534 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

Nodscouter wrote...

Fine, perhaps disease or illnes are the wrong words. I guess ''Genetic condition'' would be more proper or something. Not sure, never cared much about biology to figure out exactly where the problem is located.

And really, sex is made for reproduction. You can only reproduce with a person of the other gender. Therefore, if someone is ******/bisexual, something is malfunctioning.
By the way, guess what? Alot of diseases can't be cured. That doesn't make them not diseases. That just make them diseases that can't be cured. And besides, I think we'll find a cure for ******/bisexuality in the next 100 years.
And please understand, I'm not saying that they should be looked down upon, in any way! You may try to think that's what I'm saying, but it really isn't.
And we don't really have a choice. It's not a lifestyle. You choose a lifestyle. A lifestyle defines you in many ways. Sexuality doesn't.
And I still don't think it's degrading.

*shakes head*

It's not a genetic condition. There is no difference between a gay person and a non-gay person. One can reproduce and one can't. Big deal. A lot of people who can reproduce don't necessarily have children even though it's an option available to them. A lot of gay people become parents. There's nothing wrong with that. There is NOTHING wrong with a gay or bi person, there is nothing biologically at fault. 

[IanPolaris]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Yes, sexual identity is hugely important in defining a character.  The gender to which I'm sexually attracted is "a key component of my personality".
That's cute.

It's true.  Freud may have been wrong about many things, but he was dead right about the central nature of our sexuality in human pyschology.  Whether you realize this or not is another matter.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 10 mai 2011 - 12:50 .

[Leonia]

Nodscouter wrote...

leonia42 wrote...
Please elaborate. What kind of "deviance" is it?

Deviance from the norm. Around 97-98% of the world is straight.

Where the hell is that statistic coming from? Has every human being on earth been included in that poll? What about teenagers and pre-teenagers that haven't had romantic relationships yet?

[IanPolaris]

leonia42 wrote...
*shakes head*

It's not a genetic condition. There is no difference between a gay person and a non-gay person. One can reproduce and one can't. Big deal. A lot of people who can reproduce don't necessarily have children even though it's an option available to them. A lot of gay people become parents. There's nothing wrong with that. There is NOTHING wrong with a gay or bi person, there is nothing biologically at fault. 

You certain about that?  Last time I heard there was at least some evidence that people with different sexualities had very slightly different brain chemistries and some of that is indeed genetic.  I am not saying one sexuality is superior or anything like that....all I am saying is that most of the population has well defined sexuality and it should be reflected in the game....and decrying those that say this is taking Political Korrectness too damn far IMHO.

-Polaris

[Nodscouter]

Not really Ian, it doesn't have any real psychological differences except for the sexuality itself. It does have some physical differences though, like gay men generally having longer fingers than non-gay.

leonia42 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...

Fine, perhaps disease or illnes are the wrong words. I guess ''Genetic condition'' would be more proper or something. Not sure, never cared much about biology to figure out exactly where the problem is located.

And really, sex is made for reproduction. You can only reproduce with a person of the other gender. Therefore, if someone is ******/bisexual, something is malfunctioning.
By the way, guess what? Alot of diseases can't be cured. That doesn't make them not diseases. That just make them diseases that can't be cured. And besides, I think we'll find a cure for ******/bisexuality in the next 100 years.
And please understand, I'm not saying that they should be looked down upon, in any way! You may try to think that's what I'm saying, but it really isn't.
And we don't really have a choice. It's not a lifestyle. You choose a lifestyle. A lifestyle defines you in many ways. Sexuality doesn't.
And I still don't think it's degrading.

*shakes head*

It's not a genetic condition. There is no difference between a gay person and a non-gay person. One can reproduce and one can't. Big deal. A lot of people who can reproduce don't necessarily have children even though it's an option available to them. A lot of gay people become parents. There's nothing wrong with that. There is NOTHING wrong with a gay or bi person, there is nothing biologically at fault. 

Except there is difference between gays and non-gays? Just not personality-wise?
And it may not be a big deal, but a lot of diseases and genetic conditions aren't a big deal. Just a bit different.
I'm looking at this from a rational, scientific point of view. You however, look at it from an ethics point of view. So yes, there is something wrong with us, but it doesn't have to make us worse than others. It doesn't have to make us not normal. It's not a big deal. But it's still there.

leonia42 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...

leonia42 wrote...
Please elaborate. What kind of "deviance" is it?

Deviance from the norm. Around 97-98% of the world is straight.

Where the hell is that statistic coming from? Has every human being on earth been included in that poll? What about teenagers and pre-teenagers that haven't had romantic relationships yet?

Wikipedia, sue me.
I looked at a few different polls around the world, and it seemed to average around 1-3% of the population being gay or bi.

Modifié par Nodscouter, 10 mai 2011 - 12:56 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Nodscouter wrote...
I'm not afraid of myself, so I'm not homophobic. I'm also not insulting myself, I'm quite arrogant you see.
But still, it's a genetic condition I guess you could say, for reasons already explained. Something is wrong with us, and one day we'll find a cure. But that doesn't mean I think we're abominations. I think we're normal people, just born a little differently.

If homosexuality / bisexuality can be "cured" then that also implies that heterosexuality can be "cured".

The entire notion is idiotic.  You can theoretically change any aspect of an individual with "science / medicine / genetic manipulation".  That doesn't mean everyone should be altered to fit some standard that you have decided is "normal" or "optimal".

Really, it's absurdly insulting.

[Kajan451]

Nodscouter wrote...

Fine, perhaps disease or illnes are the wrong words. I guess ''Genetic condition'' would be more proper or something. Not sure, never cared much about biology to figure out exactly where the problem is located.

There is no problem.

Nodscouter wrote...


And really, sex is made for reproduction. You can only reproduce with a person of the other gender. Therefore, if someone is ******/bisexual, something is malfunctioning.

There is nothing malfunctioning. They are perfectly able to reproduce, they won't enjoy it as much as someone whose sexual preferance is with the sexual partner they they to reproduce with, but they do not lack the ability to reproduce when they want to.

There are ample examples of homosexual men having families, created with women, and there are just as many homosexual women who have children of their own, coming from sex with a man. Its just not as much fun for them.

Next you are going to tell me something is malfunctioning with me because i am more attracted to black women than to white ones and that white women do not arouse me as much. I am damn sure i am straight, but that doesn't mean every woman is my type and much less does it mean i would sleep with every woman of feel aroused by them. Some just don't do the trick.

Really, i feel sad for you. And i am going to leave this discussion now as it starts to go to places where soon the fanatics of the Gayrights swoop in and this whole thing dwindles to the point where i just want to shut those up too.

[IanPolaris]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

If homosexuality / bisexuality can be "cured" then that also implies that heterosexuality can be "cured".

With hormone therapy and conditioning, it probably could be.  I would consider such attempts monstrous myself, but that doesn't make it impossible (more the pity).

Hiding from the way the world is doesn't change the way the world is.

-Polaris

[Kajan451]

IanPolaris wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

If homosexuality / bisexuality can be "cured" then that also implies that heterosexuality can be "cured".

With hormone therapy and conditioning, it probably could be.  I would consider such attempts monstrous myself, but that doesn't make it impossible (more the pity).

You can brainwash people into everything, even believing themself to be pink bunnies and you won't need hormones for that one.

[Nodscouter]

Kajan451 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...

Fine, perhaps disease or illnes are the wrong words. I guess ''Genetic condition'' would be more proper or something. Not sure, never cared much about biology to figure out exactly where the problem is located.

There is no problem.

Not in the mood for backing that up I take it?

Kajan451 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...


And really, sex is made for reproduction. You can only reproduce with a person of the other gender. Therefore, if someone is ******/bisexual, something is malfunctioning.

There is nothing malfunctioning. They are perfectly able to reproduce, they won't enjoy it as much as someone whose sexual preferance is with the sexual partner they they to reproduce with, but they do not lack the ability to reproduce when they want to.

There are ample examples of homosexual men having families, created with women, and there are just as many homosexual women who have children of their own, coming from sex with a man. Its just not as much fun for them.

Next you are going to tell me something is malfunctioning with me because i am more attracted to black women than to white ones and that white women do not arouse me as much. I am damn sure i am straight, but that doesn't mean every woman is my type and much less does it mean i would sleep with every woman of feel aroused by them. Some just don't do the trick.

Really, i feel sad for you. And i am going to leave this discussion now as it starts to go to places where soon the fanatics of the Gayrights swoop in and this whole thing dwindles to the point where i just want to shut those up too.

Well, I respect you going out now, but I'm going to have to continue.
Able, but not really willing, and that's something to be considered. And you're still attracted to women generally, so you're still straight (Or possibly Bi, but I'm not going to go there)

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...
I'm not afraid of myself, so I'm not homophobic. I'm also not insulting myself, I'm quite arrogant you see.
But still, it's a genetic condition I guess you could say, for reasons already explained. Something is wrong with us, and one day we'll find a cure. But that doesn't mean I think we're abominations. I think we're normal people, just born a little differently.

If homosexuality / bisexuality can be "cured" then that also implies that heterosexuality can be "cured".

The entire notion is idiotic.  You can theoretically change any aspect of an individual with "science / medicine / genetic manipulation".  That doesn't mean everyone should be altered to fit some standard that you have decided is "normal" or "optimal".

Really, it's absurdly insulting.

You do undestand I don't like insulting myself right?
Yes, but technically, being heterosexual is the optimal option, as that means we'll have larger population growth (Not good in all circumstances of course). I'm going to leave it at that, as it is what I believe.
But fine, I'm going to give you a chance here. If it's not biological, what is it?

Modifié par Nodscouter, 10 mai 2011 - 01:01 .

[Leonia]

Nodscouter wrote...
Except there is difference between gays and non-gays? Just not personality-wise?
And it may not be a big deal, but a lot of diseases and genetic conditions aren't a big deal. Just a bit different.
I'm looking at this from a rational, scientific point of view. You however, look at it from an ethics point of view. So yes, there is something wrong with us, but it doesn't have to make us worse than others. It doesn't have to make us not normal. It's not a big deal. But it's still there.

Mate, I *am* a scientist and you are NOT looking at this scientifically. Biologically there is nothing that seperates a gay person from a non-gay person. It's like saying an introvert has a disease whereas an extrovert doesn't. It's just two different ways of approaching romance. That's all it is. A vegetarian does not have a disease, a man who likes the colour pink does not have a disease, a person with a leather fetish doesn't have a disease simply because they are a minority and "deviant" from the norm. 

All human beings are human beings, whether they are gay, white, female, transgendered, smart, lazy, or love ponies.

[Nordic Warlord]

leonia42 wrote...

Please elaborate. What kind of "deviance" is it?

It is a sexual deviation.

[IanPolaris]

Nodscouter wrote...

Not really Ian, it doesn't have any real psychological differences except for the sexuality itself. It does have some physical differences though, like gay men generally having longer fingers than non-gay.

I'd agree with the bolded part emphasized.  Sexuality though is an importnat part of what makes us tick, however, and is something that should be reflected in the personality of the NPC.

What annoys me (almost as much as the Politically Correct Hew and Cry that many here are engaging in) is NOT the fact that LIs might be bisexual.  I have no issues with either Lelianna or Zevran being Bisexual (for example) in DAO.  That was an intrinsic part of who they were and very well explained.  However, it should mean that other potential love interest are not bisexual especially considering that's the overwhelming norm.

Having everyone hump Hawke's leg is franklyh insulting to the very interesting and real differences in sexuality that NPCs could express...and IMHO harms the verisimilude of the game...and that's the sole extent of my complaint such as it is.

-Polaris

[kaiki01]

leonia42 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...

leonia42 wrote...
Please elaborate. What kind of "deviance" is it?

Deviance from the norm. Around 97-98% of the world is straight.

Where the hell is that statistic coming from? Has every human being on earth been included in that poll? What about teenagers and pre-teenagers that haven't had romantic relationships yet?

A comparable statistic comes from UCLA www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/How-many-people-are-LGBT-Final.pdf

[Wulfram]

Merrill seems to flirt a little bit with Carver - or at least to be hoping that Carver is flirting with her - so I wouldn't consider her purely Hawkesexual.  Except technically, since Carver is also a Hawke

Xilizhra wrote...

Also, the friend romance scene for Merrill is definitely different for male and female Hawkes.

And Isabela obviously doesn't invite male hawke to engage in some "girly fun".  The conversation afterwards is different, too.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

IanPolaris wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
If homosexuality / bisexuality can be "cured" then that also implies that heterosexuality can be "cured".

With hormone therapy and conditioning, it probably could be.  I would consider such attempts monstrous myself, but that doesn't make it impossible (more the pity).
Hiding from the way the world is doesn't change the way the world is.
-Polaris

Who's hiding from anything?

The idea being expressed here as that homosexuality is an illness.  And the usage of the word "cure" directly implies that it is a negative condition that optimally needs to be rectified.

There may be some monstrous experiment that could change a person's sexuality, but the notion that it would be a "cure" is damned insulting.

[Nodscouter]

IanPolaris wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...

Not really Ian, it doesn't have any real psychological differences except for the sexuality itself. It does have some physical differences though, like gay men generally having longer fingers than non-gay.

I'd agree with the bolded part emphasized.  Sexuality though is an importnat part of what makes us tick, however, and is something that should be reflected in the personality of the NPC.

Right, or well, no, not really. At all.

leonia42 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...
Except there is difference between gays and non-gays? Just not personality-wise?
And it may not be a big deal, but a lot of diseases and genetic conditions aren't a big deal. Just a bit different.
I'm looking at this from a rational, scientific point of view. You however, look at it from an ethics point of view. So yes, there is something wrong with us, but it doesn't have to make us worse than others. It doesn't have to make us not normal. It's not a big deal. But it's still there.

Mate, I *am* a scientist and you are NOT looking at this scientifically. Biologically there is nothing that seperates a gay person from a non-gay person. It's like saying an introvert has a disease whereas an extrovert doesn't. It's just two different ways of approaching romance. That's all it is. A vegetarian does not have a disease, a man who likes the colour pink does not have a disease, a person with a leather fetish doesn't have a disease simply because they are a minority and "deviant" from the norm. 

All human beings are human beings, whether they are gay, white, female, transgendered, smart, lazy, or love ponies.

Can I ask something of you leonia?
Can you stop assuming I hate myself and see everything I write as homophobic hate?
Because that's not what I'm doing, despite how much you want to believe it is so you can have an easier time disproving me.
Biologically, well, that depends on how you see it. There are actual legitimate studies showing how gay men have on average larger fingers than straight men and so on.
And well, vegetarians and so on have a choice. We didn't. It's like saying that because a man was born with feet sticking out of his ears, he's still the same as the rest of us and there's nothing wrong with him.

Modifié par Nodscouter, 10 mai 2011 - 01:04 .

[Corto81]

I didn't like it, frankly it didn't feel believable to me.

Not everyone I know in RL is bi.
I didn't think everyone being bi and being hawt for Hawke felt real or believable.

The DA:O way felt much better.
Two straight, two bi options.
But the characters (Morrigan, Zevran, Leliana and Alistair) felt real and felt like their sexuality was their own and not forced by the choice of your gender, as opposed to Anders, Fenris or Merrill (Isabela being gay felt real, believable etc., no problem with her).

[Nodscouter]

Corto81 wrote...

I didn't like it, frankly it didn't feel believable to me.

Not everyone I know in RL is bi.
I didn't think everyone being bi and being hawt for Hawke felt real or believable.

Hey mate.
Did you notice anything while playing DA2?
Like, it not being real life? You know, the whole FANTASY label printed all over it?

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

Merrill seems to flirt a little bit with Carver - or at least to be hoping that Carver is flirting with her - so I wouldn't consider her purely Hawkesexual.  Except technically, since Carver is also a Hawke

I was actually under the impression that Carver initiated that and Merrill wasn't completely opposed.  That said, Merrill doesn't actually show any serious interest in anyone but Hawke.

Xilizhra wrote...

Also, the friend romance scene for Merrill is definitely different for male and female Hawkes.

And Isabela obviously doesn't invite male hawke to engage in some "girly fun".  The conversation afterwards is different, too.

Nothing significant.   Obviously the girly fun was dropped, but the romances are really the same.

-Polaris

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Nodscouter wrote...
You do undestand I don't like insulting myself right?
Yes, but technically, being heterosexual is the optimal option, as that means we'll have larger population growth (Not good in all circumstances of course). I'm going to leave it at that, as it is what I believe.
But fine, I'm going to give you a chance here. If it's not biological, what is it?

A) Your sexuality does not determine your fertility.  Two heterosexual people can be barren.  And this day and age there are a dozen ways for homosexuals to reproduce.

"Larger population growth" is not always optimal...

C) I'm not going into what determines a person's sexuality; I'm merely telling you how stupid and insulting it is to say that having sexuality A vs sexuality B is "an illness".
It reeks of ignorance, intolerance, and shame.

[IanPolaris]

Nodscouter wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

I didn't like it, frankly it didn't feel believable to me.

Not everyone I know in RL is bi.
I didn't think everyone being bi and being hawt for Hawke felt real or believable.

Hey mate.
Did you notice anything while playing DA2?
Like, it not being real life? You know, the whole FANTASY label printed all over it?

I agree with Corto81 and it bothers me too.  FANTASY worlds should still adhere to verisimiltude to allow for WIlling Suspension of Disbelief.  That means the world should work the way we intuitively think it should unless given a good reason to think otherwise (such as magic).  Having everyone hump Hawke's leg is frankly just dumb and lazy writing.

-Polaris

[Nodscouter]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
A) Your sexuality does not determine your fertility.  Two heterosexual people can be barren.  And this day and age there are a dozen ways for homosexuals to reproduce.

"Larger population growth" is not always optimal...

C) I'm not going into what determines a person's sexuality; I'm merely telling you how stupid and insulting it is to say that having sexuality A vs sexuality B is "an illness".
It reeks of ignorance, intolerance, and shame.

A) Yes, and being barren is something I consider an illness.

WHICH I F*CKING SAID! Read the goddamn post!

C) Ignorance? Why? Intolerance? Why? Shame? This one I really want to know why.

[Xilizhra]

Only two people flirt with Hawke: Isabela, who doesn't count, and Anders.