avatar

Archive for the ‘Sex & Sexuality’ Category

I Heart Xclusion

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

Valentine’s Day is a day that, like all good cynics, I take issue with for all the usual reasons:

  1. Why should we only pay special attention to our significant others on a certain day?
  2. The holiday is just part of a consumerist scheme to support the “industrial complex”

Blah blah blah.  Whatever.  It’s all true, of course, but I wasn’t going to post anything about it until I came across this promotional offer from XBox Live.  It offers some free Microsoft Points if only you’ll watch one of the offered movies with your loved one on Valentine’s Day.  Sounds like a good deal, except for the wording of the advertisement.

iheartxbox

It annoyed me right away on a subliminal level, although it took me a bit of time to rationalize why exactly I took issue with it.  At first it was the dichotomy between those who have “someones” and those who do not.  I must either a sentimental sap who likes frilly pink hearts simply for having a girlfriend, or I’m some chest-pounding “manly-man” type who “don’t need no stinkin’ girlfriend! Guys rule!”  Is that it?

I couldn’t possibly be a guy who is between relationships, or a guy who for the sake of career, livelihood, or personal choice, just doesn’t have a significant other?  I couldn’t be a girl who is single for any of the same reasons?  Or a girl who doesn’t like frilly pink hearts?  I couldn’t be a gay man or woman in a relationship where such cave-painted gender roles aren’t so clearly established?  I couldn’t be a person of any gender and sexual orientation who appreciates a romance movie, even watched in solitude?  Maybe I’m some basement-dweller with the social skills of an empty pizza box and movies are my escape from harsh reality, in which case, thanks for reminding me of that.

Spread This Meme: Not-See

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

Not-See

noun.
a person able to ignore or deny certain realities, such as racism, sexism, classism, sexualism, ableism, or religious prejudice by virtue of the privilege associated with membership within a dominant group.

Origin: Unknown Date, Americanism

Word Origin & History
A play on words, the pronunciation of “Not-See” invokes the word “Nazi”. The crimes of the former are passive instead of active – those who would turn a blind eye to injustice rather than perpetrating it themselves. The ideologies of both, however, are predicated upon a certain egocentrism, social privilege, and stark self-versus-other mentality.

Not-Sees are people who witness racism or other prejudices and either are unaware of it, or even when made aware of it, deny it – even going to great lengths to explain it away or dismiss the grievances of those affected by that prejudice. Not-Sees love to use the term “race-card”.

Look into any discussion in an online forum about, say, whitewashing – or racebendingas it pertains to the upcoming Last Airbender film:

Here’s a clue – people invest millions of dollars into films because they want to make more millions of dollars, not because they want to help insecure people feel better about themselves. If some of the title roles are played by “white” actors, it’s not racism, it’s marketing.1

Or blackface in The Secret of Kells:

You’re all babies, this is an animated movie, not KKK propaganda. Get over yourselves, either watch it or don’t, but don’t pollute a thread with this bullshit. Racism is bad ra ra we all get it move along please.2

And the PSP game Loco Roco:

…I’ve been playing the demo of this game for sometime now, and these thoughts never crossed my mind, and you know what, I’m sure the kids who will play this game will never see it as well. I’m 23 years old, and after you pointing out all this bollocks I still don’t see it, I see it as a fun, creative game…3

Inclusion Without Color in the Dragon Age

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Back in February, in the article Black, White, and Jade: Race in Video Games, and earlier in Ethnic Depictions in Video Games, I talked about a need for video games to become more inclusive with their characters, to depict the same diversity we see in the real world in these imaginary ones. Plainly, this translates to having more non-white characters in video games, particularly as the main characters.  And furthermore to have those characters exist outside of stereotypes.  With the exception of games built from pre-existing properties featuring characters of color – for example, Shadowman – there are very few games with non-white human protagonists.

In Black, White, and Jade, I mention that it is not merely about skin color or other physical features, but also about culture, and about experience. Regarding so-called “black” characters, I said:

What would be required for a character to be considered “black”? Appearance could be one qualifier … dubious due to … the extreme diversity to be found within such a vague and subjective category.

The “black experience” could be another qualifier, as in a situation where a character is forced to face certain indignities [as a result of her ethnicity].

Personal Boundaries

Sunday, July 15th, 2007

Personal boundaries, or rather, how much they can vary between cultures and individuals, are quite interesting. In my local culture it seems that people are extremely hesitant to even get too close, let alone touch other people, unless it has already been established that such proximity is permissible. This is of course in no way universal, as there are plenty of “touchy-feely” people who were born and raised in this area, but whose personal boundaries are more lax for any number of reasons, like their families having broader comfort zones. But it can create a strange, awkward, uncomfortable, or misinterpretable situation when two people with wildly different boundaries encounter one another.

Here I am talking about something specific – not the obvious situation where say, some guy stands with his face two inches from your face, talking to you with foul bologna breath. I am talking about a situation where for one person the crossing of the boundaries means something, such as being interpreted as flirting or sexual advance, but for the “crosser” means absolutely nothing, and is just a part of how they interact with others. And of course it is only exacerbated by a pre-existent sexual attraction. This kind of situation screams with the potential for disaster if said sexual attraction is one-sided, and so it leaves one wondering how to proceed in interactions with people who have such different boundaries.

While I mostly recognize the boundaries established by my local culture – and by this new (or resurgent) social climate of sexual deviance and sensitivity to sexual harassment – I find them to be quite restrictive. What this means is that I think I am innately a tactile person, but I am inhibited from expressing myself in that way by externally imposed and internally reinforced anxieties. I have yet to grasp how to strike a balance between respecting the more mandatory social boundaries – enforced by the greater society and my own personal ethics – and when to allow flexibility, as in those situations where I might want to cross the usual boundaries. And so I default to the position of never crossing unless permission is given more or less explicitly, but I feel that it inhibits my ability to communicate with others, making me appear more reserved, aloof, or even cold than I wish to be.

CG Breasts

Saturday, October 16th, 2004

A friend and I were talking about the “validity” of CG “porn”. By that I mean the use of computer graphics to depict sexually suggestive or even explicit imagery. In all of his righteous indignation, he swore it off as stupid, as ridiculous, and as something for people “who can’t get real girls”. Could not the same argument be made against pornography in general? Oh, why watch two other people have sex, when you can do it on your own? Well, gee…perhaps because not everyone has carte blanche access to sex at all times of the day? Maybe they’re watching it to masturbate? I don’t even have to argue this point, I’m sure, since I think as a society we’ve past the point where pornography is taboo, and most people – at least the honest ones – can acknowledge the practicality of self-satisfaction.

Anyway, so the crux of my argument was that whether it be a real or CG depiction of sexual material, the purpose is the same. It is not the actual physical breast that turns a person on, because what is it really, other than a fat-filled sack of flesh intended to nurture offspring? Is it really the fleshy folds of a woman’s labia that turns a guy on? I would say no. Sexual desire and the fulfillment of that desire occurs on an abstract and deeply internal level. There is no rationalization behind it. It’s not as if you look at pornography and think “My, I just love the way that penis is parting those labia. And the angle of insertion? Magnificent!” That’s ridiculous. It’s more subconscious than that.