I don't often drag politics into the blog, but this is just too egregious to ignore.
In articles released by the BBC and the Daily Mail, details have emerged of an active police investigation of an alleged sexual assault. The victim was reported to be a female under the age of 16. Sounds awful, right?
It was online. In VR.
How did police come to the conclusion that VR is now the new battleground on which sexual assault must be defeated? Beats me, but they're taking it pretty seriously.
Let's be clear: this isn't an investigation into grooming - which would have been a sensible (and required) response. Police are alleging that the girl "experienced psychological trauma similar to that of someone who had been physically raped."
The investigation was confirmed by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, although they did not say which force was undertaking it.
This isn't just a case of an over-eager police force. That'd be too easy. The BBC reports that the National Crime Agency have "warned that police will need to be ready to deal with virtual sexual assaults in the future."
It's very reminiscent of a similar case a couple of years ago, where a 21 year-old researcher claimed she was sexually assaulted on Facebook's Meta platform. Working for the SumofUs corporate accountability group, the researcher reported the alleged "assault" after voluntarily disabling the personal boundary setting in the game.
Yeah. The boundary designed specifically to prevent players from entering your personal space was voluntarily disabled, then she complained people were in her personal space. How is this any different from disabling the profanity filter then complaining about swear words?
This is that stupid.
Here's a further look at why:
1. Sexual Assault is a physical crime.
Virtual sexual assault? First off, no-one is being touched. Let me repeat that, for the hard-of-thinking in the back: No-one. Is being. Touched. So it isn't sexual assault - period (see picture, above).
2. Games have age ratings for a reason.
Yeah, I get it - most parents ignore the age ratings because they don't understand digital media. Or they think "its just a guideline". Or they're just looking for a way to shut the kids up. None of this absolves the parents of their responsibility to ensure their child only accesses age-appropriate material.
Publishers and developers would need to revisit their software if this becomes a crime. It would likely lead to many popular games/social programs getting a bump in the age required to access them. Their answer to that maybe "so what?" but then there's the cognitive disconnect.
How can these spaces provide significant adult risk, yet people do not care about the age required to access these spaces?
3. Define "crime".
Why is this a crime, but my avatar stealing from your avatar not robbery or theft? Why is your avatar killing my avatar not murder or, at the very least, assault?
The answer is so obvious it's painful. What's happening online isn't actually happening in the real world. And if we were to reclassify physical crimes to include the virtual games space where crimes are allowed (and often the point), where the hell do we draw the line?
If someone tries to make the argument that this is a "crime" because the psychological effect is similar to the actual crime, I'd call bullshit. But let's assume this is the case: why is the taking of digital items by one avatar by another avatar not theft? Want to make the argument that the psychological effect isn't the same, having just argued that it is? Maybe they'll point out "but the game allows it". Then I'll just stare and wait for the realisation to kick in.
4. Evidence, evidence, evidence.
If you think this smacks of the same hysteria that leads nutters in the US to claim that video games are conditioning people to kill - you'd be right. Both claims have the same fatal flaw: there's absolutely zero supporting evidence. No study of games has proved an increase in the risk of violence of any type. There's no "smoking gun". For every study claiming there is a link, there's five more proving there isn't.
The same goes with sexual assault in VR - there's simply no evidence for it. And if we're going to start classifying this shit as a crime, it seems like evidence would be important. Right....?
5. It trivialises sexual assault.
The undeniable reality is that entering virtual spaces is an entirely voluntary activity - as is remaining in them. No-one is forcing people to keep the headset on or remain logged in to the system when something begins to happen that they don't like or don't consent to. No-one can prevent them from leaving and ending the "ordeal" there and then.
How much do you think people who have experienced actual sexual assault or rape wanted to just turn away from a screen and have it all stop happening?
To voluntarily remain in a position where this is happening isn't just at odds with the definition of sexual assault - it's an offense to anyone who has actually experienced these crimes.
And if they want to claim that I'm so how supporting or condoning sexual assault - fuck off. That's the last resort of people who want to argue with the point but lack the logic and reasoning skills to do so (or they're just plain wrong). Trying to expand the definition of sexual assault to include things that clearly aren't, does nothing but dilute justice for everyone who actually needs it.
Some people are being given the tools to deal with the assholes, but refuse to. For what reason, I have no clue. I know this: I'm growing tired of this need to wrap everyone else in bubble wrap, because a few precious individuals are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves.
Comments