Homosexuality in Golarion


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

4,351 to 4,400 of 5,778 << first < prev | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAntiElite wrote:


At the same time, there's the demands for more LGBT NPCs, and the idea is sound, with precedent established. At present, my worry is that as the demands get increasingly vocal, there may come with it an oversampling of demographics and a decision to start pandering to overcompensate for all the other companies that do it wrong, and my (in this case comedic) over-exaggerated expectation that in a well-intentioned attempt at inclusion gives way to Golarion being fan-wanked into World of Yaoifangirlcraft.

This slope - it's so slippery!!!

EDIT: Also, yaoi is typically aimed at straight girls, not gay dudes.


Having a sexuality is what is normal. And, guess what, most of the sex people have is EMPHATICALLY NOT for the purpose of procreation. Sex feels good, makes us feel close to someone, opens places inside us we usually have closed. These things are what make normal humans have sex, excepting a few more rare situations. Who we have consensual sex with does not make the sex normal or abnormal.

Some people have a political agenda that makes them see sex as problematic, but of course they feel the need to accomodate for procreation. In their fantasy, nobody would ever have sex if not for procreation. It is just that the rest of us have no need to let those people dictate the conditions for our sexuality.

P.S. I kind of like the view of the cathars... they saw the above situation, with sex as sinful, but they also saw marriages as a setting for more sex and more pleasurable sex, so they banned marriage. Yay being consequent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:


At the same time, there's the demands for more LGBT NPCs, and the idea is sound, with precedent established. At present, my worry is that as the demands get increasingly vocal, there may come with it an oversampling of demographics and a decision to start pandering to overcompensate for all the other companies that do it wrong, and my (in this case comedic) over-exaggerated expectation that in a well-intentioned attempt at inclusion gives way to Golarion being fan-wanked into World of Yaoifangirlcraft.

This slope - it's so slippery!!!

EDIT: Also, yaoi is typically aimed at straight girls, not gay dudes.

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

The dead rising from the grave!

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!


graywulfe wrote:

Here is where the disconnect occurs for me from what you say. Specifically, I do not see a demand for an increased percentage of representation. I spend a ridiculous amount of time reading the boards, and I have yet to encounter any posts that could, in my opinion, be interpreted as demanding more. I suspect most of the posts you have seen are trying to defend Paizo's current rate of inclusion. After "The Worldwound Incursion" came out a vocal minority of "fans" complained about the inclusion and how it was "forced". The arguments that grew out of that got bigger and louder and spread all over the place to the point that people have, supposedly, stopped being customers in protest of Paizo's policy of inclusion.

People rightly feel the need to defend their existance.

I will worry about Paizo's inclusiveness becoming a caricature when I actually see any evidence of it going anywhere near that point.

Fair point - to me, the uptick of, as soon as said gay NPCs showed up, coupled with the Great Kyra Revelation™, the speculation and Quest for the Next Big reveal started to run rampant, and as a self-admitted contributor to that on multiple fronts I admit I was amused until I wasn't. The shipping went overboard, and the Who's The Trans Iconic started, and I found myself, personally, watching as people who were not comfortable with the NPC get immediately called out as homophobes and bigots and worse.

Honestly, with my desire for inclusiveness, I'm sometimes convinced I should think that the presence of same-sex attraction and relationships should not be an issue at all, but some seem to want to have the chance to vent their real-world frustrations in game, and that should not necessarily be a bad thing either. At the same time, not everyone wants that baggage, and that's why there's plenty of other adventure paths and settings to play with.

Strange question though this may be, does existence correspond with glorification? This is for purpose of better...calibration of perspective. As in, is it better that orientation and/or public relationship life be noted as a sidebar with corresponding significance, or should it be a non-blip on the proverbial radar, or would that be too token if it's not treated as something noteworthy?

TanithT wrote:
It's 'fan-wanked' if there is any catering to the gay male and female heterosexual gaze, but just the normal way of things if a large percentage of female character depictions are wearing a sexy getup rather than actually effective adventuring gear and posing in sexy ways that stick their boobs and butts out, even on the battlefield?

There's the rub of it - I could easily and gladly cite several examples of where I emphatically encourage fan-service across the boards, because eye-candy isn't just for the fellows who fit the stereotypical mass media market. Given how many posts of mine I have to dig through to find them all, though, I'm more vexed that I can't find the discussions with Samnell about how *cake can be done well, but that a lot of it does come down to your example of the aforementioned 'gaze'. Case in point - my crudely-structure and excessively dismissive use of the the Yaoi Fanwank was not mean to infer that the same-sex eroticism was bad in and of itself - in my frustrated irritation I lashed at one of the groups that is demographically inclined to enjoying such erotica, which is predominantly written for women, not taking into account actual gay male tastes. Given the fandoms with which I interact, I make the primary mistake of expecting eeryone to, for example, be able to distinguish between gay porn versus gay-for-pay porn versus actual romantic same-sex stories versus yaoi versus bara versus etc. etc. On that front, I think I should probably take about a half-dozen steps back, breathe, and relax, because for all I know my experiences with demographics is not the same as everyone else's, and as oft-cited the plural of anecdotes is not data.

TanithT wrote:
It's easy to disparage the gaze you don't personally share, but what I am reading here is a strong sense of entitlement. Unless you have equally disparaging things to say about how stupid it is when the heterosexual male gaze is catered to, you really need to ease up on the nasty comments about how bad it would be if an RPG company catered to female and gay male gaze more of the time.

Actually, you are particularly right on this part, which I was starting to address, but noticed something as I went perusing bck my posts, where I've stated approval for inclusion, which I fully and unabashedly believe in...and noticed that while I HAVE given more vocal support for providing the aforementioned eye-candy for both genders, there's a distinctive lack of clarity in regards to my endorsing of it for both genders INDEPENDENT of orientation. I feel this is especially egregious and galling in light of, out of those whom I associate with, it only now comes to mind the fact that some of the arguments that have frequently arisen were EXPLICITLY about the difference between erotica for women versus that for gay men, because the Venn diagrams do not necessarily have to overlap; what's sexy to a woman CAN be what is arousing to gay man, but it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be, as in the case of the aforementioned yaoi versus bara differentiation. I know I've given guff to both haters and supporters of boobplate, and have had posts removed for posting both sexy men and women, in efforts at contrasting where *cake is done well, versus where it is terrible and subject to mocking and scorn worthy of that one blog that redraws certain horrible female comic art pictures as replaced with males in the same pose, often with Green Arrow or Nightwing.

So on that front, a mea culpa - I will strive towards greater clarity, because I think it can be done, and it can be done well, and frankly I'd rather it done by Paizo than anyone else.

TanithT wrote:
Because honestly, it comes off like a whiny kid crying that he's not getting it ALL HIS WAY, ALL THE TIME, when you complain about an already highly marginalized minority who gets maybe ONE even vaguely homosexually themed pretty-boy depiction in published RPG artwork for every 10,000 or more busty female depictions. This is not an amount worth your b!#!#ing.

I was going to get offended by the comparison, but then I realized I'd be making the exact same assumption about those who want more representation that those who want it are making about those who are perceiving an OVER-representation, for all the same reasons. So, rather than escalating, I would offer a supposition and maybe an attempt at analogy to broaden understanding, instead of prompt finger-pointing and accusations.

I want more content for everyone. I know that there's no pleasing EVERYONE. If the endeavor is going to be made, can we try to include it in a way that maintains the current quality, escalates the available quantity, and if we go there, can we at least not have double-standards about it, or at least be equitable in where the sudden bursts of prudishness occur?

Also, I feel abruptly self-conscious of going back and finding quotes from myself, in regards to the matter, because I want it for verification, but it still feels hideously egocentric. So if I have to provide more proof I'll PM it instead.

TanithT wrote:

Why would that even be a thing on Golarion? Why would anyone care, if the culture they originated from did not give a hoot whether someone was gay or bi or straight? I don't see homophobia being canon anywhere in the Paizo materials. There is no particularly good reason to assume it exists.

And, gay bars. Just saying.

To answer the why - beats me. It was a thought exercise where someone complained about the couple that owned the bar, and the associated stereotype. My question was why the assumption was that it was a MARRIED couple owning the bar, and went through scenarios where peoples assumptions would be in error. The 'beard' aspect was simply in context of them not being a couple but possibly posing as one, extrapolated to the possibility that they are a same-sex couple with people the clientele don't know about. That being said, the prejudice might not come of same-sex causes; my supposition is simpler than that - taverns and establishments with an ownership that is male and female might just be the assumed expectation, with the following assumption, erroneous or not, that the proprietors HAVE to be married. Causes could range all over the place, the immediate comparison coming to mind being my grandfather, whom I love dearly but drives me crazy with being of a Certain Age and insisting that if he can find a business run by people of our ethnic group he will insist on shopping there or doing his business at said establishments, regardless of quality of product/work or how inconvenient the patronage is to anyone else who has to convey him to said locations.

People do unreasonable things all the time. My intent was to convey the unreasonableness of expectations, not imply some manner of mandate or deny the possibility of two men or two women owning such an establishment.

Point taken on the gay bars. Obviously, I intellectually appreciate the appeal, but I just don't 'get it'. It almost screams the invitation of certain stereotypes, and I'm not sure if that's deliberate or ironic.


Psyren wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:


At the same time, there's the demands for more LGBT NPCs, and the idea is sound, with precedent established. At present, my worry is that as the demands get increasingly vocal, there may come with it an oversampling of demographics and a decision to start pandering to overcompensate for all the other companies that do it wrong, and my (in this case comedic) over-exaggerated expectation that in a well-intentioned attempt at inclusion gives way to Golarion being fan-wanked into World of Yaoifangirlcraft.

This slope - it's so slippery!!!

EDIT: Also, yaoi is typically aimed at straight girls, not gay dudes.

Damnit I was getting to that.

*tinyfistshake*

I had a slippery slope joke I was going to use about the Hip Hop Plague crossing racial divides, but there's no good deployment for it. It'd be like opening a political event with a joke about Jews and presenting the new pope with a bill for the Last Supper.


Michael Gentry wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
and that people who complain about the presence of heteronormative periphery sexuality (that is, the obvious parents, the tavern-owning couple, and non-sexually explicit expressions of same-sex attraction/existence) are getting mad about it because they don't see as much same-sex periphery sexuality

No. You are misunderstanding.

No one is "getting mad" that heteronomative peripheral sexuality, such as that implied by the mere mention of heterosexual couples, exists in Paizo's gaming products. We are drawing a parallel, in order to illuminate the hypocrisy of people who get mad at the existence of LGBT couples and then justify it by claiming that discussions or endorsements of sexuality have "no place in a fantasy game".

The obvious response to this is twofold:

1) Discussions and endorsements of heteronormative sexuality are already in the fantasy game, in that they are implied every time a heteronormative couple is depicted;

2) Depictions of LGBT couples imply no more discussion or endorsement of sexuality than the heteronormative depictions do; thus, why is one acceptable and the other not?

It's a means of exposing a double standard employed by several people who have objected to depictions of LBGT relationships in the gaming material. If you're interpreting it as "complaining" that there is too much heteronormative sex in the books, then you are missing the intent.

I appreciate the clarification, because I feel like I was doing the exact opposite.

1) Pointing out the fact that, yes, heteronormative sexuality is existent and extant, without it being some manner of spite or slight against anyone of any other orientation, and why such things are, by virtue of pointing them out, not the same issue to those who actively crusade FOR continued heteronormality.

2) Extrapolating why the heteronormative displays so-presented are, in fact, often short-hand for more explicit acts of sexualism, which is why those who get offended jump, reflexively, to the arguments against gay portrayals on the basis of ickiness...THAT IS PURELY IN THEIR HEADS.

So - for the umpteenth time, I am in agreement with you that there's nothing wrong with same-sex affection displays or relationships as portrayed in a similar manner. I'm okay with them. I also understand, even if I don't agree with them, why it is that the squishy grey brainmeats of the oppositions react the way they do at the displays.

It illustrates a point, but at the same time comes off as 'why can't we have nice things?' when used to illustrate the hypocrisy. People are speaking the same language, verbally, but talking past each other on the physical cues.


TheAntiElite wrote:
I could easily and gladly cite several examples of where I emphatically encourage fan-service across the boards, because eye-candy isn't just for the fellows who fit the stereotypical mass media market.

What this seems to boil down to is that you think eye candy is good for everyone. Except for 'yaoi fangirl' homosexually themed stuff with pretty boys, which deserves to be marginalized and made fun of. Ooookay.

Quote:
My question was why the assumption was that it was a MARRIED couple owning the bar, and went through scenarios where peoples assumptions would be in error. The 'beard' aspect was simply in context of them not being a couple but possibly posing as one, extrapolated to the possibility that they are a same-sex couple with people the clientele don't know about.

Once again, if there is not any institutionalized homophobia on Golarion, which there is certainly not in the canon, why are you choosing to import it into your setting to the point that having a 'beard' would even be a thing?

As the material is written, 'beard' would probably not exist as a cultural concept on Golarion at all. In the absence of institutionalized homophobia, no one would be forced to live in public denial of who they actually loved and partnered with.

Liberty's Edge

TanithT wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
At the same time, there's the demands for more LGBT NPCs, and the idea is sound, with precedent established. At present, my worry is that as the demands get increasingly vocal, there may come with it an oversampling of demographics and a decision to start pandering to overcompensate for all the other companies that do it wrong, and my (in this case comedic) over-exaggerated expectation that in a well-intentioned attempt at inclusion gives way to Golarion being fan-wanked into World of Yaoifangirlcraft.

It's 'fan-wanked' if there is any catering to the gay male and female heterosexual gaze, but just the normal way of things if a large percentage of female character depictions are wearing a sexy getup rather than actually effective adventuring gear and posing in sexy ways that stick their boobs and butts out, even on the battlefield?

It's easy to disparage the gaze you don't personally share, but what I am reading here is a strong sense of entitlement. Unless you have equally disparaging things to say about how stupid it is when the heterosexual male gaze is catered to, you really need to ease up on the nasty comments about how bad it would be if an RPG company catered to female and gay male gaze more of the time.

Because honestly, it comes off like a whiny kid crying that he's not getting it ALL HIS WAY, ALL THE TIME, when you complain about an already highly marginalized minority who gets maybe ONE even vaguely homosexually themed pretty-boy depiction in published RPG artwork for every 10,000 or more busty female depictions. This is not an amount worth your b+$@&ing.

Tanith,

Take a step back, if necessary another look at AntiElite's posts in response to mine. AntiElite's concern is that things could get taken to the degree of caricature. A state I don't believe anyone here wants to see. AntiElite has agreed that the current state is not that, and has even indicated that a greater degree of inclusion is fine, just that caricature for the sake of inclusion be avoided.

I'm not telling you that you don't matter. I'm saying you have misunderstood AntiElite's intent.

Liberty's Edge

TanithT wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
I could easily and gladly cite several examples of where I emphatically encourage fan-service across the boards, because eye-candy isn't just for the fellows who fit the stereotypical mass media market.

What this seems to boil down to is that you think eye candy is good for everyone. Except for 'yaoi fangirl' homosexually themed stuff with pretty boys, which deserves to be marginalized and made fun of. Ooookay.

I don't believe AntiElite is saying that at all.


graywulfe wrote:
AntiElite's concern is that things could get taken to the degree of caricature.

You mean, like sexy faux-armor with lots of skin showing and exaggerated boob-n-butt poses being mandatory for all female characters in RPG art, no matter who they are and what they are doing?

The standard default setting of all RPG and comic book art is already a sexualized caricature. The issue really isn't whether, but who.

The argument, "But including pretty, sexualized gay men would be a CARICATURE" would carry a lot more weight if female sexualized caricature was not already the default setting. Because that's the case, arguing that sexualized male caricature is bad pretty much boils straight back down to, "It's okay to depict women that way, just not men."

Either it is not okay for both sexes, or it is okay for both sexes. Even when it's a caricature. Maybe especially when it's a caricature.

Liberty's Edge

TanithT wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
AntiElite's concern is that things could get taken to the degree of caricature.

You mean, like sexy faux-armor with lots of skin showing and exaggerated boob-n-butt poses being mandatory for all female characters in RPG art, no matter who they are and what they are doing?

The standard default setting of all RPG and comic book art is already a sexualized caricature. The issue really isn't whether, but who.

The argument, "But including pretty, sexualized gay men would be a CARICATURE" would carry a lot more weight if female sexualized caricature was not already the default setting. Because that's the case, arguing that sexualized male caricature is bad pretty much boils straight back down to, "It's okay to depict women that way, just not men."

As we are talking about Paizo's product of Golarion, or at least I am, where are you finding the following:

Quote:


You mean, like sexy faux-armor with lots of skin showing and exaggerated boob-n-butt poses being mandatory for all female characters in RPG art, no matter who they are and what they are doing?

The standard default setting of all RPG and comic book art is already a sexualized caricature. The issue really isn't whether, but who.

in Paizo's products?

Where did The AntiElite state:

Quote:


"But including pretty, sexualized gay men would be a CARICATURE"

?

TanithT wrote:


Either it is not okay for both sexes, or it is okay for both sexes. Even when it's a caricature. Maybe especially when it's a caricature.

I am in complete agreement. My interpretation of The AntiElite's stance is in complete agreement. I think he/she is just really bad at getting his/her point across, at least for the posts I have seen in this thread. Nothing Personal.


graywulfe wrote:
As we are talking about Paizo's product of Golarion

Yes. I'm afraid so. I would characterize Paizo as the least worst offender in this industry, but there is still rather a lot of boob-n-butt posing and mandatory skin showing through "armor" that would get someone badly hurt in combat, and it's overwhelmingly on the females.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TanithT wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
As we are talking about Paizo's product of Golarion
Yes. I'm afraid so. I would characterize Paizo as the least worst offender in this industry, but there is still rather a lot of boob-n-butt posing and mandatory skin showing through "armor" that would get someone badly hurt in combat, and it's overwhelmingly on the females.

Sajan.

Yes he doesn't need to wear armor, in fact shouldn't, the rules do not preclude him from wearing a shirt.

Seltyiel.

Open chested shirt. He is a Magus they get to wear armor.

These I am sure are not the only examples, but damn it I have better things to do than go hunting for male fan service.

Also I really hate when I ask for examples and I get "They exist." with no back up whatsoever. So again prove me wrong. You know what never mind, I have enough BS in my life I don't need this crap. This is what I get for trying to helpful.


at least one variation of mythic Valeros also would count.

of the female iconics, I would say the Witch, Oracle, and Seoni are pretty fanservice. Merisiel Can be "fan-servicey" depending on the illustration.

It's probably not impossible to avoid fan service completely, but Pathfinder does a pretty good job compared to most game companies. Personally I would prefer less fanservice that doesn't make sense (half nude succubi make sense, not archaeologists cough RotRL cough)

Reading Anti-elite's response I agree with some other interpretations of AntiElite's stance. He is for inclusion but is concerned with caricature, and doesn't see caricature in the current portrayal of characters.


graywulfe wrote:
Please try to take a step back and recognize that this poster is not attacking you or anything you believe in.

I can see you aren't actually recognizing what or where the problem is.

The problem is that he referred in a disparaging, disrespectful way to people who enjoy visual depictions of pretty gay boys. That's a problem, regardless of the context of the statement. It's kind of like saying the word "f&~**t" in reference to gay people. It's just a don't do it kind of thing, because it is pretty much automatically a hurtful attack whether you meant it that way or not.

The overwhelming culture of RPG, comic and video game art is that it is completely normalized and okay for heterosexual men to enjoy the hyper-sexualized depictions of females. This is the default setting. Nothing very disparaging is generally said about this, except variations on, "Well, what did you expect? Boys will be boys." Desiring to see this kind of sexuality depicted is the culturally normalized default, with no shaming or stigma attached.

This is emphatically not true about people who want to see any form of sexuality that is not heterosexually male oriented. They are very frequently stigmatized and shamed. Contributing to this is not a good thing in any way, shape or form.

There is nothing wrong with liking or wanting the depiction of any form of sexuality in what you enjoy. The wrong comes in when you try to disparage or dismiss other people's wanting the same thing. Worse than that is when the people doing the disparaging and making fun are the ones who already have it their way 99.9% of the time, and they are complaining about the other 0.1%.


graywulfe wrote:
These I am sure are not the only examples, but damn it I have better things to do than go hunting for male fan service.

So do I, and examples on both sides have already been posted copiously to past threads.

Paizo is definitely the least worst offender, meaning that there is occasional male beefcake and the female armor is not usually in the realms of the uber-ridiculous. But in general, I still see way too much exaggeratedly sexy boob-n-butt posing, cleavage and thigh-baring "armor" on women that would get them killed in combat.

If you are having a hard time seeing what the problem is, I recommend checking out The Hawkeye Initative.

See that "strong" pose that female fighter is in? How "strong" does it look when the character is exactly replaced by a male? Oh, now you can see that it looks hypersexualized and that sticking out your boobs and butt is kind of stupid and unrealistic in a combat situation.

Classic example right here.


TanithT wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
As we are talking about Paizo's product of Golarion
Yes. I'm afraid so. I would characterize Paizo as the least worst offender in this industry, but there is still rather a lot of boob-n-butt posing and mandatory skin showing through "armor" that would get someone badly hurt in combat, and it's overwhelmingly on the females.

If it's any help, I did find one particular tongue-in-cheek example of where I explicitly said I approve of fanservice for everyone, though I then undermined it with a crack at Bronies and recently contradicted the underlying spirit of the statement with my swipe at yaoi fangirls. My annoyance was not at the yaoi part of the statement, but the fangirl part, which to emphasized should have been 'fangurlz' the way that 'fanboiz' is used to indicate derision of a fanbase, rather than a subject matter.

So if it helps, I'm sorry for making you feel aggrieved. Rather than offering to supply you with appeasement for your personal tastes, I'll return to the regularly scheduled thread and subject matter in progress - Homosexuality in Golarion.

Also, vis a vis Beards (of a non-dwarven variety) and the concept of same, I think I may have accidentally committed the sin of thread and concept cross-pollination, as unless I'm misremembering the reason why the assumptions regarding married couples owning taverns originally spawned in a thread about handling homosexuality in one's OWN campaigns, and the hypothetical situations expressed were exercises in addressing the stereotype in campaigns where homosexual prejudice is, in fact, a thing - more research may be required.

And lest I forget this tangent before I make yet ANOTHER reply...

TanithT wrote:
The problem is that he referred in a disparaging, disrespectful way to people who enjoy visual depictions of pretty gay boys. That's a problem, regardless of the context of the statement. It's kind of like saying the word "f!!**t" in reference to gay people. It's just a don't do it kind of thing, because it is pretty much automatically a hurtful attack whether you meant it that way or not.

Could've been worse, I could've called 'pedobear' on you.

I'm being specifically facetious about the specification of pretty gay boys instead of pretty gay men.

More seriously, in light of your allusion to me calling 'bundle of sticks' on gay people, I'm going to ask you if you just - with a straight face no less - called 'f-word' privileges. Because without resorting to the hackneyed 'some of my queer friends say they've taken it back' defense, I'd have to say I'm disappointed.


graywulfe wrote:
TanithT wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
As we are talking about Paizo's product of Golarion
Yes. I'm afraid so. I would characterize Paizo as the least worst offender in this industry, but there is still rather a lot of boob-n-butt posing and mandatory skin showing through "armor" that would get someone badly hurt in combat, and it's overwhelmingly on the females.

Sajan.

Yes he doesn't need to wear armor, in fact shouldn't, the rules do not preclude him from wearing a shirt.

Seltyiel.

Open chested shirt. He is a Magus they get to wear armor.

These I am sure are not the only examples, but damn it I have better things to do than go hunting for male fan service.

Also I really hate when I ask for examples and I get "They exist." with no back up whatsoever. So again prove me wrong. You know what never mind, I have enough BS in my life I don't need this crap. This is what I get for trying to helpful.

I mea culpa'd on it already, but I DID want to reiterate that what appeals to women on the sexy men sliding scale may not necessarily appeal to gay men, and even in my promotion of equitable fanservice, I was insufficiently inclusive of the non-heteronormative paradigm. This in part stems from the fact that, among my circle of gay friends, their predilection is more on the bara end of the spectrum, and while they might find Valeros attractive enough, they would want to see more of Harsk...and were perplexed by the uproar that resulted when George Kamitani posted his three naked dwarfs during the uproar over the Sorceress of Dragon's Crown.

Also, for all their good intentions, I don't like the Hawkeye Initiative inasmuch that for all their complaining, I've yet to see them do something of a counterpoint that isn't overtly forced or of the Stop Having Fun Guys nature (which, admittedly, is kind of the point, as it's more Stop Having WRONGBADFUN, where Wrong and Bad are anatomically inaccurate and terribly proportioned).

EDIT: And I could have sworn that at one point I had, in blatant defiance of my tastes, shipped SeltyielxAlain, one whom is the go-to pretty boy, and the other being a jerk who would be expected to be a typical uke.

EDIT2: Also, I recall that in the fanarts of Valeros, there had been complaint in one picture because, in said picture, he was schtupping Imrijka, and we saw more of her than him. Then another picture was done with more focus on his physique and equipment, and it was clearly more catered to a female gaze; of course, as he was preparing to stick it in a female, this clearly means it would not appease those who were not het females.

EDIT3: Also, if I want to watch beautiful men pose impossibly, I'll go read JoJo's Bizarre Adventures. Seriously, them is some GLAMOROUS men. Glamorous BENDY men.

Liberty's Edge

TanithT wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
Please try to take a step back and recognize that this poster is not attacking you or anything you believe in.

I can see you aren't actually recognizing what or where the problem is.

The problem is that he referred in a disparaging, disrespectful way to people who enjoy visual depictions of pretty gay boys.

Okay I get what you are saying about everything else but this. Perhaps if you quote his actual post, so I can see what he said, I would understand. I'm not seeing the word or phrase you are referring to. Maybe I'm just missing it, maybe I am unaware of the phrase's offensive status, either way please show me.


graywulfe wrote:
TanithT wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
Please try to take a step back and recognize that this poster is not attacking you or anything you believe in.

I can see you aren't actually recognizing what or where the problem is.

The problem is that he referred in a disparaging, disrespectful way to people who enjoy visual depictions of pretty gay boys.

Okay I get what you are saying about everything else but this. Perhaps if you quote his actual post, so I can see what he said, I would understand. I'm not seeing the word or phrase you are referring to. Maybe I'm just missing it, maybe I am unaware of the phrase's offensive status, either way please show me.

TanithT was bent because I referred to Yaoi Fangirls, specifically for the fact that Yaoi is a very odd demographic in that it is gay porn for women, which seems almost counter-intuitive...unless and until you compare it to, say, 'lesbian' porn that is targeted at a male audience. Both, in a way, are somewhat silly to me, though it's difficult for me to tell which has worse-written fan-fiction. Also, my take on homosexuality on Golarion was working from the expectation that it would be...I don't know, more possessing of verisimilitude, which is rather difficult to picture for me as I'm not the target demographic, but in my head took a more 'hard gay' approach than sparkly yaoi-ness. Maybe Tom of Finland-esque. I say this not out of stereotyping, but out of the general concensus I was getting from actual gay males.


TheAntiElite wrote:
I explicitly said I approve of fanservice for everyone, though I then undermined it with a crack at Bronies and recently contradicted the underlying spirit of the statement with my swipe at yaoi fangirls.

Why swipe at yaoi fangirls at all, though? Why heap more shaming and stigmatization on women who enjoy pretty-boy porn?

Quote:
Could've been worse, I could've called 'pedobear' on you. I'm being specifically facetious about the specification of pretty gay boys instead of pretty gay men.

Would you consider the general trend of calling women "girls" especially when they are being submissively sexualized to be the equivalent of actual pedophilia? It's a power dynamic, but it's not actually an age reference.

The pretty-boy look and act is one that can work for someone of almost any age. What is being emphasized here is a male who is a beautiful, passive object of gaze, the goods rather than the consumer. This specific aspect is what seems to be most frequently triggering of derision, shaming and outright attacks from men who feel very uncomfortable with the idea of any male being depicted this way.

Quote:
More seriously, in light of your allusion to me calling 'bundle of sticks' on gay people, I'm going to ask you if you just - with a straight face no less - called 'f-word' privileges. Because without resorting to the hackneyed 'some of my queer friends say they've taken it back' defense, I'd have to say I'm disappointed.

No. I'm saying that making disparaging, disrespectful, shaming or stigmatizing references to anyone's sexuality is a bad thing. When you do this, you're going to automatically push people's bad buttons whether you intended it as 'just a joke' or not.

Liberty's Edge

EDIT: removed my content because this has veered way off topic.


TanithT wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
I explicitly said I approve of fanservice for everyone, though I then undermined it with a crack at Bronies and recently contradicted the underlying spirit of the statement with my swipe at yaoi fangirls.
Why swipe at yaoi fangirls at all, though? Why heap more shaming and stigmatization on women who enjoy pretty-boy porn?

To be semi-flippant, because of the sheer number who Get It Wrong, where It is anal intercourse, sexual dynamics in a relationship, and writing in general. It is not to say there is shame in enjoying yaoi art, but it was especially inartful of me to conflate the art with the writing and fanfiction - my only defense in regards to this that, as we are addressing the appearnces of Homosexuality in Golarion, textual portrayals are relevant, and some of my biases are impacted by the circles in which I travel, in addition to the varieties and qualities of fanfiction I get subjected to. I apologized for it twice, at this point.

TanithT wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
Could've been worse, I could've called 'pedobear' on you. I'm being specifically facetious about the specification of pretty gay boys instead of pretty gay men.
Would you consider the general trend of calling women "girls" especially when they are being submissively sexualized to be the equivalent of actual pedophilia? It's a power dynamic, but it's not actually an age reference.

This one I answer with full sincerity - yes without context, though admittedly this too is colored by the amount of lolicon I get subjected to. I get uppity about calling women 'girls' out of context, but that leads to when it is and isn't appropriate to call someone a dame, a broad, a bird, a chick, or any other number of diminutives.

TanithT wrote:
The pretty-boy look and act is one that can work for someone of almost any age. What is being emphasized here is a male who is a beautiful, passive object of gaze, the goods rather than the consumer.

I understand that, though I find it strange that the emphasis is usually on beautiful androgyny bordering on majority - why not biseinen, instead?

TanithT wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
More seriously, in light of your allusion to me calling 'bundle of sticks' on gay people, I'm going to ask you if you just - with a straight face no less - called 'f-word' privileges. Because without resorting to the hackneyed 'some of my queer friends say they've taken it back' defense, I'd have to say I'm disappointed.
No. I'm saying that making disparaging, disrespectful, shaming or stigmatizing references to anyone's sexuality is a bad thing. When you do this, you're going to automatically push people's bad buttons whether you intended it as 'just a joke' or not.

Like, say, deriding the cisgendered, or the idiot fans who drool over the 'SuperBabes' (bleh) that are commonly portrayed and parodied on the HawkEye Initiative? Or is offense only taken when reference are made to one's Specific Subcultural Faction?

I hold you no ill will. I fully support your right to enjoy what you enjoy. That doesn't mean that I can't find it silly or personally dislike it, but that just means I'm not the target audience. If anything, you can mock me for own personal quirks and quibbles, starting with buying games I won't play immediately, being a overwrought wordsmith, or being a nerd engaging in debates about homosexuality in a fictional world and not keeping track of it in contrast to discussions of OTHER fictional worlds and homosexuality as well as it's addressing.

If you like, I'll even take it personally. :)

Also, I'm not sure how I feel in regards to whether gay porn for women being enjoyed by gay men is missing the intended target demographic or a demographic bank shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:

On a side note, who here has runned gay/trans/bi/ect characters in their home games set on Golarion?

I ask, because it may show how often sexuality comes into play in the most free-form games. For example, in none of my games has sexuality of any characters come up, thus all the NPCs I've ran over the years have always been asexual

So none of your NPCs were ever married? There is implicit sexuality there. We just don't think about it because it is the "norm".

To answer your question, most of the sexuality in games I run is implicit, this does mean that for the most part I have had little representation for LGBT in games I run. I ran Curse which has a lesbian couple, but aside from that I can think of no examples in games I have run. Answering this question is the first time I have realized that fact. It isn't an active choice, it is more just not considering it. That is something I will have to try to keep in mind in the future.

And this is why I keep pushing this argument. Because I've seen several people say "I never thought about it. I didn't realize I was doing that." Because someone made it to me, quite awhile ago now and I realized the same thing.

For all the talk about no one ever changing their mind from an internet posting, it does happen.


thejeff wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:

On a side note, who here has runned gay/trans/bi/ect characters in their home games set on Golarion?

I ask, because it may show how often sexuality comes into play in the most free-form games. For example, in none of my games has sexuality of any characters come up, thus all the NPCs I've ran over the years have always been asexual

So none of your NPCs were ever married? There is implicit sexuality there. We just don't think about it because it is the "norm".

To answer your question, most of the sexuality in games I run is implicit, this does mean that for the most part I have had little representation for LGBT in games I run. I ran Curse which has a lesbian couple, but aside from that I can think of no examples in games I have run. Answering this question is the first time I have realized that fact. It isn't an active choice, it is more just not considering it. That is something I will have to try to keep in mind in the future.

And this is why I keep pushing this argument. Because I've seen several people say "I never thought about it. I didn't realize I was doing that." Because someone made it to me, quite awhile ago now and I realized the same thing.

For all the talk about no one ever changing their mind from an internet posting, it does happen.

I've certainly learned and changed thanks to being told I was wrong on the internet, so it does happen, but you have to be open to it.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Note to self, add the following to the copypasta list:

- Why should a character be LGBT anyway? It doesn't add anything to the character!

You shouldn't need to justify a reason for a character to be LGBT any more than you should justify a character being a woman or having blonde hair. In some small cases, these things might be relevant, but for the most part it's merely a background trait that may or may not come up and may or may not be interesting.

Luckily, it's even easier to change an NPC's sexuality than it is their hair colour - you don't even need to worry about provided images being wrong, then.

Shadow Lodge

No offense Alice, but your lists really just kind of rehash the same sort of not actual discussion "responses" that people keep repeating a billion times. Things like "but they gays are peoplz 2" generally has nothing to do with the post that it is responding to, so rather than bridging any gaps or inviting any honest discussion between sides, all it does is say "this is the party line on that subject, and we can't really think of anything to helpful to say", which I doubt was your intent.

4,351 to 4,400 of 5,778 << first < prev | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Homosexuality in Golarion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.