On May 02 2013 23:38 Kickboxer wrote: I never understood the whole "objectifying" thing. Our bodies are objects. You are your body plus your mind plus your spirit. You have an equal degree of control over your body than you have over your mind, and it defines who you are to the same extent your thoughts do. Some are born deficient and make up for it, others are given gifts and squander them. At any rate, no matter which way you turn it, your body is you. You are not simply the ethereal collection of your thoughts, you are also your body, an object.
Since sex has to do with the body a lot, it is normal to look at persons as objects in the context of sexuality. Unless you are genuinely turned on by smarts (yeah, right) this is just simple reality. Don't want to be "objectified"? Ok then, stop treating your body well, stop masquerading it, stop adorning it, just be ashamed of it and cover it up. There, you are now no longer an "object" and nobody views you in a sexual light. Mission accomplished. Thing is, if they didn't want to talk to you before, they sure won't want to talk to you now, either.
People put their breasts out, accent their ass, paint themselves in make-up and strut around in high heels and then complain of being "objectified". I'd sooner expect them to complain about being "intelectualized" to be honest. When a woman is attracted to me I couldn't care less if she sees me as an object. Of course I am an object, I am made of meat and bone and tendon and I've been working hard on those abs so they can offer her sensory pleasure. Sure, if I want a deep debate about meaningful issues and the person keeps talking about my ass it feels kind of awkward, but in the context of sex I will not be able to pleasure a woman with my interesting views on citizen's basic income or the Norwegian leatherworking industry so what's the point of forcing my character and intellect on her? And if she is genuinely interested, of course, I will gladly present them.
It's tantamount to coming to a debate, punching someone you disagree with in the face and then complaining you are being "intellectualized" when the security drags you out.
That's because you're misunderstanding the objectification issue.
It's not merely about being desired for their body.
It's when you can't even put a video of yourself online without someone saying "show me your boobs". Has any man put up a video of themselves playing a game or whatever and had people saying, "show me your dick"? When was the last time you saw people commenting on a video, clamoring for a man to wear more revealing or flattering clothes?
We're talking about the most basic interaction people have with a video online. If it's a video of a man, the commentary will be about the content of the video. If it features a woman, there will be a non-trivial amount of commentary asking her to wear something more revealing, discussing her breast size, and other crap like that.
That's objectification: when people completely ignore just about everything you're saying and focus entirely on you as a flesh bag. When you have to dress "correctly" in accord with some arbitrary construct lest you be called various things (whether "slut" or be told to "show your tits more" or whatever). And so forth.
This is simply not something that happens to men. If you think it is, trust me; it isn't. Not to the level that women get it.
I don't trust you, because you don't understand the differences between how the sexes objectify each other. Women objectify men just as much as men do them, but they do it by different qualities. Men do it by big boobs and revealing clothes, women do it by success, status and money. Or are you completely unaware of the droves of screaming women making up the front lines of the audience at a concert whenever any popular male artist is playing? Are you unaware of the amount of sexual attention that firemen, military men and just about any other kind of -men that comes with a uniform, receive? Men don't receive the same type of comments on youtube videos, because 1) women are sexual choosers, not sexual offerers, and 2) "go put on a firefighter uniform" is not a comment that makes much sense.
"show your boobs" makes no more sense than "go put on a firefighter uniform". Indeed, the fact that you don't see that kind of comment is evidence that women are not nearly as pervasive in their objectification of men. After all, if they were equally pervasive, we would have women running around doing the same kind of sexist objectification as men, just with different qualities. If women objectified through "success, status and money" in the same way the way men do through "big boobs and revealing clothes", you would see women posting equally silly messages asking about status symbols and such.
Yet we don't. So obviously there is a difference in the sheer volume of objectification. Or the willingness to actually utter that kind of thing to perfect strangers. So women either don't do as much objectifying as men, or they're not willing to confront men about it anonymously.
Either way, the men are being far greater assholes about their objectification than women.
And btw, objectification is not merely being picky about what you like physically. It's not about liking big breasts or 6-pack abs, or big breasts atop 6-pack abs. You can even fetishize it to the point where you won't date anyone who doesn't have those qualities.
Objectification sets in when you decide that people must meet your standards, or something is wrong with them. Not merely that you're not interested in them, but that they're a "slut" or some other derogatory concept. When you treat a person as an object who, without these qualities, is no longer serving the function of that object.
If a woman isn't showing enough of her femininity, then she's a dyke. If she isn't hiding enough of her body, then she's a slut. If she isn't tantalizing me, then there's something wrong with that, and she needs to be denigrated until she fulfills my standards.
The "deal with it"-attitude makes me weep. The fact that a vast majority of gamers are male should be evidence enough that sexism is a much bigger problem than trolling in general. Comparing sexism to the twitch chat slander, "omg patchzerg lololol", makes me facepalm.
"If you complain about it, the trolls have won". NO. If the vast majority of gamers will keep on being male, the trolls have won. Sexist trolls don't crave attention. They're not destructive, evil basement-dwellers that feeds on the tears of females. They're kids who don't realise that what they're doing is despicable, and raising awareness will make quite a few of them feel shameful and dismiss their sheeple instincts next time.
On May 02 2013 18:58 bonse wrote: There should be a filter to block out trolls. While the sexist ones are the most offensive, all trolls only do damage to our community. In any stream it's impossible to hold some serious discussion on the game being played because it's drown out in a sea of trolling not related to anything.
On May 03 2013 00:31 PerryHooter wrote: Comparing sexism to the twitch chat slander, "omg patchzerg lololol", makes me facepalm.
Then you clearly don't spend a lot of time on twitch, because the unmoderated chats there are brimming with sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia and every conceivable form of irrational hatred towards people.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to.
Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape.
There is still the problem of guys trying to seduce 'already-drunk chicks', though. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it legally but I think it is very immoral. In fact, it almost seems like you are blaming the girl for allowing herself to get drunk enough that she enabled getting seduced by someone and lead into a sexual encounter.
On the contrary I think you sir are treating girls having sex as a thing to be avoided. If girls want to get drunk so they'll have drunken sex (which is, for better or for worse, a large part of teenage courtship in our culture) then they can. Blame implies a negativity which I don't understand, I think girls who choose to get drunk and then drunkenly choose to have drunken sex are responsible for that decision but I don't think I'd blame them for it anymore than I'd blame someone for choosing to do anything else.
On May 03 2013 00:31 PerryHooter wrote: The "deal with it"-attitude makes me weep. The fact that a vast majority of gamers are male should be evidence enough that sexism is a much bigger problem than trolling in general. Comparing sexism to the twitch chat slander, "omg patchzerg lololol", makes me facepalm.
"If you complain about it, the trolls have won". NO. If the vast majority of gamers will keep on being male, the trolls have won. Sexist trolls don't crave attention. They're not destructive, evil basement-dwellers that feeds on the tears of females. They're kids who don't realise that what they're doing is despicable, and raising awareness will make quite a few of them feel shameful and dismiss their sheeple instincts next time.
Can we say for sure that the lack of females in gaming is due to sexism as opposed to lack of interest in games on their part? Back before gaming was online, and thus lacked a community to label sexist, it seems like few girls were interested in gaming. I think the main reason for fewer females in gaming is that there aren't many women creating games. Games are basically fantasy worlds. If it's a fantasy world created by a male, it just seems natural that it would appeal much more to males than females.
On May 03 2013 00:28 Mothra wrote: I think this video of Incontrol dealing with a heckler shows the kind of guy that posts those types of comments and how they can't be reasoned with:
One can only take the high ground and keep putting out good content. I'm sure it still hurts though, but that's why I'd never want to be an entertainment personality.
On May 03 2013 00:31 PerryHooter wrote: The "deal with it"-attitude makes me weep. The fact that a vast majority of gamers are male should be evidence enough that sexism is a much bigger problem than trolling in general. Comparing sexism to the twitch chat slander, "omg patchzerg lololol", makes me facepalm.
"If you complain about it, the trolls have won". NO. If the vast majority of gamers will keep on being male, the trolls have won. Sexist trolls don't crave attention. They're not destructive, evil basement-dwellers that feeds on the tears of females. They're kids who don't realise that what they're doing is despicable, and raising awareness will make quite a few of them feel shameful and dismiss their sheeple instincts next time.
I heartily agree with this sentiment.
On a similar vein I believe that the over-saturation of women giving birth needs to be addressed. Too long has this gender disparity existed. It stands as clear evidence that the way things are (you know, reality) is biased and bigoted. I insist that we move to develop technology to allow men to carry a child full term. Just as soon as we tackle the fact that some recreational activities are mostly male (clearly sexism) we can address this secondary issue.
Gender is a social construct! There are no inherent differences! Fight the patriarchy!
PPPFFFFFTTTTT...no.
Yes, making comments such as those she received was rude and inappropriate. But propriety has nothing to do with sexism. Attack the idiots for their stupidity, not because of the gender of their target. Being a dick isn't sexist. It's being a dick.
Men like certain things, women like certain things. Just because men like videogames more than women doesn't imply sexism. It implies (gasp, he's going to say it!) that men and women are DIFFERENT. If it's a matter of the material being produced in the medium: THEN GO MAKE GAMES THAT ARE WOMAN FRIENDLY. Don't expect companies to target demographics that are unproven to be financially sustainable because it's "sexist" not to.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to.
Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape.
There is still the problem of guys trying to seduce 'already-drunk chicks', though. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it legally but I think it is very immoral. In fact, it almost seems like you are blaming the girl for allowing herself to get drunk enough that she enabled getting seduced by someone and lead into a sexual encounter.
On the contrary I think you sir are treating girls having sex as a thing to be avoided. If girls want to get drunk so they'll have drunken sex (which is, for better or for worse, a large part of teenage courtship in our culture) then they can. Blame implies a negativity which I don't understand, I think girls who choose to get drunk and then drunkenly choose to have drunken sex are responsible for that decision but I don't think I'd blame them for it anymore than I'd blame someone for choosing to do anything else.
Well I am glad you aren't blaming them! What do you say to the following scenario though? I'm sure this happens fairly often:
Girl A is out at a bar getting drunk and having fun. Guy B, possibly also drunk, encounters Girl A. Observer C sees Guy B escort Girl A to another location where apparently they have sex. The next day, Girl A presses legal charges against Guy B for taking advantage of her while she was drunk (in a non-violent way).
This seems, to me, like an incredibly tricky issue. One might say if there is no evidence of physical force or intentionally drugging then the guy should just be acquitted. Another might say the guy took advantage of her (and as I mentioned earlier this does actually happen). With perfect information how do you decide if the guy should be in trouble? With only limited information from a witness and testimony from the victim/defendant, how should courts approach this scenario?
If you`re gonna be on the internet, you need thicker skin. No other way around it. Not just sexist comments either, just dumb trolls trolling about everything.
The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be?
On May 02 2013 23:48 KwarK wrote: [quote] Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to.
Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape.
There is still the problem of guys trying to seduce 'already-drunk chicks', though. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it legally but I think it is very immoral. In fact, it almost seems like you are blaming the girl for allowing herself to get drunk enough that she enabled getting seduced by someone and lead into a sexual encounter.
On the contrary I think you sir are treating girls having sex as a thing to be avoided. If girls want to get drunk so they'll have drunken sex (which is, for better or for worse, a large part of teenage courtship in our culture) then they can. Blame implies a negativity which I don't understand, I think girls who choose to get drunk and then drunkenly choose to have drunken sex are responsible for that decision but I don't think I'd blame them for it anymore than I'd blame someone for choosing to do anything else.
Well I am glad you aren't blaming them! What do you say to the following scenario though? I'm sure this happens fairly often:
Girl A is out at a bar getting drunk and having fun. Guy B, possibly also drunk, encounters Girl A. Observer C sees Guy B escort Girl A to another location where apparently they have sex. The next day, Girl A presses legal charges against Guy B for taking advantage of her while she was drunk (in a non-violent way).
This seems, to me, like an incredibly tricky issue. One might say if there is no evidence of physical force or intentionally drugging then the guy should just be acquitted. Another might say the guy took advantage of her (and as I mentioned earlier this does actually happen). With perfect information how do you decide if the guy should be in trouble? With only limited information from a witness and testimony from the victim/defendant, how should courts approach this scenario?
Your hypothetical says I have perfect information and yet you haven't actually said whether or not she consented to the sex. If she did, no rape took place. If she did not then a rape took place. Taken advantage of is a loaded term which again makes the assumption that a girl should be actively trying to avoid having sex, if you mean rape then say rape because taken advantage doesn't mean anything and sucks as a euphemism. In this case two drunk people (assuming Guy B is also drunk) fucked and nobody took advantage of anyone or a girl was raped depending upon whether or not she consented to the sex which is the one important bit of information which you didn't include.
On May 03 2013 00:28 NicolBolas wrote: "show your boobs" makes no more sense than "go put on a firefighter uniform". Indeed, the fact that you don't see that kind of comment is evidence that women are not nearly as pervasive in their objectification of men. After all, if they were equally pervasive, we would have women running around doing the same kind of sexist objectification as men, just with different qualities. If women objectified through "success, status and money" in the same way the way men do through "big boobs and revealing clothes", you would see women posting equally silly messages asking about status symbols and such.
Sure it makes more sense. We know she has boobs, we probably even saw them in the video. We don't know if the guy even has a firefighter uniform and we don't know if he really is a firefighter.
Yet we don't. So obviously there is a difference in the sheer volume of objectification. Or the willingness to actually utter that kind of thing to perfect strangers. So women either don't do as much objectifying as men, or they're not willing to confront men about it anonymously.
You don't see it because you're looking in the wrong places. One Bieber concert generates more objectification than an entire year's worth of youtube videos by women in the gaming industry.
Either way, the men are being far greater assholes about their objectification than women.
They might be greater assholes when it comes to objectified women that they see in a positive way. But then women are greater assholes in how they treat those men they have discarded, those that don't meet their objectification standards.
And btw, objectification is not merely being picky about what you like physically. It's not about liking big breasts or 6-pack abs, or big breasts atop 6-pack abs. You can even fetishize it to the point where you won't date anyone who doesn't have those qualities.
Objectification sets in when you decide that people must meet your standards, or something is wrong with them. Not merely that you're not interested in them, but that they're a "slut" or some other derogatory concept. When you treat a person as an object who, without these qualities, is no longer serving the function of that object.
If a woman isn't showing enough of her femininity, then she's a dyke. If she isn't hiding enough of her body, then she's a slut. If she isn't tantalizing me, then there's something wrong with that, and she needs to be denigrated until she fulfills my standards.
If a man isn't making enough money or fixing enough stuff for me, then he is a fag or a creep or a loser. Not a real man. We can make fun of him, throw him away, and wait for someone else that fulfills my standards to show up. See how it goes both ways?
On May 02 2013 23:58 Jormundr wrote: [quote] I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to.
Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape.
There is still the problem of guys trying to seduce 'already-drunk chicks', though. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it legally but I think it is very immoral. In fact, it almost seems like you are blaming the girl for allowing herself to get drunk enough that she enabled getting seduced by someone and lead into a sexual encounter.
On the contrary I think you sir are treating girls having sex as a thing to be avoided. If girls want to get drunk so they'll have drunken sex (which is, for better or for worse, a large part of teenage courtship in our culture) then they can. Blame implies a negativity which I don't understand, I think girls who choose to get drunk and then drunkenly choose to have drunken sex are responsible for that decision but I don't think I'd blame them for it anymore than I'd blame someone for choosing to do anything else.
Well I am glad you aren't blaming them! What do you say to the following scenario though? I'm sure this happens fairly often:
Girl A is out at a bar getting drunk and having fun. Guy B, possibly also drunk, encounters Girl A. Observer C sees Guy B escort Girl A to another location where apparently they have sex. The next day, Girl A presses legal charges against Guy B for taking advantage of her while she was drunk (in a non-violent way).
This seems, to me, like an incredibly tricky issue. One might say if there is no evidence of physical force or intentionally drugging then the guy should just be acquitted. Another might say the guy took advantage of her (and as I mentioned earlier this does actually happen). With perfect information how do you decide if the guy should be in trouble? With only limited information from a witness and testimony from the victim/defendant, how should courts approach this scenario?
Your hypothetical says I have perfect information and yet you haven't actually said whether or not she consented to the sex. If she did, no rape took place. If she did not then a rape took place. Taken advantage of is a loaded term which again makes the assumption that a girl should be actively trying to avoid having sex, if you mean rape then say rape because taken advantage doesn't mean anything and sucks as a euphemism. In this case two drunk people (assuming Guy B is also drunk) fucked and nobody took advantage of anyone or a girl was raped depending upon whether or not she consented to the sex which is the one important bit of information which you didn't include.
I purposefully left some details out because that's probably what these court cases are actually like. How do you deal with these situations? It seems like you believe, the presence of unlimited information, that if the girl appears to have been consenting (regardless of if she technically can while inebriated or not) despite being drunk, then the guy gets acquitted since he didn't force the girl to do anything, and didn't actively put her into her inebriated state. On the other hand I think guys who (let's assume he's not drunk) find drunk women and try to get them to have sex with him could be considered behaving criminally (although difficult to prove and becomes a he said she said).
On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote: The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be?
You are addressing the culture as a "thing" which can have intentions and be "good or bad". Only individuals can have those. The gaming culture of which you speak is simply an aggregate. As a player in this debate, it doesn't exist.
This entire argument is the macro vs. mirco debate in economics. It's Keynesian's vs. Austrians.
On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote: The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be?
You are addressing the culture as a "thing" which can have intentions and be "good or bad". Only individuals can have those. The gaming culture of which you speak is simply an aggregate. As a player in this debate, it doesn't exist.
This entire argument is the macro vs. mirco debate in economics. It's Keynesian's vs. Austrians.
People are the culture. Without people, culture does not exist.
On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote: The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be?
Are games truly appealing to women though? Specifically online gaming, which more often than not is inherently a competitive experience. These types of games bring out the competitive drive of men and caress or bruise egos, which can lead to rather terrible verbal confrontations. In any case, maybe it's just me but I've always had this view that in general men are more competitive than women, maybe that's entirely wrong and I'm misinformed.
Also I don't think it's a stretch to say that games like Gears of War or Call of Duty are very much more appealing to males than females. I do think that sexism is pretty out of control on the internet (the OP is a perfect example), but I think that isn't the only thing keeping women out of gaming, it's just the majority of games that are popular are far more appealing to dudes.
On a side note, you'd think gamers would WANT more women in the entertainment medium though.....
EPT
