Sexual themes in roleplay
-
Re: PBs.
I will never understand the wikis with multiple pics of a PB (usually female) that are intended to be sexual. By that I mean, sexualized topless shots or that old gem of thumbs hooked into the g-string as if to say 'teehee! I'm about to whip these off!'
The wiki goes on to say that the PC loves to nail anything with a pulse in game but the out of game information goes on for several paragraphs how they don't TS so don't ask and don't try and don't even look at my PC like that.
Don't want TS? That's cool, a lot of people aren't that into it. Playing a PC whose sexual exploits are all FTB, offscreen fun times? No problem here! But why then would you make this way sexualized wiki with soft core (or sometimes hard core) skin shots only to vehemently and often combatively make it known that you refuse TS on a blanket level? Wouldn't telling people on your PC wiki page that your PC likes to love their fellow man a lot without all the over the top visual aids just uh, be enough?
-
I suppose the idea is that the character is hypersexualized but their player doesn't want to TS. I mean you're right, it's a bit weird, but it's not incomprehensible. Also, some people who proclaim they never TS don't really mean never.
My own question is why people who don't play sexual concepts have bikini-clad models as their PBs. If you're playing a tough sniper-slash-car-mechanic chick then what's with the boobs?
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel said:
I suppose the idea is that the character is hypersexualized but their player doesn't want to TS. I mean you're right, it's a bit weird, but it's not incomprehensible. Also, some people who proclaim they never TS don't really mean never.
Sometimes "never" just means "don't proposition me". Like people who "never sleep with someone on a first date" but then they do because the person was just that charming.
My own question is why people who don't play sexual concepts have bikini-clad models as their PBs. If you're playing a tough sniper-slash-car-mechanic chick then what's with the boobs?
... what? This is dumb. I can't even begin to answer this without being flabbergasted.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
-
@Coin I personally understand the thoughts behind that second blurb, and kind of feel the same way, though I can see why other people wouldn't care.
I don't really care if your tough, never smiling, growly rough and tumble sniper chick has a porn star PB and all the pics are needlessly on the verge of NSFW, but I'm probably going to roll my eyes.
-
They want to be pretty and have everyone love them but TS is icky and gross.
I find that if you really don't want to be propositioned for TS, there are better PB avatar images.
Addendum: Ugly characters however are no guarantee of no TS request safety, however, as I have been propositioned out of nowhere for TS while playing this:
-
@Tempest
And yet, there's really no reason to equate sexuality and the portrayal of someone sexual with their chosen profession.Do we really think snipe-slash-car-mechanic chick can't be a sexual being?
And if this isn't what was meant, then maybe a rephrasing or clarification is in order.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
-
@JaySherman said:
They want to be pretty and have everyone love them but TS is icky and gross.
I find that if you really don't want to be propositioned for TS, there are better PB avatar images.
I know you're kidding (I hope you're kidding) but this is a sentiment that people actually show in all seriousness, and it's stupid.
-
I've run into people who actually think this way, sadly.
-
@Coin It's more the attitude/personality for me than the occupation, necessarily. Maybe I'm in the wrong, but I'm possibly going to take your grumpy badass slightly less seriously if the badass' wiki feels like it's oozing "fuck me".
-
@Coin said:
Do we really think snipe-slash-car-mechanic chick can't be a sexual being?
And if this isn't what was meant, then maybe a rephrasing or clarification is in order.
Of course they can be. But the selection of PBs for a wiki - as far as I can possibly tell, someone can correct me if I'm wrong - is supposed to be roughly representative of what the PC looks or feels like by default. So if I'm playing a savvy high-end corporate lawyer and chose Matthew McConaughey as his likeness I wouldn't post the cowboy hat-wearing shirtless scenes from him in Magic Mike. I'd pick ones where he's wearing an expensive suit and tie to convey an idea of what I'm going for there.
It's got nothing to do with whether he gets busy in the bedroom after a big win at the courthouse and more with the impression I want to project for what the character is about. If I was playing him as a bar owner or showman? That would be a fit.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
The wiki goes on to say that the PC loves to nail anything with a pulse in game but the out of game information goes on for several paragraphs how they don't TS so don't ask and don't try and don't even look at my PC like that.
Maybe for the same reason people play murderous assholes or other potentially high violence types of characters and then put OOC disclaimers about how they (we, because I've had to do this) aren't looking for or interested in PVP/PK situations so please don't feel you need to avoid the character out of fear of such.
Sometimes the OOC impression given, or the one people are going to get regardless of intentions, is the wrong one and clarification is needed.
Don't want TS? That's cool, a lot of people aren't that into it. Playing a PC whose sexual exploits are all FTB, offscreen fun times? No problem here! But why then would you make this way sexualized wiki with soft core (or sometimes hard core) skin shots only to vehemently and often combatively make it known that you refuse TS on a blanket level? Wouldn't telling people on your PC wiki page that your PC likes to love their fellow man a lot without all the over the top visual aids just uh, be enough?
...what difference does whether or not someone wants to TS make on the kind of pics they use? Wiki pictures are there to aid in visualizing a character. If somebody wants to play a hyper-sexualized character who fucks around with 90% of the people they meet, and the other 10% just happen to be PCs, a very sexualized wiki is still just as appropriate as it would be otherwise.
I'm more than a little weirded out by the fact you seem to think that softcore pics of a sexual PC are ok if the player is going to engage in TS, but not if they aren't.
-
@HelloRaptor said:
I'm more than a little weirded out by the fact you seem to think that softcore pics of a sexual PC are ok if the player is going to engage in TS, but not if they aren't.
Srsly.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
-
@Coin said:
@HelloRaptor said:
I'm more than a little weirded out by the fact you seem to think that softcore pics of a sexual PC are ok if the player is going to engage in TS, but not if they aren't.
Srsly.
It just reads like "How dare you get my hopes up and then not follow through on my expectations!"
-
@HelloRaptor said:
@Coin said:
@HelloRaptor said:
I'm more than a little weirded out by the fact you seem to think that softcore pics of a sexual PC are ok if the player is going to engage in TS, but not if they aren't.
Srsly.
It just reads like "How dare you get my hopes up and then not follow through on my expectations!"
And also a little like, "having a sexualized PB entitles me to approach you for sexual roleplay".
Unfortunate implications abound.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
-
@Coin said:
@HelloRaptor said:
@Coin said:
@HelloRaptor said:
I'm more than a little weirded out by the fact you seem to think that softcore pics of a sexual PC are ok if the player is going to engage in TS, but not if they aren't.
Srsly.
It just reads like "How dare you get my hopes up and then not follow through on my expectations!"
And also a little like, "having a sexualized PB entitles me to approach you for sexual roleplay".
Unfortunate implications abound.
As long as there's a statement of preference to the contrary, sure.
-
Maybe I am unusual, but I see it being more like sexual PBs are crossing some line, and so should only be used when necessary.
I heartily support the idea that someone has a personality trait or behavior that shapes who they are but they don't exercise it on or around PCs. At least then the trait isn't a secret, or an excuse to pull out when you want to act differently. (EG the psychotic killer who is never anything but soft spoken and patient, unless they think any little thing is a reason to PK your ass cuz you asked for it and you should know better than to fuck with eagles if you can't fly rawr)
-
@Arkandel said:
But the selection of PBs for a wiki - as far as I can possibly tell, someone can correct me if I'm wrong - is supposed to be roughly representative of what the PC looks or feels like by default. So if I'm playing a savvy high-end corporate lawyer and chose Matthew McConaughey as his likeness I wouldn't post the cowboy hat-wearing shirtless scenes from him in Magic Mike.
Putting up a sexualized picture of a PC gives you a rough representation of what the PC looks like without some clothes.
I fail to see how this is inappropriate for a PC that is a prude, a mechanic, a sniper, or does not engage in IC sexual parlor games.
I hope you can admit that appearances are not always indicative of behavior. If so, I think you'll see why some of us are struggling with what you originally wrote.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
That's not at all what I meant but I guess I can see why you may see that.
My comments have more to do ultimately with how people set-up their wikis then what they do as a PC, though these two things usually tend to be linked.
I generally approach other pcs for this kinda stuff if I have some indication that they want to RP that sorta thing but if their wiki says regardless of the PBs involved or hook content that its not their bag, then I don't because they asked me not to?
If there's no indication either way, I ask OOC if that's something they do generally, would they open to seeing if it might go that route IC, and if they have certain preferences or limits. If they are open to it, a conversation happens and RP happens that either lends to the possibility or clarifies it wouldn't work for IC reasons. If it's a no, then I take no for an answer and RP with them and don't push that line of RP IC or OOC.
My comments were more about hypersexual wikis where the PBs and language used indicates that your PC has some kind of hypersexualized situation going on as a major feature of the PC-- eg, Jane the PC is an escort. Most of her PBs are sexualized pictures and most of the hooks presented have to do with her job as a escort in some fashion and not much else.
If you're presenting this as a large part of your PCs thing in the IC world but make it OOCly clear that you won't abide any RP that might address the hooks presented, especially if it's overtly sexual, and there's not much else that appears left over in terms of hooks, it leaves the other player at something of a loss. You could always ask what else they want to RP about but my curiosity is more about why you would make a wiki that focuses heavily on a part of your PC you don't want to RP about.
It's not really about,to me if you can or should RP that concept, it's more about the wiki packaging. If the primary way you're attempting to recruit RP interest in your character focuses on a part of your PC you don't want RP about at all (and I don't mean just TS), why make a wiki all about that? You can certainly mention it as a hook in a different presentation and still make it clear that that aspect of the character is off screen. I've played PCs that have adult themes going on that I didnt really want to spend time focusing IC time on but I didn't make a wiki that was all about the stuff I didn't want to not RP about.
Does this make it hopefully clearer what I meant?
-
So, like a character whose PBs and major life efforts are being a boxer, or a priest, but they don't seek RP around those things.
-
If you're presenting this as a large part of your PCs thing in the IC world but make it OOCly clear that you won't abide any RP that might address the hooks presented, especially if it's overtly sexual, and there's not much else that appears left over in terms of hooks, it leaves the other player at something of a loss.
If something is listed as a hook, but they don't want to RP about it, that would be strange. The only thing I read in your post, though, was people using sexualized PCs who don't TS.
If a PC has, say, 'Prostitute - This character is known to be one, but I don't engage in TS.' in their wiki I don't see why it's substantially different than 'Hit Man - This character is known to be one, but I don't go after PCs.' or 'Bodyguard - This character has worked for X, Y, and Z NPCs, as a bouncer at this club, but I won't take IC jobs guarding PCs as the time constraints are too awkward.' or really anything else.
The PC is still a prostitute, or escort, or just a super promiscuous person, they just aren't RPing through the bump and grind. The PC is still able and willing to murder faces, just not those of other PCs. Etc. In any of those cases, and so many others, those hooks still exist to play off of. If you can't see why someone would want to play any of those things with those caveats, or how you would engage a character without crossing those lines with them, I'm not really sure what to say. Aside from all the stuff I already did.
Does this make it hopefully clearer what I meant?
It does at the very least make you sound way, way less creepy, yes. I get what you're saying, I just don't know why it's the stumbling block it appears to be to you.
