Japan’s record on women’s rights to face review by UN Committee

[VCR_CAT]

The problem with censorship is not so much bad content being cut out in general, well actually that is the problem, but what I'm saying is it's about how that content is being presented and what its purpose is for being in there. There might be a piece of media that has violence against women in it; not because it's just in there without reason, but because it's an essential part to the story/its artistic message. It's like language in some media. Sometimes a show throws out "funk" because it thinks it makes it funnier. Sometimes they just want it to be edgier. Sometimes it's because the given character is legitimately the kind of person that would say it.

 

The problem with censorship is that blanket censoring can compromise the writing of something. When I just read "violence against women", that just comes across as way too broad where suddenly it could include two female characters fighting in a martial arts show. If it was something specific like "No on-screen lolirape kthnx", then the impact wouldn't be so broad against so much stuff.

 

I mean, censorship is a sticky area (no pun intended). I could go into my personal preference where I actually wouldn't at all mind that loli-rape porn is gotten rid of, but this isn't about me.

 

Like, typical things need to be done to make sure that this kind of media isn't accessible to the point that a child can go into a bookstore and grab it off the shelf, but I'm mostly sure that Japan already does that. Not much you can do with the internet without really getting a lot of people mad.

 

I would say that more studies need to be done to make sure what kind of impact has on a person's behavior, but it's honestly such a gray area. There's all kinds of factors that can lead to a person's behavior and it's really difficult to know if a given media is guilty of causing it; or even if that would apply to most people.

 

 

Honestly, I can kind of understand why they would want this kind of stuff off the market, and why people would want to keep it on. It's a really muddled area, and I do think some steps need to be taken regarding the really raunchy stuff because hole-lee crap it gets raunchy; but jeeze there's only so much you can do before you start stepping on toes, and that's not much at all.

[Aix]

Few people would be like Mitcher and step up to speak in defence of this stuff because of the negative implications it puts on you. It's censorship we'll allow on something because few people dare speak up for it and most people think it's awful and gross, even if it may very well be harmless (I don't think data really exist to support either side).

 

Just how it looks to me.

[~~~~]

I don't think there's anything wrong with indulging in our darker, more primal thoughts and preferences. You can be the sort of person who fantasizes raping your co-workers or fondling kids or get off to the idea of mutilating someone into pieces and I think that's fine. It's something you prefer and you can't really ever change your preferences. You probably weren't born enjoying rape but you're the sort of person with the mental capacity to enjoy such things. If we go a little broader, people are born with sexual preferences and laws restricting those people to only have heterosexual thoughts and preferences are equally as ridiculous and terrible, aren't they? Liking immoral sexual acts is fine, but unfortunately for them, acting them out in real life is just something that would cause a lot of social unrest and harm people and that's really sad because chances are people are aware that their own preferences for rape and whatnot is harmful and bad but they can't help get off to it anyway(or maybe they don't care about that but they care about breaking the law, that's fine too). Doesn't it make sense to allow fictional rape porn to exist then, so people can enjoy that instead and relieve some of their sexual desires without harming people. Point, there are laws made to prevent such harmful acts in real life and that's alright, that's understandable, that's very essential to keep our society functional even, but preventing people from creating fictional portrayals of rape and the like and consuming them is just taking it too far. Way too far.

TBH the idea of "rape simulators" disgusts me entirely. But if I am to follow my chosen Utilitarian ethics, I must admit that you might just have a point. I am using the same reasoning however, that makes me believe that criminals shouldn't be punished in any way. (When I say they shouldn't be punished, I still mean that they should be prevented from re-offending, and it should be common belief that there is a punishment so as to put off people from offending in the first place). I am aware that this is probably not practical though.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Since I assume everyone is in agreement about basically everything proposed except the video game part (If you aren't, that requires a much much longer discussion than here), so let's discuss that; 

 

I would be opposed to any blanket ban on sexual violence against women in any form of creative medium. Because creative mediums in part are about exploring themes, and life, and sexual violence is a part of that. The context such content is placed in matters. If it's gratitous, if doesn't support the character development, or is just done for cheap entertainment, then I can understand it being banned. But say a story, which features the rape of the main character, and exploring her/his reaction to it, building from it, painting it in a realistic light, why should that be banned? It's not encouraging the behaviour, it's giving a realistic showing of it. Without that kind of thing, you can essentially mystify the subject which has it's own set of issues. 

 

The aim shouldn't be to remove female violence from forms of media, but to change how it is used and explored, and remove the stuff that is in essentially poor taste. Otherwise art will suffer for it, and that in my mind is a huge problem.

 

This post got significantly worse as it went on. 

[Susie]

Since I assume everyone is in agreement about basically everything proposed except the video game part (If you aren't, that requires a much much longer discussion than here), so let's discuss that; 

 

I would be opposed to any blanket ban on sexual violence against women in any form of creative medium. Because creative mediums in part are about exploring themes, and life, and sexual violence is a part of that. The context such content is placed in matters. If it's gratitous, if doesn't support the character development, or is just done for cheap entertainment, then I can understand it being banned. But say a story, which features the rape of the main character, and exploring her/his reaction to it, building from it, painting it in a realistic light, why should that be banned? It's not encouraging the behaviour, it's giving a realistic showing of it. Without that kind of thing, you can essentially mystify the subject which has it's own set of issues. 

 

The aim shouldn't be to remove female violence from forms of media, but to change how it is used and explored, and remove the stuff that is in essentially poor taste. Otherwise art will suffer for it, and that in my mind is a huge problem.

 

This post got significantly worse as it went on. 

 

No art will not suffer for the things that are in poor taste, honestly that sort of stuff has already been made as inaccessible as possible for instance how many people have heard of films like I Spit On Your Grave, Tumbling Doll of Flesh, Slaughteredvomitdolls, The Bunny Game, Salo (Or the 120 Days of Sodom), and Grotesque (2009)? My point. Art with more merit will always flourish moreso than art with no merit, even with more mainstream examples like Saw or Hostel most people tend to push those away in favor of more tasteful works.

[Aix]

Since I assume everyone is in agreement about basically everything proposed except the video game part (If you aren't, that requires a much much longer discussion than here), so let's discuss that; 

 

I would be opposed to any blanket ban on sexual violence against women in any form of creative medium. Because creative mediums in part are about exploring themes, and life, and sexual violence is a part of that. The context such content is placed in matters. If it's gratitous, if doesn't support the character development, or is just done for cheap entertainment, then I can understand it being banned. But say a story, which features the rape of the main character, and exploring her/his reaction to it, building from it, painting it in a realistic light, why should that be banned? It's not encouraging the behaviour, it's giving a realistic showing of it. Without that kind of thing, you can essentially mystify the subject which has it's own set of issues. 

 

The aim shouldn't be to remove female violence from forms of media, but to change how it is used and explored, and remove the stuff that is in essentially poor taste. Otherwise art will suffer for it, and that in my mind is a huge problem.

 

This post got significantly worse as it went on. 

We are banning inferior art now?

[Aerion Brightflame]

We are banning inferior art now?

 

Arguably. It's better than banning all forms of it due to associate with a buzzword topic. If they really feel the need to do something on this issue, then that is the arguably the better thing to restrict than the big ban on Sexual Violence as a whole. They clearly feel the need to do something about this big scary topic (Despite there being little to no evidence of it actually being an issue for children as such), so if it's a choice of how such a ban would be implemented then there are areas that removing it from is less impactful. It's not an ideal solution, but it's better than the alternative. 

 

On a personal note (Namely not part of the argument I'm trying to make, just personal feelings on the subject); I would be fine with a ban on gratuitous usages of sexual violence. Because it's gratuitous. 

[Aix]

Arguably. It's better than banning all forms of it due to associate with a buzzword topic. If they really feel the need to do something on this issue, then that is the arguably the better thing to restrict than the big ban on Sexual Violence as a whole. They clearly feel the need to do something about this big scary topic (Despite there being little to no evidence of it actually being an issue for children as such), so if it's a choice of how such a ban would be implemented then there are areas that removing it from is less impactful. It's not an ideal solution, but it's better than the alternative. 

 

On a personal note (Namely not part of the argument I'm trying to make, just personal feelings on the subject); I would be fine with a ban on gratuitous usages of sexual violence. Because it's gratuitous. 

But who will decide what's tasteful?

[Susie]

Arguably. It's better than banning all forms of it due to associate with a buzzword topic. If they really feel the need to do something on this issue, then that is the arguably the better thing to restrict than the big ban on Sexual Violence as a whole. They clearly feel the need to do something about this big scary topic (Despite there being little to no evidence of it actually being an issue for children as such), so if it's a choice of how such a ban would be implemented then there are areas that removing it from is less impactful. It's not an ideal solution, but it's better than the alternative. 

 

On a personal note (Namely not part of the argument I'm trying to make, just personal feelings on the subject); I would be fine with a ban on gratuitous usages of sexual violence. Because it's gratuitous. 

 

Then what classifies as inferior art, something may be gratuitous but still have a point to its existence and not only that but a point that is arguable and debatable. Artistic merit is simply subjective not objective. Take one of the films that I mentioned in my previous post, Salo, a film thats about a group of rich people during WWII who took 8 teenage boys and 8 teenage girls and subjected them to psychological torture for pure pleasure (based upon a true story). You can argue that its just some inferior torture film but you can also argue that the film has social commentary and is a high art masterpiece. You cant just simply say "this is low and therefore should be banned", like banning the entirety of violence/sexual violence it creates nothing but issues and doesnt solve a thing.

[Aerion Brightflame]

 

But who will decide what's tasteful?

 

No idea. It's an entirely impractical alternative because art is an entirely subjective medium. But there is no practical alternative beyond not actually imposing limitations in the first place (Aside from say those already in place like one of the two being under-age). It's why I called it a buzz word issue; They want to appear to be doing something on an issue, but they are trying to apply a simple solution to complex problems. Which makes finding a correct solution really hard. 

 

 

 

Then what classifies as inferior art, something may be gratuitous but still have a point to its existence and not only that but a point that is arguable and debatable. Artistic merit is simply subjective not objective. Take one of the films that I mentioned in my previous post, Salo, a film thats about a group of rich people during WWII who took 8 teenage boys and 8 teenage girls and subjected them to psychological torture for pure pleasure (based upon a true story). You can argue that its just some inferior torture film but you can also argue that the film has social commentary and is a high art masterpiece. You cant just simply say "this is low and therefore should be banned", like banning the entirety of violence/sexual violence it creates nothing but issues and doesnt solve a thing.

 

There is no easy classification for inferior art. I can personally define gratuitous in media as something to which removing wouldn't positively or negatively impact the story at all. Of course as you said, that is subjective, but that's why it's my personal take on the issue, not part of the argument I'm trying to make. Take your example of Salo; The sexual violence in there would not be gratuitous to me, because it's being used in a form of social commentary, it has meaning and reason to be there. It's exploring a horrible side of society. 

 

And yes, it's not an elegant solution. There is no elegant solution to this issue. Funnily enough, when it comes to social issues (Which this is linked to) there is never an elegant solution. 

[Susie]

There is no easy classification for inferior art. I can personally define gratuitous in media as something to which removing wouldn't positively or negatively impact the story at all. Of course as you said, that is subjective, but that's why it's my personal take on the issue, not part of the argument I'm trying to make. Take your example of Salo; The sexual violence in there would not be gratuitous to me, because it's being used in a form of social commentary, it has meaning and reason to be there. It's exploring a horrible side of society.

 

And yes, it's not an elegant solution. There is no elegant solution to this issue. Funnily enough, when it comes to social issues (Which this is linked to) there is never an elegant solution. 

 

 

Then cant that be said for just about every gratuitous piece of media? You can argue that "torture porn" films have artistic merit because of their depiction of violence being disgusting or even make note of their usage of make up and special effects. As it stands right now extreme cinema is very inaccessible and pushed to the side, that is clearly enough since any other way would simply be removing material on a biased level and merely change nothing about society. This solution to be ignorant to the issue ill admit is also not the most elegant but it doesnt remove what is already of low importance and not easy to come across and. Ban it from TV and stores but banning it in general is too much of an overkill.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

You can argue that "torture porn" films have artistic merit because of their depiction of violence being disgusting or even make note of their usage of make up and special effects. 

 

Artistic merit is in the ethics of the beholder. 

 

Pornography by definition is designed to stimulate erotic feelings, so "torture porn" is torture intended not to disgust people, but stimulate erotic feelings, and those disgusted by torture should naturally be more inclined to disparage torture porn's artistic validity.

 

Similarly, games are designed for recreation by definition. There are plenty of things you can do for recreation that don't involve cathartic violence against increasingly realistic effigies. The Grand Theft Auto games are well-marketed sociopathy.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Artistic merit is in the ethics of the beholder. 

 

Pornography by definition is designed to stimulate erotic feelings, so "torture porn" is torture intended not to disgust people, but stimulate erotic feelings, and those disgusted by torture should naturally be more inclined to disparage torture porn's artistic validity.

 

Similarly, games are designed for recreation by definition. There are plenty of things you can do for recreation that don't involve cathartic violence against increasingly realistic effigies. The Grand Theft Auto games are well-marketed sociopathy.

And yet I'm not a raging psycho who wants to murder people, despite having played GTA games originally when I was like 12. Your ideas are flawed by the many examples of people who play these games yet don't do bad things. How do you account for that?

[Susie]

Artistic merit is in the ethics of the beholder. 

 

Pornography by definition is designed to stimulate erotic feelings, so "torture porn" is torture intended not to disgust people, but stimulate erotic feelings, and those disgusted by torture should naturally be more inclined to disparage torture porn's artistic validity.

 

Similarly, games are designed for recreation by definition. There are plenty of things you can do for recreation that don't involve cathartic violence against increasingly realistic effigies. The Grand Theft Auto games are well-marketed sociopathy.

Torture porn is just a slang word that people use to criticize horror films like Saw and Hostel where the main idea is to just see someone being tortured, hence why it was in quotations.

[Hello my name is Enguin]

Similarly, games are designed for recreation by definition.

 

This statement taken on its own is just so flawed. Take any game featuring something that does not actually exist. How do you argue that that game is designed for recreation?

 

lol well done me misconstruing shit, even though it's a short post this is not my finest

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

And yet I'm not a raging psycho who wants to murder people, despite having played GTA games originally when I was like 12. Your ideas are flawed by the many examples of people who play these games yet don't do bad things. How do you account for that?

 

I think I've made it pretty clear that I consider playing GTA "doing a bad thing", so I'm sure you can understand my hesitance to christen your "many examples" as immaculate and without sin.   

 

Torture porn is just a slang word that people use to criticize horror films like Saw and Hostel where the main idea is to just see someone being tortured, hence why it was in quotations.

 

Would you consider the phrase to be accurate criticism? I would.

[Susie]

Would you consider the phrase to be accurate criticism? I would.

 

I wouldnt consider it to be a fair criticism at all, you dont always sit down and watch a movie simply to enjoy it and there are people who like to see films like that simply because they like seeing how creative the deaths get, its similar to watching an old school slasher flick except more extreme.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I think I've made it pretty clear that I consider playing GTA "doing a bad thing", so I'm sure you can understand my hesitance to christen your "many examples" as immaculate and without sin.   

And why is it alone a bad thing? If it's not that it can lead to doing harm, what makes it bad in of itself?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

there are people who like to see films like that simply because they like seeing how creative the deaths get, its similar to watching an old school slasher flick except more extreme.

 

I could likely count the horror movies I've seen on one hand so I can't really relate, but I wouldn't want to become so casual about sensationalized graphic death scenes as to be a connoisseur in the different creative direction employed by literal fear mongers.

 

And why is it alone a bad thing? If it's not that it can lead to doing harm, what makes it bad in of itself?

 

I do think GTA and games like it are psychologically less than helpful, not because GTA turns people into killers but because it's a false economy in terms of de-stressing. It immerses players in a dumbed-down world where crime pays and anything else simply isn't possible, making it poor for things like impulse control, having faith in humanity, and relating to people in a time when satellites talk to each other more than kids our age do.  

 

GTA's rampant success, promotionally and critically, is not something I see as good or constructive.

[Susie]

 

I could likely count the horror movies I've seen on one hand so I can't really relate, but I wouldn't want to become so casual about sensationalized graphic death scenes as to be a connoisseur in the different creative direction employed by literal fear mongers.

 

But the thing is that all that stuff is fake, in the end we all know everything in an extreme film is fake and therefore bearing that in mind some people can take into account the creative process behind the killings and gore effects. Theres nothing wrong with finding substance and appreciation for certain elements within a "torture porn" film.

[The Amazing Avian]

If GTA is a bad thing, then movies like Scarface, Goodfellas, The Godfather, American Gangster, The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, and every other movie or series about crime are also bad things.

 

Video games are a storytelling medium that offers a level of interaction no other media does, in this case putting you in the shoes of a career criminal. You can argue that it glorifies violence, but then how does Breaking Bad not glorify being a drug manufacturer? There's actually a small story arc in which the conflict is Walt is making too much money from making drugs. If GTA would influence people to become criminals, by that logic so would this.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Wow this thread was a fun read.

 

Honestly, I'm fine with censorship. Always have been. And while I admit that hentai does carry with it artistic merit (as does anything people create) I could hardly care less.

 

As for GTA, since it seems a large focus at this point, I will immediately say that, in my opinion, GTAV crossed a lot of lines in what should be acceptable in mainstream video games, and many scenes made me very uncomfortable. That said, there is so much more to the game than these things, so calling the whole thing evil is closed-minded.

[mitchermitcher]

http://nichegamer.com/2016/03/japanese-representative-refutes-un-suggestion-to-ban-media-depicting-sexual-violence/

 

I am very biased about this but damn this made me grin.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Alright, that reply is just beautiful.

[vla1ne]

the second to last paragraph of that rebuttal, chain burn.

 

they have yet to address some of the other issues in the initial article though, There's some really good rebuttals to the rest of the issues, and if this one's any indication, the next few are going to be amazing.