FW IC rules

Discussions related to Free Women
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 » Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:55 pm

two things.

First - Granted, I haven't read all of the books like others have, but it sure seems to me there's a huge burden placed on Free Women to be above reproach. What happens behind their own closed doors is one thing, but can you honestly say you think that Goreans would be alright with single free women being unaccompanied and in the presence of a man with no supervision?

I would think for her own protection, she'd not be so foolish as to put herself in a place where others might think something is wrong, or give anyone ideas that she wasn't "pure".

Second - If a sim / city wants to have it in their rules (meaning city IC laws) that free women can't wear blue, then I imagine it should be reacted to in an IC manner. Same with free women being behind closed doors with anyone not family or her companion.
it was
Dudette
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:35 pm
SL Name: justadudette
AkA: Dudette

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Dudette » Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:14 pm

Escapee wrote:two things.

First - Granted, I haven't read all of the books like others have, but it sure seems to me there's a huge burden placed on Free Women to be above reproach. What happens behind their own closed doors is one thing, but can you honestly say you think that Goreans would be alright with single free women being unaccompanied and in the presence of a man with no supervision?

I would think for her own protection, she'd not be so foolish as to put herself in a place where others might think something is wrong, or give anyone ideas that she wasn't "pure".

Second - If a sim / city wants to have it in their rules (meaning city IC laws) that free women can't wear blue, then I imagine it should be reacted to in an IC manner. Same with free women being behind closed doors with anyone not family or her companion.


first:depends which goreans? Some might fuss, some might not care. Making a rule on RP SIM seems to be ridiculous since there is no book based reason to make such law. The free women were to behave properly in public but even if they didn't they could go unharmed, as the observers didn't give a flying shit.

“Remove your clothing,” would my master say to a high-born free woman, suing to be considered by him in companionship. She would do so, and be assessed. If he was not pleased, he would send her weeping from his presence, clutching the rag of a slave, to don it and return to her dwelling. If he was not displeased he would gesture to the tiles before him where there waited a goblet of slave wine which she, kneeling before him, would eagerly drink. She would serve him that night as a slave. In the morning, she, nude, would prepare and serve to him his breakfast, after which he would make fresh use of her; he would then send her from his presence, first pressing into her hand a coin, usually a copper tarsk or a silver tarsk, commensurate with the quality of her service. Such women went from his quarters proudly, clad in the full regalia of the free woman. They were not discontent. They had been touched by Clitus Vitellius.

Slave Girl 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 » Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:36 pm

Dudette wrote:
“Remove your clothing,” would my master say to a high-born free woman, suing to be considered by him in companionship. She would do so, and be assessed. If he was not pleased, he would send her weeping from his presence, clutching the rag of a slave, to don it and return to her dwelling. If he was not displeased he would gesture to the tiles before him where there waited a goblet of slave wine which she, kneeling before him, would eagerly drink. She would serve him that night as a slave. In the morning, she, nude, would prepare and serve to him his breakfast, after which he would make fresh use of her; he would then send her from his presence, first pressing into her hand a coin, usually a copper tarsk or a silver tarsk, commensurate with the quality of her service. Such women went from his quarters proudly, clad in the full regalia of the free woman. They were not discontent. They had been touched by Clitus Vitellius.

Slave Girl of Gor


Can't help but feel that this passage loses a uh... little something (*cough*)... without all of the context that indicates that said free women are and must, to spend time with Clitus, acting and yielding as slaves - furthermore, that he would be, "to the scandal of Ar" (suggesting is it absolutely not the norm), Master within a companionship - and that "the boredoms of freedom are a small enough price to pay" for a "even a brief sojourn" in the arms of such a man (suggesting that their freedom, other than in those cases where he might permit it (and the women are said to return to their own chambers consumed with thoughts and desires akin to slaves) could and would be forfeit).

There is nothing in the example of Clitus Vitellius to suggest that a "slave-like" or even "modern-day-hookup-like" sexuality is a norm for free women.

Sayin.
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: 713
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Sasi » Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:55 pm

@Escapee: There is no quote in books, where is it said that FW can't be alone with a man and would be collared if it happened. They might take a risk, yes. But at the end, it's their business. Many FW are bold in books, they tend even to flirt with men, to provoke them. And you have no man immediately pulling out a collar. They may be frowned upon, and certainly, if they get in troubles, they will applaud if such woman end up in collar. In Renegade, the debtor women who are kept by the inn master, are given a chance to be redeemed and be freed before enslavement and it is clear that there are women for whom it is not unusual to bestow their favors in order to get what they want from men. Sometimes, it doesn't turn well, sometimes, they are successful. The free woman who had paid the fees to enter in a brothel, in Mercenaries, is not in danger of being collared. She gets in troubles with Tarl only because she was clearly a thief. Tarl himself is not always eager to collar a FW, even one who begs him.

And men don't think of FW in terms of purity, actually, They are not even expected to have morality. Men know that FW can have lovers (Tarl, in Vagabonds, asked the lady Ina if Saphronicus, to whose staff she belonged, was her lover. Ina is not even offended by the question). It is well known that FW may have kajirus they use for their pleasure. And what about all these FW who crave for Milo, in Magicians, loosening their veil a little bit, drawing their robes over their ankles for getting his attention ?

No, I don't see where men could think that FW are pure. FW are proud, they are lofty, arrogant, they hate slave girls because of inner jealousy and treat them harshly knowing that they cannot compete with kajirae when it comes to arouse men's interest and attention, they have disdain for everything that relate to sex in the way they figure how it is with slaves (though they tend to be fascinated and curious regarding these aspects of slavery), but still, they may have sex. Just, they don't express their sexual desires like slaves, and certainly, they don't yield to men as slaves girls do. And often, if men respect and treat FW with deference, they have little affection toward them, they often find them annoying.

And a rule can be IC, at the end, it still limits your role play in a non BTB way.


As for Dudette's quote, I remember that Clitus, in Ar, was a kind of idol, a bit like one of our rock stars, one of these men for whom FW tend to toss away their coldness and dignity. The fact they are paid show obviously that they were not considered like slaves. FW can make money with their body, as they own this body. Slaves cannot, they are owned and own nothing (In Mercenary, the capture and rape of FW by lads, is a sort of distraction. The woman is fucked, then, the day after, released, bound, with a coin tied against her belly, usually a tarsk bit, a very cheap price, which has for purpose to humiliate her, showing they were not deemed being worthy of more).

But for these women used by Clitus, it's somewhat, a sort of title of glory they probably hold amongst other women. We may suppose that they are perhaps bitched by other envious women. We may think too that they are probably not young and unexperienced women who are under the keep of a father or brother and certainly not already companioned women.
If we remember "Fighting slave", we know that many women are independent, are not under the control of a male relative, own and run their business. They do much as they please.

What happens between a free man and a free woman, is obviously, usually, only their own business. After, in Ar, there is this rule which prohibes a FW to couch or prepare herself to couch, with the kajirus owned by another man. In this case, the collar is the direct consequence.
Dudette
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:35 pm
SL Name: justadudette
AkA: Dudette

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Dudette » Sat Nov 21, 2015 7:16 pm

Oor wrote:
Dudette wrote:
“Remove your clothing,” would my master say to a high-born free woman, suing to be considered by him in companionship. She would do so, and be assessed. If he was not pleased, he would send her weeping from his presence, clutching the rag of a slave, to don it and return to her dwelling. If he was not displeased he would gesture to the tiles before him where there waited a goblet of slave wine which she, kneeling before him, would eagerly drink. She would serve him that night as a slave. In the morning, she, nude, would prepare and serve to him his breakfast, after which he would make fresh use of her; he would then send her from his presence, first pressing into her hand a coin, usually a copper tarsk or a silver tarsk, commensurate with the quality of her service. Such women went from his quarters proudly, clad in the full regalia of the free woman. They were not discontent. They had been touched by Clitus Vitellius.

Slave Girl of Gor


Can't help but feel that this passage loses a uh... little something (*cough*)... without all of the context that indicates that said free women are and must, to spend time with Clitus, acting and yielding as slaves - furthermore, that he would be, "to the scandal of Ar" (suggesting is it absolutely not the norm), Master within a companionship - and that "the boredoms of freedom are a small enough price to pay" for a "even a brief sojourn" in the arms of such a man (suggesting that their freedom, other than in those cases where he might permit it (and the women are said to return to their own chambers consumed with thoughts and desires akin to slaves) could and would be forfeit).

There is nothing in the example of Clitus Vitellius to suggest that a "slave-like" or even "modern-day-hookup-like" sexuality is a norm for free women.

Sayin.


I brought this quote just for one purpose. TO point out that free women were sexual with the men that weren't their companions. Period. If they fucked acting as slaves, dogs, pigs or pigeons - it's irrelevant. Fact is - Ladies did get their share of intimacy with the men that weren't their companions. Expecting the free women acting and behaving like nuns OUTSIDE AND INSIDE their houses has nothing to do with this the books.
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 » Sat Nov 21, 2015 7:52 pm

Dudette wrote:I brought this quote just for one purpose. TO point out that free women were sexual with the men that weren't their companions. Period. If they fucked acting as slaves, dogs, pigs or pigeons - it's irrelevant. Fact is - Ladies did get their share of intimacy with the men that weren't their companions. Expecting the free women acting and behaving like nuns OUTSIDE AND INSIDE their houses has nothing to do with this the books.


This is a bit like saying "slaves did attack free people and get away with it without being killed" because Sura went nuts over a doll and didn't die. I mean, sure it happened in the books as a break from norms, but free woman sexuality (akin to the freedom of modern Western women to be sexual and autonomous) is being posited in this thread as a genre norm, and I don't think it is. Gor is the Madonna-Whore dichotomy personified.

There are a lot of shades between "free women could fuck whoever they wanted whenever they wanted" and "women were holed up alone at home and not allowed to be in the company of men they weren't related to", and while either of those can certainly be played by individual characters, and either of those can be used by individual sim admins to set their own norms, neither of them are the "norm" in the books (as my interpretation of reading the books goes).
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
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 » Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:31 pm

Your free women are haughty, flirtatious, etc, but since not all free women are represented in the books, but rather those of remarkable personalities, I don't think you can use them as models for what was expected of every free woman.

I would rather not get into a book quote contest. Context is a beautiful thing. Besides, it means we're overthinking a genre that really shouldn't require this much thought.

Again, I emphasize if a certain city wishes to have an IC law, with penalties, either don't go to the city or do what we supposedly go into sL to do - roleplay it out.
it was
User avatar
Aphris
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:24 am
SL Name: Aphris Myoo
Role: Yearkeeper & Trader
Home Stone: Kataii
Contact:

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Aphris » Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:07 am

Escapee wrote:Second - If a sim / city wants to have it in their rules (meaning city IC laws) that free women can't wear blue, then I imagine it should be reacted to in an IC manner. Same with free women being behind closed doors with anyone not family or her companion.

React IC'ly indeed. We once had a slaver at the Kataii, who wanted introduce more strict rules for free women. One night his wagon was surrounded by some free women, and was burning. He barely escaped. :fleeflee:
She smiled. "I have grown fond of the smell of bosk," said she. Kamchak smiled. He held his hand to the girl. "Ride with me, Aphris of Turia," said Kamchak of the Tuchuks. Image
User avatar
Sasi
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: FW IC rules

Postby Sasi » Sun Nov 22, 2015 7:34 am

Escapee wrote:Your free women are haughty, flirtatious, etc, but since not all free women are represented in the books, but rather those of remarkable personalities, I don't think you can use them as models for what was expected of every free woman.

I would rather not get into a book quote contest. Context is a beautiful thing. Besides, it means we're overthinking a genre that really shouldn't require this much thought.

Again, I emphasize if a certain city wishes to have an IC law, with penalties, either don't go to the city or do what we supposedly go into sL to do - roleplay it out.


Here the little detail that too many people forget, almost every time it comes to FW... Norman mostly describes free women through a narration in which he speaks of them in -general- as their natural and usual behavior. Then, the ones with whom Tarl or other narrators both male and female interact tend to illustrate these descriptions (+ these ones get in troubles and often end up in collar).
And with all these descriptions in all books, one could expect that for most players in SL Gor, that the nice, generous and humble good FW who doesn't despise and hate slave girls, would be an exceptional character....

And not all FW are flirtatious, though. Many are, of course, more inhibited than others. It's just not uncommon (and for this example, the number of FW who, in Magicians, try to seduce Milo, with discreet signs that one who is a good observer, will notice). FW of course, don't publicly display their lust in a scandalous way, one which would make them look like natural slaves. Too, their sexuality is different than the one of the slave girl. They don't yield to men, and don't show passion, deep love and abandon, obviously.

As for dealing ICly? Once your character got collared over this crap?
Or FW teaming, grouping and protesting in the streets?

Since when should we always deal Icly things which just don't make sense in a Gorean environment because they are not supported by anything in the books and proven wrong?

Anyway, it's already an annoyance to avoid sims with silly OOC rules (like no NPC escort...) and now, we have to check the IC laws before joining if we don't want to get our FW character collared although we played it properly.
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 11:45 am

1. Nice veiled insult. Thank you for being consistent.
2. There are numerous quotes that are non-specific and allude to the decorum and standards (restrictions) placed on Free Women. There are even specific quotes that indicate in some cities, Free Women are predominantly sequestered by their families and not allowed to meet men who aren't their relatives without specific instructions. It isn't a stretch, then, to believe these women were also not allowed to visit with non-family members alone.
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.
4. Since the books indicate there are some cities where free women have far fewer liberties than others, why is is a leap for a city to have that IC law and for people, knowing the law, to be willing to face the consequences of their actions should they choose to behave in risky behavior?


But then again, I'm not very observant, nor have I read all of the books multiple times or studied them as you have, which probably automatically exempts me from even commenting on this thread.
it was

Return to “Free Women”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron