Emotional Investment in Games aka Why We Were so Disappointed in Mass Effect 2, part three or so

Illustrations are gratuitous Asari pinups, as that is a search term that has been used to find this blag. We like giving the Internet what it asks for.

Naked Asari

The text is a pretty incoherent response to playing Mass Effect 2 which I composed when it first came out but never put down anywhere.

I'm a girl. I'm a girl gamer. I enjoy shooting things in the head with my space rifle. I enjoy saving the world with a kick-ass hero. I enjoy having an option for that hero to be a woman who gets to do all things that the male hero does. In short, I really like Commander Shepard.

I also like having love stories and personal relationships in games. Maybe that's girly, I don't care. I want the kick-ass, and I want the fluff. I want true role playing. I want my choices to count.

I really (mostly) liked how they did relationships in Mass Effect 1. You weren't forced into a relationship, you could choose whether to flirt (or respond to flirting). You only had three options, sure, and limited queer or alien options, but you get an almost-lesbian relationship with an alien, and that's a big first.

My choice, still, was Kaidan, a human man. I love Kaidan. Yes, I know, but I do. I liked him as a love interest. I found it sad that he was limited to being the possible love interest for the female Shepard only, but I could deal with that. (That's what fan fiction is for, after all;)

The relationship story arc was fulfilling, you had the choice of flirting with him or not, you weren't pushed into a relationship, and you got to have a sex scene! That was something new.

Uncensored version

And then we get Mass Effect 2. The gang's all there, in the beginning you get to continue from where you left off, in the game as in the relationship and... yeah, here come the spoilers, but as the third game is out already, I figure you can deal with them.

Then you die, and wake up in what appears to be an alternate universe, but everyone else seems to be in denial about this. My co-bloggers have addressed this issue already, so I'll concentrate on why the game was so unfulfilling emotionally, in the context of the first game. (Not saying anything about the cardboard cutouts that you are offered as love interests in this game, nor about the fan service of Garrus and Tali.) (After all, nothing you said to either one during the first game affects how they behave in the second one at all. Garrus is a crazy vigilante in any case, and Tali is as crazy and genocidal as ever.)

Mostly Naked Asari

You had (if you had) this deep connection with another person in the previous game, and as much as all of the relationship options spelled out that this might have been just a one-off, I would expect to get *some* reaction from the love interest in the next game.

Kaidan sends you an e-mail. When you meet him, he's the only one who finds it wrong that you're working with your old enemy, the Cerberus, and I was yelling, 'Thank you! I thought I was alone in this! Let me come back to the Alliance with you!' Do I get to do that? No. I get to invite him to join the terrorist organisation with me. "It'll be just like old times." What? I wonder he didn't deck me.

And then he sends you an e-mail saying 'maybe'. Maybe you could continue your relationship at some future date. I survived for weeks on that e-mail.

I never went through a relationship with Ash because I found her attitude problem and xenophobia quite unappealing. But I gather she has a similar reaction. (Why? She would fit right in with these human supremacists.)

Another Naked Asari

What does Liara do? She's had a personality transplant, has given up her career as an archaeologist, and is organising assassinations. ...wait, what? She says, "Hi Shepard, heard you were alive after all, wanna help me choose which of my associates to murder?" The emotional connection, I can feel it.

Mass Effect has never been big on having your companions react to what's going on, but when my Shepard, having just seen her lover in for what for her was a few months, and for him two years and having been rejected by him, goes to talk to Garrus, who was around in the "old times"... what I wanted was a bloody hug, what I got was "Too busy to talk right now, come back later and I'll make a pass at you." Well, technically.

Full frontal nudity Asari

One thing they got right. If you choose to *not* romance any of the very straight love interest options you have, your last night before facing the Big End Fight is spent staring at Kaidan's (or who ever was your first game love interest) photo. Thank you. I felt that. I *felt* that. You managed to give me two moments of real emotional contact with the game. An e-mail and a photo.

Okay, Tali becoming officially part of your crew was touching but was ruined a bit (or a lot) by the fact that you could only achieve that by lying for her, losing important allies for nothing, and going along with her attitudes towards the geth. Doing it was out of character for my Shepard but for once I chose the game mechanic over the role playing (which, admittedly, is usually mostly in my head because the games don't support it) - I wanted her loyalty.

Another Naked Asari

After finishing Mass Effect 2 I told people that the only thing that would make me want to buy Mass Effect 3 was if it gave me an option of getting back with Kaidan, and/or allowing the queer options.

...

Wait, they did what?

Oh damn.

Well, at least I'm buying it used.

Kony, Jenna Talackova and Trayvon Martin

What does an Internet campaign to stop an African warlord have in common with a trans woman barred from a beauty contest and a black teenager murdered in cold blood by a vigilante? Simple: they're all symptoms of what may be our biggest problem as a society and a culture.

In each case, we react when presented with an individual example of injustice, but ignore the wider context. We enthusiastically share the Kony video, but does anyone care why people like him can run riot in Africa? Probably the single biggest reason is the poverty of most of the continent, which leaves governments powerless. One of the chief causes of that poverty is the agricultural policy of us, the world's developed nations. The majority of Africans are farmers, but we won't let them export their surplus to us. Instead, we subsidize farmers in the West to over-produce food, which we then dump on the world market, driving African subsistence farmers deeper into poverty. Is this even mentioned in, say, discussions on agricultural policy in the West? Nope. Indeed, most of the people I saw going on about Kony think that buying domestically grown produce and "supporting our farmers" is virtuous.

It's heartening that the Trayvon case has stirred up such an outcry. But most of the questions being asked are secondary or irrelevant. The real question isn't stand your ground laws or whether the shooter should have been arrested. The question is: how have you managed to create an environment where a suburban vigilante makes thousands of 911 calls solely to report black men in his neighborhood, shoots one of them for no reason, and not only avoids arrest but has his story unquestioningly believed by the police, who publicly defend him? The question isn't if a particular law or an individual police officer of department is at fault, or even the moronic question of whether the vigilante in question was a racist. It's how incredibly racist your society has to be for this whole sequence of events to unfold at all.

How does Jenna Talackova tie into this? As empirical proof. I offer you this tweet from the formidable Natalie Reed: "Miss Universe Canada petition got 20,000 signatures, Bill C-279 petition only 280. I really, really, really, REALLY hate humanity right now." Bill C-279 is a trans rights bill that you can read about here. So about a hundred times more people support trans rights than... support trans rights. Again, people think that a given individual shouldn't be mistreated because she's a trans woman, but they won't support a bill to end that mistreatment.

Part of the problem is psychological. As my co-blogger put it: "our brains can't multiply". We can, if we choose,empathize with a single individual, but we're really bad at empathy with a group. But it's more than that. The same reaction comes up all the time, in just about every political discussion; the copyright system, police brutality (especially the American practice of senseless SWAT raids and wholesale murdering of dogs), racism, corruption. Confronted with an individual example, people will decry and condemn it, but balk at any suggestion that there could possibly be a wider, even structural, problem. It goes far beyond sensible caution of sweeping political reforms; it's a wholesale denial of the very possibility that we might live in a society where systemic injustice happens.

In my opinion, it's simply a psychological defense mechanism that protects people from having to ask themselves difficult questions about the world they live in. It's hard to think about big political questions. Much easier to live in a fairy-tale world where society is fundamentally good and sound, and all problems are caused by evil individuals. Makes for better Hollywood movies, too. The problem is that it also leads people to passively condone, or even actively support, policies and structures that directly harm the people that they claim to sympathize with.

Sweden and Finland still enforcing mandatory sterilization

There's been a campaign going on in Sweden for a good while to change a law that requires people undergoing a sex change to be sterilized (read more here). Unfortunately, the Swedish Christian Democrat party is stopping the reform from happening. Meanwhile, in Finland, we have an identical law, but no-one cares, so there isn't even a campaign against it.

There was a pretty good text on the whole thing here, and I blogged about the Finnish legislation earlier (in Finnish) here.

Beverly LaHaye and lesbians

I'm reading Michael Lienesch's Redeeming America, an excellent book about the Christian right in the United States.

It features several quotes from Beverly LaHaye, a Christian conservative activist and wife of Tim LaHaye, co-author of the dispensationalist book series Left Behind. They've both written several self-help guides for Christian couples, covering everything from child raising to sex positions, all in a very Christian way, of course. Here are some of her thoughts:

Thus Beverly LaHaye goes on to warn single women about the attractions of lesbianism: "Beware of an improper physical attachment between you and your roommates. Sad to say, this sometimes happens in today's world, especially if one is lonely, overly affectionate, and lacks a sense of security." In fact, there is a presumption that single women are often lesbians.

Lienesch 1993, p. 71

When I read that, I hear the actress who played Sister Miriam in Alpha Centauri reading it out loud in my head. That would be a fantastic introduction for a porno.

"Lesbianism lurks in the colonies as it lurked in the sororities of yesteryear. But it was never the sororities that were evil."

- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "A Blessed Struggle"

There's more, too. Not only is Beverly LaHaye deeply concerned about young women being drawn to the attractions of lesbianism, but she also pays close attention to young girls' breasts:

Beverly LaHaye is particularly interested in alerting teenage girls to their own seductiveness. She writes reprovingly:

I have seen lovely girls conduct themselves in such a manner that they turn fellows on and cause them to have problems with lust and evil thoughts. One charming lady was walking out of church with her hand in her date's arm and was very carelessly allowing her breast to rub against the boy.

It's good that the Christian Conservative movement has someone who lectures young women on the attractions of lesbianism, while keeping a firm eye on their unruly bosoms.

Helsinki Pride - this year, a big deal

The Helsinki Pride parade is this weekend; to be specific, tomorrow at 13:00 local time. The parade starts at the Senate square. If you're in Helsinki, be there, because this is a big deal.

Homophobia is having a bit of a resurgence here in Finland. Last year, the parade was attacked with tear gas by a tiny bunch of homophobes from somewhere up north, and since then, we've gotten a rabidly anti-gay interior minister and a huge growth in support for a Christian conservative party at the polls. In order to get the Christian democrats on board in the new coalition government, they jettisoned gender-neutral marriage for the next four-year term.

So all in all, we're going through a bit of a backlash against sexual liberation here. In view of that, and especially because of the terrorist attack last year, it's important to show support for the cause. I'll be there.

Great news from Finland

Last Tuesday, the Finnish government TV channel held a televised debate on gay rights and religion. The state church was represented by the bishop of Tampere, and also attending was Finnish Christian Democrat MP Päivi Räsänen. The frank discussion of gay rights led to an immediate result: over the last week, 15,000 people have left the Finnish state church. (HS)

This is nothing short of wonderful: the best way to get people to abandon organized Christianity is to get a bishop of the state church and a Christian MP on TV to talk about their opinions. I definitely hope they attend more TV debates.

Of course, the more liberal Christian circles are upset, as they feel that these people are misrepresenting the church and its ideas. I'm not entirely sure that's the case. From a historical perspective, the Christian church is built on 2,000 years of an aggressive hatred of anything they consider deviant. I realize there are lots of Christians who want to turn their church in a different direction, but the fact remains that for the entirety of its history, the cross has stood for intolerance and repression. Even today, for every progressive theologian who wants the church to tolerate gays and lesbians, there are at least ten angry and intolerant conservatives who hate fags.

Another way of looking at the recent boom of church-quitting is that this really reveals just how Christian the Finnish people are. For the vast majority of Finland's independence, practically all Finnish children were baptised into the Church on birth, this author included. Not belonging to a religion was actually illegal until 1923, and laws on blasphemy are still in force today.

All this led to an atmosphere where it was assumed that everyone belonged to the church, but religion never played a large part in everyday life. Belonging to the church was just something one was expected to do. These days, the church can be openly criticized, and more and more people are actually facing the facts of what the church really stands for, and finding they don't actually believe it. So in a sense, the discussion on gay rights isn't so much causing people to become averse to the church as exposing that they didn't believe in what the church peddles in the first place.

On the whole, these are some of the best news we've had all year. It's a wonderful testament to how far tolerance and even a kind of liberalism have spread that the best way to do anti-church propaganda is to get its representatives to talk about themselves.

Homophobia

As we've just had a spot of homophobic terrorism right here in the good F-I of Nland, I thought I'd remind people of where homophobia seems to originate.

There have, in fact, been a number of studies that show a clear link between a person's level of homophobia and the sexual arousal they feel from seeing gay porn, like this one. In a nutshell, there's empirical proof that suggests that homophobia in men comes down to an inability to handle one's own sexual urges.

Funnily, that makes stories like this Onion piece not only entertaining but borderline factual.

Gay conversion therapy

British Medical Association labels gay conversion therapy harmful, discredited

Following a year-long undercover investigation by a reporter, the British Medical Association has determined that “gay conversion therapy” is not therapy, is more harmful to patients than helpful, and should be banned.

Journalist Patrick Strudwick posed as a patient seeking “gay conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy” for a year. In his report on his experience, he described what amounted to psychological torture; Strudwick went to two conversion therapists. One, a Christian, focused on turning him to focus on her god and tried hard to convince Strudwick he’d been sexually abused. The other focused on explaining to Strudwick that he was somehow “wounded”, and that he had to find the source of those “wounds” to discover the roots of his sexuality.

Both of these “therapists” were licensed and receiving funds via the NHS. Strudwick learned that they use methods created by Joseph Nicolosi, the Christian Evangelical American founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Receiving funds via the NHS.

It's very fashionable to laugh about Christian fundamentalism in Europe, because it's something those wacky Americans do, and they're all idiots anyway. Maybe we should look a little harder at what's going on around here, too.

Gay Pride rally attacked in Helsinki

The fairly short list of terrorist acts in Finland just got a new entry.

According to Helsingin Sanomat, a bunch of nutcases attacked the Gay Pride rally in Helsinki last Saturday. They threw flares or smoke bombs at the marchers, and proceeded to spray the column with tear gas and pepper spray while shouting abuse.

As of this writing, three people are under arrest, and some half a dozen others are being investigated. The perpetrators are from all over Finland, so I'm guessing this was planned online. I know we have racist web forums; are there dedicated homophobic ones as well?

Some thirty people were exposed to the gas, with the youngest being an eleven-month old baby whose parents were watching the rally. The police are investigating this as multiple assault, but with Finnish legislation and sentencing the way it is, it's almost certain none of them will go to prison or face any real repercussions.

There's no two ways about it: this is terrorism. Attacking people at a public rally like this is despicable, especially considering what the rally was for. The idea of someone having a sexuality different from yours is grounds for violence? That's appalling.

Finland is a bit weird when it comes to sexual diversity. On the one hand, we are, by and large, a fairly open-minded country about these things. On the other hand, the cult of masculinity is incredibly strong here. For comparison, Stockholm had a turnout of 50,000 people for their Pride rally. Helsinki? 5,000. And I do think there's a reason for that. It's worth remembering that gay sex was a crime in Finland until the 1970s. Blasphemy is still a crime.

There are some ugly political trends in Finland these days, and one of them just went off the deep end. It's disgusting that on the day of the attack, the chairman of the Finnish Christian party said that her party is "willing to fight" against gender-neutral marriage in Finland. I see some of her fellow ideologists did.

Better parenting through lesbianism

Earlier this month, this study came out:

CNN: Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests

A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.

The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.

Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the author of the study, wrote that the "funding sources played no role in the design or conduct of the study."

"My personal investment is in doing reputable research," said Gartrell. "This is a straightforward statistical analysis. It will stand and it has withstood very rigorous peer review by the people who make the decision whether or not to publish it."

Gay parenting remains a controversial issue, with debates about topics including the children's psychological adjustment, their parents' sexual orientation and adoption restrictions.

Hilariously, the conservatives are trying to discredit the study because of the funding it received from advocacy groups. While it's possible that Christian conservatives genuinely don't understand that a real scientific study can be peer-reviewed and controlled for bias, the allegations become totally ridiculous when one remembers that these same people have no problem touting the "results" of conservative think-tank papers as facts.

But anyway, lesbians make better parents than straight couples. Just thought I'd put that out there.

Porn makes you gay

I could never make this stuff up.

Gene Expression: Straight porn makes you gay

Seriously. The original news item is here. In brief, Republican senator Tom Coburn had this to say last Saturday:

“Pornography is a blight,” Schwartz told an audience in a crowded room of the Omni Shoreham hotel. “It is a disaster. It is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven’t been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. And it’s been a few years, but not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys around 10 years of age. But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it.”


Schwartz told the crowd about Jim Johnson, a friend of his who turned an old hotel into a hospice for gay men dying of AIDS. “One of the things he said to me,” said Schwartz, “that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark… he said ‘All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.”

There were murmurs and gasps from the crowd. “Now, think about that,” said Schwartz. “And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants! You know, that’s a good comment, it’s a good point, and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”

As the blogger at Gene Expression points out:

Since the 1970s the Religious Right and Feminist Left have oddly paralleled each other, asserting strange ideas about the nature of heterosexual males and their susceptibility to sexual visual stimulus, without bothering much to consult a wide range of men who engage in the behavior in consideration.

As some shameless self-promotion, I'd like to refer anyone interested in this topic to my text on pornography, and on the very topic of the religious right and radical feminism making highly similar, equally ridiculous, judgements on porn that are based on absolutely nothing.

It's frightening that the religious right continues to make these ridiculous arguments that are based on pure nonsense. It's beyond sad that radical feminists fall into the same trap.

(thanks to Kaj Sotala for the link)

Lithuania to ban discussing homosexuality

At amnesty.org

The Lithuanian parliament has voted in favour of a measure that would prohibit the discussion of homosexuality in schools and ban any reference to it in public information that can be viewed by children. The Seimas voted by an overwhelming majority on Tuesday to move forward to a final vote on an amendment to the "Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information".

I love the name of that law.

Once again, a legistlature wants to protect the vulnerable from information. I mean, it says so right there in the title. Aren't the Lithuanian people fortunate to have a parliament that protects them from harmful information?