Sexual minority characters

I think it doesn't need to be significant to the plot. I do think it's not worth mentioning it unless it furthers character development. And I think that show don't tell comes into play as well. As supposed to "This is Alice. She am lesbians." have Alice be attracted to a woman who's actually in your work.

I think that if a charcter is mentioned as being gay/bi, don't make a huge deal about it and a social preaching in either direction unless is is specifically for that purpose.

If it is about a homosexual struggling in a area where there is hate against them, then yes. That is a time to make a big deal about it.

But if someone took a character who was all this and that, and then suddenly said 'oh by the way im gay' then it just looks like it is there to be there.

If the theory is that homosexuality doesn't effect personality, mentioning it derails this idea. As per the eye color/smile argument, that is to develop a mental picture of how they look, and part of the character. Orientation is too, but if orientation has nothing to do with looks or personality and has no effect on the plot, wouldn't it make more sense to not just mention their orientation?

None of my character's sexuality is explicitly mentioned, you only know who has what sexuality if they hook up with someone, so that is 3 characters' orientation that you ever learn of. Though one character is asexual, but that is only hinted at I mean, if I included the orientation of all my other characters, it would be useless, it doesn't effect their personality or the plot.

So what I am saying is that I believe that if it doesn't effect the plot, there isn't any point in even bringing it up, as I do not believe orientation effects personality.

p.s. sorry if any wording is weird, I am not feeling good.

edited 16th Apr '11 12:22:19 PM by jasonwill2

Oooh! I do have my asexual's orientation brought up in a "Reason You Suck" Speech!

Hooray!

edited 16th Apr '11 12:23:06 PM by MrAHR

Wouldn't that be a strength? No romantic distractions?

Ahh doesn't matter for my character, he is Jason's Heterosexual Life-Partner. All he needs is friendship.

Man, I need to work on my book more...

Oh. Let me explain. He and the speech giver were both trying to kill each other, both pretty much insulting each other and tearing each other at every opportunity.

And no orientation is a strength or a weakness. All have pros and cons.

edited 16th Apr '11 12:34:14 PM by MrAHR

I think Asexual is the lack of orientation and sexual attraction/feelings anyway.

I would think that someone could focus on other things and not needing romantic love in their life would be really great actually.

maybe that is just me tho

You are implying that others cannot focus on it at all. As if people who do experience attraction are somehow barred from doing anything that doesn't involve hormones.

That's not what I meant. I was saying if anything it would be a strength as a person might be more productive. If I saw someone insult a friend for being asexual I would just laugh at how stupid the thought of making fun of an asexual person is.

Hormones/sex would be one less factor for someone with a very busy schedule like most heroes have. Ask spider man for example.

One less thing to hamper production of what? A successful life? That's a rather subjective thing, ain't it?

I mean, males don't have menstruation. Does that make them far more productive, and thus un-insultable?

I didn't think of that, I was merely pointing out that it gives them one less thing to worry about.

For heroes and people who have to sacrifice pretty much all of their lives, a common thing in fiction, would benefit from no emotional attachments like love. Why do you think Jedi forbid it? In Buffy the Vampire Slayer love caused so much trouble for Buffy and even almost made Willowd destroy the world once granted Xander with his confession of love.. somewhat stopped her, that or him making her break down, she used to have feelings for him

My point is, for a hero not worrying about sex and love is a BIG bonus, and in the case of a lot of fiction it would be a plus in production. As for women, that part is often over looked in most fiction, and if addressed, that isn't all the time like people are with sex and love.

Now a woman character in pre-menopause, oh god, that would be bad (I live with a woman in pre-menopause and it can be complete hell on earth at times).

But one benefit does not mean that it's completely uninsultable.

Especially when romance doesn't affect the main course of the plot, or at least not to that big of a degree.

In my opinion insulting someone for having no sexual feelings at all is redundant; I can't see anyone making fun of them,

To me it would be like making fun of someone for not enjoying eating.

It just doesn't make sense how it could possibly even be a bad thing; I know of no stigma against asexual people.

"They are abnormal freaks of nature that can't get it up and have no interest in sex, the thing the world practically runs on, and how can they feel anything at all if they don't even find people attractive?"

See, when you're writing different characters, you have to give them different perspectives. Nobody cares what you (general) think. They care what the characters think.

idk, just doesn't seem that insulting to me, but maybe if i knew the character it might be more insulting. out of context it looks like a flimsly insult. that is assuming the character isn't bothered by asexuality though.

edit: I may be confusing asexuality with being also aromantic at the same time. sorry kinda assumed most of the time if one is aseuxal they are also aromantic, I didnt think of this.

edited 16th Apr '11 4:32:13 PM by jasonwill2

Nick - the reason Willow stops for Xander is that they grew up together, and were, for a lot of that time, the only friends either of them had. The "she used to have feelings for him" really pails in comparison to the strength of their friendship. That's the bond that matters. The other one merely came out of it, and is, as Willow confesses, just a phase. Willow was killing people, and Xander still wanted to be there with her when the world ended. It's the friendship that counts. I really think, judging by how you've talked in this thread, that you place too much importance on that relationship. That it would make someone more likely to stick their neck out. That it would be a huge distraction. That Willow won't kill Xander because she had romantic feelings for him once, three years ago. None of this is true.

Idk i haven't seen it in a good while. I wasn't exactly sure.I just remember her crying as he said he'd be there for her and that "I love you" as she kept attacking him. Guess that threw me off. But still, she wanted to kill everyone because her girlfriend was shot.

Anyway... we are really getting way off topic

For example: in my current work, which follows a community of people entangled in global events beyond their control (leaving them no option but to get by as best they can under the circumstances), there are 3 lesbians, and one female bisexual (all in relationships) as well as a largeish number of heterosexual couples and a family group that practises "Scriptural Polygamy".

Due to the fact that we are seeing into their lives, their orientations (as evidenced by who their partners are) become obvious. While their orientation ("straight" or "gay") does not affect personality, it certainly affects who they are with, whose safety they worry about and who they rely on.

No different - as I said before - to characters in any other work being obviously married with (or without) kids.

As the community is pretty accepting, there's no need (in my work, anyway) for Reason You Suck Speeches or justifications of their orientation. They're not referred to as "the lesbian couple next door" or whatever. The lesbian women are not of the "butch dyke" stereotype (though one of them, if asked if a particular male friend is her partner, would probably jokingly say, "What? No, I'm a man-hating bull-dyke.")

They're just people in loving families rallying together against the metaphorical storm that surrounds them.

Their religious views and philosophies are more likely to have an impact on their behaviour than their sexuality - and even then, the different religions within the community are not going to cause friction between the characters.

I agree with you on that.

Morven hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to get at, and rather obviously failed to say properly, which is my own fault. I'm not saying that orientation or any other trait should be important or always plot-relevant, but it shouldn't seem like it was just tacked on, either, or written in such a way that it's obvious it's not something the author is actually comfortable with writing. It, like just about every character trait handled by a competent and invested author, should simply be part of that character, not be that character, it shouldn't define them by itself unless that was specifically being aimed for. It annoys me when I watch TV shows where it's obvious that that's what the writers have done: the character's sexuality is the only thing that defines them as a character - it is their only trait that is meant to catch the viewer's attention, and it annoys the hell out of me (and I'm sure many others). Basically Camp Gay characters seem shoehorned in to me, most of the time.

I've decided I will provide my example, as I am seeing some excellent ones, especially that one there: , among others.

The world I'm writing is Medieval and pre-Medieval Japan, about which concrete information is usually either scarce or in abundance on a narrow aspect of the lives that played out. I've managed to find and buy some damn good sources that are far more comprehensive than your average history textbook, and focus only on those time periods. Here's my example, but please try to keep the time period in mind (opulence and manipulation of state leading to a protracted period of strife, civil war, and ever-changing territorial boundaries).

My main character is a bisexual woman, and her true Love Interest is a lesbian noblewoman. The two meet during the main character's time as a sex-worker trying to get out of poverty. The main character is a peasant by birth, and the noblewoman is the shipped-off daughter of a very famous family who got sent away and put into a typical arranged marriage because she refused to help further her family's position within the imperial court (her family is hoping to "cure her of her foolishness"). Sexual relationships between men (or men and boys) during this time were extremely common, and even portrayed as ideal, as well as a rite of passage for a young boy to take on a mentor (who gave the boy affections and training in return for loyalty and devotion). And the relationships between the men get all the literary attention (in the translated works that I have read, I haven't seen more than a vieled, possible mention of female-female relationships).

But, getting back to my characters. The noblewoman will do her "wifely duty," but she hates it, and her husband is a suspicious sort of man, who would be very curious as to why his wife wAas hiring expensive female "entertainers" (a common euphemism for courtesans) only when he was away. So she goes, in secret, to the brothels in the city's "Pleasure Quarters," and hires women for a single night, or even two in a rare event. As she manages her husband's accounts, she can cover these smaller expenses more easily, and switches brothels and prostitutes constantly for two reasons: first, to avoid getting attached to one who then might become a liability, and second, if for any reason her husband visits the same brothel, she likely won't be remembered, nor will she be mentioned to him by mistake.

Relationships between two women, I've gathered from doing more scholarly-works-oriented research were actually perfectly fine, and relatively common due to men being away and women being often left alone together in apartments while their husbands or patriarchs were off at war. They were, from what I have read, mostly ignored.

As long as the women were of the same social class, that is. In the case of these two, their social classes are vastly different: a noblewoman of high birth and an "outcast-by-potentially-reparable-social-transgression" were not expected to meet, at any point in either's lives.

The noblewoman, by the time she meets the main character for a one-night stand, is very comfortable with her sexuality, and is Yamato Nadeshiko incarnate thanks to her upbringing. The main character, however, up to this point, has only been given male customers, never female, and she panicks, is very nervous, and slightly disgusted. She goes through with it anyway, because she wants the money, and she finds, after some awkwardness and small discussion, that she likes this female customer, and sleeping with her is surprisingly pleasurable. The noblewoman finds the girl's honesty about her uncertainty to be endearing, and decides she likes her. The main character is surprised at the feelings of sadness upon her having to leave in the morning, and is curious about why she hadn't thought about being with women before. She wonders about it quietly, and everyone is surprised when the woman comes back again, and asks specifically for her. She is secretly thrilled, and finds after many more visits (this time smuggled into the noblewoman's apartments to avoid any more contact at the same brothel) that she has fallen in love with the woman. The noblewoman, after a little more time, has also fallen in love with her, much to her surprise and hidden concern over the fact that this may just be a problem.

The rest of their relationship has already been summed up here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhhFMAw_zDuPKm38uzSG0.nty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110209154550AAVJC37

I've said my piece in this overly long...thing. That's my relationship, anyway. Please, keep going, I want to see more wonderful examples and discussion!

A few of the soldiers in my Rag Tag Bunch Of Misfits are gay, bi, or transsexual, but most of the time, it's brought up only once or twice (unless they're a Battle Couple).

I made an orientation chart, whoohoo!

I think that sometimes you just want to write something but have no interest in how relevant it is, I don't think a writter needs a reason to write anything at all, this includes gay (or any other sexual minority) characters.

The best-written gay characters (to my opinion) are Dumbledore (obviously from Harry Potter) and Shimotakatani (from Onegai Twins), the first isn't even "out of the closet" in the books, but Rowling did a good job at hinting his prefferences, the second one is even better, his homosexuality is even a plot point (and an important one), the best thing is that he isn't even "born gay", the guy actively decided to be gay (and later to stop).

@Mr. AHR: I like it, it's interesting, but... I can't really tell who's represented/depicted on it... Call me a dolt, but would you be so kind as to elaborate on its contents?

I think the word for people like Shimotakatani is bisexual. That's kind of a prerequisite to "choosing" to be gay and later "stopping". My use of scare quotes should tell you my opinion on the matter.

edited 17th Apr '11 1:06:23 PM by KillerClowns

Being bisexual myself, I agree with you. In that sense, bisexuals can "choose to stop" - if you're actually gay or straight, it can be an experimental period, or that the character has some degree of bisexuality as per the Kinsey Scale (or that other one...can't remember what it's called - more precise one)...But...yeah the scare quotes apply to my opinion, too. Well said.

Punkreader: Heheh. They are all my own characters, so it's only natural you wouldn't know who's who. I prolly shouldn't have posted it for that reason. ^_^;