Rapelay virtual rape game banned by Amazon

[Pingfah]

That is so not what he said

 

[Data Holmes]

That is so not what he said

That's where his position leads to though...

 

[Pingfah]

What, being concerned for the weird fantasies other people have?

No, personal concern does not lead to legislation

Seems like you are the one telling him how to think.

 

[Data Holmes]

What, being concerned for the weird fantasies other people have?

No, personal concern does not lead to legislation

Seems like you are the one telling him how to think.

Concern leads to fear, leads to anger, leads to hate, leads to oppression...

 

[SalvorHardin]

What, being concerned for the weird fantasies other people have?

No, personal concern does not lead to legislation

Seems like you are the one telling him how to think.

Concern leads to fear, leads to hate, leads to anger, leads to oppression...

Yoda ? Is that you ?

 

[Rii]

Or perhaps certain things shouldn't even be in ones fantasies, and when they are other people worry.

It's not uncommon for women have fantasies of being raped. It's a "freedom from responsibility" thing, a means of reconciling one's sexual urges with cultural norms regarding women's sexual propriety, the whole "slut" vs. "stud" thing. Just as women who have these fantasies certainly don't wish to be raped in real life, most men with rape fantasies have no desire to commit rape in real life either.

 

[Hermiod]

Or perhaps certain things shouldn't even be in ones fantasies, and when they are other people worry.

It's not uncommon for women have fantasies of being raped. It's a "freedom from responsibility" thing, a means of reconciling one's sexual urges with cultural norms regarding women's sexual propriety, the whole "slut" vs. "stud" thing. Just as women who have these fantasies certainly don't wish to be raped in real life, most men with rape fantasies have no desire to commit rape in real life either.

Indeed. In fact, the inability to have sexual fantasies is common amongst actual rapists.

 

[Pingfah]

What, being concerned for the weird fantasies other people have?

No, personal concern does not lead to legislation

Seems like you are the one telling him how to think.

Concern leads to fear, leads to anger, leads to hate, leads to oppression...

What on earth are you talking about? So people should avoid being concerned about anything?

You seem to be confusing actively trying to have the law changed to make thinking about certain things illegal, with being concerned over why somebody would wish to fantasize about exercising violent control over a woman.

Not sure why really since the distinction couldn't be much more blatantly obvious.

 

[Captain X]

It all boils down to a simple concept....


Fantasy.... Reality.... two separate things.

People who attack games, or movies, or tv shows, or books have a problem with that simple fact. They blur the lines either because they themselves can't tell the difference, or they have an agenda.

Exactly. In a way, the people pushing for censorship have more in common with the actual criminals because of that inability to keep fantasy separate from reality.

Or perhaps certain things shouldn't even be in ones fantasies, and when they are other people worry.

Judgmental much? So you're going to tell people what is appropriate for them to fantasize about and what isn't?

It's not uncommon for women have fantasies of being raped. It's a "freedom from responsibility" thing, a means of reconciling one's sexual urges with cultural norms regarding women's sexual propriety, the whole "slut" vs. "stud" thing. Just as women who have these fantasies certainly don't wish to be raped in real life, most men with rape fantasies have no desire to commit rape in real life either.

Indeed, I actually know one such woman, she's a good friend of mine, and I accept her for who she is.

What on earth are you talking about? So people should avoid being concerned about anything?

That's kind of a red herring. Hoser basically suggested that there should be some standard as to what is and isn't appropriate for people to fantasize about, referencing the fact that both men and woman can fantasize about rape without actually wanting to do so in reality. Frankly it isn't anyone's place to "be concerned" about them for that.

You seem to be confusing actively trying to have the law changed to make thinking about certain things illegal, with being concerned over why somebody would wish to fantasize about exercising violent control over a woman.

You seem to be losing sight of the fact that "being concerned" about other peoples' sexual fantasies usually does lead to legislation. One need only look at the UK to see that, where all "violent" porn is illegal, and even simple possession of it, even if it's of yourself and your consenting partner, is grounds for jail time and/or fines. And all because some woman crusaded against it because the man who raped and murdered her daughter had that type of porn on his computer. She and apparently British Parliament made the common mistake of thinking that the porn somehow was responsible for his crimes rather than the psycho in question just being, well, a psycho and solely responsible for his own actions. This is the same argument people make against violent media, or anything else, really.

 

[Count Zero]

One need only look at the UK to see that, where all "violent" porn is illegal, and even simple possession of it, even if it's of yourself and your consenting partner, is grounds for jail time and/or fines.

Is that true?

 

[Data Holmes]

One need only look at the UK to see that, where all "violent" porn is illegal, and even simple possession of it, even if it's of yourself and your consenting partner, is grounds for jail time and/or fines.

Is that true?

Sadly, it is... The UK is far from a free place to live...

 

[Pingfah]

What on earth are you talking about? So people should avoid being concerned about anything?

That's kind of a red herring. Hoser basically suggested that there should be some standard as to what is and isn't appropriate for people to fantasize about, referencing the fact that both men and woman can fantasize about rape without actually wanting to do so in reality. Frankly it isn't anyone's place to "be concerned" about them for that.

It's not a red herring, Data Holmes suggested that Hoser was in favour of "thought crime legislation". I was just pointing out that he is completely overreacting to his statement, which is a long long way off that.

You seem to be confusing actively trying to have the law changed to make thinking about certain things illegal, with being concerned over why somebody would wish to fantasize about exercising violent control over a woman.

You seem to be losing sight of the fact that "being concerned" about other peoples' sexual fantasies usually does lead to legislation. One need only look at the UK to see that, where all "violent" porn is illegal, and even simple possession of it, even if it's of yourself and your consenting partner, is grounds for jail time and/or fines. And all because some woman crusaded against it because the man who raped and murdered her daughter had that type of porn on his computer. She and apparently British Parliament made the common mistake of thinking that the porn somehow was responsible for his crimes rather than the psycho in question just being, well, a psycho and solely responsible for his own actions. This is the same argument people make against violent media, or anything else, really.

True, that's entirely different to banning what people think about though. I agree the that laws around porn in this country are ridiculous, you'll get no argument from me there.

 

[Count Zero]

It's the jail time aspect of it I find hard to believe.
We have our share of backdoor censorship, too, and I imagine violent porn could be a victim of it. However, you can still get those things (just not easily) and you wouldn't get any problems for possessing them.

 

[Pingfah]

I'm not aware of anyone having been jailed in the UK for having porn that was made with consenting adults.

If Data Holmes has such evidence I suggest he posts it.

 

[T'Baio]

If you truly and literally had that desire and the games gave you relief, you'll still do it eventually.

What about games like GTA or Crackdown?

I'm a fairly non-violent person, yet I play GTA and have a lot of fun blowing up helicopters with a missile launcher. Does that mean eventually I'm going to pick up a missile launcher and blow up the real thing?

While I find games like Rapelay abhorrent, that doesn't mean a person who plays it is going to go out and rape someone. 'Bolio makes a good point. How is this unacceptable, yet games like GTA sell faster than stores can supply them are considered normal?

J.

Exactly. I've committed acts of violence in video games that would make the bloodiest tyrants in history piss themselves. Does that mean I'm more likely to do it for real? Of course not. Less so, in fact, since I have a harmless outlet for my pent-up aggression.

If mass murder, theft, terrorism, prostitution, drug smuggling, and a dozen other felonies are fair play in the video gaming world, there's no reason on Earth why rape and/or underage sex shouldn't be as well.

Seriously, do you guys even read my posts?

Look at what I quoted, then look at what I wrote.

Now contextualize what I wrote with what I quoted.

Your responses have nothing to do with what I said, and I did not say what you think I did.

 

[Hoser]

Or perhaps certain things shouldn't even be in ones fantasies, and when they are other people worry.

Judgmental much? So you're going to tell people what is appropriate for them to fantasize about and what isn't?

Me? no.
But if I found the next door neighbour had pictures of my wife all over his wall and spent his time recording her voice from afar, then yeah, I'd be worried. I'd move too. Yet that's not something they can arrest him for (nor should they be able to)
Simultaneously, of all the fantasies one can spend time on, I don't think one where you rape a woman and her daughter, then torture them until they abort any of your possible children is a good one.

Did I say government storm troopers had to get involved? No. But for all the libertarian hooplah in this thread, it wasn't taken down by Secret Service cronies or trained Navy dolphins, the free market decided to take it down.

 

[Pingfah]

One need only look at the UK to see that, where all "violent" porn is illegal, and even simple possession of it, even if it's of yourself and your consenting partner, is grounds for jail time and/or fines.

Actually i've just looked into this, full text of the law is available here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1

Whilst I agree it is largely ridiculous, it does say that it is a defence to prove that the person in possession of the image participated in it or can show that no non-consensual harm was inflicted upon anyone.

Which seems to me to exclude certainly homemade porn and possibly anything faked. Maybe i'm reading it wrong but it seems that way to me.

 

[miraclefan]

You watch, the way America is going, these type's of games will be sold here sooner then you think!

What are you talking about? They've been sold here since they've come into existence. And that's a good thing. Its a yardstick for freedom. Do you hate freedom ?

Not by a LONGSHOT!, But what I am saying is that I just wish people had some decentcy and commonsence! And yes I know these types of games have been sold here since the beginning, but in the BACKMARKET! what I am talking about is RETAIL! like Wal-mart or Gamestop.

 

[Count Zero]

(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—

(a) falls within subsection (7), and

(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

Yeah, it seems to be largely adressed against snuff films. But section 6b worries me. That is really vague.

 

[miraclefan]

I'm going to guess someone saw it, was offended, and whined.

VERY TRUE! If I remember correctly it was this site www.worldnetdaily.com that claimes THEY were the ones to brake this story. Personaly I don't know if they REALLY broke this story, I am just telling you what THEY claim.