Poll: Dead Island Statue Poll

[plugav]

It is embarrassingly sexist. You'd think that they'd know better by now, what with the outrage that the original Dead Island caused only because of an offensive line found in the game's code.

 

[JediMB]

Well, sort of.

But mostly I'm just disgusted/disturbed by both the statue and the idea that it's an actual real thing that was going to come with a game's collector's edition.

EDIT: And I'd feel the same way about a man's dismembered torso. Because it's still a fucking dismembered torso statue. Who would want that, and why would anyone assume that people would want that?

 

[XX Y XY]

It makes me sad this is even an issue. It's rated M and not advertised toward children. I am an adult. If I don't like it, there's nothing forcing me to buy it. People need to grow up.

 

[mad825]

1.they are not breaking the law
2.it's capitalism

I could go on about they shouldn't exploit the people then again this is an entirely different argument in itself.

Do you think I'm calling for this statue to be made illegal, or its creators to be rounded up and sent to jail? Of course not, they have the right to make whatever shitty things they want to and sell it to whatever shitty people they want to, just like I have the right to complain and criticize when they do.

And as for "point" #2, are you implying that somehow a market-based transaction makes an action inherently moral? Neo-Nazis engage in capitalism when they sell their Jew Slaughter or Panzer Force CDs, but that doesn't make the content of those songs or the action of buying them any less morally offensive.

Point 1 is a strawman and point 2 is a non sequitur.

Seriously? You've devolved to Godwin's law? So soon?

I merely stating that nothing was really stopping them.

I don't really see your point. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Perhaps then "capitalism" may decide that it isn't a worthwhile investment.

 

[peruvianskys]

Seriously? You've devolved to Godwin's law? So soon?

It's not Godwin's Law at all - it's simply me pointing out that your justification for the action falls apart when you apply it to things that are obviously bad. I'm not saying that the two are equally bad, or that one is bad because it is like the other. I'm just saying that the defense "Well, it's capitalism!" doesn't have anything to do with the morality of the thing itself.

I merely stating that nothing was really stopping them.

"Nothing is really stopping" a lot of shitty things, but that doesn't mean it's not appropriate for decent people to criticize them.

If it was only childish and immature and boring and tacky and exploitative it'd have been mostly ignored. The general reaction would've been "meh" and people would've moved on.

Depicting violence against women in childish and immature and boring and tacky and exploitative ways is really shitty, and more importantly, really dangerous. It warrants criticism.

And violence against women is only okay if there's a point? So the majority of games where you're killing thousands without any real reason or any regard to the victim as a human being are completely okay as long as we're killing men? Or perhaps all violence from games should be banned unless they first feature at least a minute on each victim's life to humanize them?

I'm not objecting to violence against a person that happens to be a woman - although I have a distaste for video games that exist just to satiate base violent urges, I don't think they're misogynistic and creepy as long as the womanhood of the person being "violenced-upon" is not a defining justification for the violence. But in this case, it is clearly the figure's status as a woman, an oversexualized and objectified one at that, that brings misogyny into the picture.

For example, I was just playing Spec Ops: The Line and there's a part where you find a ton of bodies lynched from telephone poles. Some of those people are black, but there's nothing racist about that because the point isn't to trade on a fascination and excitement that comes from the lynching of blacks. If, however, they included in the special edition a paperweight depicting a lynching tree with only African-Americans hanging from it, their features and dress stereotypically black in order to emphasize their race as the defining characteristic, I would definitely find that creepy and racist.

Make sense? It's the same thing here; I don't care that a PERSON WHO IS A WOMAN might die in a video game, but if it's going to be a WOMAN, where her gender, or more accurately, the ability of her gender to elicit sexual arousal and interest when combined with violence, defines her role in the figure, then that's misogyny because it plays on fucked up views regarding women, sex, and violence that are undeniably prevalent in our community and need to be stamped out.

So, if you made a video game called "***** Killer: The Woman Murdering Simulator" then I would absolutely call that misogynistic and horrible; if you made a game where you were some kind of angry feminist who went around killing men specifically for being men, that would be shitty too. It's all about motivation and context.

Do tell, were you just as outraged in just about every shooter ever where you're also inflicting extreme violence on victims without any regard being given to them as a human being?

Yeah, I do find those games shitty and boring. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[Drop_D-Bombshell]

While i don't find it offensive, i do believe that they could have gone with something else. Like one of the special infected or whatever they're called, maybe even a new one if they announced it, i dunno. This....I dunno i feel like it's not really appropriate. Yeah it's a zombie game but they could have just gone for a zombie statue.

 

[mad825]

It's not Godwin's Law at all - it's simply me pointing out that your justification for the action falls apart when you apply it to things that are obviously bad. I'm not saying that the two are equally bad, or that one is bad because it is like the other. I'm just saying that the defense "Well, it's capitalism!" doesn't have anything to do with the morality of the thing itself.

...
...
What makes you think capitalism is moral? When the very idea is based on greed and exploitation. The exploitation of an bust from an unknown model (purely from imagination?) is somehow exploiting the model or women in general....When in fact many women consider it okay, there are industries built on "exploiting women" including art and history as a whole.Like men have it any better when we're all meant to be all slim and hunky...Not like Twilight capitalised on girls for exploiting men...Or Fithty Shades of Grey. You don't see men up in arms because of it.

And you jump to the Neo-Nazis for comparison...

Yeah, fine. Damn Deep sliver for trying to make some cheap and dirty cash.

"Nothing is really stopping" a lot of shitty things, but that doesn't mean it's not appropriate for decent people to criticize them.

Okay...People criticize about alot of things. criticize away! Nothing is really stopping you.

 

[Hagi]

So the defining difference between okay and not okay is whether the person in question is attractive enough to warrant sexual interest?

It's fine to kill the fuglies but if it's concerning someone sexually attractive then it's obviously a clear indicator of a messed up relationship between sex and violence eh?

There's no motivation inherent in this statue. It's just the mutilated torso of a fictional and fake woman who used to be attractive. That's all it is, it's no big deal unless you start projecting more onto it. It's a piece of resin, it's not a person whose rights are being violated.

And seriously? "A fascination and excitement that comes from the lynching of blacks"? The hell? I don't even know how to respond to that beyond disbelief that you think such a thing even exists...

 

[Hagi]

You know what would be comparable? A bloodspattered statue of a male holiday goer, with his arms, head and legs cut off, and a giant throbbing erection bulging through his swimming trunks. That would be an appropriate comparison, as it would have the same level of sexual provocation mixed with overt violence.

How many people on this forum would be so willing to jump to the defence of a statue of a bloodied, mutilated male body wearing tiny trunks and sporting a giant erection? If you're unwilling to do so, then perhaps you'll learn exactly why people find this statue so offensive.

Unlike this statue I'd actually spend a few seconds considering buying such a thing because that's totally hilarious. Unlike this thing, which I don't find offensive in the least, but completely unimaginative such a thing would actually be somewhat creative.

Makes me wish they'd actually made such a statue instead, would have been much more brilliant than this rather dull thing.

 

[DementedSheep]

Eh I don?t really find it offensive but then I didn't look at it and think it was actually meant to be ?sexy?. Perhaps because I see limbless bronze torso castings in stores all the time and that kinda looks like a zombie themed take off of them and I still think it's looks more like fan disservice not fan service though of course I don't know which they actually intended. Also Zombies, gore and beach resort (hence the bikini) dose sum up the original game. I personally just think they should have given out a model of one the improvised weapons or a proper statue of a zombie or something though.

I can see why people would find it offensive for much the same reason the Hitman trailer was (with the bondage outfits and the camera angle up between their legs while they?re fighting). You have your over sexualisation and then you have your OTT violence. The problem is when you combine the two and have the subject of OTT violence also being over sexualised at the same time it creates a disturbing subtext. You should not be getting off on someone being brutalised.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

You know what would be comparable? A bloodspattered statue of a male holiday goer, with his arms, head and legs cut off, and a giant throbbing erection bulging through his swimming trunks. That would be an appropriate comparison, as it would have the same level of sexual provocation mixed with overt violence.

How many people on this forum would be so willing to jump to the defence of a statue of a bloodied, mutilated male body wearing tiny trunks and sporting a giant erection? If you're unwilling to do so, then perhaps you'll learn exactly why people find this statue so offensive.

To be honest, I would find it hilarious, and if I ever saw that in someone else's house, i would openly laugh at how ridiculous it is. Not in a bad way mind you, just in a "huh, interesting..oh well!" kind of way.

but by and large, i would jump to it's defense just as much as i would jump to the defense of the mutilated tittie statue we are discussing, because while i would buy the titties if i had to have one (i'm a heterosexual male, obviously that is what i would choose) i don't think "HERP DERP, TITS AND WOMEN, LULULULUL SO BENEATH ME BECUZ I'M A MAN" (maybe not you, but so many people are calling the statue misogynistic, which it is not in the slightest.)


why don't people get up in arms or grossed out about these? (not at you in particular, just saying in general)

just because it doesn't have a little bit of FAKE blood spattered on a FAKE torso? really?

Spoiler: dirty link, if you are easily offended or dont like looking at torso mannequins, then don't open

http://www.amazon.com/California-Exotics-Arias-Stroker-Masturbator/dp/B002JINLKM/ref=pd_sbs_hpc_5

the image if you are lazy:

 

[Thoric485]

I found it just as offensive as any other low quality, tacky, puerile, overpriced "Collector's" edition.

Also

Spoiler: kinda NSFW

 

[Dimitriov]

People are comparing it to a male torse as if its somehow equivalent. It isn't. A male torso is not sexual in the same way a female torso is, lacking as it does prominent sexual parts such as breasts.

You know what would be comparable? A bloodspattered statue of a male holiday goer, with his arms, head and legs cut off, and a giant throbbing erection bulging through his swimming trunks. That would be an appropriate comparison, as it would have the same level of sexual provocation mixed with overt violence.

How many people on this forum would be so willing to jump to the defence of a statue of a bloodied, mutilated male body wearing tiny trunks and sporting a giant erection? If you're unwilling to do so, then perhaps you'll learn exactly why people find this statue so offensive.

Are you kidding? THAT WOULD BE HILARIOUS!

Then I would actually want to buy the lady statue so I could display them as a set. Seriously you're just being boring and too easily offended.

Do you think that porn shouldn't exist? If there was a market for this item then what do you care?

Tens of thousands of people have been killed in Syria... but that's been going on for too long and has gotten boring... so let's get outraged about a somewhat funny, if in poor taste, plastic statue. People make my head hurt sometimes. It would be more productive to hit your head against a wall then to be offended by something as meaningless as this.

 

[TecnoMonkey]

Don't really care, but i'm leaning more to no, it doesn't offend me. I really don't see a problem with it.

 

[Panorama]

No i had no problem with it, but i can easily understand how other people might.

 

[Agayek]

My take on the whole thing is pretty simple: It's silly and/or distasteful, but I don't see why everyone's getting all offended by it.

It's quite clearly a marketing stunt and I just can't muster the energy to be offended by that shit.

 

[peruvianskys]

So the defining difference between okay and not okay is whether the person in question is attractive enough to warrant sexual interest?

No, the defining difference between okay and not okay is what motivates the action; I'm arguing that this figurine was created because people find sexualized violence towards women and the objectification of female bodies arousing and exciting, which is fucked up and shameful. It is a representation of the myriad problems that plague this community.

It's fine to kill the fuglies but if it's concerning someone sexually attractive then it's obviously a clear indicator of a messed up relationship between sex and violence eh?

If you think it's not creepy to lop off the identifying features of a female body and leave only a bloody torso with giant tits for display around your home, then yes, that is a clear indicator that, at the very least, you lack a reasonable understanding of what misogyny is. If you can get pleasure out of a disembodied pair of bloody tits without thinking to yourself, "Hmm, maybe this is a little inappropriate," then I have absolutely no problem saying that there is at least a willful ignorance regarding the video game community's general attitude towards women.

There's no motivation inherent in this statue. It's just the mutilated torso of a fictional and fake woman who used to be attractive.

Yeah, and using the mutilated torso of a fictional woman for sexual titillation is in and of itself really fucked up.

As I said, these things don't happen in a vacuum, and any conversation about whether or not a specific piece of video game memorabilia is misogynistic has to take into account the larger framework it's appearing in. Just like you can't look at, say, Uncle Remus or Charlie Chan and make an accurate determination the character's value without exploring the culture that produced it, you can't look at this statue and really understand the attitudes it conveys without understanding how our video game community relates to women. When you look at the rampant misogyny, objectification, marginalization, over-sexualization, exploitation, and downright hostility towards women that a huge number of video games show, it becomes pretty clear that the attitudes and opinions way too fucking many gamers have - that women are best when they're sexy, that nothing matters on a female character except tits, that violence against women is cool and "edgy," that a woman's body exists solely to be titillating to men, and, if you take it to its logical conclusion, that a woman would be best if she were just a decapitated torso - are what this product panders to.

I'll say it again: If a product could not exist without a sizable majority of its consumers being racist or harboring obviously racist feelings, and if the product is designed to appeal to those feelings, then it is itself racist.

If a product could not exist without a sizable majority of its consumers being homophobic or harboring obviously homophobic feelings, and if the product is designed to appeal to those feelings, then it is itself homophobic.

And if a product could not exist without a sizable majority of its consumers being misogynistic or harboring obviously misogynistic feelings, and if the product is designed to appeal to those feelings, then it is itself misogynistic.

I'll end with this nice gentleman's explanation, as it is perfectly spot on and nothing more needs to be said:

They hacked off every single non sexual part of the female body, then covered it all in blood except the breasts. If you cannot see how that is an act of sexualisation, then I pity you. They literally took every single part of the female body that could have identified her as a person, as an actual human being, and chopped them off and left the bloody stumps. That isn't just objectification, it's the overt sexualisation of violence. This statue isn't of a female body, it's of a pair of female breasts, tummy and crotch, mutilated and covered in blood. Except, once again, for the breasts. That's sickening. That's the sort of thing serial killers from Hannibal Lecter novels are into.

 

[Hagi]

If you can get pleasure out of a disembodied pair of bloody tits without thinking to yourself, "Hmm, maybe this is a little inappropriate,"

That's the entire point of the statue...

It exists entirely because it's a little inappropriate. That's why some people want it, because they find things that are a little inappropriate and shocking to be fun.`

A friend of mine has Nazi propaganda posters hanging in his room. Why? To shock people visiting him and get a laugh out of that. It doesn't automatically make him a Nazi nor does this statue automatically make anyone misogynistic.

When you look at the rampant misogyny, objectification, marginalization, over-sexualization, exploitation, and downright hostility towards women that a huge number of video games show, it becomes pretty clear that the attitudes and opinions way too fucking many gamers have - that women are best when they're sexy, that nothing matters on a female character except tits, that violence against women is cool and "edgy," that a woman's body exists solely to be titillating to men, and, if you take it to its logical conclusion, that a woman would be best if she were just a decapitated torso - are what this product panders to.

Because this community clearly has a tolerant and even accepting stance towards misogyny. It's not like outrages seem to be popping up every month over both legitimate and ridiculous issues. Nobody complained about Metroid's daddy issues in Other M, nobody had any problems with potential rape being used to inspire a desire to protect Lara Croft, everyone was fully supportive of the fetish nun assassins in Hitman: Absolution and nobody is having issues with a statue like this.

And there obviously aren't any games at all that do feature good female characters. The vast majority of games clearly is totally misogynistic. People saying it's just a minority of games and gamers with those attitudes are obviously delusional.

Seriously dude? What the hell kind of games are you playing? What the hell kind of gamers are you associating with?

Stop blowing this stuff out of proportion. There's a minority of games and gamers where misogyny features, but let's not start projecting it onto anything and everything and make it some sort of defining feature of gamer culture. That's just bullshit.

This is just a statue. That's it. Stop projecting your own delusional views of gamer culture onto it.