"No Brothels to be in DA4" as per Mark Darrah Tweet.

I don't see what you're asking for. Surely your Inquisitors sleep at some point in their lives.

How would you start the scene in a way that wouldn't immediately tell the player that it was likely a dream?

This is seriously confused. The problem is that people were perceiving the content as rape. Labels don't change that; they came up with that reading before the label came along. That's why they put the rape label on the content.

"Taking out" is a silly way to phrase this. No brothel ever existed in DAI to take out.

Should DAI have had one added? If so, why?

Once again, show me where they said the "content didn't work". 

You're also getting confused. Explain to me how labels control my thinking. Also explain to me how I assumed my reaction is correct and others' are not, others' haven't assumed their reaction is correct mine is not, and exactly why this isn't a standard you've pulled out of your arse to attach solely to me.

"The tendency to classify and categorize objects is a deeply ingrained aspect of human nature. In many cases, this is a good thing. Without this ability, we'd quickly get overwhelmed in every new encounter. Nevertheless, this fundamental skill can also be extremely damaging, especially when it comes to categorizing people. As Ronit Baras puts it, we can all too easily get "trapped by labels"."

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201210/the-pesky-persistence-labels

PS: It's psychology 101

"Oh, for... Choice! Spirit!"

1) It doesn’t matter that they were talking about a very specific scenario, what matters is the reason they changed it. “Didn’t come off as intended” is very vague, and is virtually worthless, the other comments about not wanting to write a rape story are far more telling.

2)  The writer in question would not be the one making the determination that it would be something they couldn’t follow up on. I did not say “snowflake writer” and I did not say “scared of ever writing rape”. You’re fishing here. What I said was he lacked courage in this instance and I’ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise. I'm really not interested in how vehemently you protest that it isn't true, the facts suggest otherwise.

3) There are many writers in a game, comparing the writing of one part of a game to another to try and show how my accusations against “one writer” are untrue doesn’t work.

4) I have not created a separate category for “label”, it’s basic language used in psychology. Both you and Alanc9 have questioned this, and I’m telling you it’s common psychological knowledge. If you have no knowledge of it, it’s because of ignorance not anything to do with me.

5) Depends which label you use. Without judging one way or the other, do you want to know why there’s a movement going across America that says “there’s no such thing as reverse racism”? “Discrimination can’t be racism if against white people.” But the act is the same, right? Why bicker so much over what something is called if labels don’t have power? It has everything to do with the label because some labels have power due to the amount of emotion that gets attached to them. Claiming and reclaiming words are a thing because of the power behind words. Denying that labels have power just means you have your head in the sand.

6) Labels aren’t scary? What if your work is sexist, is that a scary label? What about misogynist, what about that label? If you don’t think labels are scary then good for you, others find them terrifying.

7) There are indeed thousands of reasons to change something. In this instance what we got was “he didn’t want to write a rape scene” even though what he wrote could clearly be construed as such. Not a problem with the content, but rather a problem of appearance and how it got labelled.

8) Indeed, a peer review. Which means there’s no excuse. He was scared.

Possibly. However whether something comes off as interesting or entertaining is often more to do with "how" than "what". Anyway if that were the reason it was dropped than they should have just said so, rather than "didn't want to write a rape story", you know? Communication is important *shrugs*

They did not rewrite the Qunari lore. The Qun does not think woman can be warriors. Any woman who fights in the military is seen and sees themselves as a man. Sten's confusion stems from the female Warden fighting and yet still seeing herself as a woman. I think it was a stupid thing to add(would have preferred it being a case where The Iron Bull's two personalities mixed together in his head), but it doesn't contradict the lore or what Sten said. And really, if we are going to bring this up then the culprit is DA2 not DAI since that had Tallis as a female member of the Qun who also fights as part of the Ben-Hassrath who have male and female members.

It's important, not impotent. lol

Hornlessness is a rare genetic variation in Qunari, akin to red hair in humans. Those born without horns are considered special and are often given prestigious roles in Qunari society such as a Ben-Hassrath or an envoy to the other races. Sten, who became a companion of the Warden as a soldier of the Beresaad, falls into this category. Culturally, Qunari associate not having horns with being imposing or scary, and because of this Tal-Vashoth often decide to remove their own horns. Likewise, Saarebas, the Qunari mages, have their horns removed to warn of their danger.

Wow. Apparently people think that writers should be forced to write rape scenes even if they want to do something else.