"Complex female characters"? If you'd done any research, like reading the review of the book series on this very site, you would know that this is precisely the opposite of what is the case with Twilight. As nearly everyone has noted, the female character there is an empty shell devoid of any personality, placed there specifically so that housewives and pre-teen girls can project themselves into her. Furthermore, passage after passage is devoted to describing how beautiful and charming and wickedly appealing the vampire dude is. So in this case at least, it is very clearly a wish-fulfillment fantasy targeted at women, and given how popular it is, it seems to have correctly identified the wish.

This is a poor form of argument you use - take some speculation about possible psychological causes behind cultural phenomena, reduce it to the most literal and ridiculous reading, and then dismiss it not with any argument but simply because it could be interpreted in a way that doesn't jibe with your ethical imperatives. Just like the people who dismiss Freud with "well, I certainly don't want to have sex with my mother!" I suppose it would be fairly threatening to your worldview to admit that there exist, if not outright rape fantasies, complex desires of power and submission within both genders (see: succubus, Red Sonja, etc.).

You are brilliant. That is all.

"a sex worker isn't trafficked, coerced, under a pimp's control or selling her body to pay her drug dealer," then maybe you should keep it in your pants. Unless you think getting off is more important than the welfare of another human being.

Good point. I will no longer shop at the grocery store or go to the bank. After all, how do I know for sure that the cashiers aren't being kept there as slaves? Certainly my eating or having money isn't as important as the theoretical welfare of another human being.

Neither partner, male or female, should have the 'power' to 'grant' sex.

It should be something desired to be shared by both people.

The key word there is "should".

I want you to do a little thought experiment: compare what you would think the success rates would be for a guy simply going up to a random girl and saying "I want to have sex with you", and a girl doing the same to a random guy. Until feminists agree to acknowledge that there would be a disparity (read: imbalance of power) and give honest consideration to it, no progress will be made.

If I'm not seeing anyone and need a one night stand once in a while, I might humor the guy acting like a caveman for my own purposes. In terms of relationship material, however, I require someone respectful knowing that I too shall reciprocate with the same respect.

Why do you do this? News flash: the assholes aren't interested in a relationship either. Don't you see that by 'humoring' them but reserving your relationship demands for nice guys, you're doing the assholes a double favor, and by fulfilling all their needs you're just encouraging the asshole behavior and allowing it to thrive in our society? Did it ever occur to you that 'nice guys' aren't exactly averse to random sex either, the difference being that they would NOT be averse to something more if you wanted it? Did it ever occur to you that guys don't have an equivalent choice, as they don't have girls hitting on them wherever they go? Did it ever occur to you that we might possibly resent the idea that you use us as a crutch only when you're feeling vulnerable and want some stability after you've already all worn out from your wild romps with the douchebags?

Whatever, this is pointless. No amount of yelling or argument will bring back my missed youth. You all just keep doing whatever the hell you're doing.

Hah! Sounds like a perfect place to meet the douchy guy from your college class who wore a suit and tie to every lecture, constantly had an smugly superior look on his face, and only ever raised his hand to argue with the professor rather than ask a question.

Time traveling with your teacher to meet famous role models? If you make games that sound like lame Sesame Street episodes and ones that are blatantly designed to teach you "self-confidence", and tout them as "girl games" as opposed to those silly neanderthal "boy games", is it any wonder that women in the gaming world aren't taken seriously when you're basically insisting that they should be treated like little children with fragile egos?

Ask yourself this question: why don't guys feel offended and insecure at the preponderance of bare-chested, muscle-bound heroes? Certainly none of the male gamers I know bear any resemblance to Kratos or the dudes from Gears of War. What if girls approached games in the same way - instead of looking at the big-breasted female warriors in chainmail bikinis as some unfair demand on them to measure up or something offensive to their dignity, they could maybe learn to distinguish between fact and fiction and knowingly revel in being able to inhabit something so ridiculously and awesomely unrealistic?

The proportion of girl gamers has been drastically increasing in recent years, both in regards to inventive non-traditional games like Katamari and the Guitar Hero series, and believe it or not, the traditional "boys games" that Flanagan is so disparaging towards. But having oversensitive professors who clearly have a detached and limited view of the gaming world create lame, childish-sounding games with ham-fisted socio-political agendas and pronounce them as "girl games" is a step backward. Nobody wants to play games that preach at them.

This is great. As someone who's into metal, I can attest to the fact that many metal fans (unlike people in the punk and hardcore scenes) are far from being progressive on many issues. This should be a good counterbalance to Ted Nugent at least.