19658 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

I think you misunderstood, because you took the exact opposite of what I was trying to describe. The LI in this scenario is not unwilling, uncertain, or secretly enjoying it.

 

They (either male or female) are willing, are certain, but are most certainly not enjoying it. To the player, it's a rescue romance, but to the LI their perspective is that if they don't go along with it, bad things will happen to them.

 

I personally dislike the notion of tricking the player into an abuser, so i 100% hope such a scenario does not happen.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Well, it seems like Iron Bull is pansexual, so that's new for guys (although I guess Anders might also be pansexual).  I agree that I'd prefer a guy who has a preference for males for once, but I'd also really like Varric (for who he is, which happens to be a guy who prefers females).  I think this one comes down to who you happen to want for the remaining spots.

It's not just about who I'd rather have for the last slot. It's also about feeling alienated that almost all of my choices so far have preferred women, some of them even coming out and saying it. I don't doubt that some guys like Varric enough not to care, or are even into the idea of "turning" a straight guy, but to me it's one of the biggest problems with how Bioware writes bisexual male options.   

[Dean_the_Young]

If an adult of sound mind consents to sex with me and they're not under duress, that's not rape.

A person does not have to want to have sex to consent to sex. A sexual relationship can be horribly exploitative and even abusive without rape being involved.

 

Thank you for clarifying what I was trying to get at. To be clear- the player is not explicitly or even implicitly coercing the other person into sex by threatening consequenes if the person does not consent. In fact, sex does not even need to be done at all- the player could aggressively flirt and bed, or just flirt. The point is that the LI will accept them regardless.

 

The twist or complication is that the partner perceives an issue, even if/when it is not there. If you were to ask them (him or her) if they are willing, they would explicitly say 'yes' (because they fear what would happen if they said no,). It would be the point at which they would be comfortable in saying no, and realize that they aren't being coerced, that the emotional relationship would actually begin.

 

If they believe there will be negative consequences to turning down sex with someone, it's difficult to say they've given their consent either though. It's possible that the solicitor is not even aware of the implications of their actions (though one could argue they should've taken their relative statuses into account before soliciting the person in question) and has no intention of coercing/forcing them, but the solicitee won't necessarily know that. It's a complex situation.

 

The complexity is the point here.

 

It's not like the dynamic couldn't be perceived to exist in other Bioware games. In Mass Effect, Commander Shepard is a superior officer, authority figure, crack special forces, one of the most deadly people in the planet with a body count that measures in the battalions, and is explicitly above the law for any retributive actions he or she might feel inclined to for any grievance what so ever.

 

Whether your Shepard would or not, any of the LI's would have grounds to feel coerced if they were inclined to. They don't, but not because the subject of non-explicit coercion could never be raised when an unaccountable military commander starts flirting with someone already in a subordinate relationship.

 

In canon, Liara was perfectly willing and actively interested in Shepard, even if Shepard wasn't. But consider how different it would actually have to be had Liara been afraid that, if she wasn't useful and pleasant to be around, that she might be kicked off the Normandy and back in the sights of Saren's assassins?

[Xilizhra]

I think you misunderstood, because you took the exact opposite of what I was trying to describe. The LI in this scenario is not unwilling, uncertain, or secretly enjoying it.

 

They (either male or female) are willing, are certain, but are most certainly not enjoying it. To the player, it's a rescue romance, but to the LI their perspective is that if they don't go along with it, bad things will happen to them.

Aside from "not enjoying it" being the major dealbreaker here, would you then allow the PC to cut it off early by saying something about how they don't have to unless they're certain? Because even Shepard knows enough to ask that.

[Xilizhra]

Thank you for clarifying what I was trying to get at. To be clear- the player is not explicitly or even implicitly coercing the other person into sex by threatening consequenes if the person does not consent. In fact, sex does not even need to be done at all- the player could aggressively flirt and bed, or just flirt. The point is that the LI will accept them regardless.

 

The twist or complication is that the partner perceives an issue, even if/when it is not there. If you were to ask them (him or her) if they are willing, they would explicitly say 'yes' (because they fear what would happen if they said no,). It would be the point at which they would be comfortable in saying no, and realize that they aren't being coerced, that the emotional relationship would actually begin.

I'm sorry, but this seems somewhat brutally contrived. Why would they continue to not admit it after being told that they're not being coerced? And if that isn't an option, why not?

[Dean_the_Young]

I personally dislike the notion of tricking the player into an abuser, so i 100% hope such a scenario does not happen.

 

The player is already an abuser in many respects and holds unsightly influence in many scenarios and contexts, including numerous romantic ones.

 

I would argue that every relationship between the PC as the authority/leader figure of the group and a relationship with a subordinate can count as having undue pressure, but that's because I'm one of those weird people who sees a relationship between a leader and a subordinate as bad in the first place.

[Samahl]

The twist or complication is that the partner perceives an issue, even if/when it is not there. If you were to ask them (him or her) if they are willing, they would explicitly say 'yes' (because they fear what would happen if they said no,). It would be the point at which they would be comfortable in saying no, and realize that they aren't being coerced, that the emotional relationship would actually begin.

 

If this were to happen, I would prefer the character simply breaking things off with the player instead. Even if it's not the intent, it seems unrealistic and somewhat insensitive to real abuse survivors for the character to just shrug off the abuse (which was unknowingly inflicted, but still occurred all the same), no big deal.

[daveliam]

It's not just about who I'd rather have for the last slot. It's also about feeling alienated that almost all of my choices so far have preferred women, some of them even coming out and saying it. I don't doubt that some guys like Varric enough not to care, or are even into the idea of "turning" a straight guy, but to me it's one of the biggest problems with how Bioware writes bisexual male options.   

 

So if, hypothetically, it came down to either Solas (with a female preference) or Blackwall (with a male preference), who would you prefer?

[Dean_the_Young]

Aside from "not enjoying it" being the major dealbreaker here, would you then allow the PC to cut it off early by saying something about how they don't have to unless they're certain? Because even Shepard knows enough to ask that.

 

The player would never have to ask for a relationship in the first place, or even to sleep with the LI before trust was gained. The PC could always restrict themselves to courtly flirting and being a gentle(wo)man who never does anything improper.

 

The issue at play is that the lack of trust and security. If the PC asks for consent, the LI will give it because he or she is afraid of what would happen if they did not. If the PC says the LI doesn't have to unless they're certain, the LI would still say they are because they are afraid of what would happen if they did not.

 

The LI is a person in a position of extreme power disparity with the PC, and reacts accordingly. People who do not feel safe saying no, generally won't. That doesn't mean you can't gradually build trust to the point at which they would, which would be a large part of the arc.

[Wulfram]

Wouldn't that suggest Kaiden's even less romanced than that? I mean, I typically take my LI with me wherever I go, so if only 1.5% of people even bring him along...

 

EDIT: Of course, I don't actually know how the ME party system works since I haven't played it.

 

I think the number is done by mission, and Kaidan is only available for a limited number of missions.  As well as potentially not appearing in peoples games.

[wright1978]

The player is already an abuser in many respects and holds unsightly influence in many scenarios and contexts, including numerous romantic ones.

 

I would argue that every relationship between the PC as the authority/leader figure of the group and a relationship with a subordinate can count as having undue pressure, but that's because I'm one of those weird people who sees a relationship between a leader and a subordinate as bad in the first place.

 

I don't see relationship between leader and subordinate as necessarily bad or abusive.

If they do want to introduce abuse then it should be overt, not covertly misleading.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm sorry, but this seems somewhat brutally contrived. Why would they continue to not admit it after being told that they're not being coerced?

If a stranger you're afraid of told you not to be afraid of them, would you stop being afraid of them? And if your survival depended on the good graces of someone whose disapproval could see you and those you care about dead, would you challenge them?
 

 

 

And if that isn't an option, why not?

 

Could you clarify?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

So if, hypothetically, it came down to either Solas (with a female preference) or Blackwall (with a male preference), who would you prefer?

I would rather they chose Blackwall, but there was really no cause for them to write either with a female preference, since they had a blank slate to work with. 

[Samahl]

If they do want to introduce abuse then it should be overt, not covertly misleading.

 

Some abuse is covertly misleading. I think that is absolutely an issue that should be addressed more often, but I'm not sure actually abusing someone, then having them turn around and forgive you because you didn't mean it is the best way to do so.

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't see relationship between leader and subordinate as necessarily bad or abusive.

 

 

 

This might date me, but here goes.

 

If the President of the United States tells an intern he wants a sexual relationship, is there any aspect of coercion involved?

 

Some people, quite reasonably, would argue no. No threats are made, retaliations are not suggested, or persons threatened.

 

Others people, also quite reasonably, would argue yes. The President has immense power to damage and destroy an individual, and the credibility to do it. No explicit threat has to be made to have the potential threat factor into consent.

[Dean_the_Young]

Some abuse is covertly misleading. I think that is absolutely an issue that should be addressed more often, but I'm not sure actually abusing someone, then having them turn around and forgive you because you didn't mean it is the best way to do so.

 

If forgiveness is even called for, which would be part of the intended audience debate. It wasn't a sexual relationship, but when I realized that I was perceiving threats from someone I realized had never actually threatened me, I apologized to them.

 

The prospect of abuse would only be if you actually slept with them before winning their trust. If you only flirted with them (which is to say, didn't click the buttons to sleep with them at the earliest possible opportunities), there wouldn't even be the aspect of that- there would be unsought flirting, but unsought flirting is not abuse. It's hard to classify it as harassment either if (for private reasons) you never indicated it was unsought and instead responded in a receptive manner.

[Xilizhra]

If a stranger you're afraid of told you not to be afraid of them, would you stop being afraid of them? And if your survival depended on the good graces of someone whose disapproval could see you and those you care about dead, would you challenge them?

For the former, yes, depending on how they explained themselves. For the latter, yes, if they never showed any signs of being a potential rapist with a hair-trigger temper.

 

 

Could you clarify?

Why would there be no option to make it clear that there's no coercion?

[Dean_the_Young]

For the former, yes, depending on how they explained themselves.

Which is the kicker. People who are afraid, deeply afraid, don't drop fear just because the object of fear tells them to. Real assurances are indestinguishable from false assurance until after you take the risk of testing them.

 

For anyone who won't take that risk, who doesn't trust the source, or both, a reassurance that there will be no consequences is meaningless.

 

For the latter, yes, if they never showed any signs of being a potential rapist with a hair-trigger temper.

 

Have you ever been desperate enough to stand in such a position? Of feeling desperate and dependent on the graces someone in a position of power over you?

 

I'm not accusing you, I'm genuinely curious because this sounds like someone who speaking from a perspective of security, not insecurity. Which is what the person in question is from. I've been desperate enough that I was not prepared or willing to defy someone who literally could have changed my entire future beyond my control, and I didn't even have survival or rape  hanging over my head.

 

 

Why would there be no option to make it clear that there's no coercion?

 

There would be. The LI would not believe it at the start of the romance.

 

The LI would not believe or accept your assurance of coercion because the LI does not trust you. The LI fears that if they refuse your advances, even if you say they can, that they (or, more importantly, their remaining family) will be thrown out to certain death or whatever the context is.

[Samahl]

If forgiveness is even called for, which would be part of the intended audience debate. It wasn't a sexual relationship, but when I realized that I was perceiving threats from someone I realized had never actually threatened me, I apologized to them.

 

The prospect of abuse would only be if you actually slept with them before winning their trust. If you only flirted with them (which is to say, didn't click the buttons to sleep with them at the earliest possible opportunities), there wouldn't even be the aspect of that- there would be unsought flirting, but unsought flirting is not abuse. It's hard to classify it as harassment either if (for private reasons) you never indicated it was unsought and instead responded in a receptive manner.

 

I assumed we were talking about a fully sexual relationship. Flirting is, of course, another thing.

[javeart]

I value romances a lot in Bioware games, and in all honesty, I'd rather not "waste" one option for educational purposes   I could understand it if the request was for more LIs that were not directly under our authority, because some people doesn't feel comfortable with that, but this, not so much.

[Former_Fiend]

This might date me, but here goes.

 

If the President of the United States tells an intern he wants a sexual relationship, is there any aspect of coercion involved?

 

Some people, quite reasonably, would argue no. No threats are made, retaliations are not suggested, or persons threatened.

 

Others people, also quite reasonably, would argue yes. The President has immense power to damage and destroy an individual, and the credibility to do it. No explicit threat has to be made to have the potential threat factor into consent.

 

How would you feel about a situation where the subordinate is the one to make advances on the superior? While arguments can be made about professionalism in that situation, certainly no one can say there's any form of coercion.

[Dean_the_Young]

I assumed we were talking about a fully sexual relationship. Flirting is, of course, another thing.

 

Sexuality before the trust point would be an option the player could pursue if they wanted, but would not be required. It would be at the player's instigation, and would not require any narrative emphasis or explicit threat of coercion. The realization that coercion was perceived would only be obvious in retrospect, during the character arc.

 

 

After the trust point has been reached (at which point he or she realizes they are not being coerced, and could say no if they wanted), part of the symbolic change of position would be the person initiating intimacy and asking for concent from you the player, rather than the other way around.

[Xilizhra]

Have you ever been desperate enough to stand in such a position? Of feeling desperate and dependent on the graces someone in a position of power over you?

 

I'm not accusing you, I'm genuinely curious because this sounds like someone who speaking from a perspective of security, not insecurity. Which is what the person in question is from. I've been desperate enough that I was not prepared or willing to defy someone who literally could have changed my entire future beyond my control, and I didn't even have survival or rape  hanging over my head.

I've been desperate and dependent before, but never on anyone who seemed threatening. And I don't see why the Inquisitor would necessarily seem threatening unless they behaved that way before.

 

 

There would be. The LI would not believe it at the start of the romance.

 

The LI would not believe or accept your assurance of coercion because the LI does not trust you. The LI fears that if they refuse your advances, even if you say they can, that they (or, more importantly, their remaining family) will be thrown out to certain death or whatever the context is.

This just feels... still contrived. The only way this would make sense to be is if their backstory included an instance of them being burned by exactly this situation before. I also would prefer it if there were no dialogue options to actually sleep with them until this issue was resolved, because I don't see the need for coercive sex, even unintentionally.

[Dean_the_Young]

How would you feel about a situation where the subordinate is the one to make advances on the superior? While arguments can be made about professionalism in that situation, certainly no one can say there's any form of coercion.

 

That depends on why the subordinate is making advances. If they think it's necessary to get something they need, then there is a coercive factor in play even if the superior is not the one instigating it.

 

An example would be if someone needed to keep their job or else face disaster, and was willing to sleep with a superior to boost their chances of keeping it.

 

 

Then, of course, the context and circumstances change. Say we agree that they entered a relationship without coercion- can the status of the relationship be maintained without coercion as circumstances and contexts change? Is Subordinate really free to break off a relationship at any time and without any consequences right before Superior is writing the annual performance review that determines wage and opportunity advancement going forward?

[Battlebloodmage]

For some reasons, I feel lucky just to make a post here. lol

 

I agree that I don't want a power dynamic relationship. We have already seen how creepy it is with Femshep/Iron Bull in ME3. It seem like a very non-consensual relationship. They are likely be with you because of your power or because they are afraid of your power.