I'll be honest; I have found every romance option in every game I have played to be a low point in the respective game. I did the main romance stuff in all the bioware rpgs I have played the first time through, but never after. I just don't think these games are at the point where they can handle romance well enough for me yet, or that even if they did, that I would find that something I actually like.
So put all the interspecies trisexual anal play romance you want in my rpgs, just make sure it stays optional and the bonuses to completing them aren't too vital for enjoying the game!
So, if this new character is bi, would you prefer him to be bi as in, no matter what gender you are, he will romance you, without his personality pointing anything?
Or would you like a distinct character that knows he's bi and is shown through dialogue, maybe affecting how he views the world as well?
Slight topic-shift, but I just had a flashback to hiring same-sex prostitutes in Divine Divinity - 10 years ago. 10 YEARS! AND THEY WERE PROSTITUTES! People must have been up-in-arms on some forum somewhere at the time.
In Fallout 2, you could have a same-sex shotgun wedding. In Arcanum, you could hire a sheep in a brothel
Older RPGs were much less worried about their content. I think, everyone is trying too hard to please the mainstream demographic nowdays, so a lot of stuff gets tossed out just in case it offends someone. With gay romances, I think most game producers are starting to realize, that the amount of people, who would condemn a game for having homosexual content is smaller than those who would actively welcome it, so it's OK to have gay characters again.
According to @kamuizin (Dude, if I get you wrong correct me here)
Natural = Behave according to nature's original programming Unnatural = Behave out of nature's original programming
What is the original programming? That seems like a bootstrapping argument to me. If you believe in evolution or natural selection, then you know organisms adapt over time and what the original programming was more a single celled organism changes dramatically over time into something much more varied and complex.
If you are talking about behavior which is followed by a majority of the species then that is a strange standard that would define it as "unnatural" for an animal to enjoy foods certain foods that a majority of the species didn't enjoy. There would be a lot of behavior falling under that kind of definition that would seem to be not what we are trying to drive at (is it unnatural if a mutation occurs and then it becomes natural when that mutation becomes majority?). So I don't think this is the definition.
It seems to be a bootstrapping argument because you have to define what is natural first and then you are simply labeling "unnatural" anything that doesn't meet that definition. That strikes me as fairly arbitrary. That is why I was hoping the link he posted that was supposed to clarify this precursor definition actually, you know, defined the "restrict nature" definition that is the predicate for the whole natural/unnatural distinction.
mportant to say, for kamuizin, the terms natural, and unnatural do not hold any moral judgement.
EDIT:
I think we should NOT start a discussion now about what nature's original programming is.
kamuizin does have his own opinion about what this is, as may anybody else. And in this context you must see his definition of natural/unnatural.
I get you have good intentions here but then you are just bootstrapping all meaning completely from the words natural and unnatural.
When you say I "must see his definition of natural/unnatural", you are wrong. I don't see that. That is what I want to understand.
* You are telling me that his definition of natural/unnatural is premised on nature's original programming.
* You are telling me that I must understand his definition of natural/unnatural.
* Then you are telling me that I don't need to understand what original programming means.
That doesn't make any sense to me. If A's meaning depends largely on B, you must understand B to understand A.
If there is a link to a definition of natural/unnatural that is better than typing on the subject I am eager to review it. I am just not sure how to have a discussion on a principled matter without understanding the principle.
I thought his earlier link was supposed to reference a principled definition of nature and that we weren't looking to someone's personal view.
I agree that if we are just accepting the premise that people believe what they believe and we aren't discussing that any further that there is no where to go.
However, I thought he was pointing to some recognized definition of natural/unnatural that was in the realm of things that could be fairly discussed by people in a reasonable way on this thread. Personal definition as to how nature is supposed to be doesn't lend itself to much discussion. A principled definition of what is natural or unnatural lends itself to analysis and discussion and review of its application.
* * *
On a wholly unrelated note - how do I do the @Shandyr thing. Am I supposed to type that? When I am clearly responding to you and quoting your post, I feel like I should have that in the response but it doesn't appear by default.
So, if this new character is bi, would you prefer him to be bi as in, no matter what gender you are, he will romance you, without his personality pointing anything?
It's always hard for me imagining this: "sexuality influences character"
[snip]
It's not so much that it influences character, as that it influences psychology. If I'm a bloke who only likes blokes, then when I run into a lady I'm less likely to get all hot and bothered when she takes her clothes off. On the other hand, if I'm a bloke who only likes ladies, then I'm quite likely indeed to get both hot and bothered when the lady decides to get down to her jammies.
It doesn't change who you are for better or worse, but it does change how you view other people in the world. A person who's bisexual sees everyone, on some level, even if only for an instant, as a compatible mate. A heterosexual person will only have this reaction with people of the opposite gender, and a homosexual person will only have this reaction with people of the same gender.
This colors your perception of people in general. It's not good or bad, it doesn't mean you have sex with anyone who's compatible, it just means that your mind reacts differently to the naked lady (or bloke; I'm not trying to make judgments, after all).
It's kind of like the old debate about whether women or men are better or worse, or if they're equal, or if they're the same. The truth is that men and women are just different. They have different ways of looking at the world in relation to their gender, because their gender is actually different. This doesn't necessarily make one or the other better able to handle things that they encounter; it just means a different perspective.
[snip] "Omfg I just saw a human with a nose in his face!" "Omfg I just saw a homosexual!"
Wouldnt it be great to live in a world, where the reactions on these two statements were the same? If Im not mistaken the Forgotten Realms is such a world just as Thedas is (the world of Dragon Age).
Having a nose or not having a nose is kind of an...odd analogy. But I'll go with it. Let's say you have a nose, and I don't. You experience everything in the world through sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. You see a rose, and your mind draws a connection to its lovely scent. You see a pile of dung, and your mind draws a connection to something less pleasant.
I, on the other hand, experience the world only through four of my five senses. I see a rose and I note its pretty color and soft petals. I see a pile of dung and I see that it's brown and feels warm and soft, like mud, but I have no olfactory awareness of how disgusting it might be.
A human without a nose might be otherwise no different from a human with a nose, but because one of them doesn't smell things, that one is inextricably different--not in a good or a bad way, just different--from the one that does smell things.
The change of character is not in how others perceive the bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual character; but rather in how that character perceives the rest of the world. And when a game makes the rather ignorant (not offensive, just ignorant) assumption that sexuality has no bearing on a character's perceptions of those around him, the game has stopped serving the story and started serving the focus groups.
The change of character is not in how others perceive the bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual character; but rather in how that character perceives the rest of the world. And when a game makes the rather ignorant (not offensive, just ignorant) assumption that sexuality has no bearing on a character's perceptions of those around him, the game has stopped serving the story and started serving the focus groups.
That is what I am trying to avoid.
This is a great post. I agree 100%.
I don't mind a gay character or bisexual character, but I want characters that I feel are authentic people in another world. I want characters that have an identity outside of the PC and the whole idea of NPCs that are homosexual if the PC is same sex but heterosexual if the PC is the opposite gender just strikes me as inauthentic and poor story telling. I haven't played DA2 (I am sure I will some day) but that aspect of the game is very unappealing and I hope it isn't repeated in other games. For people who want this in their BG, they can download the Soulafain mod (or for those who want a kick butt challenge of a battle).
I have to be honest - I do agree that your sexuality along with many other things influences the way you perceive the world, but I don't think that means you can't have a character that can be romanced by both genders but is straight/gay according to the PC gender per @Shandyr's suggestion earlier. You would have to write some dialogues differently sure, but you could still have a good character. In playing through BG1, I'm not sure I ever pondered on any of the NPC's sexual orientation. I mean, I assume Jaheira and Khalid are both straight (but do we really KNOW if Khalid was.. j/k), but the others.. who knows..
I've mostly just been reading this thread, but I do want to comment. For all of those who rage that a gay/bi NPC is catering to political correctness, etc, etc. How do we know that the bi-sexual character wasn't just plain written that way. I mean, I'm going to assume that someone involved could potentially be gay or bi-sexual or if they are all straight, that doesn't mean they don't know anyone who is gay or bi-sexual that would influence the way the write a character.
- I'm straight - I HATE political correctness - I'm religious (very similar to @Bjjorick's way of looking at it) - If I were asked if I wanted a gay romance in game, I'd probably say no, but if I was told it was there, I'd be like meh (caveat is I would never want my character to just "slip" into that romance through some supposedly harmless and friendly dialogue choices.. but that goes for a straight relationship too)
@AHF i'm starting to think that you're just being a dick dude, serious, you're clearly trying to undermine my personal opinion. You don't care to my opinion as you're focused in know my reasons to attack them, only that. I only developed a formal concept to my personal opinion at your request, to try to explain me to you, as i thought that in the begin you had good intentions, it's clearly that you just want to put fire on the issue, at a point that a third person had to intervene.
At the begin i let it clear that i just feel it unnatural, you asked me to develop a concept, and now you say that if i just let it as my personal opinion would have be no problem...something is very wrong here.
I didn't had to explain myself to you but yet i did it, if you want to mold me as a hater, prejudicer or any other label that comes in your mind be happy to do so, but be straight on it (not in an sexual meaning). I don't prejudice homossexualism, do you believe it or not, but i prejudice a pussyfoot and you're being exactly that at this moment.
Like me or hate me it's your choice, but you're manipulating each of my posts, trying to make them homophobic, but prejudice is in your eyes dude, you're just being prejudice against people that think different than you.
@AHF i'm starting to think that you're just being a dick dude, serious, you're clearly trying to undermine my personal opinion. You don't care to my opinion as you're focused in know my reasons to attack them, only that. I only developed a formal concept to my personal opinion at your request, to try to explain me to you, as i thought that in the begin you had good intentions, it's clearly that you just want to put fire on the issue, at a point that a third person had to intervene.
At the begin i let it clear that i just feel it unnatural, you asked me to develop a concept, and now you say that if i just let it as my personal opinion would have be no problem...something is very wrong here.
I didn't had to explain myself to you but yet i did it, if you want to mold me as a hater, prejudicer or any other label that comes in your mind be happy to do so, but be straight on it (not in an sexual meaning). I don't prejudice homossexualism, do you believe it or not, but i prejudice a pussyfoot and you're being exactly that at this moment.
Like me or hate me it's your choice, but you're manipulating each of my posts, trying to make them homophobic, but prejudice is in your eyes dude, you're just being prejudice against people that think different than you.
Not trying to be a dick. I have never called you prejudiced and defended the rights of religious groups to have opinions that homosexuality is a sin. I haven't manipulated any of your posts.
You said that a link explained your definition and it completely did not. There is are entire blocks of science devoted to the natural world and thought you were relying on some aspect of that in defining what is natural and what is unnatural. The link you used cited to some of these scientific backgrounds but did not relate to your personal definition.
Asking you how the link related to your definition of natural/unnatural is not manipulating your posts. I am not trying to throw fire into things just trying to make sense of how that link related to your argument. The last posts weren't even discussing your posts but interpretations of your posts that I didn't think explained the reference to the link. They didn't because the link wasn't related to your personal view. The fact that they didn't connect confused me and you never cleared that up.
Now you have. I will say that seeing some kind of broader definition would make your position one that is more persuasive to me and I was hoping to get that kind of insight. That is a personal statement about me, though, and not a reflection or judgment on you.
Knowing that the natural/unnatural distinction is just your feelings and isn't based on that link or some other source, I won't press any further for clarification.
@Shandyr you're mistaking my point. I'm not saying that every homo-, bi-, or heterosexual character in a world should be treated based on their sexual orientation. I'm saying that when a character is homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual, if that part of their character is relevant to the story (as, for instance, being a romantic interest), then that should be a part of their character, not something that's tacked on for the convenience of the player. (Personally, I'd like to see some non-heterosexual characters that don't fall in love with the player. It'd be a nice change of pace.)
The nose/no nose analogy is relevant specifically because of the difference in perspective between having or not having a nose. If you're heterosexual and I'm bisexual, I'm looking at the concept of love through a different lens. Our lenses might be similar, but they're different in that I'm looking at any attractive person, male or female, as a potential candidate for affection; you're looking at attractive members of the same sex and not considering them in this way.
Is that our only consideration when dealing with other people? No, of course not. There are hundreds of other things that go into a person's judgment of another person or the culture in which that person lives. But just like those hundreds of elements, sexuality is important. If it's important enough that it is a part of the character that the player can interact with, then it needs to be important enough to be static.
Jaheira, for instance. She would make a very interesting lesbian character, if you could see a little bit of her struggle with the shift in perspective after Khalid's death. You get to see some of this anyway--and actually, I played through the game once with a mod that let my female character romance her, and it worked pretty well without any changes.
Aerie, on the other hand, could never become pregnant in Throne of Bhaal. If your character is female, that part of her characterization has to either be removed or retconned, or simply ignored. Aerie isn't my favorite romance, but it's a complete one; and her becoming pregnant with your child is an important part of her character.
I'm all for gay characters, bisexual characters, sexually ambiguous characters, transgendered or transexual or transvestite characters, as long as they are written as such. I'm against the idea that a character's sexual orientation is in no way a factor in that person's life, when it is clearly enough of a factor for them to fall in love with the player.
They don't have to be persecuted for this, and in fact I'd rather they weren't. But they ought to be written from a perspective of knowing that aspect of who they are.
@Shandyr you're mistaking my point. I'm not saying that every homo-, bi-, or heterosexual character in a world should be treated based on their sexual orientation. I'm saying that when a character is homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual, if that part of their character is relevant to the story (as, for instance, being a romantic interest), then that should be a part of their character, not something that's tacked on for the convenience of the player. (Personally, I'd like to see some non-heterosexual characters that don't fall in love with the player. It'd be a nice change of pace.)
@Shandyr Yes, from what Ed Greenwood has said on the subject, Sexuality in the Realms is a non-issue when it comes to prejudice. I'd probably go a step further and say that some characters/societies may look down on you for it (either because they are evil, or if in a small/isolated community, because everyone may need to have kids to keep the community alive and genetically diverse), but for most of the Realms, nobody cares who you like/want to romance.
Like LadyRhian say... it's not medieval earth here, it's Faerun... The social landscape is not exactelly the same, there is no equivalent of christianity here pushing down the homosexual, the good gods are pretty accepting of it
Just also gotta say, in a world where evil wizards and priests are running around and can kill you with a simple spell that you have next to no defenses to and have no way to see coming... Do you honestly think who someone loves is going to be so very important in the overall scheme of things?
@LadyRhian Ok, I'll concede if you are telling me that the evil wizards are pretty open minded, which I think you already have. Remove the guns from the equation, you still have the people with intent, bar collateral damage.
(appreciative that this thread has come round to discussing evil wizards )
Anti-gay gamers on Forgotten Realms : get upset about homosex, doesn't get upset about bestiality, and other sexual interactions described in the LORE.
I wasn't making a reference about our world by the way
I meant that, in Dragon Age 2 for example, every character is bi, and just reacts with the same dialogues and the same way to both male and female Hawke.
Although i understand that in our world, prejudice takes a part in forming a bi person's personality, is it only prejudice about that certain fact, or maybe it has something to do also with intolerance to the different in general?
I mean, i understand what Greenwood said, but they have a world were racism exists, wars and slaughter happen, intolerance to the different exists, but everyone is ok with others' different sexual orientation?
But yeah, there has to be a place where they cut people some slack. Still though, in order for my personality to be formed towards a certain direction, does that direction need to be prejudiced? If i respect life and defend it for example, not harming even flies, there is prejudice against that and that makes me conscious about it? No, i make a choice, and it doesn't mean i grew up where war exists.
I mean, maybe i am overthinking it (probably i am ) but the point is, let's not make the npcs like Dragon Age 2. A couple more lines maybe, to show that it's not just a script reacting, anything, not about the prejudice against it
I love btw how i always end up participating in talks about things i'm not even gonna go after :P
Two men together romantically or two women together romantically are their own special human relationship dynamic, and it's really hard to get an outsider to understand. Fortunately, I've had the pleasure to experience the work of some very sensitive writers.
If I (being straight) where to play a gay romance in a game, it would be out of curiosity for exactly that: what the special dynamic in same-sex relationships is. So far I've only romanced straight, even when playing a female (I'm male myself). I think it will take some getting used to, for me. I'm ashamed to say I had to get used to the idea of one of my friends preferring man when he came out of the closet (and at that time the first gay in my circle of friends).
Comments
So put all the interspecies trisexual anal play romance you want in my rpgs, just make sure it stays optional and the bonuses to completing them aren't too vital for enjoying the game!
Or would you like a distinct character that knows he's bi and is shown through dialogue, maybe affecting how he views the world as well?
Older RPGs were much less worried about their content. I think, everyone is trying too hard to please the mainstream demographic nowdays, so a lot of stuff gets tossed out just in case it offends someone.
With gay romances, I think most game producers are starting to realize, that the amount of people, who would condemn a game for having homosexual content is smaller than those who would actively welcome it, so it's OK to have gay characters again.
If you are talking about behavior which is followed by a majority of the species then that is a strange standard that would define it as "unnatural" for an animal to enjoy foods certain foods that a majority of the species didn't enjoy. There would be a lot of behavior falling under that kind of definition that would seem to be not what we are trying to drive at (is it unnatural if a mutation occurs and then it becomes natural when that mutation becomes majority?). So I don't think this is the definition.
It seems to be a bootstrapping argument because you have to define what is natural first and then you are simply labeling "unnatural" anything that doesn't meet that definition. That strikes me as fairly arbitrary. That is why I was hoping the link he posted that was supposed to clarify this precursor definition actually, you know, defined the "restrict nature" definition that is the predicate for the whole natural/unnatural distinction. I get you have good intentions here but then you are just bootstrapping all meaning completely from the words natural and unnatural.
When you say I "must see his definition of natural/unnatural", you are wrong. I don't see that. That is what I want to understand.
* You are telling me that his definition of natural/unnatural is premised on nature's original programming.
* You are telling me that I must understand his definition of natural/unnatural.
* Then you are telling me that I don't need to understand what original programming means.
That doesn't make any sense to me. If A's meaning depends largely on B, you must understand B to understand A.
If there is a link to a definition of natural/unnatural that is better than typing on the subject I am eager to review it. I am just not sure how to have a discussion on a principled matter without understanding the principle.
I agree that if we are just accepting the premise that people believe what they believe and we aren't discussing that any further that there is no where to go.
However, I thought he was pointing to some recognized definition of natural/unnatural that was in the realm of things that could be fairly discussed by people in a reasonable way on this thread. Personal definition as to how nature is supposed to be doesn't lend itself to much discussion. A principled definition of what is natural or unnatural lends itself to analysis and discussion and review of its application.
* * *
On a wholly unrelated note - how do I do the @Shandyr thing. Am I supposed to type that? When I am clearly responding to you and quoting your post, I feel like I should have that in the response but it doesn't appear by default.
It doesn't change who you are for better or worse, but it does change how you view other people in the world. A person who's bisexual sees everyone, on some level, even if only for an instant, as a compatible mate. A heterosexual person will only have this reaction with people of the opposite gender, and a homosexual person will only have this reaction with people of the same gender.
This colors your perception of people in general. It's not good or bad, it doesn't mean you have sex with anyone who's compatible, it just means that your mind reacts differently to the naked lady (or bloke; I'm not trying to make judgments, after all).
It's kind of like the old debate about whether women or men are better or worse, or if they're equal, or if they're the same. The truth is that men and women are just different. They have different ways of looking at the world in relation to their gender, because their gender is actually different. This doesn't necessarily make one or the other better able to handle things that they encounter; it just means a different perspective. Having a nose or not having a nose is kind of an...odd analogy. But I'll go with it. Let's say you have a nose, and I don't. You experience everything in the world through sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. You see a rose, and your mind draws a connection to its lovely scent. You see a pile of dung, and your mind draws a connection to something less pleasant.
I, on the other hand, experience the world only through four of my five senses. I see a rose and I note its pretty color and soft petals. I see a pile of dung and I see that it's brown and feels warm and soft, like mud, but I have no olfactory awareness of how disgusting it might be.
A human without a nose might be otherwise no different from a human with a nose, but because one of them doesn't smell things, that one is inextricably different--not in a good or a bad way, just different--from the one that does smell things.
The change of character is not in how others perceive the bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual character; but rather in how that character perceives the rest of the world. And when a game makes the rather ignorant (not offensive, just ignorant) assumption that sexuality has no bearing on a character's perceptions of those around him, the game has stopped serving the story and started serving the focus groups.
That is what I am trying to avoid.
I don't mind a gay character or bisexual character, but I want characters that I feel are authentic people in another world. I want characters that have an identity outside of the PC and the whole idea of NPCs that are homosexual if the PC is same sex but heterosexual if the PC is the opposite gender just strikes me as inauthentic and poor story telling. I haven't played DA2 (I am sure I will some day) but that aspect of the game is very unappealing and I hope it isn't repeated in other games. For people who want this in their BG, they can download the Soulafain mod (or for those who want a kick butt challenge of a battle).
I've mostly just been reading this thread, but I do want to comment. For all of those who rage that a gay/bi NPC is catering to political correctness, etc, etc. How do we know that the bi-sexual character wasn't just plain written that way. I mean, I'm going to assume that someone involved could potentially be gay or bi-sexual or if they are all straight, that doesn't mean they don't know anyone who is gay or bi-sexual that would influence the way the write a character.
- I'm straight
- I HATE political correctness
- I'm religious (very similar to @Bjjorick's way of looking at it)
- If I were asked if I wanted a gay romance in game, I'd probably say no, but if I was told it was there, I'd be like meh (caveat is I would never want my character to just "slip" into that romance through some supposedly harmless and friendly dialogue choices.. but that goes for a straight relationship too)
At the begin i let it clear that i just feel it unnatural, you asked me to develop a concept, and now you say that if i just let it as my personal opinion would have be no problem...something is very wrong here.
I didn't had to explain myself to you but yet i did it, if you want to mold me as a hater, prejudicer or any other label that comes in your mind be happy to do so, but be straight on it (not in an sexual meaning). I don't prejudice homossexualism, do you believe it or not, but i prejudice a pussyfoot and you're being exactly that at this moment.
Like me or hate me it's your choice, but you're manipulating each of my posts, trying to make them homophobic, but prejudice is in your eyes dude, you're just being prejudice against people that think different than you.
You said that a link explained your definition and it completely did not. There is are entire blocks of science devoted to the natural world and thought you were relying on some aspect of that in defining what is natural and what is unnatural. The link you used cited to some of these scientific backgrounds but did not relate to your personal definition.
Asking you how the link related to your definition of natural/unnatural is not manipulating your posts. I am not trying to throw fire into things just trying to make sense of how that link related to your argument. The last posts weren't even discussing your posts but interpretations of your posts that I didn't think explained the reference to the link. They didn't because the link wasn't related to your personal view. The fact that they didn't connect confused me and you never cleared that up.
Now you have. I will say that seeing some kind of broader definition would make your position one that is more persuasive to me and I was hoping to get that kind of insight. That is a personal statement about me, though, and not a reflection or judgment on you.
Knowing that the natural/unnatural distinction is just your feelings and isn't based on that link or some other source, I won't press any further for clarification.
The nose/no nose analogy is relevant specifically because of the difference in perspective between having or not having a nose. If you're heterosexual and I'm bisexual, I'm looking at the concept of love through a different lens. Our lenses might be similar, but they're different in that I'm looking at any attractive person, male or female, as a potential candidate for affection; you're looking at attractive members of the same sex and not considering them in this way.
Is that our only consideration when dealing with other people? No, of course not. There are hundreds of other things that go into a person's judgment of another person or the culture in which that person lives. But just like those hundreds of elements, sexuality is important. If it's important enough that it is a part of the character that the player can interact with, then it needs to be important enough to be static.
Jaheira, for instance. She would make a very interesting lesbian character, if you could see a little bit of her struggle with the shift in perspective after Khalid's death. You get to see some of this anyway--and actually, I played through the game once with a mod that let my female character romance her, and it worked pretty well without any changes.
Aerie, on the other hand, could never become pregnant in Throne of Bhaal. If your character is female, that part of her characterization has to either be removed or retconned, or simply ignored. Aerie isn't my favorite romance, but it's a complete one; and her becoming pregnant with your child is an important part of her character.
I'm all for gay characters, bisexual characters, sexually ambiguous characters, transgendered or transexual or transvestite characters, as long as they are written as such. I'm against the idea that a character's sexual orientation is in no way a factor in that person's life, when it is clearly enough of a factor for them to fall in love with the player.
They don't have to be persecuted for this, and in fact I'd rather they weren't. But they ought to be written from a perspective of knowing that aspect of who they are.
(appreciative that this thread has come round to discussing evil wizards
I meant that, in Dragon Age 2 for example, every character is bi, and just reacts with the same dialogues and the same way to both male and female Hawke.
Although i understand that in our world, prejudice takes a part in forming a bi person's personality, is it only prejudice about that certain fact, or maybe it has something to do also with intolerance to the different in general?
I mean, i understand what Greenwood said, but they have a world were racism exists, wars and slaughter happen, intolerance to the different exists, but everyone is ok with others' different sexual orientation?
But yeah, there has to be a place where they cut people some slack. Still though, in order for my personality to be formed towards a certain direction, does that direction need to be prejudiced? If i respect life and defend it for example, not harming even flies, there is prejudice against that and that makes me conscious about it? No, i make a choice, and it doesn't mean i grew up where war exists.
I mean, maybe i am overthinking it (probably i am
I love btw how i always end up participating in talks about things i'm not even gonna go after :P