Cassandra may not get it at first, but hopefully in the future she will come to understand it was totally necessary, even if it wasn’t.
In order to purge the evil intentions the Soul Edge conjures, one must have their face and neck subjected to the gravitational force of Sophitia’s backside. Because let’s be real, who gives a shit about a bunch of old swords when their face is buried under a greek goddess ass.
It doesn’t stop there though; I can think of a few examples from other fighting games.
Cammy: “Bison, you’ve brainwashed me, filled my head with lies, trained me to be a killer, and ordered me to carry out assassinations. For that I must ATTACK YOU WITH MY VAGINA!!!”
Kasumi: “I’ve gone against the ninja clan and have been cast out. I don’t want to fight you, but If it’s necessary, I won’t hesitate to ride your face like a rodeo.”
Kitana: "You will learn to respect me, my skimpy clothing, and my ass when it’s hurling at you at high speeds.
There’s a bunch of other ones from various genres but I’m not trying to list them all. Basically, objectifying women doesn’t stop with just the mere clothing.
You should intend your puns, sir! And it’s not all that extreme in my eyes. Heaving, unsupported breasts with prominent, erect nipples are obvious, physical signs of sexual arousal in women, and an equivalent thing from a sexual/arousing/vulnerability stance - for me, when viewing a male form - would be an obvious and prominent erection. Not just a shirtless, overly muscled male. It needn’t be out in the open air, or anything like that, but I’d make it barely contained by paper-thin pants the way the breasts I described above are so often given a token coating of what seems to be latex masquerading as cloth. It’s not the size of the breasts that matters, after all, or the extent of the nudity. It’s that context. The state they’re in and how they’re portrayed. A completely nude man or a nude woman who isn’t exhibiting stereotypical signs of sexual arousal can be sold a little easier as being “just natural” and not objectified. When you add the arousal element or the illusion of arousal, it becomes both more exciting to certain viewers and more uncomfortable to others. If you don’t mind making the latter group uncomfortable by catering to the first group, then that’s find, but it should be understood that there will always be a trade-off.
And really, all my point was is that the discomfort isn’t illegitimate, regardless of the cause.
Fair warning: I have an English degree and I worked in the education field, so everything to me is debatable. Sure, it would be fair to say that they were designed in part to appeal to the the male gaze, especially initially, but that’s also not necessarily a bad thing to an extent.
I think it’s more than fair to say that Lara Croft, to use your example, has had some iterations that are more pandering than others, but the new Croft is actually a very good example of what I mentioned before in taking care and putting more detail in character design. Despite a breast reduction, she’s still - in my opinion - quite attractive by male (and female) standards, and her design is also not solely catering to the male gaze, nor does it seem to be* intended* to arouse (which doesn’t negate anyone’s ability to be aroused by her, if they’re so inclined). It better shows right up front that there is a character there to latch onto beyond her appearance. It’s trended away from seeing just how unfeasibly hourglass her figure can be rendered to making a character that will actually be interesting to play. So in my opinion, that would be a good example of a win-win situation. As someone who is attracted to women, I get an attractive female leading character; as a woman myself, I get a strong female lead that doesn’t - for whatever reason - make me feel like I’m play-acting someone’s version of a blow-up doll. This iteration will be more likely to appeal to some of the people who took issue with previous iterations because of that, and I view that as a positive thing overall. Less bitching, more sales. Everyone wins.
As far as Bayonetta goes, I really don’t know enough about that character to be comfortable giving my opinion, having never played that game.
Bold all you want, it helps make things pop, especially in long posts, I know how it is.
Also, don’t try to have it both ways, you can’t say ‘you’re not worth arguing with’ and ‘thanks for keeping it respectful’ in one post, its jarring
In general I think our whole disagreement is largely based on 2 things;
[LIST]
[]Poor, overly forceful phrasing on my part
[]Pedantry on your part (ie focusing on the ‘solely’ bit)
[/LIST]
In general I really do get what you’re saying, I just don’t find it convincing. To convince me, you’d have to show that all the media sourced (per the wiki link) is consistently getting wrong, or show somewhere outside of deep fan circles where people really care about her in a story sense. I just don’t think it happens more than a tiny, tiny bit… and we have to look at how the culture as a whole looks at her.
It’s funny because our discussion styles are actually really really similar, which in some ways makes for a bad match
Stroker is unfair to men! (nobody ever mentions stroker anymore)
pay gap is false and doesn’t exist. The power gap exists only becuase female’s don’t participate in elections for position’s of power, and when they do don’t market themselves as well as male canidate
Its more objectification that sexism. If it was sexism, then Mai would be this defenseless little creature that can’t fend for herself and needs a man to do so. Or we could go 1950’s America where said character stays in the kitchen. Or we can take it one step further and only put female’s in places where they have traditionally been for the past 3000+ years. Away from the action, with no prominent role or voice in said medium, nothing more than some simple device used as a coaster for the main characters.
So people are right in saying its not sexism, but it is objectification, and please tell me, who are these people who are saying that’s its not objectification. YOU didn’t answer my original question
And why is it a problem that these female characters are not presented in a natural way? If male characters are not, why would female’s be? Im not seeing the issue here, and it looks like you are making an issue out of a non issue simply because it bugs you to see that female’s are not represented in games like the IRL white woman. Boring
the problem is, is that the females that do bitch, are the loud obnoxious ones that expect to be coddled. Until experience says other wise, no one is going to want to hear what they say because they aren’t doing anything to fix the problem. And in by continuous to cry about non issues, they then encourage other players to start crying and making an non issue a bid issue, with out them actually trying to resolve the issue. And not being the minority is working real great for Hispanics right now if you haven’t noticed. And if that isn’t the solution do like the Irish and gain political power.
no 46% is not a minority period. 46% is a large number and a number that would make an industry that is so dependent on sales to take notice of a large percentage of its consumer base making legitimate complains about an issue. And here again lies the issue with complaining about non issues when there isn’t participation by the group that cries and complains. those that do participate have to give up to appease a population that doesn’t want to participate.
3.Duh,
What is the issue? there is no issue to begin with. If the issue is that women are objectified, then whose fault is it? It it the game developers fault, or is it the small minority that hasn’t participated and now suddenly starts ranting about non issues. This wouldn’t be a problem if females actually did proactive actions and you know joined the industry or voted with their wallets. The last thing I need is some PC shit in my video games because a small group complained hard enough at a non issue, when they could have made their own mediums marketed at them. And that is why people get mad, because here comes this random variable that demands and expects to on the same level as everybody else. It doesn’t work like that and it shouldn’t work like that. Integration is required on both sides of the spectrum, its absolutely fucking disgusting that one side expects to have leverage in a market they just entered, and then get mad because the established side calls foul.
I meant extreme in like that’s the end of spectrum with like Rumble Roses, DoA Volleyball and SC4 outfit choices when I was talking about more of the typical.
And wow, what a vivid description.
I wasn’t concern with it being right or wrong, that’s something I would like to avoid.
Video games are by far a exagerrated portrayal of reality and it’s always been that way. While many females in gaming are beautiful with curvy bodies dressed in a manner that exposes a lot of skin, it’s a trend that follows the male characters as well. Lots of male characters in gaming are handsome body builders who look like greek gods. Just take the resident evil franchise and wesker…especially in re5 when he’s shirtless for the entire ending portion of the the game for some reason. Most females are conservatively dressed by comparison, like sure their ass and cleavage show but most of the guys are either shirtless or in their underwear!
I put it like this we all know damn well most video game characters and media is based on ideals it’s been like that since the dawn of time.The head priestess usually was fine as fuck,queens fine as fuck,the goddess had to be fine as fuck too.Dudes we all wanted to be the greatest hunters ,strongest fighters etc.Its apart of the human mind and all human cultures .I don’t wanna play a game as a weak timid main character who has more flaws rcaidos wife’s birth canal.Even in history ugly hoes and dudes get embellished to be turned into fucking Adonis’s and aphrodite.
What was your original question? I’ll try to answer it. I probably thought I did, but I’ll hit it in a specific directed post if you ask again
In general, ‘women aren’t in political positions because they don’t try’ is a troubling position to take, you might want to think about that.
And I’m the one that’s been saying its objectification. I’m not 100% sure anyone has really addressed that idea directly either way though I admit. It can certainly be both though, there’s more than one negative stereotype about women, sexism doesn’t just mean “women are weak and need to be protected”… treating them as sex objects (or ‘fighting fuckdolls’ as whatsername so evocatively puts it) is just as sexist as treating them like mcguffins.
Finally, I thought he was saying “That’s just natural, they’re big breasted beautiful women!” So its a direct disagreement with that idea, those characters specifically are not natural… although looking back at the quote, it looks like I was misreading D3v some… He was saying sex is natural, not that the depictions in Skullgirls were natural… on that point, my bad.
Edit: Still, I’m fairly pleased with that clip from Weird Science, it describes the design process pretty well
I’m going to call out both of these statements as questionably supported at best.
On the pay gap issue, I’ve seen analyses claiming that it’s bunk, and I’ve seen research claiming it isn’t bunk that addresses points that the other analyses overlook. At the very least, the jury is not in by any means.
On the issue of female candidates marketing themselves as well as males: For one thing, I’m willing to bet that it would take a female candidate more money, much greater marketing acumen, and a much greater sweep in order to achieve “equal marketing” to that of the typical male candidate.
For another thing, why don’t females participate in the elections? I’m also willing to bet that there are subtler, more intractable factors at work than “They just don’t want to do it”.
Come to think of it, that’s also one of the major problems with the pay gap issue.
who is saying that its not. No body can say its not objectification when you have siaxis controlled titty action.
why would it be troublesome? I pay attention who runs for office. Its mostly male’s. If that wasn’t the case, I would agree with you, it is a troublesome stance. But it isn’t the case. They don’t run for office because? if the excuse is because they don’t think they will win because they are female’s. Then whose fault is it? The general voting population, or the group running for office? If you can sell shamwow on TV, you can definitely sell a female politician. And as goodm0uringin pointed out, maybe they don’t want to participate.
And I have to disagree with this,
treating them as sex objects (or ‘fighting fuckdolls’ as whatsername so evocatively puts it) is just as sexist as treating them like mcguffins.
treating them like sex objects is objectification
wasn’t there a consensus on another thread supported by a few published articles that the pay issue existed because the female element did not persue career’s where there was big pay?
But by contrasting them you seem to be saying that objectification isn’t sexist. It totally can be, especially in the madonna/whore context… the pure woman to be protected and the fallen woman who is sexually desirable.
With the ‘not trying’ thing, its essentially taking the many complex possible reasons why fewer women run and win and, in essence, laying blame.
As to 'who's saying its not', I really really don't want to have to go back and research that, it would be an utterly huge PITA. Maybe we can compromise and say that a whole bunch of people are being strongly, sometimes angrily resistant to the idea that sexism could be an issue in games. Still, I'll take a scan, and if anything strikes me I'll edit it in :p
edit:
first example:
[quote]
Feminism 101:
Pretty female characters -> Objectifying women
Average looking/Ugly female characters -> How dare you make fun of women?
No female characters -> Male dominated world
Lots of female characters -> Gamers are all perverts
Good looking male characters -> Oooh, I love it. Show me more skin!!
[/quote]
(although that's more implied in the general 'man I hate feminism!' screed)
second (he's talking about attractiveness and objectification):
[quote]
At this point, I question if there's any difference beyond the spelling in these types of topics.
[/quote]
third (noting that he's not saying there isn't objectification but rather that it's wrong to talk about):
[quote]
Not to mention this argument about female objectification is disgustingly hypocritical and a gaze into typical feminist tunnel vision
[/quote]
fourth (no quote, but the entire bit with "the damned" is largely about whether Mai Shiranui is objectified or not)
fifth (again, not saying that they're not objectifying, but rather that he likes it):
[quote]
So Capcom, SNK, Namco, Konami, keep "objectifying" your women characters so we can get a kick out of stupid cunts who think being an activist for the rights of fictional women is ethical.
[/quote]
There's more probably, I got tired of doing this on page 4, and was only doing a "Ctrl-f: object" to find examples, so possibly some slipped through the cracks. Also, edited out person names so that people don't get a whole bunch of 'hey you were quoted!' alerts.
I also left out the entire 'men are objectified too so its okay!' subgenre, there was a fair deal of that.
When data shows woman chose lower paying careers and work less hours it isnt a causation since that would imply accountability which clearly women are not allowed to have. Any time a woman doesnt excel or is lacking in representation, some man above her was holding her down…remember men are like a supernatural bogeyman who appear the momment a women begins to succeed just to push her down. When the material that debunks the "wage gap myth debunking"appears its almost always now about how woman are not hired for these positions to begin with…in other words when 1 argument falls apart another comes in it’s place. Its like wolverines headling factor, no matter how shredded it gets some"new fallacy"will emerge to repair the damage and begin the cycle anew.
Well honestly your source was ass. The bullet points that happened to be sourced betrayed an utter lack of understanding of the issue (a major point of contention is that women are discouraged from studying/taking the more skilled/technical jobs and have trouble getting work in them, but the article just kind of shrugs it off as 'they don’t want to for some reason), and several of the points had no support (one of which I found a nice link directly *refuting *the unsupported point).
Then you went on to link another article, the point of which was the exact opposite of what you claimed it was.
So seriously do better when looking for things you think prove your point, you’ll get more leverage.
edit: Oh not entirely relevant, but a funny thing about the blog you linked from (yeah I checked up on it)
[INDENT]Women should not make more money than men, and if you disagree with this statement and you are a man you are a white knight faggot who doesnt deserve his cock that he was born with. being a male, I am okay with that and I DON’T want that to change.because if you have ever had a girlfriend, or a female boss, or a wife, you know that if the tables were turned and women made more than men they would not feel sorry for us whatsoever or try to fix/change it[/INDENT]
[SIZE=10px] [/SIZE]
Feminism is just bitches being angry that after finally being put on a level playing field they still haven’t contributed anything constructive, how about instead of bitching about video games ‘that promote sexism’ being made by man you get a fucking education that is open to you and make your own games.
