Jimquisition: Mass Effect 3: A Gay Erotic Love Story

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT
 

trollnystan:

Volf:

rape in US male prisons

Rape in male prisons have nothing, NOTHING to do with homosexuality. The rape is, with very few exceptions, committed by heterosexual men TO heterosexual men. Rape in any setting seldom has anything to do with sex or sexuality, but has to do with having power, dominance, and control over the other person.

Seriously man, you're practically saying only gay men get sent to prison to commit this "gay rape" or that prison somehow turns you gay. No, just... NO.

OT: Jim, don't ever change.

No man, never heard this in my country. Stab, beating, hot water, cut the tongue off, forcing to eat shit, lynching, even dismemberment but sex with another man is gay dude. How not?!

cool, he used a PS Vita.

Just for the sake of bringing in my cents, and saying stuff that has probably been said and phrased differently once again:

I'm a gay Mass Effect fan. I felt left out when gay male relations were excluded in the previous games, and I welcome the gay relationship (Even though my relationship with Tali went exellently). I'm a customer, and a fan. Just like you. I'm not alone in wanting this option. For people getting angry about continuity; Maybe non of the previous squadmates were gay, so no flirting or he's bisexual, or a late bloomer. No one is forcing you to change the character you made. As for the "might reduce overall quality of the game due to redistribution of resources"-argument I ask you: Do you think the heterosexual relationship add anything to the game? The lesbians? Well, for quite a big demographic of the fans, a gay relationship would too. The relationships are an important piece of the Mass Effect games, as it gives more depth, so cutting them all together would be a horrible decision. Due to the large support of the gay community and the political norm of 2012, I think they did the right call on this one.

As for the video, it made me chuckle, but I'm a bit of a prude, so didn't watch more than five minutes.

Okay, as I've said I'm done with this thread. I am not going to keep coming back for one more, even if I get more private messages or whatever, this is not going anywhere.

From your perspective your probably trying to be quite diplomatic and reasonable, but seriously, pay attention to what your saying here. Your basically saying "well, I want proof, but only from sources I personally happen to already agree with", which is by and large not REALLY looking at an alternative point of view because you've already heard from any source your willing to accept. To be blunt I wouldn't use conservapedia, as they happen to be a joke even as far as right wing sources go, but generally speaking any source that could be used would probably warrent a similar omission simply by being representitive of the other side. The mainstream media by and large being left wing, and right wing media being largely underground. While I wouldn't use them either, let's say for the sake of arguement I decided to bring up research conducted by say... Stormfront. Your response would be "OMG, they don't count, they are a bigoted hate group!" by definition they happen to be a bigoted hate group because they tend to have the kind of information that is contrary to what you want to believe. Stormfront is simply a well known example, I just use them as an example of why
it's a catch 22. In comparison, bringing up information compiled by a human rights coalition, under any name, is by definition just as tainted as conservapedia, stormfront, or other extreme wingnut sources, just in the other direction. Something that identifies itself as being about "human rights" by definition isn't going to publish or support anything that goes against their stated agenda. Such groups tend to go out of their way to cover up the other side when it's inconveinent (just as right wing groups do) believing it's for the greater good.

Right now the left wing can make more noise, having more control of mainstream media, but the issue actually breaks down 50-50 more or less. The left wing groups will say that support gor gay rights is on the rise, and the extreme right wing groups on the other end will point to stuff like what is going on in Uganda as proof that they are slowly picking up steam, especially given that western business interests seem reluctant to get involved in putting pressure in the issue. I remember reading something about human rights appeals being made for Citigroup to pressure Uganda, which were being met more or less with silence.

The thing is that being in the middle of things, pretty much a "gay rights centrist" I actually consider the right wing conservapedia/stormfront crap insane, just as I consider the stuff you tout as being equally insane just from the other direction. I concede good points on both sides, with the truth being somewhere in the middle, which is the position I personally hold.

When it comes to subjects like "peer reviewed sources" that is an inherantly ridiculous request when applied to any big issue, and to be honest I think that's the entire point of making it. It SOUNDS good, but in reality you wouldn't have a major issue like this if you were seeing many universally accepted sources appearing. With media trends you do find an easier time finding propaganda in favor of gay rights availible in the mainstream fairly easier, but that doesn't actually equate to universal acceptance. Anything that could be called "peer reviewed" in a case like this is probably holding it's weight on the authority of people that say the leadership of Conservapedia, Stormfront, or others holding the rather substantial other side would question the validity of.

That said, understand that this entire discussion is not me trying to make some kind of massive academic point to change people's world views. It's me, explaining what I happen to think, upon request no less, abou tthe subject of gay rights in general, which is a spin off of discussing Jim's "comments" on Mass Effect 3. Trying to act like I should have to be able to sell my case before a Yale review board or I'm inherantly wrong and shouldn't be able to say my piece on an internet message board is pretty bloody stupid all on it's own, and really that is where a lot of these demands go.... and as I pointed out, if I *DID* invest that much effort into an internet discussion thaty people are going to forget about in a week or two, it would be pointless because the very nature of the debate means that people would insist any source reinforcing part of what I say would be discredited by being a source that reinforces what I say in the eyes of the people making the demands. An intentional catch 22, so why bother?

As far as statistics go, that was a general point, I merely used the point about gay men and compiling statistics with homosexuals in general to convey a specific image, as an example of something I've seen done before. Is someone currently employing that specific gimmick, I have no idea, I'd have to go digging through tons of studies, and look at how the data was compiled. If it was worth the time, I could probably find an example, but really would the work be worth it? Would anyone care? Not really. The point is pretty much that if someone happens to see statistics like that, as I have in the past, they will perhaps notice something that didn't think to look at before. Not to mention providing an example of how statistics can be made to lie in general, and might actually say something differant than what the person using them says they do. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd also noticeI said BOTH sides do that and that statistics in general are entirely worthless when dealing with any big issue.

When it comes to first hand experience, as I said, playing semantics with me doesn't matter becayse I know what I know. Having seen things with my own eyes, no amount of academics or internet arguements is going to change what I know to be true. As I said, in the end this all comes down to whether you think I'm lying, or not. In the end it really doesn't matter, but that's the bottom line. Hence why I have been saying for quite a while no that I'm just going to let this drop, because everything that can be said in a debate like this, has been said, and really it's not going to go anywhere. If you think I'm a liar, fine, nothing I say on the subject matters. If you don't, then there is iikewise no reason to continue the topic at this point.

I'm done now, especially seeing as I'm pretty exhausted. Private mail or whatever else, I'm probably just going to delete it if it's connected to this topic. Give it a month or so and we'll probably be at it again, with a similar ending. If Jim wants to write again (but he's busy) I might respond, but really I don't want to piss him off any more since he's one of my favorite Escapist conributors at the moment so maybe not even then.

Also in general, not nessicarly related to this subject, if it seems like I overlook something, don't assume I didn't read it, though it might have been missed during skimming if I'm getting a lot of messages. In all likelyhood if it's a debate, chances are your clevery intellectual trap was something I recognized and just pretty much figured "meh" and moved on. See, I don't take semantics games, straw men, and attempts at verbal manipulations very seriously, and prepfer to stay on topic. So yeah, if by sidestepping something I avoided some clever bit of online gamesmanship you though could win you some points, especially with me facing a hostile crowd, chances are it was intentional. Likewise, this is an internet debate on a big issue, basically if your "counterpoint" is to try and demand sources, citations, proof of common knowlege, and similar things, it's not worth the time. Especially when done the way it normally is in these debates. If someone's response is the two words "citation needed" then I'm just going to ignore you, since chances are anything I just left hanging is veriiable with a minimum of effort OR has been covered in another post I wrote recently. I write huge, rambling posts, and if I just spent 3 paragraphs explaining something to another guy yesterday, I'm not going to humor some guy who jumps in arrogantly like he's an expert, who didn't bother to do his research on the flow of the conversation so far.... oh yes, and I try and be polite, if someone is rude, condescending, or insulting, you can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to refuse to acknowlege at least the part of the message where
that was done. I mean if you do something like snip my message with the words "ignorant rant" for example as some have done, don't be surprised if i'm not going to humor your "clever" commentary from then out by writing a small book in response debating it's virtue. WTF should I? you called me ignorant...

Just an explanation on how I do things, it migt not make me the most popular poster on the forums at times, but I go through periods of a lot of traffic since I am not shy about expressing unpopular (for this site) opinions on big issues, I have to deal with it somehow espexially given my horrible, inflated writing style, and as arrogant as it sounds some people and points just don't strike me as being worth the time.... and again, also remember that what seems new and clever input to you, might have already been covered by something else I said elsewhere. You might not agree with me being right in how I covered it, but I don't see the point of rehashing the same arguement 40 times for 40 differant people in the same thread every time someone comes up with a slightly differant way of raising the same point....

... and finally, I almost dismissed this (despite the huge amount of writing) not only because of your "clever" attempts at Catch-22, because of the bit at the end about saying "you know, there are non-gays who support this too you know"... no offense, but with all the things I've said about political trends, specifying "the movement" as seperate from homosexuals themselves, and who knows how many other things, it's borderline insulting. It also shows that the guy sending private mails about someone not reading his posts, himself hasn't actually read what the other guy has written, and probably doesn't even correctly understand the position he's fighting.

Genuine Evil:
Ok I will try and lay off the insults this time because you actually made a response that addresses what I've said ( the wrong post but hey , baby steps) also if you actually give me compelling evidence to change my mind I will, there is no truth worth fearing and if you can prove something ill change my world view according to the evidence.

Therumancer:

What I actually said was that there was a tendency for gay men to be more likely to be pedophilles and attack children. I even specified myself that this does not mean all, or even the majority of them. Indeed the point I made was originally in relation to statistics, and one of the reasons why I seperate lesbians and gay men into differant groups. A typical technique being to prove that gay men are not pedophilles by using statistics compiled using homosexuals in general. One thing you'll notice is that when it comes to pedophilles or homosexual assault you'll have a VERY hard time finding a case where lesbians have attacked children, or anyone for that matter. That is not to say it doesn't happen, just that it's nearly unheard of. In comparison you'll have a relatively easy time with some searches finding documentation of gay men attacking kids, to the point where it's *almost* exclusively the only sort of homosexual pedophillia just by paying attention. If you remove the lesbians from the equasion due to their tendency to not be involved in this at all, statistics saying "no more likely than anyone else" actually come up with gay men being twice as likely.

Ok then please point me towards those statistics ( and preferably from a site other then conservapedia). Also you separate gay man and gay woman because it supposedly makes your point more valid but you didn't explain why you can actually do that(outside of it suits you world view ). because it is the same "underlying condition" give me a reason why men and woman should be treated as different groups . and saying one is more violent than the other isn't goon enough because (1) you need evidence to support you claim and (2) you simply can't split results every which way you like unless you have reasons to do so .

You are the man making the claim and as you said before saying I have experience simply doesn't cut it a debate . because I also have experience and it's completely different to yours. You need to support your claims by peer reviewed papers (Or at least evidence from respectable sources ) were no one can claim that there is a bias towards one opinion or another .

Therumancer:

It was about statistics in general, and their nature. Not to mention the simple fact that people on both sides of any major conflict compile data but tend to only release the data that supports what their message is. If a group like say ABIGAYLES decides to do studies on gay men attacking children they simply aren't going to release data saying the opposite of what they want, and with the guys compiling the data working for them it's their desician. Rather they simply release the information that supports what they say when they get it, with as much authority as possible. Basically "this study conducted here with this representitive sample has shown that gays are no more likely to attack children than homosexuals" if they did 9 other studies that had opposite results they will just sit on them. The other side of course does the same thing, rendering any statistics on an issue like this meaningless since the very issue makes neutrality impossible

True and that's why im asking for peer reviewed papers that have passed the scrutiny of the scientific community . and if you are going to claim that papers like that are also bias and unfair then don't bother responding to what I wrote because you are clearly ..... ( I promised ill be nice) ....

Therumancer:

I mean seriously... I'm not stupid enough to think someone who with apparent conviction insists that both there is an overwhelming support for gays that will change the world in 30 years when the small minority of ignorant people like me are silenced, while at the same time saying overwhelming majority pressure has the homosexual suicide rate at 40% (yes, 40% think about this) is going to engage in a reasonable debate. That kind of inherantly contridictory "in the same breath"

How does the fact that support for gay rights is on the rise (you do realize e that support comes from straight people as well right?)
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-discrimination/statistics-on-discrimination-of-homosexuals/ (Link I gave sites source at the bottom of every claim)
and the fact that 40% of LGBT youth are attempting suicide connected ? these are 2 unrelated facts , yes there is still a lot of hatred as you clearly demonstrate but there is also a lot of good people out there too.

Also my original post is number 445 and was the post addressing my problems with your original response ...im still waiting for any type if acknowledgment of that front
(I did not spell check this because it late and I have work )

Volf:

trollnystan:

Volf:

rape in US male prisons

Rape in male prisons have nothing, NOTHING to do with homosexuality. The rape is, with very few exceptions, committed by heterosexual men TO heterosexual men. Rape in any setting seldom has anything to do with sex or sexuality, but has to do with having power, dominance, and control over the other person.

Seriously man, you're practically saying only gay men get sent to prison to commit this "gay rape" or that prison somehow turns you gay. No, just... NO.

OT: Jim, don't ever change.

that's quite a nice straw-man you have there

Where's the straw man? Please specify.

Mangue Surfer:

No man, never heard this in my country. Stab, beating, hot water, cut the tongue off, forcing to eat shit, lynching, even dismemberment but sex with another man is gay dude. How not?!

Human sexuality is complicated. For example, some self-identifying straight men have recreational sex with with other men - both with other self-identifying straight men and gay men. Some of those men may actually be in denial about their sexuality, but I'm a big fan of the Kinsey Scale and so I'm willing to consider that otherwise straight men/women might have (consensual) sexual relations with other men/women.

Rape on the other hand, as I've already stated, is seldom about one's sexuality or sexual desires.[1] Much like domestic abuse, it's about asserting control over the victim and the situation, and gaining power and dominance. Sexual release is merely icing on the cake, so to speak.

[1] True, this is mostly my own opinion, formed from having worked a short while as a text translator at an centre for abusive men, reading various reports and accounts by professionals and victims, etc.

My goodness graciousness. When I saw this vid all I thought was "oh. That happened. Next week a real video then." I kinda knew what the point was but I can't imagine getting into a discussion about anything if the topic is stirred by a weird slashfic. But woah. So many comments. About homosexuality. I've played the mass effect games and the dragon age games and I have to say. Sex doesn't really seem like an interesting aspect of the game.

But I don't know. I'm still a virgin. Why people care so much about sex still eludes me.

trollnystan:

Volf:

trollnystan:

Rape in male prisons have nothing, NOTHING to do with homosexuality. The rape is, with very few exceptions, committed by heterosexual men TO heterosexual men. Rape in any setting seldom has anything to do with sex or sexuality, but has to do with having power, dominance, and control over the other person.

Seriously man, you're practically saying only gay men get sent to prison to commit this "gay rape" or that prison somehow turns you gay. No, just... NO.

OT: Jim, don't ever change.

that's quite a nice straw-man you have there

Where's the straw man? Please specify.

The part that I have made bold. I never said that.

Swifteye:
Why people care so much about sex still eludes me.

1) It feels VERY good
2) They may take away our freedom but they will never take away our seeexx!

Sex feels very good and it's one of the things we hold the most private - pun not intended. I'll bet more private than our secret hobbies, IP addresses and SSN.

OT: H1y sh8t that was crazy! But it seems more like a hidden jab at the fans who continue to buy from EA despite the DRMs and Origin. Another job well done Jim.

Volf:

trollnystan:

Volf:
that's quite a nice straw-man you have there

Where's the straw man? Please specify.

The part that I have made bold. I never said that.

I apologise, that is true, but in a way you implied it by saying that rape in prisons occurs because of:

Volf:

Zachary Amaranth:

Volf:
Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean I'm saying that heterosexuality/homosexuality=sexual crimes, it just means that a persons sexual desire/lust/preference has hurt a few people.

[citation needed]

rape in US male prisons

(bolded the pertinent line)

I'm saying that rape in prisons - rape in general - usually have nothing to do with said person's sexual desire/lust/preference - most of the men/women who do so would say they were straighter than a ruler - but has to do with his/her need to dominate and assert control. Especially in such a freedom-robbing place like prison the need to feel in control and in charge is probably pretty high. The men (and women) who rape their fellow inmates in prison probably asserted their dominance/control/etc in other ways before coming to prison - beating their partner, beating people of colour, raping women, shooting people from another gang, etc.

As I mentioned in my reply to the other fellah, the sexual release gained from the rape is really just icing on the cake, if not practically incidental.

EDIT: added a line.

trollnystan:

Volf:

trollnystan:

Where's the straw man? Please specify.

The part that I have made bold. I never said that.

I apologise, that is true, but in a way you implied it by saying that rape in prisons occurs because of:

Volf:

Zachary Amaranth:

[citation needed]

rape in US male prisons

(bolded the pertinent line)

I'm saying that rape in prisons - rape in general - usually have nothing to do with said person's sexual desire/lust/preference - most of the men/women who do so would say they were straighter than a ruler - but has to do with his/her need to dominate and assert control. Especially in such a freedom-robbing place like prison the need to feel in control and in charge is probably pretty high. The men (and women) who rape their fellow inmates in prison probably asserted their dominance/control/etc in other ways before coming to prison - beating their partner, beating people of colour, raping women, shooting people from another gang, etc.

As I mentioned in my reply to the other fellah, the sexual release gained from the rape is really just icing on the cake, if not practically incidental.

EDIT: added a line.

agreed, but there are homosexuals in prison that have raped people, which is why I provided that as a example

Volf:

trollnystan:

Volf:
The part that I have made bold. I never said that.

I apologise, that is true, but in a way you implied it by saying that rape in prisons occurs because of:

Volf:
rape in US male prisons

(bolded the pertinent line)

I'm saying that rape in prisons - rape in general - usually have nothing to do with said person's sexual desire/lust/preference - most of the men/women who do so would say they were straighter than a ruler - but has to do with his/her need to dominate and assert control. Especially in such a freedom-robbing place like prison the need to feel in control and in charge is probably pretty high. The men (and women) who rape their fellow inmates in prison probably asserted their dominance/control/etc in other ways before coming to prison - beating their partner, beating people of colour, raping women, shooting people from another gang, etc.

As I mentioned in my reply to the other fellah, the sexual release gained from the rape is really just icing on the cake, if not practically incidental.

EDIT: added a line.

agreed, but there are homosexuals in prison that have raped people, which is why I provided that as a example

Again, the fact that they are homosexual is (most likely) NOT why they raped. It was (most likely) not their sexual desire that made them want to rape someone, but their need for control/dominance/etc. There ARE exceptions of course, but from what I've read/heard those are few in comparison to the ones that rape for control/dominance/etc.

The fact that they may or may not be gay is completely incidental in the majority of cases. In fact, you're probably more likely to find that a homosexual in prison is targeted to be raped by his heterosexual fellow inmates than the other way around.

secretsantaone:
This is game 3, not game 1. What they originally intended to do isn't relevant, they have already created 2 games. If they had originally intended to give Shepard the option to speak with a lisp it would be just as jarring to put it in now.

Ok, the relationship OPTIONS are already established if it makes you feel any better. The point is, the last game should be about resolving the issues, not creating more.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that Bioware are adding in the option to make Shepard gay in the last game in the series either because they genuinely believe it would add to the story, or because they want to try and appeal to the gay audience for a quick buck?

Consider the following:

The average gamer stats of the us: 37% adult women, 5% adolescent women, 45% adult men, 13% adolescent men. Now let's use that ever lovely nonsensical 10% of the population being gay and apply it - meaning 4.5% of the total gaming population would be targeted by such a ploy. Please explain how you genuinely believe that the motivation for Bioware to "appeal to the gay audience for a quick buck" and possibly piss off their established fanbase could even exist (or for that matter how EA would even allow it).

Also I say nonsensical 10% because it was a number generated by Alfred Kinsey back in the 1930s and they were only questioned if they've ever engaged in sex activity with the same sex. Sexuality isn't about your practices; it's about your preferences. If you've only had sex with women your entire life but was attract to men, you're still gay. The latest study I believe put that number closer to 6% of the population.

trollnystan:

Volf:
agreed, but there are homosexuals in prison that have raped people, which is why I provided that as a example

Again, the fact that they are homosexual is (most likely) NOT why they raped. It was (most likely) not their sexual desire that made them want to rape someone, but their need for control/dominance/etc. There ARE exceptions of course, but from what I've read/heard those are few in comparison to the ones that rape for control/dominance/etc.

The fact that they may or may not be gay is completely incidental in the majority of cases. In fact, you're probably more likely to find that a homosexual in prison is targeted to be raped by his heterosexual fellow inmates than the other way around.

Let's have a study here. Afterwards you can enjoy an odd little read courtesy of New Jersey's latest plan to eliminate prison rape.

Akimoto:

Swifteye:
Why people care so much about sex still eludes me.

1) It feels VERY good
2) They may take away our freedom but they will never take away our seeexx!

Sex feels very good and it's one of the things we hold the most private - pun not intended. I'll bet more private than our secret hobbies, IP addresses and SSN.

OT: H1y sh8t that was crazy! But it seems more like a hidden jab at the fans who continue to buy from EA despite the DRMs and Origin. Another job well done Jim.

People make this much of a deal about sex because it is private and it makes people feel good? Is it truly that unique an experience that it matters more than anything else that generates a powerful positive emotional response? Or is it that sex is an easy emotional response to undergo? That one can control. Or impose laws or abstract doctrines on?

Just from observation it seems like sex is more trouble than it's worth. Just a few minutes of fun or less and then it's completely over and you're left wanting more. It doesn't seem to make anyone happy or content for any real period of time.

trollnystan:

Volf:

trollnystan:

I apologise, that is true, but in a way you implied it by saying that rape in prisons occurs because of:

(bolded the pertinent line)

I'm saying that rape in prisons - rape in general - usually have nothing to do with said person's sexual desire/lust/preference - most of the men/women who do so would say they were straighter than a ruler - but has to do with his/her need to dominate and assert control. Especially in such a freedom-robbing place like prison the need to feel in control and in charge is probably pretty high. The men (and women) who rape their fellow inmates in prison probably asserted their dominance/control/etc in other ways before coming to prison - beating their partner, beating people of colour, raping women, shooting people from another gang, etc.

As I mentioned in my reply to the other fellah, the sexual release gained from the rape is really just icing on the cake, if not practically incidental.

EDIT: added a line.

agreed, but there are homosexuals in prison that have raped people, which is why I provided that as a example

Again, the fact that they are homosexual is (most likely) NOT why they raped. It was (most likely) not their sexual desire that made them want to rape someone, but their need for control/dominance/etc. There ARE exceptions of course, but from what I've read/heard those are few in comparison to the ones that rape for control/dominance/etc.

The fact that they may or may not be gay is completely incidental in the majority of cases. In fact, you're probably more likely to find that a homosexual in prison is targeted to be raped by his heterosexual fellow inmates than the other way around.

well then, I'm referring to the exact cases where a gay man rapes in prison out of lust

--

That was some master satire Jimothy. Although now I need some brain bleach for some of the imagery, especially Wrex's bright green anus.

Rainboq:

dietpeachsnapple:
-It is not shallow to include homosexual relations in a game. It is shallow to include any sexual relations in a game.

That's a wee bit 'No True Scottsman'. Sexuality is a core component of human relations, and as such, sexuality can and should a part of more adult games that talk about the human condition, like Mass Effect. Hell, even TES and Fallout have sex, just heavily implied.

The point being that sex is an incredibly simple thing made incredibly complex by the context that it is placed in by society. It is easy, therefore, to put it in a game, but notably difficult, in my opinion, to make it justified. We barely understand our own motivations most of the time, philosophically, genetically, and socially. It requires an artful hand to put it into a multimedia while doing justice to that context. I will retract my prior universal, and submit that it is possible to include sexuality without being shallow. I will contend, as a needed qualification, that we should not call one form of consensual sexual expression shallow in a game, while vindicating others.

(I see the "wee bit" of the no true Scotsman in my statement, and I appreciate the reference.)

Swifteye:

People make this much of a deal about sex because it is private and it makes people feel good? Is it truly that unique an experience that it matters more than anything else that generates a powerful positive emotional response? Or is it that sex is an easy emotional response to undergo? That one can control. Or impose laws or abstract doctrines on?

Just from observation it seems like sex is more trouble than it's worth. Just a few minutes of fun or less and then it's completely over and you're left wanting more. It doesn't seem to make anyone happy or content for any real period of time.

Yes.Somewhat but mostly yes. Yes Yes and Yes.

Sex is as troubling as how you go about getting it but that's really my personal opinion. If you're interested you can look up sexology - I belief it's called, but I digress from the topic already.

Therumancer:
From your perspective your probably trying to be quite diplomatic and reasonable, but seriously, pay attention to what your saying here. Your basically saying "well, I want proof, but only from sources I personally happen to already agree with", which is by and large not REALLY looking at an alternative point of view because you've already heard from any source your willing to accept.

Have you linked any studies at all? From any half reputable source? The only thing that can prove a statistical increase of something like this is a study, or an omniscient god.

Trying to act like I should have to be able to sell my case before a Yale review board or I'm inherantly wrong and shouldn't be able to say my piece on an internet message board is pretty bloody stupid all on it's own, and really that is where a lot of these demands go

No but maybe you should be able to sell it to a highschool review board.

When it comes to subjects like "peer reviewed sources" that is an inherantly ridiculous request when applied to any big issue, and to be honest I think that's the entire point of making it. It SOUNDS good, but in reality you wouldn't have a major issue like this if you were seeing many universally accepted sources appearing.

Quite frankly if studies can't be trusted than no one has any business stating anything about statistics relating to this.

Also, you spoke of men picking up little boys in casinos more than girls, did you follow them home and find out that they had gay lovers? If they are not gay in their day to day life and are only gay for little boys than your argument about gay men generally being pedophiles and that they shouldn't be allowed near arcades/schools/whatever is invalid because they're generally a completely different mostly unrelated set. You working security detail only shows half of the picture, you state that the majority of child molestation is male on male but you don't know if said males perpetrating the act are actually really gay in day to day life, which is all that matters if you're going to discriminate against all gay people. If a man with a wife molests a little boy the odds are he's straight.

Also, if a large portion of child molesters were molested themselves, should we discriminate against children who were molested? (Here is the most reputable source I could find in 4 minutes, and even then I can't find a study at the moment, not much time: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/may/18/local/me-molest18 ) Of course not, it is wrong to discriminate against someone because they're statistically more likely to do something reprehensible.

Volf:
well then, I'm referring to the exact cases where a gay man rapes in prison out of lust

There's very little evidence that that happens in any significant number though.

Men raping each other in prison doesn't imply lust, it doesn't even imply that the attacker is gay. It very seldom translates into an openly gay identity inside of prison, even less so outside of prison.

Most of the research which has been done on prison sexuality is outdated and dodgy, much of it is so because it operates on the same assumptions you're putting out now.

Therumancer:
I'm not stupid enough to think someone who with apparent conviction insists that both there is an overwhelming support for gays that will change the world in 30 years when the small minority of ignorant people like me are silenced, while at the same time saying overwhelming majority pressure has the homosexual suicide rate at 40% (yes, 40% think about this) is going to engage in a reasonable debate.

Okay, you've taken the SPRCs upper estimate on the rate of suicide ideation among LGBT youth (not the 'homosexual suicide rate', if you've done research you should know better than to be inspecific).

Suicide ideation means basically 'contemplating suicide', and most research doesn't put the number at 40%. It's between 30 and 40 percent, making LGBT youth under the age of 24 between twice or three times as likely to contemplate suicide as heterosexuals. Assuming a similar ratio of ideation/attempt, the actual rate of suicide attempt among young LGBT people would be about 10%, though that probably won't be accurate at all.

If this is how badly you handle one statistic which you probably got from wikipedia (where it is mislabelled as the rate of suicide attempt, so I still don't know where you got the idea that it is the suicide rate), I don't think you have any right to present yourself as having done any research on this.

When you pull this shit, you're just outright lying. It's lying to present an upper estimate as a generally accepted fact, it is lying to present a suicide ideation rate as a suicide rate. What else have you lied about to try and make this ridiculous case?

Therumancer:
Your typical Pedo doesn't look like the movie stereotype, he's basically the ordinary looking, "acceptable" gay dude, and almost guaranteed he says all the right things about hating pedos, and supports the community in exactly the right and acceptable ways. This is why saying it's not true, and producing statistics gather with that specific intent is meaningless.

No, your typical "pedo" (by which I assume you mean child sex abuser, not just a paraphiliac because we have no reliable evidence in that regard) is someone the child already knows. Usually it's a family member, a close family friend or someone else with unrestricted access to the child, not some dude who hangs around at the arcade. Please learn this before making completely incorrect generalizations.

If the average child molester is a gay man, then explain to me why reported rates of child sex abuse are twice as high for young girls, and that this pattern crops up globally. It's not even confined to a single country, practically anywhere where there is child sex abuse girls are suffering it more, or at least reporting to do so.

If you're talking about "personal experience" then please bother to factor in visibility issues. The guy who hangs around in the arcade may be obvious, but you have no evidence that he's "typical" of child abusers.

I thought this was a fantastic episode. Not really sure why Americans seem to have such a massive problem with homosexuality. Maybe it's just the vocal minority of morons over-riding the common point of view again.

XDravond:

Jimothy Sterling:

El Luck:
Ok this doesn't have anything to do with the video but why am I being asked to verify my age?

According to the people in charge, this week's video blurred the line between editorial and erotica.

There is no question this is pure erotica. And it's gay GAMING erotica. It's horrible! Oh the horror! :P
And just got the minor feeling this is might be minor nudge at the "scandal" Mass Effect 3 will allow homosexual relationship between men! They already managed sex and lesbians so the last thing really needed this... or something..

I'm not American or easily upset by sexuality in general, and I find this vid rather fun, so I'm in the camp that doesn't really understand why it's controversial with having "gay-relationship" in games is all about. The game already stars a 18+ rating so what is the problem?
I'm straight and I don't care what other people are in to be that bi/homo/straight/or other more usual thing, just don't force it on me.
And either you're drawn to ladies, men, something else (or all of them..) when you get to that age, a game/book/film/and so on will not change this, and neither of these feelings are "wrong"/"bad"/...

I can in ME play as whatever I want straight/bi/homo/asexual/or not caring about relationships whatsoever...
And that is the way I want my 18+ RPG's.
That is, NOT child friendly.

PS. Found the age verification rather fun part of this and surprised that Jim didn't make a joke about it...

Oh the Mass Effect games have had gay relationships before its just that gay relationships between two woman is apparently perfectly fine while gay relationships between men causes outcry.

I completely agree with the point that Jim was making. Though there are many more entertaining ways of getting that point across. I prefer my Jimquisition as a raging rant on the correcting the wrongs of the world.

Krion_Vark:

XDravond:

Jimothy Sterling:

According to the people in charge, this week's video blurred the line between editorial and erotica.

There is no question this is pure erotica. And it's gay GAMING erotica. It's horrible! Oh the horror! :P
And just got the minor feeling this is might be minor nudge at the "scandal" Mass Effect 3 will allow homosexual relationship between men! They already managed sex and lesbians so the last thing really needed this... or something..

I'm not American or easily upset by sexuality in general, and I find this vid rather fun, so I'm in the camp that doesn't really understand why it's controversial with having "gay-relationship" in games is all about. The game already stars a 18+ rating so what is the problem?
I'm straight and I don't care what other people are in to be that bi/homo/straight/or other more usual thing, just don't force it on me.
And either you're drawn to ladies, men, something else (or all of them..) when you get to that age, a game/book/film/and so on will not change this, and neither of these feelings are "wrong"/"bad"/...

I can in ME play as whatever I want straight/bi/homo/asexual/or not caring about relationships whatsoever...
And that is the way I want my 18+ RPG's.
That is, NOT child friendly.

PS. Found the age verification rather fun part of this and surprised that Jim didn't make a joke about it...

Oh the Mass Effect games have had gay relationships before its just that gay relationships between two woman is apparently perfectly fine while gay relationships between men causes outcry.

Hehe, I know ME had gay relationship before and it was almost fine just because it were between women... Played it that way for fun (much to see what any outcry is all about...)
But still anyone that thinks choice is wrong in a RPG game that sports 18+ are, well weirder than the average weirdo....

Nicolaus99:

Raise your nose in arrogant superiority as high as you like, stand on your very tippy toes. Observe Proposition 8 from California. *snip drivel*

I love it! Not only is NOT being an ignorant bigot "arrogant superiority" but you actually use an appeal to popularity as an excuse? Protip: If you're looking to set up a defensible position, rhetorical or otherwise, it's generally not the wisest of moves to rely on the intelligence of the average American public to build your walls.

Of course, if you'd been blessed with any semblance of wisdom in the first place, we'd probably not be having this conversation. So build on and I will continue to mock you AND those like you, "silent majority" or not, for the poor examples of human beings that you are.

evilthecat:

Volf:
well then, I'm referring to the exact cases where a gay man rapes in prison out of lust

There's very little evidence that that happens in any significant number though.

Men raping each other in prison doesn't imply lust, it doesn't even imply that the attacker is gay. It very seldom translates into an openly gay identity inside of prison, even less so outside of prison.

Most of the research which has been done on prison sexuality is outdated and dodgy, much of it is so because it operates on the same assumptions you're putting out now.

Again it can't be ruled out that it never happens, hence my point that a homosexual man has raped another man out of lust.

Ah....escapist. That Jewel of the internet that descends into disgusting hate and homophobia comments at the first sign of an attack on aggressively forced heterosexual values. Thanks guys. This made my day.

Tanakh:

Volf:
Your arguing over symantics now.

No, he is saying gay assholes don't do fucked up shit due being gays, but due being assholes, same as straight assholes don't ruffie girls due being straight.

Volf:
It's not him, though. It's Shepard.

It's still his image, and he should have final say over that. Actually if Bioware really want this option in the first game, why not just get a model that was ok with it?

I did a bit of research, Mark Meer never objected to it at all. He even recorded the dialogue for the gay Kaiden scene's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPMOlEfhWGE

I completely lost my shit at 4:27.

"It was so GAY what he was doing... and he loved every GAY second of it."

There is no other video on the Escapist that has made me laugh so hysterically. I had tears streaming down my face by the end.

........wut?

Zhukov:
Oh Jesus, that was fucking hilarious.

Although it would be awfully difficult to explain if someone were to see it in my browser history.

Also, I am totally har Also, I would dearly like to know how he managed to keep a straight face while reading it.

I agree, fantastic job, my stomach kills from the endless violent laughter... Ow.

THANK YOU BASED JIM! THANK YOU!

El Luck:

njsykora:

El Luck:
Ok this doesn't have anything to do with the video but why am I being asked to verify my age?

When you watch the video, you'll know.

Yeah I'm watching it and I get the reason for it. But if they're able to see if i'm a pub club member or not to give me the advertising accordingly, surely they can use the same thing to see that I'm old enough without needing me to put in the information.

Well you see, everybody knows that when you make your account you can just write a fake age, but when prompted suddenly with the imminent question about your birthday, it leaves you completely flabbergasted, and compels the truth from your finger tips.

evilthecat:
[

Okay, you've taken the SPRCs upper estimate on the rate of suicide ideation among LGBT youth (not the 'homosexual suicide rate', if you've done research you should know better than to be inspecific).

Suicide ideation means basically 'contemplating suicide', and most research doesn't put the number at 40%. It's between 30 and 40 percent, making LGBT youth under the age of 24 between twice or three times as likely to contemplate suicide as heterosexuals. Assuming a similar ratio of ideation/attempt, the actual rate of suicide attempt among young LGBT people would be about 10%, though that probably won't be accurate at all.

If this is how badly you handle one statistic which you probably got from wikipedia (where it is mislabelled as the rate of suicide attempt, so I still don't know where you got the idea that it is the suicide rate), I don't think you have any right to present yourself as having done any research on this.

When you pull this shit, you're just outright lying. It's lying to present an upper estimate as a generally accepted fact, it is lying to present a suicide ideation rate as a suicide rate. What else have you lied about to try and make this ridiculous case?

Therumancer:
Your typical Pedo doesn't look like the movie stereotype, he's basically the ordinary looking, "acceptable" gay dude, and almost guaranteed he says all the right things about hating pedos, and supports the community in exactly the right and acceptable ways. This is why saying it's not true, and producing statistics gather with that specific intent is meaningless.

No, your typical "pedo" (by which I assume you mean child sex abuser, not just a paraphiliac because we have no reliable evidence in that regard) is someone the child already knows. Usually it's a family member, a close family friend or someone else with unrestricted access to the child, not some dude who hangs around at the arcade. Please learn this before making completely incorrect generalizations.

If the average child molester is a gay man, then explain to me why reported rates of child sex abuse are twice as high for young girls, and that this pattern crops up globally. It's not even confined to a single country, practically anywhere where there is child sex abuse girls are suffering it more, or at least reporting to do so.

If you're talking about "personal experience" then please bother to factor in visibility issues. The guy who hangs around in the arcade may be obvious, but you have no evidence that he's "typical" of child abusers.

I'm not re-entering this discussion, but I want to clarify two things for a related point, about why I'm not even really bothering to try and make a point here.

You sit here and say the 40% suicide rate is stupid, and present it as my information and attack it that way. The thing is, that's not MY information, that's something someone else claimed. Yet here you are jumping down my throat because that claim isn't specific, and is in fact quite ridiculous. It's especially ridiculous in the context I mentioned it in since one of those using the figure (it showed up more than once) did so pretty much in the same breath that they mentioned an overwhelming support for homosexuals that was going to change the world utterly in a couple of decades, the implication being that it's really a small group of people that can somehow force a 40% suicide rate.

I don't bother because your not even paying attention to what is being said, or where that information came from in the course of this conversation. You see a fact that is wrong, or at least presented out of context, and you attack ME as being the one who presented it when that came from YOUR side I've mentioned it largely for th same reasons, where it was actually presented in a far more ridiculous way than what you accuse me of when you get down to it.

Otherwise, I'm going to ask a simple question... how many Pedophilles have you dealt with? I mean seriously. What kind of training have you received for dealing with situations like that? What kind of authority or pseudo-authority did you have that lead to you getting that training and entering into a situation where you would routinely deal with such people?

See, the thing is I used to have to deal with people as part of my job, and did it for close to a decade. You quote a hollywood-type profile about things, and but actually don't know anything because you've never been trained, you don't even stop to think about how the profile YOUR spouting makes little or no sense.

Yes, there is a profile for people who use a relationship with a child to exploit them, however that's FAR less common than you might think. It has a high statistical representation because the risks in exploiting someone your that close to are substantial, leading to people being caught, so there are a lot of people like that to study. In reality your typical predator, sexual or otherwise, will hunt outside their immediate area, to increase the chances of getting away with it. A fairly random attack with no pre-existing ties makes the criminal FAR harder to catch especially if they have nothing on record to begin with. Your typical "stalking" is nothing like in the movies either, while these long, drawn out period of cat and mouse with a killer or rapist learning everything about their victim to be make for compelling drama, the simple fact is that crimes work best the less variables are involved. You go to a high traffic area with children left along, watch one for a short period of time, and then take action. Most people who do this kind of thing, tend to be charismatic because they need to inspire confidence to be able to get the victim in position. Your typical pedo rapist isn't going to be that creepy loner, prison inmate stereotype, pathetic fatso or the quiet guy nobody notices, like on TV. it's going to be a guy people haven't generally seen before, but left behind a generally positive impression. If he's openly gay he's going to make the guy who makes it seem like a good thing, or at least acceptable in his case (ie the guy bigots in denial will be referring to when they say "I have this gay friend, but otherwise...). It's about inspiring trust, acting quickly, and moving around.... Predators, real ones, very rearely shit where they eat so to speak because it makes it too easy to create a pattern.

The thing is though that with all of the politics and civil liberties out there proof, especially if the guys are careful, can be tricky, and even in cases where your right about the accusation and win, there can be bad press involved. At the casino where I worked forever the casino really cared less about protecting kids than making money, as long as nobody got raped so they wouldn't deal with liability issues, they really didn't care. Groups like NAMBLA which were at the time hiring a lot of lawyers to defend pedophilles were creating bad press and such for people who caught them behind the scenes. As a result the casino didn't really want to see many Pedos caught and put into police custody, and have the resulting battle fall back on the casino. Indeed from a certain pragmatic sense the liability from an occasional failure/rape and bad press if it went public, was worth the price of the press that could come from say 10 Pedos being actually caught, even if they don't cause all kinds of problems by claiming discimination (and being falsely accused) with or without groups like NAMBLA, at the very least they are going to have press out there making it look like they are a magnet for sexual predators (which they are, the fault of management for not forcing parents to have their kids attended despite policies, it cares more about the money the parents are spending than the safety of the children which creates the whole issue of how Security is forced to deasl with the situation because we're the guys who take the blame for anything that happens).

The point of the above is that if you catch a dude trying to lure a young boy into a stairwell, and chase him off, your typical security guy not just at a casino like I worked out (the casino is simply copying general policies intending to avoid the fate of businesses that got themselves eaten alive by liability in doing the right thing due to the way the system works nowadays) isn't going to have him arrested, and that's something predators tend to keep in mind in selecting their hunting grounds as well. Buisnesses that will put press and risks of liability ahead of seeing justice done. The guy is going to be chased off, perhaps even walked out of the building with a security escort, and then we might not see that one again specifically, but at the same time there is no record of him being caught anywhere official because the idea is for nobody to know it happened.

The thing is that Code Adam training, will usually come along with a pretty solid reality check on what your employer actually wants you to do with this information. As a security officer for any big place, not just a casino, your not a cop, your there to protect your employer and that means their money. Their concern about the safety of kids and stuff is entirely based around a fear over liability, and how far your going to go is dependant what benefits the employer most. Employers generally want security to keep things quiet, and make it so nothing happens, any kind of noise, catching someone or not, is by definition bad. The employer wants to forget there is a security department (and not shockingly that happens, do your job too well and they cut you back until you don't have the people to do your job... then they realize it was only quiet because you had enough security and the right policies, things quiet down again, and then the beancounter starts to think your a waste of money again.... ad infinium).

Now yes, people can play semantics about gay and pedo not being synonomous because I'm not adding more paragraphs explaining my thoughts there yet again, and that I know the differance, and am simply writing it that way for the sake of simplicity, or whatever else. It doesn't matter because I'm pretty much done, but you might as well no waste the time feigning ignorance just the same when the intent should be painfully obvious, and if it's not read the thread to this point to catch up (nobody seems to).

The point I'm making is that while you can call me a liar, what I say about how gay pedophilles act, their numbers in relation to say straight pedophilles, and similar things, all comes from experience and training. As in people have taught me what to look for and how to deal with this (in a certain context) and I have gone out doing my job, seen this with my own eyes, not just someone elses assurances, and dealt with real pedophilles trying to lure real children, for real rape. Don't tell me it's not so, because I know otherwise. If you don't believe me, then we really have nothing to say to each other here anyway

I'm done, save argueing the specifics of anything above for another time (it will doubtlessly occur). The point is that if your going to get into a serious topic, at least try and verify what the guy your talking to is actually saying. Don't put someone else's factoid into my mouth, and really if I tell you I'm speaking from experience, it's kind of pointless to try and throw out a profile. I mean either your wrong, or I'm going to say you are as I'm already saying that I'm speaking from experience, and if you think I'm lying, why bother? I don't deny the profile exists in this case, just that reality has shown it's not as applicable as hollywood makes it out to be. Of course anyon who has learned anything about the old VICAPS system and it's later successors (ie profiling in a very basic way, it wasn't the focus of what I was learning in school) should probably be able to recognize the problem with some of these profiles especially when they have been around for a while. For example there used to be a lot of focus on the "least effort" principle, which is to say that a criminal who wants to committ a crime can be typically found around the area of the crime because someone who say wants to rob a store isn't going to go to a store accross the state any more than they would if they wanted a gallon of milk instead. There is a certain kind of logic to that in specific situations, but for the most part someone who actually plans a crime like a rape, murder, or robbery and isn't absolutly desperate is going to want to do it someplace where they are less likely to be recognized. You don't generally rob the store you shop at every week because even with a mask someone might recognize or remember you far more likely than someplace you don't normally go. If your a pedophille sexual predator you don't go after a kid from the local school or one you know well as a general rule for the same reasons. Likewise guys who do this kind of thing are usually ones confident enough to get away with it and have the tools. Guys who can make people trust them, not some creepy old dude in a van cruising along saying "hey kid, want some candy" or just trying to grab a kid in an arcade and wrestle them into a bathroom or whatever.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here