Live Free Play Hard: Frantically Mashing Plastic Crotches Together

By Porpentine on February 2nd, 2014 at 2:00 pm.

Watched over by machines of loving paleness. The childhood pastime of making your toys fuck.

Pale Machine by Ben Esposito and bo en

This is a music video that you play. It has gorgeous art and I’m in love with it.

The song takes you through the world and you embody many objects, from flowerpots to tongues to cars to eyeballs. I feel like I’m inhabiting the soul of the world, in the way games permit, if you let them–the amorphous hyperlink of Twine, for example–a fluidity permitted by the surreal imagery.

I’ve been following bo en on Soundcloud for awhile, so I was happily surprised to see Pale Machine suddenly pop up in the game-o-sphere–his jazzy poppy Shibuya-kei-inspired songs have so much going on, rich sugary concoctions for the ‘ol ear lips.

how do you Do It by Emmett Butler, Nina Freeman, Jonathan Kittaka, Deckman Coss

Your mom is away and you’re playing with some naked dolls trying to figure out sex stuff.

The art is really sweet and the word bubbles are full of curiosity like you might have as a child trying to figure out this body thing (my personal hypothesis was that a man and a woman got in proximity then God Almighty activated radio-like signals that traveled from the man’s body to the woman’s body and triggered the creation of a Baby).

It’s hard to express how much it means to play games like these. Childhood sexuality is important, and so is depicting girls as human beings. During the growing up process our experience of being a kid can get replaced with fake ideas and we run the risk of treating youth like they’re brainless instead of brilliant. Nina said: “Never gonna stop using games to remind people that young girls are not just an advertising demographic–they have real feelings & real lives”

She adds, “it’s really based on memories I have of trying to understand sex as a child…hiding under my bed or in little makeshift forts…I really do want people to know that, despite the humor, we were trying to show something real”. By preserving this connection from our adult self to our child self, we create better art, not saccharine placebos more about reinforcing stereotypes than engaging with children honestly.

The open-ended design is really great. In a way, the spinning mashing poly-anatomical gyrations of the player are closer to queer sexuality than the heteronormative coupling suggested by the Barbie appearance of the dolls. It makes me think of the way sexuality starts out polymorphous, then gets molded into genital fetishism (the popular penis-in-vagina fetish), and then hopefully at a certain point you realize sex is unique to every human being on this planet, a personal response to our need for pleasure and healing and catharsis, not prescribed plastic shapes (unless that’s what you’re into ;)).

AFTER THOUGHT by Bill Kiley, Aimless J. Lackluster

This is smart. A posh British woman narrates your “calibration”, which is you staring at the screen as the colorful pink outline of the level is burnt into your eyes. Then the level turns invisible and you navigate through it, guided by the afterimage seared into your retinas.

They could have just made a clever puzzle using this optical effect, but framing it as a politely ominous exercise with a searing noise in the background adds just the right extra touch.

TRASH WIZARD DANGER ROOM by MOUNT ENNUI

Completely random surreal trash wizard RPG that emphasizes the texture of the genres it melds (D&D, garbage, weird twitter) rather than their system. Will you fight the “OUTRAGEOUS SEX WOLF” with “VAGUE PUS STORM” or “PLUMP STENCH FONDLE”? Does it matter? Not really. YOU CAST SHIT AXE

The Quiet Man by thecatamites

You take on the role of the Quiet Man as an audience watches in a movie theater. I like how the art is made of hand-drawn lines so minimal they look like symbols, and how everything ripples to the drumbeat.

The player is a Western hero who can only move around aimlessly, yet everything you do is full of great portent and breathlessly analyzed by the audience. The taciturn efficiency of the cinematic cowboy has more than a little overlap with the avatar of many games, and both are there for the satisfaction of the audience to live out certain fantasies that we could never achieve in real life, like wandering around the desert shooting bad guys or wandering around a dungeon shooting bad guys.

Here the audience is literalized, so the people taking it too seriously are already in the room, so what else can I do but laugh? The tendency to analyze is displaced by the presence of an audience already engaged in that act of analysis, redirecting my gaze back at myself. And maybe we start to think of our own role as an audience, the way a piece of art can be analyzed way deeper than the creator ever intended, and the way in which we consume our own images.

Puts me in mind of Mike Thomsen’s interview with David Levine on the Milli Vanilli opera: “We go to venues and pay money because we want the act, but the band was really just a veil. And on one side of it is the means of musical production, and on the other side are the consumers; and actually, we’re kissing each other through the veil.”

For instance, these masculine stoic heroes are important not because they’re good but because they say we are good, that our dedication to hegemonic culture is not a waste of time. In fact, these qualities are so good and so natural that billions of dollars a year are spent reinforcing them through every form of media and desperately pointing huge neon signs at their rotting carcasses as armies of animatronic technicians stiffly move the rugged, cotton-packed jaws of another gritty male lead.

Getting back to the part about analyzing stuff way deeper than the creator ever intended, here’s thecatamite’s notes for the game: “Based on a poster for the famous John Ford movie that I saw in a DVD store. Once I saw the title I thought to myself “BOY, he’s quiet!!” and the rest of the game came from that. The music was sort of aiming for the same rhythm and feeling of Pere Ubu’s song “Perfume”; not because it was especially relevant, more because I was listening to it a lot at the time.”

, .

80 Comments »

  1. PopeRatzo says:

    jazzy poppy Shibuya-kei-inspired songs

    I’m in.

    heteronormative coupling

    You don’t have to promote one type of sexuality by demeaning another.

    Look to your right. Now look to your left. Please remember that you are a product of “heteronormative coupling”, and you won’t be accepted any quicker by being unpleasant about it.

    • Premium User Badge

      Tom De Roeck says:

      heteronormative coupling is demeaning?

      • Potocobe says:

        heteronormative coupling is demeaning?

        I believe PopeRatzo was referring to how some individuals of a particular sexual orientation like to demean other sexual orientations in order to promote their own. Further, as we are all products of heteronormative coupling (that’s fun to say!) there is no need to be rude to get others to accept that you are into penis-in-vagina fetish sex. You probably are.

      • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

        “Heteronormative coupling”

        What could this even mean? A man and a lady fucking in such a way that they make two dudes fucking nearby feel bad?

        People you are on the internet right now as you are reading this. It’s not that hard to skip over to the search bar and look up some words before getting angry about them.

    • aldo_14 says:

      Have to admit, I found that particularly terminology a bit… odd. It may not be intentional, but it does give the vibe of implying ‘you’re only straight because people made you be’ or something. Which is kind of doubly weird as, as far as I’m aware, the word ‘heteronormative’ is normally used in a homophobic sense?

      heteronormative coupling is demeaning?

      Well, it can be read as implying a certain mindset in the sense of being heterosexual on the basis of it being ‘normal’, which implies it’s a decision made under duress, or due to the restriction of ‘non-normal’ alternatives.

      It can alternatively be used to criticize an assumption of – in this context – the girl playing (?) at heterosexual relationships with dolls, perhaps?

      That’s just one way of reading it, of course.

      EDIT; actually, calling heterosexuality as a ‘penis-in-vagina fetish’ could be construed as demeaning, though, depending on your views of fetishes.

      • WinTurkey says:

        I agree that it does sound like the author is implying some sort of hipster non-conformism.

        But yeah, video game about pre-pubescent girl recreating sex acts? Sorry, not while the NSA is watching.

        • Synesthesia says:

          Damn, that´s sad.

        • LionsPhil says:

          I agree that it does sound like the author is implying some sort of hipster non-conformism.

          So it’s a standard Porpentine article, then.

          But yeah, video game about pre-pubescent girl recreating sex acts? Sorry, not while the NSA is watching.

          Just wait until the Daily Mail get hold of ISP logs of who played it in this country. It’s hard to think of a more ill-advised game concept.

          • The Random One says:

            Have you played it? It’s really lovely, and more about sexuality than about sex itself.

          • Premium User Badge

            Gap Gen says:

            Feh, what are the Daily Mail going to do, put on black shirts and walk down Cable Street?

          • Universal Quitter says:

            Douchey hipster? Have you even visited Propentine’s site? I don’t want to get into labels, but she is definitely genuinely living a lifestyle that could have problems stemming from people’s heteronormative behaviors.

            I mean, one of you took it as “straight people aren’t really straight, it’s just cause of culture,” proving that even in a “safe” place like RPS, the homophobia and presumption are still simmering underneath everything.

      • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

        ” It may not be intentional, but it does give the vibe of implying ‘you’re only straight because people made you be’ or something.”

        Heteronormative (very basically) refers to how heterosexuality is treated as the norm, the ideal, the ground state, the “real” sex. For instance, Barbie and Ken dolls and their world – which is what the word was used in reference to here, everyone conveniently forgetting this so they can work up a good outrage – ignore the fact that there are lesbian, gay, bi, etc., etc. couples out there, and that some of them are parents to kids that might be playing with the dolls.

        Nothing about the word or the way Porpentine used it here is in any way an attack on anyone. But some people seem to feel attacked just by being reminded that not everyone does the things they do. EDIT: Not saying you’re one of them, aldo.

        • hungrycookpot says:

          I think in the greater context of the article, I can see why people are confused over it’s usage. The rest of the text gives a sort of a defensive vibe, as if the reader had said something ignorant about the writer’s way of thinking, and is being rebuffed.

          I dunno, you can speak in a condescending tone about heteronormatives and “penis-in-vagina fetishes”. we get that you’re trying to encourage novel thinking, but that doesn’t excuse you from saying the same things that many of your own persuasion would get riled up about if they were said to you. I spend a lot of time amongst the gay community in my area, and I can’t imagine my referring to homosexual sex as a fetish, or implying resentment that so many people are treating the whole gay thing as normal would be well received.

          And just let me say, I’m not offended by what I read, I understand what you’re getting at, but I’m also not surprised that some people are.

    • iucounu says:

      You don’t have to promote one type of sexuality by demeaning another.

      Pointing out that x is a social norm does not demean x.

      Look to your right. Now look to your left. Please remember that you are a product of “heteronormative coupling”, and you won’t be accepted any quicker by being unpleasant about it.

      This reads like a lot like someone saying “please remember you are a member of a minority, and the majority will only tolerate you so long as you express yourself in a particular way.” Which would be creepy.

      • aldo_14 says:

        Pointing out that x is a social norm does not demean x.

        It is if the implication is that x only exists as that norm due to enforcement rather than free choice*.

        That said, it depends on your reading of it… I don’t think that was the intended implication, on balance, but it’s a bit messy phrasing IMO.

        *skipping over the issues of genetics here

        • ChrisGWaine says:

          Your brain adapts influenced by what you experience of other people. You adapt to things like social norms, they become your norms, you in turn influence other people. That learning process is not exactly enforcement. Nor is it removing free choice, rather it’s the input into what’s behind your choices.

          • aldo_14 says:

            Your brain adapts influenced by what you experience of other people. You adapt to things like social norms, they become your norms, you in turn influence other people. That learning process is not exactly enforcement. Nor is it removing free choice, rather it’s the input into what’s behind your choices.

            Ah, but it’s not about the semantics of the process, but the implication of it as equating to some form of insidious pressurization. I’m not saying this is what was meant but… the negative reading, the demeaning one, is that heterosexuality is viewed in a similar way as those people who put up ‘we can cure being gay’ adverts view homosexuality.

            A sort of opinion that ‘normal’ sexuality (hence the ‘heteronormative’) is something people are forced into, and that alternative sexual orientations are more honest and free expressions.

            Like I said, I don’t think this is the implication being made. It think you can take original article sentence in a manner that leads that implication, but I think it’s just a personal reading rather than authors intent.

          • joa says:

            Except being hetero ain’t something you adapt to because society portrays it as normal.
            Being hetero is what most people naturally are. And it’s because of that that it’s the norm in society, not the other way around.

          • Premium User Badge

            Gap Gen says:

            EDIT: This hit the reply tree limit, so I’m not arguing against ChrisGWaine here. Just to clarify.

            I like to think humans are more flexible than that. Many ancient Greek societies had widespread homosexuality (and pederasty). Remember also that for centuries much of the world has followed Abrahamic religions, which are fairly puritan about sexual mores, so there’s a long-term social movement to portray women as subservient to men, and for non-heterosexual sex as wrong (and even then often being barely tolerant of heterosexual sex). I bet if someone grew up in a pansexual society they’d see that as being completely normal. Of course, you’re right that procreation generally requires a male and a female, but then there’s widespread evidence of homosexuality in animals, so it’s not as if nature demands heterosexuality (Wikipedia (yes): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals).

          • joa says:

            Greek homosexuality was not the sort of “main” sexuality of males though – it wasn’t like they had a stable homosexual relationship with a man of their own age. As you say, their relationships were with teenage boys, which I hardly think is something worth holding up as a healthy example of homosexuality.

            In societies with a high degree of gender equality and acceptance of homosexuality – i.e. think Sweden or something – the percentage of heterosexual people is still roughly the same as in more repressed places. If your view was true, then all people born in a strongly anti-homosexual place would simply be heterosexual, as society forces them to be that way. And yet we know that’s not true – there are just as many homosexuals in parts of the world where being homosexual can mean death as there are in other parts. The evidence strongly shows, as far as I can see, that sexual orientation is set from birth.

            It’s like left and right handedness. Nobody argues that most people are right handed simply because they that’s the societal norm. People are born one or the other. And that view doesn’t say anything negative about left or right handed people. Just as admitting a biological grounding for sexuality doesn’t say anything negative about anyone’s sexuality.

          • The Random One says:

            I think Gap Gen’s argument is that, because having sex with men and boys in Greece was considered normal, and didn’t mark you as part of a different group, everyone (or almost everyone) did it. Meanwhile, in the present day, (wait did I just say that?) there are a lot of people who say gay sex is disgusting. We can’t tell the extent to which people are being swayed by popular opinion (normativity) but it’s likely that there are people who wouldn’t be interested in gay sex but did it because they were born in Ancient Greece and internalized that they were supposed to like it and that there are people who would be midly interested in gay sex but because they were born in Modern Western Place they internalized that it’s disgusting and would never do it.

            Anyway systematic repression of gay people goes back a long way so looking at the rate of heterosexuals in Sweden is not defininitve proof that there is no societal pressure. We’d need to look at them some hundred years from now.

          • Premium User Badge

            Gap Gen says:

            It’s worth pointing out I dropped biology after GCSE so I have no idea how much of behaviour is socialised, or to what extent genetic encoding prevents socialisation.

        • Geewhizbatman says:

          It’s important to remember that sexual activity, reproduction, and coupling are three separate things. Also, the base definition of heteronormative is simply that it is saying that heterosexuality is considered non-deviant. Just like homonormative says that for homosexuality. However, what is included in heterosexuality and homosexuality is more complex and why heteronormative is used outside of the base concept. In this case heteronormative would include, I’d argue:

          Coitus, the fancy term for penis in vagina sex. This is sexual activity. Do you know many couples who use birth control? They are now separating that activity from reproduction. Do you know of people that say that birth control shouldn’t be part of sex? They would be saying that birth controlled sex is non-heteronormative. That indeed, it wasn’t heterosexual sex in their concept at all. It was a deviant fetish.

          Coupling, or relationships, in a heteronormative situation include a cisgendered man and woman (I know, more scary concepts but it’s good to learn things) being together. But what does that mean for a heteronormative couple? Are mistresses expected? Like, say, in many otherwise normative couples of the 50′s era? Or would they be considered highly deviant even in private, as I would argue they are now? So, there’s monogamy in that concept too.

          Reproduction is having children. Most people do that by putting a penis in a vagina. Is it the vagina of a female they are in a long-term, committed relationship with? Maybe. Does that female consider herself a woman? Maybe. Does that female enjoy that kind of sex? Maybe. Would a female who wanted a child, but didn’t enjoy that activity, but wanted to conceive with it engage in it? Maybe. Is the only way that people have children by putting a penis in a vagina? No, technology has changed that.

          So–hopefully you can see how heteronormative is simply about trying to give a more exact idea of what someone says. Because just saying “normal” doesn’t really make sense. Even for heterosexual people—because what people actually do and what they say they do is different. In fact, many people would argue that for every Handy-J a husband gets from his wife would not be activity under heteronormative practice which is, even now, primarily about monogamous relationships that engage in missionary position coitus with the intents of reproduction as well as sexual gratification. As our culture changes, what’s included and not included changes—but that’s the point. Your “normal” wasn’t normal in the 1914, 1814, 1714, 1614, etc… under the umbrella of a heteronormative society.

    • Malky says:

      You don’t have to promote one type of sexuality by demeaning another.

      Look to your right. Now look to your left. Please remember that you are a product of “heteronormative coupling”, and you won’t be accepted any quicker by being unpleasant about it.”,

      Oh, grow up a bit, eh?

    • killias2 says:

      Man, there is no attack in this article on anyone’s sexuality. You’re imagining something that’s not there.

      • Premium User Badge

        Morangie says:

        When you think The Gay is coming to get you, you see it everywhere.

        • zal says:

          I don’t think The Gay is coming to get me, but I can see where there’s a certain confrontationalism embedded in the paragraph.

          In a way, the spinning mashing poly-anatomical gyrations of the player are closer to queer sexuality than the heteronormative coupling suggested by the Barbie appearance of the dolls.

          that sentance creates a link between “heteronomative coupling” and “Barbie” superficiality and identikit attractiveness, assuming you get that from the use of Barbie as an adjective. this effect is heightened by the contrast to “spinning mashing poly-anatomical” (a contrast to emphasize difference vs conformity). Most people aren’t entirely cool with having themselves or their behavior labeled as conformity for conformities sake, or superficialism, BUT we’re talking HETERONORMATIVE not heterosexual coupling, which IS conformist, so its a very descriptive comparison.

          The problem is, this is immediately followed by a sentence that starts with a simple idea, then moves to a set of ideas, or a natural growth process (the split in concepts at … fetish), and … part of which receives direct author support (“hopefully”) and is equated to a natural progression of learning, and the other part is indicated to be a less refined understanding due to its positioning in sequence in the sentance.


          It makes me think of the way sexuality starts out polymorphous, then gets molded into genital fetishism (the popular penis-in-vagina fetish), and then hopefully at a certain point you realize sex is unique to every human being on this planet, a personal response to our need for pleasure and healing and catharsis, not prescribed plastic shapes (unless that’s what you’re into ;)).

          to see how the structure contributes, lets play mad-libs

          It makes me think of the way ______ starts out _______, then gets molded into __________ , and then hopefully at a certain point you realize _____ is _____________, not ____________

          See how the sentence progresses forward, espousing a particular belief set and continues by implying the other belief set is not fully formed, finally ending with a descriptive clause that further refutes the other idea?

          Porpentine is an excellent writer and so the “prescribed plastic shapes” seems to tie back to the (barbie/hetero/conformist) analogy. Its nice to see reiteration of the previous concept, but the demeaning undertones of the first adjective are unfortunately carried into the structure of the later paragraph where its invoked again by the second adjective, this time, not in reference to heteronormative, but leveraged against the “genital fetishism (the popular penis-in-vagina fetish)” clause (as it clearly can’t be meant in reference to adjective “amorphous” used to describe the initial concept).

          Its subtle but inflammatory writing. That said, its supposed to be thought provoking and entertaining, not a textbook. If I were writing it, I’d intend a subtle jab like that more to keep interest and provoke tangential thought than to insult the reader. I didn’t write it though, so maybe Porpentine just hates you, but decided it was best to let you know by sprinkling it across 2 paragraphs.

    • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

      “You don’t have to promote one type of sexuality by demeaning another.”

      How does pointing out that heterosexuality is treated as the norm demean it in any way?

      • killias2 says:

        Because it implies that we should take other forms of sexual relations seriously….
        Maybe I’m being unfair, but I really don’t see this response as anything but homophobic.

        • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

          Ratzo’s, you mean?

        • hungrycookpot says:

          It implies that we’re already not treating them as such. To me it feels like the article was targeted at someone who had expressed ignorance on the topic, comes off a little preachy.

    • Premium User Badge

      Gap Gen says:

      They said PIV is a fetish which, well, I guess it is. I don’t think that “fetish” was intended to be an insult – just an open acknowledgement that some people get turned on by willies being put into vaginas, but not everyone.

      • Kitsunin says:

        Yes. That’s what I think too.

        I mean, I guess you could argue PIV is the most natural because the P and that V are the bits that want to feel good. You put the P in things and you put things in the V so putting P I V makes the most sense…but then again, how many totally hetero people get more turned on by like, feet or whatever?

        • Premium User Badge

          Gap Gen says:

          Sure, but with the proviso that natural doesn’t necessarily equal good or morally right.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          It is worth pointing out that (in heterosexual sex) PIV is most pleasurable for men, the majority of women do not climax from it, and the major erogenous areas for women are around the outside of the vagina. Unless sex is thought of as being purely reproductive (which is actually by far its minor role) the idea of sex being classified as “putting a penis in a vagina” is preferential to heterosexual men – it is both a heteronormative and patriarchal construct. Just as an aside most men (and women) do not know the anatomy of the clitoris and think it is just a nub at the front of the vagina, so here is the wiki with a handy diagram:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris

          Regarding gay constructs of sex, anal sex is only the 4th most common sexual practice for gay men, with manual and oral stimulation and frottage all being more common.

          • joa says:

            This is not strictly true. While it may be “easier” for a woman to orgasm from clitoral stimulation, it is actually more beneficial to both men and women overall to engage in penile-vaginal intercourse over other sexual activities. See these studies:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19453891
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18331263

          • Premium User Badge

            Gap Gen says:

            A quick Google brought up this rebuttal – http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681994.2012.732262?journalCode=csmt20#.Uu6THPgjupw

            I’m not an expert in either, and of course research often takes a while to become consensus, given the complexity of the problems being studied. I’m just curious as to why there’s a difference in opinion.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            It’s not strictly that simple of course, but I would avoid making assumptions of ‘truth’ from low-impact journals. They certainly give food for thought, although I’m a clinical psychologist myself and that second article is problematic in so many ways.

            EDIT: Gap Gen – because that’s the best thing about science and anthropology! You get different results depending on your constructs, methodologies etc. and can have a good old time debating.

          • Kitsunin says:

            Hmm, well I mean I didn’t exactly expect that vaginal is the most pleasurable option possible for women, I just don’t know of any other possibilities that actually provide stimulation to both partners at one time. For instance 69 and scissoring are both really quite uncomfortable and not worth bothering with, from what I understand.

          • aldo_14 says:

            Hmm, well I mean I didn’t exactly expect that vaginal is the most pleasurable option possible for women, I just don’t know of any other possibilities that actually provide stimulation to both partners at one time. For instance 69 and scissoring are both really quite uncomfortable and not worth bothering with, from what I understand.

            Are we talking about 69 in a heterosexual or homosexual context here?

          • Kitsunin says:

            Both. I think? I guess it’s not like I’d really know, but the idea is the same, you need to be too flexible to comfortably assume that kind of position unless you’re both really close to the same height and build.

          • aldo_14 says:

            Both. I think? I guess it’s not like I’d really know, but the idea is the same, you need to be too flexible to comfortably assume that kind of position unless you’re both really close to the same height and build.

            Um….. without going to detail, I don’t think it’s particularly hard so long as one or more partner has sticky-out parts.

            For two ladies, might be a bit harder; I’d need to do more, err, ‘research’ on the internet to be sure.

          • Kitsunin says:

            ‘Aight, lol. It’s not like it’s not like I’ve tried anything non-vanilla yet anyways, and that’s just something I read (Some study found 60% of couples who tried it would not do it again or something)

          • DXN says:

            For instance 69 and scissoring are both really quite uncomfortable and not worth bothering with, from what I understand.

            Ahahahahahahaha, my goodness me.. *wipes tear*

            No, you’re quite right of course. Scientifically, penis-in-vagina sex is the only one that can bring pleasure. Everyone doing other things and thinking they’re enjoying themselves is clearly just VERY CONFUSED.

          • Kitsunin says:

            Everyone doing other things and thinking they’re enjoying themselves is clearly just VERY CONFUSED.

            That’s not what I meant :(
            I just don’t know of many mutual methods that work, read a thing that maybe isn’t true, and think mutual masturbation seems kinda boring.

    • sharonakemp says:

      my buddy’s mom makes $79 hourly on the internet . She has been without work for seven months but last month her pay was $20122 just working on the internet for a few hours. Look At This =========>>> http://www.jobs39.com

    • Premium User Badge

      psepho says:

      What a thoughtful thread. It’s interesting to see that the comment writing tradition of directing erudite analysis at games without having played them apparently extends to sexual behaviours too…

  2. Enkinan says:

    “YOU CAST SHIT AXE”

    heh

    Just cant help it. Thanks for a few minutes of funny

  3. beigebloc says:

    Hmm, now I’m left wondering what thecatamites might make of Rear View Window.

  4. MichaelKBlount says:

    my buddy’s half-sister makes $61 an hour on the laptop . She has been without work for nine months but last month her payment was $19807 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    more information ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.Fizzjob.com

  5. altum videtur says:

    I logged in to talk about some other people’s views on the treatment of non-normative sexuality in western history. But they are smart, insightful, opinionated and interesting, (and widely and deservedly known and respected/hated) people, and I’m a gutless sack of wilted butterfly wings what likes to complain about their sad lot a whole lot. I should probably stay away from things.

    (also sexuality is scary brrrr)

    • satan says:

      Ah you tease, now I really want to know what you have to say about things.

      • MajorManiac says:

        A literal example of devil’s advocate.

        • altum videtur says:

          I thought it was sarcasm.
          I really should stop myself from posting non-content though.

  6. MajorManiac says:

    “Frantically Mashing Plastic Crotches Together” – describes every computer game sex-scene ever.

    • Vinraith says:

      Beautiful, and quite literally the only comment worth making about the game in question.

  7. minstrelofmoria says:

    Yeah, I’m gonna have to argue this one, Porpentine.

    On the objective side of things: the Western, as a genre, has been essentially dead since at least the late ’60s. Audiences simply couldn’t believe in it anymore. The Wild Bunch is a pretty good examination of what people were left with when they stopped taking Western heroes seriously–bloodthirsty brutes for both heroes and villains, neither of them worth rooting for.

    On the subjective side of things: I don’t think the Western genre is completely full of shit. You can say that it celebrates violence, but what it’s really about is restraint. Its villains are distinguished by how much they WANT–they want money, they want women, or they simply want to survive, and they’ll sell out every principle they have for that purpose. Its heroes, by contrast, never act without purpose. They’re quiet because they speak when there’s reason to, just as they only fire their guns for a reason, one clean shot per one unclean villain once all nonviolent methods have failed. Even when they’re beaten and bloodied, they suffer in silence, saving their energy for a chance to fight back.

    If this makes me sound like a Western fan, I’m definitely not. I find the genre to be so strongly associated with conceptions of maleness that it often feels sexist. But I’ve spent a lot of my writing career trying to get the sexism out of horror, and I think there’s some value in dredging other genres for what’s valuable within them, rather than dismissing them outright.

    • Porpentine says:

      i love westerns. i think we agree–there’s lots of sexism and racism in westerns historically (not even historically, look at the Lone Ranger remake) but there’s loads of cool stuff in the genre (which itself divides into many sub-genres). one of my favorite films is No Country for Old Men, and a lot of other great media has drawn on elements of the western.

    • solowd says:

      Of course you root for the heroes in The Wild Bunch. Just because they’re bloodthirsty brutes doesn’t make them morally equivalent to the villains.

  8. drvoke says:

    What about games for haterosexuals? I can only get off when someone is being rude and condemning me for what I believe. That’s why I read internet comment sections.

    • LionsPhil says:

      I thought those were people who were sexually attracted to Team Fortress 2.

      • drvoke says:

        Those are hatterosexuals. It’s a common mistake, but we’ve gone to battle over less! Oh, the great Penis-in-Vagina War of 1936. We lost a lot of great hate fetishists to the heteronormative insurgency, but they were no match!

        • Premium User Badge

          Gap Gen says:

          Such a shame. Penis-in-Vagina was a charming little seaside town before the war.

  9. tormos says:

    I thought After Thought was quite a good one. Using the player’s body as an interface in a way that’s deeper than anything we can do with rift et al. Reminded me of Drink if anyone remembers that (drinking game where you play against a computer)

  10. Ergates_Antius says:

    “The open-ended design is really great. In a way, the spinning mashing poly-anatomical gyrations of the player are closer to queer sexuality than the heteronormative coupling suggested by the Barbie appearance of the dolls”
    What kind of weird Barbie dolls did you have as a child? None of the ones I’ve ever seen are particularly suggestive of any sort of coupling (what with having no genitals and all)…

    • Universal Quitter says:

      Yeah, cause men don’t look at tits or hips,or facial symmetry. They look at a woman and imagine her vagina, because that’s the only erogenous area on a female body.

      You’re an idiot, in case you were wondering. There’s still time, though. You can still change.

      • Ergates_Antius says:

        What the fuck are you talking about? I was, pretty fucking obviously, making a joke about Barbie dolls not having genitals (thus making them incapable of any sort of “coupling” whether hetero or otherwise).

        Grow up and/or go away you obnoxious arsehole.

        • Unclepauly says:

          Anytime there’s an article with any hint of this type of stuff it seems a whole gaggle of defenders raid the comment section fiercely attacking anyone who disagrees with the One Human Sexual Truth. If you disagree or even somehow accidentally post something unlike how they feel the gloves come off. I can kindof understand why they are like that but I don’t think it’s the healthiest way to live life no matter what your sexuality is.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            People who fall even a short way outside the “mainstream” when it comes to sexuallity get a lot of shit in real life and on the internet and I would absolutely defend their right to be angry about it. However, I was just making a mild joke around the dual meaning of the word “coupling”* and the fact that children’s dolls don’t have genitals. I have literally no idea what Universal Quitter thought I was saying or implying, or why they chose to respond in such an obnoxious and aggressive manner.

            * 1) The pairing off of people into couples (the meaning that was intended in the article.) 2) a euphamism for sexual intercourse

          • iseemonkeys says:

            So they are like the Catholic church with oppressing scientific understanding and a mixture of pseudoscience? I don’t think anyone should be harassed or belittled but I dislike those who censor science and understanding in return. I can assume by looking at the author photograph they are transsexual with XY chromosome?

  11. Unclepauly says:

    I think just the use of loaded words in itself says something. I feel bad for the author, this is not the way to self healing. Being happy I think has more to do with your own feelings than how other people react to them. Please don’t attack me :D

  12. DThor says:

    This article (these articles) confused the hell out of me because it took a moment to realize they are a bunch of different articles about different things(I’m new), and one of them appears to be a role playing game where you are a preteen girl thinking about sex. And it’s the most obvious and normal sort of thing in the world to both have such a game and to review it. No, not being prudish, I’m just not understanding the target audience (or not wanting to). If I read an article about young girl’s perception of sex and social casting and demographics for corporations, I’d be fine with that, but the review doesn’t really attempt to clear up whether or not the game is trying to demonstrate that, or is basically just pervy. I mean the *game*, not the reviewer.

    Still, for a while it was fun imagining casting a fireball spell when plastic crotches don’t fit…

  13. taristo says:

    I’m rather sure in saying that you are a product of such strange “heteronormative coupling” and didn’t emerge from a test tube.

    Maybe you should take into account that the reason you can prance around dressed like a princess in the first place is because of that “popular penis-in-vagina fetish” and children smashing toys into one another.

    • tormos says:

      Well, you’re a bit of a jerk, aren’t you?

    • iseemonkeys says:

      Nothing to see here just pretentious hipster talking about video games and other people commenting with even more pseudoscience. I remember when science was based on valid scientific method instead of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

      • tormos says:

        are you aware that you’re talking about a video game? How is the scientific method involved here?

    • Phasma Felis says:

      Sounds like somebody’s jealous!