SRS's page

SRS wrote:

Most heterosexuals like their bodies enough to be turned on by them to the point of having successful masturbation.

Although I can't speak for anyone else, I seriously doubt that they are thinking about themselves at this point, and are instead visualising someone who does turn them on.

But, if their body was so repellant, they wouldn't be able to derive pleasure from it. Ask most heterosexual men if they desire placing their hands on erect male genitalia in order to obtain orgasm and they'll say "No way, I'm not gay".

Self-touch masturbation is a homosexual sex act. Its commonness does suggest support for the argument that everyone is somewhat bisexual in terms of sexual behavior openness (behavior not being the same thing as orientation). The reason I pointed this out is because some people were asking for more nuance.

Nuance is important, but for the point I was making it was peripheral.

OTOH, when you're drawing from mythology, like most of the fey, that's what you're going to find.

Not so. I already cited the very popular Antinous. Eros was also the male love/sex God and was an attractive young man before he was eventually changed into a child.

There was plenty of appreciation for male beauty in the ancient world.

Worth noting here that your assumptions are very, very different from many people's realities. Many trans people like their bodies just fine, and there are many straight trans people (that is, trans people who are attracted to the gender they were forced to pose as in their youth), so the idea that trans people are inherently repulsed by the sex they were assigned at birth is a pretty long stretch. Hell, I'm a lesbian and I still really like to look at boys.

Most heterosexuals like their bodies enough to be turned on by them to the point of having successful masturbation. But, the point I was trying to make is that, like hetersexuals, a pre-op transgendered person is less turned on by the sex of their body than the bodies of the other sex. That gives them a closer connection to heterosexuality, as heterosexuals prefer the opposite physical sex.

It is only just recently that the DSM was changed to remove transgenderism from the list of disorders. The disorder, as far as I know, was described as being correctable with intervention (surgery and hormones) and was about not being happy with the current physical sex of one's body.

I'd tread carefully, SRS, in making those sort of generalizations about trans* people.

There are a few basic facts that underlie the labels. Heterosexuals, for instance, are heterosexual. Homosexuals are homosexual. The same thing goes for the transgendered. Those aren't stereotyping or generalizations. They are the basic differences that give the terms meaning.

The gist of my post was that those fundamental differences cause people of the different types to add something to culture.

I just read through the Wikipedia descriptions of the various fey in D&D and found three examples of female beauties and zero examples of male beauties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fey_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

Dryad are tree spirits with the forms of beautiful human or elven women made out of smooth, brown-green wood, and with grass and leaves for hair.

The nymph are fae that resemble elven women. Nymphs prefer secluded coves or sandy beaches, and are mostly solitary. Nymphs hate ugliness and evil.

Sirines are playful, gregarious fey that dwell on sandy beaches, secluded coves and rocky islands. Sirines resemble highly attractive human women. They wear flowers in their hair and their ragged clothing typically leaves little to the imagination.

The gynosphinx illustration that I just happened upon (from the 1979 book) is most amusing, too.

1. Aasimar
2. Half-elf
3. Human
4. Gnome
5. Drow or Elf

least favorite:

1. Changeling ("they are always female")
2. Half-orc
3. Tiefling
4. Dwarf
5. Ifrit

The only time I care about a person's sexuality is if I fancy her. : /

That's too reductionist. Sexuality is more than just whether or not you want to sleep with someone.

I can admire how someone copes with adversity, and that includes the adversity that comes with being non-straight in our society. But I can't admire the mere fact of someone's sexuality.

That seems contradictory. The adversity is due to the person's sexuality. You said you can admire their coping with it and then said you can't admire them for their sexuality.

Even without there being anti-gay animus, the mere fact that gay people are gay makes their gayness worth appreciation because it adds something extra to society. The same thing goes for heterosexuality. If 95% of people were gay, the 4% who are heterosexual (if there are 1% nonsexuals) still add something. It's elementary logic.

It was proven in 1956 by Dr. Hooker that homosexuality isn't a disorder. That means it's not a problem. Since it's not a negative thing that means, since it's different, it adds something to culture. "Celebrate diversity" isn't just a meaningless bit of PC rhetoric. It actually matters.

Look at monocultures like fields of corn versus a rainforest. Both have their uses, but they are certainly not the same, nor can fields of corn replace diversity (even though some people think ripping up rainforest to plant palm trees is intelligent). The uniqueness that rainforest species like the cocoa plant, the vanilla plant, the coffee plant, the tea plant, and medicinal extracts, offer are important.

So many people don't fully take the importance of diversity into account, with things like bans on sperm donation at banks that affect people with orange hair. I happen to think orange hair is beautiful, the most beautiful color. But, due to hyper-conformity, orange-haired babies are unwanted to the point where sperm banks have blocked donations from orange-haired people. Sometimes I feel like I'm living with the wrong species.

As for the bad boy stereotype, do women often think of the bad boy treating them the same way he treats everyone else? Or is part of the fantasy that he'll treat her differently this time?

Some think they'll change him. I know someone personally who married a bad boy after high school and found out that she couldn't change him.

Part of it is likely just the attractiveness of masculine qualities, like aggression, that are related to testosterone. Of course, women can be plenty aggressive, although it tends to be more social in nature and less physical.

As for the casual hookups thing... there was a campus study that suggested that men who were asked by attractive strangers (campus women) for sex randomly thought the women were unusually confident. As a result, they expected them to be better than average performers. Women, meanwhile, expected the men who hit on them randomly to be worse than average (desperate).

Most men said yes. All the women said no.

As for the stuff about transgenderism, intersexedness, hermaphroditism, and so on... those things really aren't the same as heterosexuality or homosexuality.

I'd just like to point that out. If the topic were "alternate sexualities in Golarion" then it would be more on-topic. In fact, transgenderism has more in common with heterosexuality than it does with homosexuality because a homosexual likes the sex of their body so much that they may even be quite turned on by their own body. That's definitely the opposite of a transgendered person.

But, alternate sexualities are interesting. One that is often overlooked is the estimated 1% of people who have no sex drive at all. People call this "asexuality" although I am not a fan of the term because asexual creates can reproduce with themselves. Since humans are dimorphic I suppose I can see the term making sense, but it seems odd. I think nonsexual is better, personally.

One of my hypotheses is that nonsexual people are responsible, in part at least, for a lot of the religious prohibitions regarding sexual appetite. If someone has no sex drive it's not as difficult to look negatively upon what seems like an unhealthy appetite, particularly given all the fighting, jealousy, insecurity, and such that can accompany it. Creating celibacy regimes and so on seems par for the course for someone who is nonsexual.

If I look at my heteosexual friend and see them as a person instead of a heterosexual, why can I not do the same for my homosexual friend? That's bigotry plain and true.

Ah, the Bill O'Reilly colorblind routine.

And now I've got a problem.

Yes, several.

You say that acceptance is a form of bigotry (maybe apathy would be a better stance?),

Dr. Riddle and her research... (no ad hominems, thanks)

As for apathy, you're again missing the point of civilized society. In civilized society, a person appreciates other people for their contributions.

then turn around and note that the only positive things is if you're actively supporting, admiring, or appreciating them for their sexuality...which is nonsense.

It's how civilization is supposed to function. People come together to form societies because they rely upon others' work, specialization, uniqueness, et cetera. A healthy attitude toward others is appreciation, support, and so on. An unhealthy attitude is a negative one.

That's not equality. That's not real.

If you suffer from narcissism, then I suppose it's difficult to appreciate others.

Seriously, I don't go around supporting, admiring, and appreciating my heterosexual friends for being heterosexual. Maybe I'm a bigot against heterosexual people?...

That's a cute claim, but it's not true. A person's sexuality is part of who the person is. It is not a vast secret, nor should it be. You may not have realized it yet, but heterosexual and homosexual people contribute different positive things to society. Why? Because they are not the same.

While useful as an evaluative scale, perhaps, I think this has more potential to confuse the discussion with a debate over semantics rather than anything else. While the word "acceptance" might have a specific (somewhat technical) meaning to you, as someone familiar with the Riddle Scale, that doesn't mean that it carries a negative connotation when used by others (nor does it put a ceiling on one's attitude towards non-heterosexuality

This isn't logical. Familiarity with the Riddle Scale doesn't transform the word into something else. It clarifies what it actually is.

People buy into a lot of euphemisms like "ethnic cleansing", but that doesn't mean those things aren't highly problematic. People may think they're being positive when they use the word acceptance but that doesn't mean they truly are.

I've heard many people try to argue that "that's so gay" isn't an anti-gay expression, for instance. Their argument is that the word gay now means bad so it's not anti-gay, even though the entire reason the word is now taken to mean bad is due to anti-gay animus.

And, another example of problematic terminology that influences people without being pressured the way it should be is the word gay itself. For one thing, it embeds a false heterosexist dichotomy of good vs. bad (straight arrow vs. bent arrow). Just because terminology is popular and used without much thought doesn't mean it doesn't carry negative consequences. If people subconsciously associate gayness with brokenness due to the term (and the gay vs. "straight" dichotomy), then that's not good.

Scott has it right here. Unless everyone accepts Dr. Riddle's definitions, is familiar with her scale and uses the terms as she has defined them it's pretty much a waste. And while I appreciate what she was trying to do, her use of English... *sigh* When people begin redefining common English usage terms and turning them into a jargon that other's are not familiar with you have problems in just communicating.

There is no redefining happening. Instead there is an uncomfortable clarification that threatens expressions of heterosexual chauvinism. People may enjoy saying they accept people because it makes them feel like they're being benevolent, but it's a condescending thing to do at best.

Again, as the scale points out, people accept things they can't control, like someone accepts the fact that their friend is dying of cancer.

There is simply no need to say you accept someone for being gay unless you're also saying that you would have them not be. Otherwise, you would use one of the positive words Riddle presents to show your positive feelings.

SRS wrote:

Tinalles wrote:

All too often it's short hand for "I'm evil, but I can't admit it to myself." There's one of these at my table right now.

The best chaotic neutral RP I ever saw cast the character as, essentially, a libertarian. Freedom of choice was paramount; any and all external restrictions were unacceptable. More often than not, the character behaved in a chaotic good manner; but that was NOT guaranteed.

Many people would say that evil behavior matters more than good behavior. For instance, you may spend most of your life behaving in accordance with the consensus about good behavior and if you murder one person, especially a child, in cold blood then you are considered an evil person.

Also, freedom of choice without restrictions is impossible since people are the sum of their socialization. No person is a sphere existing alone, coming into existence fully-formed and capable of being immune to social molding. People who think they have such total freedom are considered manic and are put on Lithium. Society is a group and governance is inescapable.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

I have posted a lot about the chaotic neutral alignment and the chaotic alignment in general, all of it quite detailed and nuanced. However, I don't see it anywhere here.

SRS wrote:

which is actually an advantage rather than a drawback in most respects. Is it really necessary to know 7 different words for cat?

Eh...knowing multiple languages allows increasing cross-cultural understanding and communication. That's actually very handy. And learning multiple languages as a small child isn't actually very difficult all things considered. Knowing multiple divergent languages also often makes learning additional ones easier.

Learning anything as a small child is easier than after puberty when brain plasticity has dramatically decreased and there are fewer neurons left due to pruning.

Cross-cultural understanding is valuable, but there are many other things that are also valuable that people do not routinely learn. Moreover, given globalization (which includes the Internet), the maintenance of such language redundancy becomes increasingly pressured, in a manner similar to the retaining of systems of measurement such as Imperial rather than having everyone switch to the Metric system.

I also think people overestimate the differences between cultures that are specifically language-based. It also seems that those things could be taught separately, in one's native language, as a form of Sociology and/or Anthropology.

It's not overwhelmingly useful, but it's not overwhelmingly difficult if the cultural milieu supports it.

Languages take a lot of effort to learn. No native speaker ever fully masters their own language, let alone others. The time spent trying to learn so much redundancy could instead be spent developing a deeper mastery of one's own language, as well as time/energy for other things.

And I say this as someone bad at languages, and who only speaks English, meaning this'll be actively bad for me personally if it becomes common.

I have a lot of experience with language instruction, both foreign-language and English-language, which I won't go into. My experience with computing has influenced me to value efficiency a lot more than most people in the Humanities.

A poet, for instance, argued that the most beautiful aspect of the English language is its irregular forms. That may be beautiful to a poet's schizophrenic delight, but it's not especially practical for many things. There are positives and negatives to anything, but the primary purpose of language is to communicate rather than to flummox.

" Appreciation is actually the positive word. "

I'll throw your "Congrats on being gay" parade a week.after I get my "Congrats on being straight" parade.

Take a look at what the word minority means. Also, take a look at the following fallacies: false dilemma, false equivalence, and red herring.

Ask yourself how many teenage suicides there have been because of harassment over being heterosexual in the last thirty years, for a start, as well.

Let me know how many states refuse to recognize the marriages of heterosexuals with the argument that opposite-sex marriage is wrong.

And, let me know how many countries like Russia, Uganda, and India have recently criminalized heterosexuality, with fun things like imprisonment and execution.

Riddle Scale by Dr. Dorothy Riddle, 1974-1994:

Homophobic and/or heterosexist attitudes:

Repulsion: Homosexuality is seen as a crime against nature. Gays/lesbians are considered sick, crazy, immoral, sinful, wicked, etc. Anything is justified to change them: incarceration, hospitalization, behavior therapy, electroshock therapy, etc.

Pity: Represents heterosexual chauvinism. Heterosexuality is considered more mature and certainly to be preferred. It is believed that any possibility of becoming straight should be reinforced, and those who seem to be born that way should be pitied as less fortunate ("the poor dears").

Tolerance: Homosexuality is viewed as a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people grow out of. Thus, lesbians/gays are less mature than straights and should be treated with the protectiveness and indulgence one uses with children who are still maturing. It is believed that lesbians/gays should not be given positions of authority because they are still working through their adolescent behavior.

Acceptance: Still implies that there is something to accept; the existing climate of discrimination is ignored. Characterized by such statements as "You're not lesbian to me, you're a person." or "What you do in bed is your own business." or "That's fine with me as long as you don't flaunt it."

Positive attitude levels:

Support: People at this level may be uncomfortable themselves, but they are aware of the homophobic climate and the irrational unfairness, and work to safeguard the rights of lesbians and gays.

Admiration: It is acknowledged that being lesbian/gay in our society takes strength. People at this level are willing to truly examine their homophobic attitudes, values, and behaviors.

Appreciation: The diversity of people is considered valuable and lesbians/gays are seen as a valid part of that diversity. People on this level are willing to combat homophobia in themselves and others.

Nurturance: Assumes that gay/lesbian people are indispensable in our society. People on this level view lesbians/gays with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be their allies and advocates.

-------

The Riddle scale is an eight-term uni-dimensional Likert-type interval scale with nominal labels and no explicit zero point. Each term is associated with a set of attributes and beliefs; individuals are assigned a position on the scale based on the attributes they exhibit and beliefs they hold.

Riddle's analysis has been credited for pointing out that although 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' are frequently treated as if they are positive attitudes, they should actually be seen as negative because they often mask underlying opprobrium. This observation generalizes to attitude evaluations in other areas besides sexual orientation and is one of the strengths of Riddle's study.

The scale has been criticized for presenting a clearly hierarchical set of negative attitudes (from most severe to least severe) while presenting a less distinctly different set of positive attitudes.

As a psychometric scale, the Riddle scale has been considered to have acceptable face validity but its exact psychometric properties are unknown.

SRS wrote:

It's nice to have a dude in distress for a change, although they usually are more marked by violence as he is, than the damsels are.

Or if the damsels are marked, it's usually in such a way to make her clothing more revealing.

Yes, certainly.

The US is actually the exception, not the rule, in terms of common number of languages known.

which is actually an advantage rather than a drawback in most respects. Is it really necessary to know 7 different words for cat?

There are, of course, benefits for learning multiple languages just as there are benefits for learning anything. But, the cost-benefit ratio of learning multiple languages is generally not so good — because of the high level of redundancy involved.

Pathfinder has its share of LGBT characters, and homosexuality is something common in Golarion's society. The ONLY thing that you MIGHT wanna know about that is that LGBT characters aren't that numerous

So, "it's share" translates into "not that numerous"...

not because they're hiding or are being hunted, but simply because they didn't come out... and even if they did, it might have gotten so little impact that people simply didn't care much about it.

This is contradictory because a person's orientation is generally known publicly unless that person actively tries to hide it, in which case the person is relying on the assumption of heterosexuality (the assumption that anyone is heterosexual until proven otherwise). That assumption is usually couched with what I call "gay invisibility rhetoric" which is the argument that gayness is always irrelevant (impolite, distracting, unwanted, personal).

An example is when there is a book about Darwin that shows how his wife and children heavily influenced the course of his work (particularly his wife) and the same teacher who likes that book would not tell her/his class that author Willa Cather had a female spouse for many years on the grounds that that isn't relevant to her work.

There is no need for a grand coming out in a society where being gay is equivalent to being hetero, but that also doesn't mean you don't generally know what a person's orientation is unless they're a total stranger. Most workplaces, for instance, have employee pictures of spouses and such at their desks. Casual conversations are likely to bring up one's significant other, kids, etc.

There's no harm done making an established heterosexual NPC homosexual, just like there's no harm done making an established homosexual NPC heterosexual.

It depends. If gaming groups always "cleanse" the writing of gay characters that can be a problem for gay gamers at the table.

If there is... then blame the DM and/or the players for not accepting it, but by no mean, it's the authors' fault.

It's certainly not under the author's control, unless the author writes the gay characters in a way that causes the GM to be more likely to "cleanse" their orientation. For instance, if every gay character is the ideal hero and every hetero guy is an obnoxious twit, I can see many DMs reversing the roles to conform with typical expectations. That's, of course, not the only dichotomous way the two orientations can be presented, but the point is that it's good for there to be diversity in the depictions of people of both orientations. Gay characters shouldn't always be fools or villains and hetero males shouldn't always be the valiant heroes.

homosexuality isn't as taboo as it was in the past. It is often accepted and not chatised upon.

Acceptance is actually a level of heterosexism. People accept things they have no control over but would change if they were to have control. The equates gayness with something unfortunate that one has to accept, like the death of a loved one.

Appreciation is actually the positive word.

People like different things. People are bothered by different things. Removing everything that anyone won't like just leaves a bland, boring game.

And impossible game. Some would object to there being a game in the first place!

Maybe some of these (bared pecs and other things to boot) will strike your collective fancy...

Ariel is the prettiest, although his face reminds me a bit too much of one of Michael Jackson's extreme surgical outcomes — with the huge wide-set eyes and the tiny nose.

One interesting thing is that I liked slide 6 of the two intermediate examples better than the finished product, especially the expression in the first example. That sort of expression, which has more character, is one typically not used with females (which seems to be why it was greatly toned down in the final version).

and who can ever forget this poor sod from Crown of the Kobold King? ** spoiler omitted **

It's nice to have a dude in distress for a change, although they usually are more marked by violence as he is, than the damsels are.

Jessica Price wrote:

All of which is to say that I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to assume that a male god who just wants sex (assuming he's safe to be with, and a skilled and respectful partner) is necessarily an unattractive idea to female audiences.

Bolding mine. I've got to point out a difference between straight men and women. This passage isn't necessarily what men look for in a mate.

Take Calistria, for example. She's skilled, suredly. But is she safe to be with? Is she respectful? Not so much. But the typical guy won't care, she's hot.

Now, I think this difference is more societal in nature. Men are supposed to be the aggressors. They're supposed to be able to take on anything a woman throws at them. So, she doesn't have to be respectful or safe, because he'll come out okay on the other side anyway. Or maybe she is actually perilous, but then surviving the encounter only proves one's worth as a man. But a woman would end up shouldering much more of the burden of a He-Calistria. There's a real chance that he would break his partner and toss her away callously. And if he's a problem, then even surviving the encounter wouldn't add to a woman's worth. She'd be tainted for having been with him.

That double standard affects what makes for a good male partner, versus a female partner. I personally don't think it should exist, and both a man-killer and a lady-killer should be scorned, but that's not what society teaches, unfortunately.

I agree with this, but don't forget that gay men exist, too. Also, I don't think that Calistria is really about a sexy person wanting it. Instead, Calistria is a reflection of male desire (not the other way around). From the write-up I read it doesn't even sound like she is interested in sex, in connecting with someone intimately, at all. Instead, sex is used as a mechanism for manipulation. That's the feminine wiles stuff I referred to.

Also, the "bad boy" is quite popular with many women, which is why it has been parodied on Seinfeld several times, for instance. Some research has said that women have two ideal types of man: the homemaker (marriage) and the bad boy (the fling). The former is softer and the latter is more aggressive and has more masculine features. Interestingly, then, it seems like that latter figure is someone that both hetero men and hetero women can appreciate. However, if the guy isn't tough enough, I think he'll get criticism from the men because he will seem too close to the soft guy.

A cartoonishly simply depiction of the bad boy can be seen in the Star Trek Next Gen episode the Outrageous Okona. The way the female falls instantly for him could be said to be sexist, also. But, of course, that offers the opportunity to dress a woman up like this.

What did Carter and his colleagues find? Women found the Dark Triad personality more attractive than the control. This result is in keeping with previous studies in which Dark Triad men reported their increased level of sexual success.

What might explain this result? Carter and his colleagues offer two possible explanations. First, sexual selection might be at work. This would mean that women are responding to signals of “male quality” when it comes to reproduction. And with respect to short-term mating, women may be drawn to ‘bad boys’, who demonstrate confidence, stubbornness, and risk-taking tendencies. Second, sexual conflict may be at play. The investigators state that “Women may be responding to DT men’s ability to ‘sell themselves’; a useful tactic in a co-evolutionary ‘arms race’ in which men convince women to pursue the former’s preferred sexual strategy.” They note that like a “used-car dealer,” Dark Triad men may be effective charmers and manipulators, furthering their success at short-term mating. The authors are also careful to note that though women rated the DT character as comparatively more attractive, it does not necessarily mean that they would have sex with them.

Carter and his team report the limitations of the study, including that the participants were undergraduates, a population that tends to be oriented towards short-term relationships. This study is part of a growing body of research unveiling women's dueling desires. On the one hand, they express wanting a relationship with a loving and committed partner for the long-term. Yet on the other hand, they demonstrate an attraction to men with darker personalities, typically for the short-term.

That passage suggests that there is a place for a male version of Calistria. I find the type uninteresting, but there are gay men who like "rough trade" (heterosexual men who may, if they're unlucky, beat them up after sex due to homophobia). Also, in terms of what I said earlier in this post about Calistria, the fact that she's female seems to be a reconstitution of the bad boy that appeals more to a hetero male audience.

SRS wrote:

Basically, depict an athlete with model-perfect features at around 18-19 and there you go. Don't expect a 19 year old Michael Phelps to get many second looks. lol

.

I'm 50 (straight, female). I have no interest in drooling over 18-20 year-olds. It feels wrong.

I can understand that. It's also my impression that women generally are more open to being interested in older men (in comparison with their age) than men are. Men, it seems, tend to prefer younger, likely due to the greater emphasis on looks. There are exceptions, of course. Men are at their physical peak around 18, when the skeleton has stopped growing. They're not at their mental peak yet.

Here is a passage I just read that typifies the double-standard:

Gozreh appears as a colossal humanoid whose lower body trails away into a mass of roiling elemental matter. His female avatar of the sea merges with water and appears young and beautiful woman with wild green hair. The male avatar of the winds and clouds merges with a storm cloud and appears as a weathered old man with a long white beard.

The young and beautiful female and the weathered old man with a beard...

I'm not certain that a depiction of male beauty need necessarily be young and soft.

It doesn't, but it would be a very welcome change. There are innumerable old guys depicted in fantasy art as being the standard of male attractiveness.

Like this one (look at the far left).

Take as look at the picture of Gauthier I linked to that I said was gorgeous. That type would be very welcome as a change. It is not a female with some masculine touches.

A lumberjack/bear with a kind expression, or a guy who looks like a typical fantasy gamer... someone suggested depicting that latter two... Well that's fine but it's high time to show a truly beautiful young man for once. Where are all the portly homely 33 year old women in fantasy art? It seems that whenever the subject of having some attractive males comes up, some guys say "but where are all the ordinary-looking men?" It seems like a way to try to keep the pretty guys out of the material.

Here's an opinion on why it didn't stick around:

http://mythopoeicrambling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/why-d-does-not-need-comeli ness-score.html

Thanks for the link.

"My reason is derived from the light that evolutionary science shines on physical attractiveness and the completeness of the standard six ability scores as they stand."

The argument is that the other scores combine to make attractiveness, but that completely falls apart under the mildest scrutiny.

A character can have 16 Str 16 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 16 Wis and 7 Cha.
Another can have 7 Str 7 Dex 7 Con 7 Int 7 Wis and 16 Cha.

You can use the same point buy number to make a character with high charisma and low stats in other areas as to make a character with low charisma and high stats in other areas — precisely the opposite of his argument.

15 point buy examples:

STR: 16 DEX: 16 CON: 15 INT: 7 WIS: 7 CHA: 7
STR: 7 DEX: 7 CON: 16 INT: 8 WIS: 8 CHA: 20

...Why does beauty need to be a stat?

Why do we need charisma to be a stat?

People care about what things look like, immensely. From a roleplaying standpoint it's essential to know what things look like.

And, mechanically, there is a big difference between influence ("charisma") and looks often, but not always. The key here is to implement the stat separation so that there will be as little pain involved as possible. For instance, when being diplomatic with someone, a person with high beauty would attempt to use their looks (which would be more successful in some circumstances than others) while someone who is influential (like that German leader I mentioned) would use verbal skills or something similar (which would be more successful in some circumstances than others).

If everyone wants to play the game as if people are just bricks then I can see now reason for a beauty stat.

I have, for decades as a DM, left the 'physical attractiveness' question in the same bucket as the height/weight/age/hair color/eye color buckets: it is a player choice completely. I don't see why it needs to be tied to the stat at all.

A friend of mine who runs a game I'm in currently has been playing since the first D&D was released and she separates the stats. It works well.

As for the player choice thing... players choose their stats, too. And, the same thing could be said about any stat. Why should there be a stat for anything?

I would use a trait for being very attractive (there is charming already), maybe a feat for being a rare extreme beauty.

Burning a trait or a feat just to have a character that looks good seems odd.

We do not need another stat.

That's a matter of opinion. I've seen systems that have dexterity (fine motor skills) and agility (overall body) separated, which is reasonable. A highly agile person would be good at dodgeball but someone with high dexterity could be a good surgeon.

The fundamental fallacy at work here is the misunderstanding about Charisma, a mental stat, being "sourced from" physical appearance.

Star Wars Saga Edition:

"A character with a high Charisma may be beautiful, handsome, striking, personable, and confident."

If beauty/handsomeness wasn't part of it then it wouldn't be listed. The argument that is causes confidence still doesn't enable you to call charisma a purely mental stat since it is partially sourced from one's physical stats (the looks that give you that confidence). You don't need to be strong, dextrous, or have a good constitution to have a high charisma.

And, again, some highly charismatic people have been ugly — which shows that influence does not require beauty. Beauty also does not always influence.

They should be separate, although when the game calls for rolls many of the time a player would be able to use one or the other.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So naturally, we can't have a stat for it, as beholders are not open content.

Charisma is subjective as well.

But seriously, attractiveness is an extremely subjective thing

And charisma isn't?

Here's that picture from the Saga book that I said is the most obvious.

Compare the males and females.

Here is a human male for comparison, from the next page.

And here are more "gritty" and "heroic" (monstrous) males to compare to the seductresses.

Compare this photo with this one.

And, beyond all that there are the ugly truly monstrous-looking males that usually serve as speed bumps in fantasy gaming. Most amusing at the "races" that have no females, just ugly males to serve as cannon fodder. In comparison with a Cosmopolitan girl and her friend.

Male vs. female. And again. And one more time.

But wait! Surely there are some sexy young dudes in this book, right? Here they are. lol

There is so much confusion at gaming tables over the conflation of physical attractiveness with how charismatic someone is. I've discussed this at length with experienced gamers who playtest for multiple companies and my opinion has only become firmer that these are two different stats.

The Star Wars Saga book tried to explain to players that charisma can mean either, or, or a combination of both. That seems to be how all the systems that conflate the two try to operate. Well, it's very very messy.

Just have two separate stats. Problem solved!

Some of the most charismatic people in history were quite ugly but beauty is also important to have as a stat because it can make a big difference in terms of how people relate to someone.

...

What happens when you have an 18 charisma and you're ugly? What happens when you have an 18 charisma and you're gorgeous AND charismatic? What happens when you have an 18 charisma and you're really gorgeous but not very talkative? It doesn't seem reasonable to say that the second case should have a higher charisma just because both qualities are equally high, but it also doesn't seem reasonably to treat that person as being equivalent to someone with only one quality at that level. And that is just talking about stats. When it comes to role-playing it's a big mess because the two can be mutually exclusive or not.

It's too messy. While beautiful people are treated better in general, that isn't enough to put beauty and charisma together. A certain German leader, for instance, was very charismatic and also not at all good-looking. There are many more examples. Intimidate rarely is about how beautiful someone is, although there are cases.

Plus, it would be nice to have mechanics for a beautiful character who isn't a face type. A quiet beauty. As it stands now, you're wasting your stat points in the point buy because there's no reward for being beautiful and quiet if you roleplay diplomacy as being about back and forth talk (and bluff as mainly about talk rather than distracting someone with looks -- although bluff is a bit easier to conflate with). An exception would be a sorcerer who doesn't bother with skill points, but even then having such a high charisma makes putting something into face skills seem worth it — at least diplomacy or bluff.

Oh, sorry. Generally, I don't click on links on my work computer. :-)

No problem. It is a very beautifully done piece of art even though it doesn't qualify as hot to me.

I don't disagree, I just think it is likely less attractive than the idea is to men.

Heterosexual men, you mean.

I shopped Ralph Ippolito a little just for kicks.

before
after

Cuter, but no Gauthier.

Here's a blog post I didn't write but happened across that takes a look at the Pools of Darkness cover and things we've been discussing.

Somehow 'realism' and 'grit' only apply to males in Golarion.

This.

(Although I heard the same argument when playing Star Wars Saga and trying to make a cute guy PC... and I clearly documented the dichotomy with my long post about the art in one of its books. I was told that the campaign was going to be "gritty".)

SRS wrote:

Wrong John Silver wrote:

Check out the whole list here. Maybe there's a look you like?

Out of that list, I picked these two as the best-looking:

Chase Finlay
Ralph Ippolito

Ralph would be cuter with a smaller nose.

So, SRS, would it be reasonable to say that you like your men "boyish" in appearance? Youthful?

Because I'm wondering if that's something that is attempted to move away from in the art. We talk about all the scowls. Paizo art tends to be full of action. Lots of combat, lots of shouting, I get the sense that Golarion is a very loud place. Heck, the gear is loud, too, with all these weapons and tools and buckles and gear hanging off the iconics in all directions. Honestly, I'm surprised the iconics can walk across a room without getting snagged and caught on every piece of furniture in the place. And, it's gritty. You've got battle scars, a lack of the clean-shaven, and you get the impression that most of the characters haven't bathed in a day or so.

Boyish doesn't connote badass. It's not tough-as-nails that a permascowl and a large jawline imply. I'm reminded of (please forgive me) Rob Liefeld, just with more detail, more nuance, more consistency (but still with a bizarre lack of ankles).

Now, I'll be honest, I don't think any of this is necessary. There's no reason why a youthful, boyish character can't be found in this place, participating in the world full-tilt. I could very easily see a beautiful celestial have such a form--or a devil. But even past that, fighters and rogues can be young. Any adventurer could still have that glow about them. In a world full of grit and grunts, it would be a play against type, and thus quite welcome.

Boyish can be a lot of things. Donatello's David sculpture is a great example of what I definitely don't like. I remember reading art critics who talked about how beautiful that sculpture is. I've always considered it ugly, and not just because it's an actual boy instead of a young man (although that doesn't help). The body and face are not well-proportioned.

The Antinous sculpture I linked to is a lot better. The Delphi version is also good. The boyish jock look is nice. Antinous sculptures always feature a nice muscular body. It's not overly muscular but it's not scrawny either. Some depictions feature a big nose, but others are better proportioned.

A guy can be beautiful and pretty without looking like a woman. Clear skin (no wrinkles, fissures, beard stubble, and chin cleft), full lips, large eyes, curve in the back, decent-sized nipples, an inviting expression (like a warm smile), clothing (if any -- lol) that's not bulky and harsh (but instead is form-fitting)... things like this are good. Basically, depict an athlete with model-perfect features at around 18-19 and there you go. Don't expect a 19 year old Michael Phelps to get many second looks. lol

This is a good place to start. He's a little older here than what's optimal, but still cute:

pic

Ooo... Here he is younger. Gorgeous!

pic

The idea of a beautiful woman who just wants to have sex with you but nothing else is generally attractive to straight men, especially young straight men.

The idea of a good looking man who just wants to have sex with you but nothing else is less attractive to most women. This may be societal or biological but it is generally accepted to be true.

Thus a goddess like Calistra could easily have a very wide following whereas a "male version" (Hey Ladies!) would be pretty niche.

There are also gay men. Plus, not everything has to be exactly like our world, right?

I know gods in Golarion don't "need" to be worshiped, they are not the incarnation of their worshipers desires. But it seems that gods that don't represent widespread desires would be pretty rare.

Arshea is more niche than what I'm talking about. Two actual gods already existed in Western culture:

Eros
Antinous

Antinous in particular was quite popular. Thousands of statues were made and placed all over Roman territories. Eros was also an important figure. Only later on did he morph into a boy. Originally he was a young man.

Antinous pic
another

Little late to the party, and I actually agree very strongly that we need more eye content for those who enjoy looking at men, and that we should be treating the sexuality of male deities as parts of their characters equally important to that of female deities.

All of that said, I'd like to reiterate the point that a lot of the stuff out there about the sex lives of female deities is either fan speculation, or messageboard comments in response to fan questions. While I think there is an imbalance in the material as presented in books, if more people start asking about the love lives of male deities, you're probably going to get more information about them. :-)

The existing deities are one thing, but I also think it would be good to have a male sex deity, even if he's a very minor one. We have Calistria on the female side. Cayden doesn't really count and he can't be all things. Arshea is transgendered so it's a bit closer, but still quite apart.

Having a fully male Empyreal or something may be a good solution, where lust is about wanting to connect with someone and sex drive is from physical health rather than manipulativeness, ill will (stinging wasps), innuendo, information gathering, and such.

Basically, it would be more similar to the old Greek form of Eros where he was a young adult rather than a small boy:

in early Greek poetry and art, Eros was depicted as an adult male who embodies sexual power.

"Sexual power" is rather vague and vaguely ominous. I also sounds like a Roman mentality which I'm not sure the early Greek culture had so much of (the all-dominant subjugating male), although it's certainly possible (I know less about ancient Greece than about ancient Rome).

There is also Antinous, the last Roman god, who was worshipped precisely for his beauty. He was a sort of fertility god because he represented sexual desire and also what was considered ideal male beauty. He was also the lover of the emperor Hadrian.

Leafing through the ARG I found that most of the ladies looked awesome and probably attractive to someone who would be into ladies, whereas the men did indeed for the most part look unattractive and have rather plain poses compared to their female counterparts. Lots and lots of angry/scowling action or simply ... derpy expressions going on, for a lack of a better word. (Specifically the male ifrit on page 127).

It's not really something that I've thought about before, but at least in that one book the difference is huge and I do actually feel just a little cheated when looking at the art through these new glasses.
Of all the guys in that book, I think the only one who looked attractive to me was the aasimar on page 87, and he too is showing a scowl.

As for what I'd actually like to see, I definitely agree with the ones requesting more happy, welcoming faces. I'm not looking for very bulky builds—something like Cayden Cailean's body type with a pretty, friendly face would be appreciated on my part. Bonus points for long hair.

It does seem like there is consensus about the faces in particular. However, I think it's also notable that the clothing tends to be designed to be seductive for females and not for males. Even when a bit of skin is shown for males, the bodies tend to be ugly (like that pale guy with no body fat) and the clothing is still bulky overall.

Check out the whole list here. Maybe there's a look you like?

Out of that list, I picked these two as the best-looking:

Chase Finlay
Ralph Ippolito

Ralph would be cuter with a smaller nose.

Seductive like this?

(Not ours, alas. Also, maybe NSFW for some people -- dude doesn't have any salient parts showing, but he is nude.)

That's the same pic I linked to and discussed on the first page.

That paladin is not dressed seductively, his expression isn't seductive, and he's not particularly cute.

SRS wrote:

The vacuity is intentional. It accomplishes two things. 1. It makes the women appear available, because they are the type that overflow with lust. 2. It makes them seem menacingly hungry, but unintelligent enough to yield to the powerful male viewer.

In all honesty, this sort of sentiment strikes me as far more offensive than any of the pictures linked to so far. SRS, unless you're the creator of that artwork, how exactly do you know what the artist's intent was?

Simply put, you don't. You've assigned motivation to the artist, and through that, an objective interpretation of the picture, all based on absolutely nothing. That makes your statements completely misrepresentative, which is bad enough, but its misrepresentation also assigns poor (by which I mean "likely to be offensive") intent to the artist, which is even worse.

This kind of falsification doesn't help the debate; it inhibits it. If you find that a picture is evocative of something, just say that that's how you personally view it. Don't try and say that must be what the artist was going for all along.

Nonsense. Criticism is just as valid as artistic intent. In fact, an artist's personal intent is irrelevant for some forms of criticism, and suspect at best. What is perfectly allowed is to view artwork in its context and extrapolate intent. If you think my interpretation is off, then make your case without all the emotional nonsense. Read some professional art criticism in peer reviewed journals.

Put simply, your rules make it impossible to say things like "the artist intended to draw females" and "the artist intended to make them sexy." Seriously?

All too often it's short hand for "I'm evil, but I can't admit it to myself." There's one of these at my table right now.

The best chaotic neutral RP I ever saw cast the character as, essentially, a libertarian. Freedom of choice was paramount; any and all external restrictions were unacceptable. More often than not, the character behaved in a chaotic good manner; but that was NOT guaranteed.

Many people would say that evil behavior matters more than good behavior. For instance, you may spend most of your life behaving in accordance with the consensus about good behavior and if you murder one person, especially a child, in cold blood then you are considered an evil person.

Also, freedom of choice without restrictions is impossible since people are the sum of their socialization. No person is a sphere existing alone, coming into existence fully-formed and capable of being immune to social molding. People who think they have such total freedom are considered manic and are put on Lithium. Society is a group and governance is inescapable.

That's so weeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrd.

(That's, like, the opposite of anything desirable.)

What is? The Drow illustration?

SRS wrote:

Some great posts.

There is a serious lack of male hotness in the deity department as well. Every god of love/sex/beauty/charm is female or is designed to appeal to heterosexual male taste (like Cayden). Even Arshea seems based on the idea that the ideal of male beauty is a masculine-looking woman.

As noted in the other thread...Arshea is not a good example for this, simply because he/she needs to look gender-ambiguous.

Agreed more generally, though.

SRS wrote:

Plus, there really should be a Lust alternative to Calistria because I reject the association between physical eros and negativity.

Courtly love is fine for those who are into it, but I think it's a waste of time because it's about family money (and the patriarchy that generally is its foundation) more than anything else.

Uh...since when is Calistria inherently a negative association? She's Neutral aligned, not Evil. You can be a CG Cleric of Calistria and a great person, if you like. Indeed, Good aligned worshipers tend to focus more on the lust aspect as they focus less on vengeance.

From what I've read, Calistria's idea of lust is related to the concept of feminine wiles, the Seven Deadly Sins, manipulation, and even torture. The whole bit about liking wasps because they can sting someone over and over is a negative sexual metaphor.

SRS wrote:

So Calistria isn't offensive (or this) but a male lust god would be?

The linked picture is offensive because of how badly the artist drew those women's faces. Those empty, staring eyes... *shivers*

The vacuity is intentional. It accomplishes two things. 1. It makes the women appear available, because they are the type that overflow with lust. 2. It makes them seem menacingly hungry, but unintelligent enough to yield to the powerful male viewer.

I thought Seltyiel was the "sexy" male iconic.

Am I wrong?

Not sexy at all to me. For one thing he has zero body fat. His clothing isn't particularly form-fittingly revealing, and his face and expression are neither handsome nor pretty.

Philosophically speaking, love is a selfless emotion whereas lust is a selfish one - you desire or covet something from another, be it pleasure or possession. Lust doesn't even speak to reciprocity. At best it's an appeal to our baser instincts, at worst an expression of desire to use rather than connect. I contend that all good springs from acts of selflessness while all evil comes from those which are inherently evil in nature..

Altruism cannot be proven to exist. Or, if it can, it may not be an example of sanity.

The bit about "baser instincts" seems anachronistic. Also, lust is not unidirectional. It is usually about wanting to connect with someone else. Platonic love is not superior to sexual love.

Someone professes a belief. You call said belief delusional. How is this not calling that person delusional?

Separate philosophical points from individual people and you'll be able to more clearly focus in these debates. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of ad hominem.

Ad hominem is a fallacy that changes the subject (generally by injecting emotion) from the original one to a referendum on specific people. My sentence did not say "You are delusional." It said the premise you presented is an example of delusion. Those are very different things. And, even thought there was a touch of ambiguity in the wording the context was not about anyone specifically.

People have many delusions and illusions without being so delusional that they would deserve such a label. That label implies that the person is mentally ill. My posts have been quite clear, in my view, with the idea that people in general support entropic behavior ("evil" if you prefer) as a result of normal human biological functioning, while simultaneously rationalizing that behavior. That is not the akin to labeling someone mentally ill. However, ironically, doing so could actually be complimentary because they would be more resistant to falling into the trap.

Also, paradoxically, being completely committed to doing good (fighting entropy) would destroy a person. We aren't equipped to make such a total commitment.

Humanity has been defying biology for most of our existence, thanks to these neat things called tools.

Tools have to conform to our biology and cannot be built without our biology.

Going to the moon requires food, oxygen, pressure suits, and so on. All of that is inextricably generated from our biology, including the brain function and mechanical functionality needed.

amirite?

No.

Personality and genetics are completely unrelated.

That's like saying there is only one race in the game.

our biological programming is very real, and it effects everything we do to some degree, but that doesn't make it all we are, or mean we can't choose to act against it if we desire to.

No one can act against biology any more than someone can not be human.

"Don't succumb to pointless nihilism" is not a directive that anyone can truly follow. We all age and die.

The poet who told people to rage against the dying of the light is dead.

SRS wrote:

I wasn't insulting you.

Calling someone delusional is usually considered an insult.

I didn't call you delusional. Personalizing this discussion is ad hominem. I'm really not here for the angst. Later.

If it's an unofficial game then take whatever stuff you want for the flavor concept you're looking for and get the GM to houserule until it's balanced enough with the rest of the group. Also, if your GM is savvy enough, he/she can tailor things to be more compatible with what you can do with minimal rule changes. A combination of houseruling and tailoring of session content can make even the most normally weak character viable.