|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 26, 2013 1:07:02 GMT
Once again: SHE'S 14! Who is sure of anything to do with their sexuality when that age? ;-|I was. Rule 27, sir, Rule 27. |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Nov 26, 2013 1:51:24 GMT
The general feeling of the forum, or at least of the people speaking up the most, seems to have been positive with a few dissenters here and there. I think that's a bit skewed. You know the phrase "if you can't say something good, don't say anything at all"? I know that I at least have been avoiding the main discussion threads because I felt that speaking my mind would result in being flamed. This forum seems to me to be very strongly pro-gay. For instance, there have been several claims that Paz/Kat breaking up and resuming heterosexual behavior would be a "cop out", which makes no sense at all in my mind. It's just another direction the plot could go, as arbitrary as them getting together in the first place. Turning straight after a short stint of gayness is just as plausible as (if not more than) turning gay after a longer period of straitness. And don't tell me "it was foreshadowed". The "headband of straitness" story was about social awkwardness, worrying about others' perceptions —in which reality is irrelevant. Yes, looking back it makes sense, which is the sign of a well-executed plot twist, but that doesn't mean there was actual evidence that the plot was going to move in this direction. Only that it could have. (And I have yet to see anything other than that which isn't extremely reading into things.) Now, since I expect to be flamed for this anyways, I might as well get the rest of it out of the way. I don't like Paz/Kat, although much of my issue with it is that I don't read this comic for romance. (I didn't care for Faraway Morning, either.) But to be perfectly honest, Kat is one of my favorite characters of all webcomics, the concept of homosexuality makes me uncomfortable, and I don't want my favorite character to become something I am uncomfortable thinking about. And call me homophobic, but I don't think it'll ever stop making me uncomfortable. I try to keep an open mind, but whichever way I look at it I don't see a way to put gayness in a positive light. If the relationship is based on sexual desires, then it's hedonism; but if it isn't then the result should be platonic love. So whether its self-indulgence or confusion, I fail to see how homosexuality could be a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 26, 2013 1:57:50 GMT
The general feeling of the forum, or at least of the people speaking up the most, seems to have been positive with a few dissenters here and there. I think that's a bit skewed. You're right. I probably should have put some sort of qualifier in there like "or at least of the people speaking up the most"! |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58 
|
Post by Momo on Nov 26, 2013 2:12:30 GMT
And here I was about to say that even with people shipping different things at least we don't have any honest to god bigots here. They seem to be confining themselves to the comments, and most of them have flounced off by now.
Spoke too soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Nov 26, 2013 2:15:51 GMT
Am I literally the only one here who is just completely apathetic and just cares about the storyline?
|
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 26, 2013 2:17:41 GMT
I think one of the axioms of the internet should be, "If you don't have anything nice to say, say it as loud and as often as possible."
|
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58
|
Post by Momo on Nov 26, 2013 2:19:41 GMT
Am I literally the only one here who is just completely apathetic and just cares about the storyline? I don't think so. A lot of the discussions lately have been about the relationship just because thats what the current chapter is about, so I think people who are apathetic to it probably just aren't joining in the discussion much. I'm in this comic for the storyline above all else, but I think Pazkat is adorable and as a lesbian I am thrilled with how well the storyline has been handled thus far. I think one of the axioms of the internet should be, "If you don't have anything nice to say, say it as loud and as often as possible." "Welcome to the interwebs, here's your free megaphone for all your 'unpopular opinon' needs." |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 26, 2013 2:21:08 GMT
Am I literally the only one here who is just completely apathetic and just cares about the storyline? I'm in this comic for the storyline above all else, but I think Pazkat is adorable and as a lesbian I am thrilled with how well the storyline has been handled thus far. I'm not a lesbian, but I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Nov 26, 2013 2:21:29 GMT
Momo: Well, I guess I'm the outspoken apathetic person, lol. I just like the advancement of the story.
On a side note, did you know your username means "peach" in Japanese? 「桃」
|
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 26, 2013 2:21:46 GMT
I think one of the axioms of the internet should be, "If you don't have anything nice to say, say it as loud and as often as possible." |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58
|
Post by Momo on Nov 26, 2013 2:29:01 GMT
Momo: Well, I guess I'm the outspoken apathetic person, lol. I just like the advancement of the story. On a side note, did you know your username means "peach" in Japanese? 「桃」 I did actually! It's a nickname I've had since high school, and also amusingly the name of my friend's pekinese. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 26, 2013 2:47:27 GMT
The general feeling of the forum, or at least of the people speaking up the most, seems to have been positive with a few dissenters here and there. I think that's a bit skewed. You know the phrase "if you can't say something good, don't say anything at all"? I know that I at least have been avoiding the main discussion threads because I felt that speaking my mind would result in being flamed. This forum seems to me to be very strongly pro-gay. For instance, there have been several claims that Paz/Kat breaking up and resuming heterosexual behavior would be a "cop out", which makes no sense at all in my mind. It's just another direction the plot could go, as arbitrary as them getting together in the first place. Turning straight after a short stint of gayness is just as plausible as (if not more than) turning gay after a longer period of straitness. And don't tell me "it was foreshadowed". The "headband of straitness" story was about social awkwardness, worrying about others' perceptions —in which reality is irrelevant. Yes, looking back it makes sense, which is the sign of a well-executed plot twist, but that doesn't mean there was actual evidence that the plot was going to move in this direction. Only that it could have. (And I have yet to see anything other than that which isn't extremely reading into things.) Now, since I expect to be flamed for this anyways, I might as well get the rest of it out of the way. I don't like Paz/Kat, although much of my issue with it is that I don't read this comic for romance. (I didn't care for Faraway Morning, either.) But to be perfectly honest, Kat is one of my favorite characters of all webcomics, the concept of homosexuality makes me uncomfortable, and I don't want my favorite character to become something I am uncomfortable thinking about. And call me homophobic, but I don't think it'll ever stop making me uncomfortable. I try to keep an open mind, but whichever way I look at it I don't see a way to put gayness in a positive light. If the relationship is based on sexual desires, then it's hedonism; but if it isn't then the result should be platonic love. So whether its self-indulgence or confusion, I fail to see how homosexuality could be a good thing. First half: valid points. You made a point that although Tom did make this coming out a logical progression, it could have easily gone a different way. But, it did happen regardless. The artistic merit has been debated, though I think a consensus has been reached for most of us. The point of a forum, though, is that dissenting is allowed. Second half (after "I don't like Paz/Kat"): I am afraid that I must take exception to several portions. First, it is your right to have an opinion about Tom's abilities in crafting plot. I also applaud your frankness in saying that you dislike this because homosexuality makes you uncomfortable, and you don't want to associate it with Kat. However, two things: first and lesser, why do Kat's lesbian/bisexual tendencies cause you to value the rest of her character less? It is true in the real world as well as in the Gunnerverse that people's sexual habits are totally unrelated to their accomplishments as a human. Second and greater, I don't see any reason why this is, for example, different than heterosexual people. Unless you are asexual, you are not being logically consistent, if that matters to you. Furthermore, why would 'gayness' not be a good thing: it does not do harm to you (well, other than indignation on the internetz), and increases the happiness for all the people who are oriented in that direction. Even if you are not personally homosexual, why say the blanket statement that 'it cannot be a good thing' for anyone? Sorry for that rant, gentle forumgoers. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 26, 2013 2:47:44 GMT
The general feeling of the forum, or at least of the people speaking up the most, seems to have been positive with a few dissenters here and there. I think that's a bit skewed. You know the phrase "if you can't say something good, don't say anything at all"? I know that I at least have been avoiding the main discussion threads because I felt that speaking my mind would result in being flamed. This forum seems to me to be very strongly pro-gay. For instance, there have been several claims that Paz/Kat breaking up and resuming heterosexual behavior would be a "cop out", which makes no sense at all in my mind. It's just another direction the plot could go, as arbitrary as them getting together in the first place. Turning straight after a short stint of gayness is just as plausible as (if not more than) turning gay after a longer period of straitness. And don't tell me "it was foreshadowed". The "headband of straitness" story was about social awkwardness, worrying about others' perceptions —in which reality is irrelevant. Yes, looking back it makes sense, which is the sign of a well-executed plot twist, but that doesn't mean there was actual evidence that the plot was going to move in this direction. Only that it could have. (And I have yet to see anything other than that which isn't extremely reading into things.) Now, since I expect to be flamed for this anyways, I might as well get the rest of it out of the way. I don't like Paz/Kat, although much of my issue with it is that I don't read this comic for romance. (I didn't care for Faraway Morning, either.) But to be perfectly honest, Kat is one of my favorite characters of all webcomics, the concept of homosexuality makes me uncomfortable, and I don't want my favorite character to become something I am uncomfortable thinking about. And call me homophobic, but I don't think it'll ever stop making me uncomfortable. I try to keep an open mind, but whichever way I look at it I don't see a way to put gayness in a positive light. If the relationship is based on sexual desires, then it's hedonism; but if it isn't then the result should be platonic love. So whether its self-indulgence or confusion, I fail to see how homosexuality could be a good thing. While this is going to end up having to be something we'll have to agree to disagree on... aren't heterosexual relationships based on sexual desires? By your definitions is that not 'hedonism'? If heterosexual relationships aren't based on sexual desires, then once again aren't they 'platonic'? I can't really speak about your discomfort about homosexuality other than that that's a personal issue of yours, and an opinion, which is not really something that I can comment on. We all have different experiences and cultural backgrounds I guess. But I guess you're sort of in the situation here where you've chosen to comment on something that a lot of people feel strongly about because they are not straight, or have family or friends who aren't straight, so it kind of affects them very personally. So I'm a little curious as to why you chose to read this thread (seeing as it is about Kat being possibly gay) and comment (given the previous comments). I think you may have misread the 'turning straight' vs 'turning gay' thing a little. TBH, in either case, stating that the person never was sexuality X, but now is totally sexuality Y is a cop out because it doesn't make any sense (see my comment about Willow in Buffy- that felt like a cop out in the opposite direction to me). Plus the 'turning gay then straight' thing is an overused trope, and the criticism was specifically directed to poor writing and characterisation for attention-seeking purposes (as opposed to true character development). Additionally I guess you'd probably find that most people aren't 'positive' about homosexuality so much as 'neutral'. I guess you would be 'negative' though. I won't say that I'm not a little disappointed, because it feels like there's a fair amount of unhappiness and anger behind your post, but I hope that my response (which is not a flame, but a series of thoughts and questions) at least makes you feel less defensive, even if we disagree. I do, like Daedalus applaud you for being at least honest about feeling uncomfortable and discussing your discomfort. It's pretty different from some of the comments on the main site, which have been different in tone. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 26, 2013 3:04:29 GMT
I agree with Snipergirl's first paragraph. (I'm not going to quote her because Oh My God).
Also, homosex doesn't need to be a good thing. If every tiny little thing you do doesn't benefit society, it's really not a huge deal. More often than not, the fact that it benefits the people involved is more than enough. It's good for them because it's good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 3:12:45 GMT
If the relationship is based on sexual desires, then it's hedonism; but if it isn't then the result should be platonic love. Though to be fair, Platon repulses me as much as Freud in his strange denial of individual attraction; and in a classic inversion of cause and effect, he also mistakes desire for a lack, rather than an abundance, of beauty. Platon's theory of love doesn't actually condemn eroticism; on the contrary, he claimed that the admiration of beautiful forms leads one to understand, by generalization, the »idea« of beauty. The fidgety line between »eros« and »agape« (whatever that is) was drawn much later, by Paul of Tarsos. |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Nov 26, 2013 3:32:15 GMT
I think that's a bit skewed. You're right. I probably should have put some sort of qualifier in there like "or at least of the people speaking up the most"! Good thing you did, then.  And here I was about to say that even with people shipping different things at least we don't have any honest to god bigots here. They seem to be confining themselves to the comments, and most of them have flounced off by now. Spoke too soon. Hm. If being called a bigot for attempting to speak my mind without either insulting anyone or coming off like I'm trying to force my will upon them is the worst I have to deal with, then I guess I can handle that. While this is going to end up having to be something we'll have to agree to disagree on... aren't heterosexual relationships based on sexual desires? By your definitions is that not 'hedonism'? If heterosexual relationships aren't based on sexual desires, then once again aren't they 'platonic'? If heterosexual relationships are based purely on sexual desire, that's hedonism too. The difference in the latter case is that there is an opportunity for sexual relationship to be added on in its rightful purpose: reproduction. I can't really speak about your discomfort about homosexuality other than that that's a personal issue of yours, and an opinion, which is not really something that I can comment on. We all have different experiences and cultural backgrounds I guess. Which is why you should comment on my opinion! How else is one to learn from others' experience, if not through discourse?  But I guess you're sort of in the situation here where you've chosen to comment on something that a lot of people feel strongly about because they are not straight, or have family or friends who aren't straight, so it kind of affects them very personally. So I'm a little curious as to why you chose to read this thread (seeing as it is about Kat being possibly gay) and comment (given the previous comments). Wait, so you're implying that question was rhetorical? I think you may have misread the 'turning straight' vs 'turning gay' thing a little. TBH, in either case, stating that the person never was sexuality X, but now is totally sexuality Y is a cop out because it doesn't make any sense (see my comment about Willow in Buffy- that felt like a cop out in the opposite direction to me). I'm not sure what you mean by "never was"; there's no denying that Kat has been in a gay relationship. Unless you mean some sort of retcon, in which case I don't understand why that option is even being considered. Plus the 'turning gay then straight' thing is an overused trope, and the criticism was specifically directed to poor writing and characterisation for attention-seeking purposes (as opposed to true character development). Is it overused? I didn't even know it was a trope. But I highly doubt Tom does anything for attention-seeking purposes, so how would a return to heterosexuality not be a valid option for character development? Additionally I guess you'd probably find that most people aren't 'positive' about homosexuality so much as 'neutral'. I guess you would be 'negative' though. I won't say that I'm not a little disappointed, because it feels like there's a fair amount of unhappiness and anger behind your post, but I hope that my response (which is not a flame, but a series of thoughts and questions) at least makes you feel less defensive, even if we disagree. I do, like Daedalus applaud you for being at least honest about feeling uncomfortable and discussing your discomfort. It's pretty different from some of the comments on the main site, which have been different in tone. Why, I'm flattered. And thankful that you've collectively been so polite in responses. If the relationship is based on sexual desires, then it's hedonism; but if it isn't then the result should be platonic love. Though to be fair, Platon repulses me as much as Freud in his strange denial of individual attraction; and in a classic inversion of cause and effect, he also mistakes desire for a lack, rather than an abundance, of beauty. Platon's theory of love doesn't actually condemn eroticism; on the contrary, he claimed that the admiration of beautiful forms leads one to understand, by generalization, the »idea« of beauty. The fidgety line between »eros« and »agape« (whatever that is) was drawn much later, by Paul of Tarsos. I wish I was more versed in classical philosophy. But I suppose I could mention that I don't fully understand the concept of romance in any context; perhaps because I have less social experience than Chapter 1 Antimony. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 3:41:02 GMT
If heterosexual relationships are based purely on sexual desire, that's hedonism too. The difference in the latter case is that there is an opportunity for sexual relationship to be added on in its rightful purpose: reproduction. Your stance isn't quite consistent with Platonic love. Diotima states that human love is set apart from the animals' drive to reproduce by the generation of beauty — which includes, but is not limited to, procreation. Works of art, science, and politics fall under the same category. A relationship that spawns any of the latter three isn't so easy to stamp as hedonistic. |
|
siggy
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by siggy on Nov 26, 2013 3:44:12 GMT
Since I only occasionally look at the forums, it hadn't really occurred to me that this would be an issue anywhere to anyone. Not that I'm surprised. But I read lots of comics with same-sex relationships, it's just not a big deal. I'm in a same-sex relationship too--this is ordinary everyday stuff to me, nothing extraordinary.
My feeling about Kat and Paz is, they're a cute couple. My favorite couple is still Shadow and Robot, but they're side characters so their relationship may never be as well-developed. I wonder if they will stay together for the rest of Gunnerkrigg Court. Would that make sense story-wise? I like break-up stories (I'm not much of a shipper), so I'd be fine if they broke up a year down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 26, 2013 3:47:50 GMT
In fairness, the "rightful" purpose of sexual congress is reproduction. However, it's a lot like eating: of course it has practical purposes, but how often have you eaten something solely because it tasted/looked good.
And there are a lot of straight couples who don't have kids, whether by choice, necessity, or inability. I don't think their relationship is any less valid than a straight couple with children.
Point being, there's really no sense in contrasting gay relationships with straight ones, just because the gay sex can't bear fruit. Dating doesn't make babies, holding hands doesn't make babies, kissing doesn't make babies, heavy petting doesn't make babies, etc. The only real difference between gay and straight couples is that gay couples won't squirt out kids occasionally.
Not even mentioning in vitro, surrogation, or adoption.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Nov 26, 2013 3:50:54 GMT
And rule 14, don't forget that. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 26, 2013 4:02:24 GMT
If heterosexual relationships are based purely on sexual desire, that's hedonism too. The difference in the latter case is that there is an opportunity for sexual relationship to be added on in its rightful purpose: reproduction. Your stance isn't quite consistent with Platonic love. Diotima states that human love is set apart from the animals' drive to reproduce by the generation of beauty — which includes, but is not limited to, procreation. Works of art, science, and politics fall under the same category. A relationship that spawns any of the latter three isn't so easy to stamp as hedonistic. Even leaving behind the Classical philosophy, I don't see what is wrong with hedonism - at least until it starts harming others. Even if homosexuality is hedonistic*, it does not harm people - and certainly not people outside of the relationship. Hence, by law of syllogisms, there is no detectable harm done to me (or others) through homosexual relationships, and thus I have no reason to judge them. That's how I think of it, anyway. Also, this. *[aside] Debatable: what is a 'rightful purpose'? Population growth is dangerous - Malthusian Catastrophe, anyone? - and evolution did not give us a premade code of ethics. Furthermore, in its most general form, hedonism - seeking of pleasure - is something everyone indulges in regularly. Doesn't make it evil. Yes, I realize I'm arguing connotation, a losing proposition in itself [/aside] |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 26, 2013 4:03:21 GMT
And Rule 14, don't forget that. Point acknowledged. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 26, 2013 4:05:12 GMT
In fairness, the "rightful" purpose of sexual congress is reproduction. However, it's a lot like eating: of course it has practical purposes, but how often have you eaten something solely because it tasted/looked good. And there are a lot of straight couples who don't have kids, whether by choice, necessity, or inability. I don't think their relationship is any less valid than a straight couple with children. Point being, there's really no sense in contrasting gay relationships with straight ones, just because the gay sex can't bear fruit. Dating doesn't make babies, holding hands doesn't make babies, kissing doesn't make babies, heavy petting doesn't make babies, etc. The only real difference between gay and straight couples is that gay couples won't squirt out kids occasionally. Not even mentioning in vitro, surrogation, or adoption. I love this forum. So rational and polite, even discussing controversial issues with strong emotions. And sorry for triple post, but my computer refuses to let me put quotes by different people in the same comment :/ |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 26, 2013 4:14:02 GMT
In fairness, the "rightful" purpose of sexual congress is reproduction. However, it's a lot like eating: of course it has practical purposes, but how often have you eaten something solely because it tasted/looked good. And there are a lot of straight couples who don't have kids, whether by choice, necessity, or inability. I don't think their relationship is any less valid than a straight couple with children. Point being, there's really no sense in contrasting gay relationships with straight ones, just because the gay sex can't bear fruit. Dating doesn't make babies, holding hands doesn't make babies, kissing doesn't make babies, heavy petting doesn't make babies, etc. The only real difference between gay and straight couples is that gay couples won't squirt out kids occasionally. Not even mentioning in vitro, surrogation, or adoption. I love this forum. So rational and polite, even discussing controversial issues with strong emotions. And sorry for triple post, but my computer refuses to let me put quotes by different people in the same comment :/ I just realized I made a really dirty joke in my first paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Nov 26, 2013 4:25:50 GMT
The general feeling of the forum, or at least of the people speaking up the most, seems to have been positive with a few dissenters here and there. I think that's a bit skewed. You know the phrase "if you can't say something good, don't say anything at all"? I know that I at least have been avoiding the main discussion threads because I felt that speaking my mind would result in being flamed. I will never flame anyone for speaking their mind and revealing their true opinion. I will, however, also provide my own. This forum seems to me to be very strongly pro-gay. For instance, there have been several claims that Paz/Kat breaking up and resuming heterosexual behavior would be a "cop out", which makes no sense at all in my mind. It's just another direction the plot could go, as arbitrary as them getting together in the first place. Turning straight after a short stint of gayness is just as plausible as (if not more than) turning gay after a longer period of straitness. A majority of the people in the western world are now "pro-gay", because the alternative for most of human history was being anti-gay, and innocent people (including more than a few brilliant minds, I might add) died needlessly and many more had their lives ruined. I do believe that sexuality is a spectrum, and everyone is on there somewhere, but frankly I don't believe it is possible to change your sexuality. People who are bi or pan-sexual and have tendencies towards both sexes could go back and forth according to mood or luck, but a person who is purely gay is going to be just as repulsed by the prospect of a straight sexual encounter as you are clearly repulsed by the idea of a gay one. The religious among us have already tried various methods to "cure" someone, and the results are not impressive. As for the "cop out" argument, I think we can both agree that Tom is plotting this thing out carefully and wouldn't just rush a character into a relationship without having a story-telling goal with it. If Annie suddenly ditched Jack (I say Jack because we all know Antimony is too shy to ask anyone out) and jumped into Cookie Monster's arms it would be just as weird as Kat ditching Paz for a cute boy this instant. I don't like Paz/Kat, although much of my issue with it is that I don't read this comic for romance. (I didn't care for Faraway Morning, either.) But to be perfectly honest, Kat is one of my favorite characters of all webcomics, the concept of homosexuality makes me uncomfortable, and I don't want my favorite character to become something I am uncomfortable thinking about. And call me homophobic, but I don't think it'll ever stop making me uncomfortable. I try to keep an open mind, but whichever way I look at it I don't see a way to put gayness in a positive light. If the relationship is based on sexual desires, then it's hedonism; but if it isn't then the result should be platonic love. So whether its self-indulgence or confusion, I fail to see how homosexuality could be a good thing.How about in a romantic light? Frankly, I find it a little silly that you insist that gay people either have to be going at it or just friends, that there is no in-between or romance like there is in straight relationships. It almost as if you are postulating that people who only like the same sex are not capable of attaching romance to sex. I'd also like to point out that you have still not said why you think homosexuality could not be a good thing. If heterosexual relationships are based purely on sexual desire, that's hedonism too. The difference in the latter case is that there is an opportunity for sexual relationship to be added on in its rightful purpose: reproduction. I am thinking two things here. First, I am wondering why you would care if sex is used for its intended purpose. Second, I think now is a good time to point out that everyone dies. Everyone. Have a baby or don't. Get STDs, or don't. Live your life, or don't. It really does not matter. In a vanishingly small amount of time you and your opinion on sexuality's "rightful" purpose will be gone too and the earth will be swallowed by the sun a few eons later. Your only job on this earth is to give your life a purpose, and if that includes a metric ton of gay sex, then right on chap, keep chugging, and if that includes leading a righteous life where you only fuck your wife twice, once for each kid, then that's A-okay lad, you do that too. What I am trying to say is, in the grand scheme of things, our universe's birthing and dying of which we may only witness a small fragment, what kind of small human being is stopping to say, HEY, BALLS ARE TOUCHING, THAT'S GAY! How else is one to learn from others' experience, if not through discourse? Agreed. You are clearly not a person possessed by extraordinary ignorance or malice, so I am curious to learn your rationale. |
|
|
|
Post by nightwind on Nov 26, 2013 4:26:17 GMT
»agape« (whatever that is) The pure giving love for others without expecting reward, also for mankind itself. In a nutshell. And only if I remember right. On topic, everything you can imagine happening in a healthy heterosexual relationship you can mirror into the homosexual relationship (excluding only children with a mixed DNA of you and your partner). I don't really see what's the great difference. NnelgThere are a lot of things able to make me feel uncomfortable with a protagonist of a story, not sharing his or her sexual orientation (or skin colour or gender or social class) isn't one of them. Statements like yours always have (to me) an undertone of: I don't want that to be (near me). I'm uncomfortable with your being uncomfortable. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 26, 2013 4:45:44 GMT
While this is going to end up having to be something we'll have to agree to disagree on... aren't heterosexual relationships based on sexual desires? By your definitions is that not 'hedonism'? If heterosexual relationships aren't based on sexual desires, then once again aren't they 'platonic'? If heterosexual relationships are based purely on sexual desire, that's hedonism too. The difference in the latter case is that there is an opportunity for sexual relationship to be added on in its rightful purpose: reproduction. I can't remember if anyone's brought this one up yet but that kind of means that straight couples who are infertile or sterile (even married couples) who are sexually attracted to each other shouldn't have sex or that their union is somehow immoral or 'hedonistic'. Plus it kind of implies that (for example, I'm not taking this personally) my parents were immoral because my mum got her tubes tied after having me and my brother because they didn't want more children- largely because my brother has autism and caring for him and me meant having another child would have been too hard. Just to reroute, I think I should point out that for most people in same-sex long term relationships the sex isn't about *just* sexual attraction or *just* pleasure. As with opposite-sex couples, it's a communication of romantic love and closeness. (Otherwise they wouldn't usually be in an actual long-term relationship). Also, some same-sex couples have children either from a previous or current relationship- and the outcomes for those kids are exactly the same as heterosexual couples, so that kind of takes reproduction out of it? I don't really want to go into the best methods for artificial insemination, but there is that angle too. I can't really speak about your discomfort about homosexuality other than that that's a personal issue of yours, and an opinion, which is not really something that I can comment on. We all have different experiences and cultural backgrounds I guess. Which is why you should comment on my opinion! How else is one to learn from others' experience, if not through discourse? Ha, yes fair point!  But I guess you're sort of in the situation here where you've chosen to comment on something that a lot of people feel strongly about because they are not straight, or have family or friends who aren't straight, so it kind of affects them very personally. So I'm a little curious as to why you chose to read this thread (seeing as it is about Kat being possibly gay) and comment (given the previous comments). Wait, so you're implying that question was rhetorical? No, genuine question, I was wondering whether it was due to wanting to discuss things further or...? I think you may have misread the 'turning straight' vs 'turning gay' thing a little. TBH, in either case, stating that the person never was sexuality X, but now is totally sexuality Y is a cop out because it doesn't make any sense (see my comment about Willow in Buffy- that felt like a cop out in the opposite direction to me). I'm not sure what you mean by "never was"; there's no denying that Kat has been in a gay relationship. Unless you mean some sort of retcon, in which case I don't understand why that option is even being considered. Plus the 'turning gay then straight' thing is an overused trope, and the criticism was specifically directed to poor writing and characterisation for attention-seeking purposes (as opposed to true character development). Is it overused? I didn't even know it was a trope. But I highly doubt Tom does anything for attention-seeking purposes, so how would a return to heterosexuality not be a valid option for character development? The trope: Suddenly Sexuality and Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss and Wikipedia: Lesbian until GraduationAlso of note this: Bait and Switch Lesbians and Bury Your Gays and Wikipedia: media portrayal of lesbians (regarding lesbians) It used to be an especially common thing in the 90s and early 00s, pissing off conservatives and progressives alike! I also think it would be highly unlikely that Tom would do something that makes little to no sense for the characters as so far, all the characters are, I've found, highly consistent and very well written (even if they have outbursts or occasional odd behaviour, like Annie, which people do have IRL). Additionally I guess you'd probably find that most people aren't 'positive' about homosexuality so much as 'neutral'. I guess you would be 'negative' though. I won't say that I'm not a little disappointed, because it feels like there's a fair amount of unhappiness and anger behind your post, but I hope that my response (which is not a flame, but a series of thoughts and questions) at least makes you feel less defensive, even if we disagree. I do, like Daedalus applaud you for being at least honest about feeling uncomfortable and discussing your discomfort. It's pretty different from some of the comments on the main site, which have been different in tone. Why, I'm flattered. And thankful that you've collectively been so polite in responses. I personally think that allowing a reasonable conversation to take place is generally speaking much more helpful for collective understanding than cross-rants! So, yay all of us! |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58
|
Post by Momo on Nov 26, 2013 4:46:34 GMT
And here I was about to say that even with people shipping different things at least we don't have any honest to god bigots here. They seem to be confining themselves to the comments, and most of them have flounced off by now. Spoke too soon. Hm. If being called a bigot for attempting to speak my mind without either insulting anyone or coming off like I'm trying to force my will upon them is the worst I have to deal with, then I guess I can handle that. While I applaud the attempt, you've just said that my existence makes you uncomfortable and that my life should never be portrayed in a positive light, which I find pretty insulting. Even when worded politely. I am beyond trying to change anyone's beliefs via internet (waste of energy and an exercise in futility), but you have to realize that you have some beliefs that are going to offend a pretty large number of people. Especially fans of a comic which has proved its self to be pretty pro-gay thus far. |
|
ty
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by ty on Nov 26, 2013 4:56:07 GMT
Nnelg, in addition to the fact that you invited me to, I'm calling you homophobic.
I'm also calling you a bigot.
Since you are happy to wear these labels and do not feel ashamed of yourself, I would like you to answer the following:
What outcome are you hoping to achieve by posting inflammatory messages on a webcomic fans' forum? This is what snipergirl was asking.
Why do you remark of other people's politeness with you, and bring attention to the fact that you were expecting to be provocative?
Do we have any reason to not simply hide your posts from now on?
|
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 26, 2013 5:09:46 GMT
Nnelg, in addition to the fact that you invited me to, I'm calling you homophobic. I'm also calling you a bigot. Since you are happy to wear these labels and do not feel ashamed of yourself, I would like you to answer the following: What outcome are you hoping to achieve by posting inflammatory messages on a webcomic fans' forum? This is what snipergirl was asking. Why do you remark of other people's politeness with you, and bring attention to the fact that you were expecting to be provocative? Do we have any reason to not simply hide you posts from now on? Dude, not cool. This is a public forum, he has every right to speak here. There's no need to badger him for it. His beliefs may be childish, but that's no reason to villainise him. |
|
