The index.html file appears to have either been removed or made inaccessible. The rest of the game is still there.
@P_Tigras If she refuses to sign the contract, even if she wrote it up and gave it to you, forcing her to sign the contract is consider coercion. It’s illegal virtually everywhere, and will void the contract.
@Reaperoa I agree. I’m leaving her room to back out at the last second. In the scene as currently presented in the game she makes no such effort.
@P_Tigras You’re working on the presumption of consent, which is to say, unless she says no, she means yes. This is wrong, both legally and morally. When she makes it clear that she doesn’t want to, there becomes a grey area in whether or not she is giving consent. That means that we default to the general presumptions. Legally, in all but the most backwards states, this means non-consent. Ergo, anything that she says that indicates she does not want to have sex means having sex with her is rape, unless she specifically says she want to have sex.
(In fact that argument you’re using is the same basis for the argument that is used to claim that when two people are married, they cannot rape one another.)
Dammit! Why is no one worried about the Demo being down! :-ss
@Reaperoa
No, you’re confusing statuatory rape with rape, and working on the presumption that like a child, Carina is too mentally incompetent to say no. Rape is considered a mens rea crime. If she is able, the rape victim has a responsibility to make it clear that she is unwilling. If the accused could not reasonably know that she’s unwilling, then there is no crime. An expression of fear by itself does not equal unwillingness unless that fear is caused by her sexual partner. If she’s absolutely terrified of what her parents will say when they discover she’s been kicked out of school that doesn’t mean she can’t still willingly have sex with her boyfriend. If she’s terrified on behalf of her child who is in the hospital with cancer that also doesn’t necessarily mean she can’t willingly seek reassurance from a new lover sexually. Finally, if she’s terrified of losing her virginity, that doesn’t mean sex with her is necessarily rape either unless that fear makes her say no. (Heck I’ve heard countless stories from my very elderly aunts and great aunts about how terrified they were of losing their virginity on their wedding nights. They laugh about it now, but at the time it was earth-shattering even though they were willing. The importance of being virgins had been drilled into them over and over as young girls, and once it was lost, you could never go back.)
I’m fairly certain that if you offered to help Carina leave the brothel without offering her a job she’d turn you down. She’s not there because she’s been coerced by another human being. She’s there because she needs a regular income to support her family that’s greater than what she could otherwise make on her own.
The example of marital rape that you’ve brought up does not support your point of view. It was considered a woman’s marital obligation to have sex with her husband whenever he desired. Her consent wasn’t just presumed, it was considered legal fact. In many more enlightened jurisdictions, which these days includes all 50 states, the law has been changed and a wife now has the right to withdraw that consent at will. Nevertheless a wife, or a husband for that matter, still has a responsibility to say no if she is unwilling. I’d like you to find me evidence of a single state where sex within a marriage is presumed to be rape unless consent is explicitly given every time.
Could you repost a link for the game? Can’t seem to go to the game on previous links posted
@Xt1000305 @Zed
The link is not working. O.o WHY???
@Vendetta Where did your game go? 
@P_Tigras (To clarify, unless specifically stated otherwise, I’m talking about United States law.)
I have no idea why you’re bringing up statutory rape and ‘mens rea’. I never said that Carina was incapable of giving consent, nor that the PC was incapable of understanding her withdrawing her consent. What’s in discussion is whether or not she is giving consent, and whether her actions rescind that consent.
“If she is able, the rape victim has a responsibility to make it clear that she is unwilling.” This is wrong. Without explicit consent, any sexual activities are considered rape. That is why so many people get charged with rape due to having sex with an intoxicated individual. You’re misunderstanding what ‘mens rea’ means. It does not mean that a person has to know something is illegal, or has to be explicitly told not to do something for them to commit the crime. It means that they have to have a mindset to commit the act itself. To commit a crime with ‘mens rea’, a person has to commit the crime either knowingly, purposefully, recklessly or negligently. That last one is the kicker that a lot of people don’t seem to get (and in deed it is a difficult one to understand). If a person commits a crime, where a ‘reasonable person’ (and yes that is a very vague term, and yes it is the crux of a lot of legal arguments) would understand that action they are committing, they are liable. (Also all crimes are considered to require mens rea unless they are have ‘strictly liability’. To call a crime a ‘mens rea crime’ is redundant.)
“If the accused could not reasonably know that she’s unwilling, then there is no crime.” And that the point. When she hesitates, it’s reasonable to assume that she does not want to anymore, ergo it’s no longer reasonable to assume she’s consenting, ergo any sexual activity after her hesitation is rape.
“If she’s absolutely terrified of what her parents will say when they discover she’s been kicked out of school that doesn’t mean she can’t still willingly have sex with her boyfriend.” Good point to bring up. If she says she’s not certain about whether or not she wants to because of [whatever reason], they having sex with her is rape, because a reasonable person could understand that she did not want to.
As for martial rape, for those states which have simply abolished martial rape exemptions (of which there are only 17, compared to the 33 which hold marital rape as a separate crime), there is no distinction. The problem with persecution of this crime is not at the legal level, but at the procedural level (again, a common confusion. Just because a crime is not prosecuted, does not make it no longer a crime). Specifically, spousal rape is extremely difficult to prove, and for prosecution to begin it has, so far, been necessary for greater amounts of proof than other rape cases.
will there be anyway of eliminating people without killing them yourself?
For example instead of killing Biachi or Joey, could my Political Bagman use his contacts to get them thrown into jail ?
@Reaperoa I brought up Mens Rea because you insist that explicit permission is always required for sexual activities. That just isn’t true. In the 90’s there were activists who pushed for that sort of legislation. There was even a “fad” on some college campuses where young men were told by campus counsellors that they needed to ask for explicit permission every single time they wanted to initiate anything that might be construed as a sexual act with a woman. May I kiss you? May I touch your breast? May I caress your rear end? May we have sex? etc… This fad quickly ended after a torrent of complaints from young women who were annoyed at being repeatedly asked for consent over and over again for each and every act. It killed all the fun and spontaneity within a relationship they argued most angrily. They were perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. They didn’t need to be treated like fragile incompetents.
So despite the attempt by some activists to get such legislation passed, it’s a rare jurisdiction that has anything even closely resembling, “explicit permission is always required for all sexual activities”. Instead we have a more subjective definition that is most prevalent. Would a reasonable person in the same situation believe the alleged victim was unwilling? So let’s take a look at how the situation is presented in the story:
“Carina is obviously extremely nervous, trembling with anxiety, as she leads you through into a private room. Her fumbling, quite inept ministrations soon demonstrate that she is neither experienced nor comfortable with the situation. Terrified, would probably be a more accurate description.”
The words “fumbling, inept ministrations” signal that she is trying to have sex with the protagonist, but is simply inexperienced. That implies willingness. It is extremely common for people to feel “nervous”, “anxious”, and yes, “uncomfortable” on the first day of a new job doing something they’ve never done before. The only word here that raises a red flag in my mind is the word “Terrified,” although even this word wouldn’t necessarily be out of character for a willing virgin (and we do later find out that she’s a virgin) or a job that some might consider dangerous (like working on electrical towers, live fire exercises in the military, or prostitution). So how should a reasonable 21st century person react? They should ask why she looks so terrified. And our protagonist does:
“When you demand to know what the problem is, she breaks down in tears and admits that this is her first day, and you, her first customer. She needs the money to take care of her little sister, she explains, as her father broke his leg and cannot work. Sobbing, she begs you not to complain to her boss.”
Does she say she can’t go through with this? Does she ask (or tell) you to leave her alone? Does she tell you she’s there against her will? No, she says none of those things. Instead she confirms that this is her first day and you’re her first customer. She also lets you know that she’s there for economic reasons, which is very different from someone else forcing her. She doesn’t want you to tell her boss that she’s not doing a very good job, but given the context, that comes across as being because she doesn’t want to get fired from her new job as a prostitute.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the negligence that you believe exists on the part of the protagonist there. There are so many different things she could have said to him if she didn’t want to be there or didn’t want to go through with it, and yet she said none of those things. A reasonable person could easily conclude that she was just another inexperienced employee frightened she was going to screw up badly on her first day of work. I doubt you’d be able to get a jury of 12 in the handful of jurisdictions in the US where prostitution is legal to agree that this was rape.
So… Vendetta… Progress report?
@P_Tigras The ‘fad’ of colleges recommending men get explicit consent is due to the extreme prevalence or rape on college campuses, with around one in eight women being rape victims and one out every four being the victims of sexual assault. The problem is that so very few people understand what rape and sexual assault actually are. More than 50% of men “indicated some likelihood of raping or using force in certain circumstances.” and more than 4 out of 10 “admit using coercive behavior to have sex”. Then, on top of that, only about a quarter of women who are the victims of rape in college described it as such.
(http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/college_campuses_and_rape.htm)
The problem you’re having understanding is that that for a rape to happen (note that we’re talking about if a rape happens, not if it is prosecutable, as there is a huge difference), she does not have to say she is unwilling. She only has to be unwilling.
Note the last part of that quote: “…she is neither experienced nor comfortable with the situation. Terrified, would probably be a more accurate description.” Those two spots highlight her mindset. Then, “[w]hen you demand to know what the problem is…” (this is no gentle ‘what’s wrong?’ this is a strong ‘what the hell is wrong?’) she explains that she is doing this because she has to (thereby making it extremely clear that she is not doing it because she wants to.) That is not consent. In fact, that is the exact opposite. She is saying why she is doing what she is, thereby clarifying that she is not doing what she is by choice.
Then, to top it off, the choice that leads to the rape is then “So what? I’ve paid my dough and I aim to get what I paid for.” This choice is rather clear in intent once you actually start thinking about it.
First: “So what?” This phrase is simple in it’s meaning. It is a means to disregard something. The question is what is it disregarding. There is only one real answer. The PC is disregarding what Carina is saying, and what she wants, specifically her desire to not have sex.
Second: “…I aim to get what I paid for.” Now this is a touch more subtle. Why, would a person say something like this? One reason: They are saying this as they take what they feel they are entitled to despite someone telling them not to. This makes it clear that the PC understands that she does not want to, and is consciously deciding to have sex with her despite her not wanting to.
Then, the clinch: “You take what you have paid for.” That is then entirety of the scene after that choice. Note: “take”. That is not a word that someone would ever use for consensual sex. To take something is an action requiring force. The implications are plain for anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the English language.
Oh, and as an aside, the third choice: “I’ll leave the poor girl alone…” leads to: “Carina sobs with relief and agrees with you…”. She is happy when you decide not to have sex with her. “…[she] is clearly at a loss about how else she could possibly earn enough to take care of her family…” This clarifies why she is doing what she is. This is here justifying her actions. It is not consent.
1 Like
@Reaperoa As far as I can tell, your argument appears to boil down to, “It’s impossible to consent to something you wouldn’t do if you felt you had other options to obtain what you want or need”. I disagree. People decide to take actions all the time that they’d rather not do if they had other choices. Whether that’s prostitution, selling a much-loved house, selling a cherished baseball card collection, or even just cleaning a disgustingly dirty bathroom, people make decisions they don’t like all the time and carry them out. Just because they didn’t like making that decision and wished they had better options doesn’t cancel out their consent. If we can’t agree that it’s possible to consent to something you don’t want to do then there is no point in arguing about the rest. We’ll never come to an agreement.
@P_Tigras, lots of thought-provoking examples here – thanks for engaging so thoroughly with the points we’re making. I think we are getting close to the point where we all understand the arguments the other side is making and still disagree. But before calling it a day and going back to writing my own game…
I agree that people should be free to sell sex, consensually. But as in any market which involves a significant likelihood of irreversible bodily damage (sex; organ transplants; surrogate motherhood; physically damaging labor like Corwin in his coal mine), there’s a moral imperative to make sure people aren’t forced participants – including sensitivity to economic duress and duress of circumstances. The body is special – we are our bodies, more than we are the sum of our property, even beloved family homes. Both legally and morally, there’s more scrutiny of consent when it comes to what we do with our bodies and other people’s.
I agree that fearfulness does not automatically equal unwillingness, and that it’s possible to consent to something you don’t want to do. On the other hand, it’s unfair to describe the downside of some dilemmas as merely “something you don’t want to do,” like cleaning a toilet. The gun to the head: you have the choice to do what’s being demanded or die. The starving family: you have the choice to do whatever is necessary to get food, or watch your family die over the next few days/weeks. While in these life-and-death cases it may not be literally true to say, “I had no choice,” I’d still suggest that it’s true from a moral standpoint.
It doesn’t matter whether your family is being deliberately threatened by another human being, or whether they’re in danger thanks to an impersonal economic crash, drought, sickness, etc. Whether your choice is forced by an individual or by circumstances, it’s still forced. And people who knowingly exploit someone else’s forced choice (even if they didn’t create it) are doing wrong; the extent of the wrong varies with the significance of what they’re getting from the person who has no choice.
So I’ll say one final time: the fact that Carina doesn’t say “no” or run away from the brothel is not compelling evidence that she’s a consenting sex partner. That’s precisely what makes this situation so horrific. She can’t say no – despite plainly, desperately wanting to – as long as the circumstances that forced her into the job haven’t changed. She can not say anything that risks this job.
I don’t think Vendetta has rewritten this section at all – it’s still the same as the first time I read it – and to me, it clearly reads as you finding out (a) she’s not comfortable having sex with you, (b) in fact, she’s terrified, © in fact, she is only here because it’s her only option to feed her family. To me, the conclusion is clear. If not to you… well, I’ve said my piece.
@Vendetta, thanks again for your tolerance as we’ve argued back and forth on this one.
1 Like
@Havenstone All 3 of the girls are there for economic reasons, and Lucinda’s reason for being there isn’t any more heart-warming than Carina’s. She needs more money than she makes as a dancer, because If she doesn’t pay off a debt her knees are going to get broken. Being a virgin isn’t a critical part of Lucinda’s self-concept however. So she deals with her decision to sell sex at the brothel much more gracefully. Nevertheless if you give her the $300 she owes, she never returns to the brothel.
There is no way that the thought of giving up her virginity won’t terrify Carina, regardless of the circumstances. It’s just too big a part of how she defines herself to easily or quickly let go. Does that make it ok to have sex with Lucinda, but not Carina? Or do you consider it rape in both cases since both of them are being forced by circumstances? even despite the fact that Lucinda appears to be smiling and laughing the entire time, at least while you’re her client? Lucinda couldn’t afford to say anything that risked her job either.
I would have very much liked the opportunity to have asked Carina if she was ok in a more gentle manner, not the harsher demanding manner that was used to ask her what her problem was. I’d also have liked the opportunity to -specifically- ask her if she really wanted to go through with it, or perhaps wanted help escaping, -before- making a decision. It’s a pity these options weren’t available. You have to decipher her body language instead, and then the question of her willingness becomes open to interpretation.
I think you’re probably right about the section not being rewritten. Rereading one of Vendetta’s earlier posts, apparently there was a separate, even more horrific scene at the same brothel involving Carina that has since been removed. Things are bad enough for her as it is, I can only imagine the scene that got cut.
Can we stop talking about this or start a new thread? I keep getting updates on this thread and it gets annoying when all I see is you discussing you various opinions as to what rape is and whether or not that happened in the game. You all have your own opinions and your own points and evidence supporting those opinions. Vendetta said he meant it to be a rape, so it was a rape. If you choose to decide it was consensual, fine, your choice, hence the name of this website. Why when humans disagree cant they just accept each other instead of arguing over their ideals and opinions?
@Syndicate,
I agree with you on that. This is a Thought-Provoking discussion, but can we at least start a new thread…Aww screw it i’m gonna start a new thread just for this.
@Syndicate wrote:
“Why when humans disagree cant they just accept each other instead of arguing over their ideals and opinions?”
Why do humans who aren’t interested in a discussion feel the need to mischaracterize and trivialize it? I believe everyone engaged in this debate accepts the other humans involved along with their right to hold a differing position. That’s never been the issue I think for any of us. So please don’t mischaracterize this debate just because you aren’t interested.
That said, I have no issue with making a separate thread for the rape discussion as Zed has done.