1820 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I preferred the way Josephine had her hair in early pictures.

It definitely gave her a more unique appearance. No other character in DA has had a top bun before so she would have been the first. 

[LOLandStuff]

I guess I missed something? I thought we were talking about the limited romance options for M Inquisitor. Lol?

 

This thread has everything. From gay porn stars to Putin. I think there was talk of reproduction too. Anything but the original subject.

[Melca36]

This thread moves fast.

 

So it seemed most people agreed that simply finding Cassandra, Josephine, Geralt, etc. unattractive wasn't an issue.  People can obviously have their preferences.  This is good, because I really didn't want to have to argue that not finding someone attractive isn't discriminatory again.

 

My question now is, why is it wrong for people to ask or demand* that their preferences as a consumer be taken more into account by the provider of a good or service?  I'm not saying that other people or even said provider need to take the this person seriously.  I just don't understand what it so worthy of scorn to see this topic spread out in multiple threads across multiple sub-forums, to have these people derided, and to have their opinions be used as spring boards to discuss social topics.

 

*I don't believe "demanding" something is really negative in the context of a consumer/provider relationship.  The only reason why "being demanding" has a negative connotation is that it implies a sense of entitlement which, in most circumstances, is unwarranted.  However, in this particular circumstance, a consumer is entitled to whatever he or she believes his or her time and money is worth.  The provider obviously doesn't have to meet these criteria if they are unwilling or unable to, but I don't believe it reflects negatively on the consumer to have them in the first place.

 

How hard is it to grasp is that you are basically asking the writers to sacrifice their art to cater to your needs and that is selfish.

[LOLandStuff]

The fact that you use the word "demand" has entitlement all over it.

[Melca36]

I think we're saying the same thing with different words, "vote with your wallet," etc.

 

Perhaps "entitled" is the hang-up word, but that's the word many people here use to argue against those who are asking for/demanding more "conventionally attractive" female love interests, with the subtext of these arguments being "I think you are wrong for believing that XYZ should be provided to you."  I just don't agree that a consumer can be "wrong" when choosing to spend their money and, by extension, informing a provider of what it would take to earn their money.

 

When all is said and done....perhaps you should get another game. The game developers DO NOT OWE US anything and  its selfish for anybody to ask them to alter their art/writing  just to cater to their needs.

[Colonelkillabee]

Ah, okay. Didn't know if it was or to me specifically so felt I should answer just in case. 
 
Okay. Well imagine an asexual who is able to develop a sexual attraction to someone later after they form a strong connection to the person. That is close to what I am talking about. There is no preference involved.

Maybe if they were attracted to any sex based only on emotion, but I've seen people on tumblr claiming to be demisexual while only being attracted to females, based on emotion.

And if they are attracted to anyone based on strong emotion, that's just bisexual with a need for an emotional tie. It really is a preference, same as people who really only get a boner for people with intelligence. All of that comes with attraction.

[Maverick827]

That's like going to buy a new car and throwing a hissy fit because the car you want doesn't come in purple with pink polka dots.

 

"I demand a purple car with pink polka dots. It is my right as buyer and I've got money."

 

Actually, it's more like:

 

Consumer:  I would like to buy this car.  Does it come in purple with pink polka dots?

Provider:  No.

Consumer:  Well, I'm not going to buy it, then.  I really want to get a car that's purple with pink polka dots, so keep that in mind the next time you're ordering your inventory.

 

Or they could be more angry about it (in a way that no one who posts here really is, but I'll humor the "evil dudebro" stereotype):

 

Consumer:  I would like to buy this car.  Does it come in purple with pink polka dots?

Provider:  No.

Consumer:  What the **** kind of car dealership doesn't stock purple cars with pink polka dots?  This is bull****.  Can I speak to your manager?  Whatever, man, your dealership is ****.  Tell your boss that you just lost a sale, jack***.

 

Either way, I'm not going to think "man, that guy is a jerk precisely because he didn't spend his money on something he didn't want and elected to inform those who want his money what it would take to get it."  Obviously the imaginary unreasonable person in the second example is a jerk for other reasons, however.

[daveliam]

I think we're saying the same thing with different words, "vote with your wallet," etc.

 

Perhaps "entitled" is the hang-up word, but that's the word many people here use to argue against those who are asking for/demanding more "conventionally attractive" female love interests, with the subtext of these arguments being "I think you are wrong for believing that XYZ should be provided to you."  I just don't agree that a consumer can be "wrong" when choosing to spend their money and, by extension, informing a provider of what it would take to earn their money.

 

If the people in the thread said, "I waited until the game came out and I saw who the romances options are and, since I don't find them to my liking, I'm choosing not to buy the game.", I would be okay with that.

 

But they aren't.  They bought a game knowing full well who the female LI's were (or, had the ability to know but chose not to) and are now complaining that the options aren't good enough for them.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maybe if they were attracted to any sex based only on emotion, but I've seen people on tumblr claiming to be demisexual while only being attracted to females, based on emotion.

And if they are attracted to anyone based on strong emotion, that's just bisexual with a need for an emotional tie. It really is a preference, same as people who really only get a boner for people with intelligence. All of that comes with attraction.

Like I pointed out earlier, there is a spectrum. On one axis it goes from straight to bi to gay to pan to etc. On the other, it goes from verisexual to demisexual to asexual. Or perhaps the person you are referring to has for whatever reason developed that kind of bond with women. I can't speak for them so I won't try to. 

 

However, it is not a preference. Zevran prefers the company of women. Dorian cannot prefer women since he is not attracted to them. Same thing here. It is not that one prefers a bond, since there are demisexuals who have casual sex because it feels good, but that they cannot, under any circumstances, be attracted to someone until a bond is formed. 

 

But perhaps we should take this to a different thread, yes? 

[LOLandStuff]

@Maverick827

 

No, it's more like:

 

Consumer: Do you have a purple car with pink polka dots?

Provider: No.

Consumer: Why not? I demand an answer as to why you don't have a purple car with pink polka dots.

Provider: Our cars have the standard colorings.

Consumer: It's my right as buyer to get a purple car with pink polka dots. I pay for the car and you must provide me with the colors I want if you want to make some sales.

Provider: I apologies but a whole factory isn't going to paint one single car purple with pink polka dots because of one costumer.

Costumer: I've got money, dude! I'm not entitled but I have demands.

[AresKeith]

What is a verisexual?

[Maverick827]

When all is said and done....perhaps you should get another game. The game developers DO NOT OWE US anything and  its selfish for anybody to ask them to alter their art/writing  just to cater to their needs.

 

I do not believe that Cassandra and Josephine are not attractive.  I am not making that argument because, again, I do not agree with it.

 

I just don't believe it is wrong for someone to believe that and to also let BioWare know that they believe that.  And I certainly don't believe it is right to mock these people, especially those who do post very respectfully.

 

I would caution you against the "it is selfish to ask them to alter their art" argument, because that's exactly what women, minorities, the LGBT community, etc. are doing when they ask for more inclusion.  I emphatically agree with these requests, but it's no less art-altering to ask to "make games more inclusive to women" than it is to ask for "more conventionally attractive female love interests."

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What is a verisexual?

I was told by someone who knows a lot more about the LGBT thing that it is the term used for what the 'regular' sexualities are. 

[Colonelkillabee]

It is not that one prefers a bond, since there are demisexuals who have casual sex because it feels good

This line right here kinda throws a fly in the milk bowl, dunnit? If they can still have casual sex despite supposedly needing some deep emotional tie for attraction, that makes the whole thing sound like bullshit and really does make it a preference.

[Colonelkillabee]

I was told by someone who knows a lot more about the LGBT thing that it is the term used for what the 'regular' sexualities are.

Lol then they should just say that. Like that "Cis" gendered bullshit. Lol you mean normal.

[Maverick827]

If the people in the thread said, "I waited until the game came out and I saw who the romances options are and, since I don't find them to my liking, I'm choosing not to buy the game.", I would be okay with that.

 

But they aren't.  They bought a game knowing full well who the female LI's were (or, had the ability to know but chose not to) and are now complaining that the options aren't good enough for them.

 

I just don't see the distinction between the two.  "I didn't find your product worth the money and won't be buying the next one unless you change this and that" isn't a wrong stance for a consumer to take.  That's essentially every non-positive review on Amazon.  In fact, that's kind of the entire basis of how everything is made these days.  Companies are so very concerned with their "metrics."

[AresKeith]

I was told by someone who is really into the LGBT thing that it is the term used for what the 'regular' sexualities are. 

 

Ok, people need to cool down with making up all these random "-sexual"

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This line right here kinda throws a fly in the milk bowl, dunnit? If they can still have casual sex despite supposedly needing some deep emotional tie for attraction, that makes the whole thing sound like bullshit and really does make it a preference.

No it doesn't. People can have sex without being attracted to the other person. We see it all the time in society with casual hookups. 

 

Or as another example, people can have sex with nothing but their hand. Does that mean they are attracted to themselves? 

[I present Chuck Bass]

What is a verisexual?

It's something that doesn't exist, kind of like most that have appeared on this thread,

[I present Chuck Bass]

No it doesn't. People can have sex without being attracted to the other person. We see it all the time in society with casual hookups. 
 
Or as another example, people can have sex with nothing but their hand. Does that mean they are attracted to themselves?

What are you even talking about bro?

[Maverick827]

@Maverick827

 

No, it's more like:

 

Consumer: Do you have a purple car with pink polka dots?

Provider: No.

Consumer: Why not? I demand an answer as to why you don't have a purple car with pink polka dots.

Provider: Our cars have the standard colorings.

Consumer: It's my right as buyer to get a purple car with pink polka dots. I pay for the car and you must provide me with the colors I want if you want to make some sales.

Provider: I apologies but a whole factory isn't going to paint one single car purple with pink polka dots because of one costumer.

Costumer: I've got money, dude! I'm not entitled but I have demands.

 

Yes, that is indeed how the consumer/provider relationship exists.  I congratulate you if you've never been disappointed with a product and feel sorry for you if you have, but did nothing about it.

[Colonelkillabee]

No it doesn't. People can have sex without being attracted to the other person. We see it all the time in society with casual hookups. 
 
Or as another example, people can have sex with nothing but their hand. Does that mean they are attracted to themselves?

No, but I do require a boner, and that boner tends to require me thinking about someone... I.E. someone I'm attracted to. So lol, do they pretend that the person they're one nighting is their soulmate? LOL. Still sounds like bs, yo.

May as well agree to disagree. People who must have foot play aren't their own sexuality group either.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What are you even talking about bro?

What part are you confused about? The fact people sleep with people they don't like merely because they like sex or the fact people masturbate? 

[I present Chuck Bass]

I'm only attracted to water buffalos.
So what does that make me?

[I present Chuck Bass]

What part are you confused about? The fact people sleep with people they don't like merely because they like sex or the fact people masturbate?

Like why that's relevant or important at all?
If anything talk about that **** in the combat and strategy section, just not here.