7455 réponses à ce sujet

[sw33ts]

Omg. All I have to say about this conversation is lols.

I feel like I just walked onto an Alien movie fansite.

But anyways can't the male just magically fertilize females and then said female has a child. Like trout and the whole she had eggs and then the male comes along and he's all "fertalize time" and he fertalize's said eggs.

Or maybe he could just have a temporary womb. And if that makes him a hermaphrodite...meh...asaris are psuedo-hermaphrodites.

Modifié par sw33ts, 27 avril 2010 - 10:05 .

[Tirigon]

Siansonea II wrote...

I think you mean asari, not Nasarri. And I think you're referring to Rana Thanoptis from Saren's office on Virmire and Okeer's lab in ME2. I don't think she represents the ideal of asari beauty either.

Well I think she´s hot. That´s the only reason I met her twice, actually. If she´d been ugly I had shot her on Virmire:devil::devil:

[Siansonea]

Ryzaki wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

What if the incubus had some allure that made other races want to stay near them? (Kind of a stronger version of the Asari allure). Would that work?

I was just contemplating that notion. Such a species might evolve to be very charismatic, charming, and smooth (at least on the surface) in order to lure potential mates to stay with them on their homeworld. This also pre-supposes that their homeworld is more-or-less hospitable to the alien mothers.

Hm...maybe the stalk down their prey and make sure its a species that can handle the planet? Or perhaps they leave their homeworld and live with the female species on her planet? 

...Hey they don't have to make too much sense. The Asari don't after all.

Heheh. Possibly. It just occured to me what the main hurdle appears to be; it seems so obvious in retrospect that it seems we should have stumbled upon it sooner. If the red skinned, handsome devil, all male race is all male and only serve to impregnate an alien species and where their genetic make-up hijacks the genetic make-up of the alien mother's genetic make-up, then how did this all-male species ever manage to reproduce and survive to begin with on their planet before discovering other sapient, compatible species to mate with (or were discovered by them)? 

Maybe we can half-heartedly chalk it up to evolution, yet in that case might it not make more sense from an evolutionary perspective for the all-male species to either evole in to a two gender (or more) species, a hermaphroditic species (no sexual intercourse required with another individual in order to reproduce), or a species seemingly female in nature akin to the Asari?

Hm...maybe there was a sister race on their planet originally but some strange disease killed them all? And those that were immune to the disease gained the magical impregancy of other races gene? And maybe the disease was introduced by a now extinct species that no one knew about that has a connection to the Reapers. (Wouldn't be the first thing to come out of nowhere in this series).

What? I'm not a science major!

I added this while you were posting your above comments.

"P.S. Or.....perhaps this all-male species can also impregnate other
males....../../../../images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png"

But would the act of being impreganted not make them male any longer?  Wouldn't they just turn into some hermpadite species?

Also MShep being preggers would be hysterical but...too weird.

There's a way around this. If the incubus impregnates another male, it could really be a form of parasitism/symbiosis, in which the fetus lives inside the host's body during gestation, and is somehow birthed through an artificial orifice in the abdomen or something, perhaps the belly button opens, distends and the baby emerges from it. Then the placenta and pseudouterus would also be expelled.

sounds like it belongs in a horror movie.

Well, normal human childbirth is pretty horrific too. There's no way to birth a child that isn't going to be messy and painful for the mother unless the fetus develops outside the mother's body.

[The_KFD_Case]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
There's a way around this. If the incubus impregnates another male, it could really be a form of parasitism/symbiosis, in which the fetus lives inside the host's body during gestation, and is somehow birthed through an artificial orifice in the abdomen or something, perhaps the belly button opens, distends and the baby emerges from it. Then the placenta and pseudouterus would also be expelled.

Yeah....I'm definitely not sold on going out on a date with such a creature.

There can be other ways also.  Can't think of them off the top of my head, but Asari biology is very vague and unimformative to say the least in ME.  We don't even know exactly how the Asari reproduce, much less an all male sub-species.

Asari reproduction appears to share comparable traits to that of earthworms.

Earthworms

[The_KFD_Case]

Siansonea II wrote...

Well, normal human childbirth is pretty horrific too. There's no way to birth a child that isn't going to be messy and painful for the mother unless the fetus develops outside the mother's body.

The key difference being that the "mother's" body is biologically designed to carry out the act of childbirth (provided we are dealing with the female or child-bearing member of a species). While a parasitic creature's reproduction system may take in to account the biology of a host, it is unlikely that the host's body is designed to take external, forced (as implied by the term "parasitic") impregnation in to account as a natural reproductive occurence.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 27 avril 2010 - 10:28 .

[Siansonea]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Well, normal human childbirth is pretty horrific too. There's no way to birth a child that isn't going to be messy and painful for the mother unless the fetus develops outside the mother's body.

The key difference being that the "mother's" body is biologically designed to carry out the act of childbirth (provided we are dealing with the female or child-bearing member of a species). While a parasitic creature's reproduction system may take in to account the biology of a host, it is unlikely that the host's body is designed to take external, forced (as implied by the term "parasitic") impregnation in to account as a natural reproductive occurence.

That's why I initially termed it parasitism/symbiosis. A symbiont would not be harmful to the host, at least not to a great degree. Perhaps the pseudouterus has properties that actually improve the health of the host organism during the gestation period. Biotic nerve blocks during childbirth would also help the mother organism endure the trauma of the event.

[Siansonea]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
There's a way around this. If the incubus impregnates another male, it could really be a form of parasitism/symbiosis, in which the fetus lives inside the host's body during gestation, and is somehow birthed through an artificial orifice in the abdomen or something, perhaps the belly button opens, distends and the baby emerges from it. Then the placenta and pseudouterus would also be expelled.

Yeah....I'm definitely not sold on going out on a date with such a creature.

There can be other ways also.  Can't think of them off the top of my head, but Asari biology is very vague and unimformative to say the least in ME.  We don't even know exactly how the Asari reproduce, much less an all male sub-species.

Asari reproduction appears to share comparable traits to that of earthworms.

Earthworms

I do not think this is the case. In all instances of asari-asari conception we are privy to, it is stated or at least implied that there is a father and a mother, not two mothers who are both impregnated during the joining.

[The_KFD_Case]

Siansonea II wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

The key difference being that the "mother's" body is biologically designed to carry out the act of childbirth (provided we are dealing with the female or child-bearing member of a species). While a parasitic creature's reproduction system may take in to account the biology of a host, it is unlikely that the host's body is designed to take external, forced (as implied by the term "parasitic") impregnation in to account as a natural reproductive occurence.

That's why I initially termed it parasitism/symbiosis. A symbiont would not be harmful to the host, at least not to a great degree. Perhaps the pseudouterus has properties that actually improve the health of the host organism during the gestation period. Biotic nerve blocks during childbirth would also help the mother organism endure the trauma of the event.

As stated previously, the alternative of opting for a "female" appearing species such as the Asari appears almost infinitely more appealing aesthetically and biologically speaking. If this is the best the male alternative can offer then I have an easy time fathoming why BioWare may have opted for the former as opposed to the latter.

[The_KFD_Case]

Siansonea II wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Asari reproduction appears to share comparable traits to that of earthworms.

Earthworms

I do not think this is the case. In all instances of asari-asari conception we are privy to, it is stated or at least implied that there is a father and a mother, not two mothers who are both impregnated during the joining.

True, and yet the earthworm comparison is the closest resembling actual method of reproduction that I'm aware of that I've come across to date for purposes of comparison to the Asari reprodutive process....Unless the Asari both have female and male genitalia which might explain the whole mind-meld aspect as it could help knock out the mate's potential shock/horror at experiencing such an encounter.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 27 avril 2010 - 10:40 .

[Siansonea]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Asari reproduction appears to share comparable traits to that of earthworms.

Earthworms

I do not think this is the case. In all instances of asari-asari conception we are privy to, it is stated or at least implied that there is a father and a mother, not two mothers who are both impregnated during the joining.

True, and yet the earthworm comparison is the closest resembling actual method of reproduction that I'm aware of that I've come across to date for purposes of comparison to the Asari reprodutive process....Unless the Asari both have female and male genitalia which might explain the whole mind-meld aspect as it could help knock out the mate's potential shock/horror at experiencing such an encounter.

For me, the most plausible parallel in our world to asari reproduction is a sexual form of parthenogenesis in with a daughter organism is created that is not a clone of it's mother, but has her own unique DNA. One half of the daughter's DNA is her mother's, the other is a randomized copy of her mother's DNA. The father organism does not contribute genes.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 27 avril 2010 - 10:46 .

[The_KFD_Case]

Siansonea II wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Asari reproduction appears to share comparable traits to that of earthworms.

Earthworms

I do not think this is the case. In all instances of asari-asari conception we are privy to, it is stated or at least implied that there is a father and a mother, not two mothers who are both impregnated during the joining.

True, and yet the earthworm comparison is the closest resembling actual method of reproduction that I'm aware of that I've come across to date for purposes of comparison to the Asari reprodutive process....Unless the Asari both have female and male genitalia which might explain the whole mind-meld aspect as it could help knock out the mate's potential shock/horror at experiencing such an encounter.

For me, the most plausible parallel in our world to asari reproduction is hybridogenesis, a sexual form of parthenogenesis in with a daughter organism is created that is not a clone of it's mother, but has her own unique DNA. One half of the daughter's DNA is her mother's, the other is a randomized copy of her mother's DNA. The father organism does not contribute genes.

Which known animals or insects utilize this method of reproduction?

[Darkhour]

Siansonea II wrote...

More name calling, I see. As a persuasion tactic, I find it ineffective. I did want to acknowledge it, lest you believe my perception is not acute. Consider it acknowledged.

Ohh, deflection!!! Adjectives are bad, yes?... except when you use them.

You appear to be putting forth the example of a romance option with a 10-year-old as a legitimate comparison to the topic at hand, same-sex romances. Your example seems to point to this scenario as one that we should consider on the same terms as a same-sex romance. If this is not your intent, if you are simply playing devil's advocate, this should probably be clarified.

Insinuate that I am demanding pedophilia when the very context of the conversation negates such an idea. Another deflection!! Ah-ha!!

But that's not what this is really about, is it?

 
It is about it being perfectly fine for people not to agree with you. It's about reality not being shaped by your personal viewpoint. No one is irrational because their beliefs conflict with yours. You are not the universal standard by which all thought is to be judged.

You tell us we are hypocritical because we see the inclusion of same-sex romances as an indicator of an enlightened attitude, and yet we do not also embrace exploitative relationships. This attitude appears more emotion-based, due to an expressed dislike of perceived pomposity/arrogance, rather than based on a dispassionate evaluation of the topic at hand. Clearly, your example is not equivalent to the rest of the discussion, your passionate insistence of its validity does not make it so.

You are hypocritical because you expound "mutual resepct", but in truth you only respect that which you already have no quarrel with. It would be easy for me to feign "mutual respect" for women's right to dress as they please. On the otherhand, how much "mutual respect" I will have for certain cultural practices in the middle east may be less than stellar. Sure I disagree, but my disagreement with something does not make something objectivelt wrong. For me to say that anyone whose views conflict with mine are blind irrational simpletons is blind and arrogant on my part.

For my part, I do think there are certain criteria that differentiate reasonable behavior and unreasonable behavior. Adults of the same gender who agree to a romantic relationship are not in the same category as adults of either gender who wish to pursue relationships with children of either gender. I hope my views on this matter are sufficiently clear.

There is no difference. On the one hand you have no quarrel with what two people of the same sex do behind closed doors. On the otherhand, your ideals conflict with what two people, one a legal minor and the other a legal adult, do behind closed doors. Sometimes, people feel the need to enforce their ideals upon others. Neither one is unreasonable. It's just that we don't like one, but are perfectly fine with the other. Is it really so hard to comprehend that somebody doesn't like either?

[Siansonea]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...
Asari reproduction appears to share comparable traits to that of earthworms.

Earthworms

I do not think this is the case. In all instances of asari-asari conception we are privy to, it is stated or at least implied that there is a father and a mother, not two mothers who are both impregnated during the joining.

True, and yet the earthworm comparison is the closest resembling actual method of reproduction that I'm aware of that I've come across to date for purposes of comparison to the Asari reprodutive process....Unless the Asari both have female and male genitalia which might explain the whole mind-meld aspect as it could help knock out the mate's potential shock/horror at experiencing such an encounter.

That is just it.  We don't know the specifics of the Asari anatomy.  Almost all is left up to the imagination.  They obviously have a human female appearance.  We know about the mind meld and a little about the reandomizing of the genes, but this about all.  Everything else is speculation.

I do think it is significant that asari refer to themselves as women and exclusively use female pronouns when referring to themselves. I can't imagine such mammalian-appearing beings would be so vastly different from humans that their breasts and reproductive organs are dramatically different in function from human females. Certainly it could be 'written' that way, but at this point they would be painting themselves into a corner if they decided asari babies develop in the mother's head or something.

[The_KFD_Case]

Siansonea II wrote...

I do think it is significant that asari refer to themselves as women and exclusively use female pronouns when referring to themselves. I can't imagine such mammalian-appearing beings would be so vastly different from humans that their breasts and reproductive organs are dramatically different in function from human females. Certainly it could be 'written' that way, but at this point they would be painting themselves into a corner if they decided asari babies develop in the mother's head or something.

Agreed.

[Siansonea]

Darkhour wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

More name calling, I see. As a persuasion tactic, I find it ineffective. I did want to acknowledge it, lest you believe my perception is not acute. Consider it acknowledged.

Ohh, deflection!!! Adjectives are bad, yes?... except when you use them.

You appear to be putting forth the example of a romance option with a 10-year-old as a legitimate comparison to the topic at hand, same-sex romances. Your example seems to point to this scenario as one that we should consider on the same terms as a same-sex romance. If this is not your intent, if you are simply playing devil's advocate, this should probably be clarified.

Insinuate that I am demanding pedophilia when the very context of the conversation negates such an idea. Another deflection!! Ah-ha!!

But that's not what this is really about, is it?

 
It is about it being perfectly fine for people not to agree with you. It's about reality not being shaped by your personal viewpoint. No one is irrational because their beliefs conflict with yours. You are not the universal standard by which all thought is to be judged.

You tell us we are hypocritical because we see the inclusion of same-sex romances as an indicator of an enlightened attitude, and yet we do not also embrace exploitative relationships. This attitude appears more emotion-based, due to an expressed dislike of perceived pomposity/arrogance, rather than based on a dispassionate evaluation of the topic at hand. Clearly, your example is not equivalent to the rest of the discussion, your passionate insistence of its validity does not make it so.

You are hypocritical because you expound "mutual resepct", but in truth you only respect that which you already have no quarrel with. It would be easy for me to feign "mutual respect" for women's right to dress as they please. On the otherhand, how much "mutual respect" I will have for certain cultural practices in the middle east may be less than stellar. Sure I disagree, but my disagreement with something does not make something objectivelt wrong. For me to say that anyone whose views conflict with mine are blind irrational simpletons is blind and arrogant on my part.

For my part, I do think there are certain criteria that differentiate reasonable behavior and unreasonable behavior. Adults of the same gender who agree to a romantic relationship are not in the same category as adults of either gender who wish to pursue relationships with children of either gender. I hope my views on this matter are sufficiently clear.

There is no difference. On the one hand you have no quarrel with what two people of the same sex do behind closed doors. On the otherhand, your ideals conflict with what two people, one a legal minor and the other a legal adult, do behind closed doors. Sometimes, people feel the need to enforce their ideals upon others. Neither one is unreasonable. It's just that we don't like one, but are perfectly fine with the other. Is it really so hard to comprehend that somebody doesn't like either?

Nothing you have stated is difficult to comprehend in and of itself, though is difficult to separate the sarcasm and hyperbole from the actual statements of your views on the subject. And for the record, you are perfectly welcome to disagree with me. I would prefer it if your disagreements were more civil and dispassionate. But the disagreement itself is not an issue for me. Plenty of people on this board have differing views, and I get along with them just fine. Their viewpoints are just as valid as my own, even the ones I do not share. Your own viewpoints are rather unclear, since you seem to use sarcasm and ridicule a great deal, and it is difficult to know when you are saying the opposite of what you actually think on the subject. It would be beneficial to me if you could state your views in a way that is not an attempt at humor or sarcasm, so that the meaning is more clear.

And we can certainly debate how 'objective' things are, but we humans are not capable of true objectivity, and I include myself in this. Everything is subjective to some extent. I do try to look past my own circumstances and imagine what other individual's situations and circumstances might be like. I think it helps me to respond in ways that aren't coming from a point of view that is based completely on my own experience and preconceptions.

[Sevrun]

Temper_Graniteskul wrote...

Sevrun wrote...

I dunno, as far as what the first one was gettin at, I could kinda see the point of having perhaps one of each that'd go for one of their own so to speak. But I look at things like that as an array of statistics and what they're lookin for simply isn't supported by the numbers. Not all humans are willing to swing both waysso why should every human love interest in a game? 'Because it's a game' is a rather weak argument and 'Because I'm paying for it' would be every bit as arrogant as I probably sounded at first. I lean toward option C. If they're that interested in a piece of tail then go get a real one, cause just watchin ain't gonna get it done...

If it does, they've got other serious issues and should consult a medical professional IMMEDIATELY!

'Realism' isn't an argument for exclusion, and honestly it seems like the only people who bring it up are those who already get to see the orientation(s) they're interested in (hetero, maybe two-chicks-if-they're-hot). No, not everyone's gay or bi - but you know how many people are some variant of amoral sexy (not quite shoeless) god of war? Perishingly few. How about warrior-monks with a rack that defies gravity? Even fewer. Soulful, ex-assassins with tragic past and future? I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. And this boatload of improbable, jaded, jerky dysfunctionals somehow doesn't murder one another in their sleep, and a quarter of them are willing to bang their commander. Yes, this scenario is totally likely to happen, and is very proportionately representative of real-world human characteristics.

<_<

Please, stop bringing up 'realism' to try and excuse why meaningful gay/bi options aren't there (outside of Liara for FemShep, and only in ME1), but all manner of other improbable characters or characterizations are. Particularly since no one who brings up this argument uses it against the existing hetero LIs. In a created universe with characters and events that defy the odds in every way, somehow sexual orientation is the quality that needs to be represented in-game with fidelity to IRL statistics? Your priviledge is showing.

Edited because I really should quote the post I was replying to. Yay sleepiness.

I'm not necessarily arguing against it, merely pointing out that I haven't heard a terribly good reason for it as a case of 'every character should have the sexuality I want' mindset.  if they put in one or two that was bi or gay I probably wouldn't notice, but everyone's sexual preference being geared toward the PC just seems a little drastic to me.  The only people I'm actively against getting a piece are the _REALLY_ stupid that should never breed, which is not the subject of the thread.

[Temper_Graniteskul]

Sevrun wrote...

I'm not necessarily arguing against it, merely pointing out that I haven't heard a terribly good reason for it as a case of 'every character should have the sexuality I want' mindset.  if they put in one or two that was bi or gay I probably wouldn't notice, but everyone's sexual preference being geared toward the PC just seems a little drastic to me.  The only people I'm actively against getting a piece are the _REALLY_ stupid that should never breed, which is not the subject of the thread.

There isn't a terribly good reason for it, just as there isn't a terribly good reason for any hetero LI that currently wants a piece of the Commander. Or, rather, the 'good enough' reason is that Bioware includes romances and LIs ostensibly because they figure it adds something to the game and many of us agree, but there's no particular reason why hetero LIs (and maybe two chicks if they're hot) should be priviledged over f/f, m/m, or bi male characters. Unless 'realism' and odds come into play, which is where my objection kicks in.

I suppose that if you take the thread as a whole, and account for everyone's personal preferences as to the characters they'd like to see open to s/s romance, you could sum it up as requests for every NPC to be sexually interested in The Shepard. In practice, though, that's not really what's being asked for. Overall, this is about providing some s/s LIs - maybe one or two for f/f and m/m, depending on how it might be implemented (say, patch vs. DLC vs. ME3) - and then occasionally talking about implementation.

Everything else is people talking about their own preferences for both implementation and characters. Several people early on voiced strong opinions in favour of only new romances, but some would like existing characters opened up (for a number of reasons). I prefer Kaidan and Tali myself, because it makes sense in my head and I like a minimalist crew. But it's very much a YMMV situation.

[FataliTensei]

holy donkey flutters! I'm away for one day the thread jumps six damn pages O_o