Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[Copperdragon]

As has been said above, he wouldn't miss it because he was already incapable. That does not constitute sufficient evidence for asexuality. If he had been much younger at the time, then yes. Not, however, someone nearly at the end of their life anyway.

As I said above, he started as clear heterosexual but changed in between to asexual. We know he was asexual at the point he turned into a Lich (for whatever reason!) and becoming an undead abomination surely did not let the pendulum swing back again.
We are discussing what "is", not what was like 20 years ago when the characters were alive, teenagers, shapechanged into a fungus, etc...

Awesome smiley, btw. Makes you appear in a truly grand light for discussing stuff.

[Raineh Daze]

As I said above, he started as clear heterosexual but changed in between to asexual. We know he was asexual at the point he turned into a Lich (for whatever reason!) and becoming an undead abomination surely did not let the pendulum swing back again.
We are discussing what "is", not what was like 20 years ago when the characters were alive, teenagers, shapechanged into a fungus, etc...

So what you're saying is that because he eventually lost the capability, he lost any sort of desire or attraction? Um, no, it doesn't work like that. What you're saying is basically 'if you lose something, you lose interest in everything that requires it'. It really doesn't work like that (even with regards to Xykon: lost taste, has ended up substituting more murder for coffee).

[oppyu]

Point taken on most of this, but I do support the suggestion of adding a symbol (maybe "[E]" for experimentation?) to these instances of non-rigid heteronormativity. While it's important to label the character as they label themselves (and it seems like it would be "straight" for Elan and Nale), I really do think that these minor instances are to be recognised somehow.

4. I really think that having a part of your brain called "latent bisexuality" pretty much makes you bisexual, regardless of whether you act on it or not. Of course, that in itself also has some unfortunate implications (just like Sabine's bi/pansexuality, it's somewhat depressing that the most prominent LGBT+ characters are sexualised women).

A problem I have with an 'experimented' tag is how limited it would be. You pretty much have Nale, Haley and... Tsukiko accidentally molested a female corpse, so maybe that could count?... I think the fact that I typed the words 'molested a female corpse' means I should try to change the subject.

Regarding Haley, if my brain was broken down into split personalities, I don't think there'd be one called 'Oppyu's sexuality', whose sole purpose is to distract me with thoughts of licking cheesecake of the rippling abs of Hollywood stars. It's just my default setting, like my gender identity or my feelings towards boy bands (I hate them). If anything, the fact that there's only one part of Haley that supports latent bisexuality means that that part is inconsequentially strong compared to 'Haley's heterosexuality', or 'Haley's self-identification as a woman'.

[Serpentine]

I would suggest that if you wanted to be truly accurate, you would have to go from the other direction: "not Xsexual". Say, if you have a male character, and we have evidence that he's interested in women, then you could say he is not homosexual, but not for sure whether he's bi/pan- or heterosexual.

[Copperdragon]

So what you're saying is that because he eventually lost the capability, he lost any sort of desire or attraction?

No, I am not. I am saying, in this specific case, losing his fleshy parts made Xykon, over the years, lose his drive to use them. SoD is pretty clear about his reaction there.
You're thinking I make a general claim, which I do not. I make a specific claim and quote SoD for it.

But all this stuff aside: It totally does not matter at all as the Xykon we're seeing now (since #1) does not show any sexual interest at all in anyone. If you argue Xykon wasn't devoid of sexuality, I ask you to provide proof from within the comic. Else I find it more likely the guy who said "Pah, I do not need it anymore" and who now is an undead abomination doesn't have an interest in sex anymore.
Bring Proof or Occam's Razor has cut of all balls.

[Raineh Daze]

I would think the burden of proof is on your side, actually. Lack of sexual activity does not constitute proof of sexual orientation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Occam's Razor? Let's see, which is simpler: his sexual orientation has changed, or he's just stopped expressing desires he can't act on? I'd say the second one.

[Copperdragon]

Occam's Razor? Let's see, which is simpler: his sexual orientation has changed, or he's just stopped expressing desires he can't act on? I'd say the second one.

Then we disagree. Which is fine, as the question is actually without any real relevancy.

I just think you're wrong in interpreting SoD and very, very wrong on what you think an "Undead Abomination devoid of all that makes life worth living" actually is.
But as this is a pure matter of opinion and interpretation without any solid proof*, I do not see a problem at all.

* Apart from Xykon showing now sexual interest at all for 882 strips.

[Syncro]

I'm pretty sure both Haley and Belkar are bi-sexual

Xykon seems to be asexual, not really giving any concern to romantic affairs, I mean he could be an evilsexual

Vaarsuvius probably doesn't reallt care about gender considering he/she doesn't even know the sexual qualities of a male or female( didn't notice Roy changed gender)

The different characers in OOTs usually desire different forms of relationships for example Malack desired a "brotherly" relationship, that of a scholar he talk to intellectually, Sabien usually craves a purely sexual relationship, Elan displays a healthy desire for both platonic and romantic companionship ect

[Raineh Daze]

I just think you're wrong in interpreting SoD and very, very wrong on what you think an "Undead Abomination devoid of all that makes life worth living" actually is.
But as this is a pure matter of opinion and interpretation without any solid proof*, I do not see a problem at all.

Let's see: Xykon can't be an Undead Abomination, since humans aren't classified as abominations.

More specifically: a person that happens to be a living corpse, with all the attendant thoughts and feelings, just with the disadvantage of, you know, being an animate skeleton.

Asexuality is one of those things that pretty much needs to be spelled out, not assumed from a lack of action.

[Cizak]

Xykon HAS sexual attraction in SOD. He briefly gets to describe what he would do to the demon waitress if he was 50 younger before Redcloak shuts him down. I interpret this as that he still thinks about sexual stuff, but knows he's not able to do it anymore. He's okay with losing his fleshy parts because "it hasn't moved on its own in 16 years", not because he doesn't feel lust anymore.

[hamishspence]

In D&D, succubi and incubi are the same creature. Sabine could have just as easily self-identified as male, called himself an incubus and taken on a primarily male form, and he would have had the exact same powers and plot relevance as she has as a female.

Dragon Magazine introduced an incubus, with different powers (Demonomicon: Malcanthet).

4E also took the approach that they were different (for one thing, incubi are demons and succubi devils, in that- though the first incubi were succubi that had been transformed by the Abyss).

[Thrax]

Shouldn't the original Linear Guild kobold (whose name eludes me) be marked as straight? We've seen one evidence of a heterosexual activity (offspring) and no evidence of any homosexual activities, so it counts as straight in my book.

[137beth]

I'm really surprised no one has pointed this out, but...

The most important group lead by a female was the order of the stick, when Roy was dead.

[Raineh Daze]

I'm really surprised no one has pointed this out, but...

The most important group lead by a female was the order of the stick, when Roy was dead.

Because Belkar is clearly sufficient to count as a group.

[137beth]

Because Belkar is clearly sufficient to count as a group.

Before the end of war and xp, the other five OOTS members were together, and Haley was still the leader. That is a group.

[Raineh Daze]

That's really stretching the definition of leading.

[Copperdragon]

Let's see: Xykon can't be an Undead Abomination, since humans aren't classified as abominations.

More specifically: a person that happens to be a living corpse, with all the attendant thoughts and feelings, just with the disadvantage of, you know, being an animate skeleton.

On what Xykon is (not a big spoiler as we all know what he is):
To quote Xykon: "irredeemable state of utter depravity"
To quote Redcloak: "life draining mockery of all that is beautiful"

Really, that's an undead abomination (not in the sense of rules). He was horrible as living person but SoD makes a point in showing that he went much further than that after becoming undead.

But I think we were done talking about this. ;)

[SowZ]

On what Xykon is (not a big spoiler as we all know what he is):
To quote Xykon: "irredeemable state of utter depravity"
To quote Redcloak: "life draining mockery of all that is beautiful"

Really, that's an undead abomination (not in the sense of rules). He was horrible as living person but SoD makes a point in showing that he went much further than that after becoming undead.

But I think we were done talking about this. ;)

Also, when there were three AC resistances, one of them was lead by a woman. I don't like bringing this up a second time, but in response to 'we haven't seen any gay people,' we have the Cliffport police officer.

[MaximKat]

Strip #1.

The fact that he is the leader of the group doesn't make him the main character of the story.

[AngryHobbit]

"Straight, undead" should be enough for explaining Xykon's sexuality.

Xykon is very tricky to classify, because he was never in a real relationship.

Sentient undead are (probably, we never had examples in the comic) capable of loving, even if they are incapable of having sex. If a vampire, ghost or a lich is in love with someone or attracted to someone you could easily say he's gay, straight or bi, no matter if he can or can't sleep with that person.

But Xykon was, even when he was still alive, incapable of loving someone. Only thing that defined his sexuality is his sex urge, which he lost after becoming the lich.
But I would still count him as straight.

Or maybe all undead are asexual? Giant probably doesn't think or cares about stuff like undead character's sex life.

The fact that he is the leader of the group doesn't make him the main character of the story.

Aren't all 6 the main characters?

[137beth]

That's really stretching the definition of leading.

How? It is made clear that after Roy dies, she is the new leader of the order of the stick, at least until they split up. After which point she directly leads the group of herself, Belkar, and Celia. What could possibly be less stretchy than that

[Raineh Daze]

How? It is made clear that after Roy dies, she is the new leader of the order of the stick, at least until they split up. After which point she directly leads the group of herself, Belkar, and Celia. What could possibly be less stretchy than that

Being the de jure leader of a group that promptly disintegrates for all of half an hour is the issue: she didn't really get much leading done.

[Mutant Sheep]

Being the de jure leader of a group that promptly disintegrates for all of half an hour is the issue: she didn't really get much leading done.

She was the Leader though. Samantha didn't do much leading in the Bandit group, she just told them to kidnap cute guys. The actual engagements (and probably the rest of the logistics, she doesn't seem the type) were left up to her not-loony-teenager Neutral father. She was the Leader though. If nothing else, Haley did have the position.

[AngryHobbit]

5: When I say love interest, it's not so much romantic attachment as 'romance depicted in comic'. Inkyrius is a sparsely-mentioned minor character/one-scene-wonder we see in two or three strips, and we never see any courtship or attachment. On the other hand, Therkla, while never being with Elan, was often shown on-panel with him and had an emotional subplot regarding her feelings for him.

By that logic we shouldn't list Hylgia either.

I really don't want to look for that comic, but before introducing Inky, V talks about love and relationships (describing shim as "mate"). So he/she's (I always tought that V is female, and Inky male, with V as dominant partner, but that's not the topic here) not just one scene wonder, they are/were married, they have children (although adopted), and that makes I important enough to list him as love interest.

How? It is made clear that after Roy dies, she is the new leader of the order of the stick, at least until they split up. After which point she directly leads the group of herself, Belkar, and Celia. What could possibly be less stretchy than that

group of herself, Belkar, and Celia (Celia is not even a member of OOTS) < Azure city resistance

[MaximKat]

Aren't all 6 the main characters?

That's why I was pointing out that it's incorrect to call Roy "main protagonist" and the rest - "supporting".

[skaddix]

Yeah Roy is main. Elan is secondary

[SowZ]

The fact that he is the leader of the group doesn't make him the main character of the story.

No, but the main plot revolving around his ancestral quest, the group admitting that most of the things they do are for Roy's motivations, Roy getting more screentime than anyone else, and Roy being the most active protagonist are what makes him the main character. Him being the leader does help in being the main character, though.

[Souju]

1. Because it is everywhere. It is the absence of decent female and LGBT characters and issues in the media which is unrealistic, not its presence.
2. Why shouldn't it be?
3. What would be your preferred alternative? Invisibility?
4. Because people like to read about characters they can relate to and subjects they are interested in, and many people - queer or otherwise - relate to queer characters and enjoy queer subjects.

Take your pick

Alright I'll break this down one by one:
1) "Everywhere" is subjective and/or relative. I've personally met quite a few LGBT people and have one or two LGBT pseudo-relatives, and one of my college friends is strongly LGBT, but I don't SEE it everywhere because it rarely comes up in my own life. I'm not part of some sheltered community, or anything like that, it's just not something I actively seek out. It's actually a common logical fallacy: Because we're ingrained into our own communities and worldviews, we believe that something we either love or despise is "everywhere" when really it's no more prevalent than people who like pineapple on their pizza (which, incidentally, may fall into one of both categories). I'm not saying LGBT is more or less common than people who like pineapple on their pizza as I don't really have the statistics for the latter, but the point is just because it's common in your life, doesn't mean it's truly common for the larger world, or for the person standing next to you at the very least. It may be "everywhere" you go, but it's not "everywhere" "everyone" goes, in other words. Sci Fi nerds, comic book geeks, and polka music fans have to learn this lesson the hard way. I can't remember the exact name of the fallacy, but it's the same one that tells our minds that flying is unsafe because of a single deadly plane crash, or that child abductors are everywhere because of three reported kidnapping cases on Nancy Grace. LGBT is kind of like...pelicans. You can go to a beach and see a flock of seagulls, but you might only see one or two, or maybe a half dozen or so, pelicans. That's not to say there aren't a lot of pelicans, and if two people got attacked there'd probably be a report about the rising pelican epidemic. Since there were three pelicans at the beach instead of two, that means a 50% increase in pelican population! Also the pelicans will snatch our children away in the night because they have those scooping bills!


2) Here's where I talk about writing: Write what you know. Since the majority of people in English speaking nations don't really identify as LGBT, they can't necessarily write from an LGBT perspective. There are some that can and do, of course, but sometimes that can cause issues. In writing, writing outside your realm of knowledge can turn into either spouting off about crap you know nothing about or you get the "token minority" aspect. Rich is male and straight. It's not a far fetched idea that, since he has the most experience with being a straight male, he writes straight males. That's not to say writers shouldn't break away from what they know and try something new, but it's an extremely daunting prospect, as the further outside your realm of knowledge you get, the more difficult it can be to come up with something that doesn't offend people. Offend being very loose in this case, as I refer just as much to portraying a lazy Mexican as I do to kanji being a "secret asian language." Or my pizza topping comment from before.

3) Nope. Well, it's not my story. If it's a "cast full of gay," "cast full of straight with token LGBT," or "two asexual guys and a robot named Jack who switches between genders at literally the push of a button," it doesn't matter as long as it's a good story. (Hell, that last one would probably intrigue me on concept alone...) I don't like to dwell on these things (but I can).

4) This goes both ways. People like to read about what they relate to, but people like to WRITE what they can relate to as well. In the end, "write what you know" isn't just a piece of advice tossed around to keep writers on the straight and narrow as far as knowing what they're talking about, it's something we unconsciously do as well. It's why fetish fuel is so prominent in works of fiction too, since it's rather easy to observe and write about your own kinks than something you have no experience with. It's also why you can look at an authors work and notice distinct similarities between different books even if the setting and characters are ostensibly different. An example would be Charles Dickens' apparent love of the contrived coincidence trope. Also, while pleasing the audience is normal, if authors did everything they could to please every aspect of every member of their audience, they'd never get anything done because they need to make absolutely sure there are just as many women named as men and that they all have equal roles and at least one character needs to be a brony and...ugh! It just doesn't work. So they "write what [they] know."

Now, once again, it's not that I don't think LGBT fiction should exist, or that LGBT characters shouldn't be present in a story, far from it. I, well, I don't really care about the characters' sexual preferences as long as it's a good story. It's just the expectation that everything should follow some nebulous set of representation guidelines that irks me. My whole argument, by the way, doesn't really apply towards portrayals of women, though, as they really ARE underrepresented in media as a whole despite comprising half the population of the human race. But again, see above...people write what they know, and if men truly knew women and vice versa, the relationship section of bookstores would be empty.
Why can't we just enjoy a story for what it is, rather than what we want it to be?
(whew)

[Shadowknight12]

A problem I have with an 'experimented' tag is how limited it would be. You pretty much have Nale, Haley and... Tsukiko accidentally molested a female corpse, so maybe that could count?... I think the fact that I typed the words 'molested a female corpse' means I should try to change the subject.

And Elan. That's a third of the Order of the Stick, a third of the Linear Guild, and you can safely ignore Tsukiko. You can even add a [E?] tag for Belkar (if he sees V as male and he stilled kissed V, that does count as experimentation/bicuriosity). That would make the tag applicable to half the Order. I wouldn't scoff at that.

Regarding Haley, if my brain was broken down into split personalities, I don't think there'd be one called 'Oppyu's sexuality', whose sole purpose is to distract me with thoughts of licking cheesecake of the rippling abs of Hollywood stars. It's just my default setting, like my gender identity or my feelings towards boy bands (I hate them). If anything, the fact that there's only one part of Haley that supports latent bisexuality means that that part is inconsequentially strong compared to 'Haley's heterosexuality', or 'Haley's self-identification as a woman'.

That is an excellent (and evocative) rationale, but the fact that it exists and is told to "go back to the corner" means it's an attraction Haley does feel, but suppresses for whatever reasons (comedic reasons, from a meta point of view, so we can have jokes about it). I wouldn't call her "bisexual" but it does matter. That part of her brain exists on some level.

Why can't we just enjoy a story for what it is, rather than what we want it to be?

This always crops up, always, whenever we try to breach this subject. I frequent a gaming forum, where I take a very strong feminist (almost radfem) stance on the inclusion of women in the gaming industry, and I see that exact phrase over and over. And what I read is "Why can't you go back to being quiet and stop making us feel guilty that we're enjoying something that marginalises you?"

Nobody is going to lambast you for enjoying a story that is imperfect in some area. All stories are imperfect in some area, so if we set such ridiculous high standards, we couldn't enjoy any stories, period. Enjoying something does not mean we shouldn't speak of what it could do better, or analyse it to see what it got right and what it got wrong.

Nobody is doing this because we loathe the Giant, or his comic, or because we expect him to do anything about it (especially not when we're already past the halfway point and it's unlikely major characters will be introduced). We do it because some people, shock of shocks, love analysing and discussing the media they consume (and enjoy). This very forum should show ample evidence of that.

EDIT:

Dragon Magazine introduced an incubus, with different powers (Demonomicon: Malcanthet).

4E also took the approach that they were different (for one thing, incubi are demons and succubi devils, in that- though the first incubi were succubi that had been transformed by the Abyss).

And this is terrible. Way to go, WotC. We can't have dudes doing the same thing succubi do. That would be icky and gross. Mhm.

[SowZ]

This always crops up, always, whenever we try to breach this subject. I frequent a gaming forum, where I take a very strong feminist (almost radfem) stance on the inclusion of women in the gaming industry, and I see that exact phrase over and over. And what I read is "Why can't you go back to being quiet and stop making us feel guilty that we're enjoying something that marginalises you?"

Nobody is going to lambast you for enjoying a story that is imperfect in some area. All stories are imperfect in some area, so if we set such ridiculous high standards, we couldn't enjoy any stories, period. Enjoying something does not mean we shouldn't speak of what it could do better, or analyse it to see what it got right and what it got wrong.

Nobody is doing this because we loathe the Giant, or his comic, or because we expect him to do anything about it (especially not when we're already past the halfway point and it's unlikely major characters will be introduced). We do it because some people, shock of shocks, love analysing and discussing the media they consume (and enjoy). This very forum should show ample evidence of that.

Here's the rub, though. Some stories work better with mostly men, some with mostly women, and most could probably be told fine with either. The author shouldn't feel obligated to tell either kind of story. You have every right to object to a lack of representation of women in a particular type of media. Or a lack of homosexuality. That's fine. Eventually, the market will fill that role because publishers will see there is money to be made in publishing it for that niche. Eventually it might even get normalized in the culture at large. Media plays a big part in that, which is cool.

What one shouldn't do is get upset that the author isn't actively telling those kinds of stories or actively normalizing women as characters/homosexuality/etc. IF the author is perpetuating stereotypes or somehow acting prejudiced towards women, gay persons, etc. sure, get mad. Point it out. But if the author just happens to focus on straight, male characters? That is perfectly fine. The author has every right to do that as much as another author has every right to focus on female, gay characters.

If you think that most stories are about straight men and that is why authors should try and shy away from it, that is an argument that you find the story less interesting or cliche. Not an argument that the author is doing anything immoral. Because an artist shouldn't have to limit the type of art they do based on the time period they live in and what is normalized.

(It goes both ways. The author should feel free to tell stories about things that are or aren't normalized.) A lot of it is market, too, not any insidiousness. The demographic of D&D players is going to include more straight males than anything else. Same with video games. The publishers could capture a larger portion of the female or homosexual market by representing it more, sure. But there is more financial risk in trying to capture a new market.

So, as for video games, I think it is fair to call foul that a given franchise is sexually exploitative of its female characters or has lots of stupid women without smart women, or portrays homosexuals as a joke or as overly cliched. It is not fair to call foul just because a franchise doesn't focus on women or gay people. It is fair to say you aren't interested in buying it, though.

Shoot, an author can have few women in leadership roles or LGBT feelings that are suppressed or rarely shown even in a fantasy or sci-fi universe because the author is trying to mirror the real world with his fiction, not create an idealized world. There doesn't even have to be some greater theme to the author showing men/women/gay/straight in certain roles other than that is how the author views the world. In lots of places and industries, men dominate them. I'm not saying its good, but I often hear people cry foul when an author represents that in some sort of fantasy world.