***note: the vast majority of this post is directed at the prevailing idea that I'm some kind of retarded monster. Only wear shoes as they fit***
*sigh*
Alright, I was trying to stay pointedly on topic; but apparently there
are a couple of things that I need to address (WTF???):
So, if it helps anything, let me go ahead and make a few categorical statements concerning my personal views:
1 - @ game table:
- 1a - PCs/players shall never have anything imposed upon them that is "non-standard" without prior consent. Rape falls well within the range of "non-standard". Full stop.
- 1b - All sex is always off screen. Full stop.
- 1c - Sensitive topics (within a particular group) warrant equally sensitive treatment. Full stop.
***I think anything else that's relevant to my personal attitudes about the game-table aspect of this topic can be derived fairly easily from these 3 points.
2 - @ rape in general (to include popular media depictions):
- 2a - a violent personal intrusion and assault; and deserves proportional reciprocal retaliation
- 2b - as a real thing, as has just as much right to the same treatment as anything else that is comparable.
- 2c - context is important.
Okay, there it is -- now let's move on ....
(long-winded retort:)
@ media depictions:
Creative License it a thing. I don't go to movies to get a history lesson -- there are plenty of other avenues for that. Unless the work has the "True Story" stamp on it, then "genre emulation" trumps "historical accuracy" (there are some edge-case exceptions to this; but they're basically irrelevant here).
That being said, I do know that grimdark depictions of brutal-as-fuck societies (real or fictional) need to be grimdark and brutal-as-fuck. And as with any emulation, there are certain elements that all need to be included in order fully paint the picture that you're trying to paint. And don't make the mistake of constructing a false dichotomy here -- there is quite a bit of intervening space between "vital" and "gratuitous", as well as varying magnitudes of each.
The idea that warmongers rape and pillage as they wage their wars did not simply materialize out of thin are. The historical record shows that (generally speaking) the further removed a people are from the trappings "modern civilized culture", the more "depraved" their activities (especially in their war making). It's a real thing. Is it over done in it's depiction? Maybe; but the trope is rooted in actual behavior. Fuck, rape and pillage, associatively speaking, go together like peanut butter and jelly. To pretend any differently is just a whitewash. Just because you may not like that doesn't mean it's not valid.
And not only is it an historical reality, it still goes on today -- and all we do is drop rice and bibles on their heads.
@ RL:
Nobody here is trying to trivialize rape victimhood -- so just dispense with that bullshit right now.
Just 1-2 generations past, rape really was something that the culture expected you to STFU about and get on with yourself. But the culture, by and large, has changed from that paradigm -- and that's a good thing. The governmental apparatus has come a long way as well; hence why we now have rape shield laws -- and that's a good thing. From what I can see, the only people trying to hate on rape victims are a handful of universally-marginalized retards and some completely irrational woman-on-woman hate (and I don't even pretend to understand the warped minds of either of those 2 groups).
(and again: from what I can tell) If there is doubt expressed in a given incident by someone other than the aforementioned 2 groups, it generally because the facts of the case don't add up -- but, objectively speaking, it's only natural, rational, and healthy to be suspicious of anything that doesn't add up.
Point being -- I'm not buying this business of "victim is assaulted everywhere from all sides" business .... that particular paradigm just doesn't exist anymore -- anyone saying different either haven't been paying attention to the progress of the last few generations, or they're trying to sell you something.
Now, that being said ..... since somebody went and opened the door of "most common cases":
All manner of passionately-argued positions come with a certain amount of white noise -- it's unavoidable (and for several different reasons). And the more passionate the topic, the more white noise gets injected (and for the same reasons). I recognize that, and I'm genuinely trying to filter through that static to see what's actually there.
And part of that static is jumping somebody's shit for trying to have a candid, full-throated discussion.
Fuck -- it's like people take their rhetorical lessons from politicians and cable news outlets. Seriously, WTF?
And all that being said, it's all still largely irrelevant to the thrust of my initial probe:
* Does there exist a manner in which rape
can be included in a work of fiction (regardless of medium) that does not fall in to one of the "Big 4" tropes? This only requires a "yes" or "no". If yes, please list them (can discuss as necessary). (I think all of 2 of you have actually addressed this ... sorta. So far, it appears that the no's have it)
* Is every inclusion of rape in a work of fiction considered "lazy"? This may or may not be related to the "Big 4". If no, please list examples of where it is not.
These are serious fucking questions, born out of simple and honest intellectual curiosity; and I seriously would like some-goddamned-body to address this head on --
especially if you say something other than "no" to the first question.
I swear on all that is sacred -- this is not an exercise in validating some imaginary bullshit fetish behavior at my table; nor is this an exercise in trolling. I truly and honestly want to simply filter the static and figure out just WTF is going on here (as it relates to the article linked in the OP).
Squicky-factor at the table isn't even part of this discussion for me (as the very top of this post should indicate) -- it's simply irrelevant to my central questions.
And in the process of writing this, something else has come to mind:
What is more horrific?:
1) somebody willing to have an unapologetically blunt and fearless discussion on the topic of rape that doesn't involve victimhood-apotheosis, -or-
2) a culture wherein a career of repeatedly murdering the bloody fuck out of people for their stuff is considered fun fantasy-play
But
I'm a monster.
Point of order: hiding behind "personal connectedness" or some such shit really is a cop-out in this -- I fully understand the various nuanced subjective elements; but I'm trying to look at this objectively.
BTW - that question is only
partially rhetorical -- feel free to engage.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:
While we're on the subject: how about shit? Should a DM be able to insert random scatalogical references into the game without the players whining about it?
Dude -- it's not an accident that we, as humans, are anatomically/physiologically incapable of looking directly at our own buttholes. Respect nature, man.
Sakuya Izayoi wrote:Murder isn't a given. I could run a campaign about four reptilian rogues named after Renaissance artists whose adventures involved the bloodless deactivation of a clan of robotic planar invaders, and their clashes with a pig, rhino, high level fighter, and a golem with a brain in it always resulted in retreat rather than injury or death.
That's kind of a non-point that you have there.
I mean, sure -- just like I could have all of the creatures in my campaign present as anthropomorphic equine, and cover them with glitter and stardust.
And what I would be left with is a children's cartoon.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that -- but it's far from a panacea.