In fact I'd rather the dev spent his time polising one sex scene, rather than making me choose between two shoddy ones.
Let me tell you a little story. This is somewhat anecdotal, but you can go and do the research for yourself. You'll find it is backed up by about a hundred years worth of industrial studies about quality assurance and productivity.
A pottery teacher runs two classes during a semester. They want to perform an experiment. So with one of their classes they instruct the students to make a singular perfect piece and warn that the members of the class will be judged on one single best piece. Their whole grade depends on them making the best thing they can possibly make.
With the other class, they instruct the students that they will be graded on how many pieces they make with minor marks for the quality of the individual pieces.
At the end of the semester, the teacher has graded both classes. You know what happened? The class that made the most pieces also made the best pieces and more of them were higher quality than the entire other class. The class that made the fewest pieces while being directed to make the most polished ones also made generally worse pieces than the class that was instructed to produce the largest quantity.
The process of artistic production favors the most attempts. This is why you concept your art and game design, and you allow yourself room to make multiple attempts and do not get beholden to your previous attempts or perfecting attempts that are fundamentally flawed.
The class that made the most pieces produced the best works because they had more practice and if a piece became too difficult to continue working then they moved on to another attempt. They produced a lot of bad attempts, but it ultimately didn't matter because those bad attempts were learning experiences from which they iterated or discarded and produced better works still.
I'd rather chose between two shoddy concept scenes early on in the development and playtesting process than play and support a project for the better part of a decade only for the project to deliver something anathema to me or to not deliver at all ultimately and burn out because of misplaced efforts.
Brigitte sex: MC wanted to bone her, the sex was the reward for the job (sending the guard away), but MC can't touch her, because B.'s master's rule, so we got a special sex reward. It is not rape, MC wanted this.
And maybe I missed the statement where he wants to fuck her.
If you choose to not get in the limo then Brigitte gets nude and entices the MC into the limo. MC indicates tacit desire for the hot woman at that point before he gets bagged or threatened with a gun.
There's a problematic view that would lead to arguing that 1) because the MC consented before knowing who Brigitte is or what she will do or who she works for or the fact that she has a gun and will threaten to use it against the MC, the MC will always have consented and can not revoke that consent. 2) The absence of the MC having an option to say no or to try to exercise his power against her amounts to implicit consent; this notion of negative consent is tremendously problematic. and 3)
I guess you come to the assumption because he gets a hard one? (So in other games when a girl gets raped but becomes wet she isn't raped?) My mind doesn't work that way. Sorry.
An erection is not consent. In real life, people get erections for all kinds of reasons like raised blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and endorphin rushes in the presence of various kinds of stressors. Some people go limp. Some people don't. There's congenial mutations and hereditary conditions which can make it go either way or sometimes one way and sometimes the other.
In any case, Nulldev's response here is a Thermian argument. Doesn't particularly matter whether the MC wanted it. The issue is whether or not the player wanted it (for any random sequence of content the dev can add, some players will want it and some will not). The dev can not write the consent for the player and assert that the player consented to it because they-the-dev said so.
That is at best non-consensual. There's a bunch of cases in the US and English common law jurisdictions which affirm that clicking a button that says "I consent to play this" does not amount to blanket consent for anything and everything. Among other things, you can not legally consent to things which are not legal. You can not for instance consent to being murdered or to having someone brandish a loaded weapon at you and threaten your life. You can not legally consent to viewing sexualized child abuse imagery.
Even without bringing courts into this the point is that it is at best rude what the dev did in this case. And the resolution to the problem is really really simple. Not allowing the player to say no to content and filter it will predictably keep reproducing these problems where significant chunks of the players end up at best complaining about these things and at worst become actively hostile and begin engaging in behaviors to correct the situation because appealing to the dev failed to fix the issues.
The dev risks liabilities by playing this off as no big deal or "just don't play with my work." I watched significant factions of the Breeding Season fandom become the enemies of the project and watched it all turn very very ugly for the developers because of content and tagging disputes like this.
Dev is free of course to refuse to allow the player to do what they want with the powers presented. The dev is free to present the game as if there is real freedom of choice on the part of the player within the diagesis and the interface of the game. The dev is free of course to deceive the players or to lie and mislead the players or to omit information to try and surprise the players or to coerce the consent of the player.
Just a thought.
