This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
tcpdex:culture [2019/02/26 14:00] knux400 |
tcpdex:culture [2022/11/24 02:23] (current) skinstealer |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Every zone has a different way of handling TCPs in their society, most willing to accept them (although begrudgingly at times.) Some view them as less than people, others put them on a pedestal. TCPs in well populated areas have the option of acquiring specialized, | Every zone has a different way of handling TCPs in their society, most willing to accept them (although begrudgingly at times.) Some view them as less than people, others put them on a pedestal. TCPs in well populated areas have the option of acquiring specialized, | ||
+ | ===== Gender ===== | ||
+ | TCPs do not have a similar gender system to that of most Morbitians, both in terms of roles and identifiers. Upon spawning, they have innate knowledge of whatever pronouns they can be referred to with, though it’s uncommon (but not impossible) for any TCP to be particularly attached to these at first. These pronouns can be changed easily in a TCP’s mind, and are oftentimes flexible depending on the situation. Pronouns are very rarely linked to a concept of gender identity unless the TCP themself has been socialized with Morbitians that practice more concrete gender customs. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This isn’t to say that TCPs cannot develop a sense of gender on their own, however- many TCPs find themselves leaning towards specific ways of presenting themselves, though this is rarely ever dictated alone by concepts such as “masculine” and “feminine”, | ||
+ | |||
+ | In this sense, transgender TCPs can and do exist, but the definition may vary. The easiest is self identified- some TCPs choose to identify as trans, either because they’ve changed their gender identity in some way from their “starting state”, or just because they feel like the label suits them. Similarly, identifying as nonbinary is a common choice for TCPs who feel as if the binary systems that complexes often use doesn’t encapsulate the TCP experience. Gendered terms like “girl”, “boy”, “man”, and “woman” are generally learned from complex society, and aren’t a thing in isolated TCP culture- however, some TCPs identify with these terms upon being socialized among complexes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Romance ===== | ||
+ | TCPs are capable of forming romantic relationships like most other complex species, though this tends to manifest in different ways, similarly to gender, depending on whether the TCPs in question were socialized within or outside of complex society. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Outside of complex society, TCPs will develop their own ways of expressing romantic intent and affection, and while this generally involves gestures of kindness and physical touch that can be easily recognized by complexes as affectionate, | ||
+ | |||
+ | As mentioned earlier- when socialized among complexes, TCPs may learn to adapt complex behavior for themselves. With a lack of mouths, TCPs have often adapted kissing into nuzzles or head bumps, and wearing things like a ring on one’s finger as a signifier of partnership into wearing bracelets or collars. Customs like dates and weddings are also taken up by TCPs in these settings, though similar rituals may exist among those outside of them. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Use of identifiers for romantic orientations is rare in isolated TCP societies, both due to unfamiliarity and the more fluid nature of TCP identity. TCPs definitely have preferences for the kind of presentation and traits they value in a partner, but considering that TCPs outside of complex society do not often pick up gendered terms, classifying orientation is difficult and oftentimes needless. TCPs among complexes, however, do occasionally pick up orientation terms, though their interpretations of them tend to be a lot more fluid and could have entirely different or even subversive meanings. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are some depictions of romantic relationships that we do not want in the official Morbit communities, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The following depictions of romance will not be allowed in fanworks posted in official communities (the forums/ | ||
+ | Relationships between: | ||
+ | * feral body plan/more humanoid TCPs (ex: insect type/knife type pairing) | ||
+ | * minor coded/adult coded TCPs (ex: Writhe/ | ||
+ | * familial TCPs in either the bond they share (ex: Primus/ | ||
+ | * complexes/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Sexuality ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | All TCPs are on the asexuality spectrum, both in the sense of not being able to reproduce by any other means than spawning, as well as not being able to feel sexual attraction in the same way complexes can. They do not have libidos, or feel sexual gratification from physical stimulation- but some do get some form of mental stimulation from certain expressions of intimacy and specific interests. They can be attracted to others in the sense of wanting to feel that mental stimulation with them, and this is the closest thing we can say TCPs have to sexuality. | ||
+ | |||
+ | For most TCPs who do experience this kind of stimulation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | In our community, discussion of these kinds of kinks/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are some depictions of sexuality that we do not want in the official Morbit communities, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The following depictions of sexuality will not be allowed in fanworks posted in official communities (the forums/ | ||
+ | * any sexuality/ | ||
+ | * feral body plan TCPs (ex: horseshoe crab, wooly bear, insect)- taur-like body plans are allowed (centinel, worm monster) | ||
+ | * minor-coded TCPs (ex: Writhe) or typings related to being young/a minor/etc (need a better term for this? anyway, ex: brood type) | ||
+ | * typings related to the military (ex: admiral type) | ||
+ | * relationships between familial TCPs, either through typing (twin type) or chosen family bonds (Dad/Primus or Dad/Buddy etc) | ||
+ | * relationships between complexes/ | ||
+ | * any sexual characteristics added onto a TCP (genitalia, nipples, defined chests, etc) | ||
+ | * fetishization of disability within typings (ex: kink art depicting fetishization of weapon types lacking limbs- art broaching the subject of disability struggles within kink art is fine, but things objectifying disabled people are not) | ||
+ | * mimicry of actual sex acts- while this can happen canonically, | ||
+ | |||
+ | < |