avatar

Archive for the ‘Sex & Sexuality’ Category

I Heart Xclusion

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

Valentine’s Day is a day that, like all good cynics, I take issue with for all the usual reasons:

  1. Why should we only pay special attention to our significant others on a certain day?
  2. The holiday is just part of a consumerist scheme to support the “industrial complex”

Blah blah blah.  Whatever.  It’s all true, of course, but I wasn’t going to post anything about it until I came across this promotional offer from XBox Live.  It offers some free Microsoft Points if only you’ll watch one of the offered movies with your loved one on Valentine’s Day.  Sounds like a good deal, except for the wording of the advertisement.

iheartxbox

It annoyed me right away on a subliminal level, although it took me a bit of time to rationalize why exactly I took issue with it.  At first it was the dichotomy between those who have “someones” and those who do not.  I must either a sentimental sap who likes frilly pink hearts simply for having a girlfriend, or I’m some chest-pounding “manly-man” type who “don’t need no stinkin’ girlfriend! Guys rule!”  Is that it?

I couldn’t possibly be a guy who is between relationships, or a guy who for the sake of career, livelihood, or personal choice, just doesn’t have a significant other?  I couldn’t be a girl who is single for any of the same reasons?  Or a girl who doesn’t like frilly pink hearts?  I couldn’t be a gay man or woman in a relationship where such cave-painted gender roles aren’t so clearly established?  I couldn’t be a person of any gender and sexual orientation who appreciates a romance movie, even watched in solitude?  Maybe I’m some basement-dweller with the social skills of an empty pizza box and movies are my escape from harsh reality, in which case, thanks for reminding me of that.

Spread This Meme: Not-See

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

Not-See

noun.
a person able to ignore or deny certain realities, such as racism, sexism, classism, sexualism, ableism, or religious prejudice by virtue of the privilege associated with membership within a dominant group.

Origin: Unknown Date, Americanism

Word Origin & History
A play on words, the pronunciation of “Not-See” invokes the word “Nazi”. The crimes of the former are passive instead of active – those who would turn a blind eye to injustice rather than perpetrating it themselves. The ideologies of both, however, are predicated upon a certain egocentrism, social privilege, and stark self-versus-other mentality.

Not-Sees are people who witness racism or other prejudices and either are unaware of it, or even when made aware of it, deny it – even going to great lengths to explain it away or dismiss the grievances of those affected by that prejudice. Not-Sees love to use the term “race-card”.

Look into any discussion in an online forum about, say, whitewashing – or racebendingas it pertains to the upcoming Last Airbender film:

Here’s a clue – people invest millions of dollars into films because they want to make more millions of dollars, not because they want to help insecure people feel better about themselves. If some of the title roles are played by “white” actors, it’s not racism, it’s marketing.1

Or blackface in The Secret of Kells:

You’re all babies, this is an animated movie, not KKK propaganda. Get over yourselves, either watch it or don’t, but don’t pollute a thread with this bullshit. Racism is bad ra ra we all get it move along please.2

And the PSP game Loco Roco:

…I’ve been playing the demo of this game for sometime now, and these thoughts never crossed my mind, and you know what, I’m sure the kids who will play this game will never see it as well. I’m 23 years old, and after you pointing out all this bollocks I still don’t see it, I see it as a fun, creative game…3

Inclusion Without Color in the Dragon Age

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Update (4/30/2010): When I posted this article on the Bioware Social Forum, a poster pointed out to me that the allegory of the elves could just as easily be taken to refer to Jews or other peoples who have been enslaved.  Given that I am of African descent, it is natural that I would interpret the elven story the way I did.

However, considering that poster’s comment, much of what I’ve written below may be plainly misinterpreted, at least with respect to the developer’s intentions.  While I could assume that Bioware intended the game to be open to multiple interpretations, I must also consider the words of Dragon Age lead writer David Gaider, who in response to the lack of darker people in the game world had the following to say:

While there are “dark skinned” people in Rivain, I have no interest in making Ferelden more diverse for the sake of political correctness.

I considered deleting this entire post, but perhaps it is worth leaving here to demonstrate what would be praise-worthy in terms of inclusion in video games, were any developer so inclined to walk that path.

Back in February, in the article Black, White, and Jade: Race in Video Games, and earlier in Ethnic Depictions in Video Games, I talked about a need for video games to become more inclusive with their characters, to depict the same diversity we see in the real world in these imaginary ones. Plainly, this translates to having more non-white characters in video games, particularly as the main characters.  And furthermore to have those characters exist outside of stereotypes.  With the exception of games built from pre-existing properties featuring characters of color – for example, Shadowman – there are very few games with non-white human protagonists.

In Black, White, and Jade, I mention that it is not merely about skin color or other physical features, but also about culture, and about experience. Regarding so-called “black” characters, I said:

What would be required for a character to be considered “black”? Appearance could be one qualifier … dubious due to … the extreme diversity to be found within such a vague and subjective category.

The “black experience” could be another qualifier, as in a situation where a character is forced to face certain indignities [as a result of her ethnicity].

Taking Marriage For Granted

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

One idea I firmly support is that of Civil Unions for everyone. Rather than legalizing gay marriage, the laws should be changed to recognize civil unions as the only binding legal contract between life partners. Marriages – those contracts recognized by religious institutions – could then either be a subset of civil unions, or a separate thing entirely. In this situation, it would be up to each individual church/synagogue/mosque whatever to decide who they “marry”, but they would have absolutely zero authority to deny anyone the right to be in a social contract with any other person, and or any of the privileges that come with that contract. And if one church refuses to do it, then a same-sex couple, and hopefully any right-thinking straight couple, would choose to have their ceremony conducted elsewhere.

Civil Unions For Everyone
http://godheval.net/civil-unions-for-everyone/

However, I think there is something important to consider here. Many of us “straights” take marriage for granted. Some – if not most – social liberals do not put much importance into “traditional values” such as marriage, meaning that we suppose, by virtue of our own wills, we can enter into a commitment without the church or the law dictating the rules of that agreement. We would cite the ridiculously high divorce rate as proof that marriage is a no more reliable form of commitment than a stated vow.

Civil Unions For Everyone

Tuesday, November 11th, 2008

Where ever there is an agenda, we must ask what the personal motivation is behind that agenda. If the motivation is to do harm to people – particular individuals, or in general – then it is a poor and morally bankrupt agenda. As a “straight” person who is non-religious, and therefore has no real personal stake in gay rights, I can be objective in looking at the marriage debate. Let’s look at the two sides and what they have to gain or lose in arguing their point of view.

Those who advocate for gay marriage – and this includes many straight people – simply want same-sex couples to have the same social and economic benefits afforded opposite-sex couples. To name a few things, they want gay couples to be able to share benefits, and to be able to adopt children. The adoption right seems to me to be even more important to gay couples than to straight couples, given that gay couples cannot conceive children on their own. So there is little wonder that they would argue passionately for that right.

On the other hand, those who are against gay marriage have nothing to gain where gay marriage is prohibited. They might argue that they have something to lose – citing perhaps some deterioration of family values – but this view is contingent on prejudice and a sheer misunderstanding of the family dynamic in gay relationships. That is to say, they wrongfully assume that being gay is some immoral choice, rather than merely one very natural possibility for human relationships. For them, marriage represents something more ideological than practical; they speak of the “sanctity” of marriage – its purported “meaning” – rather than the practically of marriage, as in all of its legal implications.