The perfect crime is a "thought crime".

"What would happen if…?
“Can I get away with it?”
“What’s in it for me?”

Looking over the recent controversy over violent sexual behavior in videogames, the ESRB, and false reporting (Fox News), now I know why Greeny was so angry about the game I wanted people to work on with me, but as said in previous articles: “There is not one shred of evidence or study done that concludes violent sexual behavior (or rape) can come from playing violent videogames.”

You might as well say if you stay at Disneyland for a year, interacting with the “Where’s Nemo?” exhibit, you will start acting like a fish.

Your thoughts?

Looks like we have another Jack Thompson on our hands.
‘Games cause rape increase’ psychologist speaks her mind again
I’d like to point out, the studies she “conveniently” filed away and lost were not conclusive.
These studies had mostly Japanese games in mind, including an American game called RapeLay.
“Games Cause Rape” Psychiatrist Defends Her Position

I do not think there would be much influence coming from violent games if you have a real grasp of reality and a game. If you have been pushed by games, I would think that you have that thought to begin with, and you were just presented a situation in which you can pull it off as you have seen in a video game.

I mean, the thing that game was even developed was to give the feeling of having to do something you can never do in real life. If you went for it, then you probably have some loose screws.

Sorry RapeLay is Japanese, by Illusion (makers of Sexy Beach 1, 2, and 3).

I’ll give you a better response when I can think clearly.

Back in the 90s, the American military started using video games to train troops. It turns out that just like driving games, FPS games don’t increase combat skills AT ALL. However, they do increase one thing: Your willingness to shoot and kill another human being.

The Army puts big money into this research - they call it “killology” - no joke! According to Army historian S.L.A. Marshall, as quoted in the film Soldiers of Conscience, “Among U.S. soldiers in combat less than 25% actually fired their weapons at the enemy.” By Vietnam, the number was 85-90%, and it is believed to be even higher now.

I think the games they used were were from the Socom series, but they’ve been actually training with video games (war game style not actual combat) since the 60s.

Pong clones, Arkanoid/Break Out, Asteroids, Pole Position, Dig Dug, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, Centipede, Galaxian, Xazon, and yes, Super Mario Kart (Mario Kart64).
Other Military branches also used this technique, like the Star Fox series and the Star Wars series for the Air Force.
Even Orca The Whale was used by the Coast Gard.

If the number went from 25% to 85% or more by Vietnam, how did anyone conclude that videogame-training was a factor (even in more recent increases)?

Not being snarky here, just really curious about how they established (or believe they established) causality.

Not trying to establish causality with that factoid, just the credentials of the Army “killologists.”

One of the most successful strategies that researchers discovered was having recruits shoot at human-like targets during training - and the more lifelike, the better. I would not be surprised if playing an FPS has similar effects.

Personally, I think there may be more involved than just the content of a video game. When studies point to the 15-year delay between the introduction of television (to children) and increased violence (in young adults), there’s no indication of whether 15 years of TV increase acceptance of violence because of witnessing violent acts, or whether watching TV (or playing video games) just wires your brain in a certain way that makes you more violent (by suppressing impulse control, for example). For all we know, Baby Einstein could be making almost as many violent kids as America’s Army: True Soldiers…

Hm. K.

I’ll try and sum this up in truth. Many people say games can’t do this, games can do that. Either they can, or they can’t. lol…

if a game alters somones mind it alters someone’s mind. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t…

but you can’t say what will happen to one will happen to another either…

if a game has altered someones mind, how would we even know? likewise if it hasn’t how would we know?

man plays a violent game kills his family. You and I don’t know if the game tirggered this. How could we possibly?

Yet we know this. There are people that can play violent games all their lives, and not kill someone…

so as far as enforcing goes. It should be freedom of choice. Same with violent movies.

If you make the choice to play that game and it does or does not alter your mind, and you do something that is a crime then you should be punished for that crime…

if they can PROVE that the game altered the mind, less the punishment on them. Just like if they were under the influence of a substance and didn’t really know what they were doing.

however pinning something on a game, weather or not it was the games fault, will be a hard thing for anyone to do.

— on a side note —

there are studies that show that music, and things like that, that we listen to, do affect the brain.

also you would think that if a game altered someones mind, like stated, they were probably in a poor mental frame for reality to begin with.

This is a very deep life thing on the other hand it’s not knowing things that are beyond us…

what if a game could alter someone’s mind? so what, it’s unlikely to happen on as savere scale as someone going out and killing somone…

what if the next time your cousin calls you and says something about popcorn, and you go out and kill someone…


what if your cousin wouldn’t have mentioned popcorn, and you wouldn’t have gone out and did that??

this is life…we don’t know the deep things, haha

welcome to the twilight zone haha

Everybody is influenced, some small amount, by everything that goes on around them. Of course video games have an influence on our culture; just look around the Internet!

That said, it’s irrelevant. By the time you are an adult, you are responsible for how you let things influence you. You are expected to be able to think for yourself; it isn’t a game developers responsibility to babysit you. An adult can play and enjoy RapeLay and its ilk all they want. As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing wrong with it. Someone can disagree and express that opinion, and that’s great! When you try to legislate expression, however, is dangerous territory. Unfortunate, because it’s a step the “free” world has taken already. Or perhaps that is the wrong thing to say; free expression has always been, in some cases, an illusion.

I think all that can be summed up with this question:
“Do violent videogames create violent people, or do violent people gravitate towards violent videogames?”

As for music, you can go on some Websites and buy a piece of music for hypnotic therapy or just cool effects (like restaurants making you hungry with music to come back again).
It isn’t a stretch of the imagination that a group of people are doing the same thing with punk and metal (AC/DC, Alice Cooper, Marilin Manson, and others).

Although I agree that there’s nothing wrong with mature games, or even extreme adult games, RapeLay is on the border of acceptable and disgusting.
Almost all female characters are minors, and the purpose of the game is to have non consensual sex with each one, like a Sexy Beach with 12 year olds.
The images are pretty graphic (graphic as in blood and guts) and sound is explicate.

This game should stay in Japan (an American company) but even lolicon there is banned (currently just in Tokyo, but expanding).
Love/sex doll sellers beware.

Border? I think it’s 100% all-the-way disgusting … but there is (or should be) a vast cosmic gulf between between disgust and censorship.

For me, the different between a digital, visual, or literary representation of a person and an actual person makes all the difference, but there is nothing wrong with being offended by the subject matter of a game if you’re so inclined.

The Japanese lolicon ban is unfortunate. Not surprising, though. Censorship is nothing new to Japan where, as in the US, it is constitutionally illegal. It was only a matter of time.

Actually it was accepted that the subject matter is disgusting in a “Don’t like it, don’t play,” kind of way.
The controversy was over these images as interactive which would be more likely to create a pedophile type mentality.

I can see their point (for a temporary taboo release), but I think it’s as good an argument as turning violent because of violent videogames.

This reminds me of the case of a “Time” like Australian magazine that had a 6 year old girl posing like a classic nude painting on the cover (the 6 year old was ok with artistic nudity, and her parents consented, and were allowed to take the pictures).
The case had just been resolved in the child’s (now teen) favor.

It’s not constitutionally illegal, in fact to the constitution, artistic freedom (no matter the subject) is every man’s right.
That’s why George W. Bush signed the Protect Act of 2003 because children weren’t constitutionally protected from people who would exploit their sexuality.

Are children so much more special than adults they would need legal protection?
If so, where’s the crackdown on the celebrity sex tape law?

Lolicon itself is considered freedom of expression if the child is fictional, however if you base physical characteristics of your drawing on a real person, you’ll be arrested and will have to register as a sex offender.

I haven’t met a sculptor yet deemed as a sex offender.

Hey, I just looked at the date.
Happy [size=150]Halloween[/size] everyone!

Censorship is constitutionally illegal. But it hasn’t prevented censorship in either country, as we can see. In the United States and Japan, people can be, and have been, prosecuted for obscenity.

Actual children are protected, and that can be justified because the idea isn’t to prevent expression, but exploitation. Practically speaking, children are special. The constitution is not applied to them as it is everyone else, and the constitution itself doesn’t deal with children specifically because of, presumably, a lack of foresight by the authors.

It’s not practical to teach children like adults, because they aren’t. Ideally, we’d amend the constitution, though, so that the courts can at least keep up the pretense that they have some respect for it.

I’m confused, are you agreeing with me that they are not protected as the constitution was originally meant, or do you believe the law was there to begin with and there was no reason for that part of the Protect Act?

I do not think the constitution is enough to protect children. Children require special considerations that aren’t addressed in the constitution, so it’s a bit inadequate in that regard.