Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5292046">The "men wear pants and women wear dresses" is a usual trope of mass media to show that behind this tough woman there is a soft feminine side, and that can be true, just as behind this tough male soldier there can be a soft kitten-cuddling, rabbit-hugging soft side.  But there are just as often military women who wear pants, formal "outfits" look very much like mens outfits for them, some of them attend formal events in the miltiary dress uniforms.  And if we're still going with actual history here, throughout history, many men of many different social classes wore clothing similar to women.  Weathly Westerners of the past wore heels, with long skirt-like robes, the Japanse developed a variety of dress that is fairly unisex, it's purpose simply a light wear fitting to work or to fighting.  In poorer classes, men and women from around the world wore pants, because it was simpler and easier to work in than a dress.  Again, most games are going to assume sex is just sex, people who feel the desire to make sex into something more REALLY need to take their games less seriously.  And yes, it is something you COULD play into your character, but you could just as easily say your fighter was wounded and is sterile, or your druid uses the power of nature to control her cycle, or heck, your druid believes that having children is a GOOD thing, and wants to get pregnant, even in the middle of a grand adventure!  Yes, these are things you could portray as part of your character, but they are things that involve other things that generally only serve to complicate games.I'm not saying that the GM shouldn't acknowledge the PC's gender, or that the GM shouldn't act on it at ALL, but just that, for most significant reasons that we should differentiate men and women, such as sex and child bearing, these things serve only to make the game more complicated in a bad way.  Which means they are by and large, things to be avoided.  And things avoided have no bearing on the game.I COMPLETELY agree, DMs and players should strive to communicate with each other the intent of the story and the intent of the players when making their characters.  Many games I've partaken of often have 2 or 3 "introduction" sessions to get everyone to meet each other, and for players to talk with the GM about what they want to do and how they want to do their character.I'm not saying it's entirely inconsequential, just that it's much less significant than it seems it's being made out into.Women are actually capable of this....and this knowledge is...strange.In the real world?  sure.  In a fantasy world?  Only if you want them to.Yes, but again, the value of it is determined by the player.  How "female" they want to be is up to them.Fortunately for us all, in the particular setting of RPs, human interaction is only what you want it to be.1: Could they?  Without an image, it's possible they might not, perceptions are funny things like that, everyone has their own.2: That depends entirely on what that particular guy defines "feminine" as, and if he can appropriately translate that into his character.3: Doubtful.4: A more feminine man?  Again, it depends on what you want to define "feminine" as.  A feminine barbarian by barbarian standards could be a woman who likes her hair long, when it is impractical to fighting.  Or possibly "feminine" traits could be see as intelligence, ie: knowing how to read and write(an actual in-game option).  While neither of these traits would appear particularly feminine to outside society, or modern IRL society.</blockquote>

Verification