What do you think of consensual bdsm vs non-consensual bdsm in porn games?

[Sassadin]

This is a touchy subject because non-consensual bdsm is frown upon in real life, but aren't we playing games so we can do stuff we can't do in life? Recently I see a lot of games just go very soft on the bdsm aspect which seems weird to me since bdsm is all about power dynamic and I find making stuff total consensual just take a lot out of that. Of course it's too simple to divide bdsm into just consensual and non-consensual, I think we can divide consensuality into 5 levels:

+ Total consensual: All parties agree beforehand what is going to happen. All parties willingly take part in the act by their own desires.
+ No verbal confirmation: One party start the act without verbal agreement before hand. The others accept with body language. All parties willingly take part in the act by their own desires.
+ Psychological pressure/Corruption/Blackmail: One party is forced into the act against their original will but no physical violence involve.
+ Physical threat: One party is forced into the act under physical violence threat.
+ Just do it: Well...

Each of us can have different level of bdsm consensuality that we can accept in our game. I'm just curious about your opinion on this. For people who enjoy consensual bdsm in game, what do you like about that? In general, what level of consensuality is good/acceptable for you?

Personally, my kink is the feeling of having power over others and the first two levels just take a lot out of that. Something like "Cure my addiction" even though has quite a bit of bdsm play actually do nothing for me. For example: when you spank the nurse but that's under the direction of your aunt, it just feel pretty bad actually. Since it doesn't provide any empowerment feeling at all.

 

[desmosome]

+ Total consensual: All parties agree beforehand what is going to happen. All parties willingly take part in the act by their own desires.
+ No verbal confirmation: One party start the act without verbal agreement before hand. The others accept with body language. All parties willingly take part in the act by their own desires.
+ Psychological pressure/Corruption/Blackmail: One party is forced into the act against their original will but no physical violence involve.
+ Physical threat: One party is forced into the act under physical violence threat.

I like those two. The first one is a bit too boring. It feels more like roleplaying. Last one is a bit too heavy handed and can get kind of boring too. I personally don't like the real BDSM stuff involving leather and bandage stuff. I am more about the psychological domination.

 

[DaClown]

I am a fan of strict consent when it comes to the metagame. I dislike it in the extreme when the game dev does non-consensual things to me as a player or to the player base in general. This is distinctly different from non-consent to my character or to characters in the diegesis (game/story world).

In individual games, whether I like the diegetic consensual or non-consensual BDSM depends on how it is written, whether it is game play/mechanics or just part of the static story and on the rails, and whether or not there was adequate foreshadowing/telegraphing/warning that such content was going to be in the game or on that path.

BDSM that is not BDSM but actually forms of straight up rape, snuff, domestic abuse, or torture gets devs put on my shit list real quick. Especially if there is no toggle for that kind of content. Especially if there is no warning that it is coming. Especially if it is employed under a pretense of roleplay.

That said, I often find BDSM content to be too light and barely beyond what some call "vanilla".

I really enjoy BDSM which interrogates the form, practices, histories, and philosophies of it.

 

[Pretentious Goblin]

I hate non-con and ideally, sex should always be done with express consent. However, in games I don't mind this:

+ No verbal confirmation: One party start the act without verbal agreement before hand. The others accept with body language. All parties willingly take part in the act by their own desires.

As long as the character is actually willing, of course.

Blackmail/coercion I normally classify as non-con and don't enjoy them, with few exceptions. Bribery can work better for me since the character isn't being coerced and is getting something out of it other than trauma.

There is one other scenario that I love to see in games and stories, though it's pretty uncommon - surrendering consent. When a masochistic/submissive character willingly puts themselves in a position where they know they won't have any control over what happens to them.

 

[desmosome]

I hate non-con and ideally, sex should always be done with express consent. However, in games I don't mind this:



As long as the character is actually willing, of course.

Blackmail/coercion I normally classify as non-con and don't enjoy them, with few exceptions. Bribery can work better for me since the character isn't being coerced and is getting something out of it other than trauma.

There is one other scenario that I love to see in games and stories, though it's pretty uncommon - surrendering consent. When a masochistic/submissive character willingly puts themselves in a position where they know they won't have any control over what happens to them.

You should go play Summer Scent.

 

[SPACE!man]

I like all of them, but the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the more you risk entering the realm of "I feel terrible" porn. Cos while I'm up for sudden sex, like a woman's all "No! Not there!" and you pound the ever loving fuck out of her, I'm prone to feeling horrific guilt to certain things. Tears make me soft instantly cos I'm overcome with guilt, begging me to stop is okay if it isn't a certain tone (there's a difference between "N-No... S-Stop..." and someone screaming it as they have an emotional breakdown). I'm a "forced" kinda guy, I like forced content but never actual rape. So I only like the last two if the victim enjoys it (e.g. big imposing guy makes girl submit, but she loves it OR big imposing guy rough fucks a girl and she loves it).

Blackmail is a little better, it's less likely to end in me feeling guilty (most of the time the victim enjoys it in porn). Non-Verbal consent, fun. Consent obviously fun.

Honestly, if we put the guilty feelings aside, it really just depends on the BDSM for me. I mean, I love the idea of sudden bondage gear and getting fucked while tied up, but sudden spanking (I'm not into heavy spanking, just a reasonable amount) and whipping isn't as hot. Sudden fuck machine hammering your back door, yes. Sudden piss trough on your face, forcing you to drink it? No.

 

[woody554]

I'm all about the power play. being told to spank someone is just being a sub and I don't go that way. I'm sure it's fine for subs though.

in games there's a huge difference with noncon in whether you as the mc does it or it's somehow not in your hands. I can't do it, I'm out the second I'm forced to hurt someone against their will. the only way it works for me is if it's con-noncon.

but lets say it's a convent, and a gentle pure of heart nun gets abused by an evil mother superior, now that's a whole another thing, right? because you're not the perpetrator. but also of course it's difficult to see how you could connect that to mc's agency.

similar thing might work to a degree if the victim is demonized first. like maybe she's ilsa the she-wolf of SS, and deserves everything she gets. but I don't know, I think even there it needs some signaling of her actually liking it.

I probably in all cases need some form of consenting to enjoy it, whether it's in the text or less explicit. but it needs to be there or it's already in the bad feels country.

someone above said something about tears. tears are hot. but it needs to be mixed with pleasure again, she needs to want it even if she's crying or it's not hot. does that make any sense?

 

[fitgirlbestgirl]

To me, putting "safe, sane, and consensual" BDSM into your game is kind of like making sure your characters adhere to the responsible use of condoms and make sure to get an STD test before sex. I guess it's fine if you're going for hyperrealism and want to portray "nice," responsible people, but I think it's incredibly boring and lame.

 

[anne O'nymous]

This is a touchy subject because non-consensual bdsm is frown upon in real life, but aren't we playing games so we can do stuff we can't do in life?

It's not just frown upon, it's disliked for what it is: physical abuse.
The main principle of BDSM is the consent ; not explicitly to the immediate act, but to the concept and to the practices that can be used. Remove the consent, and it stop being BDSM to become violence and moral/physical abuse ; it's far to be a simple mistake, like can be none consensual anal sex, by example. In real life, none consensual BDSM lead you to jail, not for rape, but for physical aggression.

Therefore, in game it's exactly the same problem than with FPS games like Call of Duty, by example. There's those who see this a gratuitous violence, those who see it as a way to release some tension/rage/frustration/whatever, and there's the majority, who see it as just a game. But with none consensual BDSM come a moral problem. If it's natural to kill "the enemies", it's not natural to beat your sexual partner ; at least I hope that every one here see it as this. So, some deal with it, some use it to pass the frustration they have against women (hello incel reader), and the other just can't deal with it.

Recently I see a lot of games just go very soft on the bdsm aspect which seems weird to me since bdsm is all about power dynamic and I find making stuff total consensual just take a lot out of that.

You've a big misconception of what is BDSM. The one that really have the power in a BDSM play is the one on the receiving end (which isn't necessarily submissive), because a simple word from this person is enough to stop everything. The play will goes as long and as far as this person want it. The person in the giving end is the more powerless person in the world ; whatever this person will do, whatever how hard he'll go, or how humiliating he'll be, it will always only be because the other previously agreed to it, and because the said other can take it. A pure sadistic person would like being the dominant in a BDSM play, but not a single second this person would think that he have some real power.
And, like I previously said, anything outside of this description isn't BDSM, but violence and abuse.

 

[hewhocumsbynight]

When it comes to games, porn, or other forms of fantasy, I'm not particularly interested in most consensual relationships. If I'm tying up a girl, or enslaving her, or whatever, I don't want her to enjoy it or consent to it. It actively decreases my interest if they do. Indeed, the "character loving her rape/rapist" is one of my least favorite porn tropes. The only time that a character consenting to being bound or whatever in fiction that turns me on is when it's an expression of capitulation and submission - like, if a character who has a strong fear of men and of bondage due to past trauma is forced to ask the player character to put a collar around her neck and to sodomize her, with tears in her eyes and despair in her voice.

 

[fitgirlbestgirl]

You've a big misconception of what is BDSM. The one that really have the power in a BDSM play is the one on the receiving end (which isn't necessarily submissive), because a simple word from this person is enough to stop everything. The play will goes as long and as far as this person want it. The person in the giving end is the more powerless person in the world ; whatever this person will do, whatever how hard he'll go, or how humiliating he'll be, it will always only be because the other previously agreed to it, and because the said other can take it. A pure sadistic person would like being the dominant in a BDSM play, but not a single second this person would think that he have some real power.
And, like I previously said, anything outside of this description isn't BDSM, but violence and abuse.

Your definition of BDSM is rigid and moralistic. What you describe is the most vanilla version of BDSM, but certainly not the only one there is. Obviously consent is an important variable, but it's not binary and it's not absolute. There's such a thing as consensual non-consent or people agreeing not to use safe words.

 

[DuniX]

How can it be Real Sadism if it's all just a "pretend" that you make people suffer and dominate them.
The Marquis de Sade will certainly not accept that fakery.
If it's going to be a fictional fantasy anyway, you might as well make it based on the real meaning.
What is the point of roleplaying the roleplay?

Real BDSM games have Gore.

 

[UserX]

Spoiler: Reasoning, but you can jump directly to the conclusion

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Long story short, imo nc bdsm in porn games works in a way inversely proportional to how immersive the story is and how deeply characterized the "victims" are.

 

[khumak]

I think the fetishes involving loss of control or helplessness are probably more common in women and I think a lot of people who go nuts when there's not explicit consent for everything lose sight of that. I think actual rape fantasies are less common but again that's mostly women who have that fantasy as well.

I think a lot of women would like that sort of thing with the caveat that they want to still feel safe. They don't want to be forced by some guy who's going to hurt them but if hubby puts a ski mask on and pretends to be the burglar who breaks in and has his way with her or something that's a different matter...

 

[woody554]

Your definition of BDSM is rigid and moralistic. What you describe is the most vanilla version of BDSM, but certainly not the only one there is. Obviously consent is an important variable, but it's not binary and it's not absolute. There's such a thing as consensual non-consent or people agreeing not to use safe words.

on the contrary, what anneonymous described is the standard in the BDSM community. also con-noncon IS consensual. and ALSO almost invariably includes the dom periodically checking on the sub whether they're still fine with it.

what YOU are talking about is what vanilla people think bdsm is, one-sided abuse. you are as wrong as people who think mma is mindless violence for violence's sake.

 

[khumak]

on the contrary, what anneonymous described is the standard in the BDSM community. also con-noncon IS consensual. and ALSO almost invariably includes the dom periodically checking on the sub whether they're still fine with it.

what YOU are talking about is what vanilla people think bdsm is, one-sided abuse. you are as wrong as people who think mma is mindless violence for violence's sake.

Yeah sometimes no really does mean yes... A lot of women like to put up a little token resistance and then give in when the guy persists. If you follow some of the proposed "consent" rules now the guy would have to basically just lay there and do nothing and just let the girl do whatever she wants. That might be fine for a girl who's a dom but most girls don't want that.

 

[woody554]

Yeah sometimes no really does mean yes... A lot of women like to put up a little token resistance and then give in when the guy persists. If you follow some of the proposed "consent" rules now the guy would have to basically just lay there and do nothing and just let the girl do whatever she wants. That might be fine for a girl who's a dom but most girls don't want that.

it's really not too big of a deal to first have a talk about it. establish one of you wants to play the noncon role, then proceed playing like you just agreed to together. if people are not ready for that, they're too young for sex. don't care if they're 55, they're still just brats who are afraid to talk about sex. if you can't talk about it, you're not old enough to do it.

 

[khumak]

it's really not too big of a deal to first have a talk about it. establish one of you wants to play the noncon role, then proceed playing like you just agreed to together. if people are not ready for that, they're too young for sex. don't care if they're 55, they're still just brats who are afraid to talk about sex. if you can't talk about it, you're not old enough to do it.

If you want to talk about it that's fine but you don't need to. It's pretty obvious when a woman is just offering a little playful resistance versus a firm "no". A lot of times there's no talking in sex. Just some grunts and moans. I'm not going to ask for permission for my next move. It's her job to give me either a verbal or nonverbal que if she doesn't like something so I can do something else instead. Same goes for the reverse.

If the first 3 things I try all get a no maybe it's time for me to just apologize for going too fast and send her home. Obviously we're not on the same page. If the only things she wants me to do are things I'm not into, same thing. It's just not happening. Time to find someone else to play with.

And yes that means some of what I do she might not like and some of what she does I might not like until we get to know each other's preferences. Maybe she likes it if I smack her ass but she doesn't like it if I pull her hair. Maybe I like it if she squeezes my balls but I don't want her finger in my ass. We don't need to run down the list in advance.

 

[215303j]

First of all, pixels and scripted characters can't give consent, or say no.

In my opinion, in a game you can, therefore, go a lot further then you could go in real life (without being a psychopath).
Some people play FPS as a kind of soldier-simulation, shooting only at other soldiers and only when the mission requires it. Others happily mow down swathes of civilians (or rather, pixels appearing to be civilians) just for giggles.
I have no moral opinion on this. Sure, some stuff can be a bit dubious but in the end nobody gets hurt.

When we come to the topic of BDSM, I have to admit to not being very knowledgable about it as it's not my kink.
However dom-sub relationships and physical violence exist IRL and could well play a part in an adult story. And because it's fiction, I have no problem if it goes quite a bit further then would be acceptable IRL. I think adult games could be a reasonably safe environment to experience something like that, similar to the FPS example and also similar to khumak 's example of the hubby with the ski mask.
Maybe (probably) I'm mistaken but I think BDSM was also intended to have a safe way to experiment, but evolved into it's own, very distinct, sub-culture. Unless you are interested in that specific sub-culture then I think that sticking to standard BDSM rules would be unneccesarily limiting for a game.

P.S. I think this may be the first time I disagree with anne O'nymous on something!

 

[anne O'nymous]

P.S. I think this may be the first time I disagree with anne O'nymous on something!

Prove that we are just humans

More seriously, it's my opinion and nothing more. Apparently some share it, but it don't mean that it's the truth, I'm wrong sometimes ; surely more often that I want it.