Sexuality in gaming, your stance?

[Islandbuffilo]

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.)

You want me to do a large scale experiment to compare breast jiggling, to penis jiggling? I won't really, need to the penis is made of tissue that is not as prone to jiggling than fat, which make up the breast. it would take an extremely unrealistically large flaccid penis to jiggle like that of large breast. Penises may sway side to side slightly while moving, but its no where near as noticeable as large breast jiggling, unless your wearing special clothing to do so, and even then its more of the fact your penis is exposed.

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

Even today men often equate their manhood objects considered masculine, like guns, Its a much more pratical way to display manhood.

Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_organ

 

[fulano]

So long as it isn't exploitative I don't really care.

Now, WTF is exploitative supposed to mean? Well, that depends. Maybe I'm old, but anything that looks like the character designer is trying trying too hard to ellicit a sexual reaction out of me, qualifies. Mind you, not all exploitations oughta be bad (maybe that's what the game is about or a single element of the game and within a specific context, I dunno), but it's enough of an attempt to annoy me and make me want to look elesewhere -- it doesn't turn me off if the game is good and said exploitation is not monstrously pervasive, but it does make me want to focus elsewhere.

 

[King Zeal]

You want me to do a large scale experiment to compare breast jiggling, to penis jiggling? I won't really, need to the penis is made of tissue that is not as prone to jiggling than fat, which make up the breast. it would take an extremely unrealistically large flaccid penis to jiggle like that of large breast. Penises may sway side to side slightly while moving, but its no where near as noticeable as large breast jiggling, unless your wearing special clothing to do so, and even then its more of the fact your penis is exposed.

No, sorry. Need to see hard data to support this. Your perception of what you expect to happen is worthless here.

Even today men often equate their manhood objects considered masculine, like guns, Its a much more pratical way to display manhood.

Or it's more that men don't want to look at other men's dicks. But still, penis size anxiety and pop cultural aggrandizement of being well endowed still make me call this theory nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_organ

Where does it say it?

 

[Islandbuffilo]

No, sorry. Need to see hard data to support this. Your perception of what you expect to happen is worthless here.

Its valid fact about the make up of both body parts not my personal perceptions if you can disprove this by all means, do it, but until you do so is just your personal bias.

Or it's more that men don't want to look at other men's dicks. But still, penis size anxiety and pop cultural aggrandizement of being well endowed still make me call this theory nonsense.

What? Its not a theory many cultures used phallic weapons to symbolize masculinity, in today's society a large penis is more of a statement of attractiveness and sexual prowess not a characteristic of strength or masculinity as a whole.

Where does it say it?

If you read it without bias you'd see breast are not included as human genitals.

 

[King Zeal]

Its valid fact about the make up of both body parts not my personal perceptions if you can disprove this by all means, do it, but until you do so is just your personal bias.

That's cute. No, what I'm doing is asking for proof. The opposite of bias.

You're the one demonstrating bias by refusing to show said proof. Incidentally, though, I advise you to look for two videos: One is called "Naked women walking at nude contest" on xHamster. The other is "Walking Naked Europe" on YouTube. And then get back to me and, we can discuss your quote-unquote "valid fact".

What? Its not a theory many cultures used phallic weapons to symbolize masculinity, in today's society a large penis is more of a statement of attractiveness and sexual prowess not a characteristic of strength or masculinity as a whole.

Yeah, still not true. "Many cultures", such as African tribes, by the way, very much see large penises as a sign of masculinity. It's largely in homophobic cultures (like the US) that substitutes are used.

If you read it without bias you'd see breast are not included as human genitals.

Oh, I see where we're confused. By "says who", I'm asking you who says a penis is "not equivalent" to a breast. You say this as though it's some alien artifact that women don't notice the way men notice breasts. I know they're not genitals. My point is, what does that have to do with "equivalence" in the context of fanservice.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

That's cute. No, what I'm doing is asking for proof. The opposite of bias.

You're the one demonstrating bias by refusing to show said proof. Incidentally, though, I advise you to look for two videos: One is called "Naked women walking at nude contest" on xHamster. The other is "Walking Naked Europe" on YouTube. And then get back to me and, we can discuss your quote-unquote "valid fact".

I gave you proof, the fat in the breast are more prone to jiggling with less force than the tissue of the penis. Most of the women's breast were jiggling, and they were walking slower than the man, who has relatively large and close thighs that were hitting against his scrotum causing his penis to juggle, but even taking that to account its still not physics worthy, you can still notice breast jiggling even when they're completely covered, unlike penis jiggling.

Yeah, still not true. "Many cultures", such as African tribes, by the way, very much see large penises as a sign of masculinity. It's largely in homophobic cultures (like the US) that substitutes are used.

No, it was the penis it self, not the size, size today only represents sexual prowess, and little else.

Oh, I see where we're confused. By "says who", I'm asking you who says a penis is "not equivalent" to a breast. You say this as though it's some alien artifact that women don't notice the way men notice breasts. I know they're not genitals. My point is, what does that have to do with "equivalence" in the context of fanservice.

The male equivalent to female breast is abs and biceps, which a lot of fanservice male characters show off their bare torso, not their penises, the penis is like the vulva people don't really care for it until the clothes are off.

 

[UberPubert]

No it doesn't. Inconclusive means absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

But inconclusive still means we can't come to the firm conclusion that publishers contribute to your systemic exclusion, it's just a theory you have.

Except news nor police reports aren't conclusive proof, either. If a group is being discriminated against, a lack of official reporting and a lot of anecdotal data can mean (but doesn't always mean) there is discrimination on the official level, too. For example, the documentary "Very Young Girls" detailed the underreporting of underage girls of color, aged thirteen and below, who are abducted, turned into prostitutes, and given criminal records instead of being treated as victims of sexual assault.

Lack of official reporting? Do you really mean to accuse law enforcement of ignoring reports of transgendered people? I already found a news article for you where they didn't, and the conflict was resolved in the favor of the harassed. Can you show me any evidence contrary to what I found? I don't have hours to kill on a documentary but in all descriptions of VYG I can find no mention of underreporting.

Citation needed.

A simple google search would suffice, but here's a few credible sources with something to say to that effect:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/07/26/how-to-switch-off-an-angry-person/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200609/dealing-difficult-people
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/10/13/how-to-have-conversations-not-confrontations/

People don't like being confrontational, further reading even suggests that those people are unique, to continue the point I made earlier that we don't have confrontational environments, we have confrontational people.

They know they're transgendered because they adhere to the norms of the gender they see themselves as. A child starts showing signs of understanding gender expectations at a very early age, but those roles are shaped by the people around them. Remember, a transgender person does not see THEMSELVES as a boy or girl; they aren't "fighting" gender norms because to them, it's not a fight. They simply see themselves as one gender, and that gender happens not to match biological sex.

But if marketing has such control over a person, that it can tell people what to like and convince them it was their decision, wouldn't typical transgenders be convinced at an early age to do so and happily adhere to the gender they were born with? The problem with your theory on marketing power, which the very article you posted seems to suggest, is that there are far more powerful factors in a child's development than advertising, and while they can certainly be aware of gender expectations, how they choose for themselves to follow it (or not) is based on how they perceive others of that gender based on their relationship with friends and family.

Exceptions are just that: exceptions. A person born paraplegic or blind doesn't suddenly disprove that humans can walk or see. Likewise, a person who actively FIGHTS gender norms does not disprove people who follow them

This would be true if gender norms never changed, but obviously they do, and exceptions can turn into trends that signify change and serve as a great indicator that the system is not so rigid, that your marketing is not so powerful.

But that has nothing to do with market growth. Men have been such a huge majority over the years that it's not something that's going to change just because the market itself did. The lesson of the day here is that, when Nintendo advertised its console and games for girls, girls became major consumers. You asked why the market "hasn't changed", when it has. And it's still changing now. The entire point to talking about more "gender-inclusive" marketing and content is to continue this change.

But according to the polygon article you posted, other gaming companies already did advertise to girls. Just like how they advertised to boys, and to adults. They went for the most inclusive audience possible. And then the market crashed, though that's largely unrelated. But when Nintendo came in and began doing their research to find out who played videogames the most so they could reinvent the marketing being done, they were able to conclude that the largest gaming demographic was boys. Which is why I already brought up the chicken and egg dichotomy as false, we already know where it started: With a majority male demographic. Nintendo shifted focus to girls only now because they could no longer effectively compete with Microsoft and Sony for the majority male demographic.

 

[King Zeal]

I gave you proof, the fat in the breast are more prone to jiggling with less force than the tissue of the penis. Most of the women's breast were jiggling, and they were walking slower than the man, who has relatively large and close thighs that were hitting against his scrotum causing his penis to juggle, but even taking that to account its still not physics worthy, you can still notice breast jiggling even when they're completely covered, unlike penis jiggling.

You don't know what "proof" means, apparently. "Proof" doesn't mean taking your word for it.

And really? I give you proof so now you're going to flat out ignore it? I just showed you flat out how wrong you were, and now you're being a sore loser. But okay, here's more examples. But all women, since it's hard to find videos of naked dudes on the internet.

So now, look up "Girls Jog Naked On Treadmill" on HotGoo.com. Notice how their breasts STILL don't flop as much as that man's junk did, even though they're moving fast than he did.

Look up "Teal Goes For A Jog Naked" on SexyAndFunny.com. Here, the woman's breasts are finally jiggling a bit more than the man, but only in a full outdoor jog. And she stops after TWO seconds because of how much it hurts. She does jumping jacks, and they STILL don't flop that much more than the guy's dick.

There's also "Nicely tanned girl is jogging every morning absolutely naked" on bravoteens.com. Her breasts don't bounce as much, either, and she does both cartwheels and jogging.

No, it was the penis it self, not the size, size today only represents sexual prowess, and little else.

Citation needed.

The male equivalent to female breast is abs and biceps, which a lot of fanservice male characters show off their bare torso, not their penises, the penis is like the vulva people don't really care for it until the clothes are off.

Citation needed.

 

[King Zeal]

But inconclusive still means we can't come to the firm conclusion that publishers contribute to your systemic exclusion, it's just a theory you have.

That still doesn't mean evidence of absence.

Lack of official reporting? Do you really mean to accuse law enforcement of ignoring reports of transgendered people? I already found a news article for you where they didn't, and the conflict was resolved in the favor of the harassed. Can you show me any evidence contrary to what I found? I don't have hours to kill on a documentary but in all descriptions of VYG I can find no mention of underreporting.

Yeah, I'm not accusing. I'm flat out saying it. And one example doesn't prove that it doesn't happen.

I also suggest you watch the video, since they show very clear examples of it.

Here's more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gwendolyn-ann-smith/transgender-day-of-remembrance-rita-hester-and-beyond_b_4297938.html

http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/3/9/3/p103934_index.html?phpsessid=005acdd7689d2649f64b8d7c715cebe9

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-007-9000-z

A simple google search would suffice, but here's a few credible sources with something to say to that effect:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/07/26/how-to-switch-off-an-angry-person/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200609/dealing-difficult-people
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/10/13/how-to-have-conversations-not-confrontations/

First problem: not one of those cites says people don't like confrontation. Second problem: a list of sites explaining HOW to avoid confrontation undermines your entire argument, as it shows that avoiding it apparently takes more effort than not. Third, none of this applies to hate crime.

But if marketing has such control over a person, that it can tell people what to like and convince them it was their decision, wouldn't typical transgenders be convinced at an early age to do so and happily adhere to the gender they were born with? The problem with your theory on marketing power, which the very article you posted seems to suggest, is that there are far more powerful factors in a child's development than advertising, and while they can certainly be aware of gender expectations, how they choose for themselves to follow it (or not) is based on how they perceive others of that gender based on their relationship with friends and family.

Again, you're not understanding how transgender works. Transgender people DO act like the gender they're born with. "Gender" is not the same thing as "sex".

Also, that second argument is moot, because if friends and family are already following these trends, or enforce these trends, so will the children.

A perfect example is color: pink being used as a color for girls is adopted by children early, who often get it from their parents. And originally, this was a marketing invention.

This would be true if gender norms never changed, but obviously they do, and exceptions can turn into trends that signify change and serve as a great indicator that the system is not so rigid, that your marketing is not so powerful.

Except marketing is often what changes these norms. For example, blue/pink gender binary was started by marketing.

http://www.livescience.com/22037-pink-girls-blue-boys.html

But according to the polygon article you posted, other gaming companies already did advertise to girls. Just like how they advertised to boys, and to adults. They went for the most inclusive audience possible. And then the market crashed, though that's largely unrelated. But when Nintendo came in and began doing their research to find out who played videogames the most so they could reinvent the marketing being done, they were able to conclude that the largest gaming demographic was boys. Which is why I already brought up the chicken and egg dichotomy as false, we already know where it started: With a majority male demographic. Nintendo shifted focus to girls only now because they could no longer effectively compete with Microsoft and Sony for the majority male demographic.

But again, even that is skewed, because they weren't making games FOR boys or for girls. Marketing wasn't being exclusively aimed at women (like the Nintendo did for boys, or like the Wii), it was a mixed hodge-podge. That's important to note because when the advertising pushes its resources substantially into a single demographic, you get a stronger message than with a more widespread one (something the article also says). Also keep in mind that, at the time, this was during an unprofitable market, where it's understandable to restrict advertisement to a narrow demographic--this starts making LESS sense the more profitable the market becomes, due to the aforementioned bubble.

Also, it wasn't that Nintendo COULDN'T compete--it's more that they saw it as suicide anyway. If they were kings of a shrinking market (as they called the game market bubble in 2005), there was no point.

 

[generals3]

Well, there's also the combined efforts of the fashion and cigarette industries in the 1920s. Prior to the 20s, being overweight was considered the sexiest body type for a woman, and women usually got their clothing custom-tailored to fit their unique dimensions, but when clothing started becoming mass-produced, these companies found it cheaper to make clothes for thin women instead of tailoring for unique body shapes. So, all of their advertising emphasized thinness as sex appeal. At about the same time, cigarettes began marketing themselves as an appetite suppressant and exclusively marketed toward women to synchronize their efforts with the textile industry. It's worthy to note that, at first, cigarettes had strictly marketed that smoking was not socially acceptable for women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smoking_for_weight_loss#History_of_cigarette_smoking_for_weight_loss_in_advertising

http://blogs.lt.vt.edu/rslabach/2012/03/02/womens-self-worth-body-image-in-the-1920s/

Actually the idea of being thin being the "fashionable thing" dates to the 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1880s_in_Western_fashion, http://www.uvm.edu/landscape/dating/clothing_and_hair/1880s_clothing_women.php ) and not 1920's. So i'm not really sure where you got that from. And the tobacco industry probably just saw an opportunity to make a buttload of money. They didn't really create any desires. The desire to be thin was already there, they just positioned their product as helping with it.

 

[King Zeal]

No, the cultural shift to thin started chiefly in the 1920s.

http://student.purduecal.edu/~mredar/2200_webtext.htm

Also, as I said, the cigarette industry followed in step with efforts from the textile industry, which were the ones that really created the "ultra thin" look with the invention of mass produced clothes with standardized sizes.

 

[generals3]

No, the cultural shift to thin started chiefly in the 1920s.

http://student.purduecal.edu/~mredar/2200_webtext.htm

Also, as I said, the cigarette industry followed in step with efforts from the textile industry, which were the ones that really created the "ultra thin" look with the invention of mass produced clothes with standardized sizes.

Ooh "ultra thin". That's something different. And your link also doesn't support the thesis it was all marketing of the fashion industry. It actually mentions a lot of environmental factors.

 

[King Zeal]

Here you go.

http://analogme.typepad.com/analog-me/2011/11/history-of-measurements.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=0PxaHCGI0-MC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=1920s+body+image+industry&source=bl&ots=69i-WuvwgK&sig=c7GuLYSmP8v67TiLMQDCS62W53w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ML6hUpy5GMGQyAGt9IDQBw&ved=0CHUQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=1920s%20body%20image%20industry&f=false

 

[UberPubert]

Yeah, I'm not accusing. I'm flat out saying it. And one example doesn't prove that it doesn't happen.

Also, there's this article: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3320:antitransgender-violence-how-hatecrime-laws-have-failed

My one example to your lack of examples is not a convincing statistic, and that article doesn't help. A black tansgender woman is attacked by someone identified as having a swastika tattoo (not just another confrontational person, of course) and kills in self-defense, but is jailed for it. Tragic, but self-defense laws are tough and oftentimes the incident isn't as clear cut as we're seeing.

Chrissy Polis on the other hand was attacked, her assailants were jailed, the one who filmed it was fired and she went on to begin suing McDonalds (can't find out if she won or not). This hardly seems like police neglect.

And the other instances? I don't see a correlation between them and any kind of transgender phobia, and some of them don't even have witnesses or a convicted perpetrator. A transgender being murdered is not evidence of a hate crime, this violence could be perpetrated by anyone for any reason, and more than one of these cases has exceptional attackers (mentally ill and neo-nazi).

First problem: not one of those cites says people don't like confrontation. Second problem: a list of sites explaining HOW to avoid confrontation undermines your entire argument, as it shows that avoiding it apparently takes more effort than not. Third, none of this applies to hate crime.

In plain text? No, but the implications are absolutely clear: Why would you want to solve or deal with confrontations if you did not dislike confrontation? Why would you want to have a conversation instead of a confrontation if you liked confrontation? Why is it that we have so much advice on how to defuse confrontational situations if we actually think they're acceptable? And why doesn't this apply to a hate crime? And, so we don't lose focus here, the hate crime of harassing a transgendered person for going to the bathroom is a matter of confrontation.

Again, you're not understanding how transgender works. Transgender people DO act like the gender they're born with. "Gender" is not the same thing as "sex".

That isn't always true. After all, the meaning of the word is broadly encompassing and while many transgendered do have parts of the brain that more closely resemble that of the opposite gender and experience similar phenomena, for others it's a psychological matter with roots in early development and trauma, not birth.

Also, that second argument is moot, because if friends and family are already following these trends, or enforce these trends, so will the children.

And what if they don't? These exceptions do exist, and from them, more exceptions are made through their personal relationships with the children.

Except marketing is often what changes these norms. For example, blue/pink gender binary was started by marketing.

Define "often"? The article you cite says the idea wasn't actually finalized until the 1980s, because of the appeal of mass marketing. But we're already beginning to see it break down as the mass marketing unsurprisingly begins to over saturate people's lives and most people grow up learning to tune it out.

But again, even that is skewed, because they weren't making games FOR boys or for girls. Marketing wasn't being exclusively aimed at women (like the Nintendo did for boys, or like the Wii), it was a mixed hodge-podge. That's important to note because when the advertising pushes its resources substantially into a single demographic, you get a stronger message than with a more widespread one (something the article also says).

But doesn't that seem contradictory? If you switch from a focus on marketing to boys to an equal focus on marketing for girls aren't you just going to get the same hodepodge as before? The one that still ended up with a male majority?

Also, it wasn't that Nintendo COULDN'T compete--it's more that they saw it as suicide anyway. If they were kings of a shrinking market (as they called the game market bubble in 2005), there was no point.

When you begin equating "competing" to suicide" I think that's a good sign that you're no longer able to effectively compete. And yes, not being able to make a profit is a failure to compete even if you're more successful than individual competitors.

Whup, hang on

Okay? That doesn't change the fact the men see tampons as womens' products. In fact, didn't they cut that out of the final game?

If you ask a man whether tampons are "for" women? They'd say yes, and they'd be right. That's who they're manufactured for and marketed to, and for a very specific purpose. Actually explain to a man what a tampon is and a use for it and I don't think he'll be inclined to disagree. And yes, the tampon healing mini-game was cut from the final game; though it had a working prototype for pre-release game play trailers, it was eventually replaced with a much shorter animation in the game.

 

[King Zeal]

My one example to your lack of examples is not a convincing statistic, and that article doesn't help.

And the other instances? I don't see a correlation between them and any kind of transgender phobia, and some of them don't even have witnesses or a convicted perpetrator. A transgender being murdered is not evidence of a hate crime, this violence could be perpetrated by anyone for any reason, and more than one of these cases has exceptional attackers (mentally ill and neo-nazi).

A neo-nazi isn't an example of a hate criminal? Seriously?

And if statistics, surveys, articles, and all the other evidence I've presented doesn't convince you, then I just don't think it's possible to convince you.

In plain text? No, but the implications are absolutely clear: Why would you want to solve or deal with confrontations if you did not dislike confrontation? Why would you want to have a conversation instead of a confrontation if you liked confrontation? Why is it that we have so much advice on how to defuse confrontational situations if we actually think they're acceptable?

This makes no sense. First, "implications" are subjective; we can't use your personal interpretation of articles as "credible sources". Because my interpretation says that if people need to be taught HOW to not deal with confrontations, that means getting into them is easier than getting out of them. Whether you "want" to be in a confrontation or not, that isn't how they work. Violence escalates quickly, regardless of what one belligerent "wants".

And why doesn't this apply to a hate crime? And, so we don't lose focus here, the hate crime of harassing a transgendered person for going to the bathroom is a matter of confrontation.

Because if you agree hate crime exists, then you agree that some people DO want confrontation or are easily riled into one.

That isn't always true.

Yes it is. http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

After all, the meaning of the word is broadly encompassing and while many transgendered do have parts of the brain that more closely resemble that of the opposite gender and experience similar phenomena, for others it's a psychological matter with roots in early development and trauma, not birth.

Citation needed.

And what if they don't? These exceptions do exist, and from them, more exceptions are made through their personal relationships with the children.

Because exceptions do not disprove an aggregate pattern. And as I said, personal relationships are still influenced by marketing culture.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/615/1/101.abstract: The abstract for this study states that marketing for food products greatly affects childrens' food preferences. Age does not influence how affected they are.

Define "often"? The article you cite says the idea wasn't actually finalized until the 1980s, because of the appeal of mass marketing. But we're already beginning to see it break down as the mass marketing unsurprisingly begins to over saturate people's lives and most people grow up learning to tune it out.

But that doesn't change the fact that it still influenced it heavily.

But doesn't that seem contradictory? If you switch from a focus on marketing to boys to an equal focus on marketing for girls aren't you just going to get the same hodepodge as before? The one that still ended up with a male majority?

Not necessarily. But, that article also notes the gender gap in the STEM industry in general at the time of the last hodge-podge. That's another branch to systemic sexism, as shown by the article below.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007151635.htm

When you begin equating "competing" to suicide" I think that's a good sign that you're no longer able to effectively compete. And yes, not being able to make a profit is a failure to compete even if you're more successful than individual competitors.

Except that's not what I said. It was not that they weren't ABLE to compete, as you are implying that they were not able to take some of Sony or Microsoft's market directly. What Nintendo actually said was that there was no point in competing with them if the industry was on the verge of crashing due to current marketing tactics. It's the difference between saying you can't win a free car, and saying that there's no point in winning it if it has no gas in it.

If you ask a man whether tampons are "for" women? They'd say yes, and they'd be right. That's who they're manufactured for and marketed to, and for a very specific purpose. Actually explain to a man what a tampon is and a use for it and I don't think he'll be inclined to disagree.

Yes, but you have to explain to them yourself, which was my point. The entire point to what I said is that guys do not know any other uses for tampons other than as menstrual tools for women. If you agree with this, why are we arguing?

And yes, the tampon healing mini-game was cut from the final game; though it had a working prototype for pre-release game play trailers, it was eventually replaced with a much shorter animation in the game.

So what was the point of bringing it up?

 

[Islandbuffilo]

You don't know what "proof" means, apparently. "Proof" doesn't mean taking your word for it.

And really? I give you proof so now you're going to flat out ignore it? I just showed you flat out how wrong you were, and now you're being a sore loser. But okay, here's more examples. But all women, since it's hard to find videos of naked dudes on the internet.

Ignored nothing, you however are going through great lengths to ignore the fact that fat jiggles more than the tissue in the penis, I looked at both your examples and most of the more perky women's breast wear jiggling, and also notice how the man was moving faster than the women and his relatively thighs where hitting scrotum causing his penis to jiggle, invalidating your "proof", unless you'd all me to count women using their hands to jiggle their breast, the I still be right. Yet you ignore this and claim I'm being wrong? You're acting extremely bias, for someone who demands proof you provide little of it.

 

[UberPubert]

A neo-nazi isn't an example of a hate criminal? Seriously?

I counted them as exceptional, because they are.

And if statistics, surveys, articles, and all the other evidence I've presented doesn't convince you, then I just don't think it's possible to convince you.

Unfortunately the articles referred to the surveys and that's all the statistics they had - surveys. None of it is compelling evidence because it's all opinion based, and they don't even require any specific accusations to be made so the problem goes unsolved.

If anything the information being published is harmful to the cause, it keeps saying police discriminate against transgenders, so why would they even bother filing a report to them?

This makes no sense. First, "implications" are subjective; we can't use your personal interpretation of articles as "credible sources".

A psychologist does not write a help guide for avoiding something people want to do. How is it any more complicated than that?

Because my interpretation says that if people need to be taught HOW to not deal with confrontations, that means getting into them is harder than getting out of them. Whether you "want" to be in a confrontation or not, that isn't how they work. Violence escalates quickly, regardless of what one belligerent "wants".

But your interpretation runs counter to what the articles state. The state of being in a confrontation is depicted as not being desirable, exiting it is, therefore the conclusion is that people do not want or like confrontation. Yours isn't an interpretation, it's a contradiction you have no proof of.

Because if you agree hate crime exists, then you agree that some people DO want confrontation or are easily riled into one.

I already told you when I first made this point that there are confrontational people, and that there always would be. My only argument was that they were not in the majority because most people do not like it.

Yes it is. http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

That didn't actually address my statement, mostly due to the simplicity of it.

Citation needed.

http://www.gires.org.uk/Text_Assets/ATypical_Gender_Development.pdf
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm

Because exceptions do not disprove an aggregate pattern. And as I said, personal relationships are still influenced by marketing culture.

But the disruption of the pattern proves it's fallible. You can draw correlations and tendencies, but when the system becomes commonly foiled enough that it hardly seems to apply to some subjects at all the "subtlety" of marketing begins to seem more like "ineffectiveness".

The abstract for this study states that marketing for food products greatly affects childrens' food preferences. Age does not influence how affected they are.

Greatly? How much? The abstract says "increased", but is it a significant number? Was a follow-up study performed where the children who tried the advertised cereal and then another, "better" cereal continued to prefer the advertised cereal? And no, the children were only ages 8-11, I don't suspect it would make a difference. Try them and teenagers, a group that actually begins to reject more conforming ideas.

But that doesn't change the fact that it still influenced it heavily.

But is it changed "often" by marketing? Is it still just as effective?

Not necessarily. But, that article also notes the gender gap in the STEM industry in general at the time of the last hodge-podge. That's another branch to systemic sexism, as shown by the article below.

The polygon page mentioned boys were more encouraged than girls to pursue new technology but like I said I didn't buy that, the technology wasn't new, who would be keeping girls away from a decades old pastime that had previously been marketed to everyone? Besides that, your article doesn't suggest what the gender barriers are, though it does mention that women who pursue careers in the field complete their education and finally work before quickly dropping out. This seems like a way more important discovery to pursue than the supposed systemic sexism that (hadn't) kept them out.

What Nintendo actually said was that there was no point in competing with them if the industry was on the verge of crashing due to current marketing tactics.

In spite of all the doom saying though the market hasn't crashed, the WiiU didn't pan out all that well while the Xbone and PS4 seem to be performing about as well as could be expected. The Wii might've won them a battle but todays console market is still a three-way struggle.

Yes, but you have to explain to them yourself, which was my point. The entire point to what I said is that guys do not know any other uses for tampons other than as menstrual tools for women. If you agree with this, why are we arguing?

I don't think that means what you think that means. Just because a guy can't come up with a personal use for a tampon doesn't mean the market has him, I think he may just not be interested in the first place. And you have to admit, a lot of the uses being pointed out are rather creative substitutes for uncommon uses. An ad-hoc water filter or bullet wound plug is a little less likely than menstruation cycles.

So what was the point of bringing it up?

I already told you when I mentioned it it was just an aside, but if I really need a reason, fine: Now lots of men who were keeping track of Army of Two also know about different uses for tampons, which is pretty contradictory to your theory about male-centered marketing.