Yes, it filled me with loathing.

You're not a Jamiroquai person, I presume.

A what?

Oh, forget it.

I think he's just insulted you. I suggest pistols at dawn to resolve the conflict.

No, I'm a peace kind of person.

well that'll make shoelip's morning a lot easier...

Oh, lord.

I am assuming you are commenting on my post, though it takes some effort for me to see how your comment might be related to it. Anyway, I'm going with that assumption and hopefully you will forgive me if it is wrong.
---
"The only alternative is to ignore it." was implied in the responce to my post. While people debated what its implications might be the flawed premise itself seemed to go uncontested.
Ignoring it is not the alternative. I never suggested it was.
That is the total opposite of ignoring it. Even more so than striking out externally at whatever causes one to have an uncomfortable internal reaction without analysing whether that reaction is just.
One must be willing to confront their own feelings. When they feel anger, they must be willing to reason through it. If they cannot do that, they will be part of the problem. It is that simple. Striking out at whatever makes one uncomfortable in order to avoid having to deal with negative feelings is not a solution. I am not talking about bottling them up, I am talking about dealing with one's own feelings in a healthy way that does not involve expecting everyone else to carry the burdon of them.
You implied what I said leads to hate and then violence. No, it is the exact opposite. Hate and violence come from being unwilling to confront one's own feelings. That leads to uncontrolled hate, which leads to striking out at others using means such as violence and oppression in an effort to relieve oneself. This is what I mean when I mention pushing the responcibility of dealing with one's own feelings onto others. Take, for example, an abusive parent that beats their kid excessively. This doesn't happen because the abusive parent has negative feelings to deal with and non-abusive parents don't. They both do, the abusive one simply refuses do the responcible thing of sorting through their own emotional garbage so they instead shove all that negativity onto the kid.

Yes I just read it. I felt disturbed by the game. The bloody penis as a result of raping a 10yo virgin and the tears in the girls eyes are just wrong. I can't speak for anyone else but I will say that this disturbs me and provokes a physical reaction akin to dry retching in disgust.
I wish I could unvisit that review.

The review from SA was pretty funny. The pictures were nice.

Curiously, I get much the same reaction to reality tv

I recommend never visiting the PC floor of a video games shop here in Japan.
Floor 1: DS and PSP games
Floor 2: Wii, PS2, PS3 and a few 360 games.
Floor 3: 1000s of PC sex games and a handful of western PC imports.
Its a bit of a shock if you are just looking for Fallout 3.
But then there doesn't seem to be much of a worry about sexuality over here:
Convenience stores have the Porn and Rape Comics on the same shelf next to Vogue and the kids comics.
The weekly kids comic compilations (Young Jump, etc..) also include lots of pics of girls in bikinis (any age over about 10 seems allowed.. but also older ladies with more "equipment").
But then again, they don't have 13 year old fathers and thousands of teenage pregnancies... so maybe they have it right.

I dunno, it sounds like something I'd want to see when I go to Japan again. I guess the reason why there's so much sex in the mainstream media in Japan is that by making it sound so general, they've basically made it sound like it's no big deal. Everywhere you go, you see cosplay, sex in comics, sex on TV, sex in games, porn, and kids manga also has suggestive themes. It's nothing to be ashamed of there, and they know the dangers of sex and things because they see it everywhere. This is why you don't see 13 year-olds with kids and you see rape simulators... bukkake sim anyone?