Lingo

[Angela Christine]

Oh no, a fate worse than death!  If rape is worse than death, perhaps we should offer euthanasia to all rape victims since they can not possibly live a happy, productive life ever again.  :roll:

I think we need to break down what is ment by rape.  

Two or three figures in dark cloaks grab you in an alley and rip your pants off, then forcably have sex with you.  That is definately rape, right?  I say two or three figures, because the general buffness of all Zalanthans, and the fact that practically everyone carries at least a knife, makes one-on-one rapes against anyone over 15 pretty unlikely.  Zalanthan women are not weaker or more fearful than the men, so rape against men and women is probably equally likely.

Ok, now what if a templar or noble "asks" you to have sex with him/her?  Theoretically you could say no, but given the culture there would be a strong element of threat or coercian here.  An equivilent situation might be like being pulled over on a deserted stretch of road by an armed policeman who "asks" you to give him head to get out of a ticket, and who masages the butt of his gun while he asks.  Or it could be like your proffessor, your minister, or some other authority figure hitting on you, it is uncomforatable and you feel preasured to go along with the authority figure's wishes, but there isn't an overt threat.  In Canada that would definately considered rape, but in Allanak it is probably just considered the price of doing buisness.  An unpleasant chore, but not a life-shattering event.  You might call this "semi-consentual" sex; you don't want to have sex, but you don't decline either.

What is called "date rape" in North America probably wouldn't be recognised at all in Zalanthas.  You are voluntarily going out with someone, you go to their house, room, dormitory, or some other private location with them to "have a drink".  You aren't looking to have sex, you even say "no" but the other person charges ahead, perhaps using some coercion, but not violence.  I don't know if this would even come up.  Most people in Zalanthas would be willing to assert themselves forcably if a date was doing something they didn't like.  And sex isn't such a big deal, it might be considered worth it to have sex just to get the other person to leave without a scene.  It's just sex, it's not like having your ears cut off.

I think that is an important point: sex isn't such a big deal in Zalanthas.  Ok, it's a bigger deal than taking a shit, but not by much.  Sex isn't associated with shame or virtue.  A poor but pretty commoner (boy or girl) would probably be confronted with "semi-consentual" sex a few times before they reach 21, given a treat if they go along with it or a cuff on the head if they decline.  Confronted with the choice between having non-consentual sex or being stabbed, most commoners would be jolly as hell to get off with nothing worse than a little of someone elses body fluids dripping from them.  A rapist who doesn't even bother to beat you up or steal your purse?  Damn, that's just a minor inconvience, a 10 minute delay in your schedual.  Certainly less important emotionally than when a close friend dies, and most people to RP out the repercussions of that for more than a week or two.  Powerlessness is a common experience for most commoners, as is petty violence.  They don't have time to become hystarical because they've been violated sexually.

Honestly, I don't think rape is worse to RP around than other forms of torture.  Having your eyes gouged out, your ears, lips or hands cut off is nasty.  Getting whipped is really unpleasant.  Being burned with a brand is really bad too.  If someone is deliberately torturing a character, I think adding rape into the torture is fair game.  Many PCs will clench their jaws and say "you'll never break me!" while being beaten and tortured, partly because the player is far removed from the character's suffering.  We've seen fictional heros resist all sorts of unrealistic torture, so why not our characters too?  But rape is something that we do fear, probably more than a real Zalanthan would, so where we might have our characters not so much as flinch while being whipped, we will react to the threat of rape.  I've never been in a position where I needed to torture someone, but if I did and if they weren't responding to conventional torture I see nothing wrong with adding in sexual torture.

Naturally you still have to get OOC consent to emote it out, just like you do for regular sex or for non-sexual torture.

AC

[Bakha]

Okay...to make my stance clear, a very good friend of mine was raped.  I do understand the trauma that can inflict on a person...I'm not saying that anyone should do this in game flippantly.  I'm saying that it should NOT be disallowed.  Doing it to VNPC's is a great solution.  I wouldn't want to further traumatize someone that has been already traumatized by such a deplorable act.  I just don't think that because someone thinks it is wrong in RL that it should not be part of the game.  This is a fantasy world that we're playing in.  The consent help file actually mentions the fact that rape should be OOC'ly consented to.  If the staff, through that help file, is saying that rape is a part of this world...it is a part of the world.  OOC communication should be used, however, to make sure that everyone is comfortable with what is happening first.  I just don't want to see anything that is (and should be) part of such an environment as we are playing in deemed unacceptable because we as a society deem it wrong in RL.

This stance I agree with. It, however, seems to disagree with your other statement which follows:

Personally, if it is IC for a character to rape someone and the other character has little say in the matter...it should happen. Otherwise, I would think it bad roleplay. Granted, people could all design their characters personalities to not have it be IC, but that kinda takes away from the harshness of the game...next someone will be saying, murder is bad and I really don't think we should have anyone doing that in game, no matter how IC it is for any characters. If it is IC, I say do it...fade to black if noone wants to RP it out.

This statement seems to imply that rape can and should happen without consent. If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize. Just to make my stance clear as well: If two consenting adults want to RP out rape, that's their business. I just don't think that it should be acted out upon unwilling parties. My reasoning has been amply covered in other posts.

[John]

Just quickly skimmed the topic and I'm interested in what people think.

For those who say that people are OOCly traumatised about rape so therefore people shouldn't RP it out, I can see the logic in that. But do you think people should RP out suicide? Manic depressives? After all, these can be just as bad as if not worse then rape (for some people) for people who have experienced it (know people who've tried too/succeeded, tried themselves, etc). I know the docs say that "suicide shouldn't happen often because have developed a strong sense of living" I think given the right circumstances (say given a choice at being tortured by a defiler for the rest of your natural life or comitting suicide) people would commit suicide. However the people then have friends who ICly might say "good decision" will OOCly have hang ups about it

So I'm just wondering what people think about that aspect of Armageddon.

[Bestatte]

Believe it or not, there are people who have lived through the horrors of Vietnam, who play text games. I don't know if there are any who play Arm, but I know a few from elsewhere. These people were subject to major horrors. Not one-shot deals either..things that happened over the course of days, weeks, and even months. And yet, they don't seem to have any problem separating IC from OOC well enough not to be traumatized when their characters endure a battle scene.

There are people who have endured rape in real life, who have no problem separating OOC from IC when they play text games. If someone can be -that- traumatized by the very idea of the possibility of a "fade to black" non-existent rape in a fantasy game that is documented well for its existence of half-elves and muls who are the product of rape, then they shouldn't be playing Armageddon at all.

And before anyone starts screaming at me for being insensitive, here's a clue. I lost my virginity to date rape before the term was even coined. So don't go on about how I wouldn't understand. I do. And I still don't think it's an issue if you're healthy in mind, and if you're not healthy in mind you have no business playing games like this in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe rape should happen ICly, even in the vaguest of terms, without the consent of both parties.  Two people who want to do it, well, that's their business.  And yes, everyone replying to this topic was either raped, or knows someone that was raped.  It's inevitable, since I believe the statistics are 1 out of every 5 women was raped, with another rape being reported every 5 minutes.

Anyways, I can't tell if the helpfiles support this or not:

Specifically in the case of roleplaying through a rape, the instigator takes on added responsibility. In this case, the instigator absolutely must OOC'ly ask for and must obtain explicit consent from the victim's player prior to involving their character in any emote specifically indicative of the act of rape, no matter how non-graphical you believe it to be.

How can a rape occur ICly without an emote 'specifically indicative of the act of rape'?

[Bestatte]

I think the helpfile suggests that if there is no consent, then the act cannot be acted out with emotes. That means that if the act needs to happen for whatever reason, it must be a complete and total "fade to black" if consent isn't given.

Consent is needed to "act it out" in any way shape or form, whether graphically or vaguely. So without consent, the parties would merely agree OOCly that it happened and continue as if it already did, even though RP wise, it didn't.

Just like when one of my characters was involved in an intimate relationship, we assumed that when our characters were logged off, we were screwing the hell out of each other and having a grand ole time, even though when we were logged on and together, there was never any mudsex of any sort going on, not even fade to black.

[John]

I don't believe rape should happen ICly, even in the vaguest of terms, without the consent of both parties.

Well there's an easy completely OOC way to keep your character safe from certain types of harm

How can a rape occur ICly without an emote 'specifically indicative of the act of rape'?

touch victim
OOC: in that case your raped, the only code way to test if it hapened is through the "touch" command. I'm happy to change my ldesc and wait here without emoting to give someone the chance to catch me if you like.

[Anonymous]

How can a rape occur ICly without an emote 'specifically indicative of the act of rape'?

touch victim
OOC: in that case your raped, the only code way to test if it hapened is through the "touch" command. I'm happy to change my ldesc and wait here without emoting to give someone the chance to catch me if you like.

Touch was removed.

[Malifaxis]

Kyle said:

Trust me, dude, lets just stay out of this one.

Stan replied:

Totally, dude.

Malifaxis goes back to playing with his toy trucks and making 'vrrrrrnnnnn' sounds.

-Fuck rape.  It's lame.  Keep it to vnpcs.

[Sanvean]

Enough.

The consent rule stands, and no amount of arguing about whether it's realistic or not, or whether Vietnam vets play the game, or whatever other bizarre convoluted arguments you want to come up with, is going to change that.

Specifically in the case of roleplaying through a rape, the instigator takes on added responsibility. In this case, the instigator absolutely must OOC'ly ask for and must obtain explicit consent from the victim's player prior to involving their character in any emote specifically indicative of the act of rape, no matter how non-graphical you believe it to be.

I'm not sure how that could be much clearer. And, in all seriousness, if anyone violates this rule, I will ban them. No ifs, ands, or buts.

This is not going to change, barring something like a management coup in which I am ousted from staff, which I am fairly sure is not going to happen, no matter how shifty Tlaloc looks all the time.

All right? Let's move on to something else and leave this dead horse to its well-earned rest.

[Carnage]

Just to have something clarified:

Is it against the rules to have a 'fade to black' rape done, even if one party doesn't want such a thing to happen to their character? Or are we just talking about any sorts of emotes? I'm sure the fiormer isn't true but I just want to make sure.

[Sanvean]

The consent is not to the act; it is to whether or not the act is actually acted out via emotes.

[spawnloser]

I just wanted to respond at Bakha really quick to explain...in the earlier post that you had quote of mine, I was thinking more from the IC aspect, rather than in an OOC manner.  If a character has nothing to say about it...well, they have nothing to say about it...that's to say nothing about the player.

[John]

The consent is not to the act; it is to whether or not the act is actually acted out via emotes.

Thanks for clearing that up

I was confused by people's new interpretation where the player had to give consent for the act to virtually happen (I'd never interpretted the rule that way before).