So would that count as aromantic? Being happily single? Because I love being single (way too independent to want to have to share any decisions with anyone!) and there is ABSOLUTELY a lot of pressure in society to couple-up and get married. In the liberal circles in which I run, I'd say it's more socially acceptable to be gay (and in a relationship) than straight (and single).
I'm not sure - I wouldn't classify myself as Aromantic because I'm romantic with the right person - I've been happily married for seven years . However I spent most of my twenties and early thirties as a single guy not looking to settle down. (I'm not saying I was your stereotypical womanising player either - I just didn't need a relationship/sex most of the time, and I dated casually when I did) I agree about social acceptance though - it seems to me that to a lot of people single equated to either "sad loser" , or "womanising player" and tended to push it in your face that the right way to be was married with 2.4 kids (even now my wife and I still get the when are you having children thing, and people find it hard to accept when you say , never .... either that or they assume there must be *hushed tones* a medical problem )
Some would, most wouldn't. It was mostly this for me. 1) Oaken was stereotypically Norwegian 2) he ran a goods store which was explicitly un prepared for winter and 3) The fact that one of the best comic relief side characters was gay has probably not been as powerful as having one of the two lead protagonists be gay (we see Oaken's husband and kids for what, 5 seconds?) EDIT: Spoiler: Scratch that, one second 2:14 When I first realized how amazing the movie was, I loved being able to see Elsa as an aro-ace icon. I just don't think that the current environment needs that as much anymore.
@BayView Steele Remains is part of the land fit for heroes. That's the name of the actual series :3 And I also recommend Lynn Flewin's Nightrunner series. Very good romance between two MCs and the political intrigue and world building are excellent.
Homosexuality is a government-sanctioned norm as a form of population control in most of the universe of my current project. Natural birth is seen as uncouth due to the invention of the synthetic womb.
How peculiar... I looked it up and found https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2519794.Escape_to_the_Wild_Wood?from_search=true which also seems to be a series with "Some interesting sexual politics" according to the review - I assumed that meant a queer MC!
I just realized that my WIP accidentally shattered the stereotype that gay characters have to be obsessed with whichever of their acquaintances happen to be the same gender: Spoiler When one of my lead antagonists gets killed, his straight guy henchman gets broken up about it because the henchman and the boss had been friends, but the gay guy henchman gets over it pretty quickly.
It's good when the story seems grounded in real character reactions rather than forced or contrived. Thinking about the same thing, I was reminded that while my character does fall in love with two separate females, the one that is most important to her isn't a sexual or romantic attraction. She's inspired by her instead, and if the story panned out differently they could have been really good friends.
.... so, no birth control or sterilization is possible? Just curious how that question would be tackled. I get the premise, it's an interesting spin on forcefully conforming natural behavior by the power structure.
Birth control and sterilization are both possible, but the infrastructure and economy is weak, and most of the population cannot afford such methods.
Its essentially the same premise that Haldeman used in the forever war as I mentioned earlier , which on one level is interesting but subjected to greater scrutiny it is hard to see how such a thing could occur. for most of the worlds population to become homosexual , requires more than the artificial womb , it requires hetero people not to breed whilst homo people breed using the artificial means (which presumably also means that lesbian couples would have to donate the eggs for the gay couples to breed) , which seems unlikely. The other option would be genetic engineering where the government tinkers with the genetics of embryos to ensure that the offspring are gay - which might be possible but wouldn't be likely to be well received by the population at large (or I suppose some sort of genetically altering event with the same effect virus/radiation whatever) As I recall Haldeman basically hand waved the detail of how the change had occured
My take on their premise is that the hetero people are not actually 'turned' gay, but forced to conform to having gay relationships in the same way that gay people have felt the need to conform against their natural selves in the real world. Also like left handed people being forced to use their right, because that's 'normal'.
But how would you force an overwhelmingly het population to do that without having a revolution. Tbh the reason that homophobia and discrimination has hung around for so long is because LGBTQ people are in a minority .
I don't know, I don't see that they could, but I didn't want to go too deep into the details on this thread.
In-universe, natural birth is seen as disgusting because of it's messy and painful compared to birth via synthetic womb. The stigma extends to heterosexuality despite there being birth control and sterilization methods.
So this is 'fantasy/sci fi universe that is different from our own ? that makes a lot more sense ( A bit like "noughts and crosses" where it was the whites who wee discriminated against by the black ruling class) However , whatever 'stigma' is attached how are you ensuring that people are born homosexual (the problem with saying that its nurture not nature that determines sexuality is that it opens a big can of worms to a very controversial issue in the real world)
Well, homosexuality isn't reliably passed on by genes (I think it's debatable whether it's passed on by genes even a little bit; the only specific that I recall is that a gene associated with homosexual men is associated with extra fertility in women), so anybody could breed, they'd just do so artificially. Edited to add: That gene makes a startling amount of sense. I remember thinking that there are evolutionary advantages to having adults that are less likely to bear offspring around to provide extra care and defense and such for relatives' offspring, but how could that evolutionary advantage possibly work, since useful genes are propagated by bearing offspring? A brother that doesn't have kids, who may bring in yet another man without kids as his partner, both available to defend the first man's sister's extra large group of kids so that that gene carries forward, seems just perfect. The above is one of those posts that I look at, wondering if through lack of understanding I've somehow said something offensive. But I'm going to post it anyway.
I am brand new to this site and the forums, so I found the most recent replies difficult to follow. I think this thread may have gotten away from its original post, which is fine but it became an philosophical debate that I'm not sure I've thought enough into. But, to the posts orginal questions I find that I do think about writing LGBT characters. I want to write them, but I am not sure I can write beyond cis-gender lesbian or bisexual women. I think I could maybe do a story involving cis gay men but, I'm not sure I would be truly authentic in how I portray everything. I would be more comfortable with stories about transgender, asexual, pansexual and other sexual orientations if I had more interactions with people who this is part of who they are. If I had a larger group to which I can interview and have review my stories where this is part of the characters I write for authenticity. To another part of what I saw on this thread; personally as a bisexual cis woman I think its ok for us to write beyond our personal stories. I mean I like fantasy stories but I'm not a werewolf, a healer, or from some fantasy Mediterranean kingdom. If I'm authentic to my character and not using their sexuality as their main personality focus, because I don't think sexuality should be the focus of your personality, than I think I can expand beyond my narrow world. I just have to live enough in my characters to be as authentically as I can and review people with similar life experiences so they can help me make my characters authentic.
Welcome to the site! Like I said Then may I be the first to volunteer as a virgin sacrifice No, seriously, asexual-aromantic here with an unusually low sex drive by asexual standards. I am not joking about that.
Lol I appreciate that Simpson17866. And thank you for the welcome. By the way I just noticed your Doctor Who fan fiction link in your signature. LOVE DOCTOR WHO! Not the most knowledgeable whovian but I love it! Finals finish next weekend Now I know what I can read in my off time. And when I get writing I'll send you a message if I do ever have any questions lol