Coercion, manipulation, and sex.

[Malken]

I think all situations involving sex should be FTB. That'd solve all problems I think. You'd never have to wonder if the person behind the keyboard is trying to creep out on you with a text-porn episode.

Most people just use Discord private channels instead of risking it in apartments these days anyway.

[Is Friday]

I think all situations involving sex should be FTB. That'd solve all problems I think. You'd never have to wonder if the person behind the keyboard is trying to creep out on you with a text-porn episode.

Most people just use Discord private channels instead of risking it in apartments these days anyway.

How would you know that fact? 

[Malken]

I think all situations involving sex should be FTB. That'd solve all problems I think. You'd never have to wonder if the person behind the keyboard is trying to creep out on you with a text-porn episode.

Most people just use Discord private channels instead of risking it in apartments these days anyway.

How would you know that fact? 

I'm drowning in private Discord invites, nerd!

[Is Friday]

I will say that this is a tricky subject overall. I'm not advocating for coercive sexual roleplay but I have played that out IG before with a mixed bag of results. I personally find relationship RP to be super interesting in general, so if the option for a boss/subordinate to have any intimacy was removed I'd be pretty upset about that.

But it's such a gray area - I've had good and bad experiences with it IG. I've been on both sides as the leader and as the subordinate for intimacy between boss/employee. I don't believe I've ever coerced others into a sexual relationship before IG as a leader. Typically I just let thirst-inducing hemotes take their course until the subordinate all but asks (or does ask.) But honestly I've been in so many freak show Tylder Durden insane partnerships who's to say what the heck I've done.

[Coffeebean]

Please refrain from targeted remarks against fellow players in the community. Player complaints can be addressed via the request tool - Aromit

[Robespierre]

I'm just left wondering if Bad Dude offering Talia (and or vice versa) sex in exchange for letting her live (ftb or not) is now considered going too far for Mansa (being a lame excuse or not is not really in question here, I bet 90% of what goes on Armageddon is probably considered lame for one reason or another depending on who you ask).

Wait, I'm a little confused. "I'm going to kill you unless you have sex with me," regardless of whether I would kill you in the absence of sex, really seems to me like forcible rape. Isn't that barred by the rules already, regardless of a FTB or whether someone consents?

I thought we were talking about the Always Sunny implication (phenomenal reference, Mansa) where one party could reasonably believe that they will be denied employment or promotion or might be subject to action from the authorities unless they have sex with the person with more power. My understanding was, in those situations, the person with more power needs to seek OOC consent at the earliest possible opportunity, but because that's vague, some are advocating that this be discouraged or disallowed to varying degrees. FTB solves nothing because everyone is still roleplaying as if that happened.

I get why, in theory, you could have a gender-equal world where sexual coercion exists and it's gritty and interesting, but practice, it  looks like it ends up targeting female characters and likely female players a lot more. At a minimum, it might affect the size of the player base, particularly because we all want a world that's generally harsh and everyone is terrible to each other. In a carebear world where you don't have to worry about dying of thirst or getting imprisoned for the shape of your ears, saying "no" is easier.

If culture forbids superior/subordinate relationships, that actually might help enforce class divides. Even if it doesn't, making the world unforgiving in this particular way doesn't seem worth it given the way this plays out in practice.

[Malken]

Wait, I'm a little confused. "I'm going to kill you unless you have sex with me," regardless of whether I would kill you in the absence of sex, really seems to me like forcible rape. Isn't that barred by the rules already, regardless of a FTB or whether someone consents?

I don't think it is...

Note that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world. Also, the rule of consent still applies as to how and if the sexual scene would be carried out.

I think that's what Mansa is trying to change.

[Shabago]

Wait, I'm a little confused. "I'm going to kill you unless you have sex with me," regardless of whether I would kill you in the absence of sex, really seems to me like forcible rape. Isn't that barred by the rules already, regardless of a FTB or whether someone consents?

I don't think it is...

Note that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world. Also, the rule of consent still applies as to how and if the sexual scene would be carried out.

I think that's what Mansa is trying to change.

This would get you immediately banned. Immediately.

That isn't coercion - that is rape. If you are threatening or carrying out violence against someone in order to 'get sex' = Rape.

Further:

In the very paragraph being referenced, "Rule of consent still applies". This means that nothing graphic happens -period- if you do not wish to actively engage with it.

"You know Amos... I bet if I got some, I'd be less stressed out and could focus on that order of armor you wanted from Salarr." < Coercion

"Fuck me or die." < Rape.

[Khorm]

Wait, I'm a little confused. "I'm going to kill you unless you have sex with me," regardless of whether I would kill you in the absence of sex, really seems to me like forcible rape. Isn't that barred by the rules already, regardless of a FTB or whether someone consents?

I don't think it is...

Note that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world. Also, the rule of consent still applies as to how and if the sexual scene would be carried out.

I think that's what Mansa is trying to change.

This would get you immediately banned. Immediately.

That isn't coercion - that is rape. If you are threatening or carrying out violence against someone in order to 'get sex' = Rape.

Further:

In the very paragraph being referenced, "Rule of consent still applies". This means that nothing graphic happens -period- if you do not wish to actively engage with it.

"You know Amos... I bet if I got some, I'd be less stressed out and could focus on that order of armor you wanted from Salarr." < Coercion

"Fuck me or die." < Rape.

why is there a distinction between okay rape and not okay rape? abuse of power is okay rape unless it's abuse of physical power?

trading favors for sex is like an entirely different tier of play and it can be abused in an entirely different manner.

i feel like the direction this thread is taking is making what is/is not okay even more arcane and confusing and open to interpretation.

[Is Friday]

prior comments removed.

[Lotion]

"You know Amos... I bet if I got some, I'd be less stressed out and could focus on that order of armor you wanted from Salarr." < Coercion

Just because you are calling this form of rape something other than rape does not change the fact that it is rape.

[Malken]

This would get you immediately banned. Immediately.

That isn't coercion - that is rape. If you are threatening or carrying out violence against someone in order to 'get sex' = Rape.

Further:

In the very paragraph being referenced, "Rule of consent still applies". This means that nothing graphic happens -period- if you do not wish to actively engage with it.

"You know Amos... I bet if I got some, I'd be less stressed out and could focus on that order of armor you wanted from Salarr." < Coercion

"Fuck me or die." < Rape.

Okay, I'm glad that I will never find myself in those situations, since that's not the kind of plotlines I'm after.. But I honestly don't really understand the difference between coercion and rape here.. Especially since coercion is in the rape help file and it pretty much mentions that it isn't against the rules to make that threat.

The definition of coercion is "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance." I'm telling you that if you don't fuck me, you'll die. How is that not coercion? How is that rape? I'm not forcing myself on you, I'm forcing you to make a choice.

I'm not saying that any of this is OKAY, I'm just saying that this is confusing as hell, and you're expecting a complete newbie who starts playing on a mud with the tagline "Murder, corruption & betrayal", in a city known for its coercion and abuse of power, to know the fine line between what is acceptable and what isn't.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

i feel like the direction this thread is taking is making what is/is not okay even more arcane and confusing and open to interpretation.

Well, the nature of discussion is that difference are hashed out, and a general consensus is reached. Along they way there will be moments of chaos. That's par for the course, and I think it's alright.

So far, although there have been a few posts that ... came real close to becoming flames ... you guys have done an admirable job keeping things on track regarding such a important and sensitive subject, so kudos to you all. Keep it up.

[Malken]

@Coffeebean - Okay. Clarification: Gray area is not coercion, it is relationships between disparate classes and positions of power. I said in my post that I was not advocating for coercion sexual roleplay.

What does that even mean? Someone needs to define exactly what is coercion otherwise, as this thread shows, one person's definition of rape is difference that someone else's..

I personally think that this part of the help file:

Any other acts that might be considered 'sexual assault' such as inappropriate touching (grabbing asses, touching thighs, grabbing breasts, kissing, etc..) is not considered rape, even if done by physical force. Note that you should watch to avoid power-emoting, and phrase such actions as attempts.

only adds to the confusion.

[Robespierre]

But I honestly don't really understand the difference between coercion and rape here.. Especially since coercion is in the rape help file and it pretty much mentions that it isn't against the rules to make that threat.

I support banning coercion here as well as rape, so I don't want this distinction to be read as justifying it:

From my read of the rules, whether or not someone is raped comes down to whether someone provided consent. ("Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.") All you need to do is determine whether someone provided consent, even if the circumstances of that consent are shady. Looking at a non-sex transaction might make this easier. Let's assume an employer wants some chalton hide boots an employee just made.

1) The employer grabs the boots out of the employee's hands. No consent was given. Same with physically imposing yourself on someone else.
2) The employer holds a knife to the employees throat and says "the boots or your life." A nod doesn't make the transaction consensual. Those are still the employee's boots. Same with the threat of violence for sex.
3) The employer gets the employee drunk, the employee passes out, and he takes the boots. No consent was given. Same with sex.
4) The employer says, "I'm going to fire you unless you give me those boots." There is consent here, even if there's a huge power imbalance. The employer and and employee have reached a valid agreement whereby the employee has traded her boots for continued employment. Here is the situation where, while it's not technical rape as the game is defining it, but a lot of people are advocating we ban it anyway, because boots and sex should be treated differently.
5) The employer says every day for a year, "I really like those boots and wish I had a pair," and the employer gives him her boots. This is clearly consensual. And if a threat hasn't been made, you can't really call the employer a rapist. Nevertheless, there's an implication that, IMO, we want to discourage.

I personally think that this part of the help file:

Any other acts that might be considered 'sexual assault' such as inappropriate touching (grabbing asses, touching thighs, grabbing breasts, kissing, etc..) is not considered rape, even if done by physical force. Note that you should watch to avoid power-emoting, and phrase such actions as attempts.

only adds to the confusion.

We should ban sexual assault. That seems easy.

[Lotion]

We should ban sexual assault. That seems easy.

If we are banning sexual assault then we should also ban rape in all forms.

[Brokkr]

Please stop trying to use non-standard definitions to advance your arguments.

Rape - While there are slight differences around mainstream definitions, the key is usually that the penetration occurred without consent.  That consent part, in conjunction with specific sexual activities, is what is key.

Sexual Assault - A range of acts that can include inappropriate touching, groping, kissing and yes, rape.  Key here is that rape is a subset of sexual assault activities.  Not all sexual assault acts are rape.  If you are equating the two you are not using a mainstream definition of the terms.

Sexual harrassment - Traditionally only for work environments, although folks are starting to use it more broadly.  Coercion is a form of sexual harrassment, when it is non-phyiscal and does not remove the ability to consent.  Coercion of ("do this and I will give you a raise/Salarr Armor/take back my lie to the Templar) this sort is not sexual assault and certainly not rape.  Unwanted sexual attention can also be sexual harrasment (and can also be sexual assault and/or rape) like the prototypical hostile work environment due to unwanted sexual advances.  Gender harrassment is also lumped in here.

We disallow rape.  It is a subset of Sexual Assault and a subset of Sexual Harrassment.  Threatening physical violence removes consent, just as forcibly performing the act does in RL, and thus is rape.

The rules do not prohibit those Sexual Assault or Sexual Harrassment activities that aren't rape.

[Brokkr]

That said, if we feel you are getting your jollies off with a persistent pattern of sexual harassment, gaslighting or other fuckwad activity that may be otherwise within the lines, we reserve the right to do anything from talk to you to store or ban you without notice.

[Lotion]

We disallow rape.

The rape helpfile describes exactly what forms of rape are allowed.

Note that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world.

It is disingenuous to claim that rape is disallowed in ArmageddonMUD when the rape helpfile explicitly allows rape. It does not allow all rape but it does allow some rape. Rape is rape and none of it should be allowed.

[Lotion]

Please stop trying to use non-standard definitions to advance your arguments.

The definition of rape I am using in my arguments is the one on Wikipeida which is explicitly mentioned as a valid definition of rape in the rape helpfile.

[Brokkr]

Lets see what the first line of wikipedia says:

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.

The next line is I think what you are getting on about, but you need to look at the references and then the 3rd line:

The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.

Sure, it is used that way.  Incorrectly, or at the least expansively.  At least when using California legal definitions.  Which is pretty much precisely what the first line is, while when incorporating the second line it becomes what California legally calls sexual assault. 

There is also some background knowledge that you would need when correctly interpreting the wikipedia entry, remembering that some of the terms used are going to be in the legal context and not the layman's definition.  For example, when talking about coercion they are not talking about layman's definition, but rather coercion through violence or threats of violence.  Which is congruent with our disallowing threats of violence as equivalent to using force.

[Lotion]

from wikipeida

The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability, or is below the legal age of consent.

This snippet even contains a helpful link to the article on coercion which has the following snippet in its opening paragraph

In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests.

Rape via coercion is still rape and my opinion remains that the forms of rape explicitly allowed by the rape helpfile should be explicitly disallowed. Just because the form of rape I am describing does not fall under some cherrypicked definition of rape does not mean it isn't rape.

[mansa]

That said, if we feel you are getting your jollies off with a persistent pattern of sexual harassment, gaslighting or other fuckwad activity that may be otherwise within the lines, we reserve the right to do anything from talk to you to store or ban you without notice.

If you'll ban someone for working within the current "letter of the law", then the rules should be updated to prevent the ambiguity.  The players who are on the receiving end of the sexual harassment shouldn't have to come forward.

Sexual harassment disproportionally has females as the victim, and this is against the rules of the mud - that gender is an issue at all within the playerbase.

I don't think we should allow this within our community. 

[Dar]

An example of coerced sex. I was the one who was doing the coercion.


I played a Red Fang Elf (male) and encountered a desert elf of another tribe (female).

I knew the other elf was hoping to kill me and feigned being wounded, ran off to a distant cave and pretended to sleep. She tracked me down and engaged. I knocked her out and robbed her. In the process of robbing her I have stolen a very very important object. The object if she lost it would spell great shame and exile from her tribe. Losing that item was unthinkable.

When the elf came to, she ran away instantly. But that's okey, because she later realized her special object was gone. She used some stuff to try and rip me apart, but I survived them. Finally it came down to negotiations.

My terms were:

One year she is to follow my lead. During this year, she is to give birth to at least one child from my blood. After one year, she can challenge me to a duel and if she wins, she is free. If she loses, it's one more year.

Now, I died within like ... a rl week. So it didnt go to any proper culmination. But the terms did result in an FTBed ... insemination.


Where do you guys place this plot on your whole coercion/rape spectrum.

[Lotion]

That is rape and should be disallowed.