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

[Tinybear]

There there Jim, when I conquer the world, I'll launch all these idiots into the sun. I'll name the gaybasher dedicated shuttle after you =D

On a more serious note: I believe a lot of it is a part of the gaming community that is terrified at the prospect of the gaming culture becoming mature. I believe there are a lot of people who look to the gaming culture as an escape from the harsh world of adulthood, and want it all to be juvenile crap. Sorry, but you're just a subset that is already being overcatered to, and truth be told, we don't want to be associated with you.

Seriously, I think it's about time a conscious divide in gaming community arises. That we simply get the high brow sites and the low brow sites, instead of being torn in the middle.

 

[kazekagesama23]

Ah Jim Sterling. I enjoy the guy. Don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he's loud, obnoxious, prone to exaggeration and fond of creating controversy and a consummate entertainer. The Rush Limbaugh of the progressive/videogame set if you will.

On this issue, the point was well made and well spoken.

 

[Xin Baixiang]

Here's the thing for me, I played the Dragonses Ageesess (Light those are awkward to say) games, and I just did not like Anders. When I declined his advances I was annoyed, and pissed eventually, at my characters response. Which means I was taken out of my character by saying what I felt wasn't an appropriately friendly, "Sorry man, not interested."

My character from the first DA jumped all over Zevran. My male, Noble, Wahriah. I'm not gay in real life, I'm not even bi-sexual or closeted. I did ten plus years in the military, and will admit that I looked around at the man flesh and put myself in the shoes of someone who could deem them attractive physically. Just no motion in my ocean there. I just couldn't imagine kissing them and enjoying it. But Zevran, dude he was funny, flirty, self-deprecating, and jovial. He was a liar, a scoundral, a libido-heavy fornicator, but the guy just made me say, "My character would be all over this dude like white on the Republican party".

To me, and from my experience, Anders was a poorly drawn, poorly written, poorly handled example of a party member. His actions were unforgivable, his betrayal would have prompted a sudden and violent decapitation, not a long meandering heart-felt dialogue followed by a soft shiv in the chest. I just felt that the character was bad, and should feel bad.

So, I did what anyone I know would do, I asked my friend who is still serving (now loud and proud, since that idiotic DADTDP was repealed) how he felt about Anders. I didn't quite expect, and was not really prepared for the level of vitriolic hate he held for the guy. I mean, I can't even print here what he said, because I know I'd get a reprimand for it. Dude was not happy, and certainly not gay about it. (Yes, Jake, I know you read the escapist and that joke was for you.)

Why won't I be playing ME 3? Because of this. Because I can't support Bioware's continued decline in writing since the EAxis forces took over the majority of what I loved in Planescape: Torment (even if I did have to clear my cache twenty bazillion times to play that game back in the day). I wasn't shocked that there would be homoerotic tension in the game, it's a Bioware staple anymore. I wasn't even disamyed. I just shook my head because I knew it would be poorly written, poorly handled, and would lead to too many cases of not enough chances to answer the dialogue the way that I would want my Shep to.

I have two playthroughs, my FemShep (Ass kicking full on soldier of guns and glory) who did not romance anyone because she is all about avoiding the problems that romances within squads tend to bring about in the military; and my ManShep who is a Biotic specialist who spends time flirting with anything that moves and says that rules are for people with bad haircuts. He started with Ash, moved to Tali (oh yes, Tali), and would have stayed with Tali in the third installment.

Now I won't play the third installment though. Not because buttsex is gross, because I don't care one way or the other, but because Bioware can't be trusted to not use a ten-ton hammer where a scalpel would have lended an emotional gravitas to an otherwise good series.

 

[Cerebral Force]

Lots of posts now so I don't know if this has been said, but I don't really mind the homosexual relationship options, because I don't want to use them. My only concern is that I might (when only meaning to be nice) enter a relationship with someone when I didn't want to. That was how I made my first mistake in ME2. Fucking Miranda.

 

[Souplex]

Two problems:
No mention of Kelly? Ladies could put the moves on her. There was no sex scene; she just danced in a stripper outfit and stuff for you but still.

I'm working from hearsay here, so the validity of this point may be questionable: Apparently you can't gay it up if you had straight sex in the other two games, which dismisses the possibilities of bisexuality, sexual identity confusion, and "Beards".

 

[James Bakken]

The way the gamer population responds to this kind of thing tells us a LOT about what they wish they didn't have to put up with in day to day life.

Apparently, the target demographic that has a lot of speaking power in this situation is something I learned to call a "bro." For clarification, I don't mean a "bro" in the sense that he's guy who wears trendy clothes or goes to college frat parties. No, the "bro" I'm pointing out is worse than that. They are the men who have almost no interesting personality traits, and therefore band together in small pods, often represented by frat houses, but also represented by anywhere that men typically hang out together. While in these pods, the bro can then pretend that his lack of personality is normal, and that anything viewed as personality is a threat to this perceived normality. This is why marginalized groups are often attacked by them. Deep down, they simply cannot deal with their own failure to make their own life decisions.

I have befriended a few "bros" in my life, and discovered that, individually, they often don't care about such things as my sexuality. If I enjoy men whereas they enjoy women, they're fine with that. What they did not learn about sexuality, however, was the rules by which sexuality becomes transgression. Thus if I make a gay joke at their expense, they take it to mean that I fully intend to have my way with them. But it's okay to make a gay joke at my expense, however, because I am gay, and nothing in gay culture could ever offend me (in their minds). These kind of actions lead to discussions, which, lacking enough machismo for them, often escalates into arguments until a life lesson is crammed in their heads or until they refuse to speak to me anymore on grounds that I'm a "fag" who will never understand straight men. (Unproffessional sidenote: We not only understand straight men, but also, sometimes, fantasize about them sexually for our own individual reasons. At the end of the day, we don't want a straight man, and understand that should we "convert" a straight man, he's no longer straight, but that's what sexual fantasies are for.)

The heart of the problem goes much deeper, however, as two major problems emerge. First, this outcry against this scene is labeling a larger than normal number of gamers as "bros." I'd have to do more research to figure out exactly where the marginalized construct of gaming culture switched from nerds and geeks to "bros" as the dominate voice, but sufficed to say, they've decided to have a voice, and that's causing problems. Second, the exact repulsion to the admittedly tame scene by any romantic standards is ludicrous. The scene is mostly emotional and relationship oriented in nature. These men hold hands, kiss, suggest nothing more than a making out scene without showing it, then cuddle in their boxers and talk about their hopes, fears, and anxieties about the upcoming final confrontation. To find that worth vomit, imagined or real, is to say that any conversation with the same gender about hopes, fears, and anxiety are deemed too intimate for our culture. If I simply hold hands with another man and walk down the street, they are implying that I will make people violently ill. If I cuddle in private with my boyfriend while wearing enough clothing to hide anything sexual, they are not only thinking about it actively, but are also unable to scream about it, because they are too busy dry heaving over a toilet. The reaction is not saying that gay sex disturbs them. It's saying that any and all male on male affection disturbs them. That is what makes them pitiful.

In summation, I'd have to say that if a homosexual agenda exists, then it must be one that both pities and wishes to cure the plague that these people bear with them. We don't want to turn the world gay, we just want to help those poor misguided "bros" stop vomiting every time they see us. It can't be good for their health.

This has been my first post, on these forums, but thank you Jim. Thank God for you. Thank you for you. Thank me for you. Without these issues, where would we all be?

With Love,
James B. Spakken, TL;DR champion

 

[greyseven]

Jim, you are a genius. Rock on.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

The ability to fight fate or even control it, with the fate of death being symbolised by scissors in the myth of the fates.
The manifistaion of internal power.
Destruction, fairly simple.
Honor; the use of a tool of war not just to destroy, but to protect your ideals from forces that will not stop unless fought.
Your ties to others; how many times have you seen a weapon given to someone either from their father or a friend?

Translation: "who has the biggest dick" and "wanting your male offspring to have the biggest dicks".

The best fighters would be manlier, stronger, smarter. The best females would mate with the best males while the worst genes slowly sunk into oblivion.

I suppose, but the point I'm trying to say is that we don't consiously think about the sex related conotations. It's subconsious in a kind of way that is based on unformed emotion rather than the more complex emotions our day to day life is swamped by. The assosiations of those privates are buried under a mountain of assosiations that are of much more imediate concern based on possible contexts.

For example, if one context, someone advancing towards you with a sword means "Alpha male who wants to kill me in order to reproduce" and in another "Alpha male coming to save the maiden so he can father her babbies". In our minds though we don't have time to think about the F word in those contexts so it's shortened to "death" and "heroics".

Not to say those sex related conotations aren't there, they are just buried under thousands of more useful ones that better relate to current contexts. And so we don't find ourselves thinking about those sex related conotations at all.

Of course, there's also the possibility we are all just repressed/surpressed enough on the issue of sexuality that it gives the same effect. Or all of the above. I vote all.

 

[ElPatron]

snip

Ever heard of subliminal advertizing? It's in your subconscious, you are thinking about it without knowing.

It sure as hell didn't go trough your head that Xenomorphs look like male genitalia.

But that doesn't make anyone gay. Therefore I think that Jim could have made a good point but he ruined it by saying you are a closet homo if you want to play with penetration related items.

Heck, the Xenomorph head is the way it is because it involves fear of penetration.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Paedophiles don't necessarily fuck kids. Child molesters do. Not all paedophiles are child molesters and surprisingly not all child molesters are paedophiles. Welcome to the fucked up world.

Other than that annoying bit of semantics, good video, I'm a little concerned that this is even an issue to be honest. I just...I don't understand why people care what other people do. I'm straight, I like women and have no sexual feelings towards men, but if someone else does then more power them, if they want to have sex with a consenting adult then go for it.

I think Jim's opening point is perhaps the strongest one to make because it's just so obvious. If you don't want to see it, deal with it or like it then don't go near it. Job done.

 

[Thoric485]

I don't think anyone is riling on BioWare because they fear gay people are invading video games. Stop crying homophobia just to snuff out valid criticisms against ME3, it's kind of offensive really.

You don't see me or anyone trashing The Wire because of Omar and Snoop, or DA:O because of Leliana and Zevran, or TW2 because of Dethmold and Philippa.

No, because those are all well-written homosexual characters and their appearances are some of the best in those series and games.

BioWare's hamfisted, awkward, fanfic-grade romances, on the other hand, deserve nothing short of ridicule. Yet as some ill-concieved attempt at being politically correct, all reviewers praise their writing, and that's what pisses people off.

 

[wreade1872]

Ahh... the gay issue. Firstly allow me to explain what a gay person actually is, there are NO gay people! At least if you define gay as someone who has sex with a member of their own sex. Human beings are machines, and much of us is hard coded, we are programmed to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and there's no evidence that we've ever managed to break that programming.
However, since the splitting of the sexes there have always been gay people, the problem for want of a more accurate term is the way we're designed. A male is anyone with about a 60% or more male body and a female someone with about a 60% or higher female body. The middle ground has been evolved out except for the very rare hermaphrodite which still appears on occasion.
However the brain is a bit more complex with a male personality being anyone with about 51% male brain or female with a 51% female dominated brain.
In the case of gays the situation is more complex still as it not infrequently happens that a person has a 51% or more male brain in a 60% or more female body (lesbian) or vice-versa. And when this happens we call the person gay. But note that its a predominately male brain in lesbians and predominately female brain in gay men, therefore naturally the gay mans brain (female) will be sexually attracted to males.
This of course accounts for the femininity of many gay men and butchness of many lesbians.

But why do people have such a problem with this, i mean you don't see people trying to burn dwarfs or deaf people (anymore...) .
The historical social repulsion to gay people is even enough to understand, i mean think about it, a men consider females to be low weak creatures not much good a protecting the tribe, naturally the femininity of gay men will therefore create the same response as if a women tried to dress and act like a man. Its viewed as weakening the protective male wall of the society and punished as such. The lesbian suffers a similar response from her sex as they view her in the same way as they would a male who had snuck among them. The would both fear her as a male in womans clothing and as a female who would bring a bad reputation to their sex.
Homophobia is therefore a natural response in the same way calling a woman a slut is a natural response to any female who treats sex the way a male does. Historically there is a basis for both but the time when such things had benefits have long past.

Apart from normal homophobia there is also the religious factor which is not the same as standard reasons of feeling uncomfortable with homosexuality. You see the normal anomalies of the world, people born deaf, blind, dead, mentally or physically handicapped etc, religious people can deal with all that. Either claiming it as punishment of their gods or the act of a devil but gay people are different, their is NO downside to being gay! Dwarfs can claim their happy, deaf people can claim they have their own culture but nobody is buying it, there are obvious disadvantages that anyone can see but not so with gays. The only partially argument that can be given is that they have a tougher time socially than straight people but that does not stand up to scrutiny and minorities could argue about who is worse off.
No, clearly gays are an error of sorts but an error without a downside, so God made an error. But gods don't make mistakes, therefore there is no god. Such is the secret logic inside every religious persons head when confronted by gay people leaving only one solution to them which is to believe that there are no gay people. Its a lifestyle choice they'll say, its a mental anomaly like peadophillia they'll say or a sexual fetish like the furry thing or the feet thing.
Don't fall for it, gay is genetic, it is neither a choice nor a mental anomaly in the normal sense. It can not strictly be called an error or an aberration, but neither can it be called normal from a basic mechanical point. It can best be described as unfinished business.

And now allow me to explain how it will end because believe it or not we're at the beginning of the end for gay people and things like Mass Effect 3 are the weapons which will help kill them off.
So we now know that being gay is genetic, this is a commonly known fact interestingly current research suggests its only passed on along female lines not male. If this is true it would make sense from an evolutionary point of view. Males in the past would have much more say over who they had sex with than females and have less genetic motivation to procreate, men are designed to have lots of sex as an effective means of passing on genes whereas the women are programmed to have kids with as little sex as possible as their best strategy for passing on genes.
So gay males could avoid having kids and thus their gays genes died out along the male genome. Women with their higher need to have kids would put up with sex with members of the opposite sex to get them but historically wouldn't have had much choice in the matter either way.
So gayness continued to the present day, but now as being gay becomes more and more acceptable (which is were things like Mass Effect come in) people will be able to have proper gay relationships. People will become aware of their sexual orientation at younger and younger ages until accidently getting knocked up becomes increasingly unlikely.
So heres the math of gay extinction.
Gay genes are passed on by mostly non-gay people but over a long enough time period every gay genetic line will come to a point were its continuation relies on a gay person having a child. This is perhaps the hardest thing of my math to grasp but if you don't understand it you'll just have to trust me its true.
In an increasingly accepting society you will get fewer and fewer gay people accidentally having kids.
You will also have an increasing amount of longterm gay relationships.
Within a longterm gay relationship what are the odds of them having children? I would have to believe its at least a bit less than a straight couple.
Whats the odds of them having multiple children, again less.
What are the odds that BOTH members will have children, highly unlikely i would say.

So over a long enough time period in an accepting society the odds of gay genes being continually passed on becomes less and less, the extinction of homosexuality becomes inevitable. Only the timeline of the extinction remains uncertain.

PS: I can only hope they'll help destroy the religious before they go.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

snip

Ever heard of subliminal advertizing? It's in your subconscious, you are thinking about it without knowing.

It sure as hell didn't go trough your head that Xenomorphs look like male genitalia.

But that doesn't make anyone gay. Therefore I think that Jim could have made a good point but he ruined it by saying you are a closet homo if you want to play with penetration related items.

Heck, the Xenomorph head is the way it is because it involves fear of penetration.

I think that's pretty much what I was saying. Except approching that conclusion from a different angle.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

And now allow me to explain how it will end because believe it or not we're at the beginning of the end for gay people and things like Mass Effect 3 are the weapons which will help kill them off.
So we now know that being gay is genetic, this is a commonly known fact interestingly current research suggests its only passed on along female lines not male. If this is true it would make sense from an evolutionary point of view. Males in the past would have much more say over who they had sex with than females and have less genetic motivation to procreate, men are designed to have lots of sex as an effective means of passing on genes whereas the women are programmed to have kids with as little sex as possible as their best strategy for passing on genes.
So gay males could avoid having kids and thus their gays genes died out along the male genome. Women with their higher need to have kids would put up with sex with members of the opposite sex to get them but historically wouldn't have had much choice in the matter either way.
So gayness continued to the present day, but now as being gay becomes more and more acceptable (which is were things like Mass Effect come in) people will be able to have proper gay relationships. People will become aware of their sexual orientation at younger and younger ages until accidently getting knocked up becomes increasingly unlikely.
So heres the math of gay extinction.
Gay genes are passed on by mostly non-gay people but over a long enough time period every gay genetic line will come to a point were its continuation relies on a gay person having a child. This is perhaps the hardest thing of my math to grasp but if you don't understand it you'll just have to trust me its true.
In an increasingly accepting society you will get fewer and fewer gay people accidentally having kids.
You will also have an increasing amount of longterm gay relationships.
Within a longterm gay relationship what are the odds of them having children? I would have to believe its at least a bit less than a straight couple.
Whats the odds of them having multiple children, again less.
What are the odds that BOTH members will have children, highly unlikely i would say.

So over a long enough time period in an accepting society the odds of gay genes being continually passed on becomes less and less, the extinction of homosexuality becomes inevitable. Only the timeline of the extinction remains uncertain.

PS: I can only hope they'll help destroy the religious before they go.

Well, such a senario is only plausible if you rule out the somewhat "feminine" need many gay people (assumably) have to raise a child of their own, while at the same time ruleing out emerging procreative technologies such as in-vitro fertilisation. There are a few others that would help, but plain kind surogacy and in-vitro will probably do just fine.

A slightly more interesting propostion to lay out over that is that scientists are currently working to find out how to make eggs out of a male's cells. that would lead to an almost complete "same sex-reproduction" when combined with surogacy and in-vitro plus the other guy's stuff. And I hear it's even easier for lesbian women because it's thoereticly easier to combine two eggs. Also, women don't have to find a surrogate.

 

[pffh]

Ahh... the gay issue. Firstly allow me to explain what a gay person actually is, there are NO gay people! At least if you define gay as someone who has sex with a member of their own sex. Human beings are machines, and much of us is hard coded, we are programmed to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and there's no evidence that we've ever managed to break that programming.
However, since the splitting of the sexes there have always been gay people, the problem for want of a more accurate term is the way we're designed. A male is anyone with about a 60% or more male body and a female someone with about a 60% or higher female body. The middle ground has been evolved out except for the very rare hermaphrodite which still appears on occasion.
However the brain is a bit more complex with a male personality being anyone with about 51% male brain or female with a 51% female dominated brain.
In the case of gays the situation is more complex still as it not infrequently happens that a person has a 51% or more male brain in a 60% or more female body (lesbian) or vice-versa. And when this happens we call the person gay. But note that its a predominately male brain in lesbians and predominately female brain in gay men, therefore naturally the gay mans brain (female) will be sexually attracted to males.
This of course accounts for the femininity of many gay men and butchness of many lesbians

Right let me stop you right there buddy. Gay men are not hardwired to think like women and gay women are not hardwired to think like men. The culture of butch lesbians and girly gays is a cultural defense mechanism. It's basically a "look at me I'm different and there is nothing you can do about it". These are actually much rarer then you think they are nowadays (although the media would like to tell you otherwise) that gays are more accepted and most gay people that you meet will act no different then the same gendered straight people that you meet, except of course being sexually attracted to their own gender. These are cultural remnants not biological.

In addition sexuality is not black and white. It's not straight - bi - gay. There are a lot of people you would classify as straight but would be sexually attracted to a handful of people of their own gender or maybe just certain things about certain people. Basically what I'm saying is sexuality is very fluid and very complex. Not to mention that in societies where homosexuality was accepted being bi was the norm.

And as for the extinction of gays have you not heard of in-vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers? What about bi or pansexual people they surely carry the "gay gene" and will spread it to their children.

What you are saying in that post is a bunch of pseudoscience bullshit.

 

[blackcherry]

Ahh... the gay issue. Firstly allow me to explain what a gay person actually is, there are NO gay people! At least if you define gay as someone who has sex with a member of their own sex. Human beings are machines, and much of us is hard coded, we are programmed to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and there's no evidence that we've ever managed to break that programming.
However, since the splitting of the sexes there have always been gay people, the problem for want of a more accurate term is the way we're designed. A male is anyone with about a 60% or more male body and a female someone with about a 60% or higher female body. The middle ground has been evolved out except for the very rare hermaphrodite which still appears on occasion.
However the brain is a bit more complex with a male personality being anyone with about 51% male brain or female with a 51% female dominated brain.
In the case of gays the situation is more complex still as it not infrequently happens that a person has a 51% or more male brain in a 60% or more female body (lesbian) or vice-versa. And when this happens we call the person gay. But note that its a predominately male brain in lesbians and predominately female brain in gay men, therefore naturally the gay mans brain (female) will be sexually attracted to males.
This of course accounts for the femininity of many gay men and butchness of many lesbians.

But why do people have such a problem with this, i mean you don't see people trying to burn dwarfs or deaf people (anymore...) .
The historical social repulsion to gay people is even enough to understand, i mean think about it, a men consider females to be low weak creatures not much good a protecting the tribe, naturally the femininity of gay men will therefore create the same response as if a women tried to dress and act like a man. Its viewed as weakening the protective male wall of the society and punished as such. The lesbian suffers a similar response from her sex as they view her in the same way as they would a male who had snuck among them. The would both fear her as a male in womans clothing and as a female who would bring a bad reputation to their sex.
Homophobia is therefore a natural response in the same way calling a woman a slut is a natural response to any female who treats sex the way a male does. Historically there is a basis for both but the time when such things had benefits have long past.

Apart from normal homophobia there is also the religious factor which is not the same as standard reasons of feeling uncomfortable with homosexuality. You see the normal anomalies of the world, people born deaf, blind, dead, mentally or physically handicapped etc, religious people can deal with all that. Either claiming it as punishment of their gods or the act of a devil but gay people are different, their is NO downside to being gay! Dwarfs can claim their happy, deaf people can claim they have their own culture but nobody is buying it, there are obvious disadvantages that anyone can see but not so with gays. The only partially argument that can be given is that they have a tougher time socially than straight people but that does not stand up to scrutiny and minorities could argue about who is worse off.
No, clearly gays are an error of sorts but an error without a downside, so God made an error. But gods don't make mistakes, therefore there is no god. Such is the secret logic inside every religious persons head when confronted by gay people leaving only one solution to them which is to believe that there are no gay people. Its a lifestyle choice they'll say, its a mental anomaly like peadophillia they'll say or a sexual fetish like the furry thing or the feet thing.
Don't fall for it, gay is genetic, it is neither a choice nor a mental anomaly in the normal sense. It can not strictly be called an error or an aberration, but neither can it be called normal from a basic mechanical point. It can best be described as unfinished business.

And now allow me to explain how it will end because believe it or not we're at the beginning of the end for gay people and things like Mass Effect 3 are the weapons which will help kill them off.
So we now know that being gay is genetic, this is a commonly known fact interestingly current research suggests its only passed on along female lines not male. If this is true it would make sense from an evolutionary point of view. Males in the past would have much more say over who they had sex with than females and have less genetic motivation to procreate, men are designed to have lots of sex as an effective means of passing on genes whereas the women are programmed to have kids with as little sex as possible as their best strategy for passing on genes.
So gay males could avoid having kids and thus their gays genes died out along the male genome. Women with their higher need to have kids would put up with sex with members of the opposite sex to get them but historically wouldn't have had much choice in the matter either way.
So gayness continued to the present day, but now as being gay becomes more and more acceptable (which is were things like Mass Effect come in) people will be able to have proper gay relationships. People will become aware of their sexual orientation at younger and younger ages until accidently getting knocked up becomes increasingly unlikely.
So heres the math of gay extinction.
Gay genes are passed on by mostly non-gay people but over a long enough time period every gay genetic line will come to a point were its continuation relies on a gay person having a child. This is perhaps the hardest thing of my math to grasp but if you don't understand it you'll just have to trust me its true.
In an increasingly accepting society you will get fewer and fewer gay people accidentally having kids.
You will also have an increasing amount of longterm gay relationships.
Within a longterm gay relationship what are the odds of them having children? I would have to believe its at least a bit less than a straight couple.
Whats the odds of them having multiple children, again less.
What are the odds that BOTH members will have children, highly unlikely i would say.

So over a long enough time period in an accepting society the odds of gay genes being continually passed on becomes less and less, the extinction of homosexuality becomes inevitable. Only the timeline of the extinction remains uncertain.

PS: I can only hope they'll help destroy the religious before they go.

This is either a very dedicated troll, or wow, I don't ever want to be in your world and its delusions of grandeur. Look, homosexuality has existed since the beginning of the human race. Its not really going anywhere.

 

[mxfox408]

Lol you can't expect everyone to onboard with it, especially when petty insults are hurled because someone my simply not like or agree with it. Personally I don't agree with it or like it but that's just my opinion. If your gay then be gay who care what other say, its your life, live it. Just ignore insults, remember people are looking to get a rise out of you and responding to insults is giving more firewood to the fuel.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

*snipped*

Sadly, I think you're right. I am pansexual myself and spend a lot of time trying to convince people that not only is it fine to be gay, but also that the degrading comments often made off-hand are really horrific (let alone having to explain that there are more than just two sexualities). Still, I didn't much like Anders.

I didn't like how he was so forward, how he was so eager to rebound, or how easily he was embittered. Eventually, I grew to like (though be constantly exasperated by) his character, but the start still bothered me. Especially so since there was no other character in the game who was so overt in such a mandatory way. Not even Isabella.

I can't speak much for ME3 as I haven't played it yet, but I am quite annoyed that BioWare has shoved in gay characters as tokens, conforming to massive stereotypes (I will disagree with you in that Zevran pissed the hell out of me) and not really having much work put into that part of their character, as others did (Avalene, for instance). This does by no means means that they should remove the options, but I think that BioWare should at least put some effort into its major characters' non-navigable options and not provide non-navigable options exclusively for the purpose of saying "Look at us, we accept you!".

This is the developed world, in the second decade of the twenty-first century. We're supposed to be better than that.

An aside:
Dear Jim,

Your art in previous episodes has been lewd and derogatory, but never before has it so disgustingly transgressed against my person. Not once in the past have you so offended me with your revolting imagery as you have now. I will assure you that this is the last straw and the only time I will say it.

Bow ties are cool.

Yours sincerely,
Why on earth did I ever think this was a good name?