Pre-Mudsex Dirty Talk

[Harmless]

Also, Harmless touched me inappropriately once. I still have nightmares. They are a dirty, dirty, individual. Save meh. 

[Asche]

OOC Consent to being gently caressed, perhaps cuddled, but not too aggressively. Please post trigger warnings for all the trigger warnings of any new behavior. :3

In all seriousness, consent is a chore, and I'd honestly prefer a flag system. Being grappled and pinned down, about to have a limb violently removed, should never, ever, have the flow of the scene interrupted with 'consent for physical mutilation?' Especially if that scene is just going to be cut short with 'no, just ftb and kill me outright.' I'm not unsympathetic to the existence of people with PTSD, or the factor of free will in deciding what one wants to be exposed to online, or advocating power-emoting. I'm saying your agency is enacted when you decide to play a game about murder, corruption and betrayal where a minimum of two of the playable races are primarily a result of rape. You made the choice to play this game, no one else. Disrupting the flow of the game and exposing yourself to material than makes you uncomfortable (and that you are unwilling to expose yourself to) just makes a less enjoyable experience for everyone involved.

[Down Under]

It makes it a less enjoyable experience for you, perhaps, but not everyone involved. I don't see consent as anything but a necessary hiccup to make sure both parties are acknowledging and accepting the direction of the scene, like adults.

[Majikal]

It makes it a less enjoyable experience for you, perhaps, but not everyone involved. I don't see consent as anything but a necessary hiccup to make sure both parties are acknowledging and accepting the direction of the scene, like adults.

I'd rather see ooc used as a brake for things that get out of control rather than a necessary hiccup, personally. Folks like Asche have suggested flags you could toggle, this would help people cut through the bullshit early in their interaction with players and the idea provides nothing but convenience for the players.

I once put clan wide effort into capturing a particular pc with the only intent being a torturous death, with everyone in the clan excited about the idea. Upon an elaborate capturing of the mark, we brought them to our secret hideout only to be told "I don't consent to torture, please kill." I think the player was being salty, but we obliged, much to the disappointment of 5 other players who's plot revolved around the said enjoyment of injuring the individual. The plot was overly elaborate and put pc's at risk for the effort, had we had a flag that would have told us torture was not consented too early on, we could have guided things in a different direction.

[FantasyWriter]

That's when you kill them then defile/butcher/desecrate their bodies.

[Harmless]

Using OOC to "withdraw consent" is valid, is in the rules, and should be accepted maturely, as much as the requirement to ask for it in advance. Even if consent was given sometime earlier, when the situation seemed innocent.

Scenario/example:

Amosette, The tall, muscular woman sits next to the doe-eyed male youth, smiling. "Hello there, fella." (pleasantries exchanged). "You are quite beautiful for a man, unlike most I see here." "Thank you." (more compliments exchanged.)

The tall muscular woman says, out of character, "Requesting consent for adult-oriented RP in general?"

The doe-eyed male youth says, out of character, "Consent granted."  ((He is not sure what he is consenting to but doesn't want to end the scene.. yet. He COULD say "Consent granted for now" but he shouldn't have to. Consent is always implied as a temporary state until revoked.))

Later, Amosette gets creepy:

The tall muscular woman whispers to you, her hand cupping your behind, "Yes, yes my sweet, I am going to woo you with time, you shall see. You will grow to long for me just as I long for you, and once you do, yes...we will make sweet love. I will give birth to your children..." (Thanks Desertman for the writing.)

(Staring eyes gawk at the scene all around. Though maybe in other conditions, this would have been okay for the doe-eyed male youth, and would have been okay for the doe-eyed male youth's player, the public nature of the actions are a trigger for the player. The player is uncomfortable, and recognizes that they do not like playing this character right now, etc. They don't consent anymore. The exact reasons why don't matter. The scene closes with a fade:)

The doe-eyed male youth says, out of character, "I withdraw consent, and request a fade to our characters parting ways."

The tall, muscular woman says, out of character, "That's too bad, but alright."

The tall, muscular woman glares at a tavern-goer when they gawk at her hand, smack their fists on the bar and then turns away from the doe-eyed, male youth.

The tall, muscular woman says, bluntly "Ehh, you weren't my type anyway."

The tall muscular woman stands up from the bar.

[Harmless]

That's when you kill them then defile/butcher/desecrate their bodies.

This is acceptable as per the rules.

It makes it a less enjoyable experience for you, perhaps, but not everyone involved. I don't see consent as anything but a necessary hiccup to make sure both parties are acknowledging and accepting the direction of the scene, like adults.

I'd rather see ooc used as a brake for things that get out of control rather than a necessary hiccup, personally. Folks like Asche have suggested flags you could toggle, this would help people cut through the bullshit early in their interaction with players and the idea provides nothing but convenience for the players.

I once put clan wide effort into capturing a particular pc with the only intent being a torturous death, with everyone in the clan excited about the idea. Upon an elaborate capturing of the mark, we brought them to our secret hideout only to be told "I don't consent to torture, please kill." I think the player was being salty, but we obliged, much to the disappointment of 5 other players who's plot revolved around the said enjoyment of injuring the individual. The plot was overly elaborate and put pc's at risk for the effort, had we had a flag that would have told us torture was not consented too early on, we could have guided things in a different direction.

The interesting thing is people have said if there were flags that it would modify other PCs actions too much. In the last big thread on this topic, this was stated as being bad. But I don't know if it's necessarily bad or not. I think that it's potentially good, because then a more interesting scene for the victim can be devised, where the lead-up to the kill that will happen (instead of torture) can be made more interesting.

If you intend to torture someone, you treat them differently -- you threaten to kill them but do not. That's the point.. "I have the power to kill you, but I am dominating you by keeping you alive, but suffering." That's the definition basically.

If someone doesn't consent to torture, fine -- then the game changes. If you just snap them up and kill them, then they probably will not be happy. But people who intend to kill play a different game... they make the victim wonder, are they going to be killed or not? Or, they take heavy, pained steps to make the kill SECRET. That's fun too -- it's a different kind of gameplay, with different objectives and tasks involved.

I think it's a good thing if people make it clear early on, "No, you can't torture me. I don't want that kind of roleplay." No problem -- now people will simply plot to kill you. This means everyone has more fun, and plots still happen.

So yeah, the "consent flags, good or bad" debate is one that's interesting. Some are staunchly in the "no" camp. I'm in the "Yes, give us flags" camp.

[Nergal]

Using OOC to "withdraw consent" should be just as valid a move as the requirement to ask for it in advance.

For the record, the current rules on consent already allow for consent to be withdrawn.

[Harmless]

Using OOC to "withdraw consent" should be just as valid a move as the requirement to ask for it in advance.

For the record, the current rules on consent already allow for consent to be withdrawn.

Yep! I was aware. I should have specified that in my post (I edited it a little to reflect that fact, thanks!);

The main point of my post above is that people should be "cool" with that, and roll with it ICly in a simple way as I tried to illustrate. This kind of interaction should be common, and people should not feel "bad" about using that rule, etc. Normalizing.

[Jingo]

That's when you kill them then defile/butcher/desecrate their bodies.

I could see this being a problem actually. I remember when some shitheads would post about doing shit with dead body parts and naming the character of said parts.

[FantasyWriter]

That's when you kill them then defile/butcher/desecrate their bodies.

I could see this being a problem actually. I remember when some shitheads would post about doing shit with dead body parts and naming the character of said parts.

In such a case, their OOC communication would have been the problem (and also rule-breaking), not their IG actions.  But even then, it has nothing to do with the issue of consent.

[Lizzie]

I think a lot is getting lost in all this here. The rules don't require you to -not- torture another character, if consent is rejected. They only require that you not act it out. You can fade to black torture scenes and jump to the end result.  If that torture would normally result in permanent maiming, then the victim can ask that the result be death. If you have only a toggle for on/off consent, what - exactly - are you consenting to, if you have it toggled on? What - exactly - are you rejecting consent to, if you have it toggled off?

Consent to end up with a missing arm, but not a missing leg please -
Consent to end up maimed, but please fade to black the details of the event leading to the maiming.
Consent to a torture scene but if there's maiming please kill off my PC.

There are WAY too many variables for a simple toggle to accommodate.

But none of this has anything to do with whether or not you should ask consent when your character wants to talk detailed sexual talk to another character.

In my opinion - there's no difference between:

>The tressy tressed woman goes down on your blah blah blah blah throbbing yada yada yada pulsating veins etc. etc...

and

>The tressy tressed woman tells you, in sirihish,
"I'm going to go down on your blah blah blah blah throbbing yada yada yada pulsating veins etc. etc...."

The details are still "dirty text" - the mud equivalent of text porn. Some people are into it, some don't care one way or another, and some would just as soon not have to see it scrolling up their screen.

I feel it still falls under the consent rules for sexual scenes, and should require consent. Way conversations are another matter entirely - since psing "ooc" is theoretically frowned upon, I'm not sure who would need to break character - the person about to psi dirty-talk to someone asking consent, or the person receiving the talk asking the sender to cease after the fact.

[RogueGunslinger]

That's when you kill them then defile/butcher/desecrate their bodies.

I could see this being a problem actually. I remember when some shitheads would post about doing shit with dead body parts and naming the character of said parts.

In such a case, their OOC communication would have been the problem (and also rule-breaking), not their IG actions.  But even then, it has nothing to do with the issue of consent.

That scenario when you do this:

Emote goes through a lengthy torture process, taking their sweet time to make sure you suffer the greatest possible amount, reviving you multiple times before finally you succumb to pure agony.

Kill [person].

Unlike rape roleplay, torture RP still happens behind the fade. You and all your buddies still got their IC torture, so at the very least the characters should be happy, even if you as players aren't.

[Harmless]

I think the above is a good argument therefore that flags denoting what your consent views are would not impact the outcomes of plots.

The torture happens regardless of the victim's consent status.

So if you saw someone had "no torture" in their consent flag status, you could still pursue torture and complete that plot, just expecting to do fades when it comes down to it.

Since rape never happens regardless of consent status.

[Lizzie]

Again, Harmless and RGS, that has nothing to do with whether or not you feel "dirty talk" as described in this thread should require consent.

[valeria]

We're sort of drifting off topic here.  I'd split off a torture-consent topic, but I don't have dual monitors where I'm at so it would be more difficult than I'm used to    Does someone want to make a thread?

[Harmless]

Sorry, I didn't mean to drift off topic..I guess at the start of the thread, I was trying to make the point that "dirty talk wouldn't be an issue if we had a consent flag, because you'd know before initiating it." But if you feel that doesn't apply to this "problem" of when consenting should be done, then you're welcome to relocate my posts.

[Desertman]

Consent does not exist to prevent you from having to see dirty talk/dirty text.

If you feel that consent exists to prevent you from having to see bad language and sexual language, you are mistaken. Nobody cares how sexual talk or "text porn" makes you feel at the end of the day. The rule is not in place for that reason.

The only reason consent exists is so that you do not have to play out the affects of sexual things happening to your PC. We do care about the fact some people will not want to roleplay their own characters, that are often emotionally extensions of themselves, in sexual situations if they do not want to be part of that. This includes having to roleplay their characters being involved in other people's sexual situations.

If the player behind the keyboard just doesn't want to have to read dirty words, well, I sympathize on a personal level, but on a policy level, too bad so sad.

Most likely the reason consent doesn't extend to all dirty talk and sexual talk and "text porn", is because staff would have to handle ten requests a week from people who are simply too sensitive for an adult oriented game. It would be far too open to interpretation. You know and I know that there would be a few requests every week where someone is complaining someone, "said they fucked a beetle" or "talked about how they fucked this whore and used the word cock and pussy". People would complain about little things like that, because it would leave things far too open to player interpretation of the rules.

The fundamental difference between consent for "dirty roleplay" and consent for "text porn" is one is enforceable in a semi-possible manner, and the other is ridiculous on every realistic level to ever consider actually implementing said rule.

[Desertman]

I take that back, we could put in a rule to protect the innocent from "text porn". But, that rule would have to follow the same guidelines as the rape rules. Meaning, the only way to actually enforce it that didn't result in a silly number of frivolous requests from the super-sensitive, would be to remove it entirely.

We saw it with rape. We would see it many times worse with any such "text porn" rule. The only solution would be removal of the demon.

This means the only solution that would make this enforceable on any realistic level would be the removal of dirty talk, foul language of a sexual nature, and anything similar from the game.

I don't want to play that game.

[Fujikoma]

I do not consent to being chopped up with bone swords.

[chrisdcoulombe]

ooc will not eat cheese sam I am.

[Lizzie]

Again, the actual point of the OP is getting lost. Desertman, you didn't read the topic. It isn't about using foul language, or using certain words, or not using certain words. It's about context.

I'll give an example again, more explicit this time, which will hopefully convey the intent of the OP's question:

>The green-eyed man slides a finger into your rectum and starts pumping it in and out.

vs.

>The green eyed man tells you, in sirihish:
"In one hour, I will slide a finger into your rectum and start pumping it in and out."


If you consent to the first, there's no problem with the second. But if you do NOT consent to the first, then you might also NOT consent to the second. The player does not want to read about what might or might not be happening to their character. If I object to the first, then I, personally, would object to the second. Maybe you wouldn't, but I would. I consider them equally pornish, for the exact same reasons, using the exact same text.

A fade might be "In one hour, I'll have your butt rocking like a noble's easy chair for more."

or something to that effect. But the details of the action being conveyed, will be obscured.

In other words: You could theoretically have a complete, minutely-detailed text-sex session in Armageddon, without using the "emote" verb at all. You would only need to use "tell," "whisper," or "psi." The concern of the OP is whether or not this should be subject to the consent rules.

[Desertman]

I read the topic.

I also consider them "equally pornish". Absolutely. But, there is an extreme fundamental difference between being told some dirty words, and having to roleplay dirty things happening to your character.

If being told some dirty words, and someone forcing things onto your character physically that you don't want to roleplay, are equal to you....well....we will just have to agree to disagree.

I personally don't think having to read some dirty words is equal to people roleplaying sexing your character physically.

My point to the OP was that consent exists to protect players from having to roleplay being physically involved in sexual situations. It does not exist to protect the players from having to see dirty words since there is a good chance you are going to see a ton of dirty words any time you visit any tavern in the game Allanak  .

Edited to Add:
I completely sympathize with the fact you personally wouldn't want to read those things regardless. If I encountered you in game and you OOC'ed, "Hey bud, I really don't want to read that, can you tone it down a little for me?", I would be absolutely cool with not subjecting you to that, and I'm sure every other person that plays this game would too. I just want to make sure the OP understands that the rule in fact DOES NOT cover that, is not intended to cover that, and nobody reading this thread should start shooting out a dozen player complaints because they saw some "text porn" they didn't consent to first.

[Barzalene]

I agree with Desertman about the difference.One requires that you respond and participate. The other is something that happens to your pc in a game where bad things happen to your game. If you have some particular sensitivity that makes hearing those things in some way particularly unpalatable, maybe you need to excuse yourself from the situation. Personally, if I were oocly making someone uncomfortable and they ooc'd asking that I stop, I would be happy to do so, but I don't think the outliers need policy.

[Narf]

I've always thought about the whole thing as being on a sliding scale of advisability.

On the one hand you have things that are black and white against the rules (requiring consent for sex), then you  have things that are really similar but not quite the same (requiring consent for grossly explicit speech), and then you have the crude jokes that might mention sex but at their core aren't really sexual rp.

The first set of behaviors requires consent; says so right in the rules.

The third set of behaviors never requires consent. You can tell dirty jokes on this game, or make offhanded mentions of sexual behavior.

The second set of behaviors occupies a bit of a grey area. I treat it as something that's allowed, but not always a good idea. Grey areas like this depend a lot on unspoken social contracts between players about what is acceptable. If the other player thinks you've crossed the line and is really uncomfortable with what's happening in game, what's to stop them from ignoring their end of the social contract? Maybe you want to talk about sticking your finger in their anus, and the player on the other side is like "well then, I'm hungry time for lunch." and throws out a three word emote before getting up to go make themselves a sandwich. Five minutes later they're back, barely read anything you've typed and throw out another three word emote before stuffing their face and surfing cat videos for another five minutes.

So while you might not /need/ permission to talk dirty to another player, it might be in your best interests not to ignore it if you're obviously making them uncomfortable OOCly.