The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.


Gamer Life General Discussion

401 to 450 of 17,437 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

It's funny because I know gay men that use it as pejorative. In fact, the only people that I've met personally that have been offended were not gay but felt that they had to protect the gay community.

It's used to describe things that are overly cheesy or campy. And even the gay guys use it. It's almost like it's two different words (homosexual and campy). Language is funny like that, where it horribly offends some people others find it perfectly acceptable.

The thing is, words have power. I say this not as some metaphysical thing, but as a student of human psychology. So, putting that Psych Major hat on for a moment, I'd like to make it clear that the current evidence says that words both reflect and shape the way we see and understand the world. People who say things like that, taken as a group, really are more homophobic than people who don't, and really would become less so (or more open to the idea of not being) if they stopped using the word in that fashion.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
I actually feel that if you're going to try and fight the language (a silly prospect), you should fight to remove the labels. People shouldn't be gay / lesbian / bi. It should just be person A likes women or person B likes men and women. I mean seriously, anytime that you label someone by their sexual preferences it's pretty offensive. Even if someone likes thicker women that's no reason to call them a chubby chaser, and if a girl likes black men, telling her she has jungle fever is insulting to both the girl and the men she likes. Do we have labels for people who like their women extremely well built or for people that like their women thin? If you did, how hard would it be to not be offensive?

Getting rid of labels would be wonderful, but it's never gonna happen. As human beings we are evolved to find meaning in things, and one of the primary ways we do that is by putting them into neat little boxes in our heads. Let's take something harmless like hair color: In reality, a spectrum from white to black with a million different shades between...but we still say someone is Blonde, or Brunette, or a Redhead. That's just the way our minds work, and it's not going to change.

But someday whether you're labeled straight, or gay, or bi might not matter any more than whether you're blonde or brunette.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
But yeah, language is language. Language is a reflection of society, not the other way around. It will evolve when society evolves. Trying to control it like that is futile. When the English speaking society becomes comfortable with homosexuality as a whole, the connection between the two different meanings will be lost and either one of them falls out use or they become two distinct words.

But that's the thing, words do shape society, too. And the use of gay as a pejorative actively hinders society's acceptance of people to whom that term also refers. Not as much as other things, and it's hardly the worst thing in the world if you've ever said it...but it's still a bad thing.

"When homosexuality is accepted" is also a mythical time for this purpose. By the time such acceptance is truly universal (which, looking at say, racism in general as an example, is gonna be centuries from now) the language will have changed so much that this entire conversation will be of interest only to (and possibly only understandable by) linguists and historians...but in any shorter time frame than that (and right upuntil we have the last homophobic guy on Earth) avoiding such unpleasant language will continue to have a positive effect on the growing acceptance of homosexuality (and alternate sexualities in general).

DeathQuaker wrote:
This. People might be intolerant of various aspects of sexuality, but people are especially intolerant of LGBTQ persons and are very open about saying intolerant remarks about them. I've seen that myself in gamer groups that don't include openly LGBTQ members. As a common example, the phrase "that's so gay" used as "that's so lame/stupid" (a phrase I have berated my own friends for using) -- absolutely more intentional hateful things have been said, but it's that kind of passive homophobia that people think is "harmless" (but it's not) that needs to stop as well.

Agreed entirely. As discussed at length above. :)

DeathQuaker wrote:
More to the point, I think it's not about wanting to game with a specific person of a preference per se, it's about increasing general visibility of LGTBQ persons in the gamer community. If they are visible and become part of the norm, it's more likely that acceptance and respect will be built.

And here's where I start to drift away from you. I mean, this seems like it's treating the concept of LGBTQ gamers as something of a platonic ideal, a light that must be held up and shone at people. And while that motivation seems reasonable enough...it kinds runs right into the fact that LGBTQ gamers are real people. Who might be a poor fit for that group, or a s$%!ty gamer, or kind of a dick. They could also be wonderful, of course, but inviting a wonderful gamer who fits in great with your game to come play sorta sounds like something you should be doing regardless of their sexuality, y'know?

DeathQuaker wrote:
It is NOT the same as something like an interracial couple (in most places) because very fortunately, that has something that has become accepted in our society (although not necessarily everywhere). I can see something like a white gamer bringing his black girlfriend home to his D&D group even in the 70s being a potential cause of conflict or invitation for insensitive remarks. Why did it stop being an issue? Because it became common, it became visible, it became accepted.

Depends on where you were. Or are. There are still places that this kind of thing can get you in serious physical trouble, of the violent kind. I'm happy not to live in one...but they do exist. They're rarer than places where being gay will get that response (I think) but by no means gone even now, and in the 70s? Definitely not uncommon (especially if it were a black gamer brining his white girlfriend).

Now, I'm not really arguing that it's quite the same, it's not most places...but there are places where bringing up your sexuality isn't a big deal either. They're just a bit rarer.

DeathQuaker wrote:
And trying to compare the difficulties and disrespect LGTBQ persons go through--REMEMBER, in many places, a gay person is still at risk of being ganged up on and beaten to death for their sexuality--to that of, say, a "chubby chaser" is way, way, way off the mark.

This, I again agree with. The two really aren't comparable. Though in fairness, I don't think that was really Ragnarok Aeon's intent.


DeathQuaker wrote:

No. It is not an acceptable word. It is not used by GLTB persons where I come from now, and where I have met those who did use the phrase the way homophobes did, told me it was because they wanted to avoid standing out, not because they thought it was acceptable (do you think ANY gay person would want to refer to themselves as "lame/stupid"? Really?). Using "gay" derogatorily is nothing but hateful, even if it's passive, even if it's "done all the time."

People used to use the "n-word" all the time. It did not magically "phase out" when black people became "accepted" (there's STILL a lot of racism today, that acceptance process is STILL going on). It became known as the "n-word" because people actively worked against its use in everyday language, and the same needs to happen for using "gay" as a pejorative.

The "n-word" was originally used in reference to a cheater. It always had a negative connotation. Nobody wants to be called a cheater. To say it means someone who has dark skin or is of African descent is derogatory because you're trying to make a connection between the two meanings.

The origin of the word gay was used to describe an abundance of happiness. The connection with it to homosexuals came during the campy theatre. I mean I guess if campy theatre was really hated, I'd hate to be called gay too, even if I were just straight up homosexual.

A word is only derogatory if use it to describe people, in which case the act of labeling people by it is wrong.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:

No. It is not an acceptable word. It is not used by GLTB persons where I come from now, and where I have met those who did use the phrase the way homophobes did, told me it was because they wanted to avoid standing out, not because they thought it was acceptable (do you think ANY gay person would want to refer to themselves as "lame/stupid"? Really?). Using "gay" derogatorily is nothing but hateful, even if it's passive, even if it's "done all the time."

People used to use the "n-word" all the time. It did not magically "phase out" when black people became "accepted" (there's STILL a lot of racism today, that acceptance process is STILL going on). It became known as the "n-word" because people actively worked against its use in everyday language, and the same needs to happen for using "gay" as a pejorative.

The "n-word" was originally used in reference to a cheater. It always had a negative connotation. Nobody wants to be called a cheater. To say it means someone who has dark skin or is of African descent is derogatory because you're trying to make a connection between the two meanings.

The origin of the word gay was used to describe an abundance of happiness. The connection with it to homosexuals came during the campy theatre. I mean I guess if campy theatre was really hated, I'd hate to be called gay too, even if I were just straight up homosexual.

A word is only derogatory if use it to describe people, in which case the act of labeling people by it is wrong.

No. Just no. Learn your linguistics if you're going to use them to be an ass. The word you're thinking of is niggard, from the scandinavian for stingy. The n-word is derived from the spanish word negro, meaning black.

Also, that's not why the word gay, which used to mean happy, came to mean homosexual.

Liberty's Edge

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
A word is only derogatory if use it to describe people, in which case the act of labeling people by it is wrong.

Are you saying that referring to 'jewing someone out of some money' is not derogatory? Because I'm gonna have to strongly disagree there.

And yes, I've heard people say that.

lynora wrote:
No. Just no. Learn your linguistics if you're going to use them to be an ass. The word you're thinking of is niggard, from the scandinavian for stingy. The n-word is derived from the spanish word negro, meaning black.

Indeed. 'Niggardly' is not a racist word...not because the n-word isn't, but because the two are completely unrelated in any way.

lynora wrote:
Also, that's not why the word gay, which used to mean happy, came to mean homosexual.

Atre you familiar with the actual etymology? I'm not, but I've always been curious.


You know what, I'm sorry. I didn't want to create conflict or anything. I'm not trying to say it's okay to equate gay to being lame, just that in one of my circles, the one that actually has gay people in it that it's used to describe something that's campy (not lame, but overly campy).

I just find the attempt to control of language ineffective (if someone wants to be offensive, they'll just make up new names) some not even real words. It's useful on a personal level, but the only real strides are when people actually become more accepting.


Okay, stopping to take a breath. Ragnarok, I apologize for the tone of my last post. I'm going to leave it as is because I think it does convey the anger I felt quite well, but I want to clarify that my anger was towards the idea, not you. I think that you are mostly a cool guy from what interactions I've had with you. I just think this idea that language doesn't matter or that words don't/shouldn't have the power to hurt people is horse hockey.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DeathQuaker wrote:
It is NOT the same as something like an interracial couple (in most places) because very fortunately, that has something that has become accepted in our society (although not necessarily everywhere). I can see something like a white gamer bringing his black girlfriend home to his D&D group even in the 70s being a potential cause of conflict or invitation for insensitive remarks. Why did it stop being an issue? Because it became common, it became visible, it became accepted.

Not to pick nits here but the devil is in the details as far "acceptable" interracial relationships go. I live in NYC so I see a decent amount of IRC here but mostly the ones where people dont really look twice at are White male/asian female couples or White male/latina or even White male/black female couples. Notice the common thread there.

Black male/white female couples will still get looks and comments and in some parts of the city physically harassed and or threatened. It really hasn't changed all that much from the 70's. I have a friend (Italian / Columbian, but you wouldn't know that she was a Latina until she stated speaking spanish) who dated a black guy pretty seriously after college and was ostracized by some of her friends because of it. I'm married now and have been with my wife for about 17 years (married for 12) but before her, I dated a white girl and would probably never do so again if I found myself single.

I find women attractive, PERIOD. So my choosing not to date a white girl has nothing to do with me not being attracted to them. But I think she wasn't ready for the crap that comes with being in public together. If I found someone who looked at that realistically and was fully prepared to deal with everything that comes with it then maybe.

People are just as stupid and racist and stupid NOW as they were in the 70's. They just do a better job at hiding it. It's the same thing I get from acquaintances of mine when I dont react to women walking down the street holding hands or worse two guys walking down the street holding hands and they go "what's up with that?" or "what a waste". And Im like "it's not a waste for them. Beisdes with you saying sh*t like that it's unlikely they would go for you anyway"

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
You know what, I'm sorry. I didn't want to create conflict or anything. I'm not trying to say it's okay to equate gay to being lame, just that in one of my circles, the one that actually has gay people in it that it's used to describe something that's campy (not lame, but overly campy).

I doubt anyone attributes any real malice towards you. I certainly don't. :)

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
I just find the attempt to control of language ineffective (if someone wants to be offensive, they'll just make up new names) some not even real words. It's useful on a personal level, but the only real strides are when people actually become more accepting.

Controlling one's own language is pretty easy, and controlling the language of those one associates with is far from impossible. And every little bit helps.

And, as I mention above, proper language usage actually helps people to become more accepting. At least a bit.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
It is NOT the same as something like an interracial couple (in most places) because very fortunately, that has something that has become accepted in our society (although not necessarily everywhere). I can see something like a white gamer bringing his black girlfriend home to his D&D group even in the 70s being a potential cause of conflict or invitation for insensitive remarks. Why did it stop being an issue? Because it became common, it became visible, it became accepted.

Not to pick nits here but the devil is in the details as far "acceptable" interracial relationships go. I live in NYC so I see a decent amount of IRC here but mostly the ones where people dont really look twice at are White male/asian female couples or White male/latina or even White male/black female couples. Notice the common thread there.

Black male/white female couples will still get looks and comments and in some parts of the city physically harassed and or threatened. It really hasn't changed all that much from the 70's. I have a friend (Italian / Columbian, but you wouldn't know that she was a Latina until she stated speaking spanish) who dated a black guy pretty seriously after college and was ostracized by some of her friends because of it. I'm married now and have been with my wife for about 17 years (married for 12) but before her, I dated a white girl and would probably never do so again if I found myself single.

I find women attractive, PERIOD. So my choosing not to date a white girl has nothing to do with me not being attracted to them. But I think she wasn't ready for the crap that comes with being in public together. If I found someone who looked at that realistically and was fully prepared to deal with everything that comes with it then maybe.

People are just as stupid and racist and stupid NOW as they were in the 70's. They just do a better job at hiding it. It's the same thing I get from acquaintances of mine when I dont react to women walking down the street holding hands or...

Essentially, this. Save for the not wanting to date white women if I were single. I have no problem with things getting real, and people have thought for years that I was dating one or more of my white friends serious when I was in public.

Also, why haven't we hung out yet? Cuz I'm in BROOKLYN!!!!


Deadmanwalking wrote:


lynora wrote:
Also, that's not why the word gay, which used to mean happy, came to mean homosexual.
Atre you familiar with the actual etymology? I'm not, but I've always been curious.

My understanding, which could be wrong since the source is usually correct, but sometimes not, was that it was effectively a euphemism used in 'polite' (read upper class) society because openly calling someone homosexual would pretty much ruin their life. It was already a word often used in descriptions of people and situations with loose morals (because, let's face it, loose morals and happiness often go together ;P) so it wasn't much of a stretch for it to mean homosexual.

Liberty's Edge

lynora wrote:
My understanding, which could be wrong since the source is usually correct, but sometimes not, was that it was effectively a euphemism used in 'polite' (read upper class) society because openly calling someone homosexual would pretty much ruin their life. It was already a word often used in descriptions of people and situations with loose morals (because, let's face it, loose morals and happiness often go together ;P) so it wasn't much of a stretch for it to mean homosexual.

Huh. That's more or less the impression I already had (though I couldn't tell you precisely where from). I was honestly hoping for something a bit more specific.

Still, confirmation is always nice. Thank you very much for providing the information.


Me, I just say that someone prefers the erotic company of their fellow (insert gender here). I've used the term gay before though, both positively and negatively, although I've not done the latter in many, many years.

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:
Me, I just say that someone prefers the erotic company of their fellow (insert gender here). I've used the term gay before though, both positively and negatively, although I've not done the latter in many, many years.

That certainly works.

As for myself, I rarely talk about other people's sexualities and (when I do) I generaly use whichever term they do to describe themselves. Seems both respectful and appropriate to me.


Etymology is kind of a hobby of mine. One of the first things I learned is that language is messy, especially English which steals words and grammar from a whole slew of other languages. :)

some personal stuff:
The elementary school I went to had a real problem with bullying. The teachers pretty much turned a blind eye. As a side note, this is where I first learned to have a completely expressionless face, a habit I've never been able to completely break, because showing emotion only encouraged the bullies to pick on you more. There was a decent amount of physical abuse (pinching, tripping, kicking, spitballs, got shut in a closet once) but the words hurt a lot more and stay with you longer. Eventually as the violence escalated I reached a point where I didn't think I would be safe if I didn't do something. I am not a naturally violent person. It's pretty much my last resort. Well, I reached my last resort and earned myself some breathing room by beating the crap out of a group of guys all of whom were much bigger than me. I'm not proud of it. It was a calculated risk and it paid off.
All of that was more to set the scene than anything. When I was eleven years old a nine year old girl who was in the third grade jumped off the top of the school. I was one of two witnesses who saw it happen. Like me she was bullied, although in her case mostly with words. Physical abuse was usually reserved for outsiders like me. They were not kind to transfer students. Anyways, obviously a traumatic experience. Since then I've always taken language very seriously. Anything that can convince a nine year old child that life is not worth living to the point of jumping off a building should not be taken lightly.


Sadly I don't think I have gamed with any members of the GLBT community... Or if I did they didn't feel it necessary or were not comfortable with telling me or the other players (which is understandable, considering possible reactions).

I like having different perspectives and approaches in my game. I love GMing for mixed male and female groups as different flavours are added to the game.

I would be more than happy to game with open members of GLBT community.

I think that the road to an accepting society is a long one and we are just starting out and some good progress has been made. I am proud that my uncle and his partner (I wish I could say husband but sadly its not legal yet in Australia) have been at the forefront of political and social activism for the GLBT community of Australia (Sydney Morning Herald story about my uncles partner). Both uncles, my ex-radical feminist mother, and my father whom I consider the best of men taught me not judge people on gender, colour, or sexual orientation. Are they perfect no... (my mother landed me with massive confidence and self esteem issues with her constant all men are oppressive ass-hat rants and "you will not be a burden on any woman speech").

Mrs 8th and I try to instil the same values of "its how true and good a person is that matters" into our kids.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

ShinHakkaider wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
It is NOT the same as something like an interracial couple (in most places) because very fortunately, that has something that has become accepted in our society (although not necessarily everywhere). I can see something like a white gamer bringing his black girlfriend home to his D&D group even in the 70s being a potential cause of conflict or invitation for insensitive remarks. Why did it stop being an issue? Because it became common, it became visible, it became accepted.
Not to pick nits here but the devil is in the details as far "acceptable" interracial relationships go. I live in NYC so I see a decent amount of IRC here but mostly the ones where people dont really look twice at are White male/asian female couples or White male/latina or even White male/black female couples. Notice the common thread there. (snip)

Let me point out the phrase that got ignored in my original statement:

although not necessarily everywhere

Within the context of my response to Ragnarok Aeon, and the context of HIS post that I was replying to, I think my reply stands for the point I was trying to make---which was that people who are saying "I hope more people who are openly LGTBQ show up more often at games" are talking about they are hoping for more visibility, which can help lead to acceptance. (It should go without saying that the road to acceptance is a very long path.) As a reminder, ragnarok aeon made the comparison that no one would say "I hope I see more interracial couples" in the same way that the statement about seeing LGTBQ gamers was made. I was positing why it would be less likely to see someone make the former statement.

I apologize for my clumsy wording, and for not making the qualifier I DID include in my statement more obvious and clear. I had no intention of implying racism does not exist, and indeed I pointed that out in a subsequent post. I also agree with much of what you said--and that some couple "combinations" get accepted while others are still frowned upon. There's a lot of variables there with people and location and I was wrong to sweep it into one general statement.


lynora wrote:

Etymology is kind of a hobby of mine. One of the first things I learned is that language is messy, especially English which steals words and grammar from a whole slew of other languages. :)

** spoiler omitted **

I'm truly sorry you had to go through that lynora. I took on my whole class as a kid when I was being teased during a presentation, but what you went through sounds monstrous, the administrators at that school should be firmly disciplined.

Sczarni

DeathQuaker wrote:
RepeepeR wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

Unless you're looking to be romantically involved or shipping someone, I don't really see the fascination with having someone with the opposite orientation game with you.

I mean, you'll never see someone say, "I'm not into chubby chicks, but I sure would love to game with a 'chubby chaser'" or "I'm not really into dating outside my race, but I'd love to game with some interracial couples".

To me, it just seems like it really shouldn't ever be the deciding point of whether or not to game with them.

I have friends that are homosexual. They are not really into gaming though. I wish they were because the people that I game with could use the exposure to maybe learn to tone down the homophobic comments that they make during the game. I have asked but they don't seem to get it. I guess what I was hoping is that when confronted with an actual LBGT interaction that they might realize that they are talking about a person(s).

Then again that maybe too much to ask from a bunch of gamer geek shut-ins.

This. People might be intolerant of various aspects of sexuality, but people are especially intolerant of LGBTQ persons and are very open about saying intolerant remarks about them. I've seen that myself in gamer groups that don't include openly LGBTQ members. As a common example, the phrase "that's so gay" used as "that's so lame/stupid" (a phrase I have berated my own friends for using) -- absolutely more intentional hateful things have been said, but it's that kind of passive homophobia that people think is "harmless" (but it's not) that needs to stop as well.

More to the point, I think it's not about wanting to game with a specific person of a preference per se, it's about increasing general visibility of LGTBQ persons in the gamer community. If they are visible and become part of the norm, it's more likely that acceptance and respect will be built.

It is NOT the same as something like an interracial couple (in most places) because very...

The people in my group are mostly non-confrontational. so, there is no danger physically involved.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:

Essentially, this. Save for the not wanting to date white women if I were single. I have no problem with things getting real, and people have thought for years that I was dating one or more of my white friends serious when I was in public.

Also, why haven't we hung out yet? Cuz I'm in BROOKLYN!!!!

I'm in Queens but I work in the city near 34th Street. In fact I'm only a few blocks away from the Complete Strat so I'm in there a few times a week. If you've been there at all on a weekday there's a good chance you've probably seen me at some point. I'm usually there talking to Larry (tall skinny black d00d dressed all in black) or the younger guy with glasses behind the counter (I always forget his name...).


Freehold DM wrote:
lynora wrote:

Etymology is kind of a hobby of mine. One of the first things I learned is that language is messy, especially English which steals words and grammar from a whole slew of other languages. :)

** spoiler omitted **

I'm truly sorry you had to go through that lynora. I took on my whole class as a kid when I was being teased during a presentation, but what you went through sounds monstrous, the administrators at that school should be firmly disciplined.

It was not a lot of fun, no. But if there's one thing I've learned it's that someone out there that had it worse than you. So I'm grateful that it wasn't worse. And I watch carefully to make sure that my son has a very different school experience than I did.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Essentially, this. Save for the not wanting to date white women if I were single. I have no problem with things getting real, and people have thought for years that I was dating one or more of my white friends serious when I was in public.

Also, why haven't we hung out yet? Cuz I'm in BROOKLYN!!!!

I'm in Queens but I work in the city near 34th Street. In fact I'm only a few blocks away from the Complete Strat so I'm in there a few times a week. If you've been there at all on a weekday there's a good chance you've probably seen me at some point. I'm usually there talking to Larry (tall skinny black d00d dressed all in black) or the younger guy with glasses behind the counter (I always forget his name...).

actually, there have been a LOT of black gamers in the strat lately!!! I may have seen you in the store and not known it. I'm always incredibly cheerful to Larry, which makes him roll his eyes. I even hugged him once, to which he said "... My own CHILDREN don't hug me. ". And I always forget the bespectacled guys name too, which sucks, but I have always been awful with names...


lynora wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
lynora wrote:

Etymology is kind of a hobby of mine. One of the first things I learned is that language is messy, especially English which steals words and grammar from a whole slew of other languages. :)

** spoiler omitted **

I'm truly sorry you had to go through that lynora. I took on my whole class as a kid when I was being teased during a presentation, but what you went through sounds monstrous, the administrators at that school should be firmly disciplined.
It was not a lot of fun, no. But if there's one thing I've learned it's that someone out there that had it worse than you. So I'm grateful that it wasn't worse. And I watch carefully to make sure that my son has a very different school experience than I did.

I plan to do the same for mine, when I have them..


Ringtail wrote:


However, my friend (the one who will be GMing the game) emailed me and a couple of the other players late last night about a post the new player had made on Facebook, a rather strong anti-gay remark (he's appearently Mormon according to the post). Though he hasn't said anything directly to us at the table (sexuality hasn't come up, so I'm not sure if he is aware that I am gay), it is clear that he has a significant problem with homosexuality and the topic will come up during Jade Regent (see above). The GM was mildly offended by the post (also a Mormon) as he said it made him and his religion look bad to others when he does his best to not judge (he has nothing against homosexuality- he did invite my fiance to come play after all, though is aware most Mormons do), and was concerned that it might sour the experience for my fiance if he started expressing these strong anti-gay opinions at the table either in or out of character when my character's sexuality comes into play. He and a couple of the other players were debating whether or not to remove him from the group (either for the game...

Just curious, where(State/Country) are you guys? Being mormon myself, I always perk up when we get mentioned.


Atlanta, GA.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Lloyd Jackson wrote:
and suit up!
Freak! :-p

Oh so freaky!


I'm eating ice cream.

Also, I'm from Toronto, Canada.

Liberty's Edge

Missoula, MT.

Most liberal city in Montana...it's a little weird.


So... uh...

Anybody else mostly or entirely aromantic here?


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Missoula, MT.

Most liberal city in Montana...it's a little weird.

I was in Missoula just this past weekend for the race. I live at one of the nearby Job Corps centers (Trapper Creek).


Lloyd Jackson wrote:
Ringtail wrote:


However, my friend (the one who will be GMing the game) emailed me and a couple of the other players late last night about a post the new player had made on Facebook, a rather strong anti-gay remark (he's appearently Mormon according to the post). Though he hasn't said anything directly to us at the table (sexuality hasn't come up, so I'm not sure if he is aware that I am gay), it is clear that he has a significant problem with homosexuality and the topic will come up during Jade Regent (see above). The GM was mildly offended by the post (also a Mormon) as he said it made him and his religion look bad to others when he does his best to not judge (he has nothing against homosexuality- he did invite my fiance to come play after all, though is aware most Mormons do), and was concerned that it might sour the experience for my fiance if he started expressing these strong anti-gay opinions at the table either in or out of character when my character's sexuality comes into play. He and a couple of the other players were debating whether or not to remove him from the group (either for the game...
Just curious, where(State/Country) are you guys? Being mormon myself, I always perk up when we get mentioned.

Omaha, NE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:

So... uh...

Anybody else mostly or entirely aromantic here?

I'm almost entirely asocial.


Samnell wrote:
Meophist wrote:

So... uh...

Anybody else mostly or entirely aromantic here?

I'm almost entirely asocial.

Me too, but that doesn't really have much to do with aromanticism.

Or maybe it does, I dunno.


Mmmm many interesting things I'd like to comment on but I'll have to do it later.

I’m taking a trip tomorrow and won’t be back for about twenty days, not sure what internet access will be like either so I might vanish for a bit. This thread seems to be going well so I look forward to reading your guy’s posts when I return. There are a couple more long personal stories about the things that were critical to my development that I could share so if this thread hasn’t died by then I will tell them when I get back.

BTW though I am currently out in the boonies my fav stomping grounds are the Twin Cities in MN. If you are ever at the 90s and see a (startling handsome) colossus tearing up the dance floor or just sitting back and enjoying the drag show give me a wave(or throw things at me, whatever you like)


So I had an eye-opening experience several years ago. Shortly after 4E came out, I was looking for a group, and responded to an ad (online, I think). Talked a bit, group sounds promising, they want to meet me in neutral territory first. No biggie, done it myself, completely understand.

So I get there and sit down. We chat for a few minutes, and the guy comes out and basically says "I'm gay -- is that a problem?" I told him of course not, joined the game, and played for several months until unrelated factors made the scheduling not work.

Anyway, as I came to know the guy in question, I realized he wasn't the type to do things without reason. I concluded since he had asked upfront, his sexuality must have caused problems with gaming groups past...and that is pretty messed up. I'm sure that would be a "no duh" moment for many, but for me confronting it like that was a revelation.


Some people react badly when confronted with homosexuality. I wish I could say I've never met such a person.

Scarab Sages

Oh wow! This thread is still going! Fantastic!

I spent 3 hours catching up -- stopped at page 8 when I realized it's 1:30 a.m. and I go to work in six hours!

I'm so impressed everybody :-) I want to comment on some great thoughts, but later...

Love, hugs and kisses to all! (Okay, I confess to being a wee bit lonely lately!)

@Dogbladewarrior: you've said many times that thou art big and fetching... how about a pic? ;-) (Oh-oh, I'm gonna get in trouble now!! LOL)

:-)

Scarab Sages

Before I forget: I have have a new level of respect for Paizo after reading James Sutter's post about the strong LGBT representation in the company's staff. That is, to me, very welcoming to read! :-D

Liberty's Edge

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Missoula, MT.

Most liberal city in Montana...it's a little weird.

I was in Missoula just this past weekend for the race. I live at one of the nearby Job Corps centers (Trapper Creek).

Really? Cool, always nice to hear about gamers in the area.

If my Pathfinder game wasn't currently a 'This happens when it happens.' (which doesn't so much work for out-of-town people), and my other game weren't pretty full, I'd invite you to join us.

From previous posts it sounds like you're pretty cool, and at least some of the gaming groups you've been playing with have been kinda crappy.

PM me if you don't mind traveling a ways to game, and maybe something could be worked out, in the future if not now.


Meophist wrote:

So... uh...

Anybody else mostly or entirely aromantic here?

Aromantic=not interested/not capable in/of forming emotional attachments? Am asking, not familiar with the term.


Alitan wrote:
Meophist wrote:

So... uh...

Anybody else mostly or entirely aromantic here?

Aromantic=not interested/not capable in/of forming emotional attachments? Am asking, not familiar with the term.

I assumed the first meaning and covered most of the same ground as asocial, but Google is telling me a mix of things:

Quote:


An aromantic is a person who experiences little or no romantic attraction to others. Where romantic people have an emotional need to be with another person in a romantic relationship, aromantics are often satisfied with friendships and other non-romantic relationships.

But also, if not from the greatest source:

Quote:


One who lacks interest in or desire for romantic relationships.

I think that I'm capable of romantic attraction and I've certainly had some fantasies along those lines, but I don't feel a strong need to have such relationships. I have a friend who does and sometimes beats himself up over not being in one. I get that he feels a need, but the idea of it is a bit strange to me.


Quote:
An aromantic is a person who experiences little or no romantic attraction to others.

This is the definition I use. For a long time, I thought romance was basically a part of fiction and fairy tales. I didn't think it was really something that actually happens in real life. It never really seemed all that realistic to me and it felt overly... well, romanticized. I know now that it's not the case, but that's how I felt for quite a while.

I don't really have any memories of ever being romantically attracted to another person, nor do I know how that would feel. I haven't ever had a crush on someone, and just haven't really wanted to do something "romantic" with someone. I don't see the appeal. For these reasons, I consider myself at least mostly aromantic. I suppose it's possible I just haven't found the right person for it or something.


I may envy you... I'll have to think about it.

My experience with romantic relationships has been one of crash-and-burn endings. Sigh. Doesn't stop me from wanting them. Sigh again. And my two most-recent exes BOTH cited my unrelenting negativity being impossible to live with as the reason for breaking things off. Which really kinda sucks, as in at least one of those relationships, I was giddily happy, but it apparently didn't show through. :(

I don't want to tell you that you aren't missing anything... but there's enough craptastic stuff that you don't have to deal with, by virtue of not feeling the need for romantic attachments, that maybe you're not missing much.

Might have some problems with other romantic types who want to engage you in a romance... though - heh - YMMV.


Ringtail wrote:
Have you ever read The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss? Amazing continuation of his Kingkiller Chronicles trilogy (and it contained homosexual characters so it is vaguely on topic). Anyway, there is a reclusive warrior-race in the book that rarely speak and seldom if ever show emotion on their faces, believing it to be childish and rude at best and barbaric at worst. They communicated via a complicated sign language, but in addition to making words with their right hand (I believe, it has been a bit since I've read it) they would have their off hand sign their emotion very precisely, down to degrees of whatever they were feeling. It is a good, if complex, system. I think the world should adopt it.

Haven't read the rest of the thread but had to jump in here.

Yes! I thought that was great. By one of those strange bits of synergistic weirdiosity I also read these books by Daniel Abraham called The Long Price Quartet (which I also thought were AWESOME!!) which had a vaguely Asiatic civilization that also relied more upon posture and gesticulation to communicate. I also got the idea that the reclusive-warrior race from WMF (I don't remember their name) was vaguely Asiatic.

What up with that? Synergistic weirdiosity or something this white boy don't know?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I'm a... me. I really haven't been in love in over a decade. I want a romantic relationship, sure, but it... I just am not someone who falls in love at the drop of a hat, takes me awhile to realize I have feelings for someone.

And at the same time I'm very happy with the life I have--I don't feel inadequate or incomplete because I'm not in a relationship. So not aromantic but not someone who dates very much and only seldom seeks out someone's attention. I've been pretty much on my own for a long time and fine with that (but if/when I do find someone, that will be nice too).

The only thing in fact that bugs me about not having been in a relationship for a long time is that certain friends of mine like to inform me that I am unhappy because I am single... no, not that I appear unhappy and that they assume that my single-ness is the cause of it. It's that even if I appear perfectly happy, I am single and therefore MUST be unhappy (and just hiding it really well), because it is apparently impossible to be happy and single simultaneously (interestingly enough, the people who lecture me most that I "need" someone in my life and that I cannot possibly be happy as a single person are the ones who complain most often about their rocky and stressful relationships). It's weird, my friends of all walks of life and sexualities generally don't judge me on my sexuality per se, but that I am SINGLE? That's downright unacceptable. I don't know if they're embarrassed by me or what. I mean, there's plenty of reasons to be embarrassed by me, you'd think my being single would be the least of them.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there is a basic human tendency to assume that everyone is like oneself. "I am happiest when I am in a relationship, therefore everyone else must be, too." I think a lot of life's misunderstandings on many fronts can be traced to this tendency.


Alitan wrote:

I may envy you... I'll have to think about it.

My experience with romantic relationships has been one of crash-and-burn endings. Sigh. Doesn't stop me from wanting them. Sigh again. And my two most-recent exes BOTH cited my unrelenting negativity being impossible to live with as the reason for breaking things off. Which really kinda sucks, as in at least one of those relationships, I was giddily happy, but it apparently didn't show through. :(

I don't want to tell you that you aren't missing anything... but there's enough craptastic stuff that you don't have to deal with, by virtue of not feeling the need for romantic attachments, that maybe you're not missing much.

Might have some problems with other romantic types who want to engage you in a romance... though - heh - YMMV.

I guess the grass is always greener...

I would like to try romance, see what it'll be like to have a connection with another person in such a way. Unfortunately, it's not exactly a switch one can just turn on or off. From what I hear of it, it just sounds so mystical that I want to try and be a part of it. I don't feel a need for it, but it just sounds so interesting.


Celestial Healer wrote:
I think there is a basic human tendency to assume that everyone is like oneself. "I am happiest when I am in a relationship, therefore everyone else must be, too." I think a lot of life's misunderstandings on many fronts can be traced to this tendency.

I have long maintained that assuming everyone is like oneself when it comes to anything to do with hanky panky is an invitation for disaster.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
I think there is a basic human tendency to assume that everyone is like oneself. "I am happiest when I am in a relationship, therefore everyone else must be, too." I think a lot of life's misunderstandings on many fronts can be traced to this tendency.
I have long maintained that assuming everyone is like oneself when it comes to anything to do with hanky panky is an invitation for disaster.

Truer words have never been spoken!


I try not to assume anything about anyone.

People are people. After much research, I found it basically all boils down to just that.


"is tomatoes", "is big shoes"

401 to 450 of 17,437 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The LGBT Gamer Community Thread. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.