What's the morality on, for lack of a better term, caveman rape? In the sense that...

Than that player is fucking stupid. If she's already hostile, than expect that after their little "Honeymoon", He wakes up to find her trying to slit his throat while he sleeps. Besides, thats not how you approach this situation at ALL. By doing this, your not only making it harder for the both of you to survive, but making it so that he has to support two people with the work of one, all the while trying to subdue and keep the other person from running away.

The logical course of action is to suggest the idea of the two working together, and letting nature take its course from there. Unless the player is a fucking mongoloid, he should understand that cooperation is better than doing pic related

That makes sense right, and that's what I suggested, that they try to cooperate and then something comes of it.

The problem is that the player came to that line of logic, sort of by an accident by the DM, where after a few days of surviving he asked how the NPC felt towards him. The DM didn't realize he had the possible relationship in mind, and so answered that she remains hostile to him because of the ongoing conflict as per the plot, as well as that she felt superior to him because of their background differences, and that her feelins on the matter weren't going to change. The only reason she hadn't run away yet or tried to attack him was because he was keeping them both alive.

So after that point and infomration, is where the player started off down the line of logic that was explained here

>sleep
>tie up the other person
>the place is full of hostile wildlife
Hostile wildlife kills them both, then. Or it would if your people are at a level where anything makes sense. Otherwise, it just kills the girl. Really there's no way raping your only possible second night watch ends well if the world poses a valid threat.

Well he's made a little camp for them which gets better protected by the day. They got attacked by a leopard (since I think the DM was trying to evoke Tarzan, which their situation is admittedly similar to) initially, but now it's getting to a point where unless a monster happens upon them, they should be generally safe, even sleeping, if they remain in the camp, probably soon to be fort.

I mean nothing is certain of course, and the DM could try to pull something, but so far he's made a little safe haven for them. Going outside though, yeah it's a shit show.

Your player has a rape fetish and is probably a shitty person. Dictating what another person's "best interests" are to the extent that you rape and hold someone in captivity is literally rape dungeon tier, and at the same level of delusion.

What worries me is that other people in the group agreed with him and his actions, roughly half the group split down the middle. One of the girl players included.

If safety is that easily obtained, your scenario doesn't really justify anything. I mean it didn't to begin with, but it extra doesn't now. Without a safe fort, the girl might stick around for fear of the wilderness. With it, killing the dude and taking his fort is the most appealing option. Dude ties her up at night, so her best bet now would probably be to feign cooperation and poison him or close him out at the gate and drop a rock on him or something. All depending on particulars.

Basically, creating hostility between the only other human being you have access to and forcing them into proximity with you is a recipe for bad things to happen. It will probably end with one or both of you dead, and can plausibly end up with you having to keep an eye on her or rope around her all the damn time. Don't know how the latter could ever really be perceived as a "fair trade" by her.

Well he's not really creating hostilty since they already hate each other. I guess the normal tradeoff if they cooperated would be his survival skills and protection in exchange for her companionship, but in this case since they hate each other he's not interested in a fair tradeoff.

As for the safey situation, protection from the environment I don't think is the same as being provided for. She can kill him and still be relatively safe, but eventually she'll run out of food and such. Also even if he makes the place even more fortified and makes it sustainable with like a garden inside and some captured animals, at any point a monster can happen upon them and even working together they could be screwed. Alone she'd definitely be dead since he's actually combat capable.

Or I just realized that should be rephrased, he'd be creating hostility if he does what he wants to, but adding to hostility that already exists and doesn't look to be settled. Something along the lines of, if the rift can't be repaired, then why even play nice at all?

At least I'm guessing to that end, I personally think they should just try to make a boat and go elsewhere.

Than in this scenario, I'd just be subservient to her in this situation. There are many, many examples of men bending their own beliefs to suit those of their spouse or wanted spouse. I mean, it also depends on what kind of background she comes from. A bit more elaboration?

She's a noble dignitary while he's basically a commoner, so she has a superiority/arrogance complex. Because of the backgrounds though her skills are that befitting a dignitary while he has combat under his belt as well as suvival and hard manual labor.

DM did suggest that things would go easier (though not a relationship) if he acted subservient to her and basically treated her as Queen of the Fort. His problem is she executed his best friend, so he personally isn't really interested in just letting that go. Or at least his character isn't. Normally he would have just killed her in revenge, but as explained, their current situation isn't normal anymore since his own survival is at stake.

Don't know your game, but getting raped daily hostility vs. ordinary hostility are totally different games. You don't try to kill an annoying coworker. You'd probably try to kill a guy that tied you up every night and fuck you in the ass.

For a tropical setting, food gathering really shouldn't be that much more difficult for a solitary female than for a male depending on the crops. Manioc prep is pretty labor intensive, but it's done by women almost exclusively. Plantains or bananas ripen sporadically throughout their season, so they should be available pretty much continually. Root crops stay good to eat in the ground for a while. Optimal foraging strategy will force them to move periodically as they deplete local stuff, but somebody getting raped nightly probably doesn't think quite that far ahead. Moreover the more immediate danger of not knowing which plants are edible or how to tell when they're ripe should almost certainly apply equally to both of them.

>His problem is she executed his best friend, so he personally isn't really interested in just letting that go
This is probably the actual thing making a surprising amount of your party go for this, FYI. I don't really imagine they think rape dungeon shit is okay (could be wrong), but it's possible they just hate this NPC more than you realize.

How is there even an argument at that point? That's evil, period. They were both born into a society that, most likely, looks down on kidnap and rape, just because he's stranded doesn't change what's right and wrong. He should expect his character to die in their sleep when the npc bashes his skull in with a fucking rock.

Clubbing or not force would have to be involved

Still absolutely wrong of him, but I'm curious; what did the friend do to get executed?

>One of the girl players included

This girl read a lot of romance novels?

>You'd probably try to kill a guy that tied you up every night and fuck you in the ass.

The main difference though and the reason for all of this, is if she kills him, she's effectively killing herself.

As for the sustenance you said, those are all logically viable but the problem is she has literally no skills, training or experience with survival. The guy meanwhile is a descent survivalist and at least has some familiarity with jungle back home where they came from, though much more tame jungle. Again, it's not impossible that she could get by on her own, but she would have to learn everything from scratch, while under threat of running afoul of a dangerous animal or plant if she leaves the camp. If the PC is having a tough time of it, the DM said even just mechanically in terms of stats, she would pretty much certainly die from not being able to provide for herself.

That could very well be their actual reasoning, but a lot of the arguing was how "caveman rape" could be justified. Aside of that though not everyone hates her.

I agree that's the reasonable course of action, but again, he'd restrain her if his safety is a risk, and as well her killing him is tantamount to signing her death warrant.

Not like any of us would care, since if he dies, whatever happens to her doesn't matter since she wouldn't be afforded game time anymore being an NPC. But it's what's within her character's logic to do or not to do.

Definitely but in this situation the stronger man or woman shouldn't have a problem overpowering the weaker woman or man, without actually harming them.

His friend and him were conscripted to fight, and they fled in battle from what could be argued to be a suicide attack. His friend was made an example of by her.

No clue. She just said in a situation like this, the weaker person should be thinking of more than just themself, so in this case it might suck to be provided for and protected at the cost of rape, but they should be thinking of themselves as a tribe unit at that point, them versus the environment. All hinging of course on if there aren't other people or civilization around.

You're playing with a group of retards, op. No matter how fucked she is on her own there's only so much you can break a human before they act completely contrary to their self-interest just to make it stop. Hell, with how sheltered the woman may be she could just come to that point in a relatively short time. The PC is dead, he just doesn't know it yet.

How the fuck is creating more mouths to feed in a survival scenario the smartest fucking course of action? How is taking your only help out of commission for any length of time in a survival scenario the smartest fucking course of action? How is engendering hostility in the only help you have in a survival scenario the smartest fucking course of action?

He's a fucking idiot who is desperately making up excuses to live out his rape/slavery fantasies through your game. Sever.

Tell me how games aren't entrenched in a toxic rape culture again and how it's safe for women? No really, I can wait.

To be perfectly honest, the less competent she is the more likely she is to shoot herself in the foot for the sake of short term goals. A noble is exactly the sort of person who overestimates their qualifications in the face of adversity, and peoples' responses to trauma aren't always rational to begin with.

Anyway, "caveman rape" in the abstract is mostly the projection of contemporary values onto primitive people. IRL women get the staples while men hunt megafauna more to get laid than to provide for anyone, and abusive relationships at that level usually end in death or abandonment. Most of the time, anyway. It's not that rape doesn't happen often. It does. Just not the way you and your group are thinking about it.

So then if they must use force to bring their captive in, and keep the captive bound whenever they are vulnerable, where is the possibility for this to be "justified"? It's literally capturing a human being so you have someone to talk at sometimes and a hole to rape.

Pretty much one of the most morally reprehensible things I could ever think of, especially coming from a person who grew up in civilization.

Essentially, your player thinks that because he's got a problem with someone who is a woman, raping her is a good way of getting even, and the only reason why he doesn't do it is because society thinks its wrong. Don't tell me this is an IC thing; he's fucked up.

Than in this scenario, just tell him that his best choice of action is simply ensure their continued survival until they can leave to somewhere safer. Raping her now is only gonna make things a million times worse, and honestly, it makes more sense for him to just kill her. Makes it easier to feed yourself, and you eliminate the threat of her backstabbing you later on. But, if I were in his shoes, I'd probably do my best to try and get her to warm up to me. Maybe for romance, definetly for our continued survival. I'd also try my best to teach her /how/ to survive. Besides, I'll be honest; Is she Ugly? Because if not, I'd be more than willing than put aside my friends death in order to get some tail. He'd understand.

OP, I am someone who always gives people the benefit of the doubt that sexual things in games aren't just that plauer trying to live out their fetish, but has it right

I mean I already know they're a group of retards, I didn't need this to tell me that. I was just trying to find a way to either soundly justify or refute the situation.

I think he's thinking more long term. If he's looking to use her to make kids, things will be harder before they get easier. But eventually kids means more help, more distribution of duty, stuff like that. He basically said his character didn't want to end up 50 years old, still stuck in this shitty jungle, still stuck in the same camp, still stuck with someone he hates, and as an old man still having to pull the weight and provide for and keep them both alive. Since they could at any time be attacked by a monster and both die anyway and he'd have no control over that, he's willing to endure more hardship in a way that he does have control over, which is being able to provide for more than just the two of them.

But yeah, I can totally tell them to stow the stupid situation. Only small problem being that I figured the focus would shift since the guy can't expect to have the DM devote much game time to just him, but some of the players expressed a little interest in changing focus to him since they like the situation (not the possible forced spouse and rape, but the stranded in a strange new land and having to survive) and have considered making new native characters. Like some native kobolds or goblins or something who discover and come to revere the two humans as gods.

>No clue. She just said in a situation like this, the weaker person should be thinking of more than just themself, so in this case it might suck to be provided for and protected at the cost of rape, but they should be thinking of themselves as a tribe unit at that point, them versus the environment.

You know what tribes didn't do on a general basis? Wantonly engender hostility within the tribe you dumb cunt! How the hell are you supposed to effectively fight the environment when the enemy is in your home?!

God, I want to slap her. I want to slap half your group.

Also, dude mentioned decedents? He definitely plans on fucking his daughters, or having his sons rape her too.

If one individual is making another individual unhappy for largely non-utilitarian reasons, then yes I'd say it's evil/bad.

Remember the golden rule and things like this sort themselves out pretty quickly.

I think you are ignoring a couple key ideas here.

1. Firstly, groups or individuals supported by groups would either attack or or sneak in and kidnap the women.
2. This attack or kidnapping in of itself would show the woman that this group is in many way superior and its men are superior - consider the many societies that exist even today where this a common accepted practice.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
3. As a result of this, women without children would likely accept the arrangement as is, as it means greater safety and protosocial status.
4. If we assume the woman is alone, she likely would willingly seek our or at least be receptive to any group that come upon them.
5. At no point during this is rape really even necessary, as less resistance has been selected for, meaning females who fought to vigorously likely died.
6. The kind of flexibility I am describing is born out in many culture and is meant to ensure that women and their subsequent children, are healthiest and most secure.
nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/08/22/scientists-say-women-are-genetically-programmed-to-have-affairs-its-like-mate-insurance/

She's extracting wealth from the guy while giving nothing in return, except open hostility. That's worse than parisitism, which is evil.

That's why you teach her to survive, so she can help you live.

And come on! After 50 years alone with her he's not going to hate her anymore. Human aren't wired like that.

How can you say she's extracting anything when literally all of it is against her will?

>A society like you're referring to hasn't developed morals and are thus basically animals. There is no law besides might making right.
The Romans were one of the most psychotically brutal, violent civilizations that there ever was. Part of their nation's founding myth was that the king's son raped a noblewoman (Lucretia) and that lead directly to the end of the Roman Kingdom and the birth of the Republic.

The ancient Israelites were, similarly, insanely, brutally violent and cruel; there's many cases in the Old Testament where mass slaughter (and implicit mass rape) is directly endorsed by God. In Genesis 34, two young men kill every single man in an entire city to avenge their sister's rape.

Ancient societies found rape abhorrent, like we do. They allowed it only insofar as it was either hidden and plausibly denied, or done to outsiders and foreigners and enemies (much like they allowed all other crimes to be done against The Other).

Good point, it's entirely within reason that she could go off the rails from her arrogance. She's basically like a female Governor Radcliffe from Pocohontas anyway, in the situation the game is in, by the plot at least.

I think they're justifiying it in this case because of the nature of the environment. It's not that they're just two people in the wild, but that they're actually potential settlers in this case. By this logic they're arguing that he's acting within reason if he's thinking of, and acting towards the bigger picture which is settling and taming this new land for other humans in the future to follow in their footsteps. A one player makes the case that the NPC should keep her loyalties and home in mind, and that she could do some good acting as a spouse even if it's forced, rather than just dying without accomplishing anything.

Why does he not just build a cage or a pit or something and throw her down there until she comes around? I mean she's obviously hostile towards him, and a threat. Why is he a fucking retard taking care of the needs of his enemy while she acts like a complete cunt towards him, while living in his place and most likely eating his food?

She's extracting the resources of safety and sustenance from him without giving anything in return. He's not forcing her to stay in the fort and eat and drink to stay alive, and he's not yet forcing her to have sex and reproduce.

Know what tribes did nigger?

Took female prisoners in raids.

Pretty much what she is right now, hell I'm not even defending the guy but if you're going to try and whitewash history removing all the half-consensual sex that happened in it and go 'Well obviously a man acting like that is just a frothing deviant, not someone demanding the bitch give him something in return for his resources when by all rights he should end her'
Then you retarded son.

Still an evil act mind you, but that's life.

Environment doesn't dictate morality and the character should expect a nice warm spot in whatever eternal damnation awaits in your setting after the NPC kills the shit out of him. And this "settling a new land" thing is complete bs, two people cannot repopulate a deserted land, there's not enough genetic diversity to keep their progeny from turning up infeasible only a few generations down the line, they and their potential offspring are doomed if they don't get back home. Likewise the woman should be concerned with serving her family, not just some rando in the middle of nowhere because he's the only one who can pump a baby into her for a thousand miles or whatever.

That's fucking exactly what he's doing you retard. Did you read literally none of the thread?

I think if he wanted to get even, he'd just kill her. He already said as much. He's not saying he wants to force her to be a spouse to get back at her, but he doesn't want to slave away for someone he hates without a reason to do so. If she were his spouse, even forced, even if they hated one another, he'd still have a reason to keep her alive and safe.

That was a point another player brought up and what I agreed with, to just stay the course and hope she'll eventually change and warm up to him. Setting aside though that the DM suggested a relationship probably wouldn't ever work just because of her status and personal feeling on the matter, the player himself said if it were any other person he would be content to work at things and maybe have the hostility fade (assuming they actually survived more than a few months), but he doesn't feel his character would be at all interested in playing nice and dealing with her like that, and enduring the ongoing hostility of the person responsible for killing his friend, all under the faint hope that maybe one day in the distant future she might feel it's ok to not talk to him like dirt, but even then still no possibility of a relationship.

They are from the same tribe in this situation. He didn't have to run off and take her, they were already together when they got here. It's them versus the world.

He's not done that yet, he's thinking of doing it. So far he's only kept them alive and safe.

See, those excuses are all bullshit because he could very well just kill her and be done with it were that the case.

Yeah, he want to keep alive his fucktoy.

He's dead meat, or she will be.

Then the golden rule still applies. She needs to pull her weight or she's in the wrong.

And no, being his fuckdoll/breeding bitch is not what I mean by pulling her weight. There's plenty of low energy but relatively high importance jobs she can do. Weaving, low intensity gathering, building structures. That sort of shit.

He keeps using the word spouse. Tell him to be honest and use rape slave.

Oh so he thinks rape is a good way of getting compensated for something he does for a woman, and still only doesn't do it because of society. Still fucked.

He took her as his captive by force.

She's not in the wrong if he doesn't allow her to do those jobs for fear of her turning on him, as op has made it sound is the case.

In the end the literal only two sensible things to do in the character's situation is get over his friend's death and cooperate with her for both of their benefit or kill her for revenge. This wishy washy "muh grey morality" shit only serves to out the faggot as a rape fetishist.

From what I got, her stance was that in the situation of them vs. the environment, he was in the right to force her to be a spouse and bear children if that was really her only valuable ability in their immediate situation. Basically since he was the one keeping them alive, he was of the authority to decide what was best for them, and in the NPCs case she should accept or at least not try to kill him for doing it, because the moment they wound up where they are it became "Us vs. Them" rather than "Me vs. Him". It wasn't the guy's choice to make things that way, it was the environment that did, so she should turn her hatred or anger to the environment rather than the guy.

That makes sense normally but there's already a standing enmity between them. Also she's got the standard noble/pesant complex. The situation for her at least, from what I guessed is that she believes rescue will be coming soon when the guy knows it won't be, and it actually won't be.

Took her by force in this case so far, just means took her to a camp. Beyond that it doesn't look like he's forced her to do anything at all and is keeping her safe and fed just because he's not a dick enough to shove her out to get eaten by a panther or to starve.

Have you ever actually tried subduing someone without harming them? It's a lot easier said. There's a reason police and psych nurses and the like need a lot of special training for this, and still manage to fuck it up.

Than there's really nothing to be done in this case. Whether he rapes her or not, they're both gonna die. So why even fucking bother? Its just a petty act of revenge, that'll only escelate both of their deaths. But it doesnt really matter, since apperantly, since they'll both die anyways.

So in this situation, his options are really fucking limited. He either:
A) Doesnt rape her, and they spend the rest of their short, miserable lives bickering and fighting until they die from some awful beast
B) He rapes her and ties her up; Now forced to feed both himself and her, and keep her restrained, the overhaul of work either leads to him slipping up and she escaping/killing him, or him dying while hunting and she starving to death.
C) He just kills her, leaving him alone, but with only one mouth to feed, and the crippling depression of lonelyness.
D) She kisses up to her, getting to some what of a relationship, or at least a measure of trust.

I mean, what the fuck is he gonna do? Apperantly this jungle fucking hates him, this bitch hates him, and he hates her.

My advice to the guy? Just get it over with and kill her. Because apperantly the guy in this situation is some kind of psychopath who doesnt understand how people react.

From what you've said, no positive relationship can be formed, so there is NO reason to keep her around. Currently, a she is both a threat and a burden. Just kick her out and let the jungle deal with her, if he hates her that much.

I mean, who even is this guy? A soldier?

It sure seems like it's the guy's choice to make it "him vs her" with the "I'll either rape or kill her" shtick.

What a group you have. I'm glad it's not mine.

He's not in the right in any kind of way. He took a woman prisoner, and treat her "well" for the time being, and plan on making her his fuck toy because he keep her alive.
He doesn't ask her opinions, he doesn't care about the suffering he's causing.

You don't magically become a united group with a single "Us vs Them" mindset because you're alone on a fucking island.

Okay, but that's still fucking stupid reasoning. He captured her and forced her not to do anything because he was afraid of her turning on him or leaving. She hasn't done nothing because of choice.

No, he's keeping her because he wants to rape her. The player has already stated his intention, you can't honestly think he just jumped to that at the very end and it wasn't something he'd been considering from the start.

I definitely agree, but he says he doesn't want to wait like 10 years for her to possibly warm up to him. Especially not when they could be dead tomorrow anyway.

Also as per this thread, if he cares about his own safety, it's probably a bad idea to teach her how to survive on her own, at least for a good long while. Otherwise then he really does have no use to her, if he built their protection and then taught her to survive on her own. Well, except for possible monster attack, but again she might not be thinking that far ahead.

I guess because he's looking at her as the value of her body, rather than as a person? Though keeping her alive in captivity is a pretty good point I think, like shoving her in a pit. It would probably make her come around a lot faster at least, and still treats her horrible, but without personally doing her harm or like, raping her. Pretty much just shoving her in time out until she stops acting like a bitch. Though, that doesn't change her stance of a relationship.

I'll probably suggest that idea then, if they're serious about continuing with his situation.

I can't imagine anyone I wouldn't hate after 50 years alone with them.

OP, in your next conversation about this exclusively use the term rape slave instead of the clean terms he wants you to use for this incredibly fucked up thing he's contemplating.

>doesn't want to spend 10 years
if I were running and the group wanted to be natives on the island, I'd probably either timeskip and let them be a bickering married couple already or actually play out the paranoia and backstabbing. The "PC abuses woman, suffers no consequences or even interesting complications" scenario probably wouldn't be as fun in practice as you're imagining.

A man and a woman who hate each other being thrown together and forced to trust and work together to survive until they fall for each other is , a classic fantasy adventure scenario, and a core element of it is the hero chivalrously refusing to rape her after though probably after some posturing about how the tables have turned and now she is his captive. Your player has failed at the simplest possible test of character and is begging for this woman to pretend to fall for him and then cut off his balls as soon as it's expedient.

People don't warm up to you because you're the only people on an island. There is other factos at play.

Besides, I think you underestimate what people can do when they're confronted to heavy trauma, like being alone on an island with your rapist jailer.
She's gonna break hard and fast, and she's not gonna "plan ahead" or be all like "okay I sell you my body for safety ;)" or some shit
She might try to kill him, she might become an empty shell and let herself die, she might become completely crazy and talk to people. Anything.

It's not gonna end well.

So does a prehistoric man who did more or less the same thing, went out and grabbed a woman he came across in the wild and forced her to be his wife, go to hell for it?

Also the settling thing, it's not like they're trying to populate the entire new continent with just the two of them, just that they can't expect rescue for several decades. So maybe they might not be rescued, but their grandkids might. And until that time they'd be taken care of in their later years by their children.

But certainly not like the guy is intending to be the Adam to her Eve and reproduce humanity themselves onto this new land.

Of course, but in this situation he's not looking at things the same anymore. He wants to kill her and hates her the person, but even if she is currently useless for survival purposes, her body itself still has worth. I mean even if he wanted to be just a horrible evil asshole, she has value as a sex slave, but as evil as he might be he actually wants to get a family from her.

If you're been alone with someone else for a long time, even if you hate the fucker, you're going to need them on some level.

Hell, Tom Hanks basically fell in love with a volley ball.

The prehistoric man has no frame of references. It's not wrong for him simply because it's natural for him and moral doesn't exist.

You have a man who very well know about right and wrong who decide to make a woman prisonner and rape her every day. Yeah, he's fucking going to hell.

>but as evil as he might be he actually wants to get a family from her.
So he's evil AND crazy.

lol that's a great idea, I probably will. Maybe will put him in his place.

>So maybe they might not be rescued, but their grandkids might
>but their grandkids might
>grandkids

Fuck.

Even in harsh environments, it seems that most hunter-gatherer societies spend a lot of their time relaxing, and find plenty of food, stopping because they don't need more rather than because they cannot find more. Rape is not particularly common.

Because of the fact that this generally means eating most of the resources in an area before moving on and letting the area replenish its resources, the bigger concern and moral question is that of infanticide and killing the elderly out of mercy because they cannot travel.

Sources: Anthropology graduate student.

More reliable source: Marshall Sahlins' "Stone Age Economics," and in particular the first chapter, "The Original Affluent Society."

you understand cast away was a movie, right? Please don't base real world knowledge on fiction.

>So he's evil AND crazy.

Yeah, that shit actually comes across creepier than if he just wanted a wet hole.

Castaway was a documentary and the events happened in real time.

Talking about d&d alignement for a second

Lawful Evil = You will be my sex slave every evening, and I will provide for you every day.
Neutral Evil = You will be my sex slave and I will keep you alive because it suits me.
Chaotic Evil = YOU ARE MY WIFE NOW

It's good to see one person here that knows their shit.

It's evil.

>moral doesn't exist.

No such thing m8.

>her body itself still has worth
I mean, we all probably thought this from the start, but it is becoming increasingly clear that you and "your friend" are really the same person, with the kind of mindset that sees a woman as nothing more than a body meant to be used for rape, so fuck off and fuck you

You got a situation where the girl has to either live a slave or choose to die.

Morality aside, I think the girl is likely to take her chances on this one.

> I think the girl is likely to take her chances on this one.

Depends on person.

Women are manipulative creatures who never forgets a slight and she will most likely accept to have his children, only to influence and brainwash them to kill him for her when they're old enough.

Why are you getting so mad?
user is obviously talking about fiction, so why are you projecting this fictional hypothetical onto his desires in reality?

Fuck, going by your logic you yourself are a psychotic murderhobo because you take part in fantasy that involved breaking and entering and murdering shit for it's loot.
So no, YOU fuck off and fuck YOU hypocrite. Rape isn't some kind of special crime that is super terribad and worse than any other moral atrocity that makes it exempt from being fantasized about.

Most people would rather live as a slave than die.
Source: All the slaves that ever existed, how many of them committed suicide or fought and even -risked- death for their freedom?

So you agree.

>Depends on person

Also with a splash of

>Depends on setting

Because you're or him are spending an awful lot of time trying to put this in a moral gray or even good area, rather than saying that it's an evil thing that my character does because they are evil, and I think it would fit, but I personally take no pleasure from this so can we just fade to black or describe it vaguely or something.

Because it's the exact same as a player killing a guy in combat and a player killing a guy with a very graphic description. It shows something about the person.

I don't know any sane people who would think, even in a game, "yeah, I'll totally rape her"

He's also not playing a completely crazy psycho for what the gm told us. So no prior justification "it's what my character would do!"

>"it's what my character would do!"

Obviously it is what his character would do! user clearly believe that rape is the natural form of life and it is an understandable and maybe even a reasonable response to the struggles of life.

Depends on the person/setting with a massive,massive bias towards choosing to live as a slave depending on how human the thing in question is.
>trying to put this in a moral gray or even good area
Because it's a fun thought experiment. It's common sense that we can rationalize every crime from theft, to murder, to torture. Yet we have yet to find an "excuse" to rape. The idea is interesting to explore if you would stop being triggered long enough to wonder why the former are seen as acceptable given certain criteria while rape isn't ( at least in our current culture ).
>I don't know any sane people who would think, even in a game, "yeah, I'll totally rape her"
Well shit I guess the vast majority of humans who ever lived weren't sane by your definition.
So does that mean for most of human history, humans were insane? Or are we the ones who aren't sane?

Breakthrough in anthropology, the vast majority of humans were rapists.