Homosexuality in exalted.

P

Persell

Ten Thousand Club
is it MY IMAGINATION, or is every homsexuality something brought up A LOT in exalted.


It mentioned the practice in the dragon blooded book.


at least one guy in the water aspect book is homosexual.


and ophila ses and his twilight loveer


and NUMEROUS PEOPLE in savage seas.


and now day as dark as night.


maybe im being silly but this a lot dont you think
 
I think the writers intent is to illustrate that unlike our modern Western societies, homosexuality isn't a big deal in Exalted, and thus many people openly practice it.


-S
 
Just as Still has written, I think that homosexuality in the Exalted setting isn't looked down upon. I would say however, especially within the Realm, that if a couple were having a homosexual relationship and ignoring their childbearing responsibilities, then they would gain a reputation and even be stigmatized because of it.


~FC.
 
... didn't Ophilis Ses have a female lover? Also, does he's a snakeman... so that's more Xenosexuality... or Beastiality perhaps? :)
 
Dig up any list of "the 1000 most influential people of the last millenium". Count how many of them were homosexual. It is almost always a larger percentage than "average". I'm sure there are some good, probably really interesting, explanations for this, but I don't know of anyone that's studied it.


The interesting question, to me anyway, is whether the explanation has to do with oppression and the mentality that results from it. Did, say, Michaelangelo or Alan Turing being socially required to conceal their homosexuality help drive their genius to finding expression (sort of an "I'll show them" mentality)? Or did it hinder their accomplishment? Or, did it have nothing to do with it at all?


If the answer is that oppression drives genius, then the implication for Exalted, without such oppression, is that homosexuals would be less likely to be the movers and shakers of the world, and thus not be featured in Exalted books.
 
I think homosexuality and high intelligence, while not necessarily linked, are complementary qualities; both are forms of genetic deviance.  Which is why I think there are people in the world who are simply too stupid to be gay.
 
I disagree with entirely. I know idiotic gay men.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting AT ALL that no gay men are stupid; I knew a few who were at the bottom of the intelligence ladder (or near enough as made no difference).  But there does exist a breed of human whose overall mental shallowness  precludes them from ANY sort of deviance, sexual or otherwise.
 
... that's an interesting piece of conjecture... that seems to suggest that we all start with some sort of "normality" as a benchmark, and then get bent (mutated?) into the individuals we are...


... which begs the question: what the hell is "normal"?
 
I'll take a wee bit of exception to the "deviance" idea with sexuality, and suggest that variation might be a better term.  Because variation is the key.  It is what we find in all traits.  From hair color to immune response.  Sexuality is just as varied.  


Where socialization is concerned, that's a whole different story.  There are societal norms--and not all are equal in their acceptance of sex roles and what is considered "normal" sexual relations.  Thailand versus India as a for instance.  The US versus Saudi Arabia as another.  China versus Japan even.  Huge gaps in what is acceptable in those societies.  


There you get "deviant" behavior, because there are societal norms.  But you have to be specific in talking about which society you're speaking of, and as we are growing more and more global, it is less and less helpful to make those kinds of splits when talking about what is "normal."


And there is not such thing as "normal"--just degrees of variation.  Not all folks have hearts on their left side.  Most folks do have their hearts on the left side.  Most folks do prefer sexual relations with partners of the opposite sex.  But certainly not all, and considering the percentages, and how long we've realized that some men enjoy each others' company for sexual and emotional relationships, or women who enjoy the same, you'd think we'd have abandonded the idea that "Man on Top, Get it Over With Quick" is "normal" would have passed away a while.


Hasn't, because we keep getting religion mixed up with ethics.  Keep justifying our behaviors according to what some very cranky people said was supposed to be right and proper.  And more importantly, who use their religion to justify their own bigotry.  Religion alone isn't to blame for the situation, just asshats who abuse their position and tend to think that because they say something is true, and can point to passages in a book, then it must be so.


But it tends to depend on which book you're looking at, and how many other folks have read it.  And in this increasingly varied and connected world, those numbers are shrinking that your book is the only one on the table.


Not that I'm suggesting that HO is closet bigot.  Just using some imprecise jargon--and casually at that, which isn't exactly a crime.  We want to return to the old EC method of demanding incredibly precise definitions of the ethics and morality because it makes for more interesting flambau, then have at it, but it seems a bit silly.  


Back to the question though--and the preface paragraphs were more in the idea of introduction for the following--WW has long made a policy in their games to be inclusive.  Shifting sexualization of  articles is just part of it.  WW has long been gay friendly in their publications--from even the Ars Magica days, and certainly in the Vampire.  That they've continued this practice into Exalted should be no surprise.  


It's not so much that it's brought up a LOT.  It's that it's brought up, and there aren't value judgements attached, and in Western literature, that's the purview of gay erotica apparently, and the Village Voice, not RPGs.  


When you consider that Exalted is a game heavily influenced by those pesky Greeks, who were great homophiles, and Japanese myth--again, folks held high regard for homosexual relations, this is not so surprising that it carries into the game, even without WW mission statement.
 
"Variance" is indeed a much more accurate term.  I used "deviant" because I like to hear it & see it in print... and because I nuture a fondness for a number of notable historical deviants (i.e. somebody's previous examples of DaVinci and Turing).  But your term is more accurate, to be sure.
 
I think there certainly are norms, and things like high intelligence and homosexuality are deviations from this norm.


Does this mean that such a thing is negative, or even important in any way?


No, but it's there.


-S
 
Norms are more clearly defined for behavior, but even then, you've got to define the context of which society you're looking at.  


Deviance has a place in society--on both ends of the spectrum for what is acceptable, and what is superlative, as they both define the middle and keep folks in line.  Even in a society of saints, there will be deviance in behavior.  


But in order to identify the deviance, you have to put it into context.  Amongst Southern Baptists, Out homosexuals are considered a deviance from the norms.  But that doesn't mean that there aren't homosexual Southern Baptists otherwise.  


Just the existance of homosexuality isn't deviant--it's just natural.  10%-25% of folks in a population will feel some attraction from members of their own sex.  Whether or not they act upon that has a great deal to do with what is considered acceptable behavior.  That's the problem with talking about homosexuality, in terms of societal acceptance, is that there are a great many degrees of variation for sexual behavior.  Just among hetrosexuals, there is a wide range, let alone when you begin to shade in the rest of the Kinsey scale.


Again, I blame a lot of asshats who have taken it upon themselves to weigh society down with their prejudices and preferences, and point fingers and screech when folks don't do what they do.  Insecure bastiches who can't imagine anyone else not agreeing with their choices.  And they've clouded the sexual waters for a long time, forcing a blurring of nature and nurture.
 
If you think it's odd, read about ancient Greece and Rome.


It was not uncommon for people to take same sex lovers in those civilisations, and they were the greatest civilisations of their time. Infact, in most of the greatest civilisations in history same sex coupling was not only tolerated but a fact of life.


Seeing as Exalted is set in similiar type of civilisation, especially in the Realm itself, there is nothing odd about it.
 
The accepted nature of homosexuality in Exalted is not what I find most striking about Exalted's take on sexuality.  It's the other, weirder shit.  Like the rampant incest and bestiality, the implications for hentacle action, making love to a tea pot because you broke a tea cup and need a complete set for the party on Tuesday.  It's a little weird, and I fail to see how incest could be so accepted.  I realize this is partially imparted by the societal conditioning of our civilization, and that in other societies incest was accepted.  But those societies were dirty and wrong and so rightfully fell beneath the boot of the Christian white man.  


But seriously, has any incest practicing culture achieved lengthy prosperity?  Are there even any where it was widespread and not confined to the nobility?


No real problems with the hentacles though.
 
as long as i dont get anally raped again, then gay people can hump and marry all they want. I dont care.


What i dont like is PETA, i hate them with a passion and i want to become a peta terrorist bomber... just target all their bases of operations... anyone in? Glad they dont have PETA back in the second Age.
 
Kyrn said:
The accepted nature of homosexuality in Exalted is not what I find most striking about Exalted's take on sexuality.  It's the other, weirder shit.  Like the rampant incest and bestiality, the implications for hentacle action, making love to a tea pot because you broke a tea cup and need a complete set for the party on Tuesday.  It's a little weird, and I fail to see how incest could be so accepted.  I realize this is partially imparted by the societal conditioning of our civilization, and that in other societies incest was accepted.  But those societies were dirty and wrong and so rightfully fell beneath the boot of the Christian white man.  
But seriously, has any incest practicing culture achieved lengthy prosperity?  Are there even any where it was widespread and not confined to the nobility?


No real problems with the hentacles though.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where the incest thing you speak of is...
 
Lotus said:
as long as i dont get anally raped again, then gay people can hump and marry all they want. I dont care.
Click to expand...
Lotus is back in the building...

Lotus said:
What i dont like is PETA, i hate them with a passion and i want to become a peta terrorist bomber... just target all their bases of operations... anyone in? Glad they dont have PETA back in the second Age.
Click to expand...
...and on one of his merry little jaunts.


~FC.
 
Kyrn said:
But seriously, has any incest practicing culture achieved lengthy prosperity?  Are there even any where it was widespread and not confined to the nobility?
Click to expand...
Actually, almost all of them until recently. In a large number of cultures (particularly tribal cultures), marrying your first cousin is acceptible and even desired (it keeps things in the family). Also, it turns out that risk of genetic damage from a first-cousin marriage isn't that much higher than of a completely unrelated pairing.
 
wordman said:
Kyrn said:
But seriously, has any incest practicing culture achieved lengthy prosperity?  Are there even any where it was widespread and not confined to the nobility?
Click to expand...
Actually, almost all of them until recently. In a large number of cultures (particularly tribal cultures), marrying your first cousin is acceptible and even desired (it keeps things in the family). Also, it turns out that risk of genetic damage from a first-cousin marriage isn't that much higher than of a completely unrelated pairing.
Click to expand...
 That's not quite true, although there are several other factors, such as the size of the population, and the genetic fitness of the founders.


 As for the quantitative assessment of potential genetic damage, well, 1/100 may not seem that much bigger than 1/10,000 when you're talking about any given individual, but once you start considering the entire population...
 
By the way... did I just miss something, or doesn't the book say that it's even -encouraged- to take lovers of the same sex, as long as you make sure to produce children with your wife/husband.. since no pregnancy complications can arise etc.? the Dragon Blooded book that is.
 
Zaramis said:
By the way... did I just miss something, or doesn't the book say that it's even -encouraged- to take lovers of the same sex, as long as you make sure to produce children with your wife/husband.. since no pregnancy complications can arise etc.? the Dragon Blooded book that is.
Click to expand...
It encourages females to take same sex lovers if the lovers are not exalts as there is no chance of conception there. males can fuck what they want, the realm wins anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top