Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[palsch]

You can divide experiences into four categories - gay-exclusive, straight-exclusive, possible for gay and straight, and possible for neither. Do you deny that the gay-exclusive category is larger than the straight-exclusive category? You you deny equivalent statements for race/gender?

Yes.

Seriously, this view doesn't make sense to me. If someone being gay is a complete separate identity to being straight then how can it not be true? You seem to view homosexual experiences as somehow more exclusionary to those who aren't gay as more exclusionary than hetrosexual experiences might be to someone who is, and I just don't see any rational reason for it. It just seems to be the assumption that straight is the universal default and so should be treated as normal, with any deviancies disregarded or treated as special exceptions.

If I'm reading a book with a gay protagonist then I might be able to sympathise with him, but any mentions of romance or sexuality are likely to alienate me from the character. It doesn't line up with my preferences so is going to push me further from the character and be less likely to enjoy the scene. Generally it's like reading a book with the protagonist holding any sort of views I disagree with, which can be enjoyable but makes the sections where those are important harder to get through and less comfortable as a method of escapism.

Why would that be any different for a gay person reading a book about a straight protagonist?

Further to all that there is the simple matter of under-representation. If I'm reading a book about a gay character and have a little trouble identifying with him, it's not a big deal. I have a dozen straight characters who I can turn to for more comfortable romantic escapism. Hell, odds are good there will be one in the same book. The gay reader is far less likely to have somewhere else to turn.

[kaijyuu]

Uh.... I really don't understand why a protagonist being different from you alienates you. Especially for something like romance, which is only superficially different between straight and homosexual couples. Fawning over someone is fawning over someone.

[palsch]

Uh.... I really don't understand why a protagonist being different from you alienates you. Especially for something like romance, which is only superficially different between straight and homosexual couples. Fawning over someone is fawning over someone.

It's about being able to identify with the character and want to think myself into their position. Same-sex romances (done in a substantial manner) make that harder for me because that's just something I don't relate to. I might be able to appreciate the character, sometimes more than if they were just another cookie cutter dudebro, but I'm less likely to think of them as a proxy for myself. That's what I meant by alienation.

[kaijyuu]

Seemingly random question:

Do you play roleplaying games of any sort, and if so, do you only roleplay yourself?

[ed boy]

You can divide experiences into four categories - gay-exclusive, straight-exclusive, possible for gay and straight, and possible for neither. Do you deny that the gay-exclusive category is larger than the straight-exclusive category? You you deny equivalent statements for race/gender?

Yes.

Well, here's what I can think of for the straight-exclusive category:
-Being attracted to someone of a different gender
And here's a partial list for the gay-exclusive category:
-Being attracted to someone of a different gender
-Having limited access to marriage and legal recognition of relationships, depending on country
-Having limited ability to adopt, depending on country
-Condemnation of sexuality from religious organisations
-More common allegations of pedophilia and child abuse
-Multiple organisations and government support dedicated to promoting acceptance of one's sexuality
-One's sexuality commonly being used as a derogatory term
-Restrictions on occupation (such a military service), depending on country
-Study of one's sexuality considered an academic field

Anything you'd like to add to those lists?

You seem to view homosexual experiences as somehow more exclusionary to those who aren't gay as more exclusionary than hetrosexual experiences might be to someone who is, and I just don't see any rational reason for it.

Suppose you're straight, and you make a list of all the experiences you've had that are impossible for a gay person to have. Now suppose you're gay and you make a list of all the experiences that are impossible for a straight person to have. I'd expect the gay person's list to be longer.

If I'm reading a book with a gay protagonist then I might be able to sympathise with him, but any mentions of romance or sexuality are likely to alienate me from the character. It doesn't line up with my preferences so is going to push me further from the character and be less likely to enjoy the scene. Generally it's like reading a book with the protagonist holding any sort of views I disagree with, which can be enjoyable but makes the sections where those are important harder to get through and less comfortable as a method of escapism.

Why would that be any different for a gay person reading a book about a straight protagonist?

A story about a straight person and their romantic interest would include some straight-exclusive experiences (mostly the direct physical attraction), and lots of experiences common to both straight and gay people. A story about a gay person and their romantic interest would have the same common experiences, but would include at least as many gay-exclusive experiences.

Further to all that there is the simple matter of under-representation. If I'm reading a book about a gay character and have a little trouble identifying with him, it's not a big deal. I have a dozen straight characters who I can turn to for more comfortable romantic escapism. Hell, odds are good there will be one in the same book. The gay reader is far less likely to have somewhere else to turn.

It's about being able to identify with the character and want to think myself into their position. Same-sex romances (done in a substantial manner) make that harder for me because that's just something I don't relate to. I might be able to appreciate the character, sometimes more than if they were just another cookie cutter dudebro, but I'm less likely to think of them as a proxy for myself. That's what I meant by alienation.

But there are far more elements of a romance story than the physical attraction. One can identify with the vast range of sexuality-common elements even if the element of physical sexuality is not shared with the reader.

[palsch]

Seemingly random question:

Do you play roleplaying games of any sort, and if so, do you only roleplay yourself?

To shortcircuit this;

There is a difference between escapism through a story and escapism through an act of creation. If I was to write a gay romance then I would want to do it well; doing the research and trying to craft something that others could enjoy. But it would not be one of my own fantasies or something I would escape into.

If I'm rolepaying a character then I would either treat it as a performance, so getting satisfaction from creating a character for other's amusement, or pick one that does fill a personal fantasy or line up with my own preferences.

Make sense?

Well, here's what I can think of for the straight-exclusive category:
-Being attracted to someone of a different gender
And here's a partial list for the gay-exclusive category:
-Being attracted to someone of a different gender
-Having limited access to marriage and legal recognition of relationships, depending on country
-Having limited ability to adopt, depending on country
-Condemnation of sexuality from religious organisations
-More common allegations of pedophilia and child abuse
-Multiple organisations and government support dedicated to promoting acceptance of one's sexuality
-One's sexuality commonly being used as a derogatory term
-Restrictions on occupation (such a military service), depending on country
-Study of one's sexuality considered an academic field

Anything you'd like to add to those lists?

How about these;
-Having unlimited access to marriage and legal recognition of relationships, depending on country
-Having unlimited ability to adopt, depending on country
-Acceptance and promotion of sexuality from religious organisations
-Uncommon allegations of pedophilia and child abuse
-Multiple organisations and government support dedicated to promoting acceptance of one's sexuality (seriously)
-Challenges to one's sexuality being a common insult
-No restrictions on occupation (such a military service), depending on country
-Study of one's sexuality considered an academic field (seriously)

Every trait has it's flipside and alternatives, and no side is inherently and obviously more likely to relate to the other. Someone who grows up without the universal acceptance that straight people get might find that less relatable than I would find the alienation a gay person might experiences.

A story about a straight person and their romantic interest would include some straight-exclusive experiences (mostly the direct physical attraction), and lots of experiences common to both straight and gay people. A story about a gay person and their romantic interest would have the same common experiences, but would include at least as many gay-exclusive experiences.

Talk to gay people about dating and romance and there are a great many differences. A lot of gay people I know flat out don't understand hetrosexual romance. It's an absurd system from their viewpoint. The idea that gay romance is just hetrosexual romance with extra dangly bits and some slightly changed aesthetics is absurd.

[kaijyuu]

There is a difference between escapism through a story and escapism through an act of creation. If I was to write a gay romance then I would want to do it well; doing the research and trying to craft something that others could enjoy. But it would not be one of my own fantasies or something I would escape into.

If I'm rolepaying a character then I would either treat it as a performance, so getting satisfaction from creating a character for other's amusement, or pick one that does fill a personal fantasy or line up with my own preferences.

Make sense?

Sort of?

I feel it's quite important for everyone to be able to see things from other people's perspectives and empathize with them, whether in stories or real life. Not everyone likes baseball, but everyone should be able to understand a character's desire to excel at it.

When it comes to becoming emotionally invested in storytelling, the actual end goals of characters are rather superficial; what's important is understanding their desires and why they want them and why they conflict with other character's desires. You don't have to share the same end goal to understand why they would want it.

I'm oversimplifying and dismissing various forms of depth of course, but I really don't understand the projection mindset outside of understanding via shared experience. If you've ever experienced romance you should be able to understand a romance between man and woman, man and man, man and blue skinned space babe, etc.

There are things that can get in the way of my understanding and empathizing with a protagonist/etc, but those things are universally things I have moral qualms with; I won't be able to empathize with a protagonist that promotes genocide or something.

[palsch]

When it comes to becoming emotionally invested in storytelling, the actual end goals of characters are rather superficial; what's important is understanding their desires and why they want them and why they conflict with other character's desires. You don't have to share the same end goal to understand why they would want it.

For empathy, yes. For escapism...

If I disagree with a character on any level that is going to take me outside the story slightly. I can still empathise with them, but they aren't an escapist character or a desirable role model for me any more. And that works the same (at least for me) if I disagree with their morals, their science, their politics or their romantic choices.

If you've ever experienced romance you should be able to understand a romance between man and woman, man and man, man and blue skinned space babe, etc.

I'm not sure I agree with this at all. At least for some definitions of 'understand'. I don't think you can treat all romances so interchangeably. There are radically differences between relationships that might make one heterosexual relationship completely incomprehensible for a different heterosexual couple. I can think of at least three relationships I've had that have been drastically different beyond my participation. That goes from the 'dating' mechanism right up to the specific mixes of emotions involved. And like I said in the previous post, gay relationships are often radically different again.

There is a degree there that this is true, in that romantic love is always relatable, but romance beyond that is always unique, and often unique in ways many will find hard to relate to. And harder to use as escapism in the ways I'm thinking of here.


Late edit:
I've worked out what I've not been saying properly. The whole empathy/identifying with characters this is only one aspect to general representation issues anyway. Having people like you in media has value beyond just escapism, which is what I was trying to get at with the links before. Read the posts in the Invisible series. Further, having diverse, positive and interesting characters (eg, not just retreading old tropes and stereotypes) from minority groups is helpful for other people, forming better and better rounded understanding of those groups.

[ed boy]

How about these;
-Having unlimited access to marriage and legal recognition of relationships, depending on country
-Having unlimited ability to adopt, depending on country
-Acceptance and promotion of sexuality from religious organisations
-Uncommon allegations of pedophilia and child abuse
-Multiple organisations and government support dedicated to promoting acceptance of one's sexuality (seriously)
-Challenges to one's sexuality being a common insult
-No restrictions on occupation (such a military service), depending on country
-Study of one's sexuality considered an academic field (seriously)

Most of these I would classify as possible for both gay and straight people, not straight-exclusive.

Every trait has it's flipside and alternatives, and no side is inherently and obviously more likely to relate to the other.

I disagree. If one side of an experience is only possible for one group of people and the other is possible for everyone, then the latter is inherently more relateable.

Talk to gay people about dating and romance and there are a great many differences. A lot of gay people I know flat out don't understand hetrosexual romance. It's an absurd system from their viewpoint. The idea that gay romance is just hetrosexual romance with extra dangly bits and some slightly changed aesthetics is absurd.

There are differences between straight and gay romance, and there are also a lot of similarities. I'm claiming that the set of gay-exclusive aspects is larger than the set of straight-exclusive aspects.