Women in games are not systematically oppressed - a vertical slice

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I want to say one thing regarding this subject:

It's telling that many of the people condemning the (obviously wrong) harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian stood by and did nothing when Jack Thompson got death threats and harassment for his work. Can we all at least agree that Jack Thompson didn't deserve death threats, regardless of how stupid, ignorant or repugnant you found his opinions?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yes, because boycotts in gaming have been so effective in the past. Now, I'm sure one or two examples will invariably come up and be used as all the proof to the contrary one needs (exceptions always disprove the rule, after all), but as a whole, this is an industry that doesn't care and/or looks to other excuses.

I know a lot of folks love to bash boycotts (*insert L4D2 and CoD4.x pics here*) but if I may posit, it's the UNORGANIZED "boycotts" that work more than the organized ones. That is, the unspoken disinterest and revolt that occurs; it most certainly does occur, but is harder to document precisely because companies love to invent all manner of excuses.

When a game doesn't sell, it's because of piracy, or sometimes used games. They've pushed this narrative to the point the consumer has actually taken it up. Brilliant propaganda. Hell, we have game companies doing it to themselves...

Exactly!

This is just like in how whenever a Hollywood movie bombs, it is NEVER, EVER, the fault of bad scripting.
Even though scripting is unquestionably one of the most influential elements.

Outside of critics, nobody really questions it anymore.

Something similar of happened in gaming earlier this year with EA's Dungeon Keeper farce.
The game bombed, EA acknowledged it...and then blamed the audience for not being "ready for it".

Absolutely NO acknowledgement of the horrible price gouging and game-crippling mechanics.

Combine this with the notion that the expectation is a pass-fail on a single issue which may not even be obvious from first blush and a tendency to use "vote with you wallet" as a response to people actively talking, you're not looking at a pretty picture. On top of that, there's no real way to track a negative vote.

It's more complicated to evaluate what you don't have data for, vs what you do.

Though I probably should have stopped with the "vote with your wallet to silence" bit. "Vote with your wallet" is part of a larger strategy that involves consumer awareness, which is what it's used to shout down. Criticism is literally a part of that, and we've seen how well that's been received.

Combine that with an already marginalised or ignored group?

SEEMS LEGIT.

"Vote with your wallet" is just applicable economics.
Unfortunately, (and ironically) it's also turned into the sort of farce we see flippantly used to dismiss criticism.

"Don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet."

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Here's the thing, if you wanna tell a good story and you think you can do that the best with a diverse cast, that's awesome. What's problematic is inherently thinking that there's some intrinsic benefit to diversity.

I have to interject here, as I do feel diversity is intrinsically better. While perhaps not true on an individual basis, looking at overall trends makes it clear to me.

You could have every character be a young white man with a grim determination and a stubble, and if they are all well written maybe that's ok, but if they are all so well written, then why not have some of them be diverse? If it changes nothing about the writing or voice acting, how could giving variety in design not improve it?

I personally much prefer a game that try's something new but is lackluster in other areas, to a game that's the exact same thing, I already own thirty times, but is incredibly well made. (Though I think that simply by the fact that they are not trying anything new or different it does lower the quality of their game. It doesn't make the game bad, but why shouldn't I just go play my other game exactly like it and save some money?)

I agree with you that "new exciting things" are good and I want them. I'm simply...baffled by your narrow scope of them. I don't see a game with a diverse cast as "exciting", not any more so than a game with all white men as the cast. Give me a game with Dragons as the main cast, or ants, or bees, or a big robot who splits into many different smaller robots each with its own personality.


If you wanna champion newness and innovation, you shouldn't focus on a very very narrow way in which games can innovate in a marginally miniscule way and just act as though that's good enough. I don't want gaming to focus on just having a more diverse cast of humans and just be happy there. What if you play as the parrot of the pirate game rather than as a white/black/asian/whatever human pirate captain. All people are the same, no matter their sex or race or ethnicity. They're all people. A diverse cast is equal to an all white one. I don't discriminate or judge people based on those factors. For me, uniqueness isn't making the angry gun-toting marine female or short or fat or from africa. Uniqueness is making an army game and not having the player control any soldiers or something along those lines. Of making a game about military affairs where the played doesn't shoot. Making a more varied group of playable chars that all do what their white counterparts have been doing for 20 years, only bringing their "ethnic flavor" to the mix, is not creative in the least. I get that diverse people want to identify more with playable chars. I'm a Greek dude, the only char of my background in gaming of any note is Kratos and who'd wanna identify with that. I know it sucks. It's still not innovative or creative just cause more people would identify with it though. Those two things are not linked.


Ultimately, the fact that something is already excellently written means that it is what it ought to have been. If something is well made it is "itself" and shouldn't change. If everything is itself then we benefit. A game being itself through having a diverse cast is equally valid. Thing is, I don't give a damn how diverse the cast is so like how I won't care if I play as a white dude, I won't care if I play as a black transgender midget either. I just want the game to be good in whichever way the people who are creating it think is best, since they know better. I choose to trust them and will judge the product based on it.

I'd much rather play a bad game which is as intended than a bad game which is only bad cause of compromise made to fulfill some imaginary quota of inclusivity or whatever else. You can blame the devs for the bad game but what you have to blame for the compromised game is the culture which causes people to feel like compromising. This culture is cancer to good game creation. It should go away.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

...
I don't think you really understand what the meaning of "sexist" is.

Do you?

...
A rape scene, any rape scene, creates a victim. Now, that can be of either gender, but most commonly found in our digital media today is that of male-on-female rape. Ergo, most rape scenes victimize females.

A situation in which you kill, any situation in which you kill, creates a victim. Now, that can be of either gender, but most commonly found in our digital media today is that of male-on-male killing. Ergo, most killing situations victimize males.

...
So, when you consistently use women being raped as a tool to move your plot, whether it be to create a vengeance motive for another character, or using it as a way to "toughen up" a female protagonist, you prove that you see the psychological trauma of rape as being a far secondary topic to whatever plot you've lazily worked the heinous act in.

Hello, this is the 20,028,918th guard killed today by someone somewhere on this Earth. Can I have my death move the plot? Could my death please not be just another one of hundred meaningless deaths in the game and instead be an important part of
the game? Also thanks to the player my little brother now waits in vain for his big brother to come home and play chess with him, can't bear the thought of him griefing. And, oh man, my wife an...and my daughter ....

...
So when games like The Witcher and Game of Thrones do just that, it's not any masterwork of storytelling. It's objectification.

If that's objectification than everyone that gets killed in games is also objectified to be an obstacle to overcome via killing.

...
And honestly, I'm really sick and tired of the "medieval times" argument. None of these stories actually take place on our defined Earth.

But they all involve HUMANS of DIFFERENT GENDERS. But even if they don't involve humans. Why would being on a different planet somehow remove rape from society? Even in our modern days lots of people are murdered and lots of people are raped. So when the game plays is completely irrelevant to this subject. Rape and murder has always existed and it will sadly always exist.

...
So why must we allow every dark fantasy idea get a pass on womens rights? It's not our Earth! Why must we be beholden to such vile acts to engross and immerse the masses? It's lazy, and outright disgusting.

What about the HUMAN right to life of all the men that get killed in all those games???

...
Nothing in the Witcher has ever happened. Ever.

Ever.

Including the rape scenes! And yet you are ranting about them as if the have.

How many games actually include a rape scene? How many games includes death of LOTS of men mindlessly mowed down by the player?? And yet those mass murdering players are really nice boys and girls in real life.
Why are you assuming this will be different for a rape scene? Why are you talking about such a ridiculously small problem as if it is a huge issue??

ALL GAMES OBJECTIFY EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE PLOT! AND ALL BOOKS AND MOVIES DOES THAT TOO! BECAUSE THEY ARE FICTION!!!!!

 

[endtherapture]

I don't get what you mean...if you're not a gamer...why are you here? If you buy these sexist products and then complain about them...why not just not buy them? Consumer boycotts are an old practise.

I am a gamer. I don't know how you got there from here. But you sort of demonstrated what I was getting at with the double whammy. Are you sure that wasn't intentional?

No, if we don't buy a game, we're written off as not a customer and/or not gamers. Hell, sometimes we're written off as not gamers even when we do buy. And you've managed to sandwich both at once. If you don't buy, what's your problem? If you do buy, you are the problem.

The only people saying that gamers "do not exist" are the feminist groups and their supporters in the gaming press.

As for boycotting, people flip the tables when someone just reads off sexist tropes. I can only imagine what an actual boycott would do. But more to the point....

Boycotting/protesting does work. The Mass Effect 3 debacle showed that. Feel free to disagree, but in a capitalist society, writing passive aggressive articles, having debates on forums and making videos are not going to make the corporations in control of game development. You have to take direct action beyond just sitting in your desk chair at home comfortably moaning about things that "oppress" you.

[snip.

you will however notice that majority of games that have a female protagonists are only optional, which is the same misguided (and incorrect) idea that female protagonists are a risk....at least with movies this has proven notto be the case

I'm not gonna call it oppression, but I will call it an issue

I don't think the choice between genders of character is "an issue" at all. I think it's actually the best option, most inclusive of men and women and men to want to play as women and vice versa. I think it's hilarious how you are calling it "an issue".

 

[Vault101]

I don't think the choice between genders of character is "an issue" at all. I think it's actually the best option, most inclusive of men and women and men to want to play as women and vice versa. I think it's hilarious how you are calling it "an issue".

no those games aren't the "issue" those games are fine

my "issue" is we don';t have many games with a non-optional female protagonist

The only people saying that gamers "do not exist" are the feminist groups and their supporters in the gaming press.
.

a few editorials come out on the word gamer and al of a sudden its "feminist groups" talk about creating bogeywomen here

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Endtherapture: I don't have time to read the entire thread, but maybe this can help clarify things...

First, you need to know what a trope is, and how it works. A trope is a storytelling shorthand. Let's say that I want to tell my readers/audience/players in as little space or time as possible that a protagonist is driven, tragic, and probably going to become morally compromised over the course of their story arc. Well, one shorthand for this is to start the story with their girlfriend being murdered. The moment this happens, everybody looking at this story gets it. The murder of the girlfriend isn't portrayed as a good thing - it is, in fact, immediately seen as a bad thing (and this is an important point that I'm going to come back to).

Likewise, let's say I want to create a villain who is a complete monster, and I want the reader/audience/etc. to know it quickly, so that I can get on with the plot. Since our cultural context involves chivalry, I can have the villain commit some act of violence, physical or sexual, against a female character. Again, this isn't seen as a good thing - it is immediately condemned, and it is a very fast way to get everybody reading/watching/playing to hate the villain and want them destroyed.

These tropes are used because they work. And, they are legitimate storytelling tools. If they are balanced out across the medium with a number of other tropes accomplishing the same thing, it's not a problem. For example, I can achieve a similar effect for the tragic, about to be morally compromised hero by having the villain kill their father, or brother, or best friend. Similarly, I can create a fearsome, evil villain by having them torturing some random guy to death in a gristly way with a smile on their face. In all of these examples, the victims are props. They have no agency. They exist solely to provide the storytelling shorthand that tells the reader/audience/player what they need to know so that the story can move forward.

The problem is that in video gaming right now, they're not balanced across the medium. There are more dead girlfriends than there are dead fathers or brothers. The violence against women is a primary trope to establish dark and gritty, instead of one of many.

In all seriousness, look at the last two Tropes vs. Women videos (the two "Women as background decoration" ones), and you'll see what I mean. Most of it is just tropes being used for storytelling purposes, but the pattern is clear, and disturbing.

Now, I did read the first page, and there was plenty of good points made about how women are depicted when they are proper characters in the games, so I won't elaborate on that too much, save to make one point: costuming based on function and costuming based on sexual fantasy are two different things. To take a superhero example, when the male costume says "I am a dangerous vigilante, and if you cross me you'll wake up in the hospital, if you wake up at all," and the female costume says "I am an easy lay, let's go back to my place," that's a problem, and sexism in action.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Endtherapture: When my post went up, I had a chance to read this: "The only people saying that gamers "do not exist" are the feminist groups and their supporters in the gaming press."

Actually, I'd say it too, and I was one of the gamers who was on the front lines back in 2002 fighting for video games to keep their First Amendment protections. The identity of "gamer" as it was back in the 1990s probably became obsolete by 2010 - not because people stopped playing games, but because that identity was based on the playing of games beyond the basic family board games (like Monopoly) separating us from everybody else. Between the 1990s and 2010, everybody else joined us, so that separation no longer existed and therefore the basic thing that defined that identity ceased to be. I know this may be a strange comparison, but it's like suffragettes - once women got the right to vote, the identity of "suffragette" really ceased to exist too, because it was based on the battle for the right to vote. They didn't stop fighting for women's rights, but their identity became something else.

The way I like to put it is we all became players, and, frankly, that's better. It means that this medium can continue to grow, as now it can be for everyone. These days, if anybody has the claim to being a "gamer," it's the ones who do it professionally. And as for those "real gamers" who draw a line against "casuals" and women and who wage harassment campaigns against those who dare to say that the medium should be more inclusive - well, to somebody like me, that feels like they're taking the identity that I and many others held with pride for so many years and crapping all over it. We didn't care who people were, what sex they were, what they played, or why they played - we only cared THAT they played.

So, I don't play games for a living, and I'll be damned if I'm going to identify with a group of reactionary abusive misogynists. I'm a game player, not a "gamer," and proud of it.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Man I liked it much better when gender politics wasn't in everything. Now it's getting really obnoxious.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Bolo: First, thank you for posting the links - they were very interesting to read, and very worth reading.

That said, I completely disagree with you on this: "So i think this narrative that women are harassed online more and are done so purely for being women is 100% complete bullshit. It's often used a shield or a stick to beat people who disagree with certain viewpoints. Women see almost ALL abuse online as "Because I'm a woman" and i think it enhances their profile over and above the statistical reality because it nets them more attention. Men who are abused online are generally ignored or told to get over it. Women who are abused online create massive media defense networks make careers out of it."

Frankly, I think you're reading too much of a conspiracy theory into this. Being driven from your home is NOT "making a career" of anything - it's being terrorized. And the fact that this sort of treatment also happens to others who aren't women doesn't make it right, or in any way acceptable. It is abhorrent, regardless of who is on the receiving side.

In the last 30 days, two people have been driven from their home by explicit threats of violence - Anita Sarkeesian and game developer Zoe Quinn. One more game developer, Phil Fish, was driven out of the industry for calling out the harassment against Zoe Quinn. If you can't recognize this as the problem it is, then you've got issues.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Big Tuk: "So I never judge games on social commentary. The only criteria for a game is.. 'Did I/Am I having fun playing it?' If I can say yes, well the game devs did a good job. I don't care if the characters are cliched, or female or male... so long as the game is fun and entertaining I'm perfectly fine with it. I don't care if the game has bme shooting, demons, nazis, jews, black people, white people, men, women; as long as they make it fun or entertaining or at the very least interesting. It's a good game.

"And yes I did say Jews... what? You got a problem. You're fine with a hundred and one games about shooting people of one broad social group but not another? And yeah I also said black people. What? Nothing wrong with a game where you shoot only black people. There are dozens of games where you shoot only white people so why not."

Big Tuk: You've just declared that you're fine with the most violent kind of bigotry and racism, so long as it's fun. Please consider all the condemnation and crap that's about to land on your head to be self-inflicted.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

.....

Likewise, let's say I want to create a villain who is a complete monster, and I want the reader/audience/etc. to know it quickly, so that I can get on with the plot. Since our cultural context involves chivalry, I can have the villain commit some act of violence, physical or sexual, against a female character. Again, this isn't seen as a good thing - it is immediately condemned, and it is a very fast way to get everybody reading/watching/playing to hate the villain and want them destroyed.

These tropes are used because they work. And, they are legitimate storytelling tools. If they are balanced out across the medium with a number of other tropes accomplishing the same thing, it's not a problem. For example, I can achieve a similar effect for the tragic, about to be morally compromised hero by having the villain kill their father, or brother, or best friend. Similarly, I can create a fearsome, evil villain by having them torturing some random guy to death in a gristly way with a smile on their face. In all of these examples, the victims are props. They have no agency. They exist solely to provide the storytelling shorthand that tells the reader/audience/player what they need to know so that the story can move forward.

The problem is that in video gaming right now, they're not balanced across the medium. There are more dead girlfriends than there are dead fathers or brothers. The violence against women is a primary trope to establish dark and gritty, instead of one of many......

I agree with the first two paragraphs and disagree completely with the last cited paragraph.

The one female death at the start of the game is the problem but the thousands of dead male characters after that are fine? What a disgusting sexist double standard that is. Where are the feminists that demand equality there too? Are there any? How can anyone claim to be for equality and NOT want to get rid of that sexist double standard in games too?

And if I remember correctly Anita is definitely against equality in that area of games.

EDIT: Why is a sexist trope ONLY a problem if the female gender is affected by it??????

 

[Something Amyss]

-snip-

-snip-

Í doubt I'm going to make any headway here, but I find it really weird we're having this "vote with your wallet" argument even as EA's saying "buy our game or there won't be another." Worse, since Atmos made the positive correlation with Dungeon Keeper, which was predominantly lip service in the first place.

Yeah, considering that the "buy our game or there won't be another" has been the bigger of the two trends....Tell me again how boycotts work in the business?

 

[endtherapture]

Endtherapture: I don't have time to read the entire thread, but maybe this can help clarify things...


The problem is that in video gaming right now, they're not balanced across the medium. There are more dead girlfriends than there are dead fathers or brothers. The violence against women is a primary trope to establish dark and gritty, instead of one of many.

Is this really a problem though? I mean, it's using violence against women sure, but it's not promoting violence against women, it's using violence against women to establish a villain or a vile character. The protagonist is barely involved in violence against women in most games. The other methods to get this across is violence against a group of innocents, or violence against children or animals. We see the former, and if the latter happens it's mainly implied due to the disturbing implication of depicting children and pets being killed or abused.

In all seriousness, look at the last two Tropes vs. Women videos (the two "Women as background decoration" ones), and you'll see what I mean. Most of it is just tropes being used for storytelling purposes, but the pattern is clear, and disturbing.

Now, I did read the first page, and there was plenty of good points made about how women are depicted when they are proper characters in the games, so I won't elaborate on that too much, save to make one point: costuming based on function and costuming based on sexual fantasy are two different things. To take a superhero example, when the male costume says "I am a dangerous vigilante, and if you cross me you'll wake up in the hospital, if you wake up at all," and the female costume says "I am an easy lay, let's go back to my place," that's a problem, and sexism in action.

I've watched them, and frankly she just shows a bunch of instances of violence against women, presented without context in a bunch of negative ways. You can frame anything as negative and harmful if you take these instances, and thunderf00t (who is an incredibly intelligent and well reasoned man IMO) has done just that here:

I prefer it in women in games don't wear chainmail bikinies anyway...but that's becoming more and more of an option in a game rather than the norm which is good.

 

[LarsInCharge]

I think your definition of "sexist" is too narrow.

Just because a game has female NPCs or a good female supporting cast, doesn't automatically mean the game is not sexist. Because the portrayal of those females within the game can still be considered to be sexist.

Yeah.

I love the DOA series. But I can admit that it contains some content that is definitely a bit stereotypical and chauvinistic, if not sexist. The fact that a full half of the playable characters are female doesn't change that. (In-game the girls are all tough and kick-ass, but in the pre-rendered scenes they revert to clumsy, simpering and over-emotional bits of fluff... which pisses me off not because I'm a crusading anti-sexist, but because it's ham-fistedly changing the tone of some characters I quite like).

You can have a game with very positive representation but poor depiction, and vice-versa.

Only a couple girls actually fall apart in cutscenes. Ayane, Kasumi, Helena, and especially Christie are shown to be competent badasses in and out of gameplay.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Í doubt I'm going to make any headway here, but I find it really weird we're having this "vote with your wallet" argument even as EA's saying "buy our game or there won't be another." Worse, since Atmos made the positive correlation with Dungeon Keeper, which was predominantly lip service in the first place.

Yeah, considering that the "buy our game or there won't be another" has been the bigger of the two trends....Tell me again how boycotts work in the business?

First: Hostage taking only works when people cave.
Sadly, the spineless masses have caved over and over again in the last console generation, to the point where large companies are feeling bold enough that extortionate garbage like Dungeon Keeper is either viable, or close enough; that it's only a matter of time before the market caves again.

Second, if EA, (or whoever) is only willing to offer garbage like Dungeon Keeper for a given franchise, then further contribution towards such works in the franchise (or company) will only result in the production of more garbage.

They will keep pushing the envelope as long as they think we're too stupid/hooked/gullible to buy it.

Some might argue that a crappy game is better than no game, and that by supporting the crappy games, that capital will find its way to more ambitious, actually good games.

But I find that notion laughably naive, in two ways.
1) "No game" is easier on my wallet than something that I wish I had never purchased. There are plenty of good games on backlog, and even new good games still being made by other firms.

2) What incentive do they have to offer better? These producers aren't developers with vision, they're ruthless businessmen chasing easy, sustainable profit. When the gaming well runs dry, the franchise owners will sell their assets, deploy their golden parachutes and move on.

It's unfortunate, but that's the nature of production; sometimes the wrong people are in charge of high potential.

An actual boycott will at least accelerate the process of their departure so that franchises and material may find their way into the hands of firms that will actually do something good with it. There's no guarantee obviously, but given that several indie projects and "spiritual sequels" are already popping for classics that larger franchise owners' refuse to do justice, I'd say it isn't that far fetched anymore.

 

[Batou667]

Only a couple girls actually fall apart in cutscenes. Ayane, Kasumi, Helena, and especially Christie are shown to be competent badasses in and out of gameplay.

True, the girls most central to the story seldom get played for laughs (although Kasumi's "mermaid dream" from DOA4 was pretty silly). Other girls get bizarre personality-transplants, presumably just for comedic or titillation value - for example Hitomi going from a kick-ass girl capable to taking down a living weapon one minute, to a ditsy bint who goes "uguu~!" and spills her breakfast all over the ceiling when the doorbell rings unexpectedly.

But hey, it's DOA, not Shakespeare, I guess we shouldn't read too much into it...

 

[endtherapture]

I must admit I stopped reading at "The Witcher 2 is not sexist".

Spoiler: You.... you haven't really played that game, did you?

Please get your facts correct before posting. That is The Witcher 1, not The Witcher 2.

 

[endtherapture]

I must admit I stopped reading at "The Witcher 2 is not sexist".

Spoiler: You.... you haven't really played that game, did you?

Please get your facts correct before posting. That is The Witcher 1, not The Witcher 2.

I knew that. I posted that image because...

Please don't tell me you honestly are saying the sequel is different from the first game... and isn't sexist. Please.

Nudity and sex does not make something sexist. What an immature attitude that is to take.

 

[endtherapture]

I must admit I stopped reading at "The Witcher 2 is not sexist".

Spoiler: You.... you haven't really played that game, did you?

Please get your facts correct before posting. That is The Witcher 1, not The Witcher 2.

I knew that. I posted that image because...

Please don't tell me you honestly are saying the sequel is different from the first game... and isn't sexist. Please.

Nudity and sex does not make something sexist. What an immature attitude that is to take.

You're right.
Which is why the Witcher series is sexist.

This is not a game with nude characters. This is a game where you collected softporn cards of every woman you made the protagonist go to bed with, in a collect-them-all fashion. Then, the game evolved to the full scenario of a porn movie, as the video I've linked highly demonstrates. For example, when the pizza guy... I mean, the "hero"... enters the house to find two lesbians who quickly turn heterosexual to ask him to join them. And you're telling me this isn't sexist. The game is chock-full of male fantasy sex scenarios, and you need me to explain that to you?

To make you fully understand, please imagine the other way around: a game with a female protagonist in which you can collect softporn nude pics of hot men, in which there's a lot of full frontal male nudes during sex scenes. No, I don't think you can possibly understand that. But I know you would NOT play that game.

You're just bullshitting now man, exactly the same as Sarkeesian does, cherry picking and misrepresenting scenes to suit your agenda. Where do the lesbians turn hetero for Geralt? It's certainly not Philippa, she's a completely lesbian, if it's prostitutes, then well it's prostitutes, it's a medieval setting, that's their job and that's the setting.

In The Witcher 2, you do not collect naked pictures of female characters. There are sex scenes with love interests, but Triss, which you posted, is a fully fleshed out character who is capable and pro-active, and drives the plot, possibly even manipulating Geralt. Sure the game has a bunch of male sex fantasies, but it's not sexist, it has gay characters, lesbian characters, straight characters and characters who aren't interested in sex at all.

If I had brought up TW1 yes I would've agreed, the game is sexist, TW2 is not though, and TW1 was not part of my vertical slice, so don't give me any shit for it.