I don't think you'd be able to change the location without changing the narrative.
You'd have to rebrand 47's target as something other than a strip club owner. Or at the very least, have the mission take place at his house or somewhere away from his place of business.
Alternatively, and without changing the location, have 47 break into a closed strip club to kill the owner. And have no strippers present there at the time.
But I don't necessarily like this idea. Background decoration does serve a purpose, crass as it may sound.
Be it flower planter pots, or NPCs who serve no purpose other than to be gawked at and/or killed; by removing them, you're removing a piece of background decoration, and the game becomes more empty and less immersive as a result.
Making the target the owner of a sleazy bar or nightclub (or even a drug dealer in an empty warehouse) would not change the over arcing narrative (in both cases the target is just a stepping stone to get to the big bad). Don't get me wrong, I realize that everything put into the game serve as 'decoration' and helps establish the mood of the game. But why are we so intent on having sexualized female bodies as a standard decoration? What would we lose if we changed them out for something that doesn't have close ties to archaic gender stereotypes?
They are questions worth discussing at least, whatever or not you think sexy women as decoration has a place in mainstream media.
NuclearKangaroo said:
so? first of all im not sure in the western worl the statistics are that high, second, just assume most sex workers in a game do so willingly, and in hitman, where they are not, you are killing their abusive employer
also cant a game has a stripper club just for the sake of having a stripper club?
The statistics for forced prostitution are actually higher in Europe (at least 90% of sex workers in the Netherlands are estimated to be working under some form of unlawful coercion, for example). So those statistics are legit, even if you do't want to consider their implications. Also, just assuming that "they are all volunteers" in a game is kind of like glossing over the Stalinistic purges in the USSR in a movie about Stalin because it would take away from the story about 'jovial Uncle Joe'. You can certainly do it, but it is deeply dishonest and serves to mislead people about how terrible these things really are.
Also, why include a strip club just to include a strip club? Why is it a location that's preferable to a location that doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes of women as passive objects to be ogled by men? Just saying that it should be in there "for the sake of it" isn't a convincing argument for perpetuating shitty gender stereotypes, just like throwing in some casual blackface into a game or movie would be deeply offensive even if "it is just some humor".
NuclearKangaroo said:
so? should the player fail immediately if they kill a bystander? you can also go guns blazing on pretty much any other mission in the game
Didn't say that. I am merely pointing out that the whole "the game punishes it!"-argument rings very hollow. Punishment in-game would be forced game overs, less assets on later missions (like Blood Money, for example) or other things that impeded player progress.
she is a cosplayer, she choose to dress like that, how is that sexualized, and regardless, the things i find the most attractive about her is her face and smile, so really concentrate on that for the sake of the argument
The character she's cosplaying as goes around in all situations in a bikini, and the other elements of her clothes are more about accentuating her bare skin that covering it.
Are you honestly saying Rikku's character design is NOT sexualised? Come On dude, I LOVE litchi from Blazblue for her characterization, but I'm not going to pretend her design hasn't got strong sexual and fetish baiting elements. You are not being honest when you point at Rikku and say elements of her design are not sexualised.
i havent played FFX, but havent you thought its simply a matter of art direction such as in the case above?
regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases
is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women
Well, you can really make anything seem like an object if you try hard enough. Te shopkeepers in games like Skyrim or Resident Evil have no other purpose but to sell you loot. The enemies you murder in droves have no other purpose but being hacked into pieces for slaughter.
Even if you could argue that a male storekeeper is just an object for the player to interact with, is that the only, or at least predominant, way in which players interact with non-enemy male NPCs?
Preety much yea, alot of them have to look for you for guidance in order to complete quest and usually have no initiative to just do it themselves. Their bodies tend to be left in the street as if they are trash ( at least on PC)
Are you talking about Skyrim? I wasn't trying to target that game specifically. I was just pointing out its use of resources compared to other games and how that does a lot to avoid problems with objectification. Sure, most characters give you quests to do things that they can't do on their own and can be killed if you desire, but at the same time, they have well-defined lives (for which shopkeeping is just a job), characteristics, and sometimes even deep backstories. In the case of the female characters, even the most sexualized ones aren't just there to be looked at and won for completing an object, but the also have those same personalities and lives that actual people do. Yeah, the game may not go as deep as could on everything, but it at least makes a noticeable effort.
Like I said earlier, that's what separates the object from the character. If the NPC has some actual personality (outside of "I'm so sexy!" or pure blandness), history, and/or life outside of what they mean to the player (whether shown or heavily implied), then they cease to simply be an object. They are, as far as the game world is concerned, actual people despite what the player may do to them. And again, I understand that we can't do that to every NPC while still keeping a sense of scale in-tact (e.g. Skyrim's cities feel underpopulated at times), but in the grand scheme of the world, having a diverse cast, including of gender, of personalized NPCs can go a long way to actually making women seem less like objects in the world and more like people.
Well, you can really make anything seem like an object if you try hard enough. Te shopkeepers in games like Skyrim or Resident Evil have no other purpose but to sell you loot. The enemies you murder in droves have no other purpose but being hacked into pieces for slaughter.
Even if you could argue that a male storekeeper is just an object for the player to interact with, is that the only, or at least predominant, way in which players interact with non-enemy male NPCs?
Preety much yea, alot of them have to look for you for guidance in order to complete quest and usually have no initiative to just do it themselves. Their bodies tend to be left in the street as if they are trash ( at least on PC)
Are you talking about Skyrim? I wasn't trying to target that game specifically. I was just pointing out its use of resources compared to other games and how that does a lot to avoid problems with objectification. Sure, most characters give you quests to do things that they can't do on their own and can be killed if you desire, but at the same time, they have well-defined lives (for which shopkeeping is just a job), characteristics, and sometimes even deep backstories. In the case of the female characters, even the most sexualized ones aren't just there to be looked at and won for completing an object, but the also have those same personalities and lives that actual people do. Yeah, the game may not go as deep as could on everything, but it at least makes a noticeable effort.
Like I said earlier, that's what separates the object from the character. If the NPC has some actual personality (outside of "I'm so sexy!" or pure blandness), history, and/or life outside of what they mean to the player (whether shown or heavily implied), then they cease to simply be an object. They are, as far as the game world is concerned, actual people despite what the player may do to them. And again, I understand that we can't do that to every NPC while still keeping a sense of scale in-tact (e.g. Skyrim's cities feel underpopulated at times), but in the grand scheme of the world, having a diverse cast, including of gender, of personalized NPCs can go a long way to actually making women seem less like objects in the world and more like people.
But the thing is, alot of men and women thing their attractiveness is one of their major traits. Alot of men and women like being eye candy. Surem, not all women or men should be, but is it somehow wrong?
Anyway, I really need to get going, so most likely this will be the last post until later.
The statistics for forced prostitution are actually higher in Europe (at least 90% of sex workers in the Netherlands are estimated to be working under some form of unlawful coercion, for example). So those statistics are legit, even if you do't want to consider their implications. Also, just assuming that "they are all volunteers" in a game is kind of like glossing over the Stalinistic purges in the USSR in a movie about Stalin because it would take away from the story about 'jovial Uncle Joe'. You can certainly do it, but it is deeply dishonest and serves to mislead people about how terrible these things really are.
yes you can do that, if the purpose of the film/game is not to make any commentary on real world issues
Gethsemani said:
Also, why include a strip club just to include a strip club? Why is it a location that's preferable to a location that doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes of women as passive objects to be ogled by men? Just saying that it should be in there "for the sake of it" isn't a convincing argument for perpetuating shitty gender stereotypes, just like throwing in some casual blackface into a game or movie would be deeply offensive even if "it is just some humor".
because thats the way it is, is an artistic choice
strip clubs are places where women are ogled by men, is real life an stereotype?
also theres a difference between blackfaces and stripper clubs, people accept the existence of strip clubs, some women willingly provide sexual dances there and some men willingly pay them for that, theres no oppression there, no objectification, hell one could argue the women there take advantage of men's libido
Gethsemani said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
so? should the player fail immediately if they kill a bystander? you can also go guns blazing on pretty much any other mission in the game
Didn't say that. I am merely pointing out that the whole "the game punishes it!"-argument rings very hollow. Punishment in-game would be forced game overs, less assets on later missions (like Blood Money, for example) or other things that impeded player progress.
-should the player fail immediately if they kill a bystander?
-Didn't say that.
-Punishment in-game would be forced game overs
yes, you DID say that
absolution has a bigger emphasis on high scores, from what i understand is not a decision that pleased everyone but it is a punishment, what is clear as day is that the game in no way encourages violence agaisnt the strippers in that level
I find it ironic that you expect a game being rated Mature somehow lets it get away with being immature and thoughtless with regards tot he implications of sexulaised violence.
I'm saying it should put a lot more care and thought into it before it does it, and be aware of ways it may make others feel or perhaps influence attitudes and views. not just stick it in to be 'gritty' and 'adult'. I mean, the 90's comic market embraced 'gritty' and 'adult' in pretty much the same way, and that all went pair shaped.
Also, you are so cutesy trying to question whether I can handle M games or not. Just adorable. Are you going to call me chicken next, and make the noise with your mouth?
They have thought about it. What if creators genuinely feel like crossing lines at times, and will feel bored if they have to play minesweeper with all sorts of public sensibilities. Consider what sort of atrocities you don't see depicted in M rated video games, but in order to come to a finish product, That violence facilitated during missions is in the context of a particular story or event. Or that most antagonists they attack are characters that would've tried to kill them upon sight if they noticed them anyways. Or that chaos in a sandbox is usually a reflection of players freedom, but mission are not set up to indoctrinate players into murdering non hostile innocent people. Even CoD MW2 gave people a choice to opt out of the airport massacre.
They don't start with self censorship. They see how far they can go, and adjustlater for standards and practices. because people can get offended toward anything in a particular contest, that it pointless to keep catching up with moving goalposts and varying sensibilities and rather have the courage to make something that'll be potentially unliked. Our entire history of media and entertainment is laden with burned books, hangings, court inquisitions, threatened playwrights, congressional-chastised artists etc.
If the games were too horrible for the avg player to bear, they would not be making millions of dollars, and competing with major film earnings.
It is common for people to push the line in voyeuristic curiosities in media, because for every author who has done so in the past, different people will want to explore those realms for themselves. If you say certain subjects are beyond hurting and addressing in a fictional experience where no one truly registers hurt or abuse, then any and everything is off the table.
The best solution is for different creators of different backgrounds race and gender to get power to paint different perspectives just like TV shows do, rather than to lobby a new "Hays Code of offense" into AAA games. Otherwise young folk who already spend more than enough time lurking around at night, pranking and finding selfies of some really immorally opportune moments won't release their dark curiosities into the digital realm, but express them more in the real world.
regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases
is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women
Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.
I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.
I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.
I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.
regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases
is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women
Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.
I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.
I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.
I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.
what about vaan then? is he sexualized as well? what if its just part of the game's art direction
and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
But the thing is, alot of men and women thing their attractiveness is one of their major traits. Alot of men and women like being eye candy. Surem, not all women or men should be, but is it somehow wrong?
I don't have a problem with sexualized female characters as a concept. My issues only come in the way that it is presented. Does that sexualization convey intrinsic values of that character or is it simply an aspect of eye candy mean to please the men around her? If it is the former case, then the sexuality becomes part of the character's intrinsic value as a person, but if it is the latter case, then they simply become objects meant to serve others' purposes, and when we consider that that form of objectification is often highly gendered in such a way that it leaves women as the lesser half in that split, then it becomes even more problematic. And yeah, it isn't like we can completely avoid potentially having players just look at attractive female NPCs for hours because they walked into one of the world's strip clubs, but at the same time, when games start coming to a better understanding that that sexuality should be for the character's sake not simply for a man's sake, then I think it would be much easier to walk into those locations and not see it as mandatory fan service but rather as just a place in the world where a few women have chosen (or been forced depending on the exact topic and how it is approached) to working there.
And on the more positive side, we have seen things like this done. The Witcher gave us a character [http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Carmen] that subverted the usual stereotypes of prostitutes. She isn't a sex partner (despite being in The Witcher) but can be interacted with like any other of Gerlat's friends. She was also given a decent backstory, and that backstory does a good job of presenting her sexuality as just one aspect of her as a strong person who can overcome, or at least will try to overcome, any adversity thrown at her. As another example, Mass Effect allowed Liara to let us look into Asari culture to understand why the Asari often took to be dancers. Sure, someone could argue that these games have their own set of problems, but at the very least, they showed some basic awareness of how to handle sexualized female NPCs without making them simple objects.
and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
Oh my... presenting power fantasies as sex fantasies... (bursts out laughing). You do realize just how many videos we've had from Jim Sterling and Bob Chipman, book cover recreation posing pictures by Jim C Hines and so-on and so forth that precisely point out how flawed your argument is here? gimme a sec to grab some links.
Do some reading, some watching, and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL do some thinking before you make your next post.
My comment wasn't abut the 'beautiful woman', it was about the character she had chosen to cosplay as. Character. CHARACTER CHARACTER. And yes, thats character was/is and shall ever be sexualised.
and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
Oh my... presenting power fantasies as sex fantasies... (bursts out laughing). You do realize just how many videos we've had from Jim Sterling and Bob Chipman, book cover recreation posing pictures by Jim C Hines and so-on and so forth that precisely point out how flawed your argument is here? gimme a sec to grab some links.
Do some reading, some watching, and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL do some thinking before you make your next post.
My comment wasn't abut the 'beautiful woman', it was about the character she had chosen to cosplay as. Character. CHARACTER CHARACTER. And yes, thats character was/is and shall ever be sexualised.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."
I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"
Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.
She chose to dress like character as cosplay. Your expecting me to comment a person when in reality I'm going to have the character she chose influence my judgement.
And again, the 'hypothetical villain' you were asking me to judge on was based on said character - a teenage girl wearing a bikini. You cant separate the two and act like the fact said hypothetical villain is wearing a sexualised outfit is not relevant when sexualising depends heavily on how the character looks, dresses, poses and is presented.
regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases
is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women
Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.
I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.
I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.
I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.
what about vaan then? is he sexualized as well? what if its just part of the game's art direction
and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
You've made some decent arguments so I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to recognize the difference between between a sexualized male character and a male power fantasy for the benefit of a male audience (just for reference, every character you posted falls squarely into the later category). Likewise I know you know the difference between a character that you personally find attractive, and a character purposefully designed as a sex object by their creator, regardless of whatever crossover there is between the two. For example, I find the character of Edward Kenway to be attractive, I like his design, his personality and his personal philosophy. He exudes a sense of freedom that is immensely attractive to me. But he's not sexualized, we never see him walking around in a fucking banana hammock because that wouldn't make sense for the character, violence against him has no sexual edge because he's not an inherently sexual character. But when you treat murder like a moneyshot (the saints trailer does literally this, with slo mo effects and close ups of the saints spattered cleavage and faces as they get blood facials) then you have a problem.
Have you ever seen Drive? Because that's a decent movie that has a good example of violence against a sexy character that doesn't come off as creepy or exploitative. The woman in question is played by Christina Hendricks (who in my personal opinion is one of the sexiest ladies in Hollywood), she's a prostitute who gets her head blown off, there's no warning, no slow motion lead up or reaction shot, just a flash of brains and blood. It's a brutal and indiscriminate murder, and it's treated as such. It's not meant to titillate, she's not wearing skimpy lingerie, but even if she was it'd be the same scene, with the same visceral effect. Nicholas Winding Rhefn, the director, regularly uses sexual violence in his movies, but never sexualized violence, and the difference between the two is key. It's in the portrayal of the act.
Personally I don't take issue with the Hitman level in question. The level fits with the game's grind house/exploitation flic aesthetic and I found that the narrative the level was weaving was realistically dark and disgusting, places like this exist, people who exploit people like this exist, and they should drop dead. The strippers are portrayed as disempowered and abused, yet still protective and caring of one another. The act of using that poor woman's body as a distraction has the effect of forcing the police into investigating the human trafficking ring the club owner is a part of. If anything that level demonizes the patrons and owner of the club, portraying the patrons as pathetic (which they are) and the club owner as a morality starved piece of human offal (which he is). I appreciate what Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do, I don't particularly think she's a con woman, I think she's enthusiastic but inept. I hope that a real feminist scholar will replace her at some point as the mouthpiece of feminism in gaming.
Also thanks for posting that Rikku cosplay picture, that woman has a truly gorgeous smile, and those eyes, stunning.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."
I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"
Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.
let me quote the video of jim sterling you send me, cuz im a fan of the man, but let me tell you hes not infallible and he himself has said such
with that out of the way:
"objectification is the reduction of a human being to a thing, an item soemthing we are meant to possess... ...women are allowed to dress skimpily, they are allowed to be hit on, they are allowed to be fucked, but they are not allowed to initiate a sex scene, not allowed to be playable during a sex scene..."
so in that sense, a character that is both skimpily dressed and allowed to make his/her own decisions, "agency" as jim puts it, is not objectified, and if that character is a female and you are going to argue she is sexualized, then im afraid a male character with the same attributes and also skimpily dressed is also sexualized
She chose to dress like character as cosplay. Your expecting me to comment a person when in reality I'm going to have the character she chose influence my judgement.
And again, the 'hypothetical villain' you were asking me to judge on was based on said character - a teenage girl wearing a bikini. You cant separate the two and act like the fact said hypothetical villain is wearing a sexualised outfit is not relevant when sexualising depends heavily on how the character looks, dresses, poses and is presented.
Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit.
damn right i expect you to defend that absurd position
"shes allowed to dress as she damn well pleases and thats bad"
the hypothetical villain is based around that person because, shes not an outfit, like i said, i think the most attractive aspects of her are her face and smile
im absolutely blaffed that you couldnt see past her outfit, that you couldnt see the unbelievable beautiful woman behind that costume, im honestly kind of disgusted by your way of thinking
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."
I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"
Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.
let me quote the video of jim sterling you send me, cuz im a fan of the man, but let me tell you hes not infallible and he himself has said such
with that out of the way:
"objectification is the reduction of a human being to a thing, an item soemthing we are meant to possess... ...women are allowed to dress skimpily, they are allowed to be hit on, they are allowed to be fucked, but they are not allowed to initiate a sex scene, not allowed to be playable during a sex scene..."
so in that sense, a character that is both skimpily dressed and allowed to make his/her own decisions, "agency" as jim puts it, is not objectified, and if that character is a female and you are going to argue she is sexualized, then im afraid a male character with the same attributes and also skimpily dressed is also sexualized
You seem to be ignoring presentation and posing. Scantily clad women are draped over the scenery and are generally in pin-up poses, or put into impossible or uncomfortable poses that maximise their sexualisation.
Men are given poses of power, strength and fortitude, or shown defeating powerful foes. Even when presented as beefcake for romance novels, their poses are of strength, power, even dominance. Its telling from the Jim C Hines posts that all the female poses he imitated caused him discomfort or pain, while only one of the male poses caused him mild discomfort.
Even when sexualised, men are given a lot more dignity and agency than women are.
Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit.
damn right i expect you to defend that absurd position
"shes allowed to dress as she damn well pleases and thats bad"
the hypothetical villain is based around that person because, shes not an outfit, like i said, i think the most attractive aspects of her are her face and smile
im absolutely blaffed that you couldnt see past her outfit, that you couldnt see the unbelievable beautiful woman behind that costume, im honestly kind of disgusted by your way of thinking
'Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit'
Character. CHARACTER CHARACTER.
Do you REALLY not get the distinction between a character and a person?
Also, could you please stop trying to 'trick me' into 'slut shaming' the cosplayer? its pretty blatant what your trying to do.
regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases
is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women
Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.
I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.
I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.
I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.
what about vaan then? is he sexualized as well? what if its just part of the game's art direction
and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
You've made some decent arguments so I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to recognize the difference between between a sexualized male character and a male power fantasy for the benefit of a male audience (just for reference, every character you posted falls squarely into the later category). Likewise I know you know the difference between a character that you personally find attractive, and a character purposefully designed as a sex object by their creator, regardless of whatever crossover there is between the two. For example, I find the character of Edward Kenway to be attractive, I like his design, his personality and his personal philosophy. He exudes a sense of freedom that is immensely attractive to me. But he's not sexualized, we never see him walking around in a fucking banana hammock because that wouldn't make sense for the character, violence against him has no sexual edge because he's not an inherently sexual character. But when you treat murder like a moneyshot (the saints trailer does literally this, with slo mo effects and close ups of the saints spattered cleavage and faces as they get blood facials) then you have a problem.
Have you ever seen Drive? Because that's a decent movie that has a good example of violence against a sexy character that doesn't come off as creepy or exploitative. The woman in question is played by Christina Hendricks (who in my personal opinion is one of the sexiest ladies in Hollywood), she's a prostitute who gets her head blown off, there's no warning, no slow motion lead up or reaction shot, just a flash of brains and blood. It's a brutal and indiscriminate murder, and it's treated as such. It's not meant to titillate, she's not wearing skimpy lingerie, but even if she was it'd be the same scene, with the same visceral effect. Nicholas Winding Rhefn, the director, regularly uses sexual violence in his movies, but never sexualized violence, and the difference between the two is key. It's in the portrayal of the act.
Personally I don't take issue with the Hitman level in question. The level fits with the game's grind house/exploitation flic aesthetic and I found that the narrative the level was weaving was realistically dark and disgusting, places like this exist, people who exploit people like this exist, and they should drop dead. The strippers are portrayed as disempowered and abused, yet still protective and caring of one another. The act of using that poor woman's body as a distraction has the effect of forcing the police into investigating the human trafficking ring the club owner is a part of. If anything that level demonizes the patrons and owner of the club, portraying the patrons as pathetic (which they are) and the club owner as a morality starved piece of human offal (which he is). I appreciate what Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do, I don't particularly think she's a con woman, I think she's enthusiastic but inept. I hope that a real feminist scholar will replace her at some point as the mouthpiece of feminism in gaming.
well ive yet to hear someone tell me how rikku is a sexual object, Windknight only said
"The character she's cosplaying as goes around in all situations in a bikini, and the other elements of her clothes are more about accentuating her bare skin that covering it."
like i said i havent played FFX, and this argument doesnt seem sound because vaan in FFXII had kind of a skimpy outfit as well, to me, it seems like a matter of art direction, not a concious decision to "sexualize" a character
another problem i have with "sexualization" is that everyone has different tastes when it comes to whats sexy and whats not, obviously some things are more common than others, but in my time on the internet ive seen some weird shit
i think when you try to impose rules on something so relative it just doesnt work
i do think anita is a con artist, and someone who does more harm to the cause of better female characters than good, i honestly think female characters could be portrayed better in games, granted i dont think the situation is as bad as some people say, but there are weaknesses, i love me some good characters, and therefore having more good female characters would be an amazing thing in my book
Azure23 said:
Also thanks for posting that Rikku cosplay picture, that woman has a truly gorgeous smile, and those eyes, stunning.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
