Rape and coercion

[VampyreQueen]

I'm trying to think something through and I'd greatly appreciate some help!

My DP and I were discussing a well known game franchise that he plays. I haven't played it myself so only know the story second hand, if you see what I mean.

Essentially, Character A and Character B are kidnapped by the Bad Guys. The Bad Guy tells A that he has a choice; either A can rape B or he (Bad Guy) will. This is basically a means of torture, in that A must decide wether to take the 'kinder' option of doing it or allowing the Bad Guy to do it (probably with added violence)

To me, A is still a rapist and - though in a shit position - is still morally wrong (if you see what I mean)

DP disagrees. I would be interested in your thoughts, Should you care to share them

I don't even have anything else to say, just... WTF. Actually speechless, at all of it.

As much as I agree that the rape scenario (and wider game) come from a place that's full of rape myths and dis respect to women, I did want to reiterate that the player (Dp ) doesn't commit the rape themselves. If Dp were playing a game where he himself was 'forced' to commit rape, I think I'd be LTB.
Another character does it and the rape is not actually shown. It doesn't make it ok, but at least it isn't graphic.

She's called "quiet"?!!

Vampyre, ask him what his response is if person b is male, is elderly or a child, or is the mother of person a. I'd be really genuinrely interested to hear what he says

He said that gender wouldn't make a difference, when a PP asked. I will check about elderly/child/relative when I get home tonight. I suspect it will make a difference, though I couldn't say why.

Jeez. My dh used to play the earlier iterations of Metal Gear Solid. I'm glad he's made no mention of getting this one, because if I saw him enjoying a game like that, which effectively justifies rape albeit 'in some circumstances' I would be furious. I wouldn't have it in the house tbh. I'm sickened that such a game has been released, and that people anywhere are prepared to play it.

I don't know about the law, and I'm not all that interested since the law and its enforcement has historically been so shit for women. In terms of morality, you need to remember the concept of individual responsibility. If someone rapes someone else then they are a rapist, it's that simple. Yes there may have been immense pressure to do it. There's always some excuse. If you accept pressure as an excuse then you theoretically accept teenagers harassing women because peer pressure says they should.

Was there really no other option - could A and B not gang up together on this person in some way?

Even if not, yes sometimes you have to do shit things, it doesn't make them any less shit. And I totally agree with the others who said that making the woman 'help the man through it' is worse than sickening. Perhaps she enjoyed it really?? I need a vomiting emoticon.

Or just ask him what if "person" B was wearing a big anorak like real people A & C and not wearing "fuck me" leggings and a bra, for better access to her squeezable bazongas.

Like Lass, I really really hate the concept of rape as light entertainment. I've come across the problem of sexism in games before: it's just getting more and more extreme isn't it as the manufactures need to find ever more extreme scenarios to put before a jaded public.

If it was about exploring the moral dilemma, surely that could be done just as well with being asked to punch a friend to save him/her from a worse punch.

It might be possible to use media (book, film. Etc) to explore this issue properly - given the portrayal of the women in the game, however, that's not what is happening here and I think your DP is wrong to not consider that too.

Bathtime that picture isn't B, it's another character.

Isn't this scenario similar to the old "would you kill one person to save the lives of 100 people" scenario that first year philosophy students have to consider?
In that situation it is seen as a moral dilemma for the perpetrator, the victim is not usually considered.

It isn't exactly equivalent, but I think it's similar.
Victims still end up dead in the utilitarianism poser, it's just a question of how many.
I agree including this in a game is tasteless and horrible, but I guess the manufacturer's wanted to pose a moral dilemma for "A" the playable character.

And in the philosophy situation, the perpetrator is still a killer, the quandary is whether killing one is "better" than 100 being killed.
How can killing one person be good?
Hence the dilemma.

The perpetrator in the philosophy situation is a killer. The perpetrator in the game situation I is a rapist.

Op's DP was arguing that he is not a rapist.

Also I believe the philoosohy problem is usually at a distance ie flick a switch to choose who lives. Not strangling the victim personally, which is a closer equivalent.

"The perpetrator in the philosophy situation is a killer. The perpetrator in the game situation I is a rapist."

I agree. The moral dilemma posed is "which is least bad" in both cases.

"They are essentially the same in terms of harm, because the main aspect of harm from rape is psychological. In fact, the harm might be worse If her friend is the perpetrator, not better."

That's the dilemma the scriptwriter is posing though, so it's their mistake.
The bad guy is gloating that he will do it, probably with more pain and additional violence.
The gameplayer is required to consider whether it is better for B to be subjected to additional pain or violence as well as the psychological trauma.
But, the game creator probably didn't consider the psychological aspect to be honest.

Can't most men imagine being raped by another man?
Most men I have heard talking about this consider it just about the worst thing that can happen to them, although obviously it's pretty rare.