What are everybody's headcanons on the character's sexualities?

[CaDzilla]

I peg Thog as gay, Miko and Tarquin as bisexual, and Zz'dtri as pansexual. What's your headcanon?

[rodneyAnonymous]

They are all Sick of This Topic.

[oppyu]

They are all Sick of This Topic.
I don't mean to alarm everyone, but I have reason to believe this poster is a mind-reading witch.

[Emperordaniel]

I don't mean to alarm everyone, but I have reason to believe this poster is a mind-reading witch.

Is he made of wood?

[littlebum2002]

Considering how there's another thread that's convinced me that V being asexual is great headcanon, Z being pansexual fits perfectly.

I've also thought for awhile that Tarquin was bi.

I think that Elan is straight, but wouldn't turn down the opportunity (if he was single) to seduce even a male bad guy.

There's no doubt in my mind that Sabine is pan, either.




They are all Sick of This Topic.

Really? I don't think I've ever seen a thread like this one before.

[Tvtyrant]

That their sexualities are whatever the Giant says they are.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Honestly, I don't really have any thoughts on the sexualities of the characters, unless they're specifically shown.


Is he made of wood?

There's only one way to find out!

[Bulldog Psion]

Honestly, I don't really have any thoughts on the sexualities of the characters, unless they're specifically shown.

I'll second the motion here. I find it rather uninteresting, actually, unless an intriguing plot point or a good joke is made on the basis of it.


There's only one way to find out!

And your avatar is even wearing red, like the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects you, I assume! :smallwink:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

And your avatar is even wearing red, like the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects you, I assume! :smallwink:
Of course! Our two main weapons are spam, surprise, eggs, sausage, and spam!
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Jiminy_zps8e0ba475.png: I think you're drifting into another sketch, sir.

[ti'esar]

In general I don't really care, but I've always been a member of the "Hinjo might be gay" club.

[Svata]

Of course! Our two main weapons are spam, surprise, eggs, sausage, and spam!
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Jiminy_zps8e0ba475.png: I think you're drifting into another sketch, sir.

D'ya get wafers with it?

[Oneris]

Why does no one ever speculate on their musical preferences or favorite animal or non-stick-figure eye color? Does sexuality make that much of a difference in how you see them as a person?

I personally think V has a blueish-green eye color to further highlight hir contrast to Z.

[Zmeoaice]

Everyone is gay, and those who are in straight relationships are in the closet.

[Procyonpi]

I peg Tarquin as bisexual

Per word of Giant in BRitF commentary:
Tarquin is straight.

Also, I've always thought of Thog as asexual.

[Torzini]

Ummm.... headcannons?

http://i.imgur.com/vQzyVYJ.jpg

Can't believe nobody's pointed that out yet. Really, there's no way for me to take this question seriously with the spectacularly awful mental imagery that misspelling evokes. :smallconfused:

[Darth Paul]

It's nobody's business but their own, as long as they're all consenting adults.

[goto124]

The OP is asking for others' headcanons. Could we agree to respect other people's opinions and not do things such as pointing out what they think is not true by The Giant's words?

[Seeker]

Everyone is gay, and those who are in straight relationships are in the closet.

This. I'd also like to add that they are all transsexual otherkin.

{Scrubbed}


The OP is asking for others' headcanons. Could we agree to respect other people's opinions and not do things such as pointing out what they think is not true by The Giant's words?

...what?

Sorry, but that simply doesn't work. If it's my head-canon that Roy is a half dragon rouge it's not freaking true because the Giant says he's a human fighter, and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. At this point, you're just making fanfiction.

[Keltest]

The OP is asking for others' headcanons. Could we agree to respect other people's opinions and not do things such as pointing out what they think is not true by The Giant's words?

If something is explicitly confirmed to be accurate or inaccurate, it is no longer headcanon.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

If something is explicitly confirmed to be accurate or inaccurate, it is no longer headcanon.

Usually, I see headcanon as being defined by fanmade canon that isn't necessarily supported by the canon it's based of off. To uphold a headcanon as obviously true would be wrong, but there's nothing wrong with having that headcanon. To use Seeker's example, his headcanon is obviously not true, but he's welcome to support regardless of The Giant's words on the subject.

With that said, it's hardly disrespectful to tell someone that there is a source showing that their headcanon cannot be true. To tell them that they can't think that way might be, but all Procyonpi was doing was the former.

[CaDzilla]

Per word of Giant in BRitF commentary:
Tarquin is straight.

Also, I've always thought of Thog as asexual.

Which strip's commentary was this?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Which strip's commentary was this?

Right before #918.

[Anonymouswizard]

Per word of Giant in BRitF commentary:
Tarquin is straight.

Also, I've always thought of Thog as asexual.

I call death of the author, which allows me to ignore all information not directly in the original source.

Going by this, IIRC the information we have from the online comic is:
Haley is bisexual.
Roy is attracted to women.
Elan is attracted to women.
Belkar is attracted to women.
Varsuvius is attracted to their partner.
Durkin is attracted to women.
Celia is attracted to men.
Miko is attracted to men.
Tarqin is attracted to women.
Nale is attracted to women.
Sabine is attracted to at least one gender.
Thog is not attracted to women.
Bandana likes women.

So in my mind:
Haley is bi, this is confirmed.
Although I'd like to say Roy is bi, he's unlikely to be past a 1 on the Kinsey scale. Call it straight.
I'd actually like to say that Elan is heterosexual biromantic, but that's just me.
Belkar is straight, because I think he parodies the "manly straight man" concept.
Varsuvius is asexual, and also transgender, because I like them that way.
Durkon is straight, but just not interested.
Celia is straight.
Miko is straight.
Tarqin is bi, but with a preference for women.
Male is straight.
Sabine is sexual.
Thog is asexual.
Bandana is gay.
Tsukio needs help.

[Keltest]

I call death of the author, which allows me to ignore all information not directly in the original source.

That's not what death of the author means. It just means that Rich's interpretation is not any more valid than any other individual's. If Rich says that Tarquin is officially straight in a commentary or press conference or a twitter post, Tarquin is as straight as if he came out and said it in the book.

[Jay R]

That anything not explicitly shown is private, and none of my business.

[goto124]

What I think: V is bisexual, since he/she doesn't care all that much about gender. His/her knowledge of gender is due to the rest of the world caring, and adjusts slightly to fit, otherwise it doesn't bother him/her. V could be considered transgender in the sense of not having a human's idea of the traditional gender identity.

[Gift Jeraff]

They're all straight.

[ORione]

That's not what death of the author means. It just means that Rich's interpretation is not any more valid than any other individual's.

Right, so Rich's interpretation is just as valid as, say, my interpretation. According to Death of the Author, that is.


If Rich says that Tarquin is officially straight in a commentary or press conference or a twitter post, Tarquin is as straight as if he came out and said it in the book.

So, If I claimed that Tarquin was officially straight, then that would mean that Tarquin must be straight? :smallconfused:

[Keltest]

Right, so Rich's interpretation is just as valid as, say, my interpretation. According to Death of the Author, that is.



So, If I claimed that Tarquin was officially straight, then that would mean that Tarquin must be straight? :smallconfused:

Theres no interpretation there.

[DireWolf]

My headcanon: All are straight unless otherwise stated in the comic itself or stated by Giant in the forum.

[ORione]

Theres no interpretation there.

Death of the Author proponents still don't count statements made by the author outside of the work as necessarily being canon.

[Keltest]

Death of the Author proponents still don't count statements made by the author outside of the work as necessarily being canon.

That's not Death of the Author, that's just being stubborn. Its your prerogative if you don't want to count it, but you may have a hard time reconciling that with things that did make it into the story.

[ORione]

That's not Death of the Author, that's just being stubborn. Its your prerogative if you don't want to count it, but you may have a hard time reconciling that with things that did make it into the story.

What kind of thing do you think does counts as Death of the Author, then?

I mean, it's not like authors often go, "I interpret such-and-such event as being symbolic of this," about their own work.

[Keltest]

What kind of thing do you think does counts as Death of the Author, then?

I mean, it's not like authors often go, "I interpret such-and-such event as being symbolic of this," about their own work.

Character interpretations, for one. What any messages sent by his work are for another. Heck, people do it all the time, telling Rich that it wasn't necessary for him to stop Haley from using gender-charged insults for example. If Rich says "This means X" and a bunch of other people say "No, we think it means Y" then Rich doesn't get to just override them with his Word of Giant powers.

[ORione]

Character interpretations, for one. What any messages sent by his work are for another. Heck, people do it all the time, telling Rich that it wasn't necessary for him to stop Haley from using gender-charged insults for example. If Rich says "This means X" and a bunch of other people say "No, we think it means Y" then Rich doesn't get to just override them with his Word of Giant powers.

That sounds reasonable.

[rafet]

Is truth relative? Then we can say whatever we think.
Is truth absolute? The author of it, is the authority

[Anonymouswizard]

That's not what death of the author means. It just means that Rich's interpretation is not any more valid than any other individual's. If Rich says that Tarquin is officially straight in a commentary or press conference or a twitter post, Tarquin is as straight as if he came out and said it in the book.

Right, so Rich's interpretation of Tarqin being straight is no more valid than my interpretation of Tarqin being bi. I just sometimes have trouble getting the correct words down, and was writing that just after I got in from a day of lectures, so I couldn't keep the actual meaning straight and settled for how it applied to this situation ("I only have to base my interpretation on the strip, nothing else"), which was not easy for me to work into the sentence I was writing.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake in my wording, I'm probably not going to bother changing the sentence right now though.

For the record Tarqin being straight is the most logical interpretation of the text, I only see him as bi because a) he is attracted to women and b) because he acts more like my LGBT friends than my straight friends (once we remove the murder and such from his character). I only didn't give my reasoning for most of the characters to save time.

[Keltest]

Right, so Rich's interpretation of Tarqin being straight is no more valid than my interpretation of Tarqin being bi. I just sometimes have trouble getting the correct words down, and was writing that just after I got in from a day of lectures, so I couldn't keep the actual meaning straight and settled for how it applied to this situation ("I only have to base my interpretation on the strip, nothing else"), which was not easy for me to work into the sentence I was writing.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake in my wording, I'm probably not going to bother changing the sentence right now though.

For the record Tarqin being straight is the most logical interpretation of the text, I only see him as bi because a) he is attracted to women and b) because he acts more like my LGBT friends than my straight friends (once we remove the murder and such from his character). I only didn't give my reasoning for most of the characters to save time.

Its presumably the most logical interpretation because that is how Rich wrote him. In the statement that provoked your death of the author reaction, it was a statement of fact in the commentary (about how the story was NOT about the straight white blonde male Tarquin, but about the significantly more varied Order).

[Reddish Mage]

Considering how there's another thread that's convinced me that V being asexual is great headcanon, Z being pansexual fits perfectly.

Somehow I find this statement awesome.



I've also thought for awhile that Tarquin was bi.

I think that Elan is straight, but wouldn't turn down the opportunity (if he was single) to seduce even a male bad guy.

I think there's in-story support that Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0365.html) isn't a 0 on the Kinsey scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale). Elan certainly is...curious (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0009.html) about sexuality.

Given the popular theory is that sexuality is inherited, I would say there is indirect evidence supporting your hypothesis.


There's no doubt in my mind that Sabine is pan, either.

Now that one's just obvious.


-----

Do note I said all this and I still stick by what I said here in response to "V is aromantic asexual"


I simply don't see anywhere in the main comic were Vaarsuvius chooses to define him/herself at all in terms of gender. V's gender is a question mark, not a none of the above. In the Gygax magazine continuity, V explicitly states that he/she switched genders.

There really is a lot of in-comic evidence that a number of the characters are not entirely straight and cis. Heck, even V's lack of care or noticing gender suggests V may actually be bi, and if so is more likely to actually be pansexual (after all, V is obviously the last person to get hung up about people who violate sex and gender norms).


Really? I don't think I've ever seen a thread like this one before.

See the above thread. I don't recall discussing sexuality of the characters in general.

[littlebum2002]

Agree with everything you said, except I have to nitpick


Elan certainly is...curious (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0009.html) about sexuality.


That's gender identity, not sexuality.

[Reddish Mage]

Agree with everything you said, except I have to nitpick



That's gender identity, not sexuality.

I think if one is willing to experiment with one, he might be more open to the other.

[ti'esar]

And there's also whatever happened at Summer Camp (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html).

Though it's worth noting that the same commentary establishing Tarquin as straight says the same about Elan - specifically, that the fact that this is a straight white man pitching a fit over the story not revolving around himself and another straight white man is not coincidental.

[jere7my]

That's not Death of the Author, that's just being stubborn. Its your prerogative if you don't want to count it, but you may have a hard time reconciling that with things that did make it into the story.

Strictly speaking, "Death of the author" is the notion that the author is born at the commencement the story, and dies when it is finished—i.e., that the person who writes the story is not the same person two years, two weeks, or two days after the story is written. Memory is fallible; context changes; the particular author who existed when the story was being written no longer exists.

This may sound silly at first blush, but look at George Lucas: his various explanations for Vader's connection to Luke, how many movies there were supposed to be, Luke's and Leia's relationship, etc. The discrepancies may or may not reflect his actual beliefs—memory is fluid—but they don't reflect the historical evidence. The George Lucas who wrote the script of Star Wars is dead; the one answering questions in the subsequent decades has a different set of assumptions about the characters.

See also Dave Sim, who, after Cerebus veered off into misogynist ranting, tried to claim that that was where the story was always headed. I suspect he made himself believe it, too, but it was always a very clear retcon to cover some kind of psychotic break.

Those are extreme examples. I'm sure Rich knew, when he was writing the strips, that Tarquin was straight, but by the terms of the analysis it doesn't matter what he says after the story is written. You can only go by the words (and pictures) on the page.

[Keltest]

Strictly speaking, "Death of the author" is the notion that the author is born at the commencement the story, and dies when it is finished—i.e., that the person who writes the story is not the same person two years, two weeks, or two days after the story is written. Memory is fallible; context changes; the particular author who existed when the story was being written no longer exists.

This may sound silly at first blush, but look at George Lucas: his various explanations for Vader's connection to Luke, how many movies there were supposed to be, Luke's and Leia's relationship, etc. The discrepancies may or may not reflect his actual beliefs—memory is fluid—but they don't reflect the historical evidence. The George Lucas who wrote the script of Star Wars is dead; the one answering questions in the subsequent decades has a different set of assumptions about the characters.

See also Dave Sim, who, after Cerebus veered off into misogynist ranting, tried to claim that that was where the story was always headed. I suspect he made himself believe it, too, but it was always a very clear retcon to cover some kind of psychotic break.

Those are extreme examples. I'm sure Rich knew, when he was writing the strips, that Tarquin was straight, but by the terms of the analysis it doesn't matter what he says after the story is written. You can only go by the words (and pictures) on the page.

That's the thing. We are talking about the words on the page. Its just not one of the pages everybody bought. That makes a very strange situation for OOTS, because normally ALL of the pages are ones that you need to buy to see.

[Peelee]

That's the thing. We are talking about the words on the page. Its just not one of the pages everybody bought. That makes a very strange situation for OOTS, because normally ALL of the pages are ones that you need to buy to see.

Well, technically, you are buying all the pages. Your currency is increased internet traffic, which is then exchanged into ad revenue.

[Gift Jeraff]

The comic has no ads other than for its own products. Only the forum has ads.

[Jay R]

An author can, perhaps, be mistaken about the meaning or interpretation of his work. He may have faulty memory of his intentions about something written a long time ago.

But he's not likely to be mistaken about the intended meaning or interpretation of something he's written recently.

[jere7my]

That's the thing. We are talking about the words on the page. Its just not one of the pages everybody bought. That makes a very strange situation for OOTS, because normally ALL of the pages are ones that you need to buy to see.

In that case, you'd need to treat the comic and the comic + commentary as two separate works, and analyze them separately. I'm not sure that would be the best approach, though; if Lucas claims on a DVD commentary track somewhere that Vader was always supposed to be Luke's father, analyzing that work + commentary will not get you any closer to the original meaning of the work.

[jere7my]

An author can, perhaps, be mistaken about the meaning or interpretation of his work. He may have faulty memory of his intentions about something written a long time ago.

But he's not likely to be mistaken about the intended meaning or interpretation of something he's written recently.

That's true, but death of the author is a mental experiment that looks at what you get when you set aside the author's commentary and context entirely, and see where that takes you. If you want to find the "true" meaning of a work, a different approach is called for.

[martianmister]

Every character is bisexual, even the ones with no gender/sex.

[oppyu]

They're all strongly considering asexuality and aromance if we don't stop arguing about it.

[Reddish Mage]

That's true, but death of the author is a mental experiment that looks at what you get when you set aside the author's commentary and context entirely, and see where that takes you. If you want to find the "true" meaning of a work, a different approach is called for.

I thought "death of the author" was originally associated with "New Criticism," which seeks to find the "true" meaning of the work in looking at story structure: elements such as character development, foreshadowing, plot...the sort of reading they teach in American high schools.

I always figured death of the author debate would occur sometime with someone throwing it in Rich's face: "your irrelevant in discussing your own work you are still writing, what you write here is mere self-commentary" rather than merely assuming it and arguing based on D&D minutiae (which I think the Giant actually understands better than any here except a few well-known playgrounders who regularly take his side).

[littlebum2002]

I thought "death of the author" was originally associated with "New Criticism," which seeks to find the "true" meaning of the work in looking at story structure: elements such as character development, foreshadowing, plot...the sort of reading they teach in American high schools.


That is exactly what it means. Death of the Author means you don't "assign" a particular author to a work, which means you interpret it based on its own merits, not on the life experiences of the author.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'm going by what Wikipedia has to say on the subject.

In his essay, Barthes argues against the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity — their political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical or personal attributes — to distill meaning from the author's work. In this type of criticism, the experiences and biases of the author serve as a definitive "explanation" of the text
It also does have ideas of ignoring later commentary by the auther, but I'm with Jay R on this one.

[jere7my]

I'm going by what Wikipedia has to say on the subject.

It also does have ideas of ignoring later commentary by the other, but I'm with Jay R on this one.

Note that "this type of criticism" in "In this type of criticism, the experiences and biases of the author serve as a definitive 'explanation' of the text…" is what Barthes was arguing against in his Death of the Author essay. Wikipedia's phrasing is a little unclear.

[Bleak Ink]

Assuming folks are straight until proven otherwise is a product of hetero-normative upbringing, and it's prevalent and subconscious but nonetheless something we should scrutinize as a society. There is no "default" sexuality, and I'm trying hard to be aware of when I just assume stuff like that about characters :/ Anyway! Here's my headcanons.

Order of the Stick
Roy: Straight
Belkar: Aggressively Straight
Durkon: Straight
Haley: Bi
Elan: Bi-curious
Vaarsuvius: Asexual spectrum, I lean towards Demi Pansexual
(Celia: Straight)

Team Evil
Xykon: Straight
Redcloak: Bi (I have 0 evidence. It's a gut feeling.)
MitD: a child/prepubescent, so none

Linear Guild
Nale: Bi, in denial
Sabine: Pan
Thog: Straight
Zzditri: Bi

Former Azurites
Miko: Straight
Hinjo: Straight
Shojo: Poly
O-Chul: Straight

[Valyrian]

Thog is asexual.
Not sure if that is accurate. It seems to be mainly based on Thog's "girls are icky" comments, which is typical behavior associated with allosexual prepubescent boys.

I think it's perfectly fitting with his character to say that he is too childlike to actually realize his sexuality and express it. He might be asexual, but he could just as well be any kind of allosexual.

[Anonymouswizard]

Not sure if that is accurate. It seems to be mainly based on Thog's "girls are icky" comments, which is typical behavior associated with allosexual prepubescent boys.

I think it's perfectly fitting with his character to say that he is too childlike to actually realize his sexuality and express it. He might be asexual, but he could just as well be any kind of allosexual.

I couldn't think of the word I wanted, was intending towards "not interested in sex" instead of "not sexually attracted to anyone", I just couldn't think of the correct word, help?

Not applicable? As in "he is not emotionally mature enough to express one". That's pretty much what I think.

[littlebum2002]

Assuming folks are straight until proven otherwise is a product of hetero-normative upbringing, and it's prevalent and subconscious but nonetheless something we should scrutinize as a society. There is no "default" sexuality, and I'm trying hard to be aware of when I just assume stuff like that about characters

This is the most important post in this thread.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Everyone is bisexual until proven otherwise!

My rule of thumb as an Exalted player. :smallamused:

[Onyavar]

That their sexualities are whatever the Giant says they are.

Honestly, I don't really have any thoughts on the sexualities of the characters, unless they're specifically shown.

It's nobody's business but their own, as long as they're all consenting adults.

That anything not explicitly shown is private, and none of my business.

They are all Sick of This Topic.

They're all strongly considering asexuality and aromance if we don't stop arguing about it.

I strongly support all these statements.


Assuming folks are straight until proven otherwise is a product of hetero-normative upbringing, and it's prevalent and subconscious but nonetheless something we should scrutinize as a society. There is no "default" sexuality, [...]

Sure, this also gets my fullest support.

Speculating about their sexual identity and the related factors is something I never noticed in this forum before approximately the last year. It was interesting for a while but by now, I'm pretty tired of it.

Though I suppose that shouldn't and won't stop you to debate the topic.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There is no "default" sexuality,

...So, we're not designed to be attracted to people we're physically capable of reproducing with? :smallconfused:

I mean, evolution is a messy, inexact process, but I think that's one of the things that it would aim for.

[littlebum2002]

...So, we're not designed to be attracted to people we're physically capable of reproducing with? :smallconfused:

I mean, evolution is a messy, inexact process, but I think that's one of the things that it would aim for.

No, actually. There are plenty of evolutionary advantages to other sexualities other than heterosexuality. If there weren't, they wouldn't exist.

[Keltest]

No, actually. There are plenty of evolutionary advantages to other sexualities other than heterosexuality. If there weren't, they wouldn't exist.

Ok, ill bite. What advantages are you referring to?

[Oneris]

No, actually. There are plenty of evolutionary advantages to other sexualities other than heterosexuality. If there weren't, they wouldn't exist.

I'd have to refute that. Not every trait of a living organism exists due to evolutionary advantage. Most actually come about as a result of random mutation that don't provide enough benefit or liability to be selected against. Or are just vestigial artifacts of incomplete evolution.

While I'm uncertain as to how true homosexuality could be passed down genetically, there are plenty of animal species that benefit from bisexuality and transgender orientations. HumonComics has a good collection of animal sexuality comics (NSFW), but I can't link to it from my phone.

Apparently Ruff Bird females are yaoi fangirls, because they're attracted to territories of males that mate with other males. (http://humoncomics.com/the-ruff-bird)

[jere7my]

Ok, ill bite. What advantages are you referring to?

Co-parenting without competition, for instance. If you've got monkeys around who aren't in competition with you for mates, you don't have to waste energy running them off, and instead let them contribute to the family unit. If they're your siblings, they're promoting the continuance of their genes through your offspring. Win-win! Studies have shown benefits to the family unit's gene survival rate.

Males can also pair up with a male partner to dominate the social hierarchy, then, once you're at the top, share the fine fine female animals you have access to. Sexual bonds between bisexual males have proven strong enough to promote cooperation over competition.

But there are so many reproductive strategies in nature that it seems weird to say heterosexual sex is the obviously "best" one. What are all those honeybee workers good for if reproduction is the bee-all and end-all of existence?

[Emanick]

No, actually. There are plenty of evolutionary advantages to other sexualities other than heterosexuality. If there weren't, they wouldn't exist.

Calling heterosexuality the "default" is probably not a choice of words I would use, but it's something kinda similar. The vast majority of people do seem to be heterosexual - if that weren't the case, I doubt non-heterosexuals would have experienced the level of prejudice and discrimination they have. According to data from last year, something like 96.6% of U.S. adults identify as heterosexual (even when 'Other' was one of several options) - although I'm sure many are in denial, it seems unlikely that that figure is wildly inaccurate.

Also, while I do acknowledge that non-hetero orientations have some genetic advantages, heterosexuality is the only "indispensable" orientation in the evolutionary sense, except in the case of a few animals, like seahorses. Without homosexuality, many animal species would probably be less well off, but without heterosexuality (or bisexuality, I suppose), they'd stop reproducing altogether. So I don't think it's coincidental that it seems to be by far the most common sexual orientation among most animals.

[Rakoa]

I'm going to have to side with Emanick here. Not to say that other sexualities are lesser or anything because of it, but it is true that heterosexuality is both necessary and more prevalent.

[goto124]

Elan is bisexual. Tarquin would hate to learn that.

[CletusMusashi]

I'm not sure about Bozzok.
What do thigh-high cowboy boots indicate?

[Gamgee]

I'm going to have to side with Emanick here. Not to say that other sexualities are lesser or anything because of it, but it is true that heterosexuality is both necessary and more prevalent.

I have to agree. I got nothing against anyone who identifies as anything, but without the ability to reproduce any species would die off. That's just them scientific facts.

[littlebum2002]

Ok, ill bite. What advantages are you referring to?

Let's see. There's a study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm) that proposes that a gene which is attached to the X chromosome, which leads to an increased chance of homosexuality, when attached to a woman's X chromosome actually makes her more fertile and more attractive to men. However, this gene is incidentally passed on to some of her male offspring, thus giving them a propensity for homosexuality.
(in other words, the trait is advantageous to females, but disadvantageous to males, but offers an overall positive evolutionary advantage)

There is also the kin selection hypothesis (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2010/vasey.cfm) which posits that homosexuals might help raise the children of their close relatives, thus increasing their relative's ability to reproduce.




I'd have to refute that. Not every trait of a living organism exists due to evolutionary advantage. Most actually come about as a result of random mutation that don't provide enough benefit or liability to be selected against. Or are just vestigial artifacts of incomplete evolution.

A "random mutation" which offers no benefit to a species is not going to last for thousands of generations like the sexuality spectrum has with humans. As many on this thread have pointed out, if it were not advantageous it would have died out long ago.


According to data from last year, something like 96.6% of U.S. adults identify as heterosexual (even when 'Other' was one of several options) - although I'm sure many are in denial, it seems unlikely that that figure is wildly inaccurate.

Actually, I think that figure just represents "non-homosexual" individuals. Kinsey reported that something like 50% of people studied were some spectrum of bisexual. I believe that, all cultural pressure aside, there is probably a SIGNIFICANT minority, if mot majority, of humans who would fall somewhere on the bisexuality spectrum, with "100% heterosexual" and "100% homosexual" people both representing a small amount, similar to a bell curve.

(and yes, Kinsey did not use purely scientific methods, but 20 years later Paul Gebhard and Alan Johnson removed the problematic data from the report and found similar results)


A more recent study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17135133) from 2006 reports that about 20% of people report some homosexual attraction, which is probably much closer to the truth.

[Keltest]

Let's see. There's a study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm) that proposes that a gene which is attached to the X chromosome, which leads to an increased chance of homosexuality, when attached to a woman's X chromosome actually makes her more fertile and more attractive to men. However, this gene is incidentally passed on to some of her male offspring, thus giving them a propensity for homosexuality.
(in other words, the trait is advantageous to females, but disadvantageous to males, but offers an overall positive evolutionary advantage) Ok, sure, when not applied to homosexuality. You seem to have misunderstood my question. That's a side effect of a good gene being applied to something it shouldn't.


There is also the kin selection hypothesis (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2010/vasey.cfm) which posits that homosexuals might help raise the children of their close relatives, thus increasing their relative's ability to reproduce. This, on the other hand, I can buy.




A "random mutation" which offers no benefit to a species is not going to last for thousands of generations like the sexuality spectrum has with humans. As many on this thread have pointed out, if it were not advantageous it would have died out long ago. and why is that? Positive genes spread because they allow for greater survival/prosperity of those who carry them. Bad genes die out because they do the opposite, and get their poor victims killed. Whats there to eliminate a neutral gene? Sure it wont spread as fast, but nothing is actively working against it either.

[Emanick]

Actually, I think that figure just represents "non-homosexual" individuals. Kinsey reported that something like 50% of people studied were some spectrum of bisexual. I believe that, all cultural pressure aside, there is probably a SIGNIFICANT minority, if mot majority, of humans who would fall somewhere on the bisexuality spectrum, with "100% heterosexual" and "100% homosexual" people both representing a small amount, similar to a bell curve.

(and yes, Kinsey did not use purely scientific methods, but 20 years later Paul Gebhard and Alan Johnson removed the problematic data from the report and found similar results)


A more recent study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17135133) from 2006 reports that about 20% of people report some homosexual attraction, which is probably much closer to the truth.

Even anecdotally, I know enough self-aware people intimately enough to be quite skeptical that a definition of bisexuality loose enough to define half of all people as non-straight is a particularly meaningful one. I'm by no means an expert (or even terribly well-educated) on the subject, of course, but I'd be curious as to what the parameters are of what Kinsey considers "bisexual." For instance, I personally prefer being around other men who are more handsome, particularly facially, but I still find the idea of kissing another man, or, for that matter, going farther, deeply unpleasant and not remotely interesting. I can see how somebody might consider me a non-zero on some bisexuality scales, but putting me in the "bisexual" camp would, IMO, render the term almost meaningless.

The survey I was referring to (summarized in this HuffPost article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/health-survey-americans-gay_n_5587696.html)) was conducted in 2013 (not 2014 as I previously said) by an agency of the US CDC, with a sample size of about 35,000 adults, and found that 96.6% identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, 0.7% identified as bisexual, and 1.1% identified as "something else" or "I don't know," or declined to answer. While there are probably some people who identified as straight who simply haven't acknowledged their non-straight identity to themselves yet, or don't even feel comfortable sharing it with an employer, I find it hard to believe that that number is particularly huge.

[Onyavar]

Ok, sure, when not applied to homosexuality. You seem to have misunderstood my question. That's a side effect of a good gene being applied to something it shouldn't.
Careful - are you implying that such a gene is "wasted" on a guy only because he's a guy? What if he passes it on to his children who are female! Then it is advantageous to him and his offspring. In fact, it is applied somewhere it should.


I'm not sure about Bozzok.
What do thigh-high cowboy boots indicate?

Now this would be interesting. Imagine the outcry in the forum if Bozzok comes out of the closet, because clearly, gay people can't be murderous villains! Immediately, people would start to excuse Bozzok for being a murderous villain (like they are doing with Thog and Sabine before, even Nale), and all of that only because Bozzok would get more depth to his character.

Por favore!

Though, if Bozzok ever get's wind of anyone speculating this way, and he's straight, he'd come after those posters in a much worse way than after Haley at the moment.

[Keltest]

Careful - are you implying that such a gene is "wasted" on a guy only because he's a guy? What if he passes it on to his children who are female! Then it is advantageous to him and his offspring. In fact, it is applied somewhere it should.
No, that's not what im trying to imply. "Shouldn't" was perhaps an unfortunate word choice, but in that particular case the benefits of the gene are not directly tied to the homosexuality.

[Themrys]

I think that Elan is straight, but wouldn't turn down the opportunity (if he was single) to seduce even a male bad guy.

You'd call that straight?

I guess Elan has whatever sexuality fits the plot at that moment best. :P

I never really thought about it, though. The only character I have a theory on is Vaarsuvius. V is somewhere on the asexual spectrum. V would turn down sex in order to be able to read a book instead, which I guess is not considered "normal" by the majority of the population.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You'd call that straight?

I guess Elan has whatever sexuality fits the plot at that moment best. :P

Elan is plotsexual!

In fact, all the characters are plotsexual. They're attracted to whoever the story requires. :smallamused:

[YossarianLives]

Elan is plotsexual!

In fact, all the characters are plotsexual. They're attracted to whoever the story requires. :smallamused:
I think we should just leave it at this and close the thread. Ultimately the characters are just a bunch of stick drawings that will do whatever the Giant wants them to.

[littlebum2002]

Even anecdotally, I know enough self-aware people intimately enough to be quite skeptical that a definition of bisexuality loose enough to define half of all people as non-straight is a particularly meaningful one. I'm by no means an expert (or even terribly well-educated) on the subject, of course, but I'd be curious as to what the parameters are of what Kinsey considers "bisexual." For instance, I personally prefer being around other men who are more handsome, particularly facially, but I still find the idea of kissing another man, or, for that matter, going farther, deeply unpleasant and not remotely interesting. I can see how somebody might consider me a non-zero on some bisexuality scales, but putting me in the "bisexual" camp would, IMO, render the term almost meaningless.

The survey I was referring to (summarized in this HuffPost article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/health-survey-americans-gay_n_5587696.html)) was conducted in 2013 (not 2014 as I previously said) by an agency of the US CDC, with a sample size of about 35,000 adults, and found that 96.6% identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, 0.7% identified as bisexual, and 1.1% identified as "something else" or "I don't know," or declined to answer. While there are probably some people who identified as straight who simply haven't acknowledged their non-straight identity to themselves yet, or don't even feel comfortable sharing it with an employer, I find it hard to believe that that number is particularly huge.

The problem is that that survey describes who they IDENTIFY as, not who they are attracted to.

I consider myself straight. However, there are perhaps a half dozen men on earth that I have seen that I am sexually attracted to.
-cough- Matt Bomer -cough-

Does that mean I should identify as bisexual, considering there's a 1 in a billion chance I'd meet a guy in real life I'm attracted to and could possibly have a relationship with? I don't think so, so I identify as straight, even though I am certainly very slightly on the bisexual spectrum.

So I am trying to say that there are very few people in the planet who are 100.00% only attracted to one gender, although perhaps there are many people on the planet who are maybe 95% attracted to one gender. That is why I say the sexuality spectrum is so fluid, and so many people fit into the broad definition of "bisexual" even if they don't identify as such.

(I also think that if we threw cultural pressures out the window the amount of people who identify as bisexual would go WAY up)




You'd call that straight?

I guess Elan has whatever sexuality fits the plot at that moment best. :P

Who you have sex with has absolutely nothing to do with who you are attracted to. It is entirely possible for someone who is 100% straight to have sex with someone of the same gender, and it is entirely possible for someone who is 100% gay to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.

[goto124]

What do you think the characters identify themselves as? Perhaps Elan thinks of himself as straight, Haley sees herself as bisexual (when?), V doesn't care, etc?

[Reddish Mage]

What do you think the characters identify themselves as? Perhaps Elan thinks of himself as straight, Haley sees herself as bisexual (when?), V doesn't care, etc?

Haley identifies as straight, otherwise the head character wouldn't be her "latent bisexuality."

Elan, Roy, and Durkon are quite obviously straight identified. Elan even denies being gay.

Belkar appears especially straight identified, although there is that odd attraction to V.

V sexual identity is as opaque as his/her/they's gender identity. There is an answer, but we won't ever receive it.

[Ridin'TheCrash]

{scrubbed}