On Gaymers and Cons

secretsantaone

New member
Mar 9, 2009
439
0
0
Guestyman said:
secretsantaone said:
I'm using segregation in the sense of intentionally separating yourselves, which I would say you are doing by labelling yourself a "gay gamer", simply because you're bringing sexuality into an area that has nothing to do with it.

I'm saying that the reason they use ****** is simply because people get offended by it, not because of any deep-seated fear or hatred of homosexuals. If people found "flopsy-wopsy-ears" as offensive as ******, I dare say they would use that instead.
You can't honestly believe that *we're* the ones who are bringing sexuality into this. Gaymercon is the *result* not the *cause* of gay people being isolated within gaming culture. I would like nothing better than for my sexuality not to be an issue with wider gaming culture but wider gaming culture doesn't give us that luxury.

If you're so concerned about people bringing sexuality into an area that has nothing to do with it, don't tell me. I don't want my sexuality brought into it. Tell it to the straight people who decided my sexuality was such a hot button issue that they made me feel unsafe in my own subculture. Tell the idiotic bigots on livechat and at cons that my sexuality shouldn't be brought into gaming. Gaymercon *Wouldn't need to exist* if people didn't keep on bringing other people's sexuality into places where it needn't be discussed.

And if you can't see why casual use of "******" as a slur within a group betrays a culture of homophobia within that group then there's really no hope for this discussion going forward.
If you play a videogame with someone, they don't know your sexuality. Hell, if you don't use voice chat online they don't even know your gender.

However, if you play in such a competitive and immature environment such as XBL, people are going to call you bad words. It really doesn't matter what you are, they'll find some way to offend you and make it stick. The same way that people will say they slept with your mother last night, of course they fucking didn't, but people get defensive of their mothers and take offense. This person is trying to offend you, no matter what your sexuality. It just so happens "******" is a great way to cause offense.

Guestyman said:
secretsantaone said:
Not to mention how the word ****** has evolved into a much more general pejorative term than just meaning gay.
No. It hasn't. And this argument actually makes me angry. The word ******, or the use of "Gay" as an insult doesn't occur because the words have magically changed their meaning to just mean bad without also meaning homosexual. The use of "Gay" or "******" is an insult because it is performing the following logical chain.

You = homosexual
homosexual = bad
thereby through the transitive property:
you = bad

it's not because the etymological meaning of the word has magically changed so that Gay and ****** are just synonyms for "Bad thing" independent of their other 'homosexual' meaning. If it was just the word and not it's homosexual meaning it wouldn't have uniformly happened to every homosexual slurs at the same time.

Or to put it another way: Look at the words that everyone routinely claims have evolved into general pejoratives:

Fag, queer, gay, cocksucker

Do you notice what they all have in common? Do you really think it's just a coincidence that they ALL happened to be used in this way? Because that stretches the bounds of credulity for me. And to you too, I suspect. You're well spoken and can form good arguments. You seem intelligent. Therefore I respect you too much to think you actually believe that utter tripe.
Take "bastard". Literally it means a child who's parents weren't married when they were conceived. This was bad back in the day when sex outside of marriage was considered a cardinal sin and the resulting bastards would be cursed. Nowadays, children outside of marriage are pretty commonplace, there's no longer the same social stigma attached to the concept. However "bastard" is still a general pejorative term and is still considered a pretty serious swear word. This is because people associate it now with offense rather than it's original meaning.

Same with "******", originally targeted towards gay people when homosexuality was not tolerated whatsoever, with the changing social climate and homosexuality becoming more and more accepted by society, it's losing it's impact as "gay = bad" and is instead being used because people associate it with offense.

Darken12 said:
And nobody is going to bar straight people from going to Gaymer X. Anybody can turn up so long as they're interested in videogames. The difference is that in a regular con, the focus and aim of the industry is the straight male audience. That's what's different in a gaymer con.
Darken12 said:
And by producing a gaymer con, we can show the industry that we're a viable demographic with plenty of disposable money. If we go to regular cons and keep quiet, the industry is never going to realise that they can make plenty of money off other demographics too.
Sorry, but you're not. In such an unstable market no one is going to take the risk of overtly appealing to the "gay gamer" demographic.

What do you even want from videogames to make it appeal to homosexuals? Beyond some homosexual relationships in RPGs, what exactly is it that makes videogames to alienating to gays?

Darken12 said:
secretsantaone said:
If you're going so far as to classify yourself as a gamer you like videogames despite this, because it's not going to change as long as videogames cost so much. We all have a hobby that we enjoy, it seems a shame to go bringing in sexuality to divide us up when it's not relevant.
Firstly, it can change if there's enough money on the table to tempt the industry. And the industry is never going to know if that money is available if we don't stand up and tell them.

Secondly, of course it's a shame for you, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the industry from your perspective, you're constantly being catered to. It's extremely easy for the rich person to say that they don't see what's wrong with the economy when they're untouched by the problems lower classes complain about.
I don't really think you can compare yourselves to poor people in the economy. Poor people are directly linked to the economy, homosexuals just aren't the primary target market for videogames because they're too much of a niche market.

Darken12 said:
secretsantaone said:
Wow thanks for telling me what I really mean buddy, I might have been able to speak for myself there.

Of course straight men being called gay is an insult to masculinity, the straight male role is intrinsically linked to their relationship with females. Implying that they don't have sex with females is essentially an insult to their virility. Also, the word "******" has also taken on the connotations of being weak, further undermining the traditional male role as the strong head of a family.

Like I said, they only say ****** to cause offense. If you're offended by the word, chances are they're gonna keep using it.

Not to mention how the word ****** has evolved into a much more general pejorative term than just meaning gay.
Okay. I am going to rein in the massive amount of rage I feel at you right now for attempting to justify why it's okay for straight people to take being LGBT as an insult. I am going to calm down and explain things to you in the most civilised way I'm able.

While I do understand why you think that there's an intrinsic connection between straightness (in males) and virility, that's a sociocultural fabrication. If you look at it from a detached, neutral way, the two concepts are unrelated. Heterosexuality is a type of sexual attraction; and virility (or masculinity) is a collection of traits we assign to a gender, some of which are biological, but most of which are cultural. Those traits are absolutely malleable; and they're largely arbitrary, particularly in modern times. The biological components of masculinity (muscle mass, body hair, height and so on) have been proven, time and again, to be completely independent from sexual attraction. This is self-evident as well, given the amount of big, burly, hairy gay men. The cultural traits (mannerisms, fashion and so on) change from culture to culture and are obviously not linked with sexual attraction (or else all cultures would share the same desirable traits for masculinity). So if neither the biological nor the cultural traits assigned to masculinity are related to sexual attraction, we can conclude that heterosexuality in males has nothing to do with their virility.

The best argument you can make is that it's a cultural trait, something that society arbitrarily decides is associated with masculinity, such as ties or sports, which is a very weak justification for accepting homophobia, as this means that being gay should be as inconsequential in one's view of masculinity as refusing to wear ties or having no interest in sports. But even then, this is summarily disproved by any gay man who does check every box in the list of masculine traits, and the straight man who checks almost none.
Ignoring the statement "The biological components of masculinity (muscle mass, body hair, height and so on) have been proven, time and again, to be completely independent from sexual attraction." (which is probably why fat, hairy midgets are so popular with the ladies), of course it's a cultural and social construct born out of homophobia. That doesn't make it any less offensive when you're called it.

Darken12 said:
Now, onto this new definition of weakness, I am simply going to point out that your implication is that gay men are somehow inferior or incapable of taking on the traditional male role of being a strong head of the family (which is quickly disproved by any gay men at the head of a family, of which there are many around the world).
Stereotypes. Duh.

Darken12 said:
As an aside, the sheer amount of willpower I needed to complete this post without launching into an angry tirade of obscenities has been truly awe-inspiring. I consider it a personal milestone achieved.
Don't really see the point of avoiding obscenities and then saying that you wanted to use them. Seems to negate the effort.
 

Guestyman

New member
Nov 23, 2009
71
0
0
matthew_lane said:
Novaova said:
I can't get into it, not without inviting a ban. The red mist is already descending. I'm out.
Don't get angry, get smart. Stop for a second & perform a few seconds of introspection: Are you getting angry because you think i'm saying something bigoted, or are you getting angry because you've realised i'm not saying something bigoted: That what i'm saying has some credence to it.
Way to be massively patronising, dude. Novaova wasn't necessarily getting angry because what you said was massively bigoted. It could be that it was just a load of bullshit. One ass shot doesn't a trend make, man. And the point being made isn't that the use of the male gaze[footnote]which is not bullshit, and I'd seriously love to see what evidence you could possibly have for that[/footnote] doesn't inadvertently benefit non-straight people that like women, but that its use is a way of illustrating easily one of the many ways in which Gaming culture is constructed with only straight men in mind.
 

Bamkills

New member
Nov 6, 2011
6
0
0
I see this as I see many topics of this type, and its a very simple concept. If the only outcome is people being happy, why the hell not? Us in the straight population lose nothing, and there is zero harm in them having their own con.

Thats it. Live and let live. Can you dig it?
 

tyriless

New member
Aug 27, 2010
234
0
0
saleem said:
So does this mean we can have our men only clubs back?
Last I checked, you could be totally be 100% hetero and still go to a gaymer con. . Straight men and women go with their friends to gay and lesbian bars all the time. Now the question is this, are you going to be comfortable with man on man PDA? Stuff like hugging and kissing? If not, the only thing that is stopping you from going is your own homophobia.
 

Guestyman

New member
Nov 23, 2009
71
0
0
matthew_lane said:
Guestyman said:
One ass shot doesn't a trend make, man.
Its not one ass shot mate, its actually pretty common place, for both genders. At any time in which someone enters a scene for the first time who is not just attractive, but is meant to be super attractive, the slow pan (which is the actual name of the technique) is used as cinematography short hand for; beware this character is being established as very attractive, just so you know.

Guestyman said:
but that its use is a way of illustrating easily one of the many ways in which Gaming culture is constructed with only straight men in mind.
yep, totally for men. Hey you know those games literally made for girls, those are made for men too. Hey, what about words with friends, oh yeah totally for men, only men know how to spell & have friends. Come off it mate, drop the hyperbolic bullshit. Neither gaming culture, nor the gaming industry is made specifically for men.
Gaming culture != every game ever made. Stop being disingenuous.
 

Guestyman

New member
Nov 23, 2009
71
0
0
secretsantaone said:
If you play a videogame with someone, they don't know your sexuality. Hell, if you don't use voice chat online they don't even know your gender.

However, if you play in such a competitive and immature environment such as XBL, people are going to call you bad words. It really doesn't matter what you are, they'll find some way to offend you and make it stick. The same way that people will say they slept with your mother last night, of course they fucking didn't, but people get defensive of their mothers and take offense. This person is trying to offend you, no matter what your sexuality. It just so happens "******" is a great way to cause offense.

SNIP

Take "bastard". Literally it means a child who's parents weren't married when they were conceived. This was bad back in the day when sex outside of marriage was considered a cardinal sin and the resulting bastards would be cursed. Nowadays, children outside of marriage are pretty commonplace, there's no longer the same social stigma attached to the concept. However "bastard" is still a general pejorative term and is still considered a pretty serious swear word. This is because people associate it now with offense rather than it's original meaning.

Same with "******", originally targeted towards gay people when homosexuality was not tolerated whatsoever, with the changing social climate and homosexuality becoming more and more accepted by society, it's losing it's impact as "gay = bad" and is instead being used because people associate it with offense.
****** is a great way to cause offence because it's *Offensive*! Jesus Christ is that really so hard to get? When you use ****** you are not using a synonym for "bad". You are using a synonym for homosexual. You are attacking something unchangeable about me in order to make me feel bad, or you are playing on the cultural bullshit attached to straight people in order to make them feel bad because you are implying that THEY ARE LIKE ME. What about that is unclear? "******" isn't a harmless generic insult, it is a targeted slur that is deliberately designed to make me and people like me feel bad SPECIFICALLY.

We don't live in a society where gay people aren't marginalised, and I find it laughable that you seem to think we do. The word hasn't lost its homosexual meaning and all your assertions to the contrary are just wrong. I'm sorry, but it's not an arguable point. It's a question of facts and you got the facts dead wrong

I won't even get into the history of the word, or that for most queer people it can be extremely triggering for them because they routinely might have heard it as they were getting *physically assaulted*. No, I won't get into any detail about that, because the bare facts that you are defending the use of a *highly* insulting word to insult people by saying they are like me and being like me is bad should be enough to make you feel deep shame. And you consistent lack of said shame says mountains about your character as a human being. Jesus Christ. You have gone beyond insulting, and beyond insensitive. I'm now actually angry with you and think less of you as a person.

secretsantaone said:
What exactly is it that makes videogames to alienating to gays?
The slurs, the threats, and the utter lack of understanding or willingness to attempt it from people such as you. We don't want you to use that word. It is offensive. Your continued insistence that it is fine to use that word is one of the reasons why we've basically gone "Screw it, we'll have our own con."
 

tyriless

New member
Aug 27, 2010
234
0
0
matthew_lane said:
tyriless said:
Now the question is this, are you going to be comfortable with man on man PDA? Stuff like hugging and kissing? If not, the only thing that is stopping you from going is your own homophobia.
Just FYI: Being uncomfortable seeing two guys making out is not homophobia, anymnore then being put off by seeing your parents suck face in public makes you bigoted against them.
Your right: being uncomfortable around same gender PDA is not homophobia. It's only homophobia when someone feels entitled to stop it when it is amoungst consensting adult.
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
I can't think what there is to discuss except for humans are very horrible people and are scared of other things that are not them.
There are the minority who aren't horrible and aren't scared of other things that are not them. Those people are called friends.

There does need to be one. The largest demographic for geek culture are white straight men. This means the panels discussed and the content will tend to appeal more to that demographic. Cons for other demographics are healthy because it means the panels can be different and can talk about different things. And don't worry. I highly doubt you'd be banned from the Con if you don't find the genitalia of your own gender aesthetically pleasing.
 

tyriless

New member
Aug 27, 2010
234
0
0
matthew_lane said:
tyriless said:
Now the question is this, are you going to be comfortable with man on man PDA? Stuff like hugging and kissing? If not, the only thing that is stopping you from going is your own homophobia.
Just FYI: Being uncomfortable seeing two guys making out is not homophobia, anymnore then being put off by seeing your parents suck face in public makes you bigoted against them.

saleem said:
So does this mean we can have our men only clubs back?
Nope. Remember when Feminist said things like "we aren't going to take away your toys", right before taking away your toys? Yeah, they broke those toys, so you couldn't play with them anymore... Now there toys on the other hand, you aren't even allowed to look at.

I could see how you'd be mistaken in thinking that was some kind of double standard, but apparently thats because of patriarchy, or sexism, or some silly sound bite.
What toys are you talking about? Porn? Still in abundance. Men's enterainment ala strip clubs? Went to one a couple of years ago, and I bet they are still open. Mainstream entertainment? Spike TV is still on the air, last I checked. Is there stil mostly male protagonisst in every form of media? Yep, pretty much 90% (or more). Looks like you got yourself a strawman's arguement there.

Now here comes the part when you cite cherry-picked research or maybe an anecdote or two that will support your arguement abouts a well as inflatable raft could support the Titanic.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
OT: I can understand why gay gamers would want to have their own convention, but a part of me really wishes it wasn't necessary.

Can't we all just get along?
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
bastardofmelbourne said:
OT: I can understand why gay gamers would want to have their own convention, but a part of me really wishes it wasn't necessary.

Can't we all just get along?
I wanna reply to you and say this cos 1) you have hats in your avatar and 2) you seem like you'd understand more when I say:

This is not gay gamers having their own con. This is gay gamers having a gay-friendly con. A place where they can go a mingle and have fun without being mocked for what they say or do or wear. It is not exclusive for LGBT people, straight people can come join in too! It is about being more inclusive. Not less!

This isn't a situation so sexually charged that there's confusion when you mix people of different sexualities. This isn't a gay bar. This is just a convention, anyone can go wherever they want. It's just held under the pretenses that it's a little more all-inclusive (in particular to sexual preference minorities) than most gaming conventions. That's all. Really. I mean, in my town we have an LGBT-focused dance/club night sort of thing, but the ratio is still like 1:1 straight/gay people... it's an community thing to ensure that LGBT people who have felt uncomfortable elsewhere can come and feel much, much safer in their own skin. Y'see? It's not about setting up "you and me" barriers, it's about knocking down those barriers. If it wasn't, no-one'd show up!

matthew_lane said:
This is the same nonsense we got when women complained that men were keeping them out of convention events, that it was some sort of boys club & then they turned around and created all female cliques like the Frag Dolls. So totally lame.
I wasn't going to try and change you mind. Meh. You, too - read what I wrote above and if you can come up against with an argument against that then I'll write you off. I'm sure you understand. This is not designed to cage out "the straights" any more than it is designed to cage in LGBT. Who the hell wants to be caged in? No-one. No-one but the perpetually horny would attend a gaming convention that is LGBT-only. What would be the bloody point in that? Especially when bisexuals are gonna show up. And transgenders. And lesbians (gay men looking to shag LOVE going to mingle in a convention hall filled with equally horny women, right?) ...no. That's not the kind of convention we're talking about. It is about being a safe place to be, not a No Straights Allowed pillow fort/treehouse.
 

Xanex

New member
Jun 18, 2012
117
0
0
Spot1990 said:
There's a list of the panels. That's what's different.
And none of those panels could be included in regular cons because of what? And yes I took a look at them. If you are looking for developers of give more thought to the "gaymer" as you state. Then wouldn't those panels better serve your cause at a established con where the industry already focuses?