Avatar Korra had focus groups that really liked Asami. She was meant to be written as a villain but they saw how much fans loved her. They instead made her part of the group. And the creators saw fans shipping Asami with Korra… guess what Eventually happened xD
3 Likes
But sadly in today’s day and age they could probably get sued for non inclusion and win. But I understand. But I was more trying to make a point and not say well we HAVE to include this and that. My point is more to the fact where do we stop?
1 Like
I love when creators are like “no wait I can work with this”
4 Likes
anyways , back to playing Dreams. (Yes that is actually the name of the game lol.)
1 Like
Yea. Some beautiful things can come to fruition when artists and show-craftsmen listen to fan feedback.
1 Like
Reminds me of Critical Role. For those that don’t know that. It’s a show where voice actors play dnd ( quite a lot of wow voice actors are in it )
Dude you could ship any character with ANYONE and the voice actors would be more excited about it than the fans. It’s wholesome.
Another good example of a game keeping its pulse on the fandom is the team working on ff7. They watch a specific reaction to get inspired. No joke
1 Like
Sounds awesome maybe I’ll check it out later. Sounds dope.
Yup. Matt Mercer is the dm of the show and he organically includes lgbt stuff all the time since he grew up around them. He even played a flamboyant shop npc but he was probably the most favorite character from the players and the fans
2 Likes
Late jumping back in here, so apologies for going back a few pages.
I am suggesting that, but not in the same way you are possibly using the term. I don’t mean it in any moral sense, but strictly a biological functional one. Our circulatory system functions to circulate blood, our respiratory system functions for respiration, etc. Likewise, our reproductive system serves the reproductive function. That is the biologically natural function of each of those systems.
Things can be naturally occurring, but that does not mean they serve the natural function of a system. For instance, if I catch the flu, the flu is a naturally occurring virus, but my lungs didn’t evolve for the purpose of catching the flu. Maybe it gained defense mechanisms to protect its function, but that is ancillary to the function. And no, I’m not comparing same sex relationships to the flu, just using an example.
It’s largely a difference of ends and means, if you want to break it down to the most basic level. The end purpose of the screwdriver is to insert a screw into something. Can I use it as a means to open a bag of chips? Sure, but that is not the (natural) intent or function of the tool. Likewise, when you see a screwdriver, which I think most people know one when they see one, you don’t require any elaboration as to it’s function. You don’t dwell on how many times it was used to insert a screw into something or if it was designed to do that. It’s implicit. Now, if that was my special bag opening screwdriver, it’s certainly possible that I use it that way (maybe even exclusively), but you wouldn’t know I used it for that unless I told you. It’s not implied that screwdrivers are used to open bags of chips, and it’s not it’s natural “end” function in that sense.
That’s why “straight representation” isn’t really a concept, in my opinion. It’s implicit in our very biology, and in fact each individual’s existence strictly requires it. You don’t need elaboration past learning the biological function, and it’s an assumed base state. What does require explicit elaboration is if it is used as a means to a different end than as a means to its implicit one.
I specifically brought attention to this. In human beings, sex serves both a procreative and unitive function. Procreative is the implicit stuff I talked about above (i.e. natural, biological function). Untiive is the spiritual, psychological, loving, etc. bond that the act can create, which (as far as we know) is pretty limited to humans. Not just pleasurable, mind you, but that form of unitive bond.
Again, I don’t want the idea of explicit representation wrapped up into the moral debate. My main point was that there is no such thing as “straight representation” to the point where its possibly an agenda being laid out. My argument is that it is the base, natural state of the human being that sexual reproduction exists, we are all a product of it, and relationships are formed out of it. It is implicit. Anything outside of that would require explicit detail of an act (whether between heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, or anything else) to overcome the implicit nature of our biology, with the key being only men and women acting in concert are capable of the procreative, biological, natural function.
Once you get past that, then it’s a whole other ballgame about whether it’s moral to do so or not. I wasn’t saying that one way or the other. I’m just saying there is no such thing as a conscious effort of straight representation any more than you can assume every person you meet on the street breathes oxygen. You’d only know that I am capable some other form of respiration if I told you 
That’s way too much for a message board conversation, honestly. I like having discussions though, so it was fun.
4 Likes
CORGIS WIN
You’re inaccurate here. Do some research on dolphins and the great apes. Or go live with a couple of pair bonded parrots for awhile. Those connections, include sexual behavior/sexual stimulation but go far beyond it.
There is a lot we don’t understand about what molds sexual orientation, and a lot we don’t understand about what motivates sexual behavior, but humans don’t have a monopoly on “social sexuality” by any means.
I used quite a bit of limiting language there for that very reason, so I wouldn’t say I’m inaccurate. There are psychological/spiritual elements to sexual relationships, as I used language signifying there are some unknowns there. You’d have to then venture down the road of discussing whether animals are capable of truly “unitive” relationships on that level rather than them being somehow evolutionarily advantageous.
But that wasn’t my focus and is missing my point slightly. I was speaking strictly to the natural, implicit biological functionality of reproductive systems and what that means.
To be frank, it is fairly recent that we’ve developed an idea of separating procreative sex and unitive sex into two, wholly separate spheres instead of separate adjectives describing the same act. Especially so since the increased availability of birth control. But, still, it doesn’t change basic biology, which I haven’t really heard any arguments against: 1.) the reproductive system and organs function for reproduction, and 2.) every single human being exists as the product of the heterosexual act.
It’s legal to own firearms, a lot of people don’t think that’s right.
Gay marriage is legal, a lot of people don’t think that’s right.
It’s legal to say the craziest of things, a lot of people don’t believe that’s right.
It’s illegal to assault someone for something they say or believe in, a lot of people don’t believe that’s right.
A lot of drugs are illegal, a lot of people don’t think that’s right.
To each their own. But be aware that, there are people that otherwise have no issue with the push for basic LGBT rights and equality, but dislike the push to inject it into everything, especially since the cause has become entangled with politics. And whether you like them or not, if your goal is in fact to normalize, those people are allies not enemies, and it would be good to be understanding and respectful of them.
Im not telling you to stop, just saying pick your battles and don’t be heavy handed.
What was it that you “suggested” I not say or do? Up until the very end of my last post nothing Ive said could be reasonably called heckling, unless you consider the act of debate in itself heckling, which is a sad position to take. So the only logical conclusion I can come to is that you are suggesting I just not raise opposition.
In not sure what this is supposed to imply. I went out of my way in a previous post to exclude assaulters and murders when talking about the importance of human wellbeing and happiness. And being outside your camp doesn’t automatically put people into that group.
That first sentence I highly doubt. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t have spent half the night debating me on their behalf. Not that it matters if you do, caring about anyone’s feelings is never a bad thing.
I agree with the second part, feelings do have a nasty tendency to blind people to the truth. Way too many people are overly absorbed with how things feels and they don’t stop to actually consider the logic behind it. Just because something feels good to do doesn’t always mean it’s the right decision. Even good intentions have consequences and many people don’t think about that.
As a side note, Im not really asking you to be nice to me. If you havnt picked up on it, most of what Im saying is on the behalf of other people. It would be appreciative, yes, but Im not thin skinned enough to care much about accusations and name calling, especially from a random person on the internet. I just gauge the respect I give you to be close to on par with what it is Im receiving. Those who give it earn it.
Also I don’t see debating someone and being friends as being exclusive to each other. I mean, Ive had debates with by boyfriend on a few occasions over topics we don’t see eye to eye on. It’s a positive thing, not a negative thing, unless one or both of the parties makes it as such, but then I would call it more of an argument or fight than a “debate”. I appreciate the optics of the olive branch though.
1 Like
Looking back over your posts, you’re talking yourself in circles and contradictions. On the one hand, you speak of “natural occurrences”, of which homosexual behavior is an example, then pivot into the metaphysical (spiritual) to seemingly separate homosexuality from “natural occurrences”. And I suspect you’re aware of this since you are taking pains to speak in “limiting language”. Attempting to bring in something as ethereal as the concept of “spiritual” is the ultimate cop-out, because all discussion stops there. You’re citing something that can neither be quantified nor observed, something that can’t be concretely described as existing - and while you play this card in an attempt to separate your arguments, you still try to cite biology as proof of “natural”.
So cutting directly to points which can be observed and quantified, and are CONSISTENT:
- It has been widely observed that both heterosexual AND homosexual behavior occur in a variety which vertebrate life on the planet; therefore, it is “naturally occurring”
- among many social organisms, “sexual behavior” occurs independently from reproductive purposes (dogs/wolves mounting one another to express dominance, aka, social bonding)
- multiple life forms (of which I mentioned dolphins) engage in sexual behaviors for pleasure/physical stimulation independent of reproductive efforts.
- these behaviors/observations predate “modern” medicine and psychology, despite your claim that we only “recently” have begun to separate the two.
In short, stop attempting to muddy the waters by bringing “reproduction” into a discussion that is focused on “orientation”, and rather SPECIFICALLY, focused on REPRESENTATION.
When we want to support someone with a disability, it’s a common tactic to show them examples of how other people with disabilities are not hampered, shunned, or held back from a full, fruitful life. The same has been true for low income groups, racial groups, and whatever the purpose/cause/disagreement of orientation, the same examples of how to live, and how to be successful, are necessary for LGBT individuals. That’s the point of the OP, however badly worded - but that’s the opposite of what so many “thoughtful” people like yourself are focusing on.
I truthfully wish Blizzard would shut this thread down. I can only imagine the harm being done to some young person reading over the various responses and the implication by so many that they should expect to live as “less” because of “reproduction” and “politics”.
1 Like
Evolution does not have intent or purpose. Everything happens naturally and randomly; if a specific gene expression is not detrimental to reproduction, it’ll be passed on to the next generation. And no, homosexuality is not detrimental to reproduction; that’s why it exists in several species.
Your entire premise is just wrong pseudoscience. You should do some research on the genetic base of homosexual behavior, and the biological strengths and weaknesses of the behavior, and the link to hormonal levels of women during pregnancy. Also, basic evolutionary biology. Maybe then you won’t spread misinformation.
Regardless, this is not about science, it’s about love and acceptance. If you really want me to science it up, I will. I have a PHD.
1 Like
No thanks, doesn’t add anything to the game. In fact, lets just not have romance. This is a game about killing monsters
2 Likes
How is it possibly pseudoscience to say that sexual reproductive organs serve sexual reproductive functions? Do you get offended when someone says your lungs are for breathing? Or that your heart pumps blood? Why is it offensive to say that the function of reproductive systems are for reproduction?
When you meet someone, do you sit there and wonder if they have a mom and dad? Do you wonder if they spontaneously came into existence? Do you wonder if they were a product of a virgin birth? If the answer is no, why is that? The reason why is because of my preceding paragraph. This most basic of facts gets lost in the shuffle of representation and politics because it’s a logical fallacy that showing a straight couple is somehow showing representation of a sexual preference. It’s not. It is a portrayal of something that HAS to exist for you and me to even be having this discussion or, frankly, to be alive in the first place. That isn’t metaphysics.
I’m not sure how that point was lost. The function of the organs and the behavior that surrounds their usage (including the more subjective parts when it comes to love and romance) are two subjects entirely. The one doesn’t need elaboration, just like you don’t have to ask if I’m breathing or my heart is beating while we are having this conversation. The crux of it is that heterosexual activity is the only type that can naturally tie the whole way back to the basic natural function, and therefore carries basic biological assumption, but that is precisely why all other forms of sexuality can really only be portrayed if done explicitly. Absolutely some don’t want it because they are bigots, but some just plain don’t want anything explicitly thrown at them. I also don’t think it helps representation or inclusion to have it simply be implied.
If you go the whole way back, I was actually trying to be sympathetic to that by also showing why there needs to be an understanding of why some people don’t want it (i.e. they aren’t all bigoted homophobes). I do apologize if that offended anyone, because that wasn’t my intent, but I do strongly feel that some of these points get glossed over a ton even though they are seemingly so fundamental. Perhaps that’s exactly why they get overlooked.
Please don’t go down that fallacy road. I am a published scientist with a background in microbiology and biochemistry. I don’t throw that into message board conversations because there is no way I’m going to prove that to you without revealing my identity, so the only reason to ever bring that up is from an argument from authority perspective. Your argument should stand on its own without throwing in your credentials.
EDIT: Anyway, that’s my last since I am repeating myself a fair bit. I hesitated jumping into the discussion because video game message boards are probably the worst place to have them. I did enjoy the conversation, just know that I did not mean to cause any offense or claim any kind of moral arguments at all.
Be whatever you want be. Just dont force it on me. If you are very, very different but are a nice person then I will be frineds with you. But if you are different and go out of your way to be diferent and then try to FORCE me to live the way you live then I will not like that. That is all. No need to post on this tread again. made my point. Be happy of who and what you are.
3 Likes
