RE: Asexuality in Death Stranding

                        

So We're back with another audience response article.

It's almost like a mailbag episode, but with heavy drinking to prepare myself for things that would have me question my own sanity.

This time we take a trip back to the Asexuality in death stranding video to further elaborate on a statement I had already comment on..

Let's start with the initial statement that prompted my response.

This game really doesn't portray asexuality accurately and it's sad. They were so close to handling it right but instead it becomes "people are scared of connecting that's why they don't want The Dong." 

(And before someone feels the need to attack me, please don't make assumptions about my life or how I feel or how I function. Asexuality isn't "i'm not horny" it's a lot more complicated and confusing. I actually went through a journey like many lesbians go through, i was very confused and felt wrong, it's not just not having a libido).

Okay....

So naturally my response was somewhat respectful, while I admit a bit baiting... I didn't even bother to address the warning signs that were clearly in the first post, because I am indeed a glutton for punishment....

I took the liberty of posting my retort, below...

I don't really think the point was to explain asexuality, rather than to explain the nature of deterioration in human relations in the midst of an apocalyptic event.
The society in-game has the majority of people coping by mass use of anti depressants and distracting themselves with material things while being constantly surrounded by death and destruction.

Ironically, that could be interpreted as a libido killer if anything, and makes sense why the person writing the entry made that assumption.
Now that being said, he also prefaced that this theory could be wrong, meaning it wasn't an absolute certainty, but that's how theories work. They're never certain, just speculative.

In saying that, If you see this as offensive, then that's clearly on you and not the subject matter. As offense is taken, never given.

As much as I would had loved for the exchange to end, there.. it didn't. In fact the point I made about taking offense, apparently ramped up a “certain kind of feeling” to the point of another more detailed run-on sentence, which is why we're here, now.

The following response may cause hair pulling, and baffling head scratching, viewer discretion advised.. 

@Fullscreen Bossfight I'd appreciate it if you did not completely invalidate my feelings as a "you control everything you feel" type of situation, that is not true.

I would appreciate it if people would stop letting their feelings get in the way of actual facts, but I guess we're both going home disappointed.

I'm going to say this once, and It'll set the tone for the remainder of this exchange. I don't care what you feel. Your feelings are ultimately none my concern, nor is it my duty to validate them in any way. That's the job of a parent or a significant other, and I am clearly neither.

With that being said, yes, people can actually reign in their own personal feelings to be objective, It's something anyone can do, but not everyone wants to do. But, go on..

Also as an asexual person I have heard the EXACT things that game stated directed at me many a time.

I understand how you feel.

If someone told me that a supernatural apocalyptic extinction level event may be the reason for my current sexual proclivity, I'm sure I would be equally mortified. Even more so if the remedy for dispelling said supernatural entities would be to throw piss and shit at them until they vanish.

Can you imagine, though? I mean I'm not even into coprophillia... I even hate it when you pee in the urinal and put your junk back in your boxers and that little droplet of piss decides to show itself out...

It's true what he's talking about (and probably is being viewed through a lens of Japanese society, which has a rapidly declining birth rate that's PROBABLY connected to the suicide rate and depression (as that can kill sex drive)

So according to your initial statement, the game inaccurately portrays asexuality, (despite only one log found in the game actually talking about it directly) but here you're saying that what he's talking about is actually true based on what is going on in Japanese society?

So what exactly is the problem, then?

but he's making a game set in America, directed heavily at American audiences, and it's not like that over here)

A fictional story taking place in a possible future version of the United States can't have stories that feature topics such as these, because it's not accurately happening in the real world... I'll be sure to consult the writer's guild on this, in the next meeting.

And yes, I have to state that, because in some instances people have to hear their own ideas out loud in order to realize how incredibly insane, that sounds!

but he didn't talk about a lifestyle, he spoke of an orientation, the fact he mentioned pansexuality in that letter makes that quite clear, it is not discussing the way people live, it's trying to, but it's using the wrong words, the wrong "labels," to do so.

So I'm going to refer back to the log for context sake.

There will be a vocabulary test on Friday...

"Records suggest that the widespread aversion towards physical contact and intimacy was a phenomenon that had been observed even before the Death Stranding. One contemporary report, for example, details the increasing popularity of the "sexless lifestyle" among young people. A growing percentage of the younger cohort were self-identifying as asexual, claiming to be incapable of feeling desire or attraction. Accordingly such individuals were less likely to have children or engage in sexual activity.

It should be noted, however, that many other unique sexual identities were being recognized during this period, such as demisexuals, who are incapable of sexual attraction without an emotional connection, and panromantics, who profess an attraction unrestricted by sex or gender--albeit one not necessarily sexual in nature.

One theory posits that the Stranding accelerated the proliferation of these sexualities. In a terrifying new world in which BTs roam and annihilation is an everyday occurrence, people have grown reticent to form emotional connections with others.

Although there has been no measurable decrease in human fertility, the birth rate has nevertheless dropped dramatically. Incidence of sexual harassment and assault have also seen a sharp decrease, which seems to suggest that sex could not be further from our minds, for better or for worse. I must preempt myself by admitting that I do not have any empirical data with which to support the following claim. That said, it is my contention that, based on the aforementioned observations and others, the vast majority of the population could be categorized as asexual."


So to further clarify, I've taken the liberty of putting up the definition for the word “lifestyle” These are the first three that come up in search results.

• A way of life or living of a person or group.
• A style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group
• marketing the totality of the likes and dislikes of a particular section of the market, especially when expressed in terms of the products and services that they would buy; a marketing strategy based on the self-image of such a group
  

Now obviously, the third definition is related to business, and has no bearing on the subject at hand, so that's out the window, but the first two fit within what the author is explaining. Orientation is merely just what you identify as, lifestyle is the act of living your life based on your identity, belief structures and own personal philosophies.

So in saying that I don't see any problem with what's written. Addressing additional sexual identities being recognized at the same time as the recognition of Asexuality is clearly stating that the terminology was part of mainstream culture in a time before the game's established present day.

Keep in mind, dear reader. that this log is framed in context to the state of the fictionalized history of the game. Contextually, the word "Contemporary" is used in reference of that particular time period, and not "current' as it's normally used. This is supported in the statement "Records suggest that the widespread aversion to contact and intimacy had been observed even before the Death Stranding" meaning the author is referencing a time period before present day, which the log itself is set three years prior to the present..

Just to continue to spell it out for you - The author, or “the unknown man” (Not Kojima, because written characters can actually have differing opinions that may not reflect the opinions of their creator) is looking at a piece of history and trying to find parallels between events in the past in order to understand events going on in the present ( at the time of writing), but goes on to state that despite empirical data, or concrete evidence, he feels as if these two instances may have some form of correlation.

And mind you, this is just me using basic context clues and simple reading comprehension.

Is it so wrong for me to suggest that maybe he is spreading misinformation about an already massively misunderstood subject?

If that were actually the case, but the only person who seems to be massively misunderstanding things is you! The fact that you had to preface this with "maybe" means that even you're not that sure about what you're even implying, which actually says a lot.

Because he is, he is not spreading factual information, and the in game person theorizing doesn't change it. He's lacking education on this subject yet felt the need to speak about it anyway. Sometimes it's best to just... not say anything. I feel like you think I'm out here angry goblin tweeting about #rights at the man because I made a youtube comment, I'm not.

You claimed that what he said was accurate, and true based on what's going on in Japanese society, which makes this statement sound as if you're contradicting yourself to justify your own feelings. Additionally you're stating that A person should only talk about the things they're familiar of, and yet, you just proved that a fictional character is more knowledgeable about your own sexual proclivities than you are.

Here's an Interesting parallel, that ties into that, by the way...

While Japanese society is part of the basis for this particular backstory, there are other influences that should also be noted...There was a study on the effects of overpopulation on rats and mice between 1958 and 1972 by John B.Calhoun. The study is often called “an animal model for societal collapse”.

The results of the study have lead to the discovery of interesting psychological behaviors that sociologists reference and debate on even today.



At peak overpopulation , the female mice had ceased reproduction entirely and then soon after, completely abandoned their young, while often engaging in in-fighting. The males withdrew from courting and sexual reproduction entirely, only concerned with excessive grooming and basic survival (eat sleep drink ect). They were referred to as “The beautiful ones” for their lack of scars or imperfections and perfectly coiffed coats.


Calhoun's conclusion stated “when all available space is taken and all social roles were filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

This particular study has been the basis for fiction such as Mrs. Frisbee and the rats of NIMH, and the animated adaptation The Secret of NIMH, as well as dystopian future comic series 2000 AD, and dystopian sci fi films such Soylent Green.

Author Bill Perkins had called Calhoun's study “ a lesson in the dangers of living in an increasingly crowded and impersonal world” which, of course fits in nicely with the themes of  Death Stranding. The crowding of B.T.s into the physical world and the impersonal nature of humankind due to disassociation and distraction via materialism feel eerily familiar.

Below is an excerpt from Calhoun's study..

Initially, the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly, doubling only every 145 days. The last surviving birth was on day 600, bringing the total population to a mere 2200 mice, even though the experiment setup allowed for as many as 3840 mice in terms of nesting space. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against. 

After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting and only engaging in tasks that were essential to their health. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed 'the beautiful ones.' Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed. 

The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.
Calhoun saw the fate of the population of mice as a metaphor for the potential fate of man. He characterized the social breakdown as a "second death," with reference to the 'second death' mentioned in the Biblical book of Revelation 2:11.[1] His study has been cited by writers such as Bill Perkins as a warning of the dangers of living in an 'increasingly crowded and impersonal world.' "

Of course, you could say that it's merely fiction, but I did find a fascinating article from 2018 discussing reasons for the sharpdecline of sexual activity in Japanese University Students, and strangely enough there was an article link at the bottom leading to an article about excessive male nasal grooming so there is that.

And if you must know, right now I'm thinking “ I could be actually playing video games or watching movies and having fun with my day off, but i'm here feeling like Cesar Milan teaching a 3^rd grade remedial English class.” 

Current Mood.

I'm pointing out misinformation (partially in hopes that the MANY people that think what he said is accurate will perhaps try to give us an actual chance)

A chance for what? People are already quite accepting as it is. A bit of flavor text in a game isn't going to change public perception of any one group of people. The game has been out for a month and last I checked the earth hasn't turned into a hellscape because of that...

if he said the sun looks blue would people whine if he was corrected? 

If he said all gay people are gay because they're afraid to connect would people whine if he was corrected? 

No. Some people take it too far, some people will always take it too far, the internet is a place full of irrationality and virtue signaling, but not all of us are doing that.

But he didn't say that, and you're reaching so hard, right now that I can hear your limbs dislocating.

In fact, what he did say that the Death Stranding, which was actually proven to have caused multiple extinction level events in earth's history may have something to do with the proliferation of certain changes in human behavior and lifestyles in it's more recent past.

That's not taking it too far, that's legitimizing a story using elements from real life in order to establish depth and philosophical tone to his fictional world.

I love the game, that's one reason it upsets me so much, because I want to support it and enjoy it but while I'm doing that

I know the creator completely disrespects something I have no control over, and felt the need to spread his uneducated opinion about.

Which also strikes me as arrogant. He didn't HAVE to talk about any sexuality, it's not a very sexual (or romantic) game.

A content creator has every right to cover what ever topic he or she so pleases, just as much as you have the right to support or not support their product.

common sense.jpg

You misconstrued some flavor text and ran with it, and now you want someone to alter their own writing because you can't be bothered to read and comprehend words, then you say that since the game doesn't cover sexuality in any other way than one log that you can probably avoid reading, the game is actively disrespecting you, as well?

The further this goes, the more your statement reminds me of Bernadine Evaristo's stance on how cultural appropriation in writing is flat out ridiculous, going on to state that the practice forces writers to adhere to boxes and categories of things deemed suitable to write about, and not taking on the challenges of venturing out side of their comfort zones to write complex characters or write about complex ideas. The quote of hers that really puts this into perspective is when she goes on to state."That's not my primary concern because you don't know who is going to be offended by anything you write. I refuse to construct some kind of character who is going to appease everybody."


Which is absolutely true! The world is not afforded the luxury of catering to the whims of any one person just because you don't like something someone else stated. Grow the hell up and deal with it.

                         EDIT: I want to add about your statement about offense

Translation: I'm not offended, but if I were offended it would be because...

                                                 that's really inaccurate.

So was the entirety of your response, but we're in way to deep to turn back, now.

Let's not act like there aren't people that go very out of their way to upset other people, stating unasked for and unneeded opinions simply because they enjoy riling people.

Again, the irony here is you came to the comment section of your own free will, stated your own personal opinion, and was met with objective criticism. I didn't actively seek you out to have this discussion, you came to me!

[Siri, cue godfather music....]

I understand. You found paradise in Youtube, had a good trade, made a good living. your ideologies protected you; and there were courts of public opinion. And you didn't need feedback of me. But uh, now you come to me and you say -- "Spiracy, don't judge my words." -- But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me "The Skrong father." Instead, you come into my comment section on the day my daughter is napping, and you uh ask me to accept your crappy opinions as fact.

coming to a theater near you....

If someone walked up and clocked me I'm pretty sure we wouldn't say "well offense was taken but not given." If someone walked up and screamed expletives at me and I was offended, that's pretty much on them. But I DON'T think he intended offense, I think he's uneducated on this subject.

Well as ludicrous as that example was, the first thing to consider is that you could have said or done something that you thought was pretty innocuous and the other person took it as incendiary and reacted on the assumption of such, or that person is just an asshole.

Likewise, the statement in the log itself was innocuous and you seem to be the one taking it as incendiary, due to your response, and are assuming ill intent where there seems to be none, at all. So again, that's clearly on you, the person making the assumption.

Whether that is because you feel his statement is challenging your worldview, or sensibilities or what may be a fragile ego, it's up to you and you alone to start asking yourself some tough questions in order to forge yourself into a much stronger person with a thicker skin, because if words on a screen are enough to break down the world around you, then maybe the internet isn't the best place for you to be.

Everyone's worldview gets challenged either through the movies they watch, the books they read, The people they interact with or the media they consume. Crying until someone changes their own opinion to something you like isn't going to get you very far, because even your own personal philosophies will change over time due to experience and time.

Which I guess is just a nicer way of saying “suck it up, buttercup”

My issue is him not trying to educate himself properly before he shoved an opinion that really had no place or need to be there in his game. An opinion other uneducated people will leap on to attack asexuality. 

I'm not mad his statement is wrong so much as his arrogance in making it. He is arrogant let's not act other wise haha when people criticized the mechanics of the game he went "well I knew people would take issue with this new genre I invented" which is the most self absorbed thing I've ever heard.

Given the circumstances, He seems more educated on the subject than you are. And to turn a phrase – It's not his job to educate you. You should actually do the leg work for yourself, especially considering that you've made this entire controversy about you in one way or another, which is additionally ironic considering you just arrogantly said that he was the one who was self absorbed.

Projection... is 9/10ths of the argument, I suppose.

---

Creatives, please take note;

You often hear about how you can only write about the experiences of your own race, or sexual orientation, or whatever, and If you attempt to write about things you may research, but aren't necessarily a part of that you're violating some phantom rule, as if those topics are verboten.

People will try to force you into a little box where only socially approved topics are acceptable, and to that I say this -

PISS OFF!!!!

If you only write about the things that are socially acceptable, then you would never have the types of things in pop culture that we have, today. Think about it – Two Jewish men, Stanley Leiber and Jack Kirby created the first Black super-hero in mainstream comics culture, Douglas Fairbanks was credited for directing the film that put Don Diego Vega and his alter ego, Zorro into mainstream culture and the hearts and minds of fans everywhere, but Zorro's creator was an amateur history buff and former Army public affairs officer who was born and raised in Illinois, Johnston McCulley.

Imagine if those people were actually alive today and placed under these unscrupulous conditions of what is acceptable means of creativity, would these characters have existed, or would they merely be only valid creations if we waited long enough for someone of that particular race and sex to create them?

- I'll see you next Bossfight!