Usually I can't be bothered to respond to articles in forums, but the feminist argument to sexualize violence is one of my major pet-peeves. It is true that men are far more prone to violence and aggression than women in general, physiologically due to hormones, but more importantly, from a teleological perspective, due to the specialization of the genders throughout human evolution. Women gathered food and took care of the young while the men hunted and protected them. The men were, in essence, a barrier between women and the world. The world is cruel. The lion does not, nor will he ever, lay with the lamb; he tears its bowls out and consumes it. Violence is merely one form of competition, and competition is the driving force of natural selection. Natural selection, along with any other type of selection, is a metaphysical certainty that arises out of the laws of thermodynamics. There is a limited amount of resources, self-replicating forms eventually arise and take up those resources until they come into conflict, then the superior form eventually drives the inferior to extinction. This is true not only of genotypes within an ecosystem, but also of beliefs within a society, businesses within an economy, and any other forms, no matter how abstract, that compete over a set amount of resources, whether those resources be physical, psychological, economic or so on. To get back to the present problem, i.e. the specialization of gender within human evolution, the men were tasked with the more violent necessities of society; hunting, and fighting off predators or rivals. Now I come to the crux of my argument for it may be true that at some very abstract teleological level that the men performed these acts of violence in order to breed and carry on their genetic lineage, it by no means follows from this that that violence must then somehow be associated with sex psychologically. In fact, such violence requires such over-stimulation of the sympathetic system that to conflate it with sex would not only be unnecessary but dangerous.
To think that all acts of violence must somehow be an act of flaunting one's sexual prowess is frankly effeminate to the point of being pathetic. Women may romanticize about the gladiator killing in order to show off to the women in the audience, but one almost never be thinking about a women when one is facing a man with a sword who is intent upon killing them. The brutality that humanity is capable of should not be conflated with sexual showboating, it is a result of its own psychological drives; not a lust for women but a lust for power. One may respond that lust is lust, and the lust for power is really just a sublimated sexual drive. Freud would have argued that in his earlier days, but he later recanted it by inventing thantanos, the drive for death (as if natural selection could ever allow for such a thing). But this is merely begging the question against my previous arguments.
It is true that there is a certain equation between masculinity and power, but they aren't the same thing. Sexual potency is only one type of power. I am not saying that there isn't a sexual element involved in saying "I just raped that kid!" in Call of Duty, but it is secondary to the feeling of power. It is really just adding another element to the humiliation in order to make it more exhilarating, sex is a means not an ends in this particular circumstance.
The gentle writer has actually painted a much brighter picture than the truth. If the use of the word rape was merely sexual bravado it wouldn't be that frightening. However, if one plays on Xbox Live for any considerable amount of time, one will realize that the use of the term rape is not used for sexual showboating so much as humor. Many people use rape because of its taboo and twisted nature; it is actually FUNNY because it is so dark and violent, and to use it in a mundane and matter-of-fact manner makes it even more surreal and more hilarious. The same goes for the excessive and unwarranted racism. I very much doubt that even one percent of the people who use racist slurs on Xbox live belong to the KKK. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many of them don't actually harbor all that much ill will towards the objects of their slurs and jokes, just as the vast majority of them do not eat babies, but thoroughly enjoy dead baby jokes.
Xbox live is HEALTHY. All people put up facades in everyday life and maintain common courtesy. However, since Xbox live is faceless one does not have to adhere to the social norms. Once one realizes that one can truly say anything without repercussion it becomes a truly liberating experience. The feminist objection that this is all male showboating is really rather sad. The darker side of human nature such as anger, hatred, or aggression are perfectly natural. They still have an important role to play in society and always will. The idea that we will reach some utopia where violence will no longer be necessary is not only unrealistic in practice, but defies the very nature of life itself. There will always be competition between competing views, and such disputes can rarely be settled with reason. Why? Because reason is descriptive not prescriptive. One does not act by reason alone. Far from it. Reason can only guide us to the course of action that is most in line with our desires, but it cannot determine our desires themselves. And those desires are never universal, but serve individuals and factions. If someone desires "the greater good" at their own expense it is not because their mind has reached the platonic realm; it is because they have been conditioned to do so. And furthermore such a person is disfavored by nature. When society grows stronger it is at the expense of the individuals, just as a body exists due to the sacrifices of individual cells. The difference is that it is individuals that have minds that are capable of changing society as a whole, whereas society as a whole functions on blind forces. Thus it is a fallacy to think there will ever be an age in which all disputes are settled with reason alone, the universe will simply not allow it.
But I digress. My point is that violence and the will to power are not, in themselves, immature or the delusions of the male ego, no matter how much feminists may want us to think that. They are in fact the driving forces that have led humanity to its place in the world today. Giving play to our less socially acceptable drives through video games is an extremely healthy thing. Frankly, I would like to see more women expressing these types of aggressive behaviors. We have reached a level of technology now that allows women to leave the household life and participate in the world. But in order for them to do this they must recognize that life in the world necessitates violence and aggression. These are not male delusions, men are merely more prone to them because they needed to be, and so must women if they wish to thrive. Both scientific inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge itself are acts of aggression. To put it into Aristotelian terms aggression is not associated with male genitalia by necessity, but by accident. In many species of animals the females are the stronger gender. Women got the short straw because pregnancy, lactation, and the incredibly slow nature human development meant that they had to spend the vast majority of time tending to their young, which did not require that they be strong to fight or that they forge many tools. Instead those duties fell to men. Although that relation is no longer necessary, if women want to take on greater roles in the world they must adopt the traditionally male virtues that lead to success in those roles.