Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Roleplaying and Storytelling
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2006, 09:03 PM   #41
Traveler
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 50
Traveler is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Don't like your kids looking at or participating in such 'naughty' stuff? Maybe you should be busy parenting instead of condemning these perverts, mmm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ahhh. Nice to laugh hysterically when people blame their lack of parenting on Mudsex, violent video games, or Flowers for Algernon.
Your opinion might change if you were ever the victim of sexual abuse. To excuse an internet pervert or any molesters actions because of lack of parenting is down right disgusting. Small comfort to the child giving the offender a get out free card by saying 'hey kid your parents should have known better'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quote (Traveler @ Jan. 14 2006,19:22)
Quote
Three words: Fundamentalist Christian A**holes. You know, the sort who -freak out- about sex generally but who are happy to engage in violence and murder on a massive scale. With leaders like these, can you blame the rest of the culture if it follows along?


Ah yes reverse bigotry. It's bad to be a bigot but it's okay to hate the bigots in return.

Yes, I do believe it's ok to hate bigots. I have absolutely no problem telling you that someone who thinks black people should die is a scumball, or that someone who thinks that homosexuals are an abomination is a redneck piece of crap.
Generalizing is nearly as bad as bigotry itself because it can be a breeding ground for bigotry. I have no love for religious fundamentalist of any kind. I have no love for liberal reactionaries either. Being cavalier by using terms like scumball or redneck is pointless posturing and chest thumping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I'm going to have to disagree. Just because someone can access something in public does not mean that it should not be allowed within the game. You can access pornography, hate sites, and shock pages from a public library, most of the time. What on earth are you doing playing games in a library anyway? I think it's fantastically amusing to say that it is the responsibility of a game maker to censor the above mentioned actions because someone might play it in public. I might also read a Playboy in public, I might play Grand Theft Auto in a mall, I could use a chatroom at a netcafe for underhanded purposes, I may do any number of things. But if we're going to start limiting what can be done because it may be done in view of others, then we're going to bloody well remove half of the internet, and most of today's movies and television.
Once again because other bad things happen it does not make the perpetuation of other bad things okay. The constant argument is that we can't be held responsible because bad things MIGHT happen. Bad things DO happen. Walk your fingers over to google and search a few statistics and check the sex offender registry while you're at it.

Movies have rating systems, video games have ratings systems, TV channels can be changed by parents in the room, and most modern TV's can have channels blocked as well. MUDs rarely come with such labeling. Even if parents have a content blocker on their PC it won't block many MUDs either unless they know to directly block a specific MUD. I know I turned mine on and was still able to access most of the sites I have accounts on.

MUDs and console games/movies/TV aren't comparable anyway because games/movies/TV don't have a live person on the other end actively seeking to cyber with someone. You'll probably never find an enforced labeling system on MUDs , especially commercial ones, because that could cut into their profit margins.

Defending sexual predation is to use Matt's words the action of a 'scumball'. Sexual predators don't seek just kids either.

Anyway. As stated way back before the recent activity in this thread I'm not opposed to MUDsex happening. I don't like it because IMO when people get into a MUDsex relationship they throw their RP out the window. Its a nasty hornets nest. If such a relationship SHOULD be taboo in an RP enforced/encouraged MUD the moment it is questioned the RL freedom brigade comes out and the personal smear campaign begins. I've witnessed firsthand attacks via forum, IM, IRC, and in game against PLAYERS not characters because their character dare questions another’s sexual antics with the enemy of their race, faction, city, guild, nation, etc. The same players who are one moment touting the virtues of a virtual world are the next proclaiming it to be either just a game or applying RL mores.

Maybe I'm a bit jaded but I've had it happen to me personally and I've seen it done to other players on multiple occasions. I've had some excellent intimate RP myself (with people I've assured myself are adults) and have no issue with private liaisons so long as both persons are consenting adults. It is the people who go in for their cyber kicks irregardless of storyline that annoy me and there always seems to be a few of them around. If you are going to make getting your jollies a public issue in an RP encouraged/enforced game be prepared for the consequences. If you make it public then it affects everyone else’s RP too so accept it and forego the character assassination of the player.
Traveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2006, 12:37 AM   #42
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Traveler @ Jan. 15 2006,21<!--emo&[img
http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]Anyway. As stated way back before the recent activity in this thread I'm not opposed to MUDsex happening. I don't like it because IMO when people get into a MUDsex relationship they throw their RP out the window. Its a nasty hornets nest. If such a relationship SHOULD be taboo in an RP enforced/encouraged MUD the moment it is questioned the RL freedom brigade comes out and the personal smear campaign begins. I've witnessed firsthand attacks via forum, IM, IRC, and in game against PLAYERS not characters because their character dare questions another’s sexual antics with the enemy of their race, faction, city, guild, nation, etc. The same players who are one moment touting the virtues of a virtual world are the next proclaiming it to be either just a game or applying RL mores.
I want to preface what I am about to say by also saying I don't have any objection, moral or otherwise, to people choosing to engage in "Mud Sex" or IC relationships or anything of that nature.

I wanted to discuss two side points related to what you just said that I have also witnessed.

1) Romeo & Juliet Syndrome: This is what happens when two people who chose characters that are diametrically opposed, decide they are the exception to the rule and have a relationship anyway. This happens when either their races are enemies, clans are enemies, or something of that nature. Sometimes this is fine, but there are times when the animosity is something that is CORE to the game world (like two races that utterly despise each other for a lot of good reasons) and thus there really should be no exceptions. Sometimes, the reason a game world is defined in a certain way is so those definitions can give a foundation to the game world.

In real life, exceptions are not ruinous because they are just that- the exception. But in a game world with only hundreds or thousands of people, it only takes a couple exceptions to create a sense that the "rule" is really not much of a rule.

Also, the "Romeo & Juliet" situation usually comes about for OOC reasons anyway. It is usually just two people who like each other personally (or have come to like each other from the way they play the game), and have decided it would be fun to have mud sex. So they throw the game world definitions out the window.

2) Another negative aspect that arises out of MUDsex is when two characters (or players) invest too much of their character into someone else's character. This can be a very detrimental development. If one of the people in this duo quits, takes a break, or leaves for any other reason, the other person's character is darn near ruined. Suddenly, they do not have much connection with the game world, they haven't made any other friends or allies, and they are like half a person wandering around lost. I generally try to advise people to be careful about this and make sure they never get their character development too wrapped up into a single individual.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 06:01 AM   #43
Mulisha
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3
Mulisha is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mulisha
Probably thread necroing, but heres my 2 cents.

Mudsex is as dirty as you make it. If you wanna do the whole "fade to black" emote scenario, thats cool. But it shouldn't be a problem if 2 consensual partners decide to engage in simulated text intercourse. If one of them happens to be 60 years old, and the other person is 13, thats not the admins fault. Its really the parents fault for not monitoring the kid in the first place.
Of course, then you have to ask yourself, why the hell are you trying to shield a 13 year old from mudsex in the first place? I remember my middleschool years, I heard far dirtier words in the lunchroom than on a text game. Everyones hung up on this notion that we have to "protect the children", we need to shield them from "the evil realities of the world".
Take that GTA "Hot Coffee" mod for example. Politicians across america flipped out because a game that was rated 17+ had unlockable sexual content if you downloaded a certain modification, but nobody paid attention to the fact that the game was created for a mature audience in the first place.
The same goes for MUDs. Its ok to cleave a goblin orc in half with a rusty battleaxe and loot its corpse, but god forbid you simulate a little intimacy.
Mulisha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 10:42 AM   #44
Traveler
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 50
Traveler is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The same goes for MUDs. Its ok to cleave a goblin orc in half with a rusty battleaxe and loot its corpse, but god forbid you simulate a little intimacy.
I will just reiterate my previous point. Why does the common occurrence of one bad action lend legitimacy to the occurrence of another?

Do you really think it is okay for a 60-year-old man to engage in sexually explicit activity with a 13-year-old girl? Or, alternatively, vice versa? Why do we blame the parents but not the pervert who does not care if they are MUDsexing with a minor? Were you a parent would you think it was okay for a 25 year old to be talking dirty to your 15-year-old child just because they were pretending to be in a fantasy world?

As a parent, I can tell you I am on edge any time the kids are not in my sight (at school, at a friend’s house). Every crime show on TV as well as the evening news tells stories of how at the slightest moment of relaxed attention a tragedy can occur. Now, my kids are not old enough to have an interest in MUDs, but my concern does not end at my children.

Look at the recent exposes on MySpace. An unregulated avenue like a MUD would be a virtual world playground to some of these sickos.

I do not have an issue concerning MUDsex between consenting adults although I know nearly first hand how dangerous that can be. I do not like it because I think it adversely affects the RP of a MUD. That being said I do prefer adult only MUDs because mature storylines can be much more complex and thereby much more enjoyable for me as a gamer.
Traveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 11:31 AM   #45
Fifi
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 227
Fifi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Traveler @ April 13 2006,10:42)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The same goes for MUDs. Its ok to cleave a goblin orc in half with a rusty battleaxe and loot its corpse, but god forbid you simulate a little intimacy.
I will just reiterate my previous point. Why does the common occurrence of one bad action lend legitimacy to the occurrence of another?

Do you really think it is okay for a 60-year-old man to engage in sexually explicit activity with a 13-year-old girl? Or, alternatively, vice versa? Why do we blame the parents but not the pervert who does not care if they are MUDsexing with a minor? Were you a parent would you think it was okay for a 25 year old to be talking dirty to your 15-year-old child just because they were pretending to be in a fantasy world?

As a parent, I can tell you I am on edge any time the kids are not in my sight (at school, at a friend’s house). Every crime show on TV as well as the evening news tells stories of how at the slightest moment of relaxed attention a tragedy can occur. Now, my kids are not old enough to have an interest in MUDs, but my concern does not end at my children.

Look at the recent exposes on MySpace. An unregulated avenue like a MUD would be a virtual world playground to some of these sickos.

I do not have an issue concerning MUDsex between consenting adults although I know nearly first hand how dangerous that can be. I do not like it because I think it adversely affects the RP of a MUD. That being said I do prefer adult only MUDs because mature storylines can be much more complex and thereby much more enjoyable for me as a gamer.
For what it's worth, Traveler, I agree with you. However, we can't do anything about the perverts, so while it doesn't excuse any wrongdoing on the part of predators, ultimately the responsibility for keeping kids safe falls on the shoulders of their parents.
Fifi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 01:29 PM   #46
lovechiefs
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 71
lovechiefs is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to lovechiefs Send a message via AIM to lovechiefs Send a message via MSN to lovechiefs Send a message via Yahoo to lovechiefs
My perspective on this is very simple and may offend some of the readers/players.As such I will first give you some info on my background(no personal info)
Born in Bulgaria,lived for 10 years in France,moved to the US at the age of 20.I spent my teenager/beginning of adult years in France(age 10-20).
As far as sex goes,I think people are too uptight about it(especially in the US).Too many times,when you start talking about sex,people get offended or look at you like you are a pervert.So to begin,mentality has to change.SEX IS GOOD!!!!Sex is not a monster
As far as mudsex,I haven't encountere the situation,as I am still new in Achaea(level 10),however if I encounter the situation,I have no problem with the complete acting out.It would actually add to the imaginary reality
Kids wise,here is the thing that most readers will hate.As far as I am concerned,if you are 15 and older,you have the right to know,talk and have sex.
There was a study made by Fox Channel and O'Reilly Factor(a few month ago) and that study found that in France(for example),there were much less teenage pregnancy and STDs compared to the US.The main reason for that is that parents talk to their kids about sex,STDs,protection.They even go as to provide them with condoms and birth control pills.
This you don't see in the US
By to come back to the subject:
I am all for the mudsex and the complete acting part
If people want to protect kids,mud owners could create private rooms and/or characters can rent a inn room or something and go there
lovechiefs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 04:32 PM   #47
Mulisha
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3
Mulisha is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mulisha
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Traveler @ April 13 2006,10:42)
Do you really think it is okay for a 60-year-old man to engage in sexually explicit activity with a 13-year-old girl?
Truthfully.. whatever floats their boat man. Some people like being ****ed on, some people like touching minors. Its not at the top of my "save the world" agenda. Hell, girls even get married off at 12 years old in some cultures. Screw em, y'know? Who are we to say sh**? I'm not saying we should all run off and bang a minor, but you can't preach tolerance for one fetish (same-sex intercourse) and bomb another.
And as my main point in my post, which you happened to skip in your reply, was that mudsex isn't going to scar a child for life. I remember when I was 13, sneakin' pornos under the mattress and showing them to all my friends. I think I grew up pretty ok.
Mulisha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 04:36 PM   #48
Anitra
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 123
Anitra is on a distinguished road
lovechiefs: April 13 2006,13:29
Quote:
Originally Posted by
As far as sex goes,I think people are too uptight about it(especially in the US).
I totally agree there. it always struck me as totally ridiculous that people accept the most explicit, graphic violence in computer games, and then get all in a huff about anything that has to do with sex.

To each their taste. I have no problem with people indulging in mudsex, as long as they are reasonably discreet and not too tacky about it.

However, I'd never do it myself, for 2 reasons:

1. I prefer the real thing.

2. I've seen too many mud relations go bad over mudsex that went sour. True, there are some mud relationships that end happily, but the majority don't.
Anitra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 08:35 PM   #49
Traveler
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 50
Traveler is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Truthfully.. whatever floats their boat man. Some people like being ****ed on, some people like touching minors. Its not at the top of my "save the world" agenda. Hell, girls even get married off at 12 years old in some cultures. Screw em, y'know? Who are we to say sh**? I'm not saying we should all run off and bang a minor, but you can't preach tolerance for one fetish (same-sex intercourse) and bomb another.
Consensual fetish sex (I do not think homosexual relationships are fetishes) between adults (which I have no problem with) is very different then any type of sex between an adult and a minor. Just because some cultures allow grown men to have 12 year old child-slave brides , which your statement seems to condone, doesn't mean it's a good thing. If you think pedophilia is okay then there is nothing I can say or write to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by
I totally agree there. it always struck me as totally ridiculous that people accept the most explicit, graphic violence in computer games, and then get all in a huff about anything that has to do with sex.
I don't let my kids play graphic violent video games either. I personally am not getting in a huff about 'anything' that has to do with sex. I am stating my opinion that MUDsex is potentially dangerous and disruptive. Dangerous when it involves possible interaction between an adult and a child. Disruptive because in my experience because many people can't seperate their libido from the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
2. I've seen too many mud relations go bad over mudsex that went sour. True, there are some mud relationships that end happily, but the majority don't.
With this I whole heartedly agree. I've also many people who were otherwise spectators, get dragged into a horrible mess, when they were just trying to RP their character the way it should be played.
Traveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2006, 01:44 PM   #50
Shane
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Shane is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Dec. 09 2005,21:00)
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Brody @ Dec. 09 2005,14:29)
What makes the act of consensual virtual sex between two characters in a private place any more unsavory than acts of virtual violence? If we're really trying to protect the young from things that might hurt their psyches, it's kind of hypocritical to encourage violence while dismissing sex as goofy and harmful, right?
Three words: Fundamentalist Christian A**holes. You know, the sort who -freak out- about sex generally but who are happy to engage in violence and murder on a massive scale. With leaders like these, can you blame the rest of the culture if it follows along?

--matt
*rolls eyes*

This is why what was it, Israel? Has a policy of not giving roleplayers security clearance.

Let's be blunt - sex has been a very personal thing in the vast majority of cultures all over the world for all of known history. That is why it is an issue for so many people, not because of the horrible, horrible Christians.

I wasn't even going to post on this thread because I felt out of place being the only person who appears to enjoy a little mud sex now and then. Oddly, I am also one of these horrible, horrible uptight Christians who, for example, is not all that upset about the Iraq war, among other things.

Politics, specially flame baiting politics, really seem out of place to me in a discussion about games.

My two cents.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 01:15 AM   #51
Tia
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2
Tia is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Your opinion might change if you were ever the victim of sexual abuse. To excuse an internet pervert or any molesters actions because of lack of parenting is down right disgusting. Small comfort to the child giving the offender a get out free card by saying 'hey kid your parents should have known better'.
How lovely of you to put all victims of sexual abuse into one large lumping. A question, have you ever been one? Cause if not, then well, you really have no say in that matter. Whereas I do.

To be quite frank, unless a game has a rating and rules that are clearly stated against MUDsex, then it's up to the players to make that choice. I personally don't have anything against but that doesn't mean I just go doing it all the time. Only if it actually furthers a character's development because really, isn't that what RP is about? The development of a character and the exploration of who that person you're playing really is, how they think, why they think what they do and how they'd react to this or that.
Tia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 07:18 AM   #52
prof1515
Senior Member
 
prof1515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 791
prof1515 will become famous soon enoughprof1515 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to prof1515 Send a message via Yahoo to prof1515
Quote:
Originally Posted by
What makes the act of consensual virtual sex between two characters in a private place any more unsavory than acts of virtual violence? If we're really trying to protect the young from things that might hurt their psyches,it's kind of hypocritical to encourage violence while dismissing sex as goofy and harmful, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Three words: Fundamentalist Christian A**holes. You know, the sort who -freak out- about sex generally but who are happy to engage in violence and murder on a massive scale. With leaders like these, can you blame the rest of the culture if it follows along?

--matt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
*rolls eyes*

This is why what was it, Israel?  Has a policy of not giving roleplayers security clearance.

Let's be blunt - sex has been a very personal thing in the vast majority of cultures all over the world for all of known history.  That is why it is an issue for so many people, not because of the horrible, horrible Christians.

I wasn't even going to post on this thread because I felt out of place being the only person who appears to enjoy a little mud sex now and then.  Oddly, I am also one of these horrible, horrible uptight Christians who, for example, is not all that upset about the Iraq war, among other things.

Politics, specially flame baiting politics, really seem out of place to me in a discussion about games.

My two cents.
I've got to agree with Matt (here's hoping the world doesn't end, right Matt? ).  The problem isn't sex, or the depiction of it.  The problem is people finding offense in something which is natural.  Every animal does it (excepting those which reproduce asexually, but not many if any people typically RP such creatures), including man.  Many of the taboos surrounding it are the result of prudish Christianity.  Same goes for nudity, attitudes toward homosexuality, and various other "vices", none of which are really wrong or offensive unless you were raised to believe so.  But just because you were raised to believe so doesn't make them offensive.  It just means you interpret them as such.  And not all cultures treat sexuality with such prudishness (in fact, I really can't think of any which treat it as such a taboo subject as Judeo-Christianity does).

As I was telling a friend of mine the other day, it's just like the definition of "family".  The nuclear family utilizing bilineal descent model is far from the only one out there.  But to many, they don't realize that the definition of family is not confined merely to that one model.  And those who are adamant that it must tend to be ignorant Christian fundamentalists (practically a redundant use of the adjective since ignorance is almost a pre-requisite for fundamentalism). The same goes for many aspects of sexuality.

For me personally, I don't see a need to engage in MUDsex.  If it makes sense for the character, I suppose it's fine.  But if one wants to make their character "realistic" in that regard, they should probably RP masturbating too since more people engage in that sexual practice than actual intercourse.  Let's not forget other natural functions like urination and defecation while we're at it.  But it's a personal preference, not a right or a wrong.  I tend to concentrate my characters on aspects other than sexuality, aspects which contribute to a broader storyline.

But really folks, it's up to the individual.  No need to condemn anyone for it nor is there any need to insist it has to be done.

Take care,

Jason
prof1515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 10:09 AM   #53
Shane
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Shane is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ May 12 2006,07:18)
   
"The problem is people finding offense in something which is natural. Every animal does it (excepting those which reproduce asexually, but not many if any people typically RP such creatures), including man."

"Many of the taboos surrounding it are the result of prudish Christianity. Same goes for nudity, attitudes toward homosexuality, and various other "vices", none of which are really wrong or offensive unless you were raised to believe so."

So many cultures do tend towards the wearing of clothes and the creation of families around the biological parents of children that it is hard for me to see any blaming of Christianity for the model as legitamate. As for the animals, well, there are a lot of things that animals do that I wish people would not, like killing each other in anger. It is really neither here nor there whether or not a behavior is "normal". It's also quite "normal" for people to consider sex very personal, and that is my point of course. Raging over Christianity somehow forming and holding together the idea or concept of a "nuclear family" with some iron fisted fundamentalism, seen from outside any viewpoint other than a virulently anti-Christian one, is weak, unsupportable, and tends to cast into stark contrast the way normal Christianity and normal life meld in many cases quite seamlessly, and tends I think to explain the success of the religion regardless of whether or not there is an actual God.

The natural forces that tend to reinforce family ties and taboos regarding sex are manifold. The attitude of treating it as perfectly acceptable at any time with anyone is almost unheard of, and can be downright unhealthy.

We all make our own taboos, sure, but that doesn't mean that they come from nowhere either. We experience the world as a place where certain things cause pleasure, others pain, some death, and some are hard to really understand. If you could go back to the dawn of time and stamp out whatever little cultural seed it was that grew into Christianity, it would change nothing except the names, because how people interact is not now, nor was it ever, controlled strictly by only the most prudish and intollerant, and the natural forces that drove those cultural developments would still exist.

If you then drop into the mix that there might actually BE a God, well then...

I still found it a more or less gratuitous slap at Christians in general. Years of wallowing around in this same discussion leave me feeling that the only people who feel this way about the simple concept that sex tends to be very personal and private are people who have personal issues that wander far outside the merely sexual, and are not truly circumspect in their analysis of the issue of sex and privacy. In short, they tend to dislike the concept God, and indeed pretty much all authority, wherever that authority may derive, whether democratic or despotic or religious. Al authority I guess I should say except their own, which they seem to cling to tenaciously in the face of any and all resistance or evidence to the contrary.

I once saw a special on one of the various educational channels about a tribe of people, I want to say in the islands off southeast Asia. I can't recall. They wore these long, pointed gourds on their penises. Well, the males...

What was the reason? Did they do it to enhance their masculinity? Emphasize their virility? What do you imagine they told the first westerners to learn to speak their language?

They did so to hide their nakedness. ?!?!?! Could you get any further from traditional Judeo-Christian westernism? Their idea of family was not so different from ours either.

So, the idea that ideas about the privacy of sex or nudity are anything other than well nigh absolute values strikes me as a little out there. There are always degrees, sure, but fundamentally it's almost universal, and if we were to spend even more time on this aspect of this subject, I could go on at rather rediculous length at what the design pressures are that dictate this attitude most of the time in any given culture.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 11:45 AM   #54
prof1515
Senior Member
 
prof1515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 791
prof1515 will become famous soon enoughprof1515 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to prof1515 Send a message via Yahoo to prof1515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane,May 12 2006,10[img
http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]9]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raging over Christianity somehow forming and holding together the idea or concept of a "nuclear family" with some iron fisted fundamentalism, seen from outside any viewpoint other than a virulently anti-Christian one, is weak, unsupportable, and tends to cast into stark contrast the way normal Christianity and normal life meld in many cases quite seamlessly, and tends I think to explain the success of the religion regardless of whether or not there is an actual God.
The "success" of religion is a multi-faceted one.  It should be pointed out that Christianity is a minority religion and hence an "anti-Christian" viewpoint hardly could contribute to the success of religion since there are far more non-Christian religions.  Additionally, what is "normal Christianity" since there are more varieties of it than there flavors of ice cream.  And "normal life" constitutes what?  Afraid you're the one looking at everything from a narrow point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
As for the animals, well, there are a lot of things that animals do that I wish people would not, like killing each other in anger.
Mankind kills out of more than anger.  Greed, cultural differences, and just plain pleasure all constitute reasons why people kill either other animals or other human beings themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
It is really neither here nor there whether or not a behavior is "normal".  It's also quite "normal" for people to consider sex very personal, and that is my point of course.
It's a cultural norm perhaps, but not biologically normal.  Embarassment and taboos regarding sex are learned behavior.  Raise a human being in an environment without such things and they won't be factors in their personality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
So many cultures do tend towards the wearing of clothes and the creation of families around the biological parents of children....
Actually, not every culture traces their lineage the same way.  Nor do people view clothing in the same way.  Christians find female breasts offensive.  Plenty of cultures do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
The natural forces that tend to reinforce family ties and taboos regarding sex are manifold.
There are no natural forces.  Culture is learned behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
The attitude of treating it as perfectly acceptable at any time with anyone is almost unheard of, and can be downright unhealthy.
Again, you're looking at things from a very narrow and inaccurate viewpoint.  Biologically, human beings are capable of sexual reproduction at any time with anyone.  That's one of the differences between humans and many other animals which have specific breeding periods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
We all make our own taboos, sure, but that doesn't mean that they come from nowhere either.
As time passes, so too must a culture.  To cling to outdated beliefs that might have been useful (if they were indeed ever) at one time out of their chronological context is ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
If you could go back to the dawn of time and stamp out whatever little cultural seed it was that grew into Christianity, it would change nothing except the names, because how people interact is not now, nor was it ever, controlled strictly by only the most prudish and intollerant, and the natural forces that drove those cultural developments would still exist.
You wouldn't have to go back very far in mankind's history.  Two thousand years out of tens of thousands of years hardly constitutes "the dawn of time".  Mankind got by without Christian taboos for all that time.  How?  Because they're cultural.  For whatever reason they developed, they are not absolutes.  We no longer live in the same world in which they were developed.  The world has changed.  Beliefs and taboos which had their place don't necessarily any longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I still found it a more or less gratuitous slap at Christians in general.
I know plenty of Christians who agree with me.  It was only a gratuitous slap at ignorant fundamentalists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Years of wallowing around in this same discussion leave me feeling that the only people who feel this way about the simple concept that sex tends to be very personal and private are people who have personal issues that wander far outside the merely sexual, and are not truly circumspect in their analysis of the issue of sex and privacy.
No, they simply separate facts from beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
In short, they tend to dislike the concept God, and indeed pretty much all authority, wherever that authority may derive, whether democratic or despotic or religious.
*Laugh*  Do you really believe that or are you just grasping at straws in a lame attempt to offend someone?  "Don't point out anything contrary to my beliefs or I'll call you an anarchist!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Al(sic) authority I guess I should say except their own, which they seem to cling to tenaciously in the face of any and all resistance or evidence to the contrary.
It's you who is either a) clinging tenaciously in the face of evidence, or more likely b) speaking out of ignorance.  If you can show a legitimate source which cites evidence of human sexual insticts which predispose them to the cultural behavior you're claiming is normal, please enlighten everyone.  The fact is that it's cultural behavior, hence learned.  And because it's cultural, that means it's not an absolute.  If you don't think cultures change, then you really need to learn more about history in addition to anthropology.

Take care,

Jason
prof1515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 12:27 PM   #55
BrettH
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
BrettH is on a distinguished road
You can pick out a few cultures that also have tabboos against nudity, and I can pick out a few that don't. Actually, quite a few. There is nothing universal about sexual or body tabboos other than people tend to invent some of varying and contradictory types.

As for its place in roleplaying games, I do believe it has one, since you CANNOT portray a realistic social environment without at least the lure and 'promise' of sexual interaction between people. Whether or not that promise is played out in detailed language is up to the players, but excising it altogether is disastrous to deep and believable storytelling.

I personally play it out in detail, but avoiding ridiculous 'titillation' language, because if the scene has been reached through good roleplay, then I want to explore how my character reacts to other people in that situation. It has, at times, been critical to character development.

However, I do not do it every time the character is getting laid. If, for example, the important interaction details have been played before and the next sexual encounter is not likely to show anything new in the character development area, I fade to black. If something has happened in the roleplay previous to the scene that is likely to make it an interesting scenario with new character development, then I'll play it out even if the characters have been married and supposedly boffing for 10 years.

The MOMENT I get the inkling that the other player is doing it primarily for getting their rocks off, I stop roleplaying such scenes with that player. It leads to a bad place when the motivating reason is to satisfy a player's personal cravings.  The roleplay goes to hell, players leave their real life spouses in order to come 'find you' and all the reasons I started playing out a storyline evaporate into the morass of human wackiness.

I equate this to a situation where a player has his character attacking others, robbing them blind, and interfering with their existence purely because the player is a dill that loves upsetting other people to satisfy his personal issues. That's when useful storyline conflict crosses over into problem land, and it's the same thing with sexual issues, because both lead to very emotional and irrational behavior of the players that are guaranteed to run roughshod over any story in progress.

If it's good for the story, I'm all over it. If it risks the integrity of the gameplay, I'm gone.

---Brett
BrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 03:41 PM   #56
Lark
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 46
Lark is on a distinguished road
Well, I think one point noone's made is that a sexual predator might not exactly be able to figure out who's a minor, either.

From what I've seen, there are people in their thirties and forties who've picked up the internet speak 'lol' and 'wtf' and all that noise, and that's something I've always attributed that to younger people. On the other hand, there are minors crashing muds and becoming outstanding members of their roleplaying community, and I always start picturing some older, classically-trained actor behind them.

So, short of a predator asking everyone "Are you younger than 18?", there's probably no good way to tell. And a smart kid will always lie, for fear of being thrown out for being underage.

I think as long as muds at least have a policy and make it clearly understood to their players, mudsex is fine, if not for everybody. Muds who do have sex should police it to make sure everyone meets the age requirement, though.

I won't bother touching 'fundamentalist Christian assholes', but whether or not us adults can decide what's going on with that, kids can be hurt by sex. At a certain point in their lives they'll start seeking it out for themselves, and make that progressive change from sexual child (id est, not sexual at all) to sexual adult. (which doesn't necessarily mean it in the responsibility sense)

But...but but but...if you throw sex in their face when they're not ready for it, it can be disturbing and even damaging. I don't know if you've seen that Family Guy where Peter wants to have sex with Lois while Stewie's sleeping in their bed, but Lois starts to protest, and Peter reassures her, "Don't worry, honey, he'll just think I'm hurting you."

Funny in an outrageous way, but it's unfortunately true, and was true for me as a kid.

What I'm hacking at is, the mud community needs to really make sure to have solid policies, age restrictions if there's certain types of content, and monitoring to make sure that we don't have any wunderkinds who happen to play muds and are completely naive about sex slipping through the cracks, and getting themselves hurt.

There's no reason why a well-run mud with clear policies can't have people doing what they like with each other, as long as they take it upon themselves to keep the party private from people that don't need to be there. Not all minors will be horribly scarred by sex, but the percentage that can needs protecting.

And as far as the violence and sex issue, violence is pretty bad, and probably something we shouldn't encourage. But the thing is, kids understand violence. When they get mad, they know to hit someone. So they can relate to it. A six year-old, though, is going to have a hell of a time explaining why it is his mommy and daddy, who he thought loved each other, were screaming and biting each other, and that's usually sex at its mildest.

We kind of derailed this thread of Brody's...

I can't really see why full mudsex would be necessary, but I suppose if people can do it without investing themselves into it too much and taking it on a personal level, then that's cool.

I'm just more into heroes and epics sort of rp, than the politics and affairs type. But that's my personal digs.
Lark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 09:10 PM   #57
Shane
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Shane is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ May 12 2006,11:45)
There are no natural forces.  Culture is learned behavior.
I think I'll start here, since you are a parser and much of what you chose to quote here and there does not really follow what I was trying to say.

One natural force that dictates clothing is harsh environment.  Once a people begin to clothe themselves, there is the effect of hiding and then revealing the naked body that differs experientially from simply being nude all the time.

That's a start, or do you deny this from the start?

A second major point regarding reproduction is of course the emotion of jealousy.  This seems instinctual to me.  It also seems to show itself in other species.

Forces like this help shape human culture, and when I speak of whatever seed started Christianity, I am not speaking here of the birth of Christ.  Rather, I am referring to whatever it is in the fabric of ongoing cultural developments that could be traced back past Christ, through Judaism, back to the religions of the region around Canaan and so forth and beyond even that to prehistory, to touch on whatever it is in the human experience that ever made Christianity viable to begin with.  What I am saying is even if you were to trace that back physically and nip it out physically, the psychology that helped to form it would remain and would simply reinsinuate itself over and over by various names until it found outlet.

Finally, regarding all the assertions that clothing and sexual taboo are not universal.  I already set my example for you all to see.  I know of cultures that vary and there's an old saying about exceptions proving the norm, but if you truly intend to argue that public nudity is not usually somewhat taboo or that sex is not usually considered rather private, I would like to see something in the way of proof rather than simple assertions that people have somehow missed the mass of civilizations past and present that tended towards totally open sexual behavior and convenience nudity.  Not just an example or two please, but something to indicate a trend, as you insist Christianity is somehow very unique in this characteristic, whereas I just do not see it.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 10:25 PM   #58
BrettH
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
BrettH is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
but if you truly intend to argue that public nudity is not usually somewhat taboo or that sex is not usually considered rather private, I would like to see something in the way of proof rather than simple assertions that people have somehow missed the mass of civilizations past and present that tended towards totally open sexual behavior and convenience nudity.
You gave one example of a tribe that put gourds on male genitals. Want to bet that same tribe had women walking around with nothing over their breasts?

Eqyptians were very free with nudity, and that was a HUGE culture that lasted for thousands of years longer than Christianity's current length of existence.

To Greek culture, nudity represented perfection and was not specifically tied into sexual behavior. In fact, the word Gymnasium comes from the word 'gymnos' which means nude, because sports practitioners were generally expected to remove their clothing.

Many cultures in places like Africa, South America, and New Guinea still have tribes that barely cover anything, if they cover anything at all. I'm sure we're all familiar with the outrage of colonial europeans whenever they found yet another 'naked society' that 'had to be covered up for their own good.' Of course, there are people today who still maintain that it was for their own good because they just didn't know how to 'live correctly.' I'll just list a few:

Eskimos went entirely naked (in front of the kids! And had sex! in their igloos.

Ancient India's ascetic monks traditionally wore nothing. Buddha was one of these until he made his own sect, and it is said that he had them wear robes to distinguish them from other monks. The Jains in India still practice this form of sacred behavior.

The celts would traditionally go to battle naked to show their bravery.

The Chumash, Yanomamo, Tupari, Tonkawa, Togalose, Suri, Kavirondo, Onge, Jarawa..... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....

I can tell you, to summarize all these things that I could continue to write ad nauseum, that I don't know of any cultural anthropologists that would have made the statement that 'modesty', as we express it in modern America, is natural or ubiquitous. The very notion would get you laughed out of any serious anthropological circles.

It is irritating to see that a person considers Christian culture, coupled with a single Guinea tribe that wears gourds on their privates, as outweighing the validity of the countless cultures past and present that behave(d) completely differently; that supplying the example of one primitive tribe as proof of the naturalness of body-shame requires a full-fledged thesis list to refute. Of course it isn't really about that Guinea tribe, it's about the certainty one feels about social 'truths' when one is born and raised to them. Of course the many millions of people for thousands of years don't compare to personal conviction, do they?

---Brett
BrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2006, 11:22 PM   #59
Tim
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26
Tim is on a distinguished road
Brett makes the superior point here.

As a member of one of these seemingly mysterious primitive “people that have somehow missed the mass of civilization” I thought I should speak directly to this issue.

It maybe that “missed” really does not apply in my case. You see.. Ninewidbaskohaung Ndesnekas. Mukwa Ndodem. Bedosega ndogeba minawa Waganakising Odawa Ndaw. What I said there, among other things, is that I am Odawa … a lot of people pronounce it or spell it as Ottawa. My people were among some of Turtle islands first to be victims of the whitemans angry war god. Among the first to have the twisted words of Christianity victimize our people through this very topic.

Before the coming of the Black Robes my people understood human beings as human beings. We understood who we were and were not ashamed of ourselves. The women wore strap dresses so that in the summer they could remove the sort of bib portion of the dress and be cool. This, of course, left their breasts exposed. The men wore a kind of apron in front of their genetalia but if that flapped up or even got snatched off in a game of begadewe no one was shocked, incensed or otherwise thought ill of it. If we were lucky maybe one of the women might like what she saw.

Relationships were of all kinds, monogamous, pluralistic, open, heterosexual, homosexual … whatever you can think of we did and respected each others right to do so. The only issue was the piece and tranquility of the tribe. Yes, some folks got jealous, maybe that is a human thing. To us, however, jealousy was the individual’s problem and something they would need to go to the mountain and get their head straight about. If YOU were jealous then YOU are/were the problem.

Today many of us Odawa are poisoned by the whitemans Christianity. We are taught these ways are wrong. The very priests who tell us our traditional views on sex are evil horribly torture some of us, like my father, for things like speaking our language.

Human beings do not spring out from Kishilomilangop knowing they are necked. Christianity does not go back to primitive man, be it as Judaism or not. The Church fathers speak with two tongues, and they always have. From the gender bias their book is written in, to its racists over tones, to the way their priests murder, rape and destroy the world around them the truth manifest in our reality has very little to with Christian ideology or philosophy. Whatever human nature is, Christianity is not it.

--Tim
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2006, 05:33 AM   #60
Asaudan
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 14
Asaudan is on a distinguished road
I agree; Christianity is, like, totally the devil.

Before the white man came, we Finns received from our great pagan gods the power to move mountains (which is why we don't have any, these days, as we smote the Norwegian tribes with them). There was never a murder, theft, or rape, as we all revelled in our numerous and ubiquitous orgies. All day long. The resulting spread of sexually transmitted diseases is responsible for our limited population even today.

It must be true.
Asaudan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014