596 réponses à ce sujet

[Tootles FTW]

esper wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Tootles FTW wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Actually, Fenris had a sexual relationship with his master (hinted in DA2, confirmed later by Bioware devs). The fact that he doesn't remember, and that the relationship was probably forced mean that this doesn't conclude which are his preferences, but regardless, he was intimate (in a sexual way) with someone in the past.

I...what?  When was this?  As I recall Fenris pretty much denies having been used sexually by Danarius - he says to Hawke that he's never been with anyone, and states to Isabela during party banter that he was strictly Danarius's bodyguard (and Isabela was questioning specifically on whether Danarius took liberties with his "glistening body").  

I think they mean the scene when you confront Danarius and he implies that Hawke is jealous (if you pick "He doesn't belong to anyone") and he notes that he is jealous because of Fenris' "skills". Fenris immidiately wants to shut him up, if he was nothing but a guard then why try to quiet him so quickly? Plus the " his little wolf" stuff and the way Danarious' eyes trail over Fenris' body if you sell him back to him implies some form of sexual abuse going on. Mind you, it's all implied and never outright stated in game. I However, also believe there was sexual abuse between them. Danrius just looks like a straight up rapist. 

In the Male Hawke playthrough there is no mention of Fenris not having sexual relations before. This seems to only exist in the female Hawke playthrough. I've romanced him several times as a male and Fenris being a virgin convo never comes up but it did when I played a female Hawke...unless I keep on missing it in my male playthroughs.

Also Fenris could have denied molestation (glistening) claims simply because that's not something he would want to talk to Isabela or anyone about. Especially in front of all their friends and in public. Oh yeah and the whole lack of memory thing...that seems to only come back during a moment of sex. Not uncommon for sexual abuse victims.

But no matter if Danerius used Fenris like that or not, does it really say anything about Fenris' sexuality? I doubt that Fenris' consent was anything Danerius cared about.

Thanks for the breakdown, Hazegurl.  Was also curious as to where a Bioware dev confirmed it, though, as I've never seen a quote regarding this topic.

I agree with Esper - what Danarius' forced upon Fenris only reflects upon Danarius.  Unless I get a quote from a dev stating otherwise, we can't assume based upon in-game content that Fenris willingly participated in any sex acts with his master (pre or post-branding).  
His unromanced affair with Isabela, however, does indicate heterosexuality/bisexuality.

[Silfren]

imbs wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Yet you clearly care enough about it to click on the thread and leave a comment.

UGH

Silfren wrote...
Hint:  The fact that people care about how the romances are presented does NOT mean they don't also care about gameplay; it doesn't even mean they don't care MORE about gameplay.  Personally, I don't actually care much about the gameplay beyond minimizing the segregation so that stupid sh*t doesn't happen, like a Mage!Hawke not being recognized as such by anti-mage templars, but I do care about the story, and the romace element is part of the story, whether you like it or not. 

This whole "DA is not a dating sim!!!!!11111" is something of a paranoid overreaction. 

Except gameplay does take a backseat to lore/story/romances on these boards. There are like 10 lore/story/romance threads for every gameplay thread, and the gameplay threads get about 5 pages and die every single time. I know EA has this whole h8 is not a game campaign going n all but maybe they should focus on gameplay a bit.

In Bioware games, the story's narrative is actually more important than the gameplay.  We aren't playing a narrative-free game like tetris, after all.  Without the lore/story/romance, there is no game because there is no story.  that aside, you're conflating what players make threads about with what EA focuses on, which is not the way to look at it.  But the fact, by your own admission, that gameplay threads die quickly and story-based threads--not JUST romance--dominate, should be a pretty strong clue that most people play Bioware games for the story and not just the gameplay. 

Ofcourse I care how much attention this utter garbage is getting. The gameplay in these games has gotten worse and worse per new Bioware game, whilst they pander to the idiots who can't imagine a game where they can't romance the crap out of everyone regardless of anything else.

And you think you're helping this alleged problem by trying to derail threads you don't like? There is no profit to be gained from coming into a thread to whine about its mere existence. 

I'd prefer a Bioware game where the gameplay doesn't only range from boring to outright bad but where romances are an afterthought, an addition at best. Why do you people care, seriously?

Let me turn that around and ask you: why do YOU care, seriously? As I already mentioned, many of us come to Bioware games for the narrative, not the gameplay.  Why do you think that your opinion of gameplay being more important than narrative and romance and lore is superior to those who take the opposite view?

Don't actually bothering answering this, I'm done with helping you derail a thread you don't like yet consciously and deliberately came into to disrupt.

[Pasquale1234]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Just read that Tevinter considers homosexuality deviant and selfish (if that's what the text says)... first time since I purchased Dragon Age 2 that I've raised a brow in total pleasure at the direction Bioware would take the DA universe.

Bravo - and brilliant. If we go to Tevinter though - I want to SEE this opinion in action.

Now - commence with utterly misinterpreting "why" I find that a brillaint choice.

Of course, if you were genuinely interested in any sort of honest discussion, you could quote the entire statement instead of taking only a portion of it out of context.

The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender varies from land to land. <snip>  In Tevinter, it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but actively encouraged with favored slaves.

There could be a lot of reasons for that. I would imagine that the nobility's need to create heirs and maintain bloodlines may be chief among them.

[Ryzaki]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Just read that Tevinter considers homosexuality deviant and selfish (if that's what the text says)... first time since I purchased Dragon Age 2 that I've raised a brow in total pleasure at the direction Bioware would take the DA universe.

Bravo - and brilliant. If we go to Tevinter though - I want to SEE this opinion in action.

Now - commence with utterly misinterpreting "why" I find that a brillaint choice.

Only amoung the nobility it seems. It's encouraged among slaves.

[Silfren]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Just read that Tevinter considers homosexuality deviant and selfish (if that's what the text says)... first time since I purchased Dragon Age 2 that I've raised a brow in total pleasure at the direction Bioware would take the DA universe.

Bravo - and brilliant. If we go to Tevinter though - I want to SEE this opinion in action.

Now - commence with utterly misinterpreting "why" I find that a brillaint choice.

I won't say brilliant, because I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing to showcase a society that considers homosexuality deviant in any way, for the problems of marginalization I've already mentioned. 

I do, however, think it's an interesting choice that they would have given this role to Tevinter.  I suspect that your reasons for thinking it a brilliant choice and mine for thinking it interesting are somewhat similar, however, so I'd be interested in reading your explanation of why you consider it brilliant.

[esper]

Ryzaki wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Just read that Tevinter considers homosexuality deviant and selfish (if that's what the text says)... first time since I purchased Dragon Age 2 that I've raised a brow in total pleasure at the direction Bioware would take the DA universe.

Bravo - and brilliant. If we go to Tevinter though - I want to SEE this opinion in action.

Now - commence with utterly misinterpreting "why" I find that a brillaint choice.

Only amoung the nobility it seems. It's encouraged among slaves.

I read it as Master-slave. Doesn't the favoured slave line suggest that?

[Silfren]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

There could be a lot of reasons for that. I would imagine that the nobility's need to create heirs and maintain bloodlines may be chief among them.

Which would be unfounded and unnecessary.  History proves that non-heterosexual relationships have never been an obstacle for creating heirs or maintaining bloodlines, especially for nobles accustomed to doing what they want with and to whomever they want.

Being sexually oriented in some way other than hetero- does not make a person infertile.  Nor does it prevent them from having "proper," official marriages while keeping as many concubines/mistresses/catamites/etc as they wish.

[Fredward]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Thanks for posting that - it's a great read.

I've suggested before, in other such threads, that Thedas does not appear to have any concept of sexual orientation. (Our own world had no such concept until the late 1800s)  No need to categorize anyone's sexual activities or proclivities, no impetus to analyze their own attractions to try to define them in any way - at least not where gender is concerned.

Something else that has been previously discussed in this thread:

Sexual orientation labels must be self-selected. 

Merely observing that a character (of some apparent gender) is sexually involved with another character (also of some apparent gender) does not mean that they are not capable of engaging in sexual expression with a character of another apparent gender.

At no point has any character in Thedas mentioned sexual orientation or applied a label to themselves.

Yet we have forumites vigorously proclaiming that AVELINE IS STRAIGHT because she was married to Ser Wesley and Guardsman Donnic.  Aveline has not told us that she considers herself straight, nor has she ever indicated that she is not sexually attracted to women.  The only thing we know about Aveline's sexuality is that she has been married to two men (and possibly that she's not interested in Hawke's flirtations).  That does not constitute conclusive evidence.

We also see that Isabela is frequently labeled bisexual.  Isabela clearly enjoys sex and is not picky about the gender of her partners.  However, some people make distinctions between basic rutting and relationships - and for all we know, Isabela may find that she feels much more comfortable in genuine emotional intimacy with one gender.  If she were to choose, for example, to enter a long-term relationship with another woman, she might label herself a lesbian, even if she continued to engage in trysts with men on the side.  And vice-versa.

Bisexuality does not mean that one is equally attracted to both genders.

And since there are many different levels and layers to human sexuality, these terms do not mean the same thing to everyone who uses them.

Do you see the utter futility of trying to apply labels where they may not fit?

Really wish the forum had a like button...

[Renmiri1]

hhh89 wrote...

Actually, Fenris had a sexual relationship with his master (hinted in DA2, confirmed later by Bioware devs).The fact that he doesn't remember, and that the relationship was probably forced mean that this doesn't conclude which are his preferences, but regardless, he was intimate (in a sexual way) with someone in the past.

Hate being graphic here but if someone is raped with a rusty chainsaw does that mean they LIKE to have sex with rusty chainsaws ?

esper wrote...

But no matter if Danerius used Fenris like that or not, does it really say anything about Fenris' sexuality? I doubt that Fenris' consent was anything Danerius cared about.

 Give esper a cookie


One good thing about this thread seems to be a lot of posters are just starting to learn about gender issues they never experienced or thought about much, being sheltered hetero.

No, rape does not say anything about Fenris sexual preferences or identities. It says a lot about Danarius character though.

Please never equate rape with a valid sexual experience / contact. Is not valid for the victim and should never be valid for the rapist.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 08:43 .

[DarkSpiral]

Silfren wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

There could be a lot of reasons for that. I would imagine that the nobility's need to create heirs and maintain bloodlines may be chief among them.

Which would be unfounded and unnecessary.  History proves that non-heterosexual relationships have never been an obstacle for creating heirs or maintaining bloodlines, especially for nobles accustomed to doing what they want with and to whomever they want.

Being sexually oriented in some way other than hetero- does not make a person infertile.  Nor does it prevent them from having "proper," official marriages while keeping as many concubines/mistresses/catamites/etc as they wish.

Unfounded, how?  Just because one can point to history doesn't really mean anything, Silfren.  People, including game NPCs, exist in the now, not in the last century.  If one lives in a society that values tracking bloodlines and being able to recite those bloodlines, it stands to reason maintaining those bloodlines would be something the society values.  In which case the attitude isn't unfounded.

Unecessary?  Maybe.  Okay, sure.  History can teach us that one.  Highly likely that noone in power in a place as Tevinter is described is going to care about that.  I seem to recall something about Athens once having a low population during the height of Greek society, due to preferences in same-sex relationships.  That could have been propoganda.  I'll check on that one after I get off work.

[The Hierophant]

Silfren wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Just read that Tevinter considers homosexuality deviant and selfish (if that's what the text says)... first time since I purchased Dragon Age 2 that I've raised a brow in total pleasure at the direction Bioware would take the DA universe.

Bravo - and brilliant. If we go to Tevinter though - I want to SEE this opinion in action.

Now - commence with utterly misinterpreting "why" I find that a brillaint choice.

I won't say brilliant, because I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing to showcase a society that considers homosexuality deviant in any way, for the problems of marginalization I've already mentioned. 

I do, however, think it's an interesting choice that they would have given this role to Tevinter.  I suspect that your reasons for thinking it a brilliant choice and mine for thinking it interesting are somewhat similar, however, so I'd be interested in reading your explanation of why you consider it brilliant.

Tbh this is a lame stereotypical development for the Tevinter as nearly everyone from that country minus the slaves are depicted as one dimensional cartoon villains. All this does is further typecast their culture and citizens.

I hope they don't, but  i wouldn't be surprised if the Imperial Chantry spreads this view while having a male dominated clergy like the Catholic Church, and that the writers will use this as a vehicle to criticize Cristianity.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 21 mars 2013 - 08:45 .

[Silfren]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Sexual orientation labels must be self-selected. 

Merely observing that a character (of some apparent gender) is sexually involved with another character (also of some apparent gender) does not mean that they are not capable of engaging in sexual expression with a character of another apparent gender.

At no point has any character in Thedas mentioned sexual orientation or applied a label to themselves.

Yet we have forumites vigorously proclaiming that AVELINE IS STRAIGHT because she was married to Ser Wesley and Guardsman Donnic.  Aveline has not told us that she considers herself straight, nor has she ever indicated that she is not sexually attracted to women.  The only thing we know about Aveline's sexuality is that she has been married to two men (and possibly that she's not interested in Hawke's flirtations).  That does not constitute conclusive evidence.

We also see that Isabela is frequently labeled bisexual.  Isabela clearly enjoys sex and is not picky about the gender of her partners.  However, some people make distinctions between basic rutting and relationships - and for all we know, Isabela may find that she feels much more comfortable in genuine emotional intimacy with one gender.  If she were to choose, for example, to enter a long-term relationship with another woman, she might label herself a lesbian, even if she continued to engage in trysts with men on the side.  And vice-versa.

Bisexuality does not mean that one is equally attracted to both genders.

And since there are many different levels and layers to human sexuality, these terms do not mean the same thing to everyone who uses them.

Do you see the utter futility of trying to apply labels where they may not fit?

Watch out.  I said more or less the same thing--and was accused of claiming that nobody's sexuality is ever exclusive.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mars 2013 - 08:43 .

[DarkSpiral]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Please never equate rape with a valid sexual experience / contact. Is not valid for the victim and should never be valid for the rapist.

Seconded.  Rape is, and always has been, about power.  The gender of the victim is a secondary concern.

[DarkSpiral]

[quote]The Hierophant wrote...

[/quote]Tbh this is a lame stereotypical development for the Tevinter as nearly everyone from that country minus the slaves are depicted as one dimensional cartoon villains. All this does is further typecast their culture and citizens.

I hope they don't, but  i wouldn't be surprised if the Imperial Chantry spreads this view while having a male dominated clergy like the Catholic Church, and that the writers will use this as a vehicle to criticize Cristianity.
[/quote]

Hm.  You aren't wrong, of course.  Tevinter has been portrayed more or less two-dimensionally.  And that will likely continue until we actually visit the place.  And may continue even then, depending on WHY DA:I takes us there.

But I don't really understand why this contributes to the picture of Tevinter as a bad, bad place, unless you haven't read the full quote and are only going by Nox's shaved portion.

[Silfren]

The Hierophant wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Just read that Tevinter considers homosexuality deviant and selfish (if that's what the text says)... first time since I purchased Dragon Age 2 that I've raised a brow in total pleasure at the direction Bioware would take the DA universe.

Bravo - and brilliant. If we go to Tevinter though - I want to SEE this opinion in action.

Now - commence with utterly misinterpreting "why" I find that a brillaint choice.

I won't say brilliant, because I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing to showcase a society that considers homosexuality deviant in any way, for the problems of marginalization I've already mentioned. 

I do, however, think it's an interesting choice that they would have given this role to Tevinter.  I suspect that your reasons for thinking it a brilliant choice and mine for thinking it interesting are somewhat similar, however, so I'd be interested in reading your explanation of why you consider it brilliant.

Tbh this is a lame stereotypical development for the Tevinter as nearly everyone from that country minus the slaves are depicted as one dimensional cartoon villains. All this does is further typecast their culture and citizens.

I hope they don't, but  i wouldn't be surprised if the Imperial Chantry spreads this view while having a male dominated clergy like the Catholic Church, and that the writers will use this as a vehicle to criticise Cristianity.

I don't actually see them as being cast as one-dimensional or cartoonish in any way.  I think we've been presented with the perspectives of people who think of Tevinter only in terms of its history as a ruthless and brutal conquerer, not unlike the way that Orlais has been rather heavyhandedly presented as concerned with fashion and intrigue to the point of seeming ludicrously frivolous.  It's not unrealistic for people outside of Tevinter, who've grown up on tales of Tevinter's history of slavery and uncontrolled blood magic to have a one-sided perspective, especially since many of the tensions between Tevinter and other states are relatively recent (the conflict begun when the Imperial Chantry split from the Orlesian Chantry, etc.)  People in Ferelden, and especially in Orlais, who have had no cause to experience Tevinter on its own terms, would naturally be biased toward their prevailing cultural opinion. 

So I don't think they've been typecast.  I think players have a responsibility to differentiate between the opinions of characters, and what authorial intent means for players to determine for themselves.  Personally I have said several times in other threads that I'd like to know more about Tevinter because its obvious that they have more advanced methods for controlling magic, and by all appearances are more advanced in general because they do not apparently restrict magical research in the same or for the same reasons as the White Chantry.  I would also consider that it CANNOT be as one-dimensional as characters have believed, because, a society which was 100% about blood magic and magical domination, would not have spawned a mage like Adralla, who was actually so convinced of the teaching that blood magic was evil that she created the blood magic-negating Litany. 

I think we've already seen plenty of criticism, not necessarily of Catholicism, but of organized, politicized religion; the Chantry as we've seen it is similar enough that the parallels to Catholicism cannot be denied (we don't need the Imperial Chantry for this--the White Chantry is similar in many concrete details).  But I'm not sure that the Bioware team would ever consciously write criticisms of an existing religion.  It's only fair to point out that they've provided plenty of content that players consider to be sympathetic to the concept of the Chantry--and to the Qun philosophy, for that matte.  If the writers were aiming to make a social critique against either, we wouldn't see ANY other side in the narrative.

[The Elder King]

@esper, Tootles FTW and Renmiri. If you read the enire post, and not stop at the first part and the unpleaseant thought of Fenris having sex with Danarius, you would've read:

Actually, Fenris had a sexual relationship with his master (hinted in DA2, confirmed later by Bioware devs). The fact that he doesn't remember, and that the relationship was probably forced mean that this doesn't conclude which are his preferences, but regardless, he was intimate (in a sexual way) with someone in the past.[/quote]

I explicitely said that the relationship was probably forced (I believe so, though we don't know what was Fenris's personality before the lyrium experiment). With my post I argued the thought that Fenris never was intimate with someone.

Modifié par hhh89, 21 mars 2013 - 09:10 .

[Silfren]

[quote]DarkSpiral wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...

[quote]Pasquale1234 wrote...

There could be a lot of reasons for that. I would imagine that the nobility's need to create heirs and maintain bloodlines may be chief among them.
[/quote]

Which would be unfounded and unnecessary.  History proves that non-heterosexual relationships have never been an obstacle for creating heirs or maintaining bloodlines, especially for nobles accustomed to doing what they want with and to whomever they want.

Being sexually oriented in some way other than hetero- does not make a person infertile.  Nor does it prevent them from having "proper," official marriages while keeping as many concubines/mistresses/catamites/etc as they wish.

[/quote]

Unfounded, how?  Just because one can point to history doesn't really mean anything, Silfren.  People, including game NPCs, exist in the now, not in the last century.  If one lives in a society that values tracking bloodlines and being able to recite those bloodlines, it stands to reason maintaining those bloodlines would be something the society values.  In which case the attitude isn't unfounded.[/quote]

...And, again, I point out that tracking bloodlines is not impeded in any way, shape, or form by having same-sex lovers.  I doubt that Tevinter magisters are unaware of the fact that they can have proper marriages between opposite-gendered persons and create all the heirs they need while tending to the proper bloodlines, and still carry on as much as they like with same-gendered lovers.  Yes, unfounded, because having a lover with whom you cannot breed does not impede you from breeding with someone you can, and I doubt very much that Tevinter is the sort of place that frowns on the notion of having extra-marital sexual partners.  If it were the sort of place that highly valued monogamy within marriage and frowned on people having multiple partners, I'd agree that it makes sense for a society to view homosexuality as deviant and selfish, because the implication would be that a person in a relationship with another person would be socially and morally obligated to be monogamous with that person regardless of orientations, and thus, no children, no continued bloodlines.  Admittedly we don't know much about Tevinter's culture, but I seriously doubt that it has any such social mores about requiring people to be monogamous. 
[/quote]

[The Elder King]

Renmiri1 wrote...



No, rape does not say anything about Fenris sexual preferences or identities. It says a lot about Danarius character though.

Please never equate rape with a valid sexual experience / contact. Is not valid for the victim and should never be valid for the rapist.

I never did. I merely followed what Gaider himself said

http://aicosu.tumblr...rs-you-got-from

From the link:
Did you get the sense that Danarius had a really sketchy (*cough*
intimate *cough*) relationship with Fenris? Yeah, you weren’t exactly
wrong…



I don't think rape is equal to a consensual relationship, and I wasn't imply that (if someone had that vibe from my post, I apologize).

[bEVEsthda]

This mega-irrelevant thread about nothing still going?

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

@esper, Tootles FTW and Renmiri. If you read the enire post, and not stop at the first part and the unpleaseant thought of Fenris having sex with Danarius, you would've read:

Actually, Fenris had a sexual relationship with his master (hinted in DA2, confirmed later by Bioware devs). The fact that he doesn't remember, and that the relationship was probably forced mean that this doesn't conclude which are his preferences, but regardless, he was intimate (in a sexual way) with someone in the past.

I explicitely said that the relationship was probably forced (I believe so, though we don't know what was Fenris's personality before the lyrium experiment). With my post I argued the thought that Fenris never was intimate with someone.

I knew what you meant, but many of us (myself included) dislike such phrasings as "forced sex ," because it reads as the writer preferring euphemisms over the honesty of just calling it what it is, which is rape.  It looks like you don't want to call it by the r word for some reason, and that makes people wonder why, because rape is precisely what it is.  Also, calling it by any other name is extremely problematic, because refusing to label rape as rape leads to all sorts of confusion.  I've known plenty of people in my lifetime that actually believe that "forced sex" is a fundamentally different thing from rape. 

In the case of Fenris, of course he was forced.  Legally he had no choice but to do according to his master's commands.  He might not even have been unwilling--many a slave has willingly done as ordered, because they don't have any legally protected agency with which to refuse.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mars 2013 - 09:24 .

[The Elder King]

Silfren, I wasn't avoiding using rape. Since forced sex=rape, I use them indifferently. Since in seems to cause some trouble here, the next time I'll use rape.

Modifié par hhh89, 21 mars 2013 - 09:27 .

[nightscrawl]

So for those asking about the Danarius/Fenris "confirmation," I think David has since mentioned it on the forums, but I'm not 100% sure on that, and I doubt I'd be able to find it... perhaps I will make the effort later.

The only reference to this that I can cite comes from this Tumblr. I assume the "interview" was the result of some sort of fan meet and greet or something along those lines. I don't follow that person, so I'm not exactly sure. DG has met up with other fans and talked about Dragon Age, like this one, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

For reference, these are usually done as summaries of the conversation the fan had with David, rather than straight up quoting. I personally dislike using such a source and treating it as gospel, but it's the only reference we have on this subject.

For convenience, here is the relevant bit from the Tumblr:

Did you get the sense that Danarius had a really sketchy (*cough* intimate *cough*) relationship with Fenris? Yeah, you weren’t exactly wrong…. :/

I know that seems like very little to on go. Again though, I'm pretty sure DG has confirmed it elsewhere, but it will take some time to find.


[edit]
OK after using Google search I wasn't able to find anything, and I'm usually pretty decent at that when it comes to these forums. I searched through several pages of posts. This means either that I was incorrect about him mentioning it on the forums at some point, or that I was using search terms that weren't doing the job.

I'll go back to my previous statement that that Tumblr is the only source for an indirect confirmation.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 21 mars 2013 - 10:15 .

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren, I wasn't avo

I didn't think you were actually avoiding anything, I was just trying to politely point out that it's easy to interpret your words that way, and there's a justifiable reason why people might take issue with your phrasing; it isn't just that they only read part of what you wrote and disregarded the rest.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mars 2013 - 09:27 .

[The Elder King]

Silfren wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren, I wasn't avo

I didn't think you were actually avoiding anything, I was just trying to politely point out that it's easy to interpret your words that way, and there's a justifiable reason why people might take issue with your phrasing; it isn't just that they only read part of what you wrote and disregarded the rest.

I edited my post, next time I'll use rape instead of forced.

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren, I wasn't avo

I didn't think you were actually  avoiding anything, I was just trying to politely point out that it's easy to interpret your words that way, and there's a justifiable reason why people might take issue with your phrasing; it isn't just that they only read part of what you wrote and disregarded the rest.

I edited my post, next time I'll use rape instead of forced.

Thank you.  I appreciate your willingness to re-state your position.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mars 2013 - 09:36 .