[Circle of Hands] Rape: context and consequences

[Ron Edwards]

I've been receiving emails concerning rape in the setting and in the text. This is something I take most seriously indeed, and although its word count might not match that of armed combat, I want those words to be absolutely precise. This is not a matter of "correctness" but a rawer matter of right and wrong.

I'm posting some of the dialogue here and opening it up for public input. Some of it stays private, and some of what goes public will be anonymous. I'll say publicly that I greatly appreciate the trust placed in me and I'm going to respect it.

Judd wrote,

... in your section in  rape you talk about victims and I think the better/more commonly accepted term might be survivor.

My reply:

I do understand the difference and will examine the text to be sure it says what I want it to. I need something that covers all of those who have been assaulted, regardless of psychological outcome. The term "rape survivor" is not generic enough.

My eventual use of the terms needs to bring forward the horror. The setting features no support system or societal vocabulary, so the percent of technical survivorship would be unfortunately low. Many of the assaulted women would unfortunately - horrifically - remain permanently victimized, psychologically.

Adding some text about survivorship and its possible outcomes may be a good idea. The tricky issue there is the stereotype that a woman has to be raped in order to "man up." It's important not to fall into that trap while avoiding the victim stereotype.

Comments and ideas? I originally chose "victim" on purpose to cover the broadest range of response, but I agree that the term has now become either unusable or applies to a subset of outcomes. Any other thoughts raised are welcome too, not merely a terms question.

This discussion will continue with further bits from the private dialogues, used with permission (as above).

Best, Ron

[John W]

I don't feel strongly re: "victim" vs. "survivor."

Rape won't be an active part of my play.  I know it's historically accurate in this setting: it wasn't uncommon, it was used as a tool of war (and temporal power), etc.  Although some men in-period would have treated rape casually (like they did torture and murder), it behooves us as players and authors never to treat it casually.  I think as long as the text is clear about the difference, we'll be okay.

Lately, I've seen mention of rape in the media preceded with "trigger warning: sexual violence" or similar text, so that people who are strongly affected by such depictions can choose to avoid the article altogether.  I wonder if a similar warning over the "Force, cruelty, and misery" section would be appropriate.

If rape appears in my game, it will be far, far off screen and probably only in a scenario's back-story.  A lines-and-veils discussion with my players will come first.

Thanks.
-J

[Eero Tuovinen]

Sounds to me like you've got this well in hand. I'm personally happy as long as the work is of great artistry on a relevant subject matter.

[Ron Edwards]

The question is whether the game itself - text or play - fantasizes about or objectifies rape. Avoiding this is easy: don't include any sexuality, everyone is Ken or Barbie; or ignore the physical act of sex while keeping all the other human romantic interactions; or generate some fictional cultural aversion to rape which is so prevalent and total that no one in the setting would ever dream of doing it; or acknowledge it in the setting but insist that main (player) characters hold to modern values and even vocabulary; or perhaps worst, leave it in at-one's-table limbo because it's not mentioned but "you can do anything" ...

I don't want to do any of those.

I have presented this setting to be full of misery - not entirely, but to a frighening extent. It's supposed to be human horror, not genre tentacles and safe squishy-monster effects. Rape is present as a top-level instance of such horror.

Two interesting touchpoints for the game are Kurosawa's samurai films, especially Yojimbo and The Seven Samurai, and the Stars Spartacus series, especially the first and final seasons (Blood and Sand; War of the Damned). I say "interesting touchpoints" because it's not a full correspondence, and I'd never ever say that the game is supposed to be like these references.

The same
The politics and social tensions of the setting are at a crisis point, even if those in power don't really grasp this. Those politics and tensions are deeply experienced by the protagonists and prompt extreme responses from them, not only in terms fo violence and near-psycho motivational swings, but also in terms of what they inspire in others. And finally, the only people knowledgeable about these dynamics I'm describing are the viewers.


The different
Violence in the sources I mentioned approaches, finds, and steps over the line for pornography. (Probably least so in The Seven Samurai, granted.) I am not criticizing this especially since they all manage to capture something more than that through successful "refuge in audacity." Howeer, I am aiming at something a little different, perhaps impossible, in which the excitement and catharsis of violence are not safely walled away from nausea, fear, and a certain madness. Interestingly, there are a couple of bits in all the sources which do achieve what I'm talking about, but I'm making those bits the primary aesthetic goal for violence in the game.

Now, check out these stories again. Rape is present in them, both as prior events and as an ongoing threat. It is simply and fully presented as abuse and trauma. I'm not talking about depiction (the films do not depict it, the TV show does) but about inescapable and uniquely charged setting content.

I'm taking that point and warping it through my same/different comparison to see if I can arrive at a good way to articulate all this.

[bankuei]

When it comes to addressing terrible things, the thing that always pops up in my mind is that scene from A Clockwork Orange, where the guy is fantasizing about torturing Jesus as what he's getting from the Bible.

That said, I think if you're going to have a section talking about it, several points should probably get addressed:

- What are the dials a group should talk about and consider in terms of how it gets used/doesn't get used in play?
- How to make it something addressed critically instead of simply suffering for voyeuristic squee tacked on the side
- If you want to address it, what are some outcomes that aren't just "And suffer more" as part of play.

I remember running a Dogs in the Vineyard game that went weird when one of the players after several sessions decided they were suddenly and without any foreshadowing, going to join the local native tribe and lead them to rebellion. 

This would have been fun and fine with some kind of lead up instead of a sudden shift, but it also left me thinking about how games dealing with serious social oppression probably should point out whether the oppression is something that can be changed in play, changed in small instances, or simply is background material.   And really importantly in all of that: "How is this fun?"

I've been meaning to play/run Dog Eat Dog and Steal Away Jordan, but I'm wary about who I'd really want to play with, because there's a big difference between acknowledging the problems the games are addressing in a thoughtful way vs. a very surface After-School-Special moralizing vs. the worst case scenario - a voyeuristic suffering porn.

I also think of Dave Chappelle talking about ending his show when he realized he was making jokes about how racists think and that a great number of people weren't laughing because they could see how ridiculous the stereotypes were, but rather they were laughing because they literally thought the things he was satiring was true.

In the same sense, I'd be mostly looking at how to say, "This is in the game because it is horrific, here's what it can add to your game, but here's the ways to include it and here the ways (other media, games, etc.) do it that take it to bad places and how to navigate this as a group."

[Joshua Bearden]

I'm really glad you started this discussion because I think it is important and I'm keenly interested in the issue.

The question is whether the game itself - text or play - fantasizes about or objectifies rape.

Bluntly, I think it does. My evidence for this position is threefold:

(1) Simply by choosing to mention it at all makes it more than simply an incidental consequence of the level of anarchy and human misery inherent in the setting. Your text mentions rape casually a couple of times and then finally addresses it head on. Why? Is it mere proof of that "we're not messing around in equestria here, we're so hard core we've even got rape"?  Or is it intended to convey the message that playing this game, without highlighting sexual violence is a weak or cowardly approach?  It felt to me like a dare.  I immediately started wondering whether I'm up for the challenge; or whether my gaming group is 'legit' enough to handle this game. It's a thrown gauntlet --- to play this setting authentically, you need to deal with rape.

On the other hand the game text, for now, offers no suggestions about how to do this.  Is it maybe time for a serious update of the old indie doctrine about 'lines and veils'.  Suppose everyone in my game says, I will not abandon you, we can explore anything your sick mind can throw our way. Fine, no lines no veils, but then what?  I brought up this discussion with my wife. She doesn't role-play but we have common ground in the t.v. show Game of Thrones,  she agreed rape is a legitimate trope because it is part of life - the kind of shit that actually happens. (But why would you play a game about it?  How would it get in there?)

I'm curious about how it ought to appear in actual Play?   (A) GM: you enter the village, some people are getting raped here, what do you do? ;  (B) GM: The bandit leader has defeated the circle and taken 3 of  you captive.  You get executed. You get tortured. and you, your character is a woman, so you get raped. (C) Player: Well we killed the bandit leader, Is his wife still alive? Okay I ra... (okay there's my veil).

Why should we do any of these things?  Why should the game text prompt us to think about playing out any of these scenes? By the way I admit I've seen all of the above happen in D&D games (without any encouragement from the text) I played in the 80s 90s and even recently. It always sucked.

(2) Dolls, Podes and Spider Hags.  These monsters are all about sex without consent. Podes ruffie their victims from afar; Spider hags will rape you if they can and murder you later by way of thanks. Dolls want to be raped. Having these monsters in the text opens up three novel vectors for bringing sexual violance into the game. That has to send a signal that this is more than just an incidental consequence of generic misery. It's a deliberate theme. Why?

(3) My final piece of evidence: myself.  Reading the game text I had a visceral response to the idea of my characters (as a player or GM)  encountering, experiencing and enacting rape. This is interesting but its disturbing to admit that I find it interesting. Can anyone honestly expect to add sexual violence to the shared imagined space  through narrative, dialog or even clinically detached dice rolling, without identifying with the action in some way?

Internet critics of the game will get lots of mileage out of all these things I'm sure, but I doubt you're overly concerned.  For me, however, there are real people I would like to play this game with who will find these elements highly suspect.  I want to be ready to explain what is going on here, and why it is actually a good thing. I want to be able to explain why this subject matter is another reason to play this game rather than something to be forgiven or over-looked in the interest of getting the other good stuff.

Nothing I've written above is meant to suggest an answer. I'm more interested in getting at---what are we really saying and doing when we choose to play a game like this?  Are we coolly and rationally analysing societal ills, injustice and the frailty/depravity of human nature, or are we fantasizing about it?  I think both, but suspect slightly more of the later.

Now that I said that I realize I do have an opinion of my own.  I think in the post lines & veils discussion I'm interested in having there are actual artistic models worth investigating for dealing with mature subject matter more maturely. I think the movies of Lars Von Trier, and the drama theory of Bertolt Brecht is a place to start. So are your writings in Sex & Sorc--- and Naked went---.

I think they suggest drawing and acknowledging lines; then crossing them. But we maybe should institute rituals to force a moment of intense self-criticism at the crossing.  Instead of doing it the HBO way: "the story demanded a rape"; or what I suggest is the Circle of Hand's way: "authentic human misery demands a rape",  I propose that when the scene arises, we the players take full responsibility and say "rape happened because we're interested in what it will do to our characters and how it will make us feel about them, no story arc, no setting made us do it, we chose it.  Now what?"

[Ron Edwards]

Much to discuss tomorrow, but for now in this limited moment of posting, one small pedantic point: spider hags do not rape, all sex with them is consensual.

[Jonas Ferry]

I don't think that the text objectifies rape. At least not any more than it objectifies torture and killing, and I think it handles those well.

I recently re-watched Conan the Barbarian (1982) as a way of getting inspiration for my running Whitehack OSR game. I was struck by the scene early in the film where Conan's village is attacked. Villagers are going by their business, and suddenly people on horseback charges in and starts killing people. We don't see a drawn out rape scene, and I don't remember if we see any women getting grabbed, suggesting it happens. But based on how ruthless the attackers are, if they've decided to kill people just because they can, why wouldn't they imprison, torture and rape them as well? Conan's mother is killed defending him, which I think is a powerful scene.

As a modern man I feel very secure in my everyday life. It's hard to imagine there being no laws protecting me, no social rules teaching people from childhood to not hit others, no Spider-Man proclaiming "with great power...". But when Conan's village is attacked; what can the villagers do about it? As much as the people in Circle of Hands, I guess. You might get protection from your local baron, not because he wants to protect you personally or because the law says he's supposed to, but because he's fighting this other baron. Your village chief will probably protect you for more personal reasons, but what if the chief and his family are the first ones killed? What if the baron is killed? Who will protect you, or even avenge you (not that revenge would bring anything good)?

I was disturbed by rape in the text, but I was also disturbed by the description of the pole, and by the rules and descriptions for killing someone with your bare hands. After reading the text I briefly "fantasized", in the sense of picturing both being the perpetrator and the victim (and I like how the text changes from "opponent" to "victim" when killing someone with your hands) of these acts, and was appropriately horrified. Rape, torture, and killing is supposed to be disturbing, right? In film, both Conan (killing) and I Spit on Your Grave (rape) starts with abuse that horrifies the viewer, and continues with revenge that satisfies the viewer. In real life, the second part is highly unlikely. When we create our own stories, for example by playing RPGs, we can decide it's possible to get revenge or if your character just have to learn to live with it. The game text handles this well, suggesting that revenge may be had, but not for everyone and not always.

So in a thread about rape, why am I talking about torture and killing? Because I think all three of them are examples of one or more persons abusing the power they hold over another person. I've been taught that rape isn't about sex, it's about power. It's scary to think about situations where another person isn't reasonable or nice to you, but instead uses their power to abuse you in the worst ways.

If there's one thing missing in the text I think it's a discussion or at least mention of male rape. If you read the article on war rape in Wikipedia it says:

According to a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2010, 30% of women and 22% of men from the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo reported that they had been subject to conflict-related sexual violence. Similarly, a 2009 study by Lara Stemple noted that sexual torture and rape were experienced by 76% of male political prisoners in El Salvador during the Salvadoran Civil War, as well as by 80% of male concentration camp inmates in Sarajevo during the Bosnian War. Despite the popular perception that rape during conflict is primarily targeted against women, these figures show that sexual violence committed against men is not a marginal occurrence.

Circle of Hands says:

The gentry fight one another, and if you lose, you can expect to be hung from your feet and eviscerated, so you can look at your guts while you die. Or if male, castrated and kept naked on a leash in your enemy's hall; if female, given no food and raped daily until you starve.

That's my concern; not the rape itself, but that it's presented as something only directed at women. Men are sexually abused in a sense by being castrated, but the term "rape" is reserved for women. I was thinking a similar thing when I read that pode addicts want to mate with a female pode; will a female addict also want to mate with a female? I think so, but my first image was definitely a male addict mating with a female pode.

In a convention scenario for a fantasy RPG a couple of years back players chose from prepared PCs. There were a bunch of male PCs and one female PC. They all had texts stating their reasons for adventuring, so the men wanted adventure, gold, or whatever, while the single female PC had been raped and wanted to hurt the world back. That's how you both trivialize rape and mess up your gender descriptions at the same time.

[Callan S.]

What do people who have been raped call themselves, if anything in particular, afterward (keeping in mind there may be many different responces from the various individuals)? Instead of trying to encompass them with a term, why not defer to them? You could even have a blank in the game text as well - the group figures it, perhaps?

[Ron Edwards]

Quibbles

The spider-hag who tries to kill a person isn't the former lover, but the former lover's mated partner. The dysfunction concerns zipless-fuck/jealousy cognitive dissonance.

The doll isn't about rape, although I think it's also nasty and disturbing. It's about sex with a partner whose willingness is indistinguishable from lack of volition - a subtler issue. The pode is entirely about predation; it commits no sexual act with the addict.

I don't think rape is presented as incidental to the misery, nor as a mere "necessary" example. I agree the latter is ass: "oh gee, I haaaad to put it in ..." Instead, I think It's presented as a top-level example of horror, on a par with execution by torture. Nor would I describe its initial mentions in Chapter 2 as "casual."

In that context, then yes, of course it's there as a dare. All of my game designs are dares in some way, in offering risk. But "dare" doesn't have to mean gratuitous, meaningless, or trivial. My hope is that they are productve, meaningful dares. In other media, when such content is successful that way, it's called good.

I'm OK with questioning whether the work is good, but not with questioning whether it should pose dares and risks of this kind.

Acknowledgments

Male and female humans are affected equally by the drug, but it's true that the source of the drug and the target of the addict's bizarre lust are gendered.

Men are certainly the targets of rape just as cited. The question is when to bring that into the text. I'm pretty sure you all see the structure of the text as a whole: first, the bulleted data-dump; then, the once-over setting in Chapter 2; and thereafter, per chapter, refining setting elements in terms of further detail, full nuances, and rules and procedures. Therefore what's needed is not more detail in either the bullets or in Chapter 2, but in Chapter 4. More on the breadth of rape is due there, although I hope it's clear that a pages-long treatise on the matter isn't what this book is for.

I talked about survivor/victim above, and that's a good call to spot the same language regarding being beaten to death. That was deliberate.

Callan, all of the dialogue so far is based on counseling and leadership by people who've suffered rape. I am also drawing on my experiences with exactly these people, as well as those who've suffered domestic abuse.

The term "survivor," as I encountered it in the early 90s, was not merely a label-replacement made up by people external to the issue, but rather a status or mind-set which acknowledges the experience as an assault, rather than mistaking it for sex, suppressing it, or making up excuses for it, and not being ruled by fear because of it. For those who are interested, I am rather opposed to the idea that "survivor" become a term for "anyone who's been raped," because it seems to me to place absurd, possibly damaging expectations on a person who may not be in this mind-set and needs help.

The point

Obligatory credit note: I coined the terms Lines and Veils at the Forge ~ 2001-2002, in case anyone didn't know, and codified them in my book Sex & Sorcery. A point that's sometimes missed about Lines is that I'm talking about the real ones, not a pre-game contract or a "safe space" indicator, much of which I find to fall well inside the real Lines. The art to playing with Lines is not to stay within pre-agreed ones (well, I can see that in some cases, OK), but mainly to recognize when you've hit one in play and know what to do, i.e., say so and play accordingly. I've found that these, the real Lines, are often surprisingly out-there.

Joshua, I really like your final paragraph. That's what I'm aiming for, and I don't mind making it as overt as possible in the text.

Are you familiar with Meg Baker's distinction between "I Will Not Abandon You" and "No One Gets Hurt?" They are extremely different Social Contract frameworks for how we deal with Lines.

Are RPGs different?

Joshua, I note that no one on this earth has questioned the presence of rape in The Seven Samurai to the extent that you're questioning its presence in the game. The rules of the game do not mandate that rape be included in the action of play, just as the act is never shown on-screen in the film. (Note that I am only barely considering explicit portrayal as I think it's not the issue; I want to stay focused on inclusion as plot instead.)

My point is that without rape as a concrete plot element in the back-story and as a current threat, half of the plot falls apart. It's a primary, in-your-face issue. So: is it necessary to go into the depth of reflection you're talking about in order to watch this film? Is it necessary to ritualize one's viewing of the film as a special, problematic type of viewing? Is it necessary to have designated focus group discussions afterwards?

I do not ask these rhetorically. Perhaps the answer is "yes," for all I know. I am saying that historically, the answer is "no." The film exists and seems to have been viewed, all these years, in the presumption that people can watch it and get it, the rape content as well as any other of its emotionally-challenging elements, without these things.

Film as a medium, and more recently cable TV, are full of rape. I definitely think that a lot of it is totally objectified in fantasy-form, and also that a lot of it which pretends not to do that has gone way too far in the sneakier "oh this is terrible so I must relish it" direction.

Are RPGs supposed to be better than that, as such? This is a different question from whether I'd like something I wrote to be better than that (I would). I'm asking if there is a reason why RPGs as a medium should be held to a standard above that of film/TV, in terms of inclusion of the topic, and in full potential to mess it up in a number of ways, as well as possibly to succeed.

(edited to fix a name! sorry about that - RE)

[bankuei]

I'm asking if there is a reason why RPGs as a medium should be held to a standard above that of film/TV, in terms of inclusion of the topic, and in full potential to mess it up in a number of ways, as well as possibly to succeed.

Well, the simple reason is that when mass media fucks up or makes you angry/sad/terrible you can simply stop engaging with it, turn the channel, put down the book, walk away and deal with whatever emotions you have on your own.

When you have shitty emotions about something at the table because terrible crap is coming up, you are having to realize people are coming to the table to have fun, and this is coming up specifically because people who they are assuming are in a friendly space, someone here, or several someone's, are specifically making this happen. The social relationships and negotiation that have to be dealt with are a lot more fraught.

If, as a game designer, you're saying "you should put this in your game because it'll be more fun (emotionally powerful, moving)" then the other part of that is to give some kind of guidance as to HOW to negotiate including it as fun vs. how it can simply make things terrible.

Funny enough, this is why we see the whole idea of "trigger warnings" coming out of the world of fan fiction - much like RPGs you have people who are wanting to include serious topics, but in a situation that has heavy social stakes among friends - negotiating how/where intense topics will be dealt with allows people to decide when/how/if they want to engage with them at all, and in which ways.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Chris,

I don't think that answers my question, or maybe it does ... I can read it as "no" (to the question of whether RPGs should be expect to bar or exclude this content) + "and if present, it's imperative to do it right." I agree fully with everything you said. Should the presentation of a social procedural activity address the issue rather than merely "have it in there?" Absolutely!

To everyone who's said "This text needs Lines and Veils talk," I completely agree. This thread is currently the primary source for me working out how.

Best, Ron

[Callan S.]

For those who are interested, I am rather opposed to the idea that "survivor" become a term for "anyone who's been raped," because it seems to me to place absurd, possibly damaging expectations on a person who may not be in this mind-set and needs help.

Difficult ground it seems like in making a reference, if any, even when some of those affected have adopted that term.

My point is that without rape as a concrete plot element in the back-story and as a current threat, half of the plot falls apart.

I would think it's that half of the activities examination of real life problematic issues has fallen apart. The integrity of the plot/the integrity of the movie really doesn't matter in itself. It probably sounds pedantic to say it, but I think with anyone who'd actually argue about having rape in a medium, they wont care about the integrity of plot. And on that matter I think they have a point. Okay, pedantism over...

[bankuei]

Hi Ron,

You asked if RPGs should be held to a higher standard than mass media - my answer is yes, because there are social stakes involved in RPGs that are not present in consuming mass media.  That higher standard is including advice/rules/procedures on how to use and deal with the material without it being a crappy experience or requiring struggle between participants to simply be heard.

Chris

[glandis]

I'd say the RPG-specific issue here is the issue of author vs. reader, of creator vs. audience.  A personal, possibly relevant, genre-appropriate experience that comes to mind was reading a horrifying scene in Mary Gentle's Ash: A Secret History, in which the (then) prepubescent protagonist is so accustomed to rape that she tells one rapist it's OK to rape her in front rather than in back, as she can't get pregnant. This was (unsurprisingly) very uncomfortable and yet (perhaps surprisingly) incredibly effective to read - it set me on notice that my attitudes and reactions to sexual violence were not those of the characters. I've no idea if I could ever have imagined that kind of detail as a creator myself, but if I had ... my discomfort would have been magnified immensely, and then immensely again if I were creating it in person, in front of friends, right now.

That's one angle - with an RPG (or at least this kind of one), not only am I engaging in the environment, conduct and consequences of sexual violence, I'd be inventing, creating and developing it. If we're comparing you-as-game-author and Kurosawa/team-as-film-makers: no difference (smile - you know what I mean). Watching a film vs. playing Circle of Hands, though: some difference. Not total (gotta acknowledge non-extreme reader-response, I guess), but some.

Frankly, it's going to take a lot of incentive (in terms of understanding how the depth of play will be rewarded by this activity) and assistance (in terms of how to invent/create/develop with anything approaching understanding and respect) to get me comfortable with more than a rare "yeah, rape happens" reminder in play.

Circle of Hands-specific ... there's an extra layer, too, of dealing with rape not just as a crime, but as, um, societal norm. Engaging with an environment and characters accustomed to rape (that sounds better than "norm": "accustomed to rape") is an extra hurdle. Actually, I'm realizing it's quite a significant hurdle for me personally. I have dealt (with help from wiser friends) with clear, flat-out criminal sexual violence directly involving only NPCs in play, with results that seemed to include mature and nuanced insight into the impact. That was a difficult and scary session, though. Trying to do so ongoingly in Circle of Hands, without the "comfort" that society-as-a-whole condemns (to at least some degree) the behavior, is even more intimidating to contemplate.

As others have said, none of this is meant to say "don't do it" or "it's hopeless." A "lot" of incentive/assistance is a level that can exist (even just by shifting personal perspective rather than significant rules/text, maybe). Intimidating doesn't mean inconceivable. I'm just hoping to add useful perspective on aspects of the problems.

Hell, Ron, I'm torn - the easy advice is to find ways to make, uh, dialing-down this aspect an option. That seems a good, widely-appealing (though perhaps tricky to pull off) solution. But then again, I see real passion from you on including it appropriately. That's compelling. A sincere "good luck" however you decide to go about managing this!