You're right, I was more focusing on MC's inability to finish and hadn't considered the full ramifications if the MC actually went through with it, the act would've been non-consensual. Again, drawing the comparison to a
How so? The Philica/Chloe scene is entirely consensual, certainly more so than the Maat scene in Eternum. If you go ahead with that scene, Chloe has already consented to it, you (as a proxy of MC) have consented to it, and Philica has of course consented to it, since it's her idea in the first place. The fact that Philica's confused about MC's relationship with Chloe is irrelevant (though as with MC/Grace, I think Philica's seeing more than MC and Chloe are willing to admit about their relationship). MC doesn't get off, but again, that's what he's agreed to, and that's at least part of why Philica's paying MC (the other part being whatever the female version of cuckolding is). In this scene, everyone gets exactly what they agreed to.
I should have been more specific. I was referring specifically to the ending sequence of Philica, when MC wanted to finish inside her. It was supposed to be a joke about the MC/player's frustration. Finishing the deed would have been non-consensual as she was out afterwards.
Fwiw this isn't entirely true - there's elements of coercion present in the scene. Two people being pressured by an outside incentive to do a thing they may not otherwise do in that way or in this moment. It's easy enough to forget since we come to these games with the expectation and, sometimes, omniscient knowledge that everyone was on the same page and equally willing, but in real life that kind of situation would be a lot more fraught.
I don't agree that this constitutes coercion--it's nothing more nor less than "I'll give you something you want, if you give me something I want." That's literally the definition of a contract; that the "something I want" is sexual in nature doesn't change this.* And specifically in the context of this scene, and without getting into the broader implications of prostitution or other forms of payment for sex, MC and Chloe are free to do this or not; neither of them is at risk of any harm or adverse consequence if they refuse. If they don't, MC doesn't have the money to bribe the guard,** and they don't get into the tower, but it's not like that's something they should have been able to do in the first place.
This is why I was deliberately careful with my language. The scene isn't explicitly consensual or non-consensual; it's dependent on the feelings of everyone involved. Philicia is looking to take advantage of MC and Chloe's desire to get into the tower in order to get something she wants out of them, but the difference between making a deal and being coerced is how both parties feel about the terms. It's entirely likely that the MC would've agreed to do it regardless of money, though perhaps not while he was with Chloe. All I really wanted to point out is that the existence of agreement does not inherently mean consent; people can still be pushed into doing things they don't necessarily want to, and it's up to us as players to decide whether we truly wanted to partake in that scene.
This is why I was deliberately careful with my language. The scene isn't explicitly consensual or non-consensual; it's dependent on the feelings of everyone involved. Philicia is looking to take advantage of MC and Chloe's desire to get into the tower in order to get something she wants out of them, but the difference between making a deal and being coerced is how both parties feel about the terms. It's entirely likely that the MC would've agreed to do it regardless of money, though perhaps not while he was with Chloe. All I really wanted to point out is that the existence of agreement does not inherently mean consent; people can still be pushed into doing things they don't necessarily want to, and it's up to us as players to decide whether we truly wanted to partake in that scene.
And, not to go off topic, but workplace exploitation is very much a thing and why we have labor laws.
Who gives a shit.This is why I was deliberately careful with my language. The scene isn't explicitly consensual or non-consensual; it's dependent on the feelings of everyone involved. Philicia is looking to take advantage of MC and Chloe's desire to get into the tower in order to get something she wants out of them, but the difference between making a deal and being coerced is how both parties feel about the terms. It's entirely likely that the MC would've agreed to do it regardless of money, though perhaps not while he was with Chloe. All I really wanted to point out is that the existence of agreement does not inherently mean consent; people can still be pushed into doing things they don't necessarily want to, and it's up to us as players to decide whether we truly wanted to partake in that scene.
And, not to go off topic, but workplace exploitation is very much a thing and why we have labor laws.
By this definition, nobody can ever know whether an act was consensual or not, because nobody can ever know the feelings of everyone involved--I therefore reject this definition. The scene in question is explicitly consensual, because everyone involved has explicitly consented to it.
We'll agree to disagree for the sake of not getting further off topic, but thank you for considering and respecting the topic further than some of the folks above!
