The rampant Sexualization in videogames

[Mr F.]

Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.

Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".

I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.

Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!

I need to be careful as I am one more infraction away from a probation.

You are incorrect.

The amount of sex I have got has had no affect on the amount I care about issues. Could be down to be studying sociology and actively being a feminist, could be down to how I was raised. Could be that most male feminists are not using feminism as an attempt to get laid. Could be that some men, like myself, care about feminism regardless of getting laid. I have been more of a feminist than any of my past partners.

The reason I care about feminism is because I am an intensely political animal. It affects me because it affects my sisters and my mother, it effects me because I find men who treat women like shit disgusting and I find sexism as a whole disgusting.

and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

Speak for yourself. Please do not make generalisations that some of us find disgusting.

and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for

Aaand I am out of this thread. The point of view you have articulated in this post has disgusted me.

You do realize that his comment was addressing mine, and I'm just about the furthest you can find from a feminist.
He really didn't mean any of the things I'm assuming you think he meant.
Not that I find PUAs any less reprehensible than you do, but I do find feminists more reprehensible than him.

Yes, his comment was addressing yours, which I have yet to read. However, his comment referenced feminists and male attitudes and indicated that people are only feminists to get laid. His generalisations about my half of the species angered and depressed me and I found what he was saying to be of note and utterly revolting. That is why I commented.

No matter the context, stating that "sex is the main thing you need girls for" is revolting.

As for your statement that you are the furthest you could find from a feminist, I take that to mean you are a homophobic mysoginistic fascist pig? Because feminism is about equality. Equality of the sexes. So if you are the furthest you can be from someone who is for the equality of the sexes, one could assume you are the furthest away you can be from one who believes in equality fullstop. Therefore, all of the above is accurate, in your own words.

Unless you are the furthest away you can be from your warped definition of a feminist, quite possibly the straw feminist people like yourself trot out. From your own admission, I can assume you are a Mens Rights Activist and quite possibly a member of Stormfront or any various utterly foul groups.

What is it you find reprehensible about people like myself? Is it the fact that we care about other humans? The fact that, if we are male, we accept that the world is by default slanted in our favour, particularly if we are CIS male. What exactly is it about me that you find reprehensible? What exactly is it about anyone like me that you find reprehensible?

As for what he meant, well, if he is so incapable of communicating his thoughts then maybe he should not post online. What he stated is what I attacked, that you only need woman for sex, that feminism in men is used as a tool for sex, that the more sex you have the less sexually enlightened you become. Generalisations, and foul ones.

Not that I find PUAs any less reprehensible than you do, but I do find feminists more reprehensible than him.

What exactly is so reprehensible about feminists in general?

Their ideology is...
This should explain it fairly well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6qg8Up3PnU

I cannot watch that as I am sitting in a room with my grandmother.

Lets see.

fem·i·nism
/ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Feminism
The belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men. These people can be either male or female human beings, although the ideology is commonly (and perhaps falsely) associated mainly with women.

The basic idea of Feminism revolves around the principle that just because human bodies are designed to perform certain procreative functions, biological elements need not dictate intellectual and social functions, capabilities, and rights.

Feminism also, by its nature, embraces the belief that all people are entitled to freedom and liberty within reason--including equal civil rights--and that discrimination should not be made based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, or lifestyle.

Feminists--and all persons interested in civil equality and intellectuality--are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology.
Feminism is the belief that all people are entitled to the same civil rights and liberties and can be intellectual equals regardless of gender. However, you should still hold the door for a feminist; this is known as respect or politeness and need have nothing whatever to do with gender discrimination.

Hmmm...

[quote = Oxford Dictionary] noun
[mass noun]
the advocacy of women?s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
The issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. In Britain it was not until the emergence of the suffragette movement in the late 19th century that there was significant political change. A ?second wave? of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood; seminal figures included Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer

I can find a crazy wanker on any subject you name. I can find christians who disbelieve in evolution, atheists who believe that all religious people should be put in prison for crimes against children, Muslims who believe I should burn in hell, men who tell me that I am going to burn for eternity because I am a man who would not mind the company of other men, or a man who has had sex before marriage. I can find you an article that shows that because I do not part my hair to the right, I am into anarchy, rock music and devil worship. I can find you blogs on how Harry Potter is indoctrinating children into witchcraft, how Dungeons and Dragons should be banned because it promotes satan worship.

The important thing here is I will take those people and separate them from the groups they pretend to be following. Just because some Christians think I am an abomination does not mean all Christians believe I am an abomination (Most of those at the church I sometimes attend would disagree with the whole "Fire and Brimstone" thing.)

So ideology, it comes down to ideology. An ideology of equality is somehow offensive to you? Your definition of feminist ideology is something radically different from the definition that the Urban Dictionary comes up with (Crowd sourced by people who, this is a total stab in the dark, are your age.), that the Oxford Dictionary comes up with, that Google comes up with.

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē/
Noun
A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political policy: "the ideology of republicanism".
The ideas and manner of thinking of a group, social class, or individual: "a critique of bourgeois ideology".

I think you do not know what Ideology means.

You won't watch the video detailing my views on feminism, but you'll argue against it based on your assumptions about my beliefs... and yet you accuse me of strawmaning?
I've heard all the dictionary definitions of feminism several times before, I've heard the definitions of feminism from countless feminists just like you, I even used to be a feminist like you so I know your way of thinking about the ideology of feminism exceedingly well.
None of it brings me any closer to believing that feminism is a movement for equality.[/quote]

Either a coincidence of name or you have two accounts, both of which are active. I do believe that is frowned upon here.

As I will not get anywhere, I will just leave you with a thought.

It does not matter if you believe in Feminism, Feminism believes in you. You think that it is not for equality, congratulations. Your opinion differs from fact and is of no consequence. I seriously doubt you know my way of thinking. Considering I am a sociology undergrad etc, I have probably read more than you as a result of my degree and my passions.

So you think feminism is not a movement for equality. Fine. Believe that. I have nothing more to say.

Snip

Hey look at that, loads of dictionary definitions.

What the whole 'the word feminism is defined as this therefore it IS this' line of argument falls down when you get men like Earl Silverman who struggle against active opposition from feminist groups and feminist ministers to get funds for battered men, and their oppositional stance is essentially, what do we want to give men funding for things when we could be giving it to women?

How about if the majority of feminists are fighting for equality. If that is the case, feminism is a movement for equality. Considering every feminist I have met, and the majority of feminist literature I have read, are fighting for equality or outlining inequality, one can assume that feminism is fighting for equality. Without any knowledge on a case by case basis (Nor having the energy to research anything, I have been away from the internet on a hike.), the argument would be that there are more battered women than men and more need for centers for woman as men USUALLY have more places to run, therefore the money should go to woman. Its a fair enough assumption.

You can throw definitions around all you want, but in reality, feminism presents itself as a female advocacy group that won it's battles a long time ago, but see, the trough is there for all to see and why the hell would they walk away? So they lie about how much they've won and they outcast people who speak out against the dogma.

Won some, not all. There are still plenty of battles to be fought if we are to bridge the gaps and create a more equal society for men and woman. If they cast out the people who speak against the dogma, how am I still within a feminist society? Considering I do not support ANY of the things that are apparently "Feminist dogma"... Christ.

Not to mention a proud tradition in censoring dissent in the name of 'safety'.

Citation. I have yet to see an example of this myself.

What makes it truly odious, and truly dangerous, is that you oftentimes wind up with people like you defending it blindly.

I am not defending feminism blindly and I resent the accusation.

Try and convince the government that maybe some of their funds could go towards male shelters as well, and you'll see venom so strong and for such a length of time you'll be destroyed without the blink of an eye, and they'll feel great about it because you were an enemy of woman kind.

Say, there is 100 million pounds of funding (I fucking wish.). If there was a move to give 50 million pounds of it to mens shelters, I would be against it. Because guess what, that is fucking stupid, and women need the shelters more. However, if there was a push for another 50 million pounds of funding, FOR male centers and womens centers lost nothing, I see NO ISSUE and most feminists would see NO ISSUE. See, there is an issue with men getting the shit kicked out of them, domestic violence does go both ways. However, Women need the shelters more ergo womens shelters need more funding.

But try and criticise the snakes for that? And you'll get people like you quoting how the word is clearly defined as 'equality for women' and how could I possibly not want that? What issues could I possibly have with thinking women are people to?

I have discussed things with you before. I am going to leave this discussion. I see nothing of worth coming out of it. Both of you have feminism for whatever reasons you both hate feminism. It is hard to discuss things when people have multiple different definitions of the terms that are being discussed.

Whether either of you believe feminism is fighting for equality or not is absolutely meaningless. Sorry sers, your "opinion" is of no note. The facts spin a different story which is, honestly, the only thing that matters.

 

[CFriis87]

Firstly, yes. In some cases the man thats being shaken down isn't even the father. Are there any repercussions for the women that knowingly decieve men in this most horrid of ways? Is there fuck. But you'll never see a feminist picking up the flag of equality to tackle these real and blatant injustices that drive men to kill themselves, not so long as there are men entering colleges. Colleges where women go to. We all know that when men and women are in the same place men just get itchy for a rapin.

http://thefire.org/case/841.html

"She Fears You" is based on the theory that men need a "combined emotional and cognitive intervention" to reform their deeply ingrained rape-supportive beliefs about gender and sexuality.

People ask me why I'm anti-feminist. I wonder how any can support something that sends these sorts of messages and look themselves in the mirror quite frankly.

To answer your question about child support and robbery... I think it's a good idea that's in need of politicians accepting that fact that facing reality isn't the same thing as being a politically incorrect monster, despite what feminist have to say on the matter.

Of course the state can't be expected to feed every baby, and there are realities in the way of the ideal of everybody only having babies once they can actually afford them.

The reason I call it enforced robbery though is because you get sent to prison for not paying it, and because the ONLY safeguard that women aren't just cashing in on her children(and believe there are lots that do) is the ridiculous notion that a woman "couldn't possibly be so selfish, she's just a woman, and if you take care of a woman than the only thing she'll want to do is take care of her children all the better."

You and I both know this is true. I wouldn't abolish the thing if I could, but I would damn sure put some checks in. Things like paternity tests, and I'd probably do away with handing over actual money, and instead make it so the father is buying things like vouchers that can only be traded for essentials.

Now who is the one giving long answers? Just kidding, of course .

Hum, that sounds like things are really bad over in the U.S. Are you sure the "shakedown" isn't due to the authorities believing the man does actually have funds, and is just unwilling to pay? I mean not that my confidence in the US legal system was hight to begin with, but that is crass.

Interesting read about that lecture. Certainly making it mandatory is a great way to encourage critical thinking, discussion and self-reflection. Also "emotional intervention"? That sounds sinister to me, unless done by a psychologist.

But you know, I think you shouldn't call yourself an anti-feminist (or be one, for that matter). Because being anti-something always ties you to that position for better or worse. As the situation in current U.S. politics shows, purely antagonistic behaviour is not getting anyone everywhere. One of the things that bugs me the most about these discussions is how easily we go from fighting discrimination of men to fighting feminism to just fighting women. If you want things to change, being antagonistic is often a good way to start, but it's not a good idea to make it a philosophy.

Anyways, before we go completely off-topic, I think your argument is overall reasonable (even though I find the rhethoric a bit aggressive), so yeah, good talk.

Things are pretty damn abysmal in both the Europe and Asia too.
With corrupt politicians like Harriet Harman in the UK, and both the EU and UN passing legislation to benefit women at the detriment of men.
Also, your exact logic for why not to call oneself an anti-feminist is just as great a reason to never call oneself a feminist.
MRAs don't want to fight women. At no point have we expressed any hate or even dislike of women. And all the women supporting the causes of the MRM would probably back me up on that.

 

[thenoblitt]

It's ok to sexualize men but not women, and if you tell them that, they just say its a male power fantasy. You just can't win cause they make up more bullshit to fit their skewed perspective of things. If everyone is sexualized, then one one is. Feminism is suppose to be about equality and having the same rights, well guess what if you weren't sexualized and men were, its not longer equal and you are no trying to be better and have more rights than man, and that's not equality, its hypocritical.

It's not "our" fault if you are unable to see the differences between power and sex fantasies.

Have you seen the those commercials with beautiful women that are trying to sell makeup? Why isn't that just a beautiful woman fantasy? That literally makes no sense, if there is a man its a male fantasy, and if it's a woman, guess what its still a male fantasy. That is literally ass backwards thinking.

 

[Stephen St.]

{Snipped images for quoting}
OR, they take what you see as a male power fantasy and call it a female sexual one? And whose really to say that it's wrong that sex appeal be seen as something that a woman can have and want? It's absolutely not disempowering in life when a woman has a body that drives men wild, why do we consider it so in games?

Brad Pitt has nothing to do with anything I don't even know what you're drawing for here, I really don't. Real actor =/= a positive image of female characters.

We aren't clambering over ourselves for diverse male shapes in gaming. Why? For some reason people still get up in arms over female skin and not male skin is why. Come on dude, why are people still going on about this in 2013? Its the new puritanism man. If a woman wears something like this:

In a game, it's an outrage. Why do people still give a fuck? It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't affect anyone, if it stopped chicks playing games than we'd have no chicks playing games, and you aren't bringing about anything because you know what there's also always been? Women in games like this:

Very good points. There should be, in fact, nothing wrong being attractive. One can discuss whether a certain level of decency is good for society, but that is something that has to be resolved in a larger context than just gaming.

I think, however, that Cloud Atlas also has a point. While not every sexy character is sexualized, neither are they all female power fantasies. Pure looks may be an indicator, but it's the presentation that matters. A sexy outfit can convey certain information on the character, and it can indicate a strong and self-confident character that isn't afraid of their sexuality. A sexy outfit can, however, also be attached to any character just to provide eye candy. Gratuitous shots of posteriors, for example, will usually indicate sexualization, not power fantasy.

Looking at your two pictures, I find it very easy to guess which one is the sexualized image from the posturing alone. I have just recently stumbled upon a discussion of female e-sports teams. It revolved around two teams, formed by well-known sponsors (in the scene), both featured a roster of 5 attractive women. One might find that suspicious, but that suspicion is of course based on prejudice itself, so it shouldn't be trusted. However, one other factor stood out clearly: While male teams would usually be announced by a description of the players, their style and their accomplishements, these two teams were announced with... photoshoots. It is differences like that which lend credence to the argument that in gaming culture, women are indeed treated differently.

So while your points are valid, there is more to the sexualization theme than just looks.

AFAIK The father already has a right to leave and never bother interacting with the child (as long as they pay child support). Not all single parents are widows. So really it's a question of money and nothing else.

I am not sure about that. If the child is harmed due to neglect, it could result in criminal charges. That depends a lot on the situation, ofc.
Anyways, bringing up children is expensive, and working fulltime with a child isn't necessarily easy (though there are contingencies). Better money than nothing, I would say.

 

[Stephen St.]

I'm sorry I must have slipped on something. Did you just say that you think a mandatory course which explicitly acts to "uneducate" the INNER RAPIST OF ALL YOUNG MEN was a great idea?

THATS your comment? You could say anything you want, and the only thing you have to say about that idea is that it's a great way to encourage self-reflection? You're shitting me? You must be.

You know what's funny? If I said all women were X these mods would have me up.

If I said all jew or all asians were X these mods would have me up.

To anyone with half a brain you just said All men are born rapists.

I'm expecting nothing will come of this.

Feminism. Getting away with shitting on half the planet because it benefits the important half since it's second wave.

Apparently, you slipped on my sarcasm, because you evidently did not notice any of it.

 

[runic knight]

Either a coincidence of name or you have two accounts, both of which are active. I do believe that is frowned upon here.

As I will not get anywhere, I will just leave you with a thought.

It does not matter if you believe in Feminism, Feminism believes in you. You think that it is not for equality, congratulations. Your opinion differs from fact and is of no consequence. I seriously doubt you know my way of thinking. Considering I am a sociology undergrad etc, I have probably read more than you as a result of my degree and my passions.

So you think feminism is not a movement for equality. Fine. Believe that. I have nothing more to say.

this sounds like the sort of arguments I hear from Christians from time to time. Christ believes in you. Christianity is not this thing I dislike but rather this other thing because reasons. No True Scotsman sounding to say the least. As an undergrad I would have hoped you'd been more familiar with such parallels and therefore smart enough to avoid them.

On the topic itself, given the history of feminism, you are aware of various waves of it, yes? Of how it went about equality when it started? The whole purpose back at the start was to create equality by getting the same rights for women as men had. The ideology is based on elevating women to the same level as men, something that made sense when they did not have the same legal rights. Not so much now when for the most part, women are legally equivalent to men in the civilized world and now it is about social belief imbalance rather then an outright definable legal inconsistantcy. As a result of how it attempted and how some still attempt to make equality, people now do not see it as a force for equality so much as a force for women. The refusal to let go of the name doesn't help either. Thus you get other waves or branches of feminism that stem off. See sex-negative feminism.

Also, no one cares who you are or what study you have taken. People can lie on the web, so no claims of self are taken seriously (nor should be considered anyways, as arguments should stand on their own merits, regardless who said them and the only time who said them should count is for testimonials or expertise, and even then that should be left to the most qualified, not an internet pissing contest about how you "should know".

Say, there is 100 million pounds of funding (I fucking wish.). If there was a move to give 50 million pounds of it to mens shelters, I would be against it. Because guess what, that is fucking stupid, and women need the shelters more. However, if there was a push for another 50 million pounds of funding, FOR male centers and womens centers lost nothing, I see NO ISSUE and most feminists would see NO ISSUE. See, there is an issue with men getting the shit kicked out of them, domestic violence does go both ways. However, Women need the shelters more ergo womens shelters need more funding.

Hold up! I know the general presumption of domestic violence and all, but this here seems to be the exact problem they were arguing. It is using a presumption about gender to dictate how people are treated (in this case how funding is allotted). This is sort of their point, that for a force that is suppose to be about equality, feminism supporters rely on this mindset that is inherently NOT about equality but rather stereotypes and gender biases.
While I do think there is a disparity between victims of gender, I do not think it is as great a difference as some believe and the idea that one gender should only get funding after the other is fully funded is insane. You will never get one fully funded, at the very least you could offer to give an equivalent based on the cases, like 70/30 or something.
Hell, for someone who wants equality, can you not even see the harm this causes in perpetuating gender stereotypes and denying people help in the same breath? Or how it pretty much tells men they can't have the same problem or have to deal with it themselves simply because they are not women? Or that you actively promote the traits in men that are often demonized (less feeling or emotional, more aggressive, more success-driven) because they often have no other means of dealing with this social requirement they behave and be strong in that way? Hell, don't you see what that tells young boys about how they have to act and live? You can't honestly be missing the leagues of wrong with this crap, can you? Especially since it is just a different face of the same issues affecting women.

But try and criticise the snakes for that? And you'll get people like you quoting how the word is clearly defined as 'equality for women' and how could I possibly not want that? What issues could I possibly have with thinking women are people to?

The issue is not the concept (at least at its start), but the manner of accomplishing it. It is defined as equality for women, but that is what causes the problem. This assumes that the only inequality is that of men having more then women, and thus the way to address it is to elevate women until that is fixed. This was a lot closer to truth during the push for voting rights, but in present day, there is inequality on both sides of the gender line, so a mindset that only worries about women is now no longer about equality by default. This is why I dislike the word and wish people would let it remain in history and pick a new word to work in the new mission statement.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Saying that power and sex fantasies are different doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive. But if someone thinks that male characters are "constantly" [significantly] sexualized, as often as female characters, then he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he is a troll.
You know, many women find Brad Pitt attractive, but that doesn't make every character Brad Pitt plays sexualized.

OR, they take what you see as a male power fantasy and call it a female sexual one? And whose really to say that it's wrong that sex appeal be seen as something that a woman can have and want? It's absolutely not disempowering in life when a woman has a body that drives men wild, why do we consider it so in games?

Brad Pitt has nothing to do with anything I don't even know what you're drawing for here, I really don't. Real actor =/= a positive image of female characters.

Brad Pitt has a lot to do with this debate, but look... I don't have the time, nor the desire, to explain the basics here, especially if I have to expect that it will be all for naught. Many people more eloquent and educated than myself have explained all that stuff already, and it's not too hard to find.

We aren't clambering over ourselves for diverse male shapes in gaming. Why? For some reason people still get up in arms over female skin and not male skin is why. Come on dude, why are people still going on about this in 2013? Its the new puritanism man. If a woman wears something like this:
(...)
In a game, it's an outrage. Why do people still give a fuck? It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't affect anyone, if it stopped chicks playing games than we'd have no chicks playing games, and you aren't bringing about anything because you know what there's also always been? Women in games like this:
(...)

1. Many people are complaining about the portrayal of men a lot as well. If you didn't notice then that's your own fault.
2. The issue has nothing to do with puritanism at all.
3. I don't like cheap pandering, so if a game that I otherwise like does that, it diminishes my enjoyment of this game. So here's your definite and irrefutable proof that it does "hurt" at least one person.
4. How do you know that the current state of play hasn't stopped any woman (or man) from playing games? Or just from playing a particular game? How do you know if not more women would play games, or play more games, if the medium was more inclusive? And how do you know if those women who do play and who are unhappy with some content would not enjoy their games more if said content was to change?
5. I find referring to women as chicks in this context is rather telling.

 

[CloudAtlas]

It's ok to sexualize men but not women, and if you tell them that, they just say its a male power fantasy. You just can't win cause they make up more bullshit to fit their skewed perspective of things. If everyone is sexualized, then one one is. Feminism is suppose to be about equality and having the same rights, well guess what if you weren't sexualized and men were, its not longer equal and you are no trying to be better and have more rights than man, and that's not equality, its hypocritical.

It's not "our" fault if you are unable to see the differences between power and sex fantasies.

Have you seen the those commercials with beautiful women that are trying to sell makeup? Why isn't that just a beautiful woman fantasy? That literally makes no sense, if there is a man its a male fantasy, and if it's a woman, guess what its still a male fantasy. That is literally ass backwards thinking.

But are those women significantly sexualized? Are they trying to sell this makeup in suggestive poses? Does the camera in ads about eyeliner linger on their boobs? Those kind of questions might be a good place for you to start.

 

[runic knight]

1. Many people are complaining about the portrayal of men a lot as well. If you didn't notice then that's your own fault.
2. The issue has nothing to do with puritanism at all.
3. I don't like cheap pandering, so if a game that I otherwise like does that, it diminishes my enjoyment of this game. So here's your definite and irrefutable proof that it does "hurt" at least one person.

Good points, I just wish more people would try to argue this from these points rather then the whole "sexism" one. Few people complaint when you start with "I think games would be better with more variety and choice in characters", but once you start with "this is sexist and should change because of that..." you get protesting and people in arms. Wish more would talk about these points.

4. How do you know that the current state of play hasn't stopped any woman (or man) from playing games? Or just from playing a particular game? How do you know if not more women would play games, or play more games, if the medium was more inclusive? And how do you know if those women who do play and who are unhappy with some content would not enjoy their games more if said content was to change?

That is a bit of a risk though, isn't it? From a purely business standpoint, if you have a product that sells well, you are hesitant to change anything you think is part of that formula. With games, the sexualized portrayal of characters is often seen as something that helps sell (as titillation does sell well in most mediums), and obviously the publishers think it is a trait that sells well with how they advertise it. So you sort of have the idea of being more inclusive competing with the idea of safe sales, little wonder change is slow there.

But are those women significantly sexualized? Are they trying to sell this makeup in suggestive poses? Does the camera in ads about eyeliner linger on their boobs? Those kind of questions might be a good place for you to start.

Ads for shampoo, body wash, any sort of clothing, fitness, diet, deodorant to name a few all dwell on the sexual nature of women. Granted, the discussion about why ads made for women from women do that in the first place would be an interesting one that touches on societal and cultural expectations, the fact they do seem to suggest the issues of the same in the gaming world are not the problem so much as the symptom of larger ones within the industry itself (lack of willingness to change) and culture as a whole.

 

[CloudAtlas]

1. Many people are complaining about the portrayal of men a lot as well. If you didn't notice then that's your own fault.
2. The issue has nothing to do with puritanism at all.
3. I don't like cheap pandering, so if a game that I otherwise like does that, it diminishes my enjoyment of this game. So here's your definite and irrefutable proof that it does "hurt" at least one person.

Good points, I just wish more people would try to argue this from these points rather then the whole "sexism" one. Few people complaint when you start with "I think games would be better with more variety and choice in characters", but once you start with "this is sexist and should change because of that..." you get protesting and people in arms. Wish more would talk about these points.

Thanks. I try not to invoke sexism too much when I express specific complaints and wishes, and you can usually make your argument just fine without. And in fact, many people do just the same. However, in my experience, no matter how innocent your wish is, there'll always be plenty of people who accuse you of all sorts of sinister intentions.

4. How do you know that the current state of play hasn't stopped any woman (or man) from playing games? Or just from playing a particular game? How do you know if not more women would play games, or play more games, if the medium was more inclusive? And how do you know if those women who do play and who are unhappy with some content would not enjoy their games more if said content was to change?

That is a bit of a risk though, isn't it? From a purely business standpoint, if you have a product that sells well, you are hesitant to change anything you think is part of that formula. With games, the sexualized portrayal of characters is often seen as something that helps sell (as titillation does sell well in most mediums), and obviously the publishers think it is a trait that sells well with how they advertise it. So you sort of have the idea of being more inclusive competing with the idea of safe sales, little wonder change is slow there.

All you say is true; I just wanted to make clear that the claim I these questions were referring to was pretty weak, to put it mildly.

Snip

Save yourself the bother and just link to Jezebel next time lad. You've not written something resembling an unheard or new outlook on this topic, at least that I've seen.
(...)
But yeah, just to reiterate, you're going nuts over adult female skin being overexposed. Tell me again how this is completely different to when 18th century parishoners did it.

The same can be said about almost everything in this debate, but so far that hasn't prevented anyone from shutting up.

Reiterate all you want, doesn't make you any more right though. Believe it or not, I'd welcome actual sex scenes in games, if done in a mature way, and I'm not the only one. To think that "feminists" and conservatives are pretty much the same in this regard just goes on to show how little you understand about the things you're rambling about. And I feel no inclination to spend any more time on discussions with you.

 

[Gauntlets28]

Wow. I think that although there will always be good points behind these arguments, I just don't think it will or can stop, on either side. There will probably always be a certain demand for people who appear sexually appealing (I think actually adding graphic scenes to a game might be pushing it, though), since many people find it attractive in games to have a character they can idolise, if they aren't attracted to them sexually, or to...well, be sexually attracted to them if they are! Not to mention, what harm can come of people directing their attention to fictional characters?
Still, I'm kinda glad they toned down Lara Croft's cup size. It makes more sense, especially with all the running and jumping.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

The one thing I most certainly do not see is the "objectifying disposable nature" of male video-game characters. In fact, I think it is the most ridiculous argument in the entire debate about sexism in games. Male video game characters are usually also the heroes of their story, and the hero is, by definition, not the disposable one.

Didn't really see a explanatory response to this one. What you've done here is a perfect example of the "Apex Fallacy". Your vision has directed you toward the hero; the masculine center of attention and power. What you failed to see, was everyone else.

Take any video game which features both men and women. Now tell me who the primary protagonist is? Most likely a male yes? Ok. Now tell me who the primary antagonist is? Again, isn't it most likely a male? Interest thought isn't it? Now tell me who the majority, if not unanimously, of the cannon fodder is? Again, you might find it interesting to know it's once again men isn't it? Now can you tell me that even if we replaced the primary protagonist and the primary antagonist with women, do any games or have any games which have done so changed the gender of the cannon fodder? I can't name a single one that did.

During a lot of "sexism" discussions, people tend to focus on the "Apex" of their vision. Actually this happens in general more than people realize. Why else would people complain about rich white men in power but simultaneously ignore all the poor white men on the streets?

So you just made the claim there isn't a problem with male disposability based solely on the characterization of a SINGLE male within the game merely because he's the players avatar, all the while ignoring every other male character within the game because... and that's where male disposability comes into play. If the character, or male, isn't the center of attention, or a means to an end, they are for all intents and purposes invisible to the discussion, and in turn people's concern.

These debates tend to reinforce such notions merely because we, and in turn our media, focus on the characterization of the Apex, while ignoring everything else. Which is why "sexism" comes up so often, because women are still the minority when it comes to the centers of attention. With the obvious exception with visual material which gravitates toward the female form, so people feel the need to get up in arms about that.

I find it hysterical that women(of the RadFem variety) fail to see the inherent power within sexualization given our species sexual reproduction/natures and how it's an unfair representation while committing the Apex fallacy toward the power fantasies of men. The fact of the matter is that the "power fantasy" they keep shoving down people's throats actually requires the rampant disposability in order to make sense. Men want to be seen, not merely exist as an invisible background character that's a one button road block for the primary protagonist.

Did anyone really give two shits about the mushrooms or turtles in Mario? Hardly, they we're just obstacles to be jumped on. Now Mario saving Peach? Apparently that's some sexist shit right there.

 

[EternallyBored]

Wow. I think that although there will always be good points behind these arguments, I just don't think it will or can stop, on either side. There will probably always be a certain demand for people who appear sexually appealing (I think actually adding graphic scenes to a game might be pushing it, though), since many people find it attractive in games to have a character they can idolise, if they aren't attracted to them sexually, or to...well, be sexually attracted to them if they are! Not to mention, what harm can come of people directing their attention to fictional characters?
Still, I'm kinda glad they toned down Lara Croft's cup size. It makes more sense, especially with all the running and jumping.

I don't think anyone outside of an extreme minority actually expects or even wants it to stop completely, people like attractive characters, and even in great movies and pieces of fiction with both strong female and male characters, the vast majority are still going to be way above average in the looks department. Even sexy stuff, I've never seen anyone here advocating for it's elimination, mostly just that it's justified within the environment the game takes place in. But that's not easy to argue against, so the arguments become more and more hyperbolic as one side assumes the other is either full of sexually repressed prudes who want to censor the whole medium, or slavering sex-addicts that can't experience enjoyment if they aren't aroused every 3 minutes.

 

[Gauntlets28]

Wow. I think that although there will always be good points behind these arguments, I just don't think it will or can stop, on either side. There will probably always be a certain demand for people who appear sexually appealing (I think actually adding graphic scenes to a game might be pushing it, though), since many people find it attractive in games to have a character they can idolise, if they aren't attracted to them sexually, or to...well, be sexually attracted to them if they are! Not to mention, what harm can come of people directing their attention to fictional characters?
Still, I'm kinda glad they toned down Lara Croft's cup size. It makes more sense, especially with all the running and jumping.

I don't think anyone outside of an extreme minority actually expects or even wants it to stop completely, people like attractive characters, and even in great movies and pieces of fiction with both strong female and male characters, the vast majority are still going to be way above average in the looks department. Even sexy stuff, I've never seen anyone here advocating for it's elimination, mostly just that it's justified within the environment the game takes place in. But that's not easy to argue against, so the arguments become more and more hyperbolic as one side assumes the other is either full of sexually repressed prudes who want to censor the whole medium, or slavering sex-addicts that can't experience enjoyment if they aren't aroused every 3 minutes.

Point taken. Maybe we should try and get everyone confused and try to sexualise a tetris block!