YGWV Quoting Michael Hitchens <michaelh_at_ztMgp2hn5NMC_4N5OCzz6CULg22aLkoEFmtlS7fb-qoezAWDXjH6lh8vXUwg_rcqvfQSI3F4pMH-zeyA.yahoo.invalid>:
> OK. Hmmm. I need another clarification then (sorry). Does "men in
> women's bodies" (and the reverse for Nandans) imply (or almost
> automatically imply) sexual tastes?
No, or rather: not any more than ANY body implies sexuality. There is never any GUARANTEE. Play it as you wish.
> Or is it just talking about preferred
> occupations? That is, is it (change appropriately for Nandan)
> "I want to be a warrior and/or a farmer so I am a man in a woman's body
> but whether I bed men or women is something separate"
> or
> "I am a man in a woman's body so I want to be a farmer and/or warrior and
> bed women"
I will repeat something here: "want to" is not the same kind of choice to Gloranthans as it is to us--modern people raised in a permissive society that holds idealism and personal freedom as the most important vitue possible.
> "man in a woman's body" is interpreted either way you like for your
> Glorantha or as something else if you don't like either of these two
> definitions.
That is what I urge everyone to embrace. I know a lot of (perhaps most) people are uncomfortable with ANY talk/discussion/game play of gender (which is why it's left out of the rule book). A lot of people are uncomfortable with NORMAL gender functions (i.e.-sex) and don't have it in their games (which is why that's left out of the rule book too).
> Any of the above say that cross gender roles are possible amongst the
> Orlanthi, which we know (I think), but the second of the three would imply
> that there is a pretty hard and fast link between occupation and sexual
> proclivities. That may be how it is amongst the Heortlings, but I don't
> remember seeing it expressed that way anywhere, so I'd like to know.
I do not know of any direct link between occupation and sexual preference. But then, I've never taken a Kinsey poll among Gloranthans, either.
>>> Becuase I think that most Vingans would be farmers (like most Orlanthi
>>> men) not full time warriors.
>>
>> Maybe, but probably not.
>
> Ummm - can I ask for some more clarification here too? To me this is very
> important in understanding how many Vingans there are and their place in
> Orlanthi society. My logic is as follows, if any of it is wrong, please
> let me know:
You are thinking too hard here, Michael.
> Most clans would support no more than 30 full time warriors, probably in a
> lot of clans this is an over-estimate.
Right. I generally use 5% as the number of full time warriors that a clan can support.
> By full time warriors I mean those
> who spend most of their time practicing, training, maintaining their
> weapons, patrolling etc. This would include the warband, ranking members
> of warrior cults, other specialist thanes, etc.
The latter two being members of the warband as well, of course.
> Allow 15% of the 30 to be
> women, with most of the 15% Vingans.
I would not make that assumption.
It is certainly neat and polite to spread the 15% evenly across
everything, but it generates problems that break the heads of:
1. people who overanalyse these things; and
2. people who play by the seat of their pants.
> Most of the 15% of women who take
> men's roles then can't be Vingans,
That such cult membership is true is a fallacy not promulgated by me anywhere. So let's dismiss that notion.
> So do I then take it that most
> Vingans are warriors, but most of the 15% of women who aren't Ernaldans
> are *not* Vingans?
Most of the 15% of women who aren't Ernaldans are *not* Vingans?
> Because the problem is,
See, there's no problem. The basic assumpiton that seems to generate this problem is in error.
> Can you tell me which it is or where my reasoning has blown up?
Issaries, Inc.
c/o Greg Stafford
1942 Channing Ave, #204
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA
Received on Sat 07 Apr 2007 - 07:57:00 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri 04 Jan 2008 - 22:48:41 EET