7132 réponses à ce sujet

[eyezonlyii]

Ok, this is a really huge post, so I'm putting it in spoiler tags.

@Qunquistador

Spoiler

It seems to me that you might want to slow down and actually read what I wrote. Also, don't be disingenuous because you know I said no such thing as what you're implying. Quite the opposite, I was cracking jokes on anyone who thinks there's such a thing as "gay acting" or "straight acting".

 

Those are bogus standards, in my opinion. There's no proper way to be a man either, which is why I asked in my first post here what conform to sex and gender roles meant? How would the KISA do that? Could Krem be a KISA or would that be a problem?

 

At no point did I say that there was a positive/valid or a negative/invalid way for a gay man to act. 

 

Although, the implication floating around in this thread is:

femininity + gay male = stereotype = negative

masculinity + gay male = subversive = awesome!

 

I'm only here after 80 pages because there are folks in this thread who have been reinforcing that dichotomy by constantly pitting Dorian's character (who I saw as masculine in his own way) against an ideal that no one in this series has met, as far as I can tell. If this thread is merely about wanting a gay KISA, then there's no need to harp on about the failings of Lord Dorian and his twirly moustache. 

Ok So I bolded the part that I really want to address first and foremost. The fact of the matter is everything in this thread is about opinion. Which means just because you think that the gender roles that are referred to by myself and others are bogus, does not mean that they are in fact bogus. That they are in pretty much every society and have remained pretty constant throughout history until relatively recently in the West should tell you that they have some validity (note, not completely positive consequences). For the implications, the first is Fem+gay=stereotype=negative is only true because that is the vast majority of the representation we get as gay men. It would be the same as if I as a black male said that thug+black=stereotype=negative. Which makes your second statement true so long as masc+gay=subversive=awesome remains just as rare as educated+black=subversive=awesome. To which I must mention a post (that I don't want to go multiple pages back for) about Steve from Mass Effect. He fit both of the second equations, even with him crying over his husband the second time you talk to him. I have a post buried somewhere in my history detailing how vindicated I felt when I saw this man in my game for the first time. Answering you about Krem. If he were a KISA, then no, technically there would be no problem, unless they were to push him as the "gay male KISA LI" mostly because, I know I for one would not want to pursue a relationship with him because of his biological assignment (even though it is digital and therefore not real). Not to say that I wouldn't eventually roll a character to romance him, but my "canon" or most self inserty character definitely wouldn't.

@(Disgusted Noise)

Spoiler

Yes, which is why the phrase "straight acting" is inherently homophobic. Masculine =/= straight.

 

 

Because any man who is gay automatically has his gender expression harshly and unrealistically examined. If Dorian was straight, the fact that he appreciates good hygiene and personal style would just be a personality trait, but because he's gay it's just a stereotype. Likewise if Alistair was gay, his inherent beta maleness would probably be criticized to no end as perpetuating stereotypes, but because he's straight, he just gets to be himself. Straight people just get to like what they like.

Yes and no. Masculine=/=straight anymore than gay=/=feminine. However, due to the vast amount of gay characters who are feminine (and usually just foils for the more masculine straight characters anyway), there is this societal expectation that if a man is feminine, then he must be gay or if a man is gay he must be feminine. As Agent K says in Men in Black when Agent J asks about why not trust people with the knowledge of aliens, "A person is smart, people are stupid." And that's where I feel we are. An individual person can name x amount of gay friends who do or don't conform to the prevailing gay stereotype, but as a people, we're still seeing gay men as the flamboyant best friend to the woman for the most part or the fashionable eunuch who lives and breathes divas. Sure there are flashes of other stories here and there, but when was the last time there was a major gay action character? That's why this "ideal" is so important to me.

 

@Battlebloodmage

Spoiler

I just am not attracted to feminine guys, but that's just personal taste. There's nothing wrong with attracting to feminine guys just as there is nothing wrong with attracting to masculine guys. This thread seems to be about people's wishlist, and for me, when I think of a KISA, it's about the traditional romanticized KISA who's the embodiment of masculinity and chivalry.Others may have a different view, but that is what I want.

 

 

There are a lot of examples for male KISA, but for a female KISA, I think of king Arthur

 

 

I like this gif, but what about one that I don't remember being mentioned much, if at all in this thread, even from the Dragon Age series itself:

for those who don't know, this is Mhairi, the Grey Warden recruit who meets you at the beginning of Awakening. She is every bit of the KISA archetype: duty bound, respectful, and obviously a warrior. She also dies in the Joining right out the gate

 

As a straight guy, I feel the need to point out that masculine traits don't actually belong to us, even if they're normally attributed to us.

Agreed. There are many in this thread who wish that the world would also acknowledge this fact and wouldn't act so surprised that there are gay men who do share these "reserved for straight men" attributes.  

 

 

 @everyone

Spoiler

The entire "gay" debate is inherently based in morality. Morality is based in abstracts and absolutes. A right and wrong way to live. Sometimes people like to add additional context or whatever. Those things cannot be debated without debating "religion" or "A God".

 

It boils down to this; Gay people involve themselves in practices that for a very long time a large portion, if not the vast majority of the populace, found repugnant and detriment to society...among other things. Gay people want to feel justified in doing whatever they want to do with the "gay lifestyles" as they would argue the "straight man/woman" already enjoys. They want "equality".

 

The reality of the matter is that it is not equal and it never will be; either for the LGBT populace or for the non-LGBT populace. You are going to have people who don't like gays and you are going to have people who don't like those people not liking gays. You cannot change it. You may censor it and make people's lives a living hell because of it for either side...but no one in this spectrum will ever have true equality. One side, in the end, will always be favored over another. It is a delusion with the contrary.

 

Lastly, I would hope that whatever we may be squabbling over at the moment, we could take a minute to remember that it's posts like these that give us a common ground.

[DirkJake]

Yep, I just report that post.

 

Back to the topic, I think we all (?) agree that Dorian is a valid and excellent representation, yes? I mean some will not find him that interesting, but he is a character with depth that is not created just to fill the "representation quota"

 

But a gay character like Dorian is not the only valid representation, and that's why I support the general idea of this thread. I want to see a variety in the gay representation. Though Dorian is a great start for Bioware (in DA at least), I do not want Bioware to play safe and just to stick with Dorain archetype for the representation, considering how successful and popular Dorian is. 

 

Though from this thread, it seems people have different definitions of a KISA. For me a KISA seems to be the most obvious solution to create a gay character with very different personalities that those of Dorian. 

[eyezonlyii]

Yep, I just report that post.

 

Back to the topic, I think we all (?) agree that Dorian is a valid and excellent representation, yes? I mean some will not find him that interesting, but he is a character with depth that is not created just to fill the "representation quota"

 

But a gay character like Dorian is not the only valid representation, and that's why I support the general idea of this thread. I want to see a variety in the gay representation. Though Dorian is a great start for Bioware (in DA at least), I do not want Bioware to play safe and just to stick with Dorain archetype for the representation, considering how successful and popular Dorian is. 

 

Though from this thread, it seems people have different definitions of a KISA. For me a KISA seems to be the most obvious solution to create a gay character with very different personalities that those of Dorian. 

I had a mini heart attack thinking that you reported my post. Then I remembered the last post I responded to.

[daveliam]

Yep, I just report that post.

 

Back to the topic, I think we all (?) agree that Dorian is a valid and excellent representation, yes? I mean some will not find him that interesting, but he is a character with depth that is not created just to fill the "representation quota"

 

But a gay character like Dorian is not the only valid representation, and that's why I support the general idea of this thread. I want to see a variety in the gay representation. Though Dorian is a great start for Bioware (in DA at least), I do not want Bioware to play safe and just to stick with Dorain archetype for the representation, considering how successful and popular Dorian is. 

 

Though from this thread, it seems people have different definitions of a KISA. For me a KISA seems to be the most obvious solution to create a gay character with very different personalities that those of Dorian. 

 

And this is ultimately why I am getting so frustrated with the people coming into the thread and telling the people who want to see a gay KISA that we are all homophobes and perpetuating stereotypes about gender.  Because we all, across the board, hands-down, agree that Dorian is a great character and excellent representation in the game.  If we were saying, "Dorian is too flamboyant to be good representation for us.  Give us a masc/straight-acting macho knight type.", then they might have a point.  But we aren't.  We are saying, flamboyant gays exists and well-written flamboyant gay characters are awesome.  "Masculine" gays exists and well written 'masculine' gay characters would be awesome.  "Feminine" gays exists and well written 'feminine' gay character would be awesome.  We're asking for a variety in representation, specifically asking for one common archetype to be subverted for a gay character.  This particular archetype is a masculine one.  But that's not to say that this is the only representation that we want to see.  It's just one of them that we want that we haven't seen yet.  We've all, across the board, been open to other representation beyond a gay KISA.  And yet we're being painted as close-minded and exclusive in our thinking when, from my perspective, it's the other way around. 

[In Exile]

I'm thinking something got lost in translation here? I never said wanting anyone flamboyant or otherwise was ridiculous.

I said this: "Ridiculousness like this deserves to be ridiculed in as flamboyant (there's that word again) a fashion as possible. Just sayin'."

Meaning I'll ridicule the notion of "straight acting" or gay acting in as OTT a way as possible, whenever possible

Oh dear! I read the post totally wrong. Sorry! :S

[Seraphim24]

And this is ultimately why I am getting so frustrated with the people coming into the thread and telling the people who want to see a gay KISA that we are all homophobes and perpetuating stereotypes about gender.  Because we all, across the board, hands-down, agree that Dorian is a great character and excellent representation in the game.  If we were saying, "Dorian is too flamboyant to be good representation for us.  Give us a masc/straight-acting macho knight type.", then they might have a point.  But we aren't.  We are saying, flamboyant gays exists and well-written flamboyant gay characters are awesome.  "Masculine" gays exists and well written 'masculine' gay characters would be awesome.  "Feminine" gays exists and well written 'feminine' gay character would be awesome.  We're asking for a variety in representation, specifically asking for one common archetype to be subverted for a gay character.  This particular archetype is a masculine one.  But that's not to say that this is the only representation that we want to see.  It's just one of them that we want that we haven't seen yet.  We've all, across the board, been open to other representation beyond a gay KISA.  And yet we're being painted as close-minded and exclusive in our thinking when, from my perspective, it's the other way around. 

 

I'm not sure why I clicked on this thread, but having read some of this I can say there are plenty who would completely disagree with your statement about Dorian. I was just talking to someone about him and we both we're agreeing he's a pretty lame character, all things considered, just really dull, etc. By the same token, the likes of Solas or maybe Cassandra others were simply stronger, more compelling characters.

 

That's homosexuality aside (as I don't care about a person's sexual orientation for substantive character evaluation, outside of literally considering whether they could match mine for romance or something)

 

Which also begs the question why are you guys attaching so much importance to the orientation of the character? It seems to send the wrong message to suggest that a character is more or less acceptable based solely on their orientation.

[daveliam]

I'm not sure why I clicked on this thread, but having read some of this I can say there are plenty who would completely disagree with your statement about Dorian. I was just talking to someone about him and we both we're agreeing he's a pretty lame character, all things considered, just really dull, etc. By the same token, the likes of Solas or maybe Cassandra others were simply stronger, more compelling characters.

 

That's homosexuality aside (as I don't care about a person's sexual orientation for substantive character evaluation, outside of literally considering whether they could match mine for romance or something)

 

Which also begs the question why are you guys attaching so much importance to the orientation of the character? It seems to send the wrong message to suggest that a character is more or less acceptable based solely on their orientation.

 

I was referring to the people who are advocating for this particular character in this thread per the OP.  There are about a dozen people or so who are consistent in supporting the OP and I was speaking about us specifically.  I wasn't trying to insinuate that every person who's played the game likes Dorian.

 

To your last question, I think you are misunderstanding the request in the OP if you think that people are saying that a character's orientation makes them more or less acceptable.  It's a request for a particular archetype for one of the m/m options for the next game.  The only reason why Dorian came up at all is because people were trying to use his existence as a reason to dismiss the request.  As if Dorian, because he is a 'good guy', fills the same archetype, so the request from the OP was not necessary.  That's where that conversation came from. 

[Seraphim24]

I was referring to the people who are advocating for this particular character in this thread per the OP.  There are about a dozen people or so who are consistent in supporting the OP and I was speaking about us specifically.  I wasn't trying to insinuate that every person who's played the game likes Dorian.

 

To your last question, I think you are misunderstanding the request in the OP if you think that people are saying that a character's orientation makes them more or less acceptable.  It's a request for a particular archetype for one of the m/m options for the next game.  The only reason why Dorian came up at all is because people were trying to use his existence as a reason to dismiss the request.  As if Dorian, because he is a 'good guy', fills the same archetype, so the request from the OP was not necessary.  That's where that conversation came from. 

 

Isn't that kind of the same thing though? If bioware made an awesome knight in shining armor character that everyone liked, and lets say they do it like they once did, with no romances (so you don't know their orientation), would that not be enough?

 

It sounds like you guys are going wait, wait, we need to have him clearly announce that he/she is homosexual, it's nice that you have the whole personality and story, all the substantive parts, but until we know and have confirmation of those exceedingly superficial and non-substantive aspect, this character is unsatisfactory. That sounds like it's promoting the idea that people should be more sexuality conscious. It should be about characters, not orientation.

 

For all I know half the characters in BG1 could of been non-straight, no one cares, now, it seems like that's all people focus on and that seems to diminish the importance of characterization generally when they are reduced strictly to how they use their genitalia.

[daveliam]

Isn't that kind of the same thing though? If bioware made an awesome knight in shining armor character that everyone liked, and lets say they do it like they once did, with no romances (so you don't know their orientation), would that not be enough?

 

It sounds like you guys are going wait, wait, we need to have him clearly announce that he/she is homosexual, it's nice that you have the whole personality and story, all the substantive parts, but until we know and have confirmation of those exceedingly superficial and non-substantive aspect, this character is unsatisfactory. That sounds like it's promoting the idea that people should be more sexuality conscious. It should be about characters, not orientation.

 

For all I know half the characters in BG1 could of been non-straight, no one cares, now, it seems like that's all people focus on and that seems to diminish the importance of characterization generally when they are reduced strictly to how they use their genitalia.

 

Why can't it be about both characters and orientation?  Why do we need to separate characters' sexuality from their 'character' as if sexuality doesn't influence character to a degree?  Particularly since most of the proponents of the idea would likely want this character to be romanceable, so his sexuality would be relevant, no? 

 

They are going to include gay and/or bisexual men in the next game.  This thread is asking for one of those guys to be drawn from this character archetype.  They like drawing from this archetype, clearly, as there are already multiple representatives from it in the series.  However, they are all straight.  So if they are going to include gay/bisexual guys and they like to draw from this archetype already, what's wrong with asking for them to explore combining the two, given that it's not a story that's been told so far.

 

I'm not sure why you keep referencing "unsatisfactory" and "less acceptable".  No one is saying that the gay/bisexual characters have been unacceptable or unsatisfactory in the past.  No one is saying that the KISA characters have been unacceptable or unsatisfactory in the past.  No one is saying that the characters whose sexuality is undefined have been unacceptable or unsatisfactory in the past.  So I'm not really sure where you are going with that.  It's not a complaint thread.  It's a request thread.

 

It's as simple as this:  We've enjoyed the KISA characters.  We've enjoyed the gay/bisexual characters.  Wouldn't it be great if we could get a gay/bisexual KISA character so we could explore that character archetype through the eyes of a gay man?  That's really what this thread is about.

 

Note:  It could also very well be about a lesbian KISA as well.  It's just easier to pick a gender and stick with those pronouns instead of constantly doing the "s/he" and "his/her" thing. 

[TheJediSaint]

Note:  It could also very well be about a lesbian KISA as well.  It's just easier to pick a gender and stick with those pronouns instead of constantly doing the "s/he" and "his/her" thing. 

Let me just jump in so I can plug using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun.

 

It's a bit archaic, but technically correct singular pronoun for when gender is indeterminate.

 

Thank you for your time.

[Seraphim24]

Why can't it be about both characters and orientation?  Why do we need to separate characters' sexuality from their 'character' as if sexuality doesn't influence character to a degree?  Particularly since most of the proponents of the idea would likely want this character to be romanceable, so his sexuality would be relevant, no? 

 

They are going to include gay and/or bisexual men in the next game.  This thread is asking for one of those guys to be drawn from this character archetype.  They like drawing from this archetype, clearly, as there are already multiple representatives from it in the series.  However, they are all straight.  So if they are going to include gay/bisexual guys and they like to draw from this archetype already, what's wrong with asking for them to explore combining the two, given that it's not a story that's been told so far.

 

I'm not sure why you keep referencing "unsatisfactory" and "less acceptable".  No one is saying that the gay/bisexual characters have been unacceptable or unsatisfactory in the past.  No one is saying that the KISA characters have been unacceptable or unsatisfactory in the past.  No one is saying that the characters whose sexuality is undefined have been unacceptable or unsatisfactory in the past.  So I'm not really sure where you are going with that.  It's not a complaint thread.  It's a request thread.

 

It's as simple as this:  We've enjoyed the KISA characters.  We've enjoyed the gay/bisexual characters.  Wouldn't it be great if we could get a gay/bisexual KISA character so we could explore that character archetype through the eyes of a gay man?  That's really what this thread is about.

 

Note:  It could also very well be about a lesbian KISA as well.  It's just easier to pick a gender and stick with those pronouns instead of constantly doing the "s/he" and "his/her" thing. 

 

Sexuality influences character? That's interesting, I was under the impression that sexuality is not really a function of personality. I've always decided to withhold any and all assumptions towards homosexuals and judge them entirely on the content of their character. Bioware (and their fans) are attempting to teach me some interesting things, things that I may decide to forget based on how wrong they seem.

 

Are you for real? it's kinda weird you'd ask this in the "I want LGBT representation (of certain kind)" thread. Personally I could care less about romances, maybe the people in this thread do. But that's not what this is about, it's about visibility. Having characters you can identify with, who share your struggles, doubts or experiences. Not feeling left out from a form of media you cherish. Representation can inspire people to become better or reassure them they can achieve what they want. They can change people's perceptions of you for good or bad. Culture is a very powerful thing. Nobody here is gonna like a character just by virtue of being LGBT though (I cannot, for the life of me, stomach Iron Bull for example), as you seem to be implying.

 

Checks self, yeah I'm pretty sure I'm real.

 

So you don't identify with people who believe they are capable of struggling or doubting if they are not homosexual? That doesn't seem right to me. There are hundreds of completely visible characters (straight or otherwise, or as I said, undefined) that struggle and suffer, but until we know the way they use their genitalia those experiences are invalid?

 

The fact that Edwin or Kivan struggled or suffered but didn't announce their orientation didn't make it any less valid to me. For all we know, they were homosexual, but again, I don't care or think about such a thing anyway so it didn't matter.

 

I just ignore a person's orientation at all times quite frankly, if a person is a total **** and homosexual they aren't in the party, if the person is a total ***** and straight they are out of the party. It makes absolutely no difference at all to me aside from the strict check that I have to determine if they match my own orientation.

[DuckDuckPotato]

See there's the problem. You are talking about how you view people and how you judge characters purely on anything but their orientation. But we are talking about the media here and its portrayal of LGBTQA people.

Yes, we can identify with straight characters going through a rough patch. However that is being portrayed in the media for so long already. We aren't denying their struggles. All we would like to see is how characters with orientations other than straight battle with their problems. Being LGBTQA has caused conflicts and struggles for many of us. And for some characters this is a source of conflict, I.e. Dorian Pavus. In the meanwhile it is mere information to act upon, I.e. Samantha Traynor. Just something to identify ourselves with.

It is admirable of you to not only see a persons orientation, but the whole person. More people should act this way in real life. But for that to happen we need diversity within the representation of LGBTQA characters in the media. Not just stereotypes, not every gay is sassy, not every lesbian is butch, not every bisexual is an indecisive gay/straight and transsexuals aren't abominations. We are all humans with different traits and aspects.

And perhaps is having a LGBTQA character empowering for some. Seeing them getting past their struggles is good for people. And this thread is a start. Something different, something new.

A little representation shouldn't hurt, should it?

[daveliam]

Just throwing it out there. In the current Angela's ongoing series, there are hints of a relationship between Angela and her companion Sera (who happens to be a trans woman). Despite all the messy, conflicting definitions in this thread Angela is, to me, the quintessential "Knight in Shining Armor". And Marvel seems to be pushing her as one of their top guns. So if Angela is confirmed gay/bi, then... she becomes the perfect example of a queer knight type in mainstream comics.

Spoiler

 

I'm not familiar with this.  I'll have to check it out.  Sounds promising thought!

 

Sexuality influences character? That's interesting, I was under the impression that sexuality is not really a function of personality. I've always decided to withhold any and all assumptions towards homosexuals and judge them entirely on the content of their character. Bioware (and their fans) are attempting to teach me some interesting things, things that I may decide to forget based on how wrong they seem..

Maybe influences isn't the best word.  But sexuality is part of a person's character.  There's no reason to avoid that.  It doesn't make one 'more pc' to avoid acknowledging someone's sexuality.  It's not a bad thing to acknowledge someone's sexuality.  You shouldn't define them by their sexuality, but there's no reason not to acknowledge it.  I think we made a wrong turn somewhere if just acknowledging that I'm gay and you're straight (disclaimer:  used as an example and I make no assumptions of your sexuality in real life) is a bad thing.  I am gay and it's an important part of my life. 

 

People want characters that they can identify with and sexuality is one way to identify with a character.  Particularly when one's own sexuality is something that you've struggled with and/or had some outright conflicts over.  Most LGBT people identify strongly with their sexuality because by embracing our sexuality, we've had years worth of struggle and, likely, lost some friends/family members' support on the way.

 

And, again, it's just one way to identify with a character.  My favorite characters in the series are:  Wynne, Morrigan, Sigrun, Aveline, Isabela, Varric, Carver, Cassandra, Dorian, and Vivienne.  That's 8 humans and 2 dwarves.  That's 7 women and 3 men.  That's 4 mages, 3 rogues, and 3 warriors.  And that's 7 presumed straight people. 1 gay guy, 1 bisexual gal, and 1 spunky little dwarf lady who could be any sexuality.  So being LGBT isn't a requirement for me to identify with and like a character.  But it is one valid way.

 

And just to clarify, it's not that we're saying that we need a gay KISA's sexuality to even be in the forefront of the story.  We just would want to see it acknowledged by being available to s/s romance.  Dorian's story has covered the above conflicts in the series, so we're not asking for a retread of that story.  We're asking for a wider representation of LGBT characters in the series.  And here's an archetype that hasn't been done with a LGBT character. 

 

Checks self, yeah I'm pretty sure I'm real.

 

So you don't identify with people who believe they are capable of struggling or doubting if they are not homosexual? That doesn't seem right to me. There are hundreds of completely visible characters (straight or otherwise, or as I said, undefined) that struggle and suffer, but until we know the way they use their genitalia those experiences are invalid?

 

The fact that Edwin or Kivan struggled or suffered but didn't announce their orientation didn't make it any less valid to me. For all we know, they were homosexual, but again, I don't care or think about such a thing anyway so it didn't matter.

 

I just ignore a person's orientation at all times quite frankly, if a person is a total **** and homosexual they aren't in the party, if the person is a total ***** and straight they are out of the party. It makes absolutely no difference at all to me aside from the strict check that I have to determine if they match my own orientation.

 

Again you are bringing it back to some arbitrary value-assignment perspective.  No one is saying that a KISA who's straight or a character who didn't announce their sexuality was 'less valid'.  I'm really not sure why you keep going here because there is literally no one saying that except for you. 

 

See there's the problem. You are talking about how you view people and how you judge characters purely on anything but their orientation. But we are talking about the media here and it's portrayal of LGBTQA people.

Yes, we can identify with straight characters going through a rough patch. However that is being portrayed in the media for so long already. We aren't denying their struggles. All we would like to see is how characters with orientations other than straight battle with their problems. Being LGBTQA has caused conflicts and struggles for many of us. And for some characters this is a source of conflict, I.e. Dorian Pavus. In the meanwhile it is mere information to act upon, I.e. Samantha Traynor. Just something to identify ourselves with.

It is admirable of you to not only see a persons orientation, but the whole person. More people should act this way in real life. But for that to happen we need diversity within the representation of LGBTQA characters in the media. Not just stereotypes, not every gay is sassy, not every lesbian is butch, not every bisexual is an indecisive gay/straight and transsexuals aren't abominations. We are all humans with different traits and aspects.

And perhaps is having a LGBTQA character empowering for some. Seeing them getting past their struggles is good for people. And this thread is a start. Something different, something new.

A little representation shouldn't hurt, should it?

 

This is an interesting point.  We can't get to the idealistic "no one's sexuality should matter' place because, in our society sexuality does matter.  Believe me.  I know.  I am acutely aware of my sexuality on an almost daily basis.  And I live in one of the most progressive liberal cities in the world......one where just last summer there was a string of gay-bashings where gay men were being targeted by groups of straight guys who would beat them to hospitalization. 

 

Your point is a good one.  Until everyone (or most people, at least) believes that sexuality doesn't matter, then it does matter.  The more representation we have and the wider the representation, the more likely that this will happen.  We still regularly see people make the argument, "But s/he doesn't seem gay, so it just doesn't make sense for his/her character....." all the time on the BSN.  All the time.  What that tells me is that there are still many people who think a very specific and narrow way about how gay people act.  That's why I think it's important to have as wide a representation of gay people in media.  Video games need to have openly gay feminine men, masculine men, flamboyant men, introverts, extroverts, shy virgins, bold promiscuous types, soldiers, husbands, fathers, dancers, artists, teachers, kings, princes, etc.  After years of that, perhaps we'll see less of the "but it doesn't make sense for the 'knight in shining armor' to be gay" type of comments.

 

Does that make sense?  Or did I lose my argument somewhere on my SJW soapbox.....

[DuckDuckPotato]

This is an interesting point.  We can't get to the idealistic "no one's sexuality should matter' place because, in our society sexuality does matter.  Believe me.  I know.  I am acutely aware of my sexuality on an almost daily basis.  And I live in one of the most progressive liberal cities in the world......one where just last summer there was a string of gay-bashings where gay men were being targeted by groups of straight guys who would beat them to hospitalization. 

 

Your point is a good one.  Until everyone (or most people, at least) believes that sexuality doesn't matter, then it does matter.  The more representation we have and the wider the representation, the more likely that this will happen.  We still regularly see people make the argument, "But s/he doesn't seem gay, so it just doesn't make sense for his/her character....." all the time on the BSN.  All the time.  What that tells me is that there are still many people who think a very specific and narrow way about how gay people act.  That's why I think it's important to have as wide a representation of gay people in media.  Video games need to have openly gay feminine men, masculine men, flamboyant men, introverts, extroverts, shy virgins, bold promiscuous types, soldiers, husbands, fathers, dancers, artists, teachers, kings, princes, etc.  After years of that, perhaps we'll see less of the "but it doesn't make sense for the 'knight in shining armor' to be gay" type of comments.

 

Does that make sense?  Or did I lose my argument somewhere on my SJW soapbox.....

 

Exactly, we need to show the people that the LGBTQA community isn't just black and white. Without the broad enough representation we still come across as the bad guy or worse an unknown. The gay KISA is a start but it shouldn't stop there.

The fact that comments are being made questioning our motives in wanting to have a gay KISA makes it all the more clear that the general public hasn't been informed/empathic enough with our cause. Some people need to open their eyes and see the big picture.

[Lieutenant Kurin]

Checks self, yeah I'm pretty sure I'm real.

 

So you don't identify with people who believe they are capable of struggling or doubting if they are not homosexual? That doesn't seem right to me. There are hundreds of completely visible characters (straight or otherwise, or as I said, undefined) that struggle and suffer, but until we know the way they use their genitalia those experiences are invalid?

 

The fact that Edwin or Kivan struggled or suffered but didn't announce their orientation didn't make it any less valid to me. For all we know, they were homosexual, but again, I don't care or think about such a thing anyway so it didn't matter.

 

I just ignore a person's orientation at all times quite frankly, if a person is a total **** and homosexual they aren't in the party, if the person is a total ***** and straight they are out of the party. It makes absolutely no difference at all to me aside from the strict check that I have to determine if they match my own orientation.

Kefka, just above, a poster posted this: 'a person is smart, people are stupid'. That's the point here. Personally, you may not give two cents about a person's sexuality, and it may not inform their believability as a character or your ability to like them. That's fine. But, unfortunately, the majority of people don't. Not just bigots, or homophobes, but general people who have not met enough gay people to look beyond media representation. The media says that being gay makes one different. Softer, or more flamboyant and (and this is newer,) hella arrogant. Also, into fashion. Media is what informs most people of what they have no experience of, and gay (and LGBTQ) portrayal in media has always been painfully thin.

 

Imagine the vitriol when Kaidan was announced to be interested in pursuing a relationship with a male Shepard, or the vitriol we'd get if, say, Ser Barris, were announced to be gay. People would uproar, not because of any proof of straightness, but what was said about Cullen before this very game was released "I can't imagine him as gay", which was even more common than how he blushed around a female Magi Origin. I mean, that is evidence enough that media's portrayal of gays has been painfully lacking, to the point people still think of any "masculine" gay man as hiding himself beyond a wall of straightness.

 

Your point is a good one.  Until everyone (or most people, at least) believes that sexuality doesn't matter, then it does matter.  The more representation we have and the wider the representation, the more likely that this will happen.  We still regularly see people make the argument, "But s/he doesn't seem gay, so it just doesn't make sense for his/her character....." all the time on the BSN.  All the time.  What that tells me is that there are still many people who think a very specific and narrow way about how gay people act.  That's why I think it's important to have as wide a representation of gay people in media.  Video games need to have openly gay feminine men, masculine men, flamboyant men, introverts, extroverts, shy virgins, bold promiscuous types, soldiers, husbands, fathers, dancers, artists, teachers, kings, princes, etc.  After years of that, perhaps we'll see less of the "but it doesn't make sense for the 'knight in shining armor' to be gay" type of comments.

Said it before, and I'll say it again. "Exactly". Sexuality, gender and race matter until such a time where no one cares what you are. Even in Mass Effect, where being gay doesn't matter, and gender rarely matters (and the concept have race has gone 'bye bye'), we still need to connect to the narrative with xenophobia against humans, or it will be like the alpha version of the Matrix. Unbelievable.

 

Also, I'm back, but I have no idea for how long.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

*sits here watching people argue about how much is enough and how broad it needs to be while I have none whatsoever*

 

 

Let me just jump in so I can plug using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun.

 

It's a bit archaic, but technically correct singular pronoun for when gender is indeterminate.

 

Thank you for your time.

Yeah, they is a good word to use. 

[Seraphim24]

See there's the problem. You are talking about how you view people and how you judge characters purely on anything but their orientation. But we are talking about the media here and its portrayal of LGBTQA people.

Yes, we can identify with straight characters going through a rough patch. However that is being portrayed in the media for so long already. We aren't denying their struggles. All we would like to see is how characters with orientations other than straight battle with their problems. Being LGBTQA has caused conflicts and struggles for many of us. And for some characters this is a source of conflict, I.e. Dorian Pavus. In the meanwhile it is mere information to act upon, I.e. Samantha Traynor. Just something to identify ourselves with.

It is admirable of you to not only see a persons orientation, but the whole person. More people should act this way in real life. But for that to happen we need diversity within the representation of LGBTQA characters in the media. Not just stereotypes, not every gay is sassy, not every lesbian is butch, not every bisexual is an indecisive gay/straight and transsexuals aren't abominations. We are all humans with different traits and aspects.

And perhaps is having a LGBTQA character empowering for some. Seeing them getting past their struggles is good for people. And this thread is a start. Something different, something new.

A little representation shouldn't hurt, should it?

 

I think your goals and means are conflicting. If you want people not to care about something, the last way to go about doing that is reciprocating violence with violence.

 

 

I'm not familiar with this.  I'll have to check it out.  Sounds promising thought!

 

Maybe influences isn't the best word.  But sexuality is part of a person's character.  There's no reason to avoid that.  It doesn't make one 'more pc' to avoid acknowledging someone's sexuality.  It's not a bad thing to acknowledge someone's sexuality.  You shouldn't define them by their sexuality, but there's no reason not to acknowledge it.  I think we made a wrong turn somewhere if just acknowledging that I'm gay and you're straight (disclaimer:  used as an example and I make no assumptions of your sexuality in real life) is a bad thing.  I am gay and it's an important part of my life. 

 

People want characters that they can identify with and sexuality is one way to identify with a character.  Particularly when one's own sexuality is something that you've struggled with and/or had some outright conflicts over.  Most LGBT people identify strongly with their sexuality because by embracing our sexuality, we've had years worth of struggle and, likely, lost some friends/family members' support on the way.

 

And, again, it's just one way to identify with a character.  My favorite characters in the series are:  Wynne, Morrigan, Sigrun, Aveline, Isabela, Varric, Carver, Cassandra, Dorian, and Vivienne.  That's 8 humans and 2 dwarves.  That's 7 women and 3 men.  That's 4 mages, 3 rogues, and 3 warriors.  And that's 7 presumed straight people. 1 gay guy, 1 bisexual gal, and 1 spunky little dwarf lady who could be any sexuality.  So being LGBT isn't a requirement for me to identify with and like a character.  But it is one valid way.

 

And just to clarify, it's not that we're saying that we need a gay KISA's sexuality to even be in the forefront of the story.  We just would want to see it acknowledged by being available to s/s romance.  Dorian's story has covered the above conflicts in the series, so we're not asking for a retread of that story.  We're asking for a wider representation of LGBT characters in the series.  And here's an archetype that hasn't been done with a LGBT character. 

 

 

Again you are bringing it back to some arbitrary value-assignment perspective.  No one is saying that a KISA who's straight or a character who didn't announce their sexuality was 'less valid'.  I'm really not sure why you keep going here because there is literally no one saying that except for you. 

 

 

This is an interesting point.  We can't get to the idealistic "no one's sexuality should matter' place because, in our society sexuality does matter.  Believe me.  I know.  I am acutely aware of my sexuality on an almost daily basis.  And I live in one of the most progressive liberal cities in the world......one where just last summer there was a string of gay-bashings where gay men were being targeted by groups of straight guys who would beat them to hospitalization. 

 

Your point is a good one.  Until everyone (or most people, at least) believes that sexuality doesn't matter, then it does matter.  The more representation we have and the wider the representation, the more likely that this will happen.  We still regularly see people make the argument, "But s/he doesn't seem gay, so it just doesn't make sense for his/her character....." all the time on the BSN.  All the time.  What that tells me is that there are still many people who think a very specific and narrow way about how gay people act.  That's why I think it's important to have as wide a representation of gay people in media.  Video games need to have openly gay feminine men, masculine men, flamboyant men, introverts, extroverts, shy virgins, bold promiscuous types, soldiers, husbands, fathers, dancers, artists, teachers, kings, princes, etc.  After years of that, perhaps we'll see less of the "but it doesn't make sense for the 'knight in shining armor' to be gay" type of comments.

 

Does that make sense?  Or did I lose my argument somewhere on my SJW soapbox.....

 

Ok so, you guys are saying that there should be a kind of anti-stereotype buster personality that heals misconceptions in the world.

 

The problem with that idea IMO is that it doesn't actually do that, this is just reciprocating some degree of animus. I mean you yourself acknowledge you can respond and resonate to characters who identify as straight, or not straight, it seems to me those kinds of characters bring people together. I feel like you could argue something like DA:I with it's chart of sexual orientations has actually made people more aware and more sensitive to a person's orientation. It's arguably regressive, basically. The means are clashing with the goals.

 

In fact I've played Bioware games since BG1 and I was never aware of them having a kind of LGBT following or whatever, because those characters were again just amorphous and simply designed as kind of universally appealing. Well, they were designed as hilarious Dungeon Master creations in a D&D campaign but my point is they had real universality. In retrospect, I'm sure many people identified with those people as being straight or homosexual or whatever else. It's similar with Elsa from Frozen I noticed, I didn't get particularly any homosexual vibes, but I guess a lot of people did, but the brilliance of that character is everyone is responding to her.

 

Again, I don't care about orientations, substantively, in fact, if anything I'd be even more interested in Bioware characters for having an LGBT following because that suggests their universality is transcending everything, but you guys are talking about trying to rid the world of this or that animus and saying the way to do that is just to flip a switch at the end of development or press a button like "Oh, and I'm gay or lesbian."

 

I'd rather say wow, hey, ome people/characters can make everyone pretty happy, and I am way more interested in finding the reasons why characters like that appeal to everyone, it seems like assigning orientations is a way to claim ownership over these characters, but no one owns these people. Again, it's like, what will that achieve ultimately? The cast of BG2 has probably done more to defeat prejudice than DA:I's cast ever will, but did it have anything to do with orientation? No, some of the BG2 characters could of been homosexual, or straight, or whatever else, but most importantly, they were all just more interesting to me.

 

It just seems like all your collective passions here are misguided, you fantasize about a world where these characters come along and vanquish all the haters or whatever, but that world will likely only perpetuate prejudices rather than defeat them. Entertainment and video games it seems to me should be about forgiveness and commonality, ultimately, it seems to me.

[DirkJake]

 

 

 

This is an interesting point.  We can't get to the idealistic "no one's sexuality should matter' place because, in our society sexuality does matter.  Believe me.  I know.  I am acutely aware of my sexuality on an almost daily basis.  And I live in one of the most progressive liberal cities in the world......one where just last summer there was a string of gay-bashings where gay men were being targeted by groups of straight guys who would beat them to hospitalization. 

 

Your point is a good one.  Until everyone (or most people, at least) believes that sexuality doesn't matter, then it does matter.  The more representation we have and the wider the representation, the more likely that this will happen.  We still regularly see people make the argument, "But s/he doesn't seem gay, so it just doesn't make sense for his/her character....." all the time on the BSN.  All the time.  What that tells me is that there are still many people who think a very specific and narrow way about how gay people act.  That's why I think it's important to have as wide a representation of gay people in media.  Video games need to have openly gay feminine men, masculine men, flamboyant men, introverts, extroverts, shy virgins, bold promiscuous types, soldiers, husbands, fathers, dancers, artists, teachers, kings, princes, etc.  After years of that, perhaps we'll see less of the "but it doesn't make sense for the 'knight in shining armor' to be gay" type of comments.

 

Does that make sense?  Or did I lose my argument somewhere on my SJW soapbox.....

 

Agreed.

 

To be honest here, I think "No sexuality should matter" is simply a silent tactic to perpetuate the heterosexist status quo, because this argument is rarely brought up when it comes to heterosexuality representation despite the fact that we can see it everywhere and almost all the damn time.

 

Sexuality (and gender identity, if I may add) matters in these days, and the way it matters continues to harm LGBT people. The problem is not that sexuality matters. The problem is how sexuality matters. So the question is how LGBT people are going to change how sexuality matters?

 

Sure we can sit and do and demand nothing, waiting someday people would be open-minded and suddenly wake up and realize that "Sexuality should not matter. We should treat LGBT people nicely." This is not going to happen, and in fact this was not what LGBT rights movement did to accomplish the progress it had so far.

 

What we have been doing that leads to better treatment of LGBT people is to increase exposure to LGBT people. I believe a lot of us have heard those touching stories where homophobic people became LGBT supporters just because they found out their friends were LGBT. People are not going to change their prejudices they have until they see, with their own eyes, physical and irrefutable evidence that LGBT people are not all like that.

 

But since we are the minority, only few people have a privilege to witness that. And that's where representation comes in to provide an alternative viewpoint to contrast with prejudiced portrayal. Even better is more diverse representation, which I think this thread is asking for. The more diverse representation becomes, the less reasonable ground those prejudices can stand.

 

Being gay is a significant part of me, and I am not going to advocate erasing the sexuality of gay characters just to satisfy the whole "Sexuality should not matter" which does not change anything.

 

Well I am sorry if this derails this thread.

 

 

 

 

[Semyaza82]

Again, I don't care about orientations, substantively, in fact, if anything I'd be even more interested in Bioware characters for having an LGBT following because that suggests their universality is transcending everything, but you guys are talking about trying to rid the world of this or that animus and saying the way to do that is just to flip a switch at the end of development or press a button like "Oh, and I'm gay or lesbian."

 

I'd rather say wow, hey, ome people/characters can make everyone pretty happy, and I am way more interested in finding the reasons why characters like that appeal to everyone, it seems like assigning orientations is a way to claim ownership over these characters, but no one owns these people. Again, it's like, what will that achieve ultimately? The cast of BG2 has probably done more to defeat prejudice than DA:I's cast ever will, but did it have anything to do with orientation? No, some of the BG2 characters could of been homosexual, or straight, or whatever else, but most importantly, they were all just more interesting to me.

 

It just seems like all your collective passions here are misguided, you fantasize about a world where these characters come along and vanquish all the haters or whatever, but that world will likely only perpetuate prejudices rather than defeat them. Entertainment and video games it seems to me should be about forgiveness and commonality, ultimately, it seems to me.

   The problem with a thread that goes on for 80+ pages is that people haven't normally read the whole thing when they respond, which is completely reasonable, but can lead to some misconceptions. I have literally seen no one saying that the inclusion of a gay KISA character would cure  anything at all. The whole point of this thread was about requesting a particular character type that we would like to see. Nothing more. Given the nature of of a forum, the discussion has wandered about a little but that's still basically it. 

   No one is asking for the writers to 'flip a switch' at the end of development and make a character gay, and no one if suggesting the inclusion of a gay KISA would 'rid the world' of anything. Inclusion and representation are important in media - whether that be film, television or video games. Bioware has a pretty clear stance of this, and one that myself and many others in this thread have repeatedly praised, but that is a far cry from thinking that the inclusion of a character is some kind of magic bullet. Cumulatively  LGBTQ characters appearing in mainstream media may well have a positive effect, but I'll just say again - that isn't what this thread has been about (even if it has been mentioned).  

   As for the whole idea that sexuality shouldn't matter, I will simply say that in a series of games where romance stories are a big part of a lot of peoples enjoyment that it should be self evident that it will matter to people. 

[sandalisthemaker]

Jeez, I go away and this thread keeps getting attacked for apparently reeking with internalized homophobia.  

 

 

I may be fabulous here in BSN, but IRL, I am very "masculine" (yes, there is that word again for lack of a better one) and people are often surprised to find that I am gay. Why are they surprised?  You got it. Stereotypes.

 

Does being "masculine" mean I am displaying internalized homophobia or make me somehow less gay?  I assure you it does not.  It's just the way I am.  Gay people are just as diverse as straight people. I would like to see the gay characters in DA games reflect that.  The type of character I am asking for in this thread has not happened yet. I would like to see it and so I made a suggestion. 

 

 

Thanks daveliam for already saying everything else I had planned on saying.

[daveliam]

Thanks daveliam for already saying everything else I had planned on saying.

 

I got you, boo! 

[Rizilliant]

I'm not sure why I clicked on this thread, but having read some of this I can say there are plenty who would completely disagree with your statement about Dorian. I was just talking to someone about him and we both we're agreeing he's a pretty lame character, all things considered, just really dull, etc. By the same token, the likes of Solas or maybe Cassandra others were simply stronger, more compelling characters.

 

That's homosexuality aside (as I don't care about a person's sexual orientation for substantive character evaluation, outside of literally considering whether they could match mine for romance or something)

 

Which also begs the question why are you guys attaching so much importance to the orientation of the character? It seems to send the wrong message to suggest that a character is more or less acceptable based solely on their orientation.

 

This is what i dont understand.. BW clearly went above and beyond to accommodate all (and thats no small task now adays with everyone creating a new classification) genders, preferences, races, personalities, and every combination therein.. Everytime a new game gets released, this demand becomes "an issue", and the next game gets even more proposterous.. Much of what was written in this game felt so forced, and phony, i just act like its not there.. Its more like the developers went down a checklist of politically correct talking points, and made sure to hit each one, as opposed to creating characters that just had there own personality naturally..  

 

We made sure to place any woman, in positions of power, because modern woman is strong(even though we play in the middle ages of this game)Cassandra was the strong feminist(who apparently had no problem dating an apostate, even being seeker, nor bothered by the fact that he was a whole other race of animal/person...(Qunari)).... Liliana was the female lesbian, who needs no man to help her.Again, strong modern woman... Dorian was the pretty gay boy(kindve stereotypical, or flamboyant).. Cullen was the pretty white guy, who has no preference(because why would he have preference.. Hes not a character thats been in 3games thus far).. Bull was that cross gender/race/animal option, who had no personal preference, (even though he sure seemed straight to me), other than the constant heart window that seemed to popup no matter the conversation i had with him. As a Tal-Vashoth(you would think this would bother one under the Qun) Sera, clearly had identity issues.. Shes a knife-ear, but refuses to acknowledge it.. She identifies as human (armor), and yet another lesbian... Sola's i felt, was the most naturally written character.. In that, he seemed to have preference, his own story, personality, etc..Hes from millenia ago, and is wise beyond years.. I always leave Cole a spirit, so idk his "preference".. Though considering all others, i doubt he has any at all..

 

While i enjoyed the characters thoroughly, i felt the social aspect was just bad... Sure, everyone should have their options in a game.. But shouldnt some of the characters be written as well? 

[DirkJake]

This is what i dont understand.. BW clearly went above and beyond to accommodate all (and thats no small task now adays with everyone creating a new classification) genders, preferences, races, personalities, and every combination therein.. Everytime a new game gets released, this demand becomes "an issue", and the next game gets even more proposterous.. Much of what was written in this game felt so forced, and phony, i just act like its not there.. Its more like the developers went down a checklist of politically correct talking points, and made sure to hit each one, as opposed to creating characters that just had there own personality naturally..  

 

We made sure to place any woman, in positions of power, because modern woman is strong(even though we play in the middle ages of this game)Cassandra was the strong feminist(who apparently had no problem dating an apostate, even being seeker, nor bothered by the fact that he was a whole other race of animal/person...(Qunari)).... Liliana was the female lesbian, who needs no man to help her.Again, strong modern woman... Dorian was the pretty gay boy(kindve stereotypical, or flamboyant).. Cullen was the pretty white guy, who has no preference(because why would he have preference.. Hes not a character thats been in 3games thus far).. Bull was that cross gender/race/animal option, who had no personal preference, (even though he sure seemed straight to me), other than the constant heart window that seemed to popup no matter the conversation i had with him. As a Tal-Vashoth(you would think this would bother one under the Qun) Sera, clearly had identity issues.. Shes a knife-ear, but refuses to acknowledge it.. She identifies as human (armor), and yet another lesbian... Sola's i felt, was the most naturally written character.. In that, he seemed to have preference, his own story, personality, etc..Hes from millenia ago, and is wise beyond years.. I always leave Cole a spirit, so idk his "preference".. Though considering all others, i doubt he has any at all..

 

While i enjoyed the characters thoroughly, i felt the social aspect was just bad... Sure, everyone should have their options in a game.. But shouldnt some of the characters be written as well? 

 

It seems you have not read through this thread. Most people in this thread do not have an issue with the current gay character, i.e. Dorian. We are simply suggesting another valid way of representing gay character. And as it seems, a lot of us would be very happy if the next gay character fits into the KISA archetype (which is not so clearly defined as this thread has proven) that has not been explored by Bioware yet.

 

Of course, Bioware went above and beyond when it comes to LGBT representation, comparing to other game company. But that does not mean that Bioware cannot improve.

 

I do not agree that the representation is "preposterous," "forced" or "phony" but this thread is not really a place for debating that. I have a fair share of derailment that happens in this thread. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I have a question that popped in my head about this and could change the subject. 

 

When it comes to the KISA's sexual preferences, what would you like it to be? Would you want them to have been waiting for the right person to come along, or have been around, or somewhere in between?