@LesserAngel @Evanrocknuma ME 2 also had several other emotions there "for the sake of them". In your view, Angel, is sexuality/beauty (sexual attraction) being there "for the sake of it" inferior?
@Cypress131 We have some agreement. Your reasoning is valid. What's left to decide is the power threshold from which on one would speak of oppression, and the factors that contribute to it. (One could, for example, argue that having 700 followers plus working for a prominent developer plus relying on a powerful claim/fear/issue [namely sexism] crosses the threshold of power. I'm not doing that here.)
- As for this case and intent: he probably could have known what would happen, probably seen the risk. Considering your quotation, he may not have actually seen and desired this outcome. (If he feels deeply about what he perceives to be wrong, arguably he should have desired a large effect, though.)
-- At any rate, I won't hold one statement sweepingly against him. It could have been the heat of some moment, or whatever. Oversights happen. This hardly sufficiently reflects who he is.
Women, when it comes to beauty and sexiness (on average) hold more power over men. They profit from men's sex drive. When they can profit they tend to not seek to suppress (the realization/effect of) men's sex drive. Yet feminists seek to suppress men's sex drive when women don't profit. This discrepancy generally is immoral: it objectifies men, allowing them to be men only when feminists can exploit their being men.
@Heshertonfist @l777l That brings me to the question: what's worse, employing beauty (e. g. a model) to advertise a product that contains no such beauty (e. g. no model), or putting beauty into the product?
@Goddammitj The thing with stereotypes is that they tend to be accurate. At the very least they generally capture a considerable portion and thus a sub-set. Would it be sexist to create a character that falls under (accurate) stereotypes?
l777l's comments