Types of Banning/Discrimination

[AndyZ]

A particular issue that I've been trying to understand of late is why it's acceptable to block one particular type of people from participating in something, but not another.

For example, many people consider it acceptable to only allow people of a certain Lady/Liege/Lord tag into their games, but do not consider it acceptable for a Christian bakery not to make cakes for gay weddings.

I have difficulty in understanding why these would be different.

Some of the answers I've been given so far:

• That Christians do not believe in gay marriage, and while Christians shouldn't turn away homosexuals out of hand, one cannot expect them to make a wedding cake for a wedding that they don't believe in

There's a degree of logic there, but that would completely 180 the response, where the Christian denial would be acceptable and the game denial would be unacceptable.

• Setting an arbitrary bar by whether or not other business/games already exist or can be created.

In other words, you shouldn't be able to stop a black person from entering your bar unless said black person can start up their own bar.  This also doesn't fit the experience test, and if someone actually said that there's another place for other people, it would be very offensive.

• Sexual preference

One of the minor reasons that's been given, I don't figure by anyone here but that sometimes arises, is that not everyone is bisexual.  We may not be attracted to a particular type of race, sex or whatever, but those players can still make characters which fit those characteristics that turn us on.

For example, I'm attracted to elves and not orcs, but an orc roleplaying an elf could still turn me on, and I'd consider it bad to ban someone from my game just because she's not an orc.

For those new to the discussion, Valthazar has listed off a bunch of reasons that appear common to him for focusing on particular types of players, which can be found here: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=214003.msg10516551#msg10516551

There are also RL places which discriminate and are allowed to do so.  For example, http://www.pawomenwork.org/ requires you to be a woman to sign up.  I've heard of golf courses that only allow men.

By contrast, I've heard of gay bars that openly focus on homosexual clientele but allow people in regardless of sexual orientation.  You don't have to "prove" yourself just to walk in the door.  I have far less issue with the places that say "we welcome everyone but we really want X" as opposed to the places that say "We only want X, and you're not allowed in otherwise."

By the same token, I don't consider it discrimination if you want all the CHARACTERS to be of a particular type.  Hollywood protagonists aside, there were darn few Caucasians in Feudal Japan, and I totally get that everyone has to play an Asian in that game even if they're not Asian in real life.

However, I don't see a lot of difference between the different types of discrimination, and I don't really understand why it's acceptable for a game but not acceptable for a store.  I could accept it being either acceptable for both or unacceptable for both, but there's obviously a distinction which others see and I do not see.  I would appreciate if someone can explain it to me.

This is not me being angry at anyone or trying to make people feel bad.  This is because I've tried to figure this out for months and I feel like a complete moron because everyone but me seems to very easily get it.[/list]

[Cycle]

Let's compare the following:

• A person puts up an employment ad saying "Help Wanted, Women Only"
• A person puts up a RP ad saying "Seeking female writer for F/m"

Now, the two ads may appear to be similar, but they are not.  Why?  Because of context.  I will elaborate.

For some people, a RP--particularly a sexually themed RP--can be very personal, and even intimate.  Thus, they may not feel comfortable sharing a personal or intimate experience with another person of a particular gender.  Similarly, there are people who enjoy the notion that what they write is arousing to their partner, and thus they may feel less comfortable arousing someone of a specific gender.  There is also the corollary that some people are aroused by what their partners write and may feel more comfortable being aroused by someone of a specific gender.  Yes, writers are not their characters and it is important to be able to draw a distinction between RL and RP.  But for some people, a RP is more than a sterile bubble where two fictional beings interact without relevance to or potential impact on their creators.

To help further highlight the difference consider what you are willing to share/tell/do with your employer, versus what you are willing to share/tell/do with your RP partner(s).  I suspect that you are far more willing to discuss personal and intimate issues with an RP partner than you would with your employer.  Does this help illustrate the difference?

The context is different.  A RP is more personal, and the preferences of both parties deserve equal weight.  This is why I believe people should be allowed to be selective in their RP partners.  And that is also why I don't think people should be labeled as banning or discriminating for putting up (polite) ads seeking writers of a specific gender.

In fact, lest anyone reads this thread and feels they may have done something wrong, I do not believe you have:

From: Valerian on August 03, 2009, 11:40:19 AM

If a [member] asks for only "real [insert gender]", but seems otherwise mature, well-behaved, and capable of writing several good sentences in a row, his insistence on "real [insert gender]" isn't going to get him kicked out on his backside.

[Kuroneko]

One thing you've you've left out the very real and by no means minor reasons you've been given in the other thread of comfort and perceived levels of safety when it comces to gender preference in RP partners. Some people have had bad experiences with a particular gender and do not feel safe or comfortable writing an RP with them. Others feel more comfortable writing with individuals that share similar RLexperiences. These are real and legitimate issues that can't be ignored simply because you don't understand them. When it comes right down to it, you don't really have to. Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.

When you think about it, in addition to everything that's already been said on this in the other threads, playing with one gender over another could just as easily be a kink, like any other. If you can make a game where your kink is highlighted, why can't another person make a game where theirs is featured? Because you don't like it or your think it's wrong?  That's not the culture of E. I personally have no desire to write tentacle RP, but I support your right to run a game that includes it ;).

[Valthazar]

Just to preface again, I'm keeping my personal thoughts out of this debate.  My personal opinion is that everyone should write with whomever they want - it makes no difference to me.

One thing you've you've left out the very real and by no means minor reasons you've been given in the other thread of comfort and perceived levels of safety when it comces to gender preference in RP partners. Some people have had bad experiences with a particular gender and do not feel safe or comfortable writing an RP with them.

But since this is a debate thread, I don't see how "perceived comfort" based on prior experience serves as an adequate justification for only writing with one gender.  If someone made the assertion that they only want to write with Caucasian writers/roleplayers because in their experience, Black or Hispanic writers/roleplayers have a tendency to "rush the plot" and exhibit predatory behavior - all of us would be quick to point out their bias.

So from a debate perspective, why is this different for gender preference?

[Kuroneko]

My personal opinion is also that everyone should write with whomever they want.

I'm not talking about trivial experiences like 'rushing the plot,' or a perception of behavior amongst a particular group of people.  My point about safety and comfort is that people often have very valid reasons based on prior RL experiences (which often includes trauma and abuse) for not wanting to associate with a particular gender, either in RL or online, and that labeling those preferences as 'wrong' simply because someone doesn't understand them or see how they apply to the situation doesn't make them any less real or valid for the individual that has had those experiences. That's all.

[Cycle]

If someone made the assertion that they only want to write with Caucasian writers/roleplayers because in their experience, Black or Hispanic writers/roleplayers have a tendency to "rush the plot" and exhibit predatory behavior - all of us would be quick to point out their bias.

Would we?

I wouldn't.

I'd respect that person's decision.  Things happened in their past that I cannot know.  Perhaps something truly vile did happen to them.  Who am I to judge?  Who am I to mandate how they should RP and who they should RP with?

[lilhobbit37]

I've been reading since the other thread, and didn't want to join the debate because of the venue it was in. I'll try to put some of my thoughts down here.

I do understand Andy's point and here is some of the things I'd like to add to it.

It was mentioned a number of times in the previous thread that people don't think it would ever be socially acceptable on E to create race bans based on players. So that comparing race and gender were two very different things.

However, I understand Andy's confusion on this because say Person A was raped by a black man. Does this mean all black men are bad? Not in the least. However, would she want to enter into a sexual scenerio with someone black? No.

But if she were to start a group game and clearly put in the header "No black players", people would be offended and upset. Now it is a comfort/safety issue for her. There is perfectly legitimate reasons why she may feel this way.

But it wouldn't be considered acceptable.

So the idea that for the same reasons (past bad experiences, comfort/safety issues) it is perfectly acceptable to instead make that "No male players" or "No male/liege players" or "Cis-females only" or "Females only".

Cycle, you seem to keep making it seem different by saying instead of ban, its about inclusion. And yes, that sounds a lot nicer: "Females please apply" sounds better than "No males need apply". But they do mean the same thing if it is a non-negotiable that only females are allowed. The ban is simply an implied ban instead of a stated one.

One thing I did notice was that the last thread started out focusing on group games, and somewhere along the way began to focus on solo threads. I do feel there is a large difference between group games and solo threads. A solo rp is more along the lines of a "date" so to speak, where as a group game is more along the "boys/girls night out" type of feel. So while it may be an annoyance to have many solo threads with gender restrictions, it doesn't have nearly the same feel as group threads which restrict.

One of the things that many people have mentioned but flit over is the liege community. There are many who have set A parts but are set B mentally. And every time something is restricted for either set A or set B, it leaves group C trying to figure out whether they fit into the set required. Do parts matter most? Does mentality matter most? Is it fair to say "I only am comfortable with females, so even though I will never see inside your pants, you have a penis, so I don't want you to write a female character." to a MtF? It isn't her fault she may have the wrong dangly bit between her legs, yet now she is restricted from it simply due to that part.

Some people make restricting by gender seem clean and easy.

My points are trying to show that there is not a simple easy answer for this.

I do not and would not think less of anyone who does restrict gender, and everything I am saying is my opinion. Those who do ask for those restrictions are well within the rules and regulations as they stand, so there is no reason for guilt or worry. But it doesn't hurt to think of things from a view outside your own either.

[blue bunny sparkle]

However, I don't see a lot of difference between the different types of discrimination, and I don't really understand why it's acceptable for a game but not acceptable for a store.  I could accept it being either acceptable for both or unacceptable for both, but there's obviously a distinction which others see and I do not see.  I would appreciate if someone can explain it to me.

I think this is a good question to try and understand. Why can’t everyone be treated equally? Why can’t everyone be wanted in the same ways (In the bakery or on a writing website)? Why all these distinctions? What is the difference Andy is searching for?

I had to think hard about this. To do that, I had to take this whole thing down to the simplest terms, which is where I think best. And this is where it brought me.

Judgment says: You are WRONG.
Judgment says something is wrong with you. And you need to change.

Preference says: I PREFER.
Preference says I like this a lot. This is what I’m drawn to.


A business that denies services based on certain criteria like sex, race, etc. is a JUDGMENT upon a type of person or group of people.

A person requesting a RP with a specific type of person or theme is a personal PREFERENCE.

That’s a huge difference to me. But can the two overlap? Unfortunately yes. Though in my experience here at E., the people having a preference for a certain type of role-play partner are not judging the people they chose not to play with, they just want to write what they like. Preference doesn’t have to lead to judgment.

One more example.
In my past, I was in an abusive relationship. For the following year after I got out of it, I was a shell shocked and nervous wreck. If I had been on E. at the time, I would have PREFERRED to write with women or female leaning genders only. But at the same time, I did not JUDGE all men according to what I had gone through. I knew there were good guys out there. But had I been forced to write with men at that time, I would have chosen not to write at all.

In my stories, now I will write with anyone of any of the sexes. Preferences can change and I hope judgments can change as well.

[Iniquitous]

I am surprised that this discussion is still going on, especially since it seems rather easy to understand.

Let’s see if I can tackle this.

I want to run a lesbian group game. I’ve tried to run other lesbian group games but it has always failed, I have gotten hurt, other group members have gotten hurt, I have been mistreated, other group members have been mistreated. So, I set up the group game idea and make it gender specific so that the things that have happened in the past do not happen again.

Am I wrong for doing so? No.

Let’s make this a little more straightforward.

A female decides she wants to make a lesbian only game. She decides to restrict to female only writers. Why would she do this?

1. Because lesbian sex is a huge turn on for a lot of men and there are males out there that would want to make a lesbian character so they could have fap material.

2. Because she feels more comfortable running a game where everyone in the group is female - perhaps she has past experience with males writing as female that make her, or other group members, uncomfortable.

3. Personal preference.

Those are the three biggest reasons I can see for gender specific group games. I am sure that there are many, many more that can be brought up. The point that seems to be avoided is the fact that this is the decision of the GM and she doesn’t really have to explain why. We are all adults here, we should be able to accept that there are going to be times that we are not going to fit into what someone else wants.

Would you really want to force your way in knowing that the GM and the members of the game do not want you there? The game would die and everyone would lose out. Do you really feel a need to needle and press for an answer to something like this? I mean, it almost comes across as you are digging in hard for someone to finally throw their hands up and say “alright! Fine! You are being discriminated against just because you have a penis!” when, quite honestly, I suspect it is nothing more than “hey, we’d feel a lot more comfortable if this was just females”

No one has the right to disregard someone else’s comfort level and no one should keep pushing for an answer when it has been said more than once, more than twice, more than thrice, that it is not discriminatory but rather a preference - a comfort factor.

You do not have to like it, you can rant and rave that because you have a penis you cannot join this group game - but it still boils down to the fact that the creator of the group game has decided she wants the game to be female writer only and has her reasons for doing so.

Would you want your personal preferences and comfort level ignored/questioned/put under fire just because someone else refuses to accept that you have the right to choose who you want to write with/how you spend your time on this site? The way I view this is asking for the group members to be female writers only is no different than me saying I prefer writers who can match my post length or post speed. It is what I am comfortable with and a personal preference. That isn’t that hard to understand.

[Cold Heritage]

I am surprised that this discussion is still going on, especially since it seems rather easy to understand.

4 threads across 4 forums and 336 posts on this subject, by my estimate.

[VioletPanda]

    I have to admit I am somewhat guilty of this- due to an incident when I was younger, I have a very difficult time roleplaying with a male partner when I am playing a female. Because I don't want anyone to feel left out, I just play as a male. I prefer it that way anyway.
 
   

[kylie]

      Serious cynicism plus critique alert.  Not as if it's likely to change anything, but I'm very mixed on this.  And not a little frustrated over the long haul with it all. It's a mixed up world, so you get mixed up and frustrated people.  Except for the most conventional people...  Who can go on being smug about just how normal and mature and civil (and probably even "popular!") they are, seemingly forever.  At least until conventions really change, for some generation or other.

      "Personal preference" can be anything.  It can be logical or illogical.  The claimed evidence can be based on fact or not, and it's often enough not really available in detail, in context, or even offered up for communal analysis at all.  It can be consistently applied or not.  And it can be as much a one-sided guess as anything else.  It's arguably even more slippery a term than say, sexual orientation which is at least something that starts with an idea of a (or an at least purportedly) definable, empirical group to work with.  Preference has one thing going for it, I suppose:  It's honest or vague enough to hint: "Yeah, sometimes I'm just a hunch too." 

      But because we take sexuality to be an essentially "personal" question of consent and also - in no small part - because E seems to have adopted a culture of "Whoever starts thread, basically rules it [including closing it down whenever they want regardless of whatever's happening in the meantime]," well it sure gets a whole lot of mileage.  The saying goes: "We wouldn't want anyone to be uncomfortable, now."  Except for all the people who get ruled out from the get go, or who get interrupted, or who the owner changes conditions on halfway through.

     It might seem obvious that well, writing anything creative and/or sexual (especially both) is "supposed to be" a sort of luxury and a matter of intimacy and exclusive experiences.  Whereas getting a job or doing business more or less in public is "on the face of it" more a matter of survival and convenience.  And business is well even, circulation of currency and things that you know governments tend to have a greater interest in many more people very regularly doing at least a modicum of -- rather than fewer people entering at all.  Which leads to different outcomes, of course.  I might go so far as to suggest that if oh say, imagine the U.S. government could take a penny transaction tax for every story posting on E, then there would be rather more official interest in having oh, more Lieges participate with a wider range of people.  (Can't tell you how many Lieges have reported primarily feeling it's easier and safer for reception mainly to play only with with other Lieges.  But anyone could check at least the public postings, if they really cared to count.) 

         But then we could consider that well, governments have also long been interested in setting standards that serve certain groups and classes more than others.  And one way they have done that is to also encourage certain sexual mores.  The very notion that "personal" and "business" spheres have different value -- that we must work for a living and pay taxes to sustain the society, but whether or not "our individual things" are guaranteed partners or indeed, any time at all under the sun in our busy days?  Well that's not a matter of any public interest at all.  Except that those "individual things" that lead to umm, polyamory or abortion or feminization or snuff or male submission or a long list of things are in fact ALSO quite shunned and sometimes very politically snubbed in public life and certain arenas of government policy too.  Oh but that doesn't have anything to do with what's going on in this discussion.  And maybe in some ten or twenty or hundred years of education and stop and start "progress," this will all be resolved.  And as the economists say, in the long run, maybe we'll all be dead first.

        I'm actually very happy to celebrate what people enjoy writing and being.  Except when it's fallacies about gatekeeping being for one purpose when you can look closely and find reasons to suspect it's actually for others.  Or when you look closely at the language chosen, and the purposes are rather apparently buying into things that in my opinion kind of shoot many of us in the back or at least, in the foot.  I'm not going to trot out examples now because no matter how logical they might be, someone's surely going to get offended at the notion that there's anything even potentially socially discriminatory about "preference."  (Even when it often becomes the preference of so many that it's practically a majority convention we are talking about?  Really now.)  Please, go read some Bordieu though -- well, if you ever get curious.  Wouldn't want to force anything now.

[rou]

Quoting my previous post and then elaborating on it. Probably makes so much more sense in this context.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I have totally not read the entire updated thread and such but I was browsing and a thought just came to mind.

Race and gender and sexuality and etc are not the same. At least, that is my belief. Because each of these categories has a differing history of discrimination, the resulting present is different as well. I believe it would be very foolish to regard race issues and gender issues with an identical mindset.

So, that being said? A girl's night out is fine. A race night out seems a little more preposterous (to me, but hey, I'm white). Why? Because they're different. Among other things, I believe that race has a big history of social exclusion, whereas the big idea of sexism isn't so much that its a taboo to talk to someone of a different gender (disregarding some archaic proprieties), but regarding that gender as having specific roles that must be fulfilled.

So, I mean, it's okay for a group of guys to want to have a guys' night. Less okay if they want to have a "white" night, because I don't think there's really much reason for that, much to be gained. If guys want to make a men only business because they think women are inadequate to do the job? NOT OKAY.

So, I don't know. There's a lot of whitewashing on E. If a group of non-white players wanted to create a non-white group so they wouldn't have to deal with unintentionally racist portrayals, I think maybe I'd be a little bit wary about it but not really hold it against them. Because nonwhites are typically the ones with the short stick. If white people wanted to make a white-only group, I'd say that's not okay. Because again, I don't see what there really is to gain, and whites aren't the victim in the same way that nonwhites are (even if, yes, being white at this point can be an exasperating experience).

And that's different from gender, because I think men and women and nonbinaries should be able to have their own little groups as they please, since that's not the heart of the gender taboo and I think there's a lot that makes the experience different.

I have no clue if I've made any sense.

My point is, race / gender / sexuality / religion / etc issues are not inherently the same, even though they all deal with heaps of discrimination. Therefore, they are not to be handled the same way and what might be okay in one category could be very wrong in another.

It's hard to give examples and analogies because everything varies. But lets say you know two individual victims of abuse. Their experiences were different, and therefore their triggers would be different. One of them would get upset watching scenes of violence in a movie, while the other is extremely sensitive to derogatory language in any context, even if it is not directed at them (or maybe anyone): idiot, bitch, slut, whore.

Therefore, the way you would accommodate these wounds differs depending on who you're interacting with.

That's what I mean by things being different. The experiences that someone goes through as a woman differ from what someone might experience as a black person, and those aren't necessarily representative of what its like to be trans*. So it doesn't make sense to me to treat those issues in the same way, with the same mindset. It's nonsensical to talk about gender and go around and say, "Well, would this be okay if we replaced 'man' and 'woman' with 'gay' and 'straight'?" It's an entirely different question, a different topic.

I used an abuse example because, to me, I think the internal wounds was an important part of the equation. A lot of the discussion of what's okay to do and what's not doesn't and shouldn't exist in a vacuum that's ignorant of history. How you treat a person or a group has a lot to do with what they have experienced in the past.

Girl's nights out and guy's nights out both exist. As a woman, the image of a group of friends sitting around the living room drinking beer and playing video games, taking a night to hang out without being distracted by their girlfriends -- that's not offensive to me, and I hardly think it's oppressive.

I can understand a group of nonwhite people wanting to hang out only with nonwhite people once in a while because they don't want to deal with the natural, unintentional racism (or just ignorance) that can come with a white person. White people don't always realize that some of the shit they say is offensive or why, even if they mean the best. I can totally understand wanting a bit of respite from that, the same way I might want to just hang out with my lady friends without having to hear an offhand sandwich joke or be told that I should dress up more often.

So, if a group who has been discriminated against wants to have time away from that discrimination, I think that makes a lot of sense. It's wanting a little bit of relief from being expected to "deal with it." It's not always effective, it's not always the best option, and it's not always without consequences.

The difference of issues comes into play, I think, regarding the details of how its done and whether the reverse is "okay", or not too offensive. I think guys can hang out exclusively with other guys if they feel like from time to time because that's not inherently insulting to women. A guy can still be a dick about why he doesn't want to hang out with women for whatever purpose, but not that the exclusivity in itself is inherently harmful. But I don't think a "white night" is anything less that very bad judgment at best. Why? Because race relations are different from gender relations. And not everyone will agree on what is and is not okay, but my real point here is that those things are still different depending on what you're talking about, be it gender, sexuality, race, etc.

[consortium11]

4 threads across 4 forums and 336 posts on this subject, by my estimate.

Far more than that... the burst a couple of months back followed by this is just the most recent time this topic's come up. As I think I said previously, it's something that bubbles under the surface for a few months, comes to a head briefly and then bubbles again.



Anyway, the usual disclaimers that should be applied whenever this topic comes up:

1) Choosing who can take part in a game on the basis of their tag and gender icon is basically the same as choosing who can take part in a game on the basis of the gender of their avatar picture. While I (strongly) suspect that the tag/icons are far more accurate to how people see themselves then the avatar it has long been made clear that anyone can have whatever gender tag/icon they want for whatever reason they want. As far as I know most of the people who are using tags/icons that don't match their jangly bits are people who are either in the process of or have transitioned and consider themselves what they've transitioned to rather than a liege but there's no requirement for that to be the case.

2) Not so much a disclaimer as a question... on that note I always wonder about the status of trans and Lieges in this topic. How would those who run games with either a "[insert gender] only" or "no [insert gender]" feel about the above mentioned circumstances where someone was born with a certain set of jangly bits (which would exclude them from the story) but consider themselves another gender (which would allow them in the game)? Would they be allowed? Likewise, much of the discussion seems to be looking at this on the basis of Lord vs Lady and suggesting reasons why people think that way (be it comfort, security, they think it makes for a better experience etc etc) which rather leaves Lieges outside the party. On that note I've seen far more "[insert gender] only" then "No [insert gender]" requests when such things come up and the ones who suffer in such circumstance is generally Lieges; "Ladies only" and "no Lords" both exclude Lords but Lieges also get blocked by the first. Do people just forget about them and think that saying "[insert gender] only" sounds nicer than "No [insert gender]"?

3) As I understand it E's official position is that not writing with a certain gender isn't a matter of comfort but is instead an exclusion which we tolerate (I'm not sure if that's associated with E's policy of accepting "bigots" in the hope of reforming them/widening their world view). That said not being willing to write cross-gender (as in writing with a man playing a woman not writing a man wearing a dress or a woman wearing trousers) is one of the warning signs they look for that someone has difficulties separating IC and OOC.

[Cycle]

Actually, lilhobbit, the problem I have with the words "ban" and "prejudice," is that they are implicitly hostile.  A less incendiary way to gather information on this topic would be to ask:  "Why do people put up ads seeking stories with specific gender writers?"  By employing the words "ban," "prejudice" and "bigot" one is essentially stating:  "I think people who seek stories with a specific gender writers are bad people.  Now, explain to me why you are not bad." 



Here's the thing.  It isn't all about one person--particularly not one person who happens to read an ad they do not like.  Let's play it out.

Scenario 1:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad states:  "gender G writers only."

B reads the post.  B is interested in the story, but is not gender G.  Odds are, B will not then apply to join the game.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, A and B move on. 

Scenario 2:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad does not state any preference for gender.

B reads the post.  B is interested in the story.  B is not gender G.  B applies to join the game. 

A then rejects B's application.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, A and B move on.

See how the result does not change if we mandate that people must remove gender preferences from the headings of their game ads?  It still won't force A to write with B.

Scenario 3:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad does not state any preference for gender.

B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z read the post.  B through Z are interested in the story.  B through Z are not gender G.  B through Z apply to join the game. 

A then rejects B through Z's application.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, everyone moves on. 
 
B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z were all put through the extra step of applying for a game that was not created for them.  A was put to the extra step of denying the applications of B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z.

See how in this sense, stating a gender preference in an ad can actually be a polite thing to do?  It saves the poster time and wasted effort, and it saves all other E members time and wasted effort.

Scenario 4:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad states:  "gender G writers only."

B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z read the post.  They are interested in the story. 

B, C, D, F, H I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P are not gender G. 

Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are gender G.

C, X, Y, and Z apply to join the game.  B does not apply, feeling excluded or "banned." 

A then rejects C and Z's application, and opts to play with X and Y.  Everyone moves on. 

Compare Scenarios 3 and 4 and you can see how focusing on just B makes us myopic.  If we mandated that people cannot state gender preferences in their ads, we get Scenario 3.  If we do not impose such a rule, then we have Scenario 4.  E allows people to select their RPs based on the other writer's gender.  Putting up an ad that clearly specifies one's gender preferences (if any) saves everyone time and wasted effort:  D through P didn't have to write an application; A only needed to respond to four applications.  This likely leads to more satisfying RP experiences for everyone as a whole.

Now, some people may respond saying:  "yes, but A shouldn't want to write only with gender G writers, and that A is a bigot/prejudiced because A feels that way."

Maybe.  But you can't force people to RP in the way you want.  If they don't feel comfortable RPing with someone of a specific gender because of their past (e.g., having been abused or worse), we need to respect that.  If it is because they get their "rocks off knowing that she's enjoying it too," then that should be allowed too.

The point I have been trying to make repeatedly is this:  your feelings are not the only ones that matter. 

You may not like the fact that someone else has a preference for certain kinds of RPs, whether it is gender or tentacles.  But you don't get to tell them what to do.  Respect their choices, even when you disagree with them.  And don't try to shame them into doing what you want by labeling them bigots or prejudiced.  You don't know anywhere near enough about their past to pass judgment.

[Cold Heritage]

Far more than that... the burst a couple of months back followed by this is just the most recent time this topic's come up. As I think I said previously, it's something that bubbles under the surface for a few months, comes to a head briefly and then bubbles again.

My apologies for being unclear. I was counting specifically AndyZ's topics.

[Lrrr]

4 threads across 4 forums and 336 posts on this subject, by my estimate.

Just curious if you included the Animate Quill threads and posts in those totals or not.

[AndyZ]

Not feeling overly great today but I've been trying to wrap my brain around this while I lie in bed, so I wanted to try to get some posts down.  If I misunderstand someone, please know that you can correct me without concern for my feelings and that I'm not trying to straw man your argument.

Let's compare the following:

• A person puts up an employment ad saying "Help Wanted, Women Only"
• A person puts up a RP ad saying "Seeking female writer for F/m"

Now, the two ads may appear to be similar, but they are not.  Why?  Because of context.  I will elaborate.

For some people, a RP--particularly a sexually themed RP--can be very personal, and even intimate.  Thus, they may not feel comfortable sharing a personal or intimate experience with another person of a particular gender.  Similarly, there are people who enjoy the notion that what they write is arousing to their partner, and thus they may feel less comfortable arousing someone of a specific gender.  There is also the corollary that some people are aroused by what their partners write and may feel more comfortable being aroused by someone of a specific gender.  Yes, writers are not their characters and it is important to be able to draw a distinction between RL and RP.  But for some people, a RP is more than a sterile bubble where two fictional beings interact without relevance to or potential impact on their creators.

To help further highlight the difference consider what you are willing to share/tell/do with your employer, versus what you are willing to share/tell/do with your RP partner(s).  I suspect that you are far more willing to discuss personal and intimate issues with an RP partner than you would with your employer.  Does this help illustrate the difference?

The context is different.  A RP is more personal, and the preferences of both parties deserve equal weight.  This is why I believe people should be allowed to be selective in their RP partners.  And that is also why I don't think people should be labeled as banning or discriminating for putting up (polite) ads seeking writers of a specific gender.

In fact, lest anyone reads this thread and feels they may have done something wrong, I do not believe you have:

From: Valerian on August 03, 2009, 11:40:19 AM

I believe what you're saying is that it's a personal thing, that comfort kicks in and that the preferences of both parties deserve equal weight.

Now, why is that different for stores and businesses?

I can see why it's different for just an employee, but should the owner of a store be legally allowed to make such decisions in the way that creators of game threads on Elliquiy are?

I could very well argue that the source of livelihood for a person who started up and runs a store goes well beyond personal comfort, and that someone who honestly doesn't want to work with women is going to have an even worse time of it than someone who is in a game with people.

I think it would help if you went into further detail about why it's unacceptable for stores, so that we can compare and contrast for games.

One thing you've you've left out the very real and by no means minor reasons you've been given in the other thread of comfort and perceived levels of safety when it comces to gender preference in RP partners. Some people have had bad experiences with a particular gender and do not feel safe or comfortable writing an RP with them. Others feel more comfortable writing with individuals that share similar RLexperiences. These are real and legitimate issues that can't be ignored simply because you don't understand them. When it comes right down to it, you don't really have to. Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.

When you think about it, in addition to everything that's already been said on this in the other threads, playing with one gender over another could just as easily be a kink, like any other. If you can make a game where your kink is highlighted, why can't another person make a game where theirs is featured? Because you don't like it or your think it's wrong?  That's not the culture of E. I personally have no desire to write tentacle RP, but I support your right to run a game that includes it ;).

You obviously share the opinion that people should be allowed to deny whoever they want from games.  Let's try a few other questions.

Let's say that a heterosexual male has been raped by a homosexual male.  This is something that happens, but it's far from indicative of all homosexual men.  However, this hypothetical person develops an aversion to homosexual males as a result.  He owns a business but doesn't feel comfortable having them there, because he spends 80 hours a week at the store and won't always have other people around.

Should this hypothetical store owner be allowed to deny homosexual men from employment simply because of his bad experience?  An inordinate number of people would say no, but you may disagree.  I request your answer.

In regards to this question, specifically asked and repeated:

Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.

To use different terms would imply that the two are actually different.

I have an RL friend with arachnophobia and she doesn't feel comfortable when people use the English word for what arachnophobia means a fear of.  When people discuss homophobia or islamophobia, it's been explained to me that these are different because people are involved, which is the difference.  It is reasonable to expect all members of any species except humans to act more or less the same, because humans are sentient.  It would appear that you disagree with that particular reason of why, because you state a particular aversion for a type of human.

Would we?

I wouldn't.

I'd respect that person's decision.  Things happened in their past that I cannot know.  Perhaps something truly vile did happen to them.  Who am I to judge?  Who am I to mandate how they should RP and who they should RP with?

I think you can see where I was going with the race thing from before, then.

Valthazar does a fantastic job of laying out the points that I fail to make properly.

LilHobbit, I have nothing to add to your post beyond that you also seem to understand where I'm going.

I think this is a good question to try and understand. Why can’t everyone be treated equally? Why can’t everyone be wanted in the same ways (In the bakery or on a writing website)? Why all these distinctions? What is the difference Andy is searching for?

I had to think hard about this. To do that, I had to take this whole thing down to the simplest terms, which is where I think best. And this is where it brought me.

Judgment says: You are WRONG.
Judgment says something is wrong with you. And you need to change.

Preference says: I PREFER.
Preference says I like this a lot. This is what I’m drawn to.


A business that denies services based on certain criteria like sex, race, etc. is a JUDGMENT upon a type of person or group of people.

A person requesting a RP with a specific type of person or theme is a personal PREFERENCE.

That’s a huge difference to me. But can the two overlap? Unfortunately yes. Though in my experience here at E., the people having a preference for a certain type of role-play partner are not judging the people they chose not to play with, they just want to write what they like. Preference doesn’t have to lead to judgment.

One more example.
In my past, I was in an abusive relationship. For the following year after I got out of it, I was a shell shocked and nervous wreck. If I had been on E. at the time, I would have PREFERRED to write with women or female leaning genders only. But at the same time, I did not JUDGE all men according to what I had gone through. I knew there were good guys out there. But had I been forced to write with men at that time, I would have chosen not to write at all.

In my stories, now I will write with anyone of any of the sexes. Preferences can change and I hope judgments can change as well.

First I want to say thank you for coming forward with such a difficult personal experience.  It's not easy, but it helps people understand.

So would you say that the difference is purely internal to the person doing the blocking, and therefore cannot be externally judged by others?

For example, if someone is deciding for a secretary, he can prefer to have the one who's cuter because he'll have to look at her all the time, but he can't decide not to hire one because he disagrees with her about something not work related?

I am surprised that this discussion is still going on, especially since it seems rather easy to understand.

Let’s see if I can tackle this.

I want to run a lesbian group game. I’ve tried to run other lesbian group games but it has always failed, I have gotten hurt, other group members have gotten hurt, I have been mistreated, other group members have been mistreated. So, I set up the group game idea and make it gender specific so that the things that have happened in the past do not happen again.

Am I wrong for doing so? No.

Let’s make this a little more straightforward.

A female decides she wants to make a lesbian only game. She decides to restrict to female only writers. Why would she do this?

1. Because lesbian sex is a huge turn on for a lot of men and there are males out there that would want to make a lesbian character so they could have fap material.

2. Because she feels more comfortable running a game where everyone in the group is female - perhaps she has past experience with males writing as female that make her, or other group members, uncomfortable.

3. Personal preference.

Those are the three biggest reasons I can see for gender specific group games. I am sure that there are many, many more that can be brought up. The point that seems to be avoided is the fact that this is the decision of the GM and she doesn’t really have to explain why. We are all adults here, we should be able to accept that there are going to be times that we are not going to fit into what someone else wants.

Would you really want to force your way in knowing that the GM and the members of the game do not want you there? The game would die and everyone would lose out. Do you really feel a need to needle and press for an answer to something like this? I mean, it almost comes across as you are digging in hard for someone to finally throw their hands up and say “alright! Fine! You are being discriminated against just because you have a penis!” when, quite honestly, I suspect it is nothing more than “hey, we’d feel a lot more comfortable if this was just females”

No one has the right to disregard someone else’s comfort level and no one should keep pushing for an answer when it has been said more than once, more than twice, more than thrice, that it is not discriminatory but rather a preference - a comfort factor.

You do not have to like it, you can rant and rave that because you have a penis you cannot join this group game - but it still boils down to the fact that the creator of the group game has decided she wants the game to be female writer only and has her reasons for doing so.

Would you want your personal preferences and comfort level ignored/questioned/put under fire just because someone else refuses to accept that you have the right to choose who you want to write with/how you spend your time on this site? The way I view this is asking for the group members to be female writers only is no different than me saying I prefer writers who can match my post length or post speed. It is what I am comfortable with and a personal preference. That isn’t that hard to understand.

Okay, now where is the line where it becomes unacceptable to judge?  Why is it different for businesses, if you consider it to be?

I understand WHY people have these viewpoints, but not why some are considered acceptable and others are not.

    I have to admit I am somewhat guilty of this- due to an incident when I was younger, I have a very difficult time roleplaying with a male partner when I am playing a female. Because I don't want anyone to feel left out, I just play as a male. I prefer it that way anyway.
 
   

Thank you also for coming forward with the difficult story ^_^ As someone who's actually gone through it, you seem to agree that it really is the same thing.  Am I correct?

      Serious cynicism plus critique alert.  Not as if it's likely to change anything, but I'm very mixed on this.  And not a little frustrated over the long haul with it all. It's a mixed up world, so you get mixed up and frustrated people.  Except for the most conventional people...  Who can go on being smug about just how normal and mature and civil (and probably even "popular!") they are, seemingly forever.  At least until conventions really change, for some generation or other.

      "Personal preference" can be anything.  It can be logical or illogical.  The claimed evidence can be based on fact or not, and it's often enough not really available in detail, in context, or even offered up for communal analysis at all.  It can be consistently applied or not.  And it can be as much a one-sided guess as anything else.  It's arguably even more slippery a term than say, sexual orientation which is at least something that starts with an idea of a (or an at least purportedly) definable, empirical group to work with.  Preference has one thing going for it, I suppose:  It's honest or vague enough to hint: "Yeah, sometimes I'm just a hunch too." 

      But because we take sexuality to be an essentially "personal" question of consent and also - in no small part - because E seems to have adopted a culture of "Whoever starts thread, basically rules it [including closing it down whenever they want regardless of whatever's happening in the meantime]," well it sure gets a whole lot of mileage.  The saying goes: "We wouldn't want anyone to be uncomfortable, now."  Except for all the people who get ruled out from the get go, or who get interrupted, or who the owner changes conditions on halfway through.

     It might seem obvious that well, writing anything creative and/or sexual (especially both) is "supposed to be" a sort of luxury and a matter of intimacy and exclusive experiences.  Whereas getting a job or doing business more or less in public is "on the face of it" more a matter of survival and convenience.  And business is well even, circulation of currency and things that you know governments tend to have a greater interest in many more people very regularly doing at least a modicum of -- rather than fewer people entering at all.  Which leads to different outcomes, of course.  I might go so far as to suggest that if oh say, imagine the U.S. government could take a penny transaction tax for every story posting on E, then there would be rather more official interest in having oh, more Lieges participate with a wider range of people.  (Can't tell you how many Lieges have reported primarily feeling it's easier and safer for reception mainly to play only with with other Lieges.  But anyone could check at least the public postings, if they really cared to count.) 

         But then we could consider that well, governments have also long been interested in setting standards that serve certain groups and classes more than others.  And one way they have done that is to also encourage certain sexual mores.  The very notion that "personal" and "business" spheres have different value -- that we must work for a living and pay taxes to sustain the society, but whether or not "our individual things" are guaranteed partners or indeed, any time at all under the sun in our busy days?  Well that's not a matter of any public interest at all.  Except that those "individual things" that lead to umm, polyamory or abortion or feminization or snuff or male submission or a long list of things are in fact ALSO quite shunned and sometimes very politically snubbed in public life and certain arenas of government policy too.  Oh but that doesn't have anything to do with what's going on in this discussion.  And maybe in some ten or twenty or hundred years of education and stop and start "progress," this will all be resolved.  And as the economists say, in the long run, maybe we'll all be dead first.

        I'm actually very happy to celebrate what people enjoy writing and being.  Except when it's fallacies about gatekeeping being for one purpose when you can look closely and find reasons to suspect it's actually for others.  Or when you look closely at the language chosen, and the purposes are rather apparently buying into things that in my opinion kind of shoot many of us in the back or at least, in the foot.  I'm not going to trot out examples now because no matter how logical they might be, someone's surely going to get offended at the notion that there's anything even potentially socially discriminatory about "preference."  (Even when it often becomes the preference of so many that it's practically a majority convention we are talking about?  Really now.)  Please, go read some Bordieu though -- well, if you ever get curious.  Wouldn't want to force anything now.

I've never actually read Bordieu.  However, it seems to be that you agree that there's no real difference.  Am I correct?

Quoting my previous post and then elaborating on it. Probably makes so much more sense in this context.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I have totally not read the entire updated thread and such but I was browsing and a thought just came to mind.

Race and gender and sexuality and etc are not the same. At least, that is my belief. Because each of these categories has a differing history of discrimination, the resulting present is different as well. I believe it would be very foolish to regard race issues and gender issues with an identical mindset.

So, that being said? A girl's night out is fine. A race night out seems a little more preposterous (to me, but hey, I'm white). Why? Because they're different. Among other things, I believe that race has a big history of social exclusion, whereas the big idea of sexism isn't so much that its a taboo to talk to someone of a different gender (disregarding some archaic proprieties), but regarding that gender as having specific roles that must be fulfilled.

So, I mean, it's okay for a group of guys to want to have a guys' night. Less okay if they want to have a "white" night, because I don't think there's really much reason for that, much to be gained. If guys want to make a men only business because they think women are inadequate to do the job? NOT OKAY.

So, I don't know. There's a lot of whitewashing on E. If a group of non-white players wanted to create a non-white group so they wouldn't have to deal with unintentionally racist portrayals, I think maybe I'd be a little bit wary about it but not really hold it against them. Because nonwhites are typically the ones with the short stick. If white people wanted to make a white-only group, I'd say that's not okay. Because again, I don't see what there really is to gain, and whites aren't the victim in the same way that nonwhites are (even if, yes, being white at this point can be an exasperating experience).

And that's different from gender, because I think men and women and nonbinaries should be able to have their own little groups as they please, since that's not the heart of the gender taboo and I think there's a lot that makes the experience different.

I have no clue if I've made any sense.

My point is, race / gender / sexuality / religion / etc issues are not inherently the same, even though they all deal with heaps of discrimination. Therefore, they are not to be handled the same way and what might be okay in one category could be very wrong in another.

It's hard to give examples and analogies because everything varies. But lets say you know two individual victims of abuse. Their experiences were different, and therefore their triggers would be different. One of them would get upset watching scenes of violence in a movie, while the other is extremely sensitive to derogatory language in any context, even if it is not directed at them (or maybe anyone): idiot, bitch, slut, whore.

Therefore, the way you would accommodate these wounds differs depending on who you're interacting with.

That's what I mean by things being different. The experiences that someone goes through as a woman differ from what someone might experience as a black person, and those aren't necessarily representative of what its like to be trans*. So it doesn't make sense to me to treat those issues in the same way, with the same mindset. It's nonsensical to talk about gender and go around and say, "Well, would this be okay if we replaced 'man' and 'woman' with 'gay' and 'straight'?" It's an entirely different question, a different topic.

I used an abuse example because, to me, I think the internal wounds was an important part of the equation. A lot of the discussion of what's okay to do and what's not doesn't and shouldn't exist in a vacuum that's ignorant of history. How you treat a person or a group has a lot to do with what they have experienced in the past.

Girl's nights out and guy's nights out both exist. As a woman, the image of a group of friends sitting around the living room drinking beer and playing video games, taking a night to hang out without being distracted by their girlfriends -- that's not offensive to me, and I hardly think it's oppressive.

I can understand a group of nonwhite people wanting to hang out only with nonwhite people once in a while because they don't want to deal with the natural, unintentional racism (or just ignorance) that can come with a white person. White people don't always realize that some of the shit they say is offensive or why, even if they mean the best. I can totally understand wanting a bit of respite from that, the same way I might want to just hang out with my lady friends without having to hear an offhand sandwich joke or be told that I should dress up more often.

So, if a group who has been discriminated against wants to have time away from that discrimination, I think that makes a lot of sense. It's wanting a little bit of relief from being expected to "deal with it." It's not always effective, it's not always the best option, and it's not always without consequences.

The difference of issues comes into play, I think, regarding the details of how its done and whether the reverse is "okay", or not too offensive. I think guys can hang out exclusively with other guys if they feel like from time to time because that's not inherently insulting to women. A guy can still be a dick about why he doesn't want to hang out with women for whatever purpose, but not that the exclusivity in itself is inherently harmful. But I don't think a "white night" is anything less that very bad judgment at best. Why? Because race relations are different from gender relations. And not everyone will agree on what is and is not okay, but my real point here is that those things are still different depending on what you're talking about, be it gender, sexuality, race, etc.

First I want to thank you for going into greater detail in an attempt to explain to me.

I don't always get things which are obvious to others.  Sometimes it's because there really is no difference, and sometimes it's just that the difference is so obvious that people never bothered to state it.

I will say with regards to unintentional racism that I have stuff like that happen all the time where I do something dumb but where race isn't involved.  If I do so, I want people to let me know, whether it's racial or not.  Just a personal note for anyone I accidentally offend along the way.

From that perspective, it doesn't really matter if race is involved or not.  Is a guy who only hires blondes better than a guy who only hires white people?  Isn't the very definition of equality that we treat everyone the same?

There are certainly some contextual differences in that a black man is going to be offended by different words than a lesbian would, but we can take those into consideration when we make judgment.

You mention that not everyone will agree on what is and isn't okay, and that certainly seems to be true, but I do feel as though we should have some degree of trying to treat everyone the same with regard to what we can and can't do, in context.

If anyone else wants to open up on this aspect of things, they're welcome to do so.

3) As I understand it E's official position is that not writing with a certain gender isn't a matter of comfort but is instead an exclusion which we tolerate (I'm not sure if that's associated with E's policy of accepting "bigots" in the hope of reforming them/widening their world view). That said not being willing to write cross-gender (as in writing with a man playing a woman not writing a man wearing a dress or a woman wearing trousers) is one of the warning signs they look for that someone has difficulties separating IC and OOC.

I accept the intellectual consistency here, if this is how things are set up.

Actually, lilhobbit, the problem I have with the words "ban" and "prejudice," is that they are implicitly hostile.  A less incendiary way to gather information on this topic would be to ask:  "Why do people put up ads seeking stories with specific gender writers?"  By employing the words "ban," "prejudice" and "bigot" one is essentially stating:  "I think people who seek stories with a specific gender writers are bad people.  Now, explain to me why you are not bad." 



Here's the thing.  It isn't all about one person--particularly not one person who happens to read an ad they do not like.  Let's play it out.

Scenario 1:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad states:  "gender G writers only."

B reads the post.  B is interested in the story, but is not gender G.  Odds are, B will not then apply to join the game.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, A and B move on. 

Scenario 2:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad does not state any preference for gender.

B reads the post.  B is interested in the story.  B is not gender G.  B applies to join the game. 

A then rejects B's application.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, A and B move on.

See how the result does not change if we mandate that people must remove gender preferences from the headings of their game ads?  It still won't force A to write with B.

Scenario 3:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad does not state any preference for gender.

B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z read the post.  B through Z are interested in the story.  B through Z are not gender G.  B through Z apply to join the game. 

A then rejects B through Z's application.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, everyone moves on. 
 
B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z were all put through the extra step of applying for a game that was not created for them.  A was put to the extra step of denying the applications of B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z.

See how in this sense, stating a gender preference in an ad can actually be a polite thing to do?  It saves the poster time and wasted effort, and it saves all other E members time and wasted effort.

Scenario 4:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad states:  "gender G writers only."

B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z read the post.  They are interested in the story. 

B, C, D, F, H I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P are not gender G. 

Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are gender G.

C, X, Y, and Z apply to join the game.  B does not apply, feeling excluded or "banned." 

A then rejects C and Z's application, and opts to play with X and Y.  Everyone moves on. 

Compare Scenarios 3 and 4 and you can see how focusing on just B makes us myopic.  If we mandated that people cannot state gender preferences in their ads, we get Scenario 3.  If we do not impose such a rule, then we have Scenario 4.  E allows people to select their RPs based on the other writer's gender.  Putting up an ad that clearly specifies one's gender preferences (if any) saves everyone time and wasted effort:  D through P didn't have to write an application; A only needed to respond to four applications.  This likely leads to more satisfying RP experiences for everyone as a whole.

Now, some people may respond saying:  "yes, but A shouldn't want to write only with gender G writers, and that A is a bigot/prejudiced because A feels that way."

Maybe.  But you can't force people to RP in the way you want.  If they don't feel comfortable RPing with someone of a specific gender because of their past (e.g., having been abused or worse), we need to respect that.  If it is because they get their "rocks off knowing that she's enjoying it too," then that should be allowed too.

The point I have been trying to make repeatedly is this:  your feelings are not the only ones that matter. 

You may not like the fact that someone else has a preference for certain kinds of RPs, whether it is gender or tentacles.  But you don't get to tell them what to do.  Respect their choices, even when you disagree with them.  And don't try to shame them into doing what you want by labeling them bigots or prejudiced.  You don't know anywhere near enough about their past to pass judgment.

I'm not fully convinced it's the words.  For example, "block" seems to come off just as bad, even though it's far less clear.

I will affirm that if we allow people to seek only a specific gender, it is far preferable to have them clearly say so.  For example, I'm not going to waste my time trying to get a job at Hooters.

Beyond that, I think I'd only be repeating myself from elsewhere.

[Cycle]

AndyZ,

There are two points you continue to not address:

1.  Will you agree that your feelings are not the only ones that matter?

2.  Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be "morally wrong" or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as "banning," and "discrimination" to accept that they have a different opinion?

You statement quoted below does not answer the second question.

In regards to this question, specifically asked and repeated:

To use different terms would imply that the two are actually different.

Now, with respect to some of your comments:

I believe what you're saying is that it's a personal thing, that comfort kicks in and that the preferences of both parties deserve equal weight.

Now, why is that different for stores and businesses?

First, we agree that the employment example you raised earlier is no longer valid and now are turning to a new example?

Second, it is more than simple comfort. There are personal, private, intimate issues involved for some RPs.  Are you the sort of person that openly shares such things with everyone?  More importantly, are you insisting that everyone shares on the same level you do?

You want to compare stores with RPs.  Answer this question please: if you are a store owner, are you willing to share/tell/do the same things with your customers as you are with a RP partner writing a sexually themed story here on E? 

If the answer is no, then I think you see the difference between a store and a RP.

Let's say that a heterosexual male has been raped by a homosexual male.  This is something that happens, but it's far from indicative of all homosexual men.  However, this hypothetical person develops an aversion to homosexual males as a result.  He owns a business but doesn't feel comfortable having them there, because he spends 80 hours a week at the store and won't always have other people around.

Should this hypothetical store owner be allowed to deny homosexual men from employment simply because of his bad experience?

Invalid example, as a customer-store owner relationship is different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.

I think you can see where I was going with the race thing from before, then.

No, I do not.  I explained how your employment example based on "the race thing" is invalid.

I understand WHY people have these viewpoints, but not why some are considered acceptable and others are not.

You do not see the difference between buying a loaf of bread and writing a NC sexual scene?  You do not see the difference between hiring a new intern and writing a D/s spanking scene?

I'm not fully convinced it's the words.  For example, "block" seems to come off just as bad, even though it's far less clear.

This gets to the heart of the disconnect.  AndyZ, you view things one way.  You do not seem to be able to see things the way others do.  When I, and others, try to explain how we see it, you simply repeat how you see it and state your view is correct.

Until you can accept that others are going to have their own views--views which, even if you cannot understand, you should respect--I doubt you will ever find an adequate resolution to this issue.  You will simply see things the way you do, and there will be those of us who disagree with you.

[AndyZ]

AndyZ,

There are two points you continue to not address:

1.  Will you agree that your feelings are not the only ones that matter?

Yes.

2.  Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be "morally wrong" or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as "banning," and "discrimination" to accept that they have a different opinion?

You statement quoted below does not answer the second question.

verb (used with object), banned, banning.
1.
to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict:
to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime.
2.
Archaic.
to pronounce an ecclesiastical curse upon.
to curse; execrate.

I assure you that I'm using the first version of the word and not the second.

Naturally I accept that people have a different opinion.  What puzzles me is why we consider some types of banning bad and not others.

You may rest assured that I'm not attempting to deliberately choose words to convey some sort of pejorative.  For example, if I say that someone is gay, all I'm saying is that they're homosexual, not attempting to relay any sort of insult.

Now, with respect to some of your comments:

First, we agree that the employment example you raised earlier is no longer valid and now are turning to a new example?

Second, it is more than simple comfort. There are personal, private, intimate issues involved for some RPs.  Are you the sort of person that openly shares such things with everyone?  More importantly, are you insisting that everyone shares on the same level you do?

You want to compare stores with RPs.  Answer this question please: if you are a store owner, are you willing to share/tell/do the same things with your customers as you are with a RP partner writing a sexually themed story here on E? 

If the answer is no, then I think you see the difference between a store and a RP.

I've actually gotten to roleplay with a boss of mine before, as well as coworkers.

From my perspective, the concept of friendship extends to the workplace as much as it does to roleplaying.  It makes as much sense to say "I can't roleplay with X because he's Y," as it does to say, "I can't work with X because of Y (where neither X nor Y are directly related to the job)" or "I can't be friends with X because of Y."

Now, I will grant you that there's a degree of stigma for RP.  So I can grant the concept that someone might not be comfortable bringing up RP to begin with, but if you already know that the person RPs, it may change your perspective.

Invalid example, as a customer-store owner relationship is different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.

No, I do not.  I explained how your employment example based on "the race thing" is invalid.

You do not see the difference between buying a loaf of bread and writing a NC sexual scene?  You do not see the difference between hiring a new intern and writing a D/s spanking scene?

This gets to the heart of the disconnect.  AndyZ, you view things one way.  You do not seem to be able to see things the way others do.  When I, and others, try to explain how we see it, you simply repeat how you see it and state your view is correct.

Until you can accept that others are going to have their own views--views which, even if you cannot understand, you should respect--I doubt you will ever find an adequate resolution to this issue.  You will simply see things the way you do, and there will be those of us who disagree with you.

The only real difference I can see is the aforementioned stigma.  There's definitely a stigma on roleplayers, probably especially sexual roleplayers.

People keep in the dark about stuff, and it creates a closet all its own.  I can understand the idea of "I don't want someone to know I'm a sexual roleplayer, so I'm going to keep that secret."

If through mind reading, divination, or accidental eavesdropping, I learn that my boss is a sexual roleplayer, sure, let's start up a game.

I would put that up around on the idea of "We're all going to a Football game.  Do you want to join us?"  After all, there's no stigma on liking football games.

Now, if you found out that your boss was already here on Elliquiy and s/he wanted to start up a game with you, would you have a problem with it?

[Cycle]

Now, I will grant you that there's a degree of stigma for RP.  So I can grant the concept that someone might not be comfortable bringing up RP to begin with, but if you already know that the person RPs, it may change your perspective.

The only real difference I can see is the aforementioned stigma.  There's definitely a stigma on roleplayers, probably especially sexual roleplayers.

Well, I don't think stigma is the issue for most people when it comes to their partner preferences.  Here, on E, everyone knows everyone else is likely to be engaged in some form of adult RPing.  Rather, there is a level of intimacy possible through an RP.  A closer connection to the other writer, that may have tinges of sexual energy.  I described this in my first post in this thread and it seems you don't feel this at all.

Now, if you found out that your boss was already here on Elliquiy and s/he wanted to start up a game with you, would you have a problem with it?

I would decline the request politely.  There are things I would not wish to share with a co-worker, yes.

I think we've found your answer.  You seem to have a different view of RPing than some/most people who list a gender preference for their writing partners.

You don't feel the intimacy that some do.  And you are more willing to discuss sexual issues in certain situations than others: e.g., with an employer.

But as you are not passing judgment on others, nor insisting that they must conform with your view on how they conduct their RPs, then really, I have nothing more to add.

[Iniquitous]

Attempt #2

I am not on here charging for my writing services - thus, I can (and do) allow my preferences to reign supreme. I am not, under any circumstances, going to write with someone if I am not comfortable and feel safe with them. Nor will I write a story I am not comfortable with.

If I owned a business, my personal preferences do not get to come into play. There are laws in place that make sure that my personal preferences do not get in the way of fair practice. Because I am charging the population at large, I have to follow those laws - no matter what my personal preferences are.

There in is the difference Andy. Writing on elliquiy is not a business. It is not a job. It is a recreation for each person's enjoyment. Your enjoyment does not trump my enjoyment. My enjoyment does not trump someone else's enjoyment. Again, we are all adults and should be able to accept that we will not be everyone's cup of tea.

As for using negative words - when you use the word ban instead of something like preference you are putting a negative spin on the situation. This is not negative. This simply is a matter of preference - and there is nothing negative about having a preference.

[AndyZ]

Well, I don't think stigma is the issue for most people when it comes to their partner preferences.  Here, on E, everyone knows everyone else is likely to be engaged in some for adult RPing.  Rather, there is a level of intimacy possible through an RP.  A closer connection to the other writer, that may have tinges of sexual energy.  I described this in my first post in this thread and it seems you don't feel this at all.

I would decline the request politely.  There are things I would not wish to share with a co-worker, yes.

I think we've found your answer.  You seem to have a different view of RPing than some/most people who list a gender preference for their writing partners.

You don't feel the intimacy that some do.  And you are more willing to discuss sexual issues in certain situations than others: e.g., with an employer.

But as you are not passing judgment on others, nor insisting that they must conform with your view on how they conduct their RPs, then really, I have nothing more to add.

I think we have that set ^_^ Thanks for putting up with me.

Attempt #2

I am not on here charging for my writing services - thus, I can (and do) allow my preferences to reign supreme. I am not, under any circumstances, going to write with someone if I am not comfortable and feel safe with them. Nor will I write a story I am not comfortable with.

If I owned a business, my personal preferences do not get to come into play. There are laws in place that make sure that my personal preferences do not get in the way of fair practice. Because I am charging the population at large, I have to follow those laws - no matter what my personal preferences are.

There in is the difference Andy. Writing on elliquiy is not a business. It is not a job. It is a recreation for each person's enjoyment. Your enjoyment does not trump my enjoyment. My enjoyment does not trump someone else's enjoyment. Again, we are all adults and should be able to accept that we will not be everyone's cup of tea.

As for using negative words - when you use the word ban instead of something like preference you are putting a negative spin on the situation. This is not negative. This simply is a matter of preference - and there is nothing negative about having a preference.

I do not consider "Because there are laws/rules" to be an acceptable reason.  It's not the only reason you gave, but just putting that out there.

So, from your perspective, the difference is commerce?  For example, where prostitution is legal and recognized, a prostitute would not be allowed to deny service based on age, sex, race, and so on?  However, it becomes acceptable so long as no money is exchanging hands, such that you would consider it perfectly acceptable to throw a party and only allow a certain type of person to participate?

[Oniya]

People already throw parties and only allow certain types of people to participate.  If I throw a party, I invite a select group of people that I have chosen for a particular reason:  Maybe I'm marathoning cheesy movies, and I invite 'people who like cheesy movies'.  Maybe I'm doing a 'stitch-n-bitch' and I invite 'people who stitch (and/or bitch)'.  Maybe I'm doing a trip to the Renaissance Faire and I invite 'people who like Renaissance Faires'.  Maybe I'm throwing a party for my daughter and I invite 'friends of my daughter'. 

I do not invite the whole neighborhood, and if someone shows up who I am not comfortable with having at the party, I do not let them in.

[rou]

From that perspective, it doesn't really matter if race is involved or not.  Is a guy who only hires blondes better than a guy who only hires white people?  Isn't the very definition of equality that we treat everyone the same?

Last I was aware, people of varying hair colors were not systematically and catastrophically discriminated against (barring maybe like, the holocaust?) But that being said, such superficial discrimination is a no-no unless there's a specific reason. (Like, I don't know, you own a blonde-kink strip club? Or you're auditioning for the role of a blonde in a film?)

In cases of businesses that hire minorities, they do so to help compensate for the disadvantages those people face for being a minority.

[Kuroneko]

You obviously share the opinion that people should be allowed to deny whoever they want from games.  Let's try a few other questions.

Let's say that a heterosexual male has been raped by a homosexual male.  This is something that happens, but it's far from indicative of all homosexual men.  However, this hypothetical person develops an aversion to homosexual males as a result.  He owns a business but doesn't feel comfortable having them there, because he spends 80 hours a week at the store and won't always have other people around.

Should this hypothetical store owner be allowed to deny homosexual men from employment simply because of his bad experience?  An inordinate number of people would say no, but you may disagree.  I request your answer.

As I stated previously, my personal stance is that people should be free to write with whomever they want.

AndyZ, you haven't answered my question (which was originally Cycle's, which he has asked once again in this thread, and you have again not answered), so I don't really feel I owe you an answer. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think this is another example of his point that despite the attempts of others trying to explain their opinion, which is clearly different from yours, you basically repeat your opinion and tell us your view is the right one. You want me to answer a question, but you cannot return the favor.

In any case, Cycle has already answered the question you've posed exactly as I would answer it. I think it's an irrelvant example, because the relationship between a store owner and a customer is very different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.

So, from your perspective, the difference is commerce?  For example, where prostitution is legal and recognized, a prostitute would not be allowed to deny service based on age, sex, race, and so on?  However, it becomes acceptable so long as no money is exchanging hands, such that you would consider it perfectly acceptable to throw a party and only allow a certain type of person to participate?

So now you're comparing writing sexual RP to prostitution?  That seems like a really far reach. I think I agree with Cycle. You have a very different view of RP, and I think you've found your answer.

By the way, at the Bunny Ranch the sex workers are allowed to turn down any client for any reason.

 

[AndyZ]

People already throw parties and only allow certain types of people to participate.  If I throw a party, I invite a select group of people that I have chosen for a particular reason:  Maybe I'm marathoning cheesy movies, and I invite 'people who like cheesy movies'.  Maybe I'm doing a 'stitch-n-bitch' and I invite 'people who stitch (and/or bitch)'.  Maybe I'm doing a trip to the Renaissance Faire and I invite 'people who like Renaissance Faires'.  Maybe I'm throwing a party for my daughter and I invite 'friends of my daughter'. 

I do not invite the whole neighborhood, and if someone shows up who I am not comfortable with having at the party, I do not let them in.

I would consider that kind of stuff to be far closer to "character" than "player."  In many ways, this fits physical and mental characteristics.  (Since sexual orientation is genetic, I'm comfortable lumping it into physical characteristics, though I suppose it's possible that liking stitching, ren-faires and cheesy movies are all completely genetic as well.)

If somebody doesn't want to play Monopoly with a black person, it may be because they don't play Monopoly and it may be because they're black.  We consider one of these reasons very acceptable and one of these reasons very unacceptable.

By the same token, though, I ponder the idea how acceptable it would be to block someone from coming on a Ren-Faire trip because they also like stitching, if someone thought that stitching was weird, or similar with mental characteristics.  Certainly it seems silly, but I don't think that that'd be as big of a deal.

Last I was aware, people of varying hair colors were not systematically and catastrophically discriminated against (barring maybe like, the holocaust?) But that being said, such superficial discrimination is a no-no unless there's a specific reason. (Like, I don't know, you own a blonde-kink strip club? Or you're auditioning for the role of a blonde in a film?)

In cases of businesses that hire minorities, they do so to help compensate for the disadvantages those people face for being a minority.

Okay, so for you, it's purely whether people have been discriminated against in the past.

As I stated previously, my personal stance is that people should be free to write with whomever they want.

AndyZ, you haven't answered my question (which was originally Cycle's, which he has asked once again in this thread, and you have again not answered), so I don't really feel I owe you an answer. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think this is another example of his point that despite the attempts of others trying to explain their opinion, which is clearly different from yours, you basically repeat your opinion and tell us your view is the right one. You want me to answer a question, but you cannot return the favor.

In any case, Cycle has already answered the question you've posed exactly as I would answer it. I think it's an irrelvant example, because the relationship between a store owner and a customer is very different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.

So now you're comparing writing sexual RP to prostitution?  That seems like a really far reach. I think I agree with Cycle. You have a very different view of RP, and I think you've found your answer.

By the way, at the Bunny Ranch the sex workers are allowed to turn down any client for any reason.

From my perspective, if we say that it's acceptable for a Bunny Ranch worker to turn down any client for any reason, we should have a good reason for not having that for other jobs as well.

Now, you may or may not agree with that.  There is obviously a line somewhere that you see which I do not see.  Because of that line, you (presumably) consider it acceptable for a prostitute to turn a black man down because he's black, for a writer to turn a black man down because he's black, but not for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black.

There are many things in this world which I don't do but would not stop others from doing.  It's not really my job to pass judgment down on people, but I like to understand why some things are considered acceptable and some are not.

As I told Cycle, I disagree with the idea not to RP with your boss if your boss wants to RP, but that's on him.  I don't think he's an evil person for it.

Believe me that if I thought you were a truly evil person and beyond discourse, I would not attempt this conversation in the first place.

Now, what I'm starting to think is that the line just appears in different places for different people, which is odd.

Let's try this again.

Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.

I can absolutely accept the possibility that other people feel differently than I do.

Part of the issue is that you presume that my use of the words banning and discrimination are meant as a pejorative.

I've had this issue with people with talks like socialism.  Sometimes people think that being called socialist is some kind of pejorative.  However, it's just someone with a particular set of political beliefs.

I have an RL friend who has expressed discomfort when I use the word in D&D for a particular hazard that rogues usually spot and disarm, because it's also a pejorative for transfemales (or possibly all transpeople, I don't know).

Although I tried to use the word "blocking," it only made the situation more vague, because people started to think that I was demanding that they play in the kinds of games that people didn't like, as opposed to allowing players.

Please do not make the assumption that I mean words in their wost pejorative terms.  If I say that someone is gay, I am not passing any sort of judgment beyond acknowledging that particular person's sexual orientation.

[Cycle]

AndyZ, your view of the "discrimination" cannot work in reality.

Your position is that no one should ever be denied an opportunity to do anything based on gender or race. 

If this were true, then homosexuals must date heterosexuals.  All women must sleep with all black men.  And all Asians.  And all Hispanics.  And all other ethnicities.  And all women.  And all men. 

This obviously isn't how people operate. 

People have boundaries.

Just because you don't have boundaries or cannot seem to understand them, that doesn't mean other people--including myself--are being silly because we have them.

And don't you ever call me silly again.

[AndyZ]

Apologies for upsetting you with the word "silly."  I edited my post.

[Ebb]

Now, if you found out that your boss was already here on Elliquiy and s/he wanted to start up a game with you, would you have a problem with it?

AndyZ, I think that somewhere around this question is the heart of the difficulty that you're having, and I hope you don't mind if I probe on it a little.

If I were to find out that my boss enjoyed playing D&D, then I might be inclined to set up a game and play with him.
If I were to find out that my boss enjoyed co-writing stories about people having sex, there's no way in hell that I would set up a game and play with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that about 99% of the people on this board would probably agree or mostly agree with those statements were they in the same situation. It seems that you would not.

You need to understand that that's a minority viewpoint. It doesn't mean you're wrong -- it's a matter of personal preference; you can't be "wrong". It just means you're in the minority. If it's puzzling to you why you're in the minority on that then, fair enough, keep questioning and trying to figure it out. But if you do that, please listen from a perspective of humility. There's a reason why society has evolved certain lines and boundaries that most people abide by.

And if you've read all of the above and it still doesn't seem to resonate, then go back and replace the word "boss" with "father" (or "mother") and read it again, for a more extreme example.

The short version: Things having to do with sex are different from buying bread, or playing Monopoly. They just are.

[rou]

Okay, so for you, it's purely whether people have been discriminated against in the past.

No, it's not "purely" about that. What I'm saying is that history factors into it. History provides reasons, motivations, scars. Just because I say something has an effect doesn't mean its the ONLY effect I (or others) recognize.

If you poke someone, you could get a variety of reactions, but annoyance is probably the worst. If you poke someone on a bruise, however? That's going to hurt. Different people have different bruises, so while it will hurt one person if you poke them on the arm, its entirely okay to poke someone else in that exact spot.

And these bruises make people different. If my arm is bruised, but yours isn't, then its going to hurt me in a way it doesn't hurt you to be poked in that spot. That's why its different. That's why maybe asian people can do something that isn't okay for white people to do because the level of harm is entirely different.

A huge component of empathy is being able to understand the ways that people are different. The assumption of treating everyone exactly the same is an assumption that everyone IS the same, which simply is not the case.

[Kuroneko]

I'm not presuming that you mean the words to be pejorative. As I and others have pointed out, the words you've chosen to use carry a negative context whether or not you intend for them to be interpreted that way or not.

From my perspective, if we say that it's acceptable for a Bunny Ranch worker to turn down any client for any reason, we should have a good reason for not having that for other jobs as well.

You've missed my point in including this bit of information. I included that comment because you stated ...

For example, where prostitution is legal and recognized, a prostitute would not be allowed to deny service based on age, sex, race, and so on?

...as if it were fact. It's not. It's therefore not a valid point in supporting your argument. That's all.

Now, you may or may not agree with that.  There is obviously a line somewhere that you see which I do not see.  Because of that line, you (presumably) consider it acceptable for a prostitute to turn a black man down because he's black, for a writer to turn a black man down because he's black, but not for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black.

I think it's fair to say that you're making a lot of assumptions about me here. Your presumptions are incorrect. I don't have a 'line.' Do I believe that a sexworker should be able to chose who they engage in sex with? Of course I do. It's their body and they have absolute autonomy over it, whether they work legally or not. They are the only ones who get to decide who they share it with, whether that involves money or not. Do I think it's okay for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black, heavily tattooed - as I am - (or gay, or trans, or femme, or asexual, or purple, or an alien, or whatever)? No, and the law agrees. Do I believe a professional writer can turn a writing partner down for any of those reasons/characteristics? No. Someone that writes professionally (and I do) needs to follow the same rules as the bartender.

Do I think that a recreational writer can turn a potential RP partner down because they are (insert whatever thing you want to in here)? Yes. I think there are a lot of characteristics that go into finding a compatible writing partner or a group of them for a recreational game, and personal preferences are part of that. While I wouldn't support someone saying 'I just don't like X people so I don't want to write with them,' I do recognize and respect that there are legitimate reasons why someone who writes for a hobby might want to restrict their writing to a narrow group of people. It doesn't mean I condone it or that I practice it myself, but I understand it. And since I can't force people to behave the way I would behave in what is a recreational activity, I have to accept it. As I've said before. I can only hope that their point of view will change and expand in the future.

I really don't have anything else to add to the conversation, as it seems to just be going in circles now.

[AndyZ]

AndyZ, I think that somewhere around this question is the heart of the difficulty that you're having, and I hope you don't mind if I probe on it a little.

If I were to find out that my boss enjoyed playing D&D, then I might be inclined to set up a game and play with him.
If I were to find out that my boss enjoyed co-writing stories about people having sex, there's no way in hell that I would set up a game and play with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that about 99% of the people on this board would probably agree or mostly agree with those statements were they in the same situation. It seems that you would not.

You need to understand that that's a minority viewpoint. It doesn't mean you're wrong -- it's a matter of personal preference; you can't be "wrong". It just means you're in the minority. If it's puzzling to you why you're in the minority on that then, fair enough, keep questioning and trying to figure it out. But if you do that, please listen from a perspective of humility. There's a reason why society has evolved certain lines and boundaries that most people abide by.

And if you've read all of the above and it still doesn't seem to resonate, then go back and replace the word "boss" with "father" (or "mother") and read it again, for a more extreme example.

The short version: Things having to do with sex are different from buying bread, or playing Monopoly. They just are.

This is probably ultimately the reason.  Thank you.

No, it's not "purely" about that. What I'm saying is that history factors into it. History provides reasons, motivations, scars. Just because I say something has an effect doesn't mean its the ONLY effect I (or others) recognize.

If you poke someone, you could get a variety of reactions, but annoyance is probably the worst. If you poke someone on a bruise, however? That's going to hurt. Different people have different bruises, so while it will hurt one person if you poke them on the arm, its entirely okay to poke someone else in that exact spot.

And these bruises make people different. If my arm is bruised, but yours isn't, then its going to hurt me in a way it doesn't hurt you to be poked in that spot. That's why its different. That's why maybe asian people can do something that isn't okay for white people to do because the level of harm is entirely different.

A huge component of empathy is being able to understand the ways that people are different. The assumption of treating everyone exactly the same is an assumption that everyone IS the same, which simply is not the case.

That's what I meant by context...I think.

I need to think on this one.

I'm not presuming that you mean the words to be pejorative. As I and others have pointed out, the words you've chosen to use carry a negative context whether or not you intend for them to be interpreted that way or not.

You've missed my point in including this bit of information. I included that comment because you stated ...

...as if it were fact. It's not. It's therefore not a valid point in supporting your argument. That's all.

I think it's fair to say that you're making a lot of assumptions about me here. Your presumptions are incorrect. I don't have a 'line.' Do I believe that a sexworker should be able to chose who they engage in sex with? Of course I do. It's their body and they have absolute autonomy over it, whether they work legally or not. They are the only ones who get to decide who they share it with, whether that involves money or not. Do I think it's okay for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black, heavily tattooed - as I am - (or gay, or trans, or femme, or asexual, or purple, or an alien, or whatever)? No, and the law agrees. Do I believe a professional writer can turn a writing partner down for any of those reasons/characteristics? No. Someone that writes professionally (and I do) needs to follow the same rules as the bartender.

Do I think that a recreational writer can turn a potential RP partner down because they are (insert whatever thing you want to in here)? Yes. I think there are a lot of characteristics that go into finding a compatible writing partner or a group of them for a recreational game, and personal preferences are part of that. While I wouldn't support someone saying 'I just don't like X people so I don't want to write with them,' I do recognize and respect that there are legitimate reasons why someone who writes for a hobby might want to restrict their writing to a narrow group of people. It doesn't mean I condone it or that I practice it myself, but I understand it. And since I can't force people to behave the way I would behave in what is a recreational activity, I have to accept it. As I've said before. I can only hope that their point of view will change and expand in the future.

I really don't have anything else to add to the conversation, as it seems to just be going in circles now.

Okay, when I say "line," what I mean is a particular demarcation wherein something changes from acceptable to unacceptable.

There are particular types of people who won't eat fish and eggs.  There are particular types of people who will eat fish and eggs, but won't eat cattle.  There are particular types of people who will eat cattle, but won't eat dogs.  There are particular types of people who will eat dogs, but won't eat humans.  There are particular types of people who will eat humans.

Each of these types of people considers it perfectly valid and rational.

Now, Iniquitous Opheliac (unless I'm mistaken) suggested a line at commerce.  I admit that I may well be mistaken.  I was wrong with Roulette and she was kind enough to correct me.  I was not stating it as fact, but asking whether this would fit in accordance with her perspective.

Although it's not uncommon for me to get a simple affirmation, sometimes people give a denial giving yet another reason.  Then we go through the process with that.

I can easily see how it seems like just going in circles, especially as I have multiple conversations simultaneously.  However, I see it more as a crucible where we burn away the irrelevancies and discover the fundamental issues.

For you, the demarcation appears to be professional vs. recreational.  Those are the words you have italicized.  If that was the demarcation, however, a professional sex worker would be expected to show the same level of acceptance as a bartender.

Ebb's post suggests that we have another demarcation where sex is involved, and his suggestion holds up in the various examples that people have given so far.

I realize that I have a very unusual method of seeing things, and apologize if I've upset you.

[Remiel]

Just to throw this in there:  if you've ever gone browsing the classified ads under "Roommate Wanted", you'll see that a lot of them have "Female Preferred" somewhere in the ad.    Obviously female roommates are more desirable than males.

Is this prejudice?  Absolutely.  And yet, no one (at least that I know of) has raised a big stink about this.  Why?  Because women, as a rule, tend to be cleaner and take better care of their domiciles than men do.  Clearly, this does not apply across the board--there are some men who would make ideal roommates, just as there are women who are complete slobs--but the stereotype is true enough that I can understand why someone would put "female preferred" in their ad.   And I certainly don't hold it against them (unless, of course, they were skeezy and just wanted a potential sex partner living under the same roof).

Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal.

Almost no one does this.  Why?  Well, first, because it's stupid.  You've just turned away a customer.  Second, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for doing it, and if it got out that you were discriminating a certain group, I'm sure they'd organize a boycott.  We see it happen all the time. 

But the fact remains that no one has to conduct themselves free from any type of discrimination.  Unless they're a public or government institution, and that's a different story.

[Remiel]

To relate my answer to your original comment, Andy, I'd say that I'd have no problem whatsoever with the Christian bakery refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings.  It's their business, they can do what they want.    It's like the Chick-fil-A controversy: in the past, Chick-fil-A was shown to have contributed millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations.     As a result, they've garnered lots of bad PR and boycotts, but it was within their rights to do so.

[kylie]

Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal....

Almost no one does this....

....But the fact remains that no one has to conduct themselves free from any type of discrimination.  Unless they're a public or government institution, and that's a different story.

      It isn't enough simply to say "private" as opposed to publicly operated.  (And putting up a sign doesn't always mean shit is actually legal.)  If a business is declared as serving the general public, then it has to follow anti-discrimination law until there is an exception.  Otherwise what you get is communities in regions that tend to have more discrimination, setting up a de facto denial of however many service or sales choices to whatever populations they wish.  At best, if you assume that minorities will be able to accumulate wealth and set up their own accessible businesses somehow in great enough numbers, it's both inefficient and more importantly sanctioning a form of "separate but equal" (which is rarely equal at all in practice).

      This is why Hobby Lobby was such a shakeup: Now it's much less clear where the exceptions are.  The precise breakdown of what is going to be allowed could be fought all over again.  Coming from the other direction, Elaine Photography v.Willock was a situation where the courts decided that doing public business meant that  service could not be denied on religious grounds.  There is some interesting discussion of why the Supreme Court may not have touched it here.

[consortium11]

Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal.

That's not the case.

To quote the Civil Rights Act 1964: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The term "public accommodations" (the definition used in the Civil Rights Act 1964 and most subsequent legislation) means anything that accommodates the public (i.e. serves them). Subsequent cases and legislation has made clear that sex and gender are also protected classes. A business can of course refuse services to a woman or a person of colour... but they can't do so because they are a woman or a PoC.

[Caehlim]

Okay, when I say "line," what I mean is a particular demarcation wherein something changes from acceptable to unacceptable.

The maths behind that line looks more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

[Zakharra]

Just to throw this in there:  if you've ever gone browsing the classified ads under "Roommate Wanted", you'll see that a lot of them have "Female Preferred" somewhere in the ad.    Obviously female roommates are more desirable than males.

Is this prejudice?  Absolutely.  And yet, no one (at least that I know of) has raised a big stink about this.  Why?  Because women, as a rule, tend to be cleaner and take better care of their domiciles than men do.  Clearly, this does not apply across the board--there are some men who would make ideal roommates, just as there are women who are complete slobs--but the stereotype is true enough that I can understand why someone would put "female preferred" in their ad.   And I certainly don't hold it against them (unless, of course, they were skeezy and just wanted a potential sex partner living under the same roof).

Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal.

Almost no one does this.  Why?  Well, first, because it's stupid.  You've just turned away a customer.  Second, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for doing it, and if it got out that you were discriminating a certain group, I'm sure they'd organize a boycott.  We see it happen all the time. 

But the fact remains that no one has to conduct themselves free from any type of discrimination.  Unless they're a public or government institution, and that's a different story.

Actually, that is done all the time. Stores usually turning away potential customers. Stores with the 'No shirts, no shoes, no service' signs. I have seen people turned away because they didn;t have shirts or shoes on (bikini tops are ok, but not showing all bare skin).

[AndyZ]

Just to throw this in there:  if you've ever gone browsing the classified ads under "Roommate Wanted", you'll see that a lot of them have "Female Preferred" somewhere in the ad.    Obviously female roommates are more desirable than males.

Is this prejudice?  Absolutely.  And yet, no one (at least that I know of) has raised a big stink about this.  Why?  Because women, as a rule, tend to be cleaner and take better care of their domiciles than men do.  Clearly, this does not apply across the board--there are some men who would make ideal roommates, just as there are women who are complete slobs--but the stereotype is true enough that I can understand why someone would put "female preferred" in their ad.   And I certainly don't hold it against them (unless, of course, they were skeezy and just wanted a potential sex partner living under the same roof).

Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal.

Almost no one does this.  Why?  Well, first, because it's stupid.  You've just turned away a customer.  Second, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for doing it, and if it got out that you were discriminating a certain group, I'm sure they'd organize a boycott.  We see it happen all the time. 

But the fact remains that no one has to conduct themselves free from any type of discrimination.  Unless they're a public or government institution, and that's a different story.

I remember the thing where Arizona was going to add sexual orientation to its protected classes the way race and color are.  George Takei and various people showed up, and the idea was blocked, so it's currently acceptable to turn people away in Arizona if you're gay.

If this was the method that America handled the matter, I would consider it consistent.

      It isn't enough simply to say "private" as opposed to publicly operated.  (And putting up a sign doesn't always mean shit is actually legal.)  If a business is declared as serving the general public, then it has to follow anti-discrimination law until there is an exception.  Otherwise what you get is communities in regions that tend to have more discrimination, setting up a de facto denial of however many service or sales choices to whatever populations they wish.  At best, if you assume that minorities will be able to accumulate wealth and set up their own accessible businesses somehow in great enough numbers, it's both inefficient and more importantly sanctioning a form of "separate but equal" (which is rarely equal at all in practice).

      This is why Hobby Lobby was such a shakeup: Now it's much less clear where the exceptions are.  The precise breakdown of what is going to be allowed could be fought all over again.  Coming from the other direction, Elaine Photography v.Willock was a situation where the courts decided that doing public business meant that  service could not be denied on religious grounds.  There is some interesting discussion of why the Supreme Court may not have touched it here.

That's not the case.

To quote the Civil Rights Act 1964: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The term "public accommodations" (the definition used in the Civil Rights Act 1964 and most subsequent legislation) means anything that accommodates the public (i.e. serves them). Subsequent cases and legislation has made clear that sex and gender are also protected classes. A business can of course refuse services to a woman or a person of colour... but they can't do so because they are a woman or a PoC.

However, Remiel, it's not how things in America work.

The maths behind that line looks more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Remind me to ask you about this in detail when I have more oxygen.

Actually, that is done all the time. Stores usually turning away potential customers. Stores with the 'No shirts, no shoes, no service' signs. I have seen people turned away because they didn;t have shirts or shoes on (bikini tops are ok, but not showing all bare skin).

I can easily see a difference between "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and "No Antarcticans."  Anyone can choose to put on a shirt or shoes, but no one can choose their race, sex, etc.

By the same token, I have absolutely no problem with discriminating against character types.  If I set up a game where everyone has to play elves, it doesn't stop anyone from playing if they do want to play.  They just have to play an elf.  However, if I make a game where all players have to be elves, it doesn't matter how badly the humans or gnomes or dwarves want to play, because they're banned.

[Oniya]

I remember the thing where Arizona was going to add sexual orientation to its protected classes the way race and color are.  George Takei and various people showed up, and the idea was blocked, so it's currently acceptable to turn people away in Arizona if you're gay.

I think you mean 'but the idea was blocked.'  I can guarantee that George would have been supporting the addition of orientation as a protected class.  Using 'and' implies that the idea was blocked as a result of George Takei and the other people showing up.

[AndyZ]

George Takei was vehemently against SB 1062, and helped get it blocked.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2014/02/22/oh-great-arizona-now-george-takei-is-pissed-off

As such, things are as they are now, where sexual orientation is not one of the protected classes.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arizona-employment-discrimination-31984.html

I believe "and" is the correct word.

[consortium11]

I remember the thing where Arizona was going to add sexual orientation to its protected classes the way race and color are.  George Takei and various people showed up, and the idea was blocked, so it's currently acceptable to turn people away in Arizona if you're gay.

George Takei was vehemently against SB 1062, and helped get it blocked.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2014/02/22/oh-great-arizona-now-george-takei-is-pissed-off

As such, things are as they are now, where sexual orientation is not one of the protected classes.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arizona-employment-discrimination-31984.html

I believe "and" is the correct word.

SB 1062 was basically the opposite of adding sexual orientation as a protected class.

SB1062 was an attempt to extend the "substantially burdened the exercise of religion" clause in response on a number of court cases from other states where Christians had refused service to LGBT people (especially couples) and, when taken to court, claimed religious freedom only to fail. Many noted at the time that it was only ever a PR stunt because, as you mention, sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Arizona to begin with so there would be no cause of action to sue for. That said, there still could have been consequences, especially if sexual orientation had later become a protected class; SB 1062 would have allowed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act defence to be raised even when the government wasn't party to a case. In essence SB1062 made it even easier to discriminate against LGBT people.

[AndyZ]

SB 1062 was basically the opposite of adding sexual orientation as a protected class.

SB1062 was an attempt to extend the "substantially burdened the exercise of religion" clause in response on a number of court cases from other states where Christians had refused service to LGBT people (especially couples) and, when taken to court, claimed religious freedom only to fail. Many noted at the time that it was only ever a PR stunt because, as you mention, sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Arizona to begin with so there would be no cause of action to sue for. That said, there still could have been consequences, especially if sexual orientation had later become a protected class; SB 1062 would have allowed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act defence to be raised even when the government wasn't party to a case. In essence SB1062 made it even easier to discriminate against LGBT people.

Okay, so it would have ended up being a completely superfluous law?  That makes sense.  I figured that SB1062 must set up protected class status in there, but obviously I was wrong.

If you wouldn't mind, I bolded a bit and would ask you to go into more detail.  The government has to be party to a case?

[consortium11]

If you wouldn't mind, I bolded a bit and would ask you to go into more detail.  The government has to be party to a case?

In Elane Photography v. Willock, a New Mexico case relating to a photographer refusing to shoot a gay wedding because they said it went against their owners religious beliefs, the NM Supreme Court held that the RFRA only applies in suits where the government is a party (i.e. someone is either suing the government or being sued by the government). In cases between two private individuals it cannot be cited. Joe LaRue, one of the attorneys who helped draft SB1062 and a guy who took on much of the media duties for supporting it expressly cited this as one of the reasons SB 1062 was needed.

[AndyZ]

As a double-check, sexual orientation is a protected class in New Mexico: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-mexico-employment-discrimination-31959.html

So, if there's a company that won't accept me based on one of these in my state, I can just sue it myself without having to wait for the government to step in?

[consortium11]

As a double-check, sexual orientation is a protected class in New Mexico: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-mexico-employment-discrimination-31959.html

So, if there's a company that won't accept me based on one of these in my state, I can just sue it myself without having to wait for the government to step in?

States may have slightly different laws but, on the whole, yes.

[AndyZ]

So, ultimately, the entire process of protected classes and all is pointless because it just comes down to whether you can convince a jury for whatever the reason might be?  Not sure I like that...

[consortium11]

So, ultimately, the entire process of protected classes and all is pointless because it just comes down to whether you can convince a jury for whatever the reason might be?  Not sure I like that...

But if something isn't a protected class and you try to sue for discrimination based on it the chances are your claim gets thrown out of court either immediately or at the end of pleading your case. Even if through sheer fate it gets to the court, survives the hearing, the judge doesn't instruct the jury to dismiss and the jury agrees (and that's assuming it's a jury trial to being with... the Elaine Photography case wasn't) then as soon as it's appealed to a higher court then it will get thrown out.

[AndyZ]

Which makes it all the more unnecessary.

I guess I just assumed that they'd be putting it as a protected class with conditions instead of setting up the problem in a state where it isn't a protected class anyway.

Well, I feel stupid, but I appreciate being made to feel stupid because it means that I learned something.

Thank you.

[Thesunmaid]

The only thing that sort of makes me shake my head is people are missing out on an entirely fucking amazing section of the E with lieges. I mean does the I only play with women..or I will only play with males...you never see an ad saying I will only play with someone who is transgendered or I only want lieges. Some of the most amazing people I have met on here were either once one gender and are now another or they are lieges.

I am not saying that anyone has to play with a gender they are uncomfortable with but...it seems a bit unfair to leave out an entire section of people just because some are not quite sure what gender they are...some were born in the wrong body...some just don't really see gender as that important. But what ever someones reasons are...maybe just try and keep in mind that they are all just people. Your genitals don't make you who you are. Not all men are rapey misogynists...not all woman are emotional nut bags...not all trans people are weirdos...they are all just people who like to write.

And yes Lesbian games will attract some guys who are like hurr hurr gonna see some girl on girl action...but also some guy on guy games might get a woman hot? Is that wrong? Yes the lesbian porn thing is much more well known but..that does not mean its wrong does it..sex it hot and awesome and feels good. Boobs are comfortable and magical. Penises are wonderful things too. so are vagina's and hairy chests..they are all just people in the end wanting to play.

I am pansexual...so I pretty much don't care what someones bits look like...if you have both..or just one so long as you are an interesting person who writes well and we have things in common..I will play. But..maybe me being pansexual does confuse me on why people are so adamant about one or the other. But also my first crush was another girl..then i discovered I liked both boys and girls...then I thought ok I am bi...cool i know what I am now..Then I met a woman in a mans body that made me rethink things yet again..so maybe because of the way I realized my sexuality is why I feel the way I do?

[Iniquitous]

Here is my issue.

Not everyone is comfortable with everyone else. And that is okay. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to write with whomever approaches you. No one here forces people to write with everyone else.

It’s perfectly fine that there are those here that can write with whomever, whenever. It’s perfectly fine that there are some who want to write only with those that define themselves as male. It’s perfectly fine that there are some who want to write only with those that define themselves as female.

I am really struggling to understand why there is so much angst about this. Yes, I understand that there was a group game that denied someone because his tag said Lord and the group game was for females only. But, really? All of this angst when you can simply say “well shit, that sucks. Let me look and see if I see another game I am interested in.” or “Well damn, let me work on setting up my own group game that is similar to this one so I can play this idea.”

We are all adults here, we should all be able to respect the limits and comfort levels of our fellow members. I mean, to me, this whole thread feels like a shaming tactic. I am sure the OP did not mean it that way, but after so many threads about this same topic and the reasons given not clearing anything up, it really does come across as a way to shame those whose preferences do not match everyone else.

This went from venting about a group game being set up that requests Lady tag only to trying to call this discrimination and trying to compare it to businesses when it should have been simply understood that the preferences of the GM and those involved in the game take precedence over someone’s feelings getting bent because they cannot join something that was clearly not set up for every member of Elliquiy.

[consortium11]

The only thing that sort of makes me shake my head is people are missing out on an entirely fucking amazing section of the E with lieges. I mean does the I only play with women..or I will only play with males...you never see an ad saying I will only play with someone who is transgendered or I only want lieges. Some of the most amazing people I have met on here were either once one gender and are now another or they are lieges.

I am not saying that anyone has to play with a gender they are uncomfortable with but...it seems a bit unfair to leave out an entire section of people just because some are not quite sure what gender they are...some were born in the wrong body...some just don't really see gender as that important. But what ever someones reasons are...maybe just try and keep in mind that they are all just people. Your genitals don't make you who you are. Not all men are rapey misogynists...not all woman are emotional nut bags...not all trans people are weirdos...they are all just people who like to write.

I touched on this in an earlier reply, but it seems to me that Lieges frequently end up as, for lack of a better term, collateral damage in these situations.

Whether it's a comfort issue or a "men write better men/women write better women" issue pretty much every time I see someone state their preference for who the writer behind the screen is it's sold as straight dichotomy between ladies/lords. In the group game that found itself in the recent upswing of discussion on this topic it was "Ladies only"... and when discussion of it came up most of the reasoning was about why they didn't want Lords involved. If you go through O&O's that want a partner to be a certain gender it's people saying partners should be a Lord or a Lady.

Which leaves Lieges rather out in the cold. I'm not sure I've once seen a rationalization given for why a "Lord only" or "Lady only" story excludes Lieges; if an explanation is given it's to why Lord or Lady was excluded.

And yes Lesbian games will attract some guys who are like hurr hurr gonna see some girl on girl action...but also some guy on guy games might get a woman hot? Is that wrong? Yes the lesbian porn thing is much more well known but..that does not mean its wrong does it..sex it hot and awesome and feels good. Boobs are comfortable and magical. Penises are wonderful things too. so are vagina's and hairy chests..they are all just people in the end wanting to play.

I'm not sure I'd want to put too much money on it but I'd be happy to place a small bet that on E there's more M/M stories with two female writers then there are F/F stories with two male writers.

[AndyZ]

Here is my issue.

Not everyone is comfortable with everyone else. And that is okay. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to write with whomever approaches you. No one here forces people to write with everyone else.

It’s perfectly fine that there are those here that can write with whomever, whenever. It’s perfectly fine that there are some who want to write only with those that define themselves as male. It’s perfectly fine that there are some who want to write only with those that define themselves as female.

I am really struggling to understand why there is so much angst about this. Yes, I understand that there was a group game that denied someone because his tag said Lord and the group game was for females only. But, really? All of this angst when you can simply say “well shit, that sucks. Let me look and see if I see another game I am interested in.” or “Well damn, let me work on setting up my own group game that is similar to this one so I can play this idea.”

We are all adults here, we should all be able to respect the limits and comfort levels of our fellow members. I mean, to me, this whole thread feels like a shaming tactic. I am sure the OP did not mean it that way, but after so many threads about this same topic and the reasons given not clearing anything up, it really does come across as a way to shame those whose preferences do not match everyone else.

This went from venting about a group game being set up that requests Lady tag only to trying to call this discrimination and trying to compare it to businesses when it should have been simply understood that the preferences of the GM and those involved in the game take precedence over someone’s feelings getting bent because they cannot join something that was clearly not set up for every member of Elliquiy.

Iniquitous Opheliac, I'm not sure I can explain any better, but I'll try.

People have different perspectives on what they consider to be good and evil, and those axes are very different for different people.

For you, it's perfectly natural that a thread on Elliquiy can choose which particular people they want but that a bar cannot.  You have no difficulty in accepting that a game can decide not to have any men, but that a store cannot decide not to have any men. 

“well shit, that sucks. Let me look and see if I see another game I am interested in.” or “Well damn, let me work on setting up my own group game that is similar to this one so I can play this idea.”

is acceptable to you.

“well shit, that sucks. Let me look and see if I see another store I am interested in.” or “Well damn, let me work on setting up my own business that is similar to this one so I can work with this idea.”

is not acceptable to you.

Now, personally, I've never had an easy time as accepting something is right just because that's what the law says.  For example, I don't feel that women should not be allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.  Sure, that's what the law says there, but that simple proclamation that some humans decided to create that law does not in and of itself create an acceptable reason from my perspective.

You've already given your demarcation, which is different from other people's, and I'm not saying that that's bad.  I'm not sure I'd want to force a prostitute to have to take any and all comers regardless of her own preferences, but we can agree to disagree there.

Honestly, most of the time I have these talks, I'm not looking to change other people's perspectives.  I like to see how other people think.

Roulette's perspective in particular is fascinating to me.  It's unusual, but that doesn't make it bad at all.  Ebb has quite another, and it seems to hold up with what most people consider.

I would much rather people were open and honest with discussions.  If someone does honestly believe that a particular type of people are inferior, I'd love to sit down and have a discussion on the matter, find out why they believe so, and maybe convince them otherwise or maybe not.

Now, I personally have some concern about the concept that I'm free to do whatever if I'm not being paid and am forced to do something if given money, but that doesn't mean I don't like your belief system.  Certainly others have used that method, and I can't help but be reminded of hierodules.

Now, the thing I do tend to question is consistency, which is a whole different ball game.

Nearly 20 years ago, in Salt Lake City, the school board got a ruling from the Supreme Court that either they had to allow a gay-straight alliance club or disband all their clubs.  They chose the latter.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960222&slug=2315413

Now, I'm not saying it was the right decision, but I can see how it's fair.  If you don't allow the GSA club, at least you're not allowing ANY club, and there's a consistency there.

When we have consistency, we can look at the broad effects of a particular rule instead of attempting to apply them on a case by case basis.

When we don't have consistency, we have people laying down rules that they don't themselves follow because they set the rules with such arbitrary distinctions that they can still do whatever they want.  For example, Nancy Pelosi can do stuff that would get me put in jail for insider trading, because she is a politician and I am not.  I would not consider being a politician as being a good reason to allow insider trading, because it's not consistent with the reason of why we don't allow insider trading.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/

Now, the reason that there's been so many threads is because people keep wanting me to start it over.  The last thread ended when I was asked to start up this separate thread and then they locked the old one for some reason.

However, I've never been one to shy away from a topic.  So many people have different and interesting ideas that it can be fun to take them apart and see what others think.  I've never been one to consider a matter so thoroughly closed that no one can ever enter in at another time and offer another perspective.

I tend to find these conversations a lot of fun, but I'm also used to dealing with people that know that I'm not trying to upset them and that I don't always understand their point of view.  I would like to hope that you know the same.

[Cycle]

It's not just like I'm being called a bigot. It's like people are saying I should be shamed by everyone else.  ...  I appreciate people who will write with anyone and wish that I had the same desires as they do. But the belief that I am a bad person because I am not like them is very hurtful.

You are not the only one that has said these threads have made them uncomfortable or hurt.  This is the main reason I remain vocal on the subject.  To the extent I can, I want to prevent people from feeling the way you do.

A thread bashing people who don't have an “anyone and anything welcome” policy would make me stop posting requests, and maybe stop coming here at all. If that thread does exist, please don't show it to me.

Such a thread existed, and I believe the original poster apologized for using the words "bigot."

A rule banning anyone from asking for what they desire and are comfortable with would make me so uncomfortable that I would leave the site.

You are not alone.  ImaginedScenes and others who may read this, please note that E's Staff has stated its position on this issue is as follows:

Quote from: Blythe on September 19, 2014, 08:23:48 PM

We'd like to mention the following:

* Firstly, we understand that everyone on Elliquiy has their own personal comfort level. No one should be pushed outside of their comfort zone, and we do not advocate that this be done. Elliquiy has always fostered a culture of safety and comfort and will continue to do so.  No one can make another person write with them. For those who are open to crossgender writers, this is awesome. For those who are not, this is their prerogative. This can be disappointing for those who feel they have missed out on a great writing partner or group, but we are a diverse site with many crossgender writers and those accepting thereof.

...

(From Staff)

I added the highlights above.

[Amelita]

I saw the Rainbow Writer tag mentioned and since I'm commenting on that, I'm gonna weigh in with my two cents.




In my point of view, this whole matter boils down to one single, very simple, thing.


All of us come here to write. We all have different things that make writing fun, and keeping it fun is the goal, correct?


What those things are is nobody's business unless it harms others in some way.


Posting an ad about a game is not an open invite to every single person on the board. It's a hunt for a writing partner (or partners) who will come together and create a story based on what is outlined in said ad.

Some seem to feel all angsty over not being included as a prospect in some game because you have this or that badge on: Unless you feel angsty about not being included as a prospect in some game for all the other reasons (knowledge of a setting comes to mind, preference for certain kinks comes to mind as well) I don't see that as a problem on anyone's part but their own. Writing is a personal thing, a tool to express creativity which is one of the most intimate things you can share with other people at times. It's not something you do as service to others (such as the very nature of businesses is -and comparing a shop to a game is ridiculous to me), and you're never obliged to include anything or anyone.

I recently started a group game on here. I didn't even advertise it. I just sent out PMs and I've even denied people from joining for the sole reason I don't know them/don't have a good experience writing in games with them. That particular game is not meant as a way to get to know new writing partners (for me), but to enjoy writing with the ones I know work well together.  I suppose I just horribly excluded about 5000 people, didn't I? What's the population of E again?

Key word in the example above: enjoy. I wouldn't write on E if I didn't enjoy it. If I were forced to write with people I don't feel like writing with, I'd be gone in two heartbeats, let alone if I were forced to advertise for them.

Personally, I feel perfectly comfortable writing with lords, ladies and lieges and with them writing whatever kind of character they wish. Some are not as comfortable writing with whatever gender for whatever reasons. Unless they harass or offend those they are not comfortable writing with, they've done nothing wrong. You can't force anyone to be comfortable with something, or force them to prefer something other than they do.

Their writing, and who they do it with, is none of anyone's business but their own. They are not here to service every member of E by opening up their creative outlets to include them all. They are here to write and have fun. If you happen to not be what they are looking for, you go find something else to take part in. Or start your own thing.



Well... That got longer than I meant it to be.

Anyway.


The Rainbow Writer tag.
This has nothing to do with who you choose to write with. It has nothing to do with what kind of writing you do.

It has everything to do with how you view your fictional world. If you imagine people of various sexualities, genders, ethnicities, shapes, sizes, believes, etc, could have a place in your fictional worlds, regardless of whether you write them as your main characters or not, you fall under what I wanted the tag to stand for. It's about awareness and a reminder, not a statement of what you choose to write smut about >.>

I just wanted to clarify that.

...carry on ::)



Edit:
Cycle's quotes from staff pretty much sum up my point. Thanks for that one ;)

[Blythe]

Now, the reason that there's been so many threads is because people keep wanting me to start it over.  The last thread ended when I was asked to start up this separate thread and then they locked the old one for some reason.

To clarify, the reason for this new thread, AndyZ, is that your previous thread delved into PROC-related type discussion, which goes here rather than the B&U. Some people don't really wish to discuss discrimination and other controversial topics in the B&U, hence the move to PROC.

The old one was locked so there weren't two discussions going on at once on the same topic in two different subboards, which would have been...confusing and chaotic at best trying to keep discussion straight. I hope that helps as an explanation?

*slips out of thread*

[Valthazar]

What do people think about this Adult Socializing rule? :

No socializing thread should restrict who can and cannot participate. This means there shouldn't be any ladies-only, lords-only, lieges-only, this-group-of-friends only, etcetera threads in Adult Socializing. When you exclude, you hurt others; we don't want anybody to feel alienated because so-and-so didn't want them or didn't include them.

Again, for the sake of debate, what do the people saying they only feel comfortable writing sexual scenes with lords, ladies, or lieges feel about the fact that XXX-rated AS threads can't be gender exclusive? (threads which arguably are more cyber-sex/arousal oriented).

[Kythia]

What do people think about this Adult Socializing rule? :

Again, for the sake of debate, what do the people saying they only feel comfortable writing sexual scenes with lords, ladies, or lieges feel about the fact that XXX-rated AS threads can't be gender exclusive? (threads which arguably are more cyber-sex/arousal oriented).

I'm for it.

The socialising threads are different from the games.  There's nothing on E preventing me you and bob starting a thread in one of the roleplaying sections that is functionally identical to one of the adult socialising threads - the three of us dicking around "out of character" - and limiting it just me, you, bob and Lords.  Or whatever.  The game sections are the place for that, the adult socialising is for everyone.

Yanno, IMHO

[Cycle]

What do people think about this Adult Socializing rule? :

Again, for the sake of debate, what do the people saying they only feel comfortable writing sexual scenes with lords, ladies, or lieges feel about the fact that XXX-rated AS threads can't be gender exclusive? (threads which arguably are more cyber-sex/arousal oriented).

Nothing until you asked.  ;)

But now that you have, I would say my RPs more personal, and a XXX-AS thread is little more than flirting and goofing off. 

I don't invest much time in an AS-thread response.  It is just spur of the moment.  But for a RP, I will study my partner's O/Os, make sure I understand their limits, talk to them about the nuances of their Ons, search 30+ minutes for images, and try to craft scenes that hit their specific hot buttons.

Also, functionally, even in a XXX-AS thread, people aren't forced to interact with anyone they are not comfortable with.  If A doesn't want to spank B, A can just wait until C posts in the thread and spank C.

[Amelita]

That brings me back to the Rainbow Writer badge.

I put it on because I wanted to say that I like to write a variety of characters when they are not the main characters.

After reading some of the comments people made on different threads (not the ones referenced in this thread, either) I felt like I needed it to protect myself from being called a bigot.

Now that I have participated in this thread, I want to remove it because I feel like it might send the message that anyone who doesn't write diverse characters in some way in their stories is an immoral or bad person.

That is so not what the message is about ><"

In fact, I attempted to clarify this in my previous post.

The Rainbow Writer tag.
This has nothing to do with who you choose to write with. It has nothing to do with what kind of writing you do.

It has everything to do with how you view your fictional world. If you imagine people of various sexualities, genders, ethnicities, shapes, sizes, believes, etc, could have a place in your fictional worlds, regardless of whether you write them as your main characters or not, you fall under what I wanted the tag to stand for. It's about awareness and a reminder, not a statement of what you choose to write smut about >.>

But I don't want to derail the thread, apologies.
-scoots out-

[AndyZ]

Amelita, I give you permission to derail the thread.

[Oniya]

Also, the difference between having to set up a new thread versus setting up a new business should be pretty clear:  Setting up a new thread requires less than an hour of typing, and maybe a PM to someone asking if they mind if you make an alternative version of their idea that is open to all (for politeness's sake).  Anyone with a way of entering text can do that.  (I was going to say 'two fingers' before I remembered Dragon Speech-to-Text.)

Setting up a new business requires start-up money, legal paperwork, real estate (if just a room in your house), tax forms, raw materials and so forth.  This is not an option that is available to everyone.

[Valthazar]

If Adult Socializing is usually about both sex in general and sexual arousal, I would avoid that area entirely unless there were "___ only" threads that fit my comfort zone. Because it is a social space, that would mean I would only read a thread in which only cissexual women were posting. It would also mean that I would only read threads. I wouldn't post at all.

I'm speaking purely about the "Red Light District" - which is colloquially known as the place where people go for sexual chat (as writer, as opposed to as roleplay characters).  It just seems a little ironic that we are comfortable with Ladies-Only and Liege-Only roleplay threads, yet when it comes to threads intended specifically for sexual arousal itself, we have a "no restriction of gender" policy.

[Cycle]

In the staff quote

This still feels like I'm doing something wrong or like it's unfortunate that I exist. People who are open to everything are "awesome" but people who aren't "have a prerogative" and are "disappointing" to people and "not accepting" of others. Synonyms for prerogative are “entitlement” and “privilege” which makes it sound like I'm not welcome but I'm tolerated.

I don't think wording like that is intentional.

I interpret the Staff comment to mean:  (a) the absolute rule is that no one is forced to RP with anyone else; (b) they would like to encourage people to try RPing with others regardless of gender-tags; (c) regardless of whether you do so or not, they won't think any less of you; and (d) they want to show sympathy for Lieges/Lords/Ladies who may have had bad experiences.

To put it another way, I think the word "awesome" is a small carrot.  And there is no stick.  There's not even a twig.  Not even a splinter.

[Blythe]

I interpret the Staff comment to mean:  (a) the absolute rule is that no one is forced to RP with anyone else; (b) they would like to encourage people to try RPing with others regardless of gender-tags; (c) regardless of whether you do so or not, they won't think any less of you; and (d) they want to show sympathy for Lieges/Lords/Ladies who may have had bad experiences.

To put it another way, I think the word "awesome" is a small carrot.  And there is no stick.  There's not even a twig.  Not even a splinter.

Correct. ^^

[Cycle]

It just seems a little ironic that we are comfortable with Ladies-Only and Liege-Only roleplay threads, yet when it comes to threads intended specifically for sexual arousal itself, we have a "no restriction of gender" policy.

But Val, what about the fact that someone doesn't have to post in a XXX-AS thread in response to the prior poster?

In a RP, you can't do that.  Well, you could.  But then your RP dies...

[ImaginedScenes]

That is so not what the message is about ><"

In fact, I attempted to clarify this in my previous post.
But I don't want to derail the thread, apologies.
-scoots out-

I know that, and I appreciated your explanation. That explanation is why I wanted to use the tag. But your intention in creating the badge and my intention in using it might not come across to a person who sees it. That person might see it as representing an intent to shame because of other comments made on the forums, even if it wasn't made for that purpose and even if I don't use it for that purpose.

[Mithlomwen]

I interpret the Staff comment to mean:  (a) the absolute rule is that no one is forced to RP with anyone else; (b) they would like to encourage people to try RPing with others regardless of gender-tags; (c) regardless of whether you do so or not, they won't think any less of you; and (d) they want to show sympathy for Lieges/Lords/Ladies who may have had bad experiences.

Absolutely right. 

And on that note, staff is going to lock this thread.  There have been three threads created regarding the same subject, and we think that the debate has pretty much run its course. 

Thanks to everyone for their insight regarding the subject.  :-)