LadyCrimson

The only reasons I Google a "famous celeb" are: 1-I saw them in a movie and I want to know what other work they've done because I either know I've seen them before and can't place where I've seen them before, or they impressed me and I just want to see more of their work. 2-I'm trying to look up a film but I can't remember the name of the film, but do remember who the big star was. 3-I want to know how to spell their hard-to-spell name so I can cut and paste it into something I'm writing. 4-I'm really bored and a funny YouTube video led me to wonder who the heck is this person/group/whatever that the 'net is poking fun with 5-they're really handsome and I just want a wallpaper of their gorgeous mug for my desktop. Other than that, I don't pay much attention to celeb news. Course, when I was 13, I would've loved to have the internet to stalk read about my celeb crushes. Sadly all I had was the monthly periodicals at the library and a Xerox machine to make fuzzy blk & wht copies of articles, using a lot of nickels. The stone ages, man, the stone ages.

Missed this post earlier and just wanted to comment that I had a discussion on another forum about exactly that aspect of male/female sexualization, right down to the "don't tell me Twilight isn't objectifying men" part. Anyway...I think it's fair to say that no one wants to feel constantly objectified, whatever that means to the individual. Empathy or at least having a certain level of acceptance that negative objectification can be and does mean different things to different people is key to finding some middle ground where it hopefully doesn't become simply an "either-or" scenario.

Our winter has been pretty dry, which if that also translates into a weak "mt. snow pack," by Spring they'll be talking about drought worries again. Endless California cyclic concern. Sometimes they still get enough snowpack, however, even if the rain down here is sparse. Today I stayed up far too late again. Not that doing so has ever been terribly unusual for me, but I certainly find as I get older that I feel mentally better when I get to sleep a bit earlier/get up earlier. Decades of habit and natural body rhythms are hard to break sometimes. Even when I manage to keep to an earlier schedule for a while, a single very late night has it all fly right out the window again. It's like being a booze addict who can never drink even a single drink. Bah!

But see, that's the part I really don't understand. Isn't the other side, that insists upon leaving certain body image art alone/inclusive, also a "very vocal minority?" I mean, it's not like I consider the postings of people on forums representative of the game buying population as a whole, in either direction. Most consumers still likely don't ever bother to frequent forums. If I were to guess (and note it's only me guessing), I'd suspect the actual majority would be more like GhostofAnkain (or myself, really, when it comes down to it) - where they really don't care too much one way or another, because for them, while options are always great, in the end what a character looks like isn't what actually defines whether they want to play a game or whether they think a game is good or bad. It does seem to me that there hasn't been enough research on what type of games this "50% are women" statistic that gets tossed around are actually playing, however. It wouldn't surprise me, tho, if RPG's are one of the genres that women tend to choose and/or that they're starting to play a lot more variety than many seem to think. At any rate, if the companies feel the female audience is growing, and they can make more money by trying to attract them further into the fray, so to speak, well...yeah. It's going to happen. If they later discover it's not bringing them more profits, they'll eventually try something else instead. Happens all the time. So if y'all are actually right, instead of just believing/convincing yourselves you're right, and it's just a vocal tiny minority, some of who never even play the games they're protesting against, all you have to do is wait for the companies to realize it.

It's late and I must be a little punchy, because for some reason that immediately brought to mind the famous Aliens "build a campfire, sing some songs" quote. With the way characters in the series come and go, sometimes with zero introduction at all, I think even a chart would fail to de-confuse.

I still don't understand why some seem to feel so threatened because some games decide to try out not having big boobies etc. (that's rhetorical, btw, don't have to try to explain it, because I still likely won't understand it). eg, if it's just fantasy and people shouldn't care/get up in arms if there are giant boobies/massive cleavage then the opposite seems like it should apply as well - it's just fantasy and people shouldn't care/get up in arms if there aren't giant boobies/massive cleavage. See how that works? Mainstream artistic preferences - they change all the time, and of course during any period of change, some "oldtimers" often don't like the change, because we always want what we're used to having, not what new generations may want to have. I definitely have a lot of "oldtimer" whinging about a lot of things over the years but that's neither here or there. As far as, specifically, giant boobies and wasp waists go (or the male equivalent) the simple solution for games, at least, if game companies are really concerned about it, is to always have a character editor/sliders in the game that allow people to enlarge or minimize the breast/waist size of their character, even if the face is static. Or if actual sliders aren't doable, a few body choices to choose from (same head/face, different body style). Of course, this means that the game has to have the funding and art team/development time available, and so on. But as I said, that's the simple solution, not necessarily the most expedient one - perhaps we'll move into an era where game development may decide it's necessary to allot more funds/time to more multiple art choices, if not always, at least more often, in order to stop the issue from being such a constant issue. Or at least, that'd be nice if that turned out to be the case. Probably won't be tho. Oh well.

Thanks alan ... I was wanting to reply to Bester but also didn't want to derail the news thread quite that much. No. You're trying to rationalize instinctual behavior, which is a frequent amateur mistake. Females' lives are built around their instinct to attract the strongest of males and get their sеmen. It may sound chauvinist, but I mean no offense. It's just that it's really all there's to it. Heh...not like I'm not familiar with that line of thought, since I've used it in my pessimistic moments re: the essentially unchanged nature of humankind. And yes, despite our intellect we are still instinctual creatures who react without thought to certain stimuli. Fight or flight, fear of unknown/different, and of course the oo-la-la. But the nature of humanity is not always the same thing as the culture of humanity, and that's where using that as an argument against change falls apart. People wanting/wishing to be as attractive as possible to find mates, natural thing and I doubt you'd find anyone to argue against that. What is culturally considered attractive, however, is ever changing and is definitely not ruled by instinct alone, but by whatever is the fad at the time. People's interests change, on a cultural level. At one time pudgy women were the height of sexual attractiveness for some. For others it was an exposed ankle. For still others it could be the bone in their perfectly shaped nose or how long their artificially-stretched-from-birth-via-metal-rings neck is. I believe the objection to objectification sometimes (or often) stems less from an objection to sexuality itself and more from how unreasonable that objectification is vs. any reality of what's reasonably physically possible. To most of our "modern" culture, for example, something like forcing girls to bind/literally cripple their feet as a pinnacle of beauty is/seems barbaric, because it's not something reasonable/humane to expect people to do in order to feel like they're attractive/have social worth. While fantasy Barbie-Doll proportions isn't in the same league as crippling one's feet, as this culture of ours evolves and changes, it's not necessarily unreasonable to think that a culture might eventually deem it unfavorable to use such as a socially-influential measurement of worth. Or such objections may end up petering out and going nowhere. Not for me to say. At any rate, just because we have roots that stem from instinct, in the long run that's usually a poor excuse for justifying not even attempting social/cultural change, if and when a time comes that enough people in a cultural group want change. ...myself, I'm still waiting for the day that flat feet and broad, short-fingered hands are considered the height of female sexiness. I'll have it made then. Never mind that I already have a mate. I can't wait, because then I'll still be considered super-sexy when I'm 65!

Previous incarnation Since the last thread derailed slightly as well as reached the post limit, here's a fresh new thread for all our random gaming news. ...not that I have any to report, myself, since I'm still in the stone ages wishing for a real Dungeon Keeper 3.

This thread is also reaching that post limit range, so this seems like as good a time as any to close it and start a new one.

I think that sometimes (not always, but sometimes) that comes about because some women feel doing such is a path to getting more attention/getting the job/fame they want and/or will make them feel better or more confident about themselves etc. Which becomes more of an issue of body self-esteem and the possible negative influences that media over-saturation may have on said self-esteem, rather than that an image is morally offensive. Such pressure applies to both genders and to more than just big boobs (face-lifts, neck-lifts, the whole beauty/image industry etc). I don't see anything wrong with people voicing their dislike for not having more body-image options. If the game companies eventually then want to change things here and there, because they believe enough of their audience for their game would like to see some different approaches, that's their decision to make, just as it's their decision to change some combat mechanic because of some user-poll....

Still a bit of Torchlight 2 now and then. I found a mod that increased the town shared-stash inventory to 1600 slots for each tab (items, spells, fish/potions tabs) and that's helped my sense of being able to just bash monsters without thinking about all the mule characters I want to make every 10 minutes. Like, one for every Set. So that was good enough I made new mod-save chrs so I could use it. Not that I needed 1600 slots, but that's all I found in shared-stash only. Most mods increased all stash/chr. inventory/store inventory etc. and that apparently causes some mod-compatibility issues here and there. Anyway...

Going to close for length. Not sure it merits a new thread at the moment, but we/anyone can create a new thread next time we're in the mood to post a lot about the game.

I've been watching "Band of Brothers." I remember hubby watching this a while back, and I caught bits and pieces of it but never watched the whole thing. So far (4 episodes in) what I find is that it's a stellar cast/acting job and well done combat scenes/great cinematography, etc. But I find it a bit confusing in terms of characters - after the first episode only a few really stand out and the rest seem to enter and disappear with me barely knowing/connecting about them. Sometimes I can't even place face with name when they do have a line or two to say. Then again, I'd imagine that happens in combat wartime so if it was one of their aims to capture a certain sense of confusion, then...it does well. But it tends to make me not care much, dramatically.

Edit - oops wrong thread.

Closed for length. Feel free to make a new thread to continue to discuss all things Russia.

Previous incarnation. ...The days have been quite nice here the past week. But today I'm stuck in the house since hubby's van is running funny and he took my car. So...a little winter yardwork this afternoon. Then probably some gaming.

Post limit. "Just when you got on a roll...here it goes, here it goes, here it goes again..."

I'm pretty sure I tossed a little money towards it during their KS, but not enough to get into the alpha/beta tiers. I can wait.

"Cold Comes the Night" - the Bryan Cranston movie I mentioned earlier. It was ok, but nothing special. Not particularly thrilling or intelligent enough to turn it into something more than a by the numbers crime tale. Cranston and Alice Eve do credibly well with what they're given and the film is short enough to not wear out its welcome, but slow and doesn't engage you that much. I'd give it a 5.5 or 6 at most. Bryan Cranston's accent still makes me giggle tho.

Discovered the fave Chinese restaurant that I grew up with and continued to return to occasionally, off an on, all my adulthood as well, finally closed. Knew that would happen sooner or later (been there close to 30 years). Owners sold it/retired. A new Chinese eatery is in its place, but not sure I care to try it, especially since we haven't lived close to the location in some time. It makes me sad, tho. Time passing and all that. My fave local pizza place has been there forever, too, which means they could close shop anytime now too. Thus I ordered a pizza. Edit: two really late nights in a row. I think I'll be going to bed super early tonight.

Yes, he ends up as the main character and I'm sure the idea was he was the main/important character, since his visual ability is what helps them survive. But I, at least, felt at least a few of the other characters were just as important at making Pitch Black stand out from the average low-budget horror thriller. Ensemble cast sometimes has more meaning than "just a bunch of people for a star to bounce off of action/plotwise." I mean, in most Stallone vehicle films, it's all about Stallone, even if he's surrounded by other actors or even absent for a chunk of the film. That's what Chronicles/Riddick makes me think of, while Pitch Black doesn't. And yes, Pitch Black isn't a masterpiece or anything like that. It was just a surprise, I think. One went in expecting a marginally watchiable cheapie b-grade flick and while it was that, it was also a lot better than most.

Here's the thing about Pitch Black ... Vin Diesel wasn't the main character. Ok ok, he ends up as such I suppose, but what I mean is the ensemble cast, most of them were important in some way. The young girl. The pilot woman. The bounty hunter. etc. Riddick wasn't completely interesting of himself (outside of his eyes), it was the dynamic/struggle between him and the others and their different skills and personalities/ethics to survive (or not). Do we trust each other, can we trust each other. Film used that formula pretty well. Chronicles and Riddick on the other hand, are all about ... Riddick. How marvelous he is. How super-human he is. Which isn't inherently bad for an action pic, mind you, but in this case, for me that's largely meant .... zzzzz.

What exactly is the definition of "blant"? I tried Googling it, but all I got were crappy urban dictionary entries that seemed to have nothing to do with the subject at hand, as well as one entry that basically equated to "bland".

Sliced steak on fresh sourdough bread topped with lettuce and bacon. It was tender and delicious and cat approved.

I vote sword. Swords don't need bullets to be useful. Plus you can look bad ass wielding it. Either that or slice off a toe. Either way. I keep dreaming of owning some far east blade collection, mostly just to admire (since I'm of the "slice off a toe" sort) but sadly I probably won't ever get around to it. Plus, I'm not rich either. ---- Stayed up way too late last night with a friend, so had a late start today. Chores, dinner, now what. Hm.