The Official Romance Thread

[Stun]

bg1 did indeed have romance.  sure, the romances were fragments o' the plot and poorly crafted, but skie and eldoth were professed lovers and tamoko claimed to love sarevok, though we doubt it were mutual love.

Oh, more than that!

 

-Safana uses all manner of sexual innuendo to entice you to explore the shipwreck in the Sirine map - That's romance, according to [___insert classic literature of choice here____]

-The Cloud Peaks Dryad Kisses you to death <----romance.

-Then there's "hey sexy, do you want to take a look at me ditties?" <----- that's Romance. And it's a line spouted by dozens of NPCs in the game. If you disagree, then you're just a semantics-spouting scoundrel, and an avatar of Webster's dictionary!

 

Icewind Dale had Romances. Read Evayne's Journal, or talk to Ginafae. or flirt with the 2 waitresses in Kuldahar's tavern.

 

Icewind Dale 2 had romances- Check out the priestesses at the Ice Temple. They're a romantic bond to each other, plus their leader is romancing Nickadaemus. And then there's the story behind Isair and Madae themselves.

 

 

But that's not important. None of this is. The important thing here is that PoE will have romances. We have graphical proof it does:

 

 

 

So, what do we say to these Promancers who've been coming here for the past 2 years tirelessly complaining that PoE won't have romances? Do we tell them the truth according to F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry James, Vitor Hugo, Louisa May Alcott, George Elliot, and any other writer we can think of? Or do we establish a *reasonable* definition of Romance and conclude that not every friggin reference to love, sex and affection means there's a romance"?

 

I suggest the former! Otherwise, How else will I ever get myself to replay Tetris...the mother of all Romance games?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Elerond]

I suggested what people asking for "romances" understand under "romance" - a minigame where the player navigates a dialogue tree until he reaches some outcome where an NPC declares its love for him/her.

 

I would say that you are wrong, as that is not what I asked when I asked romances in PoE in 2012, as I explained then already, so I wouldn't generalize what people want, but listen what they say they want. But there is people among PoE's backers that want/wanted romance-able companions and probably wouldn't minded if those included dialog mini-game, as even though they are cheesy and usually don't have natural story flow they can still be quite entertaining, and entertainment is usually what people want from games.

[Valmy]

.

 

I would say that you are wrong, as that is not what I asked when I asked romances in PoE in 2012, as I explained then already, so I wouldn't generalize what people want, but listen what they say they want. But there is people among PoE's backers that want/wanted romance-able companions and probably wouldn't minded if those included dialog mini-game, as even though they are cheesy and usually don't have natural story flow they can still be quite entertaining, and entertainment is usually what people want from games.

 

 

That is what Obsidian meant when they said 'no romances' though.  So if you are thinking they meant 'no romances at all' then that was not what they were saying.  At least this is what I think on the matter.

[Gromnir]

am not sure if you is obtuse as you appear.

 

"So, what do we say to these Promances who've been coming here for the past 2 years tirelessly complaining that PoE won't have romances? Do we tell them thetruth according to F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry James, Vitor Hugo, Louisa May Alcott, George Elliot, and any other writer we can think of? Or do just sit back and wonder what the hell they're all griping about?"

 

we answered your query many times.  we will tell the promancers that the obsidians didn't have the resources to implement optional and tangential mini-game/side-quest romances with party companions.  oh, sure, there will be romantic subplots and characters in poe, but that isn't what the genesis poster asked for, is it? 

 

...

 

am not seeing your confusion.  am also not seeing how your complete ridiculous reduction o' traditional notions o' romantic love has any bearing on the question o' why obsidian won't be including optional and tangential mini-game/side-quest romances with party companions.

 

you are wrong.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

 

.

 

I would say that you are wrong, as that is not what I asked when I asked romances in PoE in 2012, as I explained then already, so I wouldn't generalize what people want, but listen what they say they want. But there is people among PoE's backers that want/wanted romance-able companions and probably wouldn't minded if those included dialog mini-game, as even though they are cheesy and usually don't have natural story flow they can still be quite entertaining, and entertainment is usually what people want from games.

 

 

That is what Obsidian meant when they said 'no romances' though.  So if you are thinking they meant 'no romances at all' then that was not what they were saying.  At least this is what I think on the matter.

 

 

I have pretty good knowledge what Obsidian did mean and what they didn't mean, I was pointing that somebody should not put words in others mouths as they are usually wrong and I would say that you don't need to worry what I am thinking either 

[Valmy]

 

 

 

 

I have pretty good knowledge what Obsidian did mean and what they didn't mean, I was pointing that somebody should not put words in others mouths as they are usually wrong and I would say that you don't need to worry what I am thinking either 

 

 

The thoughts of the Lord of Rivendell would be beyond my mortal mind anyway.

 

But I meant 'you' as anybody reading my post not just you.

[Stun]

am not seeing your confusion.

Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...?

 

If this isn't the case then by all means, lets revisit the Ravel-TNO discussion we had less than an hour ago...and then ask again: Can the PC romance Ravel?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[redneckdevil]

I cease to be amazed on why having "romance" is the ONE true way to having deep role playing options....when great lore, variety of mechanics, choice and consequence in actions, well designed companions and npcs who have a life of their own, etc etc all each individually can impact deep role playing options JUST AS MUCH as a well written romance can.

All romance is is just another tool or method a writer uses to get u to care or interact with something in the story. It isn't the BEST tool nor is it the ONLY tool to have deep role playing options.

 

Can u have deep role playing options with romance? Hell yeah, sure if it's done well and optional. But then again so can u with ingame lore or just the actual culture that's displayed in the game.

And to be frankly, IF romance is the only thing u see as having deep roleplaying options, then tbh the game failed on basically everything else if that was the only way to get u that feeling. Because that means before the romance and everything else in the game failed to give u roleplaying options.

 

Yes romance can ADD roleplaying options to a game, but a game can stand on its own without having it and still have deep roleplaying options. Hell 2 games off the top of my head is Morrowind and fonv.

[Valmy]

Well said reckneckdevil I agree completely.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Valmy

[Gromnir]

 

am not seeing your confusion.

Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...?

 

If this isn't the case then by all means, lets revisit the Ravel-TNO discussion we had less than an hour ago.

 

actually, you seem very confused.  nobody suggested the following: 

 

"Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not."

 

we disagreed with your absurdest notion that for a love to be romantic it need be reciprocal and balanced, but that is far different than your increasingly ridiculous definitions.  also, you didn't actual respond to Gromnir... and am genuine saddened that you either missed or ignored so much o' the ravel interaction with tno.  

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

 

 

am not seeing your confusion.

Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...?

 

If this isn't the case then by all means, lets revisit the Ravel-TNO discussion we had less than an hour ago.

 

actually, you seem very confused.  nobody suggested the following: 

 

"Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not."

 

we disagreed with your absurdest notion that for a love to be romantic it need be reciprocal and balanced, but that is far different than your increasingly ridiculous definitions.  also, you didn't actual respond to Gromnir... and am genuine saddened that you either missed or ignored so much o' the ravel interaction with tno.  

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Third time:

 

Can the Player Character Romance Ravel? Yes or No?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Darkpriest]

 

 

I just tend to see romances in games as generally puerile sorts of adolescent wish fulfillment. Anyone who's been is a serious relationship can't take the vast majority of video game romances seriously.

Video games in general are puerile sorts of adolescent wish fulfillment. Do you think games eg CoD, GTA, FIFA, etc. are any easier to take seriously when put besides RL? Games aren't life experience simulators. I don't think what people want out of video game romances is 'serious RL relationships,' just as I don't think what people want out of GTA is a 'serious simulation' of what it is to be an organized crime boss/inner city gangster.

 

In fact, fantasy/sci-fi themed RPGs, even further so than games eg GTA and CoD, are all about wish fulfillment. Archetypal fantasy RPGs are variations on the Hero's Journey, while in counter-current RPGs, it's about being a gritty bad ass eg the fantasy equivalent of Noir anti-heroes. In both cases, the game world, narrative, characters, etc. revolve around the PC. Whether it's Commander Shepard, the Nameless One, the Knight Captain, etc., the PC's role is eternally that of the MVP, the alpha-protagonist, the axial-character.

 

To this end, it's difficult - on the surface - to understand why there's a double standard regarding 'wish fulfillment' in video game romances vs. 'wish fulfillment' in video games at large. You're fine with being the hero who saves the world, but not the guy who gets the girl? <replace at will with personal gender preference>. Never mind the fact that in RL, a hero who saves the world is liable to have suitors tripping over each other, the disproportionate resistance people have towards 'wish fulfillment' in romantic relationships is quite illogical when you take into account how little resistance they have towards 'wish fulfillment' in other aspects of the game.

 

Is it cultural? After all, the Japanese, known for their dating sims & wishful-thinking romances in games, do not look to be afflicted with the same double standard. Indeed, Eastern pop-media, on average, have little inhibition when it comes to fantastic 'wish fulfillment' romantic scenarios.

 

But in that case, what is it about Western culture, exactly, that makes it so difficult for us to entertain such scenarios with a straight face? I ask this not specifically of you, but of all the people - including myself - who, over the years, have expressed the exact same distaste about 'wish fulfillment' in video game romances. It's not occurred to me till recently how fundamentally hypocritical - and culturally conditioned - such an attitude is.

Because to me it is just stupid. It has bad writing so cannot be fun on that aspect. Adds nothing to the story. And is 100000000 times worse than porn at attempts of arousing so why would i want someone to wast time and mo ey on something failing on 3 aspects that are important? Better use it on other parts of the game.

[Valmy]

 

Third time:

 

Can the Player Character Romance Ravel? Yes or No?

 

 

In the Bioware sense?  No.  Kind of glad we cannot.

[Gairnulf]

The important thing here is that PoE will have romances. We have graphical proof it does:

 

 

 

Unless this was said with irony - this proves nothing m8

 

I would say that you are wrong, as that is not what I asked when I asked romances in PoE in 2012, as I explained then already, so I wouldn't generalize what people want, but listen what they say they want.

Then you are an exception, against the rest of romance-requesting people I've seen. So what would be your definition of romance, when you were requesting it as a feature? Or did you request it as a story element?

 

so I wouldn't generalize what people want, but listen what they say they want.

There are people who disagree with that approach. I believe you can tell what someone wants by looking at his actions, not by asking him to explain, but that's a famous "behaviorism vs cognitivism" argument which is a different subject altogether. Might still be related to romances somehow but I hate playing at Freud Edited March 4, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Stun]

 

Third time:

 

Can the Player Character Romance Ravel? Yes or No?

 

In the Bioware sense?  No.

 

What makes you say that? You can kiss her. You can call her lovely. You can assure her heart and tell her that she's the only one. You can ask her to skill-train you and she will.

 

How is that significantly different (ie. not just semantics) from, say, The Lelianna Romance in DA:O, or the Nathyrra romance in HoTU?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

am not seeing your confusion.

Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...?

 

If this isn't the case then by all means, lets revisit the Ravel-TNO discussion we had less than an hour ago.

 

actually, you seem very confused.  nobody suggested the following: 

 

"Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not."

 

we disagreed with your absurdest notion that for a love to be romantic it need be reciprocal and balanced, but that is far different than your increasingly ridiculous definitions.  also, you didn't actual respond to Gromnir... and am genuine saddened that you either missed or ignored so much o' the ravel interaction with tno.  

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Third time:

 

Can the Player Character Romance Ravel? Yes or No?

 

no. yes. ravel has a romantic interest in tno.  ravel loves and sacrifices for tno.  you can tell her that you love her if you wish.  what an odd and irrelevant question.  

 

as we noted elsewhere, ps:t did not have the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances that were popularized following bg2.  we lamented that romances such as ravel's love for tno were less likely nowadays precisely because some folks had allowed bioware to complete change the dialogue surrounding the inclusion o' romance in crpgs.  having ravel love tno worked in ps:t precisely because it didn't matter if the player reciprocated that love or not.  the kinda romantic love ravel felt for tno, while arguably as poignant and moving as any crpg romance written since 1999 is less likely today simply 'cause the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances exist.  hell, look at yourself.  you can't even recognize that ravel felt romantic love for tno.  you have somehow let bioware redefine romance for you.  

 

we will repeat self, as gauche as that is:

 

"you is imposing your own definition, and your definition conflicts with romance as attributed to henry james, vitor hugo, f. scott fitzgerald, louisa may alcott, george elliot, kazuo ishiguro and literal thousands o' other authors who has penned stories described by literature professors and casual fans o' the written word the world over as ROMANCES."

 

for whatever reason, you has adopted the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion notion o' romance as your definition o' Romance.  how... sad.

 

so, for the second time, has anybody other than stun posted such nonsense as the following:

 

"Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not."

 

show us.  

 

quit talking nonsense.  you were/are wrong.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps in case you didn't get it, your yes/no question is irrelevant because regardless o' your ability to romance ravel in ps:t, her love for you and the resulting storytelling were one o' romantic love.  we forget that we sometimes need force-feed folks answers. 

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Lord of Riva]

hah, Well Ravel and TNO is a romance right, one sided love is still love.

 

I kinda agree that all these, a lot more "toned down" romances, they  are  way better than these awkward mechanics we saw in a few games.

 

That doesnt mean that a romance cant work, no i think romances can be a very interesting plot or subplot so i do not understand how people can think its as bad as they make it out. on the other hand, its the same extreme way of seeing this if not including "romances" into PoE will break the deal for you.

 

Not all games need to feature romance, but they CAN be a worthwile addition. We will see how the PoE story plays out im pretty confident it will be pretty good even without.

[Lephys]

You have to learn to walk before you learn to run. I think the problem with a lot of the well-intentioned promancers in this thread is that they've set such a high bar for romantic content that developers are liable to run away from it than embrace it.

And yet, sometimes it's more prudent to walk than to run. Existing game romances feel more like someone running before they learned to walk, as well as when it isn't even prudent to run.

 

Gourmet chefs have a very high bar set for them, compared to amateur cooks in their own kitchens. Sometimes, that simply amounts to knowing how to get the best flavors with fewer ingredients and/or less seasoning/sauce, etc. If typical romances are frosting on a cake, all I ask is for a cake with more ingredients inside (like a rum cake), instead of with just frosting slapped on top.

 

 

Then, what is a romancer? Someone who's Mancing Ro's?

Clearly. What's a necromancer? Someone who mances necros?

 

What makes you say that? You can kiss her. You can call her lovely. You can assure her heart and tell her that she's the only one. You can ask her to skill-train you and she will.

 

How is that significantly different (ie. not just semantics) from, say, The Lelianna Romance in DA:O, or the Nathyrra romance in HoTU?

Here's a good question:

 

How many lines of dialogue and/or what amount of content constitute a romance, as opposed the game lacking a romance? What dictates the threshold?

 

I mean, even in Bioware games, some characters have less romance-arc content than others. If they get down below a certain amount, is it no longer a romance? Or, is it a romance only because the game's design tells you it is with a heart icon on your dialogue option?

 

I'm really curious, here.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Lephys

[Stun]

as we noted elsewhere, ps:t did not have the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances that were popularized following bg2.  we lamented that romances such as ravel's love for tno were less likely nowadays precisely because some folks had allowed bioware to complete change the dialogue surrounding the inclusion o' romance in crpgs.  having ravel love tno worked in ps:t precisely because it didn't matter if the player reciprocated that love or not.  the kinda romantic love ravel felt for tno, while arguably as poignant and moving as any crpg romance written since 1999 is less likely today simply 'cause the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances exist.  hell, look at yourself.  you can't even recognize that ravel felt romantic love for tno.  you have somehow let bioware redefine romance for you.

Excuse me, but is Gromnir the only one who gets to assign a definition of what constitutes a post BG2 Bioware romance? And is Gromnir falsely claiming that the Player Character's "Romancing" of Ravel is something other than completely optional and totally a mini-game.? I'm going to address both points.

 

Nathyrra, Valen, and HoTU's Aribeth are 3 romances, in a Post BG2 Bioware game, that are neither tangential nor are they mini-games. All three are part of the MAIN PLOT. And they're just like BG2's romances. You don't control them. You don't "play" the mechanics in them.

 

And finally, The Ravel thing. Not Optional, eh? Wanna Bet? Try going to her maze with less than 13 Intelligence and picking only the Combative dialogue responses. What happens? Nothing much. You'll learn that she made you immortal, and that Trias is the next person you need to talk to, and that the portal to exit her maze is to the west somewhere and then she'll go hostile and try to kill you. And that's about it. (How about that ROMANCE!!!).

 

And is that "Romance" a total mini-game? Yeah it sure is. Pump your Charisma, and your intelligence, then pick just the right dialogue options and she'll.... love you so much she'll: 1) give you her hair; 2) give you seeds; 3) Show you her secret Garden 4) teach you how to summon those tree monster things; 4) Grant you 3 points of Wisdom. 5) Give you mage training.

 

After my 10th playthrough of PS:T, I most certainly power-gamed the Ravel Encounter. It's a classic mini-game. Completely controllable from beginning to end.

 

 

ps in case you didn't get it, your yes/no question is irrelevant because

...Because when someone does a romance thread, they're never actually wondering if they'll be able to romance any NPC in a given game. Right? I mean, that's never what the discussion is about. They simply want to know if there's "love themes".... if "love existed in the world, in the past", and if the PC will have voyeuristic admirers that he can't romance. Right? Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Elerond]

 

I would say that you are wrong, as that is not what I asked when I asked romances in PoE in 2012, as I explained then already, so I wouldn't generalize what people want, but listen what they say they want.

Then you are an exception, against the rest of romance-requesting people I've seen. So what would be your definition of romance, when you were requesting it as a feature? Or did you request it as a story element?

 

 

 

Do you have any statistics to back that I am an exception or is it just your poor reasoning or knowledge based on common beliefs as opposed to actual knowledge?

[Gairnulf]

Do you have any statistics to back that I am an exception or is it just your poor reasoning or knowledge based on common beliefs as opposed to actual knowledge?

It was just a normal question...

 

If you would actually read the statement before it, it says: "Then you are an exception, against the rest of romance-requesting people I've seen."

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Gromnir]

so, for the Third time, has anybody other than stun posted such nonsense as the following:

 

 

"Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not.

 

*shrug*

 

you asked earlier:

 

"So, what do we say to these Promances who've been coming here for the past 2 years tirelessly complaining that PoE won't have romances? Do we tell them thetruth according to F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry James, Vitor Hugo, Louisa May Alcott, George Elliot, and any other writer we can think of? Or do just sit back and wonder what the hell they're all griping about?"

 

we gave a response: 

 

"we will tell the promancers that the obsidians didn't have the resources to implement optional and tangential mini-game/side-quest romances with party companions.  oh, sure, there will be romantic subplots and characters in poe, but that isn't what the genesis poster asked for, is it?"

 

so, what the hell are you talking about at this point?  just spewing nonsense and trying to redefine romance for what appears to be no purpose.  redefine won't change the nature o' what the genesis poster asked for or how the obsidian developers responded.  call ravel love for tno romantic or platonic or fraternal changes... nothing.  so what the hell are you talking about?  you is wrong, but what is you even arguing?

 

"Excuse me, but is Gromnir the only one who gets to assign his Own definition to what constitutes a post BG2 Bioware romance?"

 

wow,  how confused and obtuse can you be?  Gromnir observed that we were using the definition o' romantic love as used to describe the works o' literal thousands o' authors.  is not Gromnir defining. blame harold bloom and the legion o' literature professors who is clear too stoopid and ignorant to recognize that stun's slavish adoption o' the biowarian tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game notions o' romance is the proper definition.

 

*shrug*

 

you is going beyond the pale at this point and we can't believe anybody agrees with you and your attempts to redefine romance or your backtracking and obfuscation.  so, say something new... anything new.  if the goal is to exhaust Gromnir, the you is the weener, but otherwise...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Stun]

so, for the Third time, has anybody other than stun posted such nonsense as the following:

 

 "Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not.

You mean, besides the friggin thread starter, who claimed that BG1 had romanceable NPCs? And besides the various random posters on this thread and other threads who remind us that depending on one's definition of romance most games have romances? And besides you, who claims that all it takes for an NPC to be romanceable is for them to have loved one of your past incarnations? And besides those freaks who claim that Fall from Grace and Annah are both Romanceable?

 

Oh, and Volourn, do we to teach you how to use the quote function?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

so then, this were fraudulent:

 

"Who's confused? Have we not established that Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not...?"

 

so at best, even though you were responding to Gromnir, you can point to one other person in a near 20 page thread that might  embrace such a definition?  wow.  how... sad.  is you even trying at this point?

 

new.  say something new.  btw, repeating self is not new.

 

"And besides you, who claims that all it takes for an NPC to be romanceable is for them to have loved one of your past incarnations? "

 

we chalk this up to confusion 'cause otherwise it is intentional fibs.  we did say that ravel's love for you were an example o' romantic love.  you can't see a difference between a npc being romancable and that npc's love for the protagonist being an example o' romantic love? one wonders if you is manufacturing stuff about the genesis poster as you is with Gromnir.

 

HA!

 

pathetic.  try.  at least try to add something.

 

"so, for the (FOURTH) time, has anybody other than stun posted such nonsense as the following:

 

""Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not."

 

"show us. "

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 4, 2015 by Gromnir

[Cantousent]

Whatever the OP stated, or his motives, doesn't change the convention of what constitutes romantic literature.  Frankly, I find the OP's argument weird anyway.  The romantic elements in BG1 and the IWDs and PS:T don't naturally extrapolate into the type of romantic content he wants in the first place.  It's merely a backward argument meant to clear the way for something that appears inherently different than the types of romantic content he gives as an example.  However, when we get away from the over simplified example you give of hookers showing off the wares to entice customers, many of your examples are actually romantic elements.  Just not playable ones.  ...And sex acts are not inherently romantic.  Sex can result from romantic feelings.  Sex can also result from one person overpowering or threatening another.  I think any rational person should be able to make the distinction without resorting to the argument that one is sex but the other is rape because both partners were not willing.  Rape is an evil scourge, but it nevertheless involves the act of sex.  Sex acts between a prostitute (and I've known quite a few in real life, most of whom are just trying to make a living) and customers is not typically romantic.  One wants sex and the other provides it for payment.  Now, if one of the customers falls in love with a hooker (which I've also seen happen at least once), then there's a kind of weird one way romance story happening.