The Saw series is very much in a niché-genre. Compared to your typical violent action movie it does not have the same same viewer-base and it's mainstream recognition is a fluke. I'm disappointed with how many people actually did go see them in the cinema, but still they are not big enough to show that people are indifferent or desensitized. I don't think a series like Rambo could reach mainstream success and acceptance if it made the violence as personal and painful as the Saw sequels. The focus in Rambo-like films are on the excitement and adventure of the protagonist surviving against impossible odds, not the disturbing and tragic nature of the on-screen violence. The Saw series on the other hand capitalises on the audiences' morbid curiousity and thrills from watching people go through nightmarish and painful deaths. The vast majority of movie goers are NOT comfortable with that stuff.

Violence is everywhere, but we have created narrative techniques that disconnects fictional violence from common morality and empathy. For the past 30-40 years we have been perfecting the editing techniques, tempo and sound design to make ultra-violent scenes just the right length and just the right amount of detail to trigger the right response from the audience. All that shaky-cam and chaotic editing and scenes that barely last over a minute serve to get away with telling stories with ridiculous amounts of killing and hurting. Get the formula wrong and your film or game simply becomes mean-spirited and not fun. So long as we can sympathise with the protagonist (or hate the antagonist), violence works as a story telling device.

Graphic on-screen rape is virtually impossible to "get right", there is no formula to make on-screen rape pleasant to watch. It is hard to disconnect it from real world rape, ie it is hard to romantisise it the same way a protagonist with a gun or a "gangsta"-rapper can be romanticised. Rape is always mean-spirited, it can never be twisted into being "for the greater good" or self-preservation. Most people probably don't want to watch a single person bleed out over the course of five minutes while crying for his mother in shock, which is why action movies skip that part of the shooting. With rape, you show it all on-screen or merely imply the rape is happening. You can not skip or glance over some aspects of rape and still have a respectable and believable story. The vast majority of people would rather that the story teller leaves the rape and violation of a character implied rather than detailed, just like they would rather you don't show them how long and painful most shooting or stabbing deaths actually are.

People may be desensitized to "fake" violence, but I'm positive the vast majority of people living in peaceful countries are NOT desensitized to violence overall. People turn away when they see actual violence, and when they see fake violence that closely imitates actual violence they usually disapprove. "Fake" rape is more often than not trying to imitate actual rape because it is hard to skip the unpleasant parts and romantisise it. This is why "fake" rape never gets to enjoy the same level of acceptance that "fake" ultra-violence does.

The Saw films are horror films, and horror films are extremely popular. I think you underestimate just how popular they actually are. You can't say something's mainstream recognition is a fluke when it has seven movies and two video games. It even has a comic book. Everybody knows what the movies are and what they deal with, and iirc it was the first movie to be branded as "torture porn".

No, not EVERY moviegoer likes horror movies, but a huge amount of people do.

Realistic war movies are also extremely popular, the biggest one that comes to mind being Saving Private Ryan, which had scenes like this. Hell, I remember them showing this movie in high school.

I'll half agree with your points about narrative techniques, but if you watch my examples, none of them have the shaky cam. They get right up in your face with it, and the first one is pretty brutal. The last one leaves it up to the viewers imagination, which could be seen as better or worse.

And I do agree with rape being impossible to "Get right", the whole point I was kind of trying to go on was that, rape will always be seen as the more evil act versus killing, at least, that's what I think. There is no justification for rape at all, so it makes people uncomfortable.

Edit: BTW, why are you disappointed people went to see Saw? I saw the first one with my mother! :P

Some guy made an excellent point in a sex-in-games thread not long ago. In short: we americans are perfectly ok with gutting out the baddies but if you show sexual content you are an evil sick person and will burn in hell. In contrast japanese culture, from what little I understand it, treats sex on about the same level as violence. It is just a matter of cultural perspective.

From my perspective violence in american popculture is so cartoonish I don't see the connection with real life. Japanese films tend to be desturbing ona regular basis, but I guess some things are normal there.

Not to compare, but once you've been killed, you are dead, finished. Once you suffered sexual assault / abuse / rape, you survive and the word is fitting, you are living HELL ON EARTH.. Sexuality being our biological origin, when this is corrupted by ill intended people, you can't imagine the victim.. As for popular culture promoting murdering of the enemies, nationalism and patriotism all the way, what is new..

Well except those who survived the torture and had a chance to live on.

As for the original excerpt: I would be kind of equally shocked by either seeing someone getting murdered or someone getting raped. The differences if there are some would be so subtle that it wouldn't be worth to discuss them and I also wouldn't want to discuss them.

But the society as a whole does make differences. The legal penalties for murder and rape aren't exactly the same everywhere. Currently I guess murder is punished more severely.

They might, but it's society at large that decides what reasons count as reasons.

They often don't agree and there are often two societies.

You're being dense. There's a specific legal definition and it doesn't include things like war or self defense. I don't know what the specific German rules are, but I'm positive that they both exist and are quite clear.

Why is it shameful to generalize? It's not. It's quite natural, in fact. It is, however, quite shameful to generalize without realising that you're doing it, particularly when you're obviously trying to paint people in a negative light. That's like saying that Christians are a bunch of naive and superstitious science-hating clowns. It's applies to some Christians but saying it about Christians in general would not be very polite.

As for the other part of the above, you're insisting on comparing rape with killing but I'm not sure how sensible that is. I've yet to see a scenario described where rape is a remotely justified option. Yes, gamers tend to dislike those super-whiny "mothers against violent games" groups, but that's because those groups generally display a nice mix of extreme attitudes, ignorance of the context, incoherent and inane arguments, and a general approval of censorship. What's there to like?

It's not a double standard to dislike those groups and still be against rape being depicted as something positive in games because killing can be justified whereas rape pretty much can't. The one argument you can make is that gamers have an easier time identifying with a bizarro world dickhead who does random killings than a bizarro world dickhead who does random rapes, and that argument would be sound, but I'm pretty sure the same thing applies characters in books and movies.

It also wouldn't hurt to consider that killing is something we do all the freaking time. The only time killing is remotely problematic is when we're killing something with which we have an emotional investment. Killing chickens or cows or pigs for food is awesome but killing your pet pig by hanging it from it's read legs, puncturing its jugular, and watching with barely contained joy as its desperate and fearful screams slowly fade would be considered cruel, wouldn't it? Rape is a different sort of action that is as much a psychological as it is physical, and it's something done exclusively with the purpose of raping someone.

I'm not evading anything and I have actually answered your question already. I'm quite fine with rape being depicted in games, since it's something that actually happens in the real world. Same thing with prostitution, slavery, theft, murder, fraud, religious fanaticism, and massive casualties of war. Why shouldn't those things be depicted? It bothers me if such things are praised as something morally good, though.

As far as Carma is concerned, however, there's absolutely no indication that it's "good" to drive down pedestrians. It's the only way to win the game, sure, but that doesn't mean it's "good", just like winning in Dungeon Keeper doesn't make you a "hero". The same thing applies to the GTA games. They take place in a bizarro world universes and your character is always an emotionally stunted and somewhat psychotic criminal scumbag. He's never presented as a hero and his actions are never supposed to be "good". Why should that offend me more than it offends me that I'm able to shoot the scientists and the guards in good old Half-Life or the Navi in Unreal? Why should it offend me more than that I'm capable of playing a cop-killing terrorist in Counter-Strike or exterminate the hell out of cities in Rome: Total War? I can literally destroy planets in Sword of the Stars and I can exterminate or enslave entire races in Distant Worlds just by setting a few policies. I can play dark side in KOTOR or as evil alignment in the Infinity Engine RPGs. Should those options also bother me?

So no, it doesn't offend me that games exist that give me the choice to be bloodthirsty scumbag in a virtual environment. What would offend me is if those games presented the scumbag actions as something heroic.

Uh what, you said it is a shameful generalization. I was fully aware that it was one. What is your problem here?

So then we totally agree, what exactly are you bugging me for then?

You are being pedantic. We aren't talking about laws.

My problem is that it's shameful to throw all gamers into one group who apparently love games with unjustified killing, just like it's shameful to throw all Germans into one group who all hate Jews or all Christians into one group who all hate science. It's a bullshit thing to do and you should feel dirty for having done it. If you were aware of what you were doing and did it anyway, well... Let's not get into the potential implications of that.

Let me remind you:
"Which I find puzzling, to me it would be much worse to see a bunch of people shot down. Maybe I just don't play enough killing games?
Are videogamers so desensitized to killing? Why is this kind of hypocrisy so much more prevalent among videogamers than among book readers or moviegoers?"

Do you remember who said that? That's right, you did. And that's why I'm bugging you, because you've not supported at any point that "a bunch of people shot down" is "much worse" than rape. You've accused gamers of hypocrisy but you've not managed to establish at any point that there is any hypocrisy. You've suggested that gamers are more desensitized to killing than book readers or movie watchers but you've not provided any support for that claim either.

In short, you've been saying negative things about me, since I'm a gamer and thus part of your generalizations, and I'm therefore asking you to put up something to support your claims or alternatively stop making them.

Actually he's not. You're referring to "killing" as "murder", when clearly this is wrong. A murder is an illegal killing of a human being. The short version is that you goofed up and the quick way forward is to admit it and pay attention to what words you're using.

Edit: And now I goofed up. The source of this wasn't actually you but Nirth, who in post 53 suggested that self-defense and war are still murder. Hedwards corrected in post 54, you made some smartass comment in 55, hedwards responded, and suddenly we're discussing the difference between murder and killing. Oh well.

What no, you jsut said it is only shameful, because I did not realise I was doing it.

What, but you just made the same point, that both rape and killing should not be portrayed as something good.

Why do you ask me for my points if you ignore them. I already showed to you how killing can be both murder and justified killing depending on your viewpoint. Obamas extrajudicial murders are extrajudicial, yet some societies call it justified killings. The victims societies call it murder. That is why I said we aren't discussing laws here. Laws can theoretically turn any murder into a justified killing.
Another example honor "killings", me and the laws would call them honor murders, yet the societies perpetrating them call them justified killings.

Nope. I agree with you.
It just contradicts the first posting saying that ppl think of rape more disturbing than killing and getting to the conclusion that killing is rather more accepted than rape.

But that's not true.

To address the original post:

There is a huge difference between fighting in a war and murder. War is between two belligerents who usually understand the risks and engage in it while murder involves the killing of an involuntary innocent human being. Also in the perspective of the movies, Rambo can be described as committing justifiable homicide especially since the Russians he was fighting were communists.

Rape involves the forced sexual intercourse upon a person. It is one of the worst forms of violation and leaves the victim traumatized.

Also, killing is not the same as murder even though it get thrown under the same statistics as murder under the term "homicide." Killings can be justifiable and proven as self-defense or legitimate law enforcement while murder is an unjustified killing although homicides do get mislabeled as "murder" quite a bit.

I wish, but have you read the replies in this thread? Most people think rape is worse than killing AND murder. And for some reason they still felt the need to point out that murder and killing aren't the same thing. See below.

Don't you realise you can justify any murder with these arguments? Hey I killed my neighbor, but he was a communist! Hey I dronebombed some peasants, but they were probably gonna kill me soon. (their relatives sure want to now!)
And btw...if Rambo would be in Afghanistan today killing the invaders, I'm pretty sure most would call it murder or even worse, terrorism. Is that film still shown?^^