Tell me about the women in your world!

[Timeboxer]

This thread seems to be in danger of taking an odd and disturbing turn. So, to head it off, I'll raise the issue that seems to be creeping in incrementally: what do GMs do to prevent the sexualization of the gaming dynamic when their campaigns confront sexualized or eroticized events?

It doesn't come up.

I have a player who, for some reason, always insists that she wants to play gay guys in D&D. I don't tell her "no," since, well, it's her character, but I also think that overt sexuality doesn't, or shouldn't, have a place in an adventure. So the BBEG is a woman -- big deal. So the guy you're going to save is this other guy's consort -- big deal. Sexuality, per se, doesn't really have a place at the gaming table, I feel.

By contrast, social issues related to sexuality may or may not be relevant. F'rinstance, I've had plans in my head lurking around for months regarding the issue of "warforged marriage" in Eberron, and what people's reactions to it would be, or the ramifications of a shortage of magical contraceptives in a metropolis. But any actual sexual aspects will either be not mentioned or glossed over -- it just doesn't belong at the table. I think, anyway.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think the preferred form is "It doesn't belong at MY table."

One of the cool things about threads like this is the staggering breadth of attitudes and assumptions people have about the way the game is played. And it's great to see so many different ideas and approaches to the game. Seems like fusangite knows very large amounts about history and philosophy and stuff, and so his games obviously feature that sort of stuff and sound like great games to play in, to me, even if they aren't the sort of games I'm capable of running (or maybe because of that).

It's probably equally obvious that I know very large amounts about lesbian vampire sorceresses. And dinosaurs.

Two fields of study I've never regretted spending the time on...

But anyways, I love hearing about different people's tables. Even if it isn't my thing, it's still fun hearing about it.

Yes, diaglo, I know what game gets played at your table.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

Women in Dendain tend to be very prominent. The pantheon of deities has a number of very prominent feminine powers. There are some powerful women in the political arena, as well, and Lady Veronica d'Arns Pendoral of Thane (a mix between Arthurian and Celtic Britain) is rumored to be the real power behind the throne. The elves are a matriarchal society (and not just the drow).

The other side of the coin is true, as well, though. A number of the "big bads" of the world are women. Most prominent are Shiba Mariko, the Ice Queen of Genj'ii, and Dahlia d'Vere, a drow priestess who was the vessel for the essence of a powerful demoness and was for a while one of the two greatest evils in the world. As well, the equivalent of Satan is also female (her story makes her sort of a Lilith figure).

 

[Doug McCrae]

While the Romans had all kinds of forms of discrimination -- slavery, sexism, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination, other forms so important in our modern world like homophobia and racism were not really available concepts to them.

I don't agree with you about the Romans not being homophobic. They despised men who took the submissive role during sex. This seems, to me at any rate, to be absolutely identical with modern homophobic attitudes.

 

[Ry]

My campaigns still don't prominently feature women; even before I grew my beard, I've never felt I have decent range in portraying female characters. So I typically stick to male NPCs, and women appear only as a little variety. When they do, they typically fall into fairly stereotypical roles (evil hags, ladies of magic and wisdom, friendly old crones, succubi of various types, innocent little girls that need to be rescued or deposited at orphanages, and princesses / local belles that need to be rescued). It's not the best solution, but I have an all-male gaming group that feels pretty much the same way I do about it.

I unintentionally evolved a few conventions, though; a little while ago I realized that every time any woman is interested in one of my players (who favors paladins and other upstanding citizen-types), the rest of the party starts melting down the silverware.

 

[fusangite]

I don't agree with you about the Romans not being homophobic. They despised men who took the submissive role during sex. This seems, to me at any rate, to be absolutely identical with modern homophobic attitudes.

No. It isn't. Modern society does not spend a lot of time figuring out which member of a gay couple is catching and which is pitching; their identity stems from the fact that they are a gay couple. The pitcher, to the degree that couples even function this way, is not an honourary straight man.

But my contention was not that Romans disapproved of different sexual practices than modern society does (though they certainly did, according the very lowest status to men who performed oral sex on women). My contention was that Roman society did not conceive of homosexuality as an identity; it conceived of it as an activity. While the society held negative opinions about a number of sexual practices both gay and straight, they (a) didn't have those categories and (b) didn't conceive of homosexuality as an identity category at all.

Systemic discrimination can only be applied to a group conforming to a recognized identity category. Not every activity maps to an identity category in a society, even this one which has a greater propensity to do so than most societies of the past.

 

[el-remmen]

/me dusts off my moderator cap. . .

Let's just try to steer away from any discussions of modern homophobia and systematic discrimination before this becomes political. . .

The thread is doing fine with all the great examples of different worlds/cultures view on gender roles.

 

[DM_Matt]

No. It isn't. Modern society does not spend a lot of time figuring out which member of a gay couple is catching and which is pitching; their identity stems from the fact that they are a gay couple. The pitcher, to the degree that couples even function this way, is not an honourary straight man.

But my contention was not that Romans disapproved of different sexual practices than modern society does (though they certainly did, according the very lowest status to men who performed oral sex on women). My contention was that Roman society did not conceive of homosexuality as an identity; it conceived of it as an activity. While the society held negative opinions about a number of sexual practices both gay and straight, they (a) didn't have those categories and (b) didn't conceive of homosexuality as an identity category at all.

Systemic discrimination can only be applied to a group conforming to a recognized identity category. Not every activity maps to an identity category in a society, even this one which has a greater propensity to do so than most societies of the past.

The Romans did look down at those with a predilection to "catching" and associated negatively with being effete. Their framework was a lot like the framework in modern prison situations. Its OK when "pitching" is done to a weaker or lower status person to show your dominence or to humiliate them, but to "catch" was looked down upon and to LIKE to "catch" was really looked down upon.

For instance, a poem by Catulus called "To My Critics" begins and ends with the same couplet. In the first line, he threatens to sodomize them and force them to perform fellatio on him. In the second, he picks out two by name and refers to them by separate derogatory words reserved for passive homosexuals. (The fact that there were multiple latin slurs regarding homosexuals is a pretty good indication that it was looked down on.) Another poem of his, which is very short, and about a man whom he clearly dislikes, since he is talked about in other places, translates to "Nassus, you are a lot of man (large? Well-endowed?) but there are not a lot of men who have not split you."

 

[fusangite]

The Romans did look down at those with a predilection to "catching" and associated negatively with being effete. Their framework was a lot like the framework in modern prison situations. Its OK when "pitching" is done to a weaker or lower status person to show your dominence or to humiliate them, but to "catch" was looked down upon and to LIKE to "catch" was really looked down upon.

Isn't that exactly what I said in my post? Thank you for the analogy to prison. There, homosexuality functions as an activity not an identity. My point was, if you'll look more closely at my post, that homophobia in modern society is not like this. Modern society treats homosexuality very differently than the subculture that exists within the prison system. This subculture cannot be taken as representative of our broader social values -- look at how it regards most crimes; look at how it regards drug use, etc.

If you attempt to use the reasoning you have put forward to argue that Romans were anti-gay, the same reasoning would also define them as anti-straight given Roman disapproval of oral sex, particularly when performed by men on women.

For instance, a poem by Catulus called "To My Critics" begins and ends with the same couplet. In the first line, he threatens to sodomize them and force them to perform fellatio on him. In the second, he picks out two by name and refers to them by separate derogatory words reserved for passive homosexuals. (The fact that there were multiple latin slurs regarding homosexuals is a pretty good indication that it was looked down on.) Another poem of his, which is very short, and about a man whom he clearly dislikes, since he is talked about in other places, translates to "Nassus, you are a lot of man (large? Well-endowed?) but there are not a lot of men who have not split you."

Clearly the poet cannot be disapproving of all homosexual activities if he threatening to perform some. Therefore, we cannot contend that his attitudes are analogous to modern homophobia. We appear to be operating with identical data and drawing different conclusions from it.

 

[DM_Matt]

Isn't that exactly what I said in my post? Thank you for the analogy to prison. There, homosexuality functions as an activity not an identity. My point was, if you'll look more closely at my post, that homophobia in modern society is not like this. Modern society treats homosexuality very differently than the subculture that exists within the prison system. This subculture cannot be taken as representative of our broader social values -- look at how it regards most crimes; look at how it regards drug use, etc.

If you attempt to use the reasoning you have put forward to argue that Romans were anti-gay, the same reasoning would also define them as anti-straight given Roman disapproval of oral sex, particularly when performed by men on women.



Clearly the poet cannot be disapproving of all homosexual activities if he threatening to perform some. Therefore, we cannot contend that his attitudes are analogous to modern homophobia. We appear to be operating with identical data and drawing different conclusions from it.

Well, I am saying that they Romans DID view "catcherness" as an identity, hence they had words for those who habitually do so, which also had connotatons of effete behavior. I agree that it is different becuase of that distinction betwwen "pitching" and "catching," but not taht it is sometihng of identity.

Now that I tihnk of it, I read some Plutarch last week and I noticed a mention of Sulla dying of some bowel disease aggrevated by association with "Metrobius, impersonator of women," so it seems that those sorts of things (although you could argue that he is only referring to Metrobius' transvestitism rather than his sexual orientation) were looked at as aspects of identity.