Female Game Characters Photoshopped to Average American Proportions

[Des-Esseintes]

I don't disagree that many behaviours and views are cultural, and social. If you notice, I didn't even say attraction is purely influenced by the mammalian hindbrain. What I am saying, is there are certain things, certain very basic human responses to things that are heavily influenced by evolution, and that the limbic response to them will likely never go away. Things like disgust at feces, because feces are associated with disease. Hell, even my dogs will refuse to sleep on their mat after they've thrown up on it. Sure, the forebrain can mitigate and modify limbic responses, but it takes conscious cognitive effort to do, and constantly doing that is certainly not something humans evolved to do.

I don't doubt what you're saying, mate. It just doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I originally quoted. Not to be a dick but your original quote didn't really have much to do with what you were quoting either. It's definitely possible that everything you've said is the hottest, 100% factual, shit - there's some real strong evidence about hip-to-waist ratios and evolutionary factors in attraction. I just don't see what that's got to do with feminists, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, bulimia, or the current conversation about variety in vidja game character designs. Honestly, bringing up what type of woman men want to fuck when replying to a point about womens' destructive anxiety surrounding their weight and appearance is gonna come off strange, regardless of whether you have the science on hand.

This ain't particularly directed at you, I'm more so just weirded out how quick people like to jump into the 'what men are supposed to be attracted to'. When, even at the most inflammatory, no one here has been trying to argue that you need to bang fatties, or that fatties are better, or that we need to force feed fatty females into video games.

My personal opinion has been: 'Yo, this article has nothing to do with people trying to "force characters into being FAT", despite what 400 salty comments would have you believe.' And later, 'If we must discuss this nonsense, yes, I would like some women who aren't straight lines with tits. There's a variety of different body-types you can try without even bringing fattitude into the frame.' But whatevs, everyone's already made up their mind where they stand.

And as for it not being legitimate science, I don't keep a folder of bookmarks of every scientific study I read, or every book I read, because there's too damn much I read, and too many topics I read. Also, evolutionary psychology is a relatively nascent field of research, so I don't expect the scientific status quo to remain the same, but I do give credence to subjects I feel are well-researched and documented.

Dang dude, may be that there is mounds of well put together studies of exactly what you're saying out there. I just tend to give little credence to this brand of evo-psych being thrown about - it's almost always made up bullsnuff that people use to justify whatever beliefs they feel. Every horrendous belief system from neo-nazis down to your basic fratboy sexist uses the 'brah, it's totally evolution', while bulk posting whatever studies they can find that fit their point -not understanding whether they're good studies, what the scientific consensus is, all that good shizzzzz. Like, the entire internet has refused to mature from their 'debate creationists on gaiaonline' phase. Going all confirmation bias with googling sources while shouting about ad hominen doesn't make you the rational, logical thinker you pretend to be, internet-dwellers.

The only times "tubby-tubsters" have been considered the beauty ideal was when food was scarce. For example, Mauritania is a country where fat women are considered ideal, so much so that some girls are essentially force-fed in their youth in hopes of landing a good husband. Mauritania is also a country beset by food shortages and concerns of famine.

So, what weight is considered attractive is a social construct then?

I see where you're coming from, but this argument doesn't cover much ground, mate.

I wouldn't consider that the 'only times', especially when food scarcity isn't really a fixed state kinda deal. Like did Rubens and Bottecelli exist in a period of food scarcity? Relative to what? If they had fuller tummies than those in Mauritania, is their beauty standard less chunky to that same proportion? Mexico today seems to favour a larger brand of woman than the US does - which appears to fit into your theory, until you consider all the countries with different weight standards who don't sit at the right places on this 'food scarcity scale' we've constructed.

In other words, fat women weren't considered "hot" on their own merits - they were considered hot because they had good access to food and other resources. They were basically the "sugar daddies" of their time.

C'mon, son. What does merit have to do with this bollocks? Am I taking it correct that you're trying to imply that this isn't real attraction - not that proper attraction that we have to thin ladies?

The differences in Playboy models and the like has been grossly exaggerated. Marilyn Monroe, despite what some fat activists would like you to believe, was not "plus size", either in her day or by modern standards.

I'm aware of the Marilyn myth, not my point geezer.

Nothing to do with weight, just pointing out how different the beauty standard was even 20-30 years ago.

Shit, even the beauty standard today is starting to change from what was posted in the OP. The curvier look of Nicki Minaj, Queen B and Kim K don't look much like Rikku, Cortana and Tifa.

Going back even further, look up the famous Nefertiti bust. That was made over 3000 years ago, and yet a face like her's wouldn't look out of place among today's supermodels and female celebrities. Look at the Aphrodite of Cnidus statue (2400 years ago) for another example. Her body shape is very similar to Kate Upton's. Minor details like hair and makeup styles may differ based on history and society, but when it comes to overall body shape and size, human cultures have been remarkably consistent.

And: 'Cleopatra's nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed'.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a dick, but what you're saying is straight up bull.

Even if you could come up with an average across history and culture, the outliers would be so significant as to make it meaningless.

Going look at Nefertiti doesn't mean anymore than me saying 'Look how ugly those bitches in Charlie Chaplin films were.'

 

[Redryhno]

Maybe people should be encouraged to lose weight rather than making their fictional characters fatter.

Well, that's kind of related to the concern that the group has, that the ever presence of this kind of body image represents an unattainable ideal for the average person, the pursuit of which could result in the development of the eating disorders they provide information about.

You could just diet and exercise to attain the figure you want.

The figure you can get with diet and exercise may not be the figure you want. I'd expect someone with any experience with either diet, or exercise to know that. I'm not even talking about dieting, just normal diet and training routines. We can't all have every physique we want, we can have a range of ones our bodies offer.

For some people that's really skinny, or really muscular, or a little tubby, and loads of other variations.

If that's the case, where's the really skinny, the really muscular, all I'm seeing is loads of variations on tubby...

Not that it's bad, persay, but if you're going to say it's about a range of bodies in the world, where's the range of bodies?

Not to mention, again, I've yet to get an answer from anyone in full favor of this, not even an acknowledgement, why not real people? Actresses, models, celebrities in general? Why not photoshop them? Why not even cosplayers? Why not show real people with a variety of body types? What is the point of fictional characters they may not have been exposed to? Not to mention most of the characters having extraordinary lives but demanding they have average bodies? Where is the logic in that?

So because this one article didn't offer more than one set of alternatives, there should be NO alternatives? That makes no sense to me. Then you go on to talk about actors and actresses being photoshopped which is kind of odd too, since they come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and genders. There is a whole lot more variation in acting, than in games.

You also seem to be arguing against a group of people at once, instead of replying to me individually, which is also problematic. I don't answer for anyone else, so your problems with the thread in general are not my problems.

And you need to read again, I did not say that there shouldn't be alternatives, I said that if this is variety of alternatives, where is the variation? There is little variation in the article and they're using pixels instead of real people. If the ideal they're talking about is unobtainable, exactly how is this ideal any better? It's still pixels, it's not real people who you can point to and say "Like that", it's a bunch of characters that Are. Not. Average. Yet we're being told they need to look average for "realism" and "think of the chillen".

And again, what does using fictional characters that not everyone has been exposed to do? Why not one of the hundreds of models, actors, celebrities in general instead? Why photoshop pixels when you can just pull up a picture of, again, A REAL PERSON, and shop them? It gives much more impact and gives an alternative look at someone real.

And if there's more variation in acting, why not use all that variation instead of shopping fiction? Don't you think it would make more sense to pull up a somewhat untampered photo of a real person? Heck, this is an article about telling people they don't need to seriously harm themselves to heavily thin down, you'd think they'd want to talk about more than just a bunch of pixles on a screen. You'd think they'd want to bring out examples of the real world where people are healthy and fine the way they are, but they don't.

And you didn't answer my questions, but at least you tried, which is better than the last ten pages of people ignoring or just disappearing altogether.

"I did not say that there shouldn't be alternatives, I said that if this is variety of alternatives, where is the variation? There is little variation in the article and they're using pixels instead of real people."

You just denied saying what you then go on to confirm: you're using this one article as a strawman for the entire argument. That's why I'm the only one who responded, and only to point that out.

Dude, you said it was to show variation of body types, when there was no variation given.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You do realize that the image of Rikku is objectively bigger than the other one and seems to be zoomed in more, right?

While he is wrong, and you are correct in observing that, Kate is still actually significantly more 'normal' than the post-photoshop Rikku.

I've scaled the Rikku image down, and lined up both of them vertically, such that their shoulders, crotch and head are at identical heights. The red line is the width of Kate's waist, and as you can see, it is smaller than Rikku's waist, even from a 3/4th angle. The green lines indicate what Rikku's post-photoshop torso would look like if she were facing completely forward, as Kate is. The waist-discrepancy is even more pronounced now. It seems everyone who is arguing that photoshopped Rikku has a normal body(and the "artist" who photoshopped that image) has no anatomical knowledge whatsoever, because Rikku's skeletal structure is not normal by any definition of the word. So technically, the photoshopped Rikku actually has a similar bodyfat percentage as Kate Upton, but since the people making this couldn't get some of her most basic proportions, i.e ribcage and hip width right, it kind of invalidates everything else about her.

However, I find it ironic that people claiming these photoshopped images are more like 'real' women, will go and compare them to someone like Kate Upton who is absolutely not a 'normal' woman; someone who has a fitness and nutritional trainer, and still isn't what I would call healthy, or someone to be considered a body image role model. To elaborate, the extra bodyfat she has primarily around her torso, looks great, aesthetically. But then I'm not really talking about aesthetics, because the near complete lack of musculature everywhere is indicative of someone who will probably have bone, joint, cardio-vascular, and multiple other problems later in life.

I am not arguing that Upton is an example of a " Normal woman", I am arguing that the photo shopped Rikku is not obese. Healthy is a separate issue,a s we even have Olympians that are not healthy as well even with intensive training. If they are calling Rikku Obese, they would be calling Upton obese as well due to comparable body fat percentages. It is absurd to call Rikku obese and think Kate is not. Their perception of what is and what is not obese is the issue.

Neither Fashion models OR Olympians are what one would consider normal. LOL

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

snip

You do realize you have just presented an extreme Photoshopped Sports ilustrated version of Kate Upton as being "real"? LOL Having to have surgery, Photoshop or extreme dieting is not what anyone would consider a " role model" image. Role models are supposed to be superheroes, not getting breast implants, crash dieting and still having to be photo shopped afterwards. What people are asking for a is a variety of healthy role models and superheros, not just one body type. Reality is no matter how much most women work out, corset, diet and exercise, they are never going to have my waistline. Women are constantly asking me what I do to keep shape, even asking if I use " waist trainers" or corsets. I hate telling them probably much less than they do, I was just born this way. That isn't being a role model, or super hero or something people should look up to or aspire to. It is just creating unrealistic expectations.

The boob jobs, the butt implants, the tummy tucks.. That isn't " normal" or healthy, it is due to people having an extremely distorted view of what it means to be a woman. They feel like they have to do these things or they are not attractive due to how the media has portrayed women. It should be okay to show women how they are without all that and that to be considered normal.

 

[someguy1231]

I see where you're coming from, but this argument doesn't cover much ground, mate.

I wouldn't consider that the 'only times', especially when food scarcity isn't really a fixed state kinda deal. Like did Rubens and Bottecelli exist in a period of food scarcity? Relative to what? If they had fuller tummies than those in Mauritania, is their beauty standard less chunky to that same proportion? Mexico today seems to favour a larger brand of woman than the US does - which appears to fit into your theory, until you consider all the countries with different weight standards who don't sit at the right places on this 'food scarcity scale' we've constructed.

Rubens was highly influenced by his (overweight) wife, and I don't consider the women in Botticelli's works to be fat or overweight. Can you point me to any historical culture that had abundant access to food for all, and still idealized fat women? Ancient Egypt was one of the biggest breadbaskets of the ancient world, and as their numerous monuments show, they favored a thin, slender woman.

C'mon, son. What does merit have to do with this bollocks? Am I taking it correct that you're trying to imply that this isn't real attraction - not that proper attraction that we have to thin ladies?

There are tons of people in the present who date or marry people they don't consider physically attractive in order to get access to their wealth/influence/etc. It was the same principle with fat women being held up as ideal back then.

I'm aware of the Marilyn myth, not my point geezer.

Nothing to do with weight, just pointing out how different the beauty standard was even 20-30 years ago.

Shit, even the beauty standard today is starting to change from what was posted in the OP. The curvier look of Nicki Minaj, Queen B and Kim K don't look much like Rikku, Cortana and Tifa.

It isn't nearly as different as you think it is. As someone who looked at liberal amounts of Playboy 20-30 years ago (yeah, no shame in saying that), I can assure that their average weight and body shapes are pretty much identical to today. All that's changed is preferences in hairstyles, makeup, and personal grooming. I don't know what pictures you've been looking at, but in terms of body shape all of those women are very similar to each other. Flat stomaches, similar waist-hip ratios, etc.

And: 'Cleopatra's nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed'.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a dick, but what you're saying is straight up bull.

Even if you could come up with an average across history and culture, the outliers would be so significant as to make it meaningless.

Going look at Nefertiti doesn't mean anymore than me saying 'Look how ugly those bitches in Charlie Chaplin films were.'

How do you know what you're saying is true? Remember that "fat" is relative. Much of what we consider "fat" or "obese" today would've been considered just as grotesque in most cultures. When historical women are described as "plump" or "full-figured", they meant that they weren't malnourished, which was a very real problem for lower class people before the 20th century.

Another thing to consider is whether a specific woman depicted in a painting or statue is supposed to be attractive. Depictions of fat women may be more to illustrate plenty and bountifulness rather than beauty and attractiveness. This is why the best way to gauge a society's standards of beauty is to look at women that we know were considered beautiful in their time. Love Goddesses like Aphrodite/Venus are an obvious choice, as well as the wives/mistresses of whoever the king/emperor was. I've seen tons of those (took some art history classes in college), and I don't remember a single one being as fat as the "realistic" women depicted in bulimia.com's silly little project.

 

[RelexCryo]

uhhh... I think whoever made these "realistic proportions" forgot that there are women out there who have incredible figures and not everyone is chubby or thunder thighed

This. Saying these proportions aren't realistic is bigoted against the women in real life who do have figures like these. They are human beings just like everybody else. "Average" and "Realistic" are not the same thing. That said, some videogame designers should recognize that their is beauty in diversity.

 

[someguy1231]

That said, some videogame designers should recognize that their is beauty in diversity.

How diverse, though? That's always been the problem with these conversations about "widening" or "expanding" or "challenging" beauty standards.

Beauty is exclusionary by its very nature, because beauty can't exist without ugliness. That's why I really hate it when people say "Everyone is beautiful!" or "All bodies are beautiful!" If everyone is beautiful, then beauty itself, as a human quality, is utterly meaningless and insignificant. In other words, if everyone is beautiful, then no one is. Not everyone can have a genius-level intellect, or be a gifted athlete or a talented singer. Why is beauty the only human quality that everyone should be equally entitled to?

And how do you "change" beauty standards anyway? Suppose that tomorrow, every advertisement, every modeling campaign, every "sexiest woman ever" title, suddenly started to only feature fat women, or bald women, or women with missing teeth, or whatever other change in beauty standards you're trying to push. That alone wouldn't accomplish anything. All of these still have an intended audience, and that audience doesn't have to accept what they see as "beautiful". That's why you don't see fat women in most of those places. Most men (and women too, for that matter!) don't find them beautiful or attractive.

 

[elvor0]

On the topic of redesigning characters in a more realistic way, I'm actually quite fond of nebezial's depictions of Wonder Woman over on deviantart. She's still definitely feminine, but she also definitely *looks* like someone who punches people and throws cars for a living, and who likely spends hours, upon hours, training to do so. You can look at her physical design and glean things about who she is as a character, and I think that's something a lot of character designers forget. It isn't just about the clothes, or the gear, the base, physical build of your character is a vital part of the design. On a well-designed character, you should be able to remove all clothing, all their gadgets, gear and external trappings, and *still* be able to convey something about who they are purely by how they are physically built and how they carry themselves.

I like how he depicts Supergirl too (generally a tiny, petite little thing), which really does juxtapose her physical appearance with her superhuman abilities in an amusing way.

To slightly go off topic, that is a badass depiction of Wonder Woman and I've been having a great time looking through that artists portfolio.

 

[Redryhno]

snip

Please show where I said that this article is the issue, and not just talking about the issue as a whole.[/quote]

Dude, you have continually changed the subject every time the questions get uncomfortable throughout this entire exchange, like, anyone can read through this chain and see everything you know?

You wanna answer the original question yet? Why use fictional characters to promote a real world problem?(that of bulimia) Why not use real people to demonstrate why it's a real world problem? Why not use real people to demonstrate why it doesn't have to be a real world problem?

snip

You do realize you have just presented an extreme Photoshopped Sports ilustrated version of Kate Upton as being "real". LOL Having to have surgery, Photoshop or extreme dieting is not what anyone would consider a " role model" image. Role models are supposed to be superheroes, not getting breast implants, crash dieting and still having to be photo shopped afterwards. What people are asking for a is a variety are healthy role models and superheros, not just one type. Reality is no matter how much most women work out diet and exercise, they are never going to have my waistline. Women are constantly asking me what I do to keep shape, even asking if I use " waist trainers" or corsets. I hate telling them probably much less than they do, I was just born this way. That isn't being a role model, or super hero or something people should look up to or aspire to. It is just creating unrealistic expectations.

You do realize he posted more than just a Kate Upton thing right? I mean, I don't think he even really mentioned her in that post beyond just having a picture I'm assuming is of her next to a bunch of cosplayers that look very similar to the un-shopped characters...Heck, they look like they have slightly more muscle too, which is always a plus.

 

[Jingle Fett]

Spoiler

What I find interesting is that the prevalence of obesity in Japan is less than 5% according to the chart. And it just so happens that literally half of the photoshopped characters in the list were created by Japanese developers...

We should photoshop pictures of IRL average Japanese women to make them like average American women, see what happens. Interestingly, you'd probably have to alter them almost as much as the fictional characters were altered...

 

[Redryhno]

Please don't just reply with a third accusation without supporting the first two.

Dude, read through this post chain, seriously, and you'll probably get an idea where I'm coming from. Or ignore it, I don't really care about that part.

All I'm interested in is the questions I started with that you have still not even bothered to answer.

So I ask again:

Why use fictional characters to promote a real world problem?(that of bulimia) Why not use real people to demonstrate why it's a real world problem? Why not use real people to demonstrate why it doesn't have to be a real world problem?

I'm gonna keep asking this.

 

[Redryhno]

You can keep asking whatever you want, just don't make baseless accusations any more and we'll be fine. Keep making accusations, and I'll keep telling you to prove them or go away.

The leading or loaded questions of yours that you've complained everyone keeps ignoring, I'll just keep ignoring too.

How is it leading and loaded? Seriously, answer that and I'll try to tailor a response that isn't leading

Maybe something more like:

Do you think that this is the best way to combat bulimia and body shape junk? Fictional versions of already fictional characters? Or do you think that showing real world examples would be a better starting point?

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Dont make heroes capable of great fighting look fat, make them more muscular. That would be better. Then again we seem to think Dudes need to look like show ready bodybuilders to be strong(Strongman, powerlifters and MMA would like a word!)

 

[elvor0]

But then I'm not really talking about aesthetics, because the near complete lack of musculature everywhere is indicative of someone who will probably have bone, joint, cardio-vascular, and multiple other problems later in life.

.....you don't have a significant other do you? Sounds like something out of the GAF.

Most people are likely to have those issues to a certain degree later in life, it's called getting old. that's a fact of life. Upton isn't exactly fit, but she's hardly unhealthy.