Jimquisition: Mass Effect 3 And The Case For A Gay Shepard

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

captainfluoxetine:

Zachary Amaranth:

From an evolutionary point of view? No, it's not wrong. In fact, homosexuality tends to be more prevalent in times of famine and war (stress alters natal development), and makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint: It keeps species, theoretically, from overpopulation.

I take your point about "so what?" but the problem here is, "evolutionarily wrong" doesn't translate to mental illness in any sense. Nothing you just said supports why it could be considered a mental illness.

Care to try again?

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Something can't be "wrong" from an evolutionary standpoint. Instead of saying that it has no reason to exist, you should be exploring why it has persisted if the answer isn't immediately obvious.

jboking:

It actually isn't a mental illness from an evolutionary standpoint. A trait not being passed on or not being conducive to passing on does not mean that those traits constitute a mental illness, it means that they weren't conducive to reproducing. Also, concerning that homosexual couples in the modern day do find ways of reproducing, I'd say it doesn't hinder their reproductive capabilities. Their ability to work within their environment to overcome their natural flaws is a trait that ought to be passed on, from an evolutionary standpoint.

Also, Breeders, as I have heard them called, actually are the cause of one of the biggest issues of our time, overpopulation. An increase in homosexual couples who do not wish to reproduce would be the solution to this problem. This means that homosexuality would be our species saving grace. Our balancing act.

Really though, claiming that homosexuality is a mental illness is a much bigger claim. One that needs to be backed up by hard science.

DISCLAIMER: I do not attach any stigma to the term 'mental illness'. I do not use it in a derogatory way nor do I believe it is something an individual should ever be judged on.

The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material. Homosexuals are inherently not the ideal for doing this. An individuals genes do not care for the species they belong to, they care for being passed on to another generation.

Further to the above paragraph I'm going to do something incredibly irritating and patronizing and guess the counter argument many people will put forward which is 'But we treat each other with kindness and respect people, surely if all we wanted to do was pass on our genes we'd just fuck every member of the opposite sex and kill every one of the same?'.. or an argument to that effect. Well no, we wouldn't, by not acting like savages we ensure mutual survival, I allow you to survive, you allow me to survive, therefore MY genes (the important ones in my view) get passed on.This is seen in nature as well, morality is just a more evolved version of this survival mechanism.

Of course now we have to begin making certain assumptions, and I carry this on in the spirit of debate and to a certain extent playing devils advocate.

Firstly, assuming homosexuality has a genetic predisposition. If there is a 'gay gene' or several of them they do not HAVE to have a point. They may simply have persisted because occasionally for whatever reason homosexuals reproduce, its a recessive gene, or any other number of factors. The existence of homosexuals does not mean they have a 'point'. It must be remembered that evolution hasn't finished, we didn't turn up as modern man and then nature went 'Fuck it, im done here!'

Modern day homosexual couples find ways to reproduce? Well through totally unnatural means, that's hardly relevant.

I understand why the whole overpopulation thing is a compelling argument for the 'point' to homosexuality, but its fundamentally flawed when you consider the basics of evolution and genetics.

I realize I've almost totally lost the point of 'homosexuality is a mental illness' as in honesty its not like I have hard evidence one way or the other, and as I say I continue this more in the spirit of debate than fighting a corner. On that subject however I would argue that MANY mental illnesses depression, schizophrenia and so on are genetic in nature AND do not benefit the individual nor help them reproduce. They in fact hinder the individuals ability to function and therefore, though not physically, mentally hinder the individuals ability to reproduce. It doesn't seem totally incomprehensible that homosexuality could be classed alongside these.

It is actually pretty fucking insulting that people still want to classify homosexuality as a mental illness. In what way does homosexuality actively impede someone's daily life? Does it cause feelings of depression? Does it cause someone to be paranoid? Can it make a person have hallucinations? Then how the hell is it an illness?


You can't just hand wave away the question of how homosexuality has persisted. The fact is, it has. So you have to ask how and why. And yes, we are talking about evolution as occurring on a genetic level, not a species one. I thought that that was assumed.
I know you are only trying to play 'devil's advocate", but some things don't deserve someone doing that.

Caramel Frappe:
Just thought of something- if some people are saying that the asari do not count having a gender thus it's not gay for a female Shepard to be making love with one- couldn't the same thing be said if a male Shepard made love to an asari seeing her as a 'him' instead?

Because of you think about it, asaris can actually change their gender for certain purposes like breeding (correct me if I am wrong, I don't know much about Mass Effect despite playing through the first game). So a male Shepard can ether count that as homosexuality going on or see an asari as a shemale. Seriously. But maybe I am thinking to deeply into the matter at hand.

What would be far more interesting is to see Tali's face. That'd be awesome- maybe they'll finally show it in ME3 but I doubt it since it could ruin her fandom or make fans feel regret overall.

They don't "change" genders, they don't have genders at all, they don't actually have sex in the normal sense they sort of Mind-meld with their partner and that makes them pregnant, there doesn't need to be physical contact at all.

Personally I find this whole line of argument ridiculous, why the fuck are we even having a serious discussion about what repercussions fucking a Blue alien with tentacle-hair has on a person's sexuality.

bringer of illumination:
Personally I find this whole line of argument ridiculous, why the fuck are we even having a serious discussion about what repercussions fucking a Blue alien with tentacle-hair has on a person's sexuality.

There's no face-reveal in ME3. My guess is that Bioware will add it in as "optional" DLC.

Honestly, I think it's because people like to debate and test their skills on matters such as this even if it's really ridiculous. Also thank you for clarifying that, sometimes I don't grasp the details in things especially games with such depth like Mass Effect. Also I am now confused as to how asaris are able to do that with their partner but okay.

Also to note, though an asari is an alien to us, they look human if you dismiss their heads having tentacles on it. Most of the alien species that we know look human in some way, or have something related like hands, body shapes, or .. well, if not that then how they act and if not by their personality then their language of speaking english lol.

Therumancer:

My point is that disagreeing with someone does not give you the right to disrespect them.

If your opinion is:

Heterosexual > Homosexual > Paedophile

Then yes I am going to take the right to disrespect you because that is offensive no matter how politely you say it. And regardless of you backing away from that now that is exactly what you insinuated with your previous posts.

Your opinion is essentially the same as when a Klansmember claims:

Caucasian > African > Animal.

And you keep on going on about "Bioware shouldn't be forced to do this!" ----> They were going to do this in ME2! It was cut for time!

http://spong.com/article/21081/BioWare-Gay-Scenes-in-Mass-Effect-2s-Too-Much-Work

It is not, as you would have it, about "political correctness".

You want to stop getting called out on this bullshit? Stop spouting it. Stop mentioning paedophiles and homosexuals in the same paragraph.

Stop tossing around the word deviancy when you clearly don't understand the appropriate use of the term. (ie. when sexual activity is inappropriate or harmful)

Or do us all a favour an stop posting altogether.

captainfluoxetine:

The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material. Homosexuals are inherently not the ideal for doing this. An individuals genes do not care for the species they belong to, they care for being passed on to another generation.

The whole point is that were exist as a cooperative species. Thus non-breeding members have an opportunity to protect there genetic line by helping out breeding members.

Look at wolves or meerkats. Only the alpha pair breed. The rest help out by hunting food providing extra carers/teachers and their genetics may be passed down not through them but through siblings and cousins.

Similarly with homosexuals. One of the major theories of male homosexuality is faternal birth order. Each successive male child is more likely to be homosexual. These men will not compete for mates but will be an extra pair of hands for child raising especially in less developed societies.

Therumancer:
My point is that disagreeing with someone does not give you the right to disrespect them.

Okay, I don't even know what your argument is about or what you opinions are, but I have to step in here, because I see this stupid shit spouted all the time.

Yes. It. Does.

If someone espouses an opinion that you find contemptible then you have every right to disrespect them, and they have every right to disrespect you back.

Respect is something that should be earned, not arbitrarily given to everyone, and if someone has done nothing to earn your respect then you SHOULDN'T respect them.

The attitude about respect has lead to a modern age where every fucking tard with an opinion thinks they have something worthwhile to say because no one ever calls them on it when they start spewing their bullshit.

captainfluoxetine:

The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material.
...
Firstly, assuming homosexuality has a genetic predisposition.
...
I understand why the whole overpopulation thing is a compelling argument for the 'point' to homosexuality, but its fundamentally flawed when you consider the basics of evolution and genetics.

Genetic predisposition does not mean you have to have the genes to be gay or that having the genes makes you gay. You don't seem to understand the basics of evolution and genetics. A genetic trait can be beneficial if you have one of the genes but detrimental if you have more(Sickle-cell). You can also have a trait that is beneficial to the group but discourages reproduction in the individual but because the genetics only trigger it in a small percentage of the group it encourages the propagation of the trait. There is a difference with 'survival of the species' and survival of the group, if your group dies the genes die and another group that had better genes can now use your resources to grow.

bringer of illumination:
Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

But the Transformers movies don't have the element of choice. They are shit no matter what you do.

But if you don't want your Shepard to be gay then all you have to do is NOT PLAY THAT WAY.

That's the difference.

ACman:

bringer of illumination:
Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

But the Transformers movies don't have the element of choice. They are shit no matter what you do.

But if you don't want your Shepard to be gay then all you have to do is NOT PLAY THAT WAY.

That's the difference.

And If I didn't want to see a shitty, racist movie about Shia LaBitch and giant robots then all I had to do was NOT GO INTO THE CINEMA.

I knew with almost 100% certainty that I was going to hate Transformers when I went to see it, that doesn't mean that I don't get to rant about how shit it was.

Char-Nobyl:

As I mentioned earlier, meta-knowledge from multiple playthroughs. In theory, you'd have one, maybe two romantic partners during the game. You likely won't know what most characters' orientation will be during a single playthrough. I played DA2 as a male first, and I thought that Anders was gay. Second playthrough as female, and I discover that he swings both ways. In my first run, I never knew that, and I had no way of knowing it. I didn't retroactively get the knowledge that he was bisexual from by second playthrough, and it didn't sour the experience of the first at all.

So why does it matter if other characters are, theoretically, bisexual? Unless you plan to interrogate each member of the crew, you won't find out, and by then I think you've got a few more problems to deal with.

Anders, Fenris and Isabella are quite clear about their lack of preferences if you take time to talk to them. It does not ask a lot of effort to raise the issue. Yes, I like to select most dialogue option with any NPC in the game. Because I find fascinating to explore the personality of the cast since that's one major asset of Bioware games. Maybe I have to deal with a lot of problems as you kindly put it but for me it's like reading a book or watching a movie: I like to know the protagonists of the story.

Having said that, the problem is not so much how I gain the info. The problem is that those romances (and in many ways the charachters themselves) are quite shallow and empty because of that design choice. Those charachter are defined by their romance status in many ways and since the romance is generic, the charachters themselves seem more generic as a result.

It's not a mistery that the best charachters in DA2 are Varric and Aveline. Strange enough: they are not romance options and the result is that they sound more convincing as separate entity from the PC. Morrigain and Alistair are the most convincing charachter of the DA lore so I have to assume that it's not a problem of being a romancable charachter or not. The problem is how the romance option are designed.

In DA:O romances help the plot and the charachterization. In DA2 they did nothing. No matter the sexuality of your PC, they all feel generic and bland. I believe that the "open romance" design was one of the most important cause of that problem. I would have prefer a "hit or miss" approach with every charachter being a defined individual indipendent from your PC (being straight, gay or bisexual).

But that would cause a lot of complains from bio-drone crybabies who have indeed a lot of problems and that would start to whine on the forums: "oh, I'm straight why I cannot romance gay charachter x?" or "oh, I'm gay, why I cannot romance straight charachter Y".

That sort of entitlement toward romances has plagued Bioware fanbase since BG2. But it has reached crazy levels in the last years. To the point where fans on the forum asked to romance their sister in the game only because she had big boobs and she was hotter than the other female options...

ACman:

bringer of illumination:
Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

But the Transformers movies don't have the element of choice. They are shit no matter what you do.

But if you don't want your Shepard to be gay then all you have to do is NOT PLAY THAT WAY.

That's the difference.

1. He has a point people can rant about what ever they want and Transformers does have an element of choice, I can choose not to go watch it.
2. Check the avatar and don't feed the trolls.

Jim Sterling:
Mass Effect 3 And The Case For A Gay Shepard

Apparently last week's episode of Jimquisition was far too subtle for some folk, and it threw up a lot more questions than answers. It also sparked a debate in which some of the dumbest arguments against the inclusion of a gay game protagonist were ever heard.

Fortunately, Jim Sterling is the national authority on doing kissing with men, and lends his razor-sharp insight to this discussion for the final, righteous time.

Watch Video

How and in what way was last week too subtle? In fairness I didn't stick around to look at comments section but I thought the general message of a possible gay protagonist means bugger all.

The mocking voice is a bit much. I get the point, but the sound is very annoying.
I agree with the rest of the video though.

bringer of illumination:

ACman:

bringer of illumination:
Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

But the Transformers movies don't have the element of choice. They are shit no matter what you do.

But if you don't want your Shepard to be gay then all you have to do is NOT PLAY THAT WAY.

That's the difference.

And If I didn't want to see a shitty, racist movie about Shia LaBitch and giant robots then all I had to do was NOT GO INTO THE CINEMA.

I knew with almost 100% certainty that I was going to hate Transformers when I went to see it, that doesn't mean that I don't get to rant about how shit it was.

Yes but these people are complaining that Shepard is gay purely as a potential situation.

You have a choice. "Shepard straight"/"Shepard gay".

When you see a Michael Bay movie there is no choice. There is only "movie shit"/"movie shit" (Except for The Rock. Sean Connery kicks ass.) And if you like Transformers then that is shit.

But what these hetero-normative fucktards are arguing is that they shouldn't even have to make that choice because it apparently offends their delicate sensibilities.

"Eww in another game Shepard is gay. That makes me feel icky...."

Is sexuality really that needed in Mass Effect? From either side gay or straight? ... It seems like just having the options available is more of a problem than if they weren't even there to begin with.

I'm still reading through all the comments now, but one question still leaps out at me, and did as I watched the vid:

Where on earth does one even get a giant purple dildo bat?

XD That thing is the most hilariously, awesomely wrong thing I've ever seen, and I'm impressed with Jim Sterling for owning one.

Therumancer:

But, what about demands of being inclusive of other sexual deviations... "deviation" as something other than the norm. Things that aren't nessicarly criminal.

Once you say that homosexuals are ENTITLED to representation, what about people who are wired for other things that is normal and perfectly natural for them? People who are into the whole "adult baby" thing and can't get aroused otherwise, or scat, or bondage, or numerous other things. You get enough people into one or more of those things to organize, and next thing you know you have it in the games, because Bioware can't very well say "well, the gays are entitled but you aren't". Arguements that it's "differant" with homosexuals don't really apply here, because overall one minority is the same as another.

I think the point being made is that this is about entitlement, even someone with my overall viewpoints (which I will not go into again) couldn't give a crap about the homosexuality present in "Dragon Age: Origins" or "Jade Empire", but that was planned from the beginning and the way the developers wanted to write the story and the characters. In this case they envisioned Mass Effect without any male homosexuality or male homosexuals playing a major role, it's just how the story turned out, and flowed best. This entire arguement is that because Bioware included gay male options in other games, they should have to include them in every product they release with any type of romantic elements at all.

See, had nobody said anything, and Bioware quietly released a gay male addition to the crew in ME3 as a result of their own creative process, nobody would have cared. The problem here is that this all revolves around demands being made by a minority group that they have to be included in the game.

Whether it's sexual, ethnic, religious, or anything else, once you start saying that writers HAVE to include certain groups it's down hill. I very much doubt there is anyone here who can say that they have never seen something they liked ruined by political correctness. It's the same issue as it's always been, it's just gay men are the current focus.

In the end let creators create, when you start creating quotas and corperate checklists, you wind up with exactly the mentality that has been destroying things like video games. Every group is an exception to someone. In the end the creative process has to be a politics and political correctness free zone.

Entitlement?

The fact that Bioware was going to include (non alien) same sex relationships but decided to cut them because of time and budgetary constraints is what cause the disappointment.

Let's talk about your sense of entitlement. Obviously you feel entitled to complain about the "political correctness" of people asking for what Bioware would have provided had they had time.

You feel entitled to talk about gays and paedophiles in the the same paragraph as if they are connected despite most incest being perpetrated by fathers, stepfathers and uncles against female children.

You feel entitled to call homosexuals deviants despite that term being reserved for conduct that is inappropriate (Such as a compulsion for explicit public sexual activity or bestiality) or harmful, (Such as a compulsion to for explicit public sexual activity in front of an employer or with children.)

What makes you think that you're entitled to do this? And yet you decide to go down those roads while discussing a PG13 sex scene because it may, if one chooses, involve two men.

You are the disgusting thing about society.

darron13:

Lono Shrugged:
Great as usual but he totally missed out on the entitlement argument. Considering how many tits and asses get jammed in our face in most games, homosexual dudes must have it pretty rough.
Then again there is Gears of war....

My favorite thing about Jim I gotta say is how consistant and well thought out his opinions are. (even if i sometimes disagree I never fault where he is coming from) He never seems to contradict himself proving a point and thats the reason I would rather have more respect for him than some of the other people who do opinion pieces on this site.

Gears of War? Ick. Those guys are about as attractive as a piece of burnt toast taped onto a tank.
Coming from an actual gay guy.
And yeah it's funny that in the RARE SITUATION where there's male fanservice, you notice it.

I dunno I always figured Marcus would cuddle after.......maybe cry a little

Speaking as a filthy breeder, I never found much sex appeal in games either. For probably the same reasons you don't like Marcus and crew in that they are caricatures of real physicality and not attractive. Which kinda proves my point that sexualization in games is jammed in everyones faces and is universally pretty shit. It's kind of like how marketing companies are targeting the gay community. Yeah it's equality. But it's shit equality. You are now as sexualized and manipulated as the rest of us. woohoo! I have no problem with dudes/ladydudes loving each other and personally find it as compelling as a mixed dude couple. Because at the end of the day we are all dudes and if some dudes have a problem with that, then are not really dudes at all.

they're jerks

Lono Shrugged:

darron13:

Lono Shrugged:
Great as usual but he totally missed out on the entitlement argument. Considering how many tits and asses get jammed in our face in most games, homosexual dudes must have it pretty rough.
Then again there is Gears of war....

My favorite thing about Jim I gotta say is how consistant and well thought out his opinions are. (even if i sometimes disagree I never fault where he is coming from) He never seems to contradict himself proving a point and thats the reason I would rather have more respect for him than some of the other people who do opinion pieces on this site.

Gears of War? Ick. Those guys are about as attractive as a piece of burnt toast taped onto a tank.
Coming from an actual gay guy.
And yeah it's funny that in the RARE SITUATION where there's male fanservice, you notice it.

I dunno I always figured Marcus would cuddle after.......maybe cry a little

Speaking as a filthy breeder, I never found much sex appeal in games either. For probably the same reasons you don't like Marcus and crew in that they are caricatures of real physicality and not attractive. Which kinda proves my point that sexualization in games is jammed in everyones faces and is universally pretty shit. It's kind of like how marketing companies are targeting the gay community. Yeah it's equality. But it's shit equality. You are now as sexualized and manipulated as the rest of us. woohoo! I have no problem with dudes/ladydudes loving each other and personally find it as compelling as a mixed dude couple. Because at the end of the day we are all dudes and if some dudes have a problem with that, then are not really dudes at all.

they're jerks

I dunno. We're a sexualised society because well... because we are dammit!

But until kids can see their daddy's or mommy's Brother Andy marry their new Uncle Owen and have it be a normal thing without the Mother in Law or the Aunt passing a sentence of eternal damnation to the participants then we've got some work to do.

So it's great that Bioware/EA is willing to do some of the lifting. The demonstration that there is nothing wrong with being gay, that it doesn't have to lead to a life of repression and sadness is very important and it's great that a major area of popular literature is addressing that.

In no other mainstream media will this occur because obviously they are pandering to the majority. Does Hollywood do this? No. Does TV do this? Only on HBO. And only if there are gay black badasses. Six Feet Under - Keith, True Blood - Lafayette, The Wire - Omar. But in a game they can include the choice whether the main protagonist is gay or straight and for some reason certain people take offence.

"Pandering" as if mainstream media doesn't pander to the heterosexual-norm all the time.

More disgustingly "Pedophilia" ignoring the fact that most incest is father/stepfather on daughter.

The fact that a mainstream game has decided to make this part of their product is important.
Do not listen to people like Therumancer. People like him should be the thing that peopl rail against in society. Not two men loving each other, or even just two men butt-fucking each other...

Let's face it, most of us would give so much for it to be as easy to get sex (In the butt or not) from our wives a gay men have it in a free society. I think people like Therumancer are possibly complaining from a possible state of depravation. So fuck him.

ACman:

More disgustingly "Pedophilia" ignoring the fact that most incest is father/stepfather on daughter.

Just like to point out that Pedophillia is an attraction to prepubescents, while child molestation is the actual act of child molestation! It's the difference between mens rea and actus reus; the guilty thought and the guilty act, or (since civility has long been thrown out the window) the opinion that all zealous muslims are terrorists versus the opinion that people who have blown things up with the specific aim of sewig terror are terrorists. Maybe the English aren't so picky about their... English. Which would be really weird.

As for the topic immediately at hand I agree that it's an overall good move, and it reflects my opinion of bears in general; If you leave them alone they'll leave you alone. Having worked in a park this applies both to the literal and urban slang versions. If all else fails you can yell, throw rocks, and wave your maglite around, but that's not so different from the morning commute, is it?

Of course Bioware could just throw a massive monkey wrench into the works for trolling's sake by making any and all homosexual relationships only possible if you are going with evil/bad/negative Rebel karma. That'd be an amusing shitstorm, wouldn't it? But the clips that Jim showed us didn't have Shepard looking like a Sith wannabe...

Okay sorry but I have to say this:
I don't buy it.
I don't buy that there was anyone who didn't get Jim Sterling's point after the previous video with the gay fanfiction in it. Neither do I believe that Jim believed there actually were some people.
I might be wrong about that, but I like to think better of the human intelect. Sure someone would have posted some homophobic comment on the previous video, but this is the internet. You can't take everyone seriously. I'm quiet sure that Jim Sterling realizes that equally as well.
I'd be inclined to believe that he just made this video to make the video. It's a nice and easy topic to disguse, so I can see why he did, instead of making a video with a new and original topic.

bringer of illumination:
Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

What you say makes good sense, but it isn't flawless. Fact is we where continously shown the commercials and trailers of the Transformers. It was rather hard not to look at it a little bit, and many people hated Transformers for it was a terrible movie, shamelessly making money from a popular brand.
Mass effect's gay option will likely be a bit different. I doubt we'll see many commercials regarding this option, and looking the other way will be easy. Without Jim's video's I would never known.
However if the game will continously make you aware of the option, then I'll have to agee with you that the "But you don't have to look at it" is indeed invalid. And homophobic gamers would be entitled to complain about it.

Jim speaks the truth.

Jim speaks the truth in a refreshing way I`d say.

I any body is wondering about what Therumancer actually said I'll break it down for you:

Therumancer:

Jim is basically a left winger in support of the gay rights movement trying to make a point about the "stupidity" of people objecting to Mass Effect 3 having gay content. His point takes place in his snarky comments about this now being canonical, and Mass Effect "turning everyone who plays it gay" like that's the concern. Sort of insulting the people who would be offended by this through portraying it.

Hmm. Maybe the people who are offended by this need to take a deep breath and relax.

As much as I agree with a lot of Jim's points, I disagree with this one (obviously) and feel that he is missing the entire bloody point, while getting caught up in his own liberal rhetoric. He's basically argueing in an offhanded way from the perspective of what his "side" wants to believe the other side is like, instead of facing the realities.

Really? And what are those realities?

Even those who aren't anti-gay men oppose this because it's about entitlement, basically the gay rights movement having gone from a "we have the right to exist and not be actively hunted down and prevented from holding jobs" to a demand that despite their tiny numbers they have an ACTIVE prescence in pretty much everything. The basic arguement being that despite tiny numbers they believe that there should be gay sex in any product that touches on the issue of sex or romance at all.

Two of the most famous studies of the demographics of human sexual orientation were Dr. Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). These studies used a seven-point spectrum to define sexual behavior, from 0 for completely heterosexual to 6 for completely homosexual. Kinsey concluded that a small percentage of the population were to one degree or another bisexual (falling on the scale from 1 to 5). He also reported that 37% of men in the U.S. had achieved orgasm through contact with another male after adolescence and 13% of women had achieved orgasm through contact with another woman.

Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, dedicated years to reviewing the Kinsey data and culling its purported contaminants. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) concluded that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by the perceived bias, finding that 36.4% of men had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, as opposed to Kinsey's 37%.

A logic which if followed means that you can't create anything without every group being represented. A lot of the opposition comes from the insitance of entitlement, rather than the content itself. This is why you didn't see the same kinds of protests over the gay men present in say "Dragon Age: Origins", they were intended to be there by Bioware as that is how those characters turned out. In "Mass Effect" there was no such intention from the creators and the demand is to create such content specifically due to entitlement when it was never intended to be there to begin with...........................

Yeah I'm going to stop you there. Bioware was going to include homosexual scenes in ME2. They didn't for time and cost reasons. This led to understandable disappointment amongst the homosexual community but the hope that it would be included in the future

Sort of like calling the makers of a popular TV show racist if they don't introduce mor minority characters and give them substantial screen time, even if it ruins the entire show... this is the sexual version of it.

Umm. No. You can only make that comparison if you have a choice of male and female Buffy's and then a choice of male or female love interests for Whedon's protagonist.

If Shepard being gay ruins the entire show for you A) You are the worst kind of person, and B) Why did you play Shepard gay you fucktard?......

Oh wait he's not finished.

This is to say nothing of the entire issue of "tolerance vs. acceptance" which I think is be an increasingly nasty battleground in the next few years. Getting past my own personal opinions,

I'm sure you haven't but go on...

this is no longer about as gay supporters would say "not caring about what people consentually do in their own bedroom" it's about people wanting to bring that behavior literally into the homes of those who aren't interested and wave it around. Taken to it's conclusion the demands for inclusion would mean no romantic media without equal amounts of gay content. That's pretty much what we're seeing with the demand for such content in Mass Effect 3. Forcing homosexuality onto people who aren't interested is incidently EXACTLY what the gay rights movement was calling ridicuolous and saying wouldn't happen a decade or so ago.

....................................

.........................

You realise that Mass Effect 3 doesn't force this on you right? You can choose to not be gay? (funnily enough unlike real life)

Who the fuck is forcing this on you? If you say no none of the characters rape you. What the fuck are you complaining about here?

The bottom line is that like 99.9% of the population are not gay,

Where did you get this figure? I would say out of your ass but your so homophobic that this is obviously not true. Here are the real statistics for homosexuality:

Australia
2003
Men 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual.
Women 0.8% as lesbian and 1.4% as bisexual.

Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same gender or some sexual experience with the same gender. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual.

Canada
1988
A study of 5,514 college and university students under the age of 25 found 1% who were homosexual and 1% who were bisexual.

1998
A stratified random sample of 750 males aged 18 to 27 in Calgary, Canada included questions on sexual activity and orientation. 15.3% of men "reported being homosexual to some degree" on the basis of three (often overlapping) measures of homosexuality:

(1) voluntary, same-gender sexual contact from age 12 to 27: 14.0%;
(2) overlapping homosexual (5.9%) and/or bisexual (6.1%) self-identification: 11.1%; and
(3) exclusive (4.3%) and non-exclusive (4.9%) same-gender sexual relationships in past 6 months: 9.2%.[8]

2003
A survey of 135,000 Canadians found that 1.0% of the respondents identified themselves as homosexual and 0.7% identified themselves as bisexual.

About 1.3% of men considered themselves homosexual, almost twice the proportion of 0.7% among women. However, 0.9% of women reported being bisexual, slightly higher than the proportion of 0.6% among men. 2.0% of those in the 18-35 age bracket considered themselves to be either homosexual or bisexual, but the number decreased to 1.9% among 35-44 year olds, and further still to 1.2% in the population aged 45-59. Quebec and British Columbia had higher percentages than the national average at 2.3% and 1.9%, respectively.[9]

Denmark
1992
A random survey found that 2.7% of the 1,373 men who responded to their questionnaire had homosexual experience (intercourse).[10]

France
1992
A study of 20,055 people found that 4.1% of the men and 2.6% of the women had at least one occurrence of intercourse with person of the same sex during their lifetime.[11]

Norway
1988
In a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had a homosexual experience sometime in their life.[12]
2003
According to Durex Global Sex Survey for 2003, 12% of Norwegian respondents have had homosexual sex.[13]

United Kingdom
1992
A study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% have had a "homosexual experience" and 3.6% had "1+ homosexual partner ever."[14]
2005
HM Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry completed a survey to help the Government analyse the financial implications of the Civil Partnerships Act (such as pensions, inheritance and tax benefits). They concluded that there were 3.6 m gay people in Britain-around 6% of the total population or 1 in 16.66 people.[15]
2010
A representative survey of 238,206 Britons, exclusive to their categories, found 1% were gay or lesbian and 0.5% were bisexual. A further 0.5% self-identified as "other", and 3% responded as "do not know" or refused to answer.[16]

As of April 2011, approximately 3.5% of American adults identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, while 0.3% are transgender-approximately 11.7 million Americans.[1]

3.5% reported. I'm willing to bet there at least that many in the closet (because of people like you).

homosexuals are a very tiny group despite how much noise they make.

So are fundamentalist Christians.

Nobody is concerned gay media will turn them gay,

Then why are you worried?

so much as they find it disgusting not being wired that way. People do not want to be grossed out in order to play a video game, watch a movie, or experience any kind of normal romantic stuff due to the requirement this also be present.

I see. You don't want to see two men kissing. A woman and an alien woman in the last game was okay for you; but two men.... Too much.

Fuck yourself. No seriously. Though shit.

Men fuck each other (in a good way). DEAL WITH IT. Men can fuck each other in this game if you
so choose. DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!

If that grosses you out don't do it in the game.

Why is that so hard?

Ultimatly a lot of the opposition over Bioware inserting male homosexuality into these products is because it's being done out of demands of entitlement (as opposed to being intended to be there to begin with), and because while a lot of the gamers might not care what people do on their own time, they really don't want to have people waving homosexuality in their face during their escapism. It doesn't have to be intense gay porno, simply having homosexuals make passes at them and sit around pining and making it clear the option is there is enough.

Yeah we get it. You hate gay men. The option for it in Mass Effect makes you sick. Somehow you've manage to take request for it to be included in a ROLE PLAYING GAME and turn it around in your sick little brain into gay men being "entitled".

You're the on who is entitled. You are the one insisting that the only option be yours.

My basic attitude, my whole opinion about gay-men aside (which can probably be found in some old back posts)is that if Bioware decides to write gay characters, so be it. They obviously don't shy away from this when it fits. As soon as people start demanding they be there out of entitlement, when they weren't intended ot fitting into the intended story balance to begin with, that's just wrong.

What story balance? Seriously, after ME2 who gives a fuck about Mass Effect's story? And as to Shepard he's so deliberately bland he could fuck goats in his spare time and I wouldn't bat an eye.

The problem with Jim's rant,

Rant? he's reading gay slash fic..

is that I think he's characterizing the majority of the opposition entirely wrong, which kind of ruins what otherwise might have been a pretty impressive way of making a counter arguement about it's ridiculousness.

Umm no. I think he's just trying to say that homosexual thoughts are okay in his own way.

But then again one of the problems with the left wing and those defending left wing issues is that they tend to create an image of the enemy in their own mind,

No that would be the Republicans and their FauxObama construct.

and beat up straw men, without ever dealing with the actual issues.. and that's one of the reasons the US at least remains so polarized despite the left wing blowing it's own horn and trying to act like it represents a massive, clear majority when it doesn't (which is an issue well beyond this)

Oh good... Moral majority. Good for you.

Like I said about the previous video, this is very much spot on. In RPGs, I tend to make my choices based on what I would do myself. In the case of ME1&2, generally pick things that would make me the stereotypical "good guy" and, as I'm a straight man, pick a female love interest. My flatmate on the other hand (who's gay) may like to do to same and play the game his way. Why should he be stopped from picking a guy as his love interest? Or a female friend of mine who happens to swing both ways, why shouldn't her character be able to do the same?

Like Dragon Age II before it, the optional romantic subplot is exactly that: OPTIONAL. If you're going to be offended by it, simply don't go looking for it. Easy as that.

Hey Jim, you mad bro? . . . .

Moving on. Looking back at how Bioware handled gay relationships in the past I find the "You don't have to bother with it" argument to fall flat on it's face. Dragon Age 2 was about as subtle as a hand grenade with their gay characters.

Of course my argument is, and will continue to be, that the people pushing for inclusion of gays are simply a bunch of hypocrites. When it comes to getting what they want into the game it's all about being open minded and "it's only an option, you don't have to see it". And god help you if you disagree with them you get labeled a homophobe or a bigot.

However, when someone pushes for another alternate lifestyle to be brought in that they personally find distasteful well then that open mindedness, acceptance and having the option not to see it goes right out the window.

So I guess it's ok that their Shepards can bugger men but as soon as someone wants to push the boundaries a little and suggest that they'd like their Shepard to bugger a cow or the vacuum cleaner or random corpses or alter boys well then that offends their delicate senses and is an affront to decency.

The thing is once you start forcing acceptance of your lifestyle on people telling them it's just an option that they don't have to see and call them close minded bigots and homophobes for finding what you like distasteful you come off as a hypocrite when you turn around and start doing the exact same thing as the people you would call close minded bigots to people with another alternate lifestyle that people would like represented in a game. Even though at the end of they what they want would just be an option you wouldn't have to see.

FedericoV:
Anders, Fenris and Isabella are quite clear about their lack of preferences if you take time to talk to them. It does not ask a lot of effort to raise the issue.

But even then, you're taking the effort, however little it might be, to bring the issue up.

FedericoV:
Yes, I like to select most dialogue option with any NPC in the game. Because I find fascinating to explore the personality of the cast since that's one major asset of Bioware games. Maybe I have to deal with a lot of problems as you kindly put it but for me it's like reading a book or watching a movie: I like to know the protagonists of the story.

I can sympathize with that. I've always been a fan of story/character driven games, and that tends to be more of a saving grace for me if coupled with lousy gameplay than if it's the other way around.

FedericoV:
Having said that, the problem is not so much how I gain the info. The problem is that those romances (and in many ways the charachters themselves) are quite shallow and empty because of that design choice. Those charachter are defined by their romance status in many ways and since the romance is generic, the charachters themselves seem more generic as a result.

Wait, what? Did you really look at the exchanges and think that they were somehow cheapened by the fact that you could get to the same point as the opposite gender? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds an awful lot like you're just equating bisexuality with promiscuity. If you successfully shack up with Anders in both of two playthroughs as male and female, it doesn't mean that he's just the community bicycle. It just means that, in two universes exactly alike save for Hawke's gender, gender wasn't the reason Anders became involved with Hawke.

FedericoV:
It's not a mistery that the best charachters in DA2 are Varric and Aveline. Strange enough: they are not romance options and the result is that they sound more convincing as separate entity from the PC.

Erm...or it was because they pretty much got the most screentime by default. And were similarly easy staples of any given party, making them gain even more screentime. I don't know about you, but if I was putting together a list of pros and cons for the character roster, "Would bone me despite gender" wouldn't be on either side because it isn't very much of a deciding character trait. It doesn't add any depth, but it sure doesn't detract from them. If I were considering the romances themselves, the issue of gender wouldn't even come into play.

FedericoV:
Morrigain and Alistair are the most convincing charachter of the DA lore so I have to assume that it's not a problem of being a romancable charachter or not. The problem is how the romance option are designed.

Say what now? Alistair I can understand being on that list. But the reason his romance was so unique was in its details, not the player's ability to access it.

But Morrigan? Really? She had her moments, but it was almost in spite of every interaction I had with her. Courting her without a strategy guide was like trying to perform open heart surgery with a brick while simultaneously juggling cobras. Every time I brought her along in my party, she would hate me unless I indulged in every chance for gratuitous murder. The only remotely reliable way of getting approval was to determine what I, a generally good person, would normally do, and then doing the polar opposite of that instead. She only liked the choices that resulted in the most dead, preferably innocent bystanders. Her every opinion on anything was so far detached from her self-proclaimed advocacy of survival of the fittest.

Meh, moving on. This could go on for a while unless I curb it now.

FedericoV:
In DA:O romances help the plot and the charachterization. In DA2 they did nothing. No matter the sexuality of your PC, they all feel generic and bland. I believe that the "open romance" design was one of the most important cause of that problem.

Okay...then explain to me exactly how Alistair's romance would have been dramatically cheapened if it could take place with a male hero.

FedericoV:
I would have prefer a "hit or miss" approach with every charachter being a defined individual indipendent from your PC (being straight, gay or bisexual).

Alright, let's build on that hypothetical structure.

Imagine a group of five romancible characters, all of your character's gender. For the purposes of this, you're homosexual, and roleplaying as such. And out of those five characters, three are straight, one is bisexual, and one is gay.

Now imagine that the only ones of that group that appeal to you are two of the heterosexual characters. The bisexual one is just a 'bones everything that moves' type, and you don't really like the homosexual one for reasons unrelated to his orientation.

Doesn't that sound like a fun game? A harsh reminder that, from a statistical point of view, your ideal romantic partner will never like you in the same way that you like them? That if you want any sort of romance in your life, you'll have to settle for someone you don't like?

FedericoV:
But that would cause a lot of complains from bio-drone crybabies who have indeed a lot of problems and that would start to whine on the forums: "oh, I'm straight why I cannot romance gay charachter x?" or "oh, I'm gay, why I cannot romance straight charachter Y".

That sort of entitlement toward romances has plagued Bioware fanbase since BG2. But it has reached crazy levels in the last years. To the point where fans on the forum asked to romance their sister in the game only because she had big boobs and she was hotter than the other female options...

...okay, that's about as separate from the issue at hand as the "next Shepard will be a pedophile" argument.

And even then, I can guarantee that you stand a much, much higher chance of adventuring with a group that turns out to be predominantly bisexual than you do with getting a fraternal twin who wants to screw with you.

I myself also find this "But you dont have to look at it/It's optional"-argument, to be rather poor one. Jim has a point but this argument definitely needs a little bit more to it than just that. There really isn't a "subtle" or "optional" way to interact in a way that doesnt make it seem forced. The "homosexuals" of bioware games or most games that deal with this, are blatant stereotypes that just come off as forward and annoying to those who "dont want to look at it".
My one "subtle" experience with homosexuality done right is from the Persona series.

Why is that homosexuality needs to be either encouraged or hated upon <_>?

thank god for jim! but seriously who thinks homosexuals=pedophiles?! seriously
also WHERE AND WHY THE LIVING HELL DID YOU GET THAT GIANT PINK DILDO?!

Let's keep going with Therumancer shall we?

Therumancer:

I've written some detailed posts on it with mixed responses, no need to start a fight about it. In short we don't have a "cure" for homosexuality that's viable right now, though ideally that will happen with time, and more akin to what I've posted in commentary on science fiction (ie have the condition elimited in the process of simply making people perfectly healthy) as opposed to some kind of witch hunt with people being run down and dragging off to surgey clinics or having needles stuck in their arm or anything.

................................

Essentially what you're saying is that you want to breed a specific genetic trait out of humanity?

In the short term I think gay men and lesbians need to be considered seperate issues.

What? You find the sapphic honeys particularly desirable but you hate fag-town?

Men and women are differant both physically and psychologically, and this applies to homosexuals as well. Despite liberal assurances that it's not the case, the reality is that gay men ARE more likely to attack children than just about any other group.

....

I think I'm more likely to attack YOU than just about any group.

Even with the statistics put out by the left wing you see you'll notice a trend to use stats compiled from all homosexuals and then applied to the arguements, once you remove the lesbians you wind up with gays being twice as likely to attack children as straight guys which kind of destroys a lot of the point. Not to mention that such statistics are compiled with an agenda and you'd only see the left wing promoting statistics that reinforced what they wanted to say.

What is your source?

Most importantly though I've had a lot of experience with such things, both having been trained to deal with sexual predators,

No, fuck you. You've made an outrageous claim. WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR SOURCE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and having looked into it being a sex abuse victim myself (which does not invalidate anything I say). One thing you'll notice is that you just don't see lesbians attacking little girls, I mean sure, I'm sure there are exceptions where it's happened, but very rarely. When you hear about homosexual assault, who is it that does it? Gay men.

Wow..... I'm overwhelmed....... That's fucking amazing. I never would have thought of that; homosexual assault.... is done by gay men.....

I'm fucking amazed.

Next up in Thermaturg's amazing insights: Heterosexual assault done by {DUN DUN DUUUUN} heterosexual men!!!!!

Wow. There is no wonder that this dickhead cannot profess..... [seriously fuck this guy]

That's not just bad press, in about a decade of working as casino security where morons leave their kids unattended off the gaming floor and don't want to pay for daycare or whatever, I have literally dealt with dozens if not hundreds of gay men trying to lure little boys, more than I've seen straight guys with little girls (and that does happen with some frequency). I have not run into a single lesbian trying to pick up little girls... so really it's not bad press, that's how it is "on the street" so to speak from someone who was paid to look out for things like this. Of course due to concerns over NAMBLA we had to treat the gay pedos with kid gloves, but that's a whole differant story.

Ahh! Anecdotal evidence. Fucking meaningless.

Even if your statistically meaningless sample was representational then who is to say that those paedophiles targeting boys wouldn't be well adjusted, normal homosexual men if people like you weren't judging them? And how many step-fathers that rape their step-daughters have you left out of this meaningless anecdote?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think gay men should be arbitrarly lined up, executed, castrated, or anything else. We're not dealing with a situation where this is the case for every gay man or anything of the sort.

................

I do however think gay men should be registered, much like sex offenders,

.....................................

but without the active tracking. They should be prohibited from going places around children as a matter of policy,

I give up. FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING HOMOPHOBE. THERE IS NO GRACEFUL WAY TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

FUCK THIS GUY.

SERIOUSLY READ THIS.

They should be prohibited from going places around children as a matter of policy, and probably given twice the penelties as normal for violations or if they are caught trying to actually go after children. By a lack of active tracking I mean I don't think an entire neighborhood needs to be informed that so and so is gay, but I do think schools should be basically informed, and it should be attached to IDs so if say some gay guy comes into a casino and gives his ID to be allowed to gamble casino security is aware, and can also inform the guy where to stay away from (arcades, day care, etc..) to prevent accidental tresspass and similar things.

Overall while many people would object out of hand, this is an attitude that has come from long experience, and I've gone through periods where I've been more or less extreme. This seems like a pretty middle ground compromise as it presents few limitations. To be honest as a straight guy I don't hang around schools, playgrounds, arcades, etc... unless I have a good reason (like being paid security) so really being told you can't go there isn't something that is going to hamper most people unless they are up to something to begin with. It's very much one of the cases where I actually think the maxim "only the guilty should be concerned" kind of applies. Some would talk about railing against any kind of limitation, but at the same time I'd ask WTF would an adult man with allegedly no interest in kids fight for the right to go hang around a playground or children's arcade? I mean seriously.

... and trust me, from experience, if you see some solitary guy hanging out in an arcade watching the kids there is very rarely a good reason for it. Sadly you can't do anything out of hand, but trust me, after about 10 minutes you can almost guarantee your going to have to at least step in and make your prescence known at some point (at which point the guy will almost universally go scurrying like a cockroach).

Part of it is what they called "colored glasses" when I took Criminal Justice. Basically people remain optimistic and liberal because they never really see the world properly the way how someone who does law enforcement, "high end" security work, or receives the proper training does. See, you take the right training, watch people through cameras when they don't think they are being observed, and respond to incident after incident and write (or read) report after report, you see things as they actually are, and can recognize behaviors you once wouldn't have been alarmed by for what they are.

Criminals an predators survive because they seem normal, your child molester, shoplifter, pickpocket, stairwell rapist, mugger, or whatever doesn't look like some dude from America's most wanted. He looks like your ordinary person, and can talk a good game about being harmless. Most homosexual predators for example are EXACTLY the guy who looks like the poster child for "we're unfairly maligned, and don't attack children" they don't go walking around covered in tattoos and looking like prison rapist nightmares, or dirty old men. Just like a shoplifter might be an old lady who looks like (and probably is) someone's grandmother, especially if it's part of an organized ring because people tend to be a lot more laid back with the elderly not to mention all the special laws about treating them with kid gloves and so on. You watch this crap 20 million times on a camera and it burns in.

While I'm rambling in a long post, I might as well explain how this kind of thing works as well. See, little boys are braver than girls and have immortal action and adventure fantasies in their head, they are warned, and take warnings less seriously than girls who tend to be a bit more aware of people being after them probably because people teach them more seriously. Your typical gay pedo is going to be some normal looking guy in his 20s or 30s, maybe even good looking, who hangs around an arcade or similar place, to see who has been left without parents or a sibling, and hasn't fallen in with another pack of kids. Or more indidiously for those carrying books, because kids have homework and a lot of your casino parents will have the kids their kids bring the homework to the casino. Basically the pedo will probably play a few video games, offer the kid some extra quarters or something, and then when the kid runs out offer to help him with his homework. The kid probably wants to go somewhere quiet to concentrate with a flat surface so it's pretty easy to gert the kid to enter a stairwell, where the cameras tend to be aimed at the landings. The pedo gets the kid into the stairwell and then goes to do homework with him in the middle of the landing where they can sit, or the kid can *ahem* turn around and use the steps as a flat surface. In that position it's where the pedo can do his thing and unless a security officer comes by on a patrol, at the right moment your going to find the traumatized lad crying with the guy long gone. Even if you find him, because it happened between landings there won't be a great video record since the act itself took place between landings. This is assuming the guy didn't mess with the cameras and security wasn't too busy to notice (given that there are tons of them). Now granted this rarely goes down, because well. there are procedures that make it harder to get away with, but really you'd be shocked how many normal looking dudes have tried to carry out that basic plan.

Xanthious:
Hey Jim, you mad bro? . . . .

Hey, look who came out of the woodwork! I was wondering if you'd show up in this thread.

Xanthious:
Moving on. Looking back at how Bioware handled gay relationships in the past I find the "You don't have to bother with it" argument to fall flat on it's face. Dragon Age 2 was about as subtle as a hand grenade with their gay characters.

Of course my argument is, and will continue to be, that the people pushing for inclusion of gays are simply a bunch of hypocrites. When it comes to getting what they want into the game it's all about being open minded and "it's only an option, you don't have to see it". And god help you if you disagree with them you get labeled a homophobe or a bigot.

So you're offended that there are things in the game that are available if you look for them because...you don't like the idea that other people might be looking at them while you aren't? Does someone hypothetically playing a gay Shepard somehow make you feel insecure about your straight Shepard?

Xanthious:
However, when someone pushes for another alternate lifestyle to be brought in that they personally find distasteful well then that open mindedness, acceptance and having the option not to see it goes right out the window.

Ah, I see it now. You're offended by the concept of hypothetical homosexuals and find yourself compelled to track them down and...be offended by them, I guess.

Xanthious:
So I guess it's ok that their Shepards can bugger men but as soon as someone wants to push the boundaries a little and suggest that they'd like their Shepard to bugger a cow or the vacuum cleaner or random corpses or alter boys well then that offends their delicate senses and is an affront to decency.

I guess that clears it up. We shouldn't tolerate gays because next we'll be expected to tolerate necrophiliacs and pedophiles. Just like how giving voting rights to blacks not much over a century ago (back when they were literally considered to be sub-human) led to other domesticated animals being given civil rights. Or how banning private ownership of assault weapons led to all guns being banned.

Xanthious:
The thing is once you start forcing acceptance of your lifestyle on people telling them it's just an option that they don't have to see and call them close minded bigots and homophobes for finding what you like distasteful you come off as a hypocrite when you turn around and start doing the exact same thing to people with another alternate lifestyle that people would like represented in a game. Even though at the end of they what they want would just be an option you wouldn't have to see.

That's the most hilariously broken logic I've ever heard. It assumes that nobody can do anything without every possible extreme happening as a result. Let's apply your thinking to age of consent laws.

The AoC in New Jersey, for instance, is 16. But what about the people who want to have sex with 15 year olds? We can't deny them the same acceptance when we so readily grant it to others. And once we've done that, what about the people who aren't allowed to screw 14 year olds? Or anyone at all? I mean, I'm sure that some people want to screw newborns. Who are we to say that their choice of lifestyle is less deserving of acceptance than that of two adults of the same gender?

Xanthious:
So I guess it's ok that their Shepards can bugger men but as soon as someone wants to push the boundaries a little and suggest that they'd like their Shepard to bugger a cow or the vacuum cleaner or random corpses or alter boys well then that offends their delicate senses and is an affront to decency.

Did you miss the being gay is not a bad thing RAPING KIDS IS A BAD THING statement?
And if they want to include an option to have sex with a vacuum cleaner who cares? Its their game they can do what they want.

Let me just get this out of the way "I AM CLEVER AT VIDEO GAMES".
Any way my complaint with gayness in ME3 was that it was too late in the series, Jim said that you could choose to be gay or not. If this is the case than that is absolutely fine.

Shepard is an avatar for you in the Mass effect story, and if you are gay so is your Shepard.
HOWEVER in Dragon Age 2 another Bioware game which is basically fantasy, mass effect now. When a character started to flirt with Hawke in a gay way I was given three options. Two of which were options to reciprocate the flirt and act gay. The other was something along the lines of F*CK OFF I AM NOT GAY. Which would have upset the character, and given me rivalry points which I didn't want.
There NEEDS to be a neutral option here so you can say something like "I am flattered but no thank you". So NO I am not Homophobic and pedophilia is not something that should be compared to gay sex, pedophilia is an act of evil, gay sex is a matter of free will and choice.

Jim has put my mind to rest, to a certain extent and I agree that Homosexuality probably will have no impact on the plot but. I will be annoyed if Characters make Gay sexual advances on me and my only choice, is to Bed them or tell them to F*ck off.
And you cant say fairer than that.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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