Messages

In my opinion, ELEMENTS of rimworld could work great in other games, such as the detailed health, or the social / mental health system...but the game itself would be a bit much

I would appreciate a turn based RPG, for instance, something like xcom including these features, but that hasn't been made yet.

Spontaneous combustion ONLY effects pawns currently : wood and other things are immune to this last I checked.

Actually, its kinda funny, you can use the dev mode to stack dozens of heat-waves till the world is several thousand degrees Fahrenheit, and plants still wont burn.

To be honest, sometimes burning out bugs is worth it even IF it risks some damage : bugs are no joke.

Oh, also there must be a solid gold swastika somewhere in the base...right?

In all seriousness, this challenge sounds ridiculous, and near impossible, and not in a good way.

Heh, I honestly think Carl Sagen is a bit of a jackwagon(If im thinking of the right guy), but I can appreciate the quote.

Considering you conceded the point on the data being vague, and possibly misleading, I can respect you for that : I only wish people would examine the verbiage of how these studies are done, as well as the elements behind sexuality and how they relate into the morality of it.

I think a big part of all this too, is both sexes sometimes view things as "me vs them" mentality, which is a perspective which will DOOM you to failure : too many women (and men) view relationships as a war, and not a partnership : and this is the main bit which causes much conflict. If you view it that way, you will either 1 : oppress your partner 2 : cause a break up, or 3 : cause conflict. You MUST view things as a partnership, where you care EQUALLY for yourself, and your partner. This MUST apply to male and female if you want a successful relationship : which is why I think people should take marriage far more serious, and relationships outside it LESS serious.

Crowder is pretty good at being extremely fair and open minded in my experience : you bring up him ignoring info, or ignoring studies : can you please specify where, and when? We wan't specifics on this topic : also I doubt he ever said all studies were invalid, just the one he showed. This is how debate goes , particularly with studies : group A provides study, group B criticizes said study. If you want to show a study which says WHAT they define sexual assault as, be my guest, till then, I will assume its what I've encountered before

Because you cannot say someone is wrong and they should "look it up" and expect good results : I could demand someone is wrong thinking something, but unless I MYSELF can provide proof into the argument, via links, studies, statistics, or whatever, then I can't expect then to take me very serious.

@Piano : with your post agreeing with the definition of sexual assault, and accepting that dark statistics are vague, can you at least consider that these statistics are horribly vague, and possibly dangerously misleading?

AGAIN , and I will quote you on this...

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.

So I would argue almost every man has committed sexual assault at some point : I know by this definition, I've sexually assaulted girlfriends many times. Any time I go to feel her butt, and she doesn't explicitly give consent, THAT IS SEXUAL ASSAULT. And this is the problem : its so damn vague, and nobody whos not an extreme feminist would think the above situation is wrong : and many women would prefer NOT to be explicitly asked before every sex act, but if you do any sex act without explicit permission for THAT act, that is indeed sexual assault

and THAT is why I refuse to take it serious : you include something so harmless, so normal, so COMMON, that it turns statistics upside down.

Date rape I brought up because there is an important distinction between volentarily getting drunk, and volentarily having sex WHEN drunk, and having a drink spiked. In law, pretty sure it goes as 1 : if one VOLUNTARILY drinks, and 2 : VOLUNTARILY has sex when VOLUNTARILY intoxicated, it cannot be rape, no matter how shit-faced she gets. Key word is volentary : if she CHOOSES to get shitfaced, and how she acts when shitfaced, is still on her.  This said, dont get shit faced, its a bad idea. Its also irrelivant for the topic of sexual abuse studies or crime studies, because its not crime. So those studies are horribly for REAL issues : actual sexual abuse. I will say though, for the record, they REALLY should do studies which look at these finer points, for sake of women, as it makes women who are ACTUALLY date raped, with GHB, or spiked drinks, look bad when they shouldn't.

With your concern about a woman feeling unsafe due to repeated encounters, this brings up an important consideration : what is reasonable? Now of course, its extremely subjective, but I will provide a few examples
-If you are on a dance floor, PARTICULARLY in a party, sleazy club, its reasonable if you dance with a guy, that he might touch your hips, possibly rear
-If you end a date with a guy, are smiling, making eye contact, tilting your head, its reasonable the guy might kiss you
-If you consent to sex, its reasonable they might try to feel up every inch of your body, and kiss you.

These are just a few examples. But yes, for that woman, it must feel shitty : but she can change it by monitoring how she acts to see if shes giving a guy a REASONABLE belief that doing such things are ok. If she doesn't want to be groped? don't go to dance clubs or get really physical with dudes. Don't want to be kissed? Don't tilt your head and stare at a guys eyes with a smile. Don't want to be felt up? don't have sex. See, yes, she might not enjoy these things, but we must look under the view of "is it reasonable". Because sexuality is almost entirely non verbal, and if you cannot communicate your desires, or miscommunicate, in the end, you MUST communicate better. Its like if I scream at a dude in a sandwich shop when he puts mayo on my sub, rather than mustard, because I say "I want mayonnaise" and get mayonnaise, but I MEAN mustard : you must must MUST communicate clearly, or you get nowhere. Also, your examples of being groped on the bus are dumb. Unless a girl was nuzzling up on a guy, or being REALLY friendly, most people WOULD consider it sexual assault. In-fact the entire paragraph lists ILLEGAL things, which are relevant to the statistics. I mean, if people encounter this, the solution is simple : CALL THE POLICE!!! The police will more certainly take the guy to jail if the situations are as you state : Gropers on bus, and people putting stuff in drinks is HIGHLY illegal. Besides that you could avoid situations where its prevalent, such as clubs or raves, or ghetto bars

Definition for date rape is EXTREMELY murky, which is why I hate talking about it : I find it to be idiotic to have a discussion of something which is an unclear definition, much less BASE things on it. But heres something from the wiki page.

or when the perpetrator has sex with a victim who is incapable of giving consent because they have been incapacitated by drugs or alcohol

This might seem straight forward on the surface, but its "incabable of giving consent due to being incapacitated" not just "because they are incapacitated". Also then it gets into the murky territory of "when can you give consent". If you believe anyone is drunk cannot give consent, then I've been date raped, and date raped others (at the same time) and neither of us got upset. And should BOTH of us be jailed? I think not. This is my problem with it, is it, AGAIN, includes legal, and morally accepted behaviors under this umbrella : which, AGAIN, are extremely common, and not very harmful (for the record, drunk sex is a terrible idea, but its the fault of both parties, and punishment for this does more damage than not punishing : which negates the point of punishment.

As for your last questions...
-Depends on if you had a reasonable reason to believe it was acceptable prior, and if you did not continue when it was made clear to stop. If both are true, yes, its acceptable. if you want to AVOID it, do not put yourself in scenarios which it seems reasonable : for instance, I don't want a bunch of gay dudes groping me, therefore, I choose NOT to go into gay bars, or their dance floors...because that would certainly make that FAR more likely to happen.
-I would say its ok, again, if theres a reasonable belief its going to be accepted. You must ask yourself : are you engaged with the person? What is the context? Is there a medical, or emergency need to do so? Are they displaying any type of affection? How far have things been pushed with them so far, and how did they react? Did they react positively to questions, or other suggestive discussions? I could go on but these are what determine it : you must critically think about it, because I cannot spell out every single circumstance that could happen, as I would be writing for months on end. Also important, is if you have reasonable suspicion, and it STILL wasn't consensual, it should be forgivable : for instance if a woman grinds up on a dude in a club, and he fondles her, EVEN if she gets upset, there was reasonable suspicion she might of been ok with it. This is just a fact of communication, and sexuality : communication fails, and people (male and female) DO NOT LIKE using verbal communication for sex, which leads to mistakes like this. And small mistakes like that are not comparable to just grabbing some womans tits on a train without knowing her.
-Touching a breast is legal under circumstances where there is implied consent, aka, reasonable suspicion of acceptability. Its less protected than say,  kissing, or butt fondling I would say, but the same principle applies.
-Arm and shoulder is generally permitted without express permission depending on context : tapping a shoulder of someone, or grabbing someones arm to alert them / help them is completely acceptable, and the arm / shoulder is not a sexual zone either. This can be revoked when someone informs you they DO NOT wish to be touched, but its nowhere near as bad as grabbing ass or tits.
-Genitals are erogenous zones, and EXTREMELY potent ones : fondling a womans crotch out of nowhere is traumatic, scary, confusing, pleasurable, and just a big mess of emotions, especially from a stranger. You can just examine peoples reactions. For instance, if a random stranger came up and poked my shoulder, I would look at them funny, but thats it. if they poked my dick, I would take issue with it. I guess if you had to quantify it, It would go by nerve endings, proximity to orafice to the body, and if they are re productively involved. If they are any falling under those, especially several, don't touch them unless you have a pretty good reason, or belief its ok.... Though to be completely honest with you, I've very rarely gotten "explicit consent" from exes : usually sex just happened, and it was great. This is because a man asking for consent is NOT very sexy to both parties, compared to just doing it while reading body language.

Believe me, I understand the far reaching effects of sexual trauma : my mother was molested as a young woman, and ended up with a fear, and hate for most men, which hurt me as well in the end, making me hate my masculinity for several years : so I'm aware of the effects : but this is honestly part of the reason I want such things in the game, because I want dialog on such issues, and the effects of REAL rape.

You should be skeptical of everything you hear. Confirmation bias should be your enemy, not your friend.

As far as the main topic going to shit, I'll accept partial responsibility and apologize publicly. I have a bad habit of letting my emotions get the better of me from time to time.

Still, my stance remains unchanged.

To be honest negative, this is why I LOVE Louder with crowder : even to people he vehemently disagrees with, he allows them on his show to give their view on it, and actually tells his viewers to ALSO go read huff-post, salon, buzz-feed, etc, so he can KNOW what the other side is saying. I always look for information to prove me wrong, if I can find it to objectively be true, but I throw out subjective, unreliable, or unclear things, because, well, they aren't reliable. Its why I criticized the stats in this thread, because they WERE all over the place, and just accepting them would be possibly accepting false ideas without reading into the fine print.

...phew, sorry for the wall of text.

Alternatively the xcom route could be examined : where research requires certain materials, and is more diverse in branching.

Xcom research was always amazing, to me, in the old xcom.

Heh. you can get crappy med level people to do basic treatments, wont be great, but its better than a jab with a sharp stick.

Yes, rimworld will bend you over backwards to try and break you : adapt or perish, especially on high difficulty.

[Cry for help]

• Cry for help

Event type: Quest
Ease of implementation: medium
Summary: A colony reeling from an attack, illness, natural disaster, or other event makes a cry for help, asking for medical aid, food, and other supplies.
Reward/Consequences: Providing aid provides a small - large faction bonus, and possibly a reward in supplies months later, once the colony recovers. Reward, both in relationship, and supplies later are proportional to supplies granted, and is usually a somewhat net profit, assuming you can make the trip. Accepting the quest and not following through will effect relationship with the faction negatively.

• A viral mindset

Type of event: Quest
Ease of implementation: hard
Summary: A call through the comms system is made by a cyborg seeking help : hurt by a virus which is driving him insane through his cybernetic implants, controlled by mechanoids. He asks you to find and enter the hidden bunker where he is, with a qualified researcher (can be anyone, but higher level is a higher success rate) to try and cure the virus. Bunker has dangerous animals and mechanoids in it, and you must fight your way to the cyborg pawn, who has put himself in a cryo pod.
Reward/Consequences: Bunker has lots of useful materials inside, mechanoid corpses, and other loot to pick and choose, within the limits of what you can carry. Also, assuming you keep the researcher alive and well till you find the cyborg, you can cure the virus, and he becomes a colonist out of gratitude for saving his life. If the researcher dies, OR if you get a bad dice roll, the cyborg (equipped with full bionics, pain stopper, ect) goes crazy and tries to kill you, preferably in a cramped room, with a melee weapon. Essentially a very high risk, very high reward mission, with a high chance of the caravan wiping out, but with lots of high tier loot if successful.

The problem is, sexual assault is not defined : it could include forced sodomy (an attrocity) or an unwanted grope on the dance floor during a dance (sucky, but not anywhere near as bad)

And this is the core of the problem : This is very vague, and you have no idea how much of it is what : it could be train gropings, it could be unwanted kissing, it could be rape itself (because rape IS also sexual assault) or it could be feeling up a girl during a dance : which are all very different, some a scurge to society, some extremely frowned upon, and some just a, frankly, forgivable accident.

Its also important to factor in things such as culture, country, community, race, wealth, and other factors to help find the root causes : Something feminism doesn't do. They tell men not to rape, but often they are talking to men who won't rape anyway : they don't go preach to the gang bangers, the felons, the drug users, the heavily porn addicted, or any people where theres a perceivable risk of higher rape chance. And this is highly ineffective : discrimination in some of these cases is kind of handy, to make efforts more effective. Picture it like cancer : you don't blast the entire body, you blast the cancer with radiation.

Also, when you talk about the dark statistics : is this global? america? first world countries?

If you include all 3rd world countries, thats not surprising, but you cannot lump america and europe in with countries who aren't as advanced.

Even your stats from canada are all over : for instance, it is EXTREMELY rural in a lot of canada, much of it is in the sticks, and these areas are much different than cities. This is a factor.

Its also a factor for "sexual assault", being the word used in the 6/100 statistic. Remember : If I have a date with a girl, try to kiss her good night, and kiss her on the cheek , I have JUST sexually assaulted her, by definition. But her calling the police would make her look like an idiot, because, despite falling under the definition, if I stop when refused, and let her go home, its fine. This is another important thing : part of mating, of dating a girl, is feeling that out : what is, and is not acceptable? Its kind of normal in a relationship for "unwanted" touches to happen regularly here and there, especially at the start, because you do not KNOW what is wanted. The key part for if its moral is 1 : is there a reasonable belief it would be ok? and 2 : did you stop when told to stop? If these 2 things are done, then "sexual assault or not", its not immoral, nor illegal.

Date rape itself is poorly defined, and frankly some forms included are actually LEGAL (such as getting a girl drunk and fucking them) which would make the non reporting a no brainer : you wouldn't report something which ISN'T a crime, would you? So its important to count if it was ACTUALLY illegal (spiking a drink with GHB for instance) or legal (providing several martinis, and having sex). Its not a comfortable topic, but its true : if you drink, YOU are responsible for what happens. Granted, I'm actually against 90% of drinking in GENERAL, because stupid shit happens, but I still think the woman is responsible if she CHOSE to drink. Which is why I say 1 : I refuse to have sex with drunk women, less they are my significant other (because then its understandable), and 2 : women should have this on their mind when they drink. And its not necessarily even JUST on women : men need to be aware too, we do DUMB shit when drunk. I refuse to drink around beautiful women simply because the temptation is exhausting, and I do not want risk. More women MUST think this way, but unfortunately its labeled as victim blaming, even if practicing this would effectively cut "date rape" in half EASY.

The statistic in north america is also misleading : you were JUST speaking of canada, but now include north america : this means canada, america, mexico, cuba, costa rica, dominican republic, jamaca, haiti : JUST TO NAME A FEW!!! And these contries ARE NOT CANADA, and have NOTHING TO DO  WITH CANADA. Infact, mexicos rape / sexual assault rate is probably very DIFFERENT than canada. So THAT part of the statistic is complete crap, having nothing to do with canada.

Anyway, TL;DR:
-Sexual assault includes unwanted kisses on dates, and groping during a dance by definition : neither of which are illegal if theres reasonable belief its permitted, and are not repeated.
-Date rape includes a girl being drunk and regretting sex : which is NOT a crime, is not illegal, and is the girls fault AS WELL as the guys, assuming she voluntarily, and knowingly consumed alcohol, or other substances. Only exception is if she passes out
-When citing statistics you MUST consider WHAT the words they use mean (how vague, how specific) and WHERE they come from (Mexico rape rates are NOT Canada rape rates), in order to have any accurate debate
-When considering something unreported, consider FIRST if a crime was actually committed. I could argue 99.999% of shitposts on the internet (or "cyberviolence") are not reported to the police, and this is TRUE, but this is because 99.999% of shitposts are not ILLEGAL.

Its not that I, or others say rape is not a problem in society : it is, but blowing it out of proportion and misrepresenting it does nothing to help anyone.

Also, its important to examine what CAUSES rape in society : sexual frustration, childhood trauma, lacking family, criminal "don't snitch" culture, ect... Some people might not be comfortable admitting causes for rapists, but I could give a rats about comfort or political correctness, over results : I'd rather offend every feminist and SJW on the planet for the end of getting rape to be reduced, than refuse to address issues, at risk of letting rape get worse.

Its how I feel about many things : we need to identify true causes for things if we ever wish to fix them. Doesn't matter if the causes aren't politically correct, or comfortable.

Increase "torso" hp in humans. Seriously its one of the comparatively WEAKEST points, even though its the biggest, bulkiest part. Its 4 times the size of the neck in reality about, yet only 25% more hp than the neck

Especially with infections and bleeding made more nasty recently, I see no reason to not make this beefier, while making bleeding for it worse.

And honestly, make bionic limbs more sturdy : flesh and bone is far weaker than metal and industrial grade rubber, for instance...so I expect it would take more punishment.

I personally love the LMG : Big rounds, fairly accurate, decent speed : its not the best for capturing (overkill is a serious risk) but its a good line defender.

Though the new weapon in the PUBLIC alpha looks like it might be a new best option...

YMC, I made those first few points, because you advocated for the LOCKING, of another persons thread, which is a bit uncalled for : as well as silly when your reasoning is that theres no new talk, and you MAKE new talk. It ALMOST looks as if you want to lock a thread after you get your last word...

My argument for homosexual males buying slaves to be homosexual rape toys (presubably) is that 1 : men are more common, and CHEAPER to come by than women, due to the inate factor that women are valued and PROTECTED more than men. Remember the phrase women and children first? Men get the short end of the stick, and would presumably be slaves more. One might argue this changes in the future, but then you must ask if the REASONS for it existing cease to exist. If the reason still exists, some form of the practice will surely stay. So yes, male slaves for sexual purposes would be cheaper I'd think with variables based on attractiveness, and other skills, but on average, cheaper than women, as they are higher demand, and harder to get. For lesbians, I figure they would get the same price as a straight man wanting a sex slave : less they want specific, hard to find variables.

You also say the future may not be patriarchal : Why? even IF men and women having the exact same capability is canon for the universe (which raises infinitely more questions than answers), this does not change the fact that a penis can impregnate many wombs, but a womb cannot be impregnated by several penises at once. This factor is an IMMENSE crux behind a patriarchal society (which is not a bad thing btw), and I could only see this changing if everyone was a tranny...but thats even harder to believe.

Question about slave supply is a good one : someone should check this, I know in reality for labor reasons, males are superior, while females are more common for sex trade, as stated above.

For the points to my quote, ill refute point by point :
-Its not JUST the factor of illegality, its that (you REALLY will not like this, but its true) a slave is also a responsibility. Keeping it fed, cared for, ect...and I doubt a woman JUST seeking good sperm would go through all that responsibility JUST for a mans seed. Beyond that, comparing wild west, Amsterdam, and arranged marraige is silly, as all 3 are radically different : wild west it was common for girls to LITERALLY be sex slaves for profit, no say in the matter, and abducted and raped, for profit. Amsterdam is somewhat better, with lots of checks in balances to hopefully prevent abuses, but they still happen. It also happens in European societies with such a success rate, very few other places. Arranged marriages are entirely different : the person marrying them as stated above, has a RESPONSIBILITY to his wife. Sure, it comes with all the sex they want, but NOT without a huge chunk of responsibility. In short, those 3 things are completely different. But, I could see arranged marriages happening to bolster numbers in tribes. In survival, passing the next generation is more important than individual rights : something which few understand as they have never had to ponder survival.
-Slavery is not abolished : ISIS, India, Morocco, and several other places its still legal : don't think because its gone in the United states in Europe that it doesn't exist, this is an insult to the people who still suffer. Also you state patriarchal society doesn't exist, but slavery does : how in the world is this remotely possible? I would think more fine, and delicate rights, like womens right to vote, being free from patriarchal rule, ect, would come AFTER slaves are put in : yet you talk about a universal removal of the patriarchy?
-The service rendered of a man having sex for money with a woman, and a woman having sex for money with a man, is entirely different : men face less risk, danger, ect. Men do not get pregnant : men are slightly less susceptible to STD's : Men are larger and stronger on average (you can debate this isn't cannon, fine) which means more defensible against abuse when in such an EXTREMELY vulnerable position. A man being paid to have sex is FAR less risky, and is thus, far cheaper. Infact, a ton of men you can easily find all over who would screw a random women for free, and would JUMP at the idea of being paid. Less so for women, with pregnancy risk, at very least : no woman wants to become a single mother, PERIOD.
-women paying men for sex is a social construct : women who are put into positions with financial security ensure this is a possibility, and its only really prevalent with extremely wealthy people, OR, in societies which are highly advanced. You won't encounter women in 3rd world countries ever doing this. I never said men CANNOT get sex for free (rape is a thing, for one, as are sluts), but merely if you look at the defensiveness factors, women are FAR more defensive sexually, while men are more OFFENSIVE. Also, why would a woman purchase a sex slave, if not for sex? you make no sense... Granted, they might be multipurpose, but you never suggested the slave be multipurpose. If a woman purchases a sex slave, for no other reasons than sex, shes doing it for sex.
-If a woman was so concerned about a good child, why in fucks name would she not seek a HEALTHY relationship? healthy marriages are shown to be immense factors in a childs success, and I fail to see this being likely in a slavery setup, particularly when men are typically more dominant, and women are more submissive. It would be a weird setup, and would leave the child very confused, perhaps damaged. Getting a male slave to be a father would be a worse idea than finding a volentary man who likes her on her own merits, if one REALLY cared about a healthy child. And if its JUST sperm, Again, why enslave a man? Why not just arrange a man have his seed extracted, and be on their way? You aren't thinking it through.
-Maybe they aren't : I was going off the study showing lesbians do domestic abuse far more than straights. Maybe its misleading though, I don't know. http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/07/attack-of-the-killer-dykes/

Regardless if its dominant or not, violence is a concern.

Straw man accusation was because you intentionally worded the argument to look dumber than it was : NOBODY made the argument "because vagina". Nobody.

You COMPLETELY missed my point about supply and demand : even if there a 3/2 margin with more females, men are STILL STRONGER over all, and dicks can be used all over for reproduction, while a womb must take 9 months. That 9 month period is the part which makes such HUGE demand. Beyond that, you aren't even examining willingness, risk of participants as factors in "supply" : let me explain : you have a room of 50 women, 50 men : Does this mean you have a supply of 50 men and women to have sex with? NO! Some women are taken, some are lesbians, some will fight you, ect. Same applies to men, except men are more likely to engage in sex attempts than women : remember the code where it says men persue it more? ITS TRUE! And so, the supply of men one could conceivably have sex with, as a woman, is HIGHER, than the amount of women a MAN could have sex with, when you average out for factors in men and women : because more women aren't ok with just spreading their legs for a stranger, while men are more likely to want to screw on a whim : especially when sex is far less dangerous.

-----------

I do agree with perq : frankly with MANY issues, theres problems with issues that many people disagree with on the forum, and anything which involves such disagreements then devolves into off topic debate, and sometimes namecalling, childish games, or worse. Its not helped that many of these topics branch into other topics with ANY significant debate, thus prompting MORE "off topic" discussion. Kinda gets to the point where both parties resent each other, and have no place to calmly debate about it, due to the risk of becoming off topic, regardless of what the topic was.

....Even with the off topic forum this remains an issue.

Sorry, but the 1 in 3, as far as I remember : didn't this literally include unwanted hugging, kisses on the cheek? Its important to examine WHAT is being measured as "sexual and physical violence", because frankly, SOME things which fit that label are horrific, and some are pretty much none issues. Infact, I looked through several links, and they NEVER define these as far as I can see : but I recall the 1 in 3 being mentioned, and yes, back then it WAS any sexual contact without consent, including kisses which were rejected, which are NOT comparable to RAPE. I'm unashamed to say this : a kiss on the cheek is NOTHING, compared the rape, period.

This is why I care very much about definitions : these kind of studies can lead people to believe 1 out of 3 women are RAPED, sexually penetrated without consent, which is NOT the case. Besides this, the one of "1 in 10 experience forced intercourse OR other sexual acts", is not at all an accurate representation of rape, because of the "Or other". Its like if I make a study about people being shot, as well as punched, trying to say guns aren't dangerous : but the fact I include punches skews the study ; of course punches happen FAR more, and are FAR less lethal : and this skews the study when I gauge it towards guns.

How about this : I'm confident 1 in 2 of men experience extreme violence and mutilation (which includes any acts of violence). See how rediculous this is?... Because being stabbed and being slapped across the face is not comparable.

You might say I have no study, and its true : but ask yourself, would you really be hard pressed to find half of all men had been hit or slapped at some point in their life?

Now I WILL say, yes, you actually correct on the rape / murder rate difference.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-statistics-released

However assault is something which happens far more, and is permitted in rimworld, I guess.

Pretty much the only things in your statistics that I think isn't dubious is the PTSD statistic, and distress over rape : rape is extremely traumatic and psychologically damaging, but pretty much all other things need further reading into : forced marriages for instance should be looked at on a cultural level, rather than "global" level, to figure out where its a problem (but this wouldn't be PC). Infact, if your going to look at ANY information, you should compare global with regional amounts : I think the 1/3 does not remain the same for all areas, and not in the first world. Besides that, these "rape AND xyz" things aren't helpful : they do not show the effects for either rape, OR "sexual assault" because they are blurred together : what if rates for things involved with rape and "sexual assault" are radically different? we won't know with this, as it refuses to distinguish.

If it makes you feel better, I do think a woman being in sexual slavery in rim-world should have dire emotional effects, to reflect reality.

...and I know this is off topic, but statistics are next to useless if the definitions are THAT vague. OR, if you use them, you MUST acknowlege JUST how vague it is. So yes, 1 in 3 women experience ANYTHING from an unwanted kiss on the cheek, to full on rape. I acknowlege this. That said, I care more about the rape rate, than the kisses on the cheek, or odd groping by a lover which is politely rejected.

And if you can indeed cite EXACTLY what they mean by sexual assault, please do.

[females]

Requesting that this thread get locked and buried. Nobody is saying anything new, and it's just going around in a circle resorting to name calling.

Some of the things brought up do have merit, and follow a logical chain:

• Increasing the spread between old and young slave value.
• Beauty / Ugly traits having a modifier on slave value (or increased if they already do?).
• Comparing the slave trade to old-world examples, and showing that typically skilled labour far outweighs "because vagina"
• What about homosexual human sex trafficking?
• Nobody has actually brought up the possibility 3500 years in the future, females might be the ones wanting to purchase hardy breeding males with certain qualities (very rich women will pay a fortune even today for what they believe to be superior sperm).

And some do not:

• "because vagina"
• Slavery isn't profitable enough and I want 5000 silver
• Well you can do x and x is bad so why not this? I wanna do this and who are you to tell me how to play
• Do it for the controversy! Do it for the lols!

Didn't you JUST say a few new things?...cmon. Also you aren't the OP.

Anyway, to address a few things...
-homosexual human trafficking I think would be cheaper : Theres more supply of male slaves, and less homosexuals, So I figure slaves for gay sex would be cheaper, particularly since females would, at least in colonies which breed, would be more protected.
-Females would, again, be an extreme minority when purchasing slaves compared to men, and would perhaps have no problem GETTING said men for free. Think about it : if you are a sugar momma, why would you need to enslave a man to get sex, instead of just paying him a few racks of silver for a bit of sex, if that? Where as women face far more risk in sex, which is why rape / sex slavery is generally directed at women. Even for dominant women, I figure they would steer towards women typically, and again, men are still cheaper, as they are easier to get in many societies.
-On thing to add to the logic chain, is that men and women should have differences. Also your list of points that "don't" are practically strawmen. Good job.