DnD: Why is the other half of Half-Whatever always human?

It's an under-discussed fact (particularly among human cultures) but where other races have intrinsic qualities like luck or racial spells, humans have the magic ability (and the moral flexibility) to breed with nearly anyone. There are competing theories on why this is, and in fact among Sun Elf scholarship there's a whole anthropological subcategory devoted to the question of, basically, "Dear gods, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?" Is it a gift from whatever deity originally created them? A curse laid on them (so to speak) by some long-extinguished enemy species? Is there actually such a thing as truly purebred human?

Dwarven scholar Durdek Two-Hammer claims that the behavior comes from a fundamental instability in the human bloodline, and speculates that without breeding in bloodlines from other races humans would eventually become infertile and go extinct. The gnomish wizard Litha Glitterball, however, has published a number of scathing critiques of these claims, claiming that the sheer number of humans in the world could not possibly exist if that were true, and that Durdek should stick to the truly wild all-dwarf parties that earned him his name. Sir Artur Proofwaithe of the Human Anti-Defamation League (whose motto is "We Can't Be Racist, We Allow Half-Elves To Join") claims that the ability isn't magical at all, but instead reflects the "fact" that humans are the original bloodline that all other "humanoid" races were created from, which is why the human bloodline is compatible with all of them. (n.b. The Waterdhavian Scholarship Exchange does not hold with the use of this offensive term, and also notes the circular logic which undergirds it, as Proofwaithe elsewhere defines "humanoid" as "any race capable of breeding with humans", a category that apparently includes even dragons.)

Not everyone is troubled by this peculiar racial trait. Famous moon elf therapist Mona Highglow has long advocated for bringing in one or more humans to "spice up" elvish marriages which have fallen into a bit of a sexual rut after a century or three. More ominously, the infamous Grigor The Butcher directly attributes his success in looting, raiding, and pillaging to his mixed parentage and urges the orcish clans to take full advantage of the services (both military and sexual) of the more ambitious, mercenary, and horny sorts of humans. Halfling courtesan Delicia Gallops also famously announced that humans were "an experience everyone should have", a controversial remark that was widely associated with her rise to prominence in the Erotician court.

This proposal will explain why it is so vital to perform further research into this unique and under-studied phenomenon, and why the authors are uniquely situated to do so. It is our hope that the Whaterdhavian Scholarship Exchange will see fit to fund this important field work.

Fine, I'll talk about abortion - part one

I hate arguing (or, for that matter "discussing") abortion. I loathe "the abortion debate" (which is seldom actually a debate, and only partly about abortion). I'm sick to death of the entire topic. If there's a sufficiently powerful and active god out there - or even a kindly disposed alien race watching us - I would take it as a personal favor if you could boost our technology to a point where Star-Trek-level transporter devices could be used to transfer fetuses to safe, reliable artificial wombs. This, so that we could finally shut up about abortion and go back to actually talking to each other.

But it's an election year and I have a Facebook account, so apparently there's no escape. Never mind that the "debate" seems deliberately structured to be unresolvable, never mind that the "discussion" almost always devolves into people arguing past each other, never mind that the whole thing is intensely divisive and almost certainly doing more harm than good. It seems I'm going to hear about it anyway.

I've written before about why I think it's a stupid argument: a large part of the rhetoric hopelessly conflates moral issues with legal issues, which muddies the waters under the pretense of simple clarity. To have any sort of real discussion, you have to step back from the established sides and take a serious look at what you actually want to accomplish and how best to go about it. The existing arguments aren't going anywhere - they've been repeating the same points for over a decade now, and anyone who was going to be convinced is convinced already. To make any progress, we need to tear them down and start over.

And honestly, I don't think that's going to happen. As far as I can tell, too many people have a vested interest in keeping the argument going. It gets out the votes, it brings in the donations, it provides a rallying point for religious and political communities, and it lets people feel like they're fighting for something really important.

That's not to say that Pro-Life and/or Pro-Choice activists are just playing along for something to do. For the most part, I think that the people on both sides really do believe most of what they're saying (with the usual allowances for exaggeration and hyperbole in any political rhetoric). But human beings are emotional as well as rational, and having an important moral issue to defend is something that has a powerful emotional appeal. Anger, and especially righteous anger, can be addictive, and I really do think that's a factor in why people keep rehashing these arguments.

For the next few posts (at least on this topic - I may take a break and post about other things, too) I'm going to ask you to set aside moral outrage, take a deep breath, and just follow along while I try to explore a few points. I'm sure these are all things that have been said before; I don't think anything new has been said on the topic since May 21, 1984. But I've been hearing pro-choice and pro-life arguments for a couple of decades now, and I don't think either position as it currently exists is really useful. So please bear with me while I try to explore why - and more importantly how - I think that the time, money, and energy currently devoted to the issue of abortion could be better spent.

That's not to say that I don't want feedback, reactions, corrections, or alternate perspectives. I'm leaving the comments open. Feel free to disagree, but try to do so without arguing - be constructive, or at the very least calm and polite. I will delete anything that I decide is too acrimonious, but I trust my readers to know how to express themselves without stepping over that line.

Ten Commandments: The Sex Ed Edition

This is another list that someone else wrote up, which I am repeating here because I think it deserves to be repeated. (Thanks, Denelian.) The person who wrote it used to mentor teens, and would - once trust was established - share the list with them and ask them to pass it on.

She says that out of the seventeen girls and twelve boys she mentored, at age 18 none of them had become/gotten anyone pregnant, none had any STDs, and 21 of them went to college.

Comprehensive sexual education: it works.
(Abstinence only education: not so much.)

Anyway, here are the Ten Commandments:

1. always use a condom
2. always use another form of BC, like the pill, foam, shot, etc.
3. always use a condom.
4. always use a safe space - a REAL safe space, not "an empty alley no one will look here", not "the backseat of the car". A SAFE SPACE where you won't get caught and won't get hurt.
5. always use a condom.
6. make sure your "no" is listened to immediately, and your "yes" even more so. if s/he won't take "no, don't do X, i don't like" when you're just kissing, s/he won't take it anytime.
7. ALWAYS use a condom.
8. if you won't kiss it, don't put it in your body/put your body in it
9. always use a condom.
10. get tested A)at least twice a year B)before a new partner C) after you've been with new partner 3-4 weeks.
[11. don't get caught.]