334 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

So what's the point of blaming the people posting about it when it's a part of the game?

 

Are we supposed to blush, giggle nervously and then skip the cutscenes?

 

Seriously, we're all adults, we are all mature and sex is very common and natural. Trying to ignore it is going to fail.

 

So let's talk about it, that way we can assure we get better sex.

I never blamed anyone. I was just giving my opinion that personal life stuff should remain personal. That's all.

 

 

Ehh sorry I did mean something else. I should have expanded more. I meant hanako made a thread about having a more depressed or isolated LI. At least that's what I got from it. Someone who may have already had loved and lost and may be either cynical or discouraged.

What? I never made a thread about this. 

[TheOgre]

What? I never made a thread about this.

Will look it up but I might have gotten mixed up my apologies

http://forum.bioware...s/?fromsearch=1

I suppose I failed to comprehend the content of the original post.. Will re examine.

"A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone."

I see where I went wrong. I think I gave an example of this and remembered your post in a different context. I still think your post is good.

[Gwydden]

I'll never understand people who think sex is indecent/should be kept private/whatever. Well, actually, I do understand. Nice job breaking it, Constantine. But, and I mean no offense, it seems so ridiculously... unnatural. And it's not like I'm the type to hang posters. In fact, the biggest irony is I'd be willing to bet I'm 'purer' than many purity advocates

[Octarin]

I'll never understand people who think sex is indecent/should be kept private/whatever. Well, actually, I do understand. Nice job breaking it, Constantine. But, and I mean no offense, it seems so ridiculously... unnatural. And it's not like I'm the type to hang posters. In fact, the biggest irony is I'd be willing to bet I'm 'purer' than many purity advocates

 

I hear that. Seriously, loud and clear. 

[Maiden Ty One]

I didn't play through Bull's romance myself, instead I looked up the youtube videos of it. 

 

BioWare got it pretty much wrong. There was lack of communication, it didn't adhere to SSC and Bull only explained how things are supposed to work after the fact. Which is generally bad. It didn't get any better when Bull breaks off the relationship if you don't fully agree with his way. 

 

Honestly, this is almost as bad as 50 Shades of Grey. 

 

Btw... I wouldn't call it a S&M relationship, that's not what it was about. BDSM or kinky would be a better fit. 

 

Soooo... they tried but still managed to misrepresent it. 

 

You wouldn't call it S&M, but you'd call it BDSM......You know what the 'SM' in 'BDSM' stands for, right?

 

As for everything else, I think you're being way too strict with the whole thing - no one expects Bioware to make their side-story romance a documentary on that particular romance's sexuality, if you transpose BDSM with 'Vanilla sex' you could say that all Bioware's 'vanilla' romances so far have been inaccurate or misrepresentations of real sexual relationships - that's because it's a videogame, a narrative, to create a fully realistic romance for you to play through in a game, regardless of its sexuality, would take up half the game, and be horrendously boring....Just as a movie depicting a fully realistic romance and every single aspect of it would be horrendously boring, also.

 

And actually, it DID adhere to SSC, what Bull describes is pretty much that. And we are to assume that he didn't do anything 'extreme' in their first encounter before laying out the ground rules (also, btw, SSC is not the only philosophy to live by, and some of us prefer others like RACK, so it's not the be all and end all).

 

 

Don't get me started in 50 Shades of Fricking Grey....I despise that book/film with a passion.

 

But you're reading way too much into the Bull portrayal of BDSM. It wasn't meant to be an ultra literal example of BDSM relationships - I want BDSM in a RPG games, but not to the point that it has to become a documentary on the absolute only safe ways to carry out BDSM in the real world....

[Maiden Ty One]

Enforcing something isn't BDSM. At the very base of it, BDSM is ALWAYS consensual. Therefore, telling your mate "you'll do this whether you like it or not and whether you've agreed that I will be telling you what to do" is a long ways away from BDSM. I let it slip before, cause nobody made much point of it, but you did, and it kinda sticks out now. IB's behaviour, if that's how it is, is not BDSM, he's just being a f@cking @sshole. And having people think that this attitude is what a Dominant is like is seriously counter-productive to both BDSM and vanilla relationships. Boundaries always need to be set, regardless the "scene". Boundaries means mutual respect. 

 

What in god's name are you talking about? Did I miss the part where Bull tries to force the Inquisitor to do anything? Because as I remember, he gives her a safeword, tells her outside the bedroom nothing changes, tells her he will never do anything to her without her permission, and allows her to end the relationship with him whenever she wants if she decides she doesn't like it. WHERE is the 'force' in that? 0o

 

Honestly, I think some of you lot were clicking 'SKIP' through half of this dialogue....either that or you just took Bull ridiculously literally with some of the things he said.

 

You're acting like Bull is one of those a** holes in the BDSM scene who think being 'Dominant' is just an excuse to treat people badly - those people exist, god knows I've met enough of them, and they are an afront to what BDSM is supposed to be about - but honestly, Bull just is not one of them, and I don't know why some of you people seem intent on painting him that way. It's weird. 0o

 

I swear, some people just like being annoyed about things, to the point that they're willing to ignore things that render their concerns moot..."A game developer depicted BDSM in one of their games??? Well they must have got it wrong! So I'm going to act like they got it wrong, even though all the evidence in the actual game would demonstrate otherwise - because it's much more fun to be annoyed and offended about something than to be ok with it!" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

TIP: Criticising the portrayal of something does not automatically make you an expert in it. You don't get to redefine BDSM to mean what it personally means to you, projecting your own personal boundaries and rules onto everyone else. You sound like the kind of person who considers even 'fake non-consent' play to be unacceptable, because honestly that's all anything Bull and the Inquisitor does amounts to. :/

[Maiden Ty One]

I could live with "not perfect" ... because that's realistic. I'd be happy with "not perfect".

 

What I don't like much is it being wrong and that's a word I use rarely in that context. What two adults do with each other is their business and as long as it works for them, no one gets to say anything about it.

 

The problem in DA:I is that it isn't something that only affects two people and even then IB kind of dropped the ball. Here the relationship represents a non-standard relationship dynamic and for most players it will be one of their first experiences of that kind... so maybe we should get a consensual one? Something not ripe for abuse?

 

I'd love to tell that stuff like that doesn't happen in RL, but sadly it does and it almost always ends in tears. Or worse. Often worse, actually.

 

I'm sorry, but WHAT are you people talking about?

 

How is the Bull/Inquisitor relationship not consensual? He tells her she can stop at any time, will never do anything without her permission, gives her a safeword for all their play, and allows her to end the relationship whenever she wants.

 

I really don't get what you lot are all smoking, it's like you've played a totally different game to the one I played. It's like you've taken their dominance/submission ULTRA literally, as though when Bull takes charge of the Inquisitor, that it is literally taking unwanted control of her, as though when she gasps that she's literally frightened, and not happy about it - which is an utterly bizarre attitude to take for people who claim to be well versed in BDSM culture....0o

 

If people considered any BDSM relationship, activity or instance where the submissive acted like they weren't enjoying it, 'non-consensual' then 90% of BDSM would be abolished in one fell swoop. It's like for some reason you all feel that, in a videogame, BDSM should only ever be depicted with no layers whatsoever, and where the consent is displayed on a billboard.....which from I was sitting, it was anyway. 0o

 

I must have missed the part of the game where the Inquisitor is wallowing in misery at the unwanted abuse she's receiving, or where she's shouting the safeword to which Bull is ignoring....Bull and Inquisitor are clearly on the same page, and only someone who wants to be offended would see it otherwise.

[DaemionMoadrin]

You wouldn't call it S&M, but you'd call it BDSM......You know what the 'SM' in 'BDSM' stands for, right?

 

As for everything else, I think you're being way too strict with the whole thing - no one expects Bioware to make their side-story romance a documentary on that particular romance's sexuality, if you transpose BDSM with 'Vanilla sex' you could say that all Bioware's 'vanilla' romances so far have been inaccurate or misrepresentations of real sexual relationships - that's because it's a videogame, a narrative, to create a fully realistic romance for you to play through in a game, regardless of its sexuality, would take up half the game, and be horrendously boring....Just as a movie depicting a fully realistic romance and every single aspect of it would be horrendously boring, also.

 

And actually, it DID adhere to SSC, what Bull describes is pretty much that. And we are to assume that he didn't do anything 'extreme' in their first encounter before laying out the ground rules (also, btw, SSC is not the only philosophy to live by, and some of us prefer others like RACK, so it's not the be all and end all).

 

 

Don't get me started in 50 Shades of Fricking Grey....I despise that book/film with a passion.

 

But you're reading way too much into the Bull portrayal of BDSM. It wasn't meant to be an ultra literal example of BDSM relationships - I want BDSM in a RPG games, but not to the point that it has to become a documentary on the absolute only safe ways to carry out BDSM in the real world....

 

Yes, I do know what it stands for. Do you believe they engaged in pain play? Because otherwise D/s would be a better fit... not that the categories matter in the end.

 

Ok, fair point. If you read me other posts you might have seen that I admit to being overly critical of the issue and some of the points you mention were cleared up already.

 

I'll just wait until you worked your way through the thread before commenting on the rest.

[Koneko Koji]

What in god's name are you talking about? Did I miss the part where Bull tries to force the Inquisitor to do anything? Because as I remember, he gives her a safeword, tells her outside the bedroom nothing changes, tells her he will never do anything to her without her permission, and allows her to end the relationship with him whenever she wants if she decides she doesn't like it. WHERE is the 'force' in that? 0o

 

Honestly, I think some of you lot were clicking 'SKIP' through half of this dialogue....either that or you just took Bull ridiculously literally with some of the things he said.

 

He GIVES the Inquisitor a safe word, he lays down the terms, he utterly dictates what will or won't happen by giving them two extreme choices - my way or no way. That's not exactly what I'd call a relationship - he's dictating the terms. That personally is what bothers me about the whole "romance".

[Maiden Ty One]

Yes, I do know what it stands for. Do you believe they engaged in pain play? Because otherwise D/s would be a better fit... not that the categories matter in the end.

 

Ok, fair point. If you read me other posts you might have seen that I admit to being overly critical of the issue and some of the points you mention were cleared up already.

 

I'll just wait until you worked your way through the thread before commenting on the rest.

 

Ah...to be fair, I only got through the first page - 10 pages, man, wasn't expecting my little post to rack up that many responses. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Actually I did kind of assume they engaged in pain play.....Now I think about it, I guess there isn't anything that implies they did, except for maybe Bull smacking her arse in the courtyard. Guess I just assumed it because that's my preference, heh.

 

Sorry if I came across as overly critical of your overly critical post.

[Maiden Ty One]

He GIVES the Inquisitor a safe word, he lays down the terms, he utterly dictates what will or won't happen by giving them two extreme choices - my way or no way. That's not exactly what I'd call a relationship - he's dictating the terms. That personally is what bothers me about the whole "romance".

 

Er...no, he TELLS the inquisitor how BDSM relationships work (or the Thedas equivalent) and lays down the CONVENTIONS of how these things work.

 

He doesn't say "My way or no way", he says "I'm into this, this is my sexuality, if you're not into the same stuff then we're not right for each other" - how is that any different from what happens in real life, and how is it unreasonable? Why should bull attempt to change or deny his sexuality?

 

He's not saying "If you don't like something I'm doing, the relationships over", he's saying "If you don't like something I'm doing, use the safeword and I'll stop doing it" - they're still a couple, he's not suggesting that if she uses the safeword that that's the end of their relationship, he's saying that's an end to whatever he was doing that she doesn't like....

 

I really am baffled as to why you people have chosen to interpret it in this way - Bull goes well, well out of his way to assure the Inquisitor that when all is said and done, SHE is the one truly in control. I don't know how you could have sat through the same cutscenes as I did and come away with this bizarre, warped version of it.

 

 

Without going into too much detail, when I entered a BDSM relationship with someone who was far more experienced then I, we pretty much had the same talk; she told me how it works, explained to me the conventions, told me that no matter what happens I can stop anything at any time, agreed on a safeword, and at no point did I feel she was taking advantage or using me. She also told me that this was what she was into, and that she wasn't willing to live a lie and force herself to live in a vanilla relationship, as she had tried this before and it wasn't for her, and so if I wasn't interested in this it would probably be best to just end the relationship, as it wouldn't be fair on either of us - this is normal, for god's sake (well, normal for people in the BDSM community), so I don't know why you're all working overtime to portray it as something more sinister than it actually is.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Er...no, he TELLS the inquisitor how BDSM relationships work (or the Thedas equivalent) and lays down the CONVENTIONS of how these things work.

 

He doesn't say "My way or no way", he says "I'm into this, this is my sexuality, if you're not into the same stuff then we're not right for each other" - how is that any different from what happens in real life, and how is it unreasonable? Why should bull attempt to change or deny his sexuality?

 

He's not saying "If you don't like something I'm doing, the relationships over", he's saying "If you don't like something I'm doing, use the safeword and I'll stop doing it" - they're still a couple, he's not suggesting that if she uses the safeword that that's the end of their relationship, he's saying that's an end to whatever he was doing that she doesn't like....

 

I really am baffled as to why you people have chosen to interpret it in this way - Bull goes well, well out of his way to assure the Inquisitor that when all is said and done, SHE is the one truly in control. I don't know how you could have sat through the same cutscenes as I did and come away with this bizarre, warped version of it.

 

 

Without going into too much detail, when I entered a BDSM relationship with someone who was far more experienced then I, we pretty much had the same talk; she told me how it works, explained to me the conventions, told me that no matter what happens I can stop anything at any time, agreed on a safeword, and at no point did I feel she was taking advantage or using me. She also told me that this was what she was into, and that she wasn't willing to live a lie and force herself to live in a vanilla relationship, as she had tried this before and it wasn't for her, and so if I wasn't interested in this it would probably be best to just end the relationship, as it wouldn't be fair on either of us - this is normal, for god's sake (well, normal for people in the BDSM community), so I don't know why you're all working overtime to portray it as something more sinister than it actually is.

Wait, BDSM is a sexuality? I though it was just a kind of sexual behavior.

The Iron Bull is confirmed as pansexual, so I'm confused now.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Ah...to be fair, I only got through the first page - 10 pages, man, wasn't expecting my little post to rack up that many responses. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

The first 3 pages deal with your topic, the next 4 are only partially intact after someone became hostile, political and insulting and the mods removed almost all his posts... and the rest is about who would make a good dominant and why we shouldn't talk about sex in public.

 

 

 

The summary of my arguments would be this: Iron Bull knows exactly what he needs and wants, which means he's not open for compromise. That's not the best start for a relationship but it's understandable and fine.

The thing is... he knew about that the entire time but didn't tell the Inquisitor before they spent the night together. Not a good way to handle things.

 

What bothers me even more is that IB doesn't explain the details of BDSM, what the Inquisitor can expect from him etc until the next day. He openly admits to being manipulative. Yes, IB asks the Inquisitor three times if they really want to "ride the bull" but unless you have meta knowledge you don't know what that entailed. He only makes cryptic remarks and until the scene fades to black there is not a single indication that they were talking about more than rough sex.

 

But clearly something else also happened or they wouldn't talk about it at length the next day. To me that means there was no informed consent going in... and retroactively giving consent doesn't work.

 

Iron Bull also says it's not going to change anything and that he'll keep it to the bedroom... and in the next cutscene he breaks that promise. If that's good or bad is up to the player to decide, cause some probably liked it.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Wait, BDSM is a sexuality? I though it was just a kind of sexual behavior.

The Iron Bull is confirmed as pansexual, so I'm confused now.

 

BDSM is not a sexuality, but being submissive or dominant certaintly is. It is about more than just sexuality though.

 

Imagine that every person's sexuality looks a bit like this:

 

A not into women at all 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 very into women

B not into men at all 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 very into men

C not submissive at all 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 very submissive

D not dominant at all 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 very dominant

...

Z dislikes intimacy 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 loves to cuddle

 

And so on. There are a lot more, but this should give you a rough idea.

A person's sexuality can express itself in many different combinations and some of those are fluid, depending on their partner, their mood and other circumstances.

We have several categories that describe the most common combinations (hetero, bi, gay/lesbian) but those are usually too broad to definitely describe a person.

It can become quite complicated sometimes. One example. A woman is only interested in sex with men and enjoys being submissive to them. At the same time she feels dominant towards other women but doesn't engage in sex with them. The activities she enjoys with one partner would not be something she'd enjoy with another. Commonly you'd say she's a bi switch but that wouldn't be very accurate and lead to misunderstandings.

 

"Confirmed as pansexual" doesn't tell the whole story. It merely means that Iron Bull doesn't care about the sex or gender identity of his partner. But as we can see, he has some quite specific preferences.

[Seraphim24]

BDSM is not a sexuality, but being submissive or dominant certaintly is. It is about more than just sexuality though.

 

Imagine that every person's sexuality looks a bit like this:

 

A not into women at all 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 very into women

B not into men at all 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 very into men

C not submissive at all 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 very submissive

D not dominant at all 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 very dominant

...

Z dislikes intimacy 0- - - - 5 - - - - 10 loves to cuddle

 

And so on. There are a lot more, but this should give you a rough idea.

A person's sexuality can express itself in many different combinations and some of those are fluid, depending on their partner, their mood and other circumstances.

We have several categories that describe the most common combinations (hetero, bi, gay/lesbian) but those are usually too broad to definitely describe a person.

It can become quite complicated sometimes. One example. A woman is only interested in sex with men and enjoys being submissive to them. At the same time she feels dominant towards other women but doesn't engage in sex with them. The activities she enjoys with one partner would not be something she'd enjoy with another. Commonly you'd say she's a bi switch but that wouldn't be very accurate and lead to misunderstandings.

 

"Confirmed as pansexual" doesn't tell the whole story. It merely means that Iron Bull doesn't care about the sex or gender identity of his partner. But as we can see, he has some quite specific preferences.

 

I wonder... I feel like if you ignore the overlap between just regular sexual activity and BDSM you are left with kind of fear generating activity.. but isn't one of the most fearful activities whether you can connect with the "one" and make this kind of eternal commitment, it seems to me regular dating is intense fear-play in many respects. Fear of that kind of rejection is intense and almost limitless.

[TaHol]

He GIVES the Inquisitor a safe word, he lays down the terms, he utterly dictates what will or won't happen by giving them two extreme choices - my way or no way. That's not exactly what I'd call a relationship - he's dictating the terms. That personally is what bothers me about the whole "romance".

I will not say anything about whole BDSM because I don't know anything about it because I don't care about it and I'm not curious about it. But I want to say this: if person has healthy borders he/she will do this with any issue that comes up if said issue is against his/her values. There is a thing as being too flexible in relationships, and women are conditioned to be too adaptive. I have gone through HELL to learn to keep my values and send man out of door if he tests my borders. It is not about dictating, it is about knowing yourself. I know what I can take. For example if man wants to have open relationship where he can have other sexual partners, I will kick him out of door. Propably even if he would back up and say "ok we can be exclusive if it is that important to you", because I just don't want to be with a person like that. It is better he finds someone more...open minded. Even testing my borders can send man flying high from my life.

 

I had this illusion that if I love someone I have to tolerate everything because LOVE omg. Then I called that a relationship, when actually it was a one way giving-ship where I gave and other people took. After getting out of that midset, I have no problems in dictating my values, borders and keeping them. You can have compromises too, but you have them in every day issues, like where you live, do you buy house together, what kind of house, etc. I think sexuality is one of those things you DON'T make comromises with, not in a deep level. You have to be compatible. You have to like same kind of things, it won't work others. You can pretend to be something else in a fear that other person will leave if you don't yield to what you think they want, and call it a relationship, but it is not, it is  a lie.

 

IB is just telling how he is. He is like this, he can't be anything else. LOVE does not change our preferences and you should not lie about yourself in the name of love. I liked this part in him, and he saying this did not bother me a bit. My guy had an option to kick him out in any given moment.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I wonder... I feel like if you ignore the overlap between just regular sexual activity and BDSM you are left with kind of fear generating activity.. but isn't one of the most fearful activities whether you can connect with the "one" and make this kind of eternal commitment, it seems to me regular dating is intense fear-play in many respects. Fear of that kind of rejection is intense and almost limitless.

 

I don't know what you mean, sorry. Could you elaborate please?

[Seraphim24]

I don't know what you mean, sorry. Could you elaborate please?

 

I guess I've just been surprised at how BDSM is based around building kind of intense fear or, but like I don't know.. I don't fear pain, it just hurts, kind of thing. I don't fear um lets say captivity, but it could be awfully boring. The fact that limits and scenes are set and finite kind of makes it sort of contrary to the spirit of real power exchange as well, I guess.

 

Compared to the fear of being compressed into a single relationship for eternity (i.e. monogamous dating and marriage) that's like some of the most intense fear possible, that's 24/7/365 insanity really.

 

I'm sure this hasn't really been discussed anywhere before which is why I'm sure your confused, it's just something that randomly came to me I guess.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I guess I've just been surprised at how BDSM is based around building kind of intense fear or, but like I don't know.. I don't fear pain, it just hurts, kind of thing. I don't fear um lets say captivity, but it could be awfully boring. The fact that limits and scenes are set and finite kind of makes it sort of contrary to the spirit of real power exchange as well, I guess.

 

Compared to the fear of being compressed into a single relationship for eternity (i.e. monogamous dating and marriage) that's like some of the most intense fear possible, that's 24/7/365 insanity really.

 

I'm sure this hasn't really been discussed anywhere before which is why I'm sure your confused, it's just something that randomly came to me I guess.

 

I see...

 

Well, you're making assumptions here that aren't correct. Such a relationship would not involve any more fear than any other. I don't know how to properly explain this to you without starting at the very basics... and that would be a rather long post. Not to mention offtopic and skirting awfully close to the boundaries of the rules of this forum.

 

There are more than enough resources available online if you want to know more. I recommend reading at least three different ones and forming your own opinon though.

[Seraphim24]

I see...

 

Well, you're making assumptions here that aren't correct. Such a relationship would not involve any more fear than any other. I don't know how to properly explain this to you without starting at the very basics... and that would be a rather long post. Not to mention offtopic and skirting awfully close to the boundaries of the rules of this forum.

 

There are more than enough resources available online if you want to know more. I recommend reading at least three different ones and forming your own opinon though.

 

I guess I'm just saying finite and discrete relationships conducted for the purposes of particular activities seem inherently constrained in that they are directed and not spontaneous or otherwise genuine chaos.

 

It's kind of just related to a theory I have that hardcore BDSM starts to resemble a kind of like monogamous mainstream kind of relationship... I doubt anyone (in the mainstream or BDSM) is really ready for that kind of theory though.

[suirazul]

Being limited like this was indeed frustrating.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I guess I'm just saying finite and discrete relationships conducted for the purposes of particular activities seem inherently constrained in that they are directed and not spontaneous or otherwise genuine chaos.

 

It's kind of just related to a theory I have that hardcore BDSM starts to resemble a kind of like monogamous mainstream kind of relationship... I doubt anyone (in the mainstream or BDSM) is really ready for that kind of theory though.

 

Are you trying to make your post sound as complicated as possible?

 

Hardcore is a very subjective term. Most relationships are monogamous, BDSM or not. There is no correlation between the two although it is often said that a M/s relationship is like being married. But just as marriage, it can be open or not. Monogamous or not.

 

"I doubt anyone (in the mainstream or BDSM) is really ready for that kind of theory though." ... oh please, what are you trying to do here? Are you the misunderstood prophet of truth now?

 

This is all normal, not new and certaintly not groundbreaking. Just people being with each other. *shrugs*

[Octarin]

Er...no, he TELLS the inquisitor how BDSM relationships work (or the Thedas equivalent) and lays down the CONVENTIONS of how these things work.

 

He doesn't say "My way or no way", he says "I'm into this, this is my sexuality, if you're not into the same stuff then we're not right for each other" - how is that any different from what happens in real life, and how is it unreasonable? Why should bull attempt to change or deny his sexuality?

 

He's not saying "If you don't like something I'm doing, the relationships over", he's saying "If you don't like something I'm doing, use the safeword and I'll stop doing it" - they're still a couple, he's not suggesting that if she uses the safeword that that's the end of their relationship, he's saying that's an end to whatever he was doing that she doesn't like....

 

I really am baffled as to why you people have chosen to interpret it in this way - Bull goes well, well out of his way to assure the Inquisitor that when all is said and done, SHE is the one truly in control. I don't know how you could have sat through the same cutscenes as I did and come away with this bizarre, warped version of it.

 

 

Without going into too much detail, when I entered a BDSM relationship with someone who was far more experienced then I, we pretty much had the same talk; she told me how it works, explained to me the conventions, told me that no matter what happens I can stop anything at any time, agreed on a safeword, and at no point did I feel she was taking advantage or using me. She also told me that this was what she was into, and that she wasn't willing to live a lie and force herself to live in a vanilla relationship, as she had tried this before and it wasn't for her, and so if I wasn't interested in this it would probably be best to just end the relationship, as it wouldn't be fair on either of us - this is normal, for god's sake (well, normal for people in the BDSM community), so I don't know why you're all working overtime to portray it as something more sinister than it actually is.

 

Let's agree to disagree, shall we? Cause this is getting too old and stale by now, at least for me. Speaking of boundaries. This is mine. Just a reminder, too: most of us here speak from some experience. Just saying. 

 

Not gonna bother with this thread anymore, it's becoming a magnet, and I don't like what to. 

[Incantrix]

I'm surprised that people are taking iron bulls romance so seriously...

 

 

Wait this is bsn...ok, I understand. xD

[TheOgre]

BSN is lfe..

 

I'm surprised that people are taking iron bulls romance so seriously...

 

 

Wait this is bsn...ok, I understand. xD

 Don't you judge me.

 

 

I need to talk to this guy.