Here are a list of games with overtly sexual and/or romantic themes.

Blue Rose, written by Jeremy Crawford

It Was a Mutual Decision written by Hannah Shaffer

Monsterheats written by Avery Alder aka Joe Mcdaldno

All of these game feature romance and/or seduction as an integral part of their game.

In fact the last in the list features a "sex move" which is triggered when they have sex with somebody and moreover a PC may roll to turn on/seduce any other character, including other PCs.

And it does not seem 100% consensual, either: you don't get to choose what turns you on, and because "Monsterhearts is a game about the confusion that arises when your body and your social world start changing without your permission

In fact, a fairly positive review in Bitch Magazine (a self-described femminist website) rather reluctantly expresses concern.

QuoteMy one concern is that the game pushes participants to uncomfortable emotional places without balancing that in the text with caution.

QuoteNot everyone starts their roleplaying experience off with story games, and if your first time at the table is a bad game of Monsterhearts, it's not likely you'll be running back for more.

https://www.bitchmedia.org/post/save-vs-sexism-the-sexuality-of-Monsterhearts-story-games-teen-sexuality

It must be a coincidence that all three authors could be accurately described as SJW.

These seem odd games to write and promote during this current climate.

I hasten to add that as somebody who has been the target of unwanted and persistent advances from both men and women, I make no excuses for harassment and sexual pestering or generally lewd behaviour.

I need to invest in pearls and popcorn futures! :eek:

Quote from: EOTB;1037349Look at photos of those 70s hugo parties; look particularly at the men.  Look at photos of current year geek con du jour; look particularly at the men.  Could you switch them and (apart from fashion) not tell the difference?  Do the same for your local softball tournament or music festival compared against the geek con du jour.

Think about what feeds a short-term attraction loop, as confirmed by much scientific research, and then think about geek culture.  What part of geek culture optimizes the traits that drives short-term attraction?  (physical appearance, easy confidence, outcome independence, evident existing acceptance/high status in the local social order, etc.)

I don't find much about the current situation surprising.  The majority of women don't want to be touched by the majority of gamer men, who've in turn convinced themselves that - for the first time in human history - the key to a man's sexual success isn't relentless personal improvement, but instead cheering on from their place against the auditorium wall, patiently waiting to be chosen to dance.

Are you either a current or former PUA?

I wonder sometimes if I am on the same planet as others.

People come to conventions to game. Gaming is a social activity, so socializing will occur. Sometimes socializing leads to romance or simply to sex, mostly it is just socializing while sharing a common interest - gaming.

If you remember that the object of your attention is there to game and probably not for anything else and don't be a creep, then you will do fine.

I have never heard of a one time, reasonable attempt at expressing interest leading to any issues except when there is a clear power difference (and I do not mean men oppress women so that is always a power differential or similar beliefs).

The chest beating and rending of clothes over this makes me wonder just how many people who game are stuck in their teens in their development.

I barely go to gaming conventions but I do attend similar cons. I can tell you that the gaming cons I have been to are highly male dominated in attendance, I see many women that are attending are part of a couple already, and the single women that are there have to be annoyed at all the extra carnal attention when they are just there to game. Game with them and only socialize on that level and if there is any other mutual attraction it will be obvious.

Otherwise, #metoo is important. Earlier in my career I worked with the HR group (large company) that investigated sexual harassment complaints (I investigated financial fraud). I had some naive views about he said/she said and not all men and innocent until proven guilty until even my dumb-ass was beaten into submission by the number of creeps that were actually out there and I quickly came to see that really, the accuser needs to be believed and that it is not a court of law.

Yes, witch trials and public mob justice is a potential problem, but not really relevant in most cases. With social media even more pervasive than forums like this, eventually the shit comes out.

So no need to be a Puritan but go to cons to game and treat everyone as a fellow gamer and your name will not show up in the same type of discussion as this thread is about.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037364Thank you Venger! Doesn't surprise me that a SJW creeper would rag on Alpha Blue. But oh, the sweet irony.

But I noticed you railed against people seeking jury trials and guilty verdicts. While I understand your sentiment, please understand that those of us demanding DUE PROCESS aren't doing it to protect abusers. Absolutely and utterly not. Due Process protects everyone and if the day ever comes when someone comes for you, you will want due process for yourself.

And you'd need it. Satanic cult leaders who write space porno definitely should be on the due process side. And I say this as someone who supports your rights to free speech, religious choice and free expression. But hot damn VS, you would need all the due process the law allows if the mob came for you.

The court of public opinion has always been a very bad idea. In the age of social media, it's anathema to our society.

If someone were physically trying to haul SPF into a jail cell, fire him from his job (resigning from sites that let you post affiliate links doesn't cut it in my opinion), surround his house with pitchforks and torches, or harass his friends and loved ones, then I would totally agree that due process is and should be required.  If those things were happening to the man, I'd be defending his rights under the criminal justice system.  But none of that is happening.  The dude is getting publicly shamed in a very tiny corner within the geeky sector of the internet and he'll have to take a sabbatical from SJW RPG gigs and events.  That's pretty much it.  

Also, lest we forget, SPF admitted to some (if not most) of the wrongdoing!  

As for me, I've received hate mail, public admonishment and such ever since I started speaking my mind and creating whatever the fuck I wanted to (which is to say, pretty much always).  I'm not doing anything illegal.  That doesn't mean I can't be targeted, but yeah... there are no guarantees.  

VS

No one deserves this treatment more than Sean Patrick Fannon: the guy is an epic turd who has been involved in harassment campaigns, boycotts, coercion, etc., against his ideological and political opponents (James Desborough for instance, a long with many many others).

As others have pointed out, his behavior probably would have been considered OK by the women involved if he was good-looking or had some charisma. But no, he is a bitch-titted slob who awkwardly tried to come on to women and was shut down.

This is literally Robespierre being led to the guillotine --a guy who helped make SJW witch-hunts mainstream. I hope he never works in the RPG industry again. He is already being kicked out of other conventions, such as Chupacabracon ...

Quote from: Silas1066;1037530No one deserves this treatment more than Sean Patrick Fannon: the guy is an epic turd who has been involved in harassment campaigns, boycotts, coercion, etc., against his ideological and political opponents (James Desborough for instance, a long with many many others).

As others have pointed out, his behavior probably would have been considered OK by the women involved if he was good-looking or had some charisma. But no, he is a bitch-titted slob who awkwardly tried to come on to women and was shut down.

This is literally Robespierre being led to the guillotine --a guy who helped make SJW witch-hunts mainstream. I hope he never works in the RPG industry again. He is already being kicked out of other conventions, such as Chupacabracon ...

Well I guess there is justice in the world!

Quote from: S'mon;1037540Well I guess there is justice in the world!

Did someone say Justice?

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037524Otherwise, #metoo is important. Earlier in my career I worked with the HR group (large company) that investigated sexual harassment complaints (I investigated financial fraud). I had some naive views about he said/she said and not all men and innocent until proven guilty until even my dumb-ass was beaten into submission by the number of creeps that were actually out there and I quickly came to see that really, the accuser needs to be believed and that it is not a court of law.

As a male virgin who has so little motivation to pursue the opposite sex that if it wasn't for explicit content I would wonder if I was asexual, I find the idea that a single woman's word should be believed and end careers to be terrifying.

I have this odd perspective that women are just like men in that some of them are total shit-bags and would totally lie once to remove a rival from the work place or industry and these cited statistics and studies don't negate the sickening idea that destroying the lives of some innocent men is fine if most the ones targeted actually did do something.

Now SPF did something inappropriate in a work space (conventions are work spaces for RPG authors), damaged his brand, and deserves to be fired by his own admission.
That doesn't mean we should give half the population unquestioned trust and power over the other half of the population (it should be obviously stupid).

Quote from: jhkimThe point of gamedaddy's complaint was that only photographs or recording of the interaction would constitute real evidence, which I pushed back against. Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence in court, and if the journalist is writing based on eyewitness testimony, then they are writing based on evidence that could be admissible.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037420In a single instance, then yes, hard evidence would constitute real evidence. and if there are multiple eyewitnesses, and they come forward coroborating or affirming the victims story, that is another matter. What I'm speaking of, is he said, she said, one one journalist who just happend to be "her" friend writing a defamatory article. Yes it is defamatory if a person is falsely publicly humiliated, if they lose income, and other business opportunities due to allegations without any foundation.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037419Eyewitness testimony from only the presumed victim is highly suspect without some additional corroboration. Are you trying to tell me there are no women left on the planet that would not, in desperation, destroy the reputation of a man, if they could not get what they wanted from him. If you believe that, I really need you to go to court and look at cases that have already concluded, so you will know the truth.

I also have some reservations about secretly videotaping any events, however, if harrassment or misconduct of a sexual or intimidating manner is really occurring, especially on a continuous or ongoing basis, then I would tend to overlook the circumstances and would prefer to know the truth of what is really going on, and an actual video or audio recording of the suspect intimidating, threatening, or violating someone elses privacy can go a long way to determining the truth of a matter.

It is not just one anonymous person's account, though. The article cited four people's accounts - including a second witness who corroborated the named witness Bulkeley's account. Rather than bringing up anything specific to these witnesses, you're suggesting that only video recording of the behavior would demonstrate that such a behavior happened, and that otherwise witnesses should be dismissed as lying.

I think that's going too far. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of court trials rely on eyewitness testimony - going from slander on up to murder. The vast majority of wrongdoings are not committed while being recorded or in front of multiple witnesses, whether women or men. A single eyewitness can lead to conviction if that witness is deemed to be sufficiently credible. Conversely, both witness testimony and physical evidence can be unreliable. People can lie, and evidence can be doctored. At this point, I don't know anything about Bulkeley. If it turns out that she is a judge with an impeccable reputation, then that would make it more credible - if she is a paranoid mental patient, that would make it less credible.

I'm not going to unquestioningly believe it just because one should always believe witnesses, but I'm also not going to dismiss it because no witnesses should ever be believed.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1037547As a male virgin who has so little motivation to pursue the opposite sex that if it wasn't for explicit content I would wonder if I was asexual, I find the idea that a single woman's word should be believed and end careers to be terrifying.

It's an interesting level of power that some seem to think should be bestowed upon a group of people only based on their genitals. (Setting aside the topic of gender identity for a moment)

QuoteI have this odd perspective that women are just like men in that some of them are total shit-bags and would totally lie once to remove a rival from the work place or industry and these cited statistics and studies don't negate the sickening idea that destroying the lives of some innocent men is fine if most the ones targeted actually did do something.

And it's an interesting conclusion that some have come to that an entire group of people can be condemned based only on their genitals. (Again, setting aside the topic of gender identity for a moment)

I tend to think it's a very sexist and traditionalist view, with a thin veneer of modern justifications.

Regarding hooking up at conventions in general.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037421I have said this before, and I'll say it again, Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about sex, it should be about gaming. All the folks that are getting that confused have some problems or hangups about sex, and are unable to properly channel their sexual energy. They insist on bringing it to the gaming table with them. Some people, ...myself included, find that raw unchanneled energy in a gaming environment offensive.  

I confess to having a bit of trouble also with the notion that one should go to a gaming convention to "hookup" or meet your soulmate, ...or whatever. I always thought that a couple that had met their soulmates would just know it, and in that case, wouldn't matter in any event, and later on surely wouldn't be making allegations, or ruining reputations, or claiming sexual misconduct. This casual sex thing exclusively at gaming venues is a stupid idea that is bound to create all kinds of interesting problems especially with a group that is interested in lust, and power, and one-upsmanship, ...instead of real love. Which actually hasn't been discussed at all that much here, until now.

For those of you calling it prude... It's not about prudishness, it's about love, ...instead of lust ...or rutting. Can you dig that?

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037524I wonder sometimes if I am on the same planet as others.

People come to conventions to game. Gaming is a social activity, so socializing will occur. Sometimes socializing leads to romance or simply to sex, mostly it is just socializing while sharing a common interest - gaming.

I agree with Myrdin that it's pretty normal for socializing to lead to hooking up. It happens at most social gatherings. Back when I was single, I had hooked up at conventions, and knew others who did so.

On the other hand, I can understand it being controversial, in that if it happens a lot it does change the atmosphere of a gathering. So people who want to push for there to be less hook-ups are fine. It comes down to the preferences of the majority - understanding that a number of people don't care one way or the other. People should be able to advocate for either way without being called either prudes or perverts.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037421I have said this before, and I'll say it again, Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about sex, it should be about gaming. All the folks that are getting that confused have some problems or hangups about sex, and are unable to properly channel their sexual energy. They insist on bringing it to the gaming table with them. Some people, ...myself included, find that raw unchanneled energy in a gaming environment offensive.  

I confess to having a bit of trouble also with the notion that one should go to a gaming convention to "hookup" or meet your soulmate, ...or whatever. I always thought that a couple that had met their soulmates would just know it, and in that case, wouldn't matter in any event, and later on surely wouldn't be making allegations, or ruining reputations, or claiming sexual misconduct. This casual sex thing exclusively at gaming venues is a stupid idea that is bound to create all kinds of interesting problems especially with a group that is interested in lust, and power, and one-upsmanship, ...instead of real love. Which actually hasn't been discussed at all that much here, until now.

For those of you calling it prude... It's not about prudishness, it's about love, ...instead of lust ...or rutting. Can you dig that?

   You're blaspheming against the chief idol of the Apostate West, Venus Paneros.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1037504I need to invest in pearls and popcorn futures! :eek:

Way more stable investments than Bitcoin!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037554I tend to think it's a very sexist and traditionalist view, with a thin veneer of modern justifications.

That's exactly what White Knights are.

They have to defend women, for women are frail and must be protected, and by being their protectors, the women shall bless them with nookie.

Thus the "warrior" in SJW.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037554And it's an interesting conclusion that some have come to that an entire group of people can be condemned based only on their genitals. (Again, setting aside the topic of gender identity for a moment)

I tend to think it's a very sexist and traditionalist view, with a thin veneer of modern justifications.

Are you saying I am condemning people (by saying some) or are you talking about others?