"Purity" in otome games

A place to discuss things that aren't specific to any one creator or game.
Forum rules
Ren'Py specific questions should be posted in the Ren'Py Questions and Annoucements forum, not here.
Message
Author
User avatar
trooper6
Lemma-Class Veteran
Posts: 3712
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:33 pm
Projects: A Close Shave
Location: Medford, MA
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#46 Post by trooper6 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:33 am

Wissa wrote: I feel like this sums up my entire attitude/response to this topic. Purity is a kink. Lots of guys have it, and ethical ideals won't change that. The VNs that use this ploy are trying to make the most money possible and appeal to the widest audience, and if the virginal protagonist wasn't making them money, they wouldn't use it. I'd say blame mother nature, but I don't want to mention evolutionary psychology. Oh crap
Since you brought up evopsych, you might want to read this article (one of the many) that debunks the whole "men are programed to rape people" bs that evopsych likes to peddle:

http://www.newsweek.com/can-we-blame-ou ... enes-80349

Also, I don't think all kinks are equal. If a person's kink is to hurt or oppress other people non-consensually, I'm not going to say, "Oh well, we all have kinks!" We are adaptable and we can change. Even within the kink community people value safe, sane, and consensual acts. Not all behavior is given a thumbs up stamp.

Also, as this is a creator discussion, I don't believe that just because we could make money on something that means we should put it out in the universe and/or profit from it. That is for example why it is illegal to produce child porn or snuff films regardless of if there is a market for it. We are responsible for the things we do and create. Our work impacts other people. It can reinforce some notions or challenge them. People have used art to challenge racism and sexism (even in the most 'escapist' 'fun' works), people have used to art to reinforce racism and sexism (even in the most 'escapist' 'fun' works. So what are you going to do as a creator? What are your ethics? What do you want to put out in the universe? That is a question I ask myself as a creator.
A Close Shave:
*Last Thing Done (Aug 17): Finished coding emotions and camera for 4/10 main labels.
*Currently Doing: Coding of emotions and camera for the labels--On 5/10
*First Next thing to do: Code in all CG and special animation stuff
*Next Next thing to do: Set up film animation
*Other Thing to Do: Do SFX and Score (maybe think about eye blinks?)
Check out My Clock Cookbook Recipe: http://lemmasoft.renai.us/forums/viewto ... 51&t=21978

User avatar
noeinan
Eileen-Class Veteran
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:10 pm
Projects: Ren'Py QuickStart, Crimson Rue
Organization: Statistically Unlikely Games
Deviantart: noeinan
Github: noeinan
Location: Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#47 Post by noeinan » Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:54 pm

^While I agree that creators need to think about what ideas they are reinforcing, and how that is changing the world (yes!Fiction changes the world!) I don't feel we should aim for total elimination of harmful kink depictions.

One of the reasons there is so much bizarre hentai has to do with a cultural belief that differs in Japan from the West. It's the idea that people can have fantasies that they would never actually want to live out in real life.

For example, most vore enthusiasts probably don't *actually* want to eat people or be eaten in real life. Most fans of Loli do *not* want to rape actual children.

In my opinion, fictional depictions of harmful kinks, where no one is actually harmed in the making, allow an outlet for folks so that they don't have to look to real life to be satisfied.

This is an unpopular opinion, but because people can't control their desires, and what they like or dislike, I don't think any desire is inherently wrong. However, acting on desires that hurt others is abominable.

The problem, in my opinion, is when harmful media is the vast majority of what's out there. At that point, it's not just catering to the people who have a natural desire for those things -- instead, it's setting a standard for what is "normal" or rather, "acceptable."

And I don't think that women, specifically women since in many (if not most) cases the man is not portrayed as pure and virginal, being virginal and pure is a healthy standard. (If the men were pure too it's still problematic in some ways, but waaaaay less sexist.)

Which is why I advocate a greater diversity of love stories, so that the definition of normal/acceptable love can include more than a purity sue and her posessive rapist.
Image

Image
Image

User avatar
Wissa
Regular
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:47 pm
Location: Sadchildrensville
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#48 Post by Wissa » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:23 pm

Since you brought up evopsych, you might want to read this article (one of the many) that debunks the whole "men are programed to rape people" bs that evopsych likes to peddle:
Who said rape? I don't believe that rape was ever an evolutionary advantage, mainly because (reading other theories on the subject), if you damage the female, chances of healthy offspring are diminished.

I was referring to attraction to purity and youth when I mentioned evopsych, not rape. Neoteny. Longer article
I supposed I should not have brought up the politically charged 'evo psych.' I should have just said developmental biology in human evolution. Well that's one theory.

Based on what I've read about why many men want more innocent women, among a host of reasons, it comes down to wanting to be the leader, protector, and instigator. Experienced women are seen as more intimidating, judgmental, choosy, and difficult. Guys like to be the first, and don't like competing with other (past) men. They like to please, and think inexperienced girls are easier to please, which is probably true, because they have no experience.
Also, I don't think all kinks are equal. If a person's kink is to hurt or oppress other people non-consensually, I'm not going to say, "Oh well, we all have kinks!" We are adaptable and we can change. Even within the kink community people value safe, sane, and consensual acts. Not all behavior is given a thumbs up stamp.
This was said about homosexuals at one point. Remember, we're not talking about behavior in real life. We are talking about imagination/fantasy. It would be easier get abstinence only education to work than to change people's kinks.
So what are you going to do as a creator? What are your ethics? What do you want to put out in the universe? That is a question I ask myself as a creator.
That's perfectly good and fine. As for me, I just create the kind of work I'd like to enjoy myself.

Lastly, I agree that I'd like to see more diversity in the story world, but again, you can't put that responsibility on other people. People will write the stories they like, and if you think a different story deserves to be told, you need to tell it, not demand someone else does. edit**or demand that the work someone else does should be different (outside of constructive crit).

User avatar
noeinan
Eileen-Class Veteran
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:10 pm
Projects: Ren'Py QuickStart, Crimson Rue
Organization: Statistically Unlikely Games
Deviantart: noeinan
Github: noeinan
Location: Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#49 Post by noeinan » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:02 pm

Wissa wrote:I was referring to attraction to purity and youth when I mentioned evopsych, not rape. Neoteny. Longer article
I supposed I should not have brought up the politically charged 'evo psych.' I should have just said developmental biology in human evolution. Well that's one theory.
Personally, I feel the purity obsession is cultural and not biological. There are many human societies that don't have that particular obsession, and even Western societies haven't always been attracted to that.

In the past, postmenopausal women were seen as the sexiest st certain points, at other times women who were meatier were more valued. Because our mate selection has changed so much, and differs from culture to culture, I'm just not seeing the evolutionary argument holding water. There isn't any convincing evidence, just folks making guesses. (And sometimes defending their arguments in a very biased, sexist way.)
Wissa wrote:Based on what I've read about why many men want more innocent women, among a host of reasons, it comes down to wanting to be the leader, protector, and instigator. Experienced women are seen as more intimidating, judgmental, choosy, and difficult. Guys like to be the first, and don't like competing with other (past) men. They like to please, and think inexperienced girls are easier to please, which is probably true, because they have no experience.
Again, cultural and the way I see it, about power dynamics. Why are women okay with a more experienced partner while men aren't? Because men are trained to think they *should* be more powerful than "their" women and instead of learning to be better lovers, which would require admitting to inexperience/weakness, they keep their "place" by having a newbie who doesn't know any better.

Not saying all men think like this, but it's the general trend displayed in a lot of media. Again, setting the standard for what is "normal" and acceptable in relationships.
Wissa wrote:That's perfectly good and fine. As for me, I just create the kind of work I'd like to enjoy myself.

Lastly, I agree that I'd like to see more diversity in the story world, but again, you can't put that responsibility on other people. People will write the stories they like, and if you think a different story deserves to be told, you need to tell it, not demand someone else does.
I think it's good to encourage others to question their creative process because it results in better games. A lot of the time, people fall back on those tropes because they have a preconceived notion about what will be popular, or what games are supposed to be like, rather than because they actually enjoy those things.

For example, most games out there have an all white cast, not because the creators thought "let's make everyone white" but because it never occurred to them to diversify their cast. If provoking thoughtful discussion about diversity can prevent folks from ascribing to the default "just because" then I say let's do it. No one can single-handedly change a medium.
Image

Image
Image

User avatar
Wissa
Regular
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:47 pm
Location: Sadchildrensville
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#50 Post by Wissa » Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:58 pm

In the past, postmenopausal women were seen as the sexiest st certain points, at other times women who were meatier were more valued. Because our mate selection has changed so much, and differs from culture to culture, I'm just not seeing the evolutionary argument holding water. There isn't any convincing evidence, just folks making guesses. (And sometimes defending their arguments in a very biased, sexist way.)
Postmenopausal women as most attractive? I have a hard time believing this. Yes, it varies from culture to culture, but there are some things that have been found to be universal, such as the hip ratio, symmetry, and youth. Yes, a lot of guesses are being made, but the scientific community is more than just making guesses. Unfortunately, a lot of feminist criticism mirrors creationists' criticism concerning evolutionary theory and how it relates to humans, it being "just a theory, not a fact." Well, yes, there are a lot of guesses and assumptions and hypotheses, but there is a lot of studies and evidence out there as well, and a lot of them are widely accepted by the folks who are in the field. Also, the culture vs biology is a false dichotomy in a lot of cases. Culture did not arise out of a vacuum, you need to ask yourself how our culture is the way it is in the first place.
Again, cultural and the way I see it, about power dynamics. Why are women okay with a more experienced partner while men aren't? Because men are trained to think they *should* be more powerful than "their" women and instead of learning to be better lovers, which would require admitting to inexperience/weakness, they keep their "place" by having a newbie who doesn't know any better.
It's not brainwashing by the media. There is a perfectly sound evolutionary explanation about why men needed to display strength and aggression. Male hierarchies and competition were around loooong before culture ever appeared on the scene. The fact is that women, by and large, are not attracted to men who they perceive as being weaker or of lesser status than they are. You can blame "culture" on that as well, but there is still a better evolutionary explanation as to why that is. Females have always been the choosers when it comes to reproduction rights, so the males have had to compete with each other to prove themselves as the ideal mate, who can provide protection because--this is the crucial part--women are completely vulnerable when having a child. They need someone strong to protect them, and that is 100% mother nature, no culture involved in that set up. That is why men in general are expected to be strong, stronger than females and other males who they are competing with.

Why are females more accepting of experienced partners? They can only have so many children in their lifetime (men can have zillions), and each time they do, they are vulnerable. One of the main priorities for women in choosing a mate therefore is not the experience of the male, but how fit he/his sperm is, and how able he is to provide for her and her child. This is why, once agriculture came to be and it was possible for huge amounts of wealth to be acquired by single individuals (unlike in small hunter/gatherer communities) polygamy became the norm. One man of high status could have many wives if he had to means to take care of them. So in this case, culture does have a role in this dynamic, but not one that is divorced from the biological needs behind it.

So why do males value fidelity over strength and resources in women? To put it simply, because they are not the ones who are incapacitated in the order to reproduce. There is another huge factor--and that is the the male, unlike the female, not until very recently, had no way of knowing if the child he was taking care of was actually his. Whereas women need protection and resources, men want to make sure they are actually reproducing, that the child that their mate carries is actually theirs. Otherwise, they could be spending all their time and money on someone else's kid. This is probably why men get more jealous of a women's sexual history on a gut level.

This would have been a big deal in the past because, in fact, are ancestors were not 50/50 female/male. Most women who have ever lived have reproduced, while only a fraction of men who have lived have reproduced, thanks to polygamy and the tendency for a majority females to get their sperm from a few males. The truth is that it is easy for women to get sex whenever they want, but if a man fails to get sex, he is a loser, as seen by both men and women in this society. All these factors drive the need for men to succeed and dominate, sexually, financially, whatever.

A lot of feminist act like the patriarchy exists only because of men, like men put themselves at the top and subjected women who were weaker. This really isn't the whole story. Both men and women created the patriarchy. Men are acting upon the desire to win over women, and women want men to be strong. Women are competitive, too, and we each want a good catch, and for millions of years (billions I guess), that meant a guy who could beat other men and rise to the top.

If women suddenly started desiring guys with no sexual experience and less money and status, the patriarchy would die in an instant.

User avatar
noeinan
Eileen-Class Veteran
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:10 pm
Projects: Ren'Py QuickStart, Crimson Rue
Organization: Statistically Unlikely Games
Deviantart: noeinan
Github: noeinan
Location: Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#51 Post by noeinan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:31 am

Wissa wrote:Postmenopausal women as most attractive? I have a hard time believing this.


Yup, it was because at that point women were no longer fertile, and thus were more "sexually free" to have lots of no-consequence sex. Also, if they weren't married, they often had assets of their own from husbands who had passed on.
Wissa wrote:Yes, it varies from culture to culture, but there are some things that have been found to be universal, such as the hip ratio, symmetry, and youth.
The waist to hip ratio is definitely a thing. Youth... Not so much. Not so say it's not common, but it varies from culture to culture, and thus can't really be claimed to be universal.
Wissa wrote:Yes, a lot of guesses are being made, but the scientific community is more than just making guesses. Unfortunately, a lot of feminist criticism mirrors creationists' criticism concerning evolutionary theory and how it relates to humans, it being "just a theory, not a fact." Well, yes, there are a lot of guesses and assumptions and hypotheses, but there is a lot of studies and evidence out there as well, and a lot of them are widely accepted by the folks who are in the field. Also, the culture vs biology is a false dichotomy in a lot of cases. Culture did not arise out of a vacuum, you need to ask yourself how our culture is the way it is in the first place.
Alrighty there, a theory is different than a guess because it actually has evidence behind it. I'm not attacking science-- I'm a scientist. Criticizing "guesses" that aren't as well supported as actual theories is part of what keeps the scientific community strong, and honest. Much of the stuff you're claiming? Not actually widely accepted. Some of it, but some of it is just popular opinion mixed in.

In addition, the culture argument is not that certain things *aren't* based in part on biological reality, but rather the degree to which it is biology is overemphasized. In other words, yes, it is biological, but it's our culture that treats those biological differences as if they are more important/more widespread/more powerful than they are. It's not a rejection of science, it's cautioning folks not to let their own personal paradigms influence what should be objective, clean, and testable research.

For example, "feminine hysteria," "wandering uterus syndrome," the fallacy that women have much smaller brains than men... Or for a non-gender related issue take a simple experiment about the temperature of water as it freezes. Many people don't know, but water actually gets hotter right before it freezes-- when our chemistry teacher wanted to show us how our beliefs affected our results, he had our entire class measure water temperature as it froze. Every single group in class, with the exception of me and my partner, had omitted the higher temperature reading. Because it didn't fit into what they knew-- that things freeze when they are cold.

It is that kind of simplistic thinking that we have to try to avoid when doing experiments, and when making arguments about evolution and gender. For instance, on average, human women are larger than men. However, much of that extra mass is fat. Most men and most women fit the same height ranges-- however, there are more very tall men and very short women who skew the average. Also, men and women sexually select so that the male of a pair is taller than the female and vise versa, giving the false appearance that men are taller than women in general. Really, there's a lot of overlap.

And when people get into "physical superiority" of men, they seem to only take into account feats of strength. Women live longer, on average, and are more likely to survive many dangerous situations, such as freezing or starving to death, because their bodies are, on average, more survivable and sturdy. There is a lot of other research that has been done on how womens' bones and muscles are structured differently than men, for different things, but many people just like to ignore these biological realities because it doesn't fit into their world view, where men are just physically better than women.
Wissa wrote:It's not brainwashing by the media. There is a perfectly sound evolutionary explanation about why men needed to display strength and aggression. Male hierarchies and competition were around loooong before culture ever appeared on the scene.
One could argue that culture has existed since the dawn of mankind. Even cavemen had cultures. Not sure what you think culture is?
Wissa wrote:The fact is that women, by and large, are not attracted to men who they perceive as being weaker or of lesser status than they are.
Actually, women show differing levels of attraction to different "types" of men at different times in their fertility cycles. When a woman is ovulating, she is more likely to be attracted to more "alpha" aggressive men, and when she is not ovulating she is more likely to be attracted to "weaker, or lesser status" men. Unlike your statement, I have actual research to go with mine. :P

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/wh ... rss=249813
Wissa wrote:If women suddenly started desiring guys with no sexual experience and less money and status, the patriarchy would die in an instant.
I mean, I’m sure it would help if men and women stopped desiring different things in mates, but there is a lot more to it than that. I’m also not sure that desiring different things is bad in and of itself. *Telling people* that certain people are more “worthy” of love than others (ie. Virgin women) is harmful. Natural inclinations are natural inclinations. But it’s nearly impossible to (ethically) separate culture from biology to test how far one or the other goes, so it really boils down to personal opinions on this one until better research comes out.

(For example, there’s a lot of historical precedence that shows things were different in the past, but not a more scientifically framed meta-analysis pulling it all together. I’d love to see one!)

The rest of your text was pretty long, so I'll just sum up and address your points.

1. Women are the choosers when it comes to reproductive rights. Men, thus, must compete against one another to pass on their genes.

Although, more often in the media you see guys hitting on girls rather than the other way around. Because men must be the "aggressors" in relationships. If biology favors the other way around, I would think this adds to my point rather than yours.

2. Women want strong men because they are vulnerable during pregnancy.

The above study I linked proposed that women want more "dominant" men during ovulation because then their kids get the better genes, but wanted less dominant men all other times because those men provided better for her and her kid. (The idea is the second type of men was more sensitive to their needs, and less likely to flake out and leave her to spread his seed. Think of it as "one night stand guy" versus "marriage material guy.")

3. Women choose a mate based on resources he can provide her and her child. This is why men with abundant resources have traditionally had multiple wives.

Aaand in some cultures, where land was given out to sons, two brothers shared a wife so that the land didn't get split up further. (A big problem in early America when unclaimed land became scarce-- all sons got a part of the land until pieces were too small to subsist off of.) More examples of how culture affects mating practice? I believe so.

Gotta address this one directly:
Wissa wrote:So in this case, culture does have a role in this dynamic, but not one that is divorced from the biological needs behind it.
Literally no one in this thread ever said that it was *completely* divorced from biology. Only that the biological does not hold as much sway as many would claim, and thus should not be used as an excuse to continue harmful practices. "Women are weaker than men, therefore we shouldn't allow them into the military," for example. Continuing on:

4. Men want fidelity because historically it was the only way they could ensure they were reproducing.
5. Subconsciously, the idea that a man may be caring for another man's kid (may) cause more disgust with her if she has been sexually active with other people.

There had also been a lot of talk about the "abusive stepfather" stereotype and how men would kill off or abuse kids from previous relationships. However... A study at least five years back showed that to not be the case. In fact, guys were more likely to get in good with her other kids because it got him in good with the mother. Currently, and in a historical context.

Plus, there's the idea of altruism being an evolutionary benefit, especially in small communities where more folks share your same genes. (Some Native American tribes, for example, allowed divorce/polyamory and raised children communally. When westerners asked how they could raise a kid that could have been from another man they replied “all of the tribes children are our own.”)

6. Most women who have ever lived have reproduced while most men have not.

I think you just made that up?

Another quote I gotta address:
Wissa wrote:The truth is that it is easy for women to get sex whenever they want, but if a man fails to get sex, he is a loser, as seen by both men and women in this society. All these factors drive the need for men to succeed and dominate, sexually, financially, whatever.
That's true *now* (or at least, it's a generalized trend in the same way slut shaming women is a trend) in some cultures, but is not a universal fact that spans human history, and cross culturally.
Wissa wrote: A lot of feminist act like the patriarchy exists only because of men, like men put themselves at the top and subjected women who were weaker. This really isn't the whole story. Both men and women created the patriarchy. Men are acting upon the desire to win over women, and women want men to be strong. Women are competitive, too, and we each want a good catch, and for millions of years (billions I guess), that meant a guy who could beat other men and rise to the top.
So, I'm guessing this is the reason you were being pretty uncivil earlier in your post and insinuating I was uneducated and anti-science. :)

"The patriarchy" is not the fault of one person, or one group of people. It's a thing because we perpetuate it across groups. And you really have feminism pegged wrong, because it is widely accepted that "the patriarchy" hurts men as well as women. Sure, men benefit from it, because they can more easily get respect, high paying jobs, and other things, but they are also hurt by it because they are not allowed to have emotions, or act outside of their gender roles for fear of rejection. (Men who don't have sex are losers, remember?)

Sure, some feminists think men are evil and are trying to keep women under their boot heel or whatever. Because some feminists are assholes. Just like some people of any group are assholes. I certainly don't judge all men based on my father-in-law who told me to my face that he wished women were not allowed to vote or work outside the home. So don't just equate me with a bunch of assholes who also happen to identify as feminist. Seriously. Conversation was pretty civil until that last post.
Image

Image
Image

User avatar
Chocopyro
Regular
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:38 pm
Projects: Keepsake: Orison of the falling leaves
Organization: Patchwork Novels
Location: A cornfield in 'merica.
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#52 Post by Chocopyro » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:27 am

daikiraikimi wrote: I'm asexual, too. I don't think anyone is saying innocent characters *shouldn't ever* be used (also, a character can be innocent without super playing up the absolute desirous nature of being "pure" and how important it is in a relationship.) Just that innocent characters shouldn't be *every main character/love interest.* (Or very nearly every MC/LI.) For the record, I am asexual, so it's not that someone not having sexual experience bothers me, but rather the fetishization of "purity" and the implied denigration of non-pure women.
Okay, I get where you're coming from, and I certainly agree. Innocence is certainly romanticized a lot, and as beautiful as that is to me, a lot of people often forget a lot of the problems that come with sort of a naive and sheltered lifestyle. Although I do sort of differentiate between innocence and purity, with innocence being the sheltering or ignorance of the so called "Corruption" of the world, and purity being more like honor, where its a subjective standard to adhere to on a personal level, but not something you should value others on. (That's my opinion. Doesn't make it right.) To me, what purity actually is is one's ability to connect to the most honest feelings and ideals in their heart. Obviously someone don't have to be a virgin to be pure. They simply haven't been as compromised by the world as others may have let themselves be. The beauty of purity for me comes from contrast. Like when you have an idealistic young knight raising his blade to protect a bandit who may have been have been subjected to a jaded belief system where everything in the world is against her. Or a delinquent inspired by a freshman girl's naive outlook on justice which strikes a chord with a part of his childhood that he deviated from when he sought to become strong in the first place.

And seriously, a woman's beauty doesn't come from innocence or purity.
daikiraikimi wrote: It's totally fine that you like those stories. I like more mature themed stories, though, so I feel there should be games for me and not *only* games for you. :)

In addition, you can have a really light-hearted, comical, and innocent story with characters who are not "virginal" or "pure" to the max. And I think that's kind of what I'm getting at. Love can still be magical and amazing if it's not your first love. Where are the adorable stories about the man who has loved and lost, but finds a wonderful healthy relationship with a kind and caring single mother? Both have innocent hearts, despite the tribulations and hardship they have gone through, and that makes finally finding someone to love all the more touching.

Where is the story about the renaissance reenactors who meet at a RenFair and fall in love, in a swashbuckling story full of hilarity and adventure? Where is the story of a couple of folks meeting and falling in love over chat roulette? Wading through the tide of dick picks to find the username of the person they were talking to before? (Come on, that would be funny as hell!) All I'm saying is that the majority of these stories are about high school girls and guys who get their rocks off on popping cherries. :P
Well, if it makes you feel any better, in one of our games, one of the main heroines is a chain smoking, rough and tumble, trigger happy bounty huntress in her mid twenties. As the protagonist tries to flee debt collectors by laying low in mexico, she tracks him down, and he's tied to a chair and trying to charm his way out. The only thing that appears to get more than a "hmph" or a "Can it, dickweed." is the player choice "Smoking is sexy." To which, she's kind of wide eyed, and unable to respond. Though the proceeding dialogue ends up with a machete slammed into the chair right between the protagonist's legs as the protagonist tends to try to push his luck. :lol:

I won't deny that high school settings are among my favorite to work with, but by no means should that mean anyone should limit themselves. Especially when there's so much versatility, even in over the top anime styled stories that haven't really been done before. Plots themed after globe trotting treasure hunters, stranded tourists on deserted islands, a steam punk story based off of "Around the world in 30 days" or medieval fantasy plots involving fairy abductions, alchemist shops under threats of foreclosure, or the throne being accidentally handed over to a harlequin in a drunken bet.

Ah, crap. Getting off topic. So, about them cherries.
trooper6 wrote: I think it is problematic to equate innocent and naive with not having had sex. One of my very good friends is in his mid-30s and still a virgin. But guess what? He is not innocent, nor is he naive. He is a very sophisticated, dirty-minded, cynical, hilarious, guy. If you made a VN about him, it would not be lighthearted.

Similarly, some of my undergraduate students are not virgins, but are still quite innocent and naive, which really comes from a lot of their privilege.

Equating having had sex with no longer being innocent and it's inverse that people who have had sex are no longer innocent...is a real problem because it results in real world mistreatment of women and the propagation of toxic masculinities.
Yeah, I didn't really word that post in the best way.
daikiraikimi wrote: "The patriarchy" is not the fault of one person, or one group of people. It's a thing because we perpetuate it across groups. And you really have feminism pegged wrong, because it is widely accepted that "the patriarchy" hurts men as well as women. Sure, men benefit from it, because they can more easily get respect, high paying jobs, and other things, but they are also hurt by it because they are not allowed to have emotions, or act outside of their gender roles for fear of rejection. (Men who don't have sex are losers, remember?)

Sure, some feminists think men are evil and are trying to keep women under their boot heel or whatever. Because some feminists are assholes.
I've been saying this for years actually. Both genders are kind of damaged at this point and anyone who doesn't really see that isn't looking at the full picture. And yes, like many, I used to believe feminism was another term for "Feminazi" until I finally figured out that:

1: I'd been talking to the wrong feminists in college (Including the teacher in the feminism class, who was quite hilariously the walking example of an illogical man hater).
And:
2: The "Female supremacists" who i'd associated with the name of feminism were actually in the minority. They just happen to be the loudest.
Image

User avatar
Wissa
Regular
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:47 pm
Location: Sadchildrensville
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#53 Post by Wissa » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:06 pm

One could argue that culture has existed since the dawn of mankind. Even cavemen had cultures. Not sure what you think culture is?
I'm talking about before cavemen, and I'm also referring to our closest relatives. I mean that human beings are no exception when it comes to male dominance hierarchy as seen in many mammals.
Actually, women show differing levels of attraction to different "types" of men at different times in their fertility cycles. When a woman is ovulating, she is more likely to be attracted to more "alpha" aggressive men, and when she is not ovulating she is more likely to be attracted to "weaker, or lesser status" men. Unlike your statement, I have actual research to go with mine. :P

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/wh ... rss=249813
I don't understand why you think the article contradicts anything that I've said, because it basically explains in more detail what I've said. No where did it say women are attracted to weak, lesser status men. It says that women are at different times attracted to aggressive alpha males, or kind nurturing ones with resources who are willing to support them for extended periods of time. This is where that horribly sexist phrase "Alpha fucks beta bucks" comes from. This is the theory that women are drawn sexually to dominant men for sperm, but because the alpha male is giving out sperm to everyone, he doesn't have the resources to take care of them all and has to abandon them, while the female still needs someone to take care of her and her child. Like the article said, "best of both worlds."

Regardless of how you may interpret the the results, it still supports one of my main points--that sexual attraction has biological roots that can't be changed through education.
*Telling people* that certain people are more “worthy” of love than others (ie. Virgin women) is harmful. Natural inclinations are natural inclinations. But it’s nearly impossible to (ethically) separate culture from biology to test how far one or the other goes, so it really boils down to personal opinions on this one until better research comes out.
What about the link you posted? Was that not research? Good heavens, the very first statement is

"If she loves you and then she loves you not, don’t blame the petals of that daisy. Blame evolution."

Although, more often in the media you see guys hitting on girls rather than the other way around. Because men must be the "aggressors" in relationships. If biology favors the other way around, I would think this adds to my point rather than yours.
Guys being aggressors and hitting on girls is how female selection works. Birds do fancy displays of feathers. Crickets cricket. The female judges them and selects the one she likes the most.
The above study I linked proposed that women want more "dominant" men during ovulation because then their kids get the better genes, but wanted less dominant men all other times because those men provided better for her and her kid. (The idea is the second type of men was more sensitive to their needs, and less likely to flake out and leave her to spread his seed. Think of it as "one night stand guy" versus "marriage material guy.")
Less dominant does not mean weak, it just means settling for a guy who does not have so many options. Sure, he might be more sensitive, but sensitivity doesn't do anything if he can't get a job and support the family, and that is what I mean by strong. Just because a guy isn't the alpha male does not mean he ceases to fight and compete for resources and status.
Literally no one in this thread ever said that it was *completely* divorced from biology. Only that the biological does not hold as much sway as many would claim
I think the author from the article you linked to would disagree.

"Until the past decade, we all accepted this notion that human female sexuality was radically different from sexuality in all of these other animal species — that, unlike other species, human female sexuality was somehow walled off from reproductive hormones," Haselton said. "Then a set of studies emerged that challenged conventional wisdom."

It's funny you should mention biology doesn't hold as much sway, because it's a theory that ties back into why men prefer child-like innocent women (neoteny). Part of the theory is that the attraction to youthfulness is what extended human childhood, and consequently prolonged the neuroplasticity of the brain. This meant we started to go from being instinct driven animals to acquiring more learned behavior. So basically, it may be the case that our human intelligence and being able to learn and change is a result of men being drawn to infantile looking women. hahaha

Stepfathers--
I'm not saying that stepfathers want to abuse their kids, but I'm pretty darn sure that men would prefer a child of their own over someone else's.
I think you just made that up?
Jeez, why do you doubt me so much? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231.pdf
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 091604.php
That's true *now* (or at least, it's a generalized trend in the same way slut shaming women is a trend) in some cultures, but is not a universal fact that spans human history, and cross culturally.
I think you just made that up.
So, I'm guessing this is the reason you were being pretty uncivil earlier in your post and insinuating I was uneducated and anti-science.
Yes, that is exactly the reason. Wait, what reason?
Anyway, the point of that paragraph was to further explain why men naturally desire to be dominant and should not be faulted for it. That's it.
Sure, some feminists think men are evil and are trying to keep women under their boot heel or whatever. Because some feminists are assholes. Just like some people of any group are assholes. I certainly don't judge all men based on my father-in-law who told me to my face that he wished women were not allowed to vote or work outside the home. So don't just equate me with a bunch of assholes who also happen to identify as feminist. Seriously. Conversation was pretty civil until that last post.
I think you taking things too personally. I was responding to the statement that those who support the evolutionary argument as just making guesses without any evidence, and are perhaps biased and sexist. There is a lot I could have insinuated from that statement, but I like to keep things non-personal. I try to be careful about my language, which is exactly why I said "a lot of feminists" instead of "all feminists" or "you feminists."

User avatar
PyTom
Ren'Py Creator
Posts: 15557
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:58 am
Completed: Moonlight Walks
Projects: Ren'Py
IRC Nick: renpytom
Github: renpytom
itch: renpytom
Location: Kings Park, NY
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#54 Post by PyTom » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:53 pm

daikiraikimi wrote:Many people don't know, but water actually gets hotter right before it freezes-- when our chemistry teacher wanted to show us how our beliefs affected our results, he had our entire class measure water temperature as it froze. Every single group in class, with the exception of me and my partner, had omitted the higher temperature reading. Because it didn't fit into what they knew-- that things freeze when they are cold.
Was there anything dissolved in the water? I think this is the case for water with something dissolved in it (like tap water), but completely pure water should stay steady - or drop - in temperature as it freezes.
Supporting creators since 2004
(When was the last time you backed up your game?)
"Do good work." - Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
"Silly and fun things are important." - Elon Musk
Software > Drama • https://www.patreon.com/renpytom

User avatar
Rozume
Veteran
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:10 pm
Completed: Munster Academy, boy
Projects: Coming of Age VN
Organization: Cosmic Visual
IRC Nick: Rozume
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#55 Post by Rozume » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:59 pm

If you're going to bring up evolution, biology, and other sciences, then I'm going to look at you with a HEAP of skepticism because biology has been in the past to justify people's biases, especially when it comes to women and PoC.

Anyway, I have my own thoughts on sexual purity and how toxic the idea is but I don't have the energy to elaborate atm.

J. Datie
Veteran
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:30 am
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#56 Post by J. Datie » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:23 pm

PyTom wrote:
daikiraikimi wrote:Many people don't know, but water actually gets hotter right before it freezes-- when our chemistry teacher wanted to show us how our beliefs affected our results, he had our entire class measure water temperature as it froze. Every single group in class, with the exception of me and my partner, had omitted the higher temperature reading. Because it didn't fit into what they knew-- that things freeze when they are cold.
Was there anything dissolved in the water? I think this is the case for water with something dissolved in it (like tap water), but completely pure water should stay steady - or drop - in temperature as it freezes.
I like the consistency of steadily dropping temperatures. It's why I only play otome games where the protagonists are pure water.

User avatar
Green Glasses Girl
Veteran
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:16 pm
Projects: Cavaliers & Carnivals
Tumblr: green-glasses
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#57 Post by Green Glasses Girl » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:27 pm

*walks into thread to see what things were posted since page one*

*reads the last three pages*

Image

*slowly backs out of thread*
Image

Honest Critique
Avatar art by akemicchi.

User avatar
noeinan
Eileen-Class Veteran
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:10 pm
Projects: Ren'Py QuickStart, Crimson Rue
Organization: Statistically Unlikely Games
Deviantart: noeinan
Github: noeinan
Location: Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#58 Post by noeinan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:48 pm

Chocopyro *thumbs up*
Wissa wrote:I'm talking about before cavemen, and I'm also referring to our closest relatives. I mean that human beings are no exception when it comes to male dominance hierarchy as seen in many mammals.
I would argue that there was culture even before cavemen. Lots of animals have culture as well. (Look at monkeys and apes.) Also, while male dominance does appear in other mammals, I'm not sure that it's more prevalent than the reverse? I'd have to find some sources before I could speak with authority, though. There are also numerous species where females are bigger and more dominant than males.

Wissa wrote:I don't understand why you think the article contradicts anything that I've said, because it basically explains in more detail what I've said. No where did it say women are attracted to weak, lesser status men. It says that women are at different times attracted to aggressive alpha males, or kind nurturing ones with resources who are willing to support them for extended periods of time. This is where that horribly sexist phrase "Alpha fucks beta bucks" comes from. This is the theory that women are drawn sexually to dominant men for sperm, but because the alpha male is giving out sperm to everyone, he doesn't have the resources to take care of them all and has to abandon them, while the female still needs someone to take care of her and her child. Like the article said, "best of both worlds."

Regardless of how you may interpret the the results, it still supports one of my main points--that sexual attraction has biological roots that can't be changed through education.
Well, I suppose this really depends on how you define “alpha males” and “weaker, lesser status males,” as well as how you're determining female status relevant to male status.

I do agree that sexual attraction has biological roots, I'm just disagreeing on what those roots are. (And also how much culture also affects it.) Or perhaps culture more affects when people get together with those they aren't necessarily attracted to? Hrm. (Since people often end up having kids with those they aren't physically attracted to.)
Wissa wrote:What about the link you posted? Was that not research? Good heavens, the very first statement is

"If she loves you and then she loves you not, don’t blame the petals of that daisy. Blame evolution."
There is no definitive research that shows how much biology affects attraction versus how much culture does. The article shows one way in which biology affects attraction over the course of ovulation. It did this through sweat soaked shirts, to see the effect of pheromones.

It is specifically measuring the biological aspect of attraction-- whose sweat is rank and whose is not? But it doesn't show that this biological attraction has more to do with a couple getting together than subconscious attraction influenced by culture, and conscious attractions/prejudices, also influenced by culture.

And yeah, I saw that quote before posting, but it's just a quippy line. The article isn't about love in the first place so this research can't explain why she does or does not love you. :P
Wissa wrote:Guys being aggressors and hitting on girls is how female selection works. Birds do fancy displays of feathers. Crickets cricket. The female judges them and selects the one she likes the most.
Mm, I'm not sure that's how it works with humans, really. Men picking out specific women to hit on seems more choosey to me, with women being second in line to choose. So men would be making the initial “mate selection choice” and women the “final mate selection choice.” (Since men don't exactly get together to display, with women picking them from a line up.)
Wissa wrote:Less dominant does not mean weak, it just means settling for a guy who does not have so many options. Sure, he might be more sensitive, but sensitivity doesn't do anything if he can't get a job and support the family, and that is what I mean by strong. Just because a guy isn't the alpha male does not mean he ceases to fight and compete for resources and status.
Alright, please provide a description of what you think is weakness and lesser status? I would think less dominant meant lesser status than the dominant guys. Also, the linked study didn't include an assessment of attraction based on the resources of the guy-- just his “masculine/sexy” features versus being “sensitive, and less masculine.”
Wissa wrote:I think the author from the article you linked to would disagree.

"Until the past decade, we all accepted this notion that human female sexuality was radically different from sexuality in all of these other animal species — that, unlike other species, human female sexuality was somehow walled off from reproductive hormones," Haselton said. "Then a set of studies emerged that challenged conventional wisdom."
The author is stating that previously it was believed that biology played *no* part in female attraction, and this study proves that wrong. Personally, I think the idea that humans are somehow immune to sex hormones is ridiculous. That doesn't mean I think attraction boils down to hormones exclusively, or even primarily. Whether or not I agree with the author, they did good research, which is something I support. And I think them pointing out that women aren't only attracted to men for their strength is an important point.
Wissa wrote:It's funny you should mention biology doesn't hold as much sway, because it's a theory that ties back into why men prefer child-like innocent women (neoteny). Part of the theory is that the attraction to youthfulness is what extended human childhood, and consequently prolonged the neuroplasticity of the brain. This meant we started to go from being instinct driven animals to acquiring more learned behavior. So basically, it may be the case that our human intelligence and being able to learn and change is a result of men being drawn to infantile looking women. hahaha
That is an interesting theory on human evolution. I have heard a different one explaining the same phenomenon (of humans becoming more intelligent, and mentally younger longer). It was a study done on foxes over 50+ generations, that looked at the effects of being “tamed” on ones physiology. Basically, the foxes permanently stopped their development in the adolescent stage, stopping the growth hormones that would eventually make their teeth and claws sharper, and make them more aggressive and set in their ways.

It was theorized that humans more or less domesticated themselves, causing these changes, because said effects helped us form more advanced cooperative societies, which helped us progress and survive as a species. (Or basically, because we are social those who were more agreeable were more likely to live to reproduce, because the many, weaker, “tame” humans could all gang up and kill the more aggressive ones-- eventually leading to a society that was more cooperative, and survived better.)
Wissa wrote:Stepfathers--
I'm not saying that stepfathers want to abuse their kids, but I'm pretty darn sure that men would prefer a child of their own over someone else's.
The point was they would be willing to take care of someone else's kid if it meant it would help them reproduce. And I don't think you specifically were saying that about stepfather abuse-- it's just that was the myth that was being explored in that article. (Speaking of which, I actually think the desire to have ones own kids is something that could be changed for the betterment of society-- lots of kids currently without homes and if more folks were willing to adopt...)
Partly because you came off as kind of a dick, and partly because there have been a lot of things you have said that are more "public opinion" about sexual differences rather than scientifically supported sexual differences. But thanks for the links, I will check those out. (Currently not on a machine that I can view them.)
Wissa wrote:I think you just made that up.
Alright, fair. Here were the points I said were not universal through time and place, along with some examples for each.

1. Women can get sex easier than men (since humanity started, and in every culture)

This one is easy. In many cultures that value female chastity, wives are kept separate from men who are not their husbands, and thus have no outlets for getting sex other places. Men, however, are able to go see prostitutes, or seek out available women elsewhere.

2. Men who can't get sex are losers (since humanity started, and in every culture)

There are certainly cultures that value male chastity. Islam and Christianity both value male chastity-- thus men who don't have lots of sex are not losers. Take a look at Japan. Overall, it is more acceptable for men to be less masculine in Japan, and a growing number of them are refraining from sexual relationships altogether. There is much less stigma on chaste men, though it has been growing due to Western influence.

Wissa wrote:Yes, that is exactly the reason. Wait, what reason?
I was talking about the manner which you have been addressing feminists during this conversation.
Wissa wrote:I think you taking things too personally. I was responding to the statement that those who support the evolutionary argument as just making guesses without any evidence, and are perhaps biased and sexist. There is a lot I could have insinuated from that statement, but I like to keep things non-personal. I try to be careful about my language, which is exactly why I said "a lot of feminists" instead of "all feminists" or "you feminists."
Perhaps I was reading into it more than you intended, but it's pretty hard not to take things personally when you equate me with belligerent creationists.

To bring things back to the OP (purity being valued in women, in romance games) I'll address a few more points.

1. I still think that overemphasizing that virgin women are "pure and innocent" and can have "true love" while non virgin women are not pure/innocent and are thus undesirable, damages women.

2. Even if there were a biological urge that causes the majority of men to want virgins (I don't think that's the case, especially since the number of men who care about the "virgin status" of the women they marry/sleep with has dropped significantly in the last 50 years), that does not change the fact that it hurts women and so media representation should be changed so that it does not hurt women. Some people have a biological urge to have sex with children (which is also uncomfortably similar to this topic) but we still made that illegal.
Image

Image
Image

User avatar
noeinan
Eileen-Class Veteran
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:10 pm
Projects: Ren'Py QuickStart, Crimson Rue
Organization: Statistically Unlikely Games
Deviantart: noeinan
Github: noeinan
Location: Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#59 Post by noeinan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:50 pm

PyTom wrote:
daikiraikimi wrote:Many people don't know, but water actually gets hotter right before it freezes-- when our chemistry teacher wanted to show us how our beliefs affected our results, he had our entire class measure water temperature as it froze. Every single group in class, with the exception of me and my partner, had omitted the higher temperature reading. Because it didn't fit into what they knew-- that things freeze when they are cold.
Was there anything dissolved in the water? I think this is the case for water with something dissolved in it (like tap water), but completely pure water should stay steady - or drop - in temperature as it freezes.
Oh, sorry, didn't see this post before. Actually there was nothing in the water-- pure water goes up in temperature because it expands as it freezes and the rapid movement as the molecules reassemble causes the temperature to increase. (Since most substances shrink when they freeze, but water is unique and thus the molecules move around a lot more than other substances during the freezing process.)
Image

Image
Image

User avatar
PyTom
Ren'Py Creator
Posts: 15557
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:58 am
Completed: Moonlight Walks
Projects: Ren'Py
IRC Nick: renpytom
Github: renpytom
itch: renpytom
Location: Kings Park, NY
Contact:

Re: "Purity" in otome games

#60 Post by PyTom » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:49 pm

Huh. I had kind of expected that to be a PM, and formatted it as such. So I apologize for the off-topic post.

I do worry that off-topic posts are getting to be the bulk of this thread. The LSF does have a topic, the development of visual novels and story-based games. So I ask that people confine themselves to that - not only is it on-topic, it's more likely to get results. On a small forum like this, we're unlikely to change the world, or even each others' minds. We might, however be able to influence how VNs are developed - so confining yourself to that topic is more likely to accomplish something.
Supporting creators since 2004
(When was the last time you backed up your game?)
"Do good work." - Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
"Silly and fun things are important." - Elon Musk
Software > Drama • https://www.patreon.com/renpytom

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users