No, he came off as a moderator, which he is. Maybe let's get back to the subject as opposed to those posting in it. I think the correlation between choosing a female avatar in game and objectifying women is weak, just as is the correlation between violence in games and violent behaviour in life. In fact, if we are to discuss abhorrent in game behaviour as a sign of real life perversion and the willingness to dehumanise others, then perhaps someone ought to address the fact that we trade slaves (actually I avoid that), commit mass murder on a regular basis and smuggle weapons and narcotics. No one seems to take issues with those and yet a boy chooses to use a female avatar and suddenly he's a mysogynistic pervert. I think that is an absurd point of view and that it actually detracts from the fight against real objectification and dehumanisation of others.
Then why the need for the purse comment?
One of the posters said this:
Especially in 3rd person games I pick female avatars. It's not hard to understand, I prefer looking at women's (fem-alien's) bottoms, hence female avatars.
Note: I have nothing against anyone who makes alternative lifestyle choices,
1. He clearly, and categorically is objectifiying.
2. As a man this type of *thinking* really disgusts me - what kind of man would think this way? How would he like it if it was about his daughter, his wife, his sister or his mother? That most men can't show empathy is astounding to me. If he wouldn't then he's a hypocrite, if he would then he's a disgusting pig.
3. 'Alternative Lifestyle Choices'. What kind of pseudo politically correct language is that? We all know what he's saying, even if he's pretending to show understanding; he's saying that LGBT people make 'choices' to be LGBT - when science and rational thought proves otherwise.
You want to defend him? Then you tacitly agree with him.
That you've tried to word the issue in such a way as to appear to agree with it, yet don't understand or see it, clearly demonstrates the former as well.
