Poll: Bikini or miniskirt - Which is more exploitative?

[JimB]

Well that's a remarkably smug way of voicing your disagreement.

Mm. I'd intended it to communicate that while I'm pretty pissed off about what I think he's saying, I am aware there's more than one way to read it and therefore I should lay the groundwork for an apology for jumping to conclusions. But yeah, in retrospect, it is pretty smug.

Thanks for reigning in your righteous fist just in case, Thought Police.

You're welcome. Now go about your business. I'll let you off with a warning this time, but if I catch you thinking those thoughts again, I'll have to ticket you.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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.

As opposed to your reply, which wasn't the least bit smug or condescending? Let's not turn this into a dick waving contest and throw around pointless rhetoric and chest pounding.

 

[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.

As opposed to your reply, which wasn't the least bit smug or condescending? Let's not turn this into a dick waving contest and throw around pointless rhetoric and chest pounding.

I'm aware that I'm smug and condescending. He wasn't, and would have preferred not coming off in such a way, realizing he could've worded his statement differently, because, well, someone told him.

You're just preaching to the choir, though, and now we've both wasted our time.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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.

As opposed to your reply, which wasn't the least bit smug or condescending? Let's not turn this into a dick waving contest and throw around pointless rhetoric and chest pounding.

I'm aware that I'm smug and condescending. He wasn't, and would have preferred not coming off in such a way, realizing he could've worded his statement differently, because, well, someone told him.

You're just preaching to the choir, though, and now we've both wasted our time.

If you considered it a waste of time, you wouldn't have replied.

Cop-out much? :/

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

If you considered it a waste of time, you wouldn't have replied.

Cop-out much? :/

That's absurd. Arguably everything we do is a waste of time, and few would argue watching videos of some British dude swearing about video games isn't among them, nor is pausing to glance at what people on an internet forum are talking about so some random dude can talk down to me because he doesn't like the way I suggested someone was being a jerk.

That said, wasting my time obviously doesn't bother me much, as I'm still doing it; it being a waste of time doesn't mean one doesn't want to do it - it's often cathartic and enjoyable - and it hasn't stopped us from beating a dead horse for no reason, has it?

 

[Clearing the Eye]

If you considered it a waste of time, you wouldn't have replied.

Cop-out much? :/

That's absurd. Arguably everything we do is a waste of time, and few would argue watching videos of some British dude swearing about video games isn't among them, nor is pausing to glance at what people on an internet forum are talking about so some random dude can talk down to me because he doesn't like the way I suggested someone was being a jerk.

That said, wasting my time obviously doesn't bother me much, as I'm still doing it; it being a waste of time doesn't mean one doesn't want to do it - it's often cathartic and enjoyable - and it hasn't stopped us from beating a dead horse for no reason, has it?

If id didn't bother you much, you wouldn't have mentioned it. Or do you just randomly mention things of no concern to you?

Dancing around logic isn't making your posts seem any the wiser :/

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

If you considered it a waste of time, you wouldn't have replied.

Cop-out much? :/

That's absurd. Arguably everything we do is a waste of time, and few would argue watching videos of some British dude swearing about video games isn't among them, nor is pausing to glance at what people on an internet forum are talking about so some random dude can talk down to me because he doesn't like the way I suggested someone was being a jerk.

That said, wasting my time obviously doesn't bother me much, as I'm still doing it; it being a waste of time doesn't mean one doesn't want to do it - it's often cathartic and enjoyable - and it hasn't stopped us from beating a dead horse for no reason, has it?

If id didn't bother you much, you wouldn't have mentioned it. Or do you just randomly mention things of no concern to you?

Dancing around logic isn't making your posts seem any the wiser :/

That's what your entire problem here is (other than that you seem to suffer from some kind of affliction that requires you to end all addresses toward me with a colon and a forward slash): you assume I'm trying to be wise and clever, when I'm really just telling you exactly what my stance is. You assume that it's not a waste of time because I did it, and that it bothers me because I brought it up, and that's just... silly, to put it kindly, and it's even more so that you continue to think it even when the person you're accusing plainly tells you that's not the case.

I'm not trying to impress you, because I frankly don't care what you think. That doesn't mean I hold any ill will or distaste for you; it just means that trying to trump or beat you has no place in my priorities list, and really, if I had a dollar for every time some dude on the internet assumed I was filled with rage and made a bunch of crap up with no reasoning other than "I don't like the way you said that, so you must be an awful human being", much less anything evident or logical, I could pay you guys quite lucratively to knock it off, and still have some change left over to live comfortably for the rest of my years, so a lot of it is white noise at this point.

I'll still indulge you though, because again, I've got nothing better to do. Feel free to offer your latest conjecture about why you think that is.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

You seem to suffer from some kind of affliction that requires you to end all addresses toward me with a colon and a forward slash.

Ooo. Quite calculating and poignant. Very aloof and edgy. I wish I was that brooding.

Maybe relax a bit?

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

You seem to suffer from some kind of affliction that requires you to end all addresses toward me with a colon and a forward slash.

Ooo. Quite calculating and poignant. Very aloof and edgy. I wish I was that brooding.

Maybe relax a bit?

And now we've reached the point where an entire wall of reasonable-if-dry explanation that boils down to "here's what I'm actually doing, so you can stop with the assumptive douchebaggery" is completely ignored in favor of looking for new ways to be an assumptive douchebag, and so it is time to move on. I mean, come on, you didn't even take all of the opportunities at it; you just read one sentence and said "Yep, this is assumptive douchebag gold right here. It will never get any better than this."

Hopefully the next person I tick off will be more fun to argue with, and we can get along afterward after our inevitable little tiff and have cake (or pie, if they're into that) and share a mutual amused respect for one another. You're quite obviously not the latest example of that, though, having the apparent agreeability (it's a word because I say it is, spellchecker! To the pits with you!) of a brick wall made of mules and all. I'm sure you're otherwise an okay person, though.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

You seem to suffer from some kind of affliction that requires you to end all addresses toward me with a colon and a forward slash.

Ooo. Quite calculating and poignant. Very aloof and edgy. I wish I was that brooding.

Maybe relax a bit?

And now we've reached the point where an entire wall of reasonable-if-dry explanation that boils down to "here's what I'm actually doing, so you can stop with the assumptive douchebaggery" is completely ignored in favor of looking for new ways to be an assumptive douchebag, and so it is time to move on. I mean, come on, you didn't even take all of the opportunities at it; you just read one sentence and said "Yep, this is assumptive douchebag gold right here. It will never get any better than this."

Hopefully the next person I tick off will be more fun to argue with, and we can get along afterward after our inevitable little tiff and have cake (or pie, if they're into that) and share a mutual amused respect for one another. You're quite obviously not the latest example of that, though, having the apparent agreeability (it's a word because I say it is, spellchecker! To the pits with you!) of a brick wall made of mules and all. I'm sure you're otherwise an okay person, though.

Dear god. I made need a scuba to get through all that rhetoric and text for its own sake. Maybe a machete, too.

Here's a diddy for you:

"Soft-violence as pragmatic necessity
Bullbaiting with the starved dogs of rhetoric
An arena sport like no other
Bring on the organ-grinders
Carnival barkers
Snake-oil paddlers
Pork-barreling mouthpieces
Parceling out concerted blows of categorical reification
Deep bites with self-confirming payloads
Live seed for excessive entitlement and a snare for every congenital impulse"

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Dear god. I made need a scuba to get through all that rhetoric and text for its own sake. Maybe a machete, too.

Pick up a grammar checker while you're at it.

And with "stooping to their level" out of the way, we've come to the end of this pathetic train ride. Everyone get the hell off, and don't forget to visit the gift shop. Goodnight!

 

[godofslack]

Nothing is automatically exploitative (as I too can't think of a better word for it), what matters is that the character has a reason for their actions. The issue becomes how in most games the default female attire is super over sexualized without so much as a word as to why. You don't believe the character chooses her attire for a reason, sexual or otherwise. In a simply technical sense, a bikini would be worse for normal gaming, largely because bikinis are designed to allow breasts to bounce, a trait that would be undesirable in combat. If a character decides to dress in the normal fetishistic way it's okay as long as they are making the decision, unless of course it's intentional that they aren't and that's a totally different can of worms.

Basically, dressing anyway is okay if it fits with the character's decision making, or if making a point of the lack of freedom they have.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Pick up a grammar checker while you're at it.

And with

> Comments on grammar (which was fine, by the way)
> Starts a sentence with "And."

Hmm. The words glass and house spring to mind.

 

[godofslack]

Pick up a grammar checker while you're at it.

And with

> Comments on grammar (which was fine, by the way)
> Starts a sentence with "And."

Hmm. The words glass and house spring to mind.

Hate to be that guy, but yeah, that's allowed, it's just a rule created by grade school teachers to try and teach you the most formal type of writing possible.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

"explotive" seems to imply its a negative and immoral thing. I am going to mentally change it to alluring since that would make more sense in my mind. I would go with bikini since while the mini-skirt does have its charms it simply cant stand up to the counter of the bikinis skin exposure. though if you meant exploitive as in objectification then I would have to awnser neither. Dressing girls up to look sexy so more people buy your product is simply a appeal to human nature and desire which is really the goal of all entertainment. Especially since the charecters are fictional and created for the entire purpose of benefitting a audience. Allowing sexual titilation is just one more way to make something more entertaining.

 

[Talvrae]

Its not about the clothes, its about the context.
Anything can be made uncomfortably sexual.

This... When i'm at the beach wearing a bikini, or at the mall with a mini skirt, no one had to exploit me to do so, it's because i'm well in them and want to be in them...
In a video game, depending of the context... well it's male designer putting impossible girls in tiny outfits to excite male audience, it's dimminutive to both femelles and males if you ask me

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Pick up a grammar checker while you're at it.

And with

> Comments on grammar (which was fine, by the way)
> Starts a sentence with "And."

Hmm. The words glass and house spring to mind.

Hate to be that guy, but yeah, that's allowed, it's just a rule created by grade school teachers to try and teach you the most formal type of writing possible.

Actually, from someone who went on to study English, the correct grammar would have been: "With that out of the way." The and they used was redundant.

 

[godofslack]

Pick up a grammar checker while you're at it.

And with

> Comments on grammar (which was fine, by the way)
> Starts a sentence with "And."

Hmm. The words glass and house spring to mind.

Hate to be that guy, but yeah, that's allowed, it's just a rule created by grade school teachers to try and teach you the most formal type of writing possible.

Actually, as someone who went on to study English, the correct grammar would have been: "With that out of the way."

In formal English, usually. But, this is a forum, where formal English is certainly not used, hell half the stuff on forums are barely even English. There are still debates if you can or can not use it at the start of a sentence, in formal English, but damn near every great writer does use it time to time. It's just one of those rules that have always been soft, and the only people who ever really followed them were some literary scholars and the extremely young.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Pick up a grammar checker while you're at it.

And with

> Comments on grammar (which was fine, by the way)
> Starts a sentence with "And."

Hmm. The words glass and house spring to mind.

Hate to be that guy, but yeah, that's allowed, it's just a rule created by grade school teachers to try and teach you the most formal type of writing possible.

Actually, as someone who went on to study English, the correct grammar would have been: "With that out of the way."

In formal English, usually. But, this is a forum, where formal English is certainly not used, hell half the stuff on forums are barely even English. There are still debates if you can or can not use it at the start of a sentence, in formal English, but damn near every great writer does use it time to time. It's just one of those rules that have always been soft, and the only people who ever really followed them were some literary scholars and the extremely young.

Beyond the validity of using and to start a sentence, in this case it was simply bad grammar.

What they said: "And with "stooping to their level" out of the way, we've come to the end of this pathetic train ride."

Better grammar: "With stooping to your level out of the way, we've come to the end of this pathetic train ride." Or, better still; "Now that I've stooped to your level," etc., etc.

Even if someone could argue for using the and, it's simply bad English to use one there, as it is redundant. I'm not an English Nazi in this context, mind. I'm simply pointing out their error, as they were so quick in attempting to do he same to myself. I also just don't like them and their attitude, so I'm more inclined to nitpick, lol.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

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.

See, I don't see individual characters within the game as being sold, the entire game is sold based on its certain style. Beyond that, individual characters are rather shallow, all of them male and female alike. And most of them most you really remember are their weapons. Guy with big hammer, guy with big sickle, girl with wrist blades that kills me all the time, girl with whip sword. The only one who has any semblance of depth is Siegfried, and I think to criticize one of it's characters for "only being based on sex appeal" is really to be totally unfair to the game because it's not trying to set these characters up as much at all. Give them a single sentence backstory and let them have at it.

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.

I'm not saying that they can't, just that it's really incredibly difficult for them to do so. The key to bringing a character off successfully, especially in something where you're having that character attack aliens in a suit of power armor, is to have a couple of moments of emotional connection with them, "I've done that," "I've felt that way," etc. And to be a man is quite simply a fundamentally different experience. We process visual information differently, we have different biologies, our brains work a little differently, and our social pressures are different. Why would you think that's insulting when I say that as a writer is really hard to overcome? It is, and more power to the really good writers that do it, but most writers are not really good writers.