But it was, BS consciously decided he should place a gay guy in WoT to rectify RJ's perceived mishap. He expressely stated it was so. To me it came off as an unnecessary appendage in an otherwise organic story. Thank you, Mr Sanderson, but your alms are not necessary. And if some straight person found the lack of gay men problematic (God how I loath the word), well really, who cares what straight people think?
Not "problematic," I said the lack of gay men in the story was inconsistent with the in-universe view of open homosexuality. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but...who cares what you think?
Well I don't consider it my prerogative to tell black people how to strive for racial equality or tell African homos how to be gay (although I have some opinions on the latter). In the larger scheme of things, it's the gay people's lives that are shaped by legislation and public opinion (even portrayals in books, I suppose) so when it comes to the .. Gay Question.. it's perhaps not the straight part of the population that should have the arena. This just as a general idea, am not saying it's relevant to WoT. I did mention that BS's choice was fine, even if I disagree with what I perceive as well-intended patronizing.
But hey, I'm also all for radical free speech so not like it matters! Plus sometimes I just argue for the sake of it.