re: Son of Benelik

[WILLELA@aol.co]

Mark Vander Meulen [Vander+@pitt.edu] wishes to object to a few of my
reasons for feeling the Birthright gods would have the hots for mortals from
time to time.
"women marry up"-DCA-
"..Grotesquely sexist.." -MVM-
"Sexist", like "racist", is a god word, without intellectual content,
merely present to inspire the desired emotion in the audience. It is often
used to denounce evidence one can't refute. But facts are facts and must be
considered whether sexist or not.
(Incidentally, we can also note the obvious, that D&D is a clearly
racist game. Orcs are LE, trolls are CE..... Obviously racist thinking.
You could make a nice comic PC who insisted on refusing to use such
"sterotype" thinking, but DM & party would have to work like dogs to keep him
alive.)
"..personal belief...most are looking for a life companion to share.."
- -MVM
If you want a pal, you don't look to the opposite sex. As lovers, they
are the overwhelming favorite, but as friends? Close male-female friendship
do exist, but they are rare enough to attract notice.
We are reproductive machines, and we make partnerships with the
opposite sex for the purpose of making children. Companionship is just an
incidental on the way to that goal.
"..hope that not a huge number would prostitute themselves for temporal
power." -MVM-
But in fact, just short of 100% of us do, one way or another.
In the case of the women, she is looking out for her kids, and that
means getting them a superior father, one able to provide them with superior
resources (which means rich) and/or superior genes (which generally also
means rich). So what's the shock of finding women go after the rich &
powerful and ignore the lowly?
Yours for deeper dungeons
David Argall

[Joao Clark Medeiros]

WILLELA@aol.com wrote:
> Mark Vander Meulen [Vander+@pitt.edu] wishes to object to a few of my
> reasons for feeling the Birthright gods would have the hots for mortals from
> time to time.
> "women marry up"-DCA-
> "..Grotesquely sexist.." -MVM-
> "Sexist", like "racist", is a god word, without intellectual content,
> merely present to inspire the desired emotion in the audience. It is often
> used to denounce evidence one can't refute. But facts are facts and must be
> considered whether sexist or not.

If this is your belief then I will not question it. But if you accept this
then you must also accept the fact that _men_ will also marry up. Or is it your
opinion that our gender does not look out for its best interests as well?

> "..personal belief...most are looking for a life companion to share.."
> -MVM
> If you want a pal, you don't look to the opposite sex. As lovers, they
> are the overwhelming favorite, but as friends? Close male-female friendship
> do exist, but they are rare enough to attract notice.
> We are reproductive machines, and we make partnerships with the
> opposite sex for the purpose of making children. Companionship is just an
> incidental on the way to that goal.

Believe this if you wish, but in reality as men develope in maturity they
generally find it easier to maintain close friendships with women than with other
men. While this in itself does not say anything denying women-women relationships
it does affirm the existence of men-women relationships.
As for you "reproductive machines" comment I would have to hope that this is
only another manifestation of the cynicism of our modern society, for it negates
even the possibility of love and romance and reduces our humanity greatly.

> But in fact, just short of 100% of us do, one way or another.

You're poisoning the well here. Nothing we say in response to this will be
able to escape the vagueness of that affirmation.

Bearcat
http://www.geocities.com/area51/cavern/6204

__________________________________________________ ____
Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com
Birthday? Anniversary? Send FREE animated greeting
cards for any occassion at http://greetings.xoom.com

[WILLELA@aol.co]

Bearcat [barvas@xoommail.com(joao clark medeiros)] challenges a few of
my points on why the gods might go after mortal partners.
"Men marry up.." -BC-
Actually we don't, for the same reporduction reasons that women do. We
need somebody young and healthy enough to bear the child(ren) and so we lust
after relative kids whose bank accounts are apt to be zero. A 70-year-old
male millionaire can still father children, and remains attractive to women.
A 70-year-old female, millionaire or not, is going to have no more children,
and thus get no offers from Playboy.
"As men develop in maturity, they can develop closer relationships with
women than with men." -BC-
Now there are lots of quotes from disgusted women that men never develop
in maturity. But BC is rather ambiguious here. We men of course want to
develop much closer reationships with women than with other men. But those
are not for the sake of friendship. A whole lot better than friendship. If
a friendship develops too, fine, but it is an incidental.
"We are reproductive machines." -DA-
"This negates the possibility of love & romance.." -BC-
Not at all. Both do exist, indeed are quite common. But it does
explain why we love who we do, which is those most likely to assist us in
producing the next generation.
Yours for deeper dungeons
David Argall

[geeman]

WILLELA@aol.com wrote:

> Bearcat [barvas@xoommail.com(joao clark medeiros)] challenges a few of
> my points on why the gods might go after mortal partners.
> "Men marry up.." -BC-
> Actually we don't, for the same reporduction reasons that women do. We
> need somebody young and healthy enough to bear the child(ren) and so we lust
> after relative kids whose bank accounts are apt to be zero. A 70-year-old
> male millionaire can still father children, and remains attractive to women.
> A 70-year-old female, millionaire or not, is going to have no more children,
> and thus get no offers from Playboy.

I've followed this thread with a little bit of ire, not in the least because I
had forgotten that this discussion on sexual perogatives started out because
people were wondering whether or not the gods would mate with humans and what the
motives of such individuals might be. It seems pretty clear to me that they
could, would, have and will, as it determined by the aspect of each god, and the
wont of the mortals in whom they are interested.

Can the gods mate with humans? Certainly.

Would they want to? That's according to the individual attitudes of the gods.
Some are more likely than others.

Would the gods and humans mate for simple breeding purposes? Sure, if that is
their inclination and within the realm of their alignment and portfolio. Odin,
if I remember my mythology correctly, mated with Thor's mother with the intention
of breeding him. (My Norse mythology is quite shaky, so I apologize if this is
wrong in advance.) In the Cerilian pantheon Laerme seems to be the msot likely
to have sex with humans, though I'd imagine she'd also be one of the least likely
to bear children. Any of the ladies out there can tell us that being pregnant is
something of a damper on one's social life and children do tend to keep one at
home, so I can't really see the goddess of love, fire and music wanting to spend
a lot of time raising a rugrat, even a divine one.

A couple of points regarding Argall's specific comments:

1. In general I agree with your assessment of breeding and biological
perogatives. In Western society (and in most societies) women are sex objects
while men are success objects. I usually find most peole who argue these points
have some sort of political or social agenda that conflicts with these basic
realities. That's OK, really. Political agendas are as old as monkeying around
is, but they are no more a reflection of reality than any other social construct,
so we have to look at them for what they are.

2. However, I note that the tendancies for men to marry women for reasons of
physical appearance and women marrying men for social success are merely
tendancies, far and away NOT an absolute standard. The list of influences on who
we choose to get involved with is a long and complex one, and things lile
sex-appeal and success are simply a couple among the many factors. Studies have
shown that things like proximity (you are likely to marry someone who lives
within a 20 mile radius of you) religious affiliation (people tend to marry
within their religion) ethnicity (people tend to marry members of the same
race--interesting to note that this tendancy goes down as education goes up) have
a much greater influence than anything else, so to broadly categorize
relationships isn't just a slippery slope argument, it's more of a cliff that one
jumps off of....

3. In the interest of my own love life and personal aesthetic, please do not use
70-year-old women appearing in Playboy as an example to support your arguments
anymore, thank you.

> "As men develop in maturity, they can develop closer relationships with
> women than with men." -BC-
> Now there are lots of quotes from disgusted women that men never develop
> in maturity. But BC is rather ambiguious here. We men of course want to
> develop much closer reationships with women than with other men. But those
> are not for the sake of friendship. A whole lot better than friendship. If
> a friendship develops too, fine, but it is an incidental.

I don't think BC is being all that ambiguous. At least, his statement regarding
maturity and relationships is no more ambiguous than the ones you've made
regarding women's physical appeal and men's social succes. In general, I think
he's right on the money. I haven't any studies to quote on this, but in my
experience, men do develop closer relationships with women as they become more
mature.

Gary