Poll: Bikini or miniskirt - Which is more exploitative?

[Colour Scientist]

Is The Escapist stuck on a loop?
Seriously, it's like fucking Groundhog Day.

 

[JimB]

Thanks, Hjalmar Fryklund!

EDIT: Needs more words, huh? Okay, I actually started to write this bit previously, but then I deleted it because I figured no one gives a crap. If it's necessary to keep from getting reprimanded, though, here's the a deleted scene from the director's cut of this post:

I confess, my question was based entirely on idle curiosity. I'm the kind of person who thinks it's actually irresponsible to use an ignore feature, because it abdicates my duty as a member of the society to attempt to correct a problem when and where I see it. Ignoring it gives my continued support to that problem.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

snip

No problem. Though you better add some words to that post so you can avoid a warning for low content.

 

[Nerexor]

Miniskirts cannot be bad, because they are Roy Mustang's ultimate goal.

/thread.

 

[JimB]

No, it doesn't. The word simply means using something for profit. So, when a female character in a video game is a size one supermodel with an epic motorboat, who profits from that? Certainly not the character, but the people who make her look like that.

How can a character profit from anything?

Characters can profit within the context of the fictional worlds they inhabit. Siegfried profits by covering himself in three hundred pounds of seamless metal so no one can stab him in his soft, squishy parts, but how does Ivy profit from wearing an outfit that covers as much surface area of her body as three strategically arranged snakeskin belts? She doesn't. It does not improve her survivability by even a fraction of a second. She looks like that because it will make boys want to buy the game.

 

[wizzy555]

Characters can profit within the context of the fictional worlds they inhabit. Siegfried profits by covering himself in three hundred pounds of seamless metal so no one can stab him in his soft, squishy parts, but how does Ivy profit from wearing an outfit that covers as much surface area of her body as three strategically arranged snakeskin belts? She doesn't. It does not improve her survivability by even a fraction of a second. She looks like that because it will make boys want to buy the game.

This is a rather bizzare standard for making characters. I mean it's almost as if Shakespeare made Othello black on purpose so he could exploit the drama such a situation would ensue.

 

[JimB]

This is a rather bizarre standard for making characters. I mean it's almost as if Shakespeare made Othello black on purpose so he could exploit the drama such a situation would ensue.

I'm more into Shakespeare's sonnets than his plays, so I could be misremembering this, but the entire point of Othello is racism, so you kind of need someone in the play to be a different race or else the story can't exist at all. Othello's blackness is an integral part of the plot. Ivy's near-nudity plays no such role in the narrative of the Soul Calibur series: It is one hundred percent superfluous.

 

[Daveman]

Exploitative isn't the word I would use, but I think I know what you're trying to convey and my answer would be mini-skirt, because it also draws attention to what little it's hiding, whereas a bikini is basically just underwear which, while it doesn't leave much to the imagination, it also doesn't stir the imagination with evocative thoughts of what may or may not be in that forbidden area you can't quite see.

Question: Was the miniskirt invented by men or women?

Don't know, but I do know the bikini was! It was designed by a french engineer-turned-designer and was named after islands where nuclear tests were done because the act of seeing a woman in one was likened to seeing an A-bomb go off.

One of my many anecdotes for parties.

 

[wizzy555]

This is a rather bizarre standard for making characters. I mean it's almost as if Shakespeare made Othello black on purpose so he could exploit the drama such a situation would ensue.

I'm more into Shakespeare's sonnets than his plays, so I could be misremembering this, but the entire point of Othello is racism, so you kind of need someone in the play to be a different race or else the story can't exist at all. Othello's blackness is an integral part of the plot. Ivy's near-nudity plays no such role in the narrative of the Soul Calibur series: It is one hundred percent superfluous.

But that's a very different statement than, "the writers are profiting from attributes they give to the characters while the characters don't profit". You can say Ivy's dress makes no sense within the context. Lara Croft on the other hand while possessing an "unlikely" body shape is not necessarily situationally absurd - at least in her standard exploration gear.

While racism is a theme in Othello, the main plot could have worked with some other sort of divide (such as class/religion).

 

[JimB]

But that's a very different statement than, "the writers are profiting from attributes they give to the characters while the characters don't profit."

Not really. I'm talking about context here. The context of the fictional world the characters are involved in is relevant to the discussion, as is the context of the creator's decision to make that situation in the first place. When it comes to women in video games, the only context ever offered is generally, "Hey guys! Look at dat ass! I bet you'd like to bounce your penis off that!"

 

[RafaelNegrus]

But that's a very different statement than, "the writers are profiting from attributes they give to the characters while the characters don't profit."

Not really. I'm talking about context here. The context of the fictional world the characters are involved in is relevant to the discussion, as is the context of the creator's decision to make that situation in the first place. When it comes to women in video games, the only context ever offered is generally, "Hey guys! Look at dat ass! I bet you'd like to bounce your penis off that!"

I think you have to look at the style of the game as well, and when you take a look at Soul Caliber as a whole, how can you honestly take something seriously when it involves Darth Vader and Link fighting the demon embodiment of an evil sword? Soul Caliber is all about ridiculous over the top things, Ivy is part and parcel of that.

 

[JimB]

Soul Calibur is all about ridiculous, over the top things; Ivy is part and parcel of that.

Sure, but that doesn't really counter the argument that it's exploitative. If anything, it reinforces it because the designers went there deliberately.

But okay, let's not talk about fighting games, if you think they're unfair. What about, say, the Final Fantasy franchise, where bloody near every time the camera changes to a view of a female character, it's behind and slightly below her butt looking up before panning up?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

No, it doesn't. The word simply means using something for profit. So, when a female character in a video game is a size one supermodel with an epic motorboat, who profits from that? Certainly not the character, but the people who make her look like that.

How can a character profit from anything?

Characters can profit within the context of the fictional worlds they inhabit. Siegfried profits by covering himself in three hundred pounds of seamless metal so no one can stab him in his soft, squishy parts, but how does Ivy profit from wearing an outfit that covers as much surface area of her body as three strategically arranged snakeskin belts? She doesn't. It does not improve her survivability by even a fraction of a second. She looks like that because it will make boys want to buy the game.

In Soul Calibur every character's default outfit provides equal defense actually so, umm, YES.


You can equip Ivy with other outfits in the game's customization mode if you wish for her to have more defense but indeed, her revealing outfit provides her equal defense to the one provided by Sigfried's default armor, you can use magic to justify this...or she's just that tough...or it's an UNREALISTIC GAME ABOUT LIVING SWORDS CONTROLLING THE FATE OF THE WORLD. XD

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Soul Calibur is all about ridiculous, over the top things; Ivy is part and parcel of that.

Sure, but that doesn't really counter the argument that it's exploitative. If anything, it reinforces it because the designers went there deliberately.

But okay, let's not talk about fighting games, if you think they're unfair. What about, say, the Final Fantasy franchise, where bloody near every time the camera changes to a view of a female character, it's behind and slightly below her butt looking up before panning up?

What I'm saying with fighting games is that you start treating them too seriously and then there's quite a long rabbit hole that you fall into. Why does a lightsaber not destroy everything? How does a man with a staff beat a man in crystal armor? Why is there a shirtless samurai? If that guy is really a ghost pirate, how come people can hit him? Just picking out a girl with not too many clothes (not to mention her whip sword that can go underground...somehow) feels a little nitpicky to me.

And I also have to say that I've never played the Final Fantasy series (except for Tactics advance, and Crystal Chronicles, which I don't think count) so I'm no expert. That sounds bad, but I don't have the experience necessary to talk about it.

In general though, I think having a bit of fanservice in a game is fine, but the issue comes up when you have a significant amount of female characters that are only there for sex appeal. Now I think this comes from a couple very simple things, namely that many games plots are paper-thin anyways, and that most video game writers and developers are men. I think berating them for writing bad female characters is kinda useless, because to be frank I'm not sure if they can. They're either shallow, completely lacking in anything feminine, or too flawless to be relatable. And it's not they're fault that its like that, because people can only write what they know. I do a little writing off and on, and I can't get female characters right, simply because I have no experience living through the same set of pressures that they have to, so my female characters are flat and unconvincing.

I also think that the exploitative argument is a very difficult one to make of fictional characters in a fictional world. Defining that by what "makes sense" in the world is hard. I think that anyone who goes into a fight without full armor is dumb, but that's what makes sense to me. Maybe the designer thinks that movement is much more important than protection, so maybe Nathan Drake shouldn't wear body armor. You could also make the argument that anyone doing ANY of these actions in video games is a complete and utter moron, and deserves the death that is swiftly coming for them. I don't think it's an impossible argument to make, just one that feels a little silly to me.

 

[JimB]

In Soul Calibur every character's default outfit provides equal defense actually so, umm, YES.

Then, once again, Ivy does not profit by her use of her sex appeal. If everyone has the same ability to absorb damage, then by achieving the baseline, she is only failing to be penalized, so her sex appeal is being exploited.

What I'm saying with fighting games is that you start treating them too seriously and then there's quite a long rabbit hole that you fall into. Why does a lightsaber not destroy everything? How does a man with a staff beat a man in crystal armor? Why is there a shirtless samurai? If that guy is really a ghost pirate, how come people can hit him? Just picking out a girl with not too many clothes (not to mention her whip sword that can go underground...somehow) feels a little nitpicky to me.

Context and realism are not the same thing. The reason I pick on Ivy rather than Darth Vader, Kilik, or the other guys is that the male characters aren't sold based on their sexuality. Ivy is a walking BDSM fetish, Taki is just plain naked, Cassandra is dressed like a cheerleader...I'm not sure if I should give Talim a pass just because she does seem chaste, but I'm told virginal fifteen-year-olds are the big fetish in Japan, so I don't know.

And I also have to say that I've never played the Final Fantasy series, so I'm no expert.

Yeah, honestly, I'm a bit limited in my choice of examples myself. I pretty much stopped playing video games with the PS2. Anything more topical than that, I'd have to go off of what I've watched friends play while I'm at their place.

I think having a bit of fanservice in a game is fine, but the issue comes up when you have a significant amount of female characters that are only there for sex appeal.

The problem isn't so much characters who are only there for sex appeal as it is that there's a minimum acceptable amount of sex appeal for characters. When sex appeal is a mandatory trait for female characters, it makes the woman's body a factor when it ought not be...and when that's used as a selling point, it turns the female body into a commodity.

The obvious rebuttal here is that video game characters aren't real people, but given that these fictional women represent the ideal appearance a woman is expected to achieve--not to strive for, but to achieve and hold--the implications reach out past the electronics aisle and into real life.

Most video game writers and developers are men. I think berating them for writing bad female characters is kinda useless, because to be frank I'm not sure if they can.

Are you saying men can't write women? Because I have to say, I find that idea pretty offensive, but I won't take you to task for it just yet because I'm not sure it's what you mean.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

In Soul Calibur every character's default outfit provides equal defense actually so, umm, YES.

Then, once again, Ivy does not profit by her use of her sex appeal. If everyone has the same ability to absorb damage, then by achieving the baseline, she is only failing to be penalized, so her sex appeal is being exploited.

You fail to realize that it is not Ivy who is penalized, Sigfried is the one, he has to wear all that armor to keep up with her. She's an arrogant too-good-at-everything character who flaunts her ability to kick your ass while still being almost naked.



Her benefit is the ability to showboat and make the guy in the huge armor feel like a pansy for needing so much armor to keep up with her toughness.


Also, everyone's BASIC armor has the same baseline, you can have even MORE revealing armors have higher defense ratings because they're unrealistically statted. You really can't apply any real world logic to the stats of clothes/armor in SC because most of the properties of it comes from magical means.

 

[Tazzy da Devil]

I'm going to say miniskirts. Bikinis are quite functional, though I usually wear a pair of board shorts with mine. Miniskirts are pretty much meant for being alluring.

 

[JimB]

You fail to realize that it is not Ivy who is penalized: Siegfried is the one who has to wear all that armor to keep up with her.

Okay, wait, time out. I feel like the goalposts are shifting here. Are we talking about the game's mechanical and balance concerns (everyone takes the same amount of damage from any given attack) or are we talking about the in-world continuity (Ivy's skin is as tough as full plate mail)?

 

[aba1]

No such thing as exploitation in video games. As the characters aren't real people, the only people who could be exploited are the viewers and their lustful hormones.

THIS so much this thank you!

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Are you saying men can't write women? Because I have to say, I find that idea pretty offensive, but I won't take you to task for it just yet because I'm not sure it's what you mean.

Well that's a remarkably smug way of voicing your disagreement. Thanks for reigning in your righteous fist just in case, Thought Police.