Would you mind Pharah or Hanzo to be announced straight? No I don’t think so.
1 Like
Because it’s not uncommon for modern writers to blatantly virtue signal. See JK Rowling and Rian Johnson. Now people are a little paranoid.
1 Like
I prefer it this way, because they showed Tracer’s and Soldier’s personalities and backstories first. It’s Blizzard’s way of saying that this is a sidenote to what’s really important-themselves.
It’s not that simple. A character’s sexuality has an effect on their story. And a character will make certain decisions based on their sexuality. You can’t just slap the word “gay” on a straight character without betraying the writers, character, fans, and all of gaydum.
In the same way that you can code a character as Christian, American, or Democrat, you can code a character as gay. If I were to one day say Reinhardt is Wiccan, you probably wouldn’t believe me. That’s because he doesn’t look or act in any way like a Wiccan.
Question: If there is no meaningful and/or discernible difference between gay and straight people, how and why does “gay for pay” exist?
There is no evidence needed
Aaaaaaaand that’s the problem. If you were to never set up anything in a story, especially something that has the potential to affect a character’s choices, it will feel incredibly forced.
I think part of the reason the response towards Tracer was a lot lighter than this one is because the game was still relatively new at that time, characters were not yet fully introduced so changes like that could still be made without coming as too much of a surprise.
In addition to this, I would ask what this does for the character of Jack Morrison. With Tracer, the inclusion of that plot thread not only drove the entire comic but did so in a way that further built upon Tracer’s character by showing a more emotional side of her.
While you could make the point that the Bastet comic shows a more emotional side of Soldier seeing as he’s recounting a previous romantic relation, the story he is talking about is, at this point in the story, water under the bridge. The writers taking time out of the comic for the sake of Jack recounting a previous relationship adds absolutely nothing to this story whatsoever, it could just as easily be removed and nothing about the story changes. The same could not be said about Tracer’s comic.
My concern with this addition has nothing to do with the state of the character, but the way Blizzard went about putting this in place. There was little to no setup to this sort of change at a stage in the game’s lifespan where there should at least be some sort of build-up. Three years into the game’s lifespan we at least have a good idea of what each character is like, if you want to change that you need to properly set that up. Revealing it all in the span of a single story leaves no room for any sort of setup and comes off as forced.
If they wanted to make another character gay, the wise choice in my eyes would have been Baptiste. Soldier is a scarred, grizzled war veteran who’s out for revenge, he is a dark character, a change regarding his sexuality is the last thing anybody would expect for that sort of character.
With Baptiste however, he is still a strong character, he had a troubled past that he has largely overcome and now uses his abilities for good. He is a far happier character all around, certainly not nearly as dark as someone like Soldier is, which could make an addition like this less jarring.
In addition, he had his own dedicated short story as well, titled What You Left Behind. This could have been a perfect opportunity to introduce something like this to the character while he is still fairly new.
I hope this at least helps you understand the other side of the argument a bit better.
Bastet was just a bad story in general. It didn’t say much beyond what we already knew, and the few new parts they gave us were overlooked. If there was a full flashback to, I dunno, Vincent and Jack stargazing back at the Morrison farm in Indiana, then I would’ve felt a lot better about this reveal. It’s not that it doesn’t fit his character- it’s in his character to have tried to keep up a relationship and end up breaking it off for his own morals and duty, actually- but the way it seems like he represses it, is unnatural. This is his best friend that he’s talking to, and he’s sarcastic and fairly amiable until Vincent is brought up. He just shuts Ana down for no reason. Like, honestly, actually brainwashed Widowmaker talks more about her previous husband and relationships than a safe and secure Jack. That’s just bad writing.
The Poster Boy and Girl both gay 
Because Hollywood’s and the adult film industry’s only interest is in make money off of people who want to see the stereotypes they believe in validated. It’s debatable as to how much actual choice is involved on the actor’s part, since they may need that job, even if it depicts them as opposite their real sexuality. Gay actors are paid to act straight as well, but this is less common because gay actors are less common.
Stereotypes are byproducts of difference, but they don’t define people. A Christian who doesn’t go to church every Sunday is still a Christian. Why gay people need to be dressing, acting or possessing objects in a fashion that displays their gayness to be seen as non-politically gay is really somewhat beyond me.
Or you’re confusing stereotypes with attraction behavior. Look, I know what I’m saying isn’t politically correct. And I know that these days people are taught to react a certain way to certain facts. And I am very aware that politics wants certain things to be true when it comes to human sexuality. But none of that changes the fact that there are differences between gay, straight, bi, and asexual people. There are choices they make about their appearance and behavior based on who they want to attract.
I can’t believe this thread is still going, I thought all possible points were already made. How is anyone still confused?
but you see… there aren’t.
The only scenario you come to close to being right is an asexual will likely not be wearing burlesque gear. They will most likely not wear clothes that intentionally play up their sex appeal. Other than that, people MIGHT wear clothes that are “typical” for their orientation, but they don’t need to.
Mechavomit, my only confusion is how any of these statements he’s made can be regarded as true.
So how many gay men follow Roosh V’s tips? And why do predatory lesbians exist. Oh, right! That’s one of those problems that doesn’t get to be fixed because we’re not allowed to acknowledge that it exist.
We’re not allowed to paint lesbians as exclusively predatory, and we aren’t allowed to paint gay men as exclusively following this person who LITERALLY NO ONE has ever heard of. You are… not making any coherent arguments, I think I’m done.
Really? An “Oh, so all…” fallacy? You may as well have just said I’m right. But I’ll go ahead and pick your argument apart.
Who said anything about exclusively? Oh, I get it! You’re a political. You can find white people who are definitely racist. And this means all white people are racist. And if we point out that a terrorist is an arab that means we’re saying all arabs are terrorist. Because in politics there’s no such thing as an individual. There are only monolithic demographics.
Let me try to help you understand this. A lesbian is a woman who is sexually attracted to other women. When someone is attracted to women they do things to attract women but not men. This signifies them as lesbians.
But lesbians are still humans and individuals. Individuals can be police officers, and so can lesbians. Individuals can be sports fans, and so can lesbians. Individuals can be pet owners, and so can lesbians. Individuals can be sexual predators, and so can lesbians.
When someone is a sexual predator they will try to find ways to keep people from treating them like sexual predators. And because politics is all about pretending things are what they are and aren’t what they are, many sexual predators use politics to protect themselves from the disrespect they deserve.
Unless you can bring your self to be more mature/less political and engage the argument I’m actually making, then I’m the one who’s done. So go ahead and say something like “There’s no point trying to reason with an (sjw or not c).” or something else politicals say when they lose an argument.
Dude what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? What are you arguing? I am so lost. You were told by multiple people the reason why 76 isn’t flamboyant despite being gay, the hell are you arguing about predatory lesbians? What’s going on??
What does that even meeean? It’s not a noun, why are you using it as a noun hhhhh
I’m using political as a pejorative. Because it is.
O…okay
1 Like
I’m pretty sure that everyone meets me and my friends thinks we’re straight 
I think that they should reveal moira as mtf transgender