A point I had never considered about sexism in gaming...is it really a valid point?

[Elijin]

First up, the multiple claims of 'Its a joke' / 'Its novelty content' / 'its a alt skin' attempting to dismiss this.
You guys get that you're saying its okay she's sexualised because its a joke, not the main skin, or just as a throwaway gag, right? Those things dont stop it from being sexualised, but they apparently excuse it, from the vibe of the thread.

Moving onto point B, which is 'But is this really sexualised, and not empowerment or simply a weird costume?'

This outfit is literally the icon of a major pornography distributor and trend setter. The bunny outfit has been a status quo for male concept of sexualised women for what, 60 years now? In the western world, that dark, body hugging outfit, with a poofy tail and bunny ears is synonymous with playboy, and indicative of a sex icon. And has been for decades.

Anyone who even for a moment tries to argue this isnt straight up sexualisation is either living under a rock, or kidding themselves.

Why is there even a question about whether it could be something else due to practicality or character choice when its the very image of Western Pornography in the mainstream?


Also to repeate what @Vigormortis said, LoL sexualising things? No wai!

 

[Ragnar47183]

My issue is not with disscussion of personality or any of the like. My issue stems from the use of "Objectification" to describe the interactions with a character within the video game to match a sensationalist movement happening in the industry now.

A hero is Lol is an object. They are made for you to control. In the case of Lol, a hero can not be objectified by a costume because they are already objects. An argument could be made that player characters in more story driven games like Uncharted or Bioshock fall in to the category of characters and could therefor be objectified.

I think the difference falls to whether or not the character in question is being presented in a story. In a game like Lol, the hero's purpose is to act as a catalyst for the human player's commands. In a game like Bioshock, the playable character's main purpose is to tell a story and the human input is the equivalent of turning a page in a book. Its how you advance the story.

For an apt example, lets take a game like COD. When you hop into a multi player game, would you consider the person you are controlling a character or an object? Is it the same as controlling the playable character in the campaign mode? Would adding a sexy bunny costume change anything about the person in the multi player game? Would it change anything about the playable character in the main campaign?

I think we can all agree that you can't objectify an object so its just a matter of determining where the line of object ends and character begins. In this particular case I dont think it could be said that a hero in Lol is anything more than an object.

Also by all means you could hate whatever skin for whatever character you want. I just think you need to use the right words and not jump on the objectification bandwagon that everyone seems to be on about.

Okay, that makes more sense and I understand what you mean now. I agree with you to an extent, as it feels like maybe in some ways parts of the gaming media and community have become...hyper-sensitive to the issue, let's say? I think that's as good a way of putting it as any.

Some of the comments in this post, particularly the one earlier from someone showing the image to co-workers and all the males raging about objectification while the women just kinda shrugged their shoulders and either didn't care one way or the other or just thought it was cool that a female was kicking that much ass, make me think that perhaps for all our attempts towards maturity as a medium, maybe we're not READY for it.

To me, maturity isn't idealism and outrage over an issue and demanding it not exist EVER. Being mature is being unhappy that an issue exists and, if you feel strongly enough, working towards changing it, but particularly for a concept like this one, understanding and accepting that you're dealing with forces of human nature and cold hard cash. Both of which are very difficult to quickly affect through traditional social-movement options unless you get lucky or plan it very, very well.

I feel like some folks have this war going on to be more mature about sex and gender and all this stuff, but some are not acting with the sense, calm, and clarity that true maturity brings. They're jumping to conclusions, painting things with a VERY big brush sometimes, and generally trying to force drastic changes without stopping to take stock of the status quo and push for intelligent changes. They loose sight of some simple things like what you've mentioned and some of us get swept up into it. Hell, just personally I get swept up and end up asking myself questions like: "I like the Saint's Row series...am I an asshole for that?" or "I like the occasional sexy skin or outfit on a character, am I bad for that?"

It's funny...I remember a friend saying that gaming was going through it's awkward teenage years because it doesn't know how to deal with girls. I think that time has long since passed us. Now we're going through those 18-20 years where gaming has become a newly-minted adult and it wants to do ADULT THINGS! LOOK! IT HAS OPINIONS ON THINGS! IT HAS OPINIONS AND IT'S AN ADULT SO YOU MUST LISTEN TO IT! Clearly the things that it thinks are bad MUST be the WORST THINGS IN THE WORLD and we HAVE to address them RIGHT NOW! BURNING SOCIAL ACTIVISM!

...meanwhile movies and literature sit at the next table sipping coffee and rolling their eyes.

I completely agree. People are to quick to jump to conclusions without thinking about it first. It ends up painting the industry in a far worse light than it should. I would say the there is a lack of well written female characters in the industry but I dont feel the gap is as large as people make it out to be. I also dont feel that a lot of the games the come under fire do so for the right reasons.

People want change NOW and they arent willing to take a step back and realize that things are changing and have been changing for years. It just takes time. This isn't something that going to happen over night. I would love to see more well written female characters, just as I want to see more well written male characters.

Hell I would rather play Ellie in The Last of Us than Joel. I hate Joel. I think hes poorly written. I would rather play Elizabeth than Booker in Bioshock Infinite. Take a look at all the well rounded characters in Borderlands for example! Change is happening people. It is just going to take a while.

The most effective thing you can do as a gamer right now is to vote with your wallet. If there is a game that has something you like (such as a strong female lead, or whatever group you identify with) then buy it at full price. Buy it directly from the devs if possible.

Then the games you dont like? (Such as Duke Nukem Forever which is shit) Dont buy them. Try to convince your friends not to buy them. Buy them a copy of the game you like instead.

At the end of the day all of these threads arent going to change anything for devs or publishers. These threads are for us as gamers to use and discuss on. Dont feel that you are fighting for a side when talking to someone. Just discuss it. Also quit focusing on death threats so damn much. If someone claims to be apart of a group and has given a death threat, that doesnt mean the group as a whole sent the death threat. People that do that are on the fringe of reality and need to be treated as such.

Anita and Zoe dont matter either. They will eventually fade from the spot light and will be a minor footnote in the history books. Quit getting so worked up about them.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

First up, the multiple claims of 'Its a joke' / 'Its novelty content' / 'its a alt skin' attempting to dismiss this.
You guys get that you're saying its okay she's sexualised because its a joke, not the main skin, or just as a throwaway gag, right? Those things dont stop it from being sexualised, but they apparently excuse it, from the vibe of the thread.

Moving onto point B, which is 'But is this really sexualised, and not empowerment or simply a weird costume?'

This outfit is literally the icon of a major pornography distributor and trend setter. The bunny outfit has been a status quo for male concept of sexualised women for what, 60 years now? In the western world, that dark, body hugging outfit, with a poofy tail and bunny ears is synonymous with playboy, and indicative of a sex icon. And has been for decades.

Anyone who even for a moment tries to argue this isnt straight up sexualisation is either living under a rock, or kidding themselves.

Why is there even a question about whether it could be something else due to practicality or character choice when its the very image of Western Pornography in the mainstream?


Also to repeate what @Vigormortis said, LoL sexualising things? No wai!

It's a question because context means something, and because I don't think a war on sexuality is a license to impinge on anyone's freedom of expression via dress, speech, action, etc. Yes, it's pretty obvious that the outfit is a reference to Playboy, and I can still see the argument that it's sexist and such. However a few points come to mind:

1: While I know this isn't much of a defense at all I feel it's a valid point, I believe the art and skin were at least partially designed by IronStylus, a Rioter and art-department head who has a penchant for putting MORE clothes on women as opposed to less. The guy has a lot of class and he's done some really good stuff. Hell, I believe one of his favorite, if not his #1 favorite, character (at least to draw) is Leona. He also did VERY well on her Pool party skin. ( http://ddragon.leagueoflegends.com/cdn/img/champion/splash/Leona_4.jpg )

All things considered? I'd call that pretty well done. Picks up the theme, not terribly sexualized but still fun, just an all-around solid skin that fits the character. I feel like when it comes to balancing what the horny crowd wants with being somewhat classy, the Parrot tends to deliver very well unless his hands are tied. I definitely see where the Riven skin can be considered just objectification, but compare it to something like Katarina's skins or Sejuani's old 'fur-clad bikini' and I think we're stepping in the right direction.

2: I don't like the idea of just shutting down all sexualizing of women. Not just for the sake of female expression, but for the sake of men as well. Think of some of the arabic countries where women who show faces or eyes are considered indecent or scandalous. Their repression of women and of sexuality in general doesn't just hurt the women, it hurts the men too. Given the stories of rapes of little girls and such over in those areas, it feels like all their habits of covering up their women and denying their sexuality does is further degrade their ability to control themselves. I'm all for making sure men and women are treated equally and making sure no one of either gender gets overwhelmingly objectified, but everyone has urges and needs. We need to learn to handle them, not lock them in a closet and pretend they don't exist.

The guys who sexually assault a girl in a low-cut top and tight jeans? Un-fucking-acceptable. She is NOT at fault. She is not "dressing in slut-wear" or anything else. THEY are at fault because they cannot control themselves. They need to be punished, and then re-educated to be 1000% sure that they understand that a woman is just as free as a guy to dress as they like and it is THEIR responsibility to control themselves regardless of what the girl is wearing, or doing, or anything else. Shutting down notions and public expressions of sexuality isn't going to help future generations of guys manage their natural instincts, educating them, helping them, and holding them accountable will.

Instead of raging about how awful it is that this is sexist, instead of saying "this is deplorable!" let's try saying: "Okay, why do you like that? How does it make you feel? Can you understand that this is only the smallest, tiniest part of the spectrum of sex and sexuality?"

----------------------------

The fact that it's sexualization isn't, or shouldn't really, be up for debate. What's important is the context, and what we do about that issue, how we react. Taking action based solely on our outrage or idealism doesn't help anyone.

 

[Elijin]

It's a question because context means something, and because I don't think a war on sexuality is a license to impinge on anyone's freedom of expression via dress, speech, action, etc. Yes, it's pretty obvious that the outfit is a reference to Playboy, and I can still see the argument that it's sexist and such. However a few points come to mind:

1: While I know this isn't much of a defense at all I feel it's a valid point, I believe the art and skin were at least partially designed by IronStylus, a Rioter and art-department head who has a penchant for putting MORE clothes on women as opposed to less. The guy has a lot of class and he's done some really good stuff. Hell, I believe one of his favorite, if not his #1 favorite, character (at least to draw) is Leona. He also did VERY well on her Pool party skin. ( http://ddragon.leagueoflegends.com/cdn/img/champion/splash/Leona_4.jpg )

All things considered? I'd call that pretty well done. Picks up the theme, not terribly sexualized but still fun, just an all-around solid skin that fits the character. I feel like when it comes to balancing what the horny crowd wants with being somewhat classy, the Parrot tends to deliver very well unless his hands are tied. I definitely see where the Riven skin can be considered just objectification, but compare it to something like Katarina's skins or Sejuani's old 'fur-clad bikini' and I think we're stepping in the right direction.

2: I don't like the idea of just shutting down all sexualizing of women. Not just for the sake of female expression, but for the sake of men as well. Think of some of the arabic countries where women who show faces or eyes are considered indecent or scandalous. Their repression of women and of sexuality in general doesn't just hurt the women, it hurts the men too. Given the stories of rapes of little girls and such over in those areas, it feels like all their habits of covering up their women and denying their sexuality does is further degrade their ability to control themselves. I'm all for making sure men and women are treated equally and making sure no one of either gender gets overwhelmingly objectified, but everyone has urges and needs. We need to learn to handle them, not lock them in a closet and pretend they don't exist.

The guys who sexually assault a girl in a low-cut top and tight jeans? Un-fucking-acceptable. She is NOT at fault. She is not "dressing in slut-wear" or anything else. THEY are at fault because they cannot control themselves. They need to be punished, and then re-educated to be 1000% sure that they understand that a woman is just as free as a guy to dress as they like and it is THEIR responsibility to control themselves regardless of what the girl is wearing, or doing, or anything else. Shutting down notions and public expressions of sexuality isn't going to help future generations of guys manage their natural instincts, educating them, helping them, and holding them accountable will.

Instead of raging about how awful it is that this is sexist, instead of saying "this is deplorable!" let's try saying: "Okay, why do you like that? How does it make you feel? Can you understand that this is only the smallest, tiniest part of the spectrum of sex and sexuality?"

----------------------------

The fact that it's sexualization isn't, or shouldn't really, be up for debate. What's important is the context, and what we do about that issue, how we react. Taking action based solely on our outrage or idealism doesn't help anyone.

Its worth noting that I never really made any comments landing on either side of whether this is a good or bad thing. I just find it absurd some people are trying to stretch their logic to argue that whats essentially the uniform for mainstream western sex icons, is not a case of sexualisation.

 

[rbstewart7263]

so I just showed this picture to some of my coworkers, some play games some don't care at all the answer though was pretty unanimous. The guys that play games were all disgusted at what a shameless act of sexisim this is, the ones that don't play games thought she looked cute.

The girls the ones that play games and the ones that don't all said the same thing "what's wrong with a girl being/feeling sexy?"

I don't really know how to tell them that they're being objectified since as far as they're concerned they think that the guys that can't handle a girl wanting to look and feel sexy are probably just insecure of themselves... I don't know if I agree but when women don't react in the same way guys do to the portrayal of women in video games what does that mean?

this isn't the first time either the same thing happened with Zero Suit Samus and Bayonneta, most non-gamer girls just think it's awesome that a hot chick is the star and can kick ass :S

I dont care for this term but Im lacking sleep and cant think of a better one. Isnt it mansplaining to tell them what is happening to them? its all perspective. Whats happening whether they are being objectified or if that is even bad is dependant from person to person.

Put another way, theres a reason that the majority of the crowd at xoxo is full of white men.lol

 

[Tsukuyomi]

Its worth noting that I never really made any comments landing on either side of whether this is a good or bad thing. I just find it absurd some people are trying to stretch their logic to argue that whats essentially the uniform for mainstream western sex icons, is not a case of sexualisation.

Yeah, sorry about that. I got a little carried away. I go into stream of consciousness mode very easily after a certain point. I think it was because your post had a very similar feel to me to some of the others I've read who end up being very closed-minded about the issue and demand great things and great change without thinking of the context of things and if the change they demand is even the best for their cause. They're merely working on the outrage and the principle of the thing. Sorry again.

I dont care for this term but Im lacking sleep and cant think of a better one. Isnt it mansplaining to tell them what is happening to them? its all perspective. Whats happening whether they are being objectified or if that is even bad is dependant from person to person.

Put another way, theres a reason that the majority of the crowd at xoxo is full of white men.lol

I got the gist of what you were saying. I agree that everyone has a different view on what's objectification. The problem is that there's some folks out there who, as with anything like this, want THEIR view of it to be the 'official' one and whatever they see as offensive wiped out.

Personally I just find the female opinions interesting. Knowing full well what it is and all, their reactions are nice to see. Obviously not every woman is going to have the same reaction, but it's nice to know that at least some women out there aren't filled with rage every time they see something that panders or is fan-service.

 

[sageoftruth]

To answer that question, we need to ask whether she is a character who cares about feeling sexy. If the answer is "no", I would just write it off as having a reason that has nothing to do with the story or her character.