Those cases aren’t different at all. If you pay a woman for sex and then kill her, then you have essentially raped her. If you want to sell me a PS4 and I pay you for it, then kill you and take the PS4 and my money, then in addition to killing you, I have stolen your PS4. It’s very clear in the first instance that there was no intention of ever paying for the sex. That’s a violation of the contract and thus a sexual violation of the woman. You’ve turned her from an agent with free will making a mutual and voluntary exchange into a sex object.
I’m firmly in the sex positive camp of feminism (although I don’t like the term feminism any more than any other group rights. I care about individual rights, when you do that the rest take care of themselves.), so any moral dilemma I have with the game would be based on the treatment of the sex workers, and not the presence of sex work itself. I can certainly see how some sex workers may be upset by their portrayal in the game. That being said, I can see how anyone can be upset by their portrayal in the game. You don’t just kill sex workers, you kill cops, you kill pedestrians, you kill anyone you want.
Personally, I see the whole game as just fantasy. Whether it’s the violence or the sex, a player isn’t likely to do anything in real life that they wouldn’t have done had they not played the game. There is far too much empirical evidence proving as much to claim otherwise.
Of course, any retailer is well within their rights to decide that any given product does not convey the standards that they have set forth for their company. As long as no countries are banning the game by rule of law, I have no problem with individual actors banning it on their shelves.
I haven’t played this game, but… if I can kill anyone in the game I like, and I kill a sex worker, isn’t that a moral failing on my part? Why blame the game? Unless the game is actively encouraging me with in game rewards, which is a different matter.
Suppose you make all sex workers/women invulnerable in the game, but leave all men killable. How is this not treating women with contempt? It seems to be reinforcing the stereotype that women are helpless.
The cases are a bit different, because in the first case she believed she would be OK when you were having sex with her, even though you actually killed her in the end.
But yeah, Rockstar is pushing a very fine line.
In a way they are different: if Rockstar actually did let you act out the second case in the game, governments would start to ban the game. But the first case slips through (mostly) unhindered. But hey, maybe we just live in a dark world.
Oh for sure, let me clarify that from the woman’s perspective enduring one crime is better than enduring two. It was rather careless of me to discuss only the moral implications without also mentioning the perception of those actions by the woman. But ultimately, in both cases she is used as a sex object instead of an individual with agency and then killed. Her experience is better, but in both instances she has had her agency removed and is treated like a sex object.
No, I don’t. To the contrary, I’m assuming that it will, and also that it will be positive for them. I suggest reading the whole post to put the first few words that you quoted into context.
I bought my 3DS and Pokemon X from Target. Reason being: It was the cheapest I could find after days of shopping around.
Yes, it’s hard to believe, but in Australia (well, Sydney at least) sometimes Target and even Kmart can be the cheapest shops around to buy games from. Other more popular options to buy games from such as EBGames (Their prices are an absolute joke and sometimes just a straight up fuck-you to consumers) and JBHifi (used to be the cheapest around) aren’t always the greatest in prices and stock levels.
Actually, Target was stupid enough to advertise GTA5 in their catalogue in the kids/toys section. Look at this:
[quote=“MrBrainMelter, post:23, topic: 559685, username:MrBrainMelter”]
But hey, maybe we just live in a dark world.
[/quote]Sadly, probably true. But I prefer to see it as there are dark people living in my happy fun world. Delusion is the true path to happiness.
Ha! That statement is exactly why I don’t draw the distinction. If one is killing someone, does it really matter how they are treated them before you end their existence? Any justification of any action or behavior on the way to destroying a life makes me ill, there is no “better” version of murder, no silver lining to weaken the action.
I agree that there’s no “better” version of murder, but that’s not really in question. Consider the atrocities individually. In all described scenarios someone gets murdered. In some described scenarios, that person is additionally tortured and/or raped. All of the scenarios are bad, but some are worse than others in that more atrocities are committed.
No, this is not censorship. You can make any game you want, but you cannot force retailers to sell the game for you. In this case, Target is applying a similar judgement that they do with movies. For example, you cannot buy hardcore pornography at Target. Nobody from Target is telling people they cannot make such things, but Target refuses to sell such things. Target has every right to decide what products should or should not be sold in their stores.
There’s Gamestop, Amazon and ebay. There is no reason to be upset if Walmart/Kmart doesn’t want to sell it.
I’m sure walmart wouldn’t sell 50 Shades of Grey either. lol
It’s not the same thing. Let’s have a dose of serious common sense. GTA V would still be a great game without all the sex and hookers stuff. I understand why it’s there though:
You’re a seedy criminal and it comes with the territory. Like it or not, that shit happens.
It’s brilliant for sales.
What I think should be done: much more control over who actually buys it. I mean, ultimately, GTA isn’t going to change any healthy mind. But a developing mind (and minds still develop up to 30) - I think it requires a stiffer rating than just 18, if only to hammer home the point to the developers. If a developer knows that the age is 21, and it could mean less sales, then these are choices that affect both ends of the spectrum.
moderately safer for kids - adults can view a 21 title as being something far more risky for a 16 year old.
developers worry about loss of sales, and consider that it might well be worth toning some things down.
diehards still get their fix of sickening violence.
The retailer has the right do as they wish, regardless of why they do it. Aren’t we all for ‘freedom’ here?
Also, why is it every post that has “violence” or “women” in it always has someone who has defend why it isn’t about “men”. Geesh. Some folks have a big solid chip on their shoulder.
This is about a retailer getting pressure from their customers to do something and they do it. Free market…that is how it works. Buy it somewhere else.
Oh, Target, sorry.
I think Australia’s rating system is more strict than the US’s. Australia banned Manhunt back in 04, which was fine in the US
Also, no retailer in America will sell an AO game in the US, so by logic, no retailer will sell the Aussy version of AO there either.
It’s bad for business.
We are asking why it matters what gender; not why it isn’t about us. I don’t care if a guy is being shot at in a game.
It’s not really that big of a deal here in Australia anyway…we’ve had censorship of games for a while so we’re used to a lot worse than a company simply banning a game(which isn’t censorship whatsoever no matter how much people or groups will love to twist it…) and it doesn’t matter if someone doesn’t stock it since there’s a bunch of other stores that do.
Anyway, Take-two president responded and said that they don’t care because it won’t make a dent in their sales whatsoever and that it’s a slippery slope they’re going down.
In many cases, I would agree with you. For example, if there were a game that specifically has you kill women for points, it would be wrong to point out that there are games where you specifically kill men for points. Because those aren’t the game being discussed. It is quite possible for two different games to both be sexist, but that doesn’t make it okay for either of them and it doesn’t mean that neither one merits discussion or that if you discuss one you must discuss both. But in this specific game, you kill both men and women. The game treats the genders equally, doesn’t it? I haven’t played it so I don’t know for sure.
I don’t want to be mistaken for one of those men’s rights activists, but in many cases both sides of the gender rights argument seem to cherry pick their arguments. This seems to be just such a case. If GTA V really does treat women differently than men, then that is a valid discussion. Are there no female characters that aren’t sex workers? Do you get more points for killing a sex worker than for killing a policeman? Where is the discrimination? If it is there, by all means, it is worthy of discussion. But I don’t think it’s invalid for men to ask where it is.
