Out of Pod Experience

There are people who enjoy sexualized characters, for entertainment, for providing an emotional outlet, variety of reasons. Games shouldn't try to shy away from it because they (mistakenly) think this is what females want (some might, but I don't). What I'd like to see are more "traditionally male" graphical options for female archetypes: plate mail without boobie bumps, riot gear with full face covering, options for more vicious looking scars, etc.

I just wish EVE had more combat gear type equipment for female avatars like the males have. The Gallente motorcycle jacket is the closest thing.. and honestly it doesn't quite cut it.

....meight

Yeah it seems what they provide is almost completely centered around catering to males. The general societal belief is that women only want a non-sexed character if at all, and that the vast majority of them aren't even playing anyway. Of course this is wildly inaccurate on both counts, but people will tend to belief what the majority believes regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

I've noted a few common feelings among gamers of any gender that (especially in women) contradict the standard beliefs:
1.) wanting to make a character look intrepid and capable, not for sex appeal but for confidence in that character's ability to do what they do. Men want this too, it's not a manly want but is fairly even among people of any sex or gender who want to go on a virtually dangerous adventure (which is maybe 80-90% of us). It's part of that author upholding the audiences' suspension of disbelief.
2.) wanting to make a character of the opposite sex to:
a.) make this character into an extension of their desire to experience socialization from the other side, out of adventurous spirit or just curiosity
b.) have this character be like a companion that they can feel comfortable around
c.) dress the character up to look sexy so they can feel sexy while they play--some prefer to do this with a character of the opposite sex or just a female character because they may find them easier to make sexy either due to the limited and biased character creation options or because the player lacks experience with designing a sexy look on the other side.
And I'm sure there are more reasons I haven't mentioned to explain why people make characters of the opposite sex. Gazing at their smokin' body is on the list but not as high up as you might think. My brother exclusively makes female characters that he finds sexually appealing but not to get off on them, rather, because he only feels comfortable in an environment where sexy women feel free to frolick naked. It's more of a response to an oppressive society than to sexual lusts.

So women feel pretty similarly about these things and more, though the exact implementation they want can be VERY different. But when you break these things down to their basic concepts, men and women want pretty similar things.

i remember when i played age of conan, the raiding part of our guild was composed roughly, depending on who was around, of about 60% male toons and 40% female toons. the actual gender ratio of the team was 16-17 guys to 3 women. you could tell who we were in the raid because our toons were covered head to toe in leather, fur and metal. and all the guy's female characters had their armor hidden, and were dancing around and doing battle with epic creatures topless.

I would have blended in with you gals then. I always liked playing with a female toon in full plate armor with a huge shield. There's something awe-inspiring about a shield that's as big as the character.

Then again I actually did play this way in World of Warcraft back in the day. I told everyone I was a woman in real life (if they actually asked) and nobody suspected I wasn't telling the truth. Maybe I have a girly play style. I was once asked by a corpmate in EVE if I was a girl playing with a male toon. He wasn't even kidding, he was convinced I had to be a girl. I had to get on vent to prove I wasn't--not that I was complaining. I like it when people can't tell my sex in a game.

http://www.oafe.net/yo/art/mosmmfaora3.jpg
Proof that it is possible to combine sturdy, protective, flexible, sexy, and elegant in a body armor for women.

I'm not sure women place as much emphasis on visuals for arousal as men do, hence the issue (although I can only speak from a hetero viewpoint here). No offence, but male legs in general do nothing for me. I'm not even inclined to leer at the most obvious body part if it's attached to an idiot. Although I read this a few days ago, and not too sure how to take it. Is the male body undervalued? Is it wise to counter female body obsession by promoting male body obsession? Undecided.

Society itself is hypersexualised regarding the female form, to the point it's hard to tell who is the responsible or how to address it as so many women themselves perpetuate it. Which is understandable given we're subjected to the same type of media conditioning. And it's not as if some of us aren't vain to an irrational degree, again partly through social expectations.

I haven't watched the videos linked but the comments above indicate the gist. In all honesty, whilst I think it's something to acknowledge and be aware of I'm not sure how productive it is for feminists to focus on the gaming industry as a target. It doesn't address the underlying issue which is to do with objectification and exploitation. Society won't change by attacking male dominated arenas in the first place, although having rational discussions about it is probably useful. I'd rather see a concerted campaign at MTV, which appears to me to be far more insidious. I know a few women with young daughters who have blocked it because of how raunchy, and frankly inappropriate, it's become.

The fundamental difference between humanism and feminism is that feminism divides humanity into groups and fights for rights of one of them, while humanism treats every human being equally (in general sense of the word). Feminists frequently come to the same conclusion at least once in their lifetime, but many either choose to ignore this or run deeper, into hate of men, thus becoming direct victims of their own ideology.

I consider myself a humanist and believe that physical properties of human beings should not be used to separate humanity into superior and inferior groups. Even physical disabilities should not be used to form inferior groups. Stephen Hawking is the prime example of this.

One of my friends is an active feminist involved in several of my country's feminist organizations and projects. She majored Gender issues at Faculty of Political Sciences (sorry, don't know how to translate that, so I just wrote it as it's called here). Me being interested in sociology in general, I had a privilege of discussing gender issues with her and her friends and colleagues on several occasions.

However, I might note that I'm from Serbia, where so called "Balkan (macho) mentality" is still very dominant and where gender inequality is still (incomparably) more severe than in developed countries, so I might talk about it from this perspective. What I have noticed is that the more gender issues there are, the more feminism tends to bend towards dividing people to men and women.

Although oppression happens to every person, especially in developing countries with high levels of corruption, there still seems to be a trend to lead the fight for rights in separate groups dividing the general population. This is interesting, especially when you consider that the predominant way of keeping the power has always been "divide and conquer". That way of keeping power has been successful and will always be because if you divide people into interest groups, the individual groups:
- have considerably less power than the whole population;
- create an environment where participants of one group are so preoccupied with problems of their group that they either don't see problems of other groups or simply don't have time or energy to dedicate to resolving problems of a different group;

The more severe oppression is, the more problems for individual groups exist and that means groups are more dedicated to themselves than to resolving issues in bigger picture. It also produces more radical elements within groups and radical elements are dangerous for the group itself, since they are not fighting any more for interests of the general population but rather for their own causes. This creates an energy flow guided in the wrong direction, since more often than not, radical elements tend to dedicate more time and energy on fighting the "other" group than fighting the system where the problem started in the first place. After all, this is the same principle that is used to start wars.

I agree that in essence feminism is a form of humanism, but I'm not sure that we need to divide humanism into subsections and groups that support those subsections if we are ever going to defeat "divide and conquer" method.

This couldn't be more true

Too superficial.

Instinct becomes a problem when the mind following it
is unable to realize itself. The motivation behind the action.
The reasoning is irrelevant, because the reasoning of the
unaware always becomes screwed towards the desired.

What you're saying is like saying that sugar is bad for teeth, which it isn't.

Lack of experience... I agree, though.


Anyhow, this threads content is pretty silly. I don't fall into a, b or c. Try more options.

This thread is just your ego bashing about the ego bashing of some other ego.
At least that's what I see and there isn't much else to see.


Let me conclude reality for you:

Most humans, especially those in more "civilized" regions are more or less mindless zombies.
Despite the gigantic knowledge available to raise self awareness, self understanding,
about misconceptions in regards to how ignorant most people communicate,
or even knowledge about this ignorance ...

Instead, TV dictates the lives of the younger into fun, consuming and eternal slavery errr ...
... being busy literally all day, with no relaxation. Instead, through their fun addiction, they get bored.

There is no school out there that teaches people how to see reality (incl themselves) in a way that enables
them to deal with it in an analytic, practical way, void from idiotic patterned ego mindlessness that
clouds reasoning.

Or, in other worlds: How not to turn into a bitter, sad being that supresses anger and desires because nobody
tozght him to actually enjoy life in an honest, fulfilling way instead of hunting everlasting fun,
which is an illusion anyway.

Instead, most people run on instincts mostly seeking gratification, satisfaction and
shallow joys from the outside world, because they either forgot or never
learned how to feel, understand and comprehend the inner one.
Feelings.

Which brings me to you.

This thread.

Why did you make it?

What's the point exactly?