LGBTQ...

[Logos.3042]

The best love story that GW2 had was Braham and Gwen reconciling before she died.  Profound story of forgiveness and love, and then loss.

As for the others, if they were done better maybe they would be worthwhile, but all of them are so full of tropes and stereotypes it is nauseating.  

Keep GW2 a RPG.  Give you folks focused on sexuality the skins/clothing you are looking for and do your thing, but let everyone else make their own decision, imo.  

[greedywholesome.9081]

1 hour ago, Einsof.1457 said:

Make everyone gay. 

 

Loving your positive energy. Nothing wrong with being happy and gay

[greedywholesome.9081]

11 hours ago, TheQuickFox.3826 said:

 

More than one. Here is the Tyria Pride Discord. Mostly centered around the yearly event but it also can work as starting point to explore further and look for a related guild.

https://discord.gg/x2WHuy7W

 

Thank you kind sir

[greedywholesome.9081]

On 7/29/2022 at 6:15 AM, Kuma.1503 said:

I recall one NPC converstaion between two male Charr in Grothmar Valley. 

Don't remember the exact words, but it went something like:

 

Charr 1: I could use some fun of the nighttime variety. 

Charr 2: Same. You can tell a lot about what someone is into by the weapons they carry. 

Char 1. [Gutteral Voice] ... Nice Axe.

 

If only they substituted Axe with Staff..... See I love these subtle dialogues 

[greedywholesome.9081]

This thread has nothing nothing nothing to do with politics, the media, etc etc. Just RPG fun, mmmk

[Kuma.1503]

17 minutes ago, greedywholesome.9081 said:

 

If only they substituted Axe with Staff..... See I love these subtle dialogues 

The way he said it, I'm pretty sure it was pun for nice 🍑 

[The Greyhawk.9107]

44 minutes ago, greedywholesome.9081 said:

This thread has nothing nothing nothing to do with politics, the media, etc etc. Just RPG fun, mmmk

No offense, but while that may have been your intent that's not how things always work out. You really only start the thread, you don't actually get to set rules for it or tell people what they get to discuss.  And some people can't help themselves, myself included sometime.

[greedywholesome.9081]

On 7/29/2022 at 9:32 PM, TheLadyOfTheRings.9148 said:

Definitely 🙂 

thank you for your support, it'll be fun. need more hetero and male same gender. 

[greedywholesome.9081]

32 minutes ago, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

No offense, but while that may have been your intent that's not how things always work out. You really only start the thread, you don't actually get to set rules for it or tell people what they get to discuss.  And some people can't help themselves, myself included sometime.

 

No offense taken, I understand that people will be people and I let them be themselves 🙂

Thanks for your feedback and participation. 

Edited July 31, 2022 by greedywholesome.9081

[Labjax.2465]

On 7/26/2022 at 7:21 AM, Sahne.6950 said:

Just a headsup: I like the idea! and i especially think the asura and Charr would be HELLA cute together! This post has nothing to do with the idea itself. i am just saying this to maybe start some critical thinking regarding this topic. I myself would position myself on the far left, in terms of political world view. I even participated in the Christopher street day in Berlin last week. So dont take this as sexist, rightwinged, yada yada. This not meant to devalue your idea, i actually like it! its just something for the people here and basicly the whole mankind to think about.

We have to stop and think for a second. Do we really need to force politics/gender discussion or similar things into our games? After all.... this is a fantasy world. Do we really even need to consider or pay attention if and how many gay relationships there are in gw2? Why does sexuality even matter in a videogame?

No need to force things like this. If there is gay charackters in a videogame. Cool! diversity. I have nothing against that. Your idea specifically with the asura and charr sounds sooo CUUTE, ngl! ❤️

but do we have to force things like that? (not saying you are trying to do that, btw! Your idea is soo neat^^) At one point i thought to myself... are we overshooting the overall goal here? That point came to me, when the creators of the Sonic film were facing a juristical charge, because their Film didnt include any LGBTQIA+ charckters....  like..... what?! we are speaking about flippin running Hedgehogs that go on a adventure... do we have to force politics on everything!? Well guess what.... Doctor Eggmans assistant is now gay.

 

While i like your idea! and i am all for it. I think its crazy how it has turned from "love for and with all" to "You can not create a film about some lightningfast hedgehogs without including a gay charackter".

 

So if games never had women in them, only men, except for when people really really pushed for it, would it be "forcing politics" to insist women should be in games too? If you can see what's wrong there, you can see what's wrong with the position you took in this post.

[Tom.8029]

17 hours ago, Albi.7250 said:

No i did not want to go into that. The word woke literally triggered any reason out of you guys. I made fun of the statement that the absence of a facet of life in a piece of media equals active hostility or planned erasure of that aspect of life. Because that is just silly.

Anet clearly is in favor of lgbt promotion. They even retro actively made 1 captain gay. The reason there isn't an on screen gay parring is most likely thanks to the too small male cast. Braham who is basically a protagonist has 1 meaningful interaction with another male character over multiple season and expansions. But apparently the real reason is male on male erasure and a fetish for lesbian? From the same writers who ended a whole saga with a lesbian wedding?

What? Why would the mention of taxes and poverty line create greed? Because it is uncomfortable for you? You only can care about the poor as long as they are gay poor?

Anyways I didn't came here to discuss politics. I just found it funny that that their wide cast of females leads, lead them into A situation where there are not enough relevant male characters to form a male on male romance on screen. Proving ones again you cant make everyone happy:).

I knew your first paragraph was a joke. I wasn’t too sure about your second one, though.  Or atleast the last 2 sentences of it.   If gender and sexual orientation are not included then they ARE excluded because of what I already said. Because we live in a world where heterosexuality and cisgender are the assumed norm. 
 

And mention of poverty does harbor a sense a greed. There will always be a party with and a party without, relatively speaking, because we live in a capitalistic society. . And that feeling of without will harbor a sense of greed or jealousy from those that have.   I have no issues talking about uncomfortable subjects. That’s why I’m here in this thread.  We were originally talking about lgbtq representation in media. You’re the one who steered the conversation here by equating poverty and lgbtq. And then I mentioned that they can be and are connected. 

Edited July 31, 2022 by Tom.8029
Typo

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

On 7/30/2022 at 5:41 AM, VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig. said:

two points:

1) considering that lgbtq... people are roughly 1% of the population, they are already overrepresented in the game

2) the 'evil west' is pretty much ok with lgbtq... relationships. The rest of the world on the other hand... pushing that more can be very detrimmental for ANET.

It is not only islamic countries which have problem with that  kind of content, do I have to remind people that Russia bans all kind of 'homosexual propaganda'? Lesbian couples are the 'safest' option in that regard, with plenty of countries who are willing to sent men to prison or even kill, are ok with women-women sexual acts.

Polls taken over the last decade have placed the younger generation (<20s) at ~40% LGBTQIA+, mostly bisexual.

 

Of course, people write this off as "just a phase" but its more than likely previous generations were largely surpressed and the 1% number is so wrong its not even relevant. Its like still believing that the Earth is flat or the sun revolves around the Earth; just because it was the accepted truth at one time doesn't make it the absolute truth, because its heavily skewed by many factors including individual perception.

 

Almost everything we know ends up being a miscalculation given enough time.

 

Humans like to do stuff, and if you tell them its okay to do that stuff, they're going to do that stuff, and if they end up liking it, then they're probably going to do that stuff some more, and usually the only thing that keeps them from doing stuff is someone saying don't do that stuff.

 

What you said is just an example of this. You don't see how that would skew the data? How it would make any kind of data points compiled thus far completely unreliable?

Edited July 31, 2022 by Mariyuuna.6508

[Tom.8029]

8 minutes ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

Polls taken over the last decade have placed the younger generation (<20s) at ~40% LGBTQIA+, mostly bisexual.

 

Of course, people write this off as "just a phase" but its more than likely previous generations were largely surpressed and the 1% number is so wrong its not even relevant. Its like still believing that the Earth is flat or the sun revolves around the Earth; just because it was the accepted truth at one time doesn't make it the absolute truth, because its heavily skewed by many factors including individual perception.

 

Almost everything we know ends up being a miscalculation given enough time.

 

Humans like to do stuff, and if you tell them its okay to do that stuff, they're going to do that stuff, and if they end up liking it, then they're probably going to do that stuff some more, and usually the only thing that keeps them from doing stuff is someone saying don't do that stuff.

 

What you said is just an example of this. You don't see how that would skew the data?

That is so true. The older generation suppresses their true feelings because of societal norms and pressures, generational trauma, and parental religious beliefs. They grew up being taught the ideal family is a mom, dad, and 2.5 kids. Anything else is weird or frowned upon. 

[Opopanax.1803]

3 minutes ago, Tom.8029 said:

That is so true. The older generation suppresses their true feelings because of societal norms and pressures, generational trauma, and parental religious beliefs. They grew up being taught the ideal family is a mom, dad, and 2.5 kids. Anything else is weird or frowned upon. 

I think what you see with older generations is just the default evolutionary biology playing out which is why you see a standard family represented across all continents and cultures. 

 

There are certainly a lot more people exploring the spectrum of sexuality these days. 

 

I suspect things will continue to swing back and forth, as they have always done.  

[Tom.8029]

Quote

Opopanax.1803

The idea of the nuclear family is largely a western construct. Children traditionally were raised by the entire community in early African and Asian cultures.  Raising children was a communal effort. Since then, the idea of the family has adapted a more individualized approach.  Hence the small, separate families and 2 parents with distinct gender roles.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Tom.8029

[Opopanax.1803]

30 minutes ago, Tom.8029 said:

The idea of the nuclear family is largely a western construct. Children traditionally were raised by the entire community in early African and Asian cultures.  Raising children was a communal effort. Since then, the idea of the family has adapted a more individualized approach.  Hence the small, separate families and 2 parents with distinct gender roles.

Gonna have to disagree on your facts of this one.  Asian, African, and Indian cultures have always had individual families, so to claim a Western construct is very off base.  

As we go back in anthropological time, we do see many tribal groups with community assisted child care, but to claim that the community raised the children is not an accurate representation.  

It always fascinates me to hear young Westerners tell other cultures how their culture actually was, regardless of what that cultures history is.  It strikes me as a ret-con of the highest level.

[Tom.8029]

2 minutes ago, Opopanax.1803 said:

Gonna have to disagree on your facts of this one.  Asian, African, and Indian cultures have always had individual families, so to claim a Western construct is very off base.  

As we go back in anthropological time, we do see many tribal groups with community assisted child care, but to claim that the community raised the children is not an accurate representation.  

It always fascinates me to hear young Westerners tell other cultures how their culture actually was, regardless of what that cultures history is.  It strikes me as a ret-con of the highest level.

You have no idea of my cultural background. Besides, even if what you’re saying is 100% true, having community-assisted child rearing eliminates the need for distinct parents with distinct gender roles, which is what I said.  And also much of Africa and Asia was colonized and imperialized by the west. 

[Opopanax.1803]

1 minute ago, Tom.8029 said:

You have no idea of my cultural background. Besides, even if what you’re saying is 100% true, having community-assisted child rearing eliminates the need for distinct parents with distinct gender roles, which is what I said.  And also much of Africa and Asia was colonized and imperialized by the west. 

Western culture and all cultures have "community assisted child care".  IE, if you take your child to daycare, you are doing community assisted child care.  This hardly eliminates the individual family or gender roles, you'd have to get a lot more specific with what you are claiming. 

Are you suggesting children were kept in group homes before western culture arrived?  What exactly are you claiming?

 

You know, I think this thread has been really great and I dont desire to take the OPs thread off course.  If you wish to continue the conversation, let's start a topic in the Off Topic section.

Thanks and all the best to you!

 

[The Greyhawk.9107]

This went into the weeds, to put it mildly. 😆🤣

Maybe I should have encouraged OP try to exert control over this thread.  Live and learn I guess. 

[Logos.3042]

11 minutes ago, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

This went into the weeds, to put it mildly. 😆🤣

Maybe I should have encouraged OP try to exert control over this thread.  Live and learn I guess. 

Yes, I apologize.  I think everyone starts throwing their 2 cents in for sexuality in a game, and then people start to debate.  I think they have an OK amount right now if they want to keep that Teen rating.  Probably harder with the China client too if they get too agressive on this.  

Apologies, OP!

[SlayerXX.7138]

5 hours ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

What you said is just an example of this. You don't see how that would skew the data? How it would make any kind of data points compiled thus far completely unreliable?

Ah the classic "your bias make your opinion wrong, ah fact i'm obviously excluded from with my superior objectivity". Also making wide reaching claims about sexuality based on a survey(citation needed btw) of people who have just finished developing their sex organs is at best naïve and at worst self-serving Propaganda.

6 hours ago, Tom.8029 said:

If gender and sexual orientation are not included then they ARE excluded because of what I already said. Because we live in a world where heterosexuality and cisgender are the assumed norm. 

Yeah of course hetero sexuality is the norm. We don't life in star track. If that wouldn't be the norm most of us wouldn't be here. You know for most of the human history and honestly still for most of the human population hetero sex is literally a prerequisite for the continuous existence of the family/country/Bloodline whatever. Sitting in one of the riches country in the world, where something like artificial impregnation and the likes is even possible, ignorant to the fact that if same sex relationships would be the norm most countries would lose their population in a generation. I know everyone is the center of there own universe, but people have to understand they are not the center of THE universe. The audacity to demand Sexuality is the single most important issue to include in storys, just because they themselves make it the most important issue in their life.

Don't misunderstand me, being gay is fine. But just because you life in the bible belt you don't have to overcompensate online with wild claims to validate your existence. If the next piece of media you consume has yet again not 2 dudes making out, you still are valid as a person. You don't need the screen's permission to exist. I understand being gay in a environment where it isn't generally accepted sucks. But so does having a gen defect or an amputation in an environment where people can't understand or care about your struggles. Do we have to include an Amputee in every story from now on so they don't feel excluded? They are less important then your struggles why exactly. There are so many sucky circumstances you can fall into during life that will alienate you from the "normal" people around you. If one your loved ones would suffer from MS you wouldn't be sitting here complaining that  every piece of mainstream media has to include you.

Its 2022 and you have access to the internet there isn't exactly a lack of gay media if you search for it. Needing the entirety of mainstream media to include your specific target group is a losing move.

Edit: While it may come off as an anti gay rant, it is not. Not being normal doesn't equal wierdo. It also doesn't equal bad or good. Murderer aren't normal neither are astronauts. I just think leaning on big cooperation as clutch to feel validated is backwards thinking. And being angry at not being presented all the time is needless suffering.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Albi.7250

[Tom.8029]

2 hours ago, Albi.7250 said:

Ah the classic "your bias make your opinion wrong, ah fact i'm obviously excluded from with my superior objectivity". Also making wide reaching claims about sexuality based on a survey(citation needed btw) of people who have just finished developing their sex organs is at best naïve and at worst self-serving Propaganda.

Yeah of course hetero sexuality is the norm. We don't life in star track. If that wouldn't be the norm most of us wouldn't be here. You know for most of the human history and honestly still for most of the human population hetero sex is literally a prerequisite for the continuous existence of the family/country/Bloodline whatever. Sitting in one of the riches country in the world, where something like artificial impregnation and the likes is even possible, ignorant to the fact that if same sex relationships would be the norm most countries would lose their population in a generation. I know everyone is the center of there own universe, but people have to understand they are not the center of THE universe. The audacity to demand Sexuality is the single most important issue to include in storys, just because they themselves make it the most important issue in their life.

Don't misunderstand me, being gay is fine. But just because you life in the bible belt you don't have to overcompensate online with wild claims to validate your existence. I understand being gay in a environment where it isn't generally accepted sucks. But so does having a gen deffect or an amputation in an environment where people can't understand or care about your struggles. Do we have to include an Amputee in every story from now on so they don't feel excluded? They are less important then your struggles why exactly. There are so many sucky circumstances you can fall into during life that will alienate you from the "normal" people around you. If one your loved ones would suffer from MS you wouldn't be sitting here complaining that  every piece of mainstream media has to include you.

Its 2022 and you have access to the internet there isn't exactly a lack of gay media if you search for it. Needing the entirety of mainstream media to include your specific target group is a losing move.

It must be nice to use a straw man argument. I literally said nothing about how sexual reproduction isn’t necessary for life or about how every type of person ever needs to be included to increase awareness for everything in all types of media. 

[Tom.8029]

I feel like the fact that being lgbtqia+ is being mentioned in the same vein as being impoverished and disabled says something…

[SlayerXX.7138]

25 minutes ago, Tom.8029 said:

It must be nice to use a straw man argument. I literally said nothing about how...

No you just repeatedly state that the inclusion of your issue in media(in this case same sex couples, gender etc) is the most important thing and failure to comply is equal to active hostility. With some vague explanation about feeling pride, while not giving a flying kitten about anything or anyone else. I just wanted to mention there are other people who feel unheard of or could need a sense "awareness, acceptance, and pride" like you put it. And including everyone all time is not feasible. A point you fail to see, as you honest to god think gender and sex are the most important thing in the world. 

You don't give a kitten. You care about yourself only, while playing the noble Victim. 

31 minutes ago, Tom.8029 said:

I feel like the fact that being lgbtqia+ is being mentioned in the same vein as being impoverished and disabled says something…

Yeah as they are all groups of people who often feel unheard of and ignored by society. But you can't just help yourself painting the situation as the noble oppressed defender who valiantly fights for his self interest.

45 minutes ago, Tom.8029 said:

I literally said nothing<...> about how every type of person ever needs to be included to increase awareness for everything in all types of media. 

No just the type of person you are needs to be included. All the time. Without exception, otherwise we are actively against you. Because your are apparently a self-centered brick.

[ugrakarma.9416]

18 hours ago, Tom.8029 said:

The idea of the nuclear family is largely a western construct. Children traditionally were raised by the entire community in early African and Asian cultures.  Raising children was a communal effort. Since then, the idea of the family has adapted a more individualized approach.  Hence the small, separate families and 2 parents with distinct gender roles.

lmao, u must remind that these "cultures" they have heavy customs rules.

In "african" "asian" culture, a teenager just need a wrong "tatoo" to get him kicked from the "tribe".

Edited August 1, 2022 by ugrakarma.9416