VN Ren'Py Jessica O'Neil's Hard News [v0.65] [stoperArt]

[Juidas]

Of course Conner was happy to go along with it, Shani is smoking hot. But Shani wasn't into it, and that was the point.

Who knows how Conner would feel about another guy getting involved as that's very different from a hot babe like Shani because most guys would certainly be perfectly fine with MFF threesomes, but maybe not so much with MMF threesomes. So I guess you'll just have to wait to see, meanwhile I'll be waiting to see Jessica introduce Shani to Heather for an awesome FFF threesome.

That would be very interesting also "mmmm I like it"

 

[armion82]

I wonder about something.
Principal wants Jessica to bring her cheerleading uniform.
I think she will not wear her from the start and will use the bathroom to change into it.
What if we have the choice to "forget" wear panties?

 

[Chrisdarock19]

stoper Please would you consider adding the "Named Saves" screens.rpy attached to future release of the game. It will make it easier for players to play/save different routes.

All credit to retnavgunner for making it

 

[TheLecher]

Except that she did.

Except that she didn't.

I said that she doesn't say in the game that she's 100% lesbian. Then you reply that she did say that, and to prove your point, you insert a bunch of screen shots in which she doesn't say it. There is not one place in any of the images you used where she says that she's 100% lesbian.

So it doesn't seem as though she has any interest in men at all, and I think that's fine. It's good to have a lesbian character that's not even remotely into the idea of experimenting with guys because that's somewhat more accurate to real life.

I also think it's fine if she doesn't ever have any interest in men, just like I think it's fine if she decides to experiment, whether she decides after the fact that she likes it or doesn't like it. I don't think it's either good or bad to have a lesbian character who has no interest in men. It's merely a storytelling decision. I leave it up to the storyteller to tell the story he or she wishes. I give my feedback, just like anyone else, and if the story goes too far off the mark from my interests, I find a different story.

Finding a "100% lesbian" who's willing to suck a cock, let alone touch one, is actually rare in real life (porn stars being a minority exception).

This is a statement which is not only impossible to prove, but, without conducting some very extensive research, can only be supported by anecdotal evidence. I can talk about lesbians (other than porn stars) I've known who were open to occasional encounters with men, and you can talk about all of the many lesbians you know who have confirmed to you that they would never touch a cock, but we're just comparing notes from our own extremely limited samplings.

We have a word for that : bi(sexual). She may be in a relationship with another girl, but that's exactly what a bi is

Believe it or not, I'm actually aware of the word "bisexual" and what it means. If you like, I suppose we can debate to what extent a person has to be attracted to or sexually active with both genders in order to be classified as bisexual.

Are we going to say that anyone who has had sexual contact with people of both genders is bisexual? In that case, I suspect that there are very few lesbians in the world, as a majority of the lesbians I've known and a majority of celebrities who claim to be lesbians had sexual contact with men in the past, before declaring themselves to be lesbians. Does this mean that they are not in fact lesbians, but must be bisexual? Or are we going to argue that, because it was in the past only, they can now call themselves lesbians? What happens if a woman who had sex with men in the past, but then came out as a lesbian, decides to have one more sexual encounter with a man at some point in the future. Was she bisexual all along? Was she straight at first, then became a lesbian, then became bisexual?

If a woman isn't attracted to men, either sexually or romantically, but she's willing to have sex with a man in a threesome situation, in order to get with a girl she wants, does she lose her lesbian label? If a man who was straight his whole life decides to experiment with another man once, decides he doesn't like it, and only has straight sex for the rest of his life, is he bisexual on the basis of that one encounter?

I would actually agree that all of these terms (bisexual, gay, lesbian, straight, etc.) have separate and distinct meanings, and that being a lesbian and being bisexual are two different things. And, in the interest of having a working language and being able to hold conversations, there must be some degree of agreement on definitions. The point I'm making is that I'm not prepared to accept that human sexuality is as simple as "Have you slept with both genders? Then you're bisexual." I think that there are degrees of variation, and that it's not always easy to figure it out.

 

[TheLecher]

That would be a bisexual.

See the above.

 

[Holy Bacchus]

Except that she didn't.

I said that she doesn't say in the game that she's 100% lesbian. Then you reply that she did say that, and to prove your point, you insert a bunch of screen shots in which she doesn't say it. There is not one place in any of the images you used where she says that she's 100% lesbian.

Once again, "I'M NOT INTO BOYS." She spells it out in crystal clear English. She also made it clear earlier when talking to Jessica about the Mayor making a pass at her:



What more do you want her to say?

 

[TheLecher]

Once again, "I'M NOT INTO BOYS." She spells it out in crystal clear English. She also made it clear earlier when talking to Jessica about the Mayor making a pass at her:

What more do you want her to say?

If we're making the argument that sexual orientation and preference is a sliding scale which ranges from 0% to 100%, then I would argue that saying that "I'm not into boys" could easily range anywhere from about 80% lesbian, all the way up to 100%, depending on what else we know about the character.

I don't want her to say anything more. What she says right now in the story isn't really that important. Nor does it change my interests. If the writer decides that she's strictly lesbian and will stay that way, then so be it. I'm fine with having characters who are only lesbian, or only straight, or anything else. My own preference is that, later in the story, she will discover a heretofore unknown interest in straight sex, and will experiment with a man, whether it be Connor or someone else. If that happens, excellent. If it doesn't happen, oh well, I can live with that.

You're attempting to argue that a few statements made by a fictional character about whom we know very little, so far, must be taken as definitive of her character and final. I'm not at all convinced. All you've convinced me of is that you prefer lesbian content in this game, and that you are personally invested in Shani being strictly lesbian. I'm not personally invested in Shani's character, one way or the other, so I don't find your argument as compelling as you do.

 

[cxx]

oh boy.

 

[DIRTY FILTHY Animal]

Is the next update supposed to have Jessica going to Tommy’s cosplay Larp party or is it the bachelorette party that Connor has to find a stripper for? Also I don’t remember what game it was I played awhile ago but it had the husband pick his wife to be the stripper at the bachelor party cause his coworkers never knew her. Long story short it turned into a drunken gangbang

 

[TheLecher]

Also I don’t remember what game it was I played awhile ago but it had the husband pick his wife to be the stripper at the bachelor party cause his coworkers never knew her. Long story short it turned into a drunken gangbang

That sounds interesting.

 

[None44]

Is the next update supposed to have Jessica going to Tommy’s cosplay Larp party or is it the bachelorette party that Connor has to find a stripper for? Also I don’t remember what game it was I played awhile ago but it had the husband pick his wife to be the stripper at the bachelor party cause his coworkers never knew her. Long story short it turned into a drunken gangbang

It was a game by NTR games , A favour for a friend

 

[None44]

I don't think Connor will have MMF scene with Jessica because he was concerned after the scene with heather that Jessica may have scenes with Heather's husband ( I forgot his name)

 

[Pizzapockets]

There's way to much Conner and purely lesbian content in this game. Needs more scenes like the one with the mayor. Can't wait to make Jess a slut that loves everybodies cock but Conners.

 

[PietruccioTheHilander]

I wonder about something.
Principal wants Jessica to bring her cheerleading uniform.
I think she will not wear her from the start and will use the bathroom to change into it.
What if we have the choice to "forget" wear panties?

I thought so too

Is the next update supposed to have Jessica going to Tommy’s cosplay Larp party or is it the bachelorette party that Connor has to find a stripper for? Also I don’t remember what game it was I played awhile ago but it had the husband pick his wife to be the stripper at the bachelor party cause his coworkers never knew her. Long story short it turned into a drunken gangbang

in the next update there will be no larp, Tommy never gave Jessica the date


also the wedding was postponed for a week, if I remember correctly, because they had confused the dates

 

[dolfe67]

Believe it or not, I'm actually aware of the word "bisexual" and what it means. If you like, I suppose we can debate to what extent a person has to be attracted to or sexually active with both genders in order to be classified as bisexual.

Are we going to say that anyone who has had sexual contact with people of both genders is bisexual? In that case, I suspect that there are very few lesbians in the world, as a majority of the lesbians I've known and a majority of celebrities who claim to be lesbians had sexual contact with men in the past, before declaring themselves to be lesbians. Does this mean that they are not in fact lesbians, but must be bisexual? Or are we going to argue that, because it was in the past only, they can now call themselves lesbians? What happens if a woman who had sex with men in the past, but then came out as a lesbian, decides to have one more sexual encounter with a man at some point in the future. Was she bisexual all along? Was she straight at first, then became a lesbian, then became bisexual?

If a woman isn't attracted to men, either sexually or romantically, but she's willing to have sex with a man in a threesome situation, in order to get with a girl she wants, does she lose her lesbian label? If a man who was straight his whole life decides to experiment with another man once, decides he doesn't like it, and only has straight sex for the rest of his life, is he bisexual on the basis of that one encounter?

I would actually agree that all of these terms (bisexual, gay, lesbian, straight, etc.) have separate and distinct meanings, and that being a lesbian and being bisexual are two different things. And, in the interest of having a working language and being able to hold conversations, there must be some degree of agreement on definitions. The point I'm making is that I'm not prepared to accept that human sexuality is as simple as "Have you slept with both genders? Then you're bisexual." I think that there are degrees of variation, and that it's not always easy to figure it out.

I see your point but when you said "she's a lesbian who occasionally likes cock" what else is bi if not that ? It's not only both at the same time to be considered bi. A true lesbian wouldn't want to touch a dick

Of course at a certain time a homo could have tested the straight option, but if they are willing to continue then they are bi even if they call themselves otherwise

 

[TheLecher]

I see your point but when you said "she's a lesbian who occasionally likes cock" what else is bi if not that ? It's not only both at the same time to be considered bi. A true lesbian wouldn't want to touch a dick

Of course at a certain time a homo could have tested the straight option, but if they are willing to continue then they are bi even if they call themselves otherwise

Once again, if your argument is that words must have meanings, and that those meanings should ideally be clearly defined, then I agree. If your argument is that labels can be applied to people, whether they agree with the assessment or not, then I agree again. If your argument is that those labels are correct or accurate, just because an external observer thinks so, then I'm not convinced.

You say that a "true lesbian" wouldn't want to touch a dick. I say that this is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If people who claim to be lesbians disagree with you on this point, then perhaps there is room for debate.

You ask what else is bisexual if not a lesbian who occasionally likes cock. Once again, it probably comes down to whether or not sexual orientation and preference is to be divided into three or four rigid classifications which don't allow for any deviation, or if we regard it as a spectrum or scale, with strict homosexuality at one end and strict heterosexuality at the other. If we use only rigid classifications, then yes, I would agree that a person who is open to sexual contact with both genders is, by definition, bisexual. But if there are degrees of bisexuality, or homosexuality, or heterosexuality, then such statements cannot be accepted as definitive.

Let's focus on the word "occasionally" for a moment. Does this mean on a regular basis, but less often than half of the time? Does it mean now and then, perhaps accounting for 10% of sexual encounters? Does it mean only on rare occasions, around 5% of the time? Are all of these equally bisexual?

Let's take the cases of a woman who is almost exclusively attracted to other women, and a woman who is almost exclusively attracted to men. Perhaps both of these women are open to sexual contact with either gender, under the right circumstances, but can they really be considered to be equally lesbian? Can they be considered equally straight? The woman who is almost exclusively attracted to women may consider herself to be a lesbian, and the woman who is almost exclusively attracted to men may consider herself to be straight. But, if we are using rigid definitions, then neither of these women can be considered lesbians, and neither can be considered straight. They must both be considered bisexual, and nothing else. On the other hand, if we are using a sliding scale, then we can talk about "100% lesbian" or "90% lesbian," and these terms could have actual meaning, which isn't possible with rigid definitions.

I'm actually not saying that the rigid system of definitions is incorrect, and that the sliding scale is correct. I'm prepared to accept that either of these systems of definition could be correct. But I'm not prepared to assume that either is correct. So when people want to talk about whether or not a person is 100% lesbian, I can do so, because I haven't ruled out the possibility of such a system of classification.

 

[Holy Bacchus]

Once again, if your argument is that words must have meanings, and that those meanings should ideally be clearly defined, then I agree. If your argument is that labels can be applied to people, whether they agree with the assessment or not, then I agree again. If your argument is that those labels are correct or accurate, just because an external observer thinks so, then I'm not convinced.

You say that a "true lesbian" wouldn't want to touch a dick. I say that this is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If people who claim to be lesbians disagree with you on this point, then perhaps there is room for debate.

You ask what else is bisexual if not a lesbian who occasionally likes cock. Once again, it probably comes down to whether or not sexual orientation and preference is to be divided into three or four rigid classifications which don't allow for any deviation, or if we regard it as a spectrum or scale, with strict homosexuality at one end and strict heterosexuality at the other. If we use only rigid classifications, then yes, I would agree that a person who is open to sexual contact with both genders is, by definition, bisexual. But if there are degrees of bisexuality, or homosexuality, or heterosexuality, then such statements cannot be accepted as definitive.

Let's focus on the word "occasionally" for a moment. Does this mean on a regular basis, but less often than half of the time? Does it mean now and then, perhaps accounting for 10% of sexual encounters? Does it mean only on rare occasions, around 5% of the time? Are all of these equally bisexual?

Let's take the cases of a woman who is almost exclusively attracted to other women, and a woman who is almost exclusively attracted to men. Perhaps both of these women are open to sexual contact with either gender, under the right circumstances, but can they really be considered to be equally lesbian? Can they be considered equally straight? The woman who is almost exclusively attracted to women may consider herself to be a lesbian, and the woman who is almost exclusively attracted to men may consider herself to be straight. But, if we are using rigid definitions, then neither of these women can be considered lesbians, and neither can be considered straight. They must both be considered bisexual, and nothing else. On the other hand, if we are using a sliding scale, then we can talk about "100% lesbian" or "90% lesbian," and these terms could have actual meaning, which isn't possible with rigid definitions.

I'm actually not saying that the rigid system of definitions is incorrect, and that the sliding scale is correct. I'm prepared to accept that either of these systems of definition could be correct. But I'm not prepared to assume that either is correct. So when people want to talk about whether or not a person is 100% lesbian, I can do so, because I haven't ruled out the possibility of such a system of classification.

Sexuality can be a spectrum, yes, and people can change their preferences, but some people are rigidly on one side and have no interest in the other side or any point along that spectrum. Shani may be very well be that, and if so, that's fine.

 

[TheLecher]

Sexuality can be a spectrum, yes, and people can change their preferences, but some people are rigidly on one side and have no interest in the other side or any point along that spectrum. Shani may be very well be that, and if so, that's fine.

Okay, but I've already said as much in my previous posts on this topic.

Once again, to repeat myself, and to be perfectly clear, yes, it's fine if Shani is exclusively interested in women. It's also fine if she discovers a previously unknown interest in men, or in one particular man. Either of these outcomes is just fine. And either one is also completely possible, given the dialogue and narration which we have already seen in the game.

You like to fasten on to Shani's statements that she's not into men, but you gloss over the foreshadowing which the author has included about her possibly changing in the future. Perhaps this is because you genuinely haven't read it, because you only played the strictly lesbian path. But there is narrative in the threesome path which suggests a possible change for Shani in the future. It might not be your thing, but that doesn't mean that the writer can't go there. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[kino4ka]

too bad it's the final version, it really had potential

 

[Holy Bacchus]

too bad it's the final version, it really had potential

I can't tell if you're being serious or just trolling, but it's not over. The "final" simply denotes this being the final working version of the 0.40 update after the beta version. The 0.45 update will be the next version released in a few months.