Sony to crack down on sexually explicit games |Update: Specifically Japanese games containing underage characters

[o_O.Q]

Otter said:

o_O.Q said:

" Idealised =/=Sexualised."

in the context of physical makeup, they are the exact same thing

"sexualisation is not being cut out of games."

it is and honestly i wouldn't have a problem with that if the reason was logical and consistent

"His whole outfit is also functional, whereas the latter is literally about sexualisation."

men and women in terms of their dress often typically display this difference,  in that men generally dress more practically whereas women dress to emphasize their sexual appeal more

this is why makeup, heels, low cut dresses etc etc etc exist but of course its not politically correct to point out these differences in how men and women present themselves

this is why its pretty idiotic for sjws to claim "WOMEN NEED TO BE DEPICTED THE SAME AS MEN IN GAMES OR ELSE BOYS WILL BE SOCIALISED TO THINK WOMEN ARE SEXUAL OBJECTS"... the obvious rebuttal is what are you going to do about the way real women present themselves? if this argument is actually valid (which its obviously not) why wouldn't the kim kardassians and ava roses of the world do the same?

"Emphasis on crotch shots... Military outfits centred on sideboobs lol...Compelely random outfits there to sell the anatomy"

its almost as bad as if they were shirtless

"If Ryu & the other male charcters were sexualised the same"

men and women are not the same and are attracted to different things

"more varied body types and not just steroid bodies"

i don't think you are going to find many people who find fat/short men more attractive than muscular/tall men

"Random nudity creeping into male outfits where it doesn't belong & outfits existing just to tease"

being shirtless is not nudity? how far would we need to go to put men on the same level as women wearing at the very least dancing outfits?

"in the context of physical makeup, they are the exact same thing" Lol, no they're not. Straight men do not sexualise other straight men, so they're idealised version is not necessarily based on sexualisation. When Gearbox decided it wanted its characters to be grizzly boxes of meat in the early Gears entry, I promise you no one was sexualising those characters and they were not created to be sexualised. And often sexes misinterpret the desires of the opposite sex. What woman might idealise may not align with mens desires i.e tons of makeup

And yes, men and woman typically depict themselves different and its ok for games to reflect this, i.e the female characters wearing makeup, dresses etc. But if you can't acknowledge the extreme of this presented in SF5 then I don't think its even worth having a convo with you tbh. What you're inherently saying is that its ok ultra sexualise the female characters (as in SF) because they do it to themselves in real life; the simple answer to this question is: 

How would a predominantly female team design their rooster of female characters?

And by "more varied body types" I mean athletic body types, but maybe all you see is "tall" and "muscular" bodies, which just reinforces my point about the straight male gaze which is why you think the presentation of Ryu and Cammy are equivalents.

"Being shirtless is not nudity?". Again you show you lack understanding of sexualisation, Ryu shirtless because he's in his karate gear is not the same as him wearing an open blazer with a trouser line dangerously close to his pelvis or randomly exposing his abs in an outfit where it doesn't make sense, i.e its purely there to titulate. Every one of these images is more sexualised in spite of them expressing less or equivalent levels of skin than a random shirtless male in karate gear.

 

"Lol, no they're not. Straight men do not sexualise other straight men"

given the research i've done recently on the incel movement and their obsession with who a chad is and who a beta is and jaw size, height, bla bla bla... i have to tell you that you are completely wrong

that's obviously an outlier, but even normal men are able to understand intuitively what is attractive and what is not attractive

no one has trouble telling who is more attractive here

"When Gearbox decided it wanted its characters to be grizzly boxes of meat in the early Gears entry, I promise you no one was sexualising those characters and they were not created to be sexualised."

well yes... because developers do not always have attractiveness as their motivation when designing characters... i mean is that your argument here?

"And often sexes misinterpret the desires of the opposite sex. What woman might idealise may not align with mens desires i.e tons of makeup"

i disagree with this i think its fairly common knowledge among men that women on average prefer handsome, tall, fit men and men prefer pretty, slender women with prominent secondary sexual characteristics 

we wouldn't have all of the feminist rage targeted at ads like this one otherwise

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/27/beach-body-ready-america-weight-loss-ad-instagram

and here's something else to demonstrate that what you are saying cannot be true - how then do you know that sexualisation has occurred? well obviously you have to have some standard you are applying right? as the feminists above do

"And yes, men and woman typically depict themselves different"

its not just that, you forgot the part where i made it clear that women often dress to emphasize their sexuality and what the feminists do not understand is that this then leeches into how women are portrayed in various media

if feminists want this to stop happening then ironically they have to start putting pressure on women to stop emphasizing their sexuality ironically as the muslims do, i have already given you an example of this happening with that beach body ad and there are many many many other examples such as the banning of grid girls

i don't think these people have the level of self awareness to understand why they are doing these things but i can tell you that on a subconscious level they understand what i'm telling you

i've said for a long time now that feminism has reach the point where it'll become toxic to women and start peeling back their rights and i've been called a madman for that... well, buckle in your seat belts and watch what is going to keep happening

"But if you can't acknowledge the extreme of this presented in SF5"

you mean cammy's legs? why are cammy's legs a problem for you?

"What you're inherently saying is that its ok ultra sexualise the female characters (as in SF) because they do it to themselves in real life"

my argument wasn't about whether its ok or not... since they are a private company and thankfully at this time can tell feminists to go jump off a cliff when they design whatever characters they want

my argument was that if its supposedly so harmful to have female characters depicted in ways that are fairly common out in the real world then its fairly pointless to oppose the character designs since as was said... we see this in the real world fairly often

"How would a predominantly female team design their rooster of female characters?"

i don't care, i'm not a sexist so it doesn't matter to me what sex a designer is

"maybe all you see is "tall" and "muscular" bodies, which just reinforces my point about the straight male gaze which is why you think the presentation of Ryu and Cammy are equivalents."

huh? are you denying that tall and muscular are perceived generally as being more attractive by women?

with regards to ryu and cammy, cammy has her legs exposed and ryu has his entire upper body exposed can you explain logically for me how ryu having more of his body exposed can be less sexual? is your argument here that female legs are more potent than the entire upper body of a man?

"Again you show you lack understanding of sexualisation"

probably because the word actually means nothing, but i'm humoring you by referring to it in the way i understand feminists to use it

to elaborate if i took a naked women and i displayed her to a gay man, obviously there is no sexual attraction, but if i do the same for a heterosexual man then the opposite is true... why?... because the human body is just as object, it is not inherently "sexualised"... what if i did the above for a blind man? you see what's happening here right?

its a stupid term feminists came up with to demonise men just like objectification

"Being shirtless is not nudity?". Again you show you lack understanding of sexualisation, Ryu shirtless because he's in his karate gear is not the same as him wearing an open blazer with a trouser line dangerously close to his pelvis or randomly exposing his abs in an outfit where it doesn't make sense, i.e its purely there to titulate."

you seem to be arguing here that sexuality is about intent, that ryu can only be percieved as being sexual if he intends on being sexual and obviously if you scrutinise that argument a bit you'd realise its a silly argument

you wouldn't have women complaining endlessly about the unwanted attention they garner from men if that was the case