When you talk orientation, the fundamentalists have already won

May 30, 2006 07:22

I spent some time reading LJ yesterday, and one comment was that most LJ posts aren't interesting. I wondered, then, what would make a post interesting ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

cammycat May 30 2006, 13:12:01 UTC
There are plenty of "discussions of sex" going on in-game between both straight and gay players. I'm sure Blizzard is well aware of that fact, too. And if "you don't want to deal with that" in-game, obviously you don't have to join that guild, or any other in which sex might be discussed. If an individual player tries to discuss sex with you, it's quite easy to /ignore him or her.

I don't agree that "by opening up the discussion, you're opening up the way to be ostracized for what you do in private." Basically, you're arguing that if gay people don't want to be ostracized, they should be secretive about their lives. Straight people aren't expected to be secretive. It isn't just about what you do in private, in your bedroom. Couples -- gay or straight -- do not live their lives solely in bed. Being gay isn't just about who you have sex with; it's about who you want to spend your life with, the same way it is for straight couples.

Reply

sptmet May 30 2006, 14:42:48 UTC
I'm actually going a little broader than just orientation and talking about kinks as well, but yes, you picked up the obvious weak point in the statements I made.

Although I'd counter that being gay is, in fact, about who you want to have sex with. If you were just spending your life together, you wouldn't be gay.

Reply

cammycat May 30 2006, 15:36:05 UTC
Being straight isn't just about who you have sex with either. Whether you are gay or straight, it's about who you fall in love with, who you have romantic relationships with. And those things involve a lot more than just sex. That was my point.

Reply

sptmet May 30 2006, 15:52:47 UTC
Yes, and my point is that your orientation determines who you potentially might 'fall in love with'.

I would never 'fall in love with' someone who is not of my preferred partner gender.

Conversely, I was in a commited monogamous relationship with someone who I wasn't engaged in sexual relations with. This just led me to say, "what the fuck am I bothering with this for anyway." That I stayed in said relationship for a year after that says something about the complexity of this question.

If the sexual element is missing, you're friends, no matter what you want to call it. I'm sure there are exceptions, as there always are.

Although I have to admit, how would one go about a romantic relationship with no sexual interest involved? To me, sexual potential is tied to romance, in some senses.

Reply

cammycat May 30 2006, 15:57:47 UTC
I would agree. I think in romantic relationships, the sexual and non-sexual aspects are pretty much inextricable. Otherwise, you're just friends, or just fucking.

Reply

joggiwagga May 30 2006, 18:46:33 UTC
i will disagree with this as being a universally true statement. i know for myself i it is in many was true (i can't really imagine a romantic relationship w/ myself that lacked sexual potential). but asexuality that leads to a different type of relationship where there is definately romance, but a complete lack of sexual potential.

Reply

sptmet May 30 2006, 18:56:32 UTC
There are no universally true statements.

;)

Reply

joggiwagga May 30 2006, 20:51:05 UTC
true.

but there are a large number of asexuals out there.

and often in couples that have lasted a long time the romance is not so much about the sexual potential (or activity) as the comfort and stability that they have. not that i've ever gotten to that point.

Reply

sptmet May 31 2006, 01:16:49 UTC
Oh, I agree that eventually it stops being all about sex...

Reply

sptmet May 30 2006, 16:06:12 UTC
that guild, any other in which sex might be discussed.

Just had to add... I've been playing different MMOs for 5 years, and I've never found a guild where sex in any of its myrid forms doesn't come up. Fairly often in most guilds.

Reply

cammycat May 30 2006, 17:23:52 UTC
It doesn't come up terribly often in our guild. In any case, if the gay-friendly guild bothers you, obviously you don't have to join.

Reply

cammycat May 30 2006, 17:26:57 UTC
Also, if Blizzard is so concerned about the precious wittle children being exposed to sexual discussions -- and what you say above is reflective of most people's experience -- then they obviously need to be censuring a hell of a lot more people than just one guild that promotes itself as being gay-friendly.

Reply

sptmet May 31 2006, 01:31:04 UTC
They certainly do need to cut back on a lot of stuff that they let slide. It's a shame they picked the one example they did, because it makes it look intolerant... which it probably be.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up