Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 022

[Mrtyuh]

In Stupidworld, the primary sex ratio, the ratio of males to females at conception, is 1.08. Males are more likely to be lost during intrauterine life, so the secondary sex ratio, at birth, is 1.05. Males have a lower life expectancy, so that ratio drops until it reaches an equilibrium in the thirties. After that, females start outnumbering males. That is only the average. It varies from country to country and even race to race. That being said, in Erfworld, there is no natural death, and males and females of the same type have virtually identical lifestyles, so whatever ratio exists at popping would reasonably continue throughout a units life. We already know that there is a ratio amoung some types of units. Archons and goyles are almost entirely female. In the Transylvito War Room, we saw 5 male warlords to 3 female warlords. Since this matches what we've seen in Haffaton and Goodminton, this may be the ratio for warlords and casters. I haven't bothered to look through the comics, but the impression I get is that common infantry is predominantly male. Still, I can accept an imbalanced sex ratio. Things in Erfworld reflect things in Stupidworld, often in an exaggerated manner. I can see each unit type having its own sex ratio, whether its 0.01 for archons or 1.67 for commanders. On the other hand, we still don't know the name of the Blue Warlord. In the comics, you can see female warlords that are never named. In the text updates, you can't. I find it equally plausible that the ratio is not that imbalanced; such characters has simply not been introduced yet.

[multilis]

I think, more precisely, that Erfword parallels Earth popular fiction, which in my experience has had much less homosexuality than the general population, until (maybe) very recently. Also, romance between women usually shows up first, perhaps because it is less threatening to the people in power, who are still mostly men.

If we are talking biological/genetic, then same sex does not result in babies so would be a disadvantage for genes, similar to having sex with a different species. Polygamy and perhaps pedophile on other hand may be advantage for "genes".

I live on a farm/acreage... looking at various animals over 20+ years what we would call polygamy, pedophile are much more common among animals. Homosexual may not even be as common as animal trying to have sex with different species (depends on how different species are mixed together). Polygamy, pedophiles (sex with people who can make babies but are not considered adults), and bestiality currently are seen as much larger "taboos" in society.

If any of these became "acceptable"/"legal" and had large special interest groups backing them, then the rates of that sort of sex would probably go up, and the portrayals in fiction would also go up.

"Logically" there isn't that much difference between any of them as far as what "should" be taboo, and what "shouldn't". Each can be said to do "harm". Each can be claimed to be no one elses business if between consenting partners. (I know from experience that animals can become horny for humans and humans have to forcibly keep them away, so animals can be claimed to be consenting, and probably could be breed to usually want sex with humans)

So for example: It is possible that within 20 years, people may tinker with dna to create perfect sex slave apes with some dna from humans, and efforts will be made to sell everyone on advantages of having such sex pets, and such may become legal.

I think you make mistake in thinking that what is today is same as always, and that "taboos" are only about "power of men in charge". Other cultures have been drastically different. A modern society could be drastically different with for example polygamy as legal, and homosexual as illegal. Taboos are often related to what is felt helps/harms the society, so for example atheist China cracks down on porn.

Men currently seem to buy more porn, and men on average prefer naked females, so more lesbian than male homosexuals portrayed having sex, as that is what sells. Women currently buy "romance"/fantasy more than "sex/porn", with one of the people in the romance the fantasy of the reader/viewer so a female, and most of focus on the social interactions. (eg harlequin romance, chick flick, twilight vampire saga)

...

I think erfworld is simply a loose mirror of our world, a cheap simulation just like many games. Many things don't need to make sense, eg units and food just "pop" into existance and just cost shmuckers. So the reasons for mating don't need to make sense. But you will see more mating than people going to bathroom on Erfworld for same reason as on Star Trek, as more interesting, even if bathroom is more common in real life.

[arin]

I think, more precisely, that Erfword parallels Earth popular fiction, which in my experience has had much less homosexuality than the general population, until (maybe) very recently. Also, romance between women usually shows up first, perhaps because it is less threatening to the people in power, who are still mostly men.

Well I guess that depends on Parson, right? Erfworld chose Parson because of Stanley's demand that "everything should seem familiar and safe to him". Given that Parson, like most typical gamers, didn't have much of a life, you have a pretty strong argument for Erfworld being more based on Stupidworld fiction than Stupidworld reality. But it's debatable, since we don't know too much about Parson's personal history. Kinda cool that learning more about Parson could indirectly tell us more about Erfworld.

If we are talking biological/genetic, then same sex does not result in babies so would be a disadvantage for genes, similar to having sex with a different species. Polygamy and perhaps pedophile on other hand may be advantage for "genes".

I live on a farm/acreage... looking at various animals over 20+ years what we would call polygamy, pedophile are much more common among animals. Homosexual may not even be as common as animal trying to have sex with different species (depends on how different species are mixed together). Polygamy, pedophiles (sex with people who can make babies but are not considered adults), and bestiality currently are seen as much larger "taboos" in society.

Just to be nitpicky, it's ephebophilia when specifically focused on youths of childbearing age, not pedophilia.

I see where you're coming from regarding looking at the animal kingdom to try to speculate on what sexuality would be like without love in the picture, although I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the assumption that animals cant "love" on some level, certainly there are plenty of examples where they show a fierce, irrational, emotional loyalty to one another.

If any of these became "acceptable"/"legal" and had large special interest groups backing them, then the rates of that sort of sex would probably go up, and the portrayals in fiction would also go up.

Eh, not so sure that's true, I think the forbidden nature of such things makes them /more/ ripe for fiction writing (Romeo and Juliet is a classic for a reason, after all), although I suppose past a certain point, mainstream people avoid taboo reading because most people don't like to think outside of their comfort zone (it's easy to imagine a lot of our fellow forumers being squeamish about this conversation, for example).

It's irrelevant, though. Parson's not in Stupidworld anymore, and any changes in our real world won't necessarily affect Erfworld. In fact, to be totally honest, just because I'm a douchebag I've been watching and waiting to see if Rob "messes up" by making a pop culture reference that existed /after/ 2006, since Parson left our world at that time and wouldn't recognize anything after that point in history. So far, he's been true to form.

"Logically" there isn't that much difference between any of them as far as what "should" be taboo, and what "shouldn't". Each can be said to do "harm". Each can be claimed to be no one elses business if between consenting partners. (I know from experience that animals can become horny for humans and humans have to forcibly keep them away, so animals can be claimed to be consenting, and probably could be breed to usually want sex with humans)

"Logic" and "Taboo" don't really go together anyway. Taboos are about knee-jerk emotional responses, not silly things like fact and truth.

So for example: It is possible that within 20 years, people may tinker with dna to create perfect sex slave apes with some dna from humans, and efforts will be made to sell everyone on advantages of having such sex pets, and such may become legal.

It's also possible that those apes will bang out Hamlet on their typewriters, but it's not bloody likely. And in any case, in the context of our current discussion it's irrelevant, as it would happen after Parson's departure point.

I think you make mistake in thinking that what is today is same as always, and that "taboos" are only about "power of men in charge". Other cultures have been drastically different.

Because other cultures had different men in charge. The differences only illustrate the point that the prominent members of any given society "make the rules".

A modern society could be drastically different with for example polygamy as legal, and homosexual as illegal. Taboos are often related to what is felt helps/harms the society, so for example atheist China cracks down on porn.

As a side note, I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which polygamy is legal and homosexuality illegal. Polygamy requires 3 people, we only have 2 genders, therefore homosexuality is /inherent/ in any true polygamic (is that a word?) scenario.

Men currently seem to buy more porn, and men on average prefer naked females, so more lesbian than male homosexuals portrayed having sex, as that is what sells. Women currently buy "romance"/fantasy more than "sex/porn", with one of the people in the romance the fantasy of the reader/viewer so a female, and most of focus on the social interactions. (eg harlequin romance, chick flick, twilight vampire saga)

So where does Parson fit? If Erfworld is based on his experiences, is it more internet pr0nz based? If so, then assuming Parson's heterosexuality (which is not a certainty - he could still potentially be bisexual), he would probably fit into your typical male description above, which would mean that in Erfworld, female homosexuality would be above Stupidworld "normal" and male homosexuality, despite the large gap in male/female ratio, would be virtually nonexistent.
...

I think erfworld is simply a loose mirror of our world, a cheap simulation just like many games. Many things don't need to make sense, eg units and food just "pop" into existance and just cost shmuckers. So the reasons for mating don't need to make sense. But you will see more mating than people going to bathroom on Erfworld for same reason as on Star Trek, as more interesting, even if bathroom is more common in real life.

Well sure if you wanna pull back the veil of "reality" here. The fun of debating these things at all is to forget that it's just a story and think about how it /would/ work, in the context of it's own rules for reality.

[drachefly]

"Logically" there isn't that much difference between any of them as far as what "should" be taboo, and what "shouldn't". Each can be said to do "harm". Each can be claimed to be no one elses business if between consenting partners. (I know from experience that animals can become horny for humans and humans have to forcibly keep them away, so animals can be claimed to be consenting, and probably could be breed to usually want sex with humans)

"Logic" and "Taboo" don't really go together anyway. Taboos are about knee-jerk emotional responses, not silly things like fact and truth.

Except inasmuch as you can logically model irrationality...

A modern society could be drastically different with for example polygamy as legal, and homosexual as illegal. Taboos are often related to what is felt helps/harms the society, so for example atheist China cracks down on porn.

As a side note, I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which polygamy is legal and homosexuality illegal. Polygamy requires 3 people, we only have 2 genders, therefore homosexuality is /inherent/ in any true polygamic (is that a word?) scenario.

I suggest that you're using an obtusely narrow definition of 'polygamy' here. Clearly not what is meant.

So where does Parson fit? If Erfworld is based on his experiences, is it more internet pr0nz based? If so, then assuming Parson's heterosexuality (which is not a certainty - he could still potentially be bisexual), he would probably fit into your typical male description above, which would mean that in Erfworld, female homosexuality would be above Stupidworld "normal" and male homosexuality, despite the large gap in male/female ratio, would be virtually nonexistent.

If Parson is aware of it, it would exist. He doesn't need to participate. I really doubt, for instance, that he's involved with the Elvis Impersonator scene.

[Goshen]

I think, more precisely, that Erfword parallels Earth popular fiction, which in my experience has had much less homosexuality than the general population, until (maybe) very recently. Also, romance between women usually shows up first, perhaps because it is less threatening to the people in power, who are still mostly men.

Well I guess that depends on Parson, right? Erfworld chose Parson because of Stanley's demand that "everything should seem familiar and safe to him". Given that Parson, like most typical gamers, didn't have much of a life, you have a pretty strong argument for Erfworld being more based on Stupidworld fiction than Stupidworld reality. But it's debatable, since we don't know too much about Parson's personal history. Kinda cool that learning more about Parson could indirectly tell us more about Erfworld.

Good point! Yes, it would make sense for Erfworld to be more Parson-centric. Not that Erf World was created to suit him, but that he was selected to be a good fit for it. I really loved Wanda's quote, "You did not wish for this world, Parson Gotti. It wished for you!" Of course, which came first, the Parson or the Erfworld, is just an instantiation of the old old old question of what makes our own reality.

Long ago, I suggested that the characters around Parson might actually reflect different aspects of his personality, his fears, and his fantasies. But that was before the storylines were as developed as they are now, and Parson was at the center of all the action. I no longer think that is the case.

Back to sex. (As alwasys ) Erfworld would tend to have more men, because popular fiction, and therefore Parson's view of it, is still very gender unbalanced. Way more good male roles than female.