VN Ren'Py Abandoned Midlife Crisis [v0.34 - v0.1 Dark] [Nefastus Games]

[MRMIdAS2k]

Well then he was representing what is in the game in a bad way. There is a choice there and the scene has a buildup for why you might choose to have the gay rape scene. Now gay is not my thing, but I did choose it there. Rough justice maybe, but in this case it was justice. You will understand if you come to that choice if decide to play the game and then can make your own choice.

Absolutely, hence my response.

What you described isn't an open relationship, it is a toxic one, and she should leave him, any relationship where one partner gets more "perks" then the other is an unhealthy one, if she is willing to compromise so should he, otherwise it feels more like the character sees her as an object to be possessed and not as a partner, after all she would only be allowed to fuck who he chooses and he doesn't have the same restrictions.

It depends, if he forbids it, then absolutely, but if he's not comfortable with it, and she respects that, then it's not toxic IMO, it depends on what your wants and needs are.

 

[MRMIdAS2k]

Ok, MRMIdAS2k , what was he saying? The original question was "is the gay or futa stuff avoidable" my answer was the UNAVOIDABLE stuff was like a joke,(Mr Rock Handsy) the rest is avoidable.

He asked if the Gay/Trans stuff is avoidable. you said "Look the gay stuff is only referenced as a joke". I pointed out that a guy getting arse-raped isn't a joke.

How are you not understanding this?

 

[Chill-E]

He asked if the Gay/Trans stuff is avoidable. you said "Look the gay stuff is only referenced as a joke". I pointed out that a guy getting arse-raped isn't a joke.

How are you not understanding this?

Ok, I get it dudes ass raping is no joke.
The guy asked a question, I gave him my answer as I see it.
You answer the guys question, tell him all about the homo stuff, and how you feel and let him decide if he wants to play this game or not.
I'm out.

 

[TundraLupus]

Absolutely, hence my response.



It depends, if he forbids it, then absolutely, but if he's not comfortable with it, and she respects that, then it's not toxic IMO, it depends on what your wants and needs are.

Ok, I can agree with that, but the comment that I answered said she shouldn't, and that just isn't open is it, after all the only one benefitting is the male, that would be a harem.

 

[MysteryCrabs]

Ok, I can agree with that, but the comment that I answered said she shouldn't, and that just isn't open is it, after all the only one benefitting is the male, that would be a harem.

He said she shouldn't if that wasn't the agreement. That's rather the point, agreement. That is, both parties agree on the result.

Party A says: I want X
Party B says: You can have X if I get Y
Party A says: I will not give Y

No deal is made. Not toxic, they just couldn't agree on terms.

On the other hand if you have this situation:

Party A says: I want X
Party B says: Ok. I want Y
Party A says: I am not comfortable with Y. Can I still have X?
Party B says: Yes

They agree. Even if party B did not get what they asked for, they still agreed. By calling it toxic you are implying that Party B did not have agency. That they lacked the proper ability to say "no". Not everything is purely reciprocal, and that's OK.

Now, that being said, the agreement made WAS an open relationship. It's just that the wife will not choose to use it for herself, which puts her in that same position as every other girl in the game (save the prostitute). As she said, "I did it because I thought you needed it". That's her position.

And to go further, MC already long since violated their "terms" as he was (almost certainly) cheating before that arrangement was even made. Whatever terms they came up with don't apply retroactively. At this point, he's just trying to integrate his other relationships in a plausible deniability sort of way.

 

[Snugglepuff]

that would be a harem.

Being "a tad" pedantic here, but scroll up and look at those tags...

 

[TundraLupus]

Being "a tad" pedantic here, but scroll up and look at those tags...

there is no open relationship or poly tag as far as I know, so that is irrelevant to the conversation since the one that approaches the topic the most is the harem

 

[TundraLupus]

He said she shouldn't if that wasn't the agreement. That's rather the point, agreement. That is, both parties agree on the result.

Party A says: I want X
Party B says: You can have X if I get Y
Party A says: I will not give Y

No deal is made. Not toxic, they just couldn't agree on terms.

On the other hand if you have this situation:

Party A says: I want X
Party B says: Ok. I want Y
Party A says: I am not comfortable with Y. Can I still have X?
Party B says: Yes

They agree. Even if party B did not get what they asked for, they still agreed. By calling it toxic you are implying that Party B did not have agency. That they lacked the proper ability to say "no". Not everything is purely reciprocal, and that's OK.

Now, that being said, the agreement made WAS an open relationship. It's just that the wife will not choose to use it for herself, which puts her in that same position as every other girl in the game (save the prostitute). As she said, "I did it because I thought you needed it". That's her position.

And to go further, MC already long since violated their "terms" as he was (almost certainly) cheating before that arrangement was even made. Whatever terms they came up with don't apply retroactively. At this point, he's just trying to integrate his other relationships in a plausible deniability sort of way.

Yes, and we were talking about the said agreement, not about the example you gave, maybe the original person whom I was responding didn't understand that and I can see that, but I'll wait for their response before assuming.

 

[Master of Puppets]

Ok, I can agree with that, but the comment that I answered said she shouldn't, and that just isn't open is it, after all the only one benefitting is the male, that would be a harem.

Is there anything wrong with a harem? If everyone involved is happy, I say no. The fact he is male has nothing to do with anything.

 

[TundraLupus]

Is there anything wrong with a harem? If everyone involved is happy, I say no. The fact he is male has nothing to do with anything.

No, but we weren't talking about a harem.

 

[Snugglepuff]

No, but we weren't talking about a harem.

You did open the door to that though.

Regarding your opinion of what Master of Puppets says here as being a "toxic relationship" due to the apparent one-sided nature of it, you're only taking into account one specific and stereotypical type of open relationship.

The term itself is actually pretty broad, and outside of the literal meaning of harem, actually covers that too.
The modern western world's interpretation of a harem is all dependant on those involved being willing to share the individual of which the harem is centred, with the possibility of sharing each other too.
Typically this involves a man at the centre, but the concept itself works for a woman with men and/or women as the harem, and the same for a bisexual man and even a gay man with men only in the harem.

 

[TundraLupus]

You did open the door to that though.

Regarding your opinion of what Master of Puppets says here as being a "toxic relationship" due to the apparent one-sided nature of it, you're only taking into account one specific and stereotypical type of open relationship.

The term itself is actually pretty broad, and outside of the literal meaning of harem, actually covers that too.
The modern western world's interpretation of a harem is all dependant on those involved being willing to share the individual of which the harem is centred, with the possibility of sharing each other too.
Typically this involves a man at the centre, but the concept itself works for a woman with men and/or women as the harem, and the same for a bisexual man and even a gay man with men only in the harem.

Yes, but again, there is a context for the conversation, and said context was not taken into consideration if he was talking about a harem-open relationship, it is easier though to separate both as in open relationship = both partners have the same freedoms, even if one decides not to use them, and harem = only one has such freedoms, again, we were talking about the open relationship discussed in-game, and a hypothetical of Sandra wanting to be with other men, if he didn't read the context then it isn't my problem.

Also, I would consider any relationship where both parties don't have the same freedoms to be unhealthy because most likely one is being viewed as an object, this one isn't one of those because Sandra has the same freedoms, she just doesn't want to use them.

 

[Snugglepuff]

it is easier though to separate both as in open relationship = both partners have the same freedoms, even if one decides not to use them, and harem = only one has such freedoms

Easier for you, but clearly your opinion on that is clouding your view when talking about both open relationships, and harems as a sub-category of that.

To reiterate, the vast majority of harems presented in these games, are only harems in a loose, modern, western sense of the word. All involved are in agreement.

Also, I would consider whatever relationship where both parties don't have the same freedoms to be unhealthy because most likely one is being viewed as an object, this one isn't one of those because Sandra has the same freedoms, she just doesn't want to use them.

For any open relationship, both/all involved in the initial relationship have to agree to the terms of it. If only one agrees and things go ahead, then it's "toxic". If both agree to the terms, then it's all fine and fair.
If she agrees to not do anything sexual men, and agrees that he can be with other women, then both have come to an arrangement for the basis of their open relationship. Your opinion on that is irrelevant, no matter what you think is or isn't fair.

As for this;

there is a context for the conversation

Yes, and there's also context for this conversation, which is in fact the same context. You're either refusing to see it, or admit to it, and all because you went with your automatic supposition that open relationships must mean both partners having sex with others, even if they haven't agreed to that... Which is by definition "toxic", or more accurately cheating or psychological/emotional abuse.

 

[TundraLupus]

Easier for you, but clearly your opinion on that is clouding your view when talking about both open relationships, and harems as a sub-category of that.

To reiterate, the vast majority of harems presented in these games, are only harems in a loose, modern, western sense of the word. All involved are in agreement.



For any open relationship, both/all involved in the initial relationship have to agree to the terms of it. If only one agrees and things go ahead, then it's "toxic". If both agree to the terms, then it's all fine and fair.
If she agrees to not do anything sexual men, and agrees that he can be with other women, then both have come to an arrangement for the basis of their open relationship. Your opinion on that is irrelevant, no matter what you think is or isn't fair.

As for this;


Yes, and there's also context for this conversation, which is in fact the same context. You're either refusing to see it or admit to it and all because you went with your automatic supposition that open relationships must mean both partners having sex with others, even if they haven't agreed to that... Which is by definition "toxic", or more accurately cheating or psychological/emotional abuse.

I think there is a misunderstanding here, I didn't disagree with you on your definitions, actually, I agreed with it on the way that is used on this games, also pretty important, I think you missed the several times that I said that they should both have the same freedoms, but that they are not obliged to use them.

Also, if we are talking real life, most time people agree with the terms mentioned by you, they are doing to try and save an already failing relationship and end up resenting their partner, which wouldn't happen here, because you know, games.

Also, also, if you were trying to have a conversation in another context I would appreciate the warning, otherwise, we would go in circles like just now. My entire points were based on the previous context, and i can understand your point about the harem in this games and how they are used, and I agree with it, not my favorite thing on games that don't give the option to give the LI the same freedoms, but actually, they work more like a polyamorous relationship, which means the mc loves and has relationships with multiple people and they are okay with it, but if you want to actually have a conversation about all this send me a PM, so we don't clutter the thread with irrelevant stuff.

 

[GrammerCop]

I think there is a misunderstanding here, I didn't disagree with you on your definitions, actually, I agreed with it on the way that is used on this games, also pretty important, I think you missed the several times that I said that they should both have the same freedoms, but that they are not obliged to use them.

Also, if we are talking real life, most time people agree with the terms mentioned by you, they are doing to try and save an already failing relationship and end up resenting their partner, which wouldn't happen here, because you know, games.

Also, also, if you were trying to have a conversation in another context I would appreciate the warning, otherwise, we would go in circles like just now. My entire points were based on the previous context, and i can understand your point about the harem in this games and how they are used, and I agree with it, not my favorite thing on games that don't give the option to give the LI the same freedoms, but actually, they work more like a polyamorous relationship, which means the mc loves and has relationships with multiple people and they are okay with it, but if you want to actually have a conversation about all this send me a PM, so we don't clutter the thread with irrelevant stuff.

I'm already getting dizzy from going in circles. I do agree with other viewpoints that we definitely need a harem tag since that is the direction the game seems to be going.

 

[Drakan47]

I'm already getting dizzy from going in circles. I do agree with other viewpoints that we definitely need a harem tag since that is the direction the game seems to be going.

but it does have a harem tag, or was it added just now?

 

[Drakan47]

This game does have a harem tag, easy to miss because the tags are kind of scrambled.

I'm pretty sure it's alphabetical order

 

[GrammerCop]

but it does have a harem tag, or was it added just now?

I swear I did not see it, cuz I looked before I posted.

 

[Master of Puppets]

Yes, but again, there is a context for the conversation, and said context was not taken into consideration if he was talking about a harem-open relationship, it is easier though to separate both as in open relationship = both partners have the same freedoms, even if one decides not to use them, and harem = only one has such freedoms, again, we were talking about the open relationship discussed in-game, and a hypothetical of Sandra wanting to be with other men, if he didn't read the context then it isn't my problem.

Also, I would consider any relationship where both parties don't have the same freedoms to be unhealthy because most likely one is being viewed as an object, this one isn't one of those because Sandra has the same freedoms, she just doesn't want to use them.

So if she gives him the 'freedom' to do her up the arse, he has to give her the 'freedom' to peg him with a strapon or it isn't healthy? No, that's not how things work. You are injecting massive amounts of your own bias into everything.

 

[Snugglepuff]

I think you missed the several times that I said that they should both have the same freedoms, but that they are not obliged to use them.

I didn't miss that at all. That's precisely why I reiterated the same point more than once - If both are agreeing to the terms established for an open relationship, even if it means she's not allowed to fuck other guys, then it's fine and fair because she's agreed to that term.

Also, if we are talking real life, most time people agree with the terms mentioned by you, they are doing to try and save an already failing relationship and end up resenting their partner, which wouldn't happen here, because you know, games.

IRL, that's not a failing relationship, it's a failed relationship and one of them suggested it in desperation at the thought of losing the other person. That's not thinking of the relationship, only thinking of losing their access to someone they're obsessed with, which is already an unhealthy relationship.

Also, also, if you were trying to have a conversation in another context I would appreciate the warning, otherwise, we would go in circles like just now.

Context didn't actually change though. What was being discussed was directly related to that same context. It still is.