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

[o_O.Q]

SpokenTruth said:

o_O.Q said:

so clarify this for me, male disposability is not a concern for you as a male feminist ally?

with regards to "sexualisation"(a word that means nothing) the way the discourse on that is framed within the social justice context is so stupid that i suppose its pointless for me to try to discuss that.

The concept of male expendability is a homogenic one.  Men applied them to ourselves.  We are not deemed expendable by the actions or directions of women.

Women are not generally responsible for creating or designing underage looking women in sexualized scenarios.

And yes, sexualization has meaning.  How can you say it means nothing? 

o_O.Q said:

"Do a large percentage of the male population consider those as negative depictions of men?"

can you give some examples of the negative depictions of females you are referring to?

Underage-looking women in sexual scenarios.  Women depicted oversexualized without any relation to a given situation (e.g. a male soldier will be dressed for combat while a female soldier will be dressed for...certainly not combat).

LivingMetal said:

1). Are you saying slavery was never a problem?  2). Are you saying character depicted in ways that do not favor your personal criteria is slavery?  I express my maturity by giving people freedom of choice, me being tolerant of that choice, and me working on common grounds while agreeing to disagree to work to a general greater resolution.  3). I don't get self-righteous in the name of "maturity."

1). For many societies in the past, they didn't consider it a problem.  It wasn't morally wrong to them.  We obviously know better now.  We have matured as a society.

2). Oh, no.  Not at all.  There is not correlation I'm trying to draw between the two other than things in the past that were morally acceptable are later recognized as wrong or even reprehensible.

3). You are confusing personal maturity with social maturity.  What is acceptable and moral in any given society is a wide range individually but as a whole group...that's the social morality, social norms and customs. See point 1 above.

LivingMetal said:

Did YOU read my post?  This type of reasoning is NOT faulty when applied to something that is NOT faulty to begin with, creative freedom and consumer choice.  And WHO are you to apply you're preferences of the acceptance of certain societal norms and customs on everyone else?  That's FAULTY.

I never said "creative freedom and consumer choice" were faulty.  I said that "just because something in the past was acceptable means it should be acceptable today" is faulty. 

And it's not me pushing my preferences on anyone.  Sony isn't changing policy because I told them to.  It's society doing that. Societies change over time. What was once acceptable can become unacceptable - and vice versa.  In fact, I'd say far more things have been acceptable over the years than unacceptable.

"The concept of male expendability is a homogenic one.  Men applied them to ourselves.  We are not deemed expendable by the actions or directions of women."

so in countries where women have been queens or some other type of political leader where as has been consistent throughout history the men were seen as more disposable it was still the fault of men even though they didn't have the power?

you understand that this type of denial of the agency of women does nothing to help them right? i'm sure you think the opposite but you are just making things harder for women when you deny their contributions to structuring society especially their negative contributions because obviously if we can't discuss them then nothing can be done about them

"Women are not generally responsible for creating or designing underage looking women in sexualized scenarios."

i didn't make this argument so i have nothing to say on it

"And yes, sexualization has meaning."

it does not... and to demonstrate that it does not is rather easy...

take a naked woman and put her in front of a gay man, since he's gay he won't be stimulated by her

ok now instead take a blind man and put the same woman in front of him... still no effect right?

ok finally take a heterosexual man and place the same woman in front of him, well then there may be a response but not necessarily, depending on what features the man is attracted to in women he may or may not be stimulated

the point here is that sexual desire is subjective... which means that you can't apply an objective standard to it

to elaborate further i could ask you to list examples of what you consider to be instances of sexualisation like lets say cleavage and i could list examples of not just gay or blind men but heterosexual men that would not find that attractive

the human body is just an object, it is you perceiving it as sexual due to whatever biases you have and using that as a tool

"Women depicted oversexualized without any relation to a given situation 

am i to understand that oversexualised refers to not being covered? why do you think women should be covered?

"(e.g. a male soldier will be dressed for combat while a female soldier will be dressed for...certainly not combat).""

sounds pretty much like the variation in dress that we see in real life between men and women - men go to work in suits while women where high heels, makeup etc etc etc(not that i think that is a problem)

do you think then that people should all be forced to wear suits as a uniform at work in real life then?