The issue with my state (Texas), the reason why the state votes Republican so consistently, is specifically because of the comparative influence of Christian organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention here in this state. The higher share of "evangelical" Christians we have here renders demographic groups that in other states might be voting Democratic (such as, for example, your average suburban middle class household) more conservative-leaning here than elsewhere in the country. That's not an easy thing to overcome, especially in little towns out in the boonies like mine where the Southern Baptist Convention basically does all of the community repairs for the local government because the latter is bankrupt and can't afford to do anything anymore hardly, and also supplies much of food for those unable to afford it (and most of us can't at some point or other in any given year). When you're financially dependent on the church, it's hard to raise a voice against the good work that they do, even when they use it as leverage to introduce Bible classes in your local public school in clear-cut violation of constitutional provisions demanding freedom of religious belief.

I can't imagine an old, dying coal town like mine ever voting Democratic, or at least not for anyone the Democrats would field in today's world, because the younger, more liberal-minded people just leave. (Eventually the place will literally just die out and cease to exist.) That said, I can imagine a time in the future wherein the average suburban household might because those parts of the state in particular are becoming better educated and less religious over time. It's possible that in decades to come we will see a situation wherein Democrats will become politically viable at the state level here again for reasons like this. We already seem to be making progress in that general direction, although I find it difficult to believe that we're on the cusp of such a sea-change in the immediate future.

As to Ted Cruz specifically, I will say that the infamous Cancun vacation will definitely hurt his poll numbers...for a while. I mean I'm furious about it personally, but I'm also a rare non-Christian here and am just someone who survived the power grid failure and wants something done to prevent anything similar from ever happening again right now, immediately. The fact is that he still has an R by his name on the ballot in a one-party state though and close ties to the Christian political organizations and November of 2024 is a long time from now. *sighs* The church is the real root of our political problems here is my point. The power of institutions like the Southern Baptist Convention over our political landscape is what has to be challenged effectively in order to get us from being an apparently suicidally red state to a place of actual sanity.

Right? Like this was the same generation that told their kids to go play cowboys and indians as a kid, with replica toy guns...Like, can they all just die already? So sick of them thinking their values apply to the modern world. shit changes, things adapt. 

Then again, that's kind of the problem with the entire republican party. They don't like that things change and just want to go back to the 50's in virtually every way. you know, when blacks didn't get rights, women were second class citizens, fags got lynched instead of married, etc...

I don't know if the last remark is intended sarcastically or not, but let me just push back on the apparent trajectory of this thread for a minute if I can by pointing out that no, feminists have not "kicked up a storm over a game having tiddies". They have, among other things, criticized ways in which the bodies of women and girls have been portrayed in distinctly more specifically sexualized and demeaning ways than those of men and boys. There is a difference. And also that there is hardly a shortage of "tiddies" in video games today; certainly not in comparison to say male privates for example.

Personally, I'm fine with "suggestive" portrayals of game characters. I mean do you think Streets of Rage 4 made my personal top 5 favorites from last year because, being lesbian, I just hated looking at Blaze Fielding's body? Of course not. I'm not above indulging my own prurient impulses from time to time and the women of Streets of Rage are hawt and yeah that is one part of the appeal to me. But given their roles, I also don't feel that portrayals like these are especially demeaning or strictly objectifying (characters can be sexual without being sexualized) or as though they should be the only sorts of ways that women are portrayed in games. My favorite game from this last year was The Last of Us Part II, which features nudity and some sexual content. I strongly support the inclusion of that content not because I find it like arousing per se, but because it serves a narrative purpose. I highlight these examples to make it clear that nudity and suggestive and sexual content in games is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned and can even have real merits that go well beyond the prurient.

That said, I would challenge those who demand more consistently and exclusively sexual portrayals of girls and women in this or any medium as to why they don't also demand more sexualization of say men and boys. Why are only exposed female bodies of value? Why not demand something like a Dead or Alive: Beach Party title starring men? The answer is self-evident: because you know better. You know you don't want to see that any more than I do. Because you know good and well there is nothing "empowering" about sexual objectification and that you'd object strenuously to a male-centered variation on Bayonetta or Lollipop Chainsaw or to say a "Guy Gun" type of game where you played as a teenage girls and shot the outer garments off under-aged boys for masturbation purposes, and especially if that sort of portrayal was the prevailing one of your sex.

I will try not to get too much into this because I have very strong feelings about putting arbitrary restrictions on art or entertainment. I just want to say that there is nothing wrong to depict whatever you want in a game or any other medium. It's fictional escapism and it's supposed to pander to specific audiences. It is not upon the artist to display or change certain views or social norms, that is the job of education and society.

"Sexualization" or god forbid "oversexualization" doesn't exist. It's all in a person's mind. Humans are by nature sexual beings as soon as they enter puberty. You can't sexualize something inherently sexual. It's a stupid word used by stupid sexually repressed people who can't handle sexual imagery. Imagery that is not even meant for them, but they still try to police.

I don't know about you, but when I see art I don't appreciate I'm not gonna reprimand the artist for not pandering specifically to me. I'm just gonna go somewhere else and seek out content that I want to see.

Nobody here is calling for "arbitrary restrictions on art or entertainment" that I'm aware of. I've not called for restrictions of any kind to be imposed on the development or distribution of video games and I think you'll find that neither has "Anita Suckeesian" for that matter. What we are talking about here is the matter of whether one is socially permitted to criticize sexist content in this medium. What I supplied in my last post was the polite, (overly) respectful, explanatory version of saying that. Seeing as that has resulted in claims that I, and apparently feminists in general, am/are "stupid" and "sexually repressed" and disingenuous gripes that I'm the one demanding to be pandered to here despite the contents that preceded my remarks, I'm now thinking that maybe the more flippant, name-calling version that first came to mind was more meritorious.

Setting aside that I don't actually have claimed anything that you said, here is where I think you miss an important factor.

edit: I intially wrote a huge paragraph here, but I'd rather take it to DMs since it's very much off topic to this thread.

Oh I guarantee you that if the sex roles were reversed -- if this were a medium where 80+ percent of the people involved in development were male, as were 80% of the critics and 80% of the players were correspondingly also male, if the aforementioned were among the primary ways men were portrayed in this medium, if everyone here was a woman but you and were you were routinely marginalized and ganged up on for complaining about ANY of the results thereof -- your attitude would be a lot like mine at this point in your life. You might indeed be less than fully satisfied and want to reserve the right to complain from time to time, especially when others initiate the conflict. You might think twice often though, like "Nobody will back me up and I'll just ruin my reputation by saying anything, so why bother?", but you might get very tired of thinking like that on every thread because practically all of them have these cute little as the kids might say "microaggressions" against you. You might even get to thinking like "Maybe this was intentionally directed at me and there is a plot to get me to leave going on here", but then come to your senses and realize that it's probably not that sinister and the coordination is likely incidental and not pre-planned and think once more to yourself like "I'm losing it; I've gotten way too sensitive" and not know what it's best to do. Terms like "misandry" might come to your mind often though were that to be case is my point, especially when it's a bunch of women always complaining about "Gary Stus" in every medium and demanding more sexualized treatment of men (and under-aged-looking boys).

My point is that you wouldn't like to be in my position very much. You might judge people in your mind, even if you try not to voice those judgments when you can resist doing so for the sake of image and respectability and fitting in when you obviously don't fit in in reality because the rest of the population doesn't want you to and will bend over backward to make sure that you know exactly what your place is vis-a-vis this medium and, implicitly at least, in the world for that matter. Misogyny is the cornerstone of gaming culture, frankly, and sometimes I can't help wishing it just it weren't so. Maybe that makes me selfish and entitled, I don't know. There. I have said it. Everyone will hate me now for saying the truth of my opinion, but at least it's finally out there and off my mind.

Well, I certainly blamed the backlash more than anyone concretely.

I don't know anything about her, I read the buzz.feed article you linked and I see where she fucked up and used the woman's first name twice in quick succession then seemed mortified.  I only read the one article, but seems like a slip up, not that she is a monster.

On another note the article lists it as "allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation" where "CAP also said that they investigated both reports of retaliation but could not corroborate them." it seems a little messed up that they publicized the name of the accused if this is just allegations.

That's fair enough. And you're right, of course just because there's been a lot of sexism in and around gaming doesn't mean I don't enjoy tons of games myself, obviously. Going further, Grand Theft Auto V was mentioned in a video earlier on this thread, and speaking of that...ya know, you'll be less than shocked to find that I consider the general ways in which women are portrayed in that game to be...poor...but this shouldn't be construed to imply that I therefore dislike everything about GTA V. I swear I don't! It's actually pretty much my favorite open world game. But that's not because of the way women are portrayed therein, it's because I can see humanity and value even in a game that doesn't see humanity and value in me. If I didn't embrace that kind of an attitude, there wouldn't be much art or entertainment that I could enjoy at all.

Sorry for going off a bit before. If it hasn't been made clear yet, I don't like situations where I feel cornered, like everyone is against me. I know I'm the only person here who was about to say anything in Anita Sarkeesian's defense and that a pile-on would inevitably result, and to an extent it did, and in that kind of a situation I feel like I have to respond to everything as quickly as possible before it has time to simmer because no one else will and you wound getting caught in that without much merit. Sorry about that.