Social DGames Social | V/LA |

[Maven89]

Psychologically speaking most people don't associate with one gender or the other alone.
.

wtf are you basing that on? nothing that I have ever seen in my life would validate what you just said. people defniitely assosciate with their gender.

 

[Ashemu]

^ previous post is a joke pls dont infract me ryu ^
i cant tell if its apaparent sometimes

 

[#HBC | BadWolf]

wow badwolf is the biggest manchild on teh site, who the hell likes league of legends

right?

 

[#HBC | BadWolf]

wtf are you basing that on? nothing that I have ever seen in my life would validate what you just said. people defniitely assosciate with their gender.

Where do transgender people fall into that then?

Plus the fact that I'm taking a psychology class in which the professor, who's a behaviour oriented psychology doctor who had said the same. I'm basing it off of that.

 

[Ashemu]

wtf are you basing that on? nothing that I have ever seen in my life would validate what you just said. people defniitely assosciate with their gender.

eh not all people across the board, and even those who do do so to varying degrees

all individuals are different (bronies are definitely all the same tho.)

 

[#HBC | Kary]

Subtle observable differences exist between male and female brains, but how exactly these relate to differences in behaviour is unknown. Such gender variations in the brain are often exaggerated and misappropriated, not only by the mass media but also by scientists, to reinforce stereotypes and perpetuate myths.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2013/oct/06/male-brain-versus-female-brain

 

[#HBC | BadWolf]

eh not all people across the board, and even those who do do so to varying degrees

all individuals are different (bronies are definitely all the same tho.)

Horny teenage people with wayyy too much hormones for their own good. Yep that's us!

 

[Circus]

Concepts like masculinity or femininity are not some arbitrary standard passed down to people by some *******s. it's a cross-cultural concept that exists naturally because of biology. if you're a man your brain is wired different from a womans. that is a fact. this is where masculinity, femininity, and gender roles come from. maybe you don't feel any drive towards being masculine, but don't believe that the men that do are brainwashed or forced into doing it. most men, id' say 99%, feel like men. I don't really want to take care of children. I want to go out and earn money. that is because i am a man. My GF has a job, but her life goal is to be a nurturer and a caretaker. because she's a woman. we both naturally want these things.

Gorf, you're making it too obvious.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

for real tho thats putting words into my mouth. most of what ive seen of people who heavily associate themselves with the fandom have been creeps, i dont think its unreasonable to be uncertain about somebody with a pony avatar until they prove theyre not weird

this is specifically ppl who have a "brony" identity, not people who just like the show. i do this with other fandoms too tbh including some of media i like

That's not really fair or just to put a label like that on them like that on an individual like you have been posting.

Not do I see a reason this is exclusive to just MLP fanbase.

Should I label BRoomers as ***** because 1 was the biggest asshole I've ever seen in the forums?

 

[JeXs]

that's a lot of posts

 

[#HBC | Kary]

wait, nevermind. why am I even reading this ****ing conversation. whole thing is ****ing dumb.

some people like a tv show, literally who gives a ****?

some people don't like people who like a tv show? double dose of who gives a ****.

"aww but i'm right and they're wrong"

triple dose IM OUT

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

wow badwolf is the biggest manchild on teh site, who the hell likes league of legends

Knock it off.

 

[Maven89]

Gorf, you're making it too obvious.

i don't know if you're serious or not but i'm not gorf. yall really need to talk to more people if you actually believe gender roles aren't natural

 

[#HBC | BadWolf]

i don't know if you're serious or not but i'm not gorf. yall really need to talk to more people if you actually believe gender roles aren't natural

you need to learn psychology before making.... assumptions.

 

[Maven89]

you need to learn psychology before making.... assumptions.

i have, i took classes in college.

honestly? this looks ot me like you have a socially strange taste, but instead of just accepting it you decided that everyone has to secretly be like you and they just don't want to/are stopped by society from admitting it

Maybe you're just different?

 

[#HBC | BadWolf]

i have, i took classes in college.

honestly? this looks ot me like you have a socially weird liking, but instead of just accepting it you decided that everyone has to secretly be like you and they just don't want to admit it/are bound by society to act differently. maybe you're just different? nothing wrong in being different. i've been saying that the whole time.

Pfft lol ok. I accept the fact that I'm not "normal" fortunately unlike most people I see it as a good thing as opposed to whatever the hell they see it as. I'm different. I'm happy. Tbh I don't care really what any of you people say/think about me, I get defensive about my fandoms because you're insulting the fandom. Most people in any fandom don't deserve half the **** that they get. Again fortunately I just don't care. Yeah I'm a gross person, yeah I have an unnatural obsession with a show originally designed for little girls. But if you ever say that I think that people need to be like me you're dead wrong. I don't want anyone to be like me.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

wow has anyone seen pharells it girl clip yet its so legit wow

 

[adumbrodeus]

Concepts like masculinity or femininity are not some arbitrary standard passed down to people by some *******s. it's a cross-cultural concept that exists naturally because of biology. if you're a man your brain is wired different from a womans. that is a fact. this is where masculinity, femininity, and gender roles come from. maybe you don't feel any drive towards being masculine, but don't believe that the men that do are brainwashed or forced into doing it. most men, id' say 99%, feel like men. I don't really want to take care of children. I want to go out and earn money. that is because i am a man. My GF has a job, but her life goal is to be a nurturer and a caretaker. because she's a woman. we both naturally want these things.

There's a reason I said "tenuous".

You're correct in that gender roles do have a bit of a biological, root, but the fact is their expression is so incredibly malleable. For example, in american society prior to extremely recently, pink was largely considered a male color? That Japan's social expectations for men and women are drastically different from america's.

Yes the variation is ultimately drawn from child-rearing and economy of breeding (one man can impregnate many women at a time), but beyond these direct roles, there's massive differences from society to society and even era within the society in how gender roles are expressed.

I call them tenuous and arbitrary because every almost every expression of gender roles is an arbitrary imposition based on how people think men and women should act. The fact that they're based core evolutionary roles matters little because they are version that are so far removed and distorted.

 

[Circus]

i don't know if you're serious or not but i'm not gorf. yall really need to talk to more people if you actually believe gender roles aren't natural

Staggering. Like a man trying to tell a fish that it needs "to talk to more people" if it believes walking isn't natural.

You may fit your role naturally. Lots of other people feel forced into the roles assigned to them, or abandon them entirely. It may be one natural option, but it certainly isn't exclusively so. People are more complicated than a binary, no matter the characteristics by which you try to organize them.

 

[Vinylic.]

Guys, I just bought bayone-

 

[adumbrodeus]

eh we're just discussing, drama wasn't bad. Y'all have no tolerance for rousing discourse!

 

[#HBC | BadWolf]

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Guys, I just bought bayone-

this is the best post youve ever made.

i... i think im gonna cry

nah but circus already is cuz of how hard youre probably jacking off to bayonetta girl

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

oh lord who got circus going again

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Wow, some people are just very silly. I know Badwolf and I don't always get along, but I don't think I've ever given him **** for being a brony. Who the **** cares about that? I just think he's a terrible mafia player, I don't hate the guy.

MLP is actually a pretty good show. I'm not in the realm of "fandom", but I have friends who are big fans, and I don't hate having it on in the background when we're playing smash. The voice acting and animation are top notch on that show, it's crafted with a lot of love. I can appreciate that. I'm also a sucker for musicals, and they sing songs on that show all the time. Smile smile smile is a ****ing catchy song, goddamnit.

 

[#HBC | Nabe]

Guys, I just bought bayone-

http://smashboards.com/threads/dgames-social-2-v-la-the-social-thread-if-it-had-been-good.339914/

 

[Fandangox]

It means I'm biting my tongue while also obviously sort of not biting my tongue because I'm at least letting it be known that I'm biting my tongue.

The simplest real answer I could give is that it looks like a pretty fun game that, for me, unfortunately, is ruined by the blatant sexual exploitation of the main character. So, not as hyped as I would like to be.

Oh I see, I can see where you are getting from, but honestly for me Bayonettta is one of the very few times I think its done right: Her personality, the context of how over the top and ridiculous the whole world is, I think it complements her behavior.

The posing always occurs when she is in charge of the situation, and its so fabulous and ridiculous, its almost as if she is aware of the camera and posing for it.

I mean compare that to something like the female characters in Soul Calibur, whose outfits really don't mesh well with the context of the world, the personalities of the characters (Sophitia, specially) or Lollipop Chainsaw. Bayonetta at least made an effort to make her sexuality not feel like something that its out of place like the great majority of fan service in games that just feel tacky.

 

[Circus]

eh we're just discussing, drama wasn't bad. Y'all have no tolerance for rousing discourse!

Surprising, given what most of us come to this board for.

this is the best post youve ever made.

i... i think im gonna cry

nah but circus already is cuz of how hard youre probably jacking off to bayonetta girl

by all means, jack off to whatever you want. I just think it would be nice if such a large amount of female-lead media weren't centered around that kind of appeal.

oh lord who got circus going again

boy I haven't even got up off my seat yet

Oh I see, I can see where you are getting from, but honestly for me Bayonettta is one of the very few times I think its done right: Her personality, the context of how over the top and ridiculous the whole world is, I think it complements her behavior.

The posing always occurs when she is in charge of the situation, and its so fabulous and ridiculous, its almost as if she is aware of the camera and posing for it.

I mean compare that to something like the female characters in Soul Calibur, whose outfits really don't mesh well with the context of the world, the personalities of the characters (Sophitia, specially) or Lollipop Chainsaw. Bayonetta at least made an effort to make her sexuality not feel like something that its out of place like the great majority of fan service in games that just feel tacky.

Being "aware of the camera and posing for it" is kind of what I mean by having your cake and eating it too though. I can agree that the character herself is better than a lot of others in the way she seems to own her sexuality, but, I don't agree that she's necessarily presented better. Granted, I'm basing this only on the footage and certain reviews I've seen. Bayonetta may act more okay with it, but it doesn't mean she's not being objectified.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Thought about arguing a double standard. Decided not to get involved.

 

[BarDulL]

i also don't feel like getting involved, but i have to make a point. i'll TRY to keep it quick:

yes, sex appeal inadvertently caters towards sexual objectification of individuals, but it also caters to underlying sexual fulfillment. yes, i am a proponent for porn accessibility. does porn potentially cater to increased habits of objectification? abso-freaking-lutely. i mean, if you have qualms with bayonetta, you have GOT to have problems with porn, because porn is essentially the king of sexual objectification of individuals.

the reality: we just need to actually be mature about it and realize that yes, while we find sex appeal to be sensual, we have to acknowledge that the people involved are real, multidimensional, and should at least be treated like human beings. if someone isn't giving someone respect on the grounds of sexual objectification, they will eventually hit a serious reality check.

i mean, you don't even have to do that for bayonetta because she isn't a real person, but i would hope people can draw the distinction between fiction and reality, as well as not inadvertently developing habits of treating women poorly as a result of playing a video game. but lets be honest here, how often does this actually happen in correlation with video games?

 

[we thuggin]

http://smashboards.com/threads/dgames-social-v-la.243825/page-779#post-15166903

bumpin a dgames classic

 

[BSL]

Hi everyone

 

[adumbrodeus]

Thought about arguing a double standard. Decided not to get involved.

This argument actually makes sense here because she's designed to fulfill male gender roles and part of that is being sexually aggressive. Also she takes it up to 11.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

 

[BarDulL]

after watching game play of bayonetta in the video above, i suddenly have the urge to objectify all women

Spoiler

i'm sorry circus i love you

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ya I mean that's the difference between bayonatta and a lot more troubling female characters, she's very obviously sexualized actively as opposed to being sexualized passively like literally every other female character in gaming, the difference between being an actor or an object to be possessed.

And yes, it is certainly a topic of discussion in feminism itself,.

after watching game play of bayonetta in the video above, i suddenly have the urge to objectify all women

Spoiler

i'm sorry circus i love you

Feminist army, to me!

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Most people don't realize this, but Hobby Lobby's prescription plan does cover for certain types of birth control. The company just refused to cover for:

1. Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
2. Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
3. Copper Intra-Uterine Device
4. IUD with progestin

Which is likely why their jurisdiction over health care was passed in the Supreme Court. Compare this to the provision put in to 'close down' the abortion clinics in Texas:

New York Times[/url]]"The decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, will have a far-reaching effect on abortion services in Texas, lawyers for abortion providers said. The ruling gave Texas permission to require all abortion clinics in the state to meet the same building, equipment and staffing standards as hospital-style surgical centers, standards that abortion providers said were unnecessary and costly, but that the state argued improved patient safety.

Thirteen clinics whose facilities do not meet the new standards were to be closed overnight, leaving Texas — a state with 5.4 million women of reproductive age, ranking second in the country — with eight abortion providers, all in Houston, Austin and two other metropolitan regions. No abortion facilities will be open west or south of San Antonio."

And you can tell that the legislation is being ridiculous and deserved the overturn since you can't install an ambulatory attachment to an abortion clinic, nor would you reasonably expend income needed to install that infrastructure and hire the staff needed to man it according to guidelines. However, in the case of Hobby Lobby you can see that the personal views of the company are being expressed in the sense that the company has a very well defined belief system that enables certain birth control such as: progestin and estrogen + progestin combinations.

However, what I do disagree with in the case of Hobby Lobby is the notion that corporations are being treated as people. An entire company embodying a work belief or philosophy and impeding that on their workers seems to me to have some violation with respect to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which if I'm not mistaken states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Then again it appears that the justification or the post-legal analysis shows limited contradiction given how the law has been interpreted as per status quo which probably will interest @ Circus :

Spoiler

"To grasp the full implications of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, it helps to read it not in isolation but alongside the court’s other major religion case of the term, Town of Greece v. Galloway. Issued eight weeks before Hobby Lobby and decided by the same 5 to 4 division, Town of Greece rejected a challenge to a town board’s practice of beginning its public sessions with a Christian prayer. A federal appeals court found the practice unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by conveying an official endorsement of one particular religion.

In his controlling opinion overturning that ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy brushed past the complaint raised by the two non-Christian plaintiffs who said that having to endure a Christian religious observance whenever they showed up to conduct business with the town board made them feel excluded from the community and diminished as citizens. “Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that after all, there was no attempt at coercion or intimidation. “Legislative bodies do not engage in impermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer they would rather not hear and in which they need not participate,” he said.

Compare this breezy dismissal of a complaint by two actual people to the extreme solicitude five members of the court displayed two months later toward Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a multibillion-dollar corporation with 13,000 employees in some 500 locations. Given the undisputed sincerity of the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s Evangelical Christian owners, the company couldn’t be required to comply with the mandate to include contraception coverage in its employee health plan, according to the majority opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Granted, these two decisions, Town of Greece and Hobby Lobby, aren’t in direct conflict as a doctrinal matter. The First Amendment deals with religion in a single sentence with two separate clauses: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Each clause, Establishment and Free Exercise, has generated its own body of law. Town of Greece arose under the Establishment Clause. Hobby Lobby challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate not directly under the Free Exercise Clause, but under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law Congress enacted in 1993 to respond to a Supreme Court decision that Congress thought had interpreted the Free Exercise guarantee too narrowly. So this was, at heart although not as a formal matter, a Free Exercise claim.

Take a step back from the boundaries of formal doctrine, however, and the moves the Roberts court is making across the religious landscape as a whole come into view. The Establishment Clause -- which brought us the school prayer decisions of the 1960s, the 1992 decision barring clergy-led prayer at public high school graduations, and as recently as 2000, a 6-to-3 decision barring student-led prayer at high school football games -- is being systematically effaced. After Town of Greece, it’s hard to think of an Establishment Clause claim that would prevail in today’s Supreme Court.

And at the same time, the Free Exercise side of the First Amendment ledger is robust and emboldened. That statement necessarily comes with a caveat: it was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the Free Exercise Clause itself, that gave Hobby Lobby its winning ticket. Hobby Lobby would have lost its case under the unadorned Free Exercise Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which held that a generally applicable law would not be construed as providing an exemption for religious claims unless it had been passed to single out religion for particular disfavor.

The most significant doctrinal distinction between the majority and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Hobby Lobby lay in how to interpret the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Indisputably, Congress passed the law to overturn the Smith decision, which said that there was no religious exemption from a general law that prohibited drug use. The word “restoration” in the law’s name implies that Congress meant to return the Free Exercise Clause to its pre-Smith condition -- namely, as expressed in Supreme Court decisions from the 1960s and 1970s on the rights of religiously observant employees, that a law that imposed a substantial burden on the practice of religion had to be justified as serving a compelling government interest. But did the 1993 law go beyond restoration?

Justice Ginsburg argued that “as RFRA’s statements of purpose and legislative history make clear, Congress intended only to restore, not to scrap or alter, the balancing test as this court had applied it pre-Smith.” Yet, she argued, extending the free-exercise right beyond churches and individuals to for-profit corporations, as the majority was interpreting the law, went beyond anything the court had ever held.

“Indeed,” she said, “until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in the commercial, profit-making world.” She added: “The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations.” (Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan didn’t join this portion of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, writing in a separate dissenting opinion that it wasn’t necessary to decide whether RFRA applied to corporations because Hobby Lobby should lose its case in any event.)

In several places in his majority opinion, Justice Alito contended that Congress meant to do more than simply “restore” -- that it “provided even broader protection for religious liberty than was available” under the court’s earlier decisions. The statute’s reference to the “exercise of religion under the First Amendment,” he maintained at another point, meant something more than “the exercise of religion as recognized only by then-existing Supreme Court precedents.”

Something more, but exactly how much more -- what general laws or specific entitlements can religious claims now trump -- is a question left hanging by the Hobby Lobby decision. The court is likely to be asked in the foreseeable future to apply its analysis to the rights of gay men and lesbians under anti-discrimination laws. While the majority is conspicuously silent on the gay rights question, it offers assurance that because the government’s interest in preventing racial discrimination is “compelling,” the court won’t permit the decision to be used as a “shield” to permit racial discrimination in employment to be “cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction.”

The ultimate import of the decision may depend on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s willingness to go along in future cases. While signing Justice Alito’s opinion, thus providing a fifth vote, Justice Kennedy also filed a brief concurring opinion of his own that seem intended to underscore how easily, in his view, the government in this particular case could fix the Hobby Lobby problem simply by offering the company the same accommodation that the Obama administration has offered to religious nonprofits. It’s also possible that Justice Kennedy extracted some measure of compromise from Justice Alito as the price for his signature, most likely the reassuring nondiscrimination language tacked on somewhat awkwardly at the end of the majority opinion.

To whatever extent the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has enlarged the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, it’s worth taking another step back to place that move in wider context. Religion is not the only constitutional subject that exists under what might be called a statutory overhang -- a congressional enactment that extends constitutional protection further than the Constitution itself.

The area of racial discrimination offers the prime example. Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the guarantee of equal protection is violated only by intentional discrimination, and not simply by government action that has the effect of placing one race at a disadvantage. But at the same time, the court has interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and religion, more protectively to apply to actions that have a “disparate impact,” without the need to prove intentional discrimination. Likewise, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, invoking Congress’s authority under the 15th Amendment to protect the right of black citizens to vote, established an enforcement mechanism that went beyond the express terms of the Constitution.

But note how vulnerable the statutory overhangs in the areas of employment discrimination and voting have become under the skeptical eye of the Roberts court. The court has already disabled a central feature of the Voting Rights Act, in last year’s Shelby County decision. And the court has been actively searching for a case to use as a vehicle for rejecting the disparate-impact theory of discrimination. Parties in two such cases in recent terms settled out of court after the justices had granted review, so obvious is the majority’s agenda and so devastating, from the civil rights perspective, the likely outcome.

The vitality of the statutory overhang that protects religious claims to free exercise is striking by contrast. The Hobby Lobby decision interprets the statutory protection even more generously than Congress itself does, as a brief cited by Justice Ginsburg demonstrates. The brief, filed by members of Congress who voted both for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Affordable Care Act, argues that Congress never expected the 1993 law to apply to a Hobby Lobby situation.

So the question now is how much further, and in what contexts, the majority will extend the protective overhang. The docket for the court’s next term offers one opportunity for an answer. In a case brought under a companion statute to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (Rluipa, pronounced re-loop-a), the court has agreed to hear a Muslim prisoner’s appeal seeking the right to grow a beard for religious reasons in an Arkansas “super max” prison with a grooming policy that prohibits facial hair. The case is Holt v. Hobbs.

The inmate, Gregory Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, filed his own Supreme Court petition last fall in hand-written form but soon acquired a powerful legal team, including some of the same lawyers involved in the Hobby Lobby litigation. Given the more than a dozen briefs filed on his behalf, it’s clear that this case has been identified as a next front in the battle to expand the right to religious exercise.

When I first encountered this case, I thought it would present a tough test for the court’s majority. For one thing, a beard is not required of Muslim men by formal religious doctrine; it’s a traditional practice that the inmate chooses to observe. For another, the court for years has been highly deferential to prison administrators whenever they offer even a superficially plausible reason for a regulation.

But on second thought, I realized that this was an irresistibly easy case for the court, a gift, in fact. Arkansas is an outlier; 39 state prison systems allow religiously motivated inmates to wear beards. So does the federal prison system. The Obama administration has entered the case on the inmate’s side. What better way for the justices to allay suspicions that they are only interested in the free-exercise rights of Christians than to rule in favor of an imprisoned Muslim?

After all, as Justice Kennedy observed in his concurring Hobby Lobby opinion, " ‘The American community is today, as it long has been, a rich mosaic of religious faiths.’ ” While that may seem a statement of the obvious, there was something odd about it in the context in which it appeared. It was in quotation marks. The quotation was from an opinion by Justice Kagan -- dissenting from Justice Kennedy’s opinion upholding the Christian prayers in Town of Greece."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/opinion/linda-greenhouse-reading-hobby-lobby-in-context.html

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Ya I mean that's the difference between bayonatta and a lot more troubling female characters, she's very obviously sexualized actively as opposed to being sexualized passively like literally every other female character in gaming, the difference between being an actor or an object to be possessed. And yes, it is certainly a topic of discussion in feminism itself,. Feminist army, to me!

I think that video games are a joke for any type of advocating and only shows how ignorant the parties are involved about discussing actual issues that may or may not create a difference in enabling women to have rights they deserve i.e. maternity leaves and a lack of job discrimination when they come back after their hiatus.

We joke about Bayonetta and allow it to be misconstrued as us appearing insensitive about issues as feminism because we collectively find anyone advocating over any rights on the basis of a social entertainment media to be ridiculous. This is not to say that it isn't true, I think that Circus's points have merit along the lines that our entertainment has grown exponentially more sexual in content and sexualization of desirable members of the opposite sex has become a core component of modern culture.

This ties into whatever was going on with @ #HBC | BadWolf because there is clearly nothing wrong with the show. But the fact that there is a dominating presence of smut and sexualization in brony communities and even brony communities themselves have a large trending case of sexual focus with transgenders having a large trending interest in the series. It's possible that the genre itself which is frankly dry and boring may appeal to people with insecurity issues, stress, social displacement, or mental instability as I've noticed that depression, anxiety, and a lack of social acceptance are trending issues for bronies.

Even though I think that sexualization is a problem, the amount of weight it has on my personal choices is likely negligible. I will still choose generally female characters that have appealing color schemes without really considering if I'm contributing to the collective zeitgist of over-sexualization because I don't feel any compulsion to actually have sex with what's in my avatar. Nor do I feel the need to have sex with any ponies or men or men in pony costumes or Bayonetta.

Watching Bayonetta replays does not make me want to **** a woman holding pistols and with magic hair that creates frogs or spanking a unicorn or think that women should be like Bayonetta because she's something I'd want to ****. I think that if I were to ever waste my life playing a game like Bayonetta I would feel sort of gay in the sense that "I" was Bayonetta and having a good times blowing up stuff and doing crazy dance poses.

But no, I don't think there is much to abstract from Bayonetta that will contribute or detract much from female rights. Because I'd like to consider myself a normal human being and as a normal human being I've decided that games are entertainment and not a good resource to stem opinions regarding members of the opposite sex or attempting to impose legislation of any sort with respect to the material presented.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Hi everyone

Thoughts. Do they deserve it if they go undefeated?

Also, what's up with Megatron? Three weeks is a long time for a sprained ankle.

 

[adumbrodeus]

"We"

I mean feel free to speak for yourself here, but look at how much negative commentary Roger Ebert got when he said games will never be art (which he clarified to mean high art and in our lifetime).

The reality is there are two very distinct camps here, those of us who see gaming as an emerging art form with unique advantages, disadvantages, and implicit endorsement about society, and those who see it how you do, mindless fun.

I'm obviously in the former camp.

Gaming has the best version of heart of darkness, because it is a story best told as a game, for example. Bring on the cries of "heretic!"

As such general sexism in media contributes in endorsing traditional gender roles and hostility contributes in keeping women out of certain spaces. It's no different then discussion why so few women are in sciences and engineering. You could argue that individually it isn't that big (though if you're a female gamer constantly getting harassed on your stream you'd probably disagree) but as a whole it's still a giant problem and you can't really address it collectively because it's individual communities.

Also you run into this problem.

Related, congrats you now know why the gay community loves her.