Jimquisition: Boob Wars and Dragon Crowns

[Terminal Blue]

Homosexuality just isn't the enormous controversy and social conflict in Japan that it is here. While it's certainly not the norm, and is considered kind of weird (much like in most other countries in the world, at the moment), there simply isn't the level of hostility. The fact that they can make "casual jokes" about it expresses a higher level of comfort with homosexuality overall than in America.

No.

When you ask Japanese people about this they will state, much as you have here, that they believe that Japan is a tolerant society when compared to the US, and I'm not going to lie, in some ways it is. There is certainly less homophobic violence in Japan, there is much more tolerance for behaviors such as cross dressing and physical androgyny (though only really for males) which in the West would be associated with homosexuality, there is a sizable media market for various forms of same-sex romance and pornography.

But I think I'm going to illustrate this with an anecdote. Whilst studying at Waseda, a friend of mine was researching gay activism in Japan and decided to poll the student body about their attitudes to homosexuality.

When polled, she found that all of the students she asked believed they were tolerant of homosexuality. They were often keen to stress that since Japan was not a Christian country there was not really any kind of homophobia or intolerance. The problems arose when she started asking questions with specific answers.

"How many gay or lesbian people do you know"

Overwhelmingly, the answer was "none". Among males, the answer was universally "none".

"How many gay or lesbian people do you think there are at Waseda?"

Generally, again, the answer was "none". A few people wondered if maybe there might be one or two. There was nothing close to a realistic estimate.[footnote]Waseda has close to 50,000 students, as well as an active but highly secretive LGBT society[/footnote]

"How many gay or lesbian people do you think there are in Tokyo?"

Most people were willing to admit that there were probably a few gay or lesbian people in Tokyo, but seldom more than a few hundred.[footnote]The Tokyo metropolitan area is home to 35 million people, and has a highly secretive gay nightlife scene concentrated around Shinjuku Nichome, just down the road from Waseda.[/footnote]

Of course, this is just an informal poll and I can't expect you to take it seriously, so here's a study I picked off the internet corroborating quite a similar point about the lack of contact Japanese people, particularly men, tend to have with "out" gays and lesbians:

http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/sociology_theses/15

Now, I could give you countless anecdotal stories about actual homophobic incidents in Japan. Heck, while my friend was giving this survey she got several remarks and jokes to the effect that she didn't look like a dyke. It happens, it happens all the time, much like Gaijin bashing, racism, ostracism and other forms of casual bullying in Japan. Now, what I will say is that compared to the US (and bear in mind, I don't live in the US) it is much less likely to be maliciously intentioned, i.e. people are less likely to do it because they actually hate gay people, just as they don't really hate foreigners, or black people, but they will still do it, and they'll still think it's funny because they cannot understand why anyone else would find it offensive or upsetting.

In America, homosexuality exists. You can like it or you can hate it, but whatever you feelings you are reacting to a real thing, a thing which is visible and present in society. You talk about media and characters in Japan, but the reality on the ground is that openly gay people don't exist apart from in fictional characters and media. They are socially not acknowledged, they are, to most people, little more than an abstract concept which occasionally comes up in foreign media. These jokes exist because the idea of actual, real human beings feeling attraction to the same sex is so ludicrous in Japan that it still causes laughter.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And for those with really thick skulls who STILL can't understand after all this time why there is so much female oversexualisation and "objectitication" in videogames and other forms of media, let me dumb things down and introduce you to the concept of markets - there are some things that sell better than others. Sexy females (and feminine tropes to an extent) is one of those things. The female figure sells and there are entire industries which use females as a selling point, this has been happening for hundreds of years and the female body continues to drive some of the biggest markets today. Videogames are but a tiny portion of that market. I repeat, videogames are but a tiny portion of that truly gigantic market.

But why should we agree that the "market" should rule everything, and the idea that "it sells" is a good enough reason for something to exist? Some people have the crazy idea that ethics (and respect) should be more important than making money.

There are plenty of ways to make money quickly. But how far are you willing to go to make that money? Is spamming people perfectly acceptable because there is a market for it and it makes money? After all, spammers aren't murdering people or anything.

 

[Yuuki]

And for those with really thick skulls who STILL can't understand after all this time why there is so much female oversexualisation and "objectitication" in videogames and other forms of media, let me dumb things down and introduce you to the concept of markets - there are some things that sell better than others. Sexy females (and feminine tropes to an extent) is one of those things. The female figure sells and there are entire industries which use females as a selling point, this has been happening for hundreds of years and the female body continues to drive some of the biggest markets today. Videogames are but a tiny portion of that market. I repeat, videogames are but a tiny portion of that truly gigantic market.

But why should we agree that the "market" should rule everything, and the idea that "it sells" is a good enough reason for something to exist?

Er...that's almost the ENTIRE reason behind why many things have existed (other than a genuine need for invention/innovation), you kinda summed up how business works and why most businesses exist to begin with. To sell stuff.

Some people have the crazy idea that ethics (and respect) should be more important than making money.

Some people tiptoe the boundary and make it fine, some people overstep the boundary and the world bites them back for it. The whole hoo-haa about gender issues lately is a tiny example of the world biting back. Advertising is a constantly-evolving beast, it grows and shapes itself around what works and what doesn't - and who determines what works? Us, the consumers.

There are plenty of ways to make money quickly. But how far are you willing to go to make that money? Is spamming people perfectly acceptable because there is a market for it and it makes money? After all, spammers aren't murdering people or anything.

Correct, spamming is a perfectably acceptable because if people stopped clicking on those adverts, spammers would stop doing it in the first place. Advertising is consumer-driven, the only thing the big evil men in suits can do is constantly test new ideas and see what is successful.
Using feminine beauty to advertise products turned out to be an absolutely WINNING formula decades ago and it's still highly effective - you think consumers haven't played a massive part in shaping that?
What about the countless people employed in the beauty & modeling, escorts/prostitution, even stuff like being an air hostess? Are we saying that all those jobs which "use" overwhelmingly females should be disestablished despite the fact that it's the CONSUMERS who have driven all those things in the first place?

You know the saying "vote with your wallet"? Yeah, that's exactly what has been happening...people have been voting and the results are in.

 

[Pat Hulse]

Yes, this is clearly about exaggerated gender qualities, but it's important to remember that those gender qualities are not entirely biological, they are societal.

Specifically, over-emphasizing muscular physique in men is derived from the perception that men derive power from physical strength. Similarly, over-emphasizing breasts or butts in women is derived from the perception that women derive power from physical desirability. The reason this is a problem should be fairly obvious, but I'll be a little more specific since the whole point of this video is discussion.

To put it simply, rippling muscles are associated with power because people who have them are generally capable of great physical prowess. However, the reason large breasts are associated with power is because the women who have them are perceived as desirable to other people. In other words, muscles = powerful on your own, breasts = powerful through someone else (probably a man).

You make both a well thought out and good argument, but it's entierly based on the notion this all has to do with power. Yes, being muscle bound is generally associated with physical strength, men usually have to go through quite a lot to become that way as well. Just because a women has large breasts doesn't mean they are a symbol of power, or a symbol of anything at all for that matter. I think people are just so obsessed with this anatomy in both negative and positive ways, that it's easy for their vision to become skewered. Some women just have large/small breasts, it's really that simple. I would have certainly liked it more if they were covered better, but I still don't think there is any hidden sinister meaning behind them.
All I (personally) see is a gross embellishment of the popular qualities that each gender superficially finds attractive in the other. To think this is about "power over men to flash breasts and seduce them into submission" is going into silly territories; ICO sexist silly territories. Unless of course I am mistaken and there is an actual move where the witch flashes the dragon and the dragon gawks in stunned silence as she butchers him. Then we will see eye to eye. XD

completely regular looking women, I would have shook my head. Either everyone looks 'distorted' or no one does, it's all about flow, and if it was obvious the artist made concessions to their own style just to make sure he didn't accidentally offend anyone, anywhere for ANY reason what so ever, I would have been offended. That's the most offensive thing an artist can truly do in my eyes. The last people you want to concede to (when making art) are the people MOST sensitive to it; who feel everything they see that they disapprove of is somehow an attack on them or someone else.

In other words, a dwarf built like a brick shit house is not the same thing as a sorceress with planetary breasts. What WOULD be the same thing would be something more like what Penny Arcade outlined (slight NSFW):

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-svhrTpg/0/950x10000/i-svhrTpg-950x10000.jpg

Aside from just being funny, the point isn't that the sorceress looks unrealistic, it's that the parts of her that are unrealistic are the parts that are perceived as appealing to a particular gender/sexuality. A guy might say that they have no problem with the unrealistic male characters, but if there was a male character whose junk was enormous and wobbly, it probably would make you feel at least a little bit uncomfortable.

The problem with the penny-arcade argument to this is they are making an argument for women, but still viewing this like typical men. "Hurr, all I think about is vag, so for games to appeal to women giant dicks must be everywhere. That would be creepy man! I am so glad we don't have it as bad as girls!".No, that comic does not illustrate the reverse at all, because most women don't want to see guys with giant, deformed genitals wobbling everywhere, either. It is also highlighting something that doesn't even technically exist, outside of creepy online internet fiction. While at the same time there actually are guys who are built like tanks, considerable amounts of women who like that, and also women with enormous breasts, and an absurd amounts of guys who like that. When making works of fiction one of the easiest things to do to guarantee at least SOME audience is to make all the characters pleasing to look at. It's very lazy, but VERY popular.

First of all, again, your argument partially assumes that the male characters have huge muscles because women find it attractive. They don't. They have huge muscles because men find it empowering. The sorceress has huge tits because men find it attractive, which men subconsciously consider to be a statement of power, even though it isn't.

Second, I don't think I'm off base in suggesting that this is (at least partially) about power. This game is a brawler. It is about your characters going around and beating things up. That is, in essence, an empowerment fantasy. You choose a character based on who would be the most fun cipher. If you pick the dwarf, it isn't because you think he looks sexy, it's because he looks like he could do some damage. If you pick the sorceress, it's either because you're fond of the magic-using character archetype, or because you think you would enjoy watching her bounce and coo around for a few hours. Maybe you like the idea of controlling such a person, though that's probably going a bit too far. I'm not judging, I'm just saying that the character designs exist for a reason, and typically, cheesecake designs exist to appeal to the male gaze.

So let me explain part of the issue regarding the empowerment side of this. As men, we play this game and have the option to play as a character that can act as a cipher suggesting some kind of over-the-top empowerment fantasy, or we can pick something more in line with a sexual fantasy, or we can pick someone who is just a character without any animalistic pleasure tied up into it. If you're a woman, you can probably pick a character that appeals to a sexual fantasy, or you can pick a character that doesn't really represent any fantasy, but what the game presents as a supposed female empowerment fantasy in the same vein as the dwarf (the amazon) is still designed in a way that appeals to the male gaze. She's wearing a bikini, her butt is overemphasized, and her spine contorts to present all of these aspects to the viewer with the impression that they find them appealing. So if you are a woman and you just want to play as a character who destroys things left and right, well I hope you don't mind that character also being fetishized for the male audience. And yes, the dwarf character can be viewed as attractive to a certain audience, but he isn't PRESENTED in a way that deliberately provokes that response. As Jim pointed out, the elf could be considered attractive to some, but she isn't presented in a manner that panders to that audience. The sorceress and the amazon are.

That's part of what I'm talking about. The line between being attractive just for having what you have, and being fetishized by overemphasizing the sex appeal of certain features through design and presentation. The male characters aren't being fetishized. That's why I think the Penny Arcade comic is more appropriate to the circumstances than you give it credit for. It's presenting a fetishized male character in a similar vein as the sorceress. No, it's certainly not a common fetish and it was most certainly presented as an exaggeration, but it's not really all that far off from the presentation of the sorceress.

The last thing I want to touch on is what you briefly mentioned regarding offending people. I'm not sure whether or not I agree or disagree with your general statement, but I think you're incorrect in assuming the issue here is that certain people are being offended.

Do you think that women find the sorceress design offensive? Do you think that's why so many women are upset about this kind of character design? It's not that they find it offensive. Honestly, I'd be willing to bet that most women see the character design in the same way you see the Penny Arcade fighter's design. Silly, ludicrous, and kinda disgusting. Still, that's not the same thing as offended. It's just annoying, and who wants to play as a character that annoys you constantly?

The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that women gamers often feel excluded in terms of representation they can identify with. They don't want to play as the sorceress because she doesn't appeal to anyone who doesn't really find her attractive, or at least amusing (unless they really want to play as a magic user). They might want to play as the elf, but speaking as someone who plays a lot of games, if I have a choice between a ranged combatant and a close-ranged melee combatant, I'll pick the latter. But again, the female equivalent of the dwarf is overly-sexualized to the point of discomfort if you don't find that sort of thing attractive/amusing. It would probably be annoying to play as that character for more than a little while for the same reason it would be annoying for us to play a male character whose package is swinging around constantly. So is it really all that surprising that women often feel like even the female characters exist to appeal to the men at the exclusion of them? That they either have to get over designs that make them feel uncomfortable or limit themselves to the one design that doesn't?

And women like empowerment fantasy just as much as men. Possibly more, considering how marginalized our society makes them feel. They'd love to play as a female character built like the dwarf, but that sort of design is uncommon. The closest we seem to be able to get to it is the amazon look where a woman can be muscular and ridiculous, but she also needs to be wearing almost nothing and showing her butt to the camera at all times.

So I'm not saying that Dragon's Crown should change the design of the sorceress or the amazon to avoid offending people. Som find them appealing, and I sort of agree that anyone who finds them offensive is being a little overly-sensitive. However, I don't understand why they couldn't also offer a female character who is physically strong but not sexualized. I feel that it's a huge missed opportunity to focus the vast majority of female character designs with the male gaze in mind when there's a huge untapped market of women who would probably love to play a game where they can be an overpowered machine of death that doesn't have to wear a bikini. Hell, the option to do a costume swap for the amazon and a slight adjustment to the presentation of her character design so that she actually has a plausible spine would probably be sufficient. I'm not so much worried that women are going to be offended by Dragon's Crown, I'm more disappointed that the game doesn't seem to offer much in the way of gratuitous empowerment fantasy towards women in the same way it does for men unless it's also tied up in the sometimes uncomfortable area of sex appeal. That seems terribly limiting and uninviting and it's partially why a lot of women don't find the bulk of the industry all that compelling. It's like saying, "Sure you can play with us! But first, put on this bunny outfit..."

In other words, I'm not saying we should get rid of characters like the sorceress. But can't we ALSO have characters like Brienne from ASOIAF? Give women the option to play as a character they identify with who doesn't have to use a bow and arrow and doesn't have to jiggle for the camera?

And really, is it that unreasonable to suggest that the frequent absence of these character options in video games is symptomatic of an inherent mindset that keeps causing this sort of alienation? Is it deliberate? No. Is there some sinister meaning behind these designs? Of course not. I can tell you exactly why each character is designed the way they are: Because the artist thinks they look cool.

But my point was to dissect WHY the artist thinks these designs look cool. He imagines characters that he would like to play as, and he apparently likes to play as women with lots of jiggly bits sometimes. And that's fine, but the problem is that a good game designer designs with the audience in mind, and I don't believe that's what he did. I agree that he shouldn't alter his designs explicitly to avoid offending people, but I also think he should design with the intent to engage as many people as possible without compromising his work, and I don't believe these designs fulfill that obligation. There's a difference between censorship and just being inclusive.

The sorceress might look cool to the artist and to the bulk of the audience, but it's unappealing to a lot of people, and those people are rarely given a lot of alternatives.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

Not that I disagree with your thoughts on this game, but answer me this what good is/has feminism even done recently? Sure the vote, but that's a given.

Well, since I'm not a feminist, I can't really say. But why would you dismiss their past accomplishment? Feminism is a social movement, not an actual organisation, so it's brilliant that its done that much.

It was necessary, to a point, but current day feminism just sounds like a lot of "first world problems" and whining.

 

[Voulan]

Not that I disagree with your thoughts on this game, but answer me this what good is/has feminism even done recently? Sure the vote, but that's a given.

Well, since I'm not a feminist, I can't really say. But why would you dismiss their past accomplishment? Feminism is a social movement, not an actual organisation, so it's brilliant that its done that much.

It was necessary, to a point, but current day feminism just sounds like a lot of "first world problems" and whining.

Maybe it appears like whining because people are failing to listen to them? They are in a position of no real power, so actively making things happen is being hampered?

Perhaps these issues concerning media seem like first world issues, but feminism deals with other more horrifying issues as well. I know for a fact that there is a group campaigning for women's rights in some parts of Africa, in which women are raped and then become untouchable, have their rights stripped, are blamed for their being assaulted and are kicked out of their homes. That is a serious issue, and it happens all the time. So hearing people taking about entitled feminists trying to ruin everything makes me a little tetchy.

Not you, I'm talking about people that hate the movement in general and think its a waste of time.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But why should we agree that the "market" should rule everything, and the idea that "it sells" is a good enough reason for something to exist?

Er...that's almost the ENTIRE reason behind why many things have existed (other than a genuine need for invention/innovation), you kinda summed up how business works and why most businesses exist to begin with. To sell stuff.

Which is not a good enough reason to exist, unless you happen to worship at the feet of Capitalism. I think you are doing humans a great disservice in your comments. We have many qualities beyond simply being units of wealth.

Your comments sound as if you think humans are merely a resource to be traded.

Advertising is a constantly-evolving beast, it grows and shapes itself around what works and what doesn't - and who determines what works? Us, the consumers.

I'm not "a consumer," I'm a human being.

Correct, spamming is a perfectably acceptable because if people stopped clicking on those adverts, spammers would stop doing it in the first place.

So, theft is perfectly acceptable because there's a market for stolen goods? Murder is entirely appropriate because there are people who will pay big money to have someone killed?

What about the countless people employed in the beauty & modeling, escorts/prostitution, even stuff like being an air hostess? Are we saying that all those jobs which "use" overwhelmingly females should be disestablished despite the fact that it's the CONSUMERS who have driven all those things in the first place?

Yes.

You know the saying "vote with your wallet"? Yeah, that's exactly what has been happening...people have been voting and the results are in.

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

But why should we agree that the "market" should rule everything, and the idea that "it sells" is a good enough reason for something to exist?

Er...that's almost the ENTIRE reason behind why many things have existed (other than a genuine need for invention/innovation), you kinda summed up how business works and why most businesses exist to begin with. To sell stuff.

Which is not a good enough reason to exist, unless you happen to worship at the feet of Capitalism.

Advertising is a constantly-evolving beast, it grows and shapes itself around what works and what doesn't - and who determines what works? Us, the consumers.

I'm not "a consumer," I'm a human being.

What about the countless people employed in the beauty & modeling, escorts/prostitution, even stuff like being an air hostess? Are we saying that all those jobs which "use" overwhelmingly females should be disestablished despite the fact that it's the CONSUMERS who have driven all those things in the first place?

Yes.

You know the saying "vote with your wallet"? Yeah, that's exactly what has been happening...people have been voting and the results are in.

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

That's not what "vote with your wallet" means. If you buy games, go ahead and slap your "I voted" sticker on. All it means is that you showed approval for something by buying it. That's what consumers do, they buy things, and they're human the whole time that they're doing it.

A game that is hand-drawn is not likely to be a shovel-ware money grab. I really don't think they'd go to this kind of effort if it were a cynical project. My money is on the game being made by talented people who don't think the designs are problematic, and that it will be consumed by people who feel the same way.

 

[Yuuki]

Which is not a good enough reason to exist, unless you happen to worship at the feet of Capitalism. I think you are doing humans a great disservice in your comments. We have many qualities beyond simply being units of wealth.

Your comments sound as if you think humans are merely a resource to be traded.

We're not resources to be traded, but we have resources that we trade amongst each other and we have figured out ways to help those resources seem more appealing. Cars are often advertised by showing people driving them, clothes are often advertised by showing people wearing them, beauty products are often advertised by people utilizing them - are the people in those adverts anything more than mere tools to be used to push the primary product? Absolutely.
Is there anything morally/ethically wrong in it? I am of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

But I can see and I can understand why some people could choose to take an extreme stance on such kind of advertising (like you)...but be rest assured that those people are in the minority, because using people to market and advertise products is the bread and butter of almost every industry.

Also there are many people genuinely enjoy doing what they do with their lives and bodies. Neither you nor me have the right to tell them they should change their preferences.

I'm not "a consumer," I'm a human being.

Have you ever purchased anything in your life? If you did, congratulations, you're a consumer.

God forbid you can be BOTH a human being and a consumer at the same time? Or in your opinion can people only be one or the other?

So, theft is perfectly acceptable because there's a market for stolen goods? Murder is entirely appropriate because there are people who will pay big money to have someone killed?

I clearly recall mentioning something about not breaking laws, is there any reason why you resorted to using theft and murder as examples? Here, I'll quote myself from the previous page:

We're not talking about how people prefer to MURDER other people for entertainment, that would be unacceptable and against the law.

Lets keep up with each others' responses

What about the countless people employed in the beauty & modeling, escorts/prostitution, even stuff like being an air hostess? Are we saying that all those jobs which "use" overwhelmingly females should be disestablished despite the fact that it's the CONSUMERS who have driven all those things in the first place?

Yes.

Well, I guess that response nullifies any room for discussion in that area. Moving on.

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

The discrepancy between the rich and the poor is a completely different issue. As I said earlier, you are both a human being and a consumer - the moment you purchased up a certain product from a shelf in any store, someone somewhere took note of it and you became part of nothing more than a statistic represented by numerical values. Those numerical values will then provide a base to advertising and marketing in the future and the cycle will infinitely repeat itself. Your personality and emotions are important to you and those close to you, your "worth" as a human being is also important, but ultimately it's your wallet that speaks for you as far as the corporations are concerned. Even "good" companies like Valve don't have time to care about each individuals' personalities, to them you are consumer #9910251.

It's important to realize that you can be a human, a consumer, a statistic and a plethora of other things all at the same time (isn't being multifaceted great?) depending who is looking at you and under what circumstances.

I implore you to expand your vision, attempt to see a bigger picture

 

[Aardvaarkman]

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

That's not what "vote with your wallet" means. If you buy games, go ahead and slap your "I voted" sticker on. All it means is that you showed approval for something by buying it. That's what consumers do, they buy things, and they're human the whole time that they're doing it.

It's exactly what "vote with your wallet" means. How are those without any money supposed to vote? And how do those who have never even heard of this game vote?

Consumerism is not the same thing as democracy, so the idea of voting with dollars is fallacious to begin with. The foundation of democracy is that everybody can vote, and also that nobody has more votes than anybody else. The idea that spending money on something is equivalent to voting is ridiculous.

Yes, money does unduly affect our electoral processes. But that is not a thing to be celebrated, it it something that should be condemned.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Cars are often advertised by showing people driving them, clothes are often advertised by showing people wearing them, beauty products are often advertised by people utilizing them - are the people in those adverts anything more than mere tools to be used to push the primary product? Absolutely.
Is there anything morally/ethically wrong in it? I am of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I would disagree.

But I can see and I can understand why some people could choose to take an extreme stance on such kind of advertising (like you)...but be rest assured that those people are in the minority, because using people to market and advertise products is the bread and butter of almost every industry.

Only of industries which have no reason to exist. If your product can't sell on its own merits without some model standing beside it, then it's probably not a very good product, is it?

I'm not "a consumer," I'm a human being.

Have you ever purchased anything in your life? If you did, congratulations, you're a consumer.

God forbid you can be BOTH a human being and a consumer at the same time? Or in your opinion can people only be one or the other?

No, I'm not. A "consumer" defines a person as having their only purpose to consume. "Consumer" is a fabrication of the marketing industry. Sure, people consume things, but defining people as units of consumption is very problematic.

So, theft is perfectly acceptable because there's a market for stolen goods? Murder is entirely appropriate because there are people who will pay big money to have someone killed?

I clearly recall mentioning something about not breaking laws, is there any reason why you resorted to using theft and murder as examples?

Spamming is against the law. You said it was perfectly acceptable. Therefore, you justified the breaking of laws.

Those numerical values will then provide a base to advertising and marketing in the future and the cycle will infinitely repeat itself. Your personality and emotions are important to you and those close to you, your "worth" as a human being is also important, but ultimately it's your wallet that speaks for you as far as the corporations are concerned. Even "good" companies like Valve don't have time to care about each individuals' personalities, to them you are consumer #9910251.

Hence, the problem.

 

[Nexxis]

I couldn't agree more, thanks for the video Jim. I DO feel limited as far as rpgs and mmos are concerned. Guild Wars 2 female spellcasters looked like strippers and TERA was obvious enough. Both solid games but I just had to put them down.

Lol, yeah. I get you. That's why I play Charr or Asura on Guild Wars 2 and I avoid TERA like the plague even though friends of mine have been asking me to play it since it has gone free to play. I tried playing Aion and, even though I did enjoy it for a bit, I couldn't play it for very long because my character looked like a slut half the time. At one point, I did have some light armor that covered the body. The next armor piece I got was an upgrade and it went from pants to a mini skirt. I immediately deleted that character and made a male, but I couldn't enjoy it as much. I had the same issue in WoW, even with the Tauren, but it got a little bit better towards the later expansions. In games where I have a choice to make a character, I like playing a female, but I get so fed up when my character looks like she's more likely to give a monster a lap dance than destroy it. I don't care that sexy characters exist. I care that there are very few other options out there for people who don't want to play as a sexy character or a character who wants to flaunt their fleshy parts.

 

[Yuuki]

So, theft is perfectly acceptable because there's a market for stolen goods? Murder is entirely appropriate because there are people who will pay big money to have someone killed?

I clearly recall mentioning something about not breaking laws, is there any reason why you resorted to using theft and murder as examples?

Spamming is against the law. You said it was perfectly acceptable. Therefore, you justified the breaking of laws.

Hmm, I didn't know that spamming was a criminal offense and is even vaguely comparable to theft or murder. But I looked it up and it indeed classifies as "cybercrime" so I'll give you that. I'll change my stance on spamming being an acceptable way to advertise, staying true to the fact that breaking any law for means of advertising/marketing is unacceptable.

I remain to be convinced that using people in marketing to push a product is a bad thing though. Next thing you will say is that an advert about a Theme Park showing people having fun is also wrong, they should advertise...err...what instead? Just the theme park logo and empty/vacant rides, because showing happy smiling people having fun is simply objectifying them for the sake of bringing more people (i.e. wallets) to the place?

As for the rest of your post, I have no further input on those points. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

 

[daxterx2005]

"The boob wars"
Sexy :3

 

[Impluse_101]

I'm just glad you didn't stab yourself Jim with that axe...and glad that we share the same opinion on the amazon.
I mean...god damn...those legs could take down a tree with how...grossly buff they there.

I think Captcha agrees too.

"well heeled"

Yep...Captcha thinks she could take down a tree with that lower body strength.

 

[Faith Meade]

This kind of thing is the whole reason I bought the new "Tomb Raider" game. It looked like an awesome game anyway (and is), but they actually made Lara look and act like a real person and I wanted to reward Square-Enix for that with my business. We don't see enough women in games that get to be real people.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

Not that I disagree with your thoughts on this game, but answer me this what good is/has feminism even done recently? Sure the vote, but that's a given.

Well, since I'm not a feminist, I can't really say. But why would you dismiss their past accomplishment? Feminism is a social movement, not an actual organisation, so it's brilliant that its done that much.

It was necessary, to a point, but current day feminism just sounds like a lot of "first world problems" and whining.

Maybe it appears like whining because people are failing to listen to them? They are in a position of no real power, so actively making things happen is being hampered?

Perhaps these issues concerning media seem like first world issues, but feminism deals with other more horrifying issues as well. I know for a fact that there is a group campaigning for women's rights in some parts of Africa, in which women are raped and then become untouchable, have their rights stripped, are blamed for their being assaulted and are kicked out of their homes. That is a serious issue, and it happens all the time. So hearing people taking about entitled feminists trying to ruin everything makes me a little tetchy.

Not you, I'm talking about people that hate the movement in general and think its a waste of time.

Those that help developing countries are fine and do not get on my nerves.

Feminists have a lot of power, they have lobbyist groups, there's also NOW, VAWA and Affirmative action forcing women into positions to appeal to feminists, whether they earned it or not. Feminists do have power, but some issues like "this character objectifies and damages all women" are just daft. Women are now superior to men under the law in many cases and that is not equality.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

This kind of thing is the whole reason I bought the new "Tomb Raider" game. It looked like an awesome game anyway (and is), but they actually made Lara look and act like a real person and I wanted to reward Square-Enix for that with my business. We don't see enough women in games that get to be real people.

Women were on the dev team, If more women tried to make games that appealed to them we'd hear less "sexist" cries. Books and film have certain genres that appeal more to male or female audiences some very well made books/films can appeal to broader audiences.

 

[Ryan Minns]

Edit: Just remembered I wanted nothing to do with these types of threads so could a mod delete this.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Good handling on this one Jim.

snip

I agree on your statements about Japan, and having been there myself I can vouch for your friend's research.

But on the main topic, I'm willing to give Kamitani enough benefit to think that he isn't homophobic. Though, I'm not sure if it's cause I respect his work so much or if I just see it in his work.