Opuspace

I feel like people really don't understand what happened in Early Access. I was there and can tell you what happened.

Myth: Larian promoted Halsin to a romanceable companion because straight female fans were soooooo horny for him.

Reality: While EA fans made a fair number of "daddy Halsin" memes, most were interested in Halsin because at the time, most of the good companions were still assholes (Gale and SH were much ruder back then, Lae'zel and Astarion were outright evil, and Karlach hadn't been added yet, leaving Wyll alone for "nice companion" rep) and were interested in Halsin because he was a genuinely nice and helpful guy who broke the mold for how elves and Druids usually were. The datamined story where Halsin was responsible for the Shadow Curse also was like catnip to the fans. There was wild speculation about how that story would play out for him.

Thirst was a child-sized piece of the entire pie for reasons people wanted Halsin. But then Larian added him and indulged only the thirst-based comments, not the people actually interested in Halsin and his story, so now people still have a laugh about how it was literally the "fault" of horny women (fucking women, they ruin everything am I right?) that Larian implemented Halsin in the worst way possible. Serious, take a look sometime at the Larian forums back during EA... those same posters now hate Halsin more than anyone else. I'm not one of them, I still like him, but this is not what any of us asked Larian for. I ordered a cheeseburger and got a wedge salad, and not only that, but I'm getting attacked for being the reason the person next to me didn't get fries with their burger too.

Halsin fans don't have it nearly as badly as Wyll fans, but we definitely got fucked over as bad as Karlach did.

.

Lrb, I would also argue that Larian expected us to romance Halsin as a joke, what with how late in the game the romance occurs and how much emphasis the marketing put on the bear scene.

Actually, I do think it's an interesting topic talking about other biotics and how their development would be affected. Since people are comparing biotic abilities, why wouldn't other examples be used?

Is there some sort of forbiddence on people adding to the discussion that helps round out what makes someone more "powerful" than an Asari? Does only raw power matter or should versatility be included? We see Jack using her biotics to leap over enemies and yank the guards into the air with her momentum. We've seen Samara yank a skycar back to herself biotically. We've seen Kaidan admit he can't float down like Falere nor have the minutae of control to unlatch a hatch on the other side.

I'm never really certain what exactly people mean when they say Kaidan is as/more powerful than an Asari. Does that mean he can overpower someone like Morinth even though he says he'd be a goner to an Ardat Yakshi? Can he punch down a YMIR and keep running? Cutscenes of him make that hard to guess because his biotic abilities are rarely ever demonstrated if they're acknowledged.

Mass Effect really just left out the part about Kaidan being as strong and powerful as an Asari when it comes to his biotics. I had to find that out from google and I don’t remember it being mentioned in the game that a Kaidan is actually that powerful. Like I knew he was powerful and skilled but I didn’t know he was Asari level. I don’t know if I just missed that information or what

He’s literally the perfect man oh my god. I couldn’t ask for another. Why is he so perfect ? And like not meaning to shade Ashley but it makes me want to choose Kaidan over her more because he seems to be more of a valuable asset than her with his biotics.

I refuse to believe they didn’t know what they were doing when they made The Ghoul. You mean to tell me a good man and father with a fondness for dogs and in love with his wife, over the course of centuries and nuclear war, turns into an irradiated cowboy bounty hunter with flexible morals, quippy one liners, and a reluctant fondness for an earnest and kind (but total badass) young woman with whom he shares an equivalent exchange before they end the season with the promise of two unlikely parties joined together on a road trip quest…and people DIDN’T expect tumblr to go feral?

Yo, correct me if I am wrong please, but didn't Hitler rise to power because he promised to fix the German economy and people really liked that so they looked past everything else he was doing??? Like exactly what's happening in America right now???

So many people said they voted for Trump, put a truly evil person in power, because he said he'd fix the economy, and a little voice in my head is going, "Isn't that what happened with fucking Hitler??"

But I've seen no one point that out so maybe I'm miss remembering???????

I've come to describing it as: What we need to find out if we'd want sex with someone is what others complain of as "friendzoning" (aka You must be this friend zoned to have a chance to go on this demisexual ride). Which is NOT an endorsement of being friends in hopes of getting sex. No one owes anyone sex. No one should be friends with an ulterior motive. But it's hard to describe demisexuality without finding an anchor point to something we live with in society. And all too frequently, I've experienced how swiftly friends stop being friends when sex is confirmed to be off the table. Friendly greetings turn cold, plans become empty promises, and laughter becomes silence when you're not interested in sex. How do people find anyone willing to do that attractive enough to fuck?

Sex without attachment is far more prevalent I think than society is willing to acknowledge. Otherwise, we wouldn't have jokes about sex on the third date, the shame of friendzoning, the "expiration date" theme as we age, or the dreaded "frigid" label. There'd never be emphasis of "If you liked it, ya shoulda put a ring on it", "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" And all sorts of "fun" colloquialisms that imply that the temptation of sex is present without the urge to commit to a relationship. Because, why caution others in acquiring commitment first if it's in our nature to only want sex when there are emotional bonds?

Ironically, I think we ought to be de-stigmatizing casual sex and instead be emphasizing consent, safety for health and generally not being a douche to your partners. I get the sense that this sex shaming causes a kind of sociopathic treatment of each other if we're not doing it for the "right" reasons (insert disclaimer about appropriate age being needed to discuss this topic), because it doesn't take long before I'm hearing a tone of disrespect towards anyone who likes casual sex as though they're unworthy of marriage material.

demisexuality can be so hard to explain because it’s misconstrued as you just wanting to trust the other person before you have sex with them. and I get why the misconception happens. But demisexuality differs in that there isn’t sexual attraction at all before that bond forms.

I think what people have difficulty with is the idea that there are people out there who aren’t experiencing sexual attraction at all until a certain point, if ever, because we’re taught that sex, libido, and sexual attraction are all the same, both in and out of queer spaces.

And when you’re learning about asexuality and demisexuality, you may learn that people have romantic and aesthetic attraction separately from sexual attraction, and that sexual and romantic attraction aren’t necessarily intertwined, and that may challenge your worldview on sex.

But “I trust you enough to have sex with you” isn’t the same as “I’m not sexually attracted to anyone but you, and the reason I’m sexually attracted to you now after we’ve established this close bond is literally because of the bond of trust we’ve been able to form”.

It’s easy to see how those can get conflated. On the surface, if you’re unfamiliar with asexuality, they may sound the same. But it’s important to acknowledge the difference between “no sex until I trust you” and “no sexual attraction unless I trust you and maybe not even then”.

Demisexuality is housed under the asexuality spectrum. It’s part of the gray area between being allosexual and asexual. It’s part of why the definition for asexuality includes “little to no sexual attraction”. It’s a mostly asexual experience with an asterisk.

While being demisexual may have impacts on a persons sexual activity, even demisexuals have a varied relationship to the act of participating in sex. Libido and sexual attraction are not always intertwined either, which can make telling the difference tricky.

I think of sexual attraction as libido that has a compass. Since I rarely ever experience sexual attraction, but do have libido, it’s noticeable for me when that libido actually has a direction to go, rather than being a floating, nebulous, independent thing.

Remember, not everyone is demisexual. There’s a difference between waiting to have sex and not having sexual attraction at all until a certain point. This also inherently ties demisexuality to romantic attraction and relationships, and not all demisexuals are alloromantic.

But if you read what demisexuality is and think “everyone is like that” or “that’s just being a woman”, you either 1) are demisexual 2) don’t understand what it is or 3) both. And it’s okay to not know. Just as long as you’re willing to try to learn.

Carbonara preparation under pressure....

here we go again

A kiss in Bloomington Park

In case anyone wants to hear it in game or keep his approval level low so that he never brings up romantic feelings, casting charm or friendship scrolls or spells on him will artificially lower it for you every time it's cast. Just make sure to stop once he hits Low Approval and you'll get to hear the disapproving snark in all its glory without him leaving the party.

Or just keep going if you want him to leave.

low approval/annoyed Halsin is so funny he's just

"I can NOT be assed to help you useless twats but FINE... I will anyway for FUCK'S sake"