403 réponses à ce sujet

[Xivai]

lyssalu wrote...

no, because "bioware doesn't have the resources"

Need more Pylons eh? Damn those Pylons.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

DQE001 wrote...

TheAnima wrote...

 No, because Bioware is trying to avoid producing a controversial video game....

Honestly, I think the lack of m/m romance and the obviously female/female (but technically female/asari) relationship happened for exactly the reasons the developers stated in ME1: the guys behind writing the game weren't comfortable writing m/m interactions.

The reason why there are m/m romances in Dragon Age is, again, because of the reasons posted before: there were women on the writing team and they were perfectly comfortable writing such things. 

See http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=596773&forum=104&sp=45 for the explanation. 

Which character in ME1 would have been an acceptable homosexual then?  Should all male characters automatically be open to homosexual relations even if it doesn't fit their character? Likewise, should ever female character be open to heterosexual relationships? Bioware has a trend of doing this admittedly, but then again people complain if there isn't a romance option with any and everything with two legs (sometimes 4 in the case of dog in dragon age)  so perhaps I shouldn't try to justify the lack of a m/m relationship when Bioware constantly creates relationships for female characters.

I think that forcing either relationship on a character when it doesn't make sense is just poor writing, it'd be nice to have a female character in a Bioware game that wasn't open to any sort of relationship.

[Detsu]

ReDSH1FT wrote...
Sigh.  Rules 1 n 2 kid.  You just broke em.  I just knew I had you pegged correctly.  Way to point out where the real cancer is.  Also LURK MOAR.

>taking rules 1 and 2 seriously after summer '07
>calling another user "kid"
>spout a meme inappropriately

You're an idiot.

DeathCultArm wrote...

And no, I didn't play DA:O, I also know it didn't have a syfy special, or commerical on MTV. Not near as popular.

To let you in on the joke, DA had homosexual relationships with both genders.

[DeathCultArm]

And DA:O is less popular.



And so what there are more women, more men play mass effect than women...so you make no point.

[T1l]

TheAnima wrote...

No it wouldn't. Sadly you don't understand gender at all. Masculine does not mean male gender. There are plenty of feminine men who identify as men, and masculine women who identify as women. As far as Liara has stated, an Asari in a human society would identify as a woman.

Come on now, don't be snide. "You do not understand gender" - please. You're missing the crucial point that I was trying to make in that an Asari isn't human; that she isn't actually female. Yes, in a human context she may consider herself as such, but, and here's the kicker, she's not human. You're disregarding that fact to label her as something; to stereotype the Asari for convenience.

We'll agree to disagree, I guess. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're cutting the Asari short.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

T1l wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

I'm not trying to equate pedophilia with child molestation, in fact I'm trying to express the idea that the sexual attraction to children is no more inherently wrong than homosexuality.

...oh Jesus, what are you doing?

Good point.

Many people would read that statement as anti-homosexual.  

I guess the best way I can explain it is this:  There's nothing wrong with being attracted to a child from an objective point of view.  The part that upsets people is the idea of the child being forced into said relationship whether psychologically or physically.  I am absolutely not comparing homosexuality to the common concept of pedophilia in the sense that I don't believe homosexuals have bad intentions and are "dirty" and what not.      

I guess it's hard to really explain as I'm using arguments that sound a lot like anti-gay propaganda that you see from politicians all the time, plus I'm using terms that people already have their own "predefined" definitions of.

Ah well.  Can't do nothing about ignorance.

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

I'm not trying to equate pedophilia with child molestation, in fact I'm trying to express the idea that the sexual attraction to children is no more inherently wrong than homosexuality.  The manipulation element stems from past experiences as well as the idea that children cannot make informed decisions. (The question is, what is the cut off age?  We're still wrestling with that as society)

If you cannot see the obvious parallels between anti-pedophelia in modern society and darth's original anti-homosexual comment then you have no place in this discussion. 

(And yes I'm being all psuedointellectualisticism, it makes it easier to avoid becoming opinionated either way)

Well pedophiles are tricky business.  I was under the impression that to be a pedophile, you had to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescant children.  This is a problem.  I don't have a problem with people being attracted to them, but they are Forbidden Fruit, so to speak.  Pre-pubescant children are definitely underneath the cut-off age for individual decision making capabilities, their brains being much too underdeveloped to comprehend sexual relations adequately.

A fair point of view.

Perhaps if younger children were better educated on sex (rather than it being such a taboo topic until parents have to somehow explain puberty) children may be better informed to make those decisions.

Still, I know plenty of grown adults who are incapable of making similar decisions but I wouldn't deny them the opportunity to make a mistake.  

Modifié par ITSSEXYTIME, 19 janvier 2010 - 03:57 .

[TheAnima]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

I'm not trying to equate pedophilia with child molestation, in fact I'm trying to express the idea that the sexual attraction to children is no more inherently wrong than homosexuality.  The manipulation element stems from past experiences as well as the idea that children cannot make informed decisions. (The question is, what is the cut off age?  We're still wrestling with that as society)

If you cannot see the obvious parallels between anti-pedophelia in modern society and darth's original anti-homosexual comment then you have no place in this discussion. 

(And yes I'm being all psuedointellectualisticism, it makes it easier to avoid becoming opinionated either way)

Well pedophiles are tricky business.  I was under the impression that to be a pedophile, you had to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescant children.  This is a problem.  I don't have a problem with people being attracted to them, but they are Forbidden Fruit, so to speak.  Pre-pubescant children are definitely underneath the cut-off age for individual decision making capabilities, their brains being much too underdeveloped to comprehend sexual relations adequately.

Your seperating pedophiles and child molesters. I'm not sure the majority of the forum would be able to grasp such a complex concept.

[pharos_gryphon]

DeathCultArm wrote...

I'm trying to contribute. It was just as on-topic as was an of the *** rants were. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, i'm just tired of the same two topics.

I know I'm gonna kick myself for asking this, but what -is- the three letter word you keep using that gets continually bleeped, DCA?  Does Bioware have a list of all the various swears etc. that they blot out somewhere?  Is it always three asterics, or just one per letter of said cuss? *boggle*

Back on topic to our off topic, name calling isn't getting anyone's point across on either side of the argument, nor does it make your own position look any more the better.  Please stop, you're making the rest of us look bad.

Back on topic to the actual topic... Since it's not been confirmed, or denied, assuming it -is- in the game, I'd say the best bet is on it being Thane.  Much as I'd rather not have another assassin type, same as in DAO with Zevran, he seems the more logical choice than the others, although, Garrus might prove an interesting choice also, considering he follows you around like a Spectre Jr. all through the first game.

[Detsu]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...
Which character in ME1 would have been an acceptable homosexual then?  Should all male characters automatically be open to homosexual relations even if it doesn't fit their character? Likewise, should ever female character be open to heterosexual relationships? Bioware has a trend of doing this admittedly, but then again people complain if there isn't a romance option with any and everything with two legs (sometimes 4 in the case of dog in dragon age)  so perhaps I shouldn't try to justify the lack of a m/m relationship when Bioware constantly creates relationships for female characters.

I think that forcing either relationship on a character when it doesn't make sense is just poor writing, it'd be nice to have a female character in a Bioware game that wasn't open to any sort of relationship.

This is actually an interesting argument that I was thinking about earlier. My conclusion is basically that sexual attraction can occur regardless of character, and it's simply a matter of good writing to make it work.

Take Ashley for example. She seems pretty straight, right? So if there was going to be a femshep romance with her, they'd have to address her straightness. She'd probably be insecure about suddenly being attracted to a chick, etc.

it's like, there's no bad ideas, only bad execution of ideas, or that kind of thing.

shinobi602 wrote...
Your wisdom and intellectualness grows with every passing post.

You set yourself up, you knock yourself down. I stand around and make the sound effects.

[BatarianBob]

Kileyan wrote...
Ahh great.

The OP ranted about gays.

Now this guy decides he'l take the high road and rant about peoples religion.

You all are intolerant losers.

When you use your religion as an excuse to attack others, you make it fair game.

[WriteByTheSea]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

To an extent heterosexuality/homosexuality extend beyond a common fetish in that they focus around an attraction to a specific gender rather than a fixation on various acts/objects/whatever but irregardless the general concept remains the same.  

Again, no. These are clinical terms. Your use of them remains in error.

Among other things, I teach psychology and I was a practicing counselor, so let me clarify this for anyone reading. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality apply to a specific thing: the affectional preference of a person for a particular gender. It is categorically different than a paraphilia, which applies to a sexual desire for a particular object, situation or individual. The sexual orientation of a person gives one little insight into a paraphilia of person (if they have one.) 

As far as pedophilia goes, again it's a clinical term and is limited to prepubescent children. While in common usage it's often applied to any relationship where one party is below the age of consent, it's not actually the case. So again, your definition is in error. 

And "irregardless" isn't a word. 

I also teach English Comp.

[TheAnima]

Someone please define how you can 'seem straight' or 'seem gay' without resorting to masculine or feminine stereotypes.

[ReDSH1FT]

LOL, I'm telling you to lurk moar because what you are posting is dribble. But I used the meme wrong says the kid named "Detsu."



I WONDER how you got that one



Hmmmm.....

[DeathCultArm]

Why is it when anyone makes apoint against homosexuals, it's always has to be ignorance. All you guys do it throw out other people's opinion's with vague analogies and such.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

Detsu wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...
Which character in ME1 would have been an acceptable homosexual then?  Should all male characters automatically be open to homosexual relations even if it doesn't fit their character? Likewise, should ever female character be open to heterosexual relationships? Bioware has a trend of doing this admittedly, but then again people complain if there isn't a romance option with any and everything with two legs (sometimes 4 in the case of dog in dragon age)  so perhaps I shouldn't try to justify the lack of a m/m relationship when Bioware constantly creates relationships for female characters.

I think that forcing either relationship on a character when it doesn't make sense is just poor writing, it'd be nice to have a female character in a Bioware game that wasn't open to any sort of relationship.

This is actually an interesting argument that I was thinking about earlier. My conclusion is basically that sexual attraction can occur regardless of character, and it's simply a matter of good writing to make it work.

Take Ashley for example. She seems pretty straight, right? So if there was going to be a femshep romance with her, they'd have to address her straightness. She'd probably be insecure about suddenly being attracted to a chick, etc.

it's like, there's no bad ideas, only bad execution of ideas, or that kind of thing.

shinobi602 wrote...
Your wisdom and intellectualness grows with every passing post.

You set yourself up, you knock yourself down. I stand around and make the sound effects.

But if every character was open to either relationship wouldn't that ****** off people who claim that sexuality isn't a choice?

Not to imply that it IS a choice, but I think it wildly depends on your personal sexuality.  I think most people are generally open to relationships of either type until they are painted by societal expectations and beliefs.  Certainly though, the idea that a straight woman such as Ash would engage in a homosexual relationship (especially considering that she is a grown adult with a strong religious upbringing, not necessarily the epitome of open-mindedness)  because of a sweet-talking Shepard could be equally insulting to people as a stereotypical homosexual character would be. (Eg the only m/m option is a flamboyant male who wears makeup and follows intergalactic fashion)

[TheAnima]

DQE001 wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

To an extent heterosexuality/homosexuality extend beyond a common fetish in that they focus around an attraction to a specific gender rather than a fixation on various acts/objects/whatever but irregardless the general concept remains the same.  

Again, no. These are clinical terms. Your use of them remains in error.

Among other things, I teach psychology and I was a practicing counselor, so let me clarify this for anyone reading. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality apply to a specific thing: the affectional preference of a person for a particular gender. It is categorically different than a paraphilia, which applies to a sexual desire for a particular object, situation or individual. The sexual orientation of a person gives one little insight into a paraphilia of person (if they have one.) 

As far as pedophilia goes, again it's a clinical term and is limited to prepubescent children. While in common usage it's often applied to any relationship where one party is below the age of consent, it's not actually the case. So again, your definition is in error. 

And "irregardless" isn't a word. 

I also teach English Comp.

Let me get this out of the way.

"No you don't."

Because being perfectly honest, anyone mature enough to attain such qualifications is mature enough to know that posting them on an internet message board does nothing but make them sound like a pretentious teenager who just stumbled upon a psychology book.

[Detsu]

TheAnima wrote...

Someone please define how you can 'seem straight' or 'seem gay' without resorting to masculine or feminine stereotypes.

Those stereotypes are an inevitable and dare I say, crucial part of human culture. They exist for a reason.

In response to your question, it'd mainly be their backround. Like that voicemail thing Ashley gets? And her story about her little sister dating a dude? It all build her up as this character that comes from your usual heterosexual American (OH I MEAN HUMAN WHOOPS) backround, and she's a part of it. Also religion.

[DeathCultArm]

And it's confirmed if there no f/f romances do you HONESTLY think there'd be a m/m. They didn't add the "lesser of the two evils'..so...yeah.

[Mister Mage]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Why is it when anyone makes apoint against homosexuals, it's always has to be ignorance. All you guys do it throw out other people's opinion's with vague analogies and such.

How can you make a "point" against homosexuals, any more than you can make a "point" against black people?  Yes educated people have done that latter in the past, but few would argue that doing so isn't intolerant.

[TheAnima]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Why is it when anyone makes apoint against homosexuals, it's always has to be ignorance. All you guys do it throw out other people's opinion's with vague analogies and such.

Noone has actually developed a logical arguement against homosexuality. This doesn't surprise me.

[Adanu]

TheAnima wrote...

DQE001 wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

To an extent heterosexuality/homosexuality extend beyond a common fetish in that they focus around an attraction to a specific gender rather than a fixation on various acts/objects/whatever but irregardless the general concept remains the same.  

Again, no. These are clinical terms. Your use of them remains in error.

Among other things, I teach psychology and I was a practicing counselor, so let me clarify this for anyone reading. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality apply to a specific thing: the affectional preference of a person for a particular gender. It is categorically different than a paraphilia, which applies to a sexual desire for a particular object, situation or individual. The sexual orientation of a person gives one little insight into a paraphilia of person (if they have one.) 

As far as pedophilia goes, again it's a clinical term and is limited to prepubescent children. While in common usage it's often applied to any relationship where one party is below the age of consent, it's not actually the case. So again, your definition is in error. 

And "irregardless" isn't a word. 

I also teach English Comp.

Let me get this out of the way.

"No you don't."

Because being perfectly honest, anyone mature enough to attain such qualifications is mature enough to know that posting them on an internet message board does nothing but make them sound like a pretentious teenager who just stumbled upon a psychology book.

Meanwhile, anyone immature enough to attack someone on the internet for attempting to clarify ignorance is *sure* to be someone we should be listening to!

[ITSSEXYTIME]

DQE001 wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

To an extent heterosexuality/homosexuality extend beyond a common fetish in that they focus around an attraction to a specific gender rather than a fixation on various acts/objects/whatever but irregardless the general concept remains the same.  

Again, no. These are clinical terms. Your use of them remains in error.

Among other things, I teach psychology and I was a practicing counselor, so let me clarify this for anyone reading. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality apply to a specific thing: the affectional preference of a person for a particular gender. It is categorically different than a paraphilia, which applies to a sexual desire for a particular object, situation or individual. The sexual orientation of a person gives one little insight into a paraphilia of person (if they have one.) 

As far as pedophilia goes, again it's a clinical term and is limited to prepubescent children. While in common usage it's often applied to any relationship where one party is below the age of consent, it's not actually the case. So again, your definition is in error. 

And "irregardless" isn't a word. 

I also teach English Comp.

Correct, there's a difference between Pedophilia and Paedophilia (attraction to teenage children) however such a distinction would be loss on many of the people who can barely comprehend the idea of a pedophile being anything but a child molester. 

Also correct about irregardless, sometimes I forget. (It's just such a fun word to say)

[gamergamergamer]

a- mass effect isnt a ****ing dating simulator, if yuou dont like the lame romances dont do them, b- it isnt biowares job to include every sick fetish or orentation just so you can ****** to 2 videogame characters having sex. c- the vast majority of the population does not want 2 men having sex in their game

[ReDSH1FT]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

LOL, I'm telling you to lurk moar because what you are posting is dribble. But I used the meme wrong says the kid named "Detsu."

I WONDER how you got that one

Hmmmm.....

Gonna quote myself here in case you didn't see this Detsu.  Because apparently I'm the cancer here using memes inappropriately etc. etc.

Sigh, you new wannabe channers deserve all the flak that you get.