It applies to both man and woman, how is it anti woman then?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
[IGN] Mixer, Ninja's New Streaming Platform, Criticized for Seemingly Strict Clothing Guidelines
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
A woman showing her bare shoulders being restricted to Adults Only category.
Because the rules are targeting women.
Again, women are the ones who predominantly wear clothes that have bare shoulders.
Let me extrapolate out to a more extreme example so you can see the line of logic:
How is banning gay marriage anti-gay when gay people can still marry those of the opposite gender and straight people still can't marry those of the same gender?
I agree with you fully there, as long as you state what you are doing and a have a warning message before entering the channel(as it works now when you specify 18+) it should be fine. To be honest that example should not even be in the 18+ category but i understand what they are trying to do.
It is better to have a strict standard then to have none at all and then randomly ban people how the moderator sees it.
The only potential issue I see here is the bare shoulders.
Beside that, I think those rules are fair.
Beside that, I think those rules are fair.
And as i have stated in the reply above the bare shoulders rule should be removed from the list.
In what way are wearing clothes on stream rules connected with marriage?
I don't see how this is sexist. If you're creating a ruleset to stop a specific type of stream from being in the child friendly part of your website, and women are the vast majority of people running that specific type of stream then of course the ruleset is going to be focused on women.
I better get all the children and families off the beach, because those children clearly may as well be in a strip club.
Of course majority of men in this thread are saying they don't see an issue because it doesn't affect most of you.
Both sexes don't wear the same kind of clothes. Because of body differences, there is difference in clothes.
But 18+ should just be 18+. The whole boobies are dangerous line of thinking seems...weird.
This is a huge strawman though. The question isn't if dressing in a certain way is inherently sexual, it's if people can and will use dressing in a certain way in a sexual manner. And people will, you can see this right now on twitch. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it makes sense to me that people might not want that on all sections of their platform. How else are they supposed to design their ruleset if they don't want that sexual content everywhere on their platform?
While I agree with "their service, their rules", they are inviting customers to use their service, and therefore the customers are allowed to voice their opinion about said service.
Though yelling of course isn't nice :)
Well it's fine untill you find out some teenage kids are fapping to your content. I mean yea it's weird no matter the age but microsoft is restricting it to 18+
And maybe that's why the Twitch rules don't have any "hardline" sorts of rules that eliminate regular 'ol casual clothes that women often wear.
Because if they're against titillation, they're at least not trying to throw women who merely want to play video games without having to follow a silly dress code under the bus. I guess people are unhappy with the judgment calls there, but I'd be in favor of subjective assessment over a bogus dress code that targets predominantly women.
A child can handle a woman playing video games in a tube top in the comfort of her own home, just as they can handle a woman in a bikini on the beach.
Identify what other aspects you'd consider too titillating if the problem isn't "dressing in a certain way [being] inherently sexual."
Because those rules are written to imply that "dressing in a certain way is inherently sexual."
This is the first time I'm hearing that Mixer doesn't want people to use its service.
What a weird business plan.
I strongly suspect that most people who find these rules very objectionable just haven't used twitch or aren't very familiar with twitch. There's a whole subsection of channels on that site whose main purpose is titillation/virtual girlfriend experience type stuff, where clothes and camera angles are very carefully designed to appeal to a male audience and extract money from them.
I am not a judgemental person, and I don't think this is inherently wrong. I also have chosen not to post examples of this because I'm not trying to play a part in shaming anyone -- But you have to understand that MS's rules were written in response to this reality rather than to reflect a general anti-woman worldview. They don't have to host sex channels if they don't want to. They can run the type of business they want to run.
I'm done repeating myself though so I'll have to move on from this topic now :)
I am not a judgemental person, and I don't think this is inherently wrong. I also have chosen not to post examples of this because I'm not trying to play a part in shaming anyone -- But you have to understand that MS's rules were written in response to this reality rather than to reflect a general anti-woman worldview. They don't have to host sex channels if they don't want to. They can run the type of business they want to run.
I'm done repeating myself though so I'll have to move on from this topic now :)
*Searched Amouranth*.
Okay what the fuck is this?
While the rules seem somewhat strict, if they didnt place blanket policies we would have more of Amouranths on Mixer
If that isnt the crowd MS wants on Mixer they are allowed to put these policies in place.
Never been into streaming or streamers so basically this year Ive learned pretty much all the good and bad at once...I need to stay in my lane.
HypeZone and official streams only.
OP
OP
As i said before, i see these rules as response to individuals on Twitch who use loopholes. As soon as you put something vague in your rules you bet that it will be abused.
Men dressed revealing have to go 18+ as well...
It just so happens that women's clothing is typically more revealing in general. There's nothing anyone can do about that reality.
Is really simple, if your shirt is low cut, kids won't be able to watch your show... I don't see how this is sexist- you wanna stream to kids, where a t-shirt.
Oh I think maybe said it in a weird way. What I meant is that as long as it is behind 18+ I dont see the issue with streamers showing skin.
Yea I'm mostly talking about viewers, aka us right now. I think streamers have some right to discuss, even if there are other platforms out there if they aren't happy
Okay, all other topics of discussion aside, it's hilarious to think that kids can't watch the 18+ streams whenever they want if they want to see *gasp* bare shoulders.
So... they don't want viewers to view their service?
The concept of comparing criticism of a public platform to somebody entering a home uninvited doesn't work no matter what.
Yeah but that's not really the point. It appears that Mixer just wants be a stricter version of Twitch in an attempt to maintain a certain amount of quality to their content and community. Whereas Twitch is basically a bloody free for all when it comes to the rules and the way they are enforced. And that mentality is reflected in the behavior of its community. Mixer seems to want to avoid that.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with having rules so long as they are not inherently unfair and they are evenly applied. And I don't see how these rules are violate either of those things.
Conceptually, I feel you can show bare shoulders or show cleavage (or if you're a dude, go shirtless) in a family friendly stream and it's obviously not going to harm anyone who sees it. There's nothing inherently wrong or harmful about a woman or man's body. Revealing attire doesn't necessarily determine the tone of a stream, but if the goal of the platform holder is to avoid having camgirl (or camboy, hypothetically) type channels on their service the way twitch does, the only way to actually stop this is to have a very specific dress code. This is less about a worldview and more about what culture they want their service to have.
I think we can all agree the rules disproportionately affect women because of social norms. I, however, do not believe that in and of itself makes it sexist. Sickle Cell Anemia disproportionately affects men of African descent. Doesn't make the disease racist. On the other hand, the disproportionate prevalence of diabetes in the same population could be linked to institutional racism manifesting in food and zoning policies. Correlation can be, but is not always causation. Strict rules may be distasteful to people of different opinions. You disagreeing with them, however, does not automatically make them sexist.
The bare shoulders is silly. But also, there's no dress code police going around and shutting down streams. The reality is that most streamers do Teen and 18+ anyway, because those are the games they're playing and the language they want to use. Not because any of those streamers want to get around draconian clothing rules. The family friendly ones tend to be FAR, FAR down that path toward being super clean of controversy. Because.. that's the point of that age rating.
The bare shoulders is silly. But also, there's no dress code police going around and shutting down streams. The reality is that most streamers do Teen and 18+ anyway, because those are the games they're playing and the language they want to use. Not because any of those streamers want to get around draconian clothing rules. The family friendly ones tend to be FAR, FAR down that path toward being super clean of controversy. Because.. that's the point of that age rating.
The thing is, unless you believe that these rules aren't sexist, then if these rules are targeting sexual streamers then it means that a company is doing something sexist so they can profit.
So many people are making the argument that this is only to target camgirl type streamers as if that would justify the sexist nature of the rules. Now if you don't believe the rules are sexist that's fine, but surely you should be using whatever reasons you think that as your argument rather than this weird "this is justified if it gets rid of the e-thots" stuff?
I just can't help but think that that specific angle has this undercurrent of sexism itself.
I don't find the rules ridiculous, but I do think they're a bit silly. I'm pretty sure kids can handle a cleavage??? Also, if your stream is 18+ you should be able to stream topless if you want IMO. But maybe there are some advertising concerns I'm not aware of regarding these points. Maybe rules have to be a bit silly regarding these issues, IDK. Still fair to point out their silliness.
But, about the last part of that post - This is all kinds of corporate apologia. It's not their house - It's a public site. A public site they make money from.
Why are people talking about bare shoulders?
From what I can see, It just says the shirt cant be strapless on family or teen streams.
To your last point, for streamers, This is a private site - registered users can access IF they first agree to adhere to MS guidelines. Yes, MS makes money from it, and they've decided that they don't want this money to come from streamers titillating kids, and this is how they've chosen to combat this issue.
From what I can see, It just says the shirt cant be strapless on family or teen streams.
Kids can handle a little cleavage. The problem is, if the rules aren't specific enough, then some streamers will push the limits on order to push sexualized content on minors. This is well documented.
To your last point, for streamers, This is a private site - registered users can access IF they first agree to adhere to MS guidelines. Yes, MS makes money from it, and they've decided that they don't want this money to come from streamers titillating kids, and this is how they've chosen to combat this issue.
Last edited:
You're suggesting it's inherently wrong to not want camgirl (or camboy, in theory, but if we look at twitch it's primarily girls that are doing this)-flavored content on your service? I don't get follow, sorry, but if that's the case I don't agree.
I wanna joke about how everyone with a webcam qualifies as a camboy/girl, but obviously there's the titillating aspect involved, right?
And if you admit there's more to it than just having shoulders exposed... then they should write policy around what those aspects are, rather than targeting harmless tube tops and other such items of clothing. I seriously doubt this is the only way to "actually stop this," it's merely the easiest way that requires the least thinking.
Also, teen boys in general will masturbate to girls even in T-shirts or sweaters. There's no stopping that no matter what you do.
As an aside, I think the general hate of camgirls is pretty overblown and sometimes downright nasty.
Companies that want to stay "clean" of them are likely not doing it out of morality (pfft, come on, they just want to maximize profit) but because men love to make a huge fuss over them.
If the argument is about how exploiting money from teens is bad, ecchi manga rated for 13/14 year olds is far more effective at rediverting lunch money, yet I never see the outrage about that from people who rail against camgirls.
If sickle cell anemia was developed and spread by a corporation, it would be pretty goddamn racist. It would literally be attempted genocide. Bad analogy.
I'm suggesting that implementing sexist rules in order to get rid of something you don't like is sexist.
I don't have a problem with them, but if you take a peek into their chats it can be a pretty gross/creepy culture -- And in these cases this is encouraged/fostered by the streamer. If you're a business you have the opportunity to decide what you want the tone and culture of your service to be, and it's understandable if you don't want it to include that. I agree there may be other or better ways to facilitate this than targeting tube tops, but I don't agree that this decision was necessarily made in bad faith if that's what's being suggested.
If MS get rid of the bare shoulders rule, which is pretty silly, then I don't think there's anything to be reasonably upset about.
This is some middle ages garbage, what on earth were they thinking?
Kids will see cleavage and *gasp* straps in any public area, particularly in summer so I'm struggling to see any sort of rational motivation behind other than something straight from the religious books of "Women should dress modestly to protect the purity of men".
Kids will see cleavage and *gasp* straps in any public area, particularly in summer so I'm struggling to see any sort of rational motivation behind other than something straight from the religious books of "Women should dress modestly to protect the purity of men".
But why do all women constantly have to be blamed and punished for those streams when it's men donating and creating the demand? These rules are to such an extreme that many small streamers would have to change outfits just to stream and also creates a dynamic where certain clothing is being labelled as "adult" by the hosting platform and may cause presumptions among the audience based on the clothes the streamer is wearing.
Ooh, this is a very good point and definitely hasn't been discussed enough.
Men just hate it when women are able to benefit from anything sex related.
Especially in nerd communities like gaming, men are totally on board with sexualised women. What they hate is the popularity and profit that these women make. Even in this thread, on what many people like to think is supposed to be a progressive site, a lot of the talk about sex streamers take special care to mention their popularity, as if that's supposed to have any bearing if what they're doing is supposedly inherently wrong.
Don't know how you equate restrictions on specific viewers as all people? There's plenty of viewers who are there for the personality of streamers and not titillation, MS want to foster an environment for them. Nothing weird about that, and tbh it's a relief to know that it's tightly moderated.
I guess jealousy plays a big part there, a lot of people assume if a girl is pretty that she has to be dumb as well and so they think they profit from that which in turn they think it not fair.
But even if that is the case there are people who want that. So strictly speaking its a business thing, they provide service for the customers. And usually those customers also complain about them. Hm.
I don't get what you're trying to say.
You're replying to a post that was poking fun at a comparison between coming into a stranger's home uninvited and yelling, and criticizing a public platform on an internet forum.
Oh come on. If social norms were bred through your genes, it wouldn't change the fact that you have to take them into account. The point was generalized - just because something is disproportionate does not automatically mean it is discriminatory.
But also.. seriously, how would you change this? Is the issue that the rules are too draconian and you want to show shoulders? Is the issue that you want it to apply equally to all streamers and specifically say that men also can't wear tube tops? Is the issue that any rules at all are unacceptable and Laissez Faire moderation is the Only True Freedom acceptable? These rules aren't set in stone, but they also didn't come out of nowhere. I think the people ITT scared of the boogey camgirl are hilarious. But I also 100% understand why this would be a concern for the trillion dollar company trying to be the face for all people. And as unfair and unfortunate as that may be, that means a very strong hand on moderation.
And you know what? I think that's the right way to go. It's MUCH easier to go easier when you have a solid foundation. There is no stuffing the genie back once you open the floodgates. They can easily allow shoulders in the teen streams whenever they want. They couldn't so easily pull a tumblr.
Just that people really really loathe camgirls and are willing to throw women under the bus.