MysteriousGrey said:

I actually said the exact opposite of what you're claiming. Secondly, I used Oreos as that's the example Varnias threw me. Please read the post more thoroughly, you do even my meager effort a disservice.

Avoiding sex in literature now (oh wow, meds just kicked in, hallucination time ... weeee ... ) and trying to get back to the original discussion, I suspect that so long as homosexuality is not the norm it will be the focus of oppression - ESPECIALLY - in a setting like 40k where any deviation from the norm becomes reason to suspect heresy. In this regard, I imagine homosexuals (and for that matter any sexual "deviants") would be lumped into the same catagory as Mutants by the ministorum and if not killed, then horribly oppressed.

This might make for some interesting storylines in which you have desparate "sexual deviants" working with Mutant protest groups striking back at the system. Meanwhile other homosexuals etc. are living as otherwise law abiding citizens, trying to balance their lifestyle and their love of the Emperor as best they can. Of course, as with so many things, the upper classes and the nobility wouldn't fear, but flaunt their perverssions, content in knowing that so long as they donated generously to the Ministorum their sins will be forgiven.

Considering the competitive nature of the Hives, I would expect to see homosexuality as form of male dominance, quite frequently - it might even be a part of initiation into some gangs - to show the new member where he stands in the daisy chain. Also, if Dad needs some money and counts on you to dress nice and attract other guys - figuring the normals are taken care of - then you may well find yourself being sold to men on a street corner for the cost of a bottle of booze.

In feudal worlds it would depend upon their technological level ... if we're assuming something pre-industrial, then large families become very important to the well being of the nations. Given a middle age europe as the average, this means that most of the family will be sharing the same rooms, and even beds. This sort of arrangement tends to breed all sorts of expiramentation between siblings, not to mention **** and child molestation. The way we are raised in our early years has a great influence on how we turn out ... so if you're the runt of the litter and strong, safe, warm, big brother is protecting you from the night and only wants to play a special game with you ... well, not long before that becomes part of who you are. (not blowing smoke here, this sort of thing happened to my mother's family)

And now, trying to type with the words floating off the page is too difficult, so I'll let someone else pipe in now.

Did anyone ever stop to think "hm, now why did the author/director decide to put this sex scene in this book/movie?". Its because mondern day people can view sex in three forms: love making, f*cking, and ****. The differences being obvious between the three. Now I have only ever seen one kind of sex in movies and films oftin enough to worth mentioning it, and that is love making. Modern day people view this form of sexual intercourse as the most "pure" and "beautiful". In 300, it was shown for the purpose of establishing that Leonidus was human, he had feelings, and he and his wife truely loved each other in a time period where love wasnt nessisary; only child bearing. I feel this form of "sex scene" is approprite, and downright nessisary in some settings; reason being is alot of settings are very grim-dark and depressing (like the year 40,000). Some readers/viewers need that outward display of affection and love to truely see some characters as human, because all people want to have that kind of connection. It's a writers way of connecting their characters to the audiance.

So depending on the context I believe sex scenes in movies and books are completley appropriate. Now dont get me wrong, if I go see a movie that includes a sex scene and I see a midget walk out of the closet with a jar of thousand island dressing then I'm going to demand my money back, but scenes like those out of 300, Watchmen, most James Bond films, ect, are almost nessisary to the plot.

Jack of Tears said:

Wow. I'm really not one to be oversensitive about such things as I realize no insult was intended, but that post ranged from the creepy to the bizzarre, to the slightly sickening. I'm not sure whether the description of homosexuality as a 'deviant' behavior, or as a 'perversion' was supposed to sound like a Nazi Doctor, but it sure does. As far as trying to connect homosexuality with child molesting and incest, I'm not even sure what to say. I'd inform you that these things have nothing to do with homosexual behavior, but I'd assumed you already know that. Perhaps not.

I realize, of course, that you are truing to make a point about the opressive and judgmental nature of Imperial society and that you are not, in fact, espousing your own views, but the wording could stand to be a bit more diplomatic.

I actually partially agree with what you were, (I think) trying to say, but you said it very poorly, and the incest/molestation angle is gross and insulting. (And non-sequitur)...Gay folks are not the result of child-molestation, nor are they particularly more likely to engage in it, despite many years of attempts by political and religious authorities to create that impression in people's minds in order to justify campaigns of oppression or genocide. I don't think you meant any of this to be gross or insulting, but it kinda is...IMHO...

Nullius said:

It was meant to be all of those things and I'm personally happy to know I achieved that. The 40k universe is a disturbing place where disturbing ideas need to be addressed if you want to get into the setting.

Nullius said:

Good, because I think you'll find that is how the Ministorum, or at least branches thereof, would look at it as well. (hell, that's pretty much how the church views it today.)

Nullius said:

But the subject of the post drifted from homosexuality alone to sexual deviance as a whole.

Nullius said:

Weren't we just talking about how we're all adults here and the discussion of such things shouldn't be taboo? Admittedly some of the imagery I conveyed was disturbing, but it was meant to be ... 40k should be disturbing and as such you can't doubt these things go on ... unless we "fade to black" on the entire setting.

Nullius said:

I don't think it was poorly written, but I do suspect you are not the audience it was intended for. Incest and Molestation are gross ... though I can't see how they are particularly insulting to you. Again, perhaps my transition from homocentric discussion to sexual devience as a whole was too subtle ... I mentioned it twice - near the begining when talking about mutants and again when refering to the wealthy and the things they could get away with; but perhaps I should have been clearer after that. Remember, I was hallucinating - no joke - (prescribed medication on doctor's orders) and that can make holding a direct line of thought difficult. As for Gay folk and child molestation, I was not trying to draw a line between them ... I did, however, intend to point out that people who are molested as children will almost always become molesters themselves - prefering their own gender in most cases.

I apologize if you were offended for, while the imagery was meant to be shocking, it was not meant to upset anyone. I have no intention of changing it, but I do apologize to those who took offense.

PS. Out of curiosity, how would you have had me word the subject matter to make it more acceptible?

I find it intersting how concepts like molestation or **** will always engender a stronger moral response than things that are very obviously worse, like murder or genocide. Even my logic fails me here, while I'm not 'creeped out' or uncomfortable talking about such things, I'd jump at the chance to play a genocidal character, but frankly wouldn't touch one who was a rapist. Isn't that strange?

As a GM I have had to portray such attrocities in my games as should have opened the way for mightly Ctulhu himself. While I've never played a rapist PC (though I almost did) I have portrayed npcs doing as much ... and much much worse. While we play many light and casual games, my group also plays some dark stuff. It takes a great deal for the discussion of an attrocity to bother me.

As a GM I've had mutant "**** camps" and people being sold into prostitution, but that's a different kettle of muffins I think. But then, your player base might be more receptive to such material than mine. The thing that's most disturbed my players thus far has been graphic depictions of poverty and the crushing grind of life in the imperium, a fact I'm honestly quite proud of.

Jack of Tears said:

Whilst the bit about the 'big brother' was just so weirdly personal as to be impossible to comment on, I would say that drawing a line between, homosexuals, men who sell their children into prostitution, and incestual child molesters would seem to suggest a moral equivilance amongst these groups. I find that repellent on many levels. You might have highlighted the point you were making rather than grouping all these cases together in your argument.

What if we, rather asked the question, "what would the Jews be thought of in the 41st millennium." And I began a discussion of how Jews would probably worship the chaos gods, practice human sacrifice, and use their vast network of influence to undermine the imperium, labling them together with other undesirables like Xeno SHapeshifters, underhive thieves, and chaos worshipers --let alone fathers who sell their children into sex slavery-- and talked a about how the Imperium would probably be able to recognize them despite their sneaky ways and clandestine banking networks because of their extremely large noses...Do you think someone might be offended by my language?

It suffices to say that these comparisons have little bearing on reality and, in fact, are largely lies created by various historical regimes who have tried to exterminate the Jewish people over the millennia (much like the classic series of paralells you drew). Discussing them as classic misconceptions held dear in the grim dark future --along with a whole slew of other crazy ideas -- and stating them as self-evident facts are two different things.

Jack of Tears said:

Its probably not even worth mentioning, but if this were the case, then the majority of Child molestation would be homosexual. In fact, the opposite is the case. Most molestation is heterosexual, and incest is as well. The phenomenon breaks down alongst normal demographic rates between homo and hetero-sexuals in society. I believe this is generally and legally acknowledged to be true, although it would not be very hard to find statistical data, if you're curious.

It is true that molested children often become molesters themselves.

Locque said:

This is almost entirely social conditioning. The concept of the stranger is generally greated negatively. Killing people is socially far more acceptable than ****** them.

Western society is heavily based on christian morality. Christian morality is very strict on sex and although it has the commandment though shalt not murder, this has been ignored many a time when a king wished to go to war. If it was for holy reasons god would forgive you. Sex didn't have that kind of freedom. It had a real danger of resulting in conception. An umarried pregnant woman was a drain on her family as well as a social stigma.

There used to be marriage by **** during the middle ages. Because of the shame of being unwed and pregnant, a man that wanted a specific woman as a wife could **** her, get her pregnant and thus be doing the 'right' thing.

Population control was a big concern of the church. Control in general was, but by being the final arbiter of who could and could not have children the church had a massive social control over the people. Marriage consumation required the husband having sex with his wife because he'd been given the moral authority to do so.

It is this morality that runs under modern western culture. Even with the relative sexual freedom of the last few decades violence is still rated lower than sex in terms of censorship. Despite sex and intimacy being a happy thing between two consenting people and violence being an unhappy thing between two discenting people. A child will see genitalia when they are naked, but cannot in a cinema. A child will have fed from their mother's breast, yet the sexualisation of breasts means they cannot see them in cinema despite having fed from them.

I say give it another few decades and this should subside somewhat assuming sexual honesty and freedom continues.

A person can live their whole life without partaking in violence, but they cannot avoid sex and sexuality because of the nature of their body and it's relationship to it.

However sex generally has no conflict in it, it's a cooperative effort. Violence is the cheapest and easiest source of conflict and thus most often used to create a story. You don't need conflict to tell a story, but it mkaes it easier if you do. Conflict immediately creates multiple sides, which produces the us vs them 'stranger or foreigner' mentality which any species will have as a survival against competition.

Hellebore

Well, I had a long post all prepared in response, but decided to toss it ... obviously the subject matter disturbed you, dispite the fact that I - again - assured you that I was not drawing the parellels you imagined, and I doubt there is anything I can say to make you comfortable with the material. Some people are simply more sensative than others ... while I won't apologize for the content, I am sorry it bothered you so much. Maybe I should be stamping some of my posts with a rating system, G-R.

I realize that, And I shouldn't have gotten upset as I well understand you meant no offense.

Also, don't be patronizing. I'm not some oversensitive liberal hysteric. Its not that I found your tone 'disturbing', really. Its more that I found some of the things said to be personally insulting. There's a difference. You must understand, these are not purely abstract questions for all of us in the forums.

But I do appreciate your consideration, and I understood you meant no offense, and I shouldn't be so quick-tempered anyway.

So, for what its worth, I'm sorry for my accusatory response. These forums aren't the place for it and I understand you were just expressing in-game thoughts about 40k, which is afterall what the forum is for (Not my inchoate sermonizing).

So, I apologize, for my response. I'm not trying to start some silly, socio-political flame-war, I swear.

All the best...

Don Raccoon said:

The most obvious is enforcement. Given that there are a million different cultures throughout the galaxy each with there own laws and social taboos, working out and controlling who is sleeping with who is fairly impractical.

Secondly despite the obvious trappings of power and titles given to those in power the religion of the Imperium is quite an atheistic philosophy. This is unsurprising given that it’s origins stem from the Emperor's secular crusade. The Ecclesiarchy is not interested in individual wellbeing, spiritual or temporal, or even some kind of transcendence (with a few exceptions) but the ‘purity’ of the race as a whole with survival as their goal.
The divinity of the Emperor is a convenient focus point to unite humanity but beyond that has little to offer. NOTE: This isn’t to say the Ecclesiarchy doesn’t believe it simply that from an outside point of view the Imperium isn’t particularly spiritual or religious as a 21st century human might understand it.

So how does this link in with homosexuality? Well most religions which have issues with homosexuality do so because of their view on marriage, the role of men and women and the purpose of sex and children in a relationship and love. The foundations of the Imperium are ultimately non-religious with the only real rule being if humans survive untainted it’s all good. There is no doctrine concerning marriage, children, love, relationships and so forth so there could be no reasonable reason as to have a doctrine against homosexuality.

Indeed throughout the galaxy you could probably find all sorts of sexual customs that would be deemed timid or quaint right across to being outright illegal in our own countries. Essentially other than the Emperor being the boss and humanities right to rule the galaxy there is no particular moraliity consistent throughout the Imperium.

If its like anything like today I for one would not like to be in that time period, as I am transgendered.

miss dee said:

That's the point I was trying to make above. These forums are populated by a diverse crowd, and a bit of sensitivity is in order when discussing delicate issues like racial and sexual descrimination. That is all.

'Nuff said out of me. I'm even starting to bore myself with this line of discussion : )

from france

well i am getting bored my self with this topic as it as become too personal, i would appreciate that we stick on the subject. i am hetero but i don't mind talking to people with other sensibility. as i said before if i don't like i just watch in a other direction. for the imperium, i believed that the eclersiarchy as a wole have other preocupation to worry about than controling what mass do with their sexuality. in the ravenor trilogy, winstant frauka the untouchables constantly watch porn. in the einsenhorn trilogy you can find mutant prostitute. yes mutant prostitute with such thing do you really think that the eclersiachy is really preocupied by who do something to another somone? i don't think so. appart for the soritas who has taken a vow of celibacy and not chastity i can't remenber that it has been mentinoed somewhere in the fluff that the priest need to be chast or single. it may be the case on local level but not as a whole.

and for those who are choked by the declaration of miss dee, well just rember that you can look elsewhere. respect the other like you whish to be respected.

I would think gamers as a whole are a relatively enlightened lot, so there's no ( hope) mistreatment of anyone based on their orientation or nature.

Addressing the topic, based on the fiction, I just don't really see the imperium caring about sexual orientation beyond some individuals' own prejudices- and even those would be rarer than they are today. Certainly not legislating against it or anything.

I was interested in hearing Varnias Tybalt's rebuttal to my arguments and those others who also addressed our debate, but I think we've effectively sabotaged that then :/

Locque said:

No, no. It's coming. Im just letting the arguments ferment a bit. (you know, like you have to store fine wine for a certain period of time before the flavour is perfected).

... Or it could just be that im up to my armpits in writing and inventing stuff for this annoyingly complex and advanced scenario im supposed to GM sometime in the near future. ("bitten of more than I can chew" would certainly be an understatement here). Sometimes I really hate myself for getting these wild ideas, but somehow my players seem to like them once I actually manage to get the ideas all together into a roughly coherent scenario.

In any case, I've been fighting with this beast for some time now and it has a tendency to pre-occupy me from writing long and satisfying rebuttals.

But if it's any consolation I can tell you that this scenario is going to include a **** of a woman by a tyranid genestealer! (nothing to cheer for of course because that would just be plain sadistic and evil, but suffice to say that it's going to be a terrifyingly disturbing scenario, just the way we like it )

Varnias Tybalt said:

That sounds like a certain story I once read on 4chan. Inspiration?

LordMunchkin said:

You know... I'd love to blame it on 4chan (aka "internets *******"), because that would probably indicate that im relatively sane... But the horrible truth is that it is my own invention.

I guess im just too much of a fan of xenomorphs and H.R Giger. It's obvious that the genestealer is a GW invention with the purpose of making a sort of xenomorph creature from the Alien films a bit more kid friendly (ovipostor implantation tend not to resemble **** that much)... I don't like "kid friendly" at all, so im dragging the genestealr back to the concept that it took inspiration from. Hence in my version of the 40K universe, being implanted by a genestealer is like being raped, but not by a human, but rather by a thing that has sharp claws and teeth. (I'll let your imagination fill in the blanks)

But that's not the worst of this scenario im working on. The worst part is that there are actually people willing to capitalize on this peculiar trait that genestealers have. Does "Beast House sponsored snuff/****-shows" give you a good idea of what im hinting at here? Is it sufficiently disturbing?

I sure hope so. If my players don't get freaked out by this, I will be severely disappointed...

P.S I just realized, these most recent posts actually aren't off-topic material. Wierd...

Varnias Tybalt said:

Bah I've never a thread that didn't go off topic with more than one page. Human communication tends to be chaotic, the curse of our independent minds I would suppose.

Varnias Tybalt said:

I've generally found that after a certain point of wierdness/horrifying subject matter the PC's go past fear or revulsion and just role up their sleeves and kill every last person connected with whatever the 'taint' is.....Jack Nicholson Departed style.

(Around 1:20).

Visitor Q said:

The PC's are bound to feel revulsion and fear, the rules for fear tests pretty much forces them to.

But it isn't the PC's I aim to freak out or disgust, it is the players (my friends). And although they are pretty familiar with horrifying and disgusting stuff from movies, books, video games etc. I figure that if I can still surprise them (which I have done in the past) I can disgust them as well.

Sure I can admit that it would be a lot easier if my friends were main-streamed people and also perhaps devout christians or perhaps political and social idealists. But luckily/unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) they aren't. Which provides a real challenge.

//Varnias Tybalt - I aim to disgust!

(gritts teeth, flexes and rolls shoulders, then cracks knuckles before posting)

I'm going to try to avoid thread drift here.

To the original question I'd say that I really does depend upon the world in question how homosexuality, or any non-heterosexual relations would be viewed. However, there are two commonalities on all Imperial worlds that would influence beliefs in this regard. The first is procreation. Crudely put, we bump uglies to make babies and the Imperium needs babies. Have you ever stopped to consider just how labor intensive nearly every aspect of Imperial life is? There is little or no automation - the majority of what few robots they have are actually lobotomized cyborgs (servitors). Take into account the utter disregard for human life displayed by the Imperium (don't believe me -- play a few 40k games against a diehard IG player) and it becomes obvious that a very high birthrate is absolutely essential for the Imperium.

Which brings me to the second factor -- the theocratic/fascist bent of the Imperium where all members of the Imperium serve it and are certainly not served by it. Given the high birth rate needed by the Imperium, it stands to reason that childbearing/rearing is seen as a duty of all Imperial citizens and to not make an effort to bring in the next generation of guardsmen or laborers could easily be seen as wasteful, patriotic, or possibly traitorous in times of war.

So it would stand to reason that any form of sexuality that doesn't result in pregnancy would be looked down upon in the Imperium.

It does depend on which planet you're on though. A hive planet with 12 billion people on it isn't depopulated when they send a few regiments to the guard. They don't really need to refill their population due to war casualties.

If anything else a hive may require you have LESS children to prevent starvation. That leads to riots. I'm sure the authorities would simply put contraceptives in the water supply to prevent people having children.

You would have to be recruiting more than a billion people from a hive world for the loss of population to have any real effect on the planet's productivity. Especially when you consider that the underhive has a tonne of people but doesn't really produce much. All the manufacturing comes from the middle hive, well of Necromunda at any rate.

Hellebore