The most resilient gender conventions in roleplaying games?

[Frozen_Feet]

Oh hey, that reminds me of another gender convention originally found in a lot of fairytales and inherited to RPGs from there:

In fantasy, when a man of apparently-low social status courts a princess or other woman of high status, it will typically turn out the man is long-lost prince or some other "lost heir" type character so he will gain social parity with the woman.

The only exception I can think of is Disney's Aladdin, and even there it turns out in the third movie that Aladdin is a prince... of thieves.

[Ralanr]

Depending on the tone of the story, he'll want out of she is considered extremely ugly.

But that's tone.

The same with the reverse, depending on tone.

[Jay R]

The most automatic gender-based thing I've seen in rpgs is this:

In my experience, a player who is arguing for absurd rules interpretations for personal gain has always been a male. There may be exceptions, but I haven't seen them.

[Sith_Happens]

There is a rite of passage for women that is portrayed in fiction as seriously as it is for men, and it exists with varying strength in modern cultures as depicted in fiction: Sex as a rite of passage.

This is actually gender-neutral in that it is viewed, when held in a positive light, as a rite of passage for the character regardless of gender. "Tonight will make a (wo)man out of you," spoken to one who is by context conveyed to be "merely" a boy or girl, not an adult man or woman.

I wonder how many people have actually heard of this coming up in an RPG context, though. I know I've seen it in action in one of my own groups, though it ended up being an... interesting case.

Now, think of the reverse situation - the beautiful princess has taken a common man as her groom.

The first thing I thought of was "Ending to a star-crossed lovers plot of which the princess is the protagonist."

[Ralanr]

The most automatic gender-based thing I've seen in rpgs is this:

In my experience, a player who is arguing for absurd rules interpretations for personal gain has always been a male. There may be exceptions, but I haven't seen them.

In my experience I have to say the same (usually me). Makes it all the more funny!

[Sith_Happens]

Ooh, here's a good one that's incredibly specific to RPGs: the sexual liaisons of male PCs are exponentially more likely to result in accidental pregnancy than those of female PCs.

Of course the main reason for that one is simple practicality, so it's a nice reminder that tropes are tools.

[Ralanr]

Ooh, here's a good one that's incredibly specific to RPGs: the sexual liaisons of male PCs are exponentially more likely to result in accidental pregnancy than those of female PCs.

Of course the main reason for that one is simple practicality, so it's a nice reminder that tropes are tools.

And that they are not bad.

[TheCountAlucard]

Ooh, here's a good one that's incredibly specific to RPGs: the sexual liaisons of male PCs are exponentially more likely to result in accidental pregnancy than those of female PCs.

I've not had a game of mine include sexual contact that results in accidental pregnancy.

-D&D games I've run didn't have pregnancies occur. They were either too "beer & pretzels" to focus on that sort of thing happening, or the PCs were too busy to get laid.
-In Vampire: the Masquerade, Kindred are incapable of getting pregnant or impregnating others. Pretty much their only bodily fluid is blood. Same for Vampire: the Requiem.
-In Shadowrun, we have futuristic birth-control available, and that's assuming the PC didn't just have his or her reproductive bits cut out to make room for one more piece of cyberware!
-In Star Wars games, we assumed there were various means of birth control, plus most species are pretty incompatible, aren't they? At least I don't recall any half-Twi'lek, half-Wookiees in the canon. Also droids don't have to worry about pregnancy.
-In Exalted, a number of means of birth control are likewise available, ranging from maiden tea to taking the venom of certain western shellfish to induce temporary sterility (or a lot of it to induce it permanently).
-In Paranoia, new citizens of the Alpha Complex are grown in vats. Doing otherwise would be treason. Have a nice daycycle.

Actually, the only birth I recall taking place was an intentional bit of parthenogenesis in an Infernals game after one of the PCs engaged in sexual congress with one of the Yozis.

[Sith_Happens]

Actually, the only birth I recall taking place was an intentional bit of parthenogenesis in an Infernals game after one of the PCs engaged in sexual congress with one of the Yozis.

How exactly did parthenogenesis come into that?

[TheCountAlucard]

How exactly did parthenogenesis come into that?

They were both female. No ovum fertilization took place.

[Sith_Happens]

They were both female. No ovum fertilization took place.

Why not? This is Exalted we're talking about, if a woman can't impregnate another woman it's because neither of them are trying hard enough.

[TheCountAlucard]

That may have been a joke on your part, Sith, but I still resent it.

[Eldan]

One I noticed in my group: the often older, no-nonsense, uptight, humourless character (often a supervisor, mentor or superior) is always female. Male supervisors are more of than not of the fat, jolly sort.

[ArcanaFire]

The PC halfling is a male rogue. Important NPC halflings who are not rogues are female.

I'm sure someone has already pointed out Lidda (I skimmed over a lot of posts that waxed more on the political side) but I'm going to do it again. She was depicted in the PHB for 3.5 and on the Dungeons and Dragons wiki page is listed as THE iconic character under "Rogue".

PCs never have to rescue a prince from a dragon.

Never rescued a prince from a dragon, but I had my party rescue a good-aligned silver dragon from a wicked princess once.

The Princess who needs to get rescued by the party can be a 10th level character when it comes to bluffing the party about her true goals, but Goblins and Orcs can take her out instantaneously when it is time to get kidnapped.

So she's a bard, then? No, all joking aside though, this is one of the few things that can totally ruin a game for me. If a character is capable, I expect that character to stay capable even when it's not convenient for the plot. This is basically the entire reason I couldn't finish watching Sword Art Online.

A "queen" can be either a queen-regnant or a queen-consort depending on whether they officially have any political power. A "king," by contrast, traditionally only gets called such if he's a king-regnant. A king with no official political power gets called a prince-consort instead, due to the historically-ingrained idea that "king" = "regnant." This distinction (i.e.- that "king" is considered to necessarily imply "regnant" while "queen" is not) is entirely due to it historically being the default that the king holds the power rather than the queen.

We had one of our PCs marry the queen of a city state and he was her king-consort. This was partly because he was a dwarf and the city was predominantly human and partly because to have him actually ruling would have been game-breaking and he needed to be able to keep adventuring and travelling for things to work.

That's not to say I would have been cool with her losing power just because she got married, but generally if I'm DMing a game and there's a choice between a PC doing something awesome and an NPC doing the same thing, I'm going to go with the PC just because it's good manners. They both ascended to godhood later and left their son (we rolled for gender) on the throne.

Ooh, here's a good one that's incredibly specific to RPGs: the sexual liaisons of male PCs are exponentially more likely to result in accidental pregnancy than those of female PCs.

I played in a group that tried to handle this "fairly" by making the odds the same. To be fair they were all male and until a friend of mine and I joined them there weren't any female PCs. After a couple of near incidents of this we all mutually decided it was unfair and awkward (no one wants to have to retire a character because they had a one night stand with a tavern boy) and they stopped rolling for it at all.

A lot of my players enjoy playing second and third generation characters so a lot of our PCs end up having kids but most of the time we brush it off as "having happened during a timeskip" or assume it occurred after the game ends.

-/-/-/-/-

Okay I'm done replying to stuff now so some other things...now I'm saying 'usually'. I know exceptions to all of these, but since we're discussing trends I'm going to discuss trends.

Redheads in RPGs are more likely to be female. Most male characters I've seen have dark hair or white, and a few have been blond, but I can count the male red-heads I've seen on one hand. The female red-heads on the other hand...

Orcs and half-orcs are usually male.

Dwarves are usually male.

Twins are usually one male, one female. In fact I can't think of an example of twins in any game I've been in that have ever been one gender or the other with the exception of the dvati, and in that case you're basically playing one character in two bodies so I'm not sure how much that counts. (Of course there's also the notable example of Raistlin and Caramon for a pair of same sex twins).

[Sith_Happens]

That may have been a joke on your part, Sith, but I still resent it.

[Milo v3]

That may have been a joke on your part, Sith, but I still resent it.

To be honest it's probably actually true with exalted... I mean... There is that Exxxalted book... if it wasn't in there I'd be amazed.

[Segev]

In Exalted, having a child of any number of parents of any combination of genders is a First Circle Sorcery away.

Demon of the First Circle will let you bind a Neomah, and Neomah can take samples of flesh from any number of people, form them into an infant, cast that infant into the fire at the top of the tin tower they spin from their mouths, and have that infant take its first breath. It is the child of all contributors of flesh.

So, yes, two women can have a child in Exalted if they try hard enough. Because magic.

Spoiler: PC plots

Show

I had a PC once who wanted to create a breed of Dragonblooded horses. (Dragonblooded are a kind of Exalt, and are human.) He planned to use Neomah to facilitate this by selectively breeding for high-Breeding Dragonblooded parents with the finest horseflesh he could find, working to find just the right ratio of human to horse to make them look equine but have human souls with refined enough Dragonblooded bloodlines to be likely to Exalt.

[Amphetryon]

Well, contrast that with the whole "old man with trophy wife vs. Norma Desmond" gender convention, why don't you?

That is, when a much older man has a much younger lady friend, the old man may be played either as creepy or as charmingly doddering, and the woman either as gold-digging or as genuinely affectionate towards her older companion. But, by contrast, when a much older woman has a much younger gentleman friend, it's played off only as disturbing (e.g. Norma Desmond, Sunset Boulevard, which was written explicitly to draw on this gender convention). The woman is depicted almost exclusively as bizarre, disturbed, or delusional, while the man is almost exclusively greedy for the "creature comforts" the relationship provides (e.g. access to her money). And while the older man and younger woman scenario may be used to lampshade that true love knows no limits, the older woman and younger man scenario is generally used to show that some things aren't worth compromising your morals for - as if to say that such a relationship possessed an inherent wrongness. (Again, see Sunset Boulevard, where the climax of the film comes after the protagonist has decided that his relationship with Norma cannot continue.)

This, in turn, plays into the gender conventions regarding the "kept" partner - that is, where one partner is wealthy and the other is not. A female character being "kept" by a wealthy male character may, as previously mentioned, be seen as either greedy for the material wealth or genuinely caring (e.g. of the "I don't care if you're as poor as a dormouse" school). By contrast, the male character being "kept" by the female character is almost exclusively greedy, playing on the female character's eagerness for love and affection.

Think about the illustration, possibly seen at one of your tables, of the prince who has taken a commoner to be his bride. In some cases, she's secretly an evil sorceress and wants his money, but in others, she's a genuinely pleasant person who truly feels for him. (And in some, she's secretly an evil sorceress and wants his money but comes to truly feel for him!) Now, think of the reverse situation - the beautiful princess has taken a common man as her groom. Some of you may already be visualizing what schemes this guy has for his unwitting bride. (But only half points if you lifted the plot from a Disney movie.) That gender convention - that the man is interested in remaining kept, because money - seems to endure; or, at the very least, we seem ready to believe it.

Fair to say this stereotype has deep roots in human norms of fertility, and the underlying assumption that heterosexual, intimate relationships have a built-in desire for creating offspring? I'm not saying the underlying assumption is right, merely that it informs the 'gender convention,' as you call it.

[Segev]

The "older woman/younger man" relationships' portrayal will also vary depending on the absolute ages of the duo.

If it's "20-40 year old woman with teenaged to 20ish man," it tends to be more played like the "lucky youth chased by hot woman" trope. Or played for comedy, if she's the aggressor and he isn't interested.

If it's a woman who's well into or beyond middle-aged, however, with a 20s or early 30s man, yes, it's played more like Red Fel outlined.


Inverting the sexes, the 20-40 year old man with the teen to early 20s girl is either "a player" (if it's fully consentual), a sugar daddy (if it's clearly a "kept woman in exchange for favors" relationship), or a monstrous creep (in the situation which is played for comedy when the sexes are reversed, because a guy who is inappropriately older chasing a girl who is THAT not interested is a dirty old man, and that's only considered funny if he's the butt of all the jokes. The situation above, where the potentially sexy older woman is coming onto the unwilling youth, is played for laughs at the boy's, not the woman's, expense, generally).

The older gentleman with the young-to-middle-aged woman (not a teen and not a "girl," definitely a woman...just significantly younger) almost doesn't raise an eyebrow, depending how it's played. In part because older men are, for some reason, still portrayed as potentially sexually attractive to women far longer than older women are so played for men. This could be due to the fertility thing: men remain fertile pretty much as long as they're able to *ahem* participate.

Regardless of genders, when it's an older (wo)man with a younger member of the opposite sex, the question is almost always raised: Is (s)he a gold-digger? This question may well be answered "no," particularly with a younger woman and an older man. We seem to be, again, more willing to believe that the younger woman can find the older man sexually desirable, or at least her presumed nurturing, kind nature allows her to care for him as a nurse and as a romantic interest. Positively-portrayed relationships of younger men with older women tend to shy away from even a sexless romantic connoctation and look more towards "surrogate mother/son." When there's a romantic element, it's almost always also sexual, and it's never portrayed totally positively. The guy is either uncomfortable because he's "selling himself" when he isn't...interested...or he's a sleezeball for taking advantage of the woman's needs just for her money.


I'm not sure I've seen many homosexual relationships portrayed with large age differences. Particularly not since the "gay pedophile" became taboo to show on TV (an inversion from when it was so much the norm that it was oft conflated; political correctness and moral guardianship have swung mightly in that time). Obviously, just because I don't know of any such portrayed relationships doesn't mean they don't exist, but I can't think of any where an older wealthy man takes on a younger sexy but still mature man, nor the gender-flipped version, so I don't know how the tropes play out with it. The tropes above are strongly influenced by the expected desirability of the sexes as they age, as well as by the supposed purity of motives for men vs. women getting into relationships where sexual desire may not be the prime motivator. The combination creates conflicts which mean the above versions would come off jarring in some way if played straight (pun unintended).

[TheCountAlucard]

-snip-

"Having a child" is not "getting pregnant."

More importantly, saying that "it's your fault" that you can't get access to an Exalted sorcerer (mortals can't bind demons, remember?) because "you're not trying hard enough" is victim-blaming, and it's the same kind of stuff I see in real life that makes me sick to my stomach.

No prosthetic limbs for your debilitating injury? Guess you just didn't want them enough! Crippled by debt? You should have worked harder! Your chronic depression is taking over your life? You just need to apply some willpower, Sunny Jim!

You physically cannot conceive a baby together, loving couple? Obviously you aren't trying hard enough!

(That's hardly the worst of it, but it would almost certainly skirt forum rules to go much further.)

To clarify, that is what has earned my rancor.

[Flickerdart]

(mortals can't bind demons, remember?)

Couldn't mortals go to someone who can bind demons, and bribe them a bunch?

[Talakeal]

"Having a child" is not "getting pregnant."

More importantly, saying that "it's your fault" that you can't get access to an Exalted sorcerer (mortals can't bind demons, remember?) because "you're not trying hard enough" is victim-blaming, and it's the same kind of stuff I see in real life that makes me sick to my stomach.

No prosthetic limbs for your debilitating injury? Guess you just didn't want them enough! Crippled by debt? You should have worked harder! Your chronic depression is taking over your life? You just need to apply some willpower, Sunny Jim!

You physically cannot conceive a baby together, loving couple? Obviously you aren't trying hard enough!

(That's hardly the worst of it, but it would almost certainly skirt forum rules to go much further.)

To clarify, that is what has earned my rancor.

But thats real life.

Isnt Exalted all about being a larger than life character for whom nothing is impossible?

[Segev]

...oh, for crying out...

I'm going to take this all too seriously for all of this post, then I'm dropping it.

Mortals can't bind demons, but they can absolutely call them, and all that takes is Thaumaturgy. Neomah are pretty easy to bargain with; they LIKE making children and will often ask for the bit of flesh precisely for that purpose as payment for sexual favors. Ask them to make a child and they probably won't ask too much of you, especially since you just got them out of Hell.

Moreover, given the specific example listed, at least one of the participants and would-be parents was a Yozi, who has such absolute power that she could compel any number of Neomah to present themselves for any service she desired.

Thirdly, I'm sorry that I conflated the end result of pregnancy and pregnancy; it's not common for people to lament that they are unable to "get pregnant" and not mean it as primarily a lament that they're unable to "have children." There's a certain visceral pleasure to knowing the child is a product of yourself and your loved one, but generally people don't get hung up over whether or not they personally carried the child to term or instead found him under a proverbial cabbage patch.

I'm sorry you were offended. I am not going to give a fake apology for something for which I am not sorry, however: making a joke about something that happened in a fictional setting and is only feasible in a fictional setting known for its over-the-top antics and excessive overkill in its problem-solving.

I am not going to accept the accusation of "victim-blaming." It is an accusation hurled by people who want to shield themselves from any criticism all too often. Yes, it happens, and yes, it's awful when it does, but fake people in ludicrous situations with over-the-top solutions available who are not in fact portrayed as victims in the first place are hardly ones who are "victims" being "blamed" for their situation.

In truth, I think part of what offends me so much about this particular accusation is that "you're not trying hard enough" actually is a valid point in that setting. It's quite justifiable to be unwilling to try "hard enough;" there are a number of things which you might not wish to do (such as consorting with demons) to achieve your goal. And you're not being 'blamed' when somebody points out that you could have done it. You are free to stand proudly and say, "I could have, but I chose not to because I would not stoop to that." Yes, there are people in unfortunate circumstances. THere are people who are genuinely victims. I feel badly for them, sympathize with them, and sometimes may even wish to help them (obviously, I don't all the time or I would be out there doing it all the time rather than posting here on this message board).

But pointing out that there are things they CAN do is not "victim blaming," even if they choose not to do them. Hurling the accusation of "victim blaming" for pointing out solutions is reprehensible; it is designed to KEEP people victims and to GLORIFY victimhood almost as if it's something to which to aspire. It isn't. It's tragic and awful, and any help for getting victims out of such situations is wonderful.

We celebrate people who overcome adversity.

We should not celebrate people who are suffering it. Support them, sure. Encourage them, definitely. Enable them to remain there? No. Celebrate their suffering for its own sake? Disgusting.

I'm sorry if you're somehow personally wounded by people enjoying discussing fictional solutions to problems in the context of a fictional setting, and pointing out that they're there for people who are dedicated enough to want to seek them to find. Not without risk, of course, but what worth having ever is? But you're thread-crapping in the guise of self-righteous indignation. You're taking offense where none was intended, and where little was even warranted. Please stop.

I'm done with this sidetrack in this thread. Feel free to get in the last word.

[TheCountAlucard]

It wasn't you I accused of victim-blaming, Segev. Earlier upthread, "neither of them are trying hard enough" was literally what the poster said.

Why not? This is Exalted we're talking about, if a woman can't impregnate another woman it's because neither of them are trying hard enough.

I posted about victim-blaming because people seemed to think I was getting offended over semantics. I'm not (though sometimes I do).

Exalted is not a setting where wanting something hard enough magically delivers it into your lap. It may have fantastical things that take place in its world, but it's all a fine veneer over something very human, something very real. Just like the Exalted themselves - for all the glorious power they have, they're supposed to be human inside.

[Red Fel]

It wasn't you I accused of victim-blaming, Segev. Earlier upthread, "neither of them are trying hard enough" was literally what the poster said.

I posted about victim-blaming because people seemed to think I was getting offended over semantics.

While I agree that victim-blaming is reprehensible (and probably not the best topic for this forum), the post in question was talking about Exalted, where - as others have mentioned - one of the defining traits of PCs is the ability to do basically anything they want if they want it hard enough. I mean, the process of Exaltation basically involves doing something so awesome that it attracts heavenly attention.

You talk about the characters' humanity, and their flaws, and that's true. But the flaw of the Exalted isn't that they're incapable of reality-defying feats; it's that they're incapable of self-defying feats. They can't change who they really are. Nor can they change who other people really are. They can break or build continents, but they can't build a nation. They can trick the mind and the senses, but they can't create true love. They can reshape the body, but not the soul. And what we're discussing is merely a breaking of physical reality - changing the laws of nature to serve their desires, which is very much within the wheelhouse of your typical Exalted.

So while the statement, in any other context, might be offensive, in this context it's actually kind of true; in Exalted, if you can't do whatever, it's because you're not trying hard enough. Want to explode the sun? Try harder. Want to punch Cthulhu in the face? Try harder. Want to dodge gravity? Try harder. Want to rearrange time? Try harder. In Exalted, a PC really could become impregnated by a female character if they tried hard enough; there's got to be some kind of charm that does it.

Tasteless, certainly, but technically accurate.

Now can we please get back to discussing my awesome post? There's not nearly enough conversation about gender conventions evidenced in Sunset Boulevard in this thread.

[TheCountAlucard]

There is no single thing you can do that guarantees the Sun sits up from the Games of Divinity and says, "Bless that guy!"

Much as I despise the "cosmic lottery" term the echo chamber slings around, the most you can do is buy a ticket. That doesn't mean you can guarantee a win. All the folks who don't win the lottery, is it for lack of trying?

Additionally, though Exalted is indeed the name of the game, by no means are you required to play one. Rules for mortal characters are in the Core book, and other supplements allow you to play demigods, half-demons, mutants, Dragon Kings, gods and elementals, and even Jadeborn.

Additionally additionally, no, there are some things even an Exalt, even all the Exalted, are going to fail at. Sometimes you're not privileged enough, not lucky enough. Sometimes you can't beat the tough guy on the other side. Sometimes you don't have the right tool or the right skill for the job. Sometimes you get tricked or betrayed or hurt, even by the people who love you. Saying otherwise is setting up some bad assumptions for people.

[Segev]

There's a term for old/young romantic relationships: May-December Romance

That leads a bit naturally in an RP forum with a heavy contingent of fantasy-and-magic RPers to its kin, the Mayfly-December Romance. This version tends to be approched very differently. (It's where the older participant is probably older than the younger one will ever be, e.g. the classic vampire/human romance.)

Fiction (and RP) tends to treat the ancient being as being their apparent age for romance purposes. Played straight, the immortal is between 18 and 35, physically, and usually is dating somebody who is between 5 years younger and 5 years older than their appearance. In such relationships, while the exploration of what it means to live forever and to have centuries of experience comes up, but it's as a "wonder vs. ennui" and "joy vs. sorrow" thing. It's rare, for example, for the "ancient" one to be young enough that his natural human life wouldn't yet be over. You rarely have, say, a 70-year-old vampire who looks 20 dating an 18-year-old mortal in a serious romance sort of way, probably precisely because that is close enough to possible that the audience might wonder at their relationship if he were still mortal.

Rarely, if ever, is it actually examined as "older person taking advantage of younger person." I've NEVER seen it played as "younger person exploiting older sugar daddy/momma"/"gold-digger." Largely because the latter has some morbid implication, usually, that the younger one is waiting for the older one to no longer be able to indulge or to simply die of old age/illness so they can inherit.


There are the occasional teen romance novels (let's not bring up the ones that take place where the sun don't shine - you know, near Seattle) where the immortal looks like a high schooler. Not shocking overall; target audiences identify with their own age group. But make that a 70-year-old mortal hitting on those 16-year-olds... and it goes from "romantic with an edge" to "ew."

But conversely, there are the immortals who became that way "recently" and look their age...and fall in love with a mortal their own age...and stay with their loved one as their loved one looks older and older while they...do not. And that, too, would wind up with the squicky implications, if not for the audience (who know what's going on and may even go "how sweet and tragic"), then at least for onlooking NPCs.

And worse...those poor immortals who are in their 90s and look 25...who ARE they to date? Sure, other immortals, but is that it?

Even worse - and this one was explored at the least in a comic book series called Eternals - what about the poor kid stuck as a young teen or pre-teen? He's mentally grown-up, and his body is not disinterested, but is he to look to others his own apparent age, and be the creepy older guy? Is he to look to 20-somethings? Isn't he still being "creepy?" What about the knowledge that the kind of person who might be interested in him is also...well, creepy, if they're not kids, themselves?

(Actually, I'm wondering from all the examples of precocious crushes of young teens on older teens and 20-somethings if even young people just starting to be interested are not wired to like "kids" their own age; that may be why the "suddenly she's beautiful" trope exists, because the adolescent looks to the fully-developed people as their standard of beauty, not to their fellow gawky adolescents, and then when they get to full maturity, themselves, suddenly their peer group is attractive. Maybe our standards don't change all that much as we age, and that's why almost everybody still thinks the 20-something is closest to the ideal, physically.)



Anyway, I'm not sure this one realy varies by sex so much. The ancient woman with the mortal man and the ancient man with the mortal woman (all of whom look to be of an age with each other) usually plays out similarly. The gender dimorphic tropes that come out are not unique to that aspect of their relationship. But maybe I'm wrong. Anybody have some?

[Red Fel]

There's a term for old/young romantic relationships: May-December Romance

That leads a bit naturally in an RP forum with a heavy contingent of fantasy-and-magic RPers to its kin, the Mayfly-December Romance. This version tends to be approched very differently. (It's where the older participant is probably older than the younger one will ever be, e.g. the classic vampire/human romance.)

Fiction (and RP) tends to treat the ancient being as being their apparent age for romance purposes. Played straight, the immortal is between 18 and 35, physically, and usually is dating somebody who is between 5 years younger and 5 years older than their appearance. In such relationships, while the exploration of what it means to live forever and to have centuries of experience comes up, but it's as a "wonder vs. ennui" and "joy vs. sorrow" thing. It's rare, for example, for the "ancient" one to be young enough that his natural human life wouldn't yet be over. You rarely have, say, a 70-year-old vampire who looks 20 dating an 18-year-old mortal in a serious romance sort of way, probably precisely because that is close enough to possible that the audience might wonder at their relationship if he were still mortal.

Rarely, if ever, is it actually examined as "older person taking advantage of younger person." I've NEVER seen it played as "younger person exploiting older sugar daddy/momma"/"gold-digger." Largely because the latter has some morbid implication, usually, that the younger one is waiting for the older one to no longer be able to indulge or to simply die of old age/illness so they can inherit.

To be fair, that's generally because the Mayfly-December romance is generally played from the perspective of December. That is, it's all about the immortal's ennui, or his sudden rekindling of joy as related through the eyes of his mortal partner, or her feeling of inevitable grief knowing that she will lose the one she loves. As such, it tends to depict both in a positive light; the longer-lived one isn't taking advantage, because that character is the perspective character; similarly, the younger one isn't exploiting a sugar daddy/momma, because we're seeing him/her through the eyes of the older one, who sees that naive innocence that comes from a lack of experience.

Anyway, I'm not sure this one realy varies by sex so much. The ancient woman with the mortal man and the ancient man with the mortal woman (all of whom look to be of an age with each other) usually plays out similarly. The gender dimorphic tropes that come out are not unique to that aspect of their relationship. But maybe I'm wrong. Anybody have some?

Well, playing into the stereotypical gender roles, I think December tends to be male, while Mayfly tends to be female. And not just because of the similar parallel with May-December; even when they appear physically the same age, the immortal tends to be the older, wiser, sadder male, while the younger, brighter, more innocent one tends to be female. Again, stereotypical gender roles; the male character tends to be set in his ways, stubborn, with a bit of anger below the surface, while his companion (and I use that word deliberately, see Doctor Who) tends to be a naive, innocent, bright and energetic girl. And yes, she tends to be more of a "girl" than a "woman;" the more mature women in these stories tend to be either rivals, enemies, or flirts, while the younger companion looks on with passion and a bit of jealousy. These traits do tend to be gender-specific; the cool-headed, weary-yet-wily, experienced woman is less frequent (we miss you, Kat Hepburn), as is the bright, bouncy, enthusiastic young man (outside of shounen anime).

Now, assuming the difference in age was physical as well as mental, I also see a pattern. The ancient man with the mortal woman could play out any number of ways - true love, exploitation on either side, etc. But the physically ancient woman tends to have a single, recurring plot - she devours the youth and beauty of others. That much is a pretty consistent gender stereotype.

[Segev]

But the physically ancient woman tends to have a single, recurring plot - she devours the youth and beauty of others. That much is a pretty consistent gender stereotype.

I'll grant it's more common, but... Dracula himself was a bit of that in the reversed gender, at least in his original. As he fed on Ms. Harker, he got younger-looking.

[Red Fel]

I'll grant it's more common, but... Dracula himself was a bit of that in the reversed gender, at least in his original. As he fed on Ms. Harker, he got younger-looking.

Dracula fed on life to sustain his strength and maintain his existence; a more youthful appearance was simply a byproduct. With female characters, however, the "eternal youth and beauty" angle tends to be the focus, not the side benefit.

Although, I will grant you Dorian Gray as the example that pretty much defies all of the conventions we've just described - he's male, functionally immortal, not particularly driven by love or ennui, repulsively hedonistic, and doesn't actually feed on anybody. He simply exists until the story decides he should stop doing that.