paradoxicalreaction

If I was kicked out of a restaurant for kissing my girlfriend, I would absolutely raise a stink, and yes, I would want empathy. If I wasn't removing articles of her clothing or otherwise being inappropriate, I would not let it rest. If a straight couple were kicked out of a restaurant for kissing, it would be in the media. People would boycott the restaurant. That couple would have all the empathy in the world.

Your right to your own beliefs ends at holding them; you can't enforce them on other people, and if you try to pass them off as fact people will call you on it. I'm not your friend (nor am I a guy). I know that same-gender couples can't reproduce naturally - well. That isn't always true, but I don't know that I have the energy to explain to you how a man can have a uterus. But cissexual (Google that, as well as "transgender") same-sex couples can't reproduce, and no one is disputing that. But there are women in relationships with men who don't want children. Are those relationships wrong too? There are people in relationships who don't even want sex, period. I am hopelessly out of touch with mainstream society unless I force myself to integrate with it. I'm on the autism spectrum, and I question everything that's presented to me as truth. Which is not necessarily a good thing, but it does leave me certain that I didn't somehow "catch" being gay from the media, or from other gay people. (If I couldn't pick up How To Be A Human 101, how on Earth would I have managed to absorb something as complicated as sexuality?) I mention being autistic not because I think there's any correlation whatsoever between that and sexuality, but in hope that it might make you look differently at your "society has brainwashed you into being gay" worldview. I feel a need to clarify this. That's probably a very sad thing.

No one is preventing you from expressing your beliefs. I think they're disgusting and completely illogical, but I would never keep you from expressing them - nor will I refrain from expressing mine. ...I don't really think "ignorant" is as much an insult as it is a statement of fact, given that you're so wrapped up in your little straight bubble that you didn't know what "homophobe" meant. No one is talking about literal straight pride parades. The point you're missing is that straight people don't need straight pride parades. They don't need to fight for representation in the news and in fictional media. Straight people are everywhere! Life is just one big Being Straight Is Cool Day for you. It's not like that for us.

You probably have met masculine gay men. I'd bet money on it. You just didn't know they were gay. So all those manly bisexual men aren't so different from people you've met in real life, except that in real life, people aren't comfortable revealing their sexuality around you. I can't imagine why. Straight guys would absolutely make a fuss over a "no heterosexuality" mod. There are children in the game! They had to come from somewhere, getting rid of all the straight couples ruins immersion! I've never met a feminine lesbian in my life, so it's not realistic that all these beautiful shopkeepers are gay! And so on and so forth. That wouldn't be okay, though. And I bet a lot of people would call you out on it. You aren't deleting people of color from the real world by installing a mod, but you are saying that people of color make you so uncomfortable that you can't enjoy a game that has characters of color. A "no homosexuality" mod is no different.

Do you like the word "bigot" better? I can call you that if you'd like... I'm not using the word "homophobic" for nothing. You are being incredibly offensive and hurtful by continuing to insist that only "gay-acting" people can be gay, and by insisting that anyone upset with this is just overreacting. Yes, it's just a mod - but by posting the request here in a public forum, the OP opened themself up to opinions and criticism. I find it disgusting that someone could be so hateful that a single line of dialogue involving homosexuality could ruin their play experience, and everyone complaining about immersion is worse. Opinions can be homophobic. And to answer your question, you insulted me by saying that only "gay-acting" people can be gay. You're casually dismissing the identities of thousands of people just because it makes you uncomfortable to think that not every gay person wears a giant neon gay sign. (Oh, and - I don't want men hitting on me either! That's why I only wore the Amulet of Mara to propose to Lydia. Amazing how well that worked. The Bond of Matrimony has the same effect as the Amulet, you know. Minus the gay.) I don't think I want to drop it. Could you explain this logical reason to me, please? I'm genuinely curious. You seem uncomfortable with racism; why are you so comfortable being equally hurtful to gay people?

Apparently I do have the energy to learn how to mod Skyrim, because I have a functioning texture replacement now. If anyone would be willing to help me by making the texture a new outfit exclusive to Babette, I can give you the texture to work with - or a mesh replacement with scaled-down Dark Brotherhood robes would still be very welcome!

"Homophobia" does not mean a literal fear of gay people. It's a social concept that can't be narrowed down to a single sentence in a dictionary, much like sexism and racism. Being uncomfortable with the concept of homosexuality is homophobic. Not wanting to hear about homosexuality, wanting to exist in a pristine heterosexual bubble, is homophobic. The idea that there are certain people who "aren't supposed to be gay" is homophobic; why, exactly, isn't Farkas meant to be gay? Like all marriageable characters, he's programmed to be bisexual. I think that makes it fairly clear that he's meant to be attracted to the Dragonborn, whichever gender the Dragonborn might be, if the Dragonborn wishes him to be. If you think that he isn't supposed to be gay because he's too masculine - that, too, is homophobic. Big, manly fighter-types can be gay or bisexual. And that's okay. Are you serious. Sexuality has nothing to do with whether someone is the "wrong gender", and it has nothing to do with dressing well, or lisping, or acting feminine or masculine. Masculine people can be gay! Pretty boys with lisps who dress well can be straight. The only thing that dictates whether or not someone is gay is whether or not they like people of the same gender. And if a well-dressed man with a lisp does happen to be gay, there's nothing wrong with him being like that in public. There's nothing wrong with "looking gay". You don't need straight pride parades because straight is the default. Everyone knows about straight people. No one goes "ew, look at that guy wearing jeans and ratty sneakers, he must be straight." No one tells straight people that they should only be straight in private, or that it's okay to be straight as long as they don't act straight where everyone else has to see. People are so loud about gay rights because it's a thing that hasn't happened yet. We aren't equal to you. We are, a lot of the time, treated very badly! Gay pride parades aren't about saying "look at us, look how gay we are, let's force our gay gayness on you!" They're about saying "hey, we exist too, and there's nothing wrong with who we are; you're proud of being straight, so let us be proud of being gay." Either it makes sense or it doesn't. Make up your mind. And you really think it breaks immersion for people to only mention their sexuality when you explicitly invite it by showing that you're not against it? That's my real life. Homosexuality is not an "abnormality". And no, people don't grow up in gay families and get "confused". Exposing children to homosexuality doesn't make them gay! It does, however, tend to make them realize that being gay is totally okay. Straight people are the majority. They can rightfully assume that if they see a movie, there will be straight people. If they play a game? Straight people. They don't have to go into special bookstores or on special websites to find media featuring straight people. They don't risk violence if they announce, in a public place, "hey, I'm straight!" These are all cultural things.

I'm sure your gay friends would be delighted to know that they're being brought up in an online argument for the purpose of putting down and trying to silence a gay woman. Heterosexuality is the norm, yes. Just as being white and male is the norm in a lot of places. That doesn't make any of those things better, or more right. Gay people do exist - and reflecting that, by adding the possibility (not even the mention unless it is specifically sought out) of a gay relationship, isn't rubbing anything in anyone's face. But having all preexisting couples be straight is very much rubbing it in my face that I am a minority, that I am not "normal" or worth representing. I don't blame Bethesda for any of these things; cultural standards aren't their fault in the least. It's just the way things are.

Heterosexual people do rub their sexuality into people's faces, though. They're doing it all over this thread. You're doing it, by saying that there's nothing wrong with straight people reacting negatively to even the slightest hint of something gay in their perfect straight world. I'd really love not to have heterosexual themes rubbed in my face everywhere I look, but that's not considered acceptable by the vast majority of straight people. Allowing gay marriage in Skyrim was a wonderful thing for Bethesda to do - but all the married NPCs are straight. That's not exactly rubbing homosexuality in your face. To avoid seeing homosexual themes in Skyrim, all you have to do is never talk to an NPC of your character's gender while wearing a certain item that has no real purpose other than to facilitate marriage. To avoid seeing heterosexual themes, I have to... well, I have to refrain from playing the game. Or have my character hide out at home with her wife and never leave.

Even a subtle color change would be an improvement, really, maybe with a handprint on it somewhere - oh Skyrim, why do you do this? I don't have the energy to learn how to mod you. ;_;

I've become rather fond of Babette, and it kind of bothers me that she uses the default child outfit instead of one more suited to her. The Shrouded Armor would look strange on a little girl, but I think a scaled-down version of the robes would look a lot better. I have no idea if this is even possible without getting poor innocent children caught in the crossfire, though. I personally wouldn't mind mini-assassins running around if it meant that Babette looked respectable, but I suspect such a mod would not have much of an audience other than me. :sweat: