25715 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

I have friends that have sex with men or women because well... it's sex, it gives them pleasure to reach an orgasm, but they don't have any kind of attraction towards the same gender, they just do it because it gives them pleasure. So, I think that the idea of heterosexual people finding the idea of sex with the same gender as "gross" or "disgusting" is just a learned "repression".

I feel like Councilor Velarn.

Modifié par mauro2222, 10 janvier 2012 - 11:53 .

[NeiA]

I thought this was a "pick your flavor" discussion....Such serious and technical banter there...I like it more fun in here....I still think a femshep and Tali romance would have been cute....Especially with what Shepard and Tali go through....Tali trust Shepard a lot regardless of which gender you are....So I was kind of sad that I had to have a male play through in order to see a romance. Although playing as both a male and a female Shepard is really fun.

[mauro2222]

Unbannable wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

This is an assumption, not a fact.

What they identify as makes no difference at all.  As I've said before, sexual behaviour and sexual orientation are not always the same.  A man can call himself heterosexual till he is blue in the face, but if he has had ongoing sexual contact with other men, he isn't truly heterosexual now is he?

Yes he is, heterosexuality means that the individual is sexually attracted towards the opposite sex, it has nothing to do with where they put their penis.

Sleeping with the same sex doesn't make you homosexual nor bisexual.

Incredibly stupid example:
If you **** a watermelon, that doesn't make you frutisexual.

[Unbannable]

FoxHound109 wrote...

Debatable. They are more expressive of their sexuality, but not automatically more sexual. Cultural attitudes we have dictate a lot about sex in societies, especially those that were founded on the ideals of Abrahamic religions. You are making an assumption here.

Am I?  Monogamy is non existent in bonobo society, and their rate of sexual frequency is off the charts....much much higher than the average human.

Now you are saying that the difference between bonobos and humans is that bonobos uses sex as a tool in their society and we don't.

I never said that humans don't use sex as a tool..  In truth, humans use sex as a tool in a more variable fashion than bonobos do..

I guess it's intensity that matters here.  Even Ancient Rome at her most decadent cannot compare to the bonobos..  The only sexual taboo for the bonobos seems to be incest, for obvious reasons.

And your point being? I was arguing for the case of bisexuality being standard. I'm not sure how this an argument against it at all. On the contrary: you are accepting the idea that a species "built" a certain way can in fact defy the way it is made for social purposes.

Point being that humans and bonobos are not as similar as you seem to believe.

So your definition of a pure homosexual has to deal with physical contact and the act itself? Again, this is why your grasp of "cut and dry" is off, no offense. Having sexual intercourse doesn't necessarily equate to sexuality. There are plenty of men who have only had sex with women because of social pressures to conform, fear of rejection for being homosexual, etc.

That was just an example.  You can't expect me to conceive of every potential circumstance now can you?   

Links, please.

Linked in the last post.

Most men in the Middle East do not identify as homosexual or bisexual, however, many men in the Middle East have been involved in homosexual acts. Specificially speaking, this is actually something that is more common than people in the world are aware of. There is a social attitude, however, that homosexuality in most of these Middle Eastern cultures encompasses ONLY being a receiving partner and not a giving partner. There are many men who engage in homosexual acts but therefore do not consider themselves anything other than heterosexual as they do no engage in being the receiving or passive partner. This alone is enough to throw off "polls" and "research." 

It's beyond complex. You are simplfying it far too much.

Yes I am familiar with your Middle East example.  All I can say to that is, that due to the sexual segregation between men and women in many of those countries (Afghanistan is even worse apparently), many men have looked to other men to fulfill their sexual needs as casual, or even genuinely romantic sexual relationships (not marriage) between men and women are largely prohibited..

The extent of this phenomenon is unknown.  I'm sure not every man participates in this effect, but I'm also certain that many men do. 

The question is, can this example be used to give us insight into human sexuality, when we know that it is the direct result of unnatural sexual segregation for both cultural and religious reasons, the likes of which do not exist in most other nations?

Kinsey's studies were debunked, specifically because he used prisons, prostitutes and other sources which offered a less than truthful perspective on sexuality in greater America.

With that said, I'm wondering if you can use the Middle East (with all it's quirks and ironies) as an example with which to correlate the rest of humanity.

 

You should have to know these things to prove your point. You made the theory and thus the burden of proof falls on you, and unless you extensively and expertly can explain every function of human sexuality to the last detail, it is hard for you to add any kind of concrete weight to your argument. Specifically, your inability to grasp the complexity of human sexuality in your past statements is not a good form of support.

OK let me ask you something.  If humans are not innately heterosexual in terms of their physiological makeup, then why are there no outward differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals; particularly in regard to sexual organs (both inner and outer)?

[Unbannable]

mauro2222 wrote...

Yes he is, heterosexuality means that the individual is sexually attracted towards the opposite sex, it has nothing to do with where they put their penis.

Sleeping with the same sex doesn't make you homosexual nor bisexual.

Incredibly stupid example:
If you **** a watermelon, that doesn't make you frutisexual.

So you're implying that a man that sleeps with other men on a regular basis isn't necessarily sexually attracted to men?

In that respect, one can only wonder why he would bother sleeping with a man, if he is really only attracted to women.

[NeiA]

See this is what I'm talking about...People are being way to serious about the subject....It's all good for opinions and all, but the point of the game and discussions like this is FUN...Hell..Even sex is a fun activity for people...I don't know if God intended it to be a activity for us to enjoy or not, but that's what it has become....And well....We need both sides to reproduce, so...Unless somewhere down the line humans develop some kind of power to be like the Asari...Heterosexual relations is what's "supposed" to be what we do....But from a social stand point I don't care what gender a person is...It's the person that I'm attracted to, not the gender.

[mauro2222]

Unbannable wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Yes he is, heterosexuality means that the individual is sexually attracted towards the opposite sex, it has nothing to do with where they put their penis.

Sleeping with the same sex doesn't make you homosexual nor bisexual.

Incredibly stupid example:
If you **** a watermelon, that doesn't make you frutisexual.

So you're implying that a man that sleeps with other men on a regular basis isn't necessarily sexually attracted to men?

In that respect, one can only wonder why he would bother sleeping with a man, if he is really only attracted to women.

Pleasure... easy as that. Sex gives pleasure.

[breyant]

Unbannable wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Yes he is, heterosexuality means that the individual is sexually attracted towards the opposite sex, it has nothing to do with where they put their penis.

Sleeping with the same sex doesn't make you homosexual nor bisexual.

Incredibly stupid example:
If you **** a watermelon, that doesn't make you frutisexual.

So you're implying that a man that sleeps with other men on a regular basis isn't necessarily sexually attracted to men?

In that respect, one can only wonder why he would bother sleeping with a man, if he is really only attracted to women.

Sounds more like a straight man's excuse for messing around with another guy, "I didn't do anything to him, I just got off.... so it's not gay"

[syllogi]

Although I find discussions and debates about human sexuality interesting, this current back and forth is getting off topic for the thread.  Just a reminder:

Siansonea II wrote...

This thread's purpose is to discuss same-sex romance in Mass Effect 3. 


This thread's purpose is NOT to discuss real-world issues related to homosexuality, gender identity, politics, religion, etc. 


This thread doesn't exist for people to express that they are against the inclusion of same-sex romance either. It's been confirmed by BioWare, and if you want to petition them to take it out, do it somewhere else. 


A reminder: If you observe an instance of "trolling" or baiting, or other types of misbehavior, PM one of the moderators with a link to the offending post. I have every confidence that such things will be dealt with swiftly. NO OTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED, and please, above all, do not quote any offensive posts or respond to them.

[NeiA]

breyant wrote...

Unbannable wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Yes he is, heterosexuality means that the individual is sexually attracted towards the opposite sex, it has nothing to do with where they put their penis.

Sleeping with the same sex doesn't make you homosexual nor bisexual.

Incredibly stupid example:
If you **** a watermelon, that doesn't make you frutisexual.

So you're implying that a man that sleeps with other men on a regular basis isn't necessarily sexually attracted to men?

In that respect, one can only wonder why he would bother sleeping with a man, if he is really only attracted to women.

Sounds more like a straight man's excuse for messing around with another guy, "I didn't do anything to him, I just got off.... so it's not gay"

THANE PIC!!!!...SO HOT....Oh sorry...Anyway...Still think it's gotten to serious. (which always happens with forums like this)....I play the game as both genders, mainly because if I can't romance someone I want to experiment with as a female, then I try as a male....And during my first play through of ME2 I was all over Thane...He just drew me in.<3
But overall I've been attracted to Tali's personality throughout my experience with ME altogether, so I was kind of disappointed when I couldn't romance her as a female. Joker makes me laugh, and Seth Green did an excellent job as the voice. So I would totally do Joker, even if all his bones broke during the process.

[Exia001]

I just hope James turns out to be gender neutral, ManShep and James would be a mega win

[NeiA]

I don't think so...From what I remember hearing, there isn't any new romances taking place, but you can be in a romance with a previous member to Shepard's company. So my opinion of it, is that I would like the option to be in a romance with someone you couldn't romance earlier...i.e. Ashley, Tali, Jack, Miranda, definitely Joker (fun character to talk to), or Kasumi maybe...She strikes me as the type that could be in a romance with Shepard.

[ElitePinecone]

bleetman wrote...

What on earth have you people been discussing.

THIS. 

Take the off-topic stuff to a group, PMs or another website. It's not at all relevant to ME3.

NeiA wrote...

I don't think so...From what I remember hearing, there isn't any new romances taking place, but you can be in a romance with a previous member to Shepard's company. So my opinion of it, is that I would like the option to be in a romance with someone you couldn't romance earlier...i.e. Ashley, Tali, Jack, Miranda, definitely Joker (fun character to talk to), or Kasumi maybe...She strikes me as the type that could be in a romance with Shepard.

Firstly, that 'no new  romances' line was contradicted about a week after Casey said it. 

He'd said it in an interview to a games magazine that was done before the decision to delay ME3 by six months and give it more development time, a decision that coincided with the announcement of s/s romances and more new romances in general. I don't know how or why the 'no new romances' rumour has been floating around, but I've seen it a lot. 

So, yes, there will be newly romancable characters. James is among them. So are two of the Normamdy's Alliance crew. 

No ME2 characters can be romanced unless you started it in ME2, according to the best information we have. 

Several 'old' squadmates (i.e. ME's LIs) can be romanced in some capacity, though - we don't yet know if they'll be for s/s or o/s, or both. 

[Russalka]

It was interesting to see how the fans reacted to the protagonist of a TV series I am watching, who is a woman, who had been in relationships with men, even had a child with one, responding to another woman's kiss, out of the blue, saying how she hadn't experienced something like that in a long while. It happened at the conclusion of the episode.

Nobody saw it coming. A lot of the responses were the kind of "Ah, nice to see her let her guard down again" or "Good to see her having romance in her life again". The same old arguments arose though, with some homophobes complaining, the people concerned over realism having their say (particularly about her not showing any attraction to women before) and people cheering on.

Personally, I think it was nice to see the former responses. People just being happy to see a character find joy, regardless of what gender that person was. The protagonist is still an enigma in many ways, with lots of secrets, so it was a possibility. And it's not like she ever said she wasn't into women. One can never know truly unless someone explicitly states their preferences, and normally people don't casually go around confirming and affirming their sexuality to people.

Just some thoughts, don't meant to hijack. I suppose this argument isn't very relevant anymore either? Was it ever?

Modifié par Russalka, 10 janvier 2012 - 03:05 .

[mauro2222]

What's the name of the series?

Edit: Oops, and I agree with what you said... I think that being happy is the main goal of life.

Modifié par mauro2222, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:33 .

[Russalka]

Oh right, it is a show called Sanctuary. I love it. It has its flaws, but it is often quite fascinating. Amanda Tapping is the actress playing the character I mentioned.

I hope it isn't a spoiler. And I bring the off-topic only further...

[mauro2222]

Russalka wrote...

Oh right, it is a show called Sanctuary. I love it. It has its flaws, but it is often quite fascinating. Amanda Tapping is the actress playing the character I mentioned.

I hope it isn't a spoiler. And I bring the off-topic only further...

I wasn't very attracted to Sanctuary, so no, it's not a spoiler (simply because I don't care about the series ). But quite unexpected, I thought she was going to end with the bald guy again... you know the one with annoying voice.

Modifié par mauro2222, 10 janvier 2012 - 03:34 .

[NeiA]

ElitePinecone wrote...

bleetman wrote...

What on earth have you people been discussing.

THIS. 

Take the off-topic stuff to a group, PMs or another website. It's not at all relevant to ME3.

NeiA wrote...

I don't think so...From what I remember hearing, there isn't any new romances taking place, but you can be in a romance with a previous member to Shepard's company. So my opinion of it, is that I would like the option to be in a romance with someone you couldn't romance earlier...i.e. Ashley, Tali, Jack, Miranda, definitely Joker (fun character to talk to), or Kasumi maybe...She strikes me as the type that could be in a romance with Shepard.

Firstly, that 'no new  romances' line was contradicted about a week after Casey said it. 

He'd said it in an interview to a games magazine that was done before the decision to delay ME3 by six months and give it more development time, a decision that coincided with the announcement of s/s romances and more new romances in general. I don't know how or why the 'no new romances' rumour has been floating around, but I've seen it a lot. 

So, yes, there will be newly romancable characters. James is among them. So are two of the Normamdy's Alliance crew. 

No ME2 characters can be romanced unless you started it in ME2, according to the best information we have. 

Several 'old' squadmates (i.e. ME's LIs) can be romanced in some capacity, though - we don't yet know if they'll be for s/s or o/s, or both. 

Again what I would like to see (and this is just personal opinion), is being able to romance say Ashley as a female, if you attempted to do so in ME1 (xbox owners)....So...that's my real point...s/s partner with those you didn't originally....Other than that the entire series has has s/s relations when you look at shep/Liara, or the crew member and shep if you went for fem/fem in ME2....

[Ryzaki]

Exia001 wrote...

I just hope James turns out to be gender neutral, ManShep and James would be a mega win

It would.

D:

Ah well.

I might run guardian through first. I was gonna do Aizen but maybe my single Guardian (I'm just gonna keep him single) will be a good choice first.

[NeiA]

Another option would maybe be Jack, since I do remember trying and she "I'm not going into that Shepard".....Which implies that you probably could have romanced her, but they opted it out or something.

[bleetman]

silentassassin264 wrote...

All quarians would have to do is take immunosuppressors and they could walk around suitless.

Then why don't they?

[NeiA]

bleetman wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

All quarians would have to do is take immunosuppressors and they could walk around suitless.

Then why don't they?

PLOT...that's why.

[ElitePinecone]

NeiA wrote...
Again what I would like to see (and this is just personal opinion), is being able to romance say Ashley as a female, if you attempted to do so in ME1 (xbox owners)....So...that's my real point...s/s partner with those you didn't originally....Other than that the entire series has has s/s relations when you look at shep/Liara, or the crew member and shep if you went for fem/fem in ME2....

It may happen, we'll have to wait until March. There are too many ambiguities in the dialogue to say for certain. Some gender-neutral lines seem open to s/s inclusion, but people have also seen specific references to one gender of Shep in other scenes. I don't think there's much point speculating, we'll know soon enough. 

Considering that Bioware don't count Liara as an s/s option, and Kelly was an afterthought who had to be worked on by the team in their downtime... I wouldn't use them as shining examples of some dedication to breadth in romance content. 

ME2 romances won't be available again, for a whole bunch of complicated reasons that probably have to do with logistics. So no Jack. 

[AnIowaGuy]

Quarians risk death everytime they go without their suits with or without immunosuppressors. But sometimes one needs to Come Out so its better to be on Immunosuppressors and give oneself an 80% of living haha

[pizu]

Unabannable, I honestly think that you should rename yourself to undebatable. You've got great argumentation skills and an excellent line of reasoning. Marcus Tullius Cicero, the master of the ars dicendi, would be proud of you.