Homosexuality in Children's Video Games

[Jake 1,488]

Personally, i believe having the option wouldn't be bad at all. If people want to pick the choice, why restrain them? To parents and people out there who believe it is wrong: Just stop and see that it's their lives, they have the right to learn about anything they want and they have the right to choose on what they want to believe or not.  It pisses me off when i see people do this, i think having the option would be okay, if they wanna date the same sex/gender, why not let them be? Just stop meddling and let them be. That is my opinion, if you feel like i am wrong, then feel free to point out. Just don't take this way too seriously, alright?

[Cucco 1,907]

I don't think that it should be in a childrens video game. There isn't really evidence to point towards people being born gay. It's cultural influence from what I've researched. I mean even the actual historians/scientists that theorize this are LGBT. Besides, Japan does not as widely accept gay people as people in the west do.

I think this explains it pretty well

Edited July 24, 2014 by Cucco

[Lalalablah 1,538]

I don't think that it should be in a childrens video game. There isn't really evidence to point towards people being born gay. It's cultural influence from what I've researched. I mean even the actual historians/scientists that theorize this are LGBT. Besides, Japan does not as widely accept gay people as people in the west do.

I think this explains it pretty well

Upon doing further, unbiased research you should find that nature and nurture are both just as important in determining somebody's sexuality, and I haven't met a single person who claims they had a choice when it comes to their sexual orientation. Japan doesn't accept it as widely because of different reasons than the West. Here's an excerpt from a video I saw that explains why: "Here in Japan it's looked down upon to be different, to be eccentric, to be unique. There's a saying in Japan that says, 'The nail that sticks out gets hammered down'. So if you're gay you stick out, you're different from everybody. And Japanese society doesn't like things that are different so that's another factor." 

 

 

[Cucco 1,907]

 

Upon doing further, unbiased research you should find that nature and nurture are both just as important in determining somebody's sexuality, and I haven't met a single person who claims they had a choice when it comes to their sexual orientation. Japan doesn't accept it as widely because of different reasons than the West. Here's an excerpt from a video I saw that explains why: "Here in Japan it's looked down upon to be different, to be eccentric, to be unique. There's a saying in Japan that says, 'The nail that sticks out gets hammered down'. So if you're gay you stick out, you're different from everybody. And Japanese society doesn't like things that are different so that's another factor." 

 

 

 

I didn't say it was choice. And I'm not biased, I'm just saying that it's a bit closed minded to attack someone and say this was the way I was born. But I agree, I think that your upbringing when you're very young(from your birth to about 9 years old) does influence your sexuality, since most people start to feel real sexual attraction around the age of 12.

[Lalalablah 1,538]

I didn't say it was choice. And I'm not biased, I'm just saying that it's a bit closed minded to attack someone and say this was the way I was born. But I agree, I think that your upbringing when you're very young(from your birth to about 9 years old) does influence your sexuality, since most people start to feel real sexual attraction around the age of 12.

I was saying that because you said "There isn't really evidence to point towards people being born gay." and that's wrong ahha.

No do unbiased research, look at all aspects. What do you mean by the second sentence?

 

Personally I'd say it's more environmental (as well as genetic) than social, and that a person's upbringing has very little effect.  A small example: My friend was and still is a tomboy. She grew up playing sports with all the guys, never liked barbies, etc. etc. But she's completely heterosexual. If you think that upbringing plays a big role, how would you explain homosexuality in animals other than humans? They don't have the same social skills as us.

 

If you want to read some more http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/homosexuality

 

And to shift perspectives, heterosexuality is also influenced by a combination of biological and environmental factors.

[Anguis 8]

These topics make me rage a little because I don't see how heterosexuals can comment on being homosexual when they aren't gay themselves. I'm vehemently against the 'it's a choice' schtick because I know from my own personal experience of being gay that it was not a choice for me. I didn't discover I was gay in my teens or what have you, I knew since day one. So that says to me that my sexuality is innate and not something that was brought about by my upbringing. I honestly couldn't care less what research says about nature/nurture being the reason for homosexuality, because in my eyes, that to me makes it sound as though us homosexuals are manufactured and conditioned, and on extension of that, as if we're somehow less human. I know in myself that I was born this way, because my moderately homophobic father sure as hell wouldn't have put in an environment that would cause me to be gay.

 

I'm only human, deal with it.  :cool:

[Cucco 1,907]

I was saying that because you said "There isn't really evidence to point towards people being born gay." and that's wrong ahha.

No do unbiased research, look at all aspects. What do you mean by the second sentence?

 

Personally I'd say it's more environmental (as well as genetic) than social, and that a person's upbringing has very little effect.  A small example: My friend was and still is a tomboy. She grew up playing sports with all the guys, never liked barbies, etc. etc. But she's completely heterosexual. If you think that upbringing plays a big role, how would you explain homosexuality in animals other than humans? They don't have the same social skills as us.

 

If you want to read some more http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/homosexuality

 

And to shift perspectives, heterosexuality is also influenced by a combination of biological and environmental factors.

I can't entirely explain it, neither can most people. But from what I've read before pretty much everyone in ancient Greece was bi, as well as some other smaller cultures, but after around that time period it became pretty much unheard of until around 150 years ago. And considering in this millennium so far homosexuality has been pretty accepted in the west, I don't think it's strange that homosexuality has been more common then ever in american society. So I think that society could be a factor in it. 

These topics make me rage a little because I don't see how heterosexuals can comment on being homosexual when they aren't gay themselves. I'm vehemently against the 'it's a choice' schtick because I know from my own personal experience of being gay that it was not a choice for me. I didn't discover I was gay in my teens or what have you, I knew since day one. So that says to me that my sexuality is innate and not something that was brought about by my upbringing. I honestly couldn't care less what research says about nature/nurture being the reason for homosexuality, because in my eyes, that to me makes it sound as though us homosexuals are manufactured and conditioned, and on extension of that, as if we're somehow less human. I know in myself that I was born this way, because my moderately homophobic father sure as hell wouldn't have put in an environment that would cause me to be gay.

 

I'm only human, deal with it.  :cool:

Honestly I think if people have had the possibility of being born gay since the beginning of our species, the human population would not be this large.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Cucco

[Lalalablah 1,538]

I can't entirely explain it, neither can most people. But from what I've read before pretty much everyone in ancient Greece was bi, as well as some other smaller cultures, but after around that time period it became pretty much unheard of until around 150 years ago. And considering in this millennium so far homosexuality has been pretty accepted in the west, I don't think it's strange that homosexuality has been more common then ever in american society. So I think that society could be a factor in it. 

Honestly I think if people have had the possibility of being born gay since the beginning of our species, the human population would not be this large.

Since people are more accepting now, other people aren't as afraid to say they're homosexual/bisexual/whatever other category. Alright to go back in history, the Catholic church sprang up and homosexuality became a sin so of course it "disappeared" for a while, to give one reason.

 

These topics make me rage a little because I don't see how heterosexuals can comment on being homosexual when they aren't gay themselves. I'm vehemently against the 'it's a choice' schtick because I know from my own personal experience of being gay that it was not a choice for me. I didn't discover I was gay in my teens or what have you, I knew since day one. So that says to me that my sexuality is innate and not something that was brought about by my upbringing. I honestly couldn't care less what research says about nature/nurture being the reason for homosexuality, because in my eyes, that to me makes it sound as though us homosexuals are manufactured and conditioned, and on extension of that, as if we're somehow less human. I know in myself that I was born this way, because my moderately homophobic father sure as hell wouldn't have put in an environment that would cause me to be gay.

 

I'm only human, deal with it.  :cool:

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to talk about anything unless they've experienced it firsthand? That's a bit unreasonable.

But if you mean that heteros shouldn't have a say in what actually being gay is like, or something like that then I think I understand where you're coming from and I kinda agree

 

Nature/nurture applies to heterosexuals too

[Anguis 8]

Since people are more accepting now, other people aren't as afraid to say they're homosexual/bisexual/whatever other category. Alright to go back in history, the Catholic church sprang up and homosexuality became a sin so of course it "disappeared" for a while, to give one reason.

 

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to talk about anything unless they've experienced it firsthand? That's a bit unreasonable.

But if you mean that heteros shouldn't have a say in what actually being gay is like, or something like that then I think I understand where you're coming from and I kinda agree

 

Nature/nurture applies to heterosexuals too

Yeah it was more the latter than the former.

[MasterRoxas13 340]

So pretty much , nobody really can confirm how someone's sexual orientation is selected?  

[Lalalablah 1,538]

So pretty much , nobody really can confirm how someone's sexual orientation is selected?  

Yea basically haha, there are strong ideas but there isn't one set reason as to why a specific orientation occurs

[KHUndertaleFan25 2,858]

I understand completely. I actually agree, I think it's hilarious. I myself, am Christian. I believe in God, however I support same sex marriage, and tbh I just think people love to cherry pick and use the bible to justify their assholery. And yeah, the bible doesn't say anything about it either. I don't care if they're offended either.

I believe in God, too (i'm Catholic). As for supporting same-sex marriage, i'm kinda neutral. 

[MasterRoxas13 340]

Makes sense to me since you can't make someone straight/bi/gay/pan/asexual. I always felt like it was something people were more then likely born with, then any external forces through out their life. Because if the opposite was true then my guess would be that if someone who is bi for example is around a lot of gay people , the that person would go completely gay.

[Think Pink 1,967]

These topics make me rage a little because I don't see how heterosexuals can comment on being homosexual when they aren't gay themselves. I'm vehemently against the 'it's a choice' schtick because I know from my own personal experience of being gay that it was not a choice for me. I didn't discover I was gay in my teens or what have you, I knew since day one. So that says to me that my sexuality is innate and not something that was brought about by my upbringing. I honestly couldn't care less what research says about nature/nurture being the reason for homosexuality, because in my eyes, that to me makes it sound as though us homosexuals are manufactured and conditioned, and on extension of that, as if we're somehow less human. I know in myself that I was born this way, because my moderately homophobic father sure as hell wouldn't have put in an environment that would cause me to be gay.

 

I'm only human, deal with it.  :cool:

^^^^^ THIS 

 

Just to add my own personal experience (and to refute Cucco's argument): I've been a princess every single year since birth for Halloween. I LOVE princesses, I love wearing dresses and cute shoes and everything feminine. My parents put me in ballet and ice skating classes and encouraged me to pursue Girl Scouts. Everything about my upbringing is the stereotypical sexist way to bring up a female child. So why do I like girls? My mom cried when I told her and my uncle (who I don't like anyway so no loss) won't talk to me anymore. There's definitely no reason for me to choose this when it only makes everyone in my life upset - and my upbringing was the same as what most girls experience. So the only logical reason that I'm bisexual is because I was born this way, and I'd be like this regardless of how I was raised or any other outside factors. 

[Cucco 1,907]

Everything about my upbringing is the stereotypical sexist way to bring up a female child.

There's a difference between being sexist and giving a child gender identity.

[Think Pink 1,967]

There's a difference between being sexist and giving a child gender identity.

I'm gonna say it's pretty sexist that I was given Barbies and pink tutus and ballet classes while my brother got Legos, childrens' science classes (btw, both things I asked for and wasn't given), etc. And giving a child a gender identity is pretty gross too so either way it was wrong. 

[Cucco 1,907]

I'm gonna say it's pretty sexist that I was given Barbies and pink tutus and ballet classes while my brother got Legos, childrens' science classes (btw, both things I asked for and wasn't given), etc. And giving a child a gender identity is pretty gross too so either way it was wrong. 

How is it gross for a child to distinguish themselves from the opposite gender? boys and girls don't look that different until puberty. I think your parents were just trying to give you the stuff that appealed to the majority. Companies just compare the results and girls typically like dress up stuff and boys typically like legos. But the fact that they ignored that you asked for that stuff was wrong though. 

Edited July 25, 2014 by Cucco

[marukyu 132]

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to talk about anything unless they've experienced it firsthand? That's a bit unreasonable.

But if you mean that heteros shouldn't have a say in what actually being gay is like, or something like that then I think I understand where you're coming from and I kinda agree

 

Nature/nurture applies to heterosexuals too

i just wanted to say THANK YOU for actually like, caring about gay rights since your straight like bless your kind soul it's really hard to care about something unless your directly affected by it and yeah your profile is right you are RAD

[Ghost 1,857]

I'm going to have to disagree with that. I don't think it's wrong to give a child identity if it's not FORCED.

 

For example, good:

 

 

Daughter: "Mommy, I wanna be Batman for Halloween!"

Mom: "Not Batgirl?"

Daughter: "Nope! BatMAN!"

Mom: "Awww, alright sweetie. We'll go out looking for a nice batman costume."

 

 

Bad:

 

 

Daughter: "Mommy, I wanna be Batman for Halloween!"

Mom: "Alright, I'll get you a nice pretty Batgirl costume."

 

 

While I'm sure the people who think like you really mean no harm, I'm not going to give my kid a unisex name, avoid "gender specific" colours like blue and pink, and refer to them with "they" pronouns - no. When my kid tells me what they want, OF COURSE I will comply. But from the moment they're born, I will make it my job to educate them and let them know that they all will have my undying support. And if my future daughter comes home one day, whatever her age, and says "Mom, can you call me Jacob from now on?" then damn it, that'll be her name for as long as she so pleases.

 

If I go to dress up my child in the frilliest dress imaginable and she says "Mom, can I wear pants?", I'll go out and let her pick some.

 

If I was planning on getting my kid Barbies for Christmas but instead she writes on her list to Santa that she wants Hotwheels, she's gonna get firetruckin' Hotwheels and a Nascar version of Barbie.

 

Point is, since I don't think a fresh-out-of-the-vag newborn can decide (or even gives a firetruck) about gendered things, it's the parents decision with how they want to raise their child until the child decides for themself that they want something different.

 

I'm not trying to bash you or anything, it's just a lot of kids don't care. If you get a kid that DOES care, then the good thing to do would be to let them! I'm sorry that you never got the legos you wanted, and I'll never know that feeling. 

 

If it's not forced, it's fine. Kids should be made aware and given the OPTION of what they want. And hey, if I got the money? Buy my kid Barbies and Hotwheels, let them choose what they like the most.

 

Maybe I'm just being an asshole but I really don't believe gender roles are a bad thing - again, so long as they're not forced.

 

[Think Pink 1,967]

I'm going to have to disagree with that. I don't think it's wrong to give a child identity if it's not FORCED.

 

For example, good:

 

 

 

 

Bad:

 

 

 

 

While I'm sure the people who think like you really mean no harm, I'm not going to give my kid a unisex name, avoid "gender specific" colours like blue and pink, and refer to them with "they" pronouns - no. When my kid tells me what they want, OF COURSE I will comply. But from the moment they're born, I will make it my job to educate them and let them know that they all will have my undying support. And if my future daughter comes home one day, whatever her age, and says "Mom, can you call me Jacob from now on?" then damn it, that'll be her name for as long as she so pleases.

 

If I go to dress up my child in the frilliest dress imaginable and she says "Mom, can I wear pants?", I'll go out and let her pick some.

 

If I was planning on getting my kid Barbies for Christmas but instead she writes on her list to Santa that she wants Hotwheels, she's gonna get firetruckin' Hotwheels and a Nascar version of Barbie.

 

Point is, since I don't think a fresh-out-of-the-vag newborn can decide (or even gives a firetruck) about gendered things, it's the parents decision with how they want to raise their child until the child decides for themself that they want something different.

 

I'm not trying to bash you or anything, it's just a lot of kids don't care. If you get a kid that DOES care, then the good thing to do would be to let them! I'm sorry that you never got the legos you wanted, and I'll never know that feeling. 

 

If it's not forced, it's fine. Kids should be made aware and given the OPTION of what they want. And hey, if I got the money? Buy my kid Barbies and Hotwheels, let them choose what they like the most.

 

Maybe I'm just being an asshole but I really don't believe gender roles are a bad thing - again, so long as they're not forced.

I'll agree with most of that. I don't mean when they're a little baby - wearing all of a certain color and using certain pronouns means nothing to a baby and it won't for quite a long time. I'm talking about gender roles being enforced in the way that "oh I have a daughter? Well better start buying barbies and signing up for ballet classes. You want Legos? No, I think you'll like Barbies more, I'll get you those instead." I was referring to my own experiences in my post, and I was trying to say that gender roles are bad across the board because I was intimidated to ask for Legos. I loved princesses but for a few years I wanted to be a Jedi but I thought they'd think I was weird so I went with another princess costume. While they might not impact everyone negatively, it reinforces in kids heads pretty early that "boys do this and girls do that" which can be a pretty harmful stereotype. It's a large part of the reason why there aren't a lot of women in STEM fields - not because they aren't smart enough, but it's not the sort of things girls are often taught to aspire to. 

 

How is it gross for a child to distinguish themselves from the opposite gender? boys and girls don't look that different until puberty. I think your parents were just trying to give you the stuff that appealed to the majority. Companies just compare the results and girls typically like dress up stuff and boys typically like legos. But the fact that they ignored that you asked for that stuff was wrong though. 

Well if you wanna get technical it's the opposite sex, not the opposite gender. It's not actually what appeals to the majority - it's just that we live in a patriarchal society that says girls like dolls and boys like legos. Kids, if not bound by gender roles, are pretty open to anything. You'd see a lot more boys in princess costumes playing with Barbies and girls in Spiderman costumes playing with GI Joes if they weren't (albeit subconsciously) taught that it's "supposed" to be the other way around. There would still be plenty of girls in princess costumes and boys in Spiderman costumes, but if gender roles weren't imposed on kids from birth there'd be a lot more diversity (and I'll use this example again since I think it's a prime one: there'd be more women in STEM fields if they weren't turned off from them by gender roles and other related factors at a young age)

[Aqua7KH 5,395]

I believe in God, too (i'm Catholic). As for supporting same-sex marriage, i'm kinda neutral. 

This might be off topic I love your sig and icon.

[Cucco 1,907]

I'll agree with most of that. I don't mean when they're a little baby - wearing all of a certain color and using certain pronouns means nothing to a baby and it won't for quite a long time. I'm talking about gender roles being enforced in the way that "oh I have a daughter? Well better start buying barbies and signing up for ballet classes. You want Legos? No, I think you'll like Barbies more, I'll get you those instead." I was referring to my own experiences in my post, and I was trying to say that gender roles are bad across the board because I was intimidated to ask for Legos. I loved princesses but for a few years I wanted to be a Jedi but I thought they'd think I was weird so I went with another princess costume. While they might not impact everyone negatively, it reinforces in kids heads pretty early that "boys do this and girls do that" which can be a pretty harmful stereotype. It's a large part of the reason why there aren't a lot of women in STEM fields - not because they aren't smart enough, but it's not the sort of things girls are often taught to aspire to. 

 

Well if you wanna get technical it's the opposite sex, not the opposite gender. It's not actually what appeals to the majority - it's just that we live in a patriarchal society that says girls like dolls and boys like legos. Kids, if not bound by gender roles, are pretty open to anything. You'd see a lot more boys in princess costumes playing with Barbies and girls in Spiderman costumes playing with GI Joes if they weren't (albeit subconsciously) taught that it's "supposed" to be the other way around. There would still be plenty of girls in princess costumes and boys in Spiderman costumes, but if gender roles weren't imposed on kids from birth there'd be a lot more diversity (and I'll use this example again since I think it's a prime one: there'd be more women in STEM fields if they weren't turned off from them by gender roles and other related factors at a young age)

It's shown that a baby girl will stare at a face longer and a baby boy will stare at an inanimate object longer. Hence why girls typically like to play dress-up when they're younger and wear make-up when they're older, and why boys typically like to play with building blocks and such when they are younger and typically do more manual labor when they are older.

 

I recommend you watch this, I think it will give you an idea of what I mean when I say feminism is kind of pointless in this age. Karen Straughan is a very intelligent woman and she knows what she is talking about. I do agree that women have their problems too in society, but it is kind of silly only looking at that side of the spectrum.

[Lalalablah 1,538]

i just wanted to say THANK YOU for actually like, caring about gay rights since your straight like bless your kind soul it's really hard to care about something unless your directly affected by it and yeah your profile is right you are RAD

Oh of course but yoo I might as well say it here, I've had a feeling for a while that I was bisexual I just wasn't completely sure, but lately it has become more clear So yea ahah thank you friend

[marukyu 132]

Oh of course but yoo I might as well say it here, I've had a feeling for a while that I was bisexual I just wasn't completely sure, but lately it has become more clearSo yea ahah thank you friend

ah yay omg OOps thats what i get for assuming!!

i hope it all goes well for you too though friend!!! and know you can always talk here for friendly stranger advice if you need it!!!!

[Think Pink 1,967]

It's shown that a baby girl will stare at a face longer and a baby boy will stare at an inanimate object longer. Hence why girls typically like to play dress-up when they're younger and wear make-up when they're older, and why boys typically like to play with building blocks and such when they are younger and typically do more manual labor when they are older.

 

I recommend you watch this, I think it will give you an idea of what I mean when I say feminism is kind of pointless in this age. Karen Straughan is a very intelligent woman and she knows what she is talking about. I do agree that women have their problems too in society, but it is kind of silly only looking at that side of the spectrum.

It's also shown that kids are deeply impacted by what the people around them do. For instance, a little boy who might not have chosen to play with Barbies if he was an only child will play with them if he has an older sister who he observed playing with them. Kids will mimic what they're shown in the world, so if they're taught that boys do this and girls do that it's a horrible lesson they'll carry with them for probably life. If all influences in the world were taken away it's likely there'd be a pretty even mix. It might be skewed that yeah, 60% of girls prefer dolls while 40% prefer Legos or something of the sort. There's still a large number of kids who are being taught they should conform to how a certain gender should dress/act/play before they even understand it. I'm exhausted so that was probably terribly worded but hopefully you get my point. 

 

There were antifeminist women back when we were still fighting to get the vote - were they right too? Of course not. One intelligent woman saying there's no need for feminism doesn't change the fact that it's needed in women's lives. It might impact some women less than others, and thankfully we've gotten (mostly) even on a legal standing, but there's still a social issue. There are still women being murdered for being women (see that sick Santa Barbara shooter, the Canadian antifeminst shooter, and like 100000 other sources) there is still a bias that is preventing women from going into STEM fields. There is still a bias in the courts - for example, MRAs and antifeminists like to claim that women get an advantage when trying to get custody of a child. Women more often get the child because it's not often contested, but when it is, it's more likely for a man to get custody even if the mother is able to show that he isn't a fit parent. In most cases if the father tries to get sole custody he'll win unless the mother can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he's like a rapist or a child molestor or drug abuser or something serious that the courts are unable to ignore (and in some cases he can still win the child). There's the issue of contraceptives and women's reproductive rights - something that has literally nothing to do with men, but when it comes to a vote, 81% of Congress is male (which means men are getting to decide what women can do with their bodies). Which brings me to another issue - 81% of Congress is male when it should be somewhere around the ~50% mark. There is still the issue of rapists rarely being prosecuted (only 3% see jail time and the military desperately tries to cover up rape statistics and ignore the problem) and the fact that in 31 states a rapist can sue for custody of their rape baby. There is still the fact that 1 in 4 women will be sexually abused (and more women have been murdered by their boyfriends/husbands than have been killed in all of America's wars in the past 20 years in a very short period of time - in ~5 years. That doesn't even begin to talk about how many women are abused.) There are still the people who claim the wage gap (which is proven by government statistics to exist) isn't real. There is the fact that with the advent of the internet we're seeing how many men regard women as lesser. We don't need feminism in the same way we used to, but there's a plethora of awful violent issues facing women today. Would you rather we ignore this laundry list of issues and let women suffer, or would you prefer we keep fighting the feminist fight to make things equal?