Poll: Uncovered Breasts On Covers

[LilithSlave]

I'm talking on a subconscious, evolutionary level here.

Prove it.

Also, finding something "attractive" is different from getting an erection at it. There are a lot of guys that say they find shorter women attractive, but doesn't mean they get an erection from a woman being short.

And what about the guys who prefer smaller breasts? Did they evolve differently?

Also, large breasts aren't better at breastfeeding children and are a minor suffocation hazard. And if anything, sometimes bigger fat deposits in the chest restrict lactive flow.

Also, it would seem sensible, but I've seen little evidence that wider hips actually do provide easier labor. Some people might use the "common sense" rebuttal, that wider hips would surely leave more room for an infant exiting the womb, but that's not exactly actually logical. All I've found about the subject is anecdotal from people with enough variety to make even a correlation between hip size and ease of birth wholly unintelligible. And absolutely no studies.

But even if it were true, there would need to be neurological proof for this supposition. I've seen this claim made thousands upon thousands of times. Never have I seen any decent citation for it.

Let's just take a look. [https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=do%20wide%20hi&tok=y_D3VcfPDTKrUdRRW0CU9Q&cp=12&gs_id=48&xhr=t&q=do+wide+hips+help+with+childbirth&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=do+wide+hips&aq=0&aqi=g1g-K2g-m1&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=896fd9c23e2637e0&biw=1366&bih=579]
Nothing here. [https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=neurological+data+sexual+breast+attraction&oq=neurological+data+sexual+breast+attraction&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...47483.55789.2.56099.45.40.1.2.2.0.613.6168.0j35j2j1j0j1.40.0...0.0.XrjsiHKVrrw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=896fd9c23e2637e0&biw=1366&bih=579]
Or here. [https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=neurological+data+sexual+wide+hips+attraction&oq=neurological+data+sexual+wide+hips+attraction&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...24441.27478.3.27704.13.12.1.0.0.1.129.1392.0j12.12.0...0.0.0-vfWJHk8bg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=896fd9c23e2637e0&biw=1366&bih=579]

There are some attempts within the field of Evolutionary Psychology. Of course, those are ill founded psuedoscience with little more than dressing up the idea of correlation as surely equaling causation as "science". Recently, scientists have come under a lot of scrutiny for claims made about race with science, not so with gender or sex. And evolutionary psychology and the search for "human instinct" has remained one of the most dubious studies in all of science.

It would be different if they found some solid neurological data. Whether it be about claims that men are more visuo-spatial, or that men have a psychological need and driving to have a higher social status and authority than women. But they haven't. And thus far remains pretty much on the exact same level of verification as The Bell Curve. It's conjecture that has not gone through any real proper testing. Science is about testing likelihoods. An idea is a hypothesis, a theory is something that has stood to rigorous testing. Evolutionary Psychology does not stand up to testing.

And claims like this especially do not seem to have a history of scientific testing. Therefor, I have no reason to believe them.

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

I guess the marketing of Catherine had a lot to do with that purchase, but more because it was a game about sex, not just because, hey, titties!

 

[pure.Wasted]

I'm talking on a subconscious, evolutionary level here.

Prove it.

Also, finding something "attractive" is different from getting an erection at it. There are a lot of guys that say they find shorter women attractive, but doesn't mean they get an erection from a woman being short.

Yes it does. It means just that: they find it easier to get an erection looking at a classically beautiful woman who is short, than one who is tall.

What is there to prove? Guys being enamoured with feet is common enough, but nowhere near as common as guys being enamoured with breasts. Obviously there's a difference. Now, cultural norms definitely play a role here (for instance, ankles were a hot topic in Victorian England), but if anything, the over-exposure to breasts should have nullified their effect on guys in contemporary Western culture by now. Ankles were "hot" precisely because they were exotic. Breasts today are anything but.

The fact that no real nullification of their effect on the common male has occured is telling in and of itself.

And what about the guys who prefer smaller breasts? Did they evolve differently?

Possibly, yes. Some "guys" are born really smart, others really dumb; and while common sense might suggest that it would be in humanity's best interests to start producing only smart guys, humanity isn't an evolutionary force. What we are is an aggreggate of individual genes passed down and mixed-and-matched over generations. You don't bat an eyelash at the son or daughter of a family rife with cancer being diagnosed with cancer, it "makes sense." Despite cancer not being in the best interests of anybody. So why couldn't some families similarly pass down a fondness for small breasts?

Furthermore it's entirely possible that a predisposition to large breasts in all males is overriden in some by their environment, ie very powerful associations created in childhood.

 

[LilithSlave]

the over-exposure to breasts should have nullified their effect on guys in contemporary Western culture by now.

But it depends on the kind of exposure. Breasts themselves have become highly sexualized. In fact, with our media the way it is, it's actually possible that breasts are now more sexualized than ever before.

With our modern technology and heavy media and cultural exposure on a day to day basis, breasts are, again, probably more sexualized than ever before. Being abundant isn't enough. Being abundant can make them even more sexualized. Because of the context they are presented in. The majority of media, and this is what I took issue with in the first post of my thread, is to be sex objects.

Heavy exposure can help normalize and unsexualize a body part. Thus I think we can move into a world where a woman goes topless and it be no big deal. On the other hand, heavy exposure does not necessarily mean that. It depends heavily on presentation.

Exposed ankles were not normalized with them being a common object of pop media titillation.

 

[viranimus]

Uhg... It wears me out to see all these "the state of the treatment of women in this day and age is deplorable" talk.

Look, like it or not, sex sells. Yes it is disappointing that were not more evolved than that, but having an expectation to somehow supplant thousands of years of evolution and genetic hard wiring is incredibly unrealistic.

Then there are the females. Has anyone really stopped and thought, Hey maybe just maybe not all females actually find it offensive. You do realize there is the whole slutwalk movement so as women can feel empowered to dress however they wish, right? Some women actually want to look like that, so representing it in game is not entirely about the objectification of females, because in some ways there ARE some dumpy girls with glasses who would like to pretend that they are some high powered

Spoiler: Glamazon

Just like theres pimply faced tubby guys who like to pretend like they are some hyper powered Conan the barbarian type complete with gigantic pectoral moobs and shoulders like a linebacker.

I know my ex fiancee used to play EQ, WoW, CoH and a few other MMOs. One of the things she enjoyed most about the games was the various options on how to design her char, and honestly she always found something that she was happy with. It was not like she selected the most conservative models, but she never found a problem in striking a balance between looking like a walking pant suit and looking like your preparing for your first day of work at the strip club. And usually she purposely went for a more provocative look and in encountering plenty of girl gamers in my time Ive always seen a similar balance

Last I checked, this was all a part of the "fantasy" role playing genre, and really is there not some degree of logic to allow players in a fantasy setting to play as things that they cannot nor ever will be in real life?

Is this really something productive to focus on? Imposing our own individual awkwardness regarding the female body on everyone?

 

[Kargathia]

Somehow I sincerely doubt many can honestly say that a pair of boobs does not help get their attention. Logic and taste might decry it as being blatant pandering a split-second later, but the initial pull still happened.

 

[LilithSlave]

thousands of years of evolution and genetic hard wiring is incredibly unrealistic.

[citation needed]

I mean come on. I know our brains are big, but just how much room for sexual instinct do you think they have?

Hey maybe just maybe not all females actually find it offensive.

And that doesn't make it any less wrong. Do you know how many gay people hate gay people?

This reminds me of "hey I have a black friend who doesn't think it's racist so therefor it's not racist". Come on.

You do realize there is the whole slutwalk movement so as women can feel empowered to dress however they wish, right?

But it's not trying to normalize the objectification of women!

An opposition to slut shaming is not the same as wanting to see women in games thrown in thongs and men in games thrown in gigantic chain-mail. Women should be strong, visible, and not have to be sexualized for it.

For the record, I am not against sexualization of women or men at all. Certainly not. Just the state of the industry. Sex selling is, in fact, okay to a degree. Obviously.

Some women actually want to look like that

Well of course, the media has been shoving this image of beauty down their throats for a long time!

High powered is fine! It's not the same thing! And exposing breasts, well fully exposed or just cleavage, is not the same thing as sexualizing them! Makoto from Street Fighter goes around with her bra visible frequently. But it's not a particularly sexualized thing. At least I haven't encountered it being that.

 

[pure.Wasted]

Heavy exposure can help normalize and unsexualize a body part. Thus I think we can move into a world where a woman goes topless and it be no big deal. On the other hand, heavy exposure does not necessarily mean that. It depends heavily on presentation.

Waaaait a second. What's wrong with breasts being a sexualized body part? Never mind the fact that the sort of everyone-working-togetherness this kind of effort would take would be unprecedented in all of human history... I like liking breasts. I don't want to stop. ?

Besides, it's a two-way street. Maybe I don't like the fact that as a guy, I'm being judged on having a job/not having a job, having a car/not having a car. Should we get the media on this as well?

captcha: verizon, describe this brand with any word(s)
pirate bay closing, freedom-hating asshats

Let's see if that flies!

 

[LilithSlave]

I like liking breasts. I don't want to stop. ?

And that's fine. Normalization as in, one of the most prominent forms of titillation today. So much so that breasts are hardly ever thought of in a non-sexual manner and a woman going topless is seen as a invitation to rape. Even though women's swimsuits typical show more skin than men's, and men typically go topless with swim trunks.

It's a wholly overdone things. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a fetish or attraction to breasts or feet or whatever. But breasts and other attractions are not treated remotely the same. When they ought to be.

I would like to live in a world where women can go topless just as easily as a guy. And women can be a prominent character in a video game just as easily as a guy without having to make poses and camera angles which appeal to the sexuality. And a world where breasts are no big deal, whether you sexualize them or not, not "Oh my God breasts, so sexy and scandalous" or "Oh my God breasts, hide the children this is adult and decadent, get some clothes on that hussy!".

And that's not going to happen with the current state of pop culture and cultural mores.

 

[chadachada123]

Well this poll topic seems like a dud. =P

I've never bought anything *because* of boobs. I've bought some games *in spite* of boobs.

This man (woman?) sums it up best.

I'm your standard straight male, but I can't stand sexualized covers. I'd much prefer a grittier cover, say, with a realistically-proportioned woman with a bloodied-up face fighting for survival. That shit would sell far better than sex any day.

We don't live in Japan, advertisers.

 

[Yopaz]

Boxart really doesn't matter much to me unless the boxart says something special. Like Need For Speed including a couple next generation cars that haven't hit the market yet. Now that made me drool and buy it at once.

I buy most of my games from online retailers or digital distribution. Few of my games are bought on impulse, most of them are planned when I heard them announced, Like Xenoblade, Skyward Sword, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower. Awesome games and I got the collector's edition of all of them. Tits on the boxart doesn't affect me much, but I have a tendency to ignore those boxarts to a such degree that I can't remember I've ever heard of them.

 

[pure.Wasted]

I like liking breasts. I don't want to stop. ?

I would like to live in a world where women can go topless just as easily as a guy. And women can be a prominent character in a video game just as easily as a guy without having to make poses and camera angles which appeal to the sexuality.

[...]

And that's not going to happen with the current state of pop culture and cultural mores.

Okay, those are good points, and in general I agree... but I have to say, I think you're confusing two different ideas a little bit.

Women not being prominent characters in video games has nothing to do with their overt sexuality, and everything to do with the people writing video games being 1) guys, 2) guys who can't write interesting characters, and 3) guys who don't understand women.

One of the best examples of this phenomenon in action, that I can think of, is the TV show Lost. Don't know how familiar with it you are. Basically, completely character-driven show, some of the most complex and fleshed out characters you can find anywhere on TV, great writing combined with phenomenal acting... and horrible, horrible female characters. To the point where the female lead was widely detested by a majority of the fanbase despite the actress's not insignificant acting talents, and the writers eventually admitting, and I quote, "We don't know how to write women."

It's the easiest thing in the world. Just pretend they're men.

It might not be the ideal solution 100% of the time, but it will be 99% of the time. (And while the Lost writers could be accused of many things, oversexualizing women is not one of them.)

That this simple idea eludes so many professional writers even outside of the male-dominated games industry shows that the real problem isn't our love of boobies, and making boobies less interesting won't change a thing. Our problem is that our society doesn't really understand women. And unfortunately, it'll take a long while yet to fix that, boobs or no.

 

[Ranorak]

I refuse to be seen as the target demography with a cover like that.
Don't get me wrong, I like nudity.
I love the female forms, but putting your characters in a "sexy" pose, for the cover, gives me the idea that this game has no other strong points to advertise.
"Our girls are hot" is not a selling point for me.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I'm female so it just makes me roll my eyes. Imagine loving a hobby where everything was geared towards gay men and you will understand how uncomfortable women can be made to feel sometimes.

The worst thing is when awesome characters like Lara Croft are reduced to a pair of boobs by the media. It's kind of tragic.

There's a difference between looking attractive and looking like an underwear model. Personally I love female character designs of Diablo 3. The female barbarian is even muscular!

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Maybe?

I remember Sudeki, which was marketed with such a hilariously over the top tongue in cheek sexual campaign ('Pray for a full frontal assault!' Really?) The semi-ude woman on the cover did at least compel me to read the back, I liked what I saw and bought it, and found to my surprise that it was actually a really good game. I still play it today.

So I guess self-aware sexualised marketing. Either knowing that your game is worthless but that breasts will help it sell, or knowing it's good, but that people might not notice it and using hyper-sexuality to drum up attention.

Sex sells, anyone who says otherwise is deluded.

 

[Phasmal]

I'm female so it just makes me roll my eyes. Imagine loving a hobby where everything was geared towards gay men and you will understand how uncomfortable women can be made to feel sometimes.

The worst thing is when awesome characters like Lara Croft are reduced to a pair of boobs by the media. It's kind of tragic.

There's a difference between looking attractive and looking like an underwear model. Personally I love female character designs of Diablo 3. The female barbarian is even muscular!

People still moan cause the lady-barbarian doesn't look like a Victorias secret model, but hopefully Blizzard will continue to ignore them (I certainly don't want a repeat of what happened to the worgen in WoW... those derphounds).

If a game has to resort to boobs to get people excited- it probably isn't a very good game.
And I'm not interested in boobs. More half-naked men on game covers! (And I don't mean slabs of beef like Kratos either).

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

One would have to be rather dumb to do so, in my opinion.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think its like one of the first episodes of House where he tells Cameron why he hired her.

House: "...I hired you because you are extremely pretty."
Cameron: "You hired me to get into my pants?"
House: "I can't believe that that would shock you. It's also not what I said. No, I hired you because you look good; it's like having a nice piece of art in the lobby."

Essentially, they figure that if they put semi-naked women on it to attract a customer to at least someone will look at their game. And they're right. While no one in their right mind will buy a game because there is attractive box art, that box art may just attract enough attention because it is attractive.

 

[370999]

No-one buys a game just because of the tits, or ass or whatever, to say that would be to boil down incredibly complex things such as purchasing goods to a binary process which does it a disservice. However are people influenced by it, albeit unknowingly? Probably yes.

More likely it drew someone's attention to the game in the first place, they read the blurb, checked the price, thought back to reviews and then decided to buy/not buy it.

I think Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball proves you wrong, also have you never heard eroge games?

Aye, though I would say that DOA at least has the fact that there is a fighting system in it, and I've heard that it's alright, I have no real interest in buying.

I think with some eroge as well they are very much plot with porn i.e it isn't just the sex but the process of getting to the sex which interest the people who play them.

So I would say it fits with it not being a binary decision but rather a multitude of factors.

 

[Evilsanta]

I just went over my game collectio and the only the games covers that have tits on them would be Guild wars Faction and Bayonetta. But I didn't buy them for that reason.

So no would be my answer.