Elementalist
Because the duchess is married and is not a virgin anymore, and those were the times when for a woman not married to be not a virgin was considered very bad; think classical slut shaming, done by people with Holier Than Thou attitudes and actual power to mess your life badly.
That being said, though I never actually was in a long-lasting polyamorous relationship, I can tell you that the most important things are for them to still consider each other friends (even if they do not openly say that when people ask), and for them to be fine with (what in a way amounts to) casual sex. Anything outside of that is secondary and thus may vary for as long as it makes sense in the context of their exact relationship.
edited 22nd Dec '15 10:09:11 AM by Kazeto
Slut-Shaming, Just as I thought. I also wonder why it's alright to seduce a married person, or a person of royalty - the word 'seduce' implies the seducer is actually thwarting romance and sex to gain power or money for his own means. Courtly Love much?
So far, both Alice and Charlie are Chivalrous Pervert (how is this different from the Ethical Slut? Having to fight back Slut-Shaming?) So they could have friendly casual sex. Which is good, because I want the story to focus on Bob.
Thing is, this story is about Bob being uncomfortable with his feelings towards Alice and Charlie. He's supposed to wonder things such as 'why do I seem to love two people at the same time?', 'why am I so greedy as to want both of them?', 'I had all the time in the world to love Alice, but instead I was her best friend! Why did I fall for her only after there's someone else perfect for her?', and 'how do I choose between the two? Someone give me a sign!'
In this case, Bob found Alice attractive because he fell for Charlie, and/or because the attraction between Alice and Charlie made Bob realize how attractice Alice was. I figured this was an important part of establishing the nature of this particular polyamorus relationship.
Come to think of it, in stories where the protagonist must choose between two possible partners, how does he/she manage in the end? What about IRL? Of course, this story will be resolved in a different manner, but it's useful to have a reference.
I've looked at Triang Relations and Betty and Veronica, but nothing gives details on how everything between 'choices come up' and 'choice is made' - that is, how the chooser came to make the choice between the two possible partners. Is it usually resolved by making one partner turn out to be evil or a real bitch?
Heck, I looked under the Web Comics section of Betty and Veronica, and the first example (not sure if I should spoiler these, really) ends in a polyamorus relationship . But the Betty gives up chasing the protagonist, and manages to get to the happy ending anyway. It's really weird, and I think I shouldn't have it in my story.
Should I even have do the Betty and Veronica thing with Alice and Charlie anyway?
edited 23rd Dec '15 7:40:49 AM by hellomoto
I probably should have the story touch on jealousy, or lack thereof.
Bob might even try deluding himsef into feeling jealousy. After all, all relationships he's seen before (that have any amount of love) are monogamous. With the number of stories that feature Your Cheating Heart, Green-Eyed Monster and such, Bob may think there's something wrong with him because he doesn't feel the ever-so-common emotion called jealousy.
Not sure if I should have him actually get jealous, and if so, in what direction - at Alice for taking Charlie away, or at Charlie for taking Alice away? Even Bob himself could be confused on this bit. What's the realisitc way to make Bob realize he's actually not jealous and wants both of them?
edited 23rd Dec '15 7:48:34 AM by hellomoto
Elementalist
No, it's not really alright to seduce a married person, hellomoto; not as far as they cared. However, as far as they cared, too, was virginity a much more important thing than that. It's the difference between a murderer and a murderer who kicks puppies in his spare time and eats kittens, essentially; especially since a married duchess is someone who could have refused the advances and thus it's partially her fault too and it's possible to hide an affair if you know what to do, whereas the virgin is supposed to be pure and unknowing and the act of ... well, doing the act with her, does something that can't be hidden.
As for the differences between an Ethical Slut and a Chivalrous Pervert, the former is someone who thinks that sexuality isn't bad and is generally a good person, and basically makes themselves look like a slut by not condemning sex as bad, and the latter is someone who is ... well, a pervert, but does treat the people they're lusting after as actual people rather than merely objects to sate their lust with. There is some overlap, quite a lot even, but that's basically it; an Ethical Slut may actually live in a celibate, and a Chivalrous Pervert may not actually consider sexuality to be a good thing, so it is not a complete overlap.
As for choosing to be with one or more or none of more than just one potential partner ... oh boy. Generally, whatever one would pick and whatever one shows to be picking do not have to be the same choices, and whatever one does pick is, for each of us, our own personal What Are You In The Dark moment. And if one and the other are not the same, then it becomes a game of acting for however much time they can do it without something changing.
As for the last question, don't bother if you don't want it, pure and simple. Such a situation is a possibility, nothing more, not a guideline. So if you don't need it, don't use it.
And with the question in the next post about jealousy, honestly, you are looking at it wrong. Because the two baseis are that they should be friends and fine with casual intimacy with each other, which means that though we can't say there's never going to be any jealousy if you want an actual polyamorous relationship rather than the standard "comedy harem", playing with actual visible jealousy that any of them would feel towards any of the other members of the same relationship that do pertain to the relationship itself, is a quick way for the whole thing to become shit. Because if you truly were fine with it and were friends, you wouldn't get that jealous about it, would you?
Though, if you made an arc about the character's attempts to gauge why he doesn't feel jealous when his experiences with things tell him he should be, it might make for some nice character development.
And getting back to the previous post, as far as the jump between the choices being there and the choices being made goes, I can only say "people will be people". Because it basically varies from person to person, and while one might choose to be with their friend even if only as a friend, another one might choose the one person that makes them more wet because oh sex, and yet another might walk away disgusted with how much of a contest the whole thing had become. So basically you should write it realistically if you do write about it, taking into account the baseis I wrote about and the situation they are in and building on top of that.
On that note, if you truly want to do it the justice, perhaps you should start by answering, as best as you can, the questions: What exactly are the differences between friends and people in a relationship? And how would a person who is fine with casual sex actually feel about it?
edited 1st Jan '16 4:55:38 AM by Kazeto
There's the problem. I don't know what's realistic. I'm a virgin who's never had romantic relationships IRL. When it comes to romance and sex, my knowledge is about that of a fourteen-year-old or less, and all of it comes from romantic comedies, dramas, and other people's words.
I don't need it to be completely realistic, I just want to avoid breaking Willing Suspension of Disbelief.
The big problem of 'I have no idea what events should occur in my story' is still running about.
edited 23rd Dec '15 7:20:15 PM by hellomoto
Cape Malleum Majorem
Somebody once said that the problem with love triangles and/or threesomes is that there's too many people involved.
About the "difference between friends with benefits and romantic relationship" question: I've asked about that before, and the answers I got amount to "whether or not they have long-term plans such as marriage and children" and "the little spark that somehow makes the difference". Since this story won't bother with the long-term stuff (it's more about sexuality than romance, really) and I doubt someone with little actual experience with romance can pull off the spark thing, I likely won't dwell on the difference between friends and romance. I don't want to make Alice and Charlie outright lovers, because it makes it harder to justify Bob's actions (which would include getting romantic or even having sex with Alice and Charlie) as being that of self-discovery instead of outright cheating.
Well it could work, if Alice and Charlie are in an open relationship and alright with Bob's actions, while most of the conflict is imagined by Bob because he feels he's cheating and worries that Alice and Charlie are hiding their true feelings - to retain their friendship with Bob, or because They're Called "Personal Issues" for a Reason. But it doesn't quite answer "isn't it awful of Bob to do what he considers cheating?"
We already know Bob's true choice (what he actually does pick at the end) is both Alice and Charlie.
Bob would be initially confused on who he should pick, thinking he gets to pick only one. Everyone's had one-night stands before, even Bob. However, Bob has not had friends with benefits before, and has not really considered the possibility. Bob is alright with having sex with a stranger and not seeing that stranger afterwards, but to him the idea of regularly meeting up and chatting with someone he's had sex with is really close to a "romantic relationship".
Though, if you made an arc about the character's attempts to gauge why he doesn't feel jealous when his experiences with things tell him he should be, it might make for some nice character development.
I need to have some real interpersonal conflict to make a gripping story, which is why I though some amount of jealousy could work.
edited 23rd Dec '15 10:44:58 PM by hellomoto
Elementalist
Yes and no. If you make the comparison between "friends with benefits" and "people in a romantic relationship" then yes, it's like that. But people can start off as friends and get into a romantic relationship and still remain friends, which though it does not happen often is something that kind of twists the whole thing because it's not the same thing as either of the above things. Because those that are like that technically still count as "friends with benefits" if you went about it that way but there's nothing stopping them from having long-term plans and yet still counting as that.
Also, it does have to be noted that for people to be in a true polyamorous relationship, they all need to have feelings for each other. Not necessarily feelings they act on, as people writing smut would think they would, but basically you can't get an upgrade for three people if they aren't all comfortable with going further with every one of them. This is also the root of why jealousy kind of doesn't work for people in such a relationship, as serious jealously, serious to the point that you are acting on it, means that you are hurting someone you have to care about for the relationship to work with your lack of trust. And, of course, since whatever feelings they are they shouldn't smother what makes them friends, that makes the whole relationship have a casual feel to it.
Isn't it? And even if it isn't, can it not be, if those in it truly wanted to think of it that way? Because really, sex and such matters aside, there truly is nothing more to being "in a relationship" with someone than there would be to being truly close friends with them. Of course there are differences, yes, but those differences are there because people chose them, and all in all there's nothing saying you can't treat your friends the same way. And then you add the "with benefits" bit and it becomes even funnier (read: complicated).
But yes, the confusion, and the difference between what Bob chooses (both of them) and what Bob seems to choose (because he's not sure himself) seems like a nice source of some conflict for the story, and a chance for character development.
Honestly, I'd go with people outside the relationship as the source of conflict of that sort; public perception and all that. Because really, for people in a three-way relationship, if other people knew there could be idiots out there deciding that Slut-Shaming is proper and stuff.
Also, rather than jealousy as it is, I think the differences between people who may very well be different and disagree about things would work better.
edited 25th Dec '15 12:44:55 AM by Kazeto
... wow, this reallly is complicated. Looks like it'll take time just to digest all of that.
So yes, no actual jealousy. At best, Bob forcing himself to feel jealousy, which obviously doesn't work.
That's a great idea! Now I'll need to build up my side characters.
That, or I could write a short story concentrating fully on Bob's conflicting feelings.
edited 25th Dec '15 12:45:00 AM by hellomoto
Update: I found this via google:
The first two affect people who have been brain-washed by the media into believing the "one true love" story or wanting to believe in it. They need to personally experience otherwise before they'll give polyamory a second thought. For some people, even if their current relationship / marriage doesn't work out, they blame it on having mistaken their partner for their true love when he/she is not, instead of starting to question the basic assumption that among 7 billion people there could be exactly one perfect fit for them [not two or zero] AND that they're going to meet him/her.
From this background, people may (but don't necessarily) become polyamorous:
Epiphany 1: when they realize that no one person can be everything to them, that it's a choice between remaining unfulfilled or developing deep partner-like (not necessarily sexual) relationships with several people or Epiphany 2: when they fall in love/lust with another person while still loving their partner
If people have made this experience but still don't think that polyamory is for them, it's usually that they're afraid of jealousy. Some people truly have too low self-esteem to ever overcome this, but others find Epiphany 3: that when the situation arises, they're not nearly as jealous/uncomfortable as they thought they would be (as the media suggested they should be), instead the jealousy is mixed with compersion (being happy that your partner is happy) so that it's quite bearable. It helps that the partners set rules together, so that situations that would make you really mad can be avoided, and for the rest of it you still feel more in control than if you're jealous in a monogamous relationship.
Fear of losing one's partner also makes some people initially shy away from polyamory (again, low self-esteem is an issue...); that, too, can be overcome when they see Epiphany 4: that their partner is becoming more affectionate and sensitive to them rather than less, having found a new love.
Love is not a fixed quantity: the more you give, the more you have. In a polyamorous relationship, you have the opportunity to give and receive more love than in a monogamous relationship: at the high points it's bliss the like you've never imagined and at its low points it's still no worse than a low point in a monogamous relationship.
Which sounds like more than enough to write a short story on how a polyamorus relationship came to be.
I'll change Epiphany 3 though - instead of Bob being 'alright' with it, Bob actively loves to see Alice and Charlie together. It's reasonable for Bob to spend a lot of time wondering how he could be feeling this way when nearly everyone flips out on seeing their partners talking to someone else of the opposite sex.
Of course, there'll be the side characters telling him monogamy (and all the associated concepts) is the only right way. I suppose these side characters shouldn't be monolithically evil?
edited 27th Dec '15 2:41:46 AM by hellomoto
Elementalist
Yeah, pretty much. It's one of those things that come from prejudice and do not inherently make one evil. People are taught that their beliefs are "Right™" there, after all, and it's kind of hard to throw something like that off just because there's one couple that goes against this that says that they are allowed to be like that when everyone around you and them stays adamant that what that couple is doing is "Wrong™".
Of course, most people will just look and stew in their impotent disapproval since unless they are directly above you or you care about their opinion they can't really do anything but that. But prejudice is prejudice, and as children are taught to continue it it doesn't make them evil but simply also prejudiced.
That being said, your change to the epiphany, so to say, sounds like something that is somewhere between the 3rd one and the 4th one now, so I'll say it probably counts as both and all is fine in your kingdom.
I've been dealing with polyamory in one of my scripts because the main protagonist is a bisexual Asian-American and he's constantly struggling with those conflicting stereotypes: Bisexuals are portrayed as going for Anything That Moves, but Asian-American men are treated as unemotional robots, so he feels like he has to be one stereotype or the other. He picks the bisexual stereotype because being a Mr. Fanservice Ethical Slut is technically breaking the stereotypes of being an Asian-American guy. Plus he's gotten his wires crossed somewhere and he's actually looking for intimacy, not sex. His boyfriend is pretty good with intimacy, but since he's a nurse, he works a lot of long and unpredictable hours.
He also hates being Mistaken for Gay just because he's had two long-term boyfriends (and his first boyfriend drives the plot through his Death by Origin Story). Whenever people find out his current relationship is open, they wonder how his boyfriend "deals with it" because they can't POSSIBLY have talked things out and went "eh, just clear it with me and use protection." Right up until Asian guy mentions he's bisexual and they frequently go "OHHHH, WELL OF COURSE YOU HAVE AN OPEN RELATIONSHIP." He deals with it because again, he feels that being a bisexual stereotype is better than being Mistaken for Gay.
This is all on a subconscious level, so his boyfriend eventually wonders if he's got a hypersexuality condition because the Asian bisexual's constant balancing act between work/life and his sex drive is getting inconvenient for both of them. But once he gets a sister-figure and starts being platonically touchy-feely with her, his libido starts tapering off because his touch needs are a lot more balanced out. And since she's also Asian, she quickly spots the "super-sexed-up Asian guy is overcompensating for being Asian" problem and helps him start sorting it out, which his boyfriend hasn't been able to recognize because he's black.
Yes, this is long. I'm so sorry. I was planning to just keep it to the relationship parts, but intersectionality is really complicated.
Ironically enough, since I made sure jealousy never factors into the mix, it's the "actively" polyamorous one (the one who has sex with people besides his boyfriend) who has low self-esteem because he reacts so differently to his Twofer Token Minority status than his boyfriend does. Bisexuals get tons of shit from the media and Asians get an entirely different kind of shit, and he can't figure out how to deal with it besides just having lots of sex. (It takes him a long time to even consider the idea of therapy because a lot of Asian-Americans DO NOT LIKE therapy.)
Of course, I'm making sure that their relationship stays open after the Asian guy processes his emotional issues. It's not this black-and-white "BOY NEEDS MORE HUGS AND THERAPY, AND THEN HE HAS A PERFECT MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP." It's just that the open relationship gets a lot healthier once he loses his emotional baggage.
edited 27th Dec '15 3:30:09 PM by Sharysa
Yikes... I'm fairly well-versed in gender issues, but racism is outside what I know. Probably because I live in a country where it's not such a huge problem the way America has it.
Is the "all bisexuals will do Anything That Moves" such a strong sterotype? Most media I see is either No Bisexuals (if they even adknowledge the existance of homosexuality), or homosexuals and bisexuals are already treated with respect.
If anything, I could play with Fantastic Racism: "everyone knows all elves are complete prudes, and the few who aren't are 'rebels' who'll do anything and discard their 'partners' as fast as they get on them!" Although leaving it out altogether may be better in my case.
I play with polyamory in stories because it's even less talked about than, say, homosexuality or bisexuality. Gives me a lot of space.
There's a difference between an open relationship and polyamory.
I'd considered making Bob into someone who believed himself straight because he didn't realize sexual oritentations other than 'straight' were even options. I rather like the idea of a world where there's technically no homophobia in the sense of people saying "gays are sinners", just that no one apart from a very small group has ever heard of homosexuality.
Bob: I have... funny feelings for this guy... John: Heh, we all have our moments. It's just a few wires crossed. No one ever thinks that way for more than a couple of weeks. George: Ever thought you could be a lady who got cursed into having male bits from a young age? Maybe your parents wanted someone to pass down the family name.
I'm not sure if it'll get in the way of the main polyamory plot though.
edited 27th Dec '15 6:12:52 PM by hellomoto
Errrgh, I totally forgot to throw in a YMMV disclaimer. For me an open relationship is the result of polyamory, and that can include "three or more committed partners" or "two committed partners and at least one openly acknowledged other partner. All parties in the relationship agree that this is okay, and the sex is not a drug-induced accident."
I suppose their open relationship becomes polyamorous to some level if you count the brother-sister relationship. The not-siblings don't have any sexual feelings for each other, but the bisexual says "I love you" to his not-sister at some point, and the not-sister is extremely open about how sexy the bisexual is because he's Mr. Fanservice.
Ironically enough, I was planning for these three to end up in a triad relationship, but eventually the Like Brother and Sister vibes were just too NICE to potentially ruin with romance, and then she discovered her own bisexuality and ended up falling for his female friend.
RE Bisexual stereotype: In American media, bisexuals tend to range between a more benign Ethical Slut / Anything That Moves to outright Depraved Bisexuals. (Again, if they're not just swept under the rug.) Captain Jack Harkness of Torchwood and Doctor Who is probably the Ur-Example of the benign stereotype.
edited 27th Dec '15 6:53:02 PM by Sharysa
Elementalist
Well, to be fair, in media bisexuality either is played for comedy (and therefore it's likely that it's there as a trait that would justify why exactly is this particular character getting into everyone's physical space), or we know the character is bisexual because we see them sleep around with everyone. You won't get a proclamation that someone is bisexual that is backed merely by their word rather than by a record of their deviancy, because such a proclamation would be useless for the plot most of the time so why even bother (and thus, the possibility that some straight/bent characters could actually go both ways, which I'm sure plenty of fans of whatever series speculate about).
In the real world, on the other hand, it is possible to get someone to admit to being bisexual but be far from the stereotype, as their libido plays a big role there. And you will learn because we do not have to worry about plot-relevance and can just waste time discussing it on some forum (the fact that this-or-that person happens to be of so-and-so sexual orientation, I mean).
And I can use myself as an example here: I count as bisexual, but my libido is such that I ... well, let's just say "lose blood", more often than I get an urge to do something. And I'm sure that if I were a movie character I'd probably get taken for either a heterosexual (the default assumption) or an asexual (if I didn't really feel any urges throughout the whole story) person rather than a bisexual one. The only way for me to get taken as a bisexual would be if I got a scene where I slept around with way too many people, so to say. Because how often does that topic even come up in a conversation, anyway?
What's weird is that as a kid I was really precocious, like having a crush before anyone else in my class (I was 9, then, which should really tell you something), and I really don't get how I ended up that way. Though I'm not complaining, urges are useless.
edited 27th Dec '15 8:31:26 PM by Kazeto
Ah, so bisexuality in American media is more a result of having a character who sleeps with everyone and anyone. Although I sometimes wonder why a writer hasn't made a character bisexual to enable romance arcs or even Your Cheating Heart with another character of an otherwise incompatiable sex (e.g. a male char and a female char are lovers. The male char is made bisexual so that he can cheat with an established male char who's a friend of the female char). It opens up possibilities of hooking up established characters for plot, instead of having to create side characters out of nowhere or strangle red strings.
@Sharysa: Ah. I think of open relationships as "You can have one-night stands with others, and I'll be able to do the same. But no one starts a romantic relationship with anyone else". On the other hand, a polyamorous relationship has three or more committed partners, and if one partner cheats the other two can very well be just as pissed as monogamous people who get cheated on. One could have an open polyamorous relationship, but the 'open' part isn't a given to all polyamorous relationships, and it's best to ask first.
I could cut down on the sex, and limit most interactions to flirting and friendliness. It's easier for Bob to adjust. I suspect I'll have to make the Alice-Charlie relationship friendly enough that Bob isn't considered 'intruding' into a pairing.
I'll have to read up more on how polyamorous relationships start, as well as how other people react to it. This one's F+2M, so I guess people treat Alice as a 'slut' or 'exploited', while Bob and Charlie are seen as 'exploitive' or 'gay/weirdos'? Could even have shades of attitudes towards M+2F, at times when Bob is seen as a female (him being attracted to a man 'means' he is 'actually' female - "everyone knows men are attracted to women, and women are attracted to men!").
Quick question: Why is it considered bad to date your best friend's sister? Is it almost always a sister instead of a brother? Is it always a younger sister, or even a sister??
edited 28th Dec '15 1:58:16 AM by hellomoto
Elementalist
That's ... honestly, I don't really know.
I mean, I am aware that this is a thing, and I do know women do it too, even to other women (I was on the receiving end of that, from the younger sister of ... the target, of all things). But outside of that, I don't really know because having been told that does not an expert make, and though I do have a sister and I did tell my friends on occasion not to even try dating her (yes, I hang out with men more than with women, without it actually being romantic; I never said I'm not weird), every single time it was in the context of "dude, I like you as a person, and my sister is evil, so please spare yourself the suffering because if you get into it and I'll have to bail you out I'll hit you, repeatedly."
Yeah, goes with ... not having the greatest relationship with my sister. Admittedly, I am closer to my cousin, who is a man (well, he's still a boy to me, but I guess he is an adult now so a man it is) and younger than me, and I guess if I became friends with someone who I thought could try to date him ... ugh, the problem here is that I generally don't become friends with people who could go on to become problems (no, not "cause", "become"; causing a problem would be just that, being a problem is the same but worse) because I have to kind of force myself to get closer than the so-called arm's length to people (blame my parents, really) and I can't force myself if the person is bad, so if I actually became actual friends with someone I wouldn't tell them that even if it did make me feel uncomfortable if they started dating my cousin.
Oh, wait, there's your answer. It's kind of uncomfortable if you are friends with someone who dates someone else you are close to. And I guess because you are supposed to choose family over friends by default, if that happened and it ended with a conflict you'd have to go against someone who is your friend ... well, or alternatively go against your family, which for most people probably is just as bad if not worse.
And the fact that it's most often the older sibling, usually male towards a younger sister, is something that I think has to do with the presumption that the given person will or will not be able to deal with any resulting mess on their own. I mean, since younger people and women are usually seen as more vulnerable and weaker, it stands to reason that a younger sibling might think of making such a proclamation but stop because they think their older sibling will be able to take care of it should anything happen. Though it probably is just as uncomfortable to them.
Maybe. In the end, I'm still just guessing, and though I think it makes sense, it would be nice if someone who isn't a weird amalgam of supposedly unmatching traits and behavioural patterns added what they know; also, my femininity or lack of it aside, I'm still the oldest in my generation in the whole family and I could beat most people in my family one-on-one, so I guess I ... I don't know, does that make me count as a guy for the purpose of the question, or still a girl? Sorry, I'm good with neither things pertaining to family nor things pertaining to "romance" (relationships I can do, romance ... I'm kind of not good with emotions; I guess that's why I hung out with boys more than with girls as a kid; I blame my parents, in any case), and I'm a trash bin for issues.
Now, on the your suggestion for bisexuality as something that exists only to enable that sort of situation, I do remember seeing it on a few occasions. However, I also do remember some people raising a ruckus over how it's unnatural and why would a straight character be fine with homosexual stuff when they aren't homosexual because they didn't have sex with people of the same sex ... yeah, some people are idiots.
And really, write as much sex into it as you want. Different people like to do it with differing regularity, so for as long as you make it into a part of what they are rather than an excuse for writing smut (please don't do that), it should be fine.
As for the attitude people would have, the same as above it is something that varies from person to person. So for as long as you make it appear realistic you are free to do whatever with it and have people behave in any way you want.
Thanks for the long response! Turns out the trope has its basis in realism. Although the way the My Sister Is Off-Limits trope is played, the big sibling sounds
This is perfectly normal. Anyone can be just friends with others of the opposite sex.
I hope to avoid pigeonholing my characters into 'feminine' or 'masculine'. Heck, the entire ideas of 'feminine' or 'masculine' sound really weird to me: why say "man up" when you mean "be brave and stand up for yourself"? Why say "behave like a lady" when you mean "walk slowly and say 'excuse me' instead of barging through the crowd at the wedding dinner"?
Sounds like No Bisexuals in full effect. Heh, I know what kind of people I'm not writing for
I'd been considering a character arc or even a separate story about Bob's Sexuality Epiphany, where he discovers he's bisexual instead of straight, and he's just burying his attraction towards men (a lot easier in a world where nearly everyone male or female or both or neither are jerkasses. Then he meets Charlie). Aaaand... more research!
So... what is realistic, and what's unrealistic? I'm not even sure how to start googling for this.
edited 30th Dec '15 6:46:12 AM by hellomoto
Elementalist
I think you ate something here. Men and their constant hunger, really ...
Of course I'm jesting, but yeah, you seem to have eaten something, or alternatively forgot to write it before replying. Oops.
Do excuse me for a moment, for I need to walk to the side and spend a trifle of time shuddering.
But self-demonstrating silliness aside, and in relevance to the bit about being friends with people of the opposite sex and/or gender being normal, that phrase really makes me shudder. Because imagine that you were supposed to be something and you became something different, disappointing many people in the family by doing it, and there's a phrase that reminds you of it; that's basically it for me.
Anyway, personal woes aside (it no longer really bothers me; I wouldn't have been able to write about it had it actually bothered me), the point I am trying to make here is that in trying to raise a "proper lady" my parents had given me the possibility of learning that what being a "proper lady" actually is, and what people think when they say "behave like a lady", are two different things. Because the latter is being stereotypical, and the former ... well, it's not entirely accurate, but it's kind of a style of life, you could say, sort of like "living by the way of the sword" was in the old stories; there is a set of values associated with it, and at its core it boils down to two things: one needs to have the ability to become as feminine as is needed, and whatever they do they should not rid themselves of dignity. Be able to act when you must, in other words, and be proud of who you are.
But, of course, the portrayal of the discrepancy in the words' meaning and what one could think they'd mean aside, I guess this isn't very useful for you; my family came from old money and old power, so they hung to traditions for far longer than was sane or wanted, and thus my upbringing was a bit different than what people tend to have. Not that they actually have any power nowadays, but eh.
Hmm ... that is true, yes. The ideas of "femininity" and "masculinity" are, at their core, weird. I'll say they are basically self-perpetuated enforced theatrics, for the most part.
The important part here is "self-perpetuated". Because though it is evident that some of the social pressure came from people outside those groups, much of it came from the inside, and the preconceptions that those are were formed as a result of people basically playing theatrics for their own gain, be it because it's more comfortable that way or because it makes them proud to one-up others at something.
And the weirdness of it that we see nowadays is basically a left-over from this that could have long ago stopped existing if people actually made an effort. Because the maximal strength aside (we are not comparing strongsmen and strongswomen now, but normal people for whom the innate difference is really low), the image of women as weaker wouldn't still be there had it not been convenient to appear weaker and let one trying to prove themselves stronger carry you a bit; and that is just one example, and many others can be taken apart too. Which is the bit that the most extreme of feminists got wrong, but social warrior extremists are stupid and should be ignored anyway so let us not linger on that.
That being said, if we get over the issue above, both "masculinity" and "femininity" as they are can actually be fun. Because really, as much of a tomboy as I can be, if given the chance to dress myself up in something actually tasteful—rather than the "sexy" clothes popular nowadays, because I'm tired of forced fanservice when it's simply impractical (it's even the reason why I generally don't play female characters in games; fanservice is fine but not when that means one wears a chainmail bikini)—and pair up for waltz for someone, I'd probably jump at the chance, because for as long as they aren't forced onto you but rather something you chose to do, and you can choose how exactly to do it, the theatrics that make up the image of femininity are kind of fun. I mean, it's styled, graceful, with an underlying taste of nobility. The image of a princess is a lie nowadays, but the pleasure you can get if you happen to feel that way is still real, and the theatrics themselves can also be entertaining (which is easy to notice if you get to see a medieval-themed masked ball) if you lose yourself a bit in them. And on the other hand, men have their "bro" thing, with casual and confident physical contact, with openly joking and poking fun at each other, with challenging each other rather than staying in place lest you move out of the line; even if that too is a theatric at least somewhat, it can still be fun. Although the time when I got shanghaied into a discussion about whether or not my sister is hot was ... weird; many shoulders were punched on that day.
Of course, one can question whether or not we need those, then. Because if both are good then why can't all the people have both? But honestly, I think it's something most people simply aren't ready for, aren't comfortable with reaching for, hence constraining themselves to what the society says is proper for them. Then again, I might be thinking that because I'm basically dancing on the line, or I might be thinking that because I am a heap of issues and weirdness piled onto each other that somehow has not yet spontaneously combusted; I honestly don't know which one is the case (well, I could guess, but I think it wouldn't be proper since judging oneself tends to deliver silly results and it really doesn't matter much).
Also, the last time someone told me "man up" (it was one of my friends and he seems to like riling me up), I glanced at his pants and replied with "is that your attempt at flirting with me?." And let me tell you, the reaction I got was fun.
And I think the "walk slowly" bit, when applies to girls, might be to get them used to walking steadily so that they wouldn't hurt themselves once they get to wearing high-heels. Maybe, I'm really just guessing here because though I seem to have a talent for walking in them, I never wear that stuff because it's impractical; I mean, you can neither run in them nor kick people if necessary, so what's the point? And for formal occasions, there's always ballet slippers, which are low-heel and better for any traditional dances, so I really don't get the fixation with high-heels that some people have. Then again, my lack of understanding for it might also come from my dislike for forced fanservice, or from the fact that I am tall enough that I don't need it, but I like to think it's because they are impractical (the same reason I wear jeans bought at men's clothing store and then adjusted to fit me well enough, as lack of adequately-sized pockets is also impractical); still, if anyone more aware of the "why" of it says I'm wrong about that, listen to them.
Sounds like a great idea, to be honest. And I think it's something many readers would be able to relate to, as though heterosexuality is "the most popular", in most cases we are not intrinsically against intimacy with people of the same sex, and quite some people do hide the fact that they aren't repulsed by it due to the public opinion bearing down on them.
"Cause and effect", basically; "response depends on personality", too.
So don't have changes that come from nothing, and if you have a change the cause of which the readers are not supposed to see then at least write the scene with the cause for yourself to make sure the cause and effect link works properly for it; so, you know, no [insert whatever] ex machina just for the sake of moving the plot in a direction it doesn't want to go, if you need that then go back until you get to the point where you can change its direction and still have it make sense. And do remember that, no matter the situation or the emotional baggage, everyone has their own personality which changes how they act and perceive things, however subtle the change would be; we are individualists, in other words.
If you really want to google this I suggest starting with the phrase "common sense"; because that's what it basically is ... well, should be, since some people write seemingly without these (and the results tend to be bad).
I'm an (cis, probably straight) woman IRL, since that's important to the discussion we're having.
"Although the way the My Sister Is Off-Limits! trope is played, the big sibling sounds" outright disgusted at the idea of their little sibling dating Big Sibling's best friend, as opposed to merely being worried about potential problems coming up due to being close with both sides of a romantic relationship. Unless Big Sibling is trying to scare them away?
I can relate to a lot of the things you mention about sexism IRL, including the bit on forced sexiness (there seems to be a trend about how sexiness in women is closely connected to weakness and lack of consent). Somehow I've started noticing sexism in the real world only recently...
[snip] But honestly, I think it's something most people simply aren't ready for, aren't comfortable with reaching for, hence constraining themselves to what the society says is proper for them.
It does feel like a combination of these. Society sets restrictions, gives the tools, and people follow along because it's easier and to be honest not THAT bad, workable at least.
Not enough time to write everything, but I never thought to google "common sense". Someone's idea of common sense could be "girls always fuck things up because they're girls". I do try to be careful.
edited 31st Dec '15 4:03:12 PM by hellomoto
Elementalist
Oh ... I apologise if I slighted you with my assumption, then. Though I will say that this does ruin the joke, and the alternative one—about women and dieting—I am not going to touch with a ten foot pole because that way lay bad things and I don't like bad things.
Hmm ... I'm not sure. Maybe the disgust, if there happens to be one, comes from men talking about what girls are sexy and stuff? Because one would assume that a man might not want another to tell him how sexy they find his sister, or worse yet share tales of conquest. I think it falls under a different intensity of "uncomfortable", to be honest.
It seems that as far as this question goes, we are lacking in men ... that's inconvenient.
The last time someone said that (about fucking things up) in my vicinity without it being in the context of a joke, violence was applied.
And what I meant was that, rather than looking for anything else, it would do well to think about it and apply common sense rather than search for anything; as in, you know, the very same common sense that seems to be a rare superpower nowadays. Because the gibberish people who have no idea about stuff write is mostly worthless and calling it common sense is an insult to the letters used to write it.
Going back to the 'behave like a lady' example, I'd taken that from a Korean show. A female character and a male character were at an auction house, when the woman says "I'm going to run out and grab something, I'll be quick". The man replies with "Don't run. Behave like a lady", which she just accepts without any question. It was reasonable to walk slowly in a crowded formal event, but "behave like a lady" was not the correct phrase. The man didn't even trust the woman to apply basic courtesy, and interpreted "run" in its most literal fashion.
It later turned out the woman was wearing very high heels, so it was impossible to really run in them anyway. The same show displayed more sexism by demonstrating the female character couldn't get anything right and had to have the help of two other male characters, but let's just leave it at that, and note this statement:
My older male relative repeatedly told me what he thought was a funny joke:
"When God created Earth, there was peace. When God created men, there was still peace. But when God created women, there was no more peace."
Violence was not an option, because "older male relative".
That's his idea of common sense.
It's "common sense" that 'gayness is icky and sinful unless it's two females'. It's "common sense" that 'bisexual men are disgusting but bisexual women are hot". It's "common sense" that 'all polyamorousnote relationships are cheating in a paper-thin disguise'.
I believed all of these at some point in the past, even if (or precisely because) I didn't even know I believed those.
I don't exactly trust common sense to do most of the thinking for me.
edited 31st Dec '15 4:03:34 PM by hellomoto
Elementalist
Yeah, one more reason for me not to watch TV. Not that I need it since I no longer do watch TV at all, but eh.
"When God created Earth, there was peace. When God created men, there was still peace. But when God created women, there was no more peace."
Right ... for some people that's a problem, I guess. Based on your comment about the TV show, I presume that you might happen to be from that very place, and I do think that the pressure on treating family in a particular manner is higher there. Either way, regardless of whether that is or is not the case I can't say that I do understand ... well, not fully in any case, since though I am relatively close with more distant relatives (by virtue of it being expected at first that the family doesn't act against me, and them later being on my side when I basically threw myself out of the family), my relationship with my close family can basically be described as "a close acquaintance, maybe a friend". Well, I guess I'm close enough to one my uncles and my cousin, but then again my uncle did serve in navy so he was used to women being ... rough (he's the one person in my family I wouldn't win against that I mentioned, by the way), and I did train with my cousin enough that it would be hard for us not to be somewhat close. Yeah, this all is why I wrote that I'm not good with family stuff. But it's a long story, and a weird one at that, so if you need any details for whatever reason then go for private messages.
And in any case, the last one who said it to me was some random drunk or druggie on the street while I was walking back from work after dark. And since he seemed intent on goading me into doing something and on not letting me go until then, well ... I presume he thought himself stronger and planned to have fun, I found hitting a wall with his body and telling him to get lost or else mildly entertaining.
And no comment on the joke. Because it's just a joke, and one that I didn't find funny, but then again my sense of humour is ... well, closer to being nonsense of humour, so I can't say if it's because of the joke or because of me.
Yes. That Firefox's spellchecker is not the best in quality and you should get another one to go with it. I personally use Word Web, and though I'm sure it's not the best thing in the world, I found it decent.
Also, Firefox's dictionary recognises "polygynous" too.
Hmm ... well, I guess that's that, then.
That being said, well, I don't really mind replying to any questions you might have there ... well, for as long as they don't get intimate, so to say, in which case private messages are a thing as I don't mind revealing stuff if it helps but hanging out the so-called dirty laundry for everyone is not exactly fully comfortable. Erm, let me rephrase that, I don't really care since the opinion of people who judge first and put down second and get to know you and the exact circumstances never is something I stopped caring about and it genuinely doesn't bother me anymore, and I don't mind people genuinely trying to learn more and reserving judgment and not being bothersome about it, but the possibility of someone deciding to be obnoxious and making things worse for everyone when I could avoid the possibility by limiting how many people learn about those details to those who actually need to know or are curious but polite, makes it feel as if the possibility coming true would be my fault and that makes it uncomfortable.
Anyway, I think you should try to trust yourself a bit more there and just go with the two bits I'd given earlier ("cause and effect" and "response depends on personality"), because it's about common sense in the meaning that things don't happen without a reason and people are all different—rather than about any preconceived notions passed to children as the so-called "common sense"—but if you think you are better off asking then feel free to do so (not like I can forbid you or anything, but I guess you know what I mean).
edited 2nd Jan '16 12:15:32 PM by Kazeto
I had a thought.
Maybe when Alice and Bob first met, they did feel sparks fly, but as time wore on they found something was missing. Thus, they concluded that they weren't meant to be lovers, and remained friends.
I would've linked to Just Friends, but this case doesn't seem to be that trope. Best I can find is Amicable Exes, although they don't consider themselves exes at all. Since their brief moment of love is rather (what else?) brief, they pass it off as temporary infatuation that results when you've been surrounded by unattractive-in-personality people.
Until they met Charlie.
edited 5th Jan '16 4:04:50 PM by hellomoto
I'm considering a story where, at the end, three people (Alice, Bob, and Charlie) get together and form a polyamorous relationship. The story will be told largely from Bob's perspective (Limited/Subjective Third-Person Narration a la Harry Potter, mostly because showing the perspectives of Alice or Charlie might break the intended 'mystery' of the story.
The story so far: Alice and Bob have been best friends for ages, just because. One day, Alice and Bob meet Charlie, and all three of them become fast friends. This is when Bob starts finding himself attracted towards Charlie... and Alice. At the same time.
My main issue here, is trying to figure out what sort of thought and emotions Bob would have over the course of the story, how the three-way relationship should develop, etc.
Charlie is a Chivalrous Pervert Side Note
So er... any ideas? Help?