Quote area one: I interpreted that line differently than you; I took it as him saying that gay/lesbian/bi people have some different issues and challenges than straight relationships, which is true in that there's a set of challenges/feelings/concerns straight couples don't really deal with - there's a lot of...I wouldn't say 'pressure', but few gay couples I know feel comfortable openly kissing, etc. I guess it's out of fear, or worry that someone will come up and just ruin your day with thier idiocy - it does happen. It's things a straight couple would never even think about, like just holding hands, or hugging in public, or kissing. I gathered he was meaning those sorts of things seeing he had gay friends and thus some sort of experience/first hand contact with it. Other than that though, you're entirely right; it is pretty much a straight relationship without the opposite gender, just those issues can make it - or at least, make it *seem* - different in some ways.

If he did mean it as you interpreted it, then yeah, he's being an idiot, but as I said, didn't come off that way to me. As for the whole reason the LGBT thing existing for a reason, I get it's a safe haven, but it's also a very flawed segregationalist one (due mainly to club culture, really, lead by stereotypes who perpetuate thier own and other stereotypes through labels and expectations. A lot of gay people avoid the clubs because they are just bastions of vapid assholes who run the 'scene' with as much intrigue as Game of Thrones. Look at the prior example of a f-m being denied entry because some douchebag decided he was still female.). Personally, I don't like the idea of there being a gay 'community' as it exists in it's current state; I'm a gay guy, but unicorns, rainbows..? The hell is that to me? There's definatly times I - and other 'straight acting' (because you gotta give it a label) gay/lesbian people - feel ostracised from 'our' society because we don't conform or feel we can relate to what some people have made it. It's very much a safe house for some, but for others it's really not, and that sucks, because they could miss out on support.

Quote area two: Poor wording, is how I saw it. I think he just means a life sim with only gay romance options. I think.

Quote area three: You didn't come off as blunt or rude. I interpreted what he was saying one way, you another; there could be elements of truth in both for all we know, we're not him, but generally if you have gay friends, you have some sort of understanding and no malicious intent. Generally; did once see on a forum some jackass say he had gay friends but 'didn't support them'. But as I said, by his wording I took he was trying to say something and not nessecarily expressing himself the best way. I have a friend who is like that, so when I saw your interpretation of what he was saying, I just sort of felt the need to defend him. Tbh, this thread has been amazingly civil for the internet. It gives you hope that, despite places regressing like India and Russia, the rest of the world is still moving forward to the end goal of all this being a complete non-issue.

Unlike when you're part of the dominant majority, when you aren't, the fact that all cultural productions (and institutions) function by, through, for the dominant majority, mirror the dominant majority, is very noticeable to you. It establishes a "norm". It excludes you from the normal world. This symbolic violence is totally invisible to the ones who belong to the dominant majority because it's hard to notice the absence (or absence of recognition of existence) of what isn't part of your universe. All seems "normal" to you. It's even a reinforeced normality.

It's an issue of "invisibilisation" that is however qquite brutal to the invisibilised. And this can be about many groups of people. It can -at different epochs- be phenotypic categories ("how come we are so many black, but all the movie and tv characters are white"), it can be ethnic (same with nationalities, cultures - think amerindians in South America), it can be with gender (an overwhelming imagery of the sexy-lady-offered-to-the-action-man, of men represented in the public spheres, of role distributions in fictions), and it is the case for homosexuality :

You complain about homosexuality being "shoved at your face" in medias. Do attempt a de-centering exercise. You're homosexual. How much of heterosexuality is "shoved at you face". How many heterosexuals "display their sexuality and their preferences" in front of you. How many popular fictions (movies, etc) preent love stories and how many of them evoke homosexual possibilities (without "social deviance struggle" being the specific theme), compared to how many forcing people to identify to heterosexual couplings ?

The very fact that we "don't think" about homosexuality, the fact that we "don't relate" to homosexual love story yet present hetero versions as stories homosexuals have to relate to (target audience calculations and narrative choices lead to hetero stories), the fact that we don't interpret ordinary machoism as "imposing the spectacle of sexual identity" but do it when homosexuals hold hands or kiss, the fact that recognition and accounting of homosexuality is seen as active "propaganda", tell a lot about this heteronormativity. Heterosexual standards are so much the norm that they are an invisible common sense. And homosexual elements are seen as a weird, forced, conscious addition.

We have past this point when it comes to skin colour, or to feminism : we are aware that there are dominated minorities, halves, majorities (in some extreme apartheid contexts) that have been lacking from our popular representations, from our collective horizon (even in fiction), from the "mirrors" of our societies. People who didn't have an echo, an opportunity for "normalizing" or "gratifying" self-identifications. This is being rightly corrected in many domains, but hardly at all when it comes to homosexuality.

I'm not for a divide between "stuff for" (boys/girls, homo/hetero, white/black), but we're still in that divide (akin to the blaxploitation era, or its previous era, when it comes to skin colour) when it comes to homosexuality. And the fact that most heterosexuals don't even realise it (or realise that it is an issue) is precisely what tells us where we are, historically.

In the future, the homosexuality option will be as frequent as the skin tone options in videogames -i mean the ones that involve relationships-, and it'll feel normal (do you feel that black people shove their identity to your face when a game includes black playable characters? what about women?). Homosexuals will be present in fictions without it being "a thing" (are black characters, anymore ?) or a theme, and the public will identify to love stories and heartbreaks independantly of orientations - and the producers will know that. These discussions will sound void, anachronical.

But we are very far from there. Because at this point, heterosexuality is considered "invisible" (normal without saying), and homosexuality "visible" (a thing). This, and what it tells homosexuals, and what it demands of them, is "heteronormativity".

What they mean by hetronormative is the idea you can watch an action movie where the hero romances the female lead and no one bats an eye. i mean, I didn't mention gender there, but you assumed I meant the hero was a guy because there was a female lead, right? They mean the very idea of being gay just a thing and a complete non-issue, the idea that gay things can be portrayed not with special treatment, not with outrage, but just as a normal 'you don't even think about it' thing in every day life.

Imagine you were in a world where 90% of the world's population was blue, but you were not. Imagine seeing other people go about in real life, depicted in movies, games, etc, and that being normal. You're fine with that; I mean, you're not blue, but everyone else is, so it's expected. You're represented occassionally, but not much. But then imagine if a movie director wanted his movie to star two non-blue people. This is no art house film; it's a proper block buster. Ok, that sounds cool - it's representation and acknowledgement that you do exist as part of a productive society. That could make you happy. You might go see it, or pick it up on DVD if it's cheap enough. Then imagine seeing media, people, talk about that movie, or specifically, the fact it has non blue people in the lead. See that fact become 'a thing'. Some reviewers praise it for being 'brave', some want to shield the public from it, because not being blue is evil according to thier religion. Some roll thier eyes and think it's pointless pandering to a minority that they don't really know or think about much in thier day to day, and there's been some discussions about them of late and they're sick of hearing about it because it really doesn't relate to them. You know how awkward, how annoying, how - at times - enraging it can be just being discussed like you're outside of the room and can't hear it all? The fact not being blue somehow matters to the extent everyone has to comment on it? That not being blue is a 'thing' that - according to some people - just shouldn't be because, despite the fact they don't even know you, but hate you nonetheless? I mean, you're a functioning part of society. You do the same stuff everyone else does; why does a movie having non blue people matter so much to people it won't really affect? Why indeed, is it talked about so much, and such a damned issue?

That's what gay people deal with. Straight people are the blue people in that scenario; commenting on shit they don't have any real relation to because it exists near them and is not them. Positive, negative, it's all crap - by hetronormative, the person you quoted meant 'just accepted without any sort of real thought about it, and people just moving on'. It means just doing what makes you and no one deciding to right some frigging essay about the morality, the progressiveness, the WHATEVER of it and just MOVING ON.

To be even more specific with that metaphor : in 90% of people are blue, then blue isn't percieved as a colour. Colours are : green, red, yellow, etc. If you put some green, yellow, red, somewhere, you "do colorism". If you make it blue, you do nothing-in-particular. You're not "painting blue", you are "not doing colours". It doesn't register as such. Only the non-blue notice that it also is a specific colour being used - that it is also "doing a colour", simply the majoritary one. That painting everything blue is not neutral, but a blue-normative action.

But for the blue majority, only the minorities are "coloured people".

i wrote lengthy post here and then deleted it.

I dont think i can really articulate clearly enough my pov on this.

Ill just leave the extreme generalization here: The people who make most noise and most trouble about this seem to be the fringe nutjobs (more conservative religions people etc) and the oversensitive homosexuals themselves.

Homo- and bisexuals are already pdamn widely accepted in western and asian culture. It is however for some reason very difficult for some gays to understand that people might not be interested in their sexual orientation - but that it is not actually insult. I am not interested in my friends or collegues or even neighbours sex life either.

I think you may of missed the point I was making. The whole idea was that you're right - the fact it is an issue IS the issue. That things like this are discussed not unlike black people doing shit back in the '50's/'60s/70's US media because they are not white and somehow that matters because the majority of the US is white and thus gets a say. It is completly stupid. A game like this - with relationships - allowing gay couples should be so irrelevant it's not even talked about - just there, like the frigging pause menu. I am a gay guy, and I am agreeing with you that making an issue out of this is stupid, but you have to understand why some people are wanting this inclusion. They are not trying to shove thier sexuality infront of you; they are trying to reach a point where they are seen as ordinary, so that in the future this being a news story doesn't happen because it will just be in the game already, like being able to pick eye colour in character creation. This 'need' to 'push' and talk about things in public will go away eventually, becoming thankfully irrelevant, but it's not there yet. Almost, but not yet. You want it gone quicker? Throw a token vote saying 'sure why not' and go back to your life. Hell, I wish people like you weren't involved in matters that don't concern you, but you're the majority so you apparently control what is and isn't ok/acceptable/in the game for everyone. Please try to understand that. Seriously man/woman.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-responds-to-criticism-regarding-same-sex-relationships-in-tomodachi-life-update/1100-6419530/?utm_source=gamefaqs&utm_medium=partner&utm_content=news_module&utm_campaign=homepage

Nintendo made a new comment on the issue.

they state that it is too late to add a feature to the game to allow same sex relationships nor would it be possible to add it with a patch. They do pledge though that if a sequel is made they will make sure the experience is more inclusive and represents all players.


So this experience will be similar to how they views blood and violence in the 8-16 bit era. At first they didn't want to add it out wanting to be overprotective of there audience - but once the audience responded they decide to add it in for future games (Mortal Kombat anyone)

And those inbred hicks have no place in a modern military. The military is there to protect all Americans and the constitution, letting them be a straight only group is an insult to every man and woman that ever died in service to the country.

And quite frankly you should apologize to the service personnel for saying this sort of thing about them. Military personnel have been far more accommodating of homosexuality than the government has been. My Dad served in Vietnam along with men he knew to be gay and nobody had an issue with it because they were damn fine Marines.
Precisely, whether or not FO:NV had any opportunities for homosexual relationships isn't terribly important to most people because you're supposed to be roleplaying the courier and unless they choose to write the courier as gay, there's no particular reason to make him or her gay.

But, this is a game that's intended to be an extension of people's lives which involves flirting and dating and they're doing the right thing by adding support.

I should apologize to military personnel for saying what exactly because I do not remember saying the military should be straight only or anything like that. Maybe you need to read my post again or maybe you need to stop jumping to conclusions so quickly about people? Not thinking we should stop treating religious Christians like human beings does not mean, I'm against gay people.

And Nintendo doing something that will result in losing a lot of customers is doing the right thing? Well aren't you the hardcore social justice warrior...

To this i agree with you. Could i misread with kids jumping around in the room and everything. Sorry about that.

This i am not certain if I understand.

My point: I do not care if character or characters in the game are gay or something else. As long as the characters are well done and consistent in game, its all dandy.

What i dont understand, is complaining about having the gay option in every game. I mean, its starting to feel to me that game designers are going to make every "romance NPC" bisexual just for the sake of giving every player to have the "clunky romance cutscene" with whomever they want.

Hell, why not make the hot looking badass babe-NPC lesbian and when the average gamer goes for the "romance" option let her tell him thanks but no thanks? I mean, seriously - in how many rpgs for example the character gets rejected in the first place? The romance talk options arent given unless you can actually score so to speak.

Just as well - why not make some NPC dude try to hit on the dude player? Make the player to react to NPC, not the other way around like it goes now.

Or make the NPC companions do something between each other regardless of the PC.

What i am against, is forcing the game to allow main PC character have his/her way with everyone just for the sake of having romance option for everyone no matter how shoddily done.

Anyways, most games are not romance simulators and the focus should be in something completely different - unless it actually supports the story in sensible way for example.

That first sentence is just calling military personnel bigots. The actual personnel were never the reason for the ban, and using them as an excuse is just plain ridiculous.

Military personnel don't normally give a crap what the sexual orientation of the other folks are, just whether or not they're going to do their job correctly.

BTW, 18 States as of this morning.
I give the rest of the country until the end of the decade, if that, to open their eyes. Not counting Alabama of course but then these people are still fighting a war that ended 150 years ago so they may be beyond help.

I'm guessing you mean my 2nd sentence?
"I meant letting gay people be open about it in the military is a huge "fuck you" to all the people who take the bible seriously(like Christians)." How is that sentence calling all military personnel bigots? You do realize there are religious Christians in the military?

Sorry yes.

How is that not calling them bigots? Only bigots give a crap about whether that guy over there prefers to sleep with men or women.

As far as religious Christians go, it's still ignorant bigotry and it's not even representative of mainstream Christianity any more. Most folks recognize that the Bible has nothing at all to say about the subject of homosexuality.

I wasn't talking about all military personnel. I was talking about the hardcore Christians in the military. Yeah, I know mainstream Christians probably wouldn't mind seeing two gay people French kiss at work. I was talking about the Christians who take the bible, seriously. No matter,, how much we think they are stupid, they are still human beings. They shouldn't have to see what they don't want to see at their place of work. People shouldn't be French kissing at work in the first place, gay and straight...

PS
Everyone is a bigot..so all military personnel = bigots.

bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.