Lust and love are two of the big drivers of human actions, conflict, and oh teh drama. Allowing them to influence PC's and NPC's in gaming opens up possibilities for seriously interesting play and utterly irrational or out-of-character actions. After all, it makes little rational sense for an emperor to make a showgirl/prostitute his empress, but love (or lust) made it happen in reality. Why wouldn't similar events happen in-game?
Excluding homosexual urges takes the same-sex element out of this conflict, which is limiting and unrealistic. [Man, I love talking about things being unrealistic in a fantasy game, but RP'ers know what I mean. You can have all sorts of spells flying and strange monsters attacking, but if people don't act like real people, the whole experience is unsatisfying.]
As for degree of 'exposure' of sexual activities, that's very much a personal/group choice, like the choice of how far to go with things like torture. Publishers have to toe a stricter line than gaming groups. Paizo typically does a good job, though Runelords went too far and in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot. But as a GM, I love when they point out the motivations of the NPC's and I welcome most relationships in their stories, be they same-sex or not, human or not.
In regards to the topic: To each his/her own. I once played in a campaign where my character was a young female samurai. I began to fear for her sanity when I realized the DM was a big fan of hentai
You're fine until the GM tells you that you've found "schoolgirl armour" :P
We don't let the hentai lover be GM. We fear that the creepiness factor would be too much.
Once I told the party about that comixed comic about "the bees and the birds" where some kid looks up the topic and then finds a picture (taken from some hentai apparently) where a little fairy is humping a bird which is humping another fairy (and I think that fairy might have been humping the flower it was bent over) and he could tell me the name of that hentai (and I'm not sure but I think he gave us a brief plot outline). That's the time when you make sure not to grant GM privileges to a guy...
[Edit]Go look up the tentacle thread! It's in off-topic somewhere.
@ Matthew Just fyi about homosexual behavior. I know what you mean about wanting a non stereotypical homosexual couple.
Or a non-stereotypical gay private eye. Like in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Gay Perry's one of the coolest and glibbest characters in any motion picture, without any over-the-top-ness so many characters that were engineered to be cool need to have these days.
"Still a thief?"
"Nah, I'll try this movie thing now. Still gay?"
"Oh no. Knee-deep in (meow), I just like the name. Idiot."
As for degree of 'exposure' of sexual activities, that's very much a personal/group choice, like the choice of how far to go with things like torture. Publishers have to toe a stricter line than gaming groups. Paizo typically does a good job, though Runelords went too far and in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot.
Slightly OT question:
I have not read Hook Mountain Massacre in great detail, though I'm prepping myself to run Skinsaw Murders and am about 2/3 of the way through another GM's rendition of Burnt Offerings (we're doing RotRL as a round robin GM experiment).
Burnt Offerings and Skinsaw don't really set me off - sure, there's a few grisly murders in Chapter 1 and a misogynistic bent to the killings in Chapter 2, but those provide good atmosphere IMO.
Hook Mountain features the savage actions of rape-prone ogres - one of which is a necrophiliac, I gather - but why do you say that Runelords goes "too far in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot"? Did I miss something during my casual read-thru of that module? Does one of the PCs actually get raped by an ogre or something?
I realize that the ogres aren't pleasant creatures as described in HMM, but frankly that's what makes that scenario so appealing - you are fighting MONSTERS, not just misunderstood giant humanoids.
Or is this another complaint about the hillbilly stereotype the ogres reinforce? Because as someone who actually DID grow up in the backwoods rural South, I'm not at all offended by it as some other posters have said they were - because those kind of people really do exist.
Just trying to understand what is SO objectionable about RotRL, and wondering if the hysteria is akin to the freak-out of so-called "feminists" about Penny Arcade and their "dickwolves" joke.
Wow! I had no idea a *bump* could be so powerful... ;-)
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
Also, is anyone else amused by the fact that those named on the ignore list are individuals generally on the opposite side of any particular political discussion?
That was the first thing I noticed, and prompted me to post. It's not often that I have a chance to be on the same "side" as pres man, for example.
It is in my netflix queue, both series. I also like Rome the HBO series a lot.
I haven't seen Rome yet, though I do intend to. From what I hear from folks that have seen both, Spartacus usually gets ranked above Rome, even if only slightly. I look forward to comparing the two myself.
But back on topic - the whole reason I brought up Spartacus in the first place was that I thought it was a very good portrayal of sex and gay/bi- characters in a genre setting.
|
@ Matthew Just fyi about homosexual behavior. I know what you mean about wanting a non stereotypical homosexual couple.Or a non-stereotypical gay private eye. Like in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Gay Perry's one of the coolest and glibbest characters in any motion picture, without any over-the-top-ness so many characters that were engineered to be cool need to have these days.
"Still a thief?"
"Nah, I'll try this movie thing now. Still gay?"
"Oh no. Knee-deep in (meow), I just like the name. Idiot."
Funny, I just seen that movie for the first time last week. I really liked it and that character in it. For much the same reasons you state.
...Slightly OT question:
Hook Mountain features the savage actions of rape-prone ogres - one of which is a necrophiliac, I gather - but why do you say that Runelords goes "too far in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot"? Did I miss something during my casual read-thru of that module? Does one of the PCs actually get raped by an ogre or something?...
You're right, it's OT, and there must be discussion threads about this somewhere? But as a player who won't read the AP's, my only answer is that my GM stopped running after the first book, saying that books 2 and 3 were too gruesome and offensive for him to stomach and in ways that fed the plot to the point that it wasn't worth the trouble to revamp and move forward. I still don't want to read it because I'm hoping to play it someday.
|
|
It is in my netflix queue, both series. I also like Rome the HBO series a lot.I haven't seen Rome yet, though I do intend to. From what I hear from folks that have seen both, Spartacus usually gets ranked above Rome, even if only slightly. I look forward to comparing the two myself.
But back on topic - the whole reason I brought up Spartacus in the first place was that I thought it was a very good portrayal of sex and gay/bi- characters in a genre setting.
I liked Rome a lot, I have not yet seen Spartacus to compare them yet. My only real critic about Rome was it seemed to focus on the subplots more than the major plots of the story. The subplots where good, but at times the main plots felt a bit thin, considering that was mostly about who controlled Rome.
Back on topic - Rome has some LGB in it as well. Not a lot but some, as well as incest, which considering the it is Rome and mostly about the noble families thats to be expected.
|
You're right, it's OT, and there must be discussion threads about this somewhere? But as a player who won't read the AP's, my only answer is that my GM stopped running after the first book, saying that books 2 and 3 were too gruesome and offensive for him to stomach and in ways that fed the plot to the point that it wasn't worth the trouble to revamp and move forward. I still don't want to read it because I'm hoping to play it someday.
...Slightly OT question:
Hook Mountain features the savage actions of rape-prone ogres - one of which is a necrophiliac, I gather - but why do you say that Runelords goes "too far in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot"? Did I miss something during my casual read-thru of that module? Does one of the PCs actually get raped by an ogre or something?...
As the GM in question, and in regards to the ages of some of our group members, I felt that the depictions in those books of gore and the gruesome nature of the ogre-kin was too much for the group to want to continue. They're definitely not rated for what I'm comfortable running for people that young.
|
|
You're right, it's OT, and there must be discussion threads about this somewhere? But as a player who won't read the AP's, my only answer is that my GM stopped running after the first book, saying that books 2 and 3 were too gruesome and offensive for him to stomach and in ways that fed the plot to the point that it wasn't worth the trouble to revamp and move forward. I still don't want to read it because I'm hoping to play it someday.
...Slightly OT question:
Hook Mountain features the savage actions of rape-prone ogres - one of which is a necrophiliac, I gather - but why do you say that Runelords goes "too far in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot"? Did I miss something during my casual read-thru of that module? Does one of the PCs actually get raped by an ogre or something?...
I would say think the worst parts of Deliverance combined with Splatter fest Horror movies. I believe someone said the Hills Have Eyes or what ever the movie was called is a good example. I have never seen the movie so have no idea. But most of the worst stuff is just implied with out them coming out and saying it in graphic detail.
|
|
As the GM in question, and in regards to the ages of some of our group members, I felt that the depictions in those books of gore and the gruesome nature of the ogre-kin was too much for the group to want to continue. They're definitely not rated for what I'm comfortable running for people that young.You're right, it's OT, and there must be discussion threads about this somewhere? But as a player who won't read the AP's, my only answer is that my GM stopped running after the first book, saying that books 2 and 3 were too gruesome and offensive for him to stomach and in ways that fed the plot to the point that it wasn't worth the trouble to revamp and move forward. I still don't want to read it because I'm hoping to play it someday.
...Slightly OT question:
Hook Mountain features the savage actions of rape-prone ogres - one of which is a necrophiliac, I gather - but why do you say that Runelords goes "too far in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot"? Did I miss something during my casual read-thru of that module? Does one of the PCs actually get raped by an ogre or something?...
Understandable, i would give them a R rating for the implied content. That is if they was a movie that is.
As the GM in question, and in regards to the ages of some of our group members, I felt that the depictions in those books of gore and the gruesome nature of the ogre-kin was too much for the group to want to continue. They're definitely not rated for what I'm comfortable running for people that young.
I ran "Hook Mountain" recently and found that a lot of the really offensive stuff was invisible to the players -- only the person actually reading the module would have any inkling of the bulk of it. I found myself saying, "OK, here's how sick Logue is: it says here that..." Leave that out and the players get spared the brunt of it.
|
|
As the GM in question, and in regards to the ages of some of our group members, I felt that the depictions in those books of gore and the gruesome nature of the ogre-kin was too much for the group to want to continue. They're definitely not rated for what I'm comfortable running for people that young.I ran "Hook Mountain" recently and found that a lot of the really offensive stuff was invisible to the players -- only the person actually reading the module would have any inkling of the bulk of it. I found myself saying, "OK, here's how sick Logue is: it says here that..." Leave that out and the players get spared the brunt of it.
It wasn't just HMM that was my issue, but the graphic scene
I understand I can omit, but why run if I have to omit that much to feel comfortable?
Slightly OT question:
I have not read Hook Mountain Massacre in great detail, though I'm prepping myself to run Skinsaw Murders and am about 2/3 of the way through another GM's rendition of Burnt Offerings (we're doing RotRL as a round robin GM experiment).
Burnt Offerings and Skinsaw don't really set me off - sure, there's a few grisly murders in Chapter 1 and a misogynistic bent to the killings in Chapter 2, but those provide good atmosphere IMO.
Hook Mountain features the savage actions of rape-prone ogres - one of which is a necrophiliac, I gather - but why do you say that Runelords goes "too far in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot"? Did I miss something during my casual read-thru of that module? Does one of the PCs actually get raped by an ogre or something?
HMM is definitely one of those your-mileage-may-vary modules. I can absolutely see why someone running a group with kids or sensitive adults might feel that it goes over the line. There is a lot of stuff about those ogres that I would feel uncomfortable GM'ing for a party I didn't know real well.
For the group I actually do have, what's written in the module is the starting point. What will happen to them if their PCs fail is much, much worse. And HMM is, in my reading of it, clearly designed to facilitate that kind of play -- IF the GM and players want to go there.
But it's optional. You could cut all those grisly details without killing the core plot of the module. It's all there as flavor (and what a stomach-turning flavor it is...), it's not anything I would consider integral to the storyline.
So, pretty much, I'm with Kirth Gersen: the only person guaranteed to need brain bleach after HMM is the GM. The players can avoid it with little to no change in the game.
It wasn't just HMM that was my issue, but the graphic scene ** spoiler omitted **I understand I can omit, but why run if I have to omit that much to feel comfortable?
Okay, I can understand not wanting to subject younger players to that.
Personally, though, I'm looking forward to going all crime-scene-drama with my players when they get to the sawmill in Skinsaw Murders.
I guess I just have a high tolerance for violence and gore - but then, I'm the only one in my gaming group who loves horror films.
And boy, are they gonna be in trouble when I start running Chapter 2... =]
I command you, original topic of this thread, TO RETURN!
Erm. Righto then.
I liked how in 3.5's Book of Exalted Deeds they made Morwel, the queen of the eladrin, bisexual. Which, IIRC, figured prominently into the events of the Savage Tide AP. Morwel is an elven deity in my homebrew world, and that has very much impacted how I portray elven sexuality in my campaign world - they don't have a lot of the same hangups about homoeroticism that humans and other races do.
I removed some posts containing unnecessary forum drama. Don't make it personal.
I think the reason the writers tend to put evil as being more restrictive in regards towards sexuality is a reflection of our modern morals. Leaving real world historical comparisons out of it, today we are far more tolerant of what in the past would have been regarded as "deviant" behavior.
If there's one thing that history outside of blood 'n trumpets will teach you, it's that the modern world isn't categorically more tolerant and that sexual mores have varied to a pretty intense degree over the course of human history.
As things go, I'll also add that Kignmaker did it properly.
I am a football jock, I watch sports with the guys, I game every Tuesday night with D&D, I don't have a lisp and wear practical clothing but I have a husband. My Husband is a grad student in Biology, lives out of a tent 3 months out of the year on an uninhabited island studying seabirds (grows a huge beard and all :P), doesn't have a feminine lilt or lisp in his voice, and everyone around the department links him to one girl or another but he has a husband.
Woof! You guys sound HOT! :p
To me, that is the heart of a lot of issues, and it is a huge double standard that is especially prevelant here in the US, but does show up worldwide, and that is: 2 Chicks Making Out = AW RITE! HAWT! but 2 Guys Making Out = Ewwww! Gross!!!
I'm in that school - but my daughter is exactly the opposite (she's also straight, for the record). She's like "Dad, those two cute guys are making out - that's totally hot!" So it seems like there are some permutations that appeal to some and not to others.
Genre-appropriate is really the key here. The series presents a more faithful representation of Roman society than most because people are more open-minded than in the last century. If the world of Golarion has societies that resemble ancient Rome, then so be it.
Lust and love are two of the big drivers of human actions, conflict, and oh teh drama. Allowing them to influence PC's and NPC's in gaming opens up possibilities for seriously interesting play and utterly irrational or out-of-character actions. After all, it makes little rational sense for an emperor to make a showgirl/prostitute his empress, but love (or lust) made it happen in reality. Why wouldn't similar events happen in-game?
Excluding homosexual urges takes the same-sex element out of this conflict, which is limiting and unrealistic. [Man, I love talking about things being unrealistic in a fantasy game, but RP'ers know what I mean. You can have all sorts of spells flying and strange monsters attacking, but if people don't act like real people, the whole experience is unsatisfying.]
As for degree of 'exposure' of sexual activities, that's very much a personal/group choice, like the choice of how far to go with things like torture. Publishers have to toe a stricter line than gaming groups. Paizo typically does a good job, though Runelords went too far and in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot. But as a GM, I love when they point out the motivations of the NPC's and I welcome most relationships in their stories, be they same-sex or not, human or not.
As usual, Treppa says it far more eloquently than I could. :)
...Roughly 1 in 10 people are gay and I have found that roughly half of those that are gay, you would never be able to tell through personality alone. As in they are not effeminate. For example I am a football jock, I watch sports with the guys, I game every Tuesday night with D&D, I don't have a lisp and wear practical clothing but I have a husband. My Husband is a grad student in Biology, lives out of a tent 3 months out of the year on an uninhabited island studying seabirds (grows a huge beard and all :P), doesn't have a feminine lilt or lisp in his voice, and everyone around the department links him to one girl or another but he has a husband. I really think we are way to stereotyped in most media outlets.
+1 this too.
To me, that is the heart of a lot of issues, and it is a huge double standard that is especially prevelant here in the US, but does show up worldwide, and that is: 2 Chicks Making Out = AW RITE! HAWT! but 2 Guys Making Out = Ewwww! Gross!!!I'm in that school - but my daughter is exactly the opposite (she's also straight, for the record). She's like "Dad, those two cute guys are making out - that's totally hot!" So it seems like there are some permutations that appeal to some and not to others.
Maybe because us guys like chicks, while the chicks like guys?
Watching two chicks making out is hot because it takes the guy out of the equation. We tolerate watching guys doing naughty things to girls because that's the default behaviour we also subscribe to for personal dealings, so to speak. But often, the guy is a necessary evil when we're watching instead of participating. Taking him out of the equation and putting in another chick removes the necessary evil and doubles the good stuff. Having only guys is unappealing because we're not into guys.
Women will probably have the opposite reaction: Them being into guys, they don't want to see two women making out, because they're not into women. Two guys, on the other hand, is a two-for-one deal for them.
After all, it's not the act itself that's appealing, it's the persons involved.
It doesn't necessarily have to be homophobia and bigotry to like same sex-couples only if they're the opposite sex. When it is, it's because people want those guys to stop, or want them stopped, instead of just looking away.
In fact, I'd say that expecting men to find other men making out to be cute is sexist, too ;-)
Down with outdated socially-constructed models of sexuality!
Let's make homosexuality compulsory!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forever War?
Better! Lets make asexuality compulsory! No more naughty fluids and such! Wait... They tried to introduce that a few times. I wonder why it never became a hit. *shrugs*
|
To me, that is the heart of a lot of issues, and it is a huge double standard that is especially prevelant here in the US, but does show up worldwide, and that is: 2 Chicks Making Out = AW RITE! HAWT! but 2 Guys Making Out = Ewwww! Gross!!!I'm in that school - but my daughter is exactly the opposite (she's also straight, for the record). She's like "Dad, those two cute guys are making out - that's totally hot!" So it seems like there are some permutations that appeal to some and not to others.Maybe because us guys like chicks, while the chicks like guys?
Watching two chicks making out is hot because it takes the guy out of the equation. We tolerate watching guys doing naughty things to girls because that's the default behaviour we also subscribe to for personal dealings, so to speak. But often, the guy is a necessary evil when we're watching instead of participating. Taking him out of the equation and putting in another chick removes the necessary evil and doubles the good stuff. Having only guys is unappealing because we're not into guys.
Women will probably have the opposite reaction: Them being into guys, they don't want to see two women making out, because they're not into women. Two guys, on the other hand, is a two-for-one deal for them.
After all, it's not the act itself that's appealing, it's the persons involved.
It doesn't necessarily have to be homophobia and bigotry to like same sex-couples only if they're the opposite sex. When it is, it's because people want those guys to stop, or want them stopped, instead of just looking away.
In fact, I'd say that expecting men to find other men making out to be cute is sexist, too ;-)
The only double standard i see is that women do many things with each other that would get a man labeled gay but are rarely assumed to lesbians unless really being blatant about it. Dancing, making out together to get attention from men, sharing clothes, ect.
|
|
As usual, Treppa says it far more eloquently than I could. :)Lust and love are two of the big drivers of human actions, conflict, and oh teh drama. Allowing them to influence PC's and NPC's in gaming opens up possibilities for seriously interesting play and utterly irrational or out-of-character actions. After all, it makes little rational sense for an emperor to make a showgirl/prostitute his empress, but love (or lust) made it happen in reality. Why wouldn't similar events happen in-game?
Excluding homosexual urges takes the same-sex element out of this conflict, which is limiting and unrealistic. [Man, I love talking about things being unrealistic in a fantasy game, but RP'ers know what I mean. You can have all sorts of spells flying and strange monsters attacking, but if people don't act like real people, the whole experience is unsatisfying.]
As for degree of 'exposure' of sexual activities, that's very much a personal/group choice, like the choice of how far to go with things like torture. Publishers have to toe a stricter line than gaming groups. Paizo typically does a good job, though Runelords went too far and in ways that were unfortunately integral to the plot. But as a GM, I love when they point out the motivations of the NPC's and I welcome most relationships in their stories, be they same-sex or not, human or not.
+1 to both of Ambrosia Slaad's quoted posts.
Lots
Trying this again after my first reply disappeared into the nether regions of teh Interwebs...
I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that someone must or should enjoy something they do not find arousing. The double standard I speak of - the one I witness day in and day out among many male friends - is that two women together is a good thing but two men together is sick and wrong and perverted. I don't find two men making out arousing because I am not attracted to men. However, I am in no way offended by two men making out. That is the double standard. It's not a matter of whether or not someone is attracted to it or aroused by it - its a matter of whether they think it is morally wrong but the other is just fine.
And as for women enjoying seeing two men making out - the majority of such women I personally know also find the sight of two women making out enjoyable.
|
|
The only double standard i see is that women do many things with each other that would get a man labeled gay but are rarely assumed to lesbians unless really being blatant about it. Dancing, making out together to get attention from men, sharing clothes, ect.To me, that is the heart of a lot of issues, and it is a huge double standard that is especially prevelant here in the US, but does show up worldwide, and that is: 2 Chicks Making Out = AW RITE! HAWT! but 2 Guys Making Out = Ewwww! Gross!!!I'm in that school - but my daughter is exactly the opposite (she's also straight, for the record). She's like "Dad, those two cute guys are making out - that's totally hot!" So it seems like there are some permutations that appeal to some and not to others.Maybe because us guys like chicks, while the chicks like guys?
Watching two chicks making out is hot because it takes the guy out of the equation. We tolerate watching guys doing naughty things to girls because that's the default behaviour we also subscribe to for personal dealings, so to speak. But often, the guy is a necessary evil when we're watching instead of participating. Taking him out of the equation and putting in another chick removes the necessary evil and doubles the good stuff. Having only guys is unappealing because we're not into guys.
Women will probably have the opposite reaction: Them being into guys, they don't want to see two women making out, because they're not into women. Two guys, on the other hand, is a two-for-one deal for them.
After all, it's not the act itself that's appealing, it's the persons involved.
It doesn't necessarily have to be homophobia and bigotry to like same sex-couples only if they're the opposite sex. When it is, it's because people want those guys to stop, or want them stopped, instead of just looking away.
In fact, I'd say that expecting men to find other men making out to be cute is sexist, too ;-)
Well I think that happens for a few reasons. One girls just ingeneral all act that way, so it is considered normal. While it is unusual for men to do it, to say the least. Second most guys who have sex with other guys is considered gay, regardless if he likes women as well or not. While women are readly accepted as Lesbian or Bi and in all honesty in my experience most guys seem to think most lesbians are really bi and just don't know it anyways.
and in all honesty in my experience most guys seem to think most lesbians are really bi and just don't know it anyways.
A friend of mine once expressed interest in a particular female. Another friend pointed out that said female was a lesbian. The first friend replied with, "That's just because she hasn't met me yet." Yeah...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
and in all honesty in my experience most guys seem to think most lesbians are really bi and just don't know it anyways.A friend of mine once expressed interest in a particular female. Another friend pointed out that said female was a lesbian. The first friend replied with, "That's just because she hasn't met me yet." Yeah...
My second wife argued that all women are bi to some degree. *shrug*
I've said, "The ultimate male fantasy of girl on girl loses a lot of its attraction when your mom is gay." It's said tongue in cheek, but there is a grain of truth in that I don't get a thrill out of seeing two girls make out (or more).
On the other hand, Donna thought that the kiss kiss bang bang between Captain Jack and Captain John (John Barrowman and James Marsters) was hot, but my current roommate (also female) went 'Ewwwwwww!!!!!!!!'
Proof that women like man-on-man action: popularity of "slash" fiction.
I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that someone must or should enjoy something they do not find arousing. The double standard I speak of - the one I witness day in and day out among many male friends - is that two women together is a good thing but two men together is sick and wrong and perverted.
I understand alright. I just say that it's not always full-blown bigotry.
And if it is, it's probably just an extension of their personal preferences. Humans are incredibly self-centred. For them, the universe revolves around them, the bright centre if it. It's more an I-niverse.
It's just that not everyone is aware of this on a conscious level.
So most straight men will like girls making out but not guys, simply out of personal preference. But many won't realize, or admit to themselves, that this is just because the way they themselves are. So they think since their way seems so right for them, it must be an universal law. Sure, that's bigotry.
most guys seem to think most lesbians are really bi and just don't know it anyways.
Wait, what? You mean to say that when two gorgeous chicks are doing it, they don't just wait for a guy to join them in a threesome? Do you honestly claim that not all lesbians are really bi and really hot and feminine?
O_O
You just destroyed my universe!!!
;-)
You hit the nail on the head, of course. Lesbian women are hot for many men because when they hear "lesbian", they really think "couple of hot girls that want to have a threesome with me". It's a fantasy most of the time, I guess, but sometimes, it's an expectation.
That lesbian means they don't want guys at all is lost to them, along with the fact that not every lesbian goes for the "feminine" look (with varying versions and degrees of "non-feminine", of course).
What are those charming terms? Lipstick Lesbian and Lumberjack Lesbian. Many men will not only put all lesbians in those nice pigeon holes, they'll pretend one of them doesn't exist at all.
On the other hand, Donna thought that the kiss kiss bang bang between Captain Jack and Captain John (John Barrowman and James Marsters) was hot, but my current roommate (also female) went 'Ewwwwwww!!!!!!!!'
I'm not familiar with this, I just found it on youtube. Can you give me a short summary about this scene and wherever it's from?
Anyway, this doesn't seem like a very healthy relationship ;-).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and in all honesty in my experience most guys seem to think most lesbians are really bi and just don't know it anyways.A friend of mine once expressed interest in a particular female. Another friend pointed out that said female was a lesbian. The first friend replied with, "That's just because she hasn't met me yet." Yeah...
He that big a girl, huh?
most guys seem to think most lesbians are really bi and just don't know it anyways.Wait, what? You mean to say that when two gorgeous chicks are doing it, they don't just wait for a guy to join them in a threesome? Do you honestly claim that not all lesbians are really bi and really hot and feminine?
O_O
You just destroyed my universe!!!
And the thousands male voices screams Nooooo!
You hit the nail on the head, of course. Lesbian women are hot for many men because when they hear "lesbian", they really think "couple of hot girls that want to have a threesome with me". It's a fantasy most of the time, I guess, but sometimes, it's an expectation.
There is other side of the coin: there are girls that think they could "turn gay men into straight".
So they think since their way seems so right for them, it must be an universal law. Sure, that's bigotry.
That's what I'm talking about, what you said there. The overwhelming majority of straight men I personally know are like this. It is the extreme minority of straight men that I personally know that agree with me - "It doesn't do anything for me, but I'm not bothered by it."