1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

A world in which a player's gender matters only increases immersiveness and strengthens suspension of disbelief for me

As I did with David, please explain why this is the case.

[Plaintiff]

Silfren wrote...
Had Bioware been willing to make that side story of Cullen's be part of the male Mage Warden, I'd have applauded them SO EFFING HARD--and so would a lot of gamers I know.

They could've done it, too, since the Human Noble origin included the chance for a PC of either gender to have a homosexual encounter. And I think one of the Dwarven origins allowed for it too, but I never played them so I don't quote me on that.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Silfren wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Silfren wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@LPPrince: Thanks for the link. It would be nice to see how Mr Gaiders proposed handling of the LIs plays out. It is interesting. It doesn't look like all followers will take the bi route, without forgetting sexual diversity. It also doesn't mean all romances have a happy end. I hope it gets implemented. It sure will get a lot of forum attention. Ghehe.

...Shyeah.  That's not his proposed handling.  It's the way Gaider would like to do it in a perfect world where he has all the resources he needs.

Yeah. I worded that wrong. Sorry about that. I do understand that there may be other priorities and resource considerations. That's why I hoped it gets implemented. And maybe something rubs off from it anyway.

I edited my post above to include Gaider's actual words on this subject.

I think we can expect DA:I to go the same route as DA2.  I'm quite confident of it, in fact, given Gaider's position on privileging fairness over exclusivity and alleged realism.

It'll improve in each title. So I'll wait and see.

[someguy1231]

Plaintiff wrote...
So, let me get this straight: You more readily accept the existence of dragons, demons and magic because not everyone in the setting is bisexual. And when that changes, the entire illusion collapses around your head like a house of cards.

Is that about right?

And to follow-up: Would you accept an "all-bi" setting if the dragons, demons and magic were removed? Or does all-bi just destroy immersion all on its own?

Ah yes, the old "You accept these fantasy elements but can't accept this?" strawman.

"All-bi" and "dragons, demons, and magic" are not related at all. The biggest reason "all-bi" destroys immersion for me is that it reminds me I'm in a programmed, artificial environment by making all of my companions have the hots for me. It makes me feel too much like the world revolves around me, which is one of my biggest peeves in any RPG game. It's the player who should feel like they're part of the world. Having some of your companions tell you "sorry, you're not the right gender for me" reinforces that feeling for me.

[Plaintiff]

someguy1231 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
So, let me get this straight: You more readily accept the existence of dragons, demons and magic because not everyone in the setting is bisexual. And when that changes, the entire illusion collapses around your head like a house of cards.

Is that about right?

And to follow-up: Would you accept an "all-bi" setting if the dragons, demons and magic were removed? Or does all-bi just destroy immersion all on its own?

Ah yes, the old "You accept these fantasy elements but can't accept this?" strawman.

"All-bi" and "dragons, demons, and magic" are not related at all. The biggest reason "all-bi" destroys immersion for me is that it reminds me I'm in a programmed, artificial environment by making all of my companions have the hots for me. It makes me feel too much like the world revolves around me, which is one of my biggest peeves in any RPG game. It's the player who should feel like they're part of the world. Having some of your companions tell you "sorry, you're not the right gender for me" reinforces that feeling for me.

No, you misunderstand my question:

Would you be able to accept a fantasy world where it was established as a core aspect of the plot and setting that the entire society was bisexual in orientation?

[Silfren]

someguy1231 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
So, let me get this straight: You more readily accept the existence of dragons, demons and magic because not everyone in the setting is bisexual. And when that changes, the entire illusion collapses around your head like a house of cards.

Is that about right?

And to follow-up: Would you accept an "all-bi" setting if the dragons, demons and magic were removed? Or does all-bi just destroy immersion all on its own?

Ah yes, the old "You accept these fantasy elements but can't accept this?" strawman.

"All-bi" and "dragons, demons, and magic" are not related at all. The biggest reason "all-bi" destroys immersion for me is that it reminds me I'm in a programmed, artificial environment by making all of my companions have the hots for me. It makes me feel too much like the world revolves around me, which is one of my biggest peeves in any RPG game. It's the player who should feel like they're part of the world. Having some of your companions tell you "sorry, you're not the right gender for me" reinforces that feeling for me.

I don't understand the whole "all my companions have the hots for me" argument.  With the exception of Isabela propositioning you, and Anders making a single comment that doesn't necessarily have to be construed as a hit-on, NONE of the companions show romantic interest in you at all.  Nor do they even flirt with you.  It is ALWAYS initiated by the PC--which is another reason why I'm not impressed with Origins being held up as more realistic, since the straight LIs didn't reject advances from the wrong-gender PC; instead, the PC was completely denied the option altogether.  Effectively, zero interest in or attraction to the PC exists prior to the PC making the right dialogue choice to trigger it.  Which, again, is exactly how it was for Origins. 

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 08:16 .

[Battlebloodmage]

Silfren wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
So, let me get this straight: You more readily accept the existence of dragons, demons and magic because not everyone in the setting is bisexual. And when that changes, the entire illusion collapses around your head like a house of cards.

Is that about right?

And to follow-up: Would you accept an "all-bi" setting if the dragons, demons and magic were removed? Or does all-bi just destroy immersion all on its own?

Ah yes, the old "You accept these fantasy elements but can't accept this?" strawman.

"All-bi" and "dragons, demons, and magic" are not related at all. The biggest reason "all-bi" destroys immersion for me is that it reminds me I'm in a programmed, artificial environment by making all of my companions have the hots for me. It makes me feel too much like the world revolves around me, which is one of my biggest peeves in any RPG game. It's the player who should feel like they're part of the world. Having some of your companions tell you "sorry, you're not the right gender for me" reinforces that feeling for me.

I don't understand the whole "all my companions have the hots for me" argument.  With the exception of Isabela propositioning you, and Anders making a single comment that doesn't necessarily have to be construed as a hit-on, NONE of the companions show romantic interest in you at all.  Nor do they even flirt with you.  It is ALWAYS initiated by the PC--which is another reason why I'm not impressed with Origins being held up as more realistic, since the straight LIs didn't reject advances from the wrong-gender PC; instead, the PC was completely denied the option altogether.  Effectively, zero interest in or attraction to the PC exists prior to the PC making the right dialogue choice to trigger it.  Which, again, is exactly how it was for Origins. 

Almost every other games out there have tons of female you see fall for you. The difference here I guess is you have male LIs in Bioware games. 

[Maria Caliban]

someguy1231 wrote...

Ah yes, the old "You accept these fantasy elements but can't accept this?" strawman.

That's not a strawman.

[Silfren]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Silfren wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
So, let me get this straight: You more readily accept the existence of dragons, demons and magic because not everyone in the setting is bisexual. And when that changes, the entire illusion collapses around your head like a house of cards.

Is that about right?

And to follow-up: Would you accept an "all-bi" setting if the dragons, demons and magic were removed? Or does all-bi just destroy immersion all on its own?

Ah yes, the old "You accept these fantasy elements but can't accept this?" strawman.

"All-bi" and "dragons, demons, and magic" are not related at all. The biggest reason "all-bi" destroys immersion for me is that it reminds me I'm in a programmed, artificial environment by making all of my companions have the hots for me. It makes me feel too much like the world revolves around me, which is one of my biggest peeves in any RPG game. It's the player who should feel like they're part of the world. Having some of your companions tell you "sorry, you're not the right gender for me" reinforces that feeling for me.

I don't understand the whole "all my companions have the hots for me" argument.  With the exception of Isabela propositioning you, and Anders making a single comment that doesn't necessarily have to be construed as a hit-on, NONE of the companions show romantic interest in you at all.  Nor do they even flirt with you.  It is ALWAYS initiated by the PC--which is another reason why I'm not impressed with Origins being held up as more realistic, since the straight LIs didn't reject advances from the wrong-gender PC; instead, the PC was completely denied the option altogether.  Effectively, zero interest in or attraction to the PC exists prior to the PC making the right dialogue choice to trigger it.  Which, again, is exactly how it was for Origins. 

Almost every other games out there have tons of female you see fall for you. The difference here I guess is you have male LIs in Bioware games. 

...We're not talking about games in general, or any other game company.  We are talking about how Bioware handles Dragon Age (with references and allusions and such to Mass Effect).  So how exactly is what other games do relevant at all?

[someguy1231]

Plaintiff wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
So, let me get this straight: You more readily accept the existence of dragons, demons and magic because not everyone in the setting is bisexual. And when that changes, the entire illusion collapses around your head like a house of cards.

Is that about right?

And to follow-up: Would you accept an "all-bi" setting if the dragons, demons and magic were removed? Or does all-bi just destroy immersion all on its own?

Ah yes, the old "You accept these fantasy elements but can't accept this?" strawman.

"All-bi" and "dragons, demons, and magic" are not related at all. The biggest reason "all-bi" destroys immersion for me is that it reminds me I'm in a programmed, artificial environment by making all of my companions have the hots for me. It makes me feel too much like the world revolves around me, which is one of my biggest peeves in any RPG game. It's the player who should feel like they're part of the world. Having some of your companions tell you "sorry, you're not the right gender for me" reinforces that feeling for me.

No, you misunderstand my question:

Would you be able to accept a fantasy world where it was established as a core aspect of the plot and setting that the entire society was bisexual in orientation?

Yes, under three conditions:

1. Not all of my companions are romanceable. ("all bi" doesn't mean "everyone's willing to have sex with everyone")
2. Of the ones that are romanceable, not all of them require little/no effort.
3. The player's gender still has significant impacts on the story in other ways.

[Silfren]

someguy1231 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
So, let me get this straight: You more readily accept the existence of dragons, demons and magic because not everyone in the setting is bisexual. And when that changes, the entire illusion collapses around your head like a house of cards.

Is that about right?

And to follow-up: Would you accept an "all-bi" setting if the dragons, demons and magic were removed? Or does all-bi just destroy immersion all on its own?

Ah yes, the old "You accept these fantasy elements but can't accept this?" strawman.

"All-bi" and "dragons, demons, and magic" are not related at all. The biggest reason "all-bi" destroys immersion for me is that it reminds me I'm in a programmed, artificial environment by making all of my companions have the hots for me. It makes me feel too much like the world revolves around me, which is one of my biggest peeves in any RPG game. It's the player who should feel like they're part of the world. Having some of your companions tell you "sorry, you're not the right gender for me" reinforces that feeling for me.

No, you misunderstand my question:

Would you be able to accept a fantasy world where it was established as a core aspect of the plot and setting that the entire society was bisexual in orientation?

Yes, under three conditions:

1. Not all of my companions are romanceable. ("all bi" doesn't mean "everyone's willing to have sex with everyone")
2. Of the ones that are romanceable, not all of them require little/no effort.
3. The player's gender still has significant impacts on the story in other ways.

1 and 2 are already true and have been for both Origins and DA2. As for 3...

Am I the only person here who can see the inherent issues with gender itself having significant impacts on the story, and why, being a woman, that bothers the hell out of me?

[Hazegurl]

someguy1231 wrote...

If you like to believe each person is "their[sic] own individual self", then giving them a firmly-established sexuality would only enhance that.

What sexuality? According to how we define it in our own world? For all you know there could be a term in Thedas for a person who is only sexually attracted to elves that has nothing at all to do with their gender.

Then you are why RPGs are being more and more dumbed down in recent years. This ties into something I mentioned earlier in this thread, where people want all LIs available regardless less out of "inclusiveness" and more out of laziness.

Are you claiming that RPGs that do not add real life definitions and terms are dumbed down? I really don't get the point you're making. How on earth is it an rpg if you are desiring RL terms to define who the characters are? Would you call Isabella an "African-American" person because her skin is dark?

And gender is something that also exists, both in the ME verse and in Thedas. For example,  it's already been mentioned that the Chantry is a primarily matriarchal institution. Have that impact the player's gender somehow. The same goes for LIs.Including a few bisexuals is fine, but making all of them that is just lazy. Make a few LIs that are firmly ****** or heterosexual, then have them show it by refusing to pursue a romance if the player isn't their desired gender.

Yes gender exists. Men and women exists in Thedas but do the terms gay straight and bi as we know it in our own world exist in Thedas? You say that including bisexuals is fine but what makes you think any character that romances two genders is bisexual in the world of Dragon Age?? Prove that isabella is bisexual according to the world of Dragon Age and not something you yourself is putting on her based on your our own terms. As for Mass Effect. Considering that it is a future event taking place in our own world, then yes gay,straight, and bi exists.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 30 juin 2013 - 08:26 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I don't have the feeling that all bi followers would destroy immersion. It's just simply a matter of selecting the options you like for the romance you are after or maybe not go after one at all. It's much like telling that the more aggressive or direct dialog options kill the immersion when you want to play a good character. That's nonsense too.

Edit: Deleted the quote as to avoid any confusion.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 30 juin 2013 - 08:37 .

[someguy1231]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

A world in which a player's gender matters only increases immersiveness and strengthens suspension of disbelief for me

As I did with David, please explain why this is the case.

As I've been saying, I believe that in an RPG the player should feel like they're part of the world, not that the world revolves around them. If the world blocks certain content and opens up other content to me due to my class or race, that makes the world resonate with me because it makes the choices I made at the character creation page matter. The same principle applies to my character's gender.

By the way, my definition of a world that revolves around the player is one in which the player has little or no content blocked or opened to them due to their gender/race/class/origin or narrative choices.

[LarryDavid]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

The mistake here is assuming that all of these concepts have degrees - by what logic do you group together completely different concepts?  Where is their sameness?  "Big," of course, has degrees.  "Big" is a signifier that has a lot of differance from its signified.  Does "tennisball"? Can something be "more" or "less" "tennisball"?  Or does "tennisball" better refer to its signified (even if all words are imperfect and would have to be infinite to truly signify a signified, thank you so much for the mind****, Derrida)?  Similarly, so does "fairness."


Before even getting into it, this analogy is imperfect for the following reasons:

• 4 loaves of bread is finite, unlike the 4 romances in DA2
• Bob only wants 1 loaf, but if he is representing the pro-all-available-LI side, he should want at least an equal amount
• John, if he wants strictly straight or strictly gay LIs, should want Bob not to have half of the loaves
• Bob and John, if they represent PCs, should have John returning to the bakery as a different sex if he wants to get all the LIs on the second playthrough
• Actually, let me just rewrite this.

For it to accurately reflect the situation, there would be 4 kinds of bread that are infinitely available.  Bob would have to want to be able to have each of the 4 kinds, while John only wants him to be able to have 2 kinds.  If Bob wants the other two, he would have to come back to the bakery as a person of a different sex and this bothers him (John, however, has no problem with coming back as a different sex).  Bob, however, believes that he should be able to get all 4 kinds of bread in one trip because the reason why he can't is ridiculous.  Him getting all 4 kinds of bread in one trip in no way affects whether John can get his bread or not.

I'm sorry, but this answer is crystal clear to me.  I will see if I can explain, however.  Catering to desires and catering to equality are fundamentally different.  If Jim and Sally are a couple and want to get married, while John and Andy are a couple and do not, is offering straight marriage but not gay marriage "equal," or is it just catering to the desires of a few specific people?  The "equal" solution to your question, ascribing to the only definition of "equal," would be two split the loaves equally - Bob 2 and John 2.  Catering to their desires, however, is a different story.

Yes, it is.  In order for the distribution to be fair and equitable, ceteris paribus, both Bob and John should receive an equal amount. Now, just because it is fair for Bob to have two loaves, does he have to take them both?  Of course not; he take only 1 if that's what he wants to do.  He can let John have the other one, if he's such a glutton.  But what bearing does this have on the topic at hand?  For example, just because Tim wants to vote and I don't (for the sake of argument), wouldn't mean that it's "fair" to only give Tim the right to vote and deny me mine, besides, of course, the implications for all people sharing my sex.  

I'm sorry.  Please don't take this wrong way, but I couldn't get through replying to a paragraph analogizing characters to cookies and toppings without laughing.  I already answered this two posts ago, just not about cookies and sprinkles and frosting (getting hungry now).  Can we please skip the analogies and talk about the real subject here?  I'll just leave this instead:

Thank you.  However, we must agree to disagree because we have reached an impasse.  I do not believe the definition of "fairness" in this context is at all subjective.

Well, I have to say that it is rather funny to see how you made an analogy w.r.t. the LI situation of everything that wasn't meant to be that kind of analogy.

I'm not a fan of a quote inside a quote but I suspect your memory is more than adequate; It was my understanding that you stated that because 'fair' has a dictionary definition it can be used to unambiguously label statements.  So the word 'big' was the first word that popped into my head as an example of a word that has a definition but is rather useless to make absolute statements with. We clearly disagree about the validity of the sentence obtained by replacing the word 'big' by 'fair' in previous sentence (oh scientific writing what have you done to me). But my point was that I don't think that the fact that a word has a definition can be used as an argument.

I'm really sorry to say this but ... I was only talking about bread. I see now that the number 4 was poorly choosen but it is simply the smallest even number that can be unevenly distributed in a way that someone also gets something. You can go back to read it again but I'll try to give an other example that is harder to analogize. Basically what I tried/try to do is make you accept that there are situations where 'equal treatment' is open for several interpretations. Because when you accept that 'equal treatment' can mean different things from different valid points of view, you can only conclude that 'what is fair' is subjective.

As I said before I'm doing a Phd and my starting wage was around 1800EUR, just like every other Phd student. But with my diploma I would start with 2000 or more in the private sector, whereas most Phd students (with a different diploma) would start with a wage of about 1400. So, does the university treat us equally?
1) Yes; We are all doing a Phd so it is normal that we get paid the same.
2) No; The content of each Phd differs. The wage in the private sector can be used as a meassurement for the contribution of the Phd to society and hence, the wage of a Phd student should be a reflection of this.

As to be expected I lean to option 2. Maybe you have a third option, but probably you will have strong feelings about one of these two. Now, can you really say that the other point is not valid at all? Can you say that the reasoning of the others is completely flawed and that there is only one valid way to answer this question? If yes, then there is no common ground between us.

I'm afraid you didn't read the analogy properly. Following sentences were extremely absurd to write but still; Although perfectly defined, I admit that the image of a cookie with topping does not unambiguously reflect its meaning. One could replace topping by blueberries and cookie by muffin. The equivalent of a cookie with topping is then a blueberry muffin, i.e. they are intertwined. So, Leliana 'is' a cookie with topping because she is romancable by both a male and female player. So persuing a relationship with Leliana is the equivalent of 'consuming' a cookie with topping. And I don't see how this would imply that the 'consuming' has to be done simultaniously by different characters.

Lets leave the tasty analogy, and envision following groups (one can sustitute female by male and vice versa):
a) people who only romance female LIs that are only available for females
people who only romance female LIs that are only available for males
c) people who only romance female LIs that are available for males and females
d) people who will romance female LIs regardless of their availability

I haven't taken my time to check if above groups are mutually exclusive, but I guess it doesn't matter that much. For the female LIs we have following options :
1) only romanceable by females -> exclude groups b and c
2) only romancable by males -> you exclude groups a and c
3) romanceable by males and females -> you exclude groups a and b

This isn't a story about inclusion but about exclusion. It is your subjective concept of equal treatment that determines your subjective concept of fairness that determines the groups you think are fine to exclude. In DA:O only group a was excluded, whereas you argue for an implementation where groups a and b get excluded. So whats your moral basis?
Is it because groups a and b are probably very small? So on a lower level your concept of fairness boils down the the majority rule?
Do you discredit the desires of people belonging to group a or b? What is it then that makes your partner preferences more valid than theirs?


Anywayz, always happy to agree to disagree with a reasonable person.

[Plaintiff]

Silfren wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Almost every other games out there have tons of female you see fall for you. The difference here I guess is you have male LIs in Bioware games. 

...We're not talking about games in general, or any other game company.  We are talking about how Bioware handles Dragon Age (with references and allusions and such to Mass Effect).  So how exactly is what other games do relevant at all?

What Battlebloodmage probably meant was that the argument against "all-bi" companions strikes him as hypocritical, because the detractors don't seem to have any problem with games that have an inordinate number of romanceable women, but adding men into the equation somehow spoils it.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Plaintiff wrote...

As a gay man, I emphatically don't want "fair treatment" of the issue. Making a big deal out of being gay (or being straight, or being anything) is not the way to be equal or inclusive.

That's fine, and I'm not saying they should make it a big deal (or I don't think I was), only that they can't make any kind of deal of it at all. I don't think that bringing a topic up in conversation automatically means it must be made a big deal of.

Like I said earlier, Zevran can be questioned on his preferences in DA:O. He says he prefers women, but that won't stop him from enjoying the company of men if he chooses. I t answers the question, but IMO doesn't make a big song and dance of anything.

[Allan Schumacher]

As I've been saying, I believe that in an RPG the player should feel like they're part of the world, not that the world revolves around them. If the world blocks certain content and opens up other content to me due to my class or race, that makes the world resonate with me because it makes the choices I made at the character creation page matter. The same principle applies to my character's gender.

In what ways do you prefer gender to matter? (List all of them, preferably).

[Silfren]

Plaintiff wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Almost every other games out there have tons of female you see fall for you. The difference here I guess is you have male LIs in Bioware games. 

...We're not talking about games in general, or any other game company.  We are talking about how Bioware handles Dragon Age (with references and allusions and such to Mass Effect).  So how exactly is what other games do relevant at all?

What Battlebloodmage probably meant was that the argument against "all-bi" companions strikes him as hypocritical, because the detractors don't seem to have any problem with games that have an inordinate number of romanceable women, but adding men into the equation somehow spoils it.

Ah.  Re-reading, I can see this.  Thanks for the clarification.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Like I said earlier, Zevran can be questioned on his preferences in DA:O. He says he prefers women, but that won't stop him from enjoying the company of men if he chooses.

Man, this was wrong beyond belief. I only found this out today because I stumbled across it online, but he evidently likes men because he had to be trained to seduce both men and women?

They had to "justify" his same-sex attraction by saying it was sexually abused into him? It was really that rill?

[someguy1231]

Silfren wrote...
1 and 2 are already true and have been for both Origins and DA2. As for 3...

Regardless, the mere fact that, of all the romanceable companions, all can be romanced by a player of any gender felt contrived and too player-centric to me.

Silfren wrote...
Am I the only person here who can see the inherent issues with gender itself having significant impacts on the story, and why, being a woman, that bothers the hell out of me?

Just because we're working for gender equality in the real world doesn't mean we can't tell stories where it's still a serious problem. Besides, gender having an impact on the story need not imply that one gender is treated or is considered worse than the other.

[Plaintiff]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Like I said earlier, Zevran can be questioned on his preferences in DA:O. He says he prefers women, but that won't stop him from enjoying the company of men if he chooses.

Man, this was wrong beyond belief. I only found this out today because I stumbled across it online, but he evidently likes men because he had to be trained to seduce both men and women?

They had to "justify" his same-sex attraction by saying it was sexually abused into him? It was really that rill?

Well, Zevran words it differently, but when you put it like that, it sounds pretty bad. 

[Silfren]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Like I said earlier, Zevran can be questioned on his preferences in DA:O. He says he prefers women, but that won't stop him from enjoying the company of men if he chooses.

Man, this was wrong beyond belief. I only found this out today because I stumbled across it online, but he evidently likes men because he had to be trained to seduce both men and women?

They had to "justify" his same-sex attraction by saying it was sexually abused into him? It was really that rill?

I don't think Bioware wrote his background that way specifically to justify his attraction to men and women, no.  Though I can see how people might get that impression.  I think his background was intended to be separate from his sexual preferences, without any thought given to the unfortunate implications.

Edited for clarification.

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 08:41 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

Plaintiff wrote...

Well, Zevran words it differently, but when you put it like that, it sounds pretty bad. 

Silfren wrote...

I don't think Bioware wrote his background that way in order to justify his attraction to men and women, no.  Though I can see how people might get that impression.  I think his background was intended to be separate from his sexual preferences, without any thought given to the unfortunate implications.

Man, I'd hope as much, but that is just extra unfortunate. Just feels wrong, like those nasty wool blankets they use to cover up bed stains at the cheap hotels.