How do characters feel about Doll Chips?? [SPOILERS] + [TRIGGER WARNING]

+
Indeed, my bad, the game DB says literally that they are unaware. My major point with the interview was that CDPR sees the dolls more like something positive and maybe that's the reason that they didn't go really deep into this topic.

Honestly, I think that is the most likely explanation for what's happened.
 
I'm fine with doll chips. Dolls choose to get chipped for doll work, and accept that "bad things" might happen. I assume most doll houses have people watching on video (or through optic or biometric implants in the dolls) to make sure things don't go too far.

Race car drivers are in a risky profession, so are dolls. There are other lines of work if they don't like the risks.
 
I'm fine with doll chips. Dolls choose to get chipped for doll work, and accept that "bad things" might happen. I assume most doll houses have people watching on video (or through optic or biometric implants in the dolls) to make sure things don't go too far.

Race car drivers are in a risky profession, so are dolls. There are other lines of work if they don't like the risks.

You sound like the guy that was running the "bath house" in the last Yakuza game. :rolleyes:
 
"dolls are completely unaware of what happens to them during the session" that essentially means that every time a client sleeps with a sex worker with the chip activated, it is effectively rape. (Consent is a state that has to be consciously maintained at all times)

I have to disagree, I did read what you wrote, and I do understand your thoughts.

In some adult fetish and BDSM communities rape fantasies or rape play is a common sexual practice
In this real life scenario we have two consenting adults, just like our Doll and the client. Two consenting adults.
In the real life setting, the fighting, protesting, or other actions that demonstrate a lack of consent are planned for and expected.
So, in this scenario how do you know if the other person is still having their fantasy fulfilled or actually being assaulted?
The adults have an agreed upon safe word (like "potato chips") that alerts everyone the roleplay is over
Dolls have this also(in a sense), in game they explain there is a pain threshold, that if some one is hurting or abusing the doll, the session will end immediately and the Doll with regain control of themselves.

consent was given earlier by being "chipped" in the first place, we can remove consent with the preprogrammed digital safeword.
I don't think the intent was a dystopian legal sexual assault loophole, it appears to be a technologically amplified prostitution
Also based on the session "V" has it seems more like the Doll "knows" what the client needs, much more then the client exhibits their will on the doll

I hope this helps remove doubts regarding what I perceive to be the intent of the devs/universe creator
Post automatically merged:

I'm fine with doll chips. Dolls choose to get chipped for doll work, and accept that "bad things" might happen. I assume most doll houses have people watching on video (or through optic or biometric implants in the dolls) to make sure things don't go too far.

Race car drivers are in a risky profession, so are dolls. There are other lines of work if they don't like the risks.

I agree they provide consent ahead of time, also they note in the game that if the doll is being hurt or abused the session stops so that is a "digital safe word" imo
 
Dolls have this also(in a sense), in game they explain there is a pain threshold, that if some one is hurting or abusing the doll, the session will end immediately and the Doll with regain control of themselves.

That's not a safe word that has anything to do with consent, that's just the owners way of ensuring their merchandise isn't damaged. Let's propose a different scenario, a doll is instead told to perform something degrading a humiliating. The client then takes photo's and post them all over the net for the girl to discover later or made into a braindance that she later experiences. Assuming she wouldn't have consented to those acts while the doll wasn't active, how can you claim she did give consent at all?
 
You sound like the guy that was running the "bath house" in the last Yakuza game. :rolleyes:

Nope, just a guy that realizes all human beings make choices, and it's not up to me (or you) to decide which choices they should be "allowed" to make.

You can't save people from themselves. Trying to control others is far more damaging to them than letting people make choices *you* think are "bad".
 
Nope, just a guy that realizes all human beings make choices, and it's not up to me (or you) to decide which choices they should be "allowed" to make.

You can't save people from themselves. Trying to control others is far more damaging to them than letting people make choices *you* think are "bad".

It's not the women that bother me, some people are going to be lost or whatever. It's the people that end up collecting them that wreck the neighborhood.
 
That's not a safe word that has anything to do with consent, that's just the owners way of ensuring their merchandise isn't damaged. Let's propose a different scenario, a doll is instead told to perform something degrading a humiliating. The client then takes photo's and post them all over the net for the girl to discover later or made into a braindance that she later experiences. Assuming she wouldn't have consented to those acts while the doll wasn't active, how can you claim she did give consent at all?

Why do you get to decided what constitutes "consent" for somebody else? If I want to consent to give up control of my body unless X condition happens, and I'm okay with that, I have given consent by MY definition. Please stop the virtue signaling of trying to force everybody else to accept your definitions.

If I consent to become a slave and get beaten nightly until I die, I have consented to that. That is a form of non-revokable consent, but you don't get to decide what is consensual for somebody else, you only get to decide for yourself.
Post automatically merged:

It's not the women that bother me, some people are going to be lost or whatever. It's the people that end up collecting them that wreck the neighborhood.

We don't get to be the keepers of society and morality. If people choose to live a certain way, and others profit off of those choices, that is their right. As long as nobody is coerced into the situation, it's fine -- even if their choices cause them harm. That's called a "free society".
 
Signing up to be a doll is consent, its a job and a profession in the universe- (Dolls are not the same as the human trafficed victims of Jotaro Shobo. Dolls are not the same as a regular prostitute, or a braindance actor.)
A way to end the the experience for the Doll is a "digital or technological" safeword, its a general equivalency

For example if some one consented to be drugged in real life so some one could use them as they please, to the OP's point, that would be rape because the drugged person is not longer consenting. even tho they gave permission at first, there is no way for them to revoke consent, so consent ceases to exist - regardless of the original consent

Also in real life if you have pictures you took with some ones consent, and then release them without consent - you can be found in legal trouble, (defamation of character, "revenge porn" is illegal and punishable by law)
-That being said, if you had consensual intercourse, and then released the pictures without consent, you will be in legal trouble, but you will not suddenly be charged with rape)
So in your scenario, if the person took pictures, BD, ect. and the doll found it later, it seems like they would be able to demand some repercussion or justice

In both these examples no consent was given because 1.) they cant revoke consent, so consent does not exist. or 2.) They did not consent to the person taking pictures and distributing them, they did "consent" to the activity tho. The release of photos does not now make them a rapist as much as it makes them a scumbag

Edit: I did not find anything in clouds to indicate that the workers at clouds are owned by clouds, they are free workers, working at clouds
 
Why do you get to decided what constitutes "consent" for somebody else? If I want to consent to give up control of my body unless X condition happens, and I'm okay with that, I have given consent by MY definition. Please stop the virtue signaling of trying to force everybody else to accept your definitions.

If I consent to become a slave and get beaten nightly until I die, I have consented to that. That is a form of non-revokable consent, but you don't get to decide what is consensual for somebody else, you only get to decide for yourself.

It's a legal definition. If you wanted to be philosophical about it the deterministic viewpoint supposes that no individual is capable of giving "consent" as the notion of freewill is an illusion, but that's beside the point.

If someone wanted to make braindance chip and fill a building next door with "consenting" hookers and the kind of "clients" that comes with it, there are very few people that would support it just because some 20 something with nothing better to do decided they wanted to be a doll. They wouldn't want to see it, they wouldn't want to see someone like that setting examples for their daughter. You can call that virtue signaling if you want but when people live in a society the general consensus of that society matters.
Post automatically merged:

We don't get to be the keepers of society and morality. If people choose to live a certain way, and others profit off of those choices, that is their right. As long as nobody is coerced into the situation, it's fine -- even if their choices cause them harm. That's called a "free society".

Incorrect, there is no "free society" that simply allows people to do whatever they want as long as they are the only ones harmed. The actions of every individual in a society has indirect impacts on other members in it. People within that society come to a collective consensus on what behaviors will be tolerated or not based on it's impact on the society overall and what the ethics of that society is willing to tolerate.

You're assuming that a brothel only has a negative impact on the girls when that's not the case. Historically speaking a brothel brings other unrelated organized crime like robberies that do impact the areas around that brothel. CP was demonstrating a world like that, one where everything is essentially permissible and a few thousand citizen die each night.

Even then, if the girls involved considered what they were doing something that was in line with their personal morality and virtues, they wouldn't need a chip to wipe their memories of their acts to begin with.
 
Last edited:
It's a legal definition. If you wanted to be philosophical about it the deterministic viewpoint supposes that no individual is capable of giving "consent" as the notion of freewill is an illusion, but that's beside the point.

If someone wanted to make braindance chip and fill a building next door with "consenting" hookers and the kind of "clients" that comes with it, there are very few people that would support it just because some 20 something with nothing better to do decided they wanted to be a doll. They wouldn't want to see it, they wouldn't want to see someone like that setting examples for their daughter. You can call that virtue signaling if you want but when people live in a society the general consensus of that society matters.

I think you may believe that the dolls are human trafficed slaves. The Dolls are a very high end sex worker, somewhere between prostitute and pornstar. There are regular "street hookers" or Joy Toys, in the game walking around, talking to people in cars in alleys and parking lots. Braindances for sexual experiences are some one else recorded acts that you get to plug in a re-live and re-feel. So the dancers at Lizzie's wont sleep with you, but if you like them look up a BD and enjoy. There are actual victims of human trafficking also in the game. Which is absolutely seperate from sex work, its sexual slavery.

A brain dance chip and a doll chip are not the same, again i think you're blending all the "sex" into one thing
Everyone who looks at porn does not all see the same video or fetish, its a spectrum. Two people who both admit to watching porn, will likely not be watching the same thing(s). If person A likes videos about "males" and person B like videos about "females", they both can admit to watching porn but they are watching two different things. So if you only know person B likes females when it comes to porn, and then person A says simply "i like porn" we should not just assume that means they like what person B likes.

Most people drive cars, most people dont drive the exact same car as another person in there immediate area, and is likely that if both people own two exact cars one VIN number apart and everything else matches, they dont drive the way the other driver does.

Yes desperate people may find themselves doing desperate things to make ends meet. And there are lots of modern workers in the sex industry they are exploited or taken advantage of IRL.

A doll turns "off" and then the program delivers a high end experience to the user. Remember V plugs in and then it picks ideal candidates for the experience, then the doll is on a program, and the program drives itself, the doll has to guide V to what V needed from the doll.
A joy toy is an active, alert, sex worker. Like a regular prostitute.
A brain dance actor appears to be dancers or porn stars who dont sleep with everyone, buy everyone has access to the experience of sleeping with them
Sex Slaves, are bought and sold in various story lines all through the Kabuki and Northern Industrial District - mainly connected to the "monster hunt" story line

Also, if free will is an illusion, we should have no laws, because it doesn't matter, because we have no freewill. So what happens will happen regardless a no one can stop it. There is a Tinfoil behind Afterlife you can go talk to Gary the Prophet all about it. So lets not work off that

Also Cyberpunk is not a game about sexual desires, its a dark future, taking a few themes from modern humans and presenting an extreme for you to consider. Gun Control/Violence is one of the themes. Sexual Freedom and Prostitution are very taboo in the US, it is one of the themes. Another piece of this is technological advancement, and mega corporation profits, and how that stratifies society. V lives in the world of the poor that the super rich in safety and luxury live of off. And being that they can control politics, they continue to enable the stratification. Its a cautionary statement on humanity and its present course. The point of that statement is to oppose the idea that the general society doesn't want the prositutes like you indicated

You dont have to be comfortable with the concept, you don't have to think its okay, you don't have to like it. You may see it as rape, like some one may "feel" raped when their pictures go out on the internet without consent. These are legitimate feelings. However I dont think we need to push the idea that this is some game about a society comfortable with rape and its part of the main story line of the game that players must interact with
 
Last edited:
Also Cyberpunk is not a game about sexual desires, its a dark future, taking a few themes from modern humans and presenting an extreme for you to consider. Gun Control/Violence is one of the themes. Sexual Freedom and Prostitution are very taboo in the US, it is one of the themes. Another piece of this is technological advancement, and mega corporation profits, and how that stratifies society. V lives in the world of the poor that the super rich in safety and luxury live of off. And being that they can control politics, they continue to enable the stratification. Its a cautionary statement on humanity and its present course. The point of that statement is to oppose the idea that the general society doesn't want the prositutes like you indicated

You dont have to be comfortable with the concept, you don't have to think its okay, you don't have to like it. You may see it as rape, like some one may "feel" raped when there pictures go out on the internet without consent. These are legitimate feelings. However I dont think we need to push the idea that this is some game about a society comfortable with rape and its part of the main story line of the game that players must interact with

My reply was more for flyingmonkey who seemed to argue the entire concept seems ok and not a grim reality of a dark future.
 
All right, that will be enough of that. Two posts deleted.

Please remember that the forum rules require users to always treat others with kindness and respect. Insults and rudeness are not allowed. Real-world politics, also not allowed.
 
Why do you get to decided what constitutes "consent" for somebody else? If I want to consent to give up control of my body unless X condition happens, and I'm okay with that, I have given consent by MY definition. Please stop the virtue signaling of trying to force everybody else to accept your definitions.

If I consent to become a slave and get beaten nightly until I die, I have consented to that. That is a form of non-revokable consent, but you don't get to decide what is consensual for somebody else, you only get to decide for yourself.
Post automatically merged:




We don't get to be the keepers of society and morality. If people choose to live a certain way, and others profit off of those choices, that is their right. As long as nobody is coerced into the situation, it's fine -- even if their choices cause them harm. That's called a "free society".


no society is completely free, and most societies and cultures make their own rules about what is allowable even with consent. Because laws are not only about individuals, they sometimes intercept with society/culture. Its also questionable whether all agreements are the same. Someone's only other choice might be death, is it really a fair agreement then? Can you get people to sign contracts uninformed? What about how your personal consent effects the type of overall society that exists, does the society get to veto your choices, since your consent forces them to deal with something?
 
In some adult fetish and BDSM communities rape fantasies or rape play is a common sexual practice
In this real life scenario we have two consenting adults, just like our Doll and the client. Two consenting adults.

I would hope you understand the tremendously huge difference between actual rape vs people role-playing a submission fantasy. The latter involves building of trust, clearly discussing what the fantasy is, discussing the practicalities of how to role-play said fantasy, discussing and agreeing on what the boundaries are, establishing and agreeing on a safe word, everyone being awake, etc., etc., etc.).

That's not what's going on in the story though.
1. There is no prior discussion between the doll and client.
2. The doll isn't role-playing anything because they're basically asleep; the doll chip renders them unconscious and completely takes over. It's the doll chip, in the doll's body, that the client is interacting with.
3. The doll doesn't have a safe word, is completely unaware during the whole session, and so would never have the opportunity to use one anyway.

Btw, people can simply change their mind and revoke consent for any reason - it's not just about physical harm. So no, the fail safe you're talking about is not the same as a safe-word at all. It's exactly what Jetro30087 said.
Post automatically merged:

I'm just responding to the discussion in general, not your post in particular really. Although, I am taking the "they are officially unaware" bit and trying to show how I am very confident that was not an attempt to make their job seem "okay" or "better" -- but quite to the contrary, I think it was a very intentional attempt to make the act of prostitution even more dehumanizing and abhorrent in the world of CP.

(Or in other words, I'm bouncing off your statement, not directly responding to it.)

I think if there was clear attempt to make the doll chip seem terrible, then it's limited to that database and maybe the note Robotic_Onion mentioned. It went right over my head the first time I played. It wasn't until I read the database that I did a double take and realised, "oh, that makes it even worse... but then why aren't the characters bothered by it, if they're bothered by everything else?".

So if the game was trying to make it clear that the doll chip is this terrible thing, to me it seemed overly reliant on having read that piece of info. I had no idea from the way the characters behave. Obviously the game makes it clear that working at Clouds is bad for other reasons; not sure about this one though.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's because CDPR just didn't see it as a negative thing - or maybe they did but it was low on their list of priorities or something, who knows :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Incidentally from a legal perspective you jack in with full knowledge and understanding that this is going to result in the computer running your body, the client having sex with you, and you not remembering. That would pass the requirement for positive action demonstrating consent, particularly as I'm sure the lawyers for a place like Clouds wrote a contract making it very clear that their employees acknowledge the nature of the work and probably include a "upon jacking in, I hereby grant consent for the duration of the client" clause of some variety.

There's an assumption in a lot of posts in this thread (I'm picking on one at random, which is kind of unfair, because a lot of folk have been making this assumption) that all the dolls have had the doll chips implanted consensually: that they knew what they were signing up to, and chose to sign up. But actually I think there's in-game evidence that that isn't so – that some of the dolls are abductees.

This is slightly complicated by the hypercapitalist economy of Night City: you work or you starve. A person who is desperate doesn't necessarily have a free choice about whether to accept a doll chip, even if they do walk in off the street and say "please give me a job."

Within the moral context of Cyberpunk, I'd agree that for those who do walk in off the street, the doll chip is legal and anything done while the chip is active is treated legally as effectively consented to. But, even there, even in our current real world, legal and moral are by no means the same thing.
 
There's an assumption in a lot of posts in this thread (I'm picking on one at random, which is kind of unfair, because a lot of folk have been making this assumption) that all the dolls have had the doll chips implanted consensually: that they knew what they were signing up to, and chose to sign up. But actually I think there's in-game evidence that that isn't so – that some of the dolls are abductees.

This is slightly complicated by the hypercapitalist economy of Night City: you work or you starve. A person who is desperate doesn't necessarily have a free choice about whether to accept a doll chip, even if they do walk in off the street and say "please give me a job."

Within the moral context of Cyberpunk, I'd agree that for those who do walk in off the street, the doll chip is legal and anything done while the chip is active is treated legally as effectively consented to. But, even there, even in our current real world, legal and moral are by no means the same thing.

I always assumed that NC law probably would make it illegal and that corporations and whatever contracts they make up weren't above the law, but in all practicality it doesn't matter because the NCPD can barely enforce anything. Mind you, we do see that lawmakers can be compromised by bad actors (like Peralez) so... I dunno.
 
legal and moral are by no means the same thing.

I think this is part of where I am driving at
Post automatically merged:

The Database entry reads as follows

One of the priciest and most technologically advanced dollhouses in Night City. Clouds offers you an experience tailored to your deepest desires - desires you might not even be aware of. First you jack into the system, then your fantasies and preferences are scanned, and finally the data is automatically transferred to the most suitable doll who eagerly fulfills them. The doll is controlled by a chip, which means they aren't aware of what happens in the session and their memory is wiped every time. Dollhouses are frequented not only by people with your run-of-the-mill fetishes, but also those who are antisocial or cripplingly shy.

I think there is a lot of confusion about what is a doll "is" and what people think they are

As is mentioned above, the dolls and the client are scanned, there is a computer system that essentially directs the doll, The doll is matched based on particular clients wants. A client does not appear to be able to go in, flip a human off, and use them to their hearts content.

That being said, that does not negate the points that people keep bringing up that some one could abuse or use a doll in a negative way. But it is not what the game allows, or the game states is the use for the dollhouse. It indicates that a client is scanned, and the system notes the client likes, A, B, C, D, and H. Then it finds the dolls for A, B, C, D, and H. Then the client picks from the available. The system then handles the interaction, which appears to mainly be about client privacy.

Again, that being said, to go back to the OP, asking how people (like judy) are "okay" with it, because on the surface, this has all the markers of two consenting adults, with a way to end the experience if there is harm. Yes we can come up with mental scenarios where it is not okay, and it is rape. (Legal definitions aside, if some one feels/believes they where raped, then they have to live with that and its impacts, regardless of how everyone defines it or to what "level" it was. It is the victims interpretation of what happened that I believe is most important overall)

So Judy, a Mox. Is apparently okay with Clouds because the overall intent is not a negative, I believe the goal of clouds is to be seen as a positive. I get that this fictional scenario has the potential for abuse. Real scenario's also have the potential for abuse. Some people however are very comfortable and happy to be in the adult industry. There will always be an adult industry as long as people have something to trade for sex, be that money or goods. This absolutely brings out the potential to exploit others. I think the important point is that Clouds is not meant to be seen as a negative. I think the intent is that what clouds is trying to offer is what is supposed to be "best" for both parties. I do think it is intended to get your brain thinking, and looking at all of these things. And that is part of the allure of cyberpunk is to look at extremes, or cautionary tales - we are meant to debate it and think about it, I just think we have to be careful about saying the game presents the player with a legal-sexual-assault-factory and everyone in the game is okay with it, so if you play/like the game, you're okay with that concept also - my main goal is not to convince anyone to see it one way or the other. My goal is to avoid harsh labels either way and take it for what it is, a brothel - and if we can agree on that, then i hope we can agree that there is a spectrum of workers/scenarios in a real world brothel and that applies to the fictional one like clouds also - key to that is the fundamentals - consenting adults, and its just biz choom
 
Last edited:
People are missing the forest for the trees here.

The work dolls do and the doll chip process is bad.

The fact that everyone accepts it is what makes it devastating.

If people in the game were talking about how awful it was, we wouldn't have the dystopian world of Night City. The point is that no one cares. That is the message, and what the devs have shown us (over and over again for many things) over the course of the game.
 
People are missing the forest for the trees here.

The work dolls do and the doll chip process is bad.

The fact that everyone accepts it is what makes it devastating.

If people in the game were talking about how awful it was, we wouldn't have the dystopian world of Night City. The point is that no one cares. That is the message, and what the devs have shown us (over and over again for many things) over the course of the game.

Hey, you did it! I wish I got here in less posts/words. But I think you boiled it down. It is a dense subject, but you found the core point I was missing and fishing around for
 
Top Bottom