homosexuality and D&D (I'm not a troll)
Anivair
In games, gay people always seem a litle fradulent to me. That is, if
I throw in a gay barrister or a gay knight that seems somehow to be a
bad thing. it just feels off. I suppose a gay artist or foppish noble
would feel better, but that's because they fall into steryotypes and
I'm comfortable with them.
Now I'm a big fan of gay peple. I'm not gay myself, but many of my
friends are. I'm a big gay rights person. And it never feels out of
place in a modern game or a futuer game. just fantasy.
So first, why is that? Anyone? Because I don't get it.
And second, how do you deal with it, if at all. How could I
incorperate homosexuality into my game world in a way that feels
genuine and is also worth doing and not a steryotype.
A few reasons. One is that it just came up in conversation. Another
is that I try to run a very realistic game and not having homosexuals
seems logically out of place. Also, I've got at least one if not two
gay characters in my game very soon (not to mention two gay players)
and if I ignore it, making them the only homosexuals in the world, that
would be doing them and the game a disservice.
So, thoughts?
Niels L. Ellegaard
> A few reasons. One is that it just came up in conversation.
> Another is that I try to run a very realistic game and not having
> homosexuals seems logically out of place. Also, I've got at least
> one if not two gay characters in my game very soon (not to mention
> two gay players) and if I ignore it, making them the only
> homosexuals in the world, that would be doing them and the game a
> disservice.
Without knowing your friends I would advice you to start out without
any homosexual NPCs. This way you give your two players some room to
define the role of a gay in a Fantasy world. After all it's their
sexuality, not yours. Subsequently you can go on working with their
ideas.
Anyway there should be plenty of room for gay NPCs in D&D.
* The tall blond gay Palladin.
* The mighty gay wizard.
* The gay halfling assassin.
* The halfelven gay bard
* The gay shopkeeper.
Anivair
Niels L. Ellegaard wrote:>
> Without knowing your friends I would advice you to start out without
> any homosexual NPCs. This way you give your two players some room to
> define the role of a gay in a Fantasy world. After all it's their
> sexuality, not yours. Subsequently you can go on working with their
> ideas.
A fine idea, but I'll still have to introduce them as I go. I will
take that advice, though.
> Anyway there should be plenty of room for gay NPCs in D&D.
>
> * The tall blond gay Palladin.
> * The mighty gay wizard.
> * The gay halfling assassin.
> * The halfelven gay bard
> * The gay shopkeeper.
I was about to say you just added gay to other normal characters, but
that's sort of hte point. I get that the sexuality doesn't have to be
a defining character trait and that for most npc's you never even see
it. Heck, I certainly have played characters attracted to people who
never made it known and many npc's are the same. It's just that I do
feel a definatel lack of gayness in my games. (excuse the use of hte
word gayness, but I am so sick of typing out homosexuality that I may
die . . . it's long). Thanks, though.
Wenin
let me try again. =)
The first thing you will need to do is to determine how homosexuality
is looked upon in your world. Don't go the easy route of either having
everyone accept it, or not accept it. That is bland and isn't
realistic. So you'll need to go through all the different powers of
your world and determine where they stand on the issue. Then use this
to help plot out how you will introduce homosexual NPCs.
You could have a barkeep that lives in a town that is dominated by a
religion that isn't tollerant of homosexuals. The barkeep could have a
wife.... one that knows what's up but wishes to care for her friend.
The barkeep's true lover is the man that manages the stables next door.
The PCs could find out by the wife hitting on the PCs.... she needs
some loving after all.
Rather than just having it as added color... use it as a way to
introduce a twist to the typical story. A priestess of the godess of
love is needing the PC's help to rescue her lover from the evil wizard.
The lover is a woman, as is the evil wizard. The truth to the matter
is that the lover ran away with the "evil wizard". Could even add
another twist that the wizard isn't evil at all. =) If you can work
it.... hide the facts by giving gender neutral names to the lover and
wizard. Keep in mind that the priestess of love won't feel a need to
hide her sexuality, but also she may not be one to broadcast it....
A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
escape from the real world.
Good luck.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
wrote:
I think that homosexuality, like any other character trait, is
important and relevant if and only if it is tied into the significant
dramatic action of the game. That is, it has to affect character
decisions that the -players- actually care about in order to matter to
a game.
For example, hair color doesn't normally matter in a game. Whether a
character has black hair or blond hair is color, and not really of any
relevance to the game's story. However, if the PC wanders into a lost
valley where a tribe of primitive blond tribespeople have a prophecy
that one day a black-haired visitor will come and become their ruler,
then the PC's hair color matters!
Likewise, if you want gay NPCs whose homosexuality isn't just an
incidental character detail, you need plots in which their orientation
matters to the game's conflict. For example, suppose you have a landed
knight who is gay, and married. He needs an heir for dynastic
purposes, but really isn't interested in his wife. The two of them ask
the knight's brother (a PC), to sleep with her and get her pregnant --
that way the lands stay in the family. Regardless of what the PC
decides, this is of course going to be a one hell of a tangled mess
emotionally, and hence chock full of plot.[*]
The only special case is if you have PCs who are gay, and the players
are interested in romance plots.[**] This is because this is a largely
player-initiated plot, but you need NPCs who could be romantically
interested in the PCs.
My advice is to just toss out cool NPCs without worrying overmuch
about what their sexuality is, and if the player finds an NPC their PC
would be interested in, then that NPC turns out to be gay. The NPC's
orientation is a minor, irrelevant detail, until the player decides
that their PC is interested. Just assume that the subtle flirting and
stuff that revealed the mutual interest weren't roleplayed out in
detail. Just skip to the big date, when monsters show up to kidnap him
or her, like all adventurers' SOs eventually are. ;)
[*] This particular plot might well be outside your PLAYERS' comfort
zones, regardless of whether they are gay or straight! Be sure that
they will find a scenario fun before tossing it in their laps. (This
goes for any plot, romance or otherwise, of course.)
[**] Of course, it's possible that a gay player can play a purely
nominally-gay character in exactly the same way that a straight player
can play a nominally-straight character. That is, the PC theoretically
has that orientation, but the player is just not at all interested in
any romance plots, and the PC's sexuality is really just a detail like
eye color.
--
Neel Krishnaswami
ne...@cs.cmu.edu
Quentin Stephens
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> And second, how do you deal with it, if at all.
Surely it's only relevant if you or the players choose to make it
relevant? And that should only be done by agreement, just as with
hetero relationships.
Helpful GM
"Anivair" <ani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now I'm a big fan of gay peple. I'm not gay myself, but many of my
> friends are. I'm a big gay rights person. And it never feels out of
> place in a modern game or a futuer game. just fantasy.
>
> So first, why is that? Anyone? Because I don't get it.
Probably because homosexuality, while perhaps about as common as it is
today, was largely frowned upon by many cultures, ignored by others, and
flaunted by yet others.
Would it feel out of place in the 1st few centuries BC Greece or Rome?
And yet it feels pretty out of place in any setting that closely
resembles The Crusades.
Neither of these things should be a surprize.
As another points out, it's probably more interesting if you mix up the
public reaction a bit. Even if most of the town/state/country/universe
is against it, your gay NPCs will have close friends who know them for
the swell folk that they are -- and relatives who can't quite come to
grips with their oddness, so just see them as "eccentric", etc. Perhaps
they have to meet their lovers on the lam. Lesbians might be viewed as
evil witches, or some such. Again, it depends on a lot of factors.
Sounds like an interesting way to add color, but I wouldn't go whole-hog
on it...
--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.
"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael
Stephen Weir
> And second, how do you deal with it, if at all. How could I incorperate homosexuality into my game world in a way that feels
> genuine and is also worth doing and not a steryotype.
If there are Elves in your game world, then you already have :o)
--
Stephen Weir
New Year's Resolution # 1: I will not argue with idiots on Usenet!
List of Games for Sale - http://www.glipe.free-online.co.uk/index.htm
Midgard UK PBM - http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/midgard_uk_pbm/
Current eBay Auctions - http://makeashorterlink.com/?F1F521555
ICQ # 11472386
Zimri
>> Anyway there should be plenty of room for gay NPCs in D&D.
>>
>> * The tall blond gay Palladin.
>> * The mighty gay wizard.
>> * The gay halfling assassin.
>> * The halfelven gay bard
>> * The gay shopkeeper.
Anivair:
> I was about to say you just added gay to other normal characters, but
> that's sort of hte point.
Well, except for the bit about the halfelven gay bard, which just screams
"Village People" (Hommlet People?). But jokes aside -
One of the NPCs I remember most vividly was Nilonim from "Vault of the
Drow". He was one of the dissident drow from the slums of the Vault called
Erelhei-Cinlu, who had decided that there was a greater good in the world
other than serving Drow* factions, and that it was worth fighting for. Monte
Cook wrote up a sequel within his own module "Dead Gods" which mentioned
Nilonim: as one who had been executed, and one who had left behind a male
lover. But it didn't say anything else about Nilonim, even gender. So, if
you put the two modules together...
In a violently matriarchal society like the Drows', I'd imagine male
homosexuality would be a threat to the social order.
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
*I'm using "drow" for the race and "Drow" for the civilisation.
Ubiquitous
No troll-o-meter for YOU!
Anivair
Zimri wrote:
> In a violently matriarchal society like the Drows', I'd imagine male
> homosexuality would be a threat to the social order.
That's funny, in a violently matriarchal society i could see it gong
either way. Either male homosexuality is a threat or it keeps the
males quiet. it's not as if the males get a choice if the females want
to mate with them ether way, so what do they care? And I can certainly
see drow females being able to do whatever they like with one another.
Anivair
Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
> Likewise, if you want gay NPCs whose homosexuality isn't just an
> incidental character detail, you need plots in which their
orientation
> matters to the game's conflict. For example, suppose you have a
landed
> knight who is gay, and married. He needs an heir for dynastic
> purposes, but really isn't interested in his wife. The two of them
ask
> the knight's brother (a PC), to sleep with her and get her pregnant
--
> that way the lands stay in the family. Regardless of what the PC
> decides, this is of course going to be a one hell of a tangled mess
> emotionally, and hence chock full of plot.[*]
Didn't you use this example once before? I seem to recall it, but it
may be deja vous. Either way it's a wonderful plotline and I'm goign to
steal it.
And of course you wat to make sure your plaers are comfortable.
Fortunately for me I have a killer group who are comfortable with just
about anyhting I can throw at them. And I have no fear or hesitation
of doing so, but I would recommend to other DM's to always make sure
it's there for a reason and a good one. When we were 12 and playing a
murder or rape scene may have been thrown in just because it was out of
bounds, but now that I'm older those topics are breached only when they
accomplish somehting, so that the importance isn't diminished.
Anivair
You are, of course correct, and my players are all willing and in most
cases eager to explore all aspects of their characters. I'm glad you
see the dificulty, though.
Anivair
Helpful GM wrote:
That's a good point. D&D really does resemble the crusades.
And that's a part of the problem. D&D has this european feel that i
want to get rid of because my world is not earth and Samia (where I
run) is not Europe. nor is the catholic church around to influence
morality as it was in that time period. That's exactly why I'm trying
ot figure out how to handle it exactly right. Because I can't just
fall back on my own cultiral history for a culture that is not my own.
Ed Chauvin IV
My guess is it's because you're trying to make the "gay" bit matter,
or at least have the players notice. Try doing it retroactively.
Pick a known character from your campaign, and just decide that he's
gay. Be absolutely certain that it doesn't break continuity and have
the PCs "discover" it. And make the discovery an offhand thing, like
the shopkeeper's lover giving him a goodbye kiss next time they go to
restock.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Keith Davies
>
> In a violently matriarchal society like the Drows', I'd imagine male
> homosexuality would be a threat to the social order.
That's a possibility, I suppose, but I don't know that it's a strong
one. The matriarchs have the power to do -- and cause others to do --
exactly what they want. A gay drow male may be required to perform,
*or else*. He doesn't have to enjoy himself, the matron probably
doesn't *care*, but performance is required. After all, disappointing
a matron makes for a shorter lifespan.
The males may look to each other for support[1], or for some kind of
emotional bond, or whatever. For that matter, it may be like a giant
prison full of elves; the dominant make the weak their bitches. What
the weak prefer is *meaningless*.
It might not even be a matter of *preference*, per se. Drow culture
is CE. It's all about might makes right. The males can't compete
with the females (for assorted reasons), so among themselves it could
be seen as an act of dominance. "The matron requires *me* to perform,
I require *you* to perform. Unless you think you're stronger than you
were last week."
[1] according to published materials, *hardly likely*. I don't know
how canon Dragon Magazine is, but there was an article not too long
ago that described how drow are conceived as twins and one of them
kills (and consumes, IIRC, or absorbs, or whatever) the sibling in
the womb. Grades in school are exceedingly competitive, and often
scored on a binary scale -- you fail, or you live.
Keith
--
Keith Davies
keith....@kjdavies.org http://www.kjdavies.org/
"Some do and some don't. I *hate* that kind of problem."
"Understandable. Consistency is important with fuck ups."
Kaos
>So I was just talking about this the other night.
>
>In games, gay people always seem a litle fradulent to me. That is, if
>I throw in a gay barrister or a gay knight that seems somehow to be a
>bad thing. it just feels off.
Msnip>
>Now I'm a big fan of gay peple. I'm not gay myself, but many of my
>friends are. I'm a big gay rights person. And it never feels out of
>place in a modern game or a futuer game. just fantasy.
>
>So first, why is that? Anyone? Because I don't get it.
Lack of models. The modern era has an abundance of gay "role models"
to pattern or inspire characters, both stereotypical and otherwise,
and it's easy to see future analogs. But for historical models you
have to look a lot deeper, and what you find are mostly stereotypes.
>And second, how do you deal with it, if at all. How could I
>incorperate homosexuality into my game world in a way that feels
>genuine and is also worth doing and not a steryotype.
Outside of the Fop Noble, the Pretentious Artiste, and the Greeks,
(pseudo)medieval homosexuals were generally deeply closeted.
Two-spirit models can be found amongst First Nations (american indian,
native american, whatever) histories, and *might* give some models for
inspiration, but most of them are more comparable to modern
transgenders.
>A few reasons. One is that it just came up in conversation. Another
>is that I try to run a very realistic game and not having homosexuals
>seems logically out of place. Also, I've got at least one if not two
>gay characters in my game very soon (not to mention two gay players)
>and if I ignore it, making them the only homosexuals in the world, that
>would be doing them and the game a disservice.
>
>So, thoughts?
If it feels too forced for you, fog the focus and skirt around
sexuality issues altogether.
I wish I could offer more for you, but my one experience of adding
this facet to roleplaying was somewhat stereotyped and ambiguous; I
was playing a bard, fell into the role of Pretentious Artiste
inadvertantly, and his sexuality was always 'controversial' (that is,
rumours abound but no one was certain.)
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafg...@2allstream3.net
Anivair
Kaos wrote:
> Lack of models. The modern era has an abundance of gay "role models"
> to pattern or inspire characters, both stereotypical and otherwise,
> and it's easy to see future analogs. But for historical models you
> have to look a lot deeper, and what you find are mostly stereotypes.
I think it's more that we just don't know about them all. Alexander
the Great was gay and I'd say he's a pretty mythic figure (but also
from an era before most D&D games, technologically speaking).
Anivair
> That was a lame troll, even for this newsgroup.
> No troll-o-meter for YOU!
Wait, me or the enf guy. Because I'm not trolling. It's a situation
that I have to deal with due to the sexual orientation of both new
players and their characters and I don't want to screw it up. Also it
ticks me off that my world seems to have a huge lack of gay people.
Seems odd.
Anivair
Ubiquitous wrote:
> That was a lame troll, even for this newsgroup.
> No troll-o-meter for YOU!
Wait, me or the enf guy. Because I'm not trolling. It's a situation
Kaos
>Kaos wrote:
>
>> Lack of models. The modern era has an abundance of gay "role models"
>> to pattern or inspire characters, both stereotypical and otherwise,
>> and it's easy to see future analogs. But for historical models you
>> have to look a lot deeper, and what you find are mostly stereotypes.
>
>
>I think it's more that we just don't know about them all.
Yeah, that's kinda what I meant: they were certainly there, but their
sexuality wasn't of Historical Note in most cases so you don't really
see them.
Oh, and don't mind Ubi's comment; he's a neo-con parrot who 'thinks'
(if it can be called thought) any mention of homosexuality in a
non-disparaging way must be a troll.
Lorenz Lang
>
> Now I'm a big fan of gay peple. I'm not gay myself, but many of my
> friends are. I'm a big gay rights person. And it never feels out of
> place in a modern game or a futuer game. just fantasy.
>
> So first, why is that? Anyone? Because I don't get it.
The background for fantasy usually includes myth, legends, fairy tales,
medieval and ancient history.
There's simply not much 'gay content' in this background.
Even the ancient greeks didn't have a god of the gay, as far as I know.
Maybe it disturbs the good old suspension of disbelieve,
if the king wants to marry Shrek instead of the princess.
LL
Peter Knutsen
Wenin wrote:
[...]
> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
> escape from the real world.
And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
in a world where homophobia is the norm?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Stephen Mackey
>Maybe it disturbs the good old suspension of disbelieve,
>if the king wants to marry Shrek instead of the princess.
>
...and thank you for THAT mental image.
--
Stephen Mackey
"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
Stephen Mackey
>> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
>> escape from the real world.
>
>And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
>in a world where homophobia is the norm?
You and I must live in different worlds, good sir... o.O
Aaron F. Bourque
>Peter Knutsen said:
>
>>> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play
>>> fantasy games to escape from the real world.
>>
>>And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
>>in a world where homophobia is the norm?
>
>You and I must live in different worlds, good sir... o.O
Right. It's not "the norm" but it's pretty prevelant.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
God saves and man sins
But the tragedy comes when
He does both of them
Do not meddle in the affairs of fanboys, for they are obvious and quick to
anger.
Rupert Boleyn
Mackey) carved upon a tablet of ether:
> Peter Knutsen said:
>
> >> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
> >> escape from the real world.
> >
> >And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
> >in a world where homophobia is the norm?
>
> You and I must live in different worlds, good sir... o.O
You live in a world with 12th level bards in it?
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Sheldon England
>
> On 23 Dec 2004 19:38:42 GMT, stros...@aol.comdiespam (Stephen
> Mackey) carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Peter Knutsen said:
> >
> > >> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
> > >> escape from the real world.
> > >
> > >And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
> > >in a world where homophobia is the norm?
> >
> > You and I must live in different worlds, good sir... o.O
>
> You live in a world with 12th level bards in it?
Would Liberace have been considered 12th level? He did pretty good for
himself -- diamonds and gold galore. :p
- Sheldon, As usual adding no value to the discussion
Zimri
news:eshls09g07svd2dgi...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Dec 2004 04:43:43 -0800, "Anivair" <ani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kaos wrote:
>>
>>> Lack of models. The modern era has an abundance of gay "role models"
>>> to pattern or inspire characters, both stereotypical and otherwise,
>>> and it's easy to see future analogs. But for historical models you
>>> have to look a lot deeper, and what you find are mostly stereotypes.
>>
>>
>>I think it's more that we just don't know about them all.
>
> Yeah, that's kinda what I meant: they were certainly there, but their
> sexuality wasn't of Historical Note in most cases so you don't really
> see them.
>
> Oh, and don't mind Ubi's comment; he's a neo-con parrot who 'thinks'
> (if it can be called thought) any mention of homosexuality in a
> non-disparaging way must be a troll.
I can think of a number of neo-con parrots who would take grave exception to
that: Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Pim Fortuyn, "Asparagirl", etc. Most
of us became "neo-con" as opposed to "conservative" because we want to
preserve social liberalism rather than to dismiss it as Ubi does. Maybe
we're wrong on the tactics or on the primary threat; or else we're
politically incorrect or blasphemous unbelievers; or whatever - but we're
not homophobes as a rule.
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
*new improved shorter .sig*
Xenophon
Im new to this group but an old hat with AD&D. Most adventure worlds
are pseudo-medieval or medieval and on earth or earth-like planets. But
AD&Ds middle name is campaign flexibility. You can construct your
campaign world however you want. And I have seen many games placed in
antiquity rather than the middle ages. I developed a campaign world as
a DM with a great human empire, whose culture was a blend of ancient
Greek and high Medieval -- eclectic, no?
As far as homosexuality (and bi-sexuality go) hey why not? But I think
the other posters are right. Let the gay players/characters lead the
way WITHIN the culture that you pre-fabricate: pre-determine the
cultural attitudes. And keep in mind that it isn't necessarily as
simple as whether a culture flatly supports, disdains or ignores
homosexuality. There can be more complex attitudes than that.
The Greeks (or Hellenes) have been mentioned. But, you know the
attitudes of the ancient Hellenes varied from city-state to city-state
and from time period to time period. And contrary to what is often
heard, at no period of ancient Hellene history was true homosexuality
acceptable. For example in archaic and classical Athens homoEROTIC
activity was acceptable and expected within very narrow parameters.
Within the gymnasia (literally the "place of the naked people") young
men between the ages of 16 and 25 would develop special friendships
with other, slightly older young men between the ages of 25 and 35. It
would take the form of a mentorship and often had homoerotic activity
as part of the relationship. Such activity was thought to strengthen
the mentor relationship and draw young men away from chasing young
citizen women (whose virginity at marriage was highly valued.)
Usually, the involved men would be members of the same phratere (a club
of sorts with a legendary founder, being made up of a number of
families.) The purpose of the relationship was to introduce young men
to the politics and public traditions of a male-centered state.
After marriage, however, such relationships were supposed to end.
Married men were supposed to be dedicated to women -- their wives and,
if they could afford it, their mistresses. Homoerotic activity by
older men was frowned upon and prosecutable. Older men caught in
homoerotic activities in ancient Athens could be fined for their
activity. So you see, true, life-long homosexuality was not
acceptable.
Even if a society does not find homosexuality acceptable there is the
question of what degree it disdains and punishes it. Ancient Hellenes
might fine those that step outside the appropriate sexual parameters.
Some medieval societies sentenced homosexuals to death for their sexual
activity -- burning or stoning.
In my campaign I exported the ancient Athenian attitude into my fantasy
world. But, honestly, I never played up the angle. It always remained
on the side lines of the stories.
Xenophon
tussock
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:15:55 -0800, Anivair wrote:
>
>>Now I'm a big fan of gay peple. I'm not gay myself, but many of my
>>friends are. I'm a big gay rights person. And it never feels out of
>>place in a modern game or a futuer game. just fantasy.
>>
>>So first, why is that? Anyone? Because I don't get it.
> The background for fantasy usually includes myth, legends, fairy tales,
> medieval and ancient history.
Witches on broomsticks, enchanting fey, succubi. Some of the sexual
things were hetro (men loosing thier vigor through sex with women is a
recurrent theme, primarily due to a lack of germ theory) but alot of
it's pretty ambiguous.
> There's simply not much 'gay content' in this background.
What exactly do you think all those jokers who went and lived as
hermits out with all the other hermits were up to? How about the two old
ladies who lived together for "company"? Can't get the husband to perform?
Pretending to be strait didn't appear out of the blue in the '50s.
> Even the ancient greeks didn't have a god of the gay, as far as I know.
Didn't some of thier gods fuck everything that moved, and quite a
few things that didn't? Really though, a god of true love *is* a god of
the gay just as much as the strait.
> Maybe it disturbs the good old suspension of disbelieve,
> if the king wants to marry Shrek instead of the princess.
In a world where kings are chosen on merit rather than by birth it
wouldn't be so obviously out of place if the king weren't a breeder.
For that matter, this ain't fairy story, it's DnD. What makes you
think orcs just rape the women-folk (or even just the humanoids)?
Dragons and Fiends are obviously happy with whatever species they
can hold still for a while, male or female wouldn't matter.
Homosexuality could be persecuted by the local humans becuase it's
associated with Fiends and a natorious old Orc warrior-king. As a result
all the young gay folk dedicate themselves to Pelor, Paladinhood, or a
Monks life seeking forgiveness. Suddenly a great many of the powerful
folk in society are gay, and support the "persecution" of young
"confused" men and women by absorbing them into the orders.
Dwarves would definately require the hetero life, too few kids
otherwise (maybe recent changes there explain the upsurge in births).
The goblinoids would too, what with the mortality rate in the constant
wars with the dwarfs.
I can't see elves persecuting homosexuals though, they're all
desperate to find true love...
http://www.errantstory.com/d/20041105.html
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anivair
Wenin wrote:
> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games
to
> escape from the real world.
While I appreciate teh sentiment, I think it's misguided. Yes, people
play fantasy (and roleplaying games in general) as a means of escapism
among other things, but that doesn't mean that they aren't also trying
to explore a realistic charcter in a believable setting. That was the
whole reason I wanted to make sure I included it in the first place.
Because it's not realistic not to do so.
The fact that being gay in the real world can be very hard is no reason
to make it hard or easy in a fantasy world. Though I'm very interested
in a lot of hte posts people have placed here about their thoughts on
WHY this seems so off and often overlooked. I agree with a lot of it
(mostly I think it's because fiction is dominated by straight people
and history doesn't tend to focus on sexuality).
Regardless, i think I've decided that the best option is to let them
touch the subject first and move from there, taking my cue from them,
but I do agree that the topic needs to be viewwed politically and
morally by the various individuals and groups of my world the same way
it is in the real world. To do otherwise would be to degrade the
setting.
Anivair
Aaron F. Bourque wrote:
> From: stros...@aol.comdiespam (Stephen Mackey)
>
> >Peter Knutsen said:
> >
> >>> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play
> >>> fantasy games to escape from the real world.
> >>
> >>And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
> >>in a world where homophobia is the norm?
> >
> >You and I must live in different worlds, good sir... o.O
>
> Right. It's not "the norm" but it's pretty prevelant.
I don't know that I'd say it's prevalent so much as I'd say that it's
publicised. Gay people are a very small percentage of the american
populace, anyway.
Which is another god iddue. I should decide how common homosexuality
should be. it seems to me that IRL most people are straight or some
variation on it. So my best best is to most often default to straight.
It would be all too easy to start introducing gay people left and right
and take away the reality of the situation by making too many people
gay. If the US and surrounding countries (or the animal kingdom at
large, for that matter) is any indication, one percent or so of the
population is a good number.
Man, with numbers like that, i can't imagine how gay people ever hoked
up in the days before gay clubs and gay organizations in large cities.
Then again, I also can't fathom how people got by without email, so
maybe I'm not the best litmus test.
Rock-Viper
you different or better numbers.
Ed Chauvin IV
>you different or better numbers.
Different certainly, better doubtfully.
Kaos
<zim...@SBCspammlesforglobal.net> wrote:
>"Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:eshls09g07svd2dgi...@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Dec 2004 04:43:43 -0800, "Anivair" <ani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Kaos wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lack of models. The modern era has an abundance of gay "role models"
>>>> to pattern or inspire characters, both stereotypical and otherwise,
>>>> and it's easy to see future analogs. But for historical models you
>>>> have to look a lot deeper, and what you find are mostly stereotypes.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think it's more that we just don't know about them all.
>>
>> Yeah, that's kinda what I meant: they were certainly there, but their
>> sexuality wasn't of Historical Note in most cases so you don't really
>> see them.
>>
>> Oh, and don't mind Ubi's comment; he's a neo-con parrot who 'thinks'
>> (if it can be called thought) any mention of homosexuality in a
>> non-disparaging way must be a troll.
>
>
>I can think of a number of neo-con parrots who would take grave exception to
>that:
If they take exception to it, it's likely they don't qualify for the
"parrot" part of the label and the rest of my jibe doesn't apply to
them. It's not the politics I object to (here,) it's the unthinking
and blind acceptance of doctrine.
(IOW, sorry for catching you in the crossfire.)
Kaos
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>Wenin wrote:
>[...]
>> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
>> escape from the real world.
>
>And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
>in a world where homophobia is the norm?
When one is, in real life, a somewhat talented gay artist living
outside a major metropolitan area - the similarities become too great.
Kaos
>Aaron F. Bourque wrote:
>> From: stros...@aol.comdiespam (Stephen Mackey)
>>
>> >Peter Knutsen said:
>> >
>> >>> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play
>> >>> fantasy games to escape from the real world.
>> >>
>> >>And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
>> >>in a world where homophobia is the norm?
>> >
>> >You and I must live in different worlds, good sir... o.O
>>
>> Right. It's not "the norm" but it's pretty prevelant.
>
>I don't know that I'd say it's prevalent so much as I'd say that it's
>publicised. Gay people are a very small percentage of the american
>populace, anyway.
>
>Which is another god iddue. I should decide how common homosexuality
>should be. it seems to me that IRL most people are straight or some
>variation on it. So my best best is to most often default to straight.
>It would be all too easy to start introducing gay people left and right
>and take away the reality of the situation by making too many people
>gay. If the US and surrounding countries (or the animal kingdom at
>large, for that matter) is any indication, one percent or so of the
>population is a good number.
IIRC, it's between 0.5 and 1% that are pure homosexual, 2-3 that id as
bisexual, and up to 10% that are open-minded enough to experiment.
Another matter, though, is that when it comes to social interactions
like attracts like. Over the whole of a nation, homosexuals are in
the minority - but in specific areas, the split may be even or even in
favour of homosexuals, as it's reputatoin for being a good place to
meet fellow homosexuals attracts more of them.
Rump Ranger
Anivair wrote:
> So I was just talking about this the other night.
>
> In games, gay people always seem a litle fradulent to me. That is,
if
> I throw in a gay barrister or a gay knight that seems somehow to be a
noble
> would feel better, but that's because they fall into steryotypes and
> I'm comfortable with them.
>
> friends are. I'm a big gay rights person. And it never feels out of
> place in a modern game or a futuer game. just fantasy.
>
> So first, why is that? Anyone? Because I don't get it.
>
> incorperate homosexuality into my game world in a way that feels
> genuine and is also worth doing and not a steryotype.
>
> is that I try to run a very realistic game and not having homosexuals
> seems logically out of place. Also, I've got at least one if not two
> gay characters in my game very soon (not to mention two gay players)
> and if I ignore it, making them the only homosexuals in the world,
that
> would be doing them and the game a disservice.
>
> So, thoughts?
My thoughts are that an NPC (or PC)'s sexuality shouldn't be much of an
issue unless the situation called for it. Seriously, if "homosexual"
is the defining characteristic of a character, of course it's going to
seem off. Homosexuals are pretty much the same as everyone else and in
my fantasy campaigns it's assumed to go on in the BG but isn't anymore
of an issue than whether the character's feces has corn in it or not.
Peter Knutsen
Rock-Viper wrote:
> I did hear 10% for the US population, but a little web search might give
> you different or better numbers.
10% is far more correct than 1%, but be wary of activist
websites. They have *very* good reasons for inflating numbers.
The actual percentage of homosexuals in the population is
probably between 5% and 10%.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Anivair wrote:
> Aaron F. Bourque wrote:
>
> I don't know that I'd say it's prevalent so much as I'd say that it's
> publicised. Gay people are a very small percentage of the american
> populace, anyway.
Something like 5% to 10% homosexuals, and more bisexuals
than that? Is that what you call a "small percentage"?
(Maybe you do... I was nearly paralyzed with shock, about
half a year ago, when I asked a nutritions teacher whether
struma was common, and she told me that it was not common,
it was "exceedingly rare", as it occured only in 3% of women).
> Which is another god iddue. I should decide how common homosexuality
> should be. it seems to me that IRL most people are straight or some
> variation on it. So my best best is to most often default to straight.
Something like 60% to 85% of people are heterosexual, yes.
Bisexuality and perhaps also homosexuality is slightly more
common in females than in males.
Also be mindful of the strategies available to people who
are not heterosexual:
A bisexual could simply repress his or her desire for
same-sex interactions, and live as a heterosexual.
Homosexuals can obviously act out their desires, to some
extent, but not all do. Some may opt for celibacy instead.
> It would be all too easy to start introducing gay people left and right
> and take away the reality of the situation by making too many people
This is true.
> gay. If the US and surrounding countries (or the animal kingdom at
> large, for that matter) is any indication, one percent or so of the
> population is a good number.
No it isn't.
If I wanted to randomly determine the sexual orientation of
an NPC, I'd probably just roll 1d12 (in fact I'm almost
certainly going to include this idea in my homebrew system).
On a 1, the NPC is homosexual. On 2-3, the NPC is bisexual.
On a 3 the NPC is bisexual if female but heterosexual if
male. On 4-12, the NPC is heterosexual.
> Man, with numbers like that, i can't imagine how gay people ever hoked
> up in the days before gay clubs and gay organizations in large cities.
> Then again, I also can't fathom how people got by without email, so
> maybe I'm not the best litmus test.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Kaos wrote:
> <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
>>in a world where homophobia is the norm?
>
> When one is, in real life, a somewhat talented gay artist living
> outside a major metropolitan area - the similarities become too great.
You don't have the extreme and versatile abilities of a 12th
level Bard, so no, the similarities do *not* become great.
If somebody bothers you about your sexual orientation, you
have quite limited options, whereas if somebody bothers your
12th level Bard about her sexual orientation, she has a wide
variety of ways of bothering in return (assuming that the
botherer is at least a couple of levels below 12th, but
that's extremely likely to be the case).
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Sheldon England wrote:
> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>>You live in a world with 12th level bards in it?
>
> Would Liberace have been considered 12th level? He did pretty good for
> himself -- diamonds and gold galore. :p
He can't cast spells, he has no magic items, and he sure as
hell hasn't got 15*(7+(INT bonus)) skill points worth of
ability.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard in a
>>> world where homophobia is the norm?
Kaos wrote:
>> When one is, in real life, a somewhat talented gay artist living
>> outside a major metropolitan area - the similarities become too great.
> You don't have the extreme and versatile abilities of a 12th level
> Bard, so no, the similarities do *not* become great.
Telling other people what they think is kooky, even by your usual
standards.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Werebat
I've heard the 10% and it sounds like overinflated drivel to me. Are
they counting bisexuals as homosexual? Are they counting anyone who's
ever thought someone of the same sex *looked* attractive?
I think 1% is closer than 10%, but I'll agree that it seems to be
somewhere in between the two.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
Peter Knutsen wrote:
> Something like 60% to 85% of people are heterosexual, yes. Bisexuality
> and perhaps also homosexuality is slightly more common in females than
> in males.
It's probably more likely to be EXPRESSED in females, as it is more
societally accepted (or less condemned). A girl who tells her new
boyfriend she's experimented is likely to "gain points" in his eyes,
while a man who does the same with his new girlfriend is not.
I think the statistic in your first sentence there is crocked. In a big
way.
- Ron ^*^
Xenophon
This is right. Any homo characters that are crazy enough to go
adventuring are going to exhibit similar personality traits to heteros
doing the same. Thye should be difficult to distinguish outside of
erotic and romantic activity.
Xenophon
Xenophon
correctly. This would make Dionysis a bi-sexual god. Quite believable
for a dude with multiple personalities I think.
Xenophon
Xenophon
being Hephestion. But we do not really know. Later playrights in the
Classical period wrote plays that depicted the relationship between
Achilles and Patrocolus as homoerotic. Alexander idolized Achilles --
he strove to be the Achilles of his own time.
We are pretty certain that Alexanders father, Phillip was involved in a
sexual relationship with one of his body guards -- the one that killed
him. Aristotle, who was present in the Macedonian court , said as much.
It is also possible (but unproven) that the Macedonian nobility, in
their attempt to be Hellene, imitated the Hellenes to their south by
adopting homoerotic mentoring practices.
Xenophon
Anivair
Rock-Viper wrote:
> I did hear 10% for the US population, but a little web search might
give
> you different or better numbers.
You might be right. Let me check.
In brittain the numbers look like almost 10% of the population having
EVER had a "gay" experience with about 2% or so having had one within
the last five years (which is what I'd call actively gay).
Those numbers double among young people, but I will avoid the
implecations of that for now.
That 10% figure comes from the Kinsey study, which was groundbreaking,
but I'm not sure it's numbers are acurate of current.
Most numbers hang around the 5-8 % mark, so I'll say seven percent.
Still a small number and it doesn't cange my amazement that gay people
ever found each other before the internet, but not 1%, which is good.
Anivair
Peter Knutsen wrote:
> Anivair wrote:
> > gay. If the US and surrounding countries (or the animal kingdom at
> > large, for that matter) is any indication, one percent or so of the
> > population is a good number.
>
> No it isn't.
You're right. I assumed it was, but after some quich research I am now
convinced that 7% to 10% (I'm leaning toward seven because I think
Kinsey was biased) is a good number. As I said before, more than I
thought, percet-wise, but still a shockingly small number given the
number og fay people we as americans are exposed to regularly on
television, in movies, etc. Granted, that's largely because hollywood
is a) so liberal (which is good) and b) draws the gay population as
much of california does.
And I agree, a d12 might be a good way to randomly determine (though
I'm not into random determinations when I can help it).
Arthur Boff
>
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
>>The actual percentage of homosexuals in the population is probably
>>between 5% and 10%.
>
> I've heard the 10% and it sounds like overinflated drivel to me. Are
> they counting bisexuals as homosexual? Are they counting anyone who's
> ever thought someone of the same sex *looked* attractive?
>
> I think 1% is closer than 10%, but I'll agree that it seems to be
> somewhere in between the two.
As you point out, "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are misleading
labels, implying that non-bisexuals only ever have sexual impulses
that involve members of their gender of preference.
I suppose a more meaningful statistic would be a graph of % of the
population against Kinsey scale score.
As I understand it, the 10% figure *does* tend to include bisexuals,
but I could be wrong.
--
REED: What?! Am I holding a crock of shit? Tell me something, is this
hospital called St Crock Of Shit?
- Darkplace.
Arthur Boff
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
>>Anivair wrote:
>
>>>gay. If the US and surrounding countries (or the animal kingdom at
>>>large, for that matter) is any indication, one percent or so of the
>>>population is a good number.
>>
>>No it isn't.
>
> You're right. I assumed it was, but after some quich research I am now
> convinced that 7% to 10% (I'm leaning toward seven because I think
> Kinsey was biased) is a good number. As I said before, more than I
> thought, percet-wise, but still a shockingly small number given the
> number og fay people we as americans are exposed to regularly on
> television, in movies, etc. Granted, that's largely because hollywood
> is a) so liberal (which is good) and b) draws the gay population as
> much of california does.
Now hang on there, think about the figures here. You're saying 7% to
10% is a decent number, which given the reading I've done seems
reasonable. This means we are talking about around 1 person in 10 to
one person in 20 being gay. Are you really saying we're seeing 1 gay
person for every 10 straight people on TV?
The reason you notice the homosexuals on TV more is that the
scriptwriters make it clear that these people are gay: often the TV
shows are following their personal lives, and their sexuality crops up
there. You'd probably be surprised at the number of homosexuals you do
know, but never realised were gay.
--
Yo mama's so fat, she broke her leg and hot bloody fat sprayed
everywhere! Some even got on the mayor!
- Achewood.
Anivair
Arthur Boff wrote:
> The reason you notice the homosexuals on TV more is that the
> scriptwriters make it clear that these people are gay: often the TV
> shows are following their personal lives, and their sexuality crops
up
> there. You'd probably be surprised at the number of homosexuals you
do
> know, but never realised were gay.
You're right about that, of course. I sort of meant to include that
bit. Any way you look at it the end result is that we think we see way
more fthe gay lifestyle than we actually see and we probably see more
than there is (granted, that may have something to do with my unhealthy
addiction to Six Feet Under . . . YMMV).
Either way, as I pointed out, the trick in a game is not to overdo it
or underdo it.
Stephenls
In Exalted's setting, there isn't actually "homosexuality" /per se/.
There are, however, a heck of a lot of male NPCs with male lovers and
female NPCs with female lovers, as well as an entire culture in the
South where you can dress up all in grey and declare yourself a member
of the opposite sex for all social purposes and people will recognize it
as legitimate (but God help you if you pursue a same-sex relationship
/without/ doing that... them Varang are prejudiced bastards in a lot of
ways).
It's not a a psychological phenomenon or a social institution to support
or rail against -- it's just the way things work. Powerful dude having
relations with another powerful dude? Well, that's fine, but where's he
been moving his armies recently; that's more important, isn't it? The
Empress's latest consort is female? What else is new?
The general implication is that people of low social station will
/generally/ pursue relationships capable of producing children (with
some exceptions), because your family is what supports you during your
old age. More powerful or rich people pursue relationships with whoever
strikes their fancy / they get infatuated with / will advance their
social station / will ensure peace with a neighboring kingdom / etc.
(but will often-times be expected to produce heirs anyway...).
...
I'd steal this setup largely because a) it makes the setting seem
somewhat exotic, and b) it shifts the focus away from "in-setting
sexuality as a statement on politics" and towards "in-setting sexuality
as a background element you can explore or ignore as you see fit." I've
little interest in using any game I run as a place from which to make
meaningful statements about anything.
(This also leaves room for smaller kingdoms or cultures that vary from
the norm.)
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
--Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
Anivair
Rump Ranger wrote:
> My thoughts are that an NPC (or PC)'s sexuality shouldn't be much of
an
> issue unless the situation called for it. Seriously, if "homosexual"
> is the defining characteristic of a character, of course it's going
to
> seem off. Homosexuals are pretty much the same as everyone else and
in
> my fantasy campaigns it's assumed to go on in the BG but isn't
anymore
> of an issue than whether the character's feces has corn in it or not.
I don't want to make it a defining charicteristic (though I must admit
that I've know a decent number of gay people, mostly men, who's prmary
charicteristic WAS "I'm gay". then again, I never think of those
people as particularly well rounded, either). I ust want to nt ignore
it. Esspecially since having a love interest or a romance is an
interesting part of a game and I can't just "convenmently" throw in a
few gay hotties and then never have other gay people.
But it's more than that. it's not just this upcoming game (that has
gay characters) but the fact that I never noticed the lack of
homosexuals before and that bothers me. So I want to fix it in my
games.
Also, it made it a touch difficult to take your stance on homosexuality
as seriously as everyone else's because your message is headed with the
moniker "Rump Ranger". I almost didn't read it. Odd coincdence?
Kaos
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>Kaos wrote:
>> <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard
>>>in a world where homophobia is the norm?
>>
>> When one is, in real life, a somewhat talented gay artist living
>> outside a major metropolitan area - the similarities become too great.
>
>You don't have the extreme and versatile abilities of a 12th
>level Bard, so no, the similarities do *not* become great.
Relative scale, Nutsin. Remember, I am not You. Having to deal with
the exact same shit in a game that I do IRL is "too great" if it's the
shit I'm indulging in 'escapism' to get away from - regardless of the
difference in ability between my character and myself.
(And if we want to go to kookville, I should remind you that as a
Chaote, I've got skillz that make your 12th level bard look weak.)
Kaos
wrote:
>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>> Rock-Viper wrote:
>>
>>> I did hear 10% for the US population, but a little web search might
>>> give you different or better numbers.
>>
>>
>> 10% is far more correct than 1%, but be wary of activist websites. They
>> have *very* good reasons for inflating numbers.
>>
>> The actual percentage of homosexuals in the population is probably
>> between 5% and 10%.
>
>I've heard the 10% and it sounds like overinflated drivel to me. Are
>they counting bisexuals as homosexual?
10% included bisexuals, and otherwise straight folks who had
experimented a bit without remorse.
>Are they counting anyone who's
>ever thought someone of the same sex *looked* attractive?
If they counted that, Johnny Depp would be responsible for turning
half the male population gay.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> Anivair wrote:
>
>> > gay. If the US and surrounding countries (or the animal kingdom at
>> > large, for that matter) is any indication, one percent or so of the
>> > population is a good number.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
>You're right. I assumed it was, but after some quich research I am now
>convinced that 7% to 10% (I'm leaning toward seven because I think
>Kinsey was biased) is a good number.
Look, I'm really getting tired of all this numeric discrimination.
What makes you think any particular number is "better" than any other
number? They're all equally good. Next thing you know, you'll be
segregating the evens and odds and it's only a matter of time before
you start putting them on trains.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Most [estimates of gay population] hang around the 5-8 % mark, so I'll
> say seven percent. Still a small number and it doesn't cange my
> amazement that gay people ever found each other before the internet,
> but not 1%, which is good.
7% means one in fifteen people. Average household size in medieval
Europe was about 5 people, and that hasn't changed much up to the
present day. Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable, that means
about one-third of all households have a gay family member, and about
5-10 gays in a typical medieval village. While that's not a huge number,
it's enough for people to hook up, if they're looking.
Auspex
I think Kinsey first came up with the 10% number, and there's a fair amount
of controversy over some of his experimental protocols - e.g., some of his
figures come from California penitentiaries, where the inmates may not have
been actually gay but had no other options for sex.
I _wouldn't_ agree 1% is closer than 10%. Way too many people I know are
gay for it to be so small a number. More than 1% are probably not even in
the closet.
--
Auspex
Rump Ranger
The only reason people in the modern world make homosexuality a
defining characteristic of themselves is because of both society's
frowning upon it and activism. Think of Ancient Greece: homosexuality
certainly did exist (far more openly than it did now) but most ancient
Greeks didn't care either way. Homosexuality was no more rare or
looked down upon in their society than most Americans look down upon
men and women kissing in public (used to be a taboo).
> But it's more than that. it's not just this upcoming game (that has
> gay characters) but the fact that I never noticed the lack of
> homosexuals before and that bothers me. So I want to fix it in my
> games.
>
I don't know how you plan to do that outside of nearly forcing it into
the game. My take is to put in the BG and if you want it to be there,
make it a "coincidence" that your PCs just happen to see.
> Also, it made it a touch difficult to take your stance on
homosexuality
> as seriously as everyone else's because your message is headed with
the
> moniker "Rump Ranger". I almost didn't read it. Odd coincdence?
That's your choice. If my moniker somehow makes my arguments weaker
than you're simply ignoring what I'm saying in favor of paying too much
attention to my screenname. If you want to know, I took the moniker to
piss off homophobes who constantly accused me of being "homosexual"
because I'd defend them in threads which essentially slandered them. I
see faggot, fudge packer, or homo as no more of an insult than being
called a human.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
Stephen Mackey
>Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
>>
>>Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
>
>That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
>
Really? I would think assuming it WAS would be far more bizarre. ;)
--
Stephen Mackey
"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>>Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
>>
>>That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
>>
>
>Really? I would think assuming it WAS would be far more bizarre. ;)
Making *either* assumption is, imo, equally bizarre.
Stephen Mackey
>>>>Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
>>>
>>>That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
>>>
>>
>>Really? I would think assuming it WAS would be far more bizarre. ;)
>
>Making *either* assumption is, imo, equally bizarre.
>
Eh, I think it perfectly reasonable to assume that sexual preferences aren't
genetic, and I think we can thank God for it, too. Seeing as how I'm not a
pedophile, for example.
::shudder::
(Why am I talking about this the day after Christmas?! Must... purge... mind
with... Rudolph... special...)
Tetsubo
>Ed Chauvin IV said:
>
>
>
>>>>>Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Really? I would think assuming it WAS would be far more bizarre. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>Making *either* assumption is, imo, equally bizarre.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Eh, I think it perfectly reasonable to assume that sexual preferences aren't
>genetic, and I think we can thank God for it, too. Seeing as how I'm not a
>pedophile, for example.
>::shudder::
>(Why am I talking about this the day after Christmas?! Must... purge... mind
>with... Rudolph... special...)
>
>
Sexual orientation might well be genetic or at least have a genetic
component. Being a pedophile is not a sexual orientation. It is a form
of control expressed through sexual acts. A horrible, twisted form of
control mind you. The last statistic I read was that 80% of pedophiles
are heterosexual males. One out of three females will have been a victim
by the age of 18 and one out of six boys by the same age. Sadly
pedophilia has one of the highest rates of repeat offenders.
>--
>
>Stephen Mackey
>
>"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
>do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
>when they're out of their depth."
>-Jeff Heikkinen
>
>
--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
-- Anatole France
Anivair
Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
> >
> >Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
>
> That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
I don't think it's any more bizare than the alternative assumption
(that it is). You have to go one way or the other. And it seems to me
most likely that the evidence pointing to homosexuality BEING
inheritable is probably vague at best since, after vegetables and
todlers, homosexuals have just aout less children than any other
demographic in the world.
Anivair
Rump Ranger wrote:
> That's your choice. If my moniker somehow makes my arguments weaker
> than you're simply ignoring what I'm saying in favor of paying too
much
> attention to my screenname. If you want to know, I took the moniker
to
> piss off homophobes who constantly accused me of being "homosexual"
> because I'd defend them in threads which essentially slandered them.
I
> see faggot, fudge packer, or homo as no more of an insult than being
> called a human.
No, it doesn't bother me at all. It was amusing. I just found it
amusing. I wondered if maybe you had logged in under a different
handle specifically for the purpose of this discussion (since it seems
to fit nicely). Just a point of interest.
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>> Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
>> >
>> >Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
>>
>> That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
>
>I don't think it's any more bizare than the alternative assumption
>(that it is).
I agree.
>You have to go one way or the other. And it seems to me
>most likely that the evidence
Woah! Once you start introducing evidence, you've gone beyond an
assumption.
Bryan J. Maloney
news:1103742955....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> And second, how do you deal with it, if at all. How could I
> incorperate homosexuality into my game world in a way that feels
> genuine and is also worth doing and not a steryotype.
Run a setting based on ancient Sparta.
Zimri
news:Xns95CBD2F68A...@216.196.97.136...
That would be moving to a new game world, not incorporating ideas into the
old one.
Plus, Spartan society was Lawful Evil. I think he wants to introduce
homosexuals as the *good* guys.
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
*new improved shorter .sig*
Christopher Adams
>
> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
> escape from the real world.
Speak for yourself.
(Boy, am I ever sick and fucking tired of seeing this crop up all over the
place. Not everyone plays for escapism.)
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
Ah, one thing worth beginning,
One thread in life worth spinning,
Ah sweet, one sin worth sinning
With all the whole soul's will
Kaos
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Wenin wrote:
>>
>> A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
>> escape from the real world.
>
>Speak for yourself.
>
>(Boy, am I ever sick and fucking tired of seeing this crop up all over the
>place. Not everyone plays for escapism.)
So what do others play for?
tussock
> Stephen Mackey wrote:
>
>> Ed Chauvin IV said:
>>
>>>>>> Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
>>>>>
>>>> Really? I would think assuming it WAS would be far more bizarre. ;)
>>>>
>>> Making *either* assumption is, imo, equally bizarre.
>>>
>> Eh, I think it perfectly reasonable to assume that sexual preferences aren't
>> genetic, and I think we can thank God for it, too. Seeing as how I'm not a
>> pedophile, for example.
>> ::shudder::
>> (Why am I talking about this the day after Christmas?! Must... purge... mind
>> with... Rudolph... special...)
>>
> Sexual orientation might well be genetic or at least have a genetic
> component.
Testosterone levels when in the womb IIRC, various stages change
the brain from female form to male. Self-identity, attraction, behavior
... it can all end up changed, or not, independantly, by incorrect
duration and levels of testosterone.
In the end, there's about as many homosexuals as left handers.
Being left handed used to be a sin too.
> Being a pedophile is not a sexual orientation. It is a form
> of control expressed through sexual acts. A horrible, twisted form of
> control mind you.
Often learned it would seem, getting sexually abused is stressful
enough to leave an unconcious behaivioral impression.
> The last statistic I read was that 80% of pedophiles
> are heterosexual males. One out of three females will have been a victim
> by the age of 18 and one out of six boys by the same age.
Those figures arose in a study about the number of people who have
sex before their 18th birthday. The vast majority involve 16-17 year old
girls with slightly older boys (which is why so many "pedophiles" are
"hetrosexual males"; they were 18, the girl wasn't).
However, it's often used to paint a picture of 1/3 of girls being
molested as pre-teens by thier father. It was used to justify the
"everyones personal problems relate to being molested as a child"
hypnotherapy crap for example, and helped fuel the "it isn't safe for
kids to walk themsleves to school" trend.
More detailed numbers are pretty hard to find, I get the impression
that serious researchers don't want to touch the subject.
> Sadly pedophilia has one of the highest rates of repeat offenders.
Yea, when not wanting to anymore doesn't make it go away. I
heartily endorse suicide as a remedy.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Arthur Boff
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:17:26 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
> <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Wenin wrote:
>>
>>>A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
>>>escape from the real world.
>>
>>Speak for yourself.
>>
>>(Boy, am I ever sick and fucking tired of seeing this crop up all over the
>>place. Not everyone plays for escapism.)
>
> So what do others play for?
Reasons that I play aside from "escapism".
- Fun and entertainment. This doesn't equate to escapism; just because
something demands enough of your attention that your RL problems go to
the back of your mind doesn't mean it's any *good*.
- Spending time with gaming friends doing something we all enjoy.
- Exercising creativity, whether as a player or as a GM. Again, not
necessarily escapism, sometimes you can be *inspired* by real life. ;)
- When I'm GMing, worldbuilding as an intellectual exercise. When I'm
playing, experiencing a world someone else has made for me. Okay,
granted, this one does have heavy elements of escapism. However, it's
not solely escapism, and the escapism that's involved isn't the only
variety out there.
--
What am I besides the real, true essence of "male-ness", the
invariable and fixed properties which define masculine for now and
forever? I sure am great!
- Dinosaur Comics.
Kaos
<arthu...@merton.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>Kaos wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:17:26 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
>> <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Wenin wrote:
>>>
>>>>A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
>>>>escape from the real world.
>>>
>>>Speak for yourself.
>>>
>>>(Boy, am I ever sick and fucking tired of seeing this crop up all over the
>>>place. Not everyone plays for escapism.)
>>
>> So what do others play for?
>
>Reasons that I play aside from "escapism".
>
>- Fun and entertainment. This doesn't equate to escapism;
I'll just say I'm skeptical of that, at this time.
>just because
>something demands enough of your attention that your RL problems go to
>the back of your mind doesn't mean it's any *good*.
All that means is that there's 'good' escapism and 'bad' escapism.
>- Spending time with gaming friends doing something we all enjoy.
Again, it's too easy to just say 'you all enjoy escapism.'
>- Exercising creativity, whether as a player or as a GM. Again, not
>necessarily escapism, sometimes you can be *inspired* by real life. ;)
Also not necessarily *not* escapism.
>- When I'm GMing, worldbuilding as an intellectual exercise. When I'm
>playing, experiencing a world someone else has made for me. Okay,
>granted, this one does have heavy elements of escapism. However, it's
>not solely escapism,
If escapism is part of why you play, then you are playing for
escapism. You're playing for other things *as well,* but that's
different from not playing for escapism.
Kaos
wrote:
>Tetsubo wrote:
>> Stephen Mackey wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Chauvin IV said:
>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming that homosexuality isn't heritable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an interesting, albeit bizarre, assumption to make.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Really? I would think assuming it WAS would be far more bizarre. ;)
>>>>>
>>>> Making *either* assumption is, imo, equally bizarre.
>>>>
>>> Eh, I think it perfectly reasonable to assume that sexual preferences aren't
>>> genetic, and I think we can thank God for it, too. Seeing as how I'm not a
>>> pedophile, for example.
>>> ::shudder::
>>> (Why am I talking about this the day after Christmas?! Must... purge... mind
>>> with... Rudolph... special...)
>>>
>> Sexual orientation might well be genetic or at least have a genetic
>> component.
>
> Testosterone levels when in the womb IIRC, various stages change
>the brain from female form to male. Self-identity, attraction, behavior
>... it can all end up changed, or not, independantly, by incorrect
>duration and levels of testosterone.
That's the latest guess. Bear in mind, it is still a bit of a guess -
some small evidence, but nothing conclusive.
> However, it's often used to paint a picture of 1/3 of girls being
>molested as pre-teens by thier father. It was used to justify the
>"everyones personal problems relate to being molested as a child"
>hypnotherapy crap for example, and helped fuel the "it isn't safe for
>kids to walk themsleves to school" trend.
And the 'every man is a rapist' screed of the militant feminists.
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>> (Boy, am I ever sick and fucking tired of seeing this crop up all over
>> the place. Not everyone plays for escapism.)
>
> So what do others play for?
I play for the enjoyment of creating a story collaboratively. I also enjoy the
explicitly game-oriented elements.
(No, I don't consider "taking part in a fun activity" to be escapism in and of
itself.)
To address a point you made downthread in response to Arthur Boff, escapism is
no part of my roleplaying experience, so I can't be said to be even partially
playing for escapist purposes. ;)
Christopher Adams
> Tetsubo wrote:
>> Stephen Mackey wrote:
>
>> The last statistic I read was that 80% of pedophiles
>> are heterosexual males. One out of three females will have been a victim
>> by the age of 18 and one out of six boys by the same age.
>
> Those figures arose in a study about the number of people who have
> sex before their 18th birthday. The vast majority involve 16-17 year old
> girls with slightly older boys (which is why so many "pedophiles" are
> "hetrosexual males"; they were 18, the girl wasn't).
To further muddy the waters, in my jurisdiction (the state of New South Wales)
16- and 17-year-old girls can fuck their brains out. So defining what
constitutes pederasty as opposed to consensual sex entered into by persons not
considered legally competent to give consent by the community they live in - or,
in shorthand, "victims" of statutory rape - is tricky when you look beyond the
U.S.
To say nothing of the fact that some states in the U.S. have fluctuating age of
consent laws based upon the ages of both parties. For example, in Colorado,
sexual intercourse is legal for people between 15 and 17 as long as their
partner is no more than 10 years their elder; it appears, though it's unclear,
that it may be legal even younger as long as their partner is within 4 years of
their age. In Iowa, it's 16 for anyone, 14 for anyone with a partner no more
than 4 years their elder, and 12 if the two participants are married. Running a
quick eye over the list, I'd hazard a guess that 16 is in fact the majority age
of consent, which makes any kind of wideranging statistic based upon a
presumption of 18 being the age of consent extremely dodgy . . . and so on and
so forth.
It's not clear to me if New South Wales has lowered the age of consent for gay
men (18) to the age of consent for heterosexual couples and gay women (16), but
I know there were plans afoot to do so.
Kaos
<mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Kaos wrote:
>> Christopher Adams wrote:
>>
>>> (Boy, am I ever sick and fucking tired of seeing this crop up all over
>>> the place. Not everyone plays for escapism.)
>>
>> So what do others play for?
>
>I play for the enjoyment of creating a story collaboratively.
Why?
>I also enjoy the
>explicitly game-oriented elements.
Why choose a game that is traditionally about becoming someone else?
>To address a point you made downthread in response to Arthur Boff, escapism is
>no part of my roleplaying experience, so I can't be said to be even partially
>playing for escapist purposes. ;)
I'll be blunt here, and I hope you'll forgive me; but I think you're
fooling yourself to justify rebelling against a Traditional Belief.
And while I normally applaud that kind of behaviour...
Ah, fuck it. I always applaud it when I notice it.
Rump Ranger
Heh. I primarily spend time over in alt.atheism and the military
groups. Both Christian fundies and "hooah" military types (which
turned me off during my time in the US Army) consider homosexuality as
an "insult." Might as well have a memorable moniker, right?
tussock
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:06:20 +1300, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> Sexual orientation might well be genetic or at least have a genetic
>>>component.
>>
>> Testosterone levels when in the womb IIRC, various stages change
>>the brain from female form to male. Self-identity, attraction, behavior
>>... it can all end up changed, or not, independantly, by incorrect
>>duration and levels of testosterone.
>
> That's the latest guess. Bear in mind, it is still a bit of a guess -
> some small evidence, but nothing conclusive.
Yea, I first read about it in relation to Autistic spectrum
disorders, such as my own Asperger's Disorder.
Takes various masculine mental traits and shunts them right off the
scale (perhaps lack of a gene to produce a signal telling mother to
reduce testosterone supply after the changes have gone far enough).
Fortunately the changes in my case left the human recognition and
language centers intact (though notably slow; writing stuff takes an
age, usenet's good practice).
They're probably throwing the same explanation at everything to see
if it sticks, might even be as accurate as that whole cholesterol thing.
--
tussock
<sigh> Timed language IQ: 85. Timed pattern recognition IQ: 180+.
Made for some interesting marks at school.
Ed Chauvin IV
>>no part of my roleplaying experience, so I can't be said to be even partially
>>playing for escapist purposes. ;)
>
>I'll be blunt here, and I hope you'll forgive me; but I think you're
>fooling yourself to justify rebelling against a Traditional Belief.
As long as we're being blunt, I'll just say that from here it appears
that you're projecting your motivations on others.
Anivair
Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Anivair hastily scrawled:
> >You have to go one way or the other. And it seems to me
> >most likely that the evidence
>
> Woah! Once you start introducing evidence, you've gone beyond an
> assumption.
True. Is there some reason you find an assumption supperior to
realisty in some way? Though I agree that many people around here find
their own version of reality oncompatible with facts.
Arthur Boff
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:20:41 +0000, Arthur Boff
> <arthu...@merton.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Reasons that I play aside from "escapism".
>>
>>- Fun and entertainment. This doesn't equate to escapism;
>
> I'll just say I'm skeptical of that, at this time.
Why?
The entertainment I get from, say, Player A cracking an especially
funny OOC joke is just as much part of the gaming experience as the
entertainment I get from Player A's character having an especially
exciting IC confrontation with an NPC.
>>just because
>>something demands enough of your attention that your RL problems go to
>>the back of your mind doesn't mean it's any *good*.
>
> All that means is that there's 'good' escapism and 'bad' escapism.
It means that there's good gaming experiences and bad gaming
experiences, and escapism is only one factor involved there.
Supposing, for example, I were playing in a game with Player X, who
comes up with fun ideas for his character backgrounds and is a great
roleplayer, but is obnoxious and goes out of his way to insult people.
Even though he's really helping the escapism angle, he's messing the
game up with his rudeness.
>>- Spending time with gaming friends doing something we all enjoy.
>
> Again, it's too easy to just say 'you all enjoy escapism.'
You could say that, but you'd be assuming everyone there plays for the
escapism.
Furthermore, there is a clear difference between "escapism with
friends" and "escapism on one's own". If escapism was the be-all and
end-all of roleplaying, and the sole reason to participate, the
presence of other people would be irrelevant except as a prop to aid
one's own internal experience, and solo roleplaying - so long as it is
engrossing enough - would be as valid as roleplaying done in a group.
But for me, it isn't.
>>- Exercising creativity, whether as a player or as a GM. Again, not
>>necessarily escapism, sometimes you can be *inspired* by real life. ;)
>
> Also not necessarily *not* escapism.
Now you're trying too hard. :) If I find that the sort of creativity I
exercise as a player or a GM doesn't necessarily involve escapism, it
qualifies for inclusion on this list.
>>- When I'm GMing, worldbuilding as an intellectual exercise. When I'm
>>playing, experiencing a world someone else has made for me. Okay,
>>granted, this one does have heavy elements of escapism. However, it's
>>not solely escapism,
>
> If escapism is part of why you play, then you are playing for
> escapism. You're playing for other things *as well,* but that's
> different from not playing for escapism.
I never said I *didn't* play for escapism, I'm just saying that it is
one of several reasons why I play. Hence the "reasons that I play
aside from escapism" at the top of the post there.
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>> Kaos wrote:
>>> Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>>>> (Boy, am I ever sick and fucking tired of seeing this crop up all over
>>>> the place. Not everyone plays for escapism.)
>>>
>>> So what do others play for?
>>
>> I play for the enjoyment of creating a story collaboratively.
>
> Why?
Because I enjoy that task - it's like improvisational theatre with ground rules
to make things flow smoothly. I like working with the other people in my group
to create a dramatic and cool story.
>> I also enjoy the
>> explicitly game-oriented elements.
>
> Why choose a game that is traditionally about becoming someone else?
I disagree that it's "about" that in the first place. When D&D was an add-on for
Chainmail, the game elements were foremost in Gygax and Arneson's mind.
However, when I play a character, I don't pretend to be him or her at any point;
it's more like, to use an awkward analogy, I know this person better than anyone
else at the table, so I know what they would do. I don't get into their
headspace, think as them, make decisions as them; I use my "long-standing
familiarity" to report to the group what they'd do.
I don't have to become my character in any way to do this, anymore than I have
to pretend to be my best friend to know how she'd react to something in her
absence.
>> To address a point you made downthread in response to Arthur Boff,
>> escapism is no part of my roleplaying experience, so I can't be said to
>> be even partially playing for escapist purposes. ;)
>
> I'll be blunt here, and I hope you'll forgive me; but I think you're
> fooling yourself to justify rebelling against a Traditional Belief.
I can only suggest that you can't judge that from a short back-and-forth on
USENET. ;)
Stephen Mackey
>However, when I play a character, I don't pretend to be him or her at any
>point;
>it's more like, to use an awkward analogy, I know this person better than
>anyone
>else at the table, so I know what they would do. I don't get into their
>headspace, think as them, make decisions as them; I use my "long-standing
>familiarity" to report to the group what they'd do.
That's a mighty thin hair to split. ;)
Peter Knutsen
Kaos wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:17:26 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
>>>A word of warning.... use this sparingly. People play fantasy games to
>>>escape from the real world.
>>
>>Speak for yourself.
>>
>>(Boy, am I ever sick and fucking tired of seeing this crop up all over the
>>place. Not everyone plays for escapism.)
>
> So what do others play for?
I play for *intelligent* escapism.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>>>And how is it *not* escapism to play a 12th level gay Bard in a
>>>>world where homophobia is the norm?
> Kaos wrote:
>>>When one is, in real life, a somewhat talented gay artist living
>>>outside a major metropolitan area - the similarities become too great.
[Peter Knutsen again:]
>>You don't have the extreme and versatile abilities of a 12th level
>>Bard, so no, the similarities do *not* become great.
Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Telling other people what they think is kooky, even by your usual
> standards.
Me pointing out to Kaos that she's *nothing* like a 12th
level Bard is kooky?
(Hint: A 12th level Bard is *not* a "talented artist". A
12th level Bard is someone who has *all* the supernatural
and nonsupernatural abilities that the PBH 3.5 says that a
12th level Bard has).
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Anivair hastily scrawled:
>
>> >You have to go one way or the other. And it seems to me
>> >most likely that the evidence
>>
>> Woah! Once you start introducing evidence, you've gone beyond an
>> assumption.
>
>True. Is there some reason you find an assumption supperior to
>realisty in some way?
Not at all, my comment was strictly referring to the original
elfbard
>>However, when I play a character, I don't pretend to be him or her at any
>>point;
>>it's more like, to use an awkward analogy, I know this person better than
>>anyone
>>else at the table, so I know what they would do. I don't get into their
>>headspace, think as them, make decisions as them; I use my "long-standing
>>familiarity" to report to the group what they'd do.
>
> That's a mighty thin hair to split. ;)
+5 Keen dagger.
elfbard
> though it's unclear, that it may be legal even younger as long as their
> partner is within 4 years of their age. In Iowa, it's 16 for anyone, 14
> for anyone with a partner no more than 4 years their elder, and 12 if the
> two participants are married.
Coke -> Nose -> Keyboard.
MARRIED 12 YEAR OLDS?! ROTFLMGDAO!!
Arian
The thing about the word "escapism" is that it suggests a distaste for
where/who you are, rather than just an interest in seeing what it's like
to be somewhere/someone else.
My reason for deliberately playing characters very different from myself
isn't because I don't like being me.
It has something in common with my reason for sometimes taking the side
opposed to my real opinion in a debate.
You can find it interesting - enjoyable and illuminating - to try and
walk in someone else's shoes for a bit without it implying that you
dislike your own shoes.
--
Arian
Fan of 'Order of the Stick'
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript
Address me by name at North-net (with no hyphen), a 3-letter company
trading in the great south land.
Arian
It's the US. 'Nuff said.
Stephen Mackey
>>>though it's unclear, that it may be legal even younger as long as their
>>>partner is within 4 years of their age. In Iowa, it's 16 for anyone, 14
>>>for anyone with a partner no more than 4 years their elder, and 12 if the
>>>two participants are married.
>>
>>
>> Coke -> Nose -> Keyboard.
>>
>> MARRIED 12 YEAR OLDS?! ROTFLMGDAO!!
>
>It's the US. 'Nuff said.
(Not sure if that remark was meant in jest or not, but just to be safe...)
In most areas of the US, a couple of married twelve year-olds would be quite
the... oddity. And in a fair amount of places, practically an obscenity. ;)
Lorenz Lang
> Kaos wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:03:34 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
>> <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>To address a point you made downthread in response to Arthur Boff, escapism is
>>>no part of my roleplaying experience, so I can't be said to be even partially
>>>playing for escapist purposes. ;)
>>
>>
>> I'll be blunt here, and I hope you'll forgive me; but I think you're
>> fooling yourself to justify rebelling against a Traditional Belief.
>> And while I normally applaud that kind of behaviour...
>>
>> Ah, fuck it. I always applaud it when I notice it.
>
> The thing about the word "escapism" is that it suggests a distaste for
> where/who you are, rather than just an interest in seeing what it's like
> to be somewhere/someone else.
It's funny, that many people in fact see fantasy (gaming) in such a way.
Escaping reality, infantile pretending etc...
Of course the same people are sitting every evening in front of the TV
or 'waste their time' reading crime or love stories - how silly.
Even vacations are escapism. Nobody accuses you of a dislike for your
hometown and friends, if you go on vacation.
> My reason for deliberately playing characters very different from myself
> isn't because I don't like being me.
>
> It has something in common with my reason for sometimes taking the side
> opposed to my real opinion in a debate.
Me too. Surprisingly some people get annoyed when I play advocatus diaboli.
They think it's some kind of dishonesty...
> You can find it interesting - enjoyable and illuminating - to try and
> walk in someone else's shoes for a bit without it implying that you
> dislike your own shoes.
Exactly.
LL
Kaos
Those *'s should be "'s instead.
Kaos
<ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>Mere moments before death, Kaos hastily scrawled:
>>>To address a point you made downthread in response to Arthur Boff, escapism is
>>>no part of my roleplaying experience, so I can't be said to be even partially
>>>playing for escapist purposes. ;)
>>
>>I'll be blunt here, and I hope you'll forgive me; but I think you're
>>fooling yourself to justify rebelling against a Traditional Belief.
>
>As long as we're being blunt, I'll just say that from here it appears
>that you're projecting your motivations on others.
Nice grasp of the blatantly obvious.
Kaos
wrote:
Same in Alberta, cept the difference in age is cut to 2 years.
On an equally off-topic note (tho straying a bit back towards the
original topic of the thread,) sodomy is legal only if both
participants are over 18 *and* there is only two people involved.
This means, no gay threesomes or voyeurs.