There’s a discussion to be had about this, but not on Neogaf lol
Sorry to be discouraging but not much to add that won’t get an “SJW!!” response
You decided to drive by, not to offer an argument, goodness gracious, no!, but to accuse GAF of being hostile to the side that systematically refuses to offer any arguments. Think about that.
My problem with most of this thread (besides the circle-jerky comments) is that we're conflating a group of people that have an issue with sexualization, with a group wanting to take things away from you.
And the problem to be had with the side that keeps raising the issue is that they don't seem to want to meet the bare minimum requirements for a rational debate, such as defining sexualization, stating why it's [allegedly] morally reprehensible and identifying its [alleged] signs.
Because they act as though their position is self-evident and as such are excused from arguing their case, their stance should be met with civilized contempt, until, that is, they show the will to engage in rational debate.
I'm sure some don't like any sexualization in anything and want it removed, just as Doom and Mortal Kombat had protesters. But instead of talking about this topic with some nuance we're talking about "ugly" feminists. In your comment, you didn't say "some men aren't being shamed", or "men are being shamed by some", you said "men are being shamed for what they like". Framing matters.
Pardon me, but the underlying yet never proven assumption behind the concept of sexualization is that, ultimately, sex is bad, lust is bad. Those are the cornerstones of the idea, without which it becomes instantly devoid of any real content and leverage. And if lust were indeed morally reproachable, the holder of the lustful eyes, the proverbial male gamer, would be inviting reproach upon himself, wouldn't he?
You say something like "men are being shamed" and then "I want 2B" and it's easy for me to think "yeah, I'm with you!" But what you're not really pointing out is that, if we're going to lean into conjecture, the vast majority of those discussing sexualization in video games don't want to censor anything or take away your jiggle - instead they want to open a dialogue on tropes, representation, and, games starring more unconventional character types/designs.
They want to start a conversation, but can't even define their terms? Their basic thesis? Their basic argument? Present the supporting data?
Some dialogue.
Me, I'll start the discussion by denouncing the notion of representation in fiction as fraudulent. It's up to the people who bring it up constantly to establish that a fictional character is not simply a metaphor created for specific storytelling purposes but instead, lo and behold, should be read as a representative of real-life groups numbering in the billions, people all grouped together by virtue of one arbitrary characteristic. Representation is intersectionality applied to fiction and the result is no more serious, no more accurate or truthful than usual.
There are just way too many emotional appeals in this thread IMO
And one can spot them by the obstinate but conspicuous absence of rational arguments and empirical evidence.
