QUILTBAG Thread of Flagrant Homoeroticism

[Dewar]

I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of celebrating anyone's death.  That said, fuck that guy.

 

You shouldn't be.

 

Edit: http://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/westboro-baptist-church-protests-lorde-concert-first-protest-since-phelps-passing

More than 20 protesters protested pop star's Lorde concert, however it was another message that stuck out. A group of counter protesters held up a sign that read "sorry for your loss."

Megan Coleman helped make the sign.

"We realized that it wasn't so much about antagonizing them," she said, "but sending out the countered safe that we are here for people who need that message and need that positivity."

[SecretAsianMan]

Nintendo Says No to Virtual Equality in Life Game

 

Nintendo has officially said they're not going to allow gay marriage in Tomodachi Life.  One thing the article doesn't mention is that previously there was a "bug" that allowed for same sex couples in the game, but it was patched out in Japan and likely won't be present in the Western release.  Nintendo's position is that their goal was never to make any kind of social commentary.  Its fine if they didn't initially intend to make a social commentary, but it sure seems like they're making one now.

[Bjorn]

Because including hetero-normative relationships in a game isn't a form of social commentary at all. 

[Roderick]

Besides, it's weirdly out of sync with the rest of modern society, since there are lots of big name companies that have specifically chosen to include gay relationships and not make a big deal out of it either way. Bjorn is right, everything and anything you do in media is authored and a commentary, or else Marshall McLuhan died in vain.

[miffy495]

His death was the message.

[Merus]

Christian Nutt has a good piece on this. What's notable to me is that marriage, like basically everything else that goes on in Tomodachi Life, is involuntary.

 

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20140508/217351/Understanding_Nintendos_Tomodachi_Life_problem.php

[Twig]

Because including hetero-normative relationships in a game isn't a form of social commentary at all. 

That was my initial thought, too.

Also actively saying "we're not having gay marriage in this game" is the single most blatant kind of social commentary you can make, short of explicitly making a point IN the game that gay marriage is not allowed. Fucking weird and dumb.

[tegan]

Tiny Cartridge has echoed my feelings on the game, but the comments section has been uncharacteristically, uh, bad. I don't normally go out of my way to join in comment thread arguments, so I hope I'm not being too much of a butt in it this time.

[tegan]

Holy shit, that comment thread just keeps getting worse and worse. The personal attacks against one of the podcast hosts in particular are pretty jarring for a site that's always been pretty progressive.

[RubixsQube]

There's another article by Peter Molydeux that discusses the issue. 

 

I think that what happened is that Nintendo made a conscious (bad) decision to keep the Tomodachi Life relationships heterosexual in order to reduce backlash. I don't support this decision, but I do think that when it comes to groups protesting, those opposed to gay marriage can be far, far more vitriolic than those for the issue (perhaps this is unfair). Nintendo has kept the relationships in this game heterosexual, and what you're seeing is a series of well-written, deep articles discussing how disappointing this is, and how Nintendo's decision is non-inclusive, and sends a terrible message to a large group of people.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Nintendo had decided to make the automatic relationships gender-blind. I think Nintendo felt they didn't want any crazy over-the-top protests from the other side. 

[shammack]

I think that Nintendo is a Japanese company and this isn't something that would inspire significant outcry in Japan, so they probably just didn't put much thought into it when the game was first developed. Nintendo of America could have changed it during localization, but that would look (for all the Fox Newses out there) like they were actively promoting gay marriage. By not changing it, they didn't have to spend the resources to make the change, and they can just throw up their hands when people complain about it because that's how it was in the Japanese version.

 

I think it certainly would have been a better game if they had changed it, but I'm not at all surprised that they didn't. It definitely seems safer from a business standpoint to do what they did and get a little bit of reasonable backlash from progressives than to go the other way and get what would probably be a much larger and more vitriolic backlash from bigots.

[Twig]

Yeah I don't think anyone's arguing that it isn't the safer option for them, in terms of business. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

[RubixsQube]

https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/c4FWbi-Uave2T9R1h7SFzX0aoa-d4pgx

 

So, this happened:

 

We are committed to fun and entertainment for everyone

2014-05-09

We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game’s design, and such a significant development change can’t be accomplished with a post-ship patch. At Nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy. We are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone. We pledge that if we create a next installment in the Tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game-play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.

[Gormongous]

https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/c4FWbi-Uave2T9R1h7SFzX0aoa-d4pgx

 

So, this happened:

 

We are committed to fun and entertainment for everyone

2014-05-09

We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game’s design, and such a significant development change can’t be accomplished with a post-ship patch. At Nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy. We are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone. We pledge that if we create a next installment in the Tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game-play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.

 

Is it wrong that I'm very skeptical that Nintendo couldn't just make the marriage code gender-agnostic very simply, hence that I think that they're just trying to have their cake in America while eating it in Japan? Not that I don't appreciate a company willing to apologize in a way that actually acknowledges fault, but still.

[Bjorn]

Company apologies without any action to show that they are actually willing to change are meaningless, so I'd say being skeptical is perfectly reasonable.  They were able to take the time to patch the game to fix a bug that allowed you to create male looking characters that were tagged as female (and vise versa), thus allowing same sex relationships. 

[Twig]

Is it wrong that I'm very skeptical that Nintendo couldn't just make the marriage code gender-agnostic very simply, hence that I think that they're just trying to have their cake in America while eating it in Japan? Not that I don't appreciate a company willing to apologize in a way that actually acknowledges fault, but still.

No, it's not wrong that you're skeptical. Ideally, it'd be a relatively simple change. That said, it might be something that's very deeply entangled in the code for some reason or another. It shouldn't be, like, just in terms of pure code design, that's bad, but it's entirely possible.

 

But also this is a pretty acceptable statement otherwise, so whatever. Here's hoping for a sequel.

[Dewar]

The only way to fix this satisfactorily would be to put a character creation preference for mate gender. Simply turning the switch from no to yes would, I would think, cause the opposite problem where folks that were hetero-normative are getting forced into having a homosexual relationship. I doubt those sorts of large chracter creator edits could be done practically through a patch, especially given that Nintendo isn't the best at patching as is.

[tegan]

I personally appreciate that, literally overnight, they went from a lukewarm apology that missed the point entirely to making a commitment to fix the issue in a future entry. Personally, I'd like to get the game, mention that I wish it met my relationship preferences when I do the Club Nintendo survey. I feel that it would the best way to encourage them to keep making, localizing, and improving the series.

[miffy495]

No, it's not wrong that you're skeptical. Ideally, it'd be a relatively simple change. That said, it might be something that's very deeply entangled in the code for some reason or another. It shouldn't be, like, just in terms of pure code design, that's bad, but it's entirely possible.

 

But also this is a pretty acceptable statement otherwise, so whatever. Here's hoping for a sequel.

 

As I recall, for whatever reason the homosexual relationship trick also caused a save corruption, so I think the worry would be that if they put it back in, they would reintroduce the corrupted saves.

 

Anyway, I'm glad this conversation happened and that Nintendo has made a public statement that isn't tone-deaf now. This makes me a lot happier than I thought it would.

[SecretAsianMan]

I think that Nintendo is a Japanese company and this isn't something that would inspire significant outcry in Japan, so they probably just didn't put much thought into it when the game was first developed. Nintendo of America could have changed it during localization, but that would look (for all the Fox Newses out there) like they were actively promoting gay marriage. By not changing it, they didn't have to spend the resources to make the change, and they can just throw up their hands when people complain about it because that's how it was in the Japanese version.

 

This in fact is the case to a certain degree.  Nintendo told IGN that in Japan it was just viewed as a quirky thing people were doing and they didn't get upset when it went away.  The emphasis was on the bug fixing and not the removal of same sex relations.

[Ben X]

The topic of whether Dan Savage is transphobic came up elsewhere a while back, so when he did a twenty minute section on that subject in his latest podcast, I thought I may as well link to it here:

 

http://www.savagelovecast.com/episodes/398#.U58iKPldXoc

[Bjorn]

I've never quite understood the hate that Savage gets.  I can get not personally liking him or his work, that's fine.  But some people feel the need to then turn that into painting him as some devil in sheep's clothing who is secretly one of the great evils working against feminism, or transgender rights, or whatever. 

[tegan]

I've never quite understood the hate that Savage gets.  I can get not personally liking him or his work, that's fine.  But some people feel the need to then turn that into painting him as some devil in sheep's clothing who is secretly one of the great evils working against feminism, or transgender rights, or whatever. 

 

Dan Savage is a gay icon whose role is almost solely to make straight people to feel better about themselves.

 

I could go on about my problems with "it gets better" and how the movement gets propped up by politicians and educators because it's easier to tell LGBT youth to Deal With It /shades than it is to actually make things better for them in the here and now like they were changing their fucking Facebook profile image to an equals sign, or how he's notorious for tossing around slurs even while doing motivational speeches at schools, but I think I'll save myself the trouble and let Savage speak for himself on this one.

 

 

 

Dan Savage tells reader to drug his wife so that he can have sex with her in her sleep despite her clear lack of consent while asleep:

 

I am a 24-year-old male somnophiliac—that is, I'm turned on by the idea of having sex with a woman while she sleeps. So long as we have a healthy awake sex life, my wife says I can do whatever I like when she sleeps. The problem is that when I try to touch her in her sleep, she whimpers, turns away, and otherwise makes herself inaccessible. Only on two occasions has she been in a deep enough sleep—read: drunk/passed out—for me to take the liberties that she has okayed.

It's aggravating that my wife is GGG when she's awake, but rescinds her offer when she's actually asleep. She is aware that she is noncooperative in her sleep, but has been unable to amend the situation. Do you know of any ways to make a person more accepting of intimacy in her sleep?

I Loves Me Some Sleepin' Ladies

Ambien. Next!

 

Dan Savage responds to criticism from rape survivor in response to above:

 

I was extremely disgusted by I Loves Me Some Sleepin' Ladies, the "somnophiliac" who sought your advice about having sex with his sleeping wife. If someone cannot give consent in the moment, any further sexual actions constitute rape. It is irrelevant that she gave consent while she was awake. I am further offended that you did not hold him accountable. Although short, your response ("Ambien. Next!") supported his criminal behavior. I hope in the future you will hold perpetrators accountable and put a name to their actions: RAPE.

Disappointed Reader And Rape Survivor

I'm extremely sorry that you were raped, DRARS, although your baseless accusations of rape make me doubt your claim to be a survivor of rape. The feminist bloggers are going to accuse me of thought crimes: If a woman says she was raped then, by God, she was raped. (Tell it to the lacrosse team.) If this is a thought crime, well, I plead entrapment: I wouldn't have had these illegal thoughts if you hadn't sent me such a stupid letter in the first place.

We've covered this before, but the gong needs to be struck every few years: A state of implied consent exists in healthy, long-term sexual relationships. I can, for example, initiate sex with my boyfriend in the middle of the night without shaking him until he's wide awake and then obtaining his verbal consent. If I crawl on top of him at 3:00 a.m., he can say "nope," and push me off, which obligates me to go back to sleep or go to another room and beat off.

In ILMSSL's case, he received his wife's advance consent to have intercourse with her while she sleeps. The problem, ILMSSL wrote, "[is] when I try to touch her in her sleep, she whimpers, turns away, and otherwise makes herself inaccessible," which has left ILMSSL unable to "take the liberties that she has okayed." In other words, DRARS, ILMSSL hasn't been able to have sex with his sleeping wife—with her consent—because she unconsciously pulls away from him, and he stops. And this man is a rapist?

As for my one word of advice: I'd be willing to pop a sleeping pill now and then to keep my boyfriend happy, so why not Ambien?

Finally, DRARS, I hereby withdraw my consent for you to read Savage Love. If you continue to read my column against my will, well, we all know what word to apply to your actions.

 

Dan Savage responds a sexual assault victim who is uncomfortable with having sex with her husband:

 

I'm sorry that you were sexually assaulted—that's awful, PTSD, and I hope you went to the police and I hope you're pressing charges. But I also hope you know that being the victim of sexual assault is not a Get Out of Being a Human Being Free card.

Just because you've been victimized doesn't mean you operate in an alternate moral universe where you're not obligated to take other people's feelings into consideration—particularly the feelings of people you profess to love and happen to be married to. Your first priority in the wake of your assault had to be your own physical and emotional safety, of course, but your behavior toward your husband is both cruel and selfish.

If you truly loved your husband and valued your marriage, PTSD, you would've put the boyfriend on hold and gotten your ass into therapy without having to be told. It looks to me like you want out of this marriage. But instead of taking responsibility for wanting out, you're playing the victim card while slamming both hands down on your marriage's self-destruct button.

To sum up, PTSD: You're being a total shit. Do you love your husband? Is your marriage a priority? Then start acting like it: Cut the boyfriend off—for the indefinite future—and get your ass onto a counselor's couch. If you're not willing to do those things, PTSD, then stop emotionally assaulting your husband and put both your marriage and him out of their misery.

 

Dan Savage responds to reader whose HIV-positive former partner is undergoing SRS and worried about how it's affecting her son:

 

Divorced parents, gay dad, the HIV bombshell... and now, so suddenly, a woman. That's an awful lot for a high-school-age kid, especially a boy, to deal with. The tranny activists are going to jump down my throat for this, but... it seems to me that your ex could've put off the sex change until after his son was out of high school. One of the things parents are supposed to do is make sacrifices, big and small, for the sake of their children. And while I think people have a right to do pretty much as they please (and parents are people), I also believe that children have a right to some stability and constancy from the adults in their lives. Perhaps I'm a transphobic bigot, but I honestly think waiting a measly 36 months to cut your dick is a sacrifice any father should be willing to make for his 15-year-old son. Call me old-fashioned.

Unfortunately, your ex wasn't willing to make that sacrifice (selfish tranny!), or it never occurred to him to make that sacrifice (stupid tranny!).

 

personal note: I get that this really is hard on the kid, but you wouldn't tell anyone else with any other sort of mental health issue to avoid treatment because it might embarrass their kid.

 

Dan Savage is also hella fucking racist:

“I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.”

 

And doesn't have the nicest things to say about bisexual or asexual people either.

I’m not saying bi guys are bad people, or they don’t make great one-night stands. Bushes, bathhouses, and sleazy gay bars are crawling with bi guys. But if a guy wants more, he’ll have an easier time getting it from another gay man.

[…]

Judging from my mail, Andrew, when a gay guy or a straight girl gets involved with a bi guy, someone always winds up getting hurt. And guess what? It’s rarely the bi guy. So while I wish the rules and the risks were the same for everyone, it seems that in this instance they’re not.

[…]

No, there are definitely some people who should fool around with bisexual men: OTHER BISEXUAL MEN! Jesus Christ, bisexuals — if straights and gays treat you unfairly, then why not turn to each other for love and comfort? Judging from my mail of late, there’s an unlimited supply of easily offended, extremely verbose, highly ethical bisexuals out there looking for love. Fuck each other!

“I appreciate the feedback, Stephanie, and I’m sorry I offended you. But… um… I couldn’t help but think, as I read your letter, that your boyfriend is either a fool or a fag. But if it works for you guys—if a romantic relationship devoid of sexual attraction and activity works for you guys—then it works for you guys. Who am I to argue with success?”

 

 

 

 

tl;dr: Dan Savage is an LGBTQ icon just so long as you're not B, T, or most of L or Q. And white.

[Bjorn]

I'm torn on responding to this, because the last thing I want to do is to potentially get in an argument with you.  But that said, some of that stuff is just...wrong.  

 

Like, for a guy who hates and is mean to asexuals, really surprising that he's had the founder of Asexuals.org on multiple times to speak about the asexual experience and answer questions about asexuality from a more learned perspective than someone like Savage is capable of. 

 

And the thing at Chicago, wasn't a "motivational speech", it was Institute of Politics seminar on the media, and Savage was invited to speak about a variety of topics and was asked about the shifting landscape of gender/sexuality slurs, reclamation and his history with certain words.  And those words/slurs have been constantly shifting for decades.  The slur in question is actively being debated right now, and was even before Savage ignited his part of it (which is probably part of the reason he was asked about it specifically).  What we predominantly have in the descriptions are one student's account and Savage's account.  Personally I don't fully trust either, and am not going to condemn either side on what are both sketchy and subjective interpretations of the same event. 

[tegan]

I wasn't aware of the first point and was conflating multiple events regarding that second instance; my fault, sorry. He's still made plenty of casual use of slurs outside of that one instance though (see also his use of the t-word twice entirely as an insult in one of those responses). And in either case I don't think it does much to mitigate his continuing history of being a complete asshole to way too many people.

I'm torn on responding to this, because the last thing I want to do is to potentially get in an argument with you.

I really, really don't like getting into arguments with people, so I'd rather not get into it myself. But people excusing Dan Savage for horrible shit that they are in no position to excuse is one of my biggest pet peeves.