I'm not sure what yours is either apart from the idea that obesity isn't a health issue, in which case, I completely disagree.That's all very neat information that nonetheless leaves me baffled as to your actual argument in this thread
Yeah I know, though the only thing I'm more at risk for is diabetes tests. Not actually diabetes, just the tests. Lungs are good, hearts good, blood pressure is a hair higher than normal, joints are fine, etc.The people "raging" about the obesity epidemic tend to be medical professionals. Who the heck are they harassing? Generally, the people who do the harassment and discrimination are everyday people, especially in the school ecosystem.
Also, if you're obese, you're far more at risk from conditions such as cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and various cancers. Living through the pandemic, we've seen this play out in real time, in that being obese makes you far more vulnerable to Covid. The link between obesity and health conditions is sound. In fact, it's so sound that we're living through the first time in human history where more people are dying from heart-related diseases than starvation.
It's mislabeledI'm not sure what yours is either apart from the idea that obesity isn't a health issue, in which case, I completely disagree.
Know what? That you're at risk of tests?Yeah I know, though the only thing I'm more at risk for is diabetes tests. Not actually diabetes, just the tests. Lungs are good, hearts good, blood pressure is a hair higher than normal, joints are fine, etc.
See, we all know this.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying there's a tendency for people to comment on people's weight in photos? Um...okay, if you say so. I've already said that being overweight (and obese) compounds health risks, while also stating that they should be free of harassment.How can we not, it's in the comment section anytime there's a photo shown to a crowd. Meanwhile Steve, who's 140lbs and hasn't seen water outside of a shower for three months doesn't get that this sort of "helpful" medical comment.
The fat acceptance movement may have some worthy goals (such as decreasing stigma), but there's plenty of issues with it, namely the normalization of being overweight or obese. Which in turn can lead to some kooky arguments such as how body fat is good for you because it makes you less vulnerable to cold-related conditions. Even if that's true, it doesn't remove the risk of excessive fat.That's what the "fat acceptance" movement is about. If you're able to move around like Lizzo, you're probably healthier than some gamer twink living off of Mountain Dew and pizza rolls.
I haven't mentioned BMI. I agree, BMI has some issues, especially if the weight comes from muscle rather than fat, but it's still a handy guide. And it doesn't matter how we feel about being fat, or obese, the correlation between excessive fat and increased health risks are clear.It's mislabeled
But hey, that's thin culture for you.Is BMI the Best Measure for Obesity?
Obesity has been implicated as a risk factor for many common cancers. Maintaining a healthy weight can help lower risk, but is BMI the best measure?www.aacr.org
How are you so sure that I'm not a heterosexual?First, the person claiming that heterosexuals believe that there's something distinctive about them is the person on this thread that isn't heterosexual, while every heterosexual is saying the opposite, so you might want to stop and consider that.
It could, people would just have to make it exist through their actions, which is probably what actually happens.This is borderline semantics though. By the standards you're laying out, no kind of sexuality could ever exist, because no-one would conform to it 100% of the time.
Is sexual assault something you think people generally desire?If everyone acted on the sexual desire they felt in the moment, sexual assault would probably go through the roof, for starters.
Categorization of what?No, your argument is on the level of identity, mine's on the level of categorization.
No I'm not.Again, you seem to be describing bro culture rather than "heterosexual culture."
I'm pretty sure I haven't focused on intercourse..You've focused on intercourse, I gave you an example of lack of intercourse.
I mean, we're talking about the filmic language around sex, so yes.And again, that's all that seems to matter.
So, if you look a bit deeper, my entire argument here is actually that I don't actually care about pandering. I don't think pandering is a problem most of the time, because if putting queer characters in a story without extensive narrative justification is "pandering", then all pandering really means is doing something to make a section of the audience feel seen or happy.You're responding to the question of "Is "pandering" simply the depiction of relationships?", when my VERY NEXT SENTENCE was "Regrettably, I've seen the argument applied to same-sex relationships, where their mere presence is decried by idiots as a form of "pandering."
I'm pretty sure you've stated it outright, such as only dating bisexual people or something, plus have had detailed conversations with Silvanus on the matter of bisexuality and homosexuality.How are you so sure that I'm not a heterosexual?
If you were solely attracted to the opposite sex, you'd be heterosexual. If you're not, then you might fit into another category.What qualities about me exclude me from the category of heterosexuality? What qualities would I need to have in order to fit into the category of heterosexuality?
See above.What makes a heterosexual distinct from someone else, for example someone like me?
No, the outcome.Is sexual assault something you think people generally desire?
Yes, my eyes glazed over reading that, thanks.Anyway, I'm not really enjoying explaining how sex works, can we move on to something else?
For the first part, I agree, as I've said, I don't think the mere presence of something is pandering in of itself.So, if you look a bit deeper, my entire argument here is actually that I don't actually care about pandering. I don't think pandering is a problem most of the time, because if putting queer characters in a story without extensive narrative justification is "pandering", then all pandering really means is doing something to make a section of the audience feel seen or happy.
What I care about is straight people being "pandered" to literally all the time, not being aware of it because it's so incredibly normalized, and then pointing to the one, singular scene that stands out precisely because it is coded a bit weirdly and declaring that this shows they're not okay with being pandered to.
Those two things are distinct from each other. You literally just demonstrated it when you distinguished between them.If you were solely attracted to the opposite sex, you'd be heterosexual. If you're not, then you might fit into another category.
If you don't think that straights think of themselves as distinct, go and ask them how their [insert same sex partner here] is, and see how they react.Also, "distinct" isn't the word I'd use. There's nothing "distinct" about opposite-sex attraction because it's the default that most humans, heck, most species, operate on. If heterosexuals start thinking of themselves as "distinct," then you get nonsense like the straight pride parade.
I genuinely don't know what point you think you're trying to make here.You mentioned everyone acting on their sexual desire.
Cool, just stop this pretence that you don't understand what I'm talking about in terms of the social and sexual dynamics of heterosexual relationships (or sexual ideology, for that matter), otherwise I'm just going to refer you back to that post.Yes, my eyes glazed over reading that, thanks.
I know.First, the reasons why most people dislike the scene has nothing to do with pandering.
My point has only ever been to suggest that maybe that's not what the writers were doing, or at least that maybe it's not all they were doing, and that the reason this scene gets picked up on might just be specifically because it doesn't appeal to the people you're claiming it's trying to pander to. If it did, do you really think anyone would care about any other supposed flaws?If you want an example where it isn't well done, take the sex scene in the second film during the Zion rave. It's a waste of time, it's pandering, it's shot really weird, and I really have no idea what the writers were doing apart from thinking "you like sex, right?"
Why are you trying to put me in the position of defending the cinematic virtues of a film I don't really like? My point was about the representation of sexuality, now you've decided you don't want to talk about sexuality any more, so why are we still talking?There's no reason for it. The scene does nothing to advance the plot or characters.
What two things? That isn't even "two things," I mentioned "another category," not "the other category."Those two things are distinct from each other. You literally just demonstrated it when you distinguished between them.
This is infuriating.
Probably something like "excuse me? or "pardon?" Which is something anyone would say if some random went up to them and asked them about that kind of personal stuff. It would be the same reaction if I asked them about an opposite-sex partner, or any family member, because not only am I assuming that they have such a thing, but the fact that I'm randomly asking people I don't know such questions would probably be the first issue to deal with.If you don't think that straights think of themselves as distinct, go and ask them how their [insert same sex partner here] is, and see how they react.
Yep. "Straight outfits" are a thing. Just like "queer outfits" are.Straight pride is nonsense because the straights have no shame. That sounds like a joke, but it's also true.
Every day, straight people get to get up, dress in their straightest outfits and go out and rub their heterosexuality in everyone's faces. That's not a special occasion for straight people, it's just every day.
To quote your own post: " Imagine if people never really thought about the type of person they wanted to have sex with in abstract terms, and instead only acted based on the sexual desire that they felt in the moment."I genuinely don't know what point you think you're trying to make here.
People act on their sexual desires all the time. Acting on your sexual desires does not mean doing things you don't want to do, having no social awareness, or being possessed by some random urge to sexually assault people.
I don't understand what you're talking about because your entire thesis is nonsensical. The very post I'm responding to is nonsensical. I actually read that post again and it comes off as some kind of porn or fetish manual. It's actually even more bizzare, because you basically give all the interactions of sexual intercourse, then say "none of this is bro culture." Of course it isn't, because nothing you've described pertains to bro culture. It's like me describing sexual positions, then saying "none of this is geek culture." Of course it isn't.Cool, just stop this pretence that you don't understand what I'm talking about in terms of the social and sexual dynamics of heterosexual relationships (or sexual ideology, for that matter), otherwise I'm just going to refer you back to that post.
I've listed multiple times why I don't think the scene works that well beyond pandering, and why a lot of other people don't as well.I know.
You're the one who decided that this scene was pandering, that it was badly done and that the writers were trying to appeal to your sexuality. See:
My point has only ever been to suggest that maybe that's not what the writers were doing, or at least that maybe it's not all they were doing, and that the reason this scene gets picked up on might just be specifically because it doesn't appeal to the people you're claiming it's trying to pander to. If it did, do you really think anyone would care about any other supposed flaws?
I've never wanted to talk about sexuality, but you've forced it into the conversation, so that leaves me at a crossroads.Why are you trying to put me in the position of defending the cinematic virtues of a film I don't really like? My point was about the representation of sexuality, now you've decided you don't want to talk about sexuality any more, so why are we still talking?
I agree.At the same time though this also annoys on principle because.. well.. film is an audiovisual medium and the Matrix trilogy are action movies. There are many scenes in the trilogy that don't focus on advancing the plot and characters. Heck, there's the scene where Neo meets Seraph and they just have a fight for no reason. A film deviating into spectacle just to make the audience feel a certain way is normal, that's kind of what film does.
I generally agree with this, or at the least, I can see where you're coming from. You might want to look at my earlier posts where I gave the most generous interpretation I could of the Zion scene (the "spirit of humanity" idea), and we're not far off. I don't think it achieves it that well (or at least, spends too much time on it), but I can see the creators' possible intentions, and your take is an erudite one.The people who made the Matrix clearly loved dance music. They got Juno Reactor to collaborate on the score. If you're pushing me to talk about that scene in general, I would read it as an expression of their feelings about dance music and its significance in their lives, and the audience I think it's 'pandering' to is the audience who feels the same way.
In this sense, it's not really as meaningless as you're saying. Like, there's a really strong visual contrast between Zion and the Matrix. Zion is yellow. The Matrix is green. Zion has soft lighting. The Matrix has harsh dramatic lighting. What's really neat about this is what happens to people. In the Matrix, everyone looks washed out and grey, and their faces look angular. In Zion, everyone looks red and soft. It's a cute little way of conveying that theme of dehumanization visually. Zion is human. The Matrix is inhuman. And this is relevant because the rave scene is even more yellow, even more human, than the rest of Zion. It ties in with the opening dialogue too.
Then there's the fact that all the clubs in the Matrix are fetish clubs. Neo and Trinity have their first meeting in a fetish club, but since the first movie was too subtle about it the Merovingian (a creepy pseudo-aristocratic man who doesn't believe in free will and gets off on control) literally owns a fetish club in revolutions. It is a not very subtle way of conveying that the Matrix is all about power and domination. Even the nightlife is about power and domination. Even the sex is about power and domination. The rave scene is clearly meant to be a contrast to that
I haven't thought about these films for years. That was like 2 minutes of thinking.
And yet, the mere existence of video games where the women are portrayed with modest designs or as being more muscular than usual is enough for a voice actress to receive death threats and fans to spread rumors and lies about its director.The author of this paper is a total trash bag. There should be a diversity of games in sexualization ranging from a lot to none. But nope, It's this hive-mind thinking that has infected progressives, liberals, and many socialists. At this point, the non-economic left, and social liberals are just pretending to be diverse. You can't have a diversity of thought, diversity of media content, diversity of speech. You can have a diversity of skin color, and diversity of lived experiences. Stop cherrypicking diversity. As long as it doesn't harm people in the first order, what difference does it make that a female character has a short skirt?
Some random may be weird for exploring Loverslab, dead or alive 5 or 6, and any number of Japanese & Korean games, and anime and other pop culture. But are they really more harmful than someone who has bad applied views in regard to consent?
As someone who plays games from Last of US 2, Mass Effect, COD, Battlefield, Bethesda modded games, and more I love the diversity of games, characters, opinions, and races in games. What I don't like is this puritanism in games. Given that people are having less sex, and getting married at later ages, I would argue softcore porn, and hardcore porn is perfect to fill the gap.
Sadly corpos are waging war on hardcore porn, and SJWs on softcore porn.
Uhrm, right, but the issue isn't that a female character has a short skirt. The issue is that an enormous number have overly sexualised outfits, to the point where it's become insipid and overbearingly common.The author of this paper is a total trash bag. There should be a diversity of games in sexualization ranging from a lot to none. But nope, It's this hive-mind thinking that has infected progressives, liberals, and many socialists. At this point, the non-economic left, and social liberals are just pretending to be diverse. You can't have a diversity of thought, diversity of media content, diversity of speech. You can have a diversity of skin color, and diversity of lived experiences. Stop cherrypicking diversity. As long as it doesn't harm people in the first order, what difference does it make that a female character has a short skirt?
But there has been a downward trend in that stuff, and literally, any female character with any degree of a feminine design comes out like Dead Or Alive 5 and 6, or any anime game there has been outrage from reviewers, tweets, and likely emails among insiders to censor.Uhrm, right, but the issue isn't that a female character has a short skirt. The issue is that an enormous number have overly sexualised outfits, to the point where it's become insipid and overbearingly common.
This is a numbers game. A single example isn't an issue. A preponderance is. And an appeal to diversity should support efforts to diversify how female characters look, rather than defending those who want to churn out the same sexualised thing over and over, that we've already had a thousand times.
I actually like Last of Us 2. and I don't play Mortal Kombat. But read the journal article i just posted.And yet, the mere existence of video games where the women are portrayed with modest designs or as being more muscular than usual is enough for a voice actress to receive death threats and fans to spread rumors and lies about its director.
Never mind that for all the bitching about sexiness disappearing from games you've got Ada's much more sexual design in the remake of Resident Evil 2 and Mortal Kombat 11's two female characters with ass attacks.
If you want to talk about how diversity of thought isn't allowed, look at the way people reacted to Last of Us 2.
There's some fringe whining about every artistic decision ever. If they covered up, some fringe right-wingers would complain that they weren't getting their sexy outfitted women.But there has been a downward trend in that stuff, and literally, any female character with any degree of a feminine design comes out like Dead Or Alive 5 and 6, or any anime game there has been outrage from reviewers, tweets, and likely emails among insiders to censor.
This obviously depends on the feminist. I'm a feminist, and I don't want that.I am for all types of games, but the goal of a feminist isn't just less sexualized outfits, it's no feminine designs whatsoever.
"Heterosexual" and "not-heterosexual" are two things.What two things? That isn't even "two things," I mentioned "another category," not "the other category."
Of course they are.Just like "queer outfits" are.
"..the desire they felt in the moment."You framed it "in the moment," I answered. Now you've cut it out and reframed your argument.
I mean, it's a pretty basic description of how sex works, and how sexual and relationship dynamics function as a cultural baggage around sexual acts and indeed sexual relationships. You were the one insisting that I was talking about fetish stuff ("domination") when I talked about "active" and "passive" roles earlier, you were the one who insisted I was talking about "bro culture" rather than "heterosexual culture" and insisting that most straights never do stuff like this. What on earth did you expect if not an explanation?I actually read that post again and it comes off as some kind of porn or fetish manual.
That's not my point.If you believe deep down that the only reason I don't like that scene is because of "failed pandering," and that I'm lying about every other reason I don't think it works, and why other people generally don't, that's your prerogative.
I don't exactly get what you're getting at here; that there's less sexual diversity in games now then there was before? Because games have always had typically one setting when it came to sexualization, and it tended to be '11'. And always of the heterosexual and hourglass figure variety, with the only diversity being hair color.The author of this paper is a total trash bag. There should be a diversity of games in sexualization ranging from a lot to none. But nope, It's this hive-mind thinking that has infected progressives, liberals, and many socialists. At this point, the non-economic left, and social liberals are just pretending to be diverse. You can't have a diversity of thought, diversity of media content, diversity of speech. You can have a diversity of skin color, and diversity of lived experiences. Stop cherrypicking diversity. As long as it doesn't harm people in the first order, what difference does it make that a female character has a short skirt?
Some random may be weird for exploring Loverslab, dead or alive 5 or 6, and any number of Japanese & Korean games, and anime and other pop culture. But are they really more harmful than someone who has bad applied views in regard to consent?
As someone who plays games from Last of US 2, Mass Effect, COD, Battlefield, Bethesda modded games, and more I love the diversity of games, characters, opinions, and races in games. What I don't like is this puritanism in games. Given that people are having less sex, and getting married at later ages, I would argue softcore porn, and hardcore porn is perfect to fill the gap.
Sadly corpos are waging war on hardcore porn, and SJWs on softcore porn.
It's not fringe. When it's entire media outlets attacking Dead Or Alive 5 and 6. That's if CNN or MSNBC decided to attack pens, but you call it fringe.There's some fringe whining about every artistic decision ever. If they covered up, some fringe right-wingers would complain that they weren't getting their sexy outfitted women.
The majority of sensibly designed female game characters do not cause any significant amount of "outrage".
This obviously depends on the feminist. I'm a feminist, and I don't want that.
Games like DoA5, Senran Kagura, Xenoblade, sex games/mods etc. are probably not even 1% of the market. Complaining about it and the people who play them just outs you as a prude because you're not there to argue representation, you're just there to complain about content that is creepy and not socio-normative. That's most of the journalist/twitter outrage.It's not fringe. When it's entire media outlets attacking Dead Or Alive 5 and 6. That's if CNN or MSNBC decided to attack pens, but you call it fringe.
Edit: Also the numerous journal articles from gender study professors about hyper-sexualization in games.
No, and if someone is going to call you a horny teenager degenerate misogynist creep because you like those things then you should immediately throw their opinion in the trash. You have no reason to respect their opinion when they can't even respect you as a person.Some random may be weird for exploring Loverslab, dead or alive 5 or 6, and any number of Japanese & Korean games, and anime and other pop culture. But are they really more harmful than someone who has bad applied views in regard to consent?