Tactical Question - Haley [Archive] - Page 2 - Giant in the Playground Forums

Sir_Leorik

2013-11-20, 02:35 PM

True, Tarquin's relationship with the Empress is, at a fundamental level, abusive and manipulative. But that's a bit more broad that the specific question of: did the Empress embark on her weight gain project on her own, or was it Tarquin's idea?

Yes, he probably has many motives for not correcting her: maybe he thinks it's funny, maybe it's a handy way to shut her up and keep her from looking to closely at what Tarquin is doing, maybe it helps him keep her less of a physical threat to him (so that, should the need arise it's easier to kill her). But the question of whether she was somehow forced, coerced, tricked, or otherwise manipulated into starting in on the weight gain regimen in the first place has not been, definitively answered. Unless you interpret Rich Burlew's statement that he felt more comfortable doing fat jokes about the Empress in part because it was something she was willfully doing to herself to mean that, no, Tarquin didn't put her up to it.

My take is that Tarquin planted the idea in her mind, and that she began pursuing this course. Once Tarquin saw how aggressively she was pursuing her goal, he may have encouraged her. At the end of the day, she's the one eating the fattened cows, but if Tarquin really wanted her put on a strict diet, she'd be on a strict diet. He benefits from her looking the way she does, and the fact that her feeding habits disgust humans and lizardfolk, allows him to keep her away from state dinners, where he and Malack could run the show. I see her as a tragic figure, a victim of her own ambitions, but not smart enough to realize what's happened to her. By contrast, Xyklon the Consequential has no one but himself to blame for his weight gain. :smalltongue: ("Sigh. Guards! Fetch the "Ben & Jerry's"!")

AKA_Bait

2013-11-20, 02:56 PM

As for Laurin, we have insufficient information, she is planning to ask T for favor but unknown whether it is a sexual favor.

Of course, it is also unknown whether that favor will involve singing aardvarks. Or the baking of complicated confectionery. i.e., we have no evidence of any kind as to what the favor is.

I see her as a tragic figure, a victim of her own ambitions, but not smart enough to realize what's happened to her.

I was with you up until this. Tragic? This is an adult red dragon who is unquestionably evil and at least partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood that we are talking about.

AgentofHellfire

2013-11-20, 02:58 PM

One of the best explanations I've seen for why the 'it's humour!' explanation is bogus and flies in the whole point of what humour is supposed to be.

That explanation only works if the humour is directed at a person, though. If you're referring to the OP's joke, I still maintain that it isn't directed at Laurin, but that classification scheme.

As to everyone arguing that 'men are discriminated against' too.... Great. Yes. You're absolutely right. I'm not being sarcastic. You're correct. That's a result of society's (I wont' say 'patriarchy' because you appear to be allergic to that word and consider it some kind of 'new age conspiracy' thing) effort to impose rigid gender roles. Rigid, meaning step outside, and you lose the benefits you had by sticking to them. The only difference between men and women is that men are on average *slightly* better off if they stick to the 'rules', whereas for women it's often a no-win situation.

Well, calling it "male rule" isn't really at all accurate when males who don't follow the rules aren't really ruling, and even those that do are doing worse for it (guess which gender gets longer prison sentences), and its inaccuracy is kind of toxic to the actual messages feminism preaches, because such terms make it easier to conflate feminism with "anti-men", since the people that would be benefitting under an actual patriarchy would be more men than those that do.

Now that you've successfully noted that sexism hurts men too, could you please move on and actually start trying to fight it?

One could fight sexism against women and men both in a lot of ways, some of them way quicker than this whole fight against words that aren't even entirely representative of that. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/gender-quotas-norway-women-boardroom)

You don't even, in theory, have to go full gender quota on that one if you think that's a tad extreme. You could just regulate business recruitment procedures, even, so that they're more professional. After all, the survey cited in that article states that businesses that actually used the professional recruitment methods got plenty of women in anyway. And the word "bitch" or "slut" didn't have to be touched.

There's absolutely no reason not to except for the utter illusion that sexism against men and sexism against women are somehow separate and have independent causes.

I'm still not really sure why sexism against women is considered to stem from a single cause, honestly. Culture is a huge multifaceted thing, and multiple modes of discrimination against an entire gender are going to be equally multi-faceted.

And one of those facets, by the way, is how feminist movements conduct themselves. They are, or they're supposed to be, the opposing side to all of this, so what tactics they use of course matters. And assuming media portrayals even matter, they don't use the best tactics when dealing with oppression of men, because they don't object to any portrayals of men at all. Nor do they object to any of the aspects of gender roles that don't favor men. Because it's not something they're fighting.

Kevka Palazzo

2013-11-20, 03:01 PM

Of course, it is also unknown whether that favor will involve singing aardvarks. Or the baking of complicated confectionery. i.e., we have no evidence of any kind as to what the favor is.

Not quite. In this very thread, The Giant says that he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could, which I think signifies that it is very unlikely that the favor is sexual in nature.

Not to mention that, honestly, she doesn't seem to be all that into him, especially in regards to his willingness to blow resources on crazy whims.

AKA_Bait

2013-11-20, 03:28 PM

And assuming media portrayals even matter, they don't use the best tactics when dealing with oppression of men, because they don't object to any portrayals of men at all. Nor do they object to any of the aspects of gender roles that don't favor men. Because it's not something they're fighting.

You know, I just don't think that's true. I can think of at least one (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/08/26/to-the-dudebro-who-thinks-hes-insulting-me-by-calling-me-a-feminist/)self-identifying male feminist out there who objects to these sorts of portrayals regardless of gender off the top of my head.

Not quite. In this very thread, The Giant says that he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could, which I think signifies that it is very unlikely that the favor is sexual in nature.

Not to mention that, honestly, she doesn't seem to be all that into him, especially in regards to his willingness to blow resources on crazy whims.

Good point. We do, in fact, have evidence against it. I really don't understand why people keep bringing it up as a possibility.

oppyu

2013-11-20, 03:29 PM

I was in the middle of typing a big wall-of-text argument in response to AgentHellfire, but frankly I'm tired of arguing against people determined to say hurtful things to women and minorities and arguing that feminism is either unnecessary or idiotically misguided. Registering token disagreement, moving on and finding something to eat and forgetting this thread ever happened.

multilis

2013-11-20, 03:36 PM

Not quite. In this very thread, The Giant says that he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could, which I think signifies that it is very unlikely that the favor is sexual in nature.

Not to mention that, honestly, she doesn't seem to be all that into him, especially in regards to his willingness to blow resources on crazy whims.
It is not about him, it is about weath and power. Nale is dead. Elan may soon die. T may soon die. Who will be T's heir? And the mother of the heir can control much wealth and power for the very long time it takes for heir to grow up.

"he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could" but this just provides more evidence... Laurin *has* to use a favor because she can't just seduce him!

Obviously someone hasn't been watching Game of Thrones!

PS: This is a very serious scholarly subject so please help keep it that way! We don't want "flying skank" to get downgraded to a tabloid trash topic.

PPS: Here is a preview from the up and coming OOTS movie, the male is probably T, but not clear if the female is Laurin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq8Bh7JKPd4

AgentofHellfire

2013-11-20, 03:38 PM

You know, I just don't think that's true. I can think of at least one (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/08/26/to-the-dudebro-who-thinks-hes-insulting-me-by-calling-me-a-feminist/)self-identifying male feminist out there who objects to these sorts of portrayals regardless of gender off the top of my head.

Sure, and we've seen the majority of posters on this thread agree with the person I was responding to that the comments she objected to were wrong, along with an apology from the writer, I might add. But since the trend she's claimed to exist still exists in her mind, I've got no idea why I should view that one guy's actions as proof that some larger thing is occurring. Especially since he really wasn't making a statement about how men's place in society should be changed.

Good point. We do, in fact, have evidence against it. I really don't understand why people keep bringing it up as a possibility.

I always assumed it was an attempt to mock RPGs and their portrayal of women, honestly.

ahdok

2013-11-20, 03:41 PM

Now, I wouldn't say that's true either. After all, my being asexual offends a whole bunch of people very, very deeply.

Hm. This is a fairly unusual case, but I'd say you probably are offending those people, and the rule is still technically correct. However, you're entirely in the right to do so, and they should get over it and stop being ignorant jerks. :)

Benthesquid

2013-11-20, 03:41 PM

It is not about him, it is about $$$. Nale is dead. Elan may soon die. T may soon die. Who will be T's heir? And the mother of the heir can control much wealth and power for the very long time it takes for heir to grow up.

"he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could" but this just provides more evidence... Laurin *has* to use a favor because she can't just seduce him!

Obviously someone hasn't been watching Game of Thrones! ;P

Given that, at the moment, Tarquin doesn't hold any position that's likely to be inherited, and isn't poised to take over such a position anytime soon, legal heredity seems to be a nonissue. If Tarquin dies, the Empire of Blood will collapse, and whoever takes over the land will appoint one of their cronies as General. Said Crony may or might not be Shoulder-Pads fighty guy, or, I don't know, General Vater, recruited by Jacinda and Miron at the next tavern.

Kaytara

2013-11-20, 03:48 PM

Well, calling it "male rule" isn't really at all accurate when males who don't follow the rules aren't really ruling, and even those that do are doing worse for it (guess which gender gets longer prison sentences), and its inaccuracy is kind of toxic to the actual messages feminism preaches, because such terms make it easier to conflate feminism with "anti-men", since the people that would be benefitting under an actual patriarchy would be more men than those that do.

Question, then. How "universal" does this 'male rule' thing need to be for the power imbalance to be acknowledged? Or rather, how does the fact that the system is imperfect change the idea that it's still biased heavily to empower men, at the expense of women more often than not?

The fact that it is utterly impossible for any discussion on mistreatment of women to happen without the mistreatment of men butting in - as if two wrongs make a right - is a problem.

One could fight sexism against women and men both in a lot of ways, some of them way quicker than this whole fight against words that aren't even entirely representative of that. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/gender-quotas-norway-women-boardroom)

You seriously think Norway advanced to that 'quicker' level WITHOUT the preliminary fight against words? You seriously think action can happen before discussion???

I'm still not really sure why sexism against women is considered to stem from a single cause, honestly. Culture is a huge multifaceted thing, and multiple modes of discrimination against an entire gender are going to be equally multi-faceted.

For one thing, I think it would be a reasonable default assumption that that sexism has a common cause, as gender dynamics have always been defined in relation to each other. For 'strength', for example, to be considered a sign of masculinity, it needs to be juxtaposed with a group that is not considered to have that attribute. So perhaps a better question is, why wouldn't it have a common cause, or at least be closely tied?

As for the actual question, it is often considered to stem from the same cause as a result of a case-by-case analysis that leads to the revelation of a trend.

Men get longer prison sentences in part because it is considered in their "nature" to be more violent and aggressive at the same time as it is considered in the "nature" of women to be meek, not have the "balls" or "guts" for violence and even faint at the very sight of blood, and to be too compassionate and empathetic to be criminals.

Men are disadvantaged in child custody situations because they are considered, as a rule, to be less 'nurturing' and 'motherly' than women.

Men aren't taken seriously as rape victims because of the pervasive perception that no 'real' man could possibly ever not want sex, and if he didn't there's something 'wrong' with him and that's his fault and his alone.

And so on. There is a common factor to all of these examples, and that's the use of double standards based on pre-conceived stereotypes and notions of what the individual must be like based on what sex they are. Similarly, these stereotypes and perceptions are created and/or maintained almost exclusively through men in power, and by and large, it is men that benefit from them.

One would be hard-pressed to find an instance of men being discriminated against that does not result from some ****ty and restrictive attitude of the system towards both men and women. (And let's not forget trans people, who are often affected by the worst of both worlds.)

And one of those facets, by the way, is how feminist movements conduct themselves. They are, or they're supposed to be, the opposing side to all of this, so what tactics they use of course matters. And assuming media portrayals even matter, they don't use the best tactics when dealing with oppression of men, because they don't object to any portrayals of men at all. Nor do they object to any of the aspects of gender roles that don't favor men. Because it's not something they're fighting.

It is not the job of feminism to actively go out of its way to object to certain portrayals of men. A movement that is preoccupied foremostly with the rights of women should not be expected to give the occasional pat on the heads of oppressed men as a condition for being taken seriously. That, in and of itself, is a form of expression of privilege. Feminism isn't about men, even if men suffer from the same problems it is trying to combat. Saying 'but feminism should take the time to acknowledge men's problems' too is both derailing to the problems that women are facing and speaks of a staggering entitlement, like one cannot bear to not be considered important in any movement. It's like the guys who try to make the concept of lesbians to be all about women who got 'burned' by guys, even though it's the one orientation that literally has nothing to do with men.

Furthermore, there is a vast difference between oppressed men and oppressed women: Men are far more capable of fighting their own battles. Men are, while not guaranteed, far more likely to be heard and taken seriously when they speak out. Men don't need women to acknowledge their problems to try and make things better for themselves, they only need the initiative to go out there and educate themselves using the information others have gathered before them. Yes, obviously not every type of man will be taken seriously by his social circle when he calls them out on, say, a prison rape joke, but if it were a woman, you could be damn sure she'd be waved off or dismissed as having no sense of humour or being oversensitive no matter if she were gorgeous or unattractive, fat or thin, weak or muscular, popular or socially awkward.

Having a 'win' clause at all, even if it's not fair and not attainable for everyone, is a privilege men have that women largely don't, and the one that's being ignored in favour of some sort of weird oppression solidarity when 'but men get hurt too' arguments crop up.

I mean, Jesus. Modern feminism has already taken the interests of straight women, LGBTQA+ women as well as women of colour onto its plate, and you want it to spare a moment for the men, as well? Even though 99% of the problems these groups face stem from or are perpetrated by men?

multilis

2013-11-20, 03:49 PM

Given that, at the moment, Tarquin doesn't hold any position that's likely to be inherited, and isn't poised to take over such a position anytime soon, legal heredity seems to be a nonissue. If Tarquin dies, the Empire of Blood will collapse, and whoever takes over the land will appoint one of their cronies as General. Said Crony may or might not be Shoulder-Pads fighty guy, or, I don't know, General Vater, recruited by Jacinda and Miron at the next tavern.
You haven't been watching Game of Thrones?

King is sent to bed without supper. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhKVVpnOgXw

Littlefinger has even less "position" yet may have in own way more power...

The levers of power can be passed on even if they are not the title of king. T. clearly thought that what he had could be passed on to Malack and his sons.

PS: (I actually don't watch game of thrones, don't even have TV, just watch some clips on youtube, read up on info, etc.)

Benthesquid

2013-11-20, 04:02 PM

multilis

2013-11-20, 04:06 PM

Game of Thrones is irrelevant here. The point is that having Tarquin's child wouldn't advantage Laurin in the event of Tarquin's death, because Tarquin, Laurin, et al, have spent a great deal of effort making sure that no one knows that Tarquin is controlling an empire at any given time. So, in this scenario.

1: Laurin asks for sex.
2: Laurin and Tarquin have unprotected sex once.
3: This liaison results in a child that is successfully carried to term and delivered.
4. Said child doesn't come with an opposite-alignment twin.
5. Tarquin dies soon thereafter.
6. The Empress of Blood appoints Tarquin's infant child as his successor as general.
7. Laurin manipulates her child to manipulate the Empress of Blood.
8. Somehow, this is easier than manipulating the Empress of Blood herself, and preferable to just continuing to rule from the shadows the empire she already controls.
T has lots of powerful magic items, gold, and true loyalty of men, and knows who and what is really important. These things make Empire of Blood and all the empires after. These things can be passed on. Same reason that in Game of Thrones, a "general" is able to send the king to bed.

T is the one who really controls the "coinage and the court", he allows "the rabble to rule the rest, including title of king - quote from Dune book.

(Sorry, but due to board rules I can't use real life examples)

Benthesquid

2013-11-20, 04:10 PM

T has lots of powerful magic items, gold, and loyalty of men. These things make Empire of Blood and all the empires after. These things can be passed on. Same reason that in Game of Thrones, a "general" is able to send the king to bed.

(Sorry, but due to board rules I can't use real life examples)

Or, you know, Laurin could just take the magic items and gold. And I don't see any real evidence of loyalty of men- Tarquin freely admits, multiple times, that he rules through fear.

multilis

2013-11-20, 04:11 PM

Or, you know, Laurin could just take the magic items and gold. And I don't see any real evidence of loyalty of men- Tarquin freely admits, multiple times, that he rules through fear.
So do the guys I mention in Game of thrones who can send king to bed or have him killed.

So does the godfather of the mafia. Can the godfather pass on his empire to his son the godfather II? He is not the mayor of a city, etc.

Benthesquid

2013-11-20, 04:14 PM

So do the guys I mention in Game of thrones who can send king to bed or have him killed.

Look, we seem to be arguing past each other. I'm not saying that Tarquin doesn't wield a great deal of power and influence. I'm saying that due to the manner in which he wields that power, it is unlikely to be passed onto his biological heirs by default. Nothing you've said has suggested that that is not the case.

multilis

2013-11-20, 04:15 PM

Look, we seem to be arguing past each other. I'm not saying that Tarquin doesn't wield a great deal of power and influence. I'm saying that due to the manner in which he wields that power, it is unlikely to be passed onto his biological heirs by default. Nothing you've said has suggested that that is not the case.
Have you watched the movie The Godfather, and The Godfather II? Yes or no.

If yes, is the second Godfather the son of the first one? Yes or no.

Does the Godfather wield power more directly than T does? T has *official* title of general, he is officially one of most important people in city, and in feudal society much of that may be automatically passed on to whoever is heir. Sorry but I can't give lots of real world examples because of board rules.

As far as magic items, gold, etc. T likely has a vast horde, there are ways to hide it in that world, you can even buy people back from dead with it, and magic items can help make a single group stronger than an army of mooks. Small example is where T sees Nale, normally Nale's invisibillity would be powerful weapon, even X did not have it to see V, and the rulers of Azure city did not see invisible X.

Benthesquid

2013-11-20, 04:17 PM

Have you watched the movie The Godfather, and The Godfather II? Yes or no.

I have not. I don't see how it's relevant, though, because Tarquin is not involved in a criminal organization with a traditional emphasis on family values.

Kevka Palazzo

2013-11-20, 04:21 PM

multilis

2013-11-20, 04:29 PM

I assume that Laurin is also bedecked in lots of magic items and gold. She's one of the six people who control the entire continent. She's also a powerful spellcaster, so she's less dependent on magic items than "So-far-purely-martial" Tarquin anyway.

Finally, why in the hell would she need to have some sort of convoluted scheme involving bearing Tarquin's children to get his magical stuff? I'm sure if she needs something badly enough, she could just ask the man. They did used to be an adventuring party and all.

There are no reasons that make sense given what we know that Laurin wants or needs anything sex-related from Tarquin. To believe otherwise is to admit that you can't get over the "woman = sex" barrier.
1) I think you are taking this all too serious. This is an OOTS topic about Haley and "flying shank" adversary. Does that really sound to you like serious schollarly debate? (I don't think L is trying to mate with T)

2) I think some of other stuff being discussed is off topic and nothing to do with OOTS story, and thus I can't respond to that in this thread, perhaps not even on this board based on forum rules.

3) Taking T's share of wealth along with her own is obviously a doubling of wealth. Game of thrones and many other stories have marriages arranged to *double* the wealth rather than multiply by 10. (T has Malack as ally in his empire, possible that T has Malack's share as well and she did go for Malack's staff "greedily" [don't take argument too seriously here])

multilis

2013-11-20, 04:43 PM

This topic stopped being about a "flying shank"[sic] by the end of page 1. If anything, doubling back around to Laurin is off-topic for the thread itself.

I don't understand what you're saying at 2). That if Laurin tries some sort of zany scheme to bed Tarquin she'll be able to make way more than just by asking him?

Why would she need to?

Why does she need Tarquin at all? Actually that's a good question. She literally doesn't need anything from him at this point. All we know is that she loves her daughter, and wants to keep said daughter away from Tarquin's crazy schemes, so I doubt her favor has anything to do with her daughter. But that's a different thread.

The point is, if you think that she wants or needs anything marriage- or sex-related from Tarquin, you're likely wrong.
Why does Laurin run an empire rather than retire far away? By your logic she should retire, less risk.

Any mage that can create own food, clothing, shelter with very little effort has no more need to adventure, could find secluded spot to live out rest of life.

She wants power. With one favor and a little other help she can get the share of 2 of her teammates. If all she had to do was ask T for all his power, why didn't her team mates do that and get it before she did?

T is very clear in last few strips he cares most about his legacy... his children. So that is the *key* to his power.

Kevka Palazzo

2013-11-20, 04:44 PM

3) Taking T's share of wealth along with her own is obviously a doubling of wealth. Game of thrones and many other stories have marriages arranged to *double* the wealth rather than multiply by 10. (T has Malack as ally in his empire, possible that T has Malack's share as well and she did go for Malack's staff "greedily" [don't take argument too seriously here])

Emphasis mine.

I now no longer understand what you're talking about. But since you don't seem to be malicious, I'd request that you reread this thread: it stopped being about a silly joke by the end of page one. The Giant himself came down to discuss with us. There is a serious discussion happening here.

multilis

2013-11-20, 04:46 PM

Emphasis mine.

I now no longer understand what you're talking about. But since you don't seem to be malicious, I'd request that you reread this thread: it stopped being about a silly joke by the end of page one. The Giant himself came down to discuss with us. There is a serious discussion happening here.
I take "off topic" as being based on topic that started the thread. "One topic per thread."

Some of other parts are loosely tied to "shank". But I don't think a thread turns magically into different topics, you start new threads for them. And all OOTS section threads should be directly tied to OOTS. If making comparison to other societies, I have to use fantasy settings/stories rather than real life to avoid the real life politics part as "sexism" is *very* strongly tied to real life politics.

So I am talking about Haley and her shank adversaries and whether Laurin *could* have wanted a "shank" related favour. *Possible* does not mean likely.

Kevka Palazzo

2013-11-20, 04:48 PM

She wants power. With one favor and a little other help she can get the share of 2 of her teammates. If all she had to do was ask T for all his power, why didn't her team mates do that and get it before she did?

The whole point of Team Tarquin's team is that nobody holds all of the cards, and nobody's in the spotlight. She's already tied for the most powerful position in the continent with only 5 4 other people.

And you're saying, based on nothing, that she wants to somehow cheat Tarquin's power away from him through his progeny?

Sir_Leorik

2013-11-20, 04:49 PM

I was with you up until this. Tragic? This is an adult red dragon who is unquestionably evil and at least partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood that we are talking about.

Yes, it is tragic. She is not in control of her destiny, and is completely oblivious to that fact. That doesn't detract from her responsibility for joining Tarquin, any more than MacBeth is not culpable for murdering Duncan, despite the fact that the three witches foretold his rise to power. If the witches hadn't told MacBeth he would become Thane of Cawdor and King, he would not have murdered Duncan or Banquo. Tarquin recruited the Empress, she fought alongside his army, and against the Linear Guild, and then Tarquin manipulated her for his benefit. She's a tragic villain. Or maybe a tragi-comic villain. :smallamused:

multilis

2013-11-20, 04:53 PM

The whole point of Team Tarquin's team is that nobody holds all of the cards, and nobody's in the spotlight. She's already tied for the most powerful position in the continent with only 5 4 other people.

And you're saying, based on nothing, that she wants to somehow cheat Tarquin's power away from him through his progeny?
There is no cheating, T has been very clear about how his legacy/children will inherit. If his other progeny dies and she creates him a baby then her baby is the natural fair heir.

She gets share of T and Malack as well as her own, all from behind the scenes, her child is in front of scenes. Eg Game of thrones has a King Joffery, that is held in place by his mother, grandfather and Little finger because it profits them from behind the scenes.

I said it was *possible* rather than *likely* that her favor was a "shank" one. This is *why* it would be possible, if she worked that way. (And to be honest I am explaining it is possible mainly because this topic is a joke... "shank adversary" is tabloid material, and no way to have a good serious discussion on such a topic when real life politics are taboo in forum rules)

Kish

2013-11-20, 04:59 PM

This is an adult red dragon who is unquestionably evil and at least partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood that we are talking about.
Evidence for any of the bolded words?

Based on her being unable to cast spells, she's probably Juvenile. She is no more responsible for the atrocities of Tarquin's empire than Lord Tyrinar the Responsible was. The evidence of her evil is "Haley once said so." That leaves...She's a red dragon. Which um yeah.

AKA_Bait

2013-11-20, 05:00 PM

There is no cheating, T has been very clear about how his legacy/children will inherit.

That he has, but only in that they will not inherit anything. Tarquin made a deal with Malack that Malack would get to create his human sacrifice empire to Nergal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html) in exchange for a bigger statue.

Also, you seem to be overlooking the fact that Laurin is a full spellcaster (or its equivalent) and Tarquin is not, neither was Nale. If she wanted his stuff, she could probably just take it regardless upon his death.

Kevka Palazzo

2013-11-20, 05:00 PM

There is no cheating, T has been very clear about how his legacy/children will inherit. If his other progeny dies and she creates him a baby then her baby is the natural fair heir.

She gets share of T and Malack as well as her own, all from behind the scenes, her child is in front of scenes. Eg Game of thrones has a King Joffery, that is held in place by his mother, grandfather and Little finger because it profits them from behind the scenes.

I said it was *possible* rather than *likely* that her favor was a "shank" one. This is *why* it would be possible, if she worked that way. (And to be honest I am explaining it is possible mainly because this topic is a joke... "shank adversary" is tabloid material, and no way to have a good serious discussion on such a topic when real life politics are taboo in forum rules)

No, you're using the "this topic is clearly a joke" excuse to hide what I should have realized was obvious trolling.

My mistake.

AKA_Bait

2013-11-20, 05:02 PM

Evidence for any of the bolded words?

Based on her being unable to cast spells, she's probably Juvenile. She is no more responsible for the atrocities of Tarquin's empire than Lord Tyrinar the Responsible was. The evidence of her evil is "Haley once said so." That leaves...She's a red dragon. Which um yeah.

No. This is not a baby black dragon situation. She was an active participant in the formation of the Empire of Blood. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html) She also eats humans. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0721.html)

zimmerwald1915

2013-11-20, 05:12 PM

No. This is not a baby black dragon situation. She was an active participant in the formation of the Empire of Blood. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html)
How does that strip show what you are trying to say it shows?

She also eats humans. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0721.html)
So?

Angel Bob

2013-11-20, 05:13 PM

With regards to Kish and the Empress of Blood: Yep, she's bad news. If you need even more concrete and specific evidence, she also personally killed Lord Tyrinar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html).

AKA_Bait

2013-11-20, 05:18 PM

How does that strip show what you are trying to say it shows?

She's in the background actively participating in the fight with Nale, fighting Thog, at the formation of the Empire she will at least nominally be ruling. When you knowingly help found an evil empire, you are at least partially responsible for the crimes of said empire. This is not like sitting at home in your cave reading Playdrake.

So?

She's willing to indiscriminately kill and eat sapient beings. That's evil. She doesn't get the pass a non-sapient animal gets for that sort of thing or that a child would get for being fed whatever by their parent.

Shale

2013-11-20, 05:23 PM

She is a child, though.

zimmerwald1915

2013-11-20, 05:27 PM

She's in the background actively participating in the fight with Nale, fighting Thog, at the formation of the Empire she will at least nominally be ruling. When you knowingly help found an evil empire, you are at least partially responsible for the crimes of said empire. This is not like sitting at home in your cave reading Playdrake.
That's an impressive elision you're making in the timeline. Here's what the strip tells us. Tarquin and co., including Nale, "helped conquer a nation for the Empress of Blood". First, note that Tarquin does not say "helped the Empress of Blood conquer a nation". For all we know, Tarquin and Nale assassinated Tyrinar and Tarquin offered the Empress a crown that she just flew in and took. We are then told that Nale rebelled against the Empress, against Tarquin's wishes. Nale and the Empress were not two equally legitimate contenders fighting contemporaneously for an empty throne. The Empress had, through Tarquin's machinations, won her throne by right of conquest, and defended it, with Tarquin's help, from a rebel.

Now normally I'm sympathetic to rebels and wish the Giant would stop making them all out to be colossal *******s who need to go down. I'm also not terribly sympathetic to the regime of private property. But the Empress was defending the property she had won by right of conquest as surely as the YABD was defending his [mother's]. If you accept the one as legitimate, you must accept the other.

She's willing to indiscriminately kill and eat sapient beings. That's evil. She doesn't get the pass a non-sapient animal gets for that sort of thing or that a child would get for being fed whatever by their parent.
I'm not sure where you're getting "indiscriminately" from. For all we know, her meals are culled, like Malack's, from the ranks of those judged guilty by the courts.

Math_Mage

2013-11-20, 05:36 PM

That's an impressive elision you're making in the timeline. Here's what the strip tells us. Tarquin and co., including Nale, "helped conquer a nation for the Empress of Blood". First, note that Tarquin does not say "helped the Empress of Blood conquer a nation". For all we know, Tarquin and Nale assassinated Tyrinar and Tarquin offered the Empress a crown that she just flew in and took.
We actually know that's not what happened. There's still a question of just how much moral agency to attribute to EoB for that action, but...well...she ate Tyrinar.

I'm not sure where you're getting "indiscriminately" from. For all we know, her meals are culled, like Malack's, from the ranks of those judged guilty by the courts.
Because the courts are so discriminating? /shrug

I think the stronger argument is that the Empress might just be told, "These are Bad People, it's okay to eat them," and she's not mature enough to have agency. It's pure speculation, but at least it supports the point.

orrion

2013-11-20, 05:39 PM

I'm not sure where you're getting "indiscriminately" from. For all we know, her meals are culled, like Malack's, from the ranks of those judged guilty by the courts.

.... The courts are obviously not a system where guilt or innocence is a big factor in their decision making.

And just because the red dragon is eating people who may or may not be guilty doesn't mean she isn't eating people. Malack was still evil for that.

NerdyKris

2013-11-20, 05:42 PM

.... The courts are obviously not a system where guilt or innocence is a big factor in their decision making.

How do you figure? The courts were evil, but the bounty hunters were imprisoned for extorting the general, which we clearly saw them do. Just because the penalties were harsh doesn't mean they weren't guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

zimmerwald1915

2013-11-20, 05:42 PM

We actually know that's not what happened. There's still a question of just how much moral agency to attribute to EoB for that action, but...well...she ate Tyrinar.
Tyrinar's title proclaimed him bloody tyrant and the Empress had no reason to believe that was a lie. Indeed, I doubt anyone but Tarquin and Miron was privy to Tyrinar's thoughts on government. Oh, and he might have been dead at the time she ate him. The expression Tarquin referred to could have been due to rigor mortis.

AKA_Bait

2013-11-20, 05:44 PM

For all we know, Tarquin and Nale assassinated Tyrinar and Tarquin offered the Empress a crown that she just flew in and took.

Except, as Angel Bob just pointed out, The Empress personally ate Tyrinar.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html)

We are then told that Nale rebelled against the Empress, against Tarquin's wishes. Nale and the Empress were not two equally legitimate contenders fighting contemporaneously for an empty throne. The Empress had, through Tarquin's machinations, won her throne by right of conquest, and defended it, with Tarquin's help, from a rebel.

Except that she hadn't been crowned yet. They were, as such, equally legitimate contenders fighting contemporaneously for an empty throne. In fact, her claim would probably have been less legitimate than Nale's if she wasn't part of the fighting to take the Empire because Nale actually was part of the conquest, if working for his dad at the time.

I'm not sure where you're getting "indiscriminately" from. For all we know, her meals are culled, like Malack's, from the ranks of those judged guilty by the courts.

She ate Tyrinar. She would have eaten Elan just because he would have "gotten up in her business about slavery." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html) Perhaps indiscriminately was not the perfect word, but eating those who are judged guilty by a court system that finds everyone guilty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0734.html) really isn't much better, if that is what she was doing.

She is a child, though.

She's certainly in one of the younger age categories because of her inability to cast spells (presumably, her low int might also explain it). That does not function as a total excuse though. Unlike with the baby black dragon, where we had no evidence of evil actions (the dragon there was acting in self defense against a home invasion), we do have evidence here.

How do you figure? The courts were evil, but the bounty hunters were imprisoned for extorting the general, which we clearly saw them do. Just because the penalties were harsh doesn't mean they weren't guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

The conviction rate was 114%.

Tyrinar's title proclaimed him bloody tyrant and the Empress had no reason to believe that was a lie. Indeed, I doubt anyone but Tarquin and Miron was privy to Tyrinar's thoughts on government. Oh, and he might have been dead at the time she ate him. The expression Tarquin referred to could have been due to rigor mortis.

You seem to want to apply the most charitable possible explanation for her involvement even where it's a particularly big stretch (rigor mortis? Come on, we know that's not what Tarquin meant). That's fine, I'm not going to do that. I see plenty of evidence here of her evil alignment.

Kish

2013-11-20, 05:47 PM

No. This is not a baby black dragon situation. She was an active participant in the formation of the Empire of Blood. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html) She also eats humans. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0721.html)
She's stupid (and young) and she does what she's told.

Again, just like Lord Tyrinar the Responsible (except that he probably didn't eat humans--though I wouldn't put it past Tarquin to serve him grilled lizardfolk, and everyone who eats at one of Tarquin's feasts eats sapients). Maybe you would classify Lord Tyrinar as evil just as readily, but there's still less than no indication of "adult," none of "partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood," and the phrasing "at least" indicates that it's theoretically possible she's completely responsible for them, which it really, really isn't. Kilkil does what Tarquin tells him, including sending people to a horrible death for annoying Tarquin, and almost certainly eats sapients whenever Tarquin holds a feast; he's officially Lawful Neutral.

Dragons cast as sorcerers; her low Intelligence would no more hamstring her spellcasting, were she old enough to cast, than Elan's low Intelligence hamstrings his.

(I think the Empress of Blood is probably evil in the same way Thog was/is; I just don't think we should overstate the evidence for her evil, or call her an adult, or give her responsibility for the inner workings of the Empire any more than I would give Thog responsibility for the inner workings of the Linear Guild, or suggest that her species makes her worse than Thog rather than her stupid cruelty making her Tarquin's Thog analogue.)

(Also, as Sir Leorik noted a while ago, William Shakespeare got a lot of mileage out of characters who were both terrible people and tragic figures, from Richard III to Macbeth to whatshisname in King Lear--not Lear himself, though he arguably qualifies, the official villain, Edmund or something. The Empress of Blood isn't quite like them, because they were all brilliant; at least some of the tragedy in question related to wasted potential. But being evil doesn't automatically exclude her from being a tragic figure.)

Angel Bob

2013-11-20, 05:48 PM

How do you figure? The courts were evil, but the bounty hunters were imprisoned for extorting the general, which we clearly saw them do. Just because the penalties were harsh doesn't mean they weren't guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

Ah, but that's not actually what they were charged with. The actual charges were due to the massive tavern brawl (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0731.html) that they participated in. Under the laws, Gannji was entirely within the rights of his occupation to do so, so long as it was "related to an approved bounty" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0731.html).

However, this could only be legally proved with his bounty-hunter license papers, which Kilkil conveniently "lost" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0735.html) because Tarquin is a petty little prick. So while Gannji offending Tarquin was the actual cause of his conviction and imprisonment, it was not the legal cause.

...That said, this doesn't change the fact that the courts still have disproportionate punishment out the wazoo, as was proved with the "public urination" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0787.html) incident.

zimmerwald1915

2013-11-20, 05:52 PM

You seem to want to apply the most charitable possible explanation for her involvement even where it's a particularly big stretch (rigor mortis? Come on, we know that's not what Tarquin meant). That's fine, I'm not going to do that. I see plenty of evidence here of her evil alignment.
I'm allowed to be charitable, yes?

orrion

2013-11-20, 05:58 PM

She's stupid (and young) and she does what she's told.

Again, just like Lord Tyrinar the Responsible (except that he probably didn't eat humans--though I wouldn't put it past Tarquin to serve him grilled lizardfolk, and everyone who eats at one of Tarquin's feasts eats sapients). Maybe you would classify Lord Tyrinar as evil just as readily, but there's still less than no indication of "adult," none of "partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood," and the phrasing "at least" indicates that it's theoretically possible she's completely responsible for them, which it really, really isn't. Kilkil does what Tarquin tells him, including sending people to a horrible death for annoying Tarquin, and almost certainly eats sapients whenever Tarquin holds a feast; he's officially Lawful Neutral.

Dragons cast as sorcerers; her low Intelligence would no more hamstring her spellcasting, were she old enough to cast, than Elan's low Intelligence hamstrings his.

(I think the Empress of Blood is probably evil in the same way Thog was/is; I just don't think we should overstate the evidence for her evil, or call her an adult, or give her responsibility for the inner workings of the Empire any more than I would give Thog responsibility for the inner workings of the Linear Guild.)

Heh, before your edit I was going to use Thog as an example of why the Empress was still evil.

Her being young MAY be a deterrent, but eventually doing enough evil deeds outweighs youth. The dragon is clearly old enough to make decisions by herself.. she just chooses not to think about them and defers them.

Regardless, nobody should be saying she is responsible for the inner workings. But she is contributing to the workings of the empire in general and she is evil.

AKA_Bait

2013-11-20, 05:59 PM

She's stupid (and young) and she does what she's told.

Which may excuse her somewhat if this were a "does she deserve to die" issue. It's not. It's an alignment issue and a "does AKA_Bait have a reason to view her as tragic" issue.

Again, just like Lord Tyrinar the Responsible (except that he probably didn't eat humans--though I wouldn't put it past Tarquin to serve him grilled lizardfolk, and everyone who eats at one of Tarquin's feasts eats sapients). Maybe you would classify Lord Tyrinar as evil just as readily,

If I thought he was involved as much as the strip seems to indicate the Empress is, yes I would.

but there's still less than no indication of "adult,"

Dragons cast as sorcerers; her low Intelligence would no more hamstring her spellcasting, were she old enough to cast, than Elan's low Intelligence hamstrings his.

You got me there, at least in terms of dragon age categories. I jumped to the conclusion of adult because the Empress isn't living at home with a parent, like the baby black dragon was.

none of "partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood," and the phrasing "at least" indicates that it's theoretically possible she's completely responsible for them, which it really, really isn't.

We can just disagree about that. I'm of the view that when you help found and nominally rule an evil empire you are "at least partially responsible for the atrocities of" that empire, even if you don't personally commit them.

I'm allowed to be charitable, yes?

Indeed, and I'm allowed not to be. We can respectfully disagree on the interpretation of those strips. :smallbiggrin:

Edit to respond to edits:

(Also, as Sir Leorik noted a while ago, William Shakespeare got a lot of mileage out of characters who were both terrible people and tragic figures, from Richard III to Macbeth to whatshisname in King Lear--not Lear himself, though he arguably qualifies, the official villain, Edmund or something. The Empress of Blood isn't quite like them, because they were all brilliant; at least some of the tragedy in question related to wasted potential. But being evil doesn't automatically exclude her from being a tragic figure.)

Didn't get around to that one. First, tragic as it is used most of the time now means "something I should feel bad about." I don't feel bad for evil creatures that eat people.

Frankly, I don't think she fits the Classical and Shakespearean mode either. Those tragic figures always possessed some virtue we were shown and a downfall brought about by a personal flaw. I haven't seen any virtues ascribed to the Empress so far.

Math_Mage

2013-11-20, 06:05 PM

Tyrinar's title proclaimed him bloody tyrant and the Empress had no reason to believe that was a lie. Indeed, I doubt anyone but Tarquin and Miron was privy to Tyrinar's thoughts on government.
That's why I said there's still a question of how much moral agency to attribute to EoB for that action. I don't include caveats as rhetorical flourishes to be ignored.

Oh, and he might have been dead at the time she ate him. The expression Tarquin referred to could have been due to rigor mortis.
...No. The semantic construction allows for it, but you know and I know that's not what happened, so let's not kid ourselves, okay?

The Giant

2013-11-20, 06:20 PM

First, I'm impressed that this topic went so far off topic that it ended up back at The Order of the Stick.

Second, I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that the Empress is young. I guess because the default red dragon gets spells as a juvenile? But she's an adult. Just an abnormally stupid adult, probably with too low a Charisma to cast sorcerer spells.

And third, she's not a non-sapient animal, so she doesn't get a pass on Evil actions due to low Intelligence. She kills people when they bore her or get in her way; she's Evil. The fact that she then eats them is neither here nor there.

zimmerwald1915

2013-11-20, 06:24 PM

...No. The semantic construction allows for it, but you know and I know that's not what happened, so let's not kid ourselves, okay?
I'll thank you not to tell me what I know, particularly because the thrust of my posting on this topic is that there's room for doubt. I'm curious; why are you being so quick to condemn someone for murder when it has yet to be eastablished that she's killed anyone? As far as I know, the only casualty of the Empress' to date has been a chair.

EDIT: ninja'd by the Giant. I'd have acknowledged it earlier, but posting from a phone in a tunnel precluded it.

Math_Mage

2013-11-20, 06:30 PM

I'll thank you not to tell me what I know, particularly because the thrust of my posting on this topic is that there's room for doubt. I'm curious; why are you being so quick to condemn someone for murder when it has yet to be eastablished that she's killed anyone? As far as I know, the only casualty of the Empress' to date has been a chair.
*looks up*
...Nah, you know what? I'll let that pass, too obvious.

zimmerwald1915

2013-11-20, 06:38 PM

*looks up*
...Nah, you know what? I'll let that pass, too obvious.
That's kind of you. Just for the record, it seems there is no longer room for doubt; the Empress is evil, and has a bodycount.

Kish

2013-11-20, 06:47 PM

And is an adult, which surprises me (because, yes, her attempting to gain mass to substitute for age categories in order to figure out arcane spells had me thinking she was legitimately too young to cast arcane spells, rather than having a Charisma penalty).

Grey Watcher

2013-11-20, 06:55 PM

First, I'm impressed that this topic went so far off topic that it ended up back at The Order of the Stick.

Apparently the comic is the alpha and omega of forum discussions.

AgentofHellfire

2013-11-20, 07:31 PM

Question, then. How "universal" does this 'male rule' thing need to be for the power imbalance to be acknowledged? Or rather, how does the fact that the system is imperfect change the idea that it's still biased heavily to empower men, at the expense of women more often than not?

The fact that it is utterly impossible for any discussion on mistreatment of women to happen without the mistreatment of men butting in - as if two wrongs make a right - is a problem.

I agree. But the reason why it's a problem is because the discussion is framed as, pretty often, a one-sided conflict, which is of course going to put people on that "side" (especially those that don't completely benefit from it, of which there are quite a few) a little bit off.

I'm not saying that women's treatment isn't an issue because of men's treatment, in other words. I'm saying ignoring men's treatment is part of the reason why women's treatment gets ignored, and if we are going to frame things from the perspective of changing what people say for the benefit of a movement, feminists (as a movement, not a beliefset) are going to be evaluated too.

For one thing, I think it would be a reasonable default assumption that that sexism has a common cause, as gender dynamics have always been defined in relation to each other. For 'strength', for example, to be considered a sign of masculinity, it needs to be juxtaposed with a group that is not considered to have that attribute. So perhaps a better question is, why wouldn't it have a common cause, or at least be closely tied?

That's not the kind of separation I was talking about, actually.

I definitely agree that to have a female gender role, you have to have an opposite male gender role, but you don't have to have every female gender role to have a particular female gender role at all. (Same with male ones).

It is not the job of feminism to actively go out of its way to object to certain portrayals of men. A movement that is preoccupied foremostly with the rights of women should not be expected to give the occasional pat on the heads of oppressed men as a condition for being taken seriously. That, in and of itself, is a form of expression of privilege. Feminism isn't about men, even if men suffer from the same problems it is trying to combat. Saying 'but feminism should take the time to acknowledge men's problems' too is both derailing to the problems that women are facing and speaks of a staggering entitlement, like one cannot bear to not be considered important in any movement. It's like the guys who try to make the concept of lesbians to be all about women who got 'burned' by guys, even though it's the one orientation that literally has nothing to do with men.

1. I would agree that any given movement doesn't have to work at dealing with every social ill, but feminism isn't, and doesn't claim to be, solely a women's rights thing. Its billing is as a gender egalitarian movement, and so it can't ignore things related to gender equality (or at the very least it can't then claim that dealing with those--important--things is a part of it)

Actually, you know what: If it's the job of random bystanders to deal with feminist issues, it's the job of feminists to deal with issues that, while not the first thing they talk about, are issues of gender equality.

2. More importantly, well...you made my argument for me: A gender role can't exist without its opposite. By not combatting the idea that certain traits are "male-preferred", you're preventing them from ever really becoming equally male and female preferred.
3. ...and we've already worked on, in media at least, a huge amount of the female stereotypes. There are already plenty of heroines now where before they were just the romantic attraction, there are a fair deal of women that don't fill the nurturer role, and so on. The male ones...are exactly the same. Order of the Stick (well, and this one other webcomic) is pretty much the only one I can think of that has done anything with this (and that's basically what Elan is).

Furthermore, there is a vast difference between oppressed men and oppressed women: Men are far more capable of fighting their own battles. Men are, while not guaranteed, far more likely to be heard and taken seriously when they speak out. Men don't need women to acknowledge their problems to try and make things better for themselves, they only need the initiative to go out there and educate themselves using the information others have gathered before them.

Yes, obviously not every type of man will be taken seriously by his social circle when he calls them out on, say, a prison rape joke, but if it were a woman, you could be damn sure she'd be waved off or dismissed as having no sense of humour or being oversensitive no matter if she were gorgeous or unattractive, fat or thin, weak or muscular, popular or socially awkward.

1.The outcome of this very thread kind of says otherwise, actually. (And hell, so's my own personal experience, but whatever)
2. You're certainly right, though, that there are a lot of times women do get ignored (not with regards to jokes, though, and frankly I don't even think those are a problem, but enh), but making it clearer that you don't just want things for your own group would help deal with that.

DaggerPen

2013-11-20, 09:10 PM

Yeah, this is going into my signature.

I'm seriously considering sacrificing a quote for it, myself.

As for what's passing for the topic at the moment, I actually had assumed that the Empress not being able to cast spells meant that she was pretty young, too, especially given Tyrinar's age. But it makes more sense for her to just have low charisma, now that I really think about it.

Doug Lampert

2013-11-21, 12:36 AM

Interestingly, it seems that it's easier to accept magic and dragons as believable than some changes in human nature. Perhaps it's generally easier to accept big differences to the real world, or perhaps it's because we intrinsically know humans better than we know the laws of physics.

I identify with characters, it's why people read fiction when all's said and done. Stories are about people. People act like people, that's how you can tell that they are people and identify with them. If they don't act like people, then the story isn't about anything.

Maybe the people are aliens and have differences from us, and the story is about those differences and their consequences, maybe the people are from a different culture or time and their reactions aren't like ours, but they're still people.

But when the character's act unrealistically enough it destroys the story in a way that no number of fireballs or flying dragons can.

An impossible premise in the story is fine, but unjustified unrealistic actions are not.

What's worse, when stories vary from what's real, the stories still need to be internally consistent. They actually need more internal consistency and consistency of things like whether coincidences happen than the real world has. (Something like 5 people have survived being ejected from a plane at high altitude without a chute. Unless it happens PRIOR to the main action of a story this is totally unacceptable in a story. Or read most Medal of Honor citations, you couldn't put that stuff in a story, no one would believe it. Audie Murphy's exploits were substantially toned down for the movie, because no one would believe the reality, and unusually Audie Murphy was allowed to star despite "not looking like a hero", whatever that means.)

Fireballs and dragons are fine as long as they work according to some sort of consistent set of rules, part of why OotS works is that the D&D rules provide much of this consistent framework. "Unrealistic" character actions are almost always decried as unrealistic BECAUSE they appear inconsistent.

TLDR: Fireballs are not a believability problem at all, but unrealistic behavior is story killing by its nature, since the story is about people and their behavior, and unrealistic behavior means we don't have that.

Doug Lampert

2013-11-21, 12:59 AM

EDIT: A version of this post that actually captured how I really feel was eaten by the forum's very restrictive limits on how long I have to make a post without being logged out automatically. This happens to me about every other post. This version is cruder and mildly overstates my interest in defending the indefensible.

Prior to hitting "post", hit Control-A followed by Control-V (if on a windows machine), this puts the entire post, including any quotes of other posts, into the clipboard. Then when the board eats your post, simply log back in, select all again on the post you're working on, and Control-C to copy in your original post.

GrayGriffin

2013-11-21, 01:03 AM

Prior to hitting "post", hit Control-A followed by Control-C (if on a windows machine), this puts the entire post, including any quotes of other posts, into the clipboard. Then when the board eats your post, simply log back in, select all again on the post you're working on, and Control-V to copy in your original post.

Fixed that for you.

Doug Lampert

2013-11-21, 01:09 AM

Fixed that for you.

Yeah, it probably works better your way. I can't even plead dyslexia on this one.

Actually, this is the internet, my claims need have no actual validity.

Obviously you're just trying to persecute me because as a dyslexic I got two letters in the wrong order! You probably kick puppies too.

Sorry about the first reply, I forgot where I was for an instant.

Carl

2013-11-21, 02:10 AM

AKA_Bait

2013-11-21, 02:23 AM

Apparently the comic is the alpha and omega of forum discussions.

::checks the forum title:: Just making sure I'm still in the right place. :smallwink:

Martichoras

2013-11-21, 02:39 AM

I made a deliberate effort to not sexualize her, even, since I realized a while ago that I was subconsciously "sexing up" almost all of the female characters. The fact that she still rates these kind of comments is very disappointing.

Thank you for setting right the one thing that has been bothering me about OOTS. Seeing you post this comment has increased my appreciation of the comic further (and it was already my favourite plot-driven web comic).

I have the same problem in my own creative work, by the way :smallredface:

Grey Watcher

2013-11-21, 02:47 AM

@Giant: I admit I've skimmed the thread reading your replies only.

I think the big reason so many are trying to reassure you over the joke is regional related, thanks to a board i frequent elsewhere i'm aware that the US, (where i believe you live), has some real oddities by the standards of other parts of the world.

I can't speak for the whole world but here in the UK at least tramp isn't necessarily always a huge insult. In fact it's considered pretty archaic here in the UK to the point you'd get a weird look if someone called you a tramp, in fact most would assume you where calling them scruffy without context because it's usually used to refer to homeless. When i let my beard grow out over-much my gran often mutter "it makes you look like a tramp".

Hussy is so archaic it would be considered barely insulting as well, and Skank was a playground insult in early teens and earlier when i was at school 10+ years ago, an adult would laugh in your face if you called them that, (it was also cross gender at school). I'm aware of the old usages so i could interpret Haley's use of it, but again it's not especially insulting.

I read the original Joke in that light. I just assumed you and Haley where using Tramp, Skanky, and Hussy as a non-odd sounding way of pointing out that many of Haley's enemies have been particularly active sexually. I didn't even read them as properly insulting. Haley was just pointing out facts in a deliberately jokey way to show how annoyed she was about the whole thing.

Burlew may correct me if I'm wrong, but I read his point as being less about the particular words used, and more about the content. Even if he were to go with as silly and archaic a word as "floozy" the point still stands that the go-to way to insult a woman is to suggest that she's having too much sex or wants sex more than is appropriate. And he feels uncomfortable reinforcing that tendency by repeating it. Hence, trying to do better with his female characters than he did in years past.

...

V i think fell afoul of one issue with the black dragons. Tiamat's reaction. Until we knew a bunch of actually non-evil part dragons where killed off it looked like the vast majority of the casualties where of an evil persuasion, so whilst it was grossly unjustified in many senses, (killing should always be a last resort when nothing else can be done IMO), the simple net good vs Evil ratio looked like it had prevented a lot of suffering via Dragon attacks at the expense of a bunch of apparently only evil beings. Not ideal, but overall net good to many. This was a case where keeping the draketooth's deaths secret for plot reasons got in the way of pushing home how bad things where. It's a difficult area to dip into as well as where getting deep into the cost of the mean's vs the value of the end's achieved, and that's a really tricky area to get right IMO.

Hope that helps you in some way.

Well, personally, I'm of the opinion that, to quote Benjamin Franklin (who was riffing on William Blackstone), "It is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer."

And to judge by some of the half-dragons in the comic where Familicide happens, it looks very likely that some of them were adventurers possibly doing good-guy adventury stuff until they were struck down without warning because they're distant cousins to Mama Black Dragon. Also, reasonably certain that those dragons still in their unhatched eggs have not yet become Evil.

On the subject of Tiamat herself, while she is Evil, she's also the Patron Goddess of the Chromatic Dragons. Including the ones who aren't actually Evil themselves. (Just as Nergal is an Evil God of Death, but death, in and of itself, isn't inherently evil. It's just an event.) And ss their patron, Tiamat's got every right (and, arguably a duty) to be enraged at the death of so many of her chosen people, regardless of her own or the victims' alignments.

Let's imagine an alternate reality in which the Starmetal Cave was inhabited by a, I dunno, Bronze dragon an her son. Order stumbles in, gets into a fight, Vaarsuvius kills the son, Mom comes back and swears she will seek to visit justice upon the murderer of her child. She attacks Vaarsuvius on the island, and, as a believer in eye-for-an-eye style justice, runs off to kill V's own children. V makes his deal with the IFCC, kills Mama Bronze Dragon and proceeds to use Familicide to wipe out her relatives. Now, are you telling me that Bahamut, Patron of the Metallic Dragons, is not going to be royally pissed off at this turn of events because he's listed as Lawful Good?

Carl

2013-11-21, 02:48 AM

I made a deliberate effort to not sexualize her, even, since I realized a while ago that I was subconsciously "sexing up" almost all of the female characters. The fact that she still rates these kind of comments is very disappointing.

Meant to respond to this as ell.

I don;t think you strictly failed, she's not in any way super sexy on her own, but the way she keeps smiling at Tarquin and Tarquin's charmer status with many wives does kind of encourage this. She also doesn't look 50 to e fair, not enough grey IMO, she should have a few streak's, or mention the dye's :smallbiggrin:. In fact without the mention of an adult daughter i'd have pegged her a no more than 30., maybe even upper 20's. Can't say why though, nothing overt, maybe just something about her personality comes off young instead.

Also i don't think you can totally avoid the sexing issue in a stick comic and still make your characters obviously female at a glance. Art style klimits probably also factor into Laurian's age.

oppyu

2013-11-21, 02:53 AM

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 03:04 AM

Meant to respond to this as ell.

I don;t think you strictly failed, she's not in any way super sexy on her own, but the way she keeps smiling at Tarquin and Tarquin's charmer status with many wives does kind of encourage this. She also doesn't look 50 to e fair, not enough grey IMO, she should have a few streak's, or mention the dye's :smallbiggrin:. In fact without the mention of an adult daughter i'd have pegged her a no more than 30., maybe even upper 20's. Can't say why though, nothing overt, maybe just something about her personality comes off young instead.

Also i don't think you can totally avoid the sexing issue in a stick comic and still make your characters obviously female at a glance. Art style klimits probably also factor into Laurian's age.

I'd agree. Besides, you'll have a hard time avoiding this unless you make her a complete hag - and it's not just the ladies. Believe me, the men don't get out of jail free on this one; I have been a busy little bee, working hard on my Tarquin/Scoundrel fanfictions, and they've shown no signs of being interested in each other except the unfortunate use of the word 'shag' in the last comic. Although that may be a bad example, since they're both supposed to be hot guys - but I've seen enough Roy/Durkon stories to know that people are really, really good at adding romantic/sexual subplots where none were intended to exist.

I mean, geeze, this was just suggested in the discussion thread for the latest comic.

Now that does bring up a possible idea. We have got to get Scoundrel out of this story. He is just too much of a lead character not to be allowed to horn in on the Order's story. But how to get rid of him. Right now he looks to escape pretty easily, but then what? He hardly seems to be the type to run away from the big scene, and even if he did, we would be thinking of his return for the next two books.

So alternate series. Our psion comes back and hits Scoundrel with another stun power. This knocks him out, at which point she claims him as her favor, and uses some mind magic to keep him prisoner. Whether he ends up as her toy or her daughter's, he can be presumed to be a prisoner for the next few weeks until the story is finished and thus at least not dominating the plot even if we still have to suffer constant claims he will escape and will appear next strip.

Yes, you did just read that. People are just pervs, sometimes - it may or may not have anything to do with sexism or society's misogyny or what have you. Sometimes a perv is just a perv, guys. And to a certain extent, that's ok, as long as they keep their creepy, creepy fetishes off of childsafe forums.

Brrrggghhh. I need to go wash my hands. :smallfrown:

Carl

2013-11-21, 04:28 AM

*tries to find one instance of Laurin smiling at Tarquin*.

Also, it's been implied that Tarquin isn't so much as a charmer as a despicable tyrant who tortures women into marrying him and then rapes them.

She tends to be smiling when she talks to him.

It's also not clear all his wives are unwilling, Elan's mum doesn't sound like she was and since Julio didn't crash the wedding I'm guessing Penelope wasn't.

@Aard_Rinn: If you want weird try this one on for size that ran through my head after one very weird dream of me reading OOtS.

Shojo decides the best way to mellow Miko is to find her someone, he knows however that's going to be hard so he comes up with a cunning plan. He buys a Rod of Hideous Lust off Julio, (Presumably looted from one of Tarkies weddings), and tells her it's a Rod Of Command that will give her command over a specific evildoer he wants her to stop. Belkar.

I'll let you fill in the details :smallamused:...

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 04:34 AM

*Highfives Carl*

There, you see? Exactly.

But let's not discuss this particular topic further, lest we summon the hammer of ban. I merely intended to illustrate my point... Sharing really isn't necessary.

Brrrrr.

oppyu

2013-11-21, 04:48 AM

She tends to be smiling when she talks to him.

It's also not clear all his wives are unwilling, Elan's mum doesn't sound like she was and since Julio didn't crash the wedding I'm guessing Penelope wasn't.

@Aard_Rinn: If you want weird try this one on for size that ran through my head after one very weird dream of me reading OOtS.

Shojo decides the best way to mellow Miko is to find her someone, he knows however that's going to be hard so he comes up with a cunning plan. He buys a Rod of Hideous Lust off Julio, (Presumably looted from one of Tarkies weddings), and tells her it's a Rod Of Command that will give her command over a specific evildoer he wants her to stop. Belkar.

I'll let you fill in the details :smallamused:...
Moving right past your little fanfic idea (you realise that a Rod of Hideous Lust is basically a magical date rape drug right? So anything that happens under the influence of that is rape) I've gone through all of Laurin's appearances (yes, I'm obsessive.) She smiles exactly once, when she's extorting a favour from Tarquin in return for her helping to kill some people. Not sure if that qualifies as a tendency.

And there is absolutely nothing in the strip that suggests that she finds Tarquin at all attractive, or that Tarquin is remotely charming. When he was flirting with his son's girlfriend (ewwwwwwwwww), Haley certainly didn't seem charmed at all. Despite the fact that we can safely argue that Tarquin may not have raped all of his wives (which is very high on the list of desirable qualities in a man).

Carl

2013-11-21, 04:48 AM

Lol, just wanted to see the reaction TBH, but yeah lets leave it there. Honestly imagining the horrified audience reactions was the funniest part of that going through my head.

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 05:11 AM

IDK - the first woman we see him trying to seduce, right after Elan met him - I'll find the strip in a bit - certainly seemed charmed until she realized that he had betrayed her... So deceptive, sure! Rapey? Perhaps! But definitely charming...

He seems like the sort of smooth villain who'd be good at charming his way into women's confidences, if you catch my drift.

And of course Haley wasn't interested - she has preexisting romantic attachments. But if she had been single, and just a bit less mistrustful, who's to say that she wouldn't have been charmed by the interests of a handsome older man? It seems perfectly reasonable - after all, some girls are into older guys, and he's famous, rich, powerful, domineering, attractive, and just the right amount of misogynistic - after all, that basically describes Dorian Grey, and a lot of girls are into that sort of a guy. I doubt he'd have any trouble finding willing ladies, were he to put his mind to it.

In fact, I can see him and Scoundrel having something worked out, TBH - Tarquin gets to the altar with a lady, and if they're unwilling, Julio flies in and scoops them up. After all, they've both shown a deep-seated love of a good story - I can see Tarquin wanting to play the part of a Bluebeard, and Julio, of course, is the dashing rescuer who saves (and ravishes! :smallbiggrin:) the ladies. Of course, that's unlikely, given the dialogue between the two, but I can totally see them doing it - a you-scratch-my-back, I-scratch-yours not unlike Tarquin&Co's rule of the continent, more geared towards appearances and adherence to character tropes than anything.

Math_Mage

2013-11-21, 05:14 AM

That sort of arrangement is Tarquin's thing, but emphatically not Scoundrel's. He has no reason to plan his encounters that way, and no reason to plan them with Tarquin of all people.

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 05:25 AM

Maybe not by arrangement, but if there's generally a profusion of unwilling wives-to-be in Tarquin's area, I bet he'd catch on and realize that he has a good opportunity to bed a series of grateful princesses/senators/ambassadors/comely tavern wenches, and possibly receive a reward from their grateful nations. And there's no good story in 'rescuing' a willing wife, so of course he'd only save the ones who want to get rescued... After a while, I can see things working out so that when Julio swoops in to save one of Tarquin's unwilling victims, he just quietly waves down the mages, fires a few good ballistae shots across the bow of the Mechane, and grumbles good riddance to himself as he goes about seducing the next attractive woman. After all, he's got to keep up appearances... :smallamused:

I can totally see the two of them just quietly going about their business, constantly marrying/saving young ladies, leaving a path of twitterpated young woman across the continent... Maybe not a formal agreement, but a sort of... understanding between the pair, themselves never able to speak of the true passion that drives their actions, a forbidden lust for... each other...

Huh? What? Sorry, I drifted...:smalltongue:

Carl

2013-11-21, 05:28 AM

@Aard: Lol, yeah not Julio's thing but funny to imagine.

@Oppyu: Actually hideous lust is probably a misnomer in naming, (blame shojo's account to the order ok), love potion in a rod would be a better description of the effects, (and level of NSFW, i.e. none), just to clarify that so no one gets the wrong idea :smallwink:.

oppyu

2013-11-21, 05:43 AM

@Aard_Rinn Ugh, I swear to the Gods that up to this point I somehow missed the fact that Amun-Zora and Tarquin slept together. Just... wow. *facepalm* Dude certainly seems creepy as all hell, but there's no accounting for taste I suppose.

@Carl Aaaaaaand what makes you think that a love potion is better than a date rape drug? If anything, it's absolutely worse, since it presumably lasts longer than one night.

Kish

2013-11-21, 06:04 AM

IDK - the first woman we see him trying to seduce, right after Elan met him - I'll find the strip in a bit - certainly seemed charmed until she realized that he had betrayed her...

She seemed pleased when the first thing he said to her was, "Certainly, I am nearly as eager to give you everything you came here to ask for as you are to receive it." He could have been a woman or a lizardfolk or a flying kobold; not being pleased would indicate she was either crazy or already suspicious.

Her ever showing the slightest trace of positive reaction to Tarquin hitting on her is in the same secret only-on-your-computer bonus strips where Carl sees Laurin smiling giddily at Tarquin.

But if she had been single, and just a bit less mistrustful, who's to say that she wouldn't have been charmed by the interests of a handsome older man?

Who told her she had perky breasts immediately after meeting her? Yeah...no, and your post gets worse after that.

Edited to add: Go back to "missing" that they slept together, oppyu; they didn't. He called her to his room, she told him she was already married, he acted like it didn't matter, she got creeped out, and that's the end of it.

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 06:22 AM

Ah, yes, I'm sure I don't understand the ladies at all. Nope. No understanding of women, that's me....

And yeah, I didn't remember the exact line he used on Haley. I'll give you that one, sure; he was way to blunt, although in light of her relationship with his son, I can see that being a mysogynstic joke rather than an actual attempt to seduce her. But in a world where 50 Shades of Grey is considered a hot romantic story, "porn for the 40's set", can you honestly tell me there aren't women who are attracted to guys like that, or don't find the concept appealing, even if they might not actually get with a guy like that?

Hell, if I were to meet him, I would find that sort of confidence and self assuredness attractive. I would find the attention from an older, powerful, physically appealing man attractive - I'm usually into topping, but there's always exceptions, and I do have a thing for grey hair... Even the whole 'evil' bit isn't necessarily a turn-off, TBH - a lot of women have fantasies about being the one-and-only person a bad boy shows his gentle side to.

To say that someone "doesn't begin to understand women" because their interests in sexual partners differs from yours... well, you might as well have just turned on bold print and written "Self-righteous, condescending prat", TBH. I'm a woman - I know what appeals to me in a partner. I see other woman in the world around me - I'm not blind, I can pick up on what makes an appealing sexual fantasy when Twighlight and 50 Shades top the best-sellers list, with their domineering, controlling, rapey male leads. So don't tell me about how terrible I am for saying that I can understand why women might find Tarquin attractive. I never said that he wasn't a terrible person - I merely said that I could see him having women willing to sleep with him regardless, and then proposed a humorous anecdote about how he might deal with unwilling wives if he weren't a rapist.

Carl

2013-11-21, 06:25 AM

@oppyu: I think i need to take this to PM as otherwise we'll go wildly off-topic, got to go out first though.

@Kish: where did i say giddily? I just remember her seeming remarkably cheerful sounding and happy around tarquin.

Also the Tarquin charisma debate has already been had pretty conclusively elsewhere by other's.

Kish

2013-11-21, 06:29 AM

@Kish: where did i say giddily? I just remember her seeming remarkably cheerful sounding and happy around tarquin.
And, you know, it's a funny thing. If I actually look at those old strips, it looks like she's constantly annoyed with Tarquin. So, um, yeah. You'd have a better case that both Malack and Miron want to have sex with Tarquin.

oppyu

2013-11-21, 06:42 AM

@Kish Oh good, that was my original and preferred interpretation.

@Aard_Rinn ... yeah, looking back, I could see how my post could have come off as seeming self-righteous, condescending and prattish, in that I was embodying all three of those traits. I... uh...very sorry about that. In my defence, I wasn't personally attacking you, I was attacking all women who had that taste... because that's totally better... I'll stop typing now. Sorry.

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 06:47 AM

oppyu

2013-11-21, 07:03 AM

Oppyu: Aw, no worries! *Hugs* I get where you're coming from, I guess - and I definitely agree about Haley, upon rereading the original strips. Buddies?

Edit: Wait. Am confuzzled. IGNORE ME (Until I get screennames straightened out.)

Edit II: Wait, still confuzzled. Why are you apologizing, Oppyu? I was talking about Kish's post... I do not think you are self-righteous, condescending, or a prat! You seem like a wonderful person!
Oh, I thought you meant the 'no accounting for taste' comment... well I'm sorry regardless, I sounded like someone's elder and extremely judgmental relative. But yeah, buddies! :smallbiggrin:

ShinyRocks

2013-11-21, 09:12 AM

So. Many. Thinks.

It's distressing how often in fiction I find myself screaming 'Just because you make them think they want it, doesn't mean it's not rape'. I find love potions/love spells/basically every episode of Torchwood problematic for that reason.

I think it's extremely charitable to assume that the original joke in this thread/sexist or racist etc jokes in general are, by default, intended to mock that stance and people who hold it, rather than, you know, be sexist or racist or whatever. That certainly *happens*, but I don't think it's possible to assume it's always the case. It was problematic for two reasons: the idea that someone enjoying sex is a bad thing at all, rather than just a thing; and the fact that Laurin is a woman and therefore is a slut, because that's literally her only common factor with Sabine et al. She's got a daughter, so she must have had sex (in before 'maybe she's adopted'). I don't think for a moment that the OP intended all those implications, but they're there for the reading. It behooves us all to think about what we say.

It's just a joke isn't a defense. It's hard, because nobody wants to be told that they're a sexist/racist/etc (well, a few people don't care, obviously). But you can easily perform a sexist [etc] act/say a sexist thing without being sexist. And no matter how good your intentions, and now matter how clean your conscience, if you upset someone, then you're beholden to at least think 'Oh, I hadn't looked at it like that', rather than get defensive.

When you're in the position of power, you don't get to say what the 'weaker' party's experience is. You just don't. I'm an educated gay white man who works in media: my privilege card is pretty full. But in the same way I can get upset if I see, say, straight comedians making jokes about gay people (even if their *intent* is to mock the stereotype, not to mock gay people), I'm on very risky ground if I make a racist joke with the intention of mocking racism. It's possible, it can work, it can even be quite powerful and provocative, but it is far from straightforward.

Finally, men do suffer, of course. Individual men can have financial problems, lose loved ones, get sick, etc etc etc. I don't think anybody is denying that. And there are problems that men deal with as a result of 'society' - the expectation of stoicism, unwillingness to express emotion, the idea of 'real' men being strong and rugged etc etc etc. Those are not good. But men are still, in broad strokes, inordinately better off than women. So if a woman calls a man a ... pig, I guess? that's not the same as a man calling a woman a slut, because the woman isn't doing so from a position of centuries-old power. Same as when I hear white people complaining that a black person called them 'honky', and that's racist and how come black people can say the N-word but we can't? Because. It's. Not. The. Same.

Sprawling. Discussing real world stuff. Probably not entirely brilliantly composed. But things I felt like saying.

AKA_Bait

2013-11-21, 09:29 AM

And, you know, it's a funny thing. If I actually look at those old strips, it looks like she's constantly annoyed with Tarquin.

That's how I always saw it too. Like she's one of your friends whose helping you move but doesn't really want to be there.

Carl

2013-11-21, 11:32 AM

@Shinyrocks: I'll copy my PM to your PM box too :), just got back in so give me a bit, want to check new posts ;).

Sir_Leorik

2013-11-21, 12:45 PM

Again, just like Lord Tyrinar the Responsible (except that he probably didn't eat humans--though I wouldn't put it past Tarquin to serve him grilled lizardfolk, and everyone who eats at one of Tarquin's feasts eats sapients). Maybe you would classify Lord Tyrinar as evil just as readily, but there's still less than no indication of "adult," none of "partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood," and the phrasing "at least" indicates that it's theoretically possible she's completely responsible for them, which it really, really isn't. Kilkil does what Tarquin tells him, including sending people to a horrible death for annoying Tarquin, and almost certainly eats sapients whenever Tarquin holds a feast; he's officially Lawful Neutral.

I saw Lord Tyrinar the Bloody as a patsy Tarquin put on the throne. He struck me as rather True Neutral; he wasn't really into the whole dictatorship thing, but he was willing to go along with it for a little while. By contrast, Kilkil is Lawful Neutral because he's part of the machinery that makes Tarquin's Evil Empire run. Kilkil never actually does anything Evil, per se (unlike Tarquin, Malack or the rest of their gang) but he makes sure that the soldiers are paid, the dinosaur fodder is ordered, he hires the chefs who cut the livers out of Phoenixes, and he bought flowers for Penelope. What keeps Kilkil from sliding over the line to Lawful Evil is that he is the go-between, not the master or the soldier or torturer carrying out the orders. If the Empire ever falls, and Kilkil were placed on trial (with a thick glass shield to protect him from assassins) he'd probably be sentenced to a lifetime of heavy labor, rather than given the death penalty.

(Also, as Sir Leorik noted a while ago, William Shakespeare got a lot of mileage out of characters who were both terrible people and tragic figures, from Richard III to Macbeth to whatshisname in King Lear--not Lear himself, though he arguably qualifies, the official villain, Edmund or something. The Empress of Blood isn't quite like them, because they were all brilliant; at least some of the tragedy in question related to wasted potential. But being evil doesn't automatically exclude her from being a tragic figure.)

There are a few stupid or thuggish characters, like Laertes, who die in tragic ways that could have been avoided if they'd been less willing to listen to villains like Claudius. Laertes may have felt justified in dueling Hamlet due to the deaths of Polonius and Ophelia, but he agreed to a dishonorable tactic like poison only because of Claudius' scheming. Claudius couldn't take a chance that Hamlet would beat Laertes, and Laertes bought into Claudius' plan. Then Laertes is disarmed during the duel, and he gets hoist by his poisoned petard.

The EoB is a thuggish and stupid character, just like Crystal. The difference is that Bozzok doesn't try to trick Crystal into doing stupid things, he tries to keep her on a tight leash so her stupidity doesn't get either of them killed. Tarquin doesn't care about the EoB, except so far as she's a pawn to be manipulated. If she eats someone now and then, so long as it doesn't interfere with Tarquin's plans, good for her. As for her diet, I really think Tarquin put the seeds into her mind.

As for what's passing for the topic at the moment, I actually had assumed that the Empress not being able to cast spells meant that she was pretty young, too, especially given Tyrinar's age. But it makes more sense for her to just have low charisma, now that I really think about it.

What does Lord Tyrinar's age have to do with the EoB being able to cast Sorcerer spells? :smallconfused:

It's distressing how often in fiction I find myself screaming 'Just because you make them think they want it, doesn't mean it's not rape'. I find love potions/love spells/basically every episode of Torchwood problematic for that reason.

One TV show that didn't shy away from this issue (unsurprisingly) was "Buffy: the Vampire Slayer". In a season 6 episode, Warren, Jonathan and Andrew come up with a device that lets them control people. Warren uses it to mind control his ex-girlfriend (who dumped him after she learned about the fem-bot he'd built and then dumped) into being his sex toy. She snaps out of the mind control, and she point blank tells The Trio that what they planned to do was rape. This makes Jonathan and Andrew very uncomfortable, and as the ex-girlfriend tries to make a run for it, Warren flat out murders her, possibly because the truth of her words hit a little too close to home for him as well.

I'm not sure how often the Torchwood gang were using their confiscated alien toys in this way, but I believe the answer is "even one time is too many".

I think it's extremely charitable to assume that the original joke in this thread/sexist or racist etc jokes in general are, by default, intended to mock that stance and people who hold it, rather than, you know, be sexist or racist or whatever. That certainly *happens*, but I don't think it's possible to assume it's always the case. It was problematic for two reasons: the idea that someone enjoying sex is a bad thing at all, rather than just a thing; and the fact that Laurin is a woman and therefore is a slut, because that's literally her only common factor with Sabine et al. She's got a daughter, so she must have had sex (in before 'maybe she's adopted'). I don't think for a moment that the OP intended all those implications, but they're there for the reading. It behooves us all to think about what we say.

And this part of the problem. Laurin dresses very modestly, is very stoic (with some exceptions), and she acts like a mother trying to protect her daughter, not a "cougar". The only line that indicates her sexual history, is a running gag about Julio Scoundrel, and even then the implication is that she had a poster of him on her wall when she was a teen. The joke is really about Julio, not about Laurin. Nevertheless there are lots of posters whose WMG are that the favor Laurin wants involves sex. Even though there's no evidence at all, that's the first concusion they leap to.

As for Sabine, she's a pretty complex character, despite being a Succubus. She's as much a warrior as a temptress, as shown by her going several rounds mano a mano with Roy. Sabine's story isn't over yet. :smallcool:

Shale

2013-11-21, 12:48 PM

Kish

2013-11-21, 12:50 PM

Hannah could easily be adopted, for that matter. (I doubt Tarquin would take adoption seriously--but I doubt he'd ever really grant that anyone else's children were particularly important except in that person's deluded-but-maybe-necessary-to-cater-to mind, either.)

Sir_Leorik

2013-11-21, 12:54 PM

The only line she's had that implies her sexual history is that we assume she slept with Hannah's father at least once. It's possible to have a poster on your wall without using it as a masturbation aid.

Maybe I should clarify my earlier comment. A running gag about Julio Scoundrel is that while he was considered the object of many women's fancy when he was younger, he's aged since, albeit quite gracefully. Laurin has obviously matured, but she remembers that as a teenager she put a poster of Julio on her bedroom wall. Since she never finished her line, I do not presume anything more than that. The joke is aimed at Julio's expense, not Laurin's. But some people will assume otherwise. :smallannoyed:

Dragonus45

2013-11-21, 01:37 PM

But in a world where 50 Shades of Grey is considered a hot romantic story, "porn for the 40's set", can you honestly tell me there aren't women who are attracted to guys like that, or don't find the concept appealing, even if they might not actually get with a guy like that?

My problem with 50 Shades of Grey really can be summed up in one chapter. It's the chapter I could not read past, anyone who has read it knows the chapter I mean. It's a rape fantasy story. It shoots past dominance and BDSM so fast they didn't even have time to wave. Yet somehow its still one of the most popular books of all time, amongst women. Somehow I'm getting cognitive dissonance from that.

allenw

2013-11-21, 01:42 PM

The only line she's had that implies her sexual history is that we assume she slept with Hannah's father at least once. It's possible to have a poster on your wall without using it as a masturbation aid.

Really? No accounting for taste, I guess. (http://wanderingblonde.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/farrah_fawcett_poster.jpg) :smallwink: (Safe for work).

Regarding "Fifty Shades of Grey": Never read it, won't see the movie... but I loved this SNL ad. (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82537879/) (Kinda not-safe-for-work, or at least as NSFW as something from Saturday Night Live could be).

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 03:11 PM

My problem with 50 Shades of Grey really can be summed up in one chapter. It's the chapter I could not read past, anyone who has read it knows the chapter I mean. It's a rape fantasy story. It shoots past dominance and BDSM so fast they didn't even have time to wave. Yet somehow its still one of the most popular books of all time, amongst women. Somehow I'm getting cognitive dissonance from that.

See, I think there are two things to consider here.

First, there is a real, widely-accepted stigma in society against people who are sexually submissive. People forget that the 'sub' in a consensual Dom-Sub partnership isn't there because they're weaker or in some way victimized - they're there because they enjoy submission. Yet many people, including primarily certain strains of feminist, act like a woman submitting is something to be ashamed of. So women who are interested in that sort of lifestyle repress it, because people around them tell them that they can't be socially independent, successful, and still sexually submissive.

The second problem I have with 50 Shades is this: There is nothing inherently wrong with BDSM. There is nothing inherently wrong with rape fantasy. However, that book portrays what is clearly a rape, and a rape fantasy, as a BDSM relationship - that's not accurate. It's dangerous because it portrays Dorian Grey's gaslighting and rape of a young woman as an acceptable thing, without ever making it clear that no, this is wrong - if this is happening in real life, it is wrong. And in doing so, it puts women in danger - of entering the BDSM subculture and thinking that that sort of behavior is okay, and of being dismissed if they seek help. There's no use of SSC in 50S, no safewords, threats, bondage without concern for the physical and emotional safety of the submissive - practices totally unacceptable within any respectable BDSM community, but with an influx of inexperienced newbies, there's always the risk of introduction. And if a 'dominating, forceful' man like Dorian becomes idealized, complaints about partners that are too forceful become all too easy to ignore...

It's a pretty disturbing book, tbh.

Scow2

2013-11-21, 03:43 PM

See, I think there are two things to consider here.

First, there is a real, widely-accepted stigma in society against people who are sexually submissive. People forget that the 'sub' in a consensual Dom-Sub partnership isn't there because they're weaker or in some way victimized - they're there because they enjoy submission. Yet many people, including primarily certain strains of feminist, act like a woman submitting is something to be ashamed of. So women who are interested in that sort of lifestyle repress it, because people around them tell them that they can't be socially independent, successful, and still sexually submissive.

The second problem I have with 50 Shades is this: There is nothing inherently wrong with BDSM. There is nothing inherently wrong with rape fantasy. However, that book portrays what is clearly a rape, and a rape fantasy, as a BDSM relationship - that's not accurate. It's dangerous because it portrays Dorian Grey's gaslighting and rape of a young woman as an acceptable thing, without ever making it clear that no, this is wrong - if this is happening in real life, it is wrong. And in doing so, it puts women in danger - of entering the BDSM subculture and thinking that that sort of behavior is okay, and of being dismissed if they seek help. There's no use of SSC in 50S, no safewords, threats, bondage without concern for the physical and emotional safety of the submissive - practices totally unacceptable within any respectable BDSM community, but with an influx of inexperienced newbies, there's always the risk of introduction. And if a 'dominating, forceful' man like Dorian becomes idealized, complaints about partners that are too forceful become all too easy to ignore...

It's a pretty disturbing book, tbh.Does it really? I don't know much of BDSM culture (And I've not read the book in question), but from what I've gathered from what I've seen on both sides, pre-established protections like Safewords are roughly comparable to a stuntman's safety harness/net at a Movie Shoot, or foam swords at a LARP - Stuff that's important to protect the people in real life, but breaks the 'immersion' of the scene when it's invoked.

If it were in real life, it would be wrong. But it's a fantasy and a story. The "safeties" are put in place by the author and narrativium - There's no need to draw or pre-establish an explicit line because the Author will make sure that line's never crossed. The characters of a story give full consent to everything that happens to them by being featured in that story.

I'm not really sure how valid the comments about new people being unable to distinguish the elements of the fantasy from the elements of the real act are, though.

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 03:56 PM

Oh yeah, in the book there's no issue with that - like I said, the book is a rape fantasy. The problem is that everyone treats it like a BDSM story and it's not.

Even beyond that, though - even ignoring the lack of simple safety measures, which isn't uncommon in BDSM stories, although good, immersive stories can and often do include them - it clearly shows him brainwashing and raping a young woman. That's not BDSM. That's okay as a story, but what's not okay is the fact that the author is selling this as a BDSM story, and people are treating it as an honest depiction of the lifestyle.

The Giant

2013-11-21, 04:08 PM

Hey guys? Let's not talk about BDSM on this message board, OK?

Aard_Rinn

2013-11-21, 04:11 PM

Fair enough!

Math_Mage

2013-11-21, 04:36 PM

And yeah, I didn't remember the exact line he used on Haley. I'll give you that one, sure; he was way to blunt, although in light of her relationship with his son, I can see that being a mysogynstic joke rather than an actual attempt to seduce her. But in a world where 50 Shades of Grey is considered a hot romantic story, "porn for the 40's set", can you honestly tell me there aren't women who are attracted to guys like that, or don't find the concept appealing, even if they might not actually get with a guy like that?
I can honestly tell you I find it highly unlikely that the story was written to respect that possibility, which is the salient point. You're blurring the lines between "what can be found in the real world" and "what we can reasonably expect to find in the narrative."

Scow2

2013-11-21, 04:45 PM

I can honestly tell you I find it highly unlikely that the story was written to respect that possibility, which is the salient point. You're blurring the lines between "what can be found in the real world" and "what we can reasonably expect to find in the narrative."
The narrative tends to contain things that are extremely common in the real world, unless you go for making the narrative deliberately idealized and conscious of purging the way real people act around others from it.

Reddish Mage

2013-11-25, 01:11 AM

And this part of the problem. Laurin dresses very modestly, is very stoic (with some exceptions), and she acts like a mother trying to protect her daughter, not a "cougar". The only line that indicates her sexual history, is a running gag about Julio Scoundrel, and even then the implication is that she had a poster of him on her wall when she was a teen. The joke is really about Julio, not about Laurin. Nevertheless there are lots of posters whose WMG are that the favor Laurin wants involves sex. Even though there's no evidence at all, that's the first concusion they leap to.

As for Sabine, she's a pretty complex character, despite being a Succubus. She's as much a warrior as a temptress, as shown by her going several rounds mano a mano with Roy. Sabine's story isn't over yet. :smallcool:

Yes, Laurin's lack of sexualization is quite apparent, however what is interesting is Sabine isn't all that much of a temptress. We've only seen her try to tempt Roy and Miko (really bad choice of targets!) and both reacted by attacking her! She also has what appears to be in a close relationship with Nale, who she is very much in love with. Sabine seems to swoon a bit by Elan's aggressive kiss, and both Nale and Sabine are even positively jealous of each other!

Sabine's expressions of unrestrained sexuality are strictly off-camera and references to it are alternatively so humdrum or experimental that it hardly allows us to imagine a Sabine that would act in the manner of an expert temptress and "incarnation of illicit sex."

Ramien

2013-11-25, 01:31 AM

Yes, Laurin's lack of sexualization is quite apparent, however what is interesting is Sabine isn't all that much of a temptress. We've only seen her try to tempt Roy and Miko (really bad choice of targets!) and both reacted by attacking her! She also has what appears to be in a close relationship with Nale, who she is very much in love with. Sabine seems to swoon a bit by Elan's aggressive kiss, and both Nale and Sabine are even positively jealous of each other!

Sabime expressions of unrestrained sexuality are strictly off-camera and references to it are alternatively so humdrum or experimental that it hardly allows us to imagine a Sabine that would act in the manner of an expert temptress and "incarnation of illicit sex."

I think a lot of that is due to the nature of her mission and her relationship with Nale. She's not out to try and seduce the masses; her mission was to work with and support Nale, and the relationship he developed with her, both personal and professional, would be damaged if he saw her trying to seduce anyone that looked like a good target.

Math_Mage

2013-11-25, 02:06 AM

The narrative tends to contain things that are extremely common in the real world, unless you go for making the narrative deliberately idealized and conscious of purging the way real people act around others from it.
My claim is that the stated sentiment is uncommon at best in the real world and even less likely to be found in the narrative than in the real world, due both to the fact that reality is stranger than fiction, and to the attitude of this particular narrative's author, not to mention what is actually found in the narrative itself. I don't think that is in conflict with what you wrote.

David Argall

2013-11-25, 03:57 AM

* I understand why loose sexual behavior was *originally* classed as a moral issue. It was all about damage to the man that the woman belonged to, and simply being thought to be sexually "loose" was damaging to a man
Actually it is the reverse. We boys are thrilled by the idea of loose women and want them around, at least for the moment. But it is the ownership of the man by a "decent" woman that is threatened by our slut.
Note here it is Haley who makes the claim of sexual misbehavior. She sees Samantha and the other shanks as threats to her claim to Elan. This is normal female behavior, to call other female all varieties of sexually immoral.
It is the style to blame males for everything, but it is other women who condemn the available lass as criminal.

Math_Mage

2013-11-25, 06:56 AM

I'm pretty sure condemnation of loose women comes from both genders, for different but related reasons, and did not somehow originate with one gender. Just sayin'.

jere7my

2013-11-25, 10:58 PM

Actually it is the reverse. We boys are thrilled by the idea of loose women and want them around, at least for the moment. But it is the ownership of the man by a "decent" woman that is threatened by our slut.
Note here it is Haley who makes the claim of sexual misbehavior. She sees Samantha and the other shanks as threats to her claim to Elan. This is normal female behavior, to call other female all varieties of sexually immoral.
It is the style to blame males for everything, but it is other women who condemn the available lass as criminal.

Oh, David David David. This is false, both historically and contemporarily. Yes, women do condemn other women for their sexual activity, but they are, and were, by no means the only ones to do so. And since women hold, and held, proportionally less societal power than men their disapprobation is proportionally less significant.

Many men like a "loose woman" until she decides she's not quite loose enough to sleep with a particular man, or they find out that their new sweetie has had a varied and enthusiastic sexual history; then the woman suddenly becomes a slut. And that's assuming the man believes in casual sexual contact; there are millions in the US alone who think any woman who has premarital sex is a slut (though they're happy to turn a blind eye to a man doing the same, because "boys will be boys"). This reputation, in addition to the social stigma it carries, can get a woman fired, or beaten, or any number of other consequences. If you want to leave our cozy borders, there are countries where a woman (and not a man) can be executed for adultery, or for being raped. (Yes, really.)

Moving back in time, of course, a woman was a daughter until she was a wife, and at no point in that process was her value (as defined by father and husband) increased by multiple sexual partners.

I'm painting with a broad brush here—there are plenty of men who believe women should be free to sleep with whomever they want without being judged, and if you're among them I salute you. But that, alas, isn't the norm in our society, and young women who choose to have multiple partners can suffer real consequences from the men they encounter, both socially and professionally.

Angel Bob

2013-11-26, 12:48 PM

Dammit Argall, you do not speak for all males. Stop dragging me and so many other decent people under the rancid umbrella of your royal 'we'. Getting seriously fed up here with your poison's ability to slip through my Ignore list. :smallannoyed:

mhsmith

2013-11-26, 05:48 PM

Ward.

2013-11-26, 09:37 PM

you're among them I salute you. But that, alas, isn't the norm in our society, and young women who choose to have multiple partners can suffer real consequences from the men they encounter, both socially and professionally.

That's false, you can't be fired for having an active sex life outside of the working enviroment and the legal system is heavilly slanted towards the women in those cases.

In regards to the Op, I think the confusion regarding its nature as a joke stems from it not being a very good joke. In terms of set up, delivery and leangth for subject matter.

Kish

2013-11-26, 09:41 PM

That's false, you can't be fired for having an active sex life outside of the working enviroment and the legal system is heavilly slanted towards the women in those cases.
So...it doesn't happen but when it does the legal system is heavily slanted toward the woman?

Shale

2013-11-26, 09:44 PM

Also there are professional consequences other than getting fired.

(Which is not to say that there have not been instances of women being fired for, e.g., being "distractingly" attractive)

jere7my

2013-11-26, 10:22 PM

That's false, you can't be fired for having an active sex life outside of the working enviroment and the legal system is heavilly slanted towards the women in those cases

Tell that to Melanie Martinez, who was fired as host of a TV show on Sprout because she'd appeared in slightly risqué safe sex parody videos some years before. Tell it to the many women who lost their jobs because intimate photos were put up on revenge websites by their ex-boyfriends, or creeps who hacked their accounts. Tell it to the teachers I know who have to hide their sex lives, and sometimes their sexual orientations, if they want to continue working.

Even in cases where it's illegal to fire someone for having a sex life, a sufficiently motivated creep in a position of power can trump up an excuse.

Ward.

2013-11-27, 12:12 AM

So...it doesn't happen but when it does the legal system is heavily slanted toward the woman?

No it doesn't happen because the legal system is so heavily slanted against it.

All teachers have to keep both their sex lives and private lives under close wraps, it's the nature of the profession.

jere7my

2013-11-27, 12:21 AM

No it doesn't happen because the legal system is so heavily slanted against it.

Look, it's sweet that you don't think it happens, but it does. It has happened to women I personally know, who lost their jobs because someone at work got wind of their sexual habits. In one case, a creep in a different department hacked into her personal email account, found a picture of her in the bath with exactly one (1) nipple showing, and distributed it on a company-wide forum. She lost her job; he didn't. Maybe she'd've had a legal case, if she'd had the free time and the money to pursue one, but why should she even have to?

Even a woman who doesn't lose her job altogether can suffer professional consequences (like being passed over for promotion) because of the things people learn about her sex life. Even if that happens to be illegal in your state, it's a very difficult case to prove.

What's your legal opinion of this one, from four months ago?

An Iowa dentist did not engage in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired his assistant after concluding she was so attractive that he feared they might have an extramarital affair, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

The seven justices, all male, threw out a gender discrimination lawsuit, saying that the dentist’s actions may have been unfair to the longtime female employee, but that his conduct did not amount to sex discrimination.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0712/Woman-fired-for-sex-appeal-Unfair-but-not-gender-bias-Iowa-court-rules

Heavily slanted indeed!

All teachers have to keep both their sex lives and private lives under close wraps, it's the nature of the profession.

Apart from the fact that teachers should be permitted to have a fulfilling sex life just like anyone else, only one of the three examples I gave had anything to do with teachers.