The Necessary False Equivalence: Sex, Violence and Censorship

April 20, 2019

So it finally happened. Sony’s censorship agenda that started about a year ago and that all the big gaming websites kept silence over for unbekown reasons, has been made public by recent reports of WSJ (Wall Street Journal), asking many Japanese developers about the consequences of Sony’s agenda and how it bothers them and stifles their work. Once again, many gamers rightfully put in question: Why is it necessary to censor sexual content in video games, all the while hyper violence in utmost graphic detail is given free reign?

This valid question was met with the usual counter by authoritarian puritans: „Fuck you, that’s a false equivalence!“ Ignoring the profanity that was choosen in this example to represent the intense hostility anyone who even dares questioning sexual censorship is met with by the aforementioned group of people, it begs the follow-up question: What is a „false equivalence“? And is the comparison between fictional violence and ficitional sexual content really a „false equivalence“? I decided to gather all the popular arguments that some people use to try and convince everyone of the validity of this „false equivalence“ and look at how it holds up to scrutiny. This article is supposed to both educate those who refuse to accept comparisons between fictional violence and fictional sexual content, as well as help those who simply shake with their heads in annoyance and disbelief to understand why these other people need to keep up the pretense. This article will be updated in case new arguments pop up and need to be adressed.

As I surprisingly found out quickly, „false equivalence“ apparently isn’t an officially documented term. The Oxford dictionary only mentions it swiftly as part of the general entry for the term „fallacy“. Using the Wikipedia-entry at least offers a somewhat agreeable source to draw a definition from. According to them, a „false equivalence“ occurs when two things are being compared to each other that share a minor, insignificant trait, but because of that weak link (that might either be meaningless to the core topic or differ in importance by orders of magnitude) everything is being put on the same level, such as if these two things are the same. For example, both you and Hitler ate bread, so you’d be as bad as Hitler. Authoritarian puritans want us to believe that the censorship of sexual content in video games cannot be compared to violence in video games and that the notion itself is ridiculous. But is it?

false-equivalence-jesus-and-hitler

(Intermezzo – For clarification purposes: At no point in this article or the wider discussion is the comparison between violence and PORN. Porn is forbidden on all video game consoles. When talking about „sexual content“, we’re talking about sexy designs, outfits, scenes, positions, etc.. While there’s nothing wrong with full-on porn games, it’d be dishonest to derail the argument made in this article by throwing around accusations along the lines of wishing for games where you can have sex with children and similar shit. I’m explicitely mentioning this here, as it’s a popular method of eroding an otherwise sound, calm argument. It is violence and sexual contents, not porn.)

The morality of it all
When all is said and done, the people calling it a „false equivalence“ do so, because it makes sense according to their own morality. This group of people has gained power in recent years due to the long distorted #metoo-movement and companies bowing to their every demand in fear of harassment and outrage. Following these people’s mentality, sexualizing any fictional female character is bad. They demand context, they demand balance, they demand respect – for video game characters. If pressed further, they’ll give more reasons (that we’ll take a look at below), but the gist of it really is „I don’t like this. Therefore nobody should!“ If you follow certain internet discussion boards, that’s the primary argument. Someone finds some sexy design „gross“ or „problematic“ or „pandering“ or „icky“ or „creepy“ and off the outrage goes. Yes, most people would react with „I don’t like this. On to the next game“, but not them. It is very much a real-life version of the Simpson’s reverend Lovejoy’s wife „won’t somebody think of the children?!“ rhetoric. Something needs to be censored, because some people don’t like it. I recently watched the old Kevin Bacon-movie „Footloose“ where a town bans modern music, because the religious adults believe rock’n roll music corrupts their children. It becomes obvious quickly that the driving force behind the ban, the pastor, simply prefers classic music himself. He claims that rock’n roll is at fault for his son’s death, but that’s never believable when it’s evident that he simply never had any interest in rock’n roll music himself. Had his son died while listening to classic music, no doubt he would NOT have called for a ban on classic music. It’s the same with authoritarian puritans: They have no interest in games like Senran Kagura, Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 or sexy designs in bigger games – and thus NOBODY must enjoy these. Their own morality is more important than everybody else’s. At least so they believe.

6ea

Your own morality is your’s and your’s only. It should go without saying, but everybody has his/her own set of moral values. Our society shares many of those. Finding sexy designs in video games icky, however, is most definitely not one of them.

They aren’t alike
As we defined the term „false equivalence“ earlier, another popular argument is that fictional violence and fictional sexual content are not alike in the face of censorship. Little reason is given as to why that’s supposed to be the case. However, let’s just look at the definition of the term and then hold it against the two subjects we’d like to compare. If it was a „false equivalence“, fictional violence and fictional sexual content needed to be comparable only in peripheral points or one of the two is more important than the other by orders of magnitude.

People usually compare the two, because both offend certain people. Both are subject to censorship depending on where in the world you live. Both are subject to morality. Both are prominent elements in modern entertainment media. Both CAN be censored without much impact on the gameplay (rare exceptions withstanding, for both). And last, but not least, people naturally find themselves drawn to compare the two. These are all rather strong similarities to call them peripheral. I’d say it’s even clearer when looking at both subjects’ magnitude: No matter how hard I try, I cannot understand how anybody could keep a straight face while claiming that sexual content in video games is worse than violent content – one is about the sex-positive appreciation of the human body, the other promotes the destruction of life. Quite the opposite, so the result of this comparison is parity at best, in favor of the people who want sexual content banned.

Fictional violence and fictional sexual content are very much alike in most relevant areas that pertain to the topic of censorship. It isn’t outrageous to compare the two, only because you might add some personal sub-topics.

Fictional sexual content leads to the real thing
I’ll try to keep this point short: There is no conclusive scientific study that proves this either way. If you search for studies relating to the topic, you can find articles flimsily supporting either point of view. The common denominator is: There is no conclusive result. And while violent games can cause a heightened aggressive mood, this is neither permanent nor can it be attributed to violent games with 100% certainty. The same goes for sexual contents. Sexy content in games doesn’t turn people into sexists, misogynists or any such thing. That’s because the vast majority of gamers recognizes video games as a place of fantasies – and sane people won’t mix up fantasy and reality.

But let’s stay with that point for a bit longer: If your argument actually was that people can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality, wouldn’t that be even more of a reason to focus on the censorship of fictional violence of fictional sexy contents? A popular response to that is „but sex is part of people’s life, violence is not“. To which I will firmly reply: In what world have you been living?! The world is full of everyday violence, small scale, big scale. The USA especially are drowning in gun-related crimes, but other parts in the world are little, if any, better. A simple glance at Arabic/muslim-governed countries and their stoning of women and lgbt people ought to suffice. Then you have gruesome shit like Yemen persisting. And let’s not forget ISIS. And that’s just the big stuff. Violence is happening every day, all around us. If your argument for the ‘false equivalence’ is that only one of the two topics leads to the real thing, you’re basically semantically self-destructing.

Fictional content doesn’t lead to „the real thing“. People who commit crimes, because of what they saw in a video game, movie or else, are mentally ill and would misbehave either way. Games shouldn’t be creatively crippled for fear of boogiemen.

The feminism point of view
There are a couple of arguments that all pertain to feministic viewpoints, so let’s put them together here and answer them in one go:

  • ‘Sexual content is the objectification of women’ – And men being cannonfodder meat bags is the objectification of men.
  • ‘Sexual content needs context“ – No, it actually doesn’t need context at all. A video game needs to entertain, that is all. Games aren’t educational tools, unless a developer wants his game to be.
  • ‘Women are being exploited’ – For one, so are men as pointed out above. For seconds, NO REAL woman is being exploited in a video game. It’s still all fictional.

Another bizarre opinion I keep encountering in certain discussion boards is that apparently it is bad when, pardon my explicit usage of words, games manage to give male gamers a boner. As a man I want to say: A game that manages to give me a boner is something to be praised! We all want our fictional entertainment to hit us on an emotional basis, but somehow reaching a male gamer’s most feel-good emotion is supposed to be bad? No. No matter how you try to spin this, getting a boner is something good. The only people criticizing this must be sex-negative individuals with little interest in sex or severely jealous women. Get over yourself. Our dicks aren’t evil.

Won’t somebody think of the children!
Supporters of Sony’s censorship agenda like to invoke that the censorship only goes against content that sexualizes children. That’s long been proven wrong, but it’s besides the point: You’re already fine with murdering fictional people! This leads back to a previous point, but how can you take offense at a sexy underage anime girl, while being fine with the murder of other fictional people? What kind of screwed up morality do you think you’re displaying here? „Murder is okay, sexy underage anime girls are not“? It makes you sound like a complete crazy person.

No matter what arbitrary age an anime girl has, the girls being sexualized in anime-styled games for the most part feature mature looking bodies. Big boobs, curves in all the right places. They also tend to behave nothing like actual children. If you actually knew about anime, you’d know what actual anime child-characters look like. No video game sexualizes a character like Pocco.

pocco_01

Actual anime children aren’t being sexualized

Then there’s the sentiment that children need to be protected from sexual content. Once again, the very valid equivalence strikes back, because: What’s more damaging to a child: Seeing attractive anime girls OR watching the gruesome, realistic murder of people, all the while listening to their death screams?

The public finds sexual content gross!
Ignoring how it was porn that decided past data mediums’ winner: Go show your parents what you can do in Read Dead Redemption 2 or Resident Evil 2. Maybe it’s different in the USA, but the public in Germany would find the hyperrealistic violence infinitely more gross than any sexy anime girl. Because reveling in gore, blood and death isn’t seen as something positive. But what do we Germans know about violence and death, huh …

Parallel Worlds (added on April 21st)
As I was reminded just recently, there’s even one more important reason why it ought to be fair to compare fictional violence and fictional sexual content: It just so happens that in Japan, the country who’s games get attacked by authoritarian puritans in the west, fictional violence IS being censored. Famous example are the lack of headshots in the Japanese version of Resident Evil 4 and the lack of blood in No More Heroes. For all the ‘false equivalence!’ screaming, reality itself puts the two topics against each other – sexual censorship in the West, censorship of violence in Japan. Whether you agree with one or the other or both or neither, you need to realize that just like you oppose sexual content, some people in Japan oppose violent content in the exact same manner.

Why authoritarian puritans have to keep up the pretense: Necessity
Given all of the above counter arguments, one would like to believe that the ‘false equivalence’ pretense would finally come to a stop, right? But it won’t and there’s an important reason for it: Insisting on the ‘false equivalence’ between fictional violence and fictional sexual content is the pro-censorship crowd’s ONLY way to keep their argument and the subsequent agenda alive. Because they are very aware of one simple fact: If they conceded that it is fair to compare fictional violence to fictional sexual content, that would mean that their call for censorship against fictional sexual content would also be a call for censorship against fictional violence – and they know they could never win that fight. Denying these two topics to be compared is the only way to bring some validity to their censorship demands. If you actually think about everything written in this article, however, you’re forced to realize that it is impossible to demand censorship against one, but not the other. Demanding to ban fictional violence, however, is an impossible to win argument, therefore authoritarian puritans won’t even go near that dilemma and simply label the entire thing as a ‘false equivalence’ – and anybody who dares comparing the two is being met with ridicule, insults and bans. On that occasion: I’d like to challenge pro-censorship communities to actually discuss why one ought to be censored, but not the other, without falling back to the ‘false equivalence!’ screeching. Post a link to any such discussion in the comments below, I’ll be sure to give it a read.

0cea5417-e0f8-405c-f3f1-08216346cbe7

If you choose to ignore facts, they aren’t valid … right?

By the way, let’s ask ourselves the following for a moment: What would happen if fictional sexual content wasn’t censored? I think I know that answer: Everybody would be able to enjoy the games he/she likes and we all could continue life without being forced into these mind-numbingly dumb debates that game publishers unfortunately nurture by feeling pressured into giving in to the ever absurd demands of a vocal minority. Remember the Simpsons-episode where it’s asked what a world without lawyers would be like? Yeah, this whole pro-censorship agenda is the video game equivalent to that. Sigh.

To summarize: If looked into it, the so-called ‘false equivalence’ doesn’t hold up. All and any arguments made in favor of it are easily dispelled by applying facts, honesty and common sense. However, the more I kept thinking about it, the more I began to wonder if there isn’t a ‘false equivalence’ after all. Because yes: Fictional murder is vastly worse morally than fictional sexual content. But rest assured, I won’t initiate a censorship campaign against fictional violence, because, and call me crazy, fiction isn’t reality.

Kyoma_02

by @diracmeer

Advertisements

The War on Anime – About Censorship, the Pedo-Boogieman and Morality

December 8, 2018

If you made it this far, you must have been looking really hard or were really lucky. That is because for one reason or another, seemingly the entire gaming press chooses to ignore one of the most effecting censorship movements in media since … I can’t even remember when we last saw something like that. While some people believe censorship only can occur from the government, that is actually not true. Companies do self-censorship all the time for various reasons, and while I personally think it is always wrong, changing your own games is definitely your right to do. However, Sony and now Steam, too, go beyond that, as they’re now forcing their guidelines onto 3rd-party publishers as well. While Sony’s agenda as of now remains both secret and unpredictable, Steam’s more clearly states that it’s about „young-looking girls“ (source: Kotaku). The reaction to this on certain mainstream forums, however, is a bizarre one: The people at Resetera.com appear to be celebrating this censorship.

A running theme is to call anybody who enjoys games featuring such characters a „pedophile“, while also treating these anime girls as if they’re real people. There are several reasons these people keep shouting in celebration of Sony’s and Steam’s agenda, while banning all and any arguments against it. What these people, as well as the gaming press that continues to stay silent, ignore is the wider reality of this happening: It’s very much a war on anime as a whole. In an attempt to adress all popular arguments in favor of this censorship and explain why it’s ill-rooted, I decided to write a comprehensive article about it. I hope you’ll take the time to read the entire text, because chances are whatever you have to criticize and complain about in one paragraph will be answered in another. So let’s find out why the push against the „sexualization of anime girls“ is wrong, as uncomfortable as that might sound at first glance.

anime_alter


The two most prevalent arguments in favor of this censorship revolve around the age and looks of these anime characters. Either poses logical shortcomings, but both together are simply impossible to be true. The first argument says that only anime girls of age 18 and above should be allowed to star in lewd scenes. But what makes a fictional character „18 years old“? It’s the author’s decision, in other words: It’s an entirely made up number. Characters in Japanese video games have been age-upped in the past already, but let’s think about this: You care about an anime girl carrying the number „18“ in your western version, yet you’re fine with the very same character being 15 years old in the original version? What exactly is accomplished by pretending that an underage character is 18+ years old? Especially if you’re a well-versed gamer and know about the original age!
The second argument even more clearly reveals the absurdity of these complaints: Lots of anime girls are 18+ years old, some even follow the „1000 year old loli dragon“ meme. But people instantly complain about Fire Emblem’s Nowi, too, despite her being a 1000 years old. As silly as these loli dragons may be, it proves that it’s not actually about the age number. Anybody demanding age changes does so for dishonest reasons, but not because it’s actually about the sexualization of underage anime girls. If that was the case, an age of 18+ ought to suffice.

zensur_01
And now you have people complaining abouth both: On one hand, they demand that the age number is important and must be 18 and above, in agreeance with the law. On the other hand, when there are characters that are 18+ years old but look younger, it’s still unacceptable, despite no law saying it’s illegal to „look young“ – unless you happen to live in Australia. This is what we call „having your cake and eating it, too“. Either you argue backed up by law and accept the consequences, or you don’t. But picking and choosing when legality matters and when it doesn’t, that’s dishonest.

Nowi

700 year old dragon

But let’s ignore loli characters for a moment. Sony recently enforced censorship on a game that featured anime girls with curves in all the right places. These girls even were 18+ years old, too. Still, massive white rays covered certain scenes, before the developer created entire new scenes where the girls would now wear full-body pajamas. The reason here appears to be indeed the „young looking“ part – which leads into the next issue: In most cases, there is no difference in the aesthetics of anime girls from age 13 to 30. Cute faces, big boobs, nice asses – that’s most female anime character in the history of anime. Anime really only knows the following outer differences in anime characters:

  • toddler aged (displayed as a baby)
  • elementary school aged (displayed as small, entirely flat-chested child)
  • school aged (displayed as mature bodied person)
  • middle aged (wrinkles under eyes, lack of ambition sadlol)
  • wise old men/women (shrinked body, closed eyes, grey hair)

There is mostly no aesthetic in-between school and middle aged appearance due to the chosen artstyle. Just take a look at the popular Sword Art Online-anime. Hero wife Asuna started as a school student in season 1, now in season 3 she’s in her 20s and still looks the same. The only differences are to be found in fashion. Demanding a specific „looks mature, but not old“ look is impossible for the vast majority of popular anime artstyles and also marks the point at which the current censorship agenda becomes a full-fledged war on anime as a medium per se. It demands an impossibility.

zensur_02

What age is she? Whatever you choose.

If „sexualizing underage anime girls“ becomes a widely supported reality, the majority of popular anime currently being streamed on services like Crunchyroll are in need of being pulled off the website. You don’t have to look for full-on ecchi anime, scenes that sexualize underage or young-looking girls are part of most anime. An unintentional boob grab here, an upskirt panty shot there, and sexy dresses are par the course. Be it Amane Misa in her sexy goth-dresses in „Death Note“, 14 year old Ayanami Rei in her skin-tight plug suits in „Neon Genesis Evangelion“ or that teenage girl in „Mobile Suit Gundam: Iron-Blooded Orphans“ who constantly talks about wanting to bear hero Mikazuki’s children. Or how about comedy-anime „Blend S“ that shows young girls working as sexy maids in a cafe? What about „Shokugeki no Souma“’s foodgasm scenes that has young girl’s clothes explode and expose a lot of skin, on top of them moaning in a sexual manner? The list could go on and on, because „sexualized underage girls“ are the norm in the medium of anime and thus anime-games, too. At the moment, a lot of the people who celebrate the new censorship wave appear to be blind towards that consequence. You cannot make an argument in which sexualizing underage anime girls is not okay in a visual novel, but fine when watching it as part of an anime.

rei_ayanami

Official artwork of 14 year_old Rei Ayanami

Addition: We’re not talking about porn games or porn anime, if that wasn’t obvious already. Nobody in the current discussion wants to see loli-girls have dicks thrusted in their vaginas. This debate is merely about sexy content, not about full-on porn content. That sort of content has always been banned on video game consoles and nobody was expecting that to change any time soon. Addition End.

A lot of the issues stem from the fact that a lot of (most?) anime take place during middle/high school, so naturally protagonists will be around the age of 15, give or take a couple years. Why is that? For that it is important to understand the life of an average Japanese person. For a lot of Japanese, life in a way ends once you’ve graduated from school. Stuyding at university or joining the workforce has people follow a depressingly narrow path that knows no time for all the adventures, straying-off-the-path and friendship that takes place in your teenage years at school. Some western readers might say „isn’t that the same here in Europe/the USA, too?“ and to a degree, I’d say it is. However, being part of an exceedingly homogenous, conforming society, Japanese people are trapped in a much tighter web of duty, loyalty and ambition. It’d derail this article to go into detail about the Japanese working ethics, but you’re sure to find out more with Google’s help. I’m confident, however, to claim that most of us would hate to work in Japan (once you’ve shaken off the initial „Awesome, Japan!“ idea). So when anime and video games feature underage characters, it is not primarily because of the fetishization of the young, but because that’s the age most believable for Japanese people to experience adventures. Believe me, I’d love to watch a Digimon-anime that has 30 year old digi knights, but it’s probably never gonna happen because of the above.

japan_work

One of the most severe accusations in all the debate, however, is that people who enjoy such games and anime must be pedophiles. Again, this accusation isn’t only made against fans of the „1000 year old loli dragon“, but even against fans of games that sexualize curvy anime girls with big boobs and other such curves. That’s why once and for all, it is important to confirm what pedophilia actually is. I’ve witnessed it many times: The moment someone attempts to explain this, it is met with ridicule and insults. And yet the difference should be important to everyone. US-Americans especially appear to be unable to grasp that pedophilia is not tied to a specific age of consent that their government decided on. Pedophilia is definied by a biological/psychological reality that is: an attraction to pre-pubescent children. If that isn’t clear enough, allow me: No pedophile would have any interest in curvey anime girls, no matter their age number. Big boobs, big ass? That’s the best pedo-repellant you could think of. A pedophile is someone who’s unfortunately attracted to children so young that they haven’t yet developed any traits of a mature body, hence why pedophiles rarely care about a child being male or female. Again: No pedophile cares about the busty 15 year old girls in Senran Kagura or Naruto. Attraction to anime girls of this age would be called „ephebophilia“, which describes the attraction to 15-19 year old girls – in other words, most of all adult men, considering that’s when women reach their sexual prime. Frustratingly, explaining this important difference usually results in lame remarks like „an ephebophile is just a pedophile with a thesaurus“, which never made sense and comes off as little more than a cheap attempt to shut down discussion. That is because everyone knows how uncomfortable the mere notion of the word „pedophile“ is and nobody wants to associate with that. So want to shut down any valid, reasonable arguments against censorship of sexualized 15 year old anime girls? Shout „pedophile!“ and the people in power will follow suit for fear of public backlash, no matter how wrong and unfounded it is. Let me repeat: No pedophile is interested in girls older than circa 11 year olds. The moment a girl features boobs, ass, a pronounced waist line, etc., any pedophile will turn the other way.

age_of_consent.png

And there’s good reason why making the above difference is important: Calling people who enjoy sexualized 14-17 year old girls a pedophile would mean that pretty much the entirety of Europe is pedophile. Age of consent in France and Sweden is 15. In Germany and Portugal it is 14. Netherlands and the UK have it at 16. The rest of Europe follows these numbers. It should be obvious by now, but let’s spell it out for utmost clearity: If we don’t make an effort to discern between what an actual pedophile is (attracted to children 11 years old and younger) and what ephebophilia (attraction to 15-19 year olds) is, not only do you condemn an entire continent to be pedophiles, you also help normalize pedophilic attractions – because finding a busty 15 year old girl attractive is anything but abnormal. Infinitely less so if we enter the fictional realm of anime. I myself am from Germany and I will call you a „fucking moron“ if you insinuate we’re all pedophiles over here. Let’s put a stop to shouting „pedophile!“ for any shit that someone doesn’t like, only to shut down a fruitful debate.

That actually leads into the next topic, because it reveals what much of this call for censorship really is: An attempt to enforce personal morality onto everyone. When these people see „Dungeon Travellers 2“ and all the sexualized, young-looking girls in the game, it’s not about the law, it’s not about children or anything. It’s a simple matter of finding this sort of content gross, disgusting, younameit. And that is okay. It is everyone’s right to find something gross. And it is your right to walk away, to ignore it, to go on with your life. That’s an ability many people seem to have lost nowadays. „Stop liking what I don’t!“ appears to be a running theme in them, as if their sense of morality is an objective absolute and must be adhered to. But it isn’t. Everybody has his/her own sense of morality and thus decides what sort of media one wants to consume. The hypocrisy becomes even more apparent when you bring in the topic of violence in video games. Once again, doing so is handwaved away in an attempt of „that’s not comparable“, but matter of fact is: It is. The real issue here is that these people know that it would instantly shatter their entire argument, because you will never be able to enforce censorship against realistic, gruesome violence – nobody dares going against Red Dead Redemption 2 or Grand Theft Auto. This is all the more hypocritical, considering you could make a good argument that violent video games DO have a negative influence on the real world, seeing how people all over the world commit murder every single day. No week passes in the USA without a mass shooting. But somehow only games that show sexualized anime girls have a negative effect on real life? That’s a non-sequitur. Hilariously enough, gruesome violence is banned in Japan, any headshots or dismemberment are changed in the Japanese version of games such as Red Dead Redemption 2. That might be just me, but there’s no way one could ever convince me that silly, abstract „anime tiddies“ are worse than murdering a realistic-looking person in RDR2, cutting of his/her arms and legs and feeding it to crocodiles. Clearly, boobs are the bigger evil (/s).

There’s clearly a motif of moral prudery going on and it’s actually negatively effecting video games beyond sexy anime girls. You might not have realized, but AAA games nowadays won’t give the player the option to be truly evil (there might be exceptions, I can’t think of any at the moment, though). I first remember this to be the case with Mass Effect 1. The game gave the player two romance options. If you chose to, you could flirt with both. However, at the end of the game, both girls would meet together with Captain Shepard and force a decision. The „worst“ you could do was jokingly say „why not both“, but then you’d have to choose anyway. At no point would the game allow the player to simply cheat on these female npcs. Playing as renegade Shepard allowed you to murder people if you didn’t like them, but cheating on someone? That’s crossing the line! And that has only gotten worse with time. „Being evil“ nowadays means „being mean“ at best, if there’s even the option to do so. In GTA3, you played a lowly gangster who wanted to become the ultimate mafia boss. In GTA5 your goal is to make money, and only the cartoonishly overdone Trevor fits the bill of an evil character. Where are all the games that allow you to murder, steal, cheat, trick etc. innocent npcs for fun? These days, everything is tied to a strict code of morality, telling the player „this is wrong, this is right“, instead of giving the freedom to enjoy the game in whatever way the player chooses to. When CD Projekt Red showed the first lenghty video of the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077, some people were seriously complaining about the in-game criminals shouting „bitch“ and „cunt“ at the protagonist who came killing them. Really? Demanding politically correct criminals?

mass_effect

But let’s return to the original topic, the sexualization of underage girls. Another common theme here is to treat fictional girls the same as real girls. First of all, let’s keep real law for real people. If you invoke real law for fictional characters, then to hell with all and any games that let you kill virtual people. Secondly, the logical consequence from implying that fictional or real doesn’t matter is that the people who enjoy the fictional one also enjoy the real one. As a weeb myself for most of my life, I cannot strongly enough disagree here. I’ve asked other far-off-the-end fellow degenerates if they actually like real loli girls. ALL OF THEM reacted in disgust. The most popular answer being „eww, 3d girls are gross“. That’s the point: Real girls are nothing like anime girls. Maybe the people conflating real and fictional forgot what real underage girls are like: dumb, annoying, immature in mind and body. Meanwhile anime girls, even if it’s loli girls, have the mind of an adult or a caricature thereof. Underage anime girls can be capable scientists, soldiers or political schemers. They most often talk in a confident way that no real girl of the same age would. Honestly, I feel a bit silly having to point out all of this, but it’s apparently a necessity. Anime-fans who are into this stuff don’t want underage girls – they want anime girls, be they of whatever age. And you won’t find such girls in the real world. Not at the same age anyway.

weebs

Celebrating the censorship of „sexualization of underage anime girls“ has never been about protecting any real children. Nobody cares about actual age ratings, young kids playing Call of Duty and GTA is an accepted norm. Not a single real child is saved by censoring the boobs of an anime girl, because pedophiles aren’t interested in that either way and those attracted to boobs have plenty of legal options to go about. Forcefully pushing the line of what is and isn’t allowed only shows that certain people care more about having their own morality „win“, rather than understanding that the entire genre of transgressive fiction relies on portraying the breaking of societal taboos. One of the greatest feats of the medium of anime is its incredible breadth of topics and scenarious. Anime reliably manage to deliver new, creative „what if …?“-scenarios free from a fixed set of morality thanks to the lack of Christian values within Japan’s history. It is thanks to this utmost creative freedom that we can enjoy heart-breaking love-stories about forbidden love. That we can have gruesome revenge plots against society. That we can have all those hilariously bizarre worlds and characters. Breaking taboos is what makes for the most interesting stories, that’s why these books, movies and anime regularily manage to be the most succesful. Be it the famous books „Lolita“or „Shades of Grey“, or the German movie „Feuchtgebiete“ that had me almost-throw up over the whole course of the movie. Games like „Manhunt“ used to allow for a different experience. Anime like „Bokurano“ and „Now and Then, Here and There“ put children in life or death-situations and manage to create some of the most emotional, exciting scenes because of it. Story-telling would be a shockingly boring place if we started banning transgressive elements. Yes, they violate the popular moral views of people, but that’s the entire point: Challenging the status quo, putting up a „what if …?“-question no matter how ridiculous.

That’s it so far. Should I find another complaint that needs to be dispelled, I’ll update this article. The above text adresses all the popular criticism in calm, collected manner. If you still disagree then write a comment in the comment section below. But again: Read the entire article first. Millions of people in the world love anime and everything that comes with it. Sony’s and Steam’s censorship agenda mark the attempt to get rid of an entire industry on the back of non-sensical pedophilia-accusations, knowing full well how uncomfortable these are, because explaining to the non-anime mainstream why you’re defending the „sexualization of underage anime girls“ is likely a lost cause at the moment. That’s why it’s all the more important that we, anime-fans, gamers, weebs, nerds, etc. push back NOW against those that try to shut down this fantastic industry that they have no interest in themselves. There’s really only two options: Sit back, do nothing and watch as more and more elements in anime and games are censored. Or be VOCAL now. Make ourselves heard. Show Japanese game and anime makers that we support them, that they’re the ones who have to make a stand now, too. Let’s put a stop to some bitter guys shaming a nice pair of natural „anime tiddies“. Censorship is bad, always.

Kyoma_02


Pokémon aren´t as real as Anime Girls – According to NeoGAF-users

August 16, 2016

According to Detroit Free Press, a local couple has now filed a class action lawsuit against Pokémon GO-developer Niantic. Their reasoning: Players of the popular smartphone app are being loud near their property, they cuss at them, they peek into their house´s windows, they even trespass and damage their private property. Because they couldn´t get ahold of the individuals actually committing crimes, the couple sues the developer, saying “they have made millions of dollars, while ruining the lives of many Americans“.

pokemon-go

It goes without saying that the couple doing the suing as well as those defending them are utter lunatics. Obviously, Niantic never encouraged, as several users from NeoGAF worded it, players of their game to trespass into private property. Not only does the app tell you at every start exactly that. Its Pokémon radar ever since after week 1 of the app´s release also doesn´t show Pokémon´s proximity anymore. A Pokémon is either visible on your phone and you can catch it, or it isn´t visible and you will have no idea in which direction to go to find it. But I hadn´t planned on writing this blog article about the pure logical counter argument to those demonizing developer Niantic. No, I´m writing these lines to use the EXACT same logic that SJWs love to use to defend censorship in video games that occurs during the localization process from Japan to Europe/USA.

As most of you will know, it is illegal to present sexualized underage girls in video games. Which, to be truer to the fact, means: It is illegal to present sexualized fictional/virtual underage girls. We´ve seen this in many recent Nintendo games, where ages are upped from originally 16 or 17 to 18 or 19 in Tokyo Mirage Sessions and Project Zero 5, or where customization was severely limited in the Western version of Xenoblade Chronicles X. Older gamers will remember how Dead or Alive´s Kasumi´s age was upped from 14 in the Japanese version to 18 in the Western version of the popular fighting game-series. I made this argument before and I´ll repeat it on this occassion: I strongly believe it is wrong and ridiculous to apply REAL law to FICTIONAL characters. No real underage girl is hurt by having sexy fictional underage girls. It´s just that, fiction. We have thousands of games where we can murder fictional people without them being treated like real people (obviously), but we draw the line when it comes to sexualization? Humbug!

TokyoMIrageCensored

However, if we accept for the moment that that´s the unfortunate status quo … then why not apply the very same logic to Pokémon GO? The opponents of the app argue that Niantic purposefully places Pokémon on private property, encouraging players to trespass said property. BUT: Within the context of the game, these Pokémon are wildlife. It isn´t Niantic´s fault that wild Pokémon roam private property. No company can control wild animals, it is nature at play here. When a rare butterfly flies into somebody´s house, you cannot sue the state for trespassing bug catcher. No, you sue the brazen bug catcher. Yes, Pokémon are only fictional animals, but so are the aforementioned underage girls that aren´t allowed to be sexualized, because real law is applied to them. Logically following, real law also must be applied to the Pokémon in Pokémon GO! These wild fictional animals are freely roaming the environment as they see fit, dictated only by their animal instincts, akin to how fictional underage girls must be protected from any abuse.

Should the Detroid couple honestly feel threatened or inconvenienced by the wild Pokémon in their backyard, then they probably ought to hire a professional Pokémon catcher, who will probably get rid of all the mongering beasts. Meanwhile, instead of spending a single thought on deciding if that silly class action lawsuit should be put to court or not, the United States of America (as well as the rest of the world) should publically thank developer Niantic for leading a sedentary generation of youth back into the outside world, breathing fresh air, enjoying sunlight and interacting with other people. Thanks, Niantic!

Source: FREEP


One Opinion Only – The Anti-Discussion Culture

November 5, 2015

How do you start writing an article that goes against political correctness culture? You don´t start one to begin with, a likely answer would be these days.

As I´m eagerly reading a certain popular video game discussion forum, I have to admit that the point has been reached at which I´m not angry, frustrated or shocked anymore – I am disappointed. Disillusioned. Close to resignation. Yes, close to resignation, which is to say that this text will be my last attempt at exposing all which is wrong at the moment. Since I am but a single person, nothing you´re going to read here is meant to be taken as absolute, as objective. But that is a train of thought that´s not very popular with the crowd that I´m about to criticize, because discussion, actual discussion is apparently not as important as keeping an echo chamber (a phrase I only learnt about recently) of samey opinions running. Therefore a quick warning: This text won´t be a safe space, it won´t be political correct, and I guess some idiots (I´m calling them that because they´d be missing the point entirely) will accuse me of being a misogynist or pedophile. Either of which will be the case, because in this current climate, you´re either for or against something. There is no middle ground, only extremes. This is not what I think, this is what the current reality presents itself as. Despite these risks, I won´t hesitate to speak my mind and touch on subjects that often times are talked about so half-assedly that no matter how wrong something that was said is, is never corrected. Sometimes even willingly, because it would damage the on-going narrative. As somebody who´s found his way into online discussion forums during the worst days of the console war, back then when the PS2-GameCube-Xbox generation dawned upon us, I am devastated to watch as discussion, actual discussions go the way of the dinosaur in favor of reaffirming majority opinions. Man, writing this article makes me nostalgic about the times when I was that lonely Nintendo-fan, defending the greatness of Metroid Prime for kiddy GameCube against the oh-so mature Halo: Combat Evolved for Xbox (really, both were great games) – fun times, more fun than the present.

Since it´s hard to pick one topic that´s more important than the others, let´s simply start with the one that regularly occupies the front pages of many forums: Anita Sarkeesian. A short topic, actually. I could try to summarize the whole mess that current-day feminism, sexism, etc. is, but that isn´t necessary. If you´re reading this, you know who Anita is. You know about her videos, about her death threat claims, about evil GamerGaters and so on. Getting it over with: No, death threats suck, they´re not okay. Now on to the more important notes: Death threats posted on the internet are usually not real. Maybe there is some danger to a person like Anita who´s successfully turned herself into a celebrity, thus making herself more of a target for real crazy people. However, posting screenshots of mean tweets is not proof of people being dangerous, nor is it proof of people being misogynist. Anybody who´s been on the internet for a prolonged time and has partaken in certain communities has to have experienced the very same that many of these women claim to have experienced. Admittedly, a guy won´t be insulted with “bitch” or “cunt”. He will be insulted with “dick” or “motherfucker” instead. Sombody who´s fat will be called “fattie” or “pig”. Someone who´s black will see the typical “nigger” or variations of it. That is the internet – a place of, for now, freedom in its largest parts. When some people want to rile you up, insult you, they´ll attack what they perceive as your weakness. And taking a look at the current climate, it´s working. Every couple of weeks, Anita keeps releasing another video or blog posting detailing how mean people are to her, and each time it´s getting worse. I will say that I do not like Anita, I will also say that nobody deserves those reactions. But you are intentionally obtuse if you ignore the mechanisms of the internet! What exactly did you expect to happen after publishing an article about this currently happening online harrassment? You KNOW that it would only cause even worse reactions in the future. Somebody who writes you a tweet detailing how he´s masturbated “all over your profile pic” to mock you, will not turn for the better after being indirectly attacked. It really is the ancient saying “don´t feed the troll” that you choose to ignore. I fully support reporting people who send death threats to Anita, but even then: This is the internet. And no matter what happens, I like the internet for its freedom. And if you think you are entitled to change the internet by visiting the United Nations, I will do my best to be an obstacle in your crusade. How about instead of trying to change the environment, you try to do what most of us do in such situations: You “pwn” back. That is what this sort of trolling comes down to and what most gamers are well-versed in: Pwning, Owning, or simply put: trash talk. Nothing that people attack you with is gender-specific. It is the most typical, normal internet trash talk. You might want to intervene here and explain how changing such a, at face-value, hostile environment has some worth, but never, and this cannot be repeated enough, at the price of freedom. Even though I´m not big into competitive online-gaming, I wouldn´t want to worry about throwing the wrong insult at the wrong person, only to have to deal with serious consequences for “in-the-heat-of-the-moment trash-talk”. For those who are this sensitive, I recommend watching the animated TV-show “South Park” – if you understand this show´s point, it´ll positively affect your level of tolerance.

Anita-Sarkeesian-Screenshot
On that matter, one very important addition: It is easy to accuse all of those who gave negative feedback to her videos as misogynists. In my humble opinion, though, many of those simply don´t like Anita Sarkeesian, the person. They have nothing against women at large. Having seen some of the videos of hers and how she often times spreads wrong things about the games she talks about, and seeing how her supporters then try to wave it all away with a mere “you missed her point!“, is creating an atmosphere of elitism, arrogance and false-superiority. Just because the end result appears to be of good cause, that doesn´t justify her methods. Therefore, it is okay to dislike Anita Sarkeesian. It does not make you misogynist. Though, attempting to hard-link Anita Sarkeesian with feminism´s success is most certainly a big problem. So … let´s not do that.

The next topic that needs to be rectified is the censorship of sexual content in Nintendo games as well as the proposed ban of lolicon-content in drawings. It is absolutely impossible to have a reasonable debate about either of these without being called a pedophile or being insulted in other demeaning ways. A lot of people are absolutely incapable of accepting differing view points, let alone realizing that they´re in the wrong. The way these people will attack you for going against them is nothing but vile. I´ve long since realized that people that make use of words like “creepy”, “titillating” or “pandering” have no sincere interest in a discussion – they post their comments to insult and bait others into getting punished by the forum´s moderators. And it is easy to get away with it, because, yes, who would be against the sexualization of children, right? Wrong.
As a society, we ought to progress as time passes. We should open up, we should hear out people with unpopular thoughts, we should improve ourselves. So what about those evil, evil pedophiles? Many would say “kill them all” and then praise each other as the reasonable ones. Others demand chemical castration and other similarily gruesome therapies. All the while wanting them to reveal themselves to society, ignoring that that´d be societal suicide, if not actual suicide. I´ve long pondered about if I should write about it or not, but the truth is: I know that I´m not a pedophile, and writing something in favor of that group, not even really defending them, just explaining some things, will not make me one, either. Sorry to give you no room for attack here, but I´d rather spend some time with Becky Quick than with some undeveloped brat. Anyways, the current drama relates to Project Zero 5 and Xenoblade Chronicles X, both games for the Wii U console.

gq0r2mepb6bclh5ziyn4

In Project Zero 5, players of the original Japanese version were rewarded with more skin-revealing bonus-costumes to dress the female protagonists with. Those costumes have been censored in the western release of the game. Instead, they were replace with alternate costumes inspired by Princess Zelda (The Legend of Zelda) and Zero Suit Samus (Metroid). The reason for this change is still unclear. Apparently, one of the girls is 17 years old in the Japanese version. However, as far as I know, that age has been changed to 18 or 19 in the US- and PAL-edition of the game. Although it doesn´t matter much: Project Zero 5 is sold as an 18+ game only, meaning it´s not meant to be played by children and teenagers. As prude as Americans might be, this game was never a danger to their pure offspring. To be honest, for as long as I gave it a thought, I kept arriving at the conclusion: PZ5 is the first ever game to be directly (and negatively so) influenced by Anita Sarkeesian´s agenda. The game isn´t a danger to young children being exposed to sexy designs. It doesn´t feature underage characters who mustn´t wear sexy clothing. The only thing that remains, thus, is that somehow the western branch of Nintendo deemed it a must to not sexualize female characters, because of the current hyper-feministic climate. Having played the game for the first time recently myself, I can only say that this is absurd. Even without the original costumes, the core design of all the female characters in this game is … sexy. Short skirts, naked shoulders, cute/hot faces … and then you have the new, supposedly less-objectifying costumes, which basically turn the heroine into a nude, blue-colored something. Oh dear.

original

Meanwhile, it was revealed a couple days ago that at least one of Lin´s (character from the game) costumes from Xenoblade Chronicles X was changed to be less skin-conspicuous. Lin is a 13-year old girl in the open world-JRPG from developer MonolithSoft. Her original costume shows her in a very revealing bikini, leaving about naught to your imagination. So it was changed to cover up more of her breast-area. The reason why such a costume ever existed for a 13-year old character is simply that every character in Xenoblade Chronicles X can equip every amor. So while it´s less showy on an adult woman, it gets noticed more easily when worn by a young girl. Now, despite desiring the original version of a game being good enough of a reason to be against this censorship (and censorship it is, no matter by whom it is enforced), there´s an infinitely better point to make against this change, against this outrage, including the proposed UN-lolicon-ban: These are not real people.

It is such a simple statement, and just as true and powerful all the while. 13 years old, 17 years old, 19 years old, 1000 years old or 5 years old – it does not matter. It should not matter. These are virtual, fictional characters, products of somebody´s imagination. Real world law should apply to real people only, because those are people that need to be protected. Fictional characters do not need to be protected. That is why billions of fictional people are murdered every day, every hour, every second. We murder them on TV while watching CSI or Gotham; we murder them in books while reading something on the toilet; we murder them online while playing Call of Duty or Counterstrike. This is okay because they aren´t real people. Therefore murdering, killing and, increasingly, even torturing them is okay, is accepted. Yet, when it comes to sex, suddenly none of that seems to apply. And so the weirdest rulesets are put in action, resulting in awkward number changes. Kasumi from Dead or Alive was once 14 in the original Japanese game, her age was changed to 18 in the US-version. But … changing her age to 18 in the west doesn´t change the fact that her creator created her as a 14-year old. Deluding yourself she´s suddenly 18-years old is nothing but phoney behavior of the highest degree. No matter the number in the west, you´re still ogling a (hot) 14-year old girl. But that isn´t even the best argument against the unjustified ban/censorship of underage virtual characters: Having become a meme by now, it still can´t easily be waved aside: What about characters that look underage in appearance, but have an arbitrary number of age attached to them? The lolicon-girl that is actually a 1000-year old dragon? And should a widespread ban of such material ever happen, nothing prevents creators from keeping the drawings the same, just changing the numbers to 18 and above. Nothing will have been changed, except for our world to have become slightly more absurd. To put a cherry on top of it, we´ve already run into ludicrous situations like in Australia, where an adult pornography actress got into trouble, because she looked too young. In Australia, sexual content is banned depending on looks. The irony of the resulting misogyny is through the roof – no boobs, no adult woman. Aha.

ngnlscreen

Now, the reasonable solution would be to accept that fictional characters are not to be treated as real people. A game where a 5-year old girl is gang-raped is unlikely to ever enter the NPD monthly top10 sales charts. As sick, gross or outrageous an idea might be, it should never be allowed to punish someone´s thoughts. When no real people are hurt in the course of production of content, that content should be legal to create and be published. If the world is so pure that certain vile content won´t see any popularity, it will vanish without anybody enforcing arbitrary bans. And if that certain vile content finds an audience, that´s okay, too. Nobody will ever be forced to consume this kind of content, but those who find joy by consumption will be able to relieve some stress. Which brings me back to the topic of pedophilia. Simply put: Somebody who finds a 17- or even 13-year old girl attractive is not a pedophile (since that´s the age context we were talking about above). People with such sexual orientation are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Trying to explain that important difference is all too often ignored by pc-culture, because going for the moral imperative is easier than to engage in actual disucssion. It instantly shuts down any discussion. And it is indeed frustrating to watch self-proclaimed “reasonable, tolerant people” call out people as pedophiles when they find teenage characters attractive. It´s even worse when they equate pedophiles as child abusers. It´s likely a tiny minority of all existing pedophiles that really turns into despicable criminals. The majority of them lives a peaceful, rather normal life, because why should they reveal themselves to other people? They know that it´d be suicide to do so, thanks to a society that is anything but tolerant and accepting.

onavid

Lastly, I wanna talk about accusing games and gamers of being “pervy”, “pandering” or offering too much “fan-service”. Here´s the thing: Pervertness is good! Fan-service is for the fans, therefore good, too! This has always been one of the most ridiculous complaints to me: Complaining about hot girls, about boobs, about ass, about sexyness, about sex, about any sort of sexual content. If some women feel threatend by sexualization of women in games, they now have many alternatives where that won´t be a problem. Life is Strange, Horizon: Zero Dawn and Mirror´s Edge are just a few examples. And it´s only getting better for them. But those games that DO offer hot female characters and put them in naughty, pervy scenes? Fantastic! Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 with PlayStation VR-support cannot come soon enough! “Summer Lesson” looks fantastic! And some of the designs in “Monster Girl Quest” were really nice. Gamers need to be less scared and insecure of sexual content – it is extremely silly, that we still cannot have pornographic games on PlayStation 4, Wii U or Xbox One because of prude attitudes. It is sad to see gamers that like sexual content getting shamed because of it. Sex is something great, sexual fetishes in all their niches are great, too, to certain segments of people. And while seemingly everybody is afraid of a 13-year old in a Bikini, murdering virtual people by the thousands is a-ok. Let me tell you: It is not.

Quite the opposite: Sexualization makes sense. Violence doesn´t. This might be hard to understand for American gamers, but it appears as if it is some kind of “give up-scenario”. With so many guns around, a ban of guns appears impossible. And just like that real world-problem, it is the same in those virtual realities: Games featuring guns and heavy violence exist in such abundance that complaining about them feels futile. But sex is still banned, so people get the feeling they can realistically keep it that way – unfortunately, that looks to be correct for the moment, despite the lack of reason and sense. So next time you see news about a game that reveals a scantily clad female character, how about you do one of the two: Have fun – or ignore it. But don´t try to change an environment many enjoy, only because you yourself do not. And if it´s so bad that you cannot find rest: Go discuss it with people. Listen, think, then reply. Ideally, you will come to understand and accept those differing opinions. Or change it via calm, respectful debate. The world won´t become a better one by ganging up on minority opinions until they´re gone. That would be fascism. But I don´t want that to be the last word of my text, so one last advice: Whenever you decide to do something, to say something, think about what its ultimate net gain for the world would be. Would it make the world better or would it make the world worse? Living by that has proven to be rather satisfying, I might say. Happy discussion!

ratiolinerunnerscutoutthicklineslittle