discussion Thoughts on corruption and rape tag

[Republican Bear]

Corruption in adult games is fine but I draw a line with rape.

Even if it's fictional it just makes me want to throw up.

Having said that there are many kinks I don't like in games, so enjoy what you like.

 

[VForValhalla]

You lost me here. Could you elaborate?

What I understood:
You agree on a fundamental level, but you argue that once you account for the desire of the player, immersed in a game that is fictional, the words don't describe the situation 100%?
Are you refering to the act of consent of a fictional character? If so, since there is no one capable of consent, hell there is no one, just code, rape and corruption doesn't apply?
If so, I agree.

I've said it before here, I'm all for it in games, there is no crime when there is no victim. Anyone will fantasize something weird/cringe once in a lifetime, maybe twice or everyday.
What I meant was to highlight the mental gymnastics needed to accept one but not the other, even if they are very close related.
It was said here, and I quote:

This, in a way, implies that as long as there is love, manipulation and corruption is okay. But:

See what I mean? Mental gymnastics. All I see here is a guy that like to take control and be violent for his own pleasure (nothing wrong, you do you) without being stigmatized for a villain, so he needs the partner to be okay with it and if they don't, they make them be.

This is, but one of many examples. If you take your time and read seriously, ou will see how far this hole goes.

I think you’re conflating fictional exploration with real-world intent, and that’s a pretty big leap to make.

In a story, 'corruption' is often a trope about a character discovering a side of themselves they were suppressed from exploring. It’s a fantasy of liberation, not a manual for abuse. Enjoying a dark story doesn't mean I'm trying to 'avoid being a villain'—it means I'm enjoying a narrative where the stakes are higher than a Hallmark movie.

You mentioned I 'make them be okay with it.' That’s actually the exact opposite of what I said. In real life, if the enjoyment isn't mutual and authentic, the spark is gone. That isn't 'making' someone do anything; it’s called enthusiastic consent.

There is a massive psychological difference between 'violence' as a consensual erotic act (kink) and 'violence' as an act of harm. One is a shared language between partners; the other is a crime.

It’s easy to look at dark fantasies and see a 'rabbit hole,' but for most people in the scene, the hole stops exactly where the partner's boundaries begin. We can enjoy the 'villain' aesthetic in the bedroom precisely because we know, with absolute certainty, that we are safe and respected.

 

[Bruhwhat]

Rape is a turn off, I'd rather see corruption and sluttiness.

 

[alexusbiru]

I think you’re conflating fictional exploration with real-world intent, and that’s a pretty big leap to make.

Oh hey, nice of you to join, even if the blue font make it harder to read
And, no. I don't know if you got everything I said over the course of all the talk. Or maybe it's a language barrier that I still nedd to go over to in order to be clearer, who knows (thanks for helping guys). I pointed out the similarity between the concepts (Rape and Corruption) and then the things people do/think/rationalize to make one okay and other not so much.

In a story, 'corruption' is often a trope about a character discovering a side of themselves they were suppressed from exploring.

I guess here, we will agree to disagree. We romanticize this.
As I see it:

• If it's something you are and supress - Rediscovering it is called therapy
• If it's something you are not (have not) and grow to do it anyway because of another - it's corruption

You see I'm a pratical guy. Things are what they are.

It’s a fantasy of liberation, not a manual for abuse. Enjoying a dark story doesn't mean I'm trying to 'avoid being a villain'—it means I'm enjoying a narrative where the stakes are higher than a Hallmark movie.

I'm not trying your patience or anything, hell we can block and ignore here , but...
Pratical view: It seems to me, you love a "savior" at all costs kinda thing, that's what I mean by "not villain". You are, or like to think you are, an end justifies the means kinda guys, and it's okay. You do you.

You mentioned I 'make them be okay with it.' That’s actually the exact opposite of what I said. In real life, if the enjoyment isn't mutual and authentic, the spark is gone.

Again agree to disagree (I think we may be polar opposites, don't you?).
By "Make them be okay" I mean they either like it or you are gone, you punish them by getting out.
Or I am misreading all that AND you just don't go where you are not welcome. Example - if my girl don't like a little BDSM, then no BDSM shall be done and that's okay, no harm done.

There is a massive psychological difference between 'violence' as a consensual erotic act (kink) and 'violence' as an act of harm. One is a shared language between partners; the other is a crime.

Not arguing there. Violence as a kink (masochists of LC I'm looking at you) still harbor some consent from everyone.
But, just a little disagreement - If you read the book "Lolita", or played Malignant (not for the faint of heart), you will see a situation where the CRIMINAL is kinda incapable of seeing the harm he is doing, either by ignoring facts or making excuses. Not saying this is you, but our mins are not that black and white, or sane, as we really like to think.

It’s easy to look at dark fantasies and see a 'rabbit hole,' but for most people in the scene, the hole stops exactly where the partner's boundaries begin. We can enjoy the 'villain' aesthetic in the bedroom precisely because we know, with absolute certainty, that we are safe and respected.

Exactly my point. It's an act. There is consent. Therefore it will never be Rape or Corruption. not truly. So why not "play" both? they are kinda the same anyway.

Most people, IRL or in games, will see the subject like this:

• Is the depiction of suffering too real? - Nope, I'm outta here
• Is the depiction of suffering kinda real? - I don't know, something feels off here
• Is the depiction of suffering ludicrous? - I guess I can give it a try

And I think that's a wrap for now. Man, this subject is yielding nicely, ain't it?

 

[whowalksbefore]

its the taboo-ness for me and the important fact it's not real. it's not something i could ever do irl.

 

[VForValhalla]

Oh hey, nice of you to join, even if the blue font make it harder to read
And, no. I don't know if you got everything I said over the course of all the talk. Or maybe it's a language barrier that I still nedd to go over to in order to be clearer, who knows (thanks for helping guys). I pointed out the similarity between the concepts (Rape and Corruption) and then the things people do/think/rationalize to make one okay and other not so much.


I guess here, we will agree to disagree. We romanticize this.
As I see it:

• If it's something you are and supress - Rediscovering it is called therapy
• If it's something you are not (have not) and grow to do it anyway because of another - it's corruption

You see I'm a pratical guy. Things are what they are.


I'm not trying your patience or anything, hell we can block and ignore here , but...
Pratical view: It seems to me, you love a "savior" at all costs kinda thing, that's what I mean by "not villain". You are, or like to think you are, an end justifies the means kinda guys, and it's okay. You do you.


Again agree to disagree (I think we may be polar opposites, don't you?).
By "Make them be okay" I mean they either like it or you are gone, you punish them by getting out.
Or I am misreading all that AND you just don't go where you are not welcome. Example - if my girl don't like a little BDSM, then no BDSM shall be done and that's okay, no harm done.


Not arguing there. Violence as a kink (masochists of LC I'm looking at you) still harbor some consent from everyone.
But, just a little disagreement - If you read the book "Lolita", or played Malignant (not for the faint of heart), you will see a situation where the CRIMINAL is kinda incapable of seeing the harm he is doing, either by ignoring facts or making excuses. Not saying this is you, but our mins are not that black and white, or sane, as we really like to think.

If we’re actually boiling this down to something productive instead of just circling each other, here’s where I think the wires are crossing.

You’re treating “corruption” and “rape” as structurally similar because both involve someone changing or overriding another person. I get why that looks parallel on the surface. But the core difference isn’t aesthetic, it’s agency.

In fiction, “corruption” is often framed as a character choosing to lean into something they were curious about, tempted by, or repressing. Even when it’s dramatized as external pressure, the fantasy usually hinges on the idea that there was an underlying desire. That’s why audiences can enjoy it, because at some level, the character’s agency is still present.

Rape, by definition, removes agency. There is no mutuality. That’s not a tonal difference, that’s a structural one.

Where I think you’re stretching is when you say, “If it’s something you are not and grow to do it anyway because of another, it’s corruption.” In real life, that’s just… influence. People try new things because of partners all the time. The ethical line isn’t whether someone introduced it. The line is whether the person had the freedom to say no without punishment.

And this is where your “you punish them by leaving” point doesn’t really land.

Choosing to leave a relationship because you’re incompatible isn’t punishment, it’s compatibility management. If someone doesn’t like BDSM, and the other person does, nobody is obligated to suppress themselves forever. The ethical move is either compromise or separation. Staying and pressuring would be the problem. Leaving isn’t coercion; it’s respecting that mismatch.

On the “Lolita” example, that’s actually a good illustration of the difference. Humbert rationalizes harm because the other party cannot consent. That’s the horror of it. The narrative tension comes from his self-deception versus the reality of harm. That’s not comparable to two adults explicitly negotiating a scenario they both want.

You’re right that minds aren’t black and white. People rationalize. People blur lines. That’s precisely why consent frameworks exist, to make the line explicit instead of intuitive.

Exactly my point. It's an act. There is consent. Therefore it will never be Rape or Corruption. not truly. So why not "play" both? they are kinda the same anyway.

Most people, IRL or in games, will see the subject like this:

• Is the depiction of suffering too real? - Nope, I'm outta here
• Is the depiction of suffering kinda real? - I don't know, something feels off here
• Is the depiction of suffering ludicrous? - I guess I can give it a try

And I think that's a wrap for now. Man, this subject is yielding nicely, ain't it?

They’re not the same because one is a fantasy built on simulated loss of control with actual control intact, and the other is real-world harm defined by the absence of control. The illusion of force is not the same thing as force. The illusion only works because everyone involved knows they can stop it instantly.

That’s the psychological difference.

You’re absolutely right that people draw their own comfort lines around realism. Some depictions feel too real and cross into discomfort. That’s valid. Opting out is valid. But discomfort doesn’t make two concepts morally equivalent.

And no, this isn’t “end justifies the means.” It’s actually the opposite. The means, mutual consent, communication, boundaries, are the whole point. Without them, the fantasy collapses.

We might be opposites in how we categorize things, sure. But I don’t think this is about romanticizing harm. It’s about understanding why something can look dark while still being ethically contained.

That’s the difference I’m defending.

 

[alexusbiru]

If we’re actually boiling this down to something productive instead of just circling each other, here’s where I think the wires are crossing.

Nice to read from you again man. I thought I lost you. And yeah, I think our wiring is just different. We’re looking at the same dark corners, but we're seeing totally different monsters. And I think we need to make a distinction between giving in (seduction) and actually being changed (corruption).

In fiction, “corruption” is often framed as a character choosing to lean into something they were curious about, tempted by, or repressing. Even when it’s dramatized as external pressure, the fantasy usually hinges on the idea that there was an underlying desire. That’s why audiences can enjoy it, because at some level, the character’s agency is still present.

I get where you’re coming from, but that’s exactly where we split. For me, if you’ve already got a foot in the door, it isn't 'corruption'—it's just seduction. It’s like what a buddy of mine says about movies—how 'Action' is basically just the box we put 'Violence' in so it sells better. Same thing here. We call it corruption because it sounds more dramatic, but it’s really just someone finally saying 'yes' to an itch they already had. To me? Real corruption should be something that actually changes you, not just something that invites you in.

Take a CEO and a secretary. It’s the classic 'off-limits' setup, right? He knows he shouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole—it’s a HR nightmare, it’s morally messy, whatever. But the desire is already sitting there in the room. So when she starts pushing those boundaries, is she 'corrupting' him? Or is she just giving him a map to the place he already wanted to go? To me, that’s not a fall from grace—it’s just a slow-motion surrender.

Now, look at something truly dark—like cannibalism. Wild, I know, but hear me out. A normal guy, right? Totally sane. He’s never had an 'itch' for it, never even crossed his mind. But then, a thought starts rattling around. Just a 'what if' at first. Then it starts growing like mold in the dark. He knows it’s wrong, he’s got zero reason to want it, but he starts... justifying it. He starts figuring out how to get away with it, how to bring others into it. That right there? That’s not seduction. That’s a total rewrite of his soul. That’s what I call corruption.

That's the distinction here: the difference between giving in to a secret itch (the CEO) and the slow, quiet rot of the mind (the cannibal).

That’s the difference right there. The CEO? He’s still in the driver’s seat. He’s making a choice, even if it’s a shitty one. But the cannibal? He’s lost the wheel. He’s not choosing anymore; he’s just following a script that isn't his. The CEO has agency... the cannibal is just a passenger in his own head.

Where I think you’re stretching is when you say, “If it’s something you are not and grow to do it anyway because of another, it’s corruption.” In real life, that’s just… influence. People try new things because of partners all the time. The ethical line isn’t whether someone introduced it. The line is whether the person had the freedom to say no without punishment.

Fair point, and I think I tripped over my own words there. Let’s recalibrate. I’m not talking about picking up a hobby or a habit because of someone else—that’s just life, that’s influence. Like you said, we all do stuff we don't love just to get by. But what I'm talking about is the 'cannibal' side of the coin. It’s when the 'you' at the controls gets replaced by something you didn't ask for. It’s not a choice you make; it’s a change that happens to you.

Continue below:

 

[alexusbiru]

And this is where your “you punish them by leaving” point doesn’t really land.

Choosing to leave a relationship because you’re incompatible isn’t punishment, it’s compatibility management. If someone doesn’t like BDSM, and the other person does, nobody is obligated to suppress themselves forever. The ethical move is either compromise or separation. Staying and pressuring would be the problem. Leaving isn’t coercion; it’s respecting that mismatch.

Fair. That’s the clean break—and some people can handle that, some can't. But look at what’s actually happening. You’re saying if one loves BDSM and the other hates it, they’ve got three doors: break up, open the relationship, or repress it. That’s just a polished way of giving an ultimatum, isn't it? Even if you’re doing it with 'wholeful love,' you’re still handing them a bill they can’t afford to pay. It’s a punishment either way. You can call it 'for the best' all you want, but violence done for a good cause is still violence.

On the “Lolita” example, that’s actually a good illustration of the difference. Humbert rationalizes harm because the other party cannot consent. That’s the horror of it. The narrative tension comes from his self-deception versus the reality of harm. That’s not comparable to two adults explicitly negotiating a scenario they both want.

You’re right that minds aren’t black and white. People rationalize. People blur lines. That’s precisely why consent frameworks exist, to make the line explicit instead of intuitive.

You're leaning on consent like it’s a universal constant, but it’s not. It’s as fluid as the culture around it. If you go down the rabbit hole, you realize that the capacity to even comprehend the situation isn't guaranteed. People rationalize, they blur, they break. Sometimes a person says 'yes' simply because they’ve forgotten how to say 'no.' Is that consent, or is that just the final stage of the rot?

Take Stockholm Syndrome. I know, it’s not some formal clinical diagnosis, but it describes something real—that shift where a victim starts to sympathize with the person holding the cage. If you’re in that headspace, you might say 'yes.' You might even mean it. But how much can we actually trust that consent? If your survival depends on loving your captor, then your 'yes' isn't a choice—it's a survival mechanism. The compass is broken, man. You’re consenting to the North, but you’re actually headed off a cliff.

They’re not the same because one is a fantasy built on simulated loss of control with actual control intact, and the other is real-world harm defined by the absence of control. The illusion of force is not the same thing as force. The illusion only works because everyone involved knows they can stop it instantly.

That’s the psychological difference.

Exactly. That’s the only real difference—we know it’s fake. It’s no different than a couple roleplaying a dark scenario in their bedroom. This is why I don’t get the massive wall people build between 'rape' and 'corruption' in fiction.

If you swap the word 'corruption' for 'seduction' or 'influence,' then sure, I get the distinction. Those are different vibes. But once we’re in the realm of fiction? Once we agree it’s all a simulation? The moral weight we put on those labels is kind of arbitrary. We’re arguing over the name of the mask when we both know there’s a real face underneath it.

You’re absolutely right that people draw their own comfort lines around realism. Some depictions feel too real and cross into discomfort. That’s valid. Opting out is valid. But discomfort doesn’t make two concepts morally equivalent.

At the end of the day, that's all it is—how we 'label' the slide. You say 'corruption,' I say 'seduction,' and we’re both just talking about a form of influence where consent is present.

And no, this isn’t “end justifies the means.” It’s actually the opposite. The means, mutual consent, communication, boundaries, are the whole point. Without them, the fantasy collapses.

I think you misread me—by 'ends justify the means,' I wasn't talking about the fantasy. I was talking about you saying that a clean break is the 'greater good' for a mismatched couple.

But here’s the reality: People will subject themselves to a hell of a lot just to keep from losing what they love. In that BDSM example, the partner who hates it isn't just going to walk away. They’re going to look at the person they adore and they're going to rationalize. They’ll talk themselves into 'loving' it just to keep the lights on.

Technically, they said yes. They consented. But is that 'trustworthy' consent? Or is it just someone mutilating their own boundaries so they don't have to be alone? To me, that’s where the 'corruption' lives—not in the act itself, but in the slow, quiet way people break themselves to fit into someone else's world.

We might be opposites in how we categorize things, sure. But I don’t think this is about romanticizing harm. It’s about understanding why something can look dark while still being ethically contained.

Yeah, we definitely see the lines differently, but I appreciate the deep dive. It’s been a hell of a mental workout—and honestly, a great way to knock the rust off my English.

But you know what they say: when you look into the abyss, it looks back at you. We can talk about being 'contained' all we want, but in real life, there are consequences. We only get one shot at this, and trauma can turn your own mind into a prison for the rest of your life.

At the end of the day, who’s to say that in a different life, under different pressures, we wouldn't become exactly what we love in those characters? We all like to think we're the heroes, but maybe we’re all just one bad situation away from being the monsters.

That’s the difference I’m defending.

If you want, the ball is on your court.



I'm thinking one strange thought now:
"WHY THE FUCK HORNY ASS DUDES, WHO COME HERE TO FAP, KEEP TALKING THEIR ASSES OFF? For Christ sake, is that a new kink?"
Am I alone in this thought?

 

[kjeremiah982]

I enjoy corruption, but rape can be a little iffy.

 

[ShiaLabeouf]

The accusations against you (refer to your nickname) say otherwise. BTW it seems like a trends amongst celebrities nowadays.
Maybe you suffer from it and is in denial? Or benefit from it?

Also, Stockholm Syndrome is real. Any psychological problems will always be speculative (we can't see the programming on our brains can we?), except the ones clearly caused by something physically wrong. It's a proposition to explian the behaviour in that kind of situation.

I tried IA to make the above phrase more natural, but it gives this:

The "Black Box" of the Human Mind​

You’ve hit on the big reality of psychology: unless there’s a physical tumor or a clear chemical imbalance, we’re mostly just looking at a black box. We see how someone acts, and we come up with a name—like Stockholm Syndrome—to explain the "programming" we can't actually see.

• The Physical vs. The Speculative: If a computer's screen is cracked, that’s a physical fact. But if the software is acting weird? We have to guess if it's a bug, a feature, or a virus. Most psychological "syndromes" are just our best guesses at naming those software bugs.
• A Survival Script: In that light, Stockholm Syndrome isn't a "disease" you catch. It’s more like a built-in survival script. When your brain realizes it can't fight or flee, it switches to a different "program": Try to make the person holding the gun like you.

Is it "Real"?​

It’s real in the sense that the behavior happens, but you’re right—it’s a proposition. It’s a label we’ve slapped onto a very specific, high-stress reaction to help us make sense of why a victim would ever defend their captor.

Without a way to scan for "Stockholm Syndrome" on an MRI, it remains a theory—a very logical one, but a theory nonetheless.

I mean first of all, nice source. AI = opinion disregarded (and not only the source, you write your enitre comments in AI?!). No offence, but more

You must be registered to see links

than the hallucinations of Altman clearly state that Stockholm Syndrome is almost certainly not real. If you can't or don't want to read the journal article (and fair enough honestly), Wikipedia has a much more friendly breakdown. Also, I see you in this thread, trying to - Shia Surprise! - um, sorry, trying to debate with people who don't like it. You won't be changing my mind, if that's your intent.

 

[riccs98]

I also like corruption in rape games, well, me too.

 

[boobs54495]

Yeah I’ll specifically look for those tags when trying to find my next game to play

 

[imYuna!]

Yes please :3

 

[redfingers]

I think most of us draw the line between fantasy and reality.

That being said, my hard drive is populated with a community of characters who have been through some shit.

 

[alexusbiru]

I mean first of all, nice source. AI = opinion disregarded (and not only the source, you write your enitre comments in AI?!). No offence, but more

You must be registered to see links

than the hallucinations of Altman clearly state that Stockholm Syndrome is almost certainly not real. If you can't or don't want to read the journal article (and fair enough honestly), Wikipedia has a much more friendly breakdown. Also, I see you in this thread, trying to - Shia Surprise! - um, sorry, trying to debate with people who don't like it. You won't be changing my mind, if that's your intent.

Nice of you to grace us with your presence and wisdom. And, nope, my sources are not AI, but yes I use AI to polish eveything, almost everything, since english is not my first language and I fear to be misunderstood or to offend. If you so prefer, I could write here in my language and you use AI to translate it, but oh wait I can't since we are at a english speaking part of LC. If that disqualifies me, why are you wasting your time?

But it seems I struck a nerve. Let's see how it goes.
Isn't it funny when someone mentions reputable sources and wikipedia on the same sentence and offer a source that only students, faculty or paying customers can read?
Anyway, I hope you are having fun, as much or more than I did.

So, on the subject of fun, what's - Shia Surprise! - ? Is it food? Is it good? Do I need to pay? Is it expensive?
I won't be changing your mind? Oh boy, woe is me. So sad indeed. But good for you, you stoic you.
I thought I was passing my point of view across, I guess I failed. Are your beliefs fragile or are you just bullheaded and brush anything that you don't agree aside? Who knows.
Beware the literary idiocy, also known as Cognitive Bias!!!!

'Trying to debate with people who doesn't like it.'
What an honor, he read everything and, without a shred of agreement, wasted some time to reply. I'm moved. Those Coins are good, are they not?

But, truly I'm sorry, I am being a petty asshole. It's just who I am.
BTW, how is my writing without AI assist? Hope you are not using AI to understand my gibberish.

Now that my need to rant was quenched, let's work.

Here is a 'reputable' source that I think you will like and anyone can read:

You must be registered to see links

Stockholm Syndrome is real. It may not be a formal accepted clinical mental disorder, as written on the paper "We find little evidence that it describes a specific psychiatric syndrome that may require specific treatment or have long-term implications for the mental health of its victims", and you are correct in saying it's not real. But that only apply to being a recognized disorder. The behavior is real, there are cases documenting it, although, due to the nature of it, rare and far between. It's not a indisputable truth that "Stockholm Syndrome doen'st exist". One car argue that it is a well known idea or proposition that lacks any kind of rigorous studies in order to 'make it real' or stablish it as a clinical disorder of the mind. Still, the behavior was there. And, as we did for religion, we tried to explain it as best as we could as best as we saw and understood it.

 

[a1fox3]

Corruption is okay if its not forced by using drugs or mind break.

Rape never.

 

[Ben112]

Corruption is fine
but no to rape

 

[ShiaLabeouf]

Nice of you to grace us with your presence and wisdom. And, nope, my sources are not AI, but yes I use AI to polish eveything, almost everything, since english is not my first language and I fear to be misunderstood or to offend. If you so prefer, I could write here in my language and you use AI to translate it, but oh wait I can't since we are at a english speaking part of LC. If that disqualifies me, why are you wasting your time?

But it seems I struck a nerve. Let's see how it goes.
Isn't it funny when someone mentions reputable sources and wikipedia on the same sentence and offer a source that only students, faculty or paying customers can read?
Anyway, I hope you are having fun, as much or more than I did.

So, on the subject of fun, what's - Shia Surprise! - ? Is it food? Is it good? Do I need to pay? Is it expensive?
I won't be changing your mind? Oh boy, woe is me. So sad indeed. But good for you, you stoic you.
I thought I was passing my point of view across, I guess I failed. Are your beliefs fragile or are you just bullheaded and brush anything that you don't agree aside? Who knows.
Beware the literary idiocy, also known as Cognitive Bias!!!!

'Trying to debate with people who doesn't like it.'
What an honor, he read everything and, without a shred of agreement, wasted some time to reply. I'm moved. Those Coins are good, are they not?

But, truly I'm sorry, I am being a petty asshole. It's just who I am.
BTW, how is my writing without AI assist? Hope you are not using AI to understand my gibberish.

Now that my need to rant was quenched, let's work.

Here is a 'reputable' source that I think you will like and anyone can read:

You must be registered to see links

Stockholm Syndrome is real. It may not be a formal accepted clinical mental disorder, as written on the paper "We find little evidence that it describes a specific psychiatric syndrome that may require specific treatment or have long-term implications for the mental health of its victims", and you are correct in saying it's not real. But that only apply to being a recognized disorder. The behavior is real, there are cases documenting it, although, due to the nature of it, rare and far between. It's not a indisputable truth that "Stockholm Syndrome doen'st exist". One car argue that it is a well known idea or proposition that lacks any kind of rigorous studies in order to 'make it real' or stablish it as a clinical disorder of the mind. Still, the behavior was there. And, as we did for religion, we tried to explain it as best as we could as best as we saw and understood it.

Something that just tickles me pink is when people mistake my snark for anger and then crash out. Thank you for this post, I will be framing it on my wall.

 

[ObservantShadow]

I like corruption games
Almost all AVN have corruption
But not many are extreme with it like
Corruption by Mr.C
If a game isn't using love or promiscuity to reach sex scenes
They are using corruption

As far as rape goes if she's an insufferable bitch who's fucked with a guys livelihood them that guy should fuck the bitch
Like
Life's Payback by Vinkawa

Spoiler: Spoiler

MC's mom wasn't good to him when he was growing up

But he gains a position where he financially supports her and he uses that as leverage for sexual favors

Through the progression he gets her drunk and rapes her while she sleeps

A game that's truly extreme is
Raptus By RedStarStudios
Rape Murder and Necrophilia
It doesn't get much worse
Absolutely not for most

 

[alexusbiru]

Something that just tickles me pink is when people mistake my snark for anger and then crash out. Thank you for this post, I will be framing it on my wall.

Happy to know I gave you something meaningful and your 'pink side is out'. I am to please, always.
Don't forget to post a photo of your brand new frame!

Post automatically merged: Mar 11, 2026

Wooops... Correction: I aim to