|
It sounds like it'd be written the same outside of a story with a strong internal dialogue.
Barring them explaining it or having it explicitly noted by others, yeah, pretty much.
Which would be why that's really hard to make clear in a work of fiction. I was just noting how it was possible to do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Haladir!Huh... it's a simple question. I endeavor to follow canon but I enjoy reading these turning points for myself. Like the undoing of the Asmodean paladins a while back. My request was not intended to sound sarcastic: where can I read about the new Erastil faith direction?Erastil's write-up in Inner Sea Gods supersedes his write-up in Rivers Run Red. Consider it errata rather than a retcon.
You're welcome.
All of the write-ups of the Core 20 deities in Inner Sea Gods supersede the earlier write-ups that appeared in the deity articles in the Adventure Path line.
This is how Paizo makes course corrections on the development of its world when it wants to re-write an eariler draft or something slipped through the continuity controls. They try not to draw attention to the changes, and rather just stop talking about the earlier interpretation. Again, they want players to consider changes like these to be errata rather than a retcon.
The problematic lines in the Erastil article in Rivers Run Red ran contrary to the Creative Director's vision of Erastil and his faith. In the later write-up, these lines were excised. There is no in-game reason for this change: that aspect of Erastil's faith was an error that was missed during the continuity edit pass and should never have been included in the first place.
It's like if a Feat was printed in a book that said it gave a +8 untyped bonus, but was supposed to be +4 circumstance bonus: It's an error that was missed in the edit passes that later gets corrected. There's no in-game reason why characters who had the feat are suddenly less effective: it was just an error in the rules.
And, if you're the GM, you get to say if you like the earlier "wrong" version of the setting better. If you feel that having a god of "home and hearth" value women less than men makes your game more fun or more interesting, then go ahead ans use it in your game. Just be cognizant that Paizo won't be printing any more support of that version.
While I was in High School, I thought I was asexual. All the others around me seemed so sex-driven, and I wasn't. It turned out later that my attraction was simply not nearly as pronounced as the others. If you add a third dimension to the Kinsey scale, I would be partway between asexual and heterosexual methinks.
I was not interested and in fact repulsed by the idea of that sort of interaction throughout high school. When I experimented when I was a bit older it really did nothing for me.
If you add dimensions to the Kinsey scale, shouldn't one take into account more dimensions than three?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was hard on me, all my girlfriends felt really insecure because there was no true desire in me even if i did love them. I felt broken, because people i care very much were hurt by my lack of desire. I thought that i was homossexual, but i had no desire either for men. So there can be a lot of pain in asexual life too. Some people expect to be desired, and think that you are cheating on them if you don´t want sex. This could be useful for writers for representing asexuals in fiction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for sharing that Draco, that is a raw and real account, and as painful as it sounds, I can see that being a really powerful and arresting thread in fiction. I really am learning allot from this thread. Took some serious mettle to talk about that aspect of your life, and I seriously do respect you for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So! I am not an Ace. But my fiance is. Furthermore, she is also aromantic. As this topic is one that has more of a personal impact on my life, I thought I'd share some of my thoughts.
Part of the reasons that Aces tend to be hard to portray in fiction and what not is due to the initial reaction people have. Just the other day, she told a friend about her orientation, and the friend's response was "Oh, you haven't found the right person yet." And that's not the first time. People have such a hard time understanding that a person has no sexual interest that they don't want to believe it, especially if the Ace in question has, understandably, not yet tried sex. In addition, people like to equate sex=feelings. After she pushed back against the right person thing, the friend asked how she could be getting married if she was an Ace.
our situation is more based on being extremely good friends, sharing a great deal of our interests and opinions, caring for each other very strongly, and a desire for companionship and someone to rely and depend on and support
That is an extremely good way to put it. She has no interest in doing anything with me that's sexual, but wants me around for everything else. We're extremely close. We share a lot of opinions. And, frankly, the fact that I'm willing to work with her Ace-ness is extremely appealing to her. However, that's what works for us.
For the layperson who knows nothing about it, an Ace is really just a person who is afraid of sex, or just hasn't met the right person. They'll want it once they try it, or find said right person. It makes it very hard to be heard when you're constantly told that your feelings are incorrect. It's hard to try to tell them how you feel when they tell you instead that you mean something else. After that, you just give up trying to correct them, and try to move on or ignore them.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
It sounds like it'd be written the same outside of a story with a strong internal dialogue.Barring them explaining it or having it explicitly noted by others, yeah, pretty much.
Which would be why that's really hard to make clear in a work of fiction. I was just noting how it was possible to do so.
Thinking about this, I'm pretty sure it's not that much more difficult to show one person's sexuality in a work of fiction as another's.
For instance: unless a character's sexuality is stated explicitly, you don't know what it is. You might assume they're straight, but that's a cultural influence from outside the text.
With fictional characters, showing someone's sexuality is entirely dependent on the medium, not the state of that sexuality. There are plenty of straight and straight-assumed characters in works with 3rd person limited narratives that examine the character's thoughts, and dialogue between characters can reveal this sort of information as well.
I keep coming back to thinking about Garth Nix's Clariel, the titular character of which exhibits an attitude toward romantic and/or sexual attraction that heavily implies she's ace or aro. It's not explicitly named as such, but that has more to do with the vocabulary of the setting than whether or not Clariel is ace/aro (and who struggles with this naming herself). This takes up, I dunno, maybe a couple of paragraphs in the chapter that outlines her growing up? Not exactly a difficult or arduous inclusion in the larger context of the novel.
For comparison, consider literally any character in a Pathfinder adventure whose romantic or sexual relationship is spelled out or hinted at. These fictional relationships take just as much effort to flesh out/mention as any other, right? You don't even have to use our modern and culturally specific terms for these things--the world of Golarion doesn't appear to have them, including terms like heterosexual/straight. But because sexual relationships between men and women are normalized (and everything else pathologized or considered non-normal), it flies past without notice. An asexual relationship could easily be described without using that specific term: a happily celibate marriage? Non-consummate lovers? It could be whatever.
|
|
I actually agree with all that for the most part.
I was referring specifically to demisexuality which is harder because in any narrative that lacks a view into their head, doesn't have them talk about their sexuality, and they aren't shown both in and out of love* they're gonna come off as something else rather than demisexual.
I mean...how in the world to you have, say, a side character who's married and faithful but doesn't talk about their relationship or sexuality indicate that they're demisexual? I mean, you can comment on them not even noticing attractive people other than their spouse...but that could as easily be several other things as demisexuality. Frankly, they come across as heterosexual, or homosexual, or bisexual, depending on context, rather than demisexual in almost all instances.
Or how do you indicate the demisexuality of a character who isn't in love with or attracted to anyone right now? How do you do anything to indicate they're not asexual?
IMO, there's showing them both in love and not in love, there's having them talk about it, and there's seeing into their heads. And that's...pretty much it.
Now most other sexual orientations, including asexuality, are somewhat easier to show because you just need to show in passing who they are (or are not) attracted to rather than provide an explanation or a full narrative. Though even there bisexuality and asexuality are harder to indicate without mentioning them by name or delving into things a bit.
.
.
.
*I use 'love' as somewhat inaccurate shorthand for how demisexuality really works throughout this for ease of use. Demisexuality is a spectrum and the exact degree of emotional connection required to be attracted to someone varies quite a bit from demisexual person to demisexual person. Romantic love is certainly the way it's most commonly presented...but personally, I just need to be close friends with someone for attraction to be possible (subject to other factors). Just for example.
Thinking about this, I'm pretty sure it's not that much more difficult to show one person's sexuality in a work of fiction as another's.
It very much is, especially if you're only hinting rather than showing. Cultural influences outside of the text are both inevitable and an important part of writing. Even if you think the author is dead the reader had better not be..
Heterosexual relationship:
The expectation of this relationship is so strong in the readers minds that any male and female pair is probably going to be presumed to do this without any part on the author. If you even need a further hint...
Just have kids running around. While a village of pod people isn't outside the world of possibility, if there are kids we all know how they get here and that strongly implies some heterosexual horizontal polka going on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the layperson who knows nothing about it, an Ace is really just a person who is afraid of sex, or just hasn't met the right person. They'll want it once they try it, or find said right person. It makes it very hard to be heard when you're constantly told that your feelings are incorrect. It's hard to try to tell them how you feel when they tell you instead that you mean something else. After that, you just give up trying to correct them, and try to move on or ignore them.
This so much. I had a roommate in college who prided herself on being super progressive and LBGT friendly (another roomie of ours was bi). So when I brought up being ace, her immediate response?
"Oh, that's just weird." She proceeded to spend several minutes on the usual "Haven't met the right person, etc. etc." spiel...and then complained I didn't spend much time in the common room hanging out with the roommates. Gee, wonder why.
Sex is so ingrained in our culture that it honestly feels like people are unwilling to wrap their minds around the idea that there are people who just don't care about it. It's incredibly frustrating.
Thanks Eliandra. I'll repeat my questions here, safely away from the scary dinosaur... :)
Question 2: How plausible would it be for asexual people to display themselves as overly sexualized like Seoni? (in a middle-age setting; not a modern setting) Wouldn't that engender a stream of useless attention towards them? Wouldn't such people get really fed up or angry at all the people hitting on them? (I'm guessing everyone would display their asexuality differently, same as straight of gay people have different styles; but I'm wondering about the plausibility of such a thing in a harsh, ancient world where Erastil is a thing...)
I know your question has already been answered, but this is a pretty neat article that addresses this issue pretty well.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
@ Deadmanwalking: Ah, yes, that's fair. Sorry that I missed that particular bit of context. It's definitely more difficult to show the subtlety of demisexuality succintly. In Pathfinder products, word count is really tight, so it's difficult to get into a really complex and deep understanding of a character's sexuality when you probably want to devote more space to their relevance to the world or the plot.
To echo, in a different way, what BNW pointed out about cultural influence: the difficulty ultimately stems not from portrayal but from reception. If there were a more widespread recognition of sexuality as a spectrum than as a binary model, it wouldn't be so difficult to put these things into words. And that's because the words themselves are hard to come by. I think the best way to integrate representation into something like Pathfinder is to have major NPCs that span the spectrum of gender and sexuality. The kind of characters that are going to have a two-page spread in the back of an AP that can examine their relationships and flesh them out as more complex characters. But it would also be great if there were minor characters in addition to that who were diverse. And it needs to be named, because otherwise people will assume that "no information given" means "straight" instead of no information or plotsexual.
Just have kids running around. While a village of pod people isn't outside the world of possibility, if there are kids we all know how they get here and that strongly implies some heterosexual horizontal polka going on.
Straight people aren't the only ones who can have kids.
Straight people aren't the only ones who can have kids.
Other ways are possible just not nearly as productive. Thats why (in the ultimate sense) heterosexuality is so prevelant
A world where sexuality is determined by culture rather than biology is so far from our reality as to be an exercise in transhumanism. The implications for society and the individuals alone take so much explaining to the audience that there's rarely any time left for an actual plot.
|
|
Honestly, I don't think it's really culture. I think it's that ingrained in most people. Only a very small percentage is ace, or even close to it. For most, especially in their teens and twenties, sex really is a primal urge, kind of like food.
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the root of a lot of peoples prejudices against all sorts of sexualities other than their own. "That's weird, I have no idea why anyone would find that appealing." is very much the attitude you describe, and in other contexts it often leads to "That's disgusting." and that is the core of a lot of objections to sexualities not considered mainstream.
That doesn't at all excuse dismissing people who are ace, of course.
Agreed entirely. :)
OTOH, as far as "Haven't met the right person" goes, since we've just been talking about demisexuality, how would a demisexual who hasn't met the right person be distinguished from an asexual, even to themselves?
Yeah...this can be an issue. It can be an issue with someone bisexual but preferring one gender over the other, too. And in a variety of other situations.
Really, sexuality is quite a bit more fluid than many people acknowledge.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Straight people aren't the only ones who can have kids.Other ways are possible just not nearly as productive. Thats why (in the ultimate sense) heterosexuality is so prevelant
A world where sexuality is determined by culture rather than biology is so far from our reality as to be an exercise in transhumanism. The implications for society and the individuals alone take so much explaining to the audience that there's rarely any time left for an actual plot.
Nah.
I have nothing at all against characters like this existing.
That being said, I don't want tokenism to become a common thing in Pathfinder. The chance of a person being asexual is very low. The chance of a person being both significant (such as a famous artist or political figure) and asexual is even more so. As long as the character has more depth to them than "the asexual one", it could be an interesting character trait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Valeros is a blatant token Andoranite. Shameful. Political correctness has gone too far.
I have nothing at all against characters like this existing.
That being said, I don't want tokenism to become a common thing in Pathfinder. The chance of a person being asexual is very low. The chance of a person being both significant (such as a famous artist or political figure) and asexual is even more so. As long as the character has more depth to them than "the asexual one", it could be an interesting character trait.
Has Paizo ever done that? With all the non-white, gay, lesbian, trans characters they've used, have any of them been tokens?
Why does this always come up, as if Paizo is suddenly going to turn around and take exactly the same kinds of characters they've been using for years, but now do it badly?
It's because they've done so well in the past that the topic comes up: it comes from a place of care. If they didn't do so well in the past, there'd be no reason to bring it up as they're not afraid of anything being worsened.
There's a pressure onto content creators to be inclusive of all possible groups and identities; more so now than ever. All I'm stating is I hope Paizo keeps producing quality while including these groups/identities and refrains from rushing in order to appease them sooner.
Valeros is a blatant token Andoranite. Shameful. Political correctness has gone too far.
And Ezren is the blatant 'dirty ol' white guy'?
Ha. Concern trolling.
I'm a fan of Pathfinder and the work they've done. Being a fan, and seeing this topic, I wanted to say (in a public forum) that I'm fully for Paizo embracing different sexualities and life styles. The only concern I raised, and note that I'm rather new to the forum itself and didn't know this was a common thing people have done, was that I hope Paizo incorporates such traits properly as to not create shallow characters or offend those who share the traits. I'm by no means trolling anything.
You say that Paizo isn't appeasing anyone, yet follow that up by saying "Other than from the LGTBQA people ...". Is that not the very topic this thread is about? If so, I fail to see how the concern could be out of place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha. Concern trolling.
I'm a fan of Pathfinder and the work they've done. Being a fan, and seeing this topic, I wanted to say (in a public forum) that I'm fully for Paizo embracing different sexualities and life styles. The only concern I raised, and note that I'm rather new to the forum itself and didn't know this was a common thing people have done, was that I hope Paizo incorporates such traits properly as to not create shallow characters or offend those who share the traits. I'm by no means trolling anything.
You say that Paizo isn't appeasing anyone, yet follow that up by saying "Other than from the LGTBQA people ...". Is that not the very topic this thread is about? If so, I fail to see how the concern could be out of place.
You left off the important part of that quote. A decent amount of the people who work at Paizo are in that group. So it's not appeasement in the sense of catering to a distant cultural group so much as appeasing their own interests.
You left off the important part of that quote. A decent amount of the people who work at Paizo are in that group. So it's not appeasement in the sense of catering to a distant cultural group so much as appeasing their own interests.Ha. Concern trolling.
I'm a fan of Pathfinder and the work they've done. Being a fan, and seeing this topic, I wanted to say (in a public forum) that I'm fully for Paizo embracing different sexualities and life styles. The only concern I raised, and note that I'm rather new to the forum itself and didn't know this was a common thing people have done, was that I hope Paizo incorporates such traits properly as to not create shallow characters or offend those who share the traits. I'm by no means trolling anything.
You say that Paizo isn't appeasing anyone, yet follow that up by saying "Other than from the LGTBQA people ...". Is that not the very topic this thread is about? If so, I fail to see how the concern could be out of place.
Ah, I took that piece to mean that the people working at Paizo were making content they found enjoyable in a personal sense OUTSIDE of the LGTBQA.
Still though, I wasn't trolling by any means nor meant offense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An asexual relationship could easily be described without using that specific term: a happily celibate marriage? Non-consummate lovers? It could be whatever.
[
*headscratch* really not seeing any relationship (pardon the pun) between whats being discussed and the idea there. That looks more like good cop bad cop trolling than asexual differently gendered life partners.
It came up more on the forum back when this was a new topic in the comic. I always understood it to be very close friends who served as emotional anchors for each other to help keep them stable. It's not a perfect fit, and I mostly bring it up because my also ace boyfriend mentioned it to me as "I think this is as close to something we can use to explain as we're gonna find."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see asexuality being an interesting RP topic when Erastil and or Callistra are concerned.
Ahhh yes, Erastil is no longer the god of bear feet and sandwiches (for which we are all bloody well thankful, I could not stand his followers when he was still the god of...you know, starts with miso...)
That sounds like a particularly bizarre Aspect of the Beast. lol
(Sorry, I couldn't resist)Anyway, I never got the impression that Erastil was all that misogynist, certainly not like Asmodeus, he just has some fairly definite ideas about gender roles. Now of course, some people are going to find that distasteful, but one could say the same of Calistria's debauchery, Zon-Kuthon's masochism, heck every deity probably has some aspect that someone will take issue with.
|
So, this is obviously a very heated/touchy subject for some, but I'll do my best in treading lightly as to not explode on something.
I saw some posts about a certain Adventure Path NPC being a (potentially) bad representation for asexuals, and that being part of the discussion. I mean, not to be rude but should it matter what their sexual preferences are? I mean, regardless of their sexual preferences a villain is a villain. So long as the sexual preference isn't the basis for their villainy, everything should be fine, right?
I don't own the AP yet, so forgive me if I'm wrong about certain aspects of it.
*Looks at 10ft pole*
Nope, not even gonna touch it.
|
|
So, this is obviously a very heated/touchy subject for some, but I'll do my best in treading lightly as to not explode on something.
I saw some posts about a certain Adventure Path NPC being a (potentially) bad representation for asexuals, and that being part of the discussion. I mean, not to be rude but should it matter what their sexual preferences are? I mean, regardless of their sexual preferences a villain is a villain. So long as the sexual preference isn't the basis for their villainy, everything should be fine, right?
I don't own the AP yet, so forgive me if I'm wrong about certain aspects of it.
I'm spoilering this because it's a pretty big spoiler for Hell's Rebels, but really, the fact that the details of someone's sexual orientation are a plot point is pretty much sufficient to say that it would not be ideal representation.
That said, the Hell's Rebels players guide indicates that Barzillai Thrune had never had a lover, which in and of itself was not thrilling. Another stereotype of aces is that we aren't really human or lack human emotion. So seeing a sadistic murderer as the first asexual character would not really be the kind of character we would want to see either.
So, yes, someone can be asexual and a villain. Someone can be asexual and sadistic or asexual and <fulfilling of all other stereotypes>. But the problem is that the first instance of a minority group has to stand in for all members of that group until there are more representations. And it's better if that first case does not serve to confirm some of the major negative stereotypes about a group.
But James Jacobs said he wasn't asexual.
Or do you not remember him telling you that.
All good. :-)
Thanks for clarifying. :-)
|
|
So, this is obviously a very heated/touchy subject for some, but I'll do my best in treading lightly as to not explode on something.
I saw some posts about a certain Adventure Path NPC being a (potentially) bad representation for asexuals, and that being part of the discussion. I mean, not to be rude but should it matter what their sexual preferences are? I mean, regardless of their sexual preferences a villain is a villain. So long as the sexual preference isn't the basis for their villainy, everything should be fine, right?
I don't own the AP yet, so forgive me if I'm wrong about certain aspects of it.
I'm spoilering this because it's a pretty big spoiler for Hell's Rebels, but really, the fact that the details of someone's sexual orientation are a plot point is pretty much sufficient to say that it would not be ideal representation.
** spoiler omitted **
That said, the Hell's Rebels players guide indicates that Barzillai Thrune had never had a lover, which in and of itself was not thrilling. Another stereotype of aces is that we aren't really human or lack human emotion. So seeing a sadistic murderer as the first asexual character would not really be the kind of character we would want to see either.
So, yes, someone can be asexual and a villain. Someone can be asexual and sadistic or asexual and <fulfilling of all other stereotypes>. But the problem is that the first instance of a minority group has to stand in for all members of that group until there are more representations. And it's better if that first case does not serve to confirm some of the major negative stereotypes about a group.
Uh-huh...well, I guess it's good that it was clarified that he wasn't asexual.
Going to drop off from the conversation from here on. Almost wrote a big 'ol thing, but I'd rather not accidentally kindle a flame war or look like a bigot. I'll resort to watching the thread for now.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
So, this is obviously a very heated/touchy subject for some, but I'll do my best in treading lightly as to not explode on something.
I saw some posts about a certain Adventure Path NPC being a (potentially) bad representation for asexuals, and that being part of the discussion. I mean, not to be rude but should it matter what their sexual preferences are? I mean, regardless of their sexual preferences a villain is a villain. So long as the sexual preference isn't the basis for their villainy, everything should be fine, right?
I don't own the AP yet, so forgive me if I'm wrong about certain aspects of it.
I'm spoilering this because it's a pretty big spoiler for Hell's Rebels, but really, the fact that the details of someone's sexual orientation are a plot point is pretty much sufficient to say that it would not be ideal representation.
** spoiler omitted **
That said, the Hell's Rebels players guide indicates that Barzillai Thrune had never had a lover, which in and of itself was not thrilling. Another stereotype of aces is that we aren't really human or lack human emotion. So seeing a sadistic murderer as the first asexual character would not really be the kind of character we would want to see either.
So, yes, someone can be asexual and a villain. Someone can be asexual and sadistic or asexual and <fulfilling of all other stereotypes>. But the problem is that the first instance of a minority group has to stand in for all members of that group until there are more representations. And it's better if that first case does not serve to confirm some of the major negative stereotypes about a group.
Uh-huh...well, I guess it's good that it was clarified that he wasn't asexual.
Going to drop off from the conversation from here on. Almost wrote a big 'ol thing, but I'd rather not accidentally kindle a flame war or look like a bigot. I'll resort to watching the thread for now.
If you're still watching the thread, there's also a long history in media of villains who are "subversive" i.e. not cisgender or straight. These villains and evil doers are very often the only portrayal of characters with diverse gender and/or sexuality.
In these roles, the apparent disregard for gender norms is conflated with an overall threat to normalcy and an inclination toward evil and chaos. And while these characters can sometimes be complex, they're more often stereotypes. And if they're ever not villains, they're probably comic relief rather than complex characters who are allies, or the protagonists themselves.
|
|
If you're still watching the thread, there's also a long history in media of villains who are "subversive" i.e. not cisgender or straight. These villains and evil doers are very often the only portrayal of characters with diverse gender and/or sexuality.
In these roles, the apparent disregard for gender norms is conflated with an overall threat to normalcy and an inclination toward evil and chaos. And while these characters can sometimes be complex, they're more often stereotypes. And if they're ever not villains, they're probably comic relief rather than complex characters who are allies, or the protagonists themselves.
Yeah, this.
To put it another way:
For a long time a lot of minority groups, particularly less 'mainstream' sexual preferences and gender presentations, have been almost solely portrayed as villains. Which, due to the strong influence media has over the minds of those who consume it, tends to heighten and/or reinforce real-world prejudices. It is thus somewhat problematic if your work of fiction portrays them solely in this manner.
If the only gay guy (or asexual girl, or non-gender binary person, or woman into BDSM, or whoever) in your fiction is Evil...this has certain unfortunate implications about such people as a whole. Not necessarily intentional ones, but very real ones nonetheless.
Now, this isn't an inherent or unavoidable problem if you have non-Evil people of the same minority group around to clearly demonstrate that the minority group isn't what makes them Evil. But so far, we lack any definitively asexual non-Evil people in Golarion...which would've made including an Evil one somewhat problematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also something called "coded gay" that a lot of villains in fiction have, which is where they display so-called "gay traits" to make them seem weird, deviant, or just silly. Ursula from The Little Mermaid is probably the best example in kids' media, since she was actually based on the drag queen Divine. And don't get me wrong, I think Ursula's a great and fun villain, but there was definitely some unconscious prejudice associated with, "How do we make her seem weird and threatening?"
"Coded gay" is fairly distinct from what's being discussed here, but it's the same principle: LGBTAQ vilains' orientation/identity being used to reflect part of their personality, instead of being incidental to it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back when I took the class Anthropology of Sex and Gender in university we learned about a lesser known tribe in Indonesia called the Dani. What's unique about the Dani is that they all appear to be asexual.
Here is a quote about them in the book "Women Celibacy and Passion" by Sally Cline.
One of the most abstemious groups ever to be studied, whose rigid restrictions about marital intercourse result in lengthy celibate periods is the Dani of Irian, Jaya, Indonesia, whose males and females sleep in separate compounds. Anthropologist Karl Heider observed the Dani for thirty months and learnt that sustained periods of celibacy were the norm, that weddings took place only on the major pigfeasts which occur every four to six years, that the wedding night has no sexual significance because couples are not allowed to have intercourse until two years after the wedding. Most nights the men sleep in the loft of the men's house while the women sleep in their all-female compound. After the birth of a child there is a further celibate custom of total abstinence from intercourse for several years. Interestingly this code never appears to be infringed.Karl Heider's conclusions about the Dani bear out the idea that where genital abstention is culturally invoked there are absolutely no problems attached to it. He reported that the Grand Valley Danis' four to six year post-partum genital abstinence is invariably observed, that such a long abstention is neither supported by powerful explanations nor is it enforced by strong sanctions, that most people have no alternative sexual outlets, and seem to need none, and that no one shows the slightest sign of unhappiness or stress during celibacy.
Germaine Greer comments that there was no evidence that these people's sexual energies were being sublimated into artistic activities or warfare which she notes is the usual 'compensation'. She seems to have fallen into the same genital trap I fell into earlier. The Dani, wisely, do not feel that genital abstention needs to be compensated for. They seemed to have both a low interest in sexual matters and a very low activity level. What perplexed Heider the most was that this remarkably low level of sexual activity combined with a highly controlled celibate programme was not enforced by any powerful system of either social or religious sanctions.
I bring this up not be insulting but because paizo likes to model cultures on Golarion after our own. Which is great! But, here is a society where asexuality is completely normal and if you want to introduce a people like that, or if paizo would want to use it they/you can.
By the way if you want to verify what I am saying is correct, I believe there are two different tribes named Dani. So just make sure you look up the right one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, not even gonna touch it.
That's the basic idea...
Sure. And only confirmed as asexual on the forum. That's...not quite the same thing as having such characters in print.
Because its something that's hard to show or hint at, both because its the absence of something and the concept is so strange to the readers that you can't hint at it, you need a sign, but signs violate show don't tell.
|
|
Because its something that's hard to show or hint at, both because its the absence of something and the concept is so strange to the readers that you can't hint at it, you need a sign, but signs violate show don't tell.
Oh, totally. I'm not sure its possible to have an asexual iconic in print outside the comic book. An asexual character, sure...but Iconics are all backstory (until they show up in the comic, anyway) and making asexuality explicit is nearly impossible in that format unless its all you focus on.
But the issue under discussion was the theoretical possibility (that didn't happen) of Paizo making the first in-print explicitly asexual character a villain. And Reiko, while awesome, isn't really a super good argument against that.
It's also harder because it's an iconic, not a character who's really seem in the world. Which is part of the problem.
That said, it is quite easy to depict. Just have a character who has never been in a physical relationship, and say it's because they aren't interested. Or have two NPCs, and say they used to be a couple but it didn't work out due to _____'s lack of an interest in the relationship's physical side.
It's really not that hard to do, and "show don't tell" applies to the GM, not to the person telling the GM all the info they need.
|
|
It's also harder because it's an iconic, not a character who's really seem in the world. Which is part of the problem.
That said, it is quite easy to depict. Just have a character who has never been in a physical relationship, and say it's because they aren't interested. Or have two NPCs, and say they used to be a couple but it didn't work out due to _____'s lack of an interest in the relationship's physical side.
It's really not that hard to do, and "show don't tell" applies to the GM, not to the person telling the GM all the info they need.
Agreed entirely in terms of AP characters and the like, it's just a little harder with the Iconic characters IMO.