The Sony censorship policy and what caused it (1 Viewer)

[LeoA]

Hopefully this post is okay. I edited it bit after reading DaveF's post above, that I didn't read until after I had typed my response to Morgan.

Leo - so you're dismissing the collective experience of millions of women gamers, simply because you, in your admittedly little experience, didn't see what they went through?

No, just preferring to form my own thoughts. At the end of the day, all I have control over is myself. So I'm happy here since I know I don't have significant problems in this area.

The closest to being a sexist pig that you'll ever get out of me, is teasing someone about women drivers and the like. And only with someone that knows me and knows I'm speaking in jest, rather than being serious.

I did feel a slight bit of disappointment that some outfits were removed from the latest Fatal Frame game by Nintendo of America, but I don't buy that it automatically makes me sexist that I may have someday did a 2nd playthrough of that game with a sexy looking outfit on my character.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Leo - just to clarify, I'm not calling YOU sexist. In my experience, people (myself included) have a hard time accepting that their experience in the world is really way more limited than they think and that the best way to learn about social issues is to listen to other people about their experiences. Yes, the best thing we can all do is try to be good people on our own, but we also should be aware of what other people are doing and take that into consideration. Does this mean that you or I, as men, need to feel guilty because of what other men do? Absolutely not. Does it mean we can't enjoy our hobbies and interests in the specific way that we do, just because someone else might not like it? Again, absolutely not. But it does mean that we should be able to see how the bigger issues of misogyny and sexism, particularly/specifically in gaming the last few years, is something that game companies are becoming way more sensitive to. So while it may be unfortunate to some people that Sony won't allow certain content on their platform, it's way more understandable when taken in the broader social context.

Bryan - why do you keep harping on the idea that Mortal Kombat has man-on-woman violence? That's a gross misrepresentation of the game. And ironically, a lot of MK fans are criticizing MK11 for having the women be NOT SEXY ENOUGH and having outfits that cover too much skin. Yes, the entire series is extremely violent, but MK11 in particular is actually the least sexy of the franchise. Again, if you're complaining that Sony allows VIOLENCE but doesn't allow SEX then that's an entirely different discussion, one which we're not currently having.

The MK example also doesn't fit as a fair comparison because MK allows (as I've said before) man/woman/monster/God-on-man/woman/monster/God violence and not JUST man-on-woman violence. The games that Sony doesn't want on it's platform all feature EXCLUSIVELY women being treated as sexual objects. None of those games has an equal number of male and female characters that you're able to ogle and poke and "massage." You're trying to frame Mortal Kombat as a "___ against women" game when that's not what it is, simply because "___ against women" is the fitting descriptor of the games that Sony has issues with.

And again, on top of all of this, I still don't see why Sony shouldn't be able to limit what content gets put on its platform. Nobody has even bothered to really confront that issue.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Bryan - why do you keep harping on the idea that Mortal Kombat has man-on-woman violence? That's a gross misrepresentation of the game. And ironically, a lot of MK fans are criticizing MK11 for having the women be NOT SEXY ENOUGH and having outfits that cover too much skin. Yes, the entire series is extremely violent, but MK11 in particular is actually the least sexy of the franchise. Again, if you're complaining that Sony allows VIOLENCE but doesn't allow SEX then that's an entirely different discussion, one which we're not currently having.

I can't.. just.. what... wow. Morgan, you are off your rocker. That is exactly what we're discussing here. The only one bringing in strawman discussion topics that no one else is having is YOU.

Sorry, but I look at that list of "censored" games and I see a bunch of games that are essentially designed solely to arouse men with half-naked anime girls, plus Devil May Cry 5.

Sorry? So it's okay to censor all those games just because you don't care about the content and find it unethical in your view? Basically what you're saying here is since I'm not objecting to what's been censored it's not censorship?

And what the hell with all the misogyny and sexism being brought up? That doesn't have anything to do with gaming. If I play a game that has naked anime boobies in it guess what? That doesn't make me a sexist or misogynist any more than shooting up an entire town in GTA makes me a mass murderer. Video games are NOT REAL. There is ZERO connection between games and real life behavior. To claim otherwise is entirely inane, and pretty much the point we're making here on how stupid Sony's policy is.

Sony connecting their policy to the MeToo movement is laughable because of the fact that Video games are not real life. Also we're pointing out the hypocrisy of their 'for the children' reasoning and your 'to maintain their image' arguments as totally BS because if that REALLY was the reason, then they wouldn't be allowing a TON of stuff that they already do allow.

And I really don't understand why you keep saying no one has answered your Wal Mart argument, because it's been repeatedly answered. Here, let me answer it again for you:

Is Wal-Mart not carrying Adult Products censorship? NO
Is a company releasing a toned down version so Wal-Mart carries it while other outlets carry the uncut version censorship? YES
Is a company deciding to only release a toned down version so it will sell better in the marketplace censorship? NO
Is an artist making an explicit song and a radio station playing the bleeped out version of it censorship? YES
Is a radio station refusing to play explicit songs censorship? NO
Can only government entities censor things? NO
Can I censor something? YES
Does censorship have ANYTHING to do with culture, morals, opinions, image, ect? NO
Is censorship purely obstructing or altering the original content from it's intended form regardless of content or context? YES

I seriously don't know how much more clear it could be made for you.

The MK example also doesn't fit as a fair comparison because MK allows (as I've said before) man/woman/monster/God-on-man/woman/monster/God violence and not JUST man-on-woman violence. The games that Sony doesn't want on it's platform all feature EXCLUSIVELY women being treated as sexual objects. None of those games has an equal number of male and female characters that you're able to ogle and poke and "massage." You're trying to frame Mortal Kombat as a "___ against women" game when that's not what it is, simply because "___ against women" is the fitting descriptor of the games that Sony has issues with.

Your statement here is really head scratching.. Soooo MK men on women violence is ok because it also features all manner of other violence? It doesn't count? Whaaaa?

So going by your logic, a current game you are ok with Sony policy affecting because it only features EXCLUSIVELY women being treated as sexual objects; if we took the exact same game and added in bits where male figures are also being treated as sexual objects then all of a sudden it's ok now? The women parts haven't been changed but they don't exist now because it also features male parts?? My head is going to implode.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Jeff - Sony's policy is strictly dealing with sexual content. Not violent content, not mistreatment-of-people content, not torture content, ONLY sexual content. The reason the MK example doesn't apply is because...it's not sexual content. The man-on-woman violence example is unfair because the way it was described by Bryan makes it sound like the game is ONLY men hurting women, which is false. Conversely, ALL of the games that Sony rejected involve content that is EXCLUSIVELY about objectifying women, not men. If those games added the ability to objectify men, I honestly think that would be a huge improvement. But it says something that they don't have that content in the first place.

I appreciate the direct answers to my Walmart example. You agree that Walmart is not censoring content by refusing to allow it in their store, but the company who releases modified content in a Walmart store is guilty of censorship. By that logic, Sony is not censoring anything, but rather the developers are censoring their own content to meet Sony's standards. SONY did not alter the content of the games. SONY did not force developers to alter box art in a specific way (as in, Sony literally says "get rid of the bikini girl"). THE PUBLISHER/DEVELOPER made those decisions based on Sony rejecting their games. There may be a fine line in there between where Sony's refusal to allow the content is informing the developer's decision on what they change, but if we can say the Walmart isn't "censoring" the PG-13 versions of R-rated movies that get released in it's stores then we can say the same for Sony.

Misogyny and sexism has a LOT to do with gaming. Releasing games that objectify women, both in the sense that they're made to present women in a particular manner for a solely straight male audience AND the fact that they minimize the value of women beyond their appearance or utility to the male gamer, plays into this issue. As I said before, as an adult with free time and money you are free to enjoy whatever you want and I really don't care. But it's silly to pretend that this isn't something that is a problem for society or that it's completely disconnected from gaming. Did nobody pay attention to what happened with GamerGate? Does nobody know what incels are?

What I think is really getting lost here is that Sony instituted this policy for one main concern: streaming games has gotten really big. Sony didn't want someone to stream a game natively on the PS4 that included explicit sexual content of a young anime girl and then have it get reported as pornography on twitch or in the media then have it come back to someone saying, "Why does Sony allow this content?" Steam has had a tough time figuring what content to allow or not allow when it comes to this sort of stuff, too, so this isn't a thing that's unique to Sony. And the connection to MeToo wasn't even something Sony publicly stated, it was an inference from some anonymous person based on what they interpret it to be about.

 

[Bryan^H]

Because like I said before --it is in the game-- whether or not it plays a major role to the story is irrelevant, the content is in there, and is not censored.
Most of those Japanese games that were censored have sexy content that is a gross misrepresentation of the game itself. but it is still censored, or banned.

 

[Bryan^H]

So Morgan let me ask you something and you don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Which of these would be more damaging, for a young male (as Sony puts it) to witness in your opinion:
This:


or This:

 

[MaxMorrow]

But is a choice between the cover of a T-rated game or the content of an M-rated game a fair comparison?

 

[Bryan^H]

But is a choice between the cover of a T-rated game or the content of an M-rated game a fair comparison?

I changed it with an "M" rated game Dead or alive Scarlett. The " softening gel" feature is what has been censored from Sony.

 

[Bryan^H]

I can't.. just.. what... wow. Morgan, you are off your rocker. That is exactly what we're discussing here. The only one bringing in strawman discussion topics that no one else is having is YOU.




Does censorship have ANYTHING to do with culture, morals, opinions, image, ect? NO
Is censorship purely obstructing or altering the original content from it's intended form regardless of content or context? YES

Yes, and Yes.

 

[Bryan^H]

SONY did not alter the content of the games. SONY did not force developers to alter box art in a specific way (as in, Sony literally says "get rid of the bikini girl"). THE PUBLISHER/DEVELOPER made those decisions based on Sony rejecting their games.

Ugh!

I asked you a question in an earlier post. Please, please disregard that question. I no longer want your opinion...on anything.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Jeff - Sony's policy is strictly dealing with sexual content. Not violent content, not mistreatment-of-people content, not torture content, ONLY sexual content.

Correct, and that's kind of the point. We're calling Sony out on how ridiculous their 'Policy' is because of the reasons they stated it's in place it absolutely should include violent content. And also that the content they aren't allowing isn't remotely damaging to children in the first place. Look at what they aren't allowing. Bikinis? Who exactly are they protecting there? It's not like they allowed explicit pornography on the system before this. There wasn't explicit content to disallow in the first place. Like I pointed out in a previous post, their 'censored' image looks more like a naked woman than the uncensored ones.

The reason the MK example doesn't apply is because...it's not sexual content. The man-on-woman violence example is unfair because the way it was described by Bryan makes it sound like the game is ONLY men hurting women, which is false. Conversely, ALL of the games that Sony rejected involve content that is EXCLUSIVELY about objectifying women, not men. If those games added the ability to objectify men, I honestly think that would be a huge improvement.

The MK example applies because of what I stated above. And just because any game is not only about one thing, that doesn't mean that one thing should be treated differently.

But it says something that they don't have that content in the first place.

What exactly does it say? That men typically are more visual than women and enjoy women's beauty and picturing them in various states of undress more than vice versa? This is nothing new and has been true since the dawn of time. Any form of media an entertainment reflects this. Video games are just one iteration of this. You ever hear the term 'sex sells'? This is why it exists. To argue against this is just straight arguing against human nature.

I appreciate the direct answers to my Walmart example. You agree that Walmart is not censoring content by refusing to allow it in their store, but the company who releases modified content in a Walmart store is guilty of censorship. By that logic, Sony is not censoring anything, but rather the developers are censoring their own content to meet Sony's standards. SONY did not alter the content of the games. SONY did not force developers to alter box art in a specific way (as in, Sony literally says "get rid of the bikini girl"). THE PUBLISHER/DEVELOPER made those decisions based on Sony rejecting their games. There may be a fine line in there between where Sony's refusal to allow the content is informing the developer's decision on what they change, but if we can say the Walmart isn't "censoring" the PG-13 versions of R-rated movies that get released in it's stores then we can say the same for Sony.

Yep we agree at least here. Technically Sony isn't censoring these titles, but they do have actual influence over it. It's not like the company would be covering up the bikinis if Sony wasn't imposing it on them, but they have to make a choice, do we censor our product, or do we lose out on potential sales.

Misogyny and sexism has a LOT to do with gaming. Releasing games that objectify women, both in the sense that they're made to present women in a particular manner for a solely straight male audience AND the fact that they minimize the value of women beyond their appearance or utility to the male gamer, plays into this issue. As I said before, as an adult with free time and money you are free to enjoy whatever you want and I really don't care. But it's silly to pretend that this isn't something that is a problem for society or that it's completely disconnected from gaming. Did nobody pay attention to what happened with GamerGate? Does nobody know what incels are?

Again, related to what I said above, this is a social issue and has zero to do with actual gaming. Games merely reflect society just like everything else that is produced and marketing. Games are not the cause or instigators of any type of objectifying or mysoginy. Remove the games from the equation and absolutely nothing changes. All those stigmas will still exist in society. And no I have absolutely no idea what incels are. And I vaguely recall the term GamerGate but couldn't tell you a thing about it.

What I think is really getting lost here is that Sony instituted this policy for one main concern: streaming games has gotten really big. Sony didn't want someone to stream a game natively on the PS4 that included explicit sexual content of a young anime girl and then have it get reported as pornography on twitch or in the media then have it come back to someone saying, "Why does Sony allow this content?" Steam has had a tough time figuring what content to allow or not allow when it comes to this sort of stuff, too, so this isn't a thing that's unique to Sony. And the connection to MeToo wasn't even something Sony publicly stated, it was an inference from some anonymous person based on what they interpret it to be about.

The whole point is the 'Policy' is just stupid. They never had one before, so why have one now? Their stated reasons for having one are easily proven false. Nintendo, who has a much much more family friendly 'Image' to keep, is allowing content that Sony is now blocking. There's literally no point for the 'Policy' other than a knee jerk reaction to current political climate? That's why the term 'Draconian' is being applied.

But is a choice between the cover of a T-rated game or the content of an M-rated game a fair comparison?

The cover is just an example. There is plenty of actual content that reflects what's on the cover. I'm guessing it was just easier to post a pic of the cover that he already had. The point remains the same.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I don't think Sony's decision to limit what kind of content they allow on their platform has to do with how things harm male minds. I think they didn't want the potential public image of being a company whose extremely popular product and platform are home to games that allow the objectification of underage girls (even though they're cartoons).

Again with the Mortal Kombat video. I'm sure that there's content in some of the games Sony dislikes that isn't only sexual, but...I mean...I'm unaware of it. DoA Xtreme Beach Volleyball is technically a "sports" game, I guess, but all of the modes, models, game settings, etc. are designed to emphasize the idea that the virtual women in the game are sexual objects. Sure, fine, Sony has no problem with 99.9% of the game's content being available on their platform. But there is a line that some small part of the game crosses that Sony didn't like. As I said before, I think Sony is wrong for not providing publishers/developers with a set of written guidelines, but I have no problem with them saying that they don't want certain things on their platform. And if we were talking about other situations (like Walmart with pornography), I seem to find a certain level of agreement.

Does nobody here remember the firestorm around Steam when a game was advertised as coming soon but never actually got released? An unreleased game spawned international outrage. Putting the specific content of that game aside, it sends a message to platform holders that they should probably be a little more careful about the content on their platforms unless they want to deal with similar responses. Sony doesn't want that attention, Microsoft and Nintendo seem to not care as much. And so it goes. No big deal.

I just want to come back to the misogyny/sexism point because I think the idea I was trying to present was missed (whether from my end or anyone else's, I don't know). Right now, our culture is changing in a lot of ways. This is neither good nor bad, it's just true. Part of that is a greater acceptance of the fact that certain groups of people (whether by orientation, gender, race, religion, income, etc.) have certain negative experiences that are taken for granted by other groups of people. With the internet and the spreading of information, more people are becoming more aware of those experiences and what those mean to those people. And along with that, there have been calls for change. This is a big part of how MeToo grew. (None of this should be earth-shattering news to anyone and I'm not trying to frame this as one group or another being victims or heroes or the falsely-accused or anything like that.)

Because of the broader awareness of these things, there are also groups of people who essentially refuse to acknowledge that those problems are real. Sometimes it manifests as "I've never seen it so I don't believe it." Other times, it's "I saw someone lie about being a victim once, so now I never believe any victims." And there's also "I'm a good person who doesn't do that, so I think it's unfair to get lumped in with everyone who is similar to me." But in the end, these are all excuses to minimize the negative experiences of others. And as a result, any amount of progress in the direction of either acknowledging or helping the people who are actually on the receiving end of those negative experiences is met with immense pushback. Part of this is that people at the top of the food chain feel like any amount of equal representation or parity with other groups means that they're losing some of their status (which isn't really true) so they try to cling on to what they have.

This leads to tension and anger and even louder calls to action from both sides. When the focal point of this action is part of our media, there are boycotts and protests and calls to pull ads and things like that. In general...these things don't really work. Boycotts rarely result in reduced sales and protests don't usually get an acceptable response. But companies are still terrified of the negative PR.

That's why Sony decided to limit the content that gets allowed on the PS4. Which we all already know.

But here's the thing. The only way that someone could see a move like this as being sensible, reasonable, or acceptable is if they agree that the problems I mentioned a few paragraphs back are even real. Let's say that Sony was instead banning a game about committing mass-murders. Let's say its a game called, I don't know, Mass Shooter Simulator. We can debate the ethics of a game like that even existing, but we would probably all agree that it's not necessarily a good thing, that it glorifies something that should not be glorified, and we wouldn't want to buy it for ourselves or our families. We might still agree that it's okay for that game to exist in the interest of free speech and that it may have something interesting to say about the culture of violence that exists in the world, but we still would be very understanding of Sony not wanting it on their platform. Because that's basically what Steam did when they encountered this exact problem a year or so ago.

Why didn't HTF have a thread about that game? Why weren't people here upset about the infringing of free speech by the biggest PC game distribution platform? And conversely, why are people now SO UPSET about a handful of Japanese anime games limiting how much skin they can show on teenage cartoon girls on JUST the PS4 in America?

It comes down to whether or not you think the underlying issue that was used to justify the ban or limits was reasonable in the first place. If you think mass shootings are awful and shouldn't be celebrated, then you might not get too upset about Steam banning Active Shooter. If you think objectifying women and young girls is bad and shouldn't be celebrated, then you might not get too upset about Sony limiting a couple items from a beach volleyball game.

So that's why I asked if people here even think misogyny and sexism in gaming are real issues to begin with. If you think they are real problems that reflect on the hobby as a whole, then you'll probably understand why Sony took a stance in favor of progress on the issue.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Jeff - I don't think Sony's policy was designed because "sexuality is damaging to children." So the part of that argument that would include violence is immediately flawed, since...that wasn't the motivator for the policy.

The idea that men are more visual and appreciating of beauty than women is...100% false. Your comment that this goes back to the dawn of time is...100% false. I know PLENTY of women who enjoy looking at attractive men. The only reason we don't have videogames focused on that concept (while having a ton that show off women) is because there isn't much of a female gamer presence that wants sexual content. Why? Because our culture says that games are only for nerdy guys who can't get women, rather than for women who have realistic libidos.

I am sort of in between on the influence of games on society and vice versa. I think art and life imitate each other. Just a simple superficial example: I see a TON of teenage kids wearing Fortnite sweatshirts and using gaming lingo in their regular lives. I fully believe that people pick up social cues from the media they consume that informs how they interact with the world. Now, does that mean playing violent games makes people violent? No, but that's not entirely the point. We're not looking at whether a teenager playing DoA Xtreme Beach Volleyball is going to start stalking the beaches for women to sexually assault, but it certainly has an impact on how that individual learns to view and treat other humans.

Just for reference, incels are "INvoluntary CELibates." They are misogynist men who blame society and women for their personal inability to get girlfriends and have sex. They have a surprisingly big community on the internet and they promote pretty much anything that talks about how to become "more manly" or how to hurt women in myriad ways. GamerGate started out as a question of gaming journalism ethics, but almost immediately became an excuse for nerdy men on the internet to harass and doxx pretty much any woman in the world of gaming (development, publishing, competition, journalism, etc.) who said anything publicly about the idea of experiencing sexism. Both of these things exemplify what is wrong with male-dominated hobbies and why women are so reluctant to join them.

In terms of the extent of impact for Sony's policies, I'm not sure 'draconian' is the right word. They're not outright banning entire games or publishers. They aren't pressuring MS or Nintendo to match them. And they're not even implementing any of the standards in Japan at all.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Jeff - I don't think Sony's policy was designed because "sexuality is damaging to children." So the part of that argument that would include violence is immediately flawed, since...that wasn't the motivator for the policy.

Ok, now I see where the disconnect is. Your quote above is incorrect. Sony DID come out with their official explanation of 'it's to protect the kids'. That was their direct line. That's where all the eye rolling comes in. Because it quite obviously was NOT just to 'protect the kids', otherwise like we said it would extend far greater than covering up some skin.

So it becomes then quite obvious that they did in reality do it because of a knee jerk reaction to social stigmas. Which is completely understandable as well. But that also falls apart when you look at exactly what they are not allowing. Like you yourself said "Just covering up a bit more skin? What's the big deal?" Exactly! There is absolutely no point at all. Why even do it? If Nintendo isn't worried about losing 'face' due to releasing this content then there is absolutely no reason for Sony to be worried about it. Ultimately it just comes down to Sony imposing its will 'oppressing' them if you will, on certain developers for no good reason other than it simply can. And that's where the term 'Draconian' comes in.

This is all there is to it. What I wrote above. Nothing more, nothing less. All the social stuff misogynism, women's experiences, etc. etc. is all a very big issue. But it is a completely separate discussion from this. Confusing the two into being the same thing is the fallacy.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

So that's why I asked if people here even think misogyny and sexism in gaming are real issues to begin with. If you think they are real problems that reflect on the hobby as a whole, then you'll probably understand why Sony took a stance in favor of progress on the issue.

Ok, I can answer this very easily. No. I don't thing they are an issue in gaming. I think they are quite big issues in real life. I think mass shootings and the like are deplorable in real life. I have zero issues with them in games. When someone shoots up a school or concert I get pissed. That's extremely deplorable. If someone in power wanted to ban a game where you shoot up people I wouldn't be okay with it. It's stupid. Why? Because one is fact, one is fiction. The problem isn't the game. It's the people who can't separate fantasy from reality. If someone says they went on a murderous rampage because of a violent game, the problem lies with the person, not the game. Had the game not existed, that same person would have been influenced from something else and ended up on the same path.

So Sony wants to take a noble stance against 'issues'? Fine. But the problem is the way they did it is just exceedingly useless and stupid and does nothing other than make people upset.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Ahh, ok, I remember reading that they made a statement about the policy but for some reason only remembered them making it in a "we can confirm we have this policy" sort of way. Everything else reported prior to a few days ago was just second- or third-hand comments so I didn't remember the spokesperson saying it was "for the children." I agree that I find that answer to be kind of BS, even if it's their official line (until they clarify it and it changes). I honestly have an easier time believing the stuff I said earlier (that they want to avoid negative PR incidents, so they're getting ahead of the cultural curve) is the real motivation...and that's what the earlier anonymous comments suggested.

So for the people rolling their eyes at Sony for banning cleavage to "protect kids" but accepting extreme violence, I agree that it sounds stupid. For the people getting outraged that Sony banned cleavage at all, I stand by the idea that it's Sony's platform to limit media as they see fit, and the end result of it doesn't bother me because there are still plenty of outlets for their creative works and the changes made are voluntary (in the sense that, while it's a great business decision to be on PS4, it's not like anyone is forcing you to put your stuff on there in a "censored" state against your will, and that's kind of how freedom works).

As for the comments about mass-shooting games and such, I agree that the games should be allowed to exist and be sold by whoever makes them. But I think there's zero obligation for stores and platform holders to give those games a venue for sale.

(The question I had of "are misogyny/sexism problems in gaming" meant "are they problems in the community of gaming, are women treated differently, are women made to feel unwelcome, etc." Not "are games too sexist" only.)

 

[Jeff Cooper]

The idea that men are more visual and appreciating of beauty than women is...100% false. Your comment that this goes back to the dawn of time is...100% false. I know PLENTY of women who enjoy looking at attractive men.

Well, yeah if you take it to be very specific and all inclusive then it's 100% false. I was being general though. Of course there are always exceptions. But there's a reason going down the freeway you'll see billboards of scantily clad women at a 9/10 ratio vs beefcake men. There's a reason I can name probably 10 different racy men's magazines vs. 1, maybe 2 of sexy men. And it ain't just because I'm a guy. Newsflash: Men and Women are different. Both physically and mentally. Anyway, I digress...

Yeah it's Sony's platform and they are free to do whatever the hell they want to with it. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't scratch their heads when they do something particularly stupid. This isn't Walmart not allowing pornography. This is akin to Walmart banning the color green from being present in their store. I don't see how putting rays of light over bikini's in any way shape or form will help females to suddenly feel more comfortable in gaming.

And lastly, "are they problems in the community of gaming, are women treated differently, are women made to feel unwelcome, etc."?
I have no idea. Since i'm not a female I can't speak to it personally. I imagine based on what I've heard that there probably is a double standard there, but I haven't experienced it. I do know there are women out there who are perfectly happy being girl gamers. I dislike online games in general and think that they are just as toxic to men as probably women. If I want to experience the dregs of society, all I have to do is log onto GTA online or Call of Duty, etc.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The reason most of the racy content in the various forms of media appeals to men is because men traditionally have all the money to spend on that media and all of the power in those media to make those things happen. There's also a long cultural history of telling men to be more open about their manliness and sexuality while women should be more reserved.

In other words, sexism.

Mainstream women's magazines are full of hunky guys and articles about sex. It's the same thing, just packaged and sold differently. There's literally cultural jokes about Cosmo quizzes because of it.

 

[Edwin-S]

Wow, that MK game is fucking gross. i'll take the Gel one over that any time.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

The reason most of the racy content in the various forms of media appeals to men is because men traditionally have all the money to spend on that media and all of the power in those media to make those things happen. There's also a long cultural history of telling men to be more open about their manliness and sexuality while women should be more reserved.

In other words, sexism.

Mainstream women's magazines are full of hunky guys and articles about sex. It's the same thing, just packaged and sold differently. There's literally cultural jokes about Cosmo quizzes because of it.

Well i'll just say I disagree strongly with your first paragraph and leave it at that.

And I never said that women didn't enjoy sex as much or weren't as sexual as men. All I said was that men were more visual oriented than women. That's why the womens magazines are filled with articles about sex. Engaging the brain, not the eyes.