"Why don't they emphasis penises like that?!"

[4455]

The equivilent of boobs is a nipple...

A penis equates to a vagina.

 

[Floppertje]

snip

I'm mainly basing this off of what my female friends have told me So I can't really disprove your points.
People always have their preferences.

So then what's the solution?
Stop putting Boobs on things? Because That isn't very likely. The same applies to huge muscular men.

My ex told me she doesn't like looking at genitals, my current girlfriend enjoys looking at both. As you said, people have their preferences.
I'd say the solution isn't to stop putting boobs on things, it's to shift the focus from the boobs to other things. The problem isn't that there are sexualized girls in games, the problem is that the ratio of sexualized to not-sexualized is so skewed.

 

[deadish]

Because there are very few people who want to see a penis?

Men are heavily visually simulated. Boobs of an attractive women is sure to attract them.

Dicks? Other than homosexuals ... also the fact that hetrosexual men don't really like looking at each other's dicks.

What about women you say. For women, the visual aspect is only half the equation when it comes to attraction. And for most part, a shirtless guy with a ripped body is more appealing than a guy in a shirt with his dick out.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Because boobs are closer to eye level than penises mainly. They're easier to frame.

Plus other stuff said, like boobs not being reproductive in nature, being more pleasant to look at, boobs being more symbolic than anything, etc.

Also avarage hetrosexuals are "programmed" to notice certain features in the opposite gender due to reproductive instinct, genrally the related to potential virility and how suitable the person is for breeding and childcare. the avarage hetro male brain is hardwired to notice an "hourglass" shape, i.e breasts and thighs, while the avarage hetro female brain is programmed to notice shoulder and chest width that is broader than that of the the hip region. the genitals arre mainly just a means to an end

 

[manic_depressive13]

Everyone knows that sexual attraction to females comes with an apreciation for breasts. It is a sexual thing. To claim there's nothing sexual about this is absurd. I hope you were just making satire there.

You can use a penis to urinate. Does this mean penises are not in any way sexual?

As much as sexual attraction to males comes with an appreciation for pecs. Yet women- sorry, females- are penalised socially and even legally for removing their shirts in public, and males aren't. Seriously, how many times do I have to reiterate the same point? Any part of the human body can be sexual. That's different to how our culture and society sexualises and objectifies women's bodies.

 

[manic_depressive13]

That's circular reasoning. You're basically saying culture is sexist because it's arbitrary and it's arbitrary because it's sexist.

Doesn't work like that. You can't just re-iterate your opinion as proof of that opinion either. You said breasts aren't sexual, so the need to do breastfeeding somewhat privat is weird. I pointed out how that's incorrect because everything that's considered sexually exposing is done in private.

I don't think I ever attempted to explain why sexism exists.

Considered sexually exposing by whom? I don't think breastfeeding mothers consider what they're doing to be sexual. Especially considering that there's, you know, a baby involved.

 

[sumanoskae]

Women simply don't respond to media like this as strongly as men do.

Except this is true to a very large degree.

Not only is it true but it's true to the degree that men are often shamed for showing a liking in it but still seek it out anyway.

In the same way that the go to insult to offend someone who is to make fun of the idea that they have had lots of sexual partners, the go to insult for males is to insult them for not having sex, men who show interest in this stuff are shamed for not seeking out real sex, you can do both but the person insulting doesn't know or really care.

The crucial distinction is culture VS genetics. Human beings are impressionable; they can be made to act in almost any manner if they are raised to do so.

And media has some influence on that culture. Not an amount that can't be undone by the influence of parents and peers, but some influence none the less. So arguing that media has no responsibility to buck trends that it itself has helped to form makes no sense.

I think we're both in agreement that this is an unfair double standard, and the reason it'a vital to recognize the difference between nature and nurture is that if this is a case of nurture, we don't have to put up with it, we can change it.

Same reason why dildo's are seen as acceptable at least compared to the male equivalent which is seen as disgusting. The idea that it's only recently become acceptable for women to indulge is silly, they've been doing it in the ways women have enjoyed for years, romantics, rom-coms and novels.

If you're arguing that romantic comedies are the female equivalent of fan service, how are you also going to argue that women don't respond as strongly to media as men do? They can't both possess an equivalent reaction and a weaker reaction at the same time.

Not that I think the two things ARE equivalent; I would argue that there is a world of psychological difference between sexual fantasy and romantic fantasy. And the idea that women don't engage in sexual fantasy is provably false.

In my original post I mentioned 50 Shades of Grey, which is a romantic story in the same way that Ninja Gaiden 2 technically has a plot. Let's mot mince words; that novel is fucking porn, and it was hugely popular among women.

Want more evidence? Take a look at any fan fiction website; I guarantee a huge chunk of it is homo erotic stories, a great deal of which is written and enjoyed by women.

On the flip side, the idea that men don't have any interest in romantic fantasy is equally false. Why do you think it is that so many video games, even those in which you can play only as a man, have romantic subplots? Persona 4 is practically a goddamn dating simulator, and there is not a potential relationship in sight that gives the player any other option besides playing as a boy and romancing a girl.

Speaking of dating sims, a great deal of visual novels are romantic in nature. They are also often sexual, but to my knowledge they typically feature sex only a few times throughout the duration.

The stereotype you're siting, the idea that romance is for women and porn is for men, is false; what you're noticing is that men will more openly admit to enjoying porn and women will more openly admit to enjoying romance. Each gender can enjoy either one, and they are not remotely the same thing; I sure as hell don't masturbate when I'm watching a romantic film.

Yet, when it comes to the most visible form of pornography, pornographic films, their target audience has historically been almost exclusively male (And to my knowledge, this is still the case today). This is perhaps the most lucrative form of porn, and almost all of it is produced under the assumption that only men could possibly be interested in it. Call me crazy, but I don't see any reason why this has to be the case.

Like I said before, humans are impressionable, so this sort of reasoning creates a self fulfilling prophecy; you don't bother to sell to a certain market, so that market never develops a taste for your product, which you use as a justification for why you never bother to sell to them. It's circular logic!

I've heard some people say that women have an inherent affinity for erotic literature as opposed to erotic film. But how could we possibly know that you can't sell filmed porn to women? We've never tried!

The thing about preconceptions is that they are accepted so early and with so little argument or resistance, that they are rendered invisible to the naked eye. Since no alternative is ever presented in the formative process, we just assume that they are the unassailable truth, and we develop a confirmation bias against examples to the contrary, because they threaten our security in our understanding of the world around us. We learn early to accept all the coincides with the preconception, and rationalize away all that doesn't.

But, like with language, the fact that it becomes second nature does not mean that it is genuine nature; it's just a sophisticated illusion; a sociological trick of light. But we wouldn't be afraid of things that threatened the preconception if it couldn't be undone, and the flip side of that fear is that we are not beholden to it; it's power is of our own creation - it's all in our heads.

 

[Edl01]

Simple, because guys like to look at boobs.

Seriously the answer is literally that simple. Could someone explain to me what the problem is?