Capturing and selling young female pawns to slavers at very high price?

[mumblemumble]

Perq has a good point : remember hatred? pretty much a shitty, edgy clone of postal 1, but it sold well BECAUSE it was controversial, despite being a pretty bad game ANYWAYS. Postal 2 is another example : you can piss on people to put them out, use cats as silencers, and despite being a rather mediocre game, it sold, even with the outrageousness. Infact, it made it sell better. Heck, even games which WEREN'T made on the merit of being politically incorrect didn't suffer. Remember bioshock infinite? That got flack for having BLATANT racism (nobody was ever call a nigger in it, as far as I can recall, but it was close) But it still sold quite well, EVEN in the mainstream game climate, with Anita Sarkesian, ect. Infact, I don't think anybody got remotely close to boycotting it, because it was a cool game.

Besides that, cultist, your argument brings up an interesting thought : what if we already gone past it? What if rim-world has already gone too far? Where is the line? Is there a line? Or perhaps maybe something being a reflection of humanity should reflect humanity, in its worst and best?

And honestly, I doubt the outrage even if say, full on rape WAS added, could be that bad, if Tynan took it with the position of it being a tragedy in game : This is what I find the most strange : nobody is arguing rape or sexual slavery is a good thing, a healthy thing, a beneficial thing in society : If I'm wrong, and someone on the forum has said this, go ahead and let me know, but people talk about these things because rim-world is about equal part tragedy and triumph. So please know this : it is NOT about people wanting rape to be mainstream in real life, its about enhancing the tragedy simulation of the game.

[OFWG]

What if rim-world has already gone too far?

The difference is that all the areas where it could be said to go too far actually add something to the gameplay. Cannibalism, drugs, slavery, organ harvesting all have significant upside and downside that work within the gameplay systems. This topic's suggestion is dumb because it adds controversy without adding any gameplay.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Shinzy]

I've split some of the more offtopic discussion in it's own thread if you wish to continue that particular conversation you may do so here

Edit (Calahan) - Additionally, please can you all keep the thread on-topic and stick to discussing the merits, or not, of the OP's suggestion. We do not want to see lengthy discussion about off-topic stuff again. If you see someone going off topic then please do not escalate the problem by replying and entering into a discussion. Either report the post for being off-topic, or ignore it, or both. But please do not derail the thread again by replying to off-topic posts. Thank you.