Sexism and Men's Issues

Not much different than the rape simulators and bum fighting simulators.

Some people suck.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

(I have never been a fan of the Double Standard of female on male abuse. Especially when played for comedy. Hence why I am disgusted and will never ever do the Nah/Inigo support tree in Fire Emblem Awakening.)

It's kind of the thing I'd more condemn a company for supporting or anyone taking it seriously than someone for making it in the first place.

Apparently it was created by a company called "games2win". They make fashion games and "naughty" games of women in sexual situations.

I thought that was just a collection site for various flash games and stuff made by others, rather than a creator itself.

And if those games are what I think they are they fall squarly into the humour category, which is by definition not taking it seriously, which kind of makes it fall into the "meh" category for tacky humour and nothing really to get worked up about.

"The game is made by an India-based company called Games 2 Win, which produces hundreds of games, from “Wedding Dress Stylist” to “Bieber Baby Drama.” The company also produces a series of “Naughty” games, including titles like “Naughty Sorority” and “Naughty Air Hostess.” Neither Games 2 Win nor Apple have yet responded to requests for comment."

Either made or produced. Either way, it seems like there are a few dudes out there with bad tastes for making the game.

edited 12th Aug '14 9:43:10 AM by MrAHR

And bad tastes for buying and playing them.

If they didn't have an audience, there wouldn't be the action.

IS most of that action from playing it, or from people reacting to it? I mean, I'd say it's a good thing if it's the latter, but do we know?

Two Kenyan Tribes Divided by the Festival of Circumcision

And the one men's health charity that consistently gets a A or higher rating from charitywatch.org:

https://us.movember.com/

Cheers!

If it's any consolation, I didn't see a single person in the comments section of the article trying to defend this.

Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by that, too. Buzzfeed's normally pretty terrible about these kinds of things.

The reason rape needs to be defined is because most of us have a specific reaction to the concept, and that reaction doesn't match when the word is used to cover more than we have envisioned. This causes feelings of attempted manipulation. An example:

I am all for the death penalty for someone who forces someone down and engages in sexual intercourse with them while the victim kicks and screams and pleads. This is not my only conception of rape, but the revulsion of this magnitude only covers some of what we call rape today. If, for instance, a 25 yo man has sex with a 16 yo girl, I do not generally see the need for a serious punishment barring other circumstances. My moral outrage is not activated like it would be if a husband smacked his wife and forced himself on her when she wasn't in the mood. This action, like the first, activates the VERY BAD, NEEDS SERIOUS PUNISHMENT section of my brain. The 25 yo with the 16 yo activates the THIS GUY IS MAYBE KINDA SLEAZY section of my brain.

It feels like someone is trying to activate the VERY BAD portion of my brain without the facts fitting what actually turns that on. We can use the word "rape" to mean "Any time consent is not 100% clearly and unquestionably given with nothing mitigating either party's ability to give consent," but then my outrage is not going to spark at the word.

Well uh... maybe the problem is with YOUR brain rather than the literal definition of the word? Maybe you SHOULD be outraged about the grown men taking advantage of teenagers?

I just don't in any way equate it with the violent nonconsensual encounter that activates instant outrage. I'd need to know more about the statutory issue than just that it happened to say that something horrible happened. In plenty of states that would be perfectly legal, too, so I don't think I'm the only one not outraged at the very concept. A 16 year-old is generally perfectly capable of making their own decisions about whom they want to have sex with.

Again, there are certainly circumstances that would take such an encounter and make me angry.

edited 16th Aug '14 11:05:45 PM by Vericrat

It's still wrong, though. Part of the issue of getting people to acknowledge that people try to say what's "real rape" and what isn't.

Again, I think I'd have to know the circumstances to definitively say it was wrong. But in any case, that's exactly what I'm talking about. People do have an instinctive reaction to the word rape because they're thinking about something that is often not meant by the speaker. We need to be able to make up our minds about things. People have made up their minds about violent sexual assault. The range of ages of consent across the U.S. and the globe suggest that they have not about consensual encounters between a grown minor and an adult.

As I said, we can define rape to mean any time consent is not 100% certain with nothing mitigating either party's ability to consent, but if we do, then the power of the person's reaction is lost.

Virginity pledges for men can lead to sexual confusion—even after the wedding day

@Zennistrad and Loni Jay: Again, needing a definition. You say its (25 with 16) is wrong, but it may not even be illegal. In the US, for example, the age of consent varies from state to state. In fact, it is more likely to be legal than illegal (31 out of 51, counting the District, have their age of consent set at 16). However, California has an age of consent of 18, and due to most Hollywood writers living there, Cultural Osmosis has made people think that the age of consent through out the entire country.

Now, this doesn't answer the moral question, but I don't think that it's that absolute. Everyone has their own conception of what is right and what is wrong. For my part, I don't think that the described situation is inherently or necessarily wrong. It by all means can be, but isn't necessarily so, and I feel that in jumping to the conclusion that a teenager in a relationship with an older person must, by virtue of their age, be being taken advantage of, we belong to a culture that is dismissive and belittling towards the intelligence, integrity, and ability of those under an arbitrary age limit.

For example, a friend of mine, when she was 17, had a job as a bank teller. Society trusted her not to rob people using this position. She had a driver's license, the legal right to operate a machine that was potentially lethal to both her and those around her. She was not however, trusted to not be taken advantage of (i.e. what we are discussing, a minimum age of consent). A day later, with nothing changed in her personality, intelligence, or competence, she was considered competent to give consent. But not to drink alcohol, because apparently that is much more difficult to do than sit on a jury that decides someone's guilt or innocence or vote in an election.

Anyway, the point of a legal definition is to have a single, universally accessible rule of what is acceptable and what isn't, what is punishable and what isn't. The role of civilization and society is to create a series of laws, these legal definitions, that allow a group of people with varied and changing ideas of what is right and wrong to live and work together. And in any democratic society it is the duty of every citizen to work to change those laws that he or she thinks are wrong, immoral, or unjust. And if you live in a non-democratic, authoritarian state...good luck, and tread carefully, fellow troper, because I think you have bigger problems.

And realizing that I've gone a bit off-topic, let my steer it back to the conversation at hand. We need a formal, understandable definition so that we can all understand each other, which I think is a necessary first step in order to have a meaningful discussion on the topic (which I think needs to happen, not merely among members of this forum, but around the whole world). To use Vericrat's example, let us have as our definition that rape is our original example, a 25-year old having sex with a 16-year old, or perhaps more generally, rape is having sex with someone whose age is below an arbitrary limit. Vericrat would then counter with his example, who I am arbitrarily deciding their ages as 31 and 32. Vericrat's hypothetical of a 31year old physically and sexually assulting their 32-year old partner does not fit the definition that we have established, but we as a collective group would (hopefully) agree that it qualifies as rape. We would then have to decide is the second case, one party forcing themselves on the other, a supplemental clause to our definition of rape, or does it supplant the first, in which case our original example of the 25year old having sex with the 16year old does not fit our revised definition of rape, and is therefore no longer rape, baring situation specific manipulation/coersion/etc, which becomes a question of fact, although still probably remains sleazy. And, I think that this debate is a good and necessary thing.

Pardon for super-long post.

So this is a point. Intersectionality and all that.

edited 20th Aug '14 2:36:59 PM by unnoun

There is a bit of So Caling and The World is the US here. In Britain absolute age of consent is 16. People may find a 27 year old with a 16 year old a bit off, but it's not illegal. At what point is a 11 year age different ok?

It's not a whole lot more than the age difference between my parents, and they met while one of them was a teenager.

I think it's okay if both people are okay with it, and if both are at least the age of consent for their area, and if there's no trust issues. By that last bit I mean their relationship doesn't affect or is affected by a different kind of relationship they have, like one of them being a boss, teacher, or non-related caretaker. If there is, I'd go with 18. Aside from obvious exceptions.

edited 22nd Aug '14 6:06:00 PM by AnotherDuck

Arguably, biological age doesn't matter nearly as much as "mental age", that is to say, how old you are should be secondary to both individuals being on the same page. I think most people would say that in most cases, a sixteen year old and a twenty-seven year old won't be at the same points in their lives and thus wouldn't be as compatible as people closer to their age. Now this isn't always true, but rather likely. You hit different milestones in different points of your life, and these start to widen drastically (or cease to exist in some cases) once you reach your late twenties and thirties, so around then, age stops mattering quite a bit.

I've never found the argument that people of different ages aren't likely to be at the same stage in life to be particularly convincing. It's sort of like having different interests, and if you know what you're doing, you can work them to your advantage, if your current focuses complement each other. Probably the only two ideas I can see mattering a lot are whether they want a permanent relationship or a fling, and when to start a family, if applicable. And neither means a short relationship is unacceptable, since you kind of need that to determine where you are anyway.

Re: Permanent relationship or fling.

As far as age is concerned, if it's a fling, I doubt either party gives a damn. As long as both sides are consenting adults, age is thoroughly unimportant when it comes to sex. What I (and I can only speak for myself) was talking about is purely on the serious side of relationships. Say a fifty year old person who just got out of a divorce, they have three kids and a mortgage and they date someone out of high school. What the hell would they have in common to talk about?

edited 22nd Aug '14 6:49:31 PM by Cyran