Agree 100%.

These same people preach about tolerance, acceptance and understanding, too. Then pull shit like this.

Let say: Xbox 1/PC/PS4 censored A because of rating board reasons.

However, only PS4 censored B (Trish and the lens flare scene).

Just because a country has a low crime rate does not mean they have a low molestation or an unusually high percentage of the population has an attraction to physically mature females with a childs face.  Incest molesting sexual abuse is one of the most under reported crimes their are, obvious you don't have a daughter or you would be a little more concerned about exciting weird fantasies.

Are you saying slavery was never a problem?  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.  I don't get self-righteous in the name of "maturity."

Heh. I'll just point to DoA3 extreme crimson then.
The original DoA3 extreame realese had MORE content then crimson on PS4 because of sony's censorship. Meanwhile Switch ver is uncensored.

The problem is with the amount of influence Sony has (and the fact that outside of actual H stuff or erogues PC gaming isn't much of a market in Japan) it's basically them BULLYING the smaller devs. Thank f-in God the switch exists, or we could have had a mass Exodus to mobile for these devs.
These devs had made thier home on the psp and vita for a decade, and account for a pretty large part of sony's success in Japan in the handheld space for the past decade, only for Sony to spit in thier face with this move ...

And with underage girls? First of all what is considered 'underage' is different throughout the world anyway. As long as no actual girls get involved there is no issue, lots of countries have minimum AoC at 14-16 anyway. And America's first experience age is lower than its AoC lol.

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 saw you imply slavery is similar, and then try to backpedal your claim.

Slavery isn't your cudgel to use to take the moral high ground. Find a different thing to compare stuff to.

"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

A "mistake" that only on Western ver (AU/EU) of PS4 is somehow ridiculous 

Sony should just change their name to soyny since they now worship at the altar of social justice. Using gamergate as an example It is infuriating how the lamestream media must lie and always present women as the victim even when they are culpable. Women must never be made responsible for their actions and be shielded from all consequences and criticisms just like a child would but they're still equal apparently.