Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

[nexus]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

Comeliness is the most subjective of the Hero System characteristics. What any individual finds attractive may not be the same as what any other individual finds attractive. "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" is a movie title, not an absolute. Is black beautiful? Is bald beautiful? The anime fan may like her guys tall, thin, and vaguely androginous. Another woman may like her men hunky. Blonde, brunette, or redhead? Does a guy like athletic chicks or zoftig chicks? And this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the subjectivness.

 

Yes, I'm well awares its subjective. That's one argument against having it all, but if its there and you have to pay points for it it should have some solid mechnical benefit other wise, IMO, it shoudl be a special effect and free. Personally, I like the idea of Comeliness attribute since in cinemtic settings which Hero is best used to represent some characters are simply more "beautiful" than others for whatever reason, but as it stands Com is very vaguely defined in what it does so its essentially just a point sink.

 

Charisma is also fairly subjective as well. There have been countless peope that others have considered Charismatic and compelling that I haven't seen any hint of such from personally and vice versa. Perhaps less so the physical apperance but all "social attributes" are at least somewhat subjective. But again, in a less that realistic world such distinctions are useless glossed over.

 

What I suggested before (+5 PRE usable only with people of the appropriate orientation) is actually for something different than comeliness. There are just some people who have a natural sexual charisma that a) is higher than there charisma in non-sexual interactions and isn't based on their appearance.

 

I think that could be sfx of Com, but YMMV, of course.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

*whistles*

 

Wow, those percentages are much higher than I read. Not questioning you just surprised.

Oh, I know.

 

Like I said, it depends on who you ask. If you're asking one of the girls who falls into that percentage, she'll usually tell you it's 70%. If you're asking one of the girls who CAN get off from penetration, she'll probably give you a number closer to the 30% range.

 

Remember, there are also several females in the population who are unaware of their capacities. That skews the numbers. There's a part of the female populace that is quite capable of orgasming from penetration, but never has.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

I have to go with the psychological camp here. The most important sex organ is the brain after all. Besides which most RPG characters are above average physically already.

 

In games I have played, if the character has the personality that would be suitable for a great lover, then they probably are. If they are a hopeless dweeb, then probably not (although maybe with the right person...). Those things are sometimes fun to ham up, but at least in my campaigns the scene always fades to black before anything past the first kiss.

 

Spending points on such a thing to my thinking is wasteful and/or sophmoric. So why bother unless your background profession (as in the excellent write-ups of the harem girl and fembot) calls for it?

 

________________________________________________________

"The fiction in her family was that she was never nice.

I'd say she was very, I just did not see the price." - S. Vega

[prestidigitator]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

Heh. Yes' date=' there is that aspect, as well. Considering that some part of the female population (depending on who you ask, anywhere between 30 and 70%) is unable to derive pleasure from penetration at all, learned skills are FAR more important than natural gifts.[/quote']

Hmm. I've never heard any such thing. Orgasm, sure, but pleasure in general? Really?

[Lucius]

Re: Modeling, er.....

 

Cool! Its The Ultimate Slave Girl.

 

Well, maybe it will be if I ever finish the options packages I promised Susano long ago…

 

Not to mention getting the Interdimensional Babes ready.

 

Do you suppose I should write up the male equivalents, are would they be so similar there’s no point?

 

Actually' date=' it could be several different Professional skills depending on the application. PS: Porn Actor, for example, would be based on techniques that[i'] look good on camera[/i] as opposed to techniques that are really effective in the real world.

 

Absolutely, and a point worth repeating.

 

 

There's gotta be a Streching joke in there' date=' but I'm just too lazy to make it right now...[/quote']

 

Not only is there joke to be made, I can make it without getting too explicit:

 

Stretching 1†(5 Base & Active) Very Limited Body Parts (-1) No Noncombat Stretch (-1/4) Always Direct (-1/4) Restrainable (Turn it off by turning him off) (-1/4) No Velocity Damage (-1/4) Side Effects: Int Drain (-1/2) Limited Power: Less than one hex Stretch (-1/4) Limited Power: Refractory Period (Must wait between activations) (-3/4) Real Cost: 1

 

Just as Lumbering Ox set it, Real cost 1.

 

Real Value debateable.

 

There, that was child-safe and work-safe wasn’t it?

 

Hm, maybe I can use that power (talent? perk?) if I DO expand into the male side of the slave trade…..

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises: We sell more than just palindromedaries!

[nexus]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

Its the Side Effect that makes it realistic.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

Hmm. I've never heard any such thing. Orgasm' date=' sure, but pleasure in general? Really?[/quote']

I suppose it can't be entirely unpleasant, or they'd avoid it, but I hear many complaints from fellow females about pointlessness, boredom, novelty wearing off, etc.

 

I know for me, it feels good regardless of the end result, but then, I'm not in that 30-70% classification.

[nexus]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

I suppose it can't be entirely unpleasant, or they'd avoid it, but I hear many complaints from fellow females about pointlessness, boredom, novelty wearing off, etc.

 

I guess some could be outlook and psychological. The biggest erogenous zone is the brain after all.

 

I know for me, it feels good regardless of the end result, but then, I'm not in that 30-70% classification.

 

Cripes, but 30 percent seems high.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Modeling, er.....

 

Stretching 1†(5 Base & Active) Very Limited Body Parts (-1) No Noncombat Stretch (-1/4) Always Direct (-1/4) Restrainable (Turn it off by turning him off) (-1/4) No Velocity Damage (-1/4) Side Effects: Int Drain (-1/2) Limited Power: Less than one hex Stretch (-1/4) Limited Power: Refractory Period (Must wait between activations) (-3/4) Real Cost: 1

Two meters?! Damn.

[OddHat]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

Cripes, but 30 percent seems high.

 

30% of women being unable to achieve orgasm by any means fits roughly what I remember from Tristan Tamourino's book, but then I never checked her citations.

 

 

I suppose it can't be entirely unpleasant, or they'd avoid it, but I hear many complaints from fellow females about pointlessness, boredom, novelty wearing off, etc.

 

People like to complain. It's part of bonding.

 

I expect (strongly) that anyone can enjoy some sort of sexual contact, and that most healthy people can enjoy sexual contact with most other healthy people whom they'd otherwise find attractive under the right circumstances. Achieving an orgasm may not be part of that enjoyment.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

I expect (strongly) that anyone can enjoy some sort of sexual contact' date=' and that most healthy people can enjoy sexual contact with most other healthy people whom they'd otherwise find attractive under the right circumstances. Achieving an orgasm may not be part of that enjoyment.[/quote']

Certainly. Hand-to-hand contact can be extremely pleasant if one is in the right frame of mind.

[Lucius]

Re: Modeling, er.....

 

Two meters?! Damn.

 

Check the limitations again. It says specifically "Less than one hex." It does not say how MUCH less than one hex.....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says that limitation may be worth more, but it's already only one point, so what's the point?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Modeling, er.....

 

Check the limitations again. It says specifically "Less than one hex." It does not say how MUCH less than one hex.....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says that limitation may be worth more, but it's already only one point, so what's the point?

1.99 meters?! Damn.

 

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

I guess some could be outlook and psychological. The biggest erogenous zone is the brain after all.

 

 

 

Cripes, but 30 percent seems high.

It does, but remember that these numbers are rather high. There's a reason why most women don't hit their sexual peak until 30 - most of them don't know their own capacities and what feels good until then. The female body is a mystery, even to those that have one.

 

I expect (strongly) that anyone can enjoy some sort of sexual contact' date=' and that most healthy people can enjoy sexual contact with most other healthy people whom they'd otherwise find attractive under the right circumstances. Achieving an orgasm may not be part of that enjoyment.[/quote']

Quite right. I can remember several such events in my own life.

 

If the whole point of sexual contact is to get off, why would be bother with other people at all, when we know our own bodies and responses so much better?

[Lucius]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

 

If the whole point of sexual contact is to get off, why would be bother with other people at all, when we know our own bodies and responses so much better?

 

This is why I say the pertinent PS skills are PRE based. They're "Interaction" skills.

 

And I need to check that dancing girl over again....I don't think the numbers are adding up....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Listing his palindromedary based skills...

[nexus]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

30% of women being unable to achieve orgasm by any means fits roughly what I remember from Tristan Tamourino's book, but then I never checked her citations.

 

I've read around 15-20% in most sources I've read personally but I'll admit that's dated.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

I like Rapier's talent suggestion, and perhaps a relevant PS and KS in some situations.

If someone's prowess is superhuman, then that's probably mostly to be roleplayed out. Largely that's likely a background detail("has had ten thousand satisfied lovers" or "has never heard the word 'no' before", e.g.), and really only relevant if important NPCs or even PCs are involved.

 

There are so many variables involved in the act of amore' that it'd be difficult to tie it to a specific stat.

[nexus]

Re: Modeling, er.....

 

1.99 meters?! Damn.

 

 

[nexus]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

It does, but remember that these numbers are rather high. There's a reason why most women don't hit their sexual peak until 30 - most of them don't know their own capacities and what feels good until then. The female body is a mystery, even to those that have one.

 

I meant based on the what I've read they seem high.

[nexus]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

There are so many variables involved in the act of amore' that it'd be difficult to tie it to a specific stat.

 

I agree strongly with this. And the sex is ususally good in Heroic fiction anyway.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

It does' date=' but remember that these numbers are rather high. There's a reason why most women don't hit their sexual peak until 30 - most of them don't know their own capacities and what feels good until then. The female body is a mystery, even to those that have one.[/quote']

Indeed. Yet another shame of our culture, in which people (females in particular) are encouraged to dislike and be ashamed of their own bodies and sexual identity from the beginning. And that's just the tip....

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

Indeed. Yet another shame of our culture' date=' in which people (females in particular) are encouraged to dislike and be ashamed of their own bodies and sexual identity from the beginning. And that's just the tip.... [/quote']

Agreed. It seems that, the more one understands one's own pleasure responses, the better one is able to share that pleasure.

 

A lot of that seems to have to do with comfort and confidence, most of which comes from experience. And that we have words for women who have too much experience, as well as for those who don't have enough, strikes me as supremely unfair.

[Lumbering Ox]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

I am reminded of a quote from I believe Lewis from the Drew Carey show

 

"In my expereince usually one person is disapointed during sex, fortunatly for me, it has always been the female"

[nexus]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

Agreed. It seems that, the more one understands one's own pleasure responses, the better one is able to share that pleasure.

 

A lot of that seems to have to do with comfort and confidence, most of which comes from experience. And that we have words for women who have too much experience, as well as for those who don't have enough, strikes me as supremely unfair.

 

 

That is yet another of my pet peevs. A man that is confident, experienced and sure is sexuality is praised, a women that's exactly the same way is demeaned.

[Rapier]

Re: Modeling, er, "sexual prowess"

 

a women that's exactly the same way is demaned.

Did you mean damned, demeaned or demanded?