UN Challenging Japan’s Treatment of Women, Suggests Ban of Erotic Japanese Games

[ReimTime]

Shadow1980 said:

Honestly, obscenity laws have no business existing in the first place. For one, they are based on wholly subjective standards. Who gets to decide what "contemporary community standards" are or whether something "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Furthermore, it's entirely arbitrary. Why should a drawing or a video game depicting sexual content be potentially subject to the lable "obscene," while another work depicting graphic violence purely for entertainment value not be subjected to similar censorship laws simply because it lacks sexual content? Just because some portion of society, even an overwhelming majority, finds it offensive and disgusting does not give them the moral right to ban products and activities that do not harm others. When it comes to issues of individual liberty, I tend to subscribe to the "harm principle," which can be summed up in the following passages:

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." - The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, France, 1789

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

There are certain forms of speech that are and should be banned because they have demonstrably harmful effects on other people and/or otherwise impose an undue burden on society. Incitement to violence, perjury, false advertising, child pornography, "fighting words," and of course speech that can cause imminent panic (e.g., the famous "Yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowed theater" example) are all illegal. Libel and slander can also carry civil liabilities.

Regular pornography like what you can easily find on the internet, with consenting adult actors having videotaped sex for the entertainment of others, does not harm anyone or impose an undue burden on them. This goes double for cartoon, comic, or video game characters engaging in sexual acts, even sexual violence. They are fictional characters that exist merely as ideas in someone's head and as lines on paper or as polygons or sprites in a game file. They are not human beings and thus possess no rights. The acts portrayed in a game like Rapelay are not actual rape of an actual human being any more than performing a fatality in Mortal Kombat or popping headshots in an FPS are actual acts of murder. Whether it's pornographic content or violent content, such content in games, comics, and animation is for all intents and purposes completely harmless. If someone wants to watch "Horny Nympho MILFs Vol. 9" or play a pornographic visual novel or read an H-manga/doujin, they should be able to do so without the government sending people to arrest them. For these reasons, obscenity laws are inherently unjust and should be abolished (with the obvious exception of laws banning sexualized depictions of real-life minors).

I do get what you are saying but what I am trying to prove is that there exists a correlation between the two - the viewing of such material and harm to individuals down the line. And I do understand that I have been called out for the proof being insincere but there is no proof provided to prove my argument unfounded.

And I also recognize that I am in the underwhelming minority in claiming so. I accepted the possibility of criticism long ago; to claim such things on a gaming forum is to accept the near-sure possibility of being unbacked. Hell I got the same response when I linked articles proving a correlation between violent video games and violence - I was told my argument was stupid and unfounded even when I provided the research that supported me. This is why I am trying to take the approach that the banning of sexual violence in games (unless with the intention to dissuade or inform of the very real issue of sexual crime) etc is of no threat to us! We'll still get to enjoy pornography - the likes of which exists from sexual intersubjectivity. 

If you have any research articles that can back up your claim on the portrayal of "obscene" (subjective definition) material having no effect on people I invite you to link them please. Not because I don't recognize your argument because I promise I do - but I would like to read them, for having the whole picture is the best option. That is another reason why I bring up my argument, so at bare minimum I can at least expose the populace to the holistic perspective on the issue. I recognize it is difficult to remove oneself from the video game culture we are so heavily involved in before reading arguments that may be considered "threatening" to our hobbies. It's still hard for me to do.

And I recognize the double standard you are outlining - that of which violence in video games exists without the obscene label. Well you see, just like Japan's history of Freedom of Expression and lack of censorship/Buddhist-Shinto ideas of natural sexuality make it hard for them to view the situation holistically, America's own machoistic cultural background of glorified violence makes it hard for them to say "violence is bad". This is why it is best to trust the UN in this case for they are international human rights experts that will interpret this by the definition of Japanese and International law and thus are in the best position to make decisions. If violence was not so ingrained in American culture and media, I believe scrutiny would be more public.

ANyhow, thanks for being civil Shadow.

pokoko said:

What we are seeing (and I appologize because I have been drinking and my  dictation is probably bad) is the culimination of "correlation is the same as causation."  (Seriously, why does spellcheck not work in the advanced form).  Someone who engages in sexual violence might very well  enjoy porn about sexual violentce.  Of course, at the same time, someone who might never wish to harm someone else might also enjoy that same media.  Desire is NOT illegal.  You have every right to fantasize about whipping someone with a wet cat.  It's only when you whip someone unwilling with a wet cat that you cross the line into illegal behavior.  We cannot lose this distinction.  The difference between desire and action is everything.

First of all I'd like to thank you and Shadow for being civil about this - I do appreciate it very much.

I recognize your claim I promise. I'm not saying that correlation is the same as causation - let's be honest causation is very hard to prove. You're right in that desire is not illegal and that either act could precede the other, but at the same time the human rights experts must take into consideration the possibility of such desire leading to physical happenings down the road - and furthermore whichever is most likely to happen. Research has been done that tries to strengthen both sides of the argument so tbh it could go either way on March 7th - I recognize that. 

Aeolus451 said:

ReimTime said:

The argument of "leaving women to rot" in the real world because you are removing an aspect of their work is a bit exaggerated. All they literally have to do is refrain from publishing material that contains sexual violence. Sexuality is still allowed; it's the rape that isn't. That's a small adaptation to make. She argues that a crap-ton of women are going to lose their jobs because of this? Sob story. Like I said, all they have to do is adapt. There is still a huge pornographic market that will buy their material sans-rape. 

Under Canada’s Criminal Code: (R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 163; 1993, c. 46, s. 1.) , it is stated that any publication containing the undue exploitation of sex and/or crime, horror, cruelty and violence shall be deemed obscene and is thus illegal. The same goes for many other countries' criminal code. The production and sale of such material in Japan is being justified because of certain articles of the Japanese Constitution - namely Article 21 which guarantees freedom of expression and prohibits censorship. However, these arguments are taking the constitution out of context IMO. They were originally put into place to limit the oppression of any individual who spoke up against the government, not allow for an artist to produce anything under the sun without censorship.

And Reason #1 is can be contested. There is a suggestive correlation between viewing material containing sexual violence and producing a psychic desire to inflict the same sexual violence against vulnerable individuals. It isn't as cut and dry as ("oh well they don't exist and we can tell"), especially not when you associate the viewing with pleasure. The argument of the rape rate decreasing is not a valid argument to use either, before anyone pulls that. It rapidly decreased from 1972 - when results became public - to 1983. The spread of pornographic home videos started in the mid 1980s. Since then, the rape rate gradually ceased and then increased by 67% from 1996 to 2003.  From 1986 to 2003, the rate of forced obscenity increased by 338%. 

FURTHERMORE, in a statement from the United States Department of Justice in 1986:

"In both clinical and experimental settings, exposure to sexually violent materials has indicated an increase in the likelyhood of aggression. More specifically, the research shows a casual relationship between exposure to this type of material and agressive beahvior towards women. In conclusion, substantial exposure to materials of this type bears some casual relationship to the level of sexual violence, coercion or unwanted sexual aggression in the population so exposed"

If you need any more arguments I am ready and able to give them.

With help from 

Shibata, T. (2008). Undoing Sexual Objectification in the Japanese Socio‐Juridical Context: The Human‐Rights‐Oriented Transmutation of the Conception of “Obscene” Material. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 17(1), 114-128.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6781.2008.00115.x/abstract;jsessionid=04621E543B4A306AEC4FF36812B26E05.f02t03?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

That's completely wrong and untrue. Did you ever bother to look up the rape statistics for Japan and compare it to the rest of the world? Japan is actually one of of the safest countries for women to live in. Hentai comes from Japan and it doesn't drive anyone to sexually assualt anyone or act out any of the hentai. If that nonsense that "you become what you watch" was the case, video gamers would be violent as hell and acting like the world is their GTA playground.

Frankly, It's just a bunch of bullshit that's not backed by any real tangible proof. 

What do you mean "did I bother to look them up" lmao I posted them. Comparing them to the rest of the world is not part of this argument.

What would comparing them to the rest of the world prove? Does it matter if it is one of the safest countries in the world for women to live in? Of course not that is not what we are arguing. I have provided statistics that could suggest a correlation between the viewing of sexually violent materials and the perpetuation of sexual crimes. The rape rate in Japan did increase. But I suppose you want me to compare it to - oh I don't know the rape capital of Africa - to prove your point. And then you'll be all "LOL they don't have internet in AFrica therefore Hentai is safe". Good for you.

Bullshit that isn't backed by tangible proof? I don't understand this accusation. The man who posts no logical counter-argument and whom has nothing concrete to back his claim up is calling my argument bullshit? Damn son color me rekt. It's kinda disappointing that you are claiming I am bullshit, completely wrong and untrue from your situation.