205 réponses à ce sujet

[RenAdaar]

Not really seeing why that matters.

I don't see why a sexuality shouldn't get representation just because fetishes don't.

[bairdduvessa]

6 pages in and people still do not understand asexuality?

[MissMayhem96]

I identify myself as ace and when it came to romance in Bioware games (in Mass effect,Kaidan) I usually was able to turn down the sex and end it with a cuddle or a peck on lips.

 

In DA2, I romanced Anders and there was no way to avoid the sex scene, but it didn't offend me or anything. I usually just Headcannon it all away

 

I know that a lot of people wanted an asexual romance with Mordin from ME

 

but I can see Vivienne as an ace romance.

[Uirebhiril]

There is a fair point in this. Being able to turn down a sexual encounter without automatically ending the relationship would be nice to have for those who don't need or want the sex part to be everything in their romances. It was fun being able to choose whether to cuddle with Kaidan or have a more wild night in ME, for example.

[SolNebula]

Sooo what good there is in a romance without the physical contact??? That's an important part of every romance without it you are not romancing...you are making good friends. Eventually if you romance and become so close to someone you will both need to demonstrate this closeness in a physical way. It's how nature works

[Andraste_Reborn]

it's a hard concept to get your head around at first. A lot of people separate the relationship between friends and lovers by the idea that lovers have sex, so if you remove the sex from the equation the natural process is to think of 'just friends'. This is a highly generalised idea, so feel free to correct it greys and Demi's.

 

I'm not asexual but I am aromantic, and you should see the confused faces I get.

[cronshaw]

Oh joy, this topic again...

 

OP, I fully agree with you that people who are asexual, celibate, or just not interested in the romances for whatever reason need to be acknowledged by the game somehow, yet Bioware constantly rebuffs us. I'd wager that there are far more of us than LGBT gamers, and yet Bioware is going out of their way to cater to them. I've asked for things like this many times before. And guess what responses I always got? "Forever Alone" memes, pathetic jokes about doing things with my hand, crazy cat lady slurs, and endless more personal insults. Huh, and people here wonder why the romance-obsessed people on these forums have such a bad reputation elsewhere on the internet. Frankly, I take it all with stride, because I see it as a pathetic defensive reaction from them.

 

Why do they need to be acknowledged?

[Phate Phoenix]

Sooo what good there is in a romance without the physical contact??? That's an important part of every romance without it you are not romancing...you are making good friends. Eventually if you romance and become so close to someone you will both need to demonstrate this closeness in a physical way. It's how nature works

 

Obviously not.  I mean, there are asexuals in this thread who have never felt the need to demonstrate the closeness of the their love in a physical way. I mean, the difference between your friendships and your lovers isn't just that you have sex with one of them, right? If you had sex with a friend, would that mean you now loved them? Do you love everyone you want to have sex with?

 

It's not that simple.

[Bob from Accounting]

What in the hell would be the point of this?

 

If for some reason you don't want your character to have sex, then choose not to have sex when the option comes up. It's not that hard.

 

It seems to me there's implication being pushed that by not having sex, a relationship is somehow more intelligent and mature. And BioWare should therefore make some relationships mandatorily asexual to cater to mature and intelligence players instead of horny teengers.

 

Which is stupid.

[XMissWooX]

What in the hell would be the point of this?
 
If for some reason you don't want your character to have sex, then choose not to have sex when the option comes up. It's not that hard.

Except that's not always an option. Certainly, it wasn't in DA2.
 

It seems to me there's implication being pushed that by not having sex, a relationship is somehow more intelligent and mature. And BioWare should therefore make some relationships mandatorily asexual to cater to mature and intelligence players instead of horny teengers.
 
Which is stupid.

I'm not seeing it. In fact, most people in this thread seem to think that asexuality is immature and childish, and that two people can't possibly be in love if they don't desire each other sexually.

Which is stupid.

Possibly, some players would simply enjoy being able to play their PC as asexual, or explore the dynamics of an asexual romance with an asexual character.

[PsychoBlonde]

A lot of games when they weren't edgy enough to have sex scenes or even fades to black could have been classified as having asexual romance... or maybe you'd say that doesn't count, that's just presexual. w/e

 

You could also say that every single relationship that DOESN'T involve sex could be classified as an "asexual romance", making asexuals THE most represented group. ever.  "Asexual Romance" is a contradiction in terms, because a romantic relationship is one *that involves sex* (or at least the desire for same).  An asexual romance is a friendship.

 

This is the second version of this request I've seen and it's still nonsense.  "I want us to NOT have sex in some kind of deep meaningful way".  How is that different from not having sex in the "regular" way?  Is there some kind of "regular" way of not wanting to have sex that's different from the "romantic" way of not wanting to have sex?  "You're the person I would have sex with if I wanted to have sex?"  You couldn't just tell me that I'm your favorite person and be done with it?  That would actually sound complimentary.  There's a reason why people describe a close relationship with someone who doesn't want to have sex with them as being "friendzoned" (although the motivation there is usually kind of asinine).

 

But, of course, the asexuals will no doubt get all mad.  Yet never once has anyone explained exactly what makes a relationship into a romance when there's no sex involved.  You hang out more often?  That's a closer friendship.  You feel more affection?  Still friendship.  There are many degrees of friendship from "pleasant acquaintance" all the way up to "BFF".  That doesn't mean that the relationship you have with your BFF is "romantic".  I know people who are closer to their friends than they are to their actual romantic partners.  What defines the difference?  They have (or at least want to have) sex with one and don't have (or want to have) sex with the other.

 

So, basically this boils down to a desire to be able to declare "You're my BFF and we'll stay together through thick and thin".  Fine, sounds dandy.  It'd be nice to be able to express affection for people even if they (and you) aren't interested in a romantic relationship.  But call it what it is.  Don't make up some term that's semantically equivalent to "well-dressed nudity".

[XMissWooX]

"Asexual Romance" is a contradiction in terms, because a romantic relationship is one *that involves sex* (or at least the desire for same).  An asexual romance is a friendship.
 
But, of course, the asexuals will no doubt get all mad.  Yet never once has anyone explained exactly what makes a relationship into a romance when there's no sex involved.  You hang out more often?  That's a closer friendship.  You feel more affection?  Still friendship.  There are many degrees of friendship from "pleasant acquaintance" all the way up to "BFF".  That doesn't mean that the relationship you have with your BFF is "romantic".  I know people who are closer to their friends than they are to their actual romantic partners.  What defines the difference?  They have (or at least want to have) sex with one and don't have (or want to have) sex with the other.

There is a difference between 'romantic' and 'erotic'.

A romantic relationship might involve a couple going on dates together, cuddling, kissing, and even marriage.
A sexual (erotic) relationship might involve a couple sleeping with each other on a regular basis and otherwise pleasuring each other.

A romantic relationship does not have to be sexual and a sexual relationship does not have to be romantic.

Just because an individual isn't sexually attracted to their partner, doesn't mean they don't/can't love them.
So, unless you want to date, cuddle, kiss and marry your friends, there is a difference between an asexual romance and a close friendship.

[Bob from Accounting]

I'm not seeing it. In fact, most people in this thread seem to think that asexuality is immature and childish, and that two people can't possibly be in love if they don't desire each other sexually.

 

If it's actually true.

 

But is it actually true?

 

You see, this is not my first day on the internet. Nor anyone else's here. And I know how people speak on the internet. People claim to believe all sorts of silly things in order to...distinguish themselves, lets say. For example, here on the BioWare forums, we have plenty of people gleefully endorsing genocide, murder, and torture for the slightest of offenses. And they make serious arguments. They cite philosophers and economists. They write pages of arguments, all in defense of how great and praiseworthy casual murder and whatnot is.

 

But of course...in real life, they're overwhelmingly meek and law abiding. Aren't they now?

 

If someone had made a thread requesting that sex be optional at the conclusion of romances, I wouldn't have had a problem with it at all. That sounds genuine. But this just rings a little differently. This rings much more like someone who wants to distingish themselves from the silly immature sex-obsessed rest of the fanbase.

[XMissWooX]

If it's actually true.
 If someone had made a thread requesting that sex be optional at the conclusion of romances, I wouldn't have had a problem with it at all. That sounds genuine. But this just rings a little differently. This rings much more like someone who wants to distingish themselves from the silly immature sex-obsessed rest of the fanbase. Someone who wants to stand out. To be special.

Perhaps I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic, but I would imagine that the reason why the OP (and subsequent posters in favour of an asexual romance) posted in this thread is because they *genuinely* do want (or at least wouldn't be averse to) an asexual romance (which *would* be slightly different to a sexual romance).

For my part, I would like the option to decline sex/have an asexual romance because I simply have little interest in the sexual aspects of romances.
That doesn't mean that I think I'm any more or less 'mature' than people who do like the sexual aspects of the romances, or wish to 'stand out' or feel 'special'.
It's just a genuine desire to see something a little different - something more to my tastes - not so dissimilar to LGBTQ players wanting gay romances in addition to straight romances.

And, as I said before, there seems to be a lot more hostility *towards* people advocating an asexual romance than *from* people advocating an asexual romance, so I don't think painting those people as being derisive or offensive is entirely accurate.

[Bob from Accounting]

I don't really see how things would be different. It would just be a romance without a sex scene at the end.

[thats1evildude]

I don't see why a sexuality shouldn't get representation just because fetishes don't.

My argument was about numbers, not representation.

[Phate Phoenix]

I don't really see how things would be different. It would just be a romance without a sex scene at the end.

 

Acknowledgement. [SHRUGS] That'd be nice.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can and have headcanoned asexual characters, and that worked really well in DA2 when going with Anders as an LI. But I'm not going to pretend that I wouldn't prefer being able to explicitly play an asexual character. I don't expect to be able to in DAI, or in the next Dragon Age game, but, maybe one day? I'd like to play as someone like me.

[XMissWooX]

I don't really see how things would be different. It would just be a romance without a sex scene at the end.

I think that's certainly one valid way to include it. Especially for those who would want their PC to be asexual.

But I'd like for that scenario to not simply skip the sex scene, but to actually acknowledge that sex probably won't happen in the relationship.

For example, when the time comes for the PC/LI to make the proposition, the player has one additional line (e.g. "I'm not comfortable with that") which then prompts the LI to respond in an appropriate manner.
Perhaps the LI can accept that (e.g. "I understand, but I still want to be with you") and the romance continues as normal, but without the sex scene (and possibly some dialogues referencing their having sex).
Or, perhaps the LI isn't okay with that (e.g. "I care about you, but this isn't the sort of relationship I want") in which case the romance ends there.

Just small little things which would distinguish the romance from a sexual one, with 'realistic' reactions and consequences.

And, by the same token, a romance with an asexual character would be slightly different, regardless of whether the PC was sexual or asexual.

But really, I don't think I've seen anyone *demanding* this type of romance, merely requesting that one could be included because it would be something different they think they would enjoy.
If it isn't ever included, then fair enough, but I don't see the harm in suggesting one.

[PsychoBlonde]

Just because an individual isn't sexually attracted to their partner, doesn't mean they don't/can't love them.

 

Yeah, and there's a word for this kind of love.  It is FRIENDSHIP.  Unless you are literally saying that I DO NOT LOVE MY FRIENDS.  In which case, I take extreme exception to this.  I love quite a number of people that I'm not sexually attracted to, and I assume that everyone else is fully as capable of this as I am, if not more so.  Why they reject using the perfectly serviceable and accurate word I use for the same thing I do not comprehend.  There's no voodoo special mystic significance to "romance" that entitles you to use the word to describe a relationship that doesn't have a sexual component.  Just because there are sexual relationships that are not romantic doesn't mean that there can be romantic relationships that don't involve sex.  Saying this is the equivalent of declaring that because there are computers without graphics cards that enable them to run games I'm equally capable of playing games on a graphics card without the rest of the computer.

 

The entire request is nonsense.  Has anyone bothered to think what it would entail to HAVE this kind of "romance" in the game?  Someone even went so far as to complain that the chaste romance with Sebastian isn't "asexual" enough because--even though there was zero sex involved--he had a REASON for his refusal to have sex.  This means that in order to have a properly "asexual" relationship, you would have to have a character that REVOLVED around NOT HAVING SEX.  Has anyone thought about what that would LOOK LIKE?

 

Let me give you a slightly less charged example.  I'm an atheist.  This request is equivalent to me declaring that I want to have an "atheist religion" somewhere in the game.  What in the name of Pete would that LOOK like?  What IS an "atheist religion" (other than a contradiction in terms).  Atheist (like asexual) merely describes what you DON'T do, not what you DO do.  If they have a place where you can go where nobody ever talks about the Maker and they all meet up for discussions once a week, is that an "atheist religion"?  They're doing (some) stuff that (some) religious people do, right?  Does that qualify?  NO.  In order to have an "atheist religion"  you would actually have to have these characters GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to SPECIFY that their weekly meetups are RELIGIOUS but have them give a LONG SPEECH about how they're ALSO ATHEISTS.  How GODAWFUL would that be?!  Would that not feel like some kind of hideous INTENTIONAL attack on the religious?  Hell, I'm an atheist and I would probably be offended by this schlock.

 

This is what the people in this thread are ASKING for, though.  It's somehow NOT GOOD ENOUGH to have friendships--or even a "romantic" relationship that involves no sex.  No, the Bioware writers would have to come out and create an entire character who has some kind of long speech about how "sex is icky" and "I'm so glad you're here to think sex is icky with me!" or similar.  If Sebastian's "chaste romance" isn't good enough, then it clearly wouldn't be good enough to have a character who is equally open to a sexual and non-sexual relationship, too.  So now Bioware is forced to lock this character into a specific asexual box just to please an irrational fanbase's arbitrary definitions.  How is that not disgusting tokenism?  This wouldn't be INCLUSIVE, because the asexual character and their romance would be sealed by this artificial construct into their own little apart-from-everyone-else box.  People do behave like this in real life because there's a preexisting culture for them to be (somewhat) defined by in their lack.  In a story world, defining people by their exclusions actually devolves into the OPPOSITE.  I also don't care about sports . . . but I'm not defined in ANY WAY by my lack of interest in sports, and any attempt to create a fiction where I'm somehow defined as an "asportser" would be a ludicrous joke.  Why would anyone WANT to be turned into a ludicrous one-note parody?  Yet THIS is what people are requesting. 

 

Defining anything by something it's NOT is useless.  There's no GOOD way to present such a character because in order to present them you have to actively DISS on someone by CONTRAST.  Now, if this game REALLY WERE a "romance simulator" as some have claimed, yeah, you could have multiple non-sexual paths for a multitude of different reasons and quite possibly it'd be really excellent.  There'd be room to make lots of interesting commentary and explore the psychology etc. etc. etc.  Delightful!  In a game like this, where romance is such a tiny and wholly optional part of the game?  Do you really think that anything like that degree of subtlety is REMOTELY possible?  No.

 

And what happens if Bioware does hand over this singular asexual character and you HATE them?  Because you can darn well bet that they aren't going to make a character whose entire personality/ethics/story/whatever revolves around their lack of desire to have sex.  Isn't one of their major goals the fact that they're trying to get AWAY from the idea of people being defined solely by their sexuality/gender/whatever?  Ugh, what a mess.

 

A sensible (and doable) request that might actually have a chance of making somebody happy would be along the lines of "it'd be nice if they let us declare our undying affection for characters that don't actually have a romance subplot".  Like, say, Sten.  Sure, that'd be great.  It probably wouldn't qualify as an "asexual romance" to the sticklers because they wouldn't go out of their way to divulge that they specifically never want to have sex, ever, with anyone, and they're so glad that you also never want to have sex ever, with anyone.  Or, another good way to word it: "I'd like to be able to finish the 'romance subplot' without having sex".  Sure!  Go for it!  Granted, since we never SEE penetration (or anything else particularly conclusive) I'm not sure why anyone positively asserts that sex WAS had.  Maybe your character just likes to give and receive backrubs.  That's what all that squirming around was--a massage.  Perhaps an inept massage that didn't look all that comfortable, but hey, I won't judge.

 

Why is this not good enough?  If the sex is only implied in the first place why is it necessary to ASSUME that there's some kind of imaginary "NO ASEXUALS!" sign on it?  Why is it therefore necessary to have someone come out and SAY "THERE WAS NO SCREWING GOING ON HERE!!!!!" in the most unsubtle manner possible to make you happy?  This isn't asking for inclusivity.  This is demanding that somebody MAKE A POINT ABOUT IT.  I simply don't see how that's appropriate or even desirable. 

[PsychoBlonde]

Granted, if there IS going to be an "explicitly" no-sex relationship, maybe my request for explicit hardcore pornographic sex scenes might get some traction.  In that case, carry on.

[XMissWooX]

-snip-

You clearly do not understand what asexuality is or how it works, so I would suggest doing some research on the topic.
Here is the Wikipedia entry: http://en.m.wikipedi...wiki/Asexuality
And here is the AVEN link: http://www.asexuality.org/home/

You are entitled to your own opinions on asexuality, but I do not see that dismissing, belittling and ranting at an entire group of people is necessary.

And, as I said above, nobody is *demanding * anything. They are *suggesting* that an asexual romance could be explored, or that playing an asexual PC could be possible.
Bioware is not obliged to include this, and if such a thing ever were included in the future, it would be because they they liked the idea and thought they could make it work.

[Mr.House]

Does Bioware even know what asexual is? They thought Liara was asexual lol.

[Gtdef]

May I ask, if there is an option to deny sex but keep the romance active, is it enough? Is it considered "asexual protagonist"?

 

A simple exchange like
-"I don't do this"

-"I understand"

 

 

This is too confusing for me. I don't understand why someone wouldn't engage in sexual activity just to please his/her partner no matter what some activist or some doctor says. The only reason I can think of is if he finds sex repulsive which sounds to me like a psychological matter and not sexual orientation. I think these "categories" evolve out of necessity to reduce violence inflicted by stupid individuals that think too much of themselves.

[Phate Phoenix]

Does Bioware even know what asexual is? They thought Liara was asexual lol.

 
Some of Bioware know what asexuality is. Allan Schumacher does, at least.