litphoria

So, we'd have

• Full heart: sexual like
• ? heart: non-sexual like
• Half heart: ambivalent
• Empty heart: dislike

What if you liked something both sexually and not?

I don't care one way or the other about an ambivalence option, to me that's just not putting anything. I'm more integrated in having a way to express a non sexual preference.

To me, if you have a sexual preference it's already both. In my mind, erotic play is just a more detailed type of general play. If we wanted to showcase both explicitly though, could use two separate icons I suppose? Updoot and downdoots for generic preferences, hearts for erotic preferences?

Maybe a ☻ ☺ smile for the nonsexual likes?

Works for me!

If we get smiles, I'm gonna go on a profile-editing SPREE. It will be glorious.

Smiles work for me!

And yes I'd treat the heart as "happy to involve sexually and non-sexually". We don't really need a preference option for exclusively sexual involvement - that's like a fetishizing thing you can work out in your scenario or whatever.

Ageplay: Expresses an interest in sex with minors

Since the F-List players will probably anyway use it that way, the ageplay-interest could be modified that way.

What!? No! And let's talk about that elsewhere, it's got nothing to do with this thing.

I'd probably use hearts more for romantic stuff, while smiles referred more to general likes.

Well, if you put it on "NO" it serves the purpose.☻

I definitely want rp with this type of character, but for certain nothing sexual.

Des it serves the purpose in that one specific example if the definition of that one interest was changed, but what if I'm playing a straight guy character who wants only 'buddy RP' with other males and nothing sexual? There's a gap in the preference system right now in that there's no way to differentiate between sexual like and just like at a glance, without filling in this information using the text field.

@Astarte: Penis on dislilke.

@Samus

And yes I'd treat the heart as "happy to involve sexually and non-sexually". We don't really need a preference option for exclusively sexual involvement - that's like a fetishizing thing you can work out in your scenario or whatever.

Isn't the whole point of this so that we're not stuck with something that can be interpreted as both sexual and not?

Yes and no. The point is so we can say "I'm fine with this kind of character in scenes" without also expressing we'll have sex with them. If someone's interested in their straight dude character having nonsexual scenes with other dudes, there's no way to actually express that without also implying "and he'll bang dudes". Except if we fill out context, but hey, he'll show up in all the "will bang dudes" searches people are doing.

So in a way that means we're not stuck with a preference option that's both sexual and not - but the point is to be not stuck with it, not to eliminate it.

The question is, if we shall start with: "I like it in this but not in that situation". There is a way to express my dude is interested in having nonsexual scenes with other dudes. Put "Smut" on "NO". Problem is if I do sexual and non-sexual RPs and have different preferences for both.

That isn't a way to indicate you're interested in having nonsexual scenes with other dudes, though, that's a way to indicate you're not interested in having sexual scenes ever.

"Yes and sex is great" vs "Yes and no sex pls" is just a really simple - and important! - way to distinguish preferences regarding who we'd like to play with. It distinguishes matters of who you're willing to play with separate from what you find sexually attractive (and are willing to play with).

There's also those of us who will play with anyone because we want someone to GM a world, but our characters have set sexual preferences, for example Rare is straight, but I want to play in a world that has multiple sexes and genders. I want to indicate that on my profile so people know at a glance.

@Lady: Preferences are player preferences (with a certain character) they are not the character's preferences. How would you express that anyway? Male-sexual=dislike? Male-nonsexual=like? I would assume then that you don't accept sexual RP with male chars, not that your char is straight.

Strictly speaking, putting males in dislike should indicate you don't want any kind of roleplay with male characters, at all, ever. So it's not just saying you don't want sexual roleplay with them - you don't want any roleplay with them. Thus the dilemma! We either indicate we'll probably have sex with someone or we say we'll never roleplay with them at all.

I'm confused. I don't see how this improves anything at all if either the heart or smilie could be interpreted as both sexual like and non-sexual like, then we're at the same situation we're in now, only with the UI being more loaded up. The only way I see this helping is if the heart is interpreted only as sexual like, and the smilie only as non-sexual like.

I think people are talking two different scenarios. If we have both hearts and smilies to use, yes, they're exclusive to sexual or nonsexual likes. If we have only hearts, then full heart would be "All stuff including sexual" and halfheart (or alternative) would be 'only nonsexual stuff'

I don't see how this improves anything at all if either the heart or smilie could be interpreted as both sexual like and non-sexual like

We can only stick a category into Smile or Heart, right? We can't stick it into both.

Here's what we're aiming to express:

• Heart: We're interested in sexual scenarios and non-sexual scenarios. Like, a straight dude character is interested in banging chicks, but presumably, he's also interested in taking a walk in the park with said chick, having an action/adventure scenario with her, and so on. The desire for said chick to exist does not begin and end at sexual encounters.
• Smile: Only non-sexual scenarios. That same straight dude is chill with having other dudes around, but he won't be having sex with them.

Now, okay, let's go with "heart is exclusively sexual like", we get this:

• Heart: Straight dude likes chicks. This is exclusively sexual, so if your character's a chick, the only scenes we'll ever have are ones where we're having sex. No interest at all in anything that isn't sex, so no walks in the park or anything, no scenes involving just sitting around drinking coffee, gross.
• Smile: Straight dude is fine with having other dudes around. Let's go do action/adventure scenes!

And straight dude doesn't get to put Chicks into both, remember.

This "heart is exclusively sexual like" scenario doesn't work for us. Most of the roleplayers who are interested in nonsexual scenarios at all are generally interested in doing non-sexual scenes with the same kinds of people they'd be interested in - in fact, we might well be doing a bunch of those between the sex scenes. (The roleplayers who exclusively want sexual scenarios can just put Sex or Smut in Mandatory and call it a day.)

Meanwhile same goes for other categories, not just gender: presumably, you know, if I sexually dig adults, I'm okay with having scenes around adults who I'm not having sex with, so it'd be silly to assert my preference for adults is exclusively for sexual scenes.

If on the other hand we could put categories into both Smile and Heart, well, that's also convenient. Straight Dude can put Females into Heart (yes I'll bang you) and Smile (yes I'll do the other things too), and dudes into Smile (just the other things, pls).

Seconded on what Samus said.