Print

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

[Louella Dougans]

Still doesn't explain the prevalence for lesbian characters in a subculture filled with gay/lesbian/transgender/alternative lifestyles/etc.

it is the most obvious choice. Also fairly easy to understand, in comparison to all the other things. "Girl that likes girls" is a simpler concept than most of the other things.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

How is "girls that like girls" simpler than "boys that like boys" or "boys that like girls/girls that like boys"? <,<
I honestly don't see the cognitive barrier to access the latter two concepts.

[Uraniae]

I think it might be "simpler" in that the RP community, despite being more tolerant than the wider EVE community, is probably still made up with a majority of heterosexual males.  To elaborate, one can be tolerant of other peoples' alternative lifestyles and nontraditional relationships or gender identities, while still maintaining personal preferences.  It's not so much any sort of cognitive barrier preventing understanding of the other situations as it is a "simpler" matter of preference and personal comfort.  Why roleplay attraction you don't have when you can roleplay attraction you do have/can more readily relate to?

I could probably play a convincing, engaging, and fun homosexual male character.  But I don't want to play that for various reasons. So why play that?

I'll also go out on a limb and say that it seems like modern western culture and media has really pushed lesbians much more than gays or transgender people.  So that cultural exposure might play a factor in making one situation "simpler" than another.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

That doesn't mean that the concept of "girl likes girl" is simpler/easier to understand though. It's rather getting us into quite complex societal processes that explain why it's simpler/easier to portray a lesbian.

Also, it wouldn't explain why those RPers that aren't heterosexual males aren't as noticeable as the lesbian characters or simply subsumed in that category. If we have a lot of those with alternate gender/sex lifestyles in the community, why then are apparently the lesbian characters the only ones present in the public eye?

[Uraniae]

More exposure to a concept tends to lead to more understanding of the concept, or at least some perceived understanding of it.  I'm not saying it's the answer to your question but it's possible it plays a part in the whole equation.

As for your most recent question I think that has to do with the tendency of people to remember bad examples more than they do good examples.  The "space lesbians" that aren't sticking out as the stereotypes and providing people reason to go "gosh that is pretty horrible/stupid" aren't the ones that get remembered as readily.  Think about other similar stereotypes in the community.  Sani Sabik characters that play like Twilight vampires.  Matari freedom fighters with a horrible "beaten, abused, raped as a slave" background.  The stand out bad examples just stick more often than the stand out good ones.

On top of that I suspect there is some self perpetuation with the whole "space lesbians" thing.  At some point being more common leads to the idea that it's more popular or acceptable or simply comes to mind quicker.  This makes even more, which reinforces the cycle.  Add to that the simple statistical factor that you'll have more exceptional or terrible examples of anything when you have more of that thing, and it just keeps building upon itself.

[lallara zhuul]

I think this is related to white privilege in the sense that those that react to the term adversely have themselves experiences with their sexual preferences as something that has been judged by their real life culture or social group.

Therefore those that do not react to the term adversely (and use it) cannot really comprehend what the fuss is about.

In the end, all we can control is our own reaction to things which pretty much means that getting offended about something like this will change things as much as getting offended about anything else.

It does not really matter.

Therefore I applaud this kind of discourse on something that I perceive as a non-issue, perhaps I can understand what the fuss is about, perhaps not.

At least the try is out there.

[Ciarente]

I think this is related to white privilege in the sense that those that react to the term adversely have themselves experiences with their sexual preferences as something that has been judged by their real life culture or social group.

Therefore those that do not react to the term adversely (and use it) cannot really comprehend what the fuss is about.

In the end, all we can control is our own reaction to things which pretty much means that getting offended about something like this will change things as much as getting offended about anything else.

It does not really matter.

Therefore I applaud this kind of discourse on something that I perceive as a non-issue, perhaps I can understand what the fuss is about, perhaps not.

At least the try is out there.

The thing is, as a recipient of the benefits of white and cisgender privilege, when someone points out that a term or phrase is offensive to them, I stop using it.  I might not 'comprehend what all the fuss is about' beforehand, but being informed that it's offensive is enough for me.  It does puzzle me when people (and this is more in reference to the sort of culture Jade raised rather than in reference to this thread) refuse to acknowledge that their language is offensive, demeaning and exclusionary, and insist on continuing to use it.

We don't only control our own reaction to things: we also control our own speech and behavior. 

'Getting offended' may not change anything: but informing others that we have been offended is a different matter. It puts out in the open the offensive nature of some language choices, which the possessors of privilege might not have considered.

Of course, that's no guarantee they'll stop using them: but it certainly removes any excuse of ignorance, and makes perfectly clear the attitudes of those who continue to choose to use terms they now know are offensive, hurtful, and exclusionary.

[Katrina Oniseki]

The thing is, as a recipient of the benefits of white and cisgender privilege, when someone points out that a term or phrase is offensive to them, I stop using it.  I might not 'comprehend what all the fuss is about' beforehand, but being informed that it's offensive is enough for me.  It does puzzle me when people (and this is more in reference to the sort of culture Jade raised rather than in reference to this thread) refuse to acknowledge that their language is offensive, demeaning and exclusionary, and insist on continuing to use it.

We don't only control our own reaction to things: we also control our own speech and behavior. 

'Getting offended' may not change anything: but informing others that we have been offended is a different matter. It puts out in the open the offensive nature of some language choices, which the possessors of privilege might not have considered.

Of course, that's no guarantee they'll stop using them: but it certainly removes any excuse of ignorance, and makes perfectly clear the attitudes of those who continue to choose to use terms they now know are offensive, hurtful, and exclusionary.

This. +1

That is the very reason I started this thread.

[Aelisha Montenagre]

To be honest, the above seems to be the most mature policy.  One a one to one basis, should the term offend, stop using it.

Personally I generally find describing someone by their gender, as an external evaluation of that person to be one step away from judging them on their sexual technique (and every bit as relevant IE. NOT) as an identifying feature.  Suffice to say; not my place and well outside any right to free speech I care to claim.  If the person in question describes themselves as 'classification of sexual or gender preference' then that's their call. 

For example: Ael: "Oh yes, I know Oniseki in passing.  Member of I-RED, seems to be some form of aide or close colleague of JFR."

NOT

Ael: "Oniseki... Oniseki...  The lesbian who works with JFR?"

Take away the concept of positive or negative value statements as inferred by an observer for a second - not only is the second just rude, but it also tells the person asking if I know Oniseki, potentially to find out more about her, NOTHING that could be pertinent to any conversation other than 'do I have a shot' (a distasteful and assumptive line of inquiry I'd love to shoot down IC or OOC for most any application thereof). 

I could have just said 'what Ciarente and Oniseki have said' but I thought I'd put my own spin on things to give a personal context. 

Mithra, however, is really responsible for me posting here.  'Why lesbians?'  This has really stuck in my mind like a barb, as my two fleshed out chars are assumed (very private romantic lives) hetero-normative, with little desire or reason to discuss their sexual preferences or those of anyone else.  Is it intrinsically 'easier' for a predominantly male population?  Does it say anything (progressive, good, bad?) about that population?  As a male player of implied straight (but unproven due to 'no ERP ty' on my part) but female characters, does that say anything about me? 

That is the real allure of this thread imo - as I'd trust most of us a progressive and decent enough to believe that sexuality descriptors, even in jest, means nothing beyond personal taste in a private matter.  Offence taken, should be offence taken under advisement - I should know, I like to sling the odd barb on OOC ts with the TS-F guys, well aware that if it offends (and it has) I should recant and resolve to avoid such.  It isn't in the first offence we become bigots, but in the second; and we should learn to not compromise, but accept that in private matters, feelings run strong for those who feel they are victims.  As no one should be a victim in life, let alone a game, I believe that tolerance is best expressed by the testing of boundaries (usually accidentally) and the acceptance of self-moderation in the face of negative reactions.  Through this, both the offended party and the offensive party learn how they see the same term differently and how victimisation through presupposition of prejudice or by continuation of an aggravating behaviour until it becomes prejudice is unacceptable. 

Stop making me want to write long posts. 

[Nicoletta Mithra]

As no one should be a victim in life, let alone a game, I believe that tolerance is best expressed by the testing of boundaries (usually accidentally) and the acceptance of self-moderation in the face of negative reactions.  Through this, both the offended party and the offensive party learn how they see the same term differently and how victimisation through presupposition of prejudice or by continuation of an aggravating behaviour until it becomes prejudice is unacceptable.

I think that is really nicely put. +1

Stop making me want to write long posts.

As far as I'm responsible, I'll try to oblige. I can't promise anything, though.

[Vincent Pryce]

Because Stephen Fry says it so much better than I can.

[Ciarente]

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will always hurt me.”


― Stephen Fry, Moab Is My Washpot

[Vincent Pryce]

Old git needs to make up his mind.

[Jekaterine]

[mod]Thread cleaned.The topic is in the OP. It is not about who should HTFU and under what circumstances, who has been victimized and discriminated against outside of this particular thread question. Nor freedom of speech and it's application.Such things are to be discussed in their own threads in the appropriate forum. Feel free to start them off.[/mod]

[Creep]

Pardon moi for Necroing this thread but it's rather good (I agree with mostly everything in it) and this is the first time I've been able to say this:

So many Gay/Lesbian Characters are sexually violent.

I don't mean they're rapin' errybody; I mean that while a huge chunk of Capsuleers are rampaging psychopaths, it's the LGBQ (haven't met any T) characters whose violence and sadism leaks into their sex lives. And I'm not even talking about a bit of BDSM.

All the heterosexual ERP or relationships I've ever seen tends to be fairly vanilla, if somewhat enhanced with FutureToys™ or GallenteKink. Straight characters seem to have fairly non-sadistic relationships. Tenderness, communication, egalitarian dynamic, with a little bit of contrived melodrama because this is RP, after all.
 
Lesbian characters? Suddenly they're signing up with the Blood Raiders because Lesbians have Blood Orgies (no seriously, there's a bunch of these running around). Or they're a Gurista/Angel/Slaver seducing a manacled captive they've just dragged out of her pod. Or they're making creepy threats regarding genital mutilation towards male characters, like an over-the-top caricature of the "Man-eating Lesbian FemiNazi" stereotype.
And there's almost always some creepy power imbalance going on: the Dominant partner is presented in the manner that the guy in 50 Shades of Gray was (slaver/slave, TrueCitizen/TrueSlave, StalkerIntelligence Officer/StalkedCriminal/Terrorist etc). That element of a controlling relationship seems almost ubiquitous.

Now, I don't tend to frequent the RP channels that most people here do, and I've never interacted with someone Seriously Role Playing a gay pilot (beyond one manga-inspired prettyboy cardboard cutout), but the lolRPlite types I DO meet tend to be divided into two sections: Highsec and Lowsec/Null. Yes, really.

I hang out primarily with lowsec pirates, and mother of god I have never seen so many links to gay porn, ascii art of dicks, or read more homoerotic conversations than I have in channels filled with straight male lowsexers. And I've been known to surf Grindr. The term sausagefest no longer applies—it's a WienerCarnival.
But among the lowsec pirates, the lolgayRP is pretty harmless — it tends to be bandied about mostly amongst corpmates and friendlies, with lots of lolPolyamory. This (though my experience is somewhat limited) tends to be true among the Nullsec pvpers as well. It's actually a decent environment for me to be in because I can flirt with them in-character(or out) and they don't even blink.

But go to Hisec, and it gets creepy. The Wardecker/Merc types love to present themselves as rape-happy gay men. Now, this is blatant trolling, but just as the lowsec pirates are consistent with their RPlite, the hisec guys keep it going 23/7 as well. And, granted, I do find their irreverent antics funny, but in the back of my mind it's creepy as shit because they're not just men raping everyone(which is terrible as well): it's implied that they just rape men, and this characterization of gay men comes too easily to them.


Er. That got kind of ranty at the end. But the point stands: We are not sadistic, abusive lovers.
Homsexing does not generally involve intimidation and subjugation.
We are people who happen (privately, for the most part) to enjoy rubbing our genitalia against similarly shaped genitalia.
For the most part, our relationships are healthy.

If there's legit way for an RPer to be "doingitrong", RPing a creepy, violent, same-sex relationship is probably it.