Girl Gamer's Opinion

[Bulletinmybrain]

Women tend to be far more attracted to personality, humor, and intelligence than huge fracking muscles. Physical attraction is important for women, but nowhere nearly as important as the three things I just listed.

But then the whores still flock to them don't they? You seem to imagine a society where most people are pretty smart.

"Whores," as you so pleasantly call them, don't make up the majority of women in modern society. And you don't have to be dumb to be sexually active :\

I rest my points, Take them as you wish i'm going go blow a lot of fracking stuff on mercenaries two.

 

[tobyornottoby]

To the OP. Yes, that is how women are generally portrayed in video games. But when was the last time you saw a male lead that wasn't muscle bound or just another dark haired- chiseled jawed- one liner spouting american. It's the way it is. They are fantasies and that is what the companies think we as consumers want. An idealised fantasy character.

The thing is being muscle bound makes a man look like a subject. It communicates that this is someone who is in command, who has agency, who is there for himself and not for anyone else. The way women are portrayed makes them look like objects. It communicates that this is someone who is to be commanded, who is to be pursued, who is there for others.

It's not just a problem for video games--this is about depictions of women in general. There's a lot more room for depicting a man as valuable AND independent than there is for women. It's the problem with tapping into our culturally imposed ideas about men and women: a guy can be ugly and fat, but if you put him in a top hat with a huge diamond pinky ring, he'll still look valuable. On the other hand I can't think of dressing an ugly and fat woman up in a way that makes her look valuable. A woman without sex appeal doesn't come across as someone of value, no matter how powerful she is (unless she crosses over into being a monster: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_17/105-Women-Monsters-and-Monstrous-Women)

The problem is that everything associated with sexiness in a woman is also associated with submissive objectification. On the other hand, no matter how sexy a fur loincloth may be, it's associated with dominant virility. The OP mention the bare midriff--when a woman shows off her midriff it never sends the message that a bare chested man does: that of someone who is a bad-ass. Bare male skin--however sexy someone may find it--also sends a message of 'hey, I'm healthy and therefore I can kick your ass'; bare female skin just doesn't send that ass-kicking message; if anything it sends a message of vulnerability.

I mean, compare bareskinned video game characters to, say, Michael Phelps and Dara Torres. Notice how the two real-life athletes look more similar to each other than any video game characters would? When men are depicted bareskinned in video games, they pack on the muscles; when women are depicted bareskinned, they actually dial down the muscularity for video games.

Fact is, no matter how sexy someone may find them, muscles look like armor, while soft curves look like vulnerabilities.

It's a matter of sex appeal being asymmetrical which makes it difficult to depict a woman as both valuable and not objectified, because the things that make a woman valuable also signal that she's an object of desire in a way that just doesn't apply to men. Like you said, it's just companies responding to *our* ideas of an "idealised fantasy character."

This hits the nail on the head!

And the problem with this, is that is is very, very deeply rooted in our very being I'm afraid.

Take sex. Now how equal men and female may be(come), our genitals will differ. And when it comes to sex, the man is the giver, the man-in-charge, the dominant, and the woman is the reciever, the dominated...

It's very bothering... but it's here to stay

Actually, It seems to me that it's mostly the physical side of things that attracts women. Think about it, who are the people that women end up swooning over? most of the time, it's the handsome men, and not the intelligent men. Salman Rushdie is an exception, not the rule. For example, how many times have physicists ended up with beautiful wives? Would a degree in chemistry be able to get the average man a chance over the athlete?

EDIT: This is has gotten way off-topic.

Take power/status into consideration. That high-school bully or athlete might be high at the social ladder. Not so much for a chemistry degree

So what exactly is this stating? Men with muscles>Men without? Change a few words and it works pretty much the same.

I'm going to give you a few examples here which you will probably just ignore and refuse to even use.

Whatever the hell her name is Patin: Shes a women in power, But since she can't pack on muscles(If society that seems detrimental to women.) she packs on the sexy.

Popular kids in school: The ones that are cute usually have a bunch of freinds, They make people do their bidding so on and so forth hopefully you get the point.

How women Command? Being sexy and using their wits.(Something video game characters do not have since they get stolen by ninja crabs so much.)

How men command? By being the biggest guy in the room, It dates back to prehistoric time.(Just like how I imagine women back then, The men swooning over the cutest one.(Which would most likely be the guy with the most muscles.)

You just don't get it. What it is stating, is that men need to be active, dominant, powerful to be seen as attractive, whereas women need to be the opposite. Thus, men can have all the fun while women need to sit back and wait for prince charming...

You're saying it yourself: Men command by being the biggest guy, by doing it themselves. Women command by being sexy, by doing it for others, so others can grant them the power.

 

[Chiasm]

But then the whores still flock to them don't they? You seem to imagine a society where most people are pretty smart.

Are you saying women who like big muscled men are "whores", It is the in the same vein as calling men who like women with big breasts "sluts"(for lack of any common negative male sexual names in society)

I mean all women and men both have varied sexual desires and also wants in a partner, Look at it like this there are men who stay at home and watch the kids while the wife goes to work and makes 100k a year to support them both. Is the man a trophy husband then or why does that even happen then?

I just do not understand how you can generalize women in such a way of,"they only want rich muscled men" It's almost like your bitter towards women in this view point.

No Chiasm, you don't understand. Women who like muscular men are whores while men who like women with large breasts are awesome.

This logic of male intelligence is to much for my inferior brain.If only I wasn't attracted to rich muscled men curses =p

 

[mjkthedarkrabbit]

Well the companys are plying to their market . The average gamer is male just past or nearing puberty and the skin shown draws their attention . for thoose of us who are a bit older than that rely more on the game play but eyecandy is always going to be in a guys mind.
There are quite a few female leads that wear effective clotheing and still manage to be good chars.

Samus back in the day before this zero suit junk was a girl in power armor for the whole game.
The girl from beyond good and evil is another decent example.

MMorpgs are the worst case in this there is not a suit of armor out there save the cloth set that is not form fiting on the female avatars or more reveling of skin than anything the men have .

Until guys stop being guys i dout the trend will stop . But at least games like Metal gear solid online have added female chars to their choices that wear much the same clothing as their male counterparts.

Dont bother with trying to find too many fighting games without eyecandy however. They seem to be the worst of the lot for this issue

And TDR yanks it back to the starting subject matter. and before you ask yes he wants a cookie, choclate chip if you have it.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Actually, It seems to me that it's mostly the physical side of things that attracts women. Think about it, who are the people that women end up swooning over? most of the time, it's the handsome men, and not the intelligent men. Salman Rushdie is an exception, not the rule. For example, how many times have physicists ended up with beautiful wives? Would a degree in chemistry be able to get the average man a chance over the athlete?

Psychology research on what happens in the real world would show you that Salman Rushdie is an outlier which supports the trend, not an exception against the trend.

And you're making the false dichotomy that there are only handsome men and intelligent men. Even then, if pressed to make a decision, any woman I know (and even the ones I don't know) would pick a man who is only moderately attractive and very intelligent over a man who is very attractive and only moderately intelligent.

And that's because women tend to pick partners for long term relationships. That's something very different compared to men and it certainly shows in the differences between men and women when it comes to partner selection.

Because research shows that men (with high self esteem anyway) base their partner selections on the basis of short term relationships, they would more often than not pick the complete opposite of what women would do.

It's all very fascinating, isn't it?

Sorry but I can safely say that's utter rubbish, when you first meet someone what do you have to make an impression on apart from looks and attraction, physical attraction is a very large part of it.

There is no complex psychological reason behind it, it's the persons preference, labelling an entire gender under one rule is folly.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Sorry but I can safely say that's utter rubbish, when you first meet someone what do you have to make an impression on apart from looks and attraction, physical attraction is a very large part of it.

There is no complex psychological reason behind it, it's the persons preference, labelling an entire gender under one rule is folly.

Do you have anything to back this up?

Otherwise, I'm sorry but I can safely say that's utter rubbish.

I find it hilarious in the first place that your using scientific research to back up your arguement on relationships which is one of the least scientific subjects.

Maybe while they are at it they can do some research on love and definitively explain it as well.

 

[Chiasm]

I find it hilarious in the first place that your using scientific research to back up your arguement on relationships which is one of the least scientific subjects.

Maybe while they are at it they can do some research on love and definitively explain it as well.

Actually love is easy to explain see serotonin and how that effects your brain.

It is also why you experience feelings of happiness and joy as well, Also why you feel sad or depressed.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Videogames =/= Real Life. Deal with it.

That's like saying fairy tales =/= real life. Or that it's just coincidence that the Norse people who were warriors had warriors for gods while the Egyptian people who lived in a stable, all-powerful monarchy had stable gods and flirted with monotheism.

Yup or saying that it's crazy that japanese characters look so feminine

 

[PAGEToap44]

Have you ever played Half Life 2. Of course you have. Alyx Vance is a decent female character.

 

[Fire Daemon]

That's one example (which has been listed thousands of times on this site) from one game series...Out of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of games ever released.

...Lulsh?

I think when talking about genders in videogames it only makes sense to talk about the popular games and popular characters as those popular games and popular characters are what defines the medium.

For example: when talking about women's roles in videogames it makes more sense to talk about the roles of women in popular games (Half Life 2, Mario, LoZ etc) then unknown/obscure game titles (Hentai games for example) because the popular games are the ones that define all videogames, while the obscure game are unknown by the vast majority and only define a small part of gaming. (I think that makes sense)

But still, can't you guys make better examples. Golden Sun is a great one. So are most JRPG's.