So I got a game I should be ashamed of....

[Dalsyne]

Explain for us mere plebs...why should one be ashamed of buying this?

Because it has boobs, and we all know boobs are way too childish for us grown adults here and everyone who owns this sick filth should be banned along with it.

Not to mention they're like completely unnecessary. Why put unnecessary things in a game if they're unnecessary because I want them so bad to be unnecessary? It's not like it'll drive sales up or anything on top of being pleasing to look at. No none of that can possibly happen. Because it's unnecessary.

 

[joest01]

Explain for us mere plebs...why should one be ashamed of buying this?

Because it has boobs, and we all know boobs are way too childish for us grown adults here and everyone who owns this sick filth should be banned along with it.

Not to mention they're like completely unnecessary. Why put unnecessary things in a game if they're unnecessary because I want them so bad to be unnecessary? It's not like it'll drive sales up or anything on top of being pleasing to look at. No none of that can possibly happen. Because it's unnecessary.

Its not about the boobs. For me at least. I am not ashamed in the least to play a dragons crown sorceress. Thats a woman youre looking at. In SK you are staring at 12yo girls with oversized everything who blush and try to cover theyre privates when they get undressed.

I really love the game for its gameplay, but there is something creepy about the anime girl undressing. And it has absolutely nothing to do with whatever youre talking about.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Yeah, I admit that I roll my eyes at games like that, mostly thanks to two reasons. One, those breasts are stupendously big. Like, what the hell that's idiotic.

And two, and most importantly, is that outside of those boobs some of those girls look dangerously underage. And that shit ain't cool, not at all. It seems to be an endemic thing in anime character design and it really grosses me out.

It was even worse with some rich kid at my local geek hangout. He wanted to show off his homemade Magic the Gathering playmats and one of them had a risque anime schoolgirl tableau with even more obviously borderline-underage character design. There were some uncomfortable chuckles at it, but me being the resident Dutch-guy-who-speaks-his-mind just came right out saying "Dude, those are teens, that's goddamn creepy, what the hell?" And my friends gave me this "Y'know this guy has a point" looks.

So yeah, that stuff gets a no-no from me. Titillation is fine but for heaven's sake stop the 'innocent teens' bullshit.

Explain for us mere plebs...why should one be ashamed of buying this?

Because it has boobs, and we all know boobs are way too childish for us grown adults here and everyone who owns this sick filth should be banned along with it.

Not to mention they're like completely unnecessary. Why put unnecessary things in a game if they're unnecessary because I want them so bad to be unnecessary? It's not like it'll drive sales up or anything on top of being pleasing to look at. No none of that can possibly happen. Because it's unnecessary.

Its not about the boobs. For me at least. I am not ashamed in the least to play a dragons crown sorceress. Thats a woman youre looking at. In SK you are staring at 12yo girls with oversized everything who blush and try to cover theyre privates when they get undressed.

I really love the game for its gameplay, but there is something creepy about the anime girl undressing. And it has absolutely nothing to do with whatever youre talking about.

I think both of you are just trying to virtue signal to everyone else that you don't go in for underage sex or something. Cool and stuff.

But I feel that it's important to remind you that these are not real people, they don't have ages (or even actual real genders!) they're entirely fictional.

I could say something like, "Imagine having sex with a 12 year old right now!" and there's a good chance that a lot of you just did. That's just about as real as video game boobies.

So, lay off trying to make people feel like if they don't condemn "underage cartoon boobs" (which don't actually exist, because like again - fictional and not real) that they're pedophiles or something. You don't need to do that to get our attention about how great guys you are.

 

[Davroth]

Ashamed? For some boobs? Please...

Puritans are so funny. When will they ever learn that there is nothing inherently shameful or sexual about nudity? I bet they believe people run around nudist beaches with raging boners all the time. (Hint: not the case)

It makes me thankful though to not have grown up in the US. That stuff is so deeply ingrained in people that they probably don't ever realized that it's religious societal programming that makes them think of nudity as something sinful.

Hey Mr self righteous libertarian.

Who said anything about the US? I know I'm not in the US but I feel plenty ashamed to play Senran Kagura in public where I strip teenage girls that blush on panty shots. Where you are encouraged to rub their t&a. There is a panties lottery in the game.

If this was a grown up's sex game (which I am not aware exists so I don't have a good example) it would be a different story but even then I wouldn't play it in public just like I don't like people looking over my shoulder when I OT an enemy in Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2+.

my 2c? your prejudice of Americans is 10x worse than the TS "puritanism".

Nothing self righteous about stating demonstrable fact. And nothing libertarian about not adhering to the very religious notion of shame and impurity. It's a construct, and I don't buy into it. Easy as that.

I might have used a kind of dismissive tone, but I stand by what I said. I have plenty of experience with Americans. You by your own admission are not from the U.S. So frankly, what makes you an expert? Want me to look up instances of the U.S. throwing a fit over nudity? Not like that ever happens, right?

 

[Cowabungaa]

I think both of you are just trying to virtue signal to everyone else that you don't go in for underage sex or something. Cool and stuff.

But I feel that it's important to remind you that these are not real people, they don't have ages (or even actual real genders!) they're entirely fictional.

Whether they're real or not does absolutely nothing for my grossness and creepiness factor. "Cesi n'est pas une pipe" is such a lazy excuse when things like this are concerned. There's still a depiction of teenage girls going on, the idea of innocent underage looks are still being fetishized. To test the argument; imagine looking at a completely photo realistic drawing of a 15 year old in some risque poses. It ain't real, but does that decrease the questionable nature of that depiction? Luckily anime is more stylized, so the feeling is lessened here, but the point still stands; depictions have power and impact. They don't exist in a vacuum.

Of course it's not even nearly as creepy as ogling at actual teenage girls, thank fuck it ain't indeed. But that doesn't mean it's not icky in its own right. After all, fetishizing that still carries cultural connotations, regardless of whether actual pictures are involved.

 

[Jake Martinez]

I think both of you are just trying to virtue signal to everyone else that you don't go in for underage sex or something. Cool and stuff.

But I feel that it's important to remind you that these are not real people, they don't have ages (or even actual real genders!) they're entirely fictional.

Whether they're real or not does absolutely nothing for my grossness and creepiness factor. "Cesi n'est pas une pipe" is such a lazy excuse when things like this are concerned.

It's not a lazy excuse. It's exactly what it is - these are not anything other than the things you imagine in your head. We all know this. The fact that you need to express a distaste for it is somewhat trivial since I'm sure you're already in your own head right now imaging the imagery you've already seen. What are you going to do, poke your brain out?

I don't know you obviously, but I'm incredulous that anyone can look at something as ridiculous as an anime girl and really imagine it as anything other than an object. It's the exact purpose they were created for - objectification. There is no way to relate that in my mind to a real person, therefor there is no sentiment attached to it at all. I actually find the concept of "age" to be fairly difficult one to grasp since there seems to be only 3 ages for anime characters - tiny children, pseudo-adults, tiny old people. It's so abstract that I find it hard to conceptualize or contextualize it in a way that makes it relatable to real people.

I mean, I might as well draw two stick figures humping each other and then write "AGE 5" over their heads. It means about that much.

But yes, I get that you don't like the idea of underage sex. For the record, I don't either. I just don't understand how your brain works I guess, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I just can't conceptualize how you are able to look at a picture and anthropomorphise it into a real person.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I just don't understand how your brain works I guess, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I just can't conceptualize how you are able to look at a picture and anthropomorphise it into a real person.

I don't, I simply recognize that depictions have impact, meaning and a certain degree of power. Neither do they exist in a vacuum, there's always context. To deny that is folly. There's no anthropomorphication coming into play here, that's an entirely unrelated concept to what I'm saying.

To illustrate; imagine looking at a completely photo realistic drawing of a 15 year old in risque poses, the picture's nature is to titillate. Nearly indistinguishable from a photograph, but a drawing nonetheless. It ain't real, but does that decrease the questionable nature of that depiction? Is it truly the same as a biological drawing? No, the distinction is obvious; both pictures carry a different message and that's what it's about.

Luckily anime is more stylized, so the feeling is lessened here, but the point still stands; depictions have power and impact. And that's also why your just-imagine-it argument doesn't hold. We're not just talking about images in a vacuum here, there's more going on. The difference lies in fetishization, which is what these games indulge in. That's what makes it different from, say, a drawing in a biology book depicting the stages of child development.

So in short; drawings carry messages too. And the message here, that of fetishization of underage looks, grosses me out. Yes, they are different from simply what's in your head because if drawings couldn't carry messages art would basically not exist.

On an unrelated matter, this is apparently my 11112'd post, and that number makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Jake Martinez]

To illustrate; imagine looking at a completely photo realistic drawing of a 15 year old in risque poses, the picture's nature is to titillate. Nearly indistinguishable from a photograph, but a drawing nonetheless. It ain't real, but does that decrease the questionable nature of that depiction? Is it truly the same as a biological drawing? No, the distinction is obvious; both pictures carry a different message and that's what it's about.

Luckily anime is more stylized, so the feeling is lessened here, but the point still stands; depictions have power and impact. And that's also why your just-imagine-it argument doesn't hold. We're not just talking about images in a vacuum here, there's more going on. The difference lies in fetishization, which is what these games indulge in. That's what makes it different from, say, a drawing in a biology book depicting the stages of child development.

Bolded your quote for emphasis above.

Anyway, this is a case where exactly: Cesi n'est pas une pipe.

Imagine you are looking at a photo realistic depiction of an alien child from outer-space that resembles nothing like a human being in some sort of alien sexualized pose, I don't know, standing on their pseudo-pods.

You have no context right to understand that this is sexual, or even that it's an improper kind of sexuality. I would expect your reaction to this to be "Huh?"

So, to underscore your point about context - I simply do not apply the same contexual thinking to a picture, no matter how "photo-realistic" it is. I don't even understand how a picture on a paper is even any more vivid than my own imagination. If I happen to think about something because someone brings it up, I'm certain that my imagination is much more powerful of a tool for arousal than even a photo is - after all, a picture doesn't really turn you on, it's your own interpretation of it, isn't it?

Now, even though I shouldn't have to say this, I will anyway - there's a distinct difference between an imaginary depiction and a real depiction. Show me a real picture of a child being abused sexually and I will get ill, because I know that's a real person who is being molested. Quite clearly for me, knowing and imagining are two entirely separate things.

Going back to my stick figure joke, I could draw that and show it to a hundred people and I can guarantee you that with minimal prompting that at least a few of them would be able to get off on it by virtue of taking the suggestive theme and imaging it in their heads.

So, where does that leave us? Frankly you have a subjective criteria for what you find "creepy" based on your own way of interpreting things you see. You say these drawings or depictions have power and impact, but I say "Well, to YOU they do," because to me, they simply do not. I get no more creeped out by seeing a drawing of some busty anime girls than I would reading a text passage about a busty girl that said they were explicitly underage than I would just knowing that you're imagining something perverted, e.g. "Hey Jake: I'm imagining doing your little sister right now!"

Will some of these things bother me more than others? Yes, I'd prefer you keep your fantasies about my sister to yourself because it's rude, but at the end of the day I can't help what stimulus that you react to any more than I can help how I react to it. I'm not going to look at the same thing you did and come away feeling the same things you did.

Which goes back to my original point - I feel like you're just trying to signal your virtue - You don't like underage sex and it repulses you. I think that's fine, it repulses me to. I don't look at a sexualized cartoon and come away feeling the same way you do, and it's likely that the guy you tried to shame in front of everyone doesn't have the same feelings about a cartoon as you do either.

If I can't control how you respond to things, inside your own head even, then what right do I have to make you feel bad about it?

I get that you want to let everyone know something about yourself, but you're doing it at the expense of trying to force another person to adhere to your subjective (and potentially unreasonable) standards. In my opinion it's about a hairs shade short of bullying someone because of your own imagination.

I honestly wish more people were like me instead of like you because I think my way of looking at things is fair and non-judgmental about what people do in their own imagination - and let's be honest, it's much more pleasant if people don't get "creeped out" or offended by entirely arbitrary and subjective things. We'd all get a long much better. I don't think that subjective standards of imagination are worth anyone getting upset over, or that it's particularly virtuous for people to impose these standards on other people.

Now, if we're talking "real world" actions, then that's entirely different. That's why we have laws (that I fully support).

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

I'll rephrase myself because I think you're somewhat missing my point. That happens sometimes, I don't mean that negatively. You're hung up about the images themselves, but that's not exactly what I want to refer to.

To rephrase my point of view; what I'm specifically creeped out by is the fetishization of underage looks. This fetishization has certain cultural connotations. What's noticeable is that that fetishization is also available in drawn form, in this case the stylized anime art style of a videogame. Drawings, just like any form of 'text' in the broad sense, carry messages too. And in this case it carries a message I'm grossed out by; "Underage looks are hot."

Now, we both seem to agree that the the idea of fetishization of underage looks is icky. Where our difference I think lies is not as much one of context (I wasn't referring to things like vividness and such as what you refer to, but to a broader, cultural one), but the idea that drawings can carry messages and ideas, ideas like fetishization among many others. To deny that seems to be folly. If that'd be the case art would be pointless, hentai wouldn't be a thing, and pictographic languages would not be able to exist.

Yet they do; pictographic languages exist, artists tell stories through paintings, and so forth. So the idea that drawings can carry messages seems to stand fast. And whatever the method of delivery, be it photographs or words or drawings, the message in the end is what matters (mostly for this discussion, one regarding the laws governing this is another matter). Of course there's degrees of ickyness, a photo carries different weight than a stylized drawing ("the medium is the message" to quote that age-old saying from McLuhan), but you could say there's a certain 'baseline ickyness' that comes from the message itself. A message here that, we both agree, is rather off-putting.

What's also possible is that we disagree on the idea that these drawings carry the message of fethiziation of underage looks. But to deny that, I think, is rather hard to defend. How then should we interpret things like obvious panty shots and other such things we could call 'sexual visual language'. Is not the cultural consensus that this 'language' is made for titillation? Is it not true that that visual language can be applied to photography as well as drawings?

 

[teh_Canape]

As for the game itself, I can't help you there. From what I can tell, critics didn't like it, but regular people seemed to have a blast. And why shouldn't they?

from what little I heard, it's basically like dynasty warriors but with big ol' titties on questionably aged girls and with fanservice up the ass, so it's no wonder it isn't particularly loved by critics
never did play any of them tho
OP:
don't worry, you aren't the only one

 

[Jake Martinez]

snip

I'll rephrase myself because I think you're somewhat missing my point. That happens sometimes, I don't mean that negatively. You're hung up about the images themselves, but that's not exactly what I want to refer to.

To rephrase my point of view; what I'm specifically creeped out by is the fetishization of underage looks. This fetishization has certain cultural connotations. What's noticeable is that that fetishization is also available in drawn form, in this case the stylized anime art style of a videogame. Drawings, just like any form of 'text' in the broad sense, carry messages too. And in this case it carries a message I'm grossed out by; "Underage looks are hot."

Now, we both seem to agree that the the idea of fetishization of underage looks is icky. Where our difference I think lies is not as much one of context (I wasn't referring to things like vividness and such as what you refer to, but to a broader, cultural one), but the idea that drawings can carry messages and ideas, ideas like fetishization among many others. To deny that seems to be folly. If that'd be the case art would be pointless, hentai wouldn't be a thing, and pictographic languages would not be able to exist.

Yet they do; pictographic languages exist, artists tell stories through paintings, and so forth. So the idea that drawings can carry messages seems to stand fast. And whatever the method of delivery, be it photographs or words or drawings, the message in the end is what matters (mostly for this discussion, one regarding the laws governing this is another matter). Of course there's degrees of ickyness, a photo carries different weight than a stylized drawing ("the medium is the message" to quote that age-old saying from McLuhan), but you could say there's a certain 'baseline ickyness' that comes from the message itself. A message here that, we both agree, is rather off-putting.

What's also possible is that we disagree on the idea that these drawings carry the message of fethiziation of underage looks. But to deny that, I think, is rather hard to defend. How then should we interpret things like obvious panty shots and other such things we could call 'sexual visual language'. Is not the cultural consensus that this 'language' is made for titillation?

I think, or atleast, what I'm trying to say is this -

You are entitled to your own ontological experience from viewing stimulus, but you are not entitled to thrust that upon other people in a way that is culturally shaming in an attempt to get them to reinforce your viewpoint.

You can say: This makes me uncomfortable.
You can also say (incredulously): Hey, doesn't this seem creepy to you?

One of those is just a statement of your own personal experience, the other one carries a subtle challenge for someone else to adopt your ontological viewpoint otherwise risk some sort of retribution (usually social stigma or shaming or forcing a person into an out-group).

Now, my main point of contention here is that unless you explicitly are attempting to understand someones viewpoint, then challenge them on it, then the interaction in itself is just theater done for the benefit of everyone else around you so that you can signal your morals to them.

You can do the above without the interaction that is begging the respondent to accede to your subjective viewpoint.

There's really no polite way to say this I guess, but I see this behavior quite frequently (particularly on social media these days) and it's more or less a casual type of narcissism. Since the subject matter itself, or the point of contention, is entirely subjective (we don't all have the same ontological viewpoint on visual stimulus!) it even goes a step further from merely being rude in my eyes, to being a form of bullying. Literally attempting to use social pressure on someone over a perceived (and potentially entirely incorrect) interpretation of their own views.

To summarize:

I get that you don't like (certain things).
I think you can express that you don't like (certain things).
I think it's wrong to expect compliance to your dislike for (certain things) under the premise of exclusion or shaming those who disagree.

 

[Cowabungaa]

To summarize:

I get that you don't like (certain things).
I think you can express that you don't like (certain things).
I think it's wrong to expect compliance to your dislike for (certain things) under the premise of exclusion or shaming those who disagree.

I don't see evidence of how I'm expressively shaming anyone here, or even excluding people or viewpoints. If anything I welcome all arguments. Neither do I seem to be throwing something out there to really boost my ego or something like that. 'Fetishizing underage looks' doesn't really seem to be something extraordinarily virtuous or morally outstanding. So why should I want to celebrate having it so much? And isn't debating about trying to make people come around to your viewpoints through arguments? And surely debate, by itself, is not narcissistic. Yeah, there's a degree of subjectivity involved, but that doesn't mean we can't contend over certain points. If it'd be wrong to try to make your debate partner comply to your way of thinking, any kind of moral debate would be completely moot. I'd have thought we'd be past such extreme post-modernistic relativity already.

Anyway, back to the point of this thread. The thing is, we don't seem to have that much of a different ontological experience. But even if we would it wouldn't be relevant to the subject at hand. The message is still there regardless of how we respond to that message, of how we experience that stimulus to put it in your terms. Whether we respond to the message by being turned on or turned off or creeped out or not by it, the message is still there speaking to us through the medium in which it's presented. And what I think, and what you seem to think too, is that that message in this particular case is icky.

Hence why I think our main disagreements in this discussion (outside of your points regarding the nature of this discussion) boil down to either drawings do not carry messages or these drawings do not carry the particular message of the fetishization of underage looks. Surely simply discussing that rationally doesn't shame anyone.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Hence why I think our main disagreements in this discussion (outside of your points regarding the nature of this discussion) boil down to either drawings do not carry messages or these drawings do not carry the particular message of the fetishization of underage looks. Surely simply discussing that rationally doesn't shame anyone.

Honestly, you're contextualizing my position incorrectly. I find underage sex "icky". I don't perceive cartoons having underage sex as underage sex, hence not really icky. That's my ontological view on these things. I simply know it's not icky because I know it's not real. In this case, literally, you and I are getting absolutely different messages from those drawings. I view a message contained in a drawing or in a book as identical to a message contained in someones thought and I could care less about them in any deeper context without some voluntary action on my part. In this particular case, like say a "busty teenage anime girl" I simply do not have the same reaction to it, because I am evidently not recieving the same message you are.

Surely simply discussing that rationally doesn't shame anyone.

I was referring explicitly to this part of a former post you made:

It was even worse with some rich kid at my local geek hangout. He wanted to show off his homemade Magic the Gathering playmats and one of them had a risque anime schoolgirl tableau with even more obviously borderline-underage character design. There were some uncomfortable chuckles at it, but me being the resident Dutch-guy-who-speaks-his-mind just came right out saying "Dude, those are teens, that's goddamn creepy, what the hell?" And my friends gave me this "Y'know this guy has a point" looks.

That's an example of someone trying to use in-group/out-group behavior to stigmatize someone over a subjective interpretation of "a drawing".

I won't say that you're not allowed to do this, but I will say that I don't find it virtuous and I think people in general who do this have suspect motives more related to their own social standing than they care about the subject matter.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Honestly, you're contextualizing my position incorrectly. I find underage sex "icky". I don't perceive cartoons having underage sex as underage sex, hence not really icky. That's my ontological view on these things. I simply know it's not icky because I know it's not real. In this case, literally, you and I are getting absolutely different messages from those drawings. I view a message contained in a drawing or in a book as identical to a message contained in someones thought and I could care less about them. In this particular case, like say a "busty teenage anime girl" I simply do not have the same reaction to it, because I am evidently not recieving the same message you are.

We're getting to the crux of the matter.

The difference between underage sex and depictions thereof is indeed very true. The thing is; we're not talking about an act here. After all, nothing really happens in the pictures linked on the first page, it's a passive affair. No, what's going on here is fetishization; a broader, cultural phenomenon/trend that has real world implications in a more complicated fashion than "person does or does not do a bad thing". Indeed, there's not an actual teenager being exploited in these pictures, such a direct bad thing does not happen. But these pictures do propagate this broader cultural phenomenon of fetishization, regardless of whether the picture depicts a real tableau or a drawn one. Propaganda for example is a thing for a reason, often using idealized/stylized imagery to get a point across. Hence why, in this case that link between realness and the judgement of it doesn't seem at all necessary.

I share your view that a message in a book or a drawing is more or less equal to one in someone's head. A 'text' is, after all, the author's thoughts made 'solid'. And that's exactly why I do care about someone's ideas (and thus those in books, drawings, etc) as some of those ideas can have certain negative consequences. And I think that the propagation of a fetishized viewpoint of underage looks is problematic for the broader cultural position of women. I must admit, I can't do that particular subject as much justice as some of my professors can. It's a shame you can't follow some of my faculty's classes regarding sexuality and society, like the "Sexuality and relationship ethics" classes I might follow in my Master year. They cover topics like this.

Anyway, we can see the same fetishization in live-action porn. The whole obsession with '18 year olds'. Girls who masturbate surrounded by stuffed animals, wearing pigtails, bracers and teddybear slippers shouting "Oh daddy!" Is it not true that drawings can propagate this same fetishization regardless of their realness-factor and regardless of whether you're personally creeped out by them or not?

That's an example of someone trying to use in-group/out-group behavior to stigmatize someone over a subjective interpretation of "a drawing".

I won't say that you're not allowed to do this, but I will say that I don't find it virtuous and I think people in general who do this have suspect motives more related to their own social standing than they care about the subject matter.

Fair enough. Maybe I was a little harsh in my use of language, but I usually say such things not to get the group behind me because, well, if you'd know the people I play Magic with you'd know that'd be impossible. By saying such things I always know I'm, if anything, lowering my social standing. So rest assured; that didn't come into play, I truly do care about the subject matter. I'm no longer in the business of shooting myself in my own foot, that shit's pretty painful and doesn't get you anywhere. I was pretty surprised to get people behind me for once, actually.

But I see what you mean regardless. I'd have loved to have a more slow-paced discussion with the guy about it, if I'd be able to have one with him.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

To me this is like buying a porn magazine: power to you and whatever, but internet porn is free.

 

[Jake Martinez]

I share your view that a message in a book or a drawing is more or less equal to one in someone's head. A 'text' is, after all, the author's thoughts made 'solid'. And that's exactly why I do care about someone's ideas (and thus those in books, drawings, etc) as some of those ideas can have certain negative consequences. And I think that the propagation of a fetishized viewpoint of underage looks is problematic for the broader cultural position of women. I must admit, I can't do that particular subject as much justice as some of my professors can. It's a shame you can't follow some of my faculty's classes regarding sexuality and society, like the "Sexuality and relationship ethics" classes I might follow in my Master year. They cover topics like this.

Sadly, this is why I can't take these disciplines seriously anymore. Fetishization of youth is an issue that is as old as human culture (ever since we recognized our own mortality!) and is expressed in a myriad number of ways. If it's intrinsically tied into the desirability of sexual partners (and it is) then you can't deny this through cultural repression (remove everything that glorifies young girls!) People will still prefer younger mates over older ones, and the women whom you seem to be concerned for will still need to deal with this fact.

If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend purchasing a book called The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Dr. Steven Pinker. He's a behavioral psychologist and professor at Harvard University and he talks somewhat about this, or more explicitly he addresses the "nature/nurture" debate in a way that I'm almost certain that your professors are ignoring (since it's unpopular for being both bold and offensive to people who have long careers riding on other interpretations).

Anyway, I doubt I can convince you to change your views on any of this stuff, but at least I can urge you to practice a little less critical theory and a little more critical thinking I have to admit that I'm a bit of a fan of Karl Popper's scientific epistemology, so there's a greater than 0 chance that I will likely reject most of what you've been taught just by assuming it follows along the lines of what you've already said.

In that light, it's probably not worth going further than this other than to wish you good luck and that you survive your professors with some semblance of common sense intact.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm just trying to wrap around my head around the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) you take damage to see the sexiness.

Isn't the philosophy of video games is that you need to do well to get the reward?

 

[Cowabungaa]

Sadly, this is why I can't take these disciplines seriously anymore. Fetishization of youth is an issue that is as old as human culture (ever since we recognized our own mortality!) and is expressed in a myriad number of ways. If it's intrinsically tied into the desirability of sexual partners (and it is) then you can't deny this through cultural repression (remove everything that glorifies young girls!) People will still prefer younger mates over older ones, and the women whom you seem to be concerned for will still need to deal with this fact.

Of course it's an age old issue, that I wouldn't deny and neither do disciplines dealing with it deny that, so not taking them serious over that is plain silly. The 'tabula rasa' model is very outdated, in my personal life we already sort of laughed about its romantic notions when talking about Rousseau. From that fact, that it's an ancient issue, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't concern ourselves with it. It's a kind of conservative fallacy; it has always been like this, so why bother? The idea that a status quo can't change.

Is it something that'd just 'poof' happen? No. Is it even possible that we'd be able to eliminate it altogether in the long term? Maybe not. Does that mean we should just go on with 'business as usual'? Why should we? We can still strive towards improvement, strive to do improve the cultural position of women. It's a very defeatist way of thinking that simply because we have a certain nature it's pointless to try to improve it. We're still rational creatures, we're capable of change.

If you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend purchasing a book called The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Dr. Steven Pinker. He's a behavioral psychologist and professor at Harvard University and he talks somewhat about this, or more explicitly he addresses the "nature/nurture" debate in a way that I'm almost certain that your professors are ignoring (since it's unpopular for being both bold and offensive to people who have long careers riding on other interpretations).

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Philosophy is rife with examples of philosophers changing their mind and changing their theories, they're often among the most lauded ones so saying that it's unpopular to be bold is, in philosophy, not exactly true. One of my professors who actually is most connected to the sexuality classes is a great admirer of Phillipa Foot for exactly this reason, she held like three or four very different positions throughout her life.

At the same time, a friend of mine recommended Judith Butler's work when matters of problematic fetishization and comparable problems are concerned. As for your book, don't worry too; that seems like exactly the kind of material we'll cover in our Natural Philosophy class in the Master year so I might actually get around to it (if only for writing a paper). The question is; would you to Butler?

Anyway, I doubt I can convince you to change your views on any of this stuff, but at least I can urge you to practice a little less critical theory and a little more critical thinking I have to admit that I'm a bit of a fan of Karl Popper's scientific epistemology, so there's a greater than 0 chance that I will likely reject most of what you've been taught just by assuming it follows along the lines of what you've already said.

In that light, it's probably not worth going further than this other than to wish you good luck and that you survive your professors with some semblance of common sense intact.

Hah, of course, from my point of view, going by all that and especially that before-last phrase I'd naturally respond; who's guilty of a lack of critical thinking and close-mindedness now? That's only to be expected. I hope you wouldn't want to reject most of my curriculum though, it'd mean your fandom of Karl Popper would have to stop too. You'd be surprised how much critical thinking you'd have to reject too as that, and not critical theory, stands at the core of what we study. If anything we've seen a surprising lack of critical theory thinkers so far. I'd ask you to not make such unfounded assumptions about my faculty, I'm only one third-year Bachelor student from around 100/120-ish (and an outlier at that, if you'd know my fellow students). Surely a fan of philosophy of science should know better than to do that, eh

Actually, I've come to my opinions outside of my academic setting, didn't even know about the content of those sexuality classes when I formed them. I didn't even end up following those classes as the electives I picked fell in line better with my professional interests and only heard about some of the contents from a friend. Next to that we're also encouraged to engage with and go against our teachers if we can support what we say. You should've seen me in my Continental Ethics class, that shit was awesome.

Something like this is I suppose better debated in real life, with proper preparation and individuals who actually work in these fields. As I've yet, I'm not yet able to fully do this justice. I wouldn't be too sure about you not not being able to change my views either, that's quite an assumption. One that, coupled with your seeming dogmatism in sticking to your own guns does indeed sort of kill of the debate here.

A shame really, I think it could be quite fruitful and has been relatively fruitful so far. We've cleared up a lot about each other's positions and right when we get to the heart of things you want to back out? Seems like quite a waste.

But so be it.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Something like this is I suppose better debated in real life, with proper preparation and individuals who actually work in these fields.

It's just exactly that.

I'll leave you with a haiku that expresses my opinion on this exchange so far
gravity happens
or so it seems from below
above it's just stars