Flights 'n Tights MUX

[Auspice]

My personal issue was the fact that the game felt, from the initial post, as if it was being put out there as 'a haven for the LGBT community.' Based on wording, that was the message that got across.

And it's not. It's a haven for a particular portion of the LGBT community, but it's not a haven for the community. And I think that's where a lot of us felt slighted.

Especially when people go on to say 'Well, games used to not treat you well if you played a normally-straight character as bi or gay, so this place got made!' No, it got made for that particular portion of the LGBT community, not those who felt ostracized or out of place on the whole. It's basically a safe room where the advertisements go 'We know you all feel out of place! We know you want somewhere safe to go!' and then you get to the door and it's a checklist and 'Oh, oops, you don't meet the requirements for our safe room.'

I get what the aim of the game is. I'm fine with it. I'm not fine with people claiming it as an LGBT haven or as an 'answer' to feeling uncomfortable playing gay/bi characters on other superhero games since it cuts out half of those characters.

[Vorpal]

@Ganymede said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

@surreality said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

You don't have to fight every social battle, but you ought not be offended when others point out that you have intentionally declined to do so, and that such act cements what is perceived to be another form of discrimination.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there. Have we reached the level of sheer insanity here, where indulging in something one likes (MEN) and where others can indulge in it is now considered declining to fight a social battle? Are we really taking the attitude here that, in the name of inclusion and tolerance, niche interests and groups are gauche because they exclude people (that is: everyone who isn't part of the interest the group was meant to focus on)

I'm all for portraying real segments of the population in a story... but they don't all have to be in there, at once, in the same story/MU*. I'm sorry, but if we have devolved to the point where we're going to insinuate "well, by opening a gay male centric MU* you're discriminating against everybody else and really you should be thankful that someone else has pointed out your social obscurantism at you" then we really need a sense of perspective. Especially when we're saying "You don't have to fight every battle" while also coupling it with "You shouldn't be offended when someone guilt-trips you about not fighting every battle."

No. To hell with that passive-aggressive guilt-tripping. What the hell are we, nuns?

[Thenomain]

@Hushicho said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

there's a reason why versatile bisexual women are often called "unicorns"

I'll bite.

Why?

[Ganymede]

@Vorpal said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

To hell with that passive-aggressive guilt-tripping. What the hell are we, nuns?

I don't think anything I have stated has been passive-aggressive. I don't think it's passive-aggressive to point out that a game can be more-inclusive. I don't think it's passive-aggressive to say that a game can do more.

It's not gauche to play or enjoy this game. It is gauche, rather, to call critical speech "hate" when it is accurate. A careful reading of my comment indicates that I am not offended by the existence of the game, but the characterization of any critique thereof as being "hate." To-wit:

"I come back here to check and see how it's going and just get...all this hate for something the first reply on my topic decides to bring up, because of their own issues and assumptions. That's pretty amazing. And then we have people jumping in -- not taking the time to understand -- and assuming a bunch of tumblr-level stuff about us." (Emphasis added.)

To sum up, in case it was unclear: I think this game is a wonderful idea. That's why I said that I applaud it. What I am also saying, however, is that it could do more, and that I believe, as an opinion, that it should. Calling this critique "hate" is far from the mark, and this is what I objected to.

[Auspice]

@Thenomain said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

@Hushicho said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

there's a reason why versatile bisexual women are often called "unicorns"

I'll bite.

Why?

Because we (hi, bi lady here) are considered by an uncomfortably large percentage of the straight male population, to be TOTALLY into threesomes.

A lot of bi ladies (I've done it) actually mark themselves on dating sites as lesbian because otherwise, it seems like all you get are couples messaging you to be their third.

[Arkandel]

@Auspice What does that mean on a MU* though where anyone can be any gender at all?

[Thenomain]

(post partially removed, because I cannot read straight today at all)

Mind you, it wasn't the answer I was expecting though it makes sense. I was more wondering about the reason for the phrase "versatile bisexual women", emphasis mine.

Versatile how? Are there un-versatile bisexuals? Are there versatile straight women? What in the world does this mean?

I'm imagining that a bisexual woman who, for instance, can do some home maintenance and is a polyglot and, I don't know, occasionally speaks as a motivational coach at the local homeless shelter. You know, is versatile. Does a lot of different things.

I suspect it has to do with sex partners, which is going to make me rub my face a little and go off on a tangent at @Hushicho again. Disappointment comes in all forms.

[Ninjakitten]

@Thenomain said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

@Hushicho said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

there's a reason why versatile bisexual women are often called "unicorns"

I'll bite.

Why?

Perhaps there are different vocabularies going in here, because by my understanding, a 'unicorn' is a bi woman who wants to be the third for another couple (comprised of another bi woman and a [generally] straight man) and be involved with both of them. Because there are, it would seem, a whole lot of straight guys who want that to be a thing, and it is, apparently, so rare in reality as to be nearly mythical.

Bisexual women who don't fit said fantasy are, however, not nearly so unusual (nor nearly so popular). I'm not sure where 'versatile' comes into it here, as neither meaning I have for it makes much sense here.

However, if the point is that plenty of games have welcomed the particular configurations of female queerness that fulfill stereotypical-straight-guy fantasies, well, hey, I don't doubt that. But that doesn't in any way suggest they're safe spaces for anything that doesn't. This place has no obligation to be either, mind. It's just not much of an argument for not being.

Edit: Way too slow, as usual. Oh well!

[Auspice]

I can't speak as to the 'versatile' part of the statement. Just that bi women are often seen as unicorns because of some of the negative perceptions around being bi in general.

If you're bi... 'you can't make up your mind'
If you're bi... 'you're just selfish'
If you're bi... 'you want to be in threesomes'
If you're bi & male... 'you're just too scared to admit you're gay'
If you're bi & female... 'you're just a straight girl who wants attention'

There's been studies done. Bisexuals, even in the current enviro, are less likely to come out of the closet than those who are gay and lesbian. They also have a higher suicide rate. The LGBT community itself hasn't had the best track record about bisexuals (now, please don't think I'm saying it doesn't 'as a whole,' just that it has a bad track record; I've found groups that are awesome and groups that outright suck).

[Vorpal]

@Ganymede said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

I don't think anything I have stated has been passive-aggressive. I don't think it's passive-aggressive to point out that a game can be more-inclusive. I don't think it's passive-aggressive to say that a game can do more.

I am sorry, but it is one hell of a passive-aggressive move to tell someone that their game can do more than the actual scope they have chosen for their game. That’s like walking into a “Save Tibet” fundraiser and going “Hmm, nice fundraiser you’ve got here, but what are you doing for the Guatemalan children?” It’s utterly and thoroughly classless- it’s the the worst kind of 'I know what's best for everybody so you had better listen to me' level of entitlement.

If someone wants to open a game that focuses exclusively on lesbian superheroes , they're well within their rights to tell you to go feff yourself if you pull something like that. Let’s not hide behind the pusillanimous "Oh! I applaud it, I do, old chap, but it could do so much more!" which is so thoroughly condescending. The game is dedicated exclusively to playing gay male superheroes and their mis/adventures. As far as performing the function the game was intended for, there is no humanly possible way it could do more outside of the game being set in a 24 hour Groundhog Day loop of Fire Island with the Young Avengers fighting RuPaul’s evil stepbrother, EvilLynn.

Let's break this and call a spade a spade here. By saying "This game could do more" you are using code for "This game could do more of what I want it to do more of whether or not it is part of the stated mission and theme of the game." There. It doesn’t look so pretty and polite when it’s stripped of the false pretense and revealed for the condescension that it is. This is a case of “How dare you not cater to my preferred group” disguised as “Oh, jolly good for you!”

[RnMissionRun]

@Auspice You're so right about the 'bi' thing. Some of the reactions that I've gotten from people after telling them I was bi were so disappointing that I now just tell people that I am gay (even though it isn't strictly true).

[Auspice]

@RnMissionRun said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

@Auspice You're so right about the 'bi' thing. Some of the reactions that I've gotten from people after telling them I was bi were so disappointing that I now just tell people that I am gay (even though it isn't strictly true).

Since the girls I end up attracted to are almost always straight (sigh), I usually end up with guys, so I've generally just defaulted to 'sure, I'm straight.'

[Thenomain]

@Auspice said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

Since the girls I end up attracted to are almost always straight (sigh)

As a straight guy, I can honestly inform you that gender preference is hardly the biggest hurdle.

[Ganymede]

@Vorpal

Let's call a spade a spade, then.

This is the original advertisement:

"We welcome players of all kinds, to play both established Feature Characters and exciting Original Characters. At Flights 'n Tights, the name of the game is fun and adventure. Flights 'n Tights is a haven for gay, bisexual, and queer male characters, though female characters can be emitted and open-minded straight characters are welcome too! Unlike many other games that treat even established gay, bi, and queer male characters poorly, Flights 'n Tights celebrates them. Of course, all players are welcome."

I may have been wrong to read into this that the game was calculated to be homosexual-friendly. Maybe you don't read it like that.

The first question I had was: why no women? To which the response appears to be: we don't want to. And then, the second question would be: knowing that other games have treated established homosexual, bisexual, and queer women poorly, why not celebrate women? To which, the apparently response is: OHMYGOD HOW DARE YOU HATE ON US.

Maybe I am being condescending. There are reams and reams of comic book critique focused on the gay, lesbian, bi, and queer portrayals in comics. You're no doubt aware of that. I have no doubt that @Hushicho is aware of that. And I can find no reasonable explanation as to why female PCs of any stripe aren't allowed on this game.

Maybe I am picking a fight here. I suppose I think better -- more highly? -- of people who will go out and create a protected environment for a particular group of players. They clearly have a social conscience.

But I'm not hating on the game. I don't hate it. Criticism is not hate. So, let's stop throwing about pointless hyperbole in an effort to get a rise.

[Kanye Qwest]

The real ? here is that bisexual male characters are totally welcome, but no female characters. Only 'emitted'. So I guess the done thing is to puppet a female character for bisexual gratification purposes?

[Vorpal]

@Ganymede said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

@Vorpal

Let's call a spade a spade, then.

Yes, let's.

I may have been wrong to read into this that the game was calculated to be homosexual-friendly. Maybe you don't read it like that.

From the brochure: "gay, bi, and queer male characters". I think that is pretty damned explicit as to whom the clientele is. It’s right there, crystal clear, in black and white, evident to even the most cursory of readings. Even Walt Disney got it, and he's been dead for fifty years.

The first question I had was: why no women? To which the response appears to be: we don't want to. And then, the second question would be: knowing that other games have treated established homosexual, bisexual, and queer women poorly, why not celebrate women? To which, the apparently response is: OHMYGOD HOW DARE YOU HATE ON US.

Because, if I may be so blunt, the entitlement level is too damned high. “Why not this?” “Because we don’t want to.” “BUT WHYYYYYY? THESE OTHER PLACES HAVEN’T DONE IT SO YOU TOTALLY SHOULD DO IT”

Oh my fucking god. Shut up.

Maybe I am being condescending. There are reams and reams of comic book critique focused on the gay, lesbian, bi, and queer portrayals in comics. You're no doubt aware of that. I have no doubt that @Hushicho is aware of that. And I can find no reasonable explanation as to why female PCs of any stripe aren't allowed on this game.

Because. They. Don’t. Fucking. Want. To.

Do you own the server?
No.
Do you own the game?
No.
You don’t get to tell them what theme they get to put on.

Yes, Ganymede, you are being extremely condescending, because if we’re talking about sexuality and, dare we say it, fetishes, the answer “because that is what I like and what I want to do” is, indeed, a perfectly reasonable explanation. It’s not a reasonable explanation to you because you and some others seem to want this game to be some sort of Social Crusade to right the wrongs of past representation-
It’s a sex game.
No, seriously. It mostly is. It’s a fetish superhero game featuring male superheroes who are not straight. It’s for people who like that sort of thing, just like places like hardheroes dot com. They want to be surrounded by men. Men in tights. Who like other men, and who like the fact that other men like them.

It's as specific a niche as you can find.
They're also very nice people, from what I recall and from what everybody who has been there says.

You are basically descending like self-righteous harpies demanding that a group of people change their sexy pretend fun-times just so that your desire for representation be justified. This is as entitled and as full of crazy as you going to someone who likes the opposite gender to yours and vociferously demand why the fuck are they not masturbating to you?
It’s right up there with that brand of crazy.

But I'm not hating on the game. I don't hate it. Criticism is not hate. So, let's stop throwing about pointless hyperbole in an effort to get a rise.

This isn’t criticism. This is self-righteous entitlement. You’re berating the game for something it isn’t, and something it was never meant to be. You are Don Quixote tilting a lance of outrage at a windmill ,

[Thenomain]

@Vorpal

You know, I understand going off on someone for missing the point, but I don't read @Ganymede as saying anything more than, "Not my cuppa" and possibly, "The initial post is kind of sketchy."

I know and completely understand that the entirely of history leading up to the Stonewall Riots give people the right to have a double-standard of "no <this kind of sexual preference> in my game" if that person's game is, e.g., toward gay male interactions, but I don't think it deserves the kind of reaction you're giving it.

Where I see the initial post as sketchy (and a note to @Hushicho: I supported it) is the note about women being allowed, but only emitted. If you're going to be very staunchly on one side of a line, then don't pussy-foot around like that. Say 'gay/bi male characters only'. Period. I see no purpose to do it this way, and kind of a slap in the face.

"This group of people exists only as a token on this game." Where is the open-mindedness about that?

This is not a hate. (Again: I was the first person to talk down the negative reactions, so stuff it if you're going to flip out on me.) This is a criticism. Ganymede's is a criticism. They don't come from nowhere, and all criticisms can be ignored, and most are.

If you disagree with the criticism, that's cool. Don't be like me, tho; use more logic than emotion.

[Ganymede]

@Vorpal said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:

No, seriously. It mostly is. It’s a fetish superhero game featuring male superheroes who are not straight. It’s for people who like that sort of thing, just like places like hardheroes dot com. They want to be surrounded by men. Men in tights. Who like other men, and who like the fact that other men like them.

If this is what it is, that's fine. I can accept that. But this is not what @Hushicho has advertised the game as being. And, unlike you, I am not "assuming a huge amount of things about a game." (His words.)

This game is clearly advertised as being for male superheroes regardless of their sexuality. The game is not just for "gay, bisexual, and queer male characters" because "open-minded straight characters are welcome too!" (His words.)

I don't think @Hushicho needs anyone defending him or his choices. I think he's capable of doing it himself. But if this is a gay-superhero-fetish game, color me confused as to why he would describe it otherwise.

[Vorpal]

I'm perfectly fine using logic, but sometimes the level of stupidity is so high that a "Oh, fuck it" is perfectly merited.

Women being emitted? Well, they're NPCs. The PCs all must be male, because the creator of the game wants to keep a gay male-centered theme. In some MUs, high-ranking characters can be emitted but not played, and in one Superhero MU villains can't be played, they may only be emitted, because the creators wanted to center the experience around the heroes, not heroes and villains.

That's not pussyfooting. It's called being focused on a theme.

[Thenomain]

@Vorpal

I don't see @Ganymede being anything but logical and straightforward. Everything he (or she?) is saying comes from her (or his?) understanding, stated in a clear manner that even I can follow.

In contrast, I'm not sure what your problem with Ganymede is.

Secondary: I misunderstood the role of women in this game, and retract my statements regarding them. It's Gany's statement, "This game is clearly advertised as being for male superheroes" that clued me in to check the initial post and, yup, that's what it is.

I mean, the images on the front of their wiki are pretty damn sexualized, so I wouldn't be surprised if this game was very pro-sex, but I play on WoD games so I'm not going to judge.