A Change in Direction

Hey guy(s)

Some of you may know that my computer games and women series has moved over to the amazing www.bfvg.co.uk, along with other interesting videogame reads - check it out!

So, from now on, here at least, I will be turning my attention to another colossal media/gender issue minefield that is the world of the Disney animation.

I love Disney animations.  The first I remember watching was The Little Mermaid, and Ariel herself inspired me to become just like her when I was about 4.  That's right, a mermaid.

However, I am one of the first to admit, that their leading ladies are less than heroically depicted.

Now, I won't start proper during this article, but I will outline the kind of films I will be covering - Basically, Pre-Pixar.  Most Disney enthusiasts my age lament the decline of the all-singing, all dancing, painstakingly 2D animated Musical animations.  That's not to say that the work that goes into the beautiful Pixar Studios 3D animations are any less painstaking, but the suspension of disbelief shifts to totally different areas.

Example:  the "traditional" (for want of a better word) 2D animations expect you to travel to worlds where magic, witches, and spontaneous singing happens, whereas the later 3D animations would have you believing in more scientific-based fantasies.  That is to say, there is usually no "magical" explanation for animated toys, cars, planes, etc., they are just presented as fact in the universe they belong to, and they certainly don't need to sing or dance for your disbelief to need to be suspended, the fact that they are alive is enough.  As much as I enjoy the new 3D wave of animations, I do miss the singing and dancing Disney.

And of course, they've started to bring it back!  The first foray into the musical return, was "The Princess and the Frog", and not only was it musical, but also 2D.  I still haven't seen the film as of yet (and seeing as I'm going to do this in chronological order, I have lots of time to amend this, which I will), but by all accounts it was not nearly as popular as its predecessors back in the day.

Since, there have been two musical animations by Disney, but mixing the "traditional" and the 3D together, I think quite successfully; Tangled, and most recently Frozen.  Both involve the "Singing Princess on a Quest" formula, whilst moving away from the direct "I Need to Find a Boyfriend" route.

So, my next article here will be on The Little Mermaid.  One day I may venture into the older animations, but I've never been a huge fan, so i figured I'd start with what I know and go from there.

Also, it's basically just a huge excuse to watch as many Disney films as possible so I can sing along.

Might and Magic and Involuntary Bodyduilding

Hello again!

Once again, it's been an age between posts (welcome to the world of blogging), but in my defence, I have been setting up a home business.  Also, I'm just really lazy and/or forgetful.

Because I've had such a dry spell, I figured I'd start back with a game series I particularly love (but still moan about quite a lot): "Fable". "Fable", when it was first released, was one of the first games to really explore the depths of in-game AI and the troubling matter of cause and effect in the gaming universe.  Additionally, to my recollection (and incorrect it may well be - I am open to corrections on this), it was also one of the first that allowed quite a high degree of detailed customisation, in terms of costume, hair, weapons, etc.

The first game in the "Fable" series, although highly customisable, didn't actually allow the player to choose a female character.  Hero, the character's default name was always a young boy, and as he grew into a man, you could define his character as finely as you liked.  Clothes, hair styles, even tattoos were readily available to buy in game and apply.  In addition to the conscious aesthetic choices provided throughout the game, your actions also affected ultimately how your character looked.  You start off with a "normal" looking guy - sort of thin, short, mousy hair.  Dependent on whether your actions were regarded as good or evil also contributed to the way your character looked.  It worked on a sort of sliding scale, i.e. +100 was totally Good, and -100 was totally Evil.  +100 meant you got gradually blonder, blue marks appeared all over your body and you got a literal halo.  -100 meant you got gradually darker, more frowny, reddish marks appeared all over your body and you ended up having two horns coming out of your head.  So, in theory, the more evil you are the more likely you are to develop hideous malformed growths on your face.

Enter "Fable 2" - the second instalment in the series introduced the added option of...wait for it....LADY HERO (whom I shall hereby refer to as "Shero").  Once again, the choice of a female protagonist did not in anyway affect the main aspects of the gameplay - she wouldn't stop to complain about breaking a nail, or have to rush off to the kitchen in between quests, or anything, which is nice. In fact, the gender choice was purely aesthetic, which continues through to "Fable 3" (but not the most recent release for the Kinect, "Fable: The Journey").

Non-Player characters, frequently voiced with West Country accents and some delightfully, deliberately ridiculous script (much to my continued amusement), both male and female can, and will, fall in love with your character, regardless of gender.  Although the NPC's sexual orientation does affect his/her choice towards your S/Hero.  By and large though, playing as Shero is the most efficient way to get the majority of the games male population to trail you around and proposition you incessantly.  Yes, you can have sex in-game.  On top of that, you also have the choice of whether the act is protected or unprotected, the latter of which usually ends up with you catching something nasty.  (The act itself is visually censored, but there is a wealth of amusing sound effects - as can be heard here, never mind the fact that he's got a chicken hat on).

There are some who theorise that the constant sexual propositioning of Shero in-game is creator Chris Molyneux's idea of a subtle social commentary, which if true, is both very clever, and very subtle.  I'm not quite sure I agree, because your character can get hit on by both men AND women, and also, by the end of the game, literally EVERY SINGLE NPC WANTS TO GET IN YOUR PANTS.

Now, I have maintained throughout this post so far that gender is an aesthetic choice - now here is my gripe.  In honesty it is really just an extension of the gripe from my earlier post, I admit it, but I don't care.  Also I'll go into a bit more detail.

Being a woman, I do like things that women typically like (nice hair, makeup, shoes...lots of shoes), in addition to liking things that, stereotypically, are still more of a man's domain (sci-fi, gaming, firetrucks).  So, when I played as Shero, I did want a character who looked feminine.  Whilst this is possible earlier in teh game, as you gradually level up your skills, Shero looks less and less like a lady and more like a gargantuan, bodybuilding golem.  Her stature grows, as do her muscles.  On the one hand, it is genuinely brilliant that as a female, Shero is not restricted to dainty, small proportioned musclelessness.  On the other, it somehow ends up defying the otherwise limitless customisation in the game.  I want to be able to choose how muscly she gets or how tall she gets.

Whilst researching why she got so huge, I discovered it was apparently down to a combination of levelling up the "Strength" attribute and the "Will" attribute (in layperson's terms: Melee and Magic abilities).  So basically, in levelling up throughout the game (in order to progress and ultimately win, you forfeit some level of your customisation, and end up with a combination of something like this:

I suppose the idea behind it is that you can choose not to level up certain attributes in order to control the way your character looks, thereby announcing to all and sundry that you essentially value style over substance, like some kind of shallow moron.  But my argument is that if you are pushing on the customisation front, then there shouldn't be essentially unavoidable gameplay choices to make that interfere with the customising you have already done.

On the one hand, the level playing field between Hero and Shero is laudable - in theory it could go some way to encourage the ideology of women in stereotypically male roles as utterly equal and unbound by societal constraints.  On the other, could it not be said that it blindly overlooks the potential needs/demands of the customising gamer?

Girls and Boys and Samus Aran

Clearly, the world of sexual equality in the gaming world has gripped me, and here I am again - two blog posts in a month!?  What's going on!?

In my rummagings, I found so much that made me rabbit, I've decided to do a little mini-series of blogs about the portrayal of women in video games.  I covered it oh-so-briefly in my last blog post, Gamer Girls and Porno Mods, even mentioning one or two female game protagonists by name, but that article centred mostly around the necessity to alter games to seemingly suit a need for sexual gratification.

Today, I will be talking about Samus Aran.  Samus Aran was one of the first female protagonists in a videogame (Metroid).  Moreso, she was one who wasn't overtly sexualised, and more than that, she was a strong, independent character.  Throughout the game, Samus, a bounty hunter with very little background and this weird, oversized cyborg suit-thingy is jumping around shooting the ass off things, and turning into this awesome ball, because the suit is awesome.  Then, right at the end, she is finally revealed to be a woman (you can watch it here).  Aside from the fact that she is suddenly wearing pink and giving a cute little wave at the camera, it's still fairly cool that such a powerful, independent, ass-kicking character is actually female.

Metroid is now an extremely popular series of video games, with 11 games spanning 26 years.  In 1986, when Samus was debuted (and eventually outed), female protagonists were limited to Ms. Pacman and, apparently,  "Lady Master of Kung Fu".  However, it must also be noted that in 1986 when Samus was debuted, there was a purposeful deception as to her true gender - the slightly ambiguous name, the armour (which is neither skimpy nor pink), and the general mystery surrounding Samus's past, all served to lull the core audience of male gamers into its usual sense of security - "Samus da MAN!".  Samus was obviously a man, because he's kicking all this butt.  In space.  In non-revealing, practical armour.  Women don't kick butt....and they definitely don't go to space.  I heard it's something to do with their ovaries.

I can only imagine what the reaction of the original Metroid gameplayer was when Samus was quite calmly (yet with a distinct uplift of the 8-bit music....bit of key change, bit of a textural lift) outed as being a lady in a hot pink one-piece.

Whilst one can, and should, laud the fact that the developers chose to go with a female protagonist, I can't help but wonder if the effect would have been the same if the character was transparently a woman in the first place.  I was a baby in the mid-80's, so it's not like I'm going to be an authority on gender portrayal around that time, but my guess is probably not.  I think the slap-in-the-face factor of the chosen revelation could even be what has made the game so popular today.  I liken it to the "Luke, I am your father" bit in Star Wars (I would give you a spoiler alert, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, then there's probably something seriously wrong with your life) - both are defining moments in their respective media, and is what made them each so revolutionary, and thus, most importantly, memorable.  The developers themselves never originally intended for Samus to be a woman, but during the creative process decided it would be an intersting "twist". It would seem, that just as the gamers who played the game automatically assumed that Samus was a man, the developers did so too, until they saw a way of Samus's gender working to their advantage.

It is hard to imagine in the times we live in (despite the fact that I am here, virtually soapboxing about gender inequaliy in videogaming) that a reveal would have made that much of an impression; but when most, if not all, female representations in videogames prior to this, protagonist or not were just generally a bit wet, for a character who had proven throughout the entire game to be stoical, heroic and an all-round hard case to be revealed as a female when it had never been done before must have been quite astounding. 

Now, at this point, I need to make a little confession....I didn't know that Samus was a woman until very deep into my Smash Bros. Melee playing phase.  Even more shamefully, I can't actually remember how I discovered it  (thinking back I think it was the quasi-sexual grunts she emitted whilst jumping around the screen and/or getting the shit kicked out of her - I play best as Jigglypuff).  I do however remember it being a revelation.  Even in the 21st century, I can see an ambiguously dressed character in a strong role (put it this way, in Smash Bros. Melee, Peach batters people with a fluffy parasol), and automatically presume that character is male.  The fact remains that even now, the portrayal of women in games is almost rigidly defined, it can and does affect the gamers ability to be non-presumptuous in the face of a lack of definitive gender indicators.

Of course there have been some good strong representations of women in gaming of late, but interestingly, and unlike Samus, they are mostly played in the first person (namely Chell from Portal and Faith from Mirrors Edge).  Is it easier to put these female characters in stronger roles because first person perspective makes it easier to forget that you are not playing as a man?  Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but often women represented in the third person perspective are usually waiting to be rescued, or gawped at.  

Samus Aran is easily one of the strongest representations of women in gaming, and the fact that it may have just been a gimmick to get people talking about the major twist at the end is irrelevant now because the more important thing is, they stuck with her, as she was (for the most part).

Hairwire

Gamer Girls and Porno Mods

I am outraged.

Appalled, even.

I have mentioned previously that I like videogames.  I am geek.  It is a fairly widely accepted fact that women in games are portrayed, by and large, pretty poorly - here, Wikipedia lists all of FIVE female video game protagonists, two of which I have never heard of (possibly my bad, I'm not a RABID gamer), out of a list of hundreds, if not thousands, of mainstream video games.  In addition it links to some pretty horrendous games that actually exist.  I'm not going to go into all the things I've found here because it would make this entire post very, very long.  Longer than it's already going to be.

I recently got Skyrim for the PC in order to activate some of the mods available.  If you don't know what modding is, then basically, it's usually user-created changes to game-play.  This can range from anything to simply changing the colour of an in-game outfit, to actually fiddling about with some of the games codes in order to insert new characters/animations/locations etc.  I really enjoy Skyrim, and one of the improvements on its predecessors (Morrowind, Oblivion etc.) that I particularly liked was the fact that female armours actually look like they are made for a female, as opposed to being so intrinsically similar, if not the same as, male armour, that when fully covered, you might as well have not been given to the option to choose a gender in the first place.

That said, I do like my lady armours to be....well, ladylike.  Feminine.  There is nothing wrong with being a strong, yet womanly woman.  Skyrim could have afforded their ladies a bit more femininity in this regard.  I think the most womanly item of clothing you can wear which isn't a sack is the "Tavern Outfit", which errs on the side of wenchy, flashing a fair bit of both leg and boob.  Such a fashion faux pas.

So I thought I'd have a browse of some of the pickings of the modding community.  Surely, I think to myself, there are some womanly armours which have just the right amount of modesty, coupled with just the right amount of sexuality?


What greeted me was a virtual barrage of pornographic images.  Such as this one.  (Totally, completely, and utterly NSFW, just to let you know.)


That, up there, is second on the list when it comes to female mods in Skyrim (The "Calientes Female Body Mod Big Bottom Edition" is the first).  Basically, all it does is allow you to change the size of your female character's breasts, and then remove every single item of her clothing in order to choose whether her foof is "bushy", "light", "trimmed" or "shaved".  Kudos to the guy....he's managed to successfully recreate a 3D modelling of ladyparts.  No really, good job - I guess he must be a real stud to know what one looks like...oh wait, did I hear "porn"?  


Yeah, that's probably more likely.  Seeing as that's probably the only way some guy thinks it's normal for a woman to be wandering around heavily armed with no clothes on.  At all.


On top of this, there is a barrage of mods made specifically to go hand in hand with the one outlined above.  Needless to say a lot of those are fairly ridiculous as well.  This one doesn't have nearly the support I'd expect for adventuring in....


I know that gaming is still a male dominated arena, and of course, I can just choose not to download those mods, but the mere fact that they exist upsets me - why the necessity to create anatomically disproportionate women in order to denude them?  What upsets me more is that the two top body mods for a game otherwise unblemished by stupid, overt sexualisation of either gender, are ones designed specifically to allow certain gamers to get their daily game and porn fix in one handy location as opposed to having to split their entire day into two separate activities. (On a related side note, you can actually get male nudes as well, but as far as I can tell, far less frequently and far less ludicrously proportioned, which makes the whole thing still seem all-too one-sided for my liking.)


On top of the harmless naturism, there are the slightly more sinister/degrading-to-women mods as well, such as the mod that allows you to have sex with the NPCs, the mod that incorporates physics, of the...um...."butt" variety, apparently....which causes bums and boobs to jiggle.  I say "jiggle", but it's more of a sway, or undulation (I can only assume that the creator has been watching "jiggling" in super slow motion to make his/her date with him/herself last that little bit longer).  There are mods that allow you to insert strip clubs into the game, surprise surprise, no male strippers, just big bouncy girl ones.


Again, of course, the game creators themselves cannot be blamed for the content uploaded on these forums, as they are all user-generated - and a lot of hard graft goes into them as well, which, even from these naked pictures I've shared you can see.  And of course, there are a lot of beautifully rendered, gorgeous mods - eye colour mods, mods that define and feminise the face, mods that give your character enviable, L'Oreal style locks, mods that program a feminine walk, even mods that take the nudey ones and use them to create sexy yet slightly more practical female armours, so despite myself, I downloaded the female body mod.  But I avoided the close up shots of foof.


However, it brought to the forefront of my mind all the times I've despaired about the way that women are simultaneously portrayed and catered for in video games. You tend to have one of the following problems:


- Your female character is effectively just an animation of a man, except with boobs (such as Hero in the Fable series, and more popularly documented, FemShep from Mass Effect - quick note, I will be adding an article devoted to the study of the FemShep later, so don't burn me for trashing her inability to successfully pull off a dress)


- She's so wet she's practically a fish - think Aerie from Baldur's Gate, Aeris from FFVII, and our favourite, Princess Peach of Mario Bros. fame - "oh no I've been kidnapped, AGAIN!  Where's a strong, manly plumber when you need one!?"  *swoon*


- She's naked and she got boobies.


The first is, I agree, the lesser of the three evils - but, call me fussy, it's too equal.  More than "equal", it just smacks a fair bit of laziness and a clear, apparent "can't be arsed to program a female walk to go with this female mesh" attitude.  The other two, I would venture, cater pretty much to boys - either the emulation of saving a poor needy damsel in distress without a shred of common sense to STAY AWAY FROM THE GIANT BOWSER, or the ability to see a scantily clad woman running around doing absolutely everything you want them two by fiddling with a knob (two knobs on a controller....catering to some deep metaphoric need?)


This matter is one that I can go on and on and ON about, but I shall leave it there for today - I am happy that there is a medium through which frustrated gamers can take the criticism of many and act upon it, whether by providing a lovely little lady-run, or a new eye colour, but the fact that so many of these downloads are actually categorised (or that there even IS this category) as "adult", and comprised of completely naked, unrealistic female forms, is just a bit saddening, really.

(These guys have definitely got it right though.  Have a watch.)

I'm off to see whether "butt physics" applies to me.

Hairwire

Talent Scouts and freak shows

I’m aware it’s been a long time between blog posts – my adoring fan must be wondering whether I’m still alive (she isn’t, I saw her the other day).  I have been incredibly busy, successfully stretching myself thinly in every direction imaginable. 

Hopefully, I’ll be able to cram a few extra in over the coming weeks, as I have seen a lot of things that have fired me up for one reason or another, and I would just LOVE to vent it out in a big splurge over this tiny blog.

Today’s subject however, is something quite dear to my heart.  Which is probably why I die a little every time the X Factor comes on television.

Yep, we’re talking the TV talent show.  The X Factor, Britain’s Got Talent, The Voice et al.

The other night (Saturday, in fact), I was pottering about in my mother’s living room.  I don’t watch television in general as I believe it to be broadcasting utter shite for most of the time – There are of course exceptions, but very few, and very far between.  My mother, however, would probably die of television withdrawal – especially if I became Queen and passed a law banning them all.

BBC was on, and the debut episode of “The Voice” had started.  I had read the hype and was marginally interested, but also immensely sceptical.  On ITV, the new series of “Britain’s Got Talent” was also airing.  This is a show that I refuse point blank to watch.

Before I go on, I feel like I should explain a few things about me, and then the shows (for any of you who are somehow not aware of these things…hermits, and the Amish, for example).

I am a musician.  Specifically, I am a singer.  I don’t claim to be a great singer, nor do I claim to be in possession of “The X Factor” – mainly because I don’t know or care about what it is.  I do however take pride in making the decision to further myself on the musical path by getting a degree, and then a post-graduate degree, both of which broadened my horizons to no end, and allowed me to develop as a performer and singer.  I give lessons to people who feel like they need them, and as part of that (and also my own moral code, and the fact that I’m not a nasty bitch), I like to build my student’s confidence and hopefully share an experience that I went through and thoroughly enjoyed.

That’s me.

“Britain’s Got Talent” is a TV talent show whereby contestants are auditioned before a live theatre audience and a panel of judges.  Allow me to introduce them: 

Simon Cowell, music industry mogul, with no *actual* performing experience.  Bases nearly ALL of his comments on first impressions – which is to say, looks.

Amanda Holden, actress.  In all honesty, not entirely sure what she was famous for, but seems to, on the back of BGT, have resurrected a brief West End career?

David Walliams, actor and comedian.  Again, probably the less talented of the Little Britain Duo (both of whom still got bloody rubbish towards the latter part of the series).

And finally Piers Morgan.  Former newspaper editor, fired for FAKING PICTURES OF BRITISH SOLDIERSABUSING PRISONERS IN AFGHANISTAN.  Clearly still riding a wave from some journalistic cesspit, and has absolutely no real talent to speak of whatsoever.

“TheVoice” is a television talent show new to the UK, based on a successful Dutch formula, where a series of “experienced” singers judge a set of blind auditions.  To my mind it seems infinitely more promising than “Britain’s Got Talent” was ever going to be.

The Judges for the UK are:

Tom Jones – who hasn’t heard of Tom Jones?  It’s not unusual….haha, punny…the Welsh Wonder, the Sex Bomb (I shudder to think)….etc.

Will.i.am – Music producer, writer singer, and member of The Black Eyed Peas, you’d think this man has a lot of experience up his sleeves.

Jessie J – Genuinely a rather talented musician, I actually quite like her, although I don’t see the need for the funky cat suits and strange live performance quirks….

And….finally….

Danny O-Donoghue.  Actually not personally sure what he’s famous for…but apparently it’s for being the lead singer of The Script.  He sang at the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize Concert, who knew?  Wikipedia did, that’s who.

So 50% of the judges are riding on the wave created by their band, and the other half actually have carved out (respectively), very long or very short-but-impressive careers (so far).

When you compare your judge line up, it’s definitely promising.

I assented to watch The Voice because I was curious, but within 5 minutes of it being on, Tom Jones had done a shit load of name dropping, and Will.i.am was slanging Jessie J (along the lines of “Jessie J is hot right now.  I’ve been hot since way back.” I paraphrase) as the judges squabbled over contestants like a bunch of children over the last GI Joe in the play box.

Once again, the scepticism I hold for these shows was proved wholly justified. 

Why, you ask?

Well, when something advertises itself to me as a talent show, I fail to comprehend why exactly it becomes a “who’s got the best taste out of the judges” competition.  When these people are picked by a particular judge, be it through choice, as on “The Voice”, or at random, as on “The X Factor”, introduced is a whole new element which is entirely nothing to do with those talented/talentless individuals.  That element is the popularity contest.

It’s not enough that the contests themselves have to win you over with their good looks/charm/sob story (I’ll get onto that in a minute); you suddenly have to factor in how much you like their mentor into your voting decision.

Now….for my BIGGEST peeve with this whole thing.  The Sob Story.  I’m not a heartless individual, I feel for people who have had hard lives/times in their lives.  However, I seriously dislike it when it is used as manipulatively as it is by the production companies involved in these shows.

BGT’s first episode saw a pop/opera duet simply named Charlotte and Jonathon.  Simon is clearly audible saying “As if it couldn’t get worse”.  Simply because Jonathon is a fairly hefty young man.  To put it bluntly, he’s obese.  Of course, because he’s fat, he couldn’t sing.  Yet of course when he opens his mouth, out comes this impressive operatic tenor.  OH MY GOD, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE!?

Answer: because it *is* in fact possible for someone who is not a stick with a pretty face to be talented. 

Of course the bitchy Simon comment was edited specifically to be heard, in order to create more shock value when his pretty stupid, shallow opinion gets completely invalidated on national TV (and yet, he is continuously worshipped as some sort of weird, pointless demi-god of pointlessness).

This kind of shock-value editing does nothing more than draw attention to the fact that the person providing the talent is being portrayed as a freak, rather than a provider of talent.  It isn’t enough to be good at something, you need look a bit weird (“The Voice” parallel was Toni Warne, a lady with alopecia), or have some sort of tragedy have befallen you…because there seems to be some strange societal opinion that the “normal” people aren’t as deep as the “non-normal” people, thereby further ingraining the mob’s need for the freak-shock factor….

The fact remains that these people would be just as talented if they weren’t overweight, bald, ugly, a bit weird, or beaten up by their poodle when they were seven, and unfortunately, the spheres of “Talent Competition”, “Popularity Contest” and “Freak Show” start to merge into one behemoth of shite.

I’m off to gorge on Game of Thrones….

PS: click here to discover the extent of Tom Jones name dropping (that's right, even the BBC noticed it)

BFFs and Bromantifications

Last night, I was checking up on my Deviantart account, and "So You're A Cartoonist" creator has many journal entries about and doodles featuring characters from "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic".  I vaguely remember watching the 80's original, and owning a turquoise coloured pony with sailboats on her arse and a streak of white hair that turned magenta in the sunlight (between two yellow streaks...ah, the 80s and your lurid colour schemes....I won't miss you much).  I believer her name was Main Sail, and she was a first generation MLP toy released in the 1988/1989 season.

Anyway, I decided to check out the new version, and, whilst up to my neck in sparkly, magical pony muck, I came across this website: http://bronies.memebase.com/.  For those of you wanting to know what a "brony" is, it's a portmanteau or squishing together of the words "brother" and "pony".

This sounds like a weird way to get onto the topic I'm about to launch into, but it is a point of modern culture that interests me...Bear with me on this one guys...

As far as sexualities go, on the most basic level, you can be: straight/heterosexual, gay/lesbian/homosexual, or bisexual ("but, what about the "T" in LGBT?" I hear you cry; Being transsexual is not about sexual preference/attraction, it's about how you feel physically in your own body - you could be a transsexual lesbian, for example). Of course these labels are 100% to do with sexual or romantic preferences, and not really associated with other lifestyle choices.  However, there is still a societal attitude that unfortunately prevails even now in the 21st century; that being, that what one chooses to do outside of his/her sexual or romantic life somehow defines the sexuality of that person.  With this attitude has evolved what I am going to call "micro-labelling".

Again, let me explain.  Most people have a label.  I personally am "straight/heterosexual".  So far so good.  However, sometimes I fancy girls a bit, but not very much or often.  This makes me not quite bisexual, so I then become "bi-curious" (as opposed to "a little bit gay sometimes").  I also like to game, which as far as I am aware, has got nothing to do with who I might want to have sex with at any given point in time.  This is, for some inexplicable reason seen as a pretty much exclusively masculine activity, so whereas I should be able to say that I am a "gamer", I tend to have add the word "girl" or "chick" onto the end of it.  As if it is really necessary to point out that I am in fact an actual female and not a man with boobs and child-bearing hips.  This form of microlabelling is, in my opinion backwards and sexist, as it creates a division between men and women in the gaming community - that's a blog for another occasion, I bring it up just as an example.

On the other end of the stick - the male end - if a man decides that he likes something considered "girly" he is immediately considered gay.  And now we loop back to "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic", and the Brony community as a whole.  There is method in the madness...

I find it quite tragic that there is a need in this day and age to have to label oneself in a particular way just to avoid being labelled as something else (i.e. gay).

Why can a man not stand up and loudly proclaim for the world to hear: "I like 'My Little Pony'"?  Without risk of having his sexuality called into question?

More commonly used than "Brony" is the "Bromance" - again the portmanteau involving the term "bro" is an immediate disclaimer of non-gayness.  "I'm not gay, I'm just really close to my mate okay?!".  Interestingly as far as the term "Bromance" is concerned, there doesn't seem to be a female equivalent (I have come across, on urbandictionary.com, "womance", and the far more insulting "hoemance").  I'm not entirely sure why this is, but my guess is that having a friend with whom you connect with on a deeply emotional level, so much so that you feel the need to touch each other at all, isn't considered societally unusual for a woman.  They're just BFFs, yay!

It isn't just applicable to homosocial relationships, but heterosocial ones as well.  Recently I was very good friends with a lad.  The friendship bordered on exclusivity, and we shared a lot of things emotionally.  I later found out that the majority of people assumed we were sleeping together, which wasn't the case at all.

What is wrong with loving someone deeply, but platonically?  I have this argument with people who are desperate to believe that there is some form of slash going on between Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee in Tolkien's Lord of  the Rings, because Sam tells Frodo that he loves him.  Yes he does, that doesn't make them gay!  It also doesn't mean that it has to be labelled as anything else (such as a bromance), other than what it is - a friendship.

Hairwire

PS:  Check out *TomPreston on DA here: http://tompreston.deviantart.com/

Chocolate Hearts and Ice Cream Lingerie

Yes, it's Valentine's Day.  Once again, hoardes of men stream to the shops in the hopes of unearthing something that expresses his opinion in a wholly unique and chocolatey way.  It's like your local supermarket becomes some sort of battle arena for men desperate to prove themselves to their partners.

I'm being deliberately harsh, in honesty.  It is not just men milling to the shops in their droves, of course.

Let me be clear - I have nothing against romance, in fact I quite like it, in all its varied forms, from sugary sweet to tragic and passionate, from practical to slightly unrealistic.  But I am a fervid believer in the notion that it should be borne out of a genuine love and desire for it.

This is where Valentine's Day falls short of the mark.

I am of the opinion that VD (how ironic), by ever-increasingly selling itself as the most important (if not the only) day of the year to express your feelings for someone, has in fact made hundreds of thousands of men and women feel pressurised into buying bigger and better cards, bouquets and chocolates for their partners, and presenting them in bigger and more expensive gestures, because it's what Bob and Mary-Sue are doing.  It's peer-pressure, commercialised.  And that sucks.  Because peer-pressure isn't romantic.

Here is an example of what VD does to people and how they approach gift-giving in their relationships:  My manager in work yesterday, upon learning that I was about to go to the supermarket to buy my lunch, gave me a ten pound note and told me to get his wife a card for valentine's day.

He said to me: "We said we weren't doing anything, but she'd kill me if I didn't".  Since when does Valentine's Day get to override a decision mutually made by two consenting, married adults?  It defies logic.

Then I said to him, whilst putting the tenner into my purse, "What kind of card do you want me to get - flowery and sweet, wordy, funny, funky, sappy...what?"  And this is the response I got, I kid you not:

"One about this big" (whilst outlining the size he meant with his hands in a vague box shape).

This is quite possibly the least romantic thing I have ever heard in my entire life, on one of the most apparently romantic days of the year.  But the fact remains, he probably would have wanted to put some thought and effort into if he didn't feel as though he "had" to get one.

Anyway, off I go to the store, and  obviously the Valentine's crap is on your immediate right and front as you enter, so it can remind you of what a bad person you are when you realise upon seeing them that you actually forgot about it, effectively guilt tripping you into declaring your love for your, well....love.

The first trial was having to barge my way through (and I'm sorry, but this true) an exclusively male crowd of people, who then proceeded to give me weird looks for rifling through the many "To my Wife" cards.  Having the incredibly limited description of the desired product at my disposal, I had to open and read the majority of the ones there.  In honesty, I was sorely tempted to get the most nauseating card I could find, but I decided to go for something a little less sickening, because I don't really have anything against my manager's wife.

That mission accomplished, I went through the store towards the foody bits.  Whilst walking past the vegetables, I cast my discerning eye over the asparagus.  I'm quite fond of asparagus, I find it very tasty.  This particular supermarket had two boxes of asparagus in their normal packaging - i.e. shrink-wrapped with a rectangular blue label with the word "Asparagus" in a practical, no-nonsense font (think arial, or helvetica)  Behind and above these innocent packs of asparagus, I see...dun dun duhhhh!  More asparagus.  But the thing that set these boxes of asparagus aside was the fact that it had disposed of the blue label, and opted for a pink heart shaped one.  Inside the heart, the word "Asparagus" had been dribbled over the front in some ridiculous, pink, italic, calligraphic drawl.  I couldn't quite understand the seemingly desperate marketing ploy, and the image of somebody saying "darling, to show you how much I love you, I cooked you some asparagus", utterly failed to pop into my head.

Having said all of the above, I am sitting here with a beautiful, small bouquet of flowers and box of chocolates in front of me from my boyfriend, and he in return will be getting a sumptuous home cooked (read: burned) meal and some wine.  We'll probably cuddle up on the sofa and enjoy each other's company and conversation.  But that doesn't mean that on every other day of the year (apart from birthdays and anniversaries of course) we ignore each other, slob out and fart in bed, and generally not make any effort to spend quality time together because it's no longer Valentine's Day.

Of course it's not all bad - I can very easily see how it can help in some situations, for example, teen romances and shy adults.  Those incapable or nervous about taking the step towards professing their feelings for another suddenly have a wealth of material to choose from, and the 24 hour window of opportunity in which to do it.

Like I said, I need to make it clear that I don't actually have a problem with Valentine's day in itself, nor the fact that many people choose to revere it as a day of romanticism.  I just take serious issue with the fact that we seemingly HAVE to do what it says just because it exists, more so because the card companies and supermarkets feel the need to cash in on everything that exists ever, including romance.

I'm off to buy ingredients for a pink peppercorn sauce.

Hairwire