Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
You don't want them to be a perfectly wonderful person with no issues at all, but if they are diametrically opposed to many of my fundamental world views, it's very hard to become invested in them.

So, just to clarify: is a gay character "opposed to your fundamental worldviews" because you believe that being gay is morally wrong and you can't support such a character, or is it "opposed" in that you can't possibly identify with anyone who has different sexual preferences than you do?

A gay character is fundamentally opposed to my world views because they like men, and I like women.

It's almost like, in that regard, they're the complete opposite of me!

So you would say the fact that you like women is the only defining characteristic of your personality, then?

What's more, you would never play a game or read a story involving a female character either, is this true?

 Fafnir wrote:
Sure. I don't see why being gay makes them any less likeable/usable than a straight or asexual character.

^ This. Sure, why not.

Not here. -Mannahnin

jim_giraffe wrote:
no

Goodbye. I hope you have enjoyed your brief membership here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaldor wrote:
A gay character is fundamentally opposed to my world views because they like men, and I like women.

It's almost like, in that regard, they're the complete opposite of me!

But why is that one thing such an important attribute? Are you really saying that you can have an interesting character, full of compelling reasons to identify with them and enjoy their story, and then 300 pages into the book they happen to mention that they're gay and then suddenly you lose all connection to them?

 Peregrine wrote:

jim_giraffe wrote:
no

Goodbye. I hope you have enjoyed your brief membership here.

a question like this cannot be asked without getting a range of views...if you do not agree with mine then fair enough.

As with all controversial questions like this you will have 3 types of answers...the yes, the no and the i dont cares.

jim_giraffe wrote:
As with all controversial questions like this you will have 3 types of answers...the yes, the no and the i dont cares.

Well, hopefully now that you won't have to spend time posting on this forum anymore you'll have lots of free time to consider the difference between "expressing an opinion" and what you posted.

I rarely read books centered on female characters, and never play games as a female character.

I'm with you. When I worked retail, I just couldn't understand Dilbert. I stopped reading Calvin and Hobbes when I hit puberty and I don't watch Star Trek because I don't own a spaceship.

 Fafnir wrote:
So you would say the fact that you like women is the only defining characteristic of your personality, then?

No, I don't see how you could infer that. It's one aspect of my life, and reading about a character that is the exact opposite of that makes it harder to connect with that character. It doesn't make it impossible, nor is it the deciding factor, but it does make it harder.

What's more, you would never play a game or read a story involving a female character either, is this true?

I rarely read books centered on female characters, and never play games as a female character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
But why is that one thing such an important attribute?

It's not. I never said it was. It's just one more hurdle I have to jump before I can form a connection with a character. Sometimes the character is so well constructed that it becomes an aspect of the story that I really like. Most of the time it's just another barrier that I don't need. If all else is equal, I'd prefer to read about a straight character because that's easier for me to connect to, but in the real world everything else is never equal and so it's never a cut-and-dried answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm with you. When I worked retail, I just couldn't understand Dilbert. I stopped reading Calvin and Hobbes when I hit puberty and I don't watch Star Trek because I don't own a spaceship.

You're confusing a persons situation, with key aspects of their personality. They key drivers of any given story are not the window dressing. It's the characters. Star Trek would be just as interesting if it were set on a wagon train in the old west, or on a sailing ship in the 18th century. Because it's the characters and their stories and interactions that drive the narrative, not the uniforms and props. So, if certain aspects of a character make it harder for me to form a connection to them, then I'm less likely to invest my time in them.

 Kaldor wrote:
It's not. I never said it was. It's just one more hurdle I have to jump before I can form a connection with a character. Sometimes the character is so well constructed that it becomes an aspect of the story that I really like. Most of the time it's just another barrier that I don't need. If all else is equal, I'd prefer to read about a straight character because that's easier for me to connect to, but in the real world everything else is never equal and so it's never a cut-and-dried answer.

Ok then. Your previous posts made it sound like this one thing specifically made it harder/impossible, that sexuality is a barrier in ways that not being human/having a different career/having different hobbies/etc are not.

I actually kind of understand where Kaldor comes from. I have had to read books and play games from the perspective of a white heterosexual male all of my life. Now that there are more books and games from the perspective of people that are generally more like me, I tend to prefer those over ones which are the generic WASP male character.

Hell I still remember the first time I saw the Deed of Paksenarrion myself. I was like "woah, a fantasy novel with a female protagonist! OMGFANGIRLSQUEE!" (I was in my early teens...)...

Would complaining about a gay character's model's rules be considered gay bashing?

Vladigar wrote:
Would complaining about a gay character's model's rules be considered gay bashing?

Only if you complained about it BECAUSE they were gay.

I'm not a fluff guru or anything, but the world of warhammer is fairly non-sexual, right? I think it would be weird if they added that element to it in general.....

 bdix wrote:
I'm not a fluff guru or anything, but the world of warhammer is fairly non-sexual, right? I think it would be weird if they added that element to it in general.....

The tabletop is, barring slaaneshi boobs (And it is never dicks, it's always boobs, which is obnoxious, but whatever), relatively free of it.

But 40k lore as a whole is not, because it deals with human struggles, and sexuality is a part of that. Usually it is not the focus of the story however, but it is often mentioned-- such as a guardsmen (or guardswomen) banging genestealer cultist hookers and getting infected in the process, the marriage between two Tanith, Cain banging a noble's daughter/Vail/techpriest lady, or Grifen and Magot's lesbian relationship providing them with the motivation and willpower to get through the mind-shattering horrors of a Necron tomb world. IE, they're part of the story, sometimes even a very important part, but not the entire focus of it.

I did read a book with a gay main character. It was called the The Steel Remains, it's a sword and sorcery novel by Richard K. Morgan. It's a good book.

And you know what else... It didn't make me gay! I know it's quite shocking. I was really worried that it would make me turn gay. I thought maybe I aught to read it aloud in a deep macho voice to compensate... Who knows what being exposed to that much literary gayness might do to a person right? but apparently it doesn't do anything. So there was never any need to panic. Turns out gay characters are completely safe to read about.

no. i dont care or need to know the sexual preferences of my toy soldiers and if a codex made a point of shuving that down my throat i would be majorly pissed off.

edit: if youre talking about a novel about a gay character with the 40k/scifi setting - personally i wouldnt buy it as im not interested in reading brokeback mountain in space but to each his own.

I wouldn't care in fact after reading the Ultramarine books i prefer my Spacemarines to be asexual life-partners. I realize they probably wouldn't have sex wit each other though but that's just a physical act. The way Uriel and Pasanius are written you can tell they care deeply for each other and possibly even love each other. and that's okay with me.

I can imagine there are probably a few Guard officers out there who are like Willem Defoe's character in Boondock Saints also.

as long as there isn't explicit sex scenes( ala Poppy Z. Bright) i would be totally fine. Even if there were if the rest of the story was good i would just have to skip over those scenes.

 Kaldor wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm with you. When I worked retail, I just couldn't understand Dilbert. I stopped reading Calvin and Hobbes when I hit puberty and I don't watch Star Trek because I don't own a spaceship.

You're confusing a persons situation, with key aspects of their personality. They key drivers of any given story are not the window dressing. It's the characters. Star Trek would be just as interesting if it were set on a wagon train in the old west, or on a sailing ship in the 18th century. Because it's the characters and their stories and interactions that drive the narrative, not the uniforms and props. So, if certain aspects of a character make it harder for me to form a connection to them, then I'm less likely to invest my time in them.

Fair enough, but I honestly find that to be a very alien attitude from mine. I tend to enjoy reading books with diverse perspectives. They give me more to think about add force me to really explore the characters. It probably stems from the fact that I have always been part of a very small, often ignored demographic and have had to read books from "unrelateable" perspectives all my life.

I'm just curious, but do you spend a lot of time talking with people of another gender than yours or another religion than yours, and if so, do you find it more taxing or refreshing?

Right now GW is scared of romance and there's no sexuality in 40k period. I'd prefer homosexuality over that BS

 Harriticus wrote:
Right now GW is scared of romance and there's no sexuality in 40k period

Are you sure you're reading the same novels? I mean obviously HH novels won't have it, since that's just about marines vs marines vs marines vs mariney marining marined marines, but most of the BL novels that I've read that had human primary protagonists at least made passing mentions of the topic.

 Harriticus wrote:
Right now GW is scared of romance and there's no sexuality in 40k period. I'd prefer homosexuality over that BS

i dont think theyre scared of it. it's a war game about soldiers, armies and military technology, why would they want to put romance and sexuality in that?

I dont see many love stories in saving private ryan or full metal jacket either.

its a bit odd that you would prefer gay romance sprinkled through your codex lol.

 Melissia wrote:

 bdix wrote:
I'm not a fluff guru or anything, but the world of warhammer is fairly non-sexual, right? I think it would be weird if they added that element to it in general.....

The tabletop is, barring slaaneshi boobs (And it is never dicks, it's always boobs, which is obnoxious, but whatever), relatively free of it.

But 40k lore as a whole is not, because it deals with human struggles, and sexuality is a part of that. Usually it is not the focus of the story however, but it is often mentioned-- such as a guardsmen (or guardswomen) banging genestealer cultist hookers and getting infected in the process, the marriage between two Tanith, Cain banging a noble's daughter/Vail/techpriest lady, or Grifen and Magot's lesbian relationship providing them with the motivation and willpower to get through the mind-shattering horrors of a Necron tomb world. IE, they're part of the story, sometimes even a very important part, but not the entire focus of it.

I find the majority of factions outside the Guard, some Inquisitors, and the Eldar are pretty much asexual.

Sure, the Guard is a pretty big factor, and between Gaunt and Cain, it handles character relationships pretty well,. But beyond them, with Chaos, Orks, Marines, Tyranids, Necrons... just about with every other faction, sexuality goes out the window and other aspects are put forward as more relevant/significant.

The Guard are the most 'human', and as such follows human struggles very closely. But most forces outside of them are a step (or several steps) removed from humanity, and don't follow those struggles much at all. So really, when it comes to the lore, most of 40k is pretty asexual. Even in the Guard, sexuality and romance is hardly the driving force of the stories, and is often a side-note or little bit of character development beside the overarching plot.

(Also, I figure slaanesh have boobs and not man-bits mainly because sculpting boobs is seriously less controversial. A single bared nipple is different from full frontal nudity. It's the difference between a secondary sexual organ and a primary one and all the connotations they carry. They aren't exactly sculpting lady-bits on their models now are they. A bared breast on a miniature is far less risque than actual nude figures, and would cause less of an issue among kids, teens and parents)

 Harriticus wrote:
Right now GW is scared of romance and there's no sexuality in 40k period. I'd prefer homosexuality over that BS

I don't want a lot of romance in my grim dark future. Unless it's about someone seeing their significant other getting their head blown off by random bad guy for a few pages and then the person just going berko for the next several hundred pages.

But really, I don't need to see romance every bloody where I turn. I'm happy enough with the way GW handles romance.

It wouldn't bother me but I suspect any story where the main character is gay will be less "this is x characters quirk" and more "heres half a book about him dealing with being gay, gay relations, gay sex like every other autistics slashfic on the internet" and then we have a terrible book.

Moreover it would have to fit in with the lore of wherever its set, I can well imagine it makes sense for there to be quite a few billion gay IG, but if the author were to make a book about his private fantasies of 700 pound space marines plowing each other then again, terrible literature.

Not sure why "being Gay" is going to change many of the characters in 40K

As Melissa noted - there are two women in a relationship in the Cain novels - does it make any difference to the narrative - nope, is it dwelled on - nope - do they still kick ass, take no nonsense and generally act like the other Grunts (no offense) - yep. It only comes up because Cain mentions how the two women work well as a kill team and this may be because they are also "together", but he is disinterested in anything else about them other than will they keep him alive.

I don't mind romance, I don't mind having none - the 40K and Fantasy universe has some, but its rarely overwhelming (except in some fan ficiton).

On a previous post - there is sexuality in BL products - its just not in your face.....if you want to notice it you can - if you want to read about cool fights and ignore why some of them are occurring or why X fights soo hard to keep Y alive and/or makes bad decisions then you can, but I think you are missing the big picture in terms of motivations..........

Take the Nagash Trilogy I have just read and enjoyed a lot - there is relationship (without details) between Neferata and her favourite handmaiden but she is also head over heels in love/lust with - Alcadizzar who is the architect of her doom in Lahmia. Without the "romance etc" much of their story makes no sense...........

Most of the female protagonists in the Cain novels (who are refreshingly usually as or often more competent than Cain himself) have some form of relationship with the main himself which works well - at least fro me..........

 Melissia wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
Right now GW is scared of romance and there's no sexuality in 40k period

Are you sure you're reading the same novels?

I think he was talking about the players

Depends- will I have to put up with some shallow token love interest?

 Elector wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 bdix wrote:
I'm not a fluff guru or anything, but the world of warhammer is fairly non-sexual, right? I think it would be weird if they added that element to it in general.....

The tabletop is, barring slaaneshi boobs (And it is never dicks, it's always boobs, which is obnoxious, but whatever), relatively free of it.

But 40k lore as a whole is not, because it deals with human struggles, and sexuality is a part of that. Usually it is not the focus of the story however, but it is often mentioned-- such as a guardsmen (or guardswomen) banging genestealer cultist hookers and getting infected in the process, the marriage between two Tanith, Cain banging a noble's daughter/Vail/techpriest lady, or Grifen and Magot's lesbian relationship providing them with the motivation and willpower to get through the mind-shattering horrors of a Necron tomb world. IE, they're part of the story, sometimes even a very important part, but not the entire focus of it.

I find the majority of factions outside the Guard, some Inquisitors, and the Eldar are pretty much asexual.

Sure, the Guard is a pretty big factor, and between Gaunt and Cain, it handles character relationships pretty well,. But beyond them, with Chaos, Orks, Marines, Tyranids, Necrons... just about with every other faction, sexuality goes out the window and other aspects are put forward as more relevant/significant.

The Guard are the most 'human', and as such follows human struggles very closely. But most forces outside of them are a step (or several steps) removed from humanity, and don't follow those struggles much at all. So really, when it comes to the lore, most of 40k is pretty asexual. Even in the Guard, sexuality and romance is hardly the driving force of the stories, and is often a side-note or little bit of character development beside the overarching plot.

(Also, I figure slaanesh have boobs and not man-bits mainly because sculpting boobs is seriously less controversial. A single bared nipple is different from full frontal nudity. It's the difference between a secondary sexual organ and a primary one and all the connotations they carry. They aren't exactly sculpting lady-bits on their models now are they. A bared breast on a miniature is far less risque than actual nude figures, and would cause less of an issue among kids, teens and parents)

You know that the Slannish have been... cleaned up for public consumption in the evolution of the game, right?

Lobster claws, perkey .... used to be the norm. Along with that thought, there was a dark Eldar hero that had (.) (.) larger then most real peoples. They were, to be sure, as large as her head. Held up with dental floss.

As to the IG, fifteen hours, is fifteen hours.

BL books have evolved into more then just sales tools, so when we're going into something more then pew-pew in a book form, they are going to throw something up there that might actually be different then what your expecting. As to Malissa's point on the other two, if it is relevent to the storyline, it just needs to be in there. It isn't the point that its just about them being gay, its the point on how the author developed the background and the characters.
Point of fact, You could I guess see something of that in Only War, I suppose seeing as it was included in the BL Books, now- to be sure.

On the other hand, we're talking a contriversial subject, so in the back of every game designers mind, your more or less going to do safe and what sells. "Gay" might be the new cool, but it, in the end of the day is really going to be about- what exactly is going to sell me some more BL books. Do I need to write about some sort of 300 badass, or am I going to roll out some writing and retrosepctive about the inner thought process of how two people in love are going to deal with the oncoming.... fifteen hours.

Writing is a fine line, on that account too. What happens when Melissa's example ends up overtaking the rest of the book, ALA Mark twain?
First thing the publisher is going to do is to tell the writer, "Hey, sales are down, those two's fifteen hours are up. You can let them go out in a blaze of glory, but they need to go. We're selling books, here, you want to throw out some stuff that isn't party line, we are going to have to find us another writer."

I mean, we're only talking about some kind of mind candy read, you know? BL books arn't really known for deep thought process. And GW, at that? Your seriously digging up deep thought process life lessions out of GW novels?

By the way, I appreceate Melissia's discussion points. She brings some really off the wall and different points of contribution to the conversations, even if some people want to go Defcon 4 on her for bonk reasons. Point to point, she holds her own and earns her stripes on her own merit.

( There, you are not getting your teeth kicked in on this conversation, as well. )


And for what its worth, You know the GW books are supposed to be "War books". Believe it or not we have all kinds doing the fighting, from prim yuppy scum, to groveling digger mud rollers, all in there doing damage and getting capped. Big picture, no one is safe. Its like "The Walking Dead"... You structure out a character, get people liking them, then BAM! out goes the lights, another one steps in there, picks up the rifle, and runs forward. "Sexuality" isn't really the main point of contention.

A good diversion, sure, but not a main point.

Slannesh have rather tamed, but the focus on sexuality is a bit misplaced. It's a god of pleasure, greed and lust, it's more complex and multifaceted than just sexual pleasures. Also, they've made it a lot more PG in recent years, covering up nipples and the like, they seem pretty 'safe' now.