Sexuality in gaming, your stance?

[King Zeal]

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?

Five thousand people is "difficult to find"? Yeah, there's our disagreement right there.

And five thousand still doesn't list the total amount of people--it's only the people in one year. So, if that trend continues, in a span of five years, that's about 25,000 people. And considering that 1000 of them are repeat offenders, that's a lot of cases of violence. And if we look at it across one lifespan (about 80 years), that means 540,000 potential cases.

Does this qualify as a problem to you?

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.

But implied you don't believe it happened at all. If it CAN happen, then what you believe is irrelevant.

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?

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, 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.

Because that's not how being transgender works. It's a gender identity, not a conscious decision. They aren't choosing to be what they are, they would be what they are no matter what anyone said.

I'm saying that you cannot use a single data point that is specifically talking about transsexuals to also talk about transgendered. They are "similar", but not in the context of THIS discussion, which is about gender codification and identity, because the entire point of differentiating them is that transsexuals DO actively fight against their biological sex while transgender do not. The entire definition of transsexual is someone who does not feel comfortable with their assessed gender or physical body, but that does not apply to a transgender.

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 the article did not say "this is psychological and not biological", it said it's psychological.

Here's your logic as I see it: There are two separate groups; Black and Jewish. Someone introduces themselves as "Jewish". You are thus saying "this disproves that they are Black". But, that ignores that you can be both Black and Jewish, so it neither proves nor disproves anything.

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

http://mentalfloss.com/article/20440/5-beloved-traditions-invented-make-you-buy-stuff
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/fashion/weddings/how-americans-learned-to-love-diamonds.html?_r=0
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-strange-and-formerly-sexist-economics-of-engagement-rings/255434/
http://upstart.bizjournals.com/companies/rebel-brands/2011/07/29/de-beers-launch-of-forevermark-diamond-holds-lessons-for-luxury-entrepreneurs.html?page=all
http://www.academia.edu/1411050/_Where_is_the_Love_Feminism_and_De_Beers_Diamond_Advertising
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/weddings/2007/06/diamonds_are_a_girls_worst_friend.html

If none of that convinces you, then I'm done here.

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

No they didn't. But, your question is speculation in the first place, so I speculated an answer.

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

Right, so I'm dismissing your argument about Nintendo because it's inconclusive.

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?

What evidence to the contrary? You didn't give evidence to the contrary, you theorized a POSSIBLE way it could be marketed. The fact that men see tampons as women's products at all is gender coding.

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

What are you talking about? I brought it up as an example of a product that has wider market potential, but is limited by gender codification.

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, mass production actually turned women against it, because most anti-tobacco activists were women. However, after World War 1, a small group of women began smoking. There's no evidence supporting the idea that this was sparking a trend on its own. However, it DID inspire marketers to shift to appealing to women, and it increased sales by 200%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1748294/pdf/v009p00003.pdf

"Within 20 years of starting to target women, over half the young women (16?35 years) in Britain, for example, had become
smokers."

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.

Except this has no conclusive proof either. I didn't see anything except a few post here and there about how stupid and unrealistic using it that way was. If you're convinced it had the opposite effect, then please show me numbers.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

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.

They were you just don't want to admit it and/or have poor eyesight, I brought it up because most video game characters that have breast physics are often perky or have something supporting the breast.

Oh, so you agree that he was jiggling now?

Never said he wasn't I just said it was because of his thighs banging against his scrotum, and his gait, but that is all attributed to the size of his thighs. You have a bad habit of putting words in peoples mouth.

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

Most breast sag without a bra, and since your evidence is nothing but naked women with drooping breast it is exactly what we're talking about here, or your evidence is useless, and if that's the case what if she was swaying her torso side to size while she walked?

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

Said clothes don't exist, They'd have to be baggy, but if they're too baggy then it be too hard to notice, if they're too tight thin it would happen unless you forcibly try to do it.

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

He was naked, you entire point is it would be noticeable, if they were naked, a lot of things would be noticeable if everyone were naked, but most characters are not naked even fan service characters. nudity is a very slippery slope for game industries.

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

This makes it pretty clear your not interested in actual discussion. Yes its an average man walking, naked, which is an extreme in most civilized societies.

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

That's a flat-out lie, almost a biological impossibility. Well its clear I can't really help here your bias is just through the roof, and I kinda tire of repeating myself, au revoir.

 

[VodkaKnight]

If it's there only just to be THERE then I don't really like it.
In games like Soul Calibur, which overdoes EVERYTHING in terms of aesthetic, then I don't have a problem with it. Why not have a chainmail bikini in it?
But a lot of the time it can just harm a reputation of a game. World of Warcraft is borderline infamous with the 'Level 9001 chainmail bra of defense' stereotype, despite the general lack of armour like that. There's still lots like that though, I suppose. I never saw anyone wearing it while I played it but whatever.
If it's there without context, as in just a random NPC wearing nothing then it's just pointless.

 

[King Zeal]

I brought it up because most video game characters that have breast physics are often perky or have something supporting the breast.

But again, not all women are that way. So, you're making a special case.

Never said he wasn't I just said it was because of his thighs banging against his scrotum, and his gait, but that is all attributed to the size of his thighs. You have a bad habit of putting words in peoples mouth.

Okay, so what? If he was jiggling, he was jiggling. Bam. I just proved men do it, meaning it's not realistic.

Most breast sag without a bra, and since your evidence is nothing but naked women with drooping breast it is exactly what we're talking about here, or your evidence is useless, and if that's the case what if she was swaying her torso side to size while she walked?

But this kind of screw your point over, because there are different types of bras. Some bras artificially create bounce, and if it's artificial, then again realism is out the window.

And what if a man was swaying his hips side to side as he walked? Remember, keep the same conditions for men that you do for women.

Said clothes don't exist

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Mens-Bulge-Pocket-G-string-Erotic-Male-Underwear-Looks-like-leather-S-M-/00/s/MzYwWDQwMA==/$(KGrHqJ,!n4FCoolBsQKBQq-UzzP)g~~60_35.JPG

He was naked, you entire point is it would be noticeable, if they were naked, a lot of things would be noticeable if everyone were naked, but most characters are not naked even fan service characters. nudity is a very slippery slope for game industries.

http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/moKXVcS3Vtolf_Hvs71dNXg.jpg
You noticed the picture above, right?

This makes it pretty clear your not interested in actual discussion. Yes its an average man walking, naked, which is an extreme in most civilized societies.

Except, it's not extreme at all, because my female examples were exactly the same.

Besides, I looked for dudes walking in silk g-strings like the one above. They're hard to find. I didn't go with only that picture intentionally.

That's a flat-out lie, almost a biological impossibility.

Er, no. He was semi-erect, which makes it very possible.

I kinda tire of repeating myself, au revoir.

Good riddance, really.

 

[UberPubert]

Five thousand people is "difficult to find"? Yeah, there's our disagreement right there.

Five thousand people out of three hundred and fourteen million? You're talking about a 0.00001% chance. You would be seven times more likely to kill yourself (38k in a year according to the CDC) than perpetrate a hate crime.

And five thousand still doesn't list the total amount of people--it's only the people in one year. So, if that trend continues, in a span of five years, that's about 25,000 people. And considering that 1000 of them are repeat offenders, that's a lot of cases of violence. And if we look at it across one lifespan (about 80 years), that means 540,000 potential cases.

Even if we took all your potential offenders across an eighty year timeline I could include all non-offenders and we'd still see the massive gap. My argument is and only ever was that it was unlikely, that stats you provided support this.

And what do you mean "does this qualify as a problem" to me? Of course it's a problem, don't misrepresent me. Do I really need to make the qualifying statement "hate crimes are bad"? My only addendum is the fact hate crimes are also rare, so rare in fact, and committed by such a small minority of the population that are shown to be so different and come from so many walks of life and environments that I could only describe the problem as irregular. We do what we can to reduce environmental factors but in the end we're trying to predict the behavior of irrational and unpredictable people.

But implied you don't believe it happened at all. If it CAN happen, then what you believe is irrelevant.

But without evidence it's just a possibility, a "can". Not by any means likely, or common.

Because that's not how being transgender works. It's a gender identity, not a conscious decision. They aren't choosing to be what they are, they would be what they are no matter what anyone said.

But you keep saying marketing is about convincing people they came to the decision on their own, that's it not a conscious decision. If marketing is so effective, why would they be immune?

But the article did not say "this is psychological and not biological", it said it's psychological.

Here's your logic as I see it: There are two separate groups; Black and Jewish. Someone introduces themselves as "Jewish". You are thus saying "this disproves that they are Black". But, that ignores that you can be both Black and Jewish, so it neither proves nor disproves anything.

But the psychological and biological overlapping is entirely your wording, not theirs.

Jewish and black is a bad comparison, as the latter is probably obvious, which isn't the case for our example. I'm saying it is one thing, you are saying it is also another when that's not what the definition entails.

If none of that convinces you, then I'm done here.

Let's do this.

1.) No citations, no sources, no author credibility.
2.) No citations, no sources, no author credibility.
3.) No citations, no sources, no author credibility.
4.) Finally, a graph, source and link to a professional...only, there' just a preview of the actual study. Disappointing
5.) No citations, no sources, no author credibility.
6.) Ah, this looks promising. But we check out the author and we see he's not into economics, or business - the word "economic" is in only one of his studies and about political communications...? I'm not convinced. But I can't help but wonder if maybe his long list of social justice classes and philosophy classes might be informing his work more than statistics are.
7.)No citations, all the sourcelinks just shuffle to user to another non-academic site and the author is a "culture critic". Ugh

I asked you to prove something to me and you gave me stories instead of stats, journalists instead of professionals, a single promising source that you didn't actually mention, and this is your grand ultimatum? Just know that it wasn't for my lack of trying.

No they didn't. But, your question is speculation in the first place, so I speculated an answer.

And that's fine. I speculate it's wrong and think - like the original article states - it's perhaps worthy of further investigation, but I'm not accepting your explanation.

Right, so I'm dismissing your argument about Nintendo because it's inconclusive.

Fine by me. You're the one who brought it up.

What evidence to the contrary? You didn't give evidence to the contrary, you theorized a POSSIBLE way it could be marketed. The fact that men see tampons as women's products at all is gender coding.

But the gender and the most common purpose is very closely intertwined. There's no avoiding it, the tampon is manufactured, sold and bought for a sex specific biological reason. It's not like women's shampoo and men's bodywash where the difference is almost entirely superficial and they're both equally viable, there's no male equivalent purpose for the tampon to fill. Just because most men haven't come up with a separate one does not make them think of the actual function of the tampon (to absorb things) as feminine.

What are you talking about? I brought it up as an example of a product that has wider market potential, but is limited by gender codification.

It could be limited by gender, but it's unreasonable to think it's by much. Even if you could turn the tide and convince men that they could do all the neat things with tampons that were outlined, it's use is still greatly limited because it's not that dynamic of a product. It's an extremely poor example next to video-games and cigarettes (all-purpose entertainment medium and simple consumable item).

There's no evidence supporting the idea that this was sparking a trend on its own.

But on the very first page the study submits that it could in part be due to the "dramatic changes in the social and economic status of women", with the influence of the tobacco industry only being the topic they're willing to discuss, and it even goes on to say that when women began working men's jobs and taking on manly roles during WW2 many of them adopted smoking, and that the tobacco industry's marketing campaign didn't occur til after. I won't downplay the effects of the campaign, but this is certainly a trend.

Except this has no conclusive proof either. I didn't see anything except a few post here and there about how stupid and unrealistic using it that way was. If you're convinced it had the opposite effect, then please show me numbers.

Public opinion is rarely conclusive, which is why in my original post I only spoke for myself and the developers. You were the one who kept pressing for a reason, and I'm trying to provide similar examples of my experience as best as I can. I'm not seeing "unrealistic", I see jokes about the tampon, sure, but it's a unique mechanic and while I'm certain some anonymous internet users made a fuss I can find no serious criticism.

Okay, here's one: "I didn't actually care about him using a tampon because it has been said that the tampon trick is used quite often in real life battles. I also wanted that mini game as well.", "Ill miss that little bit of realism but oh well.", http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/932860-army-of-two/41593692. There, that makes three of us, and before you make note of the other comments pay close attention to the mention of the reason it was taken out during the beta.

 

[King Zeal]

I asked you to prove something to me and you gave me stories instead of stats, journalists instead of professionals, a single promising source that you didn't actually mention, and this is your grand ultimatum? Just know that it wasn't for my lack of trying.

Yep. So basically, nothing will convince you.

Peace.

EDIT: Actually, there is one last thing bugging me.

Five thousand people out of three hundred and fourteen million? You're talking about a 0.00001% chance. You would be seven times more likely to kill yourself (38k in a year according to the CDC) than perpetrate a hate crime.

But we're not looking at those statistics from ''my'' perspective of it happening. These aren't statistics of likelihood--we aren't determining how likely this is to happen to me. Basically, that number over 5k is essentially a guarantee that someone, SOMEWHERE will be attacked. Remember, YOU asked me "Who are these people being attacked everyday?" Well, apparently, going by those statistics, there are an average of about 3 or 4 transgender people going through it every single day.

The point isn't how few people it happens to. One is too many.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

IMO, As long as it's not just tasteless teenage pandering such as Giant/Bouncy boobs, oversized asses, or any outfit that's exposing too much, I'm cool with it.

...That's not sexuality in gaming. Those are sexualized images. Sexuality is desire, agency, identity. The sexualized are images people stare at, objects. Whether you have a preference for big breasts, small breasts, women in bikinis, or wrapped in layers and layers of Victorian garb, that doesn't really address the title you've chosen which is sexuality in gaming.

I would love to see female characters portrayed as active bearers of sexuality at a level where they're not just titillating viewers. I think that could make for a lot of scenarios to explore, and is also ground that very few games cover.

 

[UberPubert]

Yep. So basically, nothing will convince you.

Peace.

Nothing you've provided has, but I'm always willing to learn and listen.

Peace.

 

[King Zeal]

Nothing you have provided convinces me you are.

 

[UberPubert]

Nothing you have provided convinces me you are.

You'd be surprised how much I've learned from this discussion.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

It's a very strange thread when you can walk in on two conversations that involve serious discussion about both tampons and their usage(or lack thereof) by men and jiggle physics for both breasts and penis's.

Nothing you have provided convinces me you are.

You'd be surprised how much I've learned from this discussion.

Out of curiosity, what have you managed to learn from this thread?

 

[riotAlice]

Well, if we have female nudity, I don't see why we should draw the line at male nudity. Or sexualizing male characters. I find it curious that male gamers don't mind being treated like oversexed chimps who will buy a game purely because it contains breasts. Do they really not find their intelligence and character being so underrated insulting?

 

[UberPubert]

Out of curiosity, what have you managed to learn from this thread?

I didn't know about a lot of the statistics King Zeal and I went over - while the were publicly available, I was not aware of them - and I'm a little more enlightened about the history of video games.

I also learned tampons have survivalist uses.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well, if we have female nudity, I don't see why we should draw the line at male nudity. Or sexualizing male characters. - I find it curious that male gamers don't mind being treated like oversexed chimps who will buy a game purely because it contains breasts. Do they really not find their intelligence and character being so underrated insulting?-

Because that's what they want/like! It's like telling people that like to smoke how bad smoking is, They don't care.

In gaming terms I have to hope like X-com enemy unknown was only made to spite gamers for not liking the launch trailers or showing them turning X-com into a third people shooter. Then like the devs going " What gamers don't really want this trash dead game genre, B team here's 1000 dollars, make their crappy game in 6 months to show them how wrong they are and how much they really want big boy third person shooters." Then we all know how the third persons shooter did... Well least I wish that's what happen.

anyway I rather think people would take being happy and having some people think what they like is shameful vs living up to random person's standards and not having anything fun.

 

[II2]

CONTEXT and EXECUTION

It comes down to these two factors. Discussion of the merits of specific titles implementation of the subject matter under those parameters will yield more meaningful discussion than 'sexuality' taken as a whole.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Out of curiosity, what have you managed to learn from this thread?

I didn't know about a lot of the statistics King Zeal and I went over - while the were publicly available, I was not aware of them - and I'm a little more enlightened about the history of video games.

I also learned tampons have survivalist uses.

Thanks to Full Metal Panic, I also know that a condom has many survival uses as well, like being a useful way to carry a surprising amount of water. It's amazing how many ways you can use something.

 

[UberPubert]

Going by those statistics, there are an average of about 3 or 4 transgender people going through it every single day.

Well the 20% you mentioned is sexual orientation bias, I can't find a distinct statistic for the transgendered but if we include victims of the LGBT community as well I can imagine your number would be much lower. Not that LGBT violence is any more acceptable, but if we assume an even split we see the number is dramatically reduced.

The point isn't how few people it happens to. One is too many.

Ideally? Yes, even one victim of a crime is too many, but in our current state of affairs I have to ask: Too many for what, exactly? I assume you mean "too many to not take every precaution we can to reducing the number of incidents", and I'd even agree on the goal, I only question the effectiveness of the solution based on what you've proposed (though I don't dispute it's implementation).

To be clear, I don't think instances of gender codifying are or contribute to a confrontational environment, I think it is more likely that we have confrontational people, and they're probably in need of a little of their own assistance.

 

[UberPubert]

Thanks to Full Metal Panic, I also know that a condom has many survival uses as well, like being a useful way to carry a surprising amount of water. It's amazing how many ways you can use something.

In a perfect world all our survivalists filter water through their tampons and into their condoms.

My city water supply isn't that bad though, I'll stick to the kitchen sink.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Thanks to Full Metal Panic, I also know that a condom has many survival uses as well, like being a useful way to carry a surprising amount of water. It's amazing how many ways you can use something.

In a perfect world all our survivalists filter water through their tampons and into their condoms.

My city water supply isn't that bad though, I'll stick to the kitchen sink.

....... I am totally adding this to my collection of quotes. It's just too good a comment to not write down.

 

[UberPubert]

....... I am totally adding this to my collection of quotes. It's just too good a comment to not write down.

Just wait until I come up with something for them to do with a fleshlight.