Games with zero sexual objectification of females and males

you can "sexualy objectify" anything that has a sex or look like it could possible have a sex. just kill yourself.

It's not about sexism, it's about sexual objectification.

Lust would be one of the most primitive and damaging aspect of human psychology. The strongest aspect of human psychology that differs them from all kinds of creatures of earth is the frontal lobe. It is the center of self control and spiritual thinking of man. Without it, man wouldn't be able to grasp the concept of the infinite, discordance in the material finite world, the longing for harmony, and the possibility of reality beyond the observable facts.

You know what I'm saying?

i was going to say pac-man, but then i remember ms. pac-man was chauvinist and cisheteronormative.

holy fuck, fuck off to reddit
ahaha you mean the thing that keeps us and every other animal alive as a species

try again you fucking faggot.

Just go back to facebook or whatever social media circlejerk to belong to.

...

Very vague term in and of itself. Like previously mentioned in this thread, it can mean anything so long as someone takes issue with it. If there's a character that likes to dress in revealing clothes, does that make it a part of her character or as something that is seen as a male fantasy? This means that you can cherrypick examples of characters you find triggering and then complain that it's the work of some male conspiracy. Even if you get characters that are designed by your criteria, you will STILL find examples to endlessly split hairs about shit no one cares about.

Let me ask you; what difference will it make trying to dismantle who makes sexy characters/games and why? It's not like there are games on the market right now that are outright fetish games. The games on sale have more grit beyond being porn for nerds. Do these games even cause sexism? If video games causing violence is still unproven, what do you think that says about video games causing sexism?

The fact of the matter is people are weirdos, no matter what you try to do. There are people who see games like Bayonetta, and see that the whole point of the game is to be over-the-top in every aspect, and take it for what it is. Some people like Bayonetta so much, they draw porn of her. Some people find the games so triggering, they call for bans. Filtering media, censoring speech and controlling what can be made won't change the fact that people are violent, sexual and oftentimes irrational beings. No matter what you give them, they will find ways to pervert it.

Valve games.
Undertale

Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures.

They look like your everyday Rus, rarely have a conversation about sensual topics, and are all absolutely hijab.

Ancient Romans were absolutely degenerate though. I think Renaissance paintings and sculptures should've been forbidden by the church, they're the remains of the moral decadence of the Ancient Roman civilization. I find Andrei Rublev's iconography to be much more mystic and charming than any Renaissance painting. Western European Renaissance religious arts are like anime. No matter how you try to make it look pure, innocent, and divine, they still heavily imply the worship of human body rather than God, and this is perverseness.

well, duh

and?

EYE: Divine Cybermancy
Thief: The Dark Project
Star Wars: Republic Commando
Insurgency
Legend of Grimrock

it's really not hard

the people who think it's less gay to fuck a boy in his asshole than it is to lick pussy

wait fuck, do synicles count as objectification?

oh well. everything else should be valid.

This is the best game ever made, try it OP.

Go back to tumblr, OP.

And what's wrong with siding with humanity? I won't put my faith in any god who won't even show his face, let alone show his worshippers that he exists. If these gods won't even show us that much respect, they might as well not even exist. How can we know what's divine intervention and what isn't? If this god is so all-mighty, why aren't we born with this knowledge and instead need to rely on culture for this knowledge to be passed on? There are simply too many what-ifs. Also, you dont need to be devout to be a good person.

Trust what you can interact with, what you can change and what you can do, instead of relying on some wishful thinking. For all we know, we only live this life once.

objectification is in the eyes of the person if it exist it can be objectified

Not only are you a prude, but you're a massive hipster.

sexual objectification is a buzz word and concept completely invented by feminazis. Just cut off your penis and be done with it, you fucking pathetic self-hating pseudo-intellectual retard.

As if I care to distinguish them. Checkem.

Objectification as in the "object/subject" false dichotomy?

Hello. I'm a subject. I am self-sufficient. According to the definition, I can obtain my status of subject on my own, by merely acting. I can live all alone in the desert and still be a subject as long as a walk, because the subject is "the one who acts". That's it.

Hello. I'm an object. I am dependant. I can only obtain my status of object if someone/something else is doing something to me. If I were to sit on my ass all day without anyone to interact with me, I couldn't be an object, because the object is "acted upon".

Together, we are part of a false dichotomy that implies a relationship between the object and the subject (implied because we're both in the same equation), but never enforces it (because the rules are constructed in a way anything goes): if mister desert walker is put in the same equation as me, then I can obtain the status of object by default, claiming that since we are two and mister desert walker is already taking the place of subject, I have to be an object (plus, I'm not acting, so I cannot be a subject). Therefore, mister walker is objectifying me. Somehow.

Thanks to this logic, Mario (who never touches the princess… ever) can be considered as the one objectifying the princess (because he's the one who acts, and she cannot be subject since she doesn't act, so she's an object). Meanwhile, Bowser who lifted the princess from her seat, forcibly dragged her to his castle and caged her (above a pit of lava) like a singing bird, is not even put into question… that's weird, because if the princess is indeed acted upon by someone, it's by Browser, not Mario.

Anyway, you could rewrite the dichotomy to enforce the interaction such as "the subject acts upon the object, and the object is being acted upon by the subject", but most of that feminist bullshit theory falls apart… and that would be an attack on all women to tell feminists they're deliberately talking nonsense, being misleading, and trying to manipulate brain-dead beta males and entitled land whales.