Sexuality in gaming, your stance?

[King Zeal]

I counted them as exceptional, because they are.

And other bigots?

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?

Then in that case, an independent investigation would be needed to confirm this. To assume the information is "harmful" is to bias yourself against the people claiming discrimination. If people are claiming corruption, you can't say that the people publishing their complaints are "harmful" without disproving the corruption first.

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

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 "want" is irrelevant here. You said that confrontation was "unlikely", and I asked you why. You then said because people don't want it.

Even if I accept that people don't "want" confrontation, the fact that they have to be educated on how to avoid it means that they are finding themselves in it in the first place. The contradiction here is your claim that conflict is "unlikely", while at the same time stating that psychology articles prove people don't want it. For what you say to be true, there needs to be two truths (1) confrontations start and (2) people get out of them because they don't want it (because, remember, your argument was that it's unlikely that it happened). If they do already, then your argument for why the article exists makes no sense. Either confrontation is happening (in which case the article is needed to correct it), or they don't (in which the article is pointless).

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.

Okay, so are you agreeing that it happens? Because even if only a minority of .001 percent (a number I'm purposefully making extremely low) of the US population does it, that still makes 300 cases of violence.

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

How?

http://www.gires.org.uk/Text_Assets/ATypical_Gender_Development.pdf

"In sum, gender identity, whether consistent or inconsistent with other sex
characteristics, may be understood to be ?much less a matter of choice and much
more a matter of biology?.

Not seeing how this does anything but prove my point about gender identity formation.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm

Well, first of all, that article's about transsexuals. That's not the same as transgender.

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".

I never said it was infallible. But "tendencies" are what I'm talking about when I say marketing influences people. Not EVERY piece of marketing will affect EVERY person the same way. But the point of it is to influence enough people that you make a profit from them, while they don't even realize what was done.

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

Nit-picking. The point is that it has the intended effect on the targeted group in the first place.

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.

Here you go: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf

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.

But it can be argued that the market didn't crash largely because of Nintendo's efforts. Saying that their doomsaying was disproved because it hasn't happened is missing the point that the conditions they predicted to prevent it (including women and other age demographics) ALSO happened.

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.

But you can't gauge that without it being marketed to them 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.

Not relevant.

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.

And how many men is that? Also, when I google it, most men thought it was "unrealistic" and a joke.

 

[King Zeal]

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.

I prove you wrong again, and you just come up with more excuses. So now your excuse is that the "perky women were jiggling" and that his thighs were "causing jiggle". So basically, common extenuating circumstances are fine for women (not all women are "perky"), but for some reason that doesn't work for men. The fact remains, though, that the VAST majority of the dozens of women in those video did NOT jiggle or bounce anywhere close to the amount that man was, and I even provided examples of them RUNNING. You, on the other hand, don't present any evidence at all and keep making excuses.

Yeah, you're just being a sore loser at this point.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

I prove you wrong again, and you just come up with more excuses. So now your excuse is that the "perky women were jiggling" and that his thighs were "causing jiggle". So basically, common extenuating circumstances are fine for women (not all women are "perky"), but for some reason that doesn't work for men. The fact remains, though, that the VAST majority of the dozens of women in those video did NOT jiggle or bounce anywhere close to the amount that man was, and I even provided examples of them RUNNING. You, on the other hand, don't present any evidence at all and keep making excuses.

Yeah, you're just being a sore loser at this point.

I didn't give you excuses I gave you facts, just because you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't make them excuses. When did I say only the perky women were jiggling? Even the not so perky women were jiggling, just the more perky ones where doing it more often, how is that an excuse? Most of the breast physics in games come from large breasted PERKY women, who are usually NOT naked. Actually the women in the treadmill video were jiggling quite a bit. You gave me the video where the man's thighs were the source of his genital movement, so you provided the proof if you don't believe me simply watch the video YOU suggested and you'd clearly see its his thighs hitting his scrotum., or would you rather me download the video zoom in on his thighs nocking around his scrotum? Or are you content with your bias and personal attacks?

 

[King Zeal]

We're done here. You don't even know what a "fact" is. If it's facts, show me statistics and sources. Show me expert testimony.

And again, you're just making excuses. I don't know what your definition of "jiggling" means, but the man's junk had more movement than all but maybe ONE of the women--and she was RUNNING.

 

[UberPubert]

And other bigots?

You would still be hard pressed to find bigots that are willing to resort to physical violence.

Then in that case, an independent investigation would be needed to confirm this.

I concur, I can't really accept such claims otherwise.

To assume the information is "harmful" is to bias yourself against the people claiming discrimination. If people are claiming corruption, you can't say that the people publishing their complaints are "harmful" without disproving the corruption first.

Corruption is a serious charge, when made as a blanket claim across all of law enforcement it becomes a claim of conspiracy. I am not receptive to conspiracy theories.

Even if I accept that people don't "want" confrontation, the fact that they have to be educated on how to avoid it means that they are finding themselves in it in the first place. The contradiction here is your claim that conflict is "unlikely", while at the same time stating that psychology articles prove people don't want it. For what you say to be true, there needs to be two truths (1) confrontations start and (2) people get out of them because they don't want it (because, remember, your argument was that it's unlikely that it happened). If they do already, then your argument for why the article exists makes no sense. Either confrontation is happening (in which case the article is needed to correct it), or they don't (in which the article is pointless).

That's an extremely narrow view built on a lot of assumptions. What do you mean "the fact they have to be educated"? This is not a fact, and there is no "have". People want to learn, and others are willing to give advice. Confrontations do start and people do get out of them because they don't want them, the advice would pointless if avoiding/defusing/handling confrontations was impossible. Confrontations are unlikely because people do not wish to engage in them because they are undesirable, the articles understand this and they exist to help those looking for ways to end them.

How?

Because it only refers to one point of your previous statement, and wasn't even the one I had addressed.

Not seeing how this does anything but prove my point.

Only because you conveniently ignored the very first paragraph of the study. Gender identity is defined as "the psychological experience of oneself as male or female". Psychological. Not biological, not neurological, but psychological, and the dissonance experienced by transsexuals is defined as Gender Identity Disorder, a mental disorder, not a physical one.

Well, first of all, that article's about transsexuals. That's not the same as transgender.

But if you'd actually read it, it concerns them...also, where's the rest of your alls?

I never said it was infallible. But "tendencies" are what I'm talking about when I say marketing influences people. Not EVERY piece of marketing will affect EVERY person the same way. But the point of it is to influence enough people that you make a profit from them, while they don't even realize what was done.

So marketing really only effects some people, some ways, and has more to do with correlation than causation? Do you see now why I find your claim that it's able to contribute meaningfully suspect?

Nit-picking. The point is that it has the intended effect on the targeted group in the first place.

It's not nit-picking, that was your original claim. You said that marketing often dictates the trends we see, how often is that, exactly? How do we know the the Boys Blue, Girls Pink strategy wasn't a fluke, considering it's vast amount of exceptions?

Here you go: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509653.pdf

That... Didn't answer my question. It's a study on gender bias but, it doesn't give the reasons why women dropped out of their fields. Did they feel that the bias impeded their work or prevented them from advancing in their career, were they actually impeded and prevented from advancing in their career, did they just rethink their choice when all was said and done? These seem like far more important questions than quizzing college undergraduates about hypothetical people.

But it can be argued that the market didn't crash largely because of Nintendo's efforts. Saying that their doomsaying was disproved because it hasn't happened is missing the point that the conditions they predicted to prevent it (including women and other age demographics) ALSO happened.

And if microsoft or sony had pulled out of the console race by now I could believe it, but I'm less than convinced. The statistics you've provided so far show a difference in gender demographics, but the number seems insignificant. going back to your toy directory link form earlier, if you look at the actual bar graph (which in retrospect looks almost a little misleading) the difference in percentages is in the one's digits, not the monopoly claimed in the opening (Wii boasts a (52/48 split, PS4 a 46/54, the largest split, and xbox 360 with a cool 48/52). This does not seem like doomsday sidestepping.

But you can't gauge that without it being marketed to them in the first place.

Or someone might recommend it to him. For instance, if it's posted on a forum as being a handy survival tool. Marketing isn't the only form of media or communication.

Not relevant.

Any item is going to be known by it's more common usage than what it could possibly be made to do under irregular circumstances.

And how many men is that? Also, when I google it, most men thought it was "unrealistic" and a joke.

About as many men that follow the marketing campaigns of one of the largest video game publishers in the industry. You tell me, since you seem to have a big enough grasp on the number to immediately draw the conclusion that most of them thought it was silly.

 

[Phasmal]

Didn't take very long for this thread to get off topic with long essays, so we can all shut up and brave brave people can just go on defending the status quo because wanting things to change in any way is censorship.

Also, considering the earlier `Wimmenz dont play enough of the hardcore games for games to acknowledge they exist as a demographic in any significant way` argument, can I expect an update when we reach the magical number that we start mattering?
For some reason, I imagine when that day comes, a new excuse would have been thought up.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

We're done here. You don't even know what a "fact" is. If it's facts, show me statistics and sources. Show me expert testimony.

And again, you're just making excuses. I don't know what your definition of "jiggling" means, but the man's junk had more movement than all but maybe ONE of the women--and she was RUNNING.

I'm quite aware what "facts" are and I'm also quite familiar with cherry picking, as you seem to be quite selective as what you count as proof. I constantly keep pointing out the mans large thighs banging against his junk and you constantly intentionally ignore that fact, you refuse to even acknowledge it in the video, but I'll go along with your reason, all your "proof" is invalid unless you show people with the physique of video game characters, until you do that is all nonsense on your part.

 

[King Zeal]

You would still be hard pressed to find bigots that are willing to resort to physical violence.

Nope. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/december/annual-hate-crimes-report-released/annual-hate-crimes-report-released

6,222 in 2011 alone, with 20% being related to sexual orientation/gender, which means 1294.

Corruption is a serious charge, when made as a blanket claim across all of law enforcement it becomes a claim of conspiracy. I am not receptive to conspiracy theories.

Whether you are not receptive to them or not does not disprove their existence. The following documentary does a pretty good job of demonstrating how it can happen even in a city like New York.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWtDMPaRD8

That's an extremely narrow view built on a lot of assumptions. What do you mean "the fact they have to be educated"? This is not a fact, and there is no "have". People want to learn, and others are willing to give advice. Confrontations do start and people do get out of them because they don't want them, the advice would pointless if avoiding/defusing/handling confrontations was impossible. Confrontations are unlikely because people do not wish to engage in them because they are undesirable, the articles understand this and they exist to help those looking for ways to end them.

Because it only refers to one point of your previous statement, and wasn't even the one I had addressed.

But the point is that we were debating on gender identity versus gender codification, right? Your entire point is that people can't be coded a certain gender because they make up their own minds, correct?

Only because you conveniently ignored the very first paragraph of the study. Gender identity is defined as "the psychological experience of oneself as male or female". Psychological. Not biological, not neurological, but psychological, and the dissonance experienced by transsexuals is defined as Gender Identity Disorder, a mental disorder, not a physical one.

That part after the quote isn't stated anywhere in the article. Psychology and biology are not mutually exclusive.

And again, transsexuals are not the same as transgender.

But if you'd actually read it, it concerns them...also, where's the rest of your alls?

Why are they relevant to talking about transgender?

And...what?

So marketing really only effects some people, some ways, and has more to do with correlation than causation? Do you see now why I find your claim that it's able to contribute meaningfully suspect?

No. And what I said had nothing to do with correlation, so I don't know where that's coming from.

It's not nit-picking, that was your original claim. You said that marketing often dictates the trends we see, how often is that, exactly? How do we know the the Boys Blue, Girls Pink strategy wasn't a fluke, considering it's vast amount of exceptions?

Again, the only way to prove it's not a "fluke" is to do more research into marketing trends and cultural repercussions.

[

That... Didn't answer my question. It's a study on gender bias but, it doesn't give the reasons why women dropped out of their fields. Did they feel that the bias impeded their work or prevented them from advancing in their career, were they actually impeded and prevented from advancing in their career, did they just rethink their choice when all was said and done? These seem like far more important questions than quizzing college undergraduates about hypothetical people.

Well, to paraphrase, it state that some drop out because they feel they'll never succeed, some drop out because they feel unwelcome, etc. Bias tends to have that effect.

And if microsoft or sony had pulled out of the console race by now I could believe it, but I'm less than convinced. The statistics you've provided so far show a difference in gender demographics, but the number seems insignificant.

But the different demographics were the entire point. My point is that your statement about Nintendo's doomsaying not happening in the past ten years doesn't prove anything when the measures that Nintendo took to stop it actually did stop it. For the time being.

As for why it's cropping up again, there's the argument that although Nintendo's efforts were successful, the consumer backlash has slowed progress. The ideas that women "don't play real games" or that the Wii is "a girl's console" skew the results. And as I said, Nintendo predicted that a new market bubble may be happening now. I pretty much said we can oonly wait to see if it's true.

Or someone might recommend it to him. For instance, if it's posted on a forum as being a handy survival tool. Marketing isn't the only form of media or communication.

You know that word-of-mouth and recommendation IS marketing, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-of-mouth_marketing

Any item is going to be known by it's more common usage than what it could possibly be made to do under irregular circumstances.

But the point of marketing is to let people KNOW about those usages and change them from irregular to regular.

About as many men that follow the marketing campaigns of one of the largest video game publishers in the industry. You tell me, since you seem to have a big enough grasp on the number to immediately draw the conclusion that most of them thought it was silly.

No, this is your argument. I'm not doing your work for you. If you have an actual figure, not a speculatory one, let's see it.

 

[UberPubert]

Didn't take very long for this thread to get off topic with long essays, so we can all shut up and brave brave people can just go on defending the status quo because wanting things to change in any way is censorship.

Also, considering the earlier `Wimmenz dont play enough of the hardcore games for games to acknowledge they exist as a demographic in any significant way` argument, can I expect an update when we reach the magical number that we start mattering?
For some reason, I imagine when that day comes, a new excuse would have been thought up.

Well in all fairness I thought the topic was exhausted already, I didn't even comment on it originally. I've decided to pursue a more in-depth argument, because issues like these have deeper root causes and meanings to discuss than may pertain to the original post's content (which, frankly, wasn't all that great).

If it makes you feel any better, I'd honestly prefer keeping the word count down. But I would also prefer the discussion be about puppies or baby penguins, but I don't always get what I want.

 

[King Zeal]

We're done here. You don't even know what a "fact" is. If it's facts, show me statistics and sources. Show me expert testimony.

And again, you're just making excuses. I don't know what your definition of "jiggling" means, but the man's junk had more movement than all but maybe ONE of the women--and she was RUNNING.

I'm quite aware what "facts" are and I'm also quite familiar with cherry picking, as you seem to be quite selective as what you count as proof. I constantly keep pointing out the mans large thighs banging against his junk and you constantly intentionally ignore that fact, you refuse to even acknowledge it in the video, but I'll go along with your reason, all your "proof" is invalid unless you show people with the physique of video game characters, until you do that is all nonsense on your part.

LOL. Okay, so now your excuse is that you need a videogame physique. So again, you keep making these special circumstances for women (only perky breasts, only when walking fast, only videogame physiques) but because the man's "thighs are causing the jiggle, all of a sudden it doesn't count? Okay, so if we're using game physiques, then what about big dudes with tree-trunk thighs like Kratos or the Dwarf from Dragon's Crown. If we're using game physiques for women, why not them? If big thighs are causing the flopping (which I don't buy, because I'm watching it right now and his thigh never even touches it), then why not have guys with thighs like that? That's "the physique of videogame characters", right?

 

[Phasmal]

Well in all fairness I thought the topic was exhausted already, I didn't even comment on it originally. I've decided to pursue a more in-depth argument, because issues like these have deeper root causes and meanings to discuss than may pertain to the original post's content (which, frankly, wasn't all that great).

If it makes you feel any better, I'd honestly prefer keeping the word count down. But I would also prefer the discussion be about puppies or baby penguins, but I don't always get what I want.

I'm not quite sure why you quoted me as if I'd made that comment about you in particular, because I didn't.
This is just the way of these things on here, it seems.
It can just be a tiny bit frustrating.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

LOL. Okay, so now your excuse is that you need a videogame physique. So again, you keep making these special circumstances for women (only perky breasts, only when walking fast, only videogame physiques) but because the man's "thighs are causing the jiggle, all of a sudden it doesn't count? Okay, so if we're using game physiques, then what about big dudes with tree-trunk thighs like Kratos or the Dwarf from Dragon's Crown. If we're using game physiques for women, why not them? If big thighs are causing the flopping (which I don't buy, because I'm watching it right now and his thigh never even touches it), then why not have guys with thighs like that? That's "the physique of videogame characters", right?

When did I make special circumstances for when only being perky and only walking fast? Can you quote me on that because I'm 100% sure you made that entirely up. Well I if showed you video of a woman using her warms to make her breast jiggle, would that count? Krato's thighs aren't that close together and are more muscular than fat, they're pretty spread apart, unlike the man in the video you suggested. You've already state that if unless a man's naked the penis wouldn't jiggle, so you'd have case with the dwarf if he wasn't wearing tights. You don't see is thighs hitting his scrotum you're blind, or bias, or blind due to bias. That man did not have anywhere near the physic of Kratos or the dwarf from dragon's crown, the fact you'd suggested such is laughable.

 

[King Zeal]

When did I make special circumstances for when only being perky and only walking fast? Can you quote me on that because I'm 100% sure you made that entirely up.

"most of the more perky women's breast wear jiggling" - So what? Not all women's breasts are perky, so why make special circumstances?

"they were walking slower than the man" - They weren't walking THAT much slower, and even when I showed girls running, they didn't move that much more.

If your stance is that male characters jiggling is "unrealistic" or whatever, then you shouldn't need to keep making excuses for why only ONE guy proves that it can and does happen in real life.

Well I if showed you video of a woman using her warms to make her breast jiggle, would that count?

No. Because jiggle physics apply even when they aren't trying to do it. If we're going to compare jiggling, it has to be from natural movement like walking or running.

Krato's thighs aren't that close together and are more muscular than fat, they're pretty spread apart, unlike the man in the video you suggested.

What does fat have to do with it? And so what? Just design a character with those exact dimensions.

You've already state that if unless a man's naked the penis wouldn't jiggle, so you'd have case with the dwarf if he wasn't wearing tights.

He could also where underwear that facilitates bounce, like women do with bras.

You don't see is thighs hitting his scrotum you're blind, or bias, or blind due to bias.

No, I looked. It doesn't touch. For the most part, it doesn't go anywhere NEAR the thigh.

That man did not have anywhere near the physic of Kratos or the dwarf from dragon's crown, the fact you'd suggested such is laughable.

What's laughable is how you missed the point. If you need to design a specific build to make a character jiggle, then why not do it for men? You're the one who suggested "Video game character physiques".

 

[UberPubert]

Nope.

The FBI lists 5,731 total offenders. Do you know what the population of the united states is? Even if I assume every offender is without doubt a hate criminal, it is a fraction of a percent of the population. Sure, we could include incidents from other years and try to add them up, but we already know from the number of offenders compared to incidents that they're repeat or multiple offenders.

Whether you are not receptive to them or not does not disprove their existence.

Few of them have evidence, and they defend this lack of evidence by blaming the accused organization of controlling it. The amount of coordination it would require to silence every member of an organization, or worse yet, get them to completely agree and participate, is staggering to point of unbelievability. The situation described in New York is unfortunate, but it only continues to exist under a very specific set of conditions and is even described in the article (lack of independent oversight, Bloomberg's policies, etc.).

But the point is that we were debating on gender identity versus gender codification, right? Your entire point is that people can't be coded a certain gender because they make up their own minds, correct?

My point is that their ability to make up their own minds in contradiction to outside forces (such as marketing) is one of many significant exceptions to your marketing rule.

That isn't what it said. Psychology and biology are not mutually exclusive.

It doesn't need to say that it's exclusive, psychology is defined as the cause, and psychology is not biology. And it doesn't make the distinction between transsexuals and transgenders because the study considers them both similar enough in mental condition, it's the "Atypical Gender Development" for the journal of international transgenderism.

Why are they relevant to talking about transgender?

Read it and learn. The biological claims are refuted. Also, you said "First off", then never made another point.

No. And what I said had nothing to do with correlation, so I don't know where that's coming from.

It seems irrational to think so highly of a system we have so thoroughly demonstrated is flawed and at times ineffective. And you keep pointing at "Trends", you never make the direct cause-and-effect connection.

Again, the only way to prove it's not a "fluke" is to do more research into marketing trends and cultural repercussions.

Again, I concur. And without such research (and really, just time) your examples seem inconclusive.

Well, to paraphrase, it state that some drop out because they feel they'll never succeed, some drop out because they feel unwelcome, etc. Bias tends to have that effect.

But why would that only begin to affect them after they had endured the same bias throughout their education and indeed - as some would have me believe - their entire lives. Why quit then? Why would they suddenly become so susceptible?

But the different demographics were the entire point. My point is that your statement about Nintendo's doomsaying not happening in the past ten years doesn't prove anything when the measures that Nintendo took to stop it actually did stop it. For the time being.

As for why it's cropping up again, there's the argument that although Nintendo's efforts were successful, the consumer backlash has slowed progress. The ideas that women "don't play real games" or that the Wii is "a girl's console" skew the results. And as I said, Nintendo predicted that a new market bubble may be happening now. I pretty much said we can oonly wait to see if it's true.

But you have no proof it stopped it, because we have no proof it would have happened. It might have been a smart move on Nintendo's part, it seems doubtful that they single-handedly saved the industry by making it. The results we have is that the Wii is only a small percentage more popular with women than with men, and the top competitors are only slightly less popular with women.

You know that word-of-mouth and recommendation IS marketing, right?

But in this particular instance no marketing department is responsible for manufacturing it. Saying that a tampon being advertised by someone as a survival tool is a ploy by tampax is like saying the common knowledge that tying a shoe-string around your arm is a good way to make your veins more visible for the injection of illegal substances is the work of nike. And as it relates to our discussion, you were the one specifically saying that marketers were the ones responsible for contributing to the system.

But the point of marketing is to let people KNOW about those usages and change them from irregular to regular.

Again, see the above. If it's unintentional and not controlled by the marketers then what proof do we have that it's systemic?

No, this is your argument. I'm not doing your work for you. If you have an actual figure, not a speculatory one, let's see it.

Actually, this was always your argument. I'm not the one making claims about the power of marketing, you are. If it's as pervasive as you continue to claim, demonstrate it clearly and concisely.

 

[Itchi_da_killa]

I like sexy girls in video games, but I don't like sexuality in the games. I don't want to role play sexual encounters.

 

[UberPubert]

I'm not quite sure why you quoted me as if I'd made that comment about you in particular, because I didn't.
This is just the way of these things on here, it seems.
It can just be a tiny bit frustrating.

I only meant to address you and use the quote function to alert you that you'd been responded to. I may have been presumptuous about who you were indicating to be one of the essay writers, and if I'm incorrect I apologize.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

"most of the more perky women's breast wear jiggling" - So what? Not all women's breasts are perky, so why make special circumstances?

I didn't make a special circumstance, I pointed out that MOST key word MOST were perky, I also already stated that even the no perky women were jiggling so how is that make a special circumstance?

"they were walking slower than the man" - They weren't walking THAT much slower, and even when I showed girls running, they didn't move that much more.

The girls on the treadmill were jiggling comparable to the man.

If your stance is that male characters jiggling is "unrealistic" or whatever, then you shouldn't need to keep making excuses for why only ONE guy proves that it can and does happen in real life.

My stance is comparing penis to breast isn't wise, its out right stupid, and that the jiggling wouldn't be noticeable unless you go for the extreme like you did.

No. Because jiggle physics apply even when they aren't trying to do it. If we're going to compare jiggling, it has to be from natural movement like walking or running.

What is her breast are bounce from her stomach? I've seen that before.

What does fat have to do with it? And so what? Just design a character with those exact dimensions.

He has fat thighs which caused them to hit his scrotum. you're going to have to take that up with game designer, even with that design he'd have to be naked for people to notice it.

He could also where underwear that facilitates bounce, like women do with bras.

If you can find wear that does that more power too you, it still wouldn't be as noticeable as cleavage bouncing.

No, I looked. It doesn't touch. For the most part, it doesn't go anywhere NEAR the thigh.

I'm watching it now, It's clearly hit the back of his scrotum.

What's laughable is how you missed the point. If you need to design a specific build to make a character jiggle, then why not do it for men? You're the one who suggested "Video game character physiques".

No you missed that point, I said they had to have the physique of a video game character before I counted it as proof, you gave me a bunch of what ifs and why nots. They're really no specific deign need to make breast jiggle, most women accomplished that without having video game character physique.

 

[King Zeal]

The FBI lists 5,731 total offenders. Do you know what the population of the united states is? Even if I assume every offender is without doubt a hate criminal, it is a fraction of a percent of the population. Sure, we could include incidents from other years and try to add them up, but we already know from the number of offenders compared to incidents that they're repeat or multiple offenders.

That's really not the point. You started this asking me how often does this happen. Statistics say 6,222 times in one year, with 5,631 offenders. What is your disagreement now?

Few of them have evidence, and they defend this lack of evidence by blaming the accused organization of controlling it. The amount of coordination it would require to silence every member of an organization, or worse yet, get them to completely agree and participate, is staggering to point of unbelievability. The situation described in New York is unfortunate, but it only continues to exist under a very specific set of conditions and is even described in the article (lack of independent oversight, Bloomberg's policies, etc.).

And yet, it still happens. The difficulty of occurance is not evidence that it didn't occur.

My point is that their ability to make up their own minds in contradiction to outside forces (such as marketing) is one of many significant exceptions to your marketing rule.

No it isn't. Because they DON'T. Let me explain this again.

Transwoman: I am a girl.
Gender codification says: Girls wear pink.
Transwoman: I want to wear pink because I'm a girl.

Transgender people do not contradict gender codification. If anything, they believe it more than cisgender persons. Where your argument is having fault is that you are insisting that transgender persons are a person fighting one gender to become another gender. But they do not--as far as they're concerned, they are their chosen identity from the beginning.

It doesn't need to say that it's exclusive, psychology is defined as the cause, and psychology is not biology.

But if your argument is that it's "psychology NOT biology", then you're arguing that they're mutually exclusive. Psychology and biology overlap, which means that just because something is psychological isn't saying that it's NOT biological. You added the exclusion where the article didn't.

And it doesn't make the distinction between transsexuals and transgenders because the study considers them both similar enough in mental condition, it's the "Atypical Gender Development" for the journal of international transgenderism.

But there is a difference.

A transsexual person does not feel they belong in the body they were born with. It is a discomfort from feeling as though you don't belong in a certain body, and exists regardless of external factors.

A transgender person feels that they are a certain gender, and seeks to codify themselves as that gender. Because gender codification is societal, they follow that coding.

Read it and learn. The biological claims are refuted. Also, you said "First off", then never made another point.

No they weren't. You just said that psychology and biology are not mutually exclusive. That doesn't refute anything.

It seems irrational to think so highly of a system we have so thoroughly demonstrated is flawed and at times ineffective. And you keep pointing at "Trends", you never make the direct cause-and-effect correlation.

Yes I did. Or rather the abstract did. If you want to know the hows and whys and such, you'll have to read the actual study.

Again, I concur. And without such research (and really, just time) your examples seem inconclusive.

So should I bring up how De Beers single-handedly created the diamond ring tradition?

But why would that only begin to affect them after they had endured the same bias throughout their education and indeed - as some would have me believe - their entire lives. Why quit then? Why would they suddenly become so susceptible?

Because willpower is a finite resource. It's called ego depletion.

But you have no proof it stopped it, because we have no proof it would have happened. It might have been a smart move on Nintendo's part, it seems doubtful that they single-handedly saved the industry by making it. The results we have is that the Wii is only a small percentage more popular with women than with men, and the top competitors are only slightly less popular with women.

I didn't say Nintendo single-handedly did it. Their marketing campaign, however, blazed trails. Also the gap was narrower than it was back then, and Nintendo contributed to that narrowing more than other consoles considering that more women bought their console than others. But again, my point is, you can't use the fact that a crash didn't happen to disclaim Nintendo's prediction, because all that leaves us with is an inconclusive argument and you don't seem to like those.

But in this particular instance no marketing department is responsible for manufacturing it.

Hold on right there. Word-of-mouth marketing is defined as a type of marketing that the creator didn't make happen themselves. The whole point to it is that people who apparently have nothing to gain from it (consumers) recommend it to other consumers.

Again, see the above. If it's unintentional and not controlled by the marketers then what proof do we have that it's systemic?

I didn't say anything about this being systemic (although I'm not saying it isn't). I think you're blending arguments here. The point I was making was that gender coding products (marketing a product "for" one gender) does not mean that a product is limited to that coding. Cigarettes are a good example. Until the 1920s, they were considered masculine and unladylike. The women who smoked at the time were feminists and societal rebels. Marketing then completely changed womens' perceptions of cigarettes by marketing as appetite suppressants.

There's proof right there that marketing can change perception.

Actually, this was always your argument. I'm not the one making claims about the power of marketing, you are. If it's as pervasive as you continue to claim, demonstrate it clearly and concisely.

No you're the one who brought up Army of Two as an argument--for some reason. So if you have a point to make, it's on you.

 

[King Zeal]

I didn't make a special circumstance, I pointed out that MOST key word MOST were perky, I also already stated that even the no perky women were jiggling so how is that make a special circumstance?

Because there's no point to it except to draw distinction to perkiness. If both were "jiggling" (which they weren't), you brought it up for no reason.

The girls on the treadmill were jiggling comparable to the man.

Oh, so you agree that he was jiggling now?

What is her breast are bounce from her stomach? I've seen that before.

Those are sagging breasts, not what we're talking about here.

What does fat have to do with it? And so what? Just design a character with those exact dimensions.

He has fat thighs which caused them to hit his scrotum. you're going to have to take that up with game designer, even with that design he'd have to be naked for people to notice it.

Again, unless he wore clothes that specifically allowed him to jiggle, the same way women wear bras that increase bounce.

He could also where underwear that facilitates bounce, like women do with bras.

If you can find wear that does that more power too you, it still wouldn't be as noticeable as cleavage bouncing.

You noticed that guy's bouncing didn't you? It's not that difficult to see.

My stance is comparing penis to breast isn't wise, its out right stupid, and that the jiggling wouldn't be noticeable unless you go for the extreme like you did.

What "extreme"? It's an average dude walking.

I'm watching it now, It's clearly hit the back of his scrotum.

Too bad the scrotum wasn't touching his dick, either, though.

No you missed that point, I said they had to have the physique of a video game character before I counted it as proof, you gave me a bunch of what ifs and why nots. They're really no specific deign need to make breast jiggle, most women accomplished that without having video game character physique.

Yes there is a specific design to make breasts jiggle. Videogame breasts don't jiggle on their own. If you need a "videogame physique" to count as proof, then that character was specifically designed to jiggle as much as she does, because most women do not jiggle as much as characters in games.

 

[UberPubert]

That's really not the point. You started this asking me how often does this happen. Statistics say 6,222 times in one year, with 5,631 offenders. What is your disagreement now?

I said it's difficult to find a bigot that would resort to physical violence on my other basis that most people don't like confrontation, that it is unlikely. How much smaller of a percentage does it have to be for you to admit the fact?

And yet, it still happens. The difficulty of occurance is not evidence that it didn't occur.

So you're using the standard of "it happens" as a relevant factor in determining whether it in fact is happening? I thought you were the one protesting exceptions.

No it isn't. Because they DON'T. Let me explain this again.

Transwoman: I am a girl.
Gender codification says: Girls wear pink.
Transwoman: I want to wear pink because I'm a girl.

Transgender people do not contradict gender codification. If anything, they believe it more than cisgender persons. Where your argument is having fault is that you are insisting that transgender

But before the transwoman is told that girls like pink they almost certainly would have been told that they are a boy, right? Why would they believe one and not the other?

But if your argument is that it's "psychology NOT biology", then you're arguing that they're mutually exclusive. Psychology and biology overlap, which means that just because something is psychological isn't saying that it's NOT biological. You added the exclusion where the article didn't.

The statement "psychology is not biology" is not contradicted by overlap. They're still their own fields, and the point was that the study made only mention of the psychological as being the root cause. Even if you did make the connection between the fields, by it's own wording the study places it first and foremost.

But there is a difference.

I understand, so the does the study - but the mental condition being described, "Atypical gendering", has enough overlap between them that they saw fit to include them both.

No they weren't. You just said that psychology and biology are not mutually exclusive. That doesn't refute anything.

No, the second article you kept asking about and dismissing because it concerned transsexuals, which the above study already established were similar enough conditions to talk about.

Yes I did.

So should I bring up how De Beers single-handedly created the diamond ring tradition?

You didn't, so here's your chance. Conclusively prove the tradition was manufactured entirely by marketing.

Because willpower is a finite resource. It's called ego depletion.

Is that what they're actually saying or is that an assumption on your part?

But again, my point is, you can't use the fact that a crash didn't happen to disclaim Nintendo's prediction, because all that leaves us with is an inconclusive argument and you don't seem to like those.

Of course I don't like inconclusive arguments, because they don't provide a clear answer and are easily dismissed.

Hold on right there. Word-of-mouth marketing is defined as a type of marketing that the creator didn't make happen themselves. The whole point to it is that people who apparently have nothing to gain from it (consumers) recommend it to other consumers.

But if the recommendation or audience is so far removed from the actual purpose or marketing intent of the product as to be unrecognizable then how is that systemic? Remember, you're the one arguing that it's because of how tampons are marketed that men don't know about their other uses, if evidence exists to the contrary then how effective is the gender codifying, really?

I didn't say anything about this being systemic (although I'm not saying it isn't). I think you're blending arguments here.

Of course I'm blending arguments. If they didn't support your original thesis, why would you bring them up?

The point I was making was that gender coding products (marketing a product "for" one gender) does not mean that a product is limited to that coding. Cigarettes are a good example. Until the 1920s, they were considered masculine and unladylike. The women who smoked at the time were feminists and societal rebels. Marketing then completely changed womens' perceptions of cigarettes by marketing as appetite suppressants.

Give me numbers. How many of these feminists and societal rebels smoked cigarettes compared to then and after the marketing? Are we absolutely sure the cigarette wasn't already becoming popular to women through it's ubiquitous mass production?

No you're the one who brought up Army of Two as an argument--for some reason. So if you have a point to make, it's on you.

I already made my point and you've seen it for yourself. More men know now than they did before about a use of tampons, a product ostensibly for women only, and it was produced under the supervision of the systemic sexism you claim they're a part of. To you, I suppose it's just another exception to your inconclusive findings you still maintain are true.