I would suggest that it's the DM handwaving death into capture. I've handwaved death into capture several times, but that's because I think party death is boring (it really does cause the game to grind to an immediate halt). However, when I do it, I don't have the PCs raped by their captors. I'll have them ransomed back to their families (or a wealthy patron). I'll have them stripped of gear and left for dead. I'll have them geased to carry out a mission for their captors. I'll turn the jailbreak into a mini adventure. In short, things that keep the characters alive but further the story of the characters.
I guess this has never really been an issue because I never really handwave away rules. I might handwave away scenes that don't need to be played out, but things that actually effect the state of the character like whether you are captured or not don't get handwaved. And to the extent that they did happen, I'd try to turn it into an opportunity for the story to continue
But I admit I'm a bit troubled by a hard and firm rule that captives never get raped, because rape is unfortunately a pretty likely result of capture - particularly for women - but for men as well in many cases. And while I have no desire to play out such a scenario, it feels a bit odd to overlook the possibility, and a great many stories - both fictional and taken from history - involve rape or the threat of it. The "Shawshank Redemption" is a completely different story without rape. Rape plays a critical role in "Lawrence of Arabia". The truth is, soldiers are often raped. The scene in Lawrence of Arabia is based among other things off the historical fact that the Turkish army was rather infamous for using sodomy as a tool of humiliation and control of its subjugated peoples, captives and enemies. Real historical warfare between ancient peoples regularly involves rape as a tool of warfare and genocide. That sort of thing is occurring to the present day. Now, as I said, I've never felt the need to explore any of this in an RPG meant for fun, and if I did, I'd try to handle it sensitively - by suggestion, with "fade to black" - and not graphically. But I'm a bit troubled by a hard and fast "no rape in your content rule", because I try to run games that work as more than just games and have - I'd like to think - some literary or philosophical heft to them at times.
On the other hand, I even more back such a rule for Conventions and Gaming Stores than I would a no harassment policy. There are some subjects that do not need to be raised in public society amongst strangers, and there ought to be a reasonable assumption that - for lack of a better term - gaming tables will adhere to a "PG-13" standard during Conventions. To my mind, that just should be a hard no violations rule, and certainly if I was running one I'd insist on, not merely because of my own sense of right and wrong - but it just seems a good way to avoid litigation and bad publicity.
I know that I personally fade to black for interrogation scenes: I've found that roleplaying interrogation scenes all too often turns into torture-porn.
I can see that. I don't think I've ever had a player that really that seemed infatuated with violence, but if I did, I'd avoid graphic depictions so as to not be a source of unhealthy thoughts for them. In the same way, if I knew I had a player who had for reasons of history, extra cause to be sensitive to the subject of rape, I'd handle it with extra sensitivity so as to not provoke unhealthy fear or agitation in them. And of course, if I had a new player I didn't know at all, everything would be handled with extra sensitivity until I got a feel for them. This seems to me like just basic manners and decency. I don't know much about the rules of "feminism" of the nth wave, but it seems to me that it ought to be enough to try to respect everyone in the room. So, as actually happened, if one of my players has a family member die IRL, and they say to me, "You know, right now, the plot line we've been having with my character's father just is too intense. I don't think I can handle it right now.", then of course I put the plot on hold until they are ready.
I literally can't imagine what a GM was thinking that was so insensitive to not pick up on your distress and change the scene. It is just appallingly rude. The whole scene you describe has to get pushed out into my, "Does not compute." mental space just to keep my famously Spock like circuits from frying. Every time I try to contemplate what you described in your horror story, it makes me go, "Who are these people?" What rock did you kick over to find such a group?
Sure. I don't know if you want to start a different thread or continue here
The only reason I'd go to a different thread is that I feel that the essayist doesn't start this conversation in a very good place, and its distracting from any actual learning taking place.
Men playing female characters can lead to some offensive stereotypes at the table (emphasis on "can." I am definitely not saying "will"). As one example, I recall one man (the step-brother of a friend who had joined us for a few game sessions) who played a female character at the same table as myself. He played her fairly normally, and then after a few in-game days the character started fighting with the rest of the party (mostly verbal, but at one point physically). When the DM, who was the male friend of mine, asked his step-brother what was up with the character's sudden personality change, the step-brother replied, "I'm acting in character! She's just on the rag." More than one facepalm ensued.
I'd like to say this was a humorous story of a player's immaturity and stupidity, but I suppose if you encounter that sort of stupidity often enough, like anything it stops being funny.
For example, as a personal matter, I cringe whenever a stranger observes "Your really smart" or some similar thing. I know the person isn't trying to be hideously insensitive and I know they don't know what they are saying, but to me they might as well called me an SOB. It still hurts. And they aren't even throwing a lens or frame on me that would normally be taken as negative or denigrating.
It's hard or impossible for me to tell how typical my experiences have been. I find that a certain percentage of players that play a member of the opposite sex play them rigorously asexual. I suspect a certain percentage of players playing members of the opposite sex are playing out their own romantic fantasy - that is, the sort of person they find attractive at some level. I know for a fact that both male and female players I've had engaged with NPC's as romantic or erotic objects of fantasy, something that can get awfully uncomfortable for a DM at times (this one especially maybe), even when it just is playing out at the level of romantic or flirtatious dialogue - however chaste or appropriate. I also have had a certain percentage of players of both sexes that upon 'inhabiting' the body of a PC of the opposite sex, fixate on what is most different about being a member of the opposite sex and immediately want to explore that space. I have had a fairly large number of PC's, male or female, abused by monsters that are often in literature or myth proxies for sexual horrors - evil fey, vampires, what not. I know for example at least one female player appeared to be fascinated by Strahd's attentions to her character, for example, handwaved though it was. But this sort of euphemism for rape is a bit more safe than the actual thing (I think? Maybe not? Maybe not for everyone?). I have had only one case of what we normally think of as rape occurring at my table, and it involved a female player using a male PC to rape the female PC of a female player. And oddly, they laughed all the way through the scene.
If there was anything I would want anyone to take away from this, it is that I'm far less confident making assertions about this than many people in the thread seem to be. And I am genuinely curious about how other people view this, if for no other reason that I try very hard to be a skillful GM. I don't really even know if this discussion itself has left the bounds of good taste, or if I'm being a bit to frank about a subject that needs a more private forum. If this is too much, let me know, as I don't even know how much consent I need to discuss this sort of issue. My problem with the idea of a set of "Harassment Rules" for gaming in public spaces, is not so much that I oppose the idea, but I think it likely to be both more problematic to enforce and more likely to go wrong, then a set of "Decency Rules" requiring play to adhere to something like the Comic Code or a "PG-13" or some sort of standard where inflammatory topics were just assumed to be off-limits at least when in the public space. But in private spaces, I'm not really confident exactly where the laws have to be drawn. I have some idea where I'd personally feel a line had been crossed, and I have a notion that I should try to respect some other peoples boundaries, but yeah... after that it gets really vague, and the people who seem to think they've got it all figure out and can lecture you as to what is wrong or right to have in a collective story telling session make me vaguely uncomfortable. And I say that as a staunchly prude, Puritanical, traditional moralist that would feel rather strongly that I can assert what is right or wrong to actually do, as opposed to merely talk about. It seems to me that motive and presentation are rather important when discussing how story elements are handled.
I fear that my take on this has already been too complicated by having had too many female players and discovering they don't have any single set of standards they are sharing with each other and all agree to. However, when I hear some female gamers claim that things like pregnant PCs are signs of gross disrespect of women, I start to wonder if I missed something, and secretly some friend of mine has been fuming the whole time but afraid to tell me. So, I admit confusion. On the one hand, much of what I'm hearing just sounds wrong and coming from a strange place. On the other hand, I don't want to get this sort of thing wrong, since it's a bit more important than a game actually is.
Sorry for the meandering steam of consciousness here. I generally try to be more organized in my thinking.
