Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

I was refering to "turned on" as in " feeling great sexual desire; "feeling horny""

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turned+on

 Then by that definition, no, I do not get "turned on" when I randomly see sexual images in every day social or professional life.

FFFfffuuuu.

Nothing I hate worse than a clear debate devolving into semantics. Why not just throw out an entire argument over use of grammar?

 But that's like...every single debate on this site lol :).

I bet that TwoThreeFour is picturing you as basically an extreme deviant that always wears a gimp suit under his clothes "just in case," because you said you were "turned on" by images like Jessica Rabbit.  And to him, that means "feeling great sexual desire."  This is obviously false.

And on the same token, I am betting that you are seeing TwoThreeFour as a holier than thou proselytizer in denial of his very nature because he says you have no control since you get "turned on" by images like Jessica Rabbit.  And to you (and me), turned on probably just means that you found something sexually attractive.  This is obviously false as well.

Semantics :).

its called marketing of products... and  sex sells...

it doesn't matter what the product is your selling, if it fits into that mind sync, your a fool for not using it, to make sure your max your profits.

Business for ya :)

i too voted boobies. i dont mind, its something to look at while im playing lol

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Creslin321

I'm just curious...do actual WOMEN ever post topics about how women are over-sexualized, objectified, etc. in games, or is it only "concerned men" that post these topics?  These topics are a fairly common phenomenon here, and it seems like they are always posted by men.

I dunno, I get the impression that this stuff bothers men more than it actually bothers the women.  I honestly think that many women probably enjoy looking pretty/sexy in a game.  I mean, go walk through a mall and look at the pictures of models they put up in clothing stores...do those models look prudish and realistic?  No!  They are sexualized, just like everything else.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I really think that in our society most people, not just women, want to be sexy.

 

Sexy in the bedroom and at home for my spouse, sure. There is time and place for everything and I believe that far from everyone thinks that it is okay all the time and everywhere.  

Sounds like Iraq.  I'll keep my oversexualized society, thanks.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

I was refering to "turned on" as in " feeling great sexual desire; "feeling horny""

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turned+on

 Then by that definition, no, I do not get "turned on" when I randomly see sexual images in every day social or professional life.

FFFfffuuuu.

Nothing I hate worse than a clear debate devolving into semantics. Why not just throw out an entire argument over use of grammar?

 

I thought it was clear too, but evidently that may not be the case. Would have chosen a very different approach if it was merely about attraction. Hell, straight males can very well be attracted, but not sexually aroused, by symmetrical shapes among other men.

 Indeed, in fact, I like the take the concept of being attracted to shapes to an extreme.

Why should I look at women with hourglass figures when I could look at the real thing?

Hawt.  Look at those curves!

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

I was refering to "turned on" as in " feeling great sexual desire; "feeling horny""

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turned+on

 Then by that definition, no, I do not get "turned on" when I randomly see sexual images in every day social or professional life.

FFFfffuuuu.

Nothing I hate worse than a clear debate devolving into semantics. Why not just throw out an entire argument over use of grammar?

 

I thought it was clear too, but evidently that may not be the case. Would have chosen a very different approach if it was merely about attraction. Hell, straight males can very well be attracted, but not sexually aroused, by symmetrical shapes among other men.

 Indeed, in fact, I like the take the concept of being attracted to shapes to an extreme.

Why should I look at women with hourglass figures when I could look at the real thing?

Hawt.  Look at those curves!

Reported for porn.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

One negative choice doesn't erase a positive choice and vice versa. If the ideal is to be a tolerant and respectful person, then it is negative to browbeat  and/or insult people for whatever reason. 

As for the "disgust" aspect: unless you have done a proper psychological evaluation of the persons in question, you can only speculate about what they feel about themselves. 

How else does one "train" themself to deny their sexual nature if not through guilt and/or disgust?

As for "excuses for trying to put yourself on a pedestal": that depends on what the ideal is. For instance, it is not unthinkable that law-abiding citizens put themselves on a pedestal over people who commit crimes for a living. There is, of course, a difference between setting yourself on a pedestal and telling people that you are setting yourself on a pedestal for this and that reason.

The day that staring at tits becomes a criminal act is the day you can use that argument... and you don't have to actually say "I'm on a pedestal" to use passive-aggressive wording to get the same point out. Anytime someone denigrates another they are just pointing themselves out as superior. ~and you're no better than anyone else because you think you have willpower over your sexual nature, others are quite comfortable with theirs.

As for your church example: it depends on what your ideals are including your religious beliefs. 

Again, that means you are either punishing yourself, or taking shit from some guy that thinks he is better than you for whatever reason. None of it matters.

 

To answer your first question: do you believe that all brothers and fathers to well-developed beautiful females have "trained" themselves to deny their sexual nature towards the female in question through guilt and disgust? Could it not be that when they see those females, they have other things in their mind that they connect to them? Things and feelings that shaped from raising/growing up with a person?

 I'm an only child, so can't comment. ~but empirical and historical evidence of an Oedypus complex exists, and even Mazlow married his cousin. Yes, during a certain phase of sexual development, I believe all people face these thoughts and have to "train" themselves with guilt and disgust. It's pretty much proven.

Why don't you go to such fathesr and ask them: "How often do you feel horny when interacting with your daughter and if you don't, did you train it away through guilt and disgust?" 

 I'd rather not, but you hear enough stories to know that shit happens... and frankly, you're gross for bringing it up - even though it really does help prove my points further.

In general, with females who have no close relation to you, you can simply focus your mind on something else, like what you were doing. When talking to them, you look them in the eyes and focus on the conversation (well that is the custom when having a conversation with any person really).  It takes time to get sexually aroused and it is therefore a choice to let yourself be in a position where you get aroused and horny. 

Sexual thoughts and devices are inevitable, even if that person is decrepit - because you will eventually face the thought of "ew, hell no", meaning you at least thought of it. Might not be the first thing to mind, but attention drifts, even mid-conversation, and your brain can process a lot at once. It's bound to happen at some point. Even if you are fighting the urge to, it means you've already lost the battle and thought about it.

As for your second paragraph: I assumed that you made a general statement about "putting yourself on a pedestal" and therefore I replied with a general statement about it as well.  Furthermore, when someone argues, they do not necessarely need to believe in the axioms they use to argue. One can assume certain axioms, then argue from that perspective without actually using those axioms normally.  To continue, I would like to point out that what one person finds denigrating does not necessarely mean that the other person finds it to be denigrating as well. 

True, you don't have to argue something you personally believe in, but you wouldn't if you didn't believe it wasn't fact, or at least had an underlying truth to it. ~and anytime you use a term like "pathetic" or "I feel sorry for..", you are putting yourself on a pedestal, because it stems from a root of example.

This whole thing spawned from a comment on "people who get aroused by pixels need help"

/denigration

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

I was refering to "turned on" as in " feeling great sexual desire; "feeling horny""

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turned+on

 Then by that definition, no, I do not get "turned on" when I randomly see sexual images in every day social or professional life.

FFFfffuuuu.

Nothing I hate worse than a clear debate devolving into semantics. Why not just throw out an entire argument over use of grammar?

 

I thought it was clear too, but evidently that may not be the case. Would have chosen a very different approach if it was merely about attraction. Hell, straight males can very well be attracted, but not sexually aroused, by symmetrical shapes among other men.

 Indeed, in fact, I like the take the concept of being attracted to shapes to an extreme.

Why should I look at women with hourglass figures when I could look at the real thing?

Hawt.  Look at those curves!

Because you want to get sexually aroused? You are right in that there is a important subcategory of attraction, which is sexual attraction.

They give you a choice just as it should be.  Some women want to dress in a provocative way, others prefer a more conservative look (not conserving cloth though heh heh). 

Stop trying to impose your moral viewpoints on other people.  If there is a choice, there isn't a problem. 

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

One negative choice doesn't erase a positive choice and vice versa. If the ideal is to be a tolerant and respectful person, then it is negative to browbeat  and/or insult people for whatever reason. 

As for the "disgust" aspect: unless you have done a proper psychological evaluation of the persons in question, you can only speculate about what they feel about themselves. 

How else does one "train" themself to deny their sexual nature if not through guilt and/or disgust?

As for "excuses for trying to put yourself on a pedestal": that depends on what the ideal is. For instance, it is not unthinkable that law-abiding citizens put themselves on a pedestal over people who commit crimes for a living. There is, of course, a difference between setting yourself on a pedestal and telling people that you are setting yourself on a pedestal for this and that reason.

The day that staring at tits becomes a criminal act is the day you can use that argument... and you don't have to actually say "I'm on a pedestal" to use passive-aggressive wording to get the same point out. Anytime someone denigrates another they are just pointing themselves out as superior. ~and you're no better than anyone else because you think you have willpower over your sexual nature, others are quite comfortable with theirs.

As for your church example: it depends on what your ideals are including your religious beliefs. 

Again, that means you are either punishing yourself, or taking shit from some guy that thinks he is better than you for whatever reason. None of it matters.

 

To answer your first question: do you believe that all brothers and fathers to well-developed beautiful females have "trained" themselves to deny their sexual nature towards the female in question through guilt and disgust? Could it not be that when they see those females, they have other things in their mind that they connect to them? Things and feelings that shaped from raising/growing up with a person?

 I'm an only child, so can't comment. ~but empirical and historical evidence of an Oedypus complex exists, and even Mazlow married his cousin. Yes, during a certain phase of sexual development, I believe all people face these thoughts and have to "train" themselves with guilt and disgust. It's pretty much proven.

Why don't you go to such fathesr and ask them: "How often do you feel horny when interacting with your daughter and if you don't, did you train it away through guilt and disgust?" 

 I'd rather not, but you hear enough stories to know that shit happens... and frankly, you're gross for bringing it up - even though it really does help prove my points further.

In general, with females who have no close relation to you, you can simply focus your mind on something else, like what you were doing. When talking to them, you look them in the eyes and focus on the conversation (well that is the custom when having a conversation with any person really).  It takes time to get sexually aroused and it is therefore a choice to let yourself be in a position where you get aroused and horny. 

Sexual thoughts and devices are inevitable, even if that person is decrepit - because you will eventually face the thought of "ew, hell no", meaning you at least thought of it. Might not be the first thing to mind, but attention drifts, even mid-conversation, and your brain can process a lot at once. It's bound to happen at some point. Even if you are fighting the urge to, it means you've already lost the battle and thought about it.

As for your second paragraph: I assumed that you made a general statement about "putting yourself on a pedestal" and therefore I replied with a general statement about it as well.  Furthermore, when someone argues, they do not necessarely need to believe in the axioms they use to argue. One can assume certain axioms, then argue from that perspective without actually using those axioms normally.  To continue, I would like to point out that what one person finds denigrating does not necessarely mean that the other person finds it to be denigrating as well. 

True, you don't have to argue something you personally believe in, but you wouldn't if you didn't believe it wasn't fact, or at least had an underlying truth to it. ~and anytime you use a term like "pathetic" or "I feel sorry for..", you are putting yourself on a pedestal, because it stems from a root of example.

This whole thing spawned from a comment on "people who get aroused by pixels need help"

/denigration

 

Oedipus complex refers to children's desire for their mother not the other way around. With all hormones running in teenagers, it is not suprising that they get easily sexually aroused. " Which brings back to the question: how does a father cope with his beautiful well-developed daughter?

What happens to a minority of fathers, does not automatically imply that it happens to the majority.

About your 3rd paragraph: Sexual thoughts may happen and when they do happen, you have a choice about how to react to them. You may shift your focus to something else or you can develop them. There is a difference between consciously shifting your thoughts and being disgusted by them. One can very well think "Hey, I lost focus about what I was doing, that happens for biological reasons, but let me shift back the focus" without feeling disgust for losing focus in favor of a sexual thought.

As for your final paragraph: you can also just choose to not seek nor care about what the real opinions of the person is and just focus on the discussion at hand. 

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

One negative choice doesn't erase a positive choice and vice versa. If the ideal is to be a tolerant and respectful person, then it is negative to browbeat  and/or insult people for whatever reason. 

As for the "disgust" aspect: unless you have done a proper psychological evaluation of the persons in question, you can only speculate about what they feel about themselves. 

How else does one "train" themself to deny their sexual nature if not through guilt and/or disgust?

As for "excuses for trying to put yourself on a pedestal": that depends on what the ideal is. For instance, it is not unthinkable that law-abiding citizens put themselves on a pedestal over people who commit crimes for a living. There is, of course, a difference between setting yourself on a pedestal and telling people that you are setting yourself on a pedestal for this and that reason.

The day that staring at tits becomes a criminal act is the day you can use that argument... and you don't have to actually say "I'm on a pedestal" to use passive-aggressive wording to get the same point out. Anytime someone denigrates another they are just pointing themselves out as superior. ~and you're no better than anyone else because you think you have willpower over your sexual nature, others are quite comfortable with theirs.

As for your church example: it depends on what your ideals are including your religious beliefs. 

Again, that means you are either punishing yourself, or taking shit from some guy that thinks he is better than you for whatever reason. None of it matters.

 

To answer your first question: do you believe that all brothers and fathers to well-developed beautiful females have "trained" themselves to deny their sexual nature towards the female in question through guilt and disgust? Could it not be that when they see those females, they have other things in their mind that they connect to them? Things and feelings that shaped from raising/growing up with a person?

 I'm an only child, so can't comment. ~but empirical and historical evidence of an Oedypus complex exists, and even Mazlow married his cousin. Yes, during a certain phase of sexual development, I believe all people face these thoughts and have to "train" themselves with guilt and disgust. It's pretty much proven.

Why don't you go to such fathesr and ask them: "How often do you feel horny when interacting with your daughter and if you don't, did you train it away through guilt and disgust?" 

 I'd rather not, but you hear enough stories to know that shit happens... and frankly, you're gross for bringing it up - even though it really does help prove my points further.

In general, with females who have no close relation to you, you can simply focus your mind on something else, like what you were doing. When talking to them, you look them in the eyes and focus on the conversation (well that is the custom when having a conversation with any person really).  It takes time to get sexually aroused and it is therefore a choice to let yourself be in a position where you get aroused and horny. 

Sexual thoughts and devices are inevitable, even if that person is decrepit - because you will eventually face the thought of "ew, hell no", meaning you at least thought of it. Might not be the first thing to mind, but attention drifts, even mid-conversation, and your brain can process a lot at once. It's bound to happen at some point. Even if you are fighting the urge to, it means you've already lost the battle and thought about it.

As for your second paragraph: I assumed that you made a general statement about "putting yourself on a pedestal" and therefore I replied with a general statement about it as well.  Furthermore, when someone argues, they do not necessarely need to believe in the axioms they use to argue. One can assume certain axioms, then argue from that perspective without actually using those axioms normally.  To continue, I would like to point out that what one person finds denigrating does not necessarely mean that the other person finds it to be denigrating as well. 

True, you don't have to argue something you personally believe in, but you wouldn't if you didn't believe it wasn't fact, or at least had an underlying truth to it. ~and anytime you use a term like "pathetic" or "I feel sorry for..", you are putting yourself on a pedestal, because it stems from a root of example.

This whole thing spawned from a comment on "people who get aroused by pixels need help"

/denigration

 

Oedipus complex refers to children's desire for their mother not the other way around. With all hormones running in teenagers, it is not suprising that they get easily sexually aroused. " Which brings back to the question: how does a father cope with his beautiful well-developed daughter?

What happens to a minority of fathers, does not automatically imply that it happens to the majority.

 

About your 3rd paragraph: Sexual thoughts may happen and when they do happen, you have a choice about how to react to them. You may shift your focus to something else or you can develop them. There is a difference between consciously shifting your thoughts and being disgusted by them. One can very well think "Hey, I lost focus about what I was doing, that happens for biological reasons, but let me shift back the focus" without feeling disgust for losing focus in favor of a sexual thought.

 

As for your final paragraph: you can also just choose to not seek nor care about what the real opinions of the person is and just focus on the discussion at hand. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

Read the first line, then silently admit you are talking out of your ass... because I honestly don't care anymore. Running in circles like this is getting tiring, and you obviously want to deny this stuff til the end, regardless of how wrong you *know* you are. Trying to save face just isn't worth it when you end up digging yourself a deeper hole, and frankly, you've come off as a strange one.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

(...)

 

Oedipus complex refers to children's desire for their mother not the other way around. With all hormones running in teenagers, it is not suprising that they get easily sexually aroused. " Which brings back to the question: how does a father cope with his beautiful well-developed daughter?

What happens to a minority of fathers, does not automatically imply that it happens to the majority.

 

About your 3rd paragraph: Sexual thoughts may happen and when they do happen, you have a choice about how to react to them. You may shift your focus to something else or you can develop them. There is a difference between consciously shifting your thoughts and being disgusted by them. One can very well think "Hey, I lost focus about what I was doing, that happens for biological reasons, but let me shift back the focus" without feeling disgust for losing focus in favor of a sexual thought.

 

As for your final paragraph: you can also just choose to not seek nor care about what the real opinions of the person is and just focus on the discussion at hand. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

Read the first line, then silently admit you are talking out of your ass... because I honestly don't care anymore. Running in circles like this is getting tiring, and you obviously want to deny this stuff til the end, regardless of how wrong you *know* you are. Trying to save face just isn't worth it when you end up digging yourself a deeper hole, and frankly, you've come off as a strange one.

"In psychoanalytic theory, the term Oedipus complex denotes the emotions and ideas that the mind keeps in the unconscious, via dynamic repression, that concentrate upon a boy’s desire to sexually possess his mother, and kill his father"

The first sentence, which I assume you refer to, specifically refers to a boy, not to a grown man.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

(...)

 

Oedipus complex refers to children's desire for their mother not the other way around. With all hormones running in teenagers, it is not suprising that they get easily sexually aroused. " Which brings back to the question: how does a father cope with his beautiful well-developed daughter?

What happens to a minority of fathers, does not automatically imply that it happens to the majority.

 

About your 3rd paragraph: Sexual thoughts may happen and when they do happen, you have a choice about how to react to them. You may shift your focus to something else or you can develop them. There is a difference between consciously shifting your thoughts and being disgusted by them. One can very well think "Hey, I lost focus about what I was doing, that happens for biological reasons, but let me shift back the focus" without feeling disgust for losing focus in favor of a sexual thought.

 

As for your final paragraph: you can also just choose to not seek nor care about what the real opinions of the person is and just focus on the discussion at hand. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

Read the first line, then silently admit you are talking out of your ass... because I honestly don't care anymore. Running in circles like this is getting tiring, and you obviously want to deny this stuff til the end, regardless of how wrong you *know* you are. Trying to save face just isn't worth it when you end up digging yourself a deeper hole, and frankly, you've come off as a strange one.

"In psychoanalytic theory, the term Oedipus complex denotes the emotions and ideas that the mind keeps in the unconscious, via dynamic repression, that concentrate upon a boy’s desire to sexually possess his mother, and kill his father"

 

The first sentence, which I assume you refer to, specifically refers to a boy, not to a grown man.

 It is definitely about a boy lusting for his mother and killing his father.  It is named after the play "Oedipus" in which the main character (unknowingly) kills his father and then marries his mother.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

I was refering to "turned on" as in " feeling great sexual desire; "feeling horny""

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turned+on

 Then by that definition, no, I do not get "turned on" when I randomly see sexual images in every day social or professional life.

FFFfffuuuu.

Nothing I hate worse than a clear debate devolving into semantics. Why not just throw out an entire argument over use of grammar?

 

I thought it was clear too, but evidently that may not be the case. Would have chosen a very different approach if it was merely about attraction. Hell, straight males can very well be attracted, but not sexually aroused, by symmetrical shapes among other men.

 Indeed, in fact, I like the take the concept of being attracted to shapes to an extreme.

Why should I look at women with hourglass figures when I could look at the real thing?

Hawt.  Look at those curves!

 

Because you want to get sexually aroused? You are right in that there is a important subcategory of attraction, which is sexual attraction.

 ?

Pretty sure my post was pretty obviously a joke :).

The thread is going off topic now. Also, please refrain from going after each other and not the actual points being made.

Originally posted by boberic

Originally posted by AmbrosiaAmor

It can't be "worse" than this:

 

http://queens.kr.gameclub.com/qbmain.asp

 

right!?!?

Nope...i saw nipple...That game is far worse.

See? Guild Wars 2 is prudish.

No one should have a problem with Guild Wars 2 being oversexualized.

Well almost...

its just you :P

well lets try to "read" the poll, i believe cause the majority of viewers (who are males here)  for sure they would like more sexy outfits or they are just satisfied with this they see

this is what i get from the results of the poll so far..

Throughout time, women have been sexualized.  So why the OP would focus on game avatars depicting women is puzzling.  There are many other more righteous battles to fight before we even get to digitized creations.  Real women and young girls are still sold into sex slavery and treated as second class citizens in many parts of the world,  Indeed, just recently there was a large child prostitution ring busted up in the UK involving dozens of girls being prostituted by middle eastern men.  Then on the internet, widely available to anyone who cares to look, you will find a near limitless supply of pornography in which women are sexually objectified.

In some parts of the world, where a woman's sexuality is feared or shunned, their clitorises are removed with crude cutting tools to prevent them from experiencing sexual pleasure.  I guess that would be the other side of the pendulum.  They are covered head to toe hiding their sexuality.  In contrast, in America where there is great freedom, women celebrate their sexuality.  So there is the cultural contrast.  Oppressive societies shun a woman's sexuality while more open societies celebrate it.

But why would the OP focus on female avatars in a game?  I suspect because that falls within the OP's realm of experience.  I would encourage him or her to learn about the real world and the actual battles being waged to save women from exploitation and oppression.  You don't have to be a feminist to understrand these battles are righteous, but focusing on pretend women in imaginary worlds belittles the actual struggle women face.

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Saerain

Indeed, Aesperus, although showing that at least it's not TERA maybe isn't the best way to make the point. 

 

Originally posted by Adalwulff

The males are all buffed out, so I dont see females being singled out for anything.

Some people are just a tad too sensative.

Talk about a false equivalence. It's more like you're saying ‘the males are designed to appeal to males, so why not the females too’. Seriously, who do you think that buffing-out is for?

I want to be on your side because there's a lot of oversensitivity on this issue, but that argument just sucks.

 

What your saying is that all men find these avatars appealing, while at the same time, claiming all women do not find the female avatars appealing. I find it rather repulsive that you would just assume all this, talk about generalizing the genders!

How can you say those male avatars were built just to appeal to men, are you actually trying to claim women do not find buff men appealling....seriously?! I have known many women who play male avatars, because it appealed to them.

Your argument is flawed.

No, you're inserting the word ‘all’, creating an argument I never made so you can feel good knocking down the straw man.

Originally posted by AmbrosiaAmor

See? Guild Wars 2 is prudish.

No one should have a problem with Guild Wars 2 being oversexualized.

Well almost...

That just doesn't hold water. It's like pointing to gang violence in Mexico as a reason we shouldn't be trying to reduce gang violence in the US, because it's not as bad. Doesn't make any sense.

The world as a whole is less violent than it has ever been in history, but we hardly say ‘Ah! We've reduced the problem by 93%. Guess that's done. Next.’

I'd agree that it would be silly to claim that Guild Wars 2 should receive special attention on this next to the competition—it's significantly better than the competition, as many people, including you and I, have shown—but that should never mean a thing is beyond the capacity for improvement.

That's how we asura live, anyway. Don't know about you barbarians.

Originally posted by Terranah

Throughout time, women have been sexualized.  So why the OP would focus on game avatars depicting women is puzzling.  There are many other more righteous battles to fight before we even get to digitized creations.  Real women and young girls are still sold into sex slavery and treated as second class citizens in many parts of the world,  Indeed, just recently there was a large child prostitution ring busted up in the UK involving dozens of girls being prostituted by middle eastern men.  Then on the internet, widely available to anyone who cares to look, you will find a near limitless supply of pornography in which women are sexually objectified.

 

In some parts of the world, where a woman's sexuality is feared or shunned, their clitorises are removed with crude cutting tools to prevent them from experiencing sexual pleasure.  I guess that would be the other side of the pendulum.  They are covered head to toe hiding their sexuality.  In contrast, in America where there is great freedom, women celebrate their sexuality.  So there is the cultural contrast.  Oppressive societies shun a woman's sexuality while more open societies celebrate it.

 

But why would the OP focus on female avatars in a game?  I suspect because that falls within the OP's realm of experience.  I would encourage him or her to learn about the real world and the actual battles being waged to save women from exploitation and oppression.  You don't have to be a feminist to understrand these battles are righteous, but focusing on pretend women in imaginary worlds belittles the actual struggle women face.

This post hits the nail on the hammer. Yes unfortunately things in the real-world that happens is much more drastic than what an clothing on a character is.

I'm a female who's sexuallity has been feared and shunned due to religion. I've met and talk to other females where the human-body has been so voodoolized in the countries they come from that their own body parts has been deformed because it's considered "Evil".

The human body is not evil. The body is not evil. These females never even have a chance to feel good about themselves or even express themselves of who they are naturally. Instead they are condomen  and their bodies mutilate based on extremist religious view-points. They weren't even able to even date when they were 15-16 years old or even going on into older years while the American female could freely and wear that mid-drift tank top without a second thought. Even dating or a female or a male seen sitting at a park is condemned by these countries unless their married. And yet complications still occur.

Can anyone here imagine what these ladies go through? People in America have no clue yet they throw a fit over something as simple as TERA Online or Guild Wars 2. When I look at these issues about cartoon character's clothes their oftly pettyness by a few squimish and immature who think the female body is "Slutty" or "Bad" but a male can walk around with his chest showing or pants with boxers hanging out and not another peep is made about it. Everyone has a opinon and there's nothing wrong with it. You may think that that particular outfit or clothing-style is raunchy but it's up to the individual that brought and paid the product to play that game what they want when they brought it. Some material simply has more mature themes and over-tones than others. That is okay as long as the game is labeled appropriately.

A female shouldn't be basing what her entire-being on based on a pixel made by a development studio. A female however, should be able to express what she wants to wear or even her sexuality through the clothes that she chooses to wear by avatar customization, or even by a specific game they play!

Those opressed females and even religion-bound females like wouldn't even be able to play Tera Online or GW2 without severe repercussions or religious intolerance. The feminist is no short of that as they want to condemn the female body as evil as well or making it seem as if only men want to females dress that way and not females themselves, which is why I do not agree with many extreme feminist view-points when it comes to video-games. Then there are guys out there who want to be female or consider themselves as such, and dress one way or another as well too. It is not a one-way street as its usually express it to be as by extreme feminist view-points.

Video-games give people an opportunity to try or even play something they could not possbily do in real-life. I myself can't even show my midrif and must be covered up like a censored elin from Tera Online because of religion and intolerance factors.

Now you may or may not agree what I have to say but there's a lot of stuff that has gone on with females in general than what people know or care to know. Which is why I choose to play as an Elin off Tera Online, because the elin represents not in the sense of what a westerner gamer might think and see at first glance, but that repressed female that has been told years and years that female body and clothes are evil.