25715 réponses à ce sujet

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

Spatchmo wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

No no, Im still buying it, I've been a fan for a while now and I know it will be epic no matter. I know there is probably going to be s/s romances in the game, its enevitable. I just don't want a lifestyle that I don't agree with shoved in my face throughout my game experience.

As a man trapped in the 1800s, I don't want a lifestyle shoved in my face that I don't agree with. A lifestyle such as being a woman not in the kitchen or serving her husband. Of course I don't need to be a man trapped in the 1800s to have that view. There are many people that still have that view today, both in the US and abroad.

I don't mean to be hard on you, you seem pretty sensible, it's just that I find when people say things like, "I don't agree with that lifestyle" I find it to be very offensive. More offensive than someone calling a homosexual a f** or whatever.

Usually their reason for not agreeing with the gay "lifestyle" is religious. I don't expect everyone to approve or be happy about homosexuality, but it would be nice if people could just accept it. We're a civilized society, so I don't approve of people being judgmental based on a book with a deity with zero physical proof. If you want to believe in it and it gives you a measure of comfort in difficult times, that's seriously wonderful, more power to you... But I don't want it shoved in my face as a means to belittle an entire population.

Yes, I am intentionally using your words to express my distaste. I hope you understand why, I am honestly not trying to be offensive.

"I don't agree with that lifestyle" offends you, and I thought I was being rather modest with my words. I'm surprised that my simple opinion offends you so much. Talk about walking on egg shells!  So let me see, how can I ask this without being offensive to you.......why are the people of differing orentation so defensive??? Did that suit you better? And I do hope you understand as well that I am not trying to be offensive.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

ToastPants wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

If formerly straight characters end up gay in ME3 I will be so pissed!

Will being so pissed prevent you from purchasing ME3?

What do you think!

I hope you reconsider. Why let small aspects of the game such as the romances ruin your gaming experience? If you've been playing since ME1 then it would be a shame not to complete the trilogy over some insignificant thing as an NPCs sexual orientation. I'm sure BW will make it so you won't have to worry about a squadmate, that's the same sex as your Shepard, from hitting on him/her.

No no, Im still buying it, I've been a fan for a while now and I know it will be epic no matter. I know there is probably going to be s/s romances in the game, its enevitable. I just don't want a lifestyle that I don't agree with shoved in my face throughout my game experience. If say Bioware decides to write in gay or bi options for Garrus I don't want to know about it unless I persue a relationship with him using a male shepherd (which I wouldn't). All Im saying is keep the s/s in the closet, if you want to persue a s/s romance with a character then by all means go ahead, thats your perogative but if you don't then it would be nice keep the character unknown so that those of us who do not like s/s romances can think of a character as straight. The game should be a unique personal experience.

You have to know that coming into this thread and then stating that you don't agree with the "gay lifestyle" and talking about keeping it in the closet is going to offend a lot of people, myself included.

To me, that says that you intentionally went into a support thread for something that you don't like simply to say that you don't like it. It's like you're just looking to argue.

No flames though. Hope you're not disappointed.:happy:

It's a free forum, its not like gays haven't added to other threads themselves. I'm just sharing my opinion openly, looking for debate but not flames.

[Carfax]

Xilizhra wrote...

You're using the wrong standards in a few different ways. For one thing, the purpose is so that those of all sexual orientations can enjoy the game equally.

Yes, and for that, bisexual or contextually bisexual characters work just fine.  No need to make gay characters if thats the case.

The idiom of killing two birds with one stone says it all. 

For another, party members aren't representative of the population as a whole.

Not sure I see your point here.  My reason for bringing up statistics was to show you that the amount of people that would have a strong interest in S/S romances is very small indeed.  Bioware, like all companies, would be expected to appeal to their largest consumer bases before their smaller ones.

In that case, it would be straight male gamers, followed by straight female gamers, followed by gay/bisexual males, followed by gay/bisexual females.

And funnily enough, looking at Bioware games, the romances obviously follow that pattern....with the exception that gay/bisexual women had Liara and Kelly because F/F is a popular fantasy for heterosexual males.

Gay/bisexual males got shafted, but that issue seems to have been addressed in ME3.....which is fine.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

Carfax wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Would you also agree that female characters should never hit on a male Shepard, and male characters should never hit on a female Shepard? 

Because that's happened often enough in Bioware's games. Either all romances should be player-triggered, or none of them should be. You can't support a double standard. 

There is no double standard.  Gays always seem to want to use the equivalency arguement when discussing this topic, but there is no equivalency, because heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equal in any shape, form or fashion.

The vast majority of humans are heterosexual, which is precisely why there are a lot more heterosexual romances in Bioware's games, and so few, if any bisexual romances, despite Bioware being amongst the most progressive game developers.

Also, unlike heterosexuality which is viewed as standard behaviour the World over, homosexuality can provoke a wide range of feelings in people, from complete acceptance, to indifference to absolute hatred. 

It's a numbers game.  As long as gays/bisexuals only comprise 2-4% of the human population, then they cannot use the equivalency arguement.

Well said!

[Carfax]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Let me get this straight, so to speak: You demand that all s/s romances be player-initiated, because it makes you uncomfortable, but don't mind at all that female NPCs can hit on maleShep without flirting, or male NPCs on femShep. 

I've had to wade through nine female characters making advances at maleShep over two games. None of them have been particularly traumatic. Annoying? Probably. 

Either you can deal with one or two bisexual characters hitting on your Shepard, or you argue for all romances to be player-initiated. Period.  

Excuse me if I don't particularly warm to your argument.

Another false equivalency arguement.  Homosexuality can warrant a strong reaction in many people, because it is controversial and not regarded as normal behaviour.  Lots of people are opposed to homosexual behaviour, whether for religious, moral or other reasons..

Honestly though, I didn't find Anders hitting on my Male Hawke to be traumatic.....just annoying like how you found female NPCs hitting on your MaleSheps.

I could deal with it if I had to however.  It's not something that I'm going to campaign heavily against. 

[Xilizhra]

Another false equivalency arguement. Homosexuality can warrant a strong reaction in many people, because it is controversial and not regarded as normal behaviour. Lots of people are opposed to homosexual behaviour, whether for religious, moral or other reasons..

And none of it is legitimate. I believe it's a hindrance to all if Bioware considers their opinions.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Carfax wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

No no, Im still buying it, I've been a fan for a while now and I know it will be epic no matter. I know there is probably going to be s/s romances in the game, its enevitable. I just don't want a lifestyle that I don't agree with shoved in my face throughout my game experience. If say Bioware decides to write in gay or bi options for Garrus I don't want to know about it unless I persue a relationship with him using a male shepherd (which I wouldn't). All Im saying is keep the s/s in the closet, if you want to persue a s/s romance with a character then by all means go ahead, thats your perogative but if you don't then it would be nice keep the character unknown so that those of us who do not like s/s romances can think of a character as straight. The game should be a unique personal experience.

I agree with this 100%.  Straight gamers or gamers that prefer to engage with heterosexual characters should not have to put up with homosexuality being shoved in their face.

If Bioware manages to do things correctly, the S/S romances should only be triggerable 100% by the PC..  None of the DA2 nonsense, where Anders lets your straight male Hawke know that he finds him attractive regardless of whether you hit on him or not, and you get rivalry points for turning him down..

Would you also agree that female characters should never hit on a male Shepard, and male characters should never hit on a female Shepard? 

Because that's happened often enough in Bioware's games. Either all romances should be player-triggered, or none of them should be. You can't support a double standard. 

If a male shepherd hits on a female shepherd or visa versa there's no problem there in my opinion. Male and female relationships is the way it's always been done and its the way it should be. Why do you think God created man and woman, he didn't create man and man or woman and woman.

[Xilizhra]

If a male shepherd hits on a female shepherd or visa versa there's no problem there in my opinion. Male and female relationships is the way it's always been done and its the way it should be. Why do you think God created man and woman, he didn't create man and man or woman and woman.

Reproductive purposes. Until we develop the technology to do otherwise, both sexes are necessary to continue the species, but this has nothing to do with sexual pleasure.

[elearon1]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...
why are the people of differing orentation so defensive??? Did that suit you better? And I do hope you understand as well that I am not trying to be offensive.

Minority groups tend to be defensive because they feel they are always under attack ... which, in many cases is a valid reaction to the way society treats or portrays them. (or very vocal elements in society, depending on your flavor of minority)  If, everywhere you went, you were bombarded with this message that being a middle class white male, (that's just an assumption on my part, of course, you might be none of those things) was somehow unnatural, and people used the term "hetero" derisively, you would become very defensive as well.  

It is a problem, though, when it is taken to an extreme - because then you get this occurance where people transform themselves into victims even when they are being treated fairly.  Unfortunately it is those people most of the majority remember when they think back to conversations or experiences they've had with said minority groups - because that sort of reaction is memorable.  What this means, is that overly defensive minority image becomes a stereotype that members of the majority project onto the group and members of said group fall into when put in certain social situations. (stereotypes can be as harmful to the stereotyped culture for its tendency to buy into them, or fall into them reflexively as well ... because there is this expectation they are bombarded with and as a result feel pressured to conform to; despite how vocal some people are about their individuality, it is human nature to conform in various ways - even, and actually especially, among minority groups)

I'm not even going to bother discussing how intollerant behavior toward minorities is harmful, because that is a given. (I doubt even members of those intollerant groups could claim their behavior isn't harmful ... they just don't care, or are encouraged by that.)

There is, however, something that should be pointed out, and that is the tendency of majority class members to feel any depiction of a minority belief is an act of "pushing it in their faces" ... because when you disapprove of something, any exposure to it is going to make you feel uncomfortable and victimized; no matter how overall harmless or minor that exposure is.  But this goes both ways - I have been in communities where a homosexual will become aggressive and declair that I am trying to push my heterosexual agenda in their face merely by my act of behaving heterosexually ... it isn't only about who is in the majority culturally, but in the social venue you find yourself.  Most all people have a knee jerk reaction to ideas and behaviors they find disagreeable. 

[Augoeides]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

So let me see, how can I ask this without being offensive to you.......why are the people of differing orentation so defensive??? Did that suit you better? And I do hope you understand as well that I am not trying to be offensive.

It's most likely because that is what many of different orientation have been taught is the only way to survive and ensure that they get some measure of equality. Quite a lot of what heterosexual people consider standard and what they are entitled to is not what those of differing orientation can even call an option.

Let's take the hot issue of marriage, and for the sake of debate liberate the term from some of its religious or societal context so that it equates to an official act, sanctioned by the government that allows two individuals to express their fidelity and transforms them into a 'Married Couple' with whatever rights and responsibilities that entails. For heterosexual people, or bisexual people pursuing an opposite sex relationship there is no question that given they can find a partner willing, of proper age, and are not doing anything illegal by their society etc. that they can get married. For those of differing sexualities that's not something they can currently have in a lot of places, they are not given equal ground in the real world. To reconfigure that so that the oppression could be on you, say it's 'normal' for where you live for everyone to get an education then a job because they like parrots more than bears, except you can't get either, not education or a job, ever, because you like bears mores than parrots and no matter how you try you'll never like parrots more than bears. So you're locked out of a basic expression of what it means to be a normal person in that society because you are deemed abnormal for something that actually doesn't affect them in any way except that it's different to what they feel and thus makes them uncomfortable.

In that kind of world which rejects your sincere feelings by default, can you honestly say that if someone told you not talk about liking bears more than parrots, that people who liked bears more than parrots should not be allowed to work or learn ever, not even in a video game or if they did it could never be out in the open, that you would not feel or get defensive?

(^This probably makes no sense at all D: )


Any notion of putting it out of your view for comfortability is totally self-indulgent and selfish, because it suggests their lives don't matter, that them having it shoved in their face is less of an offense, not as bad as if it happened to you. When a girl hits on me I feel flattered and thank them but gently inform them of the bad news, it's really that simple. No need to gag or throw a fuss.

[Carfax]

elearon1 wrote...

There is, however, something that should be pointed out, and that is the tendency of majority class members to feel any depiction of a minority belief is an act of "pushing it in their faces"

Look at some of the sigs in this thread.  You see rainbow flags, gays in space, and all sorts of other allusions to homosexuality.

If thats not pushing it in peoples' faces, then I don't know what is..
 

[Xilizhra]

Carfax wrote...

elearon1 wrote...

There is, however, something that should be pointed out, and that is the tendency of majority class members to feel any depiction of a minority belief is an act of "pushing it in their faces"

Look at some of the sigs in this thread.  You see rainbow flags, gays in space, and all sorts of other allusions to homosexuality.

If thats not pushing it in peoples' faces, then I don't know what is..
 

How fascinating. And what differentiates this from the rather larger number of signatures depicting heterosexual relationships?

[Darth Krytie]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Spatchmo wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

No no, Im still buying it, I've been a fan for a while now and I know it will be epic no matter. I know there is probably going to be s/s romances in the game, its enevitable. I just don't want a lifestyle that I don't agree with shoved in my face throughout my game experience.

As a man trapped in the 1800s, I don't want a lifestyle shoved in my face that I don't agree with. A lifestyle such as being a woman not in the kitchen or serving her husband. Of course I don't need to be a man trapped in the 1800s to have that view. There are many people that still have that view today, both in the US and abroad.

I don't mean to be hard on you, you seem pretty sensible, it's just that I find when people say things like, "I don't agree with that lifestyle" I find it to be very offensive. More offensive than someone calling a homosexual a f** or whatever.

Usually their reason for not agreeing with the gay "lifestyle" is religious. I don't expect everyone to approve or be happy about homosexuality, but it would be nice if people could just accept it. We're a civilized society, so I don't approve of people being judgmental based on a book with a deity with zero physical proof. If you want to believe in it and it gives you a measure of comfort in difficult times, that's seriously wonderful, more power to you... But I don't want it shoved in my face as a means to belittle an entire population.

Yes, I am intentionally using your words to express my distaste. I hope you understand why, I am honestly not trying to be offensive.

"I don't agree with that lifestyle" offends you, and I thought I was being rather modest with my words. I'm surprised that my simple opinion offends you so much. Talk about walking on egg shells!  So let me see, how can I ask this without being offensive to you.......why are the people of differing orentation so defensive??? Did that suit you better? And I do hope you understand as well that I am not trying to be offensive.

Honestly, because it's like someone saying, "I don't agree with you being black. It'd be better if I didn't have black people shoved in my face during my gaming experience." Okay. Because being gay is as much of a choice as being black or whatever race you might be. Or where you were born. So, maybe we're defensive because people act as if our very existence is somehow capable of ruining someone else's day. Like just the fact I exist, makes you unhappy. As in, you'd be happy if I didn't exist. Imagine how it would feel being treated like your existence was unwanted and there was nothing you could do about it. It wouldn't matter how good looking or smart or capable or whatever you were, just the fact that you existed at all made someone so unhappy, they would rather you were popped out of existence. Now experience that for a whole long time....and see others like you getting killed just for existing and have forms of media treat you as a joke at best and a deviant at worst and now go through your life like that every day and somehow manage to not be "defensive" the next time someone says, "I'd really rather I never have to acknowledge even a fake representation of you in a game because it's so unpleasant to me" and tell me how you feel.

[Carfax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Reproductive purposes. Until we develop the technology to do otherwise, both sexes are necessary to continue the species, but this has nothing to do with sexual pleasure.

Sexual pleasure is intimately related to sexual reproduction.  For instance, men ejaculate when having an orgasm.  Even the sexual genitalia of our bodies were designed for sex with a member of the opposite sex, not the same sex.  The penis and the vaginal opening/canal are both shaped and contoured for sexual intercourse.

Modifié par Carfax, 24 septembre 2011 - 06:09 .

[Xilizhra]

Carfax wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Reproductive purposes. Until we develop the technology to do otherwise, both sexes are necessary to continue the species, but this has nothing to do with sexual pleasure.

Sexual pleasure is intimately related to sexual reproduction.  For instance, men ejaculate when having an orgasm.  Even the sexual genitalia of our bodies were designed for sex with a member of the opposite sex, not the same sex.  The penis and the vaginal opening are both shaped and contoured for sexual intercourse.

Obviously. However, sexual pleasure has purposes beyond reproduction and can be facilitated via nonstandard means, something that most heterosexuals will be familiar with.

[elearon1]

Carfax wrote...

If thats not pushing it in peoples' faces, then I don't know what is..

I'm going to have to go with the second option here: You don't know what is.  

These flags don't take up your entire screen when you read a post, they don't throw popups on your computer, they don't force you to listen to music you don't like, or watch homosexuals engaging in sexual activities ... they just sit there quietly at the bottom of the post if you want to read them.  A flag on a post is no more "pushing it in your face" than is a bumper sticker on a car ... but, perhaps, that is too much for you as well ... in which case I would say you are behaving in an oversensitive and irrational manner and should perhaps look into correcting that. 

[Carfax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Obviously. However, sexual pleasure has purposes beyond reproduction and can be facilitated via nonstandard means, something that most heterosexuals will be familiar with.

Thats true.  I was just saying you can't separate sexual reproduction from sexual pleasure, even if you're gay.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, unless you're talking about in vitro fertilization or something.

After all, gay men and women still have sex organs for procreation, just like heterosexual men and women.

[Xilizhra]

Carfax wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Obviously. However, sexual pleasure has purposes beyond reproduction and can be facilitated via nonstandard means, something that most heterosexuals will be familiar with.

Thats true.  I was just saying you can't separate sexual reproduction from sexual pleasure, even if you're gay.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, unless you're talking about in vitro fertilization or something.

After all, gay men and women still have sex organs for procreation, just like heterosexual men and women.

And what I was saying is that it makes no damned sense to say that procreative necessities somehow make homosexuality bad.

[ElitePinecone]

We're getting off-topic. This isn't a forum for discussing contemporary political/religious/social norms.

If you're offended by homosexuality don't post in this thread and don't use the content in the game. End of story.

[Carfax]

elearon1 wrote...

I'm going to have to go with the second option here: You don't know what is.  

These flags don't take up your entire screen when you read a post, they don't throw popups on your computer, they don't force you to listen to music you don't like, or watch homosexuals engaging in sexual activities ... they just sit there quietly at the bottom of the post if you want to read them.  A flag on a post is no more "pushing it in your face" than is a bumper sticker on a car ... but, perhaps, that is too much for you as well ... in which case I would say you are behaving in an oversensitive and irrational manner and should perhaps look into correcting that. 

I'm not saying that I necessarily had a problem with it.  I haven't sent any PM to Priestly or any Bioware rep complaining about it after all.

I'm just saying that it DOES constitute as "pushing it in your face." 

Why on Earth would someone make visual clues pertaining to their sexuality, unless it was their INTENT to make it publically known?

And then why would they wish to make something that is typically seen as private, publically known?

To push it in your face.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

Darth Krytie wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Spatchmo wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

No no, Im still buying it, I've been a fan for a while now and I know it will be epic no matter. I know there is probably going to be s/s romances in the game, its enevitable. I just don't want a lifestyle that I don't agree with shoved in my face throughout my game experience.

As a man trapped in the 1800s, I don't want a lifestyle shoved in my face that I don't agree with. A lifestyle such as being a woman not in the kitchen or serving her husband. Of course I don't need to be a man trapped in the 1800s to have that view. There are many people that still have that view today, both in the US and abroad.

I don't mean to be hard on you, you seem pretty sensible, it's just that I find when people say things like, "I don't agree with that lifestyle" I find it to be very offensive. More offensive than someone calling a homosexual a f** or whatever.

Usually their reason for not agreeing with the gay "lifestyle" is religious. I don't expect everyone to approve or be happy about homosexuality, but it would be nice if people could just accept it. We're a civilized society, so I don't approve of people being judgmental based on a book with a deity with zero physical proof. If you want to believe in it and it gives you a measure of comfort in difficult times, that's seriously wonderful, more power to you... But I don't want it shoved in my face as a means to belittle an entire population.

Yes, I am intentionally using your words to express my distaste. I hope you understand why, I am honestly not trying to be offensive.

"I don't agree with that lifestyle" offends you, and I thought I was being rather modest with my words. I'm surprised that my simple opinion offends you so much. Talk about walking on egg shells!  So let me see, how can I ask this without being offensive to you.......why are the people of differing orentation so defensive??? Did that suit you better? And I do hope you understand as well that I am not trying to be offensive.

Honestly, because it's like someone saying, "I don't agree with you being black. It'd be better if I didn't have black people shoved in my face during my gaming experience." Okay. Because being gay is as much of a choice as being black or whatever race you might be. Or where you were born. So, maybe we're defensive because people act as if our very existence is somehow capable of ruining someone else's day. Like just the fact I exist, makes you unhappy. As in, you'd be happy if I didn't exist. Imagine how it would feel being treated like your existence was unwanted and there was nothing you could do about it. It wouldn't matter how good looking or smart or capable or whatever you were, just the fact that you existed at all made someone so unhappy, they would rather you were popped out of existence. Now experience that for a whole long time....and see others like you getting killed just for existing and have forms of media treat you as a joke at best and a deviant at worst and now go through your life like that every day and somehow manage to not be "defensive" the next time someone says, "I'd really rather I never have to acknowledge even a fake representation of you in a game because it's so unpleasant to me" and tell me how you feel.

Being black is not a choice, you either are or you arent. Sexual orientation is a choice. And when you say that I would be happy if you didn't exist is a little over the top. It's not you as a human being that I don't agree with it's just your orientation. It's just like some people can't understand why I game but they don't hate me for it.

[elearon1]

Carfax wrote...

Why on Earth would someone make visual clues pertaining to their sexuality, unless it was their INTENT to make it publically known?

And then why would they wish to make something that is typically seen as private, publically known?
To push it in your face.

Mind you, by that definition all the people with "Miranda as ME3 LI" flags are guilty of pushing their heterosexuality in your face ... yet I haven't seen any evidence of you responding negatively toward that.  

[Darth Krytie]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...


Being black is not a choice, you either are or you arent. Sexual orientation is a choice. And when you say that I would be happy if you didn't exist is a little over the top. It's not you as a human being that I don't agree with it's just your orientation. It's just like some people can't understand why I game but they don't hate me for it.

Oh, and do tell me when you made the conscious decision to be heterosexual? I'm curious. What went into your thought process? How did you decide to stop being attracted to your own gender? If you can pick your sexuality, I'm totally curious as to how that works.

[Xilizhra]

Being black is not a choice, you either are or you arent. Sexual orientation is a choice. And when you say that I would be happy if you didn't exist is a little over the top. It's not you as a human being that I don't agree with it's just your orientation. It's just like some people can't understand why I game but they don't hate me for it.

I actually won't hate you for that, because I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that stupidity isn't a choice either.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 24 septembre 2011 - 06:24 .

[ElitePinecone]

Again: leave this thread if you don't want to discuss the implementation of s/s in ME3.

This is not a place to discuss whether homosexuality is a choice. Stop now.