Alright, Tobold – you had to have known this post was baiting me. I really, really, don’t like specifically calling out certain bloggers for what they say – but Tobold couldn’t have missed the mark any further in his blog post today – “Virtual Gender and Sexuality.”
His blog post is stating that virtual worlds and games are asexual, and therefore we should completely disregard any blatant prejudice or offensive sexual content. I’m sorry, but that is complete and utter bullshit. Let me preface this by saying that I am not a feminist by name, but I do strongly believe in the equal treatment of all people – and think that virtual worlds are far more important than apparently Tobold and his hardcore gaming self feels.
Take a peek at the very definition of avatar.
An avatar is a computer user’s representation of himself/herself or alter ego, whether in the form of a three-dimensional model used in computer games, a two-dimensional icon (picture) used on Internet forums and other communities, or a text construct found on early systems such as MUDs. It is an “object” representing the embodiment of the user.
It’s a representation of self. It’s a representation of economy, of community, of interaction with others, of a world. You form relationships in game that have more than a pixel-to-pixel meaning. There are real humans behind the pixels. There is a reason why Blizzard renamed Maine Coon cats, because the word “coon” was considered racist by a lot of players (because they didn’t know that Maine Coon was the name of a real breed of cat). Is racism okay in virtual worlds too? How about harassment? Virtual worlds have giant real world implications – you have people marrying people they’ve met in world, you have political talks with speaking avatars, you have virtual affairs that ruin relationships, people are killed, you have concerts that generate real world cash, you have people stalking others in real world over games, and you see people dying for being addicted to a game and playing for weeks straight. Saying that virtual worlds and games do not have an effect on the real world is completely overlooking the potential and being totally ignorant about the larger picture. I find it interesting that Second Life users are so on key with this, yet MMO players are behind the times with this kind of thinking.
Media in general has an enormous effect on the real world. There’s a reason we don’t allow “the N word” on the radio stations. There’s a reason that society has been so affected by freakishly skinny and beautiful people on the television and in magazines. Games and virtual worlds are just another form of entertainment. And a form that is interactive, which means that the real world implications are magnified by SO MUCH MORE. Your digital representation of self is interacting with other representations of self. This is not an excuse to ignore offensive content – be it sexual, physical, orientation-related, gender-oriented, race, or religion. Games and virtual worlds are NOT a place where we can disregard treating people the way they deserve to be treated.
People have trademarked their guild name, held events in support of real world holidays, sued over loss of cash or their brand representation in world. And Tobold, you think this was no real world connection? Alright then, Tobold is stupid. That shouldn’t be offensive, right? Tobold is just pixels in the world. We can completely disregard the personification and the one behind the computer.
It’s posts like this that are a giant leap backwards in the evolution of virtual worlds and civil rights in the real world. If we don’t acknowledge the importance of virtual spaces and their affects on humanity in such a digital age – we are fools. There is a much larger world beyond grinding NPCs and gaining XP…these are humans interacting with humans.
There simply isn’t any real sexuality in virtual worlds.
What in the heck is “real” sexuality? Is pornography real sexuality? After all, it’s just moving (or not moving…) images of people interacting with each other. How about television? Is there real sexuality in movies, in magazines, or in books? If it’s in your imagination – is it sexuality? Whoa whoa whoa Tobold, sexuality is whatever you want it to be. And just because male characters play female characters – does NOT mean the space becomes devoid of sexuality. Just because you don’t feel turned on while playing does not mean that there is no sexuality. There’s a reason they dress female characters the way they do. Just the fact that all games have male and female genders means there will be sexuality. And, look at all the guys who say they play a female character “because they find them sexier” or they want to “look at a nice ass all day.” If that isn’t sexuality, I don’t know what sexuality is. Avatars are NOT gender neutral (well, unless they’re an animal or a furry that may or may not have a gender). And even so, there can be sexuality without genders. Furries interact with furries sexually in a non-gender-specific way all the time.
I would even go as far as saying that many cases of projecting sexuality onto a virtual world is a sign of immaturity and sexual insecurity.
Yikes. Perhaps projecting economy analysis is a sign of immaturity too? How about friendship? You might want to completely dehumanize virtual worlds..but I sure don’t. Sexist and discriminatory acts to avatars are simply sexist and discriminatory acts to the players behind them. And if you think it’s okay to be discriminatory towards human beings – well then, I don’t think I’m going to get very far in an argument with you.
Tami Baribeau is the Associate Producer for Metaplace, Inc, currently working on Island Life. She is also the Lead Editor of feminist gaming blog The Border House, and the National Facebook Games Examiner for Examiner.com. She can be reached on Twitter or by email.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
I didn't know Blizz renamed the Maine Coon cat. They shouldn't have, it's a REAL cat. The way I see it, if you're taking offense to something someone says you need to re-evaluate your lifestyle. The statement someone makes is either true or it isn't. If it's true, move on, regardless of what manner it was stated in. If it's not true, by all means let them know it's not and then forget about it!
Sexuality, gender, race arguments … INSIDE a game are dumb. Do I think games need to be designed with EVERYONE in mind? Yes. Should people get worked up because they read something in a game? No. It's OBVIOUSLY not pointed to be malicious and however people take something is how they take it. Have some pride in your work and defend your decisions as a designer, IMO.
If I put a Maine Coon cat in my game I'm sure as hell not going to change it because someone *thinks* it means something else. People need to get out of the mindset that the “customer is always right.” Sometimes the customer needs to be set straight.
Completely agree! I can't think of one MMO or Virtual world where I don't have to fend someone off hitting on me. I think projecting sexuality onto a virtual world is unavoidable as humans. We are just animals when you get down to it and some animals have poor impulse control.
As far as the Maine Coon cat, I agree with you. Unfortunately, because of the large amount of young players in WoW who didn't know what it means – it was being construed in game to be offensive. People were calling it the “N***er Cat”.
I disagree with you that in world arguments on these issues is dumb. My post is more on interactions user-to-user and less on design decisions and in-game features. I don't think offensive content to minorities is ever acceptable – in games, movies, magazines, etc.
Other than your comment on Maine Coon cats, well said. =) (Since Maine Coon is an actual species of cat )
Things can (and often are in this day and age) taken to extremes.
Of course seeing as I've been hit on and asked if I was an actual girl in 30 minutes of SWG play, it's obvious that sexuality plays a huge part of these games we play whether people want to believe it or not.
I've read both blog posts – and Cuppy, I am with you all the way.
I have known plenty of people who used Virtual Worlds in very real way -
For example – support groups for people suffering from various forms of Social Anxiety. I've seen a few of them in Second Life when I used to be there more frequently, and even visited a world which was set up to allow volunteers talk to people who were experiencing depression.
Another example comes from a close friend. They went through a period where they were having trouble coming to terms with their sexuality – and being able to safely explore and talk to others, and 'try on' different genders, sexualities, and other identities really helped them find themselves.
Virtual worlds are as real as the people in them choose to make them – so for some people it might just be pixels on a screen – but for others there's a lot more there.
As I expressed on twitter, I agree entirely Cuppy, with so much social interaction taking place in virtual worlds, the idea that somehow the emotions people may feel or express virtually are any less “real” than the ones they express offline is rather silly.
The conversation usually follows that people can easily fake their personalities and behavior online and lie to anyone they feel like. But as anyone who's gone through Highschool can tell you, you don't have to be online to put on a fake persona. The medium might be different but basic human decency should pass everywhere people are interacting.
Sexually exists regardless of how it's portrayed or displayed, and while gender's should be treated equally, people express themselves as they choose themselves to be, doesn't make their gender portrayal virtually less important if they might choose the opposite, but perhaps more important as it might be reflective of their inner soul rather than their outer packaging.
*Thank you*! I found the cited post appalling, and *almost* launched a detailed rant of my own – but I'm trying to focus on work today. He's untroubled by “there are no gays in Star Wars” – one has to imagine he'd be equally untroubled by “there are no blacks in LOTRO – play a white person and shut up.”
We're *ourselves* in online spaces – sometimes, and in some ways, never more ourselves.
It's strange that hardcore gamers are the first to pull out the old “it's only a game” dodge – if it's only a game, why is the game so important to *them*? For the rest of us, it's not only a game – it's a seamless part of life. My competitiveness, acquisitiveness, bloodlust, anger, all carry over from the physical world into the game – my friendliness, sexuality, and love do as well. That's what makes me a whole person.
Good on you for speaking up
I agree with you that Tobold's post was off-base, but I'm not quite sure I agree with your post either. At least, I think you fell short of the mark on a number of issues. Instead of abstractly trying to define “sexuality” — which merely hurt my brain instead of enlightening me in any tangible way — you could have pointed out that the default norm in MMO worlds is a heterosexual environment, and that an environment like that is restrictive to homosexual players. You could have ruminated about why it's primarily heterosexual males who are acting resistant to the inclusion of the LBGT community or the expansion of female avatars, and who, if they are so “grown up and 100% sure they are heterosexual,” shouldn't have a problem with seeing equality brought to MMOs.
I think your last paragraph (and a portion of the second to last paragraph) held some interesting points, but overall I feel that the topic could have been explored in a much wider and much more effective way. You gets bonus points for standing up to Tobold, though, a blogger whom I would never respond to.
I completely agree with your comment here. I worry that I came across as a bit harsh on Cuppy in my comment (below), but I agreed with the overall focus of her post. If her post had been as concise and rich as your comment, I would have liked it even more.
The point of a game is usually to tell a story. It could be based in reality, it could be dreamt up. Fact is, to make a story compelling you NEED conflict. You NEED something that will cause that conflict and something to resolve it. Not necessarily by the end of the story, but at least to allude to.
I'm sorry people are “losing” themselves in games and making it more political or more personal than it needs to be, but we're playing in someone's creation. We're playing in a fake world where conflicts exist for whatever reason they dreamt up and since they're human they really only have human issues to reflect on.
Now, if you're USING the game to be malicious to people, that's a bit much, but whatever. If you call me a darkie or N***** Elf because I'm playing a Dark Elf, I'll just look at you and movie on. If you call me a Wetback Lizard because I'm playing an Iksar, whatever. If you call me a F** for playing a fairy, so be it. These terms don't exist IN the world. Therefore my character has no idea what you're talking about and me personally, I'm none of those things so I don't care.
NOTHING … is offensive. We perceive certain things to be offensive, but nothing is truly offensive because offensive is subjective and therefore is not a winnable argument. So … we shouldn't bother with it.
Wiqd, I think we're going to definitely agree to disagree.
In the case of a massively multiplayer online game, the point of the game is not just to tell a story. There are community elements that you don't get in single-player games. It is a virtual world. There is human interaction. And when you're dealing with how people treat people, it has nothing to do with the purpose or intent of the conversation. Sorry.
And nothing is offensive? Just because you're more thickskinned and don't care what people say – doesn't mean you're in the majority. I'm glad that you're able to shrug everything off, but some people can't. Some people are anorexic because they see the societal norms of good looking people. Some people don't have much outside social experiences, and all of their human interaction is in virtual worlds. (maybe they're agoraphobic, maybe they're disabled, maybe they are hospital bound) People *learn* from their in-world social experiences.
Grats on you for being able to completely stay in character and roleplay while you are gaming. But for a lot of people, online gaming is about community and socialization with humans – not just avatars.
Well, I never claimed to be a writer. I have opinions, but often times I don't put them out there the way I intend to.
I also didn't intend to point fingers at heterosexual men. Like I said, I don't generally have a feministic view about this. My point is solely that discrimination applies regardless if its a virtual world or not, and that avatars are representation of self.
Nothing is offensive. Nothing is evil, either. There are only acts that are perceived as evil, and enough people share those opinions to create sanctions against those acts in society – even while other people may not agree and other societies have no sanctions against them. If you look at things in a relativistic light, then you are very much correct that there is nothing that is offensive. Of course, if you're looking at it in a relativistic light, then anything can be offensive to someone else, because there is no core truth.
It would take a lot for someone to offend me in a game (and I might not be a woman, but there's other things people could certainly attack if they wanted). I probably wouldn't care. Someone else will.
The only way that you can truly say that “nothing is offensive” is if you mean this in a relativistic way, where you mean nothing is offensive to you, or you are trying to state a universal fact, that no one in existence is ever offended by anything, ever. I don't think the latter is true.
So, a game is asexual for some, but not for others. What matters, though, is that it isn't asexual for enough people. It likely will remain that way until society changes very drastically – which won't happen for a long time, if ever.
… I'd also say the point of the game has little to do with telling a story as well, but that's totally another topic.
An avatar is a representation of ones self because we choose it to be or because it simply 'is'? Personally, it's a choice we make, an initial decision to place ones self onto a label to be read. This label could be false or true, thus to state it's a representation of ones personal self is not 100% correct.
Just because there are people behind these avatars, with thoughts and feelings, does not mean we need to acknowledge them and this is for one simple reason: The definitive reason people play a sim is to interact whilst those that play a game, are there for the play. Second Life is a simulation of, whilst World of Warcraft is a game for. I wouldn't go as far to agree that Second Life users are ahead of MMORPGers, but instead have a diff retrospec on the situation because they interact, use and coordinate themselves within the worlds for far different reasons. Most MMO players will regard a game as a game and thus consider themselves first with gains, benefits and so forth because that is the nature of one engaging within 'play', yet that is not one's main objective within a simulator, which instead focuses upon the 'other' rather than ones 'self'.
You're reading into the article with the wrong light in my eyes – but then it appears you perceive online gaming worlds, note, gaming spaces, not virtual platforms, as something other than they are in their most basic forms.
i find it interesting that we need to even talk about differences between virtual worlds or games. To me, ANY online community space could fall into this. From AOL chat, to forums, to IM messages, to Twitter, to blogs, to MUD clients, kids MMOs, anything – offensive is offensive.
Sorry, but you don't get the choice to ignore people behind avatars. This is why there are things like terms of services, codes of conduct, and rules in games. This is why there are laws online about child protection and privacy acts. When you log into a virtual world, you aren't making a choice as to whether or not they represent people – unless you're choosing to be ignorant IMHO. There are customers behind the avatars, regardless if you like it or not.
And, in an MMO – people don't just log in to play. People log in to socialize, to meet people, to form guilds, to interact with other people. PEOPLE. If they had no human characteristics (like knowledge, skill, personalities) then we might as well be playing in a world full of bots.
Okies, we can agree to disagree
No hard feelings 
See now this I agree with. If you're set on attacking the person BEHIND the avatar then there's a problem. My previous arguments were for things IN game, not relating to people out of the game. I certainly don't think a child molester should be indemnified simply because they're “in a world and roleplaying” because they're mentally sick and are using the world as a weapon. That's wrong. But to get mad because something that is considered bad in our world is present in the virtual world AS A PART OF THAT WORLD, is dumb.
I.E. you can have child molesters in your game and while the masses glorifying them may SEEM wrong, it's how it's written. However should a real life child molester play the game to get to a child on the other side of the screen, that is inherently wrong and they should be punished. I don't think we can afford to blur the lines too much between reality and fantasy or else we get retarded rulings and government supervising laws on stuff. We complain and they react, limiting EVERYONE'S options. Not cool.
Well in my mind they are separate in what they are, one being a game with rules of play, fashioned lines of conduct and ways of engaging yourself within that game because of that which is imposed upon you and the other, a platform designed for socialization, development, creativity and self expression which breaks borders to expand itself. World of Warcraft doesn't truly allow you any of those things because it follows the lines of a game.
Games and Simulators, Worlds and Platforms. These are terms we put onto something to clarify what it is in a general sense, but unless that which we label can meet up to those labels it is not -that-. An MSN chatroom isn't game, no matter which way you make look at it because it embodies everything about it of a platform for socialization and a simulation of conversation and limted emoticon action.
In terms of the avatar though I am thinking first and foremost of myself, because I am engaging within a game to 'play'. Upon logging onto the world with a character, an avatar upon which I wish to use and interact with the world so I can development it further along the lines of status/storyline, I am deciding not that I wish it to represent me but that it will bring something along the lines of fun for myself as a person. We don't initially join games by ignoring that other wise we would not engage with MMORPGs but instead sit around Chatrooms, message boards or Sim worlds.
So again the avatar does not represent me or anyone else, because what they may portray might be false. In terms of acknowledgment, my choice to ignore someone is valid because their engagement is not required on a basic level within a game. Now we have rules in place to disallow anything 'bad' to occur to those of who might be easily offended but that does mean we engage with them, it simply means we can not abuse their play time or facilitate in the coordination of their playtime becoming 'corrupted'. We are directed, streamlined, controlled to some fashion to allow the generation of play to continue, where as again, within simulator based platforms that notion can (and has) be ignored.
MMO – Massive Multiplayer Online. We use that tag alot but we don't put another letter in front. On its own it means nothing. People log into MMOGs to play, because it is a game and that is its direct purpose. Anything else that comes of that is a secondary function and not a primary aim.
I think we could argue the differences all day long, because it's a fine line. Some virtual worlds incorporate gamey elements, are they games? I log into Second Life and I consider it a game, I like to play within it. In Everquest, I used it as a giant social chatroom for a long time. I didn't level, I didn't try to achieve anything except socialization and making friends.
Online communities are online communities, and I don't think people should be treated any differently based on the specifics.
Agree with everything you said here. Although you have to consider your audience. If you have child molesting themes and adult themes in your game – it better be rated and policed accordingly. If you're allowing children under the age of 13 into your game (and if they're allowed via the TOS) then you don't really have a choice about what kind of content you allow the kids to see.
I also think the lines have been plenty blurred already between real life and fantasy. Look at all the virtual world laws that are already in place. There are conferences about virtual world politics and law that deal specifically with these issues. In-world currency and things you own now have a real life value. We're dealing things like taxation and legalities in virtual worlds constantly. I don't think we can avoid these things – we now have to educate ourselves and react appropriately. There *is* a fine line between real life and virtual life when you use depictions of self and real life currency. =/
Oh definitely. If I made a game with such questionable content I would most certainly shoot for an AO rating
Then it's up to the parents of America to police their children, not me. God help us. I've submitted the game to the ratings commission, they've given me my “adult” rating and my policing job ends there.
See but in that instance, you're projecting your own agenda into the game. The game was made for a reason and the story is part of that reason. What people actually choose to do in the game isn't the fault of anyone but themselves. I'm not saying what you did was wrong or you played the game wrong, but at its base Everquest is a game with a story and encounters that have been put in place so people can progress and follow said story.
All the social things people choose to do are exactly that: choices. Everquest wouldn't cease to be Everquest if everyone logged in and just played the game.
I'd call Second Life a world with games in it. I'd call Everquest a game that has a world all its own. As you say, there's a fine line difference, but it's still a difference. We as communal and social creatures don't tend to see that though
Does it *really* matter if something is an online virtual world with a game, or an online social world? Does one have people behind the avatars and one doesn't? Does one allow you to disregard human feelings and the other doesn't?
Personally, I think that difference is moot. Avatars are avatars, regardless if they're in a game or a virtual world. I argue that all MMO games are virtual worlds, but I know that some don't share that definition.
See personally I log onto Second Life for reasons other than to game. It is about the social interaction because not only is that what drives it on forward but also because that is what it was designed/built for. You mention how you like to play 'within it', rather than play with it. That's an important line you need to decide upon.
World of Warcraft was designed and used by all as a game first. The majority of people would of bought World of Warcraft first to play and second to interact, socialize, etc. and that's what it comes down to. Even the generation of character, class, role, purpose within the world, etc. all focus around game concepts.
And the answer to your question is Yes, it does matter, because the divide between the two may appear fine but is actually quite wide because of the personal intentions of a person within the game when aligned with what something was designed for and what it actually allows within that space. A game does allow you to disregard feelings, emotions and personal thoughts whilst an online simulation, a platform for chat and interaction can not survive without it. In a basic example, Wizard101 survives without the need for interaction between other people, whilst Second Life would not. Avatars are what they are, which is partly the issue, because they can be anything and require/need nothing else from anyone else within a game, whilst they are required and are needed within a simulator yet they do admittedly form a representation of ones self within that setting even if that is not the intention or true purpose because of situation. If you appear in Second Life as a female it says more to others around you than you appearing in World of Warcraft as an elf.
Now where as I agree there should be a larger umbrella of acceptable towards people within the world because they're of a. b. or c., you have to take into account that it's not required, nor needed, and thus that is why we have the current situations within and revolving around games and simulators.
I've had another few reads through your post and Tobolds though and the main problem in my eyes is that Tobold doesn't make his stance particularly clear. He seems to 'bounce' between his examples and his clarifications and I think that's why you've picked up on one thing, I another, etc. Truth be told, if you're going to discuss or talk about a subject like gender, identity or sexuality (and I'm not stating this in a lecturing way towards you Cuppy, this is if anything a telling off to Tobold), you need to be pretty clear with your thoughts, your intentions and your meanings, otherwise it becomes hard to transcribe into anothers mind and thus can lead to all sorts of derailments or misinterpretations.
Sorry, but I simply don't agree that a game allows you to disregard feelings. This is the exact reason why there are TOS rules against harassment of people.
What about offensive content to majorities? Is that acceptable? More often than not, catering to a minority means offending a majority.
When you cater to minorities, someone, somewhere is *always* going to take offense. That's their problem, not yours.
Now, meaning to *give* offense is bad design, yes. That's why sidestepping *game-sponsored* sexuality in these MMO things is a good way to dodge the whole problem. That way, sexual offensiveness is entirely on the head of the users.
The TOS is there to stop you insulting/harassing people, not to stop you hurting someone's feelings.
If someone can not get into a group, their feelings might be hurt because of this but the game doesn't care for it, the people in question didn't break any terms of service and the mechanics in place weren't broken because of it.
That's why you crack down on people using the game as a tool to hate, and avoid giving them tools in the first place. If that means a fiat description that there is no X of something in the game world, whether it's race or “gender identities”, it's a perfectly valid way to bracket the problem.
That way, when people step outside the game's defined lines to bother other people, you have clear rules that give room to swing the banhammer.
I disagree on several fronts. To begin with, play is a form of social engagement. Ignoring the thoughts and feelings of the people behind the avatars (or behind the Monopoly top hat and race car, etc.) is foolish, because those thoughts and feelings drive them just as much, if not more so than simple rationality. People flip chessboards or 'throw' games all the time.
Second, beyond the simple mechanics of avatar interaction, players are given a communications interface. With very rare exceptions, these interfaces are essentially unfiltered and will be used by the players for purposes beyond the scope of the game. The public chat channel in World of Warcraft's 'Barrens' zone is virtually synonymous with Chuck Norris jokes, and the global 'trade' channels are more often clogged with real-world political or philosophical discussion than used for hawking in-game wares or services. The same thing occurs in first-person shooters as well. In the typical MMORPG, the only places where fourth-wall breakage is frowned upon are the 'RP' servers… which are typically avoided or denigrated by the self-styled 'hardcore' players, for some reason.
The increasing use of VOIP chat for in-game coordination brings another layer of emotional interaction, in the form of vocal tonality. Sex, rough age and sociocultural background are easy to determine in the majority of cases, bringing with them expectations and prejudices on the part of the players, and eliminating some of the self-censorship afforded by a moment's consideration and leaning upon the backspace key.
An MSN chatroom can be used to host a game. A Counterstrike map can be plastered with pornographic 'sprays' and subverted into a BDSM dungeon driven by typed messages or VOIP-phone sex chat. Just because there are rules of engagement and interaction doesn't mean that players will abide by them, even if they are hard-coded. There is always the possibility of refusing to interact.
There is an entire area of emergent play, so-called 'griefing', that focuses entirely on engaging other players on an emotional level by denying them enjoyment and turning the playing field into a psychological weapon. 'Griefers' often defend themselves with the claim that 'it's only a game', but that form of play is as far beyond the coded in-game goals as cybersex in the Deeprun Tram.
Terrific post.
Reading Tobold's post, I was sad to see that there are some who give no credit to virtual worlds as a representation of society. We do business there, form and absolve friendships — possibly even find love.
Communities, families and guilds are built upon the mutual understanding of social norms and expectations that carry actual consequences when broken.
Whether the bunny ears are sexist or not is certainly up for debate and no one group will ever unanimously agree. However, Tobold's denial of the discourse simply because it's somehow less real due to it being in a virtual world is just erroneous, possibly even worthy of pity.
Tami, I got linked to this by a friend, and as a black, lesbian-identified bisexual who has been gaming since the Colecovision and cut her online gaming teeth on MUDs and MUSHes, I really appreciate your post. I play WoW and I have basically given up on the broad fanbase, instead doing my best to consciousness raise among my immediate circle of influence. I started on a PvE server and have since migrated to an RP server. I have a mix of male and female characters, and it's very interesting to note the difference in the reactions I get when I'm on different toons. I play Horde side, and people are always assuming my female paladin is healing spec'd (she's strictly DPS), and that my male priest is DPS spec'd (he's a Disc healer). A majority of the women I know who play the game have rolled at least one male toon purely so they can avoid dudes trolling them for ERP (erotic roleplay). It's really sad, but OTOH, with MMOs a lot can depend on the particular server community. My guild is about 60/40 in favor of women, our GL and main tank is a woman and we have a large LGBT contingent, something fairly common on my server. Proudmoore-US, which I occasionally play on, is a model server known to be LGBT & woman friendly, they even have virtual pride marches.
I just have one tiny bone to pick with you, in that you fell into a common trap that a long of women my age do, particularly in discussions about gender and privilege. You said: “Let me preface this by saying that I am not a feminist by name, but I do strongly believe in the equal treatment of all people” I don't know who told you otherwise, but that makes you a feminist. “Feminist”, despite 30+ years of attempts by various people to re-define it in the name of their various agendas, means that you are for equality for all people. Really, that's it. Sars of Tomato Nation wrote a fabulous essay called “Yes, You Are” that deals with this, if you've never read it before I'll link it for you, as it'll give you some food for thought: http://tomatonation.com/?p=677
I'm definitely bookmarking this though, and I'm glad I found your blog. Keep on writing, this was good stuff.
I disagree with the majority of your post for two reasons.
Firstly;
I went back and read Tobold's post (for the first time might I add) after reading this. What you took out of his blog is NOT what he wrote about. He wrote about “Any perceived sexuality in virtual worlds is just a projection from the real world.” You responded thinking his post was about “virtual worlds and games are asexual, and therefore we should completely disregard any blatant prejudice or offensive sexual content”. This already contains at least two fallacies
1. He didn't mention anything about blatant prejudice or offensive sexual content; and he even displayed being against them both [b]in what you quoted of him[/b]:
“I would even go as far as saying that many cases of projecting sexuality onto a virtual world is a sign of immaturity and sexual insecurity”.
He stated very clearly he was against the idea of seeing a male in a virtual world as a male, and seeing a female in a virtual world as a female. He called it “sign of immaturity and sexual insecurity” to do this. Thus follows he is against prejudice against someone for having a male/female character, and against offensive sexuality to male/female characters, as it is both “[signs] of immaturity and sexual inecurity.” –
So it was a fallacy to claim he supported otherwise.
2. In addition, he stated very clearly that “[b]For me[/b] virtual worlds are very asexual places.” Not that they are always asexual. In the quote you took from him, “There simply isn't any real sexuality in virtual worlds” it would appear he was trying to say otherwise. Yet, is very heavily implied through the context of his blog that he meant [i]“to me”[/i], as he did in the first reference. He was never trying to be push that onto others, and he admitted elsewhere in his blog that other people do find sexuality in it. Is this the reason you chose to quote the -second- mentioning of virtual worlds being asexual — because the other he openly admitted the possibility of other people seeing it differently? This is another fallacy.
Secondly:
A doctor can examine someone in the buff, and the interaction may not be sexual at all. While the same situation with a boyfriend/girlfriend may have quite different results. But neither of these are guarantees. You may get turned on by having your doctor examine your body, or you may be so used to being with your partner that it's just normal to see them in the buff. Nudism is a good example of how people aren't turned on just by seeing nudity — and some fetishes that turn people on almost randomly are a good example of quite the opposite. —- [b]But can you honestly tell me that there is always sexuality just because there is always possibility of it[/b]? Don't you remember what your highschool English teachers should have pounded in you– “Never use never or always”.
What if your only interaction in a game is between friends you know in real life — and just friends. Can you tell me that this -must- be sexual? What if you've found your soulmate or true love, and could never even possibly think of someone else sexually. What if you're eight and don't even have the horomones to understand sexuality. I don't know what Tobold's reason is exactly, but he is not percieving any sexuality. Maybe he's eight. Maybe he's happily in a relatiosnhip with the love of his life.
—
His last paragraph I hardly agree with at all however. But by no means was that really even addressed here. It was more tip-toed around and mocked, but either way it doesn't really matter. Your blog, right?. Sorry if you take this comment to be offensive, but I feel sorry for Tobold for being attacked when all he did was express his ideas poorly.
In all honesty, I also only half agree with your remark that “Sexist and discriminatory acts to avatars are simply sexist and discriminatory acts to the players behind them.” I agree in the sense that if someone knows your real gender and is sexist to your avatar because of it, then it is sexist to you. But I disagree that if someone unknowing/uncaring of your real gender is being sexist to the avatar, then they are not being sexist to you at all. I could say more on this, but I think my comment is long enough.
Sorry again if this is offensive.
I agree with you on many points in this however I disagree that guys (like myself) play female characters to look at a 'nice ass' all day. I mean yeah some probably do and I've seen it said but for myself and I'm sure many others males just dont look 'right' in certain roles… Have you ever seen a male character healing? It just looks awkward having a testosterone fuelled male with biceps that would make Arnie insecure and reach for his dumb-bell set healing.
The thing is developers adhere to many stereotypes in this game be it all men looking like arnie-clones to all women looking like barbie dolls all elves having long ears all orcs looking mean and brutal end of the day though it's a game about adventures, friendships, and exploration sure there is sexuality in the game but it has no real bearing on the content itself and alot of it is from the community not the developers and its up to the community how they deal with the sexual content they are presented with.
However I'm in favor of more customisation regarding all races and genders maybe a way to change body-types but tbh you know it'd get abused by horny teenagers
Great article it brings up a very good and fairly important debate in MMO's.
I think the wider argument that you are making is actually on target. Yes, I thoroughly agree that most games are heteronormative, but the larger issue is that they do replicate and reinforce real-world stereotypes, of gender, race, and ethnicity as much as or more than they subvert them. Please don't get me started on the ways ethnicity is used in WOW, for example, wherein Alliance are largely European-derivative in lifestyle, whereas Horde characters are largely non-european lifestyle. Anthropologists have long looked at “joking behavior” and pointed out that the claim that something is “only a game” or “only a joke” is often a way to express anger, or ideas that are being challenged but which were previously normative. The speaker can cloak the statements in a socially acceptable framework that also positions the person who complains in the position of someone who “can't take a joke,” So yes–this response counld have been more issue specific, but I think we're still at the place where the big picture needs to be stated and restated and restated.
Stories come out of the real world. When something is “just a story,” then that lets the author and the readers off the hook, as it were, for their assumption of gender or racial privilege. I'll stand with Cuppycake on that side of the agree-to-disagree divide
Really interesting and well-reasoned. As virtual worlds become more and more common, we need to be thinking about things like this. Thanks for posting!
I agree that everybody here has some good points. “The medium might be different but basic human decency should pass everywhere people are interacting.” But does that mean i'm going to jail for harassing/ganking all the low level ally players in duskwood? You must realize that when it comes to games like these, MMOs, there are a lot of male teenagers that play, thus there will always be immaturity.
/yell “UR ALL A BUNCH OF SCRUBS”
Tobold may not have 'splained himself very well, but he has a point that you should consider from this point of view: There is nothing – NOTHING – you can do in game with your set of pixels to actually cause harm to someone in real life. You cant rape, steal from, affect politics of, intimidate in any way, or sexually abuse someone in real life thru the actions of a pixel avatar. The only thing you can do to physically affect someone is by making them spend more time at there computer due to online griefing of there set of pixels while trying to complete some task online. But in the end its your choice to stay online.
But if you remove the pixels, what you have left is an online chat room, which is where feelings get hurt, names get called, RL friends are made, ect.
In Second Life, one controls an avatar.
In MMO-Role Playing Games, such as WoW, one /plays/ a /character/.
This character is not you. It is not a representation of you. It is a representation of the character you have created in the game. This is the entire premise of role-playing games. You get to act out the life of someone who is NOT you. It's like acting. The character is a Draeni Paladin, or an Undead Warlock, or whatnot… these things have very little relationship with the real world.
In Second Life, your avatar is clearly and directly a representation of self. You are meant to identify with this avatar and play out your…. second life.
These are very different territories.
The level of dedication someone puts into their play does not change the fact that a character is not an avatar. The character IS an object and nothing more. The character is the complete and total property of Blizzard Entertainment. The player is none of these things. If the player has difficulty separating him- or herself from the character, this is a problem for the player, not the game.
If it offends you that female characters are being bunny-eared, that's your prerogative. If you think it's sexist that it's only female characters, fine… If you, personally, feel somehow violated by the fact that your character has been bunnied, you need to step back, take a deep breath, and go do something other than play WoW for a while.
“Tobold is just pixels in the world. We can completely disregard the personification and the one behind the computer.”
I'm not sure this really holds water, as this diverges from the avatar discussion and focuses on a personality, which is entirely a real person. If you had issue with Tobold's avatar in any game, that may be more accurate, but the claim that Tobold (which is just a name given to a real person) is stupid directs the attack at the person /behind/ whichever avatar they're playing that day. And feels petty…
However, I agree whole-heartedly that sexuality exists in games. Designers market to a virile male populace – just look at the armor sets that take the most work to achieve in many RPGs…or the difference between male and female versions (Black Mageweave, anyone?). Not to limit the discussion to one gender, my wife chose to play Night Elves when we picked up WoW because they were the most aesthetically appealing race. She wanted her character to be sexy.
Sex itself doesn't occur in most games explicitly, but the sexuality portrayed by the avatars can certainly fuel whatever interactions people intend to create. Any living male gamer will notice the curves and cleavage, the open midriff and other bare skin on a female avatar or NPC. It's visual, we're visual creatures. It's the reaction taken to that intended stimulus that defines the individual, and will vary among all players. I know players who could care less what the avatars were wearing or looked like, so long as they could provide healing support for a big boss fight. Similarly, plenty of guildmates in games will recognize (and possibly cheer on) female avatars sporting impressive figures and clothes, but then turn their attention to the game elements that interest them. And of course, those that linger around staring at the breezy caster outfits…I'm sure the game holds definite sexual interest for them.
I'd honestly like to see some talented female designers that can construct male avatars for a female audience: usually the females are intended for a male-centric aesthetic, and the males are typical “men's men.” Sure, your average guys like bulky armor and looking tough when they play a male bad-ass, and looking sleek and sexy (but just as deadly) when playing a female, but where's the visual appeal for the ladies? I certainly don't mean to be presumptuous, but I know for a fact that “big and bulky with 3x avg muscle mass” doesn't cut it for many women.
As always, a healthy dose of “plenty of exceptions to this stated norm exist” should apply.
“Sexist and discriminatory acts to avatars are simply sexist and discriminatory acts to the players behind them”
I fail to see where discrimination ever entered into the post, however. I think the closest it came was referring to players who avoid opposite avatar gender choice out of personal insecurities (in which I agree that if you're that worried about avatar choices mis-labeling you or affecting you past a personally defined line, you should assess your feelings outside of the game's context, because there's obviously confusion to work out). Discrimination towards players in any game is a result of personality issues of the discriminator, and I think that goes well beyond the scope of the original topic.
“Let me preface this by saying that I am not a feminist by name, but I do strongly believe in the equal treatment of all people “
ah I'm afraid then you don't know what feminist means. Feminism is the belief that women are equal to men and about working towards equality for all people.
I'm on the opinion if you are a women and want the right to vote then its a bit silly to consider yourself not a feminist.
Beyond that point I agree with your article. Equality and consideration of race and gender is important in Virtual worlds. Not only if you want to make money (not considering men and women and children + different races = cutting away your market), but also to avoid breaking the law in different countrys.
Penis Enlargement Vimax, Vigrx Plus, Prosolution may be up best penis enlargement pills available, and can increase the size of the penis between 3-4 inches with as little as 2 weeks. http://www.pill-penisenlargement.com