MAP Forum

I know the title of this post is a mouthful, so let me elaborate.

Based on what I've seen in the media, video games, cartoons, and books/comics that are popular and well-regarded usually depict some degree of illegal activity, most notably violence. GTA, for example, is an incredibly popular video game that's infamous for having a focus on crimes like prostitution, assault, theft, murder, and all that jazz. Hell, I'd say the whole point of the damn game is to do things you wouldn't be allowed to do in the real world (but please correct me if I'm wrong, as I've never played GTA once in my life). Among GTA, there's just a plethora of games where the whole purpose is experience and cause violence through a safe lens.

So let me ask y'all this; Why is playing games where you murder someone perfectly fine, yet any game that includes children depicted in any sexual context quickly labeled as "gross" or "immoral"? Now, I'm aware there's the whole "video games cause violence" BS when it comes to gruesome video games, but that's usually said by older people and the statement itself is widely disregarded and laughed at in the gaming community. Gamers could spend hours murdering people in games with high-graphics gore and NOT get questioned for it, yet wanting to play a game that depicts a naked child is where society draws the line?? I know a lot of intellectually-challenged people will say "But that would be child porn!!" Okay? Then by that logic, graphic video games should be treated with the same sensitivity you'd treat a cartel execution video with.

"Oh, but showing child porn is going too far!! And if you want to see it in a game, then you want to see it in real life!" Okay, first of all... Touche on that second bit, yet put a pin in there because I'm going back to that. Anyways, you're trying to tell me that depictions of dismembering someone isn't "too far", nor are the depictions of adult-on-adult rape, gore, murder, torture... etc etc? Second of all, I hope you're applying that "then you want it in real life" logic to the millions of individuals who kill people in games on the daily... I feel like having a large group of society that wants to murder people is a bigger fish to fry than me ogling at some naked kiddie, but I digress. If you could handle hardcore gore, then seeing a child in the bathtub should be light work.

I'm starting to feel like MAP's are the only ones who understand that literally TAKING A LIFE is significantly worse than having a consensual encounter with a child. I'm getting really fed up with society's bullshit double-standards. I can't believe the people who act like modern-day warriors when they're trying to "protect" FICTIONAL children are the ones who call the shots in terms of what's "moral" or acceptable. But yeah, just wanna say that I'm not anti-violent-videogames or whatever; I'm merely trying to make a point. And, of course, I'm applying this same argument to other entertainment mediums as well.

I think the trouble is that it's self-reinforcing at this point. Since the legal consequences for PIM and AMSC are so severe, people take them more seriously compared to other crimes, regardless of serious moral considerations. I think most people would rather have performed oral sex as a child, than be tortured and beaten as a child, but we pretend that isn't the case because of the backlash against it. How do you deal with something so tautological and obviously not true?

I think the mistake is taking the "morality" of antis seriously. When they make claims like "sex is inherently traumatic for minors", they aren't principles or convictions, they are rationalizations, usually either the result of being afraid of standing out by questioning if that's true, or because they like having a group they can be sadistic/cruel to without society calling out the fact that they're sick people (really going after MAPs is quite similar to going after homeless people, drug addicts, and, ironically, children; it's having a sense of power over a group of people who society can't or won't protect).

In my opinion there’s a sort of hierarchy: Murder > Blood > Torture > Rape.
I think there’s also a difficulty in depicting rape in media—maybe because it’s being condemned more strongly, maybe because we’ve become more sensitive to the topic, just like with torture, which is seen as gratuitous violence. In my view there’s this fear that the audience might somehow “enjoy it.”

Murder is considered acceptable because it isn’t perceived as gratuitous: it’s part of the mechanics, it’s hard to make a video game where you don’t have to kill anyone, and so on. We’re used to it, because killing is something you do in video games.

Then you have the issue of animals and minors, who are characters with special protections. Sometimes you can’t kill them, they aren’t an exaggerated source of blood (which, being an extra element, sometimes gets censored — heaven forbid the player has too much fun splattering blood), torture is prohibited and… well, with rape you risk having the game studio flooded with bomb threats.

Honestly, I would appreciate it if video games were a bit more open in this regard, starting with including minors (who are sometimes excluded to “protect” them from bad players) and then… I mean, come on, is it so strange for a character to be half-naked at home while playing video games? Not necessarily anything erotic, not necessarily showing shower scenes, but at least a bit of realistic everyday life.

I agree there's a double standard, but what you're getting wrong is that not only are fictional depictions of violence legal, but also so are real depictions of violence. Yeah, i know we truly are living in a fucked world

Don't forget that companies get shade if you can kill kids out-of-the-box. Most games either don't have any kids included in the game or make them invulnerable.

Of course in the "godded" instances people can mod that in and that's not morally unacceptable apparently.