"EneroDesyembre;c-18315915" wrote:
"CAPTAIN_NXR7;c-18315764" wrote:
So here’s my question: Do you think it’s fair for all premades to get an orientation update or should this retroactive update only apply to same sex attracted couples?
Why do you keep asking this? Are you doing it to open the possibility of including asexual or aromantic premades, or are you just asking this to preserve the feelings of heterosexual players and people who are literally catered to on every square inch of this game, all media, and the world itself? Are the emotions of people who never have had to fight for their right to love and be seen more important than people who are still emerging in a world that is actively hostile towards them? Will retroactively including strictly heterosexual sims give the people who never had to worry about their lives and relationships being threatened by groups of people actively sabotaging their identity and cultures be "inclusive" for you?
Are the lives and mere existence of cisgender people being heterosexual threatened in the real world, in a way that even remotely justifies wanting them to be included within something like what I am suggesting? What is it that really drives you to want "heterosexual representation" within queer representation, really, other than to plausibly pretend that heterosexual people have never been included in anything because they weren't available in one game franchise of millions that dared to not have heterosexual people as the default? Is the world you live in so devoid of any empowering strictly heterosexual figures that you have to resort to fiction in order to even feel like a real person?
I am asking for queer inclusion, if that comes at the cost of the fragile minds and feelings of people that are both afraid that their heterosexual sims might not be or those that are subconsciously afraid of having undeniably queer characters because of their unconscious biases then so be it.
The goal of my suggestion wasn't to pretend heterosexual simmers and sims aren't real, the goal was to make sure they can't pretend their actions are merely neutral ones that suggest nothing of their own ideas and actions. You can still let the heckings flirt and fall in love with women, but not in a way that will be possible unless you make the conscious decision to make it something plausible for them to do. Nothing will stop you, nothing will control you, other than your own guilt for intentionally doing so if you yourself are not gay, bi or pan and know full well what enabling it will imply.
I appreciate what you’re saying. There’s this famous quote and I’m not even sure who the
original author is, but it goes something like this:
”Never pass judgment or put anger on someone too harshly and too quickly, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about.” ~ And then something something about being kind.
I’m looking at this potential retroactive update purely from an objective point of view. I’m not biased, there’s no emotion attached to this, I’m only thinking in terms of user experience and what would make sense in order to satisfy as many players as possible with the tools that are currently available. Game devs would have to consider every option. Making the right choice is incredibly challenging given how diverse the simming community is. I think that having discussions like these is healthy and could be helpful moving forward.
That said, I personally do not believe it is reasonable to ask for a “LGTB +” household update and not consider so called “heterosexual” households purely out of spite;
“The heterosexual player base never suffered the way the LGTB+ player base has suffered, therefore they do not deserve this potential update as much as I do.”That kind of generalization and spiteful attitude towards a certain group of people is what causes conflict in an already divided community. It’s rather unnecessary. ( see famous quote above).
Why can’t all households get fair treatment regardless of their sexual orientation? We’re all people. We all play this game for our entertainment. We all
paid for it. If the reason not to do this is due to technical limitations, or something other than the
“straight arrows already have everything” - rhetoric, well, that’s fair enough. I rest my case.
