NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

surf. do it.
do it bro.
do itttttt

 

So let me summerize this : feminists have the right to criticize what they consider over-sexualized female characters, and at the same time show their tits and pussies at every public manifestation ? Sounds neat.

 

Do what?

 

buy ps4

 

The hard work on resolving this issue has already been done

http://www.p4rgaming.com/scientists-create-video-game-character-that-will-offend-absolutely-nobody/

 

She was drunk/passed out.

 

OMG he has legs!

 

So? People do stupid shit when they are drunk all the time, not just infront of the camera.

 

It's ok to do stupid shit when you're drunk.

 

Taylor is a fucking stupid name; I'm offended

 

Taylor is a white name, that's racist!

 

:darckobra:


inb4 ps4 is used by al qaeda executions

 

It is a very universal statement that I suspect will still be true long after certain movements or systems like the economical or governmental ones we take for granted will possibly be long gone. The moment it isn’t true anymore would bring rather dire consequences for the human race.
http://news.discovery.com/history/art-history/early-wall-art-europe-120514.htm
http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/th...s-show-aspects-of-sex-beyond-the-reproductive

As some of those articles state, it can even be used to sell entirely unrelated and generally "unsexual" things from food like corn flakes, various body products to cars.

Do they happen to very often be outright ugly or unpleasant to look at?

About as “facile” as what you are complaining about three sentences in, but I guess also potentially true. I didn't say it's the only thing.

Are the best examples you can think of really two products that are marketed mainly towards children? And even there, say in Disney movies or cartoons you will rarely see ugly characters or ones that are unpleasant to look at.

It wasn’t exactly free from sexual content, but I’m happy you brought it up because more and more premium series watched by a lot of people considering themselves to be the more “sophisticated” audience employ said technique and show actual sex scenes you’d have found only in soft-core pornography freely a few decades ago: http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/cover-story-brave-nude-world-pay-tv-pushing-boundaries-1200703785/
Game of Thrones, Rome, Entourage, Spartacus, Homeland, Banshee, The Borgias, Shameless, Californication, Dexter, The Tudors, Mad Men, Southland, Hell on Wheels, American Horror Story, Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, Justified, The Americans, The Bridge, House of Cards etc.

Going back to games, regarding Blizzards audience in WoW a lot of female players actually loudly complained about not having classically “attractive” humanly looking avatar options on the Horde side upon release which eventually lead to the introduction of the Blood Elves as a faction and they seem rather popular: http://i.imgur.com/N0tWJqx.png

In MOBA games, from the amount of women that actually do play it the “sexy” characters are apparently also the most popular: http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=31555980#31555980

It’s funny because the closest official body agreeing with RPS is the Iranian government: http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/28/league-of-legends-female-characters-banned-in-iranian-tournament/

 

What's really interesting is that why does boobage in games sell even though high quality, fully explicit porn is so easily available?

 

It is the allure...the promise of things to come which is more attractive.

 

Can't say I sympathize with anyone who would marry a fat neckbeard.

 

How intolerant. The weight-challenged and the chin-furry need love, too.

 

Truly a dystopian future.

 

It makes it even more weird that it's so difficult for them to figure out that they shouldn't be drinking. Man isn't a learning animal.

Are you sure they are the same persons? I met some feminists that not only like those characters but also are cosplaying them. Then I saw comments on RPS accusing the article writers of "slut-shaming" and "puritanism".

 

Well I'm talking about this new breed of feminists that objectify their bodies worse than any "sexist pig" would have imagined.

 

R-R-R-RRRRAAAAPPPPPPEEEEE

 

I think they are the ones that complain about white knights being puritans and slut-shamers.

 

Good flavor will sell food better than sex. The reason certain things may not sell is not because the don't have sexual advertising. Sex is just one of many things that sell, so again, no reason to put a fine point on it unless you're trying to rationalize needing buxom babes and hunky studs in things where they make no sense appearing.

Marketers can do what they want. Maybe what they are marketing will sell, maybe it won't. I doubt sex is the lynch-pin in many cases. So again, why make a point of it?

They often happen to be average or acquired tastes. I don't think Sam Jackson is a heart throb, yet people will see something just because he is in it. Were people going to see Star Wars or Jaws in droves to gawk at Mark Hamil and Roy Scheider? Did people flock to Avatar because of half naked blue cat people and a pleasant looking (no homo) but unknown lead, or because James Cameron and ground-breaking production assets? Would they have skipped it if Paul Giamatti was the lead ? (sorry, Paul )

That's the point. A lot of things sell, but they don't have their own cliche. They're not treated as something special that needs to be highlighted in contrast to other things.

That's an example of when sexuality can have the exact opposite effect.

Show me evidence that attractive characters are what sells Disney films. Show me evidence that people wouldn't go see a Disney film if characters were unpleasant to look at. Hunchback of Notre Dame? Disney was already on a slight decline by then. Still raked in 300 million. "Cartoon animals sell" is about as useful a statement as "sex sells."

It wasn't exactly watched for its sexual content either, where over the course of 5 seasons with 12-13 one hour episodes each, sex occurred infrequently and in short duration. I certainly didn't care about that aspect of the show, and I'm not an anomaly. But let's look at more popular shows later.

And more and more premium series are watched by this kind of audience because the storytelling and production values in television have improved leaps and bounds from where it was 20 years ago. If the producers think showing sex acts will get their numbers a little higher or make the story more involving then that is a decision they are free to make. But the sex is not selling shows where sex is not a major theme.

Of those, I regularly watch Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Justified. Not only in the most sensual of these, Mad Men, is the sexual content rather tame, it is relevant to the entire thematic tapestry. Sex isn't selling Mad Men anymore than fashion and 60s nostalgia are. And if you think Walking Dead, which doesn't show any nudity and has a bunch of sweaty, gore caked, desperate people having little sex is being sold with sex, then I can't take anything you type about this subject seriously. Guns and dialogue probably sell Justified more than sex. Boardwalk Empire has sex, but are teenagers boys and girls wanting to see some dames and hunks flocking to it?

A few of those shows are pretty much just pulp or exploitation, lizard brain stuff. They sell because of that, but again a lot of things sell more for a lot of reasons. The Walking Dead has bigger ratings than most of those shows. Breaking Bad will be talked about long after most of those.

But are they complaining about there being ugly characters at all? Do they only ever select the prettiest characters. If so, they are part of the man-child moron audience who can't enjoy things that aren't constantly stimulating them in the easiest of ways, can't judge things beyond their superficial qualities. They'll get destroyed by my ugly ass Blanka and Zangief in SF. Fart jokes will sell to these people. I put these kind of people in the same group that can't enjoy anything that doesn't have a happy ending or explosions

The point is "normal" people do not need nor desire sexual content in everything. They can enjoy films with average looking actresses, read books that have not a jot of said content in them, play games with no attractive humans to speak of. Needing everyone to be attractive is not normal. It's immature. Like grow up already, life, which all fiction draws from in some way, is not all pornstars and firemen calendars. Velazquez painted all kinds of people, Dustin Hoffman was a major lead in many famous films, Twain didn't describe bust-lines in all his work.

"Sex sells" is people's rationale for being vapid and superficial. It comes off as "don't judge me, everyone else is doing it," because you call them out on the fact that maybe a female soldier in a thong is kind of stupid and lazy, and if you (not you specifically, dexter) like it that's okay, but don't try to justify it with some high minded reasoning or appeal to consensus.