I wouldn't. I'm really not seeing it. I mean, sure, I see the stereotypes, but I don't see them as more than stereotypes. Coincidentally, I was just recently thinking about Vasquez, thinking that in the Aliens future the idea that female soldiers have to be allowed to have longer hair than is practical was sensibly eliminated.
As far as I remember there's no comment whatsoever about Vasquez's sexuality in the film (or for that matter the sexuality of any of the others) - the closest they come is when one of the troopers asks her " Hey Vasquez have you ever been mistaken for a man ?" and yes ripostes "no, have you ?" ETA I have a number of female soldiers in my wip - mostly their sexuality isn't mentioned, or relevant - one is definitely straight (since shes in a relationship with a male soldier) and two are definitely gay as they are in a relationship with each other.. the rest are as yet undetermined likewise for the men a number of them are definitely straight - there's a scene earlier on where they go drinking and womanising , but there are others whose sexuality is not currently mentioned - I haven't so far created any of them as gay, but i could in a later book if I choose. I likewise don't have anyone who's Bi or A but could do if i wanted to ( I have one guy who's not able to have sex after his bollocks got blown off in a firefight but prior to that he was straight so he doesn't count)
Threads like this always remind me of Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" where humans have evolved to the point where 'the homo life' is the norm and those that are hetero are known as queers.. the protagonist being the only one in the unit he commands becomes known as 'the old queer'
Good book, btw. Know how I know? It has the capacity to offend both the ardently PRO and ardently ANTI crowds. This says to me that it possesses the rare quality of asking everyone to question their investment in the idea. Books that ask you questions trump books that tell you things, every time.
BTW, my answer to the initial question (and completely sidestepping all the sociopolitical brouhaha) is :Yes, all the time. I'm gay. Gay is what I know. Intrinsically, internally, inextricably. I don't have to guess or form a hypothesis. It's an experiential knowledge. Now, of course (tedious caveat) this doesn't mean I cannot write str8 characters. I've lived with them my whole life as the majority of people with whom I come into contact. But as my MC's, I feel more comfortable writing gay guys, which leaves me to focus on other parts of the story.
Personally i'd have said that if anyone says that, what they are really saying is that they (the person saying it) are an ignorant bigoted moron. People who love each other make love - people who don't F *** regardless of orientation. I must admit I get a bit lost in the terms particularly about romantic as opposed to sexual - I'd always assumed that romance was about love , where as sex without romance was about lust. I'd also hold my hand up that prior to joining this forum i was ignorant of the variation in A ( that is i knew that some people were Asexual , but i hadn't really considered the detail)
Oh, no, I didn't mean there was an actual "Vasquez and Bug Eyes are dating" comment at any point - there was just a really affectionate/admiring relationship between them. I guess I assumed it was romantic, but it could have just been a deep friendship.
I just took that as military camaraderie .. they are both veteran soldiers and its fair to assume they've been in combat together before.
Only in reality. Exactly. A heterosexual-heteroromantic person might be looking for a sexual non-romantic relationship at one time, a non-sexual romantic relationship another time, or a sexual and romantic relationship at yet another time (or might not be looking for any kind of relationship at all), but a relationship of any of those types is only going to be with somebody of the opposite sex. A bisexual-homoromantic person, on the other hand, can have a sexual non-romantic relationship with either a man or a woman, but a romantic relationship (be it sexual or non-sexual) could only be with someone of their own gender. I actually didn't know that sexual and romantic orientation were different until I started trying to learn more about the asexual community I don't know if other sexual orientations have their own special terminology for the different combinations of romantic orientation, but asexuals are: Ace of Spades (asexual & aromantic) Ace of Hearts (asexual & either heteroromantic/homoromantic/biromantic/...) Me too, that's why I like them being platonic! Spoiler Not what you meant?
speaking as ex forces , the depth of feeling soldiers can develop for each other when they serve together for a long time can be as deep if not deeper than that found in a lot of relationships. When you would literally die for someone as they would for you that's a kind of 'love' , though it has nothing to do with sex or sexual desire. Of course most soldiers will vehemently deny anything of the sort and hide it under a barrage of badinage about how they don't even like the guy, and yet you get incidences of soldiers throwing themselves on live grenades or fighting against impossible odds to save their comrades.
Everything? Of coarse we don't leave everything up to the reader. We don't tell them everything either. JUST. WHAT. MATTERS. And what matters depends on the context of the story. And if you don't fill in a detail, like what they had for breakfast or how long it took to shit and how droopy or solid it was, then yes, the reader can, if they believe such details are missing, fill in the gaps. And if someone wants to make assumptions on story points that are not relevant, who cares? That's their experience. If it was relevant it'd be in the book. And if they make stereotypical assumptions, that's their issue, too. My point is, if it's NOT in the story and people make assumptions based on stereotypes then that's what the reader decides or is responsible for. If a gay reader reads a character who has had NO hint of sexuality as straight and then complains of not having a gay character, that's their bias showing, not the writer's. So please, stop taking things to extremes for some reason.
I don't like the "all or nothing" line of argument either... and I don't think anyone here is making that argument. Well, it sometimes feels as if you're making the "nothing" side of the argument, but I trust you when you say you aren't. So... if it's important to the writer, for whatever reason, that readers know the character is queer, then the writer should find a way to make that clear to the reader. Because if it isn't made clear, the reader will likely assume the character is straight.
Okay, given the tone of your edit - I'm out. We clearly aren't communicating. We clearly both feel the other is the one being obtuse. I don't care enough to keep arguing.
Well, yeah. If it's that important to the writer that everything is taken absolutely literally they're responsible to make it clear.
@Selbbin That train of thought exactly why a character of unstated orientation "counts" as a straight character: "Sure, the story doesn't spell out 'this character is straight,' but if she wasn't straight, then the author would've spelled it out because publishers ask writers to justify non-straight characters in a way that they don't ask authors to justify straight characters"
I have never thought up a queer character. I think it's just because we write from our experiences and biases will play into it, I am straight so I assume straight, I don't think of a queer character unless I was influenced by an outside idea/opinion/person who inspired it. I have nothing against a persons race/orientation/creed, but if I don't have the experience it simply won't occur to me. It is important for accurate portrayals of all people, to get away from the negative stereotyping that can be so easy to use. Although it makes me wonder. Do queer people have the same reaction to heterosexual relationships, as the other way around? Edit, I apologize if in my ignorance I offend anyone.
We can't afford to, you're everywhere. I'm not proud to admit that I used to be uncomfortable with blatant straightness, but I was never taken by surprise. Heterosupremacists are allowed to forget that non-straight people exist, and then they see two guys holding hands and it all comes crashing back to them.
I wouldn't say so, no. This is because everyone knows about heterosexual relationships, no matter your sexuality; that's all we're ever taught. Many people know so little about queer identity that when they begin to notice "unusual" feelings (e.g. attraction to the same sex), they don't know what it happening, or go into denial. Even queer people sometimes assume that they are straight at first, because of how heteronormative media is. Now of course there are gay people in adult TV shows nowadays, but in kid shows? Picture books? Any children's chapter books? Nope. As children we didn't learn about what it means to be LGBT+ because it was deemed "inappropriate". So by the age it became acceptable to show LGBT+ characters, the damage had already been done. That's one of the reasons I think that it's so important to make LGBT+ characters that are clearly LGBT+. With books we can change the world, and part of that is showing queer folk that queerness does exist, that it's normal if you aren't straight as a ruler, or as gender-conforming as Barbie and Ken. I feel like if there were queer role models in media then people wouldn't have as hard a time coming to terms with their sexuality. Anyway, thank you for responding to the forum
If they don't Give Elsa A Girlfriend in the sequel, I'm going to be furious. The secondary protagonist of the ninth-highest-grossing film in history (single-highest-grossing animated) is already an LGBT+ icon. If they make Elsa straight, then starting from scratch by having Disney's First Lesbian-Heroine Movie be some unrelated film at some unknown point in the future is not going to carry the same weight.
I personally wish for my queer MCs in the fantasy genre. Unless it's half-way to erotica or werewolf romance, there doesn't seem to be a huge selection of queer fantasy. A land fit for heroes does the queer MC wonderfully, I found.
I think there's quite a bit of m/m fantasy, but I know that's not what some queer lit fans are looking for. If you're interested, though, I could name some names... stuff that isn't "half-way to erotica", but that does have a significant romantic/sexual element. If you're looking for more traditional fantasy - have you tried The Steel Remains? I really enjoyed it as a single book, but it was too grimdark for me to read the rest of the series. And I guess parts of it are pretty graphic, so you may not like that. Mercedes Lackey? She's generally quite queer-friendly. But it's interesting that I am having trouble coming up with fantasy novels with queer protagonists that don't have some fairly explicit sex scenes. Swordspoint? Was there explicit sex in that? I can't remember. The Raven Cycle books don't go beyond kissing, I don't think, but you have to wait a long time to get to the queer content with that series. Maybe further evidence for the idea that there's a tendency to focus more on the sexual behaviour of queer characters than we do with straight characters.
Would some ones who's A also be equally uncomfortable with blatant gayness ? (again a genuine question) , or was it more the discomfort with society pushing straightness in your face as the "right" way to be (On the latter I'm straight but bigots make me pretty uncomfortable as well)
My friend Nick (who's gay) reckons that the stereotypical german chap who runs the winter goods store is in his words 'gayer than springtime' That aside they could also not give her a partner at all , and make the point that its fine to be single. ( it used to annoy the shit out of me that 'in a relationship' was being promoted as the right way to be , as although i'm straight I was happy being single for a long while and just having casual sex when appropriate )
