Finale Fireworker
Member
Come on, man. Don't kid yourself.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Female Sexualization vs. Empowerment in Games - How do you determine which is which?
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
Come on, man. Don't kid yourself.
Not being able to take criticism does not equal losing your freedom of speech.
silvermember
Banned
Pretty good word there. I agree.
This is one of those cases where you have to ignore the person's screen picture.
http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/08/getting-to-root-of-sexist-design.html
Does that FFXV character make sense in-universe in terms of her incredibly exposed cleavage? How is it treated within the game and in relation to other characters and the setting itself? And do video games usually suffer from having female characters intended to titillate players? These are the questions that help answer this topic.
Does that FFXV character make sense in-universe in terms of her incredibly exposed cleavage? How is it treated within the game and in relation to other characters and the setting itself? And do video games usually suffer from having female characters intended to titillate players? These are the questions that help answer this topic.
Your comparison of the Viera to indigenous peoples living in the Amazon doesn't work, given those were remote/isolated communities with little/no access to adequate resources to use on elaborate clothes or stuff like that. The Yanomami, one of the most famous communities you referenced, started to adopt some westernized clothing once they were able to trade for/acquire it.
The Viera are pretty well connected to Ivalice society, clearly trade for goods, and even more clearly spend effort and resources crafting ornate clothes that serve no practical purpose beyond highlighting their sexuality.
You can be creative as all get out with designing cultures in fantasy settings (as well as the settings in general), but you have to make an effort to give reason to the things you do in your setting (unless you are something like Adventure Time where that not being the case is the point)
edit: To be clear, I would gladly give FFXII (a game I really enjoy, for the record) a pass if they had included some kind of in-universe justification for it. Didn't even need to be a good one!
The Viera are pretty well connected to Ivalice society, clearly trade for goods, and even more clearly spend effort and resources crafting ornate clothes that serve no practical purpose beyond highlighting their sexuality.
You can be creative as all get out with designing cultures in fantasy settings (as well as the settings in general), but you have to make an effort to give reason to the things you do in your setting (unless you are something like Adventure Time where that not being the case is the point)
edit: To be clear, I would gladly give FFXII (a game I really enjoy, for the record) a pass if they had included some kind of in-universe justification for it. Didn't even need to be a good one!
I don't agree with this dichotomy. The problem is you can "ask women", but women will have a wide spectrum of opinions. Which woman's opinion is the opinion of "women"? That was what I was trying to convey.
Similarly with men obviously.
Not on-topic really, but I just wanted to say I feel the same way! Bayonetta is a power-fantasy for both men and women, and visually attractive as both a fashion model and a sexy woman. The series get praised for its gameplay, but Platinum really managed to accomplish something marvelous with their character design as well.
Deified Data
Banned
Is sexualization the opposite of empowerment? I thought that'd be objectification.
Wyndstryker
Member
Context is everything. But also if it's practical too. It has to make sense and matching the character, environment, situation, etc. If a character is overtly sexualized because of their job, then it works. If the same character is overtly sexualized for no reason then it's definitely sexualization.
Going to the Fran topic, sure we don't know what Viera culture is but she's still a combatant. That armor ain't going to protect anything. So I'll put it up a notch in the sexualization direction.
Going to the Fran topic, sure we don't know what Viera culture is but she's still a combatant. That armor ain't going to protect anything. So I'll put it up a notch in the sexualization direction.
"Empowerment" being a feeling, it's going to be very subjective even after you apply all the context in the world.
There's gonna be women (and men) playing Bayonetta and feeling empowered, and women and men playing Bayonetta, feeling embarrassed, ashamed, or whatever else.
I'm not sure there's a "one size fits all" answer to this, even context isn't enough to justify something, because even that bounces off of personal experiences and interpretation of each individual consumer.
I think this is mainly an issue that has to come from you as an artist: Why are you going with a specific design, and what do you want to achieve through it? Different people will react differently regardless, but you yourself should be the one putting some thought into it, in the first place.
There's gonna be women (and men) playing Bayonetta and feeling empowered, and women and men playing Bayonetta, feeling embarrassed, ashamed, or whatever else.
I'm not sure there's a "one size fits all" answer to this, even context isn't enough to justify something, because even that bounces off of personal experiences and interpretation of each individual consumer.
I think this is mainly an issue that has to come from you as an artist: Why are you going with a specific design, and what do you want to achieve through it? Different people will react differently regardless, but you yourself should be the one putting some thought into it, in the first place.
They're not mutually exclusive, and that's the crux of the argument.
I pay lip-service to this idea later on in my post. I think it's a bit unclear at first what i mean. But, i am sure if you ask men, you will get a much more homogeneous or less varied opinion on the matter.
How we experience sex and everyday life is much different than what men see. What men may think is a low cut top, i see as just a top that works for some women and not others (say what you will about social pressure to dress certain ways.) In fact, for my figure, having lower neck-lines just generally look better on me. I wouldn't see this as sexual, but a man who doesn't really have to think about the minutia may simply see a low cut top.
This is what i meant to imply.
Well said.
If someone takes issue with something in a game, I don't believe it is my place to tell them that the context of the game justifies the offending piece. Anyway, it is always better to hear more opinions on an issue than less.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Astral/H3X
Member
Nowhere in that did I say I do not partake in sexualized designs, tyvm.
TheSpoiler
Member
Bayonetta is incredible. The fact that she's even more amazing than Dante, who's whole purpose is to be tongue-in-cheek cool guy, while simultaneously being confident in her body and figure (during which time she shits all over everyone she fights) is why she's one of my top characters.
I remember playing it by my girlfriend, thinking she'd hate me for this sexy character being on screen, but because Bayo is so damn comfortable and confident, my girlfriend actually picked up the game and started playing. It was stupid of me to think that women would automatically feel threatened by a strong female character, and I sincerely hope more female characters are made in such a ridiculous, yet deep manner.
It's not a fallacy though. Because what we're essentially saying now is: a person cannot create a culture in any product that views sexuality in a different way than we do. It must automatically be viewed within the prism of the very specific person that created that culture from their mind.
But it can be both.
In our planet, there are many societies that do not have the same western view of sex that we do. Consider Ratanakiri people, who build love huts where their teenage kids can have sex. As young as 11-13 years old!
Now, what if a person who was raised in that culture one day grew to make a videogame? She now has the reference points of how she was raised. Whether the culture she makes is 'fake' is besides the point. Everything in these worlds is fake. That doesn't mean that you cannot create a character or a world that has specific cultures and characters that view sexuality very different than we do and that we cannot intelligently debate how these characters function within the context of these fabricated societies.
Well, you're not going to win any internet debates with that attitude!
But i bet you'd be hard pressed to get them to say yes to "Should all women be sexualized without context or choice all the time"
Choosing to be sexy is empowering, being forced to be sexy all the time is not. There is a difference between that narrow response and the social questions it encompasses.
For example, i have a friend who is the same. She is a nude model and loves it and she feels empowered. However, she also is aware that this isn't a catch-all empowerment for all women.
This is the real answer. Movies and even books had the same issues and not sexuality. It all depends on the individual or groups with common interests.
The worst thing to do would be to enforce any one view. Consumerism will take care of what people want to see or not. So it's really up to chanfing the world perspective not just video game makers.
I still feel like we're not talking about the same thing here. The opinion of men is irrelevant to my point. My point is, when you are trying to determine if something is sexualizing or empowering, if you just "ask women", the answer you get will broadly vary depending on who you ask. There are very sexually conservative women, and there are very sexually liberal women. What you might consider blatant sexualization might be empowerment to another woman. The answer "ask women" makes literally no sense because there can never be one answer that all women agree on. Different people just have different opinions. I'm just trying to point out that the "ask women" line is a complete non-answer.
ShinMaruku
Member
In some aspects if it's down well the sexualization can be empowerment like in Bayonetta which is half that and half trolling.
Often times people forget the many times in history some women used the sexuality as a weapon.
Often times people forget the many times in history some women used the sexuality as a weapon.
Good point in addition of the excellent blog post (like his old posts, not so much on 2013 above). For character like Fran, the problem is that while the author/designer already make believable background, so to speak, the world isn't reacting to her. What happened if she visits a city with more, lets say, conservative culture with that outfit and never seen a viera before? Shouldn't see given something to wear temporarily to avid unnecessary cultural misunderstanding? Well, if SE went with that route, that mean they have to make another model/skin for her, which mean extra for something that perhaps "small" thing.
Nope, it depends "why they dressed"
nobody said that you can't do it, just that when you do the work will be critiqued by people who use your cultural background to do so.
so when some japanese people who are largely men create a fictional group of leggy sexy bunny women who all wear bikini armor we are going to point out that this is a product of an extremely patriarchal and sexist society and thus it is an objectifying design.
Well, then there really is no side that the argument favours based on the evidence. We don't know the inner workings of a creator's mind when creating a design. Like the mechanic in FFXV, maybe since it's a Miami like setting she wants to make a little breathing room to cool out and she doesn't care if she shows off a little? Or maybe the designers want men to gaze at her?
We will never know until we hear it from the designer.
I dunno, I'm still conflicted by Bayonetta. I really like her personality, but I don't really appreciate the camera angles and stripping off all her clothes etc. I don't think that adds anything to her character. I think she can feel confident with herself, and her appearance without it.
Different opinions from different women though. As mentioned above, we all think differently.
Yeah but the games are made and designed to appeal to a specific society, culture and demographic. The symbols and signs you see are derived from culture and is targeted at culture. Square Enix isn't addressing or referencing or being motivated or are immersed by a culture or a society that has a different view on sexuality and arousing hetero-normative aesthetics. They themselves are from a culture where X or Y signify certain things.
Square Enix isn't thinking about the Ratanakiri people when developing their product. Nor are their company values and design ambitions influenced by such an alternate society. They are a capitalistic company striving to sell their product to specific audiences in specific societies. In these contexts, having tits 'n ass, boob windows, expulging cleavages, etc. utilizes and draws upon what such societies consider to be arousing heteronormative aesthetics.
Sometimes a spade is just a spade.
When it just one character, interpreting could be problematic.
When it repeating, it'll make the job easier.
Even then, it's difficult for a series like a Final Fantasy or The Witcher which has a combination of sexual and non-sexual characters. It's very difficult.
It's immaturity and insecurity that determines the threshold. I can go to carnival and see tons of women in outfits more revealing than anything you'll find in any game. I don't get upset and start lecturing people on gender roles and whatnot. Anyone that does so is a gigantic toolbox. Don't go to carnival if you don't want to see flesh. Don't buy a game if you think the character designs are too impractical. Vote with your dollars instead of constantly shitting up every goddamn thread where an artist had the nerve to draw a female character with exposed flesh. Just fucking stop. There is nothing being changed by the constant complaints, because many of the complainers go out and buy the fucking game anyway. So what was accomplished in the end? Nothing but destruction of actual gaming discussion.
Maybe there's room for a third gaming forum on here. The gaming politics/issues forum. So we can get all the manufactured controversies as far the hell away from actual gaming discussion as possible. Seriously, it's beyond tedious. PEACE.
Maybe there's room for a third gaming forum on here. The gaming politics/issues forum. So we can get all the manufactured controversies as far the hell away from actual gaming discussion as possible. Seriously, it's beyond tedious. PEACE.
Nonsense. Any designer can justify why their heroine wears a metal bikini suit of armor. It's just lame excuse for exploitation.
thewhitehawk
Member
Context is key, and I completely agree with that reasoning, but if a female character in a roleplaying game is engaging in high-risk battles against mythical beings wearing little more than a very revealing bikini then it's safe to say its sexualization.
There are exceptions, but more often than not we excuse the exaggerated sexualisation of characters, both male and female, for whichever ridiculous lore the game throws at us.
There's no excuse for FFXII Fran's clothes. It's just fan service that doesn't reflect or complement her personality in the slightest way. It's not fair to ask people to look at her clothes in the context of the game while at the same you imply that we forget about the symbolism that women dressed as bunnies in provoking outfits has in our society.
There are exceptions, but more often than not we excuse the exaggerated sexualisation of characters, both male and female, for whichever ridiculous lore the game throws at us.
There's no excuse for FFXII Fran's clothes. It's just fan service that doesn't reflect or complement her personality in the slightest way. It's not fair to ask people to look at her clothes in the context of the game while at the same you imply that we forget about the symbolism that women dressed as bunnies in provoking outfits has in our society.
jackissocool
Member
I understand that what you're saying Is essentially true, but does that mean we can't have cultures who wear very little clothes in their games? As an anthropologist, I love a variety of fictional cultures, and a very significant portion of real cultures are mostly naked. If you want to depict tropical people, they will almost certainly wear little more than a loin cloth/bikini. Those cultures are real and significant. If we want either depict them or realistic fictional cultures, you need to have that or else you're white washing their culture to fit western sensibilities. That's wildly culturally disrespectful.
I think the most important thing is agency, OP. We shouldn't strive just to depict exclusively strong females characters. We should create female characters with depth, motivation, cultural background, and a realistic place within the world. I think I saw Kelly Sure DeConnick (prominent female comic book writer, a medium dealing with this same issue) say that she just wants to be sure her female characters aren't just sexy lampshades. If a sexy lampshade could replace the character, it's nothing but a sexual object. The character should have a motivation in every scene, hopes and goals of some sort. I could be misattributing that concept but I think it was her. Some female characters will own their sexuality, others will hide it, and for others it's not very important - whether they're wearing a lot of clothes or none at all.
Who cares? You can't just write real women off that way when women are the central topic of your debate. It's far better than not asking a woman her opinion because "women can't agree" or whatever the bullshit counterargument was.
Ffs, the recent surge of these kind of debates is getting very, very tiring.
Some designs may be dumb, we know that. I cringe at stuff like Bayonetta, it's very corny, it's embarrassing. I guess it is just how they wanted to present the experience. Not for me, but I can accept that.
And don't forget, culture or weather condition isn't an excuse to show off certain parts of skin.
But as a guy, I don't give a shit if men are "sexualized". In Warcraft, most characters are buffed as fuck, so are most guys in Tekken.
Some designs may be dumb, we know that. I cringe at stuff like Bayonetta, it's very corny, it's embarrassing. I guess it is just how they wanted to present the experience. Not for me, but I can accept that.
And don't forget, culture or weather condition isn't an excuse to show off certain parts of skin.
But as a guy, I don't give a shit if men are "sexualized". In Warcraft, most characters are buffed as fuck, so are most guys in Tekken.
Deified Data
Banned
All of the time?
So to be clear, the argument seems to be - and correct me if I'm wrong - if you live in a Western/Eastern society that has issues with objectifying women/sexism, it is impossible for a person within that society to create a fictional culture that has very nuanced views of sexuality? That it must automatically be assumed the reason they are doing it is to appease the lesser demons in that culture?
I find this problematic. Because as I said, Fran was contextualized within a culture. Here's a woman who lives amongst other women in a tribal hunter/gatherer/mystic community. Viera are segmented between all male communities and all female communities. She is necessarily going to have a unique view on sexuality and what is appropriate to wear.
Now we can then take her out of that context and say "well, in Japan, scantily clad bunny girls are a thing, and so it's clear what the purpose is."
But I think it can be both, and I think the issue is we're losing the nuance in these types of conversations.
Arkam
Member
Honestly had not looked at the figure in years and couldn't remember. But for clarity sake, a quick net search say 7.2 billion. Though still a HUGE amount of folks with wildly varying values and beliefs.
just a reminder that you don't have to click on and participate in every single thread that gets created
Camp Freddie
Member
As a rule of thumb, if the dress/costume fits the context of the character and her setting, then it's okay. If the character has a really good reason to want to dress sexily, then it's empowerment.
If the dress/costume has no reason to exist except to be sexy, then it's sexualisation.
If the woman has no character beyond acting as decoration, screaming for help or cheerleading, then it's sexualisation.
Both Chocolina and that Viera are sexualisation. I'm pretty sure even fantasy hunter gatherers don't dress like strippers with double prong high-heels for strolling in the forest.
You also have to consider that the context is set by the author and the audience.
I could make a game where there's this fantasy amazonian race that are all completely empowered and free from oppression, but they're all size zero, with DD breasts and a deep cultural tradition that wearing clothes is wrong. I could come up with all sorts of in-game lore to justify this behaviour.
However, that would still be sexualisation, because I've arbitrarily designed something 'empowered' to appeal to the teenage male demographic.
This is why adding a low-cut top can be sexualisation, despite the fact that many women wear low-cut tops. It may be that the real reason for the low cut top is to appeal to the male players.
And there is also the issue of how the game is shot. A camera that lingers on the woman's ass is sexualisation, regardless of her character. She is being treated as a sex object.
Bayonetta and Miranda (Mass Effect) are interesting examples because they are both. There is undoubtedly sexualisation in her costume and the camera angles, but at the same time they are totally empowered women, doing their own thing.
The thing that annoys me most is when people deny obvious examples of sexualisation. It's okay for sexualised characters to exist, but you should be bold about admitting it rather than hiding behind flimsy excuses. Magazines don't pretend to be non-sexualised, and some revel in it.
I had no problem with the art of Dragon's Crown, but I do have a problem when the dev starts getting mock-offended when people call out his designs as evocative of sexualised teenage fantasy art - and then responds by claiming his critics are probably gay.
Quick test for the presence of sexualisation (if you are male):
Would you feel awkward playing this game with your wife/girlfriend/mum?
If the dress/costume has no reason to exist except to be sexy, then it's sexualisation.
If the woman has no character beyond acting as decoration, screaming for help or cheerleading, then it's sexualisation.
Both Chocolina and that Viera are sexualisation. I'm pretty sure even fantasy hunter gatherers don't dress like strippers with double prong high-heels for strolling in the forest.
You also have to consider that the context is set by the author and the audience.
I could make a game where there's this fantasy amazonian race that are all completely empowered and free from oppression, but they're all size zero, with DD breasts and a deep cultural tradition that wearing clothes is wrong. I could come up with all sorts of in-game lore to justify this behaviour.
However, that would still be sexualisation, because I've arbitrarily designed something 'empowered' to appeal to the teenage male demographic.
This is why adding a low-cut top can be sexualisation, despite the fact that many women wear low-cut tops. It may be that the real reason for the low cut top is to appeal to the male players.
And there is also the issue of how the game is shot. A camera that lingers on the woman's ass is sexualisation, regardless of her character. She is being treated as a sex object.
Bayonetta and Miranda (Mass Effect) are interesting examples because they are both. There is undoubtedly sexualisation in her costume and the camera angles, but at the same time they are totally empowered women, doing their own thing.
The thing that annoys me most is when people deny obvious examples of sexualisation. It's okay for sexualised characters to exist, but you should be bold about admitting it rather than hiding behind flimsy excuses. Magazines don't pretend to be non-sexualised, and some revel in it.
I had no problem with the art of Dragon's Crown, but I do have a problem when the dev starts getting mock-offended when people call out his designs as evocative of sexualised teenage fantasy art - and then responds by claiming his critics are probably gay.
Quick test for the presence of sexualisation (if you are male):
Would you feel awkward playing this game with your wife/girlfriend/mum?
shouldn't you ask the character?
I get that people are saying 'ask women' but that would still be projecting a stance on someone that isn't able to respond. How do we know what the character's motivation is? Are they dressing like they do because they feel empowered, or because they are doing it for the benefit of others?
Of course we can't ask them, because they aren't real. So I suppose we will never know the answer. The closest thing would be to ask the character designer, or the author of the story which requires this character. But would you trust their response if they were a male character designer?
Basically I don't see how there is a good answer to this question
I get that people are saying 'ask women' but that would still be projecting a stance on someone that isn't able to respond. How do we know what the character's motivation is? Are they dressing like they do because they feel empowered, or because they are doing it for the benefit of others?
Of course we can't ask them, because they aren't real. So I suppose we will never know the answer. The closest thing would be to ask the character designer, or the author of the story which requires this character. But would you trust their response if they were a male character designer?
Basically I don't see how there is a good answer to this question
John Kowalski
Banned
It would always be a problem, merely increasing the number of female characters wouldn't diminish the pressure that exists to create quality female characters. A pressure which you could also perceive as disempowering, depending on the circumstances.
Which is why i've come to think that humanizing someone is the best way to empower them. More than acknowledging that women are independent, more than acknowledging that women are strong, acknowledging that they are human and permitting them to expose the human experience is the most powerful a female character can be.
You can't.
You can only decide that for your self. Everybone has different thresholds. Some come of as prudish to some(an X) while others come of as deviant's (I according to that X).
You can sympathise with someone who feels like they are treated as a mere representation of the viewers fancy and at the same time cheer someone on who feels empowered by the same thing/kink/what ever.
You can only decide that for your self. Everybone has different thresholds. Some come of as prudish to some(an X) while others come of as deviant's (I according to that X).
You can sympathise with someone who feels like they are treated as a mere representation of the viewers fancy and at the same time cheer someone on who feels empowered by the same thing/kink/what ever.
That, and the fact that women has to suffer sexual objectification magnitudes greater than men, in most societies.
So a sexy male design, and a sexy female design, will be perceived differently.
Even then, i'd bet an overtly sexual male character (designed to titillate women), would get people more mad than a female one (designed to titillate men), exactly because female "sexy" characters are the absolute status quo, and we're just used to them now.
