ITT: Badass, non-sexualized female protagonists
Protip: Samus is not badass and has been sexualized since the first game, so fuck off
Samus is pretty badass baka desu senpai
I Want 2k games to leave
>BADASS
>STRONK INDEPENDENT WOMAN DONT NEED NO MAN
>NO SEXY
Take Battleborn with you plz
>>342886454
Create your own thread for virgin pandering characters then.
Some of the RE girls.
>>342886156
I know you're new here so you probably don't know so I'm gonna let you know now.
ANYONE CAN BE SEXUALIZED REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE WEARING YOU IDIOT!
>>342886598
Whether they need a man or not isn't in question, just those capable and independent in their own right.
>>342886847
Except most characters sexualised by design, which is what OP is referring to.
>>342886156
>G-Girls can do it t-too!
I hope dark fantasy comes back into vogue so we can have more brave sheknights get realistically overpowered and raped on the battlefield.
>>342886847
There's an obvious difference between making an attractive video game character than one that parades around with a bikini.
>has to specifically mention no sexual
really...makes...you think............
>>342887060
Or you can just masturbate to doujins on sad panda like everyone else.
(I really like Catalyst)
>non-sexualized
And thus, the faggot that spams armor threads reveals hirself.
>>342886156
Sexual allure is a female power over males. These feminist bullshit is all to remove competition from other females, just like labour unions in Socialism.
>>342886156
Virginia Maxwell, Wild Arms 3
>>342886454
>Samus is not badass
Okay I might concede the "has been sexualized since the first game" bit
But nigger you dumb if you think she's not badass
>>342886156
Why did we decide that a girl can't be badass if she's also sexualized?
>>342886156
Is it considered non-sexualized if I masturbate to her daily?
>>342887584
So does anyone ever make mod packs for skyrim or is everyone expected to download each individual mod them selves?
>>342887667
>just like labour unions in Socialism.
Hi /pol/.
Everyone ought to be slaves and be paid peanuts and be squeezed for overtime while not being paid overtime.
>>342888635
I don't know what it is about Slavic girls that give me an erection, but Ciri is one of them.
Based Valve.
>>342887667
The cunts are terrible with technology, though.
The waifu age is ours. We simply must seize it.
Stay the course, my broskis.
We have worked diligently, and now the moment of final victory is near.
>>342888724
she's not slavic she's 2d
Suikoden 3 would have been so much better without that Trinity System.
It was interesting to see the tweests from multiple perspectives, but it killed the flow of the story.
I'VE GONE TO GET HONESTY
She was never once sexualized in-game, fan art doesnt count.
>>342886156
I*s this sexualized? I can't tell
>>342888909
All the Witcher girls are based off some Polish model as a template
>>342886156
Good taste mah nigga
That game was such a masterpiece, if you can look past the slow as fun pacing and random encounters
>>342886689
I love Jill , because she's strong female who needs no man also she has never been sexualized.
>>342889089
doesn't make them anymore real though
>>342888515
they're not slaves if they can choose to sell their labour elsewhere. And we'd would be more efficient and prosperous if the economy wasn't rigidly interdependent. And don't talk about Somalia; they're low IQ savages who never had the conditions of the west.
>>342887075
> attractive video game character
why you post underage girl? are you a filthy pedo?
>>342889406
the facial structures and proportions are real enough.
>>342888909
>3(three)-dimensional model of a video game character
>2d
>>342886689
She looks a lot less like an old gremlin here than she did initially.
>>342889198
It had one of the worst JRPG protagonists of all time tho.
>>342889539
that's fair
>>342889635
Geddoe, Chris and even Thomas (very underrated) are some of the best JRPG protagonists though.
>being in underwears is being sexualized
fucking nu males
>>342889420
>we'd would be more efficient and prosperous if the economy wasn't rigidly interdependent
and I'd like a unicorn and a dinosaur and a brand new bicycle that flies and shoots fire
>>342889810
yes indeed
us moslems understand sexualization comes from the male gaze
which is why women need to be covered entirely to escape it
takbir
>>342886156
easy
>>342889762
>Ellipses, Stronk Womyn and Nu-Male Incarnate
>best protagonists
Nope.
>>342889810
>wearing bondage gear isn't sexual
Gets my dick hard too what with all that sexuale dripping off her you stupid summer flavored nig nog.
I bet you're 12.
>>342889870
because pure socialism has worked out so well. Socialistic programs in the west and Scandinavia are malignant tumours.
>>342890543
brah blaming socialism for economic interdependence is literally the stupidest shit
kerrigan
>>342890068
Even if they were good, Linkin Park Boy completely cancels any of that out.
>>342890852
that's literally what socialism is
Ignore the unlockable skin
>>342890705
>Went from poofy pants to shortest kimono and stripper boots from Tenchu 1 to 2
>Went short shorts in 4 onward
She was sexualized to fuck anon.
>>342886689
>>342891019
literally the stupidest shit, i feel sorry for your handlers
>>342887432
I'm surprised how bad it was, I reinstalled ME1 and it's a better game overall.
>>342889762
Thomas sucks.
He caused my game to get stuck in his fucking campaign cuz I got him stuck in an area where he dies in one hit.
I really wanted to keep playing but dropped it and never played it ever again.
>>342891118
Her outfit is just lightweight.
>stripper boots
wut.
>>342886156
Mmmm. Hot.
>>342888936
Seconded. It felt like forever before the story actually progressed, because you had to hear the same damn thing 3 different times. Still a good game though. And Chris with her hair down makes muh dick.
![JDA-Packfront-6_15[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AYjNs1Y.jpg "JDA-Packfront-6_15[1].jpg")
>>342891429
Tell me about Metroid.
Why does he wear the gun-arm?
>>342891380
Her outfit in 2 was very skimpy and she had high boots.
In the picture you show it's incredibly skimpy and also there was a lot of panty shots.
The only time she isn't sexualized is when she wore the big pants
>>342890106
>>342889867
Princess Peach is the complete opposite of what OP is asking. Take her elsewhere
>>342891560
Lot of loyalty for a space mercenary.
>>342889452
Are you not?
>>342891685
Peadophobics bigots know no boundaries.
>>342891615
>>342886689
All the Resi girls are like over 30. When will they settle down and have children?
>>342891572
the thigh high boots were some strange idea of censorship. And it's the only roughly skimpy outfit; her default Wrath of Heaven and Fatal Shadows outfits aren't skimpy, their lightweight.
>>342889060
not badass
Morrigan is wholesome and strong independent woman.
>>342892048
>something gets censored
>it just results in my fetish
This happens a lot somehow
>>342891615
>>342891429
>the gun arm is too heavy for samus in the fusion suit, causing her to slump forward
details
Strong independent half-mystic who don't need no charm lord.
>>342886156
>mfw people honestly think women can't be "real" or "strong" simply because they're attractive
Hilarious.
Feminism has just become a parody of"Mean Girls" at this point.
>>342893060
No one is claiming that you fucking idiot.
>>342886156
>Non-sexualised female
Females are inherently sexual and sexualize themselves as much as males. Somehow trying to belittle this or pretend it's misogyny is self-delusion. Don't do it.
>>342891368
>dying in a JRPG, the most casual genre of all
>dying in autobattle: the franchise
Don't blame the character because you suck. Never touch a vidya ever again.
>>342893109
Fat envious whale detected.
>>342893225
The fuck dude isn't meant to fight and does 1's.
That's the fucking point of him you fucking retard.
His whole gimmick is he's a weak little twig.
I think his story is building a fucking house and I got lost, and I saved by an area where it's enemies for the other campaign protags.
He does 1s and they kill you in one hit.
Okay, she's technically possessed by the spirit of a master swordsman, but that's a minor detail.
R-right, guys?
>>342893675
>>342888058
Virginia a cute
>>342894164
> that awful watermark
i would understand an artist's watermark, but not this shit
too bad size limit won't let me upload the high-res version
>>342886156
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N
TITS OR GTFO
>>342894140
>>342888058
Mah Drifters.
>>342893195
How about reasonably sexualized?
You wouldn't sexualize the robot girl... right?
>>342886156
The observer sexualizes the subject.
>>342886156
the only correct answer is Nina from BoF3
second place is Momo from the same game
honorable mention is Elly from Xenogears
>>342896872
Who do you think cares what your opinion of reasonable is?
![latest[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/xbOWv2F.jpg "latest[1].png")
>>342886156
Most Fire Emblem female characters before Awakening came were non-sexualized.
>>342886156
any character can be sexualized anon
1/3
>>342898245
2/3
>>342898339
>>342887060
Gee, the degenerate neckbeard permavirgin has a rape fetish. Who woulda guessed?
I want pic related to have a game of her own, or at least more time in the spotlight.
>>342886682
Bitch isn't even wearing pants
![559943e98c5e6a63007adf88dea2b499f75bf086[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rKXpRVQ.jpg "559943e98c5e6a63007adf88dea2b499f75bf086[1].jpg")
Ys is great
>>342886156
Wow this could have been a fine thread but you had to go and put a shitpost in the OP
Why?
>>342893004
She's great. I really loved her scenario, especially getting fucking Akuma on your team.
I know she isn't a protagonist but she should have her own game.I'm going to marry her!
>>342888936
I actually liked the whole build up of Chris confronting Hugo again after the clusterfuck that happened and the eventual bond the two had to get through in order to work together.dat romeo & juliet play where Hugo was Romeo and Chris was Juliet
>>342886156
Reminder bikini mail is trash that only appeals to horny teenagers and modesty is for people with taste
>>342901657
Why is Qatar allowed access to the Internet?
The first Parasite eve was so good.
>>342901916
Look at that slut with her leg out shown like she's trying seduce me.
>>342898637
fucks sake anon
not being a anti women fag but posting so you can work on getting better banter you fucking scrub
>>342901895
>>342901657
Girls with armor>girls with '''''armor'''''
>>342902149
>saving any "redpill" images, even "ironically"
lmaoing at your life tbph
>>342902009
kek
>>342902406
idgaf
>>342901107
>I actually liked the whole build up of Chris confronting Hugo again after the clusterfuck that happened and the eventual bond the two had to get through in order to work together.
Too bad all of fucking nothing ever actually happened.
So much potential and they do fucking dick with it. Guess there's always a sequel to look forward to OH WAIT THERE FUCKING ISN'T ONE AND FUCKING NEVER FUCKING WILL FUCKING BE WILL FUCKING THERE KUNTNAMI
>>342886156
problem OP?
Is this thread kill by waifu shit or can we still remain on topic? Pic related
i need to play wario games
>It's a "Do the opposite of the OPs request" thread
>>342886156
It's pretty amazing that a Japanese game has a female character wearing armor in a way that makes sense.
>>342886156
>non-sexualized
Nah.
I'm gonna post some sexualized ones anyway.
>>342903391
Is this the newest forced meme
>>342887075
But there's nothing wrong with either.
>>342903575
Women being in combat roles doesn't make sense to begin with so
>>342903391
Wario Land II has always been my favorite.
The Virtual Boy game is also considered to be amazing, but often ignored before it's on the VB.
>>342903192
Mona a slut
>>342903503
>"its a " " episode/edition"
die
>>342888406
No.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Does being sexualized suddenly ruin a character that would otherwise be fine or something?
rule 34 of the internet you humongous faggot
>>342903723
no fuck off
i wanted to see if someone wanted to post warioware girls/wario without making a new thread
i put a related pic i liked
>>342903794
ok going to check it out thanks anon
>>342901657
>>342902301
Hiding your desire to brow beat people and games with moral authority behind "taste" is just as disingenuous as doing it openly.
>>342891481
My nigga
"Being a man in a woman's body." Does not make a good character you hacks
If men's natural advantage is their strength, and women's is their sexuality, then why is it bad for a character to use these traits to their own advantage?
Trishka Novak of Bulletstorm.
>>342903978
No.
>>342893195
>Females are inherently sexual
Yes but that's not the same as being sexualized. Humans are not like other animals. They can reason and have consciouness. Thus they limit their animal instincts. It's why cheating on your spouse is wrong but it isn't for an animal to fuck everything it sees. It's not wrong for a baboon to show it's ass to everyone but humans should cover up that part of themselves.
If you don't want to be treated like an animal though, don't act like one.
>sexualize themselves as much as males.
Actually women in a lot of societies, sexualize themselves way more. That doesn't make it better. Women have this advantage getting everything they want by flaunting their bodies and that's not behavior that should be celebrated.
>inb4 you hate sex and the human bodies! It's natural!
No. Sex and a lot of other aspect of nature and humanity are better restrained than let completly free. You have a lot of single mothers nowadays in certian communities because people are acting like animals and not using their heads. Sexulaization doesn't help at all, it makes young girls aspire to be sluts and degenerates.
I don't care what feminist position is, they're incredibly contradictory. They're against "objectification" while being against slut shaming. Those are not consistent with each other.
>>342904237
>amazing chest ahead
>>342886682
>Blonde wig
>Ape
Literally a nigress
>>342904153
>That weirdass inverse curve going on with Tracer's arm
what the fug
>>342903772
Having lots of them doesn't make sense (women should be much less than 1% of combat characters). But exceptions do exist and there's nothing wrong with that.
>>342903503
To be fair, most of the badass female characters, in general, are sexualized to some extent.
Not really much we can do about it.
>>342903772
It happens now and then. Not that you know that as you are a stupid faggot.
>>342888810
Benedict comberbatchel
>>342893195
>Females are inherently sexual and sexualize themselves as much as males.
Wrong. Females on average are far more shy about their bodies than males, not to mention female genitals are less visible than males, making their bodies objectively less sexual.
>>342904113
He has better taste than you though. If you want your weeb porn games, play them. But don't say they're far better when they're not.
Look at European paintings of Jeanne d'arc. Was she wearing a bikini mail?
You have an uncivilized taste (akin to hunter gatherers), it's time to accept it.
>>342904371
Oh shit I never noticed that before.
>>342888515
>Hi /pol/.
Hi Tumblr.
>>342904703
Hi, fag lord of the fail lands.
>>342904282
Why should sex be restrained in media? Because It makes makes people who are sexually frustrated feel angry or awkward to see it? I never understood why violence, which is so glorified in media yet is deeply looked downed upon in real life is perfectly acceptable, yet stuff like sex isn't despite that's how we exist
>>342904282
>Humans are not like other animals
You did a lot to be wrong as fast as you could!
>They can reason and have consciouness
Chimpanzees and Orangatangs have passed all tests for both. Chimpanzees have been noted for having a sense and understanding of "self."
>Thus they limit their animal instincts. It's why cheating on your spouse is wrong but it isn't for an animal to fuck everything it sees.
Humans are not the only monogamous species by far.
You're also close to the argument from nature fallacy. But let's keep reading and see if you get there.
>If you don't want to be treated like an animal though, don't act like one.
Holy shit you actually did. I'm not terribly surprised but you did. Well done.
>Actually women in a lot of societies, sexualize themselves way more. That doesn't make it better. Women have this advantage getting everything they want by flaunting their bodies and that's not behavior that should be celebrated.
You understand of course that the reason humanity is where it is, is because of the carrot on a stick. The reason men didn't fuck off and do their own thing and only gather and hunt enough food for themselves is because carrrot on stick. They offer sex in exchange for hunter or gatherer that provided for them the best or most. However you raise the point that this shouldn't necessarily still be the case. Maybe not. But instinctually, it is. And to say we're above instinct is disingenuous at best.
>No. Sex and a lot of other aspect of nature and humanity are better restrained than let completly free. You have a lot of single mothers nowadays in certian communities because people are acting like animals and not using their heads.
Humans separating with no father figure is not human instinct, as we moved to become sexually monogamous as a species.
(continued)
>>342903978
I wouldn't look too deeply into it.This is a "terrible cosplay" thread essentially. OP wants the opposite.
>>342903978
Sometimes, but I think it can work as long as it's "tastefully" done. Not too much, but having some skin showing is fine. Sexuality is something that should be embraced and flaunted rather than hidden if a character's got it.
>>342904282
>>342905082
>Sexulaization doesn't help at all, it makes young girls aspire to be sluts and degenerates.
The horseshoe gets rounder every day.
Damn son. While I've made some points above, and it's all well and good, you haven't made out why this should apply to fictional mediums, and fictional depictions, and the harm it causes, or the link between the two.
>I don't care what feminist position is, they're incredibly contradictory. They're against "objectification" while being against slut shaming. Those are not consistent with each other.
This is irrelevant to everything else you've said.
It's also the only statement you've made that makes any fucking sense with any truth to it at all.
Took you long enough to get to a point like that.
>>342904814
You're doing a false equivalency with violence and sex.
Sex is far more intricate to humans than violence is. The average humans performs far more sexual acts than violent ones. Heck, sex is ranked highly in things like Marlowe's hierarchy of needs.
Sex in media affects people's behavior far more than violent media. If you're jerking off to cuckold porn, you're more likely to be open to cuckold porn and try to have that in your relationship or future rel. rather than you committing an act of violence after playing GTA killing civies every day.
I'm not saying violent acts are better than sex. Rather it doesn't matter how violent the acts are in media, because they don't make humans anymore violent. Sex in media is different.
>>342905082
>You did a lot to be wrong as fast as you could!
Not a counter argument.
>Chimpanzees have been noted for having a sense and understanding of "self."
That's not reasoning and that's not consciousness.
>Humans are not the only monogamous species by far.
I didn't claim they were.
>You're also close to the argument from nature fallacy.
I'm arguing against the appeal to nature, you idiot.
>Holy shit you actually did.
You're not making any sense.
>. However you raise the point that this shouldn't necessarily still be the case.
Yes. Congrats you can read.
>Maybe not.
So your argument falls flat.
>And to say we're above instinct is disingenuous at best.
You may not be but others are and can be.
>>342904814
glorifying violence and shaming sex is kind of an American thing.
>>342904612
While I'm in the mood of doing this:
>He has better taste than you though
Why?
> If you want your weeb porn games, play them. But don't say they're far better when they're not.
Oh we're going to just...just not expound on the above statement? We're just skipping that? You think you're done with that? You think that's done? You think that's a full statement. Ok. Well, we'll just dismiss that right out of hand then because you've brought no onus along. Just right in the trash it goes. Riiiiight into the garbage there. There we go. Much better. That first sentence. Trash. Gone. Good.
Now this next one:
I said what now? Nothing? No? You're misrepresenting an argument? Are you sure you quoted the right person? Maybe you should try rereading what you quoted. Read carefully. Slowly. Sound out the words like how you learned. Now. Give it a try. Good. Now. When you read what I said. Hold on I'll let you finish. Done? No? OK I can wait. Done now? Still reading? One more time...And you should be done reading by now. Ok? When you read my post, where did it say I said anything about ""weeb porn games?"" Mhm. uh huh. Nowhere? Not at all? Ok ok no, no, dry your eyes, it's ok. Sh shhhh, it's ok. Just tell me, next, did I say they were better than your games? I didn't? Ok ok, then everything's ok, everything's fine, just caaaalm down.
>Look at European paintings of Jeanne d'arc.
No thank you. Next.
>You have
We're done.
Have a nice summer, don't forget to read over the break.
>>342902621
>there won't be any more suikoden
please don't remind me, the scars had healed
>>342905082
>Humans separating with no father figure is not human instinct
False. Cads vs dad dichotomy in human male behavior and female preference for cads leads to single parenting.
>we moved to become sexually monogamous as a species.
You're not making any sense. Humans didn't become sexually monogamous in a short time of evolutionary history. Either they were monogamous or not.
>The horseshoe gets rounder every day.
You're incapable of making a counter argument.
>>342905379
>While I've made some points above,
You haven't made a single good point. Some of your points are just brushing off my statements without adressing them akin to saying "Well, you're saying X but you're still wrong". Other claims are simply strawman arguments.
>This is irrelevant to everything else you've said.
It's very relevant. The reason why you're replying is because your position is essentially protest against feminism. But that's not how ideas should start. You shouln't be basing your mentality based on what feminism think because they're inconsistent to begin with.
Heck, you're showing complete cognitive dissonance by ignoring that human natural behavior can be degerate and leads to single mothers. It's not surprise that hunter gathering tribes have lots of them, while civil societies moved away from such degeneracy as they learned to form morality though philosophy.
You haven't made a single good point.
>>342886156
non-sexualized
>>342905880
>Why?
Because his taste is more aking to Renaissance and Enlightenment Europeans who are the best in art and completly revolutionized everything.
You won't be able to argue against that.
>Oh we're going to just...just not expound on the above statement? We're just skipping that? You think you're done with that? You think that's done? You think that's a full statement. Ok. Well, we'll just dismiss that right out of hand then because you've brought no onus along. Just right in the trash it goes. Riiiiight into the garbage there. There we go. Much better. That first sentence. Trash. Gone. Good.
You write like a lunatic SJW. It's not like you've explained any of your positions, you hypocrite.
>No thank you. Next.
Spotted the non-white.
>We're done.
So you concede about being uncivilized.
>>342905880
>I said what now? Nothing? No? You're misrepresenting an argument? Are you sure you quoted the right person? Maybe you should try rereading what you quoted. Read carefully. Slowly. Sound out the words like how you learned. Now. Give it a try. Good. Now. When you read what I said. Hold on I'll let you finish. Done? No? OK I can wait. Done now? Still reading? One more time...And you should be done reading by now. Ok? When you read my post, where did it say I said anything about ""weeb porn games?"" Mhm. uh huh. Nowhere? Not at all? Ok ok no, no, dry your eyes, it's ok. Sh shhhh, it's ok. Just tell me, next, did I say they were better than your games? I didn't? Ok ok, then everything's ok, everything's fine, just caaaalm down.
You shouldn't skip your daily dose of whatever your shrink gave you.
>>342904442
it happens like 0.0001% of the time. The top tier women in terms of combat capability are only as good as an average man
>>342906882
True but it's not even about physically. Women are typically not raised like men anyway. So even if let's say 2-5% of women are physically good enough to be warriors, few of them were raised in a way that involves lots of sports in medieval societies and there's also personality on top of it.
But I think fiction could have a little more than realism. But having 1 out of 5 figthing characters to be female is ridiculous. 50/50 is even more so.
>>342905413
>Not a counter argument.
No. It's a fact.
>That's not reasoning and that's not consciousness.
They've been shown to have both.
Chimps and Orangatans. Please do a little bit of footwork:
http://phys.org/news/2011-06-chimps-capable-insightful-ability.html
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
>You're not making any sense.
I said you made the argument from nature;
namely something is good or bad based on whether or not it's natural.
>You may not be but others are and can be.
"Nu uh!"
Humans are not beyond instinct. No animal is.
>Cads vs dad dichotomy in human male behavior and female preference for cads leads to single parenting.
>You're not making any sense. Humans didn't become sexually monogamous in a short time of evolutionary history. Either they were monogamous or not.
Wrong on both counts:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/25/9923
Humans evolved to become monogomous. We were not always so. Read study. Become educated.
>Some of your points are just brushing off my statements without adressing them
Onus; the burden of proof is on the affirmative.
That would be you.
And you're providing little.
>It's very relevant. The reason why you're replying is because your position is essentially protest against feminism.
I've made no such statement.
You may be confusing me with someone else.
>Heck, you're showing complete cognitive dissonance by ignoring that human natural behavior can be degerate and leads to single mothers.
What is natural has no bearing on what's good or right.
Natural human behavior generally gets "selected" out and either survives because it thrives or fails and it is killed off. Behavior starts in the brain and is generally dictated by instinct. Nurturing instincts as we know them are based on these and are passed on. If these instincts are harmful, generally, what happens is they fail to reproduce and are weeded out.
Natural selection a bitch.
>>342888219
nice reading comprehension
>>342892401
I have never realised this...
>>342907169
So you're not done getting abused.
>>342907169
>It's a fact.
Your emotional turbulence isn't reasonable fact.
>Study shows chimps capable of insightful reasoning ability
That's not consciousness, you stupid chimp. Mice can have insightful reasoning. But it takes more than bieng able to solve simple problems to have consciousness.
And speaking of reasoning, chimps are not able to do philosophy and logic (neither are you, so perhaps you're not human).
>namely something is good or bad based on whether or not it's natural.
False. I said it's bad and it's natural. I didn't say all things natural are bad. Rather, humans have the ability to restraint their bad part of their nature. So now, you're doing a strawman fallacy.
>Humans are not beyond instinct. No animal is.
Humans don't have the instinct to split the atoms but some did. Humans are the only to commit suicide intentionally.
>Humans evolved to become monogomous.
You can't even read your own links, you're an idiot. Humans are socially monogamous but not sexualy. And you don't have access to the study. If you did, you'd realize it's about social bonding.
>the burden of proof is on the affirmative.
Proof is required with any assertion, affirmative or not.
>What is natural has no bearing on what's good or right.
Strawman fallacy.
>Behavior starts in the brain and is generally dictated by instinct.
You argue against your own opinion. Generally isn't an absolute.
>>342903192
She was definitely sexualized.
The best female characters are those that never bring attention to being female in the first place.
Same goes with anything really. Like what you like, & don't brag about it.
>>342908639
Wait, Kino got games? Were they VNs or did they have actual gameplay?
>>342907169
Cont.
>>342907169
>Natural human behavior generally gets "selected" out and either survives because it thrives or fails and it is killed off. Behavior starts in the brain and is generally dictated by instinct. Nurturing instincts as we know them are based on these and are passed on. If these instincts are harmful, generally, what happens is they fail to reproduce and are weeded out.
Never mind your stupidity by shooting yourself in the foot, claiming "generally" instead of simply doing an absolute. The nature argument is a largely a wrong one. Sure all humans need to eat, have sex, etc... But if humans really were dicated by nature first, you'd see almost no difference between human societies (let's say of the same race). The fact that human societies have different trend of behavior even when it comes to sexual, shows that humans are heavily affected by something that isn't dictated by nature.
>>342908708
Visual novels with some mini games thrown in. They're also voice acted, so if you understand basic japanese but can't read kanji, they're still playable.
>Isn't she in a 3DS game and some fighting game as an assist character?
Yes, but I don't know the names of either games.
Outside of weeb games I honestly can't think of many female characters in the past few years who would fit the "sexual object" mold sjws complain about. If they are overly sexualized its usually a logical part of their character.
>>342891572
The big pants also had slut pockets and a small top
>Your emotional turbulence isn't reasonable fact.
You've provided no measure by which humans are something that animals are incapable of.
>That's not consciousness, you stupid chimp
I see we only read one link.
> chimps are not able to do philosophy and logic
>logic
Insightful reasoning is logic. Logic is a part of philosophy actually. At least, by most definitions; I guess logic is taught in philosophy 101. Most early philosophers taught logic as a major tenet of it... But I guess that depends on how you want to define logic. I guess logic when it comes to gates and logic in computer programming or circuitry is strictly non philosophical.
We have been here before.
>humans have the ability to restraint their bad part of their nature.
This is not exclusive to humans. See below when discussing learned behavior.
>Humans are the only to commit suicide intentionally.
Wrong.
http://www.seeker.com/animal-suicide-sheds-light-on-human-behavior-1765032181.html#news.discovery.com
>Humans don't have the instinct to split the atoms
Learned behavior is not instinctual and is not specific to humans.
http://www.ck12.org/biology/Learned-Behavior-of-Animals/lesson/Learned-Behavior-of-Animals-BIO/
>Proof is required with any assertion, affirmative or not.
And you've continued to provide very little.
>You argue against your own opinion. Generally isn't an absolute.
There are learned behaviors and there is instinct.
One moment my eyes are hurting while I get the rest of this.
>>342886156
Chris is my go to response to this. But come on. Its a major plot point that Chris takes off her armor and becomes 'feminine' towards Nash. And that's actually a good thing. The best female characters are not the ones who throw away all female attributes and become men with tits. The best ones have strong character development while also retaining their female traits.
Rosa and Celes are also good examples of a female who can make it on her own, but still has the charms and desires of a woman. As well as pretty much all females in Dragon Quest.
>>342888219
Are you actually retarded?
>>342909302
>>342908804
> if humans really were dicated by nature first, you'd see almost no difference between human societies (let's say of the same race). The fact that human societies have different trend of behavior even when it comes to sexual,
Wrong.
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261
90% of societies have identical sexual preferences in women; neotenous traits, mind.
> Rather, humans have the ability to restraint their bad part of their nature.
This is a learned behavior.
Learned behaviors are not exclusive to humans.
Even rats are capable of learned behavior.
>Humans are socially monogamous but not sexualy. And you don't have access to the study. If you did, you'd realize it's about social bonding
Ok I give. Let's talk about social monogamy vs sexual monogamy. Walk me through sexual monogamy vs social monogamy because my eyes are REALLY starting to hurt.
>>342909302
You can't even reply to a post. How sad.
>You've provided no measure by which humans are something that animals are incapable of.
I have: Suicide, Science, Philosophy, writing, etc...
Heck suicide is good enough. The instinct to live is the most powerful instinct and humans can go completly against it.
>This is not exclusive to humans. See below when discussing learned behavior.
Learned behavior does not necessarily mean recognizing a bad aspect of human nature, acting to supress it and promoting that in a form of ideology to others.
>http://www.seeker.com/animal-suicide-sheds-light-on-human-behavior-1765032181.html#news.discovery.com
That's based on anectodes. Not a scientific study. Learn to science.
>And you've continued to provide very little.
Why do I have to? You're proving yourself wrong with your own sources.
I couldn't have asked for a bigger idiot than you.
>There are learned behaviors and there is instinct.
False. There is learned behavior, instinctual behavior and self taught behavior.
>90% of societies have identical sexual preferences in women; neotenous traits, mind.
You're doing a strawman fallacy. Those differences I talked about aren't just related to sex. But speaking of sex, some societies have higher homosexual activities than others and that's comparing Western liberal societies.
You cannot argue against the fact that within white societies, there are differences.
Cont. more of your bullshit to refute.
>>342910013
>You can't even reply to a post. How sad.
I thought I did.
>2 babies arguing in a vidya girl thread
>no girls being posted
>>342886156
FUCK your non-sexualized shit.
>>342909802
cont.
>This is a learned behavior.
Again, you idiot... Learned behavior does not necessarily mean restraining what humans realize what is a bad part of their nature.
A baby can learn a behavior without knowing necessarily that it is bad for humanity. It just knows it got yelled at or spanked for it, so it doesn't do it. It's very rudimentary.
>Ok I give.
You concede that you lost the argument.
>social monogamy vs sexual monogamy.
It's simple. Social monogamous society is a society that is mostly if not exclusively about bond pairing. Sexual monogamy is strictly about sex within that bond pairing and nothing else. For example, humans are socially monogamous but they get paired (married and whatnot). But they don't strictly have sex without that pairing. Infideility/adultery/cheating whatever you call it or simply polygamous sex within social pair bonding is very much a thing.
You cannot deny that people do sleep around. It's why scientists say that humans are really monogamous like certain animals.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/6/889.full
There are many other studies.
Get educated.
>>342910060
It's easy, you just click the numbers on top of the post.
Welcome to 4chan, redditor. Leave your /r/kotakuinaction mentality at the door though. There are no upvotes or downvotes here.
>>342893439
my nigga
>>342886156
Do you know where you are? Or is this some clever ruse to fill your fapfolder?
>>342910013
Dolphins actually do commit suicide if something tragic or heartbreaking happens to them
>>342910013
>Suicide, Science, Philosophy,
I gave you documented examples of these.
Logic is pretty important for both, and I showed you an example.
>writing
Language has been shown in crows.
>That's based on anectodes. Not a scientific study. Learn to science.
http://www.seeker.com/animal-suicide-sheds-light-on-human-behavior-1765032181.html#news.discovery.com
>Learned behavior does not necessarily mean recognizing a bad aspect of human nature, acting to supress it and promoting that in a form of ideology to others.
But, what you described is, in fact, a learned behavior.
>Why do I have to?
Basic ...onus? Logic?
>False. There is learned behavior, instinctual behavior and self taught behavior.
Self taught is learned.
>You're doing a strawman fallacy.
No, you specifically mentioned sex. Right there.
>Those differences I talked about aren't just related to sex
Many differences in human societies are superficial.
Some things to look at that are important are family structure,
>>342910431
>Learned behavior does not necessarily mean restraining what humans realize what is a bad part of their nature.
In order to do that, it needs to be learned behavior. Pretty simple stuff, really.
>You cannot deny that people do sleep around.
Of course.
>>342910557
>It's easy, you just click the numbers on top of the post.
I mean I'm suffering from eye strain and thought I saw them at the top of my post.
Never been there, sorry.
>/r/kotakuinaction
The fuck is this?
>>342910847
Would you try to save a dolphin that was trying to kill itself?
>>342910847
Dolphins also loooooove rape.
>>342910847
As do certain dogs and other zoo animals. There's a study showing it's possibly a response to stress or environmental challenges.
>>342911159
They sure do. And chimps will murder other competing tribes and groups.
>>342905941
>protest against feminism.
Nothing wrong with this.
>I can't find any unsexualized woman protag so I post sexy girls instead : the thread
>>342900782
She's totally a protagonist. She's just not the main protagonist. I'm surprised somebody posted best girl before me. I thought for sure that someone was gonna post the dirtbag general instead.
>>342910847
According to anecdotes.
>>342910959
>I gave you documented examples of these.
You're retarded. Animals do not know of science and cannot do it. Same for Philosophy and Suicide.
Case closed.
>Language has been shown in crows.
So your counter argument to humans being able to record information is that crows have some sort of langauge? You're an idiot.
>But, what you described is, in fact, a learned behavior.
Not all learned behaviors are equal.
>Basic ...onus? Logic?
Like I said, I don't need to show sources when you're arguing against yourself. Every source you've shown except the declaration of counsciousness has argued for my point.
>Many differences in human societies are superficial.
So you disregard them as being superficial, how convenient.
Your assertion was that human behaviors are dictated solely by nature (i.e genetics).
My counter assertion is that if that was the case, there will be no difference in general behavior between human societies within a race (let's say whites).
You claiming they are superificial is showing you're conceding the point. Family structure within white societies are not exactly the same. Spain still have large extended families living within a home compared to UK. French women have higher fertility rates than German women.
>In order to do that, it needs to be learned behavior. Pretty simple stuff, really.
Again, not all learned behavior are the same. Some are the result of higher reasoning.
To be cont.
>342911483
>post sexy girls instead
You heard him.
>not one single mention of The Boss
The only woman I have some respect for in Vidya Gaems
Anita?
>>342910959
Cont.
>Of course.
So humans aren't sexually monogamous.
>http://www.seeker.com/animal-suicide-sheds-light-on-human-behavior-1765032181.html#news.discovery.com
A source isn't inhently right because it says so. Read the article and verify the truth. Always be a skeptic about everything and be an independent thinker.
In the article:
>There are many stories of animal suicide dating back centuries.
>Such anecdotes tend to reflect the values of the societies they are from,
At least if you're going to appeal to some authority, make sure the authority is respected.
>>342911923
She's kind of the opposite of the protagonist being, you know, the antagonist. Doesn't change the fact that she is indeed a very well done female character in a game, though.
>>342893225
>he thinks that final fantasy is the whole jrpg francise
Go play romancing saga on ps2 say that jrpgs are easy
>>342911784
This is getting exceedingly difficult as my eyes crap out on me but I'll do the best I can to give you polite and timely replies
>Same for Philosophy
We already went through this with chimps and basic logic, and how logic is philosophy, at least, according to the first philosophers and ancient greeks.
>So your counter argument to humans being able to record information is that crows have some sort of langauge? You're an idiot.
Argument ad lapidem is a terrible way to argue.
Writing is language, however. Written but language. Using thumbs to put it down on paper isn't any different. Same part of the brain. It's an arbitrary restriction on digits. Not to mention the apes capable of learning sign language.
>Every source you've shown except the declaration of counsciousness has argued for my point.
Except it hasn't?
Including when I showed chimps have basic logic skills? Logic being, you know, being a part of philosophy. It's like you just ignored that.
Here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080945
Based instead on what's popular, they choose logical behavior.
>>342912065
>suicide
You ignored the other study...
Again.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18232440
>>342911784
>Animals do not know of science and cannot do it.
Science is simply the application of logic and learning.
Animals are capable of both, so...
>Your assertion was that human behaviors are dictated solely by nature (i.e genetics).
Now who's making strawman arguments?
>Some are the result of higher reasoning.
Reasoning is something animals have. having "more" of it doesn't make us different. It means we have more of it. there are lots of animals with varying degrees of certain attributes. Reasoning is just another one.
It's not a unique one.
>>342909705
I would ask you the same thing considering you cant make an actual argument against the other anons point
>>342913278
The post said Samos is badass, but the anon quoted him as saying that she isn't.
Are you also retarded?
>>342912946
>We already went through this with chimps and basic logic, and how logic is philosophy, at least, according to the first philosophers and ancient greeks.
Philosophy is much more than simple logic. Chimps are at best able to do logic at the level of a human child or infant. That's not philosophy.
>Writing is language,
Writing takes language to the level of being able to do science. Writing makes mathematics more sophisticated.
Writing is what separated ancient civilizations and hunter gatherers. Genetically they weren't much different. But socially, one was able to record things. A bigger and more elaborate economy was possible. Philosophy was more structured. Literature came to be, etc...
>Based instead on what's popular, they choose logical behavior.
So according to your shitty argument, human babbies are now equivalent to adult humans because they can do a chimp's task.
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18232440
>Few empirical investigations have been carried out on this topic
Read the abstract before posting the first thing you see on Google.
>Science is simply the application of logic and learning.
Science is the discovery of the natural world that goes trhough a system of empirical logic (scientific method). Chimps may do a little of both but it makes more brain power to do both and do it consistently and elaborately.
>Now who's making strawman arguments?
You changed your argument later. At first, you said nature is the sole decider.
To be cont.
>tfw hijabs are my fetish
>tfw i imagine that women are wearing nothing under it
you cant fucking stop me, it goes against the laws of nature and genetic code of the human and mammalian species.
>>342886156
Hey, I remember seeing this woman in a mediocre flash sex game.
ITT: fuck OP
>>342913891
Is OP a girl?
>>342912946
It's good that you conceded on the notion that humans are sexually monogamous by the way and that certain bad natural behavior in humans leads to degenerate socially deterrent things like higher rates of single mothers.
>having "more" of it doesn't make us different.
You're incapable of doing logic if you don't realize that more is different.
1=/=2 1>2 2 is different than 1.
Go ahead and try to argue otherwise, dumbass.
>It's not a unique one.
Philosophy, science, art and other things in humans are very unique.
The fact that humans can choose to destroy and enviornment or try to lessen/stop the damages is itself unique. And by humans, I'm not talking about adult humans.
Show me one single piece of writing chimps have made. Go ahead.
Show me a chimp that is able to read a human language (not sign language).
Non-civilized humans in Papua New Guinea were able to learn writing and reading, despite the fact that none of their ancestors could prior to colonization. Chimps still haven't been able to do so.
The only way your argument could make sense is if you argue Papua New Guineans genetics changed rapidly in the last 50-80 years to be able to read, which is nonsense.
This thread is dildos.
My attempt at one sometime ago
>>342914181
Now post the outfit with the black sport pants.
Let's put this to bed.
>BUT ANIMALS CAN'T...
SUICIDE - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18232440
LOGIC - http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/11572/20131213/chimpanzees-rational-conformist-chimps-choose-logic-over-popularity.htm
PHILOSOPHY(consciousness) - http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
"Cogito ergo sum"
ART - PICTURE RELATED - painted by a chimp.
>>342914358
You know she doesn't have to be fucking ugly right? I mean the face, the rest is fine.
I don't know, is being a fashion model considered being sexualised? Probably not I guess.
>>342914136
>philosophy
The prerequisite for philosophy is only to be self aware and conscious.
>Show me a chimp that is able to read a human language (not sign language).
So blind people aren't human?
People born blind aren't human?
Helen Keller (read sign language by feeling hands) wasn't human?
>>342914679
Good, good.
>>342914136
"More"
An ape is stronger than a cockatiel.
Strength is not unique to apes.
A human can reason more than a chimp.
Reasoning is not unique to humans.
An ape is obviously "different" from a cockatiel.
But it is still an animal. Having different quantities of one trait or another, however ARBITRARY does not make you not an animal.
You are making an arbitrary distinction on reasoning.
>>342886598
>NO SEXY
>implying strong non-sexualized female characters can't be sexy
