1875 réponses à ce sujet

[Banxey]

As expected, I made a post saying character sexuality should be tied to who they are rather than what IRL sexuality they should appeal to and the LGBT legions jumped on me.
 
It's like you people don't even know what an RPG is.
 
Good character writing trumps what the public wants.
 
And no, I'm not some homophobe. I was totally fine with Samantha Traynor being a lesbian ( her rejecting Shepard was hilarious ) or with Cortez being homosexual.
 
It's part of their character. It's who they are.
 
Making everyone bi is a cop out to please the masses.

To be fair to the "LGBT legions", the post you made wasn't particularly clear. If I remember correctly, you said the "Chantry priest" and Alistair shouldn't be bisexual because it doesn't suit what they are. That was what people seemed confused by, and then made jokes about how religious people could never be gay (which is fair because that is ridiculous). But it seems you feel only Zevran/Isabela type characters being bi makes sense. If you did in fact mean that, I have to tell you that you are wrong. It's like saying all straight people are prudes, and you must know that isn't true.

[LarryDavid]

Okay I'll bit. I'm going to treat you like an intellectual, I want you to give me THREE properly cited, peer reviewed articles that state this and then I'll consider your opinion.

 

The reason I'm doing this is because you are making A lot of scientific assumptions, the thread so far has been sociological and opiniative in its nature.

 

This is ridiculous, but anyways ->  http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2492513/

This should more than suffice (notice especially the effect on the amygdala (aggression, fear, anxiety) ).

[Zazzerka]

This is ridiculous, but anyways ->  http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2492513/

This should more than suffice (notice especially the effect on the amygdala (aggression, fear, anxiety) ).

 

The author's name is Dick. Dick Swaab.

 

I just... wow.

[Dio Demon]

This is ridiculous, but anyways ->  http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2492513/

This should more than suffice (notice especially the effect on the amygdala (aggression, fear, anxiety) ).

Since I'm not an expert in Neuroscience I can't confirm or deny it's credibility, but there are a few things that stood out to me. The article does not present any proper first-hand data all of it is second-hand. Majority of the first-hand data that was collected could be classified as outdated. Also it doesn't take into any other possible factors that may influence it into consideration. Also it provides a one sided argument, which gives it a strong biased feeling. The article seems a bit iffy to me. And again I'm not a neuroscientist I can't once again confirm or deny. I can just point out general flaws.

 

The author's name is Dick. Dick Swaab.

 

I just... wow.

I cannot believe that I did not see that!

[LarryDavid]

Since I'm not an expert in Neuroscience I can't confirm or deny it's credibility, but there are a few things that stood out to me. The article does not present any proper first-hand data all of it is second-hand. Majority of the first-hand data that was collected could be classified as outdated. Also it doesn't take into any other possible factors that may influence it into consideration. Also it provides a one sided argument, which gives it a strong biased feeling. The article seems a bit iffy to me. And again I'm not a neuroscientist I can't once again confirm or deny. I can just point out general flaws.

 

I cannot believe that I did not see that!

 

Well, I choose this article because it combines some results from other articles rather than focus on 1 aspect. I'm not an expert in neuroscience either, but, as I'm of the opinion that this is an interesting subject, I once researched this topic thoroughly a few years ago and literature is really one sided on this subject. If this wasn't the case, and if there would only be some hypotheses, I wouldn't bother to post these as this is a sensitive topic for a lot of people.

 

(I don't want to spoil the fun, but Dick is a common Dutch name. Otherwise his parents would be made of pure win!)

[CybAnt1]

Well, that is not entirely true. Being gay is the result of a lack of exposure to a hormone similar to testosterone during the development of the brain (in the womb). 

 

That's cool. You know something that the American Psychiatric Association doesn't! (BTW, that organization represents the thousands of people working in the psychiatric profession.)

 

http://www.psychiatr...ual-orientation

 

What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?

 

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

 

[end]

 

For a long time, people were looking for a homosexual "gene". This was a big focus of Simon LeVay at the National Institutes of Health. However, there may not be one. With separated twins, when one is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay. NOT 100%. 

 

I do agree with you more recent theories focus on hormone exposure in the womb. But even there we have a problem, right? Because presumably twins are getting the same uterine hormone bath. Yet, again, see above.

 

This would seem to indicate there are both biological and post-birth environmental/developmental factors involved. Incidentally, this is true for a lot of human 'genetic' attributes, including IQ or intelligence. The theory that homosexuals are different psychologically from heterosexuals (beyond sexual orientation of course) does not seem to hold up. 

 

http://psychology.uc...tal_health.html

 

Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.

 

Unaware of each subject's sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men's overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents' sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

 

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

 

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology. 

 

[end]

 

And, of course, the biggest problem is the existence of bisexuality. If the brain has some binary on/off switch (say the amygdala or hypothalamus) for sexual orientation, why is it a large number of people experience attraction to both sexes? 

 

Oh, and on your stuff about testosterone & aggression -- and from Nature magazine: one of the world's leading scientific journals:

 

http://www.nature.co...ssion_or_180520

 

THE FACTS: Behavioural research on testosterone is, if anything, inconsistent. Highly inconsistent. And a bit surprising too. Some studies found that high pre-natal exposure to testosterone leads to more generous game offers in men and women (a.k.a charity). Others have concluded that, when testosterone is artificially enhanced, men become less generous, more vengeful and antisocial. Yet others still have suggested that hypogonadal males (a.k.a low testosterone-producing males) who had their testosterone increased saw no jump in aggressive behaviour, and in fact became more friendly, energetic and, well, happy.

 

[end]

 

No offense, but returning to the game, if you're saying something bizarre like you should know the gay characters because they're pacifists, well, sorry, NO. 

 

A study has only limited validity until it's been replicated. Scientists are human beings with biases and sometimes their unconscious biases affect their research. Read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. "Dick Swaab's" goes into that category. 

 

One more scientific point for you:

 

http://knowledgenuts...ity-is-natural/

 

Bonobos are an endangered ape species found only in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they live in small, largely peaceful tribes. Along with chimps, they’re our closest living relatives; which is why the study of their mating habits opens a political minefield. Unlike chimps, bonobos are naturally bisexual—and happily engage in homosexual acts for enjoyment, to solve conflicts, and to get ahead in the tribe.

 

The Whole Bushel

 

One of the big arguments put forward against homosexuality is that it’s unnatural, a deviation of the human mind. A deviation, that is, that just happens to also affect our closest evolutionary cousins. Meet the endangered bonobo. Sometimes referred to as “the hippie ape,” bonobos live in female-oriented tribes usually characterized by a lack of aggression and conflict. Not to mention a whole lot of sex.

 

As in a whole lot: Bonobos use sex as a means of greeting, a way of resolving conflicts, a method for consoling victims in distress, and something to do just for the sheer pleasure of it. According to National Geographic, around 75 percent of bonobo sex is non-reproductive—and that includes an enormous amount of homosexual couplings. Nearly every bonobo is born bisexual, and the number of same-sex pairings in their societies is so great that females actually have a specific mating cry they only use when sleeping with other females. Their whole existence seems geared towards a lifetime of guilt-free love; a far cry from the aggressive, dominant sexual behavior of chimpanzees.

 

[end]

 

And, yes, while there seems to be less aggression in bonobos, there's been some recent dispute about that, and before you seize on that for your Swaabian hypothesis, bear in mind this seems to have social as well as biological causes. (Like us, chimps also form societies and have social behaviors.)

[daveliam]

Wow, well this thread took an interesting turn over the night.  Okay, I'll bite:

 

I think characters should be able to be blocked from romances based on in game choices, its kinda of weird that you can get nothing but disapproval from say Leliana when making choices, but say the magic words and off go her pants

Totally agreed.  I have zero issues with in-game decisions blocking romance because it makes sense to me in the situations that are listed.  Leliana is a great example, because it brings up the "hardening" idea again, which I continue to struggle with seeing how hardening is any different than playersexuality in the regard to the fact that the player is able to drastically change an aspect of the "character" through their choice.  For example, if someone hardens Leliana or Alistair because they like how that romance story plays out better, then, to me, that is effectively the same as playersexuality.

 

As expected, I made a post saying character sexuality should be tied to who they are rather than what IRL sexuality they should appeal to and the LGBT legions jumped on me.

 

It's like you people don't even know what an RPG is.

 

Good character writing trumps what the public wants.

 

And no, I'm not some homophobe. I was totally fine with Samantha Traynor being a lesbian ( her rejecting Shepard was hilarious ) or with Cortez being homosexual.

 

It's part of their character. It's who they are.

 

Making everyone bi is a cop out to please the masses.

 

No, people jumped all over you because you made a ridiculous broad-stroked statement about how it doesn't "make sense" for a pious religious man (in a religion that we have zero evidence has any official stance on sexuality, btw) or the "nice guy white knight" character to be bisexual.  The response was to point out how ridiculous that statement is.  There is no reason in any way that it wouldn't make sense for a character to be bisexual.  At all.  Wynne?  Could have been bisexual.  Morrigan?  Could have been bisexual.  Carver?  Could have been bisexual.  Aveline?  Could have been bisexual.  Varric?  Could have been bisexual.  It would not have been out of character for any of these very different characters to be bisexual because there is no situation that it wouldn't make sense for a character to be bisexual.  Unless, perhaps, a character was blatantly bigoted against bisexuals, but even then it could just be internalized biphobia, so even that  could make sense.  That's why people responded the way that they did.  A character doesn't have to be promiscuous for their bisexuality to make sense.

 

If I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, then please correct me.  Also, if you feel that you have other examples of characters who just couldn't be bisexual, feel free to share them and explain why you think that. 

 

Well, I choose this article because it combines some results from other articles rather than focus on 1 aspect. I'm not an expert in neuroscience either, but, as I'm of the opinion that this is an interesting subject, I once researched this topic thoroughly a few years ago and literature is really one sided on this subject. If this wasn't the case, and if there would only be some hypotheses, I wouldn't bother to post these as this is a sensitive topic for a lot of people.

 

 

I think that this is a bit off topic because we're not really talking about hard-wiring or biological causes for non-hetero sexuality given that the topic is really "playersexuality", but I'll give this a go too.

The issues that I have with the literature that suggests that homosexuality is fully caused by brain structure and/or hormones are:

 

1.)  It's not conclusive in that there are still various theories about which it is.  Is it brain structure?  Is it hormone exposure?  Is it a combination of the two?

2.)  It doesn't account for socio-culture factors that other researchers suggest also play a role

3.)  It's correlation, not causal.  Does brain structure/hormone exposure cause homosexuality or are they both caused by an undetermined mediating factor?

4.)  It's not universal.  All of the studies that I've read on it state that there are limitations to the applicability of the findings because it's not always the case.  It occurs in enough people to make note of it, but it doesn't explain it for everyone.

5.)  It's usually presented as a binary.  Gay or not.  Rarely do they explore sexuality on a continuum (like the Kinsey scale) which is a more accurate representation of how sexuality is manifested.

 

I personally think that it has multiple causes and that those causes are both biological and socio-cultural in nature.  However, I'm not really seeing how this relates to playersexuality, unless you are going down a squicky logic line in which a character in a straight relationship has to act aggressive but if they are in a gay relationship, they have to act more passive.

[CybAnt1]

Thank you, daveliam, the last 5 points you've made correctly represent current scientific consensus -- which its that of uncertainty.

 

People sometimes don't get that scientists are the first to admit and discuss where things aren't known -- see "dark matter" and "dark energy" in physics. Neil deGrasse Tyson was recently talking about this in interviews he was doing for the new Cosmos series.

 

The scientific consensus is exactly what the APA states: the exact etiology of sexual orientation (though we appear to be finding contributing factors) is unknown. However, the consensus is that while many factors are innate and biological, some others will be environmental (post-natal) and developmental. As with many things, both nature and nurture. 

 

However, let me also add, it doesn't make homosexuality a "choice" any more than your preferences for certain flavors of food - these develop in you but are not, per se, your free-willed "choices". 

[WildOrchid]

Aveline?  Could have been bisexual.

 

I thought Av is bisexual? I mean, you have the flirting option if you play LadyHawke just like malehawke and even kisses her on the cheek. Or was it on the mouth? I can't even understand from this position.
 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

You get this if you keep flirting with her.

But then again could've been just a "friendly" kiss.

[daveliam]

I thought Av is bisexual? I mean, you have the flirting option if you play LadyHawke just like malehawke and even kisses her on the cheek. Or was it on the mouth? I can't even understand from this position.
 

 

Interesting, I never read the flirt lines in Aveline's dialogue as meaning anything about her sexuality.  I always thought of them as representing Hawke's sexuality.  As in:  Female Hawke:  "I could flirt with Aveline now."  Aveline:  "That's sweet, but no thanks."  Doesn't necessarily tell me anything about what Aveline's sexuality is.  Although, I'll admit that I've never finished a female Hawke playthrough, so I have limited experience with the story from her viewpoint.  I always took it as Aveline is notHawkesexual in that she is just not interested in the character at all.

 

 

 

ETA:  Interesting that it's also the same group of posters who keep coming in to comment on how surprised they are that the thread is still running (including some who also keep saying that they are "done with the thread"......).  It's almost like they can't understand why the thread hasn't derailed and self-destructed by now.

[daveliam]

Double post, oops.
 

[CybAnt1]

I think Aveline has a deep friendship with Hawke, but she just doesn't want to complicate that relationship with a romantic one. 

 

For whatever reasons, she's just not attracted to him - or her? - but clearly Donnic has the things she's looking for (romantically).

 

It is interesting that because of her quasi-"mannish" appearance (which everyone comments on), many people expect her to be bisexual. 

[Hellion Rex]

@daveliam, still fighting the good fight?

[WildOrchid]

Interesting, I never read the flirt lines in Aveline's dialogue as meaning anything about her sexuality.  I always thought of them as representing Hawke's sexuality.  As in:  Female Hawke:  "I could flirt with Aveline now."  Aveline:  "That's sweet, but no thanks."  Doesn't necessarily tell me anything about what Aveline's sexuality is.  Although, I'll admit that I've never finished a female Hawke playthrough, so I have limited experience with the story from her viewpoint.  I always took it as Aveline is notHawkesexual in that she is just not interested in the character at all.

 

 

Yeah, probably. Even if you flirt with her, she doesn't react to them (ladyhawke or malehawke) But still the kiss got me so excited when i kept flirting with her. Such a tease.

[daveliam]

@daveliam, still fighting the good fight?

 

You know me.  I just can't help it. 

 

It's actually been one of the best discussions I've ever seen on this topic on BSN.  There have been a few issues here and there where miscommunication and misunderstanding has made it a little tense, but cooler heads have always prevailed and the conversation has continued.  There have been a lot of really interesting perspectives and the conversation has evolved over the course of a few days.  It's been a great experience, to be honest.  I wonder what was different this time that led it to not self-destruct?  (genuine question, not snarky)

[Darth Krytie]

Interesting, I never read the flirt lines in Aveline's dialogue as meaning anything about her sexuality.  I always thought of them as representing Hawke's sexuality.  As in:  Female Hawke:  "I could flirt with Aveline now."  Aveline:  "That's sweet, but no thanks."  Doesn't necessarily tell me anything about what Aveline's sexuality is.  Although, I'll admit that I've never finished a female Hawke playthrough, so I have limited experience with the story from her viewpoint.  I always took it as Aveline is notHawkesexual in that she is just not interested in the character at all.

 

 

 

ETA:  Interesting that it's also the same group of posters who keep coming in to comment on how surprised they are that the thread is still running (including some who also keep saying that they are "done with the thread"......).  It's almost like they can't understand why the thread hasn't derailed and self-destructed by now.

 

Well, she does have that one line at the end of her flirting where she asks if Hawke ever considered the two of them together as a couple with both m/f Hawkes(--I always choose 'it's like how wardens feel about darkspawn--it becomes their reason for living, but maker the carnage--)and I always came away from that with the sense that she has thought about Hawke, but for multiple reasons decided not to.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I wonder what was different this time that led it to not self-destruct?  (genuine question, not snarky)

 

Maybe it was all that practice? 

[LarryDavid]

 

1) That's cool. You know something that the American Psychiatric Association doesn't! (BTW, that organization represents the thousands of people working in the psychiatric profession.)

 

2) For a long time, people were looking for a homosexual "gene". This was a big focus of Simon LeVay at the National Institutes of Health. However, there may not be one. With separated twins, when one is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay. NOT 100%. I do agree with you more recent theories focus on hormone exposure in the womb. But even there we have a problem, right? Because presumably twins are getting the same uterine hormone bath. Yet, again, see above.

 

 3) This would seem to indicate there are both biological and post-birth environmental/developmental factors involved. Incidentally, this is true for a lot of human 'genetic' attributes, including IQ or intelligence. The theory that homosexuals are different psychologically from heterosexuals (beyond sexual orientation of course) does not seem to hold up. 

 

 4) Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology. 

 

5) And, of course, the biggest problem is the existence of bisexuality. If the brain has some binary on/off switch (say the amygdala or hypothalamus) for sexual orientation, why is it a large number of people experience attraction to both sexes? 

 

6) Oh, and on your stuff about testosterone & aggression -- and from Nature magazine: one of the world's leading scientific journals:THE FACTS: Behavioural research on testosterone is, if anything, inconsistent. Highly inconsistent. And a bit surprising too. Some studies found that high pre-natal exposure to testosterone leads to more generous game offers in men and women (a.k.a charity). Others have concluded that, when testosterone is artificially enhanced, men become less generous, more vengeful and antisocial. Yet others still have suggested that hypogonadal males (a.k.a low testosterone-producing males) who had their testosterone increased saw no jump in aggressive behaviour, and in fact became more friendly, energetic and, well, happy. 

 

7) bonobo facts

 

 

What we have is A(’s?) causes B, B causes C. With C sexual orientation and B hormone exposure theory. A good analogy would be a rock that has fallen from a cliff. Based on the impact, position of the rock, video recordings of the rocking falling at several stages, … one can say that the rock lies there because it has fallen from the cliff. It is unknown what caused the rock to fall (wind, human, animal,…) and hence some people will say that we don’t know how that rock got there. (1) Besides APA not being an authority in this field their statement should be interpreted that way.

 

(2) Given the facts that DNA is no blueprint at all and that twins develop at a different rate, there is no reason at all to assume that identical twins are exposed to exactly the same hormone levels during the same development stages and that they are identical influenced by the same hormone levels. Thus, as observed, one can expect the sexual orientation of twins to be correlated and not to be exactly the same.

 

(5) The continuous range from hetero to bi to feeling trapped in the body of a different sex, is in my opinion the strongest indicator of this theory because blocking hormones is not an on/off switch. To my knowledge all studies regarding this subject observe the direct link between hormone exposure during the development of the brain and the structure of certain parts, relevant for this discussion, of the brain. Studying the part of the brain responsible for gender identification and sexual orientation, one observes always that someone who is lesbian/gay/bi/… has a structure that resembles the structure of the opposite sex; where the degree of resembles is a reflection of this continuous scale. (3),(4) The part in your brain that’s responsible for your sexual orientation is no isolated island so you can’t decouple the structure of your brain and your sexual orientation. The things you cite do not debunk what I said (I have the impression that you think I claimed there to be huge psychological differences).

 

(6) These more generous game offers are the result from rejecting unfair offers, so I wouldn’t use that as an argument. Same with a few tests where the level was artificially increased. Aggression is something complex but a lot of contributing factors are know, including a certain part in the brain that is related to your sexual orientation.

 

(7) I can’t see the relevance of this. If you have the impression that it is my opinion that homosexuality is something unnatural and detestable, well it’s not.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

 Besides APA not being an authority in this field their statement should be interpreted that way.

 

 

I hope that this was typed out as an incomplete sentence, and that you aren't trying to suggest that the APA doesn't qualify as an authority on issues related to the brain, personality, and development? 

 

Your link doesn't establish the science that you claim it does. Your rock over a cliff analogy is a bit confusing, since you are arguing for a causal relationship while simultaneously admitting that there's no way to know if there's a causal relationship.

 

Being open to studies that challenge existing assumptions is good, but if you understand the scientific method, and the principles of how science is supposed to work, there were a lot of red flags that should have gone up for you when reading it. Not the least of which is the artificial grouping of gender and sexuality, for which there is no scientific basis. A study that bases its conclusions on an unproven premise (that gender and sexuality are inherently linked with personality according to a detectable pattern) is going to cloud, and confuse the science too badly to be of practical use.

 

I read several things in that link that contradicted what I understand to be well-researched and peer-reviewed science about sexuality and gender. While that doesn't discount it, it should certainly evoke healthy skepticism about the conclusions.

 

There are also common sense issues. I don't have to be a scientist to know that not all gay men are pacifists, or that ****** (EDIT: censored word was "homosexuality") or bisexuality doesn't determine your entire personality.

 

EDIT: I have no idea why the site censored that, it seems like a mistake.

[CybAnt1]

LarryDavid, I'd love to know what about you gives you expertise I should trust over the sources I've cited. I really hope you are not the real Larry David, who produced the Seinfeld sitcom.

 

If the APA are not the best experts on the topic, what makes you more trustworthy?

 

Please note: I'm not disagreeing that there seems to be a correlation between a) uterine hormone exposure and sexual orientation and b.) certain brain structures and sexual orientation. But you're connecting a lot of dots that scientists admit are hazy.

 

I guess, since at the end of the day, we're talking about representations of homosexuals and bisexuals within a game, I do need to ask you what your actual point is. It may not be that homosexuality is detestable.

 

However, if I can parse what you are claiming correctly, it seems to be the following syllogism:

a) a male homosexual has a brain more similar to a female

b.) females are less aggressive because they have less testosterone (*)

c) we should expect gay males in the game to be less aggressive

 

(*) Hoo boy, there are problems there, too.

 

Is that, in fact, what you are saying?

 

BTW, if that remotely makes any sense, why are there gay male athletes in aggressive contact sports, soldiers in the military, or aggressive criminals in the criminal world? Because all those things are true. P.S. then we can also talk about women in violent gangs, as well.

[AresKeith]

Interesting, I never read the flirt lines in Aveline's dialogue as meaning anything about her sexuality.  I always thought of them as representing Hawke's sexuality.  As in:  Female Hawke:  "I could flirt with Aveline now."  Aveline:  "That's sweet, but no thanks."  Doesn't necessarily tell me anything about what Aveline's sexuality is.  Although, I'll admit that I've never finished a female Hawke playthrough, so I have limited experience with the story from her viewpoint.  I always took it as Aveline is notHawkesexual in that she is just not interested in the character at all.

 

 

 

ETA:  Interesting that it's also the same group of posters who keep coming in to comment on how surprised they are that the thread is still running (including some who also keep saying that they are "done with the thread"......).  It's almost like they can't understand why the thread hasn't derailed and self-destructed by now.

 

I always saw Aveline as straight

[oceanicsurvivor]

There is no definitve scientific answer for why people are gay. There is no definitve scientic answer for why people are gay. (x5 billion)

 

Well, that is not entirely true. Being gay is the result of a lack of exposure to a hormone similar to testosterone during the development of the brain (in the womb). The level of this hormone also influences a region in the brain that is related to your tendency to aggression. There are of course two factors that are more dominant and these are (1) personal experience (aggressive father, …) and (2) the level of testosterone production.

 

If you introduce an aggressive male character, it does not exclude any sexual orientation a priori. However if you provide background information and traits that exclude (1) and (2), a universe where this character is gay is not believable. This applies of course to every trait; A character whose internal organs are mirrored is perfectly fine unless his smell is excellent and he has a huge amount of children.

 

And seriously, a gay man can't be aggressive, (dare I say, a combatant in a violent video game for instance), unless they what, were abused or subject to overly macho aggression from authority figures in their lives?

 

And literally the only other example of unbelievable character traits is...what? Mirrored organs? Its not really the same thing, not...not even a little bit...I don't even...

 

However, if I can parse what you are claiming correctly, it seems to be the following syllogism:

a) a male homosexual has a brain more similar to a female

b.) females are less aggressive because they have less testosterone (*)

c) we should expect gay males in the game to be less aggressive

 

(*) Hoo boy, there are problems there, too.

 

Is that, in fact, what you are saying?

 

BTW, if that remotely makes any sense, why are there gay male athletes in aggressive contact sports, soldiers in the military, or aggressive criminals in the criminal world? Because all those things are true. P.S. then we can also talk about women in violent gangs, as well.

 

I didn't click on the link because I know I'm not about to definitively learn why people are gay via a link to a 'scholarly' article off a gaming forum but I do believe I know what research this is refering to. Or at the very least its one darn close.

 

It's an old, antiquated, sexist theory really, that offers up the idea that men are more likely to be gay when they are the second/third/forth child, especially second/third/forth son in a family because the mother is able to provide less testorsterone on subsequent births    Never mind that most of the gay people I know are the oldest child in the family but anyways,,,

 

I say its sexist and yes, even bigotted research because as CybAnt1 points out, it falls IMMEDIATELY into suggesting that being gay is to be feminine and weak, almost to the point of suggesting that being a woman is in itself a defect of birth (and if not a defect something at the very least to be ashamed of because god forbid a man be at all like a stereotypical woman). And then it further stereotypes women as the more docile gender.

 

And furthermore, being gay is 'correlated to having certain traits'? Like what, gay men being effeminate fashion designers and lesbians all being plaid wearing truckers? Its ridiculous...gay people exist in every walk of life with every personality imaginable. What traits does being straight mean you have to have, beyond, ya know, the part where you like people of the opposite gender? It doesn't! It doesn't mean anythng. Straight men are not univerally one way because of genetics and neither are straight women.

 

However, it does all of this while its theory fails to explain women's homosexuality, (also, bisexuality) most likely because it doesn't consider it valid or real (another huge lovely sexist problem). And also because this research is a bunch of sexist, homophobic garabage that has recieved way more attention then it deserves and has sadly misinformed a lot of people.
 

And because it deserves repeating: There is no definitve scientic answer for why people are gay.