YianGaruga
Banned
why the fuck are we comparing real ISIS beaheadings to GTA
becausewhy the fuck are we comparing real ISIS beaheadings to GTA
Is this a serious fucking question? You want to ask me what's the difference between watching someone play GTA and watch ISIS execute someone, next?
SORRY AGAIN IF DOUBLE POST. Would you say there's no ground that the bottom? Would you accept total moral relativity without caveat?
why the fuck are we comparing real ISIS beaheadings to GTA
because
So then we're back to bdsm porn which is specifically made for arousal.But do you laugh when you see it? Ever get a hard on watching someone die? Sometimes there is a wrong. The game displays a woman clearly distressed by forced fondling. For a game that people purport as being marketed as cheesecake, this is not healthy.
What is this "bottom" you speak of?
I already told you what my caveat is, the line to not cross is the harm done to other people. That's my line. That is also the line most nations draw. And when I say "people" I mean REAL people, not images, drawings, or digital avatars.
Is that not enough for you? Do you think it is not enough that no one is harmed, that you want to be not offended to boot?
There are games that let you kill children. The first two Fallout games let you kill them and even get a reputation title for it.
They were going to use this icon for it but decided it was potentially offensive and replaced it.
Because no matter how you slice it, we're talking representation. There's a defined portrayal and manipulation happening, no matter how represented. The video on the op shows a woman clearly in distress over forced touching. There's no churlish grin, no playful tone, her face depicts a deep concern. I am asking if this portrayal, entirely in polygon, is still a healthy depiction to 'explore'.
So then we're back to bdsm porn which is specifically made for arousal.
Bdsm porn is okay because everyone is aware that it's not real, noone is getting hurt. Again, tone plays no role.
The same can then be said about this game, noone is getting hurt.
Because no matter how you slice it, we're talking representation. There's a defined portrayal and manipulation happening, no matter how represented. The video on the op shows a woman clearly in distress over forced touching. There's no churlish grin, no playful tone, her face depicts a deep concern. I am asking if this portrayal, entirely in polygon, is still a healthy depiction to 'explore'.
what do you mean with "healthy"? for who? would it otherwise be "unhealthy"?
Why would doing this in VR be unhealthy?
Like I said, if you acknowledge there's a line crossed by the real violence ISIS commits, even if presented in a similar tone to GTA, then you can clearly see that fictional violence is to be judged differently. That principle can transfer to other things you find morally objectionable in real life. And yes, that actually does make a difference to me, because while I adore the fictional (and polygonal) over the top gory violence in both Mortal Kombat, where it's lighter in tone, and Manhunt, where it's much more sinister, actual real gore, whenever I accidentally happen upon it because I try to avoid it, disturbs me to the point of sleeplessness, throwing up or other adverse physical reactions.I have already iterated that there is a difference. It's called representation. ISIS is representing a portrayal of suffering that is entirely face value. GTA plays it cards like South Park does, as nihilistic commentary. I don't purport to agree to the message or method of either, but it is not focused on the act, but the brevity of the actions reinterpreted through their brand of satire. You ask if ISIS murders were portrayed as comedy would alleviate this and I say no. I say no because there are defined lines in life. No amount of horsehead mask is going to make a beheading ok, because the underlying concept is still terror. I would ask is if would make a difference to you, as you are convinced my flaw is an inherent human one. And if polygons make all the difference, would you be immune to the the graphic portrayal of assault on a child, by an adult.
That's the odd path we take when we have a discussion about real vs. fictional and judging sex vs. violence, lmao. Right, I'm going back to reading JoJo's. Peace.why the fuck are we comparing real ISIS beaheadings to GTA
Do you think forcing yourself on a woman, real or not, is a healthy act?
Because no matter how you slice it, we're talking representation. There's a defined portrayal and manipulation happening, no matter how represented. The video on the op shows a woman clearly in distress over forced touching. There's no churlish grin, no playful tone, her face depicts a deep concern. I am asking if this portrayal, entirely in polygon, is still a healthy depiction to 'explore'.
Define "Healthy".Do you think forcing yourself on a woman, real or not, is a healthy act?
Like I said, if you acknowledge there's a line crossed by the real violence ISIS commits, even if presented in a similar tone to GTA, then you can clearly see that fictional violence is to be judged differently. That principle can transfer to other things you find morally objectionable in real life. And yes, that actually does make a difference to me, because while I adore the fictional (and polygonal) over the top gory violence in both Mortal Kombat, where it's lighter in tone, and Manhunt, where it's much more sinister, actual real gore, whenever I accidentally happen upon it because I try to avoid it, disturbs me to the point of sleeplessness, throwing up or other adverse physical reactions.
That's the odd path we take when we have a discussion about real vs. fictional and judging sex vs. violence, lmao. Right, I'm going back to reading JoJo's. Peace.
you did not answer my question. What do you mean with healthy
I'm failing to see the connection here. You mean psychologically? If I play this game I'm mentally ill? Is killing people in games a "healthy" thing to do?
And you can't just casually say "real or not" as a modifier as if it doesn't matter. It's the crux of the whole argument.
I explained that already. The only reason she objected to being touched is because if she didn't, it would be banned from Consoles for being classified as Foreplay. Your problem is thinking that the game is about making a woman distressed, when the reality is that the distress is just a way to survive the censors.
And it doesn't matter what you think is healthy or unhealthy, because it doesn't matter for as long as no one is getting hurt. You have your preferences just like everyone else, but you don't get to decide to force your preferences onto other people.
I gave an example. Please used the reference provided.
So consensual is more harmful than forced?
Enters thread for the first time. First post I see is.
Maybe they asked the fictional character before they made the game and the character gave consent? I mean do you realize how insane it sounds to ask for consent from a fictional character? They can neither give nor deny consent, because they're not real.For one, BDSM does not necessitate forced pain in any form. People participate in BDSM because it satisfies a need for them. It always involved consent, and the right to choose a role. The game depicted in the OP clearly shows no consenting action taking place, instead forced will to provoke distress.
you absolutely did not. please answer my question
It has nothing to do with HARM, because no one is being harmed. Sex is not allowed on Consoles by Sony policy and that's that. I would prefer that the rule doesn't exist, but it is there.
And please, give me your definition of "healthy".
Maybe they asked the fictional character before they made the game and the character gave consent? I mean do you realize how insane it sounds to ask for consent from a fictional character? They can neither give nor deny consent, because they're not real.
Do you also think it's bad that soldier #52 didn't give consent to be shot in Call of Duty 3?
I asked if forcing yourself on a woman, whether real or not, is healthy behavior. Is that not an example?
Have you watched Grave of the Fireflies, or any animated feature with an emotional narrative? Did you not feel empathy simply because they were not real?
I felt empathy like I'd feel with real actors. But I didn't get mad at the studio that they put these characters in that situation without asking their consent first.Have you watched Grave of the Fireflies, or any animated feature with an emotional narrative? Did you not feel empathy simply because they were not real?
how is that an answer to your definition of healthy?
I can't answer the qestion until you tell me what you mean with "healthy"
I felt empathy like I'd feel with real actors. But I didn't get mad at the studio that they put these characters in that situation without asking their consent first.
My definition of healthy sexuality is coming to terms with the concept of partnership. Healthy sex involves willing partners who agree to the act and choose to commit to it. Can there be regret? Can there be remorse? Sure, but the recourse is that there's someone on the other side that agreed to it too.
I felt empathy like I'd feel with real actors. But I didn't get mad at the studio that they put these characters in that situation without asking their consent first.
I answered the main question I could see in your post, at least as far as I could tell from your messy writing:I asked a question in my post, and you completely skirted it to parrot your message another time. Discussion is a dialogue, You chose to ignore my question,
As I said in my post you just quoted: Yes, the very fact that they're polygons and not humans makes the difference to me. I've very explicitly answered this, and it's clear that extended to your example from my more crass ones, so spare me the condescension of going on about the principle of discussion being dialogue. Not that it matters from now on, because I've had enough of this silly horseplay.(...) I would ask is if would make a difference to you, as you are convinced my flaw is an inherent human one. And if polygons make all the difference, would you be immune to the the graphic portrayal of assault on a child, by an adult. (...)
My definition of healthy sexuality is coming to terms with the concept of partnership. Healthy sex involves willing partners who agree to the act and choose to commit to it. Can there be regret? Can there be remorse? Sure, but the recourse is that there's someone on the other side that agreed to it too.
I felt empathy like I'd feel with real actors. But I didn't get mad at the studio that they put these characters in that situation without asking their consent first.
forcing yourself on a real woman is not healthy behaviour. That shouldn't even be a question.
touching a boob in DOAX 3 VR is neither healthy nor unhealthy, because it has nothing to do with it. There is no partnership, no partners, no agreement. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with my real world sexuality. It's something I do ONLY because it's in a game and I can 100% separate the two.
I think a little PSA when booting up like "Always ask for consent" similar to how racing games tend to have a "Don't try this with real cars" disclaimer would be fair. It's this insistence that the fictional character itself has to give consent that kind of throws me off.There is definitely a difference when it comes to interactive media, as opposed to the passivity of movies. There's also a pretty marked difference between violence and sex stuff in that it's very common for people to be pretty badly misguided about what behaviour is appropriate and what isn't. Let's be honest, poking and prodding women when they're not comfortable is the most common form of sex assault and something which a lot of women have been subject to, to varying degrees, and in many cases from perpetrators who through misguided messaging didn't realize what they were doing was wrong.
Again for the record, the last thing I think should happen is that it should be banned. But it's definitely treading a fine line and yes, adding a bullshit few lines of text about informed consent or whatever would make a much bigger difference than you'd think.
I think a little PSA when booting up like "Always ask for consent" similar to how racing games tend to have a "Don't try this with real cars" disclaimer would be fair
You are in direct control of the woman's response. The only way to interact with her is to sexually assault her. There whole point of the scenario is to depict sexual violence. If that flies with you I guess I have nothing left to say.
You are in direct control of the woman's response. The only way to interact with her is to sexually assault her. There whole point of the scenario is to depict sexual violence. If that flies with you I guess I have nothing left to say.
I think a little PSA when booting up like "Always ask for consent" similar to how racing games tend to have a "Don't try this with real cars" disclaimer would be fair. It's this insistence that the fictional character itself has to give consent that kind of throws me off.
Again for the record, the last thing I think should happen is that it should be banned. But it's definitely treading a fine line and yes, adding a bullshit few lines of text about informed consent or whatever would make a much bigger difference than you'd think.
"This person didn't react exactly as I expected when I assaulted her therefore it's not assault"I don't even see the scenario as sexual violence because it's so absurd. You poke a boob with a silver plastic toy and the girl shies away. A second later she's back in her default pose as if nothing happened. She doesn't move, she doesn't do aynthing! She's not even mad. It's barely more than inappropriately touching a barbie doll and pretending she doesn't like it.
"This person didn't react exactly as I expected when I assaulted her therefore it's not assault"
"This person didn't react exactly as I expected when I assaulted her therefore it's not assault"
You guys are definitely getting into that "does violence in games effect you" territory. Lol...Too much of a long debate for me but I can't help but be intrigued by these topics.
My 2 cents, just like porn, it does, but just in subtle ways that for the majority of the population are fairly harmless, at least on a surface level. Call me old fashioned, but I think watching other people have sex frequently can affect your views of sex, of the opposite sex, increase isolation and dependency, and overall (especially when watching from a young age) distort your view of real sex since porn is usually a bunch of actors. This is kinda "softporn" IMO, and I'm not judging, but it should be rated M.
Oh yes I agree, but we should go further than a few lines of text informing of consent.
All characters participating in the game should be shown to sign a consent form just like they do now with those casting couch videos. Show Katsumi in normal clothes and sans makeup walking into an office and signing those papers. Have a voice over by the voice actor also announcing that any sounds she make is fictional and not due to any real physical interactions occurring in the recording studio.
The real world players should also have to prove to Gamestop, Sony or Steam that they are not on any sex offenders list. This will hopefully allay any concerns to the community that the players are not deviants and will prevent any real world sexual assaults due to the tittilation caused by the game.
is touching a barbie doll sexual assault?
Does it have a Voodoo curse on it?
If that's what you think I said I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. It never is actual sexual assault because it's not real, but you can interpret it however you want of course. I see it more as a VR tech demo and demonstration of what can be done. Not once in my initial watching of the video have I thought "sexual assault". I was legitimately surprised when people brought it up. It very much depends on how much you spearate games from reality and if you more look at the mechanics and tech behind it or see it "as is", as a women being touched. To me, it's just mechanics.
also, is touching a barbie doll sexual assault?
I'm talking about the scenario you presented
You are in direct control of the woman's response. The only way to interact with her is to sexually assault her. There whole point of the scenario is to depict sexual violence. If that flies with you I guess I have nothing left to say.