[ SECRET POST #2637 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2637 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #377.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, I'm so torn on this fucking issue, because on the one hand, yes. It's a game about playing with a group of small boys, and from a narrative standpoint, it makes sense that the player-character would have to be male, since a large portion of the game focuses on the boys inability to convince girls to play with them. The entire point is to immerse you in that childhood mindset where girls only play with girls and boys only play with boys, and any attempt to cross that barrier would only get you infected with "cooties."

So from that perspective, I can appreciate the player-character's static gender.

But on the other hand... The player-character is customizable. Skin tone, hair, clothing... The player has the option to make their character look like them, providing the player identifies as male. In his review of the game, Angry Joe gleefully described how the customization allowed him to feel as though he really was one of the characters in the South Park show, just another one of the boys alongside Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny. As a female-identifying player, I'll never know what they feels like, and it makes me sad, because I would love to run around South Park as myself, and not some male character.

But on the OTHER-other hand (oh boy, my head is starting to spin).... A character doesn't necessarily have to be female for me to "put myself in their shoes." I don't have to completely identify with a person in order to appreciate their story or their struggle. In fact, one of the greatest things about story-telling is the chance to explore different perspectives and put yourself in the role of someone who isn't like you. So, with this in mind, I'm kind of okay with putting myself in the shoes of an eight-year-old boy, because I wouldn't have been able to have that experience otherwise.

.........but I kind of would have liked to have the choice.

Angry Joe, for example, had the choice to make the player-character look like himself. He didn't have to. He could have created a character with a completely different look than his own--still male, of course, but with a different nonetheless. He had a choice that I, as a female-identifying player, was denied. So while I can appreciate the story from the perspective of an eight-year-old boy, I still would have liked the option to play as myself. It would have been cool! The story was still really good, and I adored my male player-character and his relationship with the South Park boys, but... it would have been nice if that choice had been left up to me.

[(Anonymous)]

I think there a difference between having an avatar, which is putting yourself (or how you want to be perceived) on the screen. And relating to a character who's been written to have a personality, that anyone who could empathize could latch onto. There's no story telling to relate to with an avatar.

And yes it sucks when there the ability to make an avatar, but you, literally don't exist as an option.

[(Anonymous)]

This playground segration sounds really mystical. We were 3 girls and 4 boys that were always playing together between from we were babies until we were about 10 in the 90's.

[(Anonymous)]

IDK, I definitely remember a period of time when the boys on the playground said, "We don't want to play with GIRLS!" and the girls on the playground were the same way, not wanting stupid boys in their games. I'm not saying that it's impossible for boys and girls to play together or that all children adhere to a gender segregation on the playground, but I think that it can happen... kind of like how older children develop social cliques in high school. I think that most small children go through a stage of "this is for GIRLS" and "that is for BOYS," even if the adults around them encourage them to think more fluidly. I had one friend who was really confused when her daughter said that she wasn't going to talk to another girl at daycare because the other girl "was running with the boys," and that "girls are supposed to play with girls." My friend immediately told her that boys and girls are allowed to play together, but for some kids that age, crossing the gender barrier just doesn't make sense. It's a complex and generally fascinating area of child psychology... It's just something that can happen between groups of small girls and small boys.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it can vary depending on the community and school, but boy and girl segregation definitely does happen. In my experience it was mostly in older elementary school (3rd grade and up, so about the South Park ages) and there definitely was a culture a lot like South park where the girls and boys only interacted here and there and the most interaction you'd really have is if someone decided to be boyfriend and girlfriend.