Well that was enlightening. I think there are some core principals which we don't see eye to eye on however. Perhaps we never will. But I'll attempt to illustrate to the best of my ability. Note, my primary concern is that I do believe women are treated as objects far too much (any amount, of course, is too much), and…

You must have misread my argument/intentions/everything entirely, (and your saying the same of me, so I guess it's twofold). Perhaps I'm not explaining well. Instead of addressing a bunch of what I/you didn't say I'll try to be as clear as possible to avoid misunderstanding and put what I'm saying in it's purest…

Much of my reply can be seen in my reply to Vegetarian Meat (you two had similar arguments). I will add this though:

Thank you for this reply, now we are into the 'meat' of it. But lets take a step back and think about the implications here.

Understood. The treatment of women online (and even offline) can be be particularly ugly. I can only offer my condolences.

???

You said I shouldn't have an opinion, or quietly give up my opinion because you assume I'm not qualified to care about sexism. I would never tell someone they shouldn't have an opinion, no matter who they are or what they look like. If that's any different from 'knowing my place' I guess I don't see it.

Without addressing anything else you've said, there is no reason to talk people like that. Nor will it ever go very far in winning an argument or convincing anyone of your opinion. I suggest you rethink how you treat people online.

Not sure where SimuLord said anything about 'practicality', nor why any game (or movie or book ect.) needs to be. Perhaps that's another thread you're referring to.

Not sure where SimuLord said anything about 'practicality', nor why any game (or movie or book ect.) needs to be. Perhaps that's another thread you're referring to.

Am I one of the 'asswipes' you're referring to? Surprising that somewhere in your stimulating mantra of telling people 'to fuck off' you missed responding to people's points.

Sure. Fine. What I'm trying to point out is that automatically linking female sexuality and female dis-empowerment is not only wrong, it's straight up sexist. A woman covered from head to toe is empowered, but a naked woman is an object? A woman with no sexuality is strong, but with any sexual connotation is implied…

Cosplay bait? So if a woman sees this character and likes it/feel empowered by it/ect. and chooses to dress in this way, we should should remember to appropriately shame her for her body, and remind her she's an object of sexual gratification?

You're right the mute/deaf population are objects and not people. Or do you mean only the 'hot' looking ones? I almost forgot that women cease having agency when they look a certain way (you know, they wanted it because oh how their dressed and all that.)

There's a difference between being looked at (whether for pay, or for fun, or whatever) and being treated or talked about like a non-person to be used for sexual gratification. The fact that so many 'feminists' think being looked at makes you an object of sexual gratification is troubling.

The problem is specifically her ambiguity. It's clear to everyone, including her, that the whole idea of 'saving someone' is a gray zone that could be interpreted in a lot of ways, both good and bad, but instead of confronting that idea head on, she wipes it away with 'historical context'. If a man saving a man, or a…

The idea that she would, of her own volition, write a whole article, or even watch a game trailer for a product of a medium she nebulously 'used to enjoy' but left behind completely long ago (except for the occasional trailer?) because it 'hates women', while not even doing lip service to the fact that, while not…

Don't you there's something wrong with insisting this woman's body is an object? She has every right to do whatever she want with it. Why you think it's 'feminist' to control women's bodies is a mystery to me. Nobody is an object, and the logic you seem to be using, that because someone may find this/her attractive…

While certainly there's a bit (or more) of a double standard on this site, its the idea of 'objectifying' that is at fault, not a discussion about someone's appearance. In face, the trend of throwing out the word 'objectifying' in this context reeks of misogyny and sexism, and it's a shame how it's caught on in…

I find his insistence on framing what should be 'these little girls made some designs I think are really cool' into some kind blanket assertion about almost entirely subjective and superficial topics off putting (the kind of off putting which harms and overshadows whatever statement he thinks he's making).