1942 réponses à ce sujet

[Lunatic Lace]

You know. I actually had to google to see what a "Brony" was. Thanks, guys.

[Vanth]

I think people should be allowed to label themselves as they want. If you regard yourself as gay but occasionally sleep with someone of the opposite gender, who am I to judge?

[Zobert]

You can choose an orientation.  I stand by that.  On my old block in Brooklyn there was a gay male couple who had been friends for ten years before dating and one of them was never gay before in his life, and said he wasn't even attracted to his (now) husband until after they had sex.  He made a conscious choice because it was his best friend.  I thought this was strange but it works for them.

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1223889.html

 

"I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not."

 

 

"Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with."

 

 

<end quote>

 

 

That's how I feel.  I've dated women by choice.  I have had sex with women by choice.  If I met the love of my life and it was a female I wouldn't question it.  The heart and the body are two different things.

 

I can have sex with someone I'm not in love with but attracted to and I can have sex with someone I'm not attracted to but in love with.

 

Why do people have to box this stuff up?  Why can't people just be individuals and define things for themselves?

[berelinde]

There have already been characters who don't confess attraction until they form an emotional bond with the protagonist, so I'd say that demisexuality is already represented. The characters don't self-identify as demisexual because the word isn't really part of the Dragon Age lexicon, but I'm guessing that most RL demisexuals don't walk up to people and proclaim their sexuality either. It's intimate personal information, and not really something you'd share with someone unless it became relevant, i.e. the relationship was becoming romantic. Thedas doesn't have specific words for heterosexuality or homosexuality either, but that hasn't prevented the writers from giving us heterosexual or homosexual (or bi- or pan-) characters.

 

There are a few characters who are definitely *not* demisexual. Anders, Isabela, Morrigan, and Zevran, among others, are very open and honest about the attraction they feel toward the protagonist. Others are far more reserved about it. Is Josephine demisexual? Probably, but unless she says something uncharacteristically blunt like "You know, you're the first person who's ever caught my fancy," there's no way to know.

 

TL;DR: Yes, it's a great idea to have characters who don't feel sexual attraction outside of a deep emotional connection, but applying a modern Earth label to them might seem awkward.

[Draining Dragon]

Here's a stupid question:
 
Can a demi-sexual check out their partner's erogenous zones after establishing a strong emotional bond and later having sex?

Did you really have to necro this thread?

*sighs*

[o Ventus]

Or you can then realize it really wasn't much fun or your cup of tea at all, and continue with your life the way it was before..? That one encounter you didn't even like makes you somehow 'attracted' to whatever sex you found out you don't actually enjoy sleeping with forever...?

 

If you have sex with someone you're not attracted to, you're an idiot.

[o Ventus]

Sexual behavior, sexual orientation and sexual identity are not always one and the same. What we are attracted to and what we do about it (or with it) may differ for "reasons". A man who had sex with a woman once and found out that he didn't like it, probably won't call himself a bisexual. A man who had to have sex with a woman and even have children because "appearances" also probably won't call himself a bisexual, etc.

 

It is highly debatable whenever a drunk out his mind straight guy who had sex with another man did it because of repressed tendencies or because in the end a stimuli is a stimuli, it's difficult to know which one applies, sometimes not even the said straight guy will know why.

 

Why people insist on making this more complicated than it actually is, I don't understand.

 

If you're a man and you are sexually attracted to another man, you're either homosexual or bisexual. Done deal.

If you're a woman and you are sexually attracted to another woman, you're either homosexual or bisexual. That's it.

 

Also, people who are blackout-drunk are in no way liable to give consent on account of being impaired, in a legal sense (and a moral sense depending on who you ask).

 

Why a person would have sex with another person is irrelevant, orientation is decided by who or what a person is attracted to.

[TheRatPack55]

If you have sex with someone you're not attracted to, you're an idiot.

 

I could think of stupider things to do, but ok, I guess... Still doesn't make one gay, straight, bisexual or anything else, just a person with poor judgement.

[o Ventus]

I could think of stupider things to do, but ok, I guess... Still doesn't make one gay, straight, bisexual or anything else, just a person with poor judgement.

 

This is getting really old, so I'll put it in the simplest, clearest terms I am capable of, because I guess it wasn't painfully obvious from the beginning.

 

If a man is sexually attracted to another man, then he is homosexual. If he is also sexually attracted to women, then he is bisexual. Men who are born according to the norm are heterosexual, meaning they are sexually attracted only to women. All of this applies to women as well as men, only reverse the sex of the person to whom the woman would be attracted to.

 

If a man has a homosexual encounter with another man and he is not attracted to the man, then he is not homosexual because he was not attracted to the other man (or, rather, he isn't gay for the other guy, he could still be gay and not consider the other man attractive). He IS, however, an idiot for having sex with a person he doesn't find attractive. 

 

The act of sex is entirely irrelevant when it comes to orientation, because orientation is dependent on what the person in question finds attractive. 

[TheRatPack55]

This is getting really old, so I'll put it in the simplest, clearest terms I am capable of, because I guess it wasn't painfully obvious from the beginning.

 

If a man is sexually attracted to another man, then he is homosexual. If he is also sexually attracted to women, then he is bisexual. Men who are born according to the norm are heterosexual, meaning they are sexually attracted only to women. All of this applies to women as well as men, only reverse the sex of the person to whom the woman would be attracted to.

 

If a man has a homosexual encounter with another man and he is not attracted to the man, then he is not homosexual because he was not attracted to the other man (or, rather, he isn't gay for the other guy, he could still be gay and not consider the other man attractive). He IS, however, an idiot for having sex with a person he doesn't find attractive. 

 

The act of sex is entirely irrelevant when it comes to orientation, because orientation is dependent on what the person in question finds attractive. 

 

I admit I am now completely lost as to how all this pertains to my gaming experience, but I'll put my opinion in simple terms as well, although I think I made it pretty simple before already - a person is not 'an idiot' for having sex with someone they're not attracted to (do you believe all prostitutes to be mentally deficient?). I am also not particularly attracted to any sex toys I own, but they still do their thing for me, how do you classify that?

 

This thread is on it's way to lockdown, I think. 

[ThreeF]

Why people insist on making this more complicated than it actually is, I don't understand

Because people are complex, because we are nowhere near understanding what makes us tick, because sexuality can be fluid  and therefore sometimes it is difficult to say  where one label ends and the other begins, which is generally a problem with labels.

 

Also, people who are blackout-drunk are in no way liable to give consent on account of being impaired, in a legal sense (and a moral sense depending on who you ask).

Lets not drag consent into this, that was not what I was getting at.

 

If you're a man and you are sexually attracted to another man, you're either homosexual or bisexual. Done deal.

If you're a woman and you are sexually attracted to another woman, you're either homosexual or bisexual. That's it.

 

Why a person would have sex with another person is irrelevant, orientation is decided by who or what a person is attracted to.

You can have sex without being sexually attracted to the gender of the person or even without being attracted to the person, you can have and enjoy sex just for the sake of sex.

 

This conversation started from:

 

 

When a gay guy has sex with a woman (and he isn't being raped), it typically means he's bisexual.

 

So "why" is important.

[o Ventus]

Because people are complex, because we are nowhere near understanding what makes us tick, because sexuality can be fluid  and therefore sometimes it is difficult to say  where one label ends and the other begins, which is generally a problem with labels.

 

People know what makes them tick. I know what makes me tick, you know what makes you tick. Saying that we're nowhere near understanding why people behave or think the way they do is a gross misrepresentation of actual psychology and is incredibly condescending.

 

It isn't at all difficult to say where one label end and the other begins, it just varies between people. I'll use myself as an example.

 

I am a heterosexual male. I am attracted to women. If at any point I find myself attracted to a man, then I am no longer strictly heterosexual and am instead bisexual, because then I am attracted to members of both sexes.

 

It's LITERALLY that simple.

 

You can have sex without being sexually attracted to the gender of the person or even without being attracted to the person, you can have and enjoy sex just for the sake of sex.

 

And this has no bearing on orientation, because (for the 94th time) orientation describes attraction. The act of sex itself is IRRELEVANT.

 

 

So "why" is important.

 

I also said "typically", which was intentionally vague since nobody established any prior criteria and I can't account for every reason why someone would have sex with another person. But the discussion has moved on from that point to where it is now, in greater detail.

[TheRatPack55]

People know what makes them tick. I know what makes me tick, you know what makes you tick. Saying that we're nowhere near understanding why people behave or think the way they do is a gross misrepresentation of actual psychology and is incredibly condescending.

 

It isn't at all difficult to say where one label end and the other begins, it just varies between people. I'll use myself as an example.

 

I am a heterosexual male. I am attracted to women. If at any point I find myself attracted to a man, then I am no longer strictly heterosexual and am instead bisexual, because then I am attracted to members of both sexes.

 

It's LITERALLY that simple.

 

 

 

 

And this has no bearing on orientation, because (for the 94th time) orientation describes attraction. The act of sex itself is IRRELEVANT.

 

 

 

 

 

I also said "typically", which was intentionally vague since nobody established any prior criteria and I can't account for every reason why someone would have sex with another person. But the discussion has moved on from that point to where it is now, in greater detail.

Good for you, cause I honestly don't, and often find out quite unexpectedly.

 

I'm really curious, what does 'attraction' mean in your mind? Cause let me use myself as an example... I'm attracted to men, yet I also enjoy gay porn - male and female. Still, irl I have never felt an 'attraction', towards a woman. I could probably still have sex with one. I wouldn't choose to do it given the choice between a man and a woman, but I could. It would probably not be traumatizing. It could be satisfying. I'd still not desire to repeat it.

 

You keep saying it yourself, sex and attraction are separate. What was the original point again?

[ThreeF]

People know what makes them tick. I know what makes me tick, you know what makes you tick.

Not everyone does and I'm willing to say that while I feel pretty comfortable in my skin, I'm too young to know half of things that make me tick, I might never discover them all in my lifetime and maybe some things will change with experience, so even if I say that I know, it's just true for now.

 

Saying that we're nowhere near understanding why people behave or think the way they do is a gross misrepresentation of actual psychology and is incredibly condescending.

 

It's not condescension. If everything was a known fact there would be nothing to research and there are scientific fields that study sexuality and while some  progress has been made  there are many different opinions and there are still many things that are being studied and not fully understood.

 

It isn't at all difficult to say where one label end and the other begins, it just varies between people.

That it does.....and that was kind of my point.

 

I am a heterosexual male. I am attracted to women. If at any point I find myself attracted to a man, then I am no longer strictly heterosexual and am instead bisexual, because then I am attracted to members of both sexes.

 

It's LITERALLY that simple.

 

This can be applied to you and anyone who see things this way. My point was/is that not everybody see and identify with things in the same way or include the same factors in their rationalization of their behavior and if someone sees it differently it's their prerogative, they probably know themselves better than anyone else.....probably.

 

edit: The majority of catfights come from the fact that people like to tell other people what they are, how they should behave and what they out to think. It's easy to say "these things work for me this way so they must work in the same way for others". There might be a strict dictionary definition of sexual orientation, but not everyone will see it  sufficient and/or sufficiently defined for their sexual identity because of the way they understand their own behavior.

[DomeWing333]

People know what makes them tick. I know what makes me tick, you know what makes you tick. Saying that we're nowhere near understanding why people behave or think the way they do is a gross misrepresentation of actual psychology and is incredibly condescending.

 

It isn't at all difficult to say where one label end and the other begins, it just varies between people. I'll use myself as an example.

 

I am a heterosexual male. I am attracted to women. If at any point I find myself attracted to a man, then I am no longer strictly heterosexual and am instead bisexual, because then I am attracted to members of both sexes.

 

It's LITERALLY that simple.

 

The idea that we haven't yet fully defined the range and categories of human sexuality is most certainly not "a gross misrepresentation of actual psychology." Sexual psychology is still in its infancy as a field of study. The fact that you claim know what makes you tick and I claim know what makes me tick speaks nothing about whether other people out there know what makes them tick. Assuming that your personal experiences reflect the personal experiences of every other person out there, that's condescending.

 

Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are labels we use to group human sexual behavior into digestible categories, but they aren't the end-all-be-all of what we are. They, like most labels in psychology, are generalities devised to place some form of order on a system that is inherently chaotic. Human sexuality is weird. Asexuals exist. People who are primarily attracted to transsexuals exist. People who are only attracted to androgynous people of any sex exist. Hell, the Kinsey scale even recognizes that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality aren't discrete categories and that was invented in the 50's. Human sexuality is not, nor has it ever been, "simple."

[ThreeF]

Hell, the Kinsey scale even recognizes that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality aren't discrete categories and that was invented in the 50's. Human sexuality is not, nor has it ever been, "simple."

The term bisexuality didn't even had the contemporary use until maybe 1914 and only became generally used as such in the 50ies, prior that it was used to define intersexuals.

[Han Shot First]

 

There are a few characters who are definitely *not* demisexual. Anders, Isabela, Morrigan, and Zevran, among others, are very open and honest about the attraction they feel toward the protagonist. Others are far more reserved about it. Is Josephine demisexual? Probably, but unless she says something uncharacteristically blunt like "You know, you're the first person who's ever caught my fancy," there's no way to know.

 

 

I'm not convinced that demisexual is an actual thing, particularly considered the word originated on a roleplay forum and was first coined by a teenager.

 

But moving on...assuming for a moment that it is a real thing, I don't think it is a label that applies to Josephine. If she isn't romanced by the Inquisitor she can engage in courtly love with Blackwall. And if the Inquisitor questions her about Duke Otranto on the romance arc, she states that she would have been open to marrying him if not for the fact that she was already involved with someone. And if the Inquisitor romances Iron Bull, Josephine is checking out the Iron Bull's junk when she and a few other characters accidentally interrupt the Bull & the Inquisitor while they were screwing around.

 

I think it is probably more accurate to say that Josephine is bisexual, with a slight preference for men. 

[DirkJake]

After skimming through the discussion, what I will conclude is that sexual orientation can be very simple to some to figure out but also can be very complicated to others. For myself, it is very simple: the label 'gay' just does it. But I've heard a number of stories within the community of people who have troubles figuring them out.

 

The same can be said about labels. Some find comfort and validation in the labels, while some feel confined and alienated by them. Just like mages in the circles.

[Zobert]

If you have sex with someone you're not attracted to, you're an idiot.

 

If couples stay together until their boobs and nuts are droopy enough to hang to their knees, then I don't think they're idiots for having sex with unattractive people.  Sex isn't just about physical attraction.  Sometimes it is about comfort.

[Rannik]

These countless prefixes for sexualities / genderstuff are getting way too ridiculous, it's pretty much impossible to keep up with a new one every day.

All I want is australopithecusexual romances for my supercalifragilisticexpialidocious playable characters...

 

...

 

K
 

II would guess that, since being LGBT is cool and trendy now in social media, people feel left out, so they take a made-up label and apply it to themselves to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack.

Based Ventus dropping the truth bombs.

[Cainhurst Crow]

It's already in the game. It's how you do romances in the game, talking and getting to know them, building up strong emotional connections with them, before ultimately having sex with them.

 

So basically, this is like one of the more gameplay oriented folks demanding bioware put "demi-targeting" into the game, wherein the player character will only attack creatures they specifically target to attack, something that's already an opinion in the game.

[Zobert]

I do agree that in some silly circles that there is a trend in finding an alternative viewpoint to how you view sex so that you're not "vanilla" anymore, but at the same time I've just found that people like to label sex, label themselves, group, etc. when really we're all just people capable of any activity under the sun given the circumstances.

 

The gay man who can also have sex with a female forgets that it's possible once he's accepted into the group he feels more comfortable with.  He's "gay".  The straight guy who had experimental sex with the gay men still likes to think of it as an experiment and himself still straight when really...they're just sexual people experiencing life.

 

Labels make most people happy for some reason.  I'm in the minority where I think in individual terms.  I used to think everyone was that way, but lately it seems we're "progressives" or "liberals" or "conservatives" or "gay" or "straight" or _________________.

 

I can say I don't like labels but others do so more power to them.  The goal in life is to find some happiness while we're on the rock.

[Br3admax]

Hold on, let me call up my lesbian friend and tell her we can finally smash now. These are just labels getting in the way of how we really feel. 

[Augustei]

Hold on, let me call up my lesbian friend and tell her we can finally smash now. These are just labels getting in the way of how we really feel. 

I'm sure it'll go well.....

[Zobert]

Hold on, let me call up my lesbian friend and tell her we can finally smash now. These are just labels getting in the way of how we really feel. 

 

Never say never.  Maybe someday you will.