Gena Davis institute on Gender in media tries to link violent games to mass shootings and police violence

[Hawki]

It's a joke.

However, look at this fucking character and tell me that's a heterosexual with a straight face.

Um...

Sorry, I don't get the idea behind this. I could look at Lady D's appearance and trailer debut and make a number of inferences about her, but none of them would have anything to do with her sexuality. If anything, the only thing that would suggest something about her sexuality would be heterosexual, since in the Village trailer, she's seen sucking Ethan's wrist for blood, but that's not indicative of much sexuality-wise. Vampiric, yes, but as batshit insane as RE can be, it's always avoided actual supernatural elements. Yes, even Eveline is 'grounded' in science, despite being a ghost girl trope.

Also, cards on the table, I haven't played Village (yet), but I've never understood the fascination with Lady D, said fascination coming as soon as she was revealed in trailers. But under the inference of my own that there's some kind of 'queerness aspect' to her, then surely, Morpheus is a better candidate for that in the RE series? Because aside from that, it's not as if the RE series has lacked in female antagonists, not even female antagonists that are aristocratic, are super-strong, and look down on the plebs as being beneath them (see Alexia Ashford).

Yes. I actually do realise that.

Like, you do know Dracula is incredibly homoerotic right? Like, countless books have been written on the weird amount of queer subtext and coding in Dracula, on Bram Stoker's weird relationship to (and anxieties about) sexuality which he channelled into his work, and how this carries over into subsequent depictions of vampires in media.

Dracula...

Alright, cards on the table again. I've read Dracula, and I'm well aware of the themes you described, but having read the book, I just don't see them. Don't worry, I'm not claiming that over a century's worth of literary analysis is somehow wrong, but while I have a dim view of the novel in general (you can see my comments on it on the book thread if you want), but I don't see much "queer subtext" there. Again, what examples of sexual interaction are there? Dracula bites two people in the book (Mina and Lucy, both females), while not bothering with Harker, and kills (not bites, kills) every (male) sailor on the Russian boat. We see his brides, who sort of have some kind of 'kink,' but they try to bite Harker, while also having some love-hate relationship with Dracula himself. Every incidence of vamprisim in the book, if you're framing it through sexuality, is heterosexual. Dracula bites females, the brides try to bite Harker. There's no incidents where it goes the same-way, so to speak.

As for subsequent depictions of vampires in media...sort of. We can probably agree that vampires in pop culture can trace their genesis back to the novel in some form or another, but what those vampires do, and even how they operate, are going to vary by setting. And even if you want to look solely at the sexuality aspect and "queer coding," then examples I'd actually cite (if at all) would be the Lahmian vampires in WFB (predominantly female vampires that almost only turn females), or the Styrian vampires in Castlevania. A series that, frankly, made Dracula a more complex character in two seasons than Stoker did in an entire book.

Again, I can accept Dracula's cultural influence, while generally disliking the book itself, even if I can admit that's probably a fringe position.

 

[Cicada 5]

It's a joke.

However, look at this fucking character and tell me that's a heterosexual with a straight face.

Seeing as how she shows no signs of being remotely attracted to women let alone caring for anyone outside of herself and her daughters, I feel very sure in calling her heterosexual. Not that there is anything wrong with people wanting her to be gay or LGBT people liking her but claiming she is obviously gay is a bit absurd.

 

[Gordon_4]

It's a joke.

That response is disingenuous bullshit from either side, and one someone of your observed political disposition would do well to be wary of fielding.

However, look at this fucking character and tell me that's a heterosexual with a straight face.

I could no more tell you Lady D is a lesbian by looking at her than I could have told you she was into anime. Mainly because people - as far as I've observed - do not wear signs over their heads breaking down key points of themselves for the benefit of others.

And even if she was, with modern vampires I just play it safe and assume they will likely fuck and bite basically anyone. They're evil, hedonistic monsters and probably don't care about the superficial judgements of people they consider to be walking cheeseburgers.

 

[Asita]

YES

Again, I have to point this out. Queer coding is not just about signifying that a character is gay, although Lady D is 100% a massive lesbian and this is canon. Queer coding is about making a character appealing to a gay audience. Oh my god, I wonder if this massive, tall, really femme, totally domme perfect queen who hangs out in a castle with a bunch of literal hags menacing heterosexual families and who is also a literal monster might have some gay appeal somewhere. I wonder.

...You know, that explains so much about why your recent posts about coding in the Matrix were so perplexingly wrong. You've completely misunderstood the concept of coding.

When people talk about coding, they are not talking about appeal. The term is invoked to discuss the real world parallels that the writing has ended up evocative of. For an easy example, most humanoid robots in fiction (Eg, Data in Star Trek TNG) end up being written in a way that evokes asexual and neurodivergent (particularly autistic) people. They don't understand the appeal of romance, usually struggle whenever faced with people acting in a way they perceive to be 'illogical', typically have difficulty with the intricacies of social interaction, humor, idioms, etc. And that's coding: when there are appreciable and/or intended parallels between something in fiction and something in reality.

In some cases, this is purely accidental. In other cases, it's very deliberate. Sometimes it's very unsubtle about that fact. For instance, Robert Heinlein's "The Puppet Masters" flat out tells you on multiple occasions that these insidious mind-controlling alien parasites are [according to Heinlein] a dead ringer for those dirty Russian communists. Other times it's too subtle. You might be surprised to learn, for instance, that Inherit the Wind intended to use its fictionalized adaptation of the trial as a parable about the dangers of McCarthyism, with the holier-than-thou furor of the town reflecting what the Red Scare was doing to America.

And of course, the efficacy of the coding can vary spectacularly wildly. Returning to fictional robots, for instance, a very common story element is a subplot questioning the robot's status as sapient, much less deserving of human rights. We're meant to see the evils of slavery and racism in that [sub]plot, seeing an uncomfortable repeat of how we irrationally dehumanized entire ethnicities. However, this runs into the problem that robots legitimately are not human and while we're getting closer to passing the Turing Test we honestly don't know if it's even possible to make a truly sapient machine or whether we'll just end up making something that can fake it because the AI is literally designed to suss out the figurative 'cheat sheet'. It's easy to miss in the moment, but as you think about it, there are very real questions that catastrophically undermine the intended analogy. What is supposed to be an indication of irrational bigotry is in actuality based in a question of feasibility that is very much the subject of extensive debate.

Netflix's Bright had a similar problem in that the writers made the prejudice against the Orcs (supposed to parallel that against African-Americans) a result of the other races never forgiving them for siding with the Dark Lord millennia ago, which is to say that they tried to make the prejudice based in some kind of relatable and rational (if still flawed) logic...and that causes all kinds of problems when we're supposed to see it as a reflection of real-life prejudice. Zootopia handled it better but got similar criticism in that in real life there's no credible fear in the back of anyone's mind that the distrusted minority will turn around and literally eat you if things go sideways. It basically tries to communicate an anti-prejudice story...by creating a scenario in which something beyond the exaggerated caricature that bigots pretend the subjects of their prejudice lapse into actually has an objectively true basis.

Point being that appeal has nothing to do with coding. Granted, coding can be welcome as thought provoking or providing at least some representation for an otherwise hitherto unacknowledged demographic (see again, Data). But on the other end of the spectrum it can also be downright insulting by being rooted in stereotypes, misconceptions, demonization (*coughcough* Shadow Over Innsmouth as a product of Lovecraft's disgust at miscegenation), unfortunate implications, or simply because it means that your demographic only ever seems to be 'represented' through how the bad guys are coded.

Bringing this back around, a character is queer coded if their mannerisms and experiences 'feel' queer despite the character or situation apparently not qualifying as such. There's a scene in X-Men 2 that makes for a really easy example of this, and that's when the gang hides out at Bobby's home and his family shows up. This results in a gay coded scene in which, to defuse the situation, he ends up 'coming out' to his parents as a mutant, with his mother even responding with the old "have you tried not being gay a mutant" line.

Coding is pattern recognition, not appeal. A character is LGBT coded if they are evocative of (but not explicitly a member of) an LGBT demographic (particularly in mannerisms), not because of whether or not LGBT audiences like the character.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I could look at Lady D's appearance and trailer debut and make a number of inferences about her, but none of them would have anything to do with her sexuality.

Do you ever think about sexuality though?

Like, joking aside, we all know straight people see what they want to see. That's how Disney gets away with having the Falcon and the Winter Soldier roll romantically through the grass together with their lips inches apart and reference gay twitter memes then have Anthony Mackie pull a "just dudes being dudes" and accuse gay people of ruining the precious and beautiful thing that is homosexuality. Most heterosexuals literally cannot comprehend the idea that any character whose sexuality is not explicitly referenced can be anything other than straight. The irony is that these same straights will then complain about gay characters being forced or rubbed in their faces when a character's sexuality is explicitly referenced, even though that's literally the only form of gay representation they are capable of understanding.

Now, you weren't aware of this of course (why would you be?) but a huge amount of the fan response to Lady Dimitrescu was from queer people. Queer people are a minority, but they occupy a disproportionate role in online spaces. That's why Disney does the bullshit described above, because having queer people get excited about your product is a good way to get it trending.. and I cannot stress to you how much queer people loved that character.

Again, joking aside, Lady D was not written or created as a queer character. But the response she received from queer people absolutely was not coincidental. You could not have intentionally designed a character who would resonate more with queer audiences. I know you don't see that. Why would you? You've literally never given it any thought, but it's true. They made a character who is basically Carmilla meets Greta Garbo meets Detox, and somehow when you look at that you see a heterosexual? They made a character with that camp as fuck delivery, and you see a heterosexual?

Sometimes I wonder if straight people even live in this culture they've made..

 

[Hawki]

Bringing this back around, a character is queer coded if their mannerisms and experiences 'feel' queer despite the character or situation apparently not qualifying as such. There's a scene in X-Men 2 that makes for a really easy example of this, and that's when the gang hides out at Bobby's home and his family shows up. This results in a gay coded scene in which, to defuse the situation, he ends up 'coming out' to his parents as a mutant, with his mother even responding with the old "have you tried not being gay a mutant" line.

So, you mentioned in your post about coding being done poorly. IMO, this is one of the most asinine pieces of allusion I've ever seen.

There's at least a chain of logic you can follow about asking someone "have you tried not being X," since sexuality doesn't manifest physically, but you've seen your son freeze stuff and ask "have you tried not being a mutant?" Okay, what does that even mean? How? What does "being a mutant" even mean when we're at the level of physical biology?

It's a case where the allusion doesn't make sense in-universe, while also failing at allusion IMO.

 

[Hawki]

Do you ever think about sexuality though?

Not nearly as much as you do.

That isn't meant as an insult (though I find your level of obsessions with it bizzare), I just don't think about it much. A character's sexuality has little to do with their merit as a character (or lack of it).

Like, joking aside, we all know straight people see what they want to see. That's how Disney gets away with having the Falcon and the Winter Soldier roll romantically through the grass together with their lips inches apart and reference gay twitter memes then have Anthony Mackie pull a "just dudes being dudes" and accuse gay people of ruining the precious and beautiful thing that is homosexuality.

The reference was easy for me to see, in case you're wondering. But again, sexuality has little to do with the show in terms of its story elements.

Most heterosexuals literally cannot comprehend the idea that any character whose sexuality is not explicitly referenced can be anything other than straight. The irony is that these same straights will then complain about gay characters being forced or rubbed in their faces when a character's sexuality is explicitly referenced, even though that's literally the only form of gay representation they are capable of understanding.

Probably. But if you've paid any attention to my posts, you'd have noticed that my stance is that forced romance is a thing regardless of the sexuality involved. FRIs irritate me in general.

Now, you weren't aware of this of course (why would you be?) but a huge amount of the fan response to Lady Dimitrescu was from queer people. Queer people are a minority, but they occupy a disproportionate role in online spaces. That's why Disney does the bullshit described above, because having queer people get excited about your product is a good way to get it trending.. and I cannot stress to you how much queer people loved that character.

Alright, but why? This isn't a sexuality thing, it's a character thing. The love for Lady D came from the moment she appeared on-screen, with nary characterization to be found.

Can you convey a lot of characterization in a short amount of time in a trailer? Yes. If you want a shining example of this, take the Overwatch cinematic trailer. In the space of a few minutes, it tells a contained story, provides worldbuilding, provides characterization and character development, and arguably even theme. Under the Five Elements of Story paradigm, it succeeds in every category. The RE: Village trailer, on the other hand, did none of those things. This isn't bad per se (obviously Capcom would want to keep some things ambiguous), but what does the Village trailer actually tell us? Namely that we're likely somewhere in eastern Europe, and the series has fully shifted into anthology-type horror, and that this time, it's vampires (later, we'd learn that werewolves were thrown in). This lady who's sucking Ethan's blood is likely the equivalent of Jack Baker, and these acolytes around her are probably the equivalent of the Bakers in general.

None of that has anything to do with sexuality. I don't care who this vampire lady is attracted to, all I knew (and arguably still know) is that RE is in a place that's very, VERY different from where it started off as, and to this day, I've still got mixed feelings about that, even after coming off RE6 this year.

So yes, I was surprised when Lady D blew up like she did.

Again, joking aside, Lady D was not written or created as a queer character. But the response she received from queer people absolutely was not coincidental. You could not have intentionally designed a character who would resonate more with queer audiences. I know you don't see that. Why would you? You've literally never given it any thought, but it's true. They made a character who is basically Carmilla meets Greta Garbo meets Detox, and somehow when you look at that you see a heterosexual? They made a character with that camp as fuck delivery, and you see a heterosexual?

Sometimes I wonder if straight people even live in this culture they've made..

Once again, you're trying to claim I said things that I didn't. What's bizzare is that my stance is in quote you responded to ("I could look at Lady D's appearance and trailer debut and make a number of inferences about her, but none of them would have anything to do with her sexuality.),yet you're claiming that "all I can see is a heterosexual."

So again, when I saw the trailer, Lady D's sexuality wasn't on my mind. What WAS on my mind was the stuff I described above. Again, to be clear, the realization that RE had fully embraced anthology-type horror, and was far removed from its roots, and to be frank, really not sure how I feel about that. Lady D was just part of that thing. Focusing on Lady D in that context is missing the forest for the trees. It would be like...I dunno, becoming obsessed with Salazar in RE4 trailers, while ignoring the obvious, DRASTIC shift in tone that had occurred. Yes, Salazar is fairly well known, but he didn't overshadow RE4 itself.

I mean, I've actually got some questions for you, so that we're on the same page:

1: How familiar with Resident Evil are you?

2: If you are familiar, how do you feel about the shift that began in Revelations 2, and was solidified in RE7?

3: How do you feel about Village as a whole?

 

[Gordon_4]

So, you mentioned in your post about coding being done poorly. IMO, this is one of the most asinine pieces of allusion I've ever seen.

There's at least a chain of logic you can follow about asking someone "have you tried not being X," since sexuality doesn't manifest physically, but you've seen your son freeze stuff and ask "have you tried not being a mutant?" Okay, what does that even mean? How? What does "being a mutant" even mean when we're at the level of physical biology?

It's a case where the allusion doesn't make sense in-universe, while also failing at allusion IMO.

Its allegorical. Asking Bobby essentially to suppress, indeed closet, his mutant powers the same way gays/lesbians/bisexuals and very likely trans people were required to in less enlightened decades. It’s not a perfect 1:1 situation but it still works at demonstrating the bigotry mutants experience.

 

[Hawki]

Its allegorical. Asking Bobby essentially to suppress, indeed closet, his mutant powers the same way gays/lesbians/bisexuals and very likely trans people were required to in less enlightened decades. It’s not a perfect 1:1 situation but it still works at demonstrating the bigotry mutants experience.

I know it's allagorical. It just fails as both allagory and in-universe.

 

[Cicada 5]

Do you ever think about sexuality though?

Like, joking aside, we all know straight people see what they want to see. That's how Disney gets away with having the Falcon and the Winter Soldier roll romantically through the grass together with their lips inches apart and reference gay twitter memes then have Anthony Mackie pull a "just dudes being dudes" and accuse gay people of ruining the precious and beautiful thing that is homosexuality. Most heterosexuals literally cannot comprehend the idea that any character whose sexuality is not explicitly referenced can be anything other than straight. The irony is that these same straights will then complain about gay characters being forced or rubbed in their faces when a character's sexuality is explicitly referenced, even though that's literally the only form of gay representation they are capable of understanding.

From what I've seen, most people who shipped Bucky and Sam weren't LGBT but straight, white women who fetishize male sexual relationships.

Again, joking aside, Lady D was not written or created as a queer character. But the response she received from queer people absolutely was not coincidental. You could not have intentionally designed a character who would resonate more with queer audiences.

Sure you could. I've seen plenty who did resonate with such a demographic and who, unlike with Lady Dimestrescu whose queerness is fan canon at best, actually were LGBT.

They made a character who is basically Carmilla meets Greta Garbo meets Detox, and somehow when you look at that you see a heterosexual?

The only one of these characters she even remotely resembles is Carmilla and that is because of both of them being blood suckers.

You want to see Lady D as queer, that's your prerogative but let's not pretend her design was based on anything other than a fetish for tall, buxom women.

 

[Gordon_4]

I know it's allagorical. It just fails as both allagory and in-universe.

 

[Terminal Blue]

For an easy example, most humanoid robots in fiction (Eg, Data in Star Trek TNG) end up being written in a way that evokes asexual and neurodivergent (particularly autistic) people.

So, I know this isn't the point but bear with me because I think it's relevant. I generally don't think that's something very many neurodivergent people would agree with. I think it's something that's far more indicative of the way neurotypical people tend to imagine neurodivergent people (particularly autistic people). In that sense, it's dangerously close autistic minstrelsy.

I'm sure there are plenty of autistic people out there who love and identify with Data as a character on some level. Heck, I certainly have a real thing with identifying with robots and machine characters in science fiction (this avatar is not entirely just for show) but that's not because they're cold and unemotional and logical, I've never met an autistic person who is any of those things, it's because they're in a position of otherness. They're outsiders. They're "monsters" (in a very abstract sense).

I think (particularly if you're neurotypical yourself) you should probably think really hard about what you're actually saying when you compare autistic people to robots, and whether that's an accurate or charitable description, or about what it would mean to actually live with that stereotype.

And to try and tie this back to the main point, while I do actually agree with what you're saying, what this should probably tell you is that coding is aimed at particular groups. The way neurodivergent or queer people imagine themselves will typically be different to the way others imagine people like them. Compared to neurodiversity, queerness has an incredibly long history of coding going back well over a hundred years at this point, and because of this Queer coding has often exhibited a very clear distinction between the way queers have been coded in heterosexual culture and the way they are coded in queer culture itself. There is a degree of tactical polyvalence, sure, but there is no single form of queer coding, it largely depends who you are coding for, and whose experience you are intending to represent.

You're fundamentally correct in that coding is not synonymous with appeal, but appeal is nonetheless an important part of it.

For example, the fact that (ostensibly straight) women can be coded in ways that are appealing to a lot of queer men is not an accident. It has to do with the position that queer men see themselves occupying in society, the complex relationship between queerness, masculinity and femininity, and the cultural reference points that make up gay male culture. Cis straight people will rarely pick up on that, but it is there, it is a very real part of the way many queer men engage with media, and sometimes it is very, very intentional, particularly when queer people make media for themselves.

But I think you're probably correct that I've been using the word coding somewhat too broadly. What I'm actually mostly talking about in this case is disidentification, the process by which marginalized people (particularly queer people) see their experience reflected within a dominant culture that is not intentionally produced for them.

Sure you could.

You certainly couldn't.

If recent years have told us anything, it's that having characters who are "actually LGBT" means shit, and is more often than not just a sad, desperate attempt at queerbaiting primarily done for the sake of straight shippers.

LGBT people generally don't need to be told a character is LGBT (in the pre-release marketing so it can be easily shuffled aside for the Russian and Chinese releases). There were always ways to figure that out, long before it was even permissible to have LGBT characters in media.

 

[Cicada 5]

So, I know this isn't the point but bear with me because I think it's relevant. I generally don't think that's something very many neurodivergent people would agree with. I think it's something that's far more indicative of the way neurotypical people tend to imagine neurodivergent people (particularly autistic people). In that sense, it's dangerously close autistic minstrelsy.

I'm sure there are plenty of autistic people out there who love and identify with Data as a character on some level. Heck, I certainly have a real thing with identifying with robots and machine characters in science fiction (this avatar is not entirely just for show) but that's not because they're cold and unemotional and logical, I've never met an autistic person who is any of those things, it's because they're in a position of otherness. They're outsiders. They're "monsters" (in a very abstract sense).

I think (particularly if you're neurotypical yourself) you should probably think really hard about what you're actually saying when you compare autistic people to robots, and whether that's an accurate or charitable description, or about what it would mean to actually live with that stereotype.

And to try and tie this back to the main point, while I do actually agree with what you're saying, what this should probably tell you is that coding is aimed at particular groups. The way neurodivergent or queer people imagine themselves will typically be different to the way others imagine people like them. Compared to neurodiversity, queerness has an incredibly long history of coding going back well over a hundred years at this point, and because of this Queer coding has often exhibited a very clear distinction between the way queers have been coded in heterosexual culture and the way they are coded in queer culture itself. There is a degree of tactical polyvalence, sure, but there is no single form of queer coding, it largely depends who you are coding for, and whose experience you are intending to represent.

You're fundamentally correct in that coding is not synonymous with appeal, but appeal is nonetheless an important part of it.

For example, the fact that (ostensibly straight) women can be coded in ways that are appealing to a lot of queer men is not an accident. It has to do with the position that queer men see themselves occupying in society, the complex relationship between queerness, masculinity and femininity, and the cultural reference points that make up gay male culture. Cis straight people will rarely pick up on that, but it is there, it is a very real part of the way many queer men engage with media, and sometimes it is very, very intentional, particularly when queer people make media for themselves.

But I think you're probably correct that I've been using the word coding somewhat too broadly. What I'm actually mostly talking about in this case is disidentification, the process by which marginalized people (particularly queer people) see their experience reflected within a dominant culture that is not intentionally produced for them.



You certainly couldn't.

If recent years have told us anything, it's that having characters who are "actually LGBT" means shit, and is more often than not just a sad, desperate attempt at queerbaiting primarily done for the sake of straight shippers.

LGBT people generally don't need to be told a character is LGBT (in the pre-release marketing so it can be easily shuffled aside for the Russian and Chinese releases). There were always ways to figure that out, long before it was even permissible to have LGBT characters in media.

I am not talking about queer-baiting characters.

 

[Silvanus]

There is some of both either way. There are muscular men as male power fantasies. There are also sexually empowered women. Empowered. It's also a power fantasy. Attractive female characters appeal to women as well.

Bikinis-as-armour hardly benefits the power fantasy angle. It's quite transparently designed with men in mind. On the flip-side, insanely-muscled 8-pack-toting male characters are not designed with women in mind.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Bikinis-as-armour hardly benefits the power fantasy angle. It's quite transparently designed with men in mind. On the flip-side, insanely-muscled 8-pack-toting male characters are not designed with women in mind.

I mean there are, occasionally, examples of bikini-esc clad women working as power fantasies. They are much more rare than the normal proponents of the theory believe though.
Nikaido and Noi from Dorohedoro tend to fit the bill. That said, a lot of the appeal is that they aren't bikini clad all of the time and they're written by a woman. You can tell they're a power fantasy instead of a sexy fantasy because the market isn't being flooded with sexy licensed prints and figurines despite the many times they show up in the manga naked or dressed in fetish gear.

I realize the "written by a woman" part is an awkward phrase, but we're dealing with a medium where some people point to the equivalent of shirtless Senator Armstrong and say "but look at that sexualized man!" and if that doesn't illustrate the gulf between what some guys think women are attracted to and what most women are actually attracted to, I don't know what will.

 

[tstorm823]

Bikinis-as-armour hardly benefits the power fantasy angle. It's quite transparently designed with men in mind. On the flip-side, insanely-muscled 8-pack-toting male characters are not designed with women in mind.

I mean, sometimes. Chris Redfield isn't designed to appeal to women, but Leon Kennedy definitely is. There's a mix of things in the world.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It's fine, just don't make it more than it was

And don't make it less than it was either. Because it was self aware enough that in the first or 2nd episode it made a joke about the outfits and turned it round into an actual point about empowerment because it a world with energy shields and weapons that can punch through thick steel plating, combat armour is kinda pointless.

Could you find a second, less ambiguous example of this supposed escalation of calls for censoring Bayonetta 3?

Probably if I searched long enough. I can point out based on the video linked previously by me that Anita and likely others aren't fans of Bayonetta so would cheer it's changes.

Do you have any actual knowledge or evidence showing BMX XXX actually sold well or do you have to believe it did for your argument to make sense?

Well compared to what?
The easy way to tell it sold well is just how easy it is to get a copy of it still with lots of second hand places having plenty of copies.

Oh no, we've got plenty of criticism to go around. There the whole damseling thing, women in refrigerators, wholly inappropriate adventuring clothes not shred between genders, oodles and oodles of sexy anime children, etc, etc, etc.
And, much to the consternation of a certain batch of weird nerds, it's been getting better. Like Satinavian said:

Yet much to the consternation of a certain batch of weird nerds we're still seeing people trying to link such things to all the world ills and for how many years at E3 was it Anita claimed things were getting better or were getting worse for women's representation. Pretty sure she only claimed last years was finally getting better after saying it wasn't since 2016 until now.

And gave Marlon Brando bulimia, yeah

Which guess what no-one gave 2 shits about mostly because it doesn't count when it's guys mostly.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Why should I waste time "clarifying how things aren't my position" if I didn't express them in the first place?

Because like it or not those things kind of are connected to your position. Like if some-one said they were going to cut the grass and when you asked abut their mower they looked at you confused there would be an expectation to clarify how they were planning to cut the grass if they were planning to go out with nail scissors and clip each individual blade of grass for example.

Christ, we must have done, if you routinely see one in every two women in the street wearing bikinis, leather miniskirts and chockers, etc.

Most women I see are just wearing relatively normal clothes.

Well it depends on the women but I have notice quite a few chokers on non business women before lol

8-packs... ahh yes, because the "massively OTT muscled" physique is really there to appeal to the female gaze.

View attachment 4596

Fun fact the artist behind that comic later admitted she actually was more into muscle dudes than femboy types lol.

If you're genuinely arguing that cultural depictions are unimportant to psychology, then you obviously don't know what you're talking about. At all.

It's comparative. On a scale of things depictions in media tend to be near the bottom of importance in terms of influence on people.

The "rest of the argument" was just you making shit up that I never said, and then accusing me of believing it. So, just the regular drivel, worth ignoring.

Same for the "upset by breasts" garbage. From now on, I'm just gonna skip right over the strawmen and stop addressing them, 'cos it's a waste of time.

And yet you won't clarify your position. Seemingly object to sexy being shown in some cases as shorthand for power or agency and seemingly prefer more chaste women........

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Some, sure, though pantry-flashing high school girls and assassins that breath through their skin are not generally cited as examples of that

Points to women cosplaying and Quiet
Seems some very much do see them that way though.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yes.

Is this news to you? Did you seriously think there was such a thing as an "objective" opinion in media analysis. Good thing we disabused you of that notion.

To any sane person, subjectivity is implied. It does not even need to be stated.

Yet it is the argument that objective harm is being done and that there are objective good and bad ways to portray characters in media that is where the issue comes in. If there is no agency then media portrayal means nothing and can do no harm but if there is the perception of agency or would be agency then the argument of harm and good and bad ways to portray a character can be presented.

Otherwise we may as well chalk this whole argument down to and settle it by who can get most people to shout the loudest.

Except, once again, this is not actually a discussion about the inherent worth or otherwise of "sexy characters". That discussion is fundamentally unworthy of adults. It's a discussion over representation, which is different because representations, as the name suggests, represent real things. They contain meaning and information that concerns real things. The way you think about "sexy characters" will be indicative of the way you think about sexiness both inside and outside of media. You'

But representation without the idea of agency even fictional agency isn't positive. It's the difference between Jessica Rabbit choosing to be a scientist and Jessica Rabbit being put in a labcoat and called a scientist while doing nothing else to establish her as a scientist.

Also your comment about sexy inside and outside of media. Thank you for helping support my case that on some level people who dislike sexy women in media have similar distain for their real life counterparts. I mean I have said in this forum before this is somewhat a proxy battle being done by people who dislike women IRL being allowed to be sexy so are trying to change culture by targeting depictions in media.

It's a joke.

However, look at this fucking character and tell me that's a heterosexual with a straight face.

I dunno maybe she is from the era when that look was the style and it's not some idea of her dressing up as a throwback.

Yes. I actually do realise that.

Like, you do know Dracula is incredibly homoerotic right? Like, countless books have been written on the weird amount of queer subtext and coding in Dracula, on Bram Stoker's weird relationship to (and anxieties about) sexuality which he channelled into his work, and how this carries over into subsequent depictions of vampires in media.

Pretty sure that was just the general sexual repression of the era. Unless we're going to get into the whole Dracula dies because a man sticks wood into him.........