|
Post by Ophel on Dec 18, 2012 17:12:21 GMT
Whatever the case, I still can't shake the awful feeling that we're gonna have some very bad mood whiplash coming.
And perhaps a case of Cerebus Syndrome. How severe it will be, only Tom will tell. Or show.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Dec 18, 2012 17:25:21 GMT
Whatever the case, I still can't shake the awful feeling that we're gonna have some very bad mood whiplash coming. And perhaps a case of Cerebus Syndrome. How severe it will be, only Tom will tell. Or show. "Cerebus Syndrome" implies that Tom didn't originally intend to write serious stories, which I believe is not correct. Clearly this comic has always been about all the ravages. All of them.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 18, 2012 17:40:25 GMT
I know Tom has said specifically that Shadow is male. He also talked about robot, though I can't remember what I said. Tom said that Robot Identifies as male. Did he? For me, anyway, the thing is this: none of them reproduces sexually, none of them has sex organs (at least that's how it seems to be), nor any other marks of sexuality. I read that "he" as a neuter, because frankly to my mind they are both androgynous. Still, such a good friends they are.
|
|
|
Post by kreiri on Dec 18, 2012 18:20:46 GMT
Why is this automatically romantic? (?__?) Nice pun
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 18, 2012 20:27:08 GMT
what i'm trying to say is, i highly Robot and Shadow's relationship--platonic, romantic, whatever you wish to classify it--is just there to be cute fangirl fodder. Or the stuff that nightmares are made of... Whatever the case, I still can't shake the awful feeling that we're gonna have some very bad mood whiplash coming. I know. Looking back, I realize that this change has been ongoing, since before Chapter 32 or earlier; however since I was reading at a rapid pace (archive binging) I didn't realize it until Chapter 39. I like GKC, but from my point of view it's on a slippery slope, tone-wise. If Tom were a lesser author, I'd already be grieving for it. Which is why I really hope things take a turn for the brighter, soon...
|
|
|
Post by Doomrider on Dec 18, 2012 21:20:38 GMT
Doomrider disapproves.
But I remain hopefully that this chapter will spiral down in infinite decay and death. To wit: Changes as writ beautifully large by Tzeentch. Which is to say, I hope everything in this chapter goes to pot, and all the changes are terrible and horrific.
I want to see some PAIN!
|
|
|
Post by legion on Dec 18, 2012 21:25:05 GMT
Tom said that Robot Identifies as male. Did he? For me, anyway, the thing is this: none of them reproduces sexually, none of them has sex organs (at least that's how it seems to be), nor any other marks of sexuality. I read that "he" as a neuter, because frankly to my mind they are both androgynous. Still, such a good friends they are. That's why Tom said "idenfies as male" (refering to gender) as opposed to "is biologically male" (refering to sex)
|
|
|
Post by Ophel on Dec 19, 2012 12:06:57 GMT
"Cerebus Syndrome" implies that Tom didn't originally intend to write serious stories, which I believe is not correct. Clearly this comic has always been about all the ravages. All of them. True dat. Looks like I forgot what the past chapters contain. At any rate, the drama is already starting.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 19, 2012 12:44:44 GMT
Did he? For me, anyway, the thing is this: none of them reproduces sexually, none of them has sex organs (at least that's how it seems to be), nor any other marks of sexuality. I read that "he" as a neuter, because frankly to my mind they are both androgynous. Still, such a good friends they are. That's why Tom said "idenfies as male" (refering to gender) as opposed to "is biologically male" (refering to sex) But how much can you identify as a male if you do not belong to a sexually reproductive species? I mean, unless you happen to be a Disney fairy, they seem to be very good at it.
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 19, 2012 12:58:26 GMT
But how much can you identify as a male if you do not belong to a sexually reproductive species? I mean, unless you happen to be a Disney fairy, they seem to be very good at it. Well, the transgendered people seem to be handling it fine. Gender isn't really about biological sex, it's about personal identification, whether you feel more male or female, regardless of your physical sex or absence thereof. Since the robots are programmed by humans, it makes sense for them to have gendered traits they've either assumed through imitation or have been given by programmers who wanted to humanize them. In the English-speaking culture the male-pronoun is the unmarked standard, and unless specified otherwise, nearly all entities are identified as male by default. The Robot gets called a "he" all the time, so he identifies as "he" as a result. It doesn't have to be anything more complicated than that.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Dec 19, 2012 14:36:20 GMT
Gender is a fuzzy social construct which has to do with appearance and behaviour.
Sex is a fuzzy biological construct which has to do with reproductive role.
The distinction between gender and sex is largely an invention of 19th century western biological positivism. That is, they didn't invent gender, because gender distinctions are found in all human cultures, they invented sex, which was supposed to be the "objective reality" behind gender (just like they invented race as the "objective reality" behind skin and hair color differences).
That we were convinced that gender and sex lined up so neatly had to do with various factors, including the especially puritan attitudes of the Victorian era (much more so than in the previous centuries [fun fact: did you know gay marriages between knights had been celebrated in the middle ages?]) which frown down on anything perceived as sexually deviant (and this included transvestism), and also the fact that the western world only admits 2 gender roles (many other cultures admit 3, so lining them up with sex is much less straightforward).
Today biologists know that sex is just as much a continuum as gender is, the 2 neatly defined reproductive roles are not closed classes, and many degree of physical androgyny can and do exist [and that's just in human beings; if you start to look at other species, you're in even deeper troubles (do you know what determines the sex of a crocodile? No, not its genetic code: *the temperature its egg was kept at*)].
Of course society by and large still thinks that gender = sex, and this creates a lot of trouble for transgender people (who identify as the opposite gender of what society would attribute them considering their sex) [notably much higher suicide rate, and even worse, much more likely to be the victim of hate crimes than any other LGBT person].
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 19, 2012 20:29:50 GMT
But how much can you identify as a male if you do not belong to a sexually reproductive species? I mean, unless you happen to be a Disney fairy, they seem to be very good at it. Well, the transgendered people seem to be handling it fine. Last time I checked it, people were a sexually reproductive species. I.e. transgendered people belong to a one. Gender isn't really about biological sex, it's about personal identification, whether you feel more male or female, regardless of your physical sex or absence thereof. You've read your fair share of Butler? Doesn't change in any matter that there is no gender distinction without first there being sexes. Bacteria do not reproduce sexually. They also have no gender identification, and for a good reason: a bacterium cannot identify as "male bacterium" because there is no such thing. So, back to the point: how on earth do you identify with a gender if you belong to a species that does not reproduce sexually? Without sexes, the 'genders' would be simply social classes, races, whatever, but not genders in the sense that they are given now. Since the robots are programmed by humans, it makes sense for them to have gendered traits they've either assumed through imitation or have been given by programmers who wanted to humanize them. This could be a case, sci-fi is full of male-bots and fem-bots, but these robots seem very asexual and not very long way humanized, I think, actually built by other robots, aren't they, and not by men? Moreover, the robot is well aware that he is not human, he does not identify as a human. In the English-speaking culture the male-pronoun is the unmarked standard, and unless specified otherwise, nearly all entities are identified as male by default. The Robot gets called a "he" all the time, so he identifies as "he" as a result. It doesn't have to be anything more complicated than that. This is why I said that Shadow being "he" may not signal sex nor gender, but is merely used of a person of whose sex is not known (or better yet, non-existant). Anyway, this in no way means that the robot would identify as a man in any way that would be sexually meaningful, merely as "referred to as a 'he' rather than 'she'" which is not quite a gender-identity yet.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 19, 2012 20:59:21 GMT
Gender is a fuzzy social construct which has to do with appearance and behaviour. Sex is a fuzzy biological construct which has to do with reproductive role. The distinction between gender and sex is largely an invention of 19th century western biological positivism. That is, they didn't invent gender, because gender distinctions are found in all human cultures, they invented sex, which was supposed to be the "objective reality" behind gender (just like they invented race as the "objective reality" behind skin and hair color differences). That we were convinced that gender and sex lined up so neatly had to do with various factors, including the especially puritan attitudes of the Victorian era (much more so than in the previous centuries [fun fact: did you know gay marriages between knights had been celebrated in the middle ages?]) which frown down on anything perceived as sexually deviant (and this included transvestism), and also the fact that the western world only admits 2 gender roles (many other cultures admit 3, so lining them up with sex is much less straightforward). Today biologists know that sex is just as much a continuum as gender is, the 2 neatly defined reproductive roles are not closed classes, and many degree of physical androgyny can and do exist [and that's just in human beings; if you start to look at other species, you're in even deeper troubles (do you know what determines the sex of a crocodile? No, not its genetic code: *the temperature its egg was kept at*)]. Of course society by and large still thinks that gender = sex, and this creates a lot of trouble for transgender people (who identify as the opposite gender of what society would attribute them considering their sex) [notably much higher suicide rate, and even worse, much more likely to be the victim of hate crimes than any other LGBT person]. Nice lecture, not that we wouldn't have known all of that already, nor that the idea that 'sex' would in some non-conceptual sense not have existed before 19th century wouldn't be beyond ridiculous when we are talking about a sexually reproducing species. It is not that they invented sex, but that they invented, well, sort of, the specific gender qualities of each sex. Men and women had sex before that and produced children, and guess what, that was not successful because of their gender roles, but because of their biological sexes. Moreover, you think your cats are defined as male or female by their gender identity rather than by their sex? Now, let us get back to the actual point, we are not talking about any "objective truth behind gender" or any other long since beaten horses. Or let me precise: it is one thing to say that there is some definite set of gender qualities that relate to male sex, and another that relates to female sex, and this thing, this claim, is a beaten horse. However, from that it does not follow that biological sexes do not exist, or that all gender identification would be mere free roaming. And now, it is the other thing, the one I claim, that to have genders within a species that species must have sexual diversification of some kind, it must be somehow sexual. And now, that makes no sense without sexual reproduction. Sexes refer to the sexual reproduction, simple as that, you may have your all billion of sexes, but no sexually specific traits develop without sexual reproduction, even if in the end there would appear some parthenogenesis still with the sexes involved, still the sexual traits would have evolved through sexual reproduction. Now, whether you look at sexes as a continuum or duality, when you start to talk about 'male' and 'female' genders that somebody identifies with, then there must freaking be 'males' and 'females' of that species, which is not the case if the species created by either technological or mystical production. The question is not of whether Shadow 2 has balls or not, but whether any shadow has anything that would differentiate them as sexes and moreover whether there is any reason for such differentiation. Nothing that we've seen so far suggests that they were, nor that there was any reason for them to be thus differentiated. Again, the example of Disney fairies: divided to two stereotypically divided 'sexes', however reproduce asexually, so there is no reason whatsoever why they actually would have sexes. Of course, that is all mumbo-jumbo in any case, but that's precisely the point: only the Disney fairies identify as 'male' and 'female' (to the point of developing remarkable sexually specific traits) without being anywhere near sexually reproductive. I give you guys one thing though: that the robots may have a gender identity coded in them.
|
|
|
Post by lunarluminesce on Dec 19, 2012 21:47:21 GMT
Bacteria do not reproduce sexually. They also have no gender identification, and for a good reason: a bacterium cannot identify as "male bacterium" because there is no such thing. There's a difference between having a certain gender, and identifying as a certain gender. The word identify itself (recognise and distinguish, establish etc.) suggest a form of higher cognitive thinking and some form of social construct, just like legion said. Bacteria aren’t able to identify as male or female because (as far as we know) they are not aware of the concepts, and the implications. This is much in the same way they can’t identify as well…bacteria. According to human standards and classification, they ARE bacteria, but it’s not something they’re conscious of. This is the same with most species which are distinguished by gender as well, if we exclude certain apes and perhaps other exceptions I may not be aware of. For example, a cow will most probably act different from a bull, due to physical differences and programmed actions. However, while she is a female, she won’t “identify” as one. It’s just not something cows can understand (unless they’re laser cows of course). Same with your cat example. They’re not identified as male or female due to gender identity, because they don’t have the cultural gender differences and thinking ability to understand such ‘identities’. This is why we mainly observe transgender individuals amongst humans, and possibly other species with higher cognitive abilities. They are able to identify as a certain gender. As Lightice said, while robots may not have differentiated sexual organs or social differences themselves, they are surrounded by humans who do. They were programmed by humans with that kind of thought, and are constantly around them. In the case of Robot and some others, it appears they have some sentience, and are certainly ‘smarter’ than a cat or a bacterium. As such, some of them are likely able to understand gender roles to some degree, and Robot feels that he more like the males of the human species, and identifies as such. Like someone else said, he also acts in a more stereotypically male way. …so…I thought I’d come back to the forums and be a bit more active, rather than just stalk them three times a week..maybe this was too active.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 19, 2012 21:56:44 GMT
Bacteria do not reproduce sexually. They also have no gender identification, and for a good reason: a bacterium cannot identify as "male bacterium" because there is no such thing. There's a difference between having a certain gender, and identifying as a certain gender. The word identify itself (recognise and distinguish, establish etc.) suggest a form of higher cognitive thinking and some form of social construct, just like legion said. Bacteria aren’t able to identify as male or female because (as far as we know) they are not aware of the concepts, and the implications. This is much in the same way they can’t identify as well…bacteria. According to human standards and classification, they ARE bacteria, but it’s not something they’re conscious of. This is the same with most species which are distinguished by gender as well, if we exclude certain apes and perhaps other exceptions I may not be aware of. For example, a cow will most probably act different from a bull, due to physical differences and programmed actions. However, while she is a female, she won’t “identify” as one. It’s just not something cows can understand (unless they’re laser cows of course). Same with your cat example. They’re not identified as male or female due to gender identity, because they don’t have the cultural gender differences and thinking ability to understand such ‘identities’. This is why we mainly observe transgender individuals amongst humans, and possibly other species with higher cognitive abilities. They are able to identify as a certain gender. As Lightice said, while robots may not have differentiated sexual organs or social differences themselves, they are surrounded by humans who do. They were programmed by humans with that kind of thought, and are constantly around them. In the case of Robot and some others, it appears they have some sentience, and are certainly ‘smarter’ than a cat or a bacterium. As such, some of them are likely able to understand gender roles to some degree, and Robot feels that he more like the males of the human species, and identifies as such. Like someone else said, he also acts in a more stereotypically male way. …so…I thought I’d come back to the forums and be a bit more active, rather than just stalk them three times a week..maybe this was too active.1. You are largely underestimating non-human animals. I'm pretty certain cows are able to identify to their species, sex, group. There are birds, for example, that develop behaviour of other sex when coupling with same sex and so on. Most mammals are known to have cultures. By the way, I only used "identify to a gender" because the difference made above. If you consider somebody "having a gender" as a social-cultural product without identifying to that gender, he only has it because he is socially treated as belonging to that gender. And that is a type of forcing that you mostly have in more complicated societies, as with human. And let me put it this way: bacteria do not have genders either. Cows either have or not, if they have, then they pretty much identify with their gender, I don't think there is a cow that identifies as a bull, but is reckoned as a cow by her peers. If you know a case, please show me one. 2. You know, my computer was designed by nerds always thinking about sex, yet it has no sexual identity. Surprisingly, the nerds were able not to put all their frustrated sexuality into their design. 3. Robot is not a man, I mean, he is not human. He does not identify as a human, but as a robot. What is the robot male that he considers himself as? What for? Wouldn't that just confuse him? Huge existential problem? Or... are you sure that it is not just you thinking that he acts in a stereotypically male way, because these are your stereotypes and not his?
|
|
|
Post by legion on Dec 20, 2012 0:25:16 GMT
Zimmyzims > ah okay so you're going to be rude, dismissive and misrepresent people's argument. Have a nice day arguing with walls then.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 20, 2012 6:01:55 GMT
2. You know, my computer was designed by nerds always thinking about sex, yet it has no sexual identity. Surprisingly, the nerds were able not to put all their frustrated sexuality into their design. I see somebody has never had to deal with DOS. If sexual frustration didn't create that, then Satan himself did. Also, I think your stereotype about "nerds" being forever sexually frustrated is quite humorous considering a vast majority of the population would label this entire forum a den of "nerds", whatever that label is supposed to mean these days. Zimmyzims > ah okay so you're going to be rude, dismissive and misrepresent people's argument. Have a nice day arguing with walls then. I've wiled away many a slow day arguing with my wall. Practice makes perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 20, 2012 6:58:13 GMT
Also, I think your stereotype about "nerds" being forever sexually frustrated is quite humorous considering a vast majority of the population would label this entire forum a den of "nerds", whatever that label is supposed to mean these days. What's even more ironic is that this forum is probably the least nerdy group of people I've ever been associated with.
|
|
unrequited
Junior Member
Tormentor of the Heart, close friend of the Spleen
Posts: 74
|
Post by unrequited on Dec 20, 2012 13:32:30 GMT
Meh, some people like to ship, some people like to discuss and analyze. And yeah Gary, I can totally see that scenario happening here. I mean, one's an anthropomorphic shadow and the other's a robot. I honestly don't see much more than "I love you robot/shadow" going on. But then again, shippers, and to a larger extent fanfiction writers in general, will find a way...and it scares me... "Meh, some people like to ship, some people like to discuss and analyze."
implying that people who do one can't do the other, and implying that people who do the former are somehow less intelligent or rational than the former? if you want discussion, here's some analysis that i'm surprised hasn't seemed to have been brought up yet: Shadow is a creature of Gillitie Wood (a specific creation of Coyote, no less), Robot is--well, a robot. a creature of the Court. one of the major themes of the comic has been the struggle for balance between humans/technological progression and creatures of the Aether/nature. and yet here we see a peaceful, amicable, perhaps even loving relationship between a personification of the Aether and a personification of technology. the fact that two beings of such seemingly opposed natures could even become companions is highly irregular from what we've seen in-comic. their relationship could very well be foreshadowing at peace between Gillitie and the Court. HOWEVER, maybe not. the characters on page seem to be paired by close relationships (ex....cept for Reynard and that Robot. don't know what's going on there), but the presence of Coyote's eye and the title "Changes" seem to be slightly ominous. i think it may be foreshadowing some rifts between friends. not to mention that Annie's creation of Robot and subsequent introduction of him to Shadow, in order to get him across the bridge, was A) the very first major storyline of the comic and B) the thing that set that main plot off. what i'm trying to say is, i highly Robot and Shadow's relationship--platonic, romantic, whatever you wish to classify it--is just there to be cute fangirl fodder. these are a very important pair of characters in GKC. we have to keep our eyes on these two. and if we happen to think they'd make a cute couple along the way, well. so be it. Woah, obviously I've struck a nerver here. Let me just be clear and state that I don't like a majority of fan fiction and almost all shipping. Period. I'm sorry for insulting you by implying that shippers are less intelligent, but that comes from my own personal bias against shippers and a majority of fan fiction writers. With that being said, I don't want to imply that all shippers are less intelligent, as there is probably the same spread on the intelligence spectrum for shippers and non-shippers. However, the vocal, idiotic minority often deafens the average-to-genius majority, as in all other demographics. Once again, I apologize for implying that all shippers are unintelligent.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 20, 2012 13:50:36 GMT
Zimmyzims > ah okay so you're going to be rude, dismissive and misrepresent people's argument. Have a nice day arguing with walls then. Sorry, I was perhaps a bit rude, not much though, more like just straight forward, so no need to get all touchy about it - but having to listen the good old "sex and gender are not the same thing" lesson over and over again when it was not the issue, made me a bit cranky. Precisely because you were dragging this argument away from what it was. Precisely because you gave me the impression that you hadn't made the slightest effort to read my post first before answering to it, and I find that very, very disrespective. You should always read the post well enough to understand the stake instead of answering with vague generalities that hardly touch the issue. What on earth did the determination of a crocodile's sex have to do with the subject? Or that there are people naturally not falling to neither male nor female sex? What I asked, was how can you identify as a male shadow if there are neither male nor female shadows? And frankly "misrepresenting people's argument", I'm looking forward for you to prove me having done that.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 20, 2012 14:01:28 GMT
2. You know, my computer was designed by nerds always thinking about sex, yet it has no sexual identity. Surprisingly, the nerds were able not to put all their frustrated sexuality into their design. I see somebody has never had to deal with DOS. If sexual frustration didn't create that, then Satan himself did. Also, I think your stereotype about "nerds" being forever sexually frustrated is quite humorous considering a vast majority of the population would label this entire forum a den of "nerds", whatever that label is supposed to mean these days. Which was obviously intentional. Don't know about the forumers being nerds though. About designs, though not being a nerd nor knowing too much about technology in any case, I know there is whole a lot of male-female stuff in technology, don't worry. Sexual frustration gets a lot of things done. But the thing is, no matter how much my computer gets things plugged into it, it is neither female nor gay. So the stereotyping phrase "nerds were able not to put all their sexual frustration..." was all about the claim that if men create robots, then it is natural for men, who have sexual/gender/zhwambaloobah identity, to give the robots they design an identity in these terms as well, but apparently that just doesn't follow becuase we keep on getting these neither sexually nor gender wise categorised or identifying computers. No matter how gay your new cellphone seems, I doubt it was designed to be gay.
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 20, 2012 19:20:13 GMT
About designs, though not being a nerd nor knowing too much about technology in any case, I know there is whole a lot of male-female stuff in technology, don't worry. Sexual frustration gets a lot of things done. But the thing is, no matter how much my computer gets things plugged into it, it is neither female nor gay. Robots are not simply devices in Gunnerkrigg Court. They are people with minds of their own, and their own identities that they form through interaction with others. It has been established in canon that sometimes the Court robots will fall in love with human beings to general embarrasment and discomfort for all the parties involved. They are explicitly capable of romantic thoughts and feelings, ironically thanks to Diego's creepy obsession with Jeanne that he imprinted to his "children". And when you put all this into perspective, having a simple gender identity be formed through everyday interactions with humans shouldn't be difficult to accept, at all.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 20, 2012 20:15:01 GMT
About designs, though not being a nerd nor knowing too much about technology in any case, I know there is whole a lot of male-female stuff in technology, don't worry. Sexual frustration gets a lot of things done. But the thing is, no matter how much my computer gets things plugged into it, it is neither female nor gay. Robots are not simply devices in Gunnerkrigg Court. They are people with minds of their own, and their own identities that they form through interaction with others. It has been established in canon that sometimes the Court robots will fall in love with human beings to general embarrasment and discomfort for all the parties involved. They are explicitly capable of romantic thoughts and feelings, ironically thanks to Diego's creepy obsession with Jeanne that he imprinted to his "children". And when you put all this into perspective, having a simple gender identity be formed through everyday interactions with humans shouldn't be difficult to accept, at all. This is precisely what I accept, even more that if Diego did code them to be boys, then boys they are, but just from their ability to feel towards people and imitate their feelings it doesn't follow that they have gender identities in any way that was meaningful in the context. Let us say that S13 thinks he is indeed a "he", and he is capable to have feelings with people and stuff, like with shadows. Sure. But does he understand, in any manner, what humans mean by "man"? Does he build some kind of "male sexuality"? Does he have "male feelings" in some specific way? Are the feelings and this "he" identity connected in any manner? Because if not, then what does it matter whether they are "he" and "he", if these are just artificial labellings without anything to do with the sense in which we use them? So, identifying as a "he" means what to him? And finally, when they both are sexually non-reproductive, androgynous, coming from species where this gender difference has little or no sense at all ( except if Diego coded his robots to actually have genders, which they appear not to express at least; and the same with Coyote and his shadows which is a bit more mysterious case as we have seen little of shadows and they were meant to be like men) the whole "love between the boys" thing kind of loses its meaning. Is there any meaningful sense to be "ooh, they're not, are they..." or "there's nothing wrong with that..." when they are in very strong sense asexual and androgynous.
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 20, 2012 21:35:49 GMT
just from their ability to feel towards people and imitate their feelings it doesn't follow that they have gender identities in any way that was meaningful in the context. You underestimate the significance of gender in human interactions of our society. People will approach and treat you differently depending on how they perceive your gender. Robot has been treated as male, and by extension he has come to perceive himself as such. It's really not that complicated. ... You're seriously making this out to be about homosexuality? Because I am doing nothing more or less than explaining why both of these characters would perceive themselves as male. I very much doubt that anything that could be construed as sexuality could happen between them. Remember the sex/gender-distinction.
|
|
|
Post by Doomrider on Dec 21, 2012 0:19:30 GMT
See also, I would like to see that Homosexual relations between knights were celebrated? By whom, the knights who couldn't do cartwheels in their armor and had to be hoisted onto their horses? HAHA.
You see, the joke is, that those knights did not exist. What did exist was the Catholic Church. You may surprised to learn that there were a really cool bunch of bros called the "Inquisistion", went around dealing with this kind of stuff. (I kid. They dealt with Jews and "witches".)
But seriously, Knights were supported by the Feudal System, which at its base, was based on the Church. You may surprised to learn that the Catholic church has never condoned homosexual marriage.
HAHA. I'm getting my pain, all right here. Butthurt everywhere.
|
|