Judging people based on how they roleplay: fallacy or legitimate method?

[Karkos]

As kyoryu said, your preferences are your preferences and you are allowed to have them. I was actually just wondering what you considered the stereotype to be as it wasn't clear from your post when you said "stereotypical depiction of female PCs" or somesuch.

Not to be snippy, but I'm going to assume there's some kind of language barrier since you don't understand what stereotype means.

[Lorsa]

Not to be snippy, but I'm going to assume there's some kind of language barrier since you don't understand what stereotype means.

If that is the case; could you also take the time to educate me on the subject?

[kyoryu]

Not to be snippy, but I'm going to assume there's some kind of language barrier since you don't understand what stereotype means.

Excuse me for interjecting:

Your initial statement could be taken two ways:

1) Guys playing the "women as sluts" stereotype
2) A stereotype of "guys playing slutty women"

I'm pretty sure Lorsa was just asking for clarification on which one you meant. I assumed the second one, but I can see the possible confusion.

[Scow2]

Excuse me for interjecting:

Your initial statement could be taken two ways:

1) Guys playing the "women as sluts" stereotype
2) A stereotype of "guys playing slutty women"

I'm pretty sure Lorsa was just asking for clarification on which one you meant. I assumed the second one, but I can see the possible confusion.I was assuming the first - guys in his group were playing stereotypically slutty female characters, which he found offensive, so he went with a blanket ban on crossplaying on it.

[Morithias]

I was assuming the first - guys in his group were playing stereotypically slutty female characters, which he found offensive, so he went with a blanket ban on crossplaying on it.

I still would like to know what he'd do if someone asked to play a thrall of malcanthet. Here's a class that is a. high in quality and power, b. Female only, and c. Thrall to the SUCCUBUS QUEEN. So being sexually manipulative is right up their alley.

[Lorsa]

Excuse me for interjecting:

Your initial statement could be taken two ways:

1) Guys playing the "women as sluts" stereotype
2) A stereotype of "guys playing slutty women"

I'm pretty sure Lorsa was just asking for clarification on which one you meant. I assumed the second one, but I can see the possible confusion.

!00% correct interpretation of my post, which I thought was quite clear.

[Scow2]

I still would like to know what he'd do if someone asked to play a thrall of malcanthet. Here's a class that is a. high in quality and power, b. Female only, and c. Thrall to the SUCCUBUS QUEEN. So being sexually manipulative is right up their alley.Well, if it were me, I'd probably say "no", unless I knew them well enough to know they wouldn't play "Sexually manipulative" as "wag my hips like a dog/cat in heat at anybody with anything I may or may not want, and hope they bite."

[pffh]

Hearts change.

Adults realize there are times when you fight, when you argue, there are things you just flat out wont agree on no matter what.

But you stay together because you are committed.

And non-married relationships just dont. The facts and studies bear it out.

When you can take a walk and crap out with no penalties its too easy to do so when things get hard. Whereas a committed married couple will work through that stuff.

Emphasis by me.

Wait what? If your heart has changed and you are staying together just for the sake of staying together then that is the wrong choice. It's mentally and possibly physically unhealthy for both partners and any children they might have to be in an unhappy relationship.

[Karkos]

!00% correct interpretation of my post, which I thought was quite clear.

I honestly beg your pardon then as I assumed my post was also quite clear. It obviously was not.


I meant the guys playing the "women as sluts" stereotype.

[tasw]

Emphasis by me.

Wait what? If your heart has changed and you are staying together just for the sake of staying together then that is the wrong choice. It's mentally and possibly physically unhealthy for both partners and any children they might have to be in an unhappy relationship.

What your missing is simple, Hearts often change back.

Its natural for the initial passion of a new relationship to cool. Once your dealing with bills, kids, outside family issues etc etc its very easy to throw up your hands with the situation and walk away. Its not whats best for everyone and working to overcome those sorts of situations is the kind of thing that builds much stronger relationships then ones that just give up when things get tough. But its easier.

Doing so just puts you in an endless cycle of relationship after relationship that you bail on when things get hard though. Because sooner or later things ALWAYS get hard.

[Morithias]

What your missing is simple, Hearts often change back.

Its natural for the initial passion of a new relationship to cool. Once your dealing with bills, kids, outside family issues etc etc its very easy to throw up your hands with the situation and walk away. Its not whats best for everyone and working to overcome those sorts of situations is the kind of thing that builds much stronger relationships then ones that just give up when things get tough. But its easier.

Doing so just puts you in an endless cycle of relationship after relationship that you bail on when things get hard though. Because sooner or later things ALWAYS get hard.

Someone who bails when it gets hard isn't loyal to begin with.

I would rather have an small army without explosive collars, that I know will stand by me, than a large one that's kept in line via said collars.