Sure. I wasn't speaking of jealousy or social acceptance or will do to what MC desires. I meant that, as i see her, she'd rather not. She clearly sees her husband as a top tier man and she wouldn't be interest in a man that is less then him in any mean shaper or form.
Also, sharing his wife among all the women in the household would feel like a giving up of power by MC, it would kinda feel out of character.
Desert Stalker is no place for cuckholding. There's plenty of NTR if one has the hitch
Well, she doesn't have to be interested in the man nor does she have to think of him as better than the MC, that will absolutely never happen. Much like the sharing of Ain or Emilia with Igor, the MC deems it necessary to happen so he tells her to do it and she does it.(player choice dependent of course)
Hmm... I don't want to call anyone out, but even though these claims about the game are close to the source, they are far removed from what we actually get to play. All this talk about "no jealousy" and "social lubrication" isn't reflected in the game at all. Pretty much the entire game consists of playing as a bald buff dude, who dominates everything in his path. There's no casual sex in the game so far and even the two sharing scenes are about domination aswell.
This can't even be explained away by the fact that the Stalker is the baldest buffest dude, who can take everything he wants by force. Because even when we got to visit another household in the latest update, they didn't afford the Stalker the same courtesy we could afford Igor on his visit. Instead Zahra's sister expressed concern that her husband could get jealous.
So even if canonically there's hot sweaty casual sex and sharing going on everwhere else in Zeta, it seems like the player character's perpective on this is skewed, because we didn't get to see it, yet.
Hmm... I don't want to call anyone out, but even though these claims about the game are close to the source, they are far removed from what we actually get to play. All this talk about "no jealousy" and "social lubrication" isn't reflected in the game at all. Pretty much the entire game consists of playing as a bald buff dude, who dominates everything in his path. There's no casual sex in the game so far and even the two sharing scenes are about domination aswell.
This can't even be explained away by the fact that the Stalker is the baldest buffest dude, who can take everything he wants by force. Because even when we got to visit another household in the latest update, they didn't afford the Stalker the same courtesy we could afford Igor on his visit. Instead Zahra's sister expressed concern that her husband could get jealous.
So even if canonically there's hot sweaty casual sex and sharing going on everwhere else in Zeta, it seems like the player character's perpective on this is skewed, because we didn't get to see it, yet.
So the thing about the sister and brother-in-law is that they (or at least he) come from another land that is not as sexually liberal as Zeta. As that household scenario develops, it's possible we will see MC just take what he wants, or show the brother-in-law by offering Zahra, which could get him used to the idea and eventually be more liberal with his wife. Obviously, these are just my thoughts based on observations, but that to me seems to be the two directions this could go.
Well, she doesn't have to be interested in the man nor does she have to think of him as better than the MC, that will absolutely never happen. Much like the sharing of Ain or Emilia with Igor, the MC deems it necessary to happen so he tells her to do it and she does it.(player choice dependent of course)
This actually gets to the reason I think sharing Zahra doesn't make sense. She, by the character of her we have seen, wouldn't be into being with another man by choice, ever. Meaning that, as you say, the MC would be basically making her do it, no different than Ain or Emilia. That would imply that he doesn't see her any differently than he does those two. However, we know the MC does see her differently. It is one thing to share a slave, or even a daughter with a good friend, it is another to share your wife against her will.
Now, I hold to the principal of the "death of the author," meaning that it doesn't matter what the author says outside the work, it matters what we see. Hildegardt, made a good point in relations to this. The developer's words, and even some of the off-hand comments in the library which largely depend on how they are read, seem at odds with what we see. In the game we see a culture where "might makes right" is the highest ethic. Sexual liberation and other things don't really factor in, and in fact, clash with that ethic. It is similar to trying to be a pacifist, you are allowed to be a pacifist because other good men are not and protect you from the violence of evil men.
I cannot fathom a single case were sharing Zahra makes sense give the dynamic we see in game, when the MC has access to a daughter and a slave that could be used in such a commodity fashion. Letting the brother-in-law sleep with Zahra makes almost no sense at all, that character, as far as I can see exists to be cucked. Even if a stronger character than the brother-in-law were to arrive and letting them have a sexual action with Zahra was "expected," the ethic of might making right would still overrule that and the MC would be right in denying that expectation and would be, I would think, held in higher standing for doing so.
If might makes right then sexual liberation does not exist, sex is at the whim of the strongest man at the time. A strong man keeping his women for himself should be just as, if not more, highly regarded as a man who uses his women to get ahead because he is not strong himself and trades them to get strong men to aid him.
Also, jealousy is not a cultural quality, it is a human one. Just like greed, gluttony, lust, and any other vice. The idea that Zeta has "moved beyond" jealousy in regard to sex is to ignore human nature. One could say that there is a sense to the MC being willing to share a slave, she could be seen as a commodity to some players, but letting another man have sex with a wife is different by its very nature. That is, if she was less than willing, and her being willing is dangerously close to her cucking her husband since it tacitly admits that he does not satisfy her sufficiently. It devalues her as a person and a partner, seeing her as no different than the slave girl, those are things we have seen the MC does not think. He values her as his wife and partner.
The brother-in-law is a weak man, and so his jealousy is irrelevant in Zeta culture perhaps, and it would be so for any other weaker man. A strong man's jealousy would trump the culture even if the culture was not one were jealousy was common. That aside, however, you still stand on the rocky foundation of a single strong man being able to upend the system.
From a real-world anthropological stance as well, even in cultures that were more sexual open, sexual restraint was still seen as an ethic. In Greek culture Athena, Artemis, and Hestia were virgins and it was the ultimate embodiment of female power. No man could take their virginity and they would only give it to a worthy man, and there wasn't one. "Sexual liberation" has devalued women. Men acted like cads, and powerful, worthwhile women called them to higher standards and men would rise to them. Until recent history and anyone with eyes should be able to see where that has led the state of affairs between the sexes.
All that to say this: the Zeta we see is not a culture of sexual freedom, sexual fluidity, lack of jealousy, or sexual commodity. It is one where "might makes right" and the strongest dictate the terms of all sexual encounters. Might making right is the only actual ethic we have seen continually referenced and play out in game. The queen is stronger than the prisoners and forces them to be whipped, burned, and used in the street. The guard in the alleyway is stronger than the slave girl and forces her to please him. The MC Stalker is stronger than the man in the street and prevents him from beating his slave. The MC is stronger than the brother-in-law and can take his women for himself. The MC making the raider girl give the other raider a blowjob was not because of sexual liberty but as way of devaluing her. The MC letting his daughter or slave give Igor a blowjob was not out of sexual liberty but out friendship and not valuing the women as anything more than he might a "glass of the good wine."
The best display of this ethic in two forms comes from the interaction between the MC and the queen. As the player we can acquiesce to her political strength or assert our physical strength. These two forms of might clashing is, I think, the best encapsulation of Zetan culture we see in the game.
This actually gets to the reason I think sharing Zahra doesn't make sense. She, by the character of her we have seen, wouldn't be into being with another man by choice, ever. Meaning that, as you say, the MC would be basically making her do it, no different than Ain or Emilia. That would imply that he doesn't see her any differently than he does those two. However, we know the MC does see her differently. It is one thing to share a slave, or even a daughter with a good friend, it is another to share your wife against her will.
Now, I hold to the principal of the "death of the author," meaning that it doesn't matter what the author says outside the work, it matters what we see. Hildegardt, made a good point in relations to this. The developer's words, and even some of the off-hand comments in the library which largely depend on how they are read, seem at odds with what we see. In the game we see a culture where "might makes right" is the highest ethic. Sexual liberation and other things don't really factor in, and in fact, clash with that ethic. It is similar to trying to be a pacifist, you are allowed to be a pacifist because other good men are not and protect you from the violence of evil men.
I cannot fathom a single case were sharing Zahra makes sense give the dynamic we see in game, when the MC has access to a daughter and a slave that could be used in such a commodity fashion. Letting the brother-in-law sleep with Zahra makes almost no sense at all, that character, as far as I can see exists to be cucked. Even if a stronger character than the brother-in-law were to arrive and letting them have a sexual action with Zahra was "expected," the ethic of might making right would still overrule that and the MC would be right in denying that expectation and would be, I would think, held in higher standing for doing so.
If might makes right then sexual liberation does not exist, sex is at the whim of the strongest man at the time. A strong man keeping his women for himself should be just as, if not more, highly regarded as a man who uses his women to get ahead because he is not strong himself and trades them to get strong men to aid him.
Also, jealousy is not a cultural quality, it is a human one. Just like greed, gluttony, lust, and any other vice. The idea that Zeta has "moved beyond" jealousy in regard to sex is to ignore human nature. One could say that there is a sense to the MC being willing to share a slave, she could be seen as a commodity to some players, but letting another man have sex with a wife is different by its very nature. That is, if she was less than willing, and her being willing is dangerously close to her cucking her husband since it tacitly admits that he does not satisfy her sufficiently. It devalues her as a person and a partner, seeing her as no different than the slave girl, those are things we have seen the MC does not think. He values her as his wife and partner.
The brother-in-law is a weak man, and so his jealousy is irrelevant in Zeta culture perhaps, and it would be so for any other weaker man. A strong man's jealousy would trump the culture even if the culture was not one were jealousy was common. That aside, however, you still stand on the rocky foundation of a single strong man being able to upend the system.
From a real-world anthropological stance as well, even in cultures that were more sexual open, sexual restraint was still seen as an ethic. In Greek culture Athena, Artemis, and Hestia were virgins and it was the ultimate embodiment of female power. No man could take their virginity and they would only give it to a worthy man, and there wasn't one. "Sexual liberation" has devalued women. Men acted like cads, and powerful, worthwhile women called them to higher standards and men would rise to them. Until recent history and anyone with eyes should be able to see where that has led the state of affairs between the sexes.
All that to say this: the Zeta we see is not a culture of sexual freedom, sexual fluidity, lack of jealousy, or sexual commodity. It is one where "might makes right" and the strongest dictate the terms of all sexual encounters. Might making right is the only actual ethic we have seen continually referenced and play out in game. The queen is stronger than the prisoners and forces them to be whipped, burned, and used in the street. The guard in the alleyway is stronger than the slave girl and forces her to please him. The MC Stalker is stronger than the man in the street and prevents him from beating his slave. The MC is stronger than the brother-in-law and can take his women for himself. The MC making the raider girl give the other raider a blowjob was not because of sexual liberty but as way of devaluing her. The MC letting his daughter or slave give Igor a blowjob was not out of sexual liberty but out friendship and not valuing the women as anything more than he might a "glass of the good wine."
The best display of this ethic in two forms comes from the interaction between the MC and the queen. As the player we can acquiesce to her political strength or assert our physical strength. These two forms of might clashing is, I think, the best encapsulation of Zetan culture we see in the game.
Your arguments make sense and hold merit, but they discount several factors and are predicated on the "might making right" being the only thing at play.
Sexual liberation and other things don't really factor in, and in fact, clash with that ethic. It is similar to trying to be a pacifist, you are allowed to be a pacifist because other good men are not and protect you from the violence of evil men.
By your very framing of the example, you admit that it IS in fact possible to be a pacifist precisely because there are people who are not. We can agree on that or not, but without involving real life political ideology in it, it does not change the fact that the possibility is still there. The world does not only consist of pacifists or non pacifists. It is a balancing act of different personal actions and viewpoints within which it is entirely possible to be a complete pacifist and still get ahead in life. Similarly, an admittedly weaker framed Omar can still become a wealthy merchant, because his life is not framed only by personal physical strength.
I cannot fathom a single case were sharing Zahra makes sense give the dynamic we see in game, when the MC has access to a daughter and a slave that could be used in such a commodity fashion.
You are forgetting individual agency and desires.
Zahra is an intensely sexual creature. She has her own appetites. The existence of those appetites does not undermine her relationship with Zaton.
Much as Zaton needs variety to spice up his sex life, this could very well hold true for Zahra (depending of course of player choices). In BDSM terms, they are a power couple where she is, at least in the bedroom, every bit as much of a Domme as Zaton. You could think of them as swingers. On average, very few men tickle Zahra's fancy, but it might happen, and if it did, Zaton might be ok with it or not...and we would see how Zahra and Zaton's thoughts on the specific matter play out in the scene. (with the caveat that the player, in this case, can "decide for Zahra" whether she still goes through with it or not, based on his own wanking preference, so to speak).. whatever path would be chosen, it would carry over consequences in the relationship.. or not, depending on how it is framed and how serious the disagreement between them.
Much like in today's world, swinging and polygamy is something that is largely determined,(when it works, and after 25 years of marriage we can safely say that between these two people it works) by rules and by constant dialogue and mutual "checks and assessments", to redefine or confirm those rules if necessary. That IS what Zahra and Zaton talking out Katherine's involvement is all about.
If she decided to not limit her sex escapades to women but decided that she fancied a guard, or a guest, or even Omar (really though? have we failed at presenting his role/character? ), her being able to pursue said interest would depend on the circumstances. If the object of her interest was not somebody Zaton fundamentally objected to, if he would think it hot, for a change, to see his wife enjoy being spit-roasted in front of him because she wants to and has the confidence to know that she puts on the best show, or if he just wanted to give her what she wants on that day because he knows it would make her happy, he might just let it happen and the fact that might makes right would not be as much of a concern, because there isn't a power play being enacted at that moment in time.. it's just two adults who love each other and want to make each other happy.. and if occasionally that means adding a sex toy or another person to the mix, why not do it? IF we must reaffirm at all turns that might makes right, then we can also reframe it as Zaton having the might and the confidence to make Zahra happy by indulging or making a sexual fantasy/desire of hers come true. She would love him all the more for it, and he knows that it would not drive a wedge between them either way he decided to go about it.
If might makes right then sexual liberation does not exist, sex is at the whim of the strongest man at the time. A strong man keeping his women for himself should be just as, if not more, highly regarded as a man who uses his women to get ahead because he is not strong himself and trades them to get strong men to aid him.
That is very true in the arena of social standing, commerce, politics or, occasionally as a survival ploy. But it doesn't have to dominate and permeate every facet of every day to day interaction, routine or exceptional as may be.
Also, jealousy is not a cultural quality, it is a human one. Just like greed, gluttony, lust, and any other vice. The idea that Zeta has "moved beyond" jealousy in regard to sex is to ignore human nature. One could say that there is a sense to the MC being willing to share a slave, she could be seen as a commodity to some players, but letting another man have sex with a wife is different by its very nature.
Yes and no. Jealousy is a human quality, sure, but how you frame it and what triggers it is entirely situational and determined by culture.
Say you pack up your wife and move tot he Amazons to go live with one of the local tribes. Their women walk around with their tits on display and nobody bats an eye. You might come at it from a western mindset and ethos and be fine with looking at their titties but not as happy if your wife decided to join the local custom. YOU might be culturally driven to not like that on account of you not wanting to have other men than you have sexual thoughts about your wife's breasts.. but to them that would be incomprehensible. The majority of the men would not be moved towards sexual thoughts. They might stare because of the novelty of her skintone, and a few might for sure think they'd like to tap that, but culturally, the exposure to something that we determine to be sexual and fetishize does not cause the same reactions to them.
None of that means that you are more of a male than them, or vice-versa.
If exposure to sexual activities was the norm, it would engender much fewer instances of jealousy, except maybe in those individuals who are insecure and feel they are missing out or not measure up.... and that's where jealousy exists on an individual level, within a society that by and large uses different measures.
That is, if she was less than willing, and her being willing is dangerously close to her cucking her husband since it tacitly admits that he does not satisfy her sufficiently. It devalues her as a person and a partner, seeing her as no different than the slave girl, those are things we have seen the MC does not think. He values her as his wife and partner.
Hard no on the bolded part. A hotwife (openly) cheating on her spouse does revolve around the fetish both might share of her hooking up with "better specimen" but that's a very monolithic and specific fetish and way to look at it.
A woman, much like a man, has her own sexual fantasies and kinks. It is entirely possible for her to occasionally want to be double stuffed without this meaning that the MC is in some ways lacking or insufficient or less of a man.
If occasionally she feels extra kinky and wants to share a bed with someone new, or if she wants to reaffirm her personal friendship with a man (one approved by her husband, in this case), that is entirely valid and "on her" (player's choice dependent, of course), and does not take anything away from the strength of their union, much like Zaton fucking anybody else does not undermine the regard and love he has for his wife.
He does it with her blessing and if she really didn't want him to, he might just decide to not fuck that girl that Zahra really doesn't want him to (or, if the player chooses otherwise, he might still do it, knowing and not caring that it will hurt his wife.. But in that case, HE would be doing something hurtful towards her. Of course many a player will want to do that anyway, given the nature of the game and so on.)
From a real-world anthropological stance as well, even in cultures that were more sexual open, sexual restraint was still seen as an ethic. In Greek culture Athena, Artemis, and Hestia were virgins and it was the ultimate embodiment of female power. No man could take their virginity and they would only give it to a worthy man, and there wasn't one. "Sexual liberation" has devalued women.
I would like to think that it has somewhat levelled the playing field allowing women to be just as nasty and uncaring as men have had the freedom to be... not that they weren't before that, but it had to happen behind closed doors and it's the sort of situation that set the ground for men who play around to be players and studs, and women who play around to be whores, which really is nonsensical if you think about it. We are all sexual creatures and how we decline that sexuality should not be seen differently by society based on what procreative role biology has placed us in.
All that to say this: the Zeta we see is not a culture of sexual freedom, sexual fluidity, lack of jealousy, or sexual commodity. It is one where "might makes right"
No
sometimes a man, or a woman, just wakes up horny and wants to scratch an itch. If the circumstances allow for it, the overarching might makes right does not factor in. This of course is dependent on the individuals involved and how their relationship is framed.
Not really, or rather, not every interaction is determined by that overarching "rule". Zaton doesn't jump on Katherine not because he couldn't take Igor, hell, Igor might even just let him out of the same hospitality/friendship rule that he enjoyed, but because he respects him as a friend, and he doesn't see merit in "using" a woman without her clearly being up for it (and not in the frame of a war conquest/heightened adrenaline-libido). Igor could easily skull-fuck Ain and Zaton would probably let him, given how he has asked her to make him happy, but Ain doesn't want him to and, despite being a clearly submissive sex fiend, she stops him when he gets too handsy.
Might makes right is definitely there, but it is not the only driving force in the interactions between individuals, and not the only consideration men and women make when deciding to get frisky or indeed not to.
The MC letting his daughter or slave give Igor a blowjob was not out of sexual liberty but out friendship and not valuing the women as anything more than he might a "glass of the good wine."
yes and no... a glass of wine has no agency to speak of.. a slave probably either. Ain does have agency and she shows it if you let her blow Igor. In fact we can even reaffirm that agency and give her more of it if we make the right dialogue choices later in the game... The same with Emilia the slave, despite her being clearly in a lower position on the social ladder.
All in all, we try to convey the notion that human interactions, in the game, are mostly a result of compromise between societal norms, personal stakes and characters, the contingent situation...
occasionally we get it right, other times it's more subtle or we straight up fail to do so.. and quite obviously, sometimes our intent just has to take a backseat to the porn logic of this being the sort of game that it is.
The difficulty of accurately portraying the agency of NPCs stems from the fact that we can only offer options, but it's the player who guides the dialogue for both parties, and he might make the choices that better suit his porn needs, aiming to obtain one scene over another (or obtaining a scene at all over maybe delaying the payoff or indeed missing out)...plus not everybody is in the same fetishes and that might also guide their choices, more so than the content of the lines of text itself.
It's a balancing act, really, and not an easy one.
You are forgetting individual agency and desires.
Zahra is an intensely sexual creature. She has her own appetites. The existence of those appetites does not undermine her relationship with Zaton.
The first time Zahra appears in game the players get the choice betweeen embracing her or forcing her into a blowjob. And that's the theme with her throughout the game so far. The new scene with Kateryna lets her agency shine through a bit, but other than that the players never have to be nice to her, but can rather use her (just as much as Ain and Emilia) by e.g. fucking her mouth in her sleep. "She likes it though" would be a lame excuse, if agency is supposed to be the takeaway.
Putting her in a slave collar in this very scene is a weird way to convey her agency.
Not to be rude, but I have to wonder how much your vision of the game aligns with the other people involved, because what you're describing is so different from what the players can actually experience in the game. Not that I think your vision sucks, but you make Zeta seem very sexually liberated, when the biggest theme in the game so far is maledom. And it's not the fun consensual type of maledom, but rather the brutal post-apocalyptic type.
I appreciate your comments and insight into your thought process as you work through the aspect of sexuality in the setting of y'all's game. My following statements are largely idea exploration and should be taken as such. None of them are meant to attempt to get you to change anything about the game (save perhaps my last paragraph), which I enjoy. Though if something is taken away and helps make the story different in a better way, that would be great, but that is not expected as these are just my ramblings. I also freely acknowledge that there may be a hypocrisy in even playing these types of games and some of my views. But I think it is not hypocrisy but understanding that the separation of fantasy and reality is a mark of maturity. Though I admit I could be wrong and simply blinded to my own faults in that area.
Your arguments make sense and hold merit, but they discount several factors and are predicated on the "might making right" being the only thing at play.
I seems that perhaps I could have been clearer about my leaning on "might makes right," being *seen* as the prime ethic and its interplay with the much *talked about* ethic of "sexual interaction and its fluidity." I may have made it seem in the larger portion of my post as though I assumed "Might" equated to physical strength. That was not intentional, and I felt that my final statement about the awesome interplay between the Queen and Zaton made it clear. Apologies. Even Omar is "mighty," in one way and could higher other "mighty" men to be his muscle from the standpoint of physical might when needed.
By your very framing of the example, you admit that it IS in fact possible to be a pacifist precisely because there are people who are not. We can agree on that or not, but without involving real life political ideology in it, it does not change the fact that the possibility is still there. The world does not only consist of pacifists or non pacifists. It is a balancing act of different personal actions and viewpoints within which it is entirely possible to be a complete pacifist and still get ahead in life. Similarly, an admittedly weaker framed Omar can still become a wealthy merchant, because his life is not framed only by personal physical strength.
I could have also perhaps done better at making it clear that I never meant to come across as assuming that "might," meant aggression and force at all times as well. My use of pacifism was because it is an extreme position that is willing to sacrifice others for its own moral excellence. It is not about self-sacrifice; it is about sacrificing others for self-exultation. Like sexual liberation it is often left at the whims of others. My statements were not to say that such a pacifist or sexual liberated person couldn't exist and even thrive if allowed to, but that that was the key, they are being allowed to... Restrained might on the other hand is, in many ways, even more mighty than unchecked aggression. It was a point I had attempt to make about sexual power with my reference to the most respected goddess of Greek culture being virgins. Again, as well, I would point to the excellent interplay between the two routes with the Queen as a great example of where this is done very well so far.
(I, and this is purely personal I will admit, see pacifism as among the worst kinds of evil because it makes the person holding to it feel the most morally superior while doing nothing to earn that feeling. And they do so while standing by as evil occurs. It is the worst form of the much hated, "thoughts-and-prayers," when something needs be done as it is a lifestyle and not a simple platitude used when one doesn't know what else to do.)
Also, I certainly hope that at no point it came across that I believed the choice to share Zahra should never be given ever. I was simply saying that I didn't feel it would fit with what we have seen from the characters and the setting. But that is just my view on it.
You are forgetting individual agency and desires.
Zahra is an intensely sexual creature. She has her own appetites. The existence of those appetites does not undermine her relationship with Zaton.
Much as Zaton needs variety to spice up his sex life, this could very well hold true for Zahra (depending of course of player choices). In BDSM terms, they are a power couple where she is, at least in the bedroom, every bit as much of a Domme as Zaton. You could think of them as swingers. On average, very few men tickle Zahra's fancy, but it might happen, and if it did, Zaton might be ok with it or not...and we would see how Zahra and Zaton's thoughts on the specific matter play out in the scene. (with the caveat that the player, in this case, can "decide for Zahra" whether she still goes through with it or not, based on his own wanking preference, so to speak).. whatever path would be chosen, it would carry over consequences in the relationship.. or not, depending on how it is framed and how serious the disagreement between them.
Much like in today's world, swinging and polygamy is something that is largely determined,(when it works, and after 25 years of marriage we can safely say that between these two people it works) by rules and by constant dialogue and mutual "checks and assessments", to redefine or confirm those rules if necessary. That IS what Zahra and Zaton talking out Katherine's involvement is all about.
If she decided to not limit her sex escapades to women but decided that she fancied a guard, or a guest, or even Omar (really though? have we failed at presenting his role/character? ), her being able to pursue said interest would depend on the circumstances. If the object of her interest was not somebody Zaton fundamentally objected to, if he would think it hot, for a change, to see his wife enjoy being spit-roasted in front of him because she wants to and has the confidence to know that she puts on the best show, or if he just wanted to give her what she wants on that day because he knows it would make her happy, he might just let it happen and the fact that might makes right would not be as much of a concern, because there isn't a power play being enacted at that moment in time.. it's just two adults who love each other and want to make each other happy.. and if occasionally that means adding a sex toy or another person to the mix, why not do it? IF we must reaffirm at all turns that might makes right, then we can also reframe it as Zaton having the might and the confidence to make Zahra happy by indulging or making a sexual fantasy/desire of hers come true. She would love him all the more for it, and he knows that it would not drive a wedge between them either way he decided to go about it.
Yes, men and women are both sexual creatures, but they are different sexual creatures. Not least of the reasons why is the act of penetrating and being penetrated are physically different and actually cause different chemical reaction in the human brain. A study of cross-cultural anthropology (which was a portion of the field I actually went to university for) shows that to be the case. For example (in acknowledge, but statistically significant, generalities), men cheat on their wives when they feel sexual frustrated and an opportunity that they feel they can get away with arise to do so. Meanwhile, women who cheat on their husbands largely do so because the husband is emotional distant and they begin affairs with emotion connects to another man or woman, long before sexual actions occur. In cross-cultural studies on human sexuality, it is shown time and again that in most cases for a man to cheat he just need opportunity and sexual frustration. The quality of the partner is largely irrelevant, though attraction is preferred it is not required, hence why many prostitutes in real life are not always the most attractive women but still make money. While for a woman to cheat she needs the other man to be superior in some way (either more emotional available, or more sexually appealing) to her current option. So, that was my approach to this topic, Zahra has no reason to seek a better partner from either of those typical causes and thus far, nothing has been *shown* in her character to present her as atypical to the vast majority of women and their sexuality in regard to seeking or even being attracted to other partners.
With regard to swinging/polygamy: there is also an openness to Zaton and Zahra's relationship already with other women in the household. There is nothing physical that could not occur in that setting as it already is. For example, you brought up Zahra perhaps wanting to experience the feeling of a spit roast, that could be done easily with a strap-on, since this is a post-apocalyptic setting even more so. Thus, there is little incentive, with regard to experiencing something "new" that would require her openness to another man...
That is why I cannot fathom a reason she would even entertain the idea long enough to bring it up to Zaton. Though perhaps here we will simply have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of human sexuality, and that is fine.
Yes and no. Jealousy is a human quality, sure, but how you frame it and what triggers it is entirely situational and determined by culture.
Say you pack up your wife and move to the Amazons to go live with one of the local tribes. Their women walk around with their tits on display and nobody bats an eye. You might come at it from a western mindset and ethos and be fine with looking at their titties but not as happy if your wife decided to join the local custom. YOU might be culturally driven to not like that on account of you not wanting to have other men than you have sexual thoughts about your wife's breasts.. but to them that would be incomprehensible. The majority of the men would not be moved towards sexual thoughts. They might stare because of the novelty of her skintone, and a few might for sure think they'd like to tap that, but culturally, the exposure to something that we determine to be sexual and fetishize does not cause the same reactions to them.
None of that means that you are more of a male than them, or vice-versa.
If exposure to sexual activities was the norm, it would engender much fewer instances of jealousy, except maybe in those individuals who are insecure and feel they are missing out or not measure up.... and that's where jealousy exists on an individual level, within a society that by and large uses different measures.
I feel a little as if your statement here is missing the forest for the trees. Of course, I can agree that the object of jealousy can vary by culture. My criticism was that it seems as if at some points we are present with the argument that sexual jealousy has somehow been removed from Zetan culture at large and only someone who is sexual weak would not let their wife screw around (You say as much in your statement). We are not simply talking about a difference in clothing norms here and if the exposer of breasts causes lust or not. We are dealing with fundamental human sexual activity. Even in cultures where exposer to some sexuality is the norm one must still content with the interplay of things like property rights, inheritance of nobility, the care of offspring... no man or woman wants a child they are not sure is theirs to inherit their kingdom, and every man is the king of his home and his wife the queen. Even the naming of children is an act of power with interplay into the cultural sexual ethic. If a woman carries another man baby, who names it, who's home does it live in, who's property does it have a right to?
Human nature doesn't change on such a level. Now this is a game, and thus the rules are as you make them, yes, but it is for me a less than satisfactory answer that "their culture just doesn't care." A free-use world is fetishized because it is an impossibility without removal of other fundamental human qualities as well. The medium of games can allow us to explore that possibility, but the very fact that we "the player" are the ones who must agree to it for it to be, makes it fall into an uncanny valley and feel at odds with the setting itself presented. You cannot simultaneously tell the player that they are free to not share the love interests in they choose, and it is equally valid, and then also say that "only someone who is insecure wouldn't share though..." It stands to reason that a player feeling angry at such a stance should not be unexpected.
Again, this is just the way it hits me. And perhaps we see human nature too differently to see eye-to-eye on this.
Hard no on the bolded part. A hotwife (openly) cheating on her spouse does revolve around the fetish both might share of her hooking up with "better specimen" but that's a very monolithic and specific fetish and way to look at it.
A woman, much like a man, has her own sexual fantasies and kinks. It is entirely possible for her to occasionally want to be double stuffed without this meaning that the MC is in some ways lacking or insufficient or less of a man.
If occasionally she feels extra kinky and wants to share a bed with someone new, or if she wants to reaffirm her personal friendship with a man (one approved by her husband, in this case), that is entirely valid and "on her" (player's choice dependent, of course), and does not take anything away from the strength of their union, much like Zaton fucking anybody else does not undermine the regard and love he has for his wife.
He does it with her blessing and if she really didn't want him to, he might just decide to not fuck that girl that Zahra really doesn't want him to (or, if the player chooses otherwise, he might still do it, knowing and not caring that it will hurt his wife.. But in that case, HE would be doing something hurtful towards her. Of course many a player will want to do that anyway, given the nature of the game and so on.)
This goes to the points I made above. Zahra has never shown anything in her character that would make her so atypical in comparison to the women though out all of recorded human history. Fundamentally, women do not "affirm friendships" though sex, even in historic sexual liberated cultures. Male and female sexuality is not the same and fundamentally interchangeable and every "civilized" culture that has entertained that idea (or those close to it) has fallen to the "barbarians" at the gate that understood that fact on a natural, basic, mammalian, and human level. Feminized men, and masculine women are neither one strong enough to fight off the "barbarian" man... Might makes right,
I would like to think that it has somewhat levelled the playing field allowing women to be just as nasty and uncaring as men have had the freedom to be... not that they weren't before that, but it had to happen behind closed doors and it's the sort of situation that set the ground for men who play around to be players and studs, and women who play around to be whores, which really is nonsensical if you think about it. We are all sexual creatures and how we decline that sexuality should not be seen differently by society based on what procreative role biology has placed us in.
A level playing field is a bad playing field though, it becomes a muck-filled mire. For a pitch to work it must be unlevel, raised in the middle. What good is leveling the field if it becomes a useless mess? For the vast majority of human history women were kept in the middle of the field while men fought and died on the edges, and it was only during storms (massive wars and other upheaval) that the middle got muddy. Yes, occasionally you would find a woman on the edge or a man in the middle, but they were the exception. That is what women once did for men, who hang to the extremes, they brought them to the middle after they had fought on the dirty sidelines. They were the referees putting the ball in the center of the field for the men to come back to when they got out of hand. Women once called men higher, to the raised middle, they civilized "barbarian" man, but the modern sexual liberty has simply made both of them "barbarians." It is also a myth that men were sexual free while women repressed for much of history. Both men and women were sexual repressed at points in history and free at others (I would say sexual restrained, but many people refuse to acknowledge it as a positive and that doesn't sound as bad as repressed). In most cultures a man who was a rake or a cad was treated as such, he was not lauded as a "stud or player," those are modern terms born out of our sexual culture. They were seen as at best a gigolo or a foolish undisciplined boy, and often as leachers that were ostracized. Often, literally, run out of town on a rail for advantaging other men's wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers.
It is the modern era of history, not the past, that devalues women and both male and female sexuality. People see Mad Men and think that was the norm for all of human history, the rakish man prowling the bars and groping the secretary. It was not, until the sexual revolutions of the modern era. People watch Hollywood movies and assume that frivolous sex is normal and good, "It works in all these rom-coms after all." They see a modern decline in marriage quality and a rise in relationship failure rates and sexual frustration at numbers unheard of and think, "It must have been worse before because we are the best of humanity that has ever been..." No it wasn't and no we aren't.
Sometimes a man, or a woman, just wakes up horny and wants to scratch an itch. If the circumstances allow for it, the overarching might makes right does not factor in. This of course is dependent on the individuals involved and how their relationship is framed.
Yes, but if a "mighty" man or woman wakes up horny then the sexual freedom of another person goes away. If the "mighty" man or woman does not want to share or be shared then the freedoms of others are not expressed, because sexual freedom is a false freedom as long as the right and will to say, "No," is there. These two ethics are inherently in conflict. This is why I feel it keep coming back to us being told there is sexual freedom in Zaten and then being shown that there really is not. The slaves and captives in this game have no sexual freedom, because "might makes right," is a higher ethic and thus sexual freedom is a myth.
In the latest update the Queen herself kills a man for the rumor that he was advantaging himself on her handmaids regardless of the wills of those involved. Was she insecure? Was that against the norms of Zetan culture? Doesn't she, more than anyone, exemplify the norms of Zetan culture? You admit as such by talking about the framing of the relationship. Sexual relationships must be framed within the power dynamic. Sex is by its very nature an act of power. That power can be shared willingly, lovingly, and equally. Or it can be taken and abused. But it can never be freed from the interplay with power.
Not really, or rather, not every interaction is determined by that overarching "rule". Zaton doesn't jump on Katherine not because he couldn't take Igor, hell, Igor might even just let him out of the same hospitality/friendship rule that he enjoyed, but because he respects him as a friend, and he doesn't see merit in "using" a woman without her clearly being up for it (and not in the frame of a war conquest/heightened adrenaline-libido). Igor could easily skull-fuck Ain and Zaton would probably let him, given how he has asked her to make him happy, but Ain doesn't want him to and, despite being a clearly submissive sex fiend, she stops him when he gets too handsy.
Might makes right is definitely there, but it is not the only driving force in the interactions between individuals, and not the only consideration men and women make when deciding to get frisky or indeed not to.
I feel as though this section was addressed early in my post in some regards. It was never my intent to equate "might" with unrestrained violence and aggression.
However, your own examples do show the flaw in the logic. Zaton *could* just take Katherine but doesn't out of respect while Igor couldn't take Ain at all without Zaton's allowance. Zeton is an armed Stalker, he could take Igor's head and claim Ketherine on the spot. While Igor is a foreigner and unarmed, or at least disallowed from harming a Stalker, he can only have any interaction with Ain, Emilia, or any Zaten women with a "mightier" man's allowance, or by taking it subversively, which would get him killed by the Zaten guards (see the salvers trying to kidnap Ain). The "sexual liberty" *talked* about can only exist because the "might" we are *shown* allows it to.
The two ethics, two power dynamics, "sexual liberty and might makes right," pull in two different direction and only one is continually shown because only one can be shown in a game. To show "sexual liberty and freedom from jealousy" would require you to remove the player's agency, to force the player to share and say, "Zeton is fine with this, and so are you otherwise what are you some insecure weakling or something?" While the other, "might makes right," is shown every time we chose to share or not, every time we kill a man on the street who wrongs us (or don't), and every time we submit to the Queen or don't. We are told one thing but never shown it. We are both told and shown another. And those two ethics are in conflict fundamentally. "Might makes right," is reinforced by the very mechanics of the game, while true cultural "sexual liberty" is undermined by it.
This is why I feel it would be better for the story to simply say that sharing, swinging, and polygamy is not seen as deviant, but it is not lauded either. No one *expects* a man to share his wife or even slave with another man, but he is not looked down on for doing so if he feels it is warranted by a situation. A man who shares is not seen as lesser, but neither is a man who does not. As it stands, the game and your own statement indicates a belief that only insecure men would not share a love interest (I am assuming you simply mean as seen in game and are not making a statement about real life ). That is odd to say the least given the fact that we can chose not to do it and are not chastised by the game for it. Thus, neither sharing nor not sharing should be seen as more proper. The culture would be more realistic as a developed world and in line with the game we are playing that way.
All in all, we try to convey the notion that human interactions, in the game, are mostly a result of compromise between societal norms, personal stakes and characters, the contingent situation...
occasionally we get it right, other times it's more subtle or we straight up fail to do so.. and quite obviously, sometimes our intent just has to take a backseat to the porn logic of this being the sort of game that it is.
The difficulty of accurately portraying the agency of NPCs stems from the fact that we can only offer options, but it's the player who guides the dialogue for both parties, and he might make the choices that better suit his porn needs, aiming to obtain one scene over another (or obtaining a scene at all over maybe delaying the payoff or indeed missing out)...plus not everybody is in the same fetishes and that might also guide their choices, more so than the content of the lines of text itself.
It's a balancing act, really, and not an easy one.
Again, I appreciate your answers and hope you know that I do enjoy the game very much. My critiques and discussion are not meant to cast doubt on the quality of this game on the whole. I simply see a flaw in the logic of the world being presented to us and it continually feels out of place and forced when a more subtle stance on the freedom and cultural as it relates to the sexual ethic would serve better both in game and from you creators out of it.
---
To shift gears a bit and bring up another topic of conversation that I have had in the thread that does somewhat relate...
My points above are largely why I believe that one of the worst things that could be done in the game is to have Shani have sexual activity in the Zone. She has only been shown to practically worship Zaton and he has only just accepted her as his partner and lover. For her to even entertain the idea of now becoming sexually active with someone else in the Zone, with no overt or even tacit consent or approval from Zaton would be so abruptly out of character that it would likely cause me to drop the game. One might say, "But if the player choses..." But that then flies in the face of her character development and arc thus far. Perhaps after her return and a discussion about the topic with him it would be less forced but not at this point in the story. She wants to be like her father, to be accepted by him, for him to be proud of her, and for him to love her. The sex they shared is the seal of that love and acceptance. If sex in her eyes didn't matter or was seen as something free and near meaningless (as it is often talked about for their culture) than the night they shared before she entered the Zone, perhaps never to return, was worthless. It was not the beautiful culmination of years of love and building a relationship. It was just a more tiring form of a goodbye kiss between two people passing in the night. A character developed as she has been should not be even tempted to have sex in the Zone.
Now, this could be just my own dread here that it may happen. It may not have even entered your minds as the games developers to have her offered a sex scene in the Zone, but if it has, this I would beg you not to do. Storyteller to storyteller, as a creative writing teacher for years, I will tell you now that it guts her as a character. Don't damage all the character development you have done thus far for one of the best characters in the game just so someone can get their rocks off when you have better options. Make another scene with Ain or Emilia offered to someone else for those who enjoy seeing that content. Or offer a sharing scene with one of the raider girls. Even having a scene with the option to share Zahra is not as farfetched as Shani suddenly doing a 180 and even entertaining giving sex to someone else after waiting so long for her hero to finally accept her. Don't devalue Shani and the moment you built up to and created before she entered the Zone. One sex scene isn't worth that. Gutting her character growth up to this point is just poor form when other options abound.
if the game (or my personal comments/insights) has given you the impression that we have set up a moral instance where jealousy only appears in weak and insecure men who are unwilling to share their wives and therefore are lesser, or that not sharing/not being willing to share is a sign of weakness and insecurity, that's mostly on me, as I am the person who adds layers of worldbuilding and afterthoughts on what Z conceives of as fairly linear and sensible scenes... I am the guy who complicates things by trying to build a coherent society after the fact, so to speak.
EDIT: They tell me this is not true, and that we had a perfectly tuned and working model society from the get go
"bad, cynical, bad... "
"yes, master, no I do not want to get the hose again"
And that is not made in any way easy by the "game" structure and by having to keep player agency at the forefront (and by said player agency more often than not being motivated more by a hunger for wancakes than for actually coherent larger themes).
If it was a linear novel, where we take the player by the hand (with a glove, because I know where that hand has been) and show him the story with the linear progression we favour, it would be easier to avoid certain narrative pitfalls and contradictions. Not managing to do so is still on me though.
Another complication in the process is that we work in a disjointed manner, where the principal Dev, ZetanDS makes the art and has the overall dialogue (and plot) put on paper before I get to see it... (not entirely true, I could follow along in the creation process... but it would end up with me nitpicking him to death so I prefer to let him do this thing and then do my bit).
So there is a limit to how much I can (and am willing) to rewrite or alter.. and as you rightly point out, not always do my personal views manifest in the game or manage to sway those of Z (and not always are my views better for game structure or indeed worldbuilding)...
Other than in rare occasions where I truly feel that he's doing something stupid, I tend to take a step back if he has his mind set on things, because in the end, for him it's both a passion project and his livelihood, for me it's a hobby.
I would rather him follow his vision and stay passionate about it than interfere too much and get into that place where he might see working on it with me as a chore... I don't want to see it join the pile of abandoned projects.
Back on topic, Polyamory isn't lauded per se, or that was not my intention.. it's just an accepted way of the world.
But monogamous cis couples are perfectly normal and fine as well, whether one or both members, or neither, stray from the couple.
My personal thought here is to open the world, broadly speaking, for it to be able to present all manner of sexualities and kinks without the demonization or "that could never happen" being an issue.
9 out of 10 incest games out there make it perfectly normal for the MC to roofie/sexually abuse his sisters/mother/landlady, at night as long as he does it in secret and only comes out with it "publicly" once he's done the nasty and they love him for it.. and all of that happens in a contemporary "real world-like" society where such things would be at least frowned upon...
A majority of the games show the MC have a bunch of love interests to whom he professes unconditional and absolute love.. to each and every one of them, unironically; like some schizophrenic maniac who doesn't realise he is in fact either an abusive moron or at best a player...and he gets away with it too.
Adding insult to injury, it's often a character that by all metrics other than having a massive magic dong, would not have a chance in hell of not ending either in jail or curb-stomped by most of the ladies in his life.
The way I see Zetan society as liberated thanks to/in spite of the might makes right, is that it is a society that does not look down on a relationship or a kink the way it might in our world. It's a chance to tell similar stories as the other games, but in a setting that makes it a lot more reasonable and a bit less "more of the same".
Yes, I am aware that that is utopia and that it most likely does not hold up to careful scrutiny and character analysis..
There are at least 1-2 instances of sexual activities in the game that would be straight up called out as rape in our real world... and rightly so. We only mostly get away with it if we suspend the disbelief that this is a society where anything goes, in a way... and it remains a post facto explanation that would be unacceptable in any other context.
The reason why we showcase might makes right so much and have to sort of navigate around that primary concept to showcase the various contexts of sexual proclivity, is mostly because the game is male-centric, and ultimately is played by a very large majority of male gamers... a good share of whom have strong opinions about seeing more than 1 dick on screen.. opinions founded on notions I by and large disagree with, (much like I mostly ignore requests and opinions when it comes to what to put in or leave out of the game) but I am not going to punish them for having chosen this game that feeds in the uber-male fantasy by flipping the script on them.
In fact.. lady gamers, if you're out there and playing the game, I would love to hear more of your perspective on what we do right and wrong/what you like about it.
As for Shani's path... to comment on that I would have to enter spoiler territory, so I can't. All I can say is trust that we do have a decent, if not perfect, idea of what we're doing to that regard.
Cynicaladm thanks again for continuing this conversation. Your information about the working dynamic as a development team is very interesting… to me at least. So thanks for that.
My post wasn’t several paragraphs long… something feels off here, maybe I need to come back later and add more,
Edit: I knew I was forgetting something! I despise games with MC’s who spy on and drug Love Interests. Very few hold my attention long enough to get past one or two such scenes of being a peeping perv (and I have virtually zero tolerance for drugging girls) and even those I still give them shit for it. It’s a poor storyteller who resorts to magic dick, drugs, or dumb LIs to justify the state of play, and world building and story quality are the two things I care most about. Quality of the lewd stuff is further down the list.
My points above are largely why I believe that one of the worst things that could be done in the game is to have Shani have sexual activity in the Zone. She has only been shown to practically worship Zaton and he has only just accepted her as his partner and lover. For her to even entertain the idea of now becoming sexually active with someone else in the Zone, with no overt or even tacit consent or approval from Zaton would be so abruptly out of character that it would likely cause me to drop the game. One might say, "But if the player choses..." But that then flies in the face of her character development and arc thus far. Perhaps after her return and a discussion about the topic with him it would be less forced but not at this point in the story. She wants to be like her father, to be accepted by him, for him to be proud of her, and for him to love her. The sex they shared is the seal of that love and acceptance. If sex in her eyes didn't matter or was seen as something free and near meaningless (as it is often talked about for their culture) than the night they shared before she entered the Zone, perhaps never to return, was worthless. It was not the beautiful culmination of years of love and building a relationship. It was just a more tiring form of a goodbye kiss between two people passing in the night. A character developed as she has been should not be even tempted to have sex in the Zone.
Now, this could be just my own dread here that it may happen. It may not have even entered your minds as the games developers to have her offered a sex scene in the Zone, but if it has, this I would beg you not to do. Storyteller to storyteller, as a creative writing teacher for years, I will tell you now that it guts her as a character. Don't damage all the character development you have done thus far for one of the best characters in the game just so someone can get their rocks off when you have better options. Make another scene with Ain or Emilia offered to someone else for those who enjoy seeing that content. Or offer a sharing scene with one of the raider girls. Even having a scene with the option to share Zahra is not as farfetched as Shani suddenly doing a 180 and even entertaining giving sex to someone else after waiting so long for her hero to finally accept her. Don't devalue Shani and the moment you built up to and created before she entered the Zone. One sex scene isn't worth that. Gutting her character growth up to this point is just poor form when other options abound.
Team Shani here. While I won't drop the game if Shani has sex in the Zone, I will certainly be disappointed. As you described, it just seems an odd thing for her to do immediately after having long-awaited romantic sex with MC. I'm assuming if Zone sex does happen it will either be lesbian sex or a completely optional male encounter. As long as I can avoid it through my choices I'll be content.
The idea of Shani even wanting to take time out to have sex in the Zone where her life is literally in danger and her future career as a Stalker is on the line, makes little sense to me. Perhaps it is one of the "tests" she must undergo in order to pass. Maybe she hallucinates and sees MC when it really is not. Many possible options at the devs' disposal, but again, as long as I have the choice to reject a suitor or fight off a grapist, then I'll deal with it.
She can die in the Zone so having a goodbye fuck with Zaton makes sense from their pov. We as players know she has plot armor but Zaton and Shani don't. Still you can keep their relationship platonic if you want.
She can die in the Zone so having a goodbye fuck with Zaton makes sense from their pov. We as players know she has plot armor but Zaton and Shani don't. Still you can keep their relationship platonic if you want.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Shani/Zaton pre-Zone sex scene didn't make sense. Rather, people are wondering about Shani having hot nasty monkey love with some rando in the Zone, while supposedly in the middle of a life-threatening situation. I have to think it will be test related; otherwise, Perhaps it will be like some kind of desert temptation allegory.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Shani/Zaton pre-Zone sex scene didn't make sense. Rather, people are wondering about Shani having hot nasty monkey love with some rando in the Zone, while supposedly in the middle of a life-threatening situation. I have to think it will be test related; otherwise, Perhaps it will be like some kind of desert temptation allegory.
Well in that case there are multiple scenarios for sex scenes. She can be captured and raped by marauders. She can use sex to escape from some situation or in exchange for something. Also she can find the love of her life there for all that we know.
