I put the DEAD in Red Dead Redemption @red-dead-bastard - Tumblr Blog

Posts

It's my 7 year anniversary on Tumblr 🥳

#7 year tumblrversary #tumblr milestone

hydro-homies

cave water

red-dead-bastard

Don't bring cave water near me

notkatniss

drtrinitysantos

I need to smoke weed with this bitch

the-final-sif

I try to stay away from a lot of fandom discourse, but since I’ve been seeing this on my dash again and in tags, I feel the need to make a statement on this, particularly for any young fans who follow me that might get drawn into this mindset.

Stay away from purity culture. Warn your friends away from it too, if you see them starting to fall for it. It’s very easy to get drawn into it

Almost always, it starts with one of three roots, pedophilia, incest and/or abuse. Usually it’s pedophilia. Funnily enough, that’s also what congress usually uses to try to justify passing bills that undermine online privacy & security. Because it’s an easy, extreme target, and when people attempt to argue against it, it’s nice and easy to say “Oh so you like pedophilia” rather then actually engaging with their argument.

The logic goes like this, although there’s many forms of it.

“Pedophilia is bad.” -> Obviously, you agree with this. You’re a reasonable person, and the idea that anyone would do something like that to a child is horrible. This is a normal human reaction.

“Because pedophilia is bad, all fictional explorations of it must be equally bad.” -> Here you might hesitate, but it adds up, doesn’t it? The thought of pedophilia in any context probably gives you a bad feeling, that makes you inclined to go along with this logic.

“Anyone who creates content with a fictional exploration of pedophilia is also bad.” -> Maybe you pause here, or maybe you don’t. But still, it adds up, it’s a very easy flow. After all, we’ve decided that that is Bad, so why would anyone Good want to create something like that?

“Since people who create content with a fictional exploration of pedophilia are just as bad as people who engage in pedophilia in real life, it’s okay to harm them.” -> Here’s where you might pause again. The argument might not win you over entirely, you might not be willing to do harm yourself, but you may be a lot more willing to turn a blind eye to harm being done to someone. Or to consider it ‘justified’.

The pattern now repeats for anything else that’s considered “morally impure”, and “pedophilia” is expanded and expanded, often to ridiculous points, such as merely shipping two underage characters. “Abuse” becomes any ship that the person pushing doesn’t like, for any reason. And so on and so forth.

This is the foundation of “anti” culture, and it’s important to be aware of it so you can catch this false equivocation. Fictional explorations of something, are not the same as the thing itself. Fictional explorations are fiction. The characters are not real people. There is no actual harm being done. Equating fake harm and real harm is a dangerous, slippery slope, which leads us to fundamentally flawed ideas of moral purity. It’s a form of controlling people & making them feel guilty for their very thoughts, rather than holding people accountable for their actions.

A very handy trick for when you encounter this sort of argument, is to replace whatever the selected purity term is with murder. After all, we can all agree that murder is bad, but at the same time, we understand that a murder in a book =/= a murder in real life.

Let’s see that argument again, shall we?

“Murder is bad”

“Because murder is bad, all fictional explorations of it must be equally bad.”

“Anyone who creates content with a fictional exploration of murder is also bad.”

“Since people who create fictional explorations of murder are just as bad as the people who commit murder in real life, it’s okay to harm them.”

Hopefully, it’s now easy to see why the above argument is fundamentally flawed.

Keep your eye out for purity culture in your fandom spaces, and when you see it, refuse to engage with it. Warn your friends if you see them falling into the same traps, although try to be kind about it; this is a very easy thought pattern to fall into. I don’t recommend trying to argue/debate anti’s. The attention only feeds them. Block them instead. Don’t let people control or shame you for what you create or consume, and don’t control or shame others for what they create or consume.

Also, as a note, let me be clear about something. If you are uncomfortable with any of the above discussed things, or anything in general in fiction (ie, underage ships, murder, incest, abuse, penguins, needles, etc), that’s perfectly fine (it’s also called a squick, for those that haven’t heard that term before). Absolutely control your fandom experience by blocking people, filtering tags, unfollowing, etc. However, just because you are uncomfortable with something, does not give you the right to control other people. Other people have no right to control what content you create or consume, and you have no right to do that to them either.

Okay?

paindragon

I think there are two other important arguments antis use that should be debunked. They will say that fiction should be censored if it could either 1) be used/leveraged towards harm or 2) causes harm itself.

The typical example of the first argument is usually about abusers using fiction that depicts pedophilia or other abuse in order to groom a victim. It is true that abusers have used fiction as part of their grooming tactics. Antis will say that this means that that fiction should be censored to prevent this. This is a bad argument for two reasons. First, it misplaces the blame for abuse from the abuser to the tool/method of the abuser. Second, it misunderstands the fact that even “vanilla” or “non-problematic” things are used by abusers as part of their grooming tactics.

The typical example of the second argument is usually about traumatized people being triggered, “re-traumatized”, or otherwise very distressed about certain fiction. It is true that certain fiction can cause real emotional/psychological harm to certain people. Antis will say that any such harmful fiction should be censored for this reason. This is a bad argument for two reasons. First, whether a piece of fiction is harmful is dependent upon the individual, i.e. no fiction universally causes harm. Second, things that are considered “problematic” are not the only things that are potentially triggering–anything can potentially be a trigger, no matter how “innocuous” it is to people without that trigger. When it comes to topics that are more frequently distressing/triggering, the solution to preventing harm is to use tags/warnings so people can avoid topics that will harm them.

sludgejudy-deactivated20170915

ive never been more confused in my entire life

sitcomlesbian

DONT plarp his BEES……what is so difficult to understand about that……..

anxietyproblem

kirain

I started playing rdr2 but stopped because like idk but I can't seem to get over the fact that all the women are prostitutes and they don't really have any important roles. Like what's Abigail do? Ooh she's a mother who's always mad? What do the other women do? Oooh they sleep with the gang. What's Sadie do? Oooh she becomes a badly written femme fetale who suddenly becomes a flawless killer. The women are just so badly represented.

I get the feeling you didn't play the game naturally or see any random encounters, because none of what you said is true. There's a lot to unpack here, so let's start with the "all the women are prostitutes" comment.

First of all, none of the women are prostitutes, a fact that deeply irritates Micah. During a coach robbery where he rides with Arthur and Bill, he even says, “Why the hell do we need a gaggle of girls who won’t even fuck you if you put a gun to their head? Is it too much to ask considering they get a piece of every damn dollar I bring in?” Poor baby. He even tries to proposition all of the women (Grimshaw included), but they all insult him and send him running with his tail between his legs. It’s hilarious and I love it. Arthur also responds to Micah with, “Everyone does their share. I don’t see you lifting a finger around camp.”

Now a bit about the girls:

Mary-Beth was a skilled pickpocket, but she ended up being caught by a group of her victims. She mentions this during a conversation with Arthur, where she points out how hard it was for women who came from nothing, and the inequality of it all. RDR2 actually regularly highlights how difficult frontier/outlaw life was for women back then, often pulling zero punches. While fleeing her pursuers, Mary-Beth luckily ran into Hosea, who helped her escape and welcomed her to the gang. You can see Dutch lusting after her a few times, because he's an old pervert, but she always shuns his advances. She was never a prostitute and she was actually underage when she joined.

Tilly was a child outlaw and a member of the Forman gang from the age of twelve. She ended up killing the leader's cousin because he [as is heavily implied] tried to rape her. She was around sixteen at the time and tried to return to her mother after the ordeal, but she unfortunately passed away while Tilly was running with the Formans. Out of options, she eventually joined the van der Linde gang after Dutch saved her from some unspecified trouble. You can find most of this out during one of my favourite side missions, where she gets kidnapped by Anthony Foreman in retaliation for killing his cousin. With Grimshaw’s help, you can rescue Tilly and put an end to it once and for all. She was never a prostitute and was also underage when taken in.

Susan Grimshaw was one of the original members of the gang and one of Dutch's first lovers. They parted amicably and both fell in love with other people (Dutch with Annabelle, and Susan with a doctor who sadly ended up dying), but she stayed with the gang because of their mutual respect for each other. She later became the arbiter of the camp and a kind of surrogate mother to Arthur, John, and the other girls. She was never a prostitute, but rather a rough-and-tumble outlaw.

Karen is a little more complicated. Overall, she was a scam artist (Hosea even called her an “actress”) who sometimes lured men into brothels, then stole from them or picked their brains for leads. That doesn't necessarily mean she was a prostitute; however, it just means she used sex as a manipulation tactic. Out of all the women in the group, she was the freest and most unconventional. She also stood on guard duty and participated in heists. The only man she ever slept with in game was Sean, and his death absolutely devastated her. If you talk to her or observe her interactions, you also discover she’s a raging alcoholic suffering from some very deep-seated issues. She likely did have to do things she wasn’t proud of in order to survive, but in my opinion that makes her one of the most realistic members of the group. She was never described as a prostitute.

Molly was an aristocrat who left her family to be with Dutch. His abusive treatment eventually led her to suffer an identity crisis, where she ended up hysterical and heartbroken. Her story is sad, but she was never a prostitute. If anything, Molly is the best example we have that Dutch views people as items, not human beings.

Abigail is the only prostitute in the game, but by the events of RDR2 she's an ex-prostitute. To say she's nothing more than "a mother who's always mad", I feel, does her character a great disservice. First of all, she left that profession behind to raise her son, to give him a decent chance in life. Unlike John, she stepped up immediately to become a responsible adult. I don't think people realise how impressive that is because, one, she could've easily abandoned Jack at the roadside (which was common back then), two, she could've induced an abortion, and three, she was quite young when she had him; around nineteen years old.

You say the women are "poorly represented", but they're stronger, smarter, and more mature than most of the men. A few of them even become self-sufficient in the turn of the century, something dear old Dutch couldn't even do/accept. Abigail in particular helps Sadie mourn her husband and the two grow very close. Their interactions are both grounded and heartwarming, with Abigail telling Sadie she’ll suffer the loss of her husband, but that it’ll get better if she keeps on living. She takes care of her, and Sadie later returns that kindness. These women are so full of quirks and humour and personality, I don’t know how you missed it.

As for Sadie ... where do I even begin? Badly written? Femme fatale? Flawless killer? Sadie is one of the best written characters. She's not flawless, she's exceptionally flawed, temperamental, and traumatised. It's never expressly stated, but it's implied at several points throughout the game that she was repeatedly assaulted while the O'Driscolls kept her captive. At first, she's petrified and miserable, to the point that all she does is cry and express suicidal ideation. Then, she gets angry. Very angry. Having nothing left to live for, her home and husband torn from her grasp, she throws herself headfirst into danger, which almost gets her killed on a number of occasions.

She's not a "flawless killer", she's a messy killer. She's not an expert death-dealer, and that's made evident from the start -- but she was a hunter who shared the workload with her husband, so it's not as if her skills just magically appeared. You do see how much it weighs on her, however, near the end of chapter six. If you help her kill the rest of the O'Driscolls, she laments what she's become because she thinks her husband would be horrified. She’s extremely complex and struggles between mourning and moving on.

I also can't help but laugh at the "femme fatale" accusation, because Sadie actually defeminises herself, which is understandable considering the hell she’s suffered. She even wears men's clothing, which wasn't illegal [anymore] back then, but it was openly frowned upon. Femme fatales use their beauty and sexuality to their advantage, ensnaring men with their feminine wiles. Sadie never does that and fights side-by-side with the boys. Interestingly enough, that's partially why Calamity Jane, an actual historical figure, garnered so much attention, because of how she behaved/dressed. It’s pretty clear to me that Rockstar might’ve used her as inspiration for Sadie. This was a real woman who lived from 1852 to 1903.

In addition, Sadie plays one of the most important roles, yet she does so without falling into the category of a Mary-Sue. She saves the gang and moves them to a new location when the Pinkertons attack Shady Belle. She hatches the plan that frees John from prison. She helps Arthur rescue Abigail after she gets kidnapped. She tracks down Micah and puts an end to his reign of terror. But most of what she does she accomplishes with a partner--Arthur or John--both of whom she respects immensely. No one, not even Arthur, does everything alone, and when they do there’s usually negative consequences. It's the camaraderie and shared experiences that make these characters successful, and aside from Charles and Hosea, I’d even argue that the women are more well-rounded and fleshed out than the men.

I gather from for comments that you didn't finish the game, so I hate to spoil it, but I kind of have to if you walked away with this mindset. The women of RDR2 are a force to be reckoned with.

markodragic

back in the super early days of the gang, strauss probably sent grimshaw to go collect debts sometimes and she was really good at it because she’s terrifying

odriscoll-boy

pov you're a rancher in 1882 and an old woman knocks your door in, takes your money, and calls you a slut and you have no idea what the fuck just happened but you're scared

phoenixyfriend

Reblog if you write fanfic and would be totally down with your followers coming into you askbox and talking to you about your fic

ladywinterlight

Absolutely.

highladyofstoriesandmusic

It would make my day.

magnus-the-maqnificent

Obviously!

shitty-fallout-art

trying to design a tea blend for micah like

saintcheesus

Thoughts?

The reason why John was less susceptible to Dutch’s ultimate manipulation was that, on some level (even slightly), his relationship with his dad was slightly better than Arthur’s relationship with his father.

Aka

John’s daddy issues < Arthur’s daddy issues, Dutch was able to make Arthur undyingly loyal because of that, only sort of worked on John (him leaving for a year).

scarfacemarston

It’s an interesting thought, but I think it’s based more on how John and Arthur respond to trauma. Arthur had Lyle until he was 14. It doesn’t sound like Lyle was around that often, but when he was- life was hell for Arthur and his mother. It’s clear that Beatrice is a huge influence on his life even if she died while Arthur was young. She nurtured his love for nature and maybe even the arts. I’m curious how often Arthur even saw Lyle. It sounded like he was living on the street pretty often. Arthur at least had his mother. When Dutch and Hosea took him, he was extremely rowdy and angry. I think Dutch “parented” Arthur different than Dutch “parented” John. Arthur needed more assurance and I think they had more time to devote to him. John’s mother died giving birth to him. I’m not sure how he survived. I suppose there was either formula (Which existed at this time) or maybe a fellow working girls helped. His father sounded like a delusional, rather crazed man. He was a drunk who appears to have violently beaten him and a gambler among other things. (Rdr 1 and camp conversations.) Arthur had the love of his mother to get him through things and a partially absentee father. John didn’t have that. He didn’t have a softness in his life. His father became blind when John was young and he likely had to provide for them both. Probably had to fend for himself a lot of the time, too. Caring for an insane, blind, angry, abusive drunk was pretty awful, but in a different way as Arthur’s father. Let’s not forget that John has killed his first man by 11. (The implications as to what happened are disturbing.) Then he was nearly murdered at 12. This is my opinion!!!! But I think John suffered more abuse or at least a different type of abuse. Either way, he reacted differently to it than Arthur. Arthur knew what softness was and craved it. Dutch gave that to him. John didn’t know any love or kindness. He is arguably more “damaged” because of it. That’s why he’s probably not as close to Hosea because he’s more willing to give that softness. So John was maybe way angrier and the extra abuse probably really messed with him. Plus, there is the theory that Dutch wanted the two boys to be close, but not too close. Close enough that they would have a sense of loyalty to each other, but enough to foster a “healthy” rivalry. That’s if you buy the Dutch is manipulative viewpoint.

scarfacemarston

“Why is John broke in RDR 1? He had Dutch’s money!” TLDR Farming/Ranching issues, Debt, Economic Recessions, possible family crisis and Oversight by developers.

Hopefully this won’t be boring for you all. I hate economics, but I tried to make it interesting. I’m a historian and that’s why I write long - because I want to make sure I make sense. Some people have asked - “Why is John in debt? He had all of Dutch’s money!” I’ve mostly seen this on reddit but I’ve seen people on tumblr assume it’s John being stupid. It’s possible, but after finishing a US history of economics class, I don’t think so. Warning: Long post with lots of research. TW: Light talking about Marston baby’s death. Apparently, between 1870’s -1911- the economy was at recession level and a near collapse by 1896. Some scholars think it was a straight up depression from 1874-1897. So the entire gang was screwed from the beginning. (Eric Foner) It makes it even more unfortunate to think of the Van der Lindes stealing from others in a recession, but if the gang stuck exclusively with the “Robin Hood” mentality, it wouldn’t be so bad. (Funny enough, John calls Dutch out on this multiple times in both games.) The gang was exceedingly stressed about finances from the middle of chapter 2, chapter six and John even more so by the epilogue. By RDR 1, he is basically broke because of everything the Pinkertons took. However, between 1900 and 1911 were four more huge recessions. I was going to write a timeline, but I don’t want to bore you all. Recessions sucked hardcore for everyone and that’s probably one of the reasons why he moved around so much - to try to find a job which is near impossible at this time - especially for a former thief with hardly any real skills. (John’s words!) Honest men would be clamoring over John for jobs. Recession was arguably worse for the farmers and ranchers who had virtually no protection. Like today, there were problems with renting equipment, keeping up with tech, dealing with weather and disasters.So the deck is stacked against the Marstons to begin with.

Back to Epilogue/Post Epilogue: Don’t forget that John is still in debt for the house and the barn. The money certainly helped with paying off the loans, but houses need maintaining. Barnes need maintaining. Silos had to be built on his property. He eventually built a gazebo. I’m sure he built a lot of this himself, but with Charles gone, he may have had to hire help. He very likely had to hire someone for help with the materials like he did in the epilogue. Materials and help are expensive. He’s not far from Blackwater where the quality of life seems to be quite high.I live near a relatively big city. My suburban area has a very high “quality” of life. I don’t know if I would consider my town that way, but the price of living here reflects that.

So that’s something else that is going to affect finances. So, even basic items would cost more unless John traveled quite a bit. Also, with Jack being rather sheltered, I personally believe that there is no way he’d be sent to town by himself.Also, Abigail was very likely making more money cleaning at the doctor’s office than she was at the farm. Jack and Uncle also worked on the ranch. Ranching at this time was very risky business. Opening a ranch with no experience was a crazy move. That’s one of my few gripes with Abigail. She didn’t know anything about the area or ranching and did other work at Pronghorn Ranch.

Also - John has lost cattle and or crops at least twice. I don’t know if it was at the same time, but I do know it’s happened a couple of times. He mentions this in rdr 1 chapter 1 and chapter 3 so this would have been between 1907 - 1911.

He’s had a hell of a time with cattle rustlers - which is ironic considering he used to do it. He was also gone from home pretty often so the only people guarding the ranch when he’s gone is Abi, Jack and Uncle. Uncle and Jack confessed that they weren’t able to save the animals when he was gone. Even then, John isn’t perfect. He could have easily had something stolen with him there.

As for his crops - he can’t predict that, especially as a novice farmer. Other farmers at this time may have been able to predict things. He explicitly talks about losing his corn at least once. One occasion in rdr 1, that was his only lifeline. Replacing cattle is also very expensive and I admit I’m not sure if he really drove them anywhere? What I do know is that Bonnie McFarland’s family has been ranching for decades and were always borderline broke because of the occupation - not crazy spending. If Bonnie struggles with all her experience, imagine how John would. If any of the Marstons and Uncle became sick or injured, they were screwed. John was shot once in the beginning (Which I’ve written a post about how it wasn’t a stupid move - he didn’t want to live anymore.) It cost John 15 bucks that he had to work off. That’s 400 USD dollars!!

Last bit is my person opinion: This is about the Marston Daughter - We know he lost a daughter when she was young. We have no information about her except for that. We don’t know if Abigail had a difficult pregnancy and needed a doctor - or if she needed someone to help her give birth. I just struggle to believe that John and Uncle would have helped her give birth without a midwife or doctor, but I suppose anything is possible. We don’t know if she was stillborn, but it kind of sounds like she was maybe two or younger. Again, we don’t know what happened. She may have had a medical problem that needed medicine/medical attention or was sick before passing. I seriously hate how she doesn’t have a grave that we see. I find it odd that they wouldn’t have buried her on the property - and if they did - without a grave stone. My only guess is that she was buried in the “Proper” cemetery in Blackwater which would have cost money. Anyway, so that’s another reason why John’s finances were in poor shape. Finally, maybe the writers forgot that John was broke in RDR 1? That’s a huge part of rdr 1’s story.

scarfacemarston

John is partially blind or has an entirely blind eye - Opinion based on Game

LONG ANALYSIS!!!! I’ve been a huge fan of RDR since it came out in 2010. I’ve given my opinion before, but I wanted to go into detail. People are fine to have their opinions, but I’m basing this off of what I’ve seen. I’ve seen people answer this question and later admit they didn’t play RDR 1 or that it had been years since they’ve played it. That’s okay! Not everyone has to play rdr 1, but I do recommend it. I only bring that up because it’s near impossible to answer this question in a fair way if you haven't ever played the game or hadn’t played in years. Again, there’s nothing wrong with not playing the game yet. I’m not going to force anyone to believe me, of course! I’m just using what I feel is the evidence and am very firm with my personal belief. It’s possible John’s eye site deteriorated post rdr 2 main story/epilogue. TW Video game canon gore All in all, this is a video game at the end of the day. While there is some evidence pointing to John having some struggles with his eyesight in rdr 2, I’m focusing mostly on rdr 1.

First and foremost, Dutch is able to sneak up on John twice. You can see it in the cut scenes. But he appears in four missions causing trouble. The bank mission in rdr 1 with Dutch holding a girl hostage is one example. Dutch very obviously is by John’s side. When Dutch is on his one side, John obviously sees him. However, Dutch appears to figure out that John can’t see him in his other eye because Dutch “sneaks around him”. I wouldn’t even really call it sneaking except for him being quiet.That’s how close he is to John. (If he’s not blind or partially blind, then he may have peripheral issues? ) ( The other main example appears in another Dutch related mission which is when John is chasing Dutch down. He does the same thing with ducking and hiding out of John’s one side. The moment he appears on the other, John can see him better. It’s a fast paced scene so Dutch is trying to keep himself hidden, however, John knows Dutch is somewhere. It’s not like he just disappeared in thin air, he just appears to struggle. It’s in the cut scene because we the player can see Dutch just fine. Again, My opinion! Landon Ricketts has also startled John before by coming up on one side. Most of the time, it appears that John keeps the one side very guarded so people can’t take advantage of it. I notice this because whenever John is in control, he chooses when to approach in cut scenes. He doesn’t seem to like people coming to him like Irish, West Dickens, Seth, and Reyes. I know that sounds crazy, and maybe it’s nothing. But I do have friends who are partially blind that do guard the affected side more. With Dutch later on,, he was in an enclosed space and had to act fast because of Dutch starting a shoot out so he didn’t have a choice of “which side”. It just depends on how partially blind/blind he is. Since I’m replaying rdr 1 again, I can make a separate post if I come up with any other examples.

Also, John’s eye doesn’t move in hardly any of the cut scenes. If you spin the camera around, his one eye still doesn’t move. The other eye moves just fine in both cut scenes and when playing the game. There are many comments that John makes about his eyes, usually during game play. Some people take his comments with a grain of salt. I would normally agree since some of them appear to be common terms, However, he has so many comments about his eyes that it does make me think that there is something to it. I’ve heard of people commenting that his eye looks “messed up”, but other have pointed out it could just be his eye lid / lazy eye which is possible. That or an injury.

Then there is the whole eye patch question. It could be to look cool, but the zombie version of John has his potentially off eye affected as well. I say this because, the developers went to the level of detail where and how exactly the Pinkerton shot John in the foot. That’s an insane level of detail so it wouldn’t be a stretch to say they matched his affected eye post mortem as well.

I can also post the zombie pics from in-game, too. Also, I took some very detailed pictures in photo mode when John is injured in rdr 2. His face is obviously a mess, but both eyes appear to be very damaged, just in different ways. One eye is severely bloodshot, but that doesn’t mean it caused any blindness. The other eye also appears damaged to the point that it kind of looks like one giant cataract it’s so clouded over. The other eye is completely covered by bandages. Looking at these pics, it really wouldn’t surprise me that he did go partially blind or that it may have caused trouble later in life. . Now, I’m not a doctor so again, I’m basing this on what I’ve seen and heard from both games. I’ll attach a pic, but I feel like I’m invading this fictional man’s privacy. The point is, both eyes are damaged here.

It’s also very possible that John lost his eyesight at a later time which is probably most likely? John went through a fuck ton of abuse throughout chapters 2 - 6. Maybe it occurred there? Or in the 7 years between the main story and epilogue? Maybe it happened somewhere between 1907 and 1911? That’s the other theory. He’s a very active man doing a lot of dangerous things like bounty hunting/ exploring. There are also illnesses that can cause someone to lose some of their eyesight or he may have had a farming/ranching/ other accident while working with Abigail or Jack. IMO, There is just too much info to ignore the idea of him having at least some type of issue with his eyesight. (Even if you don’t think he’s totally blind in one eye/partially blind. Maybe at worst it’s depth perception issues) All in all, these are just opinions and I’ve shown my evidence. If you don’t agree with me, that’s okay. At the end of the day, I think it’s canon. But maybe to some of you, rockstar made it ambiguous. At that point, I’ll take this as my head canon then.

scarfacemarston

“We all had her” - Dutch. No, the gang didn’t sleep with Abigail. Let’s clear this up.

TLDR: Most of the gang wasn’t there when Abigail joined the gang. She quit working the second she lied eyes on John. Her sleeping with gang members after joining would have been idiotic and finally - most of the others wouldn’t have been interested in her. So, I’m a historian and I’ve been researching working girls. Even without studying this subject, I still would have written this by using cannon.

When people talk about Abigail in the fandom, they constantly bring up this quote said by Dutch. What’s frustrating is it’s a quote from RDR 1 right before Dutch takes his own life. Most people haven’t even played rdr 1 yet they constantly repeat this - especially as an insult. It’s taken out of context and Dutch was desperate and trying to throw John off his game.

1. There is no way Abigail slept with everyone. Most of the people in the gang were not there. John, Javier, maybe the Callender brothers and Uncle are the only possible people that could have slept with her. That’s it. Even then, most of that is unlikely. She quit working the minute she met John. She fell in love with him at first sight. She says this several times. John wasn’t sure about Jack’s parentage because he was being an ass. Abigail had been with the gang for a year already so she most definitely didn’t sleep with anyone else. She would have known immediately John was the father. He even admits this later on. Yes, Arthur can antagonize her and say that Jack looks like an Escuella or a Williamson but he is literally just trolling. Same with the “nickel” comment.

2. Also, having a working girl come into the gang having slept with multiple members would have been really bad and just stupid. It would have caused people to fight over her. Dutch would have known this. Also, the gang is strongly based on Butch Cassidy’s gang. Each one of them had a romantic partner - often working girls and these working girls were exclusive with them. They didn’t sell themselves to anyone else once they met them. The biggest example is Etta Place. Doc Holiday had “Big Nose” Kate. Same situation. It would have caused too much drama.

3. If Dutch had slept with her - it would have ruined his “fatherly image” that he tries so hard to put out. (Credit to @captain-radioactive-mentality

4. Abigail couldn’t have had men come into the camp - that would have endangered the gang. She couldn’t have worked outside of the camp either. Tales of her exploits and the gang’s exploits would have spread. Plus, she would have had no protection (except for her own skills), she would have had to pay a **lot** of money to even set up shop. They would have lost money and she hated it anyway. She would have been happy thieving.

I credit again give credit to Captain for this - but she pointed out that Dutch even convinced Miss Grimshaw to stop selling herself, so why would they have someone else do that? Miss Grimshaw being a former madam only says that Abigail should sell herself again because she’s convinced Abi doesn’t do enough. (You know, despite having a child and literally no support outside of Hosea and Arthur.)

Bill Williamson is strongly implied to by gay and has said on multiple occasions that women just slow him down so he ignores them. Why would Bill waste his time and money on Abigail then?

Hosea was completely devoted to Bessie and it is highly unlikely that he ever sought out working girls, especially after her death. Arthur quit sleeping with working girls after Eliza. Charles, Lenny, Micah, Sean, Mr. Pearson, the Reverend, Trelawny (Who is happily married) and Kieran were not in the gang when Abigail arrived. Like I said, the fact that people are taking a throwaway bitchy comment as canon is a little frustrating, especially since most haven’t played the game. I get not everyone likes Abigail and that’s okay, but at least realize that she’s more than just a former working girl.

scarfacemarston

I’d like to tag and thank @miopod for pointing this out to me! They wrote, “Also Javier joined the gang only four years prior when rdr2 is set. That would be somewhere around when Jack was born.”. I forgot about that. I was playing RDR 2 last week. I knew a while back that he was new-ish, But I didn’t know how long until miopod mentioned. Hell, depending on how old Jack is, Abigail may have been ready to give birth to Jack. Who knows? So that means that Javier might have slept with her, but it doesn’t sound likely at all. That just leaves the possibility of a Callander Brother. Even then, that’d be more of a coincidence, maybe? IDK. SO yeah! Thank you Miopod and everyone else that commented! I know not everyone likes Abigail, but at least dislike her for other reasons that what Dutch claims.

scarfacemarston

Hey all! Sorry to do this again, but I made another discovery.

Sorry for reposting this, but I just found this picture of the gang pre-story. I know basically everyone has seen it. It’s hanging in Mr. Pearson’s store. However!! That is all the gang members in the pic….Hosea, Dutch, John (with cute shorter hair no less.) Bill without a beard, Arthur, Mr. Pearson, Abigail with baby Jack and Miss Grimshaw. No one else. Not even the Calender brothers. Seeing this picture made me realize that the only “people” she slept with is obviously John. Some people still think Dutch slept with her, but I personally feel like I debunked before. TLDR: Sleeping with a prostitute that is in your gang, especially one “taken” is a horrible idea and hardly any IRL gangs did that because it would cause problems. Plus, it leads to a creepy idea of Dutch “sampling” with is creepy to me. If he was able to turn Miss Grimshaw away from being a madam, why would he sleep with Abigail? The rest of my explanation is above. So yeah. That further disproves Javier (Who wasn’t there), Bill and Dutch’s sexist comments.