Modnote: Keep this from becoming personal. This is not the pit.
I’m going to close this thread for a full hour as I think it really needs a cool off.
This topic was automatically opened after 60 minutes.
I have to disagree with Riemann. A full body suit with haptic feedback is enough to facilitate groping. It is well documented that victims of sexual assault (extended or not) may not protest or resist for any number of reasons, for example power dynamics or shock. It can take years of therapy to come to terms with the fact that one was assaulted, and that it’s not all the victim’s fault for not resisting.
It can be difficult to disengage from a virtual environment, or it’s physical feedback system. A full body suit may take minutes to remove. One may be so immersed she forgets how to physically disengage. The software may or may not provide an option to disable the physical response system. The victim may not know or remember such an option exists, or it may be difficult to find in an emergency situation.
Mr_Dibble’s point stands - extended physical interaction does not imply consent, and the duration of sexual assault in no way prejudices the victim’s claim.
~Max
Maybe the game is released to the public as an open beta. Also, sexual assault could happen during the beta.
ETA: The company, for it’s part, will probably have the user’s signed agreement to waive any and all claims and rights of action against the company, an arbitration clause, a limit on compensation to $100, etc. So unless there is a law specifically guaranteeing the user’s rights in this kind of situation, which the OP says there isn’t, suing the company will be difficult.
~Max
@MrDibble’s point is perfectly valid. But you are simply repeating the ridiculous straw man that I had ever suggested otherwise.
For that matter, a woman who’s groped on the subway can choose to get off at the next station. The option exists. But she’s on the subway for some reason, that won’t be accomplished by getting off. And so, most of the time, a woman doesn’t disengage from groping as quickly as possible.
The same might be true for a video game. She’s probably not there to do something as important as going to work or school, but she’s still there for some reason. And so she might choose not to turn off her VR system as quickly as possible.
The only legal gray area here at all, really, would be a case of some kind of direct neural interface. Almost every single statute relating to sexual offenses uses the framework of a touching, so no matter how attenuated the link between the perpetrator and the physical touching, it’s easy enough to follow the chain.
If the feedback was via some kind of technology that puts the sensation into a person’s brain without any physical stimulus, there is no existing legal framework that would be able to handle that. There just wouldn’t be a law to apply to it, and there’s no way the police, prosecutors and courts would be willing to lead the metaphysical charge on that.
I quoted you in context at the top of my post. Did you not write, “Otherwise one would assume that a sustained assault is not possible, a user could just exit”?
Is it your position that one would assume a sustained sexual assault is not possible when the victim could shut it down at any time? That’s the position I’m arguing against.
~Max
This is certainly true, but we would hope that VR designers could try to build in safeguards that would reduce the physical power imbalance that exists IRL between perpetrator and victim. Perhaps something like a “safe word” that would allow a user to immerse themselves but to disengage quickly if confronted with an attacker.
But disengagement doesn’t require removal of the physical apparatus. I’m talking about electronic disengagement from the shared VR environment, so at least an attack cannot continue.
And that’s a practical issue about the VR setup that I’m discussing.
How do you get from there to suggesting at the end of your post that I made the straw man claim that Dibble wrongly inferred about the morality and criminality of assault?
I don’t accuse you of morally condoning so-called “virtual” assault whether sustained or not. But when you wrote,
Not that just quickly copping a feel or something is okay, but there’s less at stake from a dramatic perspective.
I assumed you were speaking strictly about morality. Because in my opinion, if sustained sexual assault is impossible in a virtual environment, it cannot be criminal. In my opinion, a juror who takes your position would vote not guilty for the individual described in the OP charged with sexual assault, provided the alleged virtual assault took place over an extended period of time and the user had the power to shut it down at any time.
But this is all besides the point - you’re getting caught up on the endnote - which we both agree about. I would rather you responded to the rest of my post, where I spoke of practical considerations like you.
~Max
If you don’t want me to get “caught up” then make your point without repeating ridiculous assertions that I think groping someone’s pussy is just fine.
We don’t know if disengagement requires removal of a physical apparatus. It could be an always-online device. The game may not allow one to disconnect instantly - there may be a timer before one can leave a virtual room. Leaving the virtual room or disabling functionality may have penalties for the victim thus creating a power dynamic. We don’t know if electronic disengagement requires some sort of button press or voice command or gesture that the victim may not know or remember, or that the victim is too shocked to initiate.
~Max
Hence my comment that when VR is developed to allow intimate physical contact the designers should take into account the possibility of hackers and violent predators and incorporate safety resources - in both the physical setup and the managing AI. If we can reduce the physical power imbalance that is often present IRL, that’s a good feature.
Yes, in an ideal world…
But the original post of this thread stipulates that a virtual interaction did take place, and the victim filed a complaint alleging that it is sexual assault. Hypothesize all the safeguards you want - the very premise of this debate is that they all failed.
If nothing else, the victim may have deliberately failed to take advantage of any safety resources or escape hatches because of a power dynamic, something I raised in each of my posts that you haven’t addressed.
~Max
Have you even read the thread?
The early part of the thread consists first of a couple of other people fighting the hypothetical asserting that a sexual assault in VR is impossible. And me responding by discussing the likely nature of future VR in order to support the position that:
(a) VR assault is certainly possible in the near future;
(b) it is just as much a “real” assault and just as criminal as any assault IRL
So now, in addition to the straw man that I think pussy-grabbing is okay, you’re adding the straw man that I’m fighting the hypothetical?
I acknowledge that you hold both of those positions. Right now I’m only debating about sustained sexual assault in a virtual environment…
Ah, I see what you mean. No, the OP doesn’t require you to assume sustained sexual assault took place in a virtual environment. My apologies for suggesting it did.
Let me try again,
Yes, in an ideal world…
But the original post of this thread stipulates that a virtual interaction did take place, and the victim filed a complaint alleging that it is sexual assault. Hypothesize all the safeguards you want - the very premise of this debate is that they all failed.
If nothing else, the victim may have deliberately failed to take advantage of any safety resources or escape hatches because of a power dynamic, something I raised in each of my posts that you haven’t addressed. I don’t mean a physical power imbalance, such as a strong individual physically overpowering the victim - I mean social power imbalance.
ETA: Or the victim may be in shock - no amount of safety resources will help if the victim is too paralyzed to use them.
~Max
Thank you.
I feel like I’m stating the obvious, but the reason that we need to discuss the likely nature of an assault in a hypothetical VR is not a victim-blaming exercise. The point is
(a) we need to understand exactly how it might happen in order to assist the victims and prosecute perpetrators;
(b) surely prevention of VR-mediated assault is within the scope of the title of the OP.
And also OP says:
One fictional example of the subject by Piers Anthony: