Shadowknight12

That, to me, is more or less what the media spouts. That young people are free-spirited, open-minded, dominated by their hormones and eager to be rebellious and experiment with their same gender because apparently it's taboo or some shit. Whatever, I don't know, I don't care. I don't even want to know if it's true or not. What some stranger does, sexuality-wise, is none of my business. Yes, I always wonder how a lot of people seem to forget the sheer number of gay guys who work out (some to the point of vigorexia) or at the very least try to keep a healthy lifestyle. *shrugs* I guess the flamboyant ones draw the most attention. *shrugs* There are far scarier things than that. Yes. I know. What *I* was trying to emphasise is that what you have just said is true for absolutely anyone. If a black guy goes to the same bar and looks like can handle himself, he's also not going to get beaten up for his race. If a scantly-clad woman also looks like she could handle herself, she's not going to get dragged into the back alley and raped. I was talking specifically about gay guys, not anyone that might be exposed to violence for what they are. I want to add that I agree with the rest of your comment wholeheartedly. People should read that and take notes. Just clarifying my position.

Isn't that just very basic common sense? Like, "survival instinct" basic? I mean, really. Nobody will attack anyone if there's a good chance the attacker is going to get their ass handed to them. That's why a lot of muscular people have been attacked by mobs or with weaponry, and not one-on-one. If the campy guy is muscular but he really, really pisses off a redneck, he might get his friends, a bunch of bats, and beat the ever loving shit out of the gay guy. Just as it might happen if, instead of being very gay, he slept with the redneck's sister and broke her heart. Some people are just looking for an excuse to elicit violence on others. This, OF COURSE, depends on the setting. This sort of person is more common in certain areas than others. As an aside, this, regardless of gender, is NOT as common as the media would have you believe. Obviously varies a lot depending on the area as well, but in most cases, nubile youngsters of either gender being wildly bicurious is very much the stuff of fantasy. Not saying that it doesn't happen, especially when it's all just verbal (flirting, teasing, etc.) but more physical exploration is, save the times when it's done specifically because of a dare/for money/to impress or shock, far rarer than it appears on the media.

While I completely agree with Psychological Egoism, what's the point of Ethical Egoism? I mean in the long run. While one could argue about "survival of the fittest" being a possible advantage, if individualistic competition over resources had been a viable strategy for the advancement of the species, we wouldn't have banded in social groups. Not to mention the whole "empathy" thing that counters that theory and that nobody is quite clear on where it comes from and why some people seem to be born without it. But it's interesting to think about, thanks for contributing!

Replying to Robin because she sums up the latest points in the thread. Also, don't take my rant personally. I'm not lambasting anyone in particular. That is not a nice guy. That is a wuss. A pussy. A spineless weakling. It is a grave and most unfortunate mistake to confuse disgusting meekness and cowardice with "niceness." It is very possible to have a nice person that donates to charity, helps old ladies, loves dogs, cats and children, and snarks the fuck out of you if you provoke him. You merely need to use good old fashioned logic. After all, a complete doormat does not get through life with such an attitude unless he makes friends who take care of him, or suffers a nervous breakdown. Why? Because people will use and abuse doormats until there is nothing left of them but a empty, soulless husk. That is simply the way the world works. If the doormat does not have a solid circle of friends, family and loved ones to shelter him from the worst parts of the world, then people WILL drain every single drop of humanity from them. Because, again, that's what most people do. Now, logic tells us that either the doormat had a breakdown and hardened (learns how to say no, develops a way to get rid of moochers, learns to avoid toxic relationships, etc.), or we get a cast of people who swing between trying to help the doormat help himself, using him for their own ends, and coddling him all the time because he's just so sweet and they don't want that good-natured innocence to fade or be tarnished by the cruel outside world. And guess what? All of this? STORY FODDER. A FUCKING PLOT THAT COULD SPAN CHAPTERS. And this just a take on your average doormat. Like I said earlier, you can have a nice person with a dark side, or just someone who has steel-hard ethics and will NOT take crap from you or anyone else. He will help you in your darkest hour and if you so much dare to be an ungrateful bitch or bastard to him, he will verbally smack you down so hard your ass will end up facing the goddamn sun. To sum up: THINK, BITCHES. Don't take the lazy way out and write some random douchebag because you can't be bothered to come up with a real person. Fucking mother of shit. As an aside that really doesn't concern the thread, but might prove to be mildly interesting food for thought for anyone, I have been mulling over why people are so attracted to villains and assholes. I think that it all comes down to most people being... how do I put this mildly... "cowardly," I think, is the least insulting term for it. There's a vast amount of people who have enormous fear of peer pressure and social repercussions, so they spend a lot of time censoring themselves and repressing their less savoury impulses. The problem is that they don't do this because they realize that they are morally wrong (and I mean 'morally wrong' with an actual logical thought process that leads the person to understand why it is wrong, not just an empty label), but because they fear the consequences of their actions. Therefore, they are in reality quite frustrated at their inability to express their deepest desires, which leads to them living vicariously through those who do. Which are, of course, villains and assholes. To me, evil is banal and mind-numbingly boring. Not to mention that 99.9999% of villains are actually very, very stupid. If a random peasant schmuck can defeat them, they are not very smart in the first place. A smart person does not wave their hand scornfully at the notion of the Power of Love, much less when there is actual evidence of its existence! A smart person says "All right, this is worth investigating. How may I use this new resource to achieve my ends?" And even if we take a "genius" (and fucking shit, do I ever use that term loosely when referring to villains...) whose methods are intelligent and pragmatic, there is always the logical massacre that is their set of goals. Truly, for people who are allegedly super smart, they sure seem to forget very basic things, like sociology, biology, psychology and who knows what else. I mean, really. Killing people to make a point? Sure, that will go over well with the public. Blowing shit up? That will get you ADORING FANS (and yes, I am aware that they do get adoring fans at times. Those people are retards. I am talking about the general populace). World domination? My god, pick up ANY history book and read about the HUNDREDS of leaders who have tried that. Revenge? That one is especially good, since apparently thinking about the consequences of one's actions is a lost art. Screwing over everyone to get some selfish goal? Right, society will get very far with people like that. You BETTER not complain about other people being assholes, with the example you're setting. But I think that the point that grates on me the most about villains is how they go against the very nature of biology itself. Life wants one thing, and one thing only: to survive. How does it achieve this? By two means: it multiplies and it improves. The last bit is the one that most villains seem to ignore. Improving means becoming better, overcoming one's flaws to develop new strengths. Selfishness, and its manifestations thereof (screwing over others, hoarding resources, etc.), is actually detrimental to the survival of the species. It might do wonders for the survival of the individual (and that is why all individuals are innately selfish, to give them a strong survival tool), but it is very detrimental to the improvement of society. The reason we have ethics and morals in the first place is because we must curb down the selfish impulse (and the anomalies, such as psychopaths and the like) so that we can improve as a species. Villains, assholes and idiots are hindrances to society. They must be reeducated or removed from a position in which they can do harm. Of course, I'm not saying that villains are useless! Far from it. What I am saying is that liking villains is akin to liking the big piece of lead that's making you row extra harder. It provides conflict to the story and it is most interesting when villains are actually intelligent (though I am personally a fan of mindless, nigh unstoppable forces as antagonists), and not drooling imbeciles. But that's just my take on this issue. That is all. Class dismissed. EDIT: And there goes the ninja wench, summing up my entire point with such elegance!

No problem, it's what we're here for. The one that camps it up would have it worse, unless he's smart and stays in a circle of like-minded people. He'd experience heavy malicious gossip and very likely name-calling. He'd experience lots of avoidance as well. If he stays with a group, that should be all. If he likes going to places alone, he might get vicious verbal lambasting from rowdy drunkards or just people on a bad day, or might even get beaten up if he's going through a rough part of town. The wiry hardcase might have it better, if he inspires fear. Otherwise, same as the others. The one who came out with his colleagues will undoubtedly experience office gossip and possibly pranks, if he's the only gay person in the place, though it depends on the maturity and tolerance of his coworkers. He's not likely to be promoted unless he's truly excellent at what he does. And even then, they'd probably promote the office drunkard or harasser before him. The closeted one will likely lead a pretty normal life, assuming he keeps everything low-key and disguises lovers as friends. Unless he trusts the wrong person and the secret comes out, in which case he's likely to lose a lot of acquaintances, and possibly even friends. This was taking into consideration your demographic data. I don't think they're cliché, you haven't given us enough information to make that call.

It depends on your definition of "attack" and the culture, which as you know, varies from place to place. Remember that it is VASTLY more common for gay people to suffer verbal attacks than physical ones. If the community is isolationist, rural/suburban, lacks diversity (cultural/ethnic/religious/socioeconomic), it's more likely that any sort of attack will happen and often. In a populous, multicultural, densely urban area, it's less likely to happen simply because there's just so much people that eccentricities tend to be overlooked. The gay person itself will also be a factor. If they are outward in their behaviour, if they engage in PDA, if they wear clothes or signs that identify them as such, if they "flaunt" (for a lack of a better word) their sexuality, etc., the amount of attacks will increase. The thing here is that you must get to know your character(s), the place where they live in and the people around them. That's the only way you'll be able to judge the frequency and intensity of attacks, if any. What is "realistic," if that's what you're looking to add to your story, depends on the factors mentioned above. If the person is in a big city, the most they can expect is gossiping behind their backs, name-calling and (especially) indirect insults. Most of the time, the person will complain that people start to "avoid" them once they learn of their sexuality, since that's the socially acceptable thing to do to a person one dislikes. Less populated and/or tolerant environments will make things gradually worsen. Of course, this assumes a place other than San Francisco or neighbourhoods where gay presence is very high, since discriminating against them would be as troublesome as using the n-word in Harlem if one is not African-American. Hopefully that helps.

Apollo: *shrugs* I've seen many places that had a RP forum simply because the members wanted it. Most of the times, they had decent traffic, especially the Freeform threads. I am not sure I could guarantee anything with the low traffic around here, though... Yeah and I know a couple! I'm just throwing a few suggestions in case you want to implement it here! And as an aside, I think all the RP forums I know of have a strict PG-13 thing.

*chimes in* It doesn't have to be freeform, you know. It's perfectly possible for those who like rules-heavy systems to do PbP as well, pretty much anywhere. All you really need is a forum for game ads and recruitment and another for the actual games. I've seen some places that, if the poster is well-known and requests it politely, give the GM a subforum of their own for those truly epic games that require many threads. Especially when there's worldbuilding and the like involved. Mostly for organizational purposes.

Hah, the struggle not to get sucked in is half the fun! Excellent point! I can't wait until Wraith tells him his real name (if he ever does!). Or if Wraith will whisper sweet nothings in Elvish to Alistair while they're in bed. Mainly because apparently Elvish has a lot of sweet nothings and very little words for concrete stuff. So if you want to exercise DA's Elvish, you better get those two in bed, stat!

Say all you want about bad boys; to me, there's nothing more tempting than someone that decent. We need more M/M with Alistair, definitely. :3

JayDee: HAH, yes, something like that. After all, long journeys with no bathing leave you pretty smelly! VW? I'm afraid I'm a bit blond-like stupid today, so I completely miss that reference. Heh, I was wondering if people were wondering why the tauren keeps the elf around. I was going to address that very issue on the next prompt, when it's finally revealed why he puts up with such amount of frustration. And LOL, that's *exactly* what I was aiming for, so I'm ridiculously pleased you say that. It's pretty awesome when you achieve what you set out to do!

I met my best friend while we were in kindergarten. We didn't really become friends until we were in seventh grade, but we've known each other since we were very little. I don't advocate discarding everyone and living like a hermit. I advocate discarding the kind of people that subtract more from your life than they add. If you look at them and wish they would go away, that's a pretty clear sign that you should terminate the relationship. What I went on to say was that people shouldn't be afraid to be alone because (and yes, I do disagree with you here) there are no consequences to being a loner. It actually means less stress and more time to do the things you enjoy. And once you understand this, you can actually go out to make friends on your own terms and only keep the ones that don't make your life awful. More for me?

Mental age =/= Physical age. There are a lot of grown women out there with the mentality of a teenager. You can't understand it because you've outgrown them, fortunately.

Most likely. Hey, I actually am not complaining (that much). It's getting teenagers to read. Hopefully a percentage will go on to read more than that.

If it wasn't for the huge sales, I'd say no. But it must have one. Perhaps it makes for a passable fantasy for people who don't know better?

Yeah, I did the same with Twilight. I suspended my judgement until the third book, thinking that perhaps she was just a very slow, very passive writer. Since I tend to ignore romance in stories (a bad habit I'm trying to quit, since it backfired horribly with this series), I wasted my time reading three doorstoppers until I finally had the good sense to quit. If I had picked up on the purpose of the story, I wouldn't have even read the first one. And yeah, so I'm told. I'm probably not going to read more than two of her books.

Well, that might be an idea. Though I find it funny when snark reviewers write as they go, because often you lose a lot of the original reactions if you wait until they're finished. A great deal of humour comes from first reactions. Hah, wouldn't surprise me.

Oh, yeah, that's definitely true! I'm sure that even the worst thing that can possibly happen to someone has an upside hidden somewhere. And hey, look at this thread. All of the world's failtastic suckiness has given me this: SNARK.

Hah, well, sometimes it's good to have someone around who prods you to try new things! You never know if you might find something useful or even inspiring.

Ouch! That must be seriously horrible, especially as a reader and writer. I'm awfully sorry.

I am a huge fan of myths and lore, but I try not to dismiss anything modern. What I aim for is originality, so it's actually in my best interest to read as much as possible and ignore where exactly in the timeline it comes from. We have had... similar experiences. However, I intend to get better. If only because it's hard and challenging.

Why yes, I'm fully aware of all that! I was just saying that the exact combo of powers and weaknesses (save a tweak here and there) was done immediately before by similar-minded authors. If you look deeply into vampire lore, the exact powers and weaknesses of the creature vary wildly from tale to tale, and this extends to literature. There's a world of difference between Bram Stoker's Dracula and Hamilton's vampires. Hell, even some of the vampire lit of the 60s or the 70s is very different, and that's actually pretty close, chronologically, to Hamilton et al.

Yeah, well, in the book she has to go somewhere dressed skimpily. If she doesn't want to go around showing off her gun, she has to put it in her purse, there's no other possibility. Unless she invents Hammerspace or something. ROFL! Well, you know what they say, some things are worth going the extra mile for! And hah! I bet it that came back to bite him, lol. Yeah, though it wasn't that original to begin with. A lot of the vampire lore is practically cribbed from Buffy, which started roughly around the same time. And didn't Anne Rice started the fad even earlier? With similar powers/weaknesses? I think the only original stuff she added was werewolves and necromancers. Which wasn't THAT much of an innovation.

Hahah, thank you! I actually said "derringer" because it's the smallest handgun I know of, and the easiest one to misplace. What I meant was that I couldn't conceive someone not being able to reach into a bag and procuring a handgun so big in a couple of seconds. If she had said it was a derringer, I would have believed it. Those are actually pretty tiny. Ugh, I have to finish this book some day....