So, I agree with pretty much everything in Anita Sarkeesian's Damsels in Distress video.

[generals3]

They want women to be treated equally to men. The end. That's it. Equality.

Than why are they complaining about video games? Video game characters are nothing more than code lines. As such they are out of the "feminist jurisdiction" if all they care are about is equal treatment of men and women. And that is what people hate about feminists, the fact they twist everything into a feminist issue and as such constantly overstep their alleged boundaries.

Media does not exist in a vacuum. Feminists are a vast group of people with different specializations.

Some feminists focus only on the instances of rape in real life and raising awareness about rape. Some focus on media criticism. Some are broad in the scope of their commentary.

As it so happens, media does matter. It is a part of an evolving feedback loop. Where culture informs media and media informs culture. You can tell a lot about a culture from partaking in its media. Media we have does not exist in a vacuum, it reflects the culture that produced it. That's why the Japanese anime industry and the American cartoon industry look different. It is why the works of Chaucer look different than most novels today.

Furthermore, media influences culture. Uncle Tom's Cabin was said to be a major part in motivating the United States to abolish slavery. Media both influences and has influenced culture. Video game is a major form of media today, an important and huge industry as large as the movie industry. There is no reason it should not undergo cultural analysis. What kinds of values it reflects. And what kinds of values it is reinforcing.

I think the idea that feminists supposedly have "boundaries" and can only care about the "big stuff" like laws creating legal discrimination is a problem. That many people are uncomfortable with people fighting for equality beyond the law. With social advocacy. Of criticism of media culture and such. If many people "hate" feminists for this, then this shows how far society has to go that people are extremely defensive of inequality and privilege to this point. Feminism clearly has a long, long way to go if people react so negatively to something like this.

This kind of resistance to improvement shows just how much further feminism has to go and how far away from equality we still are.

Improvement is a big word and extremely relative. To take video games for instance for some players less bikini armor rpg's would be just as much an improvement as less violence for players who play violent video games.

Feminism doesn't "improve" things, it tries to change things their way. The difference is massive because there is no evidence which suggests the changes they advocate actually "improve" anything. Equal rights was an improvement, but complaining about the patriarchy all the time in order to make women and men make the choices they want them to make is hardly "improvement".

 

[generals3]

Maybe you should clarify that then, because I don't see how "marketing is inherently discriminatory" (a valid point) somehow translates to "sexism doesn't exist in games" (a virtually indefensible one).

Seriously, there's an otherwise normal game (i.e. it isn't marketed as a porn game) where you can jiggle the female character's breasts by waggling your controller: Are you seriously arguing this content isn't sexist?

I think I gave you too much credit.

Marketing is inherently discriminatory because it only cares about its targets and treats the other people as if they didn't even exist or they can even adapt the marketing strategy for a same product which clearly indicates they discriminate, they consider people as equals, far from that. This however says nothing about the traits of the content of the products or service one is trying to sell. As an example: the washing product "Dash" is marketed differently in France as it is in Belgium, this is discriminatory. But does this mean that the washing product is?
And i explained very thoroughly why games which are deemed sexist aren't. I'm not going to re-explain it.

Explain to me how it IS sexist? It is sexual but that is a totally different story. You can't just say "this is sexist" and expect to get away with it.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

SNIP

I'm gonna leave you with this video. It's a long 38 minutes, but it'll clearly and concisely prove to you that we have NEVER lived in a patriarchal society.
Stop drinking the koolaid.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Why is that so bad. It's no different to Yahtzee banging on about crap fps games or Jim about online DRM...

Yahtzee can even go so far as to say "this is a bad game for bad people". And folks will say "awwww, he's just being funny." Or even stronger, "oh, don't be mad because he's right." You'd have to be a fanboy to disagree.

A feminist makes a joke and suddenly she means it %100 and it is offensive.

And heck, a person, a woman commenting negatively about the state of gender in video games. Even if she says people playing the games is great and maybe even the games are great but just flawed from a gender perspective.

Suddenly the internet has a major "aww haw naw" moment.

 

[Bashfluff]

Not this one again. Thunderf00t already soundly trounced her, but...

Marketing is not sexist. It can't be. It's something developed as a way to sell the most product based on a reflection of the society and culture a product is marketing to. If men want to play as men more than they want to play as women, that's not sexist. If they want to look at women who are sexually satisfying, that's not sexist. The fact that most damsels in distress are women? That's not sexist. I don't understand these weird arguments.


Most women who complain about the lack of female protagonists claim that it feels a little weird not playing as their own gender. Most people care immensely about their partner, which provides a strong motivation for the protagonists, and most protagonists happen to be straight males. Most people like to look at other people who are sexually pleasing to them. Males tend to be more sexual than women, and more turned on by looks. Sexuality is not synonymous with sexism, guys. Most people enjoy sexual stimulation, and everyone has fantasies. Most of them aren't centered on you being a well rounded character! They're focused on situations you're in, or looks.

Marketing consists of constant research in studies that have to produce real results. Sure, I wouldn't say that means we should accept them offhand, but that does make them pretty credible.

We should put our efforts towards our own research. What are the proportions of male and female gamers? What does the average male gamer like in games? What does the average female gamer dislike in games?

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Not this one again. Thunderf00t already soundly trounced her, but...

Thunderf00t has been trounced. Anita's video is solid but thunderf00t's video is loaded with terrible strawman arguments.

Thunderf00t doesn't even really understand what Anita is arguing at all. And spends the majority of the video arguing against a strawman of Anita's position he thought up in his mind.

That's hardly "trounced".

Marketing is not sexist. It can't be.

I think you have an overly rigid and narrow definition of what "sexism" can be.

Yes, the point of a company is to make money. That does not mean that the "market" cannot reflect unfortunate things in society. As it stands now, the American market reflects a great deal of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and other unfortunate ideals.

Whether or not a company and marketing exist to make money does not change the fact that they work in and often buff sexist ideas.

I'm already 16 minutes into this video and I already have a lot of rebuttals forming into my mind as to why this video is dead wrong.

But I'm going to fully respond to this video or your very rude post about "drinking koolaid" until I'm done watching.

Though so far into the video, I can see that she has a lot of misunderstanding about feminism and has decided to generalize feminism by those she disagrees with. And well there are many points where she refuses to look at the bigger picture or cherry picks events to a context she thinks supports her cause, but in reality is evidence for Patriarchy. A lot of "exceptions disprove the rule" thinking where Patriarchy is given a strawman as applying to all men. She I haven't finished the video, but she hasn't yet formed a good argument against the theory of Patriarchy and male privilege.

Since this video is so long, it is taking up a lot of my time to watch and there's a lot of people here I am going to be unable to properly respond to while watching this and formulating a response to it. There's a long video here and a lot of sentences and claims to pick apart for how wrong it is.

To be candid, there's a loooot of bullcrap in this video and I could make paragraphs picking it apart. I could spend days writing about how misguided this video is.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Not this one again. Thunderf00t already soundly trounced her, but...

He most certainly did not. Thunderf00t simply proved that his only means of argumentation is to infer fringe theory in vain attempts to discredit his opposition. His response to Sarkeesian must be the single most pathetic video on the subject I have seen, apart from that "Investig8ive Journalism" berk and his conjectural nonsense.

Marketing is not sexist. It can't be. It's something developed as a way to sell the most product based on a reflection of the society and culture a product is marketing to. If men want to play as men more than they want to play as women, that's not sexist. If they want to look at women who are sexually satisfying, that's not sexist. The fact that most damsels in distress are women? That's not sexist. I don't understand these weird arguments.

This is an argument I cannot understand. How can marketing not be sexist? The fact that it is tailored to certain societal expectations and projections doesn't make it less sexist - it simply renders it part of a bigger problem.

 

[Bashfluff]

Not this one again. Thunderf00t already soundly trounced her, but...

He most certainly did not. Thunderf00t simply proved that his only means of argumentation is to infer fringe theory in vain attempts to discredit his opposition. His response to Sarkeesian must be the single most pathetic video on the subject I have seen, apart from that "Investig8ive Journalism" berk and his conjectural nonsense.

Marketing is not sexist. It can't be. It's something developed as a way to sell the most product based on a reflection of the society and culture a product is marketing to. If men want to play as men more than they want to play as women, that's not sexist. If they want to look at women who are sexually satisfying, that's not sexist. The fact that most damsels in distress are women? That's not sexist. I don't understand these weird arguments.

This is an argument I cannot understand. How can marketing not be sexist? The fact that it is tailored to certain societal expectations and projections doesn't make it less sexist - it simply renders it part of a bigger problem.

The lack of any real arguments towards his video prove to me that you have nothing to add to the discussion on it. But I say that the free marketplace of ideas have spoken and deemed his video at the very least, mostly accurate.

It's not sexist because it does not discriminate on the basis of sex. It says, "Research shows this is how best to market our product". Anything that is "sexist" in there is purely incidental.

 

[generals3]

Though so far into the video, I can see that she has a lot of misunderstanding about feminism and has decided to generalize feminism by those she disagrees with. And well there are many points where she refuses to look at the bigger picture or cherry picks events to a context she thinks supports her cause, but in reality is evidence for Patriarchy. A lot of "exceptions disprove the rule" thinking where Patriarchy is given a strawman as applying to all men. She I haven't finished the video, but she hasn't yet formed a good argument against the theory of Patriarchy and male privilege.

"Male privilege refers to the social theory that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women. A man's access to these benefits may also depend on other characteristics such as race, sexual orientation and social class"

I'd love to see how anyone could somehow claim male privilege even exists in most western countries.
We all have the same rights. Since everyone has the right to vote, whatever political power males acquire is earned. The economic advantages they may have are also earned unless you assume massive discrimination solely based on sex in the job market. And unearned social advantages? I'd like to hear them.

"Most forms of feminism characterize patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. As feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman writes, "The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection."[30] In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations."

Oppressive to women? I'd like to hear the case for that one too.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Not this one again. Thunderf00t already soundly trounced her, but...

He most certainly did not. Thunderf00t simply proved that his only means of argumentation is to infer fringe theory in vain attempts to discredit his opposition. His response to Sarkeesian must be the single most pathetic video on the subject I have seen, apart from that "Investig8ive Journalism" berk and his conjectural nonsense.

Marketing is not sexist. It can't be. It's something developed as a way to sell the most product based on a reflection of the society and culture a product is marketing to. If men want to play as men more than they want to play as women, that's not sexist. If they want to look at women who are sexually satisfying, that's not sexist. The fact that most damsels in distress are women? That's not sexist. I don't understand these weird arguments.

This is an argument I cannot understand. How can marketing not be sexist? The fact that it is tailored to certain societal expectations and projections doesn't make it less sexist - it simply renders it part of a bigger problem.

The lack of any real arguments towards his video prove to me that you have nothing to add to the discussion on it. But I say that the free marketplace of ideas have spoken and deemed his video at the very least, mostly accurate.

It's not sexist because it does not discriminate on the basis of sex. It says, "Research shows this is how best to market our product". Anything that is sexist in there is purely incidental.

Allow me to link you an article which explains just how thunderf00t is wrong a lot clearer and a lot more coherently than I could hope to do:

Unless you've already grown comfortable with having dismissed my angle, of course. I mean, that 'free marketplace of ideas' as demonstrated on youtube truly is an irrefutable source of truth. [http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/03/20/regressive-crap/]

As for commercials, again, how can you possibly hope to disassociate them from the social constructions which dictate how that "research" is conducted?

Incidental my ass.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

The lack of any real arguments towards his video prove to me that you have nothing to add to the discussion on it.

There are plenty of "real arguments" against his video.

For instance, he spends the majority of his video going against a strawman of her position that she is against men desiring to protect others just because they're men. When that is not her position at all. And not what the video is getting at at all.

He makes a lot of hyperbole about empathy and how this trope merely shows empathy in men to care about others. Ignoring the entire point of the video in which the Damsel in Distress is a double standard trope where women are damseled and men are enabled. That women are weak to the point of powerlessness and men are enabled and powerful.

Furthermore, in most stories in which men are saving female damsels in distress, little do they play into ideas of male empathy for the female characters. And are typically used as objects and excuses for males to go on power fantasy adventures to prove themselves. You do not hear of Mario expressing empathy and worry for Princess Peach. In fact I cannot think of too many examples in video games where a damsel in distress exists where empathy of the hero for the "damsel" is employed.

Allow me to link you an article which explains just how thunderf00t is wrong a lot clearer and a lot more coherently than I could hope to do:

Unless you've already grown comfortable with having dismissed my angle, of course. I mean, that 'free marketplace of ideas' as demonstrated on youtube truly is an irrefutable source of truth. [http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/03/20/regressive-crap/]

Fantastic. This is going in my bookmarks.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Maybe you should clarify that then, because I don't see how "marketing is inherently discriminatory" (a valid point) somehow translates to "sexism doesn't exist in games" (a virtually indefensible one).

Seriously, there's an otherwise normal game (i.e. it isn't marketed as a porn game) where you can jiggle the female character's breasts by waggling your controller: Are you seriously arguing this content isn't sexist?

I think I gave you too much credit.

Marketing is inherently discriminatory because it only cares about its targets and treats the other people as if they didn't even exist or they can even adapt the marketing strategy for a same product which clearly indicates they discriminate, they consider people as equals, far from that. This however says nothing about the traits of the content of the products or service one is trying to sell. As an example: the washing product "Dash" is marketed differently in France as it is in Belgium, this is discriminatory. But does this mean that the washing product is?
And i explained very thoroughly why games which are deemed sexist aren't. I'm not going to re-explain it.

Explain to me how it IS sexist? It is sexual but that is a totally different story. You can't just say "this is sexist" and expect to get away with it.

You're making the same logical leap over and over again and I can't see how you're getting there.

Okay, I accept your first point. Yes, marketing is centred around maximising profit, and thus sex-based discrimination is likely to occur when the demographic is heavily male-dominated. For the sake of argument, we'll pretend it's perfectly acceptable to use sex-based discrimination to sell products.

But here's the gap in your logic: just because we have this not-necessarily-misogynistic system behind it, why would that preclude the results themselves from being misogynistic?

Honestly, I think I've discovered the flaw in your argument: if I really have to explain why having interactive tits on all the female characters for absolutely no reason (it has nothing to do with the narrative, the game mechanics, or even consistent with the characters' personalities) is sexist and degrading to women, I don't think you're coming in with the right mindset to have this conversation.

 

[Bashfluff]

Not this one again. Thunderf00t already soundly trounced her, but...

He most certainly did not. Thunderf00t simply proved that his only means of argumentation is to infer fringe theory in vain attempts to discredit his opposition. His response to Sarkeesian must be the single most pathetic video on the subject I have seen, apart from that "Investig8ive Journalism" berk and his conjectural nonsense.

Marketing is not sexist. It can't be. It's something developed as a way to sell the most product based on a reflection of the society and culture a product is marketing to. If men want to play as men more than they want to play as women, that's not sexist. If they want to look at women who are sexually satisfying, that's not sexist. The fact that most damsels in distress are women? That's not sexist. I don't understand these weird arguments.

This is an argument I cannot understand. How can marketing not be sexist? The fact that it is tailored to certain societal expectations and projections doesn't make it less sexist - it simply renders it part of a bigger problem.

The lack of any real arguments towards his video prove to me that you have nothing to add to the discussion on it. But I say that the free marketplace of ideas have spoken and deemed his video at the very least, mostly accurate.

It's not sexist because it does not discriminate on the basis of sex. It says, "Research shows this is how best to market our product". Anything that is sexist in there is purely incidental.

Allow me to link you an article which explains just how thunderf00t is wrong a lot clearer and a lot more coherently than I could hope to do:

Unless you've already grown comfortable with having dismissed my angle, of course. I mean, that 'free marketplace of ideas' as demonstrated on youtube truly is an irrefutable source of truth. [http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/03/20/regressive-crap/]

As for commercials, again, how can you possibly hope to disassociate them from the social constructions which dictate how that "research" is conducted?

Incidental my ass.

You're linking to Free Thought Blogs, THE source of irrational feminist propaganda. I do not respect the quality of your source. If you yourself have any arguments, I'd be happy to entertain them. I'm willing to have a productive, respectful dialogue with you. Your source is not credible and I'm not going to sort through that drivel.

...as for bias in commercials? Yeah, it exists. What are you implying? That they're inaccurate because of how they're conducted? ALL market research? Some market research? Market research based on feminism or gender issues?

Research should be judged on its merits. If there are problems with how a study is conducted, then that should be pointed out. Data that is misused or cannot be used should be roundly criticized. But that's not all research. That's not even the majority of research.

"Unless you've already grown comfortable with having dismissed my angle, of course. I mean, that 'free marketplace of ideas' as demonstrated on youtube truly is an irrefutable source of truth."

If you want to have a real reasonable and respectful discussion with me, leave that snarky bullshit at the door.

 

[generals3]

But here's the gap in your logic: just because we have this not-necessarily-misogynistic system behind it, why would that preclude the results themselves from being misogynistic?

I explained thoroughly why they aren't sexist. Re-read my initial post. It appears you stopped reading after the first point i made. I never said it precluded anything. What I did is explain it didn't necessarily entail sexism in the games and than went on confirming the games weren't sexist.

For your convenience:
"Thirdly: Considering the games are trying to please a certain set of costumers the way to determine whether a game is sexist is not by looking how characters are portrayed but the standards used to portray them. Take bikini armor MMORPG's for instance. They are aimed at a group of people who find male characters with fancy/classy/bad ass armors aesthetically pleasing and also find sexy armor on female characters aesthetically pleasing. Both genders are subject to the same standards: they are both being aimed at aesthetically pleasing the target costumer. What would be sexist is if the developers did not follow the same standards for both genders and would totally overlook the aesthetic part of male characters, which they don't."

Honestly, I think I've discovered the flaw in your argument: if I really have to explain why having interactive tits on all the female characters for absolutely no reason (it has nothing to do with the narrative, the game mechanics, or even consistent with the characters' personalities) is sexist and degrading to women, I don't think you're coming in with the right mindset to have this conversation.

How is this degrading to women? How is a game allowing a bunch of pixel tits to be juggled by the players degrading to women? It is silly, pointless, and a really cheap way of following the "sex sells" mantra but how is it degrading to women? And i'm asking these questions for a very good reason. I've seen feminists look into things in such absurd ways to find ways to be offended and now i simply can't take "it's offensive!" as an answer anymore. I want a "why".

You know, if there was a game where we could juggle the nuts of male characters i'd lol. I wouldn't go mad with rage, i'd find it hilariously absurd. I don't see how such a feature would insult my sex.

 

[REZNoR_greed]

Thunderf00t doesn't even really understand what Anita is arguing at all.

so far she's not "arguing" anything. granted it's just her first video in the series, but so far it's just been "this trope is bad, and the people who use it are bad. kthxbai". no real explanation beyond that, or conceptual solutions. but like I said, it's just the first episode.

I believe she's looking at it from the wrong angle. she's going at the trope itself as if it's something the developers conscientiously choose to put in. tropes are just the names given to things that tend to appear quite a bit. there is also a Distressed Dude [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DistressedDude] trope, so that one's not exactly uncommon either. granted, it's not that common in videogames, but it's still there.
I would think instead that she should do more exploration into how the trope tends to occur; plot-wise, or development-wise. I'd wager she might not find it as sexist if she looked at it that way.

but then, it also feels she's trying to make the case that being a member of the trope is the sole trait of the character's..well..character. while that may be true in the older games, the original Donkey Kong in particular; in pretty much anything more recent than the NES, that is not the case.

 

[Something Amyss]

The main issue i see is that Anita is fighting the wrong fight.

for the most part, she's not fighting a fight in the first place. These videos break down and analyse something a lot of people turn a blind eye to. The fact that it's phrased, even symbolically as a fight is a rather large issue in itself and quite telling. She looks at the symptoms, yes, but she is pretty up front about that. So yeah.

YOu and I are not women (I am assuming)

I'm a transsexual. I can pretty well empathise with the struggles of women. Especially when you consider gender identity is still something you can be fired/attacked for and virtually NOBODY will raise a fuss.

Maybe something you might want to think of the next time you feel like calling someone a radical feminazi/con artist/troll.

Maybe you should re-read what I say before you tell me what to think about.

It might have something to do with her relating those things as though they're current problems, rather than issues from the industry's infancy.

Except they still exist, and people pretend it's not a problem, so that's not it. Care to try again?

 

[Something Amyss]

in pretty much anything more recent than the NES, that is not the case.

Oh, come now. You HAVE to know you can't prove that one. The one-dimensional "save the princess" deal didn't end with the NES days or even close.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

I'm gonna leave you with this video. It's a long 38 minutes

And because of that, there's no way I'm going to be able to address all of that video by today without completely ignoring everyone else in this thread.

but it'll clearly and concisely prove to you that we have NEVER lived in a patriarchal society.

Well I just finished watching the video, and while I won't form a rebuttal of every single sentence made in that video immediately. I will say it most certainly did not "prove" that we "never" lived in a "Patriarchy". Quotation marks quotation marks.

For starters, she completely misunderstand the concept of feminism, and strawmans the position of all feminists based upon individual positions of individuals who may or may not be feminism starting from ages past. Patriachy is not a system which encompasses all men. Men are not "patriarchy". Patriarchy is a social construct normalizing certain ideas about men and unempower women and femininity. Nor is it ever stated that Patriarchy benefits all men. Patriarchy merely benefits the concept of men are large and values it more highly than that of women.

Effeminate men significantly "lose" in a Patriarchal system for not fitting into ideas of what a Patriarchal man is supposed to be. And fitting into a Patriarchal norm of what a man is supposed to be is both extremely unhealthy for both men and women.

At the most basic of her points, of which she bases most of her points off of, this is central. And is wrong. Most of the rest of her points fall apart because of the point she gets this wrong. As again, most of her points are an extrapolation on this misunderstanding.

Stop drinking the koolaid.

Stop using cliched "edgy" take that remarks at an attempt at demoralizing the opposition.

Feminism is not an unquestioning belief and most feminists think very critically upon what it means to be a feminist and why. This Jim Jones example is starting to get pretty obnoxious as a "take that" to people who are ideologically opposed to others, particularly the right wing against the left because Jim Jones was a left winger.

If anything, in a world like the one in which Anita is being reviled for saying the things that she is, people who agree with feminism are the ones bravely questioning. It would be much, much easier for me to question and disagree with feminism than to agree. As it just so happens, I agree with feminism and am in quite a minority. Among many people who refuse to question their denial that the Patriarchy is real.

I would be "drinking Kool-Aid" if I blindly accepted what feminists say. But I do not. And feminists are free thinking to the point there are often many disputes between feminists.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

But here's the gap in your logic: just because we have this not-necessarily-misogynistic system behind it, why would that preclude the results themselves from being misogynistic?

I explained thoroughly why they aren't sexist. Re-read my initial post. It appears you stopped reading after the first point i made. I never said it precluded anything. What I did is explain it didn't necessarily entail sexism in the games and than went on confirming the games weren't sexist.

For your convenience:
"Thirdly: Considering the games are trying to please a certain set of costumers the way to determine whether a game is sexist is not by looking how characters are portrayed but the standards used to portray them. Take bikini armor MMORPG's for instance. They are aimed at a group of people who find male characters with fancy/classy/bad ass armors aesthetically pleasing and also find sexy armor on female characters aesthetically pleasing. Both genders are subject to the same standards: they are both being aimed at aesthetically pleasing the target costumer. What would be sexist is if the developers did not follow the same standards for both genders and would totally overlook the aesthetic part of male characters, which they don't."

Honestly, I think I've discovered the flaw in your argument: if I really have to explain why having interactive tits on all the female characters for absolutely no reason (it has nothing to do with the narrative, the game mechanics, or even consistent with the characters' personalities) is sexist and degrading to women, I don't think you're coming in with the right mindset to have this conversation.

How is this degrading to women? How is a game allowing a bunch of pixels with tits allowing the player to juggle with the tits degrading to women? It is silly, pointless, and a really cheap way of following the "sex sells" mantra but how is it denigrating to women? And i'm asking these questions for a very good reason. I've seen feminists look into things in such absurd ways to find ways to be offended and now i simply can't take "it's offensive!" as an answer. I want a "why".

Yes, I read that point. Like I said, I think the flaw in your argument is that you really don't seem to understand what sexism actually is.

Having your female characters all have interactive jiggly tits is offensive and degrading because it perpetuates a negative stereotype about women, i.e. that they are little more than objects to be used for the amusement of men, with no dignity or agency of their own.

How is that hard to understand in this day and age? It would be "silly and pointless" to have a black character who is your slave sidekick who you feed watermelon in order to restore his health, but somehow I don't think you'd be trying to defend that. Honestly, what is the difference?