Sexual Taboos

[Feco]

I really wish I had gotten to do more with my necrophiliac.

That said, I will go against the grain, and say that interracial is probably at an intermediate step between frowned upon and taboo.  And that certain traditions may twist this into acceptable.

To give an example of what I am talking about, take muls.  Normally, humans and dwarves don't mate.  But obviously, there is a context, even if they are forced (which don't think they are given they are bred for it) in which humans and dwarves do mate.  And produce muls.  And in that context, it is completely acceptable.

Further, the IC attitude is going to have to somehow support the half-elven population.  While some is half-elf / half-elf mating, I've never heard of that being a large percentage.  The large percentage is rape.  It probably makes sense that interracial sex is sometimes viewed as okay when the act of mating is rape.  One could argue it is more an act of displaying power than sexually motivated.  

A long term interracial relationship might be taboo, but half-elves do come from somewhere.

On a related note, once upon a time I wouldn't have said rape was taboo really either.  Plenty of my PCs have it in their background, I suppose because I envision more of a forced, violent sexual set of interactions.  With staff consent policy now, I'm not really sure if it is as widespread as I thought but we have consent downplaying its role in current roleplay, or whether it was determined overall to not happen that much.

You've confused me;  this was far from clear.  Are you talking about player taboos or IC taboos?  It seems they've been conflated here.

[hyzhenhok]

To give an example of what I am talking about, take muls.  Normally, humans and dwarves don't mate.  But obviously, there is a context, even if they are forced (which don't think they are given they are bred for it) in which humans and dwarves do mate.  And produce muls.  And in that context, it is completely acceptable.

There is a lot more to muls than "dwarf and humans mate." The details are an IC sekrit, but it's not a sekrit that muls are never accidentally produced "in the wild," unlike breeds. Certain noble houses' fortunes in part rely on that fact.

While I'm pretty sure dwarf-human action should have a strong taboo, it seems like it should be a common enough fetish (or focus, where the dwarves are concerned) that we could stand to see more of it than we currently do. OOC squeamishness seems to get in the way when it comes to dwarves.

[LauraMars]

Twilight, there has always been a consent policy as far as I can remember - are there additional requirements now besides asking for consent before initiating a sexual action/not proceeding with that action if the player does not give consent?

[hyzhenhok]

Twilight, there has always been a consent policy as far as I can remember - are there additional requirements now besides asking for consent before initiating a sexual action/not proceeding with that action if the player does not give consent?

I believe he's referring to this:

If you wish to pursue a rape plotline or engage in an act of rape, you must seek consent from your target. Without that consent, the plotline may NOT be pursued.

[LauraMars]

That's what I described in my post, i guess not well (on phone.) anyway that is not new.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

doesn't matter, people would notice that breeding with close relatives produces defective offspring. that's how the taboo against it appeared on Earth, I believe.

I'd love to see a mutated inbred noble, that has the desired trait of their particular house but is fucked up in every other way.

Oooohhhh, I like that.

Borsail.

The ivory-skinned, silver-crowned midget.

It never occured to me that Lord Salazar might be grey-haired and a midget because of noble-style inbreeding. Is that who you're referring to?

I like how, no matter what, the things breeds are into sexually are going to be disgusting.

Very few people are breeds, very few. Nyr made a cool population post somewhere and I'm going to find it.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

Very few people are breeds, very few. Nyr made a cool population post somewhere and I'm going to find it.

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,42384.0.html

Holy god, I think I stand corrected. There's a few thousand of those things walking around! I always thought that the playerbase contained about half the world's breeds. Well, "breeds" as in people with at least a grandparent of the other race who haven't won the complete appearance ignorance jackpot.

Bolded for benefit; there really aren't that many overall.

Tuluk (350,000)
219,000 humans (50% are slaves) (62.6% of total)
108,500 elves (10% are slaves) (31% of Total)
3,500 dwarves (65% are slaves) (1% of Total)
3,500 half-giants (80% are slaves) (1% of Total)
7,000 half-elves (40% are slaves) (2% of total)
1,500 muls (98% are slaves) (0.4% of total)
7,000 unknown/other/mutant (25% are slaves) (2% of Total)


Allanak (481,880)
310,000 humans (50% are slaves) (150,000 free) (64.3% of total)
150,000 elves (10% are slaves) (135,500 free) (31.1% of total)
7,500 dwarves (65% are slaves) (2,600 free) (1.8% of total)
3,800 half-giants (20% are slaves) (3,150 free) (0.8% of total)
5,800 half-elves (40% are slaves) (3,400 free) (1.3% of total)
1980 muls (99% are slaves) (18 free) (0.4% of total)
2,800 unknown/other/mutant (40% are slaves) (1,400 free) (~0.6% of total)

Tuluk's numbers have trended upwards since those figures were compiled (2006) though more recent events may have brought it back down; Allanak's numbers have trended downwards since those figures were compiled (2008) and recent events may have brought it down further.

Red Storm's population:  less than Allanak by a great magnitude.  
Luir's Outpost population:  Equal to or (more likely) less than Red Storm's population.  Varies more often than RS.  Variation depends on many factors.

I'm under the impression that a nongicker sleeping with a 'gicker is considered worse than a human sleeping with a person of another race. True? Nah? Not applicable because inter-anything not related to the wealth of slaving houses sucks?

[BuNutzCola]

I would definitely say magicker/non magicker coupling is far more atrocious.

A breed is less than human, a disgusting result of a human and an elf.

A magicker is a fucking abomination that should be killed/collared (and still be greatly mistrusted) on sight.



An addendum: The vast majority of the taboo should be on the non-magicker, IMO.

That's just my opinion, of course. But humans rarely get up and move to another table/threaten/feel fear when an elf sits at the table.

[hyzhenhok]

An addendum: The vast majority of the taboo should be on the non-magicker, IMO.

That's just my opinion, of course. But humans rarely get up and move to another table/threaten/feel fear when an elf sits at the table.

Surely it's all the evil dirty magicker's doing! Surely Amos wouldn't be shacking up with that sexy gemmed on his own; she must have cast a spell on him.

[BuNutzCola]

An addendum: The vast majority of the taboo should be on the non-magicker, IMO.

That's just my opinion, of course. But humans rarely get up and move to another table/threaten/feel fear when an elf sits at the table.

Surely it's all the evil dirty magicker's doing! Surely Amos wouldn't be shacking up with that sexy gemmed on his own; she must have cast a spell on him.

True enough. And if you're gonna go 'gicker, might as well breed 'gicker, who is also your half-sister.

[Twilight]

I really wish I had gotten to do more with my necrophiliac.

That said, I will go against the grain, and say that interracial is probably at an intermediate step between frowned upon and taboo.  And that certain traditions may twist this into acceptable.

To give an example of what I am talking about, take muls.  Normally, humans and dwarves don't mate.  But obviously, there is a context, even if they are forced (which don't think they are given they are bred for it) in which humans and dwarves do mate.  And produce muls.  And in that context, it is completely acceptable.

Further, the IC attitude is going to have to somehow support the half-elven population.  While some is half-elf / half-elf mating, I've never heard of that being a large percentage.  The large percentage is rape.  It probably makes sense that interracial sex is sometimes viewed as okay when the act of mating is rape.  One could argue it is more an act of displaying power than sexually motivated.  

A long term interracial relationship might be taboo, but half-elves do come from somewhere.

On a related note, once upon a time I wouldn't have said rape was taboo really either.  Plenty of my PCs have it in their background, I suppose because I envision more of a forced, violent sexual set of interactions.  With staff consent policy now, I'm not really sure if it is as widespread as I thought but we have consent downplaying its role in current roleplay, or whether it was determined overall to not happen that much.

You've confused me;  this was far from clear.  Are you talking about player taboos or IC taboos?  It seems they've been conflated here.

Everything except the last paragraph was about IC taboos.  The last paragraph is how the introduction, and subsequent clarification for rape, have changed my perception on how commonplace, and acceptable, rape is IC'ly.

@hyzhenhok:  I am aware of that.  What I am saying is that a taboo is a broad restriction/aversion across all of society, without exception.  That doesn't exist, as the creation of muls entails the mating of human and dwarf (whether this includes sex or not), and the creation of muls is accepted by society.

@LauraMars: Consent has been in place roughly half the life of the Mud, if I am remembering correctly.  Possible just on the upside of half.  The rape piece was a clarification/change to the original consent rule.  The point was that my perspective of rape changed from what it was pre-consent to what it is now with the consent rule and that clarification.

[Marauder Moe]

Slaves are not part of society.

[hyzhenhok]

@hyzhenhok:  I am aware of that.  What I am saying is that a taboo is a broad restriction/aversion across all of society, without exception.  That doesn't exist, as the creation of muls entails the mating of human and dwarf (whether this includes sex or not), and the creation of muls is accepted by society.

That really seems like a stretch. Muls are not considered people. They are not fertile. Their creation occurs behind closed doors, so are they really products of "mating"? It might be going to far to assume everyone knows muls are half-dwarves, even.

If doing a Mul isn't taboo, it's still like having sex with a solid metal hammer or shovel. Okay, you're into it. But aren't there better uses?

[ShaLeah]

Dwarves and humans mingle a lot less than elves and humans do. They are a different breed.  Fucking yuck. What human in their right mind, free human, fuck a dwarf without getting paid for it? (and vice versa)

Half-elves are usually a result of RAPE. Even those few elves that aren't in an elf-only-tribe (like those who work for a certain GMH) stick to their own kind and no self respecting human, even a lowly Bynner, would be caught kanking much less loving an elf.


Muls are bred primarily for the arena, they are beasts of burden, you'd use it like you use a mount so I guess I could see how a mul-fetish might be taboo.  Given their tendency to flip the fuck out, I'd say a very dangerous taboo.  Ride on bitches!

Slaves are tools, use them as you wish, but if you have an elf/mul/dwarf/breed slave as a sex slave it wouldn't be the kind of sex slave you can collar to your leash and walk around with, everyone (including the people selling it to you) would raise a brow at knowing that piece of filthy dirty. Imagine how you'd be treated if you were a lowly commoner with a rep for kanking unsavorinesses?

[Norcal]

I think cousins getting comfy would probably not raise too many eyebrows.

Brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would probably ick people out.

Why? People don't know about genetics nor do they have a religion that tells them otherwise.

doesn't matter, people would notice that breeding with close relatives produces defective offspring. that's how the taboo against it appeared on Earth, I believe.

I'd love to see a mutated inbred noble, that has the desired trait of their particular house but is fucked up in every other way.

It's actually even less thoughtful and deliberate than that.  The taboo developed physiologically, as a way for our bodies to protect us from breeding that would weaken or retard our bloodlines.  Just like you don't need a knowledge of bacteria and microbes to gag and be revolted by the idea of eating feces, one's body has a biological aversion to sexual contact with a close family member.  Even the scent of a close family member will be a turn off to a relative (with a healthy mind).  There are exceptions to the rule - people whose perversion overrides their body's programming, or who for whatever other reason are still attracted to a close relative - but the general population at large will reject incest without needing to think about or culturally justify why.  It's just natural.  It's the flip-side of the coin to what determines attraction.  People are naturally attracted to different genetic pools, because that maximizes the chances of filling in gaps in immunities and traits their own bloodline is lacking.  By the same token, a close family member has the same basic genetic makeup and has nothing to offer as a mate that will improve the chances of offspring thriving.  This is a sceevie topic though, heh.

Edit:  Inca royalty also favored brother/sister marriages.  But even there and in Egyptian society, these were not customs that the masses were encouraged to adopt or mimic.  They remained exceptions to the natural norm.  Western royal families who inbred, even at the level of cousins, in an effort to keep the bloodlines pure thought they were smarter than nature, and the results (like Charles of Spain) show how wrong they were.

Actually, recent study has shown that inbreeding especially between 1st or 2nd cousins does not always produce the genetic damage once associated with it. There has to be some preexisting detrimental mutation for it to be a problem.  In families with little history of deformity or other developmental defects, even brother sister marriages would not be too dangerous, and in a place like Zalanthas would be more likely to help a family's blood line rather than damage it.
Given the relatively small population size (based on a post I just read about Allanak and Tuluk populations), It's pretty much a given that all humans alive today on Zalanthas have common ancestors within probably less than ten generations. The mutant genes are probably spread pretty evenly across the population.  If the Noble houses have managed to avoid mutations so far, it would be wise for them to marry very close relatives.

[Twilight]

Folks still have social interactions with slaves even if it is just to give them orders, so yes, they are a part of society.  Some are more prestigious in society than a dirty free commoner.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm debunking your argument that if something is acceptably done to/with slaves then it's not taboo. 

You can have sex with a slave (or make them have sex with eachother) against their wish, but rape is still taboo.

Ergo, slaves don't count.

[ShaLeah]

I'm debunking your argument that if something is acceptably done to/with slaves then it's not taboo. 

You can have sex with a slave (or make them have sex with eachother) against their wish, but rape is still taboo.

Ergo, slaves don't count.

I disagree, even among slaves some things are more acceptable than others.

[Marauder Moe]

That's fair.  Can we say, at least, that slaves count differently?  That it's OK to do some things to/with slaves that's not OK to do with freemen?

Heck, that extends higher up the social ladder as well.

To bring it all together, let's say that you can't blanket all of "society" by a single set of rules.  Rules apply differently depending on who you are.

[Barzalene]

To bring it all together, let's say that you can't blanket all of "society" by a single set of rules.  Rules apply differently depending on who you are.

Welcome to Armageddon.

[ShaLeah]

To bring it all together, let's say that you can't blanket all of "society" by a single set of rules.  Rules apply differently depending on who you are.

Welcome to Armageddon.

Heh. I guess we can't really have an Arm sexual taboo thread then because it'd vary much too much to have a set outside beastiality, necrophilia, racial intermingling, mundane vs putrid magicks hanky panky, pedophilia (not to be confused with starting age since at that young age most Zalanthans will have survived many atrocities), rape and... what else?

[Barzalene]

Dressing up like escru and tregils.

[Vwest]

Dressing up like escru and tregils.

I once observed two PCs going at it, one of them in a tregil mask.

Really.

[Twilight]

Traditionally, taboo did mean that it applied to all of society.  In modern times only is it used on a more discrete basis as we mangle our own language.  Okay, language we stole from other people in this case.

That said, I would say there are few taboos on Zalanthas.  Rape, if indeed it is taboo, is only taboo because of some retcon around the time consent came into play because of RL considerations.  Murder isn't really taboo, especially not in Tuluk where you can hire an assassin.  Bestiallity is taboo.  Magick is taboo in the North, but not in the South.  Close relations with a magicker is close to taboo in the South, however.  I don't think elf/human sex doesn't quite rise to the level of taboo, otherwise there wouldn't be so damn many filthy breeds.  Consensual, relationship type elf/human sex is probably taboo.

[Barzalene]

Perhaps your thoughts on rape on the mud reflect your pov rather than game norms.