The rampant Sexualization in videogames

Stephen St.

New member
May 16, 2012
131
0
0
CFriis87 said:
I'd say your view is the oversimplified one.
If I have sex with someone, I do indeed run the risk of contraceptives being ineffective for any reason. But I also run the risk of HER choice to carry the pregnancy through, despite my wishes to not become a father, making any precautions I take irrelevant. Women have the pill, barrier contraceptives, IUDs, morning after pills and a vide host of other types of contraceptives.
Men have the condom, which is always recommended, but never recommended as your sole form of security and easily compromised.
After this, women have the choice to have an abortion (her body, her choice). Whatever HER choice is at this point, the man is forced to go with it. So why should a father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have?
Furthermore, current co-habitation laws mean that you do not have to be married to the mother to be held legally responsible for her child. If she can show the court a receipt for you buying something that fully, or in part would go to the child (i.e. food, diapers, clothes), the court will hold you legally responsible as a "father figure", the same goes for if you co-habitate with her for a certain amount of time, after that time, the law will treat you as married.
First off, please note that "the law" is not equal in all countries, and you should specify which legal system you are talking about. I am going to assume you are mostly concerned with the US legal system, which I am somewhat, but not intricately, familiar with.

Adressing your first point: You run the risk that your partner is lying to you. Therefore, you need to be able to trust your partner. If you have sex with someone you cannot trust, well, that was your risk to take.
Should the father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have? Yes. Because otherwise, there is no-one responsible, and there are certain compromises we must make. But here we venture deep into moral territory, and that is somewhat dependant on what core philosophy you are following.

I was not aware of that legal rule, since the system is different where I live (which, in case you wonder, is also part of western culture). That rule seems overly strict to me. But again, the law needs to assign responsibility to someone, so the debate becomes who do we properly assign responsibility? You need to always consider the emotional impact of an abortion on both biological parents. It is hardly a decision that should be governed by financial concerns.

Anyways, I feel this in-depth discussion about Men's reproductive rights is getting slightly off-topic. The topic being "disposability" of men as a theme of current western culture, if I am not mistaken?

CFriis87 said:
Actually no... even after birth, the woman holds the right to give her child away to a center for adoption, the "father" has no right to walk away and not be held responsible (no longer her body, still her choice, still his responsibility)
Isn't the right to put the child up for adoption tied to child custody, and not gender? At least, that would seem to make more sense.

CFriis87 said:
No, I was making the point that women are not held as accountable for their actions as men are, but I guess that is also a point about equality, since I'd say accountability for one's actions is a big inequality in our society.
That is nice of you, but I am not discussing these issues. I certainly don't argue that there is no inequality with regard to gender in our society, though we may disagree on the extent.

What I am discussing, and have tried to discuss for this entire discussion, is your allegation that western society is largely characterized by the "disposability of men", and that videogames are an example of this culture. If you do no longer want to discuss this point, I think we can part ways here.

CFriis87 said:
Last I checked, a drunk driver was still legally accountable for drunk driving and a drunken rapist(man) was still a rapist. And since women, in the eyes of the law, can't rape men, or at least have to jump through a lot of hoops to do so, drunken men by default give more consent, even if they don't.
If both parties are drunk, in the eyes of the law, the man is the rapist by default.
I'd love to hear about a case where a woman was convicted of rape, because the man she had non-consensual sex with was drunk, but I won't hold my breath.
That depends on the level of drunkenness, of course. Few people are drunk enough to be absolved of legal responsibility, but the standard is the same for both genders, at least in the legal system I am familiar with. You have a point about the sexual assault laws, in that it is very hard to determine who is at fault in cases were both parties are too drunk for informed consent, but not drunk enough to be out of legal responsibility. I can see how the assumption would be that the man was the one initiating the contact, and thereby the rapist. Certainly an issue that is worth to be discussed, with the proper legal background.


CFriis87 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights
Scroll down to the Men's Rights bit of that article, apparently is not exactly unconstitutional according to the US Court of Appeals.
Yeah, I was talking about something else. I am sorry if I did not make that clear: I was talking about different standards of responsibility based on gender, which I cannot imagine any western country would actually pass.

CFriis87 said:
The reason my logic on this is flawed is because I'm not arguing based on logic. I'm arguing based on experience of an illogical system, and your counter-arguments are based on the assumption that the system IS indeed logical.
This is a sort of cognitive dissonance between the two of us and results in both of us arguing different things as though they were the same.
My argument is that the baseline worth of a man of male child is less than the baseline worth of a woman or female child and that this is a mentality that determines the differences in treatments of men and women respectively.
If you are not arguing with logic, you are not arguing at all. Or rather you may be arguing, as in "fighting with words", but you are not conducting a rational discussion. I am uninterested in irrational discussions, I am sorry. I agree that there is a cognitive dissoance between the two of us, in that I am arguing purely what is referenced above, the thesis that there is a major trait of western culture that can be labeled "male disposability". You seem to want to discuss gender equality in a broader sense, which I feel is off-topic. But you have now made a clear statement of your logic:

"My argument is that the baseline worth of a man of male child is less than the baseline worth of a woman or female child"

I agree with that premise, as I have stated before.

"and that this is a mentality that determines the differences in treatments of men and women respectively."

I disagree with this conclusion, since it ignores any other biological, psychological, and cultural factor that determines the relations between men and women. That too, i have tried to make clear over several posts.


CFriis87 said:
In some parts of the world there are more men:
Like in China where male children are socially bound to care for their parents when they get old, but female children are not.
In other parts of the world there are more women... like in the US, Canada and most of Europe.
Yeah, but if I am not mistaken about human biology, more men are born than women, so eventually, there should be more men in total. Which is why I agree with your premise, by the way.


CFriis87 said:
I was not aware that I was required to re-post all the evidence of female safety and rights being valued being valued higher than male ones EVERY time I alluded to this being the case.
I don't ask you to re-post everything, I am questioning what it actually indicates, and whether your conclusions are sensible.


CFriis87 said:
Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, when men are: 76% of all homicides, at least half of all domestic violence victims, and by far most victims of aggravated assault?
Because people felt that domestic violence was no properly adressed by the legal system, and at the time the act was passed into law, people believed that men, being the pyhsically stronger sex, would be less likely to be the target of domestic violence.


CFriis87 said:
When at least half of all domestic violence victims are men, why then are there Predominant Aggressor Policies set in place with police training in the Duluth model to justify arresting the man in almost every single case of domestic disturbances?
Because apparently, those statistics have not yet overcome societal prejudice that a.) Men are more likely to be aggressive in intimate relationships and b.) Men who can't defend themselves against a woman are pansies, anyway.


CFriis87 said:
Why does Title IX turn innocent young men into acceptable losses, by removing their right to counsel, their right to know their accuser and lowering the standard of evidence from "reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence"?
I would say same as above, with the addition of potential lobbying from certain misguided persons.

CFriis87 said:
Even if this is not a major theme of current society (which is always a subjective judgment, and I believe it IS a major theme), does not mean it isn't a pervasive theme, or indeed a major problem.
You are right, it does not mean that. But I don't feel its pervasive or a major problem, either. I think the issues that you pointed out are more easily explained by the common stereotype that Men are active, strong and self-sufficient, whereas women are passive, mild-mannered and in need of guidance and, admittedly, protection.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Stephen Sossna said:
CFriis87 said:
I hate to butt in on your debate, but I thought I would clarify something here, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is actually gender neutral, it was changed in the 90's I believe during the Clinton administration, they just kept the old name for recognitions sake.

I've actually used VAWA money and programs in the past to help male clients who were victims of domestic abuse so I know it does apply to both genders. The main hurdle to reporting domestic abuse in males is the stigma attached to it, as many men and women see it as a mark of shame that a man was overpowered by a woman, so oftentimes men will willingly hide domestic abuse out of fear of being judged by their peers. Women do it too, but it tends to stem more from a fear of retribution from the abuser, than fear of being judged by other women.
 

Anthony Corrigan

New member
Jul 28, 2011
432
0
0
Stephen Sossna said:
Yeah, but if I am not mistaken about human biology, more men are born than women, so eventually, there should be more men in total. Which is why I agree with your premise, by the way.
Umm that's wrong, even fertilisation rates favour females, the at every stage of life from birth to old age the death rate for males is higher than females, for example males are far more susceptible to genetic conditions because we don't have the redundancy of a second x if there are errors in one
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
Stephen Sossna said:
So, there is no moral or ethical reason, but it still discredits them? Why?
Because you are less likely to trust someone who has been proved a liar.
Stephen Sossna said:
The point is men had a voice, all the voice, in fact. But they didn't care.
Again, a ridiculous generalisation.
Stephen Sossna said:
I just don't see how every group that wants to adress the problems it's seeing has to adress everyone else's problems too. The civil rights movement isn't "discredited" because it didn't simultaneously fight for gender equality or same sex marriage. Feminist are allowed to only adress feminist problems. You might not like it, but thats no argument.
Wait, movement? I was talking about one particular argument, I wasn't even talking about a single policy or position of any kind of movement.
Let me give you an analogy.
I might try and ban fireworks, using the unnecessary distress they cause wild and domestic animals as my justification. If it were then revealed that I hunt for sport (and therefore don't care about animals being caused distress) and that I am an amateur astronomer (which is why I would prefer the sky be devoid of fireworks), then I would be discredited.
It wouldn't matter if everything I said about fireworks scaring animals was true. Because I as an individual have been proved untrustworthy.

Fistful of Ebola said:
I think you missed the point; a compelling counter-argument requires the logic of the argument to be addressed and refuted. Simply stating that it's not a big deal because you go through it too, but you adopt a stiff upper-lip and soldier on is an attempt at redirecting the debate elsewhere. I can sympathize in gender issues to an extent, because people very rarely are interested in discussing much less taking seriously the issues that negatively impact men. That still doesn't excuse it, it's an irrational argument whose purpose is to silence dissent.
See I do wish that were the case.
First of all I wish that all debate and discussion was handled in the respectable, relevant and to-the-point manner you describe. But unfortunately discrediting one's opponent seems to be a widely accepted part of debate and discussion, and not even just political debate or discussion. And I'll admit, that sometimes it is necessary.
Second of all I wouldn't want to speculate as to the specific motivations behind the "we've been on fire for ages" counterpoint. Yeah I imagine people could use it to deliberately stifle discussion, but I also imagine that would be a minority of cases.
For example, if I were to ever use said counterpoint, it would not be in an attempt to stifle discussion, but to illustrate my disappointment that the writing quality of male characters and any of their overused trends would not be looked at or considered a problem, purely because they are male.

Fistful of Ebola said:
A compelling counter-point does not focus itself on attacking the motivations of another.

And I totally buy the male disposability argument.
Well I find it compelling in the way that I'm not likely to trust somebody who has been proved to be exploiting social and ethical issues for their own personal gain.

lacktheknack said:
While I see where you're coming from, the fact that it's selfish of her to not care that the guys were on fire first doesn't change the fact that everyone's on fire and we should probably fix that. That's why the comic chose fire specifically over, say, getting mud all over themselves.
Oh certainly, but it does raise the question whether it's an inherently gender related issue at all, and whether looking at the issue through such a controversial light helps or hinders.
 

CFriis87

New member
Jun 16, 2011
103
0
0
EternallyBored said:
Stephen Sossna said:
CFriis87 said:
I hate to butt in on your debate, but I thought I would clarify something here, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is actually gender neutral, it was changed in the 90's I believe during the Clinton administration, they just kept the old name for recognitions sake.

I've actually used VAWA money and programs in the past to help male clients who were victims of domestic abuse so I know it does apply to both genders. The main hurdle to reporting domestic abuse in males is the stigma attached to it, as many men and women see it as a mark of shame that a man was overpowered by a woman, so oftentimes men will willingly hide domestic abuse out of fear of being judged by their peers. Women do it too, but it tends to stem more from a fear of retribution from the abuser, than fear of being judged by other women.
I know that VAWA has been rewritten in technically gender neutral language, but that doesn't mean it's being used fairly.
I only know of very few campaigns to raise awareness of male victims of Domestic Violence, and they're all pretty obscure.
Have you seen this one anywhere before? http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=Y1CfNIZKFiQ
I've heard a lot of stories from male victims, and more often than not, they are the ones to be arrested when calling the police, they get transferred and referred to services for batterers when they call support hotlines, and when they get abused in public, people either don't interfere, or assume he's done something to deserve it. If the woman can tel a lie convincing enough, some people might even join in.
I don't give a shit about the wording of VAWA and I don't give a shit about the dictionary definition of feminism.
I give a shit about their effects.
 

CFriis87

New member
Jun 16, 2011
103
0
0
Stephen Sossna said:
First off, please note that "the law" is not equal in all countries, and you should specify which legal system you are talking about. I am going to assume you are mostly concerned with the US legal system, which I am somewhat, but not intricately, familiar with.
While it's true that different countries have different laws. And I am so far most knowledgeable about the US legal system as it pertains to equal rights between the sexes, I have also studied up on the situations in the UK and Sweden (so far). While their laws are different, and the wording of the ones that are similar are different, their legal system holds the same pervasive theme of discriminating against men for the safety of women.

Stephen Sossna said:
Adressing your first point: You run the risk that your partner is lying to you. Therefore, you need to be able to trust your partner. If you have sex with someone you cannot trust, well, that was your risk to take.
Should the father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have? Yes. Because otherwise, there is no-one responsible, and there are certain compromises we must make. But here we venture deep into moral territory, and that is somewhat dependant on what core philosophy you are following.
Women run that same risk, but the consequences are theirs to choose whether to accept or not. Men do not have that privilege.
"Should the father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have? Yes. Because otherwise, there is no-one responsible, and there are certain compromises we must make."
Last I checked, TWO minus ONE was not ZERO, but it's been a while since I had math in high-school, so I might be a bit rusty. Unless you believe women are not responsible for the babies they choose to carry to term, I don't see why men should be responsible for children they did not choose to have and it *isn't* a compromise we must make.

Stephen Sossna said:
I was not aware of that legal rule, since the system is different where I live (which, in case you wonder, is also part of western culture). That rule seems overly strict to me. But again, the law needs to assign responsibility to someone, so the debate becomes who do we properly assign responsibility? You need to always consider the emotional impact of an abortion on both biological parents. It is hardly a decision that should be governed by financial concerns.

Anyways, I feel this in-depth discussion about Men's reproductive rights is getting slightly off-topic. The topic being "disposability" of men as a theme of current western culture, if I am not mistaken?
"the debate becomes who do we properly assign responsibility?"
I would think that giving the burden of responsibility to the one who has the power of choice would be the obvious answer to any logical and rational being, but apparently not.
Refusing men the same reproductive rights keeps them forcefully useful... like tools that cannot choose whether to be used or not. That's a big part of male disposability.

Stephen Sossna said:
Isn't the right to put the child up for adoption tied to child custody, and not gender? At least, that would seem to make more sense.
There are legal safe havens where mothers are allowed to leave their children anonymously. So paperwork and custody doesn't really have to factor in at all.

Stephen Sossna said:
That is nice of you, but I am not discussing these issues. I certainly don't argue that there is no inequality with regard to gender in our society, though we may disagree on the extent.

What I am discussing, and have tried to discuss for this entire discussion, is your allegation that western society is largely characterized by the "disposability of men", and that videogames are an example of this culture. If you do no longer want to discuss this point, I think we can part ways here.
And apparently you don't think any of the evidence I put forth of male disposability in western culture is relevant to the discussion.
The evidence that male life, health and happiness is an acceptable sacrifice to offer up for supposed female safety.
I suppose I haven't focused much on male disposability in games, as I was of the impression that you already saw the problematic state of the objectifying disposable nature that male video-game characters are usually given.
Perhaps I was wrong in this regard?

Stephen Sossna said:
That depends on the level of drunkenness, of course. Few people are drunk enough to be absolved of legal responsibility, but the standard is the same for both genders, at least in the legal system I am familiar with. You have a point about the sexual assault laws, in that it is very hard to determine who is at fault in cases were both parties are too drunk for informed consent, but not drunk enough to be out of legal responsibility. I can see how the assumption would be that the man was the one initiating the contact, and thereby the rapist. Certainly an issue that is worth to be discussed, with the proper legal background.
I was unaware that there was a point where a man can be so drunk, that it positively affects the legal ramifications of his illegal actions while under the influence? Is this really because of the level of drunkenness that he has inflicted upon himself, or in cases where he was provably, involuntarily drugged by a third party?

Stephen Sossna said:
Yeah, I was talking about something else. I am sorry if I did not make that clear: I was talking about different standards of responsibility based on gender, which I cannot imagine any western country would actually pass.
Despite the amount of evidence to the contrary shown to you so far? That's quite impressive.

Stephen Sossna said:
If you are not arguing with logic, you are not arguing at all. Or rather you may be arguing, as in "fighting with words", but you are not conducting a rational discussion. I am uninterested in irrational discussions, I am sorry. I agree that there is a cognitive dissoance between the two of us, in that I am arguing purely what is referenced above, the thesis that there is a major trait of western culture that can be labeled "male disposability". You seem to want to discuss gender equality in a broader sense, which I feel is off-topic. But you have now made a clear statement of your logic:

"My argument is that the baseline worth of a man of male child is less than the baseline worth of a woman or female child"

I agree with that premise, as I have stated before.

"and that this is a mentality that determines the differences in treatments of men and women respectively."

I disagree with this conclusion, since it ignores any other biological, psychological, and cultural factor that determines the relations between men and women. That too, i have tried to make clear over several posts.
Can you please tell me which of these other biological, psychological and cultural factor make it rationally acceptable to treat male human beings as more disposable (worth less) than female human beings?
Because I must have missed them in one or more of your earlier posts

Stephen Sossna said:
Yeah, but if I am not mistaken about human biology, more men are born than women, so eventually, there should be more men in total. Which is why I agree with your premise, by the way.
As Anthony Corrigan has already pointed out, your assertion is not correct.

Stephen Sossna said:
I don't ask you to re-post everything, I am questioning what it actually indicates, and whether your conclusions are sensible.
I see a pattern in how men are treated. If you see another pattern, that's fine.

Stephen Sossna said:
Because people felt that domestic violence was no properly adressed by the legal system, and at the time the act was passed into law, people believed that men, being the pyhsically stronger sex, would be less likely to be the target of domestic violence.
Yet this antiquated belief had already been debunked by peer-reviewed studies and reports before the last two reinstatements of VAWA.
Also, believing that the physically stronger sex is less likely to be the target of any kind of violence is like saying that women are less likely to be abused because society generally teaches men to never, ever strike a woman.
It is based neither on facts nor logic and should never be allowed to inform public policy, so why was it? If not because the safety of women was and is irrationally seen as more important than the safety of men.

Stephen Sossna said:
Because apparently, those statistics have not yet overcome societal prejudice that a.) Men are more likely to be aggressive in intimate relationships and b.) Men who can't defend themselves against a woman are pansies, anyway.
And the reason that men are not deemed worthy of protection is somehow supposed to disprove that men are not deemed worthy of protection?

Stephen Sossna said:
I would say same as above, with the addition of potential lobbying from certain misguided persons.
I suppose that would make my reply the same as the above one.

Stephen Sossna said:
You are right, it does not mean that. But I don't feel its pervasive or a major problem, either. I think the issues that you pointed out are more easily explained by the common stereotype that Men are active, strong and self-sufficient, whereas women are passive, mild-mannered and in need of guidance and, admittedly, protection.
Oh well that's great! That'd mean that all the feminists are already working on making life better for everyone... like they have been since the sixties.
I mean... sure men are killing themselves off in droves and are legally shut out of their children's lives if their wife feels like it... are arrested via feminist supported and defended predominant aggressor policies when they call the authorities for help with their abusers... have their names smeared in the media and their asses thrown in jail when women for some reason wants to falsely accuse them of rape (but hey, it might teach them to treat women better in the future if they take it as a learning experience)...
I suppose men aren't really seen as disposable and feminism just works in mysterious ways.
 

Alandoril

New member
Jul 19, 2010
532
0
0
Lilani said:
siomasm said:
Utterly out of control! I mean, look at the dwarf in Dragon's crown! Dante in DMC? Kratos in god of war!

These musclebound men skew the public opinion of men, vastly oversexualizing us and making more realistically proportioned men feel both inadequate and disgusted, while women in turn expect that all men should be 6 foot tall, muscle bound, scantily clad giants grunting lustily from exertion upon opening doors, lifting heavy objects and defending them from potential rivals.

I for one demand realistic and proper portrayal of men in video games that gives realistic expectations, who's with me!?!
I haven't read all the posts just yet, so if anyone else has pointed this out already I apologize.

Those characters you pointed out? The dwarf, Kratos, Dante? They weren't made to be attractive to women. They were made to be attractive to men, specifically to tune into their desire for a power fantasy. Like so:


Those characters aren't "sexualized," they're made to fulfill the male power fantasy. And sexualized female characters are made to fulfill the male sexual fantasy. So there's your difference. The female characters are made for the male gaze, and so are the male characters. Perhaps Dante would be the most attractive of that bunch, but that's something rather inherent to most Japanese art styles anyway since they tend to focus on the eyes and more lean figures. But your Kratoses and your Marcus Fenixes? Yeah, they weren't made to titillate women.
OK, what exactly is this power fantasy? From my perspective it literally doesn't exist. I don't want to be these characters or be able to do what they do...
 

dementis

New member
Aug 28, 2009
357
0
0
EternallyBored said:
men aren't getting the lingering camera shots and underwear reveals in games
I kinda wish they were, Devil may cry would be 10 times greater than it already is.

OT: I think the real issue in games isn't that too many female characters are over sexualised, the trouble is not enough male characters are. If we had a nice even balance then everyone would be happy. Quick! Someone start working on the female friendly version of DoA, we'll make a gorram fortune!
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Dont care. Not interested. Men are muscle bound heroes. Woman are over sexualised. Not saying this is a good thing, but its just the way it is. Just like the way geeks in movies look like models with glasses. Its a hyper real version of things, as in fake. Thing is, Lara Croft has done well game sales, i never considered her a sexual character. Just a person i view the game with. An yes a lot of games have that overly sexual armour which is retarded. An developers think thats what they have to do, but unless your a teenager, most people dont care. Good gameplay and good story is all that matters for most people. Most games are fine. Some are the more specifically stylized designed games, as in the men have muscles that are bigger than is normal and the woman have figures that are not normal.

If developers grew up and were not immature then they would still sell games regardless of the characters clothing. A hero is a hero. I get the argument and i agree. But a game is fake and not real, the body dimensions are not real. I have more issue with magazines that say woman should be a thin size even though the models are photo shopped. An mags showing muscle bound men showing you have to be this way to get girls to like you. This is an issue with life, not just with games. Except i have a brain (like most men) and i dont see woman as those in games or mags.I know the difference between a fake girl and a real one. Same way women have brains and dont expect all men to be 6ft 5 muscle bound models. Granted things need to change, but then comes artistic license and creativity.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Quick, name any form of media where sexualisation isn't heavily induced. TV, Books, Painted/Drawn/Sculpted Art, Movies, all of it, full of sexual themes. And not just in recent history, we're talking for as long as the mediums have existed. The notion that video games should be any different is ridiculous. This implies a necessity that games are for children but that has been shown completely false with the average gaming age landing in the 30's. You can claim that games FOR kids should be relatively void of over-sexualisation but the same goes for TV, Books, Painted/Drawn/Sculpted Art, Movies for kids. To hold gaming as a medium to a higher standard would be to impose your own moral values on people who appreciate such things. If anything, the increase in sexualisation is just keeping pace with an aging/maturing market.

An interesting way to look at sexualisation in media is to look at real life women who go out of their way to look sexy. Going so far as to have actual SURGERY to look sometimes marginally more attractive. I mean, I'm in a college town and I'd be surprised if I don't see women jogging up and down major streets in elastic underwear with words like juicy slapped on their ass. As long as these very real women exist I don't think displaying them in video games is necessarily as wrong or unrealistic as we'd like it to be. Yeah, sometimes they way overdo it. But so do some women with breast augmentation and so do some women in deciding what to wear for their jog in public. Almost any criticism you can levy at sexualisation in games can be levied at other forms of media or people in real life. In my opinion, the women who dress scantily and who do get surgery are no less deserving of their representation in media as any other kind of woman. If you're going to design a character there's no reason not to go for perfection. Movies and TV shows go for this all the time but are generally limited by having to use real people.

At the end of the day, you've got to stop viewing depictions of anything in video games as some kind of slant on women. You should always view it as an artist's portrayal of these objects and are no more guilty of manipulating the human form than most artists. Frankly, people praise Ellie from borderlands 2 but how is this any less exaggeration than big busted and wided hips? I think people are just squeemish of sexuality and that's their problem not everyone else's. To demand this of almost any other form of media would be ridiculous, this should be too. If you want to change the content of media then you've got to vote with your wallet and hope like minded individuals do to. But if sexy is what the general public want then that's what they deserve to get. I personally think sexy can take a lot of different forms and doesn't require skimpy clothing and unreleastic proportions. Actually, my own appreciation of females revolves their ability to handle situations. As long as they have a reasonable female form I can most often times prefer that real personality to any of the playboy bodies they throw around. Bodies are just the meat, males and females alike. But the intellect and personality? That's where it's at. A sexualized female with nothing else to attract is just a lazily made character and better writing SHOULD be demanded of every media form.
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
614
0
0
Angus said:
CFriis87 said:
Angus said:
CFriis87 said:
Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.
Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".
I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.
Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too :) ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!
I need to be careful as I am one more infraction away from a probation.

You are incorrect.

The amount of sex I have got has had no affect on the amount I care about issues. Could be down to be studying sociology and actively being a feminist, could be down to how I was raised. Could be that most male feminists are not using feminism as an attempt to get laid. Could be that some men, like myself, care about feminism regardless of getting laid. I have been more of a feminist than any of my past partners.

The reason I care about feminism is because I am an intensely political animal. It affects me because it affects my sisters and my mother, it effects me because I find men who treat women like shit disgusting and I find sexism as a whole disgusting.

and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.
Speak for yourself. Please do not make generalisations that some of us find disgusting.

and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for
Aaand I am out of this thread. The point of view you have articulated in this post has disgusted me.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
Mr F. said:
I need to be careful as I am one more infraction away from a probation.
Fortunately, I am in a more comfortable position. Then again, I haven't really anything to add to your statements.

Angus said:
Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too :) ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!
To think I tried to discuss with you about gender issues in a serious way... what a waste.
 

CFriis87

New member
Jun 16, 2011
103
0
0
Mr F. said:
Angus said:
CFriis87 said:
Angus said:
CFriis87 said:
Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.
Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".
I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.
Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too :) ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!
I need to be careful as I am one more infraction away from a probation.

You are incorrect.

The amount of sex I have got has had no affect on the amount I care about issues. Could be down to be studying sociology and actively being a feminist, could be down to how I was raised. Could be that most male feminists are not using feminism as an attempt to get laid. Could be that some men, like myself, care about feminism regardless of getting laid. I have been more of a feminist than any of my past partners.

The reason I care about feminism is because I am an intensely political animal. It affects me because it affects my sisters and my mother, it effects me because I find men who treat women like shit disgusting and I find sexism as a whole disgusting.

and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.
Speak for yourself. Please do not make generalisations that some of us find disgusting.

and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for
Aaand I am out of this thread. The point of view you have articulated in this post has disgusted me.
You do realize that his comment was addressing mine, and I'm just about the furthest you can find from a feminist.
He really didn't mean any of the things I'm assuming you think he meant.
Not that I find PUAs any less reprehensible than you do, but I do find feminists more reprehensible than him.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
CFriis87 said:
Not that I find PUAs any less reprehensible than you do, but I do find feminists more reprehensible than him.
What exactly is so reprehensible about feminists in general?
 

CFriis87

New member
Jun 16, 2011
103
0
0
CloudAtlas said:
CFriis87 said:
Not that I find PUAs any less reprehensible than you do, but I do find feminists more reprehensible than him.
What exactly is so reprehensible about feminists in general?
Their ideology is...
This should explain it fairly well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6qg8Up3PnU
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
614
0
0
CFriis87 said:
Mr F. said:
Angus said:
CFriis87 said:
Angus said:
CFriis87 said:
Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.
Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".
I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.
Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too :) ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!
I need to be careful as I am one more infraction away from a probation.

You are incorrect.

The amount of sex I have got has had no affect on the amount I care about issues. Could be down to be studying sociology and actively being a feminist, could be down to how I was raised. Could be that most male feminists are not using feminism as an attempt to get laid. Could be that some men, like myself, care about feminism regardless of getting laid. I have been more of a feminist than any of my past partners.

The reason I care about feminism is because I am an intensely political animal. It affects me because it affects my sisters and my mother, it effects me because I find men who treat women like shit disgusting and I find sexism as a whole disgusting.

and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.
Speak for yourself. Please do not make generalisations that some of us find disgusting.

and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for
Aaand I am out of this thread. The point of view you have articulated in this post has disgusted me.
You do realize that his comment was addressing mine, and I'm just about the furthest you can find from a feminist.
He really didn't mean any of the things I'm assuming you think he meant.
Not that I find PUAs any less reprehensible than you do, but I do find feminists more reprehensible than him.
Yes, his comment was addressing yours, which I have yet to read. However, his comment referenced feminists and male attitudes and indicated that people are only feminists to get laid. His generalisations about my half of the species angered and depressed me and I found what he was saying to be of note and utterly revolting. That is why I commented.

No matter the context, stating that "sex is the main thing you need girls for" is revolting.

As for your statement that you are the furthest you could find from a feminist, I take that to mean you are a homophobic mysoginistic fascist pig? Because feminism is about equality. Equality of the sexes. So if you are the furthest you can be from someone who is for the equality of the sexes, one could assume you are the furthest away you can be from one who believes in equality fullstop. Therefore, all of the above is accurate, in your own words.

Unless you are the furthest away you can be from your warped definition of a feminist, quite possibly the straw feminist people like yourself trot out. From your own admission, I can assume you are a Mens Rights Activist and quite possibly a member of Stormfront or any various utterly foul groups.

What is it you find reprehensible about people like myself? Is it the fact that we care about other humans? The fact that, if we are male, we accept that the world is by default slanted in our favour, particularly if we are CIS male. What exactly is it about me that you find reprehensible? What exactly is it about anyone like me that you find reprehensible?

As for what he meant, well, if he is so incapable of communicating his thoughts then maybe he should not post online. What he stated is what I attacked, that you only need woman for sex, that feminism in men is used as a tool for sex, that the more sex you have the less sexually enlightened you become. Generalisations, and foul ones.
CFriis87 said:
CloudAtlas said:
CFriis87 said:
Not that I find PUAs any less reprehensible than you do, but I do find feminists more reprehensible than him.
What exactly is so reprehensible about feminists in general?
Their ideology is...
This should explain it fairly well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6qg8Up3PnU
I cannot watch that as I am sitting in a room with my grandmother.

Lets see.

Google definition of feminism said:
fem·i·nism
/ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Urban Dictionary said:
Feminism
The belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men. These people can be either male or female human beings, although the ideology is commonly (and perhaps falsely) associated mainly with women.

The basic idea of Feminism revolves around the principle that just because human bodies are designed to perform certain procreative functions, biological elements need not dictate intellectual and social functions, capabilities, and rights.

Feminism also, by its nature, embraces the belief that all people are entitled to freedom and liberty within reason--including equal civil rights--and that discrimination should not be made based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, or lifestyle.

Feminists--and all persons interested in civil equality and intellectuality--are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology.
Feminism is the belief that all people are entitled to the same civil rights and liberties and can be intellectual equals regardless of gender. However, you should still hold the door for a feminist; this is known as respect or politeness and need have nothing whatever to do with gender discrimination.
Hmmm...

[quote = Oxford Dictionary] noun
[mass noun]
the advocacy of women?s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
The issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. In Britain it was not until the emergence of the suffragette movement in the late 19th century that there was significant political change. A ?second wave? of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood; seminal figures included Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer [/quote]

I can find a crazy wanker on any subject you name. I can find christians who disbelieve in evolution, atheists who believe that all religious people should be put in prison for crimes against children, Muslims who believe I should burn in hell, men who tell me that I am going to burn for eternity because I am a man who would not mind the company of other men, or a man who has had sex before marriage. I can find you an article that shows that because I do not part my hair to the right, I am into anarchy, rock music and devil worship. I can find you blogs on how Harry Potter is indoctrinating children into witchcraft, how Dungeons and Dragons should be banned because it promotes satan worship.

The important thing here is I will take those people and separate them from the groups they pretend to be following. Just because some Christians think I am an abomination does not mean all Christians believe I am an abomination (Most of those at the church I sometimes attend would disagree with the whole "Fire and Brimstone" thing.)

So ideology, it comes down to ideology. An ideology of equality is somehow offensive to you? Your definition of feminist ideology is something radically different from the definition that the Urban Dictionary comes up with (Crowd sourced by people who, this is a total stab in the dark, are your age.), that the Oxford Dictionary comes up with, that Google comes up with.

Google definition said:
i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē/
Noun
A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political policy: "the ideology of republicanism".
The ideas and manner of thinking of a group, social class, or individual: "a critique of bourgeois ideology".
I think you do not know what Ideology means.
 

clippen05

New member
Jul 10, 2012
529
0
0
I feel like people just make these threads nowadays to stroke their white-knight e-peen. "Yes, yes, I seem concerned and knowledgeable about the problems of gaming; Aren't I just so great for pointing out how flawed big breasts in DOA are!"
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
614
0
0
clippen05 said:
I feel like people just make these threads nowadays to stroke their white-knight e-peen. "Yes, yes, I seem concerned and knowledgeable about the problems of gaming; Aren't I just so great for pointing out how flawed big breasts in DOA are!"
Did you read the opening post? The satire in it was... Poor to say the least.

Also: White Knight? Fine. You know what, I should make a group. White Knights Associated. Because guess what?

If being called a white knight is what I get for not acting like a ****, then a white knight I am. If that is what being a male feminist is now, fine. I guess I am one.

Am I supposed to be insulted?

Mate, there are issues in gaming. A five year old could see that. Some people don't like it. We don't like it for whatever reasons. I am not great for pointing out the issues in modern gaming, as I said anyone can see them. They are, like the tits in dead or alive, gratuitous and bouncing everywhere (Not that dead or alive is the issue at all.). I guess, for people like me, its more "Why the fuck are you guys pretending there is not an issue?" because, well, the people who post in these threads are the "White Knights" and the assholes (You are someone who is just here to mock the white knights. You are not an asshole. I am not insulting you.). Which is bad, because it makes people like myself think there are only two options (White Knight, Asshole) and the assholes think there are only two options (Asshole, White Knight (Who are assholes, apparently)). Whereas most people are like you.

And just don't give a damn either way.