Homosexuality

[musashi]

Also just to add ... I agree that for straight people the thought of them having homosexual relations can be disgusting, just like the thought of them having straight relations can be disgusting for gays. But ...

The idea that from that, you automatically get to "thus ... they are naturally disgusted by gay/straight people in general" really doesn't follow at all.

Gay people don't feel disgusted by the presence or existence of straight people. Dogs eat their own poop and yet we aren't disgusted by the presence of dogs. And so on, and so on, and so on. People are "disgusted" by gay people because they are taught it culturally.

[morrigan]

I think if you read back, you'll see I said they found the thought of engaging in the acts disgusting, not the people themselves, unless I just really misspoke. Also, all I can find at the moment is...... "The condemnation of anal sex between males, however, predates Christian belief. It was frequent in ancient Greece; "unnatural" can be traced back to Plato.[116]"

Which is from Wikipedia, not always the best source I know, but I was in a hurry.

edited to add: Though it does seem you're right and I was mistaken on how widespread it was.

[musashi]

Ah, if that's all you were saying then yes, I agree. It just seemed to me at a glance that you were taking that using that observation as grounding for why some people dislike gay people at large; which as I pointed out, doesn't seem to follow.

I think if you read back, you'll see I said they found the thought of engaging in the acts disgusting, not the people themselves, unless I just really misspoke. Also, all I can find at the moment is...... "The condemnation of anal sex between males, however, predates Christian belief. It was frequent in ancient Greece; "unnatural" can be traced back to Plato.[116]"

Which is from Wikipedia, not always the best source I know, but I was in a hurry.

edited to add: Though it does seem you're right and I was mistaken on how widespread it was.

Right ... but ... the segment just above the part you quoted says:

Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.
In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon."[115]

So I mean, even the source you're reading from counters your assertion that homosexuality was condemned in the majority of civilizations through out history.

EDIT to add: I see you concede the point. No worries man. You're only wrong up until the point that you admit it. Then you're not wrong anymore  Happens to us all. All the time.

[Taven]

I'm curious where the information that the idea sexual orientation didn't exist until recently comes from. Perhaps we didn't have a word for it, I've never cared to put a date to the creation of the word homosexuality, but since the dawn of recorded history you can find references to homosexual acts, which means the idea -did- exist, and whether the idea existed before recorded history or not cannot be proven or shown to be false.

I don't think that there's an argument being made that sexual acts between a man and a man or a woman and a woman didn't exist before the present. If you look at my last post that may help better explain. The idea is that before a certain point you could have sex with someone of the same gender without being "homosexual", and that that specific term is fairly recent. I'd need to dig out my theory books to explain more, and I can't find them right now. Is that at least making some sense?

The part about racial discrimination being fun in Arm because they aren't real people, just doesn't hold up. People don't discriminate against people in the real world because of the color of their skin. They discriminate because of behavioral and cultural differences(real and imagined). Discrimination is discrimination. Just because one person is more sensitive to one sort doesn't make it worse than another.

Well, Armageddon is a game, and we play games to have fun. Part of the game is that there is fantasy discrimination. If I'm playing a dick character who follows the documentation, and I'm enjoying that character, it does not mean that I support real life discrimination in any way, shape, or form. It's a game, and that's why it's okay. Likewise, if I'm playing a murderer, I'm not killing real people, I'm killing characters. In that case, killing is not killing, because the people aren't real. It's the same with discrimination.

I think if you read back, you'll see I said they found the thought of engaging in the acts disgusting, not the people themselves, unless I just really misspoke.

I think that the backlash that you're seeing is that people want to keep RL discrimination and IC discrimination very separate. Having a character who is uncomfortable with something that is specifically based on real world discomforts is what is being looked down on. The argument is that if you're raised in a culture where there is no discrimination, and a significant portion of the population is homosexual, you wouldn't see discomfort. You're arguing that discomfort may be realistic anyway. Realism arguments aside, we're just not after having the discomfort specifically against a real life concept ICly. Does that make sense?

[morrigan]

I'm curious where the information that the idea sexual orientation didn't exist until recently comes from. Perhaps we didn't have a word for it, I've never cared to put a date to the creation of the word homosexuality, but since the dawn of recorded history you can find references to homosexual acts, which means the idea -did- exist, and whether the idea existed before recorded history or not cannot be proven or shown to be false.

I don't think that there's an argument being made that sexual acts between a man and a man or a woman and a woman didn't exist before the present. If you look at my last post that may help better explain. The idea is that before a certain point you could have sex with someone of the same gender without being "homosexual", and that that specific term is fairly recent. I'd need to dig out my theory books to explain more, and I can't find them right now. Is that at least making some sense?

The part about racial discrimination being fun in Arm because they aren't real people, just doesn't hold up. People don't discriminate against people in the real world because of the color of their skin. They discriminate because of behavioral and cultural differences(real and imagined). Discrimination is discrimination. Just because one person is more sensitive to one sort doesn't make it worse than another.

Well, Armageddon is a game, and we play games to have fun. Part of the game is that there is fantasy discrimination. If I'm playing a dick character who follows the documentation, and I'm enjoying that character, it does not mean that I support real life discrimination in any way, shape, or form. It's a game, and that's why it's okay. Likewise, if I'm playing a murderer, I'm not killing real people, I'm killing characters. In that case, killing is not killing, because the people aren't real. It's the same with discrimination.

I think if you read back, you'll see I said they found the thought of engaging in the acts disgusting, not the people themselves, unless I just really misspoke.

I think that the backlash that you're seeing is that people want to keep RL discrimination and IC discrimination very separate. Having a character who is uncomfortable with something that is specifically based on real world discomforts is what is being looked down on. The argument is that if you're raised in a culture where there is no discrimination, and a significant portion of the population is homosexual, you wouldn't see discomfort. You're arguing that discomfort may be realistic anyway. Realism arguments aside, we're just not after having the discomfort specifically against a real life concept ICly. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it's really just semantics that we're both arguing here though. Regardless of whether the word existed or not at the time, the act remains the same. We just use that particular word for it now. Any discomfort your character can feel will be based on a real world discomfort though. If you'll look, you'll see that I merely said if the player themselves just couldn't reconcile it in their mind and get around it, they could give their character a legitimate reason to be uncomfortable around it, such as a traumatic past experience, which would make them dislike it, no matter how they were raised.

[musashi]

If you'll look, you'll see that I merely said if the player themselves just couldn't reconcile it in their mind and get around it, they could give their character a legitimate reason to be uncomfortable around it, such as a traumatic past experience, which would make them dislike it, no matter how they were raised.

They would need to remember (and accept) the fact that to the rest of the characters in the game world, this kind of thing would be viewed like any other phobia or irrational intolerance. Like people who are scared of heights or rabbits or what have you. Express it too loudly, and people are going to take it as a sign of weakness.

[morrigan]

Very true. There are consequences to most things people choose to role play.

[Thunkkin]

This actually helped illustrate my point. Your gay friend was repulsed by the thought female genitalia. Some men are repulsed by the thought of other men's. So, if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with another man, he's discriminating, but if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with a woman, he's enlightened and better than me?

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally. I didn't say my friend was enlightened. I didn't say he was better than you. The fact that you interpreted it that way is telling, but it's not my business to speculate why. I was pointing out that you were saying "people dislike homosexuality because it's gross" and I was pointing out that, no, SOME people find it gross, some don't, and some find heterosexuality gross. I was undermining your blanket statement. Please don't extend your own reactions to something by assuming that most people share that reaction.

It's not -some- people. People, dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Fact. Doesn't matter how liberal you want to be. Or how cool and accepting you want to be. Why do you think religions made homosexuality a taboo? It's not because god, santa, the easter bunny told them to. It's because the people who made the religion were against homosexuality. So, it predated the religions that were against it.

Some people dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Gay sex doesn't appeal to me. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, either.

You're trying to articulate that certain forms of patriarchy that controlled sex in hetero-normative fashion predated monotheism? I'm sure you could find some examples of that, yes. Humans are a pretty diverse lot. However, you'd find that hetero-normative patriarchy and certain forms of sex-obsessed religion absolutely developed hand-in-hand together in tandem.

By the way, your immediate reaction that people are trying to be liberal and cool here just underlines how thoroughly enmeshed you are in the culture views with which you were raised. I'm not pointing that out in order to say "someone else is better than you," but just to prompt some self reflection.

EDIT: And let me point out that my views and attitudes are equally embedded in my own culture, professional life/expectations, etc. None of us can escape it. Now, that doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for our actions, but our culture often defines our starting point and what we can conceive of as our possible choices.

[morrigan]

This actually helped illustrate my point. Your gay friend was repulsed by the thought female genitalia. Some men are repulsed by the thought of other men's. So, if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with another man, he's discriminating, but if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with a woman, he's enlightened and better than me?

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally. I didn't say my friend was enlightened. I didn't say he was better than you. The fact that you interpreted it that way is telling, but it's not my business to speculate why. I was pointing out that you were saying "people dislike homosexuality because it's gross" and I was pointing out that, no, SOME people find it gross, some don't, and some find heterosexuality gross. I was undermining your blanket statement. Please don't extend your own reactions to something by assuming that most people share that reaction.

It's not -some- people. People, dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Fact. Doesn't matter how liberal you want to be. Or how cool and accepting you want to be. Why do you think religions made homosexuality a taboo? It's not because god, santa, the easter bunny told them to. It's because the people who made the religion were against homosexuality. So, it predated the religions that were against it.

Some people dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Gay sex doesn't appeal to me. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, either.

You're trying to articulate that certain forms of patriarchy that controlled sex in hetero-normative fashion predated monotheism? I'm sure you could find some examples of that, yes. Humans are a pretty diverse lot. However, you'd find that hetero-normative patriarchy and certain forms of sex-obsessed religion absolutely developed hand-in-hand together in tandem.

By the way, your immediate reaction that people are trying to be liberal and cool here just underlines how thoroughly enmeshed you are in the culture views with which you were raised. I'm not pointing that out in order to say "someone else is better than you," but just to prompt some self reflection.

EDIT: And let me point out that my views and attitudes are equally embedded in my own culture, professional life/expectations, etc. None of us can escape it. Now, that doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for our actions, but our culture often defines our starting point and what we can conceive of as our possible choices.

I don't know how to do the nifty thing where I separate quotes and talk in between..
I didn't say that you said any of those things, however that seems to be the consensus. I'm wrong for not wanting to engage in homosexual activities personally, but in your example it's perfectly alright that your gay friend didn't want to engage in heterosexual activities. Your usage of "I think it's telling" and other remarks along those lines aren't actually beneficial to any conversation, it's just a passive aggressive form of verbal attack. I didn't say homosexuality was gross, I said that people who dislike it, dislike it not necessarily for religious reasons, but because they find the idea of engaging in it themselves distasteful. Much like your friend found the idea of engaging in sex with a woman distasteful. Also, using the phrase "you're trying" implies that you have even a basic understanding of my personality and beliefs. Please don't assume. I have many gay friends and have lived with gay roommates and their partners. I didn't say(or if I did, didn't mean to say) that homosexuality itself was gross. Just that some people think it is. Maybe you should re-read from the first post I made a little more carefully and try to see the intention behind the words rather than focusing on semantics in an attempt to find fault with what was said.

[Case]

Gay people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this while straight people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this

[lordcooper]

Gay people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this while straight people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this

Can bisexuals argue like this?

[morrigan]

Gay people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this while straight people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this

...I don't get it.. ?

[Case]

Gay people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this while straight people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this

Can bisexuals argue like this?

Wtf that's discriminatory. Studies show 26% of bisexuals argue like this and 12% argue like this with the remaining percentage instead playing Arm and not getting hung up over how others may perceive how others act and react to a sexual behaviour or attraction

[lordcooper]

62% of bisexual people pay Arm?

Cool fact is cool

[Feco]

If we want to continue to discuss homosexuality, we need a new thread.

I think it's settled in terms of Zalanthas.  If you want to be afraid or grossed out by homosexuals IC, then your character has an irrational fear and will be treated as such.  You don't have to want to engage in any sexual activity you don't want/your character doesn't want, but that doesn't mean you have to be grossed out by it.

If you see something that offends you on an OOC level, it's outside the rules, and you were not asked for consent, file a complaint.

[musashi]

I said that people who dislike it, dislike it not necessarily for religious reasons, but because they find the idea of engaging in it themselves distasteful. Much like your friend found the idea of engaging in sex with a woman distasteful.

Just on this ... I think I already pointed out to you that this line of reasoning does not follow, yes? Disliking the idea of yourself doing something does not extend to disliking other people who do it unless you find the act itself morally offensive.

A dog eats poop. We don't hate all dogs for it even though we are grossed out (I hope) by the thought of us doing it.
A gay friend is grossed out by the thought of sex with a girl. They don't hate straight guys who are into that by default.

Hating homosexuals is entirely a learned behavior from the culture you were brought up in. Religion doesn't have to be the cultural reason, it just is ... 99 times out of 100 in our current world. And I don't mean that you have to be religious, I mean that most cultures have strong religious influence even if you aren't following the religion yourself. You were exposed to it in your formative years.

[morrigan]

I said that people who dislike it, dislike it not necessarily for religious reasons, but because they find the idea of engaging in it themselves distasteful. Much like your friend found the idea of engaging in sex with a woman distasteful.

Just on this ... I think I already pointed out to you that this line of reasoning does not follow, yes? Disliking the idea of yourself doing something does not extend to disliking other people who do it unless you find the act itself morally offensive.

A dog eats poop. We don't hate all dogs for it even though we are grossed out (I hope) by the thought of us doing it.
A gay friend is grossed out by the thought of sex with a girl. They don't hate straight guys who are into that by default.

Hating homosexuals is entirely a learned behavior from the culture you were brought up in. Religion doesn't have to be the cultural reason, it just is ... 99 times out of 100 in our current world. And I don't mean that you have to be religious, I mean that most cultures have strong religious influence even if you aren't following the religion yourself. You were exposed to it in your formative years.

Ohhhh...I see where the disconnect was now. Yes. That is right. Hrm, how do I word this? I meant the dislike was for the homosexual acts, not the people engaging in them. For instance, I am not bothered by people being gay. That doesn't mean I want to watch them have sex. I do however enjoy watching heterosexual sex. We got pretty derailed, going into specifics of homosexuality itself, but the OP was asking about how their character would respond to seeing people engaging in the bahavior, so my response was sort of tailored toward that. That while it isn't seen as anything out of the ordinary in the game world it can be jarring for the player themselves if it's not something they are used to or comfortable with.

[lordcooper]

Gay and straight people are totally sexist.

[musashi]

I said that people who dislike it, dislike it not necessarily for religious reasons, but because they find the idea of engaging in it themselves distasteful. Much like your friend found the idea of engaging in sex with a woman distasteful.

Just on this ... I think I already pointed out to you that this line of reasoning does not follow, yes? Disliking the idea of yourself doing something does not extend to disliking other people who do it unless you find the act itself morally offensive.

A dog eats poop. We don't hate all dogs for it even though we are grossed out (I hope) by the thought of us doing it.
A gay friend is grossed out by the thought of sex with a girl. They don't hate straight guys who are into that by default.

Hating homosexuals is entirely a learned behavior from the culture you were brought up in. Religion doesn't have to be the cultural reason, it just is ... 99 times out of 100 in our current world. And I don't mean that you have to be religious, I mean that most cultures have strong religious influence even if you aren't following the religion yourself. You were exposed to it in your formative years.

Ohhhh...I see where the disconnect was now. Yes. That is right. Hrm, how do I word this? I meant the dislike was for the homosexual acts, not the people engaging in them. For instance, I am not bothered by people being gay. That doesn't mean I want to watch them have sex. I do however enjoy watching heterosexual sex. We got pretty derailed, going into specifics of homosexuality itself, but the OP was asking about how their character would respond to seeing people engaging in the bahavior, so my response was sort of tailored toward that. That while it isn't seen as anything out of the ordinary in the game world it can be jarring for the player themselves if it's not something they are used to or comfortable with.

Got cha! In that case I don't think any extra justification is really needed at all. Some people playing don't want to see mudsex in general no matter what is kanking what. But we have consent rules for that if it's in a public place, and if it's somewhere private and you stumble in, it's easy enough to stumble right back out again.

[Sokotra]

I really don't want to jump in on this so please don't jump down my throat, but I know there's a lot of people that just don't want to see the profane and sexual stuff, period - no matter what kind it is.  Honestly, I think this might scare away a lot of players and it would be nice if we could tone it down just a tad or maybe how it used to be - which was more subtle, implied and understood without going into much detail.

I'm not saying we need to change the gameworld at all, but I really don't think it is necessary to get graphic with the words,  conversations, and actions themselves unless you are in a group of people that you know, positively, consent to that sort of stuff.  We should probably assume people don't consent unless they say so.  There's also a lot of young players out there that we shouldn't be influencing negatively, or at least need to be given a chance to learn what they want or don't want to hear and see for themselves... whether they say they are 18 or not.

Now where to draw that line I don't know.  Every person would draw the line in different places.  One might not want to hear any cussing at all while another can put up with small amounts or another doesn't care as long as it doesn't get extremely graphic.  By and large, violence is tolerated much more than other stuff like profanity and sexual content... let's just use some common sense and not scare players away and make this a mud that is only played by those that enjoy pr0n and profanity.

Just because there's a certain clique of folks that thinks all that stuff is okay and fine and anything goes, does not mean that there are not a lot of other people out there that would like to play the game without much of it.  I know there is going to be a little, it is a harsh and violent world... but it looks like it has been pushed a little far in many circumstances, by a large handful of frequent players that change the gameworld how they see fit.  That is fine to a certain extent, but have some respect for everyone else.

[Anaiah]

With all due respect, Sokotra, the consent rules are what they are for a reason. If it was intended for people to need to get consent for things like word choices ahead of time, that would be listed among them.

There are many games where you are not allowed to do anything higher than PG rated. I quit one I really enjoyed because of that.

RE: Homosexuality:

Even animals IRL exhibit gay behaviors, it's been around for a long, long time, and regardless of whether or not people are discriminatory about it IRL, they are not, IC. There is a reason for that as well.

If you want someone to discriminate against, go hate on an elf (or a human, if you're an elf).

[Potaje]

What about tri-sexuals does this rate up their with the topic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k

(caution this is animal on animal high jinks)

I thought this might show that such things span human higher intellect and that sex simply falls into an animistic base nature.
For the argument of it in history, so one could conclude from observation that:

Birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, ...

[morrigan]

Lol...I was about to say I once saw a chimp orally rape a toad, but you beat me to it. I like playing devil's advocate and using that when people bring up the homosexuality in animals thing. But yes, wide varieties of animal species engage in homosexual relations.

[Cindy42]

I've been tired of all forms of discrimination since I was born. You think people would know better because we can read and shit.

Gay people are sexy by the way

[Barzalene]

62% of bisexual people pay Arm?

Cool fact is cool

You'd think we'd have more people on at peak.