a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
selalov734 wrote:Spoonwood is right that man and woman are different, woman have boobs for example and man do not have them.
Are you sure?
Last I checked, men were still mammals. And mammals have boobs.
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3 … 148344.jpg
Just look at those beauties.
....
Fun fact - men not only have real breasts and nipples, they even have functioning milk ducts. All that is missing are the hormonal triggers necessary to stimulate lactation. Under the proper conditions, men are able to produce breastmilk, just like a woman.
Isn't biology fascinating?
And men are just as easily able to obtain those conditions as women are? The quality of the breastmilk of men would be just as good as women's breast milk for the health of the child feeding? I would doubt both of those claims. Men being able to breastfeed is different than men being able to breastfeed as well as women breastfeed.
But yeah, men have boobs. But, they often enough don't protrude from the chest like women's boobs do. Differences in boobs still exist.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Yep, boobs come in many shapes and sizes. All of them different and yet wonderful in their own way.
I cannot speak to the quality of male breast milk, but you know it is okay to have non-functional boobs. Not everyone needs to be great at feeding babies.
Offline
What did you expect?
I don't think I was thinking much about how people like you or Karl would react when I wrote this post, if that's what you mean to ask.
I know I wasn't expecting a positive and pleasant response from Dodge as I got in the course of this thread. That was a pleasant surprise.
Also Destiny, by definition trolling *requires* that someone write things deliberately, or in other words with intent, to provoke a response in someone else.
"Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. … m=Trolling
Since I'm not writing to get a reaction out of people, as you admitted you know above, I'm not trolling.
Spoonwood wrote:The original post has not gotten edited. Breastfeeding wasn't mentioned in the original post also.
Yes it was.
The original post still has not gotten edited. There's no note at the bottom of it suggesting an edit.
Oh dang... I should have searched for "breastfeed" in the original post, not "breastfeeding". I did get something wrong above. I did talk about the ability to breastfeed (which isn't the act of breastfeeding, but the difference doesn't have meaningful consequence here). But still I didn't focus on breastfeeding and intersexual trade. The post starts off talking about something else. And it's title is about the character in general being too equal which includes differences between men and women. And I also mentioned that there's no reason to trade intrasexually in the very sentence after that I mentioned there was no reason to have intersexual trade (within a village).
The real deficiency in my post though is around where I used such terms. I said this:
There's no reason to trade intersexually, since male and female characters are equal.
I would have been much clearer and accurate to write that "There's no reason to trade intersexually, since male charcters and female characters are equal in terms of their abilities (before 14 and after 40) or only women have superior abilities in terms of being acted upon or doing something, since they can have children or breastfeed". People won't trade when they are equal or wouldn't trade if they were equal. They also won't trade when there exists one-way superiority, because what would the party with the superior ability in the only respect in which they are different gain? There has to exist two-way superiority for trade to come as desireable, which requires inequality in two directions. And for two sexes, that would mean inequality for two sexes, not one.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Yep, boobs come in many shapes and sizes. All of them different and yet wonderful in their own way.
I cannot speak to the quality of male breast milk, but you know it is okay to have non-functional boobs. Not everyone needs to be great at feeding babies.
It isn't accurate, and kind of insulting to suggest non-breastfeeding boobs as "non-functional". Breasts have an erotic function in men (though I would guess not to the same degree as they are in women). They also still have the function of protecting muscles or any organs below them. They might also have something to do with temperature regulation of the chest in men, although I am speculating here.
Non-functional boobs would be something more like breasts with cancer. And though I wanted to agree initially, I'm not so sure that it's ok to have non-functional boobs. I guess if there were breasts that had neither benefit nor any serious drawbacks, that would be o.k. but I'm not so sure that such hypothetically exactly neutral breasts exist.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Also Destiny, by definition trolling *requires* that someone write things deliberately, or in other words with intent, to provoke a response in someone else.
.
Yup, you do not fit the standard definition of troll. Congratulations.
I don't think anyone has come up with a proper term for your behavior, because it is so rare to encounter someone who is so consistently disruptive and annoying to others without it being deliberate. I think I'll call it "spooning".
I would have been much clearer and accurate to write that "There's no reason to trade intersexually, since male charcters and female characters are equal in terms of their abilities (before 14 and after 40) or only women have superior abilities in terms of being acted upon or doing something, since they can have children or breastfeed". People won't trade when they are equal or wouldn't trade if they were equal. They also won't trade when there exists one-way superiority, because what would the party with the superior ability in the only respect in which they are different gain? There has to exist two-way superiority for trade to come as desireable, which requires inequality in two directions. And for two sexes, that would mean inequality for two sexes, not one.
So I am confused. Are you arguing that women and men are too equal or that they are not equal enough ... or both? Your argument is still hard to follow.
If I am understanding you correctly, you are basically saying that women have "superior abilities" between 14 and 40 years old, so trade should occur at that time. But men have nothing to offer in exchange, since fatherhood is a myth. Therefore, women have all the babies and all the breast milk and all the power, while men only have erotic nipples and a strong work ethic.
It sounds like you want equity for men, because women in OHOL have one-way superiority for part of their lifespan.
"Women can give birth and breastfeed babies. Men cannot. It isn't fair."
See? That's not very hard.
You wasted a lot of time justifying your opinion with a convoluted argument based on comparative advantage and intersexual trading, instead of just saying what you mean.
...
Personally, I think your entire argument is faulty because it is founded on two false premises - first, that trade between men and women does not occur in OHOL and second, that men have nothing to offer because of their gender.
In my experience, even though the genders in OHOL are equal in many ways, the differences between them are enough to encourage players to assume different roles within the village. Women tend to stick close to home and hearth, cook and farm more than men, and provide for their offspring. Men tend to more often take on tasks that involve more risks or prolonged focus, like traveling long distances, working the forge, or big construction projects. Either gender CAN do these things, if necessary, but each gender has a comparative advantage at certain tasks, because of their strengths and weaknesses, so they tend to specialize.
Women have the "power" to produce babies and feed babies, but this power comes paired with a burden of social obligation and responsibility of care. As a woman in OHOL, you have less freedom of movement and choice, compared with the men in the village, because you are expected to fulfill the role of "mother" during your fertile period. In contrast, men lack family ties, so they are able to choose how they want to live their life, without worrying about sky babies. If you want to work on a big project or do something dangerous, like bear-hunting, it makes more sense to wait until you are born as a male, rather than trying to achieve a healthy work-life balance as a career woman.
Long story short, men already have a one-way superiority to women and intersexual trading does occur in OHOL with the current system. Therefore, greater inequality is not necessary to achieve trade between men and women.
Offline
Non-functional boobs would be something more like breasts with cancer. And though I wanted to agree initially, I'm not so sure that it's ok to have non-functional boobs. I guess if there were breasts that had neither benefit nor any serious drawbacks, that would be o.k. but I'm not so sure that such hypothetically exactly neutral breasts exist.
If anyone ever wonders why I bother to engage in conversation with Spoonwood, even though I know he is just going to argue in endless circles, this is the answer. This beautiful gem of flawless reasoning makes it worth all the annoyance and frustration it took to reach this point.
Heehee ... hypothetically exactly neutral breasts. Yes indeed.
...
And to be exact, non-functional breasts are breasts that do not function. Not breasts riddled with disease. The special function of breasts is to produce milk, so breasts that do not produce milk are non-functional, by definition.
Offline
selalov734 wrote:Spoonwood is right that man and woman are different, woman have boobs for example and man do not have them.
Are you sure?
Last I checked, men were still mammals. And mammals have boobs.
I see what you are doing here, you are spooning me to show me how it feels like.
Offline
DestinyCall wrote:selalov734 wrote:Spoonwood is right that man and woman are different, woman have boobs for example and man do not have them.
Are you sure?
Last I checked, men were still mammals. And mammals have boobs.
I see what you are doing here, you are spooning me to show me how it feels like.
Who doesn't enjoy a little spooning?
Offline
selalov734 wrote:DestinyCall wrote:Are you sure?
Last I checked, men were still mammals. And mammals have boobs.
I see what you are doing here, you are spooning me to show me how it feels like.
Who doesn't enjoy a little spooning?
true
Offline
Why don't we make our own currency.
Has to be something thats not easy to make, but not locked behind a biome.
1 steel spring is worth 1 bucket of latex, 2 bowls of sulfur, or 3 springs for a tank of crude.
Then you can either melt down the spring or use it on our doorless shelters, win, win.
Offline
I just don't see the in-game advantage to adopting a system of currency. We already exchange goods and services at no cost.
Why bother adding an unnecessary step to every transaction?
Offline
...
Seriously, wake up. Men and women aren't equal. They trade, because they are unequal. And if they were equal, trading wouldn't happen. You can't have trading in a serious sense and equality. Inequality is necessary for trading.
... but Spoon, many of us happen to live in countries where we must pretend that men and women are totally same.
Offline
Why don't we make our own currency.
Has to be something thats not easy to make, but not locked behind a biome.
1 steel spring is worth 1 bucket of latex, 2 bowls of sulfur, or 3 springs for a tank of crude.
Then you can either melt down the spring or use it on our doorless shelters, win, win.
just working on implementing a in game currency. for now it will be just using YUM. For one YUM you will get one currency unit and is slowly decaying.
You can then give it to others by saying: "I give you XXX". You can then hire NPC workers with it or trade with other players.
Here a short progress report:
Some basic seasons like winter spring and summer are implemented.
Exhaustion is now implemented and temperature has much bigger impact.
Next will be a currency, score and combat and better NPCs and bigger map around 1600X1600
To honor Spoon for now the new players will be called Spoon or something like that until renamed in the Alpha version.
And yea the groundwork for fathers is also done, but Jasons client wont support it fully, so i need to find another ingame display of father relations until the client is fixed...
Offline
So I am confused. Are you arguing that women and men are too equal or that they are not equal enough ... or both? Your argument is still hard to follow.
They are too equal. Before 14 and after 40, they are entirely equal. From 14 to 40, there exists one-way superiority. One-way superiority is less inequality than two-way superiority. I mean if A is greater than B at X, and B is greater than Y at Z, that's more inequality than if just A is greater than B at X.
If I am understanding you correctly, you are basically saying that women have "superior abilities" between 14 and 40 years old, so trade should occur at that time.
No, I'm not saying that. There is no reason for trade to occur at such time with how the game works at present, because there is little reason to trade with one who is strictly speaking inferior.
Trading needs one party to have some sort of superiority either in terms of what they have or are willing to give (such as having and having a willingness to give money) *and* another superiority in terms of what someone else can do (such as the ability to fix something or perform some service). There has to exist two-way superiority for trade to get motivated.
But men have nothing to offer in exchange, since fatherhood is a myth.
Leave off the second part here.
Therefore, women have all the babies and all the breast milk and all the power, while men only have erotic nipples and a strong work ethic.
Bizarre. I would have thought you would have remained clear that "erotic nipples" referred only to real people, not OHOL characters. There is no eroticism for any characters of either sex in OHOL. At least not in terms of game design. Male characters also don't have a different work ethic than female characters in OHOL. Saying that they have a strong work ethic is meaningless when talking about the characters comparatively.
It sounds like you want equity for men, because women in OHOL have one-way superiority for part of their lifespan.
I think I mentioned the lack of trade. You seem to have forgotten that here.
"Women can give birth and breastfeed babies. Men cannot. It isn't fair."
See? That's not very hard.
Yea, and my claim here wasn't that simple. Nor was that my point. I talked about trade. It's in the title.
You wasted a lot of time justifying your opinion with a convoluted argument based on comparative advantage and intersexual trading, instead of just saying what you mean.
I would have, if I had just meant that such wasn't fair. But again, I talked about trade. Unfairness wasn't my point in the original post.
Women have the "power" to produce babies and feed babies, but this power comes paired with a burden of social obligation and responsibility of care.
Yea, except what you describe aren't just burdens or social obligations. I mean, such burdens or social obligations can also get viewed as premade scripts for action which likely will be beneficial. Men don't have the advantage of having preconceived responsibilities to step up and fulfill, because they don't have social obligations and responsibilities to fulfill. Thus, they don't end up with the advantage of having a clue about what to do beforehand. The inequality seems rather easy to figure out by observing new players. As women, they quickly realize to pick up their children and feed them. As men though, they don't have a clue as to how to help out the village, or it's much more complicated to learn.
Or let me put things another way. If you get told "here's how to help out", you have the advantage of having guidance on how to act responsibly. If you get told "figure it out for yourself", you don't have the advantage of having guidance on how to act responsibly. The situation for women in OHOL is more like "here's how to help out" and for men it's more like "figure it out for yourself."
Or here's another way to think about it. What do you do if you were playing for genetic score? If you play as female in OHOL, you immediately or rather quickly know to feed your children, clothe them, etc. But, if you're male, what do you do? How do you interact with your sister(s) so that your genetic score works out best... or is your responsibility to smith, cook, farm, or hunt? And how does one do all of those things?
As a woman in OHOL, you have less freedom of movement and choice, compared with the men in the village, because you are expected to fulfill the role of "mother" during your fertile period.
No. Women still have as much freedom of movement and choice as the men in OHOL. They can still make the same choices and move in the same way.
In contrast, men lack family ties, so they are able to choose how they want to live their life, without worrying about sky babies.
No. Men are still part of families and have family ties as checking your genetic score when playing as male should make clear.
If you want to work on a big project or do something dangerous, like bear-hunting, it makes more sense to wait until you are born as a male, rather than trying to achieve a healthy work-life balance as a career woman.
What? If you want to work on a big project, the most optimal path involves getting help from others. It's easier to get help from others when people are your children in OHOL (and probably even easier if you pick people you know from PXChat), then if you're some random male uncle. Thus, for accomplishing big projects, women have the advantage in OHOL, since they more likely can get help in getting the project completed.
Women and men aren't different with respect to bear hunting in OHOL, if that were solely a life goal. They can as easily kill the same number of bears. Men don't have better accuracy. Women can fire at bears just as well and just as often.
Long story short, men already have a one-way superiority to women and intersexual trading does occur in OHOL with the current system.
Lack of social expectations is not a superiority when people want a sense of what to do as a responsible person. On the contrary, lack of social expectation is a disadvantage, because there is no guidance. A girl in OHOL could ask "job?" and the prescripted answer seems simple: "have babies, feed them, clothe them" What's the prescripted answer for boys in OHOL? Even if it's something like "smith", don't you see how those things are more complicated then feeding and clothing children in OHOL, especially when the clothes are hand-me downs? And how is it advantageous to have a responsibility that you don't understand to fulfill over one that one can figure out how to fulfill?
Lack of responsibility is a superiority? It might be appealing to believe such, because it prima facie sounds like freedom, but it entails a lack of clarity about what is good to do. So, no, I don't agree that men have one-way superiority in OHOL.
Also, you changed the focus from abilities to responsibilities. Women have superiority in abilities in OHOL. That is completely one way in OHOL. It makes no sense at all, and makes the idea of trading between sexes with sexual characteristics as a relevant factor nonsensical.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
And to be exact, non-functional breasts are breasts that do not function. Not breasts riddled with disease. The special function of breasts is to produce milk, so breasts that do not produce milk are non-functional, by definition.
I disagreed above and still disagree with this (this is about real-world breasts, not OHOL "breasts"). I mean I agree that "non-functional breasts are breasts that do not function". But "the special function of breasts is to produce milk" part I disagree with. No. Not in the way you've taken things. Breasts have *a* function of producing milk. It's fine to claim that they have milk production as their predominant or primary function. But, that is not the only function of breasts. Given that breasts fulfill some other function such as ertoic function, or protection of other body parts, breasts not producing milk are still functional, since 'functional' means fulfilling *a* function (without being harmful).
Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-12-19 19:38:08)
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
DestinyCall wrote:And to be exact, non-functional breasts are breasts that do not function. Not breasts riddled with disease. The special function of breasts is to produce milk, so breasts that do not produce milk are non-functional, by definition.
I disagreed above and still disagree with this (this is about real-world breasts, not OHOL "breasts"). I mean I agree that "non-functional breasts are breasts that do not function". But "the special function of breasts is to produce milk" part I disagree with. No. Not in the way you've taken things. Breasts have *a* function of producing milk. It's fine to claim that they have milk production as their predominant or primary function. But, that is not the only function of breasts. Given that breasts fulfill some other function such as ertoic function, or protection of other body parts, breasts not producing milk are still functional, since 'functional' means fulfilling *a* function (without being harmful).
I disagree with your disagreement.
You are trying to use an unnecessarily narrow definition of "non-functional" that assumes complete lack of ANY function whatsoever. I am using the common definition, which is more broad and usually implies a loss of primary function, or whatever function is most relevant to the current conversation. Other functions may still be intact.
For example, if my computer is non-functional, that implies it no longer functions as a computer. But I could still use it as a paper-weight or prop open a door with my non-functional device, so it does still has "functions" despite being a non-functional computer. I could even use it as a weapon to bludgeon an intruder, but unfortunately, it is won't let me post funny cat pictures on the internet. It is completely useless in an important way, like non-functional breasts.
Likewise, if Steve goes blind, his eyes are no longer functioning as intended. They are non-functional. Sure, they still might be pretty to look AT and they help keep Steve's eye sockets from drying out, but they are not functional eyes, because don't detect visible light or whatever.
Gosh, Spoonwood, sometimes it feels like you are really reaching for reasons to argue over nothing at all. Do you even remember why we are talking about boobs?
I sure don't.
Offline
Do you even remember why we are talking about boobs?
How about we all posts pictures of our boobs here
Offline
DestinyCall wrote:Do you even remember why we are talking about boobs?
How about we all posts pictures of our boobs here
I've already posted mine. Looking forward to seeing everyone else's.
Offline
I disagree with your disagreement.
You are trying to use an unnecessarily narrow definition of "non-functional" that assumes complete lack of ANY function whatsoever. I am using the common definition, which is more broad and usually implies a loss of primary function, or whatever function is most relevant to the current conversation. Other functions may still be intact.
For example, if my computer is non-functional, that implies it no longer functions as a computer. But I could still use it as a paper-weight or prop open a door with my non-functional device, so it does still has "functions" despite being a non-functional computer. I could even use it as a weapon to bludgeon an intruder, but unfortunately, it is won't let me post funny cat pictures on the internet. It is completely useless in an important way, like non-functional breasts.
Likewise, if Steve goes blind, his eyes are no longer functioning as intended. They are non-functional. Sure, they still might be pretty to look AT and they help keep Steve's eye sockets from drying out, but they are not functional eyes, because don't detect visible light or whatever.
Breasts though have other functions as a regular matter of course. Severing an erotic function, or serving to protect parts of the body are normal function of breasts even when a woman feeds children or when a woman does not feed children. Women also experience a greater period of time over the course of their lives where they are not breastfeeding than when they are breastfeeding. I mean even if a woman breastfeeds 5 children for 4 years each, that's only 20 years. If she lives to 70, she easily spends more time not breastfeeding than breastfeeding, even if we postulated that breasts only exist once menarche starts or soon thereafter. Her breasts still have all of those other functions throughout the course of her life.
I think eyes are different, because they seem more along the lines of being single-functional. Or at least closer to single-functionality than breasts.
Some parts of the body I think may more clearly be multifunctional by nature and loss one function doesn't imply non-functionality. For example, the primary sexual function of the penis is ejaculation for reproduction. But, if a man can't ejaculate, his penis is still functional if it can eject urine, since the penis, I think, clearly has dual functionality: one in terms of reproduction and one in terms of bodily cleaning. The mouth is another example of a multi-functional body part in terms of inhaling oxygen or other desired gases, while also serving the function of the ingestion of food.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
selalov734 wrote:DestinyCall wrote:Do you even remember why we are talking about boobs?
How about we all posts pictures of our boobs here
I've already posted mine. Looking forward to seeing everyone else's.
You've said before that you are a woman in real life. http://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewto … 686#p87686 It can't be true that you're a woman in real life and you posted a picture of your boobs in the course of this thread where you implied that they were boobs of a man. I'm not asking for a picture here, I'm just noticing an inconsistency.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Breasts though have other functions as a regular matter of course.
The other functions don't matter, because it is clear from context which function of breasts I was referring to when I described them as non-functional. Other functions can still be present. They are still not functioning with respect to the actual function under discussion.
For example, if we were talking about flight and I mentioned that ostriches and penguins have non-functional wings, it is clear that I am referring to their wings' ability to facilitate flight. In other respects, these birds have fully functioning wings. They can flap or paddle just fine and their wings are used in a variety of ways during normal activities. But since they are flightless birds, their wings cannot provide sufficient lift to achieve sustained flight. Their wings are non-functional.
Context is very important. It provides a ton of useful information for correctly interpreting meaning during a discussion. If you take someone's words out of context, you might be missing critical information.
Offline
DestinyCall wrote:selalov734 wrote:How about we all posts pictures of our boobs here
I've already posted mine. Looking forward to seeing everyone else's.
You've said before that you are a woman in real life. http://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewto … 686#p87686 It can't be true that you're a woman in real life and you posted a picture of your boobs in the course of this thread where you implied that they were boobs of a man. I'm not asking for a picture here, I'm just noticing an inconsistency.
Hmmm yes. How very peculiar. There is definitely some kind of inconsistency there. Most strange.
Offline
Trading needs one party to have some sort of superiority either in terms of what they have or are willing to give (such as having and having a willingness to give money) *and* another superiority in terms of what someone else can do (such as the ability to fix something or perform some service). There has to exist two-way superiority for trade to get motivated.
Out of curiosity, how do you envision intersexual trade would work between men and women in OHOL? Would women trade their sky babies to men in exchange for feats of manly strength? I am having a hard time picturing it.
DestinyCall wrote:It sounds like you want equity for men, because women in OHOL have one-way superiority for part of their lifespan.
I think I mentioned the lack of trade. You seem to have forgotten that here.
DestinyCall wrote:"Women can give birth and breastfeed babies. Men cannot. It isn't fair."
See? That's not very hard.
Yea, and my claim here wasn't that simple. Nor was that my point. I talked about trade. It's in the title.
DestinyCall wrote:You wasted a lot of time justifying your opinion with a convoluted argument based on comparative advantage and intersexual trading, instead of just saying what you mean.
I would have, if I had just meant that such wasn't fair. But again, I talked about trade. Unfairness wasn't my point in the original post.
Okay, you want to talk about trade, so let's talk about trade.
First, I have a question - If the purpose of this idea is to increase trade in OHOL why are you so focused on trade between sexes? If men are superior in some areas to women and women are superior in some areas to men, they might be motivated to trade with the opposite sex, but there is still nothing motivating women to trade with other women or men to trade with men. They will be too equal! Equality means no trade so we obviously need more inequalities to fix this problem.
Why not broaden the idea to include all individuals, regardless of gender? Give everyone unique strengths and weaknesses so there are advantages to trading with everyone in the village. Everyone gets to be unequal together, with each person superior in some respects and inferior in others, just like in real life.
It seems to me that interpersonal trade would be significantly superior to intersexual trade.
Offline
Out of curiosity, how do you envision intersexual trade would work between men and women in OHOL?
I don't envision anything changing to enable such to work.
First, I have a question - If the purpose of this idea is to increase trade in OHOL why are you so focused on trade between sexes?
I wasn't. But that said, on what other basis would differentiating abilities of people within in a village take place?
If men are superior in some areas to women and women are superior in some areas to men, they might be motivated to trade with the opposite sex, but there is still nothing motivating women to trade with other women or men to trade with men. They will be too equal! Equality means no trade so we obviously need more inequalities to fix this problem.
Yes.
Why not broaden the idea to include all individuals, regardless of gender? Give everyone unique strengths and weaknesses so there are advantages to trading with everyone in the village. Everyone gets to be unequal together, with each person superior in some respects and inferior in others, just like in real life.
Every person as unique clearly seems more complicated.
But still, why not both?
It seems to me that interpersonal trade would be significantly superior to intersexual trade.
By intersexual trade I just meant trade between two characters of different sexes, where some ability related to their sex has relevance. I would say that intersexual trade is a form of interpersonal trade. The contrast of intersexual trade is not interpersonal trade, but rather intrasexual trade, or trading within one's sex. The last sentence of the original post starts:
There's also often no reason to trade intrasexually, because the characters are equally capable ...
I haven't considered why intrasexual trade would be superior to intersexual trade. I also have considered why intersexual trade would be superior to intrasexual trade. Not in OHOL.
But, when I think about it, in the real world, intersexual trade probably more often than not dovetails with evolutionary advantages that intrasexual trade does not have. When members of the sexes trade I suspect they are more likely to form bonds and thus either reproduce more often or more gets provided to children.
Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-12-20 10:59:43)
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
DestinyCall wrote:Out of curiosity, how do you envision intersexual trade would work between men and women in OHOL?
I don't envision anything changing to enable such to work.
I agree. There is already intersexual trade in OHOL so no change is necessary to enable it.
But you have indicated that intersexual trade is currently hampered by a lack of "two-way superiority". So I assume you DO want to change something about the current game-state.
I am asking how you would implement increased sexual inequality in the game and how these sexual differences could be traded between individuals. Obviously men will not be shoveling snow off driveways or opening stuck pickle jars in OHOL.
Or will they?
DestinyCall wrote:First, I have a question - If the purpose of this idea is to increase trade in OHOL why are you so focused on trade between sexes?
I wasn't. But that said, on what other basis would differentiating abilities of people within in a village take place?
There is a lot more to an individual than their sex organs, so I am sure we could figure something out.
Most RPGs that differentiate ability between players focus on experience level, classes, skills or unique traits. Some distinguish by gender, but many do not make any distinction in ability between male or female characters. And some only offer a single gender option so intersexual trade is not an option at all.
OHOL is relatively unique in having female characters give birth and breastfeed babies during play as part of its core concept. Few games even allow that. I actually can't think of any examples, except for games that derived from OHOL, like IYou Are Hope and n Next Life.
Every person as unique clearly seems more complicated.
But still, why not both?
Yup, more trade is better trade.
DestinyCall wrote:It seems to me that interpersonal trade would be significantly superior to intersexual trade.
By intersexual trade I just meant trade between two characters of different sexes, where some ability related to their sex has relevance. I would say that intersexual trade is a form of interpersonal trade. The contrast of intersexual trade is not interpersonal trade, but rather intrasexual trade, or trading within one's sex. The last sentence of the original post starts:
Spoonwood wrote:There's also often no reason to trade intrasexually, because the characters are equally capable ...
I haven't considered why intrasexual trade would be superior to intersexual trade. I also have considered why intersexual trade would be superior to intrasexual trade. Not in OHOL.
But, when I think about it, in the real world, intersexual trade probably more often than not dovetails with evolutionary advantages that intrasexual trade does not have. When members of the sexes trade I suspect they are more likely to form bonds and thus either reproduce more often or more gets provided to children.
Yes, I understood what you meant by intersexual trade. That is why I proposed interpersonal trade as a better option. Both intersexual trade and intrasexual trade are subsets of interpersonal trade Interpersonal trade encompasses both, because it is a broader category of trade. I wasn't looking for the opposite category but rather a more generalized category that would include all trade between villagers.
I didn't ask if intrasexual trade was better than intersexual trade or visa versa, nor do I see how it is relevant. Why does everything have to be so sex-focused, Spoon? Sex isn't everything. You need to look beyond the size of someone's boobs and consider them as a whole person.
Offline
