Homosexuality in the witcher

[Demut]

You do realize that xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, oppressive societies, that not only had nothing against homosexual relations but valorized them, exist right?

No, I don’t. Do tell, which societies would that have been? And please don’t say the Hellenes now

(which are not as many and predominant as you seem to think).

Oh? They’re not? Do go on please. If I actually were wrong on my previous assertion (i.e. that the majority of societies did not esteem homosexuality) then I would certainly like to be shown so and be corrected on that matter.

 

[wichat]

That’s kind of an argument from ignorance. By that same logic I could allege that any number of views and assertions regarding the past and simply claim that there’s no evidence for them because the “winners destroyed the majority of sources about them”.

Reading that it more easier to understand why both art or/and poplitics historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and a long list of specialists are ignorants.

 

[StaGiors]

No, I don’t. Do tell, which societies would that have been? And please don’t say the Hellenes now

Well, technically speaking, Ancient Greeks didn't quite view the sex act, as we do today. They did not quite categorize sex, based on the gender of the people involved.
But indeed they had no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. Most of them, I guess.

You are not wrong on your previous assertion. The majority of societies, did not esteem homosexuality. However the majority of societies, that we Europeans study History on, are mainly European. Adding to that, the majority of European societies, in the medieval times for example, were pretty much following whatever their religion told them to. And the dominant religion in medieval Europe was Catholicism.

 

[Kinley]

Well, technically speaking, Ancient Greeks didn't quite view the sex act, as we do today. They did not quite categorize sex, based on the gender of the people involved.
But indeed they had no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. Most of them, I guess.

You are not wrong on your previous assertion. The majority of societies, did not esteem homosexuality. However the majority of societies, that we Europeans study History on, are mainly European. Adding to that, the majority of European societies, in the medieval times for example, were pretty much following whatever their religion told them to. And the dominant religion in medieval Europe was Catholicism.

Exactly. Now I'd take what you said and would like to point out that the world of the Witcher (or at least the area where the games take place, more to the point) are very much based on medieval Europe.

 

[StaGiors]

Exactly. Now I'd take what you said and would like to point out that the world of the Witcher (or at least the area where the games take place, more to the point) are very much based on medieval Europe.

Which brings us back to the start. Open homosexuality in the Witcher Universe, would not be tolerated, and thus would be immersion-breaking if it existed in the game in such a level.
I'm quoting a passage from the Lady of the Lake.

Once you make a mistake, thought the priest Willemer, fixing his eyes on the shiny red lips of Phillipa Eilhart. Or any of you make a mistake. And you'll lose your conceit, arrogance and pride. The plots that you weave. Your immorality. Your atrocity and perversions to which you surrender, in which you live. All light will eventually leave, and the pestilence of your sins will spread when you make a mistake. The moment will come.

It is pretty clear, that the leader of the church of the Eternal Fire, is not that favourable towards homosexual relationships. And since the worship of the Eternal Fire is spreading, pretty much how Catholicism spread in medieval Europe, it is quite obvious what would happen to most openly homosexual characters.

This is why Phillipa and Dethmold are not openly homosexual.

I won't speak about the witcher, because it has been thoroughly explained, why he can't be homosexual.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

No, I don’t. Do tell, which societies would that have been? And please don’t say the Hellenes now

Of course, they are an example. Specifically Spartans who considered male bonding to be practically sacred. In fact, male homosexual relations were considered to be superior, purer, than the necessary relations with women to reproduce.

Rome is another example. while marrying women was considered a duty to procreate, they had absolutely nothing against homosexual relations. Indeed, Hadrian was one who seemed to vastly prefer sex with men.

In Islamic Caliphates, we have poets openly writing poetry about the attraction of young boys, despite the religion condemning homosexuality. As I also said, the Umayyad caliphate in Spain had a gay Caliph (al Hakkam II, who incidentally is one of the best Caliphs in Muslim Spain).

Homosexuality was rampant in Japan, both within Samurai, common people, and monks. It was not badly perceived. Homosexuality was not seen as abnormal in China and legalist traditions mostly didn't give a damn about sexuality, they are far more practical. In a lot of African societies, homosexuality was not badly perceived. Native American tribes had perception of genders that would lead to allowing relationships that we deem as homosexual.

And I could go on and on.

You attributing *modern* European views as somehow universal is wrong.

I will not make a claim that either view is more predominant than the other, I would have to list all cultures in the world throughout history and investigate them to see (unlike you who would state as fact without providing evidence). What I can say is that across time and space, homosexuality being perceived as normal is not as small a minority, if it even is, as you believe.

But all that is irrelevant, I am not interested in having a debate about the history of the perception of homosexuality, neither of us are qualified for it (though as a history major, I'm more qualified). The point is, homosexuality being perceived negatively is but one possible outcome out of many others and no fantasy setting is obligated to do so unless it wants to.

 

[Demut]

Reading that it more easier to understand why both art or/and poplitics historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and a long list of specialists are ignorants.

I don’t think I understand what you are trying to express with that sentence.

(unlike you who would state as fact without providing evidence)

Ah, right, because so far you’ve provided such mountains of evidence during this discussion, eh ...? I mean I can if you want to. As a history major you surely have access to JSTOR, right, and so it wouldn’t be a problem if I linked you to my sources over there? Assuming you can do the same ...

(though as a history major, I'm more qualified)

Oh my, aren’t we presumptuous, Mr. Appeal-To-Authority? See, as a matter of fact, I studied history at my university as well alongside philosophy (the latter familiarized me additionally to some of the writings of ancient Greeks on the matter) :3

Anyhow, that you try to argue your point about otherwise oppressive societies being tolerant of homosexuality by starting off with two instances of societies which cherished sexual molestation of boys strikes me as quite, well, disturbing. Besides, what kind of history major would cite the strictly regulated Hellenic practices of pederasty as an example of accepted, egalitarian homosexual relationships in the past? Not only was it usually seen as highly problematic between two adults (and even certain forms of aforementioned pederasty), it also left homosexual women out of the picture. Even the case of China in later days (but before Western influence, i.e. pre-18th century) is similar with laws being issued that prohibit gay intercourse.

The point is, homosexuality being perceived negatively is but one possible outcome out of many others and no fantasy setting is obligated to do so unless it wants to.

... and where it exactly did I debate that point? Yes, sure, you dream up a society with all of the aforementioned characteristics but no anti-homosexual stance and no one forces you to do otherwise. However, whether that is believable to the modern audience is another matter entirely and the fact that those kind of oppressive societies tolerant of homosexuality (if they did exist) were outliers and exceptions still remains.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ah, right, because so far you’ve provided such mountains of evidence during this discussion, eh ...? I mean I can if you want to. As a history major you surely have access to JSTOR, right, and so it wouldn’t be a problem if I linked you to my sources over there? Assuming you can do the same ...

I have actually and I can, but as I said, I am not interested in having that discussion unless you are interested in reviewing every single civilization (specifically in Far East Asia, the Middle East, and Native Americans of which I know a lot about). I sadly don't have the time to waste.

Anyhow, that you try to argue your point about otherwise oppressive societies being tolerant of homosexuality by starting off with two instances of societies which cherished sexual molestation of boys strikes me as quite, well, disturbing. Besides, what kind of history major would cite the strictly regulated Hellenic practices of pederasty as an example of accepted, egalitarian homosexual relationships in the past? Not only was it usually seen as highly problematic between two adults (and even certain forms of aforementioned pederasty), it also left homosexual women out of the picture. Even the case of China in later days (but before Western influence, i.e. pre-18th century) is similar with laws being issued that prohibit gay intercourse.

And where did I say that "normal", egalitarian homosexuality that a liberal democracy would espouse was accepted in such societies (the Hellenic example? I made no such argument.

What I said was that homosexual acts and relations, specifically male ones, were accepted as normal and even desirable. That does not in any way mean that these societies specifically had liberal modern perceptions of sexuality and equality, you are shifting the goal post. Although I will add that this was not the extent of homosexuality in Ancient Greece.

So yes, a racist, xenophobic, oppressive society can and did in our own history normalize and valorize homosexual relations, and fantasies can portray it as much as it wants irrespective of whether you find it believable or not. That does not mean it does so in necessarily a liberal fashion that our societies should accept (though other examples would, including Japan and China to a degree).

 

[dragonbird]

OK. This has turned into an off-topic and increasingly aggressive discussion. If the two of you want to continue, please do so via PM.

 

[Sardukhar]

Hey Dragonbird, didn't know about Cyberpunk, just watched the trailer... two beautiful women in revealing clothes lol... I sense we won't be seeing that kind of choice, and that there will still be accusations of misogyny.

It just seems to be what the developers are into. They seem pretty awesome about some stuff, like DRM, the stuff included in regular edition of the witcher, I hear they also don't do exclusive to one console stuff. And the witcher really does look great and I may try it, but I'm coming to terms that they just won't match my way of thinking.

Nope, they won't, not in this way. I feel somewhat similarly about Geralt's attitude towards his girlfriends and his kid, but hey, it's Geralt's world and Geralt's personality. I just try to think like him.

Cyberpunk 2077, based on the RPG Cyberpunk 2020, doesn't care at all what sexual orientation, of the many available, you are. Or if you even like sex with actual persons instead of simulations! We're more concerned with your sanity and your cyberware-or-drug induced habit of seeing people as walking sacks of blood and splattery bits. Not to mention the charming corporate habit of putting things in the water or the air to see what they do to people. Yeah.

Bigotry in 2020 is more along the "Is that much metal still human?" lines, with common offerings of, "Are poor people actually people, really?".

 

[chicra]

This is why Phillipa and Dethmold are not openly homosexual.

But Philippa is openly homosexual, and so is a number of other mages, Ciri and Mistle were also open with their relationship. Did you really read the books? Just because one priest thinks open homosexuality is a perversion doesn't necessarilly mean it wasn't common. How many priests think this today in countries where gay marriage is legal?

I assume you didn't read Season of Storms, where it's stated plain and straight that homosexuality used to be more common than heterosexuality among the mages in the past and even now it's widely practiced (there's a mention of that at the beginning of Blood of Elves, when Triss thinks about her past relationships on the way to Kaer Morhen).

The argument that showing homosexuality in a fictional world iis unrealistic because it's LOOSELY based on medieval Europe is laughable. Dragons = totally realistic, discussion of genetics and mutation = realistic, worship of a female goddess = realistic, women attending universities and becoming lawers, warriors and doctors = realistic, but homosexuality = unrealistic?

 

[wichat]

@chicra you're right, but Geralt is not homosexual, why do CDPR change his inclinations. Is it bad to be a Geralt staying hetereosexual? would it be good to make Philippa hetereosexual or maybe she can keep her bisexuality?

 

[StaGiors]

But Philippa is openly homosexual, and so is a number of other mages, Ciri and Mistle were also open with their relationship. Did you really read the books? Just because one priest thinks open homosexuality is a perversion doesn't necessarilly mean it wasn't common. How many priests think this today in countries where gay marriage is legal?

I assume you didn't read Season of Storms, where it's stated plain and straight that homosexuality used to be more common than heterosexuality among the mages in the past and even now it's widely practiced (there's a mention of that at the beginning of Blood of Elves, when Triss thinks about her past relationships on the way to Kaer Morhen).

The argument that showing homosexuality in a fictional world iis unrealistic because it's LOOSELY based on medieval Europe is laughable. Dragons = totally realistic, discussion of genetics and mutation = realistic, worship of a female goddess = realistic, women attending universities and becoming lawers, warriors and doctors = realistic, but homosexuality = unrealistic?

I have not read Season of Storms. It is not translated in english just yet, so bear with me.
I have read the other books though, might have been more than once or twice too. Phillipa, was NOT openly homosexual. It might have appeared to you that way, because certain characters from the books knew about it, mainly sorcerers/sorceresses, for example Sile de Tansarville. The sorcerers/sorceresses knew, because as mentioned in the books, mages after a life of promiscuity, ended up fucking each other. So I guess they would know about each others inclinations.
It is even mentioned in Times of Contempt that a lot of mages end up trying homosexual relationships, the reason, I believe was attributed to "sheer boredom". And many liked it and stayed that way.

Now, my friend all that has nothing to do with common folk, which is 95% of the population. That was the argument.

I remember a certain dwarf, even in the game, spreading rumors about Phillipa's orientation. But that was all it was, rumors.

 

[Senteria]

Well I think mages can get away with it because no one will dare to speak against them out of fear. =P

Also, I've always believed that homosexuality is something someone is born with. Now gay activists claim that as well. So in that case, so is heterosexuality. By making Geralt able to choose male partners, you are basically saying; Geralt can be gay if he wants to, thus undermining your whole philosophy in the first place. Then a homosexual person can choose to be straight as well. Of course we're talking about a game here and in games there are choices you can make. But the choices are choices anyone would make. But a homosexual person or character in this instance, would not 'choose' to be gay if he wasn't. Just like he wouldn't 'choose' to be straight if he wasn't. There are choices one can make in their life, but there are certain things you simply can't choose cause it's bound to the person you are.

 

[chicra]

@chicra you're right, but Geralt is not homosexual, why do CDPR change his inclinations. Is it bad to be a Geralt staying hetereosexual? would it be good to make Philippa hetereosexual or maybe she can keep her bisexuality?

Well, no, I wasn't arguing in favor of making Geralt homosexual, his character is well defined and it would be odd to change it now. I was only disagreeing with that specific point of that specific post.

 

[SMiki55]

Homosexual Geralt?

Spoiler

Nope.

 

[Cyber_Death]

Ok, I know this has been discussed, but the threads I found were locked.......

... And for good reasons. That was a warning sign not to replicate a thread in its likeness.

 

[teenparty]

I think the developers may have quite conservative views on sexuality and gender roles. I.E. the homosexual mage in Witcher 2.

 

[Kinley]

I think the developers may have quite conservative views on sexuality and gender roles. I.E. the homosexual mage in Witcher 2.

I know it seems like I'm always that guy, but I really have to say it:

Oh no... Not this again.


Just because the devs chose for that scene to go the way it did does not mean the entire team suddenly have an agenda against homosexuals.

 

[teenparty]

I know it seems like I'm always that guy, but I really have to say it:

Oh no... Not this again.


Just because the devs chose for that scene to go the way it did does not mean the entire team suddenly have an agenda against homosexuals.

It's not just Dem and Phil. There is very little proof in the two games of progressive attitudes among the devs.