Or better yet, people seeking out what's pleasing rather than accepting a challenge.
We're perfectly fine bringing up a controversial topic until it becomes controversial. Are you serious?
See all these reply threads? They splinter off into oblivion. Okay, all totally fine. See this one comment thread disagreeing with me? No, that's making a mess of the comment section. What the fuck?
I'm an adult. I pride myself on being levelheaded. I know exactly how to treat someone if they come to me looking to start a problem. Just ignore 'em, right? Works just fine. Well, I'm choosing to hide evidence of there ever being a disagreement because I might attract knuckleheads.... Excuse me?
I have integrity, or at least I say I do. But at the first chance of opposition, I resort to censorship, and am proud of it. I'll probably then use some official definition of censorship and the fact that it's my page to justify my action, but the end result is that I'm hiding the truth from people all for the sake of my comfort. You kidding me?
And dumbest of all, I am totally confident in my ability to have what might be a heated argument in private..... where I have more power, and I couldn't even take it when in public. Hmmmm.....
Sad thing is, I wanted to apologize for a specific thing that happened during the talks, because some of that was totally my fault, and I told them this, and they were willing to reassure me that I didn't need to apologize..... Without ever fucking knowing what I was apologizing for ....
(When will people realize they say more through their actions than they do with their words?)
I guess I'll have to apologize again for ever putting that much faith and expectation of integrity into them to the point of being disappointed in them when they would inevitably fail, that was entirely asking for too much.
This shit was actually well on it's way to resolving itself in less than one or two more replies. Figure that, huh?
I should've known this shit, reading their regurgitated SJW feminist talking points, and seeing how they're painfully unaware how this sort of thing actually helps keep division between the sexes - did you really expect that feminist theory pointing out things like what x does for x is going to make y happier somehow? Great to know when the context is missing, framed like a tvtropes thing, but totally propaganda when used in combination with promoting the opposite.
I really didn't want to respond at all, because they really don't deserve it after pulling that cowardly shit, but several things have come to mind making it feel appropriate:
1.) I found a delightfully devilish way to show my discontent for the bullshit that was pulled. You're reading it now.
2.) I'm making it a thing now to see things through, and unfortunately this is one of them. It would probably help if I didn't start additional things to work on, but this is nagging at me mostly due to anxiety manifesting in a way that's impairing my ability to speak coherently over the past week, and I'm forcing my way through it, which is why this whole situation is pissing me off. Otherwise I wouldn't give a shit, people have disappointed me before without such backlash from me.
I can't. I just can't. I don't take shit but business private. And I really shouldn't do that either, because I like transparency, and I'm only caving on that end because it's so commonplace. Whoever made the most mistakes in a debate will be the one who's embarrassed, and that only lasts a while. Get it and get over it.
Anyway, lesson learned. Men and women just can't have a discussion on equality of the sexes without one (90% usually the woman) forfeiting due to comfort issues - At the very least, not if one of the parties is spouting propaganda nonsense. Gee, I wonder why men and women are treated differently in different forms of consumable entertainment... :\
Won't allow myself to waste time on closet sjw/feminism again.
So to finish what was started.... Just copying and pasting from a word doc I wrote days ago because eye strain got to me.
This started on your domain, which I was willing to be considerate. We had to move it to mine, and since I'm here, might as well do what I will....
Continued from the comments....
Sorry but I don't want this conversation stinking up the comments section. I don't think either of us are putting our best foot forward and frankly, I don't want eyes on it. Too much potential to attract drama.
Hence the thing I wanted to apologize about comes full circle. I came at this with too many assumptions and instead of just waiting for the eye strain to dissipate (or for me to get my new monitor, which I have now in all it's 17 inch glory), I decided to skim through the majority of what you typed to both me and everyone else to say all of the verbal diarhea that flooded my mind, in attempt to shoot down any avenues you had to in order to defend yourself, a tactic used in debates all the time.
It was extra as fuck, and unnecessary, but now you went and hid the comments, and deprived me of my due comeuppance. The dissuasion of a constant reminder to ever do something that stupid again. Hence, fuck an apology.
Even with my mistakes, I'm doing more to understand you rather than the other way around. You seem to have your foundations fortified in such a way that you're not trying to understand exactly what I'm getting at, seemingly only worried about conditions being perfect or satisfactory for your criteria to accept it, basically rejecting the entirety of my input based on a single detail, using goal post moving techniques, and acknowledging that we’re on the same page only to double down later to make it seem as if I’m being purposely deceiving, difficult, or nebulous.
I would say our conversation, to this point, would be better characterized like this:
You: I disagree that men aren't sexualized as much as women
Me: They are not
You: -shows picture- What is this, but not sexually enticing?
Me: Those are not made to solicit a sexual response from women, those are male power fantasies and most women will not react to them the same way guys react to characters like Ivy or Bayonetta.
You: Nuh uh and here's why. -demonstrates a total lack of understanding about female sexuality-
Me: -trying to explain female sexuality while responding to an increasing number of individual points that crop up-
Both of us: -made a mess-
Even better... simplified
Me: Men are sexualized just as much as women
You: These aren’t made to elicit response from women
Me: (what I should’ve said) I didn’t hear you say it’s not sexualized >: )
Even more better translation –
Me: Sky’s blue, dawg
You: It’s royal blue
Me: *pulling hair out* It’s still FUCKIN' blue!! WRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYY (road roller)
"In your case it seems you're more annoyed with the disagreement rather than just refuting points, leading you to misinterpret stuff and make mistakes. /shen"
I'm not really annoyed, just a bit baffled about how someone can be so massively out of touch with female sexuality that you think these giant, hulking, bodybuilders were made with the specific intention of soliciting a sexual response from women. Look at male bodybuilder conventions- they are not overwhelmingly attended by audiences of women but audiences men. /BJ
You’re right. They’re not equivalent. Urien and Gill are sexualized more. Made sexy. If tit’s and ass are all guys think about, then putting more fabric between them makes it harder to access the tits and ass, so technically Ivy's way more covered. Gill and Urien are 95% butt fuckin naked. Which is where your male power fantasy is supposed to come in and explain this away, but.... Dudes don’t like being vulnerable. Being naked is vulnerable. Being barefoot is vulnerable. Dudes generally like to be well dressed, with or without shirt. Add some bitchin’ pants, and some bitchin shoes, and I could see your point. With dark skinned, ripped bodies and a speedo in bright white bringing all the attention straight to their crotches, how this is meant to appeal to directly and mostly to guys, especially after what I said about the reception it got, is the work of mental gymnastics most probably due to ingestion of propaganda from certain outlets.
I think you've confused sexualization and idealization. /BJ
This could've helped quite a bit earlier.
Those are very much not the same thing. I absolutely will agree that male characters are prone to being idealized. What defines whether a character is sexualized is if a character is specifically designed to solicit a sexual response? If yes, then the character is sexualized. If not, the character was not made to be sexualized. That doesn't preclude individuals from finding a non-sexualized character sexy. For example, I sexualize Aloy from HZD but she is not an especially sexualized character. It's also worth noting that sexualization is not a yes/no thing but a gradient. /BJ
So basically you start off hot and then impact in a completely frozen icy mix. Don't know how you accomplished that. You almost established a point of reference to work with, and then you blur the lines midway and at the end. Like, make up your mind. Well, since you made a decision for me earlier, I might as well do the same for you - Urien and Gill are sexualized. We can move on now.
seems almost impossible to develop a heavily competitive fighting game or most hardcore shooters with the female gaze in mind. /Shen
I never said we needed any such thing but if you wanted to, you absolutely could. I can already see it unfolding in my head. Hm…. /BJ
Uh, would probably come off extremely awkward. And wouldn't sell. Not because men are a bigger audience, but because even the girls it would cater to wouldn't buy it.
So applying the label 'male gaze' to stuff like this seems to be a moot point, one of my problems here. /Shen
I feel like you take the term "male gaze" way too personally. It's not a dig against men, it's an observation of a phenomenon that describes, among other things, why so many female characters look like hookers, strippers, and nudists. To put it simply, sex sells and men's sex buttons are much easier to hit because men are more visually oriented while women are more context-sensitive. This is why men consume the majority of sex work and porn while women write the majority of fanfics and romance novels. /BJ
Well, seeing where the term came from, could you blame me? People hate Tvtropes for similar reasons. To think I’m going to one day release a game with all my hard work put into it, having never really thought anything about the specifics of what I was doing, only to have a feminist complain about it, using terminology that basically amounts to mind reading, assuming they knew exactly what I was thinking in making something, when all I really did was sniff a line a coke and thought “HOLY SHIT, YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD MAKE A GOOD CHARACTER? - YES I DO, BECAUSE I’M FUCKING YOU, YOU IDIOT, STOP TALKING TO YOURSELF. /end epiphany”
Moreover, it's a stupid feminist coined term being used in a way that seems to sow more division rather than understanding. Just reading your "rambling" to someone else in that same thread sets off plenty of red flags.
like this (seen in the game well after hours of looking at vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fi… )
this (again, seen in the game well after seeing a bunch of pretty boy douchebags, 4 of them in total, and funny enough falling into if not close to the very definition of the female gaze)
this her ass is just fucking out there. I'm not even going to bother defending.
This does not at all match that initial example you posted. /BJ
I’m guessing you’ve never played 3rd strike. Broad chests and arms (obviously exaggerated because when drawing in 2D, you have to make sprites wider to give them reach), and streamlined body from mid torso down. Swimmer bod. Same thing with your example, albeit buff his arms and pecs a bit, you get something similar.
ALSO, prime example of me giving you an out where we could’ve dropped this particular point, and you brought it back from the grave to reject it anyway. Got damn, Kenny didn’t need that. AGAIN, we both may be both right and wrong on this.
And you want me cut back on my message length, but you and everyone else are typing books back and forth to eachother in agreement. Come on now. /Shen
TBH, the conversations I'm having with them are more enjoyable. This isn't fun. Read through the conversations I've had with other people in that thread; there's a marked difference. You'll notice that we're discussing where as you and I are arguing. Discussing is done with the intention of exchanging ideas. Arguing is done with the intention of winning and I can tell you right now, neither of us are winning here. /BJ
I wonder why they’re more enjoyable… >_> Possibly no direct challenge to your stance on the matter? Get to enjoy the ease of discussing something with people who are already on board with your views? Discussing things with them indeed. Shit you both already agree on to some degree.
Yes, debate can be pretty annoying when trying to find someone’s standpoints to address, as I believe this could’ve gone a lot smoother if you had defined it outright, rather than point me places and describe it.
“Such and such entails this list of things (enter simplified list of gist), and for more in depth information go here (link)”
Your first rebuttal – no definition
Your Second rebuttal – refers me to somewhere else
Your third rebuttal – after seeing me failing to find it, you refer me again
Your latest rebuttal – parts of what makes the whole, but no general list.
I’ve stated I’m looking to put an image down. This hasn’t been addressed directly, or at all, really. This leads me to believe that there’s no set image, as I thought, and your insistance on not defining it can be seen as an implicit acknowledgement of this.
You think male and female game characters are sexualized to the same extent.
Yes, I do.
I think they are not.
Based on a stipulation, yes.
I laid down a definition of sexualization.
You did not. You gave me an idea of what females find attractive. I GENERALLY deal with EVERYONE on an individual basis, since not everyone conforms. For your sake, I tried to get you to set the parameters, and you never satisfactorily did.
You don't accept that definition.
I did NOT reject that women have different standards on that topic. I acknowledged and even repeated that, I believe before you ever delved into it, and I did it in a tad bit more detail. That is to say before you even said anything, I had already stated everything you said, but I wanted to hear YOU say it, in it's entirety.
So it feels like this is going nowhere.
Yes, we can stop nitpicking wordplay and get to the meat and bones of this.
I still say that the female gaze gets satiated adequately.
And you would know this how? You've already demonstrated and even openly admitted you don't understand female sexuality. So how would you know the "female gaze" is satiated adequately?
The issue here was that I missed one key detail you stated, another way I "embarassed" myself, and what you robbed me of having a significant constant reminder not to do again. I missed where you said "in video games". That's all. Everywhere else? Satiated all the time.
And there you go again, looking for whatever you can to draw the conclusion that I don't know anything about female sexuality. It's quite telling in the way you're reaching.
If "you" want more of "your" (you as in general) kind of wank (which i believe there's plenty of), then it'd probably be better if "you" took the financial risk of putting that stuff out there for the market to purchase. /Shen
I never said I wanted anything and I have all the wank material I need, thanks. I mean, really, do you have eyeballs? My gallery is full of half-naked pretty boys and scantily clad ladies. If I want fap material, I make it. Also, this argument isn't about "me". /BJ
Now I love how you missed this one. You even quoted what I said exactly, and still got it wrong. I said "you as in general" to refer to "you wammen".... in general. Whenever ANYONE puts emphasis on "you", it means "all of you", and intuition goes hand in hand as to who "all of you" are referring to.
I understand female sexuality from a direct perspective (being female) and from having studied sexuality in an academic setting.
lol, gender studies, probably
I've also worked in gamedev. I understand these issues thoroughly, inside and out. You are coming at this from the perspective of a man who feels personally attacked by harmless terminology and simple observations. That's not a good place to be arguing from.
What you keep doing is trying to mind read using all those gender studies talking points and terminologies. Feeling attacked? Yes, by the existence of the weapons you're using themselves rather than what they do - knowing who made the sword is a problem, I don't give a damn if it cuts.
In all this, my message can be summarized thus: Male and female games characters are both idealized, certainly, but the extent to which female characters are sexualized far surpasses the sexualization of male characters. This occurs mainly for two reasons:
(1) Games tend to be marketed at males because males constitute the majority of gamers (excluding games like Candy Crush and Farmville which are irrelevant to this argument). Males also tend to be a lot more sensitive to sexualized male characters than women are to sexualized female characters. That is to say, women will generally tolerate and even enjoy female sexualized characters. Men will often become irate at the presence of sexualized male characters. Therefore, it is safer to include sexualized female characters than sexualized male characters.
(2) It makes good financial sense from a business perspective. Horny teenage boys are a huge, lucrative market to milk… (bad choice of words XD) and it's pretty easy to do so. Male sex buttons are easier to hit since males are generally more visually oriented. It's easier to put huge knockers on characters than contrive elaborate backstories for them which need to be written, edited for grammar and content, then animated and voiced as well as rendered and post-pro'd. /bj
All this in response to how I'm saying that creators ATTEMPT to cater to women (while being men) by sexifying guys to up the ante. You never address my stating that an attempt is being made, and without obliterating this point I've put forth, I'm able to sit back and toss it back out there again to be considered. But no matter. Your definition of "sexualize" seems to be oddly specific, which is why this was so hard for you to understand.
None of this is an attack on men or you personally.
Oh really? Read below... >: )
I prescribe no actions. I am not in favor of strong-arming creatives or censoring artistic expression. All I would say, as a matter of personal opinion, is that I'd like to see sexuality handled more maturely, more equitably, and with some consideration for context. I would also point out that individual sexualized and idealized characters are not hurting anyone but endless streams of them can hammer home negative messages in young, impressionable minds. Is there a way to solve that problem without censorship? I don't know and again, I'm not in favor of censorship. I'd also point out that sexualization and idealization trends reflect societal attitudes towards sex and gender.
1.) You do realize, that any complaint, whether passing or passive, is an attempt to move something in a certain direction, i.e. imposing or attempting to change something, right? Complaints are the BUILDING BLOCKS of change.
2.) You just pointed out that there can be negative affects resulting from the male gaze with sexualized/idealized characters (female gaze too
). It's up to us as parents to make sure our kids aren't dumb enough to think everything they see in fantasy and fiction is applicable in real life. So yeah, without even trying, I came up with the answer for you as to how we solve that "problem" without censorship. What I would worry about is the effects of that academic sexuality class's effect on you, where you would think that sort of thing would be problematic when the solution is to make it abundantly clear not to try what you see on the TV screen to kids.
3.) I'd also point out that most people in the entire population on earth are stupid, and that smart people don't do what stupid people do.
That's it. That's the bulk of my message. If you can't see where I'm coming from here, we may as well just agree to disagree. I think I've said all I can possibly say on this subject.
I understand you completely now. That's for sure. It wouldn't be a matter of disagreeing anymore rather than stubbornly sticking steadfast to doctrine in your case and going about it from that. I simply wanted you to address my points until they're either acknowledged as acceptable, or you prove how they're wrong. Under your strict adherence to how things are defined where you come from, there's no way what I'm saying could ever convince you of anything. Since my understanding is completely propaganda free, I'm merely left confused initially at why what I'm saying doesn't get through to you.
It's essentially like:
Person A: Women can't have nice things because we have drawbacks to worry about!
Person B: Uhhh, men have drawbacks that we deal with everyday too
Person A: Excuse me, the amount of power you have makes that irrelevant. Fuck your problems.
Person B: Fuck you and your problems too, and take your arbitrary bullshit with you. Did you really expect me to swallow that shit?
Some skewed definition shows up and we're supposed to take that.... Give me a break.
**2nd Note **
I think I may have gotten a little unnecessarily snipey in my last reply. If you'd rather disregard it, that's fine. We can just agree to disagree. EIther way, apologies for any snipes that may have slipped loose.
No need to apologize. You felt the need to send this second note after I posted on your page with:
"I wanted to apologize about something, but I don't know if it's needed anymore."
That was intended as an underhanded, dirty little mental manipulation to get you to soften up and relax and question yourself. And it worked.
Don't worry, I already know what your next move is based off of prior actions
See you on the other side!