Sexuality in gaming, your stance?

[King Zeal]

Well, the personality aspect has been brought up before, for sure. But that's more difficult to explain. Like, if you look at most games with an optional romance encounter, the romance is treated like a minigame: "Do X Things, and You Win Sex". Often, the characters are thus boiled down to really simplistic and stereotypical shells in order to make the win condition clear for players. Even worse is when sex is just an end result and little else is done after that. There isn't really a "sexual relationship" so much as there's just a walking minigame where you get sex at the end. Garrus being really the only clear exception (which is why his is really well done).

For example, in Mass Effect, there's no main character you can have casual sex (although only implied) with except Kelly Chambers, and even then, Kelly does not count as a "Romance option" officially. And even with her, there's really nothing left to talk about once she starts strip dancing for you. The only other thing that comes close is in the first game, where you can have a one-night-stand with the asari consort, but you never really get to know her personality.

 

[UberPubert]

That's your opinion others, such as many of the people being excluded, don't agree.

So long as we accept exclusion is a neutral term and that their opinions to their implications are no less relevant than mine.

What does finished content have to do with anything? I'm talking about a publisher telling a developer flat out what to and not to put in their games.

But that content is still created by the artist on the team. The publisher can control which of it goes in but in the case of the "sexy characters" we're talking about nearly all of what the player sees was created by someone on the developer team, therefore the complaint lies with individual artist - not the publisher.

32 states lacking transgender discrimination statutes IS bad. It's not AS bad as 0 out of 50, but "not bad" is stretching it. And unfortunately, transgender harassment is a constant problem when it comes to restroom rights. As I said, it's changing, but it's still pretty terrible.

It's not terrible, it's just been slow to change because it's a relatively new phenomenon. Have long have we really had hormone therapy and plastic surgery that was commonly available to the public? How long has some confusion or harassment really been a problem to those affected? It's a problem, sure, and they deserve the same rights as anyone but like you just said it's already happening. It's not even a matter of exclusion it's a matter of time.

Believe what you want. But again, Jim Sterling, the guys at Extra Credits, and other people here and there have spoken out about it. I'd love to give more specific citations, but like I said, I lack the time.

But as a general rule publishers oversee trends and protect investments, when people like Sterling bring it up it's usually to rail against microtransactions, when Yahtzee does it it's to complain about quick-time events, and when Extra Credits take to the podium it's usually to point out something that still isn't publishers looking over the concept artists shoulder and scribbling in a lower cut top or shortening skirts, which is where great error is made in trying to blame publishers for character sexualization.

Well, that's your unique experience. Sites like Fatuglyorslutty.com has hundreds of examples different ones.

I'm glad you brought them up. Hell - and I don't mean to sound prescient - but I was almost counting on it. Which is why I looked it up earlier and the About page had this to say:

"Some players like to send creepy, disturbing, insulting, degrading and/or just plain rude messages to other online players, usually women.

We think this is funny.

Why do they send them? There are a few theories. But instead of getting offended, we offer a method for people to share these messages and laugh together.

If having these messages posted online makes someone think twice about writing and sending a detailed description of their genitals, great!"

So, this site you're calling the proof of a toxic gaming community is actually one that isn't actually offended by it and thinks it's funny. They even turned it around into what they see to be a force of good, and you're trying to use this to convince me women are being excluded from gaming? Maybe you should ask them how they really feel instead of assuming a loud minority of players is enough to keep them away from their hobby.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Well, the personality aspect has been brought up before, for sure. But that's more difficult to explain. Like, if you look at most games with an optional romance encounter, the romance is treated like a minigame: "Do X Things, and You Win Sex". Often, the characters are thus boiled down to really simplistic and stereotypical shells in order to make the win condition clear for players. Even worse is when sex is just an end result and little else is done after that. There isn't really a "sexual relationship" so much as there's just a walking minigame where you get sex at the end. Garrus being really the only clear exception (which is why his is really well done).

For example, in Mass Effect, there's no main character you can have casual sex (although only implied) with except Kelly Chambers, and even then, Kelly does not count as a "Romance option" officially. And even with her, there's really nothing left to talk about once she starts strip dancing for you. The only other thing that comes close is in the first game, where you can have a one-night-stand with the asari consort, but you never really get to know her personality.

Well that's not really what I'm getting at. I was directing my post towards people talking about why this or that character is in a game. A person doesn't just find Soul Caliber's Ivy, sexy just because of her body, the person would also have to find her demeanor appealing in some way. I'm not talking about the relationship aspect, I'm talking about character appeal, you don't need dialogue choices to find a character's personality attractive. Or to put it another way, a person doesn't just find someone attractive because of sex appeal, they can also find them attractive because they are cool or smart or funny.

 

[King Zeal]

So long as we accept exclusion is a neutral term and that their opinions to their implications are no less relevant than mine.

Of course it isn't. What I have a problem with is all the "Why are we even talking about this?" rhetoric. (Not from you, I mean.)

But that content is still created by the artist on the team. The publisher can control which of it goes in but in the case of the "sexy characters" we're talking about nearly all of what the player sees was created by someone on the developer team, therefore the complaint lies with individual artist - not the publisher.

No, the publisher can and will do things like demand a change to the design, or reject a design because it doesn't fit their requirement.

That's not say there should never be any overhead, but commercial art (speaking as someone who's done it before) is not merely an artistic endeavor. Marketing and corporate interference are a constant reality.

It's not terrible, it's just been slow to change because it's a relatively new phenomenon. Have long have we really had hormone therapy and plastic surgery that was commonly available to the public? How long has some confusion or harassment really been a problem to those affected? It's a problem, sure, and they deserve the same rights as anyone but like you just said it's already happening.

Hold on. There's a bit of confusion here. "Transgender" isn't about hormone treatments or surgery--it's about self-identity. A biological male that identifies as a woman is a transgender. A transsexual (the terms are not the same) is a person who either already has, or plans to have, reassignment procedures. One of the reason the law is slow to change is that many people don't know the difference, and they think any man who acts or dresses like a woman, but has not had a procedure is just a pervert.

Transgender people have existed since the beginning of time, also. This isn't a new problem--the only thing that's truly new is that people have started talking about it. (Which is why I'm so against issues not being talked about.)

It's not even a matter of exclusion it's a matter of time.

Those two are not mutually-exclusive points, though. It's currently a matter of exclusion that will become (hopefully) less of one over time. But, until it's fixed completely, it's still exclusion.

But as a general rule publishers oversee trends and protect investments, when people like Sterling bring it up it's usually to rail against microtransactions, when Yahtzee does it it's to complain about quick-time events, and when Extra Credits take to the podium it's usually to point out something that still isn't publishers looking over the concept artists shoulder and scribbling in a lower cut top or shortening skirts, which is where great error is made in trying to blame publishers for character sexualization.

No, Jim has certainly brought up the constant demands publishers make on developers. He's also mentioned before about how publishers let developers take the blame for a bad design decision that was wholly the publisher's ultimatum. I think Yahtzee has mentioned it before as well, and I think I read (so yeah, take this with a total grain of salt) a similar article about waaaaaaaaay back in like 2002 (so it's nothing new).

Also, similar phenomena happen in other mass media, like comics, movies, and television. They're not the same as the game industry of course, but I'm only mentioning it for context.

I'm glad you brought them up. Hell - and I don't mean to sound prescient - but I was almost counting on it. Which is why I looked it up earlier and the About page had this to say:

So, this site you're calling the proof of a toxic gaming community is actually one that isn't actually offended by it and thinks it's funny. They even turned it around into what they see to be a force of good, and you're trying to use this to convince me women are being excluded from gaming? Maybe you should ask them how they really feel instead of assuming a loud minority of players is enough to keep them away from their hobby.

I have. I talk with women about it all the time. It's kind of my life's work.

As for FUoS, they think it's "funny" not in the way you're making it seem.

http://holygrenade.com/2013/02/interview-the-founders-of-fat-ugly-or-slutty/

That is an interview with the founders of the site who talk more in depth about why the site is started, how alone they felt at first, how harrowing their experiences were at times, and how they actively hid their genders to avoid harassment. They may laugh about it, but it's to let other women feel they're not alone. Feeling like you're alone and unwanted is pretty much the definition of feeling excluded.

 

[King Zeal]

Well that's not really what I'm getting at. I was directing my post towards people talking about why this or that character is in a game. A person doesn't just find Soul Caliber's Ivy, sexy just because of her body, the person would also have to find her demeanor appealing in some way. I'm not talking about the relationship aspect, I'm talking about character appeal, you don't need dialogue choices to find a character's personality attractive. Or to put it another way, a person doesn't just find someone attractive because of sex appeal, they can also find them attractive because they are cool or smart or funny.

What I was trying to get at is that there's a gray area between the two, though. Being attracted to a person or character based on personality is a good thing, but sometimes a personality is scraped to the bare bones in order to entice the most basic and pedantic sexual desires.

Considering the flaccid penis size is affected by temperature, it wouldn't bounce around a lot like some larger breast do with simple movement, and even if it did its hardly ever as noticeable, if at all.

So why are you comparing large breasts to small penises, then? Let's assume that both are abnormally large so this is a fair comparison.

Also, that only applies in particularly cold weather. The type of cold where it would be just as dumb to show off boobs as it would be to walk around with your dick hanging out.

 

[UberPubert]

No, the publisher can and will do things like demand a change to the design, or reject a design because it doesn't fit their requirement.

That's not say there should never be any overhead, but commercial art (speaking as someone who's done it before) is not merely an artistic endeavor. Marketing and corporate interference are a constant reality.

You're not reading closely enough: I keep saying the publisher can control what goes into the game and request the developers put certain things in, but all of it is made by the developer. Sexy designs and costume orders come down from on high but how the artist chooses to express that is entirely up to them, it's why they were hired in the first place. The publishers choose what gets into the game, but the developers are always the ones who have made it, and when talking about something as subjective as sexual appeal in video game characters the safe bet is on the artist's own input. Give a scroll through deviantart sometime to see it in action.

This isn't a new problem--the only thing that's truly new is that people have started talking about it. (Which is why I'm so against issues not being talked about.)

Transgender people aren't a "new problem", I'm sure, but their legality status as it applies to public bathrooms almost certainly is because the concept of gender/sex discrimination in public bathrooms is relatively new.

Those two are not mutually-exclusive points, though. It's currently a matter of exclusion that will become (hopefully) less of one over time. But, until it's fixed completely, it's still exclusion.

Unintentional, passive exclusion - the benign kind I keep bringing up that's less of a social justice struggle and more of an item on a to-do (or to-don't) list.

No, Jim has certainly brought up the constant demands publishers make on developers. He's also mentioned before about how publishers let developers take the blame for a bad design decision that was wholly the publisher's.

But the problems he's mentioned that have clear examples (DRM, microstransactions, always-online, etc) are not the same as forcing artistic choices made by artists on the developer team.

As for FUoS, they think it's "funny" not in the way you're making it seem.

That is an interview with the founders of the site who talk more in depth about why the site is started, how alone they felt at first, how harrowing their experiences were at times, and how they actively hid their genders to avoid harassment. They may laugh about it, but it's to let other women feel they're not alone. Feeling like you're alone and unwanted is pretty much the definition of feeling excluded.

They seem like they think it's pretty funny in the way I made it seem like they think it's funny. I don't think the fresh prince of bel-aire opening is a compelling narrative of their harrowing trials and the rest of the interview seems to support that. I don't see two people scared to identify as women online, I see two friends who wanted to share their experiences with others and while it's a good thing it's not unique. Bullying happens, and being able to laugh it off is a part of life that they seem to have come to accept and joke about. Why do you think other women would be precluded from doing the same?

 

[Islandbuffilo]

Well that's not really what I'm getting at. I was directing my post towards people talking about why this or that character is in a game. A person doesn't just find Soul Caliber's Ivy, sexy just because of her body, the person would also have to find her demeanor appealing in some way. I'm not talking about the relationship aspect, I'm talking about character appeal, you don't need dialogue choices to find a character's personality attractive. Or to put it another way, a person doesn't just find someone attractive because of sex appeal, they can also find them attractive because they are cool or smart or funny.

What I was trying to get at is that there's a gray area between the two, though. Being attracted to a person or character based on personality is a good thing, but sometimes a personality is scraped to the bare bones in order to entice the most basic and pedantic sexual desires.

Considering the flaccid penis size is affected by temperature, it wouldn't bounce around a lot like some larger breast do with simple movement, and even if it did its hardly ever as noticeable, if at all.

So why are you comparing large breasts to small penises, then? Let's assume that both are abnormally large so this is a fair comparison.

Also, that only applies in particularly cold weather. The type of cold where it would be just as dumb to show off boobs as it would be to walk around with your dick hanging out.

I'm not comparing large breast to small penises, I'm saying that penis size alters by temperature, and no it does not only applies to particularly cold weather, it just has to be cold, getting out of the shower wet in a 60 degree house can cause it to happen. In general penises are harder to notice than breast, and large breast are often used to signify maturity, or motherhood. Phallic objects are more common to represent masculinity rather than extremely exaggerated penises.

 

[King Zeal]

Again, then why are we talking about penis sizes that are small enough for the shrinkage to affect bounce? Not all tits bounce easily, either, and there are even MORE things that can reduce a breast's shape or size. Why are we talking about jiggling breasts like all sizes have a hefty bounce, while dismissing dongs that would qualify just the same?

Also you're making my point for me: large penises are also symbolic of manliness and sexual prowess. But we prefer to use phallic OBJECTS rather than phalluses themselves, whereas we show jiggling breasts with no problem.

Also, penises are not that hard to notice. If a dude walked up to you with crotchless pants on, I have a hard time buying that anyone wouldn't notice the nudity.

 

[King Zeal]

You're not reading closely enough: I keep saying the publisher can control what goes into the game and request the developers put certain things in, but all of it is made by the developer. Sexy designs and costume orders come down from on high but how the artist chooses to express that is entirely up to them, it's why they were hired in the first place. The publishers choose what gets into the game, but the developers are always the ones who have made it, and when talking about something as subjective as sexual appeal in video game characters the safe bet is on the artist's own input. Give a scroll through deviantart sometime to see it in action.

No I read you clearly. As I said, publishers can and will flat out tell a developer what to put in a design. It's not always a blanket directive.

Unintentional, passive exclusion - the benign kind I keep bringing up that's less of a social justice struggle and more of an item on a to-do (or to-don't) list.

I assume we're still talking about transgender. It's not "benign", it affects real lives everyday (indirectly) through violence and, in some places, arrests. That's why it's a social justice issue.

But the problems he's mentioned that have clear examples (DRM, microstransactions, always-online, etc) are not the same as forcing artistic choices made by artists on the developer team.

Okay, point taken there.

They seem like they think it's pretty funny in the way I made it seem like they think it's funny. I don't think the fresh prince of bel-aire opening is a compelling narrative of their harrowing trials and the rest of the interview seems to support that. I don't see two people scared to identify as women online, I see two friends who wanted to share their experiences with others and while it's a good thing it's not unique. Bullying happens, and being able to laugh it off is a part of life that they seem to have come to accept and joke about. Why do you think other women would be precluded from doing the same?

GTZ flat out said she doesn't like to identify as a woman online. They also say that they find many of these experiences as "negative" or "harrowing".

Besides that, being able to laugh off bullying is a good thing. That doesn't make bullying a good thing. And it certainly doesn't mean that the people coping with humor are fine with it. Jaspir, who is the one who says she snarks right back, makes it damn clear in the interview that one of the reasons she's doing this is so that things will change. So it doesn't seem like she's fine with it at all, really.

 

[UberPubert]

No I read you clearly. As I said, publishers can and will flat out tell a developer what to put in a design. It's not always a blanket directive.

But it almost always is. The same article from the anonymous source you linked earlier just said that most publishers don't actually care about the game or game design process enough to even play it, how could they be so concerned about the character design to practically take the artists hand and do it for them?

I assume we're still talking about transgender. It's not "benign", it affects real lives everyday (indirectly) through violence and, in some places, arrests. That's why it's a social justice issue.

Who is being indirectly (how does that even work?) violated and harassed every day because of a bathroom discrimination law? Where has this actually happened?

GTZ flat out said she doesn't like to identify as a woman online. They also say that they find many of these experiences as "negative" or "harrowing".

I don't like to identify as a man online either but okay, what gtz actually says is she hasn't personally recieved the hate mail because she usually just plays with friends and was shocked to hear about it. Hiding her gender identity online - note, she says online, not just for videogames - and mentions her having a self-described "weird guilt-complex". Jaspir is your stronger case who explicitly states she'd been harasses but even she doesn't state she's being harmed, she describes herself as shooting a comeback at the speaker or playing, both of which are frequent gamer tactics from what I've encountered.

That doesn't make bullying a good thing. And it certainly doesn't mean that the people coping with humor are fine with it. Jaspir, who is the one who says she snarks right back, makes it damn clear in the interview that one of the reasons she's doing this is so that things will change. So it doesn't seem like she's fine with it at all, really.

That's a heck of a conclusion to draw from me saying that sharing experiences is a good thing - yes, of course bullying isn't a good thing, that's insanity - but I don't think it's a gamer problem, it's just a people being rude problem, and it's not as pervasive as most people seem to think it is and it's certainly not one that has gone unnoticed. How long have moderation and flagging systems been around? How long has there been the ability to kick or ban abusive players? There's already a means to deal with these people, there's filters and mutes and ignores - the only way you could actually stop this kind of thing any harder is if went back in time and stopped them even saying it.

 

[Dragonlayer]

Personally, I am simply outraged and disgusted at the shameful state of sexuality in video games these days.

Where the hell are the games that pander to my disgusting fetishes!?

Sexual equality my arse!

 

[King Zeal]

But it almost always is. The same article from the anonymous source you linked earlier just said that most publishers don't actually care about the game or game design process enough to even play it, how could they be so concerned about the character design to practically take the artists hand and do it for them?

That isn't what I said. I said that they mandate that the artist change it or tell the artists specifically what to put in. That's a far cry from "doing it for them".

There's a difference in not caring about game design and not caring about character design.

Who is being indirectly violated and harassed every day because of a bathroom discrimination law? Where has this actually happened?

According to the site here: http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/tlcschools.htm

?For transgender and gender non-conforming people, the lack of safe bathroom access is ?the most frequent form of discrimination faced but the least acknowledged by policy makers?

It also lists places where it has happened or is common.

(how does that even work?)

Again, lack of statutes, laws, or enforcement protecting them. A lawmaker that ignores trans issues isn't directly harming them, but is indirectly contributing to an environment which is unsafe.

I don't like to identify as a man online either but okay, what gtz actually says is she hasn't personally recieved the hate mail because she usually just plays with friends and was shocked to hear about it. Hiding her gender identity online - note, she says online, not just for videogames - and mentions her having a self-described "weird guilt-complex". Jaspir is your stronger case who explicitly states she'd been harasses but even she doesn't state she's being harmed, she describes herself as shooting a comeback at the speaker or playing, both of which are frequent gamer tactics from what I've encountered.

If this was supposed to refute my point, I'm not seeing it.

That's a heck of a conclusion to draw from me saying that sharing experiences is a good thing - yes, of course bullying isn't a good thing, that's insanity - but I don't think it's a gamer problem, it's just a people being rude problem, and it's not as pervasive as most people seem to think it is and it's certainly not one that has gone unnoticed. How long have moderation and flagging systems been around? How long has there been the ability to kick or ban abusive players? There's already a means to deal with these people, there's filters and mutes and ignores - the only way you could actually stop this kind of thing any harder is if went back in time and stopped them even saying it.

I don't recall saying anything about stopping it. (Although, of course, I would support attempts to.) The original point being made was about how harassment, combined with gender-binary market tactics contributes to a problem. The interviewees clearly state that gender incusion is still in its baby steps. GTZ evens says,"even the people who are absolutely furious that she mentions her gender are at least acknowledging that it?s normal for women to play games. Baby steps, right?"

That's a system. It's not an intentional system (meaning marketers and most consumers don't mean for it to happen), but as I said, a system is a series of things that contribute to an end result. Acknowledging the things that contribute to it are the first steps to improved solutions.

 

[UberPubert]

That isn't what I said. I said that they mandate that the artist change it or tell the artists specifically what to put in. That's a far cry from "doing it for them".

Then do you agree that artists on the development are the ones who create the content and are responsible for it or not?

It also lists places where it has happened or is common.

Okay, so I read your link, followed the citation, looked up the survey and found out some of the respondents describe horror stories about trying to use the bathrooms as a transgender, with every claim of harassment up to an including "I almost got killed". Last I checked, attempted murder of people for using the wrong bathroom is still illegal, no matter which state you're in, and that if this had really happened we'd have heard something about it and of course the attacker (near-attacker?) would be in prison.

I have a strong feeling these claims are somewhere between hyperbolic and completely hysterical, but regardless of their validity if we saw this occur outside of anonymous surveys do we really expect that a court would resolve in a way that is not in their favor? You say this issue is being resolved anyway but can we really hold the law accountable for issues not taken to court?

Again, lack of statutes, laws, or enforcement protecting them. A lawmaker that ignores trans issues isn't directly harming them, but is indirectly contributing to an environment which is unsafe.

As we expand the legal lexicon on sex and gender discrimination of course we should expect there to be a lack of visibility in a growing number of extreme minority exceptions, but I don't equate a waiting list to "indirect harm" or an unsafe environment.

If this was supposed to refute my point, I'm not seeing it.

You provided the case as black and white, I refuted it as being far less so by paraphrasing the interview you provided. Yours is a weak point in the least, dishonest at it's worst.

The original point being made was about how harassment, combined with gender-binary market tactics contributes to a problem. The interviewees clearly state that gender incusion is still in its baby steps. GTZ evens says,"even the people who are absolutely furious that she mentions her gender are at least acknowledging that it?s normal for women to play games. Baby steps, right?"

That's a system. It's not an intentional system (meaning marketers and most consumers don't mean for it to happen), but as I said, a system is a series of things that contribute to an end result. Acknowledging the things that contribute to it are the first steps to improved solutions.

I've already pointed out most of it's not a gender binary market, there are *so* many different factors besides gender that go in marketing decisions, that they might inevitably end up one side of the gender scale more than the other comes down almost entirely to personal taste.

But the actual system - the stronger system, the majority system - is about re-actively thwarting the unintentional, structureless system you've perceived the industry to be in. We already have the solution, at least community-side, that's why I brought it up in the first place. Short of complete retroactive censorship, anonymous people are being policed about as well as we can manage.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Well, the personality aspect has been brought up before, for sure. But that's more difficult to explain. Like, if you look at most games with an optional romance encounter, the romance is treated like a minigame: "Do X Things, and You Win Sex". Often, the characters are thus boiled down to really simplistic and stereotypical shells in order to make the win condition clear for players. Even worse is when sex is just an end result and little else is done after that. There isn't really a "sexual relationship" so much as there's just a walking minigame where you get sex at the end. Garrus being really the only clear exception (which is why his is really well done).

For example, in Mass Effect, there's no main character you can have casual sex (although only implied) with except Kelly Chambers, and even then, Kelly does not count as a "Romance option" officially. And even with her, there's really nothing left to talk about once she starts strip dancing for you. The only other thing that comes close is in the first game, where you can have a one-night-stand with the asari consort, but you never really get to know her personality.

This is a good point. I know it's a stupid example but don't some of the good eroge have the sex as sort of a solidification of romance, not an end. A shift like that could definably help our romance narratives in games improve greatly. Why is it that a company like Bioware with a crack team of professonal writers can't seem to make the romances real and the sex more than a reward but small doujin game companies can make compelling stories like (and you will bag on me for using this example over and over again) Katawa Shoujo?

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Well, the personality aspect has been brought up before, for sure. But that's more difficult to explain. Like, if you look at most games with an optional romance encounter, the romance is treated like a minigame: "Do X Things, and You Win Sex". Often, the characters are thus boiled down to really simplistic and stereotypical shells in order to make the win condition clear for players. Even worse is when sex is just an end result and little else is done after that. There isn't really a "sexual relationship" so much as there's just a walking minigame where you get sex at the end. Garrus being really the only clear exception (which is why his is really well done).

For example, in Mass Effect, there's no main character you can have casual sex (although only implied) with except Kelly Chambers, and even then, Kelly does not count as a "Romance option" officially. And even with her, there's really nothing left to talk about once she starts strip dancing for you. The only other thing that comes close is in the first game, where you can have a one-night-stand with the asari consort, but you never really get to know her personality.

Well that's not really what I'm getting at. I was directing my post towards people talking about why this or that character is in a game. A person doesn't just find Soul Caliber's Ivy, sexy just because of her body, the person would also have to find her demeanor appealing in some way. I'm not talking about the relationship aspect, I'm talking about character appeal, you don't need dialogue choices to find a character's personality attractive. Or to put it another way, a person doesn't just find someone attractive because of sex appeal, they can also find them attractive because they are cool or smart or funny.

Somehow I doubt that a number of people when asked why they like a certain female character will actually use personality as their main point. They may have it as a secondary but unfortunately, the standard dichotomy of attraction is that males like physical while females like emotional (note, anyone who has an article to prove or disprove this, please post it and if it turns out it's wrong, I will redact my statement)

Even if that was the case, personality of someone like Ivy does come through easily: dominance, no nonsense, and the like since she is using a stereotypical domimatrix outfit. You could tell me all about her parents being lost looking for souledge, her soul being bound to Nightmare's existance, and her intellegence in magic but Games are visual so we are going to get most of what we know from their looks and given the standard template for female characters, it's not looking like we will get much variety

 

[King Zeal]

Then do you agree that artists on the development are the ones who create the content and are responsible for it or not?

No, because that wording is overly simplistic.

Last I checked, attempted murder of people for using the wrong bathroom is still illegal, no matter which state you're in, and that if this had really happened we'd have heard something about it and of course the attacker (near-attacker?) would be in prison.

I have a strong feeling these claims are somewhere between hyperbolic and completely hysterical, but regardless of their validity if we saw this occur outside of anonymous surveys do we really expect that a court would resolve in a way that is not in their favor? You say this issue is being resolved anyway but can we really hold the law accountable for issues not taken to court?

As we expand the legal lexicon on sex and gender discrimination of course we should expect there to be a lack of visibility in a growing number of extreme minority exceptions, but I don't equate a waiting list to "indirect harm" or an unsafe environment.

Except that invisibility of transgender issues is one of the major obstacles to finding solutions. As I said, one of the main things that delayed transgender justice in the first place is the fact that the media generally ignored stories about it. And while yes, assault is generally illegal, the goal here is to remove the type of confrontational environments which lead to the problem in the first place.

Also, it has nothing to do with "holding the law accountable", it's recognizing that certain rights are being ignored, or not properly protected, and trying to figure out what to do about it. Saying that something indirectly contributes to a justice problem isn't holding that thing totally complicit, but it does ask for examination and, if necessary, improvement.

You provided the case as black and white, I refuted it as being far less so by paraphrasing the interview you provided. Yours is a weak point in the least, dishonest at it's worst.

I don't understand by what you mean by "black and white", and beyond that, I still don't see how that refutes anything.

I've already pointed out most of it's not a gender binary market, there are *so* many different factors besides gender that go in marketing decisions, that they might inevitably end up one side of the gender scale more than the other comes down almost entirely to personal taste.

No, it's very much a binary market.

http://podcast.cbc.ca/spark/plus-spark_20101102_jenjensonfull.mp3
http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed
http://qz.com/152426/gaming-companies-cant-seem-to-avoid-sexist-marketing/

Marketers have a very circular reasoning in regards to women and games. They don't market to girls, and thus girls don't feel they're being spoken to, thus they don't buy as much as men, thus further marketing ignores them.

But the actual system - the stronger system, the majority system - is about re-actively thwarting the unintentional, structureless system you've perceived the industry to be in. We already have the solution, at least community-side, that's why I brought it up in the first place. Short of complete retroactive censorship, anonymous people are being policed about as well as we can manage.

I didn't say anything about the industry being a structureless system, and I never denied that measures are being taken. But as I said in my last post, the point of the discussion is to assess whether improvements are possible.

 

[UberPubert]

No, because that wording is overly simplistic.

I find your wording of "publishers stereotype them intentionally to draw in a target market at their expense" overly simplistic. We're talking about costume designs and sexuality here, you've already conceded the work is not done by publishers, so are we holding individual artists responsible or are you going to keep making sweeping generalizations about companies? Because we cannot simplify the relationship between the publisher, the developer, and the content they create, I'd argue that the publisher does not contribute to systemic exclusion.

The goal here is to remove the type of confrontational environments which lead to the problem in the first place.

Also, it has nothing to do with "holding the law responsible", it's recognizing that certain rights are being ignored, or not properly protected, and trying to figure out what to do about it.

We don't have confrontational environments, we have confrontational people. There will always be confrontational people, and sometimes the best we can do is to enforce the law when they grossly violate it.

We already know what to do about it, like you keep saying, the issues are being addressed. Slowly, maybe, but bureaucracy has always moved at snail's pace, and it's even slower when the problem isn't as prevalent because the percentage of the population they inhabit is so miniscule you could hardly blame someone not noticing they were there. If it weren't for the internet, I know I wouldn't.

I don't understand by what you mean by "black and white", and beyond that, I still don't see how that refutes anything.

You stated, twice, that they found their experiences "negative" and "harrowing". I'm only pointing out gtz clearly did not and Jaspir only agreed they were negative, but was not excluded by them. My final point being that your supposed toxic gaming community was not enough to turn either of the women away and, by their own admission, is more funny than obstructive. In conclusion, I find your claim that the consumer base contributes to a systemic exclusion to be false.

No, it's very much a binary market.

Children's toys, and personal hygiene products? I'll concede: Definitely a binary market. There's not much of a grand palette in taste between children, marketing to them is extremely difficult (they're in such early stages of development it's difficult to get a cohesive answer on what they like) so the mind-numbingly simple solution is to manufacture images of what boys and girls like with advertisements to inform them on what they like because they don't know any better. But this doesn't hold much water when we start discussing games aimed at older demographics, they're old enough to think for themselves now, trying to convince them what they should buy on the merits of gender alone is seldom an effective tactic. More often than not it's centered around what are typically gender neutral positives in promise and spectacle.

Marketers have a very circular reasoning in regards to women and games. They don't market to girls, and thus girls don't feel they're being spoken to, thus they don't buy as much as men, thus further marketing ignores them.

Yeah, the article from polygon said something similar. Or rather, it established that less girls played video games as a fact, and then went on to give a sort of half-hearted explanation as to why that is, key point being "Boys were more likely to be involved with new technology". I'm not sure if I buy that, the timeline it gives makes it clear that the research was done decades after games had an established market, and the entire first part of the article established that the said market was gender neutral. But even if that was wrong, if Nintendo's gambit to begin marketing exclusively to boys was wrong then why have they yet to fail? How come so many of the women who are in gaming now played Nintendo games when they were growing up?

Even with proof and intent I don't see any evidence that girls were effectively excluded from those games. It appears they were able to enjoy them regardless of what the marketers told them to do, and that their tactics are not effective or as far-reaching as you claim. Thus, I make another point that they do not contribute to systemic exclusion.

The point of the discussion is to assess whether improvements are possible.

Improvements can always be made, but I consistently take issue with the ones being suggested (they are almost always framed as a matter of personal taste, this is not viable) and I certainly disagree with the reasoning behind them because more often than not they're based on faulty information (sweeping generalizations, false accusations about those involved with the gaming titles, etc.).

 

[Islandbuffilo]

Again, then why are we talking about penis sizes that are small enough for the shrinkage to affect bounce? Not all tits bounce easily, either, and there are even MORE things that can reduce a breast's shape or size. Why are we talking about jiggling breasts like all sizes have a hefty bounce, while dismissing dongs that would qualify just the same?

Also you're making my point for me: large penises are also symbolic of manliness and sexual prowess. But we prefer to use phallic OBJECTS rather than phalluses themselves, whereas we show jiggling breasts with no problem.

Also, penises are not that hard to notice. If a dude walked up to you with crotchless pants on, I have a hard time buying that anyone wouldn't notice the nudity.

Large penises aren't comparable to large breast, even without the element of size alteration due to weather, unless you really exaggerate the penis, don't have to do that as much with breast, sure not all breast jiggle, but some definitely do, while penises rarely do so and if they do no one will notice unless you expose the penis I.E crouch-less pants.

Again large penises DO NOT represent masculinity, in fact the Greeks found them disgusting, phallic shape objects (Usually weapons) were used to represent masculinity.

Anyway this entire conversation is apple and oranges, despite popular belief a man's penis aren't the equivalent of a woman's breast, penis are genitals breast are not.

 

[King Zeal]

I find your wording of "publishers stereotype them intentionally to draw in a target market at their expense" overly simplistic. We're talking about costume designs and sexuality here, you've already conceded the work is not done by publishers, so are we holding individual artists responsible or are you going to keep making sweeping generalizations about companies? Because we cannot simplify the relationship between the publisher, the developer, and the content they create, I'd argue that the publisher does not contribute to systemic exclusion.

I conceded that the actual work of designing is not done by the publisher, sure. But that has nothing to do with publishers mandating what designs a character has. What I'm arguing is that mandating a character be sexualized in specific ways bears just as much responsibility as drawing said sexualization.

We don't have confrontational environments, we have confrontational people. There will always be confrontational people, and sometimes the best we can do is to enforce the law when they grossly violate it.

We already know what to do about it, like you keep saying, the issues are being addressed. Slowly, maybe, but bureaucracy has always moved at snail's pace, and it's even slower when the problem isn't as prevalent because the percentage of the population they inhabit is so miniscule you could hardly blame someone not noticing they were there. If it weren't for the internet, I know I wouldn't.

A confrontational environment is one that makes conflict more likely. Gender-binary restrooms qualify because many people have a hard time accepting non-binary gender identities, and lash out. For example, a few of the pages I sourced mention parents being hostile towards transgender persons using a restroom with their kids. The idea is that by implementing less binary spaces, transgendered people as a whole are more visible in society.

Now, if you're debating whether this will work towards the perceived goal or not, then sure, that's a valid criticism. No one's quite sure if that will do the trick, and it comes with problems of its own, but right now, it's the best idea both activists and policymakers have.

You stated, twice, that they found their experiences "negative" and "harrowing". I'm only pointing out gtz clearly did not and Jaspir only agreed they were negative, but was not excluded by them. My final point being that your supposed toxic gaming community was not enough to turn either of the women away and, by their own admission, is more funny than obstructive. In conclusion, I find your claim that the consumer base contributes to a systemic exclusion to be false.

Rereading it, I see that the word "harrowing" was never used, so you're right there. However, again, we have a disagreement on what "exclusion" means. Someone isn't excluded only and only if they are actually deterred from participating; it simply means that it's more difficult or more negative for them to participate. If you don't like using "exclusion" for that, then we can use another word, but that doesn't match the definition I've paraphrased from the social justice classes and lectures I've experienced.

]But this doesn't hold much water when we start discussing games aimed at older demographics, they're old enough to think for themselves now, trying to convince them what they should buy on the merits of gender alone is seldom an effective tactic. More often than not it's centered around what are typically gender neutral positives in promise and spectacle.

That's debatable. By the time someone is an adult, even if they're old enough to "think for themselves", by that time they also have enough social baggage and social coding to see only in a gender binary. For a non-game example of a product aimed at people old enough to "know better", let's take tampons. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1332306_10_survival_uses_for_a_tampon.html Their ability to absorb water and expand has great uses as survival and first aid gear. But, most men don't know about this, or are squeamish about it because tampons are "for women".

Yeah, the article from polygon said something similar. Or rather, it established that less girls played video games as a fact, and then went on to give a sort of half-hearted explanation as to why that is, key point being "Boys were more likely to be involved with new technology". I'm not sure if I buy that, the timeline it gives makes it clear that the research was done decades after games had an established market, and the entire first part of the article established that the said market was gender neutral. But even if that was wrong, if Nintendo's gambit to begin marketing exclusively to boys was wrong then why have they yet to fail? How come so many of the women who are in gaming now played Nintendo games when they were growing up?

Well, to start, what do you mean by "wrong"? I need more context.

Even with proof and intent I don't see any evidence that girls were effectively excluded from those games. It appears they were able to enjoy them regardless of what the marketers told them to do, and that their tactics are not effective or as far-reaching as you claim. Thus, I make another point that they do not contribute to systemic exclusion.

That's still falling into the same problem I said before. Exclusion does not mean that they were completely deterred from participation. It doesn't mean that the entire experience was negative and terrible. It means that participation was more difficult, more negative, or more averse than the majority group.

Improvements can always be made, but I consistently take issue with the ones being suggested (they are almost always framed as a matter of personal taste, this is not viable) and I certainly disagree with the reasoning behind them because more often than not they're based on faulty information (sweeping generalizations, false accusations about those involved with the gaming titles, etc.).

Well, then, that's a different discussion. Just agreeing that improvements can be made and should be made is what I was getting at. What improvements are needed, and what data supports them, can be hashed out like we're doing above.

 

[King Zeal]

Large penises aren't comparable to large breast, even without the element of size alteration due to weather, unless you really exaggerate the penis, don't have to do that as much with breast, sure not all breast jiggle, but some definitely do, while penises rarely do so and if they do no one will notice unless you expose the penis I.E crouch-less pants.

Okay, now you're going to need some data to back up the "penises jiggle less than breasts" argument. Especially since we're talking about fiction. If you're sourcing your own experience on this, can you tell us what methods you used to compare breasts versus penises and how large the sample size was? (Also, I'm not trying to imply anything about you, sexually. But, if you're going to make this argument, then we need some sort of documented comparison.)

Again large penises DO NOT represent masculinity, in fact the Greeks found them disgusting, phallic shape objects (Usually weapons) were used to represent masculinity.

The Greeks also thought small breasts were sexier than large ones. And just like that standard, the perception of penis size has also changed with time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size#Perceptions_of_penis_size

Anyway this entire conversation is apple and oranges, despite popular belief a man's penis aren't the equivalent of a woman's breast, penis are genitals breast are not.

Says who?