Would anyone of you have bought the game if Geralt would be the naked one and Triss the protagonist??? THAT´S sexism...

The first one. Again, you're clearly dense. Nobody said nudity = sexism. There's a fairly graphic sex scene in the game and nobody is calling that sexist. Use your brain. Stop being dumb.

Firstly, "yes".
Secondly, sexual preference does not equal sexism.

A better argument is that offering a Triss playboy session, but no Geralt playgirl session, is sexism on the part of the developers. But one could argue that's a justifiable case, based on disproportionate demand. Indeed, one could make a counter-argument that offering equal choice in the face of unequal demand is, in itself, sexist.

Edit: NM. I really don't care enough.

Fixed it for you.

I'm not gonna waste anymore time on you. I've asked a moderator to lock this thread, it's apparent you have some social issues. This forum is not the time or place for that.

You Sir, have no idea what art or censorship are. So maybe you should keep your discussion to topics of porn and video games.


Nope, that is not like it works.
Actually it stays sexism even if you offer a playgirl session with Geralt.

You're either willfully ignorant to what the TC is saying or just, you know, generally ignorant. If you're going to purposely misinterpret the point (or, again, if you just can't grasp it) then what's the point?

With that said, it's super cute that the dude who paints feminism as something inherently bad would accuse me of having social issues.

my dick has more intellect than you

Absolutely, if one uses such a broad definition of sexism that the word becomes uselessly imprecise.
In my hypothetical...
1. Is it unequal treatment based on gender? "No".
2. Is it reducing a character to nothing but an object of sexual desire, or primarily such (objectification)? This shouldn't be called sexism, but even so, "no". Unless you don't play the game, and just view the bonus feature, I suppose. But that wouldn't be the fault of the developers.
3. Is it implying that because of a character's sex, they are in some other way inferior? "No".
4. Is it playing up the character's sex appeal? "Yes". One could get into the blurry distinction between erotica and porn here, but it doesn't matter for our discussion, because this isn't sexism unless you abuse the language I love in a shameful way.*

But since you find fault with how others use the terms "art", "censorship", and "sexism", perhaps you can provide a better argument than empty gainsaying?

* I deliberately leave this ambiguous... is the abuse shameful, or my love of the language? :)

Benexclaimed is a troll who hasn't explained his stance at any point, going so far as to try to drag others into a debate with him, when some people (like myself) are addressing the OP.

Anyways, how do I turn off notifications for this stuff?

Well formulated argument.
I have to agree with 1, 3 and 4.

But for your 2 I have to disagree. The playboy session and sex cards are a form of objectification. And so would be that playgirl Geralt. And this shoud be called sexism as it strengthen a sexist mindset.*²

Calling out on something like this when you see it, is not censorship. You do not force someone to change, you do not oppress someones rights to express whatever they want. You just call it bad. Maybe they can see you point and change on their own free will, maybe they don´t*³. That is a big difference to censorship.

Defending sexsim with artistic freedom is a similar case. Even if it is a peace of art, so what? If it is sexism it becomes just sexist art at best. If it is not sexism, the art defense becomes meaningless anyway. A simple straw men argument if I am not mistaken.

Lastly, I am perfectly happy with sex in the witcher, it fits the character, it fits the game world, and I can understand why sex cards are used in witcher 1, because this is far easier to implement as a game mechanic than something more sophisticated. And I don´t think that either case is a major problem.
Marketing these days is full of sexism, because people are full of it. So it works to sell stuff. Does not mean I have to like it either.

*²I hope you are familiar enough with sexism to know why mindsets are such an important thing for the issue, because it else can become a lengthily topic on its own
*³ Your argument is in case either weakly formulated, weak in itself or they are to dense, who knows?

edit:
And just because it is a good read:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

Bingo. To restate the obvious, nobody in this thread ever said "nudity = sexism" and that's an obvious strawman put forward by people who don't understand the topic or don't want to understand the topic.

Nudity =/= sexism.
Shoehorning a character from this universe into a "Playboy session" to pander to weird, gross people = sexism (or something that helps to perpetuate sexism)

Hurrah, we're mostly on the same page! We still differ, of course, but at least we have grounds for conversation.

I agree with you on art & censorship, though the objection raised wasn't that critism was censorship, but that those who criticize also justify censorship. I think that's nonsense, or at least, unsupported by the evidence at hand. It was just a bomb lobbed to get a rise, I suspect. But the riposte, that the lobber doesn't know anthing about censorship or art, was equally unsupported.

I am familiar with the mindset concept, but I again consider this a hijacking of serviceable language by those desiring to shape the discussion towards their own particular bias. To call anything which reinforces a sexist mindset "sexism" is the very definition, in my opinion, of broadening a term into uselessness. Finding a man or woman sexually appealing, or seeking out depictions of such, or depicting them as such, is not in itself sexist - the necessary condition of bigotry is lacking. Is Triss inferior? Is she a poorer sorceress for appearing in a "playboy shoot"? Is she a lesser fake-person therefore? No she's not. The fact that a sexist may think so, and be reinforced in their bigoted attitude by seeing what they perceive as further evidence that "women are sluts are inferior", is a fault in the sexist, not in the actions of the character, or of those who present this "playboy session". Thus I have a strong objection to considering objectification "sexism", because objectification does not require bigotry. I believe, and have before this particular issue, that those trying to improve the depicition of women in videogames are hurting their cause by conflating "true" sexism with objectification.

And I stand by my statement that to be "objectification" the character must be reduced to solely or primarily an object of sexual desire, merely playing up that desireability is not objectification - in this case my opinion is shared by those with stronger feminist bona fides than my own, though of course it doesn't apply only to objectification of females.

Which is why one cannot and should not take the playboy session by itself, but as a supplement to the game, a game which features the character in more important ways (especially for Geralt in my hypothetical, though I wish more had been done with Triss in the actual). Triss isn't dimished by posing in a "playboy session", or for being presented that way by the actual people involved. She certainly is portrayed as sexually desireable, to us the viewer, within the game as well.

But of course, if you don't believe that a real person may choose to pose nude for another, or for an audience, without being a perpetrator of sexism, then of course we'll have to settle for disagreement here!

So it seems we come around, again, to the sexual attractiveness of a character being played up for the benefit of some players, and defining this as sexism (or objectification at least, if we can agree on that term). (Not nudity == sexism, as benexclaimed argues against, but not any better, either). SInce you say this would be true with Geralt as the "object", I'm sure you can understand my objection. Geralt - and Triss - are both characters with important characteristics which are not in any way diminished by being presented as sexually appealing to the player. We aren't led to define their worth by this one trait. Just because the character is presented as revealing themselves to us, the player (as opposed to, to another fictional character in a relationship with that character), this becomes objectification? Or do you consider it objectification when Geralt admires the view of Triss in the bath as well? If not, why not?

And as I re-read the above, I shake my head a bit at this extensive discussion of the ethics of relationships between fake people, but still, I'm interested. :)

As to
I can get behind this a bit more, because of the last parenthetical clause, but I think the "weird, gross people" comment didn't help. "Weird" seems a poor choice, considering how very commonplace the interest in such material is, and "gross", well... perfectly valid if it's your opinion, but no better than the "scum" comment flying the other way.

The really weird part about this age-old controversy isn't the morally/religiously conservative element, but the feminist element. By attacking it you imply there is something wrong with it, and as much as you attempt to place that blame squarely on the shoulders of the customer/John/male it inevitably ends up reinforcing the notion that the female is wrong for doing it, i.e. it's wrong for females to exhibit sexuality, or at least wrong to profit from it. Admittedly the female in this case is fictional, so that makes things the argument a bit more complex, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is blatant misogyny to tell women (even indirectly by attacking a fictional woman's "choice") what is and isn't appropriate to do with their bodies, whereas the viewing of said bodies only ends up being misogynistic if the viewer is already a misogynist.

It's also extremely weird that strippers making six figures a year are considered to be "exploited" by the affection-starved working class males literally throwing money at them to satisfy a primal need that has been artificially repressed by society, but I should quit while this is still a fairly short rant.