Rape Games Banned in Japan: Sex Sells, But Should Rape Sell Too?

This article, announcing the ban of rape games in Japan, was posted on Kotaku the other day. Rape games are games in which it is the player’s objective to successfully attack or otherwise coerce women in the game into sex without consent.

Brian Ashcraft, Kotaku’s Night Editor located in Japan, has been following the story of the ban for the past few weeks. His posts have detailed his resentment over the fact that rape videogames, as opposed to rape comics and rape pornography, are the only medium under scrutiny. He tells readers to “expect more creative ways of masking rape and rape iconography as well as possibly more ‘amateur’ or unlicensed games” and that “there's always the rape pornography and rape comic books that will most likely continue, business as usual.” He implies that rape games should be left alone, just like other rape related entertainment, to succeed or fail on their own merit. His main argument is that the games are released legally, which most were, and that there should be no further investigation of the genre for this reason.

What really gets me about Ashcraft’s articles is the 'if they can do it, we should be able to too' attitude in his writing. Rather than taking the position of gaming being the pioneer of ending rape-as-entertainment, Ashcraft seem resentful that rape games are being shut down while other rape-related entertainment isn’t also coming under fire. Ashcraft never calls into question the validity of rape as entertainment and immediately jumps to its defense because videogames are part of the equation. This behavior reminds me of the kind of defense gamers provided against the accusations of racist imagery in Resident Evil 5 all over the net. It's all very knee-jerk.

It seems to me that there is more than a hint of paranoia within the gaming community, ingrained in us by the likes of uninformed assailants such as Jack Thompson, and that many gamers will jump in front of a bus to defend any game, under any circumstance, with no thought as whether or not there are actual issues with a game’s content. We are so ready to defend the validity of games that at times we do not check to see if what we’re defending is what we actually believe, or if we are becoming willingly blind to protect our medium. Is it not a little fucked up to be defending rape games solely on the basis that rape exists in other media?

Penn Jillette, of Penn & Teller, felt the need to exacerbate the issue:

"What blaming the video game does is it shows compassion for the rapist. It shows understanding. At some level, in some small amount, it says, 'It's not really the rapist's fault; it's society's fault for putting this stuff out here'." – Penn Jillette, “Penn Jillette Speaks Out on RapeLay,” escapistmagazine.com

Jillette’s interpretation of the situation is not only narrow, but weak. Do laws against murder normalize killing? Jillette assumes that this ban will have the largest affect on rapist and potential rapists, patting them on the head saying “it’s not your fault that you’re a violent sexual assailant.” In reality, the decision for the ban more likely included deliberation on how the trivialization of rape affects victims of the actual crime, and how normalizing sexual violence through adolescent treatment of the subject matter is spreading sexual misinformation. There will be no rapists thanking this ban for ‘curing’ them of their desire to rape.

Additionally, some gamers are defending rape games under the banner of freedom of speech and creativity, but are failing to see that rape games breach the territory of a kind of hate speech against women. The comments on the latest rape game post on Kotaku are full of opinions (men’s only, from what I can tell) on the validity of rape as entertainment:

“Anyone who looks at this [ban] and say[s] ‘It's a good thing’, yet was up in arms over Jack Thompson, the controversies over Mass Effect, Manhunt, GTA, FPS games in general, and any other game controversy, is not[h]ing more than a hypocrite, pure an[d] simple. If you are going to support freedom of speech, you have to accept it in all its forms.” – WillSerenity, commenting on “Rape Games Officially Banned in Japan,” kotaku.com

If there were a game released under the title of “Fag Hunter,” and it was ostensibly produced as fantasy fulfillment for right-wing conservatives, would anyone defend that game’s right to exist as free speech? Certainly not. So what does exchanging one oft victimized group—gay men— for another—women at large—change as far as acceptability goes? Many people arguing this issue don’t seem to understand that there are clear distinctions between free speech and hate speech.

“People need to come to the realization that speech is not free; there is a very real cost and it is almost always paid by the most vulnerable members of society.” - Renee Martin, “Fox News Provides The Vehicle To Tillers Death,” womanist-musings.com

In this instance, women. Men may have the right to sexual fantasy, but everyone has the right to feel safe. How safe would a woman feel finding out a man she knew played a game simulating rape? There is no yardstick for what measures ‘acceptable’ rape fantasy, but the profiteering and juvenile treatment of the subject is absolutely not acceptable.

"[T]here are plenty of rape victims around who can quite justifiably be shocked, horrified, further traumatized by the depiction for entertainment of the crime that caused their suffering. And they are deserving of protection. Heaven knows, they weren't protected enough in the first place, least we can do is not make things worse.” – Phisheep, commenting on “Rape Games Officially Banned in Japan,” kotaku.com

In the comments, rape in games is also being compared to murder in games as a defense, but the term “murder” is used very lightly. If two people enter into a gunfight and one dies, as in nearly every existing shooter game, there was a kind of consent within the conflict. One person fires, and the other fires back. Both player and NPC were threats to each other to begin with. There are no ‘victims’ in a willing gun-battle. There is no consent in rape. There are victims. How many games have there been where the player sneaks around killing unsuspecting victims for no reason other than fulfilling their own pathological desires? Those characters are usually the bad guys.

The kink in this issue, however, is that rape fantasy, as a private sexual practice, alone or with a partner, is a perfectly valid sexual stimulant. Many, many people, both men and women, fantasize about raping or being raped, and act on those fantasies in a safe environment with their partners or by themselves. In fantasy, the fantasizer has complete control and can derive pleasure from an imagined situation that they would never enjoy in real life. The difference between a fantasy desire and an actual desire is entirely in the individual’s power to control the situation, and therein lies the stark contrast between fantasy rape and actual rape. Men who fantasize about rape do not secretly want to rape, nor do women who fantasize about being raped actually want to be raped.

More reasonable commentors are addressing the notion of rape as a viable, normal sexual fantasy and are defending rape games as an appropriate outlet. This approach stands on some firmer ground, but all of the difficulties mentioned so far still complicate the issue.

I’m of two minds on this one. I don’t think the current state of rape games passes as responsible sexual fantasy, but I don’t feel that they should be eliminated altogether either, as there are people who do enjoy the games based of their natural inclination towards rape fantasy. Simply, rape games in their current state are so far into the territory of shock porn that it is difficult to condone the lack of morality concerning the physical and mental well-being of women.

Ultimately, this ban isn’t an outrage. It’s just a simple curiosity that has sparked some debate within the gaming community. The ban was voluntary, and was not imposed upon the industry by Japanese law. The ban was decided under a vote. The influences behind the ban are what are generating such interesting discussion. It’s not as though the doomsayers that are crying “this ban means the end of free speech” are going to convince the repeal of a voluntary ban. I think Heliophage said it best:

"It's self-censorship, what is there to get mad about? If I go outside and promise to never say the word ‘fuck’ again, will you attack me with notions of 'free speech' and my right to shout expletives?" - Heliophage, commenting on “Rape Games Officially Banned in Japan,” kotaku.com