I think if I tried adding romantic interests to my game, my players would kill them. It's just what they do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To a "true sub" you not being fully dominating feels like something is missing and they cannot find you attractive in the way they desire. they could not imagine sleeping with some one so soft, possibly disgusted by the person. Not so different really. Why do you seem to need it TO be so different? What makes you think it is simply a "preference" and choice, not "this alone works for me because it does and i cannot help that?"
I'm not trying to claim that there's anything particularly wrong with having a sexual fetish, or that a lot of the preference is on any kind of conscious level. However, I don't believe they are as binary as you're making it out to be. The appeal for a sub, after all, is more about the pleasure of relinquishing of power than sexual attraction to the individual they're relinquishing to. That's a factor, of course, but a completely separate one. Fetishes are about objects and situations and what they make you feel or what they represent. I also suspect that most submissive people would be able to enjoy vanilla sex (although perhaps not nearly as much as being submissive).
Conversely, sexuality is about attraction to people. It's not about situational sexual pleasure. Romance can have absolutely nothing to do with sex. Being sexually attracted to someone is not the same as getting pleasure from a certain object/situation. It's just... attraction.
....I can't believe I'm actually arguing that sexuality is different to sexual fetish.... *facepalm*
Very noteworthy distinction, Alice. I couldn't have said it better myself.
|
The reason many people are put off my BDSM has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with the fact that in our romantic lives, most of us see one another as partners. There is no master or slave. The very idea that one person could be more valuable or important than the other is abhorrent to us. We see each other as equals. Dominance/subservience isn't a very good foundation for friendship, after all. Most couples are friends, first and foremost.
That said, I realize that BDSM is usually just a playful fantasy (and that's fine, so long as it is consenting, of course).
As to why it is underrepresented in gaming, I'd hazard it has something to do with the fact that it's not all that common, and the people that practice it aren't very vocal about it.
So yea, you're unlikely to see BDSM folks represented in RPGs.
So it is seen as weird/wrong/icky, just like many see gays and pretty much only gets so little attention because it doesn't ask for it
The reason many people are put off my BDSM has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with the fact that in our romantic lives, most of us see one another as partners. There is no master or slave. The very idea that one person could be more valuable or important than the other is abhorrent to us. We see each other as equals. Dominance/subservience isn't a very good foundation for friendship, after all. Most couples are friends, first and foremost.
That said, I realize that BDSM is usually just a playful fantasy (and that's fine, so long as it is consenting, of course).
As to why it is underrepresented in gaming, I'd hazard it has something to do with the fact that it's not all that common, and the people that practice it aren't very vocal about it.
Now I have vision of typical session where party is hired to rescue kidnapped princess (or prince or whatever) from the hands of evil overlord (or lady) only to discover that there were no kidnapping - the supposed victim is willingly submitting oneself to the "kidnapper". I know parties that would shrugged, kidnapped the "victim" and forcibly took them to the employer. Others would suspect mind-control, a few would shrugged said good riddance and bye and at least one or two would probably consider cutting a deal with "victim" to let them bring him or her back, get reward and (possibly) arranged for the "victim" to be able to escape again.
So yea, you're unlikely to see BDSM folks represented in RPGs.
*cough-cough* World Of Darkness.
Which isn't surprising because from what I recall a number of White Wolf writers and developers were into BDSM and other non-mainstream fetishes.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is hugely different to literally not being attracted to someone of a certain gender. A person who is into BDSM may not enjoy vanilla sex as much, but it's in a totally different ballpark to a lesbian having sex with a heterosexual man. To the lesbian there, something's missing. Something's not right. He feels too hard, too angular. The way he smells, the way he speaks, the things they do, are just not doing it for her. Try to imagine sleeping with a man! You just can't, can you? Or if you can, it's incredibly disgusting, right? That's what it's like. You just do not get any enjoyment out of it whatsoever. It's totally different to a sexual fetish, which is more of a 'preference' than anything.
A bit tangental, but too funny to not mention.
He asked one of the lesbians there once...
"Hey, <redacted>. When you and your GL are romantic, you use strap-ons, right?"
"Yes, why?"
"I just don't understand, why not just use a real man then, instead of fake man parts." (No malice intended, he was honestly curious). She never really gave him an answer.
So he tells me this story, and I tell him next time I talk to one of my lesbian friends, I'll ask her.
So sure enough, I ask and am told, "Well Matt, one advantage is that when our hips get tired, we can just take it off and switch to using our shoulders."
I told dad, and his reply? "Huh, never thought of that." :-)
|
|
To a "true sub" you not being fully dominating feels like something is missing and they cannot find you attractive in the way they desire. they could not imagine sleeping with some one so soft, possibly disgusted by the person. Not so different really. Why do you seem to need it TO be so different? What makes you think it is simply a "preference" and choice, not "this alone works for me because it does and i cannot help that?"I'm not trying to claim that there's anything particularly wrong with having a sexual fetish, or that a lot of the preference is on any kind of conscious level. However, I don't believe they are as binary as you're making it out to be. The appeal for a sub, after all, is more about the pleasure of relinquishing of power than sexual attraction to the individual they're relinquishing to. That's a factor, of course, but a completely separate one. Fetishes are about objects and situations and what they make you feel or what they represent. I also suspect that most submissive people would be able to enjoy vanilla sex (although perhaps not nearly as much as being submissive).
Conversely, sexuality is about attraction to people. It's not about situational sexual pleasure. Romance can have absolutely nothing to do with sex. Being sexually attracted to someone is not the same as getting pleasure from a certain object/situation. It's just... attraction.
....I can't believe I'm actually arguing that sexuality is different to sexual fetish.... *facepalm*
Also why i differentiate a fetish from a sexual lifestyle. For some it is something they do for some it is who they are. Human sexuality is very complicated and i am very disappointed at how many gay folks want to make themselves out as a special snowflake and everything else is just a kink not worth being noted. Gender is not the only factor in sexuality and acceptance of such but some of the rest of us stay hidden better.
I don't think I could play a gay character mainly because I don't think I would be able to do the character justice. Playing a gay male character I would way too worried that I would fall into cliche and stereotype too relax and playing a Lesbian character would feel a little bit fantasy fulfillment and lot disrespectful.
I do play female characters on occasion, I do my best to be true and I model my characters on interesting women from fiction and history. My last female character being a cross between Glenn Close's character from Dangerous Liaisons and Coco Chanel. I tend to cut to the fireplace when it comes to the romantic descriptions...
This is a little random, but I honestly think you would do a fine job at playing a gay or lesbian character! If you're worried you wouldn't do it justice, you're probably in the right frame of mind--i.e., not wanting to create a stereotype but rather a full-fleshed out character. That's great. That's honestly all anyone can ask of you. The only other thing is if someone (particularly a gay person) ever criticised what you were doing is to listen to that and take it into mind. Kind of like what you'd do if you played an African-inspired character and an African person commented on something you were doing. Etc.
I probably don't do the best job at depicting heterosexual people either... but I do try and that's what matters. :P
If... most likely when my Gunslinger/Alchemist dies in Carrion Crown, I might give it a go...
Playing a Lesbian character could hard because while I can relate to finding women attractive I don't want to be disrespectful, not that our games have a focus on trying to pickup. My female character from above was a widow with a daughter, so a lot of her motivation was making sure that she had money and status that she could pass on to her daughter.
Taking my previous female character, Liella as an example and if I played her as a Lesbian in the previous game. Is it right to play her sensuality as a background thing (like I play my straight characters sexuality) not a focus - It would part of her and informing her decisions, not hidden,.... and that's where I get stuck, because It comes down to my perspective as to how gay women think and my worry I am not doing it right.
Playing a gay character is difficult only from an attraction perspective, I have some wonderful role-models in my life that I could draw upon and I would play the character like Liella above, but I cant relate to finding men attractive, I can cut to the fireplace but would that just be taking the easy way out?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Now I have vision of typical session where party is hired to rescue kidnapped princess (or prince or whatever) from the hands of evil overlord (or lady) only to discover that there were no kidnapping - the supposed victim is willingly submitting oneself to the "kidnapper". I know parties that would shrugged, kidnapped the "victim" and forcibly took them to the employer. Others would suspect mind-control, a few would shrugged said good riddance and bye and at least one or two would probably consider cutting a deal with "victim" to let them bring him or her back, get reward and (possibly) arranged for the "victim" to be able to escape again.
So yea, you're unlikely to see BDSM folks represented in RPGs.*cough-cough* World Of Darkness.
Which isn't surprising because from what I recall a number of White Wolf writers and developers were into BDSM and other non-mainstream fetishes.
As to the first, "Royalty and Rogues" (one of the better adventures for MW 2nd edition) had this very plot.
As to the second.. Well there's Zon Kuthon in Golarion (I recently described him to a new player as "Asmodeus is the 'evil is sexy' god. Zon-Kuthon is the 'evil is kinky' god.) I could even speculate about WW staffers at Paizo, but don't want to go down that road. A person's orientation/fetish are their own business.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also why i differentiate a fetish from a sexual lifestyle. For some it is something they do for some it is who they are. Human sexuality is very complicated and i am very disappointed at how many gay folks want to make themselves out as a special snowflake and everything else is just a kink not worth being noted. Gender is not the only factor in sexuality and acceptance of such but some of the rest of us stay hidden better.
Again: Sexuality, or sexual orientation, is not a lifestyle. It is an innate trait, like blonde hair or blue eyes.
Sexual fetishes can be lifestyles, or may simply be minor aspects of a person's personality or interests. Generally speaking they're just minor variations in someone's sexuality. I am totally happy if someone wishes to identify with their BDSM fetish, much like I identify as being a gamer or a feminist or a linguist. That's cool. Everyone should do whatever makes them feel happy.
But trying to equate the two and saying that sexual orientation is a sexual fetish is just wrong. Fetishes are about sexual pleasure. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to - in particular what gender you are attracted to.
Most gay people aren't even trying to make themselves "special snowflakes" -- they're trying to make themselves exist at all within the wider social conscience.
If you want to see more BDSM people appear in modern media, go for it, man! I support you. It's not something I'm into so I'm not going to be shouting from the rooftops for it, but I'll be happy to support your crusade to get it more widely recognised.
|
|
Now I have vision of typical session where party is hired to rescue kidnapped princess (or prince or whatever) from the hands of evil overlord (or lady) only to discover that there were no kidnapping - the supposed victim is willingly submitting oneself to the "kidnapper". I know parties that would shrugged, kidnapped the "victim" and forcibly took them to the employer. Others would suspect mind-control, a few would shrugged said good riddance and bye and at least one or two would probably consider cutting a deal with "victim" to let them bring him or her back, get reward and (possibly) arranged for the "victim" to be able to escape again.
So yea, you're unlikely to see BDSM folks represented in RPGs.*cough-cough* World Of Darkness.
Which isn't surprising because from what I recall a number of White Wolf writers and developers were into BDSM and other non-mainstream fetishes.
As to the first, "Royalty and Rogues" (one of the better adventures for MW 2nd edition) had this very plot.
As to the second.. Well there's Zon Kuthon in Golarion (I recently described him to a new player as "Asmodeus is the 'evil is sexy' god. Zon-Kuthon is the 'evil is kinky' god.) I could even speculate about WW staffers at Paizo, but don't want to go down that road. A person's orientation/fetish are their own business.
Well if ww had a lot of bdsm folks and piazo has a lot of gay employees it just seems like a mixture of normalizing their own differences and going with what they know
Well if ww had a lot of bdsm folks and piazo has a lot of gay employees it just seems like a mixture of normalizing their own differences and going with what they knowSo yea, you're unlikely to see BDSM folks represented in RPGs.*cough-cough* World Of Darkness.
Which isn't surprising because from what I recall a number of White Wolf writers and developers were into BDSM and other non-mainstream fetishes.
As to the first, "Royalty and Rogues" (one of the better adventures for MW 2nd edition) had this very plot.
As to the second.. Well there's Zon Kuthon in Golarion (I recently described him to a new player as "Asmodeus is the 'evil is sexy' god. Zon-Kuthon is the 'evil is kinky' god.) I could even speculate about WW staffers at Paizo, but don't want to go down that road. A person's orientation/fetish are their own business.
It's not quite the same as World Of Darkness wasn't focusing on presenting healthy and/or normalized relationships. If anything WoD was setting focusing on bizzare and dysfunctional aspects of life and twisting aspects of modern world in a dark mirror - it was mostly playing with stereotypes or used for its shock value instead of portraying it as normal part of life.
So it is seen as weird/wrong/icky, just like many see gays and pretty much only gets so little attention because it doesn't ask for it
Again, it has nothing to do with sex, so no, not "icky". Nor wrong (morally speaking). But, yea--weird. As one might view anything outside of their preference/experience.
|
|
Also why i differentiate a fetish from a sexual lifestyle. For some it is something they do for some it is who they are. Human sexuality is very complicated and i am very disappointed at how many gay folks want to make themselves out as a special snowflake and everything else is just a kink not worth being noted. Gender is not the only factor in sexuality and acceptance of such but some of the rest of us stay hidden better.Again: Sexuality, or sexual orientation, is not a lifestyle. It is an innate trait, like blonde hair or blue eyes.
Sexual fetishes can be lifestyles, or may simply be minor aspects of a person's personality or interests. Generally speaking they're just minor variations in someone's sexuality. I am totally happy if someone wishes to identify with their BDSM fetish, much like I identify as being a gamer or a feminist or a linguist. That's cool. Everyone should do whatever makes them feel happy.
But trying to equate the two and saying that sexual orientation is a sexual fetish is just wrong. Fetishes are about sexual pleasure. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to - in particular what gender you are attracted to.
Most gay people aren't even trying to make themselves "special snowflakes" -- they're trying to make themselves exist at all within the wider social conscience.
If you want to see more BDSM people appear in modern media, go for it, man! I support you. It's not something I'm into so I'm not going to be shouting from the rooftops for it, but I'll be happy to support your crusade to get it more widely recognised.
The point i am making is some of it is what you do, some is what you are.
Ok walk real slow with me through this. If you are ONLY attracted to someone extremely submissive to the point that you cannot get aroused to be capable of sex without that is it just "for pleasure" like "i like to spank" or more akin to a gay man only able to get aroused by another man? WHY is that such a difference to you?
And you don't think that some others would like to be accepted without hiding aspects of their lives? I would like to see it just a thing not some horrible weirdness or just a joke. The same as gays want to be, the same as many other groups. One thing that i wish to see is more people working for ACCEPTANCE OF ALL PEOPLE not just selfish pushing for their own group. be it race gender religion or sexuality it tends to always be about "me getting mine, the rest be damned"
|
|
It's not quite the same as World Of Darkness wasn't focusing on presenting healthy and/or normalized relationships. If anything WoD was setting focusing on bizzare and dysfunctional aspects of life and twisting aspects of modern world in a dark mirror - it was mostly playing with stereotypes or used for its shock value instead of portraying it as normal part of life.Well if ww had a lot of bdsm folks and piazo has a lot of gay employees it just seems like a mixture of normalizing their own differences and going with what they knowSo yea, you're unlikely to see BDSM folks represented in RPGs.*cough-cough* World Of Darkness.
Which isn't surprising because from what I recall a number of White Wolf writers and developers were into BDSM and other non-mainstream fetishes.
As to the first, "Royalty and Rogues" (one of the better adventures for MW 2nd edition) had this very plot.
As to the second.. Well there's Zon Kuthon in Golarion (I recently described him to a new player as "Asmodeus is the 'evil is sexy' god. Zon-Kuthon is the 'evil is kinky' god.) I could even speculate about WW staffers at Paizo, but don't want to go down that road. A person's orientation/fetish are their own business.
Wod just made life twisted
|
Why do a lot of people figure elves are bi?
Probably because of their androgynous appearance.
I personally believe that any of the races could easily be represented as bisexual.
Elves because of their longevity and spirituality.
Gnomes and Halflings because of their good- and fun-loving nature.
Dwarves because of their strong clan and interpersonal bonds.
Half-orcs because of their simplistic, barbaric nature.
Drow because of their cruel and sadistic nature.
Half-elves because of their brown hair.
One sexuality doesn't lend itself more to one personality or culture than another. If it did, then [insert adjective] people would always be [insert orientation].
IMO, making everyone heterosexual, or bisexual, would be like making everyone human. How boring. If that's your thing, then cool. I personally prefer a little variety in my campaigns.
|
|
The point i am making is some of it is what you do, some is what you are.
Ok walk real slow with me through this. If you are ONLY attracted to someone extremely submissive to the point that you cannot get aroused to be capable of sex without that is it just "for pleasure" like "i like to spank" or more akin to a gay man only able to get aroused by another man? WHY is that such a difference to you?
And you don't think that some others would like to be accepted without hiding aspects of their lives? I would like to see it just a thing not some horrible weirdness or just a joke. The same as gays want to be, the same as many other groups. One thing that i wish to see is more people working for ACCEPTANCE OF ALL PEOPLE not just selfish pushing for their own group. be it race gender religion or sexuality it tends to always be about "me getting mine, the rest be damned"
It's intellectually dishonest to claim that they are the same when they are very different - as I've explained in my posts above. If you can't see the difference between "this object/situation gives me sexual pleasure" and "I am romantically and/or sexually attracted to the same gender" then I have nothing more to say.
Compounded is the fact that gay people often have to face people claiming their relationships aren't real or don't count; that they are "choosing" to be this way; that they are sinful, unnatural, deviant, and corrupting; etcetera. Most people also assume homosexuality is all sexual, too, when it is most certainly NOT. You rub a raw wound by trying to equate them to a sexual fetish, which is a) totally different, and b) reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is entirely sexual.
I never said I didn't want people to feel comfortable in their sexual fetishes or be derided for them. If a sexual fetish is consensual then that is A-OK with me. *shrug*
I don't think you should be able to display them in public in all situations, however. They are sexual fetishes. That is, by nature, something that should be private. Do whatever consensual acts you like in your own bedroom, by all means, but I'm honestly not interested in what you do there.
I think that Andrew wants to say that BDSM goes beyond being purely sexual fetishes.
I also think that his posts do not equate "this object/situation gives me sexual pleasure" and "I am romantically and/or sexually attracted to the same gender". I understand that instead he says that "I am romantically and/or sexually attracted to the same gender" is equal to "I am romantically and/or sexually attracted to dominant/submissive people".
Rynjin,
I kind of agree with some of what you said. For example I don't include straight, cis gendered, NPCs in my campaigns. They are not a part of my life, and I honestly don't know anything about them, or think about them in any way.
But it should be pointed out that, yes, one poster on here is "pointedly denouncing homosexual relations" as you say.
Edit: Most of the NPCs in my campaign world are randomly generated. shopkeepers, innkeepers, tavern owners, etc. If I roll up the local blacksmith as being male, cis gendered, straight, and white, then he is. But I am very unlikely to make a placed NPC, like the powerful Duke male, cis gendered, straight, and white. This, perhaps makes me prejudiced, but it is certainly not because I think cis gendered, straight, white men are horrible evil people. It's because I honestly do not have any people like that in my social group.
I think my sarcasm meter is broken.
Are you saying that your life is 100% free of the 'dreaded' heteronormality? That two people of the opposite gender didn't come together to bring about your existence? That you do not work with those 'breeder' types that seem to get everywhere and into everything? That their repellent crotch-fruit don't annoy you in public places, or sicken you with terribly offensive displays of icky heterosexuality?
Because now I'm curious about where this magical place is; if putting up with excessive rainbows and pink is the price of admission, I'd be interested in at least touring the place. Call me...curious.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One isn't born being attracted to whips and chains. That's a learned behavior that will vary from person to person. Your orientation, as best as I understand it, is determined by the time you are born.
Getting way off topic... but if a person can be born 'wired' to be attracted to his own gender and not the opposite, why can't a person be 'wired' to interpret pain as pleasure? Or for that matter getting pleasure from inflicting pain
Not comparing (or condeming!) either. Just saying that understanding the 'whys' of human sexuality is still an ongoing process, and likely not something as simple as a 'gay gene' or a 'leather gene'.
Bit more icky tangent.
How does this tangent back into gaming? We all game to express fantasies and have fun. Some people want to run a high romantic game and address these issues of 'diversity'. I might want to make a Taldan rolendo fighting school that *only* teaches left handers. Others want to focus on the 'hack/slash adventures and look at sexuality in the same way they look at the sky. "They sky is blue, if it's not blue today it's likely a plot point. The couple is hetero, if they aren't today, it's a plot point."
|
|
Matthew,
As far as I understand it, BDSM is less about the pain itself (although I'm sure that's a thing) and more about power dynamics and trust.
Also, paedophilia involves the manipulation and rape of someone who has no ability to consent. It's much more about an abuse of power than about actual sexual attraction. It may be 'hard wired', but only in the sense that the desire to be a serial killer is. I believe that people with either the paraphilia or a murderous streak can be helped... preferably before they hurt anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also why i differentiate a fetish from a sexual lifestyle. For some it is something they do for some it is who they are. Human sexuality is very complicated and i am very disappointed at how many gay folks want to make themselves out as a special snowflake and everything else is just a kink not worth being noted. Gender is not the only factor in sexuality and acceptance of such but some of the rest of us stay hidden better.Again: Sexuality, or sexual orientation, is not a lifestyle. It is an innate trait, like blonde hair or blue eyes.
Sexual fetishes can be lifestyles, or may simply be minor aspects of a person's personality or interests. Generally speaking they're just minor variations in someone's sexuality. I am totally happy if someone wishes to identify with their BDSM fetish, much like I identify as being a gamer or a feminist or a linguist. That's cool. Everyone should do whatever makes them feel happy.
But trying to equate the two and saying that sexual orientation is a sexual fetish is just wrong. Fetishes are about sexual pleasure. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to - in particular what gender you are attracted to.
Most gay people aren't even trying to make themselves "special snowflakes" -- they're trying to make themselves exist at all within the wider social conscience.
If you want to see more BDSM people appear in modern media, go for it, man! I support you. It's not something I'm into so I'm not going to be shouting from the rooftops for it, but I'll be happy to support your crusade to get it more widely recognised.
I think this is where the biggest part of 'speaking the same language and still saying different things' aspect comes into play.
I try to personalize it like this - I'm a darkie, by my own admission. I support miscegenation. I support the right for anyone to be as miserable with another person as they choose (to wit, marriage!). I'm all in favor of people being free to express their love as they see fit...IN THEORY. People sucking face in public is annoying regardless of gender or orientation in my book, so I will snark at overtly crass PDA. I won't DENY it, but just because I support the right for it doesn't mean I have to give a blank pass to all manifestations of it, because shagging in public is a fetish and bad form where there might be sensitive sorts about.
Gay, Straight, Bi, Asexual, doesn't matter.
My biggest hangup isn't the gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend as he walks down the street on their way to the Justice of the Peace to get married. My problem is with Mister I Wanna Dress Like Carmen Miranda and dry-hump my partner for the crowds, because LOOK AT ME I'M AN ATTENTION PROSTITUTE.
I feel the same way about the Mallgoths wanting to walk their girl-/boyfriends on leashes while wearing about half a school's metal shop projects on their face. Nothing wrong with piercings, or dressing in black and wearing mascara and seeking androgyny, but the cry for attention is annoying.
Note - I fully support outlandish acts fo glitter bombing for sake of drawing attention to the cause. I'm all about getting confrontational to bring about equality, even as I think the measured approach and disproving the stereotypes will carry the day in the end. But this is for getting REAL WORLD rights to people who are suffering everyday from inequality.
Having a hissy fit because someone doesn't portray gayness in their games, in the comforts of their home, trivializes the struggle, in my eyes.
During the 90s, an attempt to diversify a Japanese RPG's cast for purposes of appealing to a broader American market, resulted in the Macekre that was Revelations: Persona for the PlayStation. Turning one guy white with reddish hair and making the jokester from a stocking cap wearer into a ebonics speaking wise-cracking Shuck'n'jive Jr did not help matters.
Context is important, and malice-free omission is not necessarily WrongBadFun designed to hurt your heart and kick your puppy.
|
|
The point i am making is some of it is what you do, some is what you are.
Ok walk real slow with me through this. If you are ONLY attracted to someone extremely submissive to the point that you cannot get aroused to be capable of sex without that is it just "for pleasure" like "i like to spank" or more akin to a gay man only able to get aroused by another man? WHY is that such a difference to you?
And you don't think that some others would like to be accepted without hiding aspects of their lives? I would like to see it just a thing not some horrible weirdness or just a joke. The same as gays want to be, the same as many other groups. One thing that i wish to see is more people working for ACCEPTANCE OF ALL PEOPLE not just selfish pushing for their own group. be it race gender religion or sexuality it tends to always be about "me getting mine, the rest be damned"
It's intellectually dishonest to claim that they are the same when they are very different - as I've explained in my posts above. If you can't see the difference between "this object/situation gives me sexual pleasure" and "I am romantically and/or sexually attracted to the same gender" then I have nothing more to say.
Compounded is the fact that gay people often have to face people claiming their relationships aren't real or don't count; that they are "choosing" to be this way; that they are sinful, unnatural, deviant, and corrupting; etcetera. Most people also assume homosexuality is all sexual, too, when it is most certainly NOT. You rub a raw wound by trying to equate them to a sexual fetish, which is a) totally different, and b) reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is entirely sexual.
I never said I didn't want people to feel comfortable in their sexual fetishes or be derided for them. If a sexual fetish is consensual then that is A-OK with me. *shrug*
I don't think you should be able to display them in public in all situations, however. They are sexual fetishes. That is, by nature,...
And i believe you are being dishonest in denying the similarities. It is NOT about objects, it is about people and attraction. And same with gay folks can go far beyond the bedroom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I wake up and there is another 100+ posts on this thread!
Andrew R-
The difference is that I've never had a friend killed because they were into BDSM. I am not sure why you don't understand how the fight for gay rights improves the acceptance of BDSM people as well.
Alice Margatroid-
Paedophilia =/= child abuse. One is an orientation (probably hardwired, maybe not). The other is an action. If paedophilia were not so villainized, more people would seek psychiatric treatment for it before they acted on it.
Matthew,
As far as I understand it, BDSM is less about the pain itself (although I'm sure that's a thing) and more about power dynamics and trust.
Also, paedophilia involves the manipulation and rape of someone who has no ability to consent. It's much more about an abuse of power than about actual sexual attraction. It may be 'hard wired', but only in the sense that the desire to be a serial killer is. I believe that people with either the paraphilia or a murderous streak can be helped... preferably before they hurt anyone.
While I agree that there's no excuses or defense for paedophilia, I find the whole lolicon / shotacon phenomenon in Japan all the more confusing.
|
|
Wow, I wake up and there is another 100+ posts on this thread!
Andrew R-
The difference is that I've never had a friend killed because they were into BDSM. I am not sure why you don't understand how the fight for gay rights improves the acceptance of BDSM people as well.Alice Margatroid-
Paedophilia =/= child abuse. One is an orientation (probably hardwired, maybe not). The other is an action. If paedophilia were not so villainized, more people would seek psychiatric treatment for it before they acted on it.** spoiler omitted **
People get killed for lots of stuff, your group is not alone in that.
I am all for HUMAN rights, not one groups.It is not a matter of what the pedo's desires are, only his actions.
I am all for HUMAN rights, not one groups.
...and yet you still don't understand how the rights of one group will increase the visibility and rights of another.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So it is just "let me get mine so it can help you" not lets work together for all?...and yet you still don't understand how the rights of one group will increase the visibility and rights of another.
I am all for HUMAN rights, not one groups.
Ack. For some of us it is. How do you define 'all'?
Off topic rant.
So it is just "let me get mine so it can help you" not lets work together for all?...and yet you still don't understand how the rights of one group will increase the visibility and rights of another.
I am all for HUMAN rights, not one groups.
No, but what you are doing, which is trying to stop a group from achieving visibility to achieve it's goal (equal rights), is not "work[ing] together for all". What it IS doing is hurting that group, which in turn, hurts yours.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you do have to take into consideration that "normal society" isn't ready for all of that, Andrew R. As much as saying that sentence left a really bad taste in my mouth, it's kind of a fact. Some things stay in the internet, your diary or in your mind for a reason. What Paizo does NOT need is a huge outcry over "sexual deviants" or some similar scandal from the puritan crowd.So it is ok to make them "non-people" to focus on just one group getting full acceptance? And to make the accusation that not including enough of this one select group makes you a bigot or encouraging bigotry? But the others that are "not normal" well, we are not worried about them. Just reeks of hypocricy to me
I'd say it's more that we distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual practices. Orientation is about who you love, not what you do with them. Sexual practices are about what you do with the person you love.
We don't generally have a lot of content describing what people in relationships are doing with each other, just who they're in relationships with.
Orientation is about who you love, not what you do with them. Sexual practices are about what you do with the person you love.
Interesting. By your definition, I would have a heterosexual orientation. I certainly do not see myself that way, but I could see how others might.
I think you do have to take into consideration that "normal society" isn't ready for all of that, Andrew R. As much as saying that sentence left a really bad taste in my mouth, it's kind of a fact. Some things stay in the internet, your diary or in your mind for a reason. What Paizo does NOT need is a huge outcry over "sexual deviants" or some similar scandal from the puritan crowd.So it is ok to make them "non-people" to focus on just one group getting full acceptance? And to make the accusation that not including enough of this one select group makes you a bigot or encouraging bigotry? But the others that are "not normal" well, we are not worried about them. Just reeks of hypocrisy to meI'd say it's more that we distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual practices. Orientation is about who you love, not what you do with them. Sexual practices are about what you do with the person you love.
We don't generally have a lot of content describing what people in relationships are doing with each other, just who they're in relationships with.
I want to call this a fair and reasonable distinction, aside from the (measured, yet inaccurate to my cynical eyes) use of 'love' as the distinguishing characteristic. :)
That being said, I think it sharpens my point further from prior observations - having sexual orientation as a non-issue in one's campaign is, to my views and mostly to my good fortune so far, uncontroversial. Ditto sexual practices. However much of either being present is really a negotiable point between GM and player(s), and I would personally be more offended if they were handled badly than at all. Similarly, if I were to borrow the same dichotomy of description, I'd look at race and ethnicity the same way - race being the physical component (though in fantasy terms this can as much mean elf as dusky human), with ethnicity being the behavioural part themed around the peoples one has grown with and assimilated by dint of region and culture. This DOES fall apart somewhat with human context, as people of differing 'races' are technically of differing ethnotypes, by still humans. I'm not sure if ethnicity would be construed as a misnomer, malapropism, or imprecise euphemism in such cases, but when you look at the fact that Mwangi are as human as Taldans and Minkaian and Irrisiens and so on and so forth, it becomes....well, it doesn't confuse me as much as make for as much of a thought exercise in linguistics as in-setting equivalencies for terms that don't really require them (fireflies, anyone?).
Interesting. By your definition, I would have a heterosexual orientation. I certainly do not see myself that way, but I could see how others might.
Orientation is about who you love, not what you do with them. Sexual practices are about what you do with the person you love.
I perhaps shouldn't use the word "love," as I was using it a bit poetically rather than technically, for a technical distinction. "Are/want to be in a relationship with" might be a more exact phrasing.
This is something that's been on my mind for awhile. While I am personally not gay, I do realize and accept that many people are. So, I try to be unbiased and do my best to represent them as best as I can, allowing any player in a campaign of mine to be gay, giving people in a single player campaign gay romance options, having gay NPCs, and even playing gay characters myself, all while not trying to shove it down the throats of the other players and/or the DM. I'm only asking this question because I'm curious as to how others handle it outside of my small group of friends, since (as far as I've seen) no one has talked about it on here. I'm not trying to start a huge argument or anything over it, I just want to know how you tackle the situation in your campaigns in a mature manner.
Depends. What campaign you are playing? Some medieval stuff? Gay character can be killed by inquisitors. Planescape? None even cares about :D NPC? Chose personality for everyone.
Isn't "everyone's a bisexual in my fantasy land" just as bad in the opposite extreme as "nobody's bi/homosexual in my fantasy land"?Bigotry of this type also doesn't work well in a lot of fantasy settings. "I'm OK with elves sleeping with haflings, and dragons having it off with gnomes is fine, but two people of the same gender? NO!" It's even worse in Golarion. "No, I don't like women having sex with women. What do you mean, Sarenrae, Desna and Shelyn are involved? I, uh...crud."
Hence why I default NPC's to bisexual. It makes more sense for a game world like this. Obviously, it doesn't work that way in 1920's Call of Cthulhu - but they also don't have other races interacting with them, obvious magic and deities that get jiggy with each other (or at least I hope not...)
Possibly. But unless there's a reason not to, such as marriage or a statement that they aren't interested, I just borrow Paizo's party line and assume all NPC's are bi. Why would I assume someone isn't going to be interested in a same sex relationship? I can't really think of a good reason why they would object to a PC's advances just because of sex.
It's not as though I'm actively making the entire world one big gay party. The majority of people will be in 'normal' male/female gnome/half-orc relationships. I'm simply not automatically assuming someone that isn't in a relationship, and is available is straight without a reason. I suppose I could roll a percentile dice each time someone tries to chat someone up...
Ah. So it's less "everyone's bisexual" and more "Schrodinger's Sexuality". With the box being the PC coming onto them.
Interesting.
As for the rest of the discussion, hasn't it been proposed in the past that there's a difference between homosexuality (a "fetish" of sorts) and homoromance (a relationship between two of the same gender)?
And that while the two go hand-in-hand, it's not necessarily a given that they do so?
I always thought that was an interesting philosophy. Explains stuff like non-sexual "Bromances" and happily married (i.e. they enjoy married life and the relationship they have) men and women who suddenly discover they're gay/bi when they're attracted to someone of the same gender they know.
So how many of you include master/slave bdsm couples? "mother" and adult "baby" couples? Kissing cousins? Are you all bigots for not giving every group enough air time?
Actualy yes I include those relationships...though the PCs have not iscovered the "mother" and "adult baby one as of yet....
I also include group marriages, open marriages, um...you name it and if I know it exists it will probably be in either one of my character's background or some NPCs background if not now...probably at some point in the future.
Actualy one of most interesting PC/cohort relationship one of my characters has happens to be a master/slave bdsm type of relationship...with the cohort being the master.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that if you decide to create a fictional society and don't include any same-sex relationships in it, you are actively contributing to a cultural narrative that treats same-sex relationships as something abnormal, foreign or other by tacitly denying their existence in "normal" society, and therefore actively contributing to discrimination.
I believe statements like this are ridiculously inflammatory.
I mean, seriously. Someone doesn't add any same-sex relationships to their freakin' elfgames, and now they're "actively contributing to discrimination" ??!
Good grief. Is Paizo going to sell a set of Golarion-themed hip-waders anytime soon?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that if you decide to create a fictional society and don't include any same-sex relationships in it, you are actively contributing to a cultural narrative that treats same-sex relationships as something abnormal, foreign or other by tacitly denying their existence in "normal" society, and therefore actively contributing to discrimination.I believe statements like this are ridiculously inflammatory.
I mean, seriously. Someone doesn't add any same-sex relationships to their freakin' elfgames, and now they're "actively contributing to discrimination" ??!
Good grief. Is Paizo going to sell a set of Golarion-themed hip-waders anytime soon?
Yes, I believe that every time you create a world, you're also (intentionally or not) putting forth a worldview. To shift the discussion away from orientation to a different example, if you create a world and don't include any female leaders in that world (assuming, of course, that the point of the story isn't to create a dystopian society), you're putting forth a worldview that says that it is abnormal or unnatural for women to lead.
The idea that, for example, having every civilization in your world be white is a value-neutral setting, while having people of color is an "agenda" is pretty much a privileged viewpoint in a nutshell.
The idea that having a fantasy setting where all the leaders are straight white males is somehow less radical than having a setting where all the leaders are gay black women is ridiculous.
Avoiding sex scenes is easy. And most have no problem with that. Avoiding all of love, romance, or at least of relationships, is a bit harder. Is everyone, including all the NPCs, single? Do the characters have parents?And down the strawman goes!
Obviously one would not eradicate marriage or romance or relationships.
To use the Skull & Shackles as an example, the Cheliax Admiral from the 6th book, and her servant are lovers. The fact that Druvalia and Valeria were lovers really didn't add anything. You encounter them on a ship, and you kill them. Simple and easy. If a GM wished to add such a dalliance, it would be his prerogative, but in order to do that and make it meaningful, he would have to change more about the adventure than that. Plot adjustment, more "screen time" for the villains, etc.
Edit: Thank you Big Lemon, for your more eloquent explanation.
qlippoth want to elmainte marriage and all sexual relationships so there are not more cihldren and sinning souls coming over and taking the abyss from them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I believe that every time you create a world, you're also (intentionally or not) putting forth a worldview.
Or, y'know, maybe we're just playing a game.
To shift the discussion away from orientation to a different example, if you create a world and don't include any female leaders in that world (assuming, of course, that the point of the story isn't to create a dystopian society), you're putting forth a worldview that says that it is abnormal or unnatural for women to lead.
Or, perhaps, we haven't developed the world all that much as of yet?
Or, again, maybe we're just playing a game.
The idea that, for example, having every civilization in your world be white is a value-neutral setting, while having people of color is an "agenda" is pretty much a privileged viewpoint in a nutshell.
Who said anything about agendas?
What I reacted to was the crazy assertion that one is ACTIVELY contributing to discrimination by not having a same-sex relationship in their game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, y'know, maybe we're just playing a game.
What, exactly, would the thought process be behind creating a fictional world and deciding to populate it with nothing but heterosexual relationships and not with any homosexual relationships?
|
|
I perhaps shouldn't use the word "love," as I was using it a bit poetically rather than technically, for a technical distinction. "Are/want to be in a relationship with" might be a more exact phrasing.Interesting. By your definition, I would have a heterosexual orientation. I certainly do not see myself that way, but I could see how others might.
Orientation is about who you love, not what you do with them. Sexual practices are about what you do with the person you love.
And that standard makes some "fetish" folks an orientation. If i could only romantically love a truly in every aspect dom/sub would that differ than i could only love a man?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What, exactly, would the thought process be behind creating a fictional world and deciding to populate it with nothing but heterosexual relationships and not with any homosexual relationships?
Apparently, an attempt to coerce my friends into assisting me into "actively" oppressing minorities.
Seriously, though - perhaps ya'll get a bit deeper with your worlds than my group does, and that's great. But I don't create a fictional world and actively think about populating it with heterosexual relationships anymore than I think about populating it with homosexual relationships.
It's not that I'm at all opposed to it - I run the APs and modules that Paizo publishes as written. I don't edit out or change that much, and certainly have never given any consideration to changing any of the hetero sexual or homosexual relationships that have been depicted in those APs or modules.
But the assertion that someone "actively" discriminates by not including something in their homebrew fantasy world? That's utter nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense.