@Ghost said in Cyberrun:
What exactly are you trying to play Devil's Advocate towards, here? That there is bias in play and that it's no big deal that adults would simulate sexualized children because there is a pre-existing precedent in film?
In attempt to help @Misadventure back off Soapbox, where he was absolutely happier (cough cough), I can answer this one:
Mis usually looks at the bigger picture, using examples that we accept to question why we do or don't accept something else that seems similar. I think you've answered this pretty thoroughly, but since you're asking the question, let me pull up something else that is the-same-but-different.
When browsing Comixology, I was suggested a comic where an 84 year-old woman was transferred to an Oz-like world in the body of a 10 year-old girl. And her adventures of murder. Why is that even a little bit okay?
I can answer my own question, though: Because the fantasy of murder is a one of action on the part of an adult, while the fantasy of fucking an adult-in-a-child's-body is almost always one of fucking a child. Fucking a child's mentality in an adult's body plays on the same trope.
Are replicants children? Sure we can have that discussion, but it's secondary to the above. It's honestly a distraction.
What I'm saying is that I agree with you 99.999999% completely, to get my Sigma-Six out there. If someone can write a story that's about something other than the sexual taking of innocence, it would be worth adding to our fictional lexicon. Again I will casually mention Lolita, which is among other things about horrible and broken our main character is.
But hopefully that answers your question about why Mis was phrasing things the way he was. "Because what makes replicants not-children." Let's use another thread for that one, though.