Mudsex Hate Cycle Thread

[In Dreams]

I'm not really trying to discuss anyone's preferences on the female form or gender stereotyping (what?), I was more referring to science's take on the matter, which is pretty clear: people notice boobs. Google will probably help you there if you're really that curious, but there's been plenty of studies.

If they can be seen, males will almost always look at and notice breasts before any other feature of the female figure unless they're specifically attempting not to. This doesn't make you lustful or weird, and in fact you're probably weird if you actually don't (but you probably do, subconsciously if not consciously). Females don't "look at" them first - I think they looked at faces first - but they do still immediately notice them because they mean sex/age/fertility, which will also have a big impact on your interactions with this other member of your species.

That said, I'm really tired of talking about boobs at this point. My opinion - which does not have to be yours and you don't have to agree with it - is that something that prominent on your person should probably at least be offhandedly mentioned in a paragraph centered on your appearance. I don't want a paragraph dedicated to it, and even a full sentence is probably more than necessary.

Again though, tired of talking about boobs. Sheesh. I forget how sensitive people are on this subject!

[Kismetic]

Boobs are sensitive, yo

[manonfire]

Mudsex is kinda pathetic imo

[TheWanderer]

shots fired

[Narf]

I'm not really trying to discuss anyone's preferences on the female form or gender stereotyping (what?), I was more referring to science's take on the matter, which is pretty clear: people notice boobs. Google will probably help you there if you're really that curious, but there's been plenty of studies.

I suspect you're committing a fallacy whereby the mode result of a study is overgeneralized. Without seeing the studies myself it'd be hard to say, but this fallacy is rampant in laymen interpretations of scientific studies. This usually occurs when a scientist does a study and gives a long list of results, but sticks the most interesting result in the abstract. A journalist picks this up and spends most of an article discussing this "most interesting" result without really looking at all of the other results of the study, maybe making at most a passing mention of it.

I'd be willing to bet that there's a wide array of things that are first noticed or most noticed about a female, and the studies likely indicate that the breasts are the most common in the array. Just basing this on similar types of studies I've seen though, I've not seen the ones you're talking about.

[Alesan]

How many male characters have had their packages described in any way?

Apples and oranges! If a male's penis was right smack in the middle of their chest and sticking out at you everywhere it went, it should probably be mentioned in their desc.

Fortunately it's not!

Let me direct you to:

... because it's a marker of sex, age, and fertility, which is also is going to determine in many ways how you interact with this other person. One of those instinct things.

Females don't do anything similar regarding males, right? Never? The eyes never drift below the waistline? It's not going to be that noticeable unless it's large. And hey, boobs aren't really noticeable unless they're larger than average either! Funny how that works.

At this point, though, I'm just arguing to be ornery. I don't care if you do or don't describe whatever you want.

[Barzalene]

Exactly. I don't care what you do or don't describe when you write your pcs. I do mind when you tell me how to write mine.

[Delirium]

^ What Barz said. Personally, the overall impression of a character is more important to me than the details.

[CodeMaster]

"Overall impression" is the term I was trying to put my finger on.  People describe their characters in different ways, with different focuses and implicit biases about the observer.  Some describe their character as if you were looking them over in the moment --  boobs and butts are probably salient features in these cases.  Other descriptions feel to me like how you might remember someone in your mind's eye, which might be made up of broader strokes.

Obviously we're never going to reach consensus in this thread, but it's interesting to read other people's takes on the topic.  I think there's room for all sorts on Arm.  Some of the best reading I've enjoyed (some of Ondaatje's work comes to mind) includes surprisingly purple details.  I'm also a big fan of the casual precision in Brett Easton Ellis's work, and the sex and torture acts he describes make me flinch to turn the page.  Margaret Atwood has a way of describing the horrific with broader strokes that are probably analogous to a fade on Arm, but she's written some of my favorite fiction.

[Delirium]

It's definitely a difference in writing styles and reading preferences. We shouldn't try to shoehorn everyone into the same style. Variety, spice, etc.

... but I still think mudsex is lame.

[Armaddict]

It's definitely a difference in writing styles and reading preferences. We shouldn't try to shoehorn everyone into the same style. Variety, spice, etc.

... but I still think mudsex is lame.

I do not think mudsexing is lame.  I do not think not-mudsexing is lame.  It's like people arguing over whether soccer is enjoyable or not.  I have no idea how else to look at it, but it's certainly not as one of those things you can impact.  It's a like/dislike.

I do, however, think that letting a fade/non-fade impact how your character treats the other -is- lame.  If you were interested in them before the fade, then just arbitrarily decide you're no longer interested because they fade...you, indeed, are too far in your want for the mudsex.

[Kismetic]

Obviously we're never going to reach consensus in this thread, but it's interesting to read other people's takes on the topic.  I think there's room for all sorts on Arm.  Some of the best reading I've enjoyed (some of Ondaatje's work comes to mind) includes surprisingly purple details.  I'm also a big fan of the casual precision in Brett Easton Ellis's work, and the sex and torture acts he describes make me flinch to turn the page.  Margaret Atwood has a way of describing the horrific with broader strokes that are probably analogous to a fade on Arm, but she's written some of my favorite fiction.

While I agree with your message, Armageddon is a game that requires a degree of efficiency to be entertaining.  I don't think I'm alone in believing that.

[Rolav]

It's definitely a difference in writing styles and reading preferences. We shouldn't try to shoehorn everyone into the same style. Variety, spice, etc.

... but I still think mudsex is lame.

I do not think mudsexing is lame.  I do not think not-mudsexing is lame.  It's like people arguing over whether soccer is enjoyable or not.  I have no idea how else to look at it, but it's certainly not as one of those things you can impact.  It's a like/dislike.

I do, however, think that letting a fade/non-fade impact how your character treats the other -is- lame.  If you were interested in them before the fade, then just arbitrarily decide you're no longer interested because they fade...you, indeed, are too far in your want for the mudsex.

Well, to be fair... Soccer is lame.

[Delirium]

It's like people arguing over whether soccer is enjoyable or not.  I have no idea how else to look at it, but it's certainly not as one of those things you can impact.  It's a like/dislike.

Well, yeah. The point of my post is we all have our opinions and styles, and I have mine and you have yours. My dislike for spending (what I consider to be a waste of) time roleplaying out something that others enjoy doesn't mean I'm judging them (okay, maybe I'm judging a little, because I'm vain like that), it just means I don't like the same things other people like. And probably won't enjoy roleplaying around them as much as I would enjoy roleplaying around people who don't make romance a focal point of their gameplay. That's just how it is.

They probably won't enjoy roleplaying around me as much either! I'm not going to be offended. My playstyle is my playstyle, theirs is theirs.

I do, however, think that letting a fade/non-fade impact how your character treats the other -is- lame.  If you were interested in them before the fade, then just arbitrarily decide you're no longer interested because they fade...you, indeed, are too far in your want for the mudsex.

I agree whole-heartedly with this. If you really want to pursue romance you can get 99% of what you need to know from the lead-up and post-encounter roleplay.

[ShaLeah]

'murica  Zalanthas... land of the free to do whatever you choose... till you get with one of MY PC's and you're "I don't usually play out sex scenes but I think we should this one".

Don't hate my PC cause she's stealing your man.

[Is Friday]

[Eyeball]

Much less the sdesc.  We've all met characters whose players have regretted that decision.

[Alesan]

Do you find that describing breasts within the contents of the main description results in a bias toward in-game intercourse on the part of the character, or those it encounters?

[BadSkeelz]

I like my mdescs suggestive and evocative without getting weighed down in the details, because the reader's mind will fill in the details and make my character more attractive in their mind than I could ever write them.

[Lizzie]

Do you find that describing breasts within the contents of the main description results in a bias toward in-game intercourse on the part of the character, or those it encounters?

Probably an IC thing - considering that if someone is noticeably big-busted, -or- particularly flat-chested, these things would be noticeable. Especially by someone who is playing a character who has preferences for one or the other. If they're really big-busted, their clothing will fit in a way to reflected it. If they're totally flat-chested, then only a padded shirt will make it look otherwise. If they're nothing special - not overly large, or overly small, then that should be the "default" and not worth commenting about in an mdesc.

However - if you don't include it, then you should assume that your character will be seen as the default. If you want your character to be really large-chested, then you should at least give it a mention in your mdesc. You can get into nipple circumference and scars when the clothes come off, but the general "first impression" type size should get a nod.

It'd be pretty awkward for someone to create a PC who has a "thing" for flat-chested women - who makes a play for "the slender, willowy woman" whose mdesc doesn't mention her bust at all but only refers to a "girlish figure" - only to discover that the player of the PC is RPing her character as having a big beautiful bouncy rack - and just didn't think to bother mentioning it in her mdesc. I mean that's something someone who's into busts would notice, ICly, before the clothes came off.

[valeria]

I'm judging anyone in this thread who doesn't enjoy mudsex.

[Barzalene]

I'm judging anyone in this thread who doesn't enjoy mudsex.

Fibber!

[ibusoe]

I'm not really trying to discuss anyone's preferences on the female form or gender stereotyping (what?), I was more referring to science's take on the matter, which is pretty clear: people notice boobs. Google will probably help you there if you're really that curious, but there's been plenty of studies.

Your problem is you're trying to apply logic and reason.  These kids are millenials, bro.  Logic and reason interests them less than yelling at the top of their lungs or attempting to drag unwilling people into gender politics.
Please don't try to confused them with reasoning, or science. 
They're completely convinced that whatever version of gender roles that Dan Savage is advocating this week are completely correct, and if you happen to disagree with that it's because you're a Republican homophobe.  Get with the times, you misogynist! 

I happen to look at legs first.  Men, women, doesn't matter.  I have a thing for legs.  Not everyone describes their legs in their mdesc.

I'm a sad panda.

Thing is, just because you look at boobs first doesn't mean that everyone (man, woman, or somewhere else on the gender spectrum) does.

Yay!  I may be a dour old man but I've not let my legs go.  Even at my advanced and geriatric age, I still have Erol Flynn legs.  Enjoy, Valeria.





You've inspired me.  My next character is going to be a man with fantastic legs and he is going to MUDsex.  Lots.  Mothers lock up your daughters!

[MeTekillot]

confused head tilt, suspicious squint

[Jeshin OR]

The two biggest take things I took away from this thread...

1. ShaLeah is Puerto Rican. As a fellow Puerto Rican I can attest that our natural seduction contributes to inordinate amounts of mudsex.

2. I live with someone who played a drovian and stopped playing ARM because everyone they were assigned to watch was just mudsexing all the time. After an elf managed to project fluids half way across a room, I think she broke inside. Thus I am confident MUDsex is alive and well and not ruining the game for many people and possibly motivating some people to play. Different strokes for different folks...

PS - I really made this post to note ShaLeah is Puerto Rican because we're a rare breed.

EDIT - Fixing contradicting statements!