Thread Topic - LGBT and Video Games

[Lightknight]

Oh, so if I see the right post on page 2 you appear to be disagreeing putting it in a game where it does not make sense to discuss sexuality. Is that correct?

Well yeah the thing we agreed is that you can't really fit lgbt themes into most games in purposeful ways. Realistic LGBT endeavors are mostly social and it's a social movement. Outside the context of a romanticized anime world, such as catherine or persona, adults use their sexuality in only a small handful of decisions they make, most of those decisions have no reason to be in a video game. Dating drama, or lobbying for legal rights, don't translate well into video games(games like crusader kings 2 do a good job of sexual drama, but it's not a very poetic approach).

LGBT themes are at the middle and second to the top on maslows hierarchy of needs, and video games best cover the basic two needs of the hierarchy, such as survival of yourself, of your race, whatever, since ultimately they must have gameplay and execution of motor functions.

Here are some of my favorite games, of which LGBT themes wouldn't contribute anything significant to the narrative.

-homeworld
-neverwinter nights
-mario sunshine
-quake
-jedi knight: academy

some people would consider a game like quake to not even have a narrative, but it's still a classic game, once again video games are suited to cover other types of endeavors.

Now the guy I was talking about earlier stated that pseudo dynamic main characters means there is potential for purposeful LGBT themes, which could be. But from looking at something like mass effect 3(not one of biowares best games), or skyrim (The "choices" the game gave you where laughable, or boiling down to one option vs skipping the sidequest. Dark brotherhood was okay but most of the games decisions had no meaning) I don't see the potential.

Interesting, thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I think it would be more apropos to say that sexuality shouldn't be shoehorned in rather than specifically LGBT themes but I get what you're saying.

 

[Duster]

I think it would be more apropos to say that sexuality shouldn't be shoehorned in rather than specifically LGBT themes

Yeah you could say that.

 

[Something Amyss]

I had a long discussion with a gentleman earlier, we discussed it. page 1-2.

*shrug* Well, if it's been discussed, I guess there's no point in conversation. I mean, it didn't look like much was discussed on pages 1 or 2 (which is why I asked), but since you appear to be closing the door on this, I won't pursue it.

Still seems a ridiculous notion to me, though.

 

[grassgremlin]

Snip

Last I checked there's hasn't been a game that existed that I know of that had "social commentary" for being straight.
Why do we need some educational artistic introspective struggles of a gay man? I just wanna play a hot piece of male ass that likes dudes.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

As long as that's the game they wanted to make in the first place, then go ahead.

Though, just because the game is diverse or progressive doesn't make it a better game.

 

[Little Gray]

Here are some of my favorite games, of which LGBT themes wouldn't contribute anything significant to the narrative.

The list of games in which a LGBT theme wouldn't contribute anything of significance is pretty much a list of nearly every single game ever made. I have yet to see a single game where LGBT themes contribute anything at all to a game. I am not saying they are bad or should not be added but I have yet to see a game where a persons sexuality is relevant in any way at all.

 

[Musette]

I think we're starting to see more of that. The whole "metrosexual" fad in the last decade was sort of a step towards trying to revolutionize the industry. It just didn't seem to stick. Either male culture or even male biology (or both) is resistant to the concept.

We're also seeing a kind of counterculture in females too though. I mean, sure, people ***** about you wearing masculine formal wear but if I were to walk into any business today then the pant suit is everywhere I look. On a side note regarding casual-wear, my wife bought some jeans for males yesterday and she was practically livid at how comfortable they were. She doesn't like the ass-hugging pant-style and the fact that these jeans had actual functional pockets (come on, girl-jean pockets are a joke) made her think about how ridiculous the style getting forced on her otherwise was. But, since I don't care, I actually prefer women that dress for comfort because I like real people who aren't putting on a face all the time, I mentioned that she never had to buy a pair of girl-jeans again. It's not like they're even that distinguishable besides how loose they are on the body. Whoever complains that they can't see the outline of a girl's ass in their jeans simply isn't going to matter to us where opinions are concerned.

I think that the whole attempt to feminize men's formal wear comes with the whole issue of people looking down on men who like to do "feminine" things. When dressing a certain way puts you at risk of physical violence, the marketing is probably going to be a bit more challenging.

Still, there is certainly more leeway to women to present with otherwise masculine associated clothing. Some people might silently judge when you wear pantsuits in non-business situations, but I certainly have not received any particularly bad backlash. While my performance concerns are valid, I do admit to using them more as an excuse when people question my attire. It's actually funny how apathetic I am about clothing 99% of the time when compared to how excited I get about performance attire/my more 'masculine' formal wear.

As far as casual wear goes, I can definitely understand why your wife was so happy with those jeans! (And rock on for encouraging her to dress as she pleases.) I have some women's jeans with deep pockets, but with the exception of 1 pair (that frankly look/feel like men's jeans), they're just not great for everyday wear. I've actually been thinking about buying some men's jeans lately just so I can have more than 3 pairs of casual pants that I actually like wearing. I don't understand why so much of women's clothing has to be designed to show every curve on the body. Yeah, if you like wearing that style, be my guest, but it's annoying that the only other option is to shop in the men's department.

Don't apologize for the "wall of text", that is a very interesting perspective to hear and I appreciate you taking the time to respond and not taking offense to my asking the question.

Do you think a character that simply expresses disinterest would be a good example? Like someone given the opportunity of either gender but just isn't going for it? Someone who is contextually resistant to any relationship may come off as a better representation than some explicitly stated PSA like you were saying. Interesting, I admit I just hadn't considered it before but thank you for broadening my horizon on the matter.

I have a tendency to be long-winded with little provocation, so apologizing for the length is almost second-nature. Still, even though I haven't been asking many questions myself, (I usually try to be more deliberate about volleying questions back and forth,) I always appreciate an exchange of perspectives.

Actually, the kind of example you bring up is as close I get to talking about my identity offline. (For me personally, I don't think the "closet" narrative really works with my orientation, as I do not feign interest to appear straight; but, if I have to express my disinterest, I explicitly avoid the term "asexual" to avoid the stronger reactions that come from hearing that term.) Either way, your thoughts are much more preferable to what I normally see.

Come to think of it, a lot of the excuses for not believing a character who explicitly states that they're just not interested in anyone that way as are the same exact excuses people use to talk someone out of identifying as asexual: "They haven't met the right person yet," "maybe there's something wrong with them," "maybe they're lying," "maybe there's some super traumatic past event that made them this way" etc.. It'd still have to be handled with care to avoid the PSA trap, whether by explicitly avoiding the cut-and-paste most common asexual experiences or by just not dwelling on the topic.

I will admit though that even if there was such a character, my ability to relate to them would probably depend on tons of factors unrelated to sexuality as well, but I still appreciate diversity where I can find it.

Still, the asexual community has an incredible way of segmenting itself, so I could see some people wanting to see every "type" of asexual under the sun get represented one way or another. (Believe it or not, I'm technically a minority within the asexual community for not being just as disinterested in romance as I am with sex, and romantic preference really creates some huge differences in experiences. Most of the time you see PSA-style asexual characters, they usually are the sort that want romance. No shocker because it's instant relationship drama in a narrative, but I guess that's all the more reason why I can't relate. I don't mind not totally relating, but yet again, they just take the most common situations and make the same boring tropes of their own. Oh, an asexual in a romantic relationship with someone who really likes sex? Let me guess, there's going to be fighting about it, "you don't really love me if you won't have sex with me" and "you only want me for my body" guilt trips, attempts at compromise, with the characters either making it work or going separate ways. I could go into way more details, but my responses do have a way of getting long and it's already long enough as is. I'd apologize for my rambling, but I assume that'd be rude after you asked me not to apologize for the length of my last response.)

 

[Hofstadter]

As a gay man. I couldnt care less, don't see how a dude wanting to take it up the butt makes much difference to anything.

But then I am an oddity, I have never desired "representation" or wanted to see myself in anything.

 

[cleric of the order]

Snip

Last I checked there's hasn't been a game that existed that I know of that had "social commentary" for being straight.
Why do we need some educational artistic introspective struggles of a gay man? I just wanna play a hot piece of male ass that likes dudes.

Oh well then, that's your thing then.
Not sure what to make of it.
It's good to re-frame this discussion anyhow, I may have knee-jerked a little to hard, (my nose is still bleeding).
I meant that if we want flushed out chars.
Or even the framed discussion.
Dude, honestly speaking when does you are gay enter into conversation in your daily life, I'd hazard very rarely because your sexuality really shouldn't come up that often.
I could understand want to play someone also gay but if you want open and outside of a rpg I have to ask how can it really enter into conversation?
Why would it matter a lot of the the time that a person in a life or death situation.
My reasoning is that a game that would be relevant would need to make it matter thematically or in the story itself.
I may have done a piss poor job at explaining that assumption but that's par for the course with me anyway.
Nor does it make my previous post any less stupid.
You can have any damn thing you want but you have to either make it yourself or some how change the perspective of the AAA lowest common denominator or target audience or whatever.
It's a dnd 3.5e thing, you can do everything if you know how to do it.
Personally I don't care, game chars are game chars, we have the most diverse cast of chars compared to any medium, chars will come, chars will go but only good design, writing and game play survives the test of time.

 

[Silvanus]

Dude, honestly speaking when does you are gay enter into conversation in your daily life, I'd hazard very rarely because your sexuality really shouldn't come up that often.

Relationships, on the other hand, come up very frequently, both IRL and in media and art. Wanting gay characters doesn't necessarily mean wanting the sexuality itself to be a major theme.

(...Though I'm not averse to games exploring sexuality as a theme, either).

Personally I don't care, game chars are game chars, we have the most diverse cast of chars compared to any medium

Out of interest, why do you believe this?

I'd have thought literature was more likely to hold that crown.

 

[poundingmetal74]

I'm all for LGBT content in games (or just an outright LGBT game). I think it's fantastic to see a gay character in a game, and I really enjoyed Gone Home (Much of the stories in the game hit a little too close to home for me not to enjoy it). LGBT games/content can be done well, and it's always great to see oneself included in a game. Plus it gives others the chance to experience something new and empathize more with LGBT people.

With that said, sexuality is part of the human experience, while I think it ought to be explored, I don't want it to be the be-all, end-all of games. Let games help us to explore multiple aspects of what it means to be human.

 

[cleric of the order]

Dude, honestly speaking when does you are gay enter into conversation in your daily life, I'd hazard very rarely because your sexuality really shouldn't come up that often.

Relationships, on the other hand, come up very frequently, both IRL and in media and art. Wanting gay characters doesn't necessarily mean wanting the sexuality itself to be a major theme.

(...Though I'm not averse to games exploring sexuality as a theme, either).

Again this seems to be one of my assumptions or at least in discrepancy, a sexual/romantic relationship, belies the nature of a persons sexuality in my eyes.
So what I have to carry though is the same thing, you would need to expose the inner workings of you life to display that relationship and often games do not do that, less so now in the modern ape film era.
Gaming is about action, and often in the events that transpire in those actions you don't reveal the intimate lives of the characters in question.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist nor does it mean it matters.
I have to sometimes remember that as much as we all know Mario, none of us actually does know what he is outside of his games. WE know him, what he is made of because we have shared his struggles but not what side of the coin he flips if you get my meaning.
And we shouldn't same with samus.
Or any other char, we are there to work with them.
But that might just be the SB swords and sorcery repeating on me again.
Yeah, if you want it often you are in for the whole pound, you have to explain the necessarily in this person is gay or else it sticks out like a sore thumb.
I think there was a writers rule of never adding things a that are not important to the plot and insofar, sexual preference is largely irrelevant.
I hate how utilitarian that statement it is I suppose reasonable until someone can slap me out of my tired state. frankly I think I should spirit myself to bed after this.
Also to your last statement, Neither am I.

Personally I don't care, game chars are game chars, we have the most diverse cast of chars compared to any medium

Out of interest, why do you believe this?

I'd have thought literature was more likely to hold that crown.

[/quote]
We'd have to grab a universal census to be sure but I have to say I believe it because video games have had so many different beings.
Not race, creed or gender (which it has done all), but creature, idea and design.
It's the gift of being a visual and not wholly narrative driven medium and while I love my writing it does not have the escapism gaming does either.
So writing will often find itself with more flushed out chars' and gaming more diverse either all number of creatures and concepts taking the stage.
It's also good to remember in literature one may not need a chars at all or even describe them that far, I'll never forget finding out that "croaker" of the black company was a 6' something guy that looked like a sexual predator, that was weird, how did glen manage 6+ books without mentioning it?
better yet of that gaming is a new medium, vibrant with early expression and chaotic self indulgence.
Although I do think the nes - 64 era was the best one to be gaming in as a child.
And this current generation does not have the wit and pluck of the earlier ages, like a fat old walrus trying to forget Lessons learned from John Romario.
Truth is I'm just throwing science at the wall to see what sticks, Man i need to go to bed.
Also I may have consumed more games then novels and other forms of literature or the course of my life, shame I know.
I can gut a omnibus in less then a month but I can play a game in a weekend.

 

[Silvanus]

Again this seems to be one of my assumptions or at least in discrepancy, a sexual/romantic relationship, belies the nature of a persons sexuality in my eyes.
So what I have to carry though is the same thing, you would need to expose the inner workings of you life to display that relationship and often games do not do that, less so now in the modern ape film era.
Gaming is about action, and often in the events that transpire in those actions you don't reveal the intimate lives of the characters in question.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist nor does it mean it matters.
I have to sometimes remember that as much as we all know Mario, none of us actually does know what he is outside of his games. WE know him, what he is made of because we have shared his struggles but not what side of the coin he flips if you get my meaning.
And we shouldn't same with samus.
Or any other char, we are there to work with them.
But that might just be the SB swords and sorcery repeating on me again.
Yeah, if you want it often you are in for the whole pound, you have to explain the necessarily in this person is gay or else it sticks out like a sore thumb.
I think there was a writers rule of never adding things a that are not important to the plot and insofar, sexual preference is largely irrelevant.
I hate how utilitarian that statement it is I suppose reasonable until someone can slap me out of my tired state. frankly I think I should spirit myself to bed after this.
Also to your last statement, Neither am I.

Well, you've chosen characters who are primarily known for very simple games. Of course romance won't come into Super Mario Brothers or classic Metroid.

They're not the kind of game I'm talking about. Lots of games feature a lot more characterisation, and romance comes up frequently in RPGs.

As for the writer's rule, about never adding in something unnecessary... I'm unconvinced about whether it's a good rule, but even if it is, writers break it all the time for straight romances anyway. It is the discrepancy I dislike.

We'd have to grab a universal census to be sure but I have to say I believe it because video games have had so many different beings.
Not race, creed or gender (which it has done all), but creature, idea and design.
It's the gift of being a visual and not wholly narrative driven medium and while I love my writing it does not have the escapism gaming does either.
So writing will often find itself with more flushed out chars' and gaming more diverse either all number of creatures and concepts taking the stage.
It's also good to remember in literature one may not need a chars at all or even describe them that far, I'll never forget finding out that "croaker" of the black company was a 6' something guy that looked like a sexual predator, that was weird, how did glen manage 6+ books without mentioning it?
better yet of that gaming is a new medium, vibrant with early expression and chaotic self indulgence.
Although I do think the nes - 64 era was the best one to be gaming in as a child.
And this current generation does not have the wit and pluck of the earlier ages, like a fat old walrus trying to forget Lessons learned from John Romario.

Well, diversity in terms of creatures and such is one thing. I encourage that too, but representation is another issue entirely, unless there are real-life Asura [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Asura] and Tauren [http://www.wowwiki.com/Tauren_(playable)] looking to be represented more in their media.

 

[GloatingSwine]

We'd have to grab a universal census to be sure but I have to say I believe it because video games have had so many different beings.
Not race, creed or gender (which it has done all), but creature, idea and design.
It's the gift of being a visual and not wholly narrative driven medium and while I love my writing it does not have the escapism gaming does either.
So writing will often find itself with more flushed out chars' and gaming more diverse either all number of creatures and concepts taking the stage.

Videogames have had far less diverse and imaginative casts than novels, particularly SF/F novels. It's only an abject lack of awareness of other media that allows you to say that games are "more diverse". Much of the diversity in games is directly derivative of SF/F writing to start with!

 

[cleric of the order]

[
Well, you've chosen characters who are primarily known for very simple games. Of course romance won't come into Super Mario Brothers or classic Metroid.

They're not the kind of game I'm talking about. Lots of games feature a lot more characterisation, and romance comes up frequently in RPGs.

As for the writer's rule, about never adding in something unnecessary... I'm unconvinced about whether it's a good rule, but even if it is, writers break it all the time for straight romances anyway. It is the discrepancy I dislike.

I've never fully liked the "rule" either but I've seen to many people ,myself included titter on about frivolous things.
Yes they are simple, does that make them weak, no.
I understand they are not narrative driven games, but these are still important, up into this point in history I'd hazard that the majority of games were not narrative driven and to this there remains quite a mix.
That being said not only is the modern WRPGs the option for romance of either sex is often allowed. Then again my representative sample is rather low, I haven't had the time or money to examine all of the new rpgs. I'll go check steam.

[
Well, diversity in terms of creatures and such is one thing. I encourage that too, but representation is another issue entirely, unless there are real-life Asura [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Asura] and Tauren [http://www.wowwiki.com/Tauren_(playable)] looking to be represented more in their media.

So, I will never argue against someone being represented, I will however argue that it lies in the hands of the person that feels it needs to be changed.
Only they can really represent themselves and their message and if more... everyone got into gaming development then the medium itself would be a more interesting just by the diversity of voices.
Anything else is just idle chatter, action belies intent as I like to hammer that nail.
And of all the things, sexuality is banal but an interesting topic none the less, perhaps it's just the place I've been raised but we haven't really cared about sexuality in a negative light, oddly enough the homosexual dudes were treated better then others in the groups they were in... from what I've seen and heard. Given time I don't doubt people will just stop caring about these divisions in general.
The bottom line i it's up to the creator to make whatever the heck they want, if they choose not to do so when well it's not my place to judge, simply to either buy it, not or make my own.
Come to think of it I should go work on the game I wanted to make, I think I'm just goign to flush out the concept, I've tried programming it before... and that was horrible.
And I should go hit up /tg/ to actually work build those d20 autism and psychotic rules.

 

[Lightknight]

I think that the whole attempt to feminize men's formal wear comes with the whole issue of people looking down on men who like to do "feminine" things. When dressing a certain way puts you at risk of physical violence, the marketing is probably going to be a bit more challenging.

Thankfully, it looks like society is moving pretty rapidly towards no caring what other people do by way of self expression and the people who would express hate and enact violence are becoming more at risk themselves. I mean, I think our generation (if you and I are similar in age) has been raised to see the aggressor as the villain nowadays.

Still, there is certainly more leeway to women to present with otherwise masculine associated clothing. Some people might silently judge when you wear pantsuits in non-business situations, but I certainly have not received any particularly bad backlash. While my performance concerns are valid, I do admit to using them more as an excuse when people question my attire. It's actually funny how apathetic I am about clothing 99% of the time when compared to how excited I get about performance attire/my more 'masculine' formal wear.

It's funny but I find the pantsuit to be really attractive and fashionable when done right. So I don't get why people would judge others on those lines. But then again, I don't understand why people would judge others on clothing choices in general rather than maybe the lack thereof?

As far as casual wear goes, I can definitely understand why your wife was so happy with those jeans! (And rock on for encouraging her to dress as she pleases.) I have some women's jeans with deep pockets, but with the exception of 1 pair (that frankly look/feel like men's jeans), they're just not great for everyday wear. I've actually been thinking about buying some men's jeans lately just so I can have more than 3 pairs of casual pants that I actually like wearing. I don't understand why so much of women's clothing has to be designed to show every curve on the body. Yeah, if you like wearing that style, be my guest, but it's annoying that the only other option is to shop in the men's department.

Well, I don't know what your personal social circle is like but if you want some more men's style jeans then yeah, go get them. Do you really want to cater to the sort of people who are so shallow as to judge you for your clothing choice?

I think that's something that really struck me when speaking to my friends who deal with this sort of unjust public bias for various reasons. The people whose opinions you want to value are the people who accept you as a person with well rounded set of hopes and dreams before they just decide you're a pair of men's jeans or man's formal attire. But I certainly understand caring what other people think.

I have a tendency to be long-winded with little provocation, so apologizing for the length is almost second-nature. Still, even though I haven't been asking many questions myself, (I usually try to be more deliberate about volleying questions back and forth,) I always appreciate an exchange of perspectives.

I would be entirely hypocritical if I took any sort of offense at long-windiness.

Actually, the kind of example you bring up is as close I get to talking about my identity offline. (For me personally, I don't think the "closet" narrative really works with my orientation, as I do not feign interest to appear straight; but, if I have to express my disinterest, I explicitly avoid the term "asexual" to avoid the stronger reactions that come from hearing that term.) Either way, your thoughts are much more preferable to what I normally see.

Do you think it's just the term "asexual" that people have a problem with? I would think the comment "I'm just not interested in romantic relationships" wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps there's a stigma bias on the term alone rather than that you don't find people attractive? I just don't get why people would be inflammatory towards people who answer in the null. I mean, even the conservative crowd shouldn't have any sort of issue with that since there's certainly not a command to romance. In fact, one could suspect that Paul of the Christian faith was discussing his asexuality when he recommended people remain single like him unless they "burn" for another. Seems to indicate that he doesn't burn for others. But that may be a stretch I guess.

Still, the asexual community has an incredible way of segmenting itself, so I could see some people wanting to see every "type" of asexual under the sun get represented one way or another. (Believe it or not, I'm technically a minority within the asexual community for not being just as disinterested in romance as I am with sex, and romantic preference really creates some huge differences in experiences.

Interesting, so you have a variance in interest levels regarding romance vs sex. Hmm, I could see that. Which do you prefer or not prefer most? If you don't mind my asking, that is, if you feel uncomfortable at all you can drop any sort of response without resentment on my part.

I could understand someone having more interest in sex just for the mechanical pleasure of it but your wording seemed to indicate that the weight was heavier on the romance side but the wording below seems to be the opposite or just expressing boredom at them using the same old story mechanics.

Most of the time you see PSA-style asexual characters, they usually are the sort that want romance. No shocker because it's instant relationship drama in a narrative, but I guess that's all the more reason why I can't relate. I don't mind not totally relating, but yet again, they just take the most common situations and make the same boring tropes of their own. Oh, an asexual in a romantic relationship with someone who really likes sex? Let me guess, there's going to be fighting about it, "you don't really love me if you won't have sex with me" and "you only want me for my body" guilt trips, attempts at compromise, with the characters either making it work or going separate ways. I could go into way more details, but my responses do have a way of getting long and it's already long enough as is. I'd apologize for my rambling, but I assume that'd be rude after you asked me not to apologize for the length of my last response.)

Interesting. Do many Asexuals pursue relationships for one thing or another despite being asexual?

 

[cleric of the order]

We'd have to grab a universal census to be sure but I have to say I believe it because video games have had so many different beings.
Not race, creed or gender (which it has done all), but creature, idea and design.
It's the gift of being a visual and not wholly narrative driven medium and while I love my writing it does not have the escapism gaming does either.
So writing will often find itself with more flushed out chars' and gaming more diverse either all number of creatures and concepts taking the stage.

Videogames have had far less diverse and imaginative casts than novels, particularly SF/F novels. It's only an abject lack of awareness of other media that allows you to say that games are "more diverse". Much of the diversity in games is directly derivative of SF/F writing to start with!

Well then I would say I don't know quite a lot of the other genres of SF/F, I stick with my swords and Sorcery novels and I don't often venture into places beyond the dark side of the moon so I will concede ignorance.
I do however remember hearing about something called race-fail, I have no idea what It's about really, the most I've heard it was some racism kerfuffle.
I figured if there was some controversy about misrepresentation and homogenization and I spoke without full knowledge I'm sorry.
Worse so I'd have remembered that literature as a whole can include graphic novels in some definitions, and poems and more abstract works that I do enjoy.
Even then I still think video games have a more diverse cast then we've been giving them credit for and even more unexplored potential as a medium, and I'll admit that we do have to wait before we can really claim much.
But I still can;t help thinking about the early days, oh damn different the chars were.
How different they are to most mediums to begin with.
Like good heavens Freaken Pac man.
While he has the depth of a kiddie pool in winter but these sorts of thins remind me that Gaming has the potential to explore past enough human motivations and deliver something truly alien.

 

[Raikas]

I am not saying they are bad or should not be added but I have yet to see a game where a persons sexuality is relevant in any way at all.

Eh, I can see how that would be true if you're primarily playing puzzle or racing games, but as soon as you move into story-related ones, there's a solid number of games where a character's motivations are related to the person they're involved with. And what's that if not giving relevance to their sexuality?

 

[Musette]

Whoooo, wall of text alert.

Thankfully, it looks like society is moving pretty rapidly towards no caring what other people do by way of self expression and the people who would express hate and enact violence are becoming more at risk themselves. I mean, I think our generation (if you and I are similar in age) has been raised to see the aggressor as the villain nowadays.

Agreed! While there are still plenty of people who care way too much, I guess I'm on the optimistic side in seeing the trend lean closer to people not caring. I still get implied judgement, but that brushes off easily because I don't take it to heart. I've had more direct comments, but they were always easy to shrug off with no hurt feelings on either side.

It's funny but I find the pantsuit to be really attractive and fashionable when done right. So I don't get why people would judge others on those lines. But then again, I don't understand why people would judge others on clothing choices in general rather than maybe the lack thereof?

Yeah, a lot of pantsuits still look plenty feminine, and suits in general are pretty universally awesome if you ask me! (I will admit that finding a good women's suit jacket is a struggle though, especially because I have broad shoulders, but an otherwise small build. It's almost embarrassing how long it took for me to try on a men's suit jacket in my size and discover just how much better of a fit they were.) Maybe in certain situations, I can rationalize why someone might judge someone else's attire, but I still don't understand the obsession with that sort of judgement.

Well, I don't know what your personal social circle is like but if you want some more men's style jeans then yeah, go get them. Do you really want to cater to the sort of people who are so shallow as to judge you for your clothing choice?

I think that's something that really struck me when speaking to my friends who deal with this sort of unjust public bias for various reasons. The people whose opinions you want to value are the people who accept you as a person with well rounded set of hopes and dreams before they just decide you're a pair of men's jeans or man's formal attire. But I certainly understand caring what other people think.

I can't say I really give much weight to the views of my peers about how I dress, (wearing clothing that other people pressure me to wear just feels dishonest for some reason,) so that's not really an issue for me. I'm still pretty financially dependent on my family, (I'm a university student close to finishing my first of four degrees that I'm working toward, not to mention that my family's very tight-knit, to the point where I hear from them multiple times each day,) which would mean I'd have to explain/justify the purchase one way or another. I'm just waiting for more opportune timing I suppose.

I definitely agree with your sentiments about whose opinions are worth valuing! It actually is almost funny how strongly some people react to that topic. Fortunately, the people that matter most don't give me crap, and I feel like that's how it should be. Admittedly, I'm a little nervous that I might get judged for not wearing a dress for a specific event that's coming up (I'm going to be featured as a soloist with the university orchestra behind me early next year, performing one of my favorite concertos), but my family offered to rent me a white tuxedo for that night, so hopefully, that will be formal enough. (And otherwise, I suppose I should just do what I normally do and value my opinion on my attire above that of strangers and peers.)

Do you think it's just the term "asexual" that people have a problem with? I would think the comment "I'm just not interested in romantic relationships" wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps there's a stigma bias on the term alone rather than that you don't find people attractive? I just don't get why people would be inflammatory towards people who answer in the null. I mean, even the conservative crowd shouldn't have any sort of issue with that since there's certainly not a command to romance. In fact, one could suspect that Paul of the Christian faith was discussing his asexuality when he recommended people remain single like him unless they "burn" for another. Seems to indicate that he doesn't burn for others. But that may be a stretch I guess.

I think that there is this air of permanence that makes some people react strongly to the term asexual in particular. I think the term is interpreted as saying "I've never been attracted to anyone, and I never will!" and I think that's what creates the strong reaction. Some people think it's like you're making some permanent decision about yourself and not just describing yourself with a term that accurately contextualizes your feelings and experiences. (Hence why the tired "you just haven't met the right person" argument comes up almost inevitably.) I think that some people are also weary of excessive labeling, which attached a kind of stigma to any orientation other than gay, straight, and maybe bi.

It's actually kinda funny how split the conservative crowd seems to be about asexuality. On one hand, the argument you mention about Paul is often cited as a reason to accept sexuality, and have read cases where churches accept their asexual members. (Some hypothesize that some religious asexuals may have found their place among the clergy throughout history, which sounds logical enough.) Yet, on the other hand, I have heard of churches being unwelcome to asexuals for reasons such as "rejecting god's gift of sexuality" and ignoring the "be fruitful and multiply" thing (even though sexual orientation doesn't exactly determine if you want kids or not).

Interesting, so you have a variance in interest levels regarding romance vs sex. Hmm, I could see that. Which do you prefer or not prefer most? If you don't mind my asking, that is, if you feel uncomfortable at all you can drop any sort of response without resentment on my part.

I could understand someone having more interest in sex just for the mechanical pleasure of it but your wording seemed to indicate that the weight was heavier on the romance side but the wording below seems to be the opposite or just expressing boredom at them using the same old story mechanics.

I have no trouble answering those questions! Although I avoid some questions offline because I don't want to gamble with negative reactions from people who I have to interact with regularly, I'm otherwise a pretty open book about my own matters.

I apologize for some of my typos/unclear writing in that quoted paragraph especially. I meant to say that I'm basically in the minority because I am not romantically inclined. The common terminology for this is Romantic Orientation, which describes what gender you are more inclined to fall in love with, nebulous as that is. (For example, I would count as "aromantic" as opposed to heteroromantic, biromantic, etc. I avoid using these terms offline even more than I avoid using the word "asexual" because of the excessive labeling knee-jerk reactions.) A person has "mismatched orientations" when their romantic and sexual orientations differ, as they can theoretically occur in any combination. Based on most of the surveys I've seen, most asexuals have mismatched orientations, meaning that they do fall in romantic love, which makes their relationship with asexuality very different from my own.

Actually, another way asexuals divide themselves is by their responses to sex. For example, sex-repulsed would imply that the person would respond very poorly to being in a sexual situation (it's a sort of declaration that the person is absolutely not comfortable engaging in sexual contact under most/any circumstances) as opposed to sex-neutral. I have heard of asexuals enjoying the physical pleasure of sex even without the inherent attraction, but usually those people have a better time coming to an agreement with their partners about sex, and those who are on the repulsed side of things are more likely to speak up out of a need for advice. (You also see "libidoist" and "non-libidoist" as descriptors of sex drive as independent from orientation. Like I said, the asexual community finds a lot of ways to categorize people/segment itself.)

(I think one of the biggest problems with asexual visibility is the sheer size of the information dump that people present with it.)

Interesting. Do many Asexuals pursue relationships for one thing or another despite being asexual?

As I alluded to above, there's a pretty significant chunk of the asexual community that does desire/engage in romantic relationships. Mixed relationships are more common than asexual/asexual relationships, so there's never a shortage of people venting about their partner or looking for advice on the topic. Most of the asexual visibility I've seen primarily focuses on asexuals who pursue romantic relationships, probably because romance is often associated with sex one way or another.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

A game can't be "gay". It's a thing.