Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
PA:TV 4th Panel Season 3, Ep. 17 - Configuration (4th Panel)
Posts
I really don't think so, that was some of the realest shit I've seen on camera.
Also its funny how they seem to need to go the the mutual ground of thinking fucking Garrus is gross.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
if there's anything i've learned from forumers here, it's that gender identities definitely are on a continuum, rather than hard and fast static categories. even though a person is straight, they might find that same sex porn/depictions "do it for them".
this was a really awesome 4th panel
google+ | facebook | twitter | steam | Guild Wars 2: fightinfilipino.8914
I mean why does he keep using the word "gay" to describe Jerry, despite knowing that he's also attracted to women?
Because he does. He works with them daily. He's even in this video.
As did I. And I never get involved with message boards.
In fact, this discussion had me thinking for a little bit about sex in games as well popular culture. And in doing so it kind of occurred to me: that unless a person is straight, a character in a game/tvshow/movie is often *defined* by their sexual orientation, instead of what mannerisms they have as a person. What they're into, what things they enjoy (rimshot!) and what things define them as a person always seem to resolve down to the fact that they like humping the same sex.
Take Doctor Who for example, this is a show that's highly spoken of in the nerdisphere and yet when they introduce a pansexual character (read: bisexual), that character, Captain Jack, despite being as "cutting edge" or "forward thinking" as the great BBC insists it's being by doing so, is simply portrayed as little more than a walking hard-on who's sexuality is the only really defining characteristic, if not the *only* characteristic his writing team has to bring to the table about this guy. This could just be for sensationalistic reasons (and since it's an english show, almost certainly is), but that would only cheapen the whole endeavour if it were to be confirmed as true.
This extends out to mainstream types of media as well. Would "will & grace" be so popular if the one gay character wasn't such a walking stereotype? what if he was just a normal, everyday guy who was into everyday guy stuff, whom simply also liked to bone dudes? would anyone give a crap about that show, then? or would the crowd whom gave a crap be the same crowd? for the same reasons?
I guess this comes down to the fact that I had a roommate who was like that whom I'm fortunate enough to still be friends with. He's as gay as the day is long, but at the same time, he's probably the most "manly" guy I know. He's into martial arts, technology, went to a trade school... shit, he works as a goddamn mechanic for fucks sake. Seeing him in all these macho roles while I was the musician and science nerd that was into girls kind of took my naive understanding of gender, sexuality and their implied roles at the time and spun it on it's head. I had to wrestle my own understanding of what sexuality meant down to the mat after meeting this guy and, after I managed that, discovered that the small scope of "if they're not straight like me, I don't get it or even think about it" was in fact, small. embarrassingly small. Ignorant, I believe the word is. It made me realize that it is in fact possible to understand *why* someone is into something that you fundamentally aren't and be able to understand *what* it is that they like about it, even if you don't like it, yourself.
And with keeping that kind of personal experience in mind, I have to ask myself: "why is it that alternative sexualities in media are always either treated as either laughable stereotypes whom can only ever bring gay jokes to the table, avoided all together, or essentially made freakshow exhibits where the fact they hump people you wouldn't expect them to is some kind of *thing* to be put on display?" or "why does it almost always work when you want to generate some buzz?" even in the case of Mass Effect where they didn't actually deliver on the content, but the very notion of an implied idea made it such a big deal?
I mean, I guess it's better than not even having these elements of our society be represented in our culture, but it's not "better" as I would expect it, personally.
Will & Grace isn't much of a comedy as it is.
But the more concerning thing is that somewhere along the way, a huge chunk of society decided that stories about everyday people with topics that impact their real lives in real ways that occur in real life and cause us to think about real topics in the here & now, somehow aren't worth telling and we'd be better off filtering our tales to involve what might as well be cartoon characters and their adventures through subject matter that either nobody ever experiences or is so mundane that nobody really cares. Or at least won't get offended by.
Is that really better? I'd argue no.
and I refer you to the last point of my first post:
now, part of the reason I don't really partake in forums is what's starting to happen here: semantics about something off-topic. I'm done talking about 'is will and grace good'. that's the last you'll hear about it from me. I don't care for it, myself and it doesn't matter that I don't. It also doesn't matter if you do, or if for whatever reason you think I should adopt your opinion. There's nothing that I could say to you that would change your mind, and there's nothing you could say to me to do the same. from here on out, that particular topic is an exercise in futility.
I've ventured off on this tangent as far as I'm willing to go. If you want to continue to speculate about how successful some lame NBC sticom was in it's heyday, feel free, but you'll be doing it by yourself.
Back to talking about the PATV video, if you please.
The weird forced gay characters have disappeared since the new head writer took over. The new thing is introducing a character, showing them to be well rounded, then slipping in a lil' "also they're gay" somewhere.
But as for the sex scenes being non-explicit, they've been that way since about ME2. I guess they were afraid of controversy? Anyway, Jerry and Mike can at least rest at ease that all of my Garrus sex scenes were just as distant and unrevealing as the gay sex was.
Origin ID: jazzmess
Amazon Wishlist
Well that's the thing, right? why does it matter?
In everyday life, most people don't really think twice about this kinda thing. IE: you hire a new guy at work. he happens to be gay and the break room is met with a resounding "meh". It's not a big deal for most people in the real world, but once you introduce the idea into the culture of creative work, suddenly it becomes this huge hurdle where every last inch has to be examined with an electron microscope and the fretting stress of "what are people going to think about this?!" affects creators and publishers to their very core. When in reality everyone of those people involved in making this movie/game/show, from the writers to the actors to the girl who gets the coffee and the guy who answers the phone in the lobby to, eventually you and me whom buy the content, all already are pretty well versed in coping with this subject matter in our everyday lives. (or at least, you should be if you consider yourself a capable adult) This shouldn't be anything new to any of us and we all already know the mannerisms and interactions that would make sexuality a meaningful plot device because we experience it all the time.
"what's the hold-up?" I guess is my whole point, really.
well if you have the ability to reduce your point down to a single, poignant sentence why didn't you do that two posts ago? If were you, that's what I would have led with and then elaborated if I had to. I mean, forgiving the fact that your point there is hopelessly wrong, but that's neither here nor there.
again, another reason to why I don't normally spend time on forums.
I think you may have misunderstood what Jerry was talking about. He said that he is sexually aroused by videos of men having sex, as well as videos of women having sex. So clearly he is bisexual.
But why is everyone making such a big deal about this? In many cultures (ancient Greece for example) bisexuality is/was much more common.
And, in our closest cousin species (chimps and bonobos), bisexuality is actually the norm for both the sexes.
I'm fairly certain that the (current) western cultures are repressing this part of men's natural psychology. I bet that at least 20% of men are bisexual in their genetic makeup, but they just repress those thoughts and feelings REALLY HARD (forgive the pun).
I think you're overgeneralizing.. There is a penchant for over-flamboy-ifying gay characters in sitcoms, but the trend exists across all spectrums of diversity. Would Big Bang Theory be as popular as it was if they were socially adequate well adjusted people that just happen to be rocket scientists? Probably not. That's where the theater aspect of it all comes in. Since the dawn of theater they've blown up individual characteristics of someone and made that their role in the play.
Comics have done a pretty decent job of it for instance. If I remember right Colossus from Ultimate X-Men was pretty well done.
Dumbledore was another one where Rowlins just said "Oh, by the way, he's gay" and most normal well adjusted people just said "Yeah, that makes sense" and moved on. It was only ever important to his character development as far as his back story goes, so it was a non-issue.
I've never seen Brokeback Mountain, but from what I hear they are both relatively well adjusted...
In the words of the ancients, one should make his decision within the space of seven breaths. It is a matter of being determined and having the spirit to break through to the other side
And as has been stated, it's up to Jerry to decide where his proclivities lie, not anyone else.
Origin ID: jazzmess
Amazon Wishlist
Mike is aroused by girl-on-girl porn, and that doesn't make him a lesbian. These analogies don't really work because the standard definition of homosexuality is whether or not you are attracted to people of your own gender. If someone wants to believe that sexuality is a continuum and a man thinking "these guys having sex are hot" can still be straight most of the time that's fine (by which I mean it makes logical sense to me, I'm not trying to be the arbiter of sexual behavior) but those thoughts themselves are inherently not heterosexual.
Well. Here's the thing.
The first dude I ever had sex with was super interested in what kind of porn I masturbated to, and I told him. And from that he always assumed that if I masturbated to something, then that means I wanted to have it happen to me. I never understood this attitude, and I never will. The fact is when he tried to introduce some of that stuff into our bed , most of the time I didn't like it. I don't know how much specifics it would be OK to get into here, so I won't.
When I watch porn, most of the time it's as a voyeur. I like to watch it, not because I want that done to me, but because of the idea (real or not) that the person in the video is enjoying it. Seeing or hearing someone get off is erotic, by itself, whoever they are.
Origin ID: jazzmess
Amazon Wishlist
I hadn't initially thought of it that way, but I totally see that point of view.
For me, porn tends to be something that sparks my imagination, so I will think 'hey I'd like to try that!'--the whole P.O.V. genre in particular is about imagining yourself in an ideal situation, whatever that situation may be. That's my shit right there
I'd only thought of that fantasy/reality disconnect in relation to activities, rather than participants. But I can see how someone with a different mindset could feel that disconnect for the latter.
Mike's lost-little-boy face came out a few times in this episode. I thought it was adorable and feel kinda bad for laughing.