[snip]
The time span of a Dragon Age game isn't long enough for this.
Maybe this could have worked in Dragon Age 2 since it takes place over many years.
However Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age Inquisition take place over a short period of time. Not long enough to develop a strong emotional connection. (Unless you believe in love at first sight).
So maybe if the next game is like Dragon Age 2 in terms of time span. Only then could such an idea work.
That's taking it to an extreme, don't you think? Most of the people on the planet do not have nymphomaniac tendencies. Like everything else in this subject, humanity is spread over a large spectrum.
Well that's technically what I said before, saying everyone falls into a middle kind of category, I was just trying to portray "normal" as being opposed to people who identify as demisexual and so on..
I love it when people try to summarize human behavior, and get it entirely wrong. Like, how are you a member of the same species when you're way off base?
Ok, please share your guess as the average sexual behavior of the typical male and female. My feeling is you take a single "normal" 25 year old male (for example) and put an unattached Karlie Kloss in front of them and they go "zomg! Yes please!" I'd say it's a minority that goes oh no interest, we don't have an emotional bond that we formed over a period of time.
Plus pornography is like 12 billion dollar industry at this point, I'm just saying... sexual desire based on basically appearances or lust or whatever is an exceedingly common phenomenon. I'm not saying everyone is a closest nymphomaniac but it would be a minority of a minority that isn't even interested in just basic titillation.
I think there is also the most important aspect is that if people identifying as "demisexual" truly felt "normal" they probably would not have felt compelled to create the label in the first place.
My feeling is you take a single "normal" 25 year old male (for example) and put an unattached Karlie Kloss in front of them and they go "zomg! Yes please!"
It might be worth it to point out a distinction between a "zomg! Yes please!" that equates to "I find the thought of having sex with that person to be sexually arousing" and a "zomg! Yes please!" that equates to "I would immediately have sex with that person at the first given opportunity." The former would be a fairly ubiquitous sentiment, whereas I imagine the latter to be much less common. I think that lack of clarification might be why some people are taking issue with your assessment.
Now, the thing I'm still unclear about is whether asexuals and demisexuals are defined by their lack of the former sentiment. In other words, is it the case that demisexuals and asexuals do not get aroused at the thought of having sex with an attractive stranger? Before, I would have thought so, but after reading that study that found that self-reported asexuals do get aroused by erotic material, I'm not so sure. 
It might be worth it to point out a distinction between a "zomg! Yes please!" that equates to "I find the thought of having sex with that person to be sexually arousing" and a "zomg! Yes please!" that equates to "I would immediately have sex with that person at the first given opportunity." The former would be a fairly ubiquitous sentiment, whereas I imagine the latter to be much less common. I think that lack of clarification might be why some people are taking issue with your assessment.
Now, the thing I'm still unclear about is whether asexuals and demisexuals are defined by their lack of the former sentiment. In other words, is it the case that demisexuals and asexuals do not get aroused at the thought of having sex with an attractive stranger? Before, I would have thought so, but after reading that study that found that self-reported asexuals do get aroused by erotic material, I'm not so sure.
Well I don't know about 'people' or the majority thereof, but I don't consider myself an asexual, demisexual or any other label supposedly opposed to 'normal', and yet upon seeing a handsome man I do not in fact: a) get sexually aroused, b ) want to have sex with him, or c) immediately think about sex at all. I acknowledge him as aesthetically pleasing, and move on to other non-sexual activities. Maybe try to recreate his face in a DAI character creator later. Does that put me in the 2%? I doubt it.
As for the arousal and erotic material issue, the only distinction I can think of is that maybe asexuals get aroused by it, but that does not translate to a desire to personally participate in the viewed/imagined sexual activity? As in - watching people having sex causes sexual arousal, but does not make them want to physically have sex with any of the participants? I don't know if that's actually the case, but I could understand that, actually.
Well I don't know about 'people' or the majority thereof, but I don't consider myself an asexual, demisexual or any other label supposedly opposed to 'normal', and yet upon seeing a handsome man I do not in fact: a) get sexually aroused, b ) want to have sex with him, or c) immediately think about sex at all. I acknowledge him as aesthetically pleasing, and move on to other non-sexual activities. Maybe try to recreate his face in a DAI character creator later. Does that put me in the 2%? I doubt it.
As for the arousal and erotic material issue, the only distinction I can think of is that maybe asexuals get aroused by it, but that does not translate to a desire to personally participate in the viewed/imagined sexual activity? As in - watching people having sex causes sexual arousal, but does not make them want to physically have sex with any of the participants? I don't know if that's actually the case, but I could understand that, actually.
Well, it doesn't have to be something that happens all the time in every given situation, but I would be surprised if you've never thought about an attractive stranger in a sexual manner. The specific scenario I was thinking of for me would involve an attractive woman in scanty clothing doing some sort of "inviting gesture" like those you constantly see in sex appeal ads. I suppose the equivalent male version would be something like this. Don't know.
So could I. And that's the thing. If you asked me if I would actually, physically have sex with a person featured in a piece of erotic material that I enjoy, I'd probably say "no" even though I might be aroused at the thought of having sex with that person. But I would still consider myself to be sexually attracted to that person even though I don't actually want to have sex with them. So I'm still not quite sure how it works differently for asexuals.
There are problems with the way female arousal is measured in scientific studies, which may account for the discrepancy. (I mean, obviously there are also potential issues with self-reporting, but we can't necessarily rely on the 'objective' measures being used here either.)
Here is an article about it. Similar methods of measuring arousal have also lead to a lot of 'THERE ARE NO STRAIGHT WOMEN! WOMEN ARE AROUSED BY EVERYTHING!!!' headlines over the years.
Well, it doesn't have to be something that happens all the time in every given situation, but I would be surprised if you've never thought about an attractive stranger in a sexual manner. The specific scenario I was thinking of for me would involve an attractive woman in scanty clothing doing some sort of "inviting gesture" like those you constantly see in sex appeal ads. I suppose the equivalent male version would be something like this. Don't know.
Sure, but that still happens very rarely for me, certainly not as often as the 'people are all horndogs' guy suggests is the 'norm'. Also, that Chris Hemsworth pic causes exactly what I said before - a 'nice body' reaction, nothing more. Idk, maybe I'm just extremely picky, but someone has to really have something that catches my eye for me to feel that 'twang' of sexual attraction, or I have to get to see at least a glimpse of their personality an find that attractive, in addition to a pleasing appearance.
Maker's balls, I need out of this thread before I find out I actually am 'demisexual'... 
This is an interesting discussion to have.
I think there is a danger of people thinking "the way I am must be the norm. Everyone is like me. Right?"
Even among heterosexuals, everyone's experiences of sexuality is different and unique.
To say "I'm horny, horny, horny, horny" and suggest that everyone is like that is a tad bit insulting.
It's not the fact you're horny that bugs me, it's the fact you suggest your experience of sexuality is everyone's experience of sexuality.
[This post is not aimed at any specific individual].
This seems so redundant to me.
Demisexuality is a completely new thing to me,
but trying to think about it really urges me to presume that by default every character in games in general are Demisexuals.
I mean... You DO need to provoke romance from scratch upon every character in Dragon Age.
... And at least Cassandra did not flirt back at all until enough time had been spent getting to know her.
No one comes to you suggesting for cuddles or cookies. Except that crazy Elf... Sera? I suppose she does suggest cookies.
On the other hand...
How much time do you need to invest on a Demisexual basis.
Are we expecting a demisexual to want a sexual relationship, a demisexual relationship?
A demisexual as far as I know has no intention to be interested in sex in the first place,
so why do they need a relationship to relate to?
This whole topic spans from the fact that Bioware has tried to please multiple types of people.
Take the popular ones, the ones people actually know of.
I mean. Why should a game developer take their time to research every possible type of sexuality the human kind has brought up until this point
WHILE working up the interest to also work on said random sexuality.
I'm not spesifically sure if a random citizen really needs to learn about triangular bees and hexagonial flowers from a random videogame either.
A demisexual definately needs more than a 100 lines of dialogue with a character in game to work a romance up.
I don't think anyone has time or interest or there to be popularity enough to make that leap.
We wouln't have these/this topics if there never was more than one female option for males and vice versa.
...Im pretty sure anyway.
Ok, please share your guess as the average sexual behavior of the typical male and female. My feeling is you take a single "normal" 25 year old male (for example) and put an unattached Karlie Kloss in front of them and they go "zomg! Yes please!" I'd say it's a minority that goes oh no interest, we don't have an emotional bond that we formed over a period of time.
Plus pornography is like 12 billion dollar industry at this point, I'm just saying... sexual desire based on basically appearances or lust or whatever is an exceedingly common phenomenon. I'm not saying everyone is a closest nymphomaniac but it would be a minority of a minority that isn't even interested in just basic titillation.
I think there is also the most important aspect is that if people identifying as "demisexual" truly felt "normal" they probably would not have felt compelled to create the label in the first place.
I don't know who Karlie Kloss is (that sounds like a made up name), nor do I know what she looks like. And no, people who aren't total deviants won't immediately want to have sex with someone after only just meeting them. They might think that the other person is good looking, but that does not = wanting to have sex with them.
Also, lol @ using porn as a case to prove your point. "Not saying everyone is a closet nymphomaniac"? Is that why you said that 98% of people were sex hounds?
"Demisexual" is a nonsense label used by teenaged girls so they can hop on the "I'm LGBT too! Diversity!" train and get away with dating boys.
There are problems with the way female arousal is measured in scientific studies, which may account for the discrepancy. (I mean, obviously there are also potential issues with self-reporting, but we can't necessarily rely on the 'objective' measures being used here either.)
Here is an article about it. Similar methods of measuring arousal have also lead to a lot of 'THERE ARE NO STRAIGHT WOMEN! WOMEN ARE AROUSED BY EVERYTHING!!!' headlines over the years.
While VPA may be an imperfect measure of female arousal, in this case, the VPA results were aligned with participants' self-reported arousal ratings. When you have an asexual woman who reports being aroused by an erotic film and also shows an (albeit flawed) sign of physiological arousal, I think a safe conclusion would be that she is in fact aroused. Which again leads me to ask what she is aroused by if she's not at all attracted to any of the parties involved. Maybe it's different for other people, but I personally don't get aroused by sexual material involving parties to whom I have absolutely no sexual attraction.
To say "I'm horny, horny, horny, horny" and suggest that everyone is like that is a tad bit insulting.
It's not the fact you're horny that bugs me, it's the fact you suggest your experience of sexuality is everyone's experience of sexuality.
I think the problem here is hyperbole. Being "horny" all the time and open to sex with complete strangers probably isn't the norm, but almost everybody is horny some of the time and fantasize about sex with complete strangers. Those things are the norm in the sense that the vast majority of people do it, not in the sense that they do it all the time and to the same extent.
Arousal isn't what to look for when you're concerning yourself with attraction. Arousal is involuntary and not tied to attraction in any way. Literally, a man can be walking down the street and a light breeze can give him an erection if it hits him the wrong (or right) way.
Or, to use a more extreme example, rape cases. It's a common defense used by rapists that if the victim was wet/hard, then they "wanted it", when that's simply not true. One is an involuntary physiological response, and the other is psychological.
Well, I would argue that attraction is also an involuntary response, but I do get your point. That's why when I'm referring to "arousal," I'm not just referring to the genital arousal response, but a combination of both a genital arousal response and a person's subjective, self-reported arousal rating. A man or woman might be physiologically aroused by that light breeze or assault, but I highly doubt they'd report being subjectively aroused by those things.
When taken as individual assessments of arousal, both physiological and self-reported measurements have their shortcomings: physiological arousal might be elicited by any number of things while self-reported arousal is unreliable and may be subject to biases in reporting. But if both of these things are present in an individual and that still isn't enough to definitively say that they're aroused, then what would be enough?
Well, I would argue that attraction is also an involuntary response, but I do get your point. That's why when I'm referring to "arousal," I'm not just referring to the genital arousal response, but a combination of both a genital arousal response and a person's subjective, self-reported arousal rating. A man or woman might be physiologically aroused by that light breeze or assault, but I highly doubt they'd report being subjectively aroused by those things.
When taken as individual assessments of arousal, both physiological and self-reported measurements have their shortcomings: physiological arousal might be elicited by any number of things while self-reported arousal is unreliable and may be subject to biases in reporting. But if both of these things are present in an individual and that still isn't enough to definitively say that they're aroused, then what would be enough?
Don't get me wrong, attraction is also largely involuntary, but arousal isn't what to look for when trying to make some kind of statement or find information on sexual orientations or preferences. It's too broad and unhelpful. Attraction is already intrinsically tied to preference, and orientation describes attraction.
Well then what is the thing to look for? If heterosexuality and homosexuality can't be defined or measured by a feeling of arousal towards heterosexual or homosexual material, what can they be defined by?
Well then what is the thing to look for? If heterosexuality and homosexuality can't be defined or measured by a feeling of arousal towards heterosexual or homosexual material, what can they be defined by?
By attraction (like they already are in dictionaries). Like I said, orientation describes attraction, not arousal. A heterosexual man can be shown images or videos of homosexual behavior and still be aroused. He wouldn't be attracted to it and would probably want to stop viewing the material, but he would be aroused.
By attraction (like they already are in dictionaries). Like I said, orientation describes attraction, not arousal. A heterosexual man can be shown images or videos of homosexual behavior and still be aroused. He wouldn't be attracted to it and would probably want to stop viewing the material, but he would be aroused.
Really? Meaning that he could be aroused not only on a physiological level (such as gaining an erection) but on a psychological one as well (such as an increase in sexual desire)? That's interesting. I've never had that kind of response myself to sexual material I have no attraction to. For me there always has to be someone (or a part of someone) in the image or video that I desire. Hmm. I guess it just varies then.
Really? Meaning that he could be aroused not only on a physiological level (such as gaining an erection) but on a psychological one as well (such as an increase in sexual desire)? That's interesting. I've never had that kind of response myself to sexual material I have no attraction to. For me there always has to be someone (or a part of someone) in the image or video that I desire. Hmm. I guess it just varies then.
Physiologically, yes. Psychologically, no, because that's when it becomes about attraction rather than arousal. Arousal is purely physical (getting an erection), attraction is emotional and psychological (thinking someone is pretty or handsome, asking them out on a date, etc).
Physiologically, yes. Psychologically, no, because that's when it becomes about attraction rather than arousal. Arousal is purely physical (getting an erection), attraction is emotional and psychological (thinking someone is pretty or handsome, asking them out on a date, etc).
Well, no, arousal has a psychological component as well. Psychological arousal involves things like a desire to masturbate or have sex and the psychological categorization of something as "sexy." If I am only experiencing pure physical arousal (getting an erection), I wouldn't characterize that "being aroused." I'd only say I were aroused by x if I find myself interested in engaging in sexual thinking about x. People who are impotent can still feel aroused at pornography; their body is simply unable to react to their arousal by maintaining an erection.
It's this psychological arousal that I'm having trouble dissociating from attraction. The study I cited had asexual women not only showing physiological arousal but also reporting subjective arousal. And I don't see how that's possible if they supposedly don't have any attraction to the material they're being aroused by.
Well, no, arousal has a psychological component as well. Psychological arousal involves things like a desire to masturbate or have sex and the psychological categorization of something as "sexy." If I am only experiencing pure physical arousal (getting an erection), I wouldn't characterize that "being aroused." I'd only say I were aroused by x if I find myself interested in engaging in sexual thinking about x. People who are impotent can still feel aroused at pornography; their body is simply unable to react to their arousal by maintaining an erection.
This sounds more like sexual desire than sexual arousal.
Well, no, arousal has a psychological component as well. Psychological arousal involves things like a desire to masturbate or have sex and the psychological categorization of something as "sexy." If I am only experiencing pure physical arousal (getting an erection), I wouldn't characterize that "being aroused." I'd only say I were aroused by x if I find myself interested in engaging in sexual thinking about x. People who are impotent can still feel aroused at pornography; their body is simply unable to react to their arousal by maintaining an erection.
It's this psychological arousal that I'm having trouble dissociating from attraction. The study I cited had asexual women not only showing physiological arousal but also reporting subjective arousal. And I don't see how that's possible if they supposedly don't have any attraction to the material they're being aroused by.
I should also clarify that there are 2 kinds of attraction in most circles. Sexual and romantic. Sexual attraction can be described as looking at someone and wanting to have sex with them. Romantic attraction is looking at someone and thinking they would be a good partner or spouse. The two are closely intertwined in a good 99.999% of cases, but they are separate categories.
Arousal, on the other hand, is purely physical. There's no other clearer way to put it. Arousal is simply an involuntary physiological response to stimuli.
What you're describing as "psychological arousal" isn't arousal. It's sexual attraction (working hand-in-hand WITH arousal). The sexual attraction makes you aroused when you see or hear whatever it is you're attracted to, because what you're seeing or hearing acts as the stimulus.
The time span of a Dragon Age game isn't long enough for this.
Maybe this could have worked in Dragon Age 2 since it takes place over many years.
However Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age Inquisition take place over a short period of time. Not long enough to develop a strong emotional connection. (Unless you believe in love at first sight).
So maybe if the next game is like Dragon Age 2 in terms of time span. Only then could such an idea work.
I agree that a game that spans a longer period of time would work better. Or like Mass Effect where it is the same characters over multiple games. Have them be friends in the first game and as the games progress have it slowly develop into an attraction.
This sounds more like sexual desire than sexual arousal.
Well sexual arousal is defined as an increase in sexual desire, isn't it? When a person is sexually aroused, they seek release for those sensations and we call that seeking of release "sexual desire."
Arousal, on the other hand, is purely physical. There's no other clearer way to put it. Arousal is simply an involuntary physiological response to stimuli.
What you're describing as "psychological arousal" isn't arousal. It's sexual attraction (working hand-in-hand WITH arousal). The sexual attraction makes you aroused when you see or hear whatever it is you're attracted to, because what you're seeing or hearing acts as the stimulus.
No. It's not. Look it up if you don't believe me. Sexual arousal is defined separately from the physiological reaction of the body. An erection is how the male body reacts to sexual arousal, but merely having an erection does not itself constitute being sexually aroused.
It seems like you're having the same issue I am, in that you don't think a distinction can be made between the psychological aspect of sexual arousal and sexual attraction.
Oh boy. I'm about to sound like another social justice warrior. But bare with me.
From where I stand, I am a cis gendered heterosexual male.
I am privileged in the sense that my sexuality is represented.
I am privileged in the sense that I can be proud of my sexuality (damn right I'm proud to be heterosexual).
Not all sexualities are privileged in that way.
So if it ever seems that I'm lacking in empathy, it comes from the fact that I have no experience of being anything outside of "hetero-normative".
I will say that it must be difficult being outside that hetero-normative bubble. There is no obligation for developers to add every sexuality under the sun.
What I love about BioWare is that they try to represent people from all walks of life.
I don't know who Karlie Kloss is (that sounds like a made up name), nor do I know what she looks like. And no, people who aren't total deviants won't immediately want to have sex with someone after only just meeting them. They might think that the other person is good looking, but that does not = wanting to have sex with them.
Also, lol @ using porn as a case to prove your point. "Not saying everyone is a closet nymphomaniac"? Is that why you said that 98% of people were sex hounds?
"Demisexual" is a nonsense label used by teenaged girls so they can hop on the "I'm LGBT too! Diversity!" train and get away with dating boys.
Ok first of all she is not made up she's just a Victoria Secret model.
Anyway I don't know what's wrong with using porn as an exemplar, my point is simply the vast majority of people treat sexual desire pretty casually and experience it pretty frequently in a variety of contexts. I still don't totally understand demisexuality (although for example the character discussions help) or asexuality but my interpretation is that is not the case.
Like, maybe it would be simpler to think of demisexuality as representing one end of a spectrum.
To say "I'm horny, horny, horny, horny" and suggest that everyone is like that is a tad bit insulting.It's not the fact you're horny that bugs me, it's the fact you suggest your experience of sexuality is everyone's experience of sexuality.
That's really not necessarily my experience, that's more just based on like, the information provided by the internet and talking to all kinds of people, college, etc. Probably most everyone on the BSN, heck basically all of Canada has consumed pornography at one point or another.
Sure, but that still happens very rarely for me, certainly not as often as the 'people are all horndogs' guy suggests is the 'norm'. Also, that Chris Hemsworth pic causes exactly what I said before - a 'nice body' reaction, nothing more. Idk, maybe I'm just extremely picky, but someone has to really have something that catches my eye for me to feel that 'twang' of sexual attraction, or I have to get to see at least a glimpse of their personality an find that attractive, in addition to a pleasing appearance.
Maker's balls, I need out of this thread before I find out I actually am 'demisexual'...
It's not as simple as like one particular picture at one moment.. it's really just that there isn't any sexual attraction outside of an elaborate friendship and previous connection. For instance you didn't find Hemsworth interesting there but also you just never found attractive male bodies arousing in any context or at any other time unless it was the product of this friendship/connection experience.
Retour en haut
