that's a huge fucking stretch if i ever saw one, especially considering that it's pretty hard to directly see chell in portal
Technically, that's the equivalent of a cleavage,
to a foot fetishist.
-
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
Technically, that's the equivalent of a cleavage,
...Final Fantasy?
Or just FF15. Because I agree that utility is no excuse for lazy character design. They've said that they want that game to mirror reality while stilling containing the underpinnings of a fantasy setting, but I'll agree that everyone shown thus far in that game just looks boring. That being said, if everyone was just walking around with their shirts off, sporting multiple piercings and tribal tattoos, It wouldn't save it.
You were doing so well until the end there, just had to get in that jib about porn games right? I suppose I should feel ashamed, but I don't
And I never said you didn't have the right to voice displeasure. Of course you do. As you point out it's what goes on this forum every minute. The issue I take is when you start making moral judgements about content without context. You bring up Ubisoft, but one of the big SMH moments this year was when Far Cry 4's villain Pagan Min was being branded as an evil flaming homosexual after only seeing his image (and therefore that was a problem), yet in the end none of that turned out to be true.
I think the issue is that it's overwhelmingly favors the sexuality of men but I agree with you in principal.
For me what goes a long way to feeling like there's empowerment of a sexualized character is if that character is playable. It's seemingly easy for critics to portray something like Bayonetta as manipulating a sort of sex doll marionette, when in actuality you're embodying that role. Bayonetta's empowered because I feel empowered as her.
Zoe
Member
If they're Japanese and female living in the city, they probably do.
wonderdung
Member
Ask women, but not random women. If you ask 15 different people, you'll get 15 definitions of feminism, empowerment, objectification, etc.
The trick is to only pay attention to the ones that matter. Ones that you have a personal relationship with and don't want to screw up. Friends, girlfriends, coworkers. Whatever. If none of them find it offensive, no one else's opinion matters.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
Final Fatnasy in general, throughout most of the series characters fight in street clothes (since FF6 at least, I cant remember 5's characters very well and I know 4 had a lot of armor)
Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for having more character designs being grounded or less sexual, I just disagree with the notion that sexualized designs are bad. The whole sexualization versus empowerment thing I have absolutely no care for because I feel like it makes no difference either way.
However having a few more Faith's and Jade's would still be a good thing
I have a female friend that loves DOA, and ever since finding the OMG Breast Physics setting she permanently left it on because she thinks its hilarious...I think shes an influence on me
The difference between springshoes like that and Chell's boots is that they put Chells feet in a similar angle like high heels wouldBut yeah man, I'm fine if heels are GUNS. I don't know if I would count Chell as those are less heels and more stylized spring shoes.
.
I don't think their intention was to titillate, but I can definitely see some high heels in those.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Haha nah man it's cool, everyone needs to get porn somewhere.You were doing so well until the end there, just had to get in that jib about porn games right? I suppose I should feel ashamed, but I don't
And I never said you didn't have the right to voice displeasure. Of course you do. As you point out it's what goes on this forum every minute. The issue I take is when you start making moral judgements about content without context. You bring up Ubisoft, but one of the big SMH moments this year was when Far Cry 4's villain Pagan Min was being branded as an evil flaming homosexual after only seeing his image (and therefore that was a problem), yet in the end none of that turned out to be true.
And while I agree it can be taken to an extreme (ignorant and ridiculous people exist everywhere), but some of these characters shown aren't much improved by context right? Like the bunny person has a backstory, but pretty much the most thinly veiled one possible. It's definitely a muddled issue (someone mentioned how making a character compelling can excuse things like blatant breast shots to them), but I think it's definitely one we should be talking about, if only because it'll avoid people making offensive characters without any clue that they could be offending large groups of people, which I'm sure happens more often than not. That doesn't necessarily make them bad or evil or whatever, but more conversation and awareness can't be harmful.
Well...I guess I'll try to answer:
For me, it depends on how tasteless it looks. So if I go "Hey, that's cute! I'd wear that." or "That looks awesome/cool." Then it's probably really really successful. If I think to myself how the character looks like a porno character...then I'd say the plan was unsuccessful.
Oddly enough, very few female characters in games pass this test. o_____o
Well, it's all relative. But yeah, I agree, and again, this is why we see so many female cosplayers doing skimpy cosplayers, they simply like the design. They see it as fun. And were they not basically hounded everytime they wore something similar, I bet women would wear similar things more often.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
The entire casts of FFVII, FF8, almost FF9 (sans steiner), FFX, FFXII, and FFXIII are wearing clothes that you would not consider combat attire, and I definitely would consider street clothes for those worlds.
Based on the few cosplayers Ive known, they love the outfits, but I agree the hounding needs to stop. I dont think you can fault a guy for looking, but the shit people pull is inexcusable
I don't have the lady balls for that.
So I guess the question would be revised to: Could I wear this in public?
I think 95% of game female outfits would be a pretty stern "no." A lot of it looks more like lingerie more than anything.I get substantially more freaked out wearing a dress than being fully clothed. I don't think female characters dress in a way that makes sense.
Edit: Though I'm easily spooked by guys looking at me in a certain light, so there's that too. :S
Okay, respective to their worlds, I'll give you that.
Totally man. The amount of shit my friend gets for wearing an underbust corset out with a jacket on is unreal. Guys are always griping about how women don't dress sexy anymore; it's because you fuckers don't know how to act when you see an attractive woman bearing a little skin! Like come on guys.
NormalFish
Banned
I don't have the lady balls for that.
So I guess the question would be revised to: Could I wear this in public?
I get substantially more freaked out wearing a dress than being fully clothed. I don't think female characters dress in a way that makes sense.
Edit: Though I'm easily shaken by guys looking at me in a certain light, so there's that too. :S
I don't think this idea is exclusive to women, though. Not like men collectively decided not to be embarrassed about wearing overly flashy clothes. For example, my brother will wear skin tight pants and shirts with long trailing coats and such, but I wouldn't be caught dead wearing something like that.
Just further goes to show how different metrics for sexualization can be, I suppose.
I don't have the lady balls for that.
So I guess the question would be revised to: Could I wear this in public?
I get substantially more freaked out wearing a dress than being fully clothed. I don't think female characters dress in a way that makes sense.
Edit: Though I'm easily shaken by guys looking at me in a certain light, so there's that too. :S
I don't know, there's certainly something to that, but then if it becomes, "could I wear that in public...with a light coat over it that's unzipped", then the percentage raises. But then, again, other people factor in and ruin everything.
Other people are horrible man.
Other people. Not even once.
silvermember
Banned
Don't assume women are a monolith group.
For example you will probably find a lot of women that voted against equal pay for women. THat are in favor for laws that restrict other women's freedom especially what they can do with their body. The point being they are some women who are just as ignorant as men. Being a women doesn't make you more of an expert.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
Easiest way to tell is frankly this: is the character actually aware of their dress, or are they oblivious to it?
take bayonets for example. Sure, she's scantly clad, but she's aware of this, and openly flaunts it.
Another example is Milia from tales of xilia. She not only is aware of her outfit, she talks about why she chose it, and intact, why she chose that body type overall.
take bayonets for example. Sure, she's scantly clad, but she's aware of this, and openly flaunts it.
Another example is Milia from tales of xilia. She not only is aware of her outfit, she talks about why she chose it, and intact, why she chose that body type overall.
There is no black and white line.
It varies by person, by group, and by context. Part of the problem I have with a lot of these conversations is that it assumes monolithic definitions for "feminism", and where those lines lie for "all women". That is a load of crap. Something may be sexist to you. Something may be misogynistic to you. Do not try to use absolutes to justify your own personal position.
@Mesoian - people behaving pretty abominably at Cons some time. We had a guy at the last con who dressed up as Arrow (and had the body of Arrow). He showed us his buttcheek at the end of the first day; was completely black and blue from being grabbed by women. For some reason, people dressing up in costume apparently sends some "I am an object, you can objectify me in real life!" message to people or something, at least based on the behavior I've seen.
It varies by person, by group, and by context. Part of the problem I have with a lot of these conversations is that it assumes monolithic definitions for "feminism", and where those lines lie for "all women". That is a load of crap. Something may be sexist to you. Something may be misogynistic to you. Do not try to use absolutes to justify your own personal position.
@Mesoian - people behaving pretty abominably at Cons some time. We had a guy at the last con who dressed up as Arrow (and had the body of Arrow). He showed us his buttcheek at the end of the first day; was completely black and blue from being grabbed by women. For some reason, people dressing up in costume apparently sends some "I am an object, you can objectify me in real life!" message to people or something, at least based on the behavior I've seen.
I would probably say there are a lot of women who measure their worth in how they look and see this form of expression as empowering. And there are women who really really don't like that sort of thing and want to be "measured" in a different way. And those ladies try to make it so that women don't have to be seen in a singular way. And their efforts are semi-controversial, I bet.
I don't think there's really anything wrong with either side. It's simply a matter of how you want people to see you and how you see yourself. Your personal fears, insecurities, beliefs and understanding of reality all measure up to how you view these topics.
I also think a lot of guys think that if a girl is sexually appealing she is also morally inferior or something, which makes me really weary of the whole topic.
I'm a very non-sexual person, so I'd rather be measured in intellect, hobbies, education, emotion, friendship and all that other stuff that women also do.
Heels make a figue look elongated and elegant, having something that resambles a heel, doesn't necessarily mean trying to pop a boner.
The dimension of what is sexy is incredibly broad and varied, for reasons like these.
I am very interested to see what the consensus is for this thread. It's a question I often wondered as well. When you hear people describing "what women may find attractive" vs "male power fantasy" it is very confusing.
You have people claim muscle bound main characters only appeal to straight men because of "male power fantasy" and women aren't interested in these men or stories where the male lead is out to resue the damsel. Then you look at fan fictions and romance novels that are written and consumed by women and this media which seems like "empowerment" has damsels in distress and stories driven by female characters seeking male ones romantically.
You have people claim muscle bound main characters only appeal to straight men because of "male power fantasy" and women aren't interested in these men or stories where the male lead is out to resue the damsel. Then you look at fan fictions and romance novels that are written and consumed by women and this media which seems like "empowerment" has damsels in distress and stories driven by female characters seeking male ones romantically.
I like this answer. My wife is the one person I always run this stuff by, and while I'll get some eyerolls and scoffing at some of the stuff in, say, Bayonetta 2 or Rikku's initial getup in FF10 or Lulu all the time, she'll also laugh at how ridiculous and over the top it all is, and doesn't put much stock in it at all. And somehow, life goes on.
pretty much this.
but you need to be smart to understand this. not everyone is suited to understand it.
i know a few weird germans, who constantly make bad jew jokes. i would consider them nazis and racists, because they makes simply the worst jokes and dont even realize it. even telling them, that the joke was not appropriate does not make them stop.
on the other hand, i had a discussion earlier, where i stated that girls, who wear high heels and even cant walk with them, look like monkeys. i said that i prefer girls who just wear casual with no make up and that i prefer the sporty type.
i was called out because i made "fun" of girls who arent able to do that.
Beelzebufo
Banned
I can't tell if this post is supposed to be ironic or not.
That's probably how most girls react. I've been playing games since I was seven years old. And I've always laughed at boob physics and other ridiculous stuff.
It's just very silly to some of us. You learn to trivialize everything.
Edit: It does send extremely poor messages to little girls though. So I guess that's one thing that I can say is just really bad.
The thing that is "different" (but not as different as people would like to admit) is that what women find attractive in men is often the same thing that men find attractive in men. There's the saying of "women want to sleep with him, men want to be him." So, people often confuse the two because we're not used to the idea that a character could absolutely be sexualized for women AND be a male power fantasy. (News flash: Male characters have been sexualized forever. There's a reason male superheroes continue to wear spandex.) The reason men can do both effectively might be because you have primarily male artists / writers / developers during that time.
The funny thing is that I think that's also way more true for female characters than are let on. I think there are lots of women who enjoy being "sexy" as a character, while that character is sexualized for men. I think you'll see the pendulum start to find a happy middle in 10-20 years, as more female artists / writers / developers / etc start to become part of the industry as well as a bigger economic force. I don't think it is a coincidence that Bayonetta was created by a woman, and sparked a lot of that same "where does she fall on the spectrum" conversation amongst women.
My question is; why can't a character be both? Throughout human history; sex & beauty has given people power. Why must a character be one or the other? The only reason I see for that is to sate people's own consciences about liking something they maybe shouldn't and having an argument back at people who point out that they might be hypocritical.
It's this big argument about how male or female superheroes with six packs (Iron Man's armor has a six pack. Someone explain THAT to me) and skin tight spandex isn't "sexualization", or that X female hero in skin tight spandex is 100% empowering and 0% sexualized while Y female hero in skin tight spandex is 100% sexualized and 0% empowering. Maybe they can just be both. Or maybe whether something is "sexualized" or "empowering" speaks more about the person viewing it than the person creating it, but no one wants to admit it? I dunno.
That's probably how most girls react. I've been playing games since I was seven years old. And I've always laughed at boob physics and other ridiculous stuff.
It's just very silly to some of us. You learn to trivialize everything.
is anyone considering vaan from ff12 weird?
...Yes. I thought he was super weird. So was Tidus. Why they got their shirt open like that? :\ It was always a part of Japan's culture that I didn't quite get. Same with playing games where the girls are..."strange." I can tell I'm in a different territory.
Though, they don't have ball-sack physics...so there's that.
Also, is it okay to sexualize a character or person as long as it is evident that their sexuality is not the only thing (or primary thing) that defines them? We often let sexual attraction come to the forefront in these discussion as if it, in and of itself, is a dirty and inappropriate thing.
We aren't Puritans and I'd like to think we've tried to distance ourselves collectively from that way of thinking. To deny sexuality or sexual thinking seems stupid. The problem seems to arise when a person or character is reduced *only* to their sexual attributes.
We aren't Puritans and I'd like to think we've tried to distance ourselves collectively from that way of thinking. To deny sexuality or sexual thinking seems stupid. The problem seems to arise when a person or character is reduced *only* to their sexual attributes.
Well...
Let's take that gay HVN-Game that just came out "Coming Out On Top". The characters are very stereotypical western beefcake that you'd find the cover of a magazine for whathaveyou, and the strongest complaint I've heard lobbied against it is that it doesn't cater to what women would find attractive, even when it comes to gay HVN games. There are no twinks, there are no more slender frames, it's just muscles all the time; a very stark contrast to almost every japanese HVN, gay or no, where almost every character within is very slender and lean, with big muscular dudes usually being an outlier or a fetish.
So who's right? Is there are a "correct" solution here? Not really, it's all up to how the player connects with the characters, visually or no. The most important thing is to change things up once in a while and figure out what comes off as interesting. One of the reasons why fanfics are so centered around romance within the projected world from a female prospective is because we almost NEVER see that in games or movies. One of the big reasons of why people like Twilight is because it does just that, albeit in an incredibly childish and hamfisted way.
Games do such a poor job explaining why someone is romantically interested in someone else that it relies almost completely on visual attraction to explain it, which is lazy. Granted, not every game has the scope or scale to be able to do something different, but still, when the default is, "Why does Shepard like Miranda? Duh because she's hot brah!" there's a problem, especially for a game that tries to take relationships in a somewhat serious light (but ends up just having a weak sex scene as a reward for finishing a mission chain).
I mean, from a development standpoint, Vaan and Panello's involvement in FF12 is EXTREMELY unorthodox. That game would have been better had they not been in it.
WHICH IS FUCKING GREAT!
I, legit, want more talk about the character's investment into their garb.
Yeah.
I think the trouble comes from women being defined by their sexuality and not much else.
I can't really name many female characters that aren't defined by their sex, sexuality or attraction.
Maybe...uhhh. Impa from Skyward Sword is probably the only one I can name right now. I'm drawing blanks.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Personally, I proceed from the standpoint that "sexualization" is thrown around as a common pejorative which often, though maybe inadvertently, creates a slippery slope into puritanical, sex-negative frameworks.
In the realm of fiction, I tend to therefore stick with the filter "is the character's display of sex, sensuality, or attractiveness part of the character or in spite of the character". If it's part of the character, in my experience more people are apt to react positively to the character. If a display of sex is in spite of the character's attributes or purpose of the character, it will come off more as exploitation.
The trick is, this isn't just about being sensitive or "PC". It's makes for better characters and better fiction when a character isn't a simple exploitative vehicle.
In the realm of fiction, I tend to therefore stick with the filter "is the character's display of sex, sensuality, or attractiveness part of the character or in spite of the character". If it's part of the character, in my experience more people are apt to react positively to the character. If a display of sex is in spite of the character's attributes or purpose of the character, it will come off more as exploitation.
The trick is, this isn't just about being sensitive or "PC". It's makes for better characters and better fiction when a character isn't a simple exploitative vehicle.
I don't feel someone like Fran is a sexualization of women despite her being scantily clad. It is all about context in my opinion. I will have to say that in most cases, most scantily clad women are used as fan service.
Why do I not feel that way about Fran? I think her personality is great and she's not playing a loli role or whatever.
As was posted in the OP, someone like Chocolina is just distasteful.
It's no surprise, though that games have depicted women this way. It is not the only medium that does it.
Why do I not feel that way about Fran? I think her personality is great and she's not playing a loli role or whatever.
As was posted in the OP, someone like Chocolina is just distasteful.
It's no surprise, though that games have depicted women this way. It is not the only medium that does it.
QuantumZebra
Member
You are exactly correct here.
Until things are at least somewhat equal (they are terribly lopsided) in terms of normal characterization - we won't be able to view men and women objectively through one lens.
As a woman, it's largely depends on the game. Chell is not a character, so I don't know why people discuss her much because if you made her a man or a sentient cardboard box the game would be the same. Portal 2 tried to give her a backstory and well, I was still more interested in the robots.
For female characters that are empowering there aren't much but the number is always increasing. Amaterasu is a powerful goddess but her gender doesn't really come into to play seeing how she's in a wolf body, but she certainly still kicks butt. Bayonetta is certainly fun to play and silly camera angles aside I want more characters like her, she completely owns her style and looks. Bioware also makes playing a girl fun because of the relationship factor and that the dialogue doesn't revert to "Hurrr durr you have boobies". Many MGS girls are also strong in their own rights but are not playable, but I do like them. Milla from Tales of Xillia is not overly sexualized despite her outfit, mainly because she doesn't act like an object with boobs.
Compare that to someone like Lightning who is written to be "strong" in the same game where she goes down poles like a stripper and has as much depth as a tin can. I always laugh at that.
I think there's also a disconnect with what men think women find sexy. Most girls I've talked to like Alistair, Raiden, Nathan Drake, Link, and Ezio over muscly men like Snake, Kratos, and Barret. Many Japanese games (moreso than Western games) like to give the male cast at least one androgynous design and some ladies prefer these designs because androgynous men appear less threatening and are tended to be given the more emotional personalities. The kind you can read in most romance novels. Of course there are always different tastes but these characters seem the most popular.
If a lady is sexualized I tend to roll my eyes and ignore it over getting angry that it happens. Because it will always happen. But I also smile when I see characters that are respectfully written, for all genders. We just need games with better writing overall in my opinion.
For female characters that are empowering there aren't much but the number is always increasing. Amaterasu is a powerful goddess but her gender doesn't really come into to play seeing how she's in a wolf body, but she certainly still kicks butt. Bayonetta is certainly fun to play and silly camera angles aside I want more characters like her, she completely owns her style and looks. Bioware also makes playing a girl fun because of the relationship factor and that the dialogue doesn't revert to "Hurrr durr you have boobies". Many MGS girls are also strong in their own rights but are not playable, but I do like them. Milla from Tales of Xillia is not overly sexualized despite her outfit, mainly because she doesn't act like an object with boobs.
Compare that to someone like Lightning who is written to be "strong" in the same game where she goes down poles like a stripper and has as much depth as a tin can. I always laugh at that.
I think there's also a disconnect with what men think women find sexy. Most girls I've talked to like Alistair, Raiden, Nathan Drake, Link, and Ezio over muscly men like Snake, Kratos, and Barret. Many Japanese games (moreso than Western games) like to give the male cast at least one androgynous design and some ladies prefer these designs because androgynous men appear less threatening and are tended to be given the more emotional personalities. The kind you can read in most romance novels. Of course there are always different tastes but these characters seem the most popular.
If a lady is sexualized I tend to roll my eyes and ignore it over getting angry that it happens. Because it will always happen. But I also smile when I see characters that are respectfully written, for all genders. We just need games with better writing overall in my opinion.
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
One of my favorite examples of empowered fan service is Yoko Littner in Gurren Lagann. She appears at first as complete sexual fantasy with big boobs and a big gun, but over time she get a ton of character development and really felt like commentary on the Babe with Gun trope. Not a game but it's relevant.
That's true. Guys realize that within the first few seconds of interaction women immediately unconsciously "read" guys to make sure that 1. they will not murder you. 2. they will not hurt you and then 3. they will not deceive you.
If a guy fails perceptually to get through 1, 2 and 3...then chances are he's not really going to get the girl, without coercion or whatever. :\ I don't think realistically Kratos has that much appeal for that reason. I think most women would want him in jail away from them and their children.
Japanese games tend to have a broader range of masculinity for girls to enjoy. The obvious best one is Link. <3
I hardly notice. Like I said I was raised on this stuff, so I've been largely blind. But when there is a good female character I get pretty pumped. Typically, I laugh it off as well if the character is especially creepy.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
As a man, I don't worry about how men are depicted. It just goes without saying that no matter how a man is characterized, no matter which direction it is taken in personality or story, and no matter how shallow or complex, that says nothing about me personally as a man, and I do not need to do anything in response in how I act or present myself to society. The point is not the content, nor the presentation, nor the character, nor the context, but it is what it is and I am what I am and I have my feelings about it and other people have theirs.
That means I am empowered.
I look at all this talk about depictions of women, and mostly people are acting like characterization controls how women ought to feel about themselves. To think that autonomous individuals would have their personal identity defined or otherwise controlled or influenced by mere fictitious depictions, even if in positive ways, is degrading. A woman being depicted as a sexual servant doesn't make all women as sexual servants. A woman being depicted as a hero doesn't make all women as heroes. The only thing that can do that is us if we so choose to do that in response to seeing such depictions.
If you want to empower women, you are going to have to stop empowering fiction. I do understand that characterization will always have some influence, just as there is plenty of machismo in media that men will subconsciously pick up on as having to live up to, but the fact is that personal strength in identity is something instilled apart from media, not within it. If we can debate about a pandering sexual female characterization, doesn't that mean that the women in that discussion need not be victim to its degradation, and the men in that discussion need not fall prey to its pandering? If so, then the same is true of all people everywhere, and the power of decision is not in the media content, but in the discussions we have about it.
Now, will this shift be in part preceded by more character-driven depictions of women? Yes. Will some more character-driven depictions of women also only come about in response to that social shift occurring in the public beforehand? Yes. So I am not against the discussion of media portrayals, but I also find the extreme weight they are being granted lately to be excessive. I also find the focus on content a danger to falling into old patterns of censorship and puritanical sensitization, which is only another degrading form of identity control by society.
That means I am empowered.
I look at all this talk about depictions of women, and mostly people are acting like characterization controls how women ought to feel about themselves. To think that autonomous individuals would have their personal identity defined or otherwise controlled or influenced by mere fictitious depictions, even if in positive ways, is degrading. A woman being depicted as a sexual servant doesn't make all women as sexual servants. A woman being depicted as a hero doesn't make all women as heroes. The only thing that can do that is us if we so choose to do that in response to seeing such depictions.
If you want to empower women, you are going to have to stop empowering fiction. I do understand that characterization will always have some influence, just as there is plenty of machismo in media that men will subconsciously pick up on as having to live up to, but the fact is that personal strength in identity is something instilled apart from media, not within it. If we can debate about a pandering sexual female characterization, doesn't that mean that the women in that discussion need not be victim to its degradation, and the men in that discussion need not fall prey to its pandering? If so, then the same is true of all people everywhere, and the power of decision is not in the media content, but in the discussions we have about it.
Now, will this shift be in part preceded by more character-driven depictions of women? Yes. Will some more character-driven depictions of women also only come about in response to that social shift occurring in the public beforehand? Yes. So I am not against the discussion of media portrayals, but I also find the extreme weight they are being granted lately to be excessive. I also find the focus on content a danger to falling into old patterns of censorship and puritanical sensitization, which is only another degrading form of identity control by society.
Riposte
Member
"Sexualization" - or better understood as beauty - is not opposed to empowerment (and on some relative scales, they are the same thing). The question is more about whether the characters are appealing or not (to women, as the topic guides us toward). A woman doesn't necessarily want to embody a man's urge for beauty (in fact, may have a negative reaction to it) nor share that urge. So something isn't really to their taste. However sometimes it will be, for either reason (which can come off as contradictory, a la Bayonetta). That's all there is to it, really.
As for Chocalina, one shouldn't overlook that she is a time-traveling crazy person; that's a context. She's (and the game's) context is surreal. Games love to be surreal because it opens new possibilities within imagination, even if that means being more sensational than sensible. On a smaller scale, this can mean beautifully exposed muscles and mammaries even in "every day" settings, a slight distortion as the expense of "reason". If one compares the phenomenon videogames give/create to dreams (which makes sense because one day they may very well be identical to dreams), then this isn't very surprising.
It's funny how no one acknowledges the strictness of "believability" depends on what you want to believe. If you don't want to believe in the stylization which consists of tons of beautiful women in sexy attire, you are going to be much more critical. However, if you want to embrace that beauty, it's a minor quibble.
Everything in a videogame is an object. Every human or human-like being, for example, is an objectification of humans. The only difference between a sex object (an object with a set of traits described as "sexual") and any other kind of object is that there are popular ideologies that believe the former is harming the world (beyond just bad taste) and thus should be restricted or shamed.
Also you seem to have a limited view of female sexuality. And male sexuality for that matter.
As for Chocalina, one shouldn't overlook that she is a time-traveling crazy person; that's a context. She's (and the game's) context is surreal. Games love to be surreal because it opens new possibilities within imagination, even if that means being more sensational than sensible. On a smaller scale, this can mean beautifully exposed muscles and mammaries even in "every day" settings, a slight distortion as the expense of "reason". If one compares the phenomenon videogames give/create to dreams (which makes sense because one day they may very well be identical to dreams), then this isn't very surprising.
It's funny how no one acknowledges the strictness of "believability" depends on what you want to believe. If you don't want to believe in the stylization which consists of tons of beautiful women in sexy attire, you are going to be much more critical. However, if you want to embrace that beauty, it's a minor quibble.
Everything in a videogame is an object. Every human or human-like being, for example, is an objectification of humans. The only difference between a sex object (an object with a set of traits described as "sexual") and any other kind of object is that there are popular ideologies that believe the former is harming the world (beyond just bad taste) and thus should be restricted or shamed.
Also you seem to have a limited view of female sexuality. And male sexuality for that matter.
FlyingSaucer
Banned
As someone who love the Senran franchise, I don't see why the two terms of the equation should be systematically opposed.
Or at least as a grown-up who select his titles and play for himself and not for the benefit of his imaginary friends on the internet, and who try to distinguish between fantasy and reality, I don't see any problem in it.
Or at least as a grown-up who select his titles and play for himself and not for the benefit of his imaginary friends on the internet, and who try to distinguish between fantasy and reality, I don't see any problem in it.
I'm not sure you know how stereotyping works. I have the double whammy of black stereotypes and female stereotypes effecting how people treat me in real life. People take limited, often terribly depictions of groups to define and understand complex groups that they are not a part of.
People assume a lot about me before they know me and I have to spend several hours attempting to break that perception in an attempt to be treated like a full human being. It doesn't happen constantly...but it's a huge influencer over my life that just kind of is what is it is. It's not how I percieve myself (Though it used to be), it's about how others perceive me, and how that causes discrimination. Sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle.
You have to constantly break the ice and disassociate yourself from their perceptions immediately. :S
Also children don't have the power that you're talking about. We immediately internalize how the world views us. And we learn about the world through the media. Books, movies, shows, news, peers, family, religion and...video games. Once a black child hits the age of three, they already know their worth is inferior to others.
Ask women.
Aside from that, if one side of an argument is "This makes me feel uncomfortable, right now." and your response is some metaphysical abstraction like "What is comfort?" then you are out of touch, and you're trying to bridge a gap in perception through rationalization.
This is natural. You're trying to construct a framework through which to understand a point of view you don't hold. But you're never going to get there. And whatever logical framework about the relativity of bunny fetishes in fantasy jungles you construct isn't going to hold water with anyone but yourself.
The key is to understand that people don't get upset for no reason. You don't have to be upset, too. But it's always a good idea to reexamine your assumptions, and to see if they can be updated.
Aside from that, if one side of an argument is "This makes me feel uncomfortable, right now." and your response is some metaphysical abstraction like "What is comfort?" then you are out of touch, and you're trying to bridge a gap in perception through rationalization.
This is natural. You're trying to construct a framework through which to understand a point of view you don't hold. But you're never going to get there. And whatever logical framework about the relativity of bunny fetishes in fantasy jungles you construct isn't going to hold water with anyone but yourself.
The key is to understand that people don't get upset for no reason. You don't have to be upset, too. But it's always a good idea to reexamine your assumptions, and to see if they can be updated.
Riposte
Member
As someone who has a lifelong fascination with psychology, "this makes me feel uncomfortable, right now".
Beelzebufo
Banned
Why? What about it?
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
But those who treat you well/normally when they don't know anything about you, do they do that because of media portrayals they have seen, or because they have been taught that media =/= real life people? I do understand that media holds some power, but my point is the power it holds is the power we give it, and trying to fix the media is not how you fix that problem, because media hasn't changed enough yet that we can attribute what progress has been made to its changing. Clearly that progress is coming from somewhere else, and the change in the media is coming from that progress elsewhere.
Again, I say that from the perspective of a male who doesn't feel controlled by any media at all, despite there being much media that would say I am this, that, or the other. I don't feel it personally nor in how people receive me. That means I'm "neutral" and that is a privilege, yes, but it is also one that can be extended. It means that the power is in our discussions and attitudes, and the biggest benefit in discussing depictions isn't the part that says "this depiction is problematic" but the part that says "this depiction is not real people" and that will also, ultimately, be the only real solution to the problem.
Otherwise, I just see it as like trying to put decks of cards back together as others keep throwing them out on the ground.
I do understand that, and I think "affirmative action" media is a good thing, simply putting more quality portrayals out there as a means of educating the public about such-and-such demographic being normal people as any others. However, I think that end goal of education and the discussions and attitudes we hold is the key, not the media. Energy is simply better spent on discussions that enlighten people so that they are no longer media-controlled rather than trying to fight on media's terms.
Why do I think that? Because I'm having this discussion with you. How did I escape the overwhelmingly weighted media that this kind of discussion of sociology-solving strategies would even be a concern of mine? Growing up I did have female friends and black friends, and those who were both, and that no doubt must help, but clearly we hold in ourselves the capacity to transcend what media tells us. We can be taught to view it critically, and I feel that won't happen if we continue to speak in such a way that implies it controls reality.