*Possible trigger warning*
While we haven't been the biggest fans of Amazon as of late and their history of selling a rape simulation game (which they did end up banning), it looks like another game involving violence against women seems to have"slipped" past their radar. "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love" is a game that allows the user to experience,
"...a terrifyingly vivid exploration of Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological condition in which a captive falls in love with her kidnapper. And you play the part of the kidnapper. With a limited number of options, you must figure out how to make her fall in love with you."
This includes using poison gas on the victim, sexually assaulting her and using psychological abuse against her in efforts to make her "love" you. Unbelievable.
Contact Amazon and let them know that profiting off of sexual and psychological abuse is completely unacceptable.
h/t to Jennifer for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Amazon sells another video game where you "play" sexual abuser.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13968
I guess I'd want someone to play the game before this kind of post happens. I've never been the victim of abuse, and I don't think my voice should count too loudly here, but this doesn't seem like it's being presented as pornography. Which doesn't necessarily make it ok, but I guess I could envision a situation in which this game was trying to make an impact on the player with the intense unacceptability of the actions s/he is forced to take.
I think maybe that that still wouldn't be ok, but it'd be worth a discussion rather than an unadorned, fuck-you kind of post. Maybe.
I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure I agree. I think it's pretty likely that the type of person who would order this game is someone who would already get off on raping or otherwise hurting women.
As for those who would be benefit from sensitivity training about rape, I don't believe that acting as virtual rapist is the best way to teach it. I think that the player would become desensitized by the act than sympathetic to the victim.
On a side note, I emailed a complaint to Amazon. If I get a non-automated response, I'll post it.
"Which doesn't necessarily make it ok, but I guess I could envision a situation in which this game was trying to make an impact on the player with the intense unacceptability of the actions s/he is forced to take."
According to the quote from the creator that pleco posted below, the game's message is more along the lines of "rape is love".
No dice, I'm afraid.
Completely disagree, I'm afraid. I think anyone willing to stand on the fence on this game might ask themselves if they would play it; and if not, why not. I certainly couldn't. Something to think about.
I just read the (only) review of the game on Amazon - the customer describes it as "erotic" so it's certainly being used in that context. Incidentally, the writer seems to have a lot of other erotic material on sale through Amazon - difficult to tell whether it's in a similar vein but it does indicate the kind of market the game is going for.
The saddest thing is that I don't find this kind of thing unusual anymore. Beyond wrong.
Just sent this:
As an Amazon customer, I am deeply disappointed at your decision to market and distribute the video game "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love." This game encourages people to "play" the part of an abusive kidnapper, and its "strategies" for winning include sexual assault. The description also seems to limit the game play options to victimizer=male and victim=female, a message we hear enough in our culture. Please rethink this decision and refuse to distribute a game that essentially trains people to be abusive. Thank you.
Considering the recent discussion about the manga porn case, I guess it's worthwhile pointing out something you didn't explicitly state: this is a simulation, it's not real. The woman is an actress. I'm not saying it isn't disturbing, despicable, or otherwise. This is not a product I would purchase myself.
Yet this is the sort of work that hovers on the borders of free speech, hate speech, and pornography all at once (I'm sure some people think at least 2 of these categories overlap).
The author has this to say, though, which I don't think really helps his case:
"Before feminists attack ‘Stockholm’, I’d suggest that they take a look at the romance novels that are popular with women today. You don’t see a lot of ‘Ross and Rachel’ type romances. You see kidnapping, captivity, force. Great erotic writers recognize that ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is a much more legitimate form of love than what Hollywood wants to shove down our throats. This simulation helps people explore that." --Stanton Audemars
Yuck? Irregardless of Audemars' interesting perspective on erotic writing (noteworthy: he sees this as art if his quote counts for anything), I am cautious about knee-jerk reactions to these unpleasant works of fiction.
The demo is here (WARNING: it's disturbing): http://rmdglobal.net/stockholm/
I think the main arguments against that other Amazon rape game revolved around the fact that you were empowered to commit crimes under the guise of fantasy, and that the fictional women were being forced into any kind of sexual act at all. This looks to be more of the same.
I'm not sure where I come down on something like this, but I just wanted to point out that in the Manga porn case they were putting a man in prison. There's a big difference between the government using the criminal justice system to imprison someone over offensive porn, and a private company like Amazon choosing not to distribute offensive porn. As far as I know no one is filing criminal charges against the makers of this DVD or anyone who bought it, so it isn't really at all the same as that Manga case. Amazon would be completely within their rights to refuse to sell something like this, and the makers could still set up their own website to distribute it.
Either way, I think Amazon needs to create a separate adult section of their site, or some safesearch options.
I didn't read the author's comments before I emailed Amazon, but now that I have, I find this even more disturbing than even the RapeLay game. As despicable as that was, at least it presented rape as what it is: violence. Audemars seems to think that abuse is a legitimate way to make a woman fall in love with a man. He is clearly in need of a psychiatrist.
I thought of that case, too, but mostly because I figured SOMEbody might try to say that this kind of thing is a good way for people to "act out" their violence in a "safe" way, similar to the suggestion that looking at kiddie porn is a great way to keep your molesting tendencies under wraps.
...And looking at porn helps you to not be so misogynistic, too.
Right?
Has this guy got his head SO far up in his issues that he hasn't heard of 'chick lit'? Because "Ross-and-Rachel" style romances are incredibly popular, more so than kidnap/rape novels. (At least judging by publication & sales.)
Yurgh. This gives me the willies.
Disgusting! I've offen wondered about what motivates men to create and play misogynist material like this.
I've complained to Amazon.com, and I hope this game is removed from their website.
i'm usually not the type of person who believes that children and adults will go out and do what they do in video games. however, with this game, i believe that people would.
the only people who would find enjoyment in this type of game and would buy it would be people who have fantasies about doing this type of thing (i don't believe that people who just like to be kinky would buy this). i honestly believe that the people would see how much they enjoy it, and then would go out and try it in real life. i'm not saying that this game would make everyone who plays it rapists, but there's a lot of people that would.
As a kinky person who has consentually "kidnapped" her S/O's for fun, this is not a game that I find even remotely sexually intrigueing. and I can count quite a few in my commuinty who would find this game just as deploarable. The main reason being? Three is no consent implyed or otherwise, the "consent" or the createing of stockholms syndrom in the victim....that's just abuse.
But the thing that bother's me the most out of this game?
Aside from the fact that it teaches the player to abuse someone into loving them.. is that it plays on a mental disability and the whole point of the game is to force someone to a mental brakedown.
That is even more disturbeing to me then useing sexual assult to get there, the whole point is to make somene less then an object.
That's sick it teaches emotional abuse is a proper avenue to love, and I know manay of us understand how truely damageing emotional abuse is, and that the scars from it last longer then any physical abuse.
This seems to come up as #5 in "True Love" search of Amazon "Movies & TV". I can just imagine some 11 year old kid looking for 'true love' and coming across this: sick.
Y'know, there's a difference between infringing upon free speech and asking a retailer to consider what it sells. I do not advocate making something like this illegal, but I will (and have) asked Amazon to consider removing it from it's virtual shelves. Deciding not to sell something is very different from passing government regulation banning it.
Rape scenarios are nothing new in pornography, but Amazon does not have to sell them - leave the hardcore, hateful and misogynist porn to the "adult" retailers who chose to make money on that stuff.
It is not misogynist as many women play these games as well.
I'd like to think that there could be a video game written about the Stockholm syndrome or about rape or about abuse that was an honest exploration of the subject, much in the same way that it is possible to write a book or make a film about it. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that the author of this game thinks he is doing just that. But as long as the 'goal' of the game is to 'make her fall in love with you' it's nothing more than exploitation, pure and simple. (It's also an interactive DVD, not really a game - I would imagine that puts it closer to rape porn than anything else). It should be removed from Amazon immediately, no question about it.
You make some good points here. It's a similar situation with art - an artist who wants to explore a difficult subject like rape or sexual violence has a tricky challenge of figuring out how to raise questions and make statements without propagating the exploitation. As a gamer, I would be very interested in games that examine societal issues.
Someone tried doing that with Columbine and he got a shitstorm was controversy and blamed for a murder.
Mostly by people who didn't even play the game.
Someone tried doing that with Columbine and he got a shitstorm of controversy and it was blamed for a murder.
Mostly by people who didn't even play the game.
This is disgusting. I can't believe they make games like this. This is equivocating rape with love. It's not. And I'm sorry, this is not a healthy outlet for anything. This just reinforces the rape culture we live in. Don't even get me started on the "it's a fantasy" argument. blah!
Its also worth noting that this one, unlike the last one, is actually being sold by Amazon (not a third party marketplace seller).
I'm utterly amazed that this hasn't caused a huge wave of disgust and horror. I find the game deeply sickening - thought it had been banned?? We seem to be living in a culture which decrees that 'anything goes' so long as it's simulated. Where are we going to draw the line? Free speech - as someone commented - is value-laden. Some controls have to exist in order to protect individuals.
We need to accept that not all matters - simulated or not - qualify as entertainment, and we need to be asking serious questions about the type of person that would enjoy viewing - never mind participating (as that's what games allow) in such horrific behaviour. I certainly sent an email to Amazon and will not be using them in future.
"We seem to be living in a culture which decrees that 'anything goes' so long as it's simulated. Where are we going to draw the line?"
How about nowhere, if it's simulated it doesn't cause anyone harm which is why there's an anything goes attitude.
"Free speech - as someone commented - is value-laden. Some controls have to exist in order to protect individuals."
No individuals (who didn't consent) were hurt in the making this movie or similar ones like that. Also the evidence that this causes other people to harm people is pitifully bad.
"We need to accept that not all matters - simulated or not - qualify as entertainment, and we need to be asking serious questions about the type of person that would enjoy viewing - never mind participating (as that's what games allow) in such horrific behaviour."
Because obviously those people are lesser beings therefore it's Ok for us to take away their entertainment simply because we find it objectionable.
Actually, I am quite comfortable calling someone who gets off on psychologically and physically tormenting another NON-CONSENTING person (yes, I am aware of BDSM) a lesser being. Empathy is what makes us decent human beings. Those who lack it, aka sociopaths, are severely damaged human beings, and dangerous on top of that.
I actually feel sorry for people who cannot feel empathy. However, I am also happy to protect others from them, and that includes taking away their triggering "entertainment."
And precisely what evidence is there that the entertainment triggers them?
Also getting off on fantasy is not comparable to people who lack empathy. That would be like saying anyone who enjoys murder or violence in their entertainment (and dear Christ there's a lot of it) doesn't see any value in life.
People can enjoy crime in their entertainment and not be criminals.
People can have crime and violence in their entertainment and not be criminals, true. I'm a big fan of mysteries and crime procedurals, and I am not a violent person.
However, most detective books, or tv series, are usually told from the perspective of the cop or detective chasing the violent criminal. The protagonists are on the side of good, not evil, and good tends to triumph, though often with heavy casualties. Even a show like "Dexter" is about an anti-hero bringing justice of a sort. And BTW, I have serious problems with that show generally, because I find it needlessly graphic.
Even "Lolita," while not a detective novel, has a protagonist who is a pedophile and ends with the two main molesters, Humbert and Quilty, in jail and dead. And even though Humbert has been defending himself all along, there is a point where he realizes the damage he has done.
My main objections to games like Rapelay and this latest one is that you are not only encouraged to become the monster, but that there are no consequences for your actions and no lessons in empathy or civility.
There is no option for playing the victim or another character who tries to fight the villain. And as a feminist, I find the fact that the victim is a woman and the victimizer a man to be just another patriarchal bullshit construct.
But even if it were male victim, female monster, it is still just a masturbatory exercise in barbarity, and frankly, I don't care if it is virtual or not, I find it deeply offensive. And I wonder what kind of person plays that without revulsion, and yes, I judge them and worry about what they may be capable of.
"...However, most detective books, or tv series, are usually told from the perspective of the cop or detective chasing the violent criminal. The protagonists are on the side of good, not evil, and good tends to triumph, though often with heavy casualties..."
Exactly! Not all portrayals of violence and hate glorify it...
I hit like when I meant to hit reply. That was an accident.
Demanding "evidence" that rape survivors are triggered by rape culture = privilege.
what rape culture? Ah whatever demanding evidence that something that is clearly fiction will cause people to commit real life acts of violence is not 'privlidge' (don't see how that's even relevant). People have been flaming fiction for real life violence for decades and time and time the evidence supporting their claims has been very poor. So excuse me for skepticism.
"What rape culture?"
The one that we live in, that likes to objectify and sexualize women and tell men that they can have sex whenever and with whoever they want, no matter if they consent or not. Movies, video games, songs, pornography, advertising (one of many examples, here, http://www.skrause.org/writing/talk/20070315.php) all contribute to this culture, as do victim blaming and many other things.
Brilliant....my response was far too tame!
Gratification from any person's suffering - simulated or not - for the sake of entertainment is uncomfortable. This isn't erotica displaying two consenting adults; it's more than a fetish.
The fact that many people simply couldn't play a game like this shows that the content is disturbing on some level. The fact that it's a woman, and so much violence is still legitimised against women is hurtful. As for drawing the line: free speech is very important, but so is the protection of marginalised groups - women, children etc... Could we produce games showing violence against children? No. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Whilst 'dream' is correct to point to minimal evidence linking violent acts and observed material, studies have yet to disprove that it doesn't contribute to an increasing desensitization to violence, to which Western increases in violent crime are perhaps testament.
"Gratification from any person's suffering - simulated or not - for the sake of entertainment is uncomfortable. This isn't erotica displaying two consenting adults; it's more than a fetish."
No it's just a fetish.
"The fact that many people simply couldn't play a game like this shows that the content is disturbing on some level. The fact that it's a woman, and so much violence is still legitimised against women is hurtful."
Anyone who attempts to use this game to justify abuse on women was all ready dangerous before they started playing. The game says you're a kidnapper and it shows the girl in pain quite clearly.
"As for drawing the line: free speech is very important, but so is the protection of marginalised groups - women, children etc..."
Yes it's important to protect them but these are fictional characters played by paid actresses the characters don't need protection.
Also the right to expressed the most sickening thoughts is far more than the protection of the 'victims' from being featured in well fiction.
"Could we produce games showing violence against children? No. The line has to be drawn somewhere."
Assuming your talking about virtual children, it's been done (and in a mainstream game) and I see no reason why it should be frowned on.
"Whilst 'dream' is correct to point to minimal evidence linking violent acts and observed material, studies have yet to disprove that it doesn't contribute to an increasing desensitization to violence, to which Western increases in violent crime are perhaps testament. "
Crime is on a low right now actually
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Oh and shouldn't you first prove that these things are harmful to people before you can claim that what you're doing is necessary for people's safety?
sorry when I said frowned upon I meant banned.
also I meant to say "the right to express sickening thoughts is far more important than ..."
I wish this site had an edit feature.
We're going to have to agree to disagree and I do completely disagree with you.
Firstly, official stats are by no means reliable sources of evidence. Violent crime in many areas is increasing. I'm from the UK and I know that gun and knife crime is increasing both here and America.
Should we value every 'fetish' as you so like to call it?? What about paedophilia? Is that a 'fetish'? Remember 'the line'? Of course we have to draw it. With regard to the game to which you refer; just because something has been produced doesn't make it ok. Whilst I appreciate it's a massive grey area, surely we can balance entertainment with respect, safety and decency?
Another thing....Truth existed before research came along. Perhaps the appropriate research simply hasn't been done yet.
Should we value every 'fetish' as you so like to call it?? What about paedophilia? Is that a 'fetish'? Remember 'the line'? Of course we have to draw it. With regard to the game to which you refer; just because something has been produced doesn't make it ok. Whilst I appreciate it's a massive grey area, surely we can balance entertainment with respect, safety and decency?
Another thing....Truth existed before research came along. Perhaps the appropriate research simply hasn't been done yet.
I'm sorry I was going to quote you but I accidentally hit submit before I had the chance.
Anyway the idea that a mere video game can cause someone to do this (who wasn't all ready dangerous) sounds really far-fetched to me.
To me it says that you think people's sense of morality is so weak that all it takes is a piece of simulated fiction to push them over the edge. I think people are much better than that.
The issue I take with this kind of game is that it's equating rape and abuse with love. The premise of the game (and apparently, the belief of the creator) is that you can actually MAKE someone love you by sexually assaulting and psychologically abusing them.
There are plenty of movies with rape scenes in them, that I don't find inherently offensive, because it's clear what you're seeing. A rape scene that isn't inherently offensive is one that clearly portrays non-consensual sex wherre there is a perpetrator and a victim. As long as it's realistic, and there aren't moral and ethical boundaries being seriously blurred, then I can swallow it.
Equating rape and abuse with love is definitely a dangerous, or at least highly irresponsible, message to be putting out there. And it's one that I absolutely think has the potential to leave a significant impression on young minds. Whether it would contribute to someone going out an committing an act of violence, I obviously can't definitively say that, but I wouldn't rule it out.
And finally, I absolutely support anyone and everyone's freedom of speech. Asking Amazon to remove this game from their site is in no way infringing on this individuals freedom of expression. He expressed himself freely already, and now people are responding to it. People are always free to say what they want, but they also have to be willing to deal with the consequences of it. Freedom of speech means that the government cannot prohibit you from saying what you want or punish you for saying what you want (except in cases of slander or libel).
"The issue I take with this kind of game is that it's equating rape and abuse with love. The premise of the game (and apparently, the belief of the creator) is that you can actually MAKE someone love you by sexually assaulting and psychologically abusing them."
That's what Stockholm Syndrome is though - a victim of kidnapping and abuse falling in love with their tormentor.
"Anyway the idea that a mere video game can cause someone to do this (who wasn't all ready dangerous) sounds really far-fetched to me."
If one is a fully grown adult, and already has their values, morality, and sexual preferences set in place(meaning their minds are also fully developed, particularly the pre-frontal cortex), well then, yes, I might agree with you.
HOWEVER, for a young person just going through puberty, and coming across something like this, it can and does heavily influenced their thoughts. Whatever they are experiencing in their life, whatever they interpret from what they see and hear becomes intertwined with their developing sexuality, and crystalizes in their minds. Whatever the result, it is something that will stay with them as they grow in some form or another, unless someone responsible enough can intervene soon enough. This is heavily prevalent among children whose parents have no real role in their life, and are left to their own devices. There is a psychological term for this, but it is eluding me at the moment. All of these people who say that television, pornography, and media do not effect people in any way (especially children, or adolescents) are simply ignorant, I'm sorry.
Ever heard of classical conditioning? What about fashion? Even people who can't be bothered with it almost certainly adhere to it to a point don't they? Are they not influenced at all? My God, I wouldn't dare go to the store in my pajamas, no one does that.
Take a tween boy who hangs around older boys who watch violent porn all the time, and treat it like it's cool, and you have a little boy who is going to be conditioned to crave sexual violence, especially if he is learning to get aroused by it.
It is a parent's responsibility to get Amazon to either put a maturity filter on their porn games, or develop another section for them entirely. Simple.
Actually, it's not "just a fetish." A fetish does not involve human beings as it is a non-coercive paraphilia.
I'm sure most people here would be offended by someone comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Why is it perfectly acceptable to compare kink to pedophilia?
Can fictional media cause someone to do something they wouldn't be inclined to do otherwise? No.
Can fictional media influence a person's opinion about how the real world works? Yes.
Consider the "24 effect": you have people, including Dick Cheney, arguing that torture is both effective and justified as an information-gathering device using "ticking time-bomb" as an excuse! Completely ignoring, of course, just how much author fiat was required to make that fictional situation seem plausible in the first place.
Maybe if rape were taken more seriously, we wouldn't have rape kits collecting dust in police stations across North America. Maybe the conviction rate wouldn't be so low. Maybe rape would happen less often in the first place.
The media we consume isn't morally neutral. When we find something morally problematic, we should say why, and do our best to be heard by a wide audience. Should we petition governments to ban objectionable material? No -- but Amazon is not a government entity. It is a popular online merchant, and as such can serve as a bellwether.
Ah, I just thought of a few other examples of fictional media affecting popular opinion:
"The CSI effect": a lot of jurors now are convinced that forensic evidence is quick to obtain and test, and that it is always conclusive and dramatically damning (or exonerating).
Years before that, juries sometimes had to have it explained to them that witnesses very rarely break down and make sudden, shocking confessions right there on the stand -- unlike what they saw every week on Perry Mason.
One scientist/movie reviewer whose site I love to read has noted that some of her employers have failed to understand the importance of repeating an experiment; they ask, "Can't you just do it the once?" She compares this to science in the movies, which almost never show experiments being tested for repeatability.
I'm all for Amazon banning it, but I don't think the game itself should be banned from the government.
As soon as you start putting limits on Free Speech you are pretty much banning it.
This looks disgusting. I am writing amazon a letter about it as well. As for free speech, as long as amazon isn't the sole market-place for all gaming, there isn't really a free speech problem with asking a business to not display a product you dislike. I say this as a libertarian who believes all sorts of freedom are of the utmost importance.
Sexual violence may well be different, but I want to remind people that most evidence on violent video games find little correlation with real life violence. There is a great book (titled Grand Theft Childhood) that discusses this in depth, along with a bit more subtlety on the different subtopics and effects. I don't know if the same is true for sexual violence in games, but I have some hope that it may be the case, with comparison to people with sexual fetishes that include pain, control or submission, many of whom would never want to force or hurt someone (or actually be forced by someone) not interested in the same consensual activity. Enjoying an imitation of violence does not, hopefully, mean most people that like this game would also enjoy the violence itself.
I think this is worse than porn or violent movies because it is interactive. It can't be effectively compared to movies or other media, because it allows an individual to role-play and it crosses the line from fiction into virtual reality.
However, I'm not sure if it should or shouldn't be covered under free speech. One man's erotica is another's porn, because different people have different ideas about what is erotic and what is offensive. For me, this game is clearly offensive and I would be happy to see it banned. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who consider the erotica that I watch to be disgusting and worthy of banning.
My issue is that there are people who would be more than willing to ban all erotica, soft-core porn included. I am a sex-positive feminist and occassionally watch porn made by women for women. Many people think that my porn is offensive and should be taken off of shelves. These people might also say that my vibrator should also be illegal. (In response, I would argue that I'm a much nicer person with my vibrator than without, haha.)
I think the premise of the game is disgusting and I would never date anyone who owned a copy of it. I also think that only a truly disturbed person would be interested in playing this game. However, I'm wondering if I'm being a hypocrite by wanting my porn to be legal and wanting to outlaw someone elses porn?
I might write a letter anyway, because it seems that free speech goes both ways. If free speech is the loophole that allows some loser to make this game, then I am just as free to write a few letters opposing it as well. And in this case, since no one is lobbying for legislation, there's really nothing wrong with pushing for a boycott. Boycotting doesn't infringe on free speech.
I am even more disturbed by the "Customers who bought this also bought...." Tears welled up in my eyes looking at the pages. Seeing things like this make me feel very unsafe. People buy and make these things, and you can never know who they are. That is the most disturbing thing.
Damn you privacy laws.
And yet feministing continues to link to Amazon when promoting Jessica's (and others') books. Why??? Seriously. Why are you supporting a business that promotes this kind of demeaning trash? Why aren't you supporting your independent women's bookstores that are going out of business because people are shopping at Amazon? Does Amazon host author events for you? Do radical feminist employees at Amazon handsell your book for you? (Full disclosure, I work at an independent bookstore, but even so). I love feministing but everytime you link to Amazon it's like a slap in the face.
Do you get a kickback from Amazon? I don't mean to be rude by asking this but I think it's a valid question, because independent bookstores will do that for you too. And you know they're not promoting this sort of tripe. If you're not going to link to women's bookstores at least link to Powell's or another independent bookstore....
I think these are excellent questions. This isn't something I'd even considered. I think this would be a great way for Feministing to support independent and especially feminist bookstores by linking to them on this site rather than Amazon.
I can see how selling and promoting books about feminism in a feminist bookstore can be considered preaching to the choir. It makes sense to promote books like that to a wider audience. But to link to Amazon on this WebSite does seem unnecessary and sends a mixed message about Feministing's relationship with Amazon, which as stated in the OP, has been pretty rocky lately.
And another thing:
How long are we going to have these weight loss ads up on Feministing? Talk about sending mixed messages...
argh i know eh. I don't believe it actually takes this long to get them down.
I also hadn't considered this. Perhaps it's time for feminist authors to shift away from Amazon.com if they continue to market materials like "Stockholm"?
I don't want to beat this into the ground, but I think it's way past time for feminists to shift away from Amazon whether or not they are promoting/selling games like this. Amazon is putting independent bookstores out of business. Independent bookstores are primarily liberal, often radical, and are usually staffed primarily by women. They are *independent*, e.g. *not corporate.* That is more than enough to make this a feminist issue, but more importantly, independent bookstores are the ones who take risks on non-mainstream books by queer/feminist/of-color/disabled/etc authors. They are rallying points for radical thought and they are safe-spaces for people who don't conform to the mainstream paradigm. Many indie stores go out of their way to host radical authors, and please believe me when I say that most indies are not turning a profit.
If we continue to shop at Amazon and big box stores, all the quirky radical independent bookstores are going to be gone, then there goes your already-endangered independent presses who publish authors like Jessica. (People rant about Seal Press, but many more radical presses already gone thanks to big box stores. What will it be like when radical authors only have big corporate publishers like Random House to turn to?)
I would like to see an actual discussion of this in feminist and radical circles. Awareness needs to be raised, especially with the economy like this, there's going to be a lot of radical indie bookstores closing. It is unconcionable for feminists to support/promote/spend their money at Amazon.
the good news is all the reviews for it on amazon talked about how horrific this "game" is and how amazon should be ashamed of itself for selling it.
Dear Amazon,
A bunch of feminists have recently sent you letter demanding you pull Sotckholm from your store.
While from the looks of it the game would disgust me I ask that you please not pull the game as doing it would just give it free publicity (moreso than the feminists have all ready given it) and thus more sales, and possibly a sequel. Something similar happened with rapeplay as it garnered a large amount of attention after you decided to pull it. I do not wish for Stockholm to be the news topic for the next several weeks and would rather have it fall into relative obscurity quickly. So if you would kindly not pull it I would very much appreciate it.
Signed
A loyal customer.
Troll.
So instead of debating that you're not giving the game free publicity you just prefer to attack me?
Dude, how is that person a troll? Just because she/he does not agree with what some readers on feministig have done in the past does not make her/him a troll. Trolls are people who launch personal attacks against others. Isn't that what you've done when you called someone a name?
You can be a troll without calling someone a name. You can be a troll, in fact, just by being obnoxious. Trolls try to get a rise out of people. I agree with plenty of what "Father Time" has said, but I found this last comment of his quite trollish. And if being called a "troll" is an attack, people, then I must practically be a mass murderer.
I didn't mean to be a troll I generally wanted a discussion over the fact that doing this will give the game more publicity (like Rapeplay, GTA and every other game people make a fuss over for being immoral or disgusting).
Publicity, yes. But why is that a bad thing? This is not positive publicity. I highly doubt that other games such as RapePlay etc have experienced an increase in sales from this negative attention. I could be wrong but I don't think games which are being criticized as "immoral" or "disgusting" tend to generate more fans.
It's not that hard to picture with increased publicity more people hear about it and the odss that someone who's interested hearing about it goes up. Also sometimes it just generates sales (or pirated copies) as people see what the fuss is about.
It's somewhat of a forbidden fruit effect.
Idiotic! You dont keep something negative just because it would garner attention. Thats stupid. I also highly doubt its that popular that customers would really know it was gone. If it is than it would already be garnering attention. And how is it bad if it garners attention anyways? This would be a good opening to talk en mass how prevalent rape is and society's tolerance of it. I'm earning a double major in marketing/PR and I guarantee you that you have no clue what the hell youre talking about.
I concur: you are a troll
Not sure how I feel about this, although my original reaction was "so amazons marketing specifically to criminals now?"
I'm really okay with fictional mind games. I generally enjoy pyschological thrillers. But i'm really creeped out that the player can plan and control this kind of abuse.But I've always maintained that there is a huge difference between playing a game that includes violence and committing actual real life violence.
So yeah, I'm on the fence.
I agree with your critique-- I think this kind of thing is awful-- but I'm wondering why you call out this game in particular. There is a lot of porn out there in the same vein, and a lot of BDSM rape roleplay. This seems to be between the two in terms of interpersonal relations: the viewer of pornography does not participate at all, the player of this video game does participate but the 'victim' does not, and in BDSM all parties are participating. Is it something about that middle category that makes it particularly harmful or offensive?
*yawn* Yet another overreaction to media without any thought behind it.
Playing this game or any other game where you rape and harm women does not make it more likely that that person will hurt women in RL. Just the same as playing a game where you kill someone doesn't make it more likely that they'll actually murder someone.
Calling for the censorship of a game, book, or movie because it has violence in it does not solve any problem. What does solve the problem is having balanced families, communities, and support systems. We also need an abundance of media out there depicting healthy relationships and interactions with women. The debate needs to be about these things, not about one violent game.
This all holds true if the game is intended to be erotic too, but even more so. One can't help what one is turned on by, but we can control how we act in real life.
Also, shame on every single one of you who went to Amazon and left a negative review of a game that you have never played. Speaking about something of which you have no knowledge is only being foolish.
"Playing this game or any other game where you rape and harm women does not make it more likely that that person will hurt women in RL. Just the same as playing a game where you kill someone doesn't make it more likely that they'll actually murder someone."
I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't have a problem with this game because I think that it may cause someone to become a rapist and a kidnapper. I think that the real problem with this game (and others like it) is how it tends to contribute to an already saturated culture of rape. The fact that a major retailer like Amazon is selling a supposedly "erotic" game dedicated to sexual assault and psychological abuse just tends to normalize these acts and, thus, make them even more invisible.
I think you're right that "calling for the censorship of a game, book, or movie because it has violence in it does not solve any problem," but I do think that speaking out against media like "Stockholm" may help to add visibility to the issue.
I guess what I'm basically trying to say here is... I don't think that this game will force someone to go out and commit rape, however that doesn't mean that "Stockholm" can't still be damaging in some way at least on a cultural level, if only because it contributes to a pre-existing culture of rape.
Censorship is not "a store not selling a product because of X". You might as well accuse your grocery store of censorship for not selling dildos. If you're going to call people out on being video game reactionaries, at least call yourself out for being an "OMIGOD PC POLICE CENSORSHIP COMMUNISM FASCIST!" reactionary. Cripes.
"You might as well accuse your grocery store of censorship for not selling dildos."
Right on!
I have an honest question: What differentiates this game from BDSM? Both involve simulated non-consensuality and simulated violence. I have heard that all the players in a BDSM fantasy are consensual, but so are the actors in this game. I can't imagine enjoying this game, in the same way I can't imagine enjoying pretending to inflict pain on someone.
I don't disagree that we have a culture that condones rape in many situations, and that this must be changed, but I'm not sure that getting upset about a niche product like this is productive. I would love it if Amazon voluntarily stopped carrying this product, but I would love it even more if they stopped carrying Glenn Beck's books - but on the whole, I think they have a right to sell those products, even though they disgust me. And if Amazon does stop carrying things whenever they get a certain number of e-mails, what will prevent religious conservatives (for example) from writing a million e-mails and getting sex-positive and feminist books from being dropped?
I would hope that the BDSM porn that is non-consensual is reconsidered as acceptable. There is a reason that the safe, sane and consensual denomination has been bandied about. While yes, there is plenty of porn that verges on or directly portrays non-consensual situations, I maintain that they should be just about as vilified as this game. Honestly, as a kinky person in general, I'm skivved out by the idea that hiding behind "but they're paid actors! :D" somehow negates the fact that you love, in fact are jerking off to, the image/story of a person being abused against their will. I support pornography that makes a big deal out of the "they're adult, willing participants." It is there.
So do you have a problem with kink.com that frames each video with an interview of the actors talking about what they liked and how much they will enjoy it/enjoyed it because the middle portion is (at times) pretending to be non-consensual?
95% of my personal play is faux non-consensual and I like seeing porn that reflects that but I guess I'm just skivvy.
I think the thing that bothers me most about it is that it's billed as "An exploration of true love." Stockholm Syndrome is a mental illness that results from the trauma of kidnap and mistreatment. So...true love is defined as deliberately attempting to induce mental illness in a kidnapped woman? What the fuck kind of screwed-up vision of "love" is this trying to perpetuate?
Like a raped woman marrying her rapist...
Yeah, that byline bothered me too. "True Love" my ass. At least "Rapelay" called it what it was.
Hey everybody let’s play "Alter Boy Syndrome". Maybe that will teach the prospective priests amongst us how bad sexual abuse is. And if people protest, well they should shut up otherwise a bunch of losers are going to make a run on the game. Sorry to be disrespectful to these notions but what nonsense. Of course the game "Stockholm Syndrome" is targeted at sexually frustrated losers who want to get off. Must we be so analytical of the obvious? And who cares if protesting the game draws the short attention span of sexual parasites; the standard of our collective market place should not be constantly lowered to that which is acceptable only to them. Besides not rocking the boat to keep the men folk comfy is so Vatican. Really now, agendas aside, we all know that keeping quiet only makes things worse.
(A similar, yet more polite version, has been sent to Amazon)
Simply fabulous. You said it perfectly. Shame I can't stay up, but it's late in UK. Brilliantly put - love it.
Thanks - So much posted here is so absurd. Some people have "issues" they need to defend.
i'm not sure if the dvd was pulled or what, but the amazon page says it's not available if you check now. no links to buy it there at all.
If you search for it, the website says it is unavailable, but you can still read the reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B00282GZJ8/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
I just got an email from Amazon. They said it's no longer being sold.
Oh yawn, Destra – seriously, get over the libertine nonsense.
Protesting things which are obviously demented and contribute to making our society an ugly place for us to live in IS healthy free speech and makes for a better market place. To bad if it hurts the feelings of bigots who can’t help what turns them on. That’s their problem.
This is the email from Amazon:
Hello,
Thanks for contacting Amazon.com with your concern.
The item you referenced is no longer for sale on our site.
Thank you again for your feedback.
Please let us know if this e-mail resolved your question:
If yes, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/rsvp-y?c=aqxeuyeg3285463027
If not, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/rsvp-n?c=aqxeuyeg3285463027
Please note: this e-mail was sent from an address that cannot accept incoming e-mail.
To contact us about an unrelated issue, please visit the Help section of our web site.
Best regards,
Vignesh M.
Amazon.com
We're Building Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company
Yes, its now a 404 not found.
I did look at the demo that someone posted and it is extremely disturbing. I agree with those saying they wouldn't date someone owning it. I don't know if I would be able to sit down and have a pleasant conversation with someone trying to tell me this is even a "very interesting" game. Much less that it is "cool" or "enjoyable." And much, much less someone beating off over it. It isn't an "exploration" or a commentary on society (way to concern troll, writer, with the bodice-rippers as "just as bad" as an excuse for producing this!) it is rape and abuse rewarded in video game form. The goal isn't to be horrified, with the thin veil of pretending you're not enjoying it (why else are you watching and reading it?), but the goal is to be rewarded for your depravity. Yuck.
After looking at the "other films people enjoyed" section of Amazon, I think I may have to soak my brain in bleach.
If this were a novel instead of a video game, should Amazon.com stop selling it?
For example:
http://www.amazon.com/Way-Maid-Wordsworth-Classic-Erotica/dp/1853266205
In this Victorian-era erotic novel, a man rapes a woman who ends up enjoying it and helping him rape others. Each rape ends up having the same effect on the victim: she is forced to acknowledge her deeply repressed sexual desires and becomes sexually liberated, freely choosing to participate in further sexual acts with those who raped her and assisting in the rape of others.
So, yeah, Rape is Love and all that.
Not necessarily. I'd say the novel has important historical value - I'd be curious to know how well it originally sold. The Victorians have a rep for having been very stuffy and proper.
However, this video game is current, rather than historic, and I don't want it to be a sign of our times!
Right. I see that as just a historical marker of how fucked up men were towards women and sex back then. A woman would never do that out of 'repressed sexual impulses,' as rape and sex are not the same. If anything, she's probably trying to recapture the power that was taken from her by her rapist. Its very sad.
But what happens if the woman was the rapist in the first place and the victim was a man, that makes it all right to you, or it is patriarchy fault for making women do these things. For you the woman is never the abuser, she is not capable of such acts, yet for example, in child abuse cases where the abuse was sexual, the stats found said that almost 20% was caused by a woman with 5% doing it completely without the aid of a man. Officials believe this statistic to be higher but feel that many children do no come forward as a woman is the abuser and they feel that they may not be believed. Hows that for your belief that every one who does this sort of thing is a man and a woman-hater?.
I won't respond to the question you posed directly, but it is worthy to note that this novel you described is just that - a novel. Video games allow people to play an interactive role in doing the harm to innocent victims.
I don't think the argument that "there are plenty of games where people kill others and no one is trying to get those censored" holds much ground either. From what I've seen, most of those games are ones in which you're trying to kill the "bad guys" and working on the side of the "good".
I don't like Grand Theft Auto much, but its very popular and as I understand it you play a criminal of some sort, and you do things like steal cars and beat up prostitutes. So its definitely not true that most popular video games have you playing on the side of good. (I think there have also been some popular star wars games where you can be darth vader and/or start out good and go over to the dark side)
Looks like amazon banned this game!! Good job to everyone who wrote in.
Comic books should be banned too. Especially those horror and crime comics from EC. We should create some kind of "comic code" to protect the children. I'm sure that'll work out great...
First of all, getting an item off of a website isn't the same as banning it. Second of all, horror comics are definitely equivalent to telling people that rape=true love! Totally!
They emailed me back saying that they removed the item from their website. :)
Can we stop saying that consumers pressuring a business to not sell a product is the same as violating the right to free speech? Disgusting as it is, I would have a problem with the government banning it, but not with Amazon refusing to sell it. The first amendment in the US (and similar principles in most other countries) are about what the government can do - not about what businesses can refuse to sell.
This is sick. What next; games created by nazi's, kkk that show whites killing black people/non-whites? Or is THAT offensive, just not rape? Fucking sick.
I'd like to start this comment by saying that an interactive DVD is NOT a video game. It is in no way affiliated or associated with the video game industry or it's respective content rating system, the ESRB.
The aforementioned game "Rapelay" is a PC software video game. IT IS a video game, though it's an underground Japanese game that was being sold on Amazon by a third party company.
I repeat, an interactive DVD, no matter HOW interactive, is NOT A VIDEO GAME. It may be a gray area between a simple video and a video game, but it's still not a video game.
Now then. The Stockholm disc in question, what can you really say here at this site? Is it honestly all that different than the site selling a book depicting graphic rape at the hands of a sadistic captor that enjoys such things? Would that be any more acceptable, simply because it's less interactive?
What's happening here is sickening. A watchdog group has taken it upon themselves to boycott and see to the flat out removal of a product simply because they do not believe in it, or the message it conveys. This coming of course strictly based on what has been read about said product, as I'm seriously doubting a single person filing a complaint against the product has personally tested it. Correct me if I'm wrong there.
By all rights and standards, am I not in the right to boycott and file for removal of the Holy Bible from Amazon, because I do not believe in it's teachings and what is therein printed. Not to mention I also do not agree with the overall message the book speaks of. Would that make me wrong for requesting a boycott and removal of this product?
Consider that. Think outside the box. Learn that the world is not seen through one viewpoint. Your definition is not always the correct definition, no matter what is in question.
I will counter by saying that yes, this is an indirect violation of free speech. You cannot petition for the removal of every piece of media that goes against your grain. It may be detrimental in your eyes, but your eyes are not the only ones taking in the whole.
"By all rights and standards, am I not in the right to boycott and file for removal of the Holy Bible from Amazon, because I do not believe in it's teachings and what is therein printed. Not to mention I also do not agree with the overall message the book speaks of. Would that make me wrong for requesting a boycott and removal of this product?"
Make you wrong? Not at all. Such speech of yours definitely wouldn't be censorship, even if the boycott succeeded, because Amazon.com isn't the only way the media is available.
When are we going to see games that both explore these themes and give the victims the power to control what happens to the offender--rather than romanticizing these themes and manipulating the virtual victims?
I guess stuff like that wouldn't sell...
And what about the many movies that have sections where you you see through the eyes of the perpetrator.
Amazon.com has pulled the game, but Max Shearson (outreach@rmdglobal.net) created an online petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/savestok/petition.html to request that the game be brought back. Here is his reasoning:
"Great art challenges us to examine the very assumptions we hold dearest. It upsets us, and forces us to critically question what we have been lead to believe.
We believe that "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love" is an example of such a work. While we do not necessarily agree with every part of the message, we believe that it is important for people to be able to see it. As one of the most important retailers in the world, we believe that Amazon has a responsibility to protect works of art like "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love", and that removing it was the wrong decision.
It's easy to make a quick decision to ban something. It's a lot harder to admit that that decision was wrong. We are asking Amazon.com to reconsider this decision, and to put "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love" back on its virtual shelves. "
I think we should email Max and let him know the fact that he is petitioning to bring back a rape game is disgusting.
Hi All - this is Max Shearson, outreach coordinator at RMD Global. I'll keep this short: the response and outrage to "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love" is understandable. After all, it does challenge core ideas of modern American society. But I think that some of the reactions have been quick and emotional, rather than careful and considered.
At our site, authors, filmmakers, and even the CEO of RMD Global have shared their views on the recent Banning of "Stockholm." The site is http://rmdglobal.net/stockholm/
I know that anyone as dedicated to a cause as many of you are will want to consider all rational perspectives. All I'm asking is that you consider a few other points of view, and, if you agree, to sign the online petition, or even leave any helpful comments.
"After all, it does challenge core ideas of modern American society."
Now how many minutes before the "the less mainstream the better!!!" more-alternative-than-thou crowd shows up...?
It never fails to shock me when I read comments about these articles, that there are so many anti-feminist statements being made. Since when is rape simulation preferable to pornography? And the same thing as romance novels?
Rape does not belong in the media UNLESS it is used to either show a victim's perspective or to make a statement against it (i.e. showing a rehabilitated rapist/ or a rapist that gets caught). There should be actions against the rape. And at the end of every movie/show that has a sexual assault in it, there should be an eductional piece about how rape is a serious crime. The glamorization of rape should not be allowed. We will never be able to regulate the black market – but there should be a public outcry to regulate the mainstream media.
There is proof that one of those violent games, I think it was Grand Theft Auto, was making kids go out and commit crimes, so why wouldn't it also be the case with these kinds of games? If there were less rape, and less rape media, there would be less fetishes for this type of thing. If people want to play out their own rape fantasies in their bedrooms, no one is going to stop them, but this does not belong in the mainstream media, where it can influence other people.
Adult sections and pornography have nothing to do with this. This isn't about sex. Nice gentle loving sex isn't going to hurt anyone (as long as it's consenting and protected) It's about assault. Sexual assault. No one should have to be subjected to the glamorization of sexual assault. How would people even know about certain fetishes if there weren't all these movies/magazines about them? I'm not saying to outlaw kinky porn, I'm just saying that even porn should not be promoting assault. Especially in case some impressionable kid or naive adult watches it (and many do at friend's houses when parents are away. There are so many ways that kids can get access to things with adult ratings). I strongly disagree with rape fantasy porn, but if there is no way to ban it, then porn makers should be required to show the characters in the beginning of the film introducing themselves as actors who say "I consent to playing in a rape scene in this film. This is not real. Rape is a horrible crime that hurts people and it should never happen in real life." or something like that or they should have the rapist get taken away by the cops (who look like real cops not sexy porn cops) and thrown in jail.
To the person who compared this to romance novels. Romance novels are words, not graphic pictures. People reading romance novels are spectators reading a story, while playing a game is like a virtual reality where the game player IS the rapist, not reading about a rape. Romance novels are usually read by women, these games will be played by many impressionable young men.
However, I do agree that movies and romance novels should not glamorize rape as some type of normal seduction. Although I love old movies, I can't stand the types of scenes like in Gone With the Wind where she is taken against her will, and then wakes up with a smile on her face.
Someone brought up violent movies. My opinion is that there is too much violence in the mainstream media. I don't think violence should be censored, but that it should all be classified as an R rating. And that it should have the same kind of educational piece at the end of the film that talks about how this violence was fake because it's a movie, and that violence in real life is a horrific crime. Lots of people let their small children watch these kinds of things, and since we can't regulate parenting, then we can at least educate the audience.
To the sex positive/ porn positive person who wrote. It is possible to be pro-porn and be anti-rape-porn. Just because porn is about graphic sexual activities doesn't mean that it should go completely unregulated. There's nothing wrong with showing sex. It's the non-consensual part that needs to be curtailed. Also, it doesn't mean all violent/fetish porn needs to be banned either. If someone is begging a person to hurt them (BDSM), it is different than someone begging to NOT be hurt and then hurt anyway (rape fantasy). We can debate the ethics of consensual violence, but everyone should agree that NO CONSENT = BAD. If the logic is weeding out non-consensual porn, then it would not endanger porn as an industry.
To the people who say that this doesn't hurt anyone and so shouldn't be outlawed. Well, it doesn't cause physical harm to anyone if we don't pay taxes, but we'll still go to jail if we don't pay them.
Hmmm... so all serious examinations of love and erotic tendencies should only look at "nice gentle loving sex" and pretend the rest does not exist?
I think that sentiment is one of the things that "Stockholm" is targeting - the sugar coated illusions that sexuality is supposed to be only nice and pretty and flowery.
And those who have actually seen the DVD know that there is an explicit and humorous warning to players that what is being shown is a game, not a recipe for actual behavior. (It involves Stanton Audemars with a sock puppet)
I didn't say that all sex has to be nice gentle loving sex. I was using that as an example to say that many times people are up in arms about explicit material and they lump all pornography in one "nasty" category that should all be banned as a whole. My opinion as a sex-positive person is that seeing gentle consensual protected sex is not damaging or unethical. That doesn't mean that all other sex is damaging or unethical. Only when the consensual part is removed does it become extremely damaging and unethical because it is promoting violent crime. It promotes violent crime because the attacker is getting away with it - i.e. not going to jail. It also promotes it because the victim's role is written for her to enjoy being raped. Therefore there are many guys who after repeatedly watching films where women are taken against their will and fall in love with their captors who believe that all women truly want to be taken advantage of my men. I personally know guys who have admitted to thinking that women enjoy being taken advantage of. Guys in the media say this sometimes and tell jokes about it also further normalizing the misinformation.
If someone does not wish to have "sugar coated illusions" as you put it, there is a huge amount of ground between sex with one loving partner and non-consensual sex. There's sex with multiple partners, there's casual sex, polyamorous sex, sex-clubs, role-playing, exhibitionist sex, sex with toys, masturbation, and all different kinds of kink. As long as it is consensual.
As I stated above, I am not criticizing kinky sex or BDSM - I draw a clear distinction between consensual BDSM and rape. Please re-read the second to last paragraph of that comment.
It is possible to be pro-porn, pro-kink, pro-rights of people to play out rape fantasies in their bedrooms (that they consented to in advance and have a safe word) AND still be anti-rape, anti-rape promotion, and anti-rape fantasy *promotion*.
I still maintain the need for more non-violent consensual protected sex in porn. Right now much of it is violent, and I've never seen a condom in porn with men or a dental dam in porn with women. Just because it's non-violent, consensual and safe-sex doesn't mean it can't be wild or kinky.
AMAZON LISTENED, THANK GODDESS
Hello,
Thanks for contacting Amazon.com with your concern.
I apologize for any frustration caused. The item you referenced is no longer for
sale on our site.
Customer feedback like yours really helps us continue to improve our store and
provide better service to our customers.
Thank you again for your feedback.