A culture where the men idealize 'macho' traits, and downplay feminine qualities would most logically result in men who find it easier to relate with, identify with and live with other men. The more they define themselves by a warrior / strength / power ethic, the more respect they have for male traits, the more the various female traits and roles are downplayed / not respected in their society, the more likely it would be that they would find themselves looking down on women, and associating more with other men, who have the sorts of qualities that their society is priming them to respect and admire.
Cue modern western society, where being attracted to masculine traits is itself regarded as a feminine trait.
Hilarity ensues.
|
I'm sure everyone here has at one point or another ...
Don't be so sure.
I have, on occasion, witnessed such behaviour but it's not anything I've ever done, nor have most of my circle of friends.
There are men out there who can't hear the word 'macho' without mentally placing the word 'bullshit' after it.
I grew up associating manhood (as opposed to boyhood) as a state of maturity and regarding machismo as puerile and juvenile. I'm not special or weird in this.
|
I'm sure everyone here has at one point or another ...Don't be so sure.
I have, on occasion, witnessed such behaviour but it's not anything I've ever done, nor have most of my circle of friends.
There are men out there who can't hear the word 'macho' without mentally placing the word 'b&%&&&@!' after it.
I grew up associating manhood (as opposed to boyhood) as a state of maturity and regarding machismo as puerile and juvenile. I'm not special or weird in this.
True you are just special and weird in other ways. :)
|
|
True you are just special and weird in other ways. :)I'm sure everyone here has at one point or another ...Don't be so sure.
I have, on occasion, witnessed such behaviour but it's not anything I've ever done, nor have most of my circle of friends.
There are men out there who can't hear the word 'macho' without mentally placing the word 'b&%&&&@!' after it.
I grew up associating manhood (as opposed to boyhood) as a state of maturity and regarding machismo as puerile and juvenile. I'm not special or weird in this.
Says the woman with 3pp-reviewing-OCD :b
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
This creates a society with stiff boundaries, where some sexual practices are gratuitously reveled in, while others are seen as scandalous and possibly damaging (and yet, as per Victorian England, also gratuitously reveled in; just with greater discretion). Homosexuality could easily fall under either heading depending on how you cast it.
It is also possible to have a consistent double standard of homosexuality being 'wrong' among the rank and file, but practiced (semi-)openly among the nobility.
I mean look at inbreeding IRL, it's the source of countless 'backwoods hillbilly' jokes, but look at European/Russian nobility. Their family trees truly are wreaths.
So I could see it as condemned in the general populace, "Ma, Billy's buggering Timmy again!" but condoned in nobel society, "*sniff* It is true that we caught William and Timothy coupling, but it is not like he was going to rut with a commoner was he? The scandal!"
Regarding ancient Greece, it's also interesting to consider that while they did put great emphasis on education for their men, women had no such experience. Through education, the men learned about society, fighting, the arts, and all sorts of good things that a complete person was supposed to be versed in. These men then married women, and it's not a great stretch to assume that they had very little in common with them, regarding language, interests, shared experiences, values, or any other of the arenas we today consider vital to making a relationship function. Furthermore, these marriages were made to advance social relationships between families and gaining power or prestige, not love. Also, as was discussed in the movie Alexander, the religious and historical myths that featured women and female beings cast a thoroughly monstrous image of woman: Medea who killed her own children, Medusa who turned people to stone through her gaze, Circe who turned men into pigs, even Athena, normally one of the most even-tempered of the gods, struck Teiresias blind merely for accidentally seeing her bathing.
Generally, then, it's a deeply split society, where women are something altogether "other" to the men. I don't think it's such a stretch that these men start to feel that romantic love is something that happens between two men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"A lot of homophobes are just as much decent people as the folks they persecute"
I have a hard time seeing how persecuting someone for something they didn't choose lets you remain a "decent person". We're all responsible for the opinions we show off, for what we do, even if we aren't responsible for the views we have. If we can't help ourselves from persecuting others who never did anything to us, no, that isn't decent behaviour any more than being intolerant and abusive to other groups of people, whether defined by race, religion, sex, or whatever else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what part of that quoted text would make the behavior something we should be okay with.
We have some understanding of why humans commit genocide too, but that doesn't excuse it. Let's expect better of each other.
We need to remember that fear is a two way street, While it is unkind to assume that every male homosexual is a pedophile waiting to happen, it's just dangerous to assume that homophobia arises solely from evil impulses.
This is factually false. One of those things has a running body count associated with it, the other does not. Please use the words "dangerous" and "unkind" with greater discretion.
Cutting past that and to your point, your point is still misdirected. You are implying a prejudgment which never took place. JJ said that the attitude in question was disgusting. It is disgusting. The person in question may well otherwise be a model citizen, but he is a model citizen voicing a disgusting point of view, which is all anyone has said.
What does this "debate" have to do with Golarion? Lets try and keep this on topic.
That's what I was about to say, actually. Just because homosexuality comes up and someone voices disapproval of it doesn't mean it becomes all of our job, right now, to "educate" that person. There is nothing wrong with the owners of this webspace choosing to simply dismiss that attitude as abhorrent and move on with relevant discussion.
Here's the deal: I find the thought of sex with another man disgusting. BUT probably no more disgusting than some homosexual men find the thought of sex with a woman. In any case, I do not see the jump from "I find the thought of personally having sex with a guy horrible" to "homosexuality is inherently horrible." At all. In fact, I find it actively bizarre enough to warrant further study. It isn't like homosexual intercourse is involuntary...that would be rape, and rape is horrible -- and COMPLETELY UNRELATED.
Am I missing something?
What does this "debate" have to do with Golarion? Lets try and keep this on topic.
It is relevant because someone inevitably trots out the "Pathfinder is a family product, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" line, arguing that tastefully depicting, or even mentioning, homosexuality somehow makes the offending product objectively inferior. If someone feels the need to boycott a product which includes sociological elements they find distasteful, they should have at it. It's the moralizing we could do without.
O,o?
Ummm... so...
How about that hot Seoni on chick action?
Is sex really something that goes down in alot of campaigns?Oh, dear. In PBP games on this very filthy, horrid, messageboard there have been acts of such indecency and sin that you would probably want to carve your eyes out.
Including one of my favorite characters of all time, who is a girl into other girls...she finds Sabina very interesting indeed...
It is relevant because someone inevitably trots out the "Pathfinder is a family product, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" line,
I would think that person has not seen enough PF material if that is what they believe. I think it is pretty clear that PF has shot for a more "mature" target audience than traditional D&D has.
|
|
Regarding ancient Greece, it's also interesting to consider that while they did put great emphasis on education for their men, women had no such experience. Through education, the men learned about society, fighting, the arts, and all sorts of good things that a complete person was supposed to be versed in. These men then married women, and it's not a great stretch to assume that they had very little in common with them, regarding language, interests, shared experiences, values, or any other of the arenas we today consider vital to making a relationship function. Furthermore, these marriages were made to advance social relationships between families and gaining power or prestige, not love. Also, as was discussed in the movie Alexander, the religious and historical myths that featured women and female beings cast a thoroughly monstrous image of woman: Medea who killed her own children, Medusa who turned people to stone through her gaze, Circe who turned men into pigs, even Athena, normally one of the most even-tempered of the gods, struck Teiresias blind merely for accidentally seeing her bathing.
Generally, then, it's a deeply split society, where women are something altogether "other" to the men. I don't think it's such a stretch that these men start to feel that romantic love is something that happens between two men.
In Archaic and Classical Athens (and, we assume, other city-states) Men above a certain rank typically married at around the age of 30. Their bride would be in her mid-to-late teens.
Not much in common at all.
O,o?
Ummm... so...
How about that hot Seoni on chick action?
Now I want to see her cast scorching ray on one of those three-legged devil-chickens.
It is relevant because someone inevitably trots out the "Pathfinder is a family product, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" line,I would think that person has not seen enough PF material if that is what they believe. I think it is pretty clear that PF has shot for a more "mature" target audience than traditional D&D has.
Agreed. Hook Mountain, anyone?
Agreed. Hook Mountain, anyone?It is relevant because someone inevitably trots out the "Pathfinder is a family product, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" line,I would think that person has not seen enough PF material if that is what they believe. I think it is pretty clear that PF has shot for a more "mature" target audience than traditional D&D has.
Mammy Graul's exposed titty... *shudders*
Last thing I heard (at GenCon), one of the Paizo folks implied very strongly that it was Ezren.
Jeremy Puckett
I've had my money on either Ezren or Harsk for some time . . .
And what's this about the Ezren-hate out there?! =:-o
Is it cuz the guy's older than the average adventurer and got a late start on life?? Because I found his backstory compelling, personally, and something about it has made me wonder for some time if he's "our" guy or not.
And as far as Harsk, it's nothing more than the fact that he drinks tea instead of the usual dwarven beverages.
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LazarX: You claim we're not going to win someone over if we start by renouncing them. While this may be true, it is no less true that someone who considers "having his social status under attack" to be a more central issue than the fact that homosexual people are killed every year due to homophobia, that person will not change his ways under any circumstances.
If one is tolerant, it is absolutely vital that one doesn't extend that to intolerant views and actions. This has been the same throughout history. The fact that some intolerant people have started to claim that THEY are the persecuted party doesn't change anything. It's just something you do to pretend you are a decent person.
Come back after homophobes have been killed en masse for their views. Until then, there is nothing more to say.
LazarX: You claim we're not going to win someone over if we start by renouncing them. While this may be true, it is no less true that someone who considers "having his social status under attack" to be a more central issue than the fact that homosexual people are killed every year due to homophobia, that person will not change his ways under any circumstances.
If one is tolerant, it is absolutely vital that one doesn't extend that to intolerant views and actions. This has been the same throughout history. The fact that some intolerant people have started to claim that THEY are the persecuted party doesn't change anything. It's just something you do to pretend you are a decent person.
Come back after homophobes have been killed en masse for their views. Until then, there is nothing more to say.
+1
Not one, but I support their right to choose to live the lifestyle they choose to live, without persecution. I was against Prop 8. Pisses me off that legislative crap ended up passing in the courts.
Down with bigotry! IN ALL FORMS!
LazarX: You claim we're not going to win someone over if we start by renouncing them. While this may be true, it is no less true that someone who considers "having his social status under attack" to be a more central issue than the fact that homosexual people are killed every year due to homophobia, that person will not change his ways under any circumstances.
If one is tolerant, it is absolutely vital that one doesn't extend that to intolerant views and actions. This has been the same throughout history. The fact that some intolerant people have started to claim that THEY are the persecuted party doesn't change anything. It's just something you do to pretend you are a decent person.
Come back after homophobes have been killed en masse for their views. Until then, there is nothing more to say.
What's strange is that I read this the other way around, possibly because I read the later posts out of sequence. What if homophobic people were killed or faced regular harrassment for their views? Would they have to be in order for any type of stasis to be reached? I ask this because of various stories from my youth(could have been made up, might not have been- I think there was one movie on the subject) revolving around groups of black people getting together and killing suspected members of the klan and other racist organizations.
True James, but this time you're not helping.We need to remember that fear is a two way street, While it is unkind to assume that every male homosexual is a pedophile waiting to happen, it's just dangerous to assume that homophobia arises solely from evil impulses. A lot of homophobes are just as much decent people as the folks they persecute and what we have in this country is a dangerous dearth of understanding of why otherwise decent people can hold perform disturbing attitudes or perform acts of violence in this venue.
I would suggest that some reading up the topic by all concerned. While Wikipedia should not be taken as gospel it can be a useful starting point.
I think a few people have already rebutted your point very well already, but I have to add that I find it odd to be calling out James's post when it was from 2 years ago and the thread performed quite admirably after that point. I'm thinking that your timing could use some improvement...
What's strange is that I read this the other way around, possibly because I read the later posts out of sequence. What if homophobic people were killed or faced regular harrassment for their views? Would they have to be in order for any type of stasis to be reached? I ask this because of various stories from my youth(could have been made up, might not have been- I think there was one movie on the subject) revolving around groups of black people getting together and killing suspected members of the klan and other racist organizations.
Typically persecutors only become the persecuted after a violent upheaval in a society, like a bloody revolution. This happens occasionally, like what's been going on in Bosnia for generations. One side comes into power, and they start persecuting the other side. 20-40 years later, they switch sides and it happens all over again in retaliation.
One reason there has never been widespread black on white racially motivated crime is that whites are still in power, and while there was violence during the civil rights movement, it was mostly perpetrated by those in power.
If you look at South Africa, the transition was mostly peaceful and the whites kept their money and influence. In addition, the Truth and Reconciliation hearings helped reduce tensions. Retaliatory violence happens when there are sudden shifts in power, but within American society things are happening relatively slowly and the power structure isn't changing. That doesn't mean the violence can't or won't happen, but rather it will be more isolated and exceptional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Retaliatory violence happens when there are sudden shifts in power, but within American society things are happening relatively slowly and the power structure isn't changing. That doesn't mean the violence can't or won't happen, but rather it will be more isolated and exceptional.
And probably occur on the internet. It's easier to be a dick to people when you're anonymous, whether or not they deserve it.
Anonymity, the NEW angry mob who's got your back.
So much for no flame war. I'd like to see this whole thread suppressed.I'd second this. This thread has turned into a disaster. The OP has not had his question answered at all.
If you don't like something, don't buy the product. No one cares if you don't like gay people or if you don't like religion. You're arguing about matters of opinion on the freaking internet. I can't think of anything more pointless.
Hey, would you lot say a paladin is allowed to attack an ogre's child who thinks 4E is lousy and believes in global warming?
Oh, and the paladin's gay.;)
Well, if receiving snarky or outright evil comments on the net is all I have to worry about, then I'll consider myself lucky. And besides, due to the fact of anonymity, I can always just leave, shut off my computer, or even pull the power cord. Without anonymity, I no longer have that option. So don't diss anonymity, okay?
People saying bad things to or about you on the net is not the worst thing that could happen. Taken right off the top of my head, being murdered by rabid intolerants who don't like my sexuality is one, for example. Even if they call themselves "just as decent as the people they persecute"...
Demanding a body count for proof of persecution is a little ridiculous. Actually, a lot. A whole lot of bullying and belittling can go on before then and does. Also, given the world's history of religious persecution and the body count thereof, it's absurd to be ignoring that in the context of what is a matter of religious doctrine for a great many, especially if you're demanding a body count. People have suffered and died for their religions. Maybe not on this particular point of doctrine, but it still comes to much the same thing if it's a question of faith.
The question of right and wrong is a separate one from persecution and suffering or even being killed. Just because someone suffers and/or dies doesn't vindicate them, and I'd really hate to live in a society where all legal and moral questions were awarded to the side with the most martyrs. Martyrs are just proof of people on one side willing to die for a belief or people on the other willing to kill for it, or more frequently both.
The phrases "Come back when you've suffered!" and "Come back when you have martyrs!" are just rhetorical flourishes to blow people off, based on the false belief that suffering and/or martyrdom equals rightness.
Also, unfortunately, tactless jerks can be right and polite well-mannered people can be wrong. It's more comfortable when it's the other way around, but the diplomacy or lack thereof of the messenger has no bearing on the correctness of the message.
Please note that this topic started over two years ago before you comment on posts in this thread. The OP's question is an interesting one, and one that I hope can be handled civilly without resorting to baiting or inflammatory statements.
Well, if receiving snarky or outright evil comments on the net is all I have to worry about, then I'll consider myself lucky. And besides, due to the fact of anonymity, I can always just leave, shut off my computer, or even pull the power cord. Without anonymity, I no longer have that option. So don't diss anonymity, okay?
Madam, a statement of fact is not a diss. Recall "Don't mess with football" or 4chan's scientology protests:
NFL - probably didn't deserve fake bomb threats. No one was hurt, FOX News got to blow up an innocent van for emphasis.
Scientology - probably did deserve worldwide protests involving people in Guy Fawkes masks. No one was hurt, scientology chapters now being watched by a few countries and organizations for illegal activity.
Anonymity gave us these instances by being dicks to people. Some deserved it, some did not. Nevertheless, anonymity makes it easier for us as humans to be those dicks because we don't have to put our necks out there to deliver our dickishness.
Demanding a body count for proof of persecution is a little ridiculous. Actually, a lot. A whole lot of bullying and belittling can go on before then and does. Also, given the world's history of religious persecution and the body count thereof, it's absurd to be ignoring that in the context of what is a matter of religious doctrine for a great many, especially if you're demanding a body count. People have suffered and died for their religions. Maybe not on this particular point of doctrine, but it still comes to much the same thing if it's a question of faith.
Correct. What you fail to mention is that it is often someone else's religion that is inflicting the suffering and death. ;)
The question of right and wrong is a separate one from persecution and suffering or even being killed. Just because someone suffers and/or dies doesn't vindicate them, and I'd really hate to live in a society where all legal and moral questions were awarded to the side with the most martyrs. Martyrs are just proof of people on one side willing to die for a belief or people on the other willing to kill for it, or more frequently both.The phrases "Come back when you've suffered!" and "Come back when you have martyrs!" are just rhetorical flourishes to blow people off, based on the false belief that suffering and/or martyrdom equals rightness.
Also, unfortunately, tactless jerks can be right and polite well-mannered people can be wrong. It's more comfortable when it's the other way around, but the diplomacy or lack thereof of the messenger has no bearing on the correctness of the message.
Again, quite correct. But I think it's a stretch to say that homophobes have been subjected to the same level of persecution that homosexuals have been. If you're going to claim otherwise, some evidence would be advisable.
Anonymity gave us these instances by being dicks to people. Some deserved it, some did not. Nevertheless, anonymity makes it easier for us as humans to be those dicks because we don't have to put our necks out there to deliver our dickishness.
...and it also protects people who otherwise would be afraid to speak. Like most things, it is situational.
|
I've had my money on either Ezren or Harsk for some time . . .
I was pulling for Kyra and HARSK.
Currently convinced that HARSK is beyond mere mortal sexuality.
Going back to Cheliax, I agree on seeing it as the land of the double-standard. A regular Joe who just happens to prefer dudes may well be discriminated against by policies put in place some aristocrats that regularly engage in actual genuine depravity behind closed doors, the sort that would be appalling to aforementioned regular Joe.
Please note that this topic started over two years ago before you comment on posts in this thread. The OP's question is an interesting one, and one that I hope can be handled civilly without resorting to baiting or inflammatory statements.
But I'm a master baiter- erm, nevermind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
K. A. Murphy: It's not ridiculous to demand proof of persecution, and especially not when some people claim that homophobes are the persecuted part in the conflict. Considering what homosexuals have suffered, a homophobe claiming to be the one being threatened is patently ridiculous.
And on the subject of religions: If a religion demands the right to persecute even those who are not members of that religion, then that religion is no better than any other sort of hatemonger. Sorry, you can't defend intolerance by saying "It's just the way things are done in my religion" because then you'll have to answer for why you chose, or remain with, that religion. Religious doctrine has no right to touch anyone outside the religion.
Martyrdom does not equal rightness. It does equal martyrdom, however, which is what the homophobes claim, and they don't have it.
And, equally unfortunately, the messenger being a tactless jerk doesn't help the correctness of the message either. Sometimes, the tactless jerk is wrong.
Now I am done with this. This thread should be for the discussion of homosexuality in Golarion.
Saying someone who says, "I don't agree/I'm not comfortable with that lifestyle", is exactly the same as someone who goes and commits violence based on what they don't agree with or are uncomfortable with is illogical.
Attitude =/= Action
To put it into roleplaying terms:
Saying you are "evil" but never doing a single "evil" act doesn't make you actually "evil".
Likewise, saying you are "good" and never doing a single "good" act doesn't make you actually "good".
As the adage goes, "The proof is in the pudding."
As the adage goes, "The proof is in the pudding."
Or as Andrew Vachss puts it, "Behavior is the Truth."
Unfortunately, things are never that straightforward. We prosecute people for mere possession of items, substances, or images -- even in the absence of any other crime. We enact "hate crime" laws, adding the perception of the perp's motives into the legal equation of what actually happened. In the Netherlands, they're about to re-start the trial of a politician for the offense of daring to criticize Islam publically.
Things would be simpler if we indeed stuck with actions vs. words, but there's apparently ample precedent not to stop there, for better or for worse.
You can always rewrite flavor text any way you like.
Now I am done with this. This thread should be for the discussion of homosexuality in Golarion.
Agreed, though with the caveat that the discussion of reality has bearing on the discussion of Golarion.
The question of martyrs and religion is a pretty old one. First off, a point of semantics: homophobes aren't a church anymore than teetotalers are. That said, there are a great number of religions which have a taboo against homosexuality the same as there are religions which have a taboo against alcohol. Ditto porkchops.
If you want to do a "whip out yer martyrs and lets compare them" game, every religion is going to whip out all their martyrs anywhere who died "for their faith," not just those who died "for their faith" as a matter of this theological taboo.
It should also be noted that political philosophies and nations also have martyrs and usually call them exactly that and also don't compartmentalize their martyrs with assorted beliefs possibly relevant to their deaths.
Now, getting to the question of Golarion, in reality martyrs are highly useful for political purposes because they don't get to talk for themselves. Any demagogue anywhere can come out and say "I come to speak to you on behalf of the martyr X--" where X-- obviously can't speak for him or herself, due to being dead. The demagogue can then put whatever words he wants in the dead person's mouth and usually does.
In Golarion? You've got Speak with Dead, you've got ghosts, you've got revenants, you've got people being resurrected or reincarnated, and you've even got the possibility of saints or even ascended gods coming back to say their piece about what they think about being killed for their sexuality. Apart from personal testimonials, demagogues would have a lot less use for martyrs due to continually looking over their shoulder for fear of a ghost showing up yelling, "Lies! I'll have you know we were platonic!"
Of course, you could then denounce the ghost as being a figment produced by an illusionist, but still, doubt would be sown.
Depending on where you go in Golarion, I'm fairly certain that homosexuality is viewed as anything from an unforgivable sin to something as unremarkable as preferring coffee over tea. But if you went to some place where it was disapproved of, the person murdered for it could make an interesting revenant.
I have but one last thing to add to this discussion...
PAIZO > Fred Phelps and his hate mongering organization which dares to call itself a church.