Jimquisition: Mass Effect 3 And The Case For A Gay Shepard

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

From an evolutionary point of view? No, it's not wrong. In fact, homosexuality tends to be more prevalent in times of famine and war (stress alters natal development), and makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint: It keeps species, theoretically, from overpopulation.


I take your point about "so what?" but the problem here is, "evolutionarily wrong" doesn't translate to mental illness in any sense. Nothing you just said supports why it could be considered a mental illness.

Care to try again?

Something can't be "wrong" from an evolutionary standpoint. Instead of saying that it has no reason to exist, you should be exploring why it has persisted if the answer isn't immediately obvious.

It actually isn't a mental illness from an evolutionary standpoint. A trait not being passed on or not being conducive to passing on does not mean that those traits constitute a mental illness, it means that they weren't conducive to reproducing. Also, concerning that homosexual couples in the modern day do find ways of reproducing, I'd say it doesn't hinder their reproductive capabilities. Their ability to work within their environment to overcome their natural flaws is a trait that ought to be passed on, from an evolutionary standpoint.

Also, Breeders, as I have heard them called, actually are the cause of one of the biggest issues of our time, overpopulation. An increase in homosexual couples who do not wish to reproduce would be the solution to this problem. This means that homosexuality would be our species saving grace. Our balancing act.

Really though, claiming that homosexuality is a mental illness is a much bigger claim. One that needs to be backed up by hard science.

DISCLAIMER: I do not attach any stigma to the term 'mental illness'. I do not use it in a derogatory way nor do I believe it is something an individual should ever be judged on.

The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material. Homosexuals are inherently not the ideal for doing this. An individuals genes do not care for the species they belong to, they care for being passed on to another generation.

Further to the above paragraph I'm going to do something incredibly irritating and patronizing and guess the counter argument many people will put forward which is 'But we treat each other with kindness and respect people, surely if all we wanted to do was pass on our genes we'd just fuck every member of the opposite sex and kill every one of the same?'.. or an argument to that effect. Well no, we wouldn't, by not acting like savages we ensure mutual survival, I allow you to survive, you allow me to survive, therefore MY genes (the important ones in my view) get passed on.This is seen in nature as well, morality is just a more evolved version of this survival mechanism.

Of course now we have to begin making certain assumptions, and I carry this on in the spirit of debate and to a certain extent playing devils advocate.

Firstly, assuming homosexuality has a genetic predisposition. If there is a 'gay gene' or several of them they do not HAVE to have a point. They may simply have persisted because occasionally for whatever reason homosexuals reproduce, its a recessive gene, or any other number of factors. The existence of homosexuals does not mean they have a 'point'. It must be remembered that evolution hasn't finished, we didn't turn up as modern man and then nature went 'Fuck it, im done here!'

Modern day homosexual couples find ways to reproduce? Well through totally unnatural means, that's hardly relevant.

I understand why the whole overpopulation thing is a compelling argument for the 'point' to homosexuality, but its fundamentally flawed when you consider the basics of evolution and genetics.


I realize I've almost totally lost the point of 'homosexuality is a mental illness' as in honesty its not like I have hard evidence one way or the other, and as I say I continue this more in the spirit of debate than fighting a corner. On that subject however I would argue that MANY mental illnesses depression, schizophrenia and so on are genetic in nature AND do not benefit the individual nor help them reproduce. They in fact hinder the individuals ability to function and therefore, though not physically, mentally hinder the individuals ability to reproduce. It doesn't seem totally incomprehensible that homosexuality could be classed alongside these.

It is actually pretty fucking insulting that people still want to classify homosexuality as a mental illness. In what way does homosexuality actively impede someone's daily life? Does it cause feelings of depression? Does it cause someone to be paranoid? Can it make a person have hallucinations? Then how the hell is it an illness?
You can't just hand wave away the question of how homosexuality has persisted. The fact is, it has. So you have to ask how and why. And yes, we are talking about evolution as occurring on a genetic level, not a species one. I thought that that was assumed.
I know you are only trying to play 'devil's advocate", but some things don't deserve someone doing that.

 

[ACman]

My point is that disagreeing with someone does not give you the right to disrespect them.

If your opinion is:

Heterosexual > Homosexual > Paedophile

Then yes I am going to take the right to disrespect you because that is offensive no matter how politely you say it. And regardless of you backing away from that now that is exactly what you insinuated with your previous posts.

Your opinion is essentially the same as when a Klansmember claims:

Caucasian > African > Animal.




And you keep on going on about "Bioware shouldn't be forced to do this!" ----> They were going to do this in ME2! It was cut for time!

http://spong.com/article/21081/BioWare-Gay-Scenes-in-Mass-Effect-2s-Too-Much-Work

It is not, as you would have it, about "political correctness".

You want to stop getting called out on this bullshit? Stop spouting it. Stop mentioning paedophiles and homosexuals in the same paragraph.

Stop tossing around the word deviancy when you clearly don't understand the appropriate use of the term. (ie. when sexual activity is inappropriate or harmful)

Or do us all a favour an stop posting altogether.

 

[ACman]

The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material. Homosexuals are inherently not the ideal for doing this. An individuals genes do not care for the species they belong to, they care for being passed on to another generation.

The whole point is that were exist as a cooperative species. Thus non-breeding members have an opportunity to protect there genetic line by helping out breeding members.

Look at wolves or meerkats. Only the alpha pair breed. The rest help out by hunting food providing extra carers/teachers and their genetics may be passed down not through them but through siblings and cousins.

Similarly with homosexuals. One of the major theories of male homosexuality is faternal birth order. Each successive male child is more likely to be homosexual. These men will not compete for mates but will be an extra pair of hands for child raising especially in less developed societies.

 

[Darknacht]

The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material.
...
Firstly, assuming homosexuality has a genetic predisposition.
...
I understand why the whole overpopulation thing is a compelling argument for the 'point' to homosexuality, but its fundamentally flawed when you consider the basics of evolution and genetics.

Genetic predisposition does not mean you have to have the genes to be gay or that having the genes makes you gay. You don't seem to understand the basics of evolution and genetics. A genetic trait can be beneficial if you have one of the genes but detrimental if you have more(Sickle-cell). You can also have a trait that is beneficial to the group but discourages reproduction in the individual but because the genetics only trigger it in a small percentage of the group it encourages the propagation of the trait. There is a difference with 'survival of the species' and survival of the group, if your group dies the genes die and another group that had better genes can now use your resources to grow.

 

[ACman]

Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

But the Transformers movies don't have the element of choice. They are shit no matter what you do.

But if you don't want your Shepard to be gay then all you have to do is NOT PLAY THAT WAY.

That's the difference.

 

[FedericoV]

As I mentioned earlier, meta-knowledge from multiple playthroughs. In theory, you'd have one, maybe two romantic partners during the game. You likely won't know what most characters' orientation will be during a single playthrough. I played DA2 as a male first, and I thought that Anders was gay. Second playthrough as female, and I discover that he swings both ways. In my first run, I never knew that, and I had no way of knowing it. I didn't retroactively get the knowledge that he was bisexual from by second playthrough, and it didn't sour the experience of the first at all.

So why does it matter if other characters are, theoretically, bisexual? Unless you plan to interrogate each member of the crew, you won't find out, and by then I think you've got a few more problems to deal with.

Anders, Fenris and Isabella are quite clear about their lack of preferences if you take time to talk to them. It does not ask a lot of effort to raise the issue. Yes, I like to select most dialogue option with any NPC in the game. Because I find fascinating to explore the personality of the cast since that's one major asset of Bioware games. Maybe I have to deal with a lot of problems as you kindly put it but for me it's like reading a book or watching a movie: I like to know the protagonists of the story.

Having said that, the problem is not so much how I gain the info. The problem is that those romances (and in many ways the charachters themselves) are quite shallow and empty because of that design choice. Those charachter are defined by their romance status in many ways and since the romance is generic, the charachters themselves seem more generic as a result.

It's not a mistery that the best charachters in DA2 are Varric and Aveline. Strange enough: they are not romance options and the result is that they sound more convincing as separate entity from the PC. Morrigain and Alistair are the most convincing charachter of the DA lore so I have to assume that it's not a problem of being a romancable charachter or not. The problem is how the romance option are designed.

In DA:O romances help the plot and the charachterization. In DA2 they did nothing. No matter the sexuality of your PC, they all feel generic and bland. I believe that the "open romance" design was one of the most important cause of that problem. I would have prefer a "hit or miss" approach with every charachter being a defined individual indipendent from your PC (being straight, gay or bisexual).

But that would cause a lot of complains from bio-drone crybabies who have indeed a lot of problems and that would start to whine on the forums: "oh, I'm straight why I cannot romance gay charachter x?" or "oh, I'm gay, why I cannot romance straight charachter Y".

That sort of entitlement toward romances has plagued Bioware fanbase since BG2. But it has reached crazy levels in the last years. To the point where fans on the forum asked to romance their sister in the game only because she had big boobs and she was hotter than the other female options...

 

[Darknacht]

Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

But the Transformers movies don't have the element of choice. They are shit no matter what you do.

But if you don't want your Shepard to be gay then all you have to do is NOT PLAY THAT WAY.

That's the difference.

1. He has a point people can rant about what ever they want and Transformers does have an element of choice, I can choose not to go watch it.
2. Check the avatar and don't feed the trolls.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Mass Effect 3 And The Case For A Gay Shepard

Apparently last week's episode of Jimquisition was far too subtle for some folk, and it threw up a lot more questions than answers. It also sparked a debate in which some of the dumbest arguments against the inclusion of a gay game protagonist were ever heard.

Fortunately, Jim Sterling is the national authority on doing kissing with men, and lends his razor-sharp insight to this discussion for the final, righteous time.

Watch Video

How and in what way was last week too subtle? In fairness I didn't stick around to look at comments section but I thought the general message of a possible gay protagonist means bugger all.

 

[Malignanttoe]

The mocking voice is a bit much. I get the point, but the sound is very annoying.
I agree with the rest of the video though.

 

[ACman]

Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

But the Transformers movies don't have the element of choice. They are shit no matter what you do.

But if you don't want your Shepard to be gay then all you have to do is NOT PLAY THAT WAY.

That's the difference.

And If I didn't want to see a shitty, racist movie about Shia LaBitch and giant robots then all I had to do was NOT GO INTO THE CINEMA.

I knew with almost 100% certainty that I was going to hate Transformers when I went to see it, that doesn't mean that I don't get to rant about how shit it was.

Yes but these people are complaining that Shepard is gay purely as a potential situation.

You have a choice. "Shepard straight"/"Shepard gay".

When you see a Michael Bay movie there is no choice. There is only "movie shit"/"movie shit" (Except for The Rock. Sean Connery kicks ass.) And if you like Transformers then that is shit.

But what these hetero-normative fucktards are arguing is that they shouldn't even have to make that choice because it apparently offends their delicate sensibilities.

"Eww in another game Shepard is gay. That makes me feel icky...."

 

[Antari]

Is sexuality really that needed in Mass Effect? From either side gay or straight? ... It seems like just having the options available is more of a problem than if they weren't even there to begin with.

 

[yeah_so_no]

I'm still reading through all the comments now, but one question still leaps out at me, and did as I watched the vid:

Where on earth does one even get a giant purple dildo bat?

XD That thing is the most hilariously, awesomely wrong thing I've ever seen, and I'm impressed with Jim Sterling for owning one.

 

[ACman]

But, what about demands of being inclusive of other sexual deviations... "deviation" as something other than the norm. Things that aren't nessicarly criminal.

Once you say that homosexuals are ENTITLED to representation, what about people who are wired for other things that is normal and perfectly natural for them? People who are into the whole "adult baby" thing and can't get aroused otherwise, or scat, or bondage, or numerous other things. You get enough people into one or more of those things to organize, and next thing you know you have it in the games, because Bioware can't very well say "well, the gays are entitled but you aren't". Arguements that it's "differant" with homosexuals don't really apply here, because overall one minority is the same as another.

I think the point being made is that this is about entitlement, even someone with my overall viewpoints (which I will not go into again) couldn't give a crap about the homosexuality present in "Dragon Age: Origins" or "Jade Empire", but that was planned from the beginning and the way the developers wanted to write the story and the characters. In this case they envisioned Mass Effect without any male homosexuality or male homosexuals playing a major role, it's just how the story turned out, and flowed best. This entire arguement is that because Bioware included gay male options in other games, they should have to include them in every product they release with any type of romantic elements at all.

See, had nobody said anything, and Bioware quietly released a gay male addition to the crew in ME3 as a result of their own creative process, nobody would have cared. The problem here is that this all revolves around demands being made by a minority group that they have to be included in the game.

Whether it's sexual, ethnic, religious, or anything else, once you start saying that writers HAVE to include certain groups it's down hill. I very much doubt there is anyone here who can say that they have never seen something they liked ruined by political correctness. It's the same issue as it's always been, it's just gay men are the current focus.

In the end let creators create, when you start creating quotas and corperate checklists, you wind up with exactly the mentality that has been destroying things like video games. Every group is an exception to someone. In the end the creative process has to be a politics and political correctness free zone.

Entitlement?

The fact that Bioware was going to include (non alien) same sex relationships but decided to cut them because of time and budgetary constraints is what cause the disappointment.

Let's talk about your sense of entitlement. Obviously you feel entitled to complain about the "political correctness" of people asking for what Bioware would have provided had they had time.

You feel entitled to talk about gays and paedophiles in the the same paragraph as if they are connected despite most incest being perpetrated by fathers, stepfathers and uncles against female children.

You feel entitled to call homosexuals deviants despite that term being reserved for conduct that is inappropriate (Such as a compulsion for explicit public sexual activity or bestiality) or harmful, (Such as a compulsion to for explicit public sexual activity in front of an employer or with children.)

What makes you think that you're entitled to do this? And yet you decide to go down those roads while discussing a PG13 sex scene because it may, if one chooses, involve two men.

You are the disgusting thing about society.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Great as usual but he totally missed out on the entitlement argument. Considering how many tits and asses get jammed in our face in most games, homosexual dudes must have it pretty rough.
Then again there is Gears of war....

My favorite thing about Jim I gotta say is how consistant and well thought out his opinions are. (even if i sometimes disagree I never fault where he is coming from) He never seems to contradict himself proving a point and thats the reason I would rather have more respect for him than some of the other people who do opinion pieces on this site.

Gears of War? Ick. Those guys are about as attractive as a piece of burnt toast taped onto a tank.
Coming from an actual gay guy.
And yeah it's funny that in the RARE SITUATION where there's male fanservice, you notice it.

I dunno I always figured Marcus would cuddle after.......maybe cry a little

Speaking as a filthy breeder, I never found much sex appeal in games either. For probably the same reasons you don't like Marcus and crew in that they are caricatures of real physicality and not attractive. Which kinda proves my point that sexualization in games is jammed in everyones faces and is universally pretty shit. It's kind of like how marketing companies are targeting the gay community. Yeah it's equality. But it's shit equality. You are now as sexualized and manipulated as the rest of us. woohoo! I have no problem with dudes/ladydudes loving each other and personally find it as compelling as a mixed dude couple. Because at the end of the day we are all dudes and if some dudes have a problem with that, then are not really dudes at all.

they're jerks

 

[ACman]

Great as usual but he totally missed out on the entitlement argument. Considering how many tits and asses get jammed in our face in most games, homosexual dudes must have it pretty rough.
Then again there is Gears of war....

My favorite thing about Jim I gotta say is how consistant and well thought out his opinions are. (even if i sometimes disagree I never fault where he is coming from) He never seems to contradict himself proving a point and thats the reason I would rather have more respect for him than some of the other people who do opinion pieces on this site.

Gears of War? Ick. Those guys are about as attractive as a piece of burnt toast taped onto a tank.
Coming from an actual gay guy.
And yeah it's funny that in the RARE SITUATION where there's male fanservice, you notice it.

I dunno I always figured Marcus would cuddle after.......maybe cry a little

Speaking as a filthy breeder, I never found much sex appeal in games either. For probably the same reasons you don't like Marcus and crew in that they are caricatures of real physicality and not attractive. Which kinda proves my point that sexualization in games is jammed in everyones faces and is universally pretty shit. It's kind of like how marketing companies are targeting the gay community. Yeah it's equality. But it's shit equality. You are now as sexualized and manipulated as the rest of us. woohoo! I have no problem with dudes/ladydudes loving each other and personally find it as compelling as a mixed dude couple. Because at the end of the day we are all dudes and if some dudes have a problem with that, then are not really dudes at all.

they're jerks

I dunno. We're a sexualised society because well... because we are dammit!

But until kids can see their daddy's or mommy's Brother Andy marry their new Uncle Owen and have it be a normal thing without the Mother in Law or the Aunt passing a sentence of eternal damnation to the participants then we've got some work to do.

So it's great that Bioware/EA is willing to do some of the lifting. The demonstration that there is nothing wrong with being gay, that it doesn't have to lead to a life of repression and sadness is very important and it's great that a major area of popular literature is addressing that.

In no other mainstream media will this occur because obviously they are pandering to the majority. Does Hollywood do this? No. Does TV do this? Only on HBO. And only if there are gay black badasses. Six Feet Under - Keith, True Blood - Lafayette, The Wire - Omar. But in a game they can include the choice whether the main protagonist is gay or straight and for some reason certain people take offence.

"Pandering" as if mainstream media doesn't pander to the heterosexual-norm all the time.

More disgustingly "Pedophilia" ignoring the fact that most incest is father/stepfather on daughter.

The fact that a mainstream game has decided to make this part of their product is important.
Do not listen to people like Therumancer. People like him should be the thing that peopl rail against in society. Not two men loving each other, or even just two men butt-fucking each other...

Let's face it, most of us would give so much for it to be as easy to get sex (In the butt or not) from our wives a gay men have it in a free society. I think people like Therumancer are possibly complaining from a possible state of depravation. So fuck him.

 

[Siege_TF]

More disgustingly "Pedophilia" ignoring the fact that most incest is father/stepfather on daughter.

Just like to point out that Pedophillia is an attraction to prepubescents, while child molestation is the actual act of child molestation! It's the difference between mens rea and actus reus; the guilty thought and the guilty act, or (since civility has long been thrown out the window) the opinion that all zealous muslims are terrorists versus the opinion that people who have blown things up with the specific aim of sewig terror are terrorists. Maybe the English aren't so picky about their... English. Which would be really weird.

As for the topic immediately at hand I agree that it's an overall good move, and it reflects my opinion of bears in general; If you leave them alone they'll leave you alone. Having worked in a park this applies both to the literal and urban slang versions. If all else fails you can yell, throw rocks, and wave your maglite around, but that's not so different from the morning commute, is it?

Of course Bioware could just throw a massive monkey wrench into the works for trolling's sake by making any and all homosexual relationships only possible if you are going with evil/bad/negative Rebel karma. That'd be an amusing shitstorm, wouldn't it? But the clips that Jim showed us didn't have Shepard looking like a Sith wannabe...