Am I Sexist?

[Starbird]

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.

Yes, and because I neither have a vagina nor have I had any experience with penii (on the receiving end) it's not something I can fathom at all (aside from certain discussions with girlfriends over the years...which tend to make me even more confused).

What I don't get is why the hell this makes me sexist?

 

[JimB]

So what you're saying is someone's ability to comprehend a woman's personality is based on their ability to take cock.

No; that's what Starbird is saying. I'm just repeating it because you seem to think that I haven't noticed him saying it. I am in no way, shape, or form agreeing with or endorsing that point of view: Neither sex nor sexual orientation are personality traits, and treating them as if they are is at least on the borderlands of actually offending me, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here because I get the feeling Starbird is a nice guy who doesn't mean any harm. I think he's just operating from a place of ignorance, not malice.

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.

Nevertheless, words are the only tools we have to make ourselves understood in this textual format we have, so it behooves us to use them as precisely as possible.

Just found this, which to me makes a lot more sense:

Your post cuts off here. Is there supposed to be, like, a link or something following this?

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

I don't. Straight men will find pretty women more sexually attractive than a man. That is not the only measure of attractiveness or aesthetic quality.

Incidentally, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I note that you use the word "girl," not "women." Unless you're actually talking about children, that is a word to strenuously avoid in a discussion about sexism, because--whether it's your intent or not--it infantilizes the woman in question.

And defining a virtual character by my attraction/want for it is bad...how?

I don't actually remember saying it's bad, but since you ask, it's because you're contributing to a culture that judges women by their sexual characteristics and their ability to arouse men. I'm not saying you're putting women in chains or anything, but enough drops of water eventually become an ocean, you know?

Discrimination does not require an overt act.

Here I must strongly disagree with you.

Sorry, but you're just factually wrong. Discrimination is an entirely mental activity. It is a way of thinking. It is not limited to outward actions.

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.

You didn't ask if it matters. You asked if it's discrimination. I can't tell if you're shifting the goalposts here or if you just misspoke, but again, I really don't get the feeling you're a bad guy, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not 'judging' as much as I'm simply acting on attraction.

When you make a choice, you're making a judgment. It might not be conscious, articulated judgment, but it is judgment all the same.

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

Humanity is nearly unique in the universe in that we are self-aware. We can change our natures through effort and training; through the application of will.

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.

Unless the character is going to go out and fuck, her sexual traits and orientation are irrelevant, and require no more definition than her personal taste in which dairy's milk she prefers to drink. The only reason for it to come up is if you make it, and if you won't even try to see her point of view because her sex life is that primary in your mind, then yeah. It's sexist.

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.

Do what you do. Not my business.

What I don't get is why the hell this makes me sexist.

Because you're not viewing women as collections of thoughts and beliefs and personality traits. You're viewing them first and foremost through the lens of their sexual activities. You are defining them not as people but as vaginas.

 

[Nathan Crumpler]

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.

Yes, and because I neither have a vagina nor have I had any experience with penii (on the receiving end) it's not something I can fathom at all (aside from certain discussions with girlfriends over the years...which tend to make me even more confused).

What I don't get is why the hell this makes me sexist?

This is the exact reason why I avoid arguments over the internet and often times in real life as well. If some one wants to call me a sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. I just let them. I don't think I can change their minds and it would be a waste of time even if I could.

 

[Starbird]

So what you're saying is someone's ability to comprehend a woman's personality is based on their ability to take cock.

No; that's what Starbird is saying. I'm just repeating it because you seem to think that I haven't noticed him saying it. I am in no way, shape, or form agreeing with or endorsing that point of view: Neither sex nor sexual orientation are personality traits, and treating them as if they are is at least on the borderlands of actually offending me, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here because I get the feeling Starbird is a nice guy who doesn't mean any harm. I think he's just operating from a place of ignorance, not malice.

I know that sex and sexuality are at least somewhat hardwired. I'm also aware that characters in a video game are characters in a videogame. Meaning that, unlike in real life, people have a lot of choice about what their character does.

[

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.

Nevertheless, words are the only tools we have to make ourselves understood in this textual format we have, so it behooves us to use them as precisely as possible.

Yes. But if you narrow it down to purely the dictionary definition you miss out on a lot of semantic context and as I said, the meaning differs from dictionary to dictionary. I have a lot of problems with your definition, since I think sexism as a discriminatory practice needs to be viewed as seperate from what could be called "natural discrimination" (males finding it easier to understand/indentify with other males simply due to common experiential traits).

[

Just found this, which to me makes a lot more sense:

Your post cuts off here. Is there supposed to be, like, a link or something following this?

Ah, derp. I had another dictionary definition which was based more on action than thought. And I have now lost the link.

[

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

I don't. Straight men will find pretty women more sexually attractive than a man. That is not the only measure of attractiveness or aesthetic quality.

[Incidentally, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I note that you use the word "girl," not "women." Unless you're actually talking about children, that is a word to strenuously avoid in a discussion about sexism, because--whether it's your intent or not--it infantilizes the woman in question.

Really? Is using the word 'guy' or 'boy' sexist? Because I find them both neutral, pleasantly casual when discussing gender. "woman" just sounds too...cold.

[

And defining a virtual character by my attraction/want for it is bad...how?

I don't actually remember saying it's bad, but since you ask, it's because you're contributing to a culture that judges women by their sexual characteristics and their ability to arouse men. I'm not saying you're putting women in chains or anything, but enough drops of water eventually become an ocean, you know?

You know, I think that this perspective is what annoys me most of all regarding militant feminists. I have tons of friends. I have female friends. I have male friends. I have male gay friends. I even had a bisexual girlfriend for a time. *All* of them liked to ogle nice examples of what they were attracted to.

It's a perfectly natural human thing to do. As long as it isn't done with malice and doesn't directly lead to any harmful action being taken, it's fine.

Unless you are saying that women shouldn't be allowed to ogle/objectify good looking guys either ?

[

Discrimination does not require an overt act.

Here I must strongly disagree with you.

Sorry, but you're just factually wrong. Discrimination is an entirely mental activity. It is a way of thinking. It is not limited to outward actions.

Which is why I say, in the context of this argument, you cannot only focus on mental processes, since for the most part they are entirely involuntary and even natural. "Discrimination" is a word with a very perjorative meaning, and for something to be classified as wrong or right it must be voluntary.

[

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.

You didn't ask if it matters. You asked if it's discrimination. I can't tell if you're shifting the goalposts here or if you just misspoke, but again, I really don't get the feeling you're a bad guy, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

As I said above, I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm trying to home in on why I have a problem with people using words like "discrimination" (which is a pretty nasty word) in connection with mental processes that we have little to no control over, it just seems silly to me.

Trust me, I grew up in Southern Africa. If you want to see *real* discrimination, give that a try :|. First world problems and all that

[

I'm not 'judging' as much as I'm simply acting on attraction.

When you make a choice, you're making a judgment. It might not be conscious, articulated judgment, but it is judgment all the same.

Again, I think your definitions are off. Judgements involve the making of a decision. Making a decision, requiring at least some cognition and conscious choice.

[

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

Humanity is nearly unique in the universe in that we are self-aware. We can change our natures through effort and training; through the application of will.

Yes, but should we? This is *really* something you think needs changing? We should try to somehow teach men to be equally attracted to all people?

Isn't that a little bit silly?

[

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.

Unless the character is going to go out and fuck, her sexual traits and orientation are irrelevant, and require no more definition than her personal taste in which dairy's milk she prefers to drink. The only reason for it to come up is if you make it, and if you won't even try to see her point of view because her sex life is that primary in your mind, then yeah. It's sexist.

Perhaps I should have been clearer in my OP. I will choose male characters in RPGs that I know will involve some sort of romance. If there was no romance, I'd probably play a female character. Or if there was some sort of girl on girl romance .

[

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.

Do what you do. Not my business.

You've made a judgement call that doing the above is somehow sexist.

[

What I don't get is why the hell this makes me sexist.

Because you're not viewing women as collections of thoughts and beliefs and personality traits. You're viewing them first and foremost through the lens of their sexual activities. You are defining them not as people but as vaginas.

Again, note: I'll avoid playing females in games where there is a boy on girl romance/sex aspect. In any romanceless game, I'll more than likely play a woman.

 

[Yopaz]

Yes, you are clearly sexist and homophobic. You want to look at a woman rather than a man because you're afraid that it might turn you gay. You don't want to RP as a woman because you consider women inferior to you and not worth RPing as.

Seriously though, you are a straight male who isn't turned on by looking at a guy when playing a game. That's not homophobic, that's the definition of a straight male. You're unable to place yourself in the position where you are a woman because you lack knowledge of being a woman. I wouldn't say you are sexist, but they got a point that you're objectifying female characters. However they are objects, they are sexualized, they are intended to be considered attractive and their ogle factor is used to draw some in and make them buy the game.

It's worrying that you base these decisions on your sexuality, but I wont go into that. Personally my gaming experience has little to do with my sexual preference. I play as male characters most of the time since I am a guy and playing as a woman doesn't change anything except that people consider me strange for it. Another reason I don't play as female characters is that I get annoyed with chain mail armour turns into chain mail bikinis in fantasy games, I hate the logic that a armour has to look hot on females no matter how heavy it is supposed to be. Having 90% of her body exposed for attack just ruins it for me. In Saints Row The Third I played as a man who looked like he was on steroids with a woman's voice just for the hilarity of it.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Theres no law that says when a video game gives you two opposite sexed avatars that you HAVE to play as the one similar to your gender. Heck some have even been shown to change the story ex. Persona 3 PSP, Mass Effect, ect. You should never think that as sexist in anyway, and if someone thinks its weird and calls you out on it, well they're just idiots, idiots are easy to ignore. In the end its just a video game, your actions shape the character chosen male/female. If the developers are letting you do this, whats there to stop you? Nothing! Play your video game bro!

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

Yeah, what you're essentially saying is, "If I have to care about the character, I'll make it a man, but if I just want eye candy, the it's a woman."

I don't mind so much the idea of wanting to have an attractive or even "sexy" character; what bothers me is the idea that a woman seems to be, in your mind, fit only for that role and not eligible for consideration as a character that you are invested in as a person.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

You're fine. You like looking at women? So does everyone else attracted to women. It is natural to create a character that is visually appealing. If you feel more comfortable roleplaying a male, that's fine too.

Anyone who says otherwise is just whining for the sake of it.

 

[Starbird]

Seriously though, you are a straight male who isn't turned on by looking at a guy when playing a game. That's not homophobic, that's the definition of a straight male. You're unable to place yourself in the position where you are a woman because you lack knowledge of being a woman. I wouldn't say you are sexist, but they got a point that you're objectifying female characters. However they are objects, they are sexualized, they are intended to be considered attractive and their ogle factor is used to draw some in and make them buy the game.

I don't even think I go as far as objectifying females. I just find the form more pleasing to look at while playing .

Regarding lack knowledge of being a woman...yeah, I'll agree there. But again its mostly a romantic thing, since in games with no romance I'd be more likely to play a female.

 

[Starbird]

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.

Yeah, what you're essentially saying is, "If I have to care about the character, I'll make it a man, but if I just want eye candy, the it's a woman."

I don't mind so much the idea of wanting to have an attractive or even "sexy" character; what bothers me is the idea that a woman seems to be, in your mind, fit only for that role and not eligible for consideration as a character that you are invested in as a person.

Hang on, weren't you the guy comparing eating meat to child abuse in the other thread?

Otherwise - I think you misunderstand me. I can be invested in female characters. However if I'm going to have to roleplay anything romantic, I'll go for a male character every time.

Roleplaying a female in a game in a straight sexual relationship with a guy...I won't deny, it makes me a little uncomfortable. Not because I'm homophobic, but because it's something that would feel unnatural to me personally.

I mean, I could imagine situations where I would kill. I could even imagine situations where I would become evil. But I can't imagine any situation where I would become romantically or physically involved with another guy.

And I don't think that makes me sexist.

 

[Saltyk]

You know, I was gonna make a smart ass comment about how you are obviously sexist before stating my true opinion. However, I then read some of the actual replies to the thread.

Okay, so you're not. You're human. Congratulations. There's billions of us.

Here's my opinion. Sometimes I play a female character in games like MMO, and more traditional RPGs. Sometime I don't. My first playthough will likely be a male character. My second maybe a female, maybe not.

I generally play male characters, because, as a male, I can more easily relate to them and understand them. Plus, it's way easier to hit on Morigan than any of the male characters in Dragon Age.

And then, at other times, I'll play a female character. Now, I do this mostly because I want a different experience. But, having a cute character to look at while I play doesn't hurt, either. Now, I will find any of the normal straight female actions a bit rough... On the bright side, I create cute female characters and that tends to help.

Is that sexist? Hey, looking at some of these responses, I think anything you do in regards to female characters in games will be sexist. Some games may deserve scorn, like DOA, but don't act all high and might because some guy wants to watch a blood elf butt while he casts fireballs at monsters. You're just crying wolf and confusing the issue with actual sexism. Cry sexism when a guy says that women belong in the kitchen or shouldn't be allowed to vote. Not because a guy plays a game as a meaningless group of pixels with boobs. You're fighting a battle that is meaningless. Even if you win, we lose.

Now, if only there was a way to get Morigan to get involved with my female Warden...

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Okay, here we go...

Let's start at number one
You're a straight, human male.

Wow, that might have actually just summed it all up. You're a dude, you don't want to be staring at a dude's ass for the many hours of a game you'll play, you'd much rather it be a girls ass. While some (a lot of whom might be considered hard core feminists) might see this as objectifying women, I really just see it as a dude being a dude. Hell, it's programmed in our brains to look at what we find attractive.

 

[Gmans uncle]

Firstly, as a bisexual pangender I do not view any of that as "homophobic" in the least.
Anyway, sexism is the belief that one sex is fundamentally superior to the other.
You're saying nothing about superiority or inferiority, you're just playing as one gender because you find one player model more aesthetically pleasing then the other, in a way that's no different from me playing as a girl in Animal Crossing because I hated the male character's stupid horn hat thing.

So no, I would say you're not sexist.

 

[The_Echo]

"The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep."

- Elaine Benes​

I don't think you're sexist. You just want an aesthetic appeal to your character(s). There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[wulf3n]

Is choosing a female avatar over a male with the sole reason being sexual appearance objectification? yes.

But it's an avatar, a collection of 1s and 0s, so what does it matter?

Despite what every non-gamer wants to believe we can distinguish between fantasy and reality.

 

[MintberryCrunch]

I've never understood the guy playing girl argument of 'I'd rather stare at a chick ass for 30 hours than a man ass', because I've played girl and guy characters and never even noticed the fact that their ass is wiggling in front of me. I've just been some camera following some dude/chick around.
That's probably just my own experience though, and form your point of view, no, I wouldn't say you were sexist.

 

[felbot]

no you're not sexist, but i do wonder why you don't role play in mmo's, theyre perfect for it.

i also wonder why you stare at your characters ass all game.

 

[Astoria]

Techinically I suppose, yes it's sexist but who isn't at least a little sexist. There's nothing wrong with playing a female because they're more attractive to you. Hell I know when I play RPGs I usually play with guys and make them attractive. As long as you don't objectify women IRL there's no problem at all.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

I think a lot of people are just arguing semantics for the sake of semantics. Essentially at its most basic, you're not sexist.

For long periods of RPG abnegation, you prefer to add a little titillation to your enjoyment in the mindlessly long activities. That's not sexist, that's having sexual preference.

For roleplaying, you are essentially playing out the story of any male or female character you have created regardless of gender, meaning that you value character over self-insertion (in this specific case, the more masculine side of your personality). That's not sexist at all.

For roleplaying romance, you take greater pleasure when the romantic encounter is more in line with your own romantic preferences. Not that you value a male character in more serious aspects of the roleplaying experience, but that your inherent nature identifies more with the romantic choices of your player avatar. That's not sexist, that's identifying with your character on a much more personal level.

Arguing otherwise would be similar to arguing that preferring to see heterosexual intimacy between another guy and a female character of your own design and control makes you somewhat narcissistic. It's just reading too much into something that isn't there.

You're not sexist. At least, not in this case and not to a harmful degree. Human nature dictates that we're all sexist, racist, and prejudice towards anything different from ourselves, even on a subconscious level. It's just the way things are.

 

[chrystallix]

Welp, I'm kind of chiming in with every single other person here but...no you are not sexist. At first I kind of thought you were, even if just a little bit, then you cleared things up. If you usually play females except when you expect romance is involved, then the points brought up by others become meaningless. You do play as female characters and RP as them, just not romantically with a male NPC. So, you're all good, nothing wrong here, just some straight guy staring at a non-existent chick's ass, nothing unusual.