This retarded “agency” argument was pretty well dealt with last time it came up by u/current_horror in his comment here, but I would further add that even if you accept it as rational, it falls apart when you consider that the claimed ill of such content is a societal view that women are sex objects. The problem (well, one of them) with this is that it’s internally inconsistent with allowing an exception for real women to choose to be sexy. It doesn’t matter what some instagram thot or pornstar or cosplayer’s motivation is for putting on a sexy costume or getting naked on camera or whatever is, the fact is that the vast majority of people that see that sexy image will be totally ignorant of, and indifferent to, her opinion. They will consume that content because she’s sexy and they want to look at sexy women, and so if the feminist argument is that such content creates an expectation of women as sex objects, then the real woman “empowering herself” is every bit as guilty as the artist making the cartoon woman. Probably even more so, because if someone sees a cartoon woman acting like a thot, the assumption is that someone made her for an audience, but if someone sees a bunch of live women acting like a thot and loving it, the assumption has to be that they’re at least okay with, perhaps even enjoying, being treated that way.
Ask her if it's okay, then, if they 3D scan a sexy model specifically consenting to be sexualised in-game. What now, dipshit- does the character have agency or is a woman not allowed to sexualise her own likeness?
Not only is that utterly divorced from reality, it doesn’t engage with the point I made. They may as well be whining that it would be nice if we all had wings and could fly, except that it’s so backwards that a closer equivalent would be if they were whining that their nonexistent wings were tired and could we all please stop flying. For examples of “objectified” fictional men, please consider every single romance novel cover in existence, which get absolutely no pushback compared to the consistent uglification of virtual women.
You may as well just respond with “lol,” because there’s nothing to say to that. You can’t continue an argument—they’re having an entirely different conversation not based on this world.
This retarded “agency” argument was pretty well dealt with last time it came up by u/current_horror in his comment here, but I would further add that even if you accept it as rational, it falls apart when you consider that the claimed ill of such content is a societal view that women are sex objects. The problem (well, one of them) with this is that it’s internally inconsistent with allowing an exception for real women to choose to be sexy. It doesn’t matter what some instagram thot or pornstar or cosplayer’s motivation is for putting on a sexy costume or getting naked on camera or whatever is, the fact is that the vast majority of people that see that sexy image will be totally ignorant of, and indifferent to, her opinion. They will consume that content because she’s sexy and they want to look at sexy women, and so if the feminist argument is that such content creates an expectation of women as sex objects, then the real woman “empowering herself” is every bit as guilty as the artist making the cartoon woman. Probably even more so, because if someone sees a cartoon woman acting like a thot, the assumption is that someone made her for an audience, but if someone sees a bunch of live women acting like a thot and loving it, the assumption has to be that they’re at least okay with, perhaps even enjoying, being treated that way.
Ask her if it's okay, then, if they 3D scan a sexy model specifically consenting to be sexualised in-game. What now, dipshit- does the character have agency or is a woman not allowed to sexualise her own likeness?
Not only is that utterly divorced from reality, it doesn’t engage with the point I made. They may as well be whining that it would be nice if we all had wings and could fly, except that it’s so backwards that a closer equivalent would be if they were whining that their nonexistent wings were tired and could we all please stop flying. For examples of “objectified” fictional men, please consider every single romance novel cover in existence, which get absolutely no pushback compared to the consistent uglification of virtual women.
You may as well just respond with “lol,” because there’s nothing to say to that. You can’t continue an argument—they’re having an entirely different conversation not based on this world.