Can we resume normal internet please.

Hover before you leap.

 

Oh I forgot about that. Haven't come across it yet.

But yeah, I don't know why this game got such an indifferent reception from some circles. I'm having a blast with it.

 

I know that this thread is supposed to be about Jojobobo, but can we pause to discuss rape instead for a moment? The two subjects are basically synonymous anyway.

So, Zanza's statement is something I've heard before, and it's never made sense to me. Clearly sex and power are intertwined in various pleasant and unpleasant ways, but then you could say that about lots of things, and nobody goes around saying "mugging isn't really about taking someone else's possessions by force, it's about power".

If we look at Zanza's statement in context, he was saying that a rape fantasy is okay if it's between consenting adults in their bedroom. So he's proposing that a couple are having sex, and they're pretending it's a rape to make it more exciting, but remember folks - rape isn't really about sex. Well, I mean, isn't it at least a little bit about sex? Doesn't the fact that this hypothetical couple are having sex, make it at least relevant? Imagine the couple were tying each other up instead. Would anyone then say "Of course, rope bondage isn't about sex, it's about the slip characteristics of a clove hitch vs. a reef knot".

The only explanation I currently have is that people don't really like analysing things in detail, especially not unpleasant subjects. So they have these vague concepts in their head like "sex is good" and "rape is bad" and in order to make sure that they don't confuse themselves by thinking about the overlap, they've come up with a neat little phrase that associates rape with something other than sex, and now they can trot it out and everyone sagely nods their heads and thinks that they've solved a problem.

While it's gratifying to think that everyone else is much dumber than me (remember folks - forum posting isn't about discussion, it's about my ego), it's not actually a very satisfactory answer, so if anyone has a better one I'd like to hear it.

 

I always imagined that pointing out the power aspect of rape was to correct an easy misunderstanding of it. It might occur to people that rape happens because someone is just so desperate for sex, that they take it by force because they can't take the lack of sex. But actually, says Zanza, it's not generally as simple as that; often, the taking by force isn't just concomitant, it's part of what drives someone to do it in the first place: a desire to exert power over someone sexually.

So in your example of a couple's rape fantasy, yes it's relevant that they're having sex; but it's also relevant that they bring the rape stuff into it, and the power dynamics that that adds. In other words, they already have the sex element without the rape fantasy; the ingredient that the fantasy adds is power.

 

It never really felt like it had much of a heart to me, and I find the systems in the game needlessly complicated from the respect of making decent builds with them (this is from someone who has made at least one respected build over on the PE forums).

To go into a little more detail, I think the writing on the game was a little rushed, particularly during the ending where something is revealed and your character basically says things like, "OMG, I AM SO MAD ABOUT THIS!" To have the writing fall apart at that last crucial moment makes the whole game come across as less authentic than it actually is, whereas true classic games like Arcanum and like Fallout are at least consistently well written and so seem to have more of a soul. It's very much a part of what makes them so memorable.

It's a good game, but it should have been a great game (with the convoluted systems being very much a part of that). I think the main reason why I've backed the sequel is that I want Obsidian to be successful and I want to favour those kind of classic cRPGs, but really it's not a franchise I'm overly invested in.

Go on.

I think you're playing down the practicalities of a good old fashioned rape. I mean you have to hold the struggling person down and in place, and then you have to forcibly enter a very dry hole that is literally going to shred your bellend through the friction (spit will only do so much Smuel, you should know this). Due to the explained physical cost of raping of someone in this way and that even for the rapist it's likely not going to be an entirely physically pleasant experience, I do think the old adage of "rape is about power, not about sex" is true rather than a means for people to rationalise the horrors of rape. Don't get me wrong, lazy rapes where the woman or man has had a few too many and so doesn't/can't really consent I don't feel are about power, it's just about someone having poor impulse control and being an awful person, but man-in-the-bushes rapes are assuredly about power. Even with rape fantasies in the bedroom, I feel the power dynamic (like in most BDSM play) is more important than the sexual aspect of it (as wayne alluded to) - it's about having a gratifying sense of power over something when you lack power in your work life or other areas of your personal life, which I think is enhanced by the fact you're also getting your end off.

As I'm not actually into BDSM, this is purely my philosophical opinion about it. Personally, I'd much rather play out my power fantasies on obscure cRPG forums..

 

Wayne-scales has the gist of it.

 

Okay, so it's just poor wording. What people mean to say is "rape isn't usually used as a substitute for consensual sex." But instead they say something that maps to "non-consensual sex isn't about sex", which is not only wrong, but actively defeats further discussion, because it prompts people like me to think "Er... yes it is" and then we end up talking at cross purposes.

On the plus side, my ego is preserved. Thanks for playing.

 

How about, "Rape isn't about sex in the same vein as consensual sex, it's really about power," do those extra qualifiers meet your standards? It seems reductive and obtuse to overlook the blatant figurative implication of a motive in the statement "rape isn't about sex, it's about power" to dwell on the literal semantics while beating your chest and going, "Well mechanically, it's still sex." Besides, Zanza never said, "Rape isn't about sex," he said, "Rape isn't really about sex," which made it pretty clear that, although he realises sex is involved, normal sexual gratification is not the driving force behind the act.

Most of what people say isn't going to be an exercise in perfect literalness, there's usually an abstract meaning that you arrive at through context and a tiny ingenuitive leap. What a boring way it would be to talk if everyone had to expand and expound on everything they said so that everything was 100% literal all the time.

Ultimately the motive behind a rape and behind consensual sex are fundamentally different, as while both give sexual gratification the rapist gets additional and likely more significant pleasure through physically dominating someone and having that power over them (like winning a fist fight, but while you're jizzing). As the sexual pleasure of the act is secondary to or at least heavily co-mingles with that other gratification, the point Zanza made is perfectly accurate - and it's why many people say precisely the same thing.

 

See, now, this is exactly the problem. Because you've decided that you have to defend the asinine "rape isn't about sex" statement, you're ending up saying things that are even wronger.

Sex is complicated. There is the basic physical sensation of vanilla sex, which most people enjoy, and then there's a whole host of additional factors which play into the enjoyment, both mental and physical. Some people can only achieve real sexual gratification when acting submissively, or dressing up as an animal, or being watched, but to say that none of those things are "about sex" is ridiculous - those things are what sex means to those people. And in the case of someone who can only achieve real sexual gratification when raping, well, of course it's about sex. If it wasn't about sex, they wouldn't be doing the rape in the first place. There are plenty of ways to exert power over someone without bringing sex into it.

If you still want to have a snappy phrase that sums up what you're trying to say, may I suggest "Rape isn't about physical pleasure, it's about power". That's still not ideal, but it's better than the original.

 

I don't think it's necessarily true that rapes are purely about sex, I think the sexual arousal likely just heightens their power fantasies. In that way, sex is a lesser component there - it just makes the rush of the thing that they want to do (to physically dominate someone) even better.

I also don't buy into that people have to rape to get themselves off, or it's the only thing that satisfies them. There's plenty of legal BDSM rape role-play scenarios where they can indulge that kind of fantasy. From that viewpoint, you then have to wonder what the extra incentive is to go out and commit risky criminal behaviour is - which is why I don't think it's a purely sexual behaviour, because they can get a mostly authentic experience legally.

Obviously some people do commit illegal acts purely to indulge their sexual desire (paedophiles, necrophiles, etc.), but in that case there isn't really a legal means through which they can have sex with the object of their desire. Rapists on the other hand can have sex with whoever they can convince to have sex with them, and can also still accurately simulate a rape fantasy in the flesh if they are willing - so there's no real reason to break the law in order to indulge that. I guess the analogy for a necrophile would be if a certain group of dead people were made legal to have sex with, do you really think the necrophiles would then insist on going out and doing it illegally because fresh dirt under their fingernails is so good when they can have most of what fulfils their fantasy right there? I doubt it (and be glad I didn't go for the paedophile analogy).

Even if you can't find a willing woman to have fantasy rape sex with, I'm sure more prostitutes would be game for the right price, and technically that's not illegal in the UK.

You seem to have made up your mind however that raping is just another kink, so I doubt you find any of this convincing.

 

I'm just having a hard time getting my head around "even wronger".

 

In the states we call this "twenty minutes of action."

So it's painful for all parties involved? Hardly seems worth it.

I think Smuel is on to something; it seems like people will often say pithy, meaningless shit to avoid talking about something they don't like. Is there something wrong with most people's brains where they immediately visualize and balk at distasteful ideas to avoid thinking about them in the abstract?

 

Well... yes? What evidence do you have that it isn't just another kink?

As for the argument that simulated rape is just as satisfying as pretend rape, I honestly don't know because I have no first-hand experience of either, but I imagine that it falls under the same problem as trying to tickle yourself. If your whole thing is about the mental experience of forcing someone against their will, then agreeing a set of boundaries and a safe word beforehand would probably take away much of the point.

 

To be fair though, that guy was an athlete. I mean obviously, there should be different rules for rapist athletes and regular rapists - that's just common sense.

It's just like if you're a pretty medical student and you stab someone in a psychotic drug binge, you shouldn't go to prison for that either.

I wouldn't say this is true, I mean I don't like it and I've at least talked about it in some eye-watering detail (bellend shreading, etc.). I think when it comes to rape, most people do genuinely believe there is an element to it that is beyond sexual, it's not because it overwhelms our fragile sensibilities and so we have to go to extra lengths to compartmentalise and rationalise it.

Rapes become no more or less objectionable to me if they were purely sexual and the violence is more of a byproduct, I just fundamentally don't believe the only thrill people get from a rape is sexual and the other violent thrill is important.

To go for the classic answering a question with a question, what evidence do you have it's not largely a violent rather than a sexual act? I'd say there's equal measure of violence and sex in the act in a classic violent rape, so I guess possibly there's not enough evidence to support either claim.

Surely just as you claim there's sex involved so it's all about sexual desire, I can claim there's violence involved so it's mostly about violent desire? To me you're just making the same point that I am but on the opposite side on the fence, and yet you seem to think the point I'm making is stupid.

Well maybe some people are that sexually depraved, but you'd really think you would try and make do with an approximation if what you like to do can get you put in prison. I guess I don't really believe that the people who have a rape fetish and are ruled by lust to such an extent that 100% of violent rapes are all to do about sex and nothing to do about violence. Plus, people who want to alleviate lust can have a good old soapy wank about it all, if you want to punch someone in the face there isn't any real alternative to that than punching someone in the face.

And I mean, people do rape roleplay, so clearly some would-be rapists find it an appropriate outlet. If some people can make do with it, why can't other people manage to? You think their sexual desire is so special, or that they perceive it to be, that nothing but a a bonafide rape will do for them? And even if that is the case for some people, do you think that it applies to 100% of the total of people who do a violent rape?

The difference between sex and violence is that you can make do with freaky consensual sex regardless of your sexual potentially criminal desire and it be legal (with a healthy measure of wanking thrown in), whereas serious violence is always a criminal act. It seems like taking that additional step that makes something criminal when you have an alternative it points more to it being a violent act, as empirically there are more ways to reduce sexual tension and many people manage to indulge their sexual domination fantasies through these means without resorting to crime.

With all this talk I'm beginning to wonder if you have some maddening fetishistic lust Smuel, and that's why you're so adamant about your own points. I'm betting it involves cheese.

 

Obviously you aren't included in the "people who don't like to think about nasty things" category. I assume you barely have time for anything else.

There's a couple of things here.

Firstly you're the one making an assertion. Well, technically Zanza made the assertion and you decided to defend it, but nonetheless, your position seems to be "rape is different from all other sex-related acts, because it involves violence, even though some other sex-related acts also involve violence, but rape is still different because it's illegal, even though some other sex-related acts are also illegal, but rape is STILL different because I say so."

On the other hand, I'm not making an assertion - I'm basically saying "Are you sure about that? I don't see it." So it's up to you to provide the evidence that your assertion is correct. Technically.

Secondly, my assumption is that the violence is sexual, because the non-consensual aspect is the rapist's kink. So the statement "rape is not about sex" doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think you've adequately challenged this assumption. And I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption since in basically every other case where someone is having non-vanilla sex, you would say that their kink is sexual regardless of what the subject is, so why should rape be an exception?

To illustrate this I'm going to take some things you've written about rapists and apply them to shoe fetishists instead:

"I just fundamentally don't believe the only thrill people get from shoe fetishism is sexual"

"I don't think it's necessarily true that shoe fetishism is purely about sex, I think the sexual arousal likely just heightens their shoe fantasies. In that way, sex is a lesser component there - it just makes the rush of the thing that they want to do (to fondle shoes) even better."

"I think you're playing down the practicalities of a good old fashioned shoe fucking. I mean you have to hold the shoe down and in place, and then you have to forcibly enter a very dry hole that is literally going to shred your bellend through the friction (spit will only do so much Smuel, you should know this). Due to the explained physical cost of fucking a shoe in this way and that even for the shoe fetishist it's likely not going to be an entirely physically pleasant experience, I do think the old adage of 'shoe fetishism is about shoes, not about sex' is true"

Hopefully you can see the absurdity of this. The shoe fetishist has taken something considered mundane, and made it sexual, so saying "it's not about sex" doesn't make any sense.

Of course, rape isn't quite as clear-cut, since a power dynamic is present in a lot of other types of sex too. There is likely a spectrum with soft-focus intimacy on one end, moving through edgier encounters, to harder BDSM, to the point where it crosses a line and becomes non-consensual at the other end. I don't think that "rape isn't about sex" adequately captures this.

Rapists also fall on a spectrum, from "enthusiastic consent only" at one end, moving through "s/he says s/he's not in the mood but lets me do it anyway", "s/he was too drunk to say no", "I deliberately got him/her too drunk to say no", to the extreme of "I enjoy raping". Note that only the last of these is likely to think of themselves as a rapist. Also note that according to "rape isn't about sex", some of these people can't exist. Once again, I feel that "rape isn't about sex" lacks any of the nuance required to properly address this subject, and I think people should stop saying it.

Oh, and they should stop raping too. k thx.

 

You know it.

I think the reason we're at cross purposes is that I don't think you're really thinking of why a rapist might find the lack of consent sexy in the first place, and so by drawing comparisons to any other fetish does really apply because they're not similarly motivated. During a violent rape the rapist will be getting off on it because they're successfully physically dominating someone weaker than them by doing something against their will as well as making them suffer/lose dignity. The exact same thing can also be said of a violent assault when a person wants to beat someone up to prove their better than someone and for the thrill of it.

The underlying motivations are the same, they are about having power over someone else, and they both provide a rush in a similar vein as well. That's what sets it apart from other fetishes, because something like a shoe fetish isn't motivated by the exact same mindset can equally lead them to commit a violent assault. I think that's also why it can be seen as not all about sex, because you can have the same mindset and do a similar violent but non-sexual act for thrills, yet the common thread between those who make it a sex act and those who beat the shit out of people is that they're doing it because the power they have over someone else makes them feel good. That to me is why it is about power - because even though one involves a sex act and one does not they both boil down to that same desire, however a rapist also happens to sexually get off on it.

I guess it's like any emotional desire that can be satisfied by more than one rather different criteria. To make themselves happy some people might watch an action movie, while other people might eat chocolate. Two entirely different behaviours that can still achieve the same goal. For the goal of having a dominating victimising power over someone you can either beat them up or rape them, because sex is involved with one doesn't change the fact the goal remains the same.

I guess the main reason you would have a problem with this reasoning is if you think the motivating factor that makes raping sexy to some people is something else? To me doing something because you get off on the lack of consent seems to be over-simplifying why they find that sexy and what they're getting out of it, and so I wouldn't call rape a non-consensual sex fetish because that doesn't really encapsulate their motivation in any way or shape.

Just to re-iterate the point I'm trying to make, you don't really have to have a certain mindset or personality to find shoes sexy (other than being a really weird dude). You do however have to have a mindset to go out and commit a rape, and it is the same mindset as someone who would beat someone up, that of dominating someone. As such the common thread between someone who only finds raping sexy and someone who beats someone up for thrills is their desire for power.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think the rapes where things like the other person being too drunk are motivated in the same way that a violent rape is - I think they are just down to people having very poor impulse control. Those rapes are just about sex, because if the other person was consenting normally then they'd get just as much out of it then when the consent isn't there - the lack of consent isn't an additional turn on.

Violent rapes however I think are a different animal however, due to the reasons I've mentioned.

I don't think I'm ever going to look at a shoe in the same way again. Plus, I'm going to wear the soles out much faster. Sigged.

 

This seems so muddled to me. You say that a rapist might find the lack of consent sexy. Yes, I agree. In fact it's kind of my whole point. But then you say we can't draw comparisons to other fetishes because they're "not similarly motivated". So... a shoe fetishist is motivated by finding shoes unusually sexually appealing, whereas a rapist is motivated by finding the act of forcing someone against their will unusually sexually appealing, but it's not a comparable motivation? Why not?

So, having power over someone can generate a non-sexual thrill, therefore when a rapist has power over someone it must also be a non-sexual thrill? If this is your argument, then I find it kind of weak. There are people who get a sexual thrill from horror films. As in, when most people see a jump scare they're like "Oh, that was exciting", whereas these people go "Oh, that was exciting, and now I'm turned on". Are you going to say that it's not a sexual thrill, it's a non-sexual thrill that they happen to find sexual, and that's totally different? I don't see it.

What you might be trying to say is that a rapist would be equally satisfied just having the power over someone, because that's the source of the thrill for them, and the sex is kind of incidental. But I think that you yourself make a very strong argument against this with your "why risk an illegal act" argument. I think that the evidence suggests that it is the precise act of forcing someone to submit sexually against their will that the rapist finds appealing. That is their kink. It's different from "just" beating someone up. It's different from BDSM where the parties consent. And it is sexual, by the definition of what rape is.

Well this may be the problem, because "non-consensual sex fetish" seems like a pretty good summary to me. And I still don't understand how you would encapsulate their motivation instead.

Again, this seems a bit muddled. I don't see what's different about the mindset of a shoe fetishist vs. a horror-film fetishist vs. a rape fetishist. All three get sexually aroused at the thought of something non-vanilla.

However, not everyone with a rape fetish will commit a rape. I agree that in order to actually go out and force someone against their will, you need to have a certain level of disregard for both their feelings and the law. But I think that's a separate issue from the question of the motivation of the rapist.

Erm... what? "Rape is not about sex, it's about power, except when it's not about power, it's about sex"? My original point was "Are you guys sure about the whole 'rape is not about sex' thing?" and now you're basically making my point for me. Rape is a complicated subject, and trying to condense it into a pithy phrase isn't helping anything, especially when that phrase is wrong.

 

So yes I'd say they're both about sex, but the sex in a rape is about the desire for power most likely. So while superficially they're both about sex because sex is involved and because they get off on their fetishes, on a deeper level the desire for power is what arguably makes the rape sexy in the first place. As the desire for power is deeper down and more fundamental (it is what literally makes the rape sexy), that is why people equate rape to being about power - because the closer you get to the heart of the matter the more precision you're pinpointing that issue with.

It's like if you take the shoe fetish, say if the reason why they find shoes sexy is because their hot nanny used to beat them with shoes all the time. The shoe fetish is superficially and simplistically about sex, but on that deeper level it's really about that kinkiness with the hot nanny.

And this also doesn't mean to say a rapist doesn't get a distinct thrill from the non-sexual physical part of a rape (the holding down and dominating), which pulls further from saying a rape is purely about sex.

I guess it really depends on how you view these things, and you can say rape is about sex, or rape is about power, or rape is about sex and power - and I feel like an argument can be made for all three. What I was really driving for is that I don't think the premise of "a rape is really about power" should immediately be considered a fallacy as it really depends on your viewpoint.

I'll cover the other points that I don't think I would be saying, "See the top point," for.

What I'm saying that the nature of the thrill someone is receiving isn't really important, it's why they are doing that behaviour in the first place. As mentioned, whether you're getting a sexual thrill or physical rush, the motivation of why either is appealing I think is more important. And as I say, I think it's too superficial to say, "They do it because it makes them jizz," because that doesn't really explain why it's making them excited in the first place.

But yes also I think a rapist can get both a non-sexual and sexual thrill at the same time.

I think I articulated myself poorly last time, I mean for someone to go out and commit a rape there must be an extra incentive for them to do so, and that requirement of force like that which is involved in violence is that incentive. It's the fact the fundamental need for power drives the act that makes them indistinguishable in terms of motivation (the why of the behaviour that is appealing to begin with) that makes them so similar. All I really meant earlier is they need the violence to turn them on.

If you can't infer their exact motivation (as in the specifics absolutely unique to the individual), at the very least the act has that commonality that you can read the desire for power and physical dominion in the fetish. Describing it as a "non-consensual sex fetish", because that term is rather devoid of any links or connotations towards any of the practical outcomes or motivations that underlie the fetish, doesn't really do it much justice.

If you read back I've made the distinction from violent/pre-meditated rapes and impulse driven rapes throughout what I've been saying. If you didn't pick up on that, that isn't my issue. I'm not going to go over something I already did discuss and you didn't find objectionable first time round, well I can do if you insist, but I'm saying people who commit a rape because they're horny and someone is there is different to finding force and power sexy.

It is wrong to condense discussion around all kinds rape to the point about power, but I don't think I ever tried to in the first place, I said violent rapes were about power.

EDIT:

Look, I think I know why we’re at odds here. You’re not happy with my stance because you think “rape is about power” oversimplifies the complexities of rape and is actively damaging the capability of people socially tackling rape as an issue. I’m saying that at least for pre-meditated rape (violent rape, or rape where someone has set out to date rape someone) the “rape is about power” motivation is true, as I I think painting their outlook as anything more complicated is giving them considerably more credit than they deserve. Feel free to correct me if you feel I’ve got your stance wrong, and overall it's pretty clear we're both against rape.

For non-premediated rape, where someone opportunistically takes advantage of someone, I think it’s broadly speaking a case of neglect. In the same way someone can overlook children to serve their own needs, I think when someone is overly horny and they take it out on someone without consent it’s fundamentally of serving their own needs before someone else’s. As to the social causes behind that kind of rape and how best to tackle it in society, it’s a debate for another time (or now if you really wanted to do bring it up, but it’s a slightly different issue).

However, I don’t think people trying to look at someone’s motivations into why they are doing something should be considered wrong or like they’re oversimplifying things. I personally don’t think everyone is a unique little snowflake, and I don’t think the why of rapists and the reasons for them raping – whether that that’s pre-meditated or not – should be considered “special” or “complicated”, I think that people are fundamentally simple animals and it’s detrimental to focus on their superficial personal intricacies when broad patterns in their behaviour already captures the mindsets of these people.

As I said, preventing people getting into these mindsets, which is the crux of this issue, and why you seem to be so ornery because you think I’m negatively impacting on the debate of that (to the extent you think I’m “wrong”, or at least the statement I'm making is) is really a different matter. I don’t think describing pre-meditated rape as being about power, or even that non-premeditated rape when the victim isn’t inebriated isn’t also in a fashion about power, is damaging to the social handling of the issue at all.

But I guess my stance is wrong and I want the rapists to run free in the field and play, and I’m aiding and abetting poor social handling of rapes and rapists through my regressive opinions.

I can appreciate your viewpoint and I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong, I was partially arguing my own stance and partially playing devil’s advocate, but I don’t think you’re going to give my viewpoint any credence whatsoever, so we should move towards wrapping this up because it’s all become a bit pointless. You seem entirely set in your opinion, or at least the bar for convincing you otherwise is set too high for any ground to be made.

 

I guess the only way this debate will be solved is if you go out and rape someone then tell us how you felt.

Disclaimer: don't go out and rape people.