I don't get it. Violence, good. Sex, NO NO NO WE CANT HAVE THAT!!!

Recommended Videos

Parasondox

New member
Jun 15, 2013
3,229
0
0
For a limited time only, I shall be showing images as part of my intro. Look at that cute lil bacon.


Back to pressing matters. This is serious shit. First world problems right here. A game charger. A chronic masturbator. The whole 9 yards mofos!!

Violence. *cheers from the crowd* It let's out hidden emotions, make us embrace our darkest thoughts and enjoy some blood, sweat, gore, tears, death, anger, torture, torment, everything. Has our hearts pounding, blood racing through our veins as the sight of guns, bullets, blood and destruction fills our minds and triggers a part of our brain to embrace this 30 second thrill. We assume it's wrong but oh my it feels so so right. You want more, you need more, you crave it and you must have it. YES YES HIT HIM HARDER, HARDER!!... *clears throat*

and then there is... (WARNING: NSFW. Parental discretion is advised)

Sex. THE FILTH!! It let's you explore new and unique things that have us opening us to our hidden emotions and dark thoughts in the most unnatural way. The guilt, the shame, the sweat, tears, bruises, redness, the pleasurable pain, the tease, everything. It makes your body weak, your heart pounding, the blood rushing to you genitalia at the sight of breast, abs, vaginas, penises, bums, hair, whips, ball gags, chains, nipple clamps, thighs, drumsticks, thrusting, pumping, baking and bacon. It all triggers a part in our brain that has us embracing, disgusting, DEMANDING, this 30 second thrill. We were told its wrong and that Jesus was watching but my good it felt so so so so right. YES YES HIT ME!! HIT ME HARDER WITH THAT WHI... *clears throat*, and then after you finish there is a 5-10 second moment where you think"yeah, you know what? Life. Life's good". You snap out of it and then you realise life is still a cum bucket of shit.

Errr, so what I am asking is, why does violence seem to be a okay when it comes to the media like news, movies, TV and games but sex is kinda taboo? I mean the thought of nude beaches is strange to some. Why is sex and any kind of portrayal of sex seen as bad?

It's just sex. Sex does not kill. I don't think. Death by snoo snoo!!
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Haven't you seen Zardoz? The gun is good, the penis is bad.

But, yeah, weird puritanical double standards, very unhealthy for society.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Because media depictions of violence are usually fanciful and rather divorced from reality whereas sex, even Hollywood sex, is closer to what people experience in their actual lives and thus hits closer to home?

Or to put it another way, I'm pretty sure if a TV station started broadcasting footage of actual clearly visible murder it would make people just as upset as a stray penis. After all, there's a reason those militant execution videos are always cut out before any actual blood is spilled.

I 'unno.

I generally just default to blaming thousands of years of more-or-less puritanical religion for society's assorted sexual hangups. Then again, I default to blaming religion when I stub my toe too, so I could be full of shit.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
Part of me wants to say 'Because that's just the way it is'.

I'm the most inexperienced person when it comes to sex, probably on the whole planet, but I guess sex is just a very personal thing and means different things to different people. It's also a lot more complicated than straight-up violence (I would guess).

Imagine two scenes; One is of a guy shadow sparring, the other is of a guy jacking off. Which one is more uncomfortable to watch? Neither is wrong in any way, but the latter will have you change the channel a lot faster, I think, especially when among others. (Unless you're into that sorta thing).

I guess sex taps into a part of our being that we don't like to expose to other people.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,580
7,215
118
Country
United States
Violence largely isn't okay when it comes to depictions in media. At least, not anything close to realistic violence. Most of it's highly sanitized. Bat-tumbler mini-guns shooting into a crowd of police officers? They all kinda fall over and go to sleep. James Bond tears his way though a group of mooks? They kinda fall over, no blood, no fuss, no whimpering or crying as their life slowly fades away.

Fantasy violence is awesome. It's the equvelent of every sex scene in sitcoms already. Sanitized and easy to swallow, unfortunate implications easy to ignore.

NA localization of Japanese games filter out some of the otaku fan service, Japanese localizations filter out a lot of our obnoxious, gore-splattering ultra-violence.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,625
395
88
Finland
Taking the movie ratings angle, here in Northern Europe for example a movie gets its rating based on the possible developmental effects the material could have on the kids watching. There's some leeway and it also takes expert statements into consideration.

In America the MPAA gives a rating based on what the average parent thinks their kids should be allowed to watch on their own. Developmental stuff is not considered and there's a lot of leeway (a kid can go see an R rated movie with an accompanying adult). Source: I think I googled why they only allow one 'fuck' per PG-13 movie and got to some legit-sounding page somehow.
 

ManutheBloodedge

New member
Feb 7, 2016
149
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Its helps to understand why it exists if you understand the founding of the United States and what was different and similar to it in relation to the european nations from which it was spawned.

The United States territories were mostly founded by conquerers pillaging the land for natural resources, which included the natives as a source of slave labour. It was settled by people who had severe religious objections to liberal sexual activity, even including heterosexual sodomy, but not so much about violence. Then the entire history of the colonies and the nation 1700 onwards is basically one of progress through bloodshed. Its not completely dissimilar in Europe but the United States' history is extremely bloodied. Even our standings in the 21st as they exist is based heavily on military conquest and militarization. Violence is progress, and perhaps no better symbol of that is a frontiersman with a rifle. That imagery is about as american as Superman and jazz.

Sex, on the other hand, has been downplayed and diminished. While religious objections to violence were relatively few religious objections to sexual activity is practically all-encompassing and there had been little reason to change it. Hell, sodomy laws were only struck down thirteen years ago by the federal supreme court and right now we've got a pet adoption bill in Michigan that may very deliberately be trying to criminalize sodomy again[footnote]Not because the legislature is stupid but because the population is stupid. They typically don't have to justify the legality of an action to somebody who agrees with it.[/footnote]. You could rape your wife well into the 1980s', rape laws are still really iffy when it comes to victims that are men, a quarter of the population doesn't think it should be legal to be gay and sexually abusive conversion therapy is legal in most of the country, prostitution is only legal in one state (used to be two about a decade ago), you can show videos of executions in public school as part of the curriculum but can't use a banana to demonstrate how to put a condom on properly, etc, etc, etc. Arguably the primary focus of hird-wave feminism is that of sexual liberation, which goes back to the sexual revolution that only really started gaining traction in our parents' lifetime.

tl;dr American history is that of "murder good, sex bad" and it hasn't really begun to turn around until the past few decades.
On the history I largely agree with you, but Europe also has a very violent history and while we are not that much more open to sexual media, we critizise violent media just as well. I guess we just had more time to cope with our violent past, and both world wars painted a very dim view of violence in all of Europe.
But third wave feminism and sex positive? Maybe some of it, but not the majority. With all the rape culture agenda and Jack Thompson 2.0 who complains about butts in video games, I would have to disagree. Loud. With a microphone. Into a megaphone.
 

ManutheBloodedge

New member
Feb 7, 2016
149
0
0
WinterWyvern said:
Maybe because it's easier to make violence into something universally shared. You can make a violent scene that'll appeal to any kind of viewer or player (see fighting games or CoD-type games), but when it comes to sex, your mileage may vary.

Also, you can make a pretty long narrative about violence - some popular cartoons like Naruto or Dragon Ball are entirely built on the concept of long battles with few interludes, and they're not cartoons about violence. But you can't make a cartoon, or a movie, with long sex scenes punctuated with a few interludes, and make it not be only about sex.

Maybe it's also because violence is something we can do since we're little children, so any media with violence in it taps to a part of our mind we used since our early days. A kid that sees a guy killing another with a knife immediately understands what it is about; but a kid that sees a guy having sex with another person doesn't quite understand it. By that logic, violence is much more basic than sex.

And can you imagine spectacularized violence shows, but with sex replacing the violence? Imagine hundreds of people paying a ticket to see two wrestlers who, when coming into the ring, don't fight each other but have sex. Imagine two boxers kissing instead of punching.

The fun fact is that when you get down to it, we put sex in everything just like we put violence in everything. We're just a whole lot subtlter with the sex.
Interesting point of view. Probably comes from our biology, puberty to be exact, the mechanism that only makes us interested in sex when it is biologically logical to have it.
Totally agree with the last part, but the question is, when we put both sex and violence in everything, why do we shame the first and cheer the second?
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
Probably just social conditioning(also explains the wide variety of cultural attitudes when it comes to sex). When the message is repeated that ''sex is bad, sex is gross, sex is the devil'' then people will internalize that message and behave with accordingly dismissive attitudes in the public space b/c that is the social norm(unfortunately people really aren't as independent in their beliefs as one would like to hope). Espescially in the U.S. this leads to really hypocritical double standards.

Sex is just a normal and healthy part of life and there'd probably be a lot less war and shit if people just got laid a bit more often. :p
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
I think the element of wanting to protect children is a factor. Not that watching The Raid 2 or Ichi the Killer would be something I'd ever let my kid do, but violence is a concept even toddlers can understand. Sex, on the other hand, isn't. Violence is very straightforward: someone, usually angry at someone else, enacts physical harm on said someone else. Sex deals a lot with emotion, trust, sharing a very close space and bond with someone, and that's not even touching the biological aspect. If learning about sex goes wrong, the results can be disastrous. Hell, sex has a whole education about it whereas violence doesn't. Sex is a lot more complicated and varies far more from person to person than experiences of violence, and therefore is more personal.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
Violent sex. Will that please you? Probably i guess. Where do you live that hates sex so much? Pretty much everyone and everything seems to love it. Which makes it a cheap and common tool for creators of any art. Appeal to the most basic instincts and you will acquire much monies. Violence is great for anyone including sexually frustrated people. Sex is not particularly as enjoyable to observe for sexually frustrated people. Like a starving orphan made to watch a fat man devouring a greasy burger. There are huge differences that are always ignored for the sake of achieving victory in arguments/debates. Part of the endless cycle of internet communication. To achieve violence in real life, you need to operate on a certain level of "i am totally arsed to do this, it will happen because i demand everything bow before me for destruction." Whereas sex and sexism is a whole complicated ball court of emotional manipulation, deception and domination. Comparing the two is utterly useless. If you like titties, vag and cock, there's plenty about so stop worrying!!
 

Barbas

ExQQxv1D1ns
Oct 28, 2013
33,804
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
I'm the most inexperienced person when it comes to sex, probably on the whole planet, but I guess sex is just a very personal thing and means different things to different people.
Heh, sure is personal when I do it.[footnote]The punchline is I'm the only one there... ( v_v)[/footnote]



OT: My money's on arbitrary laws and double-standards put in place by religious institutions. It tends to be where those things come from. Ironically, I think those efforts have contributed to sex being seen by a depressing proportion of the population as just being a more violent form of love.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
In the US at least, both are highly sanitized. Lets take a movie like the Avengers. Lots of aliens get killed, but you never see anything violent happen to them other than they fall down. Now, if the violence in the Avengers was like Game of Thrones you would have parents screaming bloody murder. Lets take an example from the sec column. Terminator Genisys. At one point both protagonists get naked and have to hug each other in a machine, but they dont show anything below the shoulders. If it was like Game Of Thrones again, parents would scream murder. For the vast majority of american media, the most in depth detail you will see in regards to violence is a pool of blood. I grew up on american action flicks since the 80's, none of them even remotely compare to the violence in Game of Thrones or The Raid. The Deadpool movie, at least from the trailers, one of the most violent mainstream movies ive seen in awhile, and even that is highly sanitized.

So the whole "violence is good, sex is bad" is kinda wrong. They are both considered equally bad....or good (if sanitized) depending on how you view it.

EDIT: And before someone brings Puritans into this, Puritans have stopped being relevant in the US for hundreds of years. In fact, Puritans were in opposition to Baptists, Methodists, and Anglicans (which are 3 of the top 5 current biggest Protestant sects. The Baptists alone basically control the southeast US). The Puritans were a small sect relevant in the 1600's (and just in the New England part) and ceased to be relevant with the massive influx of immigrants over the centuries. The Puritans were largely replaced by the Catholics (and keep in mind Puritans were about "purifying the Church of England from all Roman Catholic practices")
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
83
33
Country
Free-Dom
Well...for starters both are veeeeeeeeeeery different from their real-life counterpart in media.

Violence is presented, more often than not, in an over-the-top, even glamorous fashion with blood spray and decapitations and people jerking around under a hail of gunfire, bloodpacks exploding on their chests- etc. etc.

Sex is presented similarly, albeit with emphasis on all the attractive bits, like candle lit under-the-sheets humps, passionate embraces, or, in porn, idealized figures pumping away at one another with over-the-top moans and what-not- etc. etc.

Both tend to feature highly attractive people. Both make things look way more appealing than they actually are.

Real world violence is quick. It's somber. It's decisive. There's no rock soundtrack and there's no glamour. Nobody is fist-bumping to Aerosmith while a crowd of people gets blown up by a suicide bomber. It strikes to the core of us for a reason.

Real world sex is tricky, often not satisfying for one or both parties, and downright disgusting when you think about it. There's no smooth jazz soundtrack (unless you supply your own, I mean) and it, too, can be "decisive"...or concise. It ends with the both (or more?) of you either taking a shower or embarking on a crusade to use all the available tissues in the vicinity in an effort to remove the biological gunk from your junk.

Glamorizing them is, I think, a way of maintaining a certain level of emotional distance.

As for why the V is more acceptable than the S?

Ask the puritans. Or, alternatively, their modern equivalents on either side of the typical party lines.

I don't and have never really understood why violence is more acceptable. Both are a part of life and, undoubtedly, the latter provides a lot more pleasure/goodness the world over.

So, basically OP, welcome to the chorus of voices that've been singing this song for the past 60 years, if not decades. Annnnd on with the refrain. And on. And on. And on. And ooooon.
 

Drathnoxis

I love the smell of card games in the morning
Legacy
Sep 23, 2010
6,023
2,235
118
Just off-screen
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
I thought Shamus Young wrote a pretty good article about that a couple years ago.
Source

This question gets asked a lot. "Why is a bare breast more offensive than a severed arm?" This question - or one like it - has been around in one form or another for decades and is usually presented as a challenge or a demand for explanation regarding the way movies are rated, marketed, and edited.

Then videogames came along and suddenly the difference is even more extreme: Games with nudity or frank discussions about sexuality are hard to find, and when they do show up they're usually very controversial. Meanwhile, games about murdering hundreds of people are so common that it barely warrants a mention. It was a big deal when Catherine came out and suddenly we had a videogame that talked about sex and relationships, but Hollywood makes a dozen movies around those concepts every year. Our fixation on violence and aversion to sex has always been seen as a kind of strange thing (particularly to Europeans regarding American culture) and gets dragged up every couple of years when one side goes "too far" with their content, or when people complain a little too vigorously about seeing something they don't like.

This question is usually framed as a criticism of the broader culture in general: "Why is it okay to cut off someone's arm, but not okay to show them naked? What kind of sick culture loves violence and hates sex?" I think this question is kind of misleading, and makes some faulty assumptions about why we choose certain forms of entertainment and how they make us feel.

Before I dig into this, I need to drag one argument out behind the shed and shoot it, because otherwise it's the only thing people will discuss in the comments: Your particular standards for what is "offensive" are no more valid than anyone else's. Everyone seems to think that their attitudes to the human body are perfectly normal, and that everyone else has these strange fixations or hang-ups. When arguing about what's appropriate for "family" entertainment or what's fit for (say) television, we usually see arguments like this:

1) Can you believe those people, freaking out over bare arms and bellies? As long as you can't see a woman's nipples, it's just fine for family entertainment.

2) Nipples? What's the big deal about nipples? Men have nipples! What makes female nipples magically offensive? It's all good, as long as we don't see anyone's genetailia.

3) What's so bad about showing genetailia? We all have them! It's natural! What is it with you religious nuts obsessing over private parts? It's not like we're showing people screwing.

4) Why not show people screwing? It's natural. I mean, as long as you're only showing two people at a time, and they're attractive, and not doing anything too kinky, I don't see what the big deal is.

5) Well actually...

George Carlin once said, "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" The same idea applies here. We all seem to think that everyone more conservative than us is a prude, and everyone less conservative is some kind of sex-crazed hedonist. We tend to classify things as offensive if they're shocking or go beyond the norms we're used to, and these norms are generally shaped by stuff like tradition, climate, and viewing habits. You can criticize American attitudes if you want to, but you likely have someone on the other side of you who says the exact same things about your culture. So for now let's set aside debates on who are the prudes and who are the hedonists and just accept that the border between mundane, edgy, and offensive is really blurry and trying to draw definitive lines anywhere is probably not an awesome use of our time.

Getting back to the main question: "Why is a bare [body part] more offensive than [violent act]?" Let's look at this in passive media (movies and television) before we consider the videogame side of it.

Most passive media is created with the expectation that it will be a communal experience. The vast majority of people go to the theater with someone. Television is often produced with the expectation or understanding that people will watch it together. Violence works for this because we all have basically the same type of reaction to violence. When something violent happens we experience cringing discomfort, body horror, or visceral satisfaction, depending on who was hurt and how they were hurt. Maybe I'm more grossed out than you, but in general everyone is feeling roughly the same thing.

This isn't true for sexual content. When naked bodies and sexual activity appear on screen, we're suddenly having very personal experiences that are probably disconnected from the experiences around us. Maybe one person is aroused. Another will feel inadequate or self-conscious about their own body. Another will feel embarrassed. Someone else will be grossed out. Someone else will find the whole thing ridiculous to the point of comedy. Someone who isn't yet sexually active can find the images scary or confusing. Another person stops thinking about the movie and begins worrying about what everyone else is feeling. We're no longer having a communal experience, we're having divergent experiences.

More importantly, arousal is a very personal thing and we're more particular about when and where we want to feel it. I don't mind being grossed out in front of my mom, but I definitely don't want to be aroused in front of my mom. Making something sexually titillating immediately makes it something that you don't want to see in certain situations. People aren't so much upset by what they're seeing as what they're feeling. While you can ease the impact of violent imagery by reminding yourself it's "just a movie", that's not so easy to do with sexual content. That really is a naked person and they really are affecting you on a physiological level. You can stop believing in a movie, but you can't control what sorts of things arouse or embarrass you.

This probably explains why people are so much more prickly when it comes to sexual content versus violent content. It's not that people think murder is better than sex, it's that sexual content makes them feel things they don't want to feel and turns communal entertainment into a moment of shared awkwardness. This is especially problematic in the world of television, where you look for content by surfing channels and you don't have a convenient way of knowing what sorts of content you're going to be exposed to ahead of time. This creates the dreaded "danger surf", where other people (the kids, or grandma, or your neighbor) enter the living room in the middle of your channel surf and suddenly it's your job to land on something tolerable that isn't going to shock, offend, or traumatize the other people in the room.

I don't want to make it sound like adult content never has a place on the small screen. But some people do feel that way, and I understand why. I get why they feel that television should be an inherently family-friendly medium. This problem has been made much, much worse by American cable companies insisting on selling their channels in bundles. As I pointed out above, everyone has a different idea of what is "okay", and bundles are a horrible system for dealing with gradients like this.

So that's television: A horrible tug-of-war between the family "prudes" who want to be able to channel-surf with the kids and the "hedonistic" singles who will reliably watch anything with gorgeous and sexually provocative young people in it. Throw in terrible cable service, the long-standing trend of content getting racier over time, the background culture war that's always going on, and the occasional accidental escalation of content levels and you've got a pretty good system for pissing people off and creating lots of silly moral panic.

So what about videogames? As odd as sex can be in movies and television, at least they have sex. What's the deal with an industry where massive body counts are the norm and human sexuality is barely acknowledged? Videogames don't have the drawbacks that you find in passive media. A single-player game is obviously designed for one person, so you don't have the problem of social awkwardness when you're viewing something salacious in mixed company. Their labeling is better than movies, offering details about what sort of content the game has to offer instead of a silly age rating. They're [over] marketed to young males, who are by far the biggest consumers of sex-themed media.

It seems like a marketing no-brainer: Put more titillating sex in the game and sell even more to those young males everyone is so interested in. Forget the "Citizen Kane" of videogames, why hasn't anyone tried to make the Eyes Wide Shut, Chasing Amy, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, or Porkys of videogames? (And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting these are all great movies. Also, I'm talking about games ABOUT sex, not games with sex as gameplay. I'm not talking about pornographic games, but simply games where characters have or pursue some sort of sex life.)

But rather than chalk this up to puritanical attitudes to sex or a lust for violence, I think there are a lot of really practical reasons why sex doesn't show up in videogames. Assuming you're not making some sort of juvenile stick-thrusting minigame like hot coffee, then a game about sex is probably a game about people and relationships, and we've never been good at systemizing that sort of thing. We can't do games where people talk about sex for the same reason we can't do games about contract negotiation, subterfuge in diplomacy, or philosophical debate. Computers are too stupid to act as a proper conversational foil for the player. The best you could do is have a BioWare-style conversation wheel, and that would probably be really sad and awkward.

Worse, the "divergent experiences" problem becomes even more extreme in interactive media. If we all react differently to sexual content in passive media, then we're going to react even more strongly when we're asked to participate. I might be able to sit through an uncomfortable sex scene, but I really don't want to pick up and controller and push the characters into it.

So before we condemn our society as monsters because we don't have more sex and less violence in games, let's remember that this trend is more a reflection of what computers can do and less a reflection of what we value as a society.
Makes a lot of sense to me.
 

ManutheBloodedge

New member
Feb 7, 2016
149
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
ManutheBloodedge said:
But third wave feminism and sex positive? Maybe some of it, but not the majority.
Most are sex-positive. Most people who never bothered to learn feminist theory in depth erroneously conflate "sex positivity" with "sex is always positive" so when they see sex-positive feminists saying "this sexy stuff here is bad" they conflate it with sex negative feminism. Case in point, your own words:

With all the rape culture agenda and Jack Thompson 2.0 who complains about butts in video games, I would have to disagree. Loud. With a microphone. Into a megaphone."
So Ms. Sarkeesian complains about the sexual objectification of characters in gaming, notably the valley in how women are objectified versus how men are objectified. Man-hating, testicle-castrating sex-negative feminist, right? No, actually she's sex-positive. Granted, she is a lot more critical than many sex-positive feminists, certainly moreso than most of the sex-positive feminists people encounter in the sphere of gaming, bu she still fits under the sex-positive umbrella, and she's a rather moderate one at that. You'd know that if you actually bothered to understand Ms. Sarkeesian's underpinning philosophy you wouldn't make that comparison to Mr. Thompson's underpinning philosophy.


The simplified way of looking at is is that Sex-positive feminism asserts that sexuality can be empowering. Sex-negative feminism asserts that sexuality can never be empowering - not under the current social system anyways. Both schools of thought are, in each of their worldviews, liberating sexuality. A sex-positive feminist may assert that participation in pornography is beneficial and positive to the individuals involved, regardless of their gender, if they have control of the proceedings. [http://bluestockingsmag.com/2014/07/24/ask-oh-megan-and-the-csph-where-do-i-find-ethical-porn/] A sex-negative feminist may assert that insemination is a form of violence against women. [https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/] Sex-negative feminists, in my experience, are more likely to purport for government interference and even violence - stuff less like Ms. Sarkeesian's visit to the UN to gripe about douchebags on the internet and more like Mr. Thompson's legal efforts change laws to make videogames less accessible for people, have government control and regulate the content of such games, and his various spurrious and slanderous lawsuits made against the businesses that have developed and published videogames with graphic violent content.

For what its worth, ism =/= ist. One wouldn't write off nihilism as having any philosophical merit just because of emo teenagers who go "the world is meaningless, everything is dumb waaaaaaaah" all the time. In fact, the various waves of feminist activism and thought were caused mostly by failures in feminist activism rather than failure in feminist thought. Second wave happened because first wave was virulently racist. Third wave happened because, among other factors, second wave was really homophobic (hence "sexual liberation"). Some might say that fourth-wave feminism is clawing its way out at this very moment.
Your words in God's ear.

I would think that a sex-positive person would say: "Objectification is a perfectly normal human sentiment, everyone is doing it subconsiously and it only becomes a problem when it never stops, which is only the case for extreme cases like sociopaths. Noticing someones body features does not prevent me from seeing her as a person during it or afterwards. Liking beautiful things is normal and doesn't hurt anyone, as long as I don't shame people who don't conform to my standards of beauty."
Not: Objectivication is bad and that it happens differently for male and females is also bad.

And regarding Mrs. Sarkeesian and Mr. Thompsons underpinning philosophies, my understanding of them is as following

Jack: Violence in Video Games causes real world violence.
Anita: Sexism in Video Games causes real world sexism.

so you can maybe understand why I drew a parallel here.

PS: I read Rain too :). Glad to meet another fan.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0

I'm a Dane.

I grew up in the 1990s

We had candy like what's in the spoiler-bracket above (the company making them had a minor case of "Family Friendly" and tried to pull them off the shelves in 2001, but the public wanted their "naughty" candy names and they started to reinstate them in 2008).

It's not like all Danes are hedonistic sex-maniacs because of "nipple exposure".