Steam Is Banning Sex Games With Young-Looking Characters - Sensationalist Headlines

Obviously no, but the adrenaline that a murder gets by killing someone is different that the sexual pleasure that someone having a sexual relationship, they are totally different feelings. If both things are illegal and wrong to do in real life, why how the person feels matters? That's why I think that both are the same thing, if a person knows the differences of reality vs fiction, then I don't see a problem about the content itself. Sorry if anyone thinks that having this opinion is "dishonest" but that how I feel.

Sexologists, by and large, consider all fetishes a learned thing that comes about at around adolescence and grows. Cantor's research is still being discussed so this is old hat stuff, Cantor may be correct but we'll need further studies. One of the marked differences with Pedophiles however, is that their ideals for sexuality do not grow beyond childhood. They seek for the idolized person of their childhood because they still approach sexuality from a 'me' stage rather than an 'us' stage which is where most adults end up. They're essentially, sexually, just like children, they're focused on finding themselves sexually hence why many pedophiles will focuses on specific age brackets.

Saying that loli hentai legitimizes child abuse is a bit like saying that bondage legitimizes kidnappings, or that BDSM legitimizes abusive relationships. Sexual kinks and fantasies live in their own realm, and do not impact beliefs or what people do in their everyday life. The comparisons with violent video games are not that stupid, really. What american senators and a lot of posters here never really grasped, is that we as humans are surprisingly good at telling apart fantasy and real life (and what is acceptable in which). It could be an evolutionary byproduct of having dreams, although that is just my wild guess. This is why all those nightmares that 90's parents had about influence of games like Doom never really came into fruition. Now, the question of whether loli content encourages or discourages negative tendencies in actual pedophiles is an open one. I remember seeing a study that said that countries where loli hentai is legal have on average a lower amount of child rapes per citizen, but of course there is a whole nested can of outside factors there that could be in place, so it cant really be said to be a straight correlation. Unfortunately making just an actual straightforward study where you show pedophiles hentai for a few weeks and then see how enthusiastic they are to molest children would probably not have passed an ethical review, to say nothing of the practical problems.

Those studies usually never account for the fact that in the United States, that kind of content is actually legal and yet we end up with these massive fucking pedophile rings.

The main difference for me is that the main attraction behind violent games isn't the violence itself. Could you say the same about games made to simulate fucking underage girls? I've never tried playing lolicon games, so I'd be glad to know more.

I don't really understand the distinction. Why do people kill random pedestrians in games like GTA?

I do agree with you that games whose only purpose is maiming or killing people should be scrutinized too. LIke school shooter games or other games whose sole purpose is to satisfy someone's fetish for violence. But most games with violence doesn't have the killing or beating as the main purpose. So I just don't agree with comparing games with violence in general to 18+ dating sims featuring little girls.

So, murdering an adult is fine then (Basically any realistic FPS)? Torturing an man is fun (GTA V)? Murdering any fucking person that is walking on the street is good (Hatred)? Launching a fucking nuclear bomb is amazing (Falluot 76)? Sorry if I don't found the stupid example that you wanted thou.

On the subject of potential harm reduction, this is worth pondering upon. Do keep in mind that violence in media often promote empowerment via brutality and domination, not just sadistic properties, yet in most societies they are able to be kept in check by law and pressure. Consider the same for fauxcest.

Yeah, anyone that plays DOOM is because they enjoy the music, not because they enjoy killing demons. Come on.

A lot of people misconstrue the torture scene in GTAV and I can see why as it was never intended to be fun. Its intended to be awkward and abrasive, hence they used the awkward and abrasive character whose not supposed to be liked in the same a character like a heroic character is. You're not supposed to identify with his fun in torturing some random guy. Fallout 76's nuke function is likewise, actually the entire ANTITHESIS of the Fallout franchise's core messaging as is 4 which focuses so heavily on violence on a franchise designed to explore the ethics of a post-apoc society. So two of your examples you're misreading entirely on your own. Hatred is edgy for edgy's sake. The password for the power plant is something like 666, its not meant to be taken seriously in sense of the word. And as for the murdering, you can make an argument we rely on it too much but in many the situation is set up in a way that means the violence is usually consented to because of external circumstances and it involves adults which, in the real world, are fully capable of making informed decisions. And as for anyone bringing up randomly killing a bunch of people in GTA, the people in GTA accordingly respond by running away/panicking/or trying to fight back, they clearly do not consent and are given in-game opportunities to escape. Children are not capable of making informed decisions. So the fact, in a fictitious story, you play some senior in high school fucking a middle schooler or a brother fucking his little sister. Those are predatory, the girl(s), are not capable of making informed decisions and are also submitting under duress in some cases. In others, you're basically being molested by a young girl. There is not ethical, moral or philosophical backing. There might be an emotional backing and it may even have hints of romance.

You kill pedestrians and people around you start screaming, cops start chasing you. Part of the experience is knowing that what you are doing is wrong and that you will be punished and persecuted for your crimes. GTA is a narrative-driven game about roleplaying as a criminal, after all. If you're somebody that enjoys mass murder, sure, a game like GTA might be your thing for pleasure, I ain't saying GTA can't be used as a tool for fueling fucked up desires, but you see what I mean, right? Does lolicon have more merit than fucking little girls? So you want to compare fighting against fictional demons that aren't capable of anything but violence to murdering humans? Surely DOOM would raise some weird red flags if it was about killing harmless random people in the same way?

One game notable for it's goriness is [PROTOTYPE]. You don't need to kill civilians in the game, you aren't really penalized in anyway for attacking them.

We are talking about the violence itself and how people that played is because they enjoy the violent aspect of the game. I put DOOM as example because everyone enjoys ripping demons, and is made as the main point of the game. The game itself even rewards you for "Glory killing". Thats why I say that "The main attraction behind violent games isn't the violence itself" is simply bullshit.

It's not guaranteed whatsoever that you will be punished or persecuted for your crimes even if you run over a hundred pedestrians using a school bus, GTA police is easy to escape from and sometimes even hard to trigger at all unless you start shooting policemen. And the games are full of mini-missions literally dubbed "Massacre" or something like that where you have to kill as many people as possible in a set amount of time, and I think some of them remove police presence entirely for their duration? My memory isn't too fresh on those, but the bottom line is that I really don't see what you mean.

The Cops aren't easy to run from in V, FYI. The general strategy is to get out of the city and then go off road, because otherwise your stars will keep increasing until you're finally killed. Once you hit 4 to 5, they will always find you. In addition, the Massacre minigames are from the abrasive asshole character you're not supposed to identify with at any capacity what-so-ever who often use incredibly flimsy justifications that we, as the audience, are supposed to know are bullshit.

I am not referring to cantor's research, what happens is that right now we aren't completely sure if access to lolicon makes people less likely to commit crimes, but it doesn't appear to make them more likely to do so. Some have even suggested using it to reduce risks. But again, more research is needed. What seems likely is that by itself, it doesn't reduce the stigma of child abuse as some people might suggest. There's also Galbraith's research on the subject: "All forms of imagination, regardless of how repugnant some may find them, are legal up to and until they present a real danger to self or others. The evidence suggests that those producing and consuming lolicon images pose no such danger. They have a nuanced understanding of the relationship between fiction and reality, and desire shōjo characters precisely because they are unreal. That said, it is not possible or even prudent to posit a unified way that “they” approach “these” images. Interactions with media are dynamic, and defy static categories of analysis. For example, Shigematsu takes up the appearance of lolicon images in manga written by and for adult women (Shigematsu 1999: 146). It is important to allow for such unexpected engagements regardless of age and sex. "

Are you sure that's the case? Or has virtual violence as an allure has just been normalised so far that you don't focus on it? I think it's been pretty well established that virtual violence doesn't result in real world violence so I don't see the point of "scrutinizing" fiction based on its violent content. As far as I know, other themes in fiction haven't been shown to be damaging either, so I'm not sure why fetish porn fiction, no matter how vile or illegal in real life would be an exception.

Galbraith's research, which focuses on Japan, doesn't work globally. Galbraith has even admitted this, as again, the creation and consumption of loli material is legal in the US but we have a massive problem with pedophiles, complicated rings and sex trafficking in the United States.

Isn't it crystal clear that GTA is set up in way to let you know that you are roleplaying a morally reprehensible criminal? Why do the gameplay mechanics always have to punish you for something the game already lets you know is criminal, ethically and morally bad behavior? Even if the cops don't chase you, you kill a pedestrian and the ones around you react by screaming and showing general feelings of terror. I'm seriously baffled that you don't get my point. The reason we're doing this comparison in the first place is to analyze the difference between how your actions are presented in a lolicon game and a GTA game. The difference is absolutely crystal clear, don't you think?

Yeah you got a very valid point there. It does seem hypocritical to criticize one but not the other now when I thought about it some more.

Like, if the lot of you want to continue this GTA comparison, it'd be like the comic ending with you getting arrested 20 years later after the girls come forward and testify that you abused them.

So lolicon porn games are a-okay if the sex depicted in them isn't consensual and represented as being bad?

I don't remember being arrested on GTA, be in a trial with all the victims testifying against me and be 80 years ingame in jail

Then where’s the problem? Not just asking you but everyone else in the thread as well. Why does anyone give a fuck (heh) about what other people like or dislike? I’m personally grossed out by stuff with scat, gore, and homosexual males, but I don’t see how criminalizing people’s tastes in works of fiction will benefit anyone.

I'm on board with banning loli from Steam, but only if Valve is even-handed with banning extreme and possibly illegal adult content. No loli, no snuff/guro, no bestiality, and certainly no rape. If they're going to ban lewd games that folks think might make pedophiles, they ought to be thorough and close the door on games that might make more serial killers, rapists, and Mr. Hands. It's Valve's prerogative to keep only the soft-to-medium core porn on their site, and that's alright so long as they're thorough.

I agree, virtual violence does provide us with entertainment that is easy to digest. I still stand by what I said - the enjoyment I feel from games like Counter-Strike resembles that of playing sports. Counter-Strike is the only FPS game I keep coming back to, even though there are so many other games out there with considerably more advanced violent mechanics. You do have a point though - it's hard to gauge how much of that enjoyment comes from the violent gameplay mechanics. That would change the point of the game. Porn isn't usually meant to provide social commentary, so that renders my points moot. I'm very conflicted about this. I have no right to tell people what kind of sexual fantasies are okay, and I know that people are fully capable of differentiating reality and fiction, so why do I feel like stigmatizing this kind of pornography?

Steam is adopting this measure because they could get into legal trouble in some countries that represent their largest markets, like Canada for example. In Canada any pornographic material depicting someone under the age of 18 is straight up illegal, even if it's a mere illustration. Being caught with it will put you on the sex offender registry. As for the morality of it... Let's isolate the main reason why sex between an adult and a minor is a bad thing. It's not all that complicated, it's pretty much the same reason as it's considered verboten for military officers to engage in romantic or sexual relationships with enlisted, or bosses to screw around with their employees. Ditto for teachers and students even in colleges. Essentially any situation in which one person wields a disproportionately high level of power and influence over the other renders consent null and void because it involves an element of either coercion or manipulation. With minors it's even worse because it has the chance to stunt their development, damage them for life, even if it's one of those cases where at the time they believe they're capable of giving consent. So assuming we can agree on that, I still don't get what's so egregious about illustrated pornography depicting minors. It's disgusting, but that alone isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal, especially if it can arguably be used as a method of harm reduction. The Catholic Church forces its priests to be celibate, which is why Catholic priests have such a high number of sex offenders. We already know because the numbers have proven that the whole 'just don't have sex' approach to sex education leads to many, many more teen pregnancies than a proper education. Banning something harmless because it offends one's sensibilities seems a bad idea, no? As a company, I get why Steam does it. For governments like Canada, though, I think it goes way too far.

How does this work for oppai loli since their physical form is hyper unrealistic? I feel like this ban is just going to breed another genre of cheap hentai steam games where the "pre-teen younger sister" looks like a 30 year old milf.

...Until they let one game with a slightly more childish-looking character than another game through due to vague interpretations? A huge clamoring will almost certainly follow about how "well if THIS game is okay why isn't THIS game okay? The girls in it look older but it's banned!" Once the bar gets lowered even one iota, it will be pushed. Repeat ad nauseam until the rule is literally "how we feel that day" or some sort of convoluted 30-point characteristic analysis. The unenforceable part comes from the categorization process, my bad.