Girls of LoversLab

[Resdayn]

5 minutes ago, Meeps said:

I sure hope not anymore its been on and on for years already X3

Well we can hope  

[Meeps]

7 minutes ago, Resdayn said:

Well we can hope  

One thing thou never changes for some is the mental damage to the boys when they learn they been bested by girl/s. Always fun to watch / hear that >=3

 

[Resdayn]

1 minute ago, Meeps said:

One thing thou never changes for some is the mental damage to the boys when they learn they been bested by girl/s. Always fun to watch / hear that >=3

 

Online games are so toxic, no one can take the defeat, stopped them a for while ago.

 

Destroying casuls was fun thing, when I had patience to play those games xD.

[Jazzman]

In online games I just love to play the perfect caricature of virility - a short fat dwarf with polished plate and a beard hanging down to his knees meant to cover a short ding-a-ling, always wobbling with shield and axe on his short legs after the fellow warriors. The one-man mop up crew on the battlefield, the ass that comes from behind a good war party needs. Who'd dare to ask an always pissed off dwarf strange, indiscreet questions, huh? Right, that fool might as well be dead already, clubbed to apple sauce or worse...

[nIn nIn nIn]

19 hours ago, Resdayn said:

People still suprised there are girls who play games? ?

 

In my own experience, there are people who are surprised that adults play games. Still. Talk about having their heads buried up their own arse.

[Jazzman]

19 hours ago, Resdayn said:

People still suprised there are girls who play games? ?

 

That's b/c a virginal boy group most likely hasn't yet played with girls in RL. And it's f'n easy to believe that what doesn't (yet) exist in RL, doesn't exist in VL either.

Yet it does.

 

50 minutes ago, Lunsmann said:

In my own experience, there are people who are surprised that adults play games. Still. Talk about having their heads buried up their own arse.

That's b/c people of all age have a hard time to grasp that they are played by a few 'chosen ones' 24/7 365. When they finally do, their understanding on who plays games makes a 180.

[Oburael]

1 hour ago, Jazzman said:

In online games I just love to play the perfect caricature of virility - a short fat dwarf with polished plate and a beard hanging down to his knees meant to cover a short ding-a-ling, always wobbling with shield and axe on his short legs after the fellow warriors. The one-man mop up crew on the battlefield, the ass that comes from behind a good war party needs. Who'd dare to ask an always pissed off dwarf strange, indiscreet question, huh? Right, that fool might as well be dead already, clubbed to apple sauce or worse...

Not gonna lie, I can imagine a pretty epic role playing sesh with that. xD

[Celedhring]

41 minutes ago, Oburael said:

Not gonna lie, I can imagine a pretty epic role playing sesh with that. xD

Why did the Flintlocke cartoons (World of Warcraft) just spring into my mind?  They were pretty hilarious. 

 

And playing a female dwarf: You're almost guaranteed NOT to get hit on. ?

[SameOldScum]

1 hour ago, Jazzman said:

That's b/c a virginal boy group most likely hasn't yet played with girls in RL. And it's f'n easy to believe that what doesn't (yet) exist in RL, doesn't exist in VL either.

Yet it does.

 

That's b/c people of all age have a hard time to grasp that they are played by a few 'chosen ones' 24/7 365. When they finally do, their understanding on who plays games makes a 180.

I think it's a bit more than just losers thinking like losers. I think it's mostly because the stereotype is that only boys play videogames, while girls spend time on makeup and other shit like that. I'd also say that this stereotype has been so widely accepted and enforced that, at least until recently, it wasn't even questioned. Luckily things are changing, though there's still a certain stigma associated with gamer girls.

[Jazzman]

31 minutes ago, Rhasyel said:

I think it's a bit more than just losers thinking like losers. I think it's mostly because the stereotype is that only boys play videogames, while girls spend time on makeup and other shit like that. I'd also say that this stereotype has been so widely accepted and enforced that, at least until recently, it wasn't even questioned. Luckily things are changing, though there's still a certain stigma associated with gamer girls.

Awww... a boy group doesn't perhaps follow a medieval 3rd party stereotype created and occasionally propagated by adults. Such a group develops its own tiny little world it is temporarily living in by practicing and this understanding of group activity and (gender) makeup gets directly transferred into the virtual world unquestioned. Thus they expect only their kind in what's believed to be their playing ground there, similar to the playing ground in real life. However, one has to understand that it's not the body that is playing in the virtual world... but the mind. And what's the difference b/t a male mind and mine in the world of fantasy, hmm? There is none, otherwise I could not play a bearded dwarf online w/o raising suspicion and... uh... scaring the b'Jesus out of the kiddos.

[SameOldScum]

4 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Awww... a boy group doesn't perhaps follow a medieval 3rd party stereotype created and occasionally propagated by adults. Such a group develops its own tiny little world it is living in by practicing and this understanding of group activity and (gender) makeup gets directly transferred into the virtual world unquestioned. Thus they expect only their kind in what's believed to be their playing ground there, similar to the playing ground in real life. One has to understand that it's not the body that is playing in the virtual world... but the mind. And what's the difference b/t a male mind and mine in the world of fantasy, hmm? There is none, otherwise I could not play a bearded dwarf online w/ raising suspicion...

I wouldn't say stereotypes get transferred into the virtual world unquestioned, otherwise you wouldn't even see a female warrior NPC or somesuch. In a way the virtual world provides either a reversal of the roles or at the very least an alternative interpretation of gender roles, providing many examples not just of immersion (as in, someone as a boy/girl can feel like X, Y or Z) but also of role models: a legendary warrior-woman whose bravery is the envy of many a man? Check. A powerful businesswoman who made her way to the top of a multinational? Check. The list can go on and on and on.
I believe the main reason why there is still some sort of skepticism regarding gamer girls is because most videogames feature violence, and violence has been largely considered a man's domain. Although ironically most of those monitor tough guys are some of the most insignificant wastes of sperm you can encounter. In short, all this classism and discrimination is merely posturing, and even then it's not that widely accepted among gamer boys nowadays. It is widely considered to be plain bad behaviour, a sign of rudeness, overinflated ego and childish attitude, something nobody wants to have anything to do with most of the time.
As for the difference between a man's mind and a woman's mind in a fantasy world, well, there I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Stahlvormund101]

A guy here. I just want to say thank you for all the very revealing and insightful comments, much appreciated.
I guess I personally, while rather young, still had or have a rather narrow view or lacked the phantasy to look beyond my horizon of expectations, I guess mostly because of a lack of experience with the other gender admittedly. While I do not perpetrate these narratives, their demolishion still leaves me to positively wonder.

 

So everyone, keep being awesome and do your thing ?

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, Rhasyel said:

I wouldn't say stereotypes get transferred into the virtual world unquestioned, otherwise you wouldn't even see a female warrior NPC or somesuch. In a way the virtual world provides either a reversal of the roles or at the very least an alternative interpretation of gender roles, providing many examples not just of immersion (as in, someone as a boy/girl can feel like X, Y or Z) but also of role models: a legendary warrior-woman whose bravery is the envy of many a man? Check. A powerful businesswoman who made her way to the top of a multinational? Check. The list can go on and on and on.
I believe the main reason why there is still some sort of skepticism regarding gamer girls is because most videogames feature violence, and violence has been largely considered a man's domain. Although ironically most of those monitor tough guys are some of the most insignificant wastes of sperm you can encounter. In short, all this classism and discrimination is merely posturing, and even then it's not that widely accepted among gamer boys nowadays. It is widely considered to be plain bad behaviour, a sign of rudeness, overinflated ego and childish attitude, something nobody wants to have anything to do with most of the time.
As for the difference between a man's mind and a woman's mind in a fantasy world, well, there I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Well, the mentioned warrior women in game ain't perhaps developed to convince the juvenile 'girls-do-not-exist' faction of the contrary but to please the much larger faction of players that have already encountered (or at least dream of) a woman by their side, probably the last thing a not-yet-ready juvenile would ever consider. And twelve is still the actual average age in M-rated games.

 

Since women and children don't get spared anymore in war as it was mostly but not always the case in the heroic days of yore but instead have become primary, easy targets in modern terror warfare (e.g. in bombing raids), violence is no longer a privilege of men that once fought man vs man. To pick up arms and go to battle has become gender-neutral.  Only the individual motives might differ.  We're living in utterly violent times and that gets reflected (if not promoted) in the games we're playing, the films we're watching and in the language used by those who should lead us to new pastures, not perhaps to scorched earth...

 

[Oburael]

2 hours ago, Celedhring said:

Why did the Flintlocke cartoons (World of Warcraft) just spring into my mind?  They were pretty hilarious. 

 

And playing a female dwarf: You're almost guaranteed NOT to get hit on. ?

Exactly! Totally had a WoW scenario in my head when typing that. ?

[Stahlvormund101]

16 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Well, the mentioned warrior women in game ain't perhaps developed to convince the juvenile 'girls-do-not-exist' faction of the contrary but to please the much larger faction of players that have already encountered (or at least dream of) a woman by their side, probably the last thing a not-yet-ready juvenile would ever consider. And twelve is still the actual average age in M-rated games.

 

Since women and children don't get spared anymore in war as it was mostly but not always the case in the heroic days of yore but instead have become primary, easy targets in modern terror warfare (e.g. in bombing raids), violence is no longer a privilege of men that once fought man vs man. To pick up arms and go to battle has become gender-neutral.  Only the individual motives might differ.  We're living in utterly violent times and that gets reflected (if not promoted) in the games we're playing, the films we're watching and in the language used by those who should lead us to new pastures, not perhaps to scorched earth...

I am treading here without numbers, but I do highly doubt that wars of ancient and medieval times, or even of times of the imperial age of colonies did spare more women and children than todays warfare.

I think of the Spanish campaign in Central America, the Crusades (all of them, in the Holy Land and Balticum), the Thirty Years War with pillaging mercenary armies and many more.
I think there is no need to romanticize or think these wars have been more kind to women or children. Men bled and died on the battlefield, and all humans bled and died pretty much anywhere they were found in wars.

[Oburael]

I will say, though. I do respect both sides of the men and women argument. The immature guy of "woah, you play games too?" because game devs seem to think only dudes played games back then. Plus, I was young and naive once.?

 

Although, being brutally honest here, one thing I need to do is to not get attracted to any girl online who uses voice and that I know is a girl. Distance-wise, it's not like relationships long distance would last long. Especially the ones I had and the other half being in the same country, just not the same state type of deal. But yeah, I just want to mentally be able to say "That's another human online." and leave it at that.

I seem to have three choices.

1: Avoid any and all females online to avoid awkwardness from both sides and feelings from mine, especially if I don't know them well.

2: Seek as many out as I can (obviously not shouting at the rooftops or stalking anybody) or talk to some of them as a way to teach myself that (in a sense), just because a woman plays games and I like games, does not mean there's instant chemistry and that because they are what they are, that it's a sign for me to intervene.

3: Carry on like I am now. Limiting my time in general to not come across any but actively being too nervous to ask questions and learn but am open to the idea.

 

I dunno, maybe I'm overthinking it.

 

I will reiterate that I'm glad today's culture isn't as "thirsty" (to put it lightly).

 

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

I am treading here without numbers, but I do highly doubt that wars of ancient and medieval times, or even of times of the imperial age of colonies did spare more women and children than todays warfare.

I think of the Spanish campaign in Central America, the Crusades (all of them, in the Holy Land and Balticum), the Thirty Years War with pillaging mercenary armies and many more.
I think there is no need to romanticize or think these wars have been more kind to women or children. Men bled and died on the battlefield, and all humans bled and died pretty much anywhere they were found in wars.

Laying aside the devastating effect of the smallpox, the native men of Central and South America got by and large killed by the Spanish (less so by the Portuguese), whereas the women got raped. Or do you believe the so-called Latinos with their classical facial features were already there before Cortez and Pizarro? They are just light skinned mestizos that don't remember their native mother anymore after some 500 years of racial oppression. I do, 'cause she ain't dead yet and I love her.

 

Again - ancient and medieval warfare deals for the most part with clashes b/t armies made of men. Please don't try to rewrite history, perhaps even in an attempt to justify the today war of terror against civilians. Just look at the small number of dead Iraqi and US soldiers in the last War on Iraq and compare this with the high number of dead Iraqi civilians (up to a million). It's unbelievable! In a today war to be a regular rear echelon soldier is the best choice one can make to survive,

[SameOldScum]

57 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

1) Well, the mentioned warrior women in game ain't perhaps developed to convince the juvenile 'girls-do-not-exist' faction of the contrary but to please the much larger faction of players that have already encountered (or at least dream of) a woman by their side, probably the last thing a not-yet-ready juvenile would ever consider. And twelve is still the actual average age in M-rated games.

 

2) Since women and children don't get spared anymore in war as it was mostly but not always the case in the heroic days of yore but instead have become primary, easy targets in modern terror warfare (e.g. in bombing raids), violence is no longer a privilege of men that once fought man vs man. To pick up arms and go to battle has become gender-neutral.  Only the individual motives might differ.  We're living in utterly violent times and that gets reflected (if not promoted) in the games we're playing, the films we're watching and in the language used by those who should lead us to new pastures, not perhaps to scorched earth...

 

1) I'm not sure I follow your reasoning: why put something that defies a stereotype in order to enforce it even more? Videogames are getting less and less "traditional", as in they don't constantly adhere to patriarcal, archaic societal diktats and structures, and it wouldn't make sense for both the gaming industry and the videogames in and of themselves to revert to the logic used 20 years ago. If I think about the TES saga, the Fallout saga, Dragon Age, Mass Effect and the like, all of whom stretch for decades of history, I see plenty of examples where you either meet or have the choice to be a character that defies any given stereotype.

 

2) Women and children were almost never spared in war. Traditionally women were raped and children sold as slaves or executed alongside the men, and even then the definition of children is radically different from today. We consider someone a child or a kid until they reach their 18th year, back then you stopped being a child as early as your 12th year of age, when you might already have been conscripted and sent to war. This is in fact the least warlike and belligerent era in all our history. That we still promote a kind of violence, that is true, however it is much more subtle, as opposed to the policy of open hostility and wholesale slaughter of the last century, where violence was without question and without exception seen as a virtue. We don't do that now, and for good reason.

[Stahlvormund101]

30 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Laying aside the devastating effect of the smallpox, the native men of Central and South America got by and large killed by the Spanish (less so by the Portuguese), whereas the women got raped. Or do you believe the so-called Latinos with their classical facial features were already there before Cortez and Pizarro? They are just light skinned mestizos that don't want to remember their native mother anymore after some 500 years of racial oppression. I do, 'cause she ain't dead yet and I love her.

 

Again - ancient and medieval warfare deals for the most part with clashes b/t armies made of men. Please don't try to rewrite history, perhaps even in an attempt to justify the today war of terror against civilians. Just look at the small number of dead Iraqi and US soldiers in the last War on Iraq and compare this with the high number of dead Iraqi civilians (up to a million). It's unbelievable! In a today war to be a regular rear echelon soldier is the best choice one can make to survive,

I am not justifying anything. I explicitly said I am unsure and doubtful about my assertions, that I do not have numbers for what I say and certainly am willing to be enlightened.

So you do not think that after a battle on the field, the victorious army goes pillaging the defeated armies lands and citizens? That deserters and mercenaries without master roamed the lands to steal and rape and kill what they could find? What you would consider battle might have happened on the battlefields themselves but all what comes with war, theft, pillage, rape, murder, genocide was true all throughout history.

 

Thirty Years War, 6 million dead people in the then Roman German Empire alone, a third of the population, and you dont want to tell me most of them were soldiers? Obviously not all of them struck by the sword, hung on a tree or gunned down, but died of hunger and disease which inevitably were results of the scorching of the earth the armies committed there to deny ressources to the enemy army and thus population too.

The Sack of the Magdeburg might tell you how medieval warfare "for the most part was a clash of armies made of men".

Accounts of the Order Teutonicus how they ran expeditions to annihilate small villages, totally defenseless.

Accounts of the crusades where they committed unspeakable atrocities against the defeated muslim civil population.

 

In no way do all these atrocities justify or allow the todays atrocities to be put in line with them as a justification. But I dont buy it at all when you tell me war used to be less taxing on the innocent women, children and men.

[Jazzman]

2 hours ago, Rhasyel said:

1) I'm not sure I follow your reasoning: why put something that defies a stereotype in order to enforce it even more? Videogames are getting less and less "traditional", as in they don't constantly adhere to patriarcal, archaic societal diktats and structures, and it wouldn't make sense for both the gaming industry and the videogames in and of themselves to revert to the logic used 20 years ago. If I think about the TES saga, the Fallout saga, Dragon Age, Mass Effect and the like, all of whom stretch for decades of history, I see plenty of examples where you either meet or have the choice to be a character that defies any given stereotype.

 

2) Women and children were almost never spared in war. Traditionally women were raped and children sold as slaves or executed alongside the men, and even then the definition of children is radically different from today. We consider someone a child or a kid until they reach their 18th year, back then you stopped being a child as early as your 12th year of age, when you might already have been conscripted and sent to war. This is in fact the least warlike and belligerent era in all our history. That we still promote a kind of violence, that is true, however it is much more subtle, as opposed to the policy of open hostility and wholesale slaughter of the last century, where violence was without question and without exception seen as a virtue. We don't do that now, and for good reason.

You've lost me with the reintroduction of the only mentioned stereotype, that of 'girls don't exist on the internet'. It simply doesn't get reinforced by today video games (the opposite is the case) but by boy groups that are getting older over the years, w/o fading away a few years after puberty as they did in the past. Being left behind on the mating ground is no longer the rare exception, it's becoming the new normal (with China in the lead). The personal expectations on a partner vastly diverge from what's actually on offer within reach, easily to be identified as total crap compared to the wonderful fantasy lovers one had and vividly remembers, no?  But lo and behold, there is hope on the horizon - the full-automatic blowjobber with six week money back guarantee...

 

Disagree. This era, like any other era that came before, is only to be understood as less warlike and belligerent when one is blind and living outside of war zones in a parallel-worldly bubble, unable to put the aggressive war propaganda into perspective. Immune to the death cries of others we are. Diplomacy to secure the survival of mankind is high treason today, kindergarten bullying a high virtue and total paranoia a divine blessing. No it can't get any worse ahead of the final pushing of nuclear buttons. One f'n human error is enough and up we go wherever we might be. This, this is the Orwellian Age of Stupid.

 

[Resdayn]

 

38 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

the But lo and behold, there is hope on the horizon - the full-automatic blowjobber with six week money back guarantee...

 

 

 ?

 

Is there something I was missing out? ?

 

Care to explain Jazzman? ?

 

38 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

One f'n human error is enough and up we go wherever we might be. This, this is the Orwellian Age of Stupid.

 

Yeah, pretty much, society kind of breed out the smart ones, left with the not so smart ones with lot of power and techs.

 

At this point, we can destroy the planet plenty of ways and doing to exterminate ourselves ?

[Jazzman]

13 hours ago, Resdayn said:

Is there something I was missing out? ?

 

Care to explain Jazzman? ?

Oh, we already had discussions about the dawn of the sex bots. For my part, I hold a neutral position.

Being always open for... uh... new things but keeping the own wallet closed for the time being, that is.

 

(I just love that "I'm always open for you, if you get my meaning" catch phrase in Fallout 4, I really do...)

[BigOnes69]

1 hour ago, Jazzman said:

Oh, we already had discussions about the dawn of the sex bots. For my part, I hold a neutral position.

Being always open for... uh... new things but keeping the own wallet closed for the time being, that is.

 

(I just love that "I'm always open for you, if you get my meaning" catch phrase in Fallout 4, I really do...)

This one is probably to old for many of you to remember.

"Earth girls who experience sexual ecstasy with mechanical devices always feel guilty"

Hint

"nose dive"

Sorry I cant help but to inject humor into everything.

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, BigOnes69 said:

This one is probably to old for many of you to remember.

"Earth girls who experience sexual ecstasy with mechanical devices always feel guilty"

Hint

"nose dive"

Sorry I cant help but to inject humor into everything.

 

Guess this is just a more recent, too little too late attempt by average men to defy the underlying age-old proverb from antiquity:

 

Post coitum omne animal triste est, sive gallus et mulier. 

 

That's Latin, meaning:

After sex all animals are sad, except the cock and the woman.

 

Back then the cock (that never gets fat) was a commonly known synonym for

"the perfect male lover that comes multiple times in a row w/o ever going kaput" ...

 

... an utmost rare male specimen in animal kingdom, indeed.

 

You cock-a-doodle-doo 24/7? Awww... come here, come to mama!

Have a good one!  ?

 

 

[BigOnes69]

11 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

 

Guess this is just a more recent, too little too late attempt by average men to defy the underlying age-old proverb from antiquity:

 

Post coitum omne animal triste est, sive gallus et mulier. 

 

That's Latin, meaning:

After sex all animals are sad, except the cock and the woman.

 

Back then the cock (that never gets fat) was a commonly known synonym for

"the perfect male lover that comes multiple times in a row w/o ever going kaput" ...

 

... an utmost rare male specimen, indeed.

 

Have a good one!  ?

 

 

I think the robot would beg to differ.? lol