Poll: Should Writer/Creators feel shame for Sexualization?

[grassgremlin]

Guys, I can't fix the poll. It won't allow me to edit it. I know it has spelling errors.

I'm referring directly to the fighting fuck toy concept.

For all criticism rallied at not only Dead or Alive, Bayonetta, Etc.
This issue has boiled over to the point, I want to make it it's own thread.
I want to speak to the masses directly on this particular subject.

The nature of sexy characters in video games.
I often get the argument that the concept is indeed offensive, especially relating women and very sexist.

I do know it could be due to body images, pandering and sex sales. But how much is too much? And how much weight does this have for creators who just genuinely want to design sexy characters?

Is there no room for that in gaming?

I really feel the need to discuss this referring not to the game themselves but to the creators.

Please refrain from defending characters. We will solely debate the makers themselves and there creative choices. This is a discussion to be had.

My Opinion

I advocate for equal oppurtunity fan service.
I honestly see no evil scenario to a sexy character in a video game. I have often been most
interested playing the most stylish, the most fabulous, the most sexy social butterfly.

I like characters who revel in being a ravishing piece of work while being fun and engaging. However, I who love sexy things am not immune to a feeling of gross, squickiness when it comes to some games.

I hate when gamers express how much they want to fuck a particular character, and how much they want games where they can have characters they want to fuck. The kinds who want tits and ass everywhere and nothing else. The lovers of dead or alive, playing for wank material and demanding devs increase breast size and bounce. The gross moe game that's borderline porn you would never play in public for anyone. Step back, think of your life. You may have just shown porn publically to everyone.

I also deeply despise the sex for award trope and see no reason to indulge in it if I have the choice. It's a whole new level of eww.

And yet, I also like writing and drawing porn and sexiness fan service. I excuse stuff like Kill la Kill and Bayonetta for many admittedly arbitrary reason.

To me, this issue is complicated. I criticize a famous artist who's injecting his wank bait into a product he has no business injecting it into. [https://twitter.com/KenPenders]
It involves 15 year old echidna girl featured prominantly in bikinis when such character had nothing to do with being sexy

**My Opinion Part 2

I understand the ditractors to sexualization in gaming. The main crutch of the argument is Laziness. Developers rely on specific visual indicators out of Laziness due to a lack of understanding when it comes to the fundamentals of writing vs the audience.

Author Appeal is often used liberally without much context and breaking immersion. If this thing in this fantasy world doesn't fit it can alienate the participant in the viewing. Straight men feel uncomfortable to see men spread out in compromising sexual positions in a particular homoerotic manner while women also feel the same sort of discomfort.

To better understand why feminists criticize this so heavily is to understand how you, a straight male, may view gay or overtly homoerotic media.

My answer
No I don't think Developers should feel shamed for sexualization and I am fully aware no one is trying to make them feel shame. However, I do agree when fans buy a game because of "tits" they should feel shame for using that as a indicator of their purchase. Porn exists and it's free.

Edit: I found some reading materials that has educated me further about the topic of male gaze.

http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/02/authorship-blame-and-neutrality.html
http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-write-empowering-female.html

 

[dragoongfa]

I have been thinking about this lately and I am writing an essay about it (it takes me longer that I initially thought).

For me Sexualization in gaming and other forms of storytelling comes in three varieties:

Sexualization in serious context: As such Sexualized content that plays a key aspect in story, character development/characterization.

In this case it doesn't matter if both genders are sexualized or not. The sexualization itself serves a direct storytelling purpose and us such it should be judged as part of the story.

Sexualization as fanservice/pandering: This here is probably what most people argue about. In this situation I agree that both sexes should be sexualized.

Fanservice/Pandering isn't part of the story, its just a way to titilize the audience. It has its entertainment value and it is funny when it is done right.

Also I have to point out that both sexes are able to appreciate fantasy depictions of the male and female form.

Sexualization for Sex's shake: Yes pornographic games exist, yes the Japs are masters of the genre, yes they cover all possible tastes.

If you argue about the third then I have to ask why don't you go against the Porn industry first?

 

[grassgremlin]

I have been thinking about this lately and I am writing an essay about it (it takes me longer that I initially thought).

For me Sexualization in gaming and other forms of storytelling comes in three varieties:

Sexualization in serious context: As such Sexualized content that plays a key aspect in story, character development/characterization.

In this case it doesn't matter if both genders are sexualized or not. The sexualization itself serves a direct storytelling purpose and us such it should be judged as part of the story.

Sexualization as fanservice/pandering: This here is probably what most people argue about. In this situation I agree that both sexes should be sexualized.

Fanservice/Pandering isn't part of the story, its just a way to titilize the audience. It has its entertainment value and it is funny when it is done right.

Also I have to point out that both sexes are able to appreciate fantasy depictions of the male and female form.

Sexualization for Sex's shake: Yes pornographic games exist, yes the Japs are masters of the genre, yes they cover all possible tastes.

If you argue about the third then I have to ask why don't you go against the Porn industry first?

I agree, this problem would end when men were given the same uncomfortably sexy treatment.
Is it niche'? Maybe, but it's a better outcome.

The main reason I believe this is argument has most to do with quantity.
If sexy was not so prevalent a trope, Bayonetta could exist with little to no critique from anyone but those who really just hate sexy things, however, because sexy permeates our culture when it comes to advertisement and fantasy armor as chain mail bikinis, it's something that is unfortunate to be discussed. Basically, you can't even parody or commentate it anymore.

It's like satire and commentary about humans who breath oxygen. A character breath oxygen and way in your face about breathing oxygen. The audience says, it's not satire or commentary or original cause everyone else breaths oxygen.

 

[dragoongfa]

I agree, this problem would end when men were given the same uncomfortably sexy treatment.
Is it niche'? Maybe, but it's a better outcome.

The main reason I believe this is argument has most to do with quantity.
If sexy was not so prevalent a trope, Bayonetta could exist with little to no critique from anyone but those who really just hate sexy things, however, because sexy permeates our culture when it comes to advertisement and fantasy armor as chain mail bikinis, it's something that is unfortunate to be discussed. Basically, you can't even parody or commentate it anymore.

It's like satire and commentary about humans who breath oxygen. A character breath oxygen and way in your face about breathing oxygen. The audience says, it's not satire or commentary or original cause everyone else breaths oxygen.

I understand the point of being too much 'sexualization' around but that is a direct result of the Sexual Liberation that started in the 60s and ended in the late 80s.

Before that event it wasn't socially acceptable for people to express their sexuality or their desires to experiment with their sexuality.

Sexual Liberation changed that, people were now able to fully explore their sexual desires without anyone but the worse prudes batting an eyelid. It is no wonder that sexual content in media exploded after it became acceptable for people to explore their sexual fetishes.

Pornography was certainly the first big industry that exploded because of Sexual Liberation but the mainstream took it's time testing the waters and only in the past decade have we started seeing sexualized characters in mainstream entertainment.

The marketing departments however, they caught this relatively early. Wether we like it or not, Sexualization grabs the attention even for a couple of seconds, for advertisers those couple of seconds are what they are paid for and that's what they do.

I understand if it becomes tiring for some but the majority of people in western societies find this acceptable and attempts to curb it may result in a step back from sexual liberation.

 

[Thaluikhain]

People who want to have a sexy female character in a game for a good reason are in an awkward position, they will look a lot like the people making tacky fanservice.

Having lots of sexy male characters as well would help with this. Also, lots of female characters that aren't there to be sexy, but are otherwise treated the same.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

People who want to have a sexy female character in a game for a good reason are in an awkward position, they will look a lot like the people making tacky fanservice.

I'd say The Witcher is in this scenario. The female characters are sexualised externally, but internally they're also fleshed-out with back stories and character arcs. But even that isn't enough to please some people, who are willing to throw the game aside merely because externally they wear some revealing clothing, or have the nerve to be a lesbian. Makes you wonder if the accusations of sexism isn't sometimes just as heavy if not more so on the "anti" side of the situation.

 

[Jux]

Characters as sexual beings doesn't inherently bother me. People are sexual, and characters are meant to imitate, approximate, and represent people. It can add depth to a character, when done right.

My views on 'fanservice' type stuff are conflicted. I don't buy that objectification and fetishization of characters is ok, even if it's done to both men and women, simply because when viewed with a broader lenses and put into cultural context, there is no parity. Games don't exist in a vaccuum, and while sexying up men with gratuitous crotch and ass shots (is that even what women want in fan service?) might be seen as breaking the mould, doing the same with women is just reinforcing cultural norms.

Now, while I don't see it as a particularly 'good' thing, I am certainly not calling for a ban on DoA, or the idea of fan service in general. I think that the medium would be better off with relatively less of it though.

 

[The Lunatic]

No, I think we've come a long way in the freedom of expression of sexuality and to shame people for it would only push more towards repression of such things.

 

[grassgremlin]

Characters as sexual beings doesn't inherently bother me. People are sexual, and characters are meant to imitate, approximate, and represent people. It can add depth to a character, when done right.

My views on 'fanservice' type stuff are conflicted. I don't buy that objectification and fetishization of characters is ok, even if it's done to both men and women, simply because when viewed with a broader lenses and put into cultural context, there is no parity. Games don't exist in a vaccuum, and while sexying up men with gratuitous crotch and ass shots (is that even what women want in fan service?) might be seen as breaking the mould, doing the same with women is just reinforcing cultural norms.

Now, while I don't see it as a particularly 'good' thing, I am certainly not calling for a ban on DoA, or the idea of fan service in general. I think that the medium would be better off with relatively less of it though.

In that context . . . I must concede, I understand you 100%. Your response made me glad that I made this thread. It's one I wanted to get.

Let's discuss that cause, your response makes a lot of sense.
Before I continue. Male sexualization is very different from female sexualization as a person frequently makes things with emphasis on sexy men.

Have you ever heard of the franchises like Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, Free! or even Sengoku Basara.

The latter has a surprising amount of homoerotic subtext despite being a series based on the sengoku period. It's suppose to be about warring in ancient japan, but there's a lot of heavy borderline homoerotic subtext laid extremely thick. Yes, most of the time, it's there for fan service entirely.

Free! is a more direct example, it's basically the poster child for the female gaze.

So, if I'm right though. The line is drawn when it based on women due to prevalence. No matter how genuine the developer wants to make it, it can not escape the inherit pandering nature of it's existence. Wow, now that I think about it. I struggle with that issue.

I draw porn because I want to, but I often worry that because porn is a popular I'm still falling into pandering when I'm not even trying. I can never take it as seriously or with the same effort as clean work as much as I want to because inheritedly it can't be taken seriously. Delemas are ten fold.

Thanks for this response, by the way. Literally sexy characters is the only area I have a issue with when it comes to sexism overall. Mostly because it can also kind of lead into "slut shaming", though the verdict is out on whether that is a thing when dealing with a fictional character designed by the opposite sex.

I'm a guy and I love drawing sexy guys. Is that sexist in relation to men?

 

[Zhukov]

Should OP should shame for that title?

Yes, yes you should.

Seriously though, that's a bit of a odd question to ask, and the rest of your post didn't really address it, but rather your opinion on sexualization in general.

I'm not terribly concerned with the feelings of random strangers but just on general principles I guess I'd prefer someone to not be ashamed of their work.

 

[gargantual]

There's certainly room to show more dignity and nuance in entertainment for other sensibilities and demonstrate its a bigger world than us, but from exploring inhuman levels of power, to our own sexual fantasies is something that doesnt need a new era of shame. We live our lives dealing constantly with our own insecurities. Entertainment can be kind and acknowedge them, but not poison the pool for everyone. and overimpose our own insecurities on entertainment.

Some sexual fantasies only work in certain context, and some of us are more visually stirred creatures than others. It also helps less, that usually when we have a protagonist, some lesser character is going to be the puppet. It is respectable to vary up character agency, but more arousing and driving to make your main darling a savior.

So the balance has to be negotiated depending on what an artist wants to do. Remember japans on the surface repression has produced a loooootttt of hentai. Its like a person holding their bladder for too long. These abstractions and fetishes are going to cone out. See how it sitcoms dads are often dolts and wives are the sole intelligence. That's some creators or audiences' ideal.

This is an escape space where we spill out all of our wackiest visual ideas and fetishes. Of course marketers are caught on and manufacture fan service. I think a goal for the future should be for artists to control fetish and add more nuance. Do like kojima, start with the notable wierdness that makes people stand out and show there's so much under the surface you grow a fondness or deeper fascination for these fictional people

 

[Verlander]

No easy answer. I don't think they should feel shame, but I'd like to see them recognise where people are getting upset. Again, sexualisation isn't a sin if there's a character in there. That's what separates Bayonetta from DoA characters to most people.

 

[giles]

Should OP should shame for that title?

Yes, yes you should.

Seriously though, that's a bit of a odd question to ask, and the rest of your post didn't really address it, but rather your opinion on sexualization in general.

I'm not terribly concerned with the feelings of random strangers but just on general principles I guess I'd prefer someone to not be ashamed of their work.

This so much. When I read the title my head instantly tilted so much it almost fell off. What the hell?

Sexualization in games is not bad. Oversexualization is not bad. A fanservice game is not bad.
It's a problem when it's the norm. That's a problem with society at large and no amount of naming and shaming of singular writers/creators is going to help with that. They just give the people what they are willing to pay for.

 

[bazingabro]

Artists should be free to express themselves however they want. I will never play some of these rather sexualized Vita games, but that doesn't mean the devs should be ashamed for making them.

 

[Erttheking]

....The heck is that title supposed to mean? That developers should be shammed for sexualized characters?

Can we please stop taking criticism so personally? The other day I found someone who said that a reviewer that pointed out sexism for twenty seconds in a nine minute review was "Insulting the medium" Criticism of sexualized characters is no different from criticizing lousy shooting mechanics. It's criticizing a part of the game that has been implemented poorly. You can feel free to disagree, but stop acting like every criticism of sexualized characters is a personal attack. If a reviewer outright attacks the developer then it's a different story. If that's not the case though, it isn't shaming. It's criticism. You have no problems saying a game is awful when sex isn't involved, why should it get special attention?

 

[gargantual]

....The heck is that title supposed to mean? That developers should be shammed for sexualized characters?

Can we please stop taking criticism so personally? The other day I found someone who said that a reviewer that pointed out sexism for twenty seconds in a nine minute review was "Insulting the medium" Criticism of sexualized characters is no different from criticizing lousy shooting mechanics. It's criticizing a part of the game that has been implemented poorly. You can feel free to disagree, but stop acting like every criticism of sexualized characters is a personal attack. If a reviewer outright attacks the developer then it's a different story. If that's not the case though, it isn't shaming. It's criticism. You have no problems saying a game is awful when sex isn't involved, why should it get special attention?

LOL. Well excuuuuuuuuuse us. From the usual nitpick this forum takes on the subject it was hard to tell whether most criticism was surface level or personal. Besides while I certainly see where you're coning from, lousy shooting mechanics ruins the kinaesthetic feedback you get in gameplay.

 

[visiblenoise]

....The heck is that title supposed to mean? That developers should be shammed for sexualized characters?

Can we please stop taking criticism so personally? The other day I found someone who said that a reviewer that pointed out sexism for twenty seconds in a nine minute review was "Insulting the medium" Criticism of sexualized characters is no different from criticizing lousy shooting mechanics. It's criticizing a part of the game that has been implemented poorly. You can feel free to disagree, but stop acting like every criticism of sexualized characters is a personal attack. If a reviewer outright attacks the developer then it's a different story. If that's not the case though, it isn't shaming. It's criticism. You have no problems saying a game is awful when sex isn't involved, why should it get special attention?

The difference is that sexualization is usually much more of a matter of taste than something like lousy shooting mechanics. Not to mention that such opinions can often carry undertones of moral or intellectual competitiveness.

 

[Erttheking]

....The heck is that title supposed to mean? That developers should be shammed for sexualized characters?

Can we please stop taking criticism so personally? The other day I found someone who said that a reviewer that pointed out sexism for twenty seconds in a nine minute review was "Insulting the medium" Criticism of sexualized characters is no different from criticizing lousy shooting mechanics. It's criticizing a part of the game that has been implemented poorly. You can feel free to disagree, but stop acting like every criticism of sexualized characters is a personal attack. If a reviewer outright attacks the developer then it's a different story. If that's not the case though, it isn't shaming. It's criticism. You have no problems saying a game is awful when sex isn't involved, why should it get special attention?

The difference is that sexualization is usually much more of a matter of taste than something like lousy shooting mechanics. Not to mention that such opinions can often carry undertones of moral competitiveness.

And? Taste normally comes into play when horror is in affect, I don't see anything about developers being shamed for their horror games. And there's moral undertones. Not necessarily. I know for a fact I commonly criticized sexualization because it pile drives the tone and pacing into a concrete traffic barrier. And even if the criticism has some basis in morality, that doesn't translate to shaming. People do not demand that developers cater to their needs or that they're all sexist.