Asexual/Aromantic Characters in OOTS

[137beth]

Gather 'round, speculators and headcanoners!


The comic has been making great strides in diversity in the current book. While we have at least one main character who is canonically bisexual, and at least one strong supporting gay character, there is not (yet?) a character in OOTS who is canonically asexual. But that dearth of canonical information leaves plenty of room for speculation!


So, which characters in the comic could be asexual? Which characters do you think are asexual? Which characters do you headcanon as asexual regardless of what is shown in the comic?



I'll start with the main cast. I believe we have seen enough to rule out the possibility of Roy, Elan, Haley, or Belkar being asexual. They've all demonstrated attraction to other characters too frequently and too clearly for that to seem like a possibility to me, at least. Then there's Durkon, who experienced some sort of attraction towards Hilgya. It may be a bit of a stretch, but it's possible Durkon's feelings for Hilgya were purely romantic. There are a couple possible explanations for why Durkon seemed to be ready for a physical relation with Hilgya as well:
a)Durkon was confused, thinking he was "supposed" to want a physical relation with Hilgya, because that's what he was taught male dwarves are supposed to want. It's a confusion that a lot of romantic-but-asexual people go through.
b)Durkon was romantically but not physically attracted to Hilgya, and any physical interaction was pushed by Hilgya, to the discomfort of Durkon.
Of course, the more obvious possibility is
c)Durkon is not actually asexual.

If we are just talking about the PCs, the most promising candidate for an asexual PC, in my opinion, is V. While I think V's attraction to V's mate was at least partially romantic, there is virtually no indication or even suggestion in the comic that V experienced any sort of sexual attraction to V's mate, or to anyone else. V could very easily be asexual but panromantic, heteroromantic, or homoromantic.

I am not the first person to speculate on this subject: Liliet has previously argued that V is aromantic and asexual. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392829-Vaarsuvuius-is-aromantic-asexual)



Then there are the supporting characters. Going by number of character appearances, the next most prominent character after the protagonists is Mr. Scruffy, an animal. Despite the apparent existence of snails with no interest in sex (https://68.media.tumblr.com/46edea799f4ed95ee585788c8774ffe6/tumblr_ojx0zndAT41u045pfo1_540.png), I'm always hesitant to apply human notions of sexual and romantic orientations to other animals.



Next up is Blackwing, who, unlike Mr. Scruffy, is a magical beast with an intelligence score greater than that of the average human. In more than 1,000 strips, Blackwing has yet to demonstrate romantic OR sexual attraction to anyone. He could very easily be aromantic and asexual.



Then there's Redcloak. People who've only read the online pages have not seen Redcloak express any interest in romance or sex in 1100 strips. In Start of Darkness,
Right-Eye attempts to set Redcloak up with Kayannara on page 89, and Redcloak rejects Right-Eye's efforts. Of course, the fact that he isn't interested in that one person at that one time certainly doesn't mean he is aromantic--the whole scene may just be there to show that Redcloak is completely invested in The Plan at that point. And not long afterwards, he asks Right-Eye to invite her back. On the other hand, Redcloak states he wants Kayannara to come back "so that he can apologize," so it is just as plausible that Redcloak has no interest in her romantically or sexually, and just wants to platonically get to know someone with his shared interests.
All in all, we've gone through the entire online strips and the prequel books without a clear indication that Redcloak experiences romantic and/or sexual attraction to anyone.


But the best candidate for an aromantic asexual supporting character, in my opinion, is O-Chul. Although that statement comes with the disclaimer that I have not yet red How the Paladin Got His Scar. Now, I expect that some people will immedaiatly say something along the lines of "Isn't O-Chul celibate due to being in the Sapphire Guard? That's not the same as being asexual!" However, celibacy is not a requirement of the Saphire Guard--I don't know why some people seem in the OOTS fandom seem to think it is. Lien doesn't need to be celibate to be in the Sapphire Guard.

Over the course of the series, we learn a lot about how O-Chul thinks about other people. We see the depth to which he cares about his fellow paladins and the other Azurites. And we see him develop a friendship with the Monster in the Dark. But we never see O-Chul show even the slightest romantic inclination towards anyone.


There's also Hinjo and Lord Shojo, neither of whom are shown to have any romantic or sexual attraction in the comic, and both could easily be aro ace.
Nope, I forgot about bonus strips.


Of course, there are plenty of other characters who we don't see show attraction to anyone, but who have had very small roles in the story so far. We haven't seen anything to suggest Jiminy experiences sexual or romantic attraction to anyone, but that absense of evidence is as likely to be due to only seeing Jiminy in two strips as it is to Jiminy being aro/ace.


So what do you all think? Which characters do you think are, or could be, asexual/aromantic?

[RatElemental]

I'm not sure on this, but I think there was speculation that Hinjo might be, and the giant may or may not have said 'sure why not' when presented with the idea.

I'll have to do some digging to see if I can find it.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm not sure I'd buy V as aromantic. Asexual? Yeah, marriage wouldn't mean they get down and dirty for their own amusement. The romantic dinner planned by their mate might have been just that, not an excuse to snog or knock boots later.

However...V is an elf. Wouldn't it make sense that elves don't adhere to a singular sexuality? They've got centuries to do things, they're going to get bored of things and try out new things. Hells, it would explain why we aren't drowning in elves if they evolved to have asexual phases once in a while. He's not a human, so trying to assume that they follow human behavior is just lacking imagination in my mind.

I'd say Hinjo might present an interesting opportunity. If he was entirely asexual, he's got a moral dilemma on his hands because he would be expected to produce an heir, but one that would inherit a very volatile ninja-infested situation. However, in the event of his death, an heir would unify his people better then letting the nobles try to kill each other over the throne when there are bigger fish to fry. I mean, adoption would solve this issue, but I assume there's still an assumption of bloodlines if he's encouraging others to reproduce to make a better crop of nobles.

Or maybe he's going to elect the Kato kid as his heir. It would ensure two very loyal fighters with class levels, and the child might have a decent con score to resist poison. He could even take after his uncle and dangle marriage in front of nobles to distract them while never actually settling down.

[Darth Paul]

You didn't mention the flumphs.

Although I guess maybe they strike me as just a long-time couple who are past all that sort of thing now. Is that the same thing as aromantic?

[Emanick]

You didn't mention the flumphs.

Although I guess maybe they strike me as just a long-time couple who are past all that sort of thing now. Is that the same thing as aromantic?

I always assumed they were just friends. Just goes to show how little evidence there is one way or another.

Oddly, there are three different bonus comics that address the romantic inclinations of various characters the OP mentioned as possibly asexual.

In a bonus strip from War and XPs,
On "New Year's Eve" Hinjo has dinner with his uncle, Lord Shojo, who expresses regret that he spent too much time on politics to "knock up some honey" (or something like that) when he was young. He tells Hinjo not to make the same mistake, making sly suggestions about Sangwaan, but Hinjo tells his uncle there will be time for romance later and that right now he wants to focus on being the best paladin he can be. This isn't crystal clear, but it reads to me like a conversation between two heterosexual men (I can't remember if the heterosexual part is explicit for Hinjo, but a later bonus strip does suggest as much). Of course, since as far as I'm aware I only know one asexual person, and she's only an acquaintance of mine, I am admittedly not the best at identifying how someone with no sexual or romantic interests in others would talk about romance.

Secondly, there's a bonus comic in Don't Split The Party that

suggests that Hinjo has some interest in Lien. I don't want to say too much about this strip, since it's great and should be read fresh, but it's relatively subtle, while still showing that Hinjo is flustered when Lien mentions she has no interest in dating him. So Hinjo is probably either straight or bi.

Thirdly, while it's not technically a bonus strip, near the beginning of Start of Darkness

Redcloak's little brother mentions that he has a crush on the girl next door. Redcloak angrily tells him to "shut up, you little twerp!" It's sweet.

So yeah, he's probably heterosexual or bisexual too.

I agree with the OP that O-Chul seems by far the most likely (humanoid) major character to be asexual and/or aromantic. I've read How The Paladin Got His Scar, and it makes no mention of any romantic interest of his - in fact, the only reference to his love life in any way is a categorical statement that "I am not married, and have no interest in such pursuits." (It's totally irrelevant to the story, so I see no harm in leaving that quote spoiler-less.) O-Chul being asexual and aromantic, then, makes perfect sense.

[martianmister]

Vaarsuvius is a romantic asexual.

[137beth]

I always assumed they were just friends. Just goes to show how little evidence there is one way or another.

Oddly, there are three different bonus comics that address the romantic inclinations of various characters the OP mentioned as possibly asexual.

In a bonus strip from War and XPs,
On "New Year's Eve" Hinjo has dinner with his uncle, Lord Shojo, who expresses regret that he spent too much time on politics to "knock up some honey" (or something like that) when he was young. He tells Hinjo not to make the same mistake, making sly suggestions about Sangwaan, but Hinjo tells his uncle there will be time for romance later and that right now he wants to focus on being the best paladin he can be. This isn't crystal clear, but it reads to me like a conversation between two heterosexual men (I can't remember if the heterosexual part is explicit for Hinjo, but a later bonus strip does suggest as much). Of course, since as far as I'm aware I only know one asexual person, and she's only an acquaintance of mine, I am admittedly not the best at identifying how someone with no sexual or romantic interests in others would talk about romance.

Secondly, there's a bonus comic in Don't Split The Party that

suggests that Hinjo has some interest in Lien. I don't want to say too much about this strip, since it's great and should be read fresh, but it's relatively subtle, while still showing that Hinjo is flustered when Lien mentions she has no interest in dating him. So Hinjo is probably either straight or bi.
Thanks, I'd forgotten about those strips. I knew there was some reason I thought O-Chul was more likely to be ace than Hinjo or Shojo, but I couldn't remember why I thought that.





Thirdly, while it's not technically a bonus strip, near the beginning of Start of Darkness

Redcloak's little brother mentions that he has a crush on the girl next door. Redcloak angrily tells him to "shut up, you little twerp!" It's sweet.

So yeah, he's probably heterosexual or bisexual too.

I agree with the OP that O-Chul seems by far the most likely (humanoid) major character to be asexual and/or aromantic. I've read How The Paladin Got His Scar, and it makes no mention of any romantic interest of his - in fact, the only reference to his love life in any way is a categorical statement that "I am not married, and have no interest in such pursuits." (It's totally irrelevant to the story, so I see no harm in leaving that quote spoiler-less.) O-Chul being asexual and aromantic, then, makes perfect sense.

I interpreted that scene differently: I've seen times in real life when person A teases person B about supposedly having a crush on person C, even if B doesn't actually have a crush on C. So, the fact that it is just Redcloak's brother saying it lead me to believe Redcloak wasn't actually attracted to the girl. But, looking at the page again, I can see how you could come to the opposite conclusion.

[Fyraltari]

I interpreted that scene differently: I've seen times in real life when person A teases person B about supposedly having a crush on person C, even if B doesn't actually have a crush on C. So, the fact that it is just Redcloak's brother saying it lead me to believe Redcloak wasn't actually attracted to the girl. But, looking at the page again, I can see how you could come to the opposite conclusion.

I haven't read the book but I know that in Fictionland "I am not attracted to her/him" is always a lie. And that goes double for self-aware works like OOTS

[Syncro]

I haven't read start of darkness but Xykon seems to be disinterested in romance and sex.

[Kish]

Xykon was quite a lech, back when he had flesh.

(He seemed pretty much incapable of romance, but that's a byproduct of not caring about anyone else ever.)

[Syncro]

Xykon was quite a lech, back when he had flesh.

(He seemed pretty much incapable of romance, but that's a byproduct of not caring about anyone else ever.)

He does have quite the CHAR stat :smallamused:

[SlashDash]

How would you tell an asexual person from a sexual person that simply isn't doing it on screen?


I haven't read start of darkness but Xykon seems to be disinterested in romance and sex.

He hates those "disgusting biophiliacs" which seems to indicate he might not object go getting it on with another undead.

[Liquor Box]

All the undead are probably asexual. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I think asexuality would be the rule for undead.

I don't think we can assume that where a character has not been shown to have a sexual interest that that means that they are (or are even likely to be) asexual. If Redcloak has not been shown to have a sexual interest in anyone that does not imply that he's asexual - far more likely is that any sexual interest he has is not important to the story so is not shown. In the same way that just because Redcloak is not depicted sleeping, we should not assume that he never sleeps.

Who is the main character that is bisexual?

[Fyraltari]

he might not object go getting it on with another undead.
How ?
You know what, don't answer that


All the undead are probably asexual. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I think asexuality would be the rule for undead.

I don't think we can assume that where a character has not been shown to have a sexual interest that that means that they are (or are even likely to be) asexual. If Redcloak has not been shown to have a sexual interest in anyone that does not imply that he's asexual - far more likely is that any sexual interest he has is not important to the story so is not shown. In the same way that just because Redcloak is not depicted sleeping, we should not assume that he never sleeps.

Who is the main character that is bisexual?
IT'S A GLAND THING YOU SEE. YOU'RE A BIT SHORT ON HORMONS WHEN YOU ARE A SKELETON.

Haley is bisexual: latent bisexuality as a personnality shard, I think she said she kissed a girl when her speech was encrypted and she says she had better taste in girls than Crystal.

She is in a stable monoganous heterosexual relationship now so that probably still won't play a role in the story.

[dps]

All the undead are probably asexual. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I think asexuality would be the rule for undead.


I would assume that undead that aren't free-willed are asexual. Among free-willed undead, liches would most likely be asexual, but I'm not sure that vampires would necessarily be.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Haley is bisexual: latent bisexuality as a personnality shard, I think she said she kissed a girl when her speech was encrypted and she says she had better taste in girls than Crystal.

She is in a stable monoganous heterosexual relationship now so that probably still won't play a role in the story.

Also, Elan apparently experimented a bit in Bard Camp. Just like Nale did with Sabine.

[Finagle]

Why does the strip even need one? I think we need to question our assumptions. It's a comic strip, not a mandatory diversity punishment for wrongthink. In the absence of a court order, I think we can make the story about whatever we want instead of having to enforce stultifying societal conformity.

[brian 333]

Due to the arbitrary nature of fictional sexuality, I can't see how it matters. If Rich headcanoned O'chul with agonizing memories of a wife who died in childbirth his current behavior could be the same as if he never had interest.

Those who know wouldn't intentionally bring those memories to the surface, and those who don't know him who accidentally do would receive curt dismissal.

This doesn't mean I inany way object to anyone speculating as they like. It can be fun.

[Kish]

And by "we need to question our assumptions" you mean "we need to not look for stuff that makes me, Finagle, uncomfortable," eh?

[hroþila]

Why does the strip even need one? I think we need to question our assumptions. It's a comic strip, not a mandatory diversity punishment for wrongthink. In the absence of a court order, I think we can make the story about whatever we want instead of having to enforce stultifying societal conformity.
"Let's do this thing. NOT LIKE THAT. NOT YOU".

[LadyEowyn]

Short of writing an actual plotline about it, I think there's pretty much no way of distinguishing an asexual or aromantic character from a character who simply has no romantic relationships at the moment.

And I'm fine with that. There's also no one in the story who's a pescaterian, no one who's stated to have a peanut allergy, no one with hay fever, and no one who is an avid stamp collector.

[enderlord99]

Short of writing an actual plotline about it, I think there's pretty much no way of distinguishing an asexual or aromantic character from a character who simply has no romantic relationships at the moment.

And I'm fine with that. There's also no one in the story who's a pescaterian, no one who's stated to have a peanut allergy, no one with hay fever, and no one who is an avid stamp collector.

My opinion is similar, but even moreso: It isn't like saying someone collects stamps. It's like saying they don't collect stamps.

I say this as someone who, in my own right, doesn't want to "collect stamps." I'm perfectly fine without having my preference for "stamp-collecting" explicitly shared by a character in the comic, as long as there are characters for which it is left ambiguous.

Also: O'chul is probably ace... but that doesn't matter.

[brian 333]

The automatic assumption that Finagle is 'uncomfortable' is a problem.

People can have diverse opinions without actually being diametrically opposed to a particular PoV. S/he may be an aromantic asexual who simply sees no need to inject sexuality into a story where the author did not. Or s/he may be a purist who believes it is better to not presume to do the author's thinking. Or s/he may just have a different opinion on the value of speculation.

I saw nothing to indicate s/he was in any way 'feeling uncomfortable'. That statement was pure projection on the part of the poster. And it was the moral equivalent of asking how long it's been since you stopped beating your wife.

Intolerance is the problem. It can't be solved with more intolerance.

[hroþila]

Maybe if this was our first and only interaction with Finagle.

[brian 333]

Then why bother reacting?

Bullying for a good cause is still bullying.

[Darth Paul]

I would assume that undead that aren't free-willed are asexual. Among free-willed undead, liches would most likely be asexual, but I'm not sure that vampires would necessarily be.

Depending on the author, vampires are supposedly THE sexiest thing out there, bar none. I'm not just talking about fanfic here. Anybody watch True Blood lately?

This doesn't mean they have to be, of course, but it does seem to be part of the stereotype.

[137beth]

I haven't read the book but I know that in Fictionland "I am not attracted to her/him" is always a lie. And that goes double for self-aware works like OOTS

Except when they actually aren't attracted to someone. At the beginning of A Mid Summer Night's Dream, Hermia professes not to love Demetrius, and SPOILER ALERT: she's telling the truth.

Or in OOTS, for that matter, Roy denies being attracted to Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0425.html). Do you really believe Roy was lying in that scene?



How would you tell an asexual person from a sexual person that simply isn't doing it on screen?
Haley wasn't "doing it" in OOTS until book 3, but I'd be surprised if anyone who read through the first two books thought Haley was asexual.




Who is the main character that is bisexual?
I was referring to this comment by The Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392674-OOTS-972-The-Discussion-Thread/page6&p=18651519#post18651519), which in turn is commentary on strip 972 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0972.html).




Short of writing an actual plotline about it, I think there's pretty much no way of distinguishing an asexual or aromantic character from a character who simply has no romantic relationships at the moment.
Usually when I see a comic reveal a character is asexual or aromantic it just takes an off-hand comment. For example, this page of Aether (http://aether.thecomicseries.com/comics/303/).

Of course, since this thread involves speculation, we don't even need that much.

[SlashDash]

Xykon specifically talked about "biophiliacs", which would mean people who are into living things - i.e the opposite of Necrophiliac.
That would imply that he is the later rather than former. It's a bit different than how the skull said that "biology is disgusting" in general.


Also, Elan apparently experimented a bit in Bard Camp. Just like Nale did with Sabine.
However, when he was captured in the forest, he was disturbed when he heard that he was captured by Sam until he realized Sam was a woman.

I don't think experimenting means much one way or another anymore than say, if I eat a certain type of food for the first time just to try it out and realize I don't like it and don't want to eat it anymore - you can hardly say I'm into that sort of food, can you?



Haley wasn't "doing it" in OOTS until book 3, but I'd be surprised if anyone who read through the first two books thought Haley was asexual.

I really wanted to reply sarcastically with links, but I'm at work and can't look them up right now.

Overall, Haley wanted to oogle at a naked Elan all the way in book one.
She also was about to tell him how much she loves him in book 1 (or was it 2?) when she professed her love for ukulele.

The rest of the party clearly knew about her feelings for him as V, Roy and even Durkon talked about long before book 3.

But just to be clear here by "doing it" I wasn't referring to the actual act, but rather the getting horny part.
Nobody is saying all virgins are by definition asexual.

Haley's interest in Elan was a big part of her character since the start. A major part of the whole opposite of the linear guild was that Sabine had a strong relationship with Nale. She had what Haley didn't.



So no, that hardly means anything at all.

My point still stands, you can't tell an asexual person from any person who simply doesn't bring that topic into light. Just like any other sexual preference. You can't tell if a person is gay or straight or bi or whatever unless they actually say or do something that points that out.

[Sinewmire]

I agree with the OP that O-Chul seems by far the most likely (humanoid) major character to be asexual and/or aromantic.

I'd assumed he had an attraction to Lien, as when she mentions that her boyfriend survived the loss of Azure city, he stops walking as if in surprise or shock, and she walks past him, oblivious.

He's a stand up dude, so he's happy to stay friends with her, and she doesn't owe him anything, so he buries that nascent crush, and moves on.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into two stick figures swapping place in marching order though :smallbiggrin:

[Fyraltari]

Why does the strip even need one? I think we need to question our assumptions. It's a comic strip, not a mandatory diversity punishment for wrongthink. In the absence of a court order, I think we can make the story about whatever we want instead of having to enforce stultifying societal conformity.



I don't give a damn if diversity in OOTS has a function in the story. Diversity in OOTS has a function in real life. I will happily sacrifice any or all story logic on the altar of accomplishing one fraction of an ounce of real good in the real world. The story is a tool for getting my ideas across, nothing more. Some of those ideas are thoughts on D&D and how it should be played, some are thoughts about right and wrong, and some are thoughts about the world around us and how we should treat other people. If there was a problem with OOTS before, it was that it was not properly reflecting how I see the world; now, it's a little closer.

For you, OOTS is a silly little comic strip you read a few times a month. For me, it's eleven years of my life and a primary source on my thoughts and feelings that people will use to judge my contributions to the world and any future works I create. If I want to make it more closely align with how I really feel, I'm going to ****ing well do it.

Also: Last time I checked, colorblind people enjoy the full extant of rights and privileges that people with full spectrum vision enjoy, and it is in fact thoroughly illegal to discriminate against someone for colorblindness, as it would be for anyone suffering a medical disability. If colorblind people were being denied the same rights as other people—or even getting killed for being colorblind—you could damn well be sure I would be certain to include one in OOTS.

EDIT: Hinjo is red-green colorblind. CANON.
Moreover, this thread is (Edit: not goddammit ! How can I forget to type the "not") about petitionning Rich Burlew so that he includes asexual/aromantic characters in the comic this is a thread about headcannon and wild theorizing. I, for once, don't like to theorize about characters' sexuality nor "shipping" them because I feel like such a big parts of their personnality are up to the author but I know that a good many people enjoy doing precisely that and there is nothing wrong with it.

Also asexuality/aromantism is a social conformity? I must have missed the memo. As must have the few people I know who don't think those are real things.



Depending on the author, vampires are supposedly THE sexiest thing out there, bar none. I'm not just talking about fanfic here. Anybody watch True Blood lately?

This doesn't mean they have to be, of course, but it does seem to be part of the stereotype.
I remember reading an article about how the stereotype may be flipping on its head since while in Dracula the vampire was the sexual predator in a prude society, in Twilight the vampire is a chaste character in a saxually* sexually liberated society.

Thoufhsince the only vampire whose head we can see inside thinks that biology is disgusting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html), I dont think vampire have much sex in OOTS.


Except when they actually aren't attracted to someone. At the beginning of A Mid Summer Night's Dream, Hermia professes not to love Demetrius, and SPOILER ALERT: she's telling the truth.
Okay, okay : when someone denies being attracted to somebody else after a close one stated they were it is a lie in 95.7537129754% of the cases. "You will marry X" "But I don't love X!" is an entirely different discussion.


Or in OOTS, for that matter, Roy denies being attracted to Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0425.html). Do you really believe Roy was lying in that scene?
Funny, I read this scene as Roy denying having grown to like Elan as a friend to be protected instead of a hindrance to be barely tolerated and Belkar being a sex-obsessed ass. But I understand how you can read it as homosexual.




Usually when I see a comic reveal a character is asexual or aromantic it just takes an off-hand comment. For example, this page of Aether (http://aether.thecomicseries.com/comics/303/).

Of course, since this thread involves speculation, we don't even need that much.
Same.


Xykon specifically talked about "biophiliacs", which would mean people who are into living things - i.e the opposite of Necrophiliac.
That would imply that he is the later rather than former. It's a bit different than how the skull said that "biology is disgusting" in general.
I read it as the complete reverse of necrophiliac "(un)dead who are into living people" like Eugene, personnally. I also read it as him cracking a joke while rejecting Tsukiko.




However, when he was captured in the forest, he was disturbed when he heard that he was captured by Sam until he realized Sam was a woman.

I don't think experimenting means much one way or another anymore than say, if I eat a certain type of food for the first time just to try it out and realize I don't like it and don't want to eat it anymore - you can hardly say I'm into that sort of food, can you?


I really wanted to reply sarcastically with links, but I'm at work and can't look them up right now.

Overall, Haley wanted to oogle at a naked Elan all the way in book one.
She also was about to tell him how much she loves him in book 1 (or was it 2?) when she professed her love for ukulele.

The rest of the party clearly knew about her feelings for him as V, Roy and even Durkon talked about long before book 3.

But just to be clear here by "doing it" I wasn't referring to the actual act, but rather the getting horny part.
Nobody is saying all virgins are by definition asexual.

Haley's interest in Elan was a big part of her character since the start. A major part of the whole opposite of the linear guild was that Sabine had a strong relationship with Nale. She had what Haley didn't.



So no, that hardly means anything at all.

My point still stands, you can't tell an asexual person from any person who simply doesn't bring that topic into light. Just like any other sexual preference. You can't tell if a person is gay or straight or bi or whatever unless they actually say or do something that points that out.
All of this.

*That was a typo of course but I find the idea of a society where playing saxophone is frowned upon hilarious.

[Darth Paul]

When it comes to O-Chul, he just struck me as having more important things to do right now. You know- war, the Gates, that kind of thing. A man who is extremely Lawful, devoted to the mission, and just isn't going to be distracted from the task at hand. After the war is over, he might allow himself to get back to personal matters.

This is obviously just my headcanon, having no evidence one way or another...

[martianmister]

Or in OOTS, for that matter, Roy denies being attracted to Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0425.html). Do you really believe Roy was lying in that scene?

Eh? I'm pretty sure that he really likes him and just denying it. :smallconfused:

[Vinyadan]

Liking someone doesn't mean being attracted to him. That was pretty obvious in 425.

[Iruka]

How ?
You know what, don't answer that


Presumably by boning them?

I am sorry.

I am not sorry.

[137beth]

One other character who hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread is Zz'dtri. Unless I've forgotten something, I don't think we've seen any indication that Z experiences sexual attraction.

[unbeliever536]

I'm not sure on this, but I think there was speculation that Hinjo might be, and the giant may or may not have said 'sure why not' when presented with the idea.

I'll have to do some digging to see if I can find it.

Hinjo is pseudo-canonically colorblind. There have to this point been no statements about his sexuality, as far as I know.

[martianmister]

Liking someone doesn't mean being attracted to him. That was pretty obvious in 425.

Was that adressed to me?

[Ron Miel]

Thog seems asexual to me. He's got the personality of a young child, apart from the ultra violence, and still thinks girls are icky. I don't think he's got any notion of sex at all.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0066.html

[brian 333]

One other character who hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread is Zz'dtri. Unless I've forgotten something, I don't think we've seen any indication that Z experiences sexual attraction.

I thought all elves were gender indeterminate. They don't even refer to one another with gender specific pronouns.

[Fyraltari]

I thought all elves were gender indeterminate. They don't even refer to one another with gender specific pronouns.

Gender ambiguity is pretty much a V only gag. Veldrina an Team Peregrine were not ambiguous at all. Z was originanlly, as part of the "evil counterpart thing" but is clearly male on his return (probably because the opposite of androgynity is clear-cut gender.

The non gender specific names for parents and Inkyrius's own androgynity are there to keep us guessing about V.

[hroþila]

Gender ambiguity is pretty much a V only gag. Veldrina an Team Peregrine were not ambiguous at all. Z was originanlly, as part of the "evil counterpart thing" but is clearly male on his return (probably because the opposite of androgynity is clear-cut gender.

The non gender specific names for parents and Inkyrius's own androgynity are there to keep us guessing about V.
I thought Team Peregrine was pretty androgynous (except for the commander), and so were many of the defenders of Lirian's Glade. I think it's probably safe to say it's a common trait among elves.

[Emanick]

Lirian also pretty clearly identifies as female.

So yeah, being gender indeterminate may be common among elves, but it's by no means universal.

[martianmister]

Veldrina, too, is anatomically androgynous.

[Darth Paul]

Veldrina, too, is anatomically androgynous.

Is she? Or just slim?

In her very first appearance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0986.html) she's referred to as "an elven priestess" by Roy, and Wrecan replies "she's not taking contract work at the moment" (emphasis mine). I didn't think there was any question that Veldrina was female.

[Fyraltari]

I thought Team Peregrine was pretty androgynous (except for the commander), and so were many of the defenders of Lirian's Glade. I think it's probably safe to say it's a common trait among elves.

Hmm. Upon re-readinga bit I find that I was mostly thinking about the commander. Though the lieutenant seems female to me.

let's just say that it is mostly a V gag.


Is she? Or just slim?

In her very first appearance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0986.html) she's referred to as "an elven priestess" by Roy, and Wrecan replies "she's not taking contract work at the moment" (emphasis mine). I didn't think there was any question that Veldrina was female.

There's also the fact that Veldrina was not created by the giant but by a backer of the kickstarter campaign and as such her gender was decided by that particular fan.

[brian 333]

Not every character adheres to racial stereotypes. Few PCs do, in fact. V stands out because s/he adheres to racial norms. The OotS gang began as a stereotypical adventuring party, and rather self consciously examined those stereotypes along the way. Challenging them along the way in many cases.

I think if I were to pull one noodle from this comic's thematic plate of spaghetti it would be that we are not constrained by others expectations.

[Haven]

Short of writing an actual plotline about it, I think there's pretty much no way of distinguishing an asexual or aromantic character from a character who simply has no romantic relationships at the moment.

And I'm fine with that. There's also no one in the story who's a pescaterian, no one who's stated to have a peanut allergy, no one with hay fever, and no one who is an avid stamp collector.

Yeah, but society also doesn't tell people with peanut allergies that they have to eat peanuts anyway or they're not a whole or complete person.

It's pretty simple. You can have someone offhandedly say "thanks, but I'm asexual/aromantic" when someone hits on them, and that's that. Or it can be more in-depth--one of my favorite webcomics, Widdershins (http://www.widdershinscomic.com/), has a main character who's been aro/ace without it really being called attention to, until just now when the incarnation of Lust showed up and interrogated his best friend.


I thought all elves were gender indeterminate. They don't even refer to one another with gender specific pronouns.

FYI, gender identity doesn't have anything to do with whether or not one is asexual/aromantic.


Why does the strip even need one? I think we need to question our assumptions. It's a comic strip, not a mandatory diversity punishment for wrongthink. In the absence of a court order, I think we can make the story about whatever we want instead of having to enforce stultifying societal conformity.

Having queer characters is, almost by definition, the opposite of "stultifying societal conformity". People don't want to see queer characters as a "mandatory diversity punishment", people want to see queer characters because there are so few of them Seeing fictional characters who are queer makes people in real life more accepting, and gives people who otherwise wouldn't be able to identify their experiences a point of reference.

[martianmister]

Is she? Or just slim?

In her very first appearance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0986.html) she's referred to as "an elven priestess" by Roy, and Wrecan replies "she's not taking contract work at the moment" (emphasis mine). I didn't think there was any question that Veldrina was female.

I said "anatomically" for a reason...:smallannoyed:

[Darth Paul]

I said "anatomically" for a reason...:smallredface:

I'm just not sure if those are the same things. I could easily be wrong, it happens a lot. :smallconfused:

[137beth]

Hinjo is pseudo-canonically colorblind. There have to this point been no statements about his sexuality, as far as I know.
I wouldn't call it "pseudo" canonical, considering the Giant explicitly states that it is canon. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363648-OOTS-959-The-Discussion-Thread/page19&p=17833424#post17833424) Unless you mean that anything not in the panel of the comic itself is pseudo-canonical.

I thought all elves were gender indeterminate. They don't even refer to one another with gender specific pronouns.

I'd be surprised if Z was not male. We've only ever heard him referred to as male. I suppose technically Z never told us on-panel that he is male, but I'd assume if he wasn't male he at some point would have told Nale or Sabine off-panel. If Z was really nonbinary, then he was closeted pretty deep, since Nale, Sabine, and even his own familiar all seemed to think he was male.

However, as Haven helpfully pointed out, this thread is about which characters in OOTS are or could be asexual or aromantic, not about which characters are agender or nonbinary. It's about characters' orientations, not their genders. I brought up Z because he could be asexual and aromantic, and I think that because we never see him show attraction to anyone in the comic.

[Liquor Box]

Having queer characters is, almost by definition, the opposite of "stultifying societal conformity". People don't want to see queer characters as a "mandatory diversity punishment", people want to see queer characters because there are so few of them Seeing fictional characters who are queer makes people in real life more accepting, and gives people who otherwise wouldn't be able to identify their experiences a point of reference.

This is true, but I'm not sure how well it applies to this thread, which is not about queer characters. I think homosexual characters are in a slightly different basket to asexual characters because of how prevalent we might expect them to be.

I think the generally we can assume with the OotSverse that it is the same as our universe, except insofar as it is shown to be different. So one might expect to see homosexuals being similarly prevalent in OotS as in the real world. I think the rule of thumb is that about 1 in 15 people is homosexual, and therefore given the number of characters in OotS (and even allowing for the fact that we only know the sexual preference of some of them), we might expect that some of them would be homosexual. If there were no homosexual characters in OotS, it might be reasonable to wonder why they are not represented.

But because asexuality is so much less common in the real world (and thereby presumably in the OotSverse) I don't think we would necessarily expect to see a clearly asexual character - given their prevalence it is not at all odd that we have not come across one yet. If there was an asexual character that wouldn't be remarkable either, it would just so happen that one of the character was asexual - in the same way it just so happens that one character identifies as genderqueer (despite people identifying as genderqueer not being particularly prevalant either). The point is that it is not at all strange that none of the 20 or 30 (my guesstimate) of character for whom we have an indication of their sexuality, none are asexual. Asexual characters are not underrepresented in OotS.

Finagle seems to have have interpreted this thread as a call for OotS to include an asexual character (which I don't really think it is, but that appears to be how he sees it). If so, I think really all he's saying is that you don't have to have one of each type of character somewhere in the comic - it need not be mandatory in the name of diversity for the comic to include at least one character with each imaginable non-mainstream characteristic. He probably overstated his opinion, but many people on these boards do.

[Darth Paul]

This is true, but I'm not sure how well it applies to this thread, which is not about queer characters. I think homosexual characters are in a slightly different basket to asexual characters because of how prevalent we might expect them to be.

I think the generally we can assume with the OotSverse that it is the same as our universe, except insofar as it is shown to be different. So one might expect to see homosexuals being similarly prevalent in OotS as in the real world. I think the rule of thumb is that about 1 in 15 people is homosexual, and therefore given the number of characters in OotS (and even allowing for the fact that we only know the sexual preference of some of them), we might expect that some of them would be homosexual. If there were no homosexual characters in OotS, it might be reasonable to wonder why they are not represented.

But because asexuality is so much less common in the real world (and thereby presumably in the OotSverse) I don't think we would necessarily expect to see a clearly asexual character - given their prevalence it is not at all odd that we have not come across one yet. If there was an asexual character that wouldn't be remarkable either, it would just so happen that one of the character was asexual - in the same way it just so happens that one character identifies as genderqueer (despite people identifying as genderqueer not being particularly prevalant either). The point is that it is not at all strange that none of the 20 or 30 (my guesstimate) of character for whom we have an indication of their sexuality, none are asexual. Asexual characters are not underrepresented in OotS.

Finagle seems to have have interpreted this thread as a call for OotS to include an asexual character (which I don't really think it is, but that appears to be how he sees it). If so, I think really all he's saying is that you don't have to have one of each type of character somewhere in the comic - it need not be mandatory in the name of diversity for the comic to include at least one character with each imaginable non-mainstream characteristic. He probably overstated his opinion, but many people on these boards do.
I'm glad you put that so well. Thank you.

My reaction to fictional characters' sexuality (or lack of same, for the sake of argument) is the same as it has always been in real life: I basically shrug, say, "Huh. I didn't know that," and continue treating that person as I always had before. This goes back beyond learning that my close friend since high school was homosexual (he felt he should tell me before I sublet him my apartment, I asked what difference it could possibly make); he was best man at my wedding a few years later.

I don't take it as a big deal when someone who isn't the same as me (a straight, white male) is portrayed somewhere. Maybe I'm more liberal than certain others like me, I don't know, but I just can't get upset by the appearance of a character that is "X" in fiction (X being defined as any under-represented category that other people get upset by). For that matter, I don't get upset when someone is "revealed" as having some sexual preference or another in real life, provided A) that it's legal and B) that person isn't a politician or public figure who had made their living denouncing that same preference. I loath hypocrites.

However, nor do I get excited by a character's appearance... but I can understand how, if I were "X" myself, I might get more interested when someone like me shows up in a work of fiction. Or somewhere in real life.

You know, I guess that's why I miss Dennis Franz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Sipowicz). He represented the "overweight ugly guy" demographic. You don't see us very much as the hero on a TV series. :smallamused:

[D.One]

Sorry for the pun, but every time I read this thread title, I misread and think "What the heck is an AROMATIC character?!"

PS: I believe Belkar would say Durkon is one of those...

[brian 333]

I thought the OP was investigating the possibility of the presence of, not requesting the inclusion of, asexual characters. In one case it is a fun exercise in examining the author's work, but the other smacks of tokenism, a practice I abhor because it has only served to justify stereotyping.

The author has a knack for writing very human characters, and the level of detail we see in comic is amazing. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's characterized one or more characters as uninterested in sex, or simply too shy to make a move if they are, or physically incapable.

Like that old cop in Cliffport. Did he suffer from a swolen prostate gland? Well, it never came up. I bet he's got blood pressure issues too. Rich might have a file filled with data on him, one point of which may be an old groin injury which never Healed, rendering him incapable even if the pressures of the job hadn't robbed him of the ability to form close emotional attachments.

Then he got his head lopped off.

We don't know, and speculating does not hurt the comic. This is vastly different from attempting to pressure an artist into token inclusion of x type character, which is not, by anything I've read, the OPs intent. The author should be free to write his story, not constrained to write the story Group X wants to read.

[Riftwolf]

I'm on board with O-Chul being asexual, although this could be an overreading of having a character who hasn't had this part of his identity revealed, and he simply has more pressing issues than sex atm (although the 'not married and no intention' comment could be revealing, though there's a difference between asexuality and low sex drive).
I have difficulty understanding aromanticism, so won't infer to the comic about it. If anyone can direct me to a well written aromantic character, I'd love to understand the term better.

[Darth Paul]

Technically, any character who hasn't clearly expressed that they have a romantic inclination toward someone or a sexual attraction toward someone is a possible answer to the OP's question. Yet, in real life, it's something that rarely comes up as a topic until people are reasonably close. Outside of a small circle of friends, we usually have little or no idea about the people around us. People don't generally wear their preference on their sleeve. But statistics tells us it's very rare.

So, in OotS, this question may ultimately be unanswerable, but I think it's most likely that any given character is more likely not to be ace/aromantic. It's just the odds.

[3WhiteFox3]

I thought the OP was investigating the possibility of the presence of, not requesting the inclusion of, asexual characters. In one case it is a fun exercise in examining the author's work, but the other smacks of tokenism, a practice I abhor because it has only served to justify stereotyping.

The author has a knack for writing very human characters, and the level of detail we see in comic is amazing. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's characterized one or more characters as uninterested in sex, or simply too shy to make a move if they are, or physically incapable.

Like that old cop in Cliffport. Did he suffer from a swolen prostate gland? Well, it never came up. I bet he's got blood pressure issues too. Rich might have a file filled with data on him, one point of which may be an old groin injury which never Healed, rendering him incapable even if the pressures of the job hadn't robbed him of the ability to form close emotional attachments.

Then he got his head lopped off.

We don't know, and speculating does not hurt the comic. This is vastly different from attempting to pressure an artist into token inclusion of x type character, which is not, by anything I've read, the OPs intent. The author should be free to write his story, not constrained to write the story Group X wants to read.

What you are describing as tokenism is not tokenism. According to Merriam-Webster tokenism is
: the policy or practice of making only a symbolic effort (as to desegregate)

This is distinct from asking an author to increase diversity or representation of marginalized people-groups because the author can always go into greater detail and weave things into a larger narrative while avoiding stereotyping. I honestly don't see how one could connect a people-group asking for more representation in a given peace of media to necessarily requiring stereotyping. Whether something gets stereotyped relies primarily on the author, not the request itself, which is what your post seems to be against.

In my opinion, asking The Giant for more non-binary characters is no different from asking for more psionic users. Both are stating preferences for something, but don't require the author to do anything that they don't want to do. But the request can help bring things to the authors mind and give inspiration. I think that greater diversity is a good thing and I'll always request it, especially from works that have already proven to be willing to delve into the issues of representation in media like OOTS has before.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I have difficulty understanding aromanticism, so won't infer to the comic about it. If anyone can direct me to a well written aromantic character, I'd love to understand the term better.

Belkar strikes me as fairly aromantic. He's fine with having friendships (right now, mostly his pets), and clearly is very sexually active, but also quite obviously is not looking nor does he seem to desire, a permanent romantic emotional relationship. It's hard to tell if he'd still be aromantic if we stripped away the sociopathy, mind you, but I can picture an alternate Belkar who has a small number of friends, a propensity towards one-night stands and no long-term romantic interests.

GW

[Darth Paul]

In my opinion, asking The Giant for more non-binary characters is no different from asking for more psionic users. Both are stating preferences for something, but don't require the author to do anything that they don't want to do. But the request can help bring things to the authors mind and give inspiration. I think that greater diversity is a good thing and I'll always request it, especially from works that have already proven to be willing to delve into the issues of representation in media like OOTS has before.

This is a difficult area for a lot of people to deal with, because it's based on perception- especially when a new character is introduced (for example, when Andi joined the cast). Some see it as "This is a character who happens to have a particular element to their personality", and that's that. Others will see it as "This character is being introduced specifically to include a character with this element to their personality."

Greater diversity is fine, as a thing. But diversity for the sake of diversity does indeed smack of tokenism, when there's no reason in the story for the character to bring up a facet of their personality other than pointing out "Look how diverse these characters are!" I guess I'm saying, it can be handled organically or it can be handled poorly. And that, again, is going to be perceived differently by different people.

[3WhiteFox3]

This is a difficult area for a lot of people to deal with, because it's based on perception- especially when a new character is introduced (for example, when Andi joined the cast). Some see it as "This is a character who happens to have a particular element to their personality", and that's that. Others will see it as "This character is being introduced specifically to include a character with this element to their personality." When it comes to fiction, almost everything is based on perspective. Just because some people will dislike a given choice doesn't make it the wrong one. For Example: The Giant has constantly shown a willingness to ignore certain aspects of the D&D Ruleset as well as common Optimization rules. Some people have liked this and found nothing wrong with it, others think differently and dislike it. That hasn't changed what The Giant chooses to do.



Greater diversity is fine, as a thing. But diversity for the sake of diversity does indeed smack of tokenism,
Can you explain to me how these two things differ? What makes one OK but the other not? Why is diversity for the sake of diversity bad? I'd like to ensure that I understand your position.


When there's no reason in the story for the character to bring up a facet of their personality other than pointing out "Look how diverse these characters are!" I guess I'm saying, it can be handled organically or it can be handled poorly. And that, again, is going to be perceived differently by different people.
One of the things that I think is the problem is that people rarely complain if a character brings up their heterosexuality (usually by comments about the attractiveness of other characters or flirtation) but if that happens with non-binary or non-"normal" traits people start to complain about it being inorganic. What if the problem is that these traits aren't seen as organic because they are often ignored in fiction and that the only fix is to increase awareness and representation? Culture tends to assume that heterosexualilty is the 'default' and that any deviation from that is abnormal, that's part of the reason we need more representation to show that it is a perfectly normal part of what makes up a character. At least, that's my take on it, I'd like to know who you feel about all of this.

[Darth Paul]

I personally don't complain about any characters bringing up anything, if it feels like part of the story and not an author filibuster. But as we've seen before (and I mention Andi once again), some readers feel differently, no matter how well-written the story is, just because that character is there at all. There seemed to be some who felt she was added gratuitously, just to tick a box marked "inclusion". I wasn't one of them.

I assume that if The Giant wants to mention some character as ace/aro, it will be done well and will be relevant to the story, or it will be just a passing reference and they will have some natural reason to mention it. That's all I mean by being organic to the story.

EDIT: Damn, I meant Bandana. I haven't been getting enough sleep lately. Not Andi, Bandana. Sorry. I meant Bandana.

[martianmister]

An aromantic is a person who experiences little or no romantic attraction to others. Where romantic people have an emotional need to be with another person in a romantic relationship, aromantics are often satisfied with friendships and other non-romantic relationships.
If that description is true, aromantics must be more numerous than I thought. Heck, even I'm an aromantic. :smallconfused:

Greater diversity is fine, as a thing. But diversity for the sake of diversity does indeed smack of tokenism, when there's no reason in the story for the character to bring up a facet of their personality other than pointing out "Look how diverse these characters are!"
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStDMtdPu7UkQaRC1ObioK54lOM2vi5C vRxK3crjmJCnF0dw6uqpQ

[Liquor Box]

Can you explain to me how these two things differ? What makes one OK but the other not? Why is diversity for the sake of diversity bad? I'd like to ensure that I understand your position.


I didn't make the statement, but I can see how people might perceive those two things differently. I think it comes down to whether a character with a characteristic seen as diverse is put in the story because it fits well or enhances the story, or or simply because there is a call for greater diversity - the later being diversity for diversity's sake.

An potential example of the later is if the Giant saw this thread, decided that it was a good idea to include to include an asexual character (good idea for the sake of diversity, not because it would enhance the story), and either inserted one, or revealed that an existing character is asexual. That would be diversity for the sake of diversity.

Varsuvious being genderqueer is a good example of the later (not diversity for the sake of diversity). The Giant is on record as saying that early in the strip he realised he could get a bit of humour out of making it unclear what V's sex/gender is, so that's how the genderqueer characterisation developed. V was not made genderqueer to better represent genderqueer people or because it was good for the comic's diversity for V to be genderqueer - so it was not diversity for the sake of diversity.

Whether diversity for the sake of diversity is a good thing or not is another question. Depending on how skilled the writer is, it may seem forced to some readers (and I have seen comments on this board that certain character or actions were perceived as forced and poorly written for the sake of the social message). My own opinion is that diversity for the sake of diversity is fine where a particular group is underrepresented against what one might expect their prevalence to be - so if a 100 characters were shown and none of them were black (assuming there was nothing about the setting that made black characters unlikely), it would be odd, and it may be worth including more black characters for diversity's sake. As I said in my last post, the same is probably true of homosexual characters - given the number of characters whose sexual preference has been revealed, it fits well that a few of them are homosexual. But axesual characters are a bit different because asexuality is less prevalent, so it does not seem to me to be an anomaly that there are none. So I hope the Giant does not feel pressure or that he 'should' include one. If one happens to make its way into the story because that's what works best for the story (so not diversity for the sake of diversity) though, I think that's fine.

[Liquor Box]

I personally don't complain about any characters bringing up anything, if it feels like part of the story and not an author filibuster. But as we've seen before (and I mention Andi once again), some readers feel differently, no matter how well-written the story is, just because that character is there at all. There seemed to be some who felt she was added gratuitously, just to tick a box marked "inclusion". I wasn't one of them.

I assume that if The Giant wants to mention some character as ace/aro, it will be done well and will be relevant to the story, or it will be just a passing reference and they will have some natural reason to mention it. That's all I mean by being organic to the story.

What box did Andi tick? Was she a lesbian?

[The Extinguisher]

Oh boy a Giantitp thread about sexuality and diversity in the comic those are my absolute favourite ones :smallsigh:

Without beating my head against the wall that is convincing people representation matters, I do want to say that asexuality is more than just "not having sex" and I wouldn't say that a character is ace solely because they weren't in a sexual relationship (and similarly for aro and romantic relationships)
Im not ace, but it strikes me as a little uncomfortable to suggest that because a character isn't in a relationship that they must be asexual.

Also, now I am beating my head against that wall, there should absolutely be ace and aro characters in the comic put in there to have ace and aro characters because Representation Matters

[Cizak]

Garbage points about real life numbers to justify garbage representation can go into the garbage right now. The author is direct control of how many LGBTQIA+ characters are in their story. And since no author can ever create a story outside of their societal context, any character they don't specify will be read as cis-straight by a vast majority of the readers. If the author doesn't specify, they have created a cis-straight character. To not actively show the LGBTQIA+ part of a work is the choice to not have LGBTQIA+ parts in it.

And of course diversity should be made for the sake of diversity. That's the reason you put in diversity. LGBTQIA+ characters don't have to meet certain criteria in order to be allowed to be LGBTQIA+, especially since no one on any message board ever has cried foul when characters express off-handed, non-story-critical straightness.


I don't give a damn if diversity in OOTS has a function in the story. Diversity in OOTS has a function in real life.

[brian 333]

Diversity, yes. Discussing diversity to increase awareness, yay!

But I presume the author is not an LGBTH. You kind of hzve to pick one or two because some of those letters are exclusive. And authors have to fill in details to bring a particular letter to life. But if they have never lived that life, where do the details come from?

I write gay characters as people because I know nothing about being gay. I'd insult my gay potential audience if I pretended I did. I know nothing about surgery so I avoid writing about brain surgeons too. And to date I don't recall writing about elephant training, but I might feel I have to do it if mahouts requested inclusion.

If the author chooses to write about whatever he wants to wfite for whatever reason, that's his art, and his decision.

It is far too easy for polite requests to feel like demands, and demands that the author censor his work so very often lead to tokenism. If you don't believe me, watch some 1970s television.

[martianmister]

I write gay characters as people because I know nothing about being gay. I'd insult my gay potential audience if I pretended I did. I know nothing about surgery so I avoid writing about brain surgeons too. And to date I don't recall writing about elephant training, but I might feel I have to do it if mahouts requested inclusion
So, no females too then?

It is far too easy for polite requests to feel like demands, and demands that the author censor his work so very often lead to tokenism. If you don't believe me, watch some 1970s television.
Such as?

[elros]

I've avoided posting on this threat because it touches a nerve, but I want to express my opinion:
As a 40-something year old that didn't date during most of my adult life, I could have been labelled "asexual." However, I never thought of putting myself in a category, and I would get very upset if someone tried to label me or ask questions like "have you figured out your sexuality yet"? In my opinion, it was none of their d*** business! Just treat me as a person, not a representative of a category.
My point is: it is not okay for someone to assign a label to another person. And trying to assign a label to a fantasy webcomic that involves magic and creatures that don't even exist is simply absurd.
I suggest we lock this thread and move on...

[Liquor Box]

Garbage points about real life numbers to justify garbage representation can go into the garbage right now. The author is direct control of how many LGBTQIA+ characters are in their story. And since no author can ever create a story outside of their societal context, any character they don't specify will be read as cis-straight by a vast majority of the readers. If the author doesn't specify, they have created a cis-straight character. To not actively show the LGBTQIA+ part of a work is the choice to not have LGBTQIA+ parts in it.

You say this now, but I think I recall you arguing that a character whose gender had not been specified was genderqueer in a previous thread. I may be misremembering, or mixing you up with another poster - if so I can go back and check (and if I'm write link to that thread) if you don't also remember.


And of course diversity should be made for the sake of diversity. That's the reason you put in diversity. LGBTQIA+ characters don't have to meet certain criteria in order to be allowed to be LGBTQIA+, especially since no one on any message board ever has cried foul when characters express off-handed, non-story-critical straightness.

You miss the point. I am not saying that there needs to a list of criteria for lettered characters to meet. Only that they should represented as is called for by the story - in exactly the same way as non-lettered characters. I added that I do suggest that the story calls for them to be represented where a lack of them would be odd (relative to their prevalence in the real world) unless there is story reason not to.

[The Extinguisher]

You say this now, but I think I recall you arguing that a character whose gender had not been specified was genderqueer in a previous thread. I may be misremembering, or mixing you up with another poster - if so I can go back and check (and if I'm write link to that thread) if you don't also remember.



You miss the point. I am not saying that there needs to a list of criteria for lettered characters to meet. Only that they should represented as is called for by the story - in exactly the same way as non-lettered characters. I added that I do suggest that the story calls for them to be represented where a lack of them would be odd (relative to their prevalence in the real world) unless there is story reason not to.

"Lettered Characters" is the most ridiculous offensive thing ive ever heard you can just say LQBTQ it wont burn your mouth

Also saying "you missed the point" doesn't absolve you from reading the post. Cizak was saying that there doesn't need to be a story reason for queer characters to exist because there is never a story reason that cishet characters exist and pretending that there is, or pretending that you insist there should be, is bad.

For all the talk of censorship and forcing artists to do stuff, y'all cant seem to let people write queer characters

[Cizak]

I write gay characters as people because I know nothing about being gay. I'd insult my gay potential audience if I pretended I did. I know nothing about surgery so I avoid writing about brain surgeons too. And to date I don't recall writing about elephant training, but I might feel I have to do it if mahouts requested inclusion.

I mean, you can always do research. Plenty of authors have written about medical procedures they knew nothing about when they started their work. But more to the poin, as you say yourself, you do know how to write people. So write people who gets to save humanity from evil and also rather smooch a Y rather than an X. It's not really that hard


If the author chooses to write about whatever he wants to wfite for whatever reason, that's his art, and his decision.

Of course. And as a reader, I get to critisise their art and their decision. For example, art and decisions that don't include LGBTQIA+ characters are inheritely flawed. That doesn't automatically mean they're bad or unredeemable in the face of humanity. But it will have lowered the amount of pleasure I could have gotten out of it.


You say this now, but I think I recall you arguing that a character whose gender had not been specified was genderqueer in a previous thread. I may be misremembering, or mixing you up with another poster - if so I can go back and check (and if I'm write link to that thread) if you don't also remember.

I have a faint recollection of that too, but I can't for the life of me remember what character it was. I think I was in a pretty bad place, mentally, at the time of those posts. That doesn't absolve anything I might've said if I was offensive or such towards anybody, but it might mean I don't hold those views anymore.

But more to the point... what does that have to do with anything you quoted? Arguments about real life LGBTQIA+ numbers to justify the numbers in a fictional work are still flawed, because the author holds direct control over the number of LGBTQIA+ characters they create. The majority of people (myself very much included) will still assume cishet-ness from an unspecified character, because we live in the same heteronormative society in which the character was created. Me headcanoning an unspecified character as queer doesn't change that.


You miss the point. I am not saying that there needs to a list of criteria for lettered characters to meet. Only that they should represented as is called for by the story - in exactly the same way as non-lettered characters. I added that I do suggest that the story calls for them to be represented where a lack of them would be odd (relative to their prevalence in the real world) unless there is story reason not to.

No, I think I hit the point just right. The argument against "diversity for the sake of diversity" is that LGBTQIA+ characters should only be presented as such in a fictional work if it "fits well", "enhances the story" or "is called for by the story". And I fundamentally disagree with this, because LGBTQIA+ characters existance should not be dependable on whether or not they "fit" or "enhance" their surroundings. They do not need to justify their existance in real life, and they do not need to justify their esistance in stories.

[Fyraltari]

The majority of people (myself very much included) will still assume cishet-ness from an unspecified character, because we live in the same heteronormative society in which the character was created. Me headcanoning an unspecified character as queer doesn't change that.


Maybe that's the problem, no? We had seen Bandana for quite a while before she menntionned a former girlfriend and while I cannot speak for anyone but myself I can certainly say that I had not assumed she only dated boys before. Because nothing in comic pointed toward that.

In the end there is nothing wrong about people headcannoning certain characters to be a certain way as longas they accept that the author may overrule them at his own leasure.
And I see nothing wrong in an author wanting to portray diversity in his story where Elves can throw fireball at orcs butonly after they have waited for their turn, especially when the point of said diversity is to incite his readership to ponder real life issue.


Hell, the simple fact that this conversation is happening right now counts as a positive in my book.

Edit, forgot this : Any part of a character identity, especially sexuality and gender (be it cis, trans, hetero, homo, ace or [edit because an intentionnally abrasive joke is really not needed here] anything else) should only be mentionned if it serves a purpose. Fleshing out the character and making the cast more closely resemble real life are valid purposes.

[The Extinguisher]

Maybe that's the problem, no? We had seen Bandana for quite a while before she menntionned a former girlfriend and while I cannot speak for anyone but myself I can certainly say that I had not assumed she only dated boys before. Because nothing in comic pointed toward that.

In the end there is nothing wrong about people headcannoning certain characters to be a certain way as longas they accept that the author may overrule them at his own leasure.
And I see nothing wrong in an author wanting to portray diversity in his story where Elves can throw fireball at orcs butonly after they have waited for their turn, especially when the point of said diversity is to incite his readership to ponder real life issue.


Hell, the simple fact that this conversation is happening right now counts as a positive in my book.

Edit, forgot this : Any part of a character identity, especially sexuality and gender (be it cis, trans, hetero, homo, ace or even trigendered pyro-fox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2_8cfVpXbo)) should only be mentionned if it serves a purpose. Fleshing out the character and making the cast more closely resemble real life are valid purposes.

Here the thing, youre wrong. Straightness and cisness as the default is violently enforced by society and closing your eyes and pretending that it isn't is just unhealthy. Im glad that you didn't hold and preconceived notions on her sexuality (even though id argue that youre misleading yourself here), its simply not correct to say that the default assumption is that she was straight. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have people arguing about it today when she's no longer in the comic!

Also, please get out of here with that garbage transphobic link there's no need to delegitimize actual trans identities by comparing them to a awful, tonedeaf Happiness and frickin Cyanide short

[Liquor Box]

"Lettered Characters" is the most ridiculous offensive thing ive ever heard you can just say LQBTQ it wont burn your mouth

I actually said lettered-characters in an effort to be inoffensive. I didn't want to use the wrong letters, because I notice that everyone uses different letters (for example you and Cizak use different ones).

You for say "LQBTQ" and as far I know, none of those letters relates to asexual people. It may be seen as offensive to asexual people to exclude from the letters (which I understand represent people who belong to other than the mainstream genders/sexualities), particularly as this thread is about asexual characters. So perhaps people in glass houses should not throw stones.


Also saying "you missed the point" doesn't absolve you from reading the post. Cizak was saying that there doesn't need to be a story reason for queer characters to exist because there is never a story reason that cishet characters exist and pretending that there is, or pretending that you insist there should be, is bad.

No, he said there needed to be a list of criteria. If you want to make a different point (that there need not be a story reason) so be it, but don't tell me I was wrong to miss your point in Cizak's words.

There is often a story reason. I have already given two examples. First, because homosexuals are reasonably prevalent, one would expect to encounter them from time to time - it would be odd to have lots of characters and none of them be gay. Second, with the example of Varsuvius, the genderqueer characteristation leads to a lot of jokes.


For all the talk of censorship and forcing artists to do stuff, y'all cant seem to let people write queer characters

This is a silly comment. I have already said several times in this thread that I think that there should be homosexual characters in OotS. I don't think a single person said that there shouldn't be queer characters - it's just in your head that this forum is full of people who think that.

[Fyraltari]

Here the thing, youre wrong. Straightness and cisness as the default is violently enforced by society and closing your eyes and pretending that it isn't is just unhealthy. Im glad that you didn't hold and preconceived notions on her sexuality (even though id argue that youre misleading yourself here), its simply not correct to say that the default assumption is that she was straight. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have people arguing about it today when she's no longer in the comic!

Also, please get out of here with that garbage transphobic link there's no need to delegitimize actual trans identities by comparing them to a awful, tonedeaf Happiness and frickin Cyanide short

I did not mean that it wasn't the assumption most people would make. Just that making the assumption is the problem.

Sorry about the link, I always saw that joke as presenting the mother as unreasonable and the doctor as the one the public is supposed to side with but I understand why you could see it as transphobic. Again my apologies if I hurt someone, that really was not my intention.

I don't see why you would argue that I was misleading myself. Care to elaborate? You can PM me if you feelit's off topic.

[Liquor Box]

I have a faint recollection of that too, but I can't for the life of me remember what character it was. I think I was in a pretty bad place, mentally, at the time of those posts. That doesn't absolve anything I might've said if I was offensive or such towards anybody, but it might mean I don't hold those views anymore.

To the best of my recollection, it was in one of the threads where people were speculating about Varsuvius's sex. You and another poster were arguing about whether some other elf (perhaps the partner of the illusionist member of the order of the scribble) might be genderqueer.

I wasn't suggesting your were offensive (although you did get pretty angry with the other poster when he or she didn't agree with you).

Edit:
It was in this thread
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480892-Vaarsuvius-gender-REVIVED!!!/page2


But more to the point... what does that have to do with anything you quoted? Arguments about real life LGBTQIA+ numbers to justify the numbers in a fictional work are still flawed, because the author holds direct control over the number of LGBTQIA+ characters they create. The majority of people (myself very much included) will still assume cishet-ness from an unspecified character, because we live in the same heteronormative society in which the character was created. Me headcanoning an unspecified character as queer doesn't change that.

You had said readers will always read unspecified characters as being hetronormative. I was only saying that sometimes readers (you being the example) will not. Perhaps you are right though that the majority will assume cisness, I really don't know - to be honest I don't tend to speculate on the sexuality of characters unless it comes up (although that might be a subconscious assumption that they are hetero).

Of course the author holds direct control, and the Giant is welcome to do with his comic as he will. People are then entitled to choose whether to read it or not depending on how much they like it (which may partly depend on those choices the Giant makes). As matters stand I like the way the Giant writes, as presumably do most people on this forum.


No, I think I hit the point just right. The argument against "diversity for the sake of diversity" is that LGBTQIA+ characters should only be presented as such in a fictional work if it "fits well", "enhances the story" or "is called for by the story". And I fundamentally disagree with this, because LGBTQIA+ characters existance should not be dependable on whether or not they "fit" or "enhance" their surroundings. They do not need to justify their existance in real life, and they do not need to justify their esistance in stories.

Every character in a story needs to justify their existence, regardless of whether they are gay or asexual, or straight. In my opinion it would be odd and slightly detract from the story if particular groups were in numbers out of all proportion to their prevalence in society (unless of course there was reason for it - for example the order happened to be made up of people from a gay clique.

I suspect that you are not going to agree with the above. Is it fair to say that I think that people who are homosexual, non-binary, asexual etc should be represented roughly in accordance with their prevalence in society unless the story happens to be about such people, and you think that such groups should be over-represented for the sake of diversity. At least we understand where each other is coming from, and we can simply agree to disagree.

[The Extinguisher]

I actually said lettered-characters in an effort to be inoffensive. I didn't want to use the wrong letters, because I notice that everyone uses different letters (for example you and Cizak use different ones).

You for say "LQBTQ" and as far I know, none of those letters relates to asexual people. It may be seen as offensive to asexual people to exclude from the letters (which I understand represent people who belong to other than the mainstream genders/sexualities), particularly as this thread is about asexual characters. So perhaps people in glass houses should not throw stones.



◔_◔

actually yeah, that was a goof on my part. I usually put the acronym as LGBTQIA+ so i messed up there tbqh (also typod oops). i mean i usually just say queer but i very much dont want you saying that. But really, you can't see why "lettered characters" is actually offensive? Really?




No, he said there needed to be a list of criteria. If you want to make a different point (that there need not be a story reason) so be it, but don't tell me I was wrong to miss your point in Cizak's words.

There is often a story reason. I have already given two examples. First, because homosexuals are reasonably prevalent, one would expect to encounter them from time to time - it would be odd to have lots of characters and none of them be gay. Second, with the example of Varsuvius, the genderqueer characteristation leads to a lot of jokes.


This is a silly comment. I have already said several times in this thread that I think that there should be homosexual characters in OotS. I don't think a single person said that there shouldn't be queer characters - it's just in your head that this forum is full of people who think that.

i was gonna write up something about this, because a lot of this is the usual pedantry to disguise opinion as fact but honestly im just gonna stick with ◔_◔


--


I did not mean that it wasn't the assumption most people would make. Just that making the assumption is the problem.

Sorry about the link, I always saw that joke as presenting the mother as unreasonable and the doctor as the one the public is supposed to side with but I understand why you could see it as transphobic.

I don't see why you would argue that I was misleading myself. Care to elaborate? You can PM me if you feelit's off topic.

Hey thanks for being reasonable and accepting criticism when you do something offensive, even if it was unintentional.

As for why I think youre misleading yourself: Everyone, even those deep in the heart of queer politics suffers from living in our cishet-normative society. I think you have to work really, really hard to remove the default that society has programmed into us, and actively fight against it when attempting to approach a new character or work. Because the default is silent, and all encompassing. We may not think we are applying to a character, but we have been learned to apply it. Its subconscious, and by not actively working against it, we enforce it.

"I haven't thought about this characters sexuality" is very different then "This character could be straight or could not be straight" but they look a lot alike, and society wants you to think they are the same. Because when youre not questioning a characters sexuality, you're letting them default.

So misleading yourself was probably the wrong set of words, and i was probably harsher then i should have been on account of the bad link, its moreso youve been misled by society and convinced that not thinking about something is the same as questioning

[Liquor Box]

◔_◔

actually yeah, that was a goof on my part. I usually put the acronym as LGBTQIA+ so i messed up there tbqh (also typod oops). i mean i usually just say queer but i very much dont want you saying that. But really, you can't see why "lettered characters" is actually offensive? Really?

Thanks for admitting it accepting criticism when you inadvertantly said something offensive. Too many people don't do that and instead just dig their heels in.

Why am I not allowed to say queer?


i was gonna write up something about this, because a lot of this is the usual pedantry to disguise opinion as fact but honestly im just gonna stick with ◔_◔
--

Well, I wasn't meaning to disguise anything as a fact. It is indeed just my opinion that there is a good story reason to have homosexual characters and a genderqueer character in OotS, and I don't think I presented it as fact.

but if you want to stick with your eyes looking up, that's fine by me :smallsmile:.

[brian 333]

I mean, you can always do research. Plenty of authors have written about medical procedures they knew nothing about when they started their work. But more to the poin, as you say yourself, you do know how to write people. So write people who gets to save humanity from evil and also rather smooch a Y rather than an X. It's not really that hard



Of course. And as a reader, I get to critisise their art and their decision. For example, art and decisions that don't include LGBTQIA+ characters are inheritely flawed. That doesn't automatically mean they're bad or unredeemable in the face of humanity. But it will have lowered the amount of pleasure I could have gotten out of it.



I have a faint recollection of that too, but I can't for the life of me remember what character it was. I think I was in a pretty bad place, mentally, at the time of those posts. That doesn't absolve anything I might've said if I was offensive or such towards anybody, but it might mean I don't hold those views anymore.

But more to the point... what does that have to do with anything you quoted? Arguments about real life LGBTQIA+ numbers to justify the numbers in a fictional work are still flawed, because the author holds direct control over the number of LGBTQIA+ characters they create. The majority of people (myself very much included) will still assume cishet-ness from an unspecified character, because we live in the same heteronormative society in which the character was created. Me headcanoning an unspecified character as queer doesn't change that.



No, I think I hit the point just right. The argument against "diversity for the sake of diversity" is that LGBTQIA+ characters should only be presented as such in a fictional work if it "fits well", "enhances the story" or "is called for by the story". And I fundamentally disagree with this, because LGBTQIA+ characters existance should not be dependable on whether or not they "fit" or "enhance" their surroundings. They do not need to justify their existance in real life, and they do not need to justify their esistance in stories.

Part of the problem is the belief, illustrated in this post, that failure to conform to your worldview is always based on intolerance.You have established a quota. You insist on conformity to your worldview because any other is just wrong. And all the while you justify this witb claims of repression.

You're free to hold your beliefs. You are not free to demand that I or any other writer conform to your views. Even, or especially, when you are right.

[Fyraltari]

Hey thanks for being reasonable and accepting criticism when you do something offensive, even if it was unintentional.
The first step in making a better world is making a better you. The first step in making a better you is listening to outside criticism. The second one is owning up to your screw-ups.

Plus I can't really argue for respect on one thread and go around offending people on another.


As for why I think youre misleading yourself: Everyone, even those deep in the heart of queer politics suffers from living in our cishet-normative society. I think you have to work really, really hard to remove the default that society has programmed into us, and actively fight against it when attempting to approach a new character or work. Because the default is silent, and all encompassing. We may not think we are applying to a character, but we have been learned to apply it. Its subconscious, and by not actively working against it, we enforce it.

"I haven't thought about this characters sexuality" is very different then "This character could be straight or could not be straight" but they look a lot alike, and society wants you to think they are the same. Because when youre not questioning a characters sexuality, you're letting them default.
I don't know. I agree that making assumptions and generalizations about people is a hard habit to shake off (it's a survival instinct after all) and the source of most of our problems (in my opinion) ; and I'll admit that I assume pretty much every character to be cis (maybe it's because I don't know any trans person in real life?).

It's also worth noting that I tend to live in my own bubble so to speak and not really care about other people's life (unless they want a friend to listen of course) so there's that.

That being said I'm not really sure that "I haven't given any thought to that person's sexuality" is different then "they could this or that" if you don't feel like you were wrong when the person's sexuality is revealed.


So misleading yourself was probably the wrong set of words, and i was probably harsher then i should have been on account of the bad link, its moreso youve been misled by society and convinced that not thinking about something is the same as questioning
No offense. I don't really see why I should question a fictionnal character's sex life though.

[woweedd]

He does have quite the CHAR stat :smallamused:
...Oh, so THAT's how that pigtailed goth chick whose name I cannot spell reached her..."conclusions."

[Darth Paul]

What box did Andi tick? Was she a lesbian?

I just realized, it was Bandana. Bandana. Not Andi. As I edited in my post, it was Bandana and I haven't been getting much sleep lately.

Bandana.

[Hardcore]

◔_◔

actually yeah, that was a goof on my part. I usually put the acronym as LGBTQIA+ so i messed up there tbqh (also typod oops). i mean i usually just say queer but i very much dont want you saying that. But really, you can't see why "lettered characters" is actually offensive? Really?




Well, should you expect a stranger to know this? For people it was easy way back in the beginning with just gays ("perverts") and girls that were "good friends". Yesterday there was LGBT, and today that acronym has mutated to What exactly? (and will it end with LGBTQIA+?)
Getting upset with people, for nothing keeping up to date with the latest abstract division of people by your subgroup, is not actually their fault.

[137beth]

Oh boy a Giantitp thread about sexuality and diversity in the comic those are my absolute favourite ones :smallsigh:

Without beating my head against the wall that is convincing people representation matters, I do want to say that asexuality is more than just "not having sex" and I wouldn't say that a character is ace solely because they weren't in a sexual relationship (and similarly for aro and romantic relationships)
Im not ace, but it strikes me as a little uncomfortable to suggest that because a character isn't in a relationship that they must be asexual.

Also, now I am beating my head against that wall, there should absolutely be ace and aro characters in the comic put in there to have ace and aro characters because Representation Matters
Oh, you are certainly right:smallsmile: Asexuality and aromanticism are about a lack of sexual attraction or romantic attraction, not actions or relationship history.

But, if we are trying to speculate about the possible sexualities of fictional characters in the comic, there's limited information to go on. Namely, the attraction we have heard them express in the comic so far.

As you point out, what matters for whether a character is asexual is whether they feel attraction, not whether they have sex. Haley, for example, clearly experiences attraction in the first two books, even though (as far as we know) she isn't having sex during the first two books.

O-Chul, the character most people who've responded to the original premise of the thread seem to think is the most likely to be aro/ace, is the leading contender not just because we don't know of him having sex, but because, as far as we know, he has not expressed an interest in either romance or sex. Of course, it's entirely possible that O-Chul does experience that sort of attraction and simply hasn't told anyone yet, or that he has told someone off-panel. But, unless O-Chul states on-panel that he doesn't feel sexual attraction, or unless The Giant tells us O-Chul's orientation, the current situation is as good as we can get for a character without knowing for sure. It doesn't mean O-Chul is aro ace, but it means he could be.



You miss the point. I am not saying that there needs to a list of criteria for lettered characters to meet. Only that they should represented as is called for by the story - in exactly the same way as non-lettered characters. I added that I do suggest that the story calls for them to be represented where a lack of them would be odd (relative to their prevalence in the real world) unless there is story reason not to.

There has never been a point in the comic where a character being straight is "called for by the story." If Celia and Miko were both male and Roy was gay, then literally nothing about the plot changes. For that matter, there's never been a point in the story that called for any particular character being cisgender, except maybe Roy and the Belt in NCfPB. And even that one's a stretch, seeing as it didn't work very well with Roy being cis as it is (as The Giant himself explained in the new commentary for the NCfPB PDF).

Actually, a much better writer than me tackle this subject a couple years back:
Incidental Straightness in The Comic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?394142-Incidental-Straightness-in-the-Comic), by SaintRidley, catalogued all the times up to that point (January 2015) that OOTS depicted heterosexuality for no reason. Do you have the same objection to all of those characters who are "straight for the sake of being straight" that you do for ?



The point is that it is not at all strange that none of the 20 or 30 (my guesstimate) of character for whom we have an indication of their sexuality, none are asexual. Asexual characters are not underrepresented in OotS.
There are asexual people in the real world, and there are no (confirmed) asexual characters in OOTS, so yes, asexual people are underrepresented in OOTS.


However, nor do I get excited by a character's appearance... but I can understand how, if I were "X" myself, I might get more interested when someone like me shows up in a work of fiction. Or somewhere in real life.

You know, I guess that's why I miss Dennis Franz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Sipowicz). He represented the "overweight ugly guy" demographic. You don't see us very much as the hero on a TV series. :smallamused:
Yea, I get that, albeit from the other persepctive. I used to shrug and think it was no big deal if I saw an "overweight ugly guy" in media. Now I usually think "it doesn't matter much to me, but it must be really nice for people like this character who are normally under-represented."



I just realized, it was Bandana. Bandana. Not Andi. As I edited in my post, it was Bandana and I haven't been getting much sleep lately.

Bandana.
That's what I suspected. But, the points raised by others earlier still stand: if we had been told Bandana was attracted to men in strip 959 it would have been just as arbitrary and unnecessary as hearing about her ex-girlfriend.



I'm on board with O-Chul being asexual, although this could be an overreading of having a character who hasn't had this part of his identity revealed, and he simply has more pressing issues than sex atm (although the 'not married and no intention' comment could be revealing, though there's a difference between asexuality and low sex drive).
I have difficulty understanding aromanticism, so won't infer to the comic about it. If anyone can direct me to a well written aromantic character, I'd love to understand the term better.


Belkar strikes me as fairly aromantic. He's fine with having friendships (right now, mostly his pets), and clearly is very sexually active, but also quite obviously is not looking nor does he seem to desire, a permanent romantic emotional relationship. It's hard to tell if he'd still be aromantic if we stripped away the sociopathy, mind you, but I can picture an alternate Belkar who has a small number of friends, a propensity towards one-night stands and no long-term romantic interests.

GW
Hmm, that's an interesting proposition. I don't think I'm really qualified to say what would constitute a well-written portrayal of an aromantic character who is not asexual. Aside from not knowing what sexual attraction feels like myself, I don't even personally (knowingly) know anyone in real life who considers themself aromantic and sexual. That's why I've kept my speculation in this thread (up until now, anyways) to characters I thought could be aromantic and asexual, or at least asexual. But it's still interesting to get someone else's perspective on aromantic heterosexual Belkar.

[Darth Paul]

I used to shrug and think it was no big deal if I saw an "overweight ugly guy" in media. Now I usually think "it doesn't matter much to me, but it must be really nice for people like this character who are normally under-represented."

[blank space where quote was]

That's what I suspected. But, the points raised by others earlier still stand: if we had been told Bandana was attracted to men in strip 972, it would have been just as arbitrary and unnecessary as hearing about her ex-girlfriend.



I don't watch as much TV anymore, but it seems to me that the people who look like me aren't showing up in heroic or leading man roles anymore. They're more often the clown or the loser of the bunch. Which is why I miss Sipowicz.

But (not to offend anyone who like this look) I think the "neckbeard" demographic might be over-represented nowadays. I blame that duck hunter show.

And were you referring to 959 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0959.html)? I was among those who didn't find that forced. It was an explanation for where Haley got a new outfit when they were 1000 feet in the air, and it contained a couple gags which I enjoyed. Plus, some backstory for Bandana.

[Benthesquid]

In Durkon's case, I will note, besides the one night with Hilgya, he did join Belkar and Elan in ogling Haley's sexy sexy trapfinding, as well as in eavesdropping when Haley and V compared their orbs. You could make an argument for this being early installment weirdness, or just going along to fit in with his peers, I suppose.

[Liquor Box]

There has never been a point in the comic where a character being straight is "called for by the story." If Celia and Miko were both male and Roy was gay, then literally nothing about the plot changes. For that matter, there's never been a point in the story that called for any particular character being cisgender, except maybe Roy and the Belt in NCfPB. And even that one's a stretch, seeing as it didn't work very well with Roy being cis as it is (as The Giant himself explained in the new commentary for the NCfPB PDF).

Actually, a much better writer than me tackle this subject a couple years back:
Incidental Straightness in The Comic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?394142-Incidental-Straightness-in-the-Comic), by SaintRidley, catalogued all the times up to that point (January 2015) that OOTS depicted heterosexuality for no reason. Do you have the same objection to all of those characters who are "straight for the sake of being straight" that you do for ?

The story does call for straight characters simply because it is a story about people who are similar to real world people from a sexuality perspective. The majority of people in the real world are straight and the incidence of straightness in the comic is broadly similar to that in real life. If there were no straight people in the comic they were all asexual or homosexual then it would change the story because it would be necessary to explain the incongruence with real world sexuality.

That's why it is a good thing that homosexual characters are represented - there are lots of them in the real world, and you would expect to see a few given how many characters have their sexuality identified in OotS. If there were none, the incongruence would not be as great as if there were no straight people, because their prevalence is not as great.

Incidentally, I see Redcloak is referenced in that list of straight interactions - he was mentioned somewhere in this thread as a potential asexual - I guess that seals it that he is not.


There are asexual people in the real world, and there are no (confirmed) asexual characters in OOTS, so yes, asexual people are underrepresented in OOTS.

Are they?

If one in 200 people is asexual, and we have 40 characters in OotS whose sexuality has been identifed, then the correct representation of asexual characters is 40 divided by 200. That is there should be 0.2 asexual characters. 0.2 rounds down to 0. Even if asexual characters are underrepresented with their being zero, if there was one then they would be over-represented several times over.

An important distinction that may have been lost. I am not saying that there should be no homosexual or asexual (or anything else) characters unless the story calls for it. I am saying that homosexual and asexual characters should be represented roughly in accordance with their real-life prevalence unless the story calls for otherwise.

At the moment I think homosexual, straight and asexual character are represented roughly similarly to their prevalence in the real world. gender-queer people are probably over-represented, which I think is fine as well, partly because there is a good story reason for that.

Having said all that I wouldn't mind if there was an asexual character - to my mind either zero asexual characters or one asexual character still meets my preference of being roughly in accordance with their real life prevalence. I just don't think one is required - I'm neutral between whether there is one or none.

You may prefer that asexual characters were over-represented and that is fair enough. I prefer that their' prevalence is similar to that in real life.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's what I suspected. But, the points raised by others earlier still stand: if we had been told Bandana was attracted to men in strip 972, it would have been just as arbitrary and unnecessary as hearing about her ex-girlfriend.
No, it would not have been, because a alt-hetero-Bandana would have had no reason to have a magical armour that fitted Haley and not B just hanging on her closet. This Alt-Hetero-B would therefore have had to also be male... and that would clash with the primary purpose of B, a female friend for Haley, who needed to be shown to be able to have a normal relationship with another female, since until now all her interactions with members of her own gender had been by-and-large antagonistic.


Hmm, that's an interesting proposition. I don't think I'm really qualified to say what would constitute a well-written portrayal of an aromantic character who is not asexual.
Then I have to say we must be using differing definitions of "well written". Is Belkar well written? Certainly: his evolution from one-bit munchkin to complex character has been magnificent. But maybe you mean "his specific romantic orientation must be well written to count as a correct representation of said romantic orientation", in which case I must disagree. Sexual and romantic orientation should be as crucial to a character as, say, their hair or skin colour. Occasionally it might feature into the story (e.g. Elan's long lost twin), but for the large majority of the characters it should just be a characteristic with no impact on the story (e.g. Roy is black).

As to the idea that the author should use real-world statistics of each sexual orientation in order to determine a character's orientation... the whole argument is ludicrous. The author should do no such thing, anymore than he uses real-world statistics of people willing to go on world-saving adventures. A story like this always involve a group of special people interacting with other special people to whom special out-of-the-ordinary things happen. In the same way we wouldn't expect the story to introduce 6 million characters just so we can see that, "statistically" our main characters are one-in-a-million, there is absolutely no need to introduce sufficient characters (and reveal all their orientations!) that showing an aromantic character is statistically correct.

Grey Wolf

[Lacuna Caster]

As to the idea that the author should use real-world statistics of each sexual orientation in order to determine a character's orientation... the whole argument is ludicrous. The author should do no such thing, anymore than he uses real-world statistics of people willing to go on world-saving adventures. A story like this always involve a group of special people interacting with other special people to whom special out-of-the-ordinary things happen...
Perhaps, but the argument one tends to hear is that authors have some kind of ethical obligation to represent minority groups- even statistically vanishingly rare ones- in order to foster a message of tolerance and diversity. Okay, fine, but in that case, it might not entirely help the cause of progress to have an unflattering or inaccurate representation. (Which creates some additional work when the unflattering representation is perfectly statistically accurate, but I digress.)

The thing is, if the story you're telling is really only concerned with these ultra-special maverick characters that have no substantial grounding in real demographics, then what are you trying to say and who is supposed to care? Authors generally want to say something, but how did they decide what was worth saying to begin with? Hopefully a lesson condensed from some set of observations of the real world. Fine and good, but... statistics are not irrelevant in observing the real world.

[3WhiteFox3]

The story does call for straight characters simply because it is a story about people who are similar to real world people from a sexuality perspective. The majority of people in the real world are straight and the incidence of straightness in the comic is broadly similar to that in real life. If there were no straight people in the comic they were all asexual or homosexual then it would change the story because it would be necessary to explain the incongruence with real world sexuality.

That's why it is a good thing that homosexual characters are represented - there are lots of them in the real world, and you would expect to see a few given how many characters have their sexuality identified in OotS. If there were none, the incongruence would not be as great as if there were no straight people, because their prevalence is not as great.

Incidentally, I see Redcloak is referenced in that list of straight interactions - he was mentioned somewhere in this thread as a potential asexual - I guess that seals it that he is not.



Are they?

If one in 200 people is asexual, and we have 40 characters in OotS whose sexuality has been identifed, then the correct representation of asexual characters is 40 divided by 200. That is there should be 0.2 asexual characters. 0.2 rounds down to 0. Even if asexual characters are underrepresented with their being zero, if there was one then they would be over-represented several times over.

An important distinction that may have been lost. I am not saying that there should be no homosexual or asexual (or anything else) characters unless the story calls for it. I am saying that homosexual and asexual characters should be represented roughly in accordance with their real-life prevalence unless the story calls for otherwise.

At the moment I think homosexual, straight and asexual character are represented roughly similarly to their prevalence in the real world. gender-queer people are probably over-represented, which I think is fine as well, partly because there is a good story reason for that.

Having said all that I wouldn't mind if there was an asexual character - to my mind either zero asexual characters or one asexual character still meets my preference of being roughly in accordance with their real life prevalence. I just don't think one is required - I'm neutral between whether there is one or none.

You may prefer that asexual characters were over-represented and that is fair enough. I prefer that their' prevalence is similar to that in real life.

First, in my mind over-representation is a non-issue, asexuals are so often under-represented that even with over-representation of the magnitude that you are describing, they would still be under-represented as a whole as they are almost never brought up. If you're going to use over-representation as an argument, there needs to be a reason why that's a bad thing.

Rounding is merely a shortcut used to simplify the math, but in this situation, we need to look at the actual number. 0.2 to 0 is an infinite decrease in representation which means asexuals are infinitely under-represented in the comic. The increase of representation to 1 would be large, but necessarily finite. So even if one agrees that over-representation is a bad thing, the underrepresentation is statisically more significant (infinitely so, in fact) than the over-representation.

This doesn't even mention that in a webcomic with as large a fanbase as OOTS, there are bound to be many asexuals in the audience, and those people would be made very happy to have representation (I don't have the source on hand, but there's significant evidence that representation makes under-represented groups extremely happy). The Giant has said over and over again that he cares about under-represented groups, and those groups will be happier because of this. In the end, that's all that matters.

[brian 333]

If we are tolerant we respect the decisions of tha author, even when we disagree.

If we seek diversity we are obliged to create it.

I grew up in the Civil Rights era, and many of my core beliefs come from that time. Inclusion for diversity's sake was one of the goals. The result was a bunch of white writers describing the Black Experience. It was less than iluminating. In fact, it achieved the exact opposite of the intended goal.

The solution is not to tell a writer how easy it is to fake understanding of a condition s/he's never experienced and cannot understand. That is a kind of oppression, and that's what we're all supposedly against. The solution is to create your own work which helps to shed light on the issues important to you. If you are not the creative sort then encourage those who are who do write the kind of material you like.

All too often, the line is drawn in all innocence. It was suggested that I could do a bit of research and write my character as liking the same sex. In other words, create a cardboard cutout character to demonstrate how inclusive I am.

Some writers do just this, (but I have never seen Rich do it.) I won't do it. It would be insulting to the very people I'm trying to include.

And non-inclusion does not equal exclusion. This is a false dichotomy created to make people who otherwise wouldn't notice feel excluded. You may not see someone like you in my campaign world, but the chances are real good that one or more of my players have played characters of that particular kind.

The thing is, the goal is normalization. Outside of less than 1% of a typical life, sex does not matter. Real people just live in the world as best they can. This means that differently gendered people will become less noticeable not more so, because for most people anonymity is normal.

[Liquor Box]

First, in my mind over-representation is a non-issue, asexuals are so often under-represented that even with over-representation of the magnitude that you are describing, they would still be under-represented as a whole as they are almost never brought up. If you're going to use over-representation as an argument, there needs to be a reason why that's a bad thing.

To my mind, a small degree of over-representation, or under-representation, is not a bad thing. That's why I said in my last post that having either no asexual characters or one asexual character would be fine. So I am not overly concerned with a mild variation from real-life prevalence (in fact some variation is necessary because we don't have a whole number).

But the reason why I think significant over-representation (or significant under-representation) is a bad thing is that it is contrary to verisimilitude, unless there is a story related reason for that over-representation or under-representation.

A story is best if the readers know the way the universe it is set in works, they know the rules (at least insofar as the main characters know them) - mechanical rules and the societal norms and conventions, basically the way things are in the world. It would be a mammoth task to explain all that for the universe in which the story is taking place, so the way it is accomplished is that we assume the world operates the same way as the real world (or perhaps the real world setting/timframe on which the story is based), unless the story tells us otherwise. The story would only tell us otherwise if that was a particular feature of the setting that made for a good story.

An example of why it is desirable for the reader to understand the setting. Let us imagine that the bi-sexual Hayley, instead of being with Elan, indicates that she finds a minor female character (whose sexual preference we do not yet know) attractive. It is useful for the reader to able to be able to guess how likely it is that the object of Hayley's admiration is herself a lesbian (or bi) and is therefore an option for Hayley. Is Hayley freakishly unusual (in the story) in that she is attracted to other women - or is it so commonplace as to be the norm? The answer is neither, our default assumption for OotS (even before meeting Bandana) is that a significant minority of women are lesbian, just like in the real world. That helps the reader understand Hayley's circumstance in being attracted to another woman.


Rounding is merely a shortcut used to simplify the math, but in this situation, we need to look at the actual number. 0.2 to 0 is an infinite decrease in representation which means asexuals are infinitely under-represented in the comic. The increase of representation to 1 would be large, but necessarily finite. So even if one agrees that over-representation is a bad thing, the underrepresentation is statisically more significant (infinitely so, in fact) than the over-representation.

What you say is true, but I don't think it is relevant. In any case when you round down to zero you are reducing by a factor of infinity, but it remains the accepted mathematical convention to round down numbers less than 0.5 to zero.That is because we are interested in the absolute over or under representation, not the proportion. BY your logic we would need a character to represent each of the people in the world with a unique characteristic because otherwise we are under-representing them by a factor of infinity.

Outside mathematical conventions, the reason why it is the absolute number that is relevant is that that is what we are trying to represent. If you met 40 random people (let's say adults) from your city today, how many of them might you expect to be asexual? The most probably number is zero. You may meet one, which although less likely, would not be surprising. If you met two that would be surprising but not unheard of. If you met more than two it would be a bit of an amazing coincidence. As such, on the assumption that about 40 OotS character have revealed sexualities, we might expect none to asexual, but it would not be overly surprising if one was.

That is of course, unless there is a story reason for having more. If the Giant wanted to tell a story about a group of asexual characters, then the characters would just happen to be asexual - if the story required the Order to visit an asexual support group for some reason, then they would be likely to meet several asexual characters. But I don't think this thread is about that, I think it is about random characters who are incidentally asexual.


This doesn't even mention that in a webcomic with as large a fanbase as OOTS, there are bound to be many asexuals in the audience, and those people would be made very happy to have representation (I don't have the source on hand, but there's significant evidence that representation makes under-represented groups extremely happy). The Giant has said over and over again that he cares about under-represented groups, and those groups will be happier because of this. In the end, that's all that matters.

Sure, and that is the argument for over-representation. And if the Giant chooses to go with over-representation at the expense of a little bit of verisimilitude that is his call. I guess it depends on the purpose of his comic - is it to write a good comic which will entertain or to send a social message, or to compromise between the two.

It may seem to be a very minor change to simply add an asexual character, and it would be. That is why I said I think having one would be fine (although having none is also fine). But if this particular webcomic was trying to cater to every nuance of human sexuality or gender variation, it would be quite a major break with verisimilitude. From the list I link below it appears that there are more than 40 variances in human sexuality and gender and if this webcomic were to represent most (not all) every single character would need to be LGBTQIA+ (mostly the +), which would drastically change the story. And that doesn't even account for matters other than sexuality and gender - should we also ensure every ethnicity is represented - not just blacks, whites and asians but even much smaller ethnic groups like Polynesians or Native Americans etc?

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/

So, while I accept that there may be positive social reasons to over-represent groups who make up less than 1% of the population if the author is inclined to go beyond telling a good story, there are drawbacks and you have to ensure you don't overdo it. In OotS we already have the genderqueer V (and that made Inkyrus as a second genderqueer person desirable for story reasons), and I don't think the inclusion of an asexual character would be a big deal either. But what I think the Giant should try an avoid is seeing himself as having some moral compunction in the interests of diversity to represent each of his readers sexuality and gender in some way - that would simply be a different story to the one that he is writing.

[Cizak]

You had said readers will always read unspecified characters as being hetronormative. I was only saying that sometimes readers (you being the example) will not.

Here's the thing: I'm not an example of that. I absolutely assume an unspecified character as cishet the first time I see them. I am hardwired to do so from living in a cisheteronormative society, as is everyone else. I try to actively fight it and better myself, but it would be a lie to say I'm not part of or haven't been affected by my society's beliefs and values.


Part of the problem is the belief, illustrated in this post, that failure to conform to your worldview is always based on intolerance.

Insofar as society itself is built on and supports views based on intolerance, yes, absolutely. That's not any one individual's fault and I am more than willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and believe they genuinly are not out to hurt anyone. But the absolute and total refusal to try to listen, learn, reconsider or be better, that's certainly the kind of active intolerance I have very little patience for.


You're free to hold your beliefs. You are not free to demand that I or any other writer conform to your views. Even, or especially, when you are right.

Oh, I absolutely am. As a reader and a consumer, I definitely hold all rights to demand that a work of fiction upholds my standards for what makes it worthwhile, or otherwise I will not engage myself with it. The author is then totally free to ignore me and consider my lack of readership an acceptable loss. Based then on why the author made that decision, the things they said and the type of worldview they exhibited, I will make a personal judgment of what I think of them as a person.


The solution is not to tell a writer how easy it is to fake understanding of a condition s/he's never experienced and cannot understand. That is a kind of oppression, and that's what we're all supposedly against. [...] It was suggested that I could do a bit of research and write my character as liking the same sex. In other words, create a cardboard cutout character to demonstrate how inclusive I am.

Haha. Man, I truly do not know how you read "do research" as "create a card-board stereotype". That is all on you, not me. I did not tell you to fake an exprience you've never had. I told you to do research, which includes talking and listening to the stories of the group of people you aim to represent, and in the end use that knowledge and ultimately your ability to "write people as people" to create a respectful image of a LGBTQIA+ person. If you do not know all the intricate, personal details that comes with an LGBTQIA+ identity, then you do not need to specify those details. Your refusal to even attempt this and the way you openly admit that "I would create a stereotype if you asked me to portray an LGBTQIA+ person" is way more insulting to me than a less-than succesful but honest attempt at being better.


The thing is, the goal is normalization. Outside of less than 1% of a typical life, sex does not matter. Real people just live in the world as best they can.

I'm sure LGBTQIA+ people would be thrilled if that was the case.


This means that differently gendered people will become less noticeable not more so, because for most people anonymity is normal.

And anonymity is the assumption of the cisheteronormative default.

[Jasdoif]

Sure, and that is the argument for over-representation. And if the Giant chooses to go with over-representation at the expense of a little bit of verisimilitude that is his call. I guess it depends on the purpose of his comic - is it to write a good comic which will entertain or to send a social message, or to compromise between the two.The Giant has, in fact, expressed his views on verisimilitude:



If you create a society that differs enough from mine that I cannot readily identify with it, then I ask you to explain it to me. You don't need to spend half the novel doing so: I'm not as dense as you may think. However, so far the only reason given is, "Because D&D says so." Well and good. For the sake of verisimilitude, I would ask you to explain in a bit more depth than a simple resort to authority.Allow me to explain it in sufficient depth:

It's a comic strip.

No other explanation is necessary, because unless you have some weird mental disorder that prevents you from understanding the concept of fiction, you already know the "explanation" for any aspect of any story that differs from reality: Because the author wrote it that way. Because you are a real person in the real world reading a made-up story in a made-up world, and the real person who made up the made-up story decided to make it up that way for a variety of real world reasons.

Do you need an explanation for why there are dragons when the real world doesn't have dragons? Because it's a story. Do you need an explanation for why those dragons can fly when logically a creature of that size shouldn't be able to do so? Because it's a story. Do you need an explanation for why a human wiggling their fingers and saying certain words causes lightning to shoot out of them and fry that dragon to a crisp? Because it's a story. Do you need a reason for why that finger-wiggling human is a gay woman and not a straight man? No, you don't, because it's the least absurd thing in this paragraph and you accept all of the others without question. But if you do, then it's because it's a story.

Grant Morrison once said in an interview with Rolling Stone:

"Kids understand that real crabs don't sing like the ones in The Little Mermaid. But you give an adult fiction, and the adult starts asking really ****ing dumb questions like 'How does Superman fly? How do those eyebeams work? Who pumps the Batmobile's tires?' It's a ****ing made-up story, you idiot! Nobody pumps the tires!"

"Verisimilitude" is a highly overrated concept. If it is not a requirement for the many things that don't exist in the real world and could never exist (dragons, wizards, zombies, time travel), then it certainly has no power to prevent things that do exist in the real world from making an appearance.

What's even worse is this idea of statistical verisimilitude that I keep seeing—where the numerical percentage of characters with certain traits must match the "likely" percentages in the real world, based on whatever filter the proponent chooses to determine what is likely. This argument is utter unadulterated garbage. It's garbage because stories are about protagonists and protagonists are usually unusual. There are only like 4 Force-wielders in a galaxy of trillions at the start of Star Wars, yet by the end of second movie they've all appeared as part of the narrative. Is anyone complaining that Star Wars breaks verisimilitude because such a small minority group is so over-represented? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group. Likewise, if a story has a percentage of LGBTQ+ characters that is higher than the statistical occurrence of LGBTQ+ people in the real world, does that break verisimilitude? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group.

The inherent garbageness of the statistical verisimilitude argument cuts both ways, incidentally. It's not really valid to say, "Half of all the people in the real world are women, therefore half of the characters in your story must be women or it breaks verisimilitude." Not true; it might happen to be a story about people who are male—say, a love story between two gay men. A much, much better argument is, "Half of all the people in the real world are women, and those women buy comic books, too, so you better get your thumb out of your ass and draw some women."

An all-male (or predominantly male) story might be a valid artistic choice but doing so opens one up to an assortment of social and economic pressures in the real world. The artist then needs to decide how much he or she cares about those reactions and what it says about them and their work. It's totally valid to then say, "Screw it, my story doesn't have any women in it, deal with it." However, if one does that, one needs to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision, which may include low sales, poor critical response, being labeled a sexist (or worse), etc. If one believes in one's artistic vision enough to weather that storm, then hey, have at it.

Me? Not only do I not want to sail into that particular tempest, I wasn't even aware I was on that course until it was pointed out to me. And it's tough to turn a ship as big as OOTS around, especially at this late date in the narrative's journey where there are so few characters left to enter the story, but I'm still trying. It would have been totally valid, artistically, for me to plant my flag and say, "No, OOTS needs to be predominantly male for Reasons," and then it would have been equally valid for people to say, "OK, well, that's not really my cup of tea so I'll go throw my money at some other more diverse comic strip." I have no reason to die on that particular hill, however, as I happen to agree with the general notions of representation that have been raised and am somewhat embarrassed that I didn't notice the problems involved sooner.

When you say (earlier in your post) that you have expectations about gender, what you're really saying is, "I expect a story to cater to my existing worldview," or, to put it another way, you're saying that you want it to be your cup of tea. So if I have some readers whose cup of tea is more diversity and some readers whose cup of tea is less diversity, then how do I decide which type of tea to brew? Easy. I brew my cup of tea and let the chips fall where they may, and that happens to be a narrative with plenty of diversity. If I got the tea recipe wrong before, I guess I'll just have to put a new pot on now.

OK, let's try this again with my view on verisimilitude. I'm not responding to any specific argument, just clarifying my position:

Verisimilitude is not without any value whatsoever; it is simply not the sole overriding concern of writing that some readers would like it to be. It is one tool in a very full toolbox of writing techniques that can be pulled out when it's useful and put away when it isn't. The main purpose of verisimilitude is to allow the author to focus the reader's attention on the things he or she wants them to pay attention to. Story elements with a high degree of verisimilitude tend to fade into the background while those without it stand out.

The error is in thinking that "standing out" is a negative thing that must be avoided at all costs; sometimes, the very point of an element's inclusion is to stand out. People include dragons and wizards in stories precisely because they stand out and make the story into something it otherwise wouldn't be—fantasy instead of historical fiction. Breaking verisimilitude can also be used to deliberately create suspense or provide foreshadowing, causing the reader to notice an odd detail that will later become crucial to the plot.

If an author writes a medieval fantasy story with more women than men, or with a higher number of LGBTQ+ people, or a black man in the lead, then because of the current homogenous nature of the existing body of fantasy literature, those choices will stand out. However, if standing out is the point—if these choices are being made partly because the author wishes to actively challenge the existing literary landscape—then providing no explanation in fact furthers that purpose. It forces the issue into the reader's mind and then, by refusing to address it at any point, normalizes it. It makes a statement that this is not something that needs justification, and hopefully by the end of the work, any reader who initially balked will no longer think anything of it. Coming up with an explanation for such demographics in fact strengthens the argument of those people who feel intolerance in the real world: "Oh, he's saying that in their world, women evolved differently, and that's why they're equal. But in the real world, we all know they're not, right? Right."

So I suppose if an author really wants to pander to everyone, they can both include a lot of women and then rationalize their equality away as being some mysterious quality of this wacky fantasy world, but that's essentially saying women aren't equal with a wink and a nod. Not to mention wasting a perfectly good opportunity to possibly effect real change in the minds of that author's readership.

And make no mistake, the real couter-argument to the idea that any wavering from historical demographic verisimilitude needs to be explained or it impugns the quality of the story is Roy. Have I ever provided any reasoning or tortured logic on why a medieval fantasy world has a family of black characters living in and adventuring in a decidedly European-flavored region of the world? Have I resorted to some clumsy kludge about how he comes from another region than everyone else? No, he's just there, from strip #1. His existence does not need to be justified, and it would be catering to the worst worldviews for me to rationalize his presence in the text of the story. Sometimes, heroes are black. Sometimes, they're women. Sometimes, they're gay. Sometimes, they're gay black women. Who captain airships. As an author, stooping to provide an explanation for any of those things in the story is to tacitly acknowledge the belief that they are Other that have no business being in the story without a good reason. And **** that.

Verisimilitude has its place, but it is wholly subordinate to authorial intent. The point of writing stories is for the author to communicate his or her views out to the world, both through what is said and what is left unsaid. If breaking verisimilitude helps that happen, then smash away.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm sure LGBTQIA+ people would be thrilled if that was the case.
I'm sure that life is often difficult for those on the LGBT spectrum, but there are literally thousands of distinct biological conditions that impact an individual's physique or lifestyle in ways that make their lives markedly more difficult, either intrinsically or due to social stigma or both. If they were all represented in every work of fiction, there'd be no room for a regular cast. You have to play the numbers game at some point.

In the case of asexuals, the only way they'd show up definitively is by declining to engage in an activity that the vast majority of the cast are not involved in the vast majority of the time. I think if O-Chul qualifies, that might be a reasonable quota as far as close-up characters are concerned. Though, to be fair, I don't think the estimated prevalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Prevalence) of asexuals is quite as low as Liquor Box suggests.

.

[The Extinguisher]

The Giant has, in fact, expressed his views on verisimilitude:




I hadnt seen that second quote its very good.

I dont have the energy to reply to some of the garbage dump posts in this thread but really i think that those two quotes do a pretty good job of it


I'm sure that life is often difficult for those on the LGBT spectrum, but there are literally thousands of distinct biological conditions that impact an individual's physique or lifestyle in ways that make their lives markedly more difficult, either intrinsically or due to social stigma or both. If they were all represented in every work of fiction, there'd be no room for a regular cast. You have to play the numbers game at some point.

In the case of asexuals, the only way they'd show up definitively is by declining to engage in an activity that the vast majority of the cast are not involved in the vast majority of the time. I think if O-Chul qualifies, that might be a reasonable quota as far as close-up characters are concerned. Though, to be fair, I don't think the estimated prevalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Prevalence) of asexuals is quite as low as Liquor Box suggests.

.

okay actually one garbage dump post

The fact that you seem to contrast queer characters, as well as all other characters who are different than the default from "a regular cast' is super telling of your position on this but regardless, yes. We should absolutely have more representation of everyone. We could take the next few years off, stop including straight white able bodied cis men from every single story in any sort of role, central or otherwise, and it still wouldn't come anywhere close to evening out and being representational of the general population.

(also you can just have a character say they're asexual its really easy to do that)

[Liquor Box]

The Giant has, in fact, expressed his views on verisimilitude:




Thanks Jasdoif, I had read some of that before, and I think it is consistent with my comment that it is about the Giant's purpose. In my view the Giant sums it up at the end:


Verisimilitude has its place, but it is wholly subordinate to authorial intent. The point of writing stories is for the author to communicate his or her views out to the world, both through what is said and what is left unsaid. If breaking verisimilitude helps that happen, then smash away.

I understand the crux of what he is saying to be that verisimilitude is important but it is less important than some other factors, potentially including the author's desire to over-represent certain groups for social reasons.

The thing is that, to my mind, so far the Giant has not broken verisimilitude in his representation of people from uncommon genders or sexualities. Genderqueer people are the only group that appears to me to be clearly over-represented (by V and Inkyrus), but a random group of characters (and Inkyrus is no not random, he or she is there because V is) is never going to exactly reflect societies makeup. Maybe I am wrong about this though, maybe he has done it through good writing, such that I did not even notice.

If the Giant did break versimilitude it may detract from the comic - and the Giant may accept that outcome because he thinks other things are more important, which is his perogative as creator. How much it would detract from the comic, and whether it would put many people off reading may depend on the extent to which he does it - again his decision to make this trade-off as the creator.

Edit:
Had another look, and this passage seems particularly relevant:

What's even worse is this idea of statistical verisimilitude that I keep seeing—where the numerical percentage of characters with certain traits must match the "likely" percentages in the real world, based on whatever filter the proponent chooses to determine what is likely. This argument is utter unadulterated garbage. It's garbage because stories are about protagonists and protagonists are usually unusual. There are only like 4 Force-wielders in a galaxy of trillions at the start of Star Wars, yet by the end of second movie they've all appeared as part of the narrative. Is anyone complaining that Star Wars breaks verisimilitude because such a small minority group is so over-represented? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group. Likewise, if a story has a percentage of LGBTQ+ characters that is higher than the statistical occurrence of LGBTQ+ people in the real world, does that break verisimilitude? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group.
So the analogy is with Star Wars, and force users how force users are over-represented amongst protagonists. But the thing is, that is required for the story - it is desirable for the story for the main characters to be those who stand out (through their use of the force). As the giant puts it in his finals sentence, the story just happens to be about those few characters who are force users (and has a coherent explanation for how they are connected to one another).
Likewise, if OotS just happened to about a group of protagonists who were all asexual (or had some other such characteristic) that would be fine - it would not break verisimilitude because it would be about those characters and they would be the story. Of course it would be a different story to the present one.

But I think the difference is that the Giant is talking about protagonists and it being ok to write a story about protagonists of a particular type (see my emphasis). This thread is about whether the random population of the OotSverse that the characters happen to meet include asexuals. If there was none or one, I don't think it would be incongruous, but if there were many, or if every sexual minority were represented then I think it would be.

[Cizak]

I'm sure that life is often difficult for those on the LGBT spectrum, but there are literally thousands of distinct biological conditions that impact an individual's physique or lifestyle in ways that make their lives markedly more difficult, either intrinsically or due to social stigma or both. If they were all represented in every work of fiction, there'd be no room for a regular cast. You have to play the numbers game at some point.

A cast of characters that do not conform to the normativity of society cannot be considered "regular". Yeah, that about sums it up, doesn't it?

Also, at no point have I ever heard anyone ever demand that every possible variation of human experiences appear in every work. I have heard the call for more variation than pop culture media currently has, and proposals and teachings about how that can be achieved.

[Fyraltari]

If they were all represented in every work of fiction, there'd be no room for a regular cast. You have to play the numbers game at some point.
Please tell me tou meant "regular cast" as in "main characters".[/QUOTE]


okay actually one garbage dump post.
You make some good points but if you call people's post garbage you will never convince them of the validity of your opinions, and you will have a much harder time convincing anyone else. Point the fallacies, the wrong premises or the moral failings but do it respectfully. I mean I agree more with you than with Lacuna Caster but reading that makes me want to side with them by reflex.


As for the dangers of overrepresentation, cis-het people are a minority in the cast of El Goonish Shive (http://www.egscomics.com/newreaders.php) but it is still (in my male cisgender heterosexual opinion) a very good comic.

[Liquor Box]

Also, at no point have I ever heard anyone ever demand that every possible variation of human experiences appear in every work. I have heard the call for more variation than pop culture media currently has, and proposals and teachings about how that can be achieved.
This is a good point - there is a different thing between saying that asexual people should be represented in OotS, and that they should be represented in media generally. Asexual people probably are under-represented in media generally. It is not reasonable to expect OotS to cater to all the variations, but it might be reasonable to expect them to be in media somewhere.

[brian 333]

The perfectly reasonable request that an author conform to a particular standard is censorship, no matter how right your POV may be. The author has absolute duty to obey his muse, not the 'polite request' which, when denied, is used to demonstrate how non-inclusive, intolerant, and morally suspect the author is.

Don't believe me? What do you think of me?

I applaud writers who can write about aspects of the human condition I do not comprehend. I couldn't describe how it feels to be you any more than I can describe how it feels to give birth. A mother would know I was faking it no matter how much research I do. But a writer who can open that window so I can peek in earns my respect.

And that's the whole issue. You can write about your story far better than I could. Instead of asking me to alter my work, put yours out there. Normalization through success works where representation via some 'count the red cars, I'll count the blue ones scheme always fail.

How will you know you've won? When nobody cares. That's normal.

[Lacuna Caster]

A cast of characters that do not conform to the normativity of society cannot be considered "regular". Yeah, that about sums it up, doesn't it?
Perhaps it would help if you linked to some of these 'proposals and teachings' on how to broaden representation in pop media, and maybe how that relates to OOTS specifically? I'm sorry if this came up before, but I'm diving in a little late.

The problem as I see it is that Pop media is often, in a number of ways, lazy and stupid and unfair. It's lazy and stupid and unfair that a tiny number of A-list actors take home millions while undiscovered hopefuls that are probably 90% as talented and attractive languish in bit roles, because those A-list names have a proven statistical impact on whether a movie makes money or not. It's lazy and stupid and unfair that entire film and video-game genres emerge as fads, linger for years, and die for reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCkl1eGmxTM) unrelated to the subject matter, but this is how writers justify their pitch to risk-averse investors. It's lazy and stupid and unfair that essentially two writers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII&t=7m0s) control the output of the music industry. And it's lazy and stupid and unfair that the the transformers franchise makes as much money as it does. If you have some way of banishing lazy stupid unfair thinking from popular media, I am all ears. But I think the underrepresentation of minorities is a very minor facet of a much larger and harder-to-fix economic problem.

[Lacuna Caster]

Please tell me you meant "regular cast" as in "main characters".

The fact that you seem to contrast queer characters, as well as all other characters who are different than the default from "a regular cast' is super telling of your position on this but regardless...
I find it super-telling of your position that you choose to fixate on an otherwise standard use of a well-defined (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/regular) word. That's not a particular endorsement of the cisheteronormative default- I don't consider myself a particularly 'regular' individual- but I dislike word games as a substitute for concrete arguments.

[Cizak]

The perfectly reasonable request that an author conform to a particular standard is censorship, no matter how right your POV may be.

Really? I didn't know that by expecting a certain quality of the work I consume and choosing which works I engage in while the author chooses whether or not to consider my arguments and what value they put in that loss of readership, I was actually being a government that stopped the work from physically existing by enforcing laws that stopped it from being brought to the public!


The author has absolute duty to obey his muse, not the 'polite request' which, when denied, is used to demonstrate how non-inclusive, intolerant, and morally suspect the author is.

Don't believe me? What do you think of me?

Of you? Of the way you try to shield yourself from criticism by villainizing your critics as Evils who are out to destroy your and probably all art? Of the way you freely admit you have no intention of even trying to be better because you wouldn't be good at it? The way you pretend the market for fiction is some kind of utopia where everyone has exactly the same chance to shine by ignoring the societal context that surrounds it? Of the way you twist the wordings of requests to make out the requester as someone who is forcing you to be offensive? Of the way you try to excuse your own lack of diversity with "I'm not stopping other people from being diverse"? Of the way you seriously drop a "sex doesn't matter" in a discussion about LGBTQIA+ experiences? Of the way you deny personal responsibility by shifting the blame to your "muse" as if art isn't created by people in specific societal contexts?

Don't worry. What I think of you depends on way more than your decline of polite requests. I quote myself:

Based then on why the author made that decision, the things they said and the type of worldview they exhibited, I will make a personal judgment of what I think of them as a person.
-


And that's the whole issue. You can write about your story far better than I could. Instead of asking me to alter my work, put yours out there.

I'm very much capable of doing both. But more importantly, the ones who can't or won't write their own work still have every right to critisise others'. And as mentioned above you are, either willfully or by ignorance, ignoring the societal context in which certain people and types of stories have vastly different chances of being brought to the general public's eye and the type of resistance they will face if they do make it there.


How will you know you've won? When nobody cares. That's normal.

And the stage where nobody cares in a non-discriminatory way cannot be achieved without an active fight to make it so today. Again, society, context, ignoring it, etc.

[Liquor Box]

The perfectly reasonable request that an author conform to a particular standard is censorship, no matter how right your POV may be. The author has absolute duty to obey his muse, not the 'polite request' which, when denied, is used to demonstrate how non-inclusive, intolerant, and morally suspect the author is.


I have to agree with Cizak on this one (except his reference to 'a certain quality' - I think this discussion is about preference not quality). A person saying "I would like to see X and I will only read something with X in it" is very different to censorship. You are free to obey your own muse and write whatever you want, but any reader is entitled to choose not to read it if it doesn't meet their tastes. I don't think it makes your work non-inclusive if you prefer not to include the characters Cizak would like to see, but he should absolutely abide by his own preferences and prefer work that does have the characters he likes.

[Vinyadan]

The Bandana-gay-clothes thing was a mix of two things, I believe. The Giant always call out changes in clothing. ALWAYS. Ok, I didn't check; but we often have a little explanation or callout, sometimes with a few panels dedicated to it. At the same time, the Giant had decided to make it clear that Bandana was gay. So the two things were put together. The result was that something that I already found intrusive (giving much room to new clothes that I can see, and for which a small Elan joke is probably enough, because they are just clothes, opposed to Elan's transformation into a d. swordsman) was accompanied by a bit of "tell, don't show".

[Hardcore]

I have to agree with Cizak on this one (except his reference to 'a certain quality' - I think this discussion is about preference not quality). A person saying "I would like to see X and I will only read something with X in it" is very different to censorship. You are free to obey your own muse and write whatever you want, but any reader is entitled to choose not to read it if it doesn't meet their tastes. I don't think it makes your work non-inclusive if you prefer not to include the characters Cizak would like to see, but he should absolutely abide by his own preferences and prefer work that does have the characters he likes.

Depends on if the person say that for himself, or to the creator of the work.
If the first then no harm is done, but the later can be a slippery slope towards harrassment.

[RabidEel]

As an aro ace myself, I am happy to see people like me at least some of the time. But I would find it very weird if every story had an explicitly ace character, because there's just not that many of us. I'm not asking for exact statistical accuracy- as pointed out upthread, that would basically mean no ace characters- but I'm not going to get upset because my very rare demographic isn't everywhere.

Though whenever I read a story with mystical virgins who are so ~torn~ between their powers and their desires (and they always end up going for the love interest in the end), I find myself thinking about how much simpler life would be if they picked an asexual initiate.

[3WhiteFox3]

Depends on if the person say that for himself, or to the creator of the work.
If the first then no harm is done, but the later can be a slippery slope towards harrassment.

Slippery slope fallacy (I mean, you literally call it a slippery slope) just because requests can be used to harass doesn't mean that making requests is bad because it can be abused. Almost any form of reasonable communication can be harassing if done in harmful ways.

Harassment is also really hard to define, for some people any form of criticism is a type of harassment. So without a good working definition of what crosses the line from request to harassment, it's kind of hard to discuss. I have no idea of what you, personally, consider harassment.

[Liquor Box]

Depends on if the person say that for himself, or to the creator of the work.
If the first then no harm is done, but the later can be a slippery slope towards harrassment.

I'm not sure I follow you here. I was just saying that it is fine for a person to choose not to read work they don't like, including if they don't like it because it doesn't include the characters they prefer.

Are you saying its ok for the potential reader to not read the work, but not ok for them to inform the writer of that decision? If so, I still don't see it as close to being censorship, and only harassment if done repetively or overly forcefully.

[zimmerwald1915]

As an aro ace myself, I am happy to see people like me at least some of the time. But I would find it very weird if every story had an explicitly ace character, because there's just not that many of us. I'm not asking for exact statistical accuracy- as pointed out upthread, that would basically mean no ace characters- but I'm not going to get upset because my very rare demographic isn't everywhere.
Give it a few million years. I'm pretty sure incidence of non-hetero orientations, including but not limited to asexuality, increases as the population approaches carrying capacity (also, underreporting is a thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if asexuality wasn't as rare as it's made out to be even today, given that sexuality is so heavily marketed as part of the universal human experience).

[Hardcore]

I'm not sure I follow you here. I was just saying that it is fine for a person to choose not to read work they don't like, including if they don't like it because it doesn't include the characters they prefer.

Are you saying its ok for the potential reader to not read the work, but not ok for them to inform the writer of that decision? If so, I still don't see it as close to being censorship, and only harassment if done repetively or overly forcefully.

Why should they tell the author if not to influence him?

[Liquor Box]

Why should they tell the author if not to influence him?

Of course, I am sure that that is the primary reason why they tell the author.

If I were a writer I would prefer to know what my readers and potential reader do or do not like about my work. Of course there is the problem that some readers (or groups of readers) are way more vocal than others - so any impressions the writer get through listening to such feedback may be distorted, so he or she is probably best to disregard it.

But influencing someone through telling them you views is not harassment. I mean this thread could be seen as that (although I think it unlikely that the Giant will read it, let alone be influenced by it) - lots of different people stating their preferences regarding the inclusion of asexual characters - and the good thing about this thread is that both sides of the argument are represented.

Your argument seems to be that no person can ever state a critical opinion about a literary work in circumstances where the writer could find out about it. Surely that cannot be right? Am I misunderstanding?

[SlashDash]

But influencing someone through telling them you views is not harassment.
Naturally. It's how you tell them that may or may not be harassment.


"Dear author, please do X" as a single request is not harassment.

"Dear #$%$# author, how dare you $$@#$@#$ you better do @#$@#$ or I swear I'l @#$@#$"
50 times per day, every day is harrassment.

[Dellis]

Of course, I am sure that that is the primary reason why they tell the author.

If I were a writer I would prefer to know what my readers and potential reader do or do not like about my work. Of course there is the problem that some readers (or groups of readers) are way more vocal than others - so any impressions the writer get through listening to such feedback may be distorted, so he or she is probably best to disregard it.

But influencing someone through telling them you views is not harassment. I mean this thread could be seen as that (although I think it unlikely that the Giant will read it, let alone be influenced by it) - lots of different people stating their preferences regarding the inclusion of asexual characters - and the good thing about this thread is that both sides of the argument are represented.

Your argument seems to be that no person can ever state a critical opinion about a literary work in circumstances where the writer could find out about it. Surely that cannot be right? Am I misunderstanding?

I, for one, think that is exactly right.

Authors work best when LEFT ALONE. Sure, you can tell an author you'd like this and that and that other thing in their work, and they might agree, for various reasons (actually agreeing with you, being paid by you, being scared of the public fallout you might bring to bear on them).

Unfortunately, every single time an author during his thought process about his story thinks "ah, right, I needed to make this social issue clear, let's insert this character OR make this character be this", it shows.

Stories have a purpose. I believe the best fantasy stories let us rise over the bleakness of our every day life, in a whirlwind of color and emotion that we might never experience in a day in the office. Rich, as I recall, thinks "fantasy is useless, except for what it can tell us about the real world. Everything else is petty escapism."

I disagree with him, but irregardless: we infer stories have purposes. Some are written to rapture the reader. Some to make him reflect upon real world issues. I am sure there are other possible purposes.

This particular two purposes are somewhat opposed. Every time one notices a real world issue being discussed through the story's lenses, he's torn out of the fantasy world he lived in, for a brief moment in his bleak office hours. Every time one reads about something with little relation to real world issues, he's not learning about real world issues.

This brings us to the crux of the issue - this particular story, OOTS, does not seem to be primarily written to be a story of the second type. It is, primarily, a tale about a group of people going around the world to save it, and everybody in it, from an evil lich. There are real world issues references, in it, to be sure, but most have been inserted after the author, by his own admission, after someone told him he hadn't thought about them. It is, or was, a story of the first type. No matter what the author says: we have eyes, and we read. Authors are decidedly not the best authorities on their writing, more on that in closure.

Before someone told Rich "Hey, represent this or that one!", by his own admission, this was just a tale. Maybe it made some points - that I missed - but they were originally thought about by the author, and blend seamlessly in.

For the new elements, Rich had to stop, think, and say: I want to insert this thing in the story I had thought. What do I do?

And it shows. They stand out, like punches in an eye, you can name them one by one.

I can even separate elements which were the author's own idea and elements which he inserted on it after the request by how they blend.

Vaarsuvius is, more or less, no gender specific. Yet this characteristic blends perfectly with the story. It was even the source of some of the best jokes in the comic.

Ice Giant speaking about misoginy. In the middle of a scene which is about five people escaping from murderous god-servants. Made me notice the author wanted to make the point (me, and several others, check the threads).

Roy being a PoC. Blends seamlessly. So seamlessly no one even MADE references to it in the forum, at least to my knowledge.


The author was told to insert second type story elements in his story, and he did.

This makes for a worse story, for its primary purpose.

They also stand out, since they weren't the author's own ideas (or were, but caused by reader prompt).

This makes it a worse story, for the second purpose, because those kind of stories work best when they seamlessly shine a lens one real world issues, but do not reference them directly and blend them in a story. You know you're reading about the real world - but not directly.



I know this is a wall of text, please bear with me. I feel strongly about this.

Please leave authors ALONE. If you do not like that they do not reference some real world issues, like representation, cease reading that particular book or comic. If you feel strongly about those issues, write one yourself, or find someone who will write an entirely new story on those issues.

Authors love feedback.

They shouldn't get it, not about the themes the story should address, or lack of them. You can give them feedback about art, writing style, or such.

But please, leave the rest of the feedback for when the story is finished.

You are not creating a better story, you are not helping the author, you are crippling him or her.

This stands true even if the author denies this, vehemently, screams or writes an especially sarcastic post about it. Authors are not the ultimate authority on their writings, or their thought processes. No one is, ultimately, an authority on himself, if only because we lie to ourselves so often it is astounding.

[Darth Paul]

...

Unfortunately, every single time an author during his thought process about his story thinks "ah, right, I needed to make this social issue clear, let's insert this character OR make this character be this", it shows.

Stories have a purpose. I believe the best fantasy stories let us rise over the bleakness of our every day life, in a whirlwind of color and emotion that we might never experience in a day in the office. Rich, as I recall, thinks "fantasy is useless, except for what it can tell us about the real world. Everything else is petty escapism."

...

Ice Giant speaking about misoginy. In the middle of a scene which is about five people escaping from murderous god-servants. Made me notice the author wanted to make the point (me, and several others, check the threads).

Roy being a PoC. Blends seamlessly. So seamlessly no one even MADE references to it in the forum, at least to my knowledge.
...

The author was told to insert second type story elements in his story, and he did.

...

This stands true even if the author denies this, vehemently, screams or writes an especially sarcastic post about it. Authors are not the ultimate authority on their writings, or their thought processes. No one is, ultimately, an authority on himself, if only because we lie to ourselves so often it is astounding.

If the author isn't the ultimate authority on what he's thinking, then who is? Sure, everyone has some element of self-deception, but nobody on the outside can read our minds, especially not based on reading a piece of fiction and then interpreting our thoughts from that.

I agree with you that fantasy can just be fantasy, and OOTS can be read without looking for any meaning or message beyond what it has in the text- an adventure story. It's not mandatory to read it for real-world allegory and I don't. It IS possible to take moral meanings from the actions of the characters, though. Things like being good rather than evil, caring about people, and the idea that it's the continuing struggle that matters. Trying to be better than we are. That's one of my particular favorites.

I'm not exactly sure what point about misogyny the frost giant was making, but it didn't jump out and hit ME over the head... it seemed like a workplace inequality joke to me, which doesn't automatically translate to "misogyny", and which, in any case, Burlew could easily have put there himself, without anyone urging him to. The comics have been trending toward greater awareness on gender issues for a few years, not that I ever thought it was an issue to begin with... considering that female characters and male characters are both equally awesome combatants and Haley is one of the three smartest heroes (and the one with the most street smarts by far).

I had another point, but it has escaped my mind for the moment.

[Dellis]

First and foremost, thank you for your calm and kind tone, even as you discuss some of my points (though you seem to agree with the general conclusions, I hope I got it right), a rarity these days. I cannot stress enough how much I appreciate this.

Onto the matter at hand!


If the author isn't the ultimate authority on what he's thinking, then who is? Sure, everyone has some element of self-deception, but nobody on the outside can read our minds, especially not based on reading a piece of fiction and then interpreting our thoughts from THAT.

My point is, nobody is. No one is the ultimate authority. This was meant to prevent any "word of god" objections. Rich has a history of chiming in on perfectly good discussions, and people do take his word for granted. Unfortunately, he can be mistaken too, even about himself, and he can lie, since humans are prideful creatures and hate to be wrong.



I agree with you that fantasy can just be fantasy, and OOTS can be read without looking for any meaning or message beyond what it has in the text- an adventure story. It's not mandatory to read it for real-world allegory and I don't. It IS possible to take moral meanings from the actions of the characters, though. Things like being good rather than evil, caring about people, and the idea that it's the continuing struggle that matters. Trying to be better than we are. That's one of my particular favorites.

That is one of my favorites too. It's why I struggle so much when my players ask me to play evil campaigns. As for the matter at hand (apologies for the digression), unfortunately, noticing real world connections, when not blended seamlessly, is something that happens to me on autopilot. I had not considered this might not happen as much for others, though as one can infer from the threads about the ice giant, I am far from the minority.


I'm not exactly sure what point about misogyny the frost giant was making, but it didn't jump out and hit ME over the head... it seemed like a workplace inequality joke to me, which doesn't automatically translate to "misogyny", and which, in any case, Burlew could easily have put there himself, without anyone urging him to. The comics have been trending toward greater awareness on gender issues for a few years, not that I ever thought it was an issue to begin with... considering that female characters and male characters are both equally awesome combatants and Haley is one of the three smartest heroes (and the one with the most street smarts by far).

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the giant (the ice one xD), does refer to the workplace inequality taking root in her being female. Nevertheless, it does seem you noticed a point was being made, from what you say, even if you thought (or think!) it was about workplace inequality in and of itself.

As for Haley, I actually agree with everything you've said! She's cool, badass, and in no way stereotyped. No issue at all there, not one to speak of.That's why I didn't like when the giant, again, was told to tone down some semi-quasi-offensive gendered insults (to quote my love, Dr. Cox, from Scrubs. No jokes about his name and my love, please xD) (those requests are also the reason I do not believe the ice giant joke was completely autonomous, too). In a story clearly not misoginistic in nature, and which actually portrayed women as badass - it was completely unnecessary. Let him work! (impersonal imperative, not speaking to you in particular). If the end result is something you'd rather not read past a certain page, if as a whole the jokes you find tasteless overweigh the fun parts in the story, cease reading. But please, leave the author free. With a capital F, which, for some reason, my phone won't type.

Hugs and kisses. I'll be back to check this thread as soon as I have a moment.

[hroþila]

You seem to assume the Giant is steering away from things like that "internalized misogyny" characterization of Haley because someone told him to, rather than because, you know, he believes it's bad*.

*It's perfectly fine to portray misogyny, but it is bad to portray it as unproblematic, expected, automatically funny by itself, and generally not a negative character trait.

[Dellis]

You seem to assume the Giant is steering away from things like that "internalized misogyny" characterization of Haley because someone told him to, rather than because, you know, he believes it's bad*.

*It's perfectly fine to portray misogyny, but it is bad to portray it as unproblematic, expected, automatically funny by itself, and generally not a negative character trait.

He does. He does believe it is bad, at least if we take his word for it.

He also stated that he hadn't thought about the implications of some of his jokes until someone made him notice them, and thus decided to make efforts not to include them, which was my point.

If his statement is correct, wether he does believe or not in the intent of the modification is irrelevant. The modification found cause in the reader's comments, which prompted change in the story.

My point is, in essence, a matter of pure causality. If we imagine removing the act of the readers - the modifications to Haley's characterization do not happen. Of course, we must not take the giant's word in this mental experiment: one can infer the fact that they wouldn't have happened from his word, BUT corroborating it with the fact that until the readers acted, Haley's characterization remained the same. Thus, there is causality.

I stated in the other post why I think it is not desirable that readers intervene on this matters.

Edited to avoid too much an icy tone. Apologies, this, as I stated, is something I feel strongly about.

[martianmister]

You seem to assume the Giant is steering away from things like that "internalized misogyny" characterization of Haley because someone told him to, rather than because, you know, he believes it's bad*.

In a way, both are true.

[The Extinguisher]

He does. He does believe it is bad, at least if we take his word for it.

He also stated that he hadn't thought about the implications of some of his jokes until someone made him notice them, and thus decided to make efforts not to include them, which was my point.

If his statement is correct, wether he does believe or not in the intent of the modification is irrelevant. The modification found cause in the reader's comments, which prompted change in the story.

My point is, in essence, a matter of pure causality. If we imagine removing the act of the readers - the modifications to Haley's characterization do not happen. Of course, we must not take the giant's word in this mental experiment: one can infer the fact that they wouldn't have happened from his word, BUT corroborating it with the fact that until the readers acted, Haley's characterization remained the same. Thus, there is causality.

I stated in the other post why I think it is not desirable that readers intervene on this matters.

Edited to avoid too much an icy tone. Apologies, this, as I stated, is something I feel strongly about.

Do you really not think anyone should have told him about it, so it would continue until he spontaneously decided it shouldn't? How do you suppose anyone unlearns the subconscious behaviors we are conditioned into not thinking about without someone saying "hey this hurt me can you not do it?"

[Kish]

Do you really not think anyone should have told him about it, so it would continue until he spontaneously decided it shouldn't? How do you suppose anyone unlearns the subconscious behaviors we are conditioned into not thinking about without someone saying "hey this hurt me can you not do it?"
If I'm reading them correctly, they're rejecting the idea that there's anything positive about unlearning those subconscious behaviors at base, and also asserting an inherent value to a story created without any concern for audience reactions that trumps any hypothetical value avoiding unconscious sexism might have.

Dellis, it's also dishonest to equate "someone counted his characters of each gender and noted, in a thread which he read, that his characters were overwhelmingly male, which he had previously thought was not the case, so he decided to change that" with "someone told him to include more female characters." There is a difference between addressing someone with an imperative and mentioning information which they choose to act on. I'm also highly skeptical that your reaction would be, "Oh no, what have I done?" if Rich posted here quoting you and saying that because of your views on stories he was going to go back to just writing whatever gender balance and relations happened to fall out of his pen--even though that would be just as much influencing him as what you're decrying here.

[hamishspence]

I would say it isn't just feedback from the readers - it's feedback from the real world. The Giant changes over time - like many people - and what he thought was acceptable 10 years ago, is not what he thinks is acceptable now.

So, even if there hadn't been as much reader input, some things likely would still have changed.

[Dellis]

I'd thank you not to call me dishonest. I may be misguided, provided you can prove the error of my ways, but never dishonest.

I am under the impression, from Rich's quotes, that he stated he did not notice Haley's behavior was problematic until someone made him notice it. I never made any reference to any other existent quote in which he says he got the idea from counting characters, I'll thank you for linking it, if possible.

Moreover, I never said there's nothing of value in unlearning behaviors. The point is, as you say, that there should be two steps: Rich unlearns a behavior in his daily life, and that is reflected naturally in the ideas he'll have from that moment on. A reader telling him "Hey, you haven't done this thing I like because it represents me!" jumps the second step. The idea didn't come from him, it came from someone else. Maybe he'll adapt it, but so far, it is very easy do distinguish Roy ideas and Ice Giant ideas.

I also stated there is a value in a story which came natural to the author, and that is not an inherent value, as you chose to read, but that it is written better and has more effect in its chosen purpose (be it make you escape from the world or fight sexism). The real-world points, if one wants his story to make some, blend more seamlessly, and thus are even more effective, because they entertain. Stories with input different from the author's, on the other hand, rarely are as seamless.This is especially apparent with stories written by many authors - you usually can notice the stitches. The difference here, is that one "author" is "readership", instead of more than one professional.

We have disagreed on the point before. You probably do not remember, if you do I am honored (though, that time, you were quite more polite in your disagreement).

I also anticipated your second objection.

Note I never wrote "Rich should stop including people based on other people's ideas".

I did write, "the story would have been better if no one told him anything, one way or another".
Neutral statement with regard to inclusion or not. The modifications are in effect now, why increase entropy?

It WOULD make me decry "what have I done", even if suggesting themes or lack thereof wasn't the intent of my post. In fact, it's happened once already, and the involved author - which I won't name, but you can ask by Pm - got from me an apology.

I'll thank you not to be sarcastic or imply I am in bad faith. I may be wrong, I sometimes am, I am never, though, in bad faith.

Hamishpence's point is, instead, more interesting. I'd reply telling you what I wrote in the last paragraphs: changes in the real world affect the story mediately, readers saying "this story is bad in this part" affect the story directly, without a decompression period, so to speak. At least in the short run: after some time, obviously, even the criticism is absorbed and becomes part of the author's being. How long this time is, depends on how long it takes for him to pass from "Hey, I want to be better, how can I do that, hmmmm, let's make Hinjo asexual because after reading that comment about lack of diversity I believe it's right" to "Hey, let's make Hinjo asexual!"

[Kish]

You're still equating "someone made him notice he was doing it" with "someone told him to stop doing it." If you truly do not see a difference there, I'd suggest you pretend you do anyway if you care as much about how you come across as you apparently do.

I once said that Haley had been recently dethroned as the most sexist character in the comic (by Tarquin), and that Haley was the only character in the comic who had used the word "slut" (I didn't mention this at the time, but because it came up later as someone saying that no one had ever called Miko frigid, there's also the detail that, for all the Order's insults of her, Haley and only Haley called her a "frigid bitch") and had chosen gendered and sexual insults ("skank" and "tramp") to throw at Tsukiko instead of, say, "necrophiliac," "traitor," "hypocritical living hater of the living," or "deluded stalker." I didn't tell Rich "you need to change this"; had he not responded and indicated he wasn't happy with what I'd observed, it would never have occurred to me that he wasn't doing it deliberately. Some women don't play well with other women. Until November of 2013, it seemed obvious to me that Rich was deliberately writing Haley as such a woman. So the comment was entirely neutral and observational (it was of a rather extreme failing in Haley, but when I say "Belkar is a serial killer" or "Vaarsuvius the Vile is a mass murderer" I don't expect Rich to take it as a criticism of Rich), not the "told to tone down" you asserted; if he had wanted to present Haley that way he presumably would have gone right on doing so. This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16450188&postcount=92) is what he said in reply.

By the way--you don't need to thank me for things I haven't done.

[The Extinguisher]

I'd thank you not to call me dishonest. I may be misguided, provided you can prove the error of my ways, but never dishonest.

I am under the impression, from Rich's quotes, that he stated he did not notice Haley's behavior was problematic until someone made him notice it. I never made any reference to any other existent quote in which he says he got the idea from counting characters, I'll thank you for linking it, if possible.

Moreover, I never said there's nothing of value in unlearning behaviors. The point is, as you say, that there should be two steps: Rich unlearns a behavior in his daily life, and that is reflected naturally in the ideas he'll have from that moment on. A reader telling him "Hey, you haven't done this thing I like because it represents me!" jumps the second step. The idea didn't come from him, it came from someone else. Maybe he'll adapt it, but so far, it is very easy do distinguish Roy ideas and Ice Giant ideas.

I also stated there is a value in a story which came natural to the author, and that is not an inherent value, as you chose to read, but that it is written better and has more effect in its chosen purpose (be it make you escape from the world or fight sexism). The real-world points, if one wants his story to make some, blend more seamlessly, and thus are even more effective, because they entertain. Stories with input different from the author's, on the other hand, rarely are as seamless.This is especially apparent with stories written by many authors - you usually can notice the stitches. The difference here, is that one "author" is "readership", instead of more than one professional.

We have disagreed on the point before. You probably do not remember, if you do I am honored (though, that time, you were quite more polite in your disagreement).

I also anticipated your second objection.

Note I never wrote "Rich should stop including people based on other people's ideas".

I did write, "the story would have been better if no one told him anything, one way or another".
Neutral statement with regard to inclusion or not. The modifications are in effect now, why increase entropy?

It WOULD make me decry "what have I done", even if suggesting themes or lack thereof wasn't the intent of my post. In fact, it's happened once already, and the involved author - which I won't name, but you can ask by Pm - got from me an apology.

I'll thank you not to be sarcastic or imply I am in bad faith. I may be wrong, I sometimes am, I am never, though, in bad faith.

Hamishpence's point is, instead, more interesting. I'd reply telling you what I wrote in the last paragraphs: changes in the real world affect the story mediately, readers saying "this story is bad in this part" affect the story directly, without a decompression period, so to speak. At least in the short run: after some time, obviously, even the criticism is absorbed and becomes part of the author's being. How long this time is, depends on how long it takes for him to pass from "Hey, I want to be better, how can I do that, hmmmm, let's make Hinjo asexual because after reading that comment about lack of diversity I believe it's right" to "Hey, let's make Hinjo asexual!"

This is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Artists don't create from a mythical vacuum plane of ideas. They are constantly influenced by the society they live in, the people around them, and so much more. All your really saying is that they shouldnt listen to one influence (people telling them they need to do better) but instead listen to another (the background radiation that is misogyny, white supremecy, heteronormativity, transphobia, etc).

Like it's a ridiculous argument to begin with, but to suggest that the work would be BETTER without anyone to say "hey that sucks" is just flat out closing your eyes and shouting "I can't here you". What do you think is the point of editing?

Regardless, this is weak anyway cause people only seem to complain about forcing the author to do things when it comes to representation and anything slightly progressive. I don't see people going crazy about letting the author write what they want with every half-assed theory that's posted here.

[Kish]

In perfect fairness, I have. (Someone got banned for starting a thread demanding Rich rewrite the story to not have Anti-Magic Field suppress Forcecage, and flaming him when he refused.)

[brian 333]

If you go looking for an ism you will find it in the most innocuous of places. It really doesn't matter what ism. Even the most innocent of statements can be used as proof.

I posted a defense of the rights of authors to follow their muse. I was dismissed as anti-TheCause. My comments were in no way a slight to anyone, but nevertheless I was identified as the enemy because I dared to say something which crossed their invisible line. Failure to openly support becomes open opposition because some people choose to see hatred where none exists.

It is easy to cherry pick words from a thesis and declare those words equal something the writer never intended. It is so much easier to do when the standard becomes failure to include. Demanding inclusion from people who do not share your world view leads inevitably to tokenism because no matter how many books I read or how often I speak to people, I will not have lived the life and could never notice the details someone who did would notice, and even consider important.

We've already fallen down the slippery slope I started out warning against. It has gone froma polite requests for inclusions to accusations of prejudice against those who demonstrate less than wholehearted support.

The thing is, you'e on one of the most tolerant venues possible: a forum for a D&D based comic. D&D fans are, almost by definition, open minded. None of us are anti- whatever you want to be. You have no enemies here.

But I will again draw the line: intolerance cannot be justified by any side, but most especially by the side fighting intolerance.

So, instead of grading an author by his degree of inclusiveness, write your own story. Make it great. Make it mean something to those who have lived your life. Nobody, even The Giant, can tell your story as well as you.

[The Extinguisher]

If you go looking for an ism you will find it in the most innocuous of places. It really doesn't matter what ism. Even the most innocent of statements can be used as proof.

I posted a defense of the rights of authors to follow their muse. I was dismissed as anti-TheCause. My comments were in no way a slight to anyone, but nevertheless I was identified as the enemy because I dared to say something which crossed their invisible line. Failure to openly support becomes open opposition because some people choose to see hatred where none exists.

It is easy to cherry pick words from a thesis and declare those words equal something the writer never intended. It is so much easier to do when the standard becomes failure to include. Demanding inclusion from people who do not share your world view leads inevitably to tokenism because no matter how many books I read or how often I speak to people, I will not have lived the life and could never notice the details someone who did would notice, and even consider important.

We've already fallen down the slippery slope I started out warning against. It has gone froma polite requests for inclusions to accusations of prejudice against those who demonstrate less than wholehearted support.

The thing is, you'e on one of the most tolerant venues possible: a forum for a D&D based comic. D&D fans are, almost by definition, open minded. None of us are anti- whatever you want to be. You have no enemies here.

But I will again draw the line: intolerance cannot be justified by any side, but most especially by the side fighting intolerance.

So, instead of grading an author by his degree of inclusiveness, write your own story. Make it great. Make it mean something to those who have lived your life. Nobody, even The Giant, can tell your story as well as you.

Maybe it's easy to find because it's everywhere. Instead of dismissing the stuggles of people, maybe you could listen to them instead.

I won't comment on your shortcomings as an author that leaves you unable to research things, but it's still tone deaf to the fact that certain voices are kicked out of the table before they can tell their story. We need both a marked increase in queer writers, as well as cishet authors writing queer characters to see improvement.

Also most tolerant places? That's almost funny, if it wasn't so blind. Gamers suck, they're some of the most bigoted of people. This forum is slightly better than average, but I have had someone advocating violence up to and including murder against people like me on here before.

[zimmerwald1915]

We need both a marked increase in queer writers, as well as cishet authors writing queer characters to see improvement.
Ask a cishet writer to write a queer character, and you will get a discreditable character. It's simply beyond them. Same for any other writer writing about characters who aren't exactly like them. What we need are strict quotas determining which writers of which demographics get published.

[Fyraltari]

Ask a cishet writer to write a queer character, and you will get a discreditable character. It's simply beyond them. Same for any other writer writing about characters who aren't exactly like them. What we need are strict quotas determining which writers of which demographics get published.

Just in case this is not trolling:
You know there are succesful writers who did not just write an autobiography right?

[Kish]

I am about 99% certain Grand Moff Zimmer isn't being serious.

[zimmerwald1915]

Just in case this is not trolling:
You know there are succesful writers who did not just write an autobiography right?
Popularity is not an indicator of quality.

(Just to be clear, though, I was only serious about the quotas bit. If you want representative representation, anything else is a half-measure.)

[The Extinguisher]

Popularity is not an indicator of quality.

(Just to be clear, though, I was only serious about the quotas bit. If you want representative representation, anything else is a half-measure.)

look sometimes you say something that seems ridiculous and obviously satire only for someone else to go and say what you just said but completely earnestly :smallsmile:

i actually dont think enforcing quotas on mainstream publishers is the best way to fix the problem. it should actually be a dismantling of the publishing industry and refocusing to independent publishers that amplify marginalized voices. sure it involves a lot more radical actions, but like you said, anything else is a half-measure

[brian 333]

Maybe it's easy to find because it's everywhere. Instead of dismissing the stuggles of people, maybe you could listen to them instead.

I won't comment on your shortcomings as an author that leaves you unable to research things, but it's still tone deaf to the fact that certain voices are kicked out of the table before they can tell their story. We need both a marked increase in queer writers, as well as cishet authors writing queer characters to see improvement.

Also most tolerant places? That's almost funny, if it wasn't so blind. Gamers suck, they're some of the most bigoted of people. This forum is slightly better than average, but I have had someone advocating violence up to and including murder against people like me on here before.

Again intolerance is not the answer to intolerance.

Instead of attacking someone who is on your side you might take amoment for reflection.

No, prejudice is not everywhere. The vast majority just don't care, so they say nothing. Those who do speak out may be demonstrating intolerance, but they are hardly a majority, or even a plurality. Because most people don't care.

If every time you set out to find something negative you succeed, it's generally a sign of projection. You assume that less than enthusiastic support equals opposition, and conjure insult from poor phrasing to prove it. Well, no. That only demonstrates your intolerance, not mine.

I have never said a negative word towards or about those with different world experiences. I have shared my own real world experience, which clearly demonstrates that compelling artists to be more inclusive results in something far more harmful than simply being overlooked. It never leads to 'normalization'. It leads to stereotypes and tokenism.

Whether you like it or not, normalization happens when it's no big deal. Normalization results in less, not more, overt inclusion because, outside of story-related purposes, the gender identity and sexual conduct of people is largely irrelevant tomost fiction.

Dumbledore is a good example. Activists accused Rowling of intolerance, then cried foul when she said Dumbledore is gay, but it never came up. Well, ex post facto revisions to make her seem inclusive was construed to prove she was only checking off a box on the 'approved minority inclusion chart' to appease the offended minority. Not only was shenot inclusive, but actually insulting when the offended minority demanded their 'rights'. It's an argument you can never win because no matter how hard you try, you didn't do enough.

I love the assumption that I refuse to write gay characters because I in some way feel uncomfortable around them. Or that I refuse to do the research to learn what being gay means. This assumption is based on several lies and a great deal of cherry picking of my words. The first lie is that I in any way object to differently gendered people on any level. The second lie is that I actively discriminate based on a belief projected onto me. The truth is much simpler, and well documented.

Let me try once more:

If I were to write a scene involving a woman giving birth, I could do as much research as I like and still fail to discover things apparent to every mother. They would know that I presented a well researched lie, rendering my research irrelevant and revealing my character as a stereotype. On the other hand, any mother can write of the experience with authority, and zero research is required.

The same applies to alternate lifestyles, (which term I find insulting, but which is apparently the inclusive thing to say these days.) If you have lived the life you are far better suited to create sympathetic, real, people with different lives. Why would anyone choose cardboard cutouts over 3D models? Yet I've been branded as intolerant because I refuse to render caricatures of people struggling with issues I'll never truly understand.

The OP began this thread as a game, to identify characters who might be asexual. This is something that might be fun for some and hurts no one. I have no objection to people filling in the gaps. Heck, I can even be amused by the transformation of characters from the artist's obvious intent as is often the case when shipping.

My objection is not to the discussion, either. The more we talk about our problems, the more we realize we're not so different after all. My objection is specifically addressed to those who assume the moral authority to 'politely suggest' to an author what he should write. My objection is based on my observation, even in this very thread, that such requests are followed by demands, and when those are inevitably insufficient, the failure to adhere to a particular interpretation of one worldview becomes evidence of the prejudice suspected all along.

There is a solution: write your story. You are far more qualified to tell it than any Pulitzer Prize wining heterosexual.

[Hardcore]

Maybe it's easy to find because it's everywhere. Instead of dismissing the stuggles of people, maybe you could listen to them instead

That is a classic counter-argument. Translated it means; "Those who struggle only need to listen to themselves.“
Of course this can cause counter-productive reactions in people since it destroy the basis for discussions. Why bother exchange ideas with someone who is not interested in the give and take of such av process?

[The Extinguisher]

Again intolerance is not the answer to intolerance.

Instead of attacking someone who is on your side you might take amoment for reflection.

No, prejudice is not everywhere. The vast majority just don't care, so they say nothing. Those who do speak out may be demonstrating intolerance, but they are hardly a majority, or even a plurality. Because most people don't care.

If every time you set out to find something negative you succeed, it's generally a sign of projection. You assume that less than enthusiastic support equals opposition, and conjure insult from poor phrasing to prove it. Well, no. That only demonstrates your intolerance, not mine.

I have never said a negative word towards or about those with different world experiences. I have shared my own real world experience, which clearly demonstrates that compelling artists to be more inclusive results in something far more harmful than simply being overlooked. It never leads to 'normalization'. It leads to stereotypes and tokenism.

Whether you like it or not, normalization happens when it's no big deal. Normalization results in less, not more, overt inclusion because, outside of story-related purposes, the gender identity and sexual conduct of people is largely irrelevant tomost fiction.

Dumbledore is a good example. Activists accused Rowling of intolerance, then cried foul when she said Dumbledore is gay, but it never came up. Well, ex post facto revisions to make her seem inclusive was construed to prove she was only checking off a box on the 'approved minority inclusion chart' to appease the offended minority. Not only was shenot inclusive, but actually insulting when the offended minority demanded their 'rights'. It's an argument you can never win because no matter how hard you try, you didn't do enough.

I love the assumption that I refuse to write gay characters because I in some way feel uncomfortable around them. Or that I refuse to do the research to learn what being gay means. This assumption is based on several lies and a great deal of cherry picking of my words. The first lie is that I in any way object to differently gendered people on any level. The second lie is that I actively discriminate based on a belief projected onto me. The truth is much simpler, and well documented.

Let me try once more:

If I were to write a scene involving a woman giving birth, I could do as much research as I like and still fail to discover things apparent to every mother. They would know that I presented a well researched lie, rendering my research irrelevant and revealing my character as a stereotype. On the other hand, any mother can write of the experience with authority, and zero research is required.

The same applies to alternate lifestyles, (which term I find insulting, but which is apparently the inclusive thing to say these days.) If you have lived the life you are far better suited to create sympathetic, real, people with different lives. Why would anyone choose cardboard cutouts over 3D models? Yet I've been branded as intolerant because I refuse to render caricatures of people struggling with issues I'll never truly understand.

not saying anything when confronted with prejudice is just as bad as active participation cause it empowers those who are prejudiced. and just because you haven't experienced much doesnt mean its not literally everywhere. It must be nice being so privileged youre not confronted with people who hate you just for existing.

i do like how normalization means more straight cis white characters cause of course once the minorities stop kicking up a fuss we can go back to every character looking like you?

i think you might just be a bad writer. the world is full of people writing about things that didnt literally happen to them and they get along fine.


That is a classic counter-argument. Translated it means; "Those who struggle only need to listen to themselves.“
Of course this can cause counter-productive reactions in people since it destroy the basis for discussions. Why bother exchange ideas with someone who is not interested in the give and take of such av process?

i mean thats not what i said at all, but yeah, when those that struggle shouldnt have to listen to people trying to explain their struggle to them. Excuse me for taking the world of a black person over a white person when it comes to issues regarding white supremacy. one of them has much more useful insight. Intersectionallity is good. how you can you be against the idea of listening to people?

[Fyraltari]

Let me try once more:

If I were to write a scene involving a woman giving birth, I could do as much research as I like and still fail to discover things apparent to every mother. They would know that I presented a well researched lie, rendering my research irrelevant and revealing my character as a stereotype. On the other hand, any mother can write of the experience with authority, and zero research is required.

The same applies to alternate lifestyles, (which term I find insulting, but which is apparently the inclusive thing to say these days.) If you have lived the life you are far better suited to create sympathetic, real, people with different lives. Why would anyone choose cardboard cutouts over 3D models? Yet I've been branded as intolerant because I refuse to render caricatures of people struggling with issues I'll never truly understand.

You can't write what it feels like to give birth, that is true. But that does not mean you can't include a mother in your story.

Acknowledgment is already a form of inclusion.
Roy is a black-skinned man in a world where nobody cares about that and he is on an equal footing with everyone even when he is in a place where most people are white-skinned. Bandana is not heterosexual and nobody in the story gives her grief for that. Their characterizations do not revolve around what would make them discriminated against in the real world and they are as fully fledged as the other characters of their respective importance to the story.

That in and of itself sends a message.

If you feel you can't write an in-depth look into the life of an homosexual man, for instance, then don't. But their is nothing stopping you from having that hmosexual man as a secondary character.

[zimmerwald1915]

The same applies to alternate lifestyles, (which term I find insulting, but which is apparently the inclusive thing to say these days.)
Just FYI, "alternative lifestyle" is not a new term, and it is not one the LGBT community has ever applied to itself. It is a term that community's enemies invented decades ago to delegitimize them - after all, one can change a "lifestyle," or mute its expressions for the comfort of the majority, and those who forcefully assert themselves in light of that designation must be doing out of rudeness or pushiness. Even someone as shamefully cishet as I knows that.

[Hardcore]

Whether you like it or not, normalization happens when it's no big deal. Normalization results in less, not more, overt inclusion because, outside of story-related purposes, the gender identity and sexual conduct of people is largely irrelevant tomost fiction.

I suppose being ignored could feel threatening to those that fight hard for their rights. Welcome to the life of the great masses.

[brian 333]

not saying anything when confronted with prejudice is just as bad as active participation cause it empowers those who are prejudiced. and just because you haven't experienced much doesnt mean its not literally everywhere. It must be nice being so privileged youre not confronted with people who hate you just for existing.

i do like how normalization means more straight cis white characters cause of course once the minorities stop kicking up a fuss we can go back to every character looking like you?

i think you might just be a bad writer. the world is full of people writing about things that didnt literally happen to them and they get along fine.



i mean thats not what i said at all, but yeah, when those that struggle shouldnt have to listen to people trying to explain their struggle to them. Excuse me for taking the world of a black person over a white person when it comes to issues regarding white supremacy. one of them has much more useful insight. Intersectionallity is good. how you can you be against the idea of listening to people?

I do speak up for the oppressed. In this case, it is authors who are oppressed by perfectly innocent requests which turn out to be demands after all. The fact that some cannot see the chilling effect this has on art in general is troubling. It means their agenda is not normalization, but domination. Any idea which is counter to their beliefs is just wrong and can only originate from malice. But the excuse given for such intolerant behavior is... well, I haven't heard one. It's apparently okay to be intolerant if you are fighting intolerance.

Normalization does not mean more non strait white cis gendered any more than it means fewer. This is projection on your part, and given that it was presented to counter my argument, let's examine it a bit. Is it normal for a straight white character to have a romantic entanglement? Depends on the movie. In the movie Armageddon there were three. All the rest, including one character with an unhealthy relationship to his mother. Everyone else was less gender defined. There were at least two who could pass for gay, and one who gave off a very bi vibe. But none of that came up in the story. If anyone says there was x or y it's purely a case of projection. You saw what you chose to see. You prejudged based on your personal bias.

And that is my issue entirely. Your assumptions are not based on reality, not on anything I am or intend to be. You assume then project onto me what you claim to hate, and you have made me the bad guy because you started out looking for one.

Well, you are wrong. I was the kid who jumped between bullies and their target in grade school. And I see bullying now. So I jump. Being in the right does not give you the right to make demands of others. Seeking to redress past wrongs through new wrongs won't end well. Or ever.

If you think I'm a bad writer you are free to follow your own muse. You shouldn't want me pretending to represent you when you k ow I'll fail. But whether I write well or not isn't the issue, that was just a gratuitous insult. Well done, you got me.

But that opinion derives from a theory that I somehow oppose inclusion. It is a false assumption, and so the theory based on it is just so much garbage. Believe it if you like, I don't care. But accept that it is just your belief projected onto me, and it says far more about you than it does about me.

As it turns out, I'm currently working on a story where one of six main characters is gay. It won't comeup in the story, but it is a component of characterization. So, I guess I'm being exclusive by including but not writing about something I'm not qualified to write about. Yay for Team Intolerance; they've won again.

[Sir_Norbert]

Well, you are wrong. I was the kid who jumped between bullies and their target in grade school. And I see bullying now.

You do know that Rich has made it clear, years ago, that he doesn't read the forums any more? No-one in this topic is making demands of him or even addressing him at all.


If you think I'm a bad writer you are free to follow your own muse. You shouldn't want me pretending to represent you when you k ow I'll fail. But whether I write well or not isn't the issue, that was just a gratuitous insult.

That comment wasn't in isolation; it was a reply to your claim that writers can't imagine what it's like to have different life experiences. (Apologies if you don't agree with the way I paraphrased it; but you certainly made a point along those lines that we are both disagreeing with.) This is nonsense because there is no such thing as "the experience of being gay" or "the experience of giving birth"; everyone has a unique experience. I'll never know what it's like for Joe Bloggs to be gay, but I do know what it's like for a character in my story to be gay, because they only exist inside my head. If I could only write characters who were exactly like me, both writing and reading would be extremely dull.

[brian 333]

You do know that Rich has made it clear, years ago, that he doesn't read the forums any more? No-one in this topic is making demands of him or even addressing him at all.

It was suggested that a bit of research would enable me to write gay characters and when I refuted this I was accused of intolerance. I don't care if Rich reads the comic, I was addressing what was directed at me.




That comment wasn't in isolation; it was a reply to your claim that writers can't imagine what it's like to have different life experiences. (Apologies if you don't agree with the way I paraphrased it; but you certainly made a point along those lines that we are both disagreeing with.) This is nonsense because there is no such thing as "the experience of being gay" or "the experience of giving birth"; everyone has a unique experience. I'll never know what it's like for Joe Bloggs to be gay, but I do know what it's like for a character in my story to be gay, because they only exist inside my head. If I could only write characters who were exactly like me, both writing and reading would be extremely dull.

I'm not a great writer. I may not even be a good one. But I've seen and done some crazy things in my life, and when I read authors writing about those things I know in minutes if they never walked the walk. I'm a good enough writer to not pretend experience I don't have. Because I know no matter however gifted an author I may be, any schmuck who lived it could see what a faker I am.

So I choose to let those who have a real voice speak their story. That way the real story doesn't have to compete with bull for the audience. Compulsory, or even recommended, inclusion results in less, not more, understanding. But it's great for generating stereotypes, which are far too often caricatures of what straight white male writers think persons of a particular persuasion should be.

There is a way that accomplishes the stated goal, and I have recommended it from the start. A few writers who write their truths and shed light on their issues can do more to normalize peopld of non-standard identities than all the stereotypes straight white males could create. And eventually we'd have to spend another generation dismantling the belittling effect of stereotypes anyway. So save a generation in your struggle by creating your own art rather than waste your time with demands for inclusiveness and tolerance which yield neither inclusion nor tolerance.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

[137beth]

As an aro ace myself, I am happy to see people like me at least some of the time. But I would find it very weird if every story had an explicitly ace character, because there's just not that many of us. I'm not asking for exact statistical accuracy- as pointed out upthread, that would basically mean no ace characters- but I'm not going to get upset because my very rare demographic isn't everywhere.

Though whenever I read a story with mystical virgins who are so ~torn~ between their powers and their desires (and they always end up going for the love interest in the end), I find myself thinking about how much simpler life would be if they picked an asexual initiate.

On the one hand, I can understand this perspective, especially if we are talking about a story with a small cast. A lot of recent plays only have 2-4 characters, largely because producers want small casts to keep costs down. If a two person play doesn't have any asexual characters in it, and if none of the six protagonists in OOTS were aro ace, I wouldn't be all that dissapointed.

On the other hand, OOTS actually has hundreds of characters. If none of them were aro ace, I'd find that a bit concerning. Of course, in the course of the story, we may never actually learn that any of them are aro ace, but that's different from them not being there at all. As I said in the original post, if Jiminy were aro ace, we may never find out in the comic, and indeed we may never see him again at all. Part of why I made this thread is to ask which characters people think could be aro ace, even if it is not confirmed in the comic.

On the other other hand, we did find out the sexuality of the Cliffport prison guard in his sole appearance. He told us he was gay to justify why he didn't fall



I love the assumption that I refuse to write gay characters because I in some way feel uncomfortable around them. Or that I refuse to do the research to learn what being gay means. This assumption is based on several lies and a great deal of cherry picking of my words. The first lie is that I in any way object to differently gendered people on any level. The second lie is that I actively discriminate based on a belief projected onto me. The truth is much simpler, and well documented.

Let me try once more:

If I were to write a scene involving a woman giving birth, I could do as much research as I like and still fail to discover things apparent to every mother. They would know that I presented a well researched lie, rendering my research irrelevant and revealing my character as a stereotype. On the other hand, any mother can write of the experience with authority, and zero research is required.

The same applies to alternate lifestyles, (which term I find insulting, but which is apparently the inclusive thing to say these days.) If you have lived the life you are far better suited to create sympathetic, real, people with different lives. Why would anyone choose cardboard cutouts over 3D models? Yet I've been branded as intolerant because I refuse to render caricatures of people struggling with issues I'll never truly understand.

<snip>
There is a solution: write your story. You are far more qualified to tell it than any Pulitzer Prize wining heterosexual.

Ya know, The Giant addressed this ridiculous assertion much better than I could. Let's look at what he has to say on the subject:

In this way, Tarquin is also symbolic of an older time
when stories were likely to be more formulaic or clichéd—
and less diverse. It’s no accident that he’s a wealthy old
straight white man losing his marbles over the fact that the
tale he is experiencing doesn’t focus on the other straight
white man at the expense of the black man, the woman,
the genderqueer person, and even the Latino guest star.
By rejecting his insistance that he take the lead, Elan is also
saying that no, it’s OK for not every story to have a blond
white guy in the lead. It’s OK for them to be the supporting
character sometimes. They can still be a part of the overall
tapestry of the narrative, and sometimes maybe they’ll get
great focus episodes. (Like this one!) As an author who is,
himself, a straight white guy, it’s difficult for me to always
make a statement on the experiences of other demographic
groups without running the risk of talking out my ass. But
I can make a statement about what I think we, the straight
white men of the world, should be doing. And that’s for us
to recognize that it’s not always about us, and that it doesn’t
make us weak just because someone else is the hero for a
while. I’m sure the Tarquins of the real world will read this
paragraph and lose their own marbles about it, but I don’t
see any point to writing if I can’t express my own views.

[Liquor Box]

Maybe it's easy to find because it's everywhere. Instead of dismissing the stuggles of people, maybe you could listen to them instead.

I won't comment on your shortcomings as an author that leaves you unable to research things, but it's still tone deaf to the fact that certain voices are kicked out of the table before they can tell their story. We need both a marked increase in queer writers, as well as cishet authors writing queer characters to see improvement.

Also most tolerant places? That's almost funny, if it wasn't so blind. Gamers suck, they're some of the most bigoted of people. This forum is slightly better than average, but I have had someone advocating violence up to and including murder against people like me on here before.

It is a little hypocritical to tell people to listen to others and not dismiss them, given that it was you who was labeling people's posts 'garbage dumps' not worth responding to a page or so back.

I know you really really believe you have the right of things, and that those who are arguing against you are (at best) wrong. But all (or at least most) of the people arguing contrary positions also believe in their own perspective. In my opinion people on each side of the discussion owe it to themselves to read the posts of those they disagree with generously, because even though it may not change their mind, at least they will understand the other perspective better.

[Vinyadan]

Ask a cishet writer to write a queer character, and you will get a discreditable character. It's simply beyond them. Same for any other writer writing about characters who aren't exactly like them. What we need are strict quotas determining which writers of which demographics get published.

I remember reading a book, "Comics and Ideology", where one of the interviewed gay writers of a gay comic for a gay audience said that he hoped gay comics wouldn't become mainstream, because they would get their characters flattened like, he said, had happened to black comics that had gone mainstream.

That's very different from writing more gay characters, though.

[The Extinguisher]

It is a little hypocritical to tell people to listen to others and not dismiss them, given that it was you who was labeling people's posts 'garbage dumps' not worth responding to a page or so back.

I know you really really believe you have the right of things, and that those who are arguing against you are (at best) wrong. But all (or at least most) of the people arguing contrary positions also believe in their own perspective. In my opinion people on each side of the discussion owe it to themselves to read the posts of those they disagree with generously, because even though it may not change their mind, at least they will understand the other perspective better.

I know that people on this thread love to take two different things and equate them, but here's the thing. When I say to listen to people who are struggling, to not dismiss the oppressed, that doesn't mean I have to put up with every bad take from every one who has one. Sure I might be being abrasive with my language, but your bad take on queer representation doesn't make you oppressed, so it's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Not everything is equivalent all the time

[Liquor Box]

I know that people on this thread love to take two different things and equate them, but here's the thing. When I say to listen to people who are struggling, to not dismiss the oppressed, that doesn't mean I have to put up with every bad take from every one who has one. Sure I might be being abrasive with my language, but your bad take on queer representation doesn't make you oppressed, so it's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Not everything is equivalent all the time

First, please don't assume I am not oppressed. You know no details of my ethnicity, sexuality or gender or any other aspect of my self that may leave me vulnerable to oppression or struggle.

Second, nobody in this thread has stated a bad take on queer representation. I think everyone who has posted more than once on the issue has explicitly recognised that queer people should be represented in media. Just because some people take a slightly different nuance on that representation does not make them enemies of all queers. As far as I can tell Brian333 and Dellis merely think that it should be solely the writer's perogative, but both applaud when that perogative leads to depiction of queer characters. I don't agree with them that people shouldn't be able to post their thoughts on representation where the writer can see them, but my preference is that representation in a given work is roughly in proportion to prevalence in real world (which, in a comic like OotS, does call for some queer characters). None of those things are anti-queer representation.

This is not a good vs evil argument. It is an argument amongst several people, all of whom a probably good (including accepting of queers etc) people whose views on how queers should be represented in OotS is slightly different (with nobody against such representation existing), . I get that you often do face very real prejudice (perhaps sometimes to the degree that your safety is at risk) and perhaps that leads you to sometimes see trans-phobia where none exists, but I really don't think anyone who has posted more than once in this thread is actually posting out of a desire to harm queers.

Sure, you don't have to read the posts you think are 'bad takes', but by the same token nor does Brian333 (or whoever it was you were chastising for dismissing your posts) have to read those posts of yours that he thinks might be a 'bad take'. Since you are obviously both interested in this topic though, I think it would be of the benefit of each of you to read each other's posts (and those of others who disagree with you).

[The Extinguisher]

First, please don't assume I am not oppressed. You know no details of my ethnicity, sexuality or gender or any other aspect of my self that may leave me vulnerable to oppression or struggle.

Second, nobody in this thread has stated a bad take on queer representation. I think everyone who has posted more than once on the issue has explicitly recognised that queer people should be represented in media. Just because some people take a slightly different nuance on that representation does not make them enemies of all queers. As far as I can tell Brian333 and Dellis merely think that it should be solely the writer's perogative, but both applaud when that perogative leads to depiction of queer characters. I don't agree with them that people shouldn't be able to post their thoughts on representation where the writer can see them, but my preference is that representation in a given work is roughly in proportion to prevalence in real world (which, in a comic like OotS, does call for some queer characters). None of those things are anti-queer representation.

This is not a good vs evil argument. It is an argument amongst several people, all of whom a probably good (including accepting of queers etc) people whose views on how queers should be represented in OotS is slightly different (with nobody against such representation existing), . I get that you often do face very real prejudice (perhaps sometimes to the degree that your safety is at risk) and perhaps that leads you to sometimes see trans-phobia where none exists, but I really don't think anyone who has posted more than once in this thread is actually posting out of a desire to harm queers.

Sure, you don't have to read the posts you think are 'bad takes', but by the same token nor does Brian333 (or whoever it was you were chastising for dismissing your posts) have to read those posts of yours that he thinks might be a 'bad take'. Since you are obviously both interested in this topic though, I think it would be of the benefit of each of you to read each other's posts (and those of others who disagree with you).

I haven't assumed anything. I'm not saying that you aren't oppressed, in general. I'm saying that you are not oppressed, for your bad takes. Me not listening to you go off on "statistical proportion" or whatever rhetoric you want to use to seem inclusive while actively campaigning for less inclusion isn't the same as not listening when a trans person tells you something is transphobic.

A thing actually, which hadn't come up in this thread at all until you brought it up in an attempt to needle me, so thanks for that. Not that I needed any more indication of what you thought of me.

This isn't a debate. It's barely even a discussion. I didn't come here to sit on high and talk about how best to satisfy "the queers" (the way you say that is the reason why I don't want you saying that). I'm here because im upset that a comic that I love that has been actively working at being better has a fandom full of people that aren't. It's frustrating, and I'm angry. I don't want to debate you. I want you to stop.

[hroþila]

I don't want to debate you. I want you to stop.
And for the record (because I can see the objection coming): This isn't censorship. This isn't harassment. This is feedback.

[Fyraltari]

I am about 99% certain Grand Moff Zimmer isn't being serious.

look sometimes you say something that seems ridiculous and obviously satire only for someone else to go and say what you just said but completely earnestly :smallsmile:
This is the Internet, you know, not only is it hard to tell when someone you don't knwo is jokin through text but there are fellows who say some really weird or horrible stuff in complete earnest out there.


Popularity is not an indicator of quality.
It is, though. Far from the only contributing factor of course but the only measurable one.



(Just to be clear, though, I was only serious about the quotas bit. If you want representative representation, anything else is a half-measure.)
That sounds hard to implement. For one you can't tell someone's sex life or gender identity when interviewing them so it would require intrusive inquiries into peole's privacy which would turn a number of authors away. It also risks typecasting (can you say that for non-actors?) authors who would want to write about something that has nothing to do with queer person's sexuality or worse deligitimize their work as tokenism. It would also requires lawmakers to make official statements about the different types of sexuality and gender indentities their are and their proportion relative to the population; and, to be honest, I think that if and when we reach that point that would have meant that society in general had advanced far beyond its current state in accepting non-traditionnal identities making the need for quotas redundant.

So assuming it is a short-term solution (and that's a whole debate about positive discrimination that I am not sure would be within forum rules) I don't think it would be an efficient one.


i actually dont think enforcing quotas on mainstream publishers is the best way to fix the problem. it should actually be a dismantling of the publishing industry and refocusing to independent publishers that amplify marginalized voices. sure it involves a lot more radical actions, but like you said, anything else is a half-measure
That does sound extreme. Big publishing house have the advantage of giving talented authors a far-reaching range of distribution that independent publishers could not replicate. Most of the books I have read this year were written in other countries and in different tongues that my own and it is hard enough to get decent translations for example.
I would rather we try and fix the entertainment industry rather than rebuiding entirely.

[The Extinguisher]

That does sound extreme. Big publishing house have the advantage of giving talented authors a far-reaching range of distribution that independent publishers could not replicate. Most of the books I have read this year were written in other countries and in different tongues that my own and it is hard enough to get decent translations for example.
I would rather we try and fix the entertainment industry rather than rebuiding entirely.

Conversely, some of the best things I read and saw last year were individuals putting their content out there on the internet.

We have some opportunities to build art networks of distribution that focus on individuals and their work over corporations and profit. Trying to fix the old system doesn't fix the structural problems. Tearing it down and rebuilding does.

[Jasdoif]

Conversely, some of the best things I read and saw last year were individuals putting their content out there on the internet.

We have some opportunities to build art networks of distribution that focus on individuals and their work over corporations and profit. Trying to fix the old system doesn't fix the structural problems. Tearing it down and rebuilding does.I hear self-publishing is much more viable than it used to be (https://hollylisle.com/faqs-about-selfpublishing/).

[brian 333]

Ya know, The Giant addressed this ridiculous assertion much better than I could. Let's look at what he has to say on the subject:

What was posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I am for more non-traditional characters, and so is The Giant. I find it a bit humorous that my post was refuted by another post which agreed with my post.

My supposedly rediculous assertion is that I am not as qualified as someone who lived the life to write about LGBT issues. I then followed that heinous statement by saying that those who have lived that life should write about it. I concluded by saying that even polite requests to add your kind of character is ultimately harmful because that promotes stereotyping which is more harmful than doing nothing.

The way forward is for those with a story to tell to tell it. I, or even Rich, can't tell your story with the passion and attention to detail that you can.

Something that has happened to me so many times I can't count them all is "suggestions."

When an acquaintance learns I spend time writing, the conversation seems to follow a script:

Acquaintance: Have you publushed anything?
Me: No. I don't know how.
Acquaintance: Well, I have a great idea for a story that's sure to get you published. It's about an average guy who is really strong and he has to....
Me: Yeah, I'm not really interested in ideas. I have more than I could ever write. You should write your own story.
Acquaintance: But I'm not a writer, and it's a great idea. We can split the profits...
Me: Write it yourself and keep the money. I'm not really interested in your ideas because I couldn't write them like you can.
Acquaintance: I can't believe how uncooperative you are.

So, when a suggestion comes down the pike that I alter any part of my art to accommodate anyone, I find it both offensive and slightly amusing. If it's so easy to do, do it yourself, you don't need me, but if you can't do it yourself you aren't qualified to judge how easy or hard it might be.

Rich elects to openly include characters of different backgrounds, and that's a good thing. I tend to write less about the private affairs of my characters, but I don't ever make the judgement that one kind of character is better or worse. But because I don't write about private matters, I'm construed to be anti- based only on the prejudice that failure to openly support is opposition.

My muse doesn't care what others say about my art. But to label me as an opponent of human equality demonstrates only how willing you are to pressure artists into conformity to your world view.

I thought we were all unified against pressuring people to conform to the world view of others. Did I miss a meeting?

[Hardcore]

You are not a member of the right club to get the invitation meetings. Sad.

[Fish]

Ask a cishet writer to write a queer character, and you will get a discreditable character. It's simply beyond them. Same for any other writer writing about characters who aren't exactly like them. What we need are strict quotas determining which writers of which demographics get published.
Written with the understanding that you said you were only serious about quotes: it won't really work.

This idea of quotas is biased and short-sighted in its own way: it presumes that to achieve balance, an appropriately balanced number of writers from all demographics will all write exactly what they themselves are. It takes LGBTQ writers and chains them to the oars, saying, "Write only LGBTQ characters so we achieve balance! You're not permitted to write about anything else!"

Even if you could force LGBTQ writers to write only LGBTQ themes, we'd still be below quota. Consider the number of LGBTQ writers who have chosen to write stories about straight characters. Oscar Wilde, Edward Albee, Tennessee Williams, E.M. Forster, Noël Coward, et al, ad nauseum. Apart from completely contradicting your joking assertion that it's only possible to write what you are — the world would be a poorer place without "The Importance of Being Earnest," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," "Room With a View," and "Blithe Spirit" — it seriously puts your notion of "balance" at a disadvantage if non-LGBTQ authors aren't allowed to reciprocate and include gay or lesbian characters.

I realize you were mostly joking, but it's just not a viable idea.

[Liquor Box]

I haven't assumed anything. I'm not saying that you aren't oppressed, in general. I'm saying that you are not oppressed, for your bad takes. Me not listening to you go off on "statistical proportion" or whatever rhetoric you want to use to seem inclusive while actively campaigning for less inclusion isn't the same as not listening when a trans person tells you something is transphobic.

I'm not sure I understand you here. You said that people should listen to the oppressed and not dismiss them, but here you are saying it is irrelevant whether I am oppressed? Do you mean that you can dismiss what I'm saying because you think that what I am saying is not something that an oppressed person should be saying? Or are you saying that one only needs to listen to oppressed people talk about the particular oppression that effects them (which seems much more reasonable)?

But if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume the second then it is asexual/aromantic people who we should listen to on this topic (which is about asexuality). Only one person in this thread (that I have seen) has identified themselves as asexual/aromantic (if I understand "aro ace" correctly), and this is what she had to say:

"As an aro ace myself, I am happy to see people like me at least some of the time. But I would find it very weird if every story had an explicitly ace character, because there's just not that many of us. I'm not asking for exact statistical accuracy- as pointed out upthread, that would basically mean no ace characters- but I'm not going to get upset because my very rare demographic isn't everywhere. "

Which sounds to me a hell of a lot like my own view (and appears to reference my comments) that representation should be roughly in proportion to real world prevalence (please do not dismiss her views because you do not think they are 'proper' views for a queer person to hold - that would be incredibly offensive (assuming all queer people should subscribe to a particular worldview).


A thing actually, which hadn't come up in this thread at all until you brought it up in an attempt to needle me, so thanks for that. Not that I needed any more indication of what you thought of me.

I don't actually what you are referring to as bringing it up to needle you, but I will say that I doubt your impression of what I think of you is accurate.


This isn't a debate. It's barely even a discussion. I didn't come here to sit on high and talk about how best to satisfy "the queers" (the way you say that is the reason why I don't want you saying that). I'm here because im upset that a comic that I love that has been actively working at being better has a fandom full of people that aren't. It's frustrating, and I'm angry. I don't want to debate you. I want you to stop.
I didn't once preface the word "queers" with "the", I have used the term exactly the same way you have.

Of course you don't have to debate me (I do note that you quoted me first), you can ignore me or block me or post the picture of the eyes you did earlier. If you want me to stop debating you I am happy to (unless of course you respond to something I say).

[eilandesq]

*looks at a long list of comments*

Did anyone suggest Miko yet? She seems like the most obvious possibility other than O-Chul, though with an entirely different set of reasons one might think so.

[Suicune]

*looks at a long list of comments*

Did anyone suggest Miko yet? She seems like the most obvious possibility other than O-Chul, though with an entirely different set of reasons one might think so.

I think in one of the early comics (right after they blow up the inn) she tells Roy that she would be open to a relationship, so I think we can mostly rule her out.

How about Redcloak? I haven't read Start of Darkness yet, but from what I've seen tangentially about it (and in the main comic) he's basically made no reference to romance (or sex) at all.

[Keltest]

I think in one of the early comics (right after they blow up the inn) she tells Roy that she would be open to a relationship, so I think we can mostly rule her out.

How about Redcloak? I haven't read Start of Darkness yet, but from what I've seen tangentially about it (and in the main comic) he's basically made no reference to romance (or sex) at all.

He is open to the possibility of romance in SoD. If that isn't the case any longer, its because he's obsessed with The Plan, not specifically because he's Aromantic.

[martianmister]

How about Redcloak? I haven't read Start of Darkness yet, but from what I've seen tangentially about it (and in the main comic) he's basically made no reference to romance (or sex) at all.

He is open to the possibility of romance in SoD. If that isn't the case any longer, its because he's obsessed with The Plan, not specifically because he's Aromantic.
There is also some hints:

Thirdly, while it's not technically a bonus strip, near the beginning of Start of Darkness

Redcloak's little brother mentions that he has a crush on the girl next door. Redcloak angrily tells him to "shut up, you little twerp!" It's sweet.

So yeah, he's probably heterosexual or bisexual too.

[Darth Paul]

I'm here because im upset that a comic that I love that has been actively working at being better has a fandom full of people that aren't. It's frustrating, and I'm angry.

Wait a second. That's a very big brush you paint with, first of all. "A fandom full of people"? Please don't include me. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can be the person they are and/or choose to be. So long as everyone is a consenting adult and nobody gets hurt.


I don't want to debate you. I want you to stop.
Second, that attitude is one of my pet peeves. If you take issue with another person's opinion, address that and explain why. But that person has the same right to express an opinion (short of advocating violence and a couple other exceptions) as you do. We in civilized society are obligated to debate one another, not just say, "I don't like what you're saying and I want you to please shut up now." Both sides get to make their case. Don't try to extinguish the debate. No pun intended.

[Syncro]

*looks at a long list of comments*

Did anyone suggest Miko yet? She seems like the most obvious possibility other than O-Chul, though with an entirely different set of reasons one might think so.

After Roy apologized to her, Miko said she might be open to a romantic relationship with Roy(then Roy slammed her.) I don't think she's aromantic but she could be asexual.

[brian 333]

Perhaps a distinction between aromantic and socially inept might be made. I don't want to offend anyone, but the truth is, a lot of people we think of as uninterested are simply shy or socially awkward. They may develop elaborate fantasies of a romantic nature and simply never discuss them with others.

I am an agoraphobe. It is a mild case, but being in large groups of people with lots of noise causes me to want to be elsewhere. This made it difficult to participate in the fun going on at the discoteque when I was young, and I was told by several people toward whom I expressed romantic feelings that they had assumed I was uninteresred because I never 'go out'.

Shyness, social disorders, and physical appearance may all play a part in an otherwise normal person appearing from the outside to be uninterested.

Add in social pressure to be attracted to a type that is unattractive to the individual and you may have very romantic gay people who suppress their sexuality to conform to social expectations. It's hard to fake interest over the long term unless one is a sociopath who fakes all human relationships, but while not easy, it is easier to suppress feelings over that same time period. (Neither way is healthy, by the way.)

Human emotions are not well understood, even by the experts. There are trends and generalities, but each individual is unique.

Labels rob humans of their uniqueness. The label turns a three dimensional human into a one dimensional dot. Even if you know a person's label, you still know nothing about the person. Don't accept the label as a definition of you. That's like plucking a grain of sand from a beach and declaring it to be representative of Earth. Sexuality is important, but it is only a grain of sand on the beach that is you.

You are so much more than a functional or dysfunctional set of genetalia.

[eilandesq]

After Roy apologized to her, Miko said she might be open to a romantic relationship with Roy(then Roy slammed her.) I don't think she's aromantic but she could be asexual.

Given that Roy had just finished what seemed like a heartfelt, unrestrained apology for what *had* been objectively bad behavior on his part (behavior which she had mostly not even seemed to notice he was guilty of at the time), even a paladin incapable of lying might be moved to think "Wow--this man isn't who I thought he was. I don't generally do this sort of thing, but if this is what he really is and he ends up being innocent, maybe I should give this dating thing a try" and (being Miko) vocalized those thoughts without restraint--only to have Roy turn on a dime and cut loose with a "This is why you suck" rant.

I had that moment--and what led up to it, including Miko being oblivious to a lot of stuff from Roy that should have caused her to kick his ass given how she usually reacted to being angered--in mind when I suggested Miko, but are there any other moments that suggest that she even wanted to date anyone, or considered it?

[eilandesq]

Just in case this is not trolling:
You know there are succesful writers who did not just write an autobiography right?

To paraphrase the great and snarky Oz: "That was Zimmerwald's sarcastic voice."

[SlashDash]

My supposedly rediculous assertion is that I am not as qualified as someone who lived the life to write about LGBT issues.

Call me crazy, I'm pretty sure that The Giant never went into a layer of a black dragon to find a rare metal, never fought a lich on a flying zombie dragon and never had to fight face to face with an undead abomination that took the face of his best friend in order to save the entire world.

Yet Roy's story is impressively dramatic.

It's not that you can't write a story about something that hasn't happened to you, it will just be harder for you.

If you feel up to the challenge? Great!
If you don't? That's also fine.
I don't think you should be forced to write something you don't feel comfortable wih.



I concluded by saying that even polite requests to add your kind of character is ultimately harmful because that promotes stereotyping which is more harmful than doing nothing.

Stereotypical characters can actually be helpful for something people aren't familiar with if they are at least trying to show them in a positive way.

I'll give an obvious example here, Will and Grace was an LGBT that is insanely stereotypical.
But he helped pave the way for slightly less stereotypes later on to follow in other places.

Things have to start somewhere.


Lt Uhura? That one was so influential MLK Jr asked her not to leave the show. She inspired an entire generation.


Again, I don't believe in forcing authors to do things they don't want to do or hijack their stories to places they don't want them to go.

I also don't think that they should be afraid to experiment with things outside their comfort zone.

The only times stereotypes are an issue is when:
1) It's been done intentionally to ridicule or insult
2) The creators are trying to brag about how amazing the character is and that it's not stereotypical when they really are. Best example : Riverdale.



Something that has happened to me so many times I can't count them all is "suggestions."

When an acquaintance learns I spend time writing, the conversation seems to follow a script:
<snip>

Oh heck yes... That is beyond annoying. I'm totally familiar with those.
My way of handling it is telling them to work on it and maybe I'll have a look to guide them up here and there.

They never talk to me about it again. People like that aren't bad authors, they are just lazy and don't want to do the work. Tell them to do it and they'll drop out pretty fast.



I thought we were all unified against pressuring people to conform to the world view of others. Did I miss a meeting?
Define the word pressure.

"Please would you consider doing this? No? Okay Thanks for your time"
is not pressuring

"Please would you consider doing this? I'm only interested in this? If you're not doing it, then I won't read your work"
is a bit more aggressive, but hardly pressuring.

"Listen you !#$@#$@#$!#$!#$@#$!#$ do as I say or else @$@#$@$@#$@#$@#$"
50 times per day? Yeah, that's just crazy.



Personally I'm in a favor of good old fashion capitalism.
I pay for the stuff I like, so authors that appeal to me will get my money.
You want my money? Do stuff that I like.
You have enough money and don't care about mine? Suit yourself.

[SlashDash]

Perhaps a distinction between aromantic and socially inept might be made. I don't want to offend anyone, but the truth is, a lot of people we think of as uninterested are simply shy or socially awkward.

They may develop elaborate fantasies of a romantic nature and simply never discuss them with others.


True story : I recently found out that my best friend of almost 30 years is straight rather than asexual such as myself. I just assumed since he never seemed to show any interest in anything that we're the same. He is generally shy and awkward, but that seemed unrelated.

It turns out he has in fact dated quite a few times and is interested, just that it either never lasted much and that he is not a huge fan of "large gathering" that going somewhere with both his girlfriend and friends seemed a bit much and being private he just doesn't talk about it.

It's juts that one day he got a call from someone and after going on for 10 minutes in another room, when I asked if everything was okay he said :"Oh, just my girlfriend"
and I was like "You have a WHAT?!?"



Labels rob humans of their uniqueness. The label turns a three dimensional human into a one dimensional dot. Even if you know a person's label, you still know nothing about the person. Don't accept the label as a definition of you. That's like plucking a grain of sand from a beach and declaring it to be representative of Earth. Sexuality is important, but it is only a grain of sand on the beach that is you.

You are so much more than a functional or dysfunctional set of genetalia.
I couldn't agree with this more.

Labels should be used to help simplify life, not box them in.

It's part of the reason why I also hate the whole is it a "choice" or "you are born this way"?
I mean who cares? Do whatever you want.

If I have some blood test that shows my dna says I'm "straight" does that mean I'm now never allowed to be with another man if I happen to feel like it?


Truth is, these labels are human constructs, not scientific by any test measurable.
And people so often misunderstand or misuse them.

For a lot of my late teens, I told people who asked that I was gay. My assumption was, that if I'm not into women, then I must be gay, right? Took me a while to realize men aren't that interesting at all.

Then I went through a very alarmed (but thanksfully briefly) phase of wondering if I were something potentially dangerous like a pedophile or into bestiality or something like that. Keep in mind there was no Wikipedia back in my day.

It was that dumb constant nagging by everyone to find what label to call myself that drove me nuts.

Luckily that didn't last long and I just decided not to give a fox and moved on.

[martianmister]

True story : I recently found out that my best friend of almost 30 years is straight rather than asexual such as myself. I just assumed since he never seemed to show any interest in anything that we're the same. He is generally shy and awkward, but that seemed unrelated.

You thought that your best friend is asexual like yourself, yet you two never talk about it? :smallconfused:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You thought that your best friend is asexual like yourself, yet you two never talk about it? :smallconfused:

Errr... yes? What's confusing about "I assume that someone that never brings up interest in sex in regular conversation is therefore not interested in sex"?

Gynosexual friends of mine will occasionally mention how well-looking this or that actress is, while androsexual friends tend to indicate that Thor movies are particularly good for beefcake (although it seems Bucky needs a special mention). Or similar "tells". Not caring for one or the other is a logical indication of asexuality. Especially if, as indicated, it has not been mentioned in 30 years or relationship.

GW

[martianmister]

Errr... yes? What's confusing about "I assume that someone that never brings up interest in sex in regular conversation is therefore not interested in sex"?

I just would expect that something like that would be a point of discussion between "close friends for 30 years" like you and your friend. Especially considering how few openly asexual people there exist. But I don't want to discuss your friendship, if it makes you uncomfortable.

[Darth Paul]

I just would expect that something like that would be a point of discussion between "close friends for 30 years" like you and your friend. Especially considering how few openly asexual people there exist. But I don't want to discuss your friendship, if it makes you uncomfortable.

My ex-wife, now that I consider this, may be asexual given her statements that she could "take sex or leave it". But I never resolved what the case was because she never took me up on going to counseling together, all she said was "I'm not the kind of person who's comfortable talking about my feelings."
I suppose she may have been simulating an interest the first few years of our marriage just to make me happy, but as time went by she wasn't up to the act anymore.

[martianmister]

My ex-wife, now that I consider this, may be asexual given her statements that she could "take sex or leave it".

That's a "big" assumption though.

[Darth Paul]

That's a "big" assumption though.

I realize that. But it would explain a lot of things, when I look back over the years. I'm not assuming anything, it's just a speculation.

[brian 333]

Call me crazy, I'm pretty sure that The Giant never went into a layer of a black dragon to find a rare metal, never fought a lich on a flying zombie dragon and never had to fight face to face with an undead abomination that took the face of his best friend in order to save the entire world.

Yet Roy's story is impressively dramatic.

It's not that you can't write a story about something that hasn't happened to you, it will just be harder for you.

If you feel up to the challenge? Great!
If you don't? That's also fine.
I don't think you should be forced to write something you don't feel comfortable wih.


Stereotypical characters can actually be helpful for something people aren't familiar with if they are at least trying to show them in a positive way.

I'll give an obvious example here, Will and Grace was an LGBT that is insanely stereotypical.
But he helped pave the way for slightly less stereotypes later on to follow in other places.

Things have to start somewhere.


Lt Uhura? That one was so influential MLK Jr asked her not to leave the show. She inspired an entire generation.


Again, I don't believe in forcing authors to do things they don't want to do or hijack their stories to places they don't want them to go.

I also don't think that they should be afraid to experiment with things outside their comfort zone.

The only times stereotypes are an issue is when:
1) It's been done intentionally to ridicule or insult
2) The creators are trying to brag about how amazing the character is and that it's not stereotypical when they really are. Best example : Riverdale.


Oh heck yes... That is beyond annoying. I'm totally familiar with those.
My way of handling it is telling them to work on it and maybe I'll have a look to guide them up here and there.

They never talk to me about it again. People like that aren't bad authors, they are just lazy and don't want to do the work. Tell them to do it and they'll drop out pretty fast.


Define the word pressure.

"Please would you consider doing this? No? Okay Thanks for your time"
is not pressuring

"Please would you consider doing this? I'm only interested in this? If you're not doing it, then I won't read your work"
is a bit more aggressive, but hardly pressuring.

"Listen you !#$@#$@#$!#$!#$@#$!#$ do as I say or else @$@#$@$@#$@#$@#$"
50 times per day? Yeah, that's just crazy.



Personally I'm in a favor of good old fashion capitalism.
I pay for the stuff I like, so authors that appeal to me will get my money.
You want my money? Do stuff that I like.
You have enough money and don't care about mine? Suit yourself.

Having lived almost sixty years with stereotypes, I can tell you there is nothing redeeming about them and they can be very harmful both socially and individually. Most of my life I have had to work twice as hard and be twice as knowledgeable as my co-workers just to be accepted as an equal. Opportunities for which I was qualified were given to others because of stereotypes. Many of the kids I knew when I was young fell victim to believing in those stereotypes and as a result ended up in situations that could easily have been avoided but which destroyed their lives.

Uhura was not a stereotype. She wasn't prone to histrionics or chronically pregnant or a criminal. She was just a bridge officer, like any other. The exact same character could have been played by anyone, male, female, gay, white, or whatever. She just happened to be brown. Just as Bandana just happened to be interested in girls, but was portrayed as any other competent member of the crew. Those are examples of the right way to do things.

Will and Grace, on the other hand, cemented the idea that gays are promiscuous clowns in the minds of many uninformed viewers, requiring a generation of positive role models to correct the damage. John Amos left Good Times for that exact reason. He began thinking exposure had to be a good thing, but instead found his character, a chronically unemployed black man, taking his frustrations out on his family because everyone knows domestic abuse is what those people do.

So, I totally reject the idea that anything positive can come from stereotypes, other than to make a few writers and producers feel smugly superior about their inclusiveness, and history demonstrates many cases where stereotyping has been harmful.

A final note: I resent the implication that homosexuality or any other sexuality makes me uncomfortable. I am an ameture artist from New Orleans. I'm surrounded by people of varying degrees of sexuality. This is normal for me.

I don't write sexually explicit content of any kind because I write heroic fantasy, (sometimes disguised as science fiction.) While my characters may have sexuality off page, it's not something that comes up often in your day to day work environment outside of coffee break gossip. I'm not opposed to seeing well written romance in fantasy, but I prefer to write about other things.

I also don't write about heterosexual romance. If anyone believes that lack of implicit inclusion equals exclusion, that's a personal bias for which I am not responsible. As I have said before, I do use sexuality as a part of characterization. It informs my characters' choices and actions in the story even if I never come out and say, "Joe is gay." If I have to say that, then I didn't write a real character.

So, how do we get more characters of non-hetero types into media?

It is the responsibility of the oppressed to stand up for themselves. We know from history that 'tradition' can be used to justify virtually anything, and only the oppressed can teach others what it feels like. You are responsible for making your issues known, and you have a much better frame of reference than I do to present a case for people like you.

So, write your story yourself. You are more qualified to write characters like you who face the issues you face than I will ever be, even if I spent a lifetime studying.

[SlashDash]

I just would expect that something like that would be a point of discussion between "close friends for 30 years" like you and your friend. Especially considering how few openly asexual people there exist. But I don't want to discuss your friendship, if it makes you uncomfortable.

The person who responded wasn't me :smallwink:

You assume that most people have dating be a huge part of their life. This isn't really the case here.

The person in question is someone who tried dating, but was never really successful at it except for 1 relationship that lasted a bit (and even that was just a couple of months). To him it's just something he never discussed at all. I guess you can say he may have put himself in the closet about it.

When I told him that it surprised me, he said he didn't expect it but didn't really shock him either.

[SlashDash]

Uhura was not a stereotype. She wasn't prone to histrionics or chronically pregnant or a criminal. She was just a bridge officer, like any other.
Except that while every other officer had a clear job indication of special importance such as the doctor, the science officer, the engineer etc

she was basically the secretary that answered the phone, prone to constant whining and hysteric reactions. If you think a man would have fit in that role you're kidding yourself.

But people saw passed that and that's great.



Just as Bandana just happened to be interested in girls, but was portrayed as any other competent member of the crew. Those are examples of the right way to do things.

Will and Grace, on the other hand, cemented the idea that gays are promiscuous clowns in the minds of many uninformed viewers, requiring a generation of positive role models to correct the damage.

See here's the thing. Obviously I would rather see a show like Teen Wolf that shows you a gay jock that's just like everyone else and people are talking about their relationship in complete acceptance that you see 2 guys talking about their dates and (without previous knoweldge) you wouldn't even know who the gay and who the straight one was.

Yes, of course I'd take that over Will & Grace. However, if you didn't have Will & Grace, you wouldn't have Teen Wolf. That's just it, things start from somewhere.

It's crap, it's not fair, but that's life. Same for women. We have strong female characters today which is better than the basic window dressing bimbos of the past, but without them, there wouldn't be any roles for women at all.



John Amos left Good Times for that exact reason. He began thinking exposure had to be a good thing, but instead found his character, a chronically unemployed black man, taking his frustrations out on his family because everyone knows domestic abuse is what those people do.

I'm not familiar with the actor or the show, but after googling it up all I can see is that the actor was fired and he thought the show focused too much on a dumb catch phrase and he was rather vocal about it.



So, I totally reject the idea that anything positive can come from stereotypes, other than to make a few writers and producers feel smugly superior about their inclusiveness, and history demonstrates many cases where stereotyping has been harmful.

Unless you also realize that without those roles, many people wouldn't even have jobs.
It's not a good thing, it's just a realistic thing. To get the great and inspirational roles you want, you had to go through a lot of crap to make sure someone will eventually pick it up.

To get to today's "wonder woman" you had to go through a lot of Bond girls.



A final note: I resent the implication that homosexuality or any other sexuality makes me uncomfortable.

No worries, I never once assumed you were homophobic. You explained very clear what your intentions were and as I said, they are perfectly fine.



So, how do we get more characters of non-hetero types into media?

It is the responsibility of the oppressed to stand up for themselves. We know from history that 'tradition' can be used to justify virtually anything, and only the oppressed can teach others what it feels like.

See, here, I will heavily disagree.
Are you saying that only men write about men?
That white people should write about white people?
That black people should write about black people?
That only soldiers should write war stories?
That only cops should write cop shows?
That only lawyers should write court shows?
That only blind people can write a show about a blind guy?

It's called research and it's called imagination and talent.

Heck, Tom Hanks played an autistic man in Forest Gump, a gay lawyer infected with aids in Philidelphia, a man marooned on an island in Cast Away, a solider in Saving Private Ryan and a kid turned into an adult overnight in Big.

I don't believe he was either of those things in real life.

It's called acting... Writing isn't that different.

Sure it would be easier for someone with experience to write about it. But it's not impossible for someone who isn't.



You are responsible for making your issues known, and you have a much better frame of reference than I do to present a case for people like you.

So, write your story yourself. You are more qualified to write characters like you who face the issues you face than I will ever be, even if I spent a lifetime studying.
You're also assuming accuracy is important.
Let's take a very easy example here -
Randomly pick a profession. Any type of job.

Now google up a forum of people who have that job and see how they talk about any depiction of said job in tv. Find me one job where they don't completely burst into laughter about what's going on tv.

Cops always ridicule how cops appear on tv.
Doctors always ridicule how doctors appear on tv.
Same for soldiers, hackers, reporters, psychologists and what not.

[brian 333]

Except that while every other officer had a clear job indication of special importance such as the doctor, the science officer, the engineer etc

she was basically the secretary that answered the phone, prone to constant whining and hysteric reactions. If you think a man would have fit in that role you're kidding yourself.

But people saw passed that and that's great.

Checkov whined more and did less. I disagree with your assessment of Uhura. At various times she:
manned the navigation station.
manned the science station.
manned the conn.

She was a qualified bridge officer, having a more diverse skillset than anyone else, including Sulu, (helm only,) Chekov, (navigation and science,) and Scotty, (engineering and conn.) Spock and Kirk could do what she did, but they were command officers. I have long suspected that Uhura was a command candidate, but in 1968 that might have been a step too far for a black woman.


See here's the thing. Obviously I would rather see a show like Teen Wolf that shows you a gay jock that's just like everyone else and people are talking about their relationship in complete acceptance that you see 2 guys talking about their dates and (without previous knoweldge) you wouldn't even know who the gay and who the straight one was.

Yes, of course I'd take that over Will & Grace. However, if you didn't have Will & Grace, you wouldn't have Teen Wolf. That's just it, things start from somewhere.

It's crap, it's not fair, but that's life. Same for women. We have strong female characters today which is better than the basic window dressing bimbos of the past, but without them, there wouldn't be any roles for women at all.

I disagree, and in fact, believe such stereotypes became a kind of insurance, delaying the arrival of characters like Uhura and Derek Morgan. It's easy to plug in a stereotype and make a joke, and it makes the producer feel good about hiring brown people, but it paints an unrealistic picture in the minds of the audience. "That's how those people act," is harmful to a child who believes what he sees and immitates it.

When you surround people with images that show people like them to be criminals, not only do they start to believe it, but others of that society believe it too.

But Will and Grace weren't presenting criminals!

No, what they were doing was convincing America that gay men are irresponsibly promiscuous and as vapid as a 19th century debutante, (which is itself a stereotype.) How many AIDS victims bought the idea that being gay means being promiscuous and irresponsible?


I'm not familiar with the actor or the show, but after googling it up all I can see is that the actor was fired and he thought the show focused too much on a dumb catch phrase and he was rather vocal about it.


Unless you also realize that without those roles, many people wouldn't even have jobs.
It's not a good thing, it's just a realistic thing. To get the great and inspirational roles you want, you had to go through a lot of crap to make sure someone will eventually pick it up.

To get to today's "wonder woman" you had to go through a lot of Bond girls.

I disagree. All it took was the courage of one producer to place a beautiful, competent, brown woman in a visible role. Skip the parody, that just has to be unlearned anyway. And it's far easier to teach the lesson right the first time than to unteach misinformation, which must be done in order to go from JJ Walker to Derek Morgan.

And jobs... this is a cannard. Yes, non-whites wanted to work in film and television. But all along there were characters like Link and Sgt. Kinchloe who were drowned under the flood of parodies. Eliminate the parody and that makes the few honest characters stand out.


No worries, I never once assumed you were homophobic. You explained very clear what your intentions were and as I said, they are perfectly fine.

Thanks. I've gotten other impressions from other posters. I apologize for being overly defensive.


See, here, I will heavily disagree.
Are you saying that only men write about men?
That white people should write about white people?
That black people should write about black people?
That only soldiers should write war stories?
That only cops should write cop shows?
That only lawyers should write court shows?
That only blind people can write a show about a blind guy?

No. I'm saying only those whose interest guides them should. Those who don't want to but feel forced to are far less likely to do the research, and instead put up a stereotype while patting themselves on the back for their inclusiveness.

Imagine the stereotype of a police drama as written by young black Americans. Or a court show written by imprisoned convicts. There would be issues! Now imagine that those examples become accepted as, "Normal for them."


It's called research and it's called imagination and talent.

Heck, Tom Hanks played an autistic man in Forest Gump, a gay lawyer infected with aids in Philidelphia, a man marooned on an island in Cast Away, a solider in Saving Private Ryan and a kid turned into an adult overnight in Big.

I don't believe he was either of those things in real life.

It's called acting... Writing isn't that different.

Sure it would be easier for someone with experience to write about it. But it's not impossible for someone who isn't.

Tom Hanks wanted the roles. He did the research to play them effectively. Imagine if he was told, "You want these other roles, but you have to play an autistic guy first even though you don't want to."

Would his acting have been as convincing?


You're also assuming accuracy is important.
Let's take a very easy example here -
Randomly pick a profession. Any type of job.

Now google up a forum of people who have that job and see how they talk about any depiction of said job in tv. Find me one job where they don't completely burst into laughter about what's going on tv.

Cops always ridicule how cops appear on tv.
Doctors always ridicule how doctors appear on tv.
Same for soldiers, hackers, reporters, psychologists and what not.

And you've given my answer in your presentation. Learning is more than memorizing data. I'm not saying or implying that a straight person cannot write a gay character. What I am saying is that a gay person knows what I could never learn: how it feels to be gay.

Representation is not enough. Accurate representation promotes understanding, while stereotyping and tokenism ingrain misunderstanding. And making artists believe they have to be 'inclusive' leads inevitably to tokenism and stereotypes.

[137beth]

*looks at a long list of comments*

Did anyone suggest Miko yet? She seems like the most obvious possibility other than O-Chul, though with an entirely different set of reasons one might think so.


I think in one of the early comics (right after they blow up the inn) she tells Roy that she would be open to a relationship, so I think we can mostly rule her out.
I guess you're referring to the 5th-to-last panel of strip 250? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html) That was pretty much why I left Miko out of the OP. If the Giant really wanted to make Miko aro ace, he could still probably do it and work around that one panel--there are several ways that line could be explained away given an aro ace Miko. Although, he would probably have to do it in either a forum post or a flashback, what with Miko being long dead and out of the story.
Also, I was a little worried that if I brought up Miko in the opening post, then the entire thread would just be a massive argument about Miko. Fortunately, we found other things to argue about, like whether writing a forum post constitutes "censorship."




How about Redcloak? I haven't read Start of Darkness yet, but from what I've seen tangentially about it (and in the main comic) he's basically made no reference to romance (or sex) at all.


He is open to the possibility of romance in SoD. If that isn't the case any longer, its because he's obsessed with The Plan, not specifically because he's Aromantic.
Not really.
He says he wants to invite someone back so he can apologize to her after he was rude the first time he met her. Wanting to apologize to your relative(-in law) is not remotely close to wanting romance with them. And sure, it seemed like Right-Eye was hoping to help get Redcloak in to a romantic relationship, but that doesn't mean Redcloak was ever interested.

[Liquor Box]

See, here, I will heavily disagree.
Are you saying that only men write about men?
That white people should write about white people?
That black people should write about black people?
That only soldiers should write war stories?
That only cops should write cop shows?
That only lawyers should write court shows?
That only blind people can write a show about a blind guy?

It's called research and it's called imagination and talent.

Heck, Tom Hanks played an autistic man in Forest Gump, a gay lawyer infected with aids in Philidelphia, a man marooned on an island in Cast Away, a solider in Saving Private Ryan and a kid turned into an adult overnight in Big.

I don't believe he was either of those things in real life.

It's called acting... Writing isn't that different.

Sure it would be easier for someone with experience to write about it. But it's not impossible for someone who isn't.


The argument between Brian333 and various others about whether an author should (or should be able to) write about people who are inherently different from themselves (in terms of sexuality in the context of this thread) has been going for many pages.

Surely it is fair to say that if Brian333, as an author, feels that he is unable to identify sufficiently with asexual people to do them justice, that is his perogative. It doesn't make him a bad writer as some (not you) have suggested, because there may be other aspects of his writing that make up for it. It's just that that particular subject matter isn't within his purview.

Likewise if a different (straight, for the sake of argument) writer, like Burlew, does feel comfortable writing asexual people then he should be free to do so. Whether or not he does that character justice is a matter for him and his audience to judge (and I think most people feel that Burlew writes non-straight characters well).

There's pages of discussion on this sub-point, but I wonder if any of the people discussing would actually disagree that some writer's probably can write characters who are of a sexuality than themselves well, some can't, and each author should decide for him or her self whether to attempt such a character?

[brian 333]

A potentially overlooked possibility is Durkon.

We saw him in one romantic liaison, which he admitted was his first. Assuming he was an adult when he was kicked out of Dwarftown, that's a long time to be abstinate for a human. (Dwarves may have a comparatively lower libido? I don't know...) After that one liaison he told his paramour to go back to her husband.

This doesn't sound like he has the sex drive of an alpha male, and it doesn't sound like the opportunism of a beta. It looks like, from outward appearances, a guy who tried it because it's something you're supposed to want to do.

Thor isn't opposed to illicit love, as we've seen in comic, so an affair or two wouldn't trouble him on that count. Of course, being LG there would be guilt and shame, but that's how those guys roll. So there was no physical or theological bar to his pursuing romance. Heck, he could have married if he wanted.

But he didn't seem to want to.

[zimmerwald1915]

Whether or not he does that character justice is a matter for him and his audience to judge (and I think most people feel that Burlew writes non-straight characters well).
Not the whole audience, surely? There are some people in it who are not fit to judge whether the author writes non-straight (or whatever) characters well, for any number of reasons.

[Vinyadan]

@brian A couple of facts: dwarfs live much longer than humans (you are an adult at 40, middle-aged at 125, and really old at 250). So it could be that they mate less often. But the more important one is that Durkon is an exile, and dwarf don't travel often (as said by Hilgya), so he surely met very few dwarves while away. Add a charisma penalty compared to other races, as well as an introverted character and a certain disdain towards human culture, and what you get is that he likely would have had better chances in Dwarfham.

[Emanick]

A potentially overlooked possibility is Durkon.

We saw him in one romantic liaison, which he admitted was his first. Assuming he was an adult when he was kicked out of Dwarftown, that's a long time to be abstinate for a human. (Dwarves may have a comparatively lower libido? I don't know...) After that one liaison he told his paramour to go back to her husband.

This doesn't sound like he has the sex drive of an alpha male, and it doesn't sound like the opportunism of a beta. It looks like, from outward appearances, a guy who tried it because it's something you're supposed to want to do.

Thor isn't opposed to illicit love, as we've seen in comic, so an affair or two wouldn't trouble him on that count. Of course, being LG there would be guilt and shame, but that's how those guys roll. So there was no physical or theological bar to his pursuing romance. Heck, he could have married if he wanted.

But he didn't seem to want to.

He pretty clearly seemed to enjoy it, though. I don’t know how asexual people feel about sex, exactly, but my (possibly erroneous) impression is that they would not particularly enjoy it, at least as much as Durkon seemed to - I mean, he got Hilgya pregnant on the first “try,” he was probably pretty excited.

He also cried as Hilgya went away, which implies that he had real romantic feelings for her. It could be read in other ways, of course, but that seems like the most straightforward reading.

[georgie_leech]

He pretty clearly seemed to enjoy it, though. I don’t know how asexual people feel about sex, exactly, but my (possibly erroneous) impression is that they would not particularly enjoy it, at least as much as Durkon seemed to - I mean, he got Hilgya pregnant on the first “try,” he was probably pretty excited.

He also cried as Hilgya went away, which implies that he had real romantic feelings for her. It could be read in other ways, of course, but that seems like the most straightforward reading.

Mechanical stimulation has certain results, regardless of attraction. That said, I don't think Durkon was particularly not attracted to Hilgya. Just that he doesn't have strong attractions. Low sex drive =/= asexual.

[brian 333]

Mechanical stimulation has certain results, regardless of attraction. That said, I don't think Durkon was particularly not attracted to Hilgya. Just that he doesn't have strong attractions. Low sex drive =/= asexual.

But some people act like they tbink they are supposed to act.

And an aromantic asexual person can have feelings for others. They are not by default heartless. Perhaps he was simply reacting to the knowledge that lonliness, which he hoped for a moment could be alleviated, was going to be permanent.

[eilandesq]

[QUOTE=137ben;22791984]I guess you're referring to the 5th-to-last panel of strip 250? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html) That was pretty much why I left Miko out of the OP. If the Giant really wanted to make Miko aro ace, he could still probably do it and work around that one panel--there are several ways that line could be explained away given an aro ace Miko. Although, he would probably have to do it in either a forum post or a flashback, what with Miko being long dead and out of the story.
Also, I was a little worried that if I brought up Miko in the opening post, then the entire thread would just be a massive argument about Miko. Fortunately, we found other things to argue about, like whether writing a forum post constitutes "censorship."


Good choice, and one that makes me glad that I mentioned it later, since Miko seems like an obvious character to look at, but bringing her up from the get go might have blown up the thread early before other useful discussion occurred. :-)

[eilandesq]

My general reaction to anyone who tells me that I don't have a right to an opinion on a topic due to not personally having first-hand knowledge on that topic is to reply, "Really? Would you be saying that if I was *agreeing* with you?" Their response to that question will determine whether I engage further with them, or simply roll my eyes at them and move on to more productive uses of my time than arguing with unrepentant hypocrites.

[FireJustice]

important characters? probably not.

There were golems in some strips, no? Can't think of more exemplaes of Aromantic/Asexuals... They would be killer guards, thou
Probably resistent to seduction.

[Liquor Box]

Not the whole audience, surely? There are some people in it who are not fit to judge whether the author writes non-straight (or whatever) characters well, for any number of reasons.

Well anyone who wants to can form their own opinion, which will probably inform their enjoyment of the piece of work. You might argue that some people's opinions have wider relevance than others though.

[Darth Paul]

I don't think Durkon was particularly not attracted to Hilgya. Just that he doesn't have strong attractions. Low sex drive =/= asexual.

I quite agree with you. My take on Durkon has always been that he had a scholarly bent, spending his time in the library and the temple more than chasing ladies. Not to say he didn't think about them, but he seems introverted and has a low charisma even compared to other dwarves, so I don't think he was one who had many (or any) dates when before his exile. It may not even be a case of low drive as much as just being a wallflower.

[martianmister]

Why would anyone think of Durkon, the first character in the comic that actually had a sexual intercourse, as asexual? Seriously...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0035.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0123.html

[brian 333]

Why would anyone think of Durkon, the first character in the comic that actually had a sexual intercourse, as asexual? Seriously...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0035.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0123.html

Asexual people can have sex. It's not an exclusive issue. Hilgya initiated their 'encounter' and Durkon admitted it was his first time. Subsequently he made exactly zero attempts to repeat the experience. He doesn't seem highly motivated to be involved in romance.

This is not conclusive, of course.

[Fincher]

I know this isn't precisely on-topic, but since fictional characters who might be asexual isn't a common topic of discussion...I've actually thought before that the original Star Wars trilogy would make more sense if Luke was asexual. The way he acted toward Leia had more of a childhood crush feel to it than a grown man being attracted to a woman. Also (and I admit I'm not an expert on the asexual experience), it seems like it would help to explain him subconsciously knowing she's his sister and not being bothered by it afterward if his feelings weren't sexual in the first place.

[eilandesq]

Asexual people can have sex. It's not an exclusive issue. Hilgya initiated their 'encounter' and Durkon admitted it was his first time. Subsequently he made exactly zero attempts to repeat the experience. He doesn't seem highly motivated to be involved in romance.

This is not conclusive, of course.

Yes, but do asexual people tend to listen at a thin wall to hear what apparently is one (perhaps two) women talking about what sound like a detailed description of their breasts? With a broad smile on his face, yet?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0123.html (as cited three comments above this one)

[Emanick]

I know this isn't precisely on-topic, but since fictional characters who might be asexual isn't a common topic of discussion...I've actually thought before that the original Star Wars trilogy would make more sense if Luke was asexual. The way he acted toward Leia had more of a childhood crush feel to it than a grown man being attracted to a woman. Also (and I admit I'm not an expert on the asexual experience), it seems like it would help to explain him subconsciously knowing she's his sister and not being bothered by it afterward if his feelings weren't sexual in the first place.

He's a teenager who grew up on an isolated farm. Of course it felt like a childhood crush - it would be strange if he weren't highly inexperienced with romance. His area of Tatooine doesn't seem to be exactly swarming with young human women.

[Fincher]

It's not that I expected him to put the moves on her, but there's body language cues to attraction that I didn't get from the movies. Him not being around girls beforehand would only make it more pronounced, because then he'd be curious and lack the knowledge of what would be considered rude.

It could be nothing more than Hamill's acting causing it, but still, he doesn't convey sexuality in general to me, and then in the golden bikini scenes there's no reaction even in an avoiding looking sort of way, even though this is the sexualization of his romantic interest. And then there's the extremely downplayed brother-sister revelation.

[Dr.Zero]

Asexual people can have sex. It's not an exclusive issue.

Martianmister's point seems to be more that he is easily excited by sexual stimulus, no more and no less than Elan or Belkar, according to the two strips quoted.
Which seems to contrast heavily with asexual definition as in the first line of the wikipedia entry.



Hilgya initiated their 'encounter' and Durkon admitted it was his first time. Subsequently he made exactly zero attempts to repeat the experience. He doesn't seem highly motivated to be involved in romance.

This is not conclusive, of course.

The fact that, as said immediately by Hilgya as soon as she meets him, it's not easy to meet another dwarf in human lands is probably far more relevant.
Shyness + lawfulness + different race + assorted olfactory offences = lower probability of random intercourse. seems a likely reason enough to explain his poor sexual life.

[Fyraltari]

It could be nothing more than Hamill's acting causing it, but still, he doesn't convey sexuality in general to me, and then in the golden bikini scenes there's no reaction even in an avoiding looking sort of way, even though this is the sexualization of his romantic interest. And then there's the extremely downplayed brother-sister revelation.

The metal bikini scene is arousing to the audience that is watching fictional people doing fictional stuff while sitting confortly on a sofa. From Luke's point of view, he is in the middle of castle full of people who wants to kill him, unarmed, to rescue his best friend(s) from a horrible fate and the girl he fancies has been stripped, humiliated and Force-kows-whatted by a snail version of Baron Harkonnen. This is not the kind of situation where sxeual attraction registers much. Stress and survival instinct are far much prevalent.

And that is ignoring what leaning to the Dark Side (like choking these two gurds) do to your emotionnal responses.

[Fincher]

and the girl he fancies has been stripped, humiliated and Force-kows-whatted by a snail version of Baron Harkonnen.

Right, but shouldn't that make him angry? We know that he still gets angry because he loses it over Vader threatening to turn Leia. She proves to be his weakness, and at this point she's his romantic interest who he has feelings for and supposedly is attracted to, and she's been stripped and chained by this disgusting thing, and he's not reacting positively or negatively to how she's dressed, no sign that he'd like to choke the life out of Jabba for this. He's very eye on the prize. Could it be that maybe he doesn't fully understand the implications of what's happening here?

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting anything about George Lucas' intentions. I'm just looking at how the films come off to me, and this is the overall impression I get.

[Keltest]

Right, but shouldn't that make him angry? We know that he still gets angry because he loses it over Vader threatening to turn Leia. She proves to be his weakness, and at this point she's his romantic interest who he has feelings for and supposedly is attracted to, and she's been stripped and chained by this disgusting thing, and he's not reacting positively or negatively to how she's dressed, no sign that he'd like to choke the life out of Jabba for this. He's very eye on the prize. Could it be that maybe he doesn't fully understand the implications of what's happening here?

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting anything about George Lucas' intentions. I'm just looking at how the films come off to me, and this is the overall impression I get.

At this point Luke is trying to be a Jedi. That means keeping his mind clear and focused so he can use the force well. Frankly, I think it would be weirder at that point if he did stop to oogle her a bit, or otherwise react.

[Fyraltari]

At this point Luke is trying to be a Jedi. That means keeping his mind clear and focused so he can use the force well. Frankly, I think it would be weirder at that point if he did stop to oogle her a bit, or otherwise react.

Funnily enough, I've just finished reading Heir to the Jedi in which Luke spends a lot of time trying to become a Jedi (he moves a spoon at the end) and at one point he ogles a Rebel he is travelling with. She notices.

Seriuously yeah I think it is mostly that Luke has a lot on his mind already (and the movies are intended for kids) and we almost never see him in stress-free situations.

For what it is worth it looks like Old Luke never married nor had kids contrasting Legends' Luke.

[brian 333]

It is also worth noting that the Jedi train to excise personal attachments from their lives to instead consider all life in the galaxy of equal importance. None of them have relationships of a romantic nature in order to prevent exactly what happened to Anakin.

As for Durkon: the idea that he is not asexual comes from a single experiment with sex. He may even have liked it.

He was never interested enough before leaving dwarven lands to experiment, and as a priest he was surely of sufficient social standing to attract young female dwarves who aspired to rise from goat cheese making to social prominence through marriage. In fact, it is odd that some girl didn't convince herself she could fix his flaws while trading in her peasant smock for the gown of a priest's wife.

Anyone of any identification can experiment. Social pressures to 'settle down' or to conform to a particular pattern of behavior can be enormous. The difference is that those who aren't highly motivated by sex eventually give up trying.

[Fyraltari]

It is also worth noting that the Jedi train to excise personal attachments from their lives to instead consider all life in the galaxy of equal importance. None of them have relationships of a romantic nature in order to prevent exactly what happened to Anakin.
Which is precisely why what happened to Anakin, happened.


As for Durkon: the idea that he is not asexual comes from a single experiment with sex. He may even have liked it.

He was never interested enough before leaving dwarven lands to experiment, and as a priest he was surely of sufficient social standing to attract young female dwarves who aspired to rise from goat cheese making to social prominence through marriage. In fact, it is odd that some girl didn't convince herself she could fix his flaws while trading in her peasant smock for the gown of a priest's wife.

Anyone of any identification can experiment. Social pressures to 'settle down' or to conform to a particular pattern of behavior can be enormous. The difference is that those who aren't highly motivated by sex eventually give up trying.

It is worth mentionning that Durkon is extremely focused on duty and is the kind of person to sacrifice his wants and desires for something that is important to him (like mastering healing magic so he can help his mom). He may very well have dismissed any interest he started having as irrelevant. I also don't think he ever was the most popular guy around either.

Do we know how long he was a Cleric before his exile?

[brian 333]

Which is precisely why what happened to Anakin, happened.



It is worth mentionning that Durkon is extremely focused on duty and is the kind of person to sacrifice his wants and desires for something that is important to him (like mastering healing magic so he can help his mom). He may very well have dismissed any interest he started having as irrelevant. I also don't think he ever was the most popular guy around either.

Do we know how long he was a Cleric before his exile?

Long enough to impress his aunt with his ability to Cure Minor Wounds. By her reaction, it isn't a common thing in dwarf lands.

[Fyraltari]

Long enough to impress his aunt with his ability to Cure Minor Wounds. By her reaction, it isn't a common thing in dwarf lands.

I thought twhat was more "little Durkon is casting his first spell. I remember when I used come every day to help Sigdi change his diapers" kind of reaction.

[brian 333]

I thought twhat was more "little Durkon is casting his first spell. I remember when I used come every day to help Sigdi change his diapers" kind of reaction.

I hadn't considered that point, thanks.

[Vinyadan]

The metal bikini scene is arousing to the audience that is watching fictional people doing fictional stuff while sitting confortly on a sofa. From Luke's point of view, he is in the middle of castle full of people who wants to kill him, unarmed, to rescue his best friend(s) from a horrible fate and the girl he fancies has been stripped, humiliated and Force-kows-whatted by a snail version of Baron Harkonnen.

At least, this one doesn't fly.

[2D8HP]

Most every character in the Stickverse is potentially "ace" or "aro" until shown otherwise, Celia and Roy, and Elan and Haley are not, otherwise off the top of my head I can't remember the names of other examples, and I'm too lazy to look it up, Tarquin isn't ace but may be aro (he mostly seems in love with himself, but may have loved Malack, but not romantically?, Vaarsuvius may be ace, but not aro, kinda of like real life, one doesn't know unless it comes up.

Now let's talk Elves:


Is she? Or just slim?

In her very first appearance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0986.html) she's referred to as "an elven priestess" by Roy, and Wrecan replies "she's not taking contract work at the moment" (emphasis mine). I didn't think there was any question that Veldrina was female.


I'd be surprised if Z was not male. We've only ever heard him referred to as male. I suppose technically Z never told us on-panel that he is male, but I'd assume if he wasn't male he at some point would have told Nale or Sabine off-panel. If Z was really nonbinary, then he was closeted pretty deep, since Nale, Sabine, and even his own familiar all seemed to think he was male....


Veldrina seems girlish, or child-like and of indeterminate gender rather than womanly to me,

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/oots/images/c/c1/Veldrina_0986.png/revision/latest/thumbnail-down/width/111/height/155?cb=20150624140844

and is referred to as a priestess (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0986.html) by a Gnome, and as her (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0987.html) by Wreccan, but that may be non-Elves assigning gender to Veldrina, and maybe she's just been away from Elves long enough that she's adopted non-Elvish ways and decided to be female.

Lirian is an Elf who seems like a women to me:

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/oots/images/c/cf/Lirian.png/revision/latest?cb=20090219163201

Remembering that Inkyrius and Vaarsuvius adopted their kids, my own headcannon is that with their long lifespans Elves live most of their lives without having a sex, or only a few Elves ever do, so there are few births among the Elves, maybe only Elves near the end of their long lives reproduce, and raising children is usually done by parents who adopt, or is very much a whole village endeavor?

In contrast to Veldrina, human women Beatrix "Bandana" Secundus*

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/oots/images/7/7c/Bandana_Winter.PNG/revision/latest/thumbnail-down/width/87/height/154?cb=20170719050721

seems more like an adult women to me but at least one Playgrounder was suprised:

So wait, is Bandana a woman? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526986-So-wait-is-Bandana-a-woman&highlight=bandana)

But yeah, I'm going with that Vaarsuvius is being a typical Stickverse Elf, and "gendered" Elves are a minority, but we really haven't seen much on Elvish ways yet other than V.

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx144/half-halfling/Untitled-2.png

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/screen_shot_2017_03_11_at_114108_pm.png

I just can't tell with the Elves, but I can other races, hence my headcannon.

[Floret]

Authors work best when LEFT ALONE. Sure, you can tell an author you'd like this and that and that other thing in their work, and they might agree, for various reasons (actually agreeing with you, being paid by you, being scared of the public fallout you might bring to bear on them).

They don't, though. Please read Anne Rice pre- and post-firing her editor. I dare you. I double-dare you.
Any author who thinks they are a genius that doesn't need impact will have their work suffer from the lack of feedback during the creation process. The fact that a webcomic is something where creation and publication happen at the same time only means that the process of feedback being able to improve the work will show over the progess of it; since old stuff can no longer be edited pre-publication.


It's apparently okay to be intolerant if you are fighting intolerance.

Yes. Yes it is. It is not only okay, but necessary. I recommend researching the Paradox of Tolerance.


My muse doesn't care what others say about my art. But to label me as an opponent of human equality demonstrates only how willing you are to pressure artists into conformity to your world view.

No offense, but... "your muse" are only your personal impulses for ideas, formed by your pre-existing biases, by your own experiences; and not a divine input beyond criticism (Or possibility of profiting from other people's input). As such, it absolutely does care what other people say about your art, because any input you get will shape (Not in the way the input phrased it, necessarily, and not in big ways) those pre-existing biases and experiences.


Labels rob humans of their uniqueness. The label turns a three dimensional human into a one dimensional dot. Even if you know a person's label, you still know nothing about the person. Don't accept the label as a definition of you. That's like plucking a grain of sand from a beach and declaring it to be representative of Earth. Sexuality is important, but it is only a grain of sand on the beach that is you.

Labels can also help find comfort. Help put a name on something that isn't "broken". "wrong". "deviant". Labels help find community, help find information about what could be done about the way one is. If you take a label to be a statement on the whole person, you obviously miss things, but that is on you for interpreting it that way, not on the person using a descriptor.
I mean, "Man" is a label. "Engineer" is a label. "Extrovert" is a label. Labels are merely descriptors. Reducing a person to their descriptors is obviously gonna oversimplify, but having descriptors is a rather good thing to be able to talk about, well. Anything, really.


This doesn't sound like he has the sex drive of an alpha male, and it doesn't sound like the opportunism of a beta. It looks like, from outward appearances, a guy who tried it because it's something you're supposed to want to do.

Wait. Did you really refer to those terms, about sexual behaviour in human(oid)s in hearnest? Those terms don't refer to anything real. Not to retread tired old ground, but... Those are based on an overgeneralising study based on wolves in captivity cobbled together from different original packs. They don't even apply to naturally-formed packs in captivity (Through breeding, for example); let alone wolves in the wild; and least of all humans who aren't even the same biological class.

Durkon is a guy who got hit on, and recipocrated. He might later decide that this wasn't for him, but we have seen no indication of any such thing, and as others have pointed out he seemed rather sad to send her away - meaning that at least for the moment, he had decided this might well be for him, but rules were standing in the way.

[brian 333]

They don't, though. Please read Anne Rice pre- and post-firing her editor. I dare you. I double-dare you.
Any author who thinks they are a genius that doesn't need impact will have their work suffer from the lack of feedback during the creation process. The fact that a webcomic is something where creation and publication happen at the same time only means that the process of feedback being able to improve the work will show over the progess of it; since old stuff can no longer be edited pre-publication.



Yes. Yes it is. It is not only okay, but necessary. I recommend researching the Paradox of Tolerance.



No offense, but... "your muse" are only your personal impulses for ideas, formed by your pre-existing biases, by your own experiences; and not a divine input beyond criticism (Or possibility of profiting from other people's input). As such, it absolutely does care what other people say about your art, because any input you get will shape (Not in the way the input phrased it, necessarily, and not in big ways) those pre-existing biases and experiences.



Labels can also help find comfort. Help put a name on something that isn't "broken". "wrong". "deviant". Labels help find community, help find information about what could be done about the way one is. If you take a label to be a statement on the whole person, you obviously miss things, but that is on you for interpreting it that way, not on the person using a descriptor.
I mean, "Man" is a label. "Engineer" is a label. "Extrovert" is a label. Labels are merely descriptors. Reducing a person to their descriptors is obviously gonna oversimplify, but having descriptors is a rather good thing to be able to talk about, well. Anything, really.



Wait. Did you really refer to those terms, about sexual behaviour in human(oid)s in hearnest? Those terms don't refer to anything real. Not to retread tired old ground, but... Those are based on an overgeneralising study based on wolves in captivity cobbled together from different original packs. They don't even apply to naturally-formed packs in captivity (Through breeding, for example); let alone wolves in the wild; and least of all humans who aren't even the same biological class.

Durkon is a guy who got hit on, and recipocrated. He might later decide that this wasn't for him, but we have seen no indication of any such thing, and as others have pointed out he seemed rather sad to send her away - meaning that at least for the moment, he had decided this might well be for him, but rules were standing in the way.


You are well schooled in the belief set you espouse, but it is a fraud.

Nat Turner lead a revolt which got a couple hundred people killed for no effect.
Fredrick Douglas taught Americans about the horrors of slavery and changed a nation.

Malcom X preached violent revolution and died having accomplished nothing.
M. L. King Jr. Preached love and non violence and changed a nation.

Intolerance increases the hate. Education increases understanding. There is no ambiguity, there is no 'sometimes.' Any case in favor of intolerance is a case for revenge, and the revenge cycle will not end, as Ghandi said, until we all are blind.

You are not qualified to question my muse. It speaks to me alone. You cannot say this or that is true or delusion because you do not know. I have had an intimate relationship with the lady all my life, and I have no idea what she will inspire me to write or draw or sculpt or paint tomorrow. I want to keep the relationship mystical, thank you very much.

Labels are stereotypes which universally misrepresent the people to whom they are attached. It's convienient for the lazy to attach a label so they can pretend understanding, but the long term effect of this is to allow people to avoid getting to know one another.

So a person is Label X. Is she also a mother? A daughter? A medic? An angsty teen with issues? A woman who has trouble sleeping at night? A shy person? A rock climber? Exactly how does the label help me understand who this person is? Well, it doesn't. Having given her Label X I'm now free to treat her like that label, which is less than 1% of her character. This is harmful because it promotes the stereotype and inhibits true human connections. But it is typical of our failing culture that a person is reduced to a convenient data point. It's a very lazy way for a person to pretend to get to know another person without knowing anything about them at all.

And yes, I used Alpha and Beta labels. Notice your reaction? I was illustrating a point, not attempting to describe real people. As far as that goes, those labels are as valid as any of the conflicting hodge-podge of labels currently used. How is one arbitrary system of nomenclature superior to another? Popularity doesn't equal correct.

The truth is that in another generation the labels will change again, and be just as invalid as the last set. Forget the labels, they don't help, but they do put humans into boxes from which it is difficult to emerge.

One of the biggest mistakes of the Civil Rights struggle is that nobody sat down to ask, what works, what backfired, and what was just a plain waste of energy. It's something I've spent some time thinking about.

Awareness works. People sometimes do not know, whether by culture, isolation, or willful blindness. Teaching them in a way which is respectful brings them into understanding, which leads to changes of hearts.

Intolerance fails. Without exception it serves to reduce understanding which leads to increased isolation.

Those old haters? You can't fix them. You can prove them wrong to the next generation, but to do so you have to approach them with love and compassion. You can't ever get even by repeating their mistakes. That's a step back for us all.



Edit: Oh, editors. Yes, they can help. Read, "But What Of Earth?" by Piers Anthony.

[zimmerwald1915]

One of the biggest mistakes of the Civil Rights struggle is that nobody sat down to ask, what works, what backfired, and what was just a plain waste of energy. It's something I've spent some time thinking about.
Of all the statements in your post that go to show you have no idea what you're talking about, this is the greatest. If you were actually involved with civil rights groups (whether mainstream or radical) you'd know that the people involved in them devote a great deal of time and energy grappling with the past and considering tactical questions in light of past experience. It would also give your statements some validity beyond "this is the conclusion I've arrived at through Pure Reason, from whatever premises strike my fancy."

[brian 333]

Of all the statements in your post that go to show you have no idea what you're talking about, this is the greatest. If you were actually involved with civil rights groups (whether mainstream or radical) you'd know that the people involved in them devote a great deal of time and energy grappling with the past and considering tactical questions in light of past experience. It would also give your statements some validity beyond "this is the conclusion I've arrived at through Pure Reason, from whatever premises strike my fancy."

This is not true. The current Civil Rights movement is doubling down on the mistakes of the past.

I was never involved with any Civil Rights group. I was too busy working at the time. But I lived through an era and I am informed by that experience. And, yes, I bought the same reasoning presented by some here at the time. I've learned since then.

Let's see if anyone can come up with a single historical example of intolerance leading to something better.

[Mulcan]

{Scrubbed}

[Kish]

Every time there has been positive social change, it's been based on someone treating an accepted aspect of the existing social order with thoroughgoing intolerance. Against the screams for tolerance of the people who didn't want change (seriously, go back as far as you like, you'll find writings by people complaining that the social reformers--suffragettes, abolitionists, or what-have-you--are just so rude and mean).

I also encourage you to read Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail if you haven't already, particularly the part where he talks about white moderates. So many people these days seem to think all he ever said was part of the "I Have a Dream" speech.

[Fyraltari]

{Scrubbed}

None of these are about social changes, some of these is debatable and one of these is a highly polarizing real life, current, political issue.

Please don't.

[Mulcan]

{Scrubbed}

[brian 333]

{Scrubbed}

[Floret]

You are not qualified to question my muse. It speaks to me alone. You cannot say this or that is true or delusion because you do not know. I have had an intimate relationship with the lady all my life, and I have no idea what she will inspire me to write or draw or sculpt or paint tomorrow. I want to keep the relationship mystical, thank you very much.

Ah, so you actually, literally refer to a spiritual/supernatural/metaphysical entity you believe in when talking about your muse? Then I will leave it that our framing of the creative process, and our beliefs differ so greatly that any discussion we could have about it will be utterly point- and meaningless.
I had, until now, not ever heard a modern person use the term in a non-metaphorical way.


Labels are stereotypes which universally misrepresent the people to whom they are attached. It's convienient for the lazy to attach a label so they can pretend understanding, but the long term effect of this is to allow people to avoid getting to know one another.

So a person is Label X. Is she also a mother? A daughter? A medic? An angsty teen with issues? A woman who has trouble sleeping at night? A shy person? A rock climber? Exactly how does the label help me understand who this person is? Well, it doesn't. Having given her Label X I'm now free to treat her like that label, which is less than 1% of her character. This is harmful because it promotes the stereotype and inhibits true human connections. But it is typical of our failing culture that a person is reduced to a convenient data point. It's a very lazy way for a person to pretend to get to know another person without knowing anything about them at all.

If knowing things about a person doesn't help you understand them, you are either using the term understanding in a way vastly different from me, or a very strange person. And knowing things about a person always comes with things one might attach as labels. Your mistake is treating every label as mutually exclusive. They are not, and people who use labels for themselves generally don't use them as such.

If knowing one thing about a person that typically gets used as identity labels leads you to treat them solely as that thing, than the mistake is on you, not on the label. If hearing that a person has a certain quality means you stereotype them, and inhibits your ability to connect with them, that is on you. Not on short-hand descriptors omnipresent in communication and human interaction, that somehow only get singled out when it comes to marginalization.


And yes, I used Alpha and Beta labels. Notice your reaction? I was illustrating a point, not attempting to describe real people. As far as that goes, those labels are as valid as any of the conflicting hodge-podge of labels currently used. How is one arbitrary system of nomenclature superior to another? Popularity doesn't equal correct.

The truth is that in another generation the labels will change again, and be just as invalid as the last set. Forget the labels, they don't help, but they do put humans into boxes from which it is difficult to emerge.

Yes, my reaction was "this is bull****". And, no. Labels based on inaccurate, overgeneralised studies; misapplied to a different frame alltogether are not the same as using current terms that put words to certain realities. If you are truly arguing that "Alpha Male" and "Bisexual" are at the same level of validity of usage in talking about people... Then I don't know what to tell you. Popularity doesn't equal correct, sure, but "used by actual humans to identify themselves, and find community" easily wins out over "actually based on a misunderstanding of science".

And, yes, labels shift with our understanding of things. Sure. But to not use them on that basis would also require you not use language, for fear of it shifting, money, for fear of currencies changing, or the names of countries, because nations rise and fall over the course of history. To argue that "German" is not a useful label would be preposterous, as well as it would be to argue that "Prussian" is an accurate term of nationality for modern-day people from Northrine-Westphalia - just because it was the state of knowlege at some point. (And even then, It'd win out over "Alpha male" humans, because at least it was true at some point.)

If you never knew the comfort of labels, I will not tell you to start using them. But speaking as a person who is damn happy to have found an explanation, a community, and a thing to call myself other than "wrong" - speak for yourself, not for the general usefulness and effects of labels.

And I will refrain from commenting further on the issue of Tolerance than I already have, other then to second Zimmerwald and Kish. My answer to your question will remain this: Look up the Paradox of Tolerance and the context it was formulated in.

[Liquor Box]

Every time there has been positive social change, it's been based on someone treating an accepted aspect of the existing social order with thoroughgoing intolerance. Against the screams for tolerance of the people who didn't want change (seriously, go back as far as you like, you'll find writings by people complaining that the social reformers--suffragettes, abolitionists, or what-have-you--are just so rude and mean).


I completely agree with the sentiment here - it is absolutely essential to a society that has the ability to change that people are free to speak out against the prevailing opinion, and further, that they do so.

But I wonder if Brian333 and most others are using the term "intolerance" in a different way. Most people are taking Brian's suggested prohibition of intolerance to be a proposal that no person can oppose things they don't like, but I think that Brian333 is equating intolerance with hatefulness or violence. See his contrast of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, both of whom were opposed to to the status quo (hence being intolerant of it in the way most people are using the word), but both of whom advocated different means only one of which Brian thought of as intolerant.

[eilandesq]

I completely agree with the sentiment here - it is absolutely essential to a society that has the ability to change that people are free to speak out against the prevailing opinion, and further, that they do so.

But I wonder if Brian333 and most others are using the term "intolerance" in a different way. Most people are taking Brian's suggested prohibition of intolerance to be a proposal that no person can oppose things they don't like, but I think that Brian333 is equating intolerance with hatefulness or violence (see his contrast of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X) both of whom were opposed to to the status quo (hence being intolerant of it in the way you use the word), but both of whom advocated different means only one of which Brian thought of as intolerant.

I think you've put your finger on it, and I'd also add that injudicious and indiscriminate rhetoric can cause problems and alienate potential allies even when directed at something that is clearly an evil . It's as if those in charge of the United States forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill had thrown out "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" as the battle plan and substituted, "Fire as soon as you see the tops of their hats on the horizon, then keep firing at them and anyone standing nearby without pausing until you run out of ammo, then charge the British forces and try to beat them to death with your bare hands, and finish by bleeding all over their nice red coats as you die." That would have worked great.

[The Extinguisher]

I completely agree with the sentiment here - it is absolutely essential to a society that has the ability to change that people are free to speak out against the prevailing opinion, and further, that they do so.

But I wonder if Brian333 and most others are using the term "intolerance" in a different way. Most people are taking Brian's suggested prohibition of intolerance to be a proposal that no person can oppose things they don't like, but I think that Brian333 is equating intolerance with hatefulness or violence. See his contrast of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, both of whom were opposed to to the status quo (hence being intolerant of it in the way most people are using the word), but both of whom advocated different means only one of which Brian thought of as intolerant.

And both of whom were hated by the people they were fighting against and both of whom were assassinated for what they were doing

[zimmerwald1915]

See his contrast of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, both of whom were opposed to to the status quo (hence being intolerant of it in the way most people are using the word), but both of whom advocated different means only one of which Brian thought of as intolerant.
It's worth noting that Malcolm's politics are, shall we say, heavily Flanderized. And popular depictions of both men's politics tend to ignore their latest positions in favor of the ones most convenient to the overall narrative of "nonviolent civil disobedience uber alles (except actually, just shaddup and siddown)."

[Liquor Box]

It's worth noting that Malcolm's politics are, shall we say, heavily Flanderized. And popular depictions of both men's politics tend to ignore their latest positions in favor of the ones most convenient to the overall narrative of "nonviolent civil disobedience uber alles (except actually, just shaddup and siddown)."

Sure, I'll take your word for it. As a non-American I do not have a deep knowledge or either person. I wasn't intending my statement to be in any way an endorsement or otherwise of either man or their methodology. The only point I was intending to make (other than heartily endorsing Kish's comment) was that I think Brian and most others are meaning different things in their use of the word 'intolerant' on this page and Brian's comments about those two well known activists appears to illustrate this.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Okay folks, please remember that real world politics and religion, of any era, are inappropriate topics on this forum. Let's drag this discussion of the topic of the Civil Rights Act, the civil rights movement in U.S. politics, historical political movements/governments/etc. before it gets closed.

[martianmister]

Sure, I'll take your word for it. As a non-American I do not have a deep knowledge or either person. I wasn't intending my statement to be in any way an endorsement or otherwise of either man or their methodology. The only point I was intending to make (other than heartily endorsing Kish's comment) was that I think Brian and most others are meaning different things in their use of the word 'intolerant' on this page and Brian's comments about those two well known activists appears to illustrate this.

It's more like Brian is trying to strawman pro-criticism into pro-violence.

[Jasdoif]

Every time there has been positive social change, it's been based on someone treating an accepted aspect of the existing social order with thoroughgoing intolerance. Against the screams for tolerance of the people who didn't want change (seriously, go back as far as you like, you'll find writings by people complaining that the social reformers--suffragettes, abolitionists, or what-have-you--are just so rude and mean).Any sort of intentional change to a system involves refusing to tolerate the original state of the system, really.

Less generally....It's important to realize that tolerance is a stance: That something doesn't have your approval (which does not automatically mean it has your disapproval, mind you), but you're not going to oppose it. It's not an end, it's a means; far more significant than tolerance itself is what's being tolerated.

[georgie_leech]

Any sort of intentional change to a system involves refusing to tolerate the original state of the system, really.

Less generally....It's important to realize that tolerance is a stance: That something doesn't have your approval (which does not automatically mean it has your disapproval, mind you), but you're not going to oppose it. It's not an end, it's a means; far more significant than tolerance itself is what's being tolerated.

I think I understand what you mean. Like, I'm not going to "applaud" someone for being homosexual (or asexual, given the thread), anymore than I would think better of someone for being heterosexual. But I do think that such individuals deserve the same rights and freedoms that anyone does, so I wouldn't vote for someone that thought otherwise. That's the sort of thing that acts as deal breaker, something I'm not willing to grin and bear.

That is, it seems like you're drawing a distinction between tolerance, intolerance, (dis)approval, and active support/harm. Is that right?

[Jasdoif]

I think I understand what you mean. Like, I'm not going to "applaud" someone for being homosexual (or asexual, given the thread), anymore than I would think better of someone for being heterosexual. But I do think that such individuals deserve the same rights and freedoms that anyone does, so I wouldn't vote for someone that thought otherwise. That's the sort of thing that acts as deal breaker, something I'm not willing to grin and bear.

That is, it seems like you're drawing a distinction between tolerance, intolerance, (dis)approval, and active support/harm. Is that right?Specifically, that there's an area between approval and disapproval; where you may not personally approve or understand, but still don't believe it's wrong. The word "tolerance" has a range of connotations; but ultimately choosing tolerance of something indicates that you think it's okay, regardless of whether you do/are it yourself. The important part isn't that you're tolerant, but what you're tolerant of.

[Liquor Box]

It's more like Brian is trying to strawman pro-criticism into pro-violence.

Maybe, but my impression is that he simply felt that the tone of those disagreeing with him was more forceful than it needed to be, and in saying so made a poor choice of word because he thought it had a nice ring to it.

[Purple Pheonix]

I agree with the OP that O-Chul seems by far the most likely (humanoid) major character to be asexual and/or aromantic. I've read How The Paladin Got His Scar, and it makes no mention of any romantic interest of his - in fact, the only reference to his love life in any way is a categorical statement that "I am not married, and have no interest in such pursuits." (It's totally irrelevant to the story, so I see no harm in leaving that quote spoiler-less.) O-Chul being asexual and aromantic, then, makes perfect sense.

I agree completely. (He's like, my fave character...)


Vaarsuvius is a romantic asexual.

True Dat.

[Purple Pheonix]

I'm just, ignoring the discourse, by the way.

[Darth Paul]

Less generally....It's important to realize that tolerance is a stance: That something doesn't have your approval (which does not automatically mean it has your disapproval, mind you), but you're not going to oppose it.

This pretty much sums up my idea of libertarian philosophy. I don't have to endorse what you do, you don't have to endorse what I do, but as long as we aren't hurting or interfering with anyone else, we aren't against one another. We have an explicit non-interference pact. Each is at liberty to do what they want. Basically, we don't care what the other is doing unless it hurts someone else.

[LunarDrop]

I'd like to preface this by saying I'm really happy to see people taking aromantic and asexual representation seriously. As an ace I don't see such representation pretty much ever.

I've always seen Vaarsuvius as gender neutral and asexual, but the possibility of O-Chul being ace is interesting and I very much like the idea. He's such a self assured character and that is such a great trait to give someone who is queer, because then the argument that the character is confused or self conscious is rendered invalid.