This is another semantics debate. We're really just debating about a word. In modern culture, there is a deeply heated argument about the definition of the word "Rape".
Does the word apply to all instances of sex where there the level of consent does not reach the standard set by the speaker? Does it only refer to a specific type of non-consensual sex defined by direct force?
Does it apply to situations without direct violence or force but where there was diminished capacity? Does it apply to situations without direct violence or force, but there was some kind of non-violent compulsion like blackmail? What about situations where there is not directly coerced consent, but it happens within a power dynamic that allows one party to dictate terms?
I think that:
A: Regardless of what
semantic definition you choose, you should personally try to follow the principles of
You must be registered to see the links
, and be mindful of situations where a partner may have diminished consent. This is the approach I always advise when it comes to sexual ethics or when I've taught classes on the subject. The best way to avoid the entire messiness of crossing the line unthinkingly is to just
always be well above the bare minimum of consent requirements. I'm in BDSM, where sexual contract negotiation is actually very common. But, as much as it's mocked outside of BDSM, it's actually good practice.
B: You should not get your sexual ethics from a hentai game. Don't. Seeds of Chaos is not a role model of actual ethical sexual conduct.
C: It is clearly true that the game has situations where the ability of cast members to consent to sex is diminished to some degree. We interpret this as allowed by the rules, as Patreon clearly seeks
identifiable and clear rule boundaries. For this reason, our specific policy is to make an effort to avoid DEPICTING ON-SCREEN instances of FORCEFUL Rape.
Anything beyond those points is just arguing about the definition of words. But, that's mostly stupid because Rape means whatever the speaker defines the word to mean. People just shift the definitions a lot because it's a word with loaded connotation and real world legal effects, that may or may not apply depending on what definition you're using.
The actual choosing of where the "Rape Line" is mostly has connotative effects. If two actions are described identically to a listener, and one is called "Rape" and one is called "Nonconsensual Sex", the listener will perceive the one described as Rape worse. At it's best, it serves as a means to QUICKLY AND CLEARLY identify the severity of an action in a case of unambiguous application. At it's worst the definition can be used as a tool of obfuscation. But, do not confuse the semantics with the ethics. An action is just as unethical if you define it as rape or not rape. It is unethical in it's
content not in it's
description.
So please. Less semantics.
