Entertaining role reversal yes? Now imagine if this was the norm for your entire life. Little things, big things, nearly all the books, comics, games, movies, jokes, all with varying levels of demeaning attitudes to what you are not who you are. Each individual one can be passed off as "Setting" or "not that bad" or whatever but it adds up.

I was mostly referring to my fellow males who spewed so much of this misandry forth, a self-loathing lot really.

Entertaining role reversal yes? Now imagine if this was the norm for your entire life. Little things, big things, nearly all the books, comics, games, movies, jokes, all with varying levels of demeaning attitudes to what you are not who you are. Each individual one can be passed off as "Setting" or "not that bad" or whatever but it adds up.

I was mostly referring to my fellow males who spewed so much of this misandry forth, a self-loathing lot really.

I caught the sarcasm but figured I'd use you comment as a example because a lot of boys and man boys actually feel this way (sometimes accurately but mostly not).

Perhaps we're all well past 17 and have become... age-ist? You know like: 'When I was that age I had to walk to the FLGS in the snow, uphill, both ways.. there was none of this Amazon nonsense!'

@FuriousGreg: I figured, but I wanted to make sure

It's only partly meant as a joke. That's the only medium most people will sort of accept it in. It's also partly a comment to the sexism-individuals spouting out the misogyny-argument, I agree with them... But also, in this case, I find it an odd battle to pick, of all the arenas of sexism and misogyny, pick the one-off comment of slave-bride, remove it from its context and body-tackle it, drop-kick it and be proud...? What have you actually gained? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, except provoking some fellow-nerds who don't understand the finer points of the gender inequality problem. (...snip)

The OP didn't think it was "merely" sexist as such, as he equated the whole notion with sex-slave and ****. Which of course is a rather extreme interpretation, which I don't think anyone can really agree with or accept. We can with reasonable certainty say that we know that this wasn't FFG's intention (sex-slave, ****). To me it says more about the OP that he thought in this way by reflex, than it does about FFG.

I get your point, choosing battles are important. The thing is though what I hear most from women aren't complaints of the overt sexism, I do hear them but those are obviously wrong. This type of sexism is/has become unacceptable and those that do it are generally attacked pretty quickly with a lot of solidarity from men. But it's the micro sexism found in everyday speech and attitudes are what weighs heavily because it's so often (as it is here) passed off as unworthy of the fight. Which is ironic because it's actually the harder of the two to eliminate. Overt sexism can be called out easily as it's easy to see, little lines such as the Slave-Bride thing are not.

Now I do agree that the OP's reaction was not only about the sexism but sexuality in general and that it's uncouth to depict it. I don't agree with the OP on this as I think sex and it's depiction in games isn't something to be ashamed of. The sexism for me is a different issue for which I fight.

I'll be honest, I am personally not sold that this is even sexist outright. It's the use of a 'title' as it were.. if you are a female, sold to a buyer as a bride against your will you are a slave-bride (or so I am guessing this is intended) and if you're a male I guess you'd be a slave-groom. Certainly, I agree that either of these are an inappropriate way to treat another sentient being but regardless of that this occurs in the Star Wars universe.

What this text doesn't do is say that only women are treated in this way. Yet still it seems to be treated as if that is what is being said.

If they had instead said that a plausible motivation and goal was to become gain enough notoriety to take over their planet and rule as Emperor, would we be calling this sexist? I mean only a male can be Emperor so apparently this isn't an option for females.. what if they want their own empire to rule over? We can't leave them out like that!

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that there aren't numerous cases and instances of women being slighted and bother overt and subtle sexism taking place that shouldn't have. All I am saying is that I feel it's perhaps going a bit far to take this very small passage and use it in a cry against sexism.

I'm also not saying that we should let all small instances slide because they will build up. If there are several instances of it then it becomes an actual theme and that is worth bringing attention to. But here, we have 7 forum pages going on about effectively 2 words, used once.

"Prison wife." It's not meant to be sexist, it's just a commonly used term. That's all. FFG doesn't mean to put down females or imply only females can be bought for solely sex/marriage, it's just an existing term that fits well for what they were trying to say.

As for whether or not sex/sex-slavery should be included in the book. Why not? In terms of general sexuality... Well... Unlike Anakin, Luke and Leia didn't come out of thin air. In terms of sex-slavery. That's just been in Star Wars for a loooong time. We've got strong implications with Jabba's Palace in RotJ and with Shmi in AotC. I'm sure there's a number of instance in the EU, and female Twi'leks that are slaves, are usually implied to be sex-slaves.

If it bothers anyone that much, I'd suggest just taking a marker and covering up "bride" and be done with it.

Perhaps we're all well past 17 and have become... age-ist? You know like: 'When I was that age I had to walk to the FLGS in the snow, uphill, both ways.. there was none of this Amazon nonsense!'

Well no, more that I know what I was like at 14 and 17 and what I'm like now and basically know how much more of a better person I am to date than I was back then. It's less "things were hard when I was a kid" and more "I was so much a worse person back then". Sort of anti-complaining, really.

I'll be honest, I am personally not sold that this is even sexist outright.

It might be worth clarifying since I've been one of the active people in this discussion, that there are two different arguments against going on here. One is that it's simply a tasteless / unwholesome thing to suggest as a motivation for a "PC hero". And that's less about the setting containing such things and a lot more about it being given as a goal for the player character. And I'm pretty sure that's where the OP is coming from. The second strain is (I think) FuriousGreg's that it is sexist that it refers to Slave Bride rather than Slave Person.

My position is that the former is a valid objection and the OP is within their rights if they wish to call on FFG to change that. The second is technically sexist and I certainly wont argue with someone if they wish to object to it. But it doesn't bother me because slave brides, arranged marriages, mail order wives - these are real world problems that are not uncommon. We recognize the term in the book. "Slave-groom" might exist but it's far, far rarer and the term will sound odd to most ears. And "slave-partner" also sounds odd. "Slave-spouse" would be the correct gender-neutral term to use because it doesn't throw out the marriage context. Still sounds a little jarring though due to unfamiliarity.

Perhaps we're all well past 17 and have become... age-ist? You know like: 'When I was that age I had to walk to the FLGS in the snow, uphill, both ways.. there was none of this Amazon nonsense!'

Well no, more that I know what I was like at 14 and 17 and what I'm like now and basically know how much more of a better person I am to date than I was back then. It's less "things were hard when I was a kid" and more "I was so much a worse person back then". Sort of anti-complaining, really.

I hear you. I'm pretty sure if I met the 17 year old me, we would not be friends.

So many accusations and counter-accusations going on in this thread. Two posters have already nailed the topic - Shmi Skywalker was very much a slave-bride who was purchased and freed by her husband. Perhaps slave-spouse would be a more inclusive term but if you find the idea repugnant, blame George Lucas and Episode II.

It's not like the concept is foreign to the Western genre. Heroes often buy people out of bondage and turn around and marry them. Heck, Django Unchained focused on this very subject.

Buying a loved one's freedom is a pretty good motivator for a player character.

I agree. But the quote reads differently.

I am not saying that the game is bad. I am not saying that the game is invalidated. I like the game. It is good.

I am only objecting to a single sentence, and its really only a problem with a single word in that sentence.

I am not asking to remove all references to slavery in the game; I am only saying that this particular section is inappropriate. It is under the section that deals with player motivations, so it is a suggestion for what PCs might want to do with their wealth. Buy a ship, buy some land, buy a slave woman. Look on page 149 and read it for yourself.

Is there anyone here who thinks that a Star Wars game should have the players buying women to use as their sex slaves? I hope not.

Can you imagine what such a game would be like? Do you want to play a session where the PCs go to the slave market, pick out a crying Twylek woman in chains, buy her and then bring her home to service you, with the threat of violence if she doesn't?

This is inappropriate for a game like Star Wars. It cannot be justified in the name of freedom. Freedom does not mean we have the license to do what we feel like. Immoral acts can't be justified with an appeal to freedom. If you call that tyranny then you are yourself objecting to something and calling it immoral. So why can you accuse someone of being immoral and I can't?

This needs to be corrected in the rulebook. Call it errata if you like, but change it.

This needs to be corrected in the rulebook. Call it errata if you like, but change it.

The only response I can muster for this is to laugh so hard I actually fell out of my chair.

So let me get this straight. The series of movies/tv shows/books/etc this game is based on has slavery left, right, and sideways. From Slaves in episode 1 used and gambled with like they are poker chips, to covering on debts. A Slave girl in Jabba's palace that is thrown into a pit and eaten... for amusement.

And you have a problem with slaves and want, no DEMAND they conform to your twisted world view that doesn't allow a work of literature to go against your precious rules?

I get you hate slaves, in the real world a lot (or maybe everyone) of us here do too. But this is not about the real world, this is about representing scum and villains, magic users and laser swords.

Get off your high horse, and leave our Star Wars alone. =)

@fatedtodie: I agree.

Somebody better hide the really hard stuff like Shades of Grey or Song of Ice and Fire. Star Wars is tame compared to that.

Hello Edge of the Empire forum community!

This thread has been locked because it has devolved into argument and accusations. Please feel free to continue any productive discussion in another thread.

Thanks, and keep playing!

FFG Forum Moderator