Because one is real life and the other is entertainment
A human creating & publishing a particular character is 'real life'.
So basically what you're saying is that the creator's freedom to express in terms of the character's dress should be the same as a woman's choice to dress sexually or not?
Obviously, people are free to do as they will as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's freedom. Though I don't think anyone is impinging on creators' freedoms anyway.
It's literally the main issue with comparing a character designed for men and a woman dressing however she wants, whether it's because she likes to show off or just because looking good feels great.
Though in this hypothetical, as I have to keep reminding you, we're discussing a woman that is specifically dressing for the attention of men which, again, happens.
She has an agency that characters don't have in anyway shape or form. That's the crux of the issue entirely.
Yes, the characters cannot possibly have agency, which is why the discussion is about the agency of the creator, as they are the ones committing the 'act' of releasing the character (their design, etc.).
Coupled with the fact that what she's dressing in at the very least has a goal and context that makes sense. Compared to the absolutely lolworthy reasons devs come up with for sexualization.
They don't need a reason to design & release a character a particular way anymore than any person needs to give a reason why they decided to get dressed and go out a particular way.
And here's something that should be shocking to absolutely no one, an artist is always subject to critique.
I agree!
Obviously the game is in development and about to be released, doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to how people critique the work, in fact, if I criticize aspects of the game design, what equivalency would you attempt to create?
I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't criticize the work. Of course people are going to, and I think that's fine. Criticize all you want, game design, music, character design, etc. Do it from a technical perspective, or a moral perspective, or a historical perspective or whatever perspective you like.
Would this:
still apply. Probably not, because that argument is bullshit.
Like I tried to say above, I'm not against people criticizing, and I don't think criticism is censorship, and I don't think anyone is stopping creators from creating & publishing what they want. Your misunderstanding doesn't make the argument bullshit, and I'm not even making an argument. All I've been trying to understand is why one (how a woman chooses to present herself) is above criticism and the other (what a creator chooses to create & publish) isn't. As shitty as it is, it just seems like both should be up for criticism. I can't see any other way around it, anything else just seems inconsistent. Again, the only difference still seems to be extent of how many people it affects. Both are acts that people are free to make, and both can have negative consequences regardless of the relatively harmless nature of the acts themselves.
At the same time, I don't really think that anyone should shame someone else for how they dress, but I think there's some room for acknowledgment that, in some instances, it can be problematic. Even if one wants to point out that most if not all of the 'problem' is on behalf of the individuals who do the objectifying when looking at women, that doesn't change the effect. And the same can be said for something a creator makes, that the problem resides more in those that latch onto and are influenced by it than the art itself, but, again, it doesn't change the effects. It's a tough knot for me to unravel.
