Support NeoGAF

[YianGaruga]

why the fuck are we comparing real ISIS beaheadings to GTA

 

[FlammableD]

why the fuck are we comparing real ISIS beaheadings to GTA

because

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?

 

[NOOI]

SORRY AGAIN IF DOUBLE POST. Would you say there's no ground that the bottom? Would you accept total moral relativity without caveat?

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?

 

[galvenize]

Enters thread for the first time. First post I see is.

why the fuck are we comparing real ISIS beaheadings to GTA

 

[YianGaruga]

because

what you quoted was a rethorical question

and so was mine

 

[Kinyou]

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.

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.

 

[capitalCORN]

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?

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'.

 

[univbee]

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.

There haven't really been any since. There isn't a legal reason for it or anything, but there's something of a gentlemen's agreement among devs to just avoid that hot potato. This is why the GTA games all effectively take place in the Children of Men universe, for example.

Remember, just because you can "get away" with something controversial doesn't mean it's a good idea, and even the most envelope-pushing devs understand this and will actually make compromises. GTA actually cuts a few corners if you know where to look, they're just discreet about it.

 

[YianGaruga]

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?

 

[capitalCORN]

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.

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.

 

[Dragonslayer_023]

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'.

I like how she keeps getting more and more "distressed" and deeply concerned. If you have to exaggerate so much to make your point maybe rethink it.

 

[capitalCORN]

what do you mean with "healthy"? for who? would it otherwise be "unhealthy"?

Why would doing this in VR be unhealthy?

Do you think forcing yourself on a woman, real or not, is a healthy act?

 

[Palculator]

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.

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.

why the fuck are we comparing real ISIS beaheadings to GTA

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.

 

[YianGaruga]

Do you think forcing yourself on a woman, real or not, is a healthy act?

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.

 

[NOOI]

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'.

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.

Do you think forcing yourself on a woman, real or not, is a healthy act?

Define "Healthy".
Seriously, tell me what you mean by "healthy". because we can't discuss anything until we know what you are talking about. Give me your definition of the word. We can go from there.

 

[capitalCORN]

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.

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,

 

[capitalCORN]

I'm running out of ways to apologize for double posts...

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 gave an example. Please used the reference provided.

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.

So consensual is more harmful than forced?

 

[YianGaruga]

I gave an example. Please used the reference provided.

you absolutely did not. please answer my question

 

[NOOI]

So consensual is more harmful than forced?

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".

 

[Sangetsu-II]

Enters thread for the first time. First post I see is.

dead

 

[Kinyou]

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.

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?

 

[capitalCORN]

you absolutely did not. please answer my question

I asked if forcing yourself on a woman, whether real or not, is healthy behavior. Is that not an example?

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".

It's still sexual, simply sexual harassment instead of consensual.

 

[capitalCORN]

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?

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?

 

[YianGaruga]

I asked if forcing yourself on a woman, whether real or not, is healthy behavior. Is that not an example?

how is that an answer to your definition of healthy?
I can't answer the question until you tell me what you mean with "healthy"
Also I can not answer it with "real or not" in it, as it's not the same thing. At all.

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?

not a lot, no

I can totally relate and I think it's a great movie, but the feelings I have are completely different to the ones I would have to a real world situation

 

[Kinyou]

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.

 

[capitalCORN]

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"

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.

The crux of the matter is that the directors created these scenarios to elicit a sympathetic response. One that allows people to accept the characters and feel their emotions second hand. The video in the op is not mean to bring light to the woman's plight, you are in direct control of her discomfort. This is done by manipulating sexual features against her will.

 

[YianGaruga]

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.

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.

 

[Cc23830]

Came here to post funny comment, seen rape debate.... im out

 

[univbee]

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.

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.

 

[Palculator]

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,

I answered the main question I could see in your post, at least as far as I could tell from your messy writing:

(...) 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. (...)

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.

 

[NOOI]

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.

Well then, we have solve the problem. There is no consent because digital people can't give consent. They are literally forced to do what ever the game programers make them do. They are literally not consenting to ANYTHING because digital avatars don't choose to do anything.

Thus, there is no partner. That avatar is not meant to be in a partnership with you because she isn't real.

On the other hand, if that girl was under the direct VR control of a real human, and it was a real human being harrassed, who was telling the other human player to stop getting to close, then I will openly say that the guy is harassing her. This happens a lot already in real life VR lobbys, where people have their avatar's personal space violated. This is true harassment from one human to another human, and I would disapprove of it.

You are confusing an avatar of a female with that of a real human. The digital creature cannot be your partner, it does not have free will, and in this case it can't even agree to have sex with you because the option doesn't exist.

 

[capitalCORN]

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.

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.

 

[Kinyou]

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. It's this insistence that the fictional character itself has to give consent that kind of throws me off.

 

[YianGaruga]

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

I would totally be okay with that
great idea

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 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.

That is so absurd that I simply see no connection.

I know people will say "intent doesn't matter" but I'm relatively sure this wasn't intended to be a "sexual assault simulator"
The creators of the mode wanted to let you touch boobs and butts in VR and made the girl react more or less appropriately instead of being a lifeless body. That's all

 

[NOOI]

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.

No, she didn't respond at all. She has no choice but acting like she is unhappy because she has no other possible response given to her.

She isn't unhappy because she didn't have the option to be happy. She acted the way she did because she has to, it is canned and automatic. Because this is a Console game the option to seduce her properly isn't there. There is not even any violence, I have no idea where you are getting that. If there was actual sexual violence it would be banned before we ever got to see it.

 

[univbee]

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.

Honestly this really would be enough, largely. I also think context can be important. Going to delve into something of an extreme example to illustrate what I mean.

In case you weren't aware, because of how jam-packed Japanese subway cars are during commute hours (and yes, that's hours plural, they fucking wish rush hour was only an hour), there has been a significant problem over many years with women being groped on the subway due to limited opportunities to actually turn around and see the perp, and stuff like that, with various attempts at solutions undertaken (both by transit authority, and by victims of their own volition). This whole thing is a separate discussion unto itself but what I'm going to talk about is something of a natural fallout from this, in that some men in Japan have developed a fetish for groping women on a train, even if they've never actually done so themselves, and it's not uncommon in Japanese porn. In fact this is a common enough thing that at "bath houses" and similar sexual fantasy establishments, they will actually have theme rooms which are set up like a subway car, and you can, for example, pay for an hour or whatever for a sexy Japanese girl in a skimpy schoolgirl outfit to "commute" while you poke and prod her.

Now, let's say I was incorporating this into a videogame. Hell, let's say I add this into GTA or Sleeping Dogs or Yakuza or whatever. I think it'd be fine to implement a mechanism wherein you can go to a soap house to do this, given all that's implied by doing so. I think it would NOT be fine to add in a mechanic letting you go on the real in-game metro and grope those women, especially if you could do it somewhat consequence-free. And I think like the child killing thing earlier, you don't even have to pass a law about it, you can very much have the companies behind these types of media come to somewhat of an understanding of subtle differences they can make like this.

 

[Randy Monk]

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.

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.

 

[Omnistalgic]

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.

 

[FlammableD]

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"

 

[NOOI]

"This person didn't react exactly as I expected when I assaulted her therefore it's not assault"

Since it is not assault either way, I fail to see the problem. An Assault requires a human victim.

 

[YianGaruga]

"This person didn't react exactly as I expected when I assaulted her therefore it's not assault"

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 separate games from reality and if you more look at the mechanics and tech behind it or see it "as is", as a woman being touched. To me, it's just mechanics. Get close to the boob with the silver thing and the girl reacts. Okay. I know it's not real. If I saw the same exact scene in real life I can promise you my reaction would be different.

also, is touching a barbie doll sexual assault?

 

[Baalzebup]

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.

And it already is, more or less, in the territories it has been released in. My Asian physical box clearly displays a 18+ stamp on it and the japanese rating is CERO D, which is 17+. The game is not intended for kids.

 

[Ferr986]

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.

Yeah so funny but actually I think it's a good idea to add that kind of lines in a game where you touch the girls. Other genres does it, and let's not forget they have to put these kind of PSA in conventions with cosplayers (yeah I know real person vs dolls but it's the same case with fake cars and real ones, it's about an attitude).

Btw, would do it in GTA too.

 

[univbee]

is touching a barbie doll sexual assault?

Does it have a Voodoo curse on it?

 

[Baalzebup]

Does it have a Voodoo curse on it?

Are the DOAX girls neurologically connected to a real person?

 

[FlammableD]

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

 

[YianGaruga]

I'm talking about the scenario you presented

you should maybe look at the scenario I presented in context of the whole discussion and not try and put words in my mouth

 

[Ratrat]

Lol. This looks so idiotic and annoying.

 

[Guerrilla]

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.

And the whole point of like half of all AAA games is to kill people but I don't see you complaining there, so the only conclusion I can take from this is that sexual assault is worse in your opinion than murder... That's fucked up

Of course I'm using a tiny bit of hyperbole here to illustrate my point. It's still viable though and you are displaying a clear double standard.

 

[Sangetsu-II]

Guys can we just agree to disagree, we are going in circles now.