Homosexuality on Zalanthas

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

I've been thinking recently about homosexuality in Zalanthas, and how accepted it is amongst the general populace. I think it's a good topic for discussion, and I have many sub-questions I'll bring up later... But as for now, just to get the ball rolling I ask...

How common and accepted is homosexuality among the general populace of the city-states of Zalanthas?

Go ahead AC. Fire away.  :wink:

[Kankman]

Raising a bottle of whiskey to his parched lips a grizzled mercenary says in southern-accented sirihish:
"What? Ya fek arses eh?"

Lowering the bottle in his hand with a brief shake of his head a grizzled mercenary says in southern-accented sirihish:
"Well, t'each their own'en I guess."

A grizzled mercenarys thinks to himself:
"Krath burn me if I give two sids t'know what gets'im goin'."

Well, to sum up past discussions (Very poorly mind you, since I am too tired to look it up) was that it wouldn't be taboo like in our society, because there's really no stigma like what comes from our Church's and now Media. Look at Ancient Greece or Rome (I can't remember) where homosexuality was much more common, and referred to openly. I believe it was even a rite of passage for a young boy to make man-love. But I might've made that part up.

But I know for sure that in some cultures on Zalanthas (Perhaps not the City-States) there is accepted (Not accepted really, because no one's trying to reject it, it's just there) homosexuality. But I imagine these cultures all recognize the infertility of such a couple, and may procreate for the sake of procreation.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Look at Ancient Greece or Rome (I can't remember)

Greece, I'm fairly certain, Tony. Thanks. It was always my belief that homosexuality was fairly accepted among the general populace, but I wanted to hear some other viewpoints, from people that have played longer than me or even played homosexual characters and such. But, seeing as how this is indeed an old topic, and I was too lazy to run a search first, I think I'll throw in one of my sub-questions to make this thread at least vaguely interesting to some...

Would insults suggesting that a person is a homosexual be as offensive on Zalanthas as they are on Earth?

[Angela Christine]

Eh, I think it depends.

In my one attempt at gender bending I had a pretty boy of . . . ambiguous sexuality.  I figured I couldn't pull off a manly man.  Someone once said he should be a catamite, that might have been an attempt at an insult, but the person was rendered speachless when he said he -was- a former catamite.  :twisted:  Maybe it was mean to have a femine guy join the Byn. Now a catamite isn't necessarily homosexual, any more than a prostitute is a nymphomaniac, but it's related to homosexuality.

Honestly, I'd think that without taboo bisexuality would be more common.  Bisexuality might not be quite the right term, it isn't so much that everyone would be attracted to both men and women, but that they'd be more willing to recognise that a chance to get your rocks off is a chance to get your rocks off.  If you are getting a good blow job, does it really matter that much what else is attached to the mouth?

Lets assume that Zalanthians are sophisticated enough to make the connection between Penis-vagina sex and procreation.  Ok.  But these aren't puritins, they don't have sex only to make babies.  When you want to breed you find someone you think would make a good parent, but when you just want to have fun and work off some tension then breedability isn't a big factor.  In fact, a canny noble or rich person might prefer same-sex whores and pleasure slaves, -because- they  want to have fun but don't want to breed.  Who wants to have a half-noble bastard slave?  Nobody, and that goes double for female nobles.  You don't have to be homosexual to use a same-sex person for sexual gratification.

In real life a lot of people fool around a little when they are young or "experiment" in colege.  They aren't homosexual, they are just fooling around, and mostly they go on to have typical hetrosexual lives with kids and a house in the suburbs.

AC

[flurry]

Would insults suggesting that a person is a homosexual be as offensive on Zalanthas as they are on Earth?

I would think they would be both less common and less offensive.  

Perhaps a more common type of insult would be to suggest someone has sex with those of a different humanoid race  (e.g. elf-fecker), which could potentially be more offensive.

[EvilRoeSlade]

The Sergeant of one of my former character's was (I think) homosexual.

My half-giant never figured it out, but he often wondered why the water cleric was always at her apartment.

I personally feel that Zalanthians wouldn't care about homosexuality.  Like others have said, there is no bible on Zalanthas, and when it comes right down to the bone of the matter the only reason people are turned off and against homosexuality is because the bible says that its wrong.

Then of course there are the people who think that because of the urgent drive to procreate in a dying world, homosexuality would be scarce or nonexistant, which is simply put, bullshit.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Although this thread's only been up for an hour or so, I'd like to tack on yet another one of my sub-questions:

If there are 'marriages' between nobles, could a similar bond exist between two nobles of the same sex, even if only for the temporary alliance it would form between the Houses involved?

For those of you keeping score at home, I've pretty much asked three questions here, just for the sake of discussion. It's kind of an old topic, I know, but I don't see why having it exhumed every now and then could be a bad thing... The other two questions are:

1. How common and accepted is homosexuality among the general populace of the city-states of Zalanthas?

2. Would insults suggesting that a person is a homosexual be as offensive on Zalanthas as they are on Earth?

[EvilRoeSlade]

2. Would insults suggesting that a person is a homosexual be as offensive on Zalanthas as they are on Earth?

Again, I think thats strictly an earth thing.  If you'd take a moment to really think about "gay" insults you'd realize that if nobody cared about homosexuality one way or the other, than likewise nobody would care about being called homosexual.  The worst that I could think of is that it would be akin to calling somebody barren, which seems like a pretty flimsy insult, unless your telling it to a desert woman who belongs to a dying tribe.

[Barzalene]

Although this thread's only been up for an hour or so, I'd like to tack on yet another one of my sub-questions:

If there are 'marriages' between nobles, could a similar bond exist between two nobles of the same sex, even if only for the temporary alliance it would form between the Houses involved?

For those of you keeping score at home, I've pretty much asked three questions here, just for the sake of discussion. It's kind of an old topic, I know, but I don't see why having it exhumed every now and then could be a bad thing... The other two questions are:

1. How common and accepted is homosexuality among the general populace of the city-states of Zalanthas?

2. Would insults suggesting that a person is a homosexual be as offensive on Zalanthas as they are on Earth?

I once played a noble who was involved in a wedding negotiation. A big part of that negotiation was the children. How many, and which house they'd be from. But can I state unequivically that that contract was a standard contract? No.

[creeper386]

First, I SWEAR I know what EvilRoe is talking about with  the sergeant, or I've seen a similar thing and it didn't draw any attention.

I think among PCs, homosexuality is more uncommon then it would be common for the world. And among PCs insults in that area would probably pack a bigger punch then normal.

But it shouldn't, so don't make it common!!


For the most part... I think homosexuality would be just as common as different sex sex in regards to just getting off. I could see close knit tribes doing the same sex thing because, alot of tribes would be smaller and it's probably known that inbreeding doesn't have the best results. So unless it's already been planned that you are out to have a baby, going with your own sex would get the same results without the possibility of killing off a child bearing female because of pregnancy problems or having a worthless child. Among mercenaries it could be common as, there may not always be someone of the opposite sex around that would acctually be trust worthy. Among commoners in city states I see it as MOST common. Just because... I'm not sure why, specially when mul mix is fairly common and fairly cheap from my understanding. But, I think it just wouldn't matter as much, unless they were out to have children.


Creeper says you shouldn't pay attention to anything above.

[spawnloser]

I'll say this again...it was said regarding Noble breeding in a different thread.

Inbreeding only increases the chance of complication by 10%...considering the chance of complication is .03%, that makes the total chance of an inbred complication of .033%.  That's a huge difference, if you ask me.

[chinwa]

Yes, but that chance increases at a very rapid pace the more generations of imbreeding that occur.

[Carnage]

Not to mention the higher chances of acquiring a genetic disease.

[spawnloser]

That is true, but most societies have a large enough gene pool to prevent that...even the tribals.

[Carnage]

If you're referring to a noble family as a 'society', no, they don't. These aren't big huge families. If you want an example of what inbreeding can do, just take a look at some of the purebred dogs. A lot were inbred and have genetic problems.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Heh, if you want an example of what inbreeding can do to a species, just look at the half-giants.

[kiddgoth]

Inbreeding ... hrm ever wonder where all those mutants come from wandering the tuluki streets.. :shock: .. No seriously I think sexuality is a personal approach there is always going to be exceptions to the norm and thats great.. but in reality sex = procreation you cant carry on a blood line if you have two men together or two women, so like it was mentioned earlier comon homosexuality might be a foppish noble experimenting with a young ceasar crouped boy behind closed doors or two sexy women getting together that are tired of all the drunken warrior male games. I just dont think they would be blatant about it theres to many rough narrow minded individuals in this harsh world that would give them a hard time. Look at Fale for example ...  :wink: ... I dont even have to say anymore than that.

Did you grab my ass?

[spawnloser]

Nobles don't only breed with people of the same family...noble families are larger than you might think and there are plenty of other noble houses to marry into/out of.

[Barzalene]

Oh, I think a noble might be in committed relationship with someone of the same gender. However, I don't know if they'd marry someone of the same gender, unless there was something to exchange of equal value to children.

[Carnage]

noble families are larger than you might think

Why don't you give us your informed opinion and share some rough numbers? I'm assuming, of course, that you have some sort of basis to these and aren't just going, 'maybe about twenty or a hundred'.

[mansa]

i'm guessing 20 - 100, in the noble houses.

But, seriously.

No on the gay jokes.  It's not as vicious as it is on Earth, where there is 3 major religions that condem it.  It's more vicious to call them a elf's whore or something like that.

Having children is a -major- consideration of the decision for marriage in houses.

Sure, you might be gay, but you can still have children with a wife you hate.

[spawnloser]

As has been brought up, children are a major consideration in noble marriages.  As someone mentioned, part of the marriage arrangement is how many children will come of the deal.  As far as if a noble would have a same-sex marriage, I would assume that it is out of the question.  "Get yourself a same sex concubine/pleasure-slave, but you're going to produce children for the good of the family!"  That's what I would forsee being the edict given to Lord Junior-Noble-Man.

As far as family sizes in the nobility, I have personal insight into.  In a particular noble house, there are two active PCs, but know by name 8 other NPC's...some coded some not.  Now, that's just the tip of the iceberg...for to have some of the people about to birth some of these people in the first place, there had to have been at least 10 more.  That's at least 20 people...but now, what about the rest of these people's children?  I would give a rough guess at a minimum of 30 people in that noble house alone.  Keep in mind, I could be way off because there could be plenty of VNPCs that aren't a direct cause/effect relationship away from the NPCs that I personally know of.  Also, I really, truly doubt that any error I am putting up here is by overestimating the size of the family.  Now, that's one family...in the north, there are 6 other families and in the south, 8 others.  If family sizes are similar, that gives a population over over 200 nobles in the north, closer to 300 in the south.  And that would be my bare minimum estimate.  Considering that marriages are political and business affairs, I doubt that any noble would be marrying within their house, which would mix things up a bit, making it such that cousin marriages are seldom, second and third being more common...but still, the majority of those marrying are probably hard pressed to find any relation because searching the records for how they are related is too much of a bother.

[Carnage]

As far as family sizes in the nobility, I have personal insight into. In a particular noble house, there are two active PCs, but know by name 8 other NPC's...some coded some not.

Are these 10 nobles all in one generation together? I personally presume they aren't, but for the sake of this thread we'll pretend they are.

Now, that's just the tip of the iceberg...for to have some of the people about to birth some of these people in the first place, there had to have been at least 10 more.

This's where things get muddled. Do you have a family tree or anything to actually go by here? Who says some of these aren't inbred or brother and sister?

That's at least 20 people...but now, what about the rest of these people's children? I would give a rough guess at a minimum of 30 people in that noble house alone. Keep in mind, I could be way off

You're assuming and guessing an awful lot here. Based on one number you've given for what's probably not even a single generation of nobles, you're predicting how many parents there are and  VNPCs and siblings. Until an imm comes in here and verifies these wild guesses, this doesn't quite count as reliable information.

[JollyGreenGiant]

As nearly as I can tell, in any given civilization, the nobility accounted for between 5-10% of the population.  If we account both nobles and templars as "nobility", it looks like a fairly large number at first glance.  However, humans account only for a portion of the actual population of Zalanthas, which means that we're really only looking at 5-10% of the human population as breedable noble stock.  That could be a large number, or not, I guess.  What's the overall human population in Allanak and Tuluk?

To throw a spoke in the wheel, though, this is a world where mutations are, if not common, then not exactly rare either.  I think it'd be fairly safe to assume that the rate of inbreeding probably doesn't outpace the rate of mutation, even if the initial gene pool was fairly small, since each generation with a mutation would be divergent, rather than convergent.

[Katsumata]

Homosexuality has always existed, but the christian view is not the only negative one to exist in previous cultures. I took these from the site mentioned at the end of the second quote.

Christian belief condemns both the active and passive roles of homosexual intercourse, whereas the pagan Scandinavians attached disapproval only to the male who was homosexually passive.

Homosexuality was not regarded by the Viking peoples as being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature or any of the other baggage about the concept that Christian belief has provided Western culture. Rather, it was felt that a man who subjected himself to another in sexual affairs would do the same in other areas, being a follower rather than a leader, and allowing others to do his thinking or fighting for him. Thus, homosexual sex was not what was condemned, but rather the failure to stand for one's self and make one's own decisions, to fight one's own fights, which went directly against the Nordic ethic of self-reliance. (Sørenson 20). Being used homosexually by another man was equated with cowardice because of the custom of sexual aggression against vanquished foes.  -http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayvik.html

There is more material on this site if you are interested. As always there are many ways to roleplay something.[/quote]

[spawnloser]

Actually, Carnage, I do have a partial family tree, and the assumptions I make are based off the number of people's parents that there would have to be to produce the people that are related in a certain fashion.  However, if I wasn't to assume that there is additional virtual population, noone could play another PC noble in this house for almost a year if the two active PCs were to quit for any reason.  For that reason, I go off the assumption that the Imms don't want to shut down a House because of one or two people when others depend on them to keep things going.

[X-D]

JollyGreenGiant wrote:

That could be a large number, or not, I guess. What's the overall human population in Allanak and Tuluk?

Now, it's been a while since I heard this, and I know the one time it was heard ic, but I think it was said that the population of allanak was like 500,000 or so (could be off, maybe 50,000, but I think it was the first number) and the tuluk region maybe 300,000? And humans make up what, 1/3 the population of the world, shrug, but using that figure, just for tuluk that means 100,000 humans, somebody said 5-10% nobles, lets say 7%, so 7,000 nobles in tuluk alone, split between 7 houses, 1000 people in a house is a breeding population in itself if your careful.

[Carnage]

For that reason, I go off the assumption that the Imms don't want to shut down a House because of one or two people when others depend on them to keep things going.

It's called game mechanics vs. fun. If Arm's around in ten years, will you still base the VNPC population off of all the PC nobles and such in that house? Do you really expect Sanvean to one day say, 'Okay, enough people have been nobles of House Spawnloser and managed to get themselves killed. Because all of the VNPC reserves are used up, we're shutting down the house. Forever.'? It's not going to happen. Once again, it's game mechanics vs. fun.

[Delirium]

The Noble Houses are probably a lot larger than spawnloser's estimate - that is, the ones that are open to PCs. We're talking the most powerful Houses in the North/South. I don't see that the PCs would represent a sizeable chunk of the population at all.. normally, I would assume they are the lowly junior noblility of a much larger operation.

This is of course a guess, so I'm incredibly sorry that I have nothing to back these guesses up with since I'm not an Imm, but I see nothing wrong with speculating and debating. After all, that's one of the things the GDB is for.

[Bestatte]

I was informed by a couple of IMMs and a few players of noble PCs that the noble houses are comprised of many hundreds of people each.

For every noble PC, there are parents, the parents' brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins and siblings of the PCs themselves. virtual and non-virtual mates and -their- families (if the mate is of the same noble family), great aunts and uncles, second cousins, etc. etc.

That's -per house.- And it doesn't matter if the house is a PC clan or not. Noble houses are big. They also breed amongst themselves, and with the other houses.

In addition, in the South they breed with commoners on occasion, distasteful as the idea might seem.

I was told all this by several people as I mentioned, at different times by different people of different ranges of knowledge, and specifically by one particular IMM when I played a Merchant House PC and the subject came up IC and I needed clarification on a few things.

[chinwa]

In addition, in the South they breed with commoners on occasion, distasteful as the idea might seem.

They would never purposely breed with a commoner, though sometimes accidents do happen. When they do, it is perhaps never heard about, or if it is, the child will enter into service of the house. Not as a family member, but as a servant, albeit one treated a bit better than the rest. They are never recognized as being "blood of the blood".

[Carnage]

I was informed by a couple of IMMs and a few players of noble PCs that the noble houses are comprised of many hundreds of people each.

If it was stated by the imms, I'll accept that rather than wild numbers. I'd expect the north to have less, though, due to the Allanaki occupation and the War.

[Anonymous]

The hulking, green-eyed templar gives a human tuluki soldier an order.

The human tuluki soldier releases you and you immediately move away.

The hulking, green-eyed templar says, in sirihish: "There's only one way your going to survive this..."

The hulking, green-eyed templar gives a human tuluki soldier an order.

The human tuluki soldier grasps your shoulders with strong hands and pushes you to your knees.

The hulking, green-eyed templar tugs at his belt buckle as he steps closer to you leering lustfully.

The hulking, green-eyed templar says, in sirihish; "Any last words commoner?"

With a sniffle and a cry you say, in sirihish: " I thank thee 'o Faithful Lord Bubba for this meal I'm about to receive."

You wake up in a cold sweat, gasping and glancing about hurriedly.

You think: Whew, only a nightmare.

Someone knocks on the door from the other side.

You look toward the door curiously.

You shout, in sirihish: "Who is it?"

A male voice shouts from the west, in sirihish: "Faithful Lord Bubba...I wish to speak with you commoner."

You think: Oh....feck!

[Dracul]

Beautiful.

[Anonymous]

The hulking, green-eyed templar says, in sirihish: "Your soul better belong to Muk-Utep...mmhhmmm...because your arse, belongs to me!"

[Frog Fairy]

I can think of some decent IC reasons for why homosexuality "should" be shunned in Zalanthas. The main one being that Zalanthias is all about survival. Reproduction is essential to survival. An anti-homosexual culture could easily come from that

However, to me the IC discussion is rather irrelevant when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.

That is because I see one very important reason as to why homosexuality should NOT be shunned, mocked or treated with disdain on Zalanthas:
Because I can imagine that'd make the game pretty damned uncomfortable for gay people to play.

I don't want a person who, quite possibly, has faced or is facing difficulties with intolerant people in their RL to come to this game we play for fun and meet the same obnoxious attitude.

ICly, I'd therefore take the stand that Zalanthians don't care about what gender other people fall in love with.
I am quite sure they could have practical issues concerning the potential need for reproduction in some situations, but not issues due to prejudice or disdain.

As for noble Houses, personally I could very well imagine that being handled on a case to case basis.
In some cases, an off spring would be essential. For example two Houses that want a closer relationship to each other, where children would seal the maritual bond and play an important part for House affairs.
Or, if a person has a set of skills that the House wants to breed.
In those cases, I would imagine that the House would strongly insist that the noble marry a person they can reproduce with.
But in terms of PCs, I'd never want to see a gay player being forced into a heterosexual marriage against their will.

(I realize though, that not all gay players may play gay characters, and that a decent chunk of heterosexual players run gay PCs.)

A logical consequence of this is that gay-jokes as we know them wouldn't exist in Zalanthas.

A side note - someone said, if I interpreted it right, that the gay community is under represented in Zalanthas. I'd disagree on that. I've seen a LOT of lesbian and bi characters in this game. Hardly ever any gay men though...
Out of the relationships I've seen role played out, I would say that lesbian affairs seem rather over represented.
But there are also a large part of the player base that never get into romantical RP and whoses sexuality is not relevant to their gaming.

A second side note - I am sure that homophobia does exist in Zalanthas. Just like phobias against people with large hands, violet eyes, beard or a terrible singing voice. If you want to play a homophobic character though, I'd like to see that this attitude was a particular perk and not the norm.

[sarahjc]

This post is not for the light of heart.

When I think Noble I think roman times or Dune’s Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, I think gluttonous, filthy people, clean only on the most superficial level, but selfish to the core, walking talking IDs.. They have everything they want at their fingertips. People who do what they want, when they want, with who they want. They should care about no one and they answer to less. So if a noble has a thing for young men, who cares are you going to stop them?

If you think about it, a fair looking young man would prove to be an excellent sex toy. No chance of unwanted pregnancy and also what better way to make the overall population feel less than human, than by picking random citizens and torturing them in the most profane way possible. I mean we all have sexual urges, do nobles just ignore attractive people? If I am a nobleman why should I care if that attractive bar made is married, single, a virgin..I find her attractive, bring her to my quarters or him for that matter?

Picture this:

The disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece enters a retro 80’s tavern
The disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece walks past your table licking his fingers as he discards his half eaten chicken bone into your plate of steaming mash potatoes.
The disgustingly obese nobleman a pink codpiece sits at a purple plush couch and waves one of his guards to him.
Glancing to you with a coy smile, the disgustingly obese nobleman a pink codpiece whispers something to his mullet-haired guard in a pink boa..
You think: Time for a quick exit.
Without so much as a word the, mullet-haired guard in a pink boa subdues you and drags you out of the tavern.

2 RL minutes later at House SickBastard

Standing over you sword in hand, mullet-haired guard in a pink boa gives you a mug.
Pressing down on you the mullet-haired guard in a pink boa says:
Drink it.
Shaking slightly as you stair at the long sword in the hand of the mullet-haired guard in a pink boa you drink the cup
The mullet-haired guard in a pink boa steps back.

Stand
You try to stand but trip over your feet.
The disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece has arrived from the north
The mullet-haired guard in a pink boa nods to the disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece.
The mullet-haired guard in a pink boa walks north.

The disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece looks you over and says:
Well, what do we have here…?

-blackout-

Now that is oppression.

[Barzalene]

I think the one point that's really important here, and this has nothing to do with sexual preference, marriage on Zalanthas is not about love, or sex, it's all about business.

[Wolfkin]

In all seriousness, I doubt that homosexuality or the practice of alternate sexualities would draw much extraordinary attention from others, much less social stigma. In ancient Greece, the practice of homosexuality was both widely practiced and tolerated, even encouraged. Alternate sexualities -- such as the practice of bestiality, incest, et cetera -- that would otherwise be labeled as abhorrent or ignoble in modern times was, in ancient Greece accepted. Such would likely be the case in a primitive, restless world like Zalanthas, though as to whether or not these practices would be as prevalent, or even as widely known as they were in Greece is questionable.

The reality of life for most Zalanthians is one of extreme harshness. It would most likely be the case that commoners and tribal members were constantly poised on the brink of starvation -- as such, they likely could not support newborns or new additions to their society. So, at least in theory, homosexuality would be accepted as a means of pleasure without the risks of additional lives to sustain. In the case of nobles, I suspect that most who keep slaves for their own deviant sexual practices do, in fact, keep ones of the same sex, for reasons of social stigma. Honestly, can you imagine how aghast a noble would be if he impregnated someone of a lower caste? Or, in contrast, if a noble became impregnated herself with the seed of a slave?  Good God, they may as well hang themselves from the rafters and pray for mercy from above.

As to the question of insults, I'm sure there are some in the world who do not condone or practice these alterate sexualities. And there are probably some who abhor them as one might the practice of exhuming a corpse and defiling it. That's how dispicable it is to some people. So, yeah, in my mind, there are insults out there for homosexuals. But who's to say someone can't make up new ones?

[sancho]

- - Personally, I do think there should be a stigma against homosexuality in Arm. First, for those of you making scientific observations should realize that commoners lack the time or wits to make those same observations. Second, Zalanthas isn't Greece or Rome or anything like Earth; it's a much more terrible place. The cultures are not going to match up by comparison. Third, saying that there shouldn't be a bias against gays because homosexual players might be offended is like saying there shouldn't be racism in Arm' because players might be victims of racism. Softening the world is just going to make it less realistic. Fourth, history has show us in every uneducated culture ever to grace the Earth, a lack of food has spurred the populace to reproduce more. The more children you had, the more free laborers you had. The better the chances were that some of your children would live to have children of their own.

- - If we can learn anything else from history, it is that people are always looking for an excuse to hate other people. The smaller the mind, the smaller the offense. Left-handed people used to be burned as witches (as well those backwards-thinkers should be). Doing something that makes someone uncomfortable is going to be even worse than the blasphemous use of the incorrect hand, because they will not need to be religious to hate you for it.

- - Stop pointing out that homosexuality was tolerated or common sights in other cultures. The difference between tolerance and homophobia is whether you treat homosexuals differently for being differently inclined. You don't have to like something to accept it and move on. Most heterosexuals I know, myself included, get disgusted by the sight of two people of the same gender (as the viewer) doing something as small as kissing. It's not from some kind of sexual taboo training, it's our natural reaction. I can't speak for anyone else, but I ignore these feelings when dealing with gay people I meet and gay friends of mine.

- - The point I am trying to make is this: these taboos come from people who are repulsed by a thing, but who cannot get over their reaction. Where do you all think these taboos came from? I know most of you are concerned about looking like homophobes, but to just up and say "Religions said gay sex is evil, and that's the bottom line." is ridiculous. Here's why:
1. If you are religious, then you should take that statement to mean that homosexuality really is a bad thing, which most people should have figured out.
2. If you are not religious, you should you should take that statement to mean that homophobia was present for a few millinea (instead of believing that a taboo just appeared out of nowhere).

- - It's like violent entertainment. People say that violent entertainment is what makes people violent. Yet, if violent entertainment made people violent, how on earth did it get created? At some point, there must have been no violent entertainment, and therefor no violent people. Even if there was violence, why would someone find it entertaining, since they hadn't been desensitized? The reality is, violent entertainment sells because violence is a part of many people's nature.

- - A taboo against homosexuality was not invented by religions. It was created by heterosexuals that got disgusted at the idea of homosexual sex. They simply had a natural reaction to something unnatural for them. I'm not trying to say homophobia is a good thing, I'm saying it's something which uneducated people probably wouldn't be able to get past. We get all sorts of natural urges, usually involving violently harming our coworkers, managers, or bad drivers. We know better than to act on these urges; the unwashed masses of Zalanthas probably wouldn't.

- - You all seem to be forgeting that education is the main factor in tolerance. How many Zalanthan commoners are going to be taught about homosexuality? It's safe to say most Zalanthans are going to figure out that men and women produce children by having sex with one another. Most cultures figure this out by the time they have verbal communication. The only thing you can assume the average Zalanthan child knows is that they were born because of a man and a woman did something or another together. It would be unlikely that any individual commoner realized homosexuality was a real thing until they saw an example of it.

- - Admittedly, having good experiences with someone or something often wears down prejudice. I'd imagine a character who grew up with a gay character as a friend would likely have less prejudice against gays. Greek citizens were not only vaslty more educated and cultured than Zalanthan commoners, but they also had regular exposure to homosexuality. People who are only two-missed-meals away from starvation are not going to get out as much.

- - In summary (to this terribly long post), I'll say this. Homosexuality would probably be a taboo among commoners, due to the lack of education and culture. Miserable, small-minded people like to take things out on other people, particularly those unlike themselves. The heterosexual commoners would see something different and unnatural from what they were used to, upon seeing a homosexual. Therefore, it would be something to ridicule and, if the mood arose, to hate. Some might be apathetic to homosexuality, but to say that hatred or mockery wouldn't exist is not realistic.



Resolution: It would be helpful if there were docs mentioning if homosexuality was commonplace amongst commoners. That would put a clear end to this issue, because the more common a thing is, the lesser the hatred for it. For now, I think people should play the game as they see fit. This is an issue the Imms should have decided anyways, so I didn't have to come out here playing Devil's advocate.

[chinwa]

A taboo against homosexuality was not invented by religions. It was created by heterosexuals that got disgusted at the idea of homosexual sex. They simply had a natural reaction to something unnatural for them. I'm not trying to say homophobia is a good thing, I'm saying it's something which uneducated people probably wouldn't be able to get past.

There is where I would have to disagree with you. The concept of it being a disgusting practice didn't come about until certain religions began to preach to their followers that it was a "disgusting" act and should be shunned. Through documented history in dozens of nations, other-than-heterosexual practices were commonplace. While perhaps not always publicly accepted, they also weren't shunned.

You repeatedly make use of the word "taboo" as if a certain thing, throughout time, has always "disgusted" a certain percentage of people on the planet. This is false.

They run much along the same line as morals. There is no time tested set of morals. Today, in our nation, it is considered "against the moral code" to kill out of cold blood. Where a hundred and a half years ago, if someone pissed you off while hanging in a tavern you may not of thought twice about shooting them. A thousand years ago, you may not of thought twice about beating them to death. Nowadays you sit in a bar and watch two people make out and fondle each other with various bits of skin showing, the average person may find it a bit disgusting. A couple centuries ago you'd of likely shrugged it off, cause it was something common to happen.

"Disgust" is often defined as offending the moral sense of someone.  And like everything else, it would depend on the age, the society and the person in specific. Just like there once was a time with lots of swords and parts of bodies being hacked off. I bet they didn't find the spurts of blood and oozing entrains nearly as "disgusting" as we did.

We get all sorts of natural urges, usually involving violently harming our coworkers, managers, or bad drivers. We know better than to act on these urges; the unwashed masses of Zalanthas probably wouldn't.

And yes, you're quite right about this. However, you forgot one of mankinds greatest urges, the strive for pleasure. By your statement, you seem to be saying that the unwashed masses have far less of a moral code than our modern societies do. So if a man can get this pleasure from a man, or a woman for a woman, then I'd say they "don't know better than to act on these urges".

[Bestatte]

By your statement, you seem to be saying that the unwashed masses have far less of a moral code than our modern societies do.  

I don't know what his statement was - I didn't include it in my reply. But your reference to Zanthalans having "less" of a moral code than "modern" societies have is, um..to be polite.. preposterous.

In my opinon, of course.

To back up my opinion:

I find the "moral majority" to be neither, as it says so eloquently on the old bumper sticker. I find hypocracy to be FAR more immoral than not honoring thy neighbor, or stealing, or any of the "seven deadly sins." In fact, I find the whole notion of sinfulness to be sinful, wicked, evil, dastardly, and thoroughly corruptive of society as a whole.

I was taught a set of values, standards of living - a moral code, if you prefer..which changed almost daily during my youth. "Do as I say, not as I do" was the catchphrase of my adolescence. "Because I'm the mommy, that's why" was that utterance that made every prepubescent child in my neighborhood groan.

As I grew up, I learned that hypocracy was rampant in society - that "good Christians" use their bible to force their own standards of living down other peoples' throats - that "good Jews" use the old testament to warn their children of the evils of not obeying their parents (even if the parents are abusive and neglectful of their children).

I learned that Gilda Radner was right.

And I learned that if I am to retain any shred of sanity in an insane world, then it's up to -me- to create my own set of moral standards and live by them, and to hell with everyone else. Fortunately, most of my moral standards happen to be similar to the rest of society's, but they are of my own choice, not by theirs. I pick and choose what suits me best, what I can live with, and toss the rest to the masses to pick on.

How does this compare with Zanthalas? It doesn't. And that's the whole point. The characters of Armageddon don't have the kind of free will we have in real life. They are indoctrinated at birth as to what is right and what is wrong. They know - KNOW - that if their moral code causes them to behave differently from their "betters" then it's they who are deviant, not their betters.

And if their betters are buggering their boy-slaves, then you damned well better believe the commoners should assume that buggering is perfectly acceptable behavior - and any squeamishness on the part of the commoner is a deviance from the norm.

[Flaming Ocotillo]

Throughout history, the influencial and respected members of society have set what trends are tasteful and distasteful within their communities. The argument that homosexuality is repulsive in Zalanthas because it is naturally repulsive to _you_, insisting that the society you grew up in had no influence at all on your world view, has got to be one of the most unconvincing arguments that someone could write up.

I'm of the opinion that the views on homosexuality would be directly dependent on what was considered tasteful or distasteful by each individual culture. The argument that Zalanthas is a harsh world, where no one can afford to satiate unorthodox sexual desires without it resulting in child,  doesn't hold a lot of water when looking at the rich, excess lifestyle of any noble family.

[sancho]

- - Well, I've seen some well thought out rebuttles here, but in some cases misguided.

There is where I would have to disagree with you. The concept of it being a disgusting practice didn't come about until certain religions began to preach to their followers that it was a "disgusting" act and should be shunned.

- - In many cases, you are correct. However, above where I made the statement that religions did not invent homophobia, I explained the reason why you could not stand by the statement they did. I will elaborate on the reason why blaming religion is futile.

- - If you are a religious person, then you must believe that if homosexuality is evil if your religion says it is. Therefore, it is safe to believe that other good people would have discovered it was evil without a deity's help.

- - On the other hand, if you do not believe that some deity said homosexuality was evil, you can't blame religions either. You must accept the fact that said religious beliefs did not come from a deity, but were fabricated by homophobes. This means homophobia predates religious imposement of homphobia. That was the point I was trying to make with the example about violent entertainment. Violent entertainment did not create itself; we as a species created it out of our own enjoyment of seeing it.

- - So, to sum up, you cannot blame religion for homophobia. If you believe in a religion that denounces gays, you must believe that it is immoral. It is not difficult to assume other peoples would come to the conclusion it was immoral. If you do not believe that some deity said "Fuck gays, non-literally speaking." then you have to accept that homophobia came before religion.

You repeatedly make use of the word "taboo" as if a certain thing, throughout time, has always "disgusted" a certain percentage of people on the planet. This is false.

- - No, I repeatedly used the word "taboo" because everyone else was using the word, and I didn't want to break the flow. As for disgust, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there are many types of disgust. Just saying "Oh, well you must be disgusted because of a moral thing" is a sweeping generalization. No one every taught me that seeing the decapitated head of another human being should disgust me. I saw a picture of one and was disgusted. Does this mean that God whispered in my ear just before I felt disgust?

- - Your talk of morals is pointless. My post never once stated that morality was the cause of disgust. I argued against morality as a reason from the get-go. My point was that it was something different, and it was something heterosexuals might find physically (NOT MORALLY) disgusting. I also argued that a common feature found amongst miserable people is a tendency to hate anyone different from themselves.

However, you forgot one of mankinds greatest urges, the strive for pleasure. By your statement, you seem to be saying that the unwashed masses have far less of a moral code than our modern societies do. So if a man can get this pleasure from a man, or a woman for a woman, then I'd say they "don't know better than to act on these urges".

- - While you are correct, that mankind does strive for pleasure and they'd act on their desires for pleasure, the rest is entirely wrong. Just as some people are born gay, other people are born straight. We're not all "secretly gay inside". I agree with you, that Zalanthans would be more likely to persue whatever got them off. However, that doesn't mean other Zalathans are going to tolerate it if it isn't what gets them off. Remember, this is a thread about tolerance and acceptance, not if there would be Zalanthan swingers.

How does this compare with Zanthalas? It doesn't. And that's the whole point. The characters of Armageddon don't have the kind of free will we have in real life. They are indoctrinated at birth as to what is right and what is wrong.

- - You are probably right. However, it is not safe to assume they are taught to follow the example of nobles. People have historically resented nobles who force them to live in squalor, and I would say the city-states are a fine example of squalor. Regardless, it is a moot point that would best be settled by the introduction of some offical docs.

- - The rest of your post was pretty much right on the money. You often have to make up your mind, based on your own experiences. That is something I mentioned myself. I think the point was lost on some people when I mentioned that you can only assume a Zalanthan automatically knows that a man and a woman produce children. The only way they would know about homosexuality is to have been exposed to it. Again, some documentation would clearly put an end to this debate, since the higher the exposure to non-hetero sex, the more acceptance of it.

Throughout history, the influencial and respected members of society have set what trends are tasteful and distasteful within their communities. The argument that homosexuality is repulsive in Zalanthas because it is naturally repulsive to _you_, insisting that the society you grew up in had no influence at all on your world view, has got to be one of the most unconvincing arguments that someone could write up.

- - If that were what I argued, you would be right. I argued that homophobia was propagated by influencial homophobes. What you missed was that I was trying to point out that homophobia didn't just manifest itself from the Void while someone was writing the Bible.

I'm of the opinion that the views on homosexuality would be directly dependent on what was considered tasteful or distasteful by each individual culture.

- - If you had bothered reading my post instead of jumping out to attack, you might have noticed I said that. That is why I put in a "resolution" section, where I said the only way to resolve this was with game docs on the subject. Presently, I see no evidence in the docs to suggest homosexuality is commonplace. Therefore, I've taken the stance that there is probably some degree of intolerence towards homosexuality. "Why?" because the existence of the population shows that heterosexualit is common. There is nothing in the docs to indicate that homosexuality is at all common.

- - Does this mean that people should play characters that hunt gays for sport? Of course not. It's all of this nonsense about it not even be taboo enough to be mocked, used as an insult, or used as an excuse to kill someone because your life sucks that I am against. Again, the keyword is docs.

The argument that Zalanthas is a harsh world, where no one can afford to satiate unorthodox sexual desires without it resulting in child, doesn't hold a lot of water when looking at the rich, excess lifestyle of any noble family.

- - No one made the argument that the rich would not be into unorthodox sex because of the harshness of the world. Obviously the rich do not have to live by the standards of the commoners, nor have they ever. They don't obey the same laws as the common people and they are vastly more educated and cultured. Why should nobles have the same views as commoners? On the contrary, the wealthy have always lived better than the poor. Historically, they've also edged out the poor in setting new standards for sexual depravity. I don't think I need to drop names, but a certain Roman emperor and a French Marquis come to mind.

- - The point here is, there is no indication that Zalanthans have a prominent gay culture. Saying homosexuality wouldn't be a taboo because Zalanthas isn't Earth means absolutely nothing. Saying homosexuality wouldn't be a taboo because Zalanthas doesn't have Christians means absolutely nothing. The only thing that can be said is that the more gays a straight Zalanthan encountered, the more likely they'd accept it. The only way this is going to be settled is by some docs on what's common in which area.

[EvilRoeSlade]

From what I've read of the documentation, the staff doesn't seem to have any great desire to write documentation about people fucking, and I can't say I blame them.  Maybe you'd like to write some docs and submit them to the mud E-mail account, Sancho?

[sancho]

- - It's not my place to decide who enjoys fucking who. It's not my game.

[creeper386]

Presently, I see no evidence in the docs to suggest homosexuality is commonplace. Therefore, I've taken the stance that there is probably some degree of intolerence towards homosexuality. "Why?" because the existence of the population shows that heterosexualit is common. There is nothing in the docs to indicate that homosexuality is at all common.

Well, I'd first like to say... If you go through the threads of similar discussions, you'll find several Staff members stating homosexuality isn't something thats out of the norm. Not always commonplace, but not something thats treated like it is in the current day World. Shunned to a degree of violence. Sure there may be people that don't like it.

But over all, even in uncivilized cultures homosexuality wasn't always uncommon and shunned. Rather it was an all guy hunting party that wouldn't see someone of the opposite sex for months or an all female sewing group or something. The main problem with sex in uncivilized societies is normally unwanted children. Same sex intercourse doesn't result in a child.

Next, I'd like to say that the more sancho posts the more I dislike him. He has wonderful posts, full of decent arguements but they are just so full of superiourity that he is absolutely right, that it just pisses me off. I hardly think homophobia is hardly a hard wired norm. Sure some people may not feel it's right, but the feeling that it's wrong is impressed upon by society, by religion. It's been proven that throughout history the humans of Earth well join groups even if they don't feel the same way just because they thought it was the majority. Most people I know, say they dislike gays, and make really rude jokes and everything, but when acctually asked about it, or even seeing it, they don't have a problem with it. They just feel it's societies norm so they go with it.

No, I don't think religion was the complete reason why there is homophobia, but it's one of the main reasons it's so wide spread. Personally, I'm religious for the most part. I even consider myself a Christian, but I have no problem with gays. I'm not disgusted by seeing two guys or two girls together. They have as much right to be together as a heterosexual couple. I see NO reason why you(sancho) can say if you think religion is the cause of homophobia you must beleive in that religion and therefor beleive it is right and everyone would come to the same conclusion. I know people that beleive homophobia is the result of Christianity. They aren't Christian. They are also gays. They don't beleive all good people would come to the same result. Your point there and the one following about how religion couldn't possibly be the main reason homophobia exists makes absolutely no sense.


And I'll applaud those who read all that jumbled crap.

Creeper

[sancho]

- - I am usually misread as having a superiority complex. I don't react the way I do to people because I think I am better than them, it is because I hate seeing my efforts wasted. Half the time someone disagrees with me, they quote me way out of context, or show that they didn't bother taking in my argument before attacking it. Despite how aggrivated I get at having to repeat myself, to clarify something I didn't have the sense to write in legalese, I internalize it. I do not start posting on the GDB about how much I dislike other posters or start demeaning them.

I see NO reason why you(sancho) can say if you think religion is the cause of homophobia you must beleive in that religion and therefor beleive it is right and everyone would come to the same conclusion.

- - To answer your quote, creeper, you missed the point of my religion comment. I never said if you believe religion is the cause of homophobia that you must believe in that religion. TWICE now, I have clearly stated that neither a religious person nor an unreligious person can say that there is no homophobia in Zalanthas because no religion says gays are bad.

- - My point was that if you believe that homosexuality is bad because your religion says it is, you are already going to believe that homosexuality is bad. If something is bad, then it stands to reason other people would realise it was bad without religion.

- - On the other hand, if you do not believe in a religion that says homosexuality is bad, then you cannot believe that a deity deemed it bad. Therefore, the belief that homosexuality is bad was not passed down by a divine power, but by normal people. Whomever originally decided it was bad, and those that helped spread the myth, must have hated homosexuality for their own reasons.

- - Did I really need to restate this a third time? Is it really arrogance that makes me so pissed off people can't take the time to read what I took the time to write, clarify, and support? No. I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of that jumble you wrote, because I'm tired of trying to explain things with people who just don't bother to listen.

- - I've been ripped a new one on the GDB, but it was always by people who bothered to think on what I said. These people then took the time to actually address my arguments. This consisted of more than a reference to one sentence alleging what they thought I said, and a brief summary of their opinions. Is it so superior of me to expect someone to read something and try to understand it, instead of immediately going into a semantics argument or grossly twisting my words?

[spawnloser]

Sancho, believing in a religion that says homosexuality is bad does not mean that you have to have already had the belief that homosexuality is bad.  Also, just because someone says something is bad does not mean that it is...no matter who said it at what point in history be this person real or mythological.  Morals are subjective.  If you want to believe that homosexuality is bad, condemn all the animals that bugger each other too, not just humans.  (Note: it is documented that different monkies as well as dolphins have done the homosexual deed.)  Now...on a side note, why would something that occurs in nature, the nature supposedly made by whatever god anyone happens to believe in, be bad?

[sancho]

- - That's it. I'm repeating myself one last time. It's clear people can't fucking read these days, and anything I say is going to be twisted because actually putting up counter points takes crazy things like EFFORT and THINKING.

Sancho, believing in a religion that says homosexuality is bad does not mean that you have to have already had the belief that homosexuality is bad.

- - Here's what I wrote all of ONE POST AGO, so far back in the thread that it was probably the most recent thing you glanced over before replying:

My point was that if you believe that homosexuality is bad because your religion says it is, you are already going to believe that homosexuality is bad.



I'm done. Goodbye.

[Angela Christine]

Disgust is quirky.  I remember when I thought cooked spinich was disgusting, now I'm ok with it.  Plenty of kids think seeing evidence of sexuality between their parents or grandparents is disgusting.  Heck, many kids find all displays of "mushy stuff" to be disgusting, regardless of who is involved.  Personally I find public washrooms that hold more than one person at at time to be disgusting both in theory and in practice -- I don't want to hear other people's bodily functions, much less smell them, it's utterly revolting.  As for sex, I find it all mildly disgusting because of the afore-mentioned dislike of bodily function noises, I don't even like noisy kissing, but the gender of people involved doesn't make a difference to me.  Girl on girl, guy on guy, girl on guy, it's all equally disgusting and/or hot to me.  Eating snails, raw oysters, raw fish, or anything with an exoskeleton is disgusting.  Rotting food is disgusting.  Klingon cuisine is disgusting.  If I think about it too hard eating animals is disgusting, and I've been driven to vegetarianism a few times, so I try not to think about it.  Stale body odour is disgusting to me, and probably to most people from countries that are into soap, shampoo, perfume and heavily marketed deoderant, but not to people in Zalanthas or vast areas of Earth, they probably don't even notice it much less think about it.  Advertisers spend a fortune to convince us to buy thier hair removal products because body hair on a woman is disgusting, and they are now working on male body hair too.  Mmmm, men with bikini waxes.  I don't know of any cultures that consider armpit hair attractive, but most of them seem to consider it a non-issue.

My point?  I'm not sure.    Culture does heavily influence what you find disgusting, but doesn't wholely dictate it.  

Sex, perhaps partly due to christianity, is a major issue for most of us.  There is very little about sex in the bible, but it's a big deal in most churches.  For most people masturbation is a guilty pleasure and slightly mysterious.  The idea of children masturbating, married people masturbating indendently or old people masturbating is disturbing to many people.  Childhood masturbation was disturbing enough to Victorians that some doctors advocated that if you caught a boy masturbating he should be circumsized without anesthetic to break him of it.  :shock:  We are terribly concerned with what other people are doing with their bodies, especially if they might enjoy it.  I know I am.  

Maybe Zalanthians simply aren't as obsessed with sex as Americans.  Some people dislike guy on guy action, so they don't participate in it.  That doesn't mean they find the practice so abhorant that they need to make a big deal if they think someone else is doing it.  Like armpit hair and body odour, it could be a non-issue.  It isn't a matter of tollerance or acceptance, they just don't give a damn.  They have better things to worry about, like the stumpies that are stealing their jobs, the norther/souther barbarians that stole their land or the elves that are trying to steal everything else.  Zalanthas has a fantastic foundation for racism, sexism, classism, and magickism.  They have better things to worry about than what you are doing with your fun bits.

AC

[spawnloser]

My point was that if you believe that homosexuality is bad because your religion says it is, you are already going to believe that homosexuality is bad.

Sancho, I understand that you said this.  This was specifically what I was responding to, actually.  I'm saying that this is flawed logic...it is rhetoric and nothing else.  The belief came from somewhere...either you thought it wrong before or because the religion says so, not both, as this statement of yours literally reads.

[creeper386]

Well I'm I have such convuluted posts so I don't mind people reading them wrong. But the things you repeated four times there I think. Two before I posts, a third in response to my post and another in response to Spawnlosers... I was talking about that right there. And you say people don't bother to state anything but heedlessly argue... You countered what I said by repeating what I was disputing... I don't see how thats any different.

Anyways...

I'd rather see some innovative and non humdrum things here. Alliances with multiple partners, same sex partnerships, handfastings that last only a year with an option to renew, alliances with the sole purpose of producing children, which dissolve after that end is met, nomads who look at you blankly when the word "marriage" is introduced because they have no such concept.

I think sexual relationships in Zalanthas would run the spectrum. I've heard some people argue that homosexuality wouldn't exist in Zalanthas because of the harshness of the world...procreation would be strong enough an impulse that everyone would be hetero. I think that's ludicrous.

I think people have recapped my viewpoint about homosexuality on Armageddon pretty accurately, but to recap, there is to my mind no reason why it shouldn't exist in the Zalanthan world in much the same proportion as our own, a figure which carries according to who you talk to. I go by the 1 in 10 figure.

Well... I'm going to be sorry if those quotes are out of context... But Sanvean is the big lady on the block, and naatok, well naatok's a Legend. No longer staff but still probably knows alittle bit about whats going on. Now... 1 in 10 is pretty common. And what I did was exactly what I recommended anyone else do, is do a search on homosexuality and can see staff responses to previous threads. Both of those threads are only a few months old I beleive. And I think Sanvean put her opinion pretty bluntly. If you want to read the rest of the players opinions, as well as the rest of Sanvean's posts... Go for it.


Creeper

[spawnloser]

Thanks, oh creepy one.  I had forgotten to throw staff responses in sancho's face.

[ShaLeah]

I'll throw in my opinion, what the hell, right? I've only had three hours of sleep after a night on the town though, so be warned.


This is Zalanthas, oh addicts of mine, this is not the modern day, real world... But lo and behold! No matter -how- hard we try there will always be flaw on Zalanthas, what is that flaw I ask you? Simple...

We will always, always bring real world views into the game... examples? Do I really need to give any? Let's, just for GP...

1.  A boss is a boss is a boss, just like in rl.
2.  There are rules, laws we must follow as citizens and we can not go around doing whatever the fuck we want.
3.  We can't completely detach from something, it's impossible (imho), my hardest role was one in which I was nothing like the character and it was such a struggle that even after a mix up, where I could have asked for a rez, I chose to let the bitch die. Playing her was driving me crazy.
4.  No matter how great of a roleplayer we are or think we are, we will still be uncomfortable doing in game what we find uncomfortable in rl.  I'll be the first to admit, my characters have found themselves in homosexual situations and though I have played them out, I still get a heebeejeebee feeling because of it. One situation put me off so badly that to this day, if I recognize the playing style, my characters run.


I would love it if people would be able to stop bringing rl morals/opinions/expectations into Zalanthas but I know that if I am not able to do so completely (and I think I'm pretty open to making Zalanthas totally different than rl), then others may find it completely impossible. There is not any one society nowdays that is completely alright with homosexuality, to expect those in Zalanthas to be, is not realistic within the realism of that which essentially governs the players of its PCs.. real life. As long as Zalanthas is being played by modern day humans, we will continue having debates on what is and what is not proper... from making a bynner every time to whether or not homosexuality is commonplace.

In reality, homosexuality is not commonplace on Zalanthas, I have yet to see an openly gay couple anywhere in game. Behind closed doors it's one thing, outside in the open, holding hands, caressing each other... when was the last time you saw that in the Barrel/Gaj/Sanctuary/Silver Wheel?
In reality, on Zalanthas, lesbian relationships are, I'd say, about 90% more prevalent than gay relations. With the amount of men playing female characters... which I would say is also more prevalent than its counterpart, it's no wonder.
In reality, on Zalanthas, if it were more commonplace, we'd see it more, right? Like we see open magickers in Allanak and nowhere else... why? It's commonplace in Allanak, not so in other places. Same thing with homosexuality.

As much as we as the playerbase/staff would like homosexuality to be more normal than it is in modern day, it's not.

This is only my opinion!

ShaLeah
-who has yet to have the balls to play a male character

[The Archbishop]

Well I think it depends on the person really. Someone might just be really offended that someone of the same gender is hitting on them, some might just disregard it. I haven't played a homo char yet so my char's have ben pretty offensive towards fruity people. Course you can't really call them fruity so I call them ginka's sometimes. Heh people probably now know who some of my char's have been. Like AC, I was the one she was reffereing to who told that char it should be a catamite. I don't think homosexuality really matters on arm. If you have enough money you could probably start a beastiality market in the bazaar. Wierd people out there in the sands.

The Archbishop

[Callisto]

Thanks, oh creepy one.  I had forgotten to throw staff responses in sancho's face.

"Welcome to high school" - Hade

That is because I see one very important reason as to why homosexuality should NOT be shunned, mocked or treated with disdain on Zalanthas: Because I can imagine that'd make the game pretty damned uncomfortable for gay people to play.

We aren't a special group that needs to coddled and protected. The last thing we need is someone coming to our rescue, or creating some kind of protective bubble around us to ensure we're super happy double-plus good all the time. I'm sure you meant well, but as long as you think we're in need of some kind of sheltering, you're part of the problem.

If the staff decided to take the stance that same-sex coupling is frowned upon by the general population, then that's fine, I wouldn't mind any more then I'd mind finding out a character in a book is a bigot, because its fictional and has no basis on the real world. If the staff decided that it would be frowned upon by the population, but decided not to make it an active aspect of the game because gay people might be offended, then I would no doubt drop Armageddon like a bad habit.

[j0ram]

If the staff decided to take the stance that same-sex coupling is frowned upon by the general population, then that’s fine, I wouldn't mind any more then I'd mind finding out a character in a book is a bigot, because its fictional and has no basis on the real world. If the staff decided that it would be frowned upon by the population, but decided not to make it an active aspect of the game because gay people might be offended, then I would no doubt drop Armageddon like a bad habit.

As loath as I am to make an actual serious post on the GDB, I have to jump in here and agree with Callisto. It is not the place of a single player, or even a group of players, to place their own mindset over the entire population of Zalanthas. It is the place of the staff to do so.

[creeper386]

If the staff decided that it would be frowned upon by the population, but decided not to make it an active aspect of the game because gay people might be offended, then I would no doubt drop Armageddon like a bad habit.[/quote]

Well... I don't think the staff decided it is frowned upon be the population, I think they decide that it isn't frowned upon. Which I think Sanvean's statement covers that pretty well.

In reality, homosexuality is not commonplace on Zalanthas, I have yet to see an openly gay couple anywhere in game. Behind closed doors it's one thing, outside in the open, holding hands, caressing each other... when was the last time you saw that in the Barrel/Gaj/Sanctuary/Silver Wheel?

You don't see many PC homosexuals, but you also don't see many PC templars when there are hundreds of them out there. You don't see that many PC beggars. That doesn't mean they aren't on every street. It's hard to represent the homosexual population in NPCs as, you can't really just put in their description that they are gay. Perhaps there should be a sparsing of male/male NPC couples, or female/female PC couples, or even just echos regarding such like the echoes of various things in Trader's. But just because it isn't represented by the PC population doesn't mean it isn't in the world.

And in response to that whole forgot to throw staff responses into sancho's face and the welcome back to High School.... I wasn't trying to throw the staff response in anyones face. People repeated several times they'd like to see an official staff response. I posted they could search for a similar thread and find one, it looked like noone was so I did and a quoted the more revelant sections that I could find, leaving in enough as well as the link so there was less chance that the quote was out of context... And if *I* took it out of context I wasn't trying to purposely fool someone with it. Not appoligilies but would just like to put that out there.

Creeper[/quote]

[spawnloser]

Yeah, like creeper said, I only meant that if people wanted clarification and to argue, all you have to do is go to the staff...the people that make the rules.  They've already made a decision on this matter, so there's no use arguing over it any longer.  If someone wants to, I'll just keep pointing back at staff responses.

[Vox]

Duck.. here come my two 'sid flying into this thread.

I find it unfortunate that this topic has sparked such contention between posters when in reality the original purpose for creating this thread was to stimulate open discussion. I find however that such open discussion is rather impossible when those posters who average upwards of 3.93 posts per day smell blood in the water and go into a feeding frenzy of hastily drawn, arrogant responses.

The point of this entire thread was to hear opinions on the subject of Homosexuality in Zalanthas and how such a thing 'should' be responded to ICly and most importantly 'why'.  A few people have stated their opinions and brought interesting points to consider and think on regarding this topic... While a few others have unfortunately tried to present themselves as absolute authorities on the subjects of Hedonism, Nobility, Anthropology, Theology, Zoology and I could have sworn I read someone waxing poetic about the lesser theories of metaphysical darwinism... but maybe I was just blinded by Spawnloser's dancing signature, which seemed to keep popping up with such proliferation that my monitor looked like the halloween episode of Soul Train.

Creeper, one of your posts bore the inclusion of actual quotes from staff members and for this I must say that it was one of the most intuitive things I have ever seen you do in your posting history on this discussion board. I must also say however that I am disheartened to read about your dislike for Sancho. Sancho's posts were well-constructed and offered substantiating points for his opinions. You don't have to agree with him but you do have to respect him by not offering such personal attacks. Such a statement has no baring on the subject matter, nor does it help to keep the atmosphere calm and conducive to learning. Spawnloser also jumped onto this burning bandwagon and for that I waggle a finger in his abrasively-signatured direction as well.

On one hand though I suppose we all should have expected a post regarding Homosexuality on Zalanthas to liberate itself into a 'creepy' dance party of flaming 'losers'... but I like to think we're better than that.  :shock:  -sorry, i had to go there... just try to appreciate its creativity.-

Regarding the actual subject matter, I believe I share Callisto's opinion. I would add however, that until there is an actual decree from a staff member that Homosexuality is to be universally shunned I suggest we leave the handling of Homosexual PCs to the other individual PCs that come into contact with them and not try to force our own 'humble' opinions down everyone else's collective throat.  

Shun or love them, screw or kill them, just do it because that's what your character would do.  Yes, this means that you have a few more things to think about during character creation: 'Um.. am I.. am I gay?' and 'Krath, how -would- I react if I found out my friend was gay?'  Maybe your character is a 'survivalist' and would never dream of such a thing... Maybe your character is a 'hedonist' and seeks pleasure of ANY kind and form... Whatever your choice, just be aware that not everyone is the same and that sometimes choosing a behavior that is 'different' from the 'norm' can result in negative attention. In Sanvean's example she mentions wanting to see 1 out of 10 people gay... If you're the only one out of ten people doing something then sorry you're the different one. This doesn't mean everyone hates you nor does it mean that what you are doing is intrinsically wrong, but it does mean that everyone will have -some- opinion about your 'different' behavior based on their own behavior. If you choose to be different you better be prepared to deal with those people who choose to feel violently about 'different' folk just as easily as you're prepared to deal with those people who embrace your difference warmly... Personally, I'm all about conflict because therein lies the drama. :twisted:

Anyway, that was my two 'sid... Don't spend it all at once.

[Carnage]

The point of this entire thread was to hear opinions on the subject of Homosexuality in Zalanthas and how such a thing 'should' be responded to ICly and most importantly 'why'. A few people have stated their opinions and brought interesting points to consider and think on regarding this topic... While a few others have unfortunately tried to present themselves as absolute authorities on the subjects of Hedonism, Nobility, Anthropology, Theology, Zoology and I could have sworn I read someone waxing poetic about the lesser theories of metaphysical darwinism... but maybe I was just blinded by Spawnloser's dancing signature, which seemed to keep popping up with such proliferation that my monitor looked like the halloween episode of Soul Train.

Point awarded to Vox.


But seriously, who the hell cares if Zalanthas is full of homosexuals, queers, lesbos, whatever? It's obvious the staff hasn't cared to really touch this with a ten foot pole so just play it however you want.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

The main reason I started this thread was to see if insults directed at a person's sexuality are okay or not.

Personally, I wish people would be a little more creative with their insults, and not make them so RL-like. If you want to play a homophobic character, good for you, but you really shouldn't expect people to join you in ridiculing the 'prison bitch' elf or whatever. If most of the population doesn't really care about homosexuality, then I'd like to see less insults directed at a person's sexuality. It just doesn't make sense... It'd be like some one in RL insulting you for being a 'too-tall'. Just doesn't really fit.

On a side note, I think it would interesting to have majorally different views on sexuality in the city-states. I.e., anyone can fuck any one else in Allanak, but in Tuluk, homosexuals and pediaphiles are stoned to death.

Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

...but in Tuluk, homosexuals and pediaphiles are stoned to death.

Probably too close to reality.  At least racism in this game is based on imaginary racial boundaries.

[Sanvean]

We've said before that homosexuality is accepted and not particularly noteworthy on Zalanthas. I can add this into the docs. What strikes me is that every time this topic comes up, there is heated debate caused (imo) by people bringing their RL beliefs into it. Going to lock this thread, and say, as I have said before, that gaybashing is uncool and doesn't belong on these boards.