: Sexual objectification is not the cause of sexual inequality, but I don't
: think I've ever seen anyone saying it was the cause (and if you have, I'd
: like to know specifically where, not just "oh some person I assume
: uses Tumblr"). The claim is that they're connected , which I think
: is a claim that has merit-- the different ways women are treated versus
: how men are treated have something to do with each other , don't you
: think?

Let’s change my word “because “ to “is connected to” then (a reminder: the only inequality I mentioned in my original post—unequal pay—is a lie). Connecting video games to bad behavior has been tried for years, and I say video games, to whatever extent they teach anything, more often teach good things. When people start criticizing my entertainment and overstating its negative effects on me, I usually call those people puritanical scolds.

: I also wouldn't jump to say it's a new Puritanical drive or whatever you
: want to call it-- which, let's be honest, you mean "modern
: feminism", and a specific brand of it at that-- rather than good
: old-fashioned body shame.
I thought I honestly made that clear to Cody, and I’m not the first person to refer to modern feminism as puritanical (cf. Paglia).
:Microsoft isn't Disney but that doesn't mean
: they don't have a lot of the same pressures to make everything
: family-friendly, or an inclination to bow to those pressures to try to
: make more money. Have you forgotten the arguments that were had here
: because someone thought nudity was bad in a very old-school way?

Nope. I thought the bruce had good points—is that who you’re referring to? The new Cortana was sexual to a point where she was distracting, and made the game problematic for younger players.

: (oh and by the way, great job bringing up a separate issue, and one that's
: losing steam because it's been debunked so many times, that muddies the
: waters; even greater job calling people "indoctrinated", and
: thus basically calling them out, but not engaging them directly)

I don’t want to engage them directly. To give the subject its due would require going places that I don’t think is appropriate for this forum. And by the way, I wasn’t referring to anyone here. I didn’t read much of the thread—I was stating my reaction to the video.

: I still don't buy this. She looks more real in Halo 4, that doesn't mean she
: looks more nude.

She does to me. I didn’t really mind it, frankly, but I’m not a parent.

:Anyone who draws or paints or indeed does 3D modeling can
: tell you a thing or a character doesn't have to look real to resemble
: something, and making something look more real doesn't automatically make
: it more closely resemble whatever it nominally looks like. (Animation is a
: treasure trove of things that look completely wrong if you make them look
: more real.) All they did was give her a new face, give her more polygons,
: and make her look frumpy instead of perky. If anything they were probably
: trying to de-sexualize her by avoiding the dominant Western male ideals of
: what female beauty is. (so yes, I'm going to want a citation on her being
: modeled after Playboy Playmates)

PAX 2012. I’m not going to argue with you about what you find frumpy or perky, but I think your last non-parenthetical sentence is insane.