SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In the study of about 1,400 US youths, 47% of middle-school boys and 61% of high school boys agreed that women are treated as sex objects too often in games.
The findings, gathered by education consultant Rosalind Wiseman and games writer Ashley Burch, counter familiar assumptions that boys will voraciously consume media images of scantily clad women without a second thought.
For many years in the mainstream games industry, there has been an apparent assumption that the male teen demographic was the only one that mattered. Much of the time this meant beefy male protagonists (to identify with – or aspire to) and sexualised women (too gaze at or rescue).
The survey questions and methodology used are not disclosed in the article.
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Survey Says Even Teenage Boys are Sick of Sexist Video Games
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 82 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected.
-- Spock, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @05:24AM
The concept of "sex object" just seems like a huge straw man, as I've never seen someone genuinely believe that other people are sex objects. At what point does someone become a mere "sex object" in someone's eyes? When you're sexually attracted to them and seek to pursue a relationship with them? When you're sexually attracted to them, do not wish to pursue a relationship with them, but fantasize about doing sexual things to them anyway? I've not seen any objective, scientific definition of this. It's possible to not be interested in actually getting to know someone and yet still not think of them as an object.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @05:31AM
"Shake it, baby!"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @06:14AM
> At what point does someone become a mere "sex object" in someone's eyes?
When their sex and associated sexuality is their defining attribute in that person's eyes. This shit is not hard to figure out unless you are a robot.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @06:31AM
When their sex and associated sexuality is their defining attribute in that person's eyes.
You can't possibly get to know every person you see. Random people mean little to you. But just because you're more interested in them sexually doesn't mean you think of them as a "sex object" (or maybe it depends on how you define "object", but in that case, everything is just an object in the first place, so it's meaningless).
This shit is not hard to figure out unless you are a robot.
"common sense" has never been a good replacement for actual science and rigor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @07:28AM
Yes, this shit is as easy to figure out as the obvious fact that the Earth is flat!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday July 11 2015, @08:51PM
When really horny, my wife is a sex object: when not, she is a person. Neither is a ' defining' attribute... it is a reality.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @07:40AM
It's not a strawman, it's outright shaming men about their sexuality under the (demonstrably false) presumption that men will treat real women like they treat video game characters. There is nothing wrong with objectifying virtual people, they are not real and healthy human beings are completely capable of making the fantasy-reality distinction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @09:49AM
Correction, shaming boys about their sexuality, and they damn well should be ashamed, spending day and night in the bathroom! Why don't the give someone else a chance? Reminds me of what me old Dad used to say.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @12:24PM
well don't keep us in suspense, what the fuck did he say?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @07:03PM
"Young Frankenstein", Igor, played by Marty Feldman, directed by Mel Brooks. (For those who got whooshed by the reference.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @10:29AM
> it's outright shaming men about their sexuality under the … presumption that men will treat real women like they treat video game characters
They just don't know what they are losing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @02:51PM
Where/When did this 'shaming' occur?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by blackhawk on Saturday July 11 2015, @12:57PM
I guess you've never heard of rape, or don't believe it happens. You've quite nicely defined a good starting point for rape in your comments.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @04:14PM
There's no such thing as rape, if she claims she got "raped" its because she wanted it at the time and then changed her mind after the fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @05:41PM
So does that mean everyone that many people who buy vidogames or consume popular media, since they have been defined as objectifying women, are rapists? If so, then the prison population needs an extra zero added to the right. If not, there is something wrong about your presumption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @06:16PM
I've heard of rape, but I'm pretty sure these people who make statements about sexual objectification aren't talking solely about rapists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Saturday July 11 2015, @11:09PM
I highly doubt that all rapists consider their victims "object", or "sex objects".
I also dislike how most arguments from champions of social justice almost immediately turn toward ad hominem accusations of rape or support of rape (mental rape, implied rape, race rape, verbal rape). Godwin's Law needs an amendment. "If you X, then you're just like Hitler!" "If you X, then you must support rape!"
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 12 2015, @01:21AM
Many people define rape as male->female, the man rapes the woman. They just refuse to understand that men can be raped by women.
(Not wanting to change the topic, it's much like child abuse. Child abuse is abuse inflicted by fathers on children, and not by mothers on children. Speaking as someone who was physically and mentally abused by a mother who used the state to wrest control of the children away from the father - and had him charged for assault on her where she beat herself up - this position, like the above, is completely unacceptable. It's not a case of "we must agree to disagree," because that's a case of opinion rather than fact.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @04:11PM
Try leaving your mom's basement once in a while and interacting with real people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @05:39PM
Why would anyone want to do that if the people outside the basement are so much worse than those within that those "real people" have lost their sense of humanity to the degree that other people are mere objects to extract pleasure from?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @06:21PM
Yeah, anyone who questions this must live in their mom's basement. But you didn't answer any of my questions. A rigorous and scientific definition would be nice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @05:48PM
At what point does someone become a mere "sex object" in someone's eyes? ... When you're sexually attracted to them, do not wish to pursue a relationship with them, but fantasize about doing sexual things to them anyway?
Unless you're into necrophilia I'm pretty sure you also fantasize about your desired partner acting upon you. And since subjects are actors and objects are acted upon, that make you the subjective sex object.
The whole subject / object false dichotomy really needs to go. Do you taste food objects or does food excite your taste buds? Does not imagery act upon your senses? Much of sociology and philosophy is just internally inconsistent hogwash, especially feminism.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by forkazoo on Saturday July 11 2015, @07:34PM
Have you ever known a guy who could carry on a conversation reasonably well with other guys, but couldn't talk to women? That's a part of what people are talking about when they say somebody sees women as "sex objects." I know it doesn't sound like that big of a deal, but the psychology is interesting. If you are talking to a work colleague or a store clerk, it really shouldn't matter what gender they are, but a lot of men clam up when talking to a woman and become noticeably more awkward. Part of the reason for that is the fact that those men are placing women in a "special category" in their minds. You have to be more respectful/charming/funny/polite/whatever to people in this special category. Why? What's the difference? In practice, the only difference is that on a subconscious level the women are potential sex partners, and the men are just "normal people."
Most of this stuff isn't a conscious "That person is an object in my mind, and does not deserve rights, and I am going to clearly articulate it." It's just sort of a subconscious "girls are more special" kind of mindset in the background that people aren't even aware of unless they are actively conscious of it. But that sort of subtle subconscious bias can have huge effects on how people interact. It's easy to take a term like "sex object" and interpret in a very absolute straw-man sort of way, then say that doesn't exist. Then conclude there isn't any problem related to it. But those sorts of terms are generally meant to be descriptive of more subtle phenomena that absolutely exist, and absolutely have an effect. Don't get caught up on being hyperliteral about the label. Just like how being "Schizophrenic" doesn't refer to somebody who has a mind that has literally been split in two personalities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @08:24PM
Sounds more like those men need to get out more, or was brought up in a damn cloister.
If one clam up just because of the other persons gender, one has more serious issues than "objectifying" that person...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @08:51PM
That's a part of what people are talking about when they say somebody sees women as "sex objects."
I fail to see how being shy towards the sex that you prefer means you think of those people as "sex objects."
But again, no one has offered a concrete definition, so communication suffers.
Part of the reason for that is the fact that those men are placing women in a "special category" in their minds.
Because they're sexually attracted to them and don't wish to make fools of themselves in front of the sex they prefer, perhaps. Again, how does any of this mean they think of them as mere objects?
You need to give some concrete, objective scientific data, and not just rely on silly examples where you assume that someone doing or thinking X indicates that they think of other people as sex objects simply because you cannot think of an alternative possibility.
It's easy to take a term like "sex object" and interpret in a very absolute straw-man sort of way
It's not a straw man; it's just that the term is ambiguous and poorly defined. Furthermore, different people seem to use the term in different ways.
But those sorts of terms are generally meant to be descriptive of more subtle phenomena that absolutely exist
They have not been objectively demonstrated to exist by rigorous and objective scientific experimentation.
This is the sort of thing you'd find in random blogs, where the standards of evidence are nearly nonexistent. Subjectivity, anecdotes, random assumptions, and arguments from ignorance seem to be counted as hard evidence, but they're simply not. We need real science here, not this.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by darkfeline on Saturday July 11 2015, @11:15PM
>Have you ever known a guy who could carry on a conversation reasonably well with other guys, but couldn't talk to women? That's a part of what people are talking about when they say somebody sees women as "sex objects."
So men who are shy around women think that women are sex objects? That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while. If a woman is shy around men, does she think that all men are sex objects? If someone is shy around powerful people, does he think that all powerful people are sex objects? If a young boy is shy around his crush, does he think that his crush is a sex object?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 12 2015, @01:13AM
One of my friends was watching TV, once. This attractive woman came on TV, wearing not a lot, and his partner went crazy about the objectification of women. "Disgusting," she called it.
A few days later, they were watching Casino Royale when Daniel Craig popped out of the ocean, muscles all bulging and manly. She suddenly said "Wow, he's a bit woof!"
Apparently, that wasn't sexist because men do it to women when they shouldn't, and other confusing statements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2015, @07:50PM
Duke Nukem 3D
Shadow Warrior
(Both literal objects)
DoA series games.
Counterpoints:
Messiah (Using 'Sex Objects' to compromise otherwise difficult foes.)
Oni (Protag)
Mirror's Edge (Protag)
Wing Commander 1,2, parts of 3/4.
Need for Speed Underground -> Undercover, The Run (Often eye-candy, but usually in a position of power over you the protag.)
Those are just off the top of my head. I may just not play the right games. Overall however, it seems like the majority of women depicted in games are comparable to, or superior to some or all of the male protagonists and antagonists in games, with the exception of tropes related to 'rescue the princess' and such, which would be best defeated with lampooning the tropes in other videogames and maybe throwing in a few fat/ugly people for good measure (Which you almost never see, either male or female in almost any game out there. A few exceptions being Baldur's Gate 1/2, some games with undead 'bloated' people, etc)