This discourse was going around twitter today apparently and im curious takes from here.
Which is it for you?
For me i prefer playersexuality. I want to be able to romance any romance option regardless of my charachters gender. I dont want to be stuck with only Arcade Gannon if i want to do m/m
I agree that sexuality can be important to a charachter. But if you wanna do that, seems like the charachter can just not be a romance option.
That said. In RPGs devs can do what they want. You want a charachter to be monosexual and a romance option, have at it. (Unless theyre all straight, then fuck you).
I do kinda hate what The Sims did by adding monosexuality. Felt like such a virtue signal that made the game less fun. All Sims being pansexual was always more fun for me. Especially since i usually play that game as a pansexual slut. Unless i decide my player Sim is mono, but thats on the player's end.
Monosexual townies in the Sims should at least be optional (is it? Idk havent played Sims 4 since this update).
Ok, youre back to linking queerness to adversity as some sort of essentialist thing again. This denies that we have a future free of queerphobia that fiction can explore. (Its also, as someone privately pointed out to me, Eurocentric).
If you simply cant relate to a queer charachter who hasnt experiances bigotry, then fine I guess. Thats just taste.
But treating it as a requirement (and scare quoting gay when the gay person doesnt experiance homophobia) it does kind of take away the positive parts of being queer, like queer culture and, importantly to the topic of this thread, love.
Its also worth noting i think that that rhetoric echoes a lot of exclustionist arguments about, for example, ace people. Which i find troubling.
I didn't "scare quote gay" I literally quoted a phrase you said and put it in quotation marks. Why are you being so disingenuous?