The "Male Power Fantasy": what do women generally and actually find sexy?

[Talshere]

The ones that are prominently featured either allow women in combat roles or have a de facto allowance. One of the issues about women in frontline combat in the US is that women have been allowed in frontline combat for decades, but haven't been allowed to be recognised for it (No medals, no experience, no jobs pertaining to it). And given how many shooters are US-centric, I don't think it matters what most countries do. Or, given the nature of the "ban" that was in place, whether there was a ban on record.

To argue it's factually incorrect is factually incorrect in itself. Unless we're going to see a glut of Ugandan (for example) FPS. Or unless we're going to see a lot of FPS specifically revolving around bureaucracy rather than actual combat.

Further, we see anachronistic weapons in shooters because ponies. So why would we suddenly care about historical accuracy because wimminz are on the battlefield?

As such, this sort of thing routinely seems more of an excuse to keep out what people don't want or don't like.

However, I'd argue even that is a secondary concern. When you can get shot in the face five times and brought back to full health by either hiding behind cover for a few seconds or grabbing some bandages, the facts have gone out the window. When a single soldier can take on 10,000 enemies single-handedly or with the help of only a handful of allies, the facts have gone out the window. When you can carry four or more guns that appear out of hammerspace, the facts have gone out the window.

Why is a set of breasts such a dealbreaker when the invincble Army of One Dudebro isn't?

Again, it seems like we're only interested in realism as an argument when we don't like what it would allow. If gamers want realism and historical and factual accuracy, why is Call of Duty the go-to shooter? Why is Battlefield so much less popular when it's only somewhat more realistic, and why aren't tactical shooters dominating the market?

Because, seemingly, the only time realism is an issue is when women want to be included. Or "things we don't like" as a broader genre. Being a hypermasculine bullet sponge who can slow down time or dual wield aircraft chainguns or survive a point-blank grenade? Cool. Women? REALISM ALERT!

And whether sexism or double standards is the intent, it certainly gives off the appearance.

Not guna lie, as a self confessed PC elitist pig. I havnt played any of the last gen console exclusives like Army of Two. Which as I understand it was god awful. The last FPS's I played are oldest to new newest. Cod4:MW, BF:BC, Planetside 2. Ive also played Spec Ops: The Line but thats technically a 3rd person shooter.

Planetside 2 actually does have female soldiers. Tbh, unless you stood motionless in a group youd be hard pressed to tell the difference with most classes/factions. I remember the devs saying actually that designing female characters was both simultaneously difficult and easy. Easy because they needed the hit-box to be the virtually identical for balance, so the proportions were almost the same. Difficult because under all the futuristic armour, it was quite difficult to be able to actually make them look female because if they couldnt make women look different there was functionally little point in including them. I think they did a pretty good job. If your guna be playing an infiltrator or Light assault, the two lightest infantry class, you could argue being a female character gives you a slight advantage due to size and shape (shorter and with a narrower chest). But tbh, I think youre clutching straws with it. Ive personally never really noticed a significant difference.

 

[hazydawn]

Spoiler

Both of them are fighting an enemy, but Nightwing might be one of the only male characters that gets the same crazy camera angles.

Hnnnngggg... Dat pose, this physique and tight costume.
I bet he would look good in any of those ridiculous "female" poses :3
The world needs more sexualization of men!

There's nothing really wrong with this stuff... in my opinion... it exists outside of reality and shouldn't be compared to reality.

That's also the way I see it. It is created and exists for the pleasure of people with these fantasies, what could be wrong with that?
At the same time I imagine what influence this constant reiteration of what is considered male and female has on society. Boys and girls are brought up with these expectations, and I think they are equally detrimental to the free character development of a person for both genders. How it effects social standing is a different issue not to be neglected.
I believe it would be beneficial for all, if there wasn't such a huge discrepancy between how often males and females are displayed in a certain way - totally neglecting peer pressure. I do not think however, that the industry can be morally blamed for creating this discrepancy. Companies create the product they think will be popular. Because of that, fear, and maybe a lack of imagination and originality what is popular gets copied over and over.
The way society works, a completely equal portrayal of genders is in my opinion impossible. But we can at least complain and fight to make it more equal.

So I guess people complain for different reasons in threads like this (and I like that they do). For one because they want to see more content that is pleasing to their preferences. Others worry about the impact on society. And then there are those that feel insulted by the slightest bit of sexualization of their gender and won't let others have their fun... but I think they're a minority.

Maybe this is going to much off-topic and I should have posted this in the other "female power fantasy" thread. :0

It would send the same message without having strayed into the realm of willfully retarded. That image they are dressed identically, yet it displays no equivalence. The moment you caricature something, as is the case in 90% of Hawkeye project images, you forgo equivalence to gain comic effect and thus undermine the argument.

I thought the same thing when I visited their site!
...just not so beautifully put.

But what if in that picture he wore the exact same chainmail bikini? Or if he had a manly beard and body hair all over the place? That always kills it for me >.<

I just realized that's the same hairless, lean body figure ideal I hold females to, so it's okay ^^

 

[Something Amyss]

What I do think is that, as far as the industry goes, we could really use some of the female power fantasy and sexual fantasy stuff, and have it be hugely popular. Not to see the reaction of male gamers, but rather for the reaction of the publishers. Because that's also where a part of the problem you described lies, publishers who feel that in order to make big profits they have to cater to that specific male niche (that not even all men like).

Well, we could. I mostly say I'd like to see the reactions because I want all the "STFU! It's just a game" people to complain and learn from the irony. But then again, that's very optimistic of me. On here, I've seen a guy asking why gays felt the need for their own conventions say he wouldn't feel comfortable being the minority at a gay convention, which is part of the point and self awareness would have driven that home.

Jim "sexiest man alive" Sterling has talked about one of the reasons we can't have female leads with explicit heterosexual relationships is that guys are put off by it, but the boilerplate response to the number of male leads in the same boat is "deal with it, it's not that big a deal."

But otherwise, I have to say, I'm not too fussed about cheesecake or beefcake. I really would rather neither be in my games. I know that's not a reality that's going to happen, though. I have to say, at that point, if we're going to have cheesecake, then yes. Why not some beefcake, too? Something not designed to make 13 year old boys (the bread and butter of the M market) question their sexuality, but rather that is actually designed to appeal to women?

Then again, that would require the industry not be tone deaf to women. I'm pretty sure that, like most of the guys who claim "men are objectified, too!" they overall think that there's nothing hotter than Kratos to women and that a guy in swim trunks is equal to a girl with a postage stamp over her vulva.

I don't think a much more moderate game, no matter how greatly enjoyed by pretty much everyone, would drive that point home as effectively. It would probably be a better game all things considered, on that I would agree, but it'd be less effective in broadening some perspectives that probably need some broadening.

While I agree it wouldn't quite make the same point, I would like to see more moderate games because I honestly think it is possible, ultimately, for men and women to enjoy the same games. Maybe not every man and every woman, maybe not 100% of the time, but in general. It used to not be so huge an issue. But then, this may also be horribly optimistic.

More polarised games might demonstrate sales potential, yeah. The other concern, though, is marketing. One of the usual apologists for not bothering with women and gaming posted an article on here about how much more poorly games with female leads sell. What he left out, that was a big portion of the article, was that games with selectable genders receive half the marketing money in the same study, and games with female leads receive less than 40% of it. We could get several games designed to appeal to women's ideals, even crafted by women for women, and never see any results if they don't put any money behind it. I mean, yeah. Some games do make the rounds by word of mouth, but those sensations are exceptions and not the rule.

 

[mecegirl]

In the end, I'd say Japan is much, much more open to designing characters that are meant to be attractive to girls (while not being exclusive to a female audience), wherein 90% of the Western-made male videogame characters seem to fear being too sexy.

Which is what causes the problem: Japan can design slutty sexy female chars and slutty sexy male chars. Which is why I don't mind at all when "sexist" videogames like Catherine or Killer Is Dead exist.
Instead, Western devs usually can design slutty sexy females chars but NO slutty sexy male chars. Which is why I have a problem with sexism in gaming.

While I'm sure these designs do not appeal to all women, I'm going to post an example from Japan. An otome game( adating sim for women) called Kamigami No Asobi has been adapted into an anime.

Spoiler

It has begun airing this season. I usually give most new animes one episode to hook me. This clip showed up in the first episode and I died laughing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srufgn7J8zg

Yes there has already been a beach episode.

Spoiler

And the ending has all of the male voice actors singing j-pop while flashing images of the characters. Including pictures like these.

Spoiler

 

[Something Amyss]

Those shooters don't even manage to include a wide range of men. Unless you count the nondescript brown dudes that get mowed over. I think the idea of them including women is a long way off.

This is probably true. I think my point was aimed more towards the "BUHBUHBUT IT'S NOT REALISTIC!" attitude that keeps popping up. Which, by the way, would mean we should be seeing a lot more brown people on our side, and the people chomping for realism don't bring that up ever.

I say "think" because I'm horribly behind. This is what happens when you spend two weeks in a hospital with spotty wifi because of potentially life-threatening wound, come back and find every inbox you have full, and look at topics on the Escapist and realise they're slowly killing your soul. >.>

I have like 50 messages and about 30 of them I just don't want to touch.

But there was this argument that there aren't women in frontline/combat roles, and that hasn't been true in America for decades. What is true is that there's a ban that has not stopped them, much like bans on gays in the military hasn't stopped gays not only from serving, but sometimes from serving openly. All the ban did was prevent recognition of jobs and certain advancement paths for women, which was incredibly stupid. And if we ever have "Call of Duty Bureaucrat Edition," that will be very, very important. But the cries of realism in dudebro shooters by excluding women don't fly.

 

[mecegirl]

Those shooters don't even manage to include a wide range of men. Unless you count the nondescript brown dudes that get mowed over. I think the idea of them including women is a long way off.

This is probably true. I think my point was aimed more towards the "BUHBUHBUT IT'S NOT REALISTIC!" attitude that keeps popping up. Which, by the way, would mean we should be seeing a lot more brown people on our side, and the people chomping for realism don't bring that up ever.

I say "think" because I'm horribly behind. This is what happens when you spend two weeks in a hospital with spotty wifi because of potentially life-threatening wound, come back and find every inbox you have full, and look at topics on the Escapist and realise they're slowly killing your soul. >.>

I have like 50 messages and about 30 of them I just don't want to touch.

But there was this argument that there aren't women in frontline/combat roles, and that hasn't been true in America for decades. What is true is that there's a ban that has not stopped them, much like bans on gays in the military hasn't stopped gays not only from serving, but sometimes from serving openly. All the ban did was prevent recognition of jobs and certain advancement paths for women, which was incredibly stupid. And if we ever have "Call of Duty Bureaucrat Edition," that will be very, very important. But the cries of realism in dudebro shooters by excluding women don't fly.

Yes, at the moment there aren't a lot of women on the front lines in combat roles (for the U.S. at least there have always been women within the medical field on the front lines though). So I understand that point of view, of course that is slowly changing. And when you look at the history of women at war you find that it wasn't an uncommon thing in the past. It's more modern ideas about gender and sex that prohibit women from being in wars than anything else.

But there actually is a decent number of non white people on "our" side of a conflict on the front lines, and that isn't being represented. It's usually one or the other with these debates. Either there are a decent number women in certain professions, or locations, but they aren't represented in media. Or there are a decent number of non white men within certain professions or locations.

I hope you are feeling better. And good look on making those replies. Sorry for leaving you yet another one. XD