98 réponses à ce sujet

[Andraste_Reborn]

The good ol' days when being a feminist meant lobbying for gender equality, and not turning men into slaves... I miss it. (And fully agree with the equality bit.)

 

Wait, we get to enslave men now? Where do I sign up?!

[fhs33721]

The good ol' days when being a feminist meant lobbying for gender equality, and not turning men into slaves... I miss it. (And fully agree with the equality bit.)

Do you just stop reading and throw out popular standard phrases like this as soon as you read the word feminist somewhere?

[Dai Grepher]

Not it wasn't. He was one of the originally planned six love interests, along with Cassandra, Dorian, Josephine, Sera and Blackwall. It's Cullen and Solas who were added during the extra year of development time.
 
(That doesn't mean you have to like his romance, of course, but there's no reason to think it was added more hastily than any of the other five who were always in the game.)

You are correct. I was remembering back to early inaccurate reports of Iron Bull not being romancible until Epler corrected some animations that allowed him to be romancible. However, developer statements made later clarified that Iron Bull was romancible only to qunari at first, and Epler's work on the animations merely opened him up to all races.

[Ghost Gal]

Read the article. Didn't really see anything wrong with it.

 

She doesn't have a problem with Bull, his romance with the Inquisitor or Dorian (she finds them both consensual and healthy), the BDSM element (she has many friends who run in BDSM circles), the writing, etc. She just personally isn't fond of that one line where he claims to know that you're into a specific kink and that he knows the reason why ("You're in charge of a large organization, so I know that you need someone to be in charge of you in bed to take a load off!") and it irked. And... yeah, I can see where she would feel that way.

 

Personally, I have to admit I'm not wildly fond of Bull or his romance for a lot of reasons, but one of the chiefest reasons is that it makes me really uncomfortable how he pulls the Ben'Hassrath card to say he knows what you want/need without even asking you about it. It really makes me uncomfortable when people assume they know you better than you know yourself, or know what you want/need better than you do, based on a cursory glance or a quick meeting. Even though in-universe Ben'Hassrath are really good at reading people, I still don't like how he just decides for you that he knows best and pegs you into a role without asking you or talking to you about it; and it's not helped that Patrick Weekes doesn't give the player the option to challenge him or negotiate the terms of the relationship, it's just "Yes, I agree" *continues the relationship on BULL'S terms* or "No, I don't agree" *gets dumped*)

[Macha'Anu]

Regardless if that specific article is about actual attack, I have personally heard actual attacks to Freddie as a va, bioware abd iron Bulls writer for choosing the bdsm lifestyle for their relationship. Even Freddie himself talks about how he is attacked here and there for it. Here's my thoughts. If it's not your cup of tea move on. I personally, as a female, get sick of other females telling females what's acceptable and what isn't as well as calling some people's chosen lifestyle abuse. I mean hello notchur buisness. They are the ones who preach "stay out of our bedroom" yes? Anyway, op isn't wrong about the ignorant whining of some feminists about a in game personal choice virtual relationship. Also the reason why it's yes or no *period* is, imho, that is his terms. It's usually the terms in those relationship types. You either agree or ya don't. Full consent is crucial; )

[Serza]

Um, who said anything like this? 

 

Oh, just some people, y'know...

 

Wait, we get to enslave men now? Where do I sign up?!

 

If I knew, I'd be all over the place. With a big-arse banner over my head.

 

Do you just stop reading and throw out popular standard phrases like this as soon as you read the word feminist somewhere?

 

Naw, I've been looking at some of these weird things, and this is actually a subgroup of feminists.

[Abyss108]

Oh, just some people, y'know...

 

 

Naw, I've been looking at some of these weird things, and this is actually a subgroup of feminists.

 

Ah, of course, some mythical subgroup of people that you are going to generalise to represent the entire group, who are completely unrelated to anything said in this topic or the people linked to in this topic, who you are going to start talking about with absolutely no context whatsoever. 

 

Thanks for adding that, it really enhanced the discussion! 

[Serza]

Ah, of course, some mythical subgroup of people that you are going to generalise to represent the entire group, who are completely unrelated to anything said in this topic or the people linked to in this topic, who you are going to start talking about with absolutely no context whatsoever. 

 

Thanks for adding that, it really enhanced the discussion! 

 

I know, right! Such a valued discussion we're having thanks to my addition.

[Toasted Llama]

While I did roll my eyes when I came across the word 'triggered', this is arguably a very tame article compared to some others I've read. There's probably some extremists who would like to see the game removed from shelves (haters gonna hate I suppose)(or the content removed because it's 'triggering'), but this article was closer to "eh, I don't like it, here's my opinion"

 

Now if they started a petition to get IB's dialogue patched or the romance completely adjusted because 'reasons', then I'd agree it's more of an attack and less of an opinion sharing.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I pictured a female mime dominatrixing Iron Bull.

[Ghost Gal]

Regardless if that specific article is about actual attack, I have personally heard actual attacks to Freddie as a va, bioware abd iron Bulls writer for choosing the bdsm lifestyle for their relationship. Even Freddie himself talks about how he is attacked here and there for it. Here's my thoughts. If it's not your cup of tea move on. I personally, as a female, get sick of other females telling females what's acceptable and what isn't as well as calling some people's chosen lifestyle abuse. I mean hello notchur buisness. They are the ones who preach "stay out of our bedroom" yes? Anyway, op isn't wrong about the ignorant whining of some feminists about a in game personal choice virtual relationship. Also the reason why it's yes or no *period* is, imho, that is his terms. It's usually the terms in those relationship types. You either agree or ya don't. Full consent is crucial; )

 

That's not what anyone here is saying, nor the writer of the article.

 

As for the bolded... I don't know. I have a lot of friends in the BDSM community (ironic considering I'm more vanilla than the bean) and they've said that BDSM usually involves a degree of flexibility in the bedroom. Sure, many people prefer one role and gravitate toward other people who complement that role (dominants gravitate toward submissives and vice/versa, etc), but most people aren't so rigid that they'll ONLY have sex in that one role every time, and they should be willing to accommodate partners who occasionally want to switch things up.

 

Personally: On the one hand, I'm enjoying seeing BDSM in mainstream media stressing how safe, sane, and consensual it is. On the other hand, most fairly mainstream examples I've seen all involve a male sado/dominant basically telling a perspective female partner (and male for the Inquisitor) that they'll be the maso/submissive every time, and then basically say, "accept these terms or no relationship at all." We see it with Bull and Quizzy, Christian Grey and Anastasia (while that relationship is just glorified abuse, it did get thousands of mainstream women to rethink or consider BDSM), a duke and his lover in Vikings, etc. While they do stress consensuality and the choice to back out at any time, there's almost never a discussion of the prospective submissive's preferences, or the ability for him or her to negotiate the terms of the relationship. It gives this impression that sado/dominant partners will ONLY have sex when they're in the sado/dominant role, and that if you want the relationship then you HAVE to agree to be bound/dominated, on the dominant's terms, or no relationship at all.

 

Imagine if they did that with any other aspect of the relationship? Like the guy said that if you want to be with him then when you go out to eat together it can only be restaurants that he likes, or only watch movies and TV shows that he wants to watch. If you want to eat or watch something else, go do it on your own time, or go out with someone else. Most of us would not be okay with such rigid, uncompromising terms where one partner always gets their way in something and the other always has to acquiescence to the other's preferences. So why are we okay with a BDSM relationship where the dominant partner gets to spell out all the rules of the relationship, which conveniently makes it so bedroom antics always go their own way, where the other partner has to agree to those terms or look elsewhere?

[Toasted Llama]

Imagine if they did that with any other aspect of the relationship? Like the guy said that if you want to be with him then when you go out to eat together it can only be restaurants that he likes, or only watch movies and TV shows that he wants to watch. If you want to eat or watch something else, go do it on your own time, or go out with someone else. Most of us would not be okay with such rigid, uncompromising terms where one partner always gets their way in something and the other always has to acquiescence to the other's preferences. So why are we okay with a BDSM relationship where the dominant partner gets to spell out all the rules of the relationship, which conveniently makes it so bedroom antics always go their own way, where the other partner has to agree to those terms or look elsewhere?

 

What? This is not the reality? We don't get to meet our perfect soulmate who is a carbon copy of ourselves or does exactly what we want?

 

 

For real tho, I get the feeling this is actually getting more and more of a mainstream thought among people.

[Macha'Anu]

That's not what anyone here is saying, nor the writer of the article.
 
As for the bolded... I don't know. I have a lot of friends in the BDSM community (ironic considering I'm more vanilla than the bean) and they've said that BDSM usually involves a degree of flexibility in the bedroom. Sure, many people prefer one role and gravitate toward other people who complement that role (dominants gravitate toward submissives and vice/versa, etc), but most people aren't so rigid that they'll ONLY have sex in that one role every time, and they should be willing to accommodate partners who occasionally want to switch things up.
 
Personally: On the one hand, I'm enjoying seeing BDSM in mainstream media stressing how safe, sane, and consensual it is. On the other hand, most fairly mainstream examples I've seen all involve a male sado/dominant basically telling a perspective female partner (and male for the Inquisitor) that they'll be the maso/submissive every time, and then basically say, "accept these terms or no relationship at all." We see it with Bull and Quizzy, Christian Grey and Anastasia (while that relationship is just glorified abuse, it did get thousands of mainstream women to rethink or consider BDSM), a duke and his lover in Vikings, etc. While they do stress consensuality and the choice to back out at any time, there's almost never a discussion of the prospective submissive's preferences, or the ability for him or her to negotiate the terms of the relationship. It gives this impression that sado/dominant partners will ONLY have sex when they're in the sado/dominant role, and that if you want the relationship then you HAVE to agree to be bound/dominated, on the dominant's terms, or no relationship at all.
 
Imagine if they did that with any other aspect of the relationship? Like the guy said that if you want to be with him then when you go out to eat together it can only be restaurants that he likes, or only watch movies and TV shows that he wants to watch. If you want to eat or watch something else, go do it on your own time, or go out with someone else. Most of us would not be okay with such rigid, uncompromising terms where one partner always gets their way in something and the other always has to acquiescence to the other's preferences. So why are we okay with a BDSM relationship where the dominant partner gets to spell out all the rules of the relationship, which conveniently makes it so bedroom antics always go their own way, where the other partner has to agree to those terms or look elsewhere?

Keep in mind every bdsm relationship is difference. Bull can choose an all or nothing approach if he likes.
Here's my thing, people think 50 shades is glorified abuse but who are they to tell that girl she's wrong for consenting? She obviously chooses it. You usually sign a contract.
Who are we to judge someone's preference of having sex? Kinda like fighting for gay marriage, it's not our buisness but theirs.
It just crosses me as hypocritical. " stay out of my bedroom but yours is full of abuse" people don't mind watching male castration as a punishment on game of Thrones, which is just as fake as iron Bulls romance or 50 shades, but take issue with with this? Pft. There are more important issues to rally behind. I stick with the factual feist when she says today's "feminism" has lost track of what the cause was for.
There are people out there demanding the whole relationship be changed in the game. It's like most these people probably don't know what xbox is but they want to dictate our games? Yeah no ty. There's plenty of real issues to focus on.
That was my point

[Macha'Anu]

Btw, the point of being a submissive is you consent to doing as your told. Yes I know females today dislike this idea but there are a lot of females who quite like it.. Obviously dominate females assume the role as a dominatrix. Bull is the dominate personality. That is why. There is a dom. And a sub. Dominate, submissive. Subs have safe words, like bull gives the quizzy, when they dislike something and want to change the rules.
When the VA of the character involved in the romance many groups are angry about talk about it in interviews about how he's degraded or yelled at, it shows we have lost sense of the cause. It's as if censorship and speech stifling is now a thing for feminism. A shame since we fought to break those very chains on us.

[vbibbi]

Read the article. Didn't really see anything wrong with it.
 
She doesn't have a problem with Bull, his romance with the Inquisitor or Dorian (she finds them both consensual and healthy), the BDSM element (she has many friends who run in BDSM circles), the writing, etc. She just personally isn't fond of that one line where he claims to know that you're into a specific kink and that he knows the reason why ("You're in charge of a large organization, so I know that you need someone to be in charge of you in bed to take a load off!") and it irked. And... yeah, I can see where she would feel that way.
 
Personally, I have to admit I'm not wildly fond of Bull or his romance for a lot of reasons, but one of the chiefest reasons is that it makes me really uncomfortable how he pulls the Ben'Hassrath card to say he knows what you want/need without even asking you about it. It really makes me uncomfortable when people assume they know you better than you know yourself, or know what you want/need better than you do, based on a cursory glance or a quick meeting. Even though in-universe Ben'Hassrath are really good at reading people, I still don't like how he just decides for you that he knows best and pegs you into a role without asking you or talking to you about it; and it's not helped that Patrick Weekes doesn't give the player the option to challenge him or negotiate the terms of the relationship, it's just "Yes, I agree" *continues the relationship on BULL'S terms* or "No, I don't agree" *gets dumped*)

Yeah his basically. I would have liked to call him on his bull (get it?!) even if he doesn't agree and that's as far as that discussion goes. But it's either doormat to him or break up. Not great.

[Abyss108]

Keep in mind every bdsm relationship is difference. Bull can choose an all or nothing approach if he likes.
Here's my thing, people think 50 shades is glorified abuse but who are they to tell that girl she's wrong for consenting? She obviously chooses it. You usually sign a contract.
Who are we to judge someone's preference of having sex? Kinda like fighting for gay marriage, it's not our buisness but theirs.
It just crosses me as hypocritical. " stay out of my bedroom but yours is full of abuse" people don't mind watching male castration as a punishment on game of Thrones, which is just as fake as iron Bulls romance or 50 shades, but take issue with with this? Pft. There are more important issues to rally behind. I stick with the factual feist when she says today's "feminism" has lost track of what the cause was for.
There are people out there demanding the whole relationship be changed in the game. It's like most these people probably don't know what xbox is but they want to dictate our games? Yeah no ty. There's plenty of real issues to focus on.
That was my point

 

 

Except the entire complaint about 50 shades is that it doesn't actually depict anything like a BDSM relationship, and that she is shown at numerous points being unhappy about it - read some reviews written by people who actually practice BDSM, they talk about how the writer got BDSM completely wrong. There are numerous books that do depict real BDSM relationships that don't get all this hate because ​they actually depict a healthy BDSM relationship.   

[Shechinah]

Except the entire complaint about 50 shades is that it doesn't actually depict anything like a BDSM relationship, and that she is shown at numerous points being unhappy about it - read some reviews written by people who actually practice BDSM, they talk about how the writer got BDSM completely wrong. There are numerous books that do depict real BDSM relationships that don't get all this hate because ​they actually depict a healthy BDSM relationship.   

 

Then there are the other questionable elements unrelated to not-BDSM;

 

An example would be the male lead deciding to finger the female lead under the table while they are having dinner with his parents. She does nothing to signal to him that she desires this and actively tries to stop it, as far as I can remember, by trying to shift away from him and by pressing her legs together.  

 

When a book is sold as erotic romance, people tend to expect it to be erotic romance and many often find it very disappointed when they consider the story to be the exact opposite of romantic or inticing. This was the case for a lot of people who bought and read Fifty Shades of Grey.  
 

[Abyss108]

Then there are the other questionable elements unrelated to not-BDSM;

 

An example would be the male lead deciding to finger the female lead under the table while they are having dinner with his parents. She does nothing to signal to him that she desires this and actively tries to stop it, as far as I can remember, by trying to shift away from him and by pressing her legs together.  

 

When a book is sold as erotic romance, people tend to expect it to be erotic romance and many often find it very disappointed when they consider the story to be the exact opposite of romantic or inticing. This was the case for a lot of people who bought and read Fifty Shades of Grey.  
 

 

 

Exactly. There are very clear consent rules in BDSM, which the book completely ignores on numerous occasions. It's abuse dressed up under the excuse of "BDSM" by someone who has no clue what BDSM actually entails and who has admitted she didn't actually do any real research about what it actually is.

 

I don't even have anything against pornographic books that feature abuse for those that have that kink - I'm not going to shame someone for what they enjoy in a fantasy. What I do have something against, is pretending that's not what it is, and trying to mislead people into thinking it's healthy/safe in real life, and misrepresenting a subgroup who already get a lot of abuse from other people who don't actually understand what it's all about.

[Catilina]

[...]

 

When a book is sold as erotic romance, people tend to expect it to be erotic romance and many often find it very disappointed when they consider the story to be the exact opposite of romantic or inticing. This was the case for a lot of people who bought and read Fifty Shades of Grey.  
 

 

Why do not read criticique before they dispose their money for any sh*t? Based on the book's title I would have guessed graphic publication. How I would have been disappointed if I buy ...

 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

The Iron Bull "romance" was a last minute rush job. I don't think character quality and plot depth were to be expected. Also keep in mind that it was written by someone who had no clue about that fetish.

I have never even approached the "romance", and I probably never will. But the vibe I got from the videos I've seen on it or the dialogue I've read, is that BioWare wanted to make this interaction more of a story about Bull rather than the Inquisitor. It was basically showing Bull's abilities in regard to sexual gratification. There is an early crowd banter in Haven of a Chantry sister indulging in the Bull's more personal services. Bull's codex is a letter of referral that makes note of his intimate practices. His banter with Dorian if neither are romanced quickly turn toward innuendo. Even the Nightmare jokes about it.

So this all stems from how Iron Bull was written to be. The "romance" was added at the last minute, so of course it will mostly just expand out Bull's story. It would have taken too much time to write various paths for the Inquisitors. Instead we are given Bull's story and there is a chance to steer (no pun intended) him toward a path that is more personal and emotional.

 

The names of his romance quests are jokes on the 50 Shades of Grey books and another thing to consider was that originally Iron Bull was going to be a qunari romance only due to his character model and animation. It was the lead animator actually figuring out at Iron Bull would work with humans, elves, and dwarves after hours and at home.

[Dai Grepher]

Yes, when Andraste_Reborn rebutted my post I looked it up and found that IB was originally only gated to qunari Inquisitors. Early reports inaccurately stated that he was not romancible until the animation programming. I think I read it on the wikia, which would explain why it was incorrect.

[ModernAcademic]

I've just read her article. No, not just half of it. Everything.

 

In such a world where Fifty Shades of Grey is a major talking point, portrayals of consensual BDSM relationships come like rain in a desert. 

 

This lady never read 50 Shades of Grey or doesn't know how to discern literature from fanfiction.

50 Shades was a Twilight fanfiction written by EL James under a pseudonym, fireicesnowqueen. She made NO changes to the story, except for erasing any detail of the story that would make reference to Twilight. That's how poorly written the book is.

 

50 Shades also made the wrongest portrayal of BDSM a literary novel could've done. No wonder it was heavily criticized by the press and readers alike.

 

 

You’re the Inquisitor. You didn’t ask for this job, but you’ve taken on the responsibility. You’ve got thousands of lives riding on your decisions. You bear that weight all day. You need a place where you can be safe, knowing someone else is in charge for a bit.

 

That statement from Bull is true for both men and women. Which is why corporate men AND women sometimes have domineering wives, husbands or lovers in bed (when I say bed I mean they take charge of domestic affairs for them).

 

They need someone to share the weight of being a decision maker. If they have to be "the responsible one" both at home and at work, they'll go crazy. So they need someone to be receptive to their needs at least at home, which includes helping them coordinate the domestic area of their life. Such task involves organising parties, remembering birthdays, planning holiday trips, etc.

 

That is to say, the partner serves them by anticipating their needs. That's different from being domineering, as the author wrote in her article. Anticipating needs and controlling your partner are two different things.

 

However, Bull assumes that your Inquisitor is into this kink for a reason and that he knows that reason. (...) 

I brought up the problem I had with Bull’s dialogue at a party to this girl, who’s into BDSM. In the conversation that sprung from that, she said that she absolutely hates when other members of the BDSM community assume that she can’t be a top because of her height and her being a woman.Yeah.

 

 

She departed from a wrong assumption: that Bull tells that to the Inquisitor because of their sexual gender (female, in this case). He DOESN'T. He's referring to your JOB as an AUTHORITY, as the Inquisitor. THAT is the reason behind his assumption.

 

There are literally ZERO gender issues going on in Bull's relationship. I still don't see where this lady wants to get at.

 

Now, there are individuals who can account for their queerness or interest in S and M. Maybe they fit the stereotype and did have bad experiences with the opposite gender or like to feel taken care of after a busy day being the CEO of a major corporation. However, these people are not the sum total of their kind. There is, and always has been, every manner of person. No one should have to justify their sexuality or various kinks to others in the same way that no fan of chips need justify their love of the foodstuff.

 

 

This has nothing to do with the game - the Inquisitor doesn't justify anything to Bull; he's the one pretty much providing explanations to the Inq. about the BDSM thing -, so I have no idea why this "conclusion" had any correlation to the points raised about Bull's line of dialog.

 

 

 

But maybe I’m being presumptive. Maybe Bull’s opinions on BDSM have nothing to do with him being a Qunari. Maybe I’m a hypocrite and a horrible person. Maybe I shamefully used Dragon Age as an excuse to talk about issues faced by the BDSM and queer communities. Maybe. I don’t feel the need to justify myself to you. You don’t know me; I know I like chips.

 

 

So she doesn't draw ANY CONCLUSION AT ALL about Bull's line. She just points out no one has the right to judge a person's peculiar taste in sex. Even when Bull is the least judgemental of your companions in that aspect.

 

Why mention Dragon Age at all, then? No parallels were established in the article between the game's content and her condition as queer. The only experience she associated with Bull's scene wasn't even her own. It happened to an anonymous person, "a girl", whose name, age, profession and other details so we might understand the relevance of her being mentioned remain a mystery.

 

The post wasn't even about feminism. It was just a personal rant against people who have judged her in the past. I guess the game was mentioned just to attract readers to her blog. People from the DA fanbase, like herself.

[CuriousArtemis]

tbh, I don't like it, either. "You're short and scrawny so you don't get to do this", "You're a woman so you should like this", "You're the stressed out leader so you need to be a bottom to take a load off!", etc. The psychobabble is obnoxious and I don't NEED my sexual preferences hand-picked by someone else. For those who really dislike it, it's hard not to judge the whole romance on this one aspect since it's what the entire relationship is founded on with no way to reason or establish rules beyond a safe word that he chooses for us, too.

 

It was the first romance I tried because my only other option was Dorian and I wasn't into him "that way" at all. And yes, the "this is what you NEED" thing was impossible to overlook. I would've been perfectly happy with a "normal" romance, or even if Bull had a heart-to-heart with me and said he just didn't do the bottom thing, but the BDSM lifestyle is a very specific thing to insert into a romance, and I always felt it was terribly unfair to make that one of only two options for some players, when all others got at least two non-fetish (a.k.a. "normal") romances.

 

At no point does she state that it shouldn't be in the game or that she'd like to see it removed. In fact, she accepts it as legit part of the game's writing and says as much multiple times. She merely explains (to others that haven't gone through the same experience and might not realise this) how this attitude is harmful and offensive in real life, using the game and Bull as an example. I see it more as a general complaint about people making assumptions, assuming that they know you and what's good for you, rather than a complaint about the game and its writing. (But I realise the title of the article might be misleading.)

 

Agreed, though again, I'll go beyond her and say I don't think BDSM should've been part of only one of two m/m romance options, especially when m/m player characters historically get the LEAST number of options in BioWare games. (Though I would argue the f/f options - surprise, surprise, the other gay option - were equally unfair, since one is a non-companion and the other is a bit controversial and rather tangential to the plot. But at least neither is a stereotype or a big ole sexual fetish, Sera's interest in giant women notwithstanding.)

 

(I just realized, they sure like making the gay options all bout dat sex, don't they.)

 

You are correct. I was remembering back to early inaccurate reports of Iron Bull not being romancible until Epler corrected some animations that allowed him to be romancible. However, developer statements made later clarified that Iron Bull was romancible only to qunari at first, and Epler's work on the animations merely opened him up to all races.

 

I'm not sure if this is 100%? I believe Bull was always going to be a romance, just not for dwarves. But Epler worked hard (god knows why) to make it so he would be available to all. (But apparently everyone threw up their hands and said "oh well" when Cullen and Solas were put on the table.)

 

Regardless if that specific article is about actual attack, I have personally heard actual attacks to Freddie as a va, bioware abd iron Bulls writer for choosing the bdsm lifestyle for their relationship. Even Freddie himself talks about how he is attacked here and there for it. Here's my thoughts. If it's not your cup of tea move on. I personally, as a female, get sick of other females telling females what's acceptable and what isn't as well as calling some people's chosen lifestyle abuse. I mean hello notchur buisness. They are the ones who preach "stay out of our bedroom" yes? Anyway, op isn't wrong about the ignorant whining of some feminists about a in game personal choice virtual relationship. Also the reason why it's yes or no *period* is, imho, that is his terms. It's usually the terms in those relationship types. You either agree or ya don't. Full consent is crucial; )

 

Okay, but again, "you either agree or you don't" works very well in real life because you can then say "No" and you have the rest of the human race to choose from. In this game you only had two (if you were a gay male or a straight female dwarf or qunari). I personally just don't think it worked as a game mechanic.

 

You know what, I was going to summon the energy to respond a bit more, but I just can't get past the "ignorant whining feminists" thing. Never mind. 

[vbibbi]

It was the first romance I tried because my only other option was Dorian and I wasn't into him "that way" at all. And yes, the "this is what you NEED" thing was impossible to overlook. I would've been perfectly happy with a "normal" romance, or even if Bull had a heart-to-heart with me and said he just didn't do the bottom thing, but the BDSM lifestyle is a very specific thing to insert into a romance, and I always felt it was terribly unfair to make that one of only two options for some players, when all others got at least two non-fetish (a.k.a. "normal") romances.

 

 

Agreed, though again, I'll go beyond her and say I don't think BDSM should've been part of only one of two m/m romance options, especially when m/m player characters historically get the LEAST number of options in BioWare games. (Though I would argue the f/f options - surprise, surprise, the other gay option - were equally unfair, since one is a non-companion and the other is a bit controversial and rather tangential to the plot. But at least neither is a stereotype or a big ole sexual fetish, Sera's interest in giant women notwithstanding.)

 

(I just realized, they sure like making the gay options all bout dat sex, don't they.)

 

 

I'm not sure if this is 100%? I believe Bull was always going to be a romance, just not for dwarves. But Epler worked hard (god knows why) to make it so he would be available to all. (But apparently everyone threw up their hands and said "oh well" when Cullen and Solas were put on the table.)

 

 

Okay, but again, "you either agree or you don't" works very well in real life because you can then say "No" and you have the rest of the human race to choose from. In this game you only had two (if you were a gay male or a straight female dwarf or qunari). I personally just don't think it worked as a game mechanic.

 

You know what, I was going to summon the energy to respond a bit more, but I just can't get past the "ignorant whining feminists" thing. Never mind. 

 

This feeds into the many threads here about gay KISA, badass gay characters, etc. I think Bioware, and all game companies, will play the straight romances safe, which makes sense from a business perspective. The majority of consumers will be straight, even if they won't necessarily play romance content or if they do it's not guaranteed it will be the straight content.

 

But it's safer to keep traditional romance tracks for straight characters and if there is any non-traditional romance or "controversial" romance option, it will be through the gay option. LGBT are already used to less content and are generally going to be less likely to raise a stink if the content we receive is not our ideal. Yes we're going to voice our opinions, but I think LGBT options are still a recent enough thing that we don't want to seem ungrateful for getting any content, even if it's not our ideal.

 

Compare that to the complaints about Cassandra and Josephine as the straight male options...

 

 

I will say that I'm glad that at least Sera was allowed a happy ending with the wedding in Trespasser. She and Cullen were the only ones, so that was a nice change. And to be fair, straight females could potentially only have one happy ending with Cullen, if

Spoiler

Bull was loyal to the Qun, Blackwall returned to the Wardens and died, and Solas was...Solas.

[Ghost Gal]

Keep in mind every bdsm relationship is difference. Bull can choose an all or nothing approach if he likes.

 

Exactly, which is why I don't appreciate Bull arbitrarily deciding before your first sexual encounter (without asking or discussing it with you) what kind of sex "you need" (based on his oh-so-amazing super-spy people-reading skills), but then basically strong-arming you into complying or getting dumped. He pegs you into one role without your input then refuses to budge on it.

 

He can choose an all or nothing approach if he wants, but that doesn't mean everyone has to like how he goes about doing it.

 

Who are we to judge someone's preference of having sex? Kinda like fighting for gay marriage, it's not our buisness but theirs.

 

I'm not judging Bull's preference of having sex, I'm judging how he goes about getting his way with you.

 

Keep in mind that he's slept with half the serving girls and lay sisters in Southern Thedas before his first encounter with the Inquisitor, yet has fun and casual flings with all of them; so we know he's able and willing to have that kind of encounter with others. Only the Inquisitor he forces to agree to BDSM terms or no sexy time at all. If it's a matter of "preference" I wouldn't mind if he was honest about it; if he said, "Look, this is the way I prefer to have sex," or if you ask him if this is what he does with the serving girls: "No, I'm afraid they're too fragile / I'm afraid it'll come across as too hard-core for them and scare them off; but with you..." I could totally respect it, and I'd even be flattered that he felt the Inquisitor was the person he could be himself around.

 

Instead, he pulls his bullsh*t "As a Ben'Hassrather super-spy people-reader I can just tell that this is what you want/need, and I'm just doing what you want/need" card. It rings hollow because if you say, "No, that's not what I need," he immediately drops you. If he was really interested in having sex the way you need, as he claims, then when you say "No, that's not what I need" shouldn't he immediately apologize for the mis-read and ask you what you want / be willing to change tactics?

 

I GET what Patrick Weekes was trying do--establish that BDSM requires pure consent, you can back out at any time, and all that. My problem is how the "romance" is presented in the game. I get what the writer's going for, but I don't feel that's how the character came across to me. For me personally (Reader Response Fallacy), if Bull pushed most/all his sexual encounters into agreeing to BDSM terms I'd be fine with him doing it to the Inquisitor too, or if he was honest that this is his preference and is why he pushes the Inquisitor alone to agree to it. As it is though, playing the Ben'Hassrath card to say "I'm just doing this because it's what YOU need," but then dumping you when you say that's not what you need instead of changing tactics, makes him come across as dishonest and kind of a jerk o me.

 

Btw, the point of being a submissive is you consent to doing as your told. Yes I know females today dislike this idea but there are a lot of females who quite like it.. Obviously dominate females assume the role as a dominatrix. Bull is the dominate personality. That is why. There is a dom. And a sub. Dominate, submissive. Subs have safe words, like bull gives the quizzy, when they dislike something and want to change the rules.
When the VA of the character involved in the romance many groups are angry about talk about it in interviews about how he's degraded or yelled at, it shows we have lost sense of the cause. It's as if censorship and speech stifling is now a thing for feminism. A shame since we fought to break those very chains on us.

 

Again, did I ever say I had a problem with BDSM as a concept? 

 

I'm fine with BDSM when both partners actively like it and both actively like it and seek it out, and when both can say before the contract is ever brought up, "Yeah, this is how I want to do this."

 

Problem is Bull had pegged you for a submissive without ever asking or talking to you about it first. It's not like the two met in a kink circle or the Inquisitor expressed interest in this before. Bull (claims) he just arbitrarily decided that was the role he knew you wanted/needed, and basically strong-arms you into accepting his terms or no sex/relationship at all. And given how he doesn't do that with anyone else in Southern Thedas, and is one of eight romances in the whole game, I think that's a problem.

 

Yeah his basically. I would have liked to call him on his bull (get it?!) even if he doesn't agree and that's as far as that discussion goes. But it's either doormat to him or break up. Not great.

 

Yeah. Sadly, this seems to be a common problem with romances in this game. Remember Sera's religious ultimatum to a Dalish Inquisitor?