Separate sexuality from the trait system.

[DariusWolfe]

Fucking Bravo, PocketNerd

[theapolaustic1]

I just want to comment real quick that the idea of people caring about sexuality in a year past 3000 is ridiculous. People will have fucked things so much stranger than an ass or a pussy by then.

EDIT: From a game design perspective, make it not count towards the limit on traits and I think you're fine.

[Vagabond]

First part is true. However, with those cultures that devolved (advanced, and perhaps devolved again), do you think something as simple as the need to procreate was left out? Only two technology levels, from what I can tell, seem capable of maintaining their population in the face of overwhelming numbers of sexually deviant individuals.

"Sexually deviant individuals"?

"Overwhelming numbers"?

Primitive tribes of hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves with large populations of deviant characters as they are, in general, of smaller numbers. The gene pool requires additional contribution to prevent defects.

I'm convinced now, that removing sexuality from traits may very well be the best thing. Instead just making it another, separate statistic. However, I also believe that the numbers reflect whatever is required (based on technology level) for the continuance of humans through procreation. The only issue I see, when it comes to higher tech levels increasing the amount of deviants, is that the technology actually makes up for the lack of standard procreation. What this means is that deviant couples could still be fertilized artificially and deviancy loses it's usefulness as a form of population control.

You're arguing from a false premise, i.e. that a society would fail if a non-trivial fraction did not reproduce every generation. While that would certainly be true if NOBODY reproduced, historically the hard caps on population size and growth haven't come from how many people are having heterosexual sex or how often. It's also worth noting raising children takes a lot of time and effort, and the role of kin selection in our species is significant — e.g. even if you never have children, but help raise your niece and nephew, you're still contributing to the survival of your own genes. (Interestingly, this may be a contributor to why humans survive so long past breeding age when most animals don't — if grandma and grandpa help take care of all their grandchildren, even though they can't have any more children of their own, they're still contributing to the success of their specific bloodlines and also the tribe overall, most of whom are also likely to be relatives.)

Also, would you mind not calling gay, bi, and trans people "deviants"? Thanks.

Sexually deviant is, by definition, a proper way to refer to such individuals, I don't understand your dislike of the term. Sexually, refering to sexual habits, and deviant or deviating from the norm. I refuse to pander to those whom become offended by such trivial things. I'll continue to use the terminology I deem appropriate, it isn't as if I am using explicit language or derogatory terms.

When I said overwhelming numbers, I was referring to the fact that glitterworld and urbworld cultures are capable of artificial insemination, vat growing and/or cloning. Through this, every member of their society could theoretically be sexually deviant with no effect on the gene pool or the continuation of the species.

At the same time, indworlders, midworlders, caveworlders, ect, couldn't cope with having large populations of deviant individuals.

My post was in response to another's, in context, you wouldn't so easily be able to refute my stance as being based upon false premise. What I gathered from the posts before mine, the other posters were suggesting that regardless of the technology level of the culture in it's current state, since it is so far into the future and post human diaspora into space, that sexual deviancy would be normal and not even on anyone's mind. I disagreed with that, and suggested that perhaps urb/glitterworld societies might have continued in that tradition, but those that devolved or evolved only to devolve culturally, would have had their views devolve naturally as well.

"While that would certainly be true if NOBODY reproduced, historically the hard caps on population size and growth haven't come from how many people are having heterosexual sex or how often."

I would like to see your evidence for this claim, because personally, I can't fathom a historical example where population isn't governed by heterosexual sex. Historically, it was the only way to have children. So the amount of people coupling, and how often they were able to (successfully), directly impacts the population. If you are just referring to region stability, surplus, and health, then you might as well conjure yourself a red herring, because that is a given. Regardless of such factors, it would still be the responsibility of males and females to copulate naturally. To recover from periods of rampant famine or disease (in which child mortality is high), males and females would need to copulate and reproduce is greater numbers to return a gain on population. Regional Stability is a vast category that can mean anything from natural disaster to war. Surplus and the curbing of  famine or disease would allow the warrior caste to be replenished to maintain a fighting force.

The final part of your post is interesting, and accurate, however I don't see the relevance. Were you suggesting that deviant relatives would serve a useful role as caretakers? If so, then the same can be done by non-deviant relatives. It is common knowledge that among almost, if not all cultures, communal child rearing was practiced in some form. Even by the community as a whole, when communal child rearing began to fade, you still had familial child rearing. Eventually is was, for the most part replaced by the nuclear family.  As I said though, non-deviant relatives are just as capable of filling this role as deviant relatives. Would deviant relatives or community members be ideally suited for this? Sure, however deviant folk are just as capable of having highly prized and useful skills and could still better serve utilizing them rather than caring for children.

That is neither here nor there, as we were (i thought) speaking about the ratios of deviants to non-deviants, and further break down the ratios of one form of sexual deviancy to another. This way we can formulate, and agree upon the numbers and make a unified suggestion to Tynan. This way he knows what we want.

[Selvek]

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

I don't want to be limited to 2 extra traits simply because I prefer cannibalistic pawns.  Or I prefer night owl pawns.  Or Too Smart pawns.

My point is, traits are a way to distinguish how pawns are different from the "most common" variant of each trait.  If sexuality is separated, how is that different from any other trait?  If one gets special treatment, why not the rest?  The "3 trait" limit is just arbitrary to keep pawn profiles from becoming too unwieldy.  Many don't even have 3 traits, and very few have 3 traits that you WANT.

So, in conclusion, don't discriminate against me just because I'm a cannibal!

[Gentz]

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

I don't want to be limited to 2 extra traits simply because I prefer cannibalistic pawns.  Or I prefer night owl pawns.  Or Too Smart pawns.

My point is, traits are a way to distinguish how pawns are different from the "most common" variant of each trait.  If sexuality is separated, how is that different from any other trait?  If one gets special treatment, why not the rest?  The "3 trait" limit is just arbitrary to keep pawn profiles from becoming too unwieldy.  Many don't even have 3 traits, and very few have 3 traits that you WANT.

So, in conclusion, don't discriminate against me just because I'm a cannibal!

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

[Ramsis]

HEY VAGABOND

Can you stop calling things deviant for literally no reason? If you're trying to play the "well it's not normal" card I'd like you to look at history and how plenty of people handle it before saying it's past the norm.

"Sexual deviance, and what is defined as sexually deviant, is culturally and historically specific. This concept refers to behaviors that involve individuals seeking erotic gratification through means that are considered odd, different, or unacceptable to either most or influential persons in one's community."

There is no deviancy at this point. The Romans were notorious for bending each other over from time to time and loving up some butt, historically lesbians have been supported through multiple religions as well as the general understanding that men have always been pervs and love to watch meaning that stigma normally goes out the window. We're here talking about same sex interactions, which in this day and age are pretty commonplace/norm; now you want to argue on the forums about why you're watching a colonist make love to the colony dog, or why he's jackin' it in the corner dressed like a hotdog then we'll talk but you're slinging words at this point and it seems rather dumb to just let you do it without making sure you understand what you're actually saying.

[SpaceDorf]

First

How about this Thread gets stickied or linked in the Permanent Suggestion Thread, so the Topic does not get blown out of proportion as Fog of War did, when the discussion broke out anew every few weeks/updates.


On Topic.

I would like to have children in the game. When people pair up thats what happens, and children and pregnant women are always good for stories.

The science about the impact of sexual orientation on population is also true. It is also true that a population of at least 200-300 individuals is needed to ensure growth without inbreeding.

Neither of the given truths have an impact on the size or timeframe the game portraits.
At the moment population growth is governed by the brainwashing skills of a few individuals in the colony.
And random joiners.

The only effect sexual orientation has for now is a pretty steep mood bonus if either one gets paired up or shut down.
Also it is, again scientific and social truths, a individual matter in which the individual has no choice.
The individual may be in denial or social pressure about their sexual orientation but in the end this are the stories that
do not end well.

To put it bluntly. Either one is allergic to peanuts or not.

So please lets stop to outscience each other,
acknowledge that the argument discussion is about personal preference and oppinion and
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARGUE PARTICIPATE FROM THIS LEVEL AND THE TYPE OF SOCIETY THE PAWNS LIVE
IN IS OF YOUR OWN MAKING.

Lets bring the Topic back down to ingame terms.

FACTS
Pawns are individuals and as yourself have personal preferences.
Pawns can have three traits.

Some of us (players) feel that those traits should not be used to set a sexual preference because it may block other
gameplay effects.
Some of us are of the oppinion that sexual preference has no place in Rimworld.
Some of us have oppinions that ar somewhere in between or completely different.

Finally here is mine.

<personal oppinion>

I am a heterosexual man.
I don't give a damn about the sexual orientation of other people as long as they are happy, because everybode deserves that.
Still it feels somewhat strange to me to see men kissing, but the feeling is waning.
If someone missed the <xml>-sarcasm from my last post, I don't care about skincolor either.

As ingame solutions go, I support the Threads subject. Separate the sexuality from the trait system or at least make it so
that every pawn has a personal orientation and oppinion ( so two traits ) and when its implemented make sure every possible
combination is possible.
gay - dislikes men , hetero - dislikes women, bisexual - dislikes gay etc.

Necrophilia and Beastiality should not be in the game because this could really become a public shitstorm that Tynan does not deserve.

----EDIT----

forgot something, even if it may as well be a new topic :

I would like that Traits could change over time and that Pawns can develop new Traits triggered by what happens to them in the game.


</personal oppinion>

P.S. Why not set up a vote ?

P.P.S. Pleeeeasssy Sticky.

[Vagabond]

HEY VAGABOND

Can you stop calling things deviant for literally no reason? If you're trying to play the "well it's not normal" card I'd like you to look at history and how plenty of people handle it before saying it's past the norm.

"Sexual deviance, and what is defined as sexually deviant, is culturally and historically specific. This concept refers to behaviors that involve individuals seeking erotic gratification through means that are considered odd, different, or unacceptable to either most or influential persons in one's community."

There is no deviancy at this point. The Romans were notorious for bending each other over from time to time and loving up some butt, historically lesbians have been supported through multiple religions as well as the general understanding that men have always been pervs and love to watch meaning that stigma normally goes out the window. We're here talking about same sex interactions, which in this day and age are pretty commonplace/norm; now you want to argue on the forums about why you're watching a colonist make love to the colony dog, or why he's jackin' it in the corner dressed like a hotdog then we'll talk but you're slinging words at this point and it seems rather dumb to just let you do it without making sure you understand what you're actually saying.

It is deviant, because, biologically speaking, we evolved to reproduce sexually between a male and female. Deviance isn't a bad thing, other primates display deviant sexual behaviors. If for some reason, a person has deviant sexual habits, it isn't a cause for alarm.

Your quote, I don't understand how this champions the lashing you are attempting to deal me (unjustly). How does that not apply to my stance? Is a man fornicating with another man odd? Check, but accepted. Is it different then the majority of our species? Check, but again, accepted. Is it unaccepted? There are at least as many, but probably a great deal more people who are strictly against it than there are people who practice such behaviors. Then there are a great deal many people who find it unacceptable to themselves, but don't care if others do it. Again, there are at least as many of them as there are people who are sexually deviant, if not more. So, tell me, how is that quote not in support of my position?

As for the Romans. . . Or other such examples of sexual deviancy. . . While I imagine we could brainstorm a list of people who we could apply labels such as gay or lesbian to, are you so sure that in these cultures or time periods, these people even considered themselves as such? That they were simply hedonistic and enjoying a romp in a moment of ecstasy is more likely. A priestess of some pagan religion might perform deviant sexual acts with another woman, but do either of these women consider themselves lesbians or bi-sexual? Or are they simply women, doing their duty to their god? Would a primate consider itself bisexual, simply because he decided to have sexual intercourse with a primate of the same sex - or gay/lesbian at that? Or is it simply doing it because it is there, but at the end of the day, it understand it's biological and troop obligation?

In the end, they are all acting in a deviant manner, one that their physiology doesn't promote - though it may support such things, as creative use of non-promoting orifices or appendages may be used creatively for sexual stimulation.

Finally, you have me pegged poorly, given we have cannibalism and a select group of deviant sexual forms, I wouldn't be opposed in the least to beastiality or colonists pleasuring themselves. I'm not against sexual deviancy in the least, I accept other peoples practices, even if I do not engage in them myself. Just as I accept other's opinions or viewpoints, even if I do not agree with them.

My only desire is for the game to be as realistic as possible in it's simulation of humanity, combat, water, electricity, construction, time, ect.

[DariusWolfe]

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.

More, it completely ignores other sexualities by making sexuality completely binary, and grossly weighted in favor of heterosexuality (one apocryphal example of a non-Gay colonist briefly entering a same-sex relationship notwithstanding).

Again, in-fiction it makes sense no matter how you want to spin it; It's a wide-open world with a billion possible societies that our colonists are coming from, and dozens of real-world historical examples to justify any stance you want to take. (For an interesting one to rebut all of the arguments about tribal cultures, look up the Native American concept of Two Spirits)

What really matters is the person at the keyboard. Gaming has historically been a refuge for the straight white male, but that's changing, albeit slowly and painfully. Unless Tynan is invested in clinging to that straight white male demographic, which I sincerely hope he's not, then gender and sexuality need to be broken out to represent a more diverse universe, and to explicitly tell the non-male, the non-white and the non-straight that they are just as welcome as anyone else to tell horrifying and uplifting stories of life on the Rim. The best part is that there's no down-side for the straight white male, unless they're invested in keeping their hobby closed off; If you're not interested in non-binary, non-straight colonists and the stories they could live, it'd be trivial to mod them out of your game; Considerably less so to ADD that content to a game that doesn't support it.

[skullywag]

Can we please try and keep this ontopic and move past the discussions that are offtopic, if you wanna discuss that subject further take it to offtopic. Thanks.

[DariusWolfe]

What's off-topic? Everything I'm seeing is related to the topic of sexuality in the game and related universe.

Is it the discussion of whether certain sexualities are considered deviant?

[skullywag]

yes that, its not adding any real value to the subject of this thread and is in danger of spiralling into another discussion entirely, im not against discussing this stuff, just in the appropriate place.

[Reviire]

Well that was a clusterfuck of posts. Wish I joined in earlier.

Anyway, I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not to not make social traits like "Gay" and "Dislikes Women" not add to the trait cap. On one hand, they're still traits that define your character. But on the other, they're pretty useless and lower your chances of getting a good roll like Industrious.

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.

[Shakaw]

I Think "gay" should remain a trait because heterosexuality is the standard, and being gay is a deviation from this standard, therefore it should be a trait. I think it stays true to a realistic simulation of a human society this way.

[DariusWolfe]

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...

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

I'll say it again. For. You.