Cynthia (I remembered the name of Philippa's apprentice) is at no point tied down, and she is not moaning when Geralt is in the room. She and Philippa were busy when Geralt walked in. Then Geralt had a conversation with Philippa while Cynthia was still lying on the bed. At first glance this scene might illicit an eyeroll, but when you consider what happens later, it is actually pretty clever. Philippa is used to being in control. She is dominant and likes it that way. At the moment Geralt walks in on her, she thinks she is the one completely in control. However, later we discover that her "submissive" apprentice is actually a Nilfgaardian spy and had her duped. Cynthia perfectly played Philippa, had her believe that she was her superior and that she was in charge. The roles of dominatrix and the submissive one are suddenly reversed. So I disagree that this scene was aimed at arousing the straight male gamer. It tells us something about Philippa's personality and in hindsight shows us how she let her desire to dominate had allowed her to be fooled. Compared to the "the feather! Use the feather!" scene we walk in on in DA2 this is a case of very clever writing and actually does serve another purpose than "oohh, sex! Look, naughty! Huehuehu".
As for Philippa being gay... how is that bad? I was under the impression that the whole issue of inclusion was based on that aspects like sexuality or gender do not define a character and are simply a part of them. Philippa likes women. So what? Should she have been portrayed as straight because she is a ruthless woman? Should she have been a man? Inclusion to me does not mean characters of certain ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation can only be portrayed as nice, heroic, intelligent, etc. Loredo was an absolute pig and he was straight. So was king Henselt. Foltest was hothead and had sex with his sister. All the people who matter (as in, play a political role and work to change things to their advantage) in the TW universe are portrayed as cunning and no innocent, nice people. They wouldn't be where they are if they were just nice.
Though I'll concede that having Dethmold be shown as gay does make it a more unfortunate combination. Still, should the guy on his bed have been a woman instead? Would that have made it better, another woman to be used against her will? I don't know. Marjoleine was the only NPC in DAO explicitly shown as being gay, and she was no gentle, innocent flower either.
I did not feel that Ves' assault was treated casually either. She was shown to be upset by what had happened. Roche is pissed. Roche and Geralt going after Henselt is not only because he raped Ves, but he had all the other members of the Blue Stripes executed. It's up to the player how Geralt is affected by what happened to Ves in this. So, like I mentioned in an earlier post, sexual assault is being used as a (perhaps convenient) tool to make a character a complete pig and make it difficult to spare him. It's fair to be opposed to that, as it can be argued it was not necessary. But again, I disagree that it was handled casually.
I'm not sure it is fair to say CDPR did not know what to do with Saskia or Triss and therefore had them unconscious or kidnapped. Triss' disappearance is necessary to give Geralt a personal reason to chase Letho, as otherwise he might decide he does not really owe Foltest or Roche anything (which he doesn't. He was never a bodyguard, and Roche basically blackmailed him into doing his job for him). As a sorceress Triss is a powerful woman, but she lost most of that political power when the king she served died.
Saskia's poisoning was needed to get Philippa to send you on a quest to collect ingredients for a cure that would also allow her to place Saskia under her spell. Saskia's condition also fueled the unrest in the town and led to the commoners rebelling and demanding Stennis' head because they believed he was guilty of her attempted murder. With her present everything would have gone much more smoothly, but... well, what kind of game would that be? When she is on her feet again she is shown to be a good person and an inspiring leader. Her speech on the walls before Henselt's army arrived was pretty awesome.
Retour en haut
I have no problem with a manipulative character being gay, but when you put both of them (her/dethmold) there, as 'gay' characters you aren't supposed to like really, it feels a bit like a trend. Yes, there are other bad guys who happen to be straight, but there are also straight heroes. If any hero characters in the series are gay, it is certainly not anywhere near as overt as their villainous counterparts. Dethmold using anyone in that way is disgusting, obviously. I don't want to see anyone put in that position, so I don't really want to debate what would be better. Women being the victims of abuse is an easy crutch in media, and so is the gross gay man sexual predator stereotype. I'm not fond of either. Also at the end, I'm pretty sure you can like, mess up his genitals/castrate him or something...which really hits on how much his sexual behavior mattered to the devs.
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
), but as someone with amnesia Geralt is spends a large part of the game searching for his identity, a meaning to his life and purpose for his actions. It is not so strange to think he would get intimate with a lot of women while he searches for that connection. 
