@IronStylus: I am very disappointed in you and the art team.

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Putzfrau

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekkal View Post
It is so easy to tell who is a college sophomore on these forums. I love it.

You're adorable mtrx. Keep learning. Once you hammer your nonsense out you're gonna be an OK person.
lol. made me smile


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mtrx005

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Putzfrau View Post
no, thats not a good answer. we're talking about league of legends. the sexualization of women in LEAGUE OF LEGENDS is not at ALL more prevalent than the sexualization of males.
No. We're talking about the sexualization of women in LoL as a symptom of the sexualization of women in our culture. It's not an aberration, it did not spring into being sui generis. It is a part of a social trend that has been well studied.

I would argue with you about whether sexualization of males is as prevalent as that of females in LoL or anywhere else, but it doesn't really matter.

I'm saying "women are sexualized in LoL and thats bad". You're saying "but men are sexualized in LoL too!". See how your statement doesn't contradict mine? If you want to make the claim that men are sexualized in LoL, and that's a part of a social trend towards sexualized males, and that it has negative consequences, go for it.

If you can actually support that contention, I'll agree with you. But it won't prove or disprove my point, will it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed Wise View Post
Oh, you mean like yours? Randomly compiled by a known feminist organization with a feminist agenda?
The American Psychological Association is a feminist organization?

I did not know that.

You're too funny, guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekkal View Post
It is so easy to tell who is a college sophomore on these forums. I love it.
Sorry to disappoint, but it's been about 10 years since that was the case.

*sadface*


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DoozleDorf

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Great conversation, and much of the last 4-5 pages in regards to my post. Here's the thing: my point was that this is a fantastical game, and in that media, the characters are, well, fantastical. Part of that means being 'perfect' forms. It is why Pantheon looks as he does, and even why Gragas does... he's the 'perfect' form of what he is. I was over the top in my exuberance of examples to emphasize the critical point here-- this is a fantasy game. Everything about it is supposed to deliver us to a rich, imaginary world with bigger-than-life personalities and in which anything is possible.

My wife is between a B and C cup. She has birthed and breastfed 3 beautiful kids, has the stretch marks and sagging to show it. To me, she is stunning, beautiful, and 'perfect'. Do I want to play her in my fantastical video game? No. And neither would anyone else, including her. But then, she's not fantasy... she's real.

I have a daughter and two sons. Do I impart upon them some notion of the objectification and sexualization of women? Of course not. I don't treat, or consider real women as sexual objects meant for my sexual desires. The point here is that just because I want 'perfect' forms in my fantastical video games, does not mean I reflect that in my behaviors, beliefs, interactions or attitudes when I get up from the computer and 'return to reality'. To even suggest one has anything to do with, or necessarily causes, the other is just plain ridiculous.

The other point I made was regarding Riot trying to conform to the interests of micro-minorities within their customer base. It just doesn't make any marketing sense. That's not to say that there isn't room to expand their market by including caricatures that appeal to some of those minorities though. However, it will be a small expansion if estimated based on the number of individuals that are vocal about this issue here on the forums as a percentage of the whole. So at the end of the day, it makes more sense (and makes more money) to satisfy the majority of their base.

As someone above said...this is a video game, not the real world. If you want to go trying to change human nature in a meaningful way, do so out there in reality. Just keep your hands off my beautiful bosoms here in the fantastical realm of Runeterra.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gespens

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed Wise View Post
Oh, you mean like yours? Randomly compiled by a known feminist organization with a feminist agenda?

Weird, I can't believe their findings supported feminism! Want me to link you to some studies showing how high fructose corn syrup is actually good for you, just like sugar is?

It's amazing what a, "study" can show with the right funding, isn't it? Especially compiling a bunch of studies and interpreting the data from the experiments where you set the parameters.

Keyword there: interpreting.
In all fairness, Sugar is actually good for you, but processed sugar has no form of nutritional value. If you chewed on a sugar cane, you'd be really well off.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Moby the White

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrx005 View Post
Yes, Moby. Experimental data correlates variables, then the results are parsed and analyzed, and theories of causation are created. That's how research works.


LOL

Beginning to doubt your claims to hold a psych degree, or at least its provenance.

The question of why pollution exists involves a complete dissection of the industrial revolution, but has no relevance to the question of whether and how pollution is harmful. The question of why sexual objectification of women exists involves a complete dissection of human history since the advent of agriculture, but is equally irrelevant to whether and how it is harmful.

Understand now?


The poster I responded to said essentially "why focus on league instead of addressing this problem in a larger context". That is a false dichotomy. It assumes that either you address this in league OR you address it in a larger context.

Understand now?
i have now taken your queen with a pawn...
theoretical causation is countered easily with other studies that say quite the opposite.
both are apa and arb approved so which is accurate and valid? both as long as the significant error is kept to a minimum does this make you or I right? No. It proves nothing.
make all the claims you want but you cant prove anything with these studies. you can say that based on these studies there is an expressed significant relation between these two variables but you cannot say one directly causes the other bud.

UNDERSTAND NOW?


your arguement that why is unimportant i disagree with in this context: If you refuse to discuss it with those that disagree with you such as the op has with me. I want to know why you feel she is overly-sexualized based on the arguments i've made to you. If you refuse to acknowledge there is a counter opinion then and will be stubborn and unwilling to stipulate to any ideas then WHY is a very good question. WHY you won't respond op I like WHY i could ask it a lot. Never stop asking WHY because you will never understand how things work unless you wonder WHY.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gespens

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrx005 View Post
No. We're talking about the sexualization of women in LoL as a symptom of the sexualization of women in our culture. It's not an aberration, it did not spring into being sui generis. It is a part of a social trend that has been well studied.

I would argue with you that sexualization of males is as prevalent as that of females in LoL or anywhere else, but it doesn't really matter.

I'm saying "women are sexualized in LoL and thats bad". You're saying "but men are sexualized in LoL too!". See how your statement doesn't contradict mine? If you want to make the claim that men are sexualized in LoL, and that's a part of a social trend towards sexualized males, and that it has negative consequences, go for it.

If you can actually support that contention, I'll agree with you. But it won't prove or disprove my point, will it?


The American Psychological Association is a feminist organization?

I did not know that.

You're too funny, guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s


Apply this to men and women


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reedonidas

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paige View Post
also how are there more sexualized male champs than there are female ones?
you can definitely count varus but what else do you even mean besides him??? perhaps because sexualization is subjective (and I don't think you know the difference between idealizing and sexualizing).. you're counting champs like tryndamere and udyr because they don't wear shirts?
I think most non-mythical creature male champions are designed to be handsome, if that was your question. All of them, even Ezreal and Taric are designed to appeal to a more selective female audience. Even if they don't wear shirts they're still obviously muscular - they have all the characteristics of a regular Disney Prince: wide shoulders, sharp jaw lines, symmetrical, strong faces and impressive physiques. The ones that don't are more.. effeminate but they're still, "attractive" like Twisted Fate, etc. Of course you can bring up the one champion that doesn't fit this but the gimmick champions are obviously gimmicks: Gragas, Teemo, etc.

mtrx29094209 just ignores that whole side of the argument claiming it somehow effects women more than it effects men while calling me stupid while citing a biased, compiled study with interpreted, inconclusive data. Cool. Must be nice to be a woman in an argument and just make rules up when you lose.

And then she tried to copy and paste an argument against pollution from Wikipedia, and I lost interest.

and lol@implying they're not a feminist organization.

Step 1: Set out on study to determine if a, "problem" that effects men and women equally has negative effects on just women

Step 2: discover exactly what you thought you would.

I bet in 250 years psychiatry/psychology will be treated the same as spiritual healers are now. It's interpretation you ****ing rube. Interpretation. Why don't you stop wasting your time Googling biased articles and learn what interpretation means. If I had 250,000 dollars right now I could fund a study that could show the exact same thing for men but I would know it isn't true.

But for some reason even someone who wants to lead me to believe she's a college educated woman who plays video games.... poorly also wants to pretend to be victimized by some undergrad with experience in graphic design who drew a promiscuous splash art.

Let me guess, you're not very attractive, are you? And that makes you feel bad. You know what's ironic about that? As a man, if you're not attractive you're expected to work. If you're self conscious about parts of your body, you're supposed to just.. find someone who loves you anyway, right?

Not me. I've got to stay in the gym, keep workout logs, eat protein and other things I'd rather not eat, sleep plenty - all for this dumb idea that I'm supposed to be an athlete if I want to have *** with the types of women I feel I deserve to have *** with. Is that over sexualization? Misogyny?

Nope, it's survival of the fittest. Natural selection, evolution - whatever. I understand that I must fit an ideal if I am to be adequate and capable of selecting the mates I want. I bet you could fund a study showing that some sort of phenomenons in wolves lead only certain wolves to procreate. But it isn't a problem, it's the nature of the beast. Literally. But nobody feels sorry for wolves who don't get to procreate, because they don't have feelings. But you're not a wolf, you're a human and procreation is your right. Right? So instead of trying to be an alpha female yourself you decide to whine about it - it would be an admirable mating strategy if you weren't a creature capable of more.

So you attack.. the idea of an idealized female form? That's completely asinine. Both sexes are idealized by one another. You have ideals, just like I do. Just like everyone does. Saying mine are wrong and yours are right is entirely arrogant. Calling me stupid and citing a random compilation of studies with interpreted data is stupid.

This is why feminism isn't a real thing. It's just made up arguments by females who opted out of the rat race every other logical human being finds themselves in at birth. I'm sorry you just can't let yourself go to be a snarky feminist and still have people find you attractive.

You can't have your cake and be attractive too.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bekkal

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrx005 View Post
Sorry to disappoint, but it's been about 10 years since that was the case.

*sadface*

Oh, well then that's actually really sad.

Keep learning, mtrx. Once you hammer your nonsense out, you'll be an OK person.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mtrx005

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moby the White View Post
i have now taken your queen with a pawn...
theoretical causation is countered easily with other studies that say quite the opposite.
both are apa and arb approved so which is accurate and valid? both as long as the significant error is kept to a minimum does this make you or I right? No. It proves nothing.
make all the claims you want but you cant prove anything with these studies. you can say that based on these studies there is an expressed significant relation between these two variables but you cannot say one directly causes the other bud.
And that would be a legitimate point if we were talking about a wide variety of studies that had different findings (as you assume), but we're not. We're talking about a wide variety of studies from impartial, well respected sources that all find the same thing. Where are all these studies with alternate theories of causation? Hmmm?

Your argument boils down to "well, uh, you can't really know anything". I could use the exact same logic to argue that man-made climate change isn't real, that evolution isn't real, and so on. Think for a minute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moby the White View Post
your arguement that why is unimportant i disagree with in this context: If you refuse to discuss it with those that disagree with you such as the op has with me. I want to know why you feel she is overly-sexualized based on the arguments i've made to you. If you refuse to acknowledge there is a counter opinion then and will be stubborn and unwilling to stipulate to any ideas then WHY is a very good question. WHY you won't respond op I like WHY i could ask it a lot. Never stop asking WHY because you will never understand how things work unless you wonder WHY.
Ok. Here is my extremely abbreviated answer to "why are women objectified?"

Following the advent of agriculture, land ownership became hugely important and patrilineal inheritance of property became the norm, leading to an emphasis on controlling the act of reproduction from a male perspective and a set of social customs that essentially treated women as property, what's conventionally known as patriarchy. Given women's status as objects socially, it's only natural that a set of corresponding attitudes would arise, of which this is only one facet.

Reasonable, or do we have to argue about that too?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Moby the White

Senior Member

11-16-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrx005 View Post
And that would be a legitimate point if we were talking about a wide variety of studies that had different findings (as you assume), but we're not. We're talking about a wide variety of studies from impartial, well respected sources that all find the same thing. Where are all these studies with alternate theories of causation? Hmmm?

Your argument boils down to "well, uh, you can't really know anything". I could use the exact same logic to argue that man-made climate change isn't real, that evolution isn't real, and so on. Think for a minute.
you stated it was a meta-study...
knight to E4 check