1001 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

That's exactly what I was thinking of. I love the brief blessing, but my favorite one is with the older guy and when you encourage the woman to marry for show but pursue what she wants on the side, because of the husband's "Oh stow it, you joyless bat!" to the matchmaker.

[Seraphim24]

Old question, but I thought I'd go ahead and answer.

 

I used to ask that same question because it seemed like nothing but a legal construction, but as I get older my opinion has changed somewhat.  It's specifically because marriage *is* a legal construction (one that is sort of hard to get out of) that makes the difference.  Sure, people get married without really understanding what marriage means and then regret doing so, but I think there's still a level of separation in people who get married and people who don't. 

 

People who understand what marriage is, truly understand, and do it anyway are literally saying "I want to be with this person so much that I am willing to give them various rights to my possessions, what happens to my body, and my children, and I want the state (and society) to regard me as no longer being an individual but part of a singular unit made up of two people."  Some people in long term monogamous relationships behave this way, which makes them functionally married, I suppose.  But in my experience, when long term monogamous couples are asked why they *don't* marry the answer is more or less "divorce is messy" which means they are at least entertaining the notion that they aren't 100% committed to their partner until death and thus aren't willing to gambol with the consequences of breaking up a marriage.

 

Does marriage live up to the ideal I've presented all the time?  No.  But that's the function that it's supposed to serve, and people who go into it are supposed to understand it's for keeps, which is why the consequences or getting out of it are onerous.  People who avoid it (generally wisely in their individual cases) usually do so because they understand it's for keeps.  The ceremony serves as a public declaration of a person's intent to accept the risks of marriage.  It might not be necessary, but it is definitely taking the relationship up to a new level of legal and societal commitment.

There ya go. Giving rights to various possessions, body, and children, it's hot to have that level of devotion IMO. 50 Shades of Gray eat your heart out...

 

(And I give up on the Trans thing) If I had to describe my personality it would be deranged and unhinged psychotic ultra possessive sorority girl crossed with ultra passive and meek physics professor, so I never bothered to try and find a point of societal relation for my personality.

[Joseph Warrick]

She's a trans character and she presents as female. Both are reasons enough for me to romance her. If Krem was a romance I would have romanced him as well.

What does this mean? Wears dresses? Long hair?

Does Cassandra present as male? I can't see gay males thinking: got short hair and plate armor. Good enough.

Forgive me it just seems like a bunch of stereotypes to me. Linking sex and outfit seems quite conservative or even regressive. Or am I missing something on "presenting as"?

[Shechinah]

*snip*

 

If you do not mind, you may want to elaborate because I'm not sure I understand what you mean especially in regards to the comment you are quoting.
 

[Dieb]

What does this mean? Wears dresses? Long hair?

Does Cassandra present as male? I can't see gay males thinking: got short hair and plate armor. Good enough.

Forgive me it just seems like a bunch of stereotypes to me. Linking sex and outfit seems quite conservative or even regressive. Or am I missing something on "presenting as"?

 

Dear lord...

 

If I remember correctly, you already (unintentionally) started the hell that was the Cassie mod having been trashed thread. But now you know what happens. You've seen things, man. Things. Do you know no mercy?

 

"Some men just like to watch the world burn"

[BansheeOwnage]

That's not the literal definition of monogamy. You can be fully content in marriage and sexual relations with only one person, but that doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't find someone else sexually attractive. You just wouldn't act on that attraction.

I'm still really surprised at people's views of monogamy (the above). I always thought it was a given not to be attracted to anyone else, at least past the point of "they look nice". I don't know, that's just me.

I'm saying for the sake of trans women don't make her straight.

Well, mostly for the sake of non-straight transwomen. It's not cruel to make her inaccessible to women, it's just like having Dorian not available to women. It's disappointing to people, but not cruel.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't that mean you wouldn't be attracted to Mae since she has a biological male body? 

That depends on the person. Some people are more attracted to personality, some physicality, a mixture, etc. We don't know Thorold's orientation, but for the sake of this conversation, let's say he was straight. He can still love Maevaris, still want to be her husband and even still find her attractive, either despite or regardless of her body.

 

My point is, for some people that's neither here nor there, and for others it's extremely important. I would hope though, that people could at least look past that in a video game, seeing as how no one actually has to have sex with anyone or anything.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

if they did do anything, and showed it in game, i would imagine it would be something extremely small. like the equivalent to going to a justice of the peace. not a ceremony...ceremony. and definitely not on the level of final fantasy weddings.

I'd be fine with that. 

[Lady Artifice]

There ya go. Giving rights to various possessions, body, and children, it's hot to have that level of devotion IMO. 50 Shades of Gray eat your heart out...

 

Fifty Shades details the journey of an entirely monogamous relationship that eventually culminates in marriage. 

[BansheeOwnage]

I'd be fine with that. 

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if at least an Andrastian Inquisitor could officiate weddings. Not sure about their own though

[raging_monkey]

Fifty Shades details the journey of an entirely monogamous relationship that eventually culminates in marriage.

from a POV abusive

[Lady Artifice]

from a POV abusive

 

Yes, I consider it quite unhealthy. Also, terribly written.

 

My only point was that doesn't just celebrate matrimony, it glorifies it as an ultimate "happily ever after."

[raging_monkey]

Yes, I consider it quite unhealthy. Also, terribly written.

My only point was that doesn't just celebrate matrimony, it glorifies it as an ultimate "happily ever after."

Agreed on both points

[BSpud]

If we ever do get a marriage, we should have someone of authority roll up and say: "I'm a little pressed for time. You do. S/he does? Good. Done."

 

[Seraphim24]

Fifty Shades details the journey of an entirely monogamous relationship that eventually culminates in marriage. 

 

Oh? Well there ya go then, it sounds like they had pretty much the same idea, confirming some sort of relationship. It honestly sounds like a deconstruction of Cinderella or something, all things considered Prince Charming was probably a sadist, and now we have 50 Shades to confirm that suspicion.

 

Yes, I consider it quite unhealthy. Also, terribly written.

 

My only point was that doesn't just celebrate matrimony, it glorifies it as an ultimate "happily ever after."

 

I assume you mean like the hitting parts, not the celebration of monogamy and marriage part. I'm guessing the abusive elements were the whipping parts? Although perhaps this is the wrong thread for that...

 

I wonder though... what constitutes abuse? It seems to me John Malkovich's character in Dangerous Liasons was infinitely more abusive, but he didn't use physical violence only mental. Romance can be a pretty cruel and violent thing I suppose.

 

I'm spiraling off into my own world, don't mind me.

[AresKeith]

Fifty Shades details the journey of an entirely monogamous relationship that eventually culminates in marriage. 

 

Gonna make terrible movies too

[Ryzaki]

Gonna make terrible movies too

 

They might as well have gone NC-17. The only thing those books have going for them is the laughable sex scenes.

[Seraphim24]

Hm this thread died I guess

[Capone666]

WHO KILLED MY THREAD!~

[Lady Artifice]

Oh? Well there ya go then, it sounds like they had pretty much the same idea, confirming some sort of relationship. It honestly sounds like a deconstruction of Cinderella or something, all things considered Prince Charming was probably a sadist, and now we have 50 Shades to confirm that suspicion.

 

I don't think it's intelligently written enough to be a deconstruction. It does, however, follow a classic Cinderella story arc. 

 

I didn't know Prince Charming was ever under suspicion of being a sadist.

 

 

I assume you mean like the hitting parts, not the celebration of monogamy and marriage part. I'm guessing the abusive elements were the whipping parts? Although perhaps this is the wrong thread for that...

 

I wonder though... what constitutes abuse? It seems to me John Malkovich's character in Dangerous Liasons was infinitely more abusive, but he didn't use physical violence only mental. Romance can be a pretty cruel and violent thing I suppose.

 

 

I'm spiraling off into my own world, don't mind me.

 

 

Nope, I meant emotionally unhealthy. I don't equate BDSM with sadistic personality disorder.  

[Lady Artifice]

Gonna make terrible movies too

 

To be fair, the director really did try to improve on the source material, but James insisted in meddling. 

 

Anyway, sexual diversity in DAI...

 

WHO KILLED MY THREAD!~

 

It's here, It's still here. We'll help you keep it safe.

[Seraphim24]

Well this was specifically about Krem, Dorian, and Sera but IB and his sadism as well as strictly monogamous kinds of characters might fall under the category of sexual diversity but so... Idk... not too far off.

 

I don't think it's intelligently written enough to be a deconstruction. It does, however, follow a classic Cinderella story arc. 

 

I didn't know Prince Charming was ever under suspicion of being a sadist.

 

 

 

Nope, I meant emotionally unhealthy. I don't equate BDSM with sadistic personality disorder.  

 

I'm kind of curious as to why though, since that would probably then apply to a large number of people that actively practice BDSM, who seem to go much further than 50 Shades of Gray. I mean honestly just any degree of sadism (actual infliction of pain) seems pretty crazy to me which I think is literally part of the moniker (BD S&M).

 

900 million (or however many have the book) disagree though I guess.

[Lady Artifice]

Well this was specifically about Krem, Dorian, and Sera but IB and his sadism as well as strictly monogamous kinds of characters might fall under the category of sexual diversity but so... Idk... not too far off.

 

I don't want to veer off too far in this direction. It didn't go well last time, and I don't have high hopes of getting you to understand, because you seem to have a very particular perception of what BDSM is, and your posts suggest that you're conflating it with both promiscuity and actual compulsive sadism. I, and so many others have tried to explain how mistaken that perception is, while you seem neither inclined to listen or care.

 

 

 

I'm kind of curious as to why though, since that would probably then apply to a large number of people that actively practice BDSM, who seem to go much further than 50 Shades of Gray. I mean honestly just any degree of sadism (actual infliction of pain) seems pretty crazy to me.

 

 

Try to understand, I'm not referring to practices of the BDSM community when I talk about the aspects of that fictional relationship that I consider unhealthy. I'm talking about the aspects of that story that represent BDSM incorrectly. Among other emotional aspects, the male lead's proclivity towards BDSM is eventually revealed to be actual sadism, fueled by a need for revenge.  

 

When you say "seem to go much further," you point a spotlight on the issue. Your perspective of BDSM seems to be an invention that you've constructed inside your head without actually looking at the reality of the BDSM community. You didn't know the plot of the novels, leading me to conclude that you don't actually know what that relationship entails (and yet you cast judgement on how far it goes). Every time I've seen you bring up BDSM, you've demonstrated a confused interpretation of what it is, even so far as saying that it's actually connected to promiscuity. 

 

If you really want to know, consider reading this (the tv tropes article on the issue, which isn't the most analytical approach, but is approachably written): 

 

http://tvtropes.org/...neAndConsensual

 

There are plenty of other information sources available for you to look into as well. And with that, I think it's better that we drop it. 

[raging_monkey]

bdsm's misconceptions are mostly due to adult fims misinformation and conservative media's over analysis of certain words. most cases each partner respects and honours eachother but misinformation sell better

[leadintea]

So was anyone else disappointed about the lack of important/interactable gay male NPCs in DAI as I was? Even though I appreciate Bioware being one of the few gaming companies to actually include and promote LGBT content in their products, I have to say that I was a bit disappointed about this. On the lesbian front, we have Celene and Briala, who are major players in a story arc, Ritts, whose recruitment scene deals with her relationship with a female, and a sidequest where we have to deliver a soldier's ring to her female captain lover. Compare that to us gay males who only get any meaningful gay content through Dorian. Even Iron Bull, who's supposedly a pansexual, will never comment or have any comments about doing anything with a male unless it's with Dorian. And apart from that, the only other gay male NPCs are background characters in the Winter Palace who just repeat the same lines over and over again and add nothing to the game. Overall, it's not really a big issue, but I can't say that it doesn't get tiring to never see us gay males get equal treatment to lesbians in the majority of media out there, especially with a game company that prides itself on having LGBT content.

[BansheeOwnage]

So was anyone else disappointed about the lack of important/interactable gay male NPCs in DAI as I was? Even though I appreciate Bioware being one of the few gaming companies to actually include and promote LGBT content in their products, I have to say that I was a bit disappointed about this. On the lesbian front, we have Celene and Briala, who are major players in a story arc, Ritts, whose recruitment scene deals with her relationship with a female, and a sidequest where we have to deliver a soldier's ring to her female captain lover. Compare that to us gay males who only get any meaningful gay content through Dorian. Even Iron Bull, who's supposedly a pansexual, will never comment or have any comments about doing anything with a male unless it's with Dorian. And apart from that, the only other gay male NPCs are background characters in the Winter Palace who just repeat the same lines over and over again and add nothing to the game. Overall, it's not really a big issue, but I can't say that it doesn't get tiring to never see us gay males get equal treatment to lesbians in the majority of media out there, especially with a game company that prides itself on having LGBT content.

Adding more gay NPCs couldn't hurt. On one hand, you wouldn't know the sexualities of most random NPCs, but on the other (like you said) you do know the sexualities of some. (Just as a comment though, I wasn't sure about the ring, I thought she just wanted it to go to her family, and Captain Jehan know them, you don't.)