Dignity and the Media!

On The Escapist forums there was recently a thread about how the unrealistic portrayal of women in games objectified them and served only to make them seem as sex objects. It was argued that it harmed their dignity. It was a rather hot topic with people on both sides of the spectrum. Any gamer out there is sure to know of at least one scantily clad female character who wears almost nothing and has over-sized breasts and an over-sized bottom.

Ivy, a female fighter in the Soul Calibur series. As you can probably see from the above posted image, she's quite curvy... And her breasts are rather large to the point of being somewhat ridiculous.

So do these portrayals of women in games really objectify or harm people's dignity? My answer is a clear-cut no. I'll explain my answer further soon enough, but let us first look at another similar argument that is being used against the Pornography industry. Some people out there don't like porn, and that's fine they're allowed to have their opinions on it. It's when they start to attack the porn industry openly; then try to make pornography illegal by saying it is dangerous for society that problems can arise. The argument against the porn industry is that it gives men an incorrect portrayal of romance which is just utter bullshit. Pornography does not equal romance, it never will. We men know the difference between fucking and making love.

You may be asking how this has anything to do with video games and I'll explain. In many video games females are portrayed as dressing in rather overt and sexual outfits. They sometimes have rather unrealistic figures where their breasts can be quite large. Some female gamers think this makes men predisposed to being attracted to these kinds of women in our daily lives. Other female gamers think that it portrays females as sex objects. There's no debating that these characters are there to look sexy. Let's face it, sex sells. There's no two ways about that. Let us be clear on one thing about video games here; they are fictional. Video games are not real, and they never will be. Some games may be simulations and thus they attempt to simulate real life, but these games don't portray females in such sexual manners. Other games are not so realistic, they're clearly fantasy and thus I fail to see how it objectifies women. People know the difference between fantasy and reality. Those who don't know the difference are the ones you find locked up in asylums and prisons.

I don't think there's a problem with video games with half-dressed female characters. I think that those who are offended by it should simply not play the game, or ignore it. Those who think it objectifies women, or sets unrealistic standards for beauty need to learn to accept themselves for who they are. They need to stop comparing themselves to Ivy. You are your own harshest critic, you need to learn to accept yourself for who you are. We all have flaws, we're not perfect. What is portrayed in the media often looks down on these people. These are people who need to break out of their self uncertainty and learn to simply say "Okay, she has really big breasts, who cares?" I don't mind these female characters at all, I even find a few of them to be attractive in a strange way. Personally, though I much prefer more realistic and down to earth portrayals of women on games.

I really like the characters that have flaws about them. The ones that are imperfect, yet interesting. These are characters like Zoe Castillo on the right. Zoe is indeed very attractive, but she's obviously not overtly dressed, and her breasts are of reasonable size. She was featured in the game Dreamfall: The Longest Journey as the main protagonist. I really enjoyed the game and I found Zoe to be a great example of a well written character. Now I'd admit that I'd love to see more characters such as her, but I don't believe characters like Ivy are actually objectifying women in any way.

I think the problem here is that people are allowing themselves to be objectified by these fictional characters. It's not something that will go away, and thus it's better to either accept it or simply ignore it. The day you say "Oh, look at the size of those breasts. Mine are nowhere near as big as those, but who cares. I'm still much more intelligent and much more interesting then that character." is the day that you will finally realize that these sex symbol characters are nothing more then fictitious characters. Many male and female gamers alike think characters like Ivy and Duke Nukem are hilarious. Why can't others do the same?

I'd like to end this little blog with a little fact about freedom of speech and how it works. To accept freedom of speech also means that you must accept that you may be offended by someone's opinions, art or work. You must accept that what others say may offend you, lest you may say something that others may find offensive as well. You must also accept that your own work may be criticized, and you are indeed entitled to your own criticisms against someone's work. You can criticize all you want as long as you don't seek to censor someone's work because you do not agree with it. And that is the single most important part of freedom of speech. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Science and Politics. Just say no!

I'm a firm believer in science. To me science is the key to our existence. As a race we must learn more about our planet, our galaxy and our universe in general. As advanced as our current science is, there is a threat to science; Politics. I found an investigative report done by the "UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM" done in late 2007. The report is rather long and provides detailed evidence on how the government censored scientists on the subject of Global Climate Change.

Let us start with the conclusion of this report.

The Committee’s 16-month investigation reveals a systematic White House effort to censor climate scientists by controlling their access to the press and editing testimony to Congress. The White House was particularly active in stifling discussions of the link between increased hurricane intensity and global warming. The White House also sought to minimize the significance and certainty of climate change by extensively editing government climate change reports. Other actions taken by the White House involved editing EPA legal opinions and op-eds on climate change.

Okay, so the report tells us that the White House actively controlled any information about Global Climate Change given to the public. What struck me the most was their censorship on data relating to the increase in storm intensity shortly following Hurricane Katrina. For future reference NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In September 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Max Mayfield, the Director of the National Hurricane Center, was scheduled to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee. On September 6, 2005, Tom Jones of Senator Ted Stevens’ Commerce Committee staff e-mailed Noel Turner in NOAA’s Office of Legislative Affairs. He wrote:

We’re going to work on smacking the shit out of this issue. At the hearing on the 14th we’re going to ask max mayfield about it. I’d love to have an answer from him that doesn’t contain any long words or flavor of equivocation. Something like, “mr chairman, the individuals who are implying that Katrina has something to do with global warming are just plain wrong. They don’t understand the science and they’re shamelessly trying to make political hay out of a national tragedy.”

Noel Turner then e-mailed John Sokich of NOAA, stating:

Talked to Tom Jones a bit today, and have additional insight into what he is looking for. With respect to the climate change issue, he is looking for something quotable. I believe his exact words were something “pithy, short, and quotable.” While I don’t think his verbage is quite right, he is looking for something along the lines of “Mr chairman, the individuals who are implying that Katrina has something to do with global warming are just plain wrong. They don’t understand the science and they’re shamelessly trying to make political hay out of a national tragedy.” I would not say that, verbatim, would be appropriate for either the VADM [Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere] or Max, as it just doesn’t sound like something they’d say — but if we can get something close and quotable, that would probably be good. … I think [t]he number one priority with this hearing is making FEMA look bad. Number two could be killing the climate change and hurricanes issue.”

So if I read that right they are actively seeking to censor any relation between Global Climate Change and Hurricane Katrina. To me this is not only a travesty of science, but a complete disrespect and blatant disregard for those who have died in that horrible event. In the aftermath of Katrina the rescue efforts were heavily criticized for being slow and unsatisfactory. Many people also criticized the lack of preparation set out by local authorities. These are other issues entirely, though and I will not go into them in detail.

The White House also seems to have gotten their grubby hands on reports and case studies pertaining to Climate Change. Why the American government seeks to censor such information is beyond me.

The White House systematically minimized the significance of climate change by editing government climate change reports. Documents obtained by the Committee show that CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 181 edits to the Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties. They also made at least 113 additional edits to the plan to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming. Other Administration documents that were heavily edited by the White House include EPA’s Report on the Environment, the annual report to Congress entitled Our Changing Planet, and EPA’s Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends.

Science is about the truth. Whenever lies get involved in science things tend to get sour. I read through the entire 33 page report with my jaw gradually lowering further and further as I read on. I had heard of the controversy involving global climate change, but never did I believe it to be the work of the government. This begs the question though; what else is the American government keeping from the public? Are other world powers doing the same thing to their scientists? How would this affect our future as a race?

the world does not need crap like this. I already dislike politics in general, but to me this just takes the cake. I'm disgusted by this and I'm sure many others are as well. The internet is a wonderful way to spread information, which is why I opted to write about this here, hopefully others will read the report to spread the word if not for science, but for truth.

You can read the report for yourself here.

"I'm sorry, but I'm already dating somebody."

How many times have you had that line pulled on you? The line comes from the idea that relationships should be exclusive. The idea that I'm "with someone" which means I cannot share those feelings with anyone but one person is something that has perplexed me for a long time. I recently started digging into my own mind to find out why many people follow the idea of an exclusive relationship.

First thing I asked myself was; Is it possible to love more then one person equally? By love I mean romantically involved in the highest sense. And I came to the conclusion that yes it is possible. Believing otherwise would be nearly insane. Also realize that it is also possible to love someone exclusively, meaning that person is the most important person in the world for you. Relationships can go either way. This begs the question though; Why has there always been a sort of aura in the world that compels us to think that a loving relationship should be between two people and no more.

Imagine this situation. You find out that your significant other has had a relation with someone else behind your back. Upon finding out you would most likely wonder why someone would be with someone else when he or she has you. Are you missing something? Is your significant other looking for something that you can't provide? Does your significant other love you anymore?! These are all questions that would most likely race through your mind upon discovering that your significant other has cheated or is cheating on you. I think this can be especially hurtful to people who don't take lightly to not being "the one and only." But wait a moment here. Normally when someone comes to you with an attitude that they are "the one" and you are not, we dismiss them as self centered and egotistical. Now, don't jump all over me just yet. Hear me out some more.

I'm not saying everyone who thinks relationships should be exclusive is self centered. Let's face it when two people both think relationships should be exclusive and they are happily in an exclusive relationship there's nothing self centered about that at all. I do think, though that the origins of this general belief that a relationship should be exclusive comes from people who are incapable of accepting that they cannot offer everything to someone else. Almost everyone is influenced by this general idea in one way or another. A married man refrains from watching porn, or looking at other women on the beach he is doing so because of this belief.

We can look at open relationships and see that many of us out there are pretty comfortable with the idea of sharing a significant other with someone else. There are countless examples of healthy relationships that involve 3 people or more. I think these people are comfortable with the idea that maybe they can't offer everything someone else wants, so if that person goes elsewhere to get it then that's fine by me.

What it really comes down to is I just can't find any real good reason as to why it would be considered wrong to have an open relationship with 2 or more people. I bet if I asked people on the street "Why shouldn't you have an intimate relationship with more then one other person?" they wouldn't be able to give you a definitive answer beyond simply personal preference. We all know doing something behind someone's back is definitely wrong, but I really don't understand why people would refrain from having a relationship with several people just because it's generally considered wrong.

Next time someone tells you something you're doing is wrong and you're not quite sure why, then I think it's time to reflect on exactly why it could be considered wrong. Maybe other boundaries we live by aren't quite as well founded as you may think.