| ▲ | fossgeller 7 days ago |
| Well maybe they are bothered by its sexist content. People all are about free speech when it comes to censorship in media, but not that many talk about how objectification of women is still very common in it. I’m sure that there are dating sims that are just fine, but let’s be honest here, these platforms are filled with much weirder stuff . Some of them even enter the morally grey areas imo. |
|
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Well maybe they are bothered by its sexist content. several Otome and BL content was hit by this as well. I don't think this is about protecting the women and children. >not that many talk about how objectification of women is still very common in it. It's not 2005 anymore. Show me any modern AAA game still doing this. in terms of porn... well, yes. Your reward is sexual gratification with your chosen mate in any given game. Porn is inherently objectifying. I don't think you're seen enough of the porn market if you think porn is focused onobjectifying women, though. >but let’s be honest here, these platforms are filled with much weirder stuff . We're on Hacker News. I really hope we had enough background growing up to not wish for "weird" to be illegal. |
|
| ▲ | baobabKoodaa 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oh no, weird stuff in games? Or even... morally grey actions in games? How awful! |
| |
| ▲ | broof 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Child rape is morally grey now? | | | |
| ▲ | fossgeller 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well yes, one could argue that if games like GTA don’t turn people into criminals than these games are also harmless. Imo it’s a bit different in this case, as a more natural instinct (sexuality) is affected. Sure, games can be beneficial for living out fantasies, but how will it affect your view on women if you frequently consume highly sexist content? The bottom line of my point is that I think this type of content is too easily available nowadays, and especially too much of it. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >Imo it’s a bit different in this case, as a more natural instinct (sexuality) is affected. I personally don't see the difference. Violence is a primal instinct and studies on video games and violence only concluded short term increases in aggression. Why would a similar conclusion with yet another primal instinct not conclude with short term increased arousal? I don't see arousal as inherently dangerous. >how will it affect your view on women if you frequently consume highly sexist content? Do you feel that people just find "sexist content" from some algorithm, or that already sexist people seek out content to conform to their views? I have my criticisms of Steam, but I am glad they are one of the few bastions left that aren't driven by "engagment boosting" algorithms. Just a simple tag system recommending other content with similar tags and good ratings. I agree with the undertone that we need better sex education. Those early years where we don't sell content to 10 year olds should be used to talk about the dangers before sending them off. Too bad such groups also go for an all-abstinence approach. | |
| ▲ | caconym_ 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you start down this road, policing which media people have access to based on your own totally subjective moral standards and interpretations, you will end up with pervasive censorship that severely stunts cultural development. Because who is "you", anyway? The answer is, of course, whichever monstrous nutjob chooses to devote a huge chunk of their time and money to seizing the levers of power so that they can impose their monstrous nutjobbery on everyone else. Seriously, outside of special, clearly delineated cases with indisputable negative externalities (especially on the production side), when has [effectively] banning certain [types of] media been a net good? Seems to me that all it's good for is political repression and fueling moral panics. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | everdrive 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Objectification" is just a clinical and negative way to describe normal male sexuality. ie, that physically beautiful women are sexually attractive. |
| |
| ▲ | fossgeller 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In my book objectification means presenting women as walking sexual organs, bodies of flesh that one needs to conquer, nothing more. Many of pornographic content nowadays do this. Sexuality is not a problem, sexism is. | | |
| ▲ | jjaksic 7 days ago | parent [-] | | How would you make porn that isn't "objectifying"? Would you add an hour of prologue showing actors going to work, hanging out with friends, having hobbies etc, to show they are aren't just "sex objects"? I don't know if such porn would be very popular, leave alone cost-effective to produce. Also, I don't see how women in porn are any more objectified than men. In the porn that I've seen, men are 100% objectified and portrayed as only good for "one thing". |
| |
| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean your last point is fine, the problem is when the Overton window of what "normal male sexuality" is shifts towards violating other people's boundaries, or diminishing them as people beyond how it affects men's arousal. |
|
|
| ▲ | Levitz 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Where would books like Twilight or 50 shades of grey rank on this "weirdness" scale? Sexism? Those two books had orders of magnitude more of an impact on society, where is the outrage? |
|
| ▲ | xigoi 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
