NC17 Community for Exalted Stuff...

[Jakk Bey]

Little Joe--The term "vanilla" is used, because you seem to have a problem with anything other than "Brace Yourself Bridget!" as foreplay.


Joe, stories that interest people are stories that have characters that people can identify with.


How a character likes to have sex is essential often to building that character. It's included for a reason--at least if an editor is on their post. You include those details in a story when it is essential to understand that part of a character. You build scenarios to illustrate, to avoid massive amounts of exposition, to reveal that character.


In the case of a character who is sexually stunted, and trapped by his own sexuality--such as Buffallo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, it's a dman sight easier to build a scene to illustrate that, then a long boring montage of "inner thoughts".


In the case of a character like Tony Soprano, his dalliances are part of the character, and the conflict that arises as a wiseguy who loves and needs his wife, but is conflicted by his desires for other women, and the opportunity to indulge in them by his culture--the "goomah" isn't an invention of the writers of the Sopranos. That these ancilliary characters become important to the story line, and illustrate better than some tortured bit of expostion, it advances the story much better.


It's not social development that applaudes the examples that are used in The Sopranos, but the writer and audience member who appreciates that the folks who tell these tales have the ability to show rather than tell me what the character is.  It's better story telling. It advances plot faster, and those details build a world, rather than bog it down with unneccessary exposition.


Show. Don't tell. It's one of the oldest rules in the book. That, and don't go on stage with kids or cute animals. Sexual situations, and sexuality show much better in a shorter time, because they are so dang universal. Folks understand a character who is cheating on his wife within a few pages of kissing her goodbye, or scene later, than a drawn out monologue, or a barely referenced description of an incident. You build a character out of scenes.  Sometimes those incidents are also part of the plot, as well as fleshing out the character. Good writers include incidents that do both. Which is what The Sopranos do exceedingly well. That Curado Soprano is very good at cunnilingus, and his girlfriend blabbed it, nearly started a war.


As for the "specious" arguement. Read it again chief. Read your own words again. My argument was that your claims of maturity--which, I will admit were not made on this thread, but others--while ignoring themes is specious.  Like a lot of your claims.


For a fella who likes to lob stupid a lot, damn you miss a lot.


As for panoply--you don't get out much do you? You don't understand the use of language. Try to look up metaphor. Panopoly of human expression. A varigated display.  Come on Little Joe, you can do much better than that. When you resort to looking up the big words it's a bit telling.


Let's get back to your gambling motiff for a moment. Do you have gambling in your stories? Do people gamble in your games? Is that another aspect that folks don't get into?  Do your stories just not have people who gamble? Then you are ignoring a good plot hook. Doesn't mean that every tale has to revolve around everything, but soldiers tossing dice instead of watching the gate at rigid attention tells the players that these folks are bored, that security is  lax, that the officers aren't paying as much attention. One tiny detail like that, can reveal a lot. Same with those same gate guards making time with a local tart instead of their jobs.


The devil is in the details. You can use a tiny incident to illustrate much more than just saying that "security is lax and you can breeze on in." Instead you build a better scene.


That you can tell good stories without sex is possible. Many great stories don't have any sexual element at all, but to excise it from your tool box means that you are shorting yourself, and your players. If it's because it's a subject that you and your players aren't comfortable with, that's fine, but you have often cast aspersions on others who do. Who deal with sexual matters at all in fact. That is where the vanilla comment comes from. You have made a judgement call on several occasions about what others do, and talk about, not only in their games, but on these threads--mind you, as a compliment to Stillborn for ressurecting and porting the EC community, I'm including the old EC threads in this, because he saved the whole community in his portage.


It's not an obsession with sex, it's comfort in talking about it. It's fun. It's something that we share in common.  What I object to with you in this case, is that you make judgements about folks' character for NOT sharing your view.


I don't care if you are vanilla. I don't really know that you are, but infer it from commentary that you have made several times about what is "sick" and "perverted".  That's the sticking point.  That you point out what you think is "sick" and thus has no value.


Me, I get creeped out by Furries. And Plushies. Not my thing, but then again neither is scat, but I don't call folks who are into scatplay "sick." It's not by cup of tea. If two fellas want to have sex with gal while wearing a horse costume, and everyone is clear and consentual, then more power to them. Not my thing, but if they're happy, then have at it.  If your idea of foreplay is "Brace Yourself Bridgit!" and your partner is happy, then go for it. Not my thing either, but more power to you. Glad that you found a partner that is happy with it.


My commentary about your vanilla leanings is that you tend to make judgement calls when folks don't share your sexual tastes. It's in the somewhat sanctimonious stands that you tend to take in sexual matters. The charge of vanilla is less about what you do, as opposed to what you would rather have others talk about.


That you assume that folks who talk about sex don't have fufilling sex lives shows that. That in itself is a judgement of what others do.


As for the connectedness--that is another issue. It shows that distancing that I think is part of the problem with our society as whole. Lots and lots of individuals, seperated little islands, instead of folks who see each other as connected and part of a greater whole.  It's not desperate. It's part of that pesky Buddhism thang. We are all bound. We all share experiences. We are all pretty much the same, and by revelling in that shared experience, by connecting with our fellows, by sharing compassion, we can improve our lot, instead of the slicing off of rafts of humanity.  


You and I Joe are connected. We're both gamers. Exalted players and ST's. Members of this forum. Americans. Males. Humans. I celebrate the connections. Shared joys. We both enjoy gaming. We both enjoy pie. We both share joy with others.  Those connections are grand things. We aren't that different--we have certain differences in opinion, and ways of looking at things, but deep down, we're very much the same.


Increasing connections makes it a damn sight harder to do bad things to one another. It's not so easy to be mean to your mother. Your sister. Your brother. Easier perhaps to be mean as heck to someone who is a stranger.


That's where our society is fraying. We have a leadership that likes to increase the disconnect between folks. Easier to justify bad things done to others. They aren't like us. They're different.


Truth is, we're all pretty much the same. Color. Nationality. Language. Class. Those are divides, but deep down, we all experience joy the same way, and pain. By bringing folks closer together, by illustrating those shared bonds, we can erase some of the abuses of the past, and prevent them in the future. By illustrating more of how much we are the same, we do our bit to understand the differences between us don't matter as much as some folks would rather you believe, for their own reasons.


One of the reasons that sex works so well in stories, is because it's so universal. Its a common experience that can erase some of the artificial boundaries.


I am uncomfortable about some of the judgements that you make about others, because it shows a level of disconnect that I think isn't healthy. Oddly enough, Joe, I'm actually kind of fond of you. You're basically a decent fella, who is close to becoming a better person, and fighting it tooth and nail. You're clinging to some preconceptions and dogma that inhibit your growth, and if I chide you, it's because I see some potential to be better, and I'll be glad to see it when it happens. Not because it will benefit me in any substantive sense, but because you will be a happier you. And you will be able to make others around you happier as well.


I don't chide you because I dislike you. I chide you because I think that you're on the cusp of being a better person. I wouldn't invest so much time in someone that I dislike.

 

[Flagg]

It's not social development that applaudes the examples that are used in The Sopranos' date=' but the writer and audience member who appreciates that the folks who tell these tales have the ability to [i']show[/i] rather than tell me what the character is.  It's better story telling. It advances plot faster, and those details build a world, rather than bog it down with unneccessary exposition.

One of the things I like a lot about the Sopranos is that you get to see tits and swearing. It's not these things in and of themselves that please me, but the fact that it makes the show seem more realistic.


I imagine mobsters hanging out in titty bars and cursing excessively. It's when this stuff is censored out that I get annoyed. It makes stories that it should be a part of less immersive. The Sopranos was originally developed for Fox. Thank fucking god that didn't pan out. It would never have been the excellent show that it is on HBO.

As for panoply--you don't get out much do you? You don't understand the use of language. Try to look up metaphor.

Isn't a panoply a tent?


-S

 

[Jakk Bey]

*shakes his fist in mock rage*

 

[MOK]

Jakk Bey is definately Eclipse caste.

 

[Joseph]

Little Joe--The term "vanilla" is used' date=' because you seem to have a problem with anything other than "Brace Yourself Bridget!" as foreplay.  [/quote']
I don't have a problem with people doing ANYTHING in the bedroom, as long as they dont' come here and fucking babble about it constantly.  That's what you don't seem to get: not caring to hear about other people's sexuality isn't prudish, anymore than not wanting to hear about their extrement schedule is.  Do what you want, just shut up about it; if you're content with your sex life, it should bear no discussion.


Thank you for once again showing what an idiot you are, though; your assumption that I'm against something because I don't care to hear about it is as invalid as you are pathetic.

Joe' date=' stories that interest people are stories that have characters that people can identify with. [/quote']
Great, and I can identify with people without EVER hearing about their sex lives.  Thus, it's unnecessary, invalidating ANY POINT that might follow from it.

How a character likes to have sex is essential often to building that character.

No, it never, ever is essential.  That's all there is to it; if you disagree, you're just WRONG.

Lots of meaningless babble

Pointing out stories in which sex played a role says nothing about its necessity you stupid dick.  

It's not social development that applaudes the examples that are used in The Sopranos' date=' but the writer and audience member who appreciates that the folks who tell these tales have the ability to [i']show[/i] rather than tell me what the character is.  It's better story telling. It advances plot faster, and those details build a world, rather than bog it down with unneccessary exposition.

No, it's not better storytelling, it doesn't advance the plot faster, and those details don't build the world MORE EFFECTIVELY than other details would.  A half hour of meaningful details is a half hour of meaningful details.  YOU might be so sexually desparate that you need to hear about it to relate, but I and many others do not.


You're just fundamentally incapable of seeing any point of view but your own.  Because sex is constantly on your mind, you make it into something more important than it is.  No amount of specious pseudo-argumentation will change that.

Show. Don't tell. It's one of the oldest rules in the book.

Um, all you can DO is tell in a storytelling game you stupid dick.  Storytelling games are PERSISTENT TELLING.  


That said, I'm not advocating showing OR telling about sexuality in an Exalted game; I can do neither and still have a completely reasonable, fleshed out character in an excellent story.  If you couldn't appreicate such a story, the defect is in YOU.

Sexual situations' date=' and sexuality show much better in a shorter time, because they are so dang universal. [/quote']
This isn't even an argument.  It's a baseless assertion that doesn't even make SENSE.  "show much better in a shorter time?"  Show better than WHAT?  Lack of sex?  


You're an idiot.

As for the "specious" arguement. Read it again chief. Read your own words again. My argument was that your claims of maturity--which' date=' I will admit were not made on [i']this[/i] thread, but others--while ignoring themes is specious.  Like a lot of your claims.

No, they were not made on any thread, EVER.  You're MAKING THINGS UP.  


Further, a CLAIM can't be specious, only an argument can.  You still don't even fucking understand the word!  In order to be specious, something must sound true but actually be fallacious.  To be fallacious, it must be an argument or concluded FROM an argument.  


So no, I don't have "specious claims," because claims can't be specious, only arguments and their conclusions can be.  Did you even read the definition?

For a fella who likes to lob stupid a lot' date=' damn you miss a lot. [/quote']
I do, in fact, miss anything that occurs ONLY IN YOUR HEAD, such as my arguments from maturity.  You still don't understand the very words you're trying to use, so I'll stick with my basic assertion that you're an idiot.

As for panoply--you don't get out much do you? You don't understand the use of language. Try to look up metaphor. Panopoly of human expression. A varigated display.  Come on Little Joe' date=' you can do much better than that. When you resort to looking up the big words it's a bit telling.[/quote']
This isn't a metaphor, this isn't anything.  You just used the word completely incorrectly, plain and simple.  As usual, you're trying to bullshit your way out of it, and your vain attempts to that end are why NO ONE on this forum takes you seriously.  


I didn't HAVE to "look up the big words," by the way.  If I didn't know their definitions all ready, I wouldn't have KNOWN you were misusing them.  Try to twist it around all you like, but it's pretty fucking clear at this point you don't understand many of the words you attempt to use.  Claim "metaphor" all you like, but no one is buying it; a panoply isn't a metaphor for anything, it's too simple a term.

Let's get back to your gambling motiff for a moment. Do you have gambling in your stories? Do people gamble in your games? Is that another aspect that folks don't get into?  

People do, in fact, gamble in my games at times.  If people opted NOT to gamble, however, and entire STORIES went by without gambling, the Story would be no lesser for it.


Is that so hard for you to grasp?  ARe you really this much of a dim wit?  

Do your stories just not have people who gamble? Then you are ignoring a good plot hook.

Yes, take an example and jump to a totally invalid conclusion.  That's the Jakk we all know and lack respect for.

That you can tell good stories without sex is possible. Many great stories don't have any sexual element at all' date=' [/quote']
And that is ALL I'VE ASSERTED.  Thank you for confirming my point, nothing else you can possibly say matters.  You argued against me on a total knee jerk, only to come back and COMPLETELY VALIDATE what you were originally arguing against.

My commentary about your vanilla leanings is that you tend to make judgement calls when folks don't share your sexual tastes.

Do you even understand what the metaphor "vanilla" MEANS?  Fuck, and you're the one telling ME to look up metaphors?  Saying that my tastes are vanilla imply I stick to the norm and nothing else.  NOTHING about judging others is implied in the vanilla metaphor.  


You have NO IDEA what my tastes include, and you never WILL have such an idea.  I don't make judgment calls against those who don't share my sexual tastes, I make judgment calls against those who can't keep their mouths shut about sex and bring it up constantly, such as yourself.  NOTHING brings up my sexual tastes in that.  


And that, Jakk, makes your argument specious.  See how I used that correctly?  You take an initial premise (Joseph attacks people who bring up sex too often), and come to an invalid conclusion (Joseph has "vanilla tastes").  That's what a specious argument is.  Unfortunately your learning disability will prevent you from using this new knowledge.

It's in the somewhat sanctimonious stands that you tend to take in sexual matters. The charge of vanilla is less about what you do, as opposed to what you would rather have others talk about.

Which says nothing about my TASTES at all.  Further, if *I* tell people to stop talking about things like that on this forum, and no one else does, that makes me the LEAST VANILLA PERSON HERE.  Vanilla is about being the norm.  If I'm distinctively NOT in the norm (and in this situation I clearly am not, for you seem to think I am worthy of special criticism here above the others), then I'm clearly not vanilla.  You can say you dislike it all you like, but your metaphor is a bad one.


I'm still not entirely sure you even understand how to use metaphors.  

That you assume that folks who talk about sex don't have fufilling sex lives shows that. That in itself is a judgement of what others do.  

Every possible opinion you have about anyone else is a judgment of what others do you stupid dick.  Your opinion about my personal tastes is a judgment of what others do, insofar as its a judgment of what I do.  What you're stating here either shows you don't understand what judgment means, or you're happy to say meaningless things.


Either way, learn the fucking language.

As for the connectedness--that is another issue. It shows that distancing that I think is part of the problem with our society as whole. Lots and lots of individuals' date=' seperated little islands, instead of folks who see each other as connected and part of a greater whole.  [/quote']
Largely in part due to people such as yourself, Jakk.  Contemptible little monsters who I feel no kinship with at all.


I'm intelligent, and you aren't.  I possess reasoning faculties of the highest order, you clearly do not.  I'm attractive, you likely are not. We have nothing in common; you don't even play a fucking GAME the way I do.  There is no bond between us, and there never will be.  


YOU and people LIKE YOU are what make me realize I'm an individual that will never, ever be "grouped" with you.  You're just too lowly, too stupid, too inhuman.

It's not desperate. It's part of that pesky Buddhism thang. We are all bound.

Buddhism is fundamentally wrong.  Bring up your religious bullshit all you want, it's no more convincing than saying we're the same because Jesus loves us both; equally stupid, really.

 We all share experiences. We are all pretty much the same' date=' and by revelling in that shared experience, by connecting with our fellows, by sharing compassion, we can improve our lot, instead of the slicing off of rafts of humanity.  [/quote']
Connecting with you would do nothing to improve my lot, Jakk.  You're simply undesirable in every conceivable way.

 You and I Joe are connected.

Believe this all you like, but really, we couldn't be less so.  We're literally SO unconnected that I can sit here WHILE communicating with you and feel totally and completely distinct from you.  So unconnected that not even sharing ideas between one another connects us.


You can believe otherwise if you want, but it just makes you more pathetically desparate in my eyes.

 Increasing connections makes it a damn sight harder to do bad things to one another.

I don't need to be connected to others to avoid harming them.  I'm reasonable enough to let people live how they care to without being emotionally blackmailed into it.

 I don't chide you because I dislike you. I chide you because I think that you're on the cusp of being a better person. I wouldn't invest so much time in someone that I dislike.

I don't care if you like or dislike me, Jakk.  As far as better person goes, given your previous commentary about how happy you are when others are harmed, I don't think you're in a position to make any assertions there.

 

[Joseph]

Jakk Bey is definately Eclipse caste.

An Eclipse with 0 points in Presence and Socialize, and a Charisma of 2 maybe.


Saying a lot doesn't make it right; most of it couldn't be more wrong, and certainly none of it could be less persuasive.

 

[MOK]

For the sake of adding an extra opinion on the topic -


I like the Savant and Sorcerer cover!   It's full of T&A, and I like T&A.


That aside, however, I think it actually is relevant to the universe of Exalted.  It is reiterated quite a lot within the publishings that the sexual culture of the Realm is far different from what we know in America.


The sorcerous crotch shot kinda serves as an reinforcement of the ideas given in some of these books - That Exalts are over the top in sexuality as compared with what we know in real life.  Now, I'd read the descriptions, the flavor text, and all that.  But prior to the crotch shot, I wasn't quite aware of how different their culture was to ours.  Call me stupid for that if you want, but I think that it was an effective illustration with a purpose other than to provoke a longer look from a passing browsing customer.


This illustrative effect is easily overshadowed by the idea that it was just a marketing ploy, and it very well may have been the original purpose to begin with.  But it still has a valid place, and shouldn't be devalued so easily.


You could see the injection or emphasis on sexuality as unnecessary to telling a story, but I think it's a viable tool that does have some significant ammount of importance in every characters life.  Sex has an impact on everyone, and I agree with Jakk Bey that it provides a fast, easy, and in-depth view into a telling part of a person's character.  Its almost it's own universal language, doing away with many uncertainties from cultural difference.


Sex might not come up in a story for any number of reasons, but attributing that to some kind of moral superiority, I think, is uh... Weird.

 

[Flagg]

All I have left to add is that the guy from the old EC who objected to the cover on the grounds that his young children might see it and ask him about it was, and still is, a dink.


-S

 

[Joseph]

I like the Savant and Sorcerer cover!   It's full of T&A, and I like T&A.

If I want to see "T&A" I can do it without having to look at a roleplay book cover.  

That aside, however, I think it actually is relevant to the universe of Exalted.  It is reiterated quite a lot within the publishings that the sexual culture of the Realm is far different from what we know in America.

I'm marking this quote, because it's going to be relevent to the next thing I quote, namely:

Sex has an impact on everyone, and I agree with Jakk Bey that it provides a fast, easy, and in-depth view into a telling part of a person's character.  Its almost it's own universal language, doing away with many uncertainties from cultural difference.

First, you point out how the sexual culture in the Realm is far different from what we know in America, showing that sex is strongly affected by culture.  Then, you say it does away with many uncertainties from cultural difference.  Why is it Jakk and anyone that supports him cannot go a single post without contradicting themselves?

Sex might not come up in a story for any number of reasons, but attributing that to some kind of moral superiority, I think, is uh... Weird.

Thanks for showing you're as much of an idiot as Jakk, and missing the entire point of everything I said.


When did I mention moral superiority?  When the fuck did I say it was morally inferior to involve sex in your stories?  The answer, of course, is not at all.  I didn't even say people SHOULDN'T involve sex in their stories.  My post consisted mostly of:


1) Me explaining why it doesn't come up in MY group's stories.


2) Me explaining why stories clearly don't NEED sex to be fantastic overall stories with very well fleshed out characters.


3) Me explaining why I'm suspicious of a lack of sexual fulfillment in the lives of anyone who overly uses sex in their stories.


Moral superiority didn't come up at all.  Fuck, ethics in GENERAL didn't come up.  You, like Jakk, are a completely illiterate fucktard.

 

[Joseph]

Why is reading comprehension such a rare thing on these forums?  You're all disappointments, not because you disagree with me, but because you can't even seem to grasp the basics of what I'm saying, despite my completely clear, descriptive prose.


I could very well see a situation in which I might say something like "I do not really enjoy eating celery," and getting responses like:


"Limiting what you eat means you're not eating a panoply of foods!"


"Saying eating celery is wrong is specious!"


"Why do you think you're morally superior to me because you don't eat celery?"


"I start fires."


Seriously, you people make me sick.

 

[Flagg]

Seriously, you people make me sick.

Maybe you'd have a healthier immune system if you ate more celery.


-S

 

[Flagg]

I'm attractive, you likely are not.

Jakk is actually a pimply, fur-suited midget -- or at least is comfortable enough with that description that he has refused previous opportunities to prove otherwise.


Joseph, on the other hand, is one of the few people from the EC who has proven to me that he isn't.


-S

 

[Super Frog Saves Tokyo]

Jakk is actually a pimply, fur-suited midget -- or at least is comfortable enough with that description that he has refused previous opportunities to prove otherwise.


-S

I think what is important is whether or not it is a mink fur suit. Being a pimply midget is okay as long as you can be one in style.

 

[Super Frog Saves Tokyo]

Joseph, on the other hand, is one of the few people from the EC who has proven to me that he isn't.


-S

Reliable sources have told me he actually downloaded that image off a porn site.

 

[MOK]

Well, I have to admit, its true...


...I can't read.


Beyond that, I just want to clarify a bit then.  I mentioned the differences in sexuality of the Realm versus our world.  Then I mentioned that sex is basically universal.  I was hasty, and I guess I probably could've explained better(I just didn't think it was necessary).


What I mean is that our mental impulses concerning sex are basically similar because they start at mostly the same baseline.  The things that affect our thoughts concerning sexuality are pretty much derived from events throughout our history.  When one is shown someones current thoughts on sexuality, one could draw many conclusions more easily and accurately than his thoughts on a lot of different subjects.  My main point is that while differences exist, sexuality is alot more elemental, it lacks alot of the variables that other topics have.


For instance, in a casual example, if one of my best friends told me, "Starwars 3 sucked", I could barely guess what affected his decision.


However if he then describes what kind of girl he finds attractive, I can probably surmise a few guidepoints to why he feels that way.


My explanation sucks, no doubt.  I lack the literacy, obviously, to better describe it without leaving my words open to twisting to represent something different from my intention.  Tear it apart as you wish, though hopefully people will understand the main idea.


Now, on to your other issue, which is that I am apparently missing the point of your words, and your non-mention of moral superiority.  I cannot say anything about the point of Jakk's words, but as for my own, I am refering the the undertone of disdain that your words clearly take to the avarage person.  A fairly clear picture is painted to the reader that you do not believe there is validity to these ideas.  


Finally, I disagree with the idea that the inclusion of sexual themes is directly indicative of ones sexual health.


And if you disagree you're obviously wrong, stupid, mostly illiterate, of questionable upbringing, a true failure at life, and anyone on the forum will see that.


HAH!  


Well, since I got interrupted alot of times while typing it, I cant really invest any more time, and have to post.  Hopefully I kept coherent thoughts.

 

[Joseph]

When one is shown someones current thoughts on sexuality, one could draw many conclusions more easily and accurately than his thoughts on a lot of different subjects.  

Agreed, but then you have to take into account that there are even MORE subjects that tell you more about a person conclusively and accurately than their sexuality will.  


Sure, sex tells you more about a person than what type of ice cream they like, but a lot LESS about a person than what sort of political model they espouse, or what they would ideally do for a living, or a whole host of much more important things.

My main point is that while differences exist, sexuality is alot more elemental, it lacks alot of the variables that other topics have.

I agree; it lacks SO MANY variables, in fact, that it's fairly useless for really coming to conclusions about a person.  You could tell a few VERY basic things about an individual based on how they like their sex, that's about it.  


It's precisely BECAUSE it lacks a lot of variables that other topics have that it's not as useful as you and Jakk want it to be here.

For instance, in a casual example, if one of my best friends told me, "Starwars 3 sucked", I could barely guess what affected his decision.
However if he then describes what kind of girl he finds attractive, I can probably surmise a few guidepoints to why he feels that way.

Well no shit, because "Starwars 3 sucked," is a LOT less descriptive than his description of his ideal girl.  If he went through and told you WHY he thought Starwars 3 sucked, you could surmize a lot more about him than if he went through and told you what his ideal woman would be like though.  

Now, on to your other issue, which is that I am apparently missing the point of your words, and your non-mention of moral superiority.  I cannot say anything about the point of Jakk's words, but as for my own, I am refering the the undertone of disdain that your words clearly take to the avarage person.  A fairly clear picture is painted to the reader that you do not believe there is validity to these ideas.  

Then I once again assert you have no idea what I'm talking about, and that you've just proven my point twice over now.

 

[memesis]

I'm comfortable enough in my sexuality to say that I enjoy sex and T&A in roleplaying games.


But hey, I also enjoy pizza.  I don't spend hours thinking about pizza, nor do I argue with other people about what pizza is appropriate to eat, nor if some pizza-delivery places are the spawn of Satan.  Pizza does not consume my life.


And that's okay.

 

[Joseph]

But hey, I also enjoy pizza.  I don't spend hours thinking about pizza, nor do I argue with other people about what pizza is appropriate to eat, nor if some pizza-delivery places are the spawn of Satan.  Pizza does not consume my life.

And I also submit you'd never argue pizza in the storyline is necessary for a "proper panolpy" of games.  You'd also never go ballistic on someone who mentioned they didn't mention pizza in their games.  


Jakk, on the other hand, went nuts simply HEARING that in games I'm in sex doesn't get mentioned.  Unless you're saying that you'd go berserk because I don't mention pizza in my games either, it's not really comprable.

 

[MOK]

hehe I'd tend to think that he didn't go nuts...  It seems to me that he was trying to get this kind of response from you!

 

[Maryuoh]

I am in no way going to ever go back to read this thread a second time, but I seem to recall Joseph actually being completely civil in his response. If anything, it's fascist to start a thread that's basically asking, "Who uses sex in their games?" and then call someone that says "Not me" a puritan.


I swear to God, no one try to argue that there's a technical definition of fascism that I'm violating, either. The technical definition of the word is obscure and the usage is incredibly vague. Anyway...


So, yeah. The entire point of Roleplaying is to be able to participate in a story that you enjoy, by helping shape it into your type of story. If the people you game with like involving sexuality, more power to you. If they don't and you don't, that's fine. Don't try to force your tastes on others. Personally, I like sexuality in my games. But then, I'd also like to get into the technical aspects of cooking if I could find the right group. Doesn't mean I think I'm better than people that want to leave the details of how their Circle makes their eggs a la trail unspecified.


I'm far from being Joseph's biggest fan, but in this case all he did was respond reasonably to statements made. He didn't even get close to condescending until Haku snippily implied that he was immature for not having regular sexual exhibitions in his games. Joseph didn't ever claim to be more than anyone else, and he didn't say sexuality didn't come up in games; he said sexuality didn't come up in his games.


Re, Jakky's ramblings on culture: I've actually been theorizing for a while now that modern society's openness about sexuality has made people more repressed in showing affection. There was a time when embracing and kissing (not just on the cheek, but on the lips) one's friends and family was considered not just acceptable, but normal. It was simply a way of displaying affection. But nearly no one in Western civilization would do that today, because they would (rightly) think it would be perceived as a sexually intended act. I would say that modern society is more comfortable with meaningless sex than it is sexuality. I don't consider that progress.

 

[Joseph]

hehe I'd tend to think that he didn't go nuts...  It seems to me that he was trying to get this kind of response from you!

I've known him long enough to know better; he may be a dope, but he's no troll.

 

[memesis]

hehe I'd tend to think that he didn't go nuts...  It seems to me that he was trying to get this kind of response from you!

I've known him long enough to know better; he may be a dope, but he's no troll.

In fact, I was just witless enough to work out the submission management system that was installed here yesterday.  PM me when you're ready for a password to test the thing, if you're still a moderator.

 

[Jakk Bey]

Little Joe--It was the assertion that people who have healthy sex lives don't need to have sex in their games that was specious.  Not to mention suggestive that folks who do bring sex into their games don't have healthy sex lives.


This is why I pick on you for this. Because you tend to assert that folks are either depraved or unhealthy for having some interest in game material that doesn't agree with your own style of play.


Not to mention the idea that if you do something in real life, you don't need to do it in a game is even more loaded.  You have a healthy relationship with sex in a game, so you don't need to play it out? Do your players then have some unfufilled needs for violence that aren't being met so that they need to play out their aggression in a game?  They have an unhealthy obession with violence, so that Roleplaying is the only way they can engage in it?


I don't roleplay as therapy. I roleplay to tell and take part in stories. Sometimes those stories have folks who have relationships.  Sometimes sex is even integral to those stories--the hooker with the heart of gold, the talkative gate guard who has his keys stolen while spent with an evening with a prostitue that the PC's hired to hit on him.  To shy away from a topic limits your options. To take a moral highhorse about that limitation is what I'm taking issue with--that and the suggestion that folks who tell stories that involve sex are somehow diminished and unhealthy--your phrase--is what is at issue here. Not that stories can be told without sex.  That is a given.  Tales can be told without a single incident of violence as well. Tales can be told without horses too.  Tales can be told any number of ways, and not ALL of them have to be used, ALL the time, but to consciously limit your tales...that is a different animal.


To limit tales because you are not comfortable with the theme or the subject matter isn't a crime.  To limit your tales because you don't feel you'll do it justice isn't a crime.  To limit your tales, and then suggest that others who don't share your view are unhealthy...that's not a crime, but it's just damn sad.


The question I suppose is this: is it worse to play pretend where a character is having sex on a regular basis, or engaging in widespread slaughter?  


Maybe you prefer to think of roleplaying as therapy. Maybe you think of it as a chance to work out issues, but I think that by and large, most folks roleplay as a passtime, a kind of an extension of the oral tradition. We tell stories, take part in stories. You're advocating limiting the scope of those tales, and using a moral high horse to do so.


In mythic tales, sex, scullduggery, and scandal are all part of the toolbox.  From the tales of the Navaho, Egyptians, Greeks, and the Japanese.  In playing a game based on these myths, it seems that you're missing a large part of those mythic tales by consciously limiting your tales.


I use the term vanilla for you, because of that large white charger you like to trot out to defend your obvious discomfort with discussion about sex--in any form.  I associate "vanilla" with the sorts who champion their own tastes over every one elses, and feel free to label others "sick" or "obsessed" who don't hold those views.


Yes, it's a bit pejorative.  It has nothing to do with what you do, but how you champion it.  And label others then who don't agree. I'm calling you on a flaw in your reasoning.


We can touch on your views on religion at some other date.  That's a whole 'nother thread entire...but again, it's the claim that anyone who doesn't share your view on faith is deluded borders on another kind of dogma.  Dogmaticism isn't just puppyism all growed up, and it's hardly a tool for a philosopher.


My moral character is just fine.  I just don't have to bandy about my moral superiority at every opportunity.  I don't particularly feel superior in an ethical sense. I make decisions based on what I think is right and correct, and let others worry about the moral implications.


I do what I think is right. Others judge those actions. Joe, judges me to be a monster. The police, my crew, my friends, relations, SO's, and community consider me to be a pretty decent fella.  Restrained even. I am just honest about my motivations. My own feelings. I judge myself by my own standards, but one of the tenents of Buddhism is that you have to face and forgive yourself before you can expand compassion to others.  I have to accept my actions, and understand their motives. I don't pretend to have some moral superiority. It's not my call--I do, and others will judge those actions. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Without others, there can be no such thing as morality. It's through your interaction with others that forms any kind of morality. You can do what you think is right, but in the end, the judgement of whether or not an action is moral is up to others to make that decision.  I can do what I think will be perceived as moral by others, and choose to do so on a regular basis, but in the end, that judgement is still up to others to make.

 

[Joseph]

Little Joe--It was the assertion that people who have healthy sex lives don't need to have sex in their games that was specious.

Assertions on their own can't be specious.  In order to be specious, something must SOUND right, but be derived from fallacious reasoning.  I'm not providing ANY reasoning, so you certainly can't accuse me of FALLACIOUS reasoning.  


You might assert that I am WRONG, but it's certainly not specious.  Did you even read the definition I provided you?


The rest of your babble is just that - babble.  Justify all you like, but the fact that you attacked me for something I didn't even SAY pretty clearly demonstrates your character.  The fact that you're now scrambling to come up with some ridiculous justification for that choice only reinforces that demonstration.  And the fact that you pretty clearly regularly use words you don't yourself understand is only icing on the cake.

 

[Halfdead Frodi]

I am in no way going to ever go back to read this thread a second time, but I seem to recall Joseph actually being completely civil in his response. If anything, it's fascist to start a thread that's basically asking, "Who uses sex in their games?" and then call someone that says "Not me" a puritan.

Uhm, just one little detail, but Haku started this thread, not Jakk.