VN Ren'Py Chasing Sunsets [v0.9a] [Stone Fox Studios]

[Ariostebaldo]

After playing this update Jaye became my favorite. The talk between she and Alex solved their misunderstandings, they both admitted their mistakes and moved past it.
I feel like the dev wrote Jaye to be more likeable in this episode and it worked.

What was bothering me the most was why on earth Jaye would bring Christian onboard the yatch, but after the explanation I don't think anyone can still blame Jaye for that, and throwing Christian out of the yatch was a very delightful moment.

To keep hating Jaye at this point is to be stubborn

 

[v1900]

My comparison was more on a general view about that subject and the exact quote from the game.

In the case of this game, the difference is, one girl providing a release to another girl while playing a role to help her to get her desire under control. Tara is not pleasing Jaye for her own pleasure(could be, we need to trust her), she doing it to help a friend... Jaye don't need to be attract to a woman to get an orgasm from Tara's fingers, because while she's doing it, she's thinking about her step brother and Tara play her part to make it "real". Jaye didn't get off because a woman was playing with her, she did get off because that woman played the role of the man she was attract/loved and help her to make it more real. The psychology of the act is really different.

Now, I'm sure you have a hard time to imagine yourself giving an handjob to one of your friend out of generosity. I struggle to the idea too, but who am I to tell someone else where the extent of their friendship should end.

Theorycrafting here: If I had a friend that loose is both arms in an accident and during an evening with alcohol the subject of sex would come out and he suggest the idea of me giving him a handjob while he watch some porn just to release him... depending of the level of friendship, I would probably do it. Well, in reality I would probably pay an escort to help him, but let say I had morality issue with that solution.

In the case you postulate (disabled friend) and Tara/Jaye it is still homosexuality/gay it is called "situational homosexuality" (real shit, google it).

So, you GAY <removed>.

[edit]

Hahahaha you can call someone gay in this site but you can not call them the n word, you get auto censored.

 

[fea876]

For me if you have sex with the same sex you're gay or bi.

Well since you have you are own definition and that definition is wrong. You should know that the real definition of bisexual is :

sexually attracted not exclusively to people of one particular gender; attracted to both men and women

Nothing about the sexual intercourse, it's all about attractiveness. I mean, were you heterosexual or gay before having sex?

Sexual orientation is part of the identity of someone, it's go beyond the way you act, someone that never had sex, still have an sexual orientation or not(asexual).

 

[Rocc46]

After playing this update Jaye became my favorite. The talk between she and Alex solved their misunderstandings, they both admitted their mistakes and moved past it.
I feel like the dev wrote Jaye to be more likeable in this episode and it worked.

What was bothering me the most was why on earth Jaye would bring Christian onboard the yatch, but after the explanation I don't think anyone can still blame Jaye for that, and throwing Christian out of the yatch was a very delightful moment.

To keep hating Jaye at this point is to be stubborn

Well I guess I'm stubborn then because yes, she's definitely more likeable now but no, I still don't like her for essentially the same reasons I didn't like her before this update. Plus that whole her+Tara situation is weird, I would say Tara can have her but according to her, she's not gay even though they're sleeping with each other which is just bizzare to me but whatever. So Christian can have her.

 

[bamachine]

As for the "are they gay, are they bi" question, hard to put an exact label on it. I know a couple of actual women who have been best friends for nearly 40 years. Both are attractive, both have had multiple male lovers but only one female lover for each, each other. They have both turned down sex with other attractive and not so attractive women. They describe what they do with each other as sort of a FWB thing. They love each other so much as friends that they feel comfortable using each other for sexual gratification but neither find themselves sexually attracted to other women. I know all this because I once tried to get one of them to join me and the girl I was dating at the time for a drunken threesome. She joined but refused to do anything with my girl, focusing only on me. We became friends after that(the girl I was dating is long gone from my life), by proxy also became friends with her BFF/FWB and years later we had the discussion about each others full sexual history.

 

[NoxLaw]

Well since you have you are own definition and that definition is wrong. You should know that the real definition of bisexual is :

Nothing about the sexual intercourse, it's all about attractiveness. I mean, were you heterosexual or gay before having sex?

Sexual orientation is part of the identity of someone, it's go beyond the way you act, someone that never had sex, still have an sexual orientation or not(asexual).

How can HIS definition be wrong if it's HIS definition? People nowadays have definitions that gender doesn't even exist or that you can change your gender just by saying it and shit like that...

 

[Rocc46]

How can HIS definition be wrong if it's HIS definition? People nowadays have definitions that gender doesn't even exist or that you can change your gender just by saying it and shit like that...

Maybe one of them identifies as a man during sex so that makes it not gay

I think I solved this whole debate

 

[Ariostebaldo]

Well I guess I'm stubborn then because yes, she's definitely more likeable now but no, I still don't like her for essentially the same reasons I didn't like her before this update. Plus that whole her+Tara situation is weird, I would say Tara can have her but according to her, she's not gay even though they're sleeping with each other which is just bizzare to me but whatever. So Christian can have her.

I think it's all about if you'll allow your MC to forgive Jaye or not. Neither of them can undo the past, but they can begin anew.

 

[Ariostebaldo]

Maybe one of the identifies as a man during sex so that makes it not gay

I think I solved this whole debate

No. They're definitely g0y, because they don't do the penetration, that's crossing the line

 

[bamachine]

Well since you have you are own definition and that definition is wrong. You should know that the real definition of bisexual is :

Nothing about the sexual intercourse, it's all about attractiveness. I mean, were you heterosexual or gay before having sex?

Sexual orientation is part of the identity of someone, it's go beyond the way you act, someone that never had sex, still have an sexual orientation or not(asexual).

Really well put answer to all of this. Far more succinct than my wall of text above.

FWIW, I guess I would label myself as a lesbian, trapped in a man's body. I feel like I was born with the wrong plumbing but I also am only attracted to women(even though many women have enjoyed my body, I find it repulsive). If I were born in the body of a woman, I still think I would only find women attractive. I might have a male friend who I got close enough to that I might use them as a flesh toy for mutual release(only with a prior understanding that it is only that). I had a gay male friend about 20 years ago. I say had because I made a mistake, in a moment of stoned frustration. A girl I had been with earlier in the night left me "hanging" and my gay friend offered some relief. I let him give me a blowjob to completion. I just saw it as a sexual release and nothing more, Sadly, it turns out he was in love with me. Do I consider myself bisexual after that one event, no I do not. I do consider myself a dumbass though, for not seeing the signs and ended up hurting a good person plus losing a friend. Maybe if not for that one act, he could have confessed to me his feelings and after letting him know I do not find any male attractive, maybe the awkwardness would dissipate enough that he stayed in my life.

 

[KeiNineX]

Ok this is getting really weird now, nobody can convince me that having sex for whatever reason with same gender,unless it's a rape is not gay and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Sterkh90]

If so, it would be smart of you to not play games with the incest tag in it.

Thank you. Any more obvious tips?

 

[fea876]

How can HIS definition be wrong if it's HIS definition?

Definition are the meaning of words and words have accepted definition for them. It's the fundamental concept to be able to have a discussion. You got the right to discuss those definitions, but I didn't understand that what we were doing here. If it was the case, defining "being bisexual". To prove my point I would ask one thing:

Do virgin have sexual orientation or they are all asexual? If it about attractiveness, you can have a sexual orientation while being a virgin, if not, all the virgins are asexual. That's it.

People nowadays have definitions that gender doesn't even exist or that you can change your gender just by saying it and shit like that...

Which people? people on facebook, researcher, sexologist? Currently I think, this is more like a a thesis than something generally accept by the scientific community, could be wrong.

 

[v1900]

Well since you have you are own definition and that definition is wrong. You should know that the real definition of bisexual is :

Nothing about the sexual intercourse, it's all about attractiveness. I mean, were you heterosexual or gay before having sex?

Sexual orientation is part of the identity of someone, it's go beyond the way you act, someone that never had sex, still have an sexual orientation or not(asexual).

Hey fea876 you should consider that there is more than sexual orientation, there is also sexual identity and sexual behavior and these three are used in conjunction to avoid arguments that deny sexual or romantic attraction (this is academic discourse not just something I pulled out of thin air). The rational is that there has to be a point were repeated conduct can not be ignored.

Consider a priest that has sexual intercourse for years with only altar boys (sexual behavior) and he argues he is not homosexual (sexual identity) he just took the opportunity because he hasn't had the chance to ever have sex with a woman (sexual orientation).

I know my example is contrived and needs some serious mental gymnastics but bear with me. When should one draw the line and say that premeditated actions to engage in homosexual activities do or don't make a person homosexual. Food for thought.

[edit]

Spoiler, it is super gay.

 

[ugulugulu]

We went from the usual Jaye hating to sexual orientation/gender discussion. Well that's new. :'D

 

[porokingbs]

Pleaaaaaase please please have Tara as an LI!! She is drop dead gorgeous, easily the best.

 

[Terminator_26F]

I took my time, I savored this chapter with relish, as one can do with a dish cooked by a great chef. Sentence after sentence, picture after picture, I realized that (almost) all of my ranting about the second chapter was obsolete. And that's good because the developments imagined by the DEVs are perfect. Everything is organized and articulated in a wonderful way. Watching this chapter, I was overwhelmed with satisfaction and admiration. So I decided, for the next chapter, not to formulate development and analysis hypotheses that are as ridiculous as they are useless, not being in the minds of DEVs and not having hacked their story-book. It doesn't matter whether this or that is gay or bi, no matter what color their tan is, even Motherfucker seems to have a part in the mystery surrounding the MC's mother's work. I will wait (impatiently) for the next chapter knowing that it will be the best possible development anyway. I said !

 

[fea876]

Hey fea876 you should consider that there is more than sexual orientation, there is also sexual identity and sexual behavior and these three are used in conjunction to avoid arguments that deny sexual or romantic attraction (this is academic discourse not just something I pulled out of thin air). The rational is that there has to be a point were repeated conduct can not be ignored.

Consider a priest that has sexual intercourse for years with only altar boys (sexual behavior) and he argues he is not homosexual (sexual identity) he just took the opportunity because he hasn't had the chance to ever have sex with a woman (sexual orientation).

I know my example is contrived and needs some serious mental gymnastics but bear with me. When should one draw the line and say that premeditated actions to engage in homosexual activities do or don't make a person homosexual. Food for thought.

About the repeated conduct, I suppose If I was a shrink and one of my patient had same gender sex multiple time through multiple year and still want to identify him/herself as heterosexual. I would suppose there is something more to dig to help that person to feel better about him/herself. If that person gave me a reasonable reason to explain that behaviour, like male in prison for a long time. I don't see the point of digging it. What's you though?

In your example the priest could lie for obvious reason. I'm not saying that you should believe Jaye or Tara, I'm saying they could be saying the truth and I gave an explanation for that possibility.

I do consider that the sexual act between both of them was gay(dah), but I still believe that they are heterosexual. The only reason I see to lie about something like that for Jaye is, she don't want to be perceive has a lesbian since she have a crush on the MC, but did she lied? We will know at the end of the game.

The author probably choose to keep her hetero, that way, her fantasy was always focused on the MC and this as some appeal to a certain crowd.

 

[v1900]

About the repeated conduct, I suppose If I was a shrink and one of my patient had same gender sex multiple time through multiple year and still want to identify him/herself as heterosexual. I would suppose there is something more to dig to help that person to feel better about him/herself. If that person gave me a reasonable reason to explain that behaviour, like male in prison for a long time. I don't see the point of digging it. What's you though?

In your example the priest could lie for obvious reason. I'm not saying that you should believe Jaye or Tara, I'm saying they could be saying the truth and I gave an explanation for that possibility.

I do consider that the sexual act between both of them was gay(dah), but I still believe that they are heterosexual. The only reason I see to lie about something like that for Jaye is, she don't want to be perceive has a lesbian since she have a crush on the MC, but did she lied? We will know at the end of the game.

The author probably choose to keep her hetero, that way, her fantasy was always focused on the MC and this as some appeal to a certain crowd.

Right you are sir but the problem is the dialogue that sparked this tirade. First consider the term situational homosexuality (just humor me for a bit), it implies it is just temporal just as one may change at will the sexual identity. The dialogue states they are currently engaged in said acts but they are not in fact homosexual. For them to not be homosexual they need to stop said acts (it is a valid argument in terms of the two previous concepts). This is the crux of the matter and why it is funny and the basis of the original post making fun of the asinine logic of the argument the character tried. I apologize to the authors of this VN if I come across as an asshole but that is because in fact I am an asshole.

 

[fea876]

Right you are sir but the problem is the dialogue that sparked this tirade. First consider the term situational homosexuality (just humor me for a bit), it implies it is just temporal just as one may change at will the sexual identity. The dialogue states they are currently engaged in said acts but they are not in fact homosexual. For them to not be homosexual they need to stop said acts (it is a valid argument in terms of the two previous concepts). This is the crux of the matter and why it is funny and the basis of the original post making fun of the asinine logic of the argument the character tried. I apologize to the authors of this VN if I come across as an asshole but that is because in fact I am an asshole.

I did read the article on wiki about "situational homosexuality", from my understanding it's a concept to explain behaviour more than to qualify sexual orientation. The only reason I got absorb in that discussion was to help people open their mind about the concept of sexual orientation and after all those posts I must say, I feel more like the flat-earther of this thread than anything else.