There are some Gorean role-players that believe everything done in role-play must be in strict accordance with the books and supported by them, with all else rejected.
I propose that this reasoning is valid to a point, but also flawed.
For example, I have almost always seen the sula-ki position derided as being an onlinism and as such is often rejected by many homes on that basis.
It is incontestably true that no such position is named in the books.
But, does the absence of the name make the position non-Gorean in nature?
Another example, quite similar to the first, is the table position, which is an element of BDSM, and to the best of my knowledge not mentioned in the books.
But, is the nature of the position in conflict with Gorean practice and ideals?
A further example is the sweetening of drinks, also not in the books and thus an onlinism and rejected by many as such.
But, is it inconceivable a master of Gor would want such?
My View
The books serve as a guide to what is appropriate, but not be used as in a manner akin to a religious text, such that it dictates what is allowed with all else being forbidden.
The books define much, but one should not be slavish to them.
The test I apply when it is my call is simple. If I can imagine it is something that is feasible on Gor that it need not have a direct quote from the books supporting it to be acceptable.
Thus, I would allow all of the above.
On the contrary, I would not allow a FW to ride into a longhouse whilst mounted on a sparkling pegacorn and escorted by a wing of Mecha Falcosharks with frikin’ lasers on their heads. That’s going a wee bit too far.
