Gay Rights Abroad

It's almost like you want it to be --->GAY PERSON!!! but then oh yeah he's just average so we won't overstate he is gay, but then it isn't explicit that he is GAY and not representing LGBT people. :S

Are you really going to be that *** dense?

It is easy to normalize *** sexuality in media without falling back exclusively on stereotypes. And guess what? If a sexuality is not explicitly stated to be not-straight, that's what it's going to be, STRAIGHT, because that's how society works.

It's infuriating to me that you actually think you know what you're talking about here. Please, leave this thread and go educate yourself.

The meaning there is if you want to depict a character as gay and not with generic sexuality that may be anything(like your character for instance), then you shouldn't use irritating stereotypes that make it look like a clown.

No just means you're being a douche and now you're topicbanned

Aly, I saw that :P

(wasn't going to be mean and say something about it though)

lol shhhh

There will never be a good representation of LGBT people in the media sadly, we're too diverse to categorise but in all reality if you want the representation how many of us explicitly go around announcing we're gay? Sure I'm all for portrayal of gay characters/people but there doesn't have to be a big ring around that person saying gay. Honestly I've only seen a few good representations but I don't think it is such a huge issue personally. I respect that you may feel differently :)

Ok so what you are saying is a character has to tell you they are gay and if they do not it's assumed they are straight and therefore it's discriminating against the gay community? How many people tell you they are gay straight off the bat?

How would you represent a gay character bearing in mind most of the characters only have several lines of dialogue and stay in the same location? You just stated the obvious yourself by saying that gay people are normal people doing normal things just like everybody else, so why should gay characters act any differently?

You are complaining that they need to be more obviously gay, yet you just contradict yourself by complaining about that very issue with Mayakov.

Leave. This. Thread. Go. Educate. Yourself.

Ok.

Pretty much shows the quality of your argument when the only answer you can come up with is to tell me to go away.

Because very little is actually ever accomplished by arguing on the internet.

In the same post you quoted, I stated: "It is easy to normalize *** sexuality in media without falling back exclusively on stereotypes."

I am not your wikipedia. I am not here to brainstorm for you. Your argument is horribly flawed. Please, just take the time to actually learn something before you whine aimlessly.

You're the only one whining, 'NEED MORE GAY! Oh wait... that's TOO GAY, not the gay that I wanted nonono.'

You're the one whining, oh characters are not gay enough, oh wait now they are too gay. You are deliberately avoiding my questions, I'm not the only one highlighting your contradictions, yet you refuse to explain your arguments or answer any questions and blame the internet.

Why don't you answer my questions? They are not unreasonable, I am simply questioning your logic behind the statements you are making. It's not difficult to come up with an answer unless you don't have any?

The issue that comes with characters like Mayakov is that there is already alot of misbelief that all gays are like that. Which is an image that does not fit and would be better dropped, with gay characters constly being thrown in with that personallity it re enforces that false image which doesn't help any. It's not a big deal to me personally but I could see how it would be frustrating to others

A good example for an alternative would be Samantha from ME3 since I know you've played that. Shes gay, she drops the info on a couple occations so it's never in question. However if you remove those brief instances you'd have no idea unless you attempted to romance her. Her dress, her personallity and apperence (well I guess this could be argued as opinion) don't give it away, shes just happens to be gay.

Atleast I think thats what they are getting at, I apologize if I am incorrect

This Minjo, is what is called a good answer.

That's a very good example Ina!

It's very simple to have a character talk about a current or previously relationship of a member of the same sex, to house two people of the same sex together, to have a character refer to their same sex parents.

This isn't difficult.

My answers don't need to be "good enough" for you. As I've already stated, I'm not your wikipedia. You have a brain, use it.

What seha said is true, Italy is really backwards in matters of sexual orientation, religion and race.

You're right, seems myself and others have to come up with answers for you.

What the point of this topic again...

must have been lost like 2 pages ago

on how society from EU treat/view the gay rights topic

>.>; ah ok

/leaves thread

In most cases of media, it serves no purpose to randomly throw out that a character is gay unless its to develop a plot point or have some kind of impact on a situation. It's not like having a man randomly make a comment to being gay is going to do much story wise if it has no bearing on the story.

I'm not so sure that's a reasonable perspective...what Jinjo is talking about is just having characters whose sexuality is incidental to the plot, whether they are het or LGBT, but that sexual identity is not explicitly driving the plot or acting to make those characters simple caricatures.

What you are considering is the "Chekhov's Gun" trope (regarding including plot points that are germane to the plot only, and to avoid extraneous plot elements.) Characterisation (establishing a character's background) is usually seen as exempt from that--otherwise you'd have very unrealistic characters, whether heterosexual or not, if all of their lifestory and expressions existed only to drive a given plot line.

A point could be made for older literature, but that was when the topic was incredibly taboo.

A newer example: There's nothing explicit about Dumbledore being gay in the books, but according to Rowling, he was.

Yah, Jinjo is simply expressing a desire to see more of a normalisation (i.e. desensitisation) of the LGBT minority in the media.

Back in the 1950's US television, you had the Amos & Andy and Rochester (on the Jack Benny show) type caricatures of black people. The notion of that minority group was alien to the cultural zeitgeist of the time, and the only palatable representations were stereotypes.

Obviously even into the 1970's in US cinema there existed the "Blaxploitation" era of films which expanded on black roles in movies, but still pandered to stereotypical representations. By the 1980's and 1990's blacks as a minority were being portrayed in much broader roles, and race was becoming only incidental to the characters (not the defining factor to them or to casting.)

Nowadays you have characters like David Lister from "Red Dwarf" who is depicted as a minority but whose race has nothing at all to do with any storyline whatsoever (aside from incidentally enjoying curries, maybe.)

But even nowadays there are stereotypical views of minorities that have yet to achieve that level of 'normalisation.' Asian Indians (as a minority) in Hollywood are often portrayed as doctors and scientists, because that's the nature of the exposure Americans have seen so far culturally--highly-educated expatriates working abroad. Maybe years from now, more roles (like the "Harold & Kumar" slacker type, or leads in romantic comedies, or action films) will open up as people see beyond that expected stereotypical image.

That's really what is being discussed...achieving that level of normalisation where it doesn't have to be "special" to be gay or to even have it as a significant feature of a character or the plot at all, anymore than being white and het matter to the plot.

Ok /derail off. Sorry! ;_;

Said it better than us, that should clear the clouds from that discussion.