23 hours ago, Edgehawk said:

In a current campaign I am quite fond of, there have been a number of thinly disguised pop-culture references, from The Hobbit to The Sex Pistols.

Agree. I would think a universe as big as Star Wars would have room for in-world fantasy novels (set in barbaric pre-Republic times) and punk rockish music, and anything else we can think of. Surely over 25000 years of high tech society populated by trillions of people at a time, somebody made something like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. We often reskin modern references to have a Star Wars feel, it provides some grounding so we can relate to it.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I don't know how in the **** Jabba could have possibly been sexually attracted to those dancers. They are disgusting: two segmented tails that they walk on, a tiny head with tiny eyes and a mouth that is not big enough to put a slimy frog down, they are not covered in slime, their coloration is hideous, and they are as fragile as all get out, they would never even survive mating. I imagine if he was leering at them it was because he wanted to eat them or kill them but was savoring the drama of it all. Hutts would have dancers like that for only one reason, status with other races. Those girls were captive entertainers whom Jabba used for sport as much as entertainment. The physiological differences between Hutts and Bipedal Humanoids is not compatible, and his instinct for reproduction would not be triggered by something like those alien women.

There are Turd and Fart jokes in the prequels, but I hope you are not suggesting that these were high points of the Star Wars experience lol. Keep in mind that I know some of this stuff has to come up, but when it becomes a Focus of Narration by players or GM that is the issue. Bantha Pudu is one thing, but a bounty hunter killed while taking a **** like in Pulp Fiction (while funny maybe) isn't really in line with what I think is cinematically Star Wars.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

Given how many real world humans are sexually attracted to non-human things, I don't think it's that far of a stretch to think other aliens might be kinky for the alien.

And yet, despite the reproductive incompatibility from the other angle (humans to aliens), there are plenty of humans who have their libido triggered by seeing non-human things. I mean, just take a browse of google with the safe search off, and you will see it in action IIRC, it's commonly called Rule 34. At least I think it's 34, I've sometimes seen 36, but anyway, the basic gist, if you don't know is "if it exists, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, wants to hump it, and will make porn/sex art about it." So it doesn't really surprise me that Jabba might actually be physically attracted to his dancers. I mean, his body language, when compared to a human, was VERY much coded "leering, sex creep".

Nope, just saying that it's not "out of the spirit of Star Wars" to include bodily function humor sometimes, as there is cinematic precedent for it. I didn't say it was funny, just that it's there.

Oh come on, if it's good enough for the Lannisters, it's good enough for Star Wars

But yeah, I mean I get what you're saying, I just don't think a table game should be limited in how the game is played. The movies are, because they are subject to the censorship/film commission that rate films, and thus it directly impacts their profits. But there isn't any need for that in a table game. I think you could easily just boil down your rules to "Keep it PG guys." and that's really all you have to do. And depending on the age range of your players, I can understand that.

I agree with @KungFuFerret here. Jabba has explicitly been stated in numerous canon and Legends sources as being a "Sexual Deviant". The most well known being the Oola story in Tales from Jabba's Palace. Jabba was indeed sexually aroused by humanoid females.

double post

2 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Given how many real world humans are sexually attracted to non-human things, I don't think it's that far of a stretch to think other aliens might be kinky for the alien.

And yet, despite the reproductive incompatibility from the other angle (humans to aliens), there are plenty of humans who have their libido triggered by seeing non-human things. I mean, just take a browse of google with the safe search off, and you will see it in action IIRC, it's commonly called Rule 34. At least I think it's 34, I've sometimes seen 36, but anyway, the basic gist, if you don't know is "if it exists, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, wants to hump it, and will make porn/sex art about it." So it doesn't really surprise me that Jabba might actually be physically attracted to his dancers. I mean, his body language, when compared to a human, was VERY much coded

But there isn't any need for that in a table game . I think you could easily just boil down your rules to "Keep it PG guys." and that's really all you have to do.

But you are anthropomorphizing the sexual attitudes and proclivities of the Hutt species. My observation was based on Hutt biology as it would almost certainly apply as the Hutts don't display sexual dimorphism. It seems to me a far more applicable answer that Jabba regards the dancers as status symbols, food, or victims. Remember that Jabba was George's conception of a Dragon in his lair, not just a gangster. The dancers are not there to be a sexual prize for Jabba, they are there for the human audience consuming the movie. At one point Jabba licks Leia, and humans could interpret that as sexual somehow based on the human equivalent, but that gesture could have also had a hundred different purposes and meanings. Hutts are characterized as loving money and power, and in being ruthless and cruel. Being sexually disgusting toward a physically smaller species would only seem to be a manifestation of that cruelty in that the Hutt would have to somehow have the insight to realize and embrace how disgusting they are to non-Hutts, and then use that as a device to make others uncomfortable because of their ugliness rather than their wealth, power, cunning.

I guess I'm not running a Table Game. I am disturbed by how completely the TTRPG culture is fixated on this free pass for humor in the game. I'm all for humor at the table, but I don't let it into the continuity unless it's in character and uses dialogue rather than slapstick or using juxtaposition with earth situations. Why does every game have to conform to this standard? I don't mind that other people aren't too serious about their games, but I don't know why that means I have to not be serious about the continuity in mine.

But hey thank you for the response man. Good points I will have to think further on what you said

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I agree with @KungFuFerret here. Jabba has explicitly been stated in numerous canon and Legends sources as being a "Sexual Deviant". The most well known being the Oola story in Tales from Jabba's Palace. Jabba was indeed sexually aroused by humanoid females.

I read those stories, and to me this was the writer not exploring other options. So much of the EU stuff is bad because it extrapolates movie stuff but does not attempt to look for compelling explanations or turns. I mean really, this is just a very dumb idea that human readers can relate to because they themselves could see the dancers as sexy. Sexy to a Hutt is probably something like mating in swamp water, or when surrounded by wealth. I think this was just a way for the director to make Jabba as gross as possible, but it doesn't bear out under scrutiny. Jabba may have liked to spread that information about himself, but that again requires that eh is willing to do something that is somewhat denigrating, and the flattery he insisted upon isn't consistent with the idea that he sees himself as gross and repugnant. I just don't buy that he fancied sex with those dancers. I think people are invested in this idea, but I can't fathom why.

2 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I read those stories, and to me this was the writer not exploring other options. So much of the EU stuff is bad because it extrapolates movie stuff but does not attempt to look for interesting explanations or turns. I think this was just a way for the director to make Jabba as gross as possible, but it doesn't bear out under scrutiny. Jabba may have liked to spread that information about himself, but I just don't buy that he fancied sex with those dancers. I think people are invested in this idea, but I can't fathom why.

However, that's not the case. That wasn't the "only" source that mentions Jabba's "proclivities". It's just the most well known. To quote the Canon portion of Jabba's Wookkieepedia page:

Quote

His mother left enough of a mark on him that, years later, he would force the Askajian dancer Yarna d'al' Gargan to wear special makeup to make her look more like his genitrix. ^[12]

Quote

Jabba's personal dancer, Oola , attempted to resist his advances toward her , and the Hutt activated the trapdoor and sent her to her death in the rancor pit.

Jabba was canonically a sexual deviant with an attraction to humanoid females.

17 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

But you are anthropomorphizing the sexual attitudes and proclivities of the Hutt species. My observation was based on Hutt biology as it would almost certainly apply as the Hutts don't display sexual dimorphism. It seems to me a far more applicable answer that Jabba regards the dancers as status symbols, food, or victims. Remember that Jabba was George's conception of a Dragon in his lair, not just a gangster. The dancers are not there to be a sexual prize for Jabba, they are there for the human audience consuming the movie. At one point Jabba licks Leia, and humans could interpret that as sexual somehow based on the human equivalent, but that gesture could have also had a hundred different purposes and meanings. Hutts are characterized as loving money and power, and in being ruthless and cruel. Being sexually disgusting toward a physically smaller species would only seem to be a manifestation of that cruelty in that the Hutt would have to somehow have the insight to realize and embrace how disgusting they are to non-Hutts, and then use that as a device to make others uncomfortable because of their ugliness rather than their wealth, power, cunning.

Of course I'm anthropomorphizing them, they are fictional, made by humans, and puppeted in a way to convey concepts to a human audience. If you're going to say they don't act like humans, then you can't say he acted angry, or jealous, or startled, all displaying exactly the same way humans would. You don't get to call his other emotions as accurate depictions of behavior, that line up perfectly with human behavior, and then ignore the sexual ones. By your logic, it's just as likely that when he's yelling, and hitting people, he's not angry or annoyed, he's actually joyously happy, and expressing it. I mean, alien biology right?

From what we see of Jabba, his behaviors, coupled with his dialogue, line up perfectly with human analogs of the same behavior, so when he's sticking out his tongue suggestively, speaking in a low and sensuous voice, and giggling as he drags the dancer to him like, well like a pervy dude at a strip club, that lines up too. It's the subtext they were trying to convey that he's scum on every level. You can't allow some and ignore others.

22 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I guess I'm not running a Table Game. I am disturbed by how completely the TTRPG culture is fixated on this free pass for humor in the game. I'm all for humor at the table, but I don't let it into the continuity unless it's in character and uses dialogue rather than slapstick or using juxtaposition with earth situations. Why does every game have to conform to this standard? I don't mind that other people aren't too serious about their games, but I don't know why that means I have to not be serious about the continuity in mine.

First off, I never said anyone had to conform to some standard. In fact, in two separate instances in my first post, I said "you do you, it's your table." I was simply pointing out that the points you specifically didn't want in your game, citing "they aren't really Star Wars in spirit", were actually in the movies. Secondly, you do understand that you can be wrong in your logic on why you are taking your position, and still do it anyway right? Me saying "eh, your argument doesn't hold up" isn't the same thing as saying "You cannot do this ever because I say so" You do get the difference right?

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

However, that's not the case. That wasn't the "only" source that mentions Jabba's "proclivities". It's just the most well known. To quote the Canon portion of Jabba's Wookkieepedia page:

Jabba was canonically a sexual deviant with an attraction to humanoid females.

So I'm not using EU as the excuse, I'm saying that the whole idea is bad, but as a 15 second segment in a movie it has different value than when a hack writer takes it and decides to do something nonsensical for the sake of convenience. Where was his editor? If you think this makes sense then nothing I will say will matter. It is definitely one of the more blatantly bad bits of characterization because it breaks the fourth wall somewhat. It only makes sense to humans who are willing to not feel that there is such a thing as Hutt biology.

2 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

So I'm not using EU as the excuse, I'm saying that the whole idea is bad, but as a 15 second segment in a movie it has different value than when a hack writer takes it and decides to do something nonsensical for the sake of convenience. Where was his editor? If you think this makes sense then nothing I will say will matter. It is definitely one of the more blatantly bad bits of characterization because it breaks the fourth wall somewhat. It only makes sense to humans who are willing to not feel that there is such a thing as Hutt biology.

You're missing the point. His biology has nothing to do with it. He's a Deviant , much like someone into Beastiality, Pedophilia, or Necrophilia. His proclivities are not "normal", nor were they intended to be. As @KungFuFerret said, it was to further establish that this guy was a perverted slime .

2 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Of course I'm anthropomorphizing them, they are fictional, made by humans, and puppeted in a way to convey concepts to a human audience. If you're going to say they don't act like humans, then you can't say he acted angry, or jealous, or startled, all displaying exactly the same way humans would. You don't get to call his other emotions as accurate depictions of behavior, that line up perfectly with human behavior, and then ignore the sexual ones. By your logic, it's just as likely that when he's yelling, and hitting people, he's not angry or annoyed, he's actually joyously happy, and expressing it. I mean, alien biology right?

From what we see of Jabba, his behaviors, coupled with his dialogue, line up perfectly with human analogs of the same behavior, so when he's sticking out his tongue suggestively, speaking in a low and sensuous voice, and giggling as he drags the dancer to him like, well like a pervy dude at a strip club, that lines up too. It's the subtext they were trying to convey that he's scum on every level. You can't allow some and ignore others.

First off, I never said anyone had to conform to some standard. In fact, in two separate instances in my first post, I said "you do you, it's your table." I was simply pointing out that the points you specifically didn't want in your game, citing "they aren't really Star Wars in spirit", were actually in the movies. Secondly, you do understand that you can be wrong in your logic on why you are taking your position, and still do it anyway right? Me saying "eh, your argument doesn't hold up" isn't the same thing as saying "You cannot do this ever because I say so" You do get the difference right?

That second thing I said was a general statement so I apologize that I didn't make that clear. It's a part of a bigger thing I am noticing about the prevailing culture in the hobby.

Yes, I understand, and in the interest of not saying it over and over I understand that I don't speak for anyone but myself and that these are my opinions and ideas.

As for the Hutt thing, it's fictional, but what I'm saying is that you are willing to take a stretch into something that makes less sense than what would probably make sense for a species that has to propagate itself by biological means. The strip club thing is cartoony, it's there to make the audience know oh ok I see he wants to **** those chicks. Why is that better than this very imposing creature that is basically putting on a circus of influence for those in the entourage? I guess you like the idea, but I don't get why.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You're missing the point. His biology has nothing to do with it. He's a Deviant , much like someone into Beastiality, Pedophilia, or Necrophilia. His proclivities are not "normal", nor were they intended to be. As @KungFuFerret said, it was to further establish that this guy was a perverted slime .

Normal by what standard though? See this is why it's just garbage. What is galactic normal, how do we know what that is? Are we to believe in a society this old and multicultural in nature people are hung up on Christian sexual mores and then somehow applied that to trans-species attraction? His body is physically incompatible with the bodies of those other creatures, and he coincidentally has complete power over them. You could maybe make the case that this is a sort of ****, but **** is about power, not sex. This concept has everything to do with the reader/audience, and nothing to do with the actual setting.

Just now, Archlyte said:

As for the Hutt thing, it's fictional, but what I'm saying is that you are willing to take a stretch into something that makes less sense than what would probably make sense for a species that has to propagate itself by biological means. The strip club thing is cartoony, it's there to make the audience know oh ok I see he wants to **** those chicks. Why is that better than this very imposing creature that is basically putting on a circus of influence for those in the entourage? I guess you like the idea, but I don't get why.

*sighs and rubs his face* Ok, one last time, and then I'm dropping this discussion.

You say he can't find them sexy because they aren't his biology. You have no real foundation for this from the source material, but let's go with it anyway.
When has "they are my biology" ever have anything to do with someone finding something sexually attractive? Since these are fictional beings, we can't use any real "data" on them, but we can make assumptions based on human behavior (something that ALL of the aliens are based on, because that's who made them, and that's the audience). Humans aren't restricted by your "they aren't our biology" rule for sexual desire, as evidenced by bestiality, uh...not sure what you call it, but object sexual desires (wanting to hump objects), sexual arousal at the idea of being consumed (Vor), etc etc. The range of variety of human sexual proclivities is vast and diverse, so I don't see why every other alien in the galaxy would be exempt from this possible variation in their sexual desires. If a human can get horny and want to boink a dog (and many do), why can't a giant slug get horny and want to boink a bipedal alien? As to your comment about "I like this idea", that's not the point. The point is there is no reason he couldn't be attracted to them, and based on his very human behavioral traits we see (yelling when angry, wide eyed and fidgety when startled, and yes, leering and licking and skeezy when messing with a scantily clad woman), there is no reason to think that suddenly the ONE SET of human behavioral markers based around sex, are somehow not actually saying that. When every other marker, lines up with what we would assume he was doing. If you didn't have his subtitles, when he gets angry and scared, you could still easily tell what his actual emotion was at that time. So why should the times when he is behaving like a skeez, this is somehow no longer a valid interpretation of his behavior.

What I don't get is why you are so against the idea, that an alien might find another alien hot.

You keep talking about reproduction and propogation. You do realize that the majority of people engage in sex simply to have sex right? It's not just for reproductive purposes. For most people in fact, that's a very small percentage of the times they would have sex in their lives. So reproduction really doesn't have anything to do with this.

Now I'm officially done at this point, because I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. If you still don't get what I'm trying to say, oh well. Either way, as I stated before, play your game how you want, because I really don't care.

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

Normal by what standard though? See this is why it's just garbage. What is galactic normal, how do we know what that is? Are we to believe in a society this old and multicultural in nature people are hung up on Christian sexual mores and then somehow applied that to trans-species attraction? His body is physically incompatible with the bodies of those other creatures, and he coincidentally has complete power over them. You could maybe make the case that this is a sort of ****, but **** is about power, not sex. This concept has everything to do with the reader/audience, and nothing to do with the actual setting.

I'm not talking a matter of any given "religion's" moral normalities. You have real people sexually attracted to animals, and to the dead, etc, which, by your own standards should not occur because there is no biological reproductive benefit for it. These are deviances. The same is true of Jabba. He was a Deviant . Not because of some "Christian sexual mores" but because, as you said, it is not biologically advantageous. And yet, he was indeed sexually attracted to humanoid females. It's a deviancy .

10 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm not talking a matter of any given "religion's" moral normalities. You have real people sexually attracted to animals, and to the dead, etc, which, by your own standards should not occur because there is no biological reproductive benefit for it. These are deviances. The same is true of Jabba. He was a Deviant . Not because of some "Christian sexual mores" but because, as you said, it is not biologically advantageous. And yet, he was indeed sexually attracted to humanoid females. It's a deviancy .

Sexuality itself may be entirely different for Hutts, they may actually lack a sex drive until a hormonal or environmental cycle occurs. Again people are sexually attracted to animals, that has no automatic bearing on Hutts. And as for biology not being what drives sex and it's just mental, I gave the reason I though that Power and Cruelty were more likely to get a Hutt off rather than unrealized physical relationships with organisms completely unlike them, but I think some people find this idea stimulating so it's useless to try to get this idea put aside. I guess monkey poop wins this one.

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

Sexuality itself may be entirely different for Hutts, they may actually lack a sex drive until a hormonal or environmental cycle occurs. Again people are sexually attracted to animals, that has no automatic bearing on Hutts. And as for biology not being what drives sex and it's just mental, I gave the reason I though that Power and Cruelty were more likely to get a Hutt off rather than unrealized physical relationships with organisms completely unlike them, but I think some people find this idea stimulating so it's useless to try to get this idea put aside. I guess monkey poop wins this one.

Yes,it does. It very much does have a bearing on Hutts. It has a bearing on any sexually reproducing species. Sexual deviancies are not restricted to humans.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes,it does. It very much does have a bearing on Hutts. It has a bearing on any sexually reproducing species. Sexual deviancies are not restricted to humans.

Cool. So this comes down to whether or not you like the idea. I Feel like I provided reasons why it's an explanation that is meta and not really all that biologically sound given that deviancy is by its very nature a small percentage of a population. It exists in the scene to explain something that cannot be explained in words, but in books and internet nerd sites there is no excuse as the exact meaning can be given.

Hutts don't find other Hutts attractive, they find Human-Like aliens attractive even though they are nothing like them and lack the appropriate physicality. They do this because people see this as deviant, and therefore bad. Hutts can have empires of illicit crime organizations, are ruthless and cruel, but that's not good enough. They have to want to **** twi'leks. sigh

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

Cool. So this comes down to whether or not you like the idea. I Feel like I provided reasons why it's an explanation that is meta and not really all that biologically sound given that deviancy is by its very nature a small percentage of a population. It exists in the scene to explain something that cannot be explained in words, but in books and internet nerd sites there is no excuse as the exact meaning can be given.

Hutts don't find other Hutts attractive, they find Human-Like aliens attractive even though they are nothing like them and lack the appropriate physicality. They do this because people see this as deviant, and therefore bad. Hutts can have empires of illicit crime organizations, are ruthless and cruel, but that's not good enough. They have to want to **** twi'leks. sigh

Liking or not liking the idea has nothing to do with it. Nor is it an issue of if this is "normal" Hutt behavior. Jabba's attraction to humanoid females has specifically been established in canon as not normal for Hutts in general . It is a sexual deviancy.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Liking or not liking the idea has nothing to do with it. Nor is it an issue of if this is "normal" Hutt behavior. Jabba's attraction to humanoid females has specifically been established in canon as not normal for Hutts in general . It is a sexual deviancy.

So like KungFuFerret said this is all fiction. I can't prove to you that it's dumb for a Hutt to want to **** twi'leks instead of just wanting to torture them or display them to show his wealth and power. I know what deviancy is, and again given that the larger percentage of Hutts would have standard reproductive behaviors vs. socio/emotional responses to an aberrant scenario (otherwise it wouldn't be deviancy) that would dictate what the species is likely to do as an organism for reproduction, and thus the representation of that sexual nature (or lack thereof) in their culture and psychology.

So let me do this, You are right that Jabba himself could be engaging in deviant behavior, which at that point excuses anything because we don't know what he has for sexual behaviors, and he can profess sexual love of chocolate at that point and the term is used correctly.

But man is this dumb. There is a perfectly acceptable explanation in that he is demonstrating his power in ways that other species in his entourage can understand and appreciate, whereas sexual deviancy would almost certainly be something that would diminish the ability of those he wants to impress (not his slaves, you cant really impress people you won wholly). It works better whether he is the Dragon or Al Capone. Power, Cunning, and the Will to use that Power are the main things that Hutts should represent. Not that they are leg humpers like deviant Chihuahuas.

The thing is, however, is that many Mob bosses were known for sexual deviancies, including numerous fetishes .and yes, this did stem partially from the "power" they held over the objects of their desire, something particularly true of sadists and pedophiles, for instance. And it wasn't that Jabba "could" be engaging in deviant behavior. It is canonical fact that he was. Whether it is a "stupid" idea, is irrelevant.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

The thing is, however, is that many Mob bosses were known for sexual deviancies, including numerous fetishes .and yes, this did stem partially from the "power" they held over the objects of their desire, something particularly true of sadists and pedophiles, for instance. And it wasn't that Jabba "could" be engaging in deviant behavior. It is canonical fact that he was. Whether it is a "stupid" idea, is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? I don't think I ever said once that the sources didn't state this to be true, I just think it's stupid. I guess it wasn't as stupid as I thought though given the apologia its receiving. It turns out that people really like the idea of Jabba actually wanting to **** twi'leks. It's a really big stretch to get into all of the motives as to why he likes to **** twi'leks, but it's not hard to just make the case that it isn't especially good for the story.

But you can put your fan fiction hat on, armed with it being canon, and you can branch off into your Mob Boss Bothan on Weequay orgy, or maybe the epic tales of Buggering Ugnaughts in a Talz Massage parlor. There is certainly the ability to go in these directions with the narrative, but I would say it's not in alignment with the feel of the movies (which is actually the theme of this thread). I won't begrudge anyone their star wars porn, but it's not something I would agree is in keeping with the feel of the movies.

3 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Why is it irrelevant? I don't think I ever said once that the sources didn't state this to be true, I just think it's stupid. I guess it wasn't as stupid as I thought though given the apologia its receiving. It turns out that people really like the idea of Jabba actually wanting to **** twi'leks. It's a really big stretch to get into all of the motives as to why he likes to **** twi'leks, but it's not hard to just make the case that it isn't especially good for the story.

But you can put your fan fiction hat on, armed with it being canon, and you can branch off into your Mob Boss Bothan on Weequay orgy, or maybe the epic tales of Buggering Ugnaughts in a Talz Massage parlor. There is certainly the ability to go in these directions with the narrative, but I would say it's not in alignment with the feel of the movies (which is actually the theme of this thread). I won't begrudge anyone their star wars porn, but it's not something I would agree is in keeping with the feel of the movies.

Why it's irrelevant is because it is purely subjective , rather than an issue of what the canon establishes . Whether or not you or I like a given idea or plot point, has no bearing on whether or not it is canonical, and therefore if is "fits" within Star Wars . The movies firmly establish that certain characters did have particular "sexual proclivities". Sex, did play a part in the saga, albeit not to an "R" or "X"-rated degree.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Why it's irrelevant is because it is purely subjective , rather than an issue of what the canon establishes . Whether or not you or I like a given idea or plot point, has no bearing on whether or not it is canonical, and therefore if is "fits" within Star Wars . The movies firmly establish that certain characters did have particular "sexual proclivities". Sex, did play a part in the saga, albeit not to an "R" or "X"-rated degree.

It is not subjective to say that Jabba is a deviant according to a novel and the wiki. In the movie that he licks Leia, and that he laughs and gets animated over the dancers. The movie does not say anything about any of these habits that EU and Wiki writers propose. If there is a canon novel that talks about this I couldn't find it. But let's suppose there is, and that it firmly states that Jabba wants to **** twi'leks, then this is an example that does not mesh with the overall theme of the movies, and is an exceptional detail. The midichloriens are certainly canon, but they are regarded by many fans as terrible. I cannot dispute that these things that I stipulated are in the movie are actually in the movie, but your only possible argument that they aren't stupid is to attest to how this is a great thing for the stories.

What's your crusade here? Trying to legitimize Star Wars light erotica? My assertion is somehow offensive to your libertine view of Star Wars? Not sure why you are so willing to die on this hill but it's interesting.

4 hours ago, whafrog said:

We often reskin modern references to have a Star Wars feel, it provides some grounding so we can relate to it.

Exactly. I could spend time designing and describing an in-universe social media information exchange and come up with a cool star wars-y name. . . . or I could just call it Spacebook and get on with telling the story.

3 minutes ago, Desslok said:

Exactly. I could spend time designing and describing an in-universe social media information exchange and come up with a cool star wars-y name. . . . or I could just call it Spacebook and get on with telling the story.

I agree that this is sometimes necessary, but the tendency I have noticed is that once so what is a viable solution it tends to get over used. But let's assume for the sake of the discussion it did matter to you what they call it, how would you handle it?

First off, I'm not making any kind of "judgement" on whether or not the idea is "stupid". To me that is completely irrelevant to the real issue. The issue is whether or not the canon establishes Jabba as being sexually attracted to humanoid females, and yes, it does. His actions in the movie are those of a pervert being aroused, the novels further support this. Whether or not I think it is a "good idea" or not is moot. This is what the canon establishes. And therefore it does fit within the "feel" of the movies, as long as it is kept within the PG/PG-13 level.