Another thread about sexism in video games.

[bluegate]

but they also want to be sexy and attractive.

Do they though?

 

[Brokencontroller]

Do they though?

Yes why do you think thing like make up exists? Hair salons? Manicures? Pedicures? Mass brainwashing or some shit?

People naturally want to be found as attractive to other people. And women know that men are visual creatures. So they make themselves visually attractive. It really isnt that complicated.

 

[bluegate]

Mass brainwashing or some shit?

Quite frankly, yes.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Women in revealing outfits also fit the power fantasy. Because they want to also be shown as strong and powerful but they also want to be sexy and attractive. Thus the female characters are often showcased with a bit more emphasis on their bodies. Much in the same way some boy would revere Conan the Barbarian, the power fantasy of Vampirella or even the female version of Conan strikes much the same chord.

Have you ever actually spoken to a woman?

 

[Gyrobot]

Hilariously, most of the games you are defending are, in fact, some caricature mixture of Playboy, Bay Watch, and American Pie. Like, how else would you describe the legions of "do some version of Not Sex But Totally Sex with high school girls: the anime game"? I heard the one where you shoot them with pheromones until they relieve so much stress they need to take a bath has decent writing, the one where you make Star Children with your pregnant cousin was less well received.

Or the Soul Breeding Mechanic or Conception or whatever the fuck came out of PSP and the Vita's library because AAA devs didn't bother and you have entitlement issues.

Edit: Damn, Sniped.

Since I've gone through this topic with you in other threads before I won't do it again. However I've gotta say your comments illustrate your views very well, which is why I find myself replying to you often.

With women sure, but giving men leeway for bad experiences gets you scolded for misogyny or at the very least automatically linked to some sort of anti-woman space/community/circlejerk.

Yeah it's silly. The nerd stereotypes don't come from nowhere, but it's silly to think 1+1 equals a neckbearded manchild. My comment pushed back against there being struggles to learn that real pretty women have real lives. It's just that when you have a dude whose sources of pleasure and happiness in life have never had much to do with offline interactions with women, it won't take much to realize that his life and these "real" lives are at odds. At that point the dude is at a crossroads: one path is a gauntlet towards becoming - as Gyrobot put it - a former addict avoiding relapse, and the other the path of least resistance: become someone who can't think further than "what's the harm if I do what I like?"

It'd be much better to avoid it altogether, be healthy and functional at all ages. At the point of the imaginary crossroads a lot of damage has been done already. Don't let your kids stare at screens so much. And no anime series at all. It should all be deleted.

Well having a healthy relationship is a start, but the biggest problem is that the people pushing for less sexualization in media (and anime in particular) also have relapses every now and then to feed their human needs (like say speaking against anime pedophilia and then liking some NSFW art) that is called hypocrisy by the latter.

When anime and manga is made with a mindset of an outdated standard in mind (Seriously most of the titles remind me of B Movies), it is going to pushback by an industry that sterilized most sexual content in mainstream media

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm not agreeing with Brokencontroller, but funny story about Vampirella, her original creator is female. I can't recall her name, but she considered herself a feminist, and she intentionally made Vampirella stripperific. Of course, this is back in the 50s. I'm assuming, so different values and what it means to be feminine have definitely changed. I don't know much about the character, but I do know people got pissed when she got a more conservative outfit. Her outfit basically was a rip off of Claire's from Resident Evil 2.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Think of there being a weird meal that most folks would be squeamish about eating, something like I dunno, escargot in butter garlic sauce. Now, I love snails, grew up with them and all, but a lot of folks I know think of eating snails as being disgusting.

Now, imagine there's a covered plate of delicious escargot with a huge DO NOT EAT! sign on top of it and you have two people, one who is like me and loves his snails, and another who finds em disgusting and would not eat em in a thousand years. Both people don't eat the snails. Are they equally moral because they both followed the rule set by the owner of the snails?

To me, the person who'd actually want to eat the snails, but didn't, is actually the only moral one. The other person's lack of consumption has no bearing on their morality, cause they wouldn't have wanted to eat snails anyways.

But what if the 'DO NOT EAT!' sign is there because the snails are poisoned? Would it not be more moral to eat the snails not knowing they are poisoned and thus prevent someone else (possibly a child) from coming along later and also disregarding the sign to eat the snails. The person who did not eat the snails because they do not like snails would have unintentionally allowed a possible child to die as a result of their inaction. Therefore as a person who enjoys snails, the most moral option would be to eat only a few snails, just to determine the reason that the sign was placed on the snails to begin with and then to remain with the snails to either inform them of the meaning the sign or alternatively until someone calls the ambulance. Or perhaps it would actually be more moral for the person who does not like snails to dispose of them based on their dislike for the snails and unknowingly remove the possibility of the snails being eaten and someone being poisoned. However, the disposal may have ecological detriments based on what sort of poison is contained within the snails.

 

[Hawki]

Let's use WoW as an example since it's been brought up. While men and women wear might have drastically different armor, does that different armor make the women less capable than the male characters in anyway? No it doesn't, female armor doesn't have less stats therefore they are just as powerful as their male character counterparts, so women aren't treated as inferrior in that regard.

A lot of people have rightly guffawed at this, but come on, seriously? Why is one gender getting more practical armour than the other?

Bear in mind, you can actually justify different armour styles in-universe (see Warcraft III, and the different levels of armour for footmen, grunts, and archers for example), but as a rule in WoW? Yeah...

Nor are they excluded in anyway from content or power levels based on their gender. Hell the most powerful characters in the lore are women so *shrug*.

I don't think this is measure of anything pertaining to the actual subject, but I don't know where you're getting the idea that the most powerful characters are women. I don't have the time or inclination to do a 'power ranking' of every character, but if you asked who the most powerful character in Warcraft is, I'd nominate either Sargeras or Zovaal. Both are male.

 

[Gyrobot]

I'm not agreeing with Brokencontroller, but funny story about Vampirella, her original creator is female. I can't recall her name, but she considered herself a feminist, and she intentionally made Vampirella stripperific. Of course, this is back in the 50s I'm assuming, so different values and what it means to be feminine then definitely change. I don't know much about the character, but I do know people got pissed when she got a more conservative outfit. Her outfit basically was a rip off of Claire's from Resident Evil 2.

That was exactly it, it was during a time when the comic code authority and Hayes codes were a thing. To her, Vampirella was very much a rebellious concept since the comic code threatened the kind of comics Vampirella represented

It's only about 11 years after the comic code authority went defunct but the scars still remain

 

[Dreiko]

But what if the 'DO NOT EAT!' sign is there because the snails are poisoned? Would it not be more moral to eat the snails not knowing they are poisoned and thus prevent someone else (possibly a child) from coming along later and also disregarding the sign to eat the snails. The person who did not eat the snails because they do not like snails would have unintentionally allowed a possible child to die as a result of their inaction. Therefore as a person who enjoys snails, the most moral option would be to eat only a few snails, just to determine the reason that the sign was placed on the snails to begin with and then to remain with the snails to either inform them of the meaning the sign or alternatively until someone calls the ambulance. Or perhaps it would actually be more moral for the person who does not like snails to dispose of them based on their dislike for the snails and unknowingly remove the possibility of the snails being eaten and someone being poisoned. However, the disposal may have ecological detriments based on what sort of poison is contained within the snails.

If nobody knows they're poisoned then that fact has no bearing on the morality of their choices. Also since every life is equally valuable it isn't more moral to eat the snails knowing they're poisoned so that some kid won't eat them cause your life is also valuable too lol. And yeah of course disposing of them is the ideal thing to do if you know they're poisoned, but I posit that this knowledge would turn both people into ones that are not tempted to eat them, so we lose anything that would cause a distinction in the morality of their choices past that point.


Also in my head the sign was being placed there cause they were supposed to be eaten by the person who prepared them, not because of some trick or something being wrong with them. Trying to find a reason to a rule, or presuming the rule is there cause of something valid, is not a leap in logic I often make.


And if someone who doesn't know they're poisoned just disposes em cause they don't like em that's just selfish cause they assume nobody else likes them either, and it's a waste of food cause you still shouldn't trash food that you dislike anyways when there's starving people. Feed em to a cat or something at least.

 

[Brokencontroller]

I'm not agreeing with Brokencontroller, but funny story about Vampirella, her original creator is female. I can't recall her name, but she considered herself a feminist, and she intentionally made Vampirella stripperific. Of course, this is back in the 50s I'm assuming, so different values and what it means to be feminine then definitely change. I don't know much about the character, but I do know people got pissed when she got a more conservative outfit. Her outfit basically was a rip off of Claire's from Resident Evil 2.

This continues all over the place too. Look at female artists on Deviant Art, or cosplayers like Jessica Nigri or Joane Brosas, the later of which is known for a vampirella cosplay.

Even before the age of Onlyfans, girls were doing "hot" versions of characters at any number of conventions. Some of it might have been paid modelship but others did it out of the love of making costumes and deliberately made sexier verisons of the characters.

Artists all over the internet do renders and fan arts of characters in more sexualized versions. And many of those artists are women.

I think there is plenty evidence that women can and do enjoy these types of characters as well. Which just indicates to me that the people who make these "sexist" claims are doing one of two things.

1. They are insecure of themselves and project that onto these characters an ideas that they could never achieve themselves. Thus the realistic body standard movement.

2. They are coming from some hyper religious focus in which sex and anything that can be remotely related to it must be hidden and locked away. This is a sexist ideal of course because it is only the women that must cover their bodies and hide themselves in shame. Men are free to be topless and whatever but a women can not show skin nor wear anything that showcases the shape of her body because the male gaze will be filled with indecent thoughts!

Both are ridiculous ideas.

 

[Drathnoxis]

If nobody knows they're poisoned then that fact has no bearing on the morality of their choices. Also since every life is equally valuable it isn't more moral to eat the snails knowing they're poisoned so that some kid won't eat them cause your life is also valuable too lol. And yeah of course disposing of them is the ideal thing to do if you know they're poisoned, but I posit that this knowledge would turn both people into ones that are not tempted to eat them, so we lose anything that would cause a distinction in the morality of their choices past that point.

You wouldn't say that self sacrifice is more moral than allowing somebody else to die? Does self sacrifice have no meaning if you aren't certain that you will be sacrificing yourself?

Also in my head the sign was being placed there cause they were supposed to be eaten by the person who prepared them, not because of some trick or something being wrong with them. Trying to find a reason to a rule, or presuming the rule is there cause of something valid, is not a leap in logic I often make.

That seems unlikely. They would obviously lock them up or at least write their name on it if they intended to eat them themselves. And how moral is that anyway? Obviously it's selfish to tantalize the world with your disgusting snails only to scarf them down entirely yourself!

And if someone who doesn't know they're poisoned just disposes em cause they don't like em that's just selfish cause they assume nobody else likes them either, and it's a waste of food cause you still shouldn't trash food that you dislike anyways when there's starving people. Feed em to a cat or something at least.

But they're poisoned! Why would you feed suspicious food to starving people and cats? That's the exact opposite of morality, except in the long term sense that overpopulation is destroying the planet.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This continues all over the place too. Look at female artists on Deviant Art, or cosplayers like Jessica Nigri or Joane Brosas, the later of which is known for a vampirella cosplay.

Even before the age of Onlyfans, girls were doing "hot" versions of characters at any number of conventions. Some of it might have been paid modelship but others did it out of the love of making costumes and deliberately made sexier verisons of the characters.

Artists all over the internet do renders and fan arts of characters in more sexualized versions. And many of those artists are women.

Dunno how often I have to point this out, but real actual people having real actual choice is a far cry from women-shaped objects in video games.
So...yes? And? Therefore?

I think there is plenty evidence that women can and do enjoy these types of characters as well. Which just indicates to me that the people who make these "sexist" claims are doing one of two things.

1. They are insecure of themselves and project that onto these characters an ideas that they could never achieve themselves. Thus the realistic body standard movement.

2. They are coming from some hyper religious focus in which sex and anything that can be remotely related to it must be hidden and locked away. This is a sexist ideal of course because it is only the women that must cover their bodies and hide themselves in shame. Men are free to be topless and whatever but a women can not show skin nor wear anything that showcases the shape of her body because the male gaze will be filled with indecent thoughts!

Both are ridiculous ideas.

I mean, why bother listening to what people actually say when you can read people's subconsciousness over the internet? Must be easy to win arguments when the people doing things you like are speaking their truth at all times but people saying things you don't like are all conveniently lying to themselves and others

 

[BrawlMan]

This continues all over the place too. Look at female artists on Deviant Art, or cosplayers like Jessica Nigri or Joane Brosas, the later of which is known for a vampirella cosplay.

Even before the age of Onlyfans, girls were doing "hot" versions of characters at any number of conventions. Some of it might have been paid modelship but others did it out of the love of making costumes and deliberately made sexier verisons of the characters.

Artists all over the internet do renders and fan arts of characters in more sexualized versions. And many of those artists are women.

I think there is plenty evidence that women can and do enjoy these types of characters as well. Which just indicates to me that the people who make these "sexist" claims are doing one of two things.

1. They are insecure of themselves and project that onto these characters an ideas that they could never achieve themselves. Thus the realistic body standard movement.

2. They are coming from some hyper religious focus in which sex and anything that can be remotely related to it must be hidden and locked away. This is a sexist ideal of course because it is only the women that must cover their bodies and hide themselves in shame. Men are free to be topless and whatever but a women can not show skin nor wear anything that showcases the shape of her body because the male gaze will be filled with indecent thoughts!

Both are ridiculous ideas.

I'm more than aware of most of these people you mention on deviantART. I don't have a problem with it most of the time, but I can't help but feel that you're going overboard and on the constant defensesive. The needs to validate and justify everything, regardless of artistic intent and interpretation. I'm more of a live and let live kind of guy, but I do call out bull crap when I see it. And you got plenty of it, for claiming to speak for everyone that creates art. When in reality, you don't speak for them or everyone. They can speak for themselves.

With that said, artistic representation, freedom, creativity, and everything, not all things need to be packed in fan service.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Far as I can figure we're about 10 posts away from relitigating "she breaths through her skin"

 

[Brokencontroller]

With that said, artistic representation, freedom, creativity, and everything, not all things need to be packed in fan service.

So are you admiting that some things are okay to be "fan service" and that fan service doesnt mean it is sexist? Because that is the point of the argument. Im defensive about it because i am defending my point of view, that is the whole idea behind debate.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Far as I can figure we're about 10 posts away from relitigating "she breaths through her skin"

Naw I wouldn't even go that far. Kojima is just weird. Quiet is one of the only examples I can think of where I would absolutely admit is a really bad look. But she is a rare example admittedly.

 

[BrawlMan]

incoherent rambling and oversensitive justification for fanservice I don't care to listen to

Yeah I stopped listening to already, because you're spouting nothing but bull crap so far. Zero fucks given, don't respond to me again about this.

 

[Brokencontroller]

Wow dude. Somebody says something you dont like so you just dismiss them and run away, that is just....holy shit.

Dont agree therfore bullshit, what kind of attitude is that?

 

[BrawlMan]

Naw I wouldn't even go that far. Kojima is just weird. Quiet is one of the only examples I can think of where I would absolutely admit is a really bad look. But she is a rare example admittedly.