Post by redonihunter in Fighting against cowardace. The removal of No Mercy as pressured by an ANTI LGBT group. - itch.io

Viewing post in Fighting against cowardace. The removal of No Mercy as pressured by an ANTI LGBT group.

↑ View parent post

redonihunter37 days ago(+2)

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.

Ho88it36 days ago (1 edit) (+1)

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.

Antigone_Black34 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.

Ho88it33 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.

vampirichare23 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.

Antigone_Black34 days ago(+1)

"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?

Ho88it33 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.

vampirichare23 days ago

I don't know how some people can't wrap their head around the fact if you find a game about rape sexually gratifying, that you are genuinely fucked in the head and, yes, more likely to commit the act than someone who doesn't.

Ho88it17 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.

vampirichare9 days ago

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.

redonihunter33 days ago(+1)

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.

Ho88it33 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.

redonihunter33 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.

Ho88it30 days ago (1 edit)

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.

redonihunter27 days ago

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.

Ho88it24 days ago

As I mentioned, this will likely be my last response, then you can have the final word if you wish.

"

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 think you missed the point. It is not a hypothesis because it is not something that needs further investigation. It is not really something you can reject based on the gathering of evidence because it follows directly and entirely from the definitions of the words I used. Did you see the point I made about the pet spider? By getting the pet spider, they are accepting the presence of a spider. Meaning that they do not find the presence of the spider unacceptable by the very definitions of the words. If you entertain yourself with depictions of sexual assault, you are accepting the presence of sexual assault (accepting here means saying "it's acceptable", or appropriate, or not bad enough to utterly reject). The same logic applies. And it doesn't matter if it is a depiction of fictional events or not in this case because without the real events in the background, the fictional scene would have no meaning. The spirit of the act is present in a depiction of sexual assault in a way that it would not be, say, in the presence of a picture of a spider.

"

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

...

with kinky fictional taboo things for the deed with their partner.

"

The players of this game are obviously masturbating to it and using it to engage in sexual fantasy. That's the point of the game. I guess that is an "assumption", but it is an obviously true one. Like assuming that if there are dark, stormy clouds above, it will rain. When people look at porn, they are usually masturbating to it, but they are nearly always at least getting sexual thrills from it. That's what I meant by obtuse, or yes, playing dumb. If you truly don't think that this is why people are playing the game, it's hard to move the conversation on from there.

On catharsis theory, my entire point was the the idea of "blowing off steam" by playing a game like this to reduce likelihood of real-life sexual assault is, at best, based in Freudian pseudoscience. It was in response to a claim about using a game like this to vent these desires. I claim nothing more than its basis in pseudoscience, not hard science. You, meanwhile, in your next paragraph, seem to affirm this pseudoscience when you talk about venting stress.

"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.)"

This is a pretty basic principle in criminology. People who possess multiple factors that lead towards criminality are more likely to engage in criminality.

But that quote is actually besides the point of my argument at large. It is not only about a game making you more likely to commit sexual assault, but it is also about a game influencing thoughts of players to make them more accepting of sexual assault in general, even if not committed by them. You haven't shown any flaws in my case for SA video games doing this, and I have illustrated repeatedly how entertaining yourself with SA makes you more accepting of it, and how being accepting of something makes you more likely to be alright with it happening. All you've done is say, "this other thing might be true" using logic that I thereafter demonstrated problems with, and handwave that may claim has been debunked in the past without truly engaging with the points I am making.

Additionally, you basically just described that cathartic "blowing off steam" effect I mentioned earlier in your talk about stress, which as I mentioned, is pseudoscientific.

"

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?

"

Many would disagree with you on porn being addictive. But let's not say addicted, let's go with obsessed. The point still stands. You don't become obsessed with something you have never had or seen before. The obsession has to start with some kind of contact. How can you be obsessed with something you don't know exists?

As for your point on married couples, you are right: comparing porn addiction to marriage is absurd. Love and addiction are not even close to synonymous, and cannot be interchanged with each other like they are. I don't think your argument from absurdity demonstrates a logical error in my point. I also would not say that sex is addictive in the same way that drugs or porn is.

"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."

They should not, maybe we should ask, "Why would they?" They would because the things in the game would lack all meaning if it were not for the real-life version of those acts. The point of the game is to approximate or simulate the real world thing. Doing the real world thing is a more extreme version of doing the thing in a video game (this is the "step in logic"). It follows the exact mechanism I described, and that you mentioned above. The addiction I am concerned about is not necessarily to the game, but to the thing the game is depicting.

And if I show you some psychologists, what then? I think you will just reject their claims. The whole field is fraught with so many variables that we could each just hand-wave away all evidence shown to each other, just like with statistics.

As for the emotional argument, you can complain about it all you want. But you have not answered it. I don't think there really is a good answer to it. It is effective because there is truth underneath the emotions of shame you would feel. To be entertained by playing a game where you SA a woman is to be entertained by playing a game where you sexually assault someone like a sister, mother, girlfriend, etc. And that is shameful indeed. Even if it doesn't affect your life in any other way (which, I believe, it would).

In summary, I think that Itchio was justified in delisting this game because they don't want to be associated with a SA game, and because their platform would be facilitating access to something that would make SA more acceptable in the minds of players, whether committed by them or by someone else. And, I think that everyone should refrain from playing such games because they can contribute to desires that will have negative effects in their life

redonihunter24 days ago

By getting the pet spider, they are accepting the presence of a spider. Meaning that they do not find the presence of the spider unacceptable by the very definitions of the words. If you entertain yourself with depictions of sexual assault, you are accepting the presence of sexual assault (accepting here means saying "it's acceptable", or appropriate, or not bad enough to utterly reject). The same logic applies.

If spider and sa are interchangeable to demonstrate the mechanim, let's use another word.

If you entertain yourself with murder by reading novels, playing games or watching shows about it, you accept the presence of murder. It beomes more appropriate, to the point where you would not utterly reject it.

But murder is too harsh. Let's take a less severe crime. Like theft and breaking the speed limit.

If you entertain yourself with content around theft and speeding, like gta or fast and furios movies, you accept the presence of those things. They become more appropriate, to the point where you would not utterly reject them. Stealing a car? No big deal. Speeding? Bah, they do it in games and movies all the time, so I can do it too. It is appropriate behaviour after all.

Any increase in speeding and car thefts after release of a new GTA or a new movie? You could see such things in statistics and back up your line of thought about acceptance from seeing things to accepting them and finally imitating things. It is minor crimes, compared to sa, so the barrier to do them in real life should be lower, and it is a lot more popular, so a lot of people were exposed to the bad influence.

Copy cat crime from fiction does not exist. It would be easily prooveable, and someone would have done so already and they tried and tried. Copy cat crime from actual crimes sadly does exist. The number one factor for shool shootings is to report in the news about a school shooting.

Doing a crime in the real world has a barrier. You propose a mechanism that lowers that barrier, over "accepting" that crime's "presence". By seeing that crime in a fictional setting no less. In short, you take away the ability of adults to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Ho88it17 days ago

I heartily disagree on the copycat crime not existing point. And either way, the point about normalization still stands.

Don't be blinded because you don't see an uptick in crime rates after x game is released. Just like with the Japan statistics, a million other factors can hide the impact of a game on nationwide crime rates. It does not mean there is no relationship between this game and SA normalization and criminality in individual cases.

redonihunter25 days ago

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.

Ho88it24 days ago(+1)

Exactly the point I was trying to make. You find my studies dubious, and I find yours dubious. We've gotten nowhere, just like I said would happen.

The paywalls are irrelevant in this case. The abstracts get the point across. I found studies that found a connection between sexual material in video games and real-life behavior. Which is what I claim exists with this game.

The Bible is a horrible comparison to this game because the point of sexual accounts you mentioned in the Bible is not masturbatory, or to be entertaining. You are supposed to be horrified by what Lot did in those cases. Not entertained or aroused by it, like with you are with the sex in this game. Because of this, it's a bad analogy. The portrayals of sex in the Bible you mentioned are not remotely comparable to this game, therefore, you have not demonstrated any absurdity in my position.

The studies found a connection between sexualized content in video games, and the real-life thoughts and attitudes of the subjects about sexual behavior. I claimed that there is a connection between the content of this sexualized video game, and the real-life thoughts and attitudes of its players. And thoughts lead to action in many cases. You can't really do something without thinking about doing it.

I already addressed the point about "ego shooters" (assuming this means FPS), so I won't make it again.

redonihunter24 days ago

I do not recall linking to any studies. I linked to some statistics and made an inference between the low real life sa numbers in Japan and the rather high availablitily of adult games that feature sa. It is not a taboo topic in adult games there.

If those abstracts were all you could find, that would fit my narrative: that your proposed mechanism does not exist. It would be a big deal, if such a mechanism would be proven to exist.

The professional debate for this is going on for about 50 years now. And if they could not prove it for so long, I say, it is because it is not true!

You can use modern tech to get a a summary. Ask these or similar questions to an AI. They are good at summarzing written works. Just be sure not to beg the question so the system only tells you what you want to hear. The system actually did a good job of highlighting this from both sides, but the bottom line is, that there is nothing to it.

What is the current scientific consensus about the relation of depiction of crimes in video games and players commiting those crimes in real life?

tl;dr None. "No Causal Link Between Video Game Violence and Real-World Violence"

Is the scientifc consensus different for pornographic games that feature sexual assault?

tl;dr Still none. Researchers are worried, but "causality remains unproven: there is no definitive evidence that playing these games leads to actual sexual violence."

Ho88it17 days ago

Just a quick reply (so much for the last word lol). They were not all I could find, they were the result of some relatively short research into the topic. "Causality remains unproven" is not equal to "mechanism does not exist". Like with the stats on Japan, it makes perfect sense that the impact of this game would be concealed up by thousands of other factors. I make the case that it still exists, and therefore, developing/playing/hosting this game is bad.

View more in thread

vampirichare23 days ago (3 edits) (+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.