You might think it's unnecessary, Red Queen, but I think it is wholly pertinent.
The argument in support of these kinds of encounters in games is based upon the maturity of adult situations and complexity.
If this is a representation of what that complexity means to the people supporting it ... I don't for a second think that the psychology of merging active and passive forms of agency is irrelevant.
I don't buy the "oh but it's a game" excuse for a second. These are expressions of desired behaviour without the constraints of morality, and the game is just an accessory to masturbation at that point.
There are plenty of games like this, such as Leisure Suit Larry and the like, but at least they don't hide it under the guise of being "mature, dark roleplaying." They don't pretend to be more. And the people playing them don't pretend they're more. And, to press the point, in Leisure Suit Larry, you actually have to TRY to win people over.
People who buy Harlequin Romance know what they are looking for and they want it. People who buy Anne Rice but get Danielle Steele instead are GOING to be angry. Imagine buying Stephen King's latest horror only to find out it was actually written by Dean Koontz.
And again, back to the original distinctions being made ... there is nothing objectively wrong with any of this in terms of desire.
But THIS GAME ... doesn't fit in THAT MEDIUM. and THIS GAME is the topic at hand.
edit: I feel the need to point out the obvious - this is MY OPINION. Not me telling you yours is wrong.
