251 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

Jestina wrote...

We must procreate...is pure and simple religious dog poop. You are still living in the stone age where women are expected to be in the kitchen or the bedroom. You also have to keep in mind that much of our "science" was male dominated up until twenty or so years ago.

They can be at the grocery store too..

[legbamel]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Jestina wrote...
We must procreate...is pure and simple religious dog poop. You are still living in the stone age where women are expected to be in the kitchen or the bedroom. You also have to keep in mind that much of our "science" was male dominated up until twenty or so years ago.

Sorry, this is not getting silly. Are you seriously trying to argue that human beings do not have a biological imperative to "procreate?" Sure, culture can modify this imperative, subsume it, or even use it to motivate other activities - but the sex drive is rooted in the desire to pass on genes. I was not aware that this was a controversial concept.

Nobody has said that "we must procreate" as in "this is a moral imperative." I just said that procreation is a biological imperative; think of it this way; those who procreate have children; those who do not procreate do not have children. Those who have children pass on their genes. Those who do not have children do not pass on their genes.

And in context of our discussion, the research suggests that those who survive danger and procreate are more likely to pass on their genes than those who do not. Hence, people tend to be sexually responsive after surviving stressful/dangerous situations. Hence, DAO and DA2 romances make perfect sense.

That is not "male dominated science;" it is just basic common sense.

You said it far more eloquently than I was going to, so I'll just agree.

As for the "you're too tired/busy" argument, you have your other companions and NPCs to set up camp, cook, etc.  It's not like the Warden and LI were trooping around Thedas alone, after all, and Hawke had it even easier.

[Jestina]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
That is not "male dominated science;" it is just basic common sense.

It is, no matter how much you spin it. The only people I know with an impulsive want to breed, are young males...or people influenced by religion. I certainly have no desire for children...and never have had any impulsive behaviour about it. You're just spouting more male insecurities.

[Volus Warlord]

Jestina wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
That is not "male dominated science;" it is just basic common sense.

It is, no matter how much you spin it. The only people I know with an impulsive want to breed, are young males...or people influenced by religion. I certainly have no desire for children...and never have had any impulsive behaviour about it. You're just spouting more male insecurities.

A desire to have children is an insecurity? I could see it as poorly informed in certain situations, but not as being insecure..

[kirvingtwo]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Jestina wrote...

We must procreate...is pure and simple religious dog poop. You are still living in the stone age where women are expected to be in the kitchen or the bedroom. You also have to keep in mind that much of our "science" was male dominated up until twenty or so years ago.

Sorry, this is not getting silly. Are you seriously trying to argue that human beings do not have a biological imperative to "procreate?" Sure, culture can modify this imperative, subsume it, or even use it to motivate other activities - but the sex drive is rooted in the desire to pass on genes. I was not aware that this was a controversial concept.

Nobody has said that "we must procreate" as in "this is a moral imperative." I just said that procreation is a biological imperative; think of it this way; those who procreate have children; those who do not procreate do not have children. Those who have children pass on their genes. Those who do not have children do not pass on their genes.

And in context of our discussion, the research suggests that those who survive danger and procreate are more likely to pass on their genes than those who do not. Hence, people tend to be sexually responsive after surviving stressful/dangerous situations. Hence, DAO and DA2 romances make perfect sense.

That is not "male dominated science;" it is just basic common sense.

It may be your thinking but it isn't basic common sense and yes it is a controversial subject.

My husband and I have never felt the urge to procreate and yet enjoy sex for pleasure and intimacy.
If,  and it's a big if, people of any sexual orientation feel the desire to have sex after a life threatening situation then I would hazard a guess that it has more to do with comfort than any 'biological imperative'.

And....back on topic...there needs to be more sex and love and loving sex in the next Dragon Age game.

[Plaintiff]

Obviously not EVERYONE adheres to instinctual norms, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Survival is an instinctual norm and people still off themselves.

[bucketOFme]

Jestina wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
That is not "male dominated science;" it is just basic common sense.

It is, no matter how much you spin it. The only people I know with an impulsive want to breed, are young males...or people influenced by religion. I certainly have no desire for children...and never have had any impulsive behaviour about it. You're just spouting more male insecurities.

What. Are you serious? This is nonsense and not on topic. This forum is for a discussion of sex and love IN THE GAME. So  unless you are talking about DA3 romance opinions, take it somewhere else.

thank you.

[The_FenixV]

Hmm well the main function of our race has always been survival and then reproduction so in times of war, we would be more preoccupied by staying alive rather than sleeping with someone.

Either way that is not the case in video games, reality and video games are different, if there was no romance in dragon age I'd feel bored, there would be no reason to form connections with your companions either.

[Silfren]

Jestina wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
That is not "male dominated science;" it is just basic common sense.

It is, no matter how much you spin it. The only people I know with an impulsive want to breed, are young males...or people influenced by religion. I certainly have no desire for children...and never have had any impulsive behaviour about it. You're just spouting more male insecurities.

...Have you considered that you read WAY TOO DAMN MUCH into a word that was NOT IN ANY WAY used in the way you keep asserting?  I agree with you that certain religious groups seem to think that the only purpose of sex is to procreate, and that this idea has sexist ramifications for women. But holy sh*t, that was not how the word "procreate" was used for this discussion.  

Seriously, any other time I'd be the first one to agree with you, but that's NOT the context in which the word was used, not until you derailed the discussion to force it into that context. 

To bring this back around to the discussion we WERE having, you forget that in Origins, the entire campaign took place over the space of a year, to possibly a year and a half.  Presumably this is 12-18 months.  You're kidding yourself if you think in that entire span of time, there was NO downtime at all in which the Warden and her companions could have had time to form relationships.  If we consider that from a story standpoint, much of the time was spent walking from one locale to another, then yes, there WAS time for that to happen.  Or do you think that people who are walking about the countryside are going to do it in dead silence for every waking moment?
I find it much more ridiculous to think that two people who've spent their every moment together for a full year, in all kinds of weather, in a great many life-or-death situations, who have suffered through tragedies and triumphs together, would NOT form some kind of relationship.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 mai 2013 - 04:31 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

Jestina wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
That is not "male dominated science;" it is just basic common sense.

It is, no matter how much you spin it. The only people I know with an impulsive want to breed, are young males...or people influenced by religion. I certainly have no desire for children...and never have had any impulsive behaviour about it. You're just spouting more male insecurities.

Several things; your characterization of "an impulsive want to breed" is a straw man - as well as the fallacy of equivocation. Just because a person has an "impulse" does not make them "impulsive." "Impulsive" has the connotation of acting or being controlled by "impulses" and nobody is arguing for that. An "impulse" is simply a desire. What we are discussing is the origin of a desire - in this case, to become romatically attached and have sex after facing a stressful, dangerous situation.

I think you may be getting hung up on the difference between the biological impulse and its cultural manifestation. You keep confusing a basic biological function with assuming someone is trying to impose some sort of moral imperative on you. Nobody is doing that. The fact that you "certainly have no desire for children" is simply irrelevant to this issue. If you want/enjoy sex, then that "impulse" or desire came from somewhere - and the social anthropologists say that 100,000 years or so ago, those people who enjoyed sex were more likely to have sex than those who did not. And since this was long before anyone knew about birth control, having lots of sex generally meant having lots of offspring. Thus genes for enjoying sex were more likely to be passed down, than genes that found a good night sleep a better choice.

Thus, the desire for sex (of any sort) is an outgrowth of the biological impulse to procreate. The fact that in our culture, we can separate sex from procreation, does not deny its original intent/purpose/motivation. You are free to disagree with this assumption; but the last time I taught Psych 100, it was basically the universal opinion held by every reputable scholar in the social sciences. Therefore, if you want to argue otherwise, you are going to have to offer something other than "male insecurities" as justification.

And thus, as mentioned previously, those people who survived dangerous situations, and still wanted sex, were more likely to pass on their genes - especially in those environments where people faced such dangers on a daily basis. This in turn means that danger became associated with sexual arousal - regardless of whether said sexual arousal leads to actual procreation. 

One final question; what kind of insecurities does a person have to suffer if they have to continually make insulting comments at others in what was intended to be a simple discussion of whether romance is "realistic" in a stressful/dangerous environment? See what I did there? Doesn't help the discussion, does it? So why not argue facts, rather than trade insults?

[Jestina]

CaptainBlackGold]
One final question; what kind of insecurities does a person have to suffer if they have to continually make insulting comments at others in what was intended to be a simple discussion of whether romance is "realistic" in a stressful/dangerous environment? See what I did there? Doesn't help the discussion, does it? So why not argue facts, rather than trade insults?

You started with the insults...barking about nonsense and insinuating that women should be in a certain role. Obviously you are highly insecure when it comes to females being on equal or more dominant standing.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Jestina wrote...

CaptainBlackGold]
One final question; what kind of insecurities does a person have to suffer if they have to continually make insulting comments at others in what was intended to be a simple discussion of whether romance is "realistic" in a stressful/dangerous environment? See what I did there? Doesn't help the discussion, does it? So why not argue facts, rather than trade insults?

You started with the insults...barking about nonsense and insinuating that women should be in a certain role. Obviously you are highly insecure when it comes to females being on equal or more dominant standing.

I insulted no one, and made no insinuations about women in any role whatsoever. That you do not see this, is, well, really, really sad.

I wish you well in life.

[Silfren]

Jestina wrote...

CaptainBlackGold]
One final question; what kind of insecurities does a person have to suffer if they have to continually make insulting comments at others in what was intended to be a simple discussion of whether romance is "realistic" in a stressful/dangerous environment? See what I did there? Doesn't help the discussion, does it? So why not argue facts, rather than trade insults?

You started with the insults...barking about nonsense and insinuating that women should be in a certain role. Obviously you are highly insecure when it comes to females being on equal or more dominant standing.

...If you guys don't stop it this thread will be locked.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Jestina you might want to take a chill pill or ten.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 28 mai 2013 - 05:20 .

[DatOneFanboy]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Jestina you might want to take a chill pill or ten.

innocent children screaming in tears because of those 2 

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

DatOneFanboy wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Jestina you might want to take a chill pill or ten.

innocent children screaming in tears because of those 2 

Really?

Carry on then.

[Riknas]

I don't want to be the third guy to say this, but I feel like it needs to be said a bit more clearly. This argument has taken a major turn for the worse and has little hope for resolution.

Consensus so far though seems to suggest that (short of outright seeking life-threatening situations) danger does bring some romantic appeal. Now that we have established this, maybe we can say where we want it to go from there? Perhaps an acknowledgment with a, "You know this is totally a hormones thing, right? Can we make this last?" would be a push in the right direction.

Modifié par Riknas, 28 mai 2013 - 05:43 .

[Silfren]

DatOneFanboy wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Jestina you might want to take a chill pill or ten.

innocent children screaming in tears because of those 2 

Because of the 1, actually.  It's painfully clear just who started this derailment.

To try and get this back on track, my comments about the OP:

I think the romances from Origins were more in depth, but I didn't like the fact that you could conceivably run through the entire romance arc in a matter of minutes during a single conversation.  Certain conditions required specific world states which had to be completed first, but overall you could, if you wanted, do the vast majority of Alistair's romance plot arc five minutes into Lothering--in fact I did this a couple times specifically so that I could have a hardened Alistair through the majority of my playthrough. 

Much as I disliked the way DA2 only allowed you to talk with your companions at certain points, and disliked the fact that the romances were...thinner...than their Origins counterparts, I did like the way romances were forced into a much slower pace.  It wasn't handled very well, due I personally think to the paucity of conversations you were allowed to have, but I think a synthesis of both formats might work reasonably well.  Having the same number of opportunities to talk with your LI, but certain conversations being locked out until a certain timeframe has passed.  I'm not sure how this should or even could be implemented.  If DA3 takes place over a given period of time in a way that the game measures (as opposed to DA:O where we're simply told at one point that it's been nearly a year...and this statement happening regardless of when you do the quest in question), then that could be a way of doing it...or by having the game measure how much time has past by the number of quests you complete, or something.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 mai 2013 - 05:44 .

[Silfren]

Riknas wrote...

Consensus so far though seems to suggest that (short of outright seeking life-threatening situations) danger does bring some romantic appeal. Now that we have established this, maybe we can say where we want it to go from there? Perhaps an acknowledgment with a, "You know this is totally a hormones thing, right? Can we make this last?" would be a push in the right direction.

Some of the conversations between Alistair and the Warden could be construed this way.  Some of the possible breakup lines seem to suggest the line of thinking "sure we've had fun, but are we really sure it has any hope of lasting?"  For that matter, Alistair's "I've come to care for you a great deal" even alludes to the idea of being drawn together through the constant danger, and also directly mentioning him and the Warden having lived through so much together.

[The_FenixV]

Silfren wrote...

DatOneFanboy wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Jestina you might want to take a chill pill or ten.

innocent children screaming in tears because of those 2 

Because of the 1, actually.  It's painfully clear just who started this derailment.

To try and get this back on track, my comments about the OP:

I think the romances from Origins were more in depth, but I didn't like the fact that you could conceivably run through the entire romance arc in a matter of minutes during a single conversation.  Certain conditions required specific world states which had to be completed first, but overall you could, if you wanted, do the vast majority of Alistair's romance plot arc five minutes into Lothering--in fact I did this a couple times specifically so that I could have a hardened Alistair through the majority of my playthrough. 

Much as I disliked the way DA2 only allowed you to talk with your companions at certain points, and disliked the fact that the romances were...thinner...than their Origins counterparts, I did like the way romances were forced into a much slower pace.  It wasn't handled very well, due I personally think to the paucity of conversations you were allowed to have, but I think a synthesis of both formats might work reasonably well.  Having the same number of opportunities to talk with your LI, but certain conversations being locked out until a certain timeframe has passed.  I'm not sure how this should or even could be implemented.  If DA3 takes place over a given period of time in a way that the game measures (as opposed to DA:O where we're simply told at one point that it's been nearly a year...and this statement happening regardless of when you do the quest in question), then that could be a way of doing it...or by having the game measure how much time has past by the number of quests you complete, or something.

Hmm I don't know about that, the relationship with Isabela was better than the relationships with Zevran or Leliana if you ask me. 

Then again, the only romance I liked in DAO was with Morrigan.. it felt more.... emotional for some reason. 

[Silfren]

The_FenixV wrote...

Silfren wrote...

DatOneFanboy wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Jestina you might want to take a chill pill or ten.

innocent children screaming in tears because of those 2 

Because of the 1, actually.  It's painfully clear just who started this derailment.

To try and get this back on track, my comments about the OP:

I think the romances from Origins were more in depth, but I didn't like the fact that you could conceivably run through the entire romance arc in a matter of minutes during a single conversation.  Certain conditions required specific world states which had to be completed first, but overall you could, if you wanted, do the vast majority of Alistair's romance plot arc five minutes into Lothering--in fact I did this a couple times specifically so that I could have a hardened Alistair through the majority of my playthrough. 

Much as I disliked the way DA2 only allowed you to talk with your companions at certain points, and disliked the fact that the romances were...thinner...than their Origins counterparts, I did like the way romances were forced into a much slower pace.  It wasn't handled very well, due I personally think to the paucity of conversations you were allowed to have, but I think a synthesis of both formats might work reasonably well.  Having the same number of opportunities to talk with your LI, but certain conversations being locked out until a certain timeframe has passed.  I'm not sure how this should or even could be implemented.  If DA3 takes place over a given period of time in a way that the game measures (as opposed to DA:O where we're simply told at one point that it's been nearly a year...and this statement happening regardless of when you do the quest in question), then that could be a way of doing it...or by having the game measure how much time has past by the number of quests you complete, or something.

Hmm I don't know about that, the relationship with Isabela was better than the relationships with Zevran or Leliana if you ask me. 

Then again, the only romance I liked in DAO was with Morrigan.. it felt more.... emotional for some reason. 

Could you elaborate?  I haven't romanced Isabela yet, and I never did romance Leliana or Zevran. 

My biggest issue with the DA2 romances was that there wasn't much to them.  I'd have preferred at least one, if not two, extra romance scenes per LI in the second and third acts, if not necessarily the first one.  I liked that there seeme to be a more natural progression to them than was offered in Origins (though it's worth admitting that Origins left it up to the player how fast or slow the romance could progress), but at the same time they had less content over all. 

[The_FenixV]

Silfren wrote...

The_FenixV wrote...

Silfren wrote...

DatOneFanboy wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Jestina you might want to take a chill pill or ten.

innocent children screaming in tears because of those 2 

Because of the 1, actually.  It's painfully clear just who started this derailment.

To try and get this back on track, my comments about the OP:

I think the romances from Origins were more in depth, but I didn't like the fact that you could conceivably run through the entire romance arc in a matter of minutes during a single conversation.  Certain conditions required specific world states which had to be completed first, but overall you could, if you wanted, do the vast majority of Alistair's romance plot arc five minutes into Lothering--in fact I did this a couple times specifically so that I could have a hardened Alistair through the majority of my playthrough. 

Much as I disliked the way DA2 only allowed you to talk with your companions at certain points, and disliked the fact that the romances were...thinner...than their Origins counterparts, I did like the way romances were forced into a much slower pace.  It wasn't handled very well, due I personally think to the paucity of conversations you were allowed to have, but I think a synthesis of both formats might work reasonably well.  Having the same number of opportunities to talk with your LI, but certain conversations being locked out until a certain timeframe has passed.  I'm not sure how this should or even could be implemented.  If DA3 takes place over a given period of time in a way that the game measures (as opposed to DA:O where we're simply told at one point that it's been nearly a year...and this statement happening regardless of when you do the quest in question), then that could be a way of doing it...or by having the game measure how much time has past by the number of quests you complete, or something.

Hmm I don't know about that, the relationship with Isabela was better than the relationships with Zevran or Leliana if you ask me. 

Then again, the only romance I liked in DAO was with Morrigan.. it felt more.... emotional for some reason. 

Could you elaborate?  I haven't romanced Isabela yet, and I never did romance Leliana or Zevran. 

My biggest issue with the DA2 romances was that there wasn't much to them.  I'd have preferred at least one, if not two, extra romance scenes per LI in the second and third acts, if not necessarily the first one.  I liked that there seeme to be a more natural progression to them than was offered in Origins (though it's worth admitting that Origins left it up to the player how fast or slow the romance could progress), but at the same time they had less content over all. 

I believe it was because I never expected that kind of reaction from Isabela, the last talk with her before you start the last battle was emotional it managed to surprise me as well since I thought Isabela was just what Aveline calls her but she proved me wrong and the relationship at that moment seemed pretty strong. 

[DatOneFanboy]

did this niqqa just say Isabela romance was better then leliana. Kay

Modifié par DatOneFanboy, 28 mai 2013 - 06:36 .

[The_FenixV]

DatOneFanboy wrote...

did this niqqa just say Isabela romance was better then leliana. Kay

Well to me it was, it's obviously different for everyone. 

[Silfren]

The_FenixV wrote...

DatOneFanboy wrote...

did this niqqa just say Isabela romance was better then leliana. Kay

Well to me it was, it's obviously different for everyone. 

I've never romanced Leliana (aside from one ninjamance that I willingly killed by reloading to a prior save) and I personally think Isabela's romance beats hers hands down, merely because I like the character of Isabela so much more.  This isn't to say I found Leliana to be a poorly written character, but as characterization goes, between these two I found Isabela to be much more interesting, compelling, and realistic.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 mai 2013 - 07:00 .