and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
Oh my... presenting power fantasies as sex fantasies... (bursts out laughing). You do realize just how many videos we've had from Jim Sterling and Bob Chipman, book cover recreation posing pictures by Jim C Hines and so-on and so forth that precisely point out how flawed your argument is here? gimme a sec to grab some links.
Do some reading, some watching, and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL do some thinking before you make your next post.
My comment wasn't abut the 'beautiful woman', it was about the character she had chosen to cosplay as. Character. CHARACTER CHARACTER. And yes, thats character was/is and shall ever be sexualised.
and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
Oh my... presenting power fantasies as sex fantasies... (bursts out laughing). You do realize just how many videos we've had from Jim Sterling and Bob Chipman, book cover recreation posing pictures by Jim C Hines and so-on and so forth that precisely point out how flawed your argument is here? gimme a sec to grab some links.
Do some reading, some watching, and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL do some thinking before you make your next post.
My comment wasn't abut the 'beautiful woman', it was about the character she had chosen to cosplay as. Character. CHARACTER CHARACTER. And yes, thats character was/is and shall ever be sexualised.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."
I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"
Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.
She chose to dress like character as cosplay. Your expecting me to comment a person when in reality I'm going to have the character she chose influence my judgement.
And again, the 'hypothetical villain' you were asking me to judge on was based on said character - a teenage girl wearing a bikini. You cant separate the two and act like the fact said hypothetical villain is wearing a sexualised outfit is not relevant when sexualising depends heavily on how the character looks, dresses, poses and is presented.
regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases
is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women
Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.
I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.
I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.
I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.
what about vaan then? is he sexualized as well? what if its just part of the game's art direction
and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
You've made some decent arguments so I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to recognize the difference between between a sexualized male character and a male power fantasy for the benefit of a male audience (just for reference, every character you posted falls squarely into the later category). Likewise I know you know the difference between a character that you personally find attractive, and a character purposefully designed as a sex object by their creator, regardless of whatever crossover there is between the two. For example, I find the character of Edward Kenway to be attractive, I like his design, his personality and his personal philosophy. He exudes a sense of freedom that is immensely attractive to me. But he's not sexualized, we never see him walking around in a fucking banana hammock because that wouldn't make sense for the character, violence against him has no sexual edge because he's not an inherently sexual character. But when you treat murder like a moneyshot (the saints trailer does literally this, with slo mo effects and close ups of the saints spattered cleavage and faces as they get blood facials) then you have a problem.
Have you ever seen Drive? Because that's a decent movie that has a good example of violence against a sexy character that doesn't come off as creepy or exploitative. The woman in question is played by Christina Hendricks (who in my personal opinion is one of the sexiest ladies in Hollywood), she's a prostitute who gets her head blown off, there's no warning, no slow motion lead up or reaction shot, just a flash of brains and blood. It's a brutal and indiscriminate murder, and it's treated as such. It's not meant to titillate, she's not wearing skimpy lingerie, but even if she was it'd be the same scene, with the same visceral effect. Nicholas Winding Rhefn, the director, regularly uses sexual violence in his movies, but never sexualized violence, and the difference between the two is key. It's in the portrayal of the act.
Personally I don't take issue with the Hitman level in question. The level fits with the game's grind house/exploitation flic aesthetic and I found that the narrative the level was weaving was realistically dark and disgusting, places like this exist, people who exploit people like this exist, and they should drop dead. The strippers are portrayed as disempowered and abused, yet still protective and caring of one another. The act of using that poor woman's body as a distraction has the effect of forcing the police into investigating the human trafficking ring the club owner is a part of. If anything that level demonizes the patrons and owner of the club, portraying the patrons as pathetic (which they are) and the club owner as a morality starved piece of human offal (which he is). I appreciate what Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do, I don't particularly think she's a con woman, I think she's enthusiastic but inept. I hope that a real feminist scholar will replace her at some point as the mouthpiece of feminism in gaming.
Also thanks for posting that Rikku cosplay picture, that woman has a truly gorgeous smile, and those eyes, stunning.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."
I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"
Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.
let me quote the video of jim sterling you send me, cuz im a fan of the man, but let me tell you hes not infallible and he himself has said such
with that out of the way:
"objectification is the reduction of a human being to a thing, an item soemthing we are meant to possess... ...women are allowed to dress skimpily, they are allowed to be hit on, they are allowed to be fucked, but they are not allowed to initiate a sex scene, not allowed to be playable during a sex scene..."
so in that sense, a character that is both skimpily dressed and allowed to make his/her own decisions, "agency" as jim puts it, is not objectified, and if that character is a female and you are going to argue she is sexualized, then im afraid a male character with the same attributes and also skimpily dressed is also sexualized
She chose to dress like character as cosplay. Your expecting me to comment a person when in reality I'm going to have the character she chose influence my judgement.
And again, the 'hypothetical villain' you were asking me to judge on was based on said character - a teenage girl wearing a bikini. You cant separate the two and act like the fact said hypothetical villain is wearing a sexualised outfit is not relevant when sexualising depends heavily on how the character looks, dresses, poses and is presented.
Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit.
damn right i expect you to defend that absurd position
"shes allowed to dress as she damn well pleases and thats bad"
the hypothetical villain is based around that person because, shes not an outfit, like i said, i think the most attractive aspects of her are her face and smile
im absolutely blaffed that you couldnt see past her outfit, that you couldnt see the unbelievable beautiful woman behind that costume, im honestly kind of disgusted by your way of thinking
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."
I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.
"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"
"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"
Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.
let me quote the video of jim sterling you send me, cuz im a fan of the man, but let me tell you hes not infallible and he himself has said such
with that out of the way:
"objectification is the reduction of a human being to a thing, an item soemthing we are meant to possess... ...women are allowed to dress skimpily, they are allowed to be hit on, they are allowed to be fucked, but they are not allowed to initiate a sex scene, not allowed to be playable during a sex scene..."
so in that sense, a character that is both skimpily dressed and allowed to make his/her own decisions, "agency" as jim puts it, is not objectified, and if that character is a female and you are going to argue she is sexualized, then im afraid a male character with the same attributes and also skimpily dressed is also sexualized
You seem to be ignoring presentation and posing. Scantily clad women are draped over the scenery and are generally in pin-up poses, or put into impossible or uncomfortable poses that maximise their sexualisation.
Men are given poses of power, strength and fortitude, or shown defeating powerful foes. Even when presented as beefcake for romance novels, their poses are of strength, power, even dominance. Its telling from the Jim C Hines posts that all the female poses he imitated caused him discomfort or pain, while only one of the male poses caused him mild discomfort.
Even when sexualised, men are given a lot more dignity and agency than women are.
Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit.
damn right i expect you to defend that absurd position
"shes allowed to dress as she damn well pleases and thats bad"
the hypothetical villain is based around that person because, shes not an outfit, like i said, i think the most attractive aspects of her are her face and smile
im absolutely blaffed that you couldnt see past her outfit, that you couldnt see the unbelievable beautiful woman behind that costume, im honestly kind of disgusted by your way of thinking
'Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit'
Character. CHARACTER CHARACTER.
Do you REALLY not get the distinction between a character and a person?
Also, could you please stop trying to 'trick me' into 'slut shaming' the cosplayer? its pretty blatant what your trying to do.
regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases
is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women
Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.
I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.
I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.
I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.
what about vaan then? is he sexualized as well? what if its just part of the game's art direction
and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second
if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?
but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?
you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive
You've made some decent arguments so I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to recognize the difference between between a sexualized male character and a male power fantasy for the benefit of a male audience (just for reference, every character you posted falls squarely into the later category). Likewise I know you know the difference between a character that you personally find attractive, and a character purposefully designed as a sex object by their creator, regardless of whatever crossover there is between the two. For example, I find the character of Edward Kenway to be attractive, I like his design, his personality and his personal philosophy. He exudes a sense of freedom that is immensely attractive to me. But he's not sexualized, we never see him walking around in a fucking banana hammock because that wouldn't make sense for the character, violence against him has no sexual edge because he's not an inherently sexual character. But when you treat murder like a moneyshot (the saints trailer does literally this, with slo mo effects and close ups of the saints spattered cleavage and faces as they get blood facials) then you have a problem.
Have you ever seen Drive? Because that's a decent movie that has a good example of violence against a sexy character that doesn't come off as creepy or exploitative. The woman in question is played by Christina Hendricks (who in my personal opinion is one of the sexiest ladies in Hollywood), she's a prostitute who gets her head blown off, there's no warning, no slow motion lead up or reaction shot, just a flash of brains and blood. It's a brutal and indiscriminate murder, and it's treated as such. It's not meant to titillate, she's not wearing skimpy lingerie, but even if she was it'd be the same scene, with the same visceral effect. Nicholas Winding Rhefn, the director, regularly uses sexual violence in his movies, but never sexualized violence, and the difference between the two is key. It's in the portrayal of the act.
Personally I don't take issue with the Hitman level in question. The level fits with the game's grind house/exploitation flic aesthetic and I found that the narrative the level was weaving was realistically dark and disgusting, places like this exist, people who exploit people like this exist, and they should drop dead. The strippers are portrayed as disempowered and abused, yet still protective and caring of one another. The act of using that poor woman's body as a distraction has the effect of forcing the police into investigating the human trafficking ring the club owner is a part of. If anything that level demonizes the patrons and owner of the club, portraying the patrons as pathetic (which they are) and the club owner as a morality starved piece of human offal (which he is). I appreciate what Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do, I don't particularly think she's a con woman, I think she's enthusiastic but inept. I hope that a real feminist scholar will replace her at some point as the mouthpiece of feminism in gaming.
well ive yet to hear someone tell me how rikku is a sexual object, Windknight only said
"The character she's cosplaying as goes around in all situations in a bikini, and the other elements of her clothes are more about accentuating her bare skin that covering it."
like i said i havent played FFX, and this argument doesnt seem sound because vaan in FFXII had kind of a skimpy outfit as well, to me, it seems like a matter of art direction, not a concious decision to "sexualize" a character
another problem i have with "sexualization" is that everyone has different tastes when it comes to whats sexy and whats not, obviously some things are more common than others, but in my time on the internet ive seen some weird shit
i think when you try to impose rules on something so relative it just doesnt work
i do think anita is a con artist, and someone who does more harm to the cause of better female characters than good, i honestly think female characters could be portrayed better in games, granted i dont think the situation is as bad as some people say, but there are weaknesses, i love me some good characters, and therefore having more good female characters would be an amazing thing in my book
Azure23 said:
Also thanks for posting that Rikku cosplay picture, that woman has a truly gorgeous smile, and those eyes, stunning.
Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit.
damn right i expect you to defend that absurd position
"shes allowed to dress as she damn well pleases and thats bad"
the hypothetical villain is based around that person because, shes not an outfit, like i said, i think the most attractive aspects of her are her face and smile
im absolutely blaffed that you couldnt see past her outfit, that you couldnt see the unbelievable beautiful woman behind that costume, im honestly kind of disgusted by your way of thinking
'Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit'
Character. CHARACTER CHARACTER.
Do you REALLY not get the distinction between a character and a person?
Also, could you please stop trying to 'trick me' into 'slut shaming' the cosplayer? its pretty blatant what your trying to do.
You seem to be ignoring presentation and posing. Scantily clad women are draped over the scenery and are generally in pin-up poses, or put into impossible or uncomfortable poses that maximise their sexualisation.
unless you are paraplegic im pretty sure you can do this
you are not critizing the character for being an object, you are not critizing it for having pin-up poses, you are critizing it for wearing a bikini while letting scantily dressed male FF characters pass
Windknight said:
Men are given poses of power, strength and fortitude, or shown defeating powerful foes. Even when presented as beefcake for romance novels, their poses are of strength, power, even dominance. Its telling from the Jim C Hines posts that all the female poses he imitated caused him discomfort or pain, while only one of the male poses caused him mild discomfort.
Even when sexualised, men are given a lot more dignity and agency than women are.
i think its pretty clear i was talking about the real person, not the character, this real, incredibly attractive person is a villian, i have to kill her, is that "sexualized" violence whatever?
i think its pretty clear i was talking about the real person, not the character, this real, incredibly attractive person is a villian, i have to kill her, is that "sexualized" violence whatever?
when a truthly strong sexy female character appears like say, bayonetta, people jump the gun and simply dismiss her and yet another "sexualized object" or something like that
Windknight said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
i think its pretty clear i was talking about the real person, not the character, this real, incredibly attractive person is a villian, i have to kill her, is that "sexualized" violence whatever?
A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.
A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.
imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits
got that? good
now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?
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.
