Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Dead Island PR come up with most appalling idea in history of gaming PR

1192022242558

Posts

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    @SoundsPlush I don't know how you got quoted before. I was directly replying to Drez so I don't know how your name got there.
    Drez wrote: »
    Fawst wrote: »
    Drez wrote:
    So then why are you fighting so hard against us trying?

    I'm not!!! Oh man, how many times do I have to point out that I think that people are calling it misogyny when I disagree with that and think that's the wrong word! FUCK, I am NOT repeating myself on this ever again!

    Good, because it absolutely is the right word.

    Thank god nobody used the term rape culture, which is the appropriate term for the culture being discussed here. I think you would have blown a gasket then.

    Of course, that is the correct term, too.

    Also, that was my post, not SoundsPlush.

    Holy shit, now a ZOMBIE VICTIM is a RAPE VICTIM?! Yeah, my head might have exploded had more people been using that term. There's no fucking victim blaming going on here; no one said that torso got what it deserved because it was in a skimpy bikini.

    And I meant that I wasn't going to explain my point again, not that I wouldn't defend it. In all of this, no one has really countered my argument against calling this misogyny. It's just "welll, that's the right word!" I've pointed out how hatred is not explicitly present and been met with nothing but silence. Stop telling me I'm wrong or else tell me HOW I'm wrong without just saying I am.

    I still agree with the core "wrongness" of it all.

    While I don't at all think you fall under the purview of rape culture, I did want to clarify that "rape culture" is typically identified psychologically in part as the physical disassociation of a woman from her sexual organs which is essentially what is happening here. The statue is wrong in many ways, and one is that those who are already prone to those sorts of behaviors will drool over this, but I don't think that is something you intended to convey as acceptable from having read the rest of your posts. It is, however, fairly valid to point out the similarities in identification and creating this statue as a performative function for the purpose of sexual gratification.

    ArchTychoCelchuuuEcho
  • WyvernWyvern Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Enc wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage. I like boobs.

    Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?

    To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.

    Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.

    That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.

    Most women creating pornography are taking personal agency to perform in a sexual fashion. They are choosing to do so and embrace their sexuality, which is acceptable. Stripping a person from the sexual organs is not healthy. Creating a disembodied torso void of head and limb as a sexual fetishized object and marketing tool is also not healthy.

    Liking "boobs" over liking attractive women is also somewhat endemic to the problem. You like the part, not the person by this logic. I don't know if that's the case of it is just the rhetoric, but both aren't exactly respectful to women as people.

    I'm confused about why a statue of a torso is particularly unhealthy. Like, I get that it's gross because it's gory; gross + sexy =/= sexy. That's pretty straight-forward. But out of context of the gore, what's wrong with a torso statue? I'm trying but I'm not seeing what differentiates a statue of a female torso from a statue of a male torso or a bust of either gender or a statue of any other partial body. Would it be less problematic if the statue had a head? If not, what differentiates it from the Venus de Milo in terms of content, other than that this one has a top on? Honestly if they'd gone with a statue that had a zombie face and hacked off arms as a Venus parody I'd have thought the thing was pretty clever.

    Let me try to break this down for you.

    There is no context--not even a hypothetical context--in which the people in Deep Silver's marketing department would have created a male version of that torso. I guarantee it. Such an object would have been completely worthless to them. They'd be about as likely to send out statuettes of Mickey Mouse. The statue-of-a-woman's-torso exists 100% because they wanted to capitalize on sex appeal. If they had wanted to capitalize primarily on gore, or zombies, or absolutely anything else, they would have made something fundamentally different. A cleanly-severed torso does not evoke zombies very well in and of itself; zombies do not wield hacksaws. (Corollary: if they had decided to make an unsexy gory corpse from the outset, they would not have considered making it female even for the briefest of instants.)

    Deep Silver's marketing department didn't get together, say "a mutilated torso would be a cool centerpiece for our gore-centric collector's edition", and then throw darts at a board to randomly decide what physical attributes it should have. They got together, said "let's figure out the most visually striking method of getting a pair of tits in this box", and, though actual discussion, decided that the mutilated torso of a murdered woman was their best option for pushing the sexy angle on their male audience.

    The problem isn't a disgusting figurine, it's a disgusting mindset which produces--among many other things--figurines. This particular instance just happens to do a much worse job of obfuscating it than most. You can't divorce the statue itself from the mindset which created it and the cultural context that mindset developed in. Not if you want to really understand what it means to people.

    Wyvern on
    Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
    EncGrouchPreciousBodilyFluidsToasticusLovelyAlistair HuttonArdolPonyCarbonFiregtrmpAegeriBrocksMulletRamiusKanaTychoCelchuuuDyvim TvarEchodarleysambobwocoEthan Smith
  • PreciousBodilyFluidsPreciousBodilyFluids Registered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    And I meant that I wasn't going to explain my point again, not that I wouldn't defend it. In all of this, no one has really countered my argument against calling this misogyny. It's just "welll, that's the right word!" I've pointed out how hatred is not explicitly present and been met with nothing but silence. Stop telling me I'm wrong or else tell me HOW I'm wrong without just saying I am.

    Sigh

    Yes we have. Many times. But let us continue our sisyphian task:
    Fawst wrote: »
    Objectification of women as just a pair of tits? Yes, in a literal sense, this is. Misogynistic? No, I won't agree to that.

    Alright, let's settle this then, since all you seem to care about is semantics.

    Regardless of whether you want to call it misogyny, can you at least admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing? Can you really not understand why some of us feel that is a bad thing and that we should express that it is a bad thing?

    Oh, and to pre-emptively reply to your "lol wikipedia" response, you'll find it's an incredibly well-sourced article.
    It's worth pointing out that one can be hateful and offensive without actively and consciously hating a certain group.

    Most discrimination is borne out of ignorance, they are subconscious attitudes and beliefs.

    Nobody is implying that the creators of this statue actually hate women in the traditional sense of the word. They did not make it with the intent to objectify, most likely. The point is that they did. It is absolutely objectifying and demeaning. The fact that they never thought of it that way is a problem.

    I have to wonder why so many people wish to jump on this semantic argument though

    That thing above? That's the definition of misogyny. This has been explained to you many times. You just chose to ignore it or to handwave it away with "well that's just, like, your opinion dude". But no, it's just the definition of the word.

    What baffles me is why you keep trying to steer the conversation in this semantic direction, because what really matters here is what I tried to ask you before:

    Regardless of whether you want to call it misogyny, can you at least admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing? Can you really not understand why some of us feel that is a bad thing and that we should express that it is a bad thing?

    @Fawst

    tevinterpa.jpg
    TychoCelchuuu
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Toasticus wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage. I like boobs.

    Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?

    To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.

    Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.

    That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.

    If you think "mutilated section of a woman's body on display" and "naked woman having sex" are in any way interchangeable or even comparable, you have some fundamental (and seriously disturbing) problems.

    Women are not their torsos, and it's not okay to reduce them to being such. That's kind of the whole point here.

    If you think "naked woman having sex" is all porn is, you are mistaken. What people do and do not find sexually attractive really shouldn't be the point. I do not find this sexually attractive, I find it squeemish. But I also find furries to be weird and gross me out. I also would look away from two men kissing. What i personally find attractive doesn't matter.

    Women are not their torsos. But I don't see a problem with only focusing on said torso for your personal sexual gratification. Now if all you focus on during your interaction with said person is your own personal sexual gratification, then there becomes a problem. But I don't see this torso statue causing men to be confused and to stop having meaningful interaction with women outside of those of a sexual nature.

    Fuck porn. This has nothing to do with porn.

    This is a literal reduction of the image of a woman to a pair or tits. The product in question is tits and only tits.

    That is the problem here.
    Why is it a problem to focus on the physical attributes you find attractive to fulfill sexual desires? And I don't agree this has nothing to do with porn, until you can explain why porn is completely unrelated, I will still draw the comparisons, because to me, they are very similar things.

    Well, I can only speak for myself, but I need a person to fulfill my sexual desires. Considering breasts are always (except in this case) attached to a person,

    You know what, I don't even think I can conj
    Fawst wrote: »
    @SoundsPlush I don't know how you got quoted before. I was directly replying to Drez so I don't know how your name got there.
    Drez wrote: »
    Fawst wrote: »
    Drez wrote:
    So then why are you fighting so hard against us trying?

    I'm not!!! Oh man, how many times do I have to point out that I think that people are calling it misogyny when I disagree with that and think that's the wrong word! FUCK, I am NOT repeating myself on this ever again!

    Good, because it absolutely is the right word.

    Thank god nobody used the term rape culture, which is the appropriate term for the culture being discussed here. I think you would have blown a gasket then.

    Of course, that is the correct term, too.

    Also, that was my post, not SoundsPlush.

    Holy shit, now a ZOMBIE VICTIM is a RAPE VICTIM?! Yeah, my head might have exploded had more people been using that term. There's no fucking victim blaming going on here; no one said that torso got what it deserved because it was in a skimpy bikini.

    And I meant that I wasn't going to explain my point again, not that I wouldn't defend it. In all of this, no one has really countered my argument against calling this misogyny. It's just "welll, that's the right word!" I've pointed out how hatred is not explicitly present and been met with nothing but silence. Stop telling me I'm wrong or else tell me HOW I'm wrong without just saying I am.

    I still agree with the core "wrongness" of it all.

    No, I'm pointing out that there are terms that are used in these conversations that have certain meanings, which you are clearly ignorant to, as evidenced by your response here. "Rape Culture" is the term used to describe the culture being alluded to. "Misogyny" is both a cause and symptom of this culture and encompasses more than hatred toward women but also marginalization and objectification of women.

    Ignorance isn't a crime if you are willing learn - but you're just arguing semantics when you are totally wrong. It's a pointless argument because it's not really a debatable subject - these are just terms that people use to describe the culture and the attitudes at play in this topic.

    LovelyPreciousBodilyFluidsOneAngryPossum
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    In general I do feel like these days everyone goes for the $100 words when a $10 word will do.

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
    Gandalf_the_CrazedTurkey
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    You know what I actually might have liked? Something like this;

    Ad_SantanaOrtega.jpg

    This is a limited edition figure for the miniature wargame Malifaux. The company that makes the game (Wyrd) decided to reward their community representatives with an opportunity to receive a highly limited edition female resculpt of an originally male character.

    I think it's a nicely sexy figure (no doubt they're going for some T&A here) without being terribly exploitive. Bare midriff aside she's basically dressed like many of the other figures in the lineup, and she's busy killing a zombie like it isn't a thing, because that's what she does. She hunts creatures down and puts a bullet right between their eyes.

    And, well, player characters are generally the same. Barring some exceptions, if zombies exist as a hazard, the odds are good that at some point we are going to be bludgeoning and gunning them down in droves. There are exceptions (some survival horror games come to mind), but assuming DI 2 is similar to DI 1, it'd be perfectly fitting to show off one of the female protagonists doing their thing and wrecking some zombie shit.

    Now, would a woman in a bikini killing a zombie remove any semblance of sexism or misogyny? Probably not, but at least in my eyes they wouldn't be actively trying to push the bar lower.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
    EncFavlaudShadowenAntimatter
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    In general I do feel like these days everyone goes for the $100 words when a $10 word will do.

    I could say "doing" instead of "Performative action" but while the former includes the latter, the latter does not include all but a tiny portion of the former. Sometimes words like agency, performativity, context and the like are needed because they make needed and specific differentiations in concept.

    Dyvim Tvar
  • ToasticusToasticus yeah YEAHRegistered User regular
    In general I do feel like these days everyone goes for the $100 words when a $10 word will do.

    Sometimes. But there's a point to be made about $100 words not being associated with all the random crap that $10 words usually are -- they tend to let you be a lot more specific with what you're saying just by virtue of the fact that they get used a lot less often.

    Unless it's someone saying stuff like "To reiterate, I am not unwilling to investigate your purview of established conjecture" in which case, yeah, please put down the thesaurus.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Toasticus wrote: »
    please put down the thesaurus.

    That will only happen if you take it from my cold, clammy, blood strewn, headless and limbless torso. And then only if you drape me in the appropriate Pro-UK apparel.

    AegeriDyvim Tvar
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Wyvern wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage. I like boobs.

    Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?

    To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.

    Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.

    That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.

    Most women creating pornography are taking personal agency to perform in a sexual fashion. They are choosing to do so and embrace their sexuality, which is acceptable. Stripping a person from the sexual organs is not healthy. Creating a disembodied torso void of head and limb as a sexual fetishized object and marketing tool is also not healthy.

    Liking "boobs" over liking attractive women is also somewhat endemic to the problem. You like the part, not the person by this logic. I don't know if that's the case of it is just the rhetoric, but both aren't exactly respectful to women as people.

    I'm confused about why a statue of a torso is particularly unhealthy. Like, I get that it's gross because it's gory; gross + sexy =/= sexy. That's pretty straight-forward. But out of context of the gore, what's wrong with a torso statue? I'm trying but I'm not seeing what differentiates a statue of a female torso from a statue of a male torso or a bust of either gender or a statue of any other partial body. Would it be less problematic if the statue had a head? If not, what differentiates it from the Venus de Milo in terms of content, other than that this one has a top on? Honestly if they'd gone with a statue that had a zombie face and hacked off arms as a Venus parody I'd have thought the thing was pretty clever.

    Let me try to break this down for you.

    There is no context--not even a hypothetical context--in which the people in Deep Silver's marketing department would have created a male version of that torso. I guarantee it. Such an object would have been completely worthless to them. They'd be about as likely to send out statuettes of Mickey Mouse. The statue-of-a-woman's-torso exists 100% because they wanted to capitalize on sex appeal. If they had wanted to capitalize primarily on gore, or zombies, or absolutely anything else, they would have made something fundamentally different. A cleanly-severed torso does not evoke zombies very well in and of itself; zombies do not wield hacksaws. (Corollary: if they had decided to make an unsexy gory corpse from the outset, they would not have considered making it female even for the briefest of instants.)

    Deep Silver's marketing department didn't get together, say "a mutilated torso would be a cool centerpiece for our gore-centric collector's edition", and then throw darts at a board to randomly decide what physical attributes it should have. They got together, said "let's figure out the most visually striking method of getting a pair of tits in this box", and, though actual discussion, decided that the mutilated torso of a murdered woman was their best option for pushing the sexy angle on their male audience.

    The problem isn't a disgusting figurine, it's a disgusting mindset which produces--among many other things--figurines. This particular instance just happens to do a much worse job of obfuscating it than most. You can't divorce the statue itself from the mindset which created it and the cultural context that mindset developed in. Not if you want to really understand what it means to people.

    That's cool. I asked a question because I was confused by Enc's intent in his statement, but you can paint whatever opinions on me you want. I'm like one of those unfinished ceramics shops.

    I do, however, think that you can divorce the figurine from every form of context and still think it's stupid and hideous. 'cause it's stupid and hideous. Mutilated corpses aren't sexy and it's clear that's the intent in the piece, even viewed in a vacuum.

    If you take away the mutilation part then I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with the statue in and of itself. There's obviously something wrong with the art department that produced and okay'd the thing and with all the levels of marketing and management it had to go through to get to the point it did, but I wasn't trying to argue that there wasn't. I was confused by the apparent sentiment that there's something inherently wrong with a statue of breasts. That wasn't Enc's intent, so my confusion is now abated. Yay!

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
    Enc
  • PreciousBodilyFluidsPreciousBodilyFluids Registered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    If it's so hard to understand that I would want someone to tell me in their words why something is what they claim it to be without resorting to saying "it just is!" then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe I'm a lost cause. I think a lot of people in here are.

    I explained to you why several pages ago, and then asked why you didn't find it problematic at all regardless of semantics because arguing semantics is just a distraction. Mentally replace the word misogyny with whatever related term you're more comfortable with and proceed.
    For the record: we are probably making a bigger fuss about this than anyone else, anywhere.

    In your view: this issue is irrelevant because a minority is talking about it.
    In our view: this issue is relevant because a majority is complicit.

    Aside, you might find this interesting: I Was A Teenage Sexist.

    (Edit: Fix link.)

    I just want to point out that this was a good article, relevant to the discussion.

    While I really think you should just, y'know, read the whole thing, I'm going to try to quote the most relevant parts for the folks who won't:
    A lot of my favorite people are rigorous anti-feminists, but in the nicest possible way.

    These folks really do treat women as peers – academically, professionally, personally, romantically – and many of these right-headed people shy from any sort of “battle.”

    These anti-sexists always turn a polite, blind eye. Why keep picking fights? Diatribes are no fun. Stop whining and buck up, you! If your vagina (or whatever you have there, since not every woman or feminist is privileged to have one) is the worst you can complain about, it’s gonna be one easy ride, sister! Or mister. Whoever. Whomever.
    I get it. I do. The Internet hates everyone. And you can’t fix everyone. It’s easy to be a pessimist, or else it’s easy to feel like enough has changed (or too much has changed so please hush already).

    Moreover, the Internet condemns any dissenting opinion. Consider the higher-profile videogame critic: should he score a game a point too low, here come the superfans, wishing him cancer and AIDS. We turn a blind eye toward those superfans. “The lowest of the low,” we nod, “the vocal minority! Don’t feed the trolls.”

    What we mean is, That’s not me. I know I am a good person. Those people aren’t my problem.
    Feminism is all about the masses. We are, every last one of us, complicit in fostering an environment where this kind of vitriol is “normal,” where that kind of hatred toward any one person, or any grouping of people, is permitted to perpetuate and fester.

    “It’s the Internet,” we shrug. “These things happen,” we tell one another helplessly.

    What does it take to get us to notice that wrongheadedness? Evidently, we react only to ire and hatred – hatred that is utterly out of proportion with Sarkeesian’s Kickstarter itself, hatred that finally oversteps into criminal behavior.

    And that aloofness-until-some-breaking-point isn’t subcultural; it’s super cultural! Everybody! Everybody is responsible! It’s like voting!

    Feminism is on your side! Feminism is for everybody!
    But feminism does ask you, as an ethical human being, to objectively reexamine certain standards of behavior, which themselves are often based on an internalized, invisible set of shared beliefs and values.

    We should not stand by and hide behind phrases like "it's just a statue", because when we do, when we shrug and say "eh, no big deal", we are complicit in fostering the sort of environment in which these views on and treatments of women are considered normal. And no, you can't see this outside of its broader context of rampant sexism and objectification in society. This is a part of that. This is something that, if nobody spoke up, would contribute to that.

    tevinterpa.jpg
    Local H JayGennenalyse RuebenTychoCelchuuu
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Toasticus wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage. I like boobs.

    Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?

    To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.

    Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.

    That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.

    If you think "mutilated section of a woman's body on display" and "naked woman having sex" are in any way interchangeable or even comparable, you have some fundamental (and seriously disturbing) problems.

    Women are not their torsos, and it's not okay to reduce them to being such. That's kind of the whole point here.

    If you think "naked woman having sex" is all porn is, you are mistaken. What people do and do not find sexually attractive really shouldn't be the point. I do not find this sexually attractive, I find it squeemish. But I also find furries to be weird and gross me out. I also would look away from two men kissing. What i personally find attractive doesn't matter.

    Women are not their torsos. But I don't see a problem with only focusing on said torso for your personal sexual gratification. Now if all you focus on during your interaction with said person is your own personal sexual gratification, then there becomes a problem. But I don't see this torso statue causing men to be confused and to stop having meaningful interaction with women outside of those of a sexual nature.

    Fuck porn. This has nothing to do with porn.

    This is a literal reduction of the image of a woman to a pair or tits. The product in question is tits and only tits.

    That is the problem here.
    Why is it a problem to focus on the physical attributes you find attractive to fulfill sexual desires? And I don't agree this has nothing to do with porn, until you can explain why porn is completely unrelated, I will still draw the comparisons, because to me, they are very similar things.

    Well, I can only speak for myself, but I need a person to fulfill my sexual desires. Considering breasts are always (except in this case) attached to a person,

    Well, yeah. But what you and I need to fulfill desires isn't what someone else needs. And, its not like its the context of the rest of the woman that gives breasts all of their sex appeal, otherwise the size and shape of the breasts wouldnt matter. The breasts themselves have visual appeal.

    And regardless, that isn't even the point. The argument against this is that we are reducing women to just the parts we find sexually appealing. So, the literal example of the statue aside, what is the problem with focusing on the physical attributes we find appealing when attempting to satisfy our sexual desires?

    Plus there is the idea that what isn't being shown is sexy, because we can use our imagination. Yes, the manner in which the rest of the body is removed from the sculpture makes it harder to do so, but I wouldn't think it would be impossible.

    If there isnt a problem with simply focusing on the breasts of a women to fulfil our sexual desires, then the question becomes, what is the problem with exploiting people's desire to satisfy their sexual desires via a marketing campaign?

    The argument that it reinforces a culture that is anti-women is something I haven't been convinced of. No more than GTA reinforces a culture of violence. I believe that I can seperate my sexual desires from every day interactions with women. Just as I can seperate the joy i get from driving a police car into a crowd of pedestrians in GTA from actually driving.



    616610-1.png
    histronic
  • seasleepyseasleepy Registered User regular
    If you take away the mutilation part then I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with the statue in and of itself. There's obviously something wrong with the art department that produced and okay'd the thing and with all the levels of marketing and management it had to go through to get to the point it did, but I wasn't trying to argue that there wasn't. I was confused by the apparent sentiment that there's something inherently wrong with a statue of breasts. That wasn't Enc's intent, so my confusion is now abated. Yay!
    "If you take away the mutilation part," there is still a problem with this. Think about it this way: this is a statue of boobs that comes as a special reward from the game company for buying the special version of their video game. They clearly had no concept that anyone that would be interested in purchasing their special edition would not be interested in a statue of boobs.

    And then, later on, people wonder why women aren't interested in gaming.

    Steam | Nintendo: seasleepy | PSN: seasleepy1
    EncBlackjackPreciousBodilyFluidsGennenalyse RuebenDyvim Tvar
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    I would like to say that feminism is an incredibly charged umbrella term that, more often than not, means vastly different things to two different people. I've found it to be less than useful in discussion than actually talking about the specific points and positions.

  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    Honestly, and sadly, the only thing about this that surprises me is that the statue doesn't continue a little lower to include a butt, too.

    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Toasticus wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage. I like boobs.

    Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?

    To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.

    Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.

    That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.

    If you think "mutilated section of a woman's body on display" and "naked woman having sex" are in any way interchangeable or even comparable, you have some fundamental (and seriously disturbing) problems.

    Women are not their torsos, and it's not okay to reduce them to being such. That's kind of the whole point here.

    If you think "naked woman having sex" is all porn is, you are mistaken. What people do and do not find sexually attractive really shouldn't be the point. I do not find this sexually attractive, I find it squeemish. But I also find furries to be weird and gross me out. I also would look away from two men kissing. What i personally find attractive doesn't matter.

    Women are not their torsos. But I don't see a problem with only focusing on said torso for your personal sexual gratification. Now if all you focus on during your interaction with said person is your own personal sexual gratification, then there becomes a problem. But I don't see this torso statue causing men to be confused and to stop having meaningful interaction with women outside of those of a sexual nature.

    Fuck porn. This has nothing to do with porn.

    This is a literal reduction of the image of a woman to a pair or tits. The product in question is tits and only tits.

    That is the problem here.
    Why is it a problem to focus on the physical attributes you find attractive to fulfill sexual desires? And I don't agree this has nothing to do with porn, until you can explain why porn is completely unrelated, I will still draw the comparisons, because to me, they are very similar things.

    Well, I can only speak for myself, but I need a person to fulfill my sexual desires. Considering breasts are always (except in this case) attached to a person,

    Well, yeah. But what you and I need to fulfill desires isn't what someone else needs. And, its not like its the context of the rest of the woman that gives breasts all of their sex appeal, otherwise the size and shape of the breasts wouldnt matter. The breasts themselves have visual appeal.

    And regardless, that isn't even the point. The argument against this is that we are reducing women to just the parts we find sexually appealing. So, the literal example of the statue aside, what is the problem with focusing on the physical attributes we find appealing when attempting to satisfy our sexual desires?

    Plus there is the idea that what isn't being shown is sexy, because we can use our imagination. Yes, the manner in which the rest of the body is removed from the sculpture makes it harder to do so, but I wouldn't think it would be impossible.

    If there isnt a problem with simply focusing on the breasts of a women to fulfil our sexual desires, then the question becomes, what is the problem with exploiting people's desire to satisfy their sexual desires via a marketing campaign?

    The argument that it reinforces a culture that is anti-women is something I haven't been convinced of. No more than GTA reinforces a culture of violence. I believe that I can seperate my sexual desires from every day interactions with women. Just as I can seperate the joy i get from driving a police car into a crowd of pedestrians in GTA from actually driving.

    Well, with as healthy as your perspective obviously is I'm sure you have a very healthy and active sex life with a fulfilling and equal partner. Maybe you should ask her what she thinks of the statue and this discussion.

  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    seasleepy wrote: »
    If you take away the mutilation part then I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with the statue in and of itself. There's obviously something wrong with the art department that produced and okay'd the thing and with all the levels of marketing and management it had to go through to get to the point it did, but I wasn't trying to argue that there wasn't. I was confused by the apparent sentiment that there's something inherently wrong with a statue of breasts. That wasn't Enc's intent, so my confusion is now abated. Yay!
    "If you take away the mutilation part," there is still a problem with this. Think about it this way: this is a statue of boobs that comes as a special reward from the game company for buying the special version of their video game. They clearly had no concept that anyone that would be interested in purchasing their special edition would not be interested in a statue of boobs.

    And then, later on, people wonder why women aren't interested in gaming.

    Whether or not its a good marketing campaign that may push away a group of people more than it will bring in others is a different debate than if there is something morally wrong that we should be boycotting.

    I will 100% agree its a bad marketing campaign. I don't think you'll find a lot of people who arent turned off by the concept of a female torso ripped apart by zombies. I do agree it sends the message to women that the game isnt for them, at all. Which is a problem when using sex to appeal to men.

    But I don't agree its something to be morally offended about.

    616610-1.png
    histronic
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Disrupter wrote: »
    seasleepy wrote: »
    If you take away the mutilation part then I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with the statue in and of itself. There's obviously something wrong with the art department that produced and okay'd the thing and with all the levels of marketing and management it had to go through to get to the point it did, but I wasn't trying to argue that there wasn't. I was confused by the apparent sentiment that there's something inherently wrong with a statue of breasts. That wasn't Enc's intent, so my confusion is now abated. Yay!
    "If you take away the mutilation part," there is still a problem with this. Think about it this way: this is a statue of boobs that comes as a special reward from the game company for buying the special version of their video game. They clearly had no concept that anyone that would be interested in purchasing their special edition would not be interested in a statue of boobs.

    And then, later on, people wonder why women aren't interested in gaming.

    Whether or not its a good marketing campaign that may push away a group of people more than it will bring in others is a different debate than if there is something morally wrong that we should be boycotting.

    I will 100% agree its a bad marketing campaign. I don't think you'll find a lot of people who arent turned off by the concept of a female torso ripped apart by zombies. I do agree it sends the message to women that the game isnt for them, at all. Which is a problem when using sex to appeal to men.

    But I don't agree its something to be morally offended about.

    Cool. We do.

    There is an entire thread of arguments saying why we feel this way.

    It is not our job to repeat everything we've already said to convince you. At this point, you either agree or you don't, and if you don't, well, bully for you.

    That isn't going to stop us from saying that your dismissal is part of the problem.

    vsove on
    WATCH THIS SPACE.
    TheManTrapBastableTychoCelchuuudarleysam
  • FawstFawst The road to awe.Registered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    And I meant that I wasn't going to explain my point again, not that I wouldn't defend it. In all of this, no one has really countered my argument against calling this misogyny. It's just "welll, that's the right word!" I've pointed out how hatred is not explicitly present and been met with nothing but silence. Stop telling me I'm wrong or else tell me HOW I'm wrong without just saying I am.

    Sigh

    Yes we have. Many times. But let us continue our sisyphian task:
    Fawst wrote: »
    Objectification of women as just a pair of tits? Yes, in a literal sense, this is. Misogynistic? No, I won't agree to that.

    Alright, let's settle this then, since all you seem to care about is semantics.

    Regardless of whether you want to call it misogyny, can you at least admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing? Can you really not understand why some of us feel that is a bad thing and that we should express that it is a bad thing?

    Oh, and to pre-emptively reply to your "lol wikipedia" response, you'll find it's an incredibly well-sourced article.
    It's worth pointing out that one can be hateful and offensive without actively and consciously hating a certain group.

    Most discrimination is borne out of ignorance, they are subconscious attitudes and beliefs.

    Nobody is implying that the creators of this statue actually hate women in the traditional sense of the word. They did not make it with the intent to objectify, most likely. The point is that they did. It is absolutely objectifying and demeaning. The fact that they never thought of it that way is a problem.

    I have to wonder why so many people wish to jump on this semantic argument though

    That thing above? That's the definition of misogyny. This has been explained to you many times. You just chose to ignore it or to handwave it away with "well that's just, like, your opinion dude". But no, it's just the definition of the word.

    What baffles me is why you keep trying to steer the conversation in this semantic direction, because what really matters here is what I tried to ask you before:

    Regardless of whether you want to call it misogyny, can you at least admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing? Can you really not understand why some of us feel that is a bad thing and that we should express that it is a bad thing?

    @Fawst

    I thought I had responded to you but now I can't find it. Yes, I absolutely admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing. I can understand why some of you feel that is a bad thing and that you should express that it is a bad thing. I AM WITH YOU. I disagree on the wording. I'm fighting a losing battle because again, definitions.

    Speaking of which, regarding wikipedia's definition and my argument, it says that "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women." It does NOT say that those things ARE misogynistic at all times in all circumstances. In fact, if you look those terms up in wikipedia you get only ONE instance of a direct relation to misogyny, and that's under "Sexism" which is redirected from "sexual discrimination." There is a subsection labeled "Relationship between rape and misogyny," which itself isn't even completely connected to sexism, so I question it being there. The point is this: in none of those cases does it state specifically that those things are in and of themselves misogynistic. That, coupled with the context is where I get my argument from.

    PSN: Fawst0083
  • PreciousBodilyFluidsPreciousBodilyFluids Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Toasticus wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage. I like boobs.

    Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?

    To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.

    Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.

    That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.

    If you think "mutilated section of a woman's body on display" and "naked woman having sex" are in any way interchangeable or even comparable, you have some fundamental (and seriously disturbing) problems.

    Women are not their torsos, and it's not okay to reduce them to being such. That's kind of the whole point here.

    If you think "naked woman having sex" is all porn is, you are mistaken. What people do and do not find sexually attractive really shouldn't be the point. I do not find this sexually attractive, I find it squeemish. But I also find furries to be weird and gross me out. I also would look away from two men kissing. What i personally find attractive doesn't matter.

    Women are not their torsos. But I don't see a problem with only focusing on said torso for your personal sexual gratification. Now if all you focus on during your interaction with said person is your own personal sexual gratification, then there becomes a problem. But I don't see this torso statue causing men to be confused and to stop having meaningful interaction with women outside of those of a sexual nature.

    Fuck porn. This has nothing to do with porn.

    This is a literal reduction of the image of a woman to a pair or tits. The product in question is tits and only tits.

    That is the problem here.
    Why is it a problem to focus on the physical attributes you find attractive to fulfill sexual desires? And I don't agree this has nothing to do with porn, until you can explain why porn is completely unrelated, I will still draw the comparisons, because to me, they are very similar things.

    Well, I can only speak for myself, but I need a person to fulfill my sexual desires. Considering breasts are always (except in this case) attached to a person,

    Well, yeah. But what you and I need to fulfill desires isn't what someone else needs. And, its not like its the context of the rest of the woman that gives breasts all of their sex appeal, otherwise the size and shape of the breasts wouldnt matter. The breasts themselves have visual appeal.

    And regardless, that isn't even the point. The argument against this is that we are reducing women to just the parts we find sexually appealing. So, the literal example of the statue aside, what is the problem with focusing on the physical attributes we find appealing when attempting to satisfy our sexual desires?

    Plus there is the idea that what isn't being shown is sexy, because we can use our imagination. Yes, the manner in which the rest of the body is removed from the sculpture makes it harder to do so, but I wouldn't think it would be impossible.

    If there isnt a problem with simply focusing on the breasts of a women to fulfil our sexual desires, then the question becomes, what is the problem with exploiting people's desire to satisfy their sexual desires via a marketing campaign?

    The argument that it reinforces a culture that is anti-women is something I haven't been convinced of. No more than GTA reinforces a culture of violence. I believe that I can seperate my sexual desires from every day interactions with women. Just as I can seperate the joy i get from driving a police car into a crowd of pedestrians in GTA from actually driving.

    Well, with as healthy as your perspective obviously is I'm sure you have a very healthy and active sex life with a fulfilling and equal partner. Maybe you should ask her what she thinks of the statue and this discussion.

    To elaborate on this.

    Violence such as what you can do in GTA is pretty clearly condemned in society. Sexism really isn't. Mostly people just tell themselves it isn't actually there.

    I can't really separate the statue from literally reducing a woman to her tits, because that's the very essence of the statue. And uh, yeah, objectifying a woman to just a pair of sex organs is wrong. Your own needs and desires are not somehow more important than not reducing a person, a human being with a personality, to that.

    And if you're into that, well, that's your thing. But it is absolutely wrong to foster a culture around this. It's not okay to put a statue like this on the market because it strengthens the idea that objectifying women is fine! It's not! It's not cool to reduce human beings that way and to give people within society the idea that that's okay! It's harmful. Your desires are sort of irrelevant to that, sorry.

    tevinterpa.jpg
    OneAngryPossumTychoCelchuuu
  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Quantronic Dreamgirl Registered User regular


    12:06 for the statue's moment in the limelight.

    I think he has pretty reasonable points.

    urahonky
  • FawstFawst The road to awe.Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Well, with as healthy as your perspective obviously is I'm sure you have a very healthy and active sex life with a fulfilling and equal partner. Maybe you should ask her what she thinks of the statue and this discussion.

    That would just be anecdotal. :rotate:

    PSN: Fawst0083
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Toasticus wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage. I like boobs.

    Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?

    To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.

    Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.

    That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.

    If you think "mutilated section of a woman's body on display" and "naked woman having sex" are in any way interchangeable or even comparable, you have some fundamental (and seriously disturbing) problems.

    Women are not their torsos, and it's not okay to reduce them to being such. That's kind of the whole point here.

    If you think "naked woman having sex" is all porn is, you are mistaken. What people do and do not find sexually attractive really shouldn't be the point. I do not find this sexually attractive, I find it squeemish. But I also find furries to be weird and gross me out. I also would look away from two men kissing. What i personally find attractive doesn't matter.

    Women are not their torsos. But I don't see a problem with only focusing on said torso for your personal sexual gratification. Now if all you focus on during your interaction with said person is your own personal sexual gratification, then there becomes a problem. But I don't see this torso statue causing men to be confused and to stop having meaningful interaction with women outside of those of a sexual nature.

    Fuck porn. This has nothing to do with porn.

    This is a literal reduction of the image of a woman to a pair or tits. The product in question is tits and only tits.

    That is the problem here.
    Why is it a problem to focus on the physical attributes you find attractive to fulfill sexual desires? And I don't agree this has nothing to do with porn, until you can explain why porn is completely unrelated, I will still draw the comparisons, because to me, they are very similar things.

    Well, I can only speak for myself, but I need a person to fulfill my sexual desires. Considering breasts are always (except in this case) attached to a person,

    Well, yeah. But what you and I need to fulfill desires isn't what someone else needs. And, its not like its the context of the rest of the woman that gives breasts all of their sex appeal, otherwise the size and shape of the breasts wouldnt matter. The breasts themselves have visual appeal.

    And regardless, that isn't even the point. The argument against this is that we are reducing women to just the parts we find sexually appealing. So, the literal example of the statue aside, what is the problem with focusing on the physical attributes we find appealing when attempting to satisfy our sexual desires?

    Plus there is the idea that what isn't being shown is sexy, because we can use our imagination. Yes, the manner in which the rest of the body is removed from the sculpture makes it harder to do so, but I wouldn't think it would be impossible.

    If there isnt a problem with simply focusing on the breasts of a women to fulfil our sexual desires, then the question becomes, what is the problem with exploiting people's desire to satisfy their sexual desires via a marketing campaign?

    The argument that it reinforces a culture that is anti-women is something I haven't been convinced of. No more than GTA reinforces a culture of violence. I believe that I can seperate my sexual desires from every day interactions with women. Just as I can seperate the joy i get from driving a police car into a crowd of pedestrians in GTA from actually driving.

    Well, with as healthy as your perspective obviously is I'm sure you have a very healthy and active sex life with a fulfilling and equal partner. Maybe you should ask her what she thinks of the statue and this discussion.

    I honestly can't tell if this is sarcastic orr not. But I actually will probably discuss this with my wife when I get home though. I predict she, like me, will not find it appealing, but wont see a moral outrage with it. She will likely be turned off from the game because of it. But that's not really a moral issue. I would be turned off from marketing designed to attract women, likely, or gay men.

    Honestly though, what was the point of your suggestion that I do so? Not seeing how it is relevant in the debate.

    616610-1.png
  • FawstFawst The road to awe.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013


    12:06 for the statue's moment in the limelight.

    I think he has pretty reasonable points.

    I can sum that video up thusly: "God dammit, guys, really?"

    EDIT: That really was a great video, not simply because the guy agrees with me. He distills it to its essence: Deep Silver are a bunch of dumbasses for this one.

    Fawst on
    PSN: Fawst0083
    Albino Bunnyurahonky
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    Fawst wrote: »
    And I meant that I wasn't going to explain my point again, not that I wouldn't defend it. In all of this, no one has really countered my argument against calling this misogyny. It's just "welll, that's the right word!" I've pointed out how hatred is not explicitly present and been met with nothing but silence. Stop telling me I'm wrong or else tell me HOW I'm wrong without just saying I am.

    Sigh

    Yes we have. Many times. But let us continue our sisyphian task:
    Fawst wrote: »
    Objectification of women as just a pair of tits? Yes, in a literal sense, this is. Misogynistic? No, I won't agree to that.

    Alright, let's settle this then, since all you seem to care about is semantics.

    Regardless of whether you want to call it misogyny, can you at least admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing? Can you really not understand why some of us feel that is a bad thing and that we should express that it is a bad thing?

    Oh, and to pre-emptively reply to your "lol wikipedia" response, you'll find it's an incredibly well-sourced article.
    It's worth pointing out that one can be hateful and offensive without actively and consciously hating a certain group.

    Most discrimination is borne out of ignorance, they are subconscious attitudes and beliefs.

    Nobody is implying that the creators of this statue actually hate women in the traditional sense of the word. They did not make it with the intent to objectify, most likely. The point is that they did. It is absolutely objectifying and demeaning. The fact that they never thought of it that way is a problem.

    I have to wonder why so many people wish to jump on this semantic argument though

    That thing above? That's the definition of misogyny. This has been explained to you many times. You just chose to ignore it or to handwave it away with "well that's just, like, your opinion dude". But no, it's just the definition of the word.

    What baffles me is why you keep trying to steer the conversation in this semantic direction, because what really matters here is what I tried to ask you before:

    Regardless of whether you want to call it misogyny, can you at least admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing? Can you really not understand why some of us feel that is a bad thing and that we should express that it is a bad thing?

    @Fawst

    I thought I had responded to you but now I can't find it. Yes, I absolutely admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing. I can understand why some of you feel that is a bad thing and that you should express that it is a bad thing. I AM WITH YOU. I disagree on the wording. I'm fighting a losing battle because again, definitions.

    Speaking of which, regarding wikipedia's definition and my argument, it says that "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women." It does NOT say that those things ARE misogynistic at all times in all circumstances. In fact, if you look those terms up in wikipedia you get only ONE instance of a direct relation to misogyny, and that's under "Sexism" which is redirected from "sexual discrimination." There is a subsection labeled "Relationship between rape and misogyny," which itself isn't even completely connected to sexism, so I question it being there. The point is this: in none of those cases does it state specifically that those things are in and of themselves misogynistic. That, coupled with the context is where I get my argument from.

    Just because all donuts don't have sugar in them doesn't mean that the vast majority don't. You can define Misogyny in the fashion you are suggesting, with extensive corollaries and warrants about why you are doing so, but that isn't how the word is actively used in practice (professionally or layman).

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Toasticus wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage. I like boobs.

    Has anyone who is "outraged" by this never once watched porn?

    To me this is the equivilent of porn. Its not something I would celebrate out in the open. And obviously I don't find the concept of a torso torn apart to be exciting to me personally, but that's not the point. The point is, I've looked at porn, how is this any worse than that? Men like sexy women, this is something that can be used for profit. Unless you are going to rally against the existence of far more sexualized dipictions of women, I don't understand why the outrage exists here.

    Now if all of you also agree porn shouldnt exist, then OK, you have a consistant argument. I will disagree, but at least you are not being a hypocrite.

    That being said, I personally think this thing is dumb and cant imagine the person who would enjoy it. I would absolutely raise an eyebrow and judge the person who has it, but thats because I'm a judgemental dickhole who would be overly critical of my associates hobbies and interests. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statue.

    If you think "mutilated section of a woman's body on display" and "naked woman having sex" are in any way interchangeable or even comparable, you have some fundamental (and seriously disturbing) problems.

    Women are not their torsos, and it's not okay to reduce them to being such. That's kind of the whole point here.

    If you think "naked woman having sex" is all porn is, you are mistaken. What people do and do not find sexually attractive really shouldn't be the point. I do not find this sexually attractive, I find it squeemish. But I also find furries to be weird and gross me out. I also would look away from two men kissing. What i personally find attractive doesn't matter.

    Women are not their torsos. But I don't see a problem with only focusing on said torso for your personal sexual gratification. Now if all you focus on during your interaction with said person is your own personal sexual gratification, then there becomes a problem. But I don't see this torso statue causing men to be confused and to stop having meaningful interaction with women outside of those of a sexual nature.

    Fuck porn. This has nothing to do with porn.

    This is a literal reduction of the image of a woman to a pair or tits. The product in question is tits and only tits.

    That is the problem here.
    Why is it a problem to focus on the physical attributes you find attractive to fulfill sexual desires? And I don't agree this has nothing to do with porn, until you can explain why porn is completely unrelated, I will still draw the comparisons, because to me, they are very similar things.

    Well, I can only speak for myself, but I need a person to fulfill my sexual desires. Considering breasts are always (except in this case) attached to a person,

    Well, yeah. But what you and I need to fulfill desires isn't what someone else needs. And, its not like its the context of the rest of the woman that gives breasts all of their sex appeal, otherwise the size and shape of the breasts wouldnt matter. The breasts themselves have visual appeal.

    And regardless, that isn't even the point. The argument against this is that we are reducing women to just the parts we find sexually appealing. So, the literal example of the statue aside, what is the problem with focusing on the physical attributes we find appealing when attempting to satisfy our sexual desires?

    Plus there is the idea that what isn't being shown is sexy, because we can use our imagination. Yes, the manner in which the rest of the body is removed from the sculpture makes it harder to do so, but I wouldn't think it would be impossible.

    If there isnt a problem with simply focusing on the breasts of a women to fulfil our sexual desires, then the question becomes, what is the problem with exploiting people's desire to satisfy their sexual desires via a marketing campaign?

    The argument that it reinforces a culture that is anti-women is something I haven't been convinced of. No more than GTA reinforces a culture of violence. I believe that I can seperate my sexual desires from every day interactions with women. Just as I can seperate the joy i get from driving a police car into a crowd of pedestrians in GTA from actually driving.

    Well, with as healthy as your perspective obviously is I'm sure you have a very healthy and active sex life with a fulfilling and equal partner. Maybe you should ask her what she thinks of the statue and this discussion.

    I honestly can't tell if this is sarcastic orr not. But I actually will probably discuss this with my wife when I get home though. I predict she, like me, will not find it appealing, but wont see a moral outrage with it. She will likely be turned off from the game because of it. But that's not really a moral issue. I would be turned off from marketing designed to attract women, likely, or gay men.

    Honestly though, what was the point of your suggestion that I do so? Not seeing how it is relevant in the debate.

    Perspective. It may be that she does see things exactly like you do. It may be she doesn't. From the point of view of nearly every female in this thread it isn't acceptable. It would be interesting to hear from a female who doesn't see this as degrading with reasoning.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    (I think this is on-topic, given the current bend in the conversation.)

    See, I understand that "misogyny" and "rape culture" are the accepted terms, but I feel like that's an unfortunate evolution in the English language. By applying those terms to attitudes like Fawst's, it implies a flaw in his character, rather than merely a flaw in his thinking. It's an important distinction, and one that causes a lot of resistance in these discussions that wouldn't otherwise be encountered.

    If I tell my friend he's thinking about a problem the wrong way, he's likely to listen to what I say next, and give it actual consideration.

    If I imply that his wrong thinking is the result of a fundamental character flaw or immoral motivation (for example, because he hates women), the conversation is going to be a lot more difficult and less productive for everyone involved.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't use those terms, I understand they're the accepted terminology, at least in academic contexts. I'm saying I wish we had been a bit more careful in developing our terminology, because what we stuck ourselves with is a contributing factor to lots of clusterfucks like this thread.

    (That said, I'm comfortable applying the terms to this statue, if not to Fawst's perception of the statue.)

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
    MadpoetShadowhopeKanaAntimatterTurkey
  • PreciousBodilyFluidsPreciousBodilyFluids Registered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    Fawst wrote: »
    And I meant that I wasn't going to explain my point again, not that I wouldn't defend it. In all of this, no one has really countered my argument against calling this misogyny. It's just "welll, that's the right word!" I've pointed out how hatred is not explicitly present and been met with nothing but silence. Stop telling me I'm wrong or else tell me HOW I'm wrong without just saying I am.

    Sigh

    Yes we have. Many times. But let us continue our sisyphian task:
    Fawst wrote: »
    Objectification of women as just a pair of tits? Yes, in a literal sense, this is. Misogynistic? No, I won't agree to that.

    Alright, let's settle this then, since all you seem to care about is semantics.

    Regardless of whether you want to call it misogyny, can you at least admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing? Can you really not understand why some of us feel that is a bad thing and that we should express that it is a bad thing?

    Oh, and to pre-emptively reply to your "lol wikipedia" response, you'll find it's an incredibly well-sourced article.
    It's worth pointing out that one can be hateful and offensive without actively and consciously hating a certain group.

    Most discrimination is borne out of ignorance, they are subconscious attitudes and beliefs.

    Nobody is implying that the creators of this statue actually hate women in the traditional sense of the word. They did not make it with the intent to objectify, most likely. The point is that they did. It is absolutely objectifying and demeaning. The fact that they never thought of it that way is a problem.

    I have to wonder why so many people wish to jump on this semantic argument though

    That thing above? That's the definition of misogyny. This has been explained to you many times. You just chose to ignore it or to handwave it away with "well that's just, like, your opinion dude". But no, it's just the definition of the word.

    What baffles me is why you keep trying to steer the conversation in this semantic direction, because what really matters here is what I tried to ask you before:

    Regardless of whether you want to call it misogyny, can you at least admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing? Can you really not understand why some of us feel that is a bad thing and that we should express that it is a bad thing?

    @Fawst

    I thought I had responded to you but now I can't find it. Yes, I absolutely admit that the literal reduction of a woman to a pair of tits is a bad thing. I can understand why some of you feel that is a bad thing and that you should express that it is a bad thing. I AM WITH YOU. I disagree on the wording. I'm fighting a losing battle because again, definitions.

    Speaking of which, regarding wikipedia's definition and my argument, it says that "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women." It does NOT say that those things ARE misogynistic at all times in all circumstances. In fact, if you look those terms up in wikipedia you get only ONE instance of a direct relation to misogyny, and that's under "Sexism" which is redirected from "sexual discrimination." There is a subsection labeled "Relationship between rape and misogyny," which itself isn't even completely connected to sexism, so I question it being there. The point is this: in none of those cases does it state specifically that those things are in and of themselves misogynistic. That, coupled with the context is where I get my argument from.

    Alright. Why is this an argument you feel is worth pursuing?

    I mean, is your major contribution to this thread, which is essentially about how incredibly objectifying and demeaning this statue is, really only that you disagree with the wording?

    By now, you already know the definition of misogyny we wield. You can view all our posts within that context now. I'm not going to get into which is the "right" one because I agree with you that we're simply not going to agree on that, ever.

    So maybe we can get past this now? We disagree and are not ever going to agree on the use of that word, but you know the definition we wield so you can comprehend what we're saying anyways.

    We drop this fucking pointless semantic argument and actually start talking about the subject of this thread. You can start contributing to the discussion concerning the culture which breeds the idea that this statue is a good idea, concerning the objectification of women, since apparently you actually agree with that.

    There is absolutely nothing to be gained at this point by continuing this definition battle. It's fairly irrelevant to what's being discussed, and as such I'm really done talking about it.

    You have the definitions you asked for. So please don't ask for them again. You don't agree with them. Fine, we're not going to reach a consensus on that. So let's just please move on from that and get back to actual topic at hand.

    tevinterpa.jpg
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    I will discuss it with her and report back :)

    I don't expect her to see things 100% like me, but from discussions we've had in the past, I would be surprised if she finds it degrading as you put it. But we will see. Though, I am not sure her opinion changes the debate much. But if she does find it degrading, maybe she can better open my eyes to why.

    616610-1.png
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Enc wrote: »

    There is nothing wrong with having any body type. There is something wrong with a company specifically choosing only one body type to present as what is supposed to be typified as female.

    Here is a fun experiment: look at the variance in how most games present men. Are they young or old? Fat or thin? Do they have strange jaws or goofy grins or giant rippling muscles? Now look at the women: is there anywhere near the same variance in builds as men? Typically it is less than half of the possible variances are possible.

    Okay, what if hypothetically the Borderlands 2 people put out a figure of the obese mechanic lady from that game in a bikini and provocative pose? The developers stated that they created her to be different than how women are generally portrayed in games. Would such a statue not be an example of sexism because it depicts a woman with a conventionally unattractive body type? Even if it didn't attract complaints of sexism, you can bet that some commentators would claim it was made to poke fun at large women (see the response to Fat Princess) or, alternatively, that creating a sexualized depiction of an obese women would somehow promote the glamorization of obesity (for example, I've seen people argue that pretty clothes should not come in larger sizes because it would encourage obese women to lose weight so that they could wear them).

    To entertain another hypothetical, what if video game heroines stopped being slim women with ample assets and sleek curves and started being examples of peak fitness and developed musculature, such as this woman:

    http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/609/480/87388873-gretchen-bleiler.jpg

    Or this one:

    http://ccsteffen.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/muscular-woman.gif

    Or maybe even this exaggerated example:

    http://images.imagecomics.com/blog_images//686981968698989.jpg

    Would portraying women this way be less problematic? What if it became the new ideal and the sometimes overly slender conventional ideal nearly vanished from pop culture? Would an ideal body type that arguably is more conducive to fitness and health than current ideals becoming the dominant depiction of women be a good thing, or would overrepresentation still make it negative? Should there be some sort of social responsibility to make sure that the idealized standard of beauty is one that is conducive to peak health?

    Hexmage-PA on
    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular


    12:06 for the statue's moment in the limelight.

    I think he has pretty reasonable points.

    I am now made aware of this guy's channel and have thus subscribed to it. :^:

    "Twisted Titillation" is just about the perfect way to sum up this whole mess.

    Albino Bunny
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    Idealized body types, in general, are harmful.

    The biggest reason is that not everyone has the same body type. My wife, no matter what she eats, cannot put on a lot of weight. She's very lean, and nothing will change that. OTOH, one of our friends is bigger, and she's very fit - but she just isn't physically able to drop below a certain size.

    Women are people, and like all people, they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Idealizing one over another is what leads to issues with body image.

    And before the strawman that always comes up is trotted out, no, this doesn't mean that people who are unhealthy shouldn't try to be healthy, but you can be healthy and still be any of a wide variety of body types.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
    PreciousBodilyFluidsOneAngryPossumSoundsPlushTychoCelchuuuAntimatterDyvim TvarLoveIsUnity
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    (I think this is on-topic, given the current bend in the conversation.)

    See, I understand that "misogyny" and "rape culture" are the accepted terms, but I feel like that's an unfortunate evolution in the English language. By applying those terms to attitudes like Fawst's, it implies a flaw in his character, rather than merely a flaw in his thinking. It's an important distinction, and one that causes a lot of resistance in these discussions that wouldn't otherwise be encountered.

    If I tell my friend he's thinking about a problem the wrong way, he's likely to listen to what I say next, and give it actual consideration.

    If I imply that his wrong thinking is the result of a fundamental character flaw or immoral motivation (for example, because he hates women), the conversation is going to be a lot more difficult and less productive for everyone involved.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't use those terms, I understand they're the accepted terminology, at least in academic contexts. I'm saying I wish we had been a bit more careful in developing our terminology, because what we stuck ourselves with is a contributing factor to lots of clusterfucks like this thread.

    (That said, I'm comfortable applying the terms to this statue, if not to Fawst's perception of the statue.)

    I've been on the receiving end of being told that my beliefs and views were misogynistic. It's unpleasant. Of course, the people who told me that also provided their reasons why, and after I fucking got over myself and the belief that my viewpoint was The Most Important, I understood their views and took them as my own. They were right, and I was wrong. My intentions didnt mean shit, and being called out for sexism and stupidity is nothing compared to being surrounded wvery day by sexism and stupidity.

    I also understood why they got so damned frustrated in having these discussions with me, because its the same damned conversation every time. Sometimes it's effective, sometimes it's not.

    The reason I personally no longer care to walk on eggshells in conversations with people behaving misogynistically or from a sexist point of view is that I weigh their offense as significantly less important than stating what is actually meant in the terms in which it is understood by the majority of those who care. I'm all for speaking to somebody in the most effective way possible, but when somebody refuses to adjust their positions or arguments in the face of a staggering amount of evidence, they can go fuck themselves.

    The thought process that led to that statue was misogynistic. It was sexist. It was people being sexist and misogynistic. I'm not saying they're horrible monsters, I'm saying they fucked up in a way that is easy to avoid by not being ignorant.

    If you're first response to being told that you're behaving in an offensive way or contributing to a disgusting culture is, 'NO IM NOT HERE ARE MY EXCUSES WHY WOULD YOU EVER ATTACK ME IM TRRRYYYYYYING' then here's what you do: you shut the fuck up and think about why somebody would say that. You remove yourself from the equation. You understand you can do something wrong and not be a terrible person. If you're still offended, continue to shut up until you get over yourself and understand where those feeling are coming from. Why does that person feel the way they do?

    Then try to have the conversation. Stop taking shit personally, because its not about you. These words aren't loaded insults, they're criticisms that assholes don't know how to process without flipping the fuck out.

    OneAngryPossum on
    vsoveShoemakerDrezSoundsPlushForarArdolTychoCelchuuuDyvim Tvargtrmp
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    You know for all the talk of sexism in the original dead island did everyone forget the creepy rape porn/zombie porn studio in one of the bungalo's? Because that shit was horrific. Also Svetlanna, though that one was just flat out creeper shit and not rape awful.

    I'm kind of glad they did this stunt, now I can skip Dead Island 2 without having to list all the horrificly annoying things they no doubt included to make it an unplayable piece of shit.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • DunxcoDunxco Should get a suit Never skips breakfastRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    I have just read through the 22-odd pages of this topic (could be 23 by the time this goes up)

    I think it's gross, vulgar tat that has no place in any situation except outside of needing a prop for your own zombie movie. And even then I'd probably try to clothe it a bit more appropriately.

    But what I really wanted to say was that reading this thread has been enlightening. For as heated as some part of it have been, the wealth of information and insight provided by both the links provided, and the comments made by many of the people here, have sent me spiralling across the internet to read up more on the issue of sexism and gender representation both in games and in the development process, across the course of the day - something I should've endeavoured to do a long time ago.

    Thanks for keeping it informative and educational, PA. :)

    Dunxco on
    SoundsPlushOneAngryPossumAaronKIAegeriShadowenArchForarTychoCelchuuuDyvim TvarPreciousBodilyFluidsEchodarleysamLovelybobwoco
  • SciJoSciJo Registered User regular
    Dunxco wrote: »
    Thanks for keeping it informative and educational, PA. :)

    Knowledge is power after all.

  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    I like lots of bodyparts. Specific ones. Even without context. Not only as parts of wholesome individuals.
    Like teeth. Teeth are pretty cool things. Jaw is plenty context. Mine are great.
    So I guess I do objectify people a lot, in various ways. I'm not the most compassionate person, either.

    I don't have a point. Feels like I'm standing here laughing nervously with something to hide.

    PLA on
  • PsycohedPsycohed On a Fool's ErrandRegistered User regular
    Hey, Techland? You can cram your shitty zombie game. I don't care about intent. This shit is fucking inexcusable.

    Just... god! God dammit. We're supposed to be better than this!

    brig_banner.png
    IdolNinjadarleysam
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    I've been on the receiving end of being told that my beliefs and views were misogynistic. It's unpleasant. Of course, the people who told me that also provided their reasons why, and after I fucking got over myself and the belief that my viewpoint was The Most Important, I understood their views and took them as my own. They were right, and I was wrong. My intentions didnt mean shit, and being called out for sexism and stupidity is nothing compared to being surrounded wvery day by sexism and stupidity.

    The conflation of terms regarding sexism and misogyny has removed shades of meaning with regards to sexism and misogyny. To use the most obvious example: yes, chivalry is sexism. In today's terminology, that also means that it's misogyny. I will not argue that chivalry is a positive force, but it's fairly mild as negative forces go. When all forms of sexism against women are gathered under the blanket term of misogyny, it serves both as off-putting to any audience that needs to hear it (you essentially say "By holding doors open for women, you're showing that you think women are weak and you hate them"), while also diminishing the power of the word. Ideally, we'd have different terms readily available for degrees of cultural attitudes. A guy who is buying gifts for his four-year-old twin niece and nephew for Christmas and who gets a doll for his niece and a football for his nephew is sexist, but not on the same scale of misogyny as a guy who thinks that it's OK for men to sleep around before they're married but that women are sluts if they do so.

    In my personal opinion, current feminist grouping of terminology, where sexism towards women is generally labeled as misogyny regardless of degree, A) serves as an unnecessary barrier to communication with people who need to hear that they're sexist, B) serves to desensitize language and make it less precise. I'm not saying not to call out sexism when it happens, but consider whether or not you'll call someone misogynistic. In my opinion, if someone does something sexist because they're stupid and don't know better, call them out as sexist. If they should know better, then call them out as misogynistic.

    Shadowhope on
    Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
    Gandalf_the_CrazedElvenshaePreciousBodilyFluids
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Dunxco wrote: »
    But what I really wanted to say was that reading this thread has been enlightening. For as heated as some part of it have been, the wealth of information and insight provided by both the links provided, and the comments made by many of the people here, have sent me spiralling across the internet to read up more on the issue of sexism and gender representation both in games and in the development process, across the course of the day - something I should've endeavoured to do a long time ago.

    Thanks for keeping it informative and educational, PA. :)

    I've only been half-following this thread, mostly because I see that it's already being handled by Tube and others and I don't feel like I have a whole lot to contribute.

    If you're interested, though, there's a video series that I strongly recommend. It's called Killing Us Softly by Jean Kilbourne, and the first one was released in the late 1970s. You can watch 3 and 4 online (though I haven't actually seen #4.) http://archive.org/details/KillingUsSoftly-AdvertisingAndTheImageOfWomen (I guess it's more accurate to say that I recommend 1-3 and I just presume that 4 is good.)

    In the first one, she used images of contemporary advertising to show the objectification of women, leading up to and including sexualized advertising images of women's disembodied body parts and amputated torsos. You can draw a dotted line that goes more or less like this:

    1) Advertisers sexually objectify women to sell products. (Specifically, they sexually objectify both men and women, but more often women and to greater degrees.)
    2) The essence of objectification is dehumanization. Simply displaying a person in a sexual light isn't necessarily enough to establish objectification; objectification also involves stripping an person of its humanity.
    3) A sexual object doesn't need to be whole to be sexualized - sexy legs, sexy breasts, sexy butts remain sexy even when depicted in isolation because they are interchangeable parts of an object. They don't need to be attached to a whole person to be sexy. (Example. Again, this is done to men, too, but less frequently and to lesser degrees.)
    4) Kilbourne and others in sex and media studies call this dismemberment advertising.

    Once in a blue moon, there's a literal example of sexualized dismemberment advertising, where the sexy dismembered body parts are explicitly rendered to resemble a stylized victim of violence. It doesn't happen quite so often any more, but it used to be more common: Killing Us Softly 1 had several examples of it. It's just not quite as trendy today to depict violence against women in ads as it was a few decades ago.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    ArchDunxcoAegeriSoundsPlushBastableTychoCelchuuuAntimatterEchogtrmpLovelyjakobagger
Sign In or Register to comment.