[MUD-Dev] Introductions and

[Mike Sellers]

At 09:38 AM 11/22/97 PST8PDT, Matt Chatterley wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Marian Griffith wrote:
>> On Wed 19 Nov, Richard Woolcock wrote:
>> > Matt Chatterley wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:
>> 
>> > On the mention of sexuality, I am probably going to code in a couple of
>> > Flaw - homosexual and bisexual.  Not that I have anything against people
>> > of those particular persuasions, but not being able to have children
>> > (homosexual) and being able to be seduced by people of either gender
>> > (bisexual) are what I consider disadvantages.

FWIW, I think Matt wrote the paragraph above.  I didn't.  Onward...

>> This is off topic and I know I should not respond to this, but .. why?
>
>Assuming a political and social environment similar to the present-day, I
>would certainly consider sexual preferences which diverge from what much
>of society perceives as 'normal' to be disadvantages in these lights.
>Being unable to produce offspring is 'bad' from a biological point of
>view.
>
>Without meaning to stir anyone up, provoke any flammable discussion or so
>forth (I should probably shut up now, actually!): From a number of points
>of view, I could happily believe that bisexuality to some degree is a more
>normal state of being for humans than heterosexuality, BUT society
>perceives the latter as being normal, thus making the former seem
>politically and *morally* unacceptable on several levels.

Statistically, heterosexuals far outnumber bisexuals or homosexuals.  I do
not intend to debate the merits or meaning of this; just a statistical
note.  In different societies, these tendencies are interpreted in very
different ways.  In some, a certain degree of homosexuality is considered
perfectly normal, up to a certain age.  In others, any non-marital
sexuality is considered bad, but homosexuality is "less bad" than
extra-marital heterosexual experiences, and bisexuality is, oddly, worst of
all.  

Overall, I think it's probably just buying trouble to try to assign an
advantage/disadvantage rating to varying forms of sexuality.  First, you're
going to offend someone, no doubt about it.  Second, such ads/disads would
have to be made relative to a single culture.  Third, even if you said
homosexuality was a disad, someone could easily turn this into an
advantage, e.g., by becoming the secret (and powerful) consort to the king
(okay, that's a stretch in a MUD-like situation).  Finally, if you're going
to include hetero- and homosexuality, what about other forms?  Are you
going to include necrophilia and fetishists?  Talk about your disads... 


Mike Sellers                                    Chief Alchemist
mike at online-alchemy.com                         Online Alchemy              

        Combining art & science to create new worlds.