Am I Sexist?

[Starbird]

This is from a thread on another game's forums, but I thought that the responses were so interesting that I'm curious to see what people around here think.

Basically, when I'm playing an ARPG game or anything where I'll need to look at my character for a long time, I'll play a female. If I need to roleplay something neutral, either is fine (but I would tend to play a female).
If I need to RP any romance, I'll play a male.

The reason is pretty simple. While I would find roleplaying a woman a bit tricky, if I have a choice I'd rather stare at a virtual woman for hours than a virtual man. I just find a shapely female form a lot more appealing. But...wow, were some people annoyed by this...

Anyways, here is my original post, and one of the more interesting responses.

Basically, when I play games like this, I tend to choose female characters. I play female avatars in WoW and Diablo. It's just how I roll.

Often people ask if I'm a girl IRL and I tell them that I'm not (to be frank, I'd rather see a cute drenai gal's tail twiching back and forth for 600 hours than a big hairy man bum). People then ask if I...well, play for the other team (I don't, although I have no problems with people who do).I just find cool weapons and awesome armor to be even more enjoyable when attached to a pleasing female form.

I won't lie - it does have something to do with the 'ogle' factor. In games where I have to actually RP (say...Mass Effect) my character will be male. However if it's just an action/ARPG/MMO game - yep, my avatar is going to be a gal.

Now, most people seem okay with this. Heck, I've heard the same sentiment from a few guys. However other players (a few guys, several females) have actually had a problem with this. To whit, they consider me playing a female character simply because I find it more aesthetically pleasing than a male character to be sexist, or offensive for some other reason.

I'm genuinely curious about this. Am I missing something?

And some replies:

You may not see it yourself, but to me, that holds some amount of homophobic tendencies, as well as considerable gender bias.

You may not "play for the other team," but if you're THAT uncomfortable with 1) the idea of seeing YOURSELF as a masculine warrior, 2) seeing that masculine warrior for long periods of time, and 3) to assume that there aren't male characters that aren't "big and hairy", is pretty sexist, yes.You're excluding, or biasing, a gender to play based solely on their SEX. Pretty much the definition of sexist.My main character in D3 is a Wizard. NOT big by any stretch, and I'm sure with his prim and proper background, he's likely not hairy beyond perhaps having long hair on top of his head. In fact, with his accent, some might even consider him somewhat feminine. Yet, because he's a male, you likely wouldn't choose him.

So...if you're afraid of being sexist...yes, I'd say that's what you are.

the OP stated that he enjoyed playing female avatars for the "ogle factor" of her "twitching her tail." Clearly the OP is objectifying the female character. And the posters in this thread who admitted to playing "puppet master" with their female avatars and the ones who like to use the vanishing dye on the females' clothes are disturbed and immature. The OP just wants a bunch of other male gamers to pat him on the back for objectifying women.

There's nothing wrong with being disgusted by the continuing sexual objectification of women in video games and in video game culture despite the increasing population of female gamers. The developers at Blizzard need to grow up out of that hormonal teenage boy stage that they clearly haven't left... as do some of the posters in this thread. I've been playing video games for 25 years, and to still see such over-sexualized portrayal of women in video games is disappointing. It might have been acceptable 15 years ago when a very large percentage of the player base was straight teenage boys, but it's time for Blizzard and male gamers to realize that the audience is much wider than it used to be. It's time for a more mature portrayal of women. I'm about sick of over-sized breasts, bikini "armor," Barbie bodies, and stiletto heels on female heroes. It's unrealistic and offensive.

So yeah - does preferring to see a female character rather than a male while playing count as objectification, and if it does, do you think objectification rises to the level of actual discrimination (sexism)?

 

[Screamarie]

I don't think you're sexist, but that's just my humble opinion. You're a straight male, you like females, it makes sense you find a female form more pleasing than a males.

You're not against playing a male, you just don't want to stare at man butt all day. It's why I often avoid games where the main character is a skimpily dressed female because I don't want to look at lots of tits and ass. Course maybe I'm sexist too.

 

[Ruedyn]

They have sticks up their asses, it looks like. This doesn't seem to come out of hatred, and you don't seem to hold males as superior.

Congrats you aren't one, at least not by the official definition.

 

[Lucem712]

Eh, I prefer playing men in games just cos they look a whole lot better.

Besides, I can see why men play women, considering that women are often well, -cough- more scantily clad then their male counterparts.

 

[Starbird]

They have sticks up their asses, it looks like. This doesn't seem to come out of hatred, and you don't seem to hold males as superior.

Congrats you aren't one, at least not by the official definition.

If anything, I hold females as superior - aesthetically, at least.

 

[fuzz]

No, you aren't sexist. If a woman stated she chose to play as male characters when possible for the same reasons no one would bat an eyelid. Whilst you are objectifying the female form it is not hurting anyone and you aren't saying women are inferior. There's really no problem.

 

[JimB]

Basically, when I'm playing an ARPG game or anything where I'll need to look at my character for a long time, I'll play a female. If I need to RP, I'll play a male.

The reason is pretty simple. While I would find roleplaying a woman a bit tricky, if I have a choice I'd rather stare at a virtual woman for hours than a virtual man. I just find a shapely female form a lot more appealing.

Sexism is defined as an attitude or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

You play women when you want to stare at an ass, but you play men when you want to do something more serious than stare at an ass. Their roles seem to be divided by whether you would like to fuck them or whether you take them seriously.

That's pretty textbook sexism. Sorry.

 

[Starbird]

Basically, when I'm playing an ARPG game or anything where I'll need to look at my character for a long time, I'll play a female. If I need to RP, I'll play a male.

The reason is pretty simple. While I would find roleplaying a woman a bit tricky, if I have a choice I'd rather stare at a virtual woman for hours than a virtual man. I just find a shapely female form a lot more appealing.

Sexism is defined as an attitude or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

You play women when you want to stare at an ass, but you play men when you want to do something more serious than stare at an ass. Their roles seem to be divided by whether you would like to fuck them or whether you take them seriously.

That's pretty textbook sexism. Sorry.

I don't think so. To me, sexism has to include some form of discrimination. By your definition, being attracted to women basically = being sexist.

Firstly, does finding one ass more aesthetically pleasing than another count as objectification? And if so, does objectification always mean discrimination?

Secondly, me choosing males sometimes as main characters isn't because of seriousness of what needs to be done. It's because while I prefer to look at a woman while I play, I am a guy and find it easier to RP one. I would find it quite awkward to roleplay a woman, especially a straight woman. On the other hand, if I'm purely playing an interchangeable 'avatar' character - then yes, give me a perky female bloodelf tail or a sexy drenaei to look at.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

All it really tells is us you're just kind of a perv. You're in good company though.

 

[Ljs1121]

Oh, you were the guy who posted that! I was actually just thinking about your post earlier today when I was being questioned for using the Trickster in AC: Revelations.

I don't really see a problem with what gender people prefer to play as in video games. Sometimes it's just refreshing to play as a person of the opposite gender.

 

[Starbird]

All it really tells is us you're just kind of a perv. You're in good company though.

Of course I am . I think the majority of men are 'kind of a perv' in that they enjoy looking at sexy women in whatever context

 

[Starbird]

Oh, you were the guy who posted that! I was actually just thinking about your post earlier today when I was being questioned for using the Trickster in AC: Revelations.

I don't really see a problem with what gender people prefer to play as in video games. Sometimes it's just refreshing to play as a person of the opposite gender.

Yup. I'm Starbird on those forums too.

I started using a female Avatar in UT2004 on our campus servers and I caught *so* much flak for it back then (no pun intended).

My favourite experience was someone strafing out from behind cover to flak/rocket me, then not shooting. And then sending me a creepy message post-game. Then getting *REALLY* upset when it turned out I was a guy.

 

[JimB]

I don't think so. To me, sexism has to include some form of discrimination.

Then you're changing the definition of the word, so there's no reason to ask anyone else what we think, since you're setting the rules of the game rather than asking if they apply to you.

By your definition, being attracted to women basically = being sexist.

Sexism is about the roles members of a sex are expected to play. Roles require active participation: They require the person in question to do something. Sitting around while people outside of her control are attracted to her is not an active process, so it is not a role, and is therefore not a valid topic for sexism.

Firstly, does finding one ass more aesthetically pleasing than another count as objectification?

No. It's not until you do something with that preference that you present it as an object of your desire and thereby objectify it.

And if so, does objectification always mean discrimination?

Discrimination is defined as making distinctions in favor of or against a person based on categories to which that person belongs rather than according to individual merit, so, no, it is possible to objectify without discriminating.

I would find it quite awkward to roleplay a woman, especially a straight woman.

Then you are defining her not as a person with personal tastes and preferences and quirks of nature, but rather by her sex and sexual orientation. That's sexist.

 

[JimB]

Then you are defining her not as a person with personal tastes and preferences and quirks of nature, but rather by her sex and sexual orientation. That's sexist.

It's not a "her" or "a person;" it's an avatar in a video game.

By that logic, Amos and Andy aren't racist stereotypes because they aren't people either, just characters.

 

[Starbird]

I don't think so. To me, sexism has to include some form of discrimination.

Then you're changing the definition of the word, so there's no reason to ask anyone else what we think, since you're setting the rules of the game rather than asking if they apply to you.

Really?

I don't think that saying that sexism requires some actual discrimination is changing it's definition at all. If it doesn't...then what is the harm?

On the other hand, your definition is far too broad.

[

By your definition, being attracted to women basically = being sexist.

Sexism is about the roles members of a sex are expected to play. Roles require active participation: They require the person in question to do something. Sitting around while people outside of her control are attracted to her is not an active process, so it is not a role, and is therefore not a valid topic for sexism.

But would a man who was attracted to a woman purely on an aesthetic level be sexist? Or one that chooses to look at the image of a woman rather than that of a man because he is more attracted to the image of a woman?

[

Firstly, does finding one ass more aesthetically pleasing than another count as objectification?

No. It's not until you do something with that preference that you present it as an object of your desire and thereby objectify it.

Can you paraphrase this? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[

And if so, does objectification always mean discrimination?

Discrimination is defined as making distinctions in favor of or against a person based on categories to which that person belongs rather than according to individual merit, so, no, it is possible to objectify without discriminating.

.

Even if those distinctions are purely in my own mind? If I'm attracted to a woman because of how she looks and thus choose to treat her a certain way (for example, buy her a drink and see if I can get to know her better)...how is that discriminating at all?

Again, by your logic, any guy that goes up to the pretty girl at a party to try his luck is a bigot.

[

I would find it quite awkward to roleplay a woman, especially a straight woman.

Then you are defining her not as a person with personal tastes and preferences and quirks of nature, but rather by her sex and sexual orientation. That's sexist.

No, I'm saying that a big part of RPGs is being able to understand and identify with my character, as well as project myself into them on some level. Thus I would find it uncomfortable playing a straight woman since it would likely involve thoughts and tastes that I am not personally familiar with.

On the other hand, if I'm just choosing how my interchangeable bunch of pixels look, I'd rather be looking at Playboy than Playgirl.

 

[JimB]

I don't think so. To me, sexism has to include some form of discrimination.

Then you're changing the definition of the word, so there's no reason to ask anyone else what we think, since you're setting the rules of the game rather than asking if they apply to you.

Really?

Yes. "Sexism" is a word that has a definition. Refusing to use the definition of the word and then asking if the word applies to you is maybe not deliberately dishonest, but it's stacking the deck so far in your favor that it's impossible for there to be any answer other than the one you provide, so the only reason to ask us is to get some kind of validation; an amen from the choir.

I don't think that saying that sexism requires some actual discrimination is changing its definition at all.

The dictionary disagrees with you.

But would a man who was attracted to a woman purely on an aesthetic level be sexist?

Like I said in the previous post, attraction in and of itself is not a valid topic for sexism.

Or one that chooses to look at the image of a woman rather than that of a man because he is more attracted to the image of a woman?

A little bit, yeah, since there's apparently an assumption that women will always be more attractive/aesthetically pleasing than men.

Can you paraphrase this? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Objectification is defined as presentation of something such that it becomes an object, typically for the senses or for desire. Wanting something in and of itself is not objectification. Defining it by your want of it is.

Even if those distinctions are purely in my own mind?

Yes. Discrimination does not require an overt act.

If I'm attracted to a woman because of how she looks and thus choose to treat her a certain way (for example, buy her a drink and see if I can get to know her better)...how is that discriminating at all?

Depends on if you consider physical appearance to be a personal merit or not. If you don't, then you're judging based on appearances alone: not necessarily that attractive women are worth getting to know better, but rather that less attractive women are not.

Again, by your logic, any guy that goes up to the pretty girl at a party to try his luck is a bigot.

Yeah. Bigotry is kind of hardwired into our genes, though (it's a simple evolutionary fact that we prefer pretty people for mates because we think their genes are better), so I'm not judging. I'm just saying the word applies.

No, I'm saying that a big part of RPGs is being able to understand and identify with my character, as well as project myself into them on some level.

Right. And you're saying that unless a character wants to fuck who you would want to fuck, you can't play the character. You are defining the character by sexual traits.

---

You are referring to an avatar as "a person with personal tastes and preferences and quirks of nature."

Starbird is discussing this within the context of a role-playing game. By definition, he is assigning the character a role; and he's made it pretty clear that he won't play female characters because of their sexual characteristics, so he is assigning them personalities...at least, to the degree that sexual orientation can be considered a personality trait (it isn't).

 

[Luna]

I think the people who criticize you for what character you prefer to play as need to get a life.

 

[JimB]

He's not "assigning a personality."

I know. He already said that back when he said he can't play women and he definitely can't play straight women because he can't fathom what it's like to have a vagina and he definitely can't fathom what it's like to enjoy the feeling of a penis inside a vagina, for which reason he cannot comprehend a woman's personality well enough to mimic one.

EDIT: This is my five hundredth post. I wonder how many of those posts have been about sexism. I may need to question how much good I'm actually accomplishing.

 

[Stasisesque]

The first reply is making me alternately laugh and scratch my head in puzzlement. While there may be some subtle undercurrents of sexism regarding why you would find it difficult to roleplay as a straight woman, I can't fathom how anything you've done is homophobic.

Unless the individual you quoted is suggesting everyone not attracted to their own sex is homophobic, which raises more questions, such as can one choose not to be homophobic? If so, can one choose to be gay? Obviously sexuality is not a choice, but blimey, homophobic isn't the opposite of homosexual.

As for choosing to play female characters because they're generally more aesthetically pleasing - go for it. Why it matters who is behind the avatar I've never known. Personally, female characters are my first choice, not because I am female myself, but because they generally have prettier clothes and are a nicer all around shape. Then again, I'm the same person who watches shows/films just because there's a really hot guy in them, so I am probably more sexist than you are, OP.

 

[Starbird]

I don't think so. To me, sexism has to include some form of discrimination.

Then you're changing the definition of the word, so there's no reason to ask anyone else what we think, since you're setting the rules of the game rather than asking if they apply to you.

Really?

Yes. "Sexism" is a word that has a definition. Refusing to use the definition of the word and then asking if the word applies to you is maybe not deliberately dishonest, but it's stacking the deck so far in your favor that it's impossible for there to be any answer other than the one you provide, so the only reason to ask us is to get some kind of validation; an amen from the choir.

I don't think that saying that sexism requires some actual discrimination is changing its definition at all.

The dictionary disagrees with you.

Arguing from dictionary definitions alone is just as daft. Language evolves and words/terms carry around semantic meanings that are very contextual and often a lot more than the dictionary can really summarize.

All a dictionary does is give the definition of a word the editors feel is most appropriate.

Also - there are many dictionaries. Just found this, which to me makes a lot more sense:

Or one that chooses to look at the image of a woman rather than that of a man because he is more attracted to the image of a woman?

A little bit, yeah, since there's apparently an assumption that women will always be more attractive/aesthetically pleasing than men.

I think the assumption that "Straight men will almost always find a pretty girl more attractive than a man" is pretty safe.

Can you paraphrase this? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Objectification is defined as presentation of something such that it becomes an object, typically for the senses or for desire. Wanting something in and of itself is not objectification. Defining it by your want of it is.

And defining a virtual character by my attraction/want for it is bad...how? My treatment of women IRL is very different.

Even if those distinctions are purely in my own mind?

Yes. Discrimination does not require an overt act.

Here I must strongly disagree with you.

Everyone, and I mean everyone has '-ist' thoughts sometimes. Sexist, racist, xenophobic, whatever. Go and check out 'shooter-bias tests' for some interesting (and scary!) examples.

However what we think doesn't matter, so long as we don't *act* on those thoughts, or rather that we don't act on those thoughts in a way that causes harm.

Again, you are arguing from definition.

If I'm attracted to a woman because of how she looks and thus choose to treat her a certain way (for example, buy her a drink and see if I can get to know her better)...how is that discriminating at all?

Depends on if you consider physical appearance to be a personal merit or not. If you don't, then you're judging based on appearances alone: not necessarily that attractive women are worth getting to know better, but rather that less attractive women are not.

I'm not 'judging' as much as I'm simply acting on attraction. Of course less attractive women may be worth getting to know - but if you put me in a room with 5 attractive and 5 unattractive women, chances are I'm going to try to get to know one of the attractive ones first.

"Attractive" means just that. I'm attracted to someone. And I think that most honest guys will agree that on a total first impression, physical attraction is very important.

Again, by your logic, any guy that goes up to the pretty girl at a party to try his luck is a bigot.

Yeah. Bigotry is kind of hardwired into our genes, though (it's a simple evolutionary fact that we prefer pretty people for mates because we think their genes are better), so I'm not judging. I'm just saying the word applies.

Then the word is meaningless, because it's not something we can avoid, change or even really criticize.

No, I'm saying that a big part of RPGs is being able to understand and identify with my character, as well as project myself into them on some level.

Right. And you're saying that unless a character wants to fuck who you would want to fuck, you can't play the character. You are defining the character by sexual traits.

No, I'm saying that since the sexual traits are not mine, I won't be able to immerse myself/project myself onto it as easily.

You are referring to an avatar as "a person with personal tastes and preferences and quirks of nature."

Starbird is discussing this within the context of a role-playing game. By definition, he is assigning the character a role; and he's made it pretty clear that he won't play female characters because of their sexual characteristics, so he is assigning them personalities...at least, to the degree that sexual orientation can be considered a personality trait (it isn't).

In the context of a game, all characters are 'made' a certain way, unless we are talking about some kind of MUD/MURP situation. I'll choose the character that I consider closest to me, or at least what I aspire to/identify with. And I identify more with a young, straight male than, say, a middle aged straight woman.