lord of flies

So, okay, it's been a while, I want to make sure I've got everything straight. I'm Kreyzak, obyknven, and Cyclone Man, right?

By the way, just so we're clear, when I said this was "historically inaccurate," I was referring to how this had no basis whatsoever in reality. The modern defaulting of custody to the mother is a consequence of the "Tender Years Doctrine," a doctrine introduced in the 19th century which became legal standard until its de jure (but not de facto) removal fairly recently. It was introduced by... A feminist.

And I explained my point of view, which is that such cultural backdrop is irrelevant to actual suffering. Perhaps an alternative explanation would assist: Since it's demonstrates a fantastic ability to state the obvious, in light of no one claiming otherwise.Perhaps you should read whatshisfaces posts where he claims that the website linked in the OP is a horrible misogynist hellhole for discussing the ways in which men are unfairly discriminated against in modern society?

And I'm sure at 15 you'd TOOOOOOTALLY ignore the advances of a hot person who's older than you. Tooooootally. I would, in fact, not ignore the advances of such a person when I was fifteen. They would almost certainly make me uncomfortable, just as most any sexual advance made by an individual in a position of temporal authority over me would make me at any point in my life. More importantly than my personal reaction, however, is the question of whether or not these acts qualify as rape. Whether or not the perpetrator was hot is besides the point. A rapist is a rapist, regardless of how sexually attractive they are. Suppose that the genders of the victim and the perpetrator in this case were switched. A fifteen year old girl "willingly participates" in sex with an attractive, 34-year-old man. Would you offer even the slightest defense of the man? I propose you would not. And don't give me some nonsense about it being different for boys and girls: plenty of girls below the age of consent have daydreamed or fantasized about having sex with men much older than them. But fantasy and reality are very different things. One of the most popular sexual fantasies out there is the fantasy of being raped. That does not mean that the people who fantasize about it would actually enjoy being raped, or that they would somehow have magical resistance to the psychological damage it causes. Child sexual abuse is a very serious issue. Female-perpetrated CSA especially, given that what limited evidence I have seen points towards it doing more damage that male-perpetrated CSA (e.g. "all seven victims who reported sexual abuse by men and women declared that the sexual abuse by women was more harmful and more damaging than the sexual abuse by men." and "Risk factors during childhood for later offending [by male victims of sexual abuse] included [...] sexual abuse by a female person ([odds ratio] 3.0, [95% confidence interval] 1.1–8.7)."). Please do not trivialize it or make light of it merely because the victim "consented" or the perpetrator was "hot."

That logic is so ****ing absurd and disgusting. If when he had been raped (bolded for reminding everyone that having sex with a 15 year old when you are 34 is rape) he had signed a contract which amounted to "you do some things for me, I'll pay you $10k when I'm 18," it would be voidable and basically unenforceable. But because he was raped, and some piece of **** family law judges decided he "voluntarily" engaged in sexual intercourse, his "consent" counts? But, oh, perhaps if he'd been 13 at the time it wouldn't. Also it's nice that even judges use the phrase "seduce" to describe child rape.

The idea that men never face discrimination for being men is one of the most absurd concepts the feminist movement ever tossed out. Sexism is not, and has not ever been, a one way street, unlike most other forms of discrimination. Whites do not serve more time for the same crime than blacks. Cisgendered heterosexuals are not more likely to be homeless than LGBT people. The rich are not less likely to make it to college than the poor. The disabled are not more likely to get custody of their kids than able-bodied people. Et cetera. This isn't really historically accurate, but more to the point, it's pointless to mention. Who cares whether this or that thing is actually because of dangerous gender ideas which hurt men or which hurt women? To give an example, the idea that women who "tease" men have brought their rapes on themselves (in the same way that, say, someone who smokes has brought their lung cancer on themselves) is, at its core, ludicrously misandrist. It is based on the idea that male sexuality is just one step shy of rape at any given time and that men lack any real capacity for self-control in regards to their behavior. I use the term "misandry," very particularly here: the hatred and fear of men. To say that women who "tease" men bring their rapes on themselves is to say that men are all, at their core, rapists. That is nothing less than hatred and fear. Yet, obviously, it is women who suffer here. Bringing up how this particular rape myth is ACTUALLY misandrist is ridiculous, just as your point is. Pretty much every ****ty gender idea is based on ****ty ideas about both men and women. Who actually gets hurt by discrimination in family court? Fathers.

It must be cool to base all your opinions about reality on the most blatant of suppositions and boring of strawmen. It probably takes a lot less time and effort than basing them on reason or evidence.

Article If you had sat me down in a room and told me to come up with the most awful legal ideas, I would never, in a million years, have come up with this ****. You almost have to laugh at how absurdly, unbelievably evil this is, and "evil" isn't a term I use lightly. **** this planet, I want off.

Yeah, people didn't care about the best Obsidian game to date. Fly away troll.

Is it also racist to notice that East Asian people are more likely to speak Mandarin than white people? To point out that other cultures have different rules for eye contact, personal space, and touch? My god. I never knew. That's a mirror.

lol your country literally killed more people than Stalin could've ever dreamed, and you call it "blessed". C'mon, son.

Not really. Nobody's asking for the latter. Because the people who disagree with me, are, in this case, intolerant?? Shocking. Go ahead, underline it. Please. I'm desperately waiting with baited breath for you to explain how I'm so racist that I can correctly identify your race by your connection to certain cultural ideas that are virtually exclusively the domain of white people? I notice you've yet to say "aha, but I'm not white!" because you are, and I'm right.

I'm the one acting like a child? You're the one who literally, literally, not figuratively but literally, is taking your ball and going home.

No, but some of the posters in this thread do, and they're who I'm arguing with. Right, so let's remove heterosexuals and men, so as not to reinforce a political agenda. So because it's a game, it shouldn't include any political issues at all. Problem: this is literally impossible. Because...? I'm being intolerant of intolerance. How horrible. Good question. Let me answer it. This: is how I know you're white. Literally no one is arguing for this. I know you live in some ridiculous alternate universe where everyone who disagrees with you wants 22nd century social mores in their socially medieval fantasy setting, but what I want is for the objective reality of the setting (again, not the characters, or the cultures) not to fit with the regressive bull**** y'all are spouting.

Please, feel free to explain how misogynistic writing is appealing to people who are not misogynists. Go on. I'm waiting.

Sexuality is complex, labeling it is also complex, not seeing the problem. Sexual politics is complex and needs to be examined, not seeing the problem. Accusations of intolerance because of intolerance? Shock! Horror! World ending now! I know that white people are really whiny about being called out on racism, but no it isn't.

What a shocker, an anti-SJ type is trying to threaten me to keep my mouth shut. Nice. Your post is so fascile it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. Not paying any attention to treatment of women will result in a "political and social agenda," but that agenda will be misogynistic and unfun for anyone who dislikes such things in their video games. The inclusion of misogynistic writing (not characters, not cultures, but writing, that is, the universe itself siding with misogynistic ideology) is only attractive to People With Bad Opinions. Objectively speaking

"How can you be so intolerant... of INTOLERANCE?!?" Did you ever consider that being against "social justice" and "political correctness" literally means being for racism and misogyny? Just a thought.

People who complain about the "social justice types" and "political correctness" are basically not really human beings but some kind of horrible p-zombie incapable of thought or empathy. Obsidian games have generally been very good about portraying women and minorities in a positive light, so if you're so angry about the PC police go play that one white supremacist game where you kill loads of brown people for spurious reasons. It's called Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. KABOOSH!

lmao at all the opinions of the "NO NOT THE PC POLICE" crowd. How dare you propose that this game not be a sexist racist pile of crap! Don't you get that it's not for you?!? How entitled, not to want incessantly misogynistic stereotypes and ideas to appear in games! Damn you all to hell! I hate all this, why can't we go back to the Good Old Days (note: good old days never actually existed) back when men were real men, women were real women, and misogyny in this fantasy setting with elves, wizards, gods and dragons was a realistic portrayal of medieval culture (note: realistic here means a reproduction of the worst sexual mores of the worst of gangster rap)!

It's just really bad feminism. It's the kind of thing that I would post if I was trolling as a pretend feminist: all the language, none of the comprehension or relevance.

For the umpteenth time, every single Obsidian game that was good except, kind of, FO:NV, has had romances. Y'all's claim that romances ruin RPGs is quite frankly baseless nonsense.

Anita Sarkeesian has really banal commentary. Get the lady behind Requires Only That You Hate involved. She's even a Planescape fan! It's a match made in heaven. I'd like to note now that all too often fantasy settings (or even fictional reproductions of real-world history) engage in "historical misogyny" that is nothing of the sort. The forms which modern misogyny takes are very different from the forms it took in the 6th century, the 11th century, the 16th century, and indeed even the 19th century.

Alright, great, romances confirmed to be in it and the Obs team is clearly going to put in the time and effort. Now everybody can go home and we can all wait to play another great Obsidian game, in the vein of MotB or Alpha Protocol.

Rest spam is me playing the game optimally, which yes, is "bad implementation." Why would I strategically manage my arsenal when I could, you know, not? There's nothing to stop me from burning through my spells, then taking a nap after every single encounter. And if there's nothing to stop me, it is exactly what I will do. No it isn't. Every spell that "remains useful" is something stupid like Knock which serves the sole purpose of invalidating a fellow party member's abilities. Spells that fulfill caster-specific roles (AoE attacks, heals, buffs, debuffs, etc) become almost completely useless after a couple levels. Unless you really were still casting Sleep after you got Disintegrate.