That doesn't mean those counter-arguments are being thrown up because of a need to fap. ;)
The counter-arguments stand for themselves. If you want to resort to fap insults because you don't have it in you for whatever reason to respond to those counter-arguments, that's your problem. Not mine. I just don't see how that's constructive. I absolutely believe we should get more women into gaming. I don't believe reducing sexuality is the solution. It's like saying women can't enjoy beer because of the bent over blonde girl in the Budweiser commercial.
You're trying to frame the counter-arguments in a lazy way so you can brush aside the whole criticism like Trump does with his "Fake News" retorts: "faps", "denial" so you don't actually have to address the meat of the conversation. Which, judging by your posts thus far, is what you're going for.
Once again: For the whole" sexualization is bad" thing to actually carry any weight, the argument from proponents of reduced sexuality in games have to diminish the acceptance of sexualization is every single other medium. The context in which they're trying to make the argument is this:
01. The gaming industry is a boy's club.
02. There has to be more effort on the part of the industry to get women involved.
03. Because this is a boy's club, sexualization in video games must, therefore, be catering exclusively to the boys in this club.
04. By reducing sexualization in video games (because sex in video games intimidates them, makes them cringe, etc.), logically more women will get involved in the industry.
The fallacy of this argument is twofold. The first fallacy of this argument that women are incapable of enjoying sexualization, therefore by reducing sexualization in video games, games will become more welcoming. Are women incapable of enjoying Injustice 2? The counter-argument to this becomes, "No, but MORE women would be able to enjoy it." This leads back to my point 1 and 2. The goal isn't to reduce sexualization as much as it is to get more girls and women involved in gaming by any means necessary. The reasoning behind the assumption that reducing sexualization will encourage more girls and women to get involved in what has traditionally been a boy's club is that because men have traditionally been behind the creation of that sexualization, such sexualization must, therefore, be directed at men and exclusionary to women by default.
The second fallacy of the argument thus becomes apparent, as showcased by your playboy analogy, in that if we look at the wider world outside of the video game industry, sexualization is not only around us, but it is traditionally celebrated. The dissonance from this results in accusations of "whataboutism" because in a wider context this argument that women are somehow walled off enjoying video games because of sexualization falls apart. The only way they can hold the argument together that sexualization is scaring off women is by acting like video games exist in a void separate from everything else in order to ward off those comparisons. That is where the term "whataboutism" comes into play. It's an attempt to ward off scrutiny of the argument because the goal isn't to reduce sexualization as much as it is to get women into what has traditionally been a boy's club (again following my examples 1 and 2 from above).
The issue is that that the people making this argument don't really know why more women aren't into video games. It's why people were so perplexed that something like only 10% of Switch owners are women. They're taking every argument possible and throwing it at the wall to see what sticks in order to get more women into the industry. It's just that sexualization is an easy target because games with 0% fanservice in them is a more acceptable outcome than equal gender involvement and this whole thing becomes a "the end justifies the means" thing because they don't have a better answer.
