Re: [DF] Faun Barbarian - Bessarion
 

I suppose it could certainly be interpreted that way, but if my interpretation of the rules is indictive of anything that it is easily interpreted that way as well. In fact prior discussions on Lecherousness have included the acknowledgement of bicuriosity so I'm certainly not alone in this interpretation.

Do note that just because the trait may imply bicuriosity, does not mean you have to roleplay that aspect if you don't want to. If your character is "super straight" then that's just how they're characterized sexually, regardless of what's written in the Lecherousness trait. If a heterosexual player doesn't feel comfortable roleplaying homosexual interactions then they don't have to. Bessarion is strictly heterosexual, so he's hitting only on women.

Re: [DF] Faun Barbarian - Bessarion
 

Parsing the sentence normally it's pretty clear that it means if you can't find attractive members of the appropriate sex you are likely to hit on less attractive members of the appropriate sex. There's no grammatical basis to interpret anything else or to suggest your orientation may change or expand.

A character's appropriate target sex and gender are whatever they are. Opposite, same, both, other, and in whatever degrees and levels.

Re: [DF] Faun Barbarian - Bessarion
 

Perhaps my interpretation of the RAW isn't RAW, but I was simply inferring from reality, and so were other forumites on other threads discussing the topic of Lecherousness. Prisons for men... often have men, when left with no other options yet desire sexual stimulation, find means to do so. I'd imagine Lecherousness only compounds this. This has some basis in legitimate scientific research, too. Men who have sex with men, regardless of actual sexual identity, is perhaps a bizarre but very real thing. I'd imagine within female prisons similar behaviors take place as well.

I'd also note that I followed my statement with the fact that Lecherousness doesn't have to override your character's sexuality if their sexuality has no flexibility whatsoever, so my interpretation of the rules works out to a net +0% in terms of game balance.

Re: [DF] Faun Barbarian - Bessarion
 

There's no doubt that people do all sorts of things. Dominance being quite a key part of it in prisons, for example. In the animal world, male homosexual behaviours are apparent in some primates where it's quite clearly an act of domination. There are, I don't doubt, many other examples and reasons - that's just one.

And so any game or player or character should be able to do pretty much whatever they want, and in a situation where choices were extremely limited then other behaviours might be displayed. But the clear parsing of the English as written in the rules has nothing to do with orientation. Simply that lecherous individuals will not necessarily hold out for those they would normally find to be particularly attractive within their normal range, but may "settle" (which is a terrible term, I know) on those they would normally consider beneath their advances.

In other words, handle lust and preference separately.

Re: [DF] Faun Barbarian - Bessarion
 

Lecherousness could only be priced as it is per RAW assuming all sexualities are 0-point Features of characters, so yes, rules as written it has nothing to do with orientation, but I'm simply acknowledging the reality that human sexuality is not so black and white. We're arguing semantics here, Farmer.

Dominance theory may certainly play into it, but male (and female) sexual variance has more nuance to it then that. Ancient history finds that men could've sought sex with men because men were seen to be the superior sex (Ye Olde Sexism!), that males made better lovers because of their greater intellect. History even has evidence that same-sex male relationships made them better warriors.

Re: [DF] Faun Barbarian - Bessarion
 

I don't think we're arguing :-)

Homosexuality in Rome, as an example, was certainly interesting. A very male dominated culture, and one in which prostitution (of any kind) was quite open. So, yes, it's far from black and white (which I alluded to when I qualified that homosexual dominance primate behaviour was but one example of various behaviours).

And, yes, orientations etc. should be zero-point at default, then further defined by the specific culture in which you play.

Re: [DF] Faun Barbarian - Bessarion
 

Oh, I figured, there's only so much you can effectively communicate through a faceless online forum.

I guess my point was that we're debating what amounts to how 0-point Features and/or +0% changes to Lecherousness. Lecherousness obviously incorporates your character's personal sexuality, but it's simply sometimes convoluted given how complex individual sexualities can be, it really depends on the inclinations of the player and how they see their character. I think players ought to read into the text of Lecherousness as they see fit and according to how their character is characterized sexually.

It's not something terribly pertinent to Bessarion's concept, his (hetero)sexuality, but I've certainly liked discussing the topic. Lecherousness might suggest bicuriosity if you're inclined to read it that way (I know grammar matters, but to a certain degree young America doesn't care about grammar so much as the intent behind the words. That's a Pandora's Box...), but if your character is sexually characterized to be explicitly attracted to one and one sex only then it's non-negotiable. I certainly do believe their are people in life who just don't ever swing the other way, and so there's characters within fiction who are the same way.

Of course, a lot of my perspective may be biased as I've got no meaningful strict preference for gender expression or biological sex. You could be a effeminate man, a hypermasculine man, just a man... a masculine woman, a hyperfeminine woman, or just a woman. Or somewhere in between, I don't care. Whether I'm up for being (bi)romantic or (bi)sexual is purely up to my mood.

So I might be inclined to ask questions like "Are the Straights really Straight?", as well as even "Are the Gays really Gay?". I've had a lot of anecdotal experience of witnessing people blur the lines all too often, so naturally my perspective is shaped by this. I'm not trying to argue against the RAW of Lecherousness or trying to twist the grammar into something it doesn't mean, but I am trying to infer reality to make the trait fit what I know to be realistic. I think this is a GM call to say whether or not the trait includes inducing bicuriosity in strictly heterosexual/homosexual characters, and also for the player to decide if that suits how they conceptualize their character.