No fictional character in the history of media has ever consented to their own role or usage within that media. It is ludicrous to declare that such impossible “agency” should be a prerequisite for depiction of any kind. Consent requires consciousness, and fictional characters are incapable of possessing such sentience. To demand such a thing is nothing less than demanding the total eradication of all storytelling. In fact, expecting consent from inanimate and non-sentient objects is like refusing to drive a car because it didn’t agree to be driven.
Feminists only deploy this retarded argument against a very narrow range of content. No one cares that the fictional soldier didn’t consent to being shot dead. No one cares that the fictional white man didn’t consent to his participation in the on-screen KKK. These objections would be appropriately mocked into oblivion. The only reason such an argument “works” against sexy depictions of women is because a bunch of leftists have adopted a very simple premise: that heterosexual male desire is inherently wrong. That the biological drive to propagate the species, manifested as an unprompted interest in the primary and secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite gender, is problematic.
This assertion is dysgenic. You would only inculcate such an idea within a population that you wish to make extinct.
Another few words on the concept of agency: leftists are deliberately conflating two very different ideas here. A fictional character can never have true agency. He or she can only possess a convincing depiction of agency. The author will always control the behavior of the characters, from the sexualized hot girl with no other character traits to the main protagonist who appears in control of the trajectory of the entire story. The concept of real-world agency is very different from the literary concept of agency. Having control over your own life, making decisions about your own future, is a power that fictional characters can never have. Suggesting otherwise is honestly a huge red flag for dissociative mental illness.
The core of feminism isn't emancipation, it's manipulation; to make "good" men police the "bad" men. They exploit the biological impulse to protect, provide and nurture men have and they know it
the idiot being quoted doesn't live in the real world.
submissive, sexualized women in fiction? when? when has that ever happened? maybe a long time ago, but not in the last 20 years, it has been the polar opposite: a bunch of ugly bitches trying to act like men.
First of all, the entire second paragraph there is borderline incoherent. But to address what I can make out: First up is a bait and switch. Going from "Having a attractive woman in fiction is evil" to "all women in fiction are subservient to men" and hoping you don't notice. Make them defend the actual point. Why is having an attractive woman in fiction bad? And why is having an attractive MAN in fiction NOT bad? The response to that question is 100% going to be thinly disguised hypocrisy. Chris Hemsworth is a good example: He appears shirtless in how many Marvel movies? Basically all of them? And in the most recent one, apparently he gets completely stripped against his will while the female heroes look on in interest and refuse to help, in a scene that's played for comedy. Imagine the genders reversed on that one. And he basically played an attractive bimbo in the super-feminist ghostbusters movie, who was hired in the movie because of his looks. The whole "It's a power fantasy for men" you're likely to hear is just an evidence-free assertion that boils down to "It's okay when we do it".
Second, "objectification". That's always been a stupid argument that relies on the listener being cowed into submission and not requiring terms to be defined. Women ARE objects. They have mass and take up space. Allowing them weak terms that change in definition to whatever is convenient at the time is not how you have an honest argument. As for "Women are sex objects", well, then why do they keep getting dialogue? Porn doesn't need dialogue. So if women are speaking, they're being treated as people.
Their role as dolls
Again, dolls don't talk. If you can't make your argument without using most of your words wrong, then maybe your argument sucks.
Sexualized women in games are bad because fictional characters dont have agency, so therefore these sexy female characters were made by men for the pleasure of other men.
That's what fictional characters are. Fictional men don't have agency either, because they also don't exist. All fictional characters are invented for the pleasure of the reader. This argument is retarded.
it is harmful to society and women,
Prove it.
and it also makes men see women as objects
Prove it. Also, see first paragraph above.
things like onlyfans, rap videos (like cardi b and nicki minaj), modeling, and social media
As you correctly identify, their position here contradicts their position above. That's because their position above is a lie. Their ACTUAL position is "Women are good, men are bad", and in particular "Female sexuality is good, male sexuality is dangerous and rapey", and they work backwards from that core belief to invent arguments to satisfy it. Their contradictory arguments suddenly fall perfectly into line if you instead imagine them asking the simple question: Who benefits? When a camwhore can pay her rent off broken simps so desperate for a female relationship they think they have one with a woman who they're paying online, it's easy to see who is benefiting: The woman who's getting paid, and it's about female sexuality, so it's "good". Female rappers selling their body? Again, it's a woman who benefits using female sexuality, therefore good. Modeling, social media, all the same. Now for the negative examples: Instead of a naked woman on onlyfans, a man draws a picture of the same woman. Who benefits? Well, it's a man getting paid, so it's bad, and if there's no woman involved, it must not be female sexuality, it must be for those dirty disgusting men to look at, therefore male sexuality, therefore bad. Or even if nobody is getting paid, if there's a man out there who might be happy, well, male sexuality is evil and bad and basically rape, so it's still bad. Hence the people upset that stable diffusion can generate pictures of attractive woman (and they're going to great efforts to stop that from happening in future versions): if a man out there is being made happy and a woman isn't benefiting from it financially, then it's unacceptable.
cultivation theory (the things you see around you (like media) affect how you see certain groups).
When every commercial with a married couple has a bumbling man and a long-suffering woman, when all of Star Wars and fiction in general is turned into one giant "Stupid men outdone by perfect woman" story, when men are basically driven out of the entire teaching profession, it's weird how all of a sudden none of that matters. Also, start counting how often men run risks to their life to protect women in media (or even better, real life), versus the opposite, and then ask yourself who's really being told that their gender is worth less than the other.
male gaze
Men looking at women is basically rape? Does this even need a counter-argument? Anyway, apply the Chris Hemmsworth argument if necessary.
Quickest answer: one's fictional, end of argument.
The 'I have actually entertain this bullshit' answer: It's a method to lower standards by making it more and more socially acceptable to dress and dance like a whore to get that more primitive response for attention that these women wouldn't get because they lack the charisma and skills to entice a man without wearing clothing that more or less has arrows to their tits and vigina saying 'I'm easy'
The fictional content challenges that because they can have daring clothes but have CHARACTER qualities which surpass the obvious sexual outfit whereas these women don't have character other than horrible traits usually.
A feminist said it, so it's either a lie, absolutely retarded, or in this case, both.
First sentence, yes it does. To say otherwise is to deny that other people exist. The rest of this doggerel flows from the same false premise, along with the dishonest assertion that their insanity cannot be argued against.
If you express sexuality you are a sexual object. Because other people are allowed to have eyes, and opinions. They're allowed to view you however they please.
Male gaze is a bs gendered term, derived from the greek term of getting pleasure by looking at things.
Also, I bet all my money women will start getting vocal against OF and the like once they hit the wall, the money stops coming and they get replaced by younger women calling it explotation and the like, just like they did with Pornhub
Sexual objectification doesn't exist. It's a feminist buzzword to demonise male heterosexual desire. No need to read beyond the usage of that word, the end.
Some of them hate femininity & sexuality in all its forms and see it all as some sort of "patriarchy" that can only be overthrown once females all become ugly blob people who LARP as men.
Others see female sexuality as okay only when it's used by women to exploit men & take their money. They still see men as evil but think as long as in their estimation the men are getting the worse end of the deal, it's ok.
I don't engage with feminist "arguments" for the same reason I don't engage with schizos on the street corner who think the world will end this Tuesday. But in general they're against sexualization that doesn't allow them to exploit simps. That's why they hate attractive women in entertainment and hold up OnlyThots as some paragon of virtue. Prostitution is a middle ground. They like the money they make off men but the fact that men benefit as well kills a lot of the appeal for them.
Women draw a lot of sexy female chars. But feminists usually (like all leftists) think they know whats best for you. That those women draw it because they grew up in patriarchy society hah.
even when they display competency, it must be quickly foiled by defeat at the hands of a powerful male character
... The fuck are they talking about? If anything, that's projection. You can't have male heroes anymore without them being humiliated and completely upstaged in every way by women.
Characters are not objectified, they are objects. The author is incapable of distinguishing between a human and a simulacrum, and is thus mentally retarded.
Who are the people setting the standard as to what constitutes "sexy" and what doesn't? What is the diference between a woman voluntarily subjecting her "work" to those standards vs an artist voluntarily subjecting their work to those standards?
I won't repeat the Bayonetta argument, because that's been done ad nauseum. The crusade against drawings by the Puritranical Left is purely anti-competitive practices (which shocks me b/c I thought they had a monopoly on creative fields)
It’s tyranny, plan and simple. You are not allowed to have your own image of what you desire. You must submit to how females want to have women displayed. Imagine if we did this to women? Women objectify men far more than the inverse, to the point that there is movies out almost every year of geriatric old ladies feeling up a muscular man in his 20s/30s unironically.
It doesn't matter how long this talking point has been around because feminist talking points don't survive on merit. They are not arguments intended to provoke thought, but a series of PR campaigns cooked up to create a nebulous impression of female victimhood from invisible sources. Objectification, patriarchy, rape culture, male gaze, phallocentrism... they're all goofy myths with no connection to reality, whose staying power is temporary and survives only from trendiness among feminist allies, or fear of being character assassinated, when it comes to neutrals or anti-feminists. Objectification is merely one of the more successful PR campaigns, because it thrives off the muddle that normies feel when the different definitions of the word 'object' - 'goal' (benign meaning) vs 'inanimate object' (malign meaning) - blur together in their heads.
Just take 'rape culture' and one of the possible reasons you don't hear that buzzphrase spouted so much any more (another being that Brits in particular know what the real rape culture is, but I digress...): in 2014, RAINN - the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, essentially the go-to organisation for abuse victims - said that rape culture simply doesn't exist. It was not a thing:
In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses.
...
Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime.
I imagine that they felt compelled to say this, despite being a probably feminist org, because they are forced to live in the real world and deal with real people to some degree. Feminists, who don't have these constraints, responded by attacking RAINN. I don't recall there coming a peep from RAINN on the issue after that.
All they have is bluster and shame. Logic is secondary to contempt when arguing with feminists. They won't listen to the former, but at least the latter will enrage them and entertain you.
I don't give much thought to feminist arguments.
No fictional character in the history of media has ever consented to their own role or usage within that media. It is ludicrous to declare that such impossible “agency” should be a prerequisite for depiction of any kind. Consent requires consciousness, and fictional characters are incapable of possessing such sentience. To demand such a thing is nothing less than demanding the total eradication of all storytelling. In fact, expecting consent from inanimate and non-sentient objects is like refusing to drive a car because it didn’t agree to be driven.
Feminists only deploy this retarded argument against a very narrow range of content. No one cares that the fictional soldier didn’t consent to being shot dead. No one cares that the fictional white man didn’t consent to his participation in the on-screen KKK. These objections would be appropriately mocked into oblivion. The only reason such an argument “works” against sexy depictions of women is because a bunch of leftists have adopted a very simple premise: that heterosexual male desire is inherently wrong. That the biological drive to propagate the species, manifested as an unprompted interest in the primary and secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite gender, is problematic.
This assertion is dysgenic. You would only inculcate such an idea within a population that you wish to make extinct.
Another few words on the concept of agency: leftists are deliberately conflating two very different ideas here. A fictional character can never have true agency. He or she can only possess a convincing depiction of agency. The author will always control the behavior of the characters, from the sexualized hot girl with no other character traits to the main protagonist who appears in control of the trajectory of the entire story. The concept of real-world agency is very different from the literary concept of agency. Having control over your own life, making decisions about your own future, is a power that fictional characters can never have. Suggesting otherwise is honestly a huge red flag for dissociative mental illness.
You didn't know they got tranny jannies? Or that leftards organize discord raids? Or that the jap owner guy sells your info?
The core of feminism isn't emancipation, it's manipulation; to make "good" men police the "bad" men. They exploit the biological impulse to protect, provide and nurture men have and they know it
Gay and retarded
the idiot being quoted doesn't live in the real world.
submissive, sexualized women in fiction? when? when has that ever happened? maybe a long time ago, but not in the last 20 years, it has been the polar opposite: a bunch of ugly bitches trying to act like men.
First of all, the entire second paragraph there is borderline incoherent. But to address what I can make out: First up is a bait and switch. Going from "Having a attractive woman in fiction is evil" to "all women in fiction are subservient to men" and hoping you don't notice. Make them defend the actual point. Why is having an attractive woman in fiction bad? And why is having an attractive MAN in fiction NOT bad? The response to that question is 100% going to be thinly disguised hypocrisy. Chris Hemsworth is a good example: He appears shirtless in how many Marvel movies? Basically all of them? And in the most recent one, apparently he gets completely stripped against his will while the female heroes look on in interest and refuse to help, in a scene that's played for comedy. Imagine the genders reversed on that one. And he basically played an attractive bimbo in the super-feminist ghostbusters movie, who was hired in the movie because of his looks. The whole "It's a power fantasy for men" you're likely to hear is just an evidence-free assertion that boils down to "It's okay when we do it".
Second, "objectification". That's always been a stupid argument that relies on the listener being cowed into submission and not requiring terms to be defined. Women ARE objects. They have mass and take up space. Allowing them weak terms that change in definition to whatever is convenient at the time is not how you have an honest argument. As for "Women are sex objects", well, then why do they keep getting dialogue? Porn doesn't need dialogue. So if women are speaking, they're being treated as people.
Again, dolls don't talk. If you can't make your argument without using most of your words wrong, then maybe your argument sucks.
That's what fictional characters are. Fictional men don't have agency either, because they also don't exist. All fictional characters are invented for the pleasure of the reader. This argument is retarded.
Prove it.
Prove it. Also, see first paragraph above.
As you correctly identify, their position here contradicts their position above. That's because their position above is a lie. Their ACTUAL position is "Women are good, men are bad", and in particular "Female sexuality is good, male sexuality is dangerous and rapey", and they work backwards from that core belief to invent arguments to satisfy it. Their contradictory arguments suddenly fall perfectly into line if you instead imagine them asking the simple question: Who benefits? When a camwhore can pay her rent off broken simps so desperate for a female relationship they think they have one with a woman who they're paying online, it's easy to see who is benefiting: The woman who's getting paid, and it's about female sexuality, so it's "good". Female rappers selling their body? Again, it's a woman who benefits using female sexuality, therefore good. Modeling, social media, all the same. Now for the negative examples: Instead of a naked woman on onlyfans, a man draws a picture of the same woman. Who benefits? Well, it's a man getting paid, so it's bad, and if there's no woman involved, it must not be female sexuality, it must be for those dirty disgusting men to look at, therefore male sexuality, therefore bad. Or even if nobody is getting paid, if there's a man out there who might be happy, well, male sexuality is evil and bad and basically rape, so it's still bad. Hence the people upset that stable diffusion can generate pictures of attractive woman (and they're going to great efforts to stop that from happening in future versions): if a man out there is being made happy and a woman isn't benefiting from it financially, then it's unacceptable.
When every commercial with a married couple has a bumbling man and a long-suffering woman, when all of Star Wars and fiction in general is turned into one giant "Stupid men outdone by perfect woman" story, when men are basically driven out of the entire teaching profession, it's weird how all of a sudden none of that matters. Also, start counting how often men run risks to their life to protect women in media (or even better, real life), versus the opposite, and then ask yourself who's really being told that their gender is worth less than the other.
Men looking at women is basically rape? Does this even need a counter-argument? Anyway, apply the Chris Hemmsworth argument if necessary.
Quickest answer: one's fictional, end of argument.
The 'I have actually entertain this bullshit' answer: It's a method to lower standards by making it more and more socially acceptable to dress and dance like a whore to get that more primitive response for attention that these women wouldn't get because they lack the charisma and skills to entice a man without wearing clothing that more or less has arrows to their tits and vigina saying 'I'm easy'
The fictional content challenges that because they can have daring clothes but have CHARACTER qualities which surpass the obvious sexual outfit whereas these women don't have character other than horrible traits usually.
A feminist said it, so it's either a lie, absolutely retarded, or in this case, both.
First sentence, yes it does. To say otherwise is to deny that other people exist. The rest of this doggerel flows from the same false premise, along with the dishonest assertion that their insanity cannot be argued against.
If you express sexuality you are a sexual object. Because other people are allowed to have eyes, and opinions. They're allowed to view you however they please.
Absolute nonsense, from some cultist who sounds like they've never played a video game. End of story.
Male gaze is a bs gendered term, derived from the greek term of getting pleasure by looking at things.
Also, I bet all my money women will start getting vocal against OF and the like once they hit the wall, the money stops coming and they get replaced by younger women calling it explotation and the like, just like they did with Pornhub
It's weird that men are described as visually stimulated, when women are the ones usually obsessed with appearances and more observant to boot.
Men are simple. Bikini or lingerie with high heels. Some basic lipstick and eye shadow. Done.
Women... women seem to min/max their appearances lol. They seem to dress for both men and women. To show off to both.
Sexual objectification doesn't exist. It's a feminist buzzword to demonise male heterosexual desire. No need to read beyond the usage of that word, the end.
"objectification" is nonsense pulled right out of some npc's ass.
Feminists are actually divided on this shit.
Some of them hate femininity & sexuality in all its forms and see it all as some sort of "patriarchy" that can only be overthrown once females all become ugly blob people who LARP as men.
Others see female sexuality as okay only when it's used by women to exploit men & take their money. They still see men as evil but think as long as in their estimation the men are getting the worse end of the deal, it's ok.
Wonder what she thinks of the men with rippling muscles on romance novels. They aren’t drawn to appeal to women?
For leftists.. "its different".
Watching too much anime maybe.
Western female protagonists are stronk and brave.
I don't engage with feminist "arguments" for the same reason I don't engage with schizos on the street corner who think the world will end this Tuesday. But in general they're against sexualization that doesn't allow them to exploit simps. That's why they hate attractive women in entertainment and hold up OnlyThots as some paragon of virtue. Prostitution is a middle ground. They like the money they make off men but the fact that men benefit as well kills a lot of the appeal for them.
Sexualized women in video games are bad?
Too many words in that sentence. But, I've fixed it.
Women are bad.
The Lord and Saviour of Man TheImpossible1, TheUnbannable1, has spoken.
Welcome back 👑
Sexualizing yourself invites objectification. It’s a consequence, sorry that those suck.
So.. male gaze is bad. You know what?? Fuck it. Lets put women into burqas.
Women draw a lot of sexy female chars. But feminists usually (like all leftists) think they know whats best for you. That those women draw it because they grew up in patriarchy society hah.
... The fuck are they talking about? If anything, that's projection. You can't have male heroes anymore without them being humiliated and completely upstaged in every way by women.
Their fetish
Everything she said can be applied to shounen male MC:
This isn't frowned upon by people who can tell fiction from reality.
Characters are not objectified, they are objects. The author is incapable of distinguishing between a human and a simulacrum, and is thus mentally retarded.
It's really simple.
Attaching to men is bad.
Exploiting men and avoiding attachment is good.
That's it.
I could explain more about the political motivations behind it but that's what it revolves around.
Bond with men bad, exploit with no bonding good.
Who are the people setting the standard as to what constitutes "sexy" and what doesn't? What is the diference between a woman voluntarily subjecting her "work" to those standards vs an artist voluntarily subjecting their work to those standards?
I won't repeat the Bayonetta argument, because that's been done ad nauseum. The crusade against drawings by the Puritranical Left is purely anti-competitive practices (which shocks me b/c I thought they had a monopoly on creative fields)
It’s tyranny, plan and simple. You are not allowed to have your own image of what you desire. You must submit to how females want to have women displayed. Imagine if we did this to women? Women objectify men far more than the inverse, to the point that there is movies out almost every year of geriatric old ladies feeling up a muscular man in his 20s/30s unironically.
It doesn't matter how long this talking point has been around because feminist talking points don't survive on merit. They are not arguments intended to provoke thought, but a series of PR campaigns cooked up to create a nebulous impression of female victimhood from invisible sources. Objectification, patriarchy, rape culture, male gaze, phallocentrism... they're all goofy myths with no connection to reality, whose staying power is temporary and survives only from trendiness among feminist allies, or fear of being character assassinated, when it comes to neutrals or anti-feminists. Objectification is merely one of the more successful PR campaigns, because it thrives off the muddle that normies feel when the different definitions of the word 'object' - 'goal' (benign meaning) vs 'inanimate object' (malign meaning) - blur together in their heads.
Just take 'rape culture' and one of the possible reasons you don't hear that buzzphrase spouted so much any more (another being that Brits in particular know what the real rape culture is, but I digress...): in 2014, RAINN - the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, essentially the go-to organisation for abuse victims - said that rape culture simply doesn't exist. It was not a thing:
I imagine that they felt compelled to say this, despite being a probably feminist org, because they are forced to live in the real world and deal with real people to some degree. Feminists, who don't have these constraints, responded by attacking RAINN. I don't recall there coming a peep from RAINN on the issue after that.
All they have is bluster and shame. Logic is secondary to contempt when arguing with feminists. They won't listen to the former, but at least the latter will enrage them and entertain you.
They're not arguing in good faith. Stop wasting your time taking what they say at face value.