[DRAFT] I Love You, You Love Me, But Not My Disability

by **Dytarma** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:04 am

Made most of this at midnight, so it could use a lot of editing.

[title] I Want You, You Want Me Without My Disability

[issue] Taking a night stroll down a quiet village road on the outskirts of @@CAPITAL@@, an informat of yours overhears a woman running out of a house, only for a man with a visible disability running out trying to get her attention. The man then notices the uniform of the informat and pleads to talk to @@LEADER@@ claiming that he has been denied pleasure due to physical discrimination. The informant, though tired, starts a phone call with @@LEADER@@.

[option 1] “I should be able to have the pleasure I deserve without all this discrimination!” exclaims @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, as you hear what sounds like the phone switching hands. “We were able to have a nice dinner, a nice car ride home, and even a little foreplay. But of course, right as we begin, boom! She’s out and bolting! If that’s not physical discrimination, then I’m not sure what is.” The informat then rips the phone out of the man’s hands.

[effect] Citizens are tried guilty when refusing to have sex with someone who has a bruise.

[option 2] A neighbor, hearing all this ruckus, butts into the conversation. “Maybe if ya pull your pants up, then there’d be no need for anyone to discriminate you on anything, ha ha!” @@HE@@ then shouts @@HIS@@ opinion from @@HIS@@ open house window. “Ya know, people should be able to have sex with anyone since or hormones decide who we want to mate with our something like that, right honey?” @@HIS@@ partner nods approvingly also from within the window.

[effect] People deemed “undesirable” have better love lives than @@LEADER@@.

[option 3] The informant, hoping there was no more commotion, turns away and begins to talk to you. “You know @@LEADER@@, all this talk about who has sex with who has got me thinking. How about we only allow sex for people who aren't opposed to our grand nation? No sex for protestors equals no future protestors, at least that’s how it should work.” He then ends the call after finishing the sentence.

[effect] Anti-@@DENOMYNADJECTIVE@@ often get arrested during “the act”.

I remember looking that you can use @@RANDOMNAMEMALE_1@@, but I can't remember where it was. Is this an actual macro variant, or do I have to find work around?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:49 am

The idea that someone can be made to have sex without consent is essentially rape, right?

There's cases when such a thing might work as a "crazy option" in an issue if presented as a clearly insane approach from the lunatic fringe, but it's definitely not viable as a central issue premise.

by **Trsmk2** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:05 am

Rape her，direct

Why is this option missing

by **Candensia** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:19 am

Trsmk2 wrote:Rape her，direct

Why is this option missing

Because issue options have to be at least marginally acceptable to general audiences.

Also

How about we only allow sex for people who are opposed to our grand nation? No sex for protestors equals no future protestors, at least that’s how it should work.

As written here only dissidents would be able to procreate, which is the opposite of what you meant. I think you meant to say "aren't".

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:13 pm

How do you know that she refused him sex because of his disability? She could just be a golddigger who refuses to have sex with anyone and wants a free meal. She could be asexual and wants companionship. She could be saving her virginity for marriage (I know I am, and I'm a bloke). Tying in with this, her religion could forbid premarital sex. She might refuse to have sex with men until the Xth date. I mean, there's a myriad reasons why she didn't have sex with the guy. If it truely was because of his disability, she wouldn't have let it progress that far. She wouldn't've dated him in the first place

by **Dytarma** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:15 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:The idea that someone can be made to have sex without consent is essentially rape, right?

There's cases when such a thing might work as a "crazy option" in an issue if presented as a clearly insane approach from the lunatic fringe, but it's definitely not viable as a central issue premise.

Now that I'm looking at it reasonably well awake, I guess it makes sense to clarify that its not rape. Changes made.

by **Dytarma** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:16 pm

Candensia wrote:
How about we only allow sex for people who are opposed to our grand nation? No sex for protestors equals no future protestors, at least that’s how it should work.

As written here only dissidents would be able to procreate, which is the opposite of what you meant. I think you meant to say "aren't".

Right about that, change has been made.

by **Dytarma** » Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:18 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:How do you know that she refused him sex because of his disability? She could just be a golddigger who refuses to have sex with anyone and wants a free meal. She could be asexual and wants companionship. She could be saving her virginity for marriage (I know I am, and I'm a bloke). Tying in with this, her religion could forbid premarital sex. She might refuse to have sex with men until the Xth date. I mean, there's a myriad reasons why she didn't have sex with the guy. If it truely was because of his disability, she wouldn't have let it progress that far. She wouldn't've dated him in the first place

Planning out the issue I had it take place at a brothel, but then I thought the location would be too risque. The woman in this case being a prostitute, and the neighbor just another guy at the brothel (or outside of it). The disability (or genetic condition) I was planning on it being is diphallia.

by **The Sherpa Empire** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 12:27 am

Dytarma wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:The idea that someone can be made to have sex without consent is essentially rape, right?

There's cases when such a thing might work as a "crazy option" in an issue if presented as a clearly insane approach from the lunatic fringe, but it's definitely not viable as a central issue premise.

Now that I'm looking at it reasonably well awake, I guess it makes sense to clarify that its not rape. Changes made.

It's still rape if you force someone to go through with having sex after they decided they don't want it. The fact that they consented and then changed their mind instead of saying no from the beginning doesn't really matter. She still does not want to have sex now.

Also, how is this worth calling @@LEADER@@ about?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:03 am

Exactly. The issue still doesn't work, as it's still essentially about a man complaining that consent for sex was withdrawn.

by **Dytarma** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:10 am

I altered option 1 to clarify that the man both paid and consented to her prior to intercourse, as well as changing the scene from a home to a brothel.

As for why it's worth calling @@LEADER@@, this man feels that he is being denied rights granted to him, so he feels it necessary to talk to @@LEADER@@ directly about it.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:36 am

Prostitutes are people too.

Assuming prostitution is legal (which actually you can't, unless we add some sort of validity check) it's still pretty clear what you're talking about is the right to withdraw consent. Financial transaction or not, anybody can withdraw consent from sex.

There's no way to position this where someone expecting sex where consent has been withdrawn is a reasonable position to take.

by **Trotterdam** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:07 am

Many countries have laws forbidding businesses from treating potential customers differently based on things like disabilities, or indeed gender and sexual orientation (see #674), and prostitution is in principle a business. It does make me wonder just where you'd draw the line on reasonable anti-discrimination laws.

Besides, you yourself wrote an option that can force people to have sex (#1106 3).

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:25 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:There's cases when such a thing might work as a "crazy option" in an issue if presented as a clearly insane approach from the lunatic fringe, but it's definitely not viable as a central issue premise.

by **Dytarma** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:18 am

I'll work on re-writing the option at a later time, your guys' advice has bee noted.

by **USS Monitor** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:57 am

Trotterdam wrote:Many countries have laws forbidding businesses from treating potential customers differently based on things like disabilities, or indeed gender and sexual orientation (see #674), and prostitution is in principle a business. It does make me wonder just where you'd draw the line on reasonable anti-discrimination laws.

IRL you'd probably ask around the brothel and see if one of the other prostitutes will take the customer, and you'd probably do that when he first came in. If he has a disability that's obvious with clothes on, they'd notice before pairing him with a prostitute, so it wouldn't be a shocker.

If it's something that is only noticeable when he takes his clothes off...

1. Why can the informant see this? Did the guy not put his pants back on before running out in the street? I think most people would put their pants on or take it up with the madam of the house instead of running out in the street undressed.

2. If something is disgustingly wrong with your dick, a brothel can turn you down on the grounds of STD prevention. Discrimination is legal when it's done for safety reasons.

It might be helpful to be more specific about what is wrong with the guy.

by **Dytarma** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:16 pm

USS Monitor wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:Many countries have laws forbidding businesses from treating potential customers differently based on things like disabilities, or indeed gender and sexual orientation (see #674), and prostitution is in principle a business. It does make me wonder just where you'd draw the line on reasonable anti-discrimination laws.

IRL you'd probably ask around the brothel and see if one of the other prostitutes will take the customer, and you'd probably do that when he first came in. If he has a disability that's obvious with clothes on, they'd notice before pairing him with a prostitute, so it wouldn't be a shocker.

If it's something that is only noticeable when he takes his clothes off...

1. Why can the informant see this? Did the guy not put his pants back on before running out in the street? I think most people would put their pants on or take it up with the madam of the house instead of running out in the street undressed.

2. If something is disgustingly wrong with your dick, a brothel can turn you down on the grounds of STD prevention. Discrimination is legal when it's done for safety reasons.

It might be helpful to be more specific about what is wrong with the guy.

1. Yes, he can see this (though not directly mentioned, but since the passerby can see it, so can the informant.

2. It not really disgusting so to say, but mainly so unique its off-putting, like someone with naturally purple eyes).

A for mentioning what's wrong with him, I'll mention diphallia directly.

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:32 pm

Why are informants spying on the business of private citizens? Why are they randomly following people into brothels? Who do they think they are? ThinkPol?

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:41 pm

It would make more sense if the informant him/herself were using the brothel's, um... services...and happeneded to overhear the conversation. Also, how did the informant get to interview the man? Jeez, they really are ThinkPol

by **Dytarma** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:Why are informants spying on the business of private citizens? Why are they randomly following people into brothels? Who do they think they are? ThinkPol?

It's just a coincidence that the informant was walking there and there was no mention of the informant going into the brothel. Its like if I were to go to walking by a store and a man runs out with a TV.

Australian rePublic wrote:It would make more sense if the informant him/herself were using the brothel's, um... services...and happeneded to overhear the conversation

(saw this post mid-response to your other post)

I guess that could be viable, but how would I introduce that from the start of [issue]?

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:46 pm

Dytarma wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Why are informants spying on the business of private citizens? Why are they randomly following people into brothels? Who do they think they are? ThinkPol?

It's just a coincidence that the informant was walking there and there was no mention of the informant going into the brothel. Its like if I were to go to walking by a store and a man runs out with a TV.
Australian rePublic wrote:It would make more sense if the informant him/herself were using the brothel's, um... services...and happeneded to overhear the conversation

(saw this post mid-response to your other post)

I guess that could be viable, but how would I introduce that from the start of [issue]?

An informant of yours who was visiting a brothel happened to overhear a conversation between a man...

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:48 pm

Doesn't the prostitute get a say in this? Make her the voice of option 2. Also, option 3, okay, so where does that leave the guy with diphallia?

by **Dytarma** » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:56 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:
Dytarma wrote:It's just a coincidence that the informant was walking there and there was no mention of the informant going into the brothel. Its like if I were to go to walking by a store and a man runs out with a TV.

(saw this post mid-response to your other post)

I guess that could be viable, but how would I introduce that from the start of [issue]?

An informant of yours who was visiting a brothel happened to overhear a conversation between a man...

Oh, yeah, I guess that could work.

Australian rePublic wrote:Doesn't the prostitute get a say in this? Make her the voice of option 2. Also, option 3, okay, so where does that leave the guy with diphallia?

Option 2 is going to happen.
Option 3 is that option in the issue that helps (or at least tries too) advance @@LEADER@@'s appeal towards the populace. This will more than likely place the guy in the anti category, but I wasn't thinking much of the guy when making this option.

by **The Sherpa Empire** » Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:41 am

Dytarma wrote:I remember looking that you can use @@RANDOMNAMEMALE_1@@, but I can't remember where it was. Is this an actual macro variant, or do I have to find work around?

It's fine.

I'm still not sure if the topic is entirely suitable for an issue, though.

(This is USS Monitor's puppet. I was too lazy to switch.)

[DRAFT] I Love You, You Love Me, But Not My Disability

[DRAFT] I Love You, You Love Me, But Not My Disability

Who is online