Teflon Billy
Explorer
Re: Re: Default Fantasy Sexuality
Out nailing some guy
Sorry Angel, couldn't resist
the Jester said:
Out nailing some guy
Sorry Angel, couldn't resist
Homophobic Elves
- Thread starter The Blue Wizard
- Start date
- Status
Teflon Billy
Explorer
Re: Default Fantasy Sexuality
Heh, too true man
Coreyartus said:
Heh, too true man
the Jester
Legend
Re: Re: Re: Default Fantasy Sexuality
Hehehe... I don't think he'll mind this comment, iirc you're usually pretty respectful of different sexual attitudes and he's usually pretty open to a good joke about bein' gay... after all, he IS the official gay mascot of ENWorld...
Teflon Billy said:
Out nailing some guy
Sorry Angel, couldn't resist
Hehehe... I don't think he'll mind this comment, iirc you're usually pretty respectful of different sexual attitudes and he's usually pretty open to a good joke about bein' gay... after all, he IS the official gay mascot of ENWorld...
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Re: Default Fantasy Sexuality
To belabor the obvious, heterosexuality is the norm.
The 10% Statistic is a myth based on extremely shoddy research. The sample group for the Kinsey study consisted of male inmates and the 10% question was basically "Have you ever engaged in homosexual sex?" The actual statistical occurence of homosexuality is closer to 3%.
On the contrary, ignoring something is the best way to ensure it is not an issue in a given context. What's more, I find it hard to believe that me (or any GM) not including homosexual characters in their campaigns has absolutely anything to do with forever condemning people to the horrors or being uncomfortable.
My campaign is for the entertainment of myself and my friends. It does not exist to push anyone's social agenda, not even mine.
To belabor the obvious, heterosexuality is the norm.
The 10% Statistic is a myth based on extremely shoddy research. The sample group for the Kinsey study consisted of male inmates and the 10% question was basically "Have you ever engaged in homosexual sex?" The actual statistical occurence of homosexuality is closer to 3%.
On the contrary, ignoring something is the best way to ensure it is not an issue in a given context. What's more, I find it hard to believe that me (or any GM) not including homosexual characters in their campaigns has absolutely anything to do with forever condemning people to the horrors or being uncomfortable.
My campaign is for the entertainment of myself and my friends. It does not exist to push anyone's social agenda, not even mine.
Re: Re: Default Fantasy Sexuality
Correct. However, it is important that our society reevaluates the intent of a word like "norm."
If by "norm" one means the dominant, most likely occurance, or majority, then things are fine. If, however, one uses a word like "norm" to imply a preference, a positive, or as something with intrinisically more value, then we run into a problem.
While I have issues with the Kinsey Report (despite the fact that it got Americans talking about sex to a degree that just won't stop), I would have to question your conclusion and the basis upon which that conclusion was drawn.
Despite marked improvements in this country regarding sexuality, there continue to be stigmas associated with homosexuality. How many men or women, even if they are assured of their anonymity, are willing to come out in a survey? Additionally, there's been a trend for years in the Black American population in which some men engage in homosexual acitivity, never have any intimate relationships with women (are extremely limited ones), and would probably be considered gay by most people, yet do not perceive themselves as gay. How would those numbers be affected with this kind of thing?
Agreed. It's typically not until the majority are affected by something that any attention is called on an issue. Ignoring something is often the best means to reduce its impact. Sometimes, but the caveats are a discussion for another time.
Mark Chance said:
Correct. However, it is important that our society reevaluates the intent of a word like "norm."
If by "norm" one means the dominant, most likely occurance, or majority, then things are fine. If, however, one uses a word like "norm" to imply a preference, a positive, or as something with intrinisically more value, then we run into a problem.
Mark Chance said:
While I have issues with the Kinsey Report (despite the fact that it got Americans talking about sex to a degree that just won't stop), I would have to question your conclusion and the basis upon which that conclusion was drawn.
Despite marked improvements in this country regarding sexuality, there continue to be stigmas associated with homosexuality. How many men or women, even if they are assured of their anonymity, are willing to come out in a survey? Additionally, there's been a trend for years in the Black American population in which some men engage in homosexual acitivity, never have any intimate relationships with women (are extremely limited ones), and would probably be considered gay by most people, yet do not perceive themselves as gay. How would those numbers be affected with this kind of thing?
Mark Chance said:
Agreed. It's typically not until the majority are affected by something that any attention is called on an issue. Ignoring something is often the best means to reduce its impact. Sometimes, but the caveats are a discussion for another time.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Re: Default Fantasy Sexuality
You might run into a problem with value judgments, but I usually don't, nor do most of the people I know. Each to their own, I suppose.
The report was statistically flawed, and this is generally recognized by researchers. Kinsey's methodolgy would be akin to me taking survey of high-school students, asking the question "Have you ever thought about killing yourself?" and then using the data to say that X% of all people are suicidal.
I haven't seen much improvement on the topic of sexuality of any sort. What I have seen is a lot of obfuscation, political chicanery, and faulty conclusions based on flawed research.
This thread itself is an example of how people today cannot talk sensibly about sexuality. The original poster asked a question about a particular aspect of the game, and now there are people trumpeting the inclusion of all sorts of hyphenated-sexualities as some sort of panacea for perceived social injustices while others (such as myself) discuss proper statistical methodology while others make remarkably ignorant generalizations about Christianity being anti-sex or cite nonsense about the Catholic Church sanctioning same-sex sexual relationships.
What's more, I'm willing to bet all the talk of tolerance and acceptance and lauding multi-cultural diversity would go right out the window should anyone dare to transgress against the by-laws of political correctness and claim that homosexuality is an aberrant mental condition. We (meaning people in general) seem to love being tolerant, but only so long as we don't have to tolerate people who disagree with us.
Which is why, again, my game is for my entertainment and the entertainment of my players. Nothing more, nothing less. If we (meaning me and my players) want to engage in a lively debate about this or that topic, we put the dice and the books away and talk.
To me, that seems a much more sensible way to do things.
The Serge said:
You might run into a problem with value judgments, but I usually don't, nor do most of the people I know. Each to their own, I suppose.
The report was statistically flawed, and this is generally recognized by researchers. Kinsey's methodolgy would be akin to me taking survey of high-school students, asking the question "Have you ever thought about killing yourself?" and then using the data to say that X% of all people are suicidal.
I haven't seen much improvement on the topic of sexuality of any sort. What I have seen is a lot of obfuscation, political chicanery, and faulty conclusions based on flawed research.
This thread itself is an example of how people today cannot talk sensibly about sexuality. The original poster asked a question about a particular aspect of the game, and now there are people trumpeting the inclusion of all sorts of hyphenated-sexualities as some sort of panacea for perceived social injustices while others (such as myself) discuss proper statistical methodology while others make remarkably ignorant generalizations about Christianity being anti-sex or cite nonsense about the Catholic Church sanctioning same-sex sexual relationships.
What's more, I'm willing to bet all the talk of tolerance and acceptance and lauding multi-cultural diversity would go right out the window should anyone dare to transgress against the by-laws of political correctness and claim that homosexuality is an aberrant mental condition. We (meaning people in general) seem to love being tolerant, but only so long as we don't have to tolerate people who disagree with us.
Which is why, again, my game is for my entertainment and the entertainment of my players. Nothing more, nothing less. If we (meaning me and my players) want to engage in a lively debate about this or that topic, we put the dice and the books away and talk.
To me, that seems a much more sensible way to do things.
Tetsubo
First Post
I've always played Elves as basicly bisexual. Many have a tendency towards one sex or the other but some are a near even 50/50 split. This has made a few players uncomfortable but I never pressed the issue. Elves never played a major role in first person. They were more of a political force behind the scenes.
I've been playing with an idea for Dwarves. having the society as matriarchy. The female to male birth ratio would be about 1:3. So female Dwarves become very important to the Dwarven race. In addition they have solved the mating ratio issue by having group marriages. A Dwarven female will normally have two husbands. One Hearth husband that stays at home and a World husband that goes out to earn fame, fortune and glory. Powerful female Dwarves would have a third or possibly even a fourth husband. The social pressure against gay Dwarves would be severe.
I figure that the ratio of straight to gay persons in the other races would be similar to humans. Though Half-Elves might have a higher percentage.
I've been playing with an idea for Dwarves. having the society as matriarchy. The female to male birth ratio would be about 1:3. So female Dwarves become very important to the Dwarven race. In addition they have solved the mating ratio issue by having group marriages. A Dwarven female will normally have two husbands. One Hearth husband that stays at home and a World husband that goes out to earn fame, fortune and glory. Powerful female Dwarves would have a third or possibly even a fourth husband. The social pressure against gay Dwarves would be severe.
I figure that the ratio of straight to gay persons in the other races would be similar to humans. Though Half-Elves might have a higher percentage.
Coreyartus
Explorer
Re: Re: Default Fantasy Sexuality
You are very right--D&D isn't a forum for discussing political issues. And if you want it to be that's great because you can always cater your own campaign to whatever criteria you want it to emulate.
But consider that finding the mere mention of homosexuality in RPG's to be so rare that people actually have to go out of their way to share the information (i.e. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaymers), well... that's just sad and frustrating.
I personally happen to enjoy the "non-ignoring" of it in my gaming experiences--it makes me feel included, validated, part of the group, and allows me to enjoy myself without having to be on my guard against potentially hurtful comments (albeit unintentional) that make me feel somewhat like a sub-human whose entertainment isn't as important as the rest of the heterosexuals present. When it's at least acknowledged, I lighten up, I concentrate better, I'm a better role-player, and I contibute to the overall general effectiveness of the experience in a much more positive way. I'm sure others can echo my opinion. It's just more fun.
I'm not saying every campaign should follow my criteria, I just think it's an ironic situation that commercially, there are so few RPG items that even acknowledge the option! Ignorance isn't bliss: it's exclusion. I don't care if it's 10% or 3% or whatever... just don't ignore it. It indicates that as an industry, RPG's still have a lot of growing up to do...
You are right, this thread has changed topics from the original post. You certainly wouldn't see a topic like "Heterosexual Elves?" would you? And that's my point.
--Coreyartus
Mark Chance said:
You are very right--D&D isn't a forum for discussing political issues. And if you want it to be that's great because you can always cater your own campaign to whatever criteria you want it to emulate.
But consider that finding the mere mention of homosexuality in RPG's to be so rare that people actually have to go out of their way to share the information (i.e. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaymers), well... that's just sad and frustrating.
I personally happen to enjoy the "non-ignoring" of it in my gaming experiences--it makes me feel included, validated, part of the group, and allows me to enjoy myself without having to be on my guard against potentially hurtful comments (albeit unintentional) that make me feel somewhat like a sub-human whose entertainment isn't as important as the rest of the heterosexuals present. When it's at least acknowledged, I lighten up, I concentrate better, I'm a better role-player, and I contibute to the overall general effectiveness of the experience in a much more positive way. I'm sure others can echo my opinion. It's just more fun.
I'm not saying every campaign should follow my criteria, I just think it's an ironic situation that commercially, there are so few RPG items that even acknowledge the option! Ignorance isn't bliss: it's exclusion. I don't care if it's 10% or 3% or whatever... just don't ignore it. It indicates that as an industry, RPG's still have a lot of growing up to do...
You are right, this thread has changed topics from the original post. You certainly wouldn't see a topic like "Heterosexual Elves?" would you? And that's my point.
--Coreyartus
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Re: Default Fantasy Sexuality
For you, sad and frustrating. For me, a welcome fact. The great thing about America is the idea of voluntary associations of like-minded individuals being a basic right. If you want to game way X, then you can find people who also want to game way X and do so. I prefer to game way Y, and I've put together a group that agrees. More power to me; more power to you.
No it's not. There isn't a single RPG publisher out there that publishes material that forbids the inclusion of characters of whatever sexual orientation. Consider "Sunless Citadel". As it is written, there are no homosexual characters. Does this that I as a GM cannot add or change what is presented to include them? Of course not.
I've never run a premade adventure without altering it to suit the tastes of me and my group. Claiming that just because a company doesn't want to take the risk (and it is a risk) of specifically targeting a very small group of people at the possible expense of alienating the much larger group isn't ignorance or discrimination or anything else sinister. It is simply good business sense.
Coreyartus said:
For you, sad and frustrating. For me, a welcome fact. The great thing about America is the idea of voluntary associations of like-minded individuals being a basic right. If you want to game way X, then you can find people who also want to game way X and do so. I prefer to game way Y, and I've put together a group that agrees. More power to me; more power to you.
No it's not. There isn't a single RPG publisher out there that publishes material that forbids the inclusion of characters of whatever sexual orientation. Consider "Sunless Citadel". As it is written, there are no homosexual characters. Does this that I as a GM cannot add or change what is presented to include them? Of course not.
I've never run a premade adventure without altering it to suit the tastes of me and my group. Claiming that just because a company doesn't want to take the risk (and it is a risk) of specifically targeting a very small group of people at the possible expense of alienating the much larger group isn't ignorance or discrimination or anything else sinister. It is simply good business sense.
Wow - haven't been around here in awhile, and I am impressed. I can't believe this thread hasn't exploded into flames yet.
Here's my take/experiences on the issue. I don't make a point of introducing homosexuality in the game, but it does exist. For most cultures, it is tolerated if thought a bit odd or bohemian. The dwarves tend to be more homophobic and the elves more open, but this is all in my mind and perceptions. It isn't anything that gets dealt with on a daily basis. Neither is heterosexuality. They are more concerned with politics, rampaging orc hordes, and the evil overlord than with who is getting frisky with who.
Here's my take/experiences on the issue. I don't make a point of introducing homosexuality in the game, but it does exist. For most cultures, it is tolerated if thought a bit odd or bohemian. The dwarves tend to be more homophobic and the elves more open, but this is all in my mind and perceptions. It isn't anything that gets dealt with on a daily basis. Neither is heterosexuality. They are more concerned with politics, rampaging orc hordes, and the evil overlord than with who is getting frisky with who.
- Status
Similar Threads
