Gay Representation in ChoiceScript games?

I’ve been thinking about this a bit more recently and have a question.

What are your thoughts on the following (I’ll make up something just for my point)

Imagine you have Character A; (s(he) is (wo)man and a romance option and (s)he is attracted to men/women (whatever the protagonist is). Now imagine during the game you learn that Character A has another personality (Character B) locked inside them and for story reasons (s)he is woken up. Now imagine that Character B is attracted to the opposite of Character A. (So if A likes men then B likes women).

How would you feel about something like this happening?

Under the spoiler text is the original thought that got me thinking of this (beware old spoiler about a canceled plot thread from UnNatural.

To put it into context a bit more. What got me thinking of this was the idea of how someone react if there female protagonist who was dating Denise, how they would react if her wolf-side wanted to find a male mate - I’ve scapped the idea as I don’t feel that’s fair as a writer, but I am still curious what people would think of the concept.

Don’t people argue that the Renaissance is a part of the middle ages?

I think @Lizzy would be pissed?


I’d think it’d be funny, mostly because it’d be something I wouldn’t expect in a choice game as opposed to a different type of (non rpg) story. Then again I’ve never gone through her romance.

Now out of the context of that situation, it would probably depend on the situation. Which personality is compatible, who’s dominant, if one’s someone I don’t like or think isn’t a good person, is there special circumstances for the person involved to switch, what are each person’s feelings on sex and romance blah blah blah etc…

1 Like

I’ve never heard anyone seriously argue that the Renaissance is part of the middle ages. Middle Ages is so-called because it’s in the middle of the classical and Renaissance period, so it would be weird if the Renaissance were part of it.

4 Likes

Peter Burke? As a response to Jacob Burckhardt’s idea?

1 Like

Yeah, Burke is saying that medieval ideas don’t just die off in the Renaissance, like someone pulled a big Renaissance switch; there’s continuity. That feels right. I don’t have any problem with saying the middle ages are critical to the culture of the Renaissance. Not sure if that means the Renaissance is part of the Middle Ages, though. But I don’t want to get too far off topic.

4 Likes

“Well, it’s good to know that you don’t suffer from lack of representation, but to those of us who do, it is important. It’s depressing to see so much of the world’s stories ignore us, and uplifting to be acknowledged. It’s not about “filling a quota”, it’s about that acknowledgment (and generally characters written to fill a quota are pretty poor characters, because the writer clearly didn’t care enough to make them an actual character). To compare us with the homophobes who hate shows for outing characters is frankly insulting.”

I think this is chalked up to us simply being of different mindset abouts the necessity of representation. I don’t feel the need to have some kind of fictional representation of asexuals, atheists, insomniacs, autistic people etc to somehow justify my own existance as all of those things. As for the last bit the most I can say is I didn’t intend to insult, but if it becomes the end result then I’m not gonna backtrack on it because that’s frankly how I see you and until that changes (which you’re more than welcome to try and change like you are now) that’s gonna stick.

“Except we’re not in the middle. Not even close. We’re better than we were, sure, but we’re certainly not there yet, and claiming that there’s no problem, no inherent bias in the system, is pure fantasy. Once we reach a point of actual equal representation, then it won’t matter, but until then, please kindly stop pretending that this isn’t a problem, because it is.”

I don’t think we’re going to agree on this point either. The way I see it it’s only a problem to those who scream either “NOT ENOUGH MUH REPRESENTATION” or “PROPAGANDA UR GOING TO HELL.” To everyone else it’s either indifference or casual acceptance. It reminds me of this image I saw once of political spectrums were the far end yells insults at one another and everyone else in between goes “shut up shut up shut up ><”

Being gay now isn’t what it once was, in the western world we have equal rights in most places and in the places there isn’t equal rights isn’t going to change because you cram gay characters into a fictional story everywhere over on our end. Are there biggots still even in the western world? Sure. As much as some people think that being an atheist means you don’t have a morality because no god or as much as being right or left wing can be in some places like the one guy who was fired from Google because he had some right-wing perspective on something that had happened recently (can’t remember what). Biggots towards almost anything exist everywhere.

But hey, feel free to educate me. What problems and inherent biases exist in “the system” that keeps gays from having equal rights under the law from their straight/bi/insert counterparts? How does it compare to, for example, someone who’s an atheist or muslim or whatever in the Christian-majority America?

“Okay, history lesson time: the medieval period (or middle ages) ended in about 1500. Execution for homosexuality began in England and Wales (and, yes, you’re talking about England and Wales) in 1533 (following the Reformation) in the Renaissance period. Under the earlier Catholicism, all that was required was a penance. This may seem like a small point that I’m being unnecessarily pedantic about, but it does show that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about here, and maybe you should listen to those of us who do.”

I stand corrected on the details, but you’re pretty much ignoring the overall point there so you can chalk it up to “nup ur wrong lel.”

“I’ve seen straight sex scenes in many (many) movies that didn’t need them. And they’re not even there to remind us that the characters are straight. :roll_eyes: And I know you say you don’t like them either, but here’s the difference: You’re not complaining about those scenes being straight, just unnecessary, so don’t complain here; I’m sure there are threads about the necessity of romance you could be complaining on. The fact that you’re on here means you’re complaining about the gay scenes specifically.”

While my arguing of it does have an element of “don’t fall into the same trap;” okay, fair enough. I apologize on that one.

“Not “must”. “Should”. “Ought”, even. The problem is that all characters are straight by default. That’s the natural assumption, by viewers of any persuasion. To “become” a gay character, an assumed-straight character has to actually be revealed as gay, whether it’s relevant to the plot or not. This means that there’s always an inherent bias in the actual existence of these characters. A gay character has to shove their homosexuality down your throat to exist, straight characters just have to exist.”

I think it’s important to remember that homosexuals are a minority, that’s why they don’t show up as often as heterosexuals; realism. I wanna be clear: I’m not trying to invalidate homosexual representation or say that they are below straight people, what my point is is that there is a reason why people assume most others are straight from the getgo until corrected or else shown a sign to the contrary. You can do that without shoving it down your throat by making the sexuality relevant even for a split moment. Here’s how I see examples:

Right example #1: Someone hits on X, X declines and explains briefly that s/he’s gay.
Right example #2: X sees someone attractive of the same gender and briefly shows interest.
Right example #3: Homosexuality is relevant to the plot/character development and showing X and Y being intimate after X or Y has, for example, been trying to work through his/her issues due to reasons Z is a way of progressing both of those things and show that X/Y is overcoming the problem of Z.

Wrong example #1: X feels a need to constantly remind everyone around s/he’s gay or go well out of his/her way to act in a stereotypical gay fashion.
Wrong example #2: X sees someone of the same gender who’s attractive and the scene takes five minutes of showing off before moving on.
Wrong example #3: Homosexuality is not relevant to the plot/character development and is just there to be there, to be different and/or fill a quota and the time it takes to show some sex scene could be better spent elsewhere as it amounts to nothing in the end, it doesn’t benefit the story or give any character development.

“I do agree though. Gay characters shouldn’t be there just to be there; they should have an actual role in the story, something far too few writers seem to realise.”

This part, if nothing else, we’re in full agreement about.

“And please do think about it; the “doesn’t affect me” attitude doesn’t help any of us.”

More than that, I don’t think it should affect any of you either because in the end we’re talking about fiction. Not real life. When we’re talking fiction, a good story and character should be what’s more important; not identity politics. All trying to shove things in where it doesn’t belong or else blowing otherwise unimportant traits out of proportion in the name of identity politics accomplishes is annoying those who aren’t in on it and ruining a part of the story in the process. When we’re talking real life, it becomes a different story entirely as far as representation goes.

Anywhoodle, I think it best we start leaving it off. As I wanna see if you can convince me there is indeed a problem with the examples I asked for above (biases in the system etc) I plan for one more response to let you know how it goes before ending with my closing statement and letting the rest of the readers decide their own opinion on this discussion. Feel free to take your time if you need to look up examples and hope my views aren’t mistaken for malice by anyone reading it.

3 Likes

Just select the part you wish to quote and an option should appear. Like this:

selection

Back to your post:

I have a little problem with your post and everything surrounding this idea of needing to justify the existence of gay characters because is quite emblematic of a certain type of mentality when it comes to representation in fiction.

When I was still in high school, I used to draw comics and once in a while wrote some short stories and almost every single one of these stories had female protagonists. The fact that they were female wasn’t particularly relevant to the plot, and since I was male, this begged a question among some of the friends who I shared these stories with: “Why do you always write about girls?”

Have you ever noticed how certain works receive praise for being able to portray well written and fleshed out female, gay or POC characters, but not so much for straight white males? I’ve heard some people say things among the lines “cuz feminism wants to destroy all men…” but leaving aside the part of the internet which lost its mind over the last few years, the reason is quite simple: we take for granted this sort of characters as if this is the natural form of a character.

There is a default and then there is a deviation of the default; such things as gay, female or non-white are often treated as modifiers on a character instead of equally valid traits for a character. There are tropes like Men Are Generic, Women Are Special which exemplify this perfectly. This is why there seems to be a need to justify the representation of such groups and what makes people ask “Does this character needs to be gay?” “If it’s not necessary for the plot why would you do that?”, while it’s very unlikely to see the same thing happen the other way around. (Although an increasing concern for representation of minorities might be making some people question this as well).

We don’t generally talk about male or straight representation or dare to question these characters not only because we don’t consider those as marginalized groups, but also because those traits are assumed until proven otherwise. You probably often hear things that could be considered an equivalent of “I’M STRAIGHT” “I’M STRAIGHT” "I’M STRAIGHT, but you never stop to think about it because… well why should you? This is not your fault, as it is only a consequence of growing up in a society that treats some groups as default and others as deviants.

People often dismiss casual inclusions of gay characters in stories that are not particularly significant to the plot as “pandering”, as if including gay characters only when there is a reason for it is something more noble or sensible. But to me this is reflective of the way that society thinks about these groups.

And this is exactly the point of creating threads like this one, the fact that straight characters are accepted without question, but a gay one begs an explanation makes us wonder “Why would writers think that?” and more importantly “Should they think that?” We don’t discuss about representation because we want to shame others for liking what is considered mainstream or generally accepted, although it can often feel that way, but because we understand that fiction is both an influence and a reflection of the world that creates it. What does it says about us? and How can we make it better?

And I really doubt that this mindset and talking about “shoving down throats” or “Is it needed for the plot?” is ever gonna be able of make anything better. We already think about straight as the norm and if we are never able to represent gay characters the same way: without a need to justify their sexuality; we’ll keep perpetuating this notion.

16 Likes

While I believe that others can speak more eloquently than myself to this matter, I’d like to repeat something I said a while ago on this very thread as a response to this point of yours:

5 Likes

A lot of people would be pissed it’s why I decided to scrap it. Just getting opinions on the general idea.

People creating media tend to default to the white straight male character if they aren’t consciously thinking about it. Sometimes, when they try to branch out, they can be hamhanded about it. I think it’s important to still try to make an effort, otherwise tons of people can watch TV, movies, etc. and not see themselves in 99% of it.

I agree that it is ideal to have a variety of characters representing all kinds of people. I don’t agree that we’re there right now. People need to consciously make an effort to include characters from different demographics.

I think it’s unfair to say that gay (or minority or LGBT or asexual or anything else) characters have to have some narrative justification. Nobody demands that there be justification for the straight white male characters.

6 Likes

I definitely feel as though you should try it with a non-player romance though (just because I think people would feel icky about the possibility of taking advantage of someone)

This is probably the point I can sympathize most with. Although I’d probably sum my version up as “everyone has their biases”. I mean we assume a lot about characters when we see them (neurotypical, Dyadic (not intersex) cis, white (or Japanese I guess if you watch anime), brunette, straight, has an active sex life, doesn’t have a fetish, isn’t a vet, isn’t a criminal, has no life altering diseases, has 10 fingers and toes etc…) and it becomes worse when we write something that is like our own personal life where other groups could simply not be present. It’s a normal thing to assume. It’s why I don’t get equal as opposed to proportional. And you can see people focus on what they feel the strongest about or affects them the most in their stories, (or in their comments for other people’s.) I mean look around the forum, and you can see what is focused on in most in the stories, I mean a lot of people put their experiences in the story, there will always want to be people who want to be included and there’ll be numerous groups being excluded regardless.

I felt like it is a good enough excuse for me. Though I think it’d be better if something was relevant to the rest of their character or the plot.

For me, it depends on how that particular situation is handled.

If you treat it as a sort of permanent personality change, then people who were pining on that character would be freaking pissed. No seriously, that’s like a serious “fuck you” to the audience.

If you treat it as some sort of split personality disorder, possession, or something else, then I think the audience would be a bit more forgiving, provided there’s some way for Character A to fight their inner demons and get their RO back (bonus points if the MC help Character A with that process). On paper it sounds like an interesting plot point for character development, but it’s still a bit of a tightrope in regards to making it not look like the RO is renouncing their commitments.

Summary because the spoiler tag isn't working for some reason

Your scrapped plot I think could’ve worked, with just a little bit of tweaking. For example, you could still have Denise still be emotionally and romantically attached to the MC, but her wolf instincts tell her that she needs to mate with a male just so that she can continue her species. Just because she instinctually mates with another werewolf doesn’t mean that she has any sort of emotional attachment to them – I’d think of it sorta similar to how Salarians handle reproduction in Mass Effect, more as a temporary agreement and rarely anything more than that.

I see why you scrapped it, however, as it’s difficult to pull off without looking like it made the RO do a complete 180.

I’m not sure what sort of platform that’s for. Yes, there are a lot of SJW’s and Alt-Righters out there, but for every one of those there are people who also wish to have a more moderate approach to life and just wish to have a platform where people of varying opinions see eye-to-eye instead of echo chambers and blind belief.

You sure about that? Just because official discrimination is forbidden doesn’t mean that you can change people’s opinions on LGBT rights in a day. North Carolina taught us that pretty well with their bathroom controversy.

Showing exposure to LGBT romance in the media can help change the opinions of the descendants of those bigots, if not necessarily the bigots themselves. That’s why there’s very much a keen interest in having well-written characters who just so happen to be bi, gay, ace, etc. in respectable media – to help change people’s opinions. That’s not the only way to help change people’s opinions, but frankly the other options aren’t pretty.

Other than the aforementioned North Carolina, I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head that are up-to-date. However, the difference between gays and atheists/muslims in a Christian-majority America is that mainstream media is pushing heavily for acceptance for gays to the point where it’s actually generating some success – just look at Obergefell v. Hodges. There’s also some support for accepting muslims in America, and it has worked enough to the point that a town in Michigan is the first muslim-majority town in the US, complete with a majority city council to boot. I can’t find a single mainstream outlet that openly supports atheism, however, because that would be a bit taboo to many parts of the US, like the Bible Belt, or the aforementioned Islam, which treats atheism as a form of apostasy (which results in death).

Not gonna lie, even though I’m not as passionate as some other folk on this thread, these strawmen are starting to piss me off.

Fair point, though there are towns and cities and whatnot that have a higher proportion of gays than others, mainly due to the conservative aspects of the above religions and their lingering influences. In areas where members of a certain demographic aren’t present, people develop stereotypes about the people who don’t fit the norm, and then those stereotypes become accepted as truth. That’s how you develop mistrust to others, and it very much boils down to active oppression should push come to shove.

Just because it’s fiction doesn’t mean it can’t be realistic, immersive, or relatable. That’s why the very concept of animation and acting exists: because we want to imagine ourselves in the shows of the characters, we want to be with them and feel their struggles, triumphs, passions, devastations, and more. We want to be a part of the adventure, as spectators to a sports game.

I agree that shows that attempt to be sinister and try and insert an agenda into our heads should have no place in life as we know it, but that doesn’t mean shows can’t teach us things about our world. Going back to my point about exposure, showing people that LGBT are just like normal people with different preferences shows that they’re not some amoral sinners who willingly forsake God; they’re human beings with feelings, emotions, and desires, just like the rest of us.

I think what you’re complaining about is less about LGBT characters in general and more about shows that seem to use them as a means to satisfy some sort of token minority quota or something like that. I can see why, but that doesn’t mean every LGBT character is there to fufill a quota. After all, part of the human experience is interpretation and learning from others, and having characters who are different in their own ways goes very far in having us, the audience, learn from their experiences and why they react that way. It’s a part of character development.

Real life is also a part of an experience, where we learn from each other and broaden our understanding of life and our opinions of matters from people who are similar or different to us. We’re the heroes of our own adventures, just like the heroes (or not) that we watch on TV, anime, books, plays, and what-have-you.

Some overly zealous people might interpret it as malice, but I view it as blasé. You might have a point or two hidden somewhere in there, but the strawman arguments presented, as well as how you present information, comes off as if you don’t give a shit.

I’m not one to be sensitive to other people’s opinions, but I do believe it’s important to make people be happy whenever they can, and if that means helping the world by giving characters they can relate to a well-thought out and inspiring others to view people like them in positive, enlightening, or thoughtful lights, I will go for it.

9 Likes

The longstanding trend continues of people who don’t care about gay representation coming into the thread about gay representation in order to say that they don’t care about gay representation…

Rather than say that they need to be there, which, yes, is rather too absolute a statement, let’s just say that it’s helpful and nice. We can advocate for something, and say that it would be a good thing.

I recently saw this tweet, which sums it up rather succinctly:

https://twitter.com/SyeraMiktayee/status/912452219810861057

And, like, if it doesn’t feel important to you, personally, and you’re not going to feel its importance for yourself, that’s fine… but you can plainly see here how important it is to many of the affected people, so, seeing that it does make a significant impact, could you at least acknowledge that these feelings are important and valid for those of us whom it does affect?

Yes. I would say that a lack of representation had a direct and harmful effect on my life, because I got so used to the heterosexual narrative being the only way it could go, that I assumed that must be what I should want and do with my life, which led to me spending my entire teenage years in denial. Many other people have gone far longer in similar conditions of denial. I’ll just link this earlier post that I wrote, because I see no need to write it all out again.

I think most people don’t realize how overwhelming all of this can be… And, if you’re not used to what it feels like, that’s okay; you wouldn’t be expected to! :slight_smile: But that’s why we’re here to talk about our experiences! :smile:
I do hear people talk about their heterosexual relationships, or desires for them, constantly. And yes, they will project those on me (assuming I should “make a move” on a female friend, talking about my future wife, etc.). There’s no need to do that, but many people are just so ingrained by the narrative that everyone’s straight (as reinforced by a lack of represantation) that they don’t even think about it. Meanwhile, in my normal life, I am constantly hesitant to mention things like guys that I find cute, my hopes and plans for the future in my personal life, and have kept feeling wary about whether I can mention the most significant recent news in my life, which is having a boyfriend (you may congratulate me if you wish)… all the kinds of things that heterosexual people talk about all the time, and take for granted being able to talk about… because I just don’t know if they’ll have a prejuduced reaction. And, yes, representation will help… because when people are more used to talking about gay people, it will be easier to do so.

Generally, I think this could work well. It’s certainly not the only way to handle things, but it does allow flexibility in romance options, while also allowing for some variety and representation in other characters.

As I noted above, people do talk about their sexual orientation in normal conversation, frequently, without realizing it, when talking about crushes, or relationships, or plans, or weddings… constantly. Including similar conversation for gay people in writing goes a long way. That’s the sort of thing we’re asking for as representation, not someone walking around with a billboard saying “I’m gay.”

Heterosexuality is also a trait… if someone’s sexual orientation is going to come up, you don’t have to justify choosing for them to be gay more than being straight. But I see that you anticipated this point…

Good.

This is part of a larger point, too. People frequently have an idea that the past was much more bigoted than it really was, and that this kind of discrimination is a normal condition. They will often then use this as reasoning to eliminate minorities from their storytelling, even if it is a fictional setting, or even when they are applying a much stronger standard of discrimination than existed in their actual source material. And when these stories only look at the people who benefit from such discrimination, rather than the victims at all, it doesn’t do much to show how much of a problem it would be, either, but instead works as a justification.
I’m not saying that you were doing this, but it’s a common line of reasoning, and it’s also a significant misconception, so it’s important to spread awareness.

And, in this case, we can say that renaissance legal homophobia developed out of medieval religious homophobia.

And people act as if gay characters are “shoving their homosexuality down your throat” simply for doing the exact same things heterosexual characters constantly do.

So does this entail a werewolf-type person whose human form is attracted to one gender, but whose wolf form is attracted to a different one? I have thought about similar stuf for werewolf characters before too… it would be an interesting premise but could get confusing :confused: so I’m not sure what my opinion is either.

Okay, so now that is a direct insult on someone who is trying to express his point of view about why a subject deeply related to our personal lives and deep social issues is important to him. You may not agree with his points, but it would be appreciated if you could respect that this has some real significance to us on many levels, and that we have real reasons for what we’re saying, which are not disingenuous and are not emotional flopping and flailing.

This really isn’t true. Even where gay marriage has become the law, that only affects certain benefits. In particular, laws about housing and employment discrimination vary wildly, and while I’m lucky enough to be in a state with protection against those, there are many places where this is not the case, and being the law doesn’t mean it’s always the case in practice, either. Furthermore, it is extremely widespread for the “gay panic” defense to be acceptable (almost all of the US, for example), which means that a murderer can use the legal defense that they thought their victim was hitting on them, homosexually.

This is loaded language. Would you describe other stories as being crammed with heterosexuals? You are talking about it as if including many gay characters must be forced, when it could just be the natural and normal course of people’s lives.

But really, yes, this can be a route for change… this is the sort of thing that can work to change hearts and minds. Probably not for those people who already reject these works out of hand, but for people who just haven’t thought much about it, who maybe just sort of go along with the idea that gay people aren’t very significant, or who tend to forget about gay people in general. Fiction is also significant in being able to increase people’s empathy… and when people read stories or watch movies about people unlike them, they will become more empathetic to more people… and yes, this does change society.

Not a particularly rare one, though, and certainly a higher proportion than the media portrayals would make it seem. And bisexuals, in particular, are far commoner than portrayed… it’s hard to tell just how common, because of how difficult surveying is, but surveyed percentages have been rising and rising.

Yeah, these are the sorts of representation that we’re generally complaining about anyway. It is a big problem when gay characters are just stereotypes, or are tacked on as afterthoughts! That’s less of a representation, because it wasn’t ever really part of the main writing creation process. It’s more effective to create LGBT and other minority characters as you’re going along as a natural part of the cast… once you need someone for a narrative role, then you can consider what their orientation might be, etc… rather than just designing a cast full of hetero men and then thinking “right, better put a gay person on the side.”

It seems to me you’re mainly reacting against poor examples of representation in the first place, of the sort that we’ve already been advising against.

15 Likes

Isn’t anything with panic in the title a valid murder defense, at the very least from 1st degree to 2nd? At the largest to voluntary manslaughter? With our American murder definitions? Though I’d probably just stack hate crime on it.

Is this the spot you’re talking about?

It’s nice to quote things…

Die normy I mean uh…image
You’re too nice to not congratulate.

3 Likes

@Karavolos

Can we not compare gay people to people with mental disorders please?

As @Dark_Stalker said I’d personally be pissed and I’d be heartbroken, for me monogamy is like being female, areas that will never compromise on in a relationship no matter what.

I think this is an interesting concept but as I’m not a very skilled writer or communicator I can’t imagine how I’d personally make this work. It sounds similar to a concern that I read some people with Dissociative Identity Disorder have where their alters are different genders and orientations and, even though their alters are really just another part of them, there’s conflict in that. Or it did sound similar, until you mentioned that Denise has a wolf-side to her. I’m sorry that I don’t have much to offer you beyond that.

Congrats, now do tell me when you figure out the secret to making them last more then two years.

Excuse me for being uncharacteristically silent this time but since I was late to the party @TSSL and @ParrotWatcher have basically already said everything I was going to say here.

Playing many of these games around here particularly in fantasy worlds that allow my gay mc’s to do exactly what is still a social privilege reserved exclusively for straight guys (and in more “liberal” regions some straight girls as well) is so liberating.

Words cannot describe how much I loathe the “gay panic” defense and its European variants, when most often it is ridiculous laws made by “straight” “family men”, “pillar of the community” politicians that bring panic and terror to gay men, most recently in Azerbaijan…again:unamused:

Oh, and I guess I should “apologize” for that bit of SJW ranting. :unamused:

And that applies here and for works of (fan)fiction people create voluntarily, but the big businesses already mandate basically everything their writers do, so they could stand to be better on what you call “stupid sexuality politics”.

That is always a problem, yes, as much say blatant disregard and lack of effective enforcement of labour laws and standards as well as competition and anti-thrust laws is. Politicians at the top who neglect to do either of those ought to be held to account for it, imho.

Just to be pedantic back at you, every state that still practices the death penalty, including the US and Japan do place qualifications on that “right to exist”. In the “third world” in particular one of those “qualities” that potentially deprive you of the right to exist is being judged to be “gay” in some legal systems. :unamused:

5 Likes

I don’t really know much about the legal system when it comes to other murder-related issues, to be honest :man_shrugging:t2:
The big issues with “gay panic” is what it represents, rather than the title, though… it represents that someone can kill a gay person for hitting on them… or just for being perceived as hitting on them… and that’s supposed to be a justification that makes it more okay.

It’s the sort of thing that can contribute to making being openly gay a bit more nervewracking :sweat:

Thank you :slight_smile: though I think this is the first time I’ve been called “normy” for having a gay relationship… it’s actually quite nice :smile: I never thought I would experience hostility for being the normal one :grin:

Time for another gay male to join in :grin:

I do think most people would be capable of better quality romance for whatever genders than they might think they can. I’ve seen plenty of people who would be happy to do so, but worry about getting it wrong, and there are also plenty of people who just don’t think about it, or don’t understand that it’s important to many people. But, for the most part, one can write gay romances in much the same ways one would write a straight romance, unless you really want to get into details of subculture or discrimination, which are usually not going to be necessary anyway. And I’ve seen myriads of examples of heterosexual people able to write fine gay content for games on the CoG site. So it’s really not an unrealistic ideal. No, we can’t force anyone, but we darn well can encourage them.

And it does get tiring how much harder it is to find gay options of any substance outside of CoG. If this isn’t tiring for you, I’m happy to hear it, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is for many of us.

Mainly we would just be asking for commensurate levels. Something PG-rated can be PG-rated across the board.

What? No! That is the opposite of what @ParrotWatcher, I, and many other people on this site have been arguing for. Just, I don’t know, check again what we’ve been saying? I’m a bit perplexed that you got this idea and am kinda curious why you thought he was arguing this.

We’ve pretty consistently advocated for LGBTQ characters who are given the same quality of characterization that other characters get. Full personalities, full development, all that. That way people see that LGBTQ people can have full ranges of personalities and interesting qualities just as well. The bit you quoted there is, indeed, talking about depicting being LGBTQ as normal, as just one of those things about people, but as having a presence where they are definitely LGBTQ, which could just be talking about something like “hey, I’m really happy about my new boyfriend.” Making it so that being LGBTQ doesn’t solely define a character is precisely what we’re going for.

Again, this is basically what we’re arguing? :confused:

The thing is, a lot of people will treat it as “shoving into people’s faces” for just doing the same thing that heterosexuals take for granted. Things like “ooh, that actor’s cute,” or “at my future wedding, I’d like my hypothetic groom and I,” or even just “so I had this really fun visit with my boyfriend.” We’re arguing for representation of characters doing that, because that’s what makes it normal… and yes, that’s what makes it feel more natural.

So, again, I’m not sure what you’re arguing against, because portraying homosexuality as a natural part of characters, and representing that, is exactly what we’re talking about in terms of gay representation!

It’s also insulting that you consider a desire to see gay people in the media to mean that we want to be acknowledged only for gayness and not for anything else. It does make a difference to be portrayed in a way that feels normal, so we’re advocating this. It doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that’s important about us… it just means it’s something that’s important enough to talk about.

Saying that things are worse in other places does not mean that things are perfect here, and nor does it mean that we can’t strive for things to be better here, as well. As I’ve mentioned in a previous most, housing and job discrimination are very much problems even in much of the first world, and I’ve already mentioned the gay panic defense. And, yes, a lot of these problems would improve by changing people’s minds, so that there will be these “voices from the people” that you’re talking about. And writing is one way to affect these “voices from the people.”

And, yes, since writing is the topic at hand here, let’s just say that a story in which everyone is heterosexual is still the standard. And, since stories often have a big effect on how people construct narratives of their own lives and their worldviews, this does affect what issues people care about.

So, I did talk about this just a few posts above, where I was noting that this is part of a bigger issue and larger misconception, which it’s good to draw attention to and spread awareness of, because it has bigger ramifications in the field of fictional portrayals in general. And, since the point was about portrayal of homosexuality in historical cultures, it is very relevant to note that many of these cultures were rather less vehemently homophobic than is commonly thought.

That’s not true. “Must” expresses an obligation. “Should” and “ought” express that something would be a good idea, that it would be helpful, that we are advising it. Simply, that it would be a positive thing for someone to do. So, yes, he’s making an important distinction here. What we are doing is expressing that we consider something to be important, and therefore that it would be beneficial if more people would do it, which can be taken as advice and suggestions. That is not the same as a mandate for everyone.

If you could refrain from personal hostility…

Again, I think you’re arguing against something different from what we’ve said. Because all this stuff about treating characters as people is what @ParrotWatcher and I talk about… a lot. I can definitely say that he’s talked a lot about not liking characters who are tacked on, and about not just writing characters who conform to negative stereotypes.

Anyway, when he’s saying that a gay character “has to shove their homosexuality down your throat to exist,” he’s mainly referring to the way people keep using the phrase “shove… down your throat,” which does frequently get applied to gay characters and real people for just existing and doing the same things heterosexuals do. And, when it comes to incorporating representation, it just means that for a character to be gay (or bi, etc.), it needs to be shown. To use an example from @ParrotWatcher’s Totem Force, there’s a minor character named Kevin who’ll mention his boyfriend casually in conversation. The conversation with Kevin does not revolve around his sexuality, and is mostly about other things; nor does Kevin’s personality, since his characterization has more to do with his sarcasm (not really in a stereotypically “sassy” way, either, but more dry) than anything gay-related. He just happens to mention his boyfriend… and voila, you have representation! Or there’s the character Tommy, from Zombie Exodus: Safe Haven, about whom both he and I have been major fans. We got into him because there was a whole lot of characterization packed in there… and while it was possible to tell he’s gay from the fact that it’d note for a female character that he preferred guys instead, it didn’t define him at all.

That’s the kind of gay representation we’re looking for, and that’s the kind of characterization that provides actual representation. That is treating characters “as people, first and foremost.” We want this too.

I’m pretty sure at this point it’s more of a misunderstanding than a disagreement :confused:


Related to all this, I’m starting to get the feeling that stereotypical representation may be hurting the cause of representation more than a lack of representation. This goes against what I’ve generally said before, which is that I usually feel that some representation is better than a complete dearth. However, it is looking like people will see stereotypical representation and think that that’s what representation entails, or that that’s what people are advocating when we ask for representation. They see the very same “characters who exist to fill quotas” whom we’ve been complaining about all this time, and use that as an argument against representation as a whole. Quality representation is about people who are treated with the same level of characterization and importance as everyone else, who do not exist just so the author can be like “okay, yep, I have my Minority, there talking about being a Minority, doing nothing in the plot,” but who are interesting people doing interesting things while still being members of their minority. But it’s too easy for someone to point at a shoddily crafted minority extra and say “if that’s what representation looks like, representation is bad.”

Thanks :slight_smile: check back in two years, I guess :upside_down_face:
(This is my first, so I guess I’m mostly qualified to give advice on how to last for one month :thinking:)

I’ll admit that I sometimes have ridiculously boring fantasies about things like holding hands in crowded public areas or being in situations where talking about my boyfriend is awkward just because it’s awkward rather than because it’s gay, or telling random people about my boyfriend, or using “my boyfriend” over and over in a sentence in public or… oh wait, I just did the last two :grinning: I’m living my fantasy :blush:

Ah, yeah, with your legal knowledge you’ll be better qualified to talk about this than I would be… like when @Dark_Stalker was asking about it… whereas it was only fairly recently that I learned that this defense was still acceptable… :sweat_smile:

Yeah… none of us are going to mandate that all WiP-writers must do this, but we can recommend that they do so, and if they decide not to, then we can determine that we’re uninterested. Meanwhile, CoG’s official games can have their policy that if romance is included, it must include both hetero and gay options, and they’ve done quite well with that requirement.

10 Likes

@TSSL

In addition to Kevin from Totem Force and Tommy from ZE: Safe Haven I could cite Solitary from Slammed!. He’s an openly gay pro wrestler, and it’s mentioned at one point he was arrested for punching out a homophobic cop. Overall these are pretty minor parts of his character. Solitary is highly memorable because he went from being a mid-card nobody to having the world’s biggest wrestling promotion by the proverbial nutsack through a combination of pure fighting skill and ruthless cunning.

Solitary is one of the coolest gay characters I know of.

2 Likes