Anita Sarkeesian: Women's vs. Men's Rear Ends

[bilby]

And none of you seems to get the real problem: that the games are made for men.

Really? Are they penis operated?



- - - Updated - - -

They're pixels on a screen, they cannot have feelings. Maybe Anita should design her own games, if she doesn't like the ones in existence. I don't think gamers should have to change their tastes to suit her sensibilities.

#firstworldproblems

If you're going to say that's a first world problem you might as well say Anita's issue with video games is a first word problem too.

ANYONE'S issue with video games is a first world problem. Video games are a first world phenomenon.

 

[Juma]

Really? Are they penis operated?

et tu Bilby? I thought you where better than that?

Yes, there must obviously be some penis involved in this, why would women have to be depicted as sexually attractive?

 

[bilby]

Really? Are they penis operated?

et tu Bilby? I thought you where better than that?

Yes, there must obviously be some penis involved in this, why would women have to be depicted as sexually attractive?

I haven't got a dog in this fight; I am not a gamer, and I am a feminist, but perhaps only in the old-fashioned sense of the word - I don't think of myself as a "potential rapist" for moral reasons, despite owning the appropriate physical equipment.

Both sides of this "debate" - which is not sufficiently dignified to deserve the name - seem to be being bloody stupid.

Women need to be depicted as sexually attractive for two main reasons:

1) Women are sexually attractive (at least to heterosexual men and homosexual women); and
2) Sex sells.

Gaming is not different from any other marketed product. Unrealistic portrayals of women are unrealistic; And they are ubiquitous.

Personally, if I want to see women as objects, I avail myself of the unfathomable quagmire that is Internet pornography; But if others are embarrassed to do so, and like to pretend that they are not being titillated, but are only playing a game, then that's OK.

Fantasy is fantasy. Marketing uses sexual fantasy to sell stuff. It's crazy to get hung up about it.

'Pornography' isn't a problem; so pseudo-porn in video games is even less of a problem.

Meh. I wouldn't even bother to post here if I wasn't slightly drunk. The whole "debate" is stupidity upon stupidity, from both sides; As ideological disputes with no grounding in reality so often are.

Treating women with respect is required, for those of us who don't want to be arseholes. Ogling animated women in video games is harmless. And there is no evidence that it leads to the ogling of real live women in real life. So why not?

 

[Juma]

Women need to be depicted as sexually attractive for two main reasons:

1) Women are sexually attractive (at least to heterosexual men and homosexual women); and
2) Sex sells.
.

So that is ok? You feel that filling up your culture with sex is ok because it sells?

What i dont get is that people dont see how ridiculous this is.

Is the gamedevelopers not better than this? Do they have to rely on sex to sell their titles?

 

[bilby]

Women need to be depicted as sexually attractive for two main reasons:

1) Women are sexually attractive (at least to heterosexual men and homosexual women); and
2) Sex sells.
.

So that is ok? You feel that filling up your culture with sex is ok because it sells?

What i dont get is that people dont see how ridiculous this is.

Is the gamedevelopers not better than this? Do they have to rely on sex to sell their titles?

Our culture is already full of sex. Humans like sex. They do a lot of it - for pleasure, for bonding, for procreation, and even just to relive their boredom.

They are trying to sell their titles.

They needn't rely on sex, but if it works, why need they abjure it?

I want to cross a river. I can use the bridge, or I can swim. Would you ask "Are you not better than this? Do you have to rely on bridges to cross rivers?" Of course, I don't HAVE to. But if it is the easiest way, why should I not?

Of course it is ridiculous. Humanity is rarely anything else.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Women need to be depicted as sexually attractive for two main reasons:

1) Women are sexually attractive (at least to heterosexual men and homosexual women); and
2) Sex sells.
.

So that is ok? You feel that filling up your culture with sex is ok because it sells?

What i dont get is that people dont see how ridiculous this is.

Is the gamedevelopers not better than this? Do they have to rely on sex to sell their titles?

Ya, that's ok. If executives feel that associating a brand of beer with young, attractive people partying will help sell more of that brand of beer, then it's fine to have young, attractive people partying in their commercials to help sell that beer. If a perfume company thinks that women will respond to an ad with a ripped European guy being uncontrollably consumed by desire for a woman wearing their perfume, it's fine to make an ad like that. If a restaurant feels that its sales will increase if it has its waitresses wear tight outfits, it's fine to have that be their outfits.

Sex isn't evil and it isn't a negative. Using it to help sell your product isn't either of those either.

 

[Terrell]

Really? Are they penis operated?

et tu Bilby? I thought you where better than that?

Yes, there must obviously be some penis involved in this, why would women have to be depicted as sexually attractive?

Why not? Why should us gamers have to change our tastes to suit your, or Anita's sensibilities? Why should you have the right to police other people's fantasies, when you can't show that said fantasy is harmful to any innocent party? How does what I do on the privacy of my own XBOX 360 or PC demonstrably harm you, or anyone else? Fallout New Vegas is a single player game.

Should my Courier in FONV not be allowed to wear her Naughty Nightwear in casinos, even if she's doing it for the +1 Luck bonus on the item?

 

[credoconsolans]

Yes it is. It makes people believe that women is sex objects.

Exactly. It's like how Harry Potter turned people to witchcraft and satanism.

What it did was make some witchcraft acceptable. And yes, it has made some young people curious about the current pagan/witchcraft religions and practices and they then start investigating it and yes, some do convert.

So yes, movies and TV and games DO influence some people.

 

[credoconsolans]

Feminist FrequencyStrategic Butt Coverings «

This episode examines the ways in which designers often employ camera angles and clothing choices as tools to deliberately sexualize and objectify female protagonists of third-person games. To illustrate that this is no accident, we contrast the ways in which women’s butts are frequently emphasized with the great lengths often taken to avoid calling attention to the butts of male characters. We then present some examples of female-led third-person games that humanize rather than objectify their protagonists.

Like covering men's rear ends with capes and jackets and the like, and having women twist to show off both their breasts and their rear ends.

 

[Nexus]

So yes, movies and TV and games DO influence some people.

Then you would have to agree with the religious right that Hollywood has been pushing the gay agenda. If sexy video game characters make some men objectify women then certainly the proliferation gay characters in media is influencing some towards homosexuality.

 

[Juma]

So yes, movies and TV and games DO influence some people.

Then you would have to agree with the religious right that Hollywood has been pushing the gay agenda. If sexy video game characters make some men objectify women then certainly the proliferation gay characters in media is influencing some towards homosexuality.

Of course it does. It doesnt make people gay but it normalizes the existence of gays.

 

[Terrell]

Then you would have to agree with the religious right that Hollywood has been pushing the gay agenda. If sexy video game characters make some men objectify women then certainly the proliferation gay characters in media is influencing some towards homosexuality.

Of course it does. It doesnt make people gay but it normalizes the existence of gays.

What's wrong with normalizing the existence of gay people? What's wrong with acknowledging that heterosexual men, lesbian women as well, find women sexually attractive? Why is it wrong to have media that appeals to that? Why should media, in this case video games, be sterilized of sexy women?

 

[Juma]

Of course it does. It doesnt make people gay but it normalizes the existence of gays.

What's wrong with normalizing the existence of gay people? What's wrong with acknowledging that heterosexual men, lesbian women as well, find women sexually attractive? Why is it wrong to have media that appeals to that? Why should media, in this case video games, be sterilized of sexy women?

Who said it is wrong?

 

[Terrell]

What's wrong with normalizing the existence of gay people? What's wrong with acknowledging that heterosexual men, lesbian women as well, find women sexually attractive? Why is it wrong to have media that appeals to that? Why should media, in this case video games, be sterilized of sexy women?

Who said it is wrong?

Which question are you asking about? Normalization of gay people, sexy women in video games, both, or the other questions asked?

 

[prideandfall]

So yes, movies and TV and games DO influence some people.

Then you would have to agree with the religious right that Hollywood has been pushing the gay agenda. If sexy video game characters make some men objectify women then certainly the proliferation gay characters in media is influencing some towards homosexuality.

also, the proliferation of thin and attractive people in TV and movies has made it so that everyone in the US is thin and attractive.
and nobody ever goes to the bathroom. ever.
and all relationships are quirky and charming love affairs.
and porn has desensitized men to having orgasms quickly, so all sex lasts for 30 minutes or more.

right? because that's totally how this ridiculous bullshit argument works?

 

[Juma]

Who said it is wrong?

Which question are you asking about? Normalization of gay people, sexy women in video games, or both?

Normalization of gay people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Then you would have to agree with the religious right that Hollywood has been pushing the gay agenda. If sexy video game characters make some men objectify women then certainly the proliferation gay characters in media is influencing some towards homosexuality.

also, the proliferation of thin and attractive people in TV and movies has made it so that everyone in the US is thin and attractive.
and nobody ever goes to the bathroom. ever.
and all relationships are quirky and charming love affairs.
and porn has desensitized men to having orgasms quickly, so all sex lasts for 30 minutes or more.

right? because that's totally how this ridiculous bullshit argument works?

Well, like many arguments, it works in theory. It's only when one attempts to apply that theory to reality that things falls apart.

As anyone who's ever advocated a position on the internet knows, when your theory conflicts with reality, reality needs to be ignored.

 

[Terrell]

Which question are you asking about? Normalization of gay people, sexy women in video games, or both?

Normalization of gay people.

It isn't, and I don't think anyone is saying it's wrong to normalize it. I do think that you are saying that it's wrong to have sexy women in video games. Why should those things be treated any differently?

 

[Juma]

Normalization of gay people.

It isn't, and I don't think anyone is saying it's wrong to normalize it. I do think that you are saying that it's wrong to have sexy women in video games. Why should those things be treated any differently?

Eh.. Do you think that any effect from games and video must be good?

 

[Terrell]

It isn't, and I don't think anyone is saying it's wrong to normalize it. I do think that you are saying that it's wrong to have sexy women in video games. Why should those things be treated any differently?

Eh.. Do you think that any effect from games and video must be good?

No. Do you?