THANK YEW, THANK YEW. I WORK VERY HARD ON MY LOGICAL FALLACIES.
In all honesty, I'm sorry if my (admittedly flippant) response wasn't what you were looking for. Still, you wouldn't have gone looking for dissenting opinions if you didn't make this thread (or at least I hope that's the case).
To seriously address your concern, I would argue there's a fair difference between misplaced indignation from moral busybodies vs. feedback from focus demographics and leave it at that.
THANK YEW, THANK YEW. I WORK VERY HARD ON MY LOGICAL FALLACIES.
In all honesty, I'm sorry if my (admittedly flippant) response wasn't what you were looking for. Still, you wouldn't have gone looking for dissenting opinions if you didn't make this thread (or at least I hope that's the case).
To seriously address your concern, I would argue there's a fair difference between misplaced indignation from moral busybodies vs. feedback from focus demographics and leave it at that.
It's fine, honestly. I just wanted to point out that there's a rift in what people are willing to claim is a battle against SJW's and what isn't, and hopefully open a few eyes in the process.
Admittedly, I put FAR too much worth on what people say, due in part to being considered to be one of these blanketted SJW's who are attacked from both sides (I like sexualization, but I hate objectification, but I'm totally fine with it when it has a purpose but- UGGGGGH SO HARD TO TRACK) and...
Being part of tumblr which has a serious case of constantly falling into the Fallacy Fallacy logical argument using unmentioned variables. (ExCUSE ME BUT OMG ARE U SAYIN THAT SINCE POE, FFM AND BATMAN HAD THEIR ISSUES THAT THEY ARE TEH ONLY 1S WORTH CARING BOUT? #femaleshitlord #checkurpriviledge.)
In actuality, it was kind of unfair of me, in that original post, to call your logical fallacies without calling out my own (which is a fallacy in its own right) Technically speaking this post is somewhat slipping into the Anecdotal fallacy.
Scars Unseen said:
Don't we already have a forum for stuff more relating to the gaming industry than gaming itself? I swear we did.
See that's just where I disagree. How her writers have chosen to portray her is still shamelessly sexual. Not personally confident, but shameless.
Tell me the difference between these pictures, apart from the named character. 'cause I find I'm having a hard time telling which is blatantly sexual and which is OMG so empowering!
I mean if you want to be shallow and keep judging characters based on still frames go ahead but if not, if you're genuinely wondering then here's a hint: Context actually matters! It does!
Fine, I'll put them in context for you. The first picture is a screengrab from an official trailer, meaning it was chosen to sell the game to you. Meaning her being 80% naked was consider viable to market the game.
The 2nd and 3rd are promotional pictures. Meaning "meant to sell". Meaning this is what the game is. Cheese-shots of a woman in a skintight leotard. Buy this game and you get this!
So yes, context is important. Problem is when put in context, its even worse! Without context its a sexy woman in stupid poses. In context, those are imagines meant to convince people to buy the game. Bayonetta spreading her legs for you is sooooo encapsulating of the game that it chosen to sell the game to you.
Whatever character people think Bayonetta has, they need to remember her spreading her legs for you says enough about her "agency" to become promotional.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
