What role does mudsex play for you?

[Semper]

Partial derail from the "Current Languishing of Tuluki Nobility" thread found here: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,32304.0.html. While reading a few posts on the thread, people were mentioning that having the intimate relationship barrier between castes was a detriment to the role. As a side question of my curiosity, can anyone explain the why and what function the relationship barrier between castes exists? On a more broader perspective though, what role does mud sex play for you and your character? Let's try to keep this umm...mature.

[Marauder Moe]

Mudsex or IC romantic relationships?

[Mood]

Let's try to keep this umm...mature.

lol, glhf.

[Semper]

Ah, romantic relationships. I think there was a thread or couple about mudsex. Just couldn't find the relevant one.

[Barzalene]

Addressing the issue of romantic relationships whether there is mudsex or fading or just unfulfilled longing is that we try to play real characters. And wanting to be loved is very much a part of the human (and I guess by extension demi-human condition)

Why do I feel that the restriction on tuluki inter-caste relationships should continue? Because I like the cultural restrictions. By making Zalanthas more different from the real world, it also makes it more alive. I like structure, I like the challenge of making the foreign accessible.

[Cutthroat]

On a more broader perspective though, what role does mud sex play for you and your character?

On romantic relationships: Unless your character is asexual, s/he will likely be seeking love in some way, shape or form. That's pretty much it, really... it's another facet of your character's personality.

On mudsex: Love usually leads to sex. The RP of sex can either be skipped (fading), roleplayed out, but either way the actual act is probably going to happen, or agreed upon that it happened. I take a "I'll have what you're having" view on consent, and don't mind roleplaying it out as it leads to being able to have a humorous scene, being able to get caught in the act, etc.

Of course, in relations where sex can be taboo or tricky there is having no sex, which leads to a different kind of RP.

[Semper]

Hmm. But is it necessary to have a romantic relationship in order to develop your character? That leads to a more general question being: can you make just as good friends with your own sex as with the opposite? (I guess this extends to the OOC question.)

[Barzalene]

Hmm. But is it necessary to have a romantic relationship in order to develop your character? That leads to a more general question being: can you make just as good friends with your own sex as with the opposite? (I guess this extends to the OOC question.)

The necessity would depend on the player and the pc. It is more necessary to some than others.

[Semper]

Eh, I don't know why I brought this topic up now that I think of it. It seems to be personal preference in the end.

[Gimfalisette]

As a side question of my curiosity, can anyone explain the why and what function the relationship barrier between castes exists?

ICly speaking, the sexual barrier between the Chosen and common castes in Tuluk springs from the time during the Occupation/Rebellion when the commoners hid the noble families from Allanak's forces. The noble families dwindled to near-extinction numbers, a number of them actually dying out; and there was a drive on the part of the families to keep their bloodlines pure, so they disallowed inter-mating.

However, due to the commoners hiding the nobles, a different kind of affectional bond developed between the castes; they became much more friendly and interdependent, and that continues to this day in Tuluk. (The Occupation is still within memory for some citizens.) The nobles need the commoners and the commoners need the nobles, in a real sense, and everyone knows this.

OOCly speaking, the sexual barrier between the castes allows for Tuluk to be distinctively different than Allanak. In Allanak, it is taboo to have an emotional relationship from noble to commoner which has the qualities of regarding the commoner to be a "real person." But in Tuluk, it is very likely that deep emotional bonds will form from both sides of the relationship, over time. A Tuluki noble and commoner could be best friends and confidantes. They just can't have sex; and the understanding that sex is unthinkable is what allows that emotional relationship to be possible.

Also OOCly speaking, I have little doubt that the design is intended to keep nobles from holing themselves up in their estates and mudsexing 24/7. Which, we all must admit, does happen with certain nobles at certain times in Allanak.

For myself, on a personal level with my characters...I almost never have a character who does not have a serious, deeply emotional romantic relationship (or three at once ) as a cornerstone of her life. The only times I've played a character with no lover are when I've designed the background and then the ongoing interactions to actively not take a lover. Partly this may be because I play female characters, and so there are lots of male characters to go around, but partly it's just part of my angle of play...I concentrate on relationships overall. To me, a character with no interesting relationships is not interesting. However, sometimes those relationships are a deep bond with a boss, or a sibling, or a best friend, rather than a lover. Those are all important too and can be amazing for character development and intense scenes.

So yes, my characters have sex. Often a lot of it. Sometimes none, during which they decry the drought.

The question of mudsex itself is irrelevant, since whether it's a fade or it's actually RPed out, it still happened.

Hmm. But is it necessary to have a romantic relationship in order to develop your character? That leads to a more general question being: can you make just as good friends with your own sex as with the opposite? (I guess this extends to the OOC question.)

For me, yes. But it is also necessary for my characters to have a best friend, and some kind of relationship with a superior, and minions to teach, and someone to hate on, and someone to...you get the idea. I find that the whole -range- of emotional entanglements is what's necessary. Just having one relationship doesn't cut it for really getting involved.

[NoteworthyFellow]

But in Tuluk, it is very likely that deep emotional bonds will form from both sides of the relationship, over time. A Tuluki noble and commoner could be best friends and confidantes. They just can't have sex; and the understanding that sex is unthinkable is what allows that emotional relationship to be possible.

I think this is exactly why I'd play a Tuluki noble if the opportunity were to arise.

[Lizzie]

Hmm. But is it necessary to have a romantic relationship in order to develop your character? That leads to a more general question being: can you make just as good friends with your own sex as with the opposite? (I guess this extends to the OOC question.)

I think you (and MANY other people) are confusing player-to-player mudsex/mutual masterbation interactive porn for the purpose of making the PLAYER horny or relieving said horniness..

and character-to-character relationships that have nothing to do with whether or not the players behind the characters have any idea at all who each other is.

Can you make just as good friends with your own sex as with the opposite? Can WHO make just as good friends? The player, or the character? In Armageddon, HOMOsexuality, Asexuality, BIsexuality, HETEROsexuality, are all acceptable behaviors. In fact, the newbie document has a whole paragraph dedicated to that. This tells me, that SEXUALITY in general is acceptable. That doesn't mean mudsex is acceptable. Mudsex is the behavior of two (or more) players acting out graphic and explicit sexual activities within the atmosphere of a mud, for the purpose of personal sexual gratification on the part of the player.

Mudsex is NEVER necessary for players to enjoy roleplay in a game that isn't dedicated to mudsex. Armageddon isn't dedicated to mudsex, and therefore mudsex is NEVER necessary in Armageddon.

However, intimacy of sexual AND non-sexual nature is a very big part of what makes people people. It is an innate response to need to have intimate attractions. You don't necessarily have to do anything about the attractions, but you have to know they are possible, and that the staff will support their existence, from a STRICTLY IN-CHARACTER perspective.

Player-to-player typing out with one hand while the other hand rubs one off is not necessary in Armageddon. THAT is mudsex.

Acting out a role, knowing that you, the player, are NOT the elf who is shooting his load on his tribal mate's thigh, is NOT mudsex. It is acting out a role. And it is rarely, if ever, necessary to actually act it out in detail. Sometimes it helps set the tone of the relationship when it's starting out. It's easier to act out your perfectly circumsized, but oddly curved penis, than to have to spend an hour OOCing "so is he snipped?" "ooc yeah but he curves to the left." "Oh yeah? Does he curve left-up, or left-down?" "Oh it's a convex curve, definitely."

It's much easier, to act out the folds of the labia that are permanently and ritually scarred, than it is to spend an hour OOCing it just so that the other party knows how to react when he fades the next time around.

So yeah sometimes it's a good thing to act it out. But that -never- means it has to be mudsex. And it's really tiring to have to defend intimacy in roleplay, to people who cannot differentiate between the two.

[Marauder Moe]

Whoa!  Where did that come from?

He said he wasn't talking about mudsex (as in emoting out bumping uglies).

It all sounded like an honest curious question too, not something that needed to be defended against.


Anyway, it is my assumption that OOC relationships are not part of this thread. 

I believe that yes, it is natural for a character to want to have intimate, romantic relationships.  However, if a player is uncomfortable, I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to roleplay as fulfilling that with vNPCs rather than having an IC lack of interest in sex/romance/propagation.

As for being just friends with the opposite sex, well, I think that question is difficult enough to answer in real life.  Without some barrier to intimacy, I think most relationships will either evolve or fail if attraction is involved.  Even if there is a sufficient barrier, I don't think attraction is likely to ever go away, though.

[tortall]

Why do I feel that the restriction on tuluki inter-caste relationships should continue? Because I like the cultural restrictions. By making Zalanthas more different from the real world, it also makes it more alive. I like structure, I like the challenge of making the foreign accessible.

Cultural restrictions as well and good, however, if the case is that if you have any kind of romantic relationship with a commoner as a Tuluki noble, wether they have sex or not, whether they act out the sex or not, your character will be stored sound a little.... Crazy to me. This MAY not always be the case. I'd really like to hear from the Tuluki Noble imms on this. I can understand saying it's unheard of, and taboo, but, honstly, incest is almost like that in America. It still happens. Quietly behind closed doors and a big deal is not made about it. While the southern nobles tend to flaunt all the people they've slept with, the northen prefer to keep quiet about it since their marriages are all about alliances. Yes, it may make it different than in real life, but you have real life people playing. That would be like asking them to roleplay out an alien who does not like any other beings and has no concept of sex or relationships and telling them they have to further the plot of the story! No, it's not quite that bad. People NEED RELATIONSHIPS! Not just friends. vNPC's are all well and good, but having another player there and no knowing what they're going to do make it more REAL. That's why -I- think nobles and commoners should be taboo, but not completly banned so that your character will be stored.

[Barzalene]

I think part of it, (I'm obviously not a Tuluki Imm) is that it starts with a snowflake and becomes a blizzard very easily.
If you let just two elves ride kanks, soon they're all tall skinny humans.

There are plenty of roles, most roles in fact where you can make your love life the primary focus of your existence. There is a lot of sex in game. And there are some people who really need that aspect of rp to enjoy their roles. I think though, that not everyone, possibly not even the majority feel that way, or at least don't feel that it's necessary with every pc.

To say that if Tuluki Nobles can't have deep meaningful relationships with the marjority of the world, they become nearly unplayable, is very valid. To say if they can't have sexual with most of the world they become unplayable I think is not true for most people.

[Gimfalisette]

But in Tuluk, it is very likely that deep emotional bonds will form from both sides of the relationship, over time. A Tuluki noble and commoner could be best friends and confidantes. They just can't have sex; and the understanding that sex is unthinkable is what allows that emotional relationship to be possible.

I think this is exactly why I'd play a Tuluki noble if the opportunity were to arise.

I have played characters from both sides of the noble/templar-commoner coin, in Tuluk and in Allanak, where deep relationships did evolve over time. And there was no sex--in Tuluk, never even a thought of sex, and in Allanak no feeling that the relationship needed sex.

But IMO, playing out relationships like this takes a lot of maturity and intelligence from both players. It takes a willingness to play characters who are whole people, despite how gruff/efficient/cool they may seem on the surface. It takes a willingness to dig into the vulnerabilities of the other character, and ICly care about them. It takes a willingness to expose oneself emotionally, at least to some extent. It's pretty much like RL relationships in a lot of ways. You can't make the relationship if you don't take some risks and put yourself out there.

In fact, some of these noble/templar-commoner relationships have been major highlights of my time here in ARM.

To say that if Tuluki Nobles can't have deep meaningful relationships with the marjority of the world, they become nearly unplayable, is very valid. To say if they can't have sexual with most of the world they become unplayable I think is not true for most people.

Exactly.

I would love to see more bondmate, confidante, best-friend type relationships happening between nobles/templars and commoners...obviously everyone is going to keep it secret even if it's just an emotional connection. But it adds so much to the roles of both boss and minion.

[FantasyWriter]

This thread derail is for mudsex and IC sexual relationships in general.  Please take the Tuluki Noble discussion bact to the original thread.

[Marauder Moe]

Except that thread was about the lack of nobles in Tuluk, not the relationships between Tuluki nobles and commoners.   

[Gimfalisette]

The OP specifically asked a question pertaining to the Tuluki castes and sex. So discussing it here is perfectly valid.

Another thought, kind of based on what Lizzie says above:

Sometimes we, on these forums, seem to have this schizophrenia about which feelings are acceptable to feel OOCly and which are not. Like, it's OK to be scared if your character in danger...it's OK to be spooked by what happens on the RPT...it's OK to share your character's feelings of rage or helplessness, because that's all part of -Armageddon-...(assuming you keep all of this in some kind of rational check, of course, where it is enjoyable rather than crazy-making, and doesn't cause you to flame people or otherwise act out OOCly).

But it's not OK to actually have any sexual interest in what your character is doing.

I don't understand why we're so mutually squeamish about the topic of sex in ARM. I don't play ARM to get sexual gratification, or to get fear gratification, or to get rage gratification, or any kind of emotional gratification or feeling...but those feelings -are- all a part of playing ARM. Those feelings are -fun-. And I think that's OK.

Would any of us be hooked on Crackageddon if we never felt that surge of curiosity, or fear, or rage, or lust? Isn't that really the whole point? Yes, it's OK not to feel those things, but I contend that the connection between what the character is experiencing and what the player is experiencing is vitally important to the interest level.

[FantasyWriter]

please ignore my last post, apparently I forgot how to read.

[Kiri]

Relationships, or lack thereof, seem to be a pretty basic tenet for most people. By people I mean the characters played, not necessarily the players.

Why do we play a MUD? To pretend to be someone else, and interact with a WORLD FULL OF PEOPLE.

Some people thrive on solo play, but I'm betting the majority don't. As others have mentioned, it's not really about sex. It's about having relationships with other people that explore the depths of your character.

What's the point of having really deep flaws, or really cool phobias, or life-altering obsessions, if you cannot express these to other people? Many times, these are not things you would publicly flaunt, but want someone, somewhere, to SEE. Being intimate with another character, sexually or otherwise, gives us a stage for the things about our characters we'd like others to know, but can't exactly shout about.

Some of the best RP I've had was generated by love, betrayal, a desperate attempt to repair... sadly it ended in a rather grotesque and frightening death for my PC, but the events leading up to it were pretty intense.  "Betrayal" doesn't mean nearly as much if the people you're betraying don't care about you in some manner. Caring about, or being cared about, tends to leave a longer impression once your character has passed on to MantisHead.

Is sex important?  Not necessarily -personally- so, but it IS a rather big part of life in Zalanthas, whether your PC engages in it or not.

RELATIONSHIPS are what's important, and that seems to be borne out by several other posts here.

[Cutthroat]

Sometimes we, on these forums, seem to have this schizophrenia ... But it's not OK to actually have any sexual interest in what your character is doing. I don't understand why we're so mutually squeamish about the topic of sex in ARM.

I think this unfortunately has to do with a broader aspect of sex and other "unacceptable" things in society (especially American, as that is the one I am most familiar with); specifically how it is taboo or otherwise uncomfortable to talk about it openly while at the same time accepting things like murder, gratuitous violence, etc. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but it must at least apply to some people. The discussion of that aspect may or may not be going too far in this case, however.

The big idea is to accept the difference between the actions of the player and the actions of the character, while staying interested in anything that goes on, and to keep all IG actions IC.

[Gimfalisette]

I think this unfortunately has to do with a broader aspect of sex and other "unacceptable" things in society (especially American, as that is the one I am most familiar with); specifically how it is taboo or otherwise uncomfortable to talk about it openly while at the same time accepting things like murder, gratuitous violence, etc. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but it must at least apply to some people. The discussion of that aspect may or may not be going too far in this case, however.

That might be part of it, but my honest opinion is that the typical ARM player (young American male) is just not all that...deep, or capable of RPing sustained relationships. So there's kind of a "lone cowboy" factor that comes into play; "I'm a cowboy, I don't need you and your girly things." (Relationships are girly in this worldview.)

This is not to say, of course, that all young American males have this worldview or are like this. Just that this is the overall flavor of the playerbase. Everyone's an action hero and has no time for "silly things."

And keeping IC and OOC separate while still allowing oneself to enjoy the feelings that result is a pretty mature trick.

The big idea is to accept the difference between the actions of the player and the actions of the character, while staying interested in anything that goes on, and to keep all IG actions IC.

Well, right. Just because I murder your character in game doesn't mean I hate you out of game and I'm going to hunt you down to do the same IRL. And just because our characters have a torrid love affair doesn't mean we're going to hook up in RL and have babies.

But it's OK to feel those clenches of fear, rage, desire OOCly. I mean, really...I pretty much only want to play with other players who will do one or more of those things for me. And the most intense, most character-developing relationships have some aspect of all three. (Desire/longing has many forms...not all sexual.) What's a lover, in ARM, if they don't threaten your life or beat you up on occasion, then have crazy sex with you? What's a sibling, if they're not fighting against you and then getting in some kind of trouble you need to rescue them from? What's a boss, if not the person who both berates you and cherishes you? What's a minion, if you can't see your younger self in them and nurture them while also scaring the crap out of them?

Mmm relationships.

[Lizzie]

Moe, if he isn't asking about mudsex, then the title of this thread shouldn't be "What role does mudsex play for you?" and the entire content of his first post should be changed to whatever it is he's actually asking about. It is clear to me, that some people confuse mudsex and personal -player- sexual gratification, with IC relationships, and assume if they see two *characters* in a relationship in the game, it must mean the *players* are mudsexing.

In fact, I have experienced the discomfort of learning, that someone once created a character intentionally to get "cozy" with one of my characters, because they thought I would mudsex with them, based on their in-game observations of my characters.

I have also watched some players create the same types of characters over and over again, specifically for the very obvious purpose of attracting sexual behavior in-game. Whether they were known mudsexers, or known faders, isn't even the point. It just is really distasteful to think that sex is such an emphasis that the staff actually has to put OOC rules in place to force a taboo on an entire subculture of the game (tuluk nobles).

I feel the primary reason they have done that, was because the *players* could not be trusted to keep both hands on the keyboard and not use their noble character's influence ICly, to encourage OOC hormones to run rampant. And that - is very sad.  I don't know if that was the reason, but given the constant talk about mudsex, and nobles wanting to mudsex, and players wanting to mudsex, I can't help but feel that way.

It definitely isn't why I play Armageddon. It certainly isn't a factor when I create my characters. I usually fade, and very rarely act anything out. And I resent that there is an assumption that *characters* who have intimate romantic interests in other *characters* are the result of *players* who want to mudsex. I also resent that people who -do- want to mudsex, perpetuate this myth on purpose.

That is where I am coming from.

[Marauder Moe]

First reply to this thread was me asking him to clarify, and he did.  Some people don't go back and edit their posts just for a wording or content mistake.  I typically don't. 

I figure The only reason it came up is possibly the OP was careless with wording or mistook "mudsex" as a term that means any romantic relationship between characters on a MUD, which is an honest mistake considering "mudsex" doesn't appear in many dictionaries.

Anyway, other than that you believe this thread is about mudsex, I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you're objecting to so strongly.