1942 réponses à ce sujet

[herkles]

 

This is going off topic, so I'll keep it short. I loathe the idea that sex and those who engage in it are evil. I like the idea that a KISA of any gender or orientation could be a sexual person. That doesn't mean that I don't support the inclusion of asexual characters! I definitely think they deserve recognition and inclusion. But I don't support the idea that a person's morality is tied to their sexuality.

I agree rather strongly with this.

 

I think quite frankly for example that is the essence of the KISA, that they are not particularly sexual, particularly being the key word.

 

Perhaps it would be easier if I met more promiscuous people that weren't also kind of jerks, that just doesn't happen though really to be honest.

 

There is a difference in betwen Promiscuous and being sexual, one could be quiet sexual with one's spouse without ever sleeping around with another person. 

[Seraphim24]

I agree rather strongly with this.

 

 

There is a difference in betwen Promiscuous and being sexual, one could be quiet sexual with one's spouse without ever sleeping around with another person. 

 

Well perhaps you could explain that difference then.

[Andraste_Reborn]

I could address your points more directly but your motivations just seem so brazenly contradictory I'm not sure why I should bother. I'll just say that a genuine 100% more chaste/noble/KISA/less sex motivated type of character is always extremely and overwhelmingly popular, far more than shifty sleeps with every other thing type of character, and this is universal across media and cultures.

 

Captain Jack Harkness says hello.

 

So do Captain Jack Sparrow, Tony Stark, Dean Winchester, Faith from BtVS, Gambit, Nightwing, Chiana, Hawkeye Pierce, and the inestimable Phryne Fisher. That's ten characters just off the top of my head. All have slutted around their respective canons while remaining popular with their audiences, often more so than their less promiscuous peers. As have our own dear Isabela, Zevran and the Iron Bull for that matter. We're even starting to see more promiscuous women portrayed positively!

 

(I'm using 'slutted around' in a positive sense here, were that not clear.)

[Seraphim24]

Captain Jack Harkness says hello.

 

So do Captain Jack Sparrow, Tony Stark, Dean Winchester, Faith from BtVS, Gambit, Nightwing, Chiana, Hawkeye Pierce, and the inestimable Phryne Fisher. That's ten characters just off the top of my head. All have slutted around their respective canons while remaining popular with their audiences, often more so than their less promiscuous peers. As have our own dear Isabela, Zevran and the Iron Bull for that matter. We're even starting to see more promiscuous women portrayed positively!

 

(I'm using 'slutted around' in a positive sense here, were that not clear.)

 

I'm personally not a major fan of any of those characters, although I'm not sure where you get the impression Jack Sparrow screwed around a lot. Sure he was drunk and leery but tons of sex? Who knows.

 

I think most of the characters you mentioned have critical success only after they blended with Hollywood to be honest, on their own terms they're still kind of niche comic things mostly, major comic canon characters sure, but still comicy and I sort of view their pre-eminence as this bizzare alliance between major Hollywood and and so on that doesn't make me feel like these things are arising naturally but are rather like Frankenstein sort of stichted together/hybrid conection.

 

I also didn't particularly like Isabela, Zevran, or Iron Bull.

 

The only characters I like are basically like Adjantis, Kivan, BG1 Minsc and Imoen, and honestly Edwin as well, BG2 Jaheira, Viconia, and a few other BG1/BG2 characters (definitely not Aerie, Nalia, Cernd, Anomen, everything after that I don't really see as on the same level. ToB Sarevok is cool and honestly I think the enemies in the game are pretty impressive (Balthasar, Melissan) I mean it's mostly the BG1 characters I'd have to say. In terms of other games (non-Japanese) it's mostly Jaina Proudmoore, Sylvannas Windrunner, Uther Pendragon, and a handful of other WC2/WC3 characters.

 

In terms of a KISA character I'm pretty sure Keldorn is pretty close.

 

I want to say perhaps a few of the companions from Torment or Fallout 2, and perhaps a few from the second Witcher game.

 

I mean even NWN (and HotU) Aribeth was better than any DA character frankly.

 

Whenever I bring those up though people refer to the fact that those characters were mostly an accident of the limitations of technology, but regardless of the origins, they seemed to have a kind of impact I was thinking of in this particular context, I mean really, sex scenes in Baldur's Gate 1? This was a different time and place apparently, free from the excessive fan-fiction driven fantasying ownership scenario that seems to happen in modern games where characters are designed primarily to fuel particular sexual lusts or fantasies.

 

This modern we're going to make a this character, a that character, a bisexual strong knight character or whatever it is, is not impressing me in the slightest, it's generally speaking going to be a character similar to whatever that company/creator makes generally, but with the labels changed around.

 

Heck the strongest female character character I played was probably the thief/ninja character in Kingdom Rush, which is a freaking tower defense mobile game.

[Andraste_Reborn]

I'm personally not a major fan of any of those characters, although I'm not sure where you get the impression Jack Sparrow screwed around a lot. Sure he was drunk and leery but tons of sex? Who knows.

 

I'm pretty sure he didn't get slapped by all those women in the first film because he cheated them at poker.

 

I think most of the characters you mentioned have critical success only after they blended with Hollywood to be honest, on their own terms they're still kind of niche comic things mostly.

 

But what you said was that characters who don't sleep around are always more popular than those that do, UNIVERSALLY across medias and cultures. (Also, since when is Hawkeye Pierce a niche character of any kind? M*A*S*H is still a huge cultural touchstone. And only three of the people on the list are comic characters.)

 

I'm not saying that you should like any of those characters, just that they're popular, beloved by substantial numbers of people who are into their canons.

[Seraphim24]

I'm pretty sure he didn't get slapped by all those women in the first film because he cheated them at poker.

 

You never know. I think a lot of people read too much into those kinds of interactions, I've angered many members of the opposite sex over the course of my life and none of it was for sleeping with them. It's like when they see Miley Cyrus naked on the wrecking ball, that doesn't mean she had sex with anyone there, that's the person walking down the street with all their clothes and the "Porn is evil" sign.

 

 

But what you said was that characters who don't sleep around are always more popular than those that do, UNIVERSALLY across medias and cultures. (Also, since when is Hawkeye Pierce a niche character of any kind? M*A*S*H is still a huge cultural touchstone. And only three of the people on the list are comic characters.)

 

I'm not saying that you should like any of those characters, just that they're popular, beloved by substantial numbers of people who are into their canons.

 

I think comic characters cater to a particular sensibility that makes them popular, sure, like for example you never see a character like lets say Nightwing you weren't going to find in a 90s best picture winner or something like Chocolat (since we're on the topic of Johnny Depp) or Elizabeth and the Virgin Queen or Braveheart and his singular romantic obsession with Murron.

 

So what are the characteristics of Nightwing that make him interesting that can't be provided for by that kind of media? Well maybe it's the fact that he's like a mini-social justice warrior, the dynamic in a major Hollywood movie or something is that there is a guy that is 100% insane and the 100% chaste female that lives up to that, it's common enough that the most recent movie to have that (50 Shades of Gray) is playing out the exact same dynamic. Nightwing is like 50% insane 50% chaste.

[Toasted Llama]

So to support the cause to have demisexuality in games you decided to strain all you could to find ways to side with the person who thinks demisexuality is too complex or irritating to "sexual" gamers and thus it should not be included in the game?

 

You really need to read more before you post, because those two things contradict each other 100%.

 

You could of picked on Llama's his (her?) equally pulled out of nowhere argument baseless argument that gamers are sexual and will get frustrated by less sexual characters, but not you chose to needle me for some reason without even bothering to put in effort into your needling in order to weaken the concept you are supporting.

Congratulations, you've managed to ROYALLY ****** me off.

I do not think that demisexuality shouldn't be included and especially not because it is too complex or irritating to "sexual gamers" (and sexual gamers are everyone who isn't demisexual or asexual by the way) I support the inclusion, but it may not be possible to do it properly with the limited amount of resources that Bioware has.

I was questioning things, wondering if it is plausible/achievable/do-able. I wasn't supporting the idea that the content should be cut.

And my argument isn't baseless. I'm going to put is as simple and as basic as possible:

For anyone else: pardon my equations involving pizza here, I don't know how else to put it because apparently sexual desires isn't obvious enough
If you are hungry and you have the option to eat a pizza right here, right now versus a pizza that still needs to be warmed up, there is no beneficial reason to choose to wait. You are hungry, you have needs that must be satisfied.

To translate that back to sexuality:
Similarly, if a sexual (or rather any non-demisexual/non-asexual person, in case that wasn't obvious enough) person is in a relationship they will develop sexual needs that need to be fulfilled or they get frustrated. That's human, that's normal, that's not being a jerk, that's just nature. These needs/desires may not be fullfilled on time in a relationship with a demisexual person. That problem is absent when a non-demisexual/non-asexual person is dating another non-demisexual/non-asexual person.


Anyway, there was no reason to go ahead and reply or attack my comment, so I kindly request you to just stop and especially stop putting words in my mouth or trying to portray me as the bad guy here.

[Seraphim24]

Congratulations, you've managed to ROYALLY ****** me off.

 

I've never seen emotional expression as a bad thing inherently, personally.

 

Congratulations, you've managed to ROYALLY ****** me off.

I do not think that demisexuality shouldn't be included and especially not because it is too complex or irritating to "sexual gamers" (and sexual gamers are everyone who isn't demisexual or asexual by the way) I support the inclusion, but it may not be possible to do it properly with the limited amount of resources that Bioware has.

I was questioning things, wondering if it is plausible/achievable/do-able. I wasn't supporting the idea that the content should be cut.

And my argument isn't baseless. I'm going to put is as simple and as basic as possible:

For anyone else: pardon my equations involving pizza here, I don't know how else to put it because apparently sexual desires isn't obvious enough
If you are hungry and you have the option to eat a pizza right here, right now versus a pizza that still needs to be warmed up, there is no beneficial reason to choose to wait. You are hungry, you have needs that must be satisfied.

To translate that back to sexuality:
Similarly, if a sexual (or rather any non-demisexual/non-asexual person, in case that wasn't obvious enough) person is in a relationship they will develop sexual needs that need to be fulfilled or they get frustrated. That's human, that's normal, that's not being a jerk, that's just nature. These needs/desires may not be fullfilled on time in a relationship with a demisexual person. That problem is absent when a non-demisexual/non-asexual person is dating another non-demisexual/non-asexual person.


Anyway, there was no reason to go ahead and reply or attack my comment, so I kindly request you to just stop and especially stop putting words in my mouth or trying to portray me as the bad guy here.

 

You specifically attacked Demisexuality on the grounds that most "sexual" gamers want to see some **** and some **** and they need it now,  I defended it on the grounds that I'd rather see them wanting, craving, what they can't have, makes for a more exciting game, and characters that don't give it up easily (regardless of what people may say about it) seem to be pretty popular generally.

 

You re-iterated that point just now with your pizza analogy, "most" gamers or whatever it is crave sex or whatever now now now.

 

I'm sorry I ignored a lot of the excess material and translated the essential parts into what you are essentially saying, it tends to put people off.

 

Here let me find it

I'm afraid you're going to get issues as most sexual individuals can't get into a relationship with an asexual individual unless there's a compromise (and not many people are willing to compromise I can tell you that from personal experience)

 

and

 

Sexual people (the majority of the human population, by the way...) would never prefer a demisexual person over a sexual person

 

and

 

Instead of getting "out of the two heterosexual male gamer options, all we got was Cassandra who looks like a dude and Josephine, who is too disney-esque", you're going to get "out of the two heterosexual male gamer options, one is demisexual and the other is asexual, why is there no sexual option?" and this is actually a valid problem.

[Toasted Llama]

I've never seen emotional expression as a bad thing inherently, personally.

 

 

You specifically attacked Demisexuality on the grounds that most "sexual" gamers want to see some **** and some **** and they need it now,  I defended it on the grounds that I'd rather see them wanting, craving, what they can't have, makes for a more exciting game, and characters that don't give it up easily (regardless of what people may say about it) seem to be pretty popular generally.

 

You re-iterated that point just now with your pizza analogy, some people crave sex or whatever now now now.

How is that attacking demisexuality? I acknowledged there's a difference between demisexual individuals and non-demisexual individuals who both have different needs, desires and borders that should be respected and who require different representation among romances, which is difficult to achieve with limited resources.

And yes, some people do have a desire for sex now now now, that's normal and in no way an attack on demisexuality.

Different people have different needs and they deserve representation and options. But fully equal representation may not be possible with limited resources and it is unfair to force one side to compromise for the other. (Compromise as in; one sexuality to not get represented at all)

 

I'm sorry I ignored a lot of the excess material and translated the essential parts into what you are essentially saying, it tends to put people off.

So you're just going to conveniently ignore context then? How's that even remotely rational? How the hell does that even contribute to a proper conversation or discussion?


Also, let me go and conveniently quote something else I also said:

 

 

Holding that perspective I think in theory it's great of Bioware were to feature asexual and demisexual romances,

[berelinde]

Well perhaps you could explain that difference then.

I'm not herkles, but I'll have a go at it.

 

Sexual people enjoy physical intimacy. They find pleasure in arousal, especially in company they enjoy. There is nothing to say that the other person isn't their spouse or committed partner. That's really about as far as it goes. Some marriages are blessed with plenty in that regard, and when both partners are respectful of each other's needs, they tend to promote health and happiness for everyone involved.

 

Promiscuous people engage in sexual activity with multiple partners. They may or may not actually enjoy it. Promiscuity is a label that is usually applied by someone else and it conveys disapproval. The person doing the labeling usually experiences a sense of moral superiority, which might be considered ironic by those who take a dim view of judging others. In practice, a working definition of "promiscuous" might be "having more sex than me." The tragedy of it all is that sometimes, people have casual sex because they're looking for affection and acceptance they are denied through more socially acceptable channels. They may not even enjoy sex all that much, or they may even feel degraded by the experience, and that's deserving of compassion, not condemnation. Other people simply have a lot of sex because they really like sex. They view it as a celebration of life and revel in their ability to experience pleasure. As long as no promises are being broken and no one's expectations are disappointed, there's no harm in it. If these people feel happy and empowered because of their behavior, good for them!

 

Other people may not need or want physical intimacy to feel close to someone else. They have emotional needs, just like everyone else, but those needs are met through emotional or intellectual intimacy, and they can be just as healthy and just as happy as those with more carnal appetites. Again, the important thing is that those needs are recognized and met.

 

There's nothing abnormal or unhealthy about any size libido unless the owner thinks there is.

 

The real problem with it all, I suspect, has to do with expectations and insecurity. The fear of betrayal and the fear of inadequacy. No one likes the idea that their lover is comparing them to a past partner. What if that lack drove them to the arms of someone else? People with different physical needs wind up in relationships all the time. Communication and compromise are more important to maintaining a healthy relationship than the sexual histories of the people involved because there will *always* be disappointments and faux pas, in or out of the bedroom. Successful couples learn to work through these issues, but it does require a commitment to the relationship and often, a strong sense of humor.

 

But yeah, if BioWare devoted enough of their word budget to romances to go beyond falling in love - to deal with the nitty-gritty day-to-day that makes real life relationships what they are - it would probably take away from the plot in ways nobody would like.

[Andraste_Reborn]

However, this whole mixed celebration of the perverted/porn like aspects of comics or in many games etc illustrates the limitations, and yes all things considered, I think most people would prefer their comic or manga characters to be more "pure" or something, because they seem to gravitate towards those sorts of characters generally.

 

It's the gay KISA thread, not the gay Necromancer thread.

 

Ah, I see we are back to you insisting that nobody really loves chocolate pie Dorian. I still have no idea where you get this idea from. Just because some people would like more variety in same-sex love interests after Zevran, Dorian and Iron Bull were all party boys (and Fenris and Anders were violent extremists) doesn't mean that nobody loves those characters.

 

I mean you mentioned MASH for example and sure it's kinda popular but it has nothing on the likes of Frozen, etc.

 

I'm not sure there's much basis for comparing a long-running sitcom from the seventies that was aimed at adults and dealt with the realities of war in a humorous way with a modern Disney film whose target audience is six-year-old girls. Certainly comparing them on the basis of how many sluts each one contains does not seem productive.

 

For what it's worth, when it aired the M*A*S*H finale was the most-watched television broadcast ever shown in America, while Frozen is now the best selling Blu-Ray of all time. I think we can only conclude that both were very popular with different audiences at different times.

 

I see it in DA:I, and also TW3, this drive to elevate the comic/goofy silliness to those kinds of Frozen levels of magnificence and so on, but they were closer to that decades ago than they are now.

 

The KISA - who is probably chaste - and the dashing rogue - who is probably the exact opposite - are both popular fictional archetypes.  It's true that chaste female characters have historically been portrayed more positively because of sexual double-standards, but even that is beginning to change. I find you insistence that chaste characters are universally preferred odd and without basis.

 

I am also thinking of changing my sig to 'Honk If You Love Sluts', but people might get the wrong idea.

[WikipediaBrown]

 I acknowledged there's a difference between demisexual individuals and non-demisexual individuals who both have different needs, desires and borders that should be respected and who require different representation among romances, which is difficult to achieve with limited resources.

And yes, some people do have a desire for sex now now now, that's normal and in no way an attack on demisexuality.

 

 

I don't think Llama is attacking anyone, and I agree with them frankly. 

 

I'll try an analogy of my own: Imagine reading a mystery novel, and just as you get to the tension-filled climax where all the suspects have gathered and the detective is about to unmask the culprit....all the pages have been ripped out!

 

Now some people might be perfectly satisfied with having read a portion of the story, and just set the novel down and think up their own ending or go make a cup of tea or something. (Demisexual people) 

 

The vast majority of readers though, will feel at least mildly annoyed or dissatisfied, and will probably go complain to the bookstore that they sold them half a book. (Sexual people)

 

So how do you please everyone? Give everyone half a book and hope that most of them enjoy it or at least don't complain to much? That's...never going to happen. 

 

Would asexuals/demisexuals be satisfied if there was an opt-out of any sexual scene? Say for example, there would be a dialog option "Let's Get It On!" and scene proceeds or "I'm not comfortable with doing that right now, lets just chat." and have a fade to black, obviously without any disapproval points. 

[Seraphim24]

I'm not herkles, but I'll have a go at it.

 

Sexual people enjoy physical intimacy. They find pleasure in arousal, especially in company they enjoy. There is nothing to say that the other person isn't their spouse or committed partner. That's really about as far as it goes. Some marriages are blessed with plenty in that regard, and when both partners are respectful of each other's needs, they tend to promote health and happiness for everyone involved.

 

Ok I have to stop you right here (although I did read the rest). "There is nothing to say that the other person isn't their spouse or committed partner." "Some marriages are blessed with plenty in that regard."

 

Does this mean, they have other partners or no?

 

How is that attacking demisexuality? I acknowledged there's a difference between demisexual individuals and non-demisexual individuals who both have different needs, desires and borders that should be respected and who require different representation among romances, which is difficult to achieve with limited resources.

And yes, some people do have a desire for sex now now now, that's normal and in no way an attack on demisexuality.

Different people have different needs and they deserve representation and options. But fully equal representation may not be possible with limited resources and it is unfair to force one side to compromise for the other. (Compromise as in; one sexuality to not get represented at all)

 

So you're just going to conveniently ignore context then? How's that even remotely rational? How the hell does that even contribute to a proper conversation or discussion?


Also, let me go and conveniently quote something else I also said:

 

Um saying demisexuals (or less sexual people) are undesirable by pretty much anyone with a hint of sexual urge to them and this is universal is um, well, quite an attack (in addition to being inaccurate as I've stated multiple times)

 

Saying "But I support the inclusion of demisexual characters" is like putting offering to put a band aid on an arm you just sawed off.

 

As for the video game, well then why not just not represent anyone? If resources or so limited and all that, it would make sense to just ignore everyone. They don't do that, and you blew into this thread for some reason suggesting that out of all the things that should be cut, it should be demisexuality because sexual people need sex and people that don't give it up are frustrating to gamers and people, I believe quite the opposite, and also the fact that they're frustrating is a good thing in many ways honestly. I'm still not really sure what is so complicated.

 

The KISA - who is probably chaste - and the dashing rogue - who is probably the exact opposite - are both popular fictional archetypes.  It's true that chaste female characters have historically been portrayed more positively because of sexual double-standards, but even that is beginning to change. I find you insistence that chaste characters are universally preferred odd and without basis.

 

I don't understand your point, to be honest, of course both are fictional popular archetypes, but I put out like 3 pages of material explaining the source of the popularity for each, and why you can say people like the KISA or rogue despite X, not because X.

 

Also your comment about chaste females (or even males) and this supposedly good thing is the exact opposite of what I want to see so maybe it's cool for you but not for me.

 

People keep talking about "things getting better" in games or something I'm like they've been getting worse constantly from my persepctive, no idea where people are coming from with that.

 

The only thing that's changed is maybe people talk about these things more, but in that same vein mobile games and other things have become so popular anyway.

[Seraphim24]

I don't think Llama is attacking anyone, and I agree with them frankly. 

 

I'll try an analogy of my own: Imagine reading a mystery novel, and just as you get to the tension-filled climax where all the suspects have gathered and the detective is about to unmask the culprit....all the pages have been ripped out!

 

Now some people might be perfectly satisfied with having read a portion of the story, and just set the novel down and think up their own ending or go make a cup of tea or something. (Demisexual people) 

 

The vast majority of readers though, will feel at least mildly annoyed or dissatisfied, and will probably go complain to the bookstore that they sold them half a book. (Sexual people)

 

So how do you please everyone? Give everyone half a book and hope that most of them enjoy it or at least don't complain to much? That's...never going to happen. 

 

Would asexuals/demisexuals be satisfied if there was an opt-out of any sexual scene? Say for example, there would be a dialog option "Let's Get It On!" and scene proceeds or "I'm not comfortable with doing that right now, lets just chat." and have a fade to black, obviously without any disapproval points. 

 

The thing with your analogy is assuming there is a tension filled moment if the detective and the suspect already had sex at the midway point, I'm saying, everyone stops reading after that point (demi and otherwise).

 

The demisexual book is where the tension goes all the way to the end and then maybe, but the regular reader has periodic breaks in the tension because they wanted to eat their pizza or whatever.

[Andraste_Reborn]

I don't understand your point, to be honest,

 

Nor do I understand yours.

 

Upthread, you said, and I quote:

 

I'll just say that a genuine 100% more chaste/noble/KISA/less sex motivated type of character is always extremely and overwhelmingly popular, far more than shifty sleeps with every other thing type of character, and this is universal across media and cultures.

 

I don't think that's a supportable argument. Certainly not across all media and all cultures.

 

Also your comment about chaste females (or even males) and this supposedly good thing is the exact opposite of what I want to see so maybe it's cool for you but not for me.

 

People keep talking about "things getting better" in games or something I'm like they've been getting worse constantly from my persepctive, no idea where people are coming from with that.

 

*shrug*

 

I think it's good for there to be more variety among video game characters in all directions. That includes more female characters, more LGBT characters, more characters of colour, more disabled characters, and characters that have sex with lots of people and characters that have sex with one or none or anywhere in between those points. I started gaming circa. 1986, and things are a lot better from my perspective than they were during my childhood or teenage years. I still remember how surprised and delighted I was when we got Baldur's Gate and I could MAKE A FEMALE CHARACTER and the game would acknowledge it and centre the story around her amazing adventures.

 

(I'd played other cRPGs before - notably the Realms of Arkania Northlands Trilogy - but even though you could make female characters in that the game pretty much ignored the race, class and gender of the entire party equally. Baldur's Gate was a lot more satisfying.)

[Seraphim24]

 

 

I think it's good for there to be more variety among video game characters in all directions. That includes more female characters, more LGBT characters, more characters of colour, more disabled characters, and characters that have sex with lots of people and characters that have sex with one or none or anywhere in between those points. I started gaming circa. 1986, and things are a lot better from my perspective than they were during my childhood or teenage years. I still remember how surprised and delighted I was when we got Baldur's Gate and I could MAKE A FEMALE CHARACTER and the game would acknowledge it and centre the story around her amazing adventures.

 

(I'd played other cRPGs before - notably the Realms of Arkania Northlands Trilogy - but even though you could make female characters in that the game pretty much ignored the race, class and gender of the entire party equally. Baldur's Gate was a lot more satisfying.)

 

I don't think there's even been less variety in video game characters quite honestly, the labels proliferate but the characters are about as standard as you get at times.

 

I don't think that's a supportable argument. Certainly not across all media and all cultures.

 

 

Well the rogue that does sleep around a lot or at least has lots of sex obviously can sometimes be popular, it does depend on a number of factors. Still I personally wish it were possible to find those kinds of characters from places other than Japan and a handful of other places....

 

That's precisely why I made the point several times that this is an extreme minority, that doesn't want sex unless it's very special or particular circumstances.....

[Lady Artifice]

Well perhaps you could explain that difference then.

Herkles did explain the difference, by pointing out that you can be very sexual within a monogamous married relationship, with no promiscuity involved.

[Seraphim24]

Herkles did explain the difference, by pointing out that you can be very sexual within a monogamous married relationship, with no promiscuity involved.

 

I was asking for something to explain that difference in detail, also berelinde said

 

 There is nothing to say that the other person isn't their spouse or committed partner. That's really about as far as it goes. Some marriages are blessed with plenty in that regard, and when both partners are respectful of each other's needs, they tend to promote health and happiness for everyone involved.

 

Like what does "some marriages are blessed with plenty in that regard, and when both partners are respectful of each other's needs, they tend to promote health and happiness for everyone involved."

 

 

Besides, even if that were true, I'm curious if someone wants to offer an explanation of that kind of thing, like..... what's the difference between someone who is "sexual in a monogamous relationship" and someone who is "in a monogamous relationship." I just kind of assumed most monogamous relationships were sexual to a degree, are we talking like the kinds of sex that they have? The frequency of sex that they have? Etc. etc.

[Lady Artifice]

Captain Jack Harkness says hello.
 
So do Captain Jack Sparrow, Tony Stark, Dean Winchester, Faith from BtVS, Gambit, Nightwing, Chiana, Hawkeye Pierce, and the inestimable Phryne Fisher. That's ten characters just off the top of my head. All have slutted around their respective canons while remaining popular with their audiences, often more so than their less promiscuous peers. As have our own dear Isabela, Zevran and the Iron Bull for that matter. We're even starting to see more promiscuous women portrayed positively!
 
(I'm using 'slutted around' in a positive sense here, were that not clear.)

James Bond, Sterling Archer, Don Draper, Dennis from IASIP, Jax from SoA.

Oskar Schindler in Schindler's list.

[Seraphim24]

James Bond, Sterling Archer, Don Draper, Dennis from IASIP, Jax from SoA.

Oskar Schindler in Schindler's list.

 

I think this wasn't clear there but I mentioned that it's a consistent "dynamic," the female is always chaste, but the male is not remotely that way.

 

All the characters mentioned are male with the exception of Phyrne, (pretty sure) moreover they are 100% you know, not chaste, or whatever it is, so the dynamic pretty much stays the same throughout.

 

Look, extremely reckless characters are pretty popular in their own right, but this comparison was "all things being equal.

[berelinde]

You just said that, he said

 

 

Like what does "some marriages are blessed with plenty in that regard, and when both partners are respectful of each other's needs, they tend to promote health and happiness for everyone involved."

 

Besides, even if that were true, I'm curious if someone wants to offer an explanation of that kind of thing, like..... what's the difference between someone who is "sexual in a monogamous relationship" and someone who is "in a monogamous relationship."

Not everyone who is in a monogamous relationship has sex. Some couples abstain because one or both of the people involved would rather not have sex. Some people who are in monogamous relationships have a lot of sex with their committed life partners. In those cases, both people in the relationship want it that way. Different people have different needs, and people in successful relationships respect the needs of their partner.

 

Only the people involved in the relationship can determine how much physical intimacy is enough. That's why communication and compromise are important.

 

There really is no other way to say it.

[Seraphim24]

Not everyone who is in a monogamous relationship has sex. Some couples abstain because one or both of the people involved would rather not have sex. Some people who are in monogamous relationships have a lot of sex with their committed life partners. In those cases, both people in the relationship want it that way. Different people have different needs, and people in successful relationships respect the needs of their partner.

 

Only the people involved in the relationship can determine how much physical intimacy is enough. That's why communication and compromise are important.

 

There really is no other way to say it.

 

Well but is the association that volume of sex dictates "sexual nature." I don't think that's the way it works personally, I think people that value sex have less sex personally (not never, of course), but less sure.

[berelinde]

Well but is the association that volume of sex dictates "sexual nature." I don't think that's the way it works personally, I think people that value sex have less sex personally (not never, of course), but less sure.

Oh, you're talking about the intrinsic value of sex.

 

Immaterial things aren't less precious or less valued simply because there are lots. A person may have a warm, joyous smile. That smile is not less beautiful because the person smiles often. Another person may have a cold, insincere smile. Rarity doesn't make that smile more attractive.

[Seraphim24]

Oh, you're talking about the intrinsic value of sex.

 

Immaterial things aren't less precious or less valued simply because there are lots. A person may have a warm, joyous smile. That smile is not less beautiful because the person smiles often. Another person may have a cold, insincere smile. Rarity doesn't make that smile more attractive.

 

It totally does though, the rarity of something is what makes it important or precious. Too much of anything ruins the taste.

[berelinde]

It totally does though, the rarity of someone is what makes it important or precious. Too much of anything ruins the taste.

"The rarity of someone is what makes it important or precious"? That's beginning to sound like a trophy hunt, not romance.