no, this is a game for adult and it's not worst then any other rated M games out there

Ready for the hard cold truth about this?

If you feel that games are just games and stuff like Manhunt, Madworld and even GTA are fine because you can distinguish between reality and games, then to complain about this makes you a HYPOCRITE.

It would also make you a hypocrite to complain about theoretical games that have you hunt and molest children, grind up old people in nursing homes then feeding them at your fast food franchise to unsuspecting customers or committing full genocide of a race or ethnic group just because you deem them inferior. You know why? Because its all fake.

Personally, I say BULL to all of it. I refuse to claim that anything done in a game is fine because its fake. It all affects us. All of us. To say the games we play don't affect us at all demeans everything that games aspire to do.

Not really. This rape we're talking about. Mentally and physically scaring a women. I mean, in most M games, you just kill them. That's rarely the goal as well. No, this might be the worst. Ever.

I know women who used to fantasize about being raped. I have also read women's magazines were women have said the same things, BUT that does not mean that they want to be raped.

In a fantasy you are in control, even if you dream you are not in control.


-So if we think violence in games is cool, why isn't fake sex of any form?

Guys have fantasies too, not all guys act on their fantasies.

The school girl costume is a regular in the sex lives of many men- and role playing couples (men and women) go along with it. Does that mean that the men and the women who do it consent to the crimes they act out?

2 and 1/2 men feature that fantasy a lot in their show, they have even had shows where they were attracted to under aged girls and you know what- the FCC did not shut down the show. Nor were the writers or the actors arrested.

Don't think the game is a good idea but -

I don't know you figure it out. I'm just giving food for thought.

I think no game should ever be banned in the US.  For one thing, banning a game would go against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution which limits the government so that it cannot ban free speech.  But more to the point, freedom is good.  Since a game cannot hurt anyone no one may claim to be harmed.  Since there is no harmed party, there should be no legal issue.

Well I think think killing is real life has relevance to our argument but i'll go on and respond to this .

Firstly your making the assumption that everyone or every gamer has the desire to kill some where inside them , my 4 year old brother plays heavenly sword and doesn't realy understand the concept of death or murder yet he still enjoys the gaming experience as I do , yes the girl is taking people's lives but there's so much more going on than that  The combat , her cool looking sword , her agility , acrobatics etc , the dialogue , storyline ; I'd argue that the killing was a very minor part of the overall experience , games which treat killing as a significant part or most of the experience Manhunt , GTA 4 are perceived as more evil ... I think these games need a level of censorship also.

In manhunt ( i've never played so i'm assuming ) killing is a huge part of the experience ,there's blood gore , murder and death is heavily emphasised . When something criminal is the end as opposed to the means ( "I killed my husband because he threatened me" ) there's usualy an element of mental sickness , malicous intent ( " I Killed my husband simply because I felt like it)

Playing games which involve killing or murder do not neccaserily come from a deeper , small desire to kill because like I said most killing in real life and even in games aim at an end other than the killing itself .Your assuming that we all have some kind of innate desire to murder( I certainly don't) which is held back by our morale values and ideas , this is untrue ; part of my morale system and many others is that harming other people is wrong so the desire to murder wouldn't preceed my morale beliefs .However they might come after e.g I believe that killing is wrong but some one murders my family and I then believe it is neccasery to murder the individual responsible , the desire to murder exists after I am put into that situation not beforehand.

Wheras people who play rape games are more likely to have the desire in them to commit rape , why else would a person play a game where rape is the goal ? it would be absurd to play a rape game to fulfil some kind of objective unrelated to rape ( rape that girl to save the world ) ... the gameplay mechanics centre around rape , the story line perfectly facilitates the gameplay mechanics , it would be pretty odd if some one played the game with no desire to commit rape.

Define : Desire -To wish or long for; want.

If some one wishes to ,longs for or desire to rape at any level i'd be pretty concerned about that person , rape is something within the capability of any abled body person and all it would take is the right kind of insparation for a person to manifest the desire to rape into an actual rape , morale values will only do so much for the person who has the desire to rape another ( that is having sex with some one without consent ) they'd need counseling and help to deal with this desire .

This is not to say that everyone who desires to rape will be pushed into a raping frenzy by this kind of game , but this is like food for the desire , it may nuture the desire to rape and anything like that should not be distributed at all .If we gave a gun to 60 million people with murderous intent it's almost certain that not every single one of them would commit murder but even if as few as 1% of that number ( a minority ) commit murder with that gun i'd say it was worthwhile denying the other 59 million the right to a gun.

The discussion should be whether or not we should prosecute people who import this kind of material not whether or not it's alright to distribute it.

Your apealing to your law like it's absolute ( perfect , without flaw )  , I think this is a mistake many Americans make in justifying their actions and that of others . Firstly even your law doesn't alow complete freedom and recognises the need to restrict the freedoms of the individual to maintain social cohesion ( equality laws , criminal law , corporate law and regulation etc  ).

I think your saying there's no harm in it because your refusing to acknowledge a link betwen rape games and the act of rape ,yes the game itself or playing of the game hurts no one but we have to use foresight of consequences and intelligence in deciding whether it should be permissable or not.

@Ninjakido: If you didn't notice, you're contradicting yourself.

I'd like to see your evidence about the increased propability of attempted rapes when playing raping games.
And even more evidence about how killing games is different.

What you are suggesting, is limiting the freedom of people to decide by themselves whether the content fits them. Considering that you have 4 years old brother that plays Heavenly Sword, the limiting argument is compelety justified. If the ones that are given the freedom to choose what they want to play, don't have the responsibility of keeping the content out of people that the content doesn't fit, it's the responsibility of the instance, that has the power, to limit the content out of irresponsible people.

Your whole argument is about you not liking the consept of the game and therefore should be banned. The excact same basis like the one of Jack Thompson and other flowerhats.
These flowerhats aren't also willing to take the responsibility of their actions, which is when everything should be controlled from outside, when something happens, it's always the fault of someone else than the individual and the someone is the one that sets these limits (which automatically leads to a solution of setting more limitations). For example the arguments against guns base themselves on a mindset where people shouldn't have any responsibity about how to use them.

As for using the law as a justification, laws do reflect the state of society, but (and especially because of) they don't reflect what is right or wrong or ethical, since they essentially are only democratic decisions about what people want to allow and what not to allow. They have nothing to do with moral or what's right or wrong.

There are 6,5 billion people in the world that already have ways to rape and kill people.

The justification of killing is only in your head. You think that once a term is fulfilled, it justifies you kill someone. Now, if we turn this justification into rape, you can justify rape using the same method. Just because you think raping isn't justified, doesn't mean that other people couldn't come up with justification and just because you think you have a justification to kill someone, doesn't mean a rapist could think a justification for it.

I don't have any evidence to proove that some one who desires to rape will be more influenced to do so when playing interactive rape games , I thought it would only be logical and some what self evident . Similarly to people who desire to kill and are inspired or influence to kill through violent games , we're using our logic to determine this .

My whole argument is not about not disliking the concept of rape , I refuse to accept that  . My whole argument is about means and ends  , killing is in my eyes no more justified than rape ; my point is the context and the application of both crimes. This rape game is rape for the sake of rape , you couldn't even have a rape game that aimed at some useful end.

I'm not trying to justify murder , what i'm trying to say is that those that comit murder usualy commit it towards some end ( they do it for a reason or with reason ) people who commit murder for the sake of murder are seen as sick , people who commit murder for the sake of murder may be seen as lesss evil . I'm not trying to apeal to any law when I say this , you just have to use your common sense to understand that killing for killings sake is worse than killing for some purpose .

When you kill for a purpose it's not usualy because you have to  , e.g I wanted to take control of X land but the people in that land won't allow me to through diplomacy , therfore the only measure I can see enabling me to take control of the land is to kill everyone in it ( this is an extreme example) .killing is usualy the most extreme measure a person would take in any given situation to achieve a goal. Now this is not to say that killing for a purpose is in any way good , but it's no where are bad as killing for the sake of killing or raping for the sake of raping.

Your arguing that the laws of society don't neccaserily reflect what is right , that's ok because I don't apeal to the rules of society . Let's use what seems logical to us , our common sense to determine what is reasonable .

I say murder can be used to achieve some sort of constructive purpose ( maybe not a good one but something logical at least ) I can kill person X to save my family or kill person X to take his money .  I can't imagine that rape could be used as a means of achieving any constructive end , it is an act done for individual pleasure so it can't be a means to an end other than the pleasure of the individual , I can't rape X for any other reason than to hurt that person or to pleasure myself ... to ends both equaly distrubring.

I never said that killing was in anyway better than rape , they are both horrendus crimes . But we're talking about a game the glorifies the act of rape vs games that have killing as an element ( essentialy a small part of the overall experience) . If it was a matter of rape game vs killing game then i'd say censor the crap out of both , we shoudn't have games that glorify crime , it put's crime in a romantic , unrealistic , distrubring light.

So basically you would also censor Postal, Manhunter, Hitman or - just for example - Gears' multiplayer or Counterstrike. After all, you can play as terrorists there.

Anyway, you're still mixing up reality and fantasy, unless you think that every game is a manifesto for the actions it depicts.