# Homosexuality in the Forgotten Realms



## jhkim (Jul 28, 2007)

I haven't followed any of the FR books, and I recently heard that homosexuality was common in the Forgotten Realms.  

Is this true?  Does this actually show up in the game books, or is this just something from the novels?  Just curious.


----------



## Nyaricus (Jul 28, 2007)

jhkim said:
			
		

> I haven't followed any of the FR books, and I recently heard that homosexuality was common in the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> Is this true?  Does this actually show up in the game books, or is this just something from the novels?  Just curious.



From where did you read/hear such a thing? Sources?


----------



## jhkim (Jul 28, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> From where did you read/hear such a thing? Sources?



Oops.  Sorry, here's a link:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=123142&postcount=48

and after a Google search, I found this:

http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php/topic,22441.msg302969.html#msg302969

Don't blame me!  I just heard it.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 28, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> From where did you read/hear such a thing? Sources?




RPGPundit. Of course, the source in question has been known to invent many things from wholecloth to win an argument (for example, there is supposedly, a credible study someplace that _proves_ pipe-smokers live longer than non-smokers). Aside from Eleminster's trysts with Mystra, I'm not certain that I've seen overt references to sex or sexuality in any of the Realms products that I own.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 28, 2007)

jhkim said:
			
		

> I haven't followed any of the FR books, and I recently heard that homosexuality was common in the Forgotten Realms.Is this true?



Well, obviously.   Duh.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 28, 2007)

Not sure about the Realms, but there's plenty of evidence about Gayhawk ... erm ... I mean Greyhawk. I'm actually a huge Greyhawk fan, btw. I'm just a sucker for bad puns.   Is Fagotten Realms pushing it? That was the cleaner version.   

Anyway, I imagine that there would be a higher incidence among elven population, no matter what setting you consider.

Only a guess.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 28, 2007)

Wilderlands of High Fantasy and Dragonlance ... both are already kind of punny.

Whew ... okay ... I should stop now.


----------



## humble minion (Jul 28, 2007)

Well, dunno about whether it's actually common or not, but it does exist in the canon WotC setting (Ed Greenwood's FR as run for his home games is much more ... liberated then published material).  

There is at least one city in the FRCS (Elversult it seems to be) where the female high constable is described as the 'consort' of the female ruler of the city.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 28, 2007)

jhkim said:
			
		

> I haven't followed any of the FR books, and I recently heard that homosexuality was common in the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> Is this true?  Does this actually show up in the game books, or is this just something from the novels?  Just curious.




it's D&D - homosexuality can be the norm, if you so choose, or it can be non-existent, and it can be explained away as the will of the gods.

Not that there's anything wrong with either point of view.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

I guess this isn't in the published stuff not only because of Wizards' dedication to make books that kids can use, but also because things like that are best decided within the gaming group, not in the published setting. 

If you want your gameworld (whether it's Midnight, FR, Eberron, GH, your homebrew) to be open to such things, go ahead. If you want to have regular orgies in your world's cities that make Sodom look like a Fortress of Virtue, go right ahead. If you want to make all that happen off stage, never mentioning it in your games, it's fine.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> and it can be explained away as the will of the gods.




Ah, you know PLIF!

http://plif.andkon.com/archive/wc258.gif


----------



## Nepenthe (Jul 28, 2007)

Occurs in the BG II novel, IIRC, but I wouldn't exactly call it rampant.


----------



## kuje31 (Jul 28, 2007)

It is more prevalent then the sourcebooks/novels make it out to be since TSR had issues about showing sex/etc in the novels/sourcebooks.

Ed himself has discussed it repeatedly on Candlekeep.com. You can find his compiled replies and the Index/Table of Contents, for the last three or four years, at my web site:

http://home.rochester.rr.com/kuje/

When looking through the ToC/Index, do a search/find for homosexuality/sex/sensuality.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 28, 2007)

Volo's Guide to Gay Waterdeep?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 28, 2007)

I think he wants actual page number cites, folks. Also, what Greenwood did/does at home _isn't_ canon if it hasn't been published by the setting's _owner_. It's house rules. Greenwood doesn't own the setting (and hasn't for quite some time) -- TSR/WotC does, so they are the entity that gets to declare official canon and, if they aren't publishing certain things, this means that they have made the decision to exclude them from official canon.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Not sure about the Realms, but there's plenty of evidence about Gayhawk ... erm ...





Tasteful discussion of sexuality in games is a good thing.  However, slurs against groups of people are not an acceptable form of humor around here.  Please, folks, don't continue along this line.


----------



## kuje31 (Jul 28, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I think he wants actual page number cites, folks. Also, what Greenwood did/does at home _isn't_ canon if it hasn't been published by the setting's _owner_. It's house rules. Greenwood doesn't own the setting (and hasn't for quite some time) -- TSR/WotC does, so they are the entity that gets to declare official canon and, if they aren't publishing certain things, this means that they have made the decision to exclude them from official canon.




Your statement is only half true since Ed knows his contract and his contract, when he sold the setting, states otherwise. We've had debates about this repeatedly, with Ed, for many years. Ed's comments, unless they are overwritten by TSR/WOTC, ARE canon. And since TSR/WOTC mostly ignores the sex/sexuality/homosexuality of the Realms, this makes Ed's comments still canon. If you wish to debate this, again, with Ed, he can be found at the site I mentioned above.


----------



## Gundark (Jul 28, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Volo's Guide to Gay Waterdeep?




Is'nt there a gay ward in Waterdeep?


----------



## kuje31 (Jul 28, 2007)

As for those two links that were posted earlier in this thread, they are from Candlekeep discussions and they aren't misquoted. Ed has said those words and they are in my compiled replies from Ed.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2007)

kuje31 said:
			
		

> Ed's comments, unless they are overwritten by TSR/WOTC, ARE canon. If you wish to debate this, again, with Ed, he can be found at the site I mentioned above.




I am reminded of Arthur Dent - had to go down into a basement, with a flashlight, and it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’ 

Not to argue the legal point at all, but if it isn't published or even notably advertised, its canon state is not particularly meaningful.  Who cares if it is canon if most of the fanbase is unaware of it?  Certainly, they cannot apply what they don't know in their games - leading to a 'canon" element that does not appear in the setting's actual use...


----------



## jhkim (Jul 28, 2007)

Obviously I can do whatever I want in my own games.  (Duh.)  I was asking about the game books.  Apparently homosexuality does at least appear -- like the consort mentioned above.  However, it does sound like it isn't common in the published books.  (In retrospect, it does seem silly to believe RPGPundit -- but I did see a semi-confirming source in the Ed Greenwood quote.)  I don't need page numbers, but at least what it is and what book it appears in would be nice.  The consort mention was just the sort of thing I was looking for.  

The Ed Greenwood comments are interesting, but I'd still be interested in whether material appears in anywhere outside of Ed's website. 

Also, in case it wasn't clear -- I wasn't asking about sex, just about orientation.  i.e. I don't care about whatever women Elminster slept with or how there's a brothel in some city module.  Conversely, having a couple of defined orientation counts even if there is nothing sexy.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 28, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Not to argue the legal point at all, but if it isn't published or even notably advertised, its canon state is not particularly meaningful.  Who cares if it is canon if most of the fanbase is unaware of it?  Certainly, they cannot apply what they don't know in their games - leading to a 'canon" element that does not appear in the setting's actual use...




That was what I was getting at, actually. Ed's personal version of the Realms is neither supported or published by the IP owner, thus, its status as canon is _conceptually_ very, very, questionable. Legally, it may be. Does most of the fanbase know this or care? I think the case is very strong that _they do not_ (if they did, Candlekeep would be _the_ official source of FR material and. . . ah. . . it's not).


----------



## kuje31 (Jul 28, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I am reminded of Arthur Dent - had to go down into a basement, with a flashlight, and it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’
> 
> Not to argue the legal point at all, but if it isn't published or even notably advertised, its canon state is not particularly meaningful.  Who cares if it is canon if most of the fanbase is unaware of it?  Certainly, they cannot apply what they don't know in their games - leading to a 'canon" element that does not appear in the setting's actual use...




However, you could use the same argument for the WOTC Realms web pages or out of print realms material be they sourcebooks/novels/early Dragons and Dungeons/Polyhedrons/etc. I know for a fact that I'm missing many FR Polyhedrons and a handful or so of other sources. Does this make them less official canon because I, as a fan, don't have them? No it doesn't. Just because someone doesn't know of, or own, sources doesn't mean that those sources aren't official canon.

But I can name at least three or four sources that have Candlekeep mentioned in the web article or the dedication at the front of the novel/sourcebook because there has been three recent novels with a dedication to Candlekeep.com as well as Realms web pages on WOTC's site that mention Candlekeep and give links to the site. Brian's sourcebook, the Grand History of the Realms, was mostly worked on at Candlekeep and WOTC's interest in it was because of Candlekeep. Ed, at Gencons, repeatedly says to go to Candlekeep if you want to discuss the Realms with the authors/game designers. I was there last year, so I know this.

So, Candlekeep is known but only if you read web pages, novels, and or listen to authors/game designers at Gencon. Or even read, if you know the web addresses, the online journals of FR authors/game designers. Plus many of us on Keep have, or still are, on the WOTC FR message boards and Candlekeep has been mentioned, repeatedly, over there for the past three or four years. Even here on Enworld we've had our fan FR compendium posted as news on the front page.

For example here's two:

Erik Scott De Brie, in his Depths of Madness dedication, "The scribes at Candlekeep: Sweet water and light laughter."

Ed Greenwood and Elaine Cunningham in their Waterdeep novel, "To all the sages and scribes of Candlekeep, and to The Hooded One for gracing the loreseekers of cyberspace with her tireless efforts and effortless charm."

So all I'm saying is that yes, some people might not know that Ed's words are canon but at the same time if someone is seeking an answer about homosexuality in the setting, I, for one, wouldn't discount the words of the settings creator since the companies that published the setting either had a Code of Ethics which made the topic hands off or the company chooses to not discuss it because it'll anger some fans/parents/etc.


----------



## kuje31 (Jul 28, 2007)

jhkim said:
			
		

> Obviously I can do whatever I want in my own games.  (Duh.)  I was asking about the game books.  Apparently homosexuality does at least appear -- like the consort mentioned above.  However, it does sound like it isn't common in the published books.  (In retrospect, it does seem silly to believe RPGPundit -- but I did see a semi-confirming source in the Ed Greenwood quote.)  I don't need page numbers, but at least what it is and what book it appears in would be nice.  The consort mention was just the sort of thing I was looking for.
> 
> The Ed Greenwood comments are interesting, but I'd still be interested in whether material appears in anywhere outside of Ed's website.
> 
> Also, in case it wasn't clear -- I wasn't asking about sex, just about orientation.  i.e. I don't care about whatever women Elminster slept with or how there's a brothel in some city module.  Conversely, having a couple of defined orientation counts even if there is nothing sexy.




My point was if you look for those three keywords in my compiled replies ya'll find Ed discussing some NPC's who are homosexual. There's even some NPC's that haven't even seen print except through Ed's replies, etc. Ed also discusses how homosexuality is treated in the setting, etc. For a futher clarifaction about the two rulers of Eversult, Erik de Brie has a short story about them in the Realms of the Elves anthology. And Lhaeo, who was one of Elminster's apprentices, when it was a male Lhaeo, protrayed himself as a lisping lover of men.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 28, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Is'nt there a gay ward in Waterdeep?



You know, that's the one sort of real life neighborhood that's never shown up in any TSR/WotC city to my knowledge. That'd be a fun thing to work up for those who are interested in that sort of realism in their settings (and have settings where such behavior is accepted at least as much as it is in our world).


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 28, 2007)

-[Gross generalization]-

Granted I don't care or pay any particular attention to the sexuality of fictional faerunian NPCs, but, some things tend to pop out after a while of reading particular authors' material.

It seems like any average to attractive looking female that has magical power or noble rank is bisexual (the current female regent of Cormyr and her court wizardress for instance). At least in some of Greenwood's material it strikes me as something of a massive cliche at this point, and since I've not noticed the same for men of similar standing, it makes it stand out even more.

Granted the buying audience is mostly straight guys, so that on some level panders to that group, but the subtle (and assuredly unintentional) subtext that powerful and independant women aren't straight could come off as mildly offensive.


----------



## Crust (Jul 28, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You know, that's the one sort of real life neighborhood that's never shown up in any TSR/WotC city to my knowledge. That'd be a fun thing to work up for those who are interested in that sort of realism in their settings (and have settings where such behavior is accepted at least as much as it is in our world).




PCs are fleeing from the local watch patrol.  They hastily duck into a side alley and file quickly through a door leading into the back of some public building.  Once they take in their new surroundings, they find that they're being stared at by a barroom full of mustached, leather-clad men, their jackets adorned with silver studs and chains, many sporting leather caps.  One such patron boldly grabs a hold of the party fighter who looks strangely like Lance Kinsey (too stunned to take his AoO, of course), and then the music kicks in.  The fighter disengages himself from the smiling dancer, and the party rushes out the front door, passing a sign that reads, "The Blue Oyster."


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 28, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Tasteful discussion of sexuality in games is a good thing.  However, slurs against groups of people are not an acceptable form of humor around here.  Please, folks, don't continue along this line.




Oh, sorry Umbran. I happen to live in a gay neighborhood  (Hillcrest in San Diego) and most of my friends are gay. As a result, I'm surrounded by this kind of humor all the time. I tend forget that PC lines are enforced much more strictly outside my circle of friends.

My gay friends thought it was funny. Regardless, apologies to anyone who took offense.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 28, 2007)

Mustached, leather clad men? I think those guys are in pretty much every adventure party as-is. 

Seriously, though, the more I think about this, the more I want to pick a residential street in Ptolus and talk to one of my players about what a gay neighborhood in the City by the Spire (no jokes, please) would look like.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 28, 2007)

According to sociologists and sexologists, gay folks tend to make up about 10-15% of the human population across many cultures (with surprisingly larger numbers representing dabblers and bisexuals). Gayness is also seen among many other kinds of mammals. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the humans of the Forgotten Realms partake in the lifestyle.

I am still convinced that the proportion would be higher among elves. They're all way too good looking and fashion-conscious.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 28, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Mustached, leather clad men? I think those guys are in pretty much every adventure party as-is.




Tee-hee-hee! So true ... so true. They're all so butch.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I want to pick a residential street in Ptolus and talk to one of my players about what a gay neighborhood in the City by the Spire (no jokes, please) would look like.




Genius. What district or street do you have in mind? I would want it near Tavern Row for the, you know, drinking.


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Jul 28, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Volo's Guide to Gay Waterdeep?




"Well excuse me dear, where is the YMCA?" 



---

In Ravenloft 3e, Hazlik, originally from Thay, has an attraction to men. It was written tastefully in the book, and the reference is oblic: one sentence isn't enough to say so, but when you combine the meaning of a few sentences, you get the picture.

Anyway, if you or your players are not at ease with the matter, drop it from your game. Or you could use the opportunity for discussions and education. Just make sur you don't always typecast the guay guy as being evil 

Joël


----------



## KingCrab (Jul 28, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Anyway, I imagine that there would be a higher incidence among elven population, no matter what setting you consider.
> 
> Only a guess.




Is that because Legolas looks like a girl in the LOTR movies?  I think elves can tell the difference though...


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 28, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That was what I was getting at, actually. Ed's personal version of the Realms is neither supported or published by the IP owner, thus, its status as canon is _conceptually_ very, very, questionable. Legally, it may be. Does most of the fanbase know this or care? I think the case is very strong that _they do not_ (if they did, Candlekeep would be _the_ official source of FR material and. . . ah. . . it's not).



True. That said, homosexuality, or at least female homosexuality/bisexuality, crops up often in published Realmslore. Aloevan of Ardeep took male and female lovers, Lliira and Sharess have been said to take female lovers when they were in avatar form during the Time of Troubles, Yanseldara of Elversult has a female consort, and so on. I tend to agree with Shemeska's take on the prevalance of bisexuality among powerful women in the Realms, although at least Ed's not going *too* far into Fritz Leiber territory (I don't recall any group sex scenarios in the FR novels or sourcebooks, although I don't really read the novels).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 28, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Genius. What district or street do you have in mind? I would want it near Tavern Row for the, you know, drinking.



The more I think about it, the more I want to do a neighborhood write-up for Delver's Square. I'll bump this thread when it's posted.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 28, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> at least Ed's not going *too* far into Fritz Leiber territory (I don't recall any group sex scenarios in the FR novels or sourcebooks, although I don't really read the novels).



It would explain why they sell so well, though.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 28, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> It seems like any average to attractive looking female that has magical power or noble rank is bisexual (the current female regent of Cormyr and her court wizardress for instance). At least in some of Greenwood's material it strikes me as something of a massive cliche at this point, and since I've not noticed the same for men of similar standing, it makes it stand out even more.




It's not just FR, either. Especially coming from a partial White Wolf background, I swear if I never see another "sexy lesbian assassin/ninja," it'll be too soon.   

It would bother me less if it _wasn't_ such blatant pandering. But at least WW also has its share of openly gay men and/or other lesbian characters. It's a balance TSR/WotC haven't yet managed.

Then again, WW seems often to go in the other direction, with a lot _more_ sample characters being gay than standard population studies would suggest, so who knows? I just don't think _anyone_ among the major RPG companies has yet managed an entirely realistic portrayal.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 28, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's not just FR, either. Especially coming from a partial White Wolf background, I swear if I never see another "sexy lesbian assassin/ninja," it'll be too soon.




  Sorry.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 28, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Sorry.




lol

Not directed at you, man, I promise. 

BTW, is it okay to talk about the fact that I'm doing you-know-what in public?

(Man, asking that question in a thread with this topic is just _begging_ for trouble, isn't it?   )


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 28, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> lol
> 
> Not directed at you, man, I promise.
> 
> ...



 Quoted so you can't edit that out.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 28, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I just don't think _anyone_ among the major RPG companies has yet managed an entirely realistic portrayal.




Probably about the best I've seen was in At Your Door, a Call of Cthulhu adventure. Three or four of the NPC's happen to be gay and nothing is made of it; it's an indidental part of the NPC and isn't the focus of the group meeting them. The two wiccan guys might be considered a stereotype by being both wiccan _and _ gay, but as far as I know, the AYD depiction was the first in RPG's.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 28, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Quoted so you can't edit that out.




Darn you!!!


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 28, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The more I think about it, the more I want to do a neighborhood write-up for Delver's Square. I'll bump this thread when it's posted.




Awesome! More Ptolus material is always a good thing.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 28, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> lol
> 
> Not directed at you, man, I promise.
> 
> ...




Sure, feel free to come out of the closet, as it were. I was waiting for Russ to make an official announcement, but I will _not_ complain if you start providing free advertising for us.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 28, 2007)

Gay Pride Parade of the Burning Sky?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 28, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Gay Pride Parade of the Burning Sky?




Have you not seen the cover of adventure 9?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 28, 2007)

Hey, the WotBS series has a clean handful of ladies who are interested in other ladies...the Fire Forest has a lot of flaming fey (as well as a nymph-dryad-elf heroine lesbian love triangle!)


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

Nepenthe said:
			
		

> Occurs in the BG II novel, IIRC, but I wouldn't exactly call it rampant.




Yes, now I remember. Imoen is depicted as not at all fond of men, and she's having some quality time with a drow priestess to distract her.

Now that I mention drow priestesses: In one of the later books of War of the Spider Queen, Halisstra makes her battle captive - a very beautiful drow female - seduce another priestess in their party.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> I am still convinced that the proportion would be higher among elves. They're all way too good looking and fashion-conscious.




Good looking doesn't equal gay. 

And if one race has tendencies for homosexuality, it's dwarves. They don't care about the gender, only about the length of the beard.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> BTW, is it okay to talk about the fact that I'm doing you-know-what in public?




Doing what? Write stuff for White Wolf?

It's okay! These forums are about D&D, but most of us are pretty tolerant


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> (as well as a nymph-dryad-elf heroine lesbian love triangle!)




How much did the Valar Project pay to have that included?


----------



## Treebore (Jul 28, 2007)

People have obviously not attended celebrations at the temple of Sune. Those clerics swing in every direction possible. Their creed is "Love is Love", no matter what form or manner it takes place in.

BTW, these ceremonies are not for the faint of heart or those who like to be ignorant of certain aspects of humanoid behaviours.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 28, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Good looking doesn't equal gay.




It does if you're lucky ... and gay.



			
				Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> And if one race has tendencies for homosexuality, it's dwarves. They don't care about the gender, only about the length of the beard.




That is actually a really good point. Elves are like _otters_ and dwarves are like _bears _ (this is actual terminology, folks ... I didn't make this up).

Okay, so far we've determined that elves and dwarves may have homosexual tendencies. That goes a long way towards explaining why, despite their long lifespans, elf and dwarf population sizes remain relatively stable over generations. In fact, in many settings, these races are described as fading from former glory; their populations are in state of steady decline. That and the odd war against unspeakable evil. Cliche or not ... oh my gawd, they're _so _gay!


----------



## Faraer (Jul 28, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Ed's personal version of the Realms is neither supported or published by the IP owner, thus, its status as canon is _conceptually_ very, very, questionable.



As on a recent thread, you're seeing a contradiction that doesn't exist. It's not just Ed's 'personal version' of the Realms, and it's not just theoretically canonical, but also in the practice of the other current authors and the publisher, who consistently consult, reflect, and use verbatim his non-print-published lore, whether posted online or contributed privately. There is no contradiction to Ed's depiction of Realms sexuality in the published books, no alternative picture, rather many incidental and offhand confirmations of it. It is simply, as Kae'Yoss and Kuje say above, that the print-published books were and are formally or informally bowdlerized for an audience which includes young people. For just this reason, references to lesbianism and female bisexuality get past this editing more often than male -- we can see that is isn't attributable to Ed from his quite equitable non-edited writings.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> People have obviously not attended celebrations at the temple of Sune. Those clerics swing in every direction possible. Their creed is "Love is Love", no matter what form or manner it takes place in.
> 
> BTW, these ceremonies are not for the faint of heart or those who like to be ignorant of certain aspects of humanoid behaviours.




Huh? That wasn't Sune. It was Sharess. Sune's more about the poems and butterflies-in-stomach situations. Sharess is the one to see about having fun.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> That is actually a really good point. Elves are like _otters_ and dwarves are like _bears _ (this is actual terminology, folks ... I didn't make this up).




Let me quote Jerry on that: "I am not gay. I am, however, thin, single and neat. Sometimes when someone is thin, single and neat people assume they are gay because that iis a stereotype."

Remember that elves live in the forest, often in tree homes. They don't tend to have closets!



> Okay, so far we've determined that elves and dwarves may have homosexual tendencies.




Nope. We have determined that they fit some stereotypes about it. 


The often heard part about elves being gay does fit another stereotype: roleplayers are bachelors living with their parents and not too keen on hygiene. It fits because from such a guy's point of view, everyone who can feed himself and keep himself clean and neat without the help of his mother simply has to be gay. Real men can't cook or wash.



> That goes a long way towards explaining why, despite their long lifespans, elf and dwarf population sizes remain relatively stable over generations. In fact, in many settings, these races are described as fading from former glory




Yet another stereotype. 

Which is what I consider a strong point in the 3e Realms: here, while both races had those problems, they were overcome: The Thunder Blessing gave the dwarves (minus the duergar) a boost in their birth rate, and for the elves, the Retreat is over, and even reversed, with old realms reconquered and all that.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

Faraer said:
			
		

> Kae'Yoss and Kuje




I must have gained a couple of levels in Realms Expert - I'm mentioned in the same sentence as Kuje!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 28, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> And if one race has tendencies for homosexuality, it's dwarves. They don't care about the gender, only about the length of the beard.



Given that most campaigns have the males greatly outnumbering the females, if dwarves are sexually active, they either have group marriages or a high percentage of homosexuals. (Or a brisk trade in dirty stone carvings.)


----------



## kuje31 (Jul 28, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I must have gained a couple of levels in Realms Expert - I'm mentioned in the same sentence as Kuje!




 

And hey, I've seen you around a lot and I haven't disagreed with you that much, so I can agree, you seem to know your Realmslore.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 28, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> ... stereotypes ...




Kae'Yoss ... I was making with the funny, not trying to get your dander up, chum!

Admittedly, though ... I'm not as funny as I often think I am!


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 28, 2007)

kuje31 said:
			
		

> I haven't disagreed with you that much, so I can agree, you seem to know your Realmslore.




Ah, another subscriber to the philosophy "there are two kinds of opinion: mine and the wrong ones". A man after me own heart!    




			
				dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Kae'Yoss ... I was making with the funny, not trying to get your dander up, chum!
> 
> Admittedly, though ... I'm not that funny!




Agreed   

No dander having gotten up, no worries. My post wasn't that serious, either, what with the closet reference, the Seinfeld quote, and the gamer stereotype (and why did the idea of a "Date a Gamer" TV show enter my head unbidden just now?)


----------



## kuje31 (Jul 28, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Ah, another subscriber to the philosophy "there are two kinds of opinion: mine and the wrong ones". A man after me own heart!




 

Of course, which explains why I was in arguements all the time over Realmslore.  Grin.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 28, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's not just FR, either. Especially coming from a partial White Wolf background, I swear if I never see another "sexy lesbian assassin/ninja," it'll be too soon.




Sounds like you get more variety than me.  My late-eighties/early-nineties groups always seemed to have some guy who had to play a "sexy, lesbian, *drow* assassin/ninja/dominatrix."

There's a very good reason I stopped allowing gender-bending.  There's also a very good reason I can't stand drow.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 29, 2007)

Oh, and to the original poster:

I'm sure there is more ghey than gay in the Realms.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 29, 2007)

And here I thought Eberron, with is non-gendered warforged and shifting gender changlings would be the place for sexual confusion!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> And here I thought Eberron, with is non-gendered warforged and shifting gender changlings would be the place for sexual confusion!



I'm not sure changelings are confused so much as ... open-minded.


----------



## Thurbane (Jul 29, 2007)

I thought everyone in the FR would be too busy polishing their Vorpal Swords and Staffs of Power to bother about luvvin...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I thought everyone in the FR would be too busy polishing their Vorpal Swords and Staffs of Power to bother about luvvin...



Too much of that, though, and they go blind.


----------



## Thurbane (Jul 29, 2007)

Maybe thats the problem - too many Rods of Lordly Might, and not enough Portable Holes.


----------



## marune (Jul 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I thought everyone in the FR would be too busy polishing their Vorpal Swords and Staffs of Power to bother about luvvin...




When you don't know something at all, better to keep it shut don't you think ?


----------



## Henry (Jul 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I thought everyone in the FR would be too busy polishing their Vorpal Swords and Staffs of Power to bother about luvvin...




Elminster is descibed as friggin' _Don Juan de Marco_ in half of his novels, it seems. Luvvin' is not on short supply in the Realms; however, the authors do try to portray homosexuality in a neutral light, neither favorable nor unfavorable, which I'm fine with; same as gender equality there, where a woman is as likely as a man to take up a weapon and go live a life as a sell-sword.


----------



## boerngrim (Jul 29, 2007)

I remember reading that Elminster's former scribe, Lao I think, who was a prince of Tethyr in disguise was described as "a simpering man lover". I believe that was part of his disguise, but it still shows that there has been mention of homosexuality in FR in print. I don't recall if it was a game book or novel though.
thanks


----------



## The Sage (Jul 29, 2007)

You mean Lhaeo?


----------



## boerngrim (Jul 29, 2007)

The Sage said:
			
		

> You mean Lhaeo?




I believe so, but you'd know better than me!  
thanks.


----------



## Thurbane (Jul 29, 2007)

skeptic said:
			
		

> When you don't know something at all, better to keep it shut don't you think ?



...are...are you coming on to me?


----------



## Thurbane (Jul 29, 2007)

On a (slightly) more serious note, I recall a friend of mine was given an "Anti-D&D" leaflet by a fundamentalist friend. I read this leaflet, and it accusing, among other things, of D&D (and this is back in 1st ed day) of "promoting homsexuality".

I can honestly find no such references in ANY 1E material...


----------



## kenobi65 (Jul 29, 2007)

Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> "Well excuse me dear, where is the YMCA?"




*Y*oung *M*en's *C*hauntea *A*ssociation.


----------



## Vartan (Jul 29, 2007)

As humorous as this thread has been, I think it says something. When faced with the Realms, one of the richest, largest and storied fantasy settings in any medium, we find time to discuss whether or not homosexuality is prevalent in the setting. I'm not sure what that says, and certainly don't care one way or the other, but it is a little funny


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2007)

Vartan said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what that says



It says that there's been a LOT of talk about the Forgotten Realms over the years. We exhausted "what style should Elminster grow his beard" back in 2002.


----------



## Vartan (Jul 29, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It says that there's been a LOT of talk about the Forgotten Realms over the years. We exhausted "what style should Elminster grow his beard" back in 2002.




Well obviously he should do it up like cornrows, in an effort to distance himself from Merlin and Gandalf...


----------



## Winterthorn (Jul 29, 2007)

Vartan said:
			
		

> Well obviously he should do it up like cornrows, in an effort to distance himself from Merlin and Gandalf...




Crowrows? Oh gawd! That's soooo gay!


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jul 29, 2007)

My wife would have a field day with this thread.  
We both had a lot of gay/lesbian theory during our stint in The Ivory Tower.

We were discussing this thread in the car after dinner, and I'll try to summarize some of her comments:

To a predominance of bi/lesbian female characters over bi/homosexual male characters, she thinks it is, in some ways, related to pandering somewhat to the male buying public, but also that female homosexuality is generally "less threatening" (in no small part that many men find it so ... interesting) so if an author wants to portray homosexuality in a positive/neutral light, the easiest way is through female characters, which are less likely to cause strong reactions in the greater population of the readership WHILE presenting same-sex couples in a positive light.  Females are less likely to react negatively to homosexuality across the board (and are even more less likely to react negatively to female homosexuality, for ill-understood reasons, which is to say women react more negatively to male homosexuality than female for some reason).

To a preponderance of bisexual females in positions of power or prestige, she doesn't find that out of the ordinary either.  For one, the female form is objectified sexually and possession of the female is somewhat written into power-concerns in Western culture.  I.E. the possession and consolidation of power is in some ways connected to the possession of the female as an intimate partner.  Another point is that some research has suggested that the occurance of bisexuality and lesbianism tends to increase somewhat with socioeconomic position and, especially, education (there's something to the old yarn about college roommates, perhaps) so that, yes, women found in positions of power or WITH great power may, in fact, be more commonly bisexual or lesbian than the baseline average across population would suggest, both as the trappings of power and based on educational and socioeconomic positioning concerns.  

What does this mean to Elminster?  Probably not much.

--fje


----------



## Vartan (Jul 29, 2007)

Winterthorn said:
			
		

> Crowrows? Oh gawd! That's soooo gay!




ROFL


----------



## Nepenthe (Jul 29, 2007)

boerngrim said:
			
		

> I remember reading that Elminster's former scribe, Lao I think, who was a prince of Tethyr in disguise was described as "a simpering man lover". I believe that was part of his disguise, but it still shows that there has been mention of homosexuality in FR in print. I don't recall if it was a game book or novel though.
> thanks




That would've been in Greenwood's Spellfire. (I can't remember the page so I guess I don't qualify for eidetic memory)


----------



## paradox42 (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> That is actually a really good point. Elves are like _otters_ and dwarves are like _bears _ (this is actual terminology, folks ... I didn't make this up).



Those are actual terminology, yes, but you got it wrong I'm sorry to say. Elves are not at all like otters. They are, instead, like _Twinks_. I am, myself, an otter, so I know what I'm talking about- an otter is defined as a hairy guy who happens to be thin (as opposed to a dwarflike stoutness- dwarves are indeed Bears in the gay-culture sense). No subrace of elves features any body hair or facial hair, except Drow- and Drow males can only grow mustaches. Thus, elves cannot be otters, because they only have hair on top of their heads. Now, _twinks_ are defined generally as thin men, particularly thin guys who don't work out much and therefore have a somewhat "soft" or "boyish" appearance. That, to me, screams elf. Very few elves have a robust frame or serious muscular definition.

But as for elves being gay, I'd say the majority would actually be bisexual in behavior- regardless of orientation. With lives that long, even the "straightest arrows" among the elves would get bored and experiment _eventually_. It just plain makes too much sense for it not to happen. Plus, elves are Chaotic in their average racial alignment, and that means they have a tendency to try new things. Seems to me that would mean swinging both ways at least occasionally.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Jul 29, 2007)

Vartan said:
			
		

> Well obviously he should do it up like cornrows, in an effort to distance himself from Merlin and Gandalf...




That'd be different... Then again, Mordenkainen already beat him to the punch for the "Ming the Merciless" look.

Or perhaps Mordenkainen did that because he was tired of everyone asking him if he was Khelben Blackstaff....


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> On a (slightly) more serious note, I recall a friend of mine was given an "Anti-D&D" leaflet by a fundamentalist friend. I read this leaflet, and it accusing, among other things, of D&D (and this is back in 1st ed day) of "promoting homsexuality".




They surely are grasping at straws.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

Vartan said:
			
		

> Well obviously he should do it up like cornrows, in an effort to distance himself from Merlin and Gandalf...




He already distances himself from Merlin and Gandalf: Neither's a pervert.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Very few elves have a robust frame or serious muscular definition.




Wouldn't agree to that. There are high-str fighters, and while an elf will, on average, have 2 less points of con than a human in the same role, that doesn't mean that they can't be tough - they're just slightly less tough than a human. Still, a fighter can easily start with 14 con. 

And if you have a wood elf, then they're actually stronger than a human in that role. 

Not all elves get weapon finesse.



> But as for elves being gay, I'd say the majority would actually be bisexual in behavior- regardless of orientation. With lives that long, even the "straightest arrows" among the elves would get bored and experiment _eventually_. It just plain makes too much sense for it not to happen. Plus, elves are Chaotic in their average racial alignment, and that means they have a tendency to try new things. Seems to me that would mean swinging both ways at least occasionally.




I'm not so sure of that. If they are averse to homosexuality, centuries won't necessarily change that.


----------



## kyuss (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> According to sociologists and sexologists, gay folks tend to make up about 10-15% of the human population across many cultures (with surprisingly larger numbers representing dabblers and bisexuals.





care to cite a source for that?


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

kyuss said:
			
		

> care to cite a source for that?




Okay. Here are some good ones from a paper I wrote. There is some variance between studies, but most of them cite numbers ranging from 10-25%. Personally, I think the numbers are closer to 10-15% for those who are exclusively homosexual.

Anderson, John D. (1994). School Climate for Gay and Lesbian Students and
Staff Members. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 151-154. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from ERIC database.
Armstrong, Matthew (1994). Creating a Positive Educational Environment for
Gay and Lesbian Adolescents: Guidelines and Resources for Staff Development, Curriculum Integration and School-Based Counseling Services. Unpublished Master’s Practicum Project, Heidelberg College.
Benjamin, M. (2005). The 'Ex-Gay' Agenda.(pp. 26-31). Gay & Lesbian Review. Retrieved Saturday, December 10, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.
Bernal, A., & Coolhart, D. (2005). Learning from Sexual Minorities: Adolescents and the Coming out Process. Guidance & Counseling, 20(3/4), 128-138. Retrieved Saturday, December 10, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.
Callahan, C. (2001). Protecting and Counseling Gay and Lesbian Students. Journal of 
	Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 40(1), 5-11. Retrieved 
	Wednesday, December 13, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.
Dulaney, D., & Kelly, J. (1982). Improving services to gay and lesbian clients. Social Work, 27(2) 178-183. Retrieved December 10, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.
Gould, M. (1985). Teaching About Men and Masculinity: Method and Meaning. Teaching Sociology, 12(3), 285-298. Retrieved Saturday, December 10, 2007 from the SocINDEX with Full Text database. 
Kosciw, J.G. (2004). The 2003 National School Climate Survey: The 
School-related Experiences of Our Nation’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth.
New York: GLSEN. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from ERIC database.
Masters & Johnson (1966). The Human Sexual Response.
Nairn, K, & Smith A. (2003). Taking Students Seriously: Their Rights to be Safe at 
	School. Gender & Education, 15(2), 133. Retrieved Wednesday, December 13,
	2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.
Phoenix, T., Hall, W., Weiss, M., Kemp, J., Wells, R., & Chan, A. (2006). Homophobic
	Language and Verbal Harassment in North Carolina High Schools. Online 
	Submission, Retrieved Wednesday, December 13, 2006 from the ERIC database.
The life of a gay teen in rural Oklahoma. (2004). Contemporary Sexuality, Retrieved
	Saturday December 10,2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.
Wyss, S. (2004). ‘This Was My Hell’: The Violence Experienced by Gender 
	Non-conforming Youth in US High Schools. International Journal of Qualitative
	Studies in Education (QSE), 17(5), 709-730. Retrieved Wednesday, December 13,
	2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Okay. Here are some good ones from a paper I wrote. There is some variance between studies, but most of them cite numbers ranging from 10-25%. Personally think the numbers are closer to 10-15& for those who are exclusively homosexual.




Wow. Thorough. I hope you did well on that paper. 

And thank you for not quoting (or legitimizing) Kinsey.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow. Thorough. I hope you did well on that paper.
> 
> And thank you for not quoting (or legitimizing) Kinsey.




Yeah, that was a 64-pager. Thank goodness, I did get an A+.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Now, _twinks_ are defined generally as thin men, particularly thin guys who don't work out much and therefore have a somewhat "soft" or "boyish" appearance. That, to me, screams elf. Very few elves have a robust frame or serious muscular definition.




Really? I didn't realize otters had to be hairy. Huh.



			
				paradox42 said:
			
		

> But as for elves being gay, I'd say the majority would actually be bisexual in behavior- regardless of orientation. With lives that long, even the "straightest arrows" among the elves would get bored and experiment _eventually_. It just plain makes too much sense for it not to happen. Plus, elves are Chaotic in their average racial alignment, and that means they have a tendency to try new things. Seems to me that would mean swinging both ways at least occasionally.



Sounds about right to me. If I were a pretty little elf and lived on and on for 2000 years, I'd likely work my way around the entire forest kingdom.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2007)

> > But as for elves being gay, I'd say the majority would actually be bisexual in behavior- regardless of orientation. With lives that long, even the "straightest arrows" among the elves would get bored and experiment eventually. It just plain makes too much sense for it not to happen. Plus, elves are Chaotic in their average racial alignment, and that means they have a tendency to try new things. Seems to me that would mean swinging both ways at least occasionally.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds about right to me. If I were a pretty little elf and lived on and on for 2000 years, I'd likely work my way around the entire forest kingdom.




I don't know- that sounds to me like thinking like a 2000 year old human, not a 2000 year old elf.  Despite resembling us, _they are not human,_ and may think of things like sexuality in radically different terms.

OTOH, there might not be any such thing as a truly straight elf, as we would think of it.  They could even be hermaphroditic or, like some RW animals, female for a certain part of their life, and (possibly) male for other parts.  Elven sexuality and reproduction may even involve completely different processes- one could be entirely biological, and the other may require magic, for instance.  (Consider Storm Constantine's Wraethu, for instance.)

IOW, "homosexuality" as we define it might be meaningless to them in regards to elves.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Sounds about right to me. If I were a pretty little elf and lived on and on for 2000 years, I'd likely work my way around the entire forest kingdom.




I know that if I were a pretty little elf and lived on and on for 500-700 years (the span a D&D elf can expect to live), I would want to work my way around half the forest kingdom - the female half. 

I think time is no factor for sexual orientation. If you're loath to do something, chances are you'll still be loath to do it in 1000 years.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't know- that sounds to me like thinking like a 2000 year old human, not a 2000 year old elf.  Despite resembling us, _they are not human,_ and may think of things like sexuality in radically different terms ... sniparoo ... IOW, "homosexuality" as we define it might be meaningless to them in regards to elves.




You bring up a good point. We don't know what's hidden in their leafy, embroidered pantaloons. Heck, we don't even know for sure if they use good old meiosis! Maybe they're don't even have a sexual urge. Although elfolution has clearly selected for physical attractiveness, it could be a linked trait (linked with wine appreciaiton, say) that was arbitrarily favored over generations. Maybe they reproduce via budding ... like yeast! Fission?

In the end, you are totally right. Until we walk a mile in their pointy little elf shoes, we can never truly know what it feels like to be a pretty little elf thing.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't know- that sounds to me like thinking like a 2000 year old human, not a 2000 year old elf.  Despite resembling us, _they are not human,_ and may think of things like sexuality in radically different terms.




I still don't think that a human would turn bisexual after living an unnaturally long period of time. Not if he wasn't basically open to the idea from the start. 



> OTOH, there might not be any such thing as a truly straight elf, as we would think of it.




Could be. It could also be that homosexuality is completely alien to elves. Something those depraved humans do and which no elf would do, not in 10.000 years.



> They could even be hermaphroditic or, like some RW animals, female for a certain part of their life, and (possibly) male for other parts.  Elven sexuality and reproduction may even involve completely different processes- one could be entirely biological, and the other may require magic, for instance.  (Consider Storm Constantine's Wraethu, for instance.)




Now, I really doubt that. Elves are humanoids. Their biology will be quite similar to that of humans. The fact that there are half-elves is further evidence that at least elves (and orcs) are very similar in those matters to humans.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

Half-elves ... right. Forgot about those guys.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> They surely are grasping at straws.



Again, every adventuring party has at least one dude with a mustache dressed all in leather! (And that's to say nothing of the lesbian drow rogue/ninja/assassins.)


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I think time is no factor for sexual orientation.




Some people do change over time, though. I consciously try to reinvent myself as I go along ... just like Madonna. Once a person decides he knows everything and stops growing, questioning, and challenging beliefs and assumptions, I think this leads to complacencey. These people seem more like zombies or robots than thinking, feeling, fully alive and engaged  individuals. I constantly work for change and self-improvement, because I'm pretty sure that who I am now is kind of lame.

As a counter-example (intended not to disprove your point, but to illustrate that it is not axiomatic), there is the all-too-common case of men who marry, have kids, and then decide in their 40's or 50's that it's time to go gay. This happens a lot, especially around my neck of the woods. So much so that there is a kind of stereotype about it.

It takes a long time to get acquainted with one's self. Intellectual honesty is awfully hard work. All this is complicated by the fact that people change over time. There are certainly people who are lucky enough or simple enough to know themselves very well at a very young age. I am not one of these blessed few.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Could be. It could also be that homosexuality is completely alien to elves. Something those depraved humans do and which no elf would do, not in 10.000 years.




Well, it's established that humans will mate with practically anything: evidence is to be found in half-orcs, half-dragons, etc.  That elves and humans produce half-elves is probably a function of humans looking somewhat like elves, rather than the other way around.  Elves aren't known to knock boots with scalykind the way humans are.  It could be that they're more discriminating even when it comes to mating with their own species.

Edit: Considering that, it could be that there's not just little homosexuality among elves, but actually multiple mating types.  Perhaps elves are extremely picky about the characteristics of their partners: must be male, must have dark hair, must have light skin, etc.  This could explain why elves have so many subraces.  It's the by-product of what is essentially a fairly intense degree of sexual selection.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> 500-700 years (the span a D&D elf can expect to live)




Not everyone plays 3.5 either, young man. According to my 1st ed DMG on page 13, gray elves live up to 2000 years. Something I happily house-ruled into my 3.5 campaign.

So there.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Some people do change over time, though.




I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that this doesn't mean that all elves - or even the majority of elves - will change their orientation.


----------



## fusangite (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Now, I really doubt that. Elves are humanoids. Their biology will be quite similar to that of humans. The fact that there are half-elves is further evidence that at least elves (and orcs) are very similar in those matters to humans.



Well, first off, elves are fictional, quasi-magical creatures and can be as similar or dissimilar biologically to humans in the game as a GM wishes to make them. Furthermore, every GM/DM has a different interpretation of how biology, ecology, physics, etc. works in their world -- and a number of these divergent interpretations can be sustained without changing a single syllable of the core rules.

If there is no consensus on whether air in a D&D world is constituted of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, etc or whether air is an indivisable element, I don't see how there can be much of a standard interpretation of how biology works.

Furthermore, I think there is another pretty crucial problem in this debate. People seem to be conflating the existence of the cultural category "homosexual" and the idea of "sexual orientation" with the presence of same-sex relations. Same-sex relations have existed in human societies since the moment we became a species; but the idea of gay, bi and straight as identity categories or the existence of sexual orientation as an independent variable is pretty much unique to contemporary society. 

Most societies have tended to view sexual orientation within (not orthogonal to, as in our society) the matrix of gender. Catchers were women. Pitchers were men. If I were running (God forbid!) an FR game, that's how I would run it. NPCs might have sexual relations with individuals of the same sex but they wouldn't understand ideas like gay and straight.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Not everyone plays 3.5 either, young man.




They don't have to. But these are forums mainly for d20, which means that the current rules count unless the discussion is agreed to be about older rules, or other game systems. I don't see "1E/2E/OD&D" beside the topic, so it is assumed that this is about 3.5e. Under current rules, elves won't get much older than 700, most won't make it that far. 

I frankly couldn't care less what 1st Ed said. I couldn't care less what anyone houseruled. You can do whatever they want in your game, but those houserules don't make very good arguments.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that this doesn't mean that all elves - or even the majority of elves - will change their orientation.




Right on. Then you and I are of one mind here.



			
				Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I frankly couldn't care less what 1st Ed said. I couldn't care less what anyone houseruled. You can do whatever they want in your game, but those houserules don't make very good arguments.



Got your dander up! I was just teasing you since you decided to correct me and quote THE RULES.  Still friends?



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> ... smart stuff ...



 Interesting points. I like them.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Well, first off, elves are fictional, quasi-magical creatures and can be as similar or dissimilar biologically to humans in the game as a GM wishes to make them. Furthermore, every GM/DM has a different interpretation of how biology, ecology, physics, etc. works in their world -- and a number of these divergent interpretations can be sustained without changing a single syllable of the core rules.




I'd still say that humanoid races don't have any "funky" biological features humans don't have, or they'd probably be monstrous humanoids. And, as I said, they seem to be compatible with humans and able to naturally reproduce.

That and everything official written about them strongly suggests that elves are just like real world humans in those things, at least officially (houserules can get as funky as they like, but they're houserules)


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Got your dander up! I was just teasing you since you decided to correct me and quote THE RULES.  Still friends?




I was concerned for you! I thought you'd turn into another diaglo!


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I was concerned for you! I thought you'd turn into another diaglo!




Yay! Cool people are cool! I love enworld.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Yay! Cool people are cool! I love enworld.




Yeah! For one thing, I don't know any other big RPG boards you could have a discussion about homosexuality in fantasy products that reach over 100 posts without people starting to insult each other, people with orientations differing from their own, any game parts involved in the discussing, random passersby, and who-knows-what.


----------



## fusangite (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I'd still say that humanoid races don't have any "funky" biological features humans don't have, or they'd probably be monstrous humanoids.



It is clear that humanoids have more in common with humans than monstrous humanoids do. But the basis for this commonality is unclear.







> And, as I said, they seem to be compatible with humans and able to naturally reproduce.



Yes. But given that what nature is an how it works is up for grabs, I'm not sure you can sustain going as far as you do here.







> That and everything official written about them strongly suggests that elves are just like real world humans



First of all, there is a pretty big gap between "official" and "core." I am making my argument from the perspective of core. I'm not sure what utility you are getting from defining the core conception of a race on the setting-specific, non-core descriptions of them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2007)

> I still don't think that a human would turn bisexual after living an unnaturally long period of time. Not if he wasn't basically open to the idea from the start.




My point was that with their naturally long lifespan, they probably have a very different perspective on monogamy & casual flings than we "mayfly" humans.

On the one hand, they mature more slowly, and might view casual sex as an abomination, having few partners and/or possibly mating for life.

OTOH, with 2000 years to think about things, they may well feel pretty frisky.

However, even with that lifespan, we know they haven't overrun the world with offspring like humans, goblins or orcs have, meaning they have some kind of combination of a fairly sophisticated view of the environment (a zero-pop growth policy), a strong commitment to sexual self restraint, contraceptives, or an inherently limited fertility cycle.

Remember that Vulcans of Star Trek fame are also long-lived, with life spans similar to that of D&D Dwarves...and they only feel the mating urge every 7 years.

Or the Immortals of Highlander- only able to bear children after earning the right in combat.

The likely results of a race with a 2000 year lifespan with, say, 1800 of those years being fertile and an 18 month gestation period is ecological armageddon.

Quote:







> > They could even be hermaphroditic or, like some RW animals, female for a certain part of their life, and (possibly) male for other parts. Elven sexuality and reproduction may even involve completely different processes- one could be entirely biological, and the other may require magic, for instance. (Consider Storm Constantine's Wraethu, for instance.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1) Just because 2 things look alike doesn't mean they are alike- it merely means they have similar environmental needs.  The Cleaner Wrasse and the Sabre-toothed Blenny look nearly identical, but the first lives on the parasites it cleans from other fish, while the latter takes advantage of its resemblance and takes chunks out of the fish waiting to be cleaned.  Its called convergent evolution.  You see it in Sea Snakes & Eels, Snakes & Legless Skinks, Viceroy and Monarch butterflies, and other species.

2) Hermaphrodism exists in primates- its rare, but it exists.  In elves, it could be the norm.

3) The Half- races are, IMHO, merely evidence of the effect of the influence of magic upon genetics.  Personally, I'm dumping them in the campaign I'm designing now, and I'm leaning towards axing them from all my games.

A PC may have a bloodline that crosses racial barriers, but its because of long lost magic from a time in the distant, distant path, but there won't be any recent additions.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 29, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 2) Hermaphrodism exists in primates- its rare, but it exists.  In elves, it could be the norm.




Not in core rules, or they'd have stated it. There might be the occasional aberration, just like with humans, though.



> 3) The Half- races are, IMHO, merely evidence of the effect of the influence of magic upon genetics.




It's not as if it were unheard-of in our world. There's things like mules and ligers.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Not in core rules, or they'd have stated it.



This is all pretty much in the realm of campaign-specific discussion.


----------



## Ulrick (Jul 29, 2007)

To answer the original question, there is an essay titled "ON SEX AND SEXUALITY IN THE REALMS" that talks about the rate homosexuals among adventuring parties being high.

In can be found in the "Complete Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge For Fantasy Roleplaying Games." The essay is about half-way down past the sexual diseases and insanities tables.

http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Entertainment/Games/Info/RPG_Carnal_Guide.txt

Of course, it is meant for mature audiences (whatever that means).   

Have fun.


----------



## paradox42 (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Wouldn't agree to that. There are high-str fighters, and while an elf will, on average, have 2 less points of con than a human in the same role, that doesn't mean that they can't be tough - they're just slightly less tough than a human. Still, a fighter can easily start with 14 con.
> 
> And if you have a wood elf, then they're actually stronger than a human in that role.
> 
> Not all elves get weapon finesse.



I said nothing about ability scores, I said they don't have a "robust frame" which is a reference to appearance. Even high-STR fighters might be thinly built, and certainly the portrayals of FR elves show them as being generally thin folks. The most muscular-appearing one I've seen in any pictures is Ryld, the Drow fighter in the War of the Spider Queen series. The novels specifically describe him as being "unusually robust" and "like a brutish human" in appearance, quite unlike an average Drow male. He appears on the cover of the fifth book, Annihilation, and even there he's pretty thin by human standards. Very very muscular and athletic, yes, but also quite thin. The "muscular definition" part of my earlier statement does imply a lower-than-maximum STR score though, I grant you that point.



			
				Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I still don't think that a human would turn bisexual after living an unnaturally long period of time. Not if he wasn't basically open to the idea from the start.
> 
> Could be. It could also be that homosexuality is completely alien to elves. Something those depraved humans do and which no elf would do, not in 10.000 years.



Interesting. Projecting prejudices, here?  Or just arguing for the sake of argument? You're being quite forceful in your insistence that homosexuality doesn't happen among elves. And yet...



			
				Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Now, I really doubt that. Elves are humanoids. Their biology will be quite similar to that of humans. The fact that there are half-elves is further evidence that at least elves (and orcs) are very similar in those matters to humans.



...here you cite their similarity to humans. Now, we know beyond any doubt that humans have a significant percentage of pure-homosexuals and bisexuals of various degrees among them. Since elves are so similar to humans, even to the point of being genetically compatible with them, it therefore stands to reason that elves will also have a significant percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals, does it not?


----------



## paradox42 (Jul 29, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that this doesn't mean that all elves - or even the majority of elves - will change their orientation.



I am one who subscribes to the idea that orientation change is not possible- largely because I tried it myself back in high school, and ultimately had to admit failure. However, I will point to the fact that many men in the modern world who are in fact homosexuals by orientation, marry women due to social pressures and only end up finally coming out of the closet in their 40s and 50s- as dragonlordofpoondari noted above. They are *not* straight men, despite being married and (presumably) exclusively having sex with their wives; they are gay men who are simply adopting straight behavior for however long it takes them to work through their personal issues.

With that said, it is fairly clear that who one has sex with is not entirely a function of orientation. Orientation is what one desires; sex is what one actually does. A straight elf, conceivably, might well decide to try a homosexual experience once, for whatever reason one might try something new and different. This does not make the elf in any way "less straight," it just makes the elf more open-minded and experienced.  Likewise, a homosexual elf might try it with the other gender once, just because- but this does not make the elf any less gay.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 29, 2007)

OK, first off: What's a Diaglo?


Secondly: Does *everybody* have a big, hairy, 300+lb *male* in their group that plays nothing but a lesbian female rogue/Half-Celestial???!!!

I had thought I was just the poor schmuck that pulled the short straw with regards to players...


----------



## paradox42 (Jul 29, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> ...a big, hairy, 300+lb *male*



This, BTW, meets the definition of "bear."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 29, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> ...here you cite their similarity to humans. Now, we know beyond any doubt that humans have a significant percentage of pure-homosexuals and bisexuals of various degrees among them. Since elves are so similar to humans, even to the point of being genetically compatible with them, it therefore stands to reason that elves will also have a significant percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals, does it not?



It only follows once you have explicated the reasons behind the existence of homosexuality in humans and shown that the same explanation applies to elves.  If we're assuming that to begin with, then the connection holds trivially.  If we're not assuming it, we need to explain why we think humans and elves would have a similar sexuality.  Humans and chimps, despite having very similar physiology, have rather different sexual behaviour.  Of course, we don't know precisely why homosexuality happens, or why it occurs with the particular frequency it does.  And we certainly don't know the equivalent in elves.  So this entire line of argument is pretty darn pointless.

I think it's better to stick to the more interesting and fruitful line of "what if..." rather than trying to seriously argue about the sexuality of a fictional species.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 29, 2007)

The only D20 campaign setting I've seen where homosexuality was presented is Oathbound.  A few of the relationships described in there are homosexual (and very few -IIRC-  are man/woman).

The first time I read the setting I was taken aback (as in, "Did I read that right?") because I had not seen a homosexual (male) relationship described in a D&D-like setting before.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> They are *not* straight men, despite being married and (presumably) exclusively having sex with their wives; they are gay men who are simply adopting straight behavior for however long it takes them to work through their personal issues.




Unless they're bisexual.
I like to think that these multiplicities of sexuality, straight and gay, need not be rigid or binary. I prefer the fluid model (straining not to make a joke about fluid here). Absolutely straight and absolutely gay are two extremes ... there are a lot of other valid and enjoyable options.

I have observed that there can be prejudice against the bisexuals from gay and straight alike. For example, I personally prefer not to date bisexuals because there is twice as much competition, and I don't go for group shenanigans anymore ... too messy (straining again)! Regardless, it is within the realm of possibility that this man in your example (who had a wife then a husband) could be bisexual, and the order in which he marries is arbitrary.

I think that trying to force change in order to accomodate some external pressure (cultural, social, family, whatever) will never work. It sounds like this may have happened to you. That must have been horrible. People absolutely must be true to themselves. I do, though, fiercely believe that people can and do change if the change comes from within and they desire it. This change can be from straight to gay, gay to straight, ignorant to informed, hopeless alchoholic to functional, superficial to enlightened, what have you. People hopefully change as they grow. It is often hard work, but it can happen. God, I sound cheesy.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> The only D20 campaign setting I've seen where homosexuality was presented is Oathbound.




There are a few scattered throughout the Scarred Lands, too. And one or two have popped up in the Paizo adventure paths.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 29, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> I like to think that these multiplicities of sexuality, straight and gay, need not be rigid or binary.




That's my belief as well. "Straight" and "gay" aren't two options, but two ends of a _very_ wide continuum.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 29, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> OK, first off: What's a Diaglo?



I believe it's a hideous, ill-tempered ogre thing spawned from a foul union with a Gorgon. It was statted up in the original Field Folio and then again in Tome of Horrors II.

hahaha! j/k

Diaglo is a resident grognard in these parts who likes his old-school D&D extra old-school.


			
				paradox42 said:
			
		

> With that said, it is fairly clear that who one has sex with is not entirely a function of orientation. Orientation is what one desires; sex is what one actually does. A straight elf, conceivably, might well decide to try a homosexual experience once, for whatever reason one might try something new and different. This does not make the elf in any way "less straight," it just makes the elf more open-minded and experienced.  Likewise, a homosexual elf might try it with the other gender once, just because- but this does not make the elf any less gay.



A salient distinction, and one with which I completely agree. Sexual identity and sexuality are absolutely not the same as sex. Hence, I can still claim to be straight. Here goes: I'm straight!!!


			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Perhaps elves are extremely picky about the characteristics of their partners: must be male, must have dark hair, must have light skin, etc.  This could explain why elves have so many subraces.  It's the by-product of what is essentially a fairly intense degree of sexual selection.



A plausible rationale. I like it as much as the hermaphrodite thing. Both fun fluffy bits and good campaign fodder.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Well, first off, elves are fictional, quasi-magical creatures and can be as similar or dissimilar biologically to humans in the game as a GM wishes to make them. Furthermore, every GM/DM has a different interpretation of how biology, ecology, physics, etc. works in their world -- and a number of these divergent interpretations can be sustained without changing a single syllable of the core rules.



A very good point. The fact that so many intelligent adults can discuss the sexuality of a fictional, magical, species like elves is actually pretty great. What a strange and wonderful world this is. Earth ... I mean.


			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> That's my belief as well. "Straight" and "gay" aren't two options, but two ends of a _very_ wide continuum.



I'm glad we agree, Ari! Love your writing, btw.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Secondly: Does *everybody* have a big, hairy, 300+lb *male* in their group that plays nothing but a lesbian female rogue/Half-Celestial???!!!



No, but I have a couple (!) that plays a gay male kobold druid -- who's into human males, not kobolds. (See my Story Hour link.)


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 30, 2007)

A random thought.... When hanging out with a collection of geeky friends in my basic age group, one woman commented "what's up with the poly-pagan-bi-geek overlap, anyway?" Being the psych minor type, I responded with something about all of them to one extent or another reflecting (usually*) a willingness to, to some extent, create your own belief/relationship/career structure, rather than following a set and expected model. This led to a fairly interesting discussion about how different people in the group had followed the same pattern of working out what worked for them in relationships as they had in their spiritual life.

*There are always the exceptions, and this was, again, in my particular age group and socioeconomic catagory. The younger you are, the less this may hold true for folks you know in any of those groups. It is also not meant to downplay the intrinsic quality of sexuality, but the fact that for many in my generation, coming to terms with this factor of their personality and how they were going to aproach life did involve a fair amount of social construction.

My experience has been that I will be in one job/social circle/environment (say, hanging out with folks in a software startup or dealing with theater geeks) where it seem the 10% guideline for homosexuality is massively underselling the prevelance, and then in another (working for an insurance company) where it seems like 10% is the pipe dream of activists. And these differences often overlap with more poly-pagan-geeks. (and left handers. what's up with that?) 

What does this have to do with the price of ten foot poles in Cormyr? The career/lifestyle/role of "adventurer" is also going to be very often a constructed one, not featured in career fairs, family discussions, etc. There will be exceptions, the 3rd generation adventurer, the foundling raised by monks as a weapon for Good, etc, but there's also going to be a lot of, for want of a better term, geeks. Outsiders. People who didn't work in the life they were born to and had modeled for them and had to go out and construct the life that worked for them. As such, it is perfectly OK even if you decide that the prevelence of homosexuality is 1% in the forgotten realms for adventurers and high level folks in positions of power (who were often former adventurers themselves) to have a 25-50% rate of "some homosexual leanings/expereince". In a setting like Oathbound, where many of the most powerful people were "seeds" brought into the setting from other worlds where they were already adventurers striving to carve out a place in the world, it's even less surprising from that perspective. 

(this is the same perspective I apply to compalints that half breeds or good monsterous humanoids or whatever should be "very rare" so why do they show up in adventuring parties right and left. Hey, if they are one in a thousand, doesn't it make it *more* likely that that one would have left home and joined in with a loose community of misfits who accept you based on your skills?   )


----------



## fusangite (Jul 30, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> A random thought.... When hanging out with a collection of geeky friends in my basic age group, one woman commented "what's up with the poly-pagan-bi-geek overlap, anyway?" Being the psych minor type, I responded with something about all of them to one extent or another reflecting (usually*) a willingness to, to some extent, create your own belief/relationship/career structure, rather than following a set and expected model. This led to a fairly interesting discussion about how different people in the group had followed the same pattern of working out what worked for them in relationships as they had in their spiritual life.



Everybody creates, for him- or herself, their own personal belief structure. It is not a matter of those of use who choose to hew to more traditional social structures being less enterprising in seeking out a scheme that works for ourselves. Many of us who join traditional denominations and political movements or form traditional conjugal relationships are every bit as experimental and questioning in the process of finding structures that work for us; we just arrive different conclusions. 

It takes no more creativity to follow a stigmatized subculture than it does to follow the mainstream.







> My experience has been that I will be in one job/social circle/environment (say, hanging out with folks in a software startup or dealing with theater geeks) where it seem the 10% guideline for homosexuality is massively underselling the prevelance, and then in another (working for an insurance company) where it seems like 10% is the pipe dream of activists. And these differences often overlap with more poly-pagan-geeks.



Well, people gravitate towards subcultures that are accepting of them. I'm sure I could find the same high density of gay people in the seminary for celibate clergy. It's just that that crew would be united by shared disapproval of their sexual identity/inclination.







> What does this have to do with the price of ten foot poles in Cormyr? The career/lifestyle/role of "adventurer" is also going to be very often a constructed one, not featured in career fairs, family discussions, etc. There will be exceptions, the 3rd generation adventurer, the foundling raised by monks as a weapon for Good, etc, but there's also going to be a lot of, for want of a better term, geeks. Outsiders.



Again, I'm afraid I'll go for a simpler psychological explanation. One of the biggest selling points of RPGs has always been wish fulfilment for social outcasts. Indeed, it constitutes the premise of pretty much anything White Wolf writes -- subcultures that feel persecuted, tie their sense of self-worth to a belief in their originality and imagination and wear their 'persecuted outsider' badge proudly are going to have pretty predictable wish fulfilment fantasies that can be easily catered-to.

But you are just operating in one corner of gaming. There are the politics gaming nerds, the army gaming nerds and a host of other groups that probably don't even overlap with the pagan/poly gaming scene.







> People who didn't work in the life they were born to and had modeled for them and had to go out and construct the life that worked for them.



Or they decided to follow the Buddha's advice that it was time to stop trying to solve all discrepancies between what one has and what one wants by changing what one has.

You seem to have this idea that mainstream people and people in subcultures other than your own are somehow fundamentally less special snowflakes than you. You may be couching it in obfuscating language. But what you are doing is minimizing, the uniqueness, creativity and deep personal conflicts around identity and society that are being experienced elsewhere.


----------



## s.j. bagley (Jul 30, 2007)

i think my rogue should start sporting an 'elminster says relax!' tunic.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 30, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Okay. Here are some good ones from a paper I wrote. There is some variance between studies, but most of them cite numbers ranging from 10-25%. Personally, I think the numbers are closer to 10-15% for those who are exclusively homosexual.




Hmm. Granted that this isn't an area of biology I really follow closely, IIRC most of the studies I'm aware of that have looked at the approach from a biological perspective, as opposed to a social one, have typically reported numbers ranging from 3-4% at the low end, and 5-7% at the high end for the human population as a whole, with the percentage among men being twice that of women.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jul 30, 2007)

To get back to the Question:

I can't remember any 'detailed' Brokeback Mountain level of Homosexuality.

I believe the House of Serpents Trilogy had some hints of Homo, Bi, Heterosexuality.  But the book was focused on Yuan-Ti.

The books of the Drow War hinted as Homosexuality among Priestesses (although many dealt with captured preistesses, so it was more about degredation, control, & humiliation than actual sexualtiy).

The newest FR Book in Empyrean Odyssey Trilogy has the main character reflect on Same-Sex Relationships she had in the past (as we are dealing with a Alu-Fiend, I'd call it more a do whatever I need to get what I want).

FR is very much a PG-13 Setting.  Any serious discussion of more mature topics will be glossed over, simplified, or very much off the record.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Hmm. Granted that this isn't an area of biology I really follow closely, IIRC most of the studies I'm aware of that have looked at the approach from a biological perspective, as opposed to a social one, have typically reported numbers ranging from 3-4% at the low end, and 5-7% at the high end for the human population as a whole, with the percentage among men being twice that of women.




Curious. Aside from simply asking someone their orientation or taking a survey, what possible metric could be employed to assay such a quality in populations? 

SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphism studies)? Gene migration isn't exactly helpful, since there is no such thing as a gay gene. If there is a genetic component whatever, that behavior likely is a polygenic trait dependent on a complex of gene products.

EDIT: I'm not trying to call you out and demand sources here, but admit to being most curious as to research methods that may appear in a study making these claims.


----------



## Rabelais (Jul 30, 2007)

Sometimes it's the strangest threads that have legs.  4+ page thread about something that was briefly covered by the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Not necessarily a criticism, but merely an observation.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 30, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Curious. Aside from simply asking someone their orientation or taking a survey, what possible metric could be employed to assay such a quality in populations?




Most of the studies that have been published in more hard science sources, as opposed to sociology/social science journals and books show a pretty large difference in numbers. It's possibly just what questions are being asked, what pooled population they're each looking at, or even what they're choosing to report for purposes of pushing a point. We can only speculate.

Five minutes on Pubmed and I snagged the following two for examples:

One study (Mercer CH, et al. Women who report having sex with women: British national probability data on prevalence, sexual behaviors, and health outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2007 Jun;97(6):1126-33. Epub 2007 Apr 26.) reported a 4.9% rate of homosexual experiences in the lifetime of the women in the study population (that's experiences, not necessarily orientation or self-identified orientation) with half of that number ~5% reporting experience with both genders. A far cry from 10-15% certainly.

Another study (Aaron DJ, et al. Estimating the lesbian population: a capture-recapture approach. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Mar;57(3):207-9.) reported a 1.87% rate, which is the lowest number I've seen.

I'd look at the aims of who is reporting any particular number, what they were asking, how they were asking it, how solid their science and statistics were, if their tested population was representative of the overall population, and what goals they might have in the numbers.



> Gene migration isn't exactly helpful, since there is no such thing as a gay gene. If there is a genetic component whatever, that behavior likely is a polygenic trait dependent on a complex of gene products.




There are some suggestions of a genetic component (at least for men), but since the Hamer work on the topic I think most of the evidence weighs massively against it being as simple as that. That said, recent work is strongly suggestive of it being a physical thing, with persuasive evidence for an underlying biological influence on prenatal brain development being the root cause (hormonal influence in-utero is one possibility).


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'd look at the aims of who is reporting any particular number, what they were asking, how they were asking it, how solid their science and statistics were, if their tested population was representative of the overall population, and what goals they might have in the numbers.




Exactly my concern.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> but since the Hamer work on the topic I think most of the evidence weighs massively against it being as simple as that. That said, recent work is strongly suggestive of it being a physical thing, with persuasive evidence for an underlying biological influence on prenatal brain development being the root cause (hormonal influence in-utero is one possibility).




No doubt. What is this recent persuasive evidence?

EDIT: The Mercer article appears credible enough from the abstract ... I can't download the article but the sample size is n=6399 women and they rely on interviews and "computer-assisted" interviews. British National population data certianly has the ring of decent sounding science. The Aaron article uses a population n=2185 and is localized to Allegheny, PA. They also rely on interviews. Hmm.

As to the quality of their science, it is difficult to judge without the articles in front of me. Not to be snobby, but neither of these articles were published in Nature or Cell or Science or JAMA or even PNAS here (and I'm sure we both know how PNAS does business).

So far ...  not terribly compelling. Sociologists can probably interview and run the stats with as much ability as a biologist. My point here is that, just because a paper is written from "a biological perspective," that doesn't give it any more credibility if they are doing the exact same experiments as the sociologists ... namely interviewing people and collecting statistical data. A lot of laypeople will automatically credit hard science research > soft without looking any further ... including me a lot of the time.

EDIT: and then you go and post a PNAS article. that's totally funny!!! for the non-biologists here: PNAS has a "back-door" through which non-peer reviewed studies can be published if they are sponsored by a member of the special club. a large number of this journal's articles are published this way, and they do not all stand up to the scrutiny of repeatability. 

anyway, thanks for indulging me, Shemaska. i'll have to read those other articles and see what i think. whether i find them "persuasive" or not, they don't speak to frequency in populations. in the end, whether the stats are 5% or 15%, any value within this range is impressive and significant, whatever that _true_ value may be. even 5 people out of every 100 is a lot! alas, i must away from the computer for a while, as much fun as this is!!!



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'm more trusting of peer reviewed research suffice to say.



Yup. Me too! That's what I was getting at above in citing my preferences for certain reputable scientific journals. Okay ... must sleep.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Exactly my concern.




Indeed. And because it's such a hot-button issue, my fear is--at least in the current political climate and culture--that it's _impossible_ to get accurate numbers, because _any and every_ survey on the topic is going to be at least slightly influenced by an agenda (be it pro- or anti-).

I imagine that the best thing one could do would be to select a number of _mostly_ reliable sources, and then in turn average those results, to get anything close to a realistic percentage.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Indeed. And because it's such a hot-button issue, my fear is--at least in the current political climate and culture



I'm not sure that there's ever been a time that we know it hasn't been controversial. Certainly during the last few hundred years, it always has been, and when homosexuality's been mentioned prior to that, it's in snippets that can be interpreted all sorts of ways -- and are.

So I think we gotta go with what we've got, since I don't know that it'll ever not be a hot button issue to some people (at least enough to cast doubt on any given survey).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that there's ever been a time that we know it hasn't been controversial. Certainly during the last few hundred years, it always has been, and when homosexuality's been mentioned prior to that, it's in snippets that can be interpreted all sorts of ways -- and are.
> 
> So I think we gotta go with what we've got, since I don't know that it'll ever not be a hot button issue to some people (at least enough to cast doubt on any given survey).




Oh, I agree. I phrased that poorly. I didn't mean "current political climate" as in "right now," so much as I meant "in modern American society."

My bad.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 30, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Exactly my concern.




I'm more trusting of peer reviewed research suffice to say.



> No doubt. What is this recent persuasive evidence?




Here are three papers that touch upon the topic. That's just a quick look at the literature, and there have been other studies that aren't immediately popping up in the search terms I'm using. If you're interested, there's a lot out there.

Muscarella F, Elias VA, Szuchman LT. Brain differentiation and preferred partner characteristics in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Aug;25(4):297-301.

Berglund H, Lindstrom P, Savic I. Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 23;103(21):8269-74. Epub 2006 May 16. Erratum in: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jul 18;103(29):11098.

Swaab DF. Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2004 Dec;19(6):301-12. Review.

Judge the science as you will. It's a complex area, and a lot more study (and replication most importantly) needs to be done.

_Edit: And we're probably going too off topic now. My apologies._


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2007)

I'm guessing most of the people in this thread weren't the ones loudly objecting to the Book of Erotic Fantasy which, I'm given to believe, covers much of the same ground.


----------



## fusangite (Jul 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm guessing most of the people in this thread weren't the ones loudly objecting to the Book of Erotic Fantasy which, I'm given to believe, covers much of the same ground.



I was.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 30, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I imagine that the best thing one could do would be to select a number of _mostly_ reliable sources, and then in turn average those results, to get anything close to a realistic percentage.



Not the most sciencey solution, but you're probably right about that!
*
Shemeska*: thanks for the responses ... I'll try to check out those articles this week. I had some more (possibly obnoxious) comments for you in my last post. I'll try to do some poking around the intertrons myself.

G'night, all!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Not the most sciencey solution, but you're probably right about that!




Yeah, well, I'm not the most sciencey person. Manipulating systems within the D20 paradigm is about as scientific as I get.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 30, 2007)

Sorry to pull the thread back on topic, but I managed to sneak a little gayness into the Forgotten Realms in "Faiths and Pantheons." During Llira's mortal exile during the time of troubles, she took a female lover.

Not like anyone bothered to actually read that book (it's "just a rehash" of the 2e god books, I understand), but it's in there if you know where to look.

--Erik


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2007)

> > 3) The Half- races are, IMHO, merely evidence of the effect of the influence of magic upon genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




True, but IMC, the humanoid races are so divergent that there is no possibility of miscegenation without magic.  In fact, few of the races even have common ancestry within the RW equivalent of 1M years, if any.

If and when I do allow Half- races to exist, its because of something in particular- Elves have their fey heritage that makes them more able to crossbreed with humans (more a nod to legend than game fluff), Orcs with a hidden gift from Grummsh- a way to conquer from within...perhaps even the old love potion & a polymorph spell.

And so forth.

But never on the basis of the races being closely related enough for regular biology to produce offspring.


----------



## The Sage (Jul 30, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Sorry to pull the thread back on topic, but I managed to sneak a little gayness into the Forgotten Realms in "Faiths and Pantheons." During Llira's mortal exile during the time of troubles, she took a female lover.
> 
> Not like anyone bothered to actually read that book (it's "just a rehash" of the 2e god books, I understand), but it's in there if you know where to look.
> 
> --Erik



I'll note also that Alusair is bisexual. So saith Ed [from his '05 Candlekeep replies].


----------



## The Sage (Jul 30, 2007)

Also from Ed -

"In ‘my’ Realms, there’s no stigma attached to homosexual relationships, only to any sexual behaviour that involves exploiting children, and any sexual behaviour that involves force or coercion (please note: WILLINGLY undergoing pain or bondage doesn’t count)."


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 30, 2007)

Our Real World thinking is totally irrelevant to the Forgotten Realms (excepting as to how it affects our enjoyment of rping therein, obviously.)

  Alustriel is the Queen of Courtly Love.  She throws orgies, takes lovers of both sexes and many races, and she tries to encourage her people to be open minded about sexuality.

  Meanwhile, in Thay, the Red Wizards enslave men and women, and abuse them horribly until they die from the pain and horror.
  In Dambrath, if it's not painful, it's not worth it.  That applies to sex as well as everything else.
  In Hillsfar, anything goes sexually if you're human.  If you are not human, sex is irrelevant as your only future is as lion's food.
  The Heralds don't care what kind of sex you engage in.  But for God's sake, don't present a false Coat of Arms in front of them (or even not in front of them.)

  In other words, keep your sword and spells handy, keep your wit about you, and party the night away.  Enjoy the night like there is no tomorrow, and do your own thing.  Just hope the violent, brutal world around you just doesn't take notice.  
  If you're in a nice and peaceful place like Silvermoon, hope it continues to stay nice and peaceful for a short while longer.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 30, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> True, but IMC, the humanoid races are so divergent that there is no possibility of miscegenation without magic.  In fact, few of the races even have common ancestry within the RW equivalent of 1M years, if any.



On the other end of the scale, my next campaign will feature some adjustments in life spans to support a world where all of the humanoid races are actually the same species, simply selectively bred in the distant past for seperate roles and areas. (anyone who says it's impossible for an orc to be the same species as a halfling look at a wolfhound and a pug and get back to me.   )


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Most of the studies that have been published in more hard science sources, ....



Having done both biology and psychology, citing this so called "divide" is pretty much a red flag for me. Numbers are numbers, good experimental design is good experimental design, and the "hard" science folks can make some really dumb design mistakes when they try to study issues that are all about asking questions.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 30, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I'd still say that humanoid races don't have any "funky" biological features humans don't have, or they'd probably be monstrous humanoids.




Humanoid subtype reptilian probably have significant biological differences. I seem to remember reading that the Kalamar book on Kobolds and gnomes does something funky with kobold biology.

Oathbound/Complete Minions has humanoid subtypes for avian, canine, feline, ungulate, etc. as well.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 30, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Interesting. Projecting prejudices, here?




Nah.



> Or just arguing for the sake of argument?




In fact, I was playing on that "elves consider themselves superior" stereotype that seems to be popular with some people.



> You're being quite forceful in your insistence that homosexuality doesn't happen among elves.




I'm not insisting that elves are never homosexual. I'm just saying that it's not the norm for them, or that the percentage of homosexual elves isn't significantly higher (or lower) than that of humans.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 30, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Secondly: Does *everybody* have a big, hairy, 300+lb *male* in their group that plays nothing but a lesbian female rogue/Half-Celestial???!!!




Nope. In fact, I never saw one in person. Have/had a couple that are near to that weight (but no actual 300+lb persons I think), but none of them ever played a lesbian female, sexy or otherwise. In fact, I can't recall any incident of lesbian females played by any player.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 30, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Sorry to pull the thread back on topic, but I managed to sneak a little gayness into the Forgotten Realms in "Faiths and Pantheons." During Llira's mortal exile during the time of troubles, she took a female lover.
> 
> Not like anyone bothered to actually read that book (it's "just a rehash" of the 2e god books, I understand), but it's in there if you know where to look.




Apology accepted!   

I did read the book, but I guess I'm not attuned enough to lesbian sightings in RPG books to remember that part.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 30, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Humanoid subtype reptilian probably have significant biological differences.




You know, I forgot about those, or thought that they were monstrous humanoids.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 30, 2007)

The 3rd edition FRCS has an NPC statted up with one line mentioning that she has a female consort.  I'd have to plow through the FRCS to find it though and I'm not about to do that just to find alternative lifestyle references.  

For the record ....

Two hot chicks getting it on is not an example of open mindedness and tolerance within the FRCS.  It's gamer pr0n.  Two hot chicks getting it on do not count.  No. They.  Don't.



And I don't mean to single out Erik here (though I just did when I used his name in this sentence).  It applies to Star Trek, the new Batgirl, and all forms of geek culture.  When Drizzt and Artemis start playing hide-the-sausage, give me a call.  But two hot chicks don't count.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2007)

> I'm not insisting that elves are never homosexual. I'm just saying that it's not the norm for them, or that the percentage of homosexual elves isn't significantly higher (or lower) than that of humans.




Actually...

A significantly higher percentage of homosexuality among elves could neatly account for_ at least a portion of_ their slow reproductive rate.

Consider: elves with a society consisting of mostly homosexual beings, but who so highly value their "breeders" that the hetero elves are almost unknown to those outside their species.  Low birth rate would be the norm- valuable to a race that values the environment as highly as they do but who have a "normal" reproductive lifespan perhaps measured in centuries.  (In a darker campaign, they may even use cullings to control the balance of the sexual orientations in their culture- akin to the "honor killings" of some RW eastern cultures.)

It could even be a source of friction between them and the (commonly perceived as) conservative Dwarven culture.

Bottom line, though- we don't know for sure.  That aspect of elvish life is left for the individual DM to fill in...if he feels like he needs to.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 30, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> For the record ....
> 
> Two hot chicks getting it on is not an example of open mindedness and tolerance within the FRCS.  It's gamer pr0n.  Two hot chicks getting it on do not count.  No. They.  Don't.




I agree. That doesn't mean that I disagree with it, though   

Great, now I have the image of a "battle" between a nymph and a succubus in mind. 



> When Drizzt and Artemis start playing hide-the-sausage, give me a call.  But two hot chicks don't count.




No problem. The guy who's shouting "AAAARGH!" loud enough to be audible in outer space will be me.   

Artemis! [sblock=From Road of the Patriarch]
In Road of the Patriarch, he kills a priest that mistreated him when he was young. It isn't spelled out, but it's quite possible that he was molested by that priest. It explains why he's such a bastard, and why he hates clerics.
[/sblock]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2007)

> Great, now I have the image of a "battle" between a nymph and a succubus in mind.




I'm casting _Grease._


----------



## s.j. bagley (Jul 30, 2007)

'Two hot chicks getting it on is not an example of open mindedness and tolerance within the FRCS. It's gamer pr0n. Two hot chicks getting it on do not count. No. They. Don't.'
agreed.
.
also, as a gay man, i'm REALLY uncomfortable with folks equating homosexuality with molestation.
please, let's not go down that slippery slippery (and intellectually dishonest, not to mention overtly oppressive and homophobic) slope.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2007)

> also, as a gay man, i'm REALLY uncomfortable with folks equating homosexuality with molestation.




Hey, if that happens in this thread, I'll join you in calling *shenanigans.*

I've had the misfortune of knowing 2 pedophiles personally, and as a Catholic living in the Dallas area, I'm intimately familiar with the Rudy Kos case.  All the pedophiles involved were straight.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 30, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Two hot chicks getting it on is not an example of open mindedness and tolerance within the FRCS.  It's gamer pr0n.  Two hot chicks getting it on do not count.  No. They.  Don't.
> 
> And I don't mean to single out Erik here (though I just did when I used his name in this sentence).  It applies to Star Trek, the new Batgirl, and all forms of geek culture.  When Drizzt and Artemis start playing hide-the-sausage, give me a call.  But two hot chicks don't count.




Well, I never commented on the hotness of Llira's lover, so I think I'm in the clear.

I put a couple of queer beggar lords in Greyhawk in a Dragon article, though. Do they count?

--Erik


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 30, 2007)

s.j. bagley said:
			
		

> also, as a gay man, i'm REALLY uncomfortable with folks equating homosexuality with molestation.
> please, let's not go down that slippery slippery (and intellectually dishonest, not to mention overtly oppressive and homophobic) slope.



Just so we're clear, as mods we won't permit that here. Please report the post (little exclamation point button at the bottom left of every post) if you run across it.

Thanks!


----------



## paradox42 (Jul 30, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> 'Two hot chicks getting it on is not an example of open mindedness and tolerance within the FRCS. It's gamer pr0n. Two hot chicks getting it on do not count. No. They. Don't.'



Yes. They. Do.   Sometimes, anyway. Ed's quote above (at least, assuming it actually came from him- source?) proves that at least one author thought about the issue and deliberately chose to put them in as an open-mindedness thing. Now, saying *most* of them count as geek pr0n, I will agree with. Even though it does nothing for me personally. 



			
				s.j. bagley said:
			
		

> also, as a gay man, i'm REALLY uncomfortable with folks equating homosexuality with molestation.
> please, let's not go down that slippery slippery (and intellectually dishonest, not to mention overtly oppressive and homophobic) slope.



I... don't see where anybody was doing that, up above? But, I think everybody who's been posting in this thread so far can agree with the sentiment at least. We've all seemed like reasonable people. And as DannyAlcatraz obliquely noted, most child molestation cases are actually hetero. They just don't get sensationalized the way the gay ones do.


----------



## paradox42 (Jul 30, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I put a couple of queer beggar lords in Greyhawk in a Dragon article, though. Do they count?



Depends. Were they hot?


----------



## Faraer (Jul 30, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Not like anyone bothered to actually read that book (it's "just a rehash" of the 2e god books, I understand), but it's in there if you know where to look.



Erik, I've read _Faiths and Pantheons_ and never slagged it off. There's no doubt it has a good amount of new content, obviously in the temple write-ups and also mixed into the longer-form god/priesthood entries. But I turn to the _Faiths & Avatars_ series first, because it _is_ longer and more thorough -- partly due to the god stats which I believe neither you or Eric were in favour of -- I fear the work it takes to get to the new ideas and information means _Faiths and Pantheons_ is never likely to be as well regarded as its predecessors.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> When Drizzt and Artemis start playing hide-the-sausage, give me a call.



That would be the least shocking coming out since Ellen. And Melissa Etheridge. And Rosie O'Donnell.

Well, in any case, it wouldn't be a shock.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That would be the least shocking coming out since Ellen. And Melissa Etheridge. And Rosie O'Donnell.
> 
> Well, in any case, it wouldn't be a shock.




The number of examples in gamer books of a Rosie O'Donnell figure having a physical relationship with absolutely anything _even as comedy_ are so utterly infrequent as to be neigh non-existent. 

A true "Brokeback Mountain" moment where the characters are portrayed sympathetically, maturely with the deed not occurring as a vague reference would not only be shocking, it would bring down the already much-abused WotC FR forums.


----------



## s.j. bagley (Jul 30, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I agree. That doesn't mean that I disagree with it, though
> 
> Great, now I have the image of a "battle" between a nymph and a succubus in mind.
> 
> ...



i felt that the spoilery bit in this post was heading in that direction.
but i do think there's a difference between heading in that direction, and arriving there.


----------



## Eytan Bernstein (Jul 30, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Sorry to pull the thread back on topic, but I managed to sneak a little gayness into the Forgotten Realms in "Faiths and Pantheons." During Llira's mortal exile during the time of troubles, she took a female lover.
> 
> Not like anyone bothered to actually read that book (it's "just a rehash" of the 2e god books, I understand), but it's in there if you know where to look.
> 
> --Erik




Actually, I did Erik.  I think was quoting that very section of Lliira's history in another thread similar to this yesterday.  I also used the thread in one of the 4th Magic Item Compendium preview article - the one about using the book in the Realms.  So I'm getting some good mileage out of it. 

--Eytan


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 30, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Well, I never commented on the hotness of Llira's lover, so I think I'm in the clear.




I think hotness on a goddess level will render the other participant irrelevant, so the noose stays around your neck!


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 30, 2007)

s.j. bagley said:
			
		

> i felt that the spoilery bit in this post was heading in that direction.
> but i do think there's a difference between heading in that direction, and arriving there.




I can see that. I'm sorry. I didn't want to set those two concepts on the same level. 

If it makes you feel better, that same priest is also molesting a young woman in the book, the book did not equal the two concepts, and neither do I.


----------



## IanB (Jul 30, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Well, I never commented on the hotness of Llira's lover, so I think I'm in the clear.
> 
> I put a couple of queer beggar lords in Greyhawk in a Dragon article, though. Do they count?
> 
> --Erik




They count, and so do Artux and Adimarchus (sad story, that.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 30, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> The number of examples in gamer books of a Rosie O'Donnell figure having a physical relationship with absolutely anything _even as comedy_ are so utterly infrequent as to be neigh non-existent.
> 
> A true "Brokeback Mountain" moment where the characters are portrayed sympathetically, maturely with the deed not occurring as a vague reference would not only be shocking, it would bring down the already much-abused WotC FR forums.



It'd be the most interesting game novel ever, though.


----------



## s.j. bagley (Jul 30, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I can see that. I'm sorry. I didn't want to set those two concepts on the same level.
> 
> If it makes you feel better, that same priest is also molesting a young woman in the book, the book did not equal the two concepts, and neither do I.



thanks very much for the clarification, and the apology.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jul 30, 2007)

As to two attractive females "not counting", I oppose and counter with:  "Why not?"

I think it depends on the context.  If it's done obviously for pandering purposes, perhaps.  But if it is in there because it is ACCEPTABLE (due to an interest set in the readership) but serves the author's purpose in portraying non-mainstream relationships in a positive light then I believe it is, instead, subversive.  

--fje


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 30, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Having done both biology and psychology, citing this so called "divide" is pretty much a red flag for me. Numbers are numbers, good experimental design is good experimental design, and the "hard" science folks can make some really dumb design mistakes when they try to study issues that are all about asking questions.




Big undulating flag.

In fact, social scientists are uniquely equipped to conduct these interview-based studies since that is precisely the kind of research in which they specialize. It is what they go to graduate school to train for, and it is part and parcel of the social scientist's career.

As far as biologists go, population ecologists & bioinformatitions tend to be good at statistics, but I've encountered an alarming number of PhDs at the upper echelon of biology (we're talking Howard Hughes Labs, Academy members' labs, top graduate/medical schools etc) who can barely calculate _standard deviation_. Some of them can't even calculate molarity to mix up their own solutions!!! That was what, freshman chemistry? Sad but true. 

[RANT FOLLOWS]

What's more, I won't go into the amount of faked data I've seen published in top journals because the stakes are so damned high in biology (I'm talking about money, here, folks). I wish this was hyperbole, but the funding system in science today almost encourages faking data if your repuation and lab budget and survival depend on it. Funding is based on big ideas, big phenotypes, and following through to make the big discoveries ... instead of negative results which are a normal and healthy part of practicing good science.

Even if a paper comes out of a Nobel laureate's lab, you can't trust it until the experiments are repeated by an impartial 3rd party. Unfortunately, double-checking the experiments of others doesn't garner kleos (honor) like doing your own cutting edge research. It is just not sexy research and therefore not a huge priority. So faked data often won't get caught for years. Ug.

At least the scientific method is noble in intent ...

[/RANT]

My point here? Don't believe everything you read ... even if it's coming from a very reputable source. Politics are everywhere.


----------



## IanB (Jul 30, 2007)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> As to two attractive females "not counting", I oppose and counter with:  "Why not?"
> 
> I think it depends on the context.  If it's done obviously for pandering purposes, perhaps.  But if it is in there because it is ACCEPTABLE (due to an interest set in the readership) but serves the author's purpose in portraying non-mainstream relationships in a positive light then I believe it is, instead, subversive.
> 
> --fje




My "why not" would be simple. Whether or not the author is setting out to portray a non-mainstream relationship in a positive light or not, the situation ("two hot chicks omg") is tied up with a lot of _very_ mainstream straight male attitudes towards women (ref: all porn ever), and so any portrayal will tend to get caught up more on that sort of thing than any kind of sensitive portrayal of homosexuality. An author who chooses that particular cliche as his or her 'positive example of gayness' is set up for failure, because very rarely is there space in gaming material to provide much more than a short description of a relationship - so it will always *seem*, because of the cultural baggage associated with "two hot chicks omg", that that was all the author was going for, regardless of intent.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jul 30, 2007)

But yet it is getting brought into a larger discussion of nontraditional relationship structures vis a vis published material for an RPG game, involving a handful of fans discussing the subject beyond the realms of "omg".

--fje


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 30, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> My point here? Don't believe everything you read ... even if it's coming from a very reputable source. Politics are everywhere.




Hold on now. You go to great lengths to try to cast doubt on each and every source I cited from various journals, yet based on a post of yours a few pages back when you were asked to cite your sources you seemed perfectly willing to place your trust in the absolute validity of books from 1966, education journals, an unpublished masters project, and similar sources. You're kidding right?


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Hold on now. You go to great lengths to try to cast doubt on each and every source I cited from various journals, yet based on a post of yours a few pages back when you were asked to cite your sources you seemed perfectly willing to place your trust in the absolute validity of books from 1966, education journals, an unpublished masters project, and similar sources. You're kidding right?




Nope. Those should be looked at carefully, as well! Especially the one from those wacky crackpots, Masters & Johnson.

You're totally right, Shemeska. I'm not being sarcastic about this.

Here is why I reacted so strongly. The thing is, forging a connection between genetics and homosexuality is both an ethically and politically scary place to take us. We need to tread carefully here. I felt you were a little cavalier in a couple of your implications.

The first being that science says the percentages of gays out there are a lot lower. That's how a layman might likely interpret your statement anyway. I wanted to correct for that and maybe delve a bit deeper instead of just accepting your statement at face value. I'm glad I did. These biologists are just interviewing. That's all they can do right now.
The second implication is here:


			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> ...recent work is *strongly suggestive* of it being a physical thing, with *persuasive evidence* for an underlying biological influence on prenatal brain development being the root cause (hormonal influence in-utero is one possibility).
> (bold mine)



Whoa. That's some loaded language! Strongly suggestive how? Persuasive to whom? A non-scientist reading this probably feels like Einstein is peer-pressuring him into saying "yes, you're right, just please don't notice how I feel stupid since I hated science in high school." You are strongly implying a connection between homosexuality and genetics. That shouldn't be done lightly.

Regarding the other studies you mentioned, I haven't had a chance to read them yet (crazy week at work). But really, conclusions can't be drawn from any of these studies until these fetuses grow into adults and start having some sex. Then they need to be interviewed. For statistically relevant data, lots and lots of subjects and controls are needed. We are talking a good 20 years until we can decide if this "strong" evidence is really "persuasive."

That's all. I know I probably seem a bit rabid, but as scientists, we need to be responsible about making claims like this in a public forum.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 30, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Nope. Those should be looked at carefully, as well! Especially the one from those wacky crackpots, Masters & Johnson.




Early work, but flawed. And based on what they studied, I wouldn't use them as a source for your original numerical claims any more than I would use Kinsey.

And out of curiousity, what's your background? Sociology?


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 30, 2007)

Faraer said:
			
		

> I fear the work it takes to get to the new ideas and information means _Faiths and Pantheons_ is never likely to be as well regarded as its predecessors.




Yeah, I agree. I'm over it.

Mostly.

And you're right. Eric and I both thought the long deity stat blocks were a complete waste of time, but there was a sort of core/FR hoe-down going on at the time, and since Deities and Demigods was going to let you kill Thor, you had to be able to kill Torm, too.

What a waste of effort. Especially since the rules for gods changed after we handed in those stat blocks and some poor bastard had to re-do all of them anyway. As I recall, each of those stat blocks took at least an hour to do.

Ugh.

--Erik


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 30, 2007)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> And out of curiousity, what's your background? Sociology?




Can't you tell? My professional background is chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, and computational biology (in roughly that order).

Howard Hughes labs.

I'm interested in a lot of other stuff (like D&D for instance), and occasionally take classes and do things outside of benchwork and staring at code.

How about you (your sub-field, I mean)?


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 30, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> You are strongly implying a connecting homosexuality and genetics.




I implied nothing of the sort, please don't put words into my mouth. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that the sources I cited were suggestive of a biological cause, but that a purely genetic cause seemed unlikely.



> I think most of the evidence weighs massively against it being as simple as that. That said, recent work is strongly suggestive of it being a physical thing, with persuasive evidence for an underlying biological influence on prenatal brain development being the root cause (hormonal influence in-utero is one possibility).




Regardless of underlying cause, this didn't start out as debate on genetics or nature or nuture, and let's avoid it going there. This all started because you claimed some numbers and then when pushed you backed them up with sources that I felt were inappropriate evidence to support those claims. In response I gave several recent papers that gave other numbers that were quite different from your claims.

And since you asked, I'm a cell biologist with some crossover into immunology.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 30, 2007)

My principal point was that any evidence must be looked at carefully, including yours and mine (which included some old and some very recent articles ... it was a bibliography for an unpublished paper I wrote ... some of the sources are quite persuasive). As long as the research methods are sound, then any source should be considered "appropriate." 

The Masters and Johnson work was indeed flawed but seminal, which is why it might appear in a term paper I'm sure you can imagine. Also, I think it foolhardy to discredit a paper simply because it was not published in the last few years or even decade. Many of the greatest papers ever written (featuring the most elegant of experimental designs) were published before we were born. If I had bothered to peruse this bibliography, I probably would have pulled out the reference to the unpublished master's thesis. That did happen to be have decent work in it, though, IIRC.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> I implied nothing of the sort, please don't put words into my mouth. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that the sources I cited were suggestive of a biological cause, but that a purely genetic cause seemed unlikely.




When you described it as having a "biological cause" and before as a "physical thing," I interpreted that to mean that you must believe genetics to be directly involved. You know signalling pathways upregulate genes to modulate hormone levels. Genes encode and express every fiber of the human body, everything that is "physical." That is how I interpreted what you wrote. Maybe that was an unjustified assumption?

At any rate, I do believe that this dialogue is positive, and of interest to those who have a mind to read it. Thank you, Shemeska, for your insights! It's always nice to find a colleague who games.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 31, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> The Master's and Johnson work was indeed flawed but seminal, which is why it might appear in a term paper I'm sure you can imagine.



Admin... twitching... must... not... post...


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 31, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Admin... twitching... must... not... post...




ROTF!!!


----------



## The Sage (Jul 31, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Ed's quote above (at least, assuming it actually came from him- source?)



Yes, it does come from Ed. I wouldn't have quoted him direct, if it hadn't. See the April 8, '04 reply in his Candlekeep 'Questions' scroll.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 31, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Admin... twitching... must... not... post...



Remember what happened when the normal cat went up against the commoner, guys! This one's got -YAR!- pirate levels! Run for the hills!!!!


----------



## paradox42 (Jul 31, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> You are strongly implying a connecting homosexuality and genetics. That shouldn't be done lightly.



As a gay man myself- and, raising the spectre of Kinsey which you both seem to be assiduously avoiding, a pure Kinsey 6- meaning I've never felt the slightest inclination in my life towards sex with a female- I must say, I don't see how there *can't* be a genetic (or at least, "biological hardware") component to homosexuality. I've done meditation and all sorts of personal self-exploration; I've even achieved moments of _satori_ in the Buddhist sense (on three occasions). I know how to alter my personal inclinations when I feel the need to. And no argument saying it's "software" (that is, imprinted, or based on some sort of psychological factor) has ever made sense to me or rang true in the least.

I know it's a spectrum; I've met plenty of bisexuals both male and female. I've discussed the subject of sexual orientation with several of them at length. I know I'm an extreme. But _we do exist_, and as a member of the homosexual extreme I must ask- how do you explain me, if not with something inborn? Purely genetic would likely be absurd, yes, but "software" this ain't. This is wiring. This is hardware.

And if it wasn't already obvious, my own background is in computer science- I was a programmer by trade but took several classes in computer engineering in order to get my degree. And I do a *lot* of reading on wide-ranging subjects.


----------



## Samnell (Jul 31, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> As a gay man myself- and, raising the spectre of Kinsey which you both seem to be assiduously avoiding, a pure Kinsey 6- meaning I've never felt the slightest inclination in my life towards sex with a female-




I'm the same, excepting one or two brief glances at exceptionally androgynous-looking women. It was a sort of double-take thing. "Oh hey, that guy looks kind of- oh, not a guy. Nevermind." Over in twenty seconds. Do momentary misunderstandings count against you? 

My irrelevant background is in History, English, and Education. My relevant background is being an actual homosexual person.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jul 31, 2007)

Well, I've always found Drizzt to be a tad rough trade.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 31, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> a genetic (or at least, "biological hardware")



This is actually a *huge* distinction. (and number one reason to mock the "potential pet cloning" craze). While people often toss around dicotomies like "nature vs nurture" and "genetics vs environment", the uterine environment is a major biological determinent interacting with or independant of genetics. [end sidetrack of the sidetrack]

Edit : the first cat to be cloned, and the resulting kitten clone with it's surrogate mom.






kitty and clone when clone is a year.





What were they thinking, starting with a calico?


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 31, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The likely results of a race with a 2000 year lifespan with, say, 1800 of those years being fertile and an 18 month gestation period is ecological armageddon.




I think that's completely backwards. Never underestimate the power of exponential growth. If an elf has her first child at 200, and has a child a year for the next 200 years, there will be 201 elves. If a human has her first child at 20 (and her children at 20, etc.) and each woman has four children, after 200 year, there will be on the order of 2^10, or 1000 female humans. That's rough back of the envelope numbers, but even then the humans are raising relatively small families and the elves are trying to raise dozens of children at once.

For a different approach, look at the endangered and non-endangered species. Large mammals, with long lifespans, are almost all endangered, even thought I don't know one of them that is tied to one plant or one narrow environment. We can fill all the grocery stores in the US with shelves of tuna with minimal worries, but we have to worry about the dolphins caught as a side effect of tuna fishing.

I think most fantasy RPGs have it exactly right; short-lived orcs can rebuild their population quickly, like rabbits, but one good attack on elves can leave them trying to rebuild their population for centuries.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 31, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> This is actually a *huge* distinction.




Absolutely, which is why I reacted as I did to the suggestion that when I said biological, I implied genetics. Huge, huge difference as you say.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 31, 2007)

The form it would take would certainly depend on the society. If I understand correctly, until later Victorian times, there was quite a bit of legal homosexual behavior in England, and those who engaged in it quietly went home to their wives at the end of the day and didn't talk about it. There could be a lot of homosexuals in a society without there being anybody who was openly gay. Charismatic and god-like leaders, like many of D&D's leaders, might well be able to flaunt what is normally clandestine in society, though a look at English history leads me to think that an openly gay king would have abdicated or been executed.

Personally, I'd suspect the chaotic races would be a lot more bisexual than the lawful races. I can't see a chaotic race like elves not trying both sexes at some point in their life, whereas I suspect lawful human-like races like dwarves would be more likely to form tight pair bonds and be monogamous for life.

As for personal anecdotes, I'm firmly heterosexual, but there's enough attraction to a certain type of male for me to think that perhaps were I Chaotic instead of Lawful, especially with a longer lifespan, that I might try both ways.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 31, 2007)

humble minion said:
			
		

> Well, dunno about whether it's actually common or not, but it does exist in the canon WotC setting (Ed Greenwood's FR as run for his home games is much more ... liberated then published material).
> 
> There is at least one city in the FRCS (Elversult it seems to be) where the female high constable is described as the 'consort' of the female ruler of the city.




"Consort" is not necessarily a sexual/martial term. In fact, outside the realm of English Monarchy, it usually means just means, in relation to a ruler, an assistant.


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 31, 2007)

Wow. And here I was clicking page 5 with gritted teeth... awaiting the inevitable flame fest... and what do I find? Egads! A civilized, on-topic, open-minded, intelligent discussion on homosexuality as it pertains to a fantasy universe.

Capital.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 31, 2007)

> The likely results of a race with a 2000 year lifespan with, say, 1800 of those years being fertile and an 18 month gestation period is ecological armageddon.






> ...If an elf has her first child at 200, and has a child a year for the next 200 years, there will be 201 elves.




133, actually, if gestation is 18 months as I posited, resulting in 1197 daughters & sons in 1800 years.  (Quick question- does anyone know if WotC actually presented any numbers on elf fertility?  Period of fertility? Gestation period? Mortality rates?  Number of children per pregnancy?)



> If a human has her first child at 20 (and her children at 20, etc.) and each woman has four children, after 200 year, there will be on the order of 2^10, or 1000 female humans.




Numbers that also assume a zero mortality rates & a lot of daughters...




> I think most fantasy RPGs have it exactly right; short-lived orcs can rebuild their population quickly, like rabbits, but one good attack on elves can leave them trying to rebuild their population for centuries.




I think you misunderstood my message...  I never said that they didn't.  Clearly, races that reproduce rapidly have a competitive advantage for acquiring resources and recovery from near-ELEs.

What I was implying was that an intelligent, tool using, environment altering species with a long lifespan and with a high percentage of its lifespan being fertile is a recipe for disaster if they haven't considered the ramifications of unfettered reproduction.

After all, it has been the case in the RW- *we* fit that description to a "T", after all.  We are among the longest-lived critters on the planet.  Our gestation & rearing period is relatively long, and our offspring/pregnancy ratio is rather low for mammals.  We aren't the only animals that use tools, but no animal uses _more._

As surely as we've left our mark, so would longer-lived fecund elves...were there not some force at work (besides wars with other races) acting on their population.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 31, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Numbers that also assume a zero mortality rates & a lot of daughters...




Not a lot of daughters; four children with half of them being daughters. Furthermore, four children is quite small for pre-modern times; if you'd rather, call it 8 children with a 50% mortality rate or 12 with a 66% mortality rate.



> As surely as we've left our mark, so would longer-lived fecund elves...were there not some force at work (besides wars with other races) acting on their population.




For one thing, they're elves; they've got the whole in-tune-with-nature thing going. For another, I see no reason why wars with other races couldn't keep the population down. It really doesn't take that much to keep the elven population in check, and the orcs could afford to smash a whole generation of young men against elven defenses to get a few elves and the associated glory.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jul 31, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> the uterine environment is a major biological determinent interacting with or independant of genetics.



Totally. Two clones will occupy distinct environmental niches both in and out of the uterus. Even with identical genotypes (issuing ostensibly identical sets of genetic instructions), the slightest disparities in environmental input will give rise to different responses since it is impossible for two individuals to occupy the same time and space, the same environmental niche. That's why identical twins aren't perfectly identical.


			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> Absolutely, which is why I reacted as I did to the suggestion that when I said biological, I implied genetics. Huge, huge difference as you say.



Ahh ... so you were referring to biological responses to environment that are not influenced by the body's regulatory pathways ... I see. "Biological hardware," as it were, responding independently of genetic influence. It is good to know your full meaning. Thank you for clearing that up, Shemeska. 

I do hope that we can all agree about one thing. A biological component to homosexual behavior, if it can ever be successfully and completely characterized, must be a remarkably complex one. A reasonable guess would be that genetics and environment (including niche) both hold some purchase over sexual preference ... but it is a really, really complicated mess to sort out.


			
				paradox42 said:
			
		

> I've never felt the slightest inclination in my life towards sex with a female- I must say, I don't see how there *can't* be a genetic (or at least, "biological hardware") component to homosexuality.



There very likely is some kind of biological influence or component. I'm sure a lot of people have strong feelings or hunches about this, but we must rely on science (and his dashing older brother, the scientific technique) until something better comes along. Of course, we may never know the complete picture ... or even arrive at a reasonable model.


			
				paradox42 said:
			
		

> I know it's a spectrum; I've met plenty of bisexuals both male and female ... I know I'm an extreme. But _we do exist_, and as a member of the homosexual extreme I must ask- how do you explain me, if not with something inborn? Purely genetic would likely be absurd, yes, but "software" this ain't. This is wiring. This is hardware.



No one expects THE HOMOSEXUAL EXTREME!!! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
Tee-hee-hee. Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.
Anyway, um ... I wouldn't dream of trying to contradict or invalidate your subjective experience. Since you asked, I'll tell you what I think. Just so you know beforehand, please understand that I respect you personally and your lifestyle in the utmost possible sense and do not wish to offend. I myself have done more than my fair share of experimenting. Yay for gay! Gay is okay.

So here's what I think. Even if it feels like wiring, and you are convinced that it is instinct and instinct alone driving your gay sex, we cannot be certain of anything at this time. The hypothesis you offer cannot logically lead to any certain conclusion about your actual genetic makeup.

Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that you should have some heterosexual impulse encoded in your genes--although these could be recessive genes that weren't expressed in you ... half of our genes never are. The evidence is that you actually were born of woman in the first place, and that you exist. This means that all of your ancestors (each of whom contributed to your genetic code), every link in the genetic chain that extends back through time to the first mammal, engaged in heterosexual fornication at least once. Maybe they were all curious and just very, very potent. This is my suspicion. Fortunately, you don't need to convince me or anyone else. Only yourself. Until science proves otherwise, yours is a perfectly valid opinion.

At first blush, it is actually kind of challenging to rationalize homosex from an evolutionary perspective. That is, this behavior doesn't seem adaptively advantageous. Other than providing emotional fulfillment and a sense of well being, it does not strictly enhance survivability since this behavior doesn't give rise to the siring of more offspring. In fact, with regard to the "extreme gay" example, such as yourself, it is evolutionarily counter-productive since these souls will never pass on their genetic code. Of course all this can change given the advent of in vitro fertilization ... but I'm referring the eons of evolution that has shaped the landscape of our genes up to this decade.

The very fact that you exist, as an "extreme gay," may actually argue against a powerful genetic basis ... for extreme gaiety anyway. Since exclusively gay folks have always been around and most likely always will be, this presents a conundrum of sorts.

How do they come to be in the first place, if they weren't passing on their genes? Each individual's genes eventually reached a dead end, as it were, since they weren't breeding. In spite of this, every new generation gives rise to a new crop of "extremely gay" gays. Vexing, no?

Since the majority of "extreme gays" aren't born of sea foam and don't come riding down from the heavens on clam shells, I surmise that we humans all must have at least a little gay in us. Heck, I've got a little gay in me right now. 
<Franz, get out of here! I can't concentrate when you're doing that!!!> Hee-hee. j/k
_Any_-way, I believe the gay impulse to be persistently present in all of our genomes, to some extent, spread out over the human population. I can't demonstrate this scientifically, but it does make a kind of sense. Let's just call it "a hunch," for good or ill.

If it ever is irrefutably demonstrated through the mighty, soul-crushing power of science, I'm not sure what kind of effect that would have politically. Eventually, this would probably be a good thing. Greater knowledge is usually a good thing. In the short term, though, with the cloning of humans uncomfortably closer than the horizon, ideas like made-to-order babies with hand-picked genetic traits kind of scare me. It exudes the potent whiff of eugenics. It's more of a stench, really ... and as a relative to many a German Jew who died in concentration camps ... me no likey the smell. Especially when one considers how susceptible the average plebe is to trends, marketing, and repetition. Scary stuff, indeed. But now we're really getting into the realm of "What Ifs" though, and as fun a land as it is, it is really difficult to be certain of much around here.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Faraer (Aug 1, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> "Consort" is not necessarily a sexual/martial term. In fact, outside the realm of English Monarchy, it usually means just means, in relation to a ruler, an assistant.



The ambiguity may be why the word was chosen for _Forgotten Realms Adventures_. But its usage within Realmslore tends to imply (but not require) a sexual relationship. Ed Greenwood:







> In the Realms, we usually use "consort" in two ways: official consorts and unofficial consorts.
> Unofficial means a sexual or at least "constant companion, dwelling together" relationship that is publicly known about, but is NOT a formal union.
> Official means a formal union (marriage in faith or under civil law) of a noble, person of rank, or royalty that specifically does not imply that the "consort" can inherit the status of the person they are attached to (and in some cases, their heirs can't, either).
> To cite a relevant real-world example, the British crown has long had the concept of morganatic marriages (offspring cannot ascend to the throne), and the current Prince Philip is a prince in his own right (of the royal family of Greece), but cannot claim the throne should his wife (the Queen, who IS Queen in her own right) predecease him. So he is "Prince Consort," in the same way that Albert, Queen Victoria's husband, was styled Prince Consort rather than "king." Vaerana stands in the same relationship to Yanseldara: they are married (and, yes, lovers), but Yanseldara is the rightful ruler and Vaerana has no claim to her position, should Yanseldara perish.


----------



## paradox42 (Aug 1, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> I do hope that we can all agree about one thing. A biological component to homosexual behavior, if it can ever be successfully and completely characterized, must be a remarkably complex one.



Of course, I agree with this.



			
				dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> No one expects THE HOMOSEXUAL EXTREME!!! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
> Tee-hee-hee. Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.



Where's my  smiley when I need him?  



			
				dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> At first blush, it is actually kind of challenging to rationalize homosex from an evolutionary perspective. That is, this behavior doesn't seem adaptively advantageous. Other than providing emotional fulfillment and a sense of well being, it does not strictly enhance survivability since this behavior doesn't give rise to the siring of more offspring. In fact, with regard to the "extreme gay" example, such as yourself, it is evolutionarily counter-productive since these souls will never pass on their genetic code. Of course all this can change given the advent of in vitro fertilization ... but I'm referring the eons of evolution that has shaped the landscape of our genes up to this decade.



This is where I think most explanations of the trait in evolutionary terms fail- people stop at the "well, it leads to not making offspring, so the gene can't get passed on and will die out. QED." The problem is this: from the perspective of evolution, the individual is irrelevant. What we must concern ourselves with is the survival of the gene (or whatever causes it- kahunaburger and Shemeska are of course correct pointing out that mere genes don't actually have much direct influence over complex traits like this), and that is typically carried by more than one individual.

In other words, the survival of an individual does not matter in the long term, from an evolutionary perspective, as long as relatives of that individual- carrying many of the same genes- survive. Individual survival and replication doesn't matter so much as survival and prosperity of the family or clan, to put in in human terms. Thus, the question to ask is not whether a "gene" leads to homosexuality and thus its own eventual self-destruction, but rather- how such a "gene" enhances the survival of the homosexual's clan or family. Even if the homo never has children of his own- and note that, due to social pressures, many actually do even today- most of his biological traits will be shared by members of his family or clan, and so if he enhances their survival he thus enhances the survival of his genetic line without direct propagation.

My own idea on this topic is that the studies that hint at homosexuality (in males at least) being related to an overabundance of testosterone in the womb, or even the homo's own body, are leading us towards the survivability enhancer. To wit, the prime characteristics of testosterone psychologically are that it increases sexual desire _and aggressiveness_. Add to this, the demonstrable fact that humans fight far more fiercely when defending things they love, and especially people they love.

Now, most studies I've read of mankind's primitive beginnings suggest that our ancestors were loosely organized in tribal bands, with males typically providing hunting and front-line fighting, and females providing gathered food and defense. There's no particular reason to suspect that either males or females were more inclined toward crafting of tools or leadership, aside from the tendency of most male primates to try to force themselves into leadership positions and bully everybody else into going along with them. Child-rearing would be done mostly by the females and any adolescent or elderly males too young or too old and infirm to hunt reasonably well.

If we accept that scenario of the dawn of human society, what use then would a homosexual male be? If he occurs as a result of more testosterone than his hetero clanmates, it would mean he's more aggressive than they are. This, in turn, would mean that when moved to fight, he would fight more fiercely. More interestingly, since a man would not typically hunt by himself, but rather with companions from the tribe, this primitive homosexual would spend much of his time near the healthiest, most virile and strong members of his clan- and would be placing himself in danger with them regularly. It is quite likely that he'd fall in love with one or more of them, at least on some level. This, in turn, means that he would fight more fiercely to defend them without even having other members of the tribe around. He would, in fact, fight more fiercely than a hetero man placed in the same situation. And in a life-or-death struggle, fierce fighting can often make the difference between life and death, as our friendly neighborhood D&D Barbarian teaches us. Finally, since combat is by nature dangerous and sometimes leads to deaths of clan members, we must look at the fact that if a straight man with one or more children was out hunting and got killed, this meant that the children would be down one parent and thus harmed by it. But if they lost their homosexual uncle, who had no children of his own, it would surely have a less traumatic effect in a social perspective.

So to state my idea, finally and clearly, I believe that homosexual males were "designed by evolution" (if you will pardon the obviously-unscientific phrase) to be a clan's supply of expendable, front-line combat troops. We were Nature's own military for the human species. If this explanation is correct, it makes the anti-gay stance of several modern military organizations around the world more than a little ironic! If nothing else, this idea has some potential for coming up with fantasy civilizations and scenarios.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 1, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry Umbran. I happen to live in a gay neighborhood  (Hillcrest in San Diego)...




I did not realize Hillcrest is a gay neighborhood.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 1, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> This is where I think most explanations of the trait in evolutionary terms fail- people stop at the "well, it leads to not making offspring, so the gene can't get passed on and will die out. QED." The problem is this: from the perspective of evolution, the individual is irrelevant. What we must concern ourselves with is the survival of the gene (or whatever causes it- kahunaburger and Shemeska are of course correct pointing out that mere genes don't actually have much direct influence over complex traits like this), and that is typically carried by more than one individual.



IIRC, the term for a non reproductive strategy of gene continuation is "kin selection". Or, as I like to call it "the good uncle strategy". Even if you personally never breed, if you are such a good uncle that your nieces and nephews have a significantly better survival rate than they would without you, you have effectively propogated your genes, just as effectively as through direct reproduction. (to take it one step past Dawkins' "Selfish gene" to a "cynical gene", for a male, investing resources in the survival of his sister's offspring might be more effective in terms of knowing for sure that they are geneticly related to him than working to raise the offspring of his mate who might or might not have concieved by him.*) The "soldier" kin selection varient is not one I had heard floated for genetic homosexuality, but it's interesting.

The most extreme form of kin selection is found in the insect world with hundreds of infertile workers working to pass their genes on through their future siblings and later nieces and nephews born of the queen.

edit : *great, now I'm considering an alternate social structure for an intelligent race that reproduces in litters, where the litter group is the base family structure, and your uncles play the family role of father....


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 1, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> This is where I think most explanations of the trait in evolutionary terms fail- people stop at the "well, it leads to not making offspring, so the gene can't get passed on and will die out. QED." The problem is this: from the perspective of evolution, the individual is irrelevant. What we must concern ourselves with is the survival of the gene (or whatever causes it- kahunaburger and Shemeska are of course correct pointing out that mere genes don't actually have much direct influence over complex traits like this), and that is typically carried by more than one individual.




This is not necessarily true. Single genes can have incredibly significant effects even in complex phenotypes but they may only occur as relatively rare alleles in a population which may make it more difficult to find. 

A good example would be depression or cancer both of which are complex diseases that involve both genetics and environment where single genes can really have a strong control on the development of the illness (which is not to be miscontrued in any way as to say homosexuality is an illness, these are just examples).

Weight is another example though off the top of my head I can not think of any gene outside of the leptins and the leptin receptors that have a significant effect on weight.

For homosexuality in humans we have never found a reliable candiate gene that is associated with homosexuality, which does not mean there is not one, just that there are not enough people who might have the gene that it would show in any genetic profiling (SNPs, chromosomal linkage maps etc.). In drosophilia though there have been some gene knockouts that are associated with male-to-male sexual behavior.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Aug 1, 2007)

In addition to kin selection, we should remember the complexity of competing selective pressures.

As an example (unfortunately another 'disease' one, but an easy one to grasp), the gene for sickle cell anemia, when present in an individual as only a single copy, provides greater resistance to malaria without producing the full effects of the syndrome. When two copies are present, however, the negative effects of the syndrome outweigh this benefit. For civilizations without modern medicine, the benefit of having more heterozygous offspring survive malaria outweighed the loss of homozygous 'sickle cell positive' offspring to sickle cell anemia. This illustrates another model by which a trait that inhibits reproduction (in this case, by frequently causing death before reproductive age was reached) could be retained in the population.

Another thing which always interests (& amuses) me in these conversations, however, is the focus on 'what causes homosexuality' (& sometimes bisexuality). Wouldn't the more scientificly objective question be 'what causes sexuality'? For example, the ease with which genetic factors are dismissed as causes of homosexuality seems curious when one considers the high evolutionary likelihood that heterosexuality must have some genetic components -- a likelihood that seems to be missed by the way in which the question is framed.


----------



## LordVyreth (Aug 1, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> For the record ....
> 
> Two hot chicks getting it on is not an example of open mindedness and tolerance within the FRCS.  It's gamer pr0n.  Two hot chicks getting it on do not count.  No. They.  Don't.
> 
> ...




I'm going to disagree with this point.  While I agree that gay rights is often only an excuse to justify hot lesbians, keep in mind that in most aspects of geek culture (video games, anime, scifi/fantasy, RPGs, etc.) practically everybody is already hot.  Granted, this is more often true of women than men in general, but it's pretty common either way.  As a result, a gay woman who was unattractive might arguably stand out more and lead to assumptions in the other direction (for example, the stereotype that lesbians all match the traditional "butch" appearance.)  

I'd say that the degree of tolerance versus simply exploitation is situational.  Are the only gay or bi characters in a cast of 50 female?  Even among the rest of the cast, are said gay women especially attractive or, more tellingly, underdressed?  And perhaps most importantly, do the characters have other interests, personality traits, and goals beyond those defined by their sexuality?  The former two suggest exploitation, as does a lack of the third.  I mean, there are plenty of attractive gay women among fandom that are at least generally respected as being complex characters and steps towards tolerance; Willow (at least for the first two seasons) is the first that came to mind for me.


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (Aug 2, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> My own idea on this topic is that the studies that hint at homosexuality (in males at least) being related to an overabundance of testosterone in the womb, or even the homo's own body, are leading us towards the survivability enhancer. To wit, the prime characteristics of testosterone psychologically are that it increases sexual desire _and aggressiveness_. Add to this, the demonstrable fact that humans fight far more fiercely when defending things they love, and especially people they love.
> 
> Now, most studies I've read of mankind's primitive beginnings suggest that our ancestors were loosely organized in tribal bands, with males typically providing hunting and front-line fighting, and females providing gathered food and defense. There's no particular reason to suspect that either males or females were more inclined toward crafting of tools or leadership, aside from the tendency of most male primates to try to force themselves into leadership positions and bully everybody else into going along with them. Child-rearing would be done mostly by the females and any adolescent or elderly males too young or too old and infirm to hunt reasonably well.
> 
> ...




Very interesting theory.  However, how would you explain the role of _berdache_ in most tribal societies?  For those that don't know, _berdaches_ are typically males of a tribal society who specialized in the work of women and formed emotional and sexual relationships with other men.  They really didn't go out hunting with the other men.  There are also female _berdaches_ who took on men's work [such as hunting] and married other women--as seen among some Plains Indians tribes.  

In many instances, these individuals would also fill a special spiritual role and, therefore, were often times valuable to the tribe.  For example, among some California tribes, male _berdaches_ were called upon to bury and mourn the dead, because such close contact with the spirit world was considered too dangerous for others.

I know this is taking the subject out of the genetic realm and placing it more in the sociological, but I'm curious how the role of _berdaches_ would be explained from an evolutionary standpoint [if it can be explained at all].  Also, I'm interested because my background is in Cultural Anthropology. 

And to tie the subject back into the Forgotten Realms, there are many tribal societies across the face of Faerun.  We have the Uthgardt in the northwestern Silver Marches, the Nar in northeastern Faerun, the Shaaran of the southeastern grasslands, and the southwestern Chultan or "Tabaxi" which is a reference to the "one great tribe" that they feel they belong to.  I know this is analogous to tribal societies of own world, but I feel that among the tribal societies of Faerun, homosexuality would probably be present and accepted.


----------



## paradox42 (Aug 2, 2007)

Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> Very interesting theory.  However, how would you explain the role of _berdache_ in most tribal societies?



This is, admittedly, a large snag in my theory.  I didn't mention it above, only because I wasn't sure how prevalent the phenomenon was- I was only aware of it existing among the native American tribes of the Great Plains and Pacific coastal regions (AFAIK, the actual *word* berdache comes from one of those tribes, though I forget which one exactly). If it was something that occurred among more tribal societies than just those, than we need more explanations.

Of course, we know that natural selection favors a trait becoming useful for more than one purpose, and most complex structures have evolved from earlier ones that were used very differently- an example being bird feathers, which evolved from dinosaur scales. Perhaps the berdache phenomenon is a similar "diversification" of male homosexuality. Certainly, it dovetails with the whole "nelly" stereotypical gay man better than my notion of hypermasculinized fighters.



			
				Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> For those that don't know, _berdaches_ are typically males of a tribal society who specialized in the work of women and formed emotional and sexual relationships with other men.  They really didn't go out hunting with the other men.  There are also female _berdaches_ who took on men's work [such as hunting] and married other women--as seen among some Plains Indians tribes.



An excellent portrayal of this exists in the movie _Little Big Man_, one of Dustin Hoffman's lesser-known works. One of the members of the tribe his character is part of is a berdache, and I think they may even have used the term in the movie. It was mostly played for laughs, but taken in its own right the portrayal seems fairly good to me.



			
				Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> In many instances, these individuals would also fill a special spiritual role and, therefore, were often times valuable to the tribe.  For example, among some California tribes, male _berdaches_ were called upon to bury and mourn the dead, because such close contact with the spirit world was considered too dangerous for others.



Here I think we have a good cultural explanation- the fact is, the recently-advanced suggestions that male homosexuality arises due to an overabundance of testosterone say that what the testosterone does is cause the body to react against it in a backlash, upping estrogen and other female hormones and in the process "feminizing" certain brain structures. Now, most societies have traditionally associated magic and mysticism with females more than with males; this trend is so prevalent across multiple cultural lines that it would be difficult to explain away by invoking traditions of patriarchal societies alone.

What if this association of spiritual practice with females is due to certain brain structures which arise far more often in women than in men? If this is the case, then it stands to reason that a male with a "feminized" brain would be more likely to develop these "spiritual structures" than an average male would be. Thus, a clearly "feminine-acting" male as most berdaches traditionally were would be seen by the tribe as a sort of bridge between the female and the male. He'd be a sort of Kwizatz Haderach, to compare with a certain well-known science fiction tale. Being feminine in behavior, his spiritual qualities would be obvious, in these associations- but being male, he would naturally be more impulsive and aggressive than a female would be expected to be, so his pattern of spiritual activity would be different from those of the mystic women in the tribe. Thus, he'd be tapped to fill unique spiritual roles that, literally, nobody else in the tribe would be capable of doing.



			
				Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> And to tie the subject back into the Forgotten Realms, there are many tribal societies across the face of Faerun.  We have the Uthgardt in the northwestern Silver Marches, the Nar in northeastern Faerun, the Shaaran of the southeastern grasslands, and the southwestern Chultan or "Tabaxi" which is a reference to the "one great tribe" that they feel they belong to.  I know this is analogous to tribal societies of own world, but I feel that among the tribal societies of Faerun, homosexuality would probably be present and accepted.



It would be surprising if they did not feature berdaches, that much is certainly true! At least, it would be surprising in any campaign run by a DM who is aware of the real-world history of such cultures.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 2, 2007)

> For another, I see no reason why wars with other races couldn't keep the population down. It really doesn't take that much to keep the elven population in check, and the orcs could afford to smash a whole generation of young men against elven defenses to get a few elves and the associated glory.




Which then just begs the question: Why haven't Orcs (or any other fecund race) simply wiped Elves out?

1) According to published materials, Elves have no tech that Orcs don't, and based on racial stat adjustments, are only slightly better spellcasters than Orcs are.

2) If there aren't enough Orcs for the job, they could ally with/hire some of the tribes of Goblinkind to boost their numbers.

3) Both races have a tendency towards Chaos, so there is no real tactical advantage for either race based on their ability to draw up plans and follow them.

So, why not just simply overwhelm the Elves?

Answer: there is clearly something else going on.


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (Aug 2, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> This is, admittedly, a large snag in my theory.  I didn't mention it above, only because I wasn't sure how prevalent the phenomenon was- I was only aware of it existing among the native American tribes of the Great Plains and Pacific coastal regions (AFAIK, the actual *word* berdache comes from one of those tribes, though I forget which one exactly). If it was something that occurred among more tribal societies than just those, than we need more explanations.




Actually, I appeared to have used the archaic term _berdache_ which is still being thrown around amongst anthropologists.  It came from the French, a loan word from an Arabic word for "male prostitute".  Early French trappers and explorers used the word when they encountered homosexual men within Indian tribes.  It appears to have first been used with the Illinois tribe.  Among Native Americans, they like the term "Two Spirits" better - implying a masculine spirit and a feminine spirit living in the same body.

As for its prevalence among other cultures, a broader term might be "third gender" -- a category present in those societies who recognize three or more genders.  For example, there are the Hijra in India, the Muxe among Mexico's Zapotec peoples, the Mangaiko among the Mbo of Africa, and possibly the eunuchs of the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean world.

And than we have a whole different tribal phenomena amongst the Keraki and Sambia of Papua New Guinea.  Young men would enter into a homosexual relationship with an unmarried male warrior as part of their rites of passage into manhood.  Sometimes this rite could last for years.  Once completed, they ceased all homosexual contact and assumed sexual desires for women.



> Here I think we have a good cultural explanation- the fact is, the recently-advanced suggestions that male homosexuality arises due to an overabundance of testosterone say that what the testosterone does is cause the body to react against it in a backlash, upping estrogen and other female hormones and in the process "feminizing" certain brain structures. Now, most societies have traditionally associated magic and mysticism with females more than with males; this trend is so prevalent across multiple cultural lines that it would be difficult to explain away by invoking traditions of patriarchal societies alone.
> 
> What if this association of spiritual practice with females is due to certain brain structures which arise far more often in women than in men? If this is the case, then it stands to reason that a male with a "feminized" brain would be more likely to develop these "spiritual structures" than an average male would be. Thus, a clearly "feminine-acting" male as most berdaches traditionally were would be seen by the tribe as a sort of bridge between the female and the male. He'd be a sort of Kwizatz Haderach, to compare with a certain well-known science fiction tale. Being feminine in behavior, his spiritual qualities would be obvious, in these associations- but being male, he would naturally be more impulsive and aggressive than a female would be expected to be, so his pattern of spiritual activity would be different from those of the mystic women in the tribe. Thus, he'd be tapped to fill unique spiritual roles that, literally, nobody else in the tribe would be capable of doing.




Again, a very interesting theory.  I don't know much about the biological perspective.  However, while these biological factors might come into play, from an anthropological perspective, I also believe there is probably some cultural [environmental] conditioning.  Most of that depends on how much the culture defines the role and what it considers acceptable [as demonstrated by those examples I listed above].

And I agree that most societies have traditionally associated magic and mysticism with females more than with males.  Again, from an anthropological  viewpoint, shamanism as it is [or was] practiced throughout the world tends to have more women than men.


----------



## green slime (Aug 2, 2007)

R.I.P. Angelsboi.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 2, 2007)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Two hot chicks getting it on is not an example of open mindedness and tolerance within the FRCS...




I agree. Everyone points to the female homosexuals but skips past males. The lesbians make the setting salacious, not progressive or even particularly transgressive. For it to be progressive it needs a homosexual character who is not swishy.



			
				green slime said:
			
		

> R.I.P. Angelsboi.




Amen.


----------



## Samnell (Aug 2, 2007)

Mean Eyed Cat said:
			
		

> And than we have a whole different tribal phenomena amongst the Keraki and Sambia of Papua New Guinea.  Young men would enter into a homosexual relationship with an unmarried male warrior as part of their rites of passage into manhood.  Sometimes this rite could last for years.  Once completed, they ceased all homosexual contact and assumed sexual desires for women.




Or until they had someone to mentor themselves.  Something similar happened in pre-modern Japan and ancient Greece.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 3, 2007)

Which is one of the things I was hinting at with elvish society.


----------

