Rape games will be banned in Japan

Visual Novel Community Visual Novel Talk
#541

Well to get a technicality out of the way: the EOCS changes didn’t go into effect until October. All games starting production AFTER that month, are supposed to be restricted.

Well that was the core of the problem. They were arguing that EOCS and CSA weren’t doing enough to enforce, and that the two organizations needed more mandating from national laws. Then EOCS and CSA began making new regulations, to keep the Diet out of their hair. However the EN and some parts of the Diet weresn’t going to let it go at that. Some things recently changed that:

#1: Major political party change in Japan

#2: Japan’s economy has become more of a major concern

#3: [b]The counter letter campaign to save eroge had an effect[/b]

#4: Some eroge companys have balked at the “demands” and ignoring them, unless they are outright told by EOCS that they can’t publish a title for it’s content. When that happens, they generate a lot of publicity by telling fans they were force to kill or alter the game. Evidently EOCS is a paper tigers when it comes to enforcing restrictions, and after this happened a few times, they quit telling developers they couldn’t release a title due to content (or at least, not as loudly).

The problem didn’t just go away because there was never any danger: it’s because fans and the companies they support are challenging the issue. Please don’t make it sound like we didn’t have to do anything, because that ignores everything that’s been done.

In any case, some issues still linger, that could always come back next election cycle:

#1: EN isn’t going to stop fighting. They’re starting a NEW campaign for the new politicians.

#2: This has shown that EOCS really is pathetic at regulation - so only national laws would see actual change.

#3: If the new political parties can’t fix problems or do a worst job, people will elect the old one again.

#542

Oops. Was supposed to be an edit. Sorry.

On a quick side note, I just noticed this part on the EN site:

What a load of tunnel vision.

They must have stopped reading after that, because Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution [i]FORBIDS[/i] regulated censorship. Yea bitches, really does. It’s the Criminal Code of Japan that cites censorship - not the Japanese Constitution. But they probably didn’t want to cite the CCJ, because I’m sure they don’t like how it handles things like domestic abuse, rape, and foreigner rights.

Cherry picking laws for their own agenda: Machiavellian politics at it’s finest.

#543

Yeah, that’s a … pretty ridiculously thin argument there. Sigh.

#544

The one thing that bothers me most about EN, isn’t that I don’t agree with them (I disagree with a lot of people), but they’ve adopted a fanatical religious mindset. There is no Truth but the Truth they believe in. For example they argue that rape games contribute to gender-based violence. But where is their evidence for that assertion? They stated in one public announcement:

Basically they outright state, “we don’t care what your data says,” and blatantly ignore the possibility that the prevalence of rape games, lowers the incidents of actual rape crimes. Instead they twist information into somehow asserting that Japan would have lower rape crimes if they didn’t have rape games… but again they have zero proof that scenario is true ¬ñ and the counter evidence provided to them, which they dismissed, argues otherwise.

What’s hypocritical is they follow that statement with:

So they’re willing to throw out concrete hard evidence without a shrug or care, but totally acceptant of data that might be factual in their opinion, only because another feminist group that they share the same ideology, says so.

In the end that means there’s no room for negotiation… no room for reason… no room for anything but what they want. Everything else is irrelevant except their absolute victory, marching on the corpses of their enemies. Jiiiiihaaaaad!!!

Fortunately for now… EN has become old news in Japan, and so their crusade is mostly seen as irrelevant with more important issues at hand. Hopefully we can stay vigilant and keep it that way. Unfortunately they’re like cockroaches, the media is fickle at picking what becomes front page news, and politicians will do anything to steer voter attention away from their incompetence.

Rape crimes rise in Japan? Oh no! Must be the rape games… not… you know… the record breaking unemployment, unstable economy, fewer number of active duty police officers, community social frustrations, general rise in all crimes, etc.

Anyways… just keeping an eye on EN once in awhile. They looked kinda bored again.

#545

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/11/1 … r-fingers/

I’m guessing the Elfquest comics didn’t do very well in Japan either.

#546

That’s some of the stupidest news I’ve heard in a while.

Then again, it’s on Sankaku, so it kind of has to be…

#547

shrug Well, it’s something that’s baffling to most of us, but if it’s really offensive to some people and it hurts nothing to fix (well, hurts little, because replacing art isn’t nothing) then why the hell not fix it?

The Left4Dead poster thing sounds odd but that’s definitely a case of “it takes a few minutes to fix, it makes people happier, and it doesn’t hurt the game”. So why piss your customers off? If you discovered that your character on a poster was performing a hand gesture that was completely harmless in your culture but meant “Fuck you!” in another, you’d probably want to change that poster for that other country’s release…

The four-finger complaint is on a whole different level than the feederism complaint*, you see, because whether you agree with the feederism thing or not, addressing that complaint would require completely rewriting the game. (The people objecting to it made some suggestions, but while the suggestions were valid gameplay ideas, they would require losing the game’s title and all the public recognition that had been built. Bad for business.)

  • Unlike with the Equality Now mess, this time I actually was part of the community that led the original objection to Fat Princess… Not that I helped lead the objection, but that I heard the objection being talked about firsthand. Doesn’t mean I agree with them completely, but it means I do understand the viewpoint. The actual objections went along the lines of:
  1. This reminds us of feederism, which is creepy. (This is a real world fetish where people keep other people pretty much prisoner by feeding them until they cannot move, because they like having a giant helpless ball of fat all to themselves that can’t leave them, so they can love it and cuddle it and do everything for it. There are lesser forms, of course, but it all comes down to being sexually aroused by making someone else fatter.)
  2. This plays into some unpleasant stereotypes about fat people only having gotten that way because they stuff themselves with cake all the time. Which generally isn’t true, but many people playing the game already believe it and this doesn’t help.
  3. Female characters are under-represented in games. Fat female characters are very under-represented in games. It’s terribly disappointing to have a prominent fat female character… who’s nothing but a football to be carted around with absolutely no power of her own.

This was, naturally, reported by Kotaku et. al as:

Feminists hate the game because it has fat chicks in it. Bawww! If you hate this game then you hate fat people!
You hate fun! You think all gamers are evil!
… Shut the fuck up you ugly fat bitches! I hope you choke on a cake!

But as mentioned, even if the developers had cared about the complaint there was really very little they could do without destroying the game concept.

#548

I’ll admit, I don’t know much about Fat Princess, but I think they should be able to make whatever game they want regardless of stereotypes or traditions. I’m not saying I agree with stereotypes, but I don’t think a game should be banned because of it.

#549

The four finger issue in Japan, is sorta like the blackface issue in America: it’s a culturally offensive matter, that other countries find curious. However that doesn’t make it any less offensive to the people in question.

You make an interesting point. Would it be okay if I made a slave cotton picking farming game? Or what if I produced a NAZI concentration camp simulator? They’d obviously be offensive to the minorities in question. And yet here I am: someone who loves violence simulators like GTA and dozens of rape themed eroge. It would be tremendously hypocritical of me to claim I want offensive games to be banned.

I’ll admit that I’d find a cotton picking game offensive, but I wouldn’t demand it be banned, because there’s a great many things that I enjoy which are offensive. To be honest, I’d probably buy a concentration camp simulator ¬ñ not because I’ve got a grudge against Jews or love WW2 German - but because that morbid side of me would be curious to see what’s it like.

Does that make me screwed up? I guess… but no more screwed up that the rest of ya’ll. Because normal people offend me. :stuck_out_tongue:

#550

Well, in this case, they did not specifically intend that message be conveyed. It was an accident. So the question of stifling speech is kind of a tangent: presumably the creators would have no real objection to fixing the artwork and rereleasing the game.

As for political lightning-rod issues such as a blackface game or a concentration camp simulator … Look, if this filth cannot be banned, then nothing can. We know exactly what happens when the Protocols are spread around. Mountains of corpses.

Of course, in some parts of the world, they ARE banned, and if that’s how the society wants to set itself up, then it would make perfect sense to also restrict other things - in which case, it may make sense to restrict such things as concentration camp games. But I’m an American, so I can really only talk about the US system. And yes, if the neo-nazis have the right to distribute their propaganda leaflets and hold public rallies, it must necessarily follow they have the right to make and distribute white supremacist video games.

Fortunately, there isn’t enough money or interest in the white supremacist movement to make anything really good, so the question of “If someone made a very good game, but they were nasty individuals personally, should I even play the game?” has not, in fact, actually come up. There’s too much time and money at stake in making a AAA game (just like a movie or a TV show) to risk it on something so controvertial, so they don’t get made. Look at the ill-advised Fallujah game that was cancelled. I can see how a game like that might have actually been interesting (even though the game they were making wouldn’t have been), but - no surprise - less than 2 weeks after it was announced the publisher had pulled the plug.

#551

You know it’s kinda strange, but [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2K1PpqhPCU]Punchout! is an offensive game when you consider how the various ethnic groups are portrayed[/url] (drunk Russians, mean spirited Irish, fat islander, materialistic and/or violent Americans, etc). I suppose it safe because it makes fun out of all cultures simultaneously.

Offend one group of people - BAD!!! Offend everyone - GOOD!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

#552

Heh, it looks like one eroge company’s putting forth their viewpoints on this subject:

http://www.getchu.com/soft.phtml?id=668495

The story:
In the near future, due to pressure from extreme human rights groups, the adult industry in Japan is on the verge of collapse. This led to an increase in crime, which coupled with the global recession, brings Japan to an unprecedented crisis. Don’t lose hope though since there are now artificial beings called Fareido, who are only female and have personalities like regular humans. This story takes place 30 years after their creation in a mansion called the House of Dreams, where Fareido do their best to serve the guests.

#553

This game gets bonus points for not having them being human, haha. This brings up an interesting question – would you want a crackdown on the adult industry so that these Faraids get invented?

#554

Yes–no–…Maybe?

Of course if they’re outlawing fictional drawings of children, I can only imagine how the public would react to sex androids.

#555

You’d be opening a whole new can of worms with AI rights activists.

Is commanding sex from something unable to disobey commands, like rape? If it wanted to have sex, it would have offered without a command or forced programming. :stuck_out_tongue:

#556

Certainly you’re not going to get a free pass from the feminists if you create a race of all-female all-submissive sexbot slaves. :slight_smile:

I must admit to finding the idea creepy. If it’s enough of an AI to be any good as a partner, you shouldn’t be enslaving it. If it’s such bad AI that it’s nowhere near a person, I’m a little weirded out by you wanting to sleep with it.

Now, designing AIs to really enjoy sex and then giving them rights and the free choice to sleep with you or to go find a partner of their own, that’s not a problem!

#557

The problem is the definition of free will. If you program the being to “imprint” on its lawful owner in the same way animals imprint, then the being will literally be unable to conceive of a desire to abandon its owner. Does a being really ‘count’ as having free will if you can control and design every emotion it ever has to make it entirely dependent upon sexually gratifying the one who owns it?

You could, for example, design a robot that simply is incapable of being attracted to anyone other than its master, and that knows it has been deliberately restricted in this way, and doesn’t care. You can change its programming so it simply doesn’t feel shame, or embarrasment. You can program it to be incapable of being grossed out, no matter what kind of strange fetish you have. YOu can program it to be incapable of feeling pain itself but knows when to pretend it’s in pain, and is a good actor. (Of course, you have to take care to program that last kind to understand pain, and why others don’t like it, and what makes other people feel it, or you’ve created something very dangerous.)

Would a being like this be a person? Or an object? Does it matter if it has free will, if you created its will and know what it’s going to do before it knows it wants to do it?

#558

Just in case I didn’t make it clear with that last post - I also find that idea incredibly creepy.

If you create a sophisticated enough simulation of a human brain that it appears to have desires and emotions, then (as far as I’m concerned) you have created a human being; the fact that it’s not human is irrelevant. I don’t even think the question of whether or not souls exist would matter: if they don’t, then I’m correct, and if they do … how do you know the simulation hasn’t got one? Everyone must admit to having no idea where a human soul comes from.

#559

have you guys watched Chobits? if not, it take place in a world described above. (plus it is a good anime, you can watch it for the sake of watching it)

#560

Well, the real problem is that since AIs don’t exist we have only theoretical models of what might be possible in terms of programming and behavior. :slight_smile:

Animals are not very bright. If you can build an AI that’s only as intelligent as an animal, it could understand emotions and pain and follow basic commands and, yes, imprint helplessly on its owner. Sleeping with it is therefore not consensual, in the same way that bestiality and underage sex are not consensual. It can’t think enough to understand that it has a choice.

A real person-level intelligence has to be able to transcend its programming and organise its own priorities to at least some extent. People are naturally somewhat imprinted on their families, but some people stay closely attached to their parents for their whole lives and some don’t. A person is capable of recognising patterns in eir own behavior and choosing to modify them if circumstances warrant.

The classic AI-goes-rogue scenario in fiction usually involves the AI deciding to follow its programming to ‘protect’ humanity by freezing it in carbonite or something. But it can work just as well with a sexbot, if the sexbot is unhappy in its current relationship. Maybe you programmed it to only be attracted to ‘Jack Walsh’. Well, there are probably other people in the world named that. Or the AI could change its OWN name to that. Maybe you programmed it to only be attracted to people who meet your rough physical characteristics - again, there are other people in the world who look vaguely like you. And if you tried to restrict it to your EXACT physical appearance by giving it a picture, well, you no longer look exactly like that picture! Oops.

Simple solution, of course: keep your sexbot happy and it won’t go looking for loopholes. :slight_smile:

Probably not, but if you’re sufficiently tightly controlling its every response, you don’t have an artificial intelligence.

If you have an AI which does change and adapt and you keep hacking it to bring it back into line with your desires, that’s probably some sort of crime.