Forum:Racialised Romance?

Forums: Index > Game DiscussionRacialised Romance?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3601 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

With Bioware talking of making the romance content of DA:I more complex than ever before in their games, and confirming that romance options will have a defined sexuality, I was wondering what are the chances of your player race impacting on romance? For example, Cullen seemed pretty anti-Qunari in DA2, it's certainly plausible for him not to pursue a romance with a Qunari Inquisitor. Of course this just might alter some dialogue and make the romance more angsty or whatever depending on context.

Might it seem more realistic to lock out certain races for some characters? Would an Elvhen companion fighting for his or her people really want to start something with a human?

Personally I think all races should be open for all companions, but with all the talk of creating more realistic and complex romances, this idea of some characters favoring their own race or only a few came to me as a plausibility.

Perhaps the best option is for the race to affect the type of romance - e.g. and Elvhen character would pursue a more traditional romance with another elf, but perhaps a more confrontational romance with a human.

So what do you think, should Bioware lock out certain races for romance options? or should they be left open? --86.147.31.169 (talk) 13:59, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for Bioware to avert the old potato that love conquers all. Especially since race was no obstacle to romance in Origins. As game developers go, Bioware are somewhat famous for being among the most progressive (if not the most progressive.) Within reason, anyway. It makes no sense to me that they'd suddenly up and reverse their stance on interracial relationships.

That said, I do see where you're coming from. If prejudice against a certain group is part of a character's background, it only makes sense that it should come up. Hell, it's just plain bad writing and even offensive not to. ("Normally I hate knife-ears, Inquisitor, but your sexy is just too overwhelming! Now let's forget all about me saying your race is good for nothing and go put some footprints on the ceiling!")

I don't believe that races should be locked out for romance, though why anyone would want someone who looks down on them is beyond me ("I love the way you think I'm sub-human, baby, let's go put some more footprints on the ceiling!"), but unfortunately it is depressingly realistic for someone to refuse possibly the best thing that ever happened to them because of their politics and prejudices. 14:48, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

^(hahaha that got me thinking about Fenris and my Female Mage Hawke) I am going to be REALLY unhappy if i find outmy female qunari mage cant romance the person she/i want to ,sure it may be more realistic and whatever but i dont like being blocked from options on a video game that ia all about customisation ,choices and playinghow you want to ,it just seems like a good way to lose a lot of certain fans.Blitzbear93 (talk) 15:54, May 1, 2014 (UTC)Blitzbear93

This is just a matter of personal taste, here, but I'd rather have characters remain realistic and true to themselves than be fluid with their nature for no real reason other than catering to the players whims. Like how you can't save Leandra, it's part of the story and that's just how it is. If you can't romance someone for whatever reason, that's part of the story and just how it is. There's other games that let you exercise complete control over characters and their love lives (like The Sims) but I believe the more control the player has over someone who's not the main character, the bigger the trade-off in plausibility. And I'll be honest, it's less satisfying. Like, for the sake of argument, if Casablanca were a Bioware game, and you could fix it so Ilsa leaves her husband and stays with Rick, or Rick and Renault become lovers instead. Sure, the player gets to have it left all up to them, but the story suffers for it. 19:44, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

The only races I see as a banned romance is a dwarf and qunari, more male qunari than female qunari because it would be, well I do t think I need to get into detail, but I can see a male or female dwarf with a female qunari more that a male or female dwarf with a male qunari because, you know. 64.90.137.2 18:00, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Because the animators have so much trouble matching short and tall models? CLuhrsen (talk) 20:06, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

I think they mean, because nuzzle. Silver Warden (talk) 20:51, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, love can overcome any obstacle. This one in particular just requires a stepladder.

Unless you mean what I think you mean, in which case there's no reason to believe male qunari, um, eh, have trouble finding shorts that fit. For all we know they could have laughably small genitalia, like Russell Crowe. 21:19, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sten's remarks to Morrigan about Qunari sex implies that the males can go into some kind of lust-filled trance state, wherein they could unintentionally injure the other person if they are not physically sturdy enough to handle it. So hypothetically, a Qunari male could injure a non-Qunari during sex because of various physiological differences between races (bone strength, tendon/muscle strength, skin thickness, etc.). Even if the key fits, the lock could get shattered if someone slams the key into the lock with all their might. Of course, Sten could have been bsing Morrigan to get her to leave him alone, in which case Qunari sex could be no different than human/elf/dwarf sex.

As for size differences? Dwarves might be shorter than humans/elves, but they're just as wide, so... Silver Warden (talk) 03:29, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

^ XD thats amusing ,it was weird ths height distance between my dwarf female and Alistair in one od my playthroughs yet that still qorked out (looked odd though ,or they could just do what the did with Mass Effect, when Shep and Garrus or Shep and Thane....you know the player doesnt actually see what happens (unlike DA where you see some of what happens) and besides Ohgren commented on how he was juat the right size to show a human girl a good time qunari arent that much taller than humans really so i dont think itd be to much of a problem i think youd have more of a problem convincing a qunari to do ...that.Blitzbear93 (talk) 21:40, May 1, 2014 (UTC)Blitzbear93

As long as they don't make sex the ultimate goal of the romance, i'm fine with whatever path BW decides to go. Seriously, getting into relationship with a companion should elicit some extraordinary reaction from them. Like... taking an arrow for you or helping you manage your army or something. ANYTHING other than :" Hello my love, let's have sex before the final battle!" Jesus... enough with cheap porn lines. I bet Lisa Ann could write better romance.--Markurion (talk) 23:01, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, spend about eight seconds on any anywhere from tumblr to deviantart to AO3 and it becomes rapidly apparent that sex between fictional characters is all that most fans seem to give a crap about. 13:38, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Never thought of this but you're right, we the true geeks seem to be over fixated of fictionalized sex between our characters?? Maybe it's because the most vocal group of fans are the freaky oversexed teens (as in they want it but ain't getting it). Also, we have been taught that the true show of love to someone is sex so that's where they are going with sex scenes in games I think and I doubt they'll change it sometime soon 'cus it is embedded into our culture.--Dave The Maniac (talk) 14:48, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Which is funny, when you think about it, because the most important relationships we have in life are usually not sexual. All relationships to other people shape and define us in one way or another, for better or worse, and yet sexual ones are in the minority. There's the relationships you have with your parents (or surrogate parents), grandparents, brothers, sisters, teachers, friends, enemies, rivals, bosses, subordinates, comrades, I really could go on and on. But every fandom seems to be strangely obsessed with making every relationship sexual in nature, often to the expense of a more interesting dynamic. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, but I find that attitude to be something worse than immature; namely a pitiful lack of imagination. 16:04, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah maybe it could be because the most vocal group of gamers are the guys who spend all their time on the internet, with a relation only with their fleshlight.--Dave The Maniac (talk) 16:15, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

That's only half of it. There may be a vocal group of male gamers who objectify female characters, but there's just as loud a group of female fans writing all the porn. 16:49, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

It's all because of Rule 34. The interwebz are largely anonymous, so any and every sexual desire will inevitably be expressed in one fashion or another. Fan-fic porn is just a small part of that. I can guarantee you there's porn on house flies and combs. (No I haven't looked.) There's also the fact that everyone's ultimate motivation for everything in life is either to get laid or get some food (or drug or other consumable substance). Everything else is either a means to one (or both) of those ends, or a way to repress them. Fan-fic porn (or just porn in general) can appeal to anyone who isn't getting laid 24/7.

And if you think about it, wanting to bang a fictional character is no less disturbing than wanting to slaughter thousands of nameless soldiers/zombies/aliens/robots/darkspawn. And not only do we actually get to see that happen, we take part in the action. I don't have any problem with extreme violence or sex being depicted in any medium, but complaining about and/or trying to censor the latter when in real life the former is infinitely worse is just baffling. Silver Warden (talk) 18:31, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

I just think that the focus on sex we have in this world is baffling, yes it is great to get laid but it's not everything in life and certainly not the focus of being in a relationship. TBW, ask around in the chat and I'm no prude... just thinking aloud.--Dave The Maniac (talk) 19:07, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

You're right, though, especially when you said above how we're bombarded by the media with the message that sex is the goal of any relationship and true sign of love. Pffffft. If that were remotely true, one night stands would be marriages. Personally I think the goal and truest sign of love is trust. Practically speaking, just about anybody can have sex with anyone else. Not everybody can trust, and not just anybody can be trusted. Raidenshred (talk) 19:32, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

To not focus on sex would be baffling. Unless of course our society came under immanent threat for our very survival, or there was a massive food shortage and people were starving. Humans are animals. All animals strive for survival. All adult animals that are capable of sexual reproduction strive for sex if there are no physical threats present and they are well fed and have a secure territory. Other than the homeless, this is the condition of virtually everyone in western society. So, sex naturally becomes the priority for all adults capable of reproduction. Romantic relationships form because we have an innate instinct to pair bond with a mate in order to more efficiently raise children. Monogamy also drastically reduces the risk of STDs, so the instinct to form relationships has a direct benefit even to the physical well being of the participants.

Everything else about a relationship is a side effect of sex or a means to achieve it. Remove sex from any romantic relationship and it will fall apart. That doesn't mean that people can't or won't find more satisfaction or enjoyment out of aspects of a relationship other than sex, but sex is crucial to all romantic relationships, even though most people never recognize this consciously.

So, simulating a relationship that centers around sex in an RPG is not (necessarily) perverse or crude. It is in fact natural and extremely realistic, especially given that the characters are all basically super-athletes in perfect physical condition and that they spend a lot of time together in close quarters. It's actually unrealistic that only the Warden/Hawke gets in a relationship. Maybe Inquisition will be different. I hope so. Silver Warden (talk) 23:25, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

A true sign of a relationship would be if the other character took an arrow to the back meant for the Inquisitor or even have an specific quest for the romanced character.--Dave The Maniac (talk) 20:04, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

You're not wrong. Heh, it's actually quite refreshing to encounter someone more cynical about human behaviour than myself. Of course, I can't speak for others, but my reasons for wanting to play DA (or other games, for that matter) weren't for the purposes of simulated slaughter. I play games for the same reasons I watch movies or read books; an entertaining story. Games have an advantage of being more immersive. If Bioware tried to sell me DA as all the shagging and slaughter I could stomach, I'd have passed. Though I admit I'd probably be in the minority there, since there's no arguing that sex sells and violence is a narcotic. Of course, censorship is worse. Let something stand on its own merits (or lack of them), I believe, and let individuals decide for themselves about it. If it results in a mad scramble for the lowest common denominator, it's an unsurprising pity, but not a race to the bottom I have to take part in. 19:25, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Lol finally someone that plays games for the same reason I do... dude you get a thumbs up!!!--Dave The Maniac (talk) 19:59, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

If it makes sense for a character to have a preference for or against a certain race then I'm all for it. I don't think it should be implemented just for the sake of it though. Rayvio (talk) 03:26, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

In Thedas there is more racism playing in affect for romantic relationships. elves primary concern is reproduction and continuation of their species. Therefore the elves view interracial relationships as betrayals, as half elven children will look primary as the partner's race than elf. It also rules same sex relationships impractical, for such unions do not produce elven children. The Dwarves are a proud race that have a superior view of themselves. It's also shown that have a hard time reproducing with their own kind, therefore making it harder to mate with other races. Plus they are also an traditionalist culture, likely not will to accept new people into influence their culture. The Qunari on the other try not to infuse emotions with reproduction. They bred only certain people to together to get the best results from offspring. The humans just view other races as inferior, making social mores that discourage unions with other races.

i expect the iron bull to be romancable only to qunari inquisitors if not only to femqunari and with luck varric romancable and maybe only to female dwarfs(varric i think is more of an open possibility for everyone) but im pretty sure on the iron bullFaye_Cousland (talk) 21:04, May 02, 2014 (UTC)

Emotion not being a part of reproduction is only a Qun teaching, not a racial thing. It has already been confirmed that the Qunari Inquisitor will be Vashoth, meaning they have no affiliation with The Qun whatsoever (they were born and raised outside of it). This would also imply that the Qunari Inquisitor would associate emotion with sex/reproduction just as the majority of society (outside of the Qun) does. WhiteClaudia (talk) 16:25, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be glad about racism locking out romances. It would make sense with the characters we already know. I don't believe that anyone we know would partner with a Qunari (except for other Qunari). I can only see Cullen romancing humans,elves, and maybe dwarves. I believe Cassandra would only romance humans. Varric would only date female dwarves, as he refuses Hawke and says this in DA2 (unless he's changed).Aedan Amell (talk) 03:48, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Right. If players have standards, why shouldn't NPCs have own?FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 05:25, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

It would very interesting to see what the romances would be like if certain LIs wouldn't romance with certain races. Though I don't Bioware would actually do that. Seraphim47 (talk) 12:48, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that realistically an Elf or Dwarf character is naturally the least likely to have an interracial relationship. I mean look at the DA universe. Elves and Dwarves, especially Dwarves, are in desperate need of a population explosion. So in a real setting no I don't see Elven and Dwarven PC's allowing themselves to fall in love with someone outside their species or race or whatever. I have to admit, in DA:O I would purposely allow Alistair to break up with my Elven PC's and get my PC's to fall in love with Zeveran instead because it seemed more realistic, and hey I wanted some beautiful brown Zeveran babies lol.

At the same time, I feel players should ultimately have the choice. That's what Bioware games have been about as long as I have been playing them, and that's how they should always be. I will say one good thing about DA2 was the fact that all main romances were bisexual. If a player wanted Anders to be gay in their playthrough, then Anders was gay in that universe. The same true about a straight Anders or Merrill being straight in that players' universe. People on the Bioware social really pissed me off when they were whining about a character being Bisexual or Gay. Like wtf? It's every players own unique universe.

As for the funny bit above about Qunari being um... large? LOL! It would make sense, but you never know. For all we know Elves could be the biggest. Or Sandal. Enchantment in those pants! Okay I'm stopping now lol!

Sliver Warden, not to call you out or anything, but I don't believe sex is the be all end all of a relationship. That line of thinking is close to the idea that men can't control their sexual urges which is a concept that many less educated countries believe. We know that every mentally stable adult male, female, intersex can control their sexual urges. Sex is great, but there is a lot more to life. If one's life revolves around any one thing, that's a pretty wasted life. --Jamirflyd (talk) 16:46, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Not what I meant at all. There's a difference between a conscious goal and a subconscious need. For example, consciously, a person may enjoy the taste of cheese burgers and choose to eat one but subconsciously, people prefer eat things that will provide them with sugars/fats because those things are harder to find in nature. However, people can control what they eat, to the point where some people will starve themselves to death. Sex is no different. It typically isn't the conscious goal of a long term relationship, but take it away and the relationship will starve. Obviously men do not go into a lust-filled berserker frenzy if they don't get any. But a romantic relationship cannot be maintained with out sex. Note that when I say sex, it doesn't have to be intercourse, other types of sexual contact will do.

Two people whose romantic relationship breaks down from a lack of intimacy won't necessarily hate each other and go their separate ways. (Though this is often the case.) They can remain friends and may still love each other in a different sense. They may even work together to raise their children in a so-called 'loveless marriage' (or other arrangement). But without sex any romantic relationship will starve. This doesn't make sex 'the end-all be all', it means sex is the basic, intrinsic, instinctive drive that gives our bodies the power to produce something more than what is necessary. That doesn't necessarily relegate it to just physical pleasure. It is not possible to paint a picture without a brush, but that does not make a painting any less beautiful. Sex is the brush that paints love. Silver Warden (talk) 19:56, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

So ironic that we were talking about platonic relationships on the chat, and why not!?! But I feel as though that there shouldn't be racial restrictions, but that shouldn't count out some characters being unromanceable because they simply don't prefer those from other races. Heck, my first inquisitor will probably go for the same race, but i should note that qunari females in concepts don't look that bad. Lazare326 (talk) 21:09, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

There are so many different kinds of love, and sex is but the smallest part of most of them. Sometimes "just" a kiss can be more intimate than sex ever could. Real love is for someone's mind and personality. You only appreciate the body that mind comes in. That's the difference. Love does not wither and die without sex, it dies without trust. Look what happens to couples who have sex but lack mutual respect, it's the stuff of goddamn nightmares. 21:06, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you totally missed my point. For one thing a kiss is (usually) sexual contact, which I stated can substitute for actual intercourse. Nor did I ever say that trust was not necessary for a long term relationship. Both are. As for 'real love' being for a person's mind and personality, I agree. But physical attraction comes first. As in, it literally happens first. And if it goes away, romantic love becomes something else. What that is could be anything from utter hatred to familial love. But romantic love is sexual by definition. Look it up.

And don't tell me what I do or don't appreciate. There's no need to make this personal. Silver Warden (talk) 21:20, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean you you. I meant "you" in the general sense. I should have said "people", my bad, sorry. The rest of it, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on. 11:57, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think we should. They did in Mass Effect, at least.

Sure, you had Tali, Garrus, and Thane. But they weren't romanceable (at least Tali and Garrus) until you already spent an entire game with them, unless you didn't with Garrus. But that's something that most people did to see how that worked in ME2. Anyway, Tali and Garrus hadn't actually expressed feelings until Mass Effect 2. Thane was in a vulnerable position in his life, so that made sense for him to romance a human. Tali and Garrus were more of from races that didn't really promote cross species mingling. Liara, an Asari, did. She is from a species that openly encourages such things. All of the other romances were human. The ones that counted towards achievements, that is. All of the races in Dragon Age have a very, frankly, racist view of who should fall in love with who. Elves and Humans are the only ones who are, to say the very least it's the only appropriate word for it, accepted if they fall in love with one another. I'm not saying they're accepted by everyone, but I'm saying less heads are going to be turned from an Elf and Human in love than, say, a Dwarf and Elf. Or Dwarf and Human. My point is that I believe the romances should be racialised because that's the established canon in Dragon Age. It can change, but that'd be one of those they'd have to approach it properly. I don't see Cullen falling for a Mage as in character, frankly. Dabuddah (talk) 05:30, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Cullen had a crush/was in love with the female Mage in origins, so I don't think he'll have a problem with it now, but it would more than likely come up once or a few times that your a mage when in a relationship with him, which would be interesting, class and specialization affecting relations--Jcama (talk) 06:30, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Love how everyone brings that up as defense for romancing Cullen as a Mage. Did you guys even finish the tower as a female mage? Cullen pretty much stopped crushing on them after being in the prison. Another thing is he doesn't even make a pass at female Hawke. After the events at the circle tower, I believe that it'd be out of character for him to like a mage simply because he was ready to purge to circles. I'm not saying he didn't have reason, but yeah. Dabuddah (talk) 15:42, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think racial restrictions in regard to the romance make sense and it would be about time that they were implemented. The elven Warden has only the saving grace of being effectively sterile to avoid the risk of siring a dirty elf-blooded, so their example makes a bit more sense. But despite all of the lore implications regarding interbreeding throughout the entire setting, there seem to be a lot of those damned half-breeds around, and I think the prejudice should be more apparent from NPCs. Dwarves, naturally, should want to breed among their own, and most Qunari know nothing else but to breed when they're told to do so, and *only* then. Mages are not quite their own 'race', but their nature should also warrant special treatment from any possible paramours they may have. All in all, I'd definitely like it if some of the elves would kindly STOP killing off their race slowly and the humans would likewise keep to their own as well. EzzyD (talk) 08:31, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

That...sounds oddly racist. "Keep to their own." I get that there are biological considerations here, but keep to their own? Really poor way of phrasing it. Anyway, it should be noted that while Orzammar dwarves are very "pro-dwarf", surface dwarves don't appear to have that hang up. Same goes with city elves vs the Dalish. The Dalish are very insular and xenophobic. The city elves have every reason to hate humans, and most prefer "their own" over humans, but it's not that shocking that one or two would fall for a human.

As for the Qunari, we've yet to encounter any instance of Qunari sexuality. For all we know there's never been a Qunari cross species relationship, it could be physically impossible. Also, the Inquisitor will be Vashoth, not bound by the rules of the Qun. Not sure about the Iron Bull, but given his name, he's probably also Vashoth or Tal-Vashoth. Silver Warden (talk) 18:14, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

It's not my prerogative nor my job to cater to your sensibilities with my phrasing. I was merely putting forth my opinion in the manner that I desired to. I believe the Dalish could be a bit nicer, but I do not hold them at fault for wanting humans to stay far away from them; there are scant few reasons for them to trust anyone who is not also a Dalish. The surface dwarves are, of course, a bit more open since they usually are not banged over the head with the "Tradition Stick" from the moment of their birth. Heh. As for Vashoth, I agree that there is no current precedent, so I stuck with what we have seen of those who are still a part of the Qun. But back to the elves; in nearly any other fantasy setting, it would be a much lesser concern to interbreed with humans, and most of that would come from prejudice based on societal or historical precedents than the nature of the child themselves (half-elves being very common in a setting like Dungeons & Dragons: Forgotten Realms, for example, and are actually quite accepted since they blend both races near-perfectly), but in DA the risk is two-fold, since every child they sire by a human is one less elf that could have been born to continue the species, and I'd prefer that the elves keep existing. EzzyD (talk) 20:32, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

we haven't seen a Qunari with a real sexuality because we haven't met a Qunari who had no affiliation with the Qun. This will be our first time actually seeing a Vashoth Qunari. I firmly believe the "no sexuality" thing is a Qun thing, not a racial thing. Those of the Qun (even if they're Tal-Vashoth) were conditioned under that lifestyle, to not associate emotion with reproduction/sex. But those who were never a part of the Qun, would not be conditioned that way, and therefore, I think they would be like the majority of Thedosians and associate emotions with it. WhiteClaudia (talk) 16:34, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that taken out of context, saying "stick to their own" could very easily be misinterpreted. It would be like calling a Vashoth Qunari "one of the good ones" or saying, when talking about the elves "some of them had better lives as slaves." I know what you mean, but you appear to have deliberately chosen phrasing that was intended to incite offense. Perhaps that was not the case and you were simply being careless. It just seems like you could have easily said something else, like "elves should be more worried about going extinct".

Anyway, I think that elf/human relationships aren't as common as are portrayed in the game, because of player bias - we're seeing the exceptions, because they are problematic, and the Warden & Hawke are people who go around solving other people's problems. Also, humans are in a position of power over the city elves, so a fair amount of the elf-blooded children are probably the result of either coercion or elven women trying to get a better life for themselves by becoming the mistresses of some human lord. A lot of elves work as servants for humans, and aren't really in a position to refuse a male human's advances. Silver Warden (talk) 17:56, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Raidenshred, Dave the Maniac, you aren't the only ones. It's good to see other folks not thinking of themselves as animals. Humans want more than food and sex. It's what makes us humans.--Markurion (talk) 01:46, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Humans ARE animals. Last time I checked, mammals are animals. We are mammals. Biology for you. WhiteClaudia (talk) 16:36, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Homo sapiens are animalia in the biological classification, sure, just like every other non-plant or non-microscopic life on the planet. And we evolved from animals and are an order of primates. But we have reason, sentience, culture, technology, responsibility, trade, I could really go on and on. We began as a part of nature, but paradoxically our own nature has allowed us to transcend it. We are not animals, for the simple reason that at this moment two tigers in different countries are not using a mutually-understood set of symbols representing mutually-recognizable concepts across a sophisticated electrical network criss-crossing the planet in order to hold a conversation about their nature. 21:06, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Animalia. According to science we are animals. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. We are still mammals, just intelligent mammals/animals. WhiteClaudia (talk) 21:11, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's hubris or just flat-out ignorance that allows us to believe that we have somehow transcended our animal nature, that we are enlightened beings that are fundamentally separate from all other lifeforms. Perhaps its simply a vestigial remnant of medieval taxonomy, which places humans at the top of the evolutionary tree for religious reasons. Regardless, the notion that humans are beyond nature is complete BS. It's a dangerous line of thought, as it devalues every single other lifeform as much as it elevates humanity. But the straight-up scientific fact is there's no fundamental difference between humans and other apes. And believe me, I've looked for one. Part of me wants to find some research that highlights a clear, fundamental difference between us. But there is none. Oh, there are differences of degree, of detail, but there is no signal cognitive quality that all humans have that no other apes have. There's no scientific reason to put humans in a special philosophical category. There are religious reasons, emotional reasons, and logistical reasons, but that are no scientific reasons for considering humans as anything more than extremely clever, hairless chimps that walk upright.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Acknowledging and accepting our own natures and limitations allows us to view both other species and each other in a more forgiving light. The fact that everything people do is directly or indirectly related to sex or survival does not devalue anything we achieve, any relationships we foster, any emotions we feel. It just helps us understand ourselves better. And that can only be a good thing. Silver Warden (talk) 00:00, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to debate this without it turning into a philosophical discussion (as the entirety of human history has shown.) Indeed, we've already crossed that point. All I can tell you are my beliefs. We've transcended EVERY other limit - gravity, distance, extremes of cold and heat, ageing, knowledge dying with the ones who possess it, and so on. We are only a few generations away from stepping on another planet, creating an artificial intelligence and possibly even transcending mortality itself, and if you can tell me none of that makes our species exceptional, then I just can't talk to you. You say you can't see any difference between humans and apes, but you're saying that on a computer, in a complex language, arguing about your nature. Show me an ape that can do that. Show me another species that left footprints on the moon, can cure their own diseases, worship a god or gods, or calculate the age of the universe.

These are just things I believe. And I don't believe them for religious reasons or what-not. I'm an agnostic, and a humanist. I don't devalue other species to praise humanity. On the contrary, I love animals. I think people in general are stupid, selfish, cruel, selfish, mean, selfish, obnoxious, selfish, crazy, selfish, vapid, selfish, irresponsible, untrustworthy and did I mention selfish? I think humans are special. The problem with people, however, is that most of us don't know that, or don't care. Our motivations can be more complicated and elevated than having more stuff than the other monkeys, having more sex than the other monkeys, showing off how much more pieces of paper we have than the other monkeys, killing the living s*** out of the other monkeys for having stuff we want. We CAN be more than that, and quite often are, because that's what allows us to make strides as a species. We may have a monkey brain, but we also have a human brain. We can put the human brain in charge, and that's what I believe makes us special. But people are lazy, stupid, and selfish, and it's so much easier to let the monkey brain run the show, which is how we end up with the crapfest that is the world around.

But that's just what I think. I guess you could call it misanthropic humanism. 13:38, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

The problem with all the examples you listed is that while no other apes can do those things neither can all humans. More to the point, no humans are born with the ability to do those things, and ten thousands years ago, no human could even imagine doing those things. They are achievements of culture, not innate human nature. Some humans may question the reason for or nature of their existence, but not all. Some humans cannot even read or write. Some humans cannot even speak. What about severally autistic or mentally disabled people who communications skill are literally no better than a chimp? And no one is born with those abilities. Are we not truly human until we're old enough to carry on at least a semi-reasonable conversation? If so, then you've just disqualified all people with sever mental disabilities and infants from personhood.

If the standard for what makes humans "special" is lowered to include every single human being over eighteen months that is not brain dead, then apes, dolphins, whales and possibly several other animals most also be included (and some people actually advocate this). Thus we are left with the choice of either cheapening personhood to include multiple non-human species or to exclude many disabled people and infants from personhood. I think both choices are equally ridiculous, and so I throw away the very notion of personhood. We are just clever animals. And that's okay. Most animals far more ethical than people, even though (or perhaps because) they could never understand ethics. It is only the more intelligent creatures that are smart enough to lie, cheat, betray, murder, rape, wage war and commit genocide. For every marvelous achievement human culture has brought us, there is another horrific aspect of human culture that undermines it. There are pros and cons to being super-smart. I find that humbling, not disparaging.

I will grant you that if we manage to not destroy ourselves within the next century or so, we will inevitably use cybernetics to enhance ourselves to the point where we are no longer limited by our physical bodies. If/when that happens, then we can claims to be gods existing in a special category beyond animals. But as long as we are limited to our physical bodies we will be limited to our physical needs, and all our pursuits will be somehow connected to those needs. This includes romantic love, which is a product of sexual attraction. A tree needs roots to survive, even if the tree itself is much more than its roots. Sexual attraction is the roots of the tree of love. Why that notion is so hard to grasp for so many people, I'll never understand. Silver Warden (talk) 18:24, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

What we have here is a difference of opinion on human nature, which is hardly unprecedented. Neither of us are going to change our beliefs over what some other person on the internet said. (That, I think, sadly is quite unprecedented.) I don't like the extremes we keep both keep having to bring up, so all I can really say is "I politely disagree." 18:57, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Considering EA and BioWare and the fact that they tend to maybe be on the uber-crazy political correctness crusaders end of the spectrum. I think it is going to be almost a given that interracial romances are going to be there point blank. I'm not necessarily against interracial romances, I mean it would be a raging moment if someone shut all down and told me to fuck off from romance because I was; human, elf, qunari, mage, male, female, or whatever. However, I think they're still going to go about the whole "speak with me twice, then we'll go for a roll in the hay." kind of way. _{Μάραυδερ ΟΘʹ} ^{I can make the Black Sun look like a Swoop Gang.} 01:48, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

@SilverWarden, you claim sexual attraction to be the base for romantic love. Female animals refuse to mate with males crippled in any way. Cripples in animal world are outcasts and are doomed to die very soon. How come human women didn't abandon their crippled husbands after WW1 and WW2? Heres a fantasy example. Robocop! The only body parts he has are lungs and part of his skull. And his wife still wants to be with him ( newer version). If sexual attraction is that important, human race would be doomed. And EAware keeps throwing at us that sex is the only important thing in a relationship. And that's exactly what nerds across the world believe. Bioware, under guidance of EA, is helping create retarded generation of sexual addicts. And that's why I even started this conversation. I should've created topic just for this.--Markurion (talk) 13:42, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Once again, someone has completely misunderstood me. How many times must I explain it? Sexual attraction is the driving force of romantic love, not necessarily the sole conscious reason for it. Women who stay with their crippled husbands obviously love them in more than just a romantic sense. You know because there is more than one type of love. They've become family at that point. So even if the sexual attraction to their husband fades, they'll likely still love them in another way. Also, I've already stated that sexual interaction isn't necessarily limited to just intercourse. Someone with a mouth and fingers can still... I'm sure get the picture.

If sexual attraction weren't extremely important, the human race would be doomed. Or at least we wouldn't have progressed this far. By now we understand the pragmatic importance of population control/upkeep, and we can create embryos without sex. But 10,000 years ago, there were thousands of humans instead of billions. The infant mortality was much higher and the average lifespan was much lower. Reproduction was much more important then, and we evolved sexual instincts from that time. We still have those instincts, and they still drive romantic relationships, even though satisfying those instincts is not the primary goal of most long term relationships. Do you understand what drive means? When you drive a car, it is to get from place to place. It is the same with relationships, sex is what carries a relationship from early attraction to emotional connections that run far deeper than any romantic entanglement ever could.

Let me simplify this further. In the beginning of relationships, attraction is what draws people together, like magnets. It keeps them together until something more powerful binds them, like two magnets that melt and fuse into a single object. What holds the magnets together now is stronger than romantic love, but that romantic love can fade. This happens if sexual attraction ceases, in the same way that the object could become demagnetized. The object is still held together by other forces, but it is not romantic love, in the same way a romance can become familial after losing its sexual attraction.

Oh, and the notion that EA is somehow creating sex addicts is even more ridiculous the the notion of "sex addiction" itself. I mean really? How could anyone ever seriously think that? The "sex" scenes themselves are tamer than what can be seen in an R-rated movie. The reason that the relationships the PC gets into are "sex centered" is because it is the early phases of the relationship that are shown. We don't get to see the Warden and Alistair/Zevran/Leliana/Morrigan fifty years into a relationship where they are an old married couple with kids and grandkids. We see the relationship at the very start, from when the PC first meets the LI and sexual attraction is the force that brings them together.

People go on dates with people they are attracted to (most of the time). Even if they form a relationship that evolves beyond romantic love, sexual attraction is still what brought them together, and if it goes away, so does romantic love. Because that's how romance is defined. It involves sexual attraction. The relationship in question can become much more than that over time but BY DEFINITION, romance is ignited and driven by sexual attraction.

Why is this so hard for so many people to comprehend? That's not a rhetorical question, I really don't understand it. Is it because there's only one word in the English language for love? The ancient greeks had four: romantic love (eros) familial love (storge), friendship (philia) and the worship of gods (agape). So when I say romantic love cannot survive without sexual interaction, I mean eros cannot survive without sexual interaction. Storge and philia can and do flourish without it. Silver Warden (talk) 18:17, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

But , in the game, they do not. Let's move away from Dragon Age Origins for a second. 1 year is an average measure of time for two people to fall in philia, eros AND storge, wouldn't you agree? In Mass Effect, romance between Liara and Shepard lasts for over 3 years, more or less. And before the final battle, the very end of trilogy, all we get from her as a LI is same stupid dialog we got on the beginning. Theres nothing to indicate they have been together for 3 years. As soon as you press the button to go to last battle, you get a sex scene and that is all. I wont go into details and wonder if there were plans by developers to change endings and add little blue babies, but nevertheless it was very stupid conclusion to romance. We see similar thing in Dragon Age. And that should be rectified. --Markurion (talk) 16:13, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that eros can last several years, with 2-3 being a terminal average. (There are biological reasons for this which I won't get into.) But that's really beside the point. I think you're expecting too much from Bioware. The games aren't dating sims, the romances are all optional sidequests (sort of). Honestly, how can a game accurate replicate all the minute aspects of a fully-developed relationship within sixty hours? That's not possible even if the entire game had been focused on just one relationship! I think some of the relationships are very well developed given the actual screen time that is spent portraying them. There are good ones and bad ones of course, but you can't expect Bioware to manufacture a hyper-realistic three year long relationship in under a week. Silver Warden (talk) 18:45, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Silver on this point, Markurion is expecting too much on Bioware on implementing such options that will turn Dragon Age from RPG to a Dating Simulator.110.54.244.252 (talk) 00:52, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Silver, theres no need for SIMS. Simply adding better dialogs would do the trick. Instead of having boobs and butts in the last romantic scene, interesting new dialog could be input. Or both, if they are so intent on pleasing nerds. Heres an example:

Leliana - (if she dated Warden) I once knew a great man/woman. You are much alike. I mourned for a long time after he/she was gone. I cannot lose you, as well. Whatever you do tomorrow, please, survive.

Inquisitor - I cannot promise you that, my love. Not when I'm worried that a stray arrow may find you. Why don't you stay behind, with the army?

Leliana - You know why. I have the necessary skills to get the job done. I wont fail.

Inquisitor - Couldn't you tell Varric what to do? I'm sure he will do as fine a job. He is resourceful.

Leliana - (chuckles) I'm sure Varric has many tricks up his sleeves. But worry not, I do too. I faced many spies and assassins, darkspawn, dwarven tricks and golems, archdemon. Do not doubt me. For I won't doubt you for a second. You will succeed tomorrow. Even if we others fail. You must succeed.

Inquisitor - No pressure there.

Leliana - No, not at all. ( chuckles) Come, my dear, let's go to bed. You need sleep and rest for tomorrow. And maybe I'll help you release some of that pressure.

Inquisitor - Sounds good.

They both smile and leave. ( Insert sex scene if you will)

I pulled that dialog out of nothing in less than 5 minutes. And it could drastically change the feeling of bond between you and your LI. Given some more time it could even be written better. But putting just sex scene, and not even I love you in between, that's just lazy and unimaginative. --Markurion (talk) 09:06, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Bioware have said that past romances wont be romanceable anyways, so what's your point. I agree with you anyway, Silver's point lost it a bit there.91.195.182.240 (talk) 10:38, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Markurion's argument is why Bioware is not doing such options to romance. I don't understand why he is wasting time complaining on romances. If you are expecting to romance characters from the previous games then you will be disappointed.110.54.244.252 (talk) 11:46, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

So, you're claiming to be a better writer than Bioware's entire writing staff. I have to strongly disagree with you on that point, but whatever. If you're solution to "more involved" romances is to input different writing, go write a fan fic. The dialogue portrayed in all of the relationships of every single Bioware game I have played is way better than what you just presented. And not praising Bioware's writing here. If that was the dialogue of two LI's before the final battle, I'd put the TV on mute.

Speaking of which, do you have yours on mute? I'm pretty sure both Alistair and Leliana say "I love you" at some point. Morrigan doesn't outright state it, but she calls the Warden "my love" several times, and she implies that she loves him during their conversation about love. Not sure about Zevran, as I only romanced him once and that was years ago, but it makes sense that his character wouldn't express his love out loud. Merrill flat-out states she loves Hawke. I'm pretty sure Andres does too. Isabela at least implies she loves Hawke several times. I've never romanced Fenris, so I don't know about him.

The romance occurs across more scenes than just the final one before the last battle. If that's all you're judging the entire romance on, then it's your own fault for not paying attention to the rest of game. And I really don't get why the "sex" scenes bother you so much. They LI's are shown in their underwear, not engaging in hardcore porn. I HIGHLY doubt anyone finds that supremely arousing, but even if they do, so? I find it viscerally satisfying to watch an enemy get decapitated by a messy kill, and I'm hardly alone there. If you're going to moan about the game's content, wouldn't it make more sense to start there? Or is an INCREDIBLY tame love scene so very offensive to you that murder pales in comparison? Silver Warden (talk) 19:14, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Zevran slept with Hawke despite romancing Warden earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if Leliana would also stop looking after ghost lover.156.17.71.249 (talk) 13:04, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to one-night stand.Maybe.But a romancable character I doubt that will be happened.To Zevran being slept even romanced, it's a bug in the save file transfer that didn't recognize Zevran as romanced even with Leliana if you transfer your save file from DAO:A or a DLC campaign.112.200.0.43 (talk) 13:33, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Am... guys... theres a "Heres an example", written in my previous post. Read it, lol. :D --Markurion (talk) 16:01, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah we see that one. The best. Why don't you employ yourself to Bioware, you are a good writer.112.200.39.114 (talk) 07:59, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I tried. They said my stories weren't tall enough. :) :P --Markurion (talk) 12:55, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Woah, Silver, dude, you went way off there. First of all, if any, I was the first on both BSN and Wikia, to complain about killing animations being close to none existent in DA2. Second, I never said I mind "tame sex scenes", don't put words in my mouth that i didn't speak. Btw, I AM writing a fan fic, and I do think i could come up with better romance conclusions than what we were shown in DA2 and ME trilogy. You prefer what they gave you? Fine. But let me tell you this. IRL, there are few things as exciting as a romantic adventure. In this boring real world, love is very exciting and rewarding. Add dragons and wizards and whatnot, and you can get it even more so exciting and adventurous. Some may say I'm not realistic with what game budget and story management allow BW team to do, but still... Sex is NOT the ultimate goal. It should never be.--Markurion (talk) 12:51, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

If you're not offended by the romance scenes, then why are you bitching about them? Didn't you say that: EAware keeps throwing at us that sex is the only important thing in a relationship. And that's exactly what nerds across the world believe. Bioware, under guidance of EA, is helping create retarded generation of sexual addicts? Such a reaction to the love scenes the the DA games is either the result of paranoia or prudishness. I assumed that you were simply prudish and not insane. My mistake.

Because clearly you are delusional. You could never write anything better than what Bioware has in DA or ME. And again, that's not because Bioware's writing is so unbelievably spectacular (it's pretty good, but I've seen better), it's because yours was just so...horrendous. I'm not trying to mean, but honestly, if the example above is any indication of the quality of your work, then you are a terrible writer. There's nothing wrong with that, non-athletes can still play sports and have fun, but they can't compete with pros. Bioware has professional writers, you are a rank amateur. You wouldn't challenge Michael Jordan to a game of horse and expect to win would you? (not that Bioware is the Michael Jordan of writing...)

As for sex not being the ultimate goal...you've missed my entire point. I won't repeat it again. If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will. Given your delusional belief that you are a better writer than Bioware's entire staff, that's not surprising. What I have to say is clearly beyond your comprehension. Go back to writing your d-rate fan fic and stop criticizing people who don't live in glass houses. Silver Warden (talk) 20:16, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Nice, so you've come down to insults. Speaks highly of you and your ability to judge someone's worthiness. Nevertheless, I do not think I am better writer than entire BW team, simply because no single writer could be better than a team of writers. What i wrote up there is indication that I pulled that crap out of my ass in 5 minutes. imagine what I could do with a team and a budget and a deadline. But if you think the story and it's implementation in gameplay is good, than, who am I to change your mind. Go and be happy with mediocre writing EAware is serving you and other drones. You missed my point, I missed yours. I'll be sure to miss it in future, as well. Fare the well, mate.--Markurion (talk) 21:24, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, calling you a terrible writer was not meant as insult, but as a factual statement. Most people are terrible writers. Being a terrible writer means you're just an average amateur, and average is not an insult. As for calling you delusional? Again, not an insult, but a factual statement. There's no way any sane person with your skills could believe they were better than any member of Bioware's team. Therefore you are delusional. Delusional means having beliefs that in stark conflict with reality, which you do. Again, not an insult, a factual statement.

FYI, there are most certainly single writers who are better than groups of writers. For example, take a random group of amateurs and pair them against Stephen King. King wins, every time. That's including all his crappy novels, not just the great ones. An average group of ten, twenty, or even a hundred writers cannot compare with a one-in-a-million writer. Bioware has several one-in-a-million writers. It would take several million people working together to equal that talent.

I must admit I have missed your point, which is the whole purpose of this the discussion. Is it simply to say you could do better? Or is it that you think Bioware should do better? If it's former well, you're wrong, you couldn't. That's all there is to it. But if it's the latter, then would I ask you to clarify. Given infinite time and resources, yes they could. Bioware does not have infinite time and resources, and I think they've done very well with what they do have (in terms of the romances). Remember, the romances are not the focus of the game. There's only so much time and money that can be sunk into them before those resources are taken away from other areas. And frankly, the games have much bigger faults than the imperfect romances. Origin's combat was meh. DA2's combat was meh+1. DA2 reused maps so often that it's shameful. DA2's overall plot lacked coherency. If DAI is game with a coherent plot, fresh maps, and at least meh+2 combat, who cares if the romances maintain the same B+ quality? It would be nice if they were more involved, sure, but there are other things to consider. Calling Bioware lazy and unimaginitive for not creating perfect romances in a game that is not about the romances is unproductive and irresponsible, not to mention inaccurate. Claiming that the company is actually turning "nerds" into "sex addicts" is insane. There's no nicer way to phrase that. It's the kind of line I'd expect to hear from O'Reilly on FOX News. Silver Warden (talk) 23:47, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

The very existence of asexual people (and that includes romantic aces) disproves the notion that sex is necessary to sustain romantic relationships (or anything allegedly motivated by sexual urges). For many people, I'm sure sex is vital to their continued happiness, but you can't just generalize all people and all relationships - it's not only inaccurate, it's erasure. (apologies if this thread is too old to bother commenting on, I just wanted to clarify this one thing). Samahl (talk) 00:29, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, asexual people don't "fall in love" in the romantic sense. They still get aroused, of course, but the definition of asexuality is someone who isn't romantically attracted to either sex. From what I understand asexual people don't desire romantic relationships, because that's what being asexual means. So, that kinda makes your point moot. Silver Warden (talk) 11:10, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. There's sexual and romantic attraction - being asexual means you aren't attracted to anybody, which can mean anything from feeling arousal, but not wanting to act on it, to enjoying the act of sex, but not with anybody in particular, to not having any sexual feelings whatsoever. Romantic attraction is defined as being romantically attracted to one or multiple genders, which includes falling in love. Romantic asexual people do exist, because romantic and sexual attraction are two separate spectrums. This doesn't mean sexual attraction/feelings have nothing to do with romance or any one person's individual relationship, it's just not good to extrapolate it to the entire population, because the entire population doesn't fit this rigid mode of sexuality that you've defined. Samahl (talk) 11:33, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

They are not my definitions, they are common psychological definitions, and they are actually very, very broad. I assumed you meant people who had no romantic feelings toward anyone, not people who cannot become aroused for physical and/or psychological reasons. Those people might identify as being asexual, but sexuality is not a something that can be changed. Impotence, hyposexuality, and related conditions can be cured (at least in theory). They can also be acquired. A person can't become gay, straight, or bi. A tiny fraction of the population is born without romantic or sexual desires of any kind, and they are asexual. People who have "become" asexual are not, not if sexuality is defined by love instead of desire. Trying to define sexuality by simple desire (or lack thereof) is unnecessarily complex and very impractical. Sexuality is defined by who a person can fall in love with. If the answer is "no one", that person is asexual - everyone else is gay, straight, or bi, and any other stipulations the individuals may have are caused by acquired fetishes, which are not innately part of any sexual orientation. For example, being a straight man is a sexual orientation, but a straight man who only gets turned on by skinny women has a fetish, and that fetish was acquired at some point after his birth. Thus is it not part of his orientation. By the same token, a person born with the ability to become aroused who then looses it has undergone a change separate from his/her innate sexuality. They may self-identify as asexual, but scientifically it doesn't make sense to put them in the same category. Culturally it might, but I'm not discussing the cultural definitions of sexuality, as I've yet to encounter any cultural definitions of sexuality that are both consistent and logical. Silver Warden (talk) 23:16, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get these "common psychological definitions"? I can't find anything on Wiki to support your claims. Either way, asexuality is not something to be "cured".

Actually, plenty of people are romantic aces - they're more common, I believe, than aro aces, though I don't have any numbers to back my conviction up. I've personally seen more, but that's just anecdotal.

What you're saying is true of most of the population - most people's romantic orientation matches their sexual orientation (with the exception of asexual people), but it's short-sighted to assume that this applies to everybody, which is why separating romantic orientation and sexual orientation is useful, especially when talking about asexual people.

And honestly, it doesn't matter what terms are used in this particular discussion - the point is, there are romantic asexual people who can fall in love and maintain romantic relationships without feeling any sexual desire for their partners, so your insistence on sex being necessary is flawed on its face. I do concede that it's important for many, as I stated above, just not everybody. Samahl (talk) 00:11, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, I'm confused by how you're using the term asexual. To clarify, this is what I know: there are people who never had and never will have romantic feelings toward anyone, they are aromantic, even if they can still get aroused. People who can fall in love and could become aroused at one point in the past, are not asexual/aromantic, because a person is born with their sexuality and it can never change. There are also people who can never become aroused and can never fall in love, they are asexual because they were born without a sexuality. Are you suggesting there are some people who never have and never can become aroused but can still fall in love? That's impossible. People in that situation have a psychological and/or physiological problem that prevents their arousal from consciously surfacing. Love grows from attraction. It's impossible to fall in love with a person that you don't find at least slightly attractive. Love is an extremely physical emotion, probably the most physical emotion there is, and arousal is part of that. Increased heart rate, flustered skin, extreme excitement and/or nervousness around the person - all of this requires a level of arousal, and a person born with the inability to experince those things simply can't fall in love. They may believe what they feel is the same thing that other people do, but emotions are subjective, and love without arousal is not romantic, it is familial or platonic. And that's why removing sex (or rather, sexual action) from a relationship will cause it to become something other than romantic. Of course, there doesn't have to be sex 24/7 to keep a relationship alive - people can go weeks or even months without touching each other a still be in love, under certain circumstances. But there's a limit. Can any relation remain dormant for over a decade and still survive? I doubt it, but even if it could, it would be mean there's still some attraction there. Even friendships do not remain intact if two people are kept apart for an extended period of time. Unless the term "friend" is used with the same level of insincerity that facebook gives it. Love is the same. The word can become bastardized and is easily misunderstood. All love is not the same. There's romantic love and non-romantic love, there's love with sexual arousal and without it, but romance and arousal are intertwined. Arousal is a requirement of romantic love, by its very definition. That's all there is to it. Silver Warden (talk) 22:53, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions here.

First off, no, sexuality is not this rigid thing that's set in stone forever. Some straight people turn gay. Some gay people turn straight. Some bi people turn monosexual.

Secondly, all of the chemicals that are the biological basis of love can be produced without sexual arousal. Serotonin, oxytocin, dopamine... all these chemicals occur in the brain, regardless of the presence or absence of a sex drive.

Thirdly, our current understanding of the world is not infallible. Science is not infallible. I am very pro-science, but in no way do I put all my faith in every last study and theory, because we don't always have all the information, results can be skewed and analyzed incorrectly, etc. (Not to mention the fact that nobody's actually every done a study on romantic asexual people to figure out the basis of their feelings.)

To sum it up, if a bunch of people are saying they feel one way, and science does not yet have an answer for why this might be, it's unreasonable to dismiss them and deny their identities just because you happen to like one narrow interpretation of a complex phenomenon. It is the height of arrogance telling a person that they cannot be one way because what you hold to be true conflicts with that. Samahl (talk) 01:27, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that feelings of love can be reporduced chemically. All feelings can be reproduced chemically (in theory), because all we are is a bunch of chemicals. However, even if feelings of love are reproduced artificially, so is arousal. Romantic love is a specific kind of arousal. Love without arousal is not romantic by definition. It's not a matter of scientific debate, that's just want the term romantic love means.

It's not possible to turn gay or bi, gay/bi people just don't to recognize their own sexuality sometimes. A straight person who happens to get turned on by a particular guy (or guys) at one point but then never does again isn't going back and forth between gay and straight. Being gay, straight, or bi means being able to fall in love with men and/or women. This is why trying to define human sexuality based on arousal is both futile and pointless. Arousal is fluid, love is not.

If something someone says goes against what I know to be possible, then I assume they are wrong, even if what they said is about themselves. That's not arrogance, it's skepticism. Some people claim to have visions from god. I don't believe them. They are either lying or were hallucinating. Usually I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and call their belief hallucination instead of deception. This case is no different. I realize that some people may think what they feel is romantic love is actually something else. They are not lying (probably), they just have no experience with actual romantic love, so they cannot be expected to know the difference. Think of it like this: a 12 year old boys gets a crush on a girl and thinks he's in love. Eight years later, he actually falls in love for the first time and realizes his 12 year old self was wrong. There is a physiological difference between the two emotional states that can be measured, but to the boy he was couldn't know what real love is like until he experienced it. It is the same for people who lack a sexuality but claim they can fall in love. They lack the ability to physically experience love the way other people can, so to call what they feel romantic love devalues the term. I know it's not PC to say some people are wrong about their own feelings, but feelings are physical, measurable states and it is possible to be wrong about any quantifiable experience, even an emotion. Silver Warden (talk) 09:51, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about people not realizing their sexuality, I'm talking about people whose sexualities have literally shifted over time. It's obviously still not a choice. Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to wade through homophobic Christian conversion treatises to find any worthwhile research, so I'll just let this one lie.

As for the "romantic aces are delusional" bit, I'm going to leave this here for you to look at. Samahl (talk) 11:25, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

People who can't fall in love are consider aromantic, not asexual. Asexual is strictly with sexual attraction. NutMeg29 (talk) 23:06, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

The terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Technically I agree, we should be using the terms heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic, and aromantic, but the terms heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual have become so common that for consistency's sake I use the term asexual. Silver Warden (talk) 23:16, May 28, 2014 (UTC)