SG-17 said: Paying for sex is rape. You can't pay for consent. It degenerates women into nothing more than a commodity.



But like I said, if just one of the 3 player characters was a woman GTAV wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is, because as it is women have no agency in the game and thus the depictions of women are detrimental.



The way GTA uses satirical stereotypes of American culture is fine, for the most part. Prostitution crosses the line, and the lack of women player characters turns the game into a male circlejerk fantasy. Click to expand...

If paying for sex is rape, dating would illegal.I am with you for the depiction of women in GTA being overwhelmingly negative, but my concern for social good clashes with my hate of censorship, and banning sales of a game is especially concerning when it is justified by being called "a male circle jerk fantasy." That's a moral judgment and it takes a lot of hubris to make that call. If it could be proved that GTAV directly contributed to harm against women (something like the link between smoking and cancer), I would be more supportive of this move (and I don't think that link is outside the realm of possibility). At the very least it contributes to a culture of degradation and disrespect. I don't believe that is enough to ban its sales.But here is the thing: Target is a private corporation and is not obligated to sell you all the things you want. The government is not censoring or banning sales of the game, so for all of you who disagree with the decision, shop elsewhere. In effect this is protesting the decision, as an impact on their sales (especially over the holidays) will provide more of an impetus for change than a strongly worded letter.I am glad there is so much discussion about these issues now, and I look forward to checking back on gaming culture in some years, to see the sexist critics become the crotchety old racists of the future.