FW IC rules

Discussions related to Free Women
Dudette
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:35 pm
SL Name: justadudette
AkA: Dudette

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Dudette » Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:37 pm

Escapee wrote:

3. The predominant description of free men in Norman's books is - they all believe women belong kneeling at the feet of men and are denying their true nature. Unless Free Women are completely oblivious to this, we can logically conclude that a Free Woman is always at risk. Why would any Free Woman put herself at risk by being without witnesses and in the company of a man who believes as Norman indicates numerous times the way Gorean men believe.


Why slaves misbehave and disobey, why they speak from their feet , not kneeling if there is numerous quotes saying it's great mistake punished even by a death?
Does it means that any city law should include the rule "Slaves ALWAYS MUST KNEEL when speaking to a free otherwise they shall be killed". ??

There were insolent slaves. There were the thieves, the gamblers, the pirates. A great deal of people that didn't want to bend and follow the 'law' or customs. Knowing a risk and yet still doing what they wanted.

Why a free woman coudln't act as it please her, knowing there is a chance to be caught and punished? Becasuse she can? Because she is a free , has a free will, has a choice to act - either as the society expects or not so much. Expecting that all free women would behave properly just because the others expects her so, also within their own bedrooms, is some sort naive.
Free woman was a risk just for being female . She could act all properly and cold, and still be seen as great prize for any gorean man, enslaved and reduced to a slave.

There were cold and frigid free women. THere were the women that weren't frigid. There were the women that served at the brothels. There were the prostitutes, non slaves ones. The she- urts were sellng the sexual services. In some cities the robes of concelament was expected to be worn by the free women. In some cites it wasn't. I don't recal from any books mentioning the existance of 'moral police' that was visiting randomly the houses to check if there is any uncompanioned couple banging like the animals and this is what such IC law from the OP would suggests to exist. Because, truly, how the fuck anyone would know what is going on behidn the closed doors unless the lady screams like a bitch?
Escapee
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:00 pm
SL Name: elzbieta balfour
Caste: gone
Home Stone: gone
AkA: Hollie
Contact:

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Escapee » Sun Nov 22, 2015 4:23 pm

@dudette,

if there were free women who scorned other free women for not wearing a head covering or for not being properly concealed, then I will wager there were free women who would arch a brow if they saw a man and woman - not related and not companioned, going inside a private residence together. That isn't moral police. That's just nature. And I still say - there isn't a single thing wrong with it IC.
it was
User avatar
Sasi
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Sasi » Sun Nov 22, 2015 4:26 pm

Where did I insult you, Escapee? Mind my sarcasm? Well, I didn't mind your little lecturing in your previous post, after all...

There are numerous quotes and situations where FW are not sequestred by their families and independent, even running their own business, often having no companion, and in this matter, able to chose one. More you progress in your reading of books, more it's evident.

I never said that FW were not at risk. They are, and in books, they do take risks, sometimes, pay consequences. But unlike in SL Gor, they are not so easily collared. Certainly not just because they receive a man in their home. I was not speaking of a FW who would receive a man while she is taking her bath.... There is a difference between a FW who receives a man at her home because she has some business to deal with him, and a FW trying to entice a man, being loosely veiled, displaying an ankle, or a bared wrist (the way FW tend to flirt or just provoke men, like the Lady Ina in Vagabonds with the men of her escort).

In fact, books state that when a FW expresses some slave behavior, it takes repetitive offenses before she gets enslaved. She is said "courting the collar", if the slave-like behavior is continued. By slave-like behavior, we speak of a woman expressing true yearning desires of lust as well as a submissive behavior, one which is expected from slaves. By slave-like behavior, you have too, the fact for a FW to wear a piece of slave silks, to adorn herself with a slave beads necklace, even in the privacy of her compartments, if caught. Some other behaviors are considered slave-like, as for example, FW entering into a paga den (disguised or not), or spying on masters and slaves. And a FW -may- be made a slave. Also, the standards of decorum are a factor which is usually decisive as a cause of enslavement (woman baring her legs, arms...)
But in any case, such behavior must be overt (and psychological dispositions don't count much, a FW must be openly expressive for her behavior constitutes a cause of collar).

Difficult for me to associate slave-like behavior, so, with a FW just receiving a man in her house with no relative of her being present. So what? She has maybe a business to conduct with him, maybe does he meet her for a proposition of companionship and she wants to consider the matter in talking with him (the kind of thing which is better done in the privacy than in an open area....) As I said, not all FW are under the control and authority of a male relative. Many are fully independent.

Before I read Fighting slave, long ago, I was convinced that FW were just frigid bitches. In Fighting slave, you discover another aspect of the FW, that she does have a sexuality if she wishes (though far different than the sexuality of a slave girl and which doesn't much relieve her from her frustrations), that she can have a business and run it. Then, in books like Mercenaries, Renegades, Vagabonds, Magicians, Witness, you discover many other aspects of this character and it becomes difficult to just keep the stereotype of the frigid bitch who is under her male relative control. Not that this FW doesn't exist, she exists. Many FW, especially young uncompanioned ones and of high caste, are closely sequestred. But many other more mature, have full control upon their life and even some sexuality (not making her a hot slut in robes). In fact, FW tend to pride themselves in their capacity not to yield. Slaves do yield, FW don't.

The only thing on which Norman is rather consistent is the point regarding the feelings of FW toward slave girls.

Regarding the liberties granted by some cities, though my reading of books is not so recent (and I have yet to read the books about Red Savages, + some of the last ones, (except Prize, Conspirators and Smugglers I read last year), I remember these rules were more about factors of decorum and some very explicit slave-like behavior (as those I listed above). Some cities don't make it a law, other do. Not to mention the "Counching law" which is specific to Ar. But perhaps some more specific quotes may have slipped my memory. But I don't remember of a law, a quote where a FW cannot receive whom she would like to meet in her house because it's a male not of her relatives.

The problem with this kind of IC law is that it makes your character face consequences for something which is not supported in books. And in the same time, in some of these cities, you will commonly meet FW with loose hair or ponytail, or who commonly bear their face as if it was the common fashion in a Southern city and who are never bothered. Non sense.
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Oor » Sun Nov 22, 2015 9:55 pm

Dudette wrote:There were insolent slaves. There were the thieves, the gamblers, the pirates. A great deal of people that didn't want to bend and follow the 'law' or customs. Knowing a risk and yet still doing what they wanted.


This is sort of the point though, isn't it?

If the sim you're playing in has a law that says "A free woman may not be alone in a private residence with a man she's not related/companioned to" - that's done nothing but add a risk; the risk of being caught and facing whatever consequences exist under that specific town/city's laws.

Under this IC rule, your character is still able to "Knowing a risk and yet still doing what they wanted" - so I'm not entirely sure what the issue is.

Dudette wrote:I don't recal from any books mentioning the existance of 'moral police' that was visiting randomly the houses to check if there is any uncompanioned couple banging like the animals and this is what such IC law from the OP would suggests to exist.


But as Sasi pointed out in an earlier post, we don't just play what's in the books. We use the environment portrayed in the books as the backdrop for the stories we create, without necessarily playing out the same scripted, directly-from-the-pages scenes over and over again. It is therefore fair to assume that if a city's magistrate or legislate has decided that a free woman's being alone with a man she's not related to is a matter of legal interest, they will also, ICly, decide what measures for detection will be taken and what burden of proof exists.

Maybe that particular law will only come into effect if a visitor goes to that private residence while the free woman is there and sees her and reports her. Maybe it's a free man (or two) that sees her, and decides to blackmail her at threat of her being reported. Maybe a particularly zealous magistrate decides that he's just had enough of the impropriety of free women this week, so he uses a task force of guards to go door-to-door looking for free women where they should not be. Maybe there's never a single detection of this "crime" in the whole play time of the sim.

At the end of the day, each character has (I hope) their own specific personality, inclusive of a certain degree (or lack of) risk aversion, daring, respect for law, etc. In a city where this rule exists, your character will either say "I will never go into a private residence with a man alone, because the risk is not worth it," or they will say "I will go into this residence alone with a troop of horny warriors in full view of everyone because fuck da police," or they will say many of the hundreds of potential things in between. I mean, gosh, maybe they'll even go to the magistrate and petition them to remove the law, or start a campaign with other women and sympathetic men to have the law removed from the books. Maybe they'll be successful, and piss off the magistrate, and that magistrate will forever hound that woman to the point of stalking, waiting for her to step out of line so he can have his revenge.

And that's fine, because it's all IC actions accounting for IC risk and IC consequence. Unless your character isn't aware of the law, in which case it could be used by a man to lure her into his residence so that he can take advantage of that punishment collar she's likely to get. And wouldn't that be fun, too?!

It's almost as though there are endless possibilities in fiction, and risk can be fun!

Maybe I'm just doing it wrong.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
Sasi
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Sasi » Sun Nov 22, 2015 11:09 pm

In fact, for me, what would be really fun to play, would be a man, who would build a relationship with a FW, earn her trust, maybe seduce her, visit her, without nothing sexual happen, or nothing really scandalous (unlike some slave-like behaviors I described in my previous post), then, after, blackmail her, or denounce her to a magistrate in accusing her of being a natural slave. It would be a great intrigue, where the FW would have to find a way to sort out, to save her honor as well as her freedom. She received a man in her house, she did nothing illegal, but now, she has to prove that she is not a natural slave, that did not act in a way which would make her worthy of a collar.

But if there is an IC law (not supported in the books), this kind of scenario has little chances to happen. Either the FW will keep her door closed to free men who are not of her relatives, either you can be sure that some neightbor will just report her to the local magistrate. In SL Gor, people want to win, quickly, or seldom take risks. Maybe am I negative on this point but I observed this too many times.

Also, I still find this kind of IC law just ridiculous, when you have around FW who are not properly dressed, either with loose hair, ponytail, or who never veil, or clad in tight dresses which underline their curves and display their little round ass, their breasts and waist, which could justify any comment about their "slave curves"...
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Oor » Sun Nov 22, 2015 11:37 pm

Sasi wrote:In fact, for me, what would be really fun to play, would be a man, who would build a relationship with a FW, earn her trust, maybe seduce her, visit her, without nothing sexual happen, or nothing really scandalous (unlike some slave-like behaviors I described in my previous post), then, after, blackmail her, or denounce her to a magistrate in accusing her of being a natural slave. It would be a great intrigue, where the FW would have to find a way to sort out, to save her honor as well as her freedom. She received a man in her house, she did nothing illegal, but now, she has to prove that she is not a natural slave, that did not act in a way which would make her worthy of a collar.


Sure, could be fun. But doesn't negate that there is /also/ fun role play to be had where the other IC law exists. It's fiction. There are quite literally millions of avenues to fun, good stories.

Sasi wrote:In SL Gor, people want to win, quickly, or seldom take risks. Maybe am I negative on this point but I observed this too many times.


I mean, it is negative, but also accurate. Probably why I never last more than a few scenes in Gor these days.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
Dudette
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:35 pm
SL Name: justadudette
AkA: Dudette

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Dudette » Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:02 am

Honestly I highly doubt that the reasons of making up such IC law had anything to do with 'understanding' of Gor, wih wish to give people something to play ("look! Warrior X just entered Lady's baker house! Lets catch them and make her a goofy slut! because the law says so!").

Most likely there is some closed minded, jeallous, and insecure being , unable to accept that Gor was rich, the goreans were complicated and not one dimession personalities, that they weren't full of honor heroses and pure , frigid heroines. Some frustrated slave girl's player that can't handle a view of a free woman getting a man's attention without dripping wet all over the city streets. Or frustrated guy that can't handle rp with the free women that do not fall to their knees just because he has e-peen and 'Master X' tag. Or , some free woman's player, cockblocking all the men with such tool so smart-assedly disguised as "IC law". If there was a roleplay behind, some magistrate played with his mission of keeping the ladies pure...if there was some story behind. But as far as i get from OP, it was just some person idea how the gorean law SHOULD look like...put in notecard given at landing point.

Where is a line that dividies the roleplay genre and the creativity in a spirits of the books from totaly evolved version of Gor?
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Oor » Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:43 am

Dudette wrote:Most likely there is some closed minded, jeallous, and insecure being , [...]

Some frustrated slave girl's player that can't handle a view of a free woman getting a man's attention without dripping wet all over the city streets.

Or frustrated guy that can't handle rp with the free women that do not fall to their knees just because he has e-peen and 'Master X' tag.

Or , some free woman's player, cockblocking all the men with such tool so smart-assedly disguised as "IC law".


I mean. IDK people's motivations. I'm very cynical about Gor as a genre capable of providing an environment condusive to intriguing and interesting role play where female and male players are equally valued OOC, but I'm not bitter enough to believe the above, really. And even if those were the reasons for the law - so what? Play there and risk it, or don't. It's an IC law.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
Sasi
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Sasi » Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:08 am

From my own observations, I am pretty sure that such rule is rather due to a whole misunderstanding of the Gorean culture. Especially when I see FW who are dressed in an inappropriate fashion and never IC bothered in these same sims. I don't really believe in OOC motivations based on jealousy and frustrations of other players.

But in a society where it is stated that a FW can rule her own business, can even be the head of her house (and Witness teaches us it may happen even when she had brothers), my opinion is that such law doesn't make much sense. I could, though, understand it if it were supported by a particular lore and backstory.

Return to “Free Women”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron