely (not guaranteed, just more likely), to view it as not a big deal and be dismissive of it. Therefore, it is a bad idea to play a game like that. And knowing that, a platform like this can and should refuse to list it for sale.
208 days ago(+1)
you used CHAT GPT to think for you with that summary with no evidence.
on your feelings.
in fact. the peopel that have such fantasies are on p hub and NO ONE IS HARMED. the more accessablity the more violent crime has gone down.
The people who speak out against such games and actually surpress. have the worst track record.
your disagreement to the contrary comes with no evidence. such convictions... should have you seen as dangerous. VERY dangerous. 
207 days ago(+1)
No, I wrote that summary myself.
It's pretty scummy to baselessly suggest that I might be a child molester, or to compare me to one. But I would expect nothing less from someone who made an account on this site just to complain about some SA virtual porn being removed.
198 days ago(+1)
Bold of you to assume they used AI for a summary they wrote themself when you can't even use basic grammar or have proper spelling.
208 days ago(+2)
"First of all, this idea from gamers that what you do for entertainment has no effect on the rest of your life is just not true. I've heard this before, about how people bash gamers for playing violent video games, and how it is essentially bs. But it is simply incontrovertible that something you spend multiple hours doing every day affects the way you think and see the world. How could it not?"
Well if it doesn't work for violence how does it work for sexual violence?
" As I mentioned in another reply, FPS shooters to mass-murderer is not really an apples-to-apples comparison. " they're both violence. it really is that.
It is dishonest and slimy to say otherwise.
"or is entertained by the idea of doing so, is absolutely feeding a desire that will grow and create destruction in their life."
that's the same thing said about violence in video games that has since been disproven. the verytthing you call BS.
"I'm really not interested in playing the statistics game. "
you're not interested in any evidence.
you should not play games. at all. you aren't even fully capable.
who gets to decide? who is good enough? you just want to decide for others or think there's someone good enough who can. but wouldn't that person become the most debauched? how are you or anyone able to even tell what or where these problematic things are?
"The effect such a game has is bad, as it leads to the normalization and glorification of SA. " how?
where? there are games that glorify and gamify violence that YOU enjoy if we take a look at what you buy and consume.
that summary has nothing but an emotional plea and an argument for control out of "concern" over unfounded things. you make bold cliams with no proof.
are you even human? how many women have YOU hurt?
207 days ago(+1)
I have hurt no women. How many have you hurt, Antigone_Black? And what do you mean by "are you even human?"
"Well if it doesn't work for violence how does it work for sexual violence?"
It does work for violence. If you spend hours a day pretending to engage in violence, that will affect the way you think and see the world. And it will normalize violence in your mind, which may cause you to be more prone to violent reactions.
"they're both violence. it really is that.
It is dishonest and slimy to say otherwise. "
We can distinguish between different types of violence. Your suggestion that we can't is asinine.
"that's the same thing said about violence in video games that has since been disproven."
Disproven? I haven't seen it disproven. And I have researched this.
"you're not interested in any evidence."
As I said in the full reply, you can find a statistic to support any claim you want. By all means, go google some studies that support your point. Then I will go do the same thing for my point, and we will go round and round the circle forever, and never get anywhere.
"where? there are games that glorify and gamify violence that YOU enjoy if we take a look at what you buy and consume."
No, I don't play games that glorify purposeless, realistic violence for its own sake. Just like I don't play games that glorify SA.
Finally, my summary was anything but emotional. I clearly drew the connection between using SA material for entertainment, and how that leads to SA being considered normal and acceptable. I then stated that because of that, people should not play the game, and that itchio was justified in removing it. These are not bold claims, they are claims backed up by common sense and reason.
I have been charitable in answering you, but you have not been so with me. you have baselessly compared me to a child molester and implied that I am a sexual abuser. Why so much aggression? You are acting shamefully.
192 days ago(+1)
I think people don't like being confronted with the real-world implications of their entertainment. People will use arguments like "it's a far-right plot" or "there are no studies that conclusively demonstrate a causal relationship between x game and y real-world result", or etc to avoid having to honestly and logically assess those implications.
Highly likely. People in this thread comparing it to GTA are laughable in my opinion, also. No Mercy was made specifically for the sexual gratification of the viewer, and anyone with a basic understanding of how porn addiction works knows that it's a bad idea to cater to the more-extreme side of things, because then they're a step away from their addiction worsening and, while unlikely, them actually needing to commit violent sexual acts to real people, even if not flat-out rape. GTA, needless to say, isn't a game made for sexual gratification. Sure, it's NSFW, but NSFW in the sense that the language and violence aren't workplace-appropriate, and nothing more. Violence in GTA has societal, monetary, story-related, and social consequences. The story heavily involves these consequences. The point of GTA is to tell a story. Sure, there's a non-story mode, but it ultimately is to tell a story and has consequences for bad actions. It doesn't glorify the actions shown. No Mercy existed only for shock value and for sexual gratification, the two are in no way comparable morally. A game about a rape has the right to exist and can even be highly praised (see: Mouthwashing), but is still subject to criticism if improperly created. No Mercy did not approach rape as the horrible act it was. It approached it as power-tripping fap material. No Mercy wasn't made in good faith and deserves every bit of flack it gets and deserves to be banned- games uploaded on privately owned websites are not free speech- sspecially with how we live in a society that blames victims for being raped. Thank you for your respectful reply, and I agree.
140 days ago(+1)
https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/fact-checked/porn-does-not-incite-violence/
This is not true at all. You are going on feelings instead of facts . Your reasoning is not reason it is dangerous
208 days ago(+2)
First of all, this idea from gamers that what you do for entertainment has no effect on the rest of your life is just not true.
What you do for entertainment has of course influence. This is not in dispute - not from me. But you do not bring any evidence that entertainment x brings about bad thing y. Search out studies, bring forth evidence. Make your arguments sound. Convince me. You can do that with sound arguments! You will achieve the opposite with unsound arguments.
What you brought was essentially wishfull thinking. You assert that playing x is bad because whatever your chain of logic was. There is another chain of logic that playing x would suppress any urges to try out x in real life, which would make games about x a good thing, would it not. You did not disprove that. I actually looked at some statistics, and the orders of magnitude between Japan and "the West" ist about 2 : 40. Let's round that down to x10 because of cultural bias. So, a place where games with such questionable content are more available has a ten times lower rate of crimes like SA. I take that as a strong hint, that your chain of logic is what I said: wishfull thinking. You think it works out that way. But it does not and might even work the complete opposite way: someone seeing/playing/reading a thing in fiction realizes that they could never ever do that thing in real life. But they still might enjoy the story or artworks or gameplay, just as we like to watch horror movies and play horror games.
Now, I am not convinced that it does work this way, but data and my own decades long experience in video games hint at it, and I want a lot better evidence than your assertions to contemplate restricting adult entertainment that consists of made up things and pixels. I have no right to restrict another person's choice of entertainment. Even if I am appaled or disgusted by it. Even if it depicts fictional things that are illegal in real life.
A person who fantasizes about raping their stepmother, or is entertained by the idea of doing so, is absolutely feeding a desire that will grow and create destruction in their life.
There is a break in logic here. You start at the point where you already have someone contemplating actual crime. You beg the question. You also equate being entertained to fantasizing about the thing. And that is why I accused you of accusing me of fantasiszing about mass murder! You assert a psychological mechanism and you assert a motivation. There is no reason to believe these things would only work for adult games.
Oh, and you also assert what feeding the desire with fiction would do. Convince me with data and not with assertions. This mechanism has been debunked for decades, which is why I am fed up with the blame-the-games-rhetoric. There is no need for video games to make people do crimes. But they are a ready scapegoat to blame. Music got the same treatement when video games were not a thing. It is the same again and again.
where the point is to just revel in the act of inflicting harm on other people is bad
... but it is not other people. You just assert that those people fantasize about doing things for real. You do not know what their motivation is. I assure you, a game without any gameplay will get boring quickly and the novelty factor of seeing realistic graphics wears off quickly. You need things like story and gameplay. What fades less quickly is the annoyance if you see signs of censorship in the game you are playing. Someone trying to impose their agenda on your entertainment. Kinda like the beeps in some audio tracks.
There do be people inflicting harm on actual people in games. But that is another topic entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
The effect such a game has is bad, as it leads to the normalization and glorification
You phrase this like an argument, but this is a claim. You did not substanciate this claim beyond offering your psychological mechanisms, which have been debunked decades ago. You make a step from fiction to reality. But you did not explain that step. You just assert that it happens.
Do not blame video games. Do not blame fiction. There is no easy excuses or scapegoats for what some humans do. And I am glad about anyone being able to blow off steam by playing a fictional game. In ancient Rome people would watch real people get killed in arena games. I think entertainment has bettered a lot after the rise of fictional games.
207 days ago(+1)
I must say that although we clearly agree on little, I appreciate that you have responded civilly, unlike OP.
I am glad we agree that entertainment has influence. The question now is what influence does it have. The main evidence that I have presented so far is logical: that if a person uses SA as entertainment, they must accept that it is entertaining, which means that they must, on some level, view it as acceptable. People are not entertained things that they view as totally unacceptable. And people tend to do things that they believe to be acceptable. You would agree with that, right?
"What you brought was essentially wishful thinking. You assert that playing x is bad because whatever your chain of logic was. There is another chain of logic that playing x would suppress any urges to try out x in real life, which would make games about x a good thing, would it not. You did not disprove that."
First of all, I find that chain of logic to be faulty. How would playing a game suppress such urges? Speaking of things that have been disproven, the idea of "blowing off steam" to suppress desires has been accepted as false and damaging.
Secondly, I demonstrated that feeding addictive behaviors leads that desire to increase, causing people to need more in order to satisfy. And I did it using a pattern that everyone can recognize in addiction, including drug addiction, porn addiction, etc. Can you point out a fault in that chain of logic? I pointed out the problem in the chain you suggested.
"But it does not and might even work the complete opposite way: someone seeing/playing/reading a thing in fiction realizes that they could never ever do that thing in real life."
This is where the realism of the game comes in and becomes important. In a game like Warhammer, where everything is so obviously fictional and impossible, this principle might apply. But there is nothing "impossible" about sexually assaulting someone. It can be done. This is an important distinction.
For your example about Japan: I admit that I know little about SA games from Japan because I don't play such things. But this is why I don't think statistics can really tell us the full story. Why did you decide to round to x10? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. There are a whole host of other factors like I mentioned before (apart from "cultural bias") that could hide the impact of their SA games. Underreporting, harsher penalties for sexual criminals, possible differences in legal definitions and counting systems just to name a few. Your example makes so many assumptions that I find it functionally useless.
"Now, I am not convinced that it does work this way, but data and my own decades long experience in video games hint at it, and I want a lot better evidence than your assertions to contemplate restricting adult entertainment that consists of made up things and pixels. I have no right to restrict another person's choice of entertainment. Even if I am appaled or disgusted by it. Even if it depicts fictional things that are illegal in real life."
Not much to say here. I just don't agree. I think its fine for this platform to choose to restrict access to SA material. No rights are violated.
"There is a break in logic here. You start at the point where you already have someone contemplating actual crime. You beg the question. You also equate being entertained to fantasizing about the thing. And that is why I accused you of accusing me of fantasiszing about mass murder! You assert a psychological mechanism and you assert a motivation. There is no reason to believe these things would only work for adult games."
There is no begging the question because the person we are talking about is playing the game about raping their stepmother for entertainment. And I never claimed they work exclusively in adult games. But I do claim that is one place where they work. Also, remember that I said that all FPS games to mass murderer is not a comparison I would use.
I'm sorry you are sick of the "blame-the-games" rhetoric, but as I said, the games you play have an effect on your life whether you are sick of it or not. The mechanism I mentioned, which is that what you do for entertainment affects how you view the world, and that how your view the world affects how you act, is just obviously true.
"... but it is not other people. You just assert that those people fantasize about doing things for real. You do not know what their motivation is. I assure you, a game without any gameplay will get boring quickly and the novelty factor of seeing realistic graphics wears off quickly. You need things like story and gameplay. What fades less quickly is the annoyance if you see signs of censorship in the game you are playing. Someone trying to impose their agenda on your entertainment. Kinda like the beeps in some audio tracks. "
You talk about the "novelty factor" wearing off. This means it becomes normal. In a game like this, where SA is the topic, that means the novelty factor around SA wears off, and it becomes normal. This is bad.
Finally, with regards to your frequent requests for data: Show me some data that proves that playing games featuring SA has no correlation with viewing sexual assault as acceptable. We could go back and forth sending each other links to studies supporting our opinions for a very long time, and never get anywhere.
Certainly, SA is not the exclusive fault of video games. But, if a game contributes to the novelty factor of SA wearing off, it is a game that I would not host on any site I own.
207 days ago(+1)
OP is on a rant. I only understand half of it. But some things like that picture with the kid playing games and getting it from the adults and the young adult getting it from the older people with the same BS in different words, is how I see the situation. I saw it happen. I was there. 3000 years ago.
The main evidence that I have presented so far is logical: that if a person uses SA as entertainment, they must accept that it is entertaining, which means that they must, on some level, view it as acceptable.
That is not evidence. That is your hypothesis how this works. Exchange SA for murder and apply your hypothesis to all those crime tv shows. Crime is popular entertainment since like forever. So society should have accepted it long ago as socially acceptable. Is this so? No. Hypothesis rejected.
How would playing a game suppress such urges?
How it might do so? You play the game and control the events. You are playing. A pretend sitation in a safe environment. You do a bad thing. You might snigger and lough at the absurdity. Or you might feel bad for hurting some imaginary pixels. Either way, you might take away from it, how you would react in a real sitation and then have fun in the unreal situation and fool around. Not unlike some people go over imaginary discussions while in the shower.
the idea of "blowing off steam" to suppress desires has been accepted as false and damaging
Care to link me to some data about that? And what kind of desires are we talking about. I am not asserting that clinically insane mass rapists can cure their urges with that. I am merely protesting your assertion that playing such a game creates those urges or creates a demand for more, and the data I saw and my own experiences with games suggest that if any, there is the opposite effect of what you described. I for sure do not feel the urge to murder people. And I find guns abhorent. But willingly engage with them in a (virtual) play situation.
Secondly, I demonstrated that feeding addictive behaviors leads that desire to increase
Your premise is an already addicted person and you did not demonstrate, you asserted. Also, addicted to what? SA? Playing games?
The connection you try to make, is, that being addicted to a game with fictional content (or playing that game) will leap over to being addicted, or even try out that thing in real life.
But there is nothing "impossible" about sexually assaulting someone. It can be done. This is an important distinction.
Murder is also very possible. Or stealing cars like in GTA. Wait, so if SA is happening to furry bunnies, it would be ok? It is a game! People know that they play a game. It is a bit condescending to only allow them to see the difference, if it is about Orcs, but not allow them to see the difference, if it is about regular humans.
But this is why I don't think statistics can really tell us the full story. Why did you decide to round to x10? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
It is. But saying x10 much is easier as 1.34 / 41.8, and it catches more countries. Actual numbers are here https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country
You can feed a lot of cultural and statistical bias into those numbers to even them out. But if video games about the crimes are relevant here, I would expect the numbers to be a lot closer together, or rather expect the Japanese number to be bigger and not to be x31 smaller. So I either accept that the video games are not relevant here, or I accept that it has the opposite effect of what you claim.
I do not know the situaion in other countries in regards to the availablility of such video games. Are they very popular in Britain maybe, because they have more than double the amount than the US?
You talk about the "novelty factor" wearing off. This means it becomes normal.
No. It does not become normal in real life! It becomes a seen thing in such games. It's novelty bonus fades. It contributes less to the entertainment.
We could go back and forth sending each other links to studies supporting our opinions for a very long time, and never get anywhere.
I am awaiting a link to something that would support that connection you try to establish. It did not work for fps games decades ago. And for SA specifically, the data contradicts the assertion. The place where those games are known to be readily available for adults has one of the lowest SA rates on the planet.
I see that LOTR reference :D
"That is not evidence. That is your hypothesis how this works. Exchange SA for murder and apply your hypothesis to all those crime tv shows. Crime is popular entertainment since like forever. So society should have accepted it long ago as socially acceptable. Is this so? No. Hypothesis rejected."
It is not empirical evidence. But I am not using the scientific method here because we are not conducting a scientific experiment, so no, this is not a hypothesis. It is a fundamental point that if you find something truly unacceptable, you will not do it. If someone is disgusted by spiders and finds their presence truly unacceptable, they will never get a pet tarantula, nor will they ever knowingly and willingly touch a spider. If they did so, then they would be accepting the presence of the spider in the very act of getting the pet. The same applies with SA. In the very act of entertaining yourself with a SA game, you are finding its contents (SA) acceptable. This is one main reason why I think itchio's removal of this game was acceptable: to encourage people not to accept SA.
"How it might do so? You play the game and control the events. You are playing. A pretend sitation in a safe environment. You do a bad thing. You might snigger and lough at the absurdity. Or you might feel bad for hurting some imaginary pixels. Either way, you might take away from it, how you would react in a real sitation and then have fun in the unreal situation and fool around. Not unlike some people go over imaginary discussions while in the shower"
Respectfully, I do not think this is how people are playing this game, and that you might be being a little intentionally obtuse. No one is snickering and laughing there way through this game because it is so absurd and amusing. And no on is playing it to try to learn about how they would react in this real life situation. They are playing it to masturbate, to fantasize. How many players of this game do you think are selecting the option to refrain from having forcible sex with the character in the game?
"Care to link me to some data about that? And what kind of desires are we talking about. I am not asserting that clinically insane mass rapists can cure their urges with that. I am merely protesting your assertion that playing such a game creates those urges or creates a demand for more, and the data I saw and my own experiences with games suggest that if any, there is the opposite effect of what you described. I for sure do not feel the urge to murder people. And I find guns abhorent. But willingly engage with them in a (virtual) play situation."
Perhaps I worded my claim a too strongly in my last message. But the whole idea of "blowing off steam" to suppress perversions (his term!) is rooted in Freudian psychology, which has been criticized for years for being pseudoscientific. And, even in Freudian psychology, there are nuances to this idea that phrase "blowing off steam" does not adequately cover. I encourage you to look into the widespread criticisms and nuances of [Freudian psychology catharsis theory] if you are interested in this (in the [] would be a good search term). I won't be dropping a ton of links, but the abstract of this paper might provide a decent starting point: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-26058-001
Additionally, I clarified that playing a game like this would not make all players desire to commit sexual assault. But it has an effect of exacerbating those tastes particularly in those who already show tendencies toward violence.
"Your premise is an already addicted person and you did not demonstrate, you asserted. Also, addicted to what? SA? Playing games?
The connection you try to make, is, that being addicted to a game with fictional content (or playing that game) will leap over to being addicted, or even try out that thing in real life. "
But how do people get addicted to things? Do they just magically wake up addicted to drugs or cigarettes or porn or anything? No, they become addicted by using those things. Have you every heard of an alcoholic who had never had alcohol? The connection I am making is that playing a pornographic game (porn is addictive) that contains sexual assault can lead people to follow that path that most addictions take (needing more to satisfy), and that that pattern, especially for those with other risk factors, can lead them to finding sexual assault acceptable, either by doing it themselves, or by not reacting when they know it has been done by others.
"Murder is also very possible. Or stealing cars like in GTA. Wait, so if SA is happening to furry bunnies, it would be ok? It is a game! People know that they play a game. It is a bit condescending to only allow them to see the difference, if it is about Orcs, but not allow them to see the difference, if it is about regular humans."
You didn't really demonstrate any problem with the point of realism being a factor. Something being more realistic makes it easier to immerse yourself in that fantasy. Being immersed in a fantasy about killing creatures that aren't real is one thing, being immersed in a fantasy about committing SA or a school shooting, like my point was talking about, is far worse.
And no, sexually assaulting furry bunnies is gross and certainly not ok.
"
It is. But saying x10 much is easier as 1.34 / 41.8, and it catches more countries. Actual numbers are here https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country
You can feed a lot of cultural and statistical bias into those numbers to even them out. But if video games about the crimes are relevant here, I would expect the numbers to be a lot closer together, or rather expect the Japanese number to be bigger and not to be x31 smaller. So I either accept that the video games are not relevant here, or I accept that it has the opposite effect of what you claim.
I do not know the situaion in other countries in regards to the availablility of such video games. Are they very popular in Britain maybe, because they have more than double the amount than the US?
"
Anything you feed in is arbitrary though. It's just what you decided to feed in. You can't possibly accurately feed all the factors in. Like I said, what about underreporting? What about the fact that the west is much more open about sex? What about the millions of other factors that determine the results that appear on that website? Did you read the disclaimer on the site you linked to under the heading "The Challenge of Tracking Down Truthful Rape Statistics"? That makes the point I am trying to make pretty well. Given all those factors, it makes sense that the impact of video games would be present but not visible, like a drop of rain in the ocean during a hurricane.
"No. It does not become normal in real life! It becomes a seen thing in such games. It's novelty bonus fades. It contributes less to the entertainment. "
This goes back to what I said before. What you do for entertainment is a part of your "real life", and it affects your perceptions and way of seeing the world. It's not fake, you really did participate in that entertainment. You are not a different person when you are entertaining yourself than you are elsewhere.
"I am awaiting a link to something that would support that connection you try to establish. It did not work for fps games decades ago. And for SA specifically, the data contradicts the assertion. The place where those games are known to be readily available for adults has one of the lowest SA rates on the planet."
I will provide a few resources here, but as I said before, I will not go back and forth playing the statistics game. I do this so you see that there is support for out there for my link between using sexual assault for entertainment and accepting it in real life. Remember that science and statistics cannot tell you if the results of playing this game are good or bad, it can only observe trends based on a limited set of variables. We need to use our logic, common sense, and moral/ethical judgement to decide what to do with the trends that we pull out of them. And, we can notice cause and effect using logic without some kind of scientific experiment.
Nevertheless, here are some studies to show that there is scientific evidence supporting a link between sexualized video games and real-life sexual behavior, which leads naturally into my more specific claim about sexual assault:
- Effects of sexualized video games on online sexual harassment (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21811)
- Playing a Videogame with a Sexualized Female Character Increases Adolescents' Rape Myth Acceptance and Tolerance Toward Sexual Harassment (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/g4h.2014.0055)
- Violence Against Women in Video Games: A Prequel or Sequel to Rape Myth Acceptance?(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0886260512441078)
So there, you have some links to go through. And I have already addressed your claim about Japan. You cannot possibly accurately account for all the variables in national SA stats, therefore, your claim that the Japanese rape games have no impact (or no impact causing rates of SA to go up) on the SA stats relative to other countries has no compelling evidence to support it.
Again, all these negative impacts of a SA game on the players are only part of the point. The other part is again, that itchio is allowed to, and indeed is right in, removing this game from their site.
One final thought. This is a bit of an emotional argument, but I think it can tell us something. I will assume you are a man. Imagine yourself in this scenario: Imagine you are someone who plays this game. Now, imagine going to a woman close to you, like your mother, or girlfriend, or sister, etc. and trying to explain how you entertain yourself by playing a game where you sexually assault a woman. A woman who, by what I've heard, is your stepmother. Doesn't sound like a pleasant conversation. She would likely feel disrespected, creeped out, disgusted, and, if she cares about you, would likely be quite worried about you. And how would you feel doing it? Would that not be awkward and shameful? I think those natural emotions that every normal person would have should tell us something about how we should perceive a game like this, and whether we should play it.
But I am not using the scientific method here because we are not conducting a scientific experiment, so no, this is not a hypothesis.
You do not need to do "an experiment", to have a hypothesis. You claim something works a certain way. So you propose there is a mechanism at work. That is a hypothesis. No matter how you would call it.
Are you proposing also, that your hypothetical mechanism is unique to the example at hand? If not, your mechanism should be at work at other situations. It is not evident to me, that this is so. So I recect your hypothetical mechanism. Psychology actually is a science. If that mechanism exists, maybe you can point me to an article explaining the mechanism. And real psychologists would have used scientific methods to study that mechanism, btw.
I do not think this is how people are playing this game, and that you might be being a little intentionally obtuse.
That is the thing. You only imagine how or why people play the game. And you base your reasoning based on that assumption. But ultimately you do not know. Actually, it does not even matter why or how they really play it. The mechanism you propose how that game existing and being played to do harm in the real world are just not true. This was debunked decades ago with the ego shooters.
English is not my native language, so I am unsure what you mean with obtuse. If you mean playing dumb by it, no I am not playing dumb. You could not imagine a situation different from your assumptions, so I provided one when asked.
I could even unfairly go further and unfoundedly proclaim that playing the game reduces SA crimes by a mechanims that I would proclaim does exist. And you could use my own arguments against me. Our assumptions about how this works and why people play it are assumptions. Basing calls for action on such assumptions is unsound. To not play the game myself, I do not need proof. To call for a platform or the government to ban it, I would want proof. Solid proof. It is too easy to just ban everything you do not like. And some people indeed try to do so. I am offended, therefore I am right, is a mentallity I despise.
No one is snickering and laughing there way through this game because it is so absurd and amusing. How do you know? You can't know that.
And no on is playing it to try to learn about how they would react in this real life situation. I did not claim that people are playing the game with that intention. You are misrepresenting what I wrote. You asked how a hypothetical mechanism to supress urges could work. And I outlined how you would mentally deal with such situations in a safe environment of playing a game. Like you can have an imaginary conversation while having a shower.
So yeah, maybe they are playing it to masturbate, (which is also only an assumption), but they also might learn something about how they feel about a topic. And maybe confirm that they reject it in real life, but tolerate it in a fictional setting. (You asked for a mechanism. I provided one!). Oh, and about that assumption with the masturbation, they might also play the game to "preheat" with kinky fictional taboo things for the deed with their partner.
catharsis theory. That would be therapy for those clinically disturbed people I specifically said I am not talking about. You proposed some sort of build up, where people playing the game would develop and increase an urge. Blowing off steam would mean to decrease the urge. Both mechanism are equally unfounded without further proof. They are claims being made. It might be so for some and completely different for others. It might even cancel out. Point is, your way of thinking is not the only possible way. You are not right, just because you came up with a mechanism that sounds plausible to you.
But it has an effect of exacerbating those tastes particularly in those who already show tendencies toward violence. Unfounded. Cite proof for that mechanism. Or I can equally unfoundedly claim that it suppresses such tendencies. Playing games can decrease your stress. If you are stressed out, you might resort to violence if provoked. If your stress level is lower, that danger is lower. So playing games can lower violent behaviour. (The other half is, that playing games can also increase your stress. Overall I assume that the net effect is lowering stress, since it is a recreational activity. In other words, we would not do it, if it were not fun.)
No, they become addicted by using those things. Have you every heard of an alcoholic who had never had alcohol? The connection I am making is that playing a pornographic game (porn is addictive) that contains sexual assault can lead people to follow that path that most addictions take (needing more to satisfy), and that that pattern
That is not true. You need a thing that is addictive to begin with. Porn is not. Alcohol is. Trivially you can get addicted obsessed with anything. I want to try another absurdity argument. If porn is addictive, it stands to reason that sex is. So are married couples not actually in love with each other, but addicted to each other?
So not only is your premise is wrong about games being addictve as such, but also your following mechanism of wanting more and more and mostly fallacious is the step you make into the real world. If someone would fall to obsession ("addiction") with playing porn games, they would want more games. Better games. Games that cater to their tastes better. Or play the game a lot. They would not suddenly being addicted to the things depicted in the game. Why should they? Where does this step in logic come from? It does not work that way! If you think so, find actual scientists that wrote about it. It would be hell of a feast for psychologists, if it were true. They would be famous for proving such a thing and all sorts of content restrictions could be made with scientific reasoning! Laws would be named after them.
I will have to read your links at a later time as I have other things to attend to now.
Your appeal to emotion at the end is what I am complaining about:
Fiction is not reality, but it is easier to fight. Why fight how women are treated in certain countries, if you can have an easy win by bashing an adult game? Who would publicly proclaim to like and play the game? So, not much opposition to be expected and making the world better by bashing video games it is.
Bashing the video games is not the solution to the world's problems. Bashing the real world liars that manipulate people might solve some problems. It sure would help if people look out for faulty reasoning and ask again and again. So much in real world actual news is based on one or another person in power telling the public bascially lies. And they believe it because of emotion or because it fits their personal views.
Your first link is behind a paywall. And the abstract ist dubious. "After gameplay, they had the opportunity to sexually harass a male or a female partner by sending them sexist jokes." Sounds a lot like they were begging the question by setting people up to confirm their bias, by nudging the participants to do some sexual harrassments.
Your second link is also behind a paywall. It is not relevant here. They studied minors for startes. The discussion at hand is about adults and adults only fictional entertainment. They talk about some rape myths in their abstract that were more accepted. Whatever accepted would mean and whatever selected myths they were using to tempt the 57 children after playing a selected educational game for 15 minutes loaded with sexual topics.
Your third link is again behind a paywall. It is vague about what was studied exactly, or how. Some rape myths again. It does not say which. Or how significant the result was. Significant in context only means that they think it was not due to chance.
Those studies have nothing to do with your suspected mechanisms according to their abstract. They studied different things. From what I understand they basically showed people/children sexually loaded content. Not even actual adult games. And their findings would be, that the "acceptance" of rape myths would increase by an unknown amount. It was not big enough to brag about in the abstract. No headliner material, like: people are twice as likely to believe this sex myth, after playing a sexualized game.
Also, would not sexually loaded advertismentents, tv shows, movies, books do exactly the same? Or for that matter, scantily clad real life women? I heard that one before, as it is used by some to justify forcing women to cover up. So men would not think about them and do bad things. I assert that if there is any such linkage of making men do/think bad things, it will be stronger with the actual women, than with pixel women in games. And I think that is actually one of those rape myths - that men that see such women are tempted and can't help it. Thinking about this, your point sounds like such a rape myth. That people are not to blame, but games are. Ban the games, so people are not corrupted anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_myth That what the victim is wearing can lead to a sexual assault That men are unable to control themselves once they become sexually excited
What you need to find is the spillover from fictional crime to real crime. You will not find that, because it has been debunked. And you can debunk it yourself by observing history and games and other media. A crime does neither become accepted by society, nor more common, just because there is media about it. Media has been around for a very long time, so there is "data" about it.
Just let's look at a popular media, the bible. Let's look at the things that Lot guy has been up to. Like offering his virgin daughters to a mob to have sex with. Or drunkenly fathering children with his daughters later. As for rape myths and rape, that book is full of those. If you want to ban media because it corrupts people by having certain content in it, start with the bible.
That was another attempt to show you the absurdity of your logic. If it were sound, you could apply it to other media and other crimes. Including the bible. But it is not sound. Watching a show about murder does not make you a murderer. Playing a game about sa, does not make you commit sa. And reading the bible does not make daughters have sex with their fathers to have children.
Nevertheless, here are some studies to show that there is scientific evidence supporting a link between sexualized video games and real-life sexual behavior, which leads naturally into my more specific claim about sexual assault
This is a misrepresnation of what the studies claim to show. They do not show sexual behaviour change. Not even regular behaviour change. They did not look at behaviour at all. You do know they had children as participants in one of those studies?! And you go here and claim the studies showed sexual behavior change. What they did claim to show, that some participants answered a question about some "rape myths" with more "acceptance", after they had them engage with sexualized games.
And no, there is no natural progression from one thing to another. You try to invoke a slippery slope from fictional content to real life behavioural change towards imitating the crimes. But this is a fallacy, because there is no proof of mechanism for this. You would find a lot more studies and even meta studies about this. And better studies. With a lower p value than 0.04. Which they did with 57 12+ year old impressionable kids. The barrier is 0.05 to be even worth reading at all. So with the most impressionable participants, I would expect a lot higher confidence that there even is a mechanism. Oh, and the mechanism they would have shown, would only be: show kids near naked ladies in a game, and they are slightly more prone to believe cherry picked rape myths. Probably the ones about clothing.
As I said, this line of thought was tried decades ago with the ego shooters. They do not make players into killers. And now people come along and claim that playing a game about sexual taboos and crimes make the players into perpetrators of such things. If this mechanism were true, we should ban the Bible first - and people did and do kill and do other bad things, by justifying it with that book, so there is that.
198 days ago (+1)
The main issue honestly is that murder isn't seen as normal in society. You don't usually joke about murder. SA, specifically the SA of women, is normalized to the point we as a society ask "well, what was she wearing?" or "she was drunk, what did she expect to happen?" Walk up to a random guy on the street, crack a joke about spiking women's drinks or about how it's "their" fault they get assaulted, seven out of ten times, you'll get a laugh. The other two, you may get a look but he still won't tell you that you're wrong for it. He won't speak up. He just won't laugh. Additionally, why are we defending a rape fantasy game anwyay? Matter of fact, why are we defending rape as a sexual fantasy? Fantasy or no it is morally reprehensible to want to do that in any capacity, regardless of whether or not you actually do it. People will dog on me for this, but if you fantasize about raping people, yes I think you're either a sex/porn addict or a horrible fucking person and should see a psychiatrist either way.
Honestly this whole discussion goes from a wrong foot.
Our society is complex and diverse. There are different opinions and desires.
For example, some people are gay.
Being like that some time ago was forbidden, and it is still can not be tolerated by many people.
Because of that we accumulated huge amount of data on suppression of homosexuality.
Results where... that it dose not work that way.
Even voluntary attempts to twists themselves can't be considered safe.
Especially if it is only voluntary on paper, but I digress,
Ethics are human made. It is not a proven fact, but it is neither disproven as can not be proven that all swans are white.
Still, it is not as important, as humans generally do not act ethically,
If ethics are human made, then what right and wrong is also decided by people.
From fundamental perspective, in society that is all about fighting, and honourable duels to death are the norm.
In there, Murder in a duel is nor wrong, rather it can mean eternal glory.
It also matches the idea that homosexuality passed from forbidden into allowed.
As if there was any higher logic behind that, it would not be possible.
Now... we are kind of in a pickle?
On one side we have our nice and good taboos.
And on the other there a bunch of people who seems strange angry we forbid them.
Lets exterminate them! And that's how fascism is born. In its idea, it is 'genius'
I mean you don't see any Homo habilis around. And they where sort-of smarter.
Anyway, fascists lost, so maybe not that good of an idea, especially if you against the whole world. or was it the execution? We will return to that later.
Anyway, we decided that extermination of everyone you don't agree with is as horrible of idea as it is.
There also was nuclear bomb that mean they will take you into the grave, but it is not important.
Therefore - humanism was born.
Or well not really, it is a really old idea and all. But Human rights we know were formed there.
number 30 is literally "No use of rights to destroy others' rights" by the way.
There a lot of great stuff there, and it would been the best law ever, it it had anyone to punish those who break it.
And so, we decided that people have rights, and so we can't kill them if we disagree with them.
And so for many things taboos were lifted. Women have rights, gay have rights. At least in some parts of the world.
Still some things are not like that, murder is not allowed, regardless was it honourable duel or not.
Same with incest, and other things. The reason is very simple and obvious - it harms people!
It is very easy and simple decision, right? Actually... it is not. Even here we stumble on the fact that in general, if both duellists do agree, it dose not harms anyone who not gave consent. And Incest fundamentally harms only children because of higher chance of generic defects/
So okay, lets not talk about that. Lets talk about rape. Because there, it is definitely harms another person. I feel like more damage is from social stigma. then the fact itself, but that is a useless exercise. Rape is bad!
Sooo, rape is bad case closed!
But what about the books?
Well, it is quite obvious. Who do they harm? No one. Well, they can harm a former victim, so it is probably a good idea to mandate a warning. But regardless.
You said that "the idea of "blowing off steam" to suppress desires has been accepted as false"
It is indeed true. Catharsis dose not work long term, providing only temporary relive and possible making desire worse long term.
And reading something about rape, or playing it, theoretically can cause someone to accept it more.
But, But
Our society work from "Presumption of innocence principle" it is known part of legal system, but it is way more important outside the court.
You can go and buy a knife. You can then take that knife and murder anyone.
Should have you been arrested for buying a knife? - No.
It is true that reactive law enforcement is not efficient.
How many criminals could we catch if police had freedom to do whatever they deem necessary!
Lets start from small, anyone can be arrested.
All internet is surveyed, and if you do something illegal you can be investigated.
There is a social score system, and if yours are low you can be restricted in actions.
If your crimes deemed severe enough, death penalty is possible.
That all is real, from China by the way.
So maybe it is not that good. That's why "Presumption of innocence" is so important,
Unless you committed a crime and it can be proven, you can't be arrested.
Now back to our books. Book about evil, can indeed make someone to enact something evil.
Be it because he always wanted to do that, because it acted as a trigger or an instruction or... just because.
But it is not punishable, because it can be used in opposite direction to instead of enacting desire to go on a murder spree, to swear in chat and act like a troll. And while it is true that it will not magical solve the problem, and provides only a temporary relief. If there enough content, it is not impossible to live your life without breaking.
Even if suppression is purely voluntary, as was tested on people who tried to not be homosexual, it lead to depression, breakdowns, and a chance to crack, and either decides to finish with life, or do something forbidden.
In the best case, it forms cognitive dissonance that leads to Anxiety and so on.
Of course some people have stronger will, or simply a weaker desire.
In the end, it is fundamentally impossible to satisfy both the sheep and wolf.
But if we can't kill the wolf, feeding it and making into a dog, is the best option.
Of course, there is a small problem to all of this.
If we look into what actually happening, society rears its ugly head. Who cares about book?
For some reason no one. Who cares about such a nish book? even less people.
Who wants to feel good for free, and like they done something good and moral?
Everyone. And in our society it works not by who is right. But who has more votes.
I could've finished it there, but there another small part I have promised you
Do you remember I said that it is irrelevant as no one cares about ethics?
Well, all that stuff about how great human rights are, and all that. Some people do not believe in that.
What do they believe... Well it is that they are right, and everyone else is wrong.
The problem is that they are not killing enough people.
What they are doing instead, is slowly doing more and more absurd crimes to make people used to it.
And it starts with innocent claims that "We need to protect our children"
It may seems good, or not bad. I mean is children, right? we are all adults. Who cares if children are not allowed something!
But actually it slowly dissolves the foundation after all children are humans too. and by taking rights of children...
Then slowly take rights of adults. it is still in the name of children of course.
---
After word
It is a nekropost, but it is also not one, because of reascent events. It is literally so ironically fitting, that I am lost for words, First the targeted games, now they order whole websites. I am wondering what's next, as hope is nowhere to be seen.
I wanted to say more, like explain why alcohol is allowed or why they see problem with gambling in the wrong place.
But really. Evil for one can be good for another. If we are good humans who are tolerant and reasonable please remember that
208 days ago(+2)
ut do you seriously believe that someone who fantasizes about sexual assault (and is aroused by it) is less likely to actually do it than someone who doesn't???
you you can't. the science is clear on that. and you have no issue with GTA V or Mortal Kombat. anyone agreeing with you is bad.
a facist lite. these are your thoutgs. this was a visual novel. not a "simulator".
140 days ago(+1)
your point Falls. You never had a point other than to complain and fear Monger like the extremists. There is no proof that porn inside violence especially of this violent nature.
https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/fact-checked/porn-does-not-incite-violence/
In fact it's quite the opposite. Your argument is the same as not wanting violence and video games. Dead by daylight Grand Theft Auto Call of Duty all glorify violence. By your logic this turns people into sociopaths and murderers. You need to be gone
198 days ago(+1)
Yes, they won't abstain from that addiction, which is exactly why we...shouldn't encourage it? There's direct correlation in psychology between people engaging in these hardcore rape fantasy/fetish content things and actually committing the act later down the line, which is why this can't be compared to violent games, because there is no correlation there. People don't commit violence in games because they want to do it in real life. People *do* engage with rape content in games *because* they want to do it in real life but *can't* without consequences.
197 days ago (+1)
I feel you're honestly not arguing in good faith because you yourself enjoy these fantasies and feel called out for furthering this desire. If you can't bring yourself to actually listen without regurgitating the same bullshit point over and over, there's no point in anyone wasting their breath on you. Have the day you deserve.
140 days ago(+1)
they're absolutely is not. It is very much the opposite
People like you that exist are causing harm. You have internalized alt right rhetoric
https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/fact-checked/porn-does-not-incite-violence/
207 days ago(+1)
porn is prostitution, sex in exchange for money, which is illegal (at least in the US). If porn is speech, what is it saying? What thoughts, facts, and/or opinions is it sharing?
Do you actually think it was illegal for them to remove this game?
207 days ago(+1)
porn is prostitution, sex in exchange for money, which is illegal (at least in the US)
Uhm. Sex in exchange for money. So ... marriage is also illegal? There must be money involved, otherwise there would not be payments after a divorce. Money is involved in there and refusing to have sex is grounds for a divorce.
Porn is not prostituion. Prostituion is a service that involves actual sexual services (in the flesh, literally). Porn is short for pornography, which is the depiction of sex.
We could even argue about, if depiction of non real people does even qualify for being porn. It is artificial pixels. Drawings. Renderings. Not real. It is not porn, it is a drawing of porn. Same as porn is not sex, it is a depiction of sex. Porn is once removed from the deed. Cartoon porn is twice removed from the deed. And prosition is the deed (with the special case that it is in exchange for money).
If porn is speech
It trivally is not. But in that one country where free speech is a thing, it is considered so. There is no dispute about that. But that one country also has those ridiculous obscenity laws which circumvent the free speech by very vague and arbitrary conditions.
Do you actually think it was illegal for them to remove this game?
Legality does not come into this. A platform can remove anything for any or no reason.
It is about how a group imposes their agenda by bullying, threats, lies and other questionable methods. Platforms rather take a thing down than deal with that.
I do not believe it is good for society to listen to such emotional manipulators. They rile up an angry mob and steer it. The game itself is not illegal*. The content might be disgusting to many. So what. Taste is individual and what one adult views as entertaining is not the business of another adult. What fictional things are "allowed" and which are not should not be subject to the moods of angry people. If we want to have free speech and things like that, we must allow all of it. Not only the things we deem appropriate.
*There is dispute worldwide what constitutes illegal. It gets ridiculous if you step back and remember that it is fiction and some fictional things are illegal in some countries and legal in most others. Even adult games themselves are illegal in some places.
205 days ago(+1)
"Uhm. Sex in exchange for money. So ... marriage is also illegal? There must be money involved, otherwise there would not be payments after a divorce. Money is involved in there and refusing to have sex is grounds for a divorce."
Firstly, in porn, people are being paid to have sex. In the case of porn, there just happens to be a camera present to capture a video. Why would the presence of a recording device suddenly make the word prostitution not apply?
Secondly. if this is your view of marriage, then it is a sad view indeed, and an insulting one to the many happily married couples throughout the world who have a relationship built on more than mere sexual transaction. Marriage is far more than a simple sex-for-money exchange. It is about companionship and support, and creating a loving environment for all members of the family. Or at least it is meant to be, though I will admit in many cases sex and money become points that can destroy a marriage. But all of those things are lacking from both porn and prostitution. Again, if this is your view of marriage, I pray that one day you would see the light, because a good marriage is to porn what a star is to a piece of gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe.
As for cartoon porn, I would not dispute that it is "further away" from the real act of sex than live action porn. Sure, it is a drawing of sex. That doesn't make much difference to me. I would find a drawing of sexual assault in poor taste. I would find a real photo of it in even poorer taste. I would find either one in such poor taste, in fact, that I would remove it from my website if anyone posted it there. And that is my main point: that it was fair for itchio to remove the game.
I asked the question about legality in response to the rant from OP which seemed to insinuate that the removal of this game from itchio was an act of censorship. I do not think it was, because I do not believe porn to be a form of protected speech. Or if it is under legal definitions, I don't think it should be. What idea is it expressing? To protect porn as speech could mean that a platform owner could get into legal trouble for removing it (in theory at least). It seems like madness to prevent a platform from removing porn because of free speech.
"The content might be disgusting to many. So what. Taste is individual and what one adult views as entertaining is not the business of another adult. What fictional things are "allowed" and which are not should not be subject to the moods of angry people. If we want to have free speech and things like that, we must allow all of it. Not only the things we deem appropriate."
No reasonable person truly believes this absolutely. When things "one adult views as entertaining" cross certain lines, they drop this line of thinking. CSAM, for instance. I'm sure you wouldn't say "So what" to that. My point is not that this game and CSAM are exactly equivalent, and it is definitely not to suggest that by supporting this game you support CSAM. The point is that we can't allow everyone unfettered access to anything they find entertaining under this false guise of "free speech".
199 days ago(+1)
I am glad you see where I am coming from, and I hope the conversation has been helpful to you.
I think I understand and can see your perspective and those of the people who might disagree with me in this debate. I just don't agree with their conclusions about this particular piece of media.
201 days ago(+1)
You likened porn to prostituion with a money angle. I made a money angle about another thing that involves sex as an attempt to show the absurdity and not to show off my view on marriage or any such things.
Porn is porn, no matter if money is involved. A married couple doing an amateur video is neither paid for the deed nor is the deed something they would only do because of the camera. The video of it, it is still porn. Even if they show it to no one.
Prostitution is prostitution, even if no money was involved or if the non paid participant is not the payer. You could compensate the prostitute by non money gifts or favors or someone else could pay for you.
All quite semantical, so it depends on which definition you use, which kind of semantical stretchings you can use to connect those two. Becomes a prostitute a porn actress the moment her client pays to film the deed and publish it for money? Maybe. But porn actors do not suddenly become prostitutes, just because they get paid. And neither does the film producer become the client by paying.
You seem to misunderstand free speech. Free speech does not mean a platform has to allow "your speech". It means that the government cannot place legal restraints on it. In case of porn it means, the government cannot directly forbid porn itself.
To protect porn as speech could mean that a platform owner could get into legal trouble for removing it (in theory at least). It seems like madness to prevent a platform from removing porn because of free speech.
Your premise is wrong. Please read this https://www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/the-limits-of-free-speech-in-social...
In short social media companies are not state actors and their platforms are not public forums, and therefore they are not subject to the free speech protections
No reasonable person truly believes this absolutely.
I might stress that we are talking about fiction. We are not talking about someone expressing their free speech protected opinion that crime x should be not a crime. We are talking about taboos and crimes in a fictional work.
And yes, I absolutely believe that it is not your business or mine to restrict what fiction adults can read/play/watch for recreational purposes. Or to restrict what fiction can exist. It is fiction. That means not real.
Quite a jump to involve csam and proclaiming that non fictional material of real crimes and a game about fictional events with artificial graphics are "exactly equivalent". You are formally wrong. For that, mostly this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence , but this whole issue is about fallacies used by the manipulators to rile up an angry mob to ban games they dislike. They dislike it. Ok. But they do not argue soundly to try to ban it - because they legally can't. It is fiction and even protected by free speech. So they bully platforms and rile up angry mobs.
To summarize, yeah, that game is not really good taste, because of certain topics. But it is fiction and any discussion about banning it for adults should end right there. The fact that bullying was needed to ban it, should make you think. It says poor things about how society can easily be manipulated. A far greater danger than any imaginary threats of fictional content. There are real world people in power that use those tactics of bullying and making unsound arguments to get their way. But hey, activists are distracted banning games, so they need not fight those real world bads.
I think I will probably reply to each of your points once more, and then leave the last word to you if you want it.
"You likened porn to prostitution with a money angle. I made a money angle about another thing that involves sex as an attempt to show the absurdity and not to show off my view on marriage or any such things.
Porn is porn, no matter if money is involved. A married couple doing an amateur video is neither paid for the deed nor is the deed something they would only do because of the camera. The video of it, it is still porn. Even if they show it to no one.
Prostitution is prostitution, even if no money was involved or if the non paid participant is not the payer. You could compensate the prostitute by non money gifts or favors or someone else could pay for you.
All quite semantical, so it depends on which definition you use, which kind of semantical stretchings you can use to connect those two. Becomes a prostitute a porn actress the moment her client pays to film the deed and publish it for money? Maybe. But porn actors do not suddenly become prostitutes, just because they get paid. And neither does the film producer become the client by paying.
"
But that attempt to demonstrate the absurdity is built on a false equivalence. My point in defining marriage was to show that marriage is not at all similar to prostitution, in spite of the fact that both sex and money are involved in both. Because of that, you haven't demonstrated any absurdity in my likening of prostitution to pornography by likening marriage to prostitution.
We might say that prostitution is merely the exchange of money for sex. Porn, in most cases, is the exchange of payment for sex, with the added presence of a camera. Marriage, meanwhile, is all the things I described in my previous post, and more. Sure, you might say that every film of two people having sex doesn't involve the exchange of money. Fine, but most modern pornography that is produced by the porn industry and is consumed by people does, and this is what I have been referring to when I draw the comparison between prostitution and porn.
And if you are paid in other ways that aren't money, you are still getting paid for sex. Money, after all, is a medium of exchange that we use to obtain other things that we want. So even if you can find certain porn films that didn't involve someone getting paid to have sex on camera, huge swaths of the porn industry are just that. That is why porn is infinitely closer to prostitution than it is to marriage, AND why I think it should fall under prostitution law as opposed to being protected as speech.
And finally, I do think that by being in a porn film (porn referring to the porn industry, companies that pay people to appear in their films, not a married couple's sex tape), a woman (or man) becomes a prostitute. She is getting paid to have sex with someone. I hold to my definition in this case.
"
You seem to misunderstand free speech. Free speech does not mean a platform has to allow "your speech". It means that the government cannot place legal restraints on it. In case of porn it means, the government cannot directly forbid porn itself.
To protect porn as speech could mean that a platform owner could get into legal trouble for removing it (in theory at least). It seems like madness to prevent a platform from removing porn because of free speech.
Your premise is wrong. Please read this https://www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/the-limits-of-free-speech-in-social...
In short social media companies are not state actors and their platforms are not public forums, and therefore they are not subject to the free speech protections
"
This is actually the point I was trying to make. I was replying to someone who seemed to think itchio's removal of the game was an act of censorship, which would indicate that they might think it was a violation of free speech. I was explaining to that person why I don't think it was a violation in that quotation using a hypothetical. Which, by the way, is my main point in this whole debate: that Itchio is allowed to remove something like that. The rest of the debate (about growing desire, etc.) has been why I think it is good that they did it.
"
No reasonable person truly believes this absolutely.
I might stress that we are talking about fiction. We are not talking about someone expressing their free speech protected opinion that crime x should be not a crime. We are talking about taboos and crimes in a fictional work.
And yes, I absolutely believe that it is not your business or mine to restrict what fiction adults can read/play/watch for recreational purposes. Or to restrict what fiction can exist. It is fiction. That means not real.
"
This circles the wagon back to the point I made elsewhere on this message board: that the fiction you indulge in affects the way you act in real life. And that willingly engaging in fiction that promotes a certain thing is an implicit endorsement of that thing. It will affect different people to varying degrees for some people, sure. But although it is fiction, it has real-world consequences.
Additionally, certain kinds of fiction are objectionable. Such as fiction that depicts child abuse, or that enables you to pretend to commit a school shooting, or that enables you to pretend to sexually assault someone. I don't think it unreasonable for people to express outrage over such fiction, and to petition platforms not to list it. It is reasonable for people to object to living in a community where their neighbors entertain themselves by pretending to engage in violent sex with fictional people who are designed to be similar to their mothers, daughters, wives, and other loved ones.
"Quite a jump to involve csam and proclaiming that non fictional material of real crimes and a game about fictional events with artificial graphics are "exactly equivalent". You are formally wrong. For that, mostly this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence , but this whole issue is about fallacies used by the manipulators to rile up an angry mob to ban games they dislike. They dislike it. Ok. But they do not argue soundly to try to ban it - because they legally can't. It is fiction and even protected by free speech. So they bully platforms and rile up angry mobs."
I will choose to believe you didn't put quotes around "exactly equivalent" in bad faith. If you read the full sentence, you would see that I literally said: "My point is not that this game and CSAM are exactly equivalent..." The point was in your "So what." response to content that many would consider disgusting, you indicate that we have to allow basically all forms of fictional entertainment. In fact, you explicitly said that we must allow all of it (it being "fictional things"). So, by your logic, you would have to say "so what" to people playing (excuse my language) "Baby R@pe Simulator 4" and other extremely objectionable content like that. I don't think we have to do that.
"To summarize, yeah, that game is not really good taste, because of certain topics. But it is fiction and any discussion about banning it for adults should end right there. The fact that bullying was needed to ban it, should make you think. It says poor things about how society can easily be manipulated. A far greater danger than any imaginary threats of fictional content. There are real world people in power that use those tactics of bullying and making unsound arguments to get their way. But hey, activists are distracted banning games, so they need not fight those real world bads."
Well, I'm glad you find the game not in good taste.
What you call bullying, I might call people expressing their opinions about something they find objectionable in an effort to persuade a platform to delist the thing the find objectionable. Which is really just a culture banning objectionable things from polite society.
I disagree that the discussion should automatically end with the medium being fiction for all the reasons I have mentioned throughout this thread.
Finally, pointing at all the "real world bads" and telling people to focus on that instead seems like a distraction to prevent anything from being done about something bad that we can immediately do something about. It's like if you want to smooth out your back yard, but someone says "why are you bothering to fill in that smaller hole, when you have this much bigger hole over here?" But my yard can never be truly smooth until the small hole is filled in, and it is much easier to start by filling in the smaller one.
198 days ago(+1)
But that attempt to demonstrate the absurdity is built on a false equivalence.
That was the point. You did the same absurdity. Do you not realize that? You took one shared attribute and proceeded to call two different things the same.
You can think what you want, but if you argue your points unsoundly, you are formally wrong. It does not even matter if your opinion has any merit.
back to the point I made elsewhere on this message board: that the fiction you indulge in affects the way you act in real life
Which is only trivially true. You argue that it promotes doing the virutal thing in real life. Which is not true according to current scientific consens.
I will choose to believe you didn't put quotes around "exactly equivalent" in bad faith.
Apologies here. You only likened them to each other enough to call for action and I misread the statement.
And yes, there is no appropriate clause. No exceptions. If you want free speech, it means all of it. Not only the ones you think are appropriate. Things change with time and place and trends. Views on lgbt changed several times in my lifetime as an example.
The thing is, Itch is a platform that has content for adults. It might be prudent to call for Itch to have better content filter options, as they only have adult yes or no. I would place most horror into adult. And some of the adult content here would be 16+/12+ in other countries. Opinions differ. And even for adult content a more granular content filter would be appreciated.
I value freedom, and I detest if an angry mob tries to decide what is ok for adults to play. It is belittling. It reminds of a thought police.
And as an adult I can decide for myself which games to play or not play and what content to experience. Hearing unsound arguments why I should not have that choice or why a particular thing is bad, irritates me. If those arguments against content would turn out to be true, it will sooner or later hit things you or I actually do enjoy. Like Dexter. It is a tv show where the hero is a literal serial killer. Accepting your line of thought would mean to accept that I will become a serial killer. I reject that. And your unsound arguments make that easy. Since you have wrong premises and use fallacies, your line of thought is very probably wrong, and I can rest assured to not become a serial killer.
Taboo things and crimes and violence make fascinating entertainment. That's all there is to it. Banning fiction is not gonna make the world better. But allowing to ban fiction is making the world worse. That is how I see it. And I do see people rise in power by lying and manipulating emotions. I want less of that and more sound discussions. You can convinve me to not play the game and understand why you would not play it or recommend to not play it, but you could not convince me to think it is a good thing to allow banning it.
Thank you for not getting personal.
192 days ago(+2)
Well, you are welcome. I can't say I agree with some of your arguments, or your conclusion, but thank you for your civility as well.
198 days ago(+1)
Not all speech is protected under US law, especially not in spaces owned by private companies where they can remove whatever they like. The point of freedom of speech is freedom of speech against the government. Nothing more.