Straight White Males as default: How it's wrong.

[Hathradic States]

That much I disagree with. Like in some movies when they have a black dude in a infantry battalion in WWI. That just didn't happen (in the US)

Well, no, it did actually, even in world war one. THere were lots of black battalions, even black officers.

Who the whites mainly tried to get killed, and the failure of, shit, I can't remember the regiment right now. But anyway, the failure of a black regiment in WWI was used to justify keeping blacks out of combat for decades.

Very true. However, lone black soldiers in a white battalion was not common at all until the end of segregation in the military ('46 or '48). In the US, there had been all black units since the Civil War, as well as black soldiers on both sides prior to the officialization of said units.

[Aina Lani]

However, if you never mention the sexuality of a character, people tend to assume they're straight until proven otherwise, even if they're not (example: Dumbledore), and if you mention that a character is gay when you had otherwise planned not to mention sexuality at all, it does introduce sexuality into the story.

First: the fact that people assume this is the problem.

Second, there is no reason mentioning sexuality has to be any more than what it is. Let me give you an example that's fresh in my mind. I recently read a book in which one of the major supporting characters is a fully fleshed-out, interesting woman. Maybe three-quarters of the way into the book, another character makes a passing reference to "Sarah's girlfriend." That's it. Just a passing reference to the fact that this female character happens to be dating a woman. It's not a plot point, it's not an issue, it's just a throwaway line that serves as background detail in the same way that mentioning that Sarah was wearing a yellow skirt does. The idea that this somehow makes sexuality an ISSUE in the story where a passing reference to "Sarah's boyfriend" would not is fundamentally nonsensical. It might be an ISSUE in Sarah's life, or it might not be - we don't know, because this particular story doesn't happen to be about that. She's not Sarah THE LESBO LESBIAN WHO LESBOS ALL THE LADIES BECAUSE SHE'S A LESBIAN any more than mentioning "Sarah's boyfriend" would have made her SARAH THE STRAIGHT STRAIGHTIE-LADY, LET HER TELL YOU ABOUT HER LOVE OF PENIS. She's Sarah the type-A, short, long-haired, somewhat secretive, small-business-owner, Wiccan, kinda nerdy, best-friends-with-the-protagonist, woman who happens to be dating a woman. It can really just be that simple.

The problem is, if I have a character who as-of-yet has not had his sexuality mentioned, and I decide to give him a love interest, if I make it another guy, many people will see it as some sort of statement. Yes, it shouldn't be an issue, but because enough people see it as one, it is, whether you like it or not. My book could be mostly unrelated to sexuality otherwise, but once I mention that the character is gay, enough people will think that I mean to say something about homosexuality, because they think "why would he mention that if he didn't want it to be significant?". After all, "conservation of detail" is a fairly well-established rule of writing.
EDIT: having read your description of Sarah in more detail, it seems that what I just described also applies to Sarah being a Wiccan. Some people will see it as a statement or an attempt to address an issue, even if it isn't.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Well, no, it did actually, even in world war one. THere were lots of black battalions, even black officers.

Who the whites mainly tried to get killed, and the failure of, shit, I can't remember the regiment right now. But anyway, the failure of a black regiment in WWI was used to justify keeping blacks out of combat for decades.

Very true. However, lone black soldiers in a white battalion was not common at all until the end of segregation in the military ('46 or '48). In the US, there had been all black units since the Civil War, as well as black soldiers on both sides prior to the officialization of said units.

Yeah my bad, I thought you were including the segregated battalions.

[Hathradic States]

Very true. However, lone black soldiers in a white battalion was not common at all until the end of segregation in the military ('46 or '48). In the US, there had been all black units since the Civil War, as well as black soldiers on both sides prior to the officialization of said units.

Yeah my bad, I thought you were including the segregated battalions.

Not at all. I am dumb at times, but not full on stupid.

[NERVUN]

Funny.

Of course this is part of why I'm weary of writing in homosexual characters. If you introduce sexuality into the story it is for one of two reasons: firstly, a conflict over the the sexuality; or second, a romantic subplot. I've explained that the first is difficult for me. The second falls under my "I am doing this for a reason" point.

I've said this about ten previous times in this thread: straight is a sexuality, just like white is a race and male is a gender. Making a character gay does not "introduce sexuality into the story" any more than making a character straight does. The fact that you view straightness as a default state and homosexuality as a special exception that requires a justification is precisely the problem.

I'd actually state that ANYTHING added to a story requires justification, including making them straight, even if said justification is "I need a straight guy here because I want the dragon to eat his girlfriend to set up for a bad joke".

[The Steel Magnolia]

First: the fact that people assume this is the problem.

Second, there is no reason mentioning sexuality has to be any more than what it is. Let me give you an example that's fresh in my mind. I recently read a book in which one of the major supporting characters is a fully fleshed-out, interesting woman. Maybe three-quarters of the way into the book, another character makes a passing reference to "Sarah's girlfriend." That's it. Just a passing reference to the fact that this female character happens to be dating a woman. It's not a plot point, it's not an issue, it's just a throwaway line that serves as background detail in the same way that mentioning that Sarah was wearing a yellow skirt does. The idea that this somehow makes sexuality an ISSUE in the story where a passing reference to "Sarah's boyfriend" would not is fundamentally nonsensical. It might be an ISSUE in Sarah's life, or it might not be - we don't know, because this particular story doesn't happen to be about that. She's not Sarah THE LESBO LESBIAN WHO LESBOS ALL THE LADIES BECAUSE SHE'S A LESBIAN any more than mentioning "Sarah's boyfriend" would have made her SARAH THE STRAIGHT STRAIGHTIE-LADY, LET HER TELL YOU ABOUT HER LOVE OF PENIS. She's Sarah the type-A, short, long-haired, somewhat secretive, small-business-owner, Wiccan, kinda nerdy, best-friends-with-the-protagonist, woman who happens to be dating a woman. It can really just be that simple.

The problem is, if I have a character who as-of-yet has not had his sexuality mentioned, and I decide to give him a love interest, if I make it another guy, many people will see it as some sort of statement. Yes, it shouldn't be an issue, but because enough people see it as one, it is, whether you like it or not. My book could be mostly unrelated to sexuality otherwise, but once I mention that the character is gay, enough people will think that I mean to say something about homosexuality, because they think "why would he mention that if he didn't want it to be significant?". After all, "conservation of detail" is a fairly well-established rule of writing.

How is it making a point about homosexuality any more than saying "sarah's boyfriend" is making a point about heterosexuality?

[Cannot think of a name]

The problem is, if I have a character who as-of-yet has not had his sexuality mentioned, and I decide to give him a love interest, if I make it another guy, many people will see it as some sort of statement. Yes, it shouldn't be an issue, but because enough people see it as one, it is, whether you like it or not. My book could be mostly unrelated to sexuality otherwise, but once I mention that the character is gay, enough people will think that I mean to say something about homosexuality, because they think "why would he mention that if he didn't want it to be significant?". After all, "conservation of detail" is a fairly well-established rule of writing.

That's sort of self fulfilling, isn't it? It's a big deal because people don't do it so I can't do it because it would be a big deal.

It's as big a deal as you make it. Respect your own craft. I don't know of many authors who don't like challenging their readers.

[Hathradic States]

I've said this about ten previous times in this thread: straight is a sexuality, just like white is a race and male is a gender. Making a character gay does not "introduce sexuality into the story" any more than making a character straight does. The fact that you view straightness as a default state and homosexuality as a special exception that requires a justification is precisely the problem.

I'd actually state that ANYTHING added to a story requires justification, including making them straight, even if said justification is "I need a straight guy here because I want the dragon to eat his girlfriend to set up for a bad joke".

That is discriminatory against dragons. I protest it! kidding

[Aina Lani]

I've said this about ten previous times in this thread: straight is a sexuality, just like white is a race and male is a gender. Making a character gay does not "introduce sexuality into the story" any more than making a character straight does. The fact that you view straightness as a default state and homosexuality as a special exception that requires a justification is precisely the problem.

I'd actually state that ANYTHING added to a story requires justification, including making them straight, even if said justification is "I need a straight guy here because I want the dragon to eat his girlfriend to set up for a bad joke".

But if EVERYTHING needs justification, then we need a default to fall back to when we can't justify any particular race or gender or sexuality, and SWM seems as good a default as any.

[Hathradic States]

I'd actually state that ANYTHING added to a story requires justification, including making them straight, even if said justification is "I need a straight guy here because I want the dragon to eat his girlfriend to set up for a bad joke".

But if EVERYTHING needs justification, then we need a default to fall back to when we can't justify any particular race or gender or sexuality, and SWM seems as good a default as any.

Animals are a better fallback. *nods*

[Individuality-ness]

I'd actually state that ANYTHING added to a story requires justification, including making them straight, even if said justification is "I need a straight guy here because I want the dragon to eat his girlfriend to set up for a bad joke".

But if EVERYTHING needs justification, then we need a default to fall back to when we can't justify any particular race or gender or sexuality, and SWM seems as good a default as any.

... which is shitty and stupid.

[Forster Keys]

I'm not sure I can do justice to people too different from what I am, because I don't know how their mind works or have been their particular experiences.

If you're making up the world, you're making up their experiences to. Quit pussing out.

Fine, you've got me I'm a Nazi who only believes straight white males have viable storylines. Now excuse me while I put on my jackboots and start advocating the supremacy of the Aryan race.

I'd go on to say how I don't want to create ill-made caricatures based on old stereotypes and second hand bullshit, but it sounds as if you like the sound of your own arrogant rhetoric too much to actually listen. It'd be good if you could prove me wrong, because I've generally liked you as a poster, and thought you capable of having a level headed and civil discussion.

[Genivaria]

But if EVERYTHING needs justification, then we need a default to fall back to when we can't justify any particular race or gender or sexuality, and SWM seems as good a default as any.

Animals are a better fallback. *nods*

Animals make the story timeless.

[Hathradic States]

But if EVERYTHING needs justification, then we need a default to fall back to when we can't justify any particular race or gender or sexuality, and SWM seems as good a default as any.

... which is shitty and stupid.

But, a valid point, especially with secondary characters. And, furthermore, especially when they just exist to be killed.

[Hathradic States]

Animals are a better fallback. *nods*

Animals make the story timeless.

Yup. Those stories age well, too.

[Forster Keys]

Animals are a better fallback. *nods*

Animals make the story timeless.

Until the animals go extinct.

[Cannot think of a name]

If you're making up the world, you're making up their experiences to. Quit pussing out.

Fine, you've got me I'm a Nazi who only believes straight white males have viable storylines. Now excuse me while I put on my jackboots and start advocating the supremacy of the Aryan race.

I'd go on to say how I don't want to create ill-made caricatures based on old stereotypes and second hand bullshit, but it sounds as if you like the sound of your own arrogant rhetoric too much to actually listen. It'd be good if you could prove me wrong, because I've generally liked you as a poster, and thought you capable of having a level headed and civil discussion.

Geez, dude, you want to tone down the drama like six or seven notches? I appreciate the backhanded complement and all, but you're internalizing way too much of this.

[Individuality-ness]

... which is shitty and stupid.

But, a valid point, especially with secondary characters. And, furthermore, especially when they just exist to be killed.

Well yeah, but I just want people to make a justification on why a character is x, y, z really.

[Hathradic States]

Animals make the story timeless.

Until the animals go extinct.

That is a small problem.

Or you can make it about extinct animals...and make it anachronistic as fuck. -_- (I'm looking at you, Land Before Time)

[Aina Lani]

The problem is, if I have a character who as-of-yet has not had his sexuality mentioned, and I decide to give him a love interest, if I make it another guy, many people will see it as some sort of statement. Yes, it shouldn't be an issue, but because enough people see it as one, it is, whether you like it or not. My book could be mostly unrelated to sexuality otherwise, but once I mention that the character is gay, enough people will think that I mean to say something about homosexuality, because they think "why would he mention that if he didn't want it to be significant?". After all, "conservation of detail" is a fairly well-established rule of writing.

That's sort of self fulfilling, isn't it? It's a big deal because people don't do it so I can't do it because it would be a big deal.

It's as big a deal as you make it. Respect your own craft. I don't know of many authors who don't like challenging their readers.

First of all, I'm not actually an author (I write poetry, but poetry requires even more conservation of detail than writing, so I tend not to mention race or sexuality at all unless it's relevant).
Secondly, it's up to people as a whole to decide how big a deal it is. Author can treat it however they want, but they can't control how the readers treat it, and they have to keep in mind how any particular book will affect their reputation (e.g. An author who frequently writes about gay characters, even when it doesn't affect the plot, might still end up known as "that guy who writes about gay characters", and end up with people searching his books for what he's saying about homosexuality, missing the message about war or whatever he was actually trying to talk about).

[Hathradic States]

But, a valid point, especially with secondary characters. And, furthermore, especially when they just exist to be killed.

Well yeah, but I just want people to make a justification on why a character is x, y, z really.

I wrote the justification for mine out already, and can do it for all three main storylines I have written.

However, I do not feel the need to justify why the gangster Wolf shot in the back of the head was a SWM. Fucker's dead in one scene, doesn't matter.

[Forster Keys]

Fine, you've got me I'm a Nazi who only believes straight white males have viable storylines. Now excuse me while I put on my jackboots and start advocating the supremacy of the Aryan race.

I'd go on to say how I don't want to create ill-made caricatures based on old stereotypes and second hand bullshit, but it sounds as if you like the sound of your own arrogant rhetoric too much to actually listen. It'd be good if you could prove me wrong, because I've generally liked you as a poster, and thought you capable of having a level headed and civil discussion.

Geez, dude, you want to tone down the drama like six or seven notches? I appreciate the backhanded complement and all, but you're internalizing way too much of this.

No worries. It was more the tone of the preceding post this that caught me off guard a little.

But I intend to start experimenting with different characters, and I more than understand your argument.

[Orcoa]

Until the animals go extinct.

That is a small problem.

Or you can make it about extinct animals...and make it anachronistic as fuck. -_- (I'm looking at you, Land Before Time)

BITCH DON'T YOU DARE TALK ABOUT THE HOLY WORKS THAT WAS LAND BEFORE TIME THAT WAY!!!

[Forster Keys]

Until the animals go extinct.

That is a small problem.

Or you can make it about extinct animals...and make it anachronistic as fuck. -_- (I'm looking at you, Land Before Time)

Oh memories...

[Individuality-ness]

Well yeah, but I just want people to make a justification on why a character is x, y, z really.

I wrote the justification for mine out already, and can do it for all three main storylines I have written.

However, I do not feel the need to justify why the gangster Wolf shot in the back of the head was a SWM. Fucker's dead in one scene, doesn't matter.

I know. Honestly, I'd just say "person was shot in the head", and leave it up to their imaginations. They'll probably think of a SWM, but it's really a throwaway character, not that important to the overall storyline.