[R&F] Inevitable thread on "Flirtatious" and "Curmudgeon" straights-only traits

[Karpius]

It can appear "forced" in the sense that homosexuality is not hereditary (for obvious reasons) so it needs to "recruit" through various mediums.

Sexuality of any kind is indeed hereditary. Its a matter of biology and it is not a gene that dies out of the gene pool in the manner you might think. It doesn't have to manifest with each generation, but remains latent within the gene pool.

 

[halfhalfharp]

No, your point is utter nonsense. Homosexual relationships are not different from heterosexual relationships. All you'd have to do to make the "Flirtatious" agenda "gay" is flip a bit so that the leaders likes same sex and hates opposite sex. I'm not suggesting that we should do that (I'd rather remove the creepy agendas entirely), but that's all it would take.

To be clear, a Flirtatious leader likes all leaders of the opposite sex and dislikes all leaders of the same sex. There's no concept of rivalry or prefering one leader in a class over another. So, in your example, Alexander would like Trajan and Gilgamesh and there would be no problem.

It's all quite silly and bad.

Alex will dislike Trajan and Gilgamesh as well, just like males disliking rival males, while at the same time they attract each other.

I thought it was common sense... but anyway.

 

[miaasma]

Well, you had multiple choices of posts to respond to, and many ways to respond. You chose not to respond to my softball questions seeking a clinical response and instead went with the reply where you could espouse indignation. So, that will leave folks questioning if you were interested in conversation or was just seeking to have your predispositions validated.

Does "_____normative" involve decoupling the numerical majorities from creating a normative for social attitudes? If the issue at hand were trying to deal with the line between calling things "aberrant" or "deviant" in a pejorative sense because they deviate from the norm, then I think that's got a solid foundation to build on. But it seems there's more going on than that.


It's a mixed bag, but you can't control that. You can exercise your own sense of accountability. If you are of the opinion that people are either on board with you from the get-go or they're idiots deserving of disdain, then indeed your words were doomed.

did you feel very smart typing this out

Moderator Action: Please make your on topic point instead of this, focused on the poster. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MyCatSplash]

I feel like people are letting their personal biases get in the way here and are way over-complicating this. The bottom line is that the developers chose to include sexuality-flavored agendas and the game already included leaders who were historically gay and/or gay-ish. It would just make sense and be logically consistent to include agendas that reflect the historical sexuality of the leaders that have them. It wouldn't be 'forced diversity' (not including is actually what would be forced). And it only needs to be as realistic as the straight agendas are. In reality straight men don't hate other straight men because their rivals, it just works for the game.

For what it's worth I don't get why these were included at all as they just feel super awkward. I don't think of myself as playing a character in Civ but rather as the country/civilization and these agendas really just don't fit at all with that. Not to mention including something like this is just asking for trouble as a lot of people have conflicting viewpoints on sexuality. But if you're going to do it, might as well do it right.

 

[steveg700]

I feel like people are letting their personal biases get in the way here and are way over-complicating this. The bottom line is that the developers chose to include sexuality-flavored agendas and the game already included leaders who were historically gay and/or gay-ish. It would just make sense and be logically consistent to include agendas that reflect the historical sexuality of the leaders that have them.

Well, with all deference to side cases like Cleopatra and Caesar, a head of state's chief order of business shouldn't be the search for a hook-up. Most corresponded through letters and proxies.

 

[MyCatSplash]

Well, with all deference to side cases like Cleopatra and Caesar, a head of state's chief order of business shouldn't be the search for a hook-up. Most corresponded through letters and proxies.

Couldn't agree more. It's why I don't get why they included these to begin with. Cleopatra is pretty much the only one it doesn't seem odd on. But again, if they're gonna go there might as well do it in a way that's at least a bit more historically accurate.

 

[shyPiano]

TIL gay men hate every single person in existence and that heterosexuality is hereditary while homosexuality is not.
I could have sworn that I'm a gay guy, son of two straight parents, that has had friendships, crushes and a relationship in the past, but obviously I was wrong! How silly of me!

I am obviously being very sarcastic here. I have no idea where these statements even come from, as one is complete nonsense, and the other isn't even on-topic.
If there was a gay agenda, it's very simple how it would work: the leader would gain a positive relationship modifier with other leaders of the same sex, and a negative relationship modifier with other leaders of the opposite sex. I have no idea where this idea that rivalry would in any way be an issue or modeled altogether.
As for the heredity of homosexuality, I fail to see how that is in any way relevant.

 

[Kwami]

Alex will dislike Trajan and Gilgamesh as well, just like males disliking rival males, while at the same time they attract each other.

I thought it was common sense... but anyway.

But you're adding a rule that doesn't exist in the current agenda. There is no concept of "rivalry" in the "Flirtatious" agenda. Why should there be such a concept if that agenda suddenly allows gay leaders?

Let's just skip the whole problem and remove the terrible agendas. They serve no useful purpose.

 

[nzcamel]

I feel like people are letting their personal biases get in the way here and are way over-complicating this. The bottom line is that the developers chose to include sexuality-flavored agendas and the game already included leaders who were historically gay and/or gay-ish. It would just make sense and be logically consistent to include agendas that reflect the historical sexuality of the leaders that have them. It wouldn't be 'forced diversity' (not including is actually what would be forced). And it only needs to be as realistic as the straight agendas are. In reality straight men don't hate other straight men because their rivals, it just works for the game.

For what it's worth I don't get why these were included at all as they just feel super awkward. I don't think of myself as playing a character in Civ but rather as the country/civilization and these agendas really just don't fit at all with that. Not to mention including something like this is just asking for trouble as a lot of people have conflicting viewpoints on sexuality. But if you're going to do it, might as well do it right.

Well, with all deference to side cases like Cleopatra and Caesar, a head of state's chief order of business shouldn't be the search for a hook-up. Most corresponded through letters and proxies.

Couldn't agree more. It's why I don't get why they included these to begin with. Cleopatra is pretty much the only one it doesn't seem odd on. But again, if they're gonna go there might as well do it in a way that's at least a bit more historically accurate.

Marriages and politics have mixed all throughout history - that is accurate. Including in countries where bisexuality/homosexuality wasn't seen as unusual. But in those countries at a political level it was still heterosexual relationships that were political. Children were a clear end goal.

 

[Kwami]

Marriages and politics have mixed all throughout history - that is accurate. Including in countries where bisexuality/homosexuality wasn't seen as unusual. But in those countries at a political level it was still heterosexual relationships that were political. Children were a clear end goal.

And yet there probably wasn't a single leader in history who was willing to flirt with and marry any female leader, but who disliked speaking to any male leader. Or the reverse.

Ridiculous agendas are ridiculous and need to go.

 

[Scaramanga]

And yet there probably wasn't a single leader in history who was willing to flirt with and marry any female leader, but who disliked speaking to any male leader. Or the reverse.

Ridiculous agendas are ridiculous and need to go.

It will be tougher to form alliances with flirtatious males as a male but I don't think impossible.

Homosexuals are worthy of respect but I don't think they contributed as much to civilization as heterosexuals since the vast majority of people came from those relationships and their reproductive enthusiasm.

Moderator Action: Please be more respectful of others. This is inappropriate. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kwami]

It will be tougher to form alliances with flirtatious males as a male but I don't think impossible.

That doesn't matter. The agenda doesn't make sense in any way.

Homosexuals are worthy of respect but I don't think they contributed as much to civilization as heterosexuals since the vast majority of people came from those relationships and their reproductive enthusiasm.

That's absurd on many levels. Also, somewhat off topic. We should focus less on gay leaders and more on why these agendas have absolutely no place in this game and should be removed.

Moderator Action: Please report problematic posts. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[miaasma]

It will be tougher to form alliances with flirtatious males as a male but I don't think impossible.

Homosexuals are worthy of respect but I don't think they contributed as much to civilization as heterosexuals since the vast majority of people came from those relationships and their reproductive enthusiasm.

what a post on an online forum

Moderator Action: If you have an issue, please report the post and move on. This only highlights the post and trolls the poster. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kheznik]

I'd rather they just replace the traits with ones that reward long time good relations; ie, Cleopatra has enjoyed her relationships with both Gilgamesh and Gorgo. She tells them that she greatly enjoys their companies-- leaving what she means by that open to interpretation.

But she gets jealous whenever Catherine sends a trade delegation to Gilgamesh, or when Victoria forges an alliance with Gorgo, or I guess when either of them "cheats" on her by doing the same. She thinks people are trying to steal her friends/lovers from her, and becomes possessive. With this agenda, Cleopatra's easy to please, and thus will strive to have many allies to keep her safe, though she'd rather have people befriend her than other people.

I suppose a contrasting agenda would see Cleopatra becoming very stubborn and incapable of finding love, but not impossible, and liking those who have good relations with the leaders she also has good relations with; ie, "I know I can be difficult to get to know, but I appreciate having a close circle of friends I can trust". Otherwise, she dislikes leaders who haven't made an attempt at melting her icy heart. With this agenda, Cleopatra wouldn't be prone to sending trade delegations or being charitable except to those who have already gained her trust, and thus could potentially be very friendless in many games.


Fun thread, btw.

 

[halfhalfharp]

But you're adding a rule that doesn't exist in the current agenda. There is no concept of "rivalry" in the "Flirtatious" agenda. Why should there be such a concept if that agenda suddenly allows gay leaders?

Let's just skip the whole problem and remove the terrible agendas. They serve no useful purpose.

View attachment 489370
Flirtatious Cleo: You say you're just negotiation in your people's best interest, but I think you're just jealous of my relationships.

(I was Gitarja in that game)

Woman's battle. This is fun, and sounds like a real gossip.
I suppose its more realistic in gender-to-gender reaction, rather than purely sexual discrimination.

Again, refer to my captions of the in game AI reactions. I didn't make up the "rivalry" concept.

Hating the same gender out of rivalry certainly makes more sense than hating each other out of no where.

 

[nzcamel]

And yet there probably wasn't a single leader in history who was willing to flirt with and marry any female leader, but who disliked speaking to any male leader. Or the reverse.

Ridiculous agendas are ridiculous and need to go.

All the agendas are very simplified from reality and therefore have moments of utter nonsense. As I've said already, Vicki going on at me about the environment in the 10th century is bullocks. Gandhi alluding to nukes in 1000BC is nonsensical.
I'd like to see late game agendas added as a third agenda that came online when that Civ researched the Enlightenment.

All of that and what they were willing or unwilling to do was usually beside the point. Their nations need for marriage alliances and stability through a solid succession took precedence.

 

[Bjarque]

This thread is so much but I echo most of the sentiments that the agendas are exclusionary and boring for strategy etc etc, and not to jump in so late but here I go anyways

With respect, heterosexuality is and should be utterly normative. That's not a comment on homosexuality etc at all - That's just biology 101. That you make such a statement suggests that you're not interested in logic.

Eh? Not to go super off topic but normativeness isn't the same thing as frequency. Yeah, baby making is a part of every society, but to the extent that heterosexuality determines this is honestly questionable. In Samoa there was freedom in regards to sexuality but there was still the expectation of having children, a lot like Greece etc. Most of the time it was the norm to have relationships with the same sex when you were young adults. You can have intimacy and attraction to the same sex while still have children - and it's been normalized in history! And heterosexuality as normativeness rather than a demographic reality is damaging because heterosexuality is (mainly*) about attraction and the relationships between people of opposite sexes. Normalizing that makes LGBQ relationships abnormal, i.e. wrong (because normativeness is based off of cultural norms!) and shouldn't be practiced. There's a place for both heterosexuality and LGBQ sexualities in the "norm"

*And heterosexuality, because of society's implementation of it is more than only sexuality. There's a lot of elements of straight relationships that don't really exist in gay ones. This is mostly in regards to relationships between sexes/genders or masculinity/femininity. The straights always talk to their friends about hating their significant other and the gays don't really do that! A lot of straight couples have no common interests because of society gendering activities; not a problem for the gays! So when you place heterosexuality, a culturally defined term, as normative, you normalize all the baggage that comes with that

 

[nzcamel]

From a biology perspective homosexuality is abnormal. It doesn't further the existance of the species. Yes, children can be raised by people of the same gender; but the children only came to be in the first place thanks to heterosexuality. Exclusive homosexual behaviour in other species is incredibly rare for this reason*.

Abnormal doesn't have to be a bad thing. I'm using it in the context of 'much less common'. "Normative" is certainly a word with a few different ways of being looked at. Which means that abnormal will also have different ways of being looked at.
Just like it is normative to be XX or XY. There are other chromosome combinations, but they are exceptions to the rule, and so are abnormal. That isn't a judgement against the individual who carries them. Red and blonde hair is abnormal too.

*One species of sheep aside; all other animals who exhibit homosexuality do so alongside heterosexuality. They're generally considered to be hetero-flexible rather than genuinely bisexual, as given the chance they will mate with females rather than each other. But depending on the availability of females, that choice is often denied to them.

 

[halfhalfharp]

From a biology perspective homosexuality is abnormal. It doesn't further the existance of the species. Yes, children can be raised by people of the same gender; but the children only came to be in the first place thanks to heterosexuality. Exclusive homosexual behaviour in other species is incredibly rare for this reason*.

Abnormal doesn't have to be a bad thing. I'm using it in the context of 'much less common'. "Normative" is certainly a word with a few different ways of being looked at. Which means that abnormal will also have different ways of being looked at.
Just like it is normative to be XX or XY. There are other chromosome combinations, but they are exceptions to the rule, and so are abnormal. That isn't a judgement against the individual who carries them. Red and blonde hair is abnormal too.

*One species of sheep aside; all other animals who exhibit homosexuality do so alongside heterosexuality. They're generally considered to be hetero-flexible rather than genuinely bisexual, as given the chance they will mate with females rather than each other. But depending on the availability of females, that choice is often denied to them.

Biological abnormality may refer to "disease" as well, although "abnormality" is arguably a neutral word. I guess it will just cause as much unnecessary misconception as much you try to speak in neutrality.
If I were you, I would try to use "Extraordinary" or just use "Uncommon". It shall meet "less common" in meaning and also avoid falling into a derogatory tone.

Anyway, should we get back to discussing the topic, of is there any light shall a homosexual agenda be developed? Or abolish the flirtatious/curmudgeon agendas?

 

[nzcamel]

Biological abnormality may refer to "disease" as well, although "abnormality" is arguably a neutral word. I guess it will just cause as much unnecessary misconception as much you try to speak in neutrality.
If I were you, I would try to use "Extraordinary" or just use "Uncommon". It shall meet "less common" in meaning and also avoid falling into a derogatory tone.

Of course we can use different words, but there is nothing wrong with either normative or abnormal. Given a chance someone will misconstrue extraordinary as well

Anyway, should we get back to discussing the topic, of is there any light shall a homosexual agenda be developed? Or abolish the flirtatious/curmudgeon agendas?

Neither.