Why is xenophilia a theme in Shackled Hut?


Reign of Winter

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It's not bestiality, it's xenophilia. I'm going to change the thread title and post and EDIT comment in the original post explaining the change.

I wholeheartedly support where this new thread title is going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jim Groves wrote:

My reply:

** spoiler omitted **...

This is why I like how Pazio writes the adventure Paths. I get the APs but I don't read the adventure tilll either I have played though it or till I run them. I get them mostly for the articles in the back( I am a world ifo junkie), but decided to read the spoiler because I was curious about the response. So I cheated, but it seems mostly to deal with side encounters...but it got me really wanting to play this AP as if the side encounters are this good what about the main adventure?

Also I completely agree with you about NPCs and diplomacey rolls.

The Exchange

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It's not bestiality, it's xenophilia. I'm going to change the thread title and post and EDIT comment in the original post explaining the change.

As Orthos was kind enough to preceed me in saying, I knew very well what term I was using when I started this thread... I still do believe that attraction to mythological creatures who very clearly are ment to be goat-men or wolf-women comes from an expression of bestiality in their originating cultures and legends. I also very strongly did not mean Xenophilia given that hal elves, half orcs, aasimars and tieflings all appeared before in Pathfinder APs, and I never had quite the same problem with that.

I get what your views on the subject are, Mr. Reynolds, and I respect them and understand where you are coming from (I also get that everyone else who posted in this thread seems to have the same views, meaning there's really no point for me to try to continue the discussion itself), but change the name of the thread and it actualy loses it's original meaning. I don't really see why your opinion should have stronger validity than mine, given that both are 100% subjective.

Had I started a thread called: "Star wars - the story is actualy about love!", would you have changed the title to "Star wars - the story is actualy about awesome mystical knights saving the galaxy!", explaining that I am clearly mistaken?

The Exchange

John Kretzer wrote:
Jim Groves wrote:

My reply:

** spoiler omitted **...

...but it got me really wanting to play this AP as if the side encounters are this good what about the main adventure?

It's pretty darned good :)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It's not bestiality, it's xenophilia. I'm going to change the thread title and post and EDIT comment in the original post explaining the change.
As Orthos was kind enough to preceed me in saying, I knew very well what term I was using when I started this thread... I still do believe that attraction to mythological creatures who very clearly are ment to be goat-men or wolf-women comes from an expression of bestiality in their originating cultures and legends. I also very strongly did not mean Xenophilia given that hal elves, half orcs, aasimars and tieflings all appeared before in Pathfinder APs, and I never had quite the same problem with that.

The problem with that is that your original post is not about mythological creatures as viewed by their original real-world culture, and the sexual analysis thereof. Your original post is about "bestiality and it's inevitable social reprecussions" as a theme in "The Shackled Hut" specifically.

In other words, you weren't making some general post about whether or not sex with sentient anthropomorphs is considered bestiality as per cultural norms, but that it definitively was, and that it played a "major" role in the adventure (neither of which are true).

Quote:
I get what your views on the subject are, Mr. Reynolds, and I respect them and understand where you are coming from (I also get that everyone else who posted in this thread seems to have the same views, meaning there's really no point for me to try to continue the discussion itself), but change the name of the thread and it actualy loses it's original meaning. I don't really see why your opinion should have stronger validity than mine, given that both are 100% subjective.

This is somewhat disingenuous, since you're saying your original meaning is backed up by the original source material as expressing bestiality (not something I necessarily agree with, either - you can say a woman looks "foxy" without it meaning you want to have sex with a fox).

I also suspect that he gets to rewrite the thread title since it is, in a very real way, his house. The fact that he's also more technically correct (in that sex with sentient non-humans is, strictly speaking, xenophilia, and not bestiality) also helps.

Quote:
Had I started a thread called: "Star wars - the story is actualy about love!", would you have changed the title to "Star wars - the story is actualy about awesome mystical knights saving the galaxy!", explaining that I am clearly mistaken?

Again, there are strict differences between the terms, and on that note alone Sean was technically correct in changing the thread title (something which, as you noted, everyone seems to agree with).

You might be better served by creating a more general thread discussing the differences between xenophilia and bestiality in general, and whether or not the presence of sexualized anthropomorphs in mythology constitutes an expression of bestiality or not. But that's not something that really applies to "The Shackled Hut" specifically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It's not bestiality, it's xenophilia. I'm going to change the thread title and post and EDIT comment in the original post explaining the change.

As Orthos was kind enough to preceed me in saying, I knew very well what term I was using when I started this thread... I still do believe that attraction to mythological creatures who very clearly are ment to be goat-men or wolf-women comes from an expression of bestiality in their originating cultures and legends. I also very strongly did not mean Xenophilia given that hal elves, half orcs, aasimars and tieflings all appeared before in Pathfinder APs, and I never had quite the same problem with that.

I get what your views on the subject are, Mr. Reynolds, and I respect them and understand where you are coming from (I also get that everyone else who posted in this thread seems to have the same views, meaning there's really no point for me to try to continue the discussion itself), but change the name of the thread and it actualy loses it's original meaning. I don't really see why your opinion should have stronger validity than mine, given that both are 100% subjective.

Had I started a thread called: "Star wars - the story is actualy about love!", would you have changed the title to "Star wars - the story is actualy about awesome mystical knights saving the galaxy!", explaining that I am clearly mistaken?

Quite simply, the thread title was changed because it was actually, literally, incorrect.

You should have named it "In my view the Shackled Hut has themes of bestiality". If it's your opinion, state it as an opinion, not as a fact. Your opinion cannot be denied ("Yep, that's his opinion alright!"), whereas facts are either correct or incorrect ("Nope, that's not what's actually in there!").

You phrased it as a fact, and it was factual incorrect. State your opinion as an opinion, not a fact.

Also, SKR isn't a contributor to the myths of Star Wars, so your comparison isn't all that useful.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

When I saw the original title I thought "Holy cow, did Paizo put hot humanoid on animal action in Shackled Hut? Boy those American puritans are going to tear it apart!". I quickly scanned the thread and the AP, but all I found is "sex with anthropomorphs", which isn't something that 90% of people associate with bestiality.

So one thing is that the title was misleading (yeah, I know, the OP has his/her definition of bestiality, but that's not a definition that's widely accepted, most people equal bestiality = sex with animals, 100% of those being non-sentient on human level and 99% not being anthropoids) and the other is that it's SKR's house, and as a publisher of materials that are PG-13 he's likely not the slightest bit interested to have the word "bestiality" float around. Especially given how conservative the primary target group is (anybody remembers the Hook Mountain Massacre outrage?).

The Exchange

littlehewy wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It's not bestiality, it's xenophilia. I'm going to change the thread title and post and EDIT comment in the original post explaining the change.

As Orthos was kind enough to preceed me in saying, I knew very well what term I was using when I started this thread... I still do believe that attraction to mythological creatures who very clearly are ment to be goat-men or wolf-women comes from an expression of bestiality in their originating cultures and legends. I also very strongly did not mean Xenophilia given that hal elves, half orcs, aasimars and tieflings all appeared before in Pathfinder APs, and I never had quite the same problem with that.

I get what your views on the subject are, Mr. Reynolds, and I respect them and understand where you are coming from (I also get that everyone else who posted in this thread seems to have the same views, meaning there's really no point for me to try to continue the discussion itself), but change the name of the thread and it actualy loses it's original meaning. I don't really see why your opinion should have stronger validity than mine, given that both are 100% subjective.

Had I started a thread called: "Star wars - the story is actualy about love!", would you have changed the title to "Star wars - the story is actualy about awesome mystical knights saving the galaxy!", explaining that I am clearly mistaken?

You should have named it "In my view the Shackled Hut has themes of bestiality".

very fair point. Wouldn't have minded it at all if the title was changed to "In my view the Shackled Hut has themes of bestiality". At the time of writing my original title I was not awere that my opinion was all that unique.Let's say you wanted to open a thread about how much you like it that the sky is blue. You wouldn't have thread called it "I believe the skies are blue, if I'm not mistaken", you'd just call the thread "The skies are blue, and that's wonderful". I realise my mistake and have no problem at all with the thread title you suggested.

I expected to open a thread discussing what I still percieve as a theme of bestiality in an adventure. Instead, people disagreed with me on my very assumption, which took me by surprise. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with how the discussion turned out.

HOWEVER... the thread was about me claiming something is bestiality and asking a question about it, and other people explaining that it shouldn't be seen as bestiality at all. There was also a discussion about the matter of xenophilia, certainly, but that's not where the thread started and many threads can derail or just naturaly evolve into different discussions than those they started out with, and usualy that dosen't merit a change to the thread's title.

I woulnd't have any sort of trouble at all with SKR just saying that, from a developer's perspective, he can assure me I shouldn't treat Satyr as goat-men but as outsiders, and I shouldn't treat a wolf shapeshifting into a human as a wolf-woman but as a magical beast. But changing the thread's title in accordance to his opinion (and again, it's just an opinion, every interpretation of the rules is just that) is the closest thing Iv'e seen to offensive from anyone working for Paizo. As a comparison, check out the fantastic replay from Jim Groves, who you can say had a hand in designing this adventure. He explained what his thoughts were on the matter and even though I accidentaly led him to believe I didn't like the adventure he created (I really love it and was just curious about how I should adjust a small part of it's theme to my tastes), he was not "correcting" my opinions, he was presenting his own in a very kind way. Major difference.

The Exchange

Gorbacz wrote:
...it's SKR's house, and as a publisher of materials that are PG-13 he's likely not the slightest bit interested to have the word "bestiality" float around. Especially given how conservative the primary target group is (anybody remembers the Hook Mountain Massacre outrage?).

That would be a very legitimate reason to change the title, or even lock the thread with the explanation that it was doing damage. However, that is most certainly not SKR's declared motivation here. If it turns out it secretly WAS the motivation... then I understand. Would have prefered to be handled like an adult* and just told to my face that I'm unitentionaly doing damage, but that's just being nitpicky.

*

side note:
though to be fair I guess SKR can't techincally know if I'm an adult or not...


Lord Snow wrote:
But changing the thread's title in accordance to his opinion... is the closest thing Iv'e seen to offensive from anyone working for Paizo.

Without trying to sound facetious, I'd say that's just your opinion, and it's not one I agree with. To my way of thinking, if you'd started a thread about a ham sandwich, and called it "Why does this sandwich have bratwurst in it?", the mods/devs would be quite entitled to change the title to "Why does this sandwich have ham in it?", and I see this situation as much the same.

But that's just my opinion ;)


The thing is with this definition, is that all AP's have a theme of xenophilia. As most romantic themes are generally interspecies, especially if PC's are involved. However especially if there are half-elves or half-orcs involved.

Liberty's Edge

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the relevant definition of "bestiality" as "sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal." Since none of the relationships in the adventure involve either actual animals or creatures that are meaningfully "lower" than human beings (here presumably meaning incapable of language or intelligent thought), your usage of the term "bestiality" in the title of the thread was incorrect.

It's not a matter of opinion; you used a potentially inflammatory word incorrectly, and were corrected.


"What, all these sandwiches have ham in them? But I'm vegetarian!"

"Psst - it's only imaginary ham..."

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DSXMachina wrote:
The thing is with this definition, is that all AP's have a theme of xenophilia. As most romantic themes are generally interspecies, especially if PC's are involved. However especially if there are half-elves or half-orcs involved.

A valid point, but what, exactly, makes having a relationship with a humanoid with goat legs or a fox tail more unusual than having a relationship with a humanoid with tusks and green skin?

The Exchange

littlehewy wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
But changing the thread's title in accordance to his opinion... is the closest thing Iv'e seen to offensive from anyone working for Paizo.

Without trying to sound facetious, I'd say that's just your opinion, and it's not one I agree with. To my way of thinking, if you'd started a thread about a ham sandwich, and called it "Why does this sandwich have bratwurst in it?", the mods/devs would be quite entitled to change the title to "Why does this sandwich have ham in it?", and I see this situation as much the same.

But that's just my opinion ;)

Had to look up "facetious" in google translate :P

Anyho, if I couldn't convince you that there IS a matter of opinion here (maybe with me not being careful enough with putting my thoughts to words in the opening post), and that I actualy did start a thread about bestiality and NOT about xenophobia (because I think that it's bestiality and if you'll play close attention, you'll notice that this is what we are discussing right now!), and that changing the name to xenophilia is trying to correct my opinion (and NOT correcting a fact) then I really don't know how to convince you. Sorry, I guess.

Tiny less effort though: One cannot shake away the fact the satyrs, for example, stem from greek myhtology. In greek mythology, themes of young women having wild sexual encounter with satyrs (which really were nothing more than beastmen) were most certainly about bestiality. If you wouldn't agree about the "most certainly" part I hope you can agree that it could be intereted like that. I for one never encounterd a different interpretation. Coming back to Pathfinder, in Golarion satyrs are outsiders, which means they are certainly NOT beastmen. They are not of "lower intelligence" and don't meet any of the terms in the definition of bestiality qouted by Gnoll Bard. However I can't ignore the origin of the creature when I read about it. I mean, just google picture search the word and see what kind of art you are going to see - I'll give you a hint, it's about sex, and you can bet those sculting those statues or painting those pictures were not thinking "an outsider!", they were thinking, "this creature is part man part goat. It has primal urges and the tendancy to seduce or rape human females to satate it's animalistic urges." In short, I find it difficult to not see the sexuality of creatures like satyrs as anything but an expression of bestiality in ancient pagan society.
So - as far as FACTS go, a satyr is not an animal, A.K.A being with one is not bestiality. In the realm of opinion, I see a really strong connection between satyrs and bestiality, as a theme in a story. Attempting to convince me my opinion is wrong is fine. Flat out stating that it's incorrect and putting words I didn't say in my mouth (that is, changing the title of a thread I started into something I didn't say and never intended to say) is close to being rude. There is a space in this discussion for opinion, and mine is legitimate even if no one else agrees with it around here. What would be the point of having a discussion forum if moderators went about "correcting" people's titles?


Look, I think I see what you're saying. Let me try to put it into different words, and tell me whether or not I'm on the right track.

To you, satyrs and fox ladies are inseparable (because of their origin in myth) from the concept of bestiality. Particularly after the direction this discussion has taken, you don't think everyone thinks that, nor should they, but that's where it sits in your head.

You're a bit affronted that the thread title has been changed, but you would have been okay if it had have been changed to something like "Does anyone else think there's themes of bestiality in the Shackled Hut?", which is what you wanted to discuss, not anything to do with xenophilia.

Is that in the ballpark?

If so, I see where you're coming from.

If not, I'm lost :)


Satyrs were from the earliest days as much nature spirits as they were beast-men. Associated with various Greek deities.

And the earliest depictions were less beastlike. Humans with goat ears and goat or horse tails, maybe with horns. The full goat legs came later.

Not that pagans of that era really made that kind of distinction between natural creatures and spiritual ones.

They were symbols of the wild sexuality of nature. As were some animals. That's not the same as bestiality.

The Exchange

littlehewy wrote:

Look, I think I see what you're saying. Let me try to put it into different words, and tell me whether or not I'm on the right track.

To you, satyrs and fox ladies are inseparable (because of their origin in myth) from the concept of bestiality. Particularly after the direction this discussion has taken, you don't think everyone thinks that, nor should they, but that's where it sits in your head.

You're a bit affronted that the thread title has been changed, but you would have been okay if it had have been changed to something like "Does anyone else think there's themes of bestiality in the Shackled Hut?", which is what you wanted to discuss, not anything to do with xenophilia.

Is that in the ballpark?

If so, I see where you're coming from.

If not, I'm lost :)

You have understood me completley. Thank you for making the effort to do so :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

Look, I think I see what you're saying. Let me try to put it into different words, and tell me whether or not I'm on the right track.

To you, satyrs and fox ladies are inseparable (because of their origin in myth) from the concept of bestiality. Particularly after the direction this discussion has taken, you don't think everyone thinks that, nor should they, but that's where it sits in your head.

You're a bit affronted that the thread title has been changed, but you would have been okay if it had have been changed to something like "Does anyone else think there's themes of bestiality in the Shackled Hut?", which is what you wanted to discuss, not anything to do with xenophilia.

Is that in the ballpark?

If so, I see where you're coming from.

If not, I'm lost :)

You have understood me completley. Thank you for making the effort to do so :)

Gee, that's nowhere near as fun as arguing over semantics for another 400 posts, is it? :)


Thanks, Now all I can hear in my head is the dad from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"....But,b-but he's a XENO, a xeno!


mmmmmm , imaginary ham

Lantern Lodge

So in your mind there is no difference between King Minos's Bull and Pan?


Hercules, a technically childs cartoon has a horny satyr in it.

Percy Jackson/ The lightening thief, also targeted for kids have themes of hubba hubba with the satyrs.


The question is not "why is bestiality a theme in Shackled Hut" but "why are we still arguing this point after the question was answered by the creators of the series?" I mean, it was chosen because of this theme being prevalent in mythology, which several of these creatures were drawn from. This includes shapeshifting intelligent beasts (Greta) and the fae, mind you.

And if these themes are uncomfortable for someone, they can be left out. Encounters with our wooden fox-tailed fey can be left out, as can the faun (or having him be cursed into that form by a Winter Witch and thus feeling he can't go home), while Greta can just be a simple guard.

Simplicity, really. :)


Lord Snow wrote:
very fair point. Wouldn't have minded it at all if the title was changed to "In my view the Shackled Hut has themes of bestiality". At the time of writing my original title I was not awere that my opinion was all that unique.Let's say you wanted to open a thread about how much you like it that the sky is blue. You wouldn't have thread called it "I believe the skies are blue, if I'm not mistaken", you'd just call the thread "The skies are blue, and that's wonderful". I realise my mistake and have no problem at all with the thread title you suggested.

Whether your opinion is unique or the general consensus, if it is a subjective statement (regardless of majority), it needs to be phrased as a subjective statement. Your "Sky is Blue" analogy doesn't hold up because the sky IS blue. That's an objective statement and can be written as such.

Lord Snow wrote:
I woulnd't have any sort of trouble at all with SKR just saying that, from a developer's perspective, he can assure me I shouldn't treat Satyr as goat-men but as outsiders, and I shouldn't treat a wolf shapeshifting into a human as a wolf-woman but as a magical beast. But changing the thread's title in accordance to his opinion (and again, it's just an opinion, every interpretation of the rules is just that)is the closest thing Iv'e seen to offensive from anyone working for Paizo.

Bolded emphasis mine. No, it's not opinion. Not when we're talking about word definitions. Also, there is no "interpretation of rules" going on here. This isn't a case of your differing opinion versus someone else's differing opinion. This is a case of your opinion not coinciding with the official dictionary definition of a word which ends up creating a misleading thread title which is then corrected to use the proper word that does match the required dictionary definition. There's no bias here other than the bias of sticking to the consensus of what is proper terminology. The thread title had the word IS in it which makes it objective (ex: X is Y, or X is a theme in Y). Objective statements must use the correct term. You're "X" was not correct so it was changed to the proper word. I'm sure SKR meant no offense.

Going back to using the sky analogy: if my belief was that the sky is yellow and I made a thread saying "The Sky IS Yellow", SKR would be within his right to change Yellow to Blue. It wouldn't be a matter of his "opinion" overriding my opinion it would be a matter of my statement being incorrect even if I still held to the belief that Yellow was Blue and Blue was Yellow.

Lord Snow wrote:

Anyho, if I couldn't convince you that there IS a matter of opinion here (maybe with me not being careful enough with putting my thoughts to words in the opening post), and that I actualy did start a thread about bestiality and NOT about xenophobia (because I think that it's bestiality and if you'll play close attention, you'll notice that this is what we are discussing right now!), and that changing the name to xenophilia is trying to correct my opinion (and NOT correcting a fact) then I really don't know how to convince you. Sorry, I guess.

Stuff about the Greeks.

SKR didn't correct your opinion, he corrected a misused word. This isn't a case about matter of opinion. The thread might be, fair enough, but the thread title isn't. Whether the Greeks saw it as bestiality or not doesn't even matter. This is Golarion and Greek history has nothing to do with it. Greek history may influence your perception of the matter but it doesn't even factor in to how Bestiality and Xenophilia are defined or perceived in the world of Golarion (or the dictionary for that matter).

EDIT: Pasted in the correct quote.


@Lord Snow: It could be that SKR changed the title the way he did because he thought a huge revision to the title might have offended you more. I am not saying his way was the right way...but if completely changed the thread title too..."Does anyone else think there's themes of bestiality in the Shackled Hut?"...some people would take a geater offense to a complete rewrite of a thread title.

Not saying he was completely in the right...but he can't possibly know how you would react to it...so he choose the path that changed your thread title the least.

Now as to the topic of beastality and satyrs...I can't comment much on the foxtailed women as I am not too familair with thatmyth...satyrs and alot of the 'beastmen' from myths is generalyy about the beast in all of us. The satyrs is not so much about having sex with a goat...it is about the randy goat in us(man).

Atleast that is my take on this subject.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

Now as to the topic of beastality and satyrs...I can't comment much on the foxtailed women as I am not too familair with thatmyth...satyrs and alot of the 'beastmen' from myths is generalyy about the beast in all of us. The satyrs is not so much about having sex with a goat...it is about the randy goat in us(man).

Atleast that is my take on this subject.

Me too. To me, stories, myths and fables are about humans and the human condition, even when they're stories about animals. Like just about every species, humans are completely narcissistic - even a tale about the environment is really based in our interaction with it. Myths about satyrs are, to my mind, about our animal sides, our bestial urges, a way to earth the dualism of ourselves as animals and rational creatures.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

Now as to the topic of beastality and satyrs...I can't comment much on the foxtailed women as I am not too familair with thatmyth...satyrs and alot of the 'beastmen' from myths is generalyy about the beast in all of us. The satyrs is not so much about having sex with a goat...it is about the randy goat in us(man).

Atleast that is my take on this subject.

Me too. To me, stories, myths and fables are about humans and the human condition, even when they're stories about animals. Like just about every species, humans are completely narcissistic - even a tale about the environment is really based in our interaction with it. Myths about satyrs are, to my mind, about our animal sides, our bestial urges, a way to earth the dualism of ourselves as animals and rational creatures.

I just want to watch.

The Exchange

The Block Knight wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
very fair point. Wouldn't have minded it at all if the title was changed to "In my view the Shackled Hut has themes of bestiality". At the time of writing my original title I was not awere that my opinion was all that unique.Let's say you wanted to open a thread about how much you like it that the sky is blue. You wouldn't have thread called it "I believe the skies are blue, if I'm not mistaken", you'd just call the thread "The skies are blue, and that's wonderful". I realise my mistake and have no problem at all with the thread title you suggested.

Whether your opinion is unique or the general consensus, if it is a subjective statement (regardless of majority), it needs to be phrased as a subjective statement. Your "Sky is Blue" analogy doesn't hold up because the sky IS blue. That's an objective statement and can be written as such.

Lord Snow wrote:
I woulnd't have any sort of trouble at all with SKR just saying that, from a developer's perspective, he can assure me I shouldn't treat Satyr as goat-men but as outsiders, and I shouldn't treat a wolf shapeshifting into a human as a wolf-woman but as a magical beast. But changing the thread's title in accordance to his opinion (and again, it's just an opinion, every interpretation of the rules is just that)is the closest thing Iv'e seen to offensive from anyone working for Paizo.
Bolded emphasis mine. No, it's not opinion. Not when we're talking about word definitions. Also, there is no "interpretation of rules" going on here. This isn't a case of your differing opinion versus someone else's differing opinion. This is a case of your opinion not coinciding with the official dictionary definition of a word which ends up creating a misleading thread title which is then corrected to use the proper word that does match the required dictionary definition. There's no bias here other than the bias of sticking to the consensus of what is proper terminology. The thread title had the word IS in it which makes it objective...

Please read Llittlehewy's follwoing post, where he phrased pefectly what I have been trying to say:

my intent wrote:

Look, I think I see what you're saying. Let me try to put it into different words, and tell me whether or not I'm on the right track.

To you, satyrs and fox ladies are inseparable (because of their origin in myth) from the concept of bestiality. Particularly after the direction this discussion has taken, you don't think everyone thinks that, nor should they, but that's where it sits in your head.

You're a bit affronted that the thread title has been changed, but you would have been okay if it had have been changed to something like "Does anyone else think there's themes of bestiality in the Shackled Hut?", which is what you wanted to discuss, not anything to do with xenophilia.

As you can see, I hope, my thread IS about bestiality because I see percieve what was going on as bestiality. In fact most of the thread wa people saying that it's not bestiality. What I absloutley NEVER said was "xenophelia", and that makes it upseting to me that people will change what I said to that. I get it if people can't see how satyrs and themes of bestiality are tied to each other, but why make it seem as though I was bothered by xenophelia when I REALLY wasn't?

Again, there is a matter of opinion here because in my opinion it's impossible to ignore the origin of satyrs and their likes as expressions of bestiality in ancient societys. You may not agree with me and that's fine, but please understand that I wasn't saying, "I'm bothered because humans are having relationship with outsiders" (which would be about xenophelia", I was saying that "I'm bothered because the outsiders humans are having relationship with are satyrs and similar creatures, which in my mind are associated with themes of animalistic lust, hence make me think of bestiality." Agian, this is NOT NOT NOT about xenophelia.

English is not my native language, and I'm certainly feeling the frustrarion of miscommunication in this thread. Even if I know all the right words and the correct grammer, this language FEELS different than mine. The stracutre of sentances seems to not be working as I would expect it to, and I somehow find it really hard to make what I write clear and easy to understand. I feel like if this were an actual face to face conversation, I could explain myself in 3 minutes. Oh well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Lord Snow:

I think the key to all this is the following:
You have put forward a position that animalistic lust is the same thing as bestiality.

Most everyone else considers bestiality as specifically sex with a lesser animal.

I don't dispute that satyr's mythology is about passion and lust and being subverted to giving into one base desires... but I don't think that is specifically bestiality. Having sex like an animal is not the same as having sex with an animal.

Keep in mind Lord Snow - that bestiality is a very charged word in the English language. It carries huge connotations of shame, debasement and other negative feelings. I'm sure you could think of similar words in your native tongue that are far harsher when said in that tongue than in English... bestiality is one of those words for us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Alzrius wrote:

That's without even getting into how the article states that winter wolf females who become pregnant by humanoids, even while in humanoid form themselves, give birth to winter wolf pups.

Can you just imagine what a typically day for a mixed-species family like that would be like?

"DAD! Jimmy keeps using his breath weapon on me and it's messing up my fur! Make him stop!"

"It was her fault! She gave me a peanut butter cracker and I was just trying to get it off the roof of my mouth!"

All I can think of for this is Fables with Bigby and Snow having kids and what their kids are like.


Lord Snow wrote:
English is not my native language, and I'm certainly feeling the frustrarion of miscommunication in this thread. Even if I know all the right words and the correct grammer, this language FEELS different than mine. The stracutre of sentances seems to not be working as I would expect it to, and I somehow find it really hard to make what I write clear and easy to understand. I feel like if this were an actual face to face conversation, I could explain myself in 3 minutes. Oh well.

Aaaah. Well there's the problem. You actually write English too well for most of us to realise it's not your first language :)

Your spelling is much better than many of the native English speakers on these boards ;-P

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:


Your spelling is much better than many of the native English speakers on these boards ;-P

Indede.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Sweetman wrote:

Lord Snow:

I think the key to all this is the following:
You have put forward a position that animalistic lust is the same thing as bestiality.

Most everyone else considers bestiality as specifically sex with a lesser animal.

I don't dispute that satyr's mythology is about passion and lust and being subverted to giving into one base desires... but I don't think that is specifically bestiality. Having sex like an animal is not the same as having sex with an animal.

Keep in mind Lord Snow - that bestiality is a very charged word in the English language. It carries huge connotations of shame, debasement and other negative feelings. I'm sure you could think of similar words in your native tongue that are far harsher when said in that tongue than in English... bestiality is one of those words for us.

Also, zoophilia is a quite a serious and shameful crime in most of the United States (where Paizo's primary target demographic dwells). It's considered, also, a major infraction on public morality. So if someone sees a thread about bestiality here, Paizo could end up with pitchforks and torches at their doorstep as various groups might pick that up and run the "RPGs promote bestiality, Satanism, sex with minors, sex with animal minors, animals sexually assaulting minors and also Obama" theme. You want that to happen? No? So don't start threads with such titles :)

Over here in the godless communist united republics of Europe, zoophilia isn't even illegal in many places, and where it is it's considered more of a "weird kink number 356" and any major concerns are raised more from the perspective of animal rights and less from the public morality angle.


Gorbacz wrote:

Also, zoophilia is a quite a serious and shameful crime in most of the United States (where Paizo's primary target demographic dwells). It's considered, also, a major infraction on public morality. So if someone sees a thread about bestiality here, Paizo could end up with pitchforks and torches at their doorstep as various groups might pick that up and run the "RPGs promote bestiality, Satanism, sex with minors, sex with animal minors, animals sexually assaulting minors and also Obama" theme. You want that to happen? No? So don't start threads with such titles :)

Over here in the godless communist united republics of Europe, zoophilia isn't even illegal in many places, and where it is it's considered more of a "weird kink number 356" and any major concerns are raised more from the perspective of animal rights and less from the public morality angle.

I am sorry are you saying people aversion to zoophilia is just a bunch of relgious intolerence? I admitt Americans can be rather prudish when it comes to the topic of sex...but our aversion to zoophilia as more to with the abuse to the animal than relgion(atleast from alot of left wing people I know and alot of right wing people I know...heck most if not all of world's relgions has it as a taboo).

You know maybe you should stop reading the thing about America from the extremist from both sides...you might get a actual veiw of America.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Where did I speak anything about religious intolerance? In most US states, zoophilia is a sexual crime. It sits right next to sexual assault and sexual intercourse with minors. Up until 2003, zoophilia was illegal under provisions related to sodomy, which was for long years understood broadly as anything from oral/anal sex to intercourse with animals, with all these acts falling under one law. Penalization of sodomy is perhaps one of the most striking examples of law for public moral's sake.

Over here, for contrast, the only instance of zoophilia in criminal code is distribution of pornography "including material that shows intercourse with animals". Our animal protection laws do have a crime of cruelty to animals, and one could argue that zoophilia falls under these in every or almost every case, but that's open to court interpretation.


Actually, the problem is that ages ago there was this stupid movie that turned a number of Americans against Dungeons and Dragons out of the fear it was a "training manual" and that underlying sentiment which hates anything imaginative and escapist is suspect. So if you go around saying "Bestiality" in the U.S. you have a bunch of a*%%&*%s, some religious busybodies, some trolls who hate anyone having fun, who will try to cause a big hubbub about it.

And what's worse, with a name like Pathfinder, they're apt to also draw in the environmentalists who'll think people are talking about SUVs... ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
English is not my native language, and I'm certainly feeling the frustrarion of miscommunication in this thread. Even if I know all the right words and the correct grammer, this language FEELS different than mine. The stracutre of sentances seems to not be working as I would expect it to, and I somehow find it really hard to make what I write clear and easy to understand. I feel like if this were an actual face to face conversation, I could explain myself in 3 minutes. Oh well.

Aaaah. Well there's the problem. You actually write English too well for most of us to realise it's not your first language :)

Your spelling is much better than many of the native English speakers on these boards ;-P

Yeah, I think this ^^^ (littlehewy is right, your English is quite good) coupled with this:

Mark Sweetman wrote:
Keep in mind Lord Snow - that bestiality is a very charged word in the English language. It carries huge connotations of shame, debasement and other negative feelings. I'm sure you could think of similar words in your native tongue that are far harsher when said in that tongue than in English... bestiality is one of those words for us.

is where the issue lies.

You're original thread title was basically akin to saying "Pedophilia is a major theme in Reign of Winter". Regardless of your personal take on the matter, since the majority don't see bestiality in Reign of Winter SKR changed it to something less incendiary. Could he have changed it to "I think Bestiality is a theme in RoW"? Yes, he could have, but as John Kretzer already pointed out, that would have changed the title from an objective to a subjective statement which many people would have found more offensive as it would have changed the intent of the title. So, instead, he opted for what is usually the less offensive option and changed the word.

Most people would rather the word changed and the intent left intact. But, in your case, the intent of the title is what should have been changed since you miscommunicated your original intent in the first place. SKR just erred on the side of what they normally do when they change thread titles - if one word can "fix" a title rather than have to change the intent they usually opt for the word.


Tangent101 wrote:
Actually, the problem is that ages ago there was this stupid movie that turned a number of Americans against Dungeons and Dragons out of the fear it was a "training manual" and that underlying sentiment which hates anything imaginative and escapist is suspect. So if you go around saying "Bestiality" in the U.S. you have a bunch of a~@*~!@s, some religious busybodies, some trolls who hate anyone having fun, who will try to cause a big hubbub about it.

What stupid movie? The only one I can think of is Monsters & Mazes...which depicted the game as a dangerous thing for people who already have mental illnesses...or at best it is something childish best put away when reaching adulthood. A very stupid and condescending movie...but really nothing to do with crazy religious fanatics.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And is one movie that Tom Hanks doesn't put on his resume, for some reason.


Oh, that's the movie. And it was waved in the faces of roleplayers for well over a decade as an excuse to denounce roleplaying games (and Dungeons and Dragons). In fact, I refused to watch any movie with Tom Hanks in it at all for a couple decades as a result and thus sadly didn't get to see "Apollo 13" in the theaters.

It didn't matter it was about "mental illness" or the like. It was used as the trumpeting call of driving out roleplaying games. Hell, one church I know of would pray that the local gaming shop would go out of business and when the shop owner HAD to close his doors because of shoplifting, a store he'd poured his money and heart into, they said "Good! It's God's Will!" rather than sympathize for a chap who opened his doors for the neighborhood's children and in essence acted as a babysitter for a number of those hypocritical churchgoers.

Those bastards are currently fixated on eliminating certain rights and setting back the sociopolitical situation of the U.S. by five decades, but just give them time and they'll turn on roleplaying once more. They enjoy targets to make themselves feel bigger about their empty lives. (Which is, of course, the reason why xenophilia is the better title for the forum post than bestiality.)


Tangent101 wrote:

Oh, that's the movie. And it was waved in the faces of roleplayers for well over a decade as an excuse to denounce roleplaying games (and Dungeons and Dragons). In fact, I refused to watch any movie with Tom Hanks in it at all for a couple decades as a result and thus sadly didn't get to see "Apollo 13" in the theaters.

It didn't matter it was about "mental illness" or the like. It was used as the trumpeting call of driving out roleplaying games. Hell, one church I know of would pray that the local gaming shop would go out of business and when the shop owner HAD to close his doors because of shoplifting, a store he'd poured his money and heart into, they said "Good! It's God's Will!" rather than sympathize for a chap who opened his doors for the neighborhood's children and in essence acted as a babysitter for a number of those hypocritical churchgoers.

Those bastards are currently fixated on eliminating certain rights and setting back the sociopolitical situation of the U.S. by five decades, but just give them time and they'll turn on roleplaying once more. They enjoy targets to make themselves feel bigger about their empty lives. (Which is, of course, the reason why xenophilia is the better title for the forum post than bestiality.)

Oh agreed. I just like place the blame correctly...that movie was a attack on D&D by psuedo psychologist...they have also changed the their target to video games, movies, music, etc(I believe Tipa Gore(Al Gore's wife) is one of those).Though 'religous' fanatics are the main problem for America now I think.

Though I kinda disagree that xenophilia would be better as I am sure some 'religous' fanatics out there would call it a sin also.


Gorbacz wrote:
Where did I speak anything about religious intolerance? In most US states, zoophilia is a sexual crime. It sits right next to sexual assault and sexual intercourse with minors.

Where in my humble secular opinion it belongs there....as Animals can't give consent. Unless Europeans have really discoverd a means to talk to the animals. Also there is the whole ownership of animals issues that makes it even more it a troubling subject of sex slavery.

Gorbacz wrote:
Over here, for contrast, the only instance of zoophilia in criminal code is distribution of pornography "including material that shows intercourse with animals". Our animal protection laws do have a crime of cruelty to animals, and one could argue that zoophilia falls under these in every or almost every case, but that's open to court interpretation.

Remind me never to send a beloved pet to Europe than.

Hey it is your country you can do whatever you want...just don't judge us because we believe bestality is wrong.


Oh, they would. But most people know what bestiality is. I'm a graduated English Major and I didn't know what Xenophilia was (though I could guess it's about "aliens" from the xeno term).

If the religious groups tried waving "xenophilia" around then most people would shrug and go "What, you don't like Spock?" and ignore their message. ;)

The Exchange

after taking some time to think about the matter, I realised that if bestiality is indeed such a strong word in English, then it's probably O.K to change the title name to something a bit softer.

By the way, if anyone here thinks he/she encountered any sort of ignorant D&D hatred before, think again. This is a site belonging to some very extremely religious christians, and I can say with certainty that nothing could be more hateful than this.


Praise The Lord!

Dark Archive

Dark Dungeons has been known for a long time, White Wolf created a parody 10 years ago. And if I recall it correctly, the WotC forum had a rule against mentioning it.


Lord Snow wrote:
By the way, if anyone here thinks he/she encountered any sort of ignorant D&D hatred before, think again. This is a site belonging to some very extremely religious christians, and I can say with certainty that nothing could be more hateful than this.

Yeah, that's old news. Even among us more conservative religious types, Chick is considered wacko-bonkers. (And that's even disregarding bits of his proposed theology and/or denominational interpretations we disagree with.)

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Reign of Winter / Why is xenophilia a theme in Shackled Hut? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.