I ran into a pretty awkward RP a few weeks ago. I'm not going to give any details at all but it pretty much involved homosexual contact between two men while my character was in the room. I didn't know how to respond at all so I pretty much RP'ed sitting there in silence and then left in the middle.
So my question is pretty much this, how should I respond to homosexuality? I don't want the "However your character would" response cause that's a given. I mean, how would the average joe respond to homosexuality? ???
In general, the same as towards heterosexual contact.
Homosexuality is not in any way taboo on Zalanthas. There is no reason why your pc should have any particular reaction at all. Your pc probably could care less that they were both men, unless your background specifically accounts for why they are out of step with the rest of the world. It should be a non-issue.
It can be difficult in situations like this, where something that is acceptable in the game world, none the less, makes the player uncomfortable. I generally think that any sexual contact should be preceded by a consent request. Now, holding hands, kissing, or casual signs of affection are pretty standard fare, even if some people are bothered by the occasional PDA. However, regardless of the gender mix, if things are getting even a bit hot and heavy, the polite thing to do is:
ooc I'm about to whip it out...consent?
Edit: Suddenly remembering something about a kruth game, a bet, and a lucky piece of fruit.
Oh yea, and how to respond?
"Hey! Grebber! Get a room."
Yeah. I would totally make a feminine dude character, or even some ballsy, gritty dude that liked to stick it in other dudes' butts, BUT... I'm always afraid OOC prejudice overrides IC reaction in this game, so I've never done it.
That being said, it is correct that Zalanthians have no problem with homosexuality. Now, if it's a human man and an elf man ...
Just because, every pc I've ever made was bisexual or homosexual. Unfortunately I was never able to find a homosexual MALE partner beside the very, very fem-type pc's. No rugged merc types every wanted any lurvings. I found it disappointing.
Nearly every PC I make, male or female, has absolutely no qualms about taking it or throwing it wherever, in order to get ahead in life. Pun unintended, but happy accident.
I deathly straight IRL, but my male PCs don't need to be like that, especially if letting that Tor Noble rail his rear gets him a solid spot in the Academy. And if you're that uncomfortable, fade it out.
John Doe wouldn't really care about the subject matter itself.
However, he might not take kindly to seeing two people kank next to him on the bar, or on the floor outside his apartment, or what have you. Or, he might want to join it. Depends on your character and their upbringing.
I've actually wondered, a few times - what if, hypothetically, a character existed that was squicked out by, or outright prejudiced against openly gay characters? In a completely IC context. They're mad because of squick rather than an institutionalized prejudice. I wonder if such a situation would require consent? I mean, it's a fairly touchy issue OOC for some people.
That said, despite being a gay dude (in a mellow way) I find myself playing, by and large, asexual (or purely romantic) women. Simply out of habit, since it's what I always do. Kanking women then becomes gross, and kanking men just becomes squick/underhanded, even if it's purely IC. Unless there's fading, I'll just pass on that part of character development. :-X
Quote from: Bilanthri on May 12, 2011, 08:11:41 PMSuddenly remembering something about a kruth game, a bet, and a lucky piece of fruit.
Fruit Love (http://www.armageddon.org/original/showSubmission.php?submission=534)?
Quote from: Furien on May 13, 2011, 01:08:33 AM
I've actually wondered, a few times - what if, hypothetically, a character existed that was squicked out by, or outright prejudiced against openly gay characters? In a completely IC context. They're mad because of squick rather than an institutionalized prejudice. I wonder if such a situation would require consent? I mean, it's a fairly touchy issue OOC for some people.
I don't think you can have this in an IC context. If it was a squick (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=squick) then you'd probably want to have it in your background, and I can't see staff approving that. It's too close to a documentation violation and, as you say, it's an OOC sensitive issue. If, instead, all sexual contact between anyone made the PC uncomfortable, this would be a lot more viable.
Rather than wonder how your PC would respond to homosexuality, you could ask how your PC would respond to public displays of affection between anyone. This seems to be a bit more appropriate given the OP's posted scenario.
So really, it's not that it's two men nuzzling and smooching and being all lovey dovey with each other at the bar. It's two -people- are nuzzling and smooching and being all lovey dovey at the bar. The only time it would be more significant, is if it were maybe, an elf and a breed. Or a human and an elf. Or a dwarf and a breed. Or an elf and a half-giant. Or a rinthi and a Tuluki noble. Or a southern templar and a Kadian aide.
The gender thing isn't given as much emphasis in Arm as other socio-political and inter-racial/interspecial issues.
I tried to look at the main site to find the glaringly obvious help file or document that explicitly outlined the general guidelines on sexuality but my plan was thwarted because there don't seem to be any of those.
Am I missing something, or should we write up and submit a document on sexuality?
Document rough draft:
Sex gets you everywhere in Zalanthas. Boy on boy, girl on boy, boy on matis, girl on mul - it'll getcha places. Just don't ever fuck an elf though, unless you're another elf!
http://armageddon.org/intro/quickstart.html
Avoid imposing your own interpretations and norms on the game world. For example, there is no sexism on Zalanthas; women and men are treated equally. This means that the following would not happen in Armageddon: a man expressing shame at being beaten sparring by a woman; someone referring to women as needing protection or coddling; a woman being shamed for sexual promiscuity while a man is praised for it. Attitudes towards sexuality are broad. Homosexuality is common, and not seen as aberrant. Multiple sex partners are common among Zalanthans, particularly in the upper classes. If you intend to roleplay out adult scenes, please make sure you are aware of our consent rules.
Quote from: mansa on May 13, 2011, 10:04:47 PM
http://armageddon.org/intro/quickstart.html
Avoid imposing your own interpretations and norms on the game world. For example, there is no sexism on Zalanthas; women and men are treated equally. This means that the following would not happen in Armageddon: a man expressing shame at being beaten sparring by a woman; someone referring to women as needing protection or coddling; a woman being shamed for sexual promiscuity while a man is praised for it. Attitudes towards sexuality are broad. Homosexuality is common, and not seen as aberrant. Multiple sex partners are common among Zalanthans, particularly in the upper classes. If you intend to roleplay out adult scenes, please make sure you are aware of our consent rules.
I knew it was somewhere, you genius hipster you.
Please also note that calling somebody a woman, as an insult, is definitely NOT kosher.
You're such a girl, Saellyn.
Shut up, MAN
As a side note, if you wish to insult someone, one interesting way is to make casual reference to their elf/human-like qualities. (Depending on which race you're with. Dwarves can get away with either.)
Quote from: Kalai on May 14, 2011, 09:38:19 AM
As a side note, if you wish to insult someone, one interesting way is to make casual reference to their elf/human-like qualities. (Depending on which race you're with. Dwarves can get away with either.)
Gosh, Kalai, you're such a -BREED-
Quote from: Saellyn on May 14, 2011, 09:40:34 AM
Quote from: Kalai on May 14, 2011, 09:38:19 AM
As a side note, if you wish to insult someone, one interesting way is to make casual reference to their elf/human-like qualities. (Depending on which race you're with. Dwarves can get away with either.)
Gosh, Kalai, you're such a -BREED-
Ah, Saellyn, my weak-legged little roundear, you have much to learn.
Calling someone a girl or a boy as an insult I think refers more to their immaturity and age. I do agree using woman as an insult is not kosher, both IRL and in the game :)
What are you a girl or something? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtnsSsR1skc)
Quote from: Reiloth on May 15, 2011, 02:39:55 PM
Calling someone a girl or a boy as an insult I think refers more to their immaturity and age. I do agree using woman as an insult is not kosher, both IRL and in the game :)
Much like IRL, there are very strong, very dangerous women in Arm that can and WILL kick your ass, see?
Quote from: Saellyn on May 15, 2011, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Reiloth on May 15, 2011, 02:39:55 PM
Calling someone a girl or a boy as an insult I think refers more to their immaturity and age. I do agree using woman as an insult is not kosher, both IRL and in the game :)
Much like IRL, there are very strong, very dangerous women in Arm that can and WILL kick your ass, see?
Keep fantasizing. :P
Quote from: Is Friday on May 15, 2011, 04:11:55 PM
Quote from: Saellyn on May 15, 2011, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Reiloth on May 15, 2011, 02:39:55 PM
Calling someone a girl or a boy as an insult I think refers more to their immaturity and age. I do agree using woman as an insult is not kosher, both IRL and in the game :)
Much like IRL, there are very strong, very dangerous women in Arm that can and WILL kick your ass, see?
Keep fantasizing. :P
You mean your wife can't kick your ass? Hmmmmmmmmm.
So long as I can pull guard I'll be okay.
Now I'm pondering how this open acceptance of homosexuality affects the 'alignment' of the people. I know at the end of the day, homosexuality is not a choice, but is it safe to assume that with the lack of stigma and oppression, more people are open to being 'bi' or the suggestion of a homosexual interaction?
Imagine I play a dude who's a womanizer and hearty about sex as most armageddons seem to be. If a guy walks up and says "Let's bang", assuming there's nothing repugnant about him, should my dude be all "sure" even if he's never been with a man before? Would he be alright with it so long as he's pitching?
Actually I think my question's blurring the lines of whether homo-interaction is a choice and whether promiscuity is a choice. Maybe. It's late.
Quote from: Mooney on May 16, 2011, 05:28:46 AM
Now I'm pondering how this open acceptance of homosexuality affects the 'alignment' of the people. I know at the end of the day, homosexuality is not a choice, but is it safe to assume that with the lack of stigma and oppression, more people are open to being 'bi' or the suggestion of a homosexual interaction?
Imagine I play a dude who's a womanizer and hearty about sex as most armageddons seem to be. If a guy walks up and says "Let's bang", assuming there's nothing repugnant about him, should my dude be all "sure" even if he's never been with a man before? Would he be alright with it so long as he's pitching?
Actually I think my question's blurring the lines of whether homo-interaction is a choice and whether promiscuity is a choice. Maybe. It's late.
The answer is to tell the person to stuff their shirt with kalans.
Mooney: It all depends on your character and any strictures and limitations placed on the role by tribe, or clan even, or social pressure. Characters themselves may be heterosexual, homosexual or any shade in between. Because homosexuality in and of itself has no social stigma in a wide array of cultures (some tribes may have certain stigmas against purely homosexual -relationships- (not encounters) since they would not bear any children if they refuse to have any heterosexual relationships) by and large, a heterosexual male would likely not feel offended if a homosexual man made an advance on him (assuming nothing else would cause the reaction), though no repugnance or acceptance of homosexuality does not necessarily mean they would actually be interested in pursuing a sexual encounter with the other male in question. It would likely be similar to if a woman he didn't find remotely attractive hit on him. He likely just wouldn't be interested. That goes for homosexuals as well-- if advances were made on them by the opposite sex, they probably would not accept because they just wouldn't be interested.
As far as promiscuity, there is no general stigma about sex itself, however again, it depends on an individual character. Some characters will screw anything. Some will be very selective and picky. Some may have fetishes which prevent them from being little more than asexual until the conditions of the fetish are met. Some are monogamous, some are polygamous and some are completely celibate. Some people may look down on sex, and some people may look down on certain types of sex, and well... you get the point. Promiscuity is a choice, and really does have hazards IG (though it doesn't seem to stop most people!) Sexuality is not necessarily a choice at the extreme ends, but I am sure no one on Zalanthas actually cares whether Bob who lives in the squalid apartment next door likes boys, or Lord Fancypants Fale has enormous orgies with blow-up kanks involved.
I suppose the tl;dr is: No. While your character would likely not be offended or repulsed, and may enjoy heterosexual (or homosexual) sex exclusively, it does not necessarily mean they would take anyone who offered to give it up-- unless it was the character WOULD want.
Quote from: Mooney on May 16, 2011, 05:28:46 AM
Now I'm pondering how this open acceptance of homosexuality affects the 'alignment' of the people. I know at the end of the day, homosexuality is not a choice, but is it safe to assume that with the lack of stigma and oppression, more people are open to being 'bi' or the suggestion of a homosexual interaction?
I'm not too sure about sexuality not being a choice. I was exclusively hetero in both action and viewpoint until I woke up and thought "Why not?" one day. I just didn't see the point in limiting my chances of finding love or sexual pleasure. It took a while, but I'm now attracted to people of any gender without bias.
I'm pretty sure that if I had grown up somewhere where homosexuality was heavily frowned upon or punished then the idea of experimenting would never have occurred to me in the first place. Taking that into account, I'm pretty sure that places that accept homosexuality are likely to have more. Look at Brighton for instance, I've known straight chicks to move away from there because it's so hard to find a straight guy.
I don't think it's a choice, as such, mainly because there's some types of attraction (generally to squicky stuff I don't want to mention) which I could never see someone actively choosing if they could simply be more 'mundane' in their choices and be attracted to men and/or women.
Quote from: lordcooper on May 16, 2011, 07:24:40 AM
Quote from: Mooney on May 16, 2011, 05:28:46 AM
Now I'm pondering how this open acceptance of homosexuality affects the 'alignment' of the people. I know at the end of the day, homosexuality is not a choice, but is it safe to assume that with the lack of stigma and oppression, more people are open to being 'bi' or the suggestion of a homosexual interaction?
I'm not too sure about sexuality not being a choice. I was exclusively hetero in both action and viewpoint until I woke up and thought "Why not?" one day. I just didn't see the point in limiting my chances of finding love or sexual pleasure. It took a while, but I'm now attracted to people of any gender without bias.
I'm pretty sure that if I had grown up somewhere where homosexuality was heavily frowned upon or punished then the idea of experimenting would never have occurred to me in the first place. Taking that into account, I'm pretty sure that places that accept homosexuality are likely to have more. Look at Brighton for instance, I've known straight chicks to move away from there because it's so hard to find a straight guy.
So if you hadn't woken up and realised you're open to either sex, it wouldn't be a choice? So it wasn't a choice up until the point you realised? The attraction is built in. You can't force it.
I thought I was heterosexual for much of my life too. Was a homophobe at one point even. I didn't choose to change (although I did choose to be a homophobe).
Quote from: Case on May 16, 2011, 09:22:14 AM
So if you hadn't woken up and realised you're open to either sex, it wouldn't be a choice? So it wasn't a choice up until the point you realised?
Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you actually mean by that. Could you maybe rephrase it for me?
Quote from: lordcooper on May 16, 2011, 09:35:11 AM
Quote from: Case on May 16, 2011, 09:22:14 AM
So if you hadn't woken up and realised you're open to either sex, it wouldn't be a choice? So it wasn't a choice up until the point you realised?
Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you actually mean by that. Could you maybe rephrase it for me?
I'm saying you had no real logical test in saying it's not a choice. For x years of your life, you were heterosexual. One day, you realised you are open to bisexuality. Were you choosing to be heterosexual prior to this realisation?
Or you could just try and choose not to be bisexual and see if it changes anything :)
For many people, it isn't a choice. I didn't choose to be bisexual. I wasn't open to it. In fact, for a long time I thought it was something very shameful, because of my mother's views on homosexuality. Even though for a large part of my life I was far, far more attracted to women (though maybe that had something to do with girls turning into young women well before boys turn into young men, who knows). For a while I desperately tried
not to be attracted to who I'm attracted to. It was an interesting denial game that really didn't work. So I think that if there was less stigmatization against being bisexual, more people would probably be willing to identify with bisexuality, but I don't see how that answers your other question.
I tend to work my character's sexuality into their background. Not just which genders they are attracted to, but what types of people, is it same or different among the genders if they're bisexual, how much is sex a part of their motivation in life, etc. So if this happens...
Quote from: Mooney on May 16, 2011, 05:28:46 AM
Imagine I play a dude who's a womanizer and hearty about sex as most armageddons seem to be. If a guy walks up and says "Let's bang", assuming there's nothing repugnant about him, should my dude be all "sure" even if he's never been with a man before? Would he be alright with it so long as he's pitching?
If your dude is a womanizer and an attractive man walks up and says 'let's bang,' I think the more pertinent question would be why hasn't this ever happened to your character before?
Quote from: Case on May 16, 2011, 09:37:50 AM
I'm saying you had no real logical test in saying it's not a choice. For x years of your life, you were heterosexual. One day, you realised you are open to bisexuality. Were you choosing to be heterosexual prior to this realisation?
Or you could just try and choose not to be bisexual and see if it changes anything :)
I'm not saying it's not a choice, I'm specifically saying it is. I chose (un/subconsciously) to be heterosexual at a young age, due to that generally being considered the norm. One day I realized that I considered it a little silly (in my case, I'm judging anyone else on their sexuality) to limit myself to one gender and made a conscious decision to fuck a guy, to put it bluntly. I was a little grossed out by the experience, but found myself physically attracted to men afterwards and managed to get rid of my hangups after a while. I guess that means it is possible to choose for yourself. It's purely anecdotal evidence though.
Taking Valeria's post into consideration, I'm not sure if the two outlooks can mesh at all. Perhaps it's the personal qualities and views of the individual which decide if they can make the choice consciously? I have a great difficulty in believing there's a 'gay gene' of some sort or an angel with a clipboard handing out sexual preferences before birth.
I would very much not be surprised if it's more of a choice for some people than others. My parents seem fairly certain it can be a choice, particularly for those who don't identify strongly with genders in the first place; while in other cases it definitely isn't a choice. As a bisexual who decided that was her state in an extremely tolerant environment, I'm not sure I have any clue. :)
Was a typo, but yeah. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at but you've given me the easiest counterargument ever so:
If you subconsciously chose heterosexuality but later chose homosexuality/bisexuality, is it impossible to be born subconsciously homosexual/bisexual (and possibly also choose to be heterosexual)?
If not, sexuality is a choice. If it is, homosexuality/bisexuality is a choice.
If sexuality is a choice following your logic - how would it be distinguished from being not a choice/innate?
Prove it by making yourself heterosexual (losing all homosexual attraction) by choice.
If sexuality is a choice, you will quickly find that it logically matches not being a choice unless you can prove the above.
That seems like it would be a bit of an extreme thing to do to bolster one's side of an argument.
Quote from: Kalai on May 16, 2011, 10:16:05 AM
That seems like it would be a bit of an extreme thing to do to bolster one's side of an argument.
If it's a choice, he can change back after, it's all good.
Quote from: Case on May 16, 2011, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: Kalai on May 16, 2011, 10:16:05 AM
That seems like it would be a bit of an extreme thing to do to bolster one's side of an argument.
If it's a choice, he can change back after, it's all good.
It took him a while in the first place, though. No point risking current relationships and all...?
If simply switching back and forth is a measure, I'll tell you now that my sexuality switches fairly often, to the point I've thought I was lesbian then gotten confused by why I felt straight for a month later. Being bi is either a decision I made for the sake of stabilizing myself or simply a measure of my leanings over time, since they even out somewhat around there. I'm not honestly sure how this would make it more of a choice or not.
Quote from: valeria on May 16, 2011, 09:41:35 AM
For many people, it isn't a choice.
For emphasis. No one is saying that you didn't have the experience you said you had in choosing to be more sexually open, but that isn't how sexuality works for a lot of people.
Personally I think it's a lot easier for someone who is mildly or moderately bisexual to not even realize they're bisexual until they consciously choose to engage in some exploration.
Quote from: lordcooper on May 16, 2011, 09:50:58 AM
I have a great difficulty in believing there's a 'gay gene' of some sort or an angel with a clipboard handing out sexual preferences before birth.
That argument is oversimplified. Genetics are believed to play one of several factors. But there is a lot more research that points out that
biology plays a strong role. Genes are some of the building blocks that wire up your biochemistry.
Anyway, this has kind of wandered off topic.
My point is, in a world where homosexuality is not stigmatized, your character has probably been approached by both sexes. Part of your character's background might be figuring out how they might react and why.
I'm firmly convinced that sexuality is innate, but the choice to express it or repress it is up to the individual.
I've thought girls were pretty ever since I was a little girl. I've always liked boys, too, and tend to have an easier time relating to guys... but girls are just prettier.
That doesn't mean that I'm often attracted to women for long-term relationships. Sorry, but the majority of them are completely insane.
(Disclaimer: Armageddon chicks, as a general rule, are remarkably intelligent and sexy in comparison to the general populace. Furthermore, I make no claims to perfect sanity myself.)
Edit: OT; in a world where homosexuality is normal, I agree with Valeria.
It happens, you're used to it. If you're uncomfortable at public affection, it's because two people are kissing, not because it's two boys kissing.
In my opinion,
Regarding sexual preferences, and even sexes in general,
ArmageddonMUD is designed so that you can play any role you want to, and not have to worry about stigma that real life has.
It's designed so that if someone happens to be female in real life, they can actually roleplay a female and not have to worry about sexism that actually occurs in real life. ArmageddonMUD becomes an escapism game. It's the same with sexual preference. You don't need to justify anything, or think about it further. It just doesn't happen.
That's why there is -no rape- roleplay in ArmageddonMUD. You remove any reference of real-life situations where some people might have some awful experience, and you remove it from the game. This is a game, afterall.
It's a simple way to create a safe environment to play the game in, alongside with all the backstabbing, killing, murdering, politicking, and sex.
Quote from: mansa on May 16, 2011, 12:13:03 PM
In my opinion,
Regarding sexual preferences, and even sexes in general,
ArmageddonMUD is designed so that you can play any role you want to, and not have to worry about stigma that real life has.
It's designed so that if someone happens to be female in real life, they can actually roleplay a female and not have to worry about sexism that actually occurs in real life. ArmageddonMUD becomes an escapism game. It's the same with sexual preference. You don't need to justify anything, or think about it further. It just doesn't happen.
That's why there is -no rape- roleplay in ArmageddonMUD. You remove any reference of real-life situations where some people might have some awful experience, and you remove it from the game. This is a game, afterall.
It's a simple way to create a safe environment to play the game in, alongside with all the backstabbing, killing, murdering, politicking, and sex.
Sorry to burst your bubble, there is rape RP in Arm.
Quote from: Saellyn on May 16, 2011, 12:44:44 PM
Quote from: mansa on May 16, 2011, 12:13:03 PM
In my opinion,
Regarding sexual preferences, and even sexes in general,
ArmageddonMUD is designed so that you can play any role you want to, and not have to worry about stigma that real life has.
It's designed so that if someone happens to be female in real life, they can actually roleplay a female and not have to worry about sexism that actually occurs in real life. ArmageddonMUD becomes an escapism game. It's the same with sexual preference. You don't need to justify anything, or think about it further. It just doesn't happen.
That's why there is -no rape- roleplay in ArmageddonMUD. You remove any reference of real-life situations where some people might have some awful experience, and you remove it from the game. This is a game, afterall.
It's a simple way to create a safe environment to play the game in, alongside with all the backstabbing, killing, murdering, politicking, and sex.
Sorry to burst your bubble, there is rape RP in Arm.
As far as I know it's a situation that can be completely avoided. You don't have to just fade if you don't consent to the role-playing; you can refuse it actually happening and produce an alternative scenario.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Rape RP in Arm requires consent, but does exist. You folk are right on that.
For debilitating torture scenes where stuff can happen, you can say it doesn't happen.
If someone were to OOC asking me to do an alternate scene for a rape scenario, I'd have to look at my char and what else he/she might do before I agreed or disagreed.
This discussion should move, however, and really doesn't deserve another thread. So!
Homosexuality. A homosexual raptor and a homosexual gurth walk into a bar...
or was it the gurth-braided and raptor-tattooed men
Quote from: Saellyn on May 16, 2011, 01:15:38 PM
For debilitating torture scenes where stuff can happen, you can say it doesn't happen.
If someone were to OOC asking me to do an alternate scene for a rape scenario, I'd have to look at my char and what else he/she might do before I agreed or disagreed.
This discussion should move, however, and really doesn't deserve another thread. So!
I think it's probably very important to clarify for those in any doubt - that if you don't consent to your character being raped, even FTB'd, it doesn't then happen IG in any form. The player of the would-be rapist -has- to change their plan.
Full stop.
(There are probably plenty of threads about it.)
Quote from: Saellyn on May 16, 2011, 01:15:38 PM
If someone were to OOC asking me to do an alternate scene for a rape scenario, I'd have to look at my char and what else he/she might do before I agreed or disagreed.
If someone were to OOC asking me to do an alternate scene for a rape scenario...I'd have to understand that, as a role-playing game, there is a certain amount of OOC cooperation required to ensure that all parties enjoy the encounter. Forcing a scenario on someone when they have clearly stated that they have no desire to capitulate is rude, and if that scenario is potentially traumatizing, for whatever reason, then it is not just rude, but completely insensitive to the emotional state of another human being.
And yea...what Booya said too.
Edit: I find myself concerned with the thought of what sort of person would actually choose to play a rapist. I know we're here to stretch our boundaries and put ourselves in other people's chalton boots, but really...a rapist?
Quote from: Bilanthri on May 16, 2011, 02:18:37 PMEdit: I find myself concerned with the thought of what sort of person would actually choose to play a rapist. I know we're here to stretch our boundaries and put ourselves in other people's chalton boots, but really...a rapist?
Consider them an actor playing a villain in a movie, enhancing the setting/story for
our benefit, rather than someone fulfilling some sort of twisted personal fantasy.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on May 16, 2011, 02:34:12 PM
Quote from: Bilanthri on May 16, 2011, 02:18:37 PMEdit: I find myself concerned with the thought of what sort of person would actually choose to play a rapist. I know we're here to stretch our boundaries and put ourselves in other people's chalton boots, but really...a rapist?
Consider them an actor playing a villain in a movie, enhancing the setting/story for our benefit, rather than someone fulfilling some sort of twisted personal fantasy.
That's valid. The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show would have been pretty boring without Boris and Natasha.
But if you are playing one of these ne'er-do-well types, it requires a great deal of personal maturity, responsibility, and empathy. Otherwise, you're just playing a griefer.
Edit: Pardon the extended derail.
To clarify, on rape:
Before you pursue any part of the plot which would actually result in it, you must have consent from the other player. This can result in a ban if it is not gotten.
On the subject of sexuality, I refer to Erythil's tongue in cheek, and very amusing post (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,40515.msg581461.html#msg581461):
QuoteZalanthas is a genderqueer paradise...we like it because it's cool...
Way to derail a post lmao
Derail: Master
***Edit: Eh, no need.
Prejudice is an evil penguin I will single-handedly kill someday. Then I will make it into sushi and eat it.
Quote from: Cindy42 on May 20, 2011, 08:19:09 AM
Prejudice is an evil penguin I will single-handedly kill someday. Then I will make it into sushi and eat it.
;D
There is evidence to support genetic disposition to homosexuality. Not necessarily and end all be all "gay gene", more of a collection of genetic traits that gives someone a disposition for homosexuality.
For instance, most males' ring finger is longer than their index finger. For women it's the opposite. However, a study showed that something like 90 percent of gay men have a longer index finger than ring finger. And visa versa for women. So according to this, gay men have some genetic feminine traits that almost no straight men have.
Hmm. Mine, appropriately enough if that study's onto something, seem to be precisely the same length.
My ring finger is nearly half an inch longer than my index finger. It goes both ways in accuracy. ;)
Ignore me. I haven't had my coffee yet.
My skill_reading_comprehension is at a -30 penalty right now.
As was said, it's in the documents that homosexuality is common and openly accepted on Zalanthas. So, you wouldn't feel a cultural strain react different to two men boinking than you would to a man and a woman, or two women. You CAN, and that's entirely up to you and how you play your character. All my characters are strait or predominantly strait males, because I am, and because I have no desire to act out any sort of sexual RP with a male character.
An example of this is that I once had a character who was constantly hit on, or at least had sexual hints dropped by a fellow clan member of the same gender. My character would always just laugh it off and say "Sorry, prefer the company of the other sex. But with a pipe of spice and a keg of ale, who knows?" It was an IC way of saying OOC "no thanks, but my character's not gonna go 'a queer bashin', so don't think less of it."
Your character can still hold any orientation, or find any sexual thing gross. It's entirely up to do. The important part of the rule is that, even if your character was down with two girls going at it, but not two guys, he shouldn't call names and spout sexist slurs. That's there as much for respect of the players, as for the freedom of RP. Griping uncomfortably and telling them to "get a room" - totally okay.
This can be a tough one to get around. I know that most of us dealing with the homosexuality in our time in the real world have come to associate people's dislike for gay people as a religious issue, but throughout history this wasn't always the case. It can be hard for some people to roleplay a character and get into the mindset that homosexual acts and relationships are perfectly acceptable, regardless of their RL feelings. Homosexuality was seen as a bad thing, not originally because of religions, but because in times past societies actually had to struggle to survive. Yes, I know it's hard to imagine with our HUGE population in modern times, but in a village of 30 people, that gay guy was just not on board with the whole survival thing. Also, people disliked gay individuals because it's natural to dislike something that is personally unappealing. For example, I have no problem at all with the gay and lesbian community, however the thought of personally engaging in sex with a man isn't just something that doesn't interest me, but the thought of actually personally engaging in the acts involved(not getting detailed here of course) is distasteful and...I can't think of a good word because repulsive sounds mean, but I suppose that's what it is. I have absolutely no desire to put certain things in my mouth... (Amos can chew on whatever he likes though) :p
So...where my rambling here is going..is if you as a players just can't get your head around being 100% accepting of it, think of a -good- reason why your character dislikes it. Maybe he/she was raped repeatedly by a member of the same sex as a child and now the thought of same sex intercourse causes them to have negative physical/emotional reactions. Maybe he/she has some divergent philosophy in which every member of society should be contributing toward population. Just make sure that if you RP it out, that it's clear there is some other problem, not just a "Eww....gay people!" kinda thing.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 08:05:13 AM
This can be a tough one to get around. I know that most of us dealing with the homosexuality in our time in the real world have come to associate people's dislike for gay people as a religious issue, but throughout history this wasn't always the case. It can be hard for some people to roleplay a character and get into the mindset that homosexual acts and relationships are perfectly acceptable, regardless of their RL feelings. Homosexuality was seen as a bad thing, not originally because of religions, but because in times past societies actually had to struggle to survive. Yes, I know it's hard to imagine with our HUGE population in modern times, but in a village of 30 people, that gay guy was just not on board with the whole survival thing. Also, people disliked gay individuals because it's natural to dislike something that is personally unappealing. For example, I have no problem at all with the gay and lesbian community, however the thought of personally engaging in sex with a man isn't just something that doesn't interest me, but the thought of actually personally engaging in the acts involved(not getting detailed here of course) is distasteful and...I can't think of a good word because repulsive sounds mean, but I suppose that's what it is. I have absolutely no desire to put certain things in my mouth... (Amos can chew on whatever he likes though) :p
So...where my rambling here is going..is if you as a players just can't get your head around being 100% accepting of it, think of a -good- reason why your character dislikes it. Maybe he/she was raped repeatedly by a member of the same sex as a child and now the thought of same sex intercourse causes them to have negative physical/emotional reactions. Maybe he/she has some divergent philosophy in which every member of society should be contributing toward population. Just make sure that if you RP it out, that it's clear there is some other problem, not just a "Eww....gay people!" kinda thing.
Hate to derail a bit, but I believe you're very wrong. There is a very complicated history of sexuality, and I assure you it probably didn't start in "villages" where the "gay guy was just not on board." You're right in that there was no sexual paradise like Armageddon is, but to boil it down like that is folly.
Back on topic, you really shouldn't try and justify your feelings IG,
because you don't have to. You don't have to view ANY sexual content if you don't want to. In addition, not all characters are required to be homo, hetero, or bisexual. Your character can still be heterosexual, and the only reason he/she needs is
"that's what I like." Divergent ideas which discriminate against homosexuals don't make for good, fun roleplay.
Quote from: Feco on June 18, 2011, 09:29:12 AM
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 08:05:13 AM
This can be a tough one to get around. I know that most of us dealing with the homosexuality in our time in the real world have come to associate people's dislike for gay people as a religious issue, but throughout history this wasn't always the case. It can be hard for some people to roleplay a character and get into the mindset that homosexual acts and relationships are perfectly acceptable, regardless of their RL feelings. Homosexuality was seen as a bad thing, not originally because of religions, but because in times past societies actually had to struggle to survive. Yes, I know it's hard to imagine with our HUGE population in modern times, but in a village of 30 people, that gay guy was just not on board with the whole survival thing. Also, people disliked gay individuals because it's natural to dislike something that is personally unappealing. For example, I have no problem at all with the gay and lesbian community, however the thought of personally engaging in sex with a man isn't just something that doesn't interest me, but the thought of actually personally engaging in the acts involved(not getting detailed here of course) is distasteful and...I can't think of a good word because repulsive sounds mean, but I suppose that's what it is. I have absolutely no desire to put certain things in my mouth... (Amos can chew on whatever he likes though) :p
So...where my rambling here is going..is if you as a players just can't get your head around being 100% accepting of it, think of a -good- reason why your character dislikes it. Maybe he/she was raped repeatedly by a member of the same sex as a child and now the thought of same sex intercourse causes them to have negative physical/emotional reactions. Maybe he/she has some divergent philosophy in which every member of society should be contributing toward population. Just make sure that if you RP it out, that it's clear there is some other problem, not just a "Eww....gay people!" kinda thing.
Hate to derail a bit, but I believe you're very wrong. There is a very complicated history of sexuality, and I assure you it probably didn't start in "villages" where the "gay guy was just not on board." You're right in that there was no sexual paradise like Armageddon is, but to boil it down like that is folly.
Back on topic, you really shouldn't try and justify your feelings IG, because you don't have to. You don't have to view ANY sexual content if you don't want to. In addition, not all characters are required to be homo, hetero, or bisexual. Your character can still be heterosexual, and the only reason he/she needs is "that's what I like." Divergent ideas which discriminate against homosexuals don't make for good, fun roleplay.
You can -assure- me that it -probably- didn't? Those don't go together. You can either assure me something did or did not happen, or you can think it probably did or did not.
As for the rest, the person asked because they -did- see some sexual content, regardless of whether they wanted to, and wanted to know how to react.
"Divergent idea which discriminate blah don't make for good, fun roleplay." For you. ...there was nothing wrong with either of the scenarios I suggested if the person had an issue. They weren't discrimination against a group. They were personal drama that one person could use. It may be fun for someone else. So that statement was an opinion, and pure conjecture.
Fine.
In ancient Greek society, homosexuality among men (not women) was normal, and as far as I know, there isn't even a word for homosexuality in the languages spoken in their time. The same sort of thing existed in Roman societies, with obvious caveats such as the "submissive" male would be the one looked down upon. It wasn't for being "gay," though. It was for being "the woman."
"Homosexuality" is a fairly recently created term to describe a sexual orientation. It's hard to wrap your head around, but the idea of sexual orientation just didn't exist for most of human history and for many societies.
If a person is encountering sexual things in game without being asked for consent (which has been dealt with previously in this thread), then they need to file complaints. It's against the rules. There is no need to bring your real life descriminations into the game world. As long as everyone is following the rules, you shouldn't be made uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable with sexual themes (prostitution, slavery, sexually charged (though not explicit) banter etc.), violence (excluding torture), or fantasy discrimination, than Armageddon isn't the place for you. These are things which happen without consent.
Discrimination against the Armageddon "races" can be fun because it isn't the same as racism in real life. Discrimination against skin color in Armageddon is unheard of, and I assume staff would punish anyone doing so. Descrimination against sex is unheard of in Armageddon. There are no gender roles. Sexual orientation only exists because we are (largely) incapable of imagining a world without it. If this were a perfect game, you would just do what you do, and not worry about labeling yourself.
The moment you start marginalizing real groups such as homosexuals, women, and people of different shades of skin, is the moment you start marginalizing players, and not characters. I'm sorry a handfull of people find that fun to do, but it's against the rules.
QuoteAlso, people disliked gay individuals because it's natural to dislike something that is personally unappealing.
You mean SOME people. Not just "people." I'm also very skeptical of your use of the word "natural" in this context.
I remember an enlightening moment for me a long time ago when I was chatting frankly with one of my first gay friends. He looked to me sympathetically and said, "Girls can be a lot of fun to hang out with, but when I have to imagine ... down there ... it's just so ..." and then he shuddered with horror. The thought of sex with a woman made him queasy.
Fact: Most Zalanthans do not share our sexual or gender role norms.
That we're discussing reasons for why a Zalanthan might find homosexual sex disgusting but not why a Zalanthan would find heterosexual sex disgusting directly reflects our own culture's current biases.
ON PREVIEW: What Feco said.
Finally, there are/were plenty of cultures that existed apart from middle-eastern monotheism in which the norm was for people to have sex with their friends of their own gender (or sometimes older role models of their own gender) while also having sex with the opposite sex for the purpose of child-bearing (and fun). Any comments about villages/tribes before the spread of writing is purely speculative. Observation of primates tells us that plenty of primates engage in homosexual sex, some exclusively so. It is very common among the primates that most resemble us sexually. Thus, a society that contains a diverse set of sexual practices seems to be more "normal" and "natural" than the human societies of the last few millennia that attempt to restrict human sexuality in a variety of ways.
I can absolutely understand a small tribe pressuring all its members to reproduce. I can even imagine a few remote Zalanthan tribal groups that actively discourage homosexuality in order to focus on the reproductive survival of their members. But I imagine that tribes in which no one cares what you do in your spare time as long as you're making sure that babies happen are even more normal. It certainly seems to be the case for human pre-history.
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 18, 2011, 10:25:54 AM
Fact: Most Zalanthans do not share our sexual or gender role norms.
This is key. Even if you
want to think humans "naturally" dislike homosexual behavior, it doesn't apply.
Feco and Thunkkin pretty much typed out everything I was going to say in response to morrigan before I could even realize he'd said it.
But yeah ... saying that homosexuality has a history of discrimination that predates certain religious dogma is um ... well, wrong. To the best of my knowledge.
And homosexuality pervades almost all species of animals in nature with any kind of social behavior so if being queer isn't "natural" then I'm not sure what is.
I thought that Feco and Thunkkin both had good posts on the issue.
I wanted to add something to it by talking about the concept of homosexuality itself. In today's society, you are homosexual or bisexual (in some cases) if you enjoy having sex with someone of the same gender. The common modern thought is that this is part of who you are. It can be very useful to have a title like that, because it gives the group as a whole power and a way to defend themselves. However, in another way, it's also pretty silly. There's a large scale of things that you can do and like for sex. Why, of all things, is it the gender of the person who you sleep with that defines you?
Coming back into Zalanthas, I don't think that making a character who hates homosexuality is at all acceptable. If someone tried to design a character who had been brutally abused in their background by dark-skinned people and thus tried to make a PC who hated all dark-skinned people, players and staff would be absolutely appalled. There's no way that it would be approved, and for good reason. In Zalanthas, there is fantasy discrimination as Feco says. Nobody wants to enter a game and see discrimination that is against the documentation, and that touches on real-life and sensitive issues. I realize that you can be the exception to documentation sometimes and sometimes have an odd PC, but in the case of keeping real world discrimination out of the game, in my opinion it's as set in stone as "elves don't ride".
Quote from: Feco on June 18, 2011, 10:15:02 AM
Fine.
In ancient Greek society, homosexuality among men (not women) was normal, and as far as I know, there isn't even a word for homosexuality in the languages spoken in their time. The same sort of thing existed in Roman societies, with obvious caveats such as the "submissive" male would be the one looked down upon. It wasn't for being "gay," though. It was for being "the woman."
"Homosexuality" is a fairly recently created term to describe a sexual orientation. It's hard to wrap your head around, but the idea of sexual orientation just didn't exist for most of human history and for many societies.
If a person is encountering sexual things in game without being asked for consent (which has been dealt with previously in this thread), then they need to file complaints. It's against the rules. There is no need to bring your real life descriminations into the game world. As long as everyone is following the rules, you shouldn't be made uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable with sexual themes (prostitution, slavery, sexually charged (though not explicit) banter etc.), violence (excluding torture), or fantasy discrimination, than Armageddon isn't the place for you. These are things which happen without consent.
Discrimination against the Armageddon "races" can be fun because it isn't the same as racism in real life. Discrimination against skin color in Armageddon is unheard of, and I assume staff would punish anyone doing so. Descrimination against sex is unheard of in Armageddon. There are no gender roles. Sexual orientation only exists because we are (largely) incapable of imagining a world without it. If this were a perfect game, you would just do what you do, and not worry about labeling yourself.
The moment you start marginalizing real groups such as homosexuals, women, and people of different shades of skin, is the moment you start marginalizing players, and not characters. I'm sorry a handfull of people find that fun to do, but it's against the rules.
The same sex relationships being tolerated in Greek and Roman civilization were the exception, not the norm throughout history. In the majority of societies, it was looked down upon. You can't use a minority exception to make a blanket statement. I'm curious where the information that the idea sexual orientation didn't exist until recently comes from. Perhaps we didn't have a word for it, I've never cared to put a date to the creation of the word homosexuality, but since the dawn of recorded history you can find references to homosexual acts, which means the idea -did- exist, and whether the idea existed before recorded history or not cannot be proven or shown to be false.
I agree with you on the second part, those things are a part of the game experience, and if they absolutely cannot handle it, they probably won't enjoy playing here.
The part about racial discrimination being fun in Arm because they aren't real people, just doesn't hold up. People don't discriminate against people in the real world because of the color of their skin. They discriminate because of behavioral and cultural differences(real and imagined). Discrimination is discrimination. Just because one person is more sensitive to one sort doesn't make it worse than another.
Can you give an example of these majority of societies in which it was looked down upon?
Because from where I'm standing ... homosexuality was acceptable in ancient Egypt (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DFMOAAAAQAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=homosexuality+in+ancient+egypt&ots=Re3lge4OMu&sig=jT8tnAjBII5QvNLPTLtBp9Ozztw#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20in%20ancient%20egypt&f=false), ancient China (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713612560), and ancient India (http://sapphokolkata.org/newsletter/Swakanthey-Jan-2004.pdf) ... just to name a few.
So I respectfully challenge your assertion that Feco was using an "exception" to make a blanket statement.
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 18, 2011, 10:25:54 AM
QuoteAlso, people disliked gay individuals because it's natural to dislike something that is personally unappealing.
You mean SOME people. Not just "people." I'm also very skeptical of your use of the word "natural" in this context.
I remember an enlightening moment for me a long time ago when I was chatting frankly with one of my first gay friends. He looked to me sympathetically and said, "Girls can be a lot of fun to hang out with, but when I have to imagine ... down there ... it's just so ..." and then he shuddered with horror. The thought of sex with a woman made him queasy.
Fact: Most Zalanthans do not share our sexual or gender role norms.
That we're discussing reasons for why a Zalanthan might find homosexual sex disgusting but not why a Zalanthan would find heterosexual sex disgusting directly reflects our own culture's current biases.
ON PREVIEW: What Feco said.
Finally, there are/were plenty of cultures that existed apart from middle-eastern monotheism in which the norm was for people to have sex with their friends of their own gender (or sometimes older role models of their own gender) while also having sex with the opposite sex for the purpose of child-bearing (and fun). Any comments about villages/tribes before the spread of writing is purely speculative. Observation of primates tells us that plenty of primates engage in homosexual sex, some exclusively so. It is very common among the primates that most resemble us sexually. Thus, a society that contains a diverse set of sexual practices seems to be more "normal" and "natural" than the human societies of the last few millennia that attempt to restrict human sexuality in a variety of ways.
I can absolutely understand a small tribe pressuring all its members to reproduce. I can even imagine a few remote Zalanthan tribal groups that actively discourage homosexuality in order to focus on the reproductive survival of their members. But I imagine that tribes in which no one cares what you do in your spare time as long as you're making sure that babies happen are even more normal. It certainly seems to be the case for human pre-history.
This actually helped illustrate my point. Your gay friend was repulsed by the thought female genitalia. Some men are repulsed by the thought of other men's. So, if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with another man, he's discriminating, but if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with a woman, he's enlightened and better than me?
It's not -some- people. People, dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Fact. Doesn't matter how liberal you want to be. Or how cool and accepting you want to be. Why do you think religions made homosexuality a taboo? It's not because god, santa, the easter bunny told them to. It's because the people who made the religion were against homosexuality. So, it predated the religions that were against it.
Quote from: musashi on June 18, 2011, 10:52:10 AM
Can you give an example of these majority of societies in which it was looked down upon?
Because from where I'm standing ... homosexuality was acceptable in ancient Egypt (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DFMOAAAAQAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=homosexuality+in+ancient+egypt&ots=Re3lge4OMu&sig=jT8tnAjBII5QvNLPTLtBp9Ozztw#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20in%20ancient%20egypt&f=false), ancient China (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713612560), and ancient India (http://sapphokolkata.org/newsletter/Swakanthey-Jan-2004.pdf) ... just to name a few.
So I respectfully challenge your assertion that Feco was using an "exception" to make a blanket statement.
I'll have to look into that and get back to you when I have some time to read. I know I've read about various, but will get quotes and links here in a bit.
Also just to add ... I agree that for straight people the thought of them having homosexual relations can be disgusting, just like the thought of them having straight relations can be disgusting for gays. But ...
The idea that from that, you automatically get to "thus ... they are naturally disgusted by gay/straight people in general" really doesn't follow at all.
Gay people don't feel disgusted by the presence or existence of straight people. Dogs eat their own poop and yet we aren't disgusted by the presence of dogs. And so on, and so on, and so on. People are "disgusted" by gay people because they are taught it culturally.
I think if you read back, you'll see I said they found the thought of engaging in the acts disgusting, not the people themselves, unless I just really misspoke. Also, all I can find at the moment is...... "The condemnation of anal sex between males, however, predates Christian belief. It was frequent in ancient Greece; "unnatural" can be traced back to Plato.[116]"
Which is from Wikipedia, not always the best source I know, but I was in a hurry.
edited to add: Though it does seem you're right and I was mistaken on how widespread it was.
Ah, if that's all you were saying then yes, I agree. It just seemed to me at a glance that you were taking that using that observation as grounding for why some people dislike gay people at large; which as I pointed out, doesn't seem to follow.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 11:15:44 AM
I think if you read back, you'll see I said they found the thought of engaging in the acts disgusting, not the people themselves, unless I just really misspoke. Also, all I can find at the moment is...... "The condemnation of anal sex between males, however, predates Christian belief. It was frequent in ancient Greece; "unnatural" can be traced back to Plato.[116]"
Which is from Wikipedia, not always the best source I know, but I was in a hurry.
edited to add: Though it does seem you're right and I was mistaken on how widespread it was.
Right ... but ... the segment just above the part you quoted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#History) says:
Quote from: WikipediaSocietal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.
In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon."[115]
So I mean, even the source you're reading from counters your assertion that homosexuality was condemned in the majority of civilizations through out history.
EDIT to add: I see you concede the point. No worries man. You're only wrong up until the point that you admit it. Then you're not wrong anymore :) Happens to us all. All the time.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 10:49:46 AMI'm curious where the information that the idea sexual orientation didn't exist until recently comes from. Perhaps we didn't have a word for it, I've never cared to put a date to the creation of the word homosexuality, but since the dawn of recorded history you can find references to homosexual acts, which means the idea -did- exist, and whether the idea existed before recorded history or not cannot be proven or shown to be false.
I don't think that there's an argument being made that sexual acts between a man and a man or a woman and a woman didn't exist before the present. If you look at my last post (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41282.msg615002.html#msg615002) that may help better explain. The idea is that before a certain point you could have sex with someone of the same gender without being "homosexual", and that that specific term is fairly recent. I'd need to dig out my theory books to explain more, and I can't find them right now. Is that at least making some sense?
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 10:49:46 AMThe part about racial discrimination being fun in Arm because they aren't real people, just doesn't hold up. People don't discriminate against people in the real world because of the color of their skin. They discriminate because of behavioral and cultural differences(real and imagined). Discrimination is discrimination. Just because one person is more sensitive to one sort doesn't make it worse than another.
Well, Armageddon is a game, and we play games to have fun. Part of the game is that there is fantasy discrimination. If I'm playing a dick character who follows the documentation, and I'm enjoying that character, it does
not mean that I support real life discrimination in any way, shape, or form. It's a game, and that's why it's okay. Likewise, if I'm playing a murderer, I'm not killing real people, I'm killing characters. In that case, killing is not killing, because the people aren't real. It's the same with discrimination.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 11:15:44 AM
I think if you read back, you'll see I said they found the thought of engaging in the acts disgusting, not the people themselves, unless I just really misspoke.
I think that the backlash that you're seeing is that people want to keep RL discrimination and IC discrimination very separate. Having a character who is uncomfortable with something that is
specifically based on real world discomforts is what is being looked down on. The argument is that if you're raised in a culture where there is no discrimination, and a significant portion of the population is homosexual, you wouldn't see discomfort. You're arguing that discomfort may be realistic anyway. Realism arguments aside, we're just not after having the discomfort specifically against a real life concept ICly. Does that make sense?
Quote from: Taven on June 18, 2011, 11:31:48 AM
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 10:49:46 AMI'm curious where the information that the idea sexual orientation didn't exist until recently comes from. Perhaps we didn't have a word for it, I've never cared to put a date to the creation of the word homosexuality, but since the dawn of recorded history you can find references to homosexual acts, which means the idea -did- exist, and whether the idea existed before recorded history or not cannot be proven or shown to be false.
I don't think that there's an argument being made that sexual acts between a man and a man or a woman and a woman didn't exist before the present. If you look at my last post (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41282.msg615002.html#msg615002) that may help better explain. The idea is that before a certain point you could have sex with someone of the same gender without being "homosexual", and that that specific term is fairly recent. I'd need to dig out my theory books to explain more, and I can't find them right now. Is that at least making some sense?
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 10:49:46 AMThe part about racial discrimination being fun in Arm because they aren't real people, just doesn't hold up. People don't discriminate against people in the real world because of the color of their skin. They discriminate because of behavioral and cultural differences(real and imagined). Discrimination is discrimination. Just because one person is more sensitive to one sort doesn't make it worse than another.
Well, Armageddon is a game, and we play games to have fun. Part of the game is that there is fantasy discrimination. If I'm playing a dick character who follows the documentation, and I'm enjoying that character, it does not mean that I support real life discrimination in any way, shape, or form. It's a game, and that's why it's okay. Likewise, if I'm playing a murderer, I'm not killing real people, I'm killing characters. In that case, killing is not killing, because the people aren't real. It's the same with discrimination.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 11:15:44 AM
I think if you read back, you'll see I said they found the thought of engaging in the acts disgusting, not the people themselves, unless I just really misspoke.
I think that the backlash that you're seeing is that people want to keep RL discrimination and IC discrimination very separate. Having a character who is uncomfortable with something that is specifically based on real world discomforts is what is being looked down on. The argument is that if you're raised in a culture where there is no discrimination, and a significant portion of the population is homosexual, you wouldn't see discomfort. You're arguing that discomfort may be realistic anyway. Realism arguments aside, we're just not after having the discomfort specifically against a real life concept ICly. Does that make sense?
Yeah, it's really just semantics that we're both arguing here though. Regardless of whether the word existed or not at the time, the act remains the same. We just use that particular word for it now. Any discomfort your character can feel will be based on a real world discomfort though. If you'll look, you'll see that I merely said if the player themselves just couldn't reconcile it in their mind and get around it, they could give their character a legitimate reason to be uncomfortable around it, such as a traumatic past experience, which would make them dislike it, no matter how they were raised.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 11:49:26 AM
If you'll look, you'll see that I merely said if the player themselves just couldn't reconcile it in their mind and get around it, they could give their character a legitimate reason to be uncomfortable around it, such as a traumatic past experience, which would make them dislike it, no matter how they were raised.
They would need to remember (and accept) the fact that to the rest of the characters in the game world, this kind of thing would be viewed like any other phobia or irrational intolerance. Like people who are scared of heights or rabbits or what have you. Express it too loudly, and people are going to take it as a sign of weakness.
Very true. There are consequences to most things people choose to role play.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 10:54:58 AM
This actually helped illustrate my point. Your gay friend was repulsed by the thought female genitalia. Some men are repulsed by the thought of other men's. So, if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with another man, he's discriminating, but if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with a woman, he's enlightened and better than me?
I'm not sure why you're taking this personally. I didn't say my friend was enlightened. I didn't say he was better than you. The fact that you interpreted it that way is telling, but it's not my business to speculate why. I was pointing out that you were saying "people dislike homosexuality because it's gross" and I was pointing out that, no, SOME people find it gross, some don't, and some find heterosexuality gross. I was undermining your blanket statement. Please don't extend your own reactions to something by assuming that most people share that reaction.
Quote
It's not -some- people. People, dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Fact. Doesn't matter how liberal you want to be. Or how cool and accepting you want to be. Why do you think religions made homosexuality a taboo? It's not because god, santa, the easter bunny told them to. It's because the people who made the religion were against homosexuality. So, it predated the religions that were against it.
Some people dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Gay sex doesn't appeal to me. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, either.
You're trying to articulate that certain forms of patriarchy that controlled sex in hetero-normative fashion predated monotheism? I'm sure you could find some examples of that, yes. Humans are a pretty diverse lot. However, you'd find that hetero-normative patriarchy and certain forms of sex-obsessed religion absolutely developed hand-in-hand together in tandem.
By the way, your immediate reaction that people are trying to be liberal and cool here just underlines how thoroughly enmeshed you are in the culture views with which you were raised. I'm not pointing that out in order to say "someone else is better than you," but just to prompt some self reflection.
EDIT: And let me point out that my views and attitudes are equally embedded in my own culture, professional life/expectations, etc. None of us can escape it. Now, that doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for our actions, but our culture often defines our starting point and what we can conceive of as our possible choices.
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 18, 2011, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 10:54:58 AM
This actually helped illustrate my point. Your gay friend was repulsed by the thought female genitalia. Some men are repulsed by the thought of other men's. So, if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with another man, he's discriminating, but if a man is grossed out by the thought of having sex with a woman, he's enlightened and better than me?
I'm not sure why you're taking this personally. I didn't say my friend was enlightened. I didn't say he was better than you. The fact that you interpreted it that way is telling, but it's not my business to speculate why. I was pointing out that you were saying "people dislike homosexuality because it's gross" and I was pointing out that, no, SOME people find it gross, some don't, and some find heterosexuality gross. I was undermining your blanket statement. Please don't extend your own reactions to something by assuming that most people share that reaction.
Quote
It's not -some- people. People, dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Fact. Doesn't matter how liberal you want to be. Or how cool and accepting you want to be. Why do you think religions made homosexuality a taboo? It's not because god, santa, the easter bunny told them to. It's because the people who made the religion were against homosexuality. So, it predated the religions that were against it.
Some people dislike and feel uncomfortable about things that do not appeal to them. Gay sex doesn't appeal to me. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, either.
You're trying to articulate that certain forms of patriarchy that controlled sex in hetero-normative fashion predated monotheism? I'm sure you could find some examples of that, yes. Humans are a pretty diverse lot. However, you'd find that hetero-normative patriarchy and certain forms of sex-obsessed religion absolutely developed hand-in-hand together in tandem.
By the way, your immediate reaction that people are trying to be liberal and cool here just underlines how thoroughly enmeshed you are in the culture views with which you were raised. I'm not pointing that out in order to say "someone else is better than you," but just to prompt some self reflection.
EDIT: And let me point out that my views and attitudes are equally embedded in my own culture, professional life/expectations, etc. None of us can escape it. Now, that doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for our actions, but our culture often defines our starting point and what we can conceive of as our possible choices.
I don't know how to do the nifty thing where I separate quotes and talk in between..
I didn't say that you said any of those things, however that seems to be the consensus. I'm wrong for not wanting to engage in homosexual activities personally, but in your example it's perfectly alright that your gay friend didn't want to engage in heterosexual activities. Your usage of "I think it's telling" and other remarks along those lines aren't actually beneficial to any conversation, it's just a passive aggressive form of verbal attack. I didn't say homosexuality was gross, I said that people who dislike it, dislike it not necessarily for religious reasons, but because they find the idea of engaging in it themselves distasteful. Much like your friend found the idea of engaging in sex with a woman distasteful. Also, using the phrase "you're trying" implies that you have even a basic understanding of my personality and beliefs. Please don't assume. I have many gay friends and have lived with gay roommates and their partners. I didn't say(or if I did, didn't mean to say) that homosexuality itself was gross. Just that some people think it is. Maybe you should re-read from the first post I made a little more carefully and try to see the intention behind the words rather than focusing on semantics in an attempt to find fault with what was said.
Gay people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this while straight people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this
Quote from: Case on June 18, 2011, 12:25:18 PM
Gay people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this while straight people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this
Can bisexuals argue like
this?
Quote from: Case on June 18, 2011, 12:25:18 PM
Gay people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this while straight people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this
...I don't get it.. ?
Quote from: lordcooper on June 18, 2011, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: Case on June 18, 2011, 12:25:18 PM
Gay people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this while straight people argue about arguing about homosexuality like this
Can bisexuals argue like this?
Wtf that's discriminatory. Studies show 26% of bisexuals argue like
this and 12% argue like this with the remaining percentage instead playing Arm and not getting hung up over how others may perceive how others act and react to a sexual behaviour or attraction
62% of bisexual people pay Arm?
Cool fact is cool
If we want to continue to discuss homosexuality, we need a new thread.
I think it's settled in terms of Zalanthas. If you want to be afraid or grossed out by homosexuals IC, then your character has an irrational fear and will be treated as such. You don't have to want to engage in any sexual activity you don't want/your character doesn't want, but that doesn't mean you have to be grossed out by it.
If you see something that offends you on an OOC level, it's outside the rules, and you were not asked for consent, file a complaint.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 12:23:04 PM
I said that people who dislike it, dislike it not necessarily for religious reasons, but because they find the idea of engaging in it themselves distasteful. Much like your friend found the idea of engaging in sex with a woman distasteful.
Just on this ... I think I already pointed out to you that this line of reasoning does not follow, yes? Disliking the idea of yourself doing something does not extend to disliking other people who do it unless you find the act itself morally offensive.
A dog eats poop. We don't hate all dogs for it even though we are grossed out (I hope) by the thought of us doing it.
A gay friend is grossed out by the thought of sex with a girl. They don't hate straight guys who are into that by default.
Hating homosexuals is entirely a learned behavior from the culture you were brought up in. Religion doesn't
have to be the cultural reason, it just is ... 99 times out of 100 in our current world. And I don't mean that you have to be religious, I mean that most cultures have strong religious influence even if you aren't following the religion yourself. You were exposed to it in your formative years.
Quote from: musashi on June 18, 2011, 12:37:58 PM
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 12:23:04 PM
I said that people who dislike it, dislike it not necessarily for religious reasons, but because they find the idea of engaging in it themselves distasteful. Much like your friend found the idea of engaging in sex with a woman distasteful.
Just on this ... I think I already pointed out to you that this line of reasoning does not follow, yes? Disliking the idea of yourself doing something does not extend to disliking other people who do it unless you find the act itself morally offensive.
A dog eats poop. We don't hate all dogs for it even though we are grossed out (I hope) by the thought of us doing it.
A gay friend is grossed out by the thought of sex with a girl. They don't hate straight guys who are into that by default.
Hating homosexuals is entirely a learned behavior from the culture you were brought up in. Religion doesn't have to be the cultural reason, it just is ... 99 times out of 100 in our current world. And I don't mean that you have to be religious, I mean that most cultures have strong religious influence even if you aren't following the religion yourself. You were exposed to it in your formative years.
Ohhhh...I see where the disconnect was now. Yes. That is right. Hrm, how do I word this? I meant the dislike was for the homosexual acts, not the people engaging in them. For instance, I am not bothered by people being gay. That doesn't mean I want to watch them have sex. I do however enjoy watching heterosexual sex. We got pretty derailed, going into specifics of homosexuality itself, but the OP was asking about how their character would respond to seeing people engaging in the bahavior, so my response was sort of tailored toward that. That while it isn't seen as anything out of the ordinary in the game world it can be jarring for the player themselves if it's not something they are used to or comfortable with.
Gay and straight people are totally sexist.
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 12:44:13 PM
Quote from: musashi on June 18, 2011, 12:37:58 PM
Quote from: morrigan on June 18, 2011, 12:23:04 PM
I said that people who dislike it, dislike it not necessarily for religious reasons, but because they find the idea of engaging in it themselves distasteful. Much like your friend found the idea of engaging in sex with a woman distasteful.
Just on this ... I think I already pointed out to you that this line of reasoning does not follow, yes? Disliking the idea of yourself doing something does not extend to disliking other people who do it unless you find the act itself morally offensive.
A dog eats poop. We don't hate all dogs for it even though we are grossed out (I hope) by the thought of us doing it.
A gay friend is grossed out by the thought of sex with a girl. They don't hate straight guys who are into that by default.
Hating homosexuals is entirely a learned behavior from the culture you were brought up in. Religion doesn't have to be the cultural reason, it just is ... 99 times out of 100 in our current world. And I don't mean that you have to be religious, I mean that most cultures have strong religious influence even if you aren't following the religion yourself. You were exposed to it in your formative years.
Ohhhh...I see where the disconnect was now. Yes. That is right. Hrm, how do I word this? I meant the dislike was for the homosexual acts, not the people engaging in them. For instance, I am not bothered by people being gay. That doesn't mean I want to watch them have sex. I do however enjoy watching heterosexual sex. We got pretty derailed, going into specifics of homosexuality itself, but the OP was asking about how their character would respond to seeing people engaging in the bahavior, so my response was sort of tailored toward that. That while it isn't seen as anything out of the ordinary in the game world it can be jarring for the player themselves if it's not something they are used to or comfortable with.
Got cha! In that case I don't think any extra justification is really needed at all. Some people playing don't want to see mudsex in general no matter what is kanking what. But we have consent rules for that if it's in a public place, and if it's somewhere private and you stumble in, it's easy enough to stumble right back out again.
I really don't want to jump in on this so please don't jump down my throat, but I know there's a lot of people that just don't want to see the profane and sexual stuff, period - no matter what kind it is. Honestly, I think this might scare away a lot of players and it would be nice if we could tone it down just a tad or maybe how it used to be - which was more subtle, implied and understood without going into much detail.
I'm not saying we need to change the gameworld at all, but I really don't think it is necessary to get graphic with the words, conversations, and actions themselves unless you are in a group of people that you know, positively, consent to that sort of stuff. We should probably assume people don't consent unless they say so. There's also a lot of young players out there that we shouldn't be influencing negatively, or at least need to be given a chance to learn what they want or don't want to hear and see for themselves... whether they say they are 18 or not.
Now where to draw that line I don't know. Every person would draw the line in different places. One might not want to hear any cussing at all while another can put up with small amounts or another doesn't care as long as it doesn't get extremely graphic. By and large, violence is tolerated much more than other stuff like profanity and sexual content... let's just use some common sense and not scare players away and make this a mud that is only played by those that enjoy pr0n and profanity.
Just because there's a certain clique of folks that thinks all that stuff is okay and fine and anything goes, does not mean that there are not a lot of other people out there that would like to play the game without much of it. I know there is going to be a little, it is a harsh and violent world... but it looks like it has been pushed a little far in many circumstances, by a large handful of frequent players that change the gameworld how they see fit. That is fine to a certain extent, but have some respect for everyone else.
With all due respect, Sokotra, the consent rules are what they are for a reason. If it was intended for people to need to get consent for things like word choices ahead of time, that would be listed among them.
There are many games where you are not allowed to do anything higher than PG rated. I quit one I really enjoyed because of that.
RE: Homosexuality:
Even animals IRL exhibit gay behaviors, it's been around for a long, long time, and regardless of whether or not people are discriminatory about it IRL, they are not, IC. There is a reason for that as well.
If you want someone to discriminate against, go hate on an elf (or a human, if you're an elf).
What about tri-sexuals does this rate up their with the topic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k)
(caution this is animal on animal high jinks)
I thought this might show that such things span human higher intellect and that sex simply falls into an animistic base nature.
For the argument of it in history, so one could conclude from observation that:
Birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, ...
Lol...I was about to say I once saw a chimp orally rape a toad, but you beat me to it. I like playing devil's advocate and using that when people bring up the homosexuality in animals thing. But yes, wide varieties of animal species engage in homosexual relations.
I've been tired of all forms of discrimination since I was born. You think people would know better because we can read and shit.
Gay people are sexy by the way
Quote from: lordcooper on June 18, 2011, 12:32:30 PM
62% of bisexual people pay Arm?
Cool fact is cool
You'd think we'd have more people on at peak.
Except, this is about homosexuality in the game, not discrimination outside of the game.
On topic: I think that doc about how homosexuality is normal, is kind of off. In the game, men can't get pregnant, and women can't get men pregnant. In the game, if people want to have babies, they need at least one male, and at least one female, both of whom need to be fertile. That is -why- muls have such a hard time getting along with their neighbors; because they are a race of created beings who were designed to be incapable of reproducing. If homosexuality was truly "normal," then muls would not care that they weren't capable of reproducing.
I think homosexuality in game isn't "normal," but it is not something the majority of Zalanthans would care about one way or another. The majority of Zalanthans likely take sexuality in general, for granted. It just isn't a big deal to them who likes girls and who likes boys. I also think that the majority of Zalanthans are either heterosexual or bisexual, based upon the fact that if the majority weren't, then rape for the express purpose of propagating the species would be more common.
I guess I'm saying that from a logistical point of view, it doesn't really make sense for homosexuality to be "normal" in Zalanthas. "Unimpressive," sure. But "normal," I just don't buy it. Even if the docs say so.
Quote from: Lizzie on June 18, 2011, 06:58:24 PM
Except, this is about homosexuality in the game, not discrimination outside of the game.
On topic: I think that doc about how homosexuality is normal, is kind of off. In the game, men can't get pregnant, and women can't get men pregnant. In the game, if people want to have babies, they need at least one male, and at least one female, both of whom need to be fertile. That is -why- muls have such a hard time getting along with their neighbors; because they are a race of created beings who were designed to be incapable of reproducing. If homosexuality was truly "normal," then muls would not care that they weren't capable of reproducing.
I think homosexuality in game isn't "normal," but it is not something the majority of Zalanthans would care about one way or another. The majority of Zalanthans likely take sexuality in general, for granted. It just isn't a big deal to them who likes girls and who likes boys. I also think that the majority of Zalanthans are either heterosexual or bisexual, based upon the fact that if the majority weren't, then rape for the express purpose of propagating the species would be more common.
I guess I'm saying that from a logistical point of view, it doesn't really make sense for homosexuality to be "normal" in Zalanthas. "Unimpressive," sure. But "normal," I just don't buy it. Even if the docs say so.
Yeah, I agree. I think without a religion to enforce homosexuality as being a sin...It's mostly just 'your' business. If you are a dude that likes dudes, it's your business, not really anyone else's. If you're a woman with a 'mate' that is another woman, well, you aren't going to have any kids, but I guess that's your call. Etc.
I don't buy it, Reiloth or Lizzie, because the docs say it's totally normal. The REASON Muls have such a hard time is because on a general scale they are born into slavery, period. They are raised as slaves, they are taught that they are slaves, and they learn at terrible times "Oh by the way you won't ever be a mommy or a daddy".
However, I think the biggest factor that sets Muls apart is that no matter what, they're always "tools". They're raised to be weapons, to be objects, and they're never given "true" affection. THAT is why they grow up to be so crappy at life.
Yeah, there are a whole number of reasons muls are fucked up. It's not just the infertility thing, and so I don't think that's a valid reason to start questioning the documentation that the city-cultures don't care one way or another about sexuality.
If a couple in game can't have kids because they are the same sex they can still have kids. Just not with each other.
Quote from: Anaiah on June 18, 2011, 02:35:35 PM
With all due respect, Sokotra, the consent rules are what they are for a reason. If it was intended for people to need to get consent for things like word choices ahead of time, that would be listed among them.
There are many games where you are not allowed to do anything higher than PG rated. I quit one I really enjoyed because of that.
I wasn't really saying that it had to be strictly PG rated, although some might prefer that, and it would be nice if folks used their imagination and used Zalanthan curse words that would be much easier on those players. I was just saying there are many cases where that stuff can be toned down a bit, because it seems to be crossing the line on the consent rules a little - although the consent rules don't seem to be really clear on profanity and stuff, as far as I know. You are describing with words by using emotes just the same as you are describing with words with the "say" command. Using a bunch of profanity and saying what you are going to do to someone seems to be getting pretty close to doing the same with the "emote" command. PG-13 would probably be a happy middle ground, rather than rated R... which seems to be the case much of the time.
I haven't had much trouble with that stuff myself, and I've tolerated what I have seen with no complaints or anything... I'm just thinking of everyone else as well - and those that don't frequent the GDB.
Sorry for the derail, just kinda had a question about that... I'm done. ;)
Which sex/sexes/gender/genders you are attracted to, and whether you want to have kids or are willing to mate for the purposes of procreation, these are not the same thing.
All it takes is one woman in a lesbian pair offering to have kids for them, or one man in a gay pair offering to pay someone cold hard obsidian to have kids for them, and BAM. Now you have a gay couple with kids.
I've never seen homosexuality as not normal. And since its Arm, I sort of expected for that to go over more, too, since women are equals and skin color doesn't matter IG, so I always thought LGBT folks got it a bit better IG too.
Oh, and, since I'm not planning to make a transvestite character anymore, staff told me you have to send one of those in as a special app, because of their rarity.
Quote from: Sokotra on June 18, 2011, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: Anaiah on June 18, 2011, 02:35:35 PM
With all due respect, Sokotra, the consent rules are what they are for a reason. If it was intended for people to need to get consent for things like word choices ahead of time, that would be listed among them.
There are many games where you are not allowed to do anything higher than PG rated. I quit one I really enjoyed because of that.
I wasn't really saying that it had to be strictly PG rated, although some might prefer that, and it would be nice if folks used their imagination and used Zalanthan curse words that would be much easier on those players. I was just saying there are many cases where that stuff can be toned down a bit, because it seems to be crossing the line on the consent rules a little - although the consent rules don't seem to be really clear on profanity and stuff, as far as I know. You are describing with words by using emotes just the same as you are describing with words with the "say" command. Using a bunch of profanity and saying what you are going to do to someone seems to be getting pretty close to doing the same with the "emote" command. PG-13 would probably be a happy middle ground, rather than rated R... which seems to be the case much of the time.
I haven't had much trouble with that stuff myself, and I've tolerated what I have seen with no complaints or anything... I'm just thinking of everyone else as well - and those that don't frequent the GDB.
Sorry for the derail, just kinda had a question about that... I'm done. ;)
I like Zalanthan-specific curse words... but dude, I'm still gonna drop a ton of F-bombs if the character warrants it. I suppose I can sort of sympathize about the graphic conversations thing (ie, it's not 'happening' but you get all the... colorful descriptions through the say command regardless), but still. Meh, if a player has a problem, they should send in a complaint. Or maybe people should fire off a consent OOC before getting ultra-graphic with their shit-talkin'? I probably wouldn't most of the time, but I suppose I'll be quicker on the consent-askin' if things get graphically sexual/rape-tastic in conversation. *shrug* Either way, I think the rules pretty much have it covered.
With all due respect... this is Armageddon, not Care Bear MUD.
If I want to call you a slough of curse words in game, you're not gonna stop me. On the GDB, understand I won't call you a slough of curse words!
Quote from: Delirium on June 18, 2011, 08:58:54 PM
With all due respect... this is Armageddon, not Care Bear MUD.
I never mentioned a G rating, heh. And again... I wasn't really asking for a PG rating either. I only figured people would want to keep it at PG-13 at least, to keep from chasing players away. You could always do the consent and continue with R or X if you so choose. But whatever...
I can't think of any time but one really funny time where the talking got too graphic, in my experience. I agree though, that if you wouldn't emote it out without consent, don't say it without consent.
As for curse words, as long as they're not actually graphically describing something which should require consent, I'm all for them.
I'm with BleakOne. If someone wants to say fuck shit ass balls every other minute like their PC has Tourette syndrome from a Hollywood movie ... have at it boss. Trust me, kids younger than 18 know all of those words already ;)
But, if the things that you are about to "say" are things that you would need consent to emote ... then ask for consent. We have the consent rules regarding explicit sexual depiction for a reason.
Quote from: Saellyn on June 18, 2011, 07:10:00 PM
I don't buy it, Reiloth or Lizzie, because the docs say it's totally normal. The REASON Muls have such a hard time is because on a general scale they are born into slavery, period. They are raised as slaves, they are taught that they are slaves, and they learn at terrible times "Oh by the way you won't ever be a mommy or a daddy".
However, I think the biggest factor that sets Muls apart is that no matter what, they're always "tools". They're raised to be weapons, to be objects, and they're never given "true" affection. THAT is why they grow up to be so crappy at life.
Actually, the docs don't say it's totally normal. A player guide that was approved by staff says that homosexuality is *common* - which does not equate with normal. The docs also say in the paragraph, a few attitudes that people in real life might have, but don't have in Zalanthas - and then in the very next sentence, it says that attitudes toward sexuality are broad. But, obviously, attitudes toward sexuality in Zalanthas are VERY narrow, if people aren't allowed to RP their characters having certain attitudes that are common in real life.
So really, that document is misleading, and inaccurate. It's also outdated, and gives away something that is supposedly IC, doesn't even mention the fact that tribal humans exist, let alone that players can choose to play one...it leads a new player into believing that the only people who exist, are city people, and tribal elves.
There are a lot of inconsistencies with the official docs, and with the player submitted docs. In this case, the notion that "no one gives a flying fuck about sexual prefence in Zalanthas" should be the emphasis - not that you should expect your character to get hit on primarily by someone of the same gender (which is what the document implies, by singling out homosexuality as the "common" sexual preference).
I don't think "normal" is a very useful word to be putting into the discussion; it's like the word "pretty", or "good" ... you know ... entirely subjective.
I think the players guide should be edited myself.
Changed to read that it is a "non-issue" Rather then stated as "normal".
Which BTW, is how staff stated it for years anyway.
Simply that NOBODY CARES who you fuck or what, If you are in love with a tregil and doing it daily, Nobody cares, That special vase...nobody cares..etc, etc.
Quote from: X-D on June 18, 2011, 11:45:06 PMSimply that NOBODY CARES who you fuck or what, If you are in love with a tregil and doing it daily, Nobody cares, That special vase...nobody cares..etc, etc.
Though I'm sure you know this, just for the record, that's not entirely true. There are still IC problems with interracial sex, of course, and most inter-caste sex in Tuluk.
I have no idea if there is a norm for bestiality, but I would say different PCs may have different opinions about it.
Edit to add: I know what this thread is about, but that's a broad statement you made and I just want to ensure it doesn't get misinterpreted.
Ahhh the infamous quirri sandwich :D
Which is the doc that characterizes homosexuality as "normal" among Zalanthans? I know the quickstart calls it "common," but that's not quite the same thing. Am I missing something, or are people getting caught up in a word that's not actually used?
edit: Okay now I see Lizzie already pointed this out. I still don't understand the need for all the hair-splitting about the wording of that one paragraph in the quickstart.
Nah, I don't think anybody cares who you are fucking...now, if that results in offspring they might care but that has nothing to do with caring about the act that caused it.
Keep in mind, any of these things do not include nobles, templars or other like sponsereed roles, as they are far from the "common" people of the world.
If I'm a human Tuluki and I know a human Tuluki who's screwing with an elven gemmer, I'm going to try and stay the heck away from them and get them disappeared, killed and/or exiled, preferably indirectly or at least with a ranged weapon.
No matter if they're living off mul mix, both sterile, and both the same gender.
That statement would be the same if you replaced screwing with Talking to.
True.
It also has nothing to do with the topic, which is the In-Game perspective on homosexuality in Zalanthas. Which is - not anything that would be important enough that anyone would care about it. The documentation singles it out, and thereby makes it noteworthy by creating a device in which characters will have at least one fuck to give about it - the fuck being "iit's common."
It is not *publically* common, which means, people are not having sex on the bar of the Sanctuary, on a basis regular enough to draw attention of any kind, whether negative or positive. It means, homosexuality is not something anyone talks about in game, because it isn't anything anyone cares about in game. It's like talking about a leaf that fell outside the wall one day, that was just an ordinary leaf, doing what leaves ordinarily do. Really; no one cares. There are 450 fucks in the world. None of them are given as a result of homosexuality.
This post inspired by Yam.
Quote from: Sokotra on June 18, 2011, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: Anaiah on June 18, 2011, 02:35:35 PM
With all due respect, Sokotra, the consent rules are what they are for a reason. If it was intended for people to need to get consent for things like word choices ahead of time, that would be listed among them.
There are many games where you are not allowed to do anything higher than PG rated. I quit one I really enjoyed because of that.
I wasn't really saying that it had to be strictly PG rated, although some might prefer that, and it would be nice if folks used their imagination and used Zalanthan curse words that would be much easier on those players. I was just saying there are many cases where that stuff can be toned down a bit, because it seems to be crossing the line on the consent rules a little - although the consent rules don't seem to be really clear on profanity and stuff, as far as I know. You are describing with words by using emotes just the same as you are describing with words with the "say" command. Using a bunch of profanity and saying what you are going to do to someone seems to be getting pretty close to doing the same with the "emote" command. PG-13 would probably be a happy middle ground, rather than rated R... which seems to be the case much of the time.
I haven't had much trouble with that stuff myself, and I've tolerated what I have seen with no complaints or anything... I'm just thinking of everyone else as well - and those that don't frequent the GDB.
Sorry for the derail, just kinda had a question about that... I'm done. ;)
All those poor silent souls offended by dirty dick on dick action. It's almost hard to bear.
I'm interested in hearing what all those fucks are given for.
Quote from: lordcooper on June 19, 2011, 05:36:02 PM
I'm interested in hearing what all those fucks are given for.
Find out IC
Quote from: Yam on June 19, 2011, 03:28:16 PM
Quote from: Sokotra on June 18, 2011, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: Anaiah on June 18, 2011, 02:35:35 PM
With all due respect, Sokotra, the consent rules are what they are for a reason. If it was intended for people to need to get consent for things like word choices ahead of time, that would be listed among them.
There are many games where you are not allowed to do anything higher than PG rated. I quit one I really enjoyed because of that.
I wasn't really saying that it had to be strictly PG rated, although some might prefer that, and it would be nice if folks used their imagination and used Zalanthan curse words that would be much easier on those players. I was just saying there are many cases where that stuff can be toned down a bit, because it seems to be crossing the line on the consent rules a little - although the consent rules don't seem to be really clear on profanity and stuff, as far as I know. You are describing with words by using emotes just the same as you are describing with words with the "say" command. Using a bunch of profanity and saying what you are going to do to someone seems to be getting pretty close to doing the same with the "emote" command. PG-13 would probably be a happy middle ground, rather than rated R... which seems to be the case much of the time.
I haven't had much trouble with that stuff myself, and I've tolerated what I have seen with no complaints or anything... I'm just thinking of everyone else as well - and those that don't frequent the GDB.
Sorry for the derail, just kinda had a question about that... I'm done. ;)
All those poor silent souls offended by dirty dick on dick action. It's almost hard to bear.
I'll call your troll, and raise you a dwarf. I wasn't talking about any particular act, I was talking about all of it - which I specifically stated. I don't care what it is.
Quote from: Sokotra
I really don't want to jump in on this so please don't jump down my throat, but I know there's a lot of people that just don't want to see the profane and sexual stuff, period - no matter what kind it is. Honestly, I think this might scare away a lot of players and it would be nice if we could tone it down just a tad or maybe how it used to be - which was more subtle, implied and understood without going into much detail.
If the consensus is that it is okay to sit there and drop f-bombs and say they are going to f--- some 14 yr old girl or boy playing a character in this game, then I guess that is that. It's your game. I just felt that sort of thing should have to be consented. I guess I'll just have to choose not to do so, myself. Everyone else should be considered and respected, even if they are 18 and they don't want to hear or be subject to it when there are plenty of better, more imaginative Zalanthan alternatives to any of that stuff. That would be less jarring and fit the game world much better.
Just my opinion... it's pretty easy to just take it or leave it without starting the insults.
im sort of baffled this whole thread lasted 6 pages.
Quote from: Dakota on June 19, 2011, 06:17:35 PM
im sort of baffled this whole thread lasted 6 pages.
But wait - go check out "Pooping!"
Quote from: Sokotra on June 19, 2011, 05:59:22 PM
Quote from: Yam on June 19, 2011, 03:28:16 PM
Quote from: Sokotra on June 18, 2011, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: Anaiah on June 18, 2011, 02:35:35 PM
With all due respect, Sokotra, the consent rules are what they are for a reason. If it was intended for people to need to get consent for things like word choices ahead of time, that would be listed among them.
There are many games where you are not allowed to do anything higher than PG rated. I quit one I really enjoyed because of that.
I wasn't really saying that it had to be strictly PG rated, although some might prefer that, and it would be nice if folks used their imagination and used Zalanthan curse words that would be much easier on those players. I was just saying there are many cases where that stuff can be toned down a bit, because it seems to be crossing the line on the consent rules a little - although the consent rules don't seem to be really clear on profanity and stuff, as far as I know. You are describing with words by using emotes just the same as you are describing with words with the "say" command. Using a bunch of profanity and saying what you are going to do to someone seems to be getting pretty close to doing the same with the "emote" command. PG-13 would probably be a happy middle ground, rather than rated R... which seems to be the case much of the time.
I haven't had much trouble with that stuff myself, and I've tolerated what I have seen with no complaints or anything... I'm just thinking of everyone else as well - and those that don't frequent the GDB.
Sorry for the derail, just kinda had a question about that... I'm done. ;)
All those poor silent souls offended by dirty dick on dick action. It's almost hard to bear.
I'll call your troll, and raise you a dwarf. I wasn't talking about any particular act, I was talking about all of it - which I specifically stated. I don't care what it is.
Quote from: Sokotra
I really don't want to jump in on this so please don't jump down my throat, but I know there's a lot of people that just don't want to see the profane and sexual stuff, period - no matter what kind it is. Honestly, I think this might scare away a lot of players and it would be nice if we could tone it down just a tad or maybe how it used to be - which was more subtle, implied and understood without going into much detail.
If the consensus is that it is okay to sit there and drop f-bombs and say they are going to f--- some 14 yr old girl or boy playing a character in this game, then I guess that is that. It's your game. I just felt that sort of thing should have to be consented. I guess I'll just have to choose not to do so, myself. Everyone else should be considered and respected, even if they are 18 and they don't want to hear or be subject to it when there are plenty of better, more imaginative Zalanthan alternatives to any of that stuff. That would be less jarring and fit the game world much better.
Just my opinion... it's pretty easy to just take it or leave it without starting the insults.
Quote from: Rules
Apart from the requirement that people roleplay realistically here, there are few restrictions on roleplay in Armageddon. If you choose to roleplay adult situations, that is fine. However, before instigating such an act with another player, please OOC to make sure that the roleplay is consented to. If someone is instigating roleplay that makes you (the player) uncomfortable, please OOC that they should stop. If they continue despite being told to stop, please wish up. This rule is not meant to be abused in order to allow characters to escape death/torture/etc., but is intended for adult situations, such as torture or rape, which some players and staff may not wish to witness. If you act out a graphic sequence without first obtaining the other player's consent, and the player then complains within a reasonable amount of time (so that the runlogs can be checked and the complaint verified), you will be permanently banned.
Specifically in the case of roleplaying through a rape, the instigator takes on added responsibility. In this case, the instigator absolutely must OOCly ask for and must obtain explicit consent from the victim's player prior to involving their character in any emote specifically indicative of the act of rape, no matter how non-graphical you believe it to be.
Anyway, if this isn't just about homosexual situations why did you bring it up in the thread titled "Homosexuality"?
We all know that you're a Christian and have a set of beliefs that do not coincide with the theme of the game. That's cool. However it's transparent as fuck when you keep bitching about the same dead ass horse and then trying to play the "oh but other people care too they just aren't saying anything also this totally isn't about homosexuality or my religious beliefs" card when you're called on it.
Because it is true. Which is also why I specifically stated that I was talking about all of it, which I honestly was, and not about anything in particular. Sorry if I invaded the Homosexuality thread.. it was related. I'm afraid you've gotten the wrong idea.
Of course. The words you type don't actually convey your true opinions and we're just getting the wrong idea. My bad dude.
This is what was said, directly before my first post in this thread on page 4. The words I typed are what I meant, I'm guessing you just took them the wrong way. If I have different views than you, don't know what to tell ya.
Quote
Some people playing don't want to see mudsex in general no matter what is kanking what. But we have consent rules for that if it's in a public place, and if it's somewhere private and you stumble in, it's easy enough to stumble right back out again.
Someone else said that right before I posted. Which is why I brought up the issue about profanity and R-rated stuff in the game. I seriously wasn't trying to point out just homosexuality.
Quote from: Sokotra
I really don't want to jump in on this so please don't jump down my throat, but I know there's a lot of people that just don't want to see the profane and sexual stuff, period - no matter what kind it is.
Is that not okay?
Quote from: Sokotra
I really don't want to jump in on this so please don't jump down my throat, but I know there's a lot of people that just don't want to see the profane and sexual stuff, period - no matter what kind it is.
Is that not okay?
Why are you playing this game then? Also who are these mysterious silent people and how did they not know what they were in for? And which heartless bastard is forcing them to play this profane game?
Lol, wow... you really going to turn it into that? It's obvious I didn't say anyone was forcing anyone to play anything. Just as I'm not forcing any of my opinions into rules for you to follow. I'm pretty sure everyone is allowed to speak their opinions here. I've tried to do so as respectfully as possible. Let's not spam the thread now.
And I'm not forcing anything on you. I would have to ask consent to do that.
Please lock this thread before it derails further.