Quote from: TBlocks on December 16, 2015, 01:31:31 PMWouldn't assigning the human body value as it is an appeal to nature? You're essentially saying that the human body should not be tampered with because they have to look "normal."Feels like a bit of a stretch, tbh. It's an interesting thought no doubt, and the most creative response I've seen thus far, but while something being "natural" obviously doesn't make it "good", it also doesn't make it "bad." Like homosexuality -- it's "natural", but it's not wrong because of that. Making a character's body natural (i.e., untampered with, or realistic) is not wrong. Especially considering that making said character's body unnatural (eg., legs for days) is done with the sole intention of selling copies.You need to demonstrate how something is wrong for it to be wrong. Which we have done here.
Wouldn't assigning the human body value as it is an appeal to nature? You're essentially saying that the human body should not be tampered with because they have to look "normal."
tbh the idea that someone owes alegiance to their gender and its image is one of the core aspects of sexism
Quote from: eggsalad on December 16, 2015, 05:05:31 PMtbh the idea that someone owes alegiance to their gender and its image is one of the core aspects of sexismExplain (you will fail).
Quote from: TBlocks on December 16, 2015, 01:31:31 PMAnd let's say it was acceptable to demand something be removed because it's icky and gross.In this case he should be completely against transgenderism and homosexuality. There's no consistency in his philosophy. It comes down to him thinking sex is gross. But at the same time, he values and respects the emphasis put on sex by transgenders, but dislikes expression of sexuality. Literally whatQuoteThe whole idea of sexual objectification is protecting the gender as a whole (male or female) and essentially assigning more value to the human body. (This is the part where I haven't thought this through in it's entirety I'm just throwing this out there for discussion purposes.) Wouldn't assigning the human body value as it is an appeal to nature? You're essentially saying that the human body should not be tampered with because they have to look "normal." I don't know about that last bit but I thought I would bring it up.How is saying "sex and sexuality should be destroyed" an appeal to nature in any way?It's the opposite.
And let's say it was acceptable to demand something be removed because it's icky and gross.
The whole idea of sexual objectification is protecting the gender as a whole (male or female) and essentially assigning more value to the human body. (This is the part where I haven't thought this through in it's entirety I'm just throwing this out there for discussion purposes.) Wouldn't assigning the human body value as it is an appeal to nature? You're essentially saying that the human body should not be tampered with because they have to look "normal." I don't know about that last bit but I thought I would bring it up.
How is it sexist to not want your image desecrated?
I meant it more as if he thinks there is a "normal" body and that's what he wants to hold onto because of it being "normal" (One could substitute this for "perfect" or something similar) then it is, in fact, an appeal to nature.
In this case he should be It comes down to him thinking sex is gross. But at the same time, he values and respects the emphasis put on sex by transgenders, but dislikes expression of sexuality. Literally what
How is saying "sex and sexuality should be destroyed" an appeal to nature in any way?It's the opposite.
Quote from: Verbatim on December 16, 2015, 05:08:17 PMQuote from: eggsalad on December 16, 2015, 05:05:31 PMtbh the idea that someone owes alegiance to their gender and its image is one of the core aspects of sexismExplain (you will fail).Having to compromise yourself in accordance to your gender is bad. Men suffer because men being emotionally open is copped. Women suffer because women being sexually open is copped.
Quote from: Verbatim on December 16, 2015, 05:08:17 PMHow is it sexist to not want your image desecrated?It's sexist to require someone to also on the basis that they are a woman. There is absolutely no reason a woman has to associate herself with that image.
by the way verb competitive video games objectively are more wasteful than sex.
Quote from: eggsalad on December 16, 2015, 05:19:11 PMQuote from: Verbatim on December 16, 2015, 05:08:17 PMHow is it sexist to not want your image desecrated?It's sexist to require someone to also on the basis that they are a woman. There is absolutely no reason a woman has to associate herself with that image....You realize this is precisely what I'm arguing against.
]"Either women are against this negative representation of something they don't even have to be associated with or they have betrayed their gender."when does one join this clit cult
Quote from: Dietrich Six on December 16, 2015, 04:57:28 PMIt seems to me that the only people who think she's a misogynistic character haven't played the game.Have you played the game verbsation?I don't need to. I can simply observe. I'm not talking about the game's gameplay. I'm talking about her design.
It seems to me that the only people who think she's a misogynistic character haven't played the game.Have you played the game verbsation?
No, you're talking about her physical appearance.
Quote from: eggsalad on December 16, 2015, 05:24:15 PM]"Either women are against this negative representation of something they don't even have to be associated with or they have betrayed their gender."when does one join this clit cultEveryone should be against negative representations of everything. Not because they're associated with it--but because it's a negative representation in and of itself.I'm not a woman--I don't associate myself with womanhood--yet I'm against negative representations of women in media.Not that complicated.
You have a knack for meaningless "ought to"s. What significance does an image have if no one has to identify with it.
Quote from: eggsalad on December 16, 2015, 05:31:57 PMYou have a knack for meaningless "ought to"s. What significance does an image have if no one has to identify with it.Why should poor representations exist?If you're watching Goodfellas, and they all start shooting each other with water guns instead of pistols, would that be okay with you?
I just don't watch it because I don't care enough to watch that.What's so complicated about that?
Quote from: Dietrich Six on December 16, 2015, 05:27:47 PMNo, you're talking about her physical appearance.Which is her design.
He's saying "We should keep bodies normal because of the negative effects of not doing that that I have been able to demonstrate."
Quote from: Verbatim on December 16, 2015, 05:28:18 PMQuote from: Dietrich Six on December 16, 2015, 05:27:47 PMNo, you're talking about her physical appearance.Which is her design.I assume you mean that her physical design (appearance) and her character design (dialogue, traits, etc.) are the same.Where some people would say the two are separate- that a character isn't tied to how they look. Sort of akin to "Don't judge a book by it's cover"
Still one of the more skimpy looking Final Fantasy characters who's actual personality and character overcomes anything her appearance may show.
Quote from: Luciana on December 16, 2015, 05:44:54 PMStill one of the more skimpy looking Final Fantasy characters who's actual personality and character overcomes anything her appearance may show.why can't we just have a female character who is strong WITHOUT having a fanservice-y designfor once
We canSpoilerhttp://about-games.info/images/photos/photos-of-lara-croft-from-tomb-raider/photos-of-lara-croft-from-tomb-raider-4.jpgThing is, all shallow characters rely on fanservice, but not all fanservice relies on shallow girlsdid that make any sense? I think yes, but paranoid no
Okay, I'm not actually "done" (but I still hate the fuck out of Bayonetta)
