Separate sexuality from the trait system.

[mumblemumble]

I do think its funny how people say gays are unlikely to have relationships, and this must be "wrong" : in a small, isolated population this is very likely. Take 10 males, 10 females off the street, put them into a campsite with no outside communication. It is VERY unlikely you will have gay relationships forming equal to straight, because gay people are likely to be a minority ANYWAYS. So if you have 1 gay dude, and every other dude is straight, and finds the idea of gay sex or relationships absolutely disgusting, guess what? Gay guy isn't going to get any. Its not discriminatory, or unrealistic, its reality. Just like if I, as a straight guy, hung out in a gay bar expecting to hook up with a straight girl : Its unlikely to happen, given than most girls there are inclined to be lesbian, or NOT seeking men.

Also, straight is normal statistically speaking. So gay being a trait is completely fine, as it IS a quirk.

I do wonder if the drama incurred by adding the gay trait will ever die, there's been LGBT drama ever since it was added, requesting bisexuality, bestiality, transgenderism, ect, ect.

Oh and just my 2 cents on "people cannot choose". Mindsets CAN be shifted, using positive and negative associations. Being gay, or trans is a mental thing, not a physical thing. If positive / negative associations are formed within the mind, making gay sex seem less ideal, and straight sex better, the urges themselves will change, because people don't want to do what they dislike, generally speaking. I didn't always enjoy the idea of say, being dominant to any extent in my relationships in the past, with my insecurity, but over time my negative associations dissipated, and positive associations formed, thus my sexuality is different than it was before. The idea that THOUGHTS, and thought patterns NEVER change in life is asinine. I used to be very attracted to Asians, but after dating one, they don't hold the same allure. This positive / negative association is commonly the cause of people feeling these ways, in addition to pretty much everything we feel. Layers, and layers of positive / negative reinforcement, and mental associations.

If every day you got beaten up with a pink baseball bat every day, you would likely start to feel uncomfortable around that bat, because you associate pain, with the bat (and possibly pink). If people associate pleasure with an experience (molestation, ect) then they might associate pleasure with that scenario, leading them to, by association, crave it. (And the inverse for negative experiences with the opposite sex)

As for traits blocking industrious, I don't think this is a bad thing. We shouldn't always roll the good traits, and some are just meant to be silly, and useless to make us appreciate the other stuff better. If careful shooters were every other pawn, that trait wouldn't be as cool.

The difference between Gay and Cannibal or Night Owl is that by making it a trait, you specifically call it out as different; Unless Tynan himself is considering homosexuality to be a deviation from the norm (which, no matter what anyone states to the contrary, is and always will be considered bad) and is deliberately making that statement, this is NOT a good way to implement it.

Hmmn...

norm
nôrm/
noun
noun: norm; noun: the norm

    1.
    something that is usual, typical, or standard.

Sooooo.... Since gays ARE a minority.... gays ARE outside the norm.

more importantly, according to your theory, industrious, careful shooter, sanguine, iron willed are all BAD traits, cause they are outside the norm? Or just gay? Are FACTS bad? Is this your point? Because you know, putting facts in jail, or arresting facts, or killing facts is a bit difficult buddy.

Gays ARE outside the norm, its a fact, they are a drastically lower population than straights by  TREMENDOUS margine thus are outside the "norm" of the global population. Something outside the norm isn't inherently bad. Iron willed people are outside the norm, I dont hate them. High intelligent people are outside the norm. I dont hate them. Women I'm compatible with are outside the norm, and I CERTAINLY don't hate them. Get over your senseless emotions, start looking at facts, and dont reject ideas just because they are uncomfortable.  Rejecting facts makes you delusional. You don't want to be delusional.

I'll say it again. For. You.

For him, me, and 90% of the population...as stated above. Gays are not usual, not common, not the majority, ect. They are not the norm.

[Gladeflower]

Bad/No science is used as an authority to conclude value on people in this thread, tho sneakily, and used to make comments on how society should look, else they wont work this and that.
The arm chair science and that gayness can be beaten out of you is also off topic.
Its not how science work and not even how it can be used. I see this all the time as a biology teacher.

[keylocke]

*snip*
I am definitely also in favor of other sexualities represented; Bisexuality, Asexuality, Even allowances for polyamorous relationships.

I'm... not at all sure I'd speak in favor of bestiality or pedophilia, no matter the other atrocities that are common Rimworld; That's beyond where I'd draw the line. Homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. are recognized as healthy expressions of human sexuality (even if not universally so) whereas those are not.

Also, BDSM may be a thing, but it's not a sexuality. I'm not even sure how exactly it would be represented in the game, considering sex is limited to some hearts periodically floating up from the bed.

1) i like the idea of polyamorous relationship.
2) we said bestiality and necrophilia. lel.  but yea, i specifically said those things because i know people who'd read it would get a *trigger intensifies* reaction. hahaha..
3) back then there were torture cages, so instead of having sexytimes in bed, an S&M couple would do sexytimes in the torture cage instead.

Ok, you don't want to be limited to 2 extra traits simply because you prefer gay pawns.

+

Personally I'd prefer if the trait cap was removed and each trait had a % of happening.

^yep. as i said before, the best solution would be to just :

1) remove the trait cap limit
2) categorize traits
3) make some traits permanent, and some traits dynamic.

problem solved. people could run around trying to rationalize the problem, same as we did ages ago in previous alphas, but we'd just end up into something similar situation.

next time it might not be about sexual preference, it might be some other trait like cannibalism or whatever. dynamic traits is just a more thorough solution than just to cherrypick between different traits and making exemptions.

heck the only reason i could think about why dynamic traits isn't introduced yet is coz kickstarter backers have bought custom characters and the devs might be cautious about introducing new gameplay elements that could drastically affect their purchases.

[Reviire]

Actually, i'd say just keep it as it is. Traits are there to define your characters, and it's your issue if you want certain traits for gameplay rather than story.

Sure, okay, fine. Then let's go ahead and add Heterosexuality as a trait, and Bisexuality and Asexuality too.

You're forced to have one of these traits, in addition to the other traits your character can randomly roll.

Then, just to make it a little easier to read, we'll move this trait upward on the display, to right below the part where it tells your sex and age.

Or, yanno, since all traits are the same, let's go ahead and make your Sex/Gender a Trait, as well as Age. Might want to increase it from 3 to maybe 5-6 traits, though, since Traits are simply things that define your character, and we're going to quickly run out of slots this way...
This is unneeded. Traits are for things that stand out in the game, and have an impact. There's no need to have a trait for things that are expected/the default. Traits are needed for things that are not common though, i.e literally every trait. As for age and sex, that's already in it's own spot. Why change it, that's needless work. There's a system in place already, why do you want the dev(s?) to put in extra effort for something that changes absolutely nothing?

heterosexuality is the standard, and being gay is a deviation from this standard

I'll say it again. For. You.
No. It's deviation because it deviates from the norm. It doesn't matter who or what you are, this is a fact. Last I checked, around 4% of people in America are LGBT. There is no way to argue that 4% is the norm, and 96% is not.

Read the purple.

To the dude above, removing the trait cap would probably lead to some pretty silly stuff. Pawns with every trait under the sun, for one. Although dynamic traits are a neat idea. Definitely worth discussing, at least.

[mumblemumble]

Despite all the disagreements, I think bisexuality NEEDS to be a trait too, simply because currently EVERYONE is bisexual EXCEPT gays, which is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY given the way lovers can spawn. Essentially, take literally any character, no matter the background, and theres a chance they can have a gay lover, either by encounter, or by the formulation of the first 3 colonists.

This is saying 2 things : First, there are no people who are "straight as an arrow" which is absurd.  Many people in life never try things with the same sex, much less OPENLY. Even with religious convictions, family, moral beliefs, NOTHING would prevent them from going gay.

Second, its saying that all gay people CANNOT be straight temporarily, which is just as absurd as the first point. So straight people, straight charecters can be made gay, yet gay people cannot be made to be put into a straight relationship?  Is this trying to say gay is how things are supposed to be ? Because well, we would die out if so.

I think because of this, bisexuality needs to be added, perhaps with male / female leans, just so this stuff of being with both is possible, without necessarily forcing gay relationships on possible characters. Even JUST having bisexuality trait would clear up a LOT of ambiguity, and stuff left open to interpretation, which is NOT equal on the scales of gay / straight. So either force gay people to occasionally be straight, or add bisexuality. Preferably adding bisexuality.

[skullywag]

incorrect, if a pawn ingame does not have the gay trait they cannot be in a gay relationship, there is 0 chance of this happening:

Code Select Expand


if (generated.gender == other.gender && (!other.story.traits.HasTrait(TraitDefOf.Gay) || !request.AllowGay))
{
return 0f;
}


So, if the 2 people in the above equation are the same gender and the 2nd person doesnt have the gay trait there is 0 chance of the relationship forming.

[keylocke]

if traits were dynamic :

-straight have a chance of going gay and vice versa (just like irl) i don't really see a problem with that.
-people that used to be cannibals can become vegetarians and vice versa. i don't really see a problem with that either.
-etc..

gist is : people that used to be X can become Y and vice versa, depending on both choice and circumstance.

i think the only thing that really changes from person to person is the predisposition to different types of traits. ie : some people have a higher probability of going gay compared to other people, or some people are more likely to go vegetarian compared to other people..

traits should be dynamic and predispositions would control the probability of each trait triggering to become active or inactive.

[JimmyAgnt007]

I think 'deviation' is not being used correctly in this context or just not understood the same way by everyone.  Some seem to think it means 'not typical/normal' while others seem to think it means 'wrong'.

Hetero is the overwhelming majority but all the other options are fairly consistent around the world. It is normal that x% of the population is Hetero while y% is is gay and z% is bi (and whatever other  possibilities there may be).  So one could argue that having y% of the population as gay is within the normal ratio and thus not 'deviate' from the norm. 

Deviation would occur in the non-standard occurrences.  Like sexual preferences originating from some form of trauma.  Becoming homosexual because you have been in prison for 50years would be a deviation.  This is because it alters the natural ratio of hetero:gay:bi that happens on its own. 

Within the context of the game, I think hetero being the assumed standard is fine and that any exception should be a trait.  However, characters can have 4 traits easy so why not simply add an extra slot for a non-sexual trait whenever the gay trait is assigned.  That way people with the trait arnt punished by being less diverse because of it.

[mumblemumble]

@Skully: Woah, I stand corrected! Sorry, and thank you for correcting me skully. See, I only list this because this thread. https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=18618.msg203721#msg203721

granted this was a while ago, but seeing as tys reaction, its not surprising I would think it was STILL this way. I really wonder when exactly this changed.....

I really appreciate you correcting me, cheers mate!

@Key, I sort of agree, except people would NEVER agree on "what" makes a straight person go gay, or viceversa. Theres many elements to psychology, as mentioned on my rant on positive and negative associations (which we learn EVERY...single...day)

I would perhaps make every trait BUT gay effected by being dynamic, simply because I don't think anyone wants to open THAT can of worms. I'm shocked tynan added gays to begin with, and hope hes not regretting it with the flood of LGBT requests, and complaints that gays are foreveralone. (seriously, if gays are 1 in 10 men, or so (random estimate, but its far under half) then yes, 1 gay man with 9 straight men isn't going to find a lover. This said, I have long suggested phobias, bad traits, ect, could be worked on with psychologists, acquired by trauma, and good traits can be gained by tense situations which make them grow as people. THAT would be insanely cool to see, a builder getting an industrious perk when under pressure of the colony dying, a shooter getting careful shot when he barely saves a person with a rifle round, a pacifist losing their inability to fight when picked on enough.... I cannot express how INSANELY cool this would be, BUT, I'm off topic, sorry. Oh and, I highly doubt a cannibal would go vegitarian, there are....some mental pits one doesn't really get out of...not without serious help.

Just as some people who have been abused enough never develop normal lives, a person who has been instilled with an idea long enough rarely gets out of it.

@jimmy : you are only partially right. I agree that sexual preferences can occur from trauma, but you are kind of confused. When we talk about deviation in sexuallity, from a global populace perspective, gays DO deviate from the mass majority AKA straght people. So in the context from being a minority, and deviating from the majority, or otherwise being "non standard".  This said, this is actually a big argument I've made, that MOST gay people have some sort of traumatic, or warping occurrence which does shape them like that. I'm very glad to see you are aware that trauma can do that, most do not understand this is even a possibility.

[skullywag]

Im always happy to dig in the code to find the actual answers to people questions about the game so just ask. I find theres a lot of things where one person believes something works a certain way, mentions it somewhere and then it becomes gospel. I love dispelling myths.

[mumblemumble]

Im always happy to dig in the code to find the actual answers to people questions about the game so just ask. I find theres a lot of things where one person believes something works a certain way, mentions it somewhere and then it becomes gospel. I love dispelling myths.

And I like being proven wrong  Good to see. And yes, especially with deep games (like rimworld) and continuous updates,  things like this can get lost. Do you have any idea when this changed, however? I'm genuinely curious now... Sorry to bother you with so much digging.

[skullywag]

Just checked A13 final build and it was like it in there as well and as that version added relationships id say its always been like this. Keep in mind im pretty sure Ison wrote most of this so Tynan may not be 100% on what it actually does (the minor details).

[mumblemumble]

Humn, in this case, I'm really confused...Since its the final build, it might of been changed last minute, but I don't know. it WAS NOT always this way, read the thread I referenced, where a bug was listed of "2 non gay girls flirting", and tynan responded with "not a bug".

So either, no offense, you are misinterpreting the code, or the code was changed on the last build of A13.  I'm inclined to believe the 2nd one, simply because I don't want to doubt you, but it surely was NOT always this way, the bug report proves this. Well, this leaves more questions than answers, I guess.

----

Actually, looking around.... A13 was released on  april 6th, the bug report for 2 straight girls flirting was on april 10th. There was no revision updates for A13, that I am aware of, and since the code didn't change as you say, I'm inclined to believe you showing that code MIGHT not actually mean this is impossible.

Sorry to doubt you, but something isn't adding up.

[JimmyAgnt007]

@jimmy : you are only partially right. I agree that sexual preferences can occur from trauma, but you are kind of confused. When we talk about deviation in sexuallity, from a global populace perspective, gays DO deviate from the mass majority AKA straght people. So in the context from being a minority, and deviating from the majority, or otherwise being "non standard".  This said, this is actually a big argument I've made, that MOST gay people have some sort of traumatic, or warping occurrence which does shape them like that. I'm very glad to see you are aware that trauma can do that, most do not understand this is even a possibility.

I disagree.  If say 90% of people in a group are white, does that mean the 10% that are people of colour are deviations?  no, they are just a minority.  a deviation would be a black person turning white like Michael Jackson. Things that happen in a somewhat steady ratio are normal, deviation is leaving that ratio. 

While I said trauma 'can' cause deviation, I did not mean that it is the cause for MOST people being gay.  Typically their trauma comes after the fact and does not form the cause of their sexuality.

But to get back to the issue of the game, keeping things simple is the best course of action and I have already made my suggestion.

[mumblemumble]

Well, I suppose deviation wouldn't really apply to them because, genetically, nothing is wrong supposedly with their genetics, they just have different genetics. But as you hinted at, it can deviate...and frankly, I don't believe people simply "become" gay. I didn't simply "become" a by and large teetotaler, I went through experiences, had feelings formed by them, which then formed opinions, actions, and who I am today. I think the this applies to sexuality too.

But, yes, in a by and large white community, they would be a deviation from the average population, same for vice versa. Same for if I entered Detroit, I would be a deviation the average population. Its not the race itself, which is the deviation, but the race in the CONTEXT, meaning, a minority.

And yes, I know YOU aren't saying that most gays have that as a cause (obviously not, not all gays have been in jail) but I mean these sort of psychological changes are what cause most of them. But the main point is, since they are a deviation from the statistical average, and a deviation from the normal sexual drive (in the eyes of many, and with much evidence supporting) Then them having a trait is perfectly fitting, since it not normal (read : normal meaning within the norm, meaning average, meaning majority) and for everyone else, we assume they are straight generally speaking.

also skull, get back to me if you figure it out. thanks.